text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/18

 his wife in the care of her parents, he returned to England to settle his affairs. He visited Charles I. at Hampton Court in 1647, and during the next two years maintained a cipher correspondence with his father-in-law in the royal interest. In 1649 he obtained a pass to return to Paris, but in 1650 paid a short visit to England. The defeat of Charles II. at Worcester in 1651 convinced him that the royalist cause was hopeless, and he decided to return to England. He went in 1652 to Sayes Court at Deptford, a house which Sir Richard Browne had held on a lease from the crown. This had been seized by the parliament, but Evelyn was able to compound with the occupiers for £3500, and after the Restoration his possession was secured. Here his wife joined him, their eldest son, Richard, being born in August 1652. Under the Commonwealth Evelyn amused himself with his favourite occupation of gardening, and made many friends among the scientific inquirers of the time. He was one of the promoters of the scheme for the Royal Society, and in the king’s charter in 1662 was nominated a member of its directing council. Meanwhile he had refused employment from the government of the Commonwealth, and had maintained a cipher correspondence with Charles. In 1659 he published an Apology for the Royal Party, and in December of that year he vainly tried to persuade Colonel Herbert Morley, then lieutenant of the Tower, to forestall General Monk by declaring for the king. From the Restoration onwards Evelyn enjoyed unbroken court favour till his death in 1706; but he never held any important political office, although he filled many useful and often laborious minor posts. He was commissioner for improving the streets and buildings of London, for examining into the affairs of charitable foundations, commissioner of the Mint, and of foreign plantations. In 1664 he accepted the responsibility for the care of the sick and wounded and the prisoners in the Dutch war. He stuck to his post throughout the plague year, contenting himself with sending his family away to Wotton. He found it impossible to secure sufficient money for the proper discharge of his functions, and in 1688 he was still petitioning for payment of his accounts in this business. Evelyn was secretary of the Royal Society in 1672, and as an enthusiastic promoter of its interests was twice (in 1682 and 1691) offered the presidency. Through his influence Henry Howard, duke of Norfolk, was induced to present the Arundel marbles to the university of Oxford (1667) and the valuable Arundel library to Gresham College (1678). In the reign of James II., during the earl of Clarendon’s absence in Ireland, he acted as one of the commissioners of the privy seal. He was seriously alarmed by the king’s attacks on the English Church, and refused on two occasions to license the illegal sale of Roman Catholic literature. He concurred in the revolution of 1688, in 1695 was entrusted with the office of treasurer of Greenwich hospital for old sailors, and laid the first stone of the new building on the 30th of June 1696. In 1694 he left Sayes Court to live at Wotton with his brother, whose heir he had become, and whom he actually succeeded in 1699. He spent the rest of his life there, dying on the 27th of February 1706. Evelyn’s house at Sayes Court had been let to Captain, afterwards Admiral John Benbow, who was not a “polite” tenant. He sublet it to Peter the Great, who was then visiting the dockyard at Deptford. The tsar did great damage to Evelyn’s beautiful gardens, and, it is said, made it one of his amusements to ride in a wheelbarrow along a thick holly hedge planted especially by the owner. The house was subsequently used as a workhouse, and is now almshouses, the grounds having been converted into public gardens by Mr Evelyn in 1886.

It will be seen that Evelyn’s politics were not of the heroic order. But he was honourable and consistent in his adherence to the monarchical principle throughout his life. With the court of Charles II. he could have had no sympathy, his dignified domestic life and his serious attention to religion standing in the strongest contrast with the profligacy of the royal surroundings. His Diary is therefore a valuable chronicle of contemporary events from the standpoint of a moderate politician and a devout adherent of the Church of England. He had none of Pepys’s love of gossip, and was devoid of his all-embracing curiosity, as of his diverting frankness of self-revelation. Both were admirable civil servants, and they had a mutual admiration for each other’s sterling qualities. Evelyn’s Diary covers more than half a century (1640–1706) crowded with remarkable events, while Pepys only deals with a few years of Charles II.’s reign.

Evelyn was a generous art patron, and Grinling Gibbons was introduced by him to the notice of Charles II. His domestic affections were very strong. He had six sons, of whom John (1655–1699), the author of some translations, alone reached manhood. He has left a pathetic account of the extraordinary accomplishments of his son Richard, who died before he was six years old, and of a daughter Mary, who lived to be twenty, and probably wrote most of her father’s Mundus muliebris (1690). Of his two other daughters, Susannah, who married William Draper of Addiscombe, Surrey, survived him.

