{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_55358/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_55358","id":"gutenberg_55358","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55358","summary":null,"tags":["Biography","Category: Biographies","Category: History - British","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"_UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE DIFFUSION OF USEFUL\n                              KNOWLEDGE._\n\n\n\n\n                                  THE\n                         GALLERY OF PORTRAITS:\n                                  WITH\n                                MEMOIRS.\n\n                               VOLUME V.\n\n\n                                LONDON:\n                  CHARLES KNIGHT, 22, LUDGATE-STREET.\n\n                                 1835.\n\n                  [PRICE ONE GUINEA, BOUND IN CLOTH.]\n\n\n\n\n                                LONDON:\n                  PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS,\n                         Duke-Street, Lambeth.\n\n\n\n\n                       PORTRAITS AND BIOGRAPHIES\n                       CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME.\n\n\n                                          Page.\n\n                          1. Taylor           1\n\n                          2. Lavoisier        9\n\n                          3. Sydenham        18\n\n                          4. Clarendon       25\n\n                          5. Reynolds        35\n\n                          6. Swift           45\n\n                          7. Locke           53\n\n                          8. Selden          61\n\n                          9. Par\u00e9            69\n\n                         10. Blake           77\n\n                         11. L\u2019H\u00f4pital       85\n\n                         12. Mrs. Siddons    94\n\n                         13. Herschel       105\n\n                         14. Romilly        111\n\n                         15. Shakspeare     122\n\n                         16. Euler          129\n\n                         17. Sir W. Jones   134\n\n                         18. Rousseau       143\n\n                         19. Harrison       153\n\n                         20. Montaigne      157\n\n                         21. Pope           164\n\n                         22. Bolivar        173\n\n                         23. Arkwright      181\n\n                         24. Cowper         189\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by W. Holl._\n\n  JEREMY TAYLOR.\n\n  _From the original Picture in the Hall of All Souls College, Oxford._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                TAYLOR.\n\n\nIf this great ornament of our church did not boast of an exalted\nlineage, he numbered among his forefathers one at least, the worthy\nancestor of such a descendant, Dr. Rowland Taylor, chaplain to Cranmer,\nand rector of Hadleigh, distinguished among the divines of the\nReformation for his abilities, learning, and piety, as well as for the\ncourageous cheerfulness with which he suffered death at the stake in the\nreign of Queen Mary. Jeremy Taylor was the son of a barber, resident in\nTrinity parish, Cambridge; and was baptized in Trinity church, August\n15, 1613. He was \u201cgrounded in grammar and mathematics\u201d by his father,\nand entered as a sizar at Caius College, August 18, 1626. Of his\ndeportment, his studies, even of the honours and emoluments of his\nacademical life, we have no certain knowledge. It is stated by Dr. Rust,\nin his Funeral Sermon, that Taylor was elected fellow: but this is at\nleast doubtful, for no record of the fact exists in the registers of the\ncollege. He proceeded to the degree of M. A. in 1633; and in the same\nyear, though at the early age of twenty, we find him in orders, and\nofficiating as a divinity lecturer in St. Paul\u2019s Cathedral. His talents\nas a preacher attracted the notice of Archbishop Laud, who sent for him\nto preach at Lambeth, and approved of his performance, but thought him\ntoo young. Taylor begged his Grace\u2019s pardon for that fault, and promised\nthat, if he lived, he would mend it. By that prelate\u2019s interest he was\nadmitted to the degree of M. A. _ad eundem_, in University College,\nOxford, October 20, 1635, and shortly after nominated to a fellowship at\nAll Souls College. It was probably through the interest of the same\npowerful patron that he obtained the rectory of Uppingham in\nRutlandshire, tenable with his fellowship, March 23, 1638. The\nfellowship, however, he vacated by his marriage with Ph\u0153be Langsdale,\nMay 27, 1639, who died in little more than three years, leaving two\nsons.\n\nTaylor attracted notice at Oxford by his talents as a preacher; but he\ndoes not seem to have commenced, during this period of ease and\ntranquillity, any of those great works which have rendered him\nillustrious as one of the most laborious, eloquent, and persuasive of\nBritish divines. The only sermon extant which we can distinctly refer to\nthis period, is one preached by command of the Vice-chancellor on the\nanniversary of the Gunpowder Plot, 1638. This piece requires notice,\nbecause it is connected with a report, circulated both during Taylor\u2019s\nresidence at Oxford and afterwards, that he was secretly inclined to\nPopery. It is even said that he \u201cwished to be confirmed a member of the\nchurch of Rome,\u201d (Wood, Athen\u00e6 Oxon.) but was rejected with scorn in\nconsequence of the things advanced against that church in this sermon.\nOf this whole statement Bishop Heber, in his \u2018Life of Taylor,\u2019 has\nexpressed his disbelief; and the arguments on which his opinion is\nfounded appear to us satisfactory. Not even during his peaceable abode\nat Uppingham do Taylor\u2019s great works appear to have been projected, as\nif his amiable, affectionate, and zealous temper had been fully occupied\nby domestic cares and pleasures, and by the constant though quiet duties\nof a parish priest. The year 1642, as it witnessed the overthrow of his\ndomestic happiness by his wife\u2019s death, saw also the beginning of those\ntroubles which cast him out of his church preferment, a homeless man. We\ndo not know the date of the sequestration of his living; but as he\njoined Charles I. at Oxford in the autumn of the year; published in the\nsame year, by the King\u2019s command, his treatise \u2018Of the sacred Order and\nOffices of Episcopacy, &c.;\u2019 was created D. D. by royal mandate;\nappointed chaplain to the King, in which capacity he frequently preached\nat Oxford, and attended the royal army in the wars; it is probable that\nhe was among the first of those who paid the penalty of adhering to the\nlosing cause. Little is known of this portion of Taylor\u2019s history. It\nappears that he quitted the army, and retired into Wales, where he\nmarried, became again involved in the troubles of war, and was taken\nprisoner at Cardigan, Feb. 4, 1644. We do not know the date of his\nrelease, or of his marriage to his second wife, Joanna Bridges, a lady\npossessed of some landed property at Mandinam, near Golden Grove, in the\nVale of Towy, in Carmarthenshire, who was commonly said to be a natural\ndaughter of Charles I., born before his marriage. But Heber conjectures\nthat Taylor\u2019s marriage was anterior to his imprisonment, and that his\nwife\u2019s estate was amerced in a heavy fine, in consequence of his being\nfound engaged in the royal cause at Cardigan. It is at least certain\nthat until the Restoration he was very poor, and that he supported\nhimself during part of the time by keeping a school.\n\nDuring this period of public confusion and domestic trouble, Taylor\ncomposed an \u2018Apology for authorized and set Forms of Liturgy,\u2019 published\nin 1646, and his great work, a \u2018Discourse on the Liberty of\nProphesying,\u2019 published in 1647, \u201cthe first attempt on record to\nconciliate the minds of Christians to the reception of a doctrine which,\nthough now the rule of action professed by all Christian sects, was\nthen, by all sects alike, regarded as a perilous and portentous\nnovelty.\u201d[1] As such, it was received with distrust, if not\ndisapprobation, by all parties; and if it was intended to inculcate upon\nthe Episcopalians the propriety of conceding something to the prejudices\nof their opponents, as well as to procure an alleviation of the\noppression exercised on the Episcopal church, we may see in the conduct\nof the government after the Restoration, that Taylor preached a doctrine\nfor which neither the one nor the other were then ripe. It is the more\nto his honour that in this important point of Christian charity he had\nadvanced beyond his own party, as well as those by whom his party was\nthen persecuted. But though his views were extended enough to meet with\ndisapprobation from his contemporaries, he gives a greater latitude to\nthe civil power in repressing error by penal means, than the general\npractice, at least in Protestant countries, would now grant. \u201cThe\nforbearance which he claims, he claims for those Christians only who\nunite in the confession of the Apostles\u2019 Creed,\u201d and he advocates the\ndrawing together of all who will subscribe to that ancient and\ncomprehensive form of belief into one church, forgetting differences\nwhich do not involve the fundamental points of Christianity. And he\ninculcates the \u201cdanger and impropriety of driving men into schism by\nmultiplying symbols and subscriptions, and contracting the bounds of\ncommunion, and the still greater wickedness of regarding all discrepant\nopinions as damnable in the life to come, and in the present capital.\u201d\nFor a fuller account of this remarkable work, we refer to the Life by\nHeber, p. 201\u2013218, or still better, to the original.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  Heber\u2019s Life of Taylor, p. xxvii.\n\nIt was followed at no long interval by the \u2018Great Exemplar of Sanctity\nand Holy Life, described in the Life and Death of Jesus Christ.\u2019 This,\nthe first of Taylor\u2019s great works which became extensively popular, is\nalmost entirely practical in its tendency, having been composed, as the\nauthor tells us, with the intention of drawing men\u2019s minds from\ncontroverted doctrines, to the vital points on which all men are agreed,\nbut which all men forget so easily. It is not an attempt to connect the\nrelations of the four Evangelists into one complete and chronologically\nconsistent account; but a \u201cseries of devout meditations on the different\nevents recorded in the New Testament, as well as on the more remarkable\ntraditions which have usually been circulated respecting the Divine\nAuthor of our religion, his earthly parent, and his followers,\u201d set off\nby that majestic style, that store of illustrations derived from the\nmost recondite and miscellaneous learning, and, above all, that fervent\nand poetical imagination, by which Taylor is distinguished perhaps above\nall the prose writers in our language. Such qualities, even without a\ndigested plan and connected strain of argument, which, requiring a more\ncontinuous and attentive perusal, would not perhaps have made the book\nmore acceptable or useful to the bulk of readers, ensured for it a\nfavourable reception; and the author followed up the impression which he\nhad produced, at no distant period, by two other treatises of a similar\npractical tendency, which, from their comparative shortness, are better\nknown than any other of Taylor\u2019s works, and probably have been as\nextensively read as any devotional books in the English language. We\nspeak of the treatises on Holy Living and on Holy Dying.\n\nIt has been mentioned that near Mandinam stood Golden Grove, the seat of\nthe Earl of Carbery, a nobleman distinguished by his abilities and zeal\nin the Royal cause. He proved a constant and sincere friend to Taylor;\nand the grateful scholar has conferred celebrity upon the name and\nhospitality of Golden Grove by his \u2018Guide to Infant Devotion,\u2019 or manual\nof daily prayers, which are called by the name of that place, in which\nthey, and many other of the author\u2019s works, were meditated; especially\nhis Eniautos, or course of sermons for all the Sundays in the year.\n\nConsiderable obscurity hangs over this portion of Taylor\u2019s life: but it\nappears that in the years 1654\u20135 he was twice imprisoned, in consequence\nof his advocacy of the fallen causes of Episcopacy and Royalty. At some\ntime in 1654 he formed an acquaintance with Evelyn, which proved\nprofitable and honourable to both parties; for the layman, as is evident\nfrom his Memoirs and Diary, highly valued and laid to heart the counsels\nof the man whom he selected as his \u201cghostly father,\u201d and to whose\npoverty he liberally ministered in return out of his own abundance.\n\nWe learn from Evelyn\u2019s Diary that Taylor was in London in the spring of\n1637, and his visits, if not annual, were at least frequent. He made\nmany friends, and among them the Earl of Conway, a nobleman possessed of\nlarge estates in the north-east of Ireland, who conceived the desire of\nsecuring Taylor\u2019s eminent abilities for the service of his own\nneighbourhood, and obtained for him a lectureship in the small town of\nLisburne. Taylor removed his family to Ireland in the summer of 1658. He\ndwelt near Portmore, his patron\u2019s splendid seat on the banks of Lough\nNeagh; and some of the islands in that noble lake, and in a smaller\nneighbouring piece of water called Lough Beg, are still recorded, by the\ntraditions of the peasantry, to have been his favourite places of study\nand retirement. To this abode his letters show him to have been much\nattached.\n\nIn the spring of 1660 Taylor visited London, to superintend in its\npassage through the press the \u2018Rule of Conscience, or Ductor\nDubitantium.\u2019 This, it appears from the author\u2019s letters, was\nconsiderably advanced so early as the year 1655. It was the fruit of\nmuch time, much diligence, and much prayer; and that of all his writings\nconcerning the execution of which he seems to have felt most anxiety. In\nthis case, as it often happens, the author seems to have formed an\nerroneous estimate of the comparative value of his works. Neither on its\nfirst appearance, nor in later times, did the \u2018Ductor Dubitantium\u2019\nbecome extensively popular. Its object, which even at the first was\naccounted obsolete, was to supply what the Romish church obtained by the\npractice of confession, a set of rules by which a scrupulous conscience\nmay be guided in the variety of doubtful points of duty which may occur.\nThe abuses are well known, to which the casuistic subtlety of the Romish\ndoctors gave birth; and it may be doubted whether it were wise to lay\none stone towards rebuilding an edifice, which the general diffusion of\nthe Scriptures, a sufficient rule, if rightly studied, to solve all\ndoubts, had rendered unnecessary. The work, in spite of its passages of\neloquence and profusion of learning, is too prolix to be a favourite in\nthese latter days, but it is still, says his biographer, (p. ccxciii.)\none \u201cwhich few can read without profit, and none, I think, without\nentertainment. It resembles in some degree those ancient inlaid\ncabinets, (such as Evelyn, Boyle, or Wilkins might have bequeathed to\ntheir descendants,) whose multifarious contents perplex our choice, and\noffer to the admiration or curiosity of a more accurate age a vast\nwilderness of trifles and varieties with no arrangement at all, or an\narrangement on obsolete principles, but whose ebony drawers and perfumed\nrecesses contain specimens of every thing that is precious or uncommon,\nand many things for which a modern museum might be searched in vain.\u201d\n\nTaylor\u2019s accidental presence in London at this period, when the hopes of\nthe Royalists were reviving, was probably serviceable to his future\nfortunes. He obtained by it the opportunity of joining in the Royalist\ndeclaration of April 24; and he was among the first to derive benefit\nfrom the restoration of that King and that Church, of whose interests he\nhad ever been a most zealous, able, and consistent supporter. He was\nnominated Bishop of Down and Connor, August 6, 1660, and consecrated in\nSt. Patrick\u2019s Cathedral January 27, 1661. In the interval he was\nappointed Vice-chancellor of the University of Dublin, which during past\ntroubles had been greatly dilapidated and disordered, in respect both of\nits revenues and discipline. He was the principal instrument in\nremodelling and completing the statutes, and settling the University in\nits present form.\n\nIn the spring of 1661 Taylor was made a member of the Irish Privy\nCouncil, and the small diocese of Dromore, adjacent to Down, was\nassigned to his charge, \u201con account,\u201d in the words of the writ under the\nPrivy Seal, \u201cof his virtue, wisdom, and industry.\u201d This praise was well\ndeserved by his conduct in that difficult time, when those who had\ndisplaced the episcopal clergy were apprehensive of being in their turn\nobliged to give way, and religious differences were embittered by\nthoughts of temporal welfare. Taylor had to deal chiefly with the wilder\nand most enthusiastic party, and his advances towards an intercourse of\nChristian charity were met with scorn and insult. But his exemplary\nconduct, and persevering gentleness of demeanour, did much to soften at\nleast the laity of his opponents; for we are told that the nobility and\ngentry of the three dioceses over which he presided came over, with one\nexception, to the Bishop\u2019s side.\n\nHis varied duties can now have left little time for the labour of the\npen; still he published sermons from time to time, and in 1664 completed\nand published his last great work, a \u2018Dissuasive from Popery,\u2019\nundertaken by desire of the collective body of Irish bishops. He\ncontinued after his elevation to reside principally at Portmore,\noccasionally at Lisburne. Of his habits, and the incidents of this\nlatter part of his life, we know next to nothing; except that he\nsuffered the severest affliction which could befal a man of his\nsensibility and piety, in the successive deaths of his three surviving\nsons, and the misconduct of two of them. One died at Lisburne, in March,\n1661; one fell in a duel, his adversary also dying of his wounds; the\nthird became the favourite companion of the profligate Duke of\nBuckingham, and died of a decline, August 2, 1667. Of the latter event\nthe Bishop can scarcely have heard, for he died on the 13th of the same\nmonth, after ten days\u2019 sickness. He was buried at Dromore. Two of his\ndaughters married in Ireland, into the families of Marsh and Harrison;\nand several Irish families of repute claim to be connected with the\nblood of this exemplary prelate by the female line.\n\nThe materials for Bishop Taylor\u2019s life are very scanty. The earliest\nsketch of it is to be found in the funeral sermon preached by his friend\nand successor in the see of Dromore, Dr. Rust, who sums up the virtues\nof the deceased in a peroration of highly-wrought panegyric, of which\nthe following just eulogy is a part\u2014\u201cHe was a person of great humility;\nand notwithstanding his stupendous parts, and learning, and eminency of\nplace, he had nothing in him of pride and humour, but was courteous and\naffable, and of easy access, and would lend a ready ear to the\ncomplaints, yea, to the impertinence of the meanest persons. His\nhumility was coupled with an extraordinary piety; and I believe he spent\nthe greatest part of his time in heaven.... To all his other virtues he\nadded a large and diffusive charity; and whoever compares his plentiful\nincome with the inconsiderable estate he left at his death, will be\neasily convinced that charity was steward for a great proportion of his\nrevenue. But the hungry that he fed, and the naked that he clothed, and\nthe distressed that he supplied, and the fatherless that he provided\nfor, the poor children that he put to apprentice, and brought up at\nschool, and maintained at the university, will now sound a trumpet to\nthat charity which he dispensed with his right hand, but would not\nsuffer his left hand to have any knowledge of it.\n\n\u201cTo sum up all in a few words, this great prelate had the good humour of\na gentleman, the eloquence of an orator, the fancy of a poet, the\nacuteness of a schoolman, the profoundness of a philosopher, the wisdom\nof a counsellor, the sagacity of a prophet, the reason of an angel, and\nthe piety of a saint; he had devotion enough for a cloister, learning\nenough for an university, and wit enough for a college of virtuosi; and\nhad his parts and endowments been parcelled out among his poor clergy\nthat he left behind him, it would perhaps have made one of the best\ndioceses in the world. But, alas! \u2018Our Father! our Father! the horses of\nour Israel, and the chariot thereof!\u2019 he is gone, and has carried his\nmantle and his spirit along with him up to heaven; and the sons of the\nprophets have lost all their beauty and lustre which they enjoyed only\nfrom the reflection of his excellencies, which were bright and radiant\nenough to cast a glory upon a whole order of men.\u201d\n\nThere is a life of Taylor by Archdeacon Bonney; and a copious memoir,\nenriched by a minute analysis of all the more remarkable compositions of\nour author, is prefixed to Bishop Heber\u2019s edition of Taylor\u2019s works.\nFrom this the materials of the present sketch are taken. Nor can we\nbetter conclude than with the eloquent estimate of Taylor\u2019s merits, with\nwhich the accomplished biographer concludes his work. \u201cIt is on\ndevotional and moral subjects that the peculiar character of Taylor\u2019s\nmind is most, and most successfully, developed. To this service he\ndevotes his most glowing language; to this his aptest illustrations, his\nthoughts, and his words, at once burst into a flame, when touched by the\ncoals of this altar; and whether he describes the duties, or dangers, or\nhopes of man, or the mercy, power, and justice of the Most High; whether\nhe exhorts or instructs his brethren, or offers up his supplications in\ntheir behalf to the common Father of all, his conceptions and his\nexpressions belong to the loftiest and most sacred description of\npoetry, of which they only want, what they cannot be said to need, the\nname and the metrical arrangement.\n\n\u201cIt is this distinctive excellence, still more than the other\nqualifications of learning and logical acuteness, which has placed him,\neven in that age of gigantic talent, on an eminence superior to any of\nhis immediate contemporaries; and has seated him, by the almost\nunanimous estimate of posterity, on the same lofty elevation with Hooker\nand with Barrow.\n\n\u201cOf such a triumvirate, who shall settle the precedence? Yet it may,\nperhaps, be not far from the truth, to observe that Hooker claims the\nforemost rank in sustained and classic dignity of style, in political\nand pragmatical wisdom; that to Barrow the praise must be assigned of\nthe closest and clearest views, and of a taste the most controlled and\nchastened; but that in imagination, in interest, in that which more\nproperly and exclusively deserves the name of genius, Taylor is to be\nplaced before either. The first awes most, the second convinces most,\nthe third persuades and delights most: and, according to the decision of\none whose own rank among the ornaments of English literature yet remains\nto be determined by posterity (Dr. Parr), Hooker is the object of our\nreverence, Barrow of our admiration, and Jeremy Taylor of our love.\u201d\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by C. E. Wagstaff._\n\n  LAVOISIER.\n\n  _From the original Picture by David in a Private Collection at Paris._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                               LAVOISIER.\n\n\nAntoine Laurent Lavoisier was born in Paris, August 26, 1743. He was\neducated under the eye of his father, a man of opulence, with\ndiscernment to appreciate his son\u2019s abilities, and liberality to\ncultivate them without regard to cost. Lavoisier early showed a decided\ninclination for the physical sciences; and before he was twenty years\nold, had made himself master of the principal branches of natural\nphilosophy.\n\nIn 1764 the government proposed an extraordinary premium for the best\nand cheapest project of lighting the streets of Paris, and other large\ncities. To this subject, involving a knowledge of several branches of\nscience, Lavoisier immediately devoted his attention. He produced so\nable a memoir, full of the most masterly, accurate, and practical views,\nthat the gold medal was awarded to him. This production was the means of\nintroducing him into the Academy of Sciences, of which, after a severe\ncontest, he was admitted a member, May 13, 1768; and he proved himself\nthrough life one of its most useful and valuable associates.\n\nAt this time the whole range of chemical and physico-chemical science\nwas in an extremely imperfect state; and the first steps to a more\nimproved system involved the necessity of clearing away a vast mass of\nerror which encumbered the path to truth. For instance, one of the\nfanciful ideas, the offspring of the alchemy of the dark ages, which\nstill continued to haunt the regions of science, was the belief of the\nconversion of water into earth by gradual consolidation. This subject\nLavoisier treated in the true spirit of the experimental method, and\nclearly showed that the pretended conversion was either a deposition of\nearthy particles, or a sediment arising from the action of the water on\nthe internal surface of the retort. He also laboured on the analysis of\nthe gypsum found in the neighbourhood of Paris, and on the\ncrystallization of salts. He discussed the project of conveying water\nfrom L\u2019Yvette to Paris, and the theory of congelation; and to these\nresearches added extensive observations on the phenomena of thunder and\nthe Aurora Borealis.\n\nHe next directed his attention more especially to mineralogy; and made\nexcursions, in conjunction with Guettard, into all parts of France,\nendeavouring to form from different districts a complete collection of\ntheir characteristic mineral productions. He made advances towards a\nsystematic classification of facts connected with the localities of\nfossils, which afterwards served as the basis of his work on the\nrevolutions of the globe and the formation of successive strata, of\nwhich two admirable abstracts were inserted in the Memoirs of the\nAcademy of Sciences, for 1772 and 1787.\n\nThus during the earlier part of his life, Lavoisier does not seem to\nhave devoted himself in particular to any one branch of science. But\nabout the year 1770 the announcement of the existence of more than one\nspecies of gaseous matter, arising out of the successive researches of\nBlack, Scheele, Priestley, and Cavendish, had the effect of fixing his\nattention to the subject of pneumatic chemistry. The invaluable\ndiscoveries just alluded to had opened a new world to the inquirer into\nnature; and the labours of those distinguished experimentalists had\nconspired to commence a fresh era in science. Lavoisier was one of the\nfirst to appreciate at once the importance of the results they had\narrived at, and the immense field of further research to which those\nresults had opened the way. He perceived by a sort of instinct the\nglorious career which lay before him; and the influence which this new\nscience thus, as it were, created, must have over every sort of physical\nresearch. Priestley possessed precisely those qualifications which are\nmost available for striking out new and brilliant discoveries of facts;\na boundless fertility of invention; a power of rapidly seizing remote\nanalogies; and an equal readiness in framing and in abandoning\nhypotheses, which have no value, but as guides to experiment. Lavoisier,\nless eminent in these respects, possessed in a more peculiar degree the\nmental characteristics which enable their owner to advance to grand\ngeneralizations and philosophical theories upon the sure basis of facts.\nHe possessed, in its fullest sense, the true spirit of inductive\ncaution, and even geometrical rigour; and his observations, eminently\nprecise and luminous, always pointed to more general views.\n\nIn 1774, he published his \u2018Opuscules Chimiques,\u2019 in which, after a full\nand truly philosophical examination of the labours of preceding\nexperimenters in the discovery of the gases and their characteristic\nproperties, he proceeds to describe his own beautiful and fundamentally\nimportant researches, from which resulted the \u2018True Theory of\nCombustion,\u2019 which may be termed the very sun and centre of the whole\nmodern system of chemistry.\n\nTo the vague dreams of the alchemist had succeeded the remarkable theory\nof Hooke, who maintained that a certain ingredient of the atmospheric\nair (which also enters as an ingredient into several other bodies,\nespecially nitre) was the _solvent_ which absorbed a portion of the\ncombustible. This process was continued in proportion as more of the\nsolvent was supplied. The solution took place with such rapidity, as to\noccasion those motions or pulsations in which Hooke believed heat and\nlight to consist.\n\nThis near approach to the truth was thrown into discredit by the more\nbrilliant and imposing theory of Stahl, who captivated the imaginations\nof chemists by his doctrine of phlogiston, the principle or element of\nfire, a sort of metaphysical something, which conferred the property of\nbeing combustible. Stahl taught that the process of combustion deprived\nbodies of their phlogiston, which, in the act of separation, exhibited\nits latent energies in the evolution of light and heat.\n\nThis wild chimera long maintained its ground, and received successive\nmodifications in the hands of several distinguished chemists, the most\nimportant of which was that of Kirwan; but these all retained the\nfundamental error that something was _abstracted from_ the burning body.\nYet Rey, so early as 1630, and Bayer afterwards, had both shown that\nmetals by calcination _increase_ in weight, or have something _added_ to\nthem. Lavoisier turned his attention to the defects of the existing\ntheory about 1770; and the last-named experiments probably directed him\nmore specifically to the essential point of the inquiry. He pursued his\nresearches with unwearied industry; and by a long series of experiments\nof the most laborious and precise nature, he succeeded in determining\nthat, in all cases of combustion, that substance which is the _real_\ncombustible invariably receives _an addition_, or enters into a new\ncombination; and the matter with which it combines is in all cases that\nsame substance which had now been shown by Priestley to be one of the\nconstituents of the atmosphere, and which was then known by the name of\n_vital air_.\n\nIt was however long before Lavoisier gained a single convert. At length\nM. Berthollet, at a meeting of the Academy in 1785, publicly renounced\nthe old opinions and declared himself a convert. Fourcroy followed his\nexample. In 1787, Morveau, during a visit to Paris, became convinced,\nand declared the conclusions of Lavoisier irresistible. The younger\nchemists speedily embraced the new views; and their establishment was\nthus complete. There only remained some lurking prejudices in England,\nwhere the Essay of Kirwan retained its credit. Lavoisier and his\ncoadjutors translated this essay into French, accompanying each section\nby a refutation. So completely was this done, that the author himself\nwas convinced; and, with that candour which distinguishes superior\nminds, gave up his views as untenable, and declared himself a convert.\n\nThese discoveries introduced Lavoisier to the notice of the most eminent\npersons in the State; and in 1776, Turgot engaged him to superintend the\nmanufacture of gunpowder for the Government. He introduced many valuable\nimprovements in the process, and many judicious reforms into the\nestablishment.\n\nIn 1778, Lavoisier having been incessantly engaged on the subject of\ngases and combustion, announced another great discovery, \u201cthat the\nrespirable portion of the atmosphere is the constituent principle of\nacids,\u201d which he therefore denominated _oxygen_.\n\nThe question as to \u201cthe acidifying principle\u201d had long formed the\nsubject of discussion. The prevalent theory was that of Beccher with\nvarious modifications, which made the acid principle a compound of earth\nand water regarded as elements. Lavoisier found in the instance of a\ngreat number of the acids, that they consisted of a combustible\nprinciple united with oxygen. He showed this both analytically and\nsynthetically, and hence proceeded to the conclusion that oxygen is the\nacidifying principle in all acids. Berthollet opposed this doctrine, and\ncontended that, in general, acidity depended on the manner and\nproportion in which the constituents are combined. The fact is, that, in\nthis instance, Lavoisier had advanced a little too rapidly to his\nconclusion. Had he contented himself with stating it as applying to a\n_great number_ of acids, it would have been strictly true; but he had\ncertainly no proof of its being _universally_ the case. When Sir H.\nDavy, some years after, showed that one of the most powerful acids (the\nmuriatic) does not contain a single particle of oxygen, and when the\nresearches of Guy Lussac and others had exhibited other proofs of the\nsame thing, it became evident that Lavoisier\u2019s assertion required\nconsiderable modification. And though _nearly_ all acids have been since\nincluded under the general law of containing _some supporter of\ncombustion_, yet there appear to be exceptions even to this; the\ncautious language of Berthollet has been completely justified; and a\nperfect theory of acidity is perhaps yet wanting. Nevertheless,\nLavoisier\u2019s discovery is one of first-rate magnitude and importance, and\nwith this qualification, certainly forms the basis of all our present\nknowledge of the subject.\n\nAnother important research in which Lavoisier engaged, in conjunction\nwith Laplace, was the determination of the specific heats of bodies, by\nmeans of an ingenious apparatus, which they denominated the calorimeter:\nthese were by far the most precise experiments on the subject which had\nas yet been made, though some inaccuracies in the method have since been\npointed out.\n\nLavoisier owed much, it must be owned, to those external advantages of\nfortune, the absence of which, though it cannot confine the flights of\nreal genius, yet may seriously impair the value and efficiency of its\nexertions; and the presence of which, though it cannot confer the powers\nof intellect, may yet afford most invaluable aids to the prosecution of\nresearch, and the dissemination of knowledge. In the instance before us,\nthese advantages were enjoyed to the full extent, and turned to the best\nuse. Lavoisier was enabled to command the most unlimited resources of\ninstrumental aid; he pursued his researches in a laboratory furnished\nwith the most costly apparatus, and was able to put every suggestion to\nthe test of experiment, by the assistance of the most skilful artists,\nand instruments of the most perfect construction.\n\nBut as he could thus command these essential advantages for the\nprosecution of his own investigations, he was equally mindful of the\nextension of similar advantages to others: he always evinced himself\nready to assist the inquiries of those who had not the same means at\ntheir disposal; and was no less liberal in aiding them by his stores of\ninformation and able advice. Indeed no one could be more sensible how\nmuch there is of mutual advantage in such intercourse between those\nengaged in the same scientific labours; and this conviction, joined with\na full perception of the immense benefits accruing from personal\nacquaintance among men of kindred pursuits, and the interchange of\nsocial good offices, led him to the regular practice of opening his\nhouse on two evenings in every week, for an assembly of all the\nscientific men of the French capital; which very soon became a point of\ngeneral resort and reunion to the philosophers of Europe.\n\nAt these meetings general discourse and philosophic discussion were\nagreeably intermingled; the opinions of the most eminent philosophers\nwere freely canvassed; the most striking and novel passages in the\npublications of foreign countries were made known, recited, and\nanimadverted upon; and the progress of experiment was assisted by candid\ncomments and comparison with theory. In these assemblies might be found,\nmingling in instructive and delightful conversation, all those whose\nnames made the last century memorable in the annals of science.\nPriestley, Fontana, Landriani, Watt, Bolton, and Ingenhouz, were\nassociated with Laplace, Lagrange, Borda, Cousin, Monge, Morveau, and\nBerthollet. There was also an incalculable advantage in bringing into\ncommunication and intimacy men engaged in distinct branches of science:\nthe intercourse of the mathematician with the geologist, of the\nastronomer with the chemist, of the computer with the experimenter, and\nof the artist with the theorist, could not fail to be of mutual\nadvantage. In no instance were the beneficial effects of such\nintercourse more strikingly displayed than in the chemical sciences;\nwhich, from this sort of comparison of ideas and methods, began now to\nassume a character of exactness from an infusion of the spirit of\ngeometry; and a department hitherto abandoned to the wildest\nspeculations, and encumbered with the most vague and undefined\nphraseology (derived from the jargon of the alchemists), began to assume\nsomething like arrangement and method in its ideas, and precision and\norder in its nomenclature. This influence was strongly marked in the\nphysical memoirs produced in France from this period downwards. The\nprecision and severity of style, and the philosophical method of the\nmathematicians, was insensibly transfused into the papers of the\nphysical and chemical philosophers.\n\nLavoisier individually profited greatly by the sources of improvement\nand information thus opened. Whenever any new result presented itself to\nhim, which, perhaps, from contradicting all received theories, seemed\nparadoxical, or at variance with all principles hitherto recognised, it\nwas fully laid before these select assemblies of philosophers; the\nexperiment was exhibited in their presence, and they were invited with\nthe utmost candour to offer their criticisms and objections. In perfect\nreliance on the mutual spirit of candour, they were not backward in\nurging whatever difficulties occurred to them, and the truth thus\nelicited acquired a firmness and stability in its public reception\nproportioned to the severity of the test it had undergone. Lavoisier\nseldom announced any discovery until it had passed this ordeal.\n\nAt length he combined his philosophical views into a connected system,\nwhich he published in 1789, under the title of \u2018Elements of Chemistry:\u2019\na beautiful model of scientific composition, clear and logical in its\narrangement, perspicuous and even elegant in its style and manner. These\nperfections are rarely to be found in elementary works written by\noriginal discoverers. The genius which qualifies a man for enlarging the\nboundaries of science by his own inventions and researches is of a very\ndifferent class from that which confers the ability to elucidate, in a\nsimple and systematic course, the order and connexion of elementary\ntruths. But in Lavoisier these different species of talent were most\nhappily blended. He not only added profound truths to science, but\nsucceeded in adapting them to the apprehension of students, and was able\nto render them attractive by his eloquence.\n\nIn 1791 he entered upon extensive researches, having for their object\nthe application of pneumatic chemistry to the advancement of medicine,\nin reference to the process of respiration. With this view he examined\nin great detail the changes which the air undergoes, and the products\ngenerated in that process of the animal economy. He had previously,\nhowever, as far back as 1780, detailed a series of experiments to\ndetermine the quantity of oxygen consumed and carbonic acid generated by\nrespiration, in a given time, in the Memoirs of the French Academy.\n\nIn the twenty volumes of the Academy of Sciences, from 1772 to 1793, are\nnot less than forty memoirs by Lavoisier, replete with all the grand\nphenomena of the science:\u2014the doctrine of combustion in all its\nbearings; the nature and analysis of atmospheric air; the generation and\ncombinations of elastic fluids; the properties of heat; the composition\nof acids; the decomposition and recomposition of water; the solutions of\nmetals; and the phenomena of vegetation, fermentation, and\nanimalization. These are some of the most important subjects of his\npapers; and during the whole of this period he advanced steadily in the\ncourse which was pointed out to him by the unerring rules of inductive\ninquiry, to which his original genius supplied the commentary. So well\ndid he secure every point of the results to which he ascended, that he\nnever made a false step. It was only in one subject, before alluded to,\nthat he may be said to have gone a few steps too far. Nor did he ever\nsuffer himself to be discouraged, or his ardour to be damped by the\ndifficulties and obstacles which perpetually impeded his progress. He\ntraced new paths for investigation, and founded a new school of science;\nand his successors had ample employment in following out the inquiries\nwhich he had indicated, and exploring those recesses to which he had\nopened the way.\n\nIn the relations of social and civil life Lavoisier was exemplary; and\nhe rendered essential service to the state in several capacities. He was\ntreasurer to the Academy, and introduced economy and order into its\nfinances: he was also a member of the board of consultation, and took an\nactive share in its business. When the new system of measures was in\nagitation, and it was proposed to determine a degree of the meridian, he\nmade accurate experiments on the dilatation of metals, in conjunction\nwith Laplace (1782), to ascertain the corrections due to changes of\ntemperature in the substances used as measuring rods in those delicate\noperations.\n\nBy the National Convention he was consulted on the means of improving\nthe manufacture of assignats, and of increasing the difficulty of\nforgery. He turned his attention to matters of rural economy, and, by\nimproved methods of cultivation, on scientific principles, he increased\nthe produce of an experimental farm nearly one half. In 1791 he was\ninvited by the Constituent Assembly to digest a plan for simplifying the\ncollection of taxes: the excellent memoir which he produced on this\nsubject was printed under the title of \u2018The Territorial Riches of\nFrance.\u2019 He was likewise appointed a Commissioner of the National\nTreasury, in which he effected some beneficial reforms.\n\nDuring the terrors of Robespierre\u2019s tyranny, Lavoisier remarked that he\nforesaw he should be stripped of all his property, and accordingly would\nprepare to enter the profession of an apothecary, by which he should be\nable to gain a livelihood. But the ignorant and brutal ruffians who were\nthen in power had already condemned him to the scaffold, on which he was\nexecuted, May 8, 1794, for the pretended crime of having adulterated\nsnuff with ingredients destructive to the health of the citizens! On\nbeing seized, he entreated at least to be allowed time to finish some\nexperiments in which he was engaged; but the reply of Coffinhall, the\npresident of the gang who condemned him, was characteristic of the\nsavage ignorance of those monsters in human form:\u2014\u201cThe Republic does not\nwant savans or chemists, and the course of justice cannot be suspended.\u201d\n\nLavoisier in person was tall and graceful, and of lively manners and\nappearance. He was mild, sociable, and obliging; and in his habits\nunaffectedly plain and simple. He was liberal in pecuniary assistance to\nthose in need of it; and his hatred of all ostentation in doing good\nprobably concealed greatly the real amount of his beneficence. He\nmarried, in 1771, Marie-Anni-Pierrette Paulze, a lady of great talents\nand accomplishments, who after his death became the wife of Count\nRumford.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                               SYDENHAM.\n\n\nThe celebrated physician, Thomas Sydenham, in many respects the most\neminent that England has produced, was born in the year 1624, at\nWynford-Eagle, in Dorsetshire, where his father, William Sydenham,\nenjoyed a considerable estate. The mansion in which he was born is now\nconverted into a farm-house, and stands on the property of Lord Wynford.\n\nIn the year 1642, when eighteen, he was admitted as a commoner at\nMagdalen-Hall, Oxford; but quitted it in the same year, when that city\nbecame the head quarters of the royal army, after the battle of\nEdge-hill. He was probably induced to take this step by reasons of a\npolitical nature; for we find that his family were active adherents of\nthe opposite party. Indeed he is said, though on doubtful authority, to\nhave held a commission himself under the Parliament during his absence\nfrom Oxford; and his elder brother, William, is known to have attained\nconsiderable rank in the republican army, and held important commands\nunder the Protectorate.\n\nThe political bias of his family is not without interest, as affording a\nprobable explanation of some circumstances in his life which would\notherwise be rather unaccountable,\u2014such as the fact, that though he\nreached the first eminence as a practising physician, he was never\nemployed at court, and was slighted by the college, who invested him\nwith none of their honours, nor even advanced him to the fellowship,\nthough a licentiate of their body, and qualified by the requisite\nUniversity education.\n\nWhen Oxford was surrendered to the Parliament, Sydenham determined to\nresume his academical studies; and passing through London\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by E. Scriven._\n\n  SYDENHAM.\n\n  _From the Picture in the Hall of All Souls College, Oxford._\n\n  Under the Superintendence of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\non his way, he met accidentally with Dr. Thomas Coxe, a physician of\nsome repute at that time, who was attending his brother. The choice of a\nprofession became the subject of a conversation between them, which\ndetermined him in favour of medicine; for in a letter addressed to Dr.\nMapletoft, thirty years after this time, which forms the preface to one\nof his writings, he refers with much warmth to this conversation as the\norigin of his professional zeal, and, consequently, of whatever useful\nadvances he had made in medicine. Thus his success, both in the practice\nand reformation of his art, may show the advantage of waiting till the\nfaculties are fully matured, before they are exercised in a study which\nrequires independence as well as vigour in thinking: for the\ncircumstances of his family being sufficiently affluent to place him\nabove the necessity of choosing a profession early, he had not turned\nhis attention to physic till an age at which the medical education is\ngenerally almost completed. We are not, however, to believe in the\njustice of an accusation brought against him, that he had never studied\nhis profession till he began to practise it; for though we do not know\nwhat particular line of study he pursued on his return to Oxford, it is\nclear from many passages in his works that he had studied the writings\nof the ancient physicians with no common care; and as his own show no\ndefect of acquaintance with whatever real information had been collected\nbefore his time, we may reasonably conclude that this contemporary\ncensure was mistaken or malicious. He certainly held the opinions of his\nmodern predecessors in very little respect, for he does not often\nmention them, even for the purpose of confutation; and in the letter to\nDr. Mapletoft already referred to, he says that he had found the best,\nand, in fact, the only safe guide, through the various perplexities he\nhad met with in his practice, to be the method of actual observation and\nexperiment recommended by Lord Bacon. This sentiment is often repeated\nin his works; but it surely does not countenance the idea that he had\nbegun to practise without endeavouring to make what preparation he\ncould, or would have had others follow such an example; for the charge\nagainst him goes to this length. The notion might arise from a foolish\nanecdote related by his admirer, Sir Richard Blackmore, of his having\nrecommended Don Quixote as the best introduction he knew to the practice\nof medicine, which Sydenham must have intended as a jest, or perhaps as\na sarcasm on the narrator himself.\n\nAt Oxford he formed a close friendship with John Locke, better known\nafterwards as a philosopher than as a physician. Their intimacy, which\nlasted to the end of Sydenham\u2019s life, probably contributed not a little\nto give form to the disgust which he soon displayed at the\nunsatisfactory and fluctuating state of medical opinion, and to the zeal\nwith which he sought to establish it on surer grounds; for he appeals,\nas to the highest authority, in confirmation of some of his new views on\nthe treatment of fever, to the approval of his illustrious friend, who\neven paid him the compliment of prefixing a eulogy in indifferent Latin\nverse to the treatise in which these views are developed.\n\nOn the 14th of April, 1648, he took the degree of bachelor of medicine,\nbeing then twenty-four years old; and in the same year obtained a\nfellowship at All Souls College, by the interest of a relation. The\ndegree of doctor he subsequently took at Cambridge, where, being among\nthose who thought with him in politics, he probably found himself more\nat his ease. After a visit of some length at Montpellier, then\nconsidered the best practical school of medicine on the continent, he\nsettled in Westminster, and soon after married.\n\nHis progress to eminence in his profession must have been unusually\nrapid, which might be owing, in some measure, to the call for men of\ngood capacity to the more stirring scenes of civil strife; for at\nthirty-six he had succeeded in establishing a first-rate reputation,\nwhich he continued to sustain in spite of much hostility and ill-health\nfor upwards of twenty years.\n\nHe witnessed the breaking out of the plague in 1665, but when it reached\nthe house adjoining his own, he was induced to remove with his family\nsome miles out of town. Of this desertion of his post, however, he seems\nto have repented; for he afterwards returned, and occupied himself\ndiligently in visiting the victims of that devastating malady, and has\nleft a short but interesting account of his opinions respecting it, and\nof the treatment he adopted; for the comparative success of which, he\nappeals to the physicians who had witnessed or followed his practice.\n\nAt the age of 25, though a man of remarkably temperate and regular\nhabits, he became afflicted with gout and stone, from which he suffered\nextreme torment with great resignation and patience for the rest of his\nlife. Of course he did not neglect the opportunity of studying those\ndiseases in his own person, and recording the result of his\nobservations. His account of gout, especially, is considered to be a\nmost accurate and able history of that disease.\n\nHe died, leaving a family, at his house in Pall-Mall, on the 29th of\nDecember, 1689, in the 66th year of his age, and was buried in the\nparish church of St. James, Westminster, where, in 1810, a tablet was\nerected to his memory by the College of Physicians, who became, as a\nbody, tardily but fully convinced of his extraordinary merit and eminent\nclaims to the gratitude and respect of his profession.\n\nHe is said to have been a man of the most retiring and unobtrusive\ndisposition, and the utmost placidity of temper. In a biographical\nsketch by Dr. Samuel Johnson, prefixed to an English edition of his\nworks by Swan, in 1742, it is remarked, that if he could not teach us in\nhis writings how to cure the painful disorders from which he suffered,\nhe has taught us by his example the nobler art to bear them with\nserenity. Nor was he less patient of mental than of bodily inflictions;\nfor though he was the object of much asperity among the physicians of\nhis time, he made no reprisals upon the reputations of those who\nslandered him: though he often speaks of their bitterness, he never even\nmentions their names,\u2014a forbearance to which, as his biographer\npungently remarks, they are indebted for their escape from a\ndiscreditable immortality. His writings breathe throughout a spirit of\nwarm piety, candour, and benevolence: he is said to have been extremely\ngenerous in his dealings with his patients; for which, with other\nreasons, his practice though large was not very gainful, and he did not\nleave much wealth behind him. He never was sought after by the great,\nlike his successor and disciple Radcliffe; and had none of the talents\nby which that singular man was able to push his fortune and establish a\nkind of professional despotism. Yet, whatever medical skill the latter\nevinced seems to have been derived from Sydenham, whose doctrines and\ntreatment he contrived to bring into a much more early and general\nrepute in England than they would probably have otherwise obtained. Each\nhad his reward: the one will be long remembered as the founder of a\nmagnificent library; the other can never be forgotten as the author of\nmodern medicine.\n\nThe bent of Sydenham\u2019s mind was eminently practical; he thought that the\nbusiness of a physician is to acquire an accurate knowledge of the\ncauses and symptoms of diseases, and the effects of different remedies\nupon them, that if he cannot prevent them, he may at least recognise\nthem with certainty, and apply with promptitude the means most likely to\ncure them: with Hippocrates and the ancient empirical physicians, whose\ntenets he professed to follow, he condemned all curious speculations\nupon the intimate nature of disease, as incapable of proof, and\ntherefore always useless, and often hurtful; and maintained that the\nonly trustworthy source of opinion in medicine is experience resulting\nfrom observations frequently repeated, and experiments cautiously\nvaried; and that no theories worth attention can be framed until the\nrecorded experience of many observers, under many different\ncircumstances, and even through successive ages, shall be embodied into\none general system; and he boldly declared his belief that every acute\ndisease might then be cured. An instance, which unfortunately as yet\nstands alone in support of this rather sanguine expectation, may be\ntaken from the history of small-pox. The observation of its contagious\nnature led to the general practice of inoculation, and this to the\nimmortal discovery of Jenner, by which a disease but yesterday the\nscourge of the earth has been almost extinguished. It is remarkable that\nSydenham, who first pointed out the important difference between its\ndistinct and confluent forms,\u2014who so materially improved the treatment\nby changing it from stifling to cooling,\u2014and who studied and has\ndescribed it with a laborious accuracy hardly paralleled in the history\nof medicine,\u2014was not aware of this, to us, its most striking\ncharacteristic of contagion. A person conversant with such subjects will\nfeel no surprise at this: to the general reader it may be a sufficient\nexplanation, that it lies dormant for ten days; and that as it can only\nbe taken once, and was always prevalent in London, the number of persons\nsusceptible at any given time, and in obvious communication with each\nother, were comparatively few: so that opportunities were not so likely\nto arise as might be imagined of tracing its progress in single families\nor neighbourhoods from one source of contagion.\n\nSydenham is justly celebrated for the happiness of his descriptions, and\nhis skilful application of simple methods of cure, which are as\neffectual as they were novel in that age when a medical prescription\nsometimes contained a hundred different substances; but he has merit of\na higher kind, as a discoverer of general laws. Among others, he was the\nfirst to notice that there is a uniformity in the fevers prevailing at\nany one time, which is subject to periodical changes; and that other\nacute diseases often partake largely of the same general character, and\nsometimes even merge in it altogether, as the plague is said to have\nswallowed up all other diseases. This, which he ascribed to some\npeculiar state of the atmosphere, he called its epidemic constitution;\nand to be aware of its vicissitudes must of course be very important to\nthe physician as a guide to practice. The value of these laws, which\nSydenham deduced from a multitude of observations, has been attested by\nalmost every medical writer since his time.\n\nHis works have been repeatedly printed in the original Latin, as well as\nin English and the continental languages. The first was published after\nhe had been sixteen years in practice; the last he edited himself, is\ndated three years before his death; and an elegant compendium of his\nexperience was published posthumously by his son. They all appear to\nhave been extorted by the importunity of his friends or the\nmisrepresentations of his enemies. It is said that they were composed in\nEnglish, and translated into Latin by his friends Mapletoft and Havers:\nthere is, however, little reason for attaching credit to this report, as\nwe are assured, on the authority of Sir Hans Sloane, who knew him well,\nthat Sydenham was an excellent classical scholar, and perfectly capable\nof expressing himself elegantly in Latin. They are most carefully\nwritten and clearly expressed, and bear marks of the utmost truth and\nimpartiality in the narration of facts, and judgment in arranging them.\nThey are not voluminous, as he studiously refrained from overloading\nthem with trivial matter, and from entering into the detail of a greater\nnumber of cases than might be sufficient to illustrate his method of\npractice. His object was to confine himself to the results of his own\nobservation: to this he pretty strictly adhered, so that little space is\noccupied in his writings by quotations or criticism. It must be admitted\nthat he occasionally lapses into theoretical discussion, in violation of\nhis own principles; but as he seldom or never permitted his fancy to\ndivert him from what was practically useful, he may be pardoned, if in\nthat age of speculation he could not entirely resist the seduction. A\ngraver charge against him is, that he overlooked or undervalued the\nimmense body of information to be obtained from examining the effects of\ndiseased actions after death, and devoted himself too exclusively to the\nstudy of the symptoms during life, and the effect of remedies upon them.\nIt is hardly a sufficient justification of a man of so much independence\nof spirit to reply, that such examinations were opposed by the\nprejudices of the age in which he lived. Others have overcome the same\nobstacles, and with them many of those difficulties which perplexed and\nmisled even the mind of Sydenham. He had equal or greater difficulties\nto contend against in the deep-rooted absurdities of the chemical and\nmechanical schools, which in the early part of his life held an almost\nequally divided sway in medicine: the former originated with Paracelsus\nand his disciples, and had the advantage of a longer prescription; and\nthe latter had received a fresh accession of strength from the recent\ndiscoveries of Harvey: both, however, gave way before his energetic\nappeal to fact and experience. Scarcely less credit is due to him for\nhis successful opposition to the popular superstition in favour of a\nhost of futile remedies, which are now happily consigned to oblivion\nwith the family receipt books and herbals in which their virtues were\nparaded, than for his victory over false principles and dangerous rules\nof practice.\n\nOn the whole, it may be safely advanced that medicine, as a practical\nscience, owes more to the closely-printed octavo, in which the results\nof his toilsome exertions are comprised, than to any other single source\nof information.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by C. E. Wagstaff._\n\n  LORD CLARENDON.\n\n  _From the Picture in the Bodleian Library, Oxford._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                               CLARENDON.\n\n\nEdward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, the third son of Henry Hyde, of Dinton,\nEsquire, a younger branch of an ancient family long established in\nCheshire, was born at Dinton, near Salisbury, February 18, 1609. The\nmost valuable part of his early education he received from his father,\nwho was an excellent scholar: from his residence at Magdalen Hall,\nOxford, where he entered in 1622, and took his bachelor\u2019s degree in\n1625, according to his own account he obtained little benefit. In\nFebruary 1627, he was entered at the Middle Temple. At the age of\ntwenty-one, he married his first wife, who died within six months of\ntheir union. After the lapse of three years he was again married, to the\ndaughter of Sir Thomas Aylesbury, Master of Requests to the King, by\nwhom he left a numerous family. He was called to the bar in Michaelmas\nterm, 1633. To the study of law he entertained in the first instance a\nstrong dislike, and applied himself chiefly to history and general\nliterature. But from the time of his second marriage he devoted himself\nsteadily to the pursuit of his profession, in which he early acquired\nconsiderable practice and reputation. His business was, however, more\nfrequent in the Court of Requests, in the Star Chamber, than in the\ncourts of common law, and his name rarely appears in the reports of that\nperiod.\n\nSoon after he was called to the bar, Mr. Hyde was concerned in a\ntransaction of considerable moment, which produced important\nconsequences in his future life, by introducing him to the favourable\nnotice of Archbishop Laud. It arose out of certain Custom-House\nregulations, by which the London merchants found themselves aggrieved.\nThe leading men among them applied to Mr. Hyde, who, on finding all\nremonstrances with the Lord Treasurer unavailing, advised them to state\ntheir grievances in a petition to the King, which he drew for them. On\nthe death of the Lord Treasurer, the Earl of Portland, the affairs of\nthe Treasury were placed under the management of several commissioners,\nof whom Laud was one. The Archbishop soon found occasion to investigate\nthe complaint of the merchants; and in consequence he sent for, and held\nseveral interviews with, Mr. Hyde: to whom he became a valuable and\nefficient patron, noticing him particularly when he appeared as counsel\nin the Star Chamber, and consulting and employing him on many public\noccasions.\n\nLaud\u2019s favour introduced Mr. Hyde to the Lord Keeper Coventry, the Earl\nof Manchester, then Lord Privy Seal, and other political and legal\ncharacters of high rank, of the court party. With the leaders of the\npopular, or country party also he was upon friendly terms, \u201chaving,\u201d as\nhe says, \u201cthat rare felicity, that even they who did not love many of\nthose upon whom he most depended, were yet very well pleased with him\nand with his company.\u201d\n\nUpon the summoning of what was called the Short Parliament, which met\nApril 3, 1640, Mr. Hyde was elected member for Wootton-Basset, and for\nShaftesbury. He chose to take his seat for the former place. His first\nand only speech during the session was in the celebrated debate on the\nsubject of grievances, introduced by a motion of Mr. Pym; on which\noccasion Mr. Hyde directed the attention of the house to the enormous\nabuses of the Earl Marshal\u2019s Court. Whitelocke says that \u201che gained much\ncredit by his conduct in this business.\u201d In the warm debate which took\nplace in the House of Commons upon the question of a supply, it was\nhinted by members of the house connected with the court, that Charles,\nupon hearing of their proceedings, would probably dissolve the\nparliament in displeasure. Mr. Hyde perceived the injurious tendency of\nsuch a measure, and immediately went from the house to Archbishop Laud,\nto entreat him to dissuade the King from so injudicious a course. The\nArchbishop heard him as usual with patience, but refused to interfere:\nand the Parliament was dissolved in less than three weeks after its\nfirst meeting.\n\nThe necessities of the King compelled him to call the Long Parliament in\nthe following November, of which Mr. Hyde was also a member. The\nelections having in general favoured the popular party, the temper of\nthis parliament was at its commencement decidedly more opposed to the\ncourt than the last. At first, Mr. Hyde, whose familiarity with Laud was\nwell known, was an object of jealousy and dislike. His conduct as\nchairman of the committee appointed to consider the abuses of the Earl\nMarshal\u2019s Court, which led to the total abolition of that unauthorized\njurisdiction, and his avowed disapprobation of several obnoxious\nbranches of the prerogative, restored him in some degree to the good\nopinion of the house, while his influence with the moderate party, both\nin the court and the parliament, daily increased. Having given up his\nprofessional practice since the beginning of the parliament, he was much\nemployed in the ordinary business of the house. He was chairman of the\ncommittee appointed to inquire into the legality and expediency of the\ncourts of the President and Council of the North, commonly called the\nCourts of York; and in April, 1641, he was commissioned to communicate\nto the House of Lords the resolutions of the Commons against those\ncourts. The performance of this duty he accompanied by a speech, in\nwhich he explained to the Lords, with much clearness and precision, the\norigin and nature of this obnoxious jurisdiction, and which he says in\nhis History, \u201cmet with good approbation in both houses.\u201d In July\nfollowing he was chairman of the committee for inquiring into the\nconduct of the judges in the case of ship-money; and the management of\nthe impeachment of the Lord Chief Baron Davenport, Baron Weston, and\nBaron Trevor, before the Lords, was afterwards entrusted to him. Upon\nthis occasion, he delivered an excellent speech, exhibiting, in eloquent\nlanguage, the destructive effects of the corruption of the judges upon\nthe liberty of the subject and the security of property. During the same\nyear, he appears from the Commons\u2019 journals to have been usually named\non the most important committees both of a public and private nature.\n\nThe course adopted by Mr. Hyde with reference to the Earl of Strafford\u2019s\nprosecution cannot be precisely ascertained. That he was employed in\narranging the preliminary steps for the impeachment, appears from the\njournals; but in his History he does not explicitly declare what part he\ntook upon the introduction of the bill of attainder. Some of his\nbiographers state that he warmly opposed it; but no evidence is given in\nsupport of the assertion; and it is quite clear that neither his name,\nnor that of Lord Falkland, his political and personal friend, appear\namongst those which were posted as \u201cStraffordians, Betrayers of their\nCountry,\u201d for having voted against the measure. Though he cordially\nacquiesced in many of the measures at this time introduced by the\npopular leaders for the redress of grievances, his political opinions,\nas well as his ultimate views and intentions, differed widely from those\nof the predominant party. He strenuously opposed a bill for depriving\nthe bishops of their seats in parliament, which passed the House of\nCommons, though it was rejected in the House of Lords by a great\nmajority. In no degree discouraged by this discomfiture, the leaders of\nthe Puritan party soon afterwards introduced a measure for the total\nabolition of episcopacy, known by the title of \u2018The Root and Branch\nBill,\u2019 which was read a first time and committed. Mr. Hyde was appointed\nchairman of the committee, by common consent of both parties; the one\nwishing to get rid of his opposition in the committee, the other to\nsecure a chairman of their own views. The result proved the latter party\nto be in the right; for Hyde contrived so to baffle the promoters of the\nmeasure, that they at last thought proper to withdraw it, Sir Arthur\nHaselrig declaring in the house, that \u201che would never hereafter put an\nenemy into the chair.\u201d His conduct respecting this measure was warmly\napproved by the King; who before he went to Scotland in 1641, sent for\nMr. Hyde, to express how much he was beholden to him for his services,\n\u201cfor which he thought fit to give him his own thanks, and to assure him\nthat he would remember it to his advantage.\u201d\n\nBefore the King left Whitehall, in consequence of the tumults occasioned\nby his indiscretion in demanding the Five Members, he charged Mr. Hyde,\nin conjunction with Lord Falkland and Sir John Colepeper, to consult\nconstantly together upon the state of affairs in his absence, and to\ngive him on every occasion their unreserved advice, without which he\ndeclared solemnly that he would take no step in the parliament. Though\nmuch discouraged by the previous conduct of the King respecting the Five\nMembers, which he had adopted without consulting them, and entirely\nagainst their judgment, they undertook and faithfully executed the\ncharge imposed upon them; and after the King had left London, they met\nevery night at Mr. Hyde\u2019s house in Westminster, to communicate to each\nother their several intelligences and observations, and to make such\narrangements as they thought best adapted to stay the falling fortunes\nof the royal cause.\n\nMr. Hyde\u2019s good understanding with the leaders of the popular party had\nrapidly declined, since his opposition to the proposed measure for\nejecting the bishops from the House of Lords; and after his conduct in\nthe committee for abolishing episcopacy he was regarded as a declared\nenemy, and his nightly consultations with Falkland and Colepeper were\nwatched with the utmost jealousy. Though his situation at this time was\none of considerable danger, he remained at his post after the King\u2019s\ndeparture to York, and constantly took his seat in the House of Commons.\nAbout the latter end of April, 1642, Mr. Hyde received a letter from the\nKing, requiring him immediately to repair to him at York; with which\nrequisition he complied in the course of the next month, having first\nrendered a signal service to the royal cause by persuading the Lord\nKeeper Littleton to send the Great Seal and also to go himself to the\nKing. In consequence of this step the House of Commons passed a\nresolution, in August, 1642, disabling him from sitting again in that\nparliament; and their indignation was raised to such a degree, that Mr.\nHyde was one of the few persons who were excepted from the pardon which\nthe Earl of Essex was afterwards instructed to offer to those who might\nbe induced to leave the King and submit to the parliament. On joining\nthe King at York, Mr. Hyde continued to be one of his most confidential\nadvisers, and was soon afterwards knighted and made Chancellor of the\nExchequer. In this capacity he negotiated with the parliamentary\ncommissioners sent to Oxford in 1643; and in 1645 he acted as one of the\nKing\u2019s commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge. After the breaking off\nof that treaty it was thought expedient to send the Prince of Wales into\nthe west of England, both to secure his person from the dangers with\nwhich his father was environed, and to give encouragement to the\nRoyalists in that part of the country. Sir Edward Hyde accompanied him\nas one of his council. The parliamentary successes in the west compelled\nthe Prince to migrate, first to Scilly, thence to Jersey, from which\nplace he departed into France in July, 1646. Hyde remained in Jersey for\nthe space of two years, devoting himself wholly to his History of the\nRebellion, which he had commenced in the Scilly Islands, and of which he\ncompleted the four first books at that time. While engaged in this\nmanner, he received several letters from the King, expressive of his\napprobation of his undertaking, and supplying him with a particular\nrelation of the occurrences which had taken place from the departure of\nthe Prince until the period of his joining the Scotch army.\n\nIn May, 1648, Hyde received the King\u2019s commands to join the Prince of\nWales at Paris. On the way thither, he met Lord Cottington and others at\nRouen, where he learned that the Prince was gone to Holland, and was\nordered to follow him. After many difficulties and dangers, Cottington\nand Hyde met their young master at the Hague in the month of August, and\nwere soon afterwards joined by several other members of the King\u2019s\ncouncil.\n\nOn the announcement of the execution of his father, Charles despatched\nSir Edward Hyde and Lord Cottington as his ambassadors to Spain. After a\nfruitless negotiation of fifteen months, they received a message from\ncourt shortly after the arrival of the news of Cromwell\u2019s victory at\nDunbar, desiring them to quit the Spanish dominions. Hyde then repaired\nto Antwerp, where he resided with his wife and family, until, at the end\nof 1651, he was summoned to Paris, to meet Charles II., after his\nmemorable escape from the battle of Worcester. He resided at Paris with\nthe exiled court for nearly three years, and during this period enjoyed\nthe unlimited confidence of his master, who left the arduous and\ndifficult task of corresponding and negotiating with the English\nroyalists entirely to his management. At this period the exiled\nroyalists were frequently reduced to great pecuniary distress. The\nmiserable dissensions and petty jealousies which prevailed among them\nare fully described in the History of the Rebellion. At length Charles,\nwearied and disgusted by the intrigues and broils which perpetually\ndisturbed his council, while subject to the interference of the Queen\nMother, determined to leave Paris; and accordingly he quitted that city\nin June, 1654, and went to reside at Cologne, Sir Edward Hyde and the\nrest of his court still following his humble fortunes. Upon the\nexecution of the treaty with Spain, Charles removed from Cologne to\nBruges in 1657, and in the course of that year bestowed upon Sir Edward\nHyde the then empty dignity of Lord High Chancellor of England. Soon\nafter this event the prospects of the Royalists began to brighten. The\ngovernment of Cromwell had been for some time growing infirm, in\nconsequence of domestic dissensions, the exhausted state of the revenue,\nand the distrust entertained towards the Protector, who had successively\ndeceived and disappointed all parties. These seeds of discord were\nsedulously cultivated by the English royalists; and at last the death of\nthat extraordinary man led to a series of events which introduced the\nrestoration of Charles II.\n\nAt the Restoration Sir Edward Hyde was continued as Lord Chancellor; and\nnotwithstanding the constant hostility of the Queen Mother and her\nfaction at court, he maintained for some time a paramount influence with\nthe King, who treated him with the confidence and friendship which his\ngreat industry and talents for business, and his faithful attachment to\nhimself and his father so well deserved. In November, 1660, he was\nraised to the peerage, by the title of Baron Hyde of Hindon in the\ncounty of Wilts, and in the spring of the following year he was created\nViscount Cornbury and Earl of Clarendon. He was also about this time\nelected Chancellor of the University of Oxford. Among the tribes of\nexpectant cavaliers who now flocked to the court of the restored\nmonarch, all impatient to obtain something in recompense for their\nalleged services and sufferings in the royal cause, these honours and\ndistinctions bestowed upon the Earl of Clarendon raised a storm of envy\nand malice which eventually caused his ruin. The King\u2019s easiness of\naccess, and, as Lord Clarendon calls it, that \u201c_imbecillitas frontis_,\nwhich kept him from denying,\u201d together with the moral cowardice which\ninduced him to escape from the most troublesome importunities, by\nsending petitioners to the Chancellor for their answers, necessarily\nincreased the dislike with which he was regarded. The discovery of the\nmarriage of his daughter to the Duke of York, afterwards James II.,\nthough it probably took place without the knowledge of the Chancellor,\ngave ample opportunity to the malice of his enemies. The King, however,\nbehaved on this occasion in a manner which did him credit. He not only\nrequired the Duke to acknowledge his wife, on being certified that the\nceremony had been duly performed, but refused with passion the proffered\nresignation of the Chancellor, who offered to reside in future beyond\nseas, and conjured him \u201cnever more to think of those unreasonable\nthings, but to attend and prosecute his business with his usual\nalacrity, since his kindness should never fail him.\u201d\n\nThe first open act of hostility against Lord Clarendon was undertaken by\nthe Earl of Bristol, who, in 1663, exhibited articles of high treason\nand other misdemeanors against him in the House of Lords. These\narticles, which contained a great variety of vague and inconsistent\ncharges, were forwarded by the House of Lords to the King, who informed\nthem, that \u201che found several matters of fact charged, which upon his own\ncertain knowledge were untrue; and that the articles contained many\nscandalous reflections upon himself and his family, which he looked upon\nas libels against his person and government.\u201d Upon a reference by the\nHouse of Lords to the judges, they reported that \u201cthe whole charge did\nnot amount to treason though it were all true;\u201d and upon this the\nproceedings were abandoned.\n\nBut it was at last the fate of Lord Clarendon to experience the\nproverbial ingratitude of princes. From the period of the Restoration a\npowerful union of discontented parties had gradually combined against\nhim. All hated him\u2014the old cavaliers, because they thought he neglected\ntheir just claims upon the bounty of the King; the papists and the\ndissenters, because they found him an uncompromising opponent of all\nconcessions to those whom he regarded as enemies of the established\nchurch; the licentious adherents of an unprincipled court, because his\nhonest endeavours to withdraw the King from his levity and profligacy to\nserious considerations, thwarted their intentions and interrupted their\npleasures. Their united efforts erased from Charles\u2019s mind the\nrecollection of services of no common value, and caused him to abandon\nhis best and most faithful counsellor, without having even the\nappearance of a reason for his conduct, beyond what he called \u201cthe\nChancellor\u2019s intolerable temper.\u201d\n\nThe Great Seal was taken from Lord Clarendon in August, 1667; and in the\nmonth of November following, after an angry debate, he was impeached by\nthe Commons, in general terms, of high treason and other crimes and\nmisdemeanors; but the Lords, upon the impeachment being carried up,\nrefused to commit him, or to sequester him from parliament, on the\nground of the generality of the charge. Before the formal articles of\nimpeachment were prepared, Lord Clarendon left England, in consequence\nof repeated messages from the King advising him to take that course,\nhaving previously addressed to the Lords a vindication of his conduct.\nImmediately after his departure a bill was introduced into the House of\nLords, and rapidly passed, by which he was condemned to perpetual\nbanishment, and declared to be for ever incapable of bearing any public\noffice or employment in England.\n\nThe charges made against Lord Clarendon at this time were scarcely less\nmultifarious and inconsistent than those which were instituted by Lord\nBristol a few years before. He was accused of designing to govern by a\nstanding army,\u2014of accusing the King of popery,\u2014of receiving bribes for\npatents,\u2014of selling offices,\u2014of _acquiring a greater estate than he\ncould lawfully have gained in a short time_,\u2014of advising the sale of\nDunkirk to the French,\u2014of causing Quo Warrantos to be issued against\ncorporations in order that he might receive fines on renewals of\ncharters, and many other particulars of alleged corruption. From most of\nthese accusations Lord Clarendon vindicated himself in an address\ndelivered to the House of Lords upon his departure; but during his\nretirement at Montpellier, he prepared, and transmitted to his children\nin England a fuller apology, in which he answered each article of the\ncharges objected to him by the Commons.\n\nAfter some hesitation, Lord Clarendon determined to reside at\nMontpellier, where he arrived in July, 1668. He was treated with much\ncourtesy and respect by the governor of the city, as well as the French\nand English inhabitants of all ranks. His first task was to write the\nvindication of his conduct above-mentioned. During his retirement he\nmade himself master of French and Italian, and read the works of the\nmost eminent writers in both those languages. He also completed his\nHistory of the Rebellion, and wrote an answer to Hobbes\u2019s Leviathan, an\nHistorical Discourse on Papal Jurisdiction, a volume of Essays, divine,\nmoral, and political, and also those fragments of his Life, which were\nfirst published by the University of Oxford in 1759. Engaged in these\npursuits he passed nearly three years at Montpellier in great\ntranquillity and cheerfulness. He left that city in 1672, and went first\nto Moulins, then to Rouen, where he died, December 9, 1673. His remains\nwere brought to England and interred in Westminster Abbey.\n\nThe political conduct of Lord Clarendon, though variously described by\nwriters of opposite parties, appears to have been generally as\nconsistent and upright as can reasonably be expected from men of warm\ntempers, deeply interested in the most violent civil dissensions. His\nearliest impressions were decidedly in favour of the popular party; and\neven after he had become familiar with Archbishop Laud, and was\nfavourably noticed by Charles I., he strenuously supported that party in\nthe removal of actual grievances, and resisted with zeal and energy the\nencroachments of prerogative. That he afterwards refused to join in the\nwild and intemperate actions committed by the Parliament, and supported\nthe royal cause against the continually increasing demands of those with\nwhom he had previously acted, is not to be ascribed to inconsistency in\nhis conduct, but to the development of designs and measures at all times\nrepugnant to his principles. His advice to Charles I. and to Laud was\nalways temperate and wise, and was given with boldness and candour.\nAfter the Restoration, in the height of his power and influence, he\ndisplayed the same moderation in his opinions and conduct, and acted\nupon the same principles of dislike to fundamental changes, which had\ninfluenced him as a member of the Long Parliament. It has been imputed\nto Lord Clarendon that he neglected to exert himself for the relief of\nthose unfortunate cavaliers whose attachment to the King had involved\nthem in penury and ruin. It is difficult to ascertain the exact truth of\nthis charge; but, whether true or false, such an accusation was sure to\nbe made in a case where the applicants for compensation were numerous,\nand the means of satisfying them inconsiderable.\n\nIn the discharge of the legal functions of his office of Lord\nChancellor, as presiding in the Court of Chancery, he was by no means\ndistinguished; he promoted some reforms in the practice of his court,\nand continued the judicious improvements effected during the\nCommonwealth; but Evelyn says \u201che was no considerable lawyer,\u201d and the\ncircumstance that he never decided a case without requiring the presence\nof two judges is, if true, a sufficient acknowledgment of his judicial\nincompetency.\n\nFor his judicial appointments Lord Clarendon is entitled to unqualified\npraise. Hale, Bridgeman, and other judges of the highest eminence for\nlearning and independence, were appointed by him immediately after the\nRestoration, and contributed in a great degree to give stability and\nmoral strength to the new government, by the confidence which their\ncharacters inspired in the due administration of the law.\n\nAs an historian Lord Clarendon was unquestionably careless and inexact\nto a surprising degree, which may in some measure be excused by the\nnecessity of writing very much from recollection; and he was a perpetual\nadvocate and partisan of the Royal cause, though by no means of most of\nits supporters. But though his narration constantly betrays the bias of\nparty, and cannot therefore be safely relied upon for our historical\nconclusions, his misrepresentations arise from the avowed partiality and\nintense concern he feels for the cause he is advocating, and not from\nany design to suppress or distort facts. His style is luxuriant and\nundisciplined, and his expression in the narrative parts of his history\nis diffuse and inaccurate; but his fervent loyalty and the warmth of his\nattachment to his political friends have infused a richness of eloquence\ninto his delineations of character, which has perhaps never been\nsurpassed in any language.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n [Medal of Clarendon.]                    [Medal in Commemoration of the\n                                                           Restoration.]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by J. Posselwhite._\n\n  SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS.\n\n  _From a Picture by himself in his Majesty\u2019s Collection._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                            SIR J. REYNOLDS.\n\n\n\u201cSir Joshua Reynolds,\u201d says Burke, \u201cwas the first Englishman who added\nthe praise of the elegant arts to the other glories of his country.\u201d\nWithout staying to inquire how far the literal truth of this assertion\nmay be affected by the priority in date of Wilson and Hogarth, not to\nmention their less illustrious predecessors, it may safely be affirmed,\nnot only that Reynolds was the founder of the English school, but that\nthe most valuable qualities in the art of painting were almost lost\nsight of throughout Europe when he began his career. In Holland, the\nrich manner of Rembrandt, feebly sustained by his imitators, had been\nsucceeded by no less opposite a style than that of Vanderwerf; the still\nmore laboured finish of Denner, a native of Hamburgh, followed; while\nthe minute perfection which was in vogue found a more legitimate\napplication in the flower-pieces of Van Huysum. Reynolds was twenty-four\nyears old at the decease of Denner, who had twice visited London, and\nhad been much employed there. The French school about the middle of the\nlast century took its tone from Boucher, a name now almost forgotten,\nand if remembered, synonymous with the extreme of affectation; he was\nprincipal painter to Louis XV. The native country of Claude and Poussin\nwas indeed more illustrious during this time in the department of\nlandscape, as Vernet produced his views of sea-ports about the period\nalluded to; but this example, however respectable, was itself indicative\nof a declining taste, and the style of view-painting in the hands of the\nforeign artists who practised it in Italy, with the Prussian Hackert at\ntheir head, had the effect of extinguishing for a time all invention in\nlandscape. The academy at Berlin was under the direction of a Frenchman;\nOeser was the greatest name at Leipzic and Dresden; and the south of\nGermany still imported imitations of the latest Italian styles in\nfashion. The state of the arts in Spain may be judged of by the fact,\nthat when, in 1761, Mengs, who was himself a native of Germany, repaired\nto Madrid in the service of Charles III., the chief painters established\nthere were a Venetian and a Neapolitan, Tiepolo and Corrado Giaquinto.\nThe Venetian school, sometimes entirely losing its original character,\nseemed at least to maintain a consistent degeneracy in the styles of\nSebastian Ricci and the above-named Giambattista Tiepolo, both weak and\nmannered imitators of Paul Veronese, but still preserving, at least the\nlatter, some brilliancy of colour and pleasing execution. With Tiepolo\nthe characteristic merits of the school seem however to have ceased\naltogether: towards the latter part of the century, the chief employment\nof the Venetian painters was the restoration of old pictures.[2] A\nparticular school was established in 1778 for this purpose, and a\ndescription of the extraordinary labours of the artists is preserved in\nthe thirty-eighth volume of Go\u00ebthe\u2019s works. In Rome, the talents of\nMaratta and Sacchi, and \u201cthe great but abused powers of Pietro da\nCortona,\u201d had been succeeded by feebler efforts, descending or\nfluctuating through the styles of Cignani, Trevisani, and others, till\nthe time of Sebastian Conca, and Pompeo Battoni. The last-named was\napproaching the zenith of his short-lived reputation, and almost without\na rival (for Mengs was as yet young, and Conca already aged), when\nReynolds visited Rome.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  It is worthy of remark that about the same time the sculptors in Rome\n  were as exclusively employed in restoring antique statues.\n\nLaborious detail on the one hand, and empty facility on the other,\nformed the distinguishing characteristics of these different schools;\nbut however opposite in execution, mind was alike wanting in both.\nDenner may be considered the representative of the microscopic style; a\nstyle, if it deserves the name, which he applied even to heads the size\nof life; and as mere finish never was, and probably never will be\ncarried to a more absurd length, his name, though comparatively obscure,\nmarks an epoch in the art. The same scrupulous minuteness obtained about\nthe same time in landscape; among the view-painters, Hendrick Van Lint,\nsurnamed Studio, may be named as the most remarkable of his class.\nReynolds alludes to him in one of his discourses, as noted, when he knew\nhim in Rome, for copying every leaf of a tree. The opposite style, which\naimed at quantity and rapidity, was derived from the expert painters of\ngalleries and ceilings, called \u201cMachinisti,\u201d and more immediately from\nLuca Giordano. Facility and despatch, at the expense of every solid\nquality of art, were the characteristics of the school which was\nrepresented in the earlier part of Reynolds\u2019s career, principally by\nSebastian Conca in Italy, and by Corrado Giaquinto in Spain.\n\nThe changes which took place in this state of things, towards the latter\npart of the century, may be traced partly to the renewed appreciation of\nthe antique statues (a taste which, however beneficial to sculpture, had\nan unfortunate influence on the sister art), and subsequently to\npolitical circumstances. The fluctuations of taste, however deliberately\nestimated by retrospective criticism, are indeed generally the result of\naccident, and depend on causes but seldom derived from a just definition\nof the nature and object of art. It appears, however, that Reynolds,\nalone as he was, the founder rather than the follower of a school,\nenjoyed the rare privilege of making the taste of his time instead of\nbeing made by it; and although it would be absurd to suppose that he\ncould be independent of the accidents with which he was brought in\ncontact, it will not appear, upon a candid inquiry, that this great\nartist was in any respect directly influenced by the practice of his\nage.\n\nJoshua Reynolds was born at Plympton, near Plymouth, in Devonshire, July\n16, 1723; he was the son of the Rev. Samuel Reynolds, who taught the\ngrammar school of Plympton. The young artist\u2019s fondness for drawing\nmanifested itself early, and at eight years of age he had become so well\nacquainted with the \u201cJesuits\u2019 Perspective,\u201d as to apply its principles\nwith some effect in a drawing of his father\u2019s school, a building\nelevated on stone pillars. Among other books connected with art to which\nhe had access, Richardson\u2019s \u2018Treatise on Painting\u2019 had a powerful effect\nin exciting his ambition. The earliest known picture he attempted is a\nportrait of the Rev. Thomas Smart, who was the vicar of Maker, the\nparish in which Mount Edgecumbe is situated. Reynolds, then a schoolboy\nabout twelve years of age, sketched the portrait of the vicar at church,\nand afterwards copied it on canvass. This picture is now in the\npossession of John Boger, Esq., of East Stonehouse near Plymouth. The\ntaste of the young painter becoming every day more decided, his father,\nurged by the advice of some friends, placed him at the age of seventeen\nas a pupil with Hudson, who had at that time the chief business in\nportrait painting, although a very indifferent artist. In 1743 Reynolds\nreturned to Devonshire, in consequence of a disagreement with his\nmaster, and set up as a portrait painter in the town of Plymouth Dock,\nsince called Devonport. He here painted various portraits, chiefly of\nnaval officers. One of these works, containing the portraits of Mr. and\nMrs. Eliot and family, is in the possession of the Earl of St. Germains.\nThe composition of this picture, the artist\u2019s first attempt at a group,\napproaches the pyramidal form, and Reynolds, after contemplating it when\nfinished, observed, \u2018I see I must have read something about a pyramid,\nfor there it is.\u2019 Six other pictures of the artist are preserved in the\nsame collection, at Port Eliot in Cornwall. An admirable picture of a\nboy reading by a reflected light was also executed about this time. Many\ninteresting works of Reynolds, some of them belonging to his earlier\npractice, are preserved in the immediate neighbourhood of Plymouth, in\nthe collections of the Earl of Morley, Mr. Pole Carew of Antony, Mr.\nRosdew of Beechwood, Mr. Lane of Coffleet, and others. The artist\u2019s\nearly works, although sometimes carelessly drawn, are distinguished by\nbreadth of colour, by freedom of handling, and not unfrequently by great\ntruth of expression: in short, he seems to have contracted none of the\ndefects of Hudson, except, according to some of his biographers, a\ncertain stiffness and sameness in the attitudes of his portraits;\ndefects which he afterwards exchanged for such grace, spirit, and, above\nall, endless variety, that it was said \u201chis inventions will be the\nfuture grammar of portrait painters.\u201d The earliest portrait he painted\nof himself is in the collection of Mr. Gwatkin of Plymouth, who married\na niece of Reynolds: the same gentleman also possesses the last portrait\nof the artist by himself, together with many other interesting specimens\nof his pencil. In 1747 Reynolds repaired again to London, and took\nlodgings in St. Martin\u2019s Lane, then and long afterwards the favourite\nresidence of artists. In 1749 he sailed to the Mediterranean, by the\ninvitation, and in the company of Captain (afterwards Lord) Keppel.\nReynolds spent two months in Minorca, where he painted several portraits\nof military and naval officers, and proceeded thence, by way of Leghorn,\nto Rome.\n\nHe was fully alive to the sources of inspiration which this city of the\narts contained. In the midst of his enthusiasm, however, he was secretly\nhumiliated by discovering in himself an absence of all relish for the\ngrand works of Raffaelle in the Vatican. Richardson had inspired him\nwith the most exalted admiration of Raffaelle; and whatever may be\nsupposed, Reynolds could not be entirely unacquainted with the subjects\nand designs of the works alluded to. Indeed, in some notes of his own\nthat have been preserved, he only confesses a feeling of disappointment,\nand afterwards says, \u201cIn justice to myself, however, I must add, that\nthough disappointed and mortified at not finding myself enraptured with\nthe works of this great master, I did not for a moment conceive or\nsuppose that the name of Raffaelle, and these admirable paintings in\nparticular, owed their reputation to the ignorance and prejudice of\nmankind: on the contrary, my not relishing them, as I was conscious I\nought to have done, was one of the most humiliating circumstances that\never happened to me. I found myself in the midst of works executed upon\nprinciples with which I was unacquainted; I felt my ignorance, and stood\nabashed; all the indigested notions of painting which I had brought with\nme from England, where art was in the lowest state it had ever been in\n(indeed it could not be lower), were to be totally done away and\neradicated from my mind.\u201d The union of candour and docility with good\nsense, which the above account evinces, was the means of emancipating\nReynolds from the taste or fashion of the day. Instead of enrolling\nhimself among the scholars of Pompeo Battoni, as he was strongly\nrecommended to do before his departure from England by his kind patron\nLord Edgecumbe, he endeavoured during the practice of his art to\npenetrate the principles on which the great works around him,\nparticularly those of Michael Angelo and Raffaelle, were produced. His\ngeneral theory will be found embodied in his writings, and if his\nprinciples sometimes appear to be pushed too far, we may perhaps\nattribute it to the wish to counteract certain prevailing errors among\nhis contemporaries. It is a general notion that, considering the\ndifference in style between the paintings of Reynolds and those of the\ngreat models he professes to admire (Michael Angelo received his more\nespecial homage), he could not have been sincere in acknowledging so\nthorough a conviction of their excellence. To decide fairly on this\ndifficult and often-discussed point, it is necessary to remember the\nstate of the arts when Reynolds formed his style. The great vice of the\nage was a routine practice, seldom informed by any reference to the\ngeneral nature of the art, and as little remarkable for a just\ndiscrimination of its various styles. In such a state of things it\ncannot excite surprise that a sagacious and unprejudiced mind, in\nendeavouring to retrace the leading principles of the art, should at the\nsame time see the necessity of modifying them in their application to a\nparticular, and in some respects a limited, department. As portrait\npainting, the imitation of individuals, was to be Reynolds\u2019s chief\noccupation, it certainly did not occur to him that the abstract\nrepresentations of Michael Angelo, or even of Raffaelle, could be fit\nmodels for him to follow, as far as execution was concerned. He saw\nhowever that these masters were probably right even in this respect,\nwhen the dignity and purity of their aim, and when subject, place, and\ndimensions are duly considered. His imitation of them therefore began\nwhen he endeavoured to define the end and object of the particular style\nof art which he himself professed; and although he soon concluded that\nit required a widely different treatment, he failed not to translate, if\nwe may so say, the causes of the grandeur he admired into the language\nwhich belonged to his own department. What he considered the distinctive\nand desirable requisites of portrait painting to consist in, may be best\nlearnt from his own works. In the first place, the more delicate\nrefinements of colouring and chiaro-scuro, by no means essential in the\ngrander and more abstract department of the art, are indispensable where\nthe imitation is confined to a single and generally a defective person.\nIt is thus that Rembrandt made up the _sum_ of beauty by the\nfascinations of gradation and contrast, while the forms he had to deal\nwith were often of the most ordinary description. The just imitation of\nthe colour of flesh, the most beautiful and at the same time the most\nnameless hue in nature, has ever been considered the triumph of\nimitative art, and confers value and dignity on the _work_ wherever it\nis fully accomplished. Again, it must be remembered that the domain of\nexpression begins with the accidents of form; that it belongs to and\noften recommends individuality and redeems deformity; and that its vivid\ninterest is to be sought less in the abstract personifications of\nMichael Angelo, far less in the higher region of beauty which the Greeks\njustly placed above the atmosphere of the passions, than in the\nvarieties of accidental nature. Reynolds seized on the delicacies of\nexpression as strictly harmonizing with the individual forms he had to\ncopy: and, while thus adding a charm to his class of art, he became at\nthe same time the abler portrait painter; for the character and\nexpression of the individual are the chief points which are demanded.\nLastly, the conduct and execution of his pictures were in strict\nconformity with the same principles, and may be said to have been\ndictated by the largest view of the nature and means of the art.\n\nIn his works the attention is always attracted by the important objects,\nor diverted from them, when diverted, only to conceal the artifice which\nthus commands the eye of the spectator. It is evident that the general\ndegree of completeness will depend on that of the principal object; and\nassuming that Reynolds\u2019s style of painting a head was sufficiently\nelaborate (it is generally less so than Vandyck\u2019s), the _unfinish_ of\nthe accessories could hardly be otherwise than it is, consistently with\ndue subordination. The truth of this consistency of style was ultimately\nacknowledged, and although so opposite from what had before been in\nfashion, and so different in many respects from what the vulgar admire,\nthe pictures of Reynolds soon won the favour of the public. If the\nadmiration of his works had any ill effect, it was that it tended to\nproduce an imitation of the same mode rather than of the same\nconsistency.\n\nOn his return to England in 1752, which has been somewhat anticipated in\nthe foregoing remarks on his style, Reynolds repaired to his native\ncounty, and painted one or two pictures at Plymouth: perhaps the\nearliest of the fine portraits of Mr. Zachary Mudge, Vicar of St.\nAndrews, was one of these. He returned to London accompanied by his\nsister Frances. For a short time he again occupied lodgings in St.\nMartin\u2019s Lane, and produced there the portrait of Giuseppe Marchi, an\nItalian whom he had brought home as an assistant. This picture, which\nwas in the style of Rembrandt, attracted general admiration; and when\nhis former master Hudson saw it, he exclaimed, stung with jealousy,\n\u201cReynolds, you don\u2019t paint so well as when you left England!\u201d Soon after\nthis, in consequence of his increased fame and employment, Reynolds took\na house in Great Newport Street, where he resided for some years. The\nwhole length portrait of Admiral Keppel was the next work of importance\nwhich he produced: it exhibited such powers that it completely\nestablished the fame of the artist, and he was generally acknowledged to\nbe the greatest painter England had seen since the time of Vandyck. From\nthis period his career was one of uninterrupted success and improvement;\nfor his reputation was never greater than at the close of his laborious\nlife. The detraction which such extraordinary merit soon excited was\ncompelled to vent itself in attempting to undervalue the department of\nart in which he excelled: in consequence of these insinuations, a\ndefence of portrait painting, from the pen of Dr. Johnson, appeared in\nthe forty-fifth number of the Idler. Johnson in that essay, after all,\nonly proved that portrait painting is interesting to a _few_\u2014that in the\nhands of Reynolds it was \u201cemployed in diffusing friendship, in renewing\ntenderness, in quickening the affections of the absent, and continuing\nthe presence of the dead.\u201d Reynolds himself, however, without forgetting\nthese important prerogatives, evidently took a more extended view of the\nmatter; he seems early to have felt that the chief difficulty of\nportrait painting (a difficulty perhaps greater than any in the other\nbranches of art) is to make the representation _generally_ interesting.\nIt is quite obvious that this end can only be attained (especially as\nbeauty of form is not always at command) by a high degree of perfection\nin all that constitutes the charm of art; for no interest that attaches\nitself to the individual pourtrayed, however celebrated, can be so\nuniversal or so independently intelligible as that which arises from a\nlarge and true imitation of nature, to which all are more or less alive.\nThe perfection of art as applicable to portrait painting, was therefore\nReynolds\u2019s great object, and it was only in subservience to this that he\nventured to introduce what in his hands might be considered a novelty in\nthis department. That novelty was the historic air he often gave his\nportraits, by happy allusions to some important circumstance in the life\nof the individual. His consummate knowledge of effect enabled him to do\nthis by means which never interfere with the mere portrait, a difficulty\nwhich had been in a great measure evaded by preceding painters. It will\nbe remembered that in most of the portraits even of Titian and Vandyck\nthe attention is literally confined to the individual pourtrayed (after\nall, the subject of the picture), and it was not lightly or\ninconsiderately that Reynolds occasionally departed from this judicious\npractice. If ever a painter could depend on the mere character and\nexpression of his heads, to say nothing of the charm of their execution,\nReynolds undoubtedly would have been secure of the public approbation on\nthose grounds alone; and it was only where historic interest happened to\ncoincide or to interfere but little with picturesque effect, that he\nventured on the additions alluded to. A better instance perhaps cannot\nbe given than the portrait of Lord Heathfield (celebrated for his\ndefence of Gibraltar), in the National Gallery; in the background of\nwhich a cannon pointed downwards indicates, by its angle of depression,\nthe elevation of the spot where the veteran stands, grasping the keys of\nthe fortress which he defended so bravely. In his allegorical portraits,\nsuch as Garrick between Tragedy and Comedy, Mrs. Siddons as the Tragic\nMuse, &c., Reynolds encountered a much greater difficulty, and it may be\nquestioned whether any painter who has yet appeared would have succeeded\nbetter. The mixture of real and imaginary beings, of individual and\nabstract personifications, the treatment of which would seem to require\nso different a style, was so managed by Reynolds as to satisfy, in this\nrespect, the most fastidious taste. The secret of the greatness of his\nstyle in these subjects, and indeed in most of his portraits, is to be\nsought in his colouring, the idea of which is large and general; and\nunder its dignified influence the individuality of forms and locality of\ndress are rendered with all sufficient fidelity without offending. It is\nthus we find in many Venetian, Flemish, and Dutch pictures, where the\nsubject and forms are most homely, an air of refined taste, and even of\ngrandeur, which seems unaccountable, till we discover that the colouring\nis true to the largest idea of nature; and thus, to a certain extent,\nthe art is raised by raising its characteristic quality. In short, to\nreturn to the question of his imitation of Michael Angelo, we should\nfind that, keeping the main requisites and attainable excellences of\nportrait painting in view, Reynolds contrived to infuse into it as much\nelevation as was calculated to improve it without injuring its\ncharacter; and when we find that he applied this even to execution, and\nthat his breadth of manner, his disdain of non-essentials, is evidently\ninspired by the same feeling, we shall no longer wonder at his\nadmiration of the highest style of art, or doubt the sincerity of his\nrecorded professions on the subject. The very _indirectness_ of his\nimitation, in which the whole mystery lies, so sure a proof of his\nhaving penetrated the principle of the great master, establishes his\nclaim to originality as well as to consummate judgment and taste.\n\nIn 1768 the Royal Academy was instituted, and Mr. Reynolds, holding\nunquestionably the first rank in his profession, was elected President.\nOn his elevation to this office he received the honour of knighthood. As\nPresident he delivered to the students and professors those celebrated\ndiscourses, which have reflected so much lustre on his name. Their\nexcellence in a theoretical point of view, the elegance of their\ncomposition, and on the other hand the apparent contradictions they\nsometimes contain, have been the theme of frequent observation and\ndiscussion. The other writings of Sir Joshua are the \u2018Tour to Flanders\nand Holland,\u2019 consisting of notes on the paintings seen by him in those\ncountries in the year 1781; \u2018Notes on Du Fresnoy\u2019s Poem;\u2019 and three\npapers in the Idler. Among the last, the Essay on Beauty was not so\noriginal as is generally supposed, the same theory having been\npreviously promulgated by the P\u00e8re Buffier in his \u2018Cours des Sciences\npar des principes nouveaux. Paris, 1732.\u2019 Among the historical and\nmythological pictures produced by Sir Joshua, that of the Infant\nHercules strangling the Serpents, executed in 1786 for the Empress of\nRussia, is one of the most considerable: it is pretty closely copied, as\nto invention and composition, from a description of an antique painting\nof the same subject in Philostratus. This work, so different from the\ntaste of the Russian painters and connoisseurs, was long treated with\nneglect; but in consequence of the enquiries of English travellers it\nhas lately been cleaned, and placed in the gallery of the Hermitage. It\nis said to be in a fine state of preservation, and one of the best works\nof Reynolds. The celebrated picture of Ugolino was produced by an\naccidental circumstance. The subject was suggested to Sir Joshua by\nGoldsmith, or, according to others, by Burke, who was struck with the\nexpression of an old emaciated head, among the unfinished studies of the\npainter, and observed that it corresponded exactly with Dante\u2019s\ndescription of Count Ugolino. The head was inserted in a larger canvas,\nand the rest of the composition added. For the Shakspeare Gallery Sir\nJoshua painted three pictures,\u2014the Death of Cardinal Beaufort, the\nCauldron Scene in Macbeth, and Puck from Midsummer Night\u2019s Dream. The\ndesigns for the window of the New College Chapel in Oxford are among the\nfinest of his sacred compositions.\n\nIn 1789, finding his eyesight begin to fail, Sir Joshua was compelled to\ngive up the practice of his art. In December, 1790, he pronounced his\nfarewell Address at the Royal Academy, and on that occasion repeated and\nconfirmed, as with his dying voice, his admiration of Michael Angelo.\nHis infirmities confined him much during the short remaining portion of\nhis life, and he died at his house in Leicester Fields, February 23,\n1792. He was buried in the crypt of the cathedral of St. Paul, near the\ntomb of Sir Christopher Wren. The honours of his funeral, as may be\nimagined, corresponded with his justly-earned fame; and the day after\nhis death a well-known eulogium by Burke appeared in the public papers,\nso characteristic both of the writer and the great artist to whose\nmemory it was dedicated, that it was called the panegyric of Apelles,\npronounced by Pericles. It concludes thus:\u2014\u201cHis talents of every kind,\npowerful from nature, and not meanly cultivated by letters, his social\nvirtues in all the relations and all the habitudes of life, rendered him\nthe centre of a very great and unparalleled variety of agreeable\nsocieties, which will be dissipated by his death. He had too much merit\nnot to excite some jealousy, too much innocence to provoke any enmity.\nThe loss of no man of his time can be felt with more sincere, general,\nand unmixed sorrow.\u201d\n\nFor a list of the pictures of Sir Joshua Reynolds, and ample details of\nhis life, the memoir of him by Northcote, who had been his scholar, may\nbe consulted; as well as the accounts prefixed to the various editions\nof his literary works; and that by Allan Cunningham, in his Lives of the\nmost eminent British Painters, Sculptors, and Architects.\n\n[Illustration: [Sketch for the picture of Mr. Eliot and his family.]]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by B. Holl._\n\n  SWIFT.\n\n  _From the Picture in the Bodleian Library, Oxford._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 SWIFT.\n\n\nJonathan Swift, by an account in his own handwriting, was the son of an\nattorney in the city of Dublin. He was born in 1667. Some doubt has been\nfelt concerning his origin, in consequence of his own angry or\ncapricious declaration, when out of humour with Ireland,\u2014\u201cI am not of\nthis vile country; I am an Englishman;\u201d and Sir William Temple has been\nsaid to be his real father. This piece of scandal, however, is disproved\nby circumstances of time and place. Swift was placed at Trinity College,\nDublin, at the age of fourteen. Whether through idleness, or contempt of\nthe prescribed studies, at the end of four years he could only obtain\nhis Bachelor\u2019s degree _speciali grati\u00e2_; a term denoting want of merit.\nThis disgrace so affected him, that for the following seven years he\nstudied eight hours a day. In 1688 Sir William Temple, whose lady was\nrelated to Swift\u2019s mother, took him under his protection, and paid the\nexpenses of his residence at Oxford for a Master\u2019s degree. On quitting\nthat University, Swift lived with Temple as his domestic companion. To a\nlong illness contracted during this period in consequence of a surfeit\nhe ascribed that frequently recurring giddiness which annoyed him\nthrough life, and sent him to the grave deprived of reason.\n\nWhile under Sir William Temple\u2019s roof, Swift rendered material\nassistance in the revision of his patron\u2019s works, and corrected and\nimproved his own \u2018Tale of a Tub,\u2019 which had been sketched out previously\nto his quitting Dublin. It was published in 1704. He never avowed\nhimself its author; but he did not deny it when Archbishop Sharpe and\nthe Duchess of Somerset, according to some accounts, showed it to Queen\nAnne, and thereby debarred him from a bishopric. From Temple\u2019s\nconversation Swift much increased his political knowledge; and his early\nimpressions were naturally in favour of the Whigs: but he suspected his\npatron of neglecting to provide for him, from a desire of retaining his\nservices. This produced a quarrel, and the friends parted in 1694. Swift\ntook orders, and obtained a prebend in the north of Ireland; but at\nTemple\u2019s earnest request he soon resigned that preferment, and returned\nto England. A sincere reconciliation took place, and they lived together\nin the utmost harmony till Sir William\u2019s death in 1699. Swift, in\ntestimony of his esteem, wrote \u2018The Battle of the Books,\u2019 of which his\nfriend is the hero; and Temple by his will left him a legacy in money,\nand the profit as well as care of his posthumous works. Swift had\nindulged hopes, not without good reason, of being well provided for in\nthe English church, through Temple\u2019s interest. Failing in these hopes,\nhe accepted the post of private secretary and chaplain to the Earl of\nBerkeley, on the appointment of that nobleman to be one of the Lords\nJustices of Ireland. By this new patron he seems to have been ill used.\nHe was soon displaced from his post, on the plea of its unfitness for a\nclergyman. He was then promised the rich deanery of Derry; but that\npreferment was bestowed on another person, and Swift could only procure\nthe livings of Laracor and Rathbeggin, which together did not amount to\nmore than half the value of the deanery. During his residence at\nLaracor, he performed the duties of a parish priest with punctuality and\ndevotion, notwithstanding some occasional sallies of no very decorous or\nwell-timed humour, which coupled with the suspicions founded on the\nanonymous \u2018Tale of a Tub,\u2019 fixed on him an imputation of insincerity in\nhis Christian profession, from which the opinion of posterity seems to\nhave absolved him.\n\nDuring his incumbency at Laracor, he invited to Ireland a lady with whom\nhe became acquainted while with Sir William Temple. She was the daughter\nof Temple\u2019s steward, whose name was Johnson. About the year 1701, at the\nage of eighteen, she went to Ireland, to reside near Swift, accompanied\nby Mrs. Dingley, a lady fifteen years older than herself. Miss Johnson\nwas Swift\u2019s celebrated Stella. Whether Swift\u2019s first impulse in giving\nthis invitation had a view to marriage, or the cultivation of friendship\nonly, is uncertain. His whole conduct with respect to women was most\nmysterious: apparently highly capricious, and, whatever might be its\nsecret motive, utterly unwarrantable. The reason assigned by the two\nladies for transferring their residence to Ireland was, \u201cthat the\ninterest of money was higher than in England, and provisions cheap.\u201d\nEvery possible precaution was taken to prevent scandal: Swift and Miss\nJohnson did not live together, nor were they ever known to meet except\nin presence of a third person. Owing to this scrupulous prudence, the\nlady\u2019s fame, during fifteen years, was never questioned, nor was her\nsociety avoided by the most scrupulous. In 1716 they were privately\nmarried, but with no change in their mode of life: she never lodged in\nthe Deanery, except during those fits of giddiness and approaching\nmental aberration, during which a woman, then of middle age, might\nventure without breach of decorum to nurse an elderly man.\n\nIn 1701 Swift had published his \u2018Dissensions in Athens and Rome;\u2019 his\nfirst political work, in behalf of King William and his ministers,\nagainst the violent proceedings of the House of Commons. According to\nLord Orrery, from that year to 1708 he did not write any political\npamphlet; but he made frequent journeys to England during the whole of\nQueen Anne\u2019s reign. Between 1708 and 1710 he changed his politics,\nworked hard against the Whigs among whom he had been educated, and\nplunged into political controversy, with a view to open the road to\npower for the Tories. The year 1710 produced the \u2018Examiner,\u2019 of which he\nwrote thirty-three papers. In that year commenced his acquaintance with\nHarley, who introduced him to St. John and the rest of the ministers. At\nthis period he dined every Saturday at Harley\u2019s, with the Lord Keeper,\nMr. Secretary St. John, and Lord Rivers, to the exclusion of all other\npersons. He may, therefore, be considered at this time as the\nconfidential friend of the ministry, and almost a member of their\ncabinet. The company was afterwards enlarged to sixteen, including\nSwift; all men of the first class in society. He now put forth all his\nstrength in support of the Tory party, in pamphlets, periodical papers,\nand political poems. Amidst all this political agitation, he wrote down\nthe occurrences of every day, whether consisting of conferences with\nministers, or quarrels with his own servant, in a regular journal to\nStella.\n\nIn 1712, ten days before the meeting of parliament, he published a\npamphlet, entitled \u2018The Conduct of the Allies,\u2019 to facilitate peace, on\nwhich the stability, almost the personal safety of the ministers, seemed\nto depend. He professes that this piece cost him much pains, and no\nwriter was ever more successful. A sale of eleven thousand copies in two\nmonths was in those days unprecedented: the Tory members in both houses\ndrew their arguments from it, and the resolutions of parliament were\nlittle more than a string of quotations. During that year and the next\nhe continued to exert himself with unwearied diligence. In 1713 he\ncarried to the then latest date the first sketch of the \u2018History of the\nlast four Years of Queen Anne.\u2019 Lord Bolingbroke, when called on for his\nopinion, was sincere enough to speak of it as \u201ca seasonable pamphlet for\nthe administration, but a dishonour to just history.\u201d Swift himself was\nproud of it, but professed his willingness to sacrifice it to his\nfriend\u2019s opinion. It was, however, published, but with no addition to\nthe author\u2019s fame.\n\nThe Queen is said to have intended to promote him to a bishopric; but\nthe story is involved in obscurity. That Archbishop Sharpe had dissuaded\nher from so doing by representing his belief in Christianity as\nquestionable, is not ascertained by any satisfactory evidence; but\nwhether that were so or not, Johnson\u2019s suggestion seems probable, that\nthe difficulty arose from those clerical supporters of the ministry,\n\u201cwho were not yet reconciled to the author of the \u2018Tale of a Tub,\u2019 and\nwould not, without much discontent and indignation, have borne to see\nhim installed in an English cathedral.\u201d The deanery of St. Patrick, in\nDublin, was therefore offered to him, and he accepted it. With high\npretensions to independent equality with the ministers, and a\ndisinterested support of their measures, it cannot be doubted that he\nviewed this Irish preferment as a sentence of exile, and was bitterly\ndisappointed. But his temper was too intractable to submit to play the\npart of a courtier; and it is probable that his English friends were not\nill pleased to promote him to competence and dignity at a distance. His\nfeelings are characteristically expressed in one of his letters: \u201cI use\nthe ministry like dogs, because I expect they will use me so. I never\nknew a ministry do anything for those whom they made companions of their\npleasures; but I care not.\u201d\n\nHe had indeed little reason to rejoice at first in the land where his\nlot had fallen: on his arrival in Ireland to take possession of his\ndeanery, he found the country under the strongest excitement of party\nviolence. The populace looked on him as a Jacobite, and threw stones at\nhim as he walked the streets. His chapter received him with reluctance,\nand thwarted him in whatever he proposed. Ordinary talents and firmness\nmust have sunk under such general hostility. But the revolutions of the\nDean\u2019s life were strange; and he, who began with the hatred of the Irish\nmob, lived to govern them with the authority of a despot.\n\nHe had not been in Ireland more than a fortnight when he returned to\nEngland for the purpose of attempting, but in vain, a reconciliation\nbetween the Lords Oxford and Bolingbroke. While in England, he wrote his\n\u2018Free Thoughts on the Present State of Affairs.\u2019 He was probably still\nwatching the issues of time or chance; but the Queen\u2019s death sealed his\npolitical and clerical doom, and he returned to Ireland. To the interval\nbetween 1714 and 1720 Lord Orrery ascribes \u2018Gulliver\u2019s Travels.\u2019 His\nmind was at this time much engrossed by a remarkable circumstance. He\nhad formed an intimacy in England with the family of a Dutch merchant,\nnamed Vanhomrigh. The eldest daughter, strangely enough, became\nenamoured of Swift\u2019s mind, for it could not be of a most homely person,\nnearly fifty years of age. She proposed marriage: this he declined, and\nwrote his poem of \u2018Cadenus and Vanessa\u2019 on the occasion. On her mother\u2019s\ndeath, the young lady and her sister followed him to Ireland; the\nintercourse was continued, and the proposal renewed on her part. This it\nwas absolutely necessary to decline, as the Dean was already married;\nbut he lived with Stella on the same distant footing as before, and was\nreluctant either to inflict pain, or to forego his own pleasure, by an\navowal of the insuperable obstacle. Vanessa continued to receive his\nvisits, but so guardedly as not absolutely to forfeit her good name. She\nbecame however more and more urgent; and peremptorily pressed him to\naccept or reject her as his wife. Failing to obtain a direct answer, she\naddressed a note to Miss Johnson, desiring to know whether she were\nmarried to him, or not. Stella sent this note to Swift, who in a\nparoxysm of anger rode to Vanessa\u2019s house, threw a paper containing her\nown note on the table, and quitted her without a word. This blow she did\nnot survive many weeks. She died in 1723, having first cancelled a will\nin the Dean\u2019s favour.\n\nVanessa by will ordered her correspondence with Swift to be published,\nas well as \u2018Cadenus and Vanessa,\u2019 in which he had proclaimed her\nexcellence and confessed his love. The letters were suppressed; the poem\nwas published. This, whether meant as an apology for herself, or as a\nposthumous triumph over her more successful rival, occasioned a great\nshock and distress both to Stella and the Dean. It is said that at\nlength, probably as a softening to the mortification incident to the\npublic discovery of his passion for Vanessa, he desired that Stella\nmight be publicly owned as his wife; but her health was rapidly\ndeclining. She said, perhaps petulantly, \u201cIt is too late,\u201d and insisted\nthat they should continue to live as before. To this the Dean consented,\nand allowed her to dispose of her fortune, by her own name, in public\ncharity. She died in 1727.\n\nBy Stella\u2019s death Swift\u2019s happiness was deeply affected. He became by\ndegrees more misanthropic, and ungovernable in temper; and more miserly\nin his personal habits, while at the same time he devoted to charity a\nlarge part, it is said one-third, of his income. In 1736 his deafness\nand giddiness became alarming, and his mental powers gradually declined.\nIn 1741 his friends found it necessary that guardians should be\nappointed over his person and estate. In 1742 his reason was entirely\noverthrown; he became lethargic and, except at short intervals,\nspeechless. On the 30th of November his housekeeper told him that the\ncustomary preparations were making to celebrate his birthday: he found\nwords to answer, \u201cIt is all folly; they had better let it alone.\u201d He\ndied the latter end of October, 1745; in his seventy-eighth year. With\nthe exception of some few legacies, he left his fortune, amounting to\nabout twelve thousand pounds, to the building of an hospital for idiots\nand lunatics.\n\nThe extent and variety of Swift\u2019s writings render it necessary to\nconfine our notice to two or three of his most curious productions. Of\nthe \u2018Tale of a Tub,\u2019 which, being regarded as an attack upon all\nreligion, brought down a weight of censure on the author, against which\nhe protested in the preface to a later edition, Dr. Johnson says that\n\u201cit has little resemblance to his other pieces. It exhibits a vehemence\nand rapidity of mind, a copiousness of images, and vivacity of diction,\nsuch as he afterwards never possessed or never exerted. It is a mode so\ndistinct and peculiar, that it must be considered by itself; what is\ntrue of that is not true of anything else which he has written. In his\nother works is found an equable tenor of easy language, which rather\ntrickles than flows.