Evelyn’s Diary remained in MS. until 1818. It is in a quarto volume containing 700 pages, covering the years between 1641 and 1697, and is continued in a smaller book which brings the narrative down to within three weeks of its author’s death. A selection from this was edited by William Bray, with the permission of the Evelyn family, in 1818, under the title of Memoirs illustrative of the Life and Writings of John Evelyn, comprising his Diary from 1641 to 1705/6, and a Selection of his Familiar Letters. Other editions followed, the most notable being those of Mr H. B. Wheatley (1879) and Mr Austin Dobson (3 vols., 1906). Evelyn’s active mind produced many other works, and although these have been overshadowed by the famous Diary they are of considerable interest. They include: Of Liberty and Servitude. . . (1649), a translation from the French of François de la Mothe le Vayer, Evelyn’s own copy of which contains a note that he was “like to be call’d in question by the Rebells for this booke”; The State of France, ''as it stood in the IXth year of. . . Louis XIII. (1652); An Essay on the First Book of T. Lucretius Carus de Rerum Natura. Interpreted and made English verse by'' J. Evelyn (1656); ''The Golden Book of St John Chrysostom, concerning the Education of Children. Translated out of the Greek by J. E.'' (printed 1658, dated 1659); The French Gardener: instructing how to cultivate all sorts of Fruit-trees. . . (1658), translated from the French of N. de Bonnefons; A Character of England. . . (1659), describing the customs of the country as they would appear to a foreign observer, reprinted in Somers’ Tracts (ed. Scott, 1812), and in the Harleian Miscellany (ed. Park, 1813); The Late News from Brussels unmasked. . . (1660), in answer to a libellous pamphlet on Charles I. by Marchmont Needham; Fumifugium, or the inconvenience of the Aer and Smoak of London dissipated (1661), in which he suggested that sweet-smelling trees should be planted in London to purify the air; Instructions concerning erecting of a Library. . . (1661), from the French of Gabriel Naudé; Tyrannus or the Mode, in a Discourse of Sumptuary Laws (1661); Sculptura: or the History and Art of Chalcography and Engraving in Copper. . . (1662); ''Sylva, or a Discourse of Forest Trees. . . to which is annexed Pomona. . . Also Kalendarium Hortense''. . . (1664); A Parallel of the Ancient Architecture with the Modern. . . (1664), from the French of Roland Fréart; ''The History of the three late famous Imposters, viz. Padre Ottomano, Mahomed Bei, and Sabatei Sevi''. . . (1669); ''Navigation and Commerce. . . in which his Majesties title to the Dominion of the Sea is asserted against the Novel and later Pretenders'' (1674), which is a preface to a projected history of the Dutch wars undertaken at the request of Charles II., but countermanded on the conclusion of peace; A Philosophical Discourse of Earth. . . (1676), a treatise on horticulture, better known by its later title of Terra; The Compleat Gardener. . . (1693), from the French of J. de la Quintinie; Numismata. . . (1697). Some of these were reprinted in The Miscellaneous Writings of John Evelyn, edited (1825) by William Upcott. Evelyn’s friendship with Mary Blagge, afterwards Mrs Godolphin, is recorded in the diary, when he says he designed “to consecrate her worthy life to posterity.” This he effectually did in a little masterpiece of religious biography which remained in MS. in the possession of the Harcourt family until it was edited by Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Oxford, as the Life of Mrs Godolphin (1847), reprinted in the “King’s Classics” (1904). The picture of Mistress Blagge’s saintly life at court is heightened in interest when read in connexion with the scandalous memoirs of the comte de Gramont, or contemporary political satires on the court. Numerous other papers and letters of Evelyn on scientific subjects and matters of public interest are preserved, a collection of private and official letters and papers (1642–1712) by, or addressed to, Sir Richard Browne and his son-in-law being in the British Museum (Add. MSS. 15857 and 15858).

Next to the Diary Evelyn’s most valuable work is Sylva. By the glass factories and iron furnaces the country was being rapidly depleted of wood, while no attempt was being made to replace the damage by planting. Evelyn put in a plea for afforestation, and besides producing a valuable work on arboriculture, he was able to assert in his preface to the king that he had really induced landowners to plant many millions of trees.