\u201d\n\n\u2018Gulliver\u2019s Travels\u2019 are now probably better known to the public than\nany other of his productions. That work is a moral and political\nromance, exhibiting a wonderful specimen of irregular genius. Not only\nare human actions placed in the most unfavourable light, but human\nnature itself is libelled. His wayward temper and his ill-concealed\ndisappointment had put him out of conceit with the world; misanthropy\nhad made some inroad into his heart, and, with his pen in his hand, he\nindulged in the expression of it with affected exaggeration. But however\noffensive to good feeling the satire might be, the imagination and wit\nwhich pervade this extraordinary work will always attract some readers,\nwhile the simple, circumstantial air of truth with which such\nextravagant fictions are related is a source of amusement to less\nrefined tastes.\n\nNeither are the \u2018Drapier\u2019s Letters,\u2019 written in 1724, less remarkable,\nalthough the temporary nature of the subject has divested them of all\ninterest, except as samples of the powers of his mind and the character\nof his style. Lord Orrery calls them \u201cthose brazen monuments of his\nfame.\u201d A patent had been taken out by one Wood for a copper coinage for\nIreland, to the amount of one hundred and eighty thousand pounds in\nhalfpence and farthings, by which the projector, at least as was alleged\nby the opponents of the ministry, would have gained exorbitant profit,\nand the nation would of course have incurred proportionate loss. The\nDean, in the character of a Drapier, wrote a series of letters, exposing\nthe folly and mischief of giving gold and silver for a debased coin\nprobably not worth a third of its nominal value. He urged the people to\nrefuse this copper money; and the nation acted on the Drapier\u2019s advice.\nThe government took the alarm at this seditious resistance to the King\u2019s\npatent, and offered three hundred pounds reward for the discovery of the\nauthor of the fourth letter; but his precautions were so well taken, and\nhis popularity so universal, that, though known to be the author, the\nproclamation failed to touch him. The popular indignation rose to such a\nheight that Wood was compelled to withdraw his patent, and the base\nmoney was totally suppressed. From this time forward the Dean, who at\nhis first arrival in Ireland had been most unpopular, possessed\nunlimited influence; he was consulted on all measures of domestic\npolicy; persons of all ranks either courted or feared him; national\ngratitude was expressed by all ranks in their various ways; the Drapier\nwas a toast at every convivial meeting, and the sign of his head insured\ncustom to an ale-house.\n\nHis letters are remarkable for the pure English of their style: there is\nlittle of solid information to be derived from them; but the most\ntrifling anecdotes of distinguished men find ready acceptation with a\nlarge class of readers.\n\nAs a poet, in the higher sense of the word, we rank Swift\u2019s claims to\nhonour very humbly. But he possessed uncommon power of correct, easy,\nand familiar versification; which, with his racy vein of humour, will\nsecure him admirers among those who can pardon his offensive grossness.\n\nDelany, an Irishman to the backbone, gives the following character of\nhim: \u201cNo man ever deserved better of any country, than Swift did of his;\na steady, persevering, inflexible friend; a wise, a watchful, and a\nfaithful counsellor, under many severe trials and bitter persecutions,\nto the manifest hazard both of his liberty and fortune.\u201d With respect to\nhis conversation and private economy some particulars may be worth\nmentioning. His rule never to speak more than a minute at a time, and to\nwait for others to take up the conversation, it were well if professed\ntalkers would adopt. He excelled in telling a story, but told the same\ntoo often; an infirmity which grew on him, as it does on others, in\nadvancing life. He was churlish to his servants, but in the main a kind\nand generous master. He was unceremonious and overbearing, sometimes\nbrutal; but in company which he respected, not coarse, although his\npoliteness was in a form peculiar to himself. He considered wealth as\nthe pledge of independence; but his frugality towards the close of his\nlife amounted to avarice. As we have represented some features of his\ncharacter in no very amiable light, we will conclude with an anecdote\nwhich shows the kindly portion of his nature to advantage. In the high\ntide of his influence, he was often rallied by the ministers for never\ncoming to them without a Whig in his sleeve: whatever might have been\nhis expectations from the unsolicited gratitude of his party, he never\npressed his own claims personally; but he often solicited favours from\nLord Oxford in behalf of Addison, Congreve, Rowe, and Steele. Personal\nmerit rather than political principles directed his choice of friends.\nHis intimacy with Addison was formed when they used to meet at the\nparties of Lord Halifax or Lord Somers, who were leaders of the Whigs;\nbut it continued unabated when the Tories had gained the ascendency.\n\nSwift\u2019s works have gone through many editions in various forms. The\nlatest and best is that of Sir Walter Scott. That man must be considered\nfortunate in his biographers, of whom memoirs have been handed down,\nwith more or less detail, by Lord Orrery, Dr. Delany, Dr. Hawkesworth,\nDr. Sheridan, Dr. Johnson, and Sir W. Scott.\n\n[Illustration: [Gulliver in Lilliput, from a Design by Stothard.]]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by J. Posselwhite._\n\n  LOCKE.\n\n  _From the original Picture by Sir G. Kneller in the Hall of Christ\n    Church, Oxford._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 LOCKE.\n\n\nJohn Locke was born August 29, 1632, at Wrington, a village of\nSomersetshire, about eight miles from Bristol. He was the eldest of two\nsons of John Locke, a man of some property, who had been bred to the\nlaw, but became afterwards a captain under Cromwell. In those turbulent\ntimes he met with losses which diminished his fortune, and he left an\ninconsiderable inheritance to his son. Locke received his education at\nWestminster School, and Christ Church, Oxford. While an undergraduate he\nwas chosen to write a welcome on the occasion of a visit which Cromwell\npaid to that University, just after the conclusion of his peace with the\nDutch. This he did in a laudatory copy of verses in English and Latin,\ncomparing the great Protector to Julius for warlike, and to Augustus for\npeaceful, accomplishments. This and some Latin verses, prefixed to a\nwork of Sydenham\u2019s, are Locke\u2019s only poetical attempts. There is little\nmerit in either. He was a great admirer of the meagre verse of Sir\nRichard Blackmore, which is no great evidence of his poetical taste.\nBetween the degrees of Bachelor and Master of Arts he was elected\nStudent of his college. From that time he applied himself diligently,\nfor many years, to the study of medicine, without, however, practising\nit as a matter of gain. The weakness of his health probably gave this\nturn to his thoughts: his brother died of consumption; and he himself\nwas apprehensive through life of falling a victim to the same disease.\nIn 1664 he went abroad as secretary to Sir W. Swan, envoy to the court\nof Brandenburg; and on his return to Oxford the year following, he\napplied himself to the discovery of the effects of the air on the human\nframe. His first work, published in 1667, was a register of the\nvariations in the atmosphere, determined between certain periods by the\ncommon instruments, as a supplement to a work by Boyle.\n\nHe was amusing himself with such enquiries, when one of the slight but\nimportant accidents of life brought him an acquaintance, whose influence\ndetermined his future course. A friend, being obliged to take a journey,\ndesired Locke to make his excuses to Lord Ashley (afterwards Earl of\nShaftesbury) for not having procured for him some mineral waters against\nhis arrival in Oxford. When Lord Ashley did arrive, Locke carried this\nmessage to him. They were mutually pleased with each other, and this\nacquaintance speedily grew up into a strict friendship. Locke\u2019s advice\ndetermined Lord Ashley to submit to a surgical operation, by which, it\nis said, the life of the patient was saved; and he was received into the\nhouse, and practised his profession in the family and amongst a few\nprivate friends of his noble patron. While living in this way, his\nthoughts were turned into the channel of politics by the advice of his\nnew associates; and, taking up that study earnestly, he was soon able to\nadvise and assist Ashley in all his plans of state, becoming at the same\ntime the referee of his private affairs. This warm friendship is\nsingular, considering the purity of Locke\u2019s life, and the notoriously\nbad character, public and private, of his noble patron. But the latter\nwas an eloquent orator, and an admirable talker; and it was probably\nthis latter quality which attached Locke so much. He had so great an\nesteem for good conversation, as to give it a first place in the\nformation of a man\u2019s mind, calling books the raw material, and social\ntalk, with meditation, the true architects of our mental constructions.\nIn 1668 Locke attended the Earl and Countess of Northumberland to\nFrance. But some accident caused him soon to return to his old residence\nwith Shaftesbury, for whom he drew up the fundamental laws of Carolina,\nwhich had just been granted to him and other lords. Two of the articles\nof this settlement gave great offence to the clergy, and were expunged.\nThey are remarkable, and should be mentioned. One was, \u201cThat no man that\ndoth not acknowledge a God, and that God publicly worshipped, should be\na freeman or inhabitant of Carolina.\u201d The other was a proposition, that\nany seven persons agreeing in a form of worship should be esteemed a\nchurch, and be supported by the state. The Church of England, however,\nwas alone established in that colony. In 1671 Locke began to form his\ngreat Essay on the Human Understanding; but his engagements with\nShaftesbury prevented its immediate completion. The year following, his\npatron becoming Chancellor, Locke was made secretary of presentations,\nwhich office he speedily lost on the partial disgrace of the Earl, who,\nstill remaining President of the Board of Trade, appointed him secretary\nto a commission of inquiry into the state of trade, and the colonial\nplantations. This office he also lost in the same manner, upon Lord\nShaftesbury\u2019s total disgrace in 1674.\n\nHaving retained his studentship, Locke then retired to Oxford, partly\nfor his health\u2019s sake, and partly to pursue his old medical studies. He\ntook the degree of Bachelor of Medicine in this year. It appears that he\ncontinued to pay some attention to these studies until an advanced age:\nfor in 1697 he communicated to the Royal Society the history of a\ncurious case which he had seen at the great hospital of La Charit\u00e9,\nduring his residence in Paris. In 1675, in hope of obtaining relief from\nan asthmatical complaint, he went to Montpellier. There was also another\nreason for this journey. He had just published an anonymous pamphlet for\nShaftesbury, blaming the conduct of the House of Lords in the matter of\nthe Test Act, containing a vehement abuse of the bishops, and of what he\ncalled their favourite doctrine, \u201cthe divine right\u201d of kings and\npriests. This pamphlet does not appear in the folio edition of his\nworks; it was anonymous, like most of his other productions. The odium\nconsequent upon it made his absence from England expedient, if not\nnecessary. During his stay abroad Locke kept a journal of what he saw,\ndid, and thought. In it we find the heads of many of his future works,\nwhich are very concise and valuable; but the narrative is dry, and the\nattempts at humour not very successful: he seems however to have been as\nobservant of what relates to the external world, as he was of the\nintellectual. In 1679, Shaftesbury, on being made President of the\nCouncil, summoned Locke to England. But the old statesman\u2019s favour was\nshort lived: he was committed to the Tower in July, 1681, and soon after\nhis release, retired to Holland, where he died in January, 1683. Locke\naccompanied him, and continued his faithful services until death. For\nseventeen years he had been Shaftesbury\u2019s constant partizan and adviser;\nand the odium attached to that nobleman clung to himself, and prevented\nhis return to England for many years. In 1683 he was reported by the\nEnglish envoy at the Hague to be on terms of intimacy with the\nmalcontents in Holland; upon which the secretary (Sunderland) wrote to\nDr. Fell, the Dean of Christ Church, ordering his expulsion from\ncollege. This mandate was not immediately complied with: the Dean\ndeclared that for many years he had watched the conduct of Locke, and\neven tried to entrap him into an exposure of his political sentiments,\nbut had always found him too wary. He allowed Locke time to come and\ndefend himself, which he would not do, and then expelled him from his\nstudentship.\n\nOn the accession of James II., William Penn, the quaker of Pennsylvania,\nbeing in some favour with the King, would have procured a pardon for\nLocke, but he refused the offer, through a friend, as having been guilty\nof no crime. In May, 1685, the English ambassador demanded him of the\nStates-General, of the pretext that he was concerned in the unsuccessful\nexpedition of the Duke of Monmouth. It is supposed that he owed this bad\nturn partly to the malice of the envoy himself, as his name did not\nappear in the list of those required which was sent from England. He\nneither liked the person nor the invasion of the duke, and was at\nUtrecht when the armament of that unfortunate nobleman sailed from the\nTexel. Locke was not given up, but was obliged to hide himself for about\na year in the house of his friend M. Veen, at Amsterdam, receiving\nassurance from the local authorities that timely warning should be given\nhim of pressing danger. He was obliged to conceal himself so closely as\nonly to take his exercise during the night. It is probable that the real\ncause of this persecution was his first letter on Toleration, written in\nLatin about this time, and addressed to his friend Limborch, the\nsentiments of which were peculiarly offensive to the English court.\n\nLocke had now time to attend to his own affairs, being no longer taken\nup with those of a patron. He busied himself in the completion of his\nEssay concerning Human Understanding, which was not, however, printed\ntill 1689. The extracting of passages from various works for reviewal in\nLe Clerc\u2019s literary journal, the Biblioth\u00e8que Universelle, the formation\nand continuation of a small society for the weekly discussion of all\nsubjects, the members of which were his friends Le Clerc, Limborch,\nGuenelon, and others, and the abridgment of his Essay, served to fill up\nhis time during the remainder of his stay in Holland. In 1689 he\npublished a second letter on Toleration, and early in the same year\nreturned to his native country in the fleet which conducted the Princess\nof Orange to the throne of England. The Revolution had completely\nchanged the face of affairs in Locke\u2019s favour; he was considered a\nmartyr to its principles, and was esteemed accordingly by its authors.\nOn his return he immediately petitioned William to cause him to be\nreinstated in his studentship; but the College refused to restore him,\noffering at the same time to make him a supernumerary student. This he\nwould not accept; because he felt it not to be a full reparation of the\ninjustice he had suffered. He allowed the matter to drop.\n\nIf Locke had been ambitious, his path to political advancement was now\nopen. William offered him the ambassadorship to the Imperial Court, or\nto that of Brandenburg. He refused both these high appointments; but\naccepted a Commissionership of Appeals from his friend Lord Mordaunt,\nafterwards Earl of Peterborough. This office was worth only \u00a3200 a year.\nHis friends Sir Francis and Lady Masham (a daughter of the celebrated\nCudworth) prevailed on him to take apartments in their house at Oates in\nEssex; between which place and his office in London he spent the\nremainder of his life. In 1690 Locke published his Treatise on Civil\nGovernment. The folio edition of his Essay, and a Letter on Education,\nappeared in the latter part of the same year. In 1692 he produced a\nthird Letter on Toleration. The state of the coinage being a subject of\ngreat importance at that time, he took it into consideration, and\npublished \u2018Certain Thoughts on the State of English Silver Money, &c.,\u2019\nin a letter to a member of parliament. This treatise was thought so\ngood, that when the matter was inquired into by the government, Locke\nwas consulted, and his advice taken with respect to the new coinage. In\nconsequence of this important assistance, he received from William III.\na Commissionership of Foreign Trade and Plantations, the value of which\nwas \u00a31000 a year. The King was exceedingly desirous of a comprehension\nwith the dissenters, and to forward his views Locke wrote his\n\u2018Reasonableness of Christianity.\u2019 This book involved him in a religious\ncontroversy with Dr. Edwards, who attacked its opinions in his \u2018Socinian\nUnmasked,\u2019 to which Locke replied by two vindications, each of them\nlonger than the original work. No sooner had he finished this labour\nthan he was called upon to encounter a fresh and more able antagonist.\nToland and some other Unitarians having turned to their own use some of\nthe arguments in Locke\u2019s Essay, Dr. Stillingfleet, the learned Bishop of\nWorcester, confounded Locke with that party. In his defence of the\ndoctrine of the Trinity the Bishop severely censured various passages of\nLocke\u2019s great work, as tending to subvert some of the fundamental\ndoctrines of Christianity; Locke replied, and there was an alternation\nof answers between them till the Bishop\u2019s death. That event took place\nsoon after Locke\u2019s third answer, which was the last thing he ever\npublished. These replies of Locke are reputed to be most finished\nspecimens of a grave and subtle irony, too refined perhaps to be\ngenerally perceived by the uninitiated eye.\n\nIn 1700 Locke\u2019s weak state of health induced him to retire from public\nlife. He resigned his situation in a personal interview with the King,\ngiving no previous notice of his intention to the conductors of the\ngovernment, and refusing the pension which his master wished him to\naccept. He took up his residence at Oates, where he passed the remainder\nof his life in reading and contemplating the Scriptures. He often\nregretted that he had not more occupied himself in this study. The piety\nof his latter years was without formality or ostentation, not arising\nfrom that sense of disappointment, or irksomeness for want of\nemployment, which often leads men to seek refuge in a late devotion.\nNeither Locke\u2019s mental nor bodily senses failed him to his last moments,\nthough the year before his death was passed in extreme weakness. On\ntaking the sacrament he declared \u201cthat he was in peace with all men, and\nin sincere union with the Church of Christ, by whatever name\ndistinguished.\u201d The affectionate attentions of Lady Masham softened the\npain of his last illness, and he died gently in his chair while she was\nreading to him one of the Psalms of David, October 28, 1704, in his\nseventy-third year. He died, unmarried, from the natural decay of an\noriginally weak constitution. He was buried in the churchyard at High\nLaver, near Oates, under a decent monument. His epitaph had been written\nsome years before, by himself, in Latin[3]. He left behind him many\nunpublished works, among which his \u2018Conduct of the Understanding\u2019 stands\nhighest. \u2018An Examination of Malebranche\u2019s opinion of seeing all things\nin God; \u2018A Discourse of Miracles;\u2019 part of a fourth letter on the\nsubject of Toleration; some imperfect memorial sketches of the life of\nthe Earl of Shaftesbury; a new method for a commonplace-book; and\nparaphrases of several of the epistles of St. Paul, make up the list of\nhis posthumous works, almost all of which were translated into French by\nLe Clerc and others, and appeared (together with those published by\nhimself) in three folio volumes, not many years after his death. A great\nmany of his letters to his friends Molyneux and Limborch are also\npublished in this edition. There remain many more which have been given\nto the world by various hands, addressed to the Earl of Peterborough,\nDr. Mapletoft, &c., and to Newton. In Lord King\u2019s life of Locke his\ncorrespondence with the latter is given at full length, and is very\ncurious,\u2014chiefly relating to subjects they were both engaged in, the\nprophecies and miracles.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  \u201cSiste, viator; juxta situs est J. L. Si qualis fuerit rogas,\n  mediocritate su\u00e2 contentum se vixisse respondet. Literis innutritus\n  eousque tantum profecit ut veritati unic\u00e0 studeret. Hoc ex scriptis\n  illius disce; qu\u00e6, quod de eo reliquum est, majori fide tibi\n  exhibebunt, quam epitaphii suspecta elogia. Virtutis si quas habuit,\n  minores sane quam quas sibi laudi, tibi in exemplum proponeret. Vitia\n  una sepeliantur. Morum exemplum si qu\u00e6ras, in evangelio habes\n  (vitiorum utinam nusquam), mortalis cert\u00e8 quod prosit hic et ubique.\n  Natum . . . . Mortuum . . . . Memorat hac tabula brevi et ipsa\n  interitura.\u201d\n\nThat which has assured to Locke imperishable fame is the \u2018Essay\nconcerning Human Understanding.\u2019 This great work, however, met with\nconsiderable obloquy at first: the heads of colleges at Oxford even\nendeavoured to prevent its being read in their University. The Essay is\nin the hands of all; the writings of its opponents, comparatively\nspeaking, are forgotten. It will be generally admitted, that in it Locke\nlaid the foundation of modern metaphysical philosophy.\n\nTwo of Locke\u2019s chief works, the \u2018Treatise on Civil Government,\u2019 and\n\u2018Essay on Education,\u2019 are more capable of a short analysis. The former\nmay be taken as an expression of his own opinions in defence of the\nRevolution. It is divided into two parts. The first contains an exposure\nof the fallacies of Sir Robert Filmer\u2019s \u2018Patriarcha,\u2019 arguing that Adam\nhad not such natural or gifted right of dominion as Filmer pretends;\nthat if he had, his heirs had not; that if they had, yet there is no\ngeneral law, divine or human, which determines the right of succession,\nmuch less of bearing rule; lastly, that if such right had been\ndetermined, yet the eldest line from Adam being unknown, no man can\npretend more than another to that right of inheritance; consequently,\nthat some other source of political power must be found than \u201cAdam\u2019s\nprivate dominion and paternal jurisdiction.\u201d Locke proceeds in the\nsecond part to declare his opinion as to what this other source may be.\nHe argues, that originally the executive power was in the hands of each\nindividual; but, by mutual consent, for mutual benefit, as men grew into\nsocieties, political power was created, and given to persons chosen from\nthe whole body by the major part of such societies. He protests against\nabsolute power, as not expressing the will of the majority; but defends\nprerogative, as a discretionary power lodged in the hands of the\nexecutive government. He maintains that this compact must be held\nsacred, but reverts to the society if its duration was declared\ntemporary, or upon the misconduct of rulers or delegates. When\nforfeited, the will of the society may create new forms of government;\nor, under the old form, continue it in other hands.\n\nThe Essay on Education is expressly for the use of gentlemen, since \u201cif\nthat class be properly tended the rest will follow of course.\u201d The\nchild, he says, should have much air and exercise, should be accustomed\nto little sleep and early habits. That superstitious terrors, and the\nfrequent use of the rod should be carefully avoided; that the boy should\nbe used to suffer pain gradually, to harden him, but not as a\npunishment; that the parents\u2019 authority should be perfect over the\nchild, and be gradually taken off, till the relation between them\nbecomes a confiding friendship; that particular attention be paid to his\nmanners, so that his courage, learning, wit, plainness, and good-nature,\ndo not turn to brutality, pedantry, buffoonery, rusticity, and fawning.\nHe says, that the child\u2019s curiosity should be encouraged; that he should\nlearn by games, and his attainments never be forced; that he should not\nbe left to flounder in difficulties, but helped through them. Locke\nprefers a careful tutor to a public school: he says that a boy stands a\nbetter chance of being both virtuous and well-bred under the care of the\nformer. What he should know is Latin, Greek, a little mathematics, how\nto keep accounts; the less of logic the better; he should write a good\nhand; and a virtuous youth so bred, \u201cone may turn loose into the world\nwith great assurance that he will find employment and esteem\neverywhere.\u201d He further recommends that the boy should travel between\nthe ages of eight and sixteen, rather than between sixteen and twenty\none; and that when he comes of age he had better not marry according to\nthe usual custom, but wait some years, that his children \u201cmay not tread\ntoo closely on his heels.\u201d\n\nThe habit of Locke\u2019s mind was perhaps originally severe; but from\nconstant social intercourse with men of all characters and opinions, was\nrendered mild and equable. Nothing seems to have provoked him into a\nloss of temper so much as being forced into argument with professed\nlogicians. He calls the logical method taught at Oxford an ill, if not\nthe worst way of acquiring knowledge and seeking truth. He was fond of\nthe society of children, and would enter into the enjoyments of riper\nyouth with facility. He was entrusted by his patron with the education\nand marriage of his son, who was the father of the author of the\n\u2018Characteristics.\u2019 The latter nobleman (the third Earl of Shaftesbury)\nowed much to Locke\u2019s care, and was his eulogist.\n\nLocke was of a cautious if not timid disposition. This appears from many\nof his letters, and may be inferred from the anonymous publication of\nmost of his writings. His weak health, the political persecution to\nwhich he was exposed during great part of his life, and the discipline\nto which he was subjected in childhood, which was strict and severe, in\nsome measure account for this failing. His friendships were very steady;\nwitness his close adherence to his patron Shaftesbury. Sydenham\u2019s\ncontemporary and friendly character of Locke is remarkable: he says, in\na prefatory letter to one of his works, that \u201cif we consider his genius,\nhis penetrating and exact judgment, and the strictness of his morals, he\nhas scarcely any superior, and few equals now living.\u201d\n\n[Illustration: [Reverse of a French Medal of Locke.]]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by Rob^t. Hart._\n\n  SELDEN.\n\n  _From a Picture attributed to Sir Peter Lely in the Bodleian Library,\n    Oxford._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                SELDEN.\n\n\nJohn Selden was born at Salvington, a hamlet of Tarring, near Worthing,\nin the county of Sussex, December 16, 1584 (O.S.). His father, according\nto Wood, \u201cwas a sufficient plebeian,\u201d who, through some skill in music,\nobtained as his wife Margaret Baker, a daughter of a knightly family of\nthe county of Kent. The baptism of his eminent son, as well as his own\nmusical talents, are noticed in an existing parish registry in these\nwords: \u201c1584.\u2014Johnne, sonne of John Selden, the minstrell, was baptised\nthe XXX^{th} day of December.\u201d The house in which the family lived was\ncalled Lacies, and the estate of the father consisted, in 1606, of\neighty-one acres, of the annual value of about twenty-three pounds. John\nSelden, the son, received his early education at the Free Grammar-School\nof Chichester. At the age of fourteen he entered at Hart Hall, Oxford.\nAfter residing four years at the University, he was admitted, in 1602, a\nmember of Clifford\u2019s Inn, one of the dependencies of the greater inns of\ncourt, in which students of law were formerly accustomed to commence\ntheir legal education. He removed in May, 1604, to the Inner Temple. His\nattention appears to have been early drawn to the study of civil and\nlegal history, and antiquities; he did not court the more active\nbusiness of his profession, and his employment at the bar was limited.\nIn 1607, he prepared for the press his first work, entitled \u2018Analect\u03c9n\nAnglo-Britannic\u03c9n,\u2019 being a collection of civil and ecclesiastical\nmatters relating to Britain, of a date anterior to the Norman conquest.\nThis was soon followed by three other works of a similar character, and\nin 1614 he printed his \u2018Treatise upon Titles of Honour.\u2019 The last of\nthese works has been considered in our courts of law to be of great\nauthority, and has been usually spoken of with much commendation.\nPursuing his legal inquiries, he edited, in 1616, two treatises, one of\nSir John Fortescue, the other of Sir Ralph Hengham, and in the same year\nwrote a \u2018Discourse on the Office of Lord Chancellor.\u2019 In the next year\nhe printed a work, \u2018De Diis Syris,\u2019 which added to his celebrity, but is\nnot compiled with that attention to the value of the respective\nauthorities cited, so essentially necessary to the accurate\nconsideration of historical questions. His next work was a \u2018History of\nTithes,\u2019 printed in 1618, which excited against him the bitter hostility\nof the clergy. The doctrine of divine right, as the foundation of many\necclesiastical claims, was at this time jealously maintained, and was\nconsidered to be peculiarly connected with the right of the clergy to\ntithes. Selden drew no direct conclusion against the divine nature of\nthe right to tithes, but he had so arranged his authorities as to render\nsuch a conclusion inevitable. The nature only of the title was\ncontested, and so far from the clergy having had any reason to look upon\nSelden as an enemy, he in fact strengthened their claim to tithes by\nplacing it upon the same footing as any ordinary title to property. As\nsoon as the \u2018History\u2019 appeared it was attacked. The High Commission\nCourt summoned Selden before it, and to this tribunal he was compelled\nto apologise. The terms of his submission very accurately state the\noffence, and are expressive of regret that \u201che had offered any occasion\nof argument against any right of maintenance _jure divino_ of the\nministers of the gospel.\u201d The work received several answers, but Selden\nwas forbidden by James I., under a threat of imprisonment, to notice\nthem. \u201cAll that will,\u201d said he, \u201chave liberty, and some use it, to write\nand preach what they will against me, to abuse my name, my person, my\nprofession, with as many falsehoods as they please, and my hands are\ntied: I must not so much as answer their calumnies. I am so far from\nwriting more, that I have scarce ventured for my own safety so much as\nto say they abuse me, though I know it.\u201d\n\nHardly had this storm passed, when he became involved in the disputes\nbetween the Crown and the House of Commons. One of the earliest steps of\nthat body, upon the convocation of Parliament in 1621, was to present a\nremonstrance on the state of public affairs. This was succeeded by the\nmemorable protestation of December 18, in which the liberty of the\nsubject was asserted, and the right of the Commons to offer advice to\nthe Crown was insisted on. This protestation was erased from the\njournals of the House by the King\u2019s own hands, and the parliament was\ndissolved. Selden, whose advice, though he was not then a member, had\nbeen requested by the House in this dispute, was in consequence\nimprisoned, and detained in confinement five weeks. His release was\nowing to the intercession of Bishop Williams, who represented him to be\n\u201ca man who hath excellent parts, which might be diverted from an\naffectation of pleasing idle people to do some good and useful service\nto his Majesty.\u201d On his release, he dedicated to Williams his edition of\nEadmer\u2019s contemporary \u2018History of England, from the Norman Conquest to\nthe death of Henry I.,\u2019 which he had prepared for the press during his\nconfinement.\n\nWhen the next parliament assembled in 1624, Selden sat in it as member\nfor the borough of Lancaster. Though nominated upon several committees,\nhe took no active share in the general business of the House. About this\ntime also he was appointed one of the readers of the Inner Temple; but\nhe refused the office, and was in consequence for some time disabled to\nbe advanced to the rank of a bencher of the inn. Upon the accession of\nCharles I. a new parliament was called, in which Selden sat for the\nborough of Great Bedwin. This parliament was almost immediately\ndissolved, and another summoned, to which Selden was again returned for\nthe same borough as before. The Commons immediately entered upon a\nconsideration of the conduct of the Duke of Buckingham, and his\nimpeachment being resolved on, Selden was one of the members appointed\nto prepare the articles, and was named a manager for their prosecution.\nThese proceedings were stopped by another dissolution of parliament in\nJune, 1626. But the necessities of the Crown requiring those supplies\nwhich parliament refused without a redress of grievances, forced loans\nwere resorted to in the exercise of certain pretended owners of the\nprerogative. In several instances these loans were refused; among others\nby Sir Edward Hampden, who was imprisoned in consequence: and the\nillegality of his commitment was very ably argued by Selden in the\nKing\u2019s Bench. In the third parliament, called by Charles I. in 1628,\nSelden sat for the borough of Ludgershall; and in the debates which\nimmediately took place upon illegal commitments, the levy of tonnage and\npoundage, and the preparation of the Petition of Rights, he took a very\nactive share. The attack upon the Duke of Buckingham was renewed, and it\nwas proposed by Selden, that judgment should be demanded against him\nupon the impeachment of the former parliament. As affecting a great\nconstitutional question, only finally determined in 1791, of the\ncontinuance of impeachments, notwithstanding a dissolution of\nparliament, the suggestion was remarkable. Further proceedings were,\nhowever, stopped by the assassination of the Duke.\n\nDuring the prorogation of parliament, Selden again devoted himself to\nliterary pursuits. The Earl of Arundel, a great lover and promoter of\nthe arts, had received from the east many ancient marbles, having on\nthem Greek inscriptions. At the request of Sir Robert Cotton, these\ninscriptions were transcribed under the superintendence of Selden, and\nwere published under the title of \u2018Marmora Arundeliana.\u2019 In January,\n1629, parliament again assembled, and the debates upon public grievances\nwere renewed. The goods of several merchants, in the interval of the\nmeeting of parliament, had been seized by the Crown, to satisfy a claim\nto the duty of tonnage and poundage. Among the sufferers was Rolls, a\nmember of the House. It was moved, that the seizure of his goods was a\nbreach of privilege. When the question was to be put, the Speaker said\n\u201che durst not, for that the King had commanded to the contrary.\u201d Selden\nimmediately rose, and vehemently complained of this conduct: \u201cDare you\nnot, Mr. Speaker, to put the question when we command you. If you will\nnot put it, we must sit still: thus, we shall never be able to do any\nthing. They that come after you may say, that they have the King\u2019s\ncommands not to do it. We sit here by the command of the King under the\ngreat seal, and you are, by his Majesty, sitting in his royal chair\nbefore both houses, appointed for our Speaker, and now refuse to do your\noffice.\u201d The House then adjourned in a state of great excitement. When\nit re-assembled, the Speaker was called upon to put the question, and\nagain refused. On this Holles and Valentine thrust the Speaker into the\nchair, and held him down, while Sir Miles Hobart locked the door of the\nhouse and took possession of the key. A declaration was then produced by\nSir John Elliot, which Colonel Stroud moved should be read, and himself\nput the question. The motion was declared to be carried; and the\nSpeaker, refusing to act upon it, was charged by Sir P. Heyman with\ncutting up the liberty of the subject by the roots. Selden moved that\nthe declaration should be read by the clerk, which was agreed to. The\nHouse then adjourned to a day, previous to which the King came to the\nHouse of Lords and dissolved the parliament, on account of \u201cthe\nundutiful and seditious carriage of the Lower House,\u201d without the\nattendance of the Commons. Selden, and the other members concerned in\nthe violence offered to the Speaker, were committed to prison. This was\nhis last and most rigorous confinement. For some time he was denied the\nuse of pens, ink, paper, and books. When, after many weeks had elapsed,\nhe was brought up with the other prisoners before the King\u2019s Bench upon\na writ of _habeas corpus_, their discharge was offered upon condition of\ntheir finding bail for their good behaviour. \u201cWe demand,\u201d said Selden,\n\u201cto be bailed in point of right; and if it be not grantable of right, we\ndo not demand it. But finding sureties for good behaviour is a point of\ndiscretion merely, and we cannot assent to it without great offence to\nthe parliament where these matters, which are surmised by the return,\nwere acted.\u201d They were remanded, and remained for a long time in prison,\nwhere Elliot, one of the ablest members of the popular party, fell a\nvictim to his confinement. In 1634, Selden was suffered to go at large\nupon bail, which was discontinued upon his petition to the Crown. During\nhis imprisonment he wrote a treatise, \u2018De Successionibus in Bona\nDefuncti ad Leges Ebr\u00e6orum,\u2019 and another, \u2018De Successione in\nPontificatum Ebr\u00e6orum.\u2019 Both those works he dedicated to Archbishop\nLaud; probably upon account of his being indebted to the Archbishop for\nthe loan of books. Not long after the recovery of his liberty, Selden\nobtained the favour of Charles I., and dedicated to him his celebrated\nessay on the \u2018Mare Clausum,\u2019 an argument in favour of the dominion of\nthe English over the four seas, copies of which were, by order of the\nPrivy Council, directed to be placed in the council chest, the Court of\nExchequer, and the Court of Admiralty.\n\nTo the Long Parliament, which commenced its sittings in 1640, Selden was\nunanimously returned by the University of Oxford; but neither this new\nconnexion with the clergy, nor the favour of Charles, appears to have\naffected his opinions. Upon the first day of the sitting of parliament\nhe was nominated a member of the committee to inquire into the abuses of\nthe Earl Marshal\u2019s Court, and was appointed with others to draw up a\nremonstrance upon the state of the nation. He also sat upon the\ncommittees which conducted the measures preparatory to the impeachment\nof the Earl of Strafford, but he was not one of the managers before the\nHouse of Lords; and his name was posted in Old Palace Yard as one of\n\u201cthe enemies of justice,\u201d a title given to those who were regarded as\nfavourable to the Earl. It is not very clear what his opinions upon the\nimpeachment were. That he should have been satisfied with all the steps\ntaken by his party is not possible, for his opinions were undoubtedly\nmoderate, and his studious habits must have checked any disposition to\nviolence. He was also nominated to frame the articles of impeachment\nagainst Laud, and was a party to the resolutions against the legislative\npowers of the bishops. The court, however, appears to have considered\nhim favourable to its interests, until he spoke against the commission\nof array. Upon this question, Clarendon represents the influence of his\nopinion upon the public to have been very prejudicial to Charles I.\nAbout this time the great seal was offered to him. He declined it,\naccording to Clarendon, on account of his love of ease, and \u201cthat he\nwould not have made a journey to York or have been out of his own bed\nfor any preferment.\u201d The reason which he himself assigned for refusing\nit, was the impossibility of his rendering any service to the Crown. He\nsat as member of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and took the\ncovenant; yet he was not well affected to the Puritans, and declared\nthat \u201che was neither mad enough nor fool enough to deserve the name of\nPuritan.\u201d Upon the death of Dr. Eden, Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge,\nin August, 1645, Selden was elected his successor, but declined to\naccept the office. About this time he appears to have gradually\nwithdrawn from public business. His fondness of ease and his increasing\nage, and the silence he preserved upon many important events, all\ncontribute to leave the inference of his approval or disapproval of much\nof the conduct of the parliamentary leaders open to adverse parties. He\ncertainly never openly abandoned the popular side, nor does he appear to\nhave forfeited its respect; and yet at the same time he continued to be\nesteemed by many of the leading Royalists.\n\nThe studies of Selden were continued to the latest period of his life,\nand he was near the age of seventy when his last work was published. The\ninfluence he possessed with the parliamentary leaders was frequently\nexerted in favour of letters. When Archbishop Laud\u2019s endowment of the\nprofessorship of Arabic in the University of Oxford, was seized, on the\nattainder of that prelate, he procured its restitution. Archbishop Usher\nhaving preached against the divines of Westminster, and excited their\nanger, was punished by the confiscation of his library. Selden\ninterfered, and saved it from sale and dispersion. When prelacy was\nabolished, the library attached to the see of Canterbury was by his\nefforts transferred to the University of Cambridge, where it remained\nuntil the Restoration. Through his entreaties, Whitelocke was induced to\naccept the charge of the medals and books at St. James\u2019s, and thus\nsecured their preservation. The services which he rendered to the\nUniversity of Oxford were no less valuable, and were acknowledged in\ngrateful terms by that learned body; and it was through his interference\nthat the papers and instruments of Graves, the Professor of Mathematics,\nwhich had been seized by a party of soldiers, were restored.\n\nSelden died November 30, 1654, and was buried in the Temple church. He\nleft behind him no immediate relations, and he bequeathed nearly the\nwhole of his fortune, amounting to nearly 40,000_l._, to his four\nexecutors, giving only one hundred pounds to each of the children of his\nsister, the wife of John Barnard, of Goring. His books and manuscripts\nhe had originally given by his will to the University of Oxford; but\nthat body having demanded of him a heavy bond for the restitution of a\nbook which he desired to borrow from the public library, the bequest was\nstruck out, and they were directed to be placed \u201cin some convenient\npublic library or college in one of the universities.\u201d Sir M. Hale and\nhis other executors, considering that they were the executors \u201cof his\nwill, and not of his passion,\u201d transferred them to the Bodleian Library\nat Oxford.\n\nTo learned men Selden was liberal and generous; and there is a letter\nfrom Casaubon in Parr\u2019s \u2018Life of Archbishop Usher,\u2019 in which that\ndistinguished scholar with great feeling says, \u201cI was with Mr. Selden\nafter I had been with your Grace, whom, upon some intimation of my\npresent condition and necessities, I found so noble, as that he did not\nonly presently furnish me with a very considerable sum of money, but was\nso free and forward in his expressions, as that I could not find in my\nheart to tell him much (somewhat I did) of my intention of selling, lest\nit should sound as a farther pressing upon him of whom I had received so\nmuch.\u201d\n\nMilton terms Selden \u201cthe chief of learned men reputed in this land;\u201d and\nWhitelocke states, \u201cthat his mind was as great as his learning, being\nvery generous and hospitable.\u201d Clarendon, who could not regard Selden\nwith any political partiality, though he had in early life been on terms\nof intimacy with him, describes him to have been \u201ca person whom no\ncharacter can flatter or transmit in any expressions equal to his merit\nor virtue. He was of so stupendous learning in all kinds and in all\nlanguages (as may appear in his excellent and transcendent writings),\nthat a man would have thought he had been entirely conversant among\nbooks, and had never spent an hour but in reading and writing; yet his\nhumanity, courtesy, and affability were such, that he would have been\nthought to have been bred in the best courts, but that his good nature,\ncharity, and delight in doing good, and in communicating all he knew,\nexceeded that breeding.\u201d\n\nThe motto adopted by Selden was \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (above all\nthings, liberty), and it is to be found neatly written upon the first\npage of many of his MSS. Its spirit he extended to religious questions;\nand there are many bold and vigorous passages in his writings in which\nthe necessity of freedom of inquiry upon all subjects is strongly\ninsisted on. Noticing upon one occasion a certain class of ancient\nphilosophers, he remarks, \u201cHe who takes to himself their liberty of\ninquiry, is in the only way that, in all kinds of studies, leads and\nlies open even to the sanctuary of truth; while others, that are servile\nto common opinion and vulgar suppositions, can rarely hope to be\nadmitted nearer than into the base-court of her temple, which too\nspeciously often counterfeits her innermost sanctuary.\u201d His religious\nopinions have, with much impropriety, been the subject of dispute. They\nhave been chiefly inferred from several passages of a work published\nafter his death, entitled \u2018Selden\u2019s Table Talk.\u2019 From the nature of his\nstudies, his writings are far from being popular, and are, in\nconsequence, now but little read. They obtained, however, for their\nauthor, during an age abounding with illustrious and learned men, an\nhonourable reputation, among the most distinguished literary men of\ncontinental Europe, as well as among those of his own country. His works\nwere edited by Dr. Wilkins, in 3 vols. folio, in 1726, to which a Latin\n\u2018Life of the Author\u2019 is prefixed.\n\n[Illustration: [Gallery of the Arundel Marbles.]]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by W. Holl._\n\n  A. PAR\u00c9.\n\n  _From the original Picture, in \u201cL\u2019\u00c9cole de M\u00e9decine,\u201d at Paris._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 PAR\u00c9.\n\n\nAmbroise Par\u00e9, the father of French surgery, and one of the most useful\nas well as the earliest of the innovators upon that art as practised by\nthe ancients, was born at Laval, in the district of Maine, in the year\n1509. After going through the rudiments of education, he was placed at\nan early age under the tuition of the chaplain Orsoy, in his native\ntown, to be instructed in the classics; but the means of his family\nappear to have been very narrow, or the economy with which they were\nsupplied must have been strict; for we find that the worthy chaplain was\nobliged to make use of the services of his pupil in grooming his mule\nand other menial capacities, in order to eke out the scanty remuneration\nhe received for his instructions. In truth, these do not appear to have\nbeen great; for Par\u00e9 never achieved a knowledge of Greek, and was but\nsuperficially acquainted with the Latin language; and it is probable\nthat even this small amount of classical acquirement was made at a late\nperiod of his life, when, being an author, he wished to quote.\n\nOn leaving his tutor, he was placed with a barber-surgeon at Laval,\nnamed Vialot, who is recorded to have taught him how to bleed. Not long\nafter this change in his pursuits, the lithotomist, Laurent Colot, came\nto Laval to undertake the treatment of one of the chaplain\u2019s\necclesiastical brethren: on this occasion, Par\u00e9 was present, and\nzealously assisted at the operation. This accidental circumstance\nappears to have suggested to him the ambitious project of following the\nhigher departments of surgery; and he contrived to leave the shop of his\nmaster in phlebotomy, and repaired to Paris, where he availed himself\nwith so much diligence of the advantages afforded by that city, as a\nschool of anatomy and medicine, that he was soon entrusted with the\nsubordinate charge of the patients of Goupil, who then held the surgical\nchair in the college of France. From this discerning tutor he learned\nnot only all the knowledge which could at that time be obtained from\nsecondary sources, but the art of expressing himself well, and\nacquitting himself of his duties with neatness and grace. The talents\nthus acquired were of the greatest service to him in his after-life,\nwhich was chiefly passed among the great; and gave him that ease of\nmanner and power of gaining confidence, which stood him so frequently in\nstead as court-surgeon to four successive monarchs, and, aiding the\nnatural frankness of his character, carried him safely through many an\nintrigue and cabal, dangerous not only to his reputation and fortunes,\nbut even to his life. He was never a member of the community of\nbarber-surgeons, but derived his legal qualification to practise from a\ndegree in surgery taken at the college of St. Edme, of which he was\nafterwards Provost.\n\nHaving passed upwards of three years as a student, residing actually\nwithin the walls of the Hotel Dieu at Paris, he was appointed\nStaff-surgeon, in 1536, when twenty-seven years old, to the Mareschal\nRen\u00e9 de Monte-jean, who commanded the infantry under the Constable\nMontmorenci in the campaign of Piedmont. In this capacity, Par\u00e9 was\npresent at the siege and capture of Turin.\n\nFrom this time is to be dated the commencement of his acquaintance with\nmilitary surgery, for which he afterwards did so much. \u201cI was then,\u201d he\nsays, \u201cvery raw and inexperienced, having never seen the treatment of\ngunshot wounds. It is true that I had read in the Treatise of Jean de\nVigo on wounds in general, that those inflicted by fire-arms partake of\na poisonous nature on account of the powder, and that they should be\ntreated with hot oil of elder mixed with a little theriacum. Seeing,\ntherefore, that such an application must needs put the patient to\nextreme pain, to assure myself before I should make use of this boiling\noil, I desired to see how it was employed by the other surgeons. I found\ntheir method was to apply it, at the first dressing, as hot as possible,\nwithin the wound with tents and setons: and this I made bold to do\nlikewise. At length my oil failed me, and I was fain to substitute a\ndigestive, made of the yolks of eggs, rose-oil, and turpentine. At night\nI could not rest in my bed in peace, fearing that I should find the\nwounded, in whose cases I had been compelled to abstain from using this\ncautery, dead of poison: this apprehension made me rise very early in\nthe morning to visit them; but beyond all my hopes, I found those to\nwhom I had applied the digestive suffering little pain, and their wounds\nfree from inflammation; and they had been refreshed by sleep in the\nnight. On the contrary, I found those to whom the aforesaid oil had been\napplied, feverish, in great pain, and with swelling and inflammation\nround their wounds. I resolved, therefore, that I would never burn\nunfortunate sufferers from gunshot in that cruel manner again.\u201d\n\nSuch was the casual origin of one of Par\u00e9\u2019s greatest improvements in\nsurgery,\u2014the substitution of a mild treatment for the cautery in gunshot\nwounds; a principle which he afterwards successfully extended to other\ninjuries at that time deemed poisonous. The improvement seems as obvious\nas it was important: yet the adherents of the old practice gave him much\ntrouble, and even made it necessary for him to defend his wholesome\ninnovation long afterwards before Charles IX. in person.\n\nYet with all his sound sense, Ambroise Par\u00e9 was not by any means free\nfrom the credulity of his age. For instance, he relates, in his account\nof this siege, an amusing story of the court he paid to an Italian quack\ndoctor, who lived at Turin, to wheedle him out of the secret of a\ndressing for fresh gunshot wounds, for which he had great fame. This was\nfound to consist of a mixture of bruised worms, the grease of puppies\nboiled down alive, and other absurd ingredients, constituting the\ncelebrated _oleum catellorum_, the only merit of which consists in its\nharmlessness. He is erroneously praised by Dr. Ballingall for having\nbanished this unguent from practice, whereas, on the contrary, he\nintroduced it; and he shows, by his frequent reference to it in his\nworks, that he had no small faith in its virtues, and was exceedingly\nproud of having been the means of its publication.\n\nThe death of his patron, the Mareschal, soon after the fall of Turin,\ninduced him to return to Paris, though tempted by large offers to remain\nin the camp.\n\nIn 1543, he accompanied the Duc de Rohan into Britanny, where Francis I.\ncommanded in person against the English; and the next year he followed\nthat monarch in his expedition to throw supplies into Landrecy. In 1545,\nhe was with the camp at Boulogne, where he cured the general of the\nroyal army, Francis Duke of Guise, of a very dangerous wound, which\ngained him great reputation.\n\nIn 1552, he attended the Duc de Rohan in his campaign in Germany. During\nthis expedition occurred one of those instances of combined humanity and\nskill, which made Par\u00e9 the favourite of the French army. He thus tells\nthe story: \u201cA party had gone out to attack a church, where the peasants\nof the country had fortified themselves, hoping to get some provisions,\nbut they came back very soundly beaten; and one especially, a\ncaptain-lieutenant of the company of the Duke, returned with seven\ngashes in his head, the least of which had penetrated to the inner table\nof the skull, besides four sabre wounds in the arm, and one across the\nshoulder, which divided the shoulder-blade in half. When he was brought\nto quarters, the Duke judged him to be so desperately wounded, that he\nabsolutely proposed, as they were to march by daylight, to dig a trench\nfor him, and throw him into it, saying, that it was as well that the\npeasants should finish him. But being moved with pity, I told him (says\nPar\u00e9), that the captain might yet be cured: many gentlemen of the\ncompany joined with me in begging that he might be allowed to go with\nthe baggage, since I was willing to dress and cure him. This was\naccordingly granted: I dressed him, and put him into a small\nwell-covered bed in a cart drawn by one horse. I was at once physician,\nsurgeon, apothecary, and cook to him; and, thank God, I did cure him in\nthe end, to the admiration of all the troops: and out of their first\nbooty, the men-at-arms gave me a crown a-piece, and the archers\nhalf-a-crown each.\u201d\n\nHis reputation was now so high, that no expedition of importance,\nespecially if generalled by a prince of the blood, or one of the higher\nnobility, was considered complete without his presence. This was\naccordingly solicited by the old King of Navarre, more commonly called\nthe Duc de Vend\u00f4me, on an occasion of that kind. But being tired of a\nmilitary life, and disgusted with its cruelties and horrors, he\nendeavoured to evade the proposal, alleging the illness of his wife, and\nother excuses: but the Duke would take no denial; and at last he\nconsented to accompany him to the siege of Chateau le Comte. There he\nacquitted himself so well, that upon the warm encomiums of the Duke he\nwas received into the service of Henry the Second, in 1552, being then\nbut thirty-three years old. From this time he lived at the court, where,\nwith other advantages, obtained not less by his behaviour and wit than\nhis skill, he enjoyed, though a Huguenot, the especial favour of the\nQueen, Catherine de\u2019 Medici, who was fond of conversing with him in her\nown language, with which Par\u00e9 had become well acquainted in his Italian\ncampaign. She served him powerfully on several important occasions.\n\nPar\u00e9, however, still continued to frequent the camp, when any emergency\nseemed to demand his services. Such an occasion occurred at the renowned\nsiege of Metz, in the winter of 1552, conducted by Charles V. in person,\nwith the Duke of Alva and 120,000 men, against a garrison of 6000, which\nended, after two months, in the disastrous retreat of the besiegers. The\ndefence was most gallantly carried on by the flower of the French army,\nheaded by many of the higher noblesse, and several of the princes of the\nblood, under the Duke of Guise. It has been already mentioned that\ngunshot wounds were at that time thought to have something poisonous\nabout them; and the severe cold, and other circumstances of that siege,\nbeing such as unusually to depress and harass the garrison, their wounds\nproved almost uniformly fatal; and the idea arose and gained ground,\nthat Charles had ordered his bullets to be actually poisoned. Par\u00e9 alone\nwas thought able to meet the necessity of the case in such an extremity;\nand the demand for his assistance became so pressing in the dispirited\ngarrison, that at the instance of the Duke of Guise the King was induced\nto send him. He was stealthily introduced by the treachery of one of\nCharles\u2019s captains, for a bribe of 1500 crowns, and his appearance on\nthe ramparts was hailed by the troops with the most extravagant\nexpressions of joy. \u201cNow that Par\u00e9 is with us,\u201d they cried, \u201cwe shall\nnot perish of our wounds.\u201d Their spirits revived, and the successful\nissue of their arduous struggle is generally ascribed to the presence of\nPar\u00e9.\n\nUpon the raising of the siege, of which, as is usual in his writings, he\ngives a most lively and humorous account, Par\u00e9 returned to court. In\n1553 he was sent on a like errand to the siege of Hesdin, which, after a\nvigorous defence, and against the faith of a capitulation, was pillaged\nby the troops of the Duke of Savoy. Par\u00e9 was himself one of the\nprisoners, but escaped in disguise after various adventures, and\nreturned to Paris; notwithstanding the tempting offers of the Duke of\nSavoy, who had witnessed his skill, though kept in ignorance of his\nname.\n\nHe was sent upon many other missions of the same kind; as to the fields\nof St. Quentin and Moncontour; to Rouen, where he attended the Duc de\nVend\u00f4me on occasion of the wound of which he died; and to St. Denys,\nwhere he performed the same unwelcome duty for the Constable. The long\nintervals of these services he always passed at court, in the enjoyment\nof his well-earned reputation and favour.\n\nOn the death of Henry II. in 1559, occasioned by an accident at a\ntournament, Francis II., his eldest son by Catherine de\u2019 Medici,\nsucceeded to the crown. He immediately confirmed Par\u00e9 in his situation\nof surgeon in ordinary and counsellor. It will not be supposed that he\ncould enjoy this constant favour and good fortune without the usual\ndrawback in the excited jealousy of his professional rivals. Their\nrancour was at length carried to such a pitch, that they gravely accused\nhim of causing the premature death of Francis in 1560, by injecting\npoison into his ear under the pretext of treating him for an\ninflammation seated there, of which he died. Catherine, however,\nshielded him from this attack, expressing her complete reliance on his\nintegrity as well as his skill, in words which the historians of the\nperiod have preserved. A similar accusation was brought against him as\nunsuccessfully in the case of Henry III., who was afflicted with the\nsame disorder: on which occasion the Queen-Mother again stood forward in\nhis behalf, and his innocence was fully attested by the physicians whom\nshe had placed about her son, and who had witnessed every application he\nmade.\n\nOn the death of Francis II. in 1560, Par\u00e9 maintained his place in the\nhousehold of Charles IX., to whom it was thought he had rendered\nessential service after an injury inflicted on one of the nerves of the\narm by an unlucky phlebotomist. This misfortune of his humbler brother\nwas of great use to Par\u00e9, who, though a courtier during the predominance\nof the Guises, openly professed the Protestant faith; for it was\nprobably the means of procuring him in Charles the only protector\npowerful enough to save him from being included in the general massacre\nof the Huguenots on St. Bartholomew\u2019s Day. Brant\u00f4me and Sully each\nconnect his name with that event. The words of the former are as\nfollows: \u201cLe Roi quand il f\u00fbt jour, ayant mis la t\u00eate a la fen\u00eatre de sa\nchambre, et qu\u2019il voyait aucuns dans le fauxbourg St. Germain qui se\nremuoient, et se sauvoient, il prit une grande arquebuse de chasse qu\u2019il\navoit, et en tira tout plein de coups \u00e0 eux; mais en vain, car\nl\u2019arquebuse ne tiroit si loin; incessamment crioit, \u2018Tuez, tuez,\u2019 en\nn\u2019en vouloit sauver aucun si non Ma\u00eetre Ambroise Par\u00e9, son premier\nchirurgien, et le premier de la Chrestient\u00e9, et l\u2019envoya querir et venir\nle soir dans sa chambre et garde robbe, commandant de n\u2019en bouger; et\ndisoit qu\u2019il n\u2019etoit raisonnable qu\u2019un qui pouvoit servir \u00e0 tout un\npetit monde, f\u00fbst ainsi massacr\u00e9.\u201d\n\n\u201cDe tous ceux,\u201d says Sully, \u201cqui approchoient ce prince (Charles IX.) il\nn\u2019y avoit personne qui eut tant de part \u00e0 sa confiance qu\u2019 Ambroise\nPar\u00e9. Cet homme qui n\u2019etoit que son chirurgien, avoit pris avec lui une\nsi grande familiarit\u00e9, quoiqu\u2019il f\u00fbt Huguenot, que ce prince lui ayant\ndit le jour du massacre que c\u2019etoit \u00e0 cette heure qu\u2019il falloit que tout\nle monde se f\u00eet catholique, Par\u00e9 lui r\u00e9pondit sans s\u2019\u00e9tonner, \u2018Par la\nlumi\u00e8re de Dieu, Sire, je crois qu\u2019il vous souvient m\u2019avoir promis de ne\nme commander jamais quatre choses; s\u00e7avoir, de rentre dans le ventre de\nma m\u00e8re, de me trouver \u00e0 un jour de bataille, de quitter votre service,\net d\u2019aller \u00e0 la messe.