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/18


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/19

 EVERDINGEN, ALLART VAN (1621–?1675), Dutch painter and engraver, the son of a government clerk at Alkmaar, was born, it is said, in 1621, and educated, if we believe an old tradition, under Roeland Savery at Utrecht. He wandered in 1645 to Haarlem, where he studied under Peter de Molyn, and finally settled about 1657 at Amsterdam, where he remained till his death. It would be difficult to find a greater contrast than that which is presented by the works of Savery and Everdingen. Savery inherited the gaudy style of the Breughels, which he carried into the 17th century; whilst Everdingen realized the large and effective system of coloured and powerfully shaded landscape which marks the precursors of Rembrandt. It is not easy on this account to believe that Savery was Everdingen’s master, while it is quite within the range of probability that he acquired the elements of landscape painting from de Molyn. Pieter de Molyn, by birth a Londoner, lived from 1624 till 1661 in Haarlem. He went periodically on visits to Norway, and his works, though scarce, exhibit a broad and sweeping mode of execution, differing but slightly from that transferred at the opening of the 17th century from Jan van Goyen to Solomon Ruysdael. His etchings have nearly the breadth and effect of those of Everdingen. It is still an open question when de Molyn wielded influence on his clever disciple. Alkmaar, a busy trading place near the Texel, had little of the picturesque for an artist except polders and downs or waves and sky. Accordingly we find Allart at first a painter of coast scenery. But on one of his expeditions he is said to have been cast ashore in Norway, and during the repairs of his ship he visited the inland valleys, and thus gave a new course to his art. In early pieces he cleverly represents the sea in motion under varied, but mostly clouded, aspects of sky. Their general intonation is strong and brown, and effects are rendered in a powerful key, but the execution is much more uniform than that of Jacob Ruysdael. A dark scud lowering on a rolling sea near the walls of Flushing characterizes Everdingen’s “Mouth of the Schelde” in the Hermitage at St Petersburg. Storm is the marked feature of sea-pieces in the Staedel or Robartes collections; and a strand with wreckers at the foot of a cliff in the Munich Pinakothek may be a reminiscence of personal adventure in Norway. But the Norwegian coast was studied in calms as well as in gales; and a fine canvas at Munich shows fishermen on a still and sunny day taking herrings to a smoking hut at the foot of a Norwegian crag. The earliest of Everdingen’s sea-pieces bears the date of 1640. After 1645 we meet with nothing but representations of inland scenery, and particularly of Norwegian valleys, remarkable alike for wildness and a decisive depth of tone. The master’s favourite theme is a fall in a glen, with mournful fringes of pines interspersed with birch, and log-huts at the base of rocks and craggy slopes. The water tumbles over the foreground, so as to entitle the painter to the name of “inventor of cascades.” It gives Everdingen his character as a precursor of Jacob Ruysdael in a certain form of landscape composition; but though very skilful in arrangement and clever in effects, Everdingen remains much more simple in execution; he is much less subtle in feeling or varied in touch than his great and incomparable countryman. Five of Everdingen’s cascades are in the museum of Copenhagen alone: of these, one is dated 1647, another 1649. In the Hermitage at St Petersburg is a fine example of 1647; another in the Pinakothek at Munich was finished in 1656. English public galleries ignore Everdingen; but one of his best-known masterpieces is the Norwegian glen belonging to Lord Listowel. Of his etchings and drawings there are much larger and more numerous specimens in England than elsewhere. Being a collector as well as an engraver and painter, he brought together a large number of works of all kinds and masters; and the sale of these by his heirs at Amsterdam on the 11th of March 1676 gives an approximate clue to the date of the painter’s death.

His two brothers, Jan and Caesar, were both painters. (1606–1679), mainly known as a portrait painter, enjoyed some vogue during his life, and many of his pictures are to be seen in the museums and private houses of Holland. They show a certain cleverness, but are far from entitling him to rank as a master.  EVEREST, SIR GEORGE (1790–1866), British surveyor and geographer, was the son of Tristram Everest of Gwerndale, Brecknockshire, and was born there on the 4th of July 1790. From school at Marlow he proceeded to the military academy at Woolwich, where he attracted the special notice of the mathematical master, and passed so well in his examinations that he was declared fit for a commission before attaining the necessary age. Having gone to India in 1806 as a cadet in the Bengal Artillery, he was selected by Sir Stamford Raffles to take part in the reconnaissance of Java (1814–1816); and after being employed in various engineering works throughout India, he was appointed in 1818 assistant to Colonel Lambton, the founder of the great trigonometrical survey of that country. In 1823, on Colonel Lambton’s death, he succeeded to the post of superintendent of the survey; in 1830 he was appointed by the court of directors of the East India Company surveyor-general of India; and from that date till his retirement from the service in 1843 he continued to discharge the laborious duties of both offices. During the rest of his life he resided in England, where he became fellow of the Royal Society and an active member of several other scientific associations. In 1861 he was made a C.B. and received the honour of knighthood, and in 1862 he was chosen vice-president of the Royal Geographical Society. He died at Greenwich on the 1st of December 1866. The geodetical labours of Sir George Everest rank among the finest achievements of their kind; and more especially his measurement of the meridional arc of India, 11° in length, is accounted as unrivalled in the annals of the science. In great part the Indian survey is what he made it.