\u2019\u201d\n\nPar\u00e9 still retained his situation after the accession of Henry III. in\n1574; but he seems to have resigned the cares of active life about that\ntime, and we hear little more of him. He died December 2, 1590, in the\neighty-first year of his life, and was buried in the church of St. Andr\u00e9\ndes Arcs in Paris.\n\nPar\u00e9 appears to have been a man of quick and independent observation\nrather than of reflection or genius. His constitution was vigorous, and\nfitted no less for social enjoyments than active business: his person\nwas manly and graceful, his spirits buoyant, and his disposition\nremarkably amiable and attractive; hence he was a universal favourite,\nparticularly in a despotic court, of which the dullness was agreeably\nrelieved by his frankness, and his powers of humour and repartee. The\namusing and well-told anecdotes and lively descriptions that teem in all\nhis writings, which, it may be observed, are equal in point of style to\nany of the time, sufficiently attest his possession of those qualities,\neven if the stories and bon-mots that are related of him be questioned.\nHis \u2018Apology,\u2019 as he calls one of his later pieces, containing an\naccount of his various campaigns and journeys, is full of humour, and\nwell worth the perusal of the general reader. It was published by way of\nanswer to an attack upon his treatment of contused wounds and\nh\u00e6morrhages, made by an obscure Parisian lecturer, whose name he does\nnot mention; and he diverts himself exceedingly at the expense of the\ncritic, for his presumption in pretending to teach a surgeon whose\nexperience had been gathered from twenty sieges and fields of battle,\nthrough an active professional life of forty years. The raillery he\nemploys is often very keen and pointed, but never ill-natured, and\nindicates the infinite superiority he felt, and had a right to feel,\nover his merely book-learned adversary.\n\nHis conduct throughout life appears to have been remarkably upright and\nsincere, though tinctured by the adulation which, in that age of\nviolence and despotism, was always exacted by the great from those who\nwere more humbly born.\n\nHe was a bold and good operator, and his general skill and success in\nthe practice of his profession is unquestionable; in that day it must\nhave been wonderful. As a surgical writer, his fame principally rests\nupon his introduction of a soothing method of treating gunshot and other\ncontused wounds, and his discovery or rather restoration of the method\nof arresting h\u00e6morrhage, by the ligature of the bleeding vessel, instead\nof searing with hot iron, and other insufficient and painful means. But\nhe made many other novel and useful remarks which only do not deserve\nthe name of discoveries, because they relate to more trivial points, and\ndo not involve important principles: and, upon the whole, much as\nsurgery has been improved since his time, there have been few writers to\nwhom it has owed so much as to him, especially in the military\ndepartment. The whole body of his writings on that subject, though\ndiffuse, merit the perusal of professional men. The same praise cannot\nbe given without exception and reserve to those of his writings which\nwere less the records of his personal experience, than compilations from\nother sources. His remarks upon the subjects of Physiology, Medical\nDiseases, the Composition of Remedies, Natural History, and Obstetrics,\nare not free from error, credulity, and even indelicacy. The latter\ncharge was successfully urged against him by the contemporary Parisian\nphysicians, who were jealous of his encroachments upon what they\nconsidered their own domain, and he was obliged to alter the original\neditions.\n\nHe was too much occupied by his practice to engage deeply in the study\nof anatomy: hence his knowledge of it was rather sufficient than\naccurate; and though he wrote upon it at some length, and even added new\nfacts to that science, his success in advancing it can only be\nconsidered as a proof of the imperfect information of the time. He lived\nbefore the discovery of the circulation of the blood.\n\nHis first publication, on Gunshot Wounds, in 1545, was incorporated with\nhis other writings, comprising altogether twenty-six treatises, and\nprinted at Paris in one large folio volume in 1561. This, with some\nposthumous additions, has been often reprinted, and there are\ntranslations of it in Latin and other languages. The first English\nedition was by Thomas Johnson in 1634.\n\n[Illustration: [Medal of Par\u00e9.]]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by J. Mollison._\n\n  ADMIRAL BLAKE.\n\n  _From the Picture in the Hall of Wadham College, Oxford._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 BLAKE.\n\n\nRobert Blake is believed to have been born at Plansfield, in the parish\nof Spaxton, Somersetshire, near Bridgewater, in which town his father\nwas a merchant; but the place is not so well ascertained as the date of\nhis birth, which was August, 1598. He was educated in the Free School of\nBridgewater, whence in due time he removed to Oxford, and became\nsuccessively a member of St. Alban\u2019s Hall and Wadham College. His\ncharacter was studious, yet he was fond of field-sports and other\nviolent exercises; and we may infer that he had at least a decent share\nof scholastic learning, from his having been a candidate, though\nunsuccessfully, for a studentship at Christchurch, and a fellowship at\nMerton College. He returned to Bridgewater when about twenty-five years\nold, and lived quietly on his paternal estate till 1640, with the\ncharacter of a blunt, bold man, of ready humour and fearless expression\nof his sentiments, which, both in politics and religion, were adverse to\nthe pretensions of the court. These qualities gained for him the\nconfidence of the Presbyterian party in Bridgewater, by whom he was\nreturned to the parliament of April, 1640. The speedy dissolution of\nthat assembly gave him no opportunity of trying his powers as a debater;\nand in the next parliament he was not re-elected. But on the breaking\nout of the civil war, he displayed his principles by entering the\nParliamentary army.\n\nWe have no certain information concerning the time or the capacity in\nwhich he began to serve; but in 1643 we find him intrusted with the\ncommand of a fort at Bristol, when the city was besieged by the\nRoyalists. Here his impetuous temper had nearly brought him to an\nuntimely death; for, having maintained his fort and killed some of the\nking\u2019s soldiers after the garrison had surrendered, Prince Rupert was\nwith difficulty induced to spare his life, which was held to have been\nforfeited by this violation of the laws of war. Blake served afterwards\nin the west of England with good repute, and in 1644 was appointed\nGovernor of Taunton, a place of great consequence, being the only\nParliamentary fortress in that quarter. In that capacity he\ndistinguished himself by the skill, courage, and constancy with which,\nduring two successive sieges, he maintained the town against the\nRoyalists in 1645; an important service, for which the parliament voted\n\u00a32000 to the garrison, and \u00a3500 to the governor. It is recorded that he\ndisapproved of the extremity to which matters were pushed against\nCharles, and that he was frequently heard to say, that he would as\nfreely venture his life to save the King\u2019s, as he had ever done it in\nthe service of the Parliament.\n\nIn February, 1649, Colonel Blake, in conjunction with two officers of\nthe same rank, Deane and Popham, was appointed to command the fleet. It\nmay be taken as a proof that, notwithstanding the fame of our early\nnavigators, the King\u2019s service at sea had never been treated with much\nattention, that, down to later times than those of which we now write,\nthe chief command of a fleet seems never to have been given to a man of\nnaval education and habits. It is probable that the sea service then\nheld out no inducements strong enough to tempt men of high birth to\nsubmit to its inconveniences, and that the command of a fleet was\nesteemed too great a post to be conferred on a man of humble origin. For\nthis new employment Blake soon showed signal capacity. When the embers\nof the war were stirred up after the King\u2019s death, he was ordered to the\nIrish seas in pursuit of Prince Rupert, whom he blockaded in the harbour\nof Kinsale for several months. Despair of relief induced the Prince at\nlast to make a daring effort to break through the Parliamentary\nsquadron, in which he succeeded; but with the loss of three ships. Blake\npursued him to the Tagus, where being denied liberty to attack his enemy\nby the King of Portugal, in revenge he captured and sent home a number\nof ships richly laden, on their way from Brazil. In January, 1651, he\nattacked and, with the exception of two ships, destroyed the Royalist\nfleet, in the neutral harbour of Malaga; a breach of national law, which\ncan only be justified on the alleged ground that Rupert had destroyed\nBritish ships in the same harbour. These services were recompensed by\nthe Parliament with the post of Warden of the Cinque Ports; and in March\nan act was passed constituting Blake, with his colleagues Deane and\nPopham, admirals and generals of the fleet for the year ensuing. In that\ncapacity, he took Jersey, Guernsey, and the Scilly Islands from the\nRoyalists; a service, for which he was again thanked by Parliament. In\nthis year he was elected a member of the Council of State.\n\nMarch 25, 1652, Blake was appointed sole admiral for nine months, in\nexpectation of a war with the Dutch. The United States and England were\nat this time the two most powerful maritime countries in the world; and\nit is hard to find any better reason than national rivalry for the\nbloody war which broke out between them in the spring of this year; a\nwar which seems to have been begun on a point of etiquette, at the\ndiscretion of the admirals, without orders for hostilities being known\nto be given by the governments on either side. On May 18, a fleet of\nforty-two Dutch ships, commanded by the celebrated Van Tromp, appeared\noff the Goodwin Sands. Being challenged by Major Bourne, who commanded a\nsquadron in the Downs, they professed to have been driven from their\nanchorage off Dunkirk by stress of weather; but instead of drawing off\nthe coast as they were required to do, they sailed to Dover and cast\nanchor, in a manner which showed the deliberate design of insulting the\nBritish flag. Blake lay some distance to the westward in Rye Bay.\nIntelligence was immediately sent to him, and on his approach the Dutch\nweighed anchor, and seemed about to retreat, but, changing their course,\nthey sailed direct for the English fleet. When within musket shot, Blake\nordered a single gun to be fired at the Dutch admiral\u2019s flag, which was\ndone thrice. Van Tromp returned a broadside, and a hot and\nwell-contested action ensued, and was maintained till nightfall. Under\ncover of the darkness the Dutch retreated, losing two ships (one sunk,\nthe other taken), and leaving the possession of the field and the honour\nof the victory in the hands of the English. The States appear neither to\nhave authorised nor approved of the conduct of their admiral; for they\nleft no means untried to satisfy the English government; and when they\nfound the demands of the latter so high as to preclude accommodation,\nthey dismissed Van Tromp, and intrusted the command of their fleet to De\nRuyter and De Witt. Meanwhile, Blake\u2019s activity was unremitting. He\ngained a rich harvest of prizes among the Dutch homeward-bound\nmerchantmen, which were pursuing their way without suspicion of danger;\nand when he had sent home forty good prizes and effectually cleared the\nChannel, he sailed to the northward, dispersed the fleet engaged in the\nherring fishery, and captured a hundred of the vessels composing it,\ntogether with a squadron of twelve ships of war sent out to protect\nthem. The hostile fleets again came to an engagement, September 28, in\nwhich the advantage was decidedly in favour of the English, the\nrear-admiral of the Dutch being taken, and three or four of their ships\ndisabled. Night put an end to the action; and, though for two days the\nEnglish maintained the pursuit, the lightness and uncertainty of the\nwind prevented them from closing with the enemy, who escaped into Goree.\nAfter this battle the drafting off of detachments on various services\nreduced the English fleet to forty sail, and those, it is said, in\nconsequence of the negligence or jealousy of the executive government,\nwere ill provided with men and ammunition, and other requisite supplies.\nThus weakly furnished, Blake lay in the Downs, when Van Tromp again\nstood over to the English coast with eighty men-of-war. Of that\nundaunted spirit which usually prompts the British seaman to refuse no\nodds Blake had an ample share; indeed, he did much to infuse that spirit\ninto the service. But there are odds for which no spirit can make up,\nand as he had a brave and skilful enemy, the result of his rashness was\nthat he was well beaten. Not more than half the ships on either side\nwere engaged; but out of this small number of English vessels two were\ntaken, and four destroyed; the rest were so shattered that they were\nglad to run for shelter into the river Thames. The Dutch remained\nmasters of the narrow seas; and Van Tromp, in an idle bravado, sailed\nthrough the Channel with a broom at his mast-head, as if he had swept it\nclear of English ships. However, neither the admiral nor the nation were\nof a temper to submit to this indignity; and great diligence having been\nused in refitting and recruiting the fleet, Blake put to sea again in\nFebruary, 1653, with eighty ships. On the 18th he fell in with Van\nTromp, with nearly equal force, conducting a large convoy of merchantmen\nup the Channel. A running battle ensued, which was continued during\nthree consecutive days, until, on the 20th, the Dutch ships, which, to\nsuit the nature of their coast, were built with a smaller draught of\nwater than the English, obtained shelter in the shallow waters of\nCalais. In this long and obstinate fight, the Dutch lost only eleven\nmen-of-war and thirty merchant vessels; but the number killed is said to\nhave amounted to 1500 on either side; a loss of life of most unusual\namount in naval engagements.\n\nAnother great battle took place on the 3rd and 4th of June, between Van\nTromp and Generals Deane and Monk. On the first day the Dutch seem to\nhave had somewhat the advantage: on the second Blake arrived with a\nreinforcement of eighteen sail, which turned the scale in favour of the\nEnglish. Bad health obliged him then to quit the sea, so that he was not\npresent at the last great victory of July 29, in which Van Tromp was\nkilled. But out of respect for his services the Parliament presented him\nwith a gold chain, as well as the admirals who had actually commanded in\nthe battle. When Cromwell dissolved the Long Parliament, and assumed the\noffice of Protector, Blake, though in his principles a republican, did\nnot refuse to acknowledge the new administration. In conjunction with\nDeane and Monk he published a declaration of their resolution,\n\u201cnotwithstanding the late change, to proceed in the performance of their\nduties, and the trust reposed in them against the enemies of the\nCommonwealth.\u201d He is reported to have said to his officers, \u201cIt is not\nour business to mind state-affairs, but to keep foreigners from fooling\nus.\u201d He sat in the two first Parliaments summoned by the Protector, who\nalways treated him with great respect. Nor was Cromwell\u2019s acknowledged\nsagacity in the choice of men at fault, when he chose Blake to command a\nstrong fleet, sent into the Mediterranean in November, 1654, to uphold\nthe honour of the English flag, and to demand reparation for the slights\nand injuries done to the nation during that stormy period of civil war,\nwhen our own discord had made others daring against us. In better hands\nsuch a mission could not have been placed. Dutch, French, and Spaniards\nalike concurred in rendering unusual honours to his flag. The Duke of\nTuscany and the Order of Malta made compensation for injuries done to\nthe English commerce. The piratical states of Algiers and Tripoli were\nterrified into submission, and promised to abstain from further\nviolence. The Dey of Tunis held out, confident in the strength of his\nfortifications. \u201cHere,\u201d he said, \u201care our castles of Goletta and Porto\nFerino: do your worst; do you think we fear your fleet?\u201d Blake took the\nsame course as, in our own time, Lord Exmouth did against Algiers: he\nbore right into the bay of Porto Ferino; engaged the fortress within\nmusket shot, and in less than two hours silenced or dismounted its guns;\nand sending a detachment of boats into the harbour, burnt the shipping\nwhich lay there. After this example he found no more difficulty in\ndealing with the African states.\n\nWar having been declared between Spain and England, in 1656, Blake took\nhis station to blockade the bay of Cadiz. At this period his\nconstitution was much broken, insomuch that, in the expectation of a\nspeedy death, he sent home a request that some person proper to be his\nsuccessor might be joined in commission with him. General Montague was\naccordingly sent out with a strong squadron. Being obliged to quit the\ncoast of Spain in September to obtain water for his fleet, Blake left\nCaptain Stayner with seven ships to watch the enemy. In this interval\nthe Spanish Plate fleet appeared. Stayner captured four ships richly\nladen with bullion; the rest escaped. Montague conducted the prizes\nhome, so that Blake was again left alone in the Mediterranean. In the\nensuing spring, having learnt that another Plate fleet had put into the\nisland of Teneriffe, he sailed thither, and arrived in the road of Santa\nCruz, April 20. The bay was strongly fortified, with a formidable castle\nat the entrance, and a connected chain of minor forts all round it. The\nnaval force collected there was also considerable, and strongly posted,\nthe smaller vessels being placed under the guns of the forts, the\ngalleons strongly moored with their broadsides to the sea; insomuch that\nthe Spanish Governor, a man of courage and ability, felt perfectly at\nease as to the security of his charge. The master of a Dutch ship, which\nwas lying in the harbour, was less satisfied, and went to the Governor\nto request leave to quit the harbour; \u201cFor I am sure,\u201d he said, \u201cthat\nBlake will presently be among you.\u201d The Governor made a confident reply.\n\u201cBegone if you will, and let Blake come if he dares.\u201d Daring was the\nlast thing wanting; nor did the Admiral hesitate, as a wise man might\nwell have done, about the real difficulties of the enterprise in which\nhe was about to engage. The wind blowing into the bay, he sent in\nCaptain Stayner with a squadron to attack the shipping, placed others in\nsuch a manner as to take off, and, as far as possible, to silence the\nfire of the castle and the forts, and himself following, assisted\nStayner in capturing the galleons, which, though inferior in number,\nwere superior in size and force to the English ships. This was completed\nby two o\u2019clock in the afternoon, the engagement having commenced at\neight in the morning. Hopeless of being able to carry the prizes out of\nthe bay against an adverse wind, and a still active enemy, Blake gave\norders to burn them: and it is probable that he himself might have found\nsome difficulty in beating out of the bay under the fire of the castle,\nwhich was still lively, when on a sudden, the wind which had blown\nstrong into the bay, suddenly veered round to the south-west, and\nfavoured his retreat, as it had favoured his daring approach. Of this,\nthe most remarkable, as it was the last exploit of Blake\u2019s life,\nClarendon says, \u201cThe whole action was so incredible, that all men who\nknew the place wondered that any sober man, with what courage soever\nendowed, would ever have undertaken it; and they could hardly persuade\nthemselves to believe what they had done: while the Spaniards comforted\nthemselves with the belief, that they were devils and not men who had\ndestroyed them in such a manner. So much a strong resolution of bold and\ncourageous men can bring to pass, that no resistance or advantage of\nground can disappoint them; and it can hardly be imagined how small a\nloss the English sustained in this unparalleled action, not one ship\nbeing left behind, and the killed and wounded not exceeding two hundred\nmen; when the slaughter on board the Spanish ships and on shore was\nincredible.\u201d\n\nIt will be recollected with interest that, on the same spot, Nelson lost\nhis arm, in an unsuccessful night-attempt to capture Santa Cruz with an\narmed force in boats.\n\nFor this service the thanks of Parliament were voted to the officers and\nseamen engaged, with a diamond ring to the Admiral worth 500_l._ Blake\nreturned to his old station off Cadiz; but the increase of his\ndisorders, which were dropsy and scurvy, raised a desire in him to\nreturn to England, which, however, he did not live to fulfil. He died as\nhe was entering Plymouth Sound, August 17, 1657. His body was\ntransported to London, and buried with great pomp in Westminster Abbey,\nat the public expense. After the Revolution it was thought unworthy to\nremain in that treasure-house of England\u2019s departed greatness; and with\nthe bones of others who had found a resting-place there during the short\nperiod of the Commonwealth, it was transferred to St. Margaret\u2019s\nchurchyard. It has been disputed whether this was done with more or less\nof indecency; but the matter is little worth inquiry. The real indecency\nand folly lay in thinking that any ground, however sanctified by the\nreverent associations of centuries, could be polluted by the tomb of a\nman whose leading passion was the glory of his country, and who made the\nname and flag of that country respected wheresoever he carried it: a man\nof whom not one mean or interested action is recorded, and whose great\nqualities extorted praise even from the Royalists. Bate, in his\n\u2018Elenchus Motuum,\u2019 speaks of him as a man \u201cblameable in this only, that\nhe joined with the _parricides_;\u201d and it may be remarked that Dr. Bate\u2019s\nhorror of a parricide did not prevent his being physician to Cromwell,\nas well as to Charles I. and II.\n\nWe conclude with Clarendon\u2019s character of this great man. \u201cHe was of\nprivate extraction, yet had enough left him by his father to give him a\ngood education, which his own inclination disposed him to receive in the\nUniversity of Oxford, where he took the degree of a Master of Arts, and\nwas enough versed in books for a man who intended not to be of any\nprofession, having sufficient of his own to maintain him in the plenty\nhe affected, and having then no appearance of ambition to be a greater\nman than he was. He was of a melancholic and sullen nature, and spent\nhis time most with good fellows, who liked his moroseness, and a freedom\nhe used in inveighing against the licence of the time and the power of\nthe court. They who knew him inwardly, discovered that he had an\nanti-monarchical spirit, when few men thought the government in any\ndanger.\u201d After a short sketch of Blake\u2019s actions in the civil war, the\nnoble author continues, \u201cHe then betook himself wholly to the sea, and\nquickly made himself signal there. He was the first man that declined\nthe old track, and made it manifest that the science might be attained\nin less time than was imagined, and despised those rules which had long\nbeen in practice, to keep his ship and his men out of danger; which had\nbeen held in former times a point of great ability and circumspection,\nas if the principal art requisite in the captain of a ship had been to\nbe sure to come safe home again. He was the first man who brought the\nships to contemn castles on shore, which had been thought ever very\nformidable, and were discovered by him to make a noise only, and to\nfright those who could be rarely hurt by them. He was the first who\ninfused that proportion of courage into the seamen, by making them see\nby experience what mighty things they could do, if they were resolved,\nand taught them to fight in fire as well as upon water, and though he\nhas been very well imitated and followed, he was the first that gave the\nexample of that kind of naval courage, and bold and resolute\nachievements.\u201d\n\nThe earliest life of Blake which we have seen is in the second volume of\na collection entitled \u2018Lives English and Foreign,\u2019 published at the\nbeginning of the last century. Clarendon\u2019s History of the Rebellion,\nHeath\u2019s Chronicle of the Civil Wars, the Memoirs of Ludlow, Whitelock,\nand other contemporary authorities, will furnish minute accounts of the\nmany battles of which we have here only made short mention.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by R. Woodman._\n\n  L\u2019H\u00d4PITAL.\n\n  _From the original by Janet, in the Mus\u00e9e Royal, Paris._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                               L\u2019H\u00d4PITAL.\n\n\nMichel de l\u2019H\u00f4pital was born at Aigueperse in Auvergne. The date of his\nbirth he himself declares, in his testament, to be uncertain, but at the\nsame time he refers it to the year 1505. His father was the domestic\nphysician, the faithful friend, and trusted counsellor of the Constable\nof Bourbon, and still followed his patron\u2019s fortunes, when that ill-used\nand misguided prince took up arms against France in 1523. Michel de\nl\u2019H\u00f4pital, then a student at the University of Toulouse, was arrested as\nthe son of one of Bourbon\u2019s partizans; but after a short time he was set\nat liberty by the express order of Francis I., and after the lapse of\ntwo or three years was permitted to rejoin his father in Italy. He\ncompleted his education during a residence of six years at the\ncelebrated University of Padua. Quitting that University with high\ncredit for his acquirements both in polite literature and legal\nknowledge, he took up his abode at Rome with his father, and soon\nobtained the favourable notice both of the Emperor Charles V. and the\nFrench ambassador, Cardinal de Grammont. But preferring the hope of\nre-establishment in his native country to the prospects of advancement\nheld out in a foreign land, he returned to France in the train of the\nCardinal; was present at the espousal of Catherine de Medici with the\nDauphin, afterwards Henry II., in 1583; and laid a stepping-stone\ntowards his fortunes by attracting the notice of his future queen. The\ndeath of the Cardinal however in the following year overclouded his\nprospects. His father was unable to procure a reversal of the sentence\nof exile and confiscation passed on him for his adherence to Bourbon;\nand Michel de l\u2019H\u00f4pital, without means or friends, betook himself to the\npractice of the law in the courts of Paris. Fortunately, his merits\nprocured a discerning friend in Jean Morin, a high legal functionary,\nwho gave him his daughter in marriage in 1537, with the judicial office\nof _Conseiller_ for her dowry.\n\nL\u2019H\u00f4pital filled this office during nine years. It was one in which he\nfound no pleasure; for though attached to the philosophical study of the\nlaw (and he mentions it as one of the evils of his situation that he had\nbeen obliged to abandon a project for collecting into one body the laws\nof France, both written and resting on judicial decisions), he found the\ndaily routine of trying causes extremely irksome. His letters are full\nof complaints of this drudgery, as he esteemed it, and express in lively\nterms the pleasure which he felt in escaping during the vacations into\nthe country, and renewing his literary pursuits. He numbered the most\nintellectual and learned men of France among his friends, nor was he\nbackward in seeking to conciliate the great and powerful. It is worth\nnoting, as indicative of the manners of the age, that his favourite\nmethod of addressing such persons was in Latin hexameters. Accounts of\nhis way of life, statements of his wishes, petitions, &c., are conveyed\nin that form; and he composed with fluency, and with a competent share\nof elegance, without great attention to correctness. One of his frequent\ncorrespondents, to whose favour he owed in great measure his future\nrise, was Cardinal Lorraine. The Chancellor Olivier, a man of no common\nvirtue, was another of his best friends, and to him L\u2019H\u00f4pital was\nindebted for being withdrawn from the hated bustle of the law, by his\nappointment as envoy to the Council of Bologna. This proved a sinecure;\nand he employed his time in wandering about the neighbourhood of that\ncity, and writing letters to the Chancellor, full of poetical\ndescriptions, and requests for a more permanent provision away from the\ntumult of the law courts.\n\nEarly in 1549 L\u2019H\u00f4pital was recalled, after remaining upwards of a year\nin Italy. He found the Chancellor in disgrace; but his acknowledged\nmerit obtained the notice of Margaret of Valois, daughter of Francis I.,\na steady patroness of learning, herself devoted to literary as well as\nreligious study. Being created Duchess of Berri, she appointed him her\nChancellor, to manage the affairs of the province; and one of his first\nsteps in that capacity was the establishment of a new law-school at\nBourges, to which he endeavoured to attract the most eminent teachers.\nHer influence, added to that of Cardinal Lorraine, procured for him the\nhigh financial appointment of Superintendent of the Chamber of Accounts,\nin 1554. His conduct in that station was firm and honest. He laboured to\nput a stop to numberless abuses, which had prevailed both in the\ncollection and disposition of the revenue; and his zeal is testified by\nthe ill-will which it brought upon him, and which twice endangered the\nloss of his place. His independence in this respect is ill contrasted by\nhis obsequiousness in supporting the edict known in French history by\nthe name of the _Semestre_. This requires a few words of explanation. No\nlegislative body was recognised by the French constitution. Even the\nStates-General could not enact: the power of making laws resided solely\nin the sovereign. But by the practice of the land, the edicts of the\nmonarch required to be registered by the body of lawyers called the\nParliament of Paris, before they could possess validity as law: a\nwholesome practice, which often served as a check upon the court. It was\nprobably with the intention of rendering that body more subject to\ncontrol, that Henry II., or his ministers, introduced the\nabove-mentioned edict, by which it was proposed to divide the Parliament\ninto two bodies, to relieve each other every six months. Under this\narrangement it would have been easy to collect the refractory spirits\ninto one body, and then to bring measures forward for registration in\nwhichever half year might best suit the views of the crown. L\u2019H\u00f4pital\u2019s\naccession to this measure has been palliated by alleging, that, as the\nprice of it, he stipulated for the abolition of a custom which\nprevailed, for suitors to offer fees to the judges before whom their\ncauses were to be tried, under the name of _spices_ (_\u00e9pices_),\u2014a ready\nmeans of corruption, for yielding to which, or something not much worse,\nBacon, about half a century later, was removed with disgrace from the\nchancellorship of England. The whole tenor of L\u2019H\u00f4pital\u2019s policy in\nafter times tended to depress the Parliament; and this furnishes a\npresumption that his conduct in this particular instance was honest. But\nit is strange that he should not have perceived any inroad on the\nindependence of the judicial body to be a still greater evil than even\nthat from which he endeavoured to free it. After all, the scheme failed,\nand he was deeply mortified at the obloquy which his accession to it\nincurred.\n\nThe accession of Francis II., by bringing the house of Guise into power,\nproved the means of L\u2019H\u00f4pital\u2019s advancement. One of the first acts of\nthe new government was to restore to the office of chancellor Olivier, a\nman of tried integrity, and a friend to toleration. But while the\nprinces of Guise availed themselves of his high character to court\npopularity, they had no thought of acting by his advice; and Olivier,\ncompelled to be the unwilling instrument of a policy which he detested,\nand afraid or unable to resign, was hastened by vexation to his grave.\nL\u2019H\u00f4pital was selected to be his successor in June, 1560. The Guises and\nthe Queen Mother are said to have been actuated by different views in\nagreeing upon this appointment. The former thought that from an old\nadherent and petitioner of Cardinal Lorraine they had no opposition to\nfear: the latter is said to have been influenced by the hope that\nL\u2019H\u00f4pital\u2019s patriotism would lead him to be a check on the over-powerful\nhouse of Lorraine.\n\nThe circumstances under which he became Chancellor were such as might\nfairly breed suspicion of his honesty. None but a bold man could have\nhoped to do good after the example of Olivier; none but a dexterous man\ncould have succeeded. And such dexterity is seldom joined with that\nsincerity and purity of purpose, which is one of the most valuable\nqualities of a statesman, or any man. There are sometimes seasons in\nwhich an honest man may take office, with the certainty not only that he\nwill not be permitted to do much that he would wish, but also that he\nwill be obliged to do a good deal that he disapproves. But such\ncompromises are of bad example and evil influence, and can only be\nexcused by the necessity of the times, and by the good results which\nensue. By this test, L\u2019H\u00f4pital\u2019s conduct is vindicated. He conferred a\nsignal benefit on France at his first entrance upon office, by\ndexterously contriving to prevent the establishment of the Inquisition,\nwhich had been resolved on. He obtained the convocation of an Assembly\nof Notables at Fontainebleau, in which, through his influence,\nconciliatory measures were adopted towards the Protestants, and it was\nresolved to summon a meeting of the States-General. But the Guises, by\nworking on the young king\u2019s fears, turned that measure to their own\nadvantage. Cond\u00e9 no sooner appeared than he was arrested, tried, and\ncondemned to death. The King of Navarre was threatened with a similar\nfate; and but for the opportune death of Francis II., the kingdom\nprobably would have been plunged at once into the utmost fury of a\nreligious war. But the succession of Charles IX., a minor, in December\n1560, threw the regency into the hands of Catherine; and she, encouraged\nby L\u2019H\u00f4pital, asserted her independence of the Guises, and, to\nconciliate the support of a powerful party, released Cond\u00e9, and allied\nherself with the King of Navarre.\n\nAt first, the Chancellor\u2019s liberal measures seemed to prosper. As if in\ncompliance with the demands of the States, he published the celebrated\nOrdonnance of Orleans, which embodied most of his views for the\nreformation of the state, and introduced a variety of bold and important\nchanges into the church, the courts of justice, and the financial\nsystem. One portion of it is expressly directed against the oppressive\nrights claimed and exercised by the nobility. But the spirit of the age\nwas not ripe for such extensive reforms: they were too far in advance to\nproduce a lasting influence. And in attempting to overcome an interested\nand prejudiced opposition, the Chancellor was led to an act unworthy of\nhis real zeal for the welfare of his country. His legal improvements had\nnot conciliated the good will of the lawyers; and, foreseeing that the\nParliament of Paris might probably refuse to register his edicts, he\ntook it on himself to dispatch them to the provinces, without ever\nhaving submitted them to that body. To justify such a step, it is not\nenough to say that his views were enlarged and noble, theirs bigoted and\nilliberal; for it is seldom or never that any object can be of\nimportance enough to justify a constitutional statesman in breaking down\na constitutional security. Nor had he even the bad excuse of success.\nThe Parliament were justly incensed, and probably became still more\nhostile to the measures adopted in defiance of its authority; and the\nhigh Catholic party prevailed in obtaining a new Assembly of Notables,\nat which all was undone which the Chancellor had been labouring to do,\nand the persecuting edicts against the Protestants were re-established\nin full force.\n\nThis blow to his system of toleration the Chancellor contrived to\nobviate. He had no assembly, no body of recognised authority on which to\nlean for support. The Parliament of Paris was against him; the Assembly\nof Notables, composed of lawyers and nobility, was against him; the\nStates-General were tedious to convoke, and were paralysed by their\ndivision into three orders. In this difficulty he bethought himself of\ncalling an assembly of deputies from the provincial Parliaments of the\nkingdom; and fortified by their recommendation, he promulgated and\nobtained registration of the celebrated edict of January, 1562, which,\nunder certain restrictions, permitted the open profession of the\nProtestant faith. Upon this the furious bigotry of the Duke of Guise\nbroke into open violence, and kindled the first of those religious wars\nwhich long desolated France. Strengthened by the adhesion of the\nConstable Montmorenci, and by possession of the persons of the King, and\nQueen Regent, the brothers of Lorraine usurped the conduct of affairs,\nand excluded L\u2019H\u00f4pital from the council. It is remarkable, considering\nhis resolute opposition to their policy, that they did not deprive him\nof his office; and this may be taken as an evidence either of the\nconsummate prudence with which, without betraying his own principles, he\navoided giving personal offence to his opponents; or that his character\nstood so high as to render his opponents unwilling to incur the odium of\ndisplacing him.\n\nThe assassination of the Duke of Guise, in February, 1563, restored to\nCatherine her own free-will, and L\u2019H\u00f4pital to power; and he immediately\navailed himself of it to lay the basis of peace by fresh edicts in\nfavour of toleration, which as usual were opposed by the Parliament. In\nthe following year, Charles IX. having reached the age of fourteen, the\nChancellor revived an old law which fixed the majority of Kings of\nFrance at that age, and declared the King\u2019s majority before the\nParliament of Rouen. Soon after, he was engaged in a quarrel with his\nold patron, Cardinal Lorraine, relative to the privileges of the\nGallican Church. The question was, whether or not the decrees of the\nCouncil of Trent should be admitted as authority in France. The\nChancellor opposed this, and he carried his point.\n\nTo amuse Charles, and to avoid some of the evils which usually beset a\ncourt, the Chancellor conducted his young sovereign on a tour to the\nsouthern provinces of France. This was attended with unforeseen and evil\nconsequences. At Bayonne Charles was met by his sister, the Queen of\nSpain, attended by the Duke of Alva and other Spanish noblemen. Alva\nacquired the confidence of Catherine, whom he persuaded that in the\nhands of L\u2019H\u00f4pital she really had no more freedom of action than under\nthe control of the Guises; and as in her opposition to them she had been\nactuated by no love of toleration, she had little to unlearn under the\ntuition of that bigoted and able partizan of the papacy. L\u2019H\u00f4pital soon\nperceived that his power was shaken. He laboured to make up for the lost\nconfidence of Catherine, by attaching himself more and more to Charles\nIX.; and for a time he succeeded in retaining influence over that\nprince, who, during the years 1565 and 1566, was kept in a state of\nvacillation between those who pleaded for peace and toleration, and\nthose who would have exterminated Protestantism at all hazards and by\nall means. The religious war was renewed in 1567. Peace was concluded in\n1568; but L\u2019H\u00f4pital was not employed to manage it. His only hold upon\npower was now in the reverence of the King; and this was shaken by the\nartful representations of Catherine. It shows, however, in a strong\nlight, the ascendancy which L\u2019H\u00f4pital had acquired over Charles\u2019s mind,\nthat the joint influence of Catherine and the House of Guise could not\ninduce him absolutely to dismiss his faithful minister. In 1568 he sent\nto request the Chancellor to give up the seals for a time, with a\npromise of returning them. L\u2019H\u00f4pital says in his Testament, that \u201che\njudged it better to yield to the necessity of the state, and to its new\ngovernors, than to contend with them.\u201d He retired to his estate at\nVignay, near Etampes, where he returned with avidity to his literary\npursuits, and to the amusements and occupations of the country, to which\nhis letters represent him as devotedly attached.\n\nThe Chancellor had not amassed wealth in his various high employments;\nbut his pensions were continued by the King; and Catherine herself did\nnot forget his former services. Even in the dreadful massacre of St.\nBartholomew\u2019s they interfered to protect him; though his family were\nProtestants, and he himself, though a Catholic by profession and in\nobservances, was so suspected by the bigot party, who did not understand\nhow sincerity and tolerance could go together, that it passed into a\nsort of proverb, \u2018Lord deliver us from the Chancellor\u2019s mass.\u2019 A troop\nof horse was sent from court to preserve his mansion from insult. His\ndomestics were alarmed, and proposed to shut the gates. \u201cNo,\u201d said the\nChancellor; \u201cbut if the small gate is not enough, open the great one.\u201d\nHis daughter, then in Paris, was in imminent danger, and escaped only\nthrough the intervention of the Duchess of Guise.\n\nThe Chancellor did not long survive this signal proof that his labours\nhad been in vain. \u201cI have lived too long,\u201d he said, \u201csince I have seen\nwhat has occurred in my last days,\u2014a youth changed from a mild king into\na merciless tyrant.\u201d He died, March 13, 1573; and was buried in his\nparish church of Champmoteux. His monument is among those which have\nbeen collected at Paris, in the Mus\u00e9e des Petits-Augustins.\n\nBrant\u00f4me has described the person of L\u2019H\u00f4pital. He wore a long white\nbeard; his face was pale, his demeanor grave, and he resembled the\npictures of St. Jerome, by which name he was known at court. He and the\nConstable Montmorenci were famous as _rabroueurs_, or reprimanders, and\nwere joint terrors to the idle courtiers; and this harshness, if we may\ntrust his own representations, was not natural, but assumed as a\nnecessary qualification for his office. His private habits were very\nsimple and frugal, and he regarded the increase of luxury as the bane of\nFrance. Brant\u00f4me says that once, when he paid the Chancellor a visit\nwith Mar\u00e9chal Strozzi, their host gave them for dinner a single dish of\n_bouillie_, and that his whole stock of plate consisted of one silver\nsaltcellar. He adds an amusing account of the way in which the\nChancellor rated two newly appointed functionaries, who came to present\nthemselves, and who could not pass satisfactorily through a legal\nexamination, which he bestowed upon them.\n\nThe leading objects of L\u2019H\u00f4pital\u2019s political life were to obtain the\nreformation of abuses, to establish the independence of the Gallican\nchurch against the usurpations of Rome, and to procure toleration for\nthe Protestants. He is, we believe, the first minister who laid down the\nprinciple of toleration, and proclaimed the impossibility and absurdity\nof making force the rule of reason; and he has thus gained an\nindefeasible title to the reverence, not only of his countrymen, but of\nmankind. \u201cWhat laws,\u201d he said, in his inaugurative speech to the\nParliament of Paris, \u201chave not been promulgated on this point of\nreligion? What judgments and punishments, of which even the magistrates\nof the Parliament have been victims? To what purpose have served such\ncontinued armaments and combats in Germany, in England, and in Scotland?\nThe ancient religion has been shaken by these combats, and the new\nconfirmed. The mistake lies in treating the maladies of the mind as if\nthey were those of the body. Experience teaches us that it is the force\nof reason, the gentle persuasion of words alone, which can win hearts,\nand cure diseased spirits.\u201d\n\nThis great man has another claim to notice, as one of the most\ndistinguished jurists and reformers of France. He has been classed with\nCharlemagne and St. Louis, as one of the three principal legislators of\nthat country; and his eminent successor D\u2019Aguesseau bore testimony to\nthe merits of his edicts, as the foundation of the most useful laws\nwhich were afterwards enacted. His constitutional views were directed\ntowards raising the royal authority, at the expense of the nobility and\nthe Parliament. We have expressed our belief that in the latter instance\nhis conduct was wrong. His views of reform are embodied in the\nOrdonnance of Orleans (January, 1561), and that of Moulins (February,\n1566), which De Thou describes as being the complement of the former. Of\nthe contents of the Ordonnance of Orleans we have already given such\nnotice as our space allows; that of Moulins pertains rather to legal and\njudicial reforms; it limits and defines the powers of judicial officers,\nand determines the law on various points, relative to entails, arrests\nfor debt, sales, &c. In short, these two edicts provide for the removal\nof most of those evils which, unredressed, produced the first\nRevolution.\n\nIt is much to be regretted that L\u2019H\u00f4pital\u2019s essay towards a work on\nFrench law is lost. There is a volume extant of his Poetical Epistles,\nof which the best edition is that of Amsterdam, 1732. To these, and to\nhis Testament, which is printed in the Biblioth\u00e8que Choisie of Colomi\u00e8s,\nand in Brant\u00f4me (article of the Constable Montmorenci), we may refer for\nauthentic details of his life; of which numerous particulars will be\nfound in the history of De Thou, the Memoirs of Brant\u00f4me, the Letters of\nPasquier, the Eloges of Thevet, and other contemporary writers. His\nspeeches before the States of Orleans have been published; and a\nCollection of Memoirs, consisting of various State Papers, printed at\nCologne, 1672, has been ascribed to him. The Eloge of L\u2019H\u00f4pital was\nproposed as a prize by the French Academy in 1777. Slight accounts of\nhim will be found in the various biographical dictionaries; but no\npublication, so far as we know, has appeared either in French or\nEnglish, which can dispense with the necessity of consulting the\noriginal authorities, on the part of those who wish to obtain more than\na superficial acquaintance with the history of this illustrious\nstatesman.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  [The Conciergerie at Paris, from whence the Huguenot prisoners were\n    liberated by L\u2019H\u00f4pital himself,\u2014from a Print in the British Museum.]\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                             MRS. SIDDONS.\n\n\nThe light esteem in which the theatrical profession has commonly been\nheld renders it probable that the introduction of an actress among the\nfew female names included in our Gallery may seem to some persons\nuncalled for and injudicious. That there are few players entitled to\nsuch admission we allow: but for one who studied acting as a branch of\nart, discarding every unworthy species of stage trickery; and who, by\nprofound study, and a rare union of mental and bodily excellence, has\ninseparably connected her name and memory with the masterpieces of the\nBritish drama, we do claim a place (to which her eminent brother is\nalmost equally entitled) among the master-minds of the fine arts.\n\nSarah Kemble came of a theatrical stock. Her father was manager of a\nprovincial company of actors; her mother was the daughter of a\nprovincial manager. Both parents maintained a high character for moral\nrectitude; and the latter is said to have been distinguished by a\nstrength of mind, and stateliness of demeanour, which may have had some\ninfluence upon the character and manners of her celebrated children.\nSarah, their eldest daughter, was born at Brecon, July 5, 1755. From an\nearly period of childhood she was trained to the stage. She was scarcely\nmore than seventeen when her affections were engaged by an actor of her\nfather\u2019s company, named Siddons, to whom, after some opposition on the\npart of her parents, she was married, November 26, 1773. Her early\nmarried life was beset with difficulties. Mr. Siddons possessed little\nmerit as an actor; and during nine years, which elapsed before Mrs.\nSiddons established a metropolitan reputation, she had to endure hard\nwork and low pay. The first encouragement which she received in her\ncareer was from the notice of the Hon. Miss Boyle, afterwards Lady\nO\u2019Neil, a lady possessed of high mental qualities, as well as birth and\nbeauty, who was so much struck\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by W. Holl._\n\n  M^{RS}. SIDDONS.\n\n  _After the Picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\nby the young actress\u2019s performance of Belvidera at Cheltenham in 1774,\nthat she sought her out in her obscurity, and there commenced a warm and\nlasting friendship. Through this connection Mrs. Siddons seems to have\nbeen introduced to Garrick, by whom she was engaged at Drury Lane\ntheatre. Her first appearance was in the character of Portia, December\n29, 1775. She was received with indifference; and during the remainder\nof the season she did not establish herself in the favour of the London\naudiences, nor did she appear in any first-rate part. Garrick professed\nhigh admiration for her, and on quitting the stage, which he did towards\nthe close of that season, promised to procure for her an advantageous\nengagement with his successors in the management. In this promise he\nfailed, for during the summer of 1776 she received an abrupt dismissal\nfrom Drury Lane. Her failure to produce a sensation in the first\ninstance does not seem to have weighed much on her mind. She knew her\npowers, but was conscious that they were immature; and she was deeply\nsensible through life how necessary, even to the greatest powers, are\ncultivation and study. But this dismissal affected her in a very\ndifferent manner. In her own words, quoted from the autograph\n\u2018Recollections\u2019 intrusted to her friend and biographer, Mr. Campbell,\n\u201cit was a stunning and cruel blow, overwhelming all my ambitious hopes,\nand involving peril, even to the very subsistence of my helpless babes.\u201d\n\nHer fears were soothed, and her mortification relieved by her success at\nseveral of the provincial theatres. She received her dismissal from\nDrury Lane while at Birmingham, where she was engaged during the summer\nto perform the highest characters; and where she laid the foundation of\nher fame, by acquiring the good opinion of the actor Henderson, who\npronounced, within a year of her expulsion from Drury Lane, that she was\nan actress who never had an equal, nor would ever have a superior.\nThrough his recommendation, in the following year she obtained a\npermanent engagement at Bath, where she was received with distinguished\nfavour, and where she remained until her increasing reputation procured\nfor her an invitation to return to Drury Lane. She chose the part of\nIsabella, in the \u2018Fatal Marriage,\u2019 for her debut, October 10, 1782. The\nanxiety with which she approached this second trial is described in an\ninteresting manner in her own memoranda. On this occasion her hopes were\nfully gratified. She played Isabella eight times between October 10, and\nOctober 30, when she appeared in her second character, Euphrasia, in the\n\u2018Grecian Daughter.\u2019 Her other parts, during this first season, were Jane\nShore, Calista, Belvidera, and Zara in the \u2018Mourning Bride.\u2019\n\nWe propose in this sketch of Mrs. Siddons\u2019s theatrical life to notice\nonly the most remarkable of her characters, reserving to the end a\ncomplete list of them, together with a few remarks on her style of\nacting. In November, 1783, she played Isabella in \u2018Measure for Measure,\u2019\nwith entire success; and thus solved the real or pretended doubts of a\nfew persons, who questioned her courage or capacity to represent the\nmasterpieces of Shakspeare to a London audience. No one could do more\njustice to the pure, uncompromising, clear-sighted virtue of Isabella,\nso consonant to her own honest and high-souled simplicity: nor was she\nat fault in attempting, during the same season, Constance, in \u2018King\nJohn,\u2019 a character of more varied emotion, and far greater demand on the\nresources of the player. Of this part she says, in an elaborate\ncriticism, worthy of being read with attention by all persons, and\nespecially by actors, \u201cI cannot conceive in the whole range of dramatic\ncharacter a greater difficulty than that of representing this grand\ncreature.\u201d Those who remember her performance of it in the meridian of\nher powers, bear testimony, with Mr. Campbell, to the depth of her\nmaternal affection, her queen-like majesty, and her tremendous power of\ninvective and sarcasm: when first revived for her the play seems to have\nbeen coldly received.\n\nThe celebrated portrait of Mrs. Siddons as the Tragic Muse was painted\nby Reynolds in 1783. The character was suggested by the painter: the\nattitude is that in which the sitter first placed herself, by which\nReynolds was so struck that he at once adopted it.\n\nAn interesting anecdote relative to Mrs. Siddons\u2019s first country\nperformance of Lady Macbeth, is told in the Memoranda from which we have\nalready quoted. \u201cIt was my custom to study my characters at night, when\nthe domestic cares and business of the day were over. On the night\npreceding that in which I was to appear for the first time, I shut\nmyself up, as usual, when all the family were retired, and commenced my\nstudy of _Lady Macbeth_. As the character is very short, I thought I\nshould soon accomplish it. Being then only twenty years of age, I\nbelieved, as many do believe, that little more was necessary than to get\nthe words into my head; for the necessity of discrimination, and the\ndevelopment of character, at that time of my life, had scarcely entered\ninto my imagination. But, to proceed, I went on with tolerable composure\nin the silence of the night, (a night I can never forget,) till I came\nto the assassination scene, when the horrors of the scene rose to a\ndegree that made it impossible for me to get farther. I snatched up my\ncandle, and hurried out of the room, in a paroxysm of terror. My dress\nwas of silk, and the rustling of it, as I ascended the stairs to go to\nbed, seemed to my panic-struck fancy like the movement of a spectre\npursuing me. At last I reached my chamber, where I found my husband fast\nasleep. I clapt my candlestick down upon the table, without the power of\nputting the candle out; and I threw myself on my bed, without daring to\nstay even to take off my clothes. At peep of day I rose to resume my\ntask; but so little did I know of my part when I appeared in it at\nnight, that my shame and confusion cured me of procrastinating my\nbusiness for the remainder of my life.\u201d\n\n\u201cAbout six years afterwards I was called upon to act the same character\nin London. By this time I had perceived the difficulty of assuming a\npersonage with whom no one feeling of common general nature was\ncongenial or assistant. One\u2019s own heart could prompt one to express with\nsome degree of truth the sentiments of a mother, a daughter, a wife, a\nlover, a sister, &c.; but to adopt this character must be an effort of\nthe judgment alone.\u201d\n\nIn accordance with this, Mrs. Siddons has been known to say, that Lady\nMacbeth gave her more trouble than any other of her characters, both in\nsettling her conception of the poet\u2019s meaning, and determining the means\nof giving effect to it. Her success however in the eyes of the public\nwas complete: in Mr. Campbell\u2019s words, \u201cthe moment she seized the part\nshe identified her image with it in the minds of the living generation.\u201d\nShe appeared in it for the first time in London, February 2, 1785. Smith\nplayed Macbeth. As in the case of Constance, Mrs. Siddons has left, in\nan elaborate essay on the character of Lady Macbeth, interesting\nevidence of the deep study which she bestowed on her profession; a point\nin which, as well as in general mental cultivation, the Kemble family\nhave been advantageously distinguished from others even of our\nfirst-rate actors. It is scarcely possible to conceive \u2018Macbeth\u2019 so well\nperformed as when the principal characters were filled by Mrs. Siddons\nand Kemble: the actors might have been thought born for the parts. The\nsame may be said of \u2018Coriolanus,\u2019 in which they appeared together for\nthe first time in February, 1789. But the season of 1785 is also\nmemorable for Mrs. Siddons\u2019s first appearance in Desdemona, a character\nas widely different from the Scottish Queen as can well be imagined. Yet\nit is recorded to have been one of the actress\u2019s most exquisite\nperformances; and this is one of the strongest proofs of her\nextraordinary talent. Unsuitable as her person, voice, and general\ndemeanour may seem to those who knew her only in her later days, we have\nthe undeniable testimony of competent judges to the grace, loveliness,\nand sweetness with which she personated the gentle Venetian. Her very\nstature, Mr. Boaden says, seemed to be lowered. Ophelia she performed\nonce, and once only, for her benefit, May 15, 1786, to her brother\u2019s\nHamlet; and, though a poor singer, she rendered the part deeply\naffecting. Juliet she also performed, we believe once only, for her\nbenefit in 1789. Cordelia and Imogen are to be added to the list of\ncharacters of the gentler cast. The former was not one of her most\npopular, probably not one of her most effective, performances, for Lear\nis said to have been almost the only play in which, when both were on\nthe stage, the brother made a stronger impression than the sister. The\npure, gentle dignity of Imogen must have found in her a most effective\nrepresentative.\n\nIn the autumn of 1783, about a year before Dr. Johnson\u2019s death, Mrs.\nSiddons, at his own request, paid him a visit, which was several times\nrepeated. He expressed a strong desire to see her in Queen Katherine,\nhis favourite character among Shakspeare\u2019s females. He was not so\ngratified; for the play was not brought forward until November 28, 1788,\nafter an absence from the stage of near half a century. This, like Lady\nMacbeth, we must regard as one of Mrs. Siddons\u2019s peculiar characters.\n\u201cIt was an era,\u201d Mr. Campbell says, \u201cnot only in Mrs. Siddons\u2019s history,\nbut in the fortune of the play as an acting piece; for certainly, in the\nhistory of all female performance on the British stage, there is no\nspecific tradition of any excellence at all approaching to hers as Queen\nKatherine.\u201d The two principal scenes belonging to the part are\nstrikingly contrasted. The high mind and majestic deportment of the\nactress, and the sarcasm which she pours out on the Cardinal, render the\nTrial Scene one of the most effective on the stage; and it has\nfortunately been preserved from oblivion by the pencil of Harlowe. But\nthe last scene, in the sick chamber, was among the strongest proofs of\nMrs. Siddons\u2019s close adherence to nature, and one of her greatest\ntriumphs over the difficulties of her art, enhanced as they were by the\nextravagant dimensions of the modern theatres. It may be mentioned to\nshow her confidence in her own judgment as to the truth of nature that,\nthough the audience in the gallery sometimes asked her to speak louder,\nshe never obeyed the call; but left the architect responsible for any\nfailure of effect, rather than herself overstep the bounds of propriety\nin the most solemn event of human life.\n\nMrs. Siddons quitted Drury Lane for the season 1789\u201390, in consequence\nof the difficulty of obtaining her salary while the treasury was in the\nhands of Sheridan. She was induced by promises to return in the\nfollowing season; but a weak state of health prevented her playing more\nthan seven nights, and she appeared in no new character; nor, during the\nsummer of 1791, did she act on any provincial stage. She returned to\nDrury Lane in 1794, after the rebuilding of the theatre, and remained\nthere until 1802; when the impossibility of rescuing the reward of her\nlabours from that \u201cdrowning gulf,\u201d as she justly calls Sheridan in one\nof her letters, drove her away finally. The most remarkable of her new\ncharacters, during this period of eight years, were Millwood, in \u2018George\nBarnwell,\u2019 and Agnes, in \u2018Fatal Curiosity,\u2019 both plays of Lillo; Mrs.\nHaller; Elvira in \u2018Pizarro,\u2019 which, in spite of the demerits of the\nplay, she rendered one of her most popular characters; and Hermione, in\nthe \u2018Winter\u2019s Tale,\u2019 her last new part, which she acted for the first\ntime, March 25, 1802. The statue scene was one of her most extraordinary\nperformances, both for its illusion while she remained motionless, and\nfor the effect produced by her descent from the pedestal, and\nrecognition of her daughter Perdita.\n\nIn one of her early performances of this character she met with an\naccident which might well have ended fatally. The muslin draperies in\nwhich she was enveloped caught fire from a lamp; fortunately, one of the\nscene-men saw and extinguished it before it spread. Her gratitude for\nhis interposition is eloquently expressed in her correspondence; and her\nwarmth of feeling was subsequently evinced in the pains which she took\nto procure for the man\u2019s son, who had deserted from the army, remission\nfrom what she justly calls \u201cthe horrid torture and disgrace of the\nlash,\u201d and in the lively pleasure which she expresses in the prospect of\nsucceeding.\n\nUpon her final departure from Drury Lane, Mrs. Siddons formed an\nengagement at Covent Garden, where she appeared for the first time,\nSeptember 27, 1803. She continued there until June 29, 1812, on which\nday she bid farewell to the stage. During this time she performed in no\nnew characters, nor is any circumstance which requires notice recorded\nof this part of her professional life. In her last season we find that,\nof her earlier characters, she performed Isabella, in \u2018The Fatal\nMarriage,\u2019 twice; Isabella, in \u2018Measure for Measure,\u2019 seven times;\nEuphrasia, twice; Belvidera, six times; and Mrs. Beverley, four times.\nIt may perhaps be taken as an indication of that by which she wished\nchiefly to be remembered, that she played Lady Macbeth ten times, and\nchose it for her farewell. Queen Katherine she played six times;\nConstance and Volumnia, four times each; Elvira, five times; Mrs.\nHaller, twice; Hermione, four times. On her last appearance the house\nwas crowded to excess, and the excitement of the occasion was testified\nby a general demand that the play should be stopped after Lady Macbeth\u2019s\nappearance in the sleeping scene. Mrs. Siddons returned to the boards on\nvarious occasions, chiefly for her brother Charles\u2019s benefit: her last\nperformance was in the part of Lady Randolph, June 9, 1819.