His works are purely professional:—A paper in vol. i. of the Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, pointing out a mistake in La Caille’s measurement of an arc of the meridian which he had discovered during sick-leave at the Cape of Good Hope; An account of the measurement of the arc of the meridian between the parallels of 18° 3′ and 24° 7′, being a continuation of the Grand ''Meridional Arc of India, as detailed by Lieut.-Col. Lambton in the'' volumes of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta (London, 1830); An account of the measurement of two sections of the Meridional Arc of India bounded by the parallels of 18° 3′ 15″, 24° 7′ 11″, and 20° 30′ 48″ (London, 1847).

 EVEREST, MOUNT, the highest mountain in the world. It is a peak of the Himalayas situated in Nepal almost precisely on the intersection of the meridian 87 E. long. with the parallel 28 N. lat. Its elevation as at present determined by trigonometrical observation is 29,002 ft., but it is possible that further investigation into the value of refraction at such altitudes will result in placing the summit even higher. It has been confused with a peak to the west of it called Gaurisankar (by Schlagintweit), which is more than 5000 ft. lower; but the observations of Captain Wood from peaks near Khatmandu, in Nepal, and those of the same officer, and of Major Ryder, from the route between Lhasa and the sources of the Brahmaputra in 1904, have definitely fixed the relative position of the two mountain masses, and conclusively proved that there is no higher peak than Everest in the Himalayan system. The peak possesses no distinctive native name and has been called Everest after (q.v.), who completed the trigonometrical survey of the Himalayas in 1841 and first fixed its position and altitude.

 EVERETT, ALEXANDER HILL (1790–1847), American author and diplomatist, was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on the 19th of March 1790. He was the son of Rev. Oliver Everett (1753–1802), a Congregational minister in Boston, and the brother of Edward Everett. He graduated at Harvard in 1806, taking the highest honours of his year, though the youngest member of his class. He spent one year as a teacher in Phillips Academy, Exeter, New Hampshire, and then began the study of law in the office of John Quincy Adams. In 1809 Adams was appointed minister to Russia, and Everett accompanied him as his private secretary, remaining attached to the American legation in Russia until 1811. He was secretary of the American legation at The Hague in 1815–1816, and chargé d’affaires there

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/19


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Asmoneus

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Asmoneus


text:
Page:History of West Australia.djvu/472

 this body at the present time (1896). Mr. Davies has done a good deal for Fremantle in an unostentatious way, and there is a happy disposition suggested in his face, which on personal acquaintance is established most emphatically.

DR. A. R. WAYLEN, M.D.; M.R.C.S.(ENG); L.S.A; J.P.

TALENTED medical practitioner in a colony of the dimensions of Western Australia has a wide field for his energies. A young colony requires the presence of a politician in medical economy as much as in political economy. The profession must be safeguarded; it must have its special rules of etiquette, its limitations and status; no quacks must enter, and there must be articles of charter under which the practitioners are protected. To negotiate all this work, the pioneer doctors had to exercise caution and judgment. Their practice was an important part of their daily life, but beyond that, they acted as a parent protecting a family in their advocacy of the rights of the profession.

Dr. A. R. Waylen has performed many of these duties in Western Australia, Officially and unofficially he has well maintained the dignity of medical practitioners, and, moreover, has constantly sought to give a higher status to the profession. Born in Western Australia he has associated himself closely with its history, has proved a talented practitioner, and assisted the colony in wise government in many ways. A doctor is able to help his country outside his profession. The very nature of his position commands respect, and his opinion on any subject is listened to and noted. His influence among the people with whom he has to do is great, and may affect them to no small extent. Dr. Waylen not only helped the colony out of disease into health and in various public and private medical positions, but he encouraged in a most practical way viticulture, horticulture, and agriculture. Colonists are justly proud of him.