\n\nIn giving, in addition to what we have already said, a short general\nnotice of the professional merits of Mrs. Siddons, we shall confine our\nremarks chiefly to those characters which better suited her maturer\nyears, in which alone a large majority of our readers can have seen her.\nShe was throughout the tragic department the unrivalled actress of her\ntime; though in such parts as Belvidera, Desdemona, Cordelia, &c., the\npower of exciting the sympathy of an audience might have been shared\nwith her by Mrs. Cibber and other of her predecessors, or by her\nsuccessors, Miss O\u2019Neil or Miss Kemble. But in one respect she stands\nalone in her profession: she was the most intellectual of actresses. She\nwas a person of deep thought, and an habitual student of nature with a\nview to the perfection of her art; and that as much, or more, in\nadvanced life, than when she had her reputation to make or to enjoy in\nthe first years of her celebrity. Mrs. Siddons sat day after day in her\nstudy, looking at Shakspeare and whatever bore upon him, not as if he\nwere the mere poet of the stage, furnishing an outline to be filled up\nby her peculiar powers, but as if he were the high priest and expositor\nof human nature, whose lessons it was the serious business of her life\nto learn, and having learned, to teach.\n\nWe shall not add to what we have already said of her Queen Katherine, or\nLady Macbeth, except one circumstance, illustrative of the above\nposition. Mrs. Siddons, who repeatedly read \u2018Macbeth\u2019 before the most\ncompetent judges, made a deeper and more lasting impression, not only in\nher own part, but in the other characters, than did the representation\non the stage by her brother and herself, with all the advantages of\ndress and the illusion of scenery. The audience, at her readings,\nconsisting of men and women of taste and literature, professed never to\nhave understood Shakspeare so thoroughly before.\n\nHer Isabella, in \u2018Measure for Measure,\u2019 claims a short notice. This play\nin Garrick\u2019s reign was acted occasionally to empty benches in the dull\npart of the season; but neither the manager himself, nor his leading\nperformers, condescended to appear in so grave and sermonizing a piece.\nEven when played by Kemble and his sister, it did not draw crowded\nhouses; but it ensured a critical and enlightened audience. The theatre\nseldom contained so many men of the first reputation for taste and\nliterature as when that play was performed. John Kemble\u2019s mind was\nframed in the same mould with his sister\u2019s; he gave to a sententious and\nphilosophic part dignity and interest, where an ordinary actor would\npreach his audience to sleep. The scene between the Duke in the disguise\nof a Confessor, and Isabella, excited neither tears nor rapturous\napplause, but intense interest, and breathless attention. The Duke\u2019s\nexposition of his project is long, her intervening speeches short, and\nnot emphatic; so that such a scene bids fair to be called _prosing_. But\nthe intense and intelligent expression in her eyes, and more perhaps in\nher mouth, the great seat of expression, filled up whatever was wanting:\nthe gradually increasing, but as yet far from complete comprehension of\nthe device, and of its consistency with her own purity, marked without\nwords what was passing in her mind: but when she exclaims \u201cThe image of\nit gives me content already, and I trust it will grow to a most\nprosperous perfection,\u201d the burst of perfect understanding, the lighting\nup of every feature, and the tones of sudden joy, produced a\ncorresponding effect in the spectators, which scenes of intense pathos\ncould scarcely surpass in effect. Mrs. Siddons\u2019s power over the mind was\nas great as over the passions.\n\nAnother extraordinary performance was her Millwood, in \u2018George\nBarnwell.\u2019 She took that part, which had never been played by a\nfirst-rate actress, in hopes that she might be of service to her brother\nCharles, then a young actor, who was to be brought forward as Barnwell.\nIn the early scenes the severity of her blandishments bordered on the\nludicrous; she was more like Barnwell\u2019s mother than his mistress: but in\nher scene of dissimulation with Thorowgood, and in her subsequent arrest\nand diabolically triumphant avowal of the motive of her conduct through\nlife, the desire to revenge her wrongs on the opposite sex, she\npourtrayed wickedness with grand and appalling force. Her thundering\nexclamation, \u201cI know you, and I hate you all; I expect no mercy, and I\nask for none,\u201d was made with a withering effect. The scene in \u2018Fatal\nCuriosity,\u2019 in which Agnes suggests to her husband the murder of their\nunknown son, was another of her wonderful exhibitions: in Mr. Campbell\u2019s\nwords, \u201cit made the flesh of the spectator creep.\u201d\n\nMrs. Siddons is said to have thought well of her own talents for comedy;\nand her reading of Shakspeare\u2019s characters of low humour was admirable.\nShe played at different times Katherine, in \u2018The Taming of the Shrew,\u2019\nand Rosalind; as well as Mrs. Oakley, and a few other characters of the\nmodern drama. There seems to have been nothing against her success in\ngenteel comedy but a deficiency of animal spirits. Her delivery of the\nlevel conversation in tragedy was easy, graceful, and refined. Her\nrepresentation of the early scenes in \u2018The Gamester,\u2019 where she had\nmerely to personate an elegant and highbred woman, bearing up against\npresent anxiety and impending misfortune, was as attractive and as\nfinished as her deep tragedy in the sequel was pathetic and harrowing.\nAnd in the first scenes of Mrs. Haller, the charm of her manners and\ndelivery imparted interest even to the dull detail of a housekeeper\u2019s\nweekly routine.\n\nWe subjoin a list of the parts which Mrs. Siddons performed in London.\nThe reader will be surprised to find how many of them are in plays all\nbut forgotten, and utterly unworthy of her talents. In those marked (*)\nshe made her first appearance for her own benefit: in those marked (\u2020),\nfor John Kemble\u2019s.\n\n         Characters.                           Plays.\n\n                                 1782\u20133.\n\n Isabella                    Fatal Marriage\n\n Euphrasia                   Grecian Daughter\n\n Jane Shore                  Jane Shore\n\n Calista                     Fair Penitent\n\n *Belvidera                  Venice Preserved\n\n *Zara                       Mourning Bride\n\n                                 1783\u20134.\n\n Isabella                    Measure for Measure\n\n Mrs. Beverley               Gamester\n\n Constance                   King John\n\n *Lady Randolph              Douglas\n\n Countess of Salisbury       Countess of Salisbury      (_Hartson._)\n\n *Sigismunda                 Tancred and Sigismunda\n\n                                 1784\u20135.\n\n Margaret of Anjou           Earl of Warwick      (_Franklin._)\n\n Zara                        Zara      (_from Voltaire._)\n\n Matilda                     Carmelite      (_Cumberland._)\n\n Camiola                     Maid of Honour\n\n *Lady Macbeth               Macbeth\n\n Desdemona                   Othello\n\n Elfrida                     Elfrida      (_Mason._)\n\n Rosalind                    As you like it\n\n                                 1785\u20136.\n\n The Duchess                 Duke of Braganza      (_Jephson._)\n\n Mrs. Lovemore               Way to keep Him\n\n *Hermione                   Distressed Mother\n\n *Ophelia, and the Lady in\n   Comus\n\n Malvina                     The Captives      (_Delap._)\n\n Elwina                      Percy      (_Miss H. More._)\n\n                                 1786\u20137.\n\n Cleone                      Cleone      (_Dodsley._)\n\n Imogen                      Cymbeline\n\n Hortensia                   Count of Narbonne      (_Jephson._)\n\n \u2020Lady Restless              All in the Wrong\n\n Julia                       Italian Lovers      (_Jephson._)\n\n Alicia                      Jane Shore\n\n                                 1787\u20138.\n\n Cordelia                    Lear\n\n Cleonice                    Fall of Sparta      (_Mrs. Cowley._)\n\n \u2020Katherine                  Taming the Shrew\n\n Dionara                     Regent      (_Greatheed._)\n\n *Cleopatra                  All for Love\n\n                                 1788\u20139.\n\n Queen Katherine             Henry VIII.\n\n Volumnia                    Coriolanus\n\n *The Princess and Mrs. Riot Law of Lombardy      (_Jephson._)\n                               Lethe      (_Farce. Garrick._)\n\n Mary                        Mary Queen of Scots       (_St. John._)\n\n *Juliet                     Romeo and Juliet\n\n                                 1791\u20132.\n\n Queen Elizabeth             Richard III.\n\n Mrs. Oakley                 Jealous Wife\n\n                                 1792\u20133.\n\n Ariadne                     Ariadne      (_Murphy._)\n\n                                 1793\u20134.\n\n Countess Orsini             Emilia Galotti      (_from Lessing._)\n\n                                 1794\u20135.\n\n Horatia                     Roman Father      (_Whitehead._)\n\n Elvira                      Edwyn and Elgiva      (_Miss Burney._)\n\n Palmira                     Mahomet      (_from Voltaire._)\n\n Emmeline                    Edgar and Emmeline      (_Afterpiece._)\n\n                                 1795\u20136.\n\n Roxana                      Alexander the Great      (_Lee._)\n\n Almeyda                     Queen of Granada      (_Miss Lee._)\n\n Julia                       Such Things were      (_Prince Hoare._)\n\n                                 1796\u20137.\n\n Eleanora                    Edwin and Eleonora      (_Thomson._)\n\n Vitellia                    Conspiracy      (_Jephson._)\n\n Millwood                    George Barnwell\n\n Athenais                    Force of Love      (_Lee._)\n\n Aspasia                     Tamerlane      (_Rowe._)\n\n Dido                        Queen of Carthage      (_Reed._)\n\n Agnes                       Fatal Curiosity\n\n                                 1797\u20138.\n\n Julia                       Rivals\n\n Mrs. Haller                 Stranger\n\n                                 1798\u20139.\n\n Miranda                     Aurelio and Miranda      (_Boaden._)\n\n Countess                    Castle of Montval       (_Dr. Whalley._)\n\n Elvira                      Pizarro\n\n                               1799\u20131800.\n\n Adelaide                    Adelaide      (_Pye._)\n\n Lady Jane                   De Montfort\n\n                                 1800\u20131.\n\n Helena                      Antonio      (_Godwin._)\n\n Agnes                       Julian and Agnes      (_Sotheby._)\n\n                                  1802.\n\n Hermione                    Winter\u2019s Tale\n\nOf Mrs. Siddons\u2019s private life it is not necessary for us to speak at\nlength. She had a full share of domestic troubles; and suffered the most\npoignant sorrow which could have befallen her affectionate temper, in\nthe successive deaths of two lovely daughters in the prime of youth, and\nof her eldest son at a more advanced age. Nor was she exempted by her\nbrilliant success and large gains from great anxiety upon pecuniary\nmatters, and from the necessity of diligent labour at times when rest\nwould have been most grateful to a distressed spirit, and a body\nweakened by frequent indisposition. And she made it her boast that she\nhad never wilfully disappointed either a manager or the public; and that\nin point of punctuality, she had always been _an honest actress_. But\nMr. Siddons lost money in some unfortunate speculations; and this,\ncombined with the extreme difficulty of extracting from Sheridan her\nsalary, or even the proceeds of her benefits, kept Mrs. Siddons poor for\nmany years. It is however gratifying to know that the evening of her\nlife was spent in affluence.\n\nIn social intercourse Mrs. Siddons commanded the respect of all, the\nadmiration and love of those who knew her intimately. To a\nconstitutional want of animal spirits, and to a fear of that\npresumptuous intrusion to which actresses are often exposed, we may\nattribute a gravity, not to say severity of manner, from which distant\nobservers sometimes inferred a corresponding severity of character. That\nthis was not the case, that she was benevolent, cheerful, and\naffectionately interested in the welfare of all who enjoyed her\nfriendship, is shown by the testimony of many, and by the evidence of\nher own actions.\n\nTo be courted by the rich and noble is not the best proof or reward even\nof professional merit; and no one ever was less disposed than Mrs.\nSiddons to act the part of what is called _a lion_. But it should be\nmentioned that her acquaintance was eagerly cultivated among the highest\nof the land; and that she was personally esteemed by George III. and his\nqueen, and often summoned to attend on their private circle. She\npossessed a still higher honour, and one which she is said to have\nesteemed more highly, in the admiration and friendship of Johnson,\nReynolds, Burke, Fox, and other intellectual ornaments of the age.\n\nAfter quitting the stage, Mrs. Siddons gave public readings of poetry at\nthe Argyle Rooms, and also, by special invitation from the Universities,\nat Cambridge and Oxford. At home her readings of Shakspeare were the\ndelight of large and frequent parties, till within a year or two of her\ndeath. The latter years of her life were spent, the winter months at her\nhouse in London, the summer months at some watering-place, and in visits\nto her numerous friends. Time laid his touch gently on her noble face\nand person; and to the end of life she looked some years younger than\nher age, and preserved her mental powers unimpaired. She died June 8,\n1831, in her seventy-sixth year.\n\nWe need hardly refer to the Lives of Messrs. Boaden and Campbell. The\ninterest of the latter is much increased by the critical and other\nwritings of Mrs. Siddons, with which it is interspersed.\n\n[Illustration: [Mrs. Siddons as the Tragic Muse, from Sir J. Reynolds.]]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by E. Scriven._\n\n  SIR W. HERSCHELL.\n\n  _From a Crayon Picture by the late J. Russell, Esq^{re}. R.A. in the\n    possession of Sir John Herschell._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                               HERSCHEL.\n\n\nWilliam Herschel was born at Hanover, November 15, 1738. His father was\na musician, and brought up his four sons to his own art, which in\nGermany gave him better means of educating his children, than would have\nfallen to the lot of a person holding the same station in England. The\nsubject of our memoir is said to have had a master who instructed him in\nFrench, ethics, and metaphysics: but at the age of fourteen he was\nplaced in the band of the Hanoverian regiment of guards, and in 1758 or\n1759 he accompanied a detachment of the regiment to England. Another\naccount states that he grew tired of his occupation, and came to England\nalone. Here, after struggling with poverty for some time, he was chosen\nby Lord Darlington to organize a band for the Durham militia; after\nwhich he passed several years in the West Riding of Yorkshire, employed\nin teaching music and studying languages. About 1765 he was elected\norganist at Halifax, and employed himself in the study of harmony and\nmathematics. Such at least is the statement of the \u2018Obituary;\u2019 but in\nthat respectable work we find no references to the sources from which\nthese minute particulars of Herschel\u2019s early life are obtained. About\nthis time he is said to have visited Italy; and, without professing to\ngive credit to it, we may here insert a curious story which appears to\nhave been copied into English works from the \u2018Dictionnaire des Auteurs\nVivans,\u2019 &c., Paris, 1816. Being at Genoa, and not having wherewith to\npay his passage home to England, he procured from a M. L\u2019Angl\u00e9 the use\nof some public rooms for a concert, at which he played a quartett,\nalone, upon a harp, and two horns, one fastened to each shoulder. Those\nwho are in the least acquainted with wind instruments will hardly\nbelieve that a horn fastened to the shoulder would be of much more use\nthan one growing out of the head, as a musical instrument; to say\nnothing of the difficulty of blowing two horns at once, or of playing a\n_quartett_ upon _three_ instruments. Remarkable characters are generally\nmade the subject of wonderful stories, of which each is fashioned in\naccordance with the general habits of the inventor: the groom\u2019s idea of\na wit was \u201ca gentleman who could ride three horses at once;\u201d surely two\nhorns and a harp are not too much to be played at once by a planetary\ndiscoverer.\n\nAbout 1766, he is said to have been one of the Pump-room band at Bath,\nand was shortly afterwards organist of the Octagon Chapel there. He\ntaught and read as before; and here he turned his attention to\nastronomy. He borrowed a small reflecting telescope of a friend; and at\nlength, finding that the purchase of such an instrument was\n(\u201cfortunately,\u201d as it has been well expressed,) above his means, he\nendeavoured to construct one for himself. His first attempt was a\nfive-feet Newtonian reflector. It was some time before he perfected\nhimself in the method of forming mirrors: in one instance he is said to\nhave spoiled 200 before he succeeded.\n\nIn 1781, he announced to the world the discovery of his new planet, of\nwhich we shall presently speak. He was immediately appointed private\nastronomer to the King, by George III., a post which, we believe, was\ncreated for him, and died with him, with a salary of \u00a3400, and removed,\nfirst to Datchet, afterwards to Slough, where he continued till his\ndeath, August 23, 1822. During this period he ran that career of patient\nand sagacious investigation, terminating in brilliant discovery, which\nhas made his name so well known to the world. Little has been published\nconcerning his private life; but the whole results of his mind are to be\nfound in the \u2018Philosophical Transactions\u2019 between the years 1782 and\n1818.\n\nWe have not been able to find the dates of his knighthood, or of his\nreceiving the degree of Doctor of Civil Law from the University of\nOxford. He married (we cannot find the date) Mrs. Mary Pitt, a widow;\nand his only son, Sir John Herschel, has selected from the many tasks to\nwhich he is competent, that of developing and adding to his father\u2019s\ndiscoveries.\n\nIn the space which we can devote to the astronomical and optical labours\nof Herschel, we cannot attempt to furnish even the smallest detail of\ntheir end and objects, since the catalogue of titles alone would occupy\nmore room than we have to give. We can do no more than address ourselves\nto the impression which generally exists upon the subject, and which\nsupposes the inventor and the philosopher to be no more than an\nindustrious man with good eyes, clever at grinding mirrors for\nreflecting telescopes, and lucky enough to point one at a new planet.\nSuch being the common notion, it is not possible to make any mere\ndescription of Herschel\u2019s papers an index of his merits. Nor have we\nhere understated the scientific knowledge of the public in general. When\nSir John Herschel lately set out for the Cape of Good Hope, the\nnewspapers announced his approaching departure, accompanied by the\ninformation that \u201csix waggon loads of telescopes\u201d were on their way to\nthe ship, which was all that was said, except in publications expressly\nscientific. That one principal object of the son\u2019s voyage was to\ncomplete a great branch of astronomy, by doing in the southern\nhemisphere what the father had done in the northern, was not stated for\na very simple reason\u2014that this portion of the father\u2019s labours is hardly\nknown by name to any but astronomers. And it is to astronomers only that\nHerschel is truly known. The notion entertained of him by others often\nreminds us of the farmer, who came to him to know the proper time to cut\nhis hay. The philosopher replied by pointing to his own crop, which\nhappened to be rotting on the ground under a heavy rain.\n\nThe planet which Herschel called after George III. (but which now goes\nunder the more appropriate name of Uranus) was discovered by him March\n13, 1781; not accidentally, but as one of the fruits of a laborious\ninvestigation, with a distinct and useful object. He was examining every\nstar with one telescope, that he might obtain a definite idea of\nrelative phenomena, which should enable him to distinguish changes\nactually taking place, from differences of appearance caused by the use\nof different telescopes: the whole being in furtherance of the design of\n\u201cthrowing some new light upon the organization of the celestial bodies.\u201d\nThe last words, which are part of the title of one of his subsequent\npapers, aptly express the line of astronomy to which Herschel devoted\nhis life; and the discovery of the planet Uranus was not the chance work\nof a moment, but the consequence of sagacity strengthened by habit, the\nlatter being formed with a perfect knowledge of what was wanted, as well\nas of what would be useful in supplying it. Had he been merely\nregistering the places of the stars, he would probably (as others did\nbefore him) have passed the planet, perhaps with some remark upon its\napparent _diskiness_: for though the stars have no well-defined discs,\nyet some have so much more of the appearance of discs than others, that\na faint planet, viewed with a low power, might easily be taken for a\nstar. But being engaged upon the stars, expressly with a view to trying\nhow much of such a circumstance would be telescopic, and how much real,\nhe was thereby led to try higher powers, and, eventually, other\ntelescopes. The existence of the _planet_ was soon ascertained, and\nforms one of the two great features of Herschel\u2019s reputation in the eyes\nof the world at large.\n\nThe celebrated forty-foot telescope, first described to the Royal\nSociety by Herschel, June 2, 1795, was the result of a long series of\nexperiments on the construction of mirrors, begun at Bath, on telescopes\nfrom two to twenty feet in length. And we may here remark, that \u201cthe\nbulk of his fortune arose from the sale of telescopes of his own\nconstruction, many of which were purchased for the chief observatories\nof Europe,\u201d and not from the salary of \u00a3400 a year which he received as\nprivate astronomer to George III. See \u2018Statement of Circumstances,\u2019 &c.,\na pamphlet printed on the occasion of the last election of a President\nby the Royal Society. In 1785, George III. furnished Herschel with the\nmeans of undertaking an instrument larger than any he had yet made. The\ngreatest difficulty (independent of the stand) was the obtaining a\nmirror of sufficient size, which should not crack in cooling, and should\nbe strong enough not to bend under its own weight. This instrument has\nbeen so frequently described that we shall say no more of it, except\nthat Herschel dates the completion of it from August 28, 1789, when he\ndiscovered the sixth satellite of Saturn, and obtained his best view of\nthe spots on that planet. A month later, the seventh satellite was\ndiscovered by Herschel. This telescope is now never used. Sir J.\nHerschel prefers a twenty-foot reflector for his own observations.\n\nThe first discovery of the satellites of Uranus was also in a minor\ndegree the work of thought. Such bodies were repeatedly looked for by\nHerschel, but none were seen. A small change in the instrument, by which\nthe light was increased, suggested one more trial; and the result was\nthe establishment of the existence of the two first satellites, in\nJanuary, 1787. Two more were discovered by Herschel, in 1790, and two\nmore in 1794. These satellites cannot be seen but with an instrument of\nfirst-rate power, and in a favourable position of the planet. No one has\nobserved the four last satellites except Herschel himself, or the two\nfirst, except himself and Sir J. Herschel, who has confirmed his\nfather\u2019s determination of their periods. See _Mem. Royal Astron. Soc._\nvol. viii. He found that their orbits were nearly perpendicular to the\nplane of the ecliptic, and ascertained their retrograde motion, and some\nremarkable relations between their mean distances. It has a brilliant\nsound, but it is literally true as to the number of _known_ bodies\ncomposing the solar system, that Herschel left it exactly half as large\nagain as he found it. To the Sun, Mercury, Venus, the Earth and Moon,\nMars, Jupiter and four satellites, Saturn and five satellites, and\nHalley\u2019s Comet, eighteen in all, he added nine, namely, two satellites\nto Saturn, Uranus and six satellites.\n\nBut not content with augmenting our own, it is to Herschel we owe the\ndiscovery of other systems. That the fixed stars were each the centre of\na number of planets was suspected, perhaps rather prematurely, before\nhis observations were made known. But the first positive addition to our\nknowledge of _systems_, that is of bodies which move in any degree of\nconnexion with each other, is to be found in his paper read to the Royal\nSociety, June 9, 1803, announcing that Castor, \u03b3 Leonis, \u03b5 Bootis, \u03b6\nHerculis, \u03b4 Serpentis, \u03b3 Virginis, were most probably _binary_[4] stars.\nThe existence of such systems has been confirmed by Sir J. Herschel and\nProfessor Struve, and the duration of the periods given by Herschel has\nbeen sufficiently confirmed to make the exactness of his observations\nremarkable. But to new planets, and new systems, Herschel added new\nuniverses; or, more properly speaking, showed that the universe\nconsisted of portions, each conveying as large an idea of extent and\nnumber, as the whole of what was previously called _the universe_. His\ngreat telescope furnished sufficient facts, and his mind was not slow to\ndraw a conjectural inference, which must be classed among the happiest\nefforts of reasoning speculation. The resolution of the milky way into\nstars proved that we are situated in a stratum of such bodies much\nthicker in some directions than others: this led to the inference that\nsome or all of the nebul\u00e6 with which the sky is crowded might be similar\nenormous groups of stars; and the resolution of some of the nebul\u00e6 into\ndetached portions was a first step towards the demonstration of the\nconjecture.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  _Double_ stars, those which are so near to each other as to appear one\n  to the naked eye: _binary_ systems, double stars which revolve round\n  each other.\n\nThere is enough yet unmentioned,\u2014in the discovery of the time of\nrotation of Saturn\u2014that of Jupiter\u2019s satellites\u2014that of the\nrefrangibility of heat\u2014the experiments on colours\u2014the enormous\ncollection of nebul\u00e6\u2014the experimental determination of the magnitude of\nstars\u2014the researches and conjectures on the physical constitution of the\nsun\u2014those on the qualities of telescopes, &c. &c.,\u2014to form by itself no\nordinary title to the recollection of posterity. But we must refer to\nSir J. Herschel\u2019s Astronomy, in which will be found such an account of\nthem as the plan of the work permitted, by one who has shown himself as\nindisposed to exaggerate, as interested to explain.\n\nIn the labours of his observatory Herschel was assisted by his sister,\nMiss Caroline Herschel, with whose help he published, in 1798, his\ncatalogue of Flamsteed\u2019s stars. This lady, whose exertions, both as an\nobserver and calculator, are well known to astronomers, is still living,\nat a very advanced age, in Hanover.\n\nWe do not know of any very trustworthy account of Herschel. \u2018The\nObituary for 1822,\u2019 the \u2018Gentleman\u2019s Magazine,\u2019 the \u2018Annual Register,\u2019\n&c., do not state their authorities. We have followed the\nfirst-mentioned work as to facts and dates in most of the particulars\nhere mentioned.\n\n[Illustration: [View of the great telescope erected at Slough.]]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by R. Woodman._\n\n  SIR S. ROMILLY.\n\n  _From an Enamel after a Picture by Sir Thomas Lawrence._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                ROMILLY.\n\n\nThe grandfather of Sir Samuel Romilly, as we learn from the following\npassage of a speech which he made at Bristol, \u201cwas born the heir to a\nconsiderable landed estate at Montpellier, in the South of France. His\nancestors had early imbibed and adopted the principles and doctrines of\nthe Reformed Religion, and he had been educated himself in that\nreligious faith. He had the misfortune to live soon after the time when\nthe Edict of Nantes, the great Toleration Act of the Protestants of\nFrance, was revoked by Louis XIV.; and he found himself exposed to all\nthe vexations and persecutions of a bigoted and tyrannical government\nfor worshipping God in the manner in which he believed was most\nacceptable to Him. He determined to free himself from this bondage; he\nabandoned his property, he tore himself from his connexions, and,\nquitting the country and its tyrant, sought an asylum in this land of\nliberty, where he had to support himself only by his own exertions. He\nhimself embarked in trade; he educated his sons to useful trades; and he\nwas contented, at his death, to leave them, instead of his original\npatrimony, no other inheritance than the habits of industry he had given\nthem\u2014the example of his own virtuous life, an hereditary detestation of\ntyranny and injustice, and an ardent zeal in the cause of civil and\nreligious freedom.\u201d One of these sons became eminent as a jeweller, and\nmarried Miss Garnault, by whom he had a numerous family. Of these three\nonly lived to maturity, Thomas, Catherine, and Samuel. Samuel was the\nyoungest, and was born March 1, 1757.\n\nHis father was a man of extreme benevolence, and strict integrity; warm\nin his affections, and cheerful in his disposition. Under the influence\nof his precepts and example the moral character of Samuel Romilly was\nformed: for his mother, from an habitual state of bad health, was\nincapable of superintending the early education of her children, which\nwas consequently much neglected. Samuel and his brother were sent to a\ncommon day-school, the master of which pretended to teach Latin,\nalthough really ignorant of that language. It was at one time\ncontemplated to train him to commercial business in the house of the\nFludyers, who were then considerable merchants in the city, and near\nrelations of his family: but the sudden death of both the partners of\nthat house put an end to these projects; and in the absence of other\noccupation, his father employed him in keeping his accounts, and\nsometimes receiving orders from customers. He had thus leisure to\ncultivate tastes more congenial to his nature; and at the age of\nfourteen he commenced that self-education, to which he owed all his\nfuture success. Every volume of his father\u2019s little collection, and of\nthe circulating libraries in the neighbourhood, was anxiously and\nattentively perused. Ancient and modern history, treatises on science,\nworks of criticism, travels, and English poetry, were among his\nfavourite books. But a passion for poetry soon predominated over other\ntastes; and from admiring the poetry of others he aspired at becoming a\npoet himself. He wrote eclogues, songs, and satires, translated passages\nfrom French poets, and imitated English ones; and resolving to devote\nhimself steadily to literature he hoped to acquire fame as an author. He\nnow set about learning Latin in earnest; and was soon able, by dint of\nunremitting assiduity, and with some assistance from a private tutor, to\nunderstand the easier Latin authors. In the course of about three years\nhe had read through Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus three times; he had\nstudied almost the whole of Cicero, as well as the principal poets; he\nhad gone through the Latin translations of the Greek historians,\norators, and philosophers; and had made numerous translations from the\nLatin classics into English, which he retranslated into Latin. This\ndouble exercise he found to be eminently useful in rendering him, what\nhe at length became, a very excellent scholar. In addition to these\nstudies, he attended lectures on natural philosophy, painting,\narchitecture, and anatomy.\n\nIn the meanwhile he felt his father\u2019s business become every day more\nirksome; and it was definitively arranged that he should enter into some\nbranch of the law; a plan which he was enabled to execute by the\naccession to the family of a considerable legacy. At the age of sixteen,\nhe was articled to Mr. Lally for five years, with a view of succeeding\nto him as one of the six clerks in Chancery. The society, however, of\nMr. Lally and the pursuit of his literary tastes had greater attractions\nfor him than the regular occupation of the office; and although he\nscrupulously performed the duties required of him, his favourite\nclassics engrossed a large portion of his time, and his mind was still\nintent upon a life of peaceful retirement, and the prospect of literary\nfame.\n\nAt the expiration of the term of his apprenticeship, however, he\ndetermined, much against the opinion of many of his friends, to study at\none of the inns of court, and to be called to the bar. His real motive\nin deciding against a clerkship in chancery, which was then only to be\nobtained by purchase, was little suspected at the time; it was, that he\nmight not be obliged to call for his share of the legacy just alluded\nto, amounting to 2000_l._; which he knew it would be very inconvenient\nto his father to pay. This trait of pious benevolence was, by a just\nretribution, the pivot upon which his future fortunes more immediately\nturned.\n\nIt was not till he had attained his twenty-first year that he entered\nupon these new studies; and they were pursued with so much persevering\nassiduity, that at length he became seriously indisposed, and all\napplication was for months prohibited by his medical advisers. So\nserious an interruption to his pursuits was likely to be most injurious\nto him in his profession; when, fortunately, an opportunity occurred of\nmaking an excursion to the continent. The Rev. John Roget, who had\nrecently married his sister, had been attacked with a pulmonary\ncomplaint, which obliged him to remove with her to a southern climate,\nleaving behind them in England their first and then only child. They\nwere no sooner settled at Lausanne, than they ardently desired to have\nthis child conveyed to them, and Mr. Romilly, from a deep sense of the\nobligations he already owed to his brother-in-law for assisting him in\nhis studies, and supplying that judicious and well-timed encouragement,\nwhich, on a susceptible and ardent mind, ever acts as the most powerful\nincentive to exertion, readily undertook the charge. The change of air\nand scene, the lively interest he took in visiting new countries, and\nthe consciousness of rendering no small service to relatives to whom he\nwas most affectionately attached, produced a rapid and favourable change\nupon his health. Still more important was the effect produced on the\ntone of his mind by this renewed intercourse with a friend, who had\nearly discerned his latent abilities and extraordinary capacity, and\nwho, on this occasion, placing before his view the wide field on which\nthose talents might be advantageously exercised, and the important\nservices he might thus be capable of rendering to his fellow-creatures,\nproduced impressions which were indelible, and which, as he himself has\noften said, had a marked influence upon the subsequent events of his\nlife.\n\nOn his return to England he resumed his studies with renovated strength\nand with redoubled ardour. He was called to the bar in 1783. More than\nten years, however, elapsed before any real prospect of success opened\nto him in his profession. It is true that he was employed in drawing\npleadings in chancery, and this business gradually increased; but it\nnever required him to open his lips in court; and although he regularly\nattended the Midland circuit, he had no connexions on it, and it was not\nuntil he commenced an attendance on the sessions that the circuit at\nlength became a source of some profit to him. In 1792 he appeared for\nthe first time as a leader: in a short time he was employed in almost\nevery case, and not many years passed before he was at the head of his\ncircuit.\n\nBut we are anticipating a later period. In 1784 Mr. Romilly became\nacquainted with Mirabeau, and through him with Lord Lansdowne. That\nnobleman appreciated the knowledge and character of the rising lawyer,\nand becoming intimate with him, did all in his power to encourage and\nbring forth his talents. About the same time there was published a tract\nby the Rev. Dr. Madan, entitled \u2018Thoughts on Executive Justice.\u2019 It had\nattracted some attention, and was so much admired by Lord Lansdowne,\nthat he suggested to his friend the task of writing a treatise in the\nsame spirit. But Mr. Romilly was so much shocked at the principle upon\nwhich it proceeded, namely, that of rigidly executing the criminal code\nin all cases, barbarous and sanguinary as it then was, that, instead of\nadopting its doctrines, he sat down to refute them. The triumphant reply\nwhich he drew up and published anonymously did not meet with the success\nit deserved. Nevertheless he had the satisfaction of hearing it praised\nfrom the bench; and Lord Lansdowne himself had the singular candour to\nacknowledge the merit of a production, which, although written at his\nown suggestion, was at variance with the opinions he had desired to see\ninculcated.\n\nAllusion has been made to Mr. Romilly\u2019s acquaintance with Mirabeau. He\nwas one of those of whose talents Mirabeau had availed himself on more\nthan one occasion. It is unnecessary, however, to mention more than the\nfollowing instance, which is too characteristic to be omitted. During\none of Mr. Romilly\u2019s visits to Paris, in 1788, curiosity led him to see\nthe prison of the Bic\u00eatre, and on meeting Mirabeau the next day, he\ndescribed to him all the horror and disgust with which the place had\ninspired him. Mirabeau, struck with the force of his description, begged\nhim to express it in writing, and to be allowed to use it. Mirabeau\ntranslated and published this account in a pamphlet, which, in spite of\nthe title, \u2018Lettre d\u2019un Voyageur Anglais sur la Prison de Bic\u00eatre,\u2019 was\neverywhere ascribed to him; while the real author, on his return to\nEngland, printed his own MS. in the \u2018Repository,\u2019 as the translation,\nalthough it was in fact the original.\n\nIt was not till the autumn of 1796, when on a visit to Bowood, the\ncountry-seat of Lord Lansdowne, that Mr. Romilly first met Miss Garbett,\nto whom he was afterwards united, and who formed the charm of the\nremainder of his existence. With such sacred inducements to renew his\nefforts in his profession, his advancement was proportionably rapid. On\nNovember 6, 1800, he was appointed king\u2019s counsel; and it was soon clear\nthat he might aspire to the highest ranks of his profession. In 1806 he\nwas made Solicitor-general, under the administration of Mr. Fox and Lord\nGrenville. He was, much against his will, knighted on his appointment;\nand was brought into Parliament by the Government for Queenborough. Soon\nafter, he was called upon to sum up the evidence on the trial of Lord\nMelville; a duty which he performed with consummate skill, though with a\nfeebleness of voice which deprived his most able speech of its just\neffect in the vast hall where it was delivered.\n\nDuring the first session of his parliamentary career, Sir Samuel Romilly\nconfined himself principally to questions of law, and seldom addressed\nthe House, except in committee; but in the beginning of 1807 he took a\nmore prominent part, and made his first great speech in favour of the\nabolition of the Slave-trade\u2014a speech, which at once placed him on a\nlevel with the most successful orators of the day. In this subject he\nhad always felt deep interest. From his earliest youth he had expressed\nthe warmest indignation against this infamous traffic; he had\ntranslated, with a view to publication, Condorcet\u2019s pamphlet against\nWest Indian slavery, and, at the beginning of the French Revolution, he\nhad written an eloquent paper against the Slave-trade, and had\ntransmitted it to his friend Dumont, from whom he trusted it would pass\nto Mirabeau, and would remind him of the importance of the question, at\na time when a comparatively slight effort would have settled it in that\ncountry for ever. These previous efforts had produced no effect; but he\nhad afterwards the satisfaction of belonging to the ministry to whom the\nhonour was due of abolishing the slave-trade, and of thus preparing the\nway for putting an end to slavery itself. This ministry were soon after\ndismissed from their offices, for not sacrificing their opinions in\nfavour of Catholic emancipation to the lamentable and persevering\nprejudices entertained by George III. on that question, prejudices\nadopted by his son and successor, to the infinite detriment of his\ndominions.\n\nOn the dissolution of parliament which followed, Sir Samuel Romilly,\nhaving procured for himself a seat for Wareham, lost no time in\nre-introducing a measure, which had been rejected in the former\nparliament, to enable a creditor to obtain the payment of his debts from\nthe landed property of persons dying indebted. With a view to prevent\nopposition, he had confined the operation of his measure to freehold\nestates only. The bill, however, even in this modified form, met with\nthe greatest opposition. Its introduction by Sir Samuel was ascribed to\n\u201chis hereditary love of democracy;\u201d it was denounced by Canning, \u201cas the\nfirst step of something that might end like the French Revolution, and\nas a dangerous attack against the aristocracy, which was thus to be\nsacrificed to the commercial interest;\u201d and it was finally rejected by a\nconsiderable majority. Rather than give up his object entirely, he\ndetermined to make another concession to the prejudices of his\nopponents; and a few days after the rejection of the measure, on\nintroducing a second bill on the same subject, he limited its operation\nto the landed estates of _traders_. This expedient succeeded; the\naristocracy, caring little what became of traders\u2019 estates, suffered the\nbill to pass both houses without the slightest opposition, and it\nreceived the Royal assent in August, 1807. After the lapse of seven\nyears, he made fresh attempts in favour of his original bill, but in\nvain. It was indeed carried by the Commons, in 1814, by a majority of\nnearly two to one; and again in the same house, in the two succeeding\nyears, without the slightest opposition; but on all these occasions it\nwas as regularly rejected by the House of Peers. The original measure,\nincluding copyhold as well as freehold estates, has recently become part\nof the law of the land.\n\nDuring the vacation of 1807 Sir Samuel Romilly prepared some of those\nreforms in the criminal law, by which he is most known to the public.\nFor many years he had been intent on this subject, and had made it his\nparticular study. During repeated visits to the continent, he never\nmissed an opportunity of attending any important trial; and for the\nsixteen years during which he attended the circuit, he had been in the\nhabit of noting down whatever appeared to him worthy of observation in\nthe criminal courts. Shocked at instances of judicial injustice, which\nthus fell under his notice, he had secretly resolved that, if it should\never be in his power, he would endeavour to provide a remedy for such\ngross abuses. The principles of his intended reforms were contained in\nhis answer to Dr. Madan. He held that the prevention of crime is more\neffectually accomplished by certainty than by severity of punishment;\nthat to approximate to certainty of punishment, it was necessary to\nmitigate the severities of the penal code; that, unless this were done,\nthere would still be an indisposition on the part of the public to\nprosecute, of witnesses to give evidence, of juries to convict, and even\nof judges to put in execution the sentences they had themselves\npassed;\u2014that all these were so many chances of escape offered to a\nculprit, operating rather as encouragements than as checks to crime.\nThese doctrines, then so new, although now received as axioms, made but\nfew converts at first; and it was not till they were again brought\nbefore the public in the House of Commons, in 1808, that they attracted\nsome of that attention to which they were entitled. One of his first\nbills, which repealed the punishment of death for stealing privately\nfrom the person to the amount of five shillings, passed both houses with\nbut little opposition; but, as the number of prosecutions increased in\nconsequence, it was alleged that the crime itself had increased, and\nthat all similar reforms would be attended with similar mischief.\nRomilly urged in vain that, when the measure was under consideration, he\nhad foretold that it would produce an increase of prosecutions; and that\nthis, far from being an argument against the mitigation of punishment,\nwas the best proof of its efficacy. In vain did he defend his principle,\nwith the varied stores of his knowledge, with the most powerful\narguments, and with the eloquence of deep conviction. The mature\nreflections of above thirty years\u2019 study and experience were treated as\nthe rash innovations of a wild theorist. The effect of government\ncirculars was too seldom counteracted by the attendance of his own\npolitical friends; no party advantage could be gained from such\nenlightened labours; there was no large and powerful body in the country\nto second his efforts; and when, at length, after unremitting\nperseverance, he occasionally succeeded in carrying a bill through the\nCommons, it was rarely permitted to pass through the ordeal of the Upper\nHouse. But these efforts were not thrown away. His views, ably and\ndiligently supported by Sir James Mackintosh and others, have since been\nconfirmed and acted on even by his political opponents. The credit which\nwas due to him who had sown the seed has since been claimed by those who\nreaped it; but the harvest is not lost to the public.\n\nBut Romilly did not shrink from taking an active part on questions more\ngenerally interesting to the public, even though the avowal of his\nopinions might endanger his advancement in life. A remarkable instance\nof this kind occurred in the beginning of 1809, when the conduct of the\nDuke of York was brought before the house by Colonel Wardle. He was\naware that to support this inquiry would not be less obnoxious to many\nmembers of the former government than to those then in office. It had\nbeen significantly intimated to him that the Prince of Wales would\nconsider any attack on the duke as an attack on himself; and he felt\nunder some obligation to the Prince for having formerly offered him a\nseat in parliament, which, however, he had declined. Such was his\nposition; entertaining, however, a strong opinion on the subject, he\nresolved not to abandon his duty; and he spoke and voted in favour of\nthe motion. He concluded his speech in these words: \u201cThe venerable\njudge[5] who took an early part in the discussion of this question has\nattested the sincerity of his vote by an affecting allusion to his age\nand infirmities, to the few inducements which the remainder of his life\npresented to him. I cannot say the same thing. Not labouring under the\nsame affliction, and not having arrived at the same period of life, I\nmay reasonably be allowed for myself, and for those who are most dear to\nme, to indulge hopes of prosperity yet to come. Reflecting on the\nvicissitudes of human life, I may entertain apprehensions of adversity\nand persecution which perhaps await me. I have, however, the\nsatisfaction to reflect, that it is not possible for me to hope to\nderive, in any way the most remote, advantages from the vote which upon\nthis occasion I shall give, and from the part which I have thought it my\nduty to act.\u201d\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Mr. Barton, a Welsh judge, who was then at the age of nearly seventy,\n  and deprived of his sight.\n\nThese anticipations were afterwards corroborated by several persons, who\ntold him, that after such a speech, he must give up all thoughts of ever\nbeing Chancellor. The public also felt that he had made a sacrifice in\ntheir cause. Thanks were voted to him in conjunction with Mr. Whitbread,\nLord Folkstone, and some others, from the City of London, Liverpool,\nCarmarthen, Wiltshire, Bristol, Berwick, &c. &c.; and he was invited by\nthe Livery of London to a public dinner, as a mark of approbation of his\nconduct. He declined, however, to accept the intended honour, and his\nanswers to the addresses were drawn up with that unaffected modesty, and\nlove of simple truth, which were so peculiarly characteristic of his\nmind. Instead of dwelling upon his own merit, he drew the picture of\nwhat would have been thought of him had he pursued an opposite course.\n\u201cSeeing the case,\u201d he said in his answer to the Livery, \u201cin the light in\nwhich I saw it, to have acted otherwise than I did, I must have been\nbase enough to have deserted my public duty upon a most important\noccasion, from the mean apprehension that to discharge my duty might be\nattended with personal disadvantage to myself. If there be much merit in\nnot having been actuated by such unworthy motives, (which I cannot\nthink, but if there be,) that merit I certainly may pretend to, &c.\u201d\n\nThe course which he took in the year following on the imprisonment of\nGale Jones, and the alleged breach of privilege by Sir Francis Burdett,\nwas again at variance with that adopted by either of the two great\nparties in the house. The Opposition as well as the Ministry, and all\nthe lawyers who took any part in the debate, concurred in thinking the\npaper written by Sir Francis Burdett a breach of privilege, and\ndeserving of punishment of one kind or another; while Romilly maintained\nthat the house had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. He\ndid not dispute the right to imprison for a breach of privilege which\nobstructed their proceedings, but he denied the right and the policy of\ndoing so for the publication of animadversions on matters already\nconcluded. He urged that these latter questions \u201cought not to be decided\non by the house, which thus constituted itself prosecutor, party, and\njudge, without affording to the accused the opportunity of even hearing\nthe charges preferred against him; but they ought to be left to the\nordinary tribunals, the courts of law.\u201d These arguments, disregarded at\nthe time, were amply justified by the events which followed. The folly\nof the course adopted was proved by serious disturbances, attended with\nthe loss of life; petitions couched in the most disrespectful language\nwere sent up, and inserted on the Journals; and the question of the\nprivileges of the Commons came, in the first instance, before the courts\nof law, and was finally decided by the House of Lords. Invitations to\npublic dinners were again sent to him, which he again declined; and\naddresses of thanks were voted \u201cfor the stand he had made in favour of\nthe dominion of the law, against arbitrary discretion and undefined\nprivilege.\u201d\n\nBut it was not only in this way that the public showed how much they\nappreciated his integrity and independence. In 1812 he was pressed to\nallow himself to be put in nomination for several large constituencies;\namongst others for Liverpool, Chester, Middlesex, and Bristol. At\nBristol, his past political conduct was considered a sufficient\nguarantee for the future; no pledge was required of him, he was to be\nput to no expense, and it was agreed that he should be excused from\npersonal canvas. On terms so honourable he consented to be put in\nnomination; and although a total stranger in the town, his reception was\nmost encouraging, and there seemed every prospect of success.\nNevertheless the common but dishonest maxim, of every thing being fair\nat an election, being acted upon by the opposite party, it was soon\nevident that he would not be returned; and on the seventh day he\nresigned any further contest.\n\nAlthough his opinions were not as yet to receive the sanction of any\nlarge and popular constituency, he did not relax his efforts in favour\nof the rights and interests of the people. On being returned for\nHorsham, during the six sessions which this parliament lasted, we find\nhim the same strenuous advocate for civil liberty and religious\ntoleration in the most extensive sense of the words, at home and abroad;\nthe same determined enemy to peculation and corruption, the same ardent\nand judicious reformer of the laws; \u201cincapable on every occasion of\nbeing swerved from his duty by the threats of power, the allurements of\nthe great, the temptations of private interest, or even the seduction of\npopular favour. All the toil, the pain, and the fatigue of his duties\nwere his own; all the advantage which resulted from his labours were for\nthe public.\u201d\n\nHe spoke and voted against military flogging, the game laws, the\npunishment of the pillory, the poor laws, the law of libel, and\nlotteries; against the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, Lord\nSidmouth\u2019s circular letter, and the employment of spies and informers;\nand against the persecution of the Protestants in France, and the Alien\nbill at home; in favour of Catholic emancipation, the education of the\npoor, and the liberty of the press. He was always a zealous advocate for\npeace; against the system of the corn laws, and all restrictions on\ncommerce, and he was in favour of an extensive change in the\nrepresentation of the people, of shortening the duration of parliament,\nand ensuring the free exercise of the elective franchise. He was also in\nfavour of the promulgation of laws, of allowing counsel to prisoners, of\ngiving compensation to those who had been unjustly accused, of greatly\nextending the rules respecting the admission of evidence; of introducing\nsecondary punishments, and of instituting a public prosecutor; and all\nthis not more for the sake of humanity towards the guilty, than for the\ngreat ends of justice, the prevention of crime, and the reform of\ncriminals.\n\nAt the conclusion of this parliament in 1818, Sir Samuel Romilly, after\nhaving again been invited to stand for several large constituencies, by\nany of which he was assured he would be elected, was at length put in\nnomination for Westminster; and although he was violently opposed by the\ncourt on the one side, and by the ultra popular party on the other;\nalthough, during the whole of the contest, he was calmly pursuing his\nprofessional duties in the Court of Chancery, and never once appeared on\nthe hustings till the conclusion, he was returned at the head of the\npoll. After his election, he did all in his power to avoid the ceremony\nof chairing; but on his objections being over-ruled, his greatest\npleasure was when, after he had addressed the multitude from the windows\nof Burlington House, he was able to escape by a back door and walk by\nthe less frequented streets to his home, there to receive\ncongratulations no less hearty, and more congenial to his temper and\ntaste. But he did not live to take his seat. A life of uninterrupted and\nrarely equalled domestic happiness, and of great success in his\nprofessional and political career, was suddenly embittered by the loss\nof that being, to whom he had been deeply and devotedly attached for\nabove twenty years, and with whom he had ever considered his happiness\nand prosperity as being indissolubly connected. He sank under this\ncalamity, and mankind was deprived of his services for ever[6].\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Strong symptoms of an incipient brain fever showed themselves, and\n  these increased so rapidly as to produce, before they could be\n  checked, a temporary delirium, as most frequently happens in that\n  malady; and in this paroxysm he terminated his existence, November 22,\n  1818, three days after Lady Romilly\u2019s death.\n\nRomilly was reserved and silent in general society, but affectionate,\nentertaining, and instructive with his friends; and full of joyousness,\nhumour, and playfulness with his children, and in the bosom of his\nfamily. He was endowed with a lively imagination, he was fond of\nretirement, and was a passionate admirer of the beauties of nature.\nIndefatigable in his profession and in parliament, he yet found time to\nkeep up with the literature of the day, to write criticisms on the books\nwhich he read, to keep a regular diary of his political career, and to\ncompose essays on various branches of the criminal law. His eloquence\nwas of that kind which never fails to make a lasting impression: it was\nfull of earnest conviction and deep sensibility. He was a great master\nof sarcasm, but he considered it an unfair weapon and rarely employed\nit. So jealous was he of his independence, that when he was\nsolicitor-general, and one of his nephews was peculiarly anxious to be\nplaced in the Military Academy at Woolwich, he refused to lay himself\nunder any obligation, even for so slight a favour; and the application\nwas never made. Few ever gained so large a portion of public favour, and\nyet so studiously avoided courting popularity; and no one ever rose\nhigher in the esteem of his political contemporaries. Unsullied in\ncharacter as a lawyer, as a politician, and as a man, his life, which\nwas prolonged to the age of sixty-one, was a life of happiness and of\nhonour. No statues are erected to his memory; no titles descend to his\nchildren; but he has bequeathed a richer, a prouder, and a more lasting\ninheritance, than any which the world can bestow: the recollection of\nhis virtues is still fresh in the minds of his countrymen, and the\nsacrifices he made in the cause of humanity will not be forgotten by\nmankind.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                              SHAKSPEARE.\n\n\nThe materials which we possess for the biography of Shakspeare are very\nunsatisfactory. The earliest life is that by the poet Rowe, who, as if\naware of its scantiness, merely entitles it \u2018Some Account.\u2019 It contains\nwhat little the author could collect, when no sources of information\nwere left open but the floating traditions of the theatre after the\nlapse of nearly a century. Mr. Malone prefixed a new life to his\nedition, extending to above 500 pages; but he only brings his author to\nLondon, and as to his professional progress, adds nothing to Rowe\u2019s\nmeagre tale, except some particles of information previously\ncommunicated in notes by himself and Steevens.\n\nWilliam Shakspeare was born at Stratford-upon-Avon in Warwickshire,\nApril 23, 1564. He was one of ten children. His father was a dealer in\nwool, as it is generally said, but according to Malone, a glover, and\nalderman in the corporation of Stratford. Our great poet received such\neducation as the lower forms of the Grammar School at Stratford could\ngive him; but he was removed from that establishment at an early age, to\nserve as clerk in a country attorney\u2019s office. This anecdote of his\nboyhood receives confirmation from the frequent recurrence of technical\nlaw-phrases in his plays; and it has been remarked that he derives none\nof his allusions from other learned professions. Before he was eighteen\nyears of age he contracted a marriage with Anne Hathaway, a woman some\nyears older than himself, and the daughter of a substantial yeoman in\nhis own neighbourhood. He went to London about 1586, when he was but\ntwenty-two years of age, being obliged, as the common story goes, to fly\nthe country, in consequence of being detected in deer-stealing. This\ntale is thought to be confirmed by the ridicule cast on his supposed\nprosecutor, Sir Thomas Lucy, in the character of Justice Shallow,\npointed as it is by the\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by E. Scriven._\n\n  SHAKSPEARE.\n\n  _From the Picture in the Possession of His Grace the Duke of\n    Buckingham, at Stowe._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street. June 1, 1835._\n]\n\ncommendation of the \u201cdozen white luces as a good coat.\u201d But as this is\nthe only lawless action which tradition has imputed to one of the most\namiable and inoffensive of men, we may perhaps esteem the tale to be the\nmere gossip of the tiring-room: indeed, Malone has adduced several\narguments to prove that it cannot be correctly told. It is not necessary\nto suppose that Shakspeare was compelled to fly his native town because\nhe came to the metropolis; his emigration is sufficiently accounted for\nby his father\u2019s falling into distressed circumstances, and being obliged\nin this very year, 1586, to resign his alderman\u2019s gown on that account.\nAnother traditional anecdote, that Shakspeare\u2019s first employment was to\nwait at the play-house door, and hold the horses of those who had no\nservants, is discredited by Mr. Steevens, who says, \u201cThat it was once\nthe general custom to ride on horseback to the play I am yet to learn.\nThe most popular of the theatres were on the Bankside; and we are told\nby the satirical pamphleteers of that time that the usual mode of\nconveyance to those places of amusement was by water; but not a single\nwriter so much as hints at the custom of riding to them, or at the\npractice of having horses held during the hours of exhibition. Let it be\nremembered too, that we receive this tale on no higher authority than\nthat of Cibber\u2019s \u2018Lives of the Poets.\u2019\u201d\n\nNothing is authentically proved with respect to Shakspeare\u2019s\nintroduction to the stage. His first play is dated by Malone in 1589,\nthree years after the time assigned for the author\u2019s arrival in London.\nIt appears from the dedication to \u2018Venus and Adonis,\u2019 published in 1593,\nin which he calls that poem \u201cthe first heir of his invention,\u201d that his\nearliest essays were not in dramatic composition. The \u2018Lucrece,\u2019\npublished in 1594, and the collection of sonnets, entitled the\n\u2018Passionate Pilgrim,\u2019 published in 1599, also belong to an early period\nof his poetical life. The \u2018Lover\u2019s Complaint,\u2019 and a larger collection\nof sonnets, were printed in 1609. It may be conjectured that he was led\nto write for the stage in consequence of the advice and introduction of\nThomas Green, an eminent comedian of the day, who was his townsman, if\nnot his relation. Shakspeare trod the boards himself, but he never rose\nto eminence as an actor: it is recorded that the Ghost in \u2018Hamlet\u2019 was\nhis masterpiece. But the instructions to the players in \u2018Hamlet\u2019 exhibit\na clear and delicate perception of what an actor ought to be, however\nincompetent the writer might be to furnish the example in his own\nperson.\n\nThe extent of Shakspeare\u2019s learning has been much controverted. Dr.