Alfred Robert Waylen was one of the first white children born in the colony. His father, Mr. Alfred Waylen, came here among the earliest bands of pioneers, and settled on the land with his wife. In 1833 Alfred Robert was born at Point Walter, opposite to where Claremont now is. Amid the struggles of settlement in the thirties his infant days were spent. But when he was eight years old his parents took him to London to receive his education. From then until 1857 the young Australian earnestly prosecuted his studies and took his degrees. In 1856 he qualified as M.R.C.S. (Eng.), L.S.A. (Lond.), L. Mid. R.C.S. (Eng.). In 1857 he returned to the colony, but shortly afterwards went back to England again to obtain experience at the hospitals, and in 1858 took his M.D. degree. Finally, in 1859, he began to practise in Western Australia, and from that time to the present has been recognised as a dominant figure in our midst. His first official appointments were as surgeon in the convict service and medical officer in the colonial service in the Swan district. He was stationed at Guildford, and supervised the convict depôt and outstations there. After thirteen years' residence at Guildford, in August, 1872, he removed to Perth, where he was appointed to the post of colonial surgeon, succeeding Dr. Ferguson, who had held the position for many previous years. Altogether, Dr. Waylen saw thirty-six years' active Government service. As colonial surgeon he had supreme control over the Colonial Hospital, which institution he supervised until September, 1895, when he resigned his appointments. The hospital is now controlled by a committee of management. In 1876 Dr. Waylen took up the duties of medical officer of the Perth Prison, while other offices were entailed on the colonial surgeonship, such as superintendent of vaccination and president of the Board of Health. But he contrived to interest himself in everything which had to do with the welfare of his native land. Soon after going to Guildford he planted a fine vineyard of nine acres, and three years later began to manufacture wine. He thus encouraged the establishment of vineyards throughout Guildford and neighbouring districts, and the excellence of the wine he produced proved that climate and soil lent themselves to such an industry. He was among the pioneers of the wine industry, and retains his vineyard and has manufactured wine almost every succeeding year since establishing it. He prophesies a bright future for Australia in wine production, but wisely and emphatically points out that producers must aim at supplying a first-class article and obtain the assistance of experienced men from Europe. As instancing the quality of his wine, he has been awarded several diplomas at exhibitions in Paris and Melbourne, to which he sent samples, while he holds the diploma of the Sydney Agricultural Society for the best raisins produced in Australasia. Matters relating to the protection and welfare of aborigines also excited his sympathies, and he was a member of the Royal Commission appointed by the Governor, Sir Frederick Broome, to enquire into the treatment and condition of native prisoners in the prison at Rottnest Island. Three or four

title: Page:History of West Australia.djvu/472


text:
Author:John Henry Arthur Hart

Works

 * (Greek Domination)
 * (History (in part))
 * (Greek Domination)
 * (History (in part))
 * (Greek Domination)
 * (History (in part))
 * (Greek Domination)
 * (History (in part))
 * (History (in part))

title: Author:John Henry Arthur Hart


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/448

book gives a popular account of the results of the expedition of Mr. and Mrs. Routledge to Easter Island, of which a more detailed record is to follow. Much of the book deals with the voyage of the Mana to the island whose mystery it was the object of the expedition to discover. This part of the book is full of entertaining matter with occasional items of anthropological interest, especially in the account of Pitcairn Island, but it is the part dealing with Easter Island itself in which the readers of Folk-Lore will be especially interested.

It may be stated at once that while the work of the expedition has gone far to dispel the cloud of mystery which has hung around the island, it has at the same time brought to light new mysteries as great as that presented by the monuments of stone. This result has come from the work which fell especially to the lot of Mrs. Routledge, who has succeeded in opening up new ground in a field where the prospects seemed far from bright when the expedition started.

The book contributes greatly to our knowledge of the statues of Easter Island. We now know where the stone was quarried and how it was sculptured, though the mode of transport of the statues to their final sites still remains obscure. The excavation of images which had been almost completely buried has given us much new knowledge concerning their nature and their relation to other features of culture. It is of especial importance to learn that the monuments are of two distinct kinds. Those covered by the mass of tufa representing a hat were erected on

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/448


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/449

Rh the stone platforms of the ahu or burial places, while those without these head coverings were isolated or stood on the roadways.

Perhaps the point of greatest importance from the comparative point of view is the discovery that the platforms on which the statues of the burial places were erected often had a pyramidal form. This discovery reveals in Easter Island an association of stone images and pyramidal platforms which goes far to bring the monuments into line with other examples of the megalithic art of Polynesia and Melanesia. The special feature of Easter Island is the great labour and care devoted to the making of the images and the relatively rough nature of the platforms on which they were erected. The special mystery of Easter Island resolves itself into the problem why the megalithic settlers should have expended such efforts in the manufacture of images which elsewhere in Oceania are so much less prominent features of their handiwork.