\nJohnson speaks of it thus: \u201cIt is most likely that he had learned Latin\nsufficiently to make him acquainted with construction, but that he never\nadvanced to an easy perusal of the Roman authors. Concerning his skill\nin modern languages, I can find no sufficient ground of determination;\nbut as no imitations of French or Italian authors have been discovered,\nthough the Italian poetry was then high in esteem, I am inclined to\nbelieve that he read little more than English, and chose for his fables\nonly such tales as he found translated.\u201d Other writers have contended\nthat he must have been acquainted with the Greek and Roman classics: but\nDr. Farmer, in his \u2018Essay on the Learning of Shakspeare,\u2019 has accounted\nin a very satisfactory manner for the frequent allusions to the facts\nand fables of antiquity to be met with in Shakspeare\u2019s writings, without\nsupposing that he read the classic authors in their original languages.\nThe supposition indeed is at variance with his whole history. Dr. Farmer\nhas particularly specified the English translations of the classics then\nextant, and concludes on the whole, that the studies of Shakspeare were\nconfined to nature and his own language.\n\nThe merit of Shakspeare did not escape the notice of Queen Elizabeth. He\nevinced his gratitude for her patronage in that beautiful passage in the\n\u2018Midsummer Night\u2019s Dream,\u2019 where he speaks of her as \u201ca fair vestal,\nthroned in the west.\u201d\n\nSheffield, Duke of Buckinghamshire, is the relater of an anecdote which\nshows the continuance of high favour to our author. It is expressed in\nthese words: that \u201cthe most learned prince and great patron of learning,\nKing James I., was pleased with his own hand to write an amicable letter\nto Mr. Shakspeare;\u201d and Dr. Farmer supposes, with apparent probability,\nthat this honour was conferred in return for the compliment paid to the\nmonarch in \u2018Macbeth.\u2019 Shakspeare also possessed the esteem of, and was\nadmitted to familiar intercourse with, the accomplished Earls of\nSouthampton and Essex; and enjoyed the friendship of his great\ncontemporary Ben Jonson.\n\nOf the poet\u2019s career before the London public nothing authentic has come\ndown to us; and perhaps if more were known, it might not be worth\nrecording. But his retirement in 1611 or 1612, about four years before\nhis death, though it afford no story, furnishes a pleasing reflection.\nHe had left his native place, poor and almost unknown: he returned to\nit, not rich, but with a competence and an unblemished character. His\ngood-natured wit made him a welcome member of private society when he no\nlonger set the theatre in a roar; and he ended his days in habits of\nintimacy, and in some cases in the bonds of friendship, with the leading\ngentlemen of the neighbourhood. He died on his birthday, April 23, 1616,\nwhen he had completed his fifty-second year. If we look merely at the\nstate in which he left his productions, we should be apt to conclude\nthat he was insensible of their value. To quote the words of Dr.\nJohnson, \u201cIt does not appear that Shakspeare thought his works worthy of\nposterity; that he levied any ideal tribute upon future times, or had\nany further prospect than that of present popularity and present\nprofit.\u201d But the imperfect form in which they came before the public is\nnot necessarily to be accounted for by this extravagance of humility. It\nis clear that any publication of his plays by himself would have\ninterfered at first with his own interest, and afterwards with the\ninterest of those to whom he made over his share in them; besides which,\nsuch was the revulsion of the public taste, that the publication of his\nworks by Hemings and Condell was accounted a doubtful speculation. For\nseveral years after his death the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher were\nmore frequently acted than those of Shakspeare; and the beautiful works\nof the joint dramatists afterwards gave place to the rhyming rhapsodies\nof Dryden and the bombast of Lee. Garrick brought back the public to\nShakspeare and every-day nature; Kemble exhibited him in the more\nrefined dress of classical taste and philosophy.\n\nMr. Malone has observed, that our author\u2019s prose compositions, should\nthey be discovered, would exhibit the same perspicuity, the same\ncadence, the same elegance and vigour, which we find in his plays. In\n1751, an attempt was made to impose on the public by a book entitled \u2018A\nCompendious or Brief Examination of certayne Ordinary Complaints of\ndivers of our Countrymen in these our Days, &c., by William Shakspeare,\nGentleman;\u2019 the signature to which, in the original edition of 1581, was\n\u201cW. S., Gent.;\u201d and Dr. Farmer has clearly proved the initials to mean\n\u201cWilliam Stafford, Gent.\u201d Another and more impudent forgery was\nattempted by Ireland, who published in 1795 a volume, entitled\n\u2018Shakspeare\u2019s Manuscripts.\u2019 The fraud met with partial success, and the\ntragedy of \u2018Vortigern\u2019 was performed as one of Shakspeare\u2019s, to the\ngreat disgust, it is said, of John Kemble, who had to act in it much\nagainst his will. Malone exposed the imposition in 1796, and Ireland\nhimself ultimately acknowledged it. With respect to the probable\ncharacter of Shakspeare\u2019s prose compositions, it is needless to\nspeculate on it, as we have no reason to believe that he ever wrote any\nprose, except for the stage.\n\nSome interesting criticisms of Mrs. Siddons on the chief female\ncharacters of Shakspeare will be found in the life of that eminent\nactress in this volume. We may here introduce another observation of\nhers on Constance in \u2018King John.\u2019 She said that the intuition of\nShakspeare in delineating that character struck her as all but\nsupernatural: she could scarcely conceive the possibility of any man\npossessing himself so thoroughly with the most intense and most inward\nfeelings of the other sex: had Shakspeare been a woman and a mother, he\nmust have felt neither less nor more than as he wrote.\n\nThe two first folio editions are in great request among book-collectors,\nand, owing to their scarcity, fetch high prices at auctions. They have\nnothing to recommend them either as to accuracy or elegance of\ntypography, but are really valuable for the various readings which they\ncontain. The best modern editions are those of Johnson and Steevens, and\nMalone. The last edition is the posthumous one of Malone, edited by\nBoswell, and little room is left for any farther elucidation of our\ngreat dramatist, as far as verbal criticism is concerned. But for the\nhigher branches of criticism, the works of such a poet are as\ninexhaustible as those of Homer; and if his fame be equally immortal,\nits fate is more singular. However ardent may be the admiration of Homer\non the part of modern scholars, and however profound their investigation\nof his merits, far from pretending to discoveries unknown to the Grecian\ncritics and philosophers, they support their own views by constant\nreferences to the ancients; but Shakspeare has found his most elaborate,\nand with certain drawbacks, his best critics, among foreigners. In\nEngland Shakspeare is the idol of those who read either for the\namusement of the imagination, or as students not of poetical or\nmetaphysical, but of every-day nature; and his English editors have\nrather criticised down to the level of such readers, than aimed at\nripening their taste, or elevating their conceptions. We find eminent\nmen among them, such as Pope, Warburton, and Johnson, yet none well\nqualified to perform the highest functions of a commentator. Johnson\u2019s\nPreface is highly valued for the justness of his general criticism, and\nhis vindication of the poet on the score of the unities is triumphantly\nconclusive. But his remarks at the end of each play are so jejune and\nsuperficial, that short as they are, no reader perhaps ever wished them\nlonger. One cannot help wondering that the acute, and in many instances\nprofound, though sometimes partial, critic of Cowley, Milton, Dryden,\nPope and Gray, should have skimmed so lightly over the surface of\nShakspeare. Not so his German translators and critics. No sooner did the\nGermans take up the study of English literature, than they selected\nShakspeare on whom to try their powers; and they are thought to have\ndived deeper into his mind than have his own countrymen, with their\napparently better opportunities. Nor is this wonderful: for they have\nregarded the poet not merely as the minister of amusement to an admiring\naudience, but as a metaphysical philosopher of nature\u2019s forming,\npossessed of deepest insight into the complex motives which move the\nhearts, and stimulate the actions of mankind. And seeking with a\nreverent attention to trace the workings of the _maker\u2019s_ mind (for in\nthis instance there is a peculiar propriety in translating the Greek\nword _poet_) they have succeeded in furnishing profound and satisfactory\nexplanations of much that less intellectual critics had treated as\ninstances of the author\u2019s irregular and capricious genius. In this, as\nin other branches of German literature, Go\u00ebthe stands pre-eminent: and\nthe translation of his \u2018Wilhelm Meister\u2019 has placed within the reach of\nall readers a series of original and masterly criticisms, especially on\nthat stumbling-block of commentators, the character of Hamlet. We may\nquote as a specimen his exposition of the principle upon which the\nanomalies of the Prince of Denmark\u2019s conduct are to be solved. \u201cIt is\nclear to me that Shakspeare\u2019s intention was to exhibit the effects of a\ngreat action, imposed as a duty upon a mind too feeble for its\naccomplishment. In this case I find the character consistent throughout.\nHere is an oak tree planted in a china vase, proper only to receive the\nmost delicate flowers. The roots strike out and the vessel flies to\npieces. A pure, noble, highly moral disposition, but without that energy\nof soul which constitutes the hero, sinks under a load which it can\nneither support nor endure to abandon altogether. _All_ his obligations\nare sacred to him; but this alone is above his powers! An impossibility\nis required at his hands; not an impossibility in itself, but that which\nis so to him. Observe, how he turns, shifts, hesitates, advances, and\nrecedes;\u2014how he is continually reminded and reminding himself of his\nreal commission, which he nevertheless in the end seems almost entirely\nto lose sight of, and this without ever recovering his former\ntranquillity!\u201d How different this from the praise of _variety_ allowed\nto this tragedy by Johnson, to \u201cthe pretended madness, causing mirth,\u201d\nwithout any adequate cause for feigning it, and the objection that\nthrough the whole piece he is \u201crather an instrument than an agent!\u201d\n\nMalone\u2019s \u201cattempt to ascertain the order in which the plays of\nShakspeare were written\u201d occupies 180 pages. Where so many words are\nnecessary, the arrangement to be justified may not be very certain; but\nthat of Malone is generally received. It runs thus: The First Part of\nKing Henry VI., 1589. Second and Third Parts, Two Gentlemen of Verona,\n1591. Comedy of Errors, 1592. King Richard II. and III., 1593. Love\u2019s\nLabour\u2019s Lost, Merchant of Venice, Midsummer Night\u2019s Dream, 1594. Taming\nof the Shrew, Romeo and Juliet, King John, 1596. First Part of King\nHenry IV., 1597. Second Part, All\u2019s well that ends well, 1598. King\nHenry V., As You like it, 1599. Much ado about Nothing, Hamlet, 1600.\nMerry Wives of Windsor, 1601. Troilus and Cressida, 1602. Measure for\nMeasure, King Henry VIII., 1603. Othello, 1604. King Lear, 1605.\nMacbeth, 1606. Twelfth Night, Julius C\u00e6sar, 1607. Antony and Cleopatra,\n1608. Cymbeline, 1609. Coriolanus, Timon of Athens, 1610. Winter\u2019s Tale,\n1611. Tempest, 1612. Except the placing of the historical plays in\nseparate succession, the order of Malone\u2019s edition follows the above\ndates. Previous editions arranged the plays as comedies, histories, and\ntragedies, beginning with the Tempest, the last written, and ending with\nOthello. We must add to the list of plays ascribed to Shakspeare, and\nincluded in the editions of his works, Pericles and Titus Andronicus,\nwhich are now acknowledged not to be the composition of Shakspeare,\nthough perhaps retouched by him. The Yorkshire Tragedy, Lord Cromwell,\nand others, have still less right to bear the honour of his name.\n\n[Illustration: [Shakspeare\u2019s Monument at Stratford-upon-Avon.]]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by B. Holl._\n\n  EULER.\n\n  _From a Picture by A. Lorgna in the Collection of the Institute of\n    France._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 EULER.\n\n\nLeonard Euler[7] was born at Basle, April 15, 1707. His father was the\nclergyman of Reichen, near Basle, and had himself been a pupil of James\nBernouilli. He intended his son for his own profession, and after having\nbeen himself his first instructor in mathematics, sent him to the\nuniversity of Basle. John Bernouilli was at this time Professor, and his\nsons, Nicolas and Daniel, two more of the _eight_ Bernouillis known to\nthe history of science, were under him. With the sons Euler contracted\nan intimate friendship; and obtained such a degree of favour even with\ntheir father, that the latter gave him a private lesson weekly, upon\npoints more advanced than those treated in the public course. This was a\nstrong mark of favour from John Bernouilli, who was of an unamiable\ndisposition, jealous of his brother, of his son, and finally of almost\nevery one who displayed a superior talent for mathematics. Euler at\nfirst turned his attention to theology, in accordance with the wishes of\nhis father, but this was not of long continuance. At the age of\nnineteen, besides obtaining a degree from his University, he had merited\nthe notice of the Academy of Sciences for a memoir on some points of\nnaval architecture. In the same year, he was an unsuccessful candidate\nfor a Professorship at Basle, an unlucky event, M. Condorcet observes,\nfor his country, inasmuch as a few days afterwards he left it for\nRussia, and never returned. His friends the Bernouillis (Nicolas and\nDaniel) had, two years before, accepted invitations from the Empress\nCatherine; and he followed them in hopes of obtaining employment and\nsubsistence at St. Petersburgh. But by the time he arrived, both Nicolas\nBernouilli and the Empress were dead, the Academy of St. Petersburgh was\nleft without a patron, and Euler, a nameless stranger, could not for a\nlong time obtain any settled avocation. How he maintained himself we are\nnot told; but he was upon the point of entering the Russian service as a\nsailor, when his prospects brightened, and he obtained the place of\nProfessor of Natural Philosophy. In 1733 he succeeded Daniel Bernouilli,\nwho returned to his own country, as Professor of Mathematics. In the\nsame year he married a young lady named Gsell, the daughter of an artist\nof Basle, who had emigrated to Russia in the reign of Peter the Great.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  We have followed the _\u00e9loge_ of Condorcet as to facts and dates. We\n  should have preferred that of M. Fuss, but have not had the\n  opportunity of seeing it. The mere biographical details of Euler\u2019s\n  life are, however, of the simplest character.\n\nThe despotism of the Russian government could not please the republican\nborn; but circumstances obliged him to endure it till 1741, when he\nquitted Petersburgh for Berlin on the invitation of Frederic the Great.\nTo the necessity for continual reserve and government of the tongue\nwhich was necessary in the Russian capital has been attributed his love\nof silence and study, which exceeded all that is related of any of his\ncontemporaries. The mother of Frederic, who was as much attached to the\nconversation of distinguished men as the King himself, could never\nobtain more than a few syllables from Euler at any one time. On her\nasking the reason why he would not speak, he is said to have replied,\n\u201cMadam, I have lived in a country where men who speak are hanged.\u201d\n\nEuler remained at Berlin till 1766. In 1761 he lost his mother, who had\nresided with him for eleven years. During this time he was not\nconsidered as having abandoned his Russian engagements, and a part of\nhis salary was regularly paid. When the Russians invaded Brandenburg in\n1760, a farm belonging to him was destroyed, but he was immediately more\nthan reimbursed, by the order of the Empress Elizabeth. On the\ninvitation of that princess he consented to return to Petersburgh in\n1766. He had for some years suffered from weakness in the eyes; and not\nlong after his return to Russia he became so nearly blind, that he could\ndistinguish nothing except very large letters marked with chalk on a\nslate. In this state he continued for the remainder of his life; and by\nconstant exercise he acquired a power of recollection, whether of\nmathematical formul\u00e6 or figures, which would be totally incredible, if\nit were not supported by strong evidence. He formed in his head, and\nretained in his memory, a table of the first six powers of all numbers\nup to 100, containing about 3000 figures. Two of his pupils had summed\nseventeen terms of a converging series, and differed by a unit in the\nfiftieth decimal of the result; Euler decided between them correctly by\na mental calculation[8]. His chief amusement during his deprivation was\nthe formation of artificial magnets, and the instruction of one of his\ngrandchildren in mathematics. His studies were in no degree relaxed by\nit. In 1771 Euler\u2019s house was destroyed by fire, together with a\nconsiderable part of the city. He was himself saved by a\nfellow-countryman named Grimm, and his manuscripts were also rescued. In\n1776 he married the aunt of his first wife. No other event worthy of\nspecial notice occurred before his death, which took place suddenly,\nSeptember 7, 1783. He had been employed in calculating the laws of the\nascent of balloons, which were then newly introduced; he afterwards\ndined with his family and M. Lexell, his pupil, conversed with them on\nthe newly-discovered planet of Herschel, and was amusing himself with\none of his grandchildren; suddenly the pipe which he held in his hand\ndropped on the ground, and it was found that[9] \u201clife and calculation\nwere at an end.\u201d He had thirteen children, of whom only three survived\nhim; one of them, John Albert Euler, was known as a mathematician.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  We suspect some mistake in this account, which is constantly given. A\n  very surprising story ought to be consistent: now it is difficult to\n  believe that any series which was actually employed in practice (and\n  people do not sum series to fifty places for amusement) would converge\n  so quickly, as to give fifty places in seventeen terms. The well-known\n  series for the base of Napier\u2019s logarithms is called a rapidly\n  converging series, and gives about fifteen places in seventeen terms.\n  We cannot help thinking, either that Euler settled one disputed term\n  only, or that there is some mistake about the number of figures.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  Il cessa de calculer et de vivre.\u2014CONDORCET.\n\nOf the scientific character of Euler it is impossible to speak in\ndetail, since even the _resum\u00e9_ of M. Condorcet, which is much longer\nthan any account we can here insert, is meagre in the extreme; and we\nimagine that the reader would form no idea whatsoever of the man we are\ndescribing, from any brief enumeration of discoveries for which we\nshould be able to allow room. In more than fifty years of incessant\nthought, Euler wrote thirty separate works and more than seven hundred\nmemoirs: which could not altogether be contained in forty large quarto\nvolumes. These writings embrace every existing branch of mathematics,\nand almost every conceivable application of them, to such an extent,\nthat there is no one among mathematicians, past or present, who can be\nplaced near to Euler in the enormous variety of the subjects which he\ntreated. And the contents of these volumes are without exception the\noriginal fruit of his own brain; seeing that he left no subject as he\nfound it. He is not a diffuse writer, except in giving a large number of\nexamples, and this renders him in some respects the most instructive of\nall writers. His works are full of the most original thoughts developed\nin the most original manner; so that they have been a mine of\ninformation for his successors, which is even now far from being\nexhausted. Let a student be employed upon any subject connected with\nmathematics, however remotely, and he has discovered but little if he\nhas not found out that Euler was there before him.\n\nOf all mathematical writers, Euler is one of the most simple, and this\nin a manner which renders his writings not by any means a sound\npreparation for future investigations. Difficulties seem to have\ndisappeared in the progress, or never to have been encountered; and the\nstudent is rather made to feel that Euler could take him anywhere, than\nfurnished with the means of providing for himself, when his guide shall\nhave left him. Hence the writings of others, in every way inferior to\nEuler in elegance and simplicity, are to be preferred, and have been\npreferred, for the formation of mathematical power.\n\nEuler is to be measured by the assistance which he gave to his immediate\nsuccessors, and here it is well known that he paved the way for the\nresearch of others in a more effectual manner than any of his\ncontemporaries. The incessant repetition of his name in later authors is\nsufficient authority for this assertion. His writings are the first in\nwhich the modern analysis is uniformly the instrument of investigation.\nHis predecessors, James and John Bernouilli, had perhaps the largest\nshare in bringing the infinitesimal analysis of Newton and Leibnitz to\nthe state of power required for extensive application. To Euler (besides\nimportant extensions) belongs the distinct merit of showing how to apply\nit to physical investigations, in conjunction with D\u2019Alembert, who ran a\nsplendid and contemporary career of a similar character in this respect.\nBut though it would be perhaps admitted that there are individual\nresults of the latter which exceed anything done by the former, in\ngenerality of application, there is no comparison whatsoever between the\nextent of the labours of the two.\n\nEuler was a man of a simple, reserved, and benevolent mind; with a\nstrong sense of devotion, and a decided religious habit, according to\nthe Calvinism of the Established Church of his country. At the court of\nFrederic, he himself conducted the devotions of his family every\nevening; a practice which then and there implied much moral courage, and\ninsensibility to ridicule. But he possessed humour, for when he was\nasked to calculate the horoscope of one of the Russian princes, he\nquietly suggested that it was the official duty of the astronomer, and\nimposed the duty upon a colleague, who doubtless did not feel very much\nflattered by the application.\n\nThere are few men whom the usual biographical formul\u00e6 as to moral\ncharacter and habits would better fit than Euler, according to every\naccount which has appeared of him. But such praises are no distinction;\nand it will be more to the purpose to state that the only occasion in\nwhich he was betrayed into printing a word which his eulogists have\nregretted, was in the dispute between Maupertuis and himself against\nothers on the principle known by the name of _least action_, one of the\nwarmest and most angry discussions which ever took place.\n\nPerhaps it is to the quiet abstraction of his life that he owed the\nperpetuity of his tenure of investigation. Many eminent mathematical\ndiscoverers have run the brilliant part of their career while\ncomparatively young. Euler \u201cceased to calculate and to live\u201d at once.\nBut it may be that this was a part of his natural constitution, and a\ndistinct feature of his mind. The nature of his writings rather confirms\nthe latter supposition. There is the same difference between them and\nthose of others, that there is between conversation and oratory. He\nseems to be moving in his natural element, where others are swimming for\ntheir lives.\n\nThe best works of Euler for a young mathematician to read, in order to\nget an idea of his style and methods, are the \u2018_Analysis Infinitorum_,\u2019\nand the \u2018_Treatise on the Integral Calculus_.\u2019\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                             SIR W. JONES.\n\n\nWilliam Jones, the most accomplished Oriental scholar of the last\ncentury, an upright magistrate, and eminent benefactor of the native\nsubjects of our Indian dominions, was born in London on Michaelmas Eve,\n1746. His father, a man esteemed by his contemporaries, a skilful\nmathematician, and the friend of Newton, died in July, 1749. His mother\nthen devoted herself entirely to the education of this her only\nsurviving son; and to her careful and judicious culture of his infant\nyears, bestowed indeed upon a happy soil, is to be ascribed the early\ndevelopment of that thirst for learning and faculty of profitable\napplication, which enabled Jones to accumulate in a short and busy life\na quantity and variety of abstruse knowledge, such as the same age does\nnot often see equalled. To the end of her life he acknowledged and\nrepaid her care and affection by ardent love and unchanging filial\nrespect. When only seven years old, he was sent to Harrow. His progress,\nslow at first, afterwards became most rapid; and the head master, Dr.\nThackeray, a man not given to praise, spoke of him as \u201ca boy of so\nactive a mind, that if he were left naked and friendless on Salisbury\nPlain he would find the way to fame and riches.\u201d\n\nAt the time of his quitting school, besides a much deeper acquaintance\nwith the classical languages than usually falls to the lot of a\nschoolboy, Jones had acquired the French and Italian languages, had\ncommenced the study of Hebrew, and (a thing only worth mention as\nindicative of his tastes) had made himself acquainted with the Arabic\nletters. Botany, the collection of fossils, and composition in English\nverse, were his favourite amusements at this period. March 16, 1764, he\nwas entered as a student of University College, Oxford. He was elected a\nscholar on the Bennett foundation, October 30, 1764; and fellow on the\nsame foundation, August 7, 1766, before he was of standing to proceed to\nthe degree of B.A., which he took in 1768. At an early period of his\nresidence he applied in earnest\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by J. Posselwhite._\n\n  SIR WILLIAM JONES.\n\n  _From the Picture in the Hall of University College, Oxford._\n\n  Under the Superintendence of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\nto the study of Arabic; and his zeal was such, that, though habitually\nself-denying, and anxious not to trespass on his mother\u2019s slender\nincome, he maintained at Oxford, at his own expense, a Syrian, with whom\nhe had become acquainted in London, for the benefit to be derived from\nhis instruction. From the Arabic he proceeded to learn the Persian\nlanguage.\n\nHis residence was varied, though his favourite studies do not appear to\nhave been interrupted, by an invitation to undertake the care of the\nlate Lord Spencer, then a boy of seven years old. This was in 1765. The\nnext five years he spent with his pupil chiefly at Harrow, and\noccasionally at Althorp, or in London, or on the continent. It appears\nfrom the college books that he resided at Oxford very little in the\nyears 1766, 1767, and 1768. Wherever he was, his time was diligently\nemployed, not only in his severer studies, but in the pursuit of\npersonal accomplishments and the cultivation of valuable acquaintances,\nespecially with those who, like himself, were attached to the\ninvestigation of Eastern languages and science. In 1768 he received a\nhigh, but an unprofitable compliment, in being selected to render into\nFrench a Persian Life of Nadir Shah, transmitted to the English\ngovernment by the King of Denmark for the purpose of translation. To\nthis performance, which was printed in 1770, Mr. Jones added a \u2018Treatise\non Oriental Poetry,\u2019 in which several of the odes of Hafiz are\ntranslated into verse. This also was written in French; and it has\njustly been observed by a French writer in the \u2018Biographie Universelle,\u2019\nthat the occurrence of some imperfections of style ought not to\ninterfere with our forming a high estimate of the talents of a man who,\nat the age of twenty-two, possessed the varied qualifications and\nrecondite acquirements displayed in this work. By the end of the same\nyear, 1770, the author finished his \u2018Commentaries on Asiatic Poetry,\u2019 a\nLatin treatise, which for its style is commended by the competent\nauthority of Dr. Parr; and which has also obtained high praise for the\ntaste and judgment displayed in selecting and translating the passages\nby which the text is illustrated. It was not printed till 1774.\n\nNot the least striking part of Mr. Jones\u2019s character was an ardent love\nof liberty, and a high and honourable feeling of independence in his own\nperson. The former was displayed in his open and fearless advocacy of\nopinions calculated to close the road to preferment, such as an entire\ndisapprobation of the American war, and a strong feeling of the\nnecessity of reform in Parliament. It should also be noticed that at an\nearly period he denounced in energetic language the abomination of the\nSlave Trade. His personal love of independence was at this time\nmanifested in his resolution to quit the certain road to ease and\ncompetence which his connexion with the noble family of Spencer laid\nbefore him, to embark in the brilliant but uncertain course of legal\nadventure. Ambition was a prominent feature in Jones\u2019s character; and it\nwas his hope and his earnest wish to distinguish himself in the House of\nCommons as well as at the bar. He was admitted of the Middle Temple\nNovember 19, 1770; and his Oriental studies, though not entirely\nabandoned, especially at first, were thenceforth much curtailed until\nthe prospect of being appointed to a judicial office in India furnished\nan adequate reason for the resumption of them. But he gave a proof that\nhis devotion to Oriental had not destroyed his taste for Grecian\nlearning, by publishing in 1778 a translation of the \u2018Orations of\nIs\u00e6us,\u2019 relative to the laws of succession to property in Athens. The\nsubject appears to have interested him; for in 1782, when his attention\nwas again directed to the East, he published translations of two Arabian\npoems; one on the Mohammedan law of succession to the property of\nintestates, the other on the Mohammedan law of inheritance. About the\nsame time he translated the seven ancient Arabian poems, called\nMoallakat, or \u2018Suspended,\u2019 because they had been hung up, in honour of\ntheir merit, in the Temple of Mecca; and to show, perhaps, that his\nattention had not been withdrawn from his immediate profession, he wrote\nan \u2018Essay on the Law of Bailments.\u2019\n\nMr. Jones was called to the bar in 1774. Within two years\u2019 space he\nobtained a commissionership of bankrupts; by what influence does not\nappear: it could not be from any professional eminence. A letter written\nto Lord Althorp so early as October, 1778, intimates a wish to obtain\nsome judicial appointment in India, not only in consequence of the\ninterest which he had felt from an early age in every thing connected\nwith the East, but from a motive which has sent other eminent men to the\nsame unhealthy climate; a feeling that pecuniary independence was almost\nessential to success in political life, and the hope of returning in the\nprime of manhood with an honourable competence.\n\nIn 1780 Mr. Jones became a candidate to represent the University of\nOxford. His political opinions were not calculated to win the favour of\nthat learned body, and though respectably supported, he did not find\nencouragement to warrant him in coming to a poll. From this time forward\nMr. Jones\u2019s mind was much occupied by the thought of going to India. His\nletters contain frequent allusions to the subject, and express doubt\nwhether, notwithstanding the personal friendship of Lord North, his own\nknown views of politics, especially his often and strongly-declared\nreprobation of the American war, would not interfere with his obtaining\nthe desired promotion. The event proved him to be right, for it was not\nuntil after the formation of the Shelburne ministry that he received\ninformation of his appointment to a seat in the Supreme Court of\nJudicature at Calcutta, March 3, 1783. For this he was indebted to the\nfriendship of Lord Ashburton (Mr. Dunning). The state of uncertainty in\nwhich he was so long retained interfered considerably with his attention\nto his legal practice, which was rapidly increasing. He was the more\nanxious on this subject, because he had been long attached to Miss\nShipley, daughter of the Bishop of St. Asaph; and his union with her was\nonly deferred until professional success should place him in a fit\nstation to support a family. His marriage took place in April, and in\nthe same month he embarked for India. It remains to be noticed, that in\n1782 Mr. Jones had written an essay, entitled \u2018The Principles of\nGovernment,\u2019 in a dialogue between a farmer and country gentleman,\nintended to express in a cheap and simple form his own views on\nconstitutional questions. This was first printed by the Society for\nConstitutional Information, of which Mr. Jones was a member: it was\nreprinted by his brother-in-law, the Dean of St. Asaph, who was in\nconsequence indicted for libel. In the prosecution which ensued, Mr.\nErskine made one of his first and most remarkable appearances, and the\nseries of speeches which he delivered in this case prepared the way for\nthe Libel Bill of 1792.\n\nSir William Jones arrived in Calcutta in September, and entered on his\njudicial functions in December, 1783. One of his first employments was\nthe organization of a scientific association, under the title of the\nAsiatic Society. The Governor-general, Warren Hastings, was requested to\nbecome president; and on his declining to accept, as an honorary\ndistinction, an office the real duties of which he was unable to fulfil,\nSir William Jones was fitly placed at the head of that institution,\nwhich, but for him, probably would not have existed. The transactions of\nthat society, under the name of \u2018Asiatic Researches,\u2019 were published\nunder his superintendence, and owe a large portion of their interest to\nthe labours of his pen. Another work, the \u2018Asiatic Miscellany,\u2019 was also\nindebted to him for several valuable contributions. But the perfect\nacquisition of the Sanscrit language was the chief employment of that\ntime which could be spared from his judicial labours; a task indeed\nsubsidiary to those labours, and performed with the benevolent design of\ninsuring to the Indian subjects of Britain a pure administration of\njustice, by rendering the knowledge of their laws accessible to British\nmagistrates. Bound to adjudicate between the natives according to their\nown native laws, and ignorant for the most part of the very language in\nwhich those laws were written, the judges were obliged to have recourse\nto native lawyers, called Pundits, who were regularly attached to the\ncourts as a species of assessors. Of these men Sir W. Jones, no harsh or\nhasty reprover, says, \u201cIt would be unjust and absurd to pass\nindiscriminate censure on so considerable a body of men; but my\nexperience justifies me in declaring that I could not, with an easy\nconscience, concur in a decision merely on the written opinion of native\nlawyers, in a case in which they could have the remotest interest in\nmisleading the court.\u201d The obvious remedy was to obtain a trustworthy\ndigest of the Hindoo laws, which should then be accurately translated\ninto English. The scheme indeed had been already undertaken in part at\nthe desire of Mr. Hastings, by Mr. Halhed: but as the code of Hindoo\nlaw, compiled by that gentleman, was merely a translation from a\ndefective Persian version of the original Sanscrit, it did not possess\nthe requisite correctness, or authority. It appears from Sir W. Jones\u2019s\ncorrespondence, that at an early period he had contemplated supplying\nthis great desideratum by his own labour and expense. But prudence did\nnot warrant such an uncalled-for act of liberality; and he addressed a\nletter to Lord Cornwallis, dated March 19, 1788, in which the necessity\nfor such a work, and the means by which it might be executed, are fully\nlaid down. It was to be compiled by the Mohammedan or Hindoo lawyers,\nworking under the superintendence of a director and translator, who\nshould be qualified to check and correct intentional or careless error:\nand a chief difficulty, in Sir W. Jones\u2019s own words, was \u201cto find a\nperson who, with a competent knowledge of the Sanscrit and Arabic, has a\ngeneral acquaintance with the principles of jurisprudence, and a\nsufficient share even of legislative spirit, to arrange the plan of a\ndigest, superintend the compilation of it, and render the whole, as it\nproceeds, into perspicuous English. Now (he continues), though I am\ntruly conscious of possessing a very moderate portion of those talents\nwhich I should require in the superintendent of such a work, yet I may\nwithout vanity profess myself equal to the labour of it;\u2014and I cannot\nbut know that the qualifications required, even in the low degree in\nwhich I possess them, are not often found united in the same person.\u201d\nThe proposal of course was eagerly accepted. That he should have\nacquired the necessary acquaintance, first with the language, then with\nthe law, in the space of four years and a half, is sufficiently\nremarkable; and the method in which he proposed to execute it will\nstartle those who know the enervating influence of a tropical climate.\n\u201cI should be able,\u201d he says, \u201cif my health continued firm, to translate\nevery morning, before any other business is begun, as much as the\nlawyers could compile, and the writers copy, in the preceding day.\u201d The\nquantity of work which Jones did in India was indeed astonishing; but he\nwas a severe economist of time, and even his hours of recreation were\nrendered serviceable to the increase of knowledge. Botany especially was\na favourite pursuit of his more leisure hours; and his correspondence\nwith Banks and others shows at once the zeal with which, when duty would\npermit, he followed that fascinating science, and the readiness with\nwhich he communicated his own discoveries to his friends, and laboured\nto answer their inquiries. Nor did he neglect poetry. Several odes to\nHindoo deities, originally published in the Asiatic Miscellany, will be\nfound in his works; and these, with an elegant and cultivated fancy,\ndisplay considerable power of composition. He projected a more serious\nundertaking,\u2014an epic poem, of which a Ph\u0153nician colonist of Britain was\nto be the hero, and the Hindoo mythology was to furnish the machinery:\nthe whole being an allegorical panegyric on the British constitution,\nand furnishing the character of a perfect King of England. But the\nextravagant fictions of the Hindoo religion have never proved\npermanently popular in an English dress; and there is no reason to\nregret that this scheme never advanced beyond its first sketch. The\nauthor made a more acceptable present to European literature in\ntranslating \u2018Sacontala, or the Fatal Ring,\u2019 a very ancient Indian drama,\nwhich contains a lively, simple, and pleasing picture of the manners of\nHindustan at a remote age. It is ascribed to the first century before\nChrist.\n\nFor a catalogue of Sir W. Jones\u2019s works, we must refer to the edition\npublished by Lady Jones. We have only noticed a few of the most\nimportant: to which are to be added, the series of anniversary\ndiscourses addressed to the Asiatic Society, and the translation of the\n\u2018Ordinances of Menu.\u2019 The former, eleven in number, treat of the\nHistory, Antiquities, Arts, &c. of Asia, and more especially of the\norigin and connection of the chief nations among whom that quarter of\nthe globe is divided. His last work was the translation of the\n\u2018Ordinances of Menu,\u2019 \u201ca system of duties\u201d (we quote from the\ntranslator\u2019s preface) \u201creligious and civil, and of law in all its\nbranches, which the Hindoos firmly believe to have been promulged in the\nbeginning of time by Menu, son or grandson of Brahma, or, in plain\nlanguage, the first of created beings, and not the oldest only, but the\nholiest of legislators: a system so comprehensive, and so minutely\nexact, that it may be considered as the Institutes of Hindoo law,\npreparatory to the copious Digest which has lately been compiled by\nPundits of eminent learning.\u201d This was his last work. It was begun in\n1786, though not completed and published till 1794, a short time before\nthe author\u2019s death.\n\nThe private history of Sir William Jones, during the period of his life\nwhich was spent in India, affords very little scope for narration.\nDuring his first summer he nearly fell a victim to the climate; but an\nabsence of seven months spent in travelling recruited his strength, and\nafter his return to Calcutta, in February, 1785, he seemed to be\nacclimated, and suffered little from serious illness till his last fatal\nattack. His domestic habits are thus described by his biographer, Lord\nTeignmouth. \u201cThe largest portion of each year was devoted to his\nprofessional duties and studies; and all the time that could be saved\nfrom these important avocations was dedicated to the cultivation of\nscience and literature. While business required the daily attendance of\nSir W. Jones in Calcutta, his usual residence was on the banks of the\nGanges, at the distance of five miles from the court; to this spot he\nreturned every evening after sunset, and in the morning rose so early as\nto reach his apartments in town by walking, at the first appearance of\nthe dawn. The intervening period of each morning, until the opening of\nthe court, was regularly allotted and applied to distinct studies. He\npassed the months of vacation at his retirement at Crishnagur (a villa\nabout fifty miles from Calcutta) in his usual pursuits.\u201d Those portions\nof his correspondence which are preserved in Lord Teignmouth\u2019s life may\nbe read with pleasure; and indeed constitute the chief interest of the\nlatter part of the work. Busy, tranquil, and cheerful, his life afforded\nlittle of material for the biographer: and but for the impaired health\nof his wife, his residence in India would have been one of almost\nunmixed happiness. Lady Jones was compelled to embark for England in\nDecember, 1793. The mere desire of increasing a fortune, which he\nprofessed to find already large enough for his moderate wishes, would\nnot have tempted Sir William Jones to remain alone in Bengal: but he\nfelt an earnest desire to complete the great work on Hindoo Law, which\nhe had originated; and no apprehension was felt on his account, as his\nconstitution seemed to have become inured to the climate. But in the\nfollowing spring he was attacked by inflammation of the liver, which ran\nits fatal course with unusual rapidity. He died, April 27, 1794. The\n\u2018Digest,\u2019 to which he had thus sacrificed his life, was completed by Mr.\nColebrooke, and published in 1800.\n\nBlameless in his domestic relations, consistent and enlightened in his\npolitical views, an honest and indefatigable magistrate, few men have\ngone through life with more credit, or as far as it is possible to form\nan opinion, with more happiness than Sir William Jones. As a scholar,\nthe circumstances of his life being considered, his acquirements were\nextraordinary; and in this light the most remarkable feature of his\ncharacter was his singular facility in learning languages. A list,\npreserved in his own handwriting, thus classes those with which he was\nin any degree acquainted; they are twenty-eight in number. \u201cEight\nlanguages studied critically\u2014English, Latin, French, Italian, Greek,\nArabic, Persian, Sanscrit. Eight studied less perfectly, but all\nintelligible with a dictionary\u2014Spanish, Portuguese, German, Runic,\nHebrew, Bengali, Hindi, Turkish. Twelve studied less perfectly, but all\nattainable: Thibetian, P\u00e2li, Pahlair, Deri, Russian, Syriac, Ethiopic,\nCoptic, Welsh, Swedish, Dutch, Chinese.\u201d Besides law, which as his\nprofession, was his chief business through life, his writings embrace a\nvast variety of subjects in the several classes of philology, botany,\nzoology, poetry original and translated, political discussion,\ngeography, mythology, astronomy as applied to chronology, and history,\nespecially that of the Asiatic nations. And the praise of \u2018adorning\neverything that he touched\u2019 is singularly due to him, for the elegance\nof his style, and his power of throwing interest over the dry and\nuncertain inquiries in which he took such delight. As far as England is\nconcerned, he was our great pioneer in Eastern learning; and if later\nscholars, profiting in part by his labours, have found reason to dissent\nfrom his opinions, it is to be recollected, as far as our estimate of\nhis powers is concerned, that most men, who have obtained eminence in\nthis recondite department of literature, have done so by the devotion of\ntheir undivided powers: what Jones accomplished was performed, on the\ncontrary, in the intervals of those official labours, to which the best\nhours and energies of his life were, as his first point of duty,\ndevoted. What he had meditated, if life and leisure had been granted,\nmay be inferred from the list of \u2018Desiderata,\u2019 which his biographer\n(vol. ii., p. 301, it is not said on what authority) regards as\nexhibiting his own literary projects. The following emphatic panegyric,\nconceived in the warm language which affection naturally indulges in on\nsuch an occasion, has been pronounced on him by his friend and\nschool-fellow, Dr. Bennet, Bishop of Cloyne. \u201cI knew him from the early\nage of eight or nine, and he was always an uncommon boy. Great\nabilities, great particularity of thinking, fondness for writing verses\nand plays of various kinds, and a degree of integrity and manly courage,\nof which I remember many instances, distinguished him even at that\nperiod. I loved and revered him, and though one or two years older than\nhe was, was always instructed by him from my earliest age. In a word, I\ncan only say of this wonderful man, that he had more virtues and less\nfaults than I ever yet saw in any human being; and that the goodness of\nhis head, admirable as it was, was exceeded by that of his heart. I have\nnever ceased to admire him from the moment I first saw him, and my\nesteem for his great qualities and regret for his loss will only end\nwith my life.\u201d\n\nDue honours were paid after death to this great man. The Court of\nDirectors placed a statue of him in St. Paul\u2019s cathedral; and Lady Jones\nerected a monument to him in the ante-chapel of University College,\nOxford. In conformity with his own expressed opinion, that \u201cthe best\nmonument that can be erected to a man of literary talent, is a good\nedition of his works,\u201d she caused them to be collected and printed in\n1799, in six quarto volumes. They have been reprinted in octavo. A life\nof Sir William Jones was afterwards written by Lord Teignmouth, his\nintimate friend in India, at Lady Jones\u2019s request. There is a memoir in\nthe Annual Obituary for 1817, which is chiefly devoted to set forth the\npolitical opinions of Sir William Jones, in a stronger light than seemed\nfitting to his noble biographer.\n\n[Illustration: [Statue of Sir W. Jones, by John Bacon, R.A., in St.\nPaul\u2019s.]]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by Rob^t. Hart._\n\n  ROUSSEAU.\n\n  _From an original Picture by Latour, in the possession of M. Bordes,\n    at Paris._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                               ROUSSEAU.\n\n\nJean Jacques Rousseau, the son of a watch-maker at Geneva, was born June\n28, 1712. His mother dying while he was yet a child, his father took a\nsecond wife; and he himself was placed at school at the village of\nBossey, near Geneva, where he learnt but little, and was afterwards\napprenticed to an engraver, a coarse, brutal man, whose treatment of him\ntended to sour a temper already wilful and morose. He became addicted to\nidleness, pilfering, and lying. The fear of punishment for some act of\nespecial misconduct induced him to run away from his master, and he\nwandered into Savoy, where finding himself totally destitute, he applied\nto the Bishop of Annecy, on the plea of wishing to be instructed in the\nCatholic religion. The bishop recommended him to Madame de Warens, a\nSwiss lady, herself a convert to Catholicism, who lived at Annecy. She\nreceived the boy kindly, relieved his present wants, and afforded him\nthe means of proceeding to Turin, where he entered the College of\nCatechumens, and after going through a preparatory course of\ninstruction, abjured the reformed religion, and became a Catholic. But\nas he refused to enter into holy orders, on leaving the college he was\nagain thrown upon his own resources. He became a domestic servant; but\nhis want of self-control and discretion rendered him very unfit for his\nemployment: and in 1730 he returned to the house of Madame de Warens,\nwho received him kindly, and afforded him support and protection during\nthe next ten years. Of his foolish, profligate, and ungrateful course of\nlife during this period, we have neither space nor wish to give an\naccount: after many absences, and many returns, Rousseau quitted her\nfinally in 1740, receiving letters of introduction to some persons at\nLyons. Tutor, musician, and private secretary to the French Ambassador,\nhis restless temper and versatile mind led him successively from Lyons\nto Paris and Venice. From the last-named city he returned to Paris in\n1745; and alighting at an obscure inn, met with a servant girl, Therese\nLevasseur, with whom he formed a connexion which lasted all the rest of\nhis life. He tried to compose music for the stage, but did not succeed\nin his attempts. He was next employed as a clerk in the office of M.\nDupin, Fermier-g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, but did not remain long in his new employment.\nIn 1748 he became acquainted with Madame d\u2019Epinay, who proved afterwards\none of his steadiest and kindest friends. He frequented the society also\nof D\u2019Alembert, Diderot, and Condillac, and he was engaged to write the\narticles on music for the Encyclop\u00e9die, which he did very ill, as he\nhimself acknowledges. One day he saw by chance in an advertisement, that\na prize had been offered by the Academy of Dijon, for the best essay on\nthe question, Whether the progress of sciences and of the arts has been\nfavourable to the morals of mankind? He at once resolved to write for\nthe prize, and apparently without having ever before considered the\nsubject, made up his mind to take the negative side of the question.\nDiderot encouraged, but did not, as has been commonly said, originate\nthis determination. He supported his position, that science, literature,\nand art, have been fatal to the virtues and happiness of mankind, with a\nglowing eloquence; and the Academy awarded him the prize. His success\nconfirmed him in a turn for paradox and exaggeration; and he seems to\nhave adopted, as a general principle, the doctrine that the extreme\nopposite to wrong must necessarily be right. At the same time his\nreputation as an author became established, and in a few years after his\nfirst essay, he was acknowledged to be one of the most, or rather the\nmost, eloquent writer among his contemporaries. Meantime he persevered\nin his attempts at musical composition, and wrote \u2018Le Devin du Village,\u2019\nan opera which was played before the king at the Court Theatre of\nFontainebleau, and met with the royal approbation. Rousseau was in one\nof the boxes with a gentleman belonging to the court. The king having\nexpressed a desire to see the composer of the opera, Rousseau became\nalarmed or ashamed at the slovenly condition of his dress, and instead\nof repairing to the royal presence, he ran out of the house and hastened\nback to Paris. Naturally shy, he possessed neither ease of manners nor\nfacility of address, and he could never throughout life subdue his own\nacute feeling of these deficiencies; a feeling which of course tended to\nperpetuate and increase his awkwardness. This was the secret spring of\nmost of his eccentricities. In order to hide his imperfections, he\nresorted to the plan of affecting to disregard manners altogether; he\nput on the appearance of a cynic, of a misanthropist, which he was not\nin reality.\n\nIt was about the year 1750, soon after writing his dissertation for the\nDijon prize, that he made a total change in his habits and mode of\nliving. He gave up all refinement about his dress, laid aside his sword,\nbag, and silk stockings, sold his watch, but kept his linen apparel,\nwhich, however, was stolen from him shortly after. He spent one half of\nthe day in copying music as a means of subsistence, and he found\nconstant employment. Several persons who knew his circumstances offered\nhim three or four times the value of his labour, but he would never\naccept more than the usual remuneration. In 1753 he wrote his \u2018Lettre\nsur la Musique Fran\u00e7aise,\u2019 in which he asserted that the French had no\nmusic deserving the name, that they could not possibly have any, and\nthen added, that \u201cwere they ever to have any it would be all the worse\nfor them;\u201d a sentence unintelligible to his readers, and probably to\nhimself also. When years after this he heard Gluck, with whose music he\nwas delighted, he observed to some one, \u201cthis man is setting French\nwords to very good music, as if on purpose to contradict me;\u201d and upon\nthis reflection he broke off acquaintance with Gluck. However, his\nletter on French music sorely wounded the national vanity, and he was\nexposed to a sort of petty persecution in consequence of it. Rousseau\nwrote next his letter to D\u2019Alembert, \u2018sur les Spectacles,\u2019 which led to\na controversy between them. He wrote also the \u2018Discours sur l\u2019Origine de\nl\u2019In\u00e9galit\u00e9 parmi les Hommes,\u2019 for another prize of the Academy of\nDijon, with a dedication to the magistrates of his native town Geneva,\nwhich was much admired as a specimen of dignified eloquence. The\ndiscourse itself is composed in his accustomed paradoxical vein. He\nmaintains that men are not intended to be sociable beings; that they\nhave a natural bias for a solitary existence; that the condition of the\nsavage, untutored and free in his native wilds, is the natural and\nproper state of man; and that every system of society is an infraction\nof man\u2019s rights, and a subversion of the order of nature. He assumes\nthat men are all born equal by nature, disregarding the daily evidence\nof the contrary, in respect both of their physical and moral powers. His\nidea of the equal rights of men, which he afterwards developed in the\n\u2018Contrat Social,\u2019 instead of being founded upon enlightened reason,\nreligion, and morality, rests upon the base of his favourite theory, of\nman\u2019s equality in a state of nature; while we know from experience, that\nthose savage tribes who approach nearest to this imaginary natural\nstate, acknowledge no other right than that of the strongest. Most of\nRousseau\u2019s paradoxes proceed from the false position assumed in his\nfirst dissertation, that a savage, unsocial state, is the very\nperfection of man\u2019s existence.\n\nAfter the publication of this discourse Rousseau repaired to Geneva,\nwhere he was well received by his countrymen. He there abjured\nCatholicism and resumed the profession of the reformed religion. But he\nsoon returned to Paris; and, at the invitation of Madame d\u2019Epinay, in\n1756, took up his residence at the house called L\u2019Hermitage, in the\nvalley of Montmorency, near Paris. It was in this pleasant retirement\nthat he began his celebrated novel \u2018Julie, ou la Nouvelle Helo\u00efse,\u2019\nwhich he finished in 1759. As a work of imagination and invention it is\nlittle worth; but as a model of impassioned eloquence, it will be\nadmired as long as the French language shall continue to be spoken or\nread by men. Rousseau, while he wrote it, was himself under the\ninfluence of a passion which he had conceived for the beautiful Madame\nd\u2019Houdetot, Madame d\u2019Epinay\u2019s sister-in-law, a love totally hopeless and\nridiculous on his part, but which no doubt inspired him while engaged in\nthe composition of this work. When it appeared, many people, especially\nwomen, thought that Julie was a real living object of his attachment,\nand the supposition being favourable to the popularity of the book and\nits author, Rousseau was not very anxious to undeceive them. He esteemed\nthe fourth portion of the work the best. \u201cThe first two parts are but\nthe desultory verbiage of feverish excitement, and yet I could never\nalter them after I had once written them. The fifth and the sixth are\ncomparatively weak, but I let them remain out of consideration of their\nmoral utility.... My imagination cannot embellish the objects I see; it\nmust create its own objects. If I am to paint the spring, I must do it\nin winter; if to describe a landscape, I must be shut up within walls:\nwere I confined in the Bastille, I should then write best on the charms\nof liberty. I never could write as a matter of business, I can only do\nit through impulse or passion.\u201d (Rousseau\u2019s \u2018Notes to the Nouvelle\nHelo\u00efse,\u2019 in Mercier and Le Tourneur\u2019s edition.) He had great difficulty\nin constructing his periods; he turned them and he altered them\nrepeatedly in his head, often while in bed, before he attempted to put\nthem on paper.\n\nLa Nouvelle Helo\u00efse has been censured for the dangerous example it\naffords, and for the interest it throws upon seduction and frailty. The\ncharacter of St. Preux is decidedly faulty, and even base, in spite of\nall his sophistry, which however has probably led other young men placed\nin a similar situation to forget the relative duties of society, and the\nobligations of hospitality. Here we perceive also the influence of\nRousseau\u2019s favourite paradox; for in a state of nature, such as Rousseau\nhas fancied it, the intimacy of St. Preux and Julie would have been\nunobjectionable. But then the relative position of the teacher, his\npupil, and her parents, would not have been the same as in the novel,\nfor they would have been all savages together. Rousseau has however\nredeemed the character of Julie after she becomes a wife, and he has\nthus paid a sincere homage to the sacredness of the marriage bond, and\nto the importance of conjugal duties, the basis of all society. Rousseau\nwas not a contemner of virtue; he felt its beauty, though his practice\nwas by no means modelled on its dictates. He tells us himself the\nworkings of his mind on this subject. \u201cAfter much observation I thought\nI perceived nothing but error and folly among philosophers, oppression\nand misery in the social order. In the delusion of my foolish pride I\nfancied myself born to dissipate all prejudices; but then I thought\nthat, in order to have my advice listened to, my conduct ought to\ncorrespond to my principles. I had been till then good-hearted, I now\nbecame virtuous. Whoever has the courage of showing himself such as he\nis, must, if he be not totally depraved, become such as he ought to be.\u201d\nIt was probably in compliance with his growing sense of moral duty, that\nhe married at last the woman he had so long been living with, when she\nwas forty-seven years of age, and, as he himself acknowledges, was not\npossessed of any attractions of either mind or person, having nothing to\nrecommend her except her attention to him, especially in his frequent\nfits of illness or despondency. He seems also to have bitterly repented,\nin the latter years of his life, having in his youth sent his\nillegitimate children to the foundling hospital.\n\nRousseau\u2019s next work was the \u2018Emile, ou de l\u2019Education,\u2019 which appeared\nin 1762. It contains many excellent precepts, especially in the first\npart, although, as a whole system, it may be considered as\nimpracticable, at least in any state of society which has yet been\nformed upon the earth. It was remarked at the time, that the author,\nafter having brought up his Emile to manhood, ought to create a new\nworld for him to live in. Rousseau himself seems to have been of this\nopinion, for when a Mr. Angar introduced to him his son, whom he said he\nhad educated according to the principles of the Emile, Rousseau quickly\nreplied, \u201cSo much the worse for you, and for your son too.\u201d The \u2018Emile,\u2019\nhowever, introduced some beneficial changes in the early treatment of\nchildren. It discredited the absurd practice of swaddling infants like\nmummies, to the manifest injury of their tender limbs; it induced\nmothers of the higher ranks to suckle their children, instead of\ncommitting them to the care of nurses; it corrected several wrong\nprinciples of early education, such as that of ruling children through\nfear, of considering them as slaves having no will of their own, and of\nterrifying them by absurd stories and fables; it inculcated freedom of\nbody and mind, the necessity of amusement and relaxation, of appealing\nto the feelings of children, of treating them like rational beings.\nRousseau may be truly called the benefactor of children. As he\nproceeded, however, in his plan for boys grown older, Rousseau became\ninvolved in some of his favourite speculations about religion and\nmetaphysics, which gave offence to both Catholics and Protestants. The\nParliament of Paris condemned the work. The Archbishop issued a\n_mandement_ against it. The States-General of Holland likewise\nproscribed the book. At Geneva, it was publicly burnt by the hand of the\nexecutioner. The publication of the \u2018Contrat Social, ou Principes du\nDroit Politique,\u2019 which appeared soon after, added to the storm against\nthe author. It contains much speculative truth, combined with much\nignorance of men\u2019s nature and passions. The idea of a perfect and\nuniversal model of government, without regard to local circumstances,\nseems chimerical. It is a curious fact that Rousseau, after reading\nBernardin de St. Pierre\u2019s political works, observed that they contained\nprojects which were impracticable on account of a fundamental error, out\nof which the author was unable to extricate himself, namely, \u201cthat of\nsupposing that men in general and in all cases will conduct themselves\naccording to the dictates of reason and virtue, rather than according to\ntheir passions.\u201d Rousseau, in uttering these words, passed judgment on\nhis own \u2018Contrat Social,\u2019 which he afterwards also acknowledged having\nwritten, \u201cnot for men but for angels.\u201d In fact, he never meant it for\nanything but a speculative treatise, and in his \u2018Consid\u00e9rations sur le\nGouvernement de la Pologne,\u2019 published some years after, having to write\nfor a practical purpose, he considerably modified his former principles.\n\nIn consequence of the excitement produced by these works, Rousseau left\nParis for Switzerland in 1762. He went first to Yverdun, but the Senate\nof Berne enjoined him to leave its territory. He then repaired to\nNeuchatel, which was subject to the King of Prussia, and of which the\nold Marshal Keith was Governor. Keith received him very kindly, and\nRousseau took up his residence at the village of Motiers, in the Val de\nTravers. There he wrote a Reply to the Archbishop of Paris, and a Letter\nto the Magistrates of Geneva, in which he renounced his rights of\ncitizenship. He next wrote the \u201cLettres de la Montagne,\u201d which is a\nseries of severe strictures on the political government and church of\nGeneva. It is curious as a sketch of the old institutions of that\nrepublic, written by one of its own citizens. This work increased the\nexisting irritation against its author, a feeling which spread even to\nthe villagers of Motiers, who are said to have annoyed their eccentric\nvisiter in various ways. Rousseau, however, is suspected of having\ngreatly magnified, if not invented, some of the acts of aggression of\nwhich he complains. He spoke of them as amounting to a regular\nconspiracy against his person, and removed his abode to the little\nisland of St. Pierre, on the lake of Bienne. Thence, after a time, as if\nto court notice, he wrote a letter to the Senate of Berne, requesting\npermission to remain on the island. For answer he received an order to\nquit the territory of the canton in twenty-four hours. At the invitation\nof his former friend Marshal Keith, he meditated a visit to Berlin. But\nthe advice of some friends in Paris induced him to change his mind, and\naccept the friendly offer of our historian Hume, who was anxious to\nprocure for him a safe asylum in England, where he might quietly attend\nto his studies and live in peace. Rousseau arrived in London in January,\n1766; and in the following March, went to his intended home at Wootton\nin Derbyshire. Knowing the man he had to deal with, Hume, with the real\nkindness of character which he possessed, had sought by every means to\navoid shocking the irritable delicacy or vanity of his prot\u00e9g\u00e9: and the\nresidence which he procured for him in the house of a man of fortune,\nMr. Davenport, is said to have been unexceptionable. But before long he\nquarrelled with both Hume and Davenport, left Wootton abruptly, and\nreturned to France. The ostensible cause of all this was the publication\nof a letter in the newspapers, bearing the King of Prussia\u2019s name, and\nreflecting severely upon Rousseau\u2019s weaknesses and eccentricities.\nRousseau accused Hume, or some of his friends, of having written it.\nHume protested in vain that he knew nothing of the matter. At last\nHorace Walpole acknowledged himself to be the author. Rousseau, however,\nwould not be pacified, and attributed to Hume the blackest designs\nagainst him. The correspondence that passed between the parties on the\nsubject is curious, and is given in the complete editions of our\nauthor\u2019s works. He afterwards seemed to say that during his residence in\nEngland he had been subject to fits of insanity.\n\nReturning to France, Rousseau led an unsettled life, with frequent\nchanges in his place of residence, until June, 1770. He then returned to\nParis, and took lodgings in the Rue Pl\u00e2tri\u00e8re, which has since been\ncalled Rue J. J. Rousseau. It is to be noticed that in the interim he\nhad published his \u2018Dictionnaire de Musique,\u2019 a work which has the\nreputation of being both imperfect and obscure. Indeed, notwithstanding\nhis passionate fondness for the art, he never attained to a profound\nacquaintance with it. Passing through Lyons on his way to Paris, he\nsubscribed his mite towards the erection of a statue to Voltaire: thus\navenging himself for the coarse abuse which the latter had on many\noccasions poured upon him, and which Rousseau never returned. Voltaire\nis said to have been exceedingly annoyed at this. After his return to\nthe capital, he was overwhelmed with visits and invitations to dinner.\nThough there was a prosecution pending against him for his \u2018Emile,\u2019 he\nwas left undisturbed: but at the same time he was cautioned not to\nexhibit himself too conspicuously in public; advice which he utterly\ndisregarded. He soon relapsed into his former misanthropy, and became\nsubject to convulsive fits, which fearfully disfigured his features, and\ngave a haggard expression to his looks. He fancied that every body was\nconspiring against him, and he also complained of inward moral\nsufferings which tortured his mind.\n\nAmong other imaginary grievances he thought that the French ministers\nhad imposed restrictions upon him with respect to his writings. One of\nhis friends applied to the Duc de Choiseuil to ascertain the fact. The\nDuke\u2019s answer, dated 1772, is as follows: \u201cIf ever I have engaged M.\nRousseau not to publish anything without my previous knowledge, of which\nfact however I have no remembrance, it could only have been in order to\nsave him from fresh squabbles and annoyance. However, now that I have no\nlonger the power of protecting him (the Duke had resigned his\npremiership), I fully acquit him of any engagement of the kind.\u201d\n\nAs Rousseau was walking one day in the street Menil Montant, a large dog\nthat was running before the carriage of the President Saint Fargeau\ntripped his legs, and he fell. The President alighted, expressed his\nregret at the accident, and begged the sufferer to accept of his\ncarriage to return home. Rousseau, however, refused. The next day the\nPresident sent to inquire after his health. \u201cTell your master to chain\nup his dog,\u201d was the only reply.\n\nBeing old and infirm, the labour of copying music had become too irksome\nfor him: still he would accept of no assistance from his friends, though\nall his income consisted of an annuity of 1450 livres. His wife was also\nin bad health, and provisions were very dear at the time; he therefore\nbegan to look out for a country residence. A friend mentioned this to\nthe Marquis de Girardin, who immediately offered Rousseau a permanent\nhabitation at his ch\u00e2teau of Ermenonville, near Chantilly. Rousseau\naccepted the proposal, and chose for his residence a detached cottage\nnear the family mansion. He removed to it in May, 1778, and appeared\nmore calm and contented in his new abode. He was fond of botany, and\nused to take long walks in quest of flowers with one of M. de Girardin\u2019s\nsons. On July 1st he went out as usual, but returned home fatigued and\nill: he however slept quietly that night. Next morning he rose early\naccording to his custom, and went out to see the sun rise; he came back\nto breakfast, after which he went to his room to dress, as he intended\nto pay a visit to Madame de Girardin. His wife happening to enter his\nroom shortly after, found him sitting with his elbow leaning on a chest\nof drawers. He said he was very ill, and complained of cold shivering\nand of violent pain in his head. Madame de Girardin being informed of\nthis, came at once to visit him; but Rousseau, thanking her for all her\nkindness to him, begged of her to return home and leave him alone for\nthe present. He then having requested his wife to sit by him, begged her\nforgiveness for any pain or displeasure of which he might have been the\ncause, and said that his end was approaching, that he died in peace, as\nhe never had intended or wished evil to any human being, and that he\nhoped in the mercy of God. He begged that M. de Girardin would allow him\nto be buried in his park. He gave directions to his wife about his\npapers, and requested her particularly to have his body opened, that the\ncause of his death might be ascertained. He then asked her to open the\nwindow, \u201cthat he might once more behold the beautiful green of the\nfields.\u201d \u201cHow pure and beautiful is the sky!\u201d he then observed, \u201cthere\nis not a cloud. I trust the Almighty will receive me there above.\u201d In so\nsaying, he fell on his face to the floor, and on raising him, life was\nfound to be extinct. On opening the body, a considerable quantity of\nserum was found between the brain and its integuments. His sudden death\nwas attributed by many persons to suicide: but there is no direct\nevidence of which we know to prove this. On the other side there is the\npositive assertion of the physician who examined the body, that his\ndeath was natural. Rousseau was buried in an island shaded by poplars,\non the little lake of the park of Ermenonville. A plain marble monument\nwas raised to his memory.\n\nThe first part of his \u2018Confessions,\u2019 which he had begun to write while\nat Wootton, was published in 1781. He had himself fixed the year 1800\nfor the publication of the second part, judging that, by that time, the\npersons mentioned in the work would be dead; but, through an abuse of\nconfidence on the part of the depositories of the MSS., it was published\nin 1788. His autobiography does not include the latter years of his\nlife.\n\nRousseau was temperate and frugal in his habits, disinterested and\nwarm-hearted, and impressed with strong feelings against oppression and\ninjustice. He was not envious of the fame or success of his brother\nauthors. He never sneered at religion like Voltaire and others of his\ncontemporaries, although in his speculative works he expressed his\ndoubts concerning revelation, and brought forth the arguments that\noccurred to him on that side of the question: but he had none of the\nfanaticism of incredulity against Christianity. Of the morality of the\nGospel he was a sincere admirer, and a most eloquent eulogist. \u201cI\nacknowledge,\u201d he says in his \u2018Emile,\u2019 \u201cthat the majesty of the\nScriptures astonishes me, that the holiness of the Gospel speaks to my\nheart. Look at the books of the philosophers; with all their pomp, how\nlittle they appear by the side of that one book! Can a book so sublime,\nand yet so simple, be the work of man? How prejudiced, how blind that\nman must be, who can compare the son of Sophroniscus (Socrates) to the\nson of Mary!\u201d With such sentiments Rousseau could not long agree with\nHelvetius, Diderot, D\u2019Holbach, and their coterie. They, on their side,\nridiculed and abused him, because he was too sincere and independent for\nthem. \u201cI have spent my life,\u201d says Rousseau, \u201camong infidels, without\nbeing seduced by them; I loved and esteemed several of them, and yet\ntheir doctrine was to me insufferable. I told them repeatedly that I\ncould not believe them.... I leave to my friends the task of\nconstructing the world by chance. I find in the very architects of this\nnew-fangled world, and in spite of themselves and their arguments, fresh\nproofs of the existence of a God, a Creator of all.\u201d A very good\ncollection of the moral maxims scattered about Rousseau\u2019s works was\npublished under the title of \u2018Esprit, Maximes et Principes de J. J.\nRousseau,\u2019 8vo., Neuchatel, 1774.\n\nRousseau set to music about 100 French romances, which he called\n\u2018Consolations des Mis\u00e8res de ma Vie.\u2019 Several editions of all his works\nhave been made at different times: that by Mercier and Le Tourneur, 38\nvols. 4to., has been long considered as one of the best. The edition of\nLefevre, 22 vols. 8vo., 1819\u201320, and that of Lequien, 21 vols. 8vo.,\n1821\u20132, are now preferred to all former ones.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by W. Holl._\n\n  JOHN HARRISON.\n\n  _From an Engraving by Tassaerts published in 1708 after a Painting by\n    King._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                               HARRISON.\n\n\nJohn Harrison was born in May, 1693, at Foulby, in Yorkshire. His\nfather, who was a joiner, trained him from an early age to the same\nbusiness; but he soon began to study machinery. He turned his attention\nto the mechanism of clocks; and, to obviate the irregularities produced\nin their rate of going by variations of temperature, he invented the\nmethod of compensation, employed in what is now called the _gridiron_\npendulum, before the year 1720. This contrivance consisted in\nconstructing a pendulum with bars of different metals, having different\nrates of expansion so as to correct each other: it is described in all\npopular treatises on physics. By this means it is stated that he had,\nbefore the year above-mentioned, constructed two clocks which agreed\nwith each other within a second a month, and one of which did not vary,\non the whole, more than a minute in ten years.[10]\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Folke\u2019s Address to the Royal Society, Nov. 30, 1749.\n\nThis success induced him to turn his attention to watches, or rather to\ntime-keepers for naval purposes. It would be impossible without the help\nof plates to render intelligible the rise and progress of his methods,\nfor which we must refer the reader to treatises of Horology. His first\ninstrument was tried upon the Humber, in rough weather, and succeeded so\nwell that he was recommended to carry it to London, for the inspection\nof the Commissioners of Longitude.\n\nThe question of the discovery of the longitude had been considered of\nnational importance since the year 1714, when an Act was passed offering\n10,000_l._, 15,000_l._, and 20,000_l._ for any method of discovering the\nlongitude within 60, 40, or 30 miles respectively. In 1735 Harrison\narrived in London with his time-piece, and showed it to several members\nof the Royal Society. He obtained a certificate of its goodness, signed\nby Halley, Smith, Bradley, Machin, and Graham, in consequence of which\nhe was allowed to proceed with it to Lisbon, in a king\u2019s ship, in 1736.\nThe watch was found to correct the ship\u2019s reckoning a degree and a half;\nand the commissioners thereupon gave Harrison 500_l._, to enable him to\nproceed. He finished a second time-piece in 1739, and a third in 1758,\neach nearer to perfection than the former, and both abounding in\ningenious contrivances to overcome the effects of temperature, and of\nthe motion of a vessel at sea. In 1741 he obtained another certificate,\nsigned by almost every name of eminence in English science of the time.\nIn 1749 the gold medal of the Royal Society was awarded to him. In 1761,\nhaving then a fourth time-piece in hand, but being convinced that the\nthird was sufficiently correct to come within the limits of the act of\nparliament, he applied to the Commissioners for a trial of it.\nAccordingly, in 1761 (Nov. 18), his son, William Harrison, was sent in a\nking\u2019s ship to Jamaica with the watch, and returned to Portsmouth, March\n26, 1762. On arrival at Port Royal, Jan. 19, 1762, the watch was found\nwrong only 5\u2152 seconds; and at its return, only 1 minute 54\u00bd seconds.\nThis was sufficient to determine the longitude within 18 miles; and\nHarrison accordingly claimed 20,000_l._, in a petition to the House of\nCommons, presented early in 1763. The Commissioners had awarded him\n1,500_l._, and promised 1,000_l._ more after another voyage. Owing to\nsome doubt as to the method of equal altitudes employed in finding the\ntime at Port Royal, they do not appear to have been of opinion that the\nfirst voyage was conclusive. In 1763 an act passed, by which, firstly,\nno other person could become entitled to the reward until Harrison\u2019s\nclaim was settled; and, secondly, 5,000_l._ was awarded to him on his\ndiscovery of the structure of the instrument. But the Commissioners not\nagreeing about the payment, another voyage was resolved on, and Mr.\nWilliam Harrison sailed again for Barbadoes, with Dr. Maskelyne,\nafterwards the Astronomer Royal. The result was yet more satisfactory\nthan before; and in 1765 a new act was passed, awarding to Harrison the\nwhole sum of 20,000_l._: the first moiety upon the discovery of his\nconstruction; the second, so soon as it should be found that others\ncould be made like it. In this act it is stated that the watch did not\nlose more than ten miles of the longitude. But Harrison had by this time\nbeen rendered unduly suspicious of the intentions of the Commissioners.\nHe imagined that Dr. Maskelyne had treated him unfairly, and was\ndesirous of having no method of finding the longitude except that of\nlunar observations. An account of the subsequent proceedings, of which\nthe following is an abstract, was printed in self-defence by the\nCommissioners:\u2014\n\nMay 28, 1765, Mr. Harrison\u2019s son informs the Commissioners that he is\nready to deliver the drawings and explanations, and expects a\ncertificate that he is entitled to receive the first moiety of the\nreward. The Commissioners are unanimously of opinion that verbal\nexplanations and experiments, in the presence of such persons as they\nmay appoint, will be necessary. May 30, Mr. Harrison attends in person,\nand consents to the additional explanation; and certain men of science,\nas well as watchmakers, are instructed to receive them. June 13, Mr.\nHarrison, being present, is informed that the Board is ready to fix a\ntime to proceed, on which he denies ever having given his assent, and\nrefers to a letter which he had delivered at the last meeting. The\nletter had not, says the Commissioners\u2019 Minute, been delivered, but had\nbeen left upon the table, unnoticed by any one. It was to the effect\nthat Harrison was willing to give further verbal explanation, but\nrequires to know to whom it must be given; \u201cfor,\u201d says he, \u201cI will never\nattempt to explain it to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, and who\nthey may appoint; nor will I ever come under the directions of men of\ntheory.\u201d He further refuses to make any experimental exhibition, and\nends by complaining of the usage he has received. He was then told by\nthe Board that he would only be asked for experiments in cases where\nthere were operations which could not be fully explained by words, such,\nfor instance, as the tempering of the springs; on which he left the\nBoard abruptly, declaring, \u201cthat he never would consent to it, as long\nas he had a drop of English blood in his body.\u201d The Commissioners\nthereupon declined further dealing with him.\n\nThe reason of the above absurd conduct we suspect to have been, that\nHarrison desired, in addition to the large reward claimed by him, to\nhave a monopoly of the manufacture of his watches, such as would have\nnecessarily been created for his benefit, had he been allowed to keep\nhis actual methods of working a secret. For he offered, _upon receiving\nthe reward_, \u201cto employ a sufficient number of hands, so as with all\npossible speed to furnish his Majesty\u2019s navy, &c. &c., not doubting but\nthe public will consider the charge of the outset of the undertaking.\u201d\nWe quote here from the Biographia Britannica, in the last volume of\nwhich, published in 1766, is an account of him, from materials avowedly\nfurnished by himself, and plainly written by a partisan. It is the only\ninstance we can find in which a memoir of a living person has been\ninserted in that work.\n\nThe next circumstance we find, (for there is no connected history of\nthis discussion, which exists only in a number of detached pamphlets,)\nis the delivery of the watch to Dr. Maskelyne, at the Royal Observatory,\nin May, 1766, that its rate of going might there be tried. The Report of\nthe Astronomer Royal states, that it could not be depended upon within a\ndegree of longitude in a voyage of six weeks; and a very angry pamphlet,\npublished by Harrison in the following year, accuses Maskelyne of having\ntreated the instrument unfairly. Many circumstances are stated which now\nappear ludicrous, and some which, if true, would have reflected\ndiscredit on the Commissioners. But nothing can be inferred, after the\nrefusal of Harrison to accede to the very reasonable demand of the\nCommissioners, except that he was most probably as wrong in his\nsuspicions as he had been foolish in his dealings. The end of this\ndispute was, that in 1767 Harrison complied with the conditions insisted\nupon; and, it having been found that his improvements were such as\nadmitted of execution by another person, he received the whole sum\nawarded to him by the Act of Parliament.\n\nHarrison was not a well-educated man, and was deficient in the power of\nexpressing his meaning clearly. It was easier for him, no doubt, to make\ntwo watches than to explain one; and hence, perhaps, his aversion to\n\u201cmen of theory,\u201d who troubled him for descriptions and explanations.\n\nHe died in 1776, at his house in Red Lion Square, having been engaged\nduring the latter years of his life in bringing his improvements still\nnearer to perfection. His last work, which was tried in 1772, was found\nto have erred only four seconds and a half in ten weeks.\n\nIn his younger days, some church-bells, which were out of tune, set him\nupon examining the musical scale, with a view to correct them. He\ncommunicated his ideas on the subject to Dr. Smith, who confirmed and\nextended them in his well-known work on Harmonics. In the Preface it is\nstated that Harrison made the interval of the major-third bear to that\nof the octave the proportion of the diameter of a circle to its\ncircumference. This, he said, he did on the authority of a friend, who\nassured him it would give the best scale. Harrison himself wrote a\ntreatise on the scale, but we do not know whether it was published.\n\nHe is, on the whole, a fine instance of the union of originality with\nperseverance. The inventions, of which it takes so short a space to tell\nthe history, were the work of fifty years of labour, and to them the art\nof constructing chronometers, and consequently the science of\nnavigation, is indebted for much of its present advanced state.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by C. E. Wagstaff._\n\n  MONTAIGNE.\n\n  _From an original Picture at Paris, in the \u201cD\u00e9pot des Archives du\n    Royaume.\u201d_\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                               MONTAIGNE.\n\n\nMichel, Seigneur, or Lord, of MONTAIGNE, a feudal estate in the province\nof Perigord, near the river Dordogne, was born February 28, 1533, of a\nfamily said to have been originally from England. He was a younger son;\nbut, by the death of his elder brother, inherited the estate by the\ntitle of which he is known. His father, a blunt feudal noble, who had\nserved in the wars of Francis I., placed him out at nurse in a village\nof his domain, and directed that he should be treated in the same manner\nas the children of the peasants. As soon as he could speak, he was\nplaced under the care of a German tutor, selected for his ignorance of\nthe French, and intimate acquaintance with the Greek and Latin\nlanguages. All Montaigne\u2019s intercourse with his preceptor was carried on\nin Latin; and even his parents made a rule never to address him except\nin that language, of which they picked up a sufficient number of words\nfor common purposes. The attendants were enjoined to follow the same\npractice. \u201cThey all became latinized,\u201d says Montaigne himself, \u201cand even\nthe villagers around learnt words in that language, some of which took\nroot in the country, and became of common use among the people.\u201d Thus,\nwithout any formal course of scholastic teaching, Montaigne spoke Latin\nlong before he could speak French, which he was afterwards obliged to\nlearn as if it had been a foreign language. When, at a mature age, he\nwas writing his Essays, he professed to be still ignorant of grammar,\nhaving learnt various languages by practice, and not knowing yet the\nmeaning of adjective, conjunctive, or ablative, (Essais, b. i. c. 48.)\nThis last assertion probably is not to be taken strictly to the letter.\nHe studied Greek also by way of pastime, rather than as a task. The\nobject of his father was to make him learn without constraint and from\nhis own wish; and, as an instance of the old soldier\u2019s whimsical notions\non education, he caused his son to be awakened in the morning to the\nsound of music, that his nervous system might not be injured by any\nsudden shock. At six years old Montaigne was sent to the College of\nGuienne, at Bordeaux, an establishment which then enjoyed a very high\nreputation. He soon made his way to the higher classes; and at thirteen\nyears of age had completed his college education. Having no taste for\nmilitary life, which was then the usual career of young noblemen, he\nstudied the law; and in 1554 was made Councillor (or Judge) in the\nParliament of Bordeaux, in which capacity he acted for several years. He\nwent several times to Court, and enjoyed the favour of Henry II., by\nwhom, or as some say, by Charles IX., he was made a Gentleman of the\nKing\u2019s Chamber, and Knight of the Order of St. Michel. Among his brother\ncouncillors at Bordeaux there was a young man of distinguished merit,\ncalled La Bo\u00ebtie, for whom Montaigne conceived a feeling of the most\nromantic friendship, which soon became reciprocal. The sentiments and\nopinions of the two seem to have sympathized in an extraordinary degree.\nLa Bo\u00ebtie died young, but his friend\u2019s affection survived: a chapter of\nthe Essays is devoted to his memory, and in other parts of Montaigne\u2019s\nwritings we find frequent recurrence to the same subject.\n\nMontaigne married Fran\u00e7oise de la Chassaigne when he was thirty-three\nyears of age; and this he did, as he says, in consequence of external\npersuasions, and in order to please his friends rather than himself, for\nhe was not inclined to a married life; \u201cbut once married, although he\nhad been till then considered a licentious man, he observed the conjugal\nlaws more strictly than he had himself expected.\u201d On succeeding to the\nfamily estate, on which he generally resided, he took the management of\nit into his own hands; and although his father, judging from his habits\nof abstraction and seeming carelessness of worldly objects, had foretold\nthat he would ruin his patrimony, Montaigne, at his death, left the\nproperty if not much better, certainly not worse than he found it. He\nwas not rich, for we are told, by Balzac, that his income did not exceed\n6000 livres, which was no great revenue for a country gentleman even at\nthat time. In 1569 he translated into French a Latin work of Sebonde or\nSebon, in defence of the mysteries and doctrines of the Church of Rome,\nagainst Luther and other Protestant writers. France was at that time\ndesolated by civil and religious war. Montaigne, although he evidently\ndisapproved of the conduct of the Court towards the Protestants, yet\nremained loyal to the King. He lived in retirement, and took no part in\npublic affairs, except by exhorting both parties to moderation and\nmutual charity. By this conduct he became, as it generally happens,\nobnoxious to both factions, and he incurred some danger in consequence.\nThe massacre of St. Bartholomew plunged him into a deep melancholy. He\ndetested cruelty and the shedding of blood, and in several passages of\nhis Essays has animadverted in strong terms upon the atrocities\ncommitted against the Protestants. It was about this dismal epoch of\n1572, when, solitude and melancholy urging him to the task, he began to\nwrite that celebrated work, of which we shall presently speak more at\nlength. It was first published in March, 1580; and had great success.\nAfter some time, Montaigne printed a new edition of it, with additions;\nbut without making any alterations in the part which had appeared\nbefore. The popularity of the book was such that in a few years there\nwas hardly a man of education in France who had not a copy of it.\n\nSoon after the first publication of his Essays, Montaigne undertook a\njourney for the sake of his health. He went to Germany, Switzerland,\nand, lastly, to Italy. He visited several bathing-places, among others,\nBaden, and the baths of Lucca in Tuscany. He proceeded to Rome, where he\nwas well received by several Cardinals and other persons of distinction,\nand was introduced to Pope Gregory XIII. Montaigne was delighted with\nRome; he found himself at home among those localities and monuments\nwhich were connected with his earliest studies, and with the first\nimpressions of his childhood. His remarks on what he saw in the course\nof his journey are those of a man of penetration, sincere and plain\nspoken, and written in his peculiar antique style. His MS. journal,\nafter lying forgotten for nearly two centuries, was discovered in an old\nchest in the ch\u00e2teau of his family, and published in 1775, by M. de\nQuerlon, under the following title, \u2018Journal du Voyage de Michel de\nMontaigne en Italie, par la Suisse et l\u2019Allemagne, en 1580\u20131.\u2019 It is one\nof the earliest descriptions of Italy in a modern language. In this\njourney, Montaigne received the freedom of the city of Rome, by a\nspecial bull of the Pope, which he valued as the proudest distinction of\nhis life.\n\nWhile he was abroad, he was elected mayor of Bordeaux by the votes of\nthe citizens; an honour which he would have declined, but that the king,\nHenry III., insisted on his accepting of it. This was a mere honorary\noffice, no emolument being attached to it. The appointment was for two\nyears; but Montaigne was re-elected at the expiration of that period,\nwhich was a mark of public favour of rare occurrence.\n\nOn retiring from his office, Montaigne returned to his estate. The\ncountry was then ravaged by the war of the League. He had great\ndifficulty in saving his family and property in the midst of the\ncontending parties, and once narrowly escaped assassination in his\nch\u00e2teau. To add to the miseries of civil war, the plague broke out in\nhis neighbourhood in 1586; and he then, with his family, left his home\nand became a wanderer, residing successively at several friends\u2019 houses\nin other parts of the country. He was at Paris in 1588, busy about a new\nedition of his Essays. It appears from De Thou, that about this time he\nwas employed in negotiation with a view to mediate peace between Henry\nof Navarre, afterwards Henry IV., and the Duke of Guise. At Paris, he\nmade the acquaintance of Mademoiselle de Gournay, a young lady, who had\nconceived a kind of sentimental affection for him by reading his book.\nIn company with her mother, she visited and introduced herself to him,\nand from that time he called her his \u201cfille d\u2019alliance,\u201d or adopted\ndaughter, a title which she retained for the rest of her life, as she\nnever married. This attachment, which, though warm and reciprocal, has\nevery appearance of being of a purely platonic nature, is one of the\nremarkable circumstances of Montaigne\u2019s life. At the time of his death,\nMademoiselle de Gournay and her mother crossed one-half of France, in\nspite of the civil troubles and the insecurity of the roads, to mix\ntheir tears with those of his widow and daughter.\n\nOn his return from Paris, in the latter part of 1588, Montaigne stopped\nat Blois, with De Thou, Pasquier, and other friends. The famous\nStates-General were then assembled in that city, where the murder of the\nDuke of Guise, and of his brother, the Cardinal, soon after took place\n(23d and 24th December, 1588). Montaigne had long foreseen that the\ncivil dissensions could only terminate with the death of one of the\ngreat party leaders; and he also said to De Thou that Henry of Navarre\nwas inclined to embrace the Catholic faith, were he not afraid of being\nforsaken by his party; and that, on the other side, Guise himself would\nnot have been averse from adopting the Protestant religion, if he could\nthereby have promoted his ambitious views. After these events, Montaigne\nreturned to his ch\u00e2teau. In the following year, he became acquainted\nwith Pierre Charron, a theological writer of considerable reputation. An\nintimate friendship ensued between the two authors; and Charron, in his\nbook \u2018De la Sagesse,\u2019 borrowed many thoughts from the Essays, which he\nheld in high estimation. Montaigne, by his will, empowered Charron to\nassume the coat of arms of his family, as he himself had no male issue.\n\nMontaigne\u2019s health had been declining for some time; he was afflicted\nwith gravel and cholic, and he was obstinately resolved against\nconsulting physicians. In September, 1592, he fell ill of a malignant\nquinsy, which kept him speechless for three days, during which he had\nrecourse to his pen to signify to his wife his last intentions. He\ndesired that several gentlemen of the neighbourhood should be requested\nto come and take leave of him. When they were assembled in his room, a\npriest said mass, and at the elevation of the host, Montaigne half\nraised himself on his bed, with his hands joined together, and in that\nattitude expired, September 13, 1592, in the sixtieth year of his age.\nHis body was buried at Bordeaux, in the church of the Feuillans, where a\nmonument was erected to him by his widow. He left an only daughter,\nheiress of his property.\n\nMontaigne\u2019s Essays have been the subject of much and very conflicting\ncriticism. If we consider the age and the intellectual condition of the\ncountry in which the author was born, we must pronounce them a very\nextraordinary work, not so much on account of the learning contained in\nthem, as for the philosophical spirit and the frank, independent,\nliberal tone that pervades their pages. Civilization and literature were\nthen at a low ebb in France; the language was hardly formed, the country\nwas still torn by the rude turbulence, and subject to the oppression, of\nfeudal lords and feudal laws; and was, moreover, distracted by ignorant\nfanaticism, by deadly intolerance, and by civil factions, rendered more\nfierce by religious feuds. It is very remarkable that, in a remote\nprovince of a country so situated, a country gentleman, himself\nbelonging to the feudal aristocracy, should have composed a work full of\nmoral maxims and precepts, conceived in the spirit of the philosophers\nof Greece and Rome, and founded, not on the sanctions of revealed\nreligion, but on a sort of natural system of ethics, on the beauty of\nvirtue, on the innate sense of justice, on the lessons of history. It is\nalmost more remarkable that such a book should have been read with\navidity amidst the turmoil of factions, the din of civil war, the knell\nof persecution and massacre.\n\nThe morality of the Essays has been called, and justly so, a pagan\nmorality: it is not founded on the faith and the hopes of a Christian;\nand its principles are in many respects widely different from those of\nthe Gospel. Scepticism was the bias of Montaigne\u2019s mind; his philosophy\nis, in great measure, that of Seneca, and other ancient writers, whose\nbooks were the first that were put into his hands when a child.\nAccordingly, Pascal, Nicole, Leclerc, and other Christian moralists,\nwhile rendering full justice to Montaigne\u2019s talents and the many good\nsentiments scattered about the Essays, are very severe upon his ethics,\ntaken as a system. Yet he was not a determined infidel, for not only in\nthe Essays, but in the journal of his travels, which was not intended\nfor publication, he manifests Christian sentiments; and we have seen\nthat the mode of his death was that of a Christian. In his chapter on\nprayers, (Essais, b. i. 56,) he recommends the use of the Lord\u2019s Prayer\nin terms evidently sincere; and in a preceding chapter, after speaking\nof two sorts of ignorance, the one, that which precedes all instruction,\nand the other, that which follows partial instruction, he says, that\n\u201cmen of simple minds, devoid of curiosity and of learning, are\nChristians through reverence and obedience; that minds of middle growth\nand moderate capacities are the most prone to error and doubt; but that\nhigher intellects, more clear-sighted and better grounded in science,\nform a superior class of believers, who, through long and religious\ninvestigations, arrive at the fountain of light of the Scriptures, and\nfeel the mysterious and divine meaning of our ecclesiastical doctrines.\nAnd we see some who reach this last stage, through the second, with\nmarvellous fruit and confirmation; and who, having attained the extreme\nboundary of Christian intelligence, enjoy their success with modesty and\nthanksgivings, accompanied by a total reformation of their morals,\nunlike those men of another stamp, who, in order to clear themselves of\nthe suspicion of their past errors, become violent, indiscreet, unjust,\nand throw discredit on the cause which they pretend to serve.\u201d (Essais,\nb. i. ch. 54.) And a few lines after, he modestly places himself in the\nsecond rank, of those who, disdaining the first state of uninformed\nsimplicity, have not yet attained the third and last exalted stage, and\nwho, he says, are thereby rendered \u201cinept, importunate, and troublesome\nto society. But I, for my part, endeavour, as much as I can, to fall\nback upon my first and natural condition, from which I have idly\nattempted to depart.\u201d Although we may not trust implicitly to the\nsincerity of this modest admission, yet we clearly see from this and\nother passages, that Montaigne\u2019s mind was anything but dogmatical, and\nthat he felt the insecurity of his own philosophy, which was made up of\nimpulses and doubts, rather than of argumentation and conviction.\n\nMontaigne has been also censured for several licentious and some cynical\npassages of his \u2018Essais.\u2019 This licentiousness, however, is rather in the\nexpressions than in the meaning of the author. He spoke plainly of\nthings which are not alluded to in a more refined state of society, but\nhe did so evidently without mischievous intentions, and as a thing of\ncommon occurrence in his days. His early familiarity with the Latin\nclassics probably contributed to this habit.\n\nNotwithstanding these faults, Montaigne\u2019s Essays are justly admired for\nthe sound sense, honesty, and beauty which abound in them. \u2018The best\nparts of them (says a French critic) are those in which he speaks of the\npassions and inclinations of men; as for his learning, it is vague, not\nmethodical, and uncertain; and his philosophical maxims are often\ndangerous.\u2019 (M\u00e9langes d\u2019Histoire et de Litterature,\u2019 Rouen, 1699, tom.\ni. p. 133.) Montaigne combats most earnestly all the malignant feelings\ninherent in man, inhumanity, injustice, oppression, uncharitableness;\ncruelty he detests, his whole nature was averse from it. His chapters on\npedantry and on the education of children are remarkably good. He\nthrows, at times, considerable light on the state of society and manners\nin France in his time, which may be considered as the last period of\nfeudal power in that country. In his chapter on the inequality among\nmen, he speaks of the independence of the French nobility, especially in\nthe provinces remote from the Court, as Britanny; where the feudal lords\nliving on their estates, surrounded by their vassals, their officers and\nvalets, their household conducted with an almost royal ceremonial, heard\nof the king but once a-year as if he were some distant king or Sultan of\nPersia, and only remembered him on the score of some distant\nrelationship, which they hold carefully registered among their ancestral\ndocuments.\n\nMademoiselle de Gournay edited Montaigne\u2019s \u2018Essais\u2019 in 1635, and\ndedicated the edition to the Cardinal de Richelieu. She wrote a long\npreface to it, which is a zealous apology for Montaigne and his works\nagainst the charges of the earlier critics. An edition of the \u2018Essais\u2019\nwas published by Pierre Coste, 3 vols. 4to. London, 1724, enriched with\nvaluable notes and several letters of Montaigne at the end of the third\nvolume. The edition of Paris, 3 vols. 4to. 1725, is, in great measure, a\nreprint of that of Coste, except that the publishers have added extracts\nof the various judgments of the most distinguished critical writers\nconcerning the \u2018Essais,\u2019 and also two more letters of Montaigne\u2019s at the\nend. These additions render this Paris edition the most complete. The\nex-senator Vernier published in 1810, \u2018Notices et Observations pour\nfaciliter la Lecture des Essais de Montaigne,\u2019 Paris, 2 vols. 8vo. It is\na useful commentary.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                 POPE.\n\n\nAlexander Pope was born in London, June S, 1688. His father was a\nmerchant, of good family, attached to the Roman Catholic religion; and\nhis own childish years were spent, first under the tuition of a priest,\nthen at a Roman Catholic Seminary at Twyford, near Winchester. He taught\nhimself to write by copying printed books, in the execution of which he\nattained great neatness and exactness. When little more than eight years\nold he accidentally met with Ogilby\u2019s Translation of Homer. The\nversification is insipid and lifeless; but the stirring events and\ncaptivating character of the story so possessed his mind, that Ogilby\nbecame a favourite book. When about ten years old he was removed from\nTwyford to a school at Hyde Park Corner. He had there occasional\nopportunities of frequenting the theatre; which suggested to him the\namusement of turning the chief events in Homer into a kind of play,\ncomposed of a succession of speeches from Ogilby, strung together by\nverses of his own. In these two schools he seems, instead of advancing,\nto have lost what he had gained under his first tutor. When twelve years\nold he went to live with his parents at Binfield, in Windsor Forest. He\nthere became acquainted with the writings of Spenser, Waller, and\nDryden. For the latter he conceived the greatest admiration. He saw him\nonce, and commemorates the event in his correspondence, under the words\n\u201cVirgilium tantum vidi:\u201d but he was too young to have made acquaintance\nwith that master of English verse, who died in 1701. He studied Dryden\u2019s\nworks with equal attention and pleasure, adopted them as a model of\nrhythm, and copied the structure of that author\u2019s periods. This was,\nhowever, so far from a grovelling imitation, that it enabled him to\nraise English rhyme to the most perfect melody of which it is capable.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by J. Posselwhite._\n\n  POPE.\n\n  _From the Picture by Hudson in the possession of His Grace the Duke of\n    Buckingham._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\nIn the retirement of Binfield, Pope laboured successfully to make amends\nfor the loss of past time. At fourteen years of age he had written with\nsome elegance, and at fifteen had attained some knowledge of the Greek\nand Latin languages, to which he soon added French and Italian. In 1704\nhe began his pastorals, published in 1709, which introduced him, through\nWycherley, to the acquaintance of Walsh, who proved a sincere friend to\nhim. That gentleman discovered at once that Pope\u2019s talent lay less in\nstriking out new thoughts of his own, than in easy versification, and in\nimproving what he borrowed from the ancients. Among other useful hints,\nhe pointed out that we had several great poets, but that none of them\nwere correct; he therefore admonished him to make that merit his own.\nThe advice was gratefully received; and Pope\u2019s correspondence shows that\nit was carefully followed. His melodious numbers, so marked a feature of\nhis style, were in a great measure the result of that suggestion.\n\nIn the same year, 1704, he wrote the first part of his \u2018Windsor Forest\u2019:\nthe whole was not published till 1713. The fault charged on this poem\nis, that few images are introduced which are not equally applicable to\nany other sylvan scenery. It was dedicated to Lord Lansdowne, whom he\nmentions as one of his earliest acquaintance. To those already named,\nmay be added Bolingbroke, Congreve, Garth, Swift, Atterbury, Talbot,\nSomers, and Sheffield, whose friendship he had gained at sixteen or\nseventeen years of age. Pope, to his credit be it set down, cultivated\nfriendships not only with the great, but with his brethren among the\npoets. Wycherley indeed was infected with the weakness of the archbishop\nin \u2018Gil Blas,\u2019 touching his own compositions, and the young poet was\nimprudently caustic in his criticism on the old one. Their\ncorrespondence was consequently dropped; and though renewed through the\nmediation of a common friend, it was with no revival of cordiality. But\nin 1728, some time after Wycherley\u2019s death, his poems were republished;\nand in the following year Pope printed several letters which had passed\nbetween them, in vindication of Wycherley\u2019s fame as a poet, in answer to\ncertain misrepresentations prefixed to that edition. This quarrel was a\ntrying affair in the outset of Pope\u2019s career, and his conduct had been\nabove his years; but young as he was, his talents were now beginning to\nripen. His example confirms the truth of Lord Bacon\u2019s remark, that\npersonal deformity acts as a spur to that improvement of the mind, which\nis most likely to rescue him who is curtailed of his due proportion from\na sense of degradation.\n\nTo this early period of Pope\u2019s life belong the \u2018Messiah,\u2019 the \u2018Ode for\nSt. Cecilia\u2019s Day,\u2019 \u2018Verses to the Memory of an Unfortunate Lady,\u2019 and\nother of Pope\u2019s minor pieces, which were collected and published in a\nsmall 8vo. volume in 1720. It is stated in a note to Dr. Johnson\u2019s Life,\nthat Pope himself was the object of the passion commemorated in the\nlast-mentioned poem. The date of that most brilliant composition,\n\u2018Eloisa to Abelard,\u2019 is uncertain. The \u2018Essay on Criticism\u2019 was written\nin 1709, \u201cA work,\u201d says Johnson, \u201cwhich displays such extent of\ncomprehension, such nicety of distinction, such acquaintance with\nmankind, and such knowledge both of ancient and modern learning, as are\nnot often attained by the maturest age and longest experience.\u201d Pope\u2019s\nfame was carried to its height by the \u2018Rape of the Lock.\u2019 That poem\noriginated in an impertinence offered by Lord Petre to Mrs. Arabella\nFermor, which led to a quarrel between their respective families. Both\nparties were among Pope\u2019s acquaintance, and this lively piece was\nwritten to produce a reconciliation, in which it succeeded. The\nuniversal applause given to the first sketch induced the author to\nenrich it with the machinery of the Sylphs. In that new dress the two\ncantos, extended to five, came out in 1712, accompanied by a letter to\nMrs. Arabella Fermor, to whom he afterwards addressed another after her\nmarriage, in the spruce and courtly style of Voiture. A sentence or two\nmay be quoted as a sample of the poet\u2019s epistolary manner. \u201cMadam, you\nare sensible, by this time, how much the tenderness of one man of merit\nis to be preferred to the addresses of a thousand; and by this time, the\ngentleman you have made choice of is sensible how great is the joy of\nhaving all those charms and good qualities which have pleased so many,\nnow applied to please one only.... It may be expected, perhaps, that one\nwho has the title of being a wit should say something more polite upon\nthis occasion; but I am really more a well-wisher to your felicity, than\na celebrator of your beauty.... I hope you will think it but just that a\nman, who will certainly be spoken of as your admirer after he is dead,\nmay have the happiness, while he is living, to be esteemed, Yours, &c.\u201d\nThis letter is sometimes annexed to the poem, and not injudiciously, as\nit completes the winding-up in the happy marriage of the heroine. In the\nsame year he published his \u2018Temple of Fame,\u2019 which, according to his\nhabitual caution, he had kept two years in his study. It appears from\none of his letters, that at that time he had made some progress in\ntranslating the Iliad: in 1713, he circulated proposals for publishing\nhis translation by subscription. He had been pressed to this undertaking\nsome time before by several of his friends, and was now encouraged in\nthe design by others. The publication of the first four books, in 1715,\ngave general satisfaction; and so materially improved the author\u2019s\nfinances, that he resolved to come nearer to his friends in the capital.\nWith that view, the small estate at Binfield was sold, and he purchased\na house at Twickenham, whither he removed with his father and mother\nbefore the end of the year 1715. While employed in the decoration of his\nseat, he could not forbear doubling his pleasures by boasting of it in\nhis communications with his friends. In a letter to Mr. Blount he says,\nin his customary tone of gallantry, \u201cThe young ladies may be assured\nthat I make nothing new in my gardens, without wishing to see them print\ntheir fairy steps in every corner of them.... You\u2019ll think I have been\nvery poetical in this description, but it is pretty nearly the truth.\u201d\nThis letter was written in 1725. Warburton tells us that the improvement\nof his celebrated grotto was the favourite amusement of his declining\nyears: not long before his death, by enlarging and ornamenting it with\nores and minerals of the richest and rarest kind, he had made it a most\nelegant and romantic retirement. But modern taste will scarcely confirm\nthe reverend editor\u2019s assertion, that \u201cthe beauty of his poetic genius,\nin the disposition and ornaments of those romantic materials, appeared\nto as much advantage as in any of his best-contrived poems.\u201d\n\nPope\u2019s father survived his removal to Twickenham only two years. The old\ngentleman had sometimes recommended to his son the study of medicine, as\nthe best method of increasing his scanty patrimony. Neglect of pecuniary\nconsiderations was not among Pope\u2019s weaknesses: he did not indeed engage\nin the medical profession; but he took other opportunities of pushing\nhis fortune. With this view, he published an edition of his collected\npoems in 1717; a proceeding as much suggested by profit as by fame. In\nthe like disposition, he undertook a new edition of Shakspeare, which\nwas published in 1721. The execution of it proved the editor\u2019s unfitness\nfor the task which he had undertaken. Immediately after the completion\nof the Iliad, in 1720, Pope engaged, for a considerable sum, to\nundertake the Odyssey. Only twelve books, however, of the translation\nproceeded from his own pen: the rest were done by Broome and Fenton\nunder his direction. The work was completed in 1725. The following year\nwas employed, in concert with Swift and Arbuthnot, in the publication of\nmiscellanies, of which the most remarkable is the celebrated \u2018History of\nMartinus Scriblerus.\u2019 About this time, as he was returning home one day\nin Lord Bolingbroke\u2019s chariot, it was overturned on Chase Bridge, near\nTwickenham, and thrown with the horses into the river. The glasses being\nup, Pope was nearly drowned, and was extricated with difficulty from his\nhazardous situation. He lost the use of two fingers, in consequence of a\nsevere cut from the broken glass.\n\nHaving secured an independent fortune, Pope endeavoured to protect his\nliterary fame from all future attacks, by browbeating every one into\nsilence: this he hoped to accomplish by the poem of the \u2018Dunciad,\u2019 which\ncame out in 4to. in the year 1727. He somewhere says, that the life of\nan author is a state of warfare: he now showed himself a master in\nliterary tactics, a great captain in offensive as well as defensive war.\nThe poem made its first appearance in Ireland, cautiously, as a masked\nbattery; nor was the triumph completed without the co-operation of an\nEugene with this satirical Marlborough in the person of Swift, who\nfurnished some of the materials in his own masterly style of sarcasm.\nThe improved edition was printed in London in 1728. Sir Robert Walpole\npresented it to the King and Queen, and, probably at the same time,\noffered to procure the author a pension; but Pope refused this, as he\nhad before, in 1714, rejected a similar proposal from Lord Halifax. In a\nletter to Swift, written about this time, he expresses his feelings\nthus: \u201cI was once before displeased at you for complaining to Mr. \u2014\u2014 of\nmy not having a pension; I am so again at your naming it to a certain\nlord.\u201d In 1710, Mr. Craggs had given him a subscription for one hundred\npounds in the South Sea Fund; but he made no use of it. These favours\nmust be understood to have been proffered for the purpose of estranging\nhim from his personal friends; and this repeated rejection of them is an\nhonourable proof of steadiness to his attachments.\n\nIn 1729, the poet, by Lord Bolingbroke\u2019s advice, turned his pen to moral\nsubjects; and, with the assistance of his friend, set to work upon the\n\u2018Essay on Man.\u2019 Bolingbroke writes thus to Swift: \u201cBid Pope talk to you\nof the work he is about, I hope in good earnest; it is a fine one, and\nwill be, in his hands, an original.\u201d Pope tells the dean, in his next\nletter, what this work was. \u201cThe work Lord Bolingbroke speaks of with\nsuch abundant partiality, is a system of ethics, in the Horatian way.\u201d\nIn another letter, written probably at the beginning of the following\nyear, we trace the general aim which he at all events wished the public\nto attribute to this work. \u201cI am just now writing, or rather planning, a\nbook to bring mankind to look upon this life with comfort and pleasure,\nand put morality in good humour.\u201d This subject was well suited to his\ngenius. He found the performance more easy than he had expected, and\nemployed his leisure by following up the design in his Ethic Epistles,\nwhich came out separately in the course of the two following years. The\nfourth, addressed to the Earl of Burlington, did no good to the author\u2019s\ncharacter, in consequence of the violent attack supposed to be made on\nthe Duke of Chandos, a beneficent and esteemed nobleman, under the name\nof Timon. Pope loudly asserted that in drawing Timon\u2019s character he had\nnot the Duke in view: but his denials have not obtained credence; and he\nhas thus incurred the charge of equivocation and falsehood, without\nexculpating himself from that of ingratitude and wanton insolence. The\nvexation caused by this business was somewhat softened by the rapid and\nlucrative sale of the epistle, which very soon went through the press a\nthird time. In a letter to Lord Bolingbroke he says, \u201cCertainly the\nwriter deserved more candour, even in those who knew him not, than to\npromote a report, which, in regard to that noble person, was\nimpertinent; in regard to me, villainous. I have taken an opportunity of\nthe third edition, to declare his belief not only of my innocence, but\nof their malignity; of the former of which my heart is as conscious as I\nfear some of theirs must be of the latter. His humanity feels a concern\nfor the injury done to me, while his greatness of mind can bear with\nindifference the insult offered to himself.\u201d He concludes with a threat\nof using real instead of fictitious names in his future works. How far\nhe carried that menace into effect will presently be seen. The\ncomplaints made against the epistle in question by secret enemies\nprovoked him to write satire, in which he ventured to attack the\ncharacters of some persons in high life: the affront was of course\nresented, and he retaliated by renewing his invective against them, both\nin prose and verse. In the imitation of the first satire of the second\nbook of Horace, he had described Lord Hervey and Lady Mary Wortley\nMontague so characteristically, under the names of Lord Fanny and\nSappho, that those noble personages, besides fighting the aggressor with\nhis own weapons, used their interests to his injury, not only among the\nnobility, but with the King and Queen. Pope remonstrated most strongly\nagainst this last mode of revenge. He continued writing satires till the\nyear 1739, when he entertained some thoughts of undertaking an epic poem\non the pretended colonization of our island by the Trojan Brute. A\nsketch of this project, which he never carried into effect, is given in\nRuffhead\u2019s \u2018Life of Pope,\u2019 p. 410.\n\nPope was an elaborate letter-writer; and many of his familiar epistles\nfound their way into the world without his privity. Under the plea of\nself-defence he published a correct and genuine collection of them in\n1737. About this time the weak state of his health drew him frequently\nto Bath. Mr. Allen, a resident in the neighbourhood, having been pleased\nwith the letters, took occasion to form an acquaintance with the author,\nwhich soon ripened into friendship. Hence arose Pope\u2019s intimacy with\nWarburton, who tells us that, before they knew each other, he had\nwritten his \u2018Commentary on the Art of Criticism, and on the Essay on\nMan.\u2019 One complaint against that essay had rested on its obscurity, of\nwhich the author had previously been warned by Swift. But this was\ncomparatively a slight objection: the philosophic poet was charged with\nhaving insidiously laid down a scheme of deism. A French translation, by\nthe Abb\u00e9 Resnil, appeared at Paris in 1738, on which a German professor,\nby name Crousaz, animadverted, as a system of ethics embodying the\ndoctrine of fatalism. Pope thus acknowledges his obligation to Warburton\nfor his defence: \u201cYou have made my system as clear as I ought to have\ndone, and could not; you understand me as well as I do myself, but you\nexpress me better than I express myself.\u201d The \u2018Essay on Man\u2019 was\nrepublished with the Commentary annexed in 1740; and at the instance of\nWarburton, a fourth book was added to the \u2018Dunciad,\u2019 and printed\nseparately in 1742.\n\nIn the course of the following year the whole poem of the \u2018Dunciad\u2019 was\npublished together, as a specimen of a more correct edition of Pope\u2019s\nworks, which the author had then resolved to give to the world; but he\ndid not live to complete it. He had through life been subject to an\nhabitual headache inherited from his mother, and this was now greatly\nincreased, with the addition of dropsical symptoms. He died on the 30th\nof May, 1744, in the fifty-sixth year of his age. Pursuant to his own\nrequest, his body was laid in the same vault with those of his parents,\nto whose memory he had erected a monument, with an inscription written\nby himself, immediately on their respective deaths. To this, in\nconformity with his will, the simple words, \u201cEt sibi,\u201d with the date of\nhis death, were added. He bequeathed to Warburton the property of such\nof his works already printed as he had written, or should write,\ncommentaries upon, provided they had not been otherwise disposed of or\nalienated; with this condition, that they were to be published without\nfuture alterations. After he had made his will, he wrote a letter to\nthis legatee, announcing his legacy, and saying, \u201cI own the late\nencroachments upon my constitution make me willing to see the end of all\nfurther care about me, or my works. I would rest for the one in a full\nresignation of my being to be disposed of by the Father of all mercy;\nand for the other (though indeed a trifle, yet a trifle may be some\nexample), I would commit them to the candour of a sensible and\nreflecting judge, rather than to the malice of every shortsighted and\nmalevolent critic, or inadvertent and censorious reader. And no hand can\nset them in so good a light, or so well can turn their best side to the\nday, as your own.\u201d In discharge of his trust, Warburton put forth a\ncomplete edition of all Pope\u2019s works in 1751; and, according to his own\npersuasion, executed it conformably to the presumed wishes of the\nauthor. In point of elegance, allowing for the state of typography at\nthe time, no objection could be made, nor could the poet\u2019s orders have\nbeen more faithfully obeyed, in forming the various pieces into a\ncollection. But some of Warburton\u2019s remarks are in a less friendly tone\nthan might have been expected; and if not absolutely injurious to his\nmemory, are such as leave Pope\u2019s moral character in a measure open to\nattack. Many circumstances are related in the large biographies of Pope,\nwhich our inclination would as little allow us as our limits to detail.\nSome of them would not compensate in desirable information for the\ntediousness of the narrative: others relate to defunct controversies. To\nthe latter of these classes may be referred Pope\u2019s quarrel with Colley\nCibber, which loaded the press with vulgar indecency on both sides;\nalso, Bolingbroke\u2019s charge of treachery brought against Pope in an\nadvertisement prefixed to a tract published by his lordship in 1749,\nfive years after the accused could no longer answer his accuser.\n\nWe shall not devote any part of our confined space to an examination of\nthe faults and weaknesses of this eminent man: they have been fully\ndwelt on in works of easy access. Some apology for many of them may be\nfound in his bodily infirmities, deformed frame, and extreme debility of\nconstitution. Pope\u2019s person, character, and writings are treated of at\nlarge by Dr. Warton, in his \u2018Essay.\u2019 Ruffhead\u2019s \u2018Life of Pope\u2019 contains\nmuch curious and entertaining matter. Dr. Johnson\u2019s examination of\nPope\u2019s works is among the most elaborate and best pieces of criticism in\nhis \u2018Lives of the Poets.\u2019 We cannot better conclude than with his\ndescription of Pope\u2019s appearance, and summing up of his poetical\ncharacter. \u201cThe person of Pope is well known not to have been formed by\nthe nicest model. He has, in his account of the \u2018Little Club,\u2019 compared\nhimself to a spider, and by another is described as protuberant before\nand behind. He is said to have been beautiful in his infancy: but he was\nof a constitution originally feeble and weak; and, as bodies of a tender\nframe are easily distorted, his deformity was probably in part the\neffect of his application. His stature was so low, that, to bring him to\na level with common tables, it was necessary to raise his seat. But his\nface was not displeasing, and his eyes animated and vivid....\u201d \u201cIt is\nsurely superfluous to answer the question that has once been asked,\nwhether Pope was a poet, otherwise than by asking, in return, if Pope be\nnot a poet, where is poetry to be found? To circumscribe poetry by a\ndefinition will only show the narrowness of the definer, though a\ndefinition which shall exclude Pope will not easily be made. Let us look\nround upon the present time, and back upon the past; let us inquire to\nwhom the voice of mankind has decreed the wreath of poetry; let their\nproductions be examined, and their claims stated, and the pretensions of\nPope will be no more disputed. Had he given the world only his version,\nthe name of poet must have been allowed him: if the writer of the Iliad\nwere to class his successors, he would assign a very high place to his\ntranslator, without requiring any other evidence of genius.\u201d With\nrespect to the translation of the Iliad, it is fair to give Pope the\nbenefit of Dr. Johnson\u2019s praise. But we are justified by the consentient\nvoice of almost all scholars, in condemning it as an unfaithful and\nmeretricious version, composed in a spirit totally different from that\nof Homer, and bearing no resemblance to his manner.\n\nOur engraving is from a copy of the original picture by Hudson, made by\nT. Uwins, A.R.A.\n\n[Illustration: [Entrance to Pope\u2019s Grotto.]]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by W. Holl._\n\n  BOLIVAR.\n\n  _From an Engraving by Mr. H. Ponte._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                BOLIVAR.\n\n\nThe history of Bolivar is that of the revolutions in Columbia and Peru.\nNothing remarkable is related of his early life; and with respect to his\npersonal merits as a soldier and statesman, he has shared the common lot\nof eminent men, in being extravagantly praised and violently censured.\nHe has been compared to C\u00e6sar and Napoleon on the one hand; and he has\nbeen accused of frivolity, incompetency, and even cowardice, on the\nother. The time for forming a dispassionate opinion of his character is\nnot yet arrived. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to a short\nsketch of the establishment of independence on the Spanish Main, so far\nas Bolivar was concerned in it; premising that we merely follow the\ncourse of history in giving him the credit of those measures which were\ncarried into execution under his authority and ostensible guidance.\n\nSimon Bolivar was born in the city of Caracas, the capital of Venezuela,\non the 24th or 25th of July, 1783. In early childhood he lost both his\nparents, who were of noble family, and possessed of large estates. At\nthe age of fourteen or sixteen, he was sent to Spain for education. His\nhabits are said to have been dissipated; but he paid some attention to\nthe study of jurisprudence. After visiting Italy and France, he returned\nto Madrid, married, and in 1809 returned to reside on his estates near\nCaracas. It is positively asserted, and as positively denied, that\nBolivar had an active share in the decisive movement at Caracas, April\n19, 1810, when the Spanish authorities were deposed. A congress was\nsummoned, which met March 2, 1811. Bolivar received a colonel\u2019s\ncommission, and was sent to claim the protection of Great Britain. The\ndate of his return to South America we do not find: but he is said to\nhave been concerned in the first military operations of the patriots;\nand in September, 1811, he was appointed governor of the strong sea-port\nof Puerto Cabello. In March, 1812, a violent earthquake took place. The\nclergy succeeded in producing a considerable reaction in favour of\nroyalist principles, by representing this calamity to be a manifestation\nof God\u2019s wrath against revolution. Monteverde, the royal general, then\nadvanced, and met with rapid success. The strong hold of Puerto Cabello,\nthe chief dep\u00f4t of the patriots, was wrested from Bolivar by an\ninsurrection of the prisoners confined in it; the patriot army became\ndispirited; and General Miranda, under the sanction of congress,\nconcluded a treaty, July 26, 1812, by which an amnesty was concluded,\nand the province of Venezuela returned under the dominion of Spain.\nMiranda was subsequently arrested on a futile charge of treachery to the\npatriot cause, and delivered to the Spaniards, who kept him in prison to\nthe day of his death. In this unjustifiable transaction, Bolivar had a\nprincipal share.\n\nBolivar retired for a short time to his estate; but he soon became\nuneasy at the frequency of arrests, and obtained a passport to quit the\ncountry. He retired to Cura\u00e7oa. In the following September, his active\ntemper led him to seek employment in the patriot army of New Granada,\nwhich had declared itself independent in 1811, and still held out, with\nbetter fortune than Venezuela. He obtained a trifling command, not such\nas to satisfy his ambition; and on his own responsibility, he undertook\nan expedition against the Spaniards on the east bank of the river\nMagdalena, in which he succeeded; clearing the country of Spanish posts\nfrom Mompox, on the above named river, to the town of Oca\u00f1a, on the\nfrontier of Caracas. This exploit attracted public notice. He conceived\nthe bold plan of invading Venezuela with his small forces, and the\ncongress of New Granada consented to his making the attempt, and raised\nhim to the rank of brigadier. He crossed the frontier with little more\nthan 500 men; but the country rose in arms to second him; and after\nseveral engagements, in which the patriots were successful, he defeated\nMonteverde in person at the battle of Lastoguanes, and, finally, entered\nCaracas, the capital of Venezuela, in triumph, August 4, 1813.\n\nAt this time no regular government could be said to exist; but a\nconvention of the chief civil and military functionaries, held at\nCaracas, January 2, 1814, conferred on Bolivar the title of Liberator of\nVenezuela, and invested him with the office of Dictator, and the supreme\ncontrol over both branches of the executive. But these successes were\nfollowed by a rapid reverse; and before the end of the year, he was\nbeaten out of Venezuela, and obliged to return to New Granada. That\ncountry was harassed by the contests of numerous and discordant parties.\nBolivar was received with respect by the congress; and was entrusted\nwith the task of compelling the dissentient province of Santa Fe de\nBogot\u00e1, afterwards named Cundinamarca, to accede to the union of the\nother provinces. He marched against the city of Bogot\u00e1 in December, at\nthe head of 2000 men. It was not in a condition to resist, and\ncapitulated, after the suburbs had been taken by storm. It will afford\nan instance of the difficulty of getting at the real character of\nBolivar, to say, that we find it stated in one account that his\nbehaviour at Bogot\u00e1 received not only the thanks of Congress, but the\napprobation of the citizens; while another author asserts, that\nnotwithstanding the capitulation, and in spite of the most urgent\nremonstrances, he permitted the pillage of part of the city for the\nspace of forty-eight hours. He was then appointed to act against the\nstrong town of Santa Martha, which commands the mouth of the river\nMagdalena. Unfortunately, private enmity between himself and Castillo,\nthe governor of Carthagena, led to dissensions which ended in the\ninvestment of Carthagena, instead of Santa Martha, by Bolivar. During\nthis civil strife, which led to consequences most injurious to the\npatriot cause, General Morillo arrived from Spain, now enabled by the\npeace of 1814 to act with more vigour against her revolted colonies; and\nBolivar gave up his command, on the pretext that the harmony and\nadvantage of the army required it, and embarked for Jamaica, May 10,\n1815. During his abode at Kingston, he narrowly escaped assassination at\nthe hands of a Spaniard, who stabbed to the heart a person who chanced\nto occupy the bed in which Bolivar usually slept. From Jamaica, he went\nto Hayti, where, with the help of the president Petion, and in\nconjunction with a French officer, Commodore Brion, he drew together a\nforce, with which he again raised the standard of independence in the\nprovince of Cumana, in May, 1816: but he was soon driven out of the\ncountry, and returned to Hayti, whence, in December, he again sailed to\nthe island of Margarita, and he issued a proclamation convoking a\ncongress of the representatives of Venezuela. He then repaired to\nBarcelona, and organised a provisional government. During the years 1817\nand 1818, the struggle was obstinate; but the patriot cause on the whole\ngained a decided advantage. In February 1819, Bolivar summoned a\ncongress at Angostura, on the river Orinoco, and resigned his authority\ninto its hands. The assembly, however, continued to him the executive\npower, with the title of Provisional President of Venezuela, until the\nexpulsion of the enemy should afford a prospect of more settled times.\n\nBolivar rejoined the army in March, and soon after conducted his forces\nto join the patriots in New Granada. Two battles, on the 1st and 23d of\nJuly, were fought to the advantage of the patriots, whose cause obtained\na final triumph in the decisive victory won August 7, at Bojaca. Bolivar\nadvanced at once to Bogot\u00e1, where he was enthusiastically welcomed; and\nwithin a short time, eleven provinces of New Granada announced their\nadhesion to the cause of independence. He summoned a congress, by which\nhe was appointed President, and Captain-general of the Republic.\nMeanwhile a party, jealous of his intentions, had obtained the\nascendancy in the Venezuela Congress held at Angostura; and Bolivar,\nfearful of being supplanted, quitted the scene of war with his best\ntroops and marched to Angostura. His presence, with such a force, turned\nthe scale in favour of the party attached to his interest. It was\ndetermined to summon a general convention from the independent provinces\nof Venezuela and Granada; and December 17, 1819, the celebrated decree\nwas passed by which the two states were united, and entitled the\nRepublic of Columbia. Bolivar was appointed President.\n\nStrengthened by union, the patriots took the field in greater force than\nthey had hitherto been able to raise. The course of war during 1820 was\non the whole favourable to them. In November, an armistice for six\nmonths was concluded. Soon after the renewal of hostilities, an\nimportant victory was gained by the Columbian troops under Bolivar, at\nCarabobo, not far from the city of Valencia, June 21, 1821, which may be\nregarded as having closed the war in Venezuela. Before the end of the\nyear, Columbia was nearly cleared of Spanish troops, with the exception\nof the province of Quito; and time was found to attend to the\nestablishment of civil order. The constitution of the short-lived\nColumbian Republic was adopted, August 20, 1821, and Bolivar was\nappointed First Constitutional President.\n\nThe war was then directed against the Spaniards in the south. In\nJanuary, 1822, Bolivar himself conducted operations in the province of\nPasto, lying to the north of Quito, while General Sucre, who had been\nsent previously to assist the cause of independence in Guayaquil, after\nliberating the southern provinces of Loxa and Cuenca, advanced\nnorthwards, and secured independence to the province of Quito by the\ndecisive victory of Pichincha, May 24, 1822. But though this portion of\nColumbia was now cleared of enemies, there could be no security to the\nfrontier provinces while the Spaniards held Peru; and it was therefore\ndetermined to send assistance to the patriots in that country. Bolivar\nlanded at Lima, September 1, 1823, and was invested with supreme power\nas Dictator of Peru. It was not until the end of 1825, however, that the\nwar of independence was finished; and the honour of this, in a military\npoint of view, belongs rather to Sucre than to Bolivar.\n\nOn the establishment of a separate republic in 1825, in the province\ncalled by the Spaniards Upper Peru, the new state paid a high compliment\nto the Liberator, by assuming the name of Bolivia, and requesting him to\ndraw up a constitution for its adoption. In compliance with the wish\nthus expressed, he presented to the constituent congress in May, 1826,\nthe celebrated Bolivian Code; for an account of which we must refer to\nthe \u2018Encyclop\u00e6dia Americana,\u2019 or the appendix to the \u2018Memoirs of General\nMiller.\u2019 This forms a remarkable era in Bolivar\u2019s life; for, out of the\ninstitutions of this code, arose the first suspicions that the Liberator\nwas at heart indisposed to republican institutions. It was however\nadopted; and Sucre was appointed President. Meanwhile, though the\ndeliverance of Peru was completed, Bolivar showed no intention of\nleading home the Columbian troops. A congress summoned at Lima, in\nFebruary, 1825, continued to him, for another year, the dictatorial\npower which he had received on his first entrance into the country. A\nsecond congress, held in 1826, adopted the same course, adding a\nrecommendation that he should consult the provinces as to the form of\ngovernment which it might be desirable to establish. The result was,\nthat the Bolivian Code was declared to be adopted by Peru, and Bolivar\nhimself was nominated President.\n\nDuring the Liberator\u2019s long absence in the south, the northern provinces\nof Columbia became involved in civil confusion. The Vice-president,\nGeneral Santander, was a man of firmness and ability; but the\nnewly-formed government wanted consistency, and that habitual respect\nwhich is paid to long recognised authority. In April, 1826, General\nPaez, who commanded in Venezuela, being summoned before the senate of\nColumbia to answer certain charges, refused obedience, trusting to the\ndevoted attachment of the troops under his command: and to this private\nact of rebellion, something of a national character was given, by the\naccession of many in Venezuela, who disapproved of the union with New\nGranada, or distrusted the intentions of those who held the reins of\npower. At the same time, the southern departments, which had formerly\ncomposed the presidency of Quito, displayed a strong inclination to\nadopt the Bolivian Code. Bolivar has not escaped the suspicion of having\nfomented these troubles, with a view to convince all parties that\ntranquillity could only be secured by strengthening the executive, by\nappointing him Dictator of the Columbian Republic. Being recalled for\nthe suppression of these disturbances, he quitted Lima in September,\n1826, and hastened to Caracas, where, instead of punishing, he met Paez\nupon friendly terms, confirmed him in the office which he held, and\npublished a general amnesty on the submission of the insurgents. The\nterm for which he was elected President had now expired. He had been\nre-elected, and should have gone through the forms of taking office at\nthe beginning of 1827; but in February, he announced his intention to\nresign, and retire to his estates, in consequence of the imputations of\nambition cast upon him. The spring was spent by Congress in discussing\nthis matter; and at last, June 6, it was finally determined not to\naccept his resignation, and a general convention was summoned to meet at\nOca\u00f1a, March 2, 1828, to revise the constitution. In September, Bolivar\nagain assumed the office of President.\n\nMeanwhile a speedy revolution had taken place in Peru. It is no great\nargument of Bolivar\u2019s purity of purpose, that, a year after the war was\nfinished, the Columbian auxiliaries were still retained by him in\nBolivia and Peru, one division being quartered in the former country,\nand two in the latter. Many of them were strongly attached to their\ngeneral, and perhaps had no objection to becoming instruments of his\nambition, so far as Peru was concerned. But when he incurred the\nsuspicion of meditating the overthrow of the Columbian constitution,\nthey took fire. The division quartered at Lima matured a plan of revolt,\narrested their generals, who were personally attached to Bolivar, and\nannounced to the authorities of Lima their desire to relieve the\nPeruvians from a constitution which had been forced upon them, and to\nreturn home to defend their own country. Hereupon, in concurrence with\nthe generally declared wish of the people throughout Peru, the Bolivian\nCode was thrown aside only a few weeks after it had been adopted; and in\nJune, 1827, a new congress was summoned, and a new President and\nVice-president of the republic were elected. The troops embarked; but on\ntheir landing in Columbia, part placed themselves under the orders of\nofficers sent to take the command of them, and the rest were easily\nreduced to obedience.\n\nThe convention met at the appointed time. Bolivar opened the proceedings\nwith an address, in which he ascribed the internal troubles of Columbia\nto the want of sufficient power in the executive department, and plainly\nintimated his opinion that the constitution had been founded on views\ntoo liberal to be adapted to the state of society existing in that\ncountry. His speech was very much in accordance with the views developed\nin the Bolivian Code, and furnished good reason for believing that he\nwas no less willing to accept supreme power than his friends were\ndisposed to invest him with it, as the only remedy for existing evils.\nThe majority of the convention, however, were suspicious of the\nPresident\u2019s intentions. Finding themselves in a minority, his friends\nvacated their seats in the assembly, which being thus reduced below the\nnumber necessary to give validity to its proceedings, became virtually\nextinct.\n\nIn this state of things, a meeting was convened at Bogot\u00e1, June 13, of\nthe principal civil and military residents, at which resolutions were\npassed investing Bolivar with the most extensive powers as Supreme Chief\nof Columbia. He himself was not present, but in the near neighbourhood;\nand on receiving intimation of these resolutions, he made a solemn entry\ninto Bogot\u00e1, June 20, and assumed the powers thus gratuitously bestowed\nupon him, not, it is to be observed, by the act of the convention, or of\nany body authorised to interfere in any way with the existing\nconstitution. Great dissatisfaction was felt by those who were not\nattached to the party of Bolivar; and in the following September, a\nconspiracy was organised in the garrison of Bogot\u00e1, to which the\nPresident\u2019s life had nearly fallen a sacrifice. It was quelled however.\nGeneral Santander, the Vice-president, was accused of being concerned in\nit, and was banished from Columbia. Partial insurrections subsequently\nbroke out in various places. Towards the close of 1829, the discontent\nwhich had formerly appeared in Venezuela, manifested itself more\ndecidedly. Paez put himself at the head of the dissatisfied party; and\nin a very short time, the whole province raised the standard of\nindependence, and expressed its determination to be merged no longer in\nthe Columbian Republic. In the midst of these tumults, Bolivar resolved\nat length to retire from the eminent station in which he had been the\ncause of so much offence. He had issued a proclamation, December 24,\n1828, summoning a convention in January, 1830, to frame a new permanent\nconstitution for Columbia. It met at the appointed time. Bolivar, in\nopening the deliberations, expressed his determination not to accept\nagain the chief magistracy of the state; but, as he had said the same\nthing in equally strong terms before, nobody paid much attention to the\ndeclaration. This time, however, he adhered to it. Besides the labour of\nmaking a new constitution, the convention had to discuss the difficult\nquestion of the secession of Venezuela: nor was this all, for as that\ndistrict had separated itself from the Columbian Republic, in a great\ndegree Owing to its distrust of Bolivar, so the southern provinces\nrefused to acknowledge the new constitution unless he were placed at its\nhead. The convention wisely resolved, with respect to Venezuela, that\nevery peaceful method should be tried to prevent its secession, but that\nit would not be expedient or proper to attempt to maintain the union by\nforce. To anticipate a little the order of time, the Venezuelans were\nresolved to have an independent government; and finally, in 1832, the\nshort-lived republic of Columbia was divided into three, bearing\nrespectively the titles of Venezuela, New Granada, and the Republic of\nthe Equator, which was formed out of the southern provinces of Quito,\nGuayaquil, and Assuai.\n\nAfter the adoption of the new constitution of 1830, Bolivar retired to\nthe province of Carthagena, exhausted both in body and mind. He died at\nSanta Martha, December 17, 1830, leaving a character on the merits of\nwhich it is difficult to pronounce a decided opinion. His name will not\nsoon be forgotten, for it is indissolubly connected with the cause of\nindependence in South America: but, in reviewing the progress and\nprospects of North and South America, it is impossible not to remark\nBolivar\u2019s inferiority to Washington, both in talent and virtue, and not\nto reflect with regret how different, in all probability, the conduct\nand the prosperity of the South American republics would have been if\nthey had possessed such a leader as the first President of the United\nStates.\n\nThe chief books which have been consulted for this sketch have been the\n\u2018Annual Register,\u2019 General Ducoudray Holstein\u2019s \u2018Memoirs of Bolivar,\u2019 a\nwork evidently written under strong feelings of personal hostility, the\narticle Bolivar in the \u2018Encyclop\u00e6dia Americana,\u2019 and a short account of\nthe Liberator in the \u2018Memoirs of General Miller.\u2019 In these works there\nis so much discrepancy, not only of opinions, but of facts and dates,\nthat we do not venture to hope that we have escaped errors. A clear and\nimpartial history of the war of independence is still a desideratum.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by J. Posselwhite._\n\n  ARKWRIGHT.\n\n  _From a Picture by Wright of Derby._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                               ARKWRIGHT.\n\n\nIn the history of trade there is nothing so remarkable as the rapid and\nimmense increase of the British cotton manufacture during the last\nthirty years of the eighteenth century. Two nearly contemporaneous\ndiscoveries concurred to produce that increase: the invention of\nmachinery for spinning; and the improvement, we might almost say\ncompletion, of the steam-engine by James Watt. To his eminent merits we\nhave borne our testimony in the first volume of this work; and scarcely\nless important, though less imposing, have been the services of the\ningenious men who contrived to spin thread without the use of the human\nhand. We do not hesitate to take Arkwright as the representative of\nthose who wrought this great revolution in our manufacturing system, for\nthough recent evidence has refuted his claim to the invention, properly\nspeaking, of spinning by machinery, he was the first person who rendered\nthat invention profitable.\n\nBy the year 1760, the manufacture of cotton goods, which had been\nincreasing slowly from the beginning of the century, had attained\nconsiderable importance. In 1764, the declared value of British cotton\ngoods exported was upwards of 200,000_l._, having increased tenfold\nwithin forty or fifty years. At this period the demand for them exceeded\nthe supply, in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining a sufficient\nquantity of yarn for weaving. The one-thread spinning-wheel, now nearly\nbanished from our cottages, was then the sole source from which\nspun-yarn could be obtained; and the trades of spinning and weaving were\ncommonly united in a humble manner\u2014the man wove, while his wife and\ndaughters spun. If this domestic supply was insufficient, the weaver had\noften to waste time and labour in collecting materials for his daily\nwork. Mr. Guest states, that \u201cit was no uncommon thing for a weaver to\nwalk three or four miles in a morning, and call on five or six spinners,\nbefore he could collect weft to serve him for the remainder of the day;\nand when he wished to weave a piece in a shorter time than usual, a new\nribbon or a gown was necessary to quicken the exertions of the spinner.\u201d\nThis check existing on the industry of the weaver, it is no wonder that\nmechanical ingenuity was tasked to invent a quicker way of spinning. The\nprinciple of the first plan by which this was effected may be easily\nexplained. Suppose a ribbon placed between two horizontal cylinders\nwhich are in contact with each other; if the cylinders are made to\nrevolve, it is evident that they will draw the ribbon onwards in the\ndirection of their motion. Again, if the foremost end of it be presented\nto a second pair of similar revolving cylinders, it will be drawn\nthrough these also. If both pairs revolve with exactly the same\nvelocity, it will pass through them unaltered; but if the second pair\nrevolve with greater velocity than the first, there will be a certain\nstrain on the intermediate ribbon, which, if extensible, will be\nstretched in the same degree that the velocity of the second pair of\nrollers exceeds that of the first. Now cotton, after being cleaned and\ncarded, comes from the card in fleecy rolls, the fibres of which are\nlaid parallel, and so made fit to spin. To reduce these to thread or\nyarn takes more than one operation: the first brings the _cardings_ into\nthick, loosely twisted threads, called _rovings_; the subsequent ones\nreduce the rovings into yarn fit for the loom. It is evident that both\nthe cardings and rovings are fitted by their texture for the process of\nextension by rollers described above; and that they would be drawn out\ntwofold, fourfold, or in any greater or less degree, proportionate to\nthe difference of velocity between the first and second pair of rollers.\nFrom the second pair the thread is delivered to a spindle, which gives\nthe due degree of twist; and it is finally wound on a bobbin: the whole\nbeing set in motion by the same mechanical power. It is evident that\nmany spindles might be attached to, and many threads spun by, the same\ncombination of rollers. Arkwright claimed the merit of this invention.\nIt is proved, however, by the undeniable evidence of an existing patent,\nprinted by Mr. Baines in his History of the Cotton Manufacture, that\nthis principle of spinning by rollers was patented so early as the year\n1738, by a foreigner named Lewis Paul; the real inventor was John Wyatt,\nof Birmingham. In their hands however, though the invention did not\nabsolutely fail, it did not so succeed as to be brought into general\nuse, or even to become profitable to the inventors. Simple and obvious\nas the _principle_ appears when once laid down, great difficulties were\nto be overcome in forming this stretched cotton into a useful thread; as\nmay be conceived from reflecting on the great rapidity with which, to\nmake spinning profitable, parts of the machine must move, the perfect\nregularity of motion requisite, and the slightness of the strain which a\nfew untwisted filaments of cotton will bear. For the apparently trivial\nobject of producing a uniform line of fine yarn, the utmost efforts of\nmechanical ingenuity have been called forth, and some of the most\nbeautiful, delicate, and powerful machinery in existence has been\nconstructed. It was in overcoming these difficulties that the talent or\nperseverance of Paul and Wyatt failed; the merit of conquering them, and\ngiving birth to a new system of manufacture, belongs to Arkwright. We\nquote the following notice of his early life from Mr. Baines:\u2014\n\n\u201cRichard Arkwright rose by the force of his natural talents from a very\nhumble condition in society. He was born at Preston, December 23, 1732,\nof poor parents. Being the youngest of thirteen children, his parents\ncould only afford to give him an education of the humblest kind, and he\nwas scarcely able to write. He was brought up to the trade of a barber,\nat Kirkham and Preston, and established himself in that business at\nBolton, in 1760. Having become possessed of a chemical process for\ndyeing human hair, which in that day, when wigs were universal, was of\nconsiderable value, he travelled about collecting hair, and again\ndisposing of it when dyed. In 1761, he married a wife from Leigh, and\nthe connexions he thus formed in that town are supposed to have\nafterwards brought him acquainted with Highs\u2019s experiments in making\nspinning machines. He himself manifested a strong bent for experiments\nin mechanics, which he is stated to have followed with so much\ndevotedness as to have neglected his business and injured his\ncircumstances. His natural disposition was ardent, enterprising, and\nstubbornly persevering; his mind was as coarse as it was bold and\nactive, and his manners were rough and unpleasing.\u201d\n\nIn the course of his travels in 1767, he fell in with a clockmaker,\nnamed Kay, at Warrington, whom he employed as a workman in prosecuting\nsome of his mechanical experiments. Kay, according to his own account,\ngave Arkwright some description of a machine contrived by one Highs, for\nspinning by rollers. It is certain that from thenceforward Arkwright\nabandoned his former pursuits, and applied himself, in conjunction with\nKay, to the construction of a spinning machine. One Smalley, a\nliquor-merchant of Preston, assisted him with money; and the two,\nfearing lest they might be endangered by a riotous spirit which had been\ndirected against machinery in Lancashire, went to settle at Nottingham.\nThere Arkwright obtained an introduction to Messrs. Need and Strutt, two\ngentlemen largely engaged in the stocking manufactory, who appreciated\nhis talents, and entered into partnership with him. What became of Mr.\nSmalley we do not hear. Arkwright took out a patent for his invention,\nwhich was enrolled, July 15, 1769. The partners erected a mill near\nNottingham, which was turned by horse-power: but this was soon\nsuperseded by a much larger establishment at Cromford in Derbyshire, on\nthe river Derwent, in which water-power was applied for the first time\nto the purpose of spinning; and from that circumstance Arkwright\u2019s\nmachine was called the _water-frame_.\n\nAs the difficulty of meeting the weavers\u2019 demand for yarn had led to the\ninvention of machines for spinning, so the rapid manufacture of yarn\nrendered it indispensable to facilitate the prior operations in\npreparing the raw material. Men\u2019s minds had been turned to this object\nfor some time. The operation of carding, whether wool or cotton, was at\nfirst done with hand-cards of small size. The first improvement was the\ninvention of stock-cards, one of which was fixed, and the other held in\nthe hand, or afterwards suspended from above, so that the workman could\nmanage a much larger card, and prepare more cotton in a given time. The\nnext and main improvement was placing cards lengthways upon a cylinder,\nwhich worked within a concave half cylinder of the same diameter. This\nprocess was patented by Paul in 1748. But he derived no profit from\nthis, any more than from his former patent; and it was not until after\nthe improvements in spinning that the method of carding by cylinders was\nbrought into use. Arkwright was not the first to revive it, but he had a\ngreat share in perfecting the carding machinery when it had been\nrevived. The raw cotton being carded, an extension, or rather a new\napplication, of the principle of spinning by rollers converted the\ncardings into rovings, which again were made into yarn fit for the loom\nby the water-frame, or, as it is now called in an improved form, the\n_throstle_. Arkwright took out his second patent, December 16, 1775;\nthis included the carding machine, drawing-frame, and roving-frame, a\nseries of engines by which the cotton, from its raw state, was rendered\nfit for the last process of spinning. We shall not attempt to explain\nthe construction of these elaborate machines, which can hardly be\nrendered intelligible even by the help of numerous plates.\n\nThe process of turning cotton-wool into thread by machinery was thus\ncompleted. Before we follow its effects upon Arkwright\u2019s fortunes, it is\nproper to say a few words concerning other improvements. About, or\nsomewhat earlier than, the time when Arkwright\u2019s attention was first\nturned to spinning, a weaver named James Hargreaves, of Stand Hill, near\nBlackburn, invented a machine by which, according to the terms of the\npatent, sixteen or more threads might be spun by one person at the same\ntime. This is the machine so well known under the name of the\n_spinning-jenny_. Hargreaves\u2019 patent was invaded, and invalidated on\ntechnical grounds; so that his machine came rapidly into general use,\nand for spinning the _weft_ was preferred to Arkwright\u2019s water-frame,\nfrom which it was entirely different in principle. Samuel Crompton, an\ningenious weaver resident near Bolton, between the years 1774 and 1779,\ntried to unite the principles of both, and produced a machine which, on\nthat account, he called a _mule_. This, under different improved forms,\nis the machine now generally used in spinning; but the water-frame, or\nthrostle, is still found to answer best for some kinds of work[11]. But\nto return to the fortunes of Arkwright: the series of machines which he\ninvented or improved gave an amazing impulse to the cotton trade.\n\u201cWeavers could now obtain an unlimited quantity of yarn at a reasonable\nprice; manufacturers could use warps of cotton, which were much cheaper\nthan the linen warps formerly used. Cotton fabrics could be sold lower\nthan had ever before been known. The demand for them consequently\nincreased. The shuttle flew with fresh energy, and the weavers earned\nimmoderately high wages. Spinning-mills were erected to supply the\nrequisite quantity of yarn. The fame of Arkwright resounded through the\nland, and capitalists flocked to him to buy his patent machines, or\npermission to use them.\u201d * * *\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  A third person has been mentioned as the inventor both of the jenny\n  and of roller-spinning, Thomas Highs, of Leigh, above-mentioned, whose\n  claims seem entitled to more courteous notice than they have met with\n  in the Edinburgh Review. There is nothing unreasonable in supposing\n  that both Highs and Arkwright may have heard of Wyatt\u2019s method of\n  spinning by rollers, which was practised in two factories, one erected\n  at Birmingham, the other at Nottingham.\n\n\u201cThe factory system in England takes its rise from this period. Hitherto\nthe cotton manufacture had been carried on almost entirely in the houses\nof the workmen: the hand or stock-cards, the spinning-wheel, and the\nloom, required no larger apartment than that of a cottage. A\nspinning-jenny of small size might also be used in a cottage, and in\nmany instances was so used; when the number of spindles was considerably\nincreased, adjacent workshops were used. But the water-frame, the\ncarding-engine, and the other machines which Arkwright brought out in a\nfinished state, required both more space than could be found in a\ncottage, and more power than could be applied by the human arm. Their\nweight also made it necessary to place them in strongly-built mills, and\nthey could not be advantageously turned by any power then known but that\nof water.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe use of machinery was accompanied by a greater division of labour\nthan existed in the primitive state of the manufacture; the material\nwent through many more processes, and of course the loss of time and the\nrisk of waste would have been much increased, if its removal from house\nto house at every stage of the manufacture had been necessary. It became\nobvious that there were several important advantages in carrying on the\nnumerous operations of an extensive manufacture in the same building.\nWhere water-power was required, it was economy to build one mill, and\nput up one water-wheel, rather than several. This arrangement also\nenabled the master-spinner himself to superintend every stage of the\nmanufacture; it gave him a greater security against the wasteful or\nfraudulent consumption of the material; it saved time in the\ntransference of the work from hand to hand; and it prevented the extreme\ninconvenience which would have resulted from the failure of one class of\nworkmen to perform their part, when several other classes of workmen\nwere dependent upon them. Another circumstance which made it\nadvantageous to have a large number of machines in one manufactory was,\nthat mechanics must be employed on the spot to construct and repair the\nmachinery, and that their time could not be fully occupied with only a\nfew machines.\u201d\n\n\u201cAll these considerations drove the cotton-spinners to that important\nchange in the economy of English manufactures, the introduction of the\nfactory system; and when that system had once been adopted, such were\nits pecuniary advantages that mercantile competition would have rendered\nit impossible, even had it been desirable, to abandon it.\u201d (Baines,\n\u2018History of Cotton Manufacture,\u2019 pages 183, 185.)\n\nIt was not to be expected that Arkwright would enjoy undisturbed so\nvaluable a monopoly as that which he had created, and many persons\ninfringed his patents, in the belief that he was not the real owner of\nthe inventions which he claimed. An attempt was made in 1772 to set\naside his first patent for the water-frame; but this failed, and he\nretained the enjoyment of that patent unquestioned till the expiration\nof the fourteen years. To preserve his second patent, for the carding,\ndrawing, and roving machines, he brought several actions against\nmaster-spinners, one of which, against Colonel Mordaunt, was tried in\n1781, and a verdict was obtained for the defendant, setting aside the\npatent. Arkwright for some time did not contest this decision. But in\n1785, he made another attempt to establish his second patent before a\ncourt of law; and in the first instance obtained a verdict in his own\nfavour, but on the cause being reheard, the patent was finally declared\ninvalid.\n\nNotwithstanding this defeat, Arkwright rapidly acquired a very large\nfortune, through the magnitude of his concerns, and his industry,\npenetration, and skill in business. On the dissolution of his\npartnership with the Messrs. Strutt about 1783, the extensive works at\nCromford fell to his share. In 1786, he was High Sheriff of Derbyshire,\nand was knighted, on occasion of presenting an address to the King. We\nfind no other record worth notice of the last years of his life. He\ndied, August 3, 1792, in his sixtieth year.\n\nArkwright\u2019s originality and honesty as an inventor have been violently\nimpugned by Mr. Guest, in his History of the Cotton Manufacture. The\narguments on the other side may be seen in the Edinburgh Review, No. 91,\nto which Guest published a reply. Mr. Baines\u2019s History of the Cotton\nManufacture, which we have chiefly followed and largely quoted from in\nthis account, contains the latest and fullest account which we have seen\nof Arkwright\u2019s character and history. There appears to have been some\nalloy of selfishness and disingenuousness in his disposition, some\nground for the statement of counsel in the trial of 1785: \u201cIt is a\nnotorious story in the manufacturing counties; all men that have seen\nMr. Arkwright in a state of opulence have shaken their heads, and\nthought of these poor men, Highs and Kay, and have thought, too, that\nthey were entitled to some participation of the profits.\u201d Still it\nbecomes us to speak with gentleness of the faults of a person to whose\ntalents, nationally speaking, we owe so much: and there is much to be\nsaid in extenuation of them, in consideration of the lowness of his\noriginal calling, of the self-complacency and sensitive jealousy common\nto almost all schemers, and the fascination of wealth when it flows\nlargely and unexpectedly upon a man bred in extreme poverty. As an\ninventor Arkwright\u2019s merit is undeniable. Mr. Baines, who seems to have\njudged calmly and impartially, assigns to him the high praise, that \u201cin\nimproving and perfecting mechanical inventions, in exactly adapting them\nto the purposes for which they were intended, in arranging a\ncomprehensive system of manufacturing, and in conducting vast and\ncomplicated concerns, he displayed a bold and fertile mind, and\nconsummate judgment, which, when his want of education, and the\ninfluence of an employment so extremely unfavourable to mental expansion\nas that of his previous life, are considered, must have excited the\nastonishment of mankind. But the marvellous and \u2018unbounded invention,\u2019\nwhich he claimed for himself and which has been too readily accorded to\nhim\u2014the _creative faculty_ which devised all that admirable mechanism,\nso entirely new in its principles, and characteristic of the first order\nof mechanical genius\u2014which has given a new spring to the industry of the\nworld, and within half a century has reared up the most extensive\nmanufacture ever known\u2014this did not belong to Arkwright.\u201d * * * * * * *\n\n\u201cThe most marked traits in the character of Arkwright were his wonderful\nardour, energy, and perseverance. He commonly laboured in his\nmultifarious concerns from five o\u2019clock in the morning till nine at\nnight; and when considerably more than fifty years of age, feeling that\nthe defects of his education placed him under great difficulty and\ninconvenience in conducting his correspondence, and in the general\nmanagement of his business, he encroached upon his sleep, in order to\ngain an hour each day to learn English grammar, and another hour to\nimprove his writing and orthography! He was impatient of whatever\ninterfered with his favourite pursuits; and the fact is too strikingly\ncharacteristic not to be mentioned, that he separated from his wife not\nmany years after his marriage, because she, convinced that he would\nstarve his family by scheming when he should have been shaving, broke\nsome of his experimental models of machinery. Arkwright was a severe\neconomist of time; and, that he might not waste a moment, he generally\ntravelled with four horses, and at a very rapid speed. His concerns in\nDerbyshire, Lancashire, and Scotland, were so extensive and numerous as\nto show at once his astonishing power of transacting business, and his\nall-grasping spirit. In many of these he had partners, but he generally\nmanaged in such a way that, whoever lost, he himself was a gainer. So\nunbounded was his confidence in the success of his machinery, and in the\nnational wealth to be produced by it, that he would make light of\ndiscussions on taxation, and say that he would pay the national debt!\nHis speculative schemes were vast and daring; he contemplated entering\ninto the most extensive mercantile transactions, and buying up all the\ncotton in the world, in order to make an enormous profit by the\nmonopoly; and from the extravagance of some of these designs, his\njudicious friends were of opinion that, if he had tried to put them in\npractice, he might have overset the whole fabric of his prosperity.\u201d\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _Engraved by W. Holl._\n\n  COWPER.\n\n  _From a Picture in the Possession of the Publisher._\n\n  Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\n    Knowledge.\n\n  _London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._\n]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                                COWPER.\n\n\nWilliam Cowper was born at the rectory of Berkhampstead, in\nHertfordshire, Nov. 26, 1731. He was nearly related to the noble family\nof that name, his great-uncle having been chancellor and first Earl\nCowper: his grandfather, the brother of the chancellor, was a judge of\nthe common pleas. Cowper\u2019s mother died before he was six years old. Soon\nafterwards he was sent to a country school, from which, at the age of\nnine, he was removed to Westminster. It is probable that one cause among\nothers of his future unhappiness was the early loss of that tender\nparent, whose \u201cconstant flow of love,\u201d beautifully acknowledged in his\nverses on receiving her picture, and in many parts of his\ncorrespondence, made a deep and lasting impression on his infant mind.\nCowper was exactly the boy to require a mother\u2019s care. His constitution\nwas delicate, his mind sensitive and timid; and he discovered a tendency\nto dejection, which was aggravated by the tyranny then practised at our\npublic schools. Quitting Westminster at eighteen, with a good character\nfor talent and scholarship, he went at once into an attorney\u2019s office;\nwhere he spent three years, according to his own account, with very\nlittle profit. He then became a member of the Inner Temple, intending to\npractise at the bar. At this period of life he amused himself with\ncomposition, and showed a strong predilection for polite literature and\nagreeable society; but he had no taste for the law, and took no pains to\nqualify himself for his profession. Long afterwards he deeply lamented\nthe loss of time during his early manhood, and earnestly warned his\nyoung friends against a similar error.\n\nIn 1763 Cowper was appointed to the lucrative office of reading clerk,\nand clerk of the private committees of the House of Lords. The fairest\nprospect of happiness now lay before him, for his union with one of his\ncousins, it is said, had only been deferred until he should obtain a\nsatisfactory establishment. But the idea of reading in public was\nintolerable to him; and he gave up this office for the less valuable one\nof clerk of the journals, in which it was hoped that his personal\nappearance before the House would not be required. Unfortunately it did\nprove necessary that he should appear at the bar to qualify himself for\nthe post. \u201cThey whose spirits are formed like mine,\u201d he thus expressed\nhimself in after-life, \u201cto whom a public exhibition of themselves is\nmortal poison, may have some ideas of the horrors of my situation:\nothers can have none.\u201d He fought hard against this morbid feeling; but,\nwhen the day arrived for entering upon his duties, such was his terror\nand distress, that even his friends acquiesced in his abandoning the\nattempt. But his mind had been disordered in the struggle, and he\nshortly sank into deep religious despondency; so that it was found\nnecessary, in December, 1763, to place him in a lunatic asylum at St.\nAlbans, under the care of Dr. Cotton.\n\nCowper\u2019s insanity at this period, and the grievous dejection of the last\ntwenty-seven years of his life, have been imputed to the so-called\ngloominess of his religious tenets. From that opinion we entirely\ndissent. No sense of religious abasement can be conceived able to drive\na sane man to distraction at the thought of having to appear in a public\ncapacity before Parliament; and Cowper\u2019s struggles and mental distress\non that occasion were anterior to his receiving any serious impressions\nof religion. Moreover, it appears certain that his recovery was due to\nmore encouraging views of the doctrines of the Gospel, assisted by the\nkind and judicious mental, as well as bodily, treatment of Dr. Cotton.\nFor eight years his religion was the source of unfailing cheerfulness\nand active benevolence; and after he ceased to derive pleasure from it\nin his own person, he was still mild and charitable in his conduct\ntowards others, and his opinions concerning them. The extent of Cowper\u2019s\nmental wandering on subjects unconnected with his own spiritual state is\nnot perhaps generally known. A remarkable instance of it occurs in a\nletter to his esteemed friend, Mr. Newton, dated October 2, 1787, from\nwhich it appears that, during thirteen years, Cowper had entertained\ndoubts of Mr. Newton\u2019s personal identity. At this latter period,\ntherefore, there was hallucination of mind, as well as religious gloom.\nCowper\u2019s recovery from his first illness is dated in July, 1764; but he\nremained with his friendly and beloved physician nearly a year more,\nafter which he took lodgings at Huntingdon, directed by the wish of\nbeing within easy reach of his brother, who was a resident Fellow of\nBenet College, Cambridge.\n\nHe soon became acquainted with a family, bearing the name of Unwin,\nconsisting of a clergyman, his wife and daughter, and one son, an\nundergraduate of Cambridge. Struck by Cowper\u2019s appearance, the latter\nthrew himself into the stranger\u2019s way; and a feeling of mutual regard\nand esteem led to Cowper\u2019s establishing himself as a permanent inmate in\nMr. Unwin\u2019s family in November, 1765. After the lapse of nearly two\nyears in tranquil happiness, the sudden death of Mr. Unwin led to the\nfamily\u2019s departure from Huntingdon to Olney in Buckinghamshire, in\nOctober, 1767. But the foundation had been laid of a friendship which no\nmisfortune or change of circumstance could destroy; and Cowper and Mrs.\nUnwin united their slender incomes, and continued to dwell under the\nsame roof. The first six years of their abode at Olney were spent in\ndomestic quiet and retirement almost unbroken, except by the society of\nMr. Newton, an eminent and exemplary divine, who was then curate on the\nliving. The well-known collection called the \u201cOlney Hymns\u201d were composed\nby Cowper and Newton, for the most part, during this period. But in 1773\nCowper\u2019s mental disease returned in the dreadful shape of religious\ndespondency. He conceived himself to be set apart for eternal misery:\nyet amid the deep gloom produced by the loss of that spiritual happiness\nwhich he had enjoyed since his recovery from his first illness, he was\nso entirely submissive that he was accustomed to say, \u201cIf holding up my\nfinger would save me from endless torments, I would not do it against\nthe will of God;\u201d and in accordance with the belief that his own fate\nwas sealed, he ceased to pray, and absented himself entirely from divine\nworship. The depth of his dejection was gradually cheered by the\naffectionate, watchful, and judicious care of his guardian friend, Mrs.\nUnwin. One of the first signs of improvement was a desire to tame some\nleverets. He was soon supplied with three, which have obtained celebrity\nin prose and verse, such as no other hares have enjoyed before or since.\nHe tried at different times gardening, drawing, and a variety of\ntrifling manual occupations, as methods of diverting his thoughts from\nhis own miseries. \u201cMany arts I have exercised with this view,\u201d he says\nin a letter to Mrs. King, \u201cfor which nature never designed me, though\namong them were some in which I arrived at considerable proficiency, by\nmere dint of the most heroic perseverance. There is not a squire in all\nthis country who can boast of having made better squirrel houses,\nhutches for rabbits, or bird-cages, than myself; and in the article of\ncabbage-nets I had no superior. But gardening was, of all employments,\nthat in which I succeeded best, though even in this I did not suddenly\nattain perfection.\u201d (Oct. 11, 1788.) At last he devoted himself to\nwriting, \u201ca whim,\u201d he says elsewhere, \u201cthat has served me longest and\nbest, and will probably be my latest.\u201d His first volume of poems,\ncontaining \u201cTable Talk,\u201d &c. was published in the summer of 1781, having\nbeen written chiefly in the preceding winter. It was undertaken at the\ninstance of Mrs. Unwin, who, on his recovery from a long fit of unusual\ndejection, urged him to devote his attention to a work of some extent,\nand such as should require a considerable share of application and\nattention. At the same time she suggested as a subject the \u201cProgress of\nError,\u201d which is the second piece in the volume. Cowper had already\nwritten many of his lighter pieces, and that at the times when he was\nlabouring under the severest depression. He accounts for this singular\nphenomenon with his peculiar and playful humour. \u201cThe mind, long wearied\nwith the sameness of a dull, dreary prospect, will gladly fix its eyes\non anything that may make a little variety in its contemplations, though\nit were but a kitten playing with its tail.\u201d\n\nEarly in 1780, Cowper lost a valued friend, and almost his only\nassociate, by the removal of Mr. Newton to London. In the following year\nhe became acquainted with Lady Austen, who, for a short time, fills a\nprominent place in the poet\u2019s history. We must refer to fuller memoirs\nfor the tale of her introduction, and the gradual growth of that strict\nintimacy which ensued between herself, Mrs. Unwin, and Cowper. For some\ntime the three friends spent a considerable portion of every day in each\nother\u2019s society; and Cowper was indebted to Lady Austen\u2019s liveliness in\nconversation and varied accomplishments for a great alleviation of his\nmental sufferings. The famous history of John Gilpin owes its birth to a\nstory told by her one evening, to rouse the poet out of a fit of\ndespondency; and it engaged his fancy so strongly, that in the course of\nthe night, during which he was kept awake by fits of laughter, he turned\nit into verse. The ballad soon got abroad, and obtained unusual\npopularity: it was long before the author was known. \u201cThe Task\u201d was\ncomposed at Lady Austen\u2019s request. She saw the benefit which Cowper\nderived from earnest literary employment, and often urged him to try his\nstrength in blank verse. After some pressing, he promised to comply, if\nshe would furnish him with a subject. \u201cOh, you can write on anything,\u201d\nshe said; \u201cwrite on this sofa.\u201d The lively answer chimed in with his\npeculiar humour, and he adopted it literally: his sofa forms the subject\nof the poem; the first book of which is entitled \u201cThe Sofa,\u201d and opens\nwith a history of the invention and merits of that piece of furniture,\nwhich is unsurpassed in its peculiar vein of humour. But the author soon\nrises into a higher strain, and in his discursive range paints the\nbeauty of the country with that fidelity and exquisite sense of natural\nbeauty which constitutes his chief poetic merit; describes the peculiar\nappearances and occupations of the winter season; weighs the evils and\nadvantages attendant on a high state of civilization; exhibits, in\nreproving the faults of the age, his power both in the lighter\nskirmishing of satire, and in the stern outpouring of an honest\nindignation; inculcates the doctrines of that religion of peace and love\nfrom which it was his own singular and melancholy lot to derive no\npeace; and all with a beauty and facility of versification, and power of\nillustration, sufficient to attract many whom the grave nature of the\nsubjects to be discussed would rather deter. The scope and conduct of\nthe work is well described in the following lines from the conclusion,\nin which, anticipating death, he says\u2014\n\n          It shall not grieve me then, that once, when call\u2019d\n          To dress a sofa with the flowers of verse,\n          I played awhile, obedient to the fair,\n          With that light task: but soon, to please her more,\n          Whom flowers alone I knew would little please,\n          Let fall the unfinish\u2019d wreath, and roved for fruit;\n          Roved far and gather\u2019d much: some harsh, \u2019tis true,\n          Pick\u2019d from the thorns and briers of reproof,\n          But wholesome, well digested, grateful some\n          To palates that can taste immortal truth;\n          Insipid else, and sure to be despised.\n\n\u201cThe Task\u201d was accompanied by a shorter poem, entitled \u201cTirocinium,\u201d\nwritten expressly in dispraise of the existing system of public schools\nin England; and prompted by Cowper\u2019s bitter recollection of his\nsufferings at Westminster. The volume was published in 1785.\n\nAs soon as this was completed, Cowper engaged in another more laborious\nundertaking, the translation of Homer. This also was suggested by Lady\nAusten; and it had a most beneficial effect in furnishing the poet with\nconstant employment from this time forward to the end of his life, with\nthe exception of those periods in which the pressure of disease was too\nsevere to admit of any exertion. He spared no pains in the execution of\nthis great work; and after his version was made, subjected it to a most\ncareful revision, amounting nearly to a re-translation. It was published\nin 1791, and was preceded by a list of subscribers, whose number and\nindividual eminence bear testimony to the high esteem in which Cowper\nwas then held. His translation, however, has never been popular: he has\navoided Pope\u2019s errors, but he has failed in giving life and interest,\nand in catching the vital spirit of his author.\n\nDuring the long period which the literary labours above-mentioned\noccupied, Cowper\u2019s domestic history is characterized by the same general\ndepression and the same seclusion as we have above described. In 1784\nhis friendship with Lady Austen was interrupted by a disagreement\nbetween her and Mrs. Unwin, who seems to have feared that the former\nmight obtain an influence over the poet paramount to her own; and to\nhave been justly hurt at the prospect of becoming second in the\naffections of him, to whom, for so many years, she had devoted herself\nwith a zeal which merited the utmost return. Cowper felt this, and he\nhimself broke off his intercourse with Lady Austen, in a way which was\nadmitted by herself to do credit to his delicacy and judgment, no less\nthan to his generosity. In about a year after the termination of this\nvaluable friendship, he received the best amends that could be made, in\nthe renewal of intercourse, after it had been interrupted for\ntwenty-three years, with his cousin Lady Hesketh, to whom from childhood\nhe had been strongly attached. She visited Olney in June, 1786; and from\nthat time forwards her purse and her personal exertions were unsparingly\nbestowed to promote the comfort of her beloved cousin. At her instance\nhis confined and ruinous abode at Olney was exchanged in November, 1786,\nfor a commodious house in the pretty neighbouring village of Weston,\nwhich was especially recommended to Cowper as being the residence of his\nesteemed friends Mr. and Mrs. Throckmorton. Here Lady Hesketh commonly\nspent part of the year. The state of Cowper\u2019s spirits during his\nresidence at Weston was variable; but he made a few new acquaintance,\nand among them his correspondent, Mr. Rose, and his biographer, Mr.\nHayley. He also enjoyed a vivid pleasure in the renewal of intercourse\nwith his maternal relations, among whom his young cousin Johnson, who\nafterwards became his tender and devoted guardian, obtained an especial\nplace in his affections. Still, however, his mental malady continued\nunabated; and a new cause of uneasiness beset him in the growing\ninfirmities of Mrs. Unwin. In March, 1792, the disease which had been\nfor some time sapping her strength, manifested itself in a paralytic\nattack, from which she never entirely recovered. From thenceforward\nCowper\u2019s time and attention were devoted, as his primary object, to\ncontributing to her comfort and amusement. In her company he quitted his\nhome, the first time for twenty-seven years, to visit Mr. Hayley\u2019s seat\nat Eartham, in Sussex. Two important works had engaged his attention:\none a poem on the four ages of man\u2019s life, the other an edition of\nMilton. These, however, were successively laid aside; and such time as\nhis weak spirits and melancholy occupation allowed him, be employed in\nrevising his Homer for a second edition. But Mrs. Unwin became more and\nmore enfeebled in mind and body; and in the beginning of 1794 Cowper\nrelapsed into a gloom as deep as that which he had endured at the\ncommencement of his malady. To watch over him in this melancholy Lady\nHesketh made Weston her constant, instead of her occasional abode, until\nthe middle of the following year, when her health gave way under the\nconstant pressure of anxiety. Mr. Johnson, who had taken orders, and\nresided at East Dereham in Norfolk, then undertook the charge of his\nunhappy relation; removed him and Mrs. Unwin into his own neighbourhood,\nand watched over their decline with the most unwearied and judicious\ntenderness. But little could now be done to give Cowper pleasure. The\npathetic poem, \u201cTo Mary,\u201d is supposed by Mr. Hayley to have been the\nlast thing written by him before quitting Weston; and the only original\nverses which he composed afterwards were some Latin lines, which he\ntranslated into English, on the appearance of some ice islands in the\nGerman Sea, and the touching poem called the \u201cCast-away,\u201d founded on the\nloss of a man overboard in Anson\u2019s voyage, and alluding in an affecting\nstrain to his own unfortunate condition. After his departure from\nWeston, he who had been so diligent a correspondent only wrote three or\nfour letters; nor could he be excited to converse by the visits even of\nhis most intimate friends, as Mr. Rose and Sir John Throckmorton. In\nJanuary, 1800, his final illness, which was dropsy, commenced. He died\nApril 25th in the same year; nor to the last did one gleam of hope break\nthrough the darkness which had surrounded him for twenty-seven years.\n\nIt was Cowper\u2019s especial merit as a poet to cultivate simplicity and\nnature. He set the example of throwing aside conventional affectations\nand unmeaning pomp of diction, and in consideration of this great\nservice may well be pardoned for occasionally incurring the opposite\nfault of being tame and prosaic. His genius was truly original: all his\nwritings, whether moral, satirical, or descriptive, bear the legible\nimpress of his own peculiar constitution of mind and habits of thinking.\nHis minor and occasional poems are very happy, for his imagination could\nextract a deep and beautiful moral from slight occurrences, which\ncommonly pass unnoticed in the bustle of life. Many of his letters are\npublished in Hayley\u2019s Life of Cowper; and these are embodied with the\nPrivate Correspondence afterwards given to the world by Mr. Johnson, in\nthe edition of Cowper\u2019s works by Mr. Grimshawe now in the press. As a\nletter writer Cowper appears to us to be unequalled in the English\nlanguage. His correspondence is the genuine intercourse of friend with\nfriend; full of wit and humour, but a humour that never vents itself in\nthe depreciation of others; and abounding in passages of graver beauty,\nexpressed in the most easy, yet elegant and correct language. When once\na man knows that his letters are admired, he is in great danger of\nwriting for admiration. Cowper was aware of this, and occasionally\nalludes to the temptation in lively terms. \u201cI love praise dearly,\nespecially from the judicious, and those who have so much delicacy\nthemselves as not to offend mine in giving it. But then I found this\nconsequence attending, or likely to attend, the eulogium you bestowed.\nIf my friend thought me witty before, he shall think me ten times more\nwitty hereafter; where I joked once, I will joke five times; and for\nevery sensible remark, I will send him a dozen. Now this foolish vanity\nwould have spoiled me quite, and have made me as disgusting a letter\nwriter as Pope, who seems to have thought that unless a sentence was\nwell turned, and every sentence pointed with some conceit, it was not\nworth the carriage. I was willing therefore to wait until the impression\nthat your commendation had made on the foolish part of me was worn off,\nthat I might scribble away as usual, and write my uppermost thoughts,\nand those only.\u201d (June 8, 1780. To the Rev. W. Unwin.) No one ever\navoided this danger better. It is strange and wonderful that these\ncompositions, which bear the stamp of so much cheerfulness and\nbenevolence, should have been written, most of them, in his deepest\ngloom, and avowedly for the purpose of withdrawing his thoughts from his\nown misery.\n\n[Illustration: [Tomb of Cowper, in East Dereham Church, Norfolk.]]\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                          TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\n\n 1. Changed \u201cbetter\u201d to \u201cletter\u201d on p. 28.\n 2. Changed \u201cthe placing the\u201d to \u201cthe placing of the\u201d on p. 128.\n 3. Silently corrected typographical errors.\n 4. Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed.\n 5. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.\n 6. Superscripts are denoted by a carat before a single superscript\n      character or a series of superscripted characters enclosed in\n      curly braces, e.g. M^r. or M^{ister}.","title":"The Gallery of Portraits: with Memoirs. Volume 5 (of 7)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":83951}