Quite as important as the contribution made to our knowledge of the stone-work are the new facts, due especially to the work of Mrs. Routledge herself, concerning the less material aspects of culture about which until now we have been almost wholly ignorant. One mystery of Easter Island, that presented by the engraved tablets and the script, Mrs. Routledge failed to elucidate, though she came so tantalisingly near progress in this direction as to suggest that if the expedition had taken place a few years earlier another striking success would have attended its work. The most important result of the investigation into the customs and beliefs of the people was the discovery of the cult of the sooty tern and of the first egg of the season, but the readers of Folk-Lore are already acquainted with this topic, and attention may here be directed to the facts concerning the social organisation, the modes of disposal of the dead, and other rites which help to bring the culture of Easter Island into relation with that of other parts of Polynesia.

In dealing with this portion of the book I must be content to point out the remarkable similarity between the social organisation of Easter Island and that of another outlier of Polynesian culture, the far distant Tikopia. In each case we have the

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/449


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/450

84 people of a tiny island living in two districts more or less hostile to one another, and the people of each district divided into smaller groups who live in settlements round the coast. The resemblance in this respect is especially striking if the map opposite p. 233 of Mrs. Routledge’s book is compared with Mr. Durrad’s map of Tikopia given on p. 335 of the first volume of my History of Melanesian Society. The difference between the two is that while the social groups of Tikopia are definite examples of exogamous totemic clans, those of Easter Island bear no signs of a totemic character, and seem to take no part in the regulation of marriage. They are local groups comparable with those of other parts of Polynesia rather than clans, as in Tikopia.

In a final too short chapter on the present position of the problem of Easter Island Mrs. Routledge recognises the existence of two elements in the population. The physical variation of the inhabitants, especially as shown by the skulls, the tradition of a feud between the long-ears and the short-ears, and the dissociation of the bird-cult from the chiefs of the important Miru clan led Mrs. Routledge to the hypothesis that the earlier of the two strata was formed by a negroid people who distended the ear-lobe and practised the bird-cult, these practices being adopted by the later arrivals who conformed more closely to the usual Polynesian type. It is left an open question which of these two elements furnished the makers of the statues. The presence of distended ear-lobes in the statues, however, can leave little doubt that the makers of the monuments practised distension of the ears, while the presence of a bird carved upon the statues also points strongly to the association of these two elements in culture. There are several doubtful assumptions in the argument by which the bird-cult is assigned to the earlier culture. It is an open question whether the negroid element in the population of Polynesia is early or late. It may have been introduced at any time by the arrival of migrants who had passed through Melanesia and brought with them children resulting from unions with the women of that region. There are facts pointing to this explanation of the negroid element in the Maori,

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/450


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/451

Rh and it is a possibility which must be borne in mind in any discussion of Polynesian ethnology.

Still more doubtful is the assumption that the bird-cult is early because it has parallels in Melanesia. There is much reason to believe that the bird-cults of Melanesia, and especially that form of totemism in which the totems are birds, are late. These cults are especially definite in the more northern parts of Melanesia, and there is a definite association between bird-totemism and cremation, this being almost certainly one of the latest forms of disposal of the dead in this region, due indirectly to Hindu influence which reached Melanesia by way of Indonesia. It is a very doubtful argument that because a Polynesian practice is found in Melanesia it therefore belongs to the earlier stratum of Polynesian culture. The special value of this book, however, is that it does away with much of the isolation in which the culture of Easter Island has hitherto stood, and the relative chronology of the constituent elements of its culture can only be determined by a wide survey in which Easter Island is treated in relation to the rest of Polynesia.

In concluding this inadequate review of a noteworthy book one of its most important lessons must be emphasized. From all that was known when the expedition left England it seemed unlikely that much would be learnt concerning aspects of culture other than those gained through archaeological methods. To a large extent these prognostications have been justified, but such fragments as Mrs. Routledge has been able to obtain are of very great importance. The point I wish to emphasize is that the expedition was only just too late to obtain more extensive results. Its experience with the last expert in the knowledge of the engraved tablets shows that even a few years earlier this element in the mystery of Easter Island might have been dispelled. My own experience in the Hawaiin Islands showed that much may even now be recovered from places in Polynesia where the indigenous culture has almost disappeared. There are still many parts of Polynesia, such as the Marquesas and Rarotonga, where immediate exploration will certainly give results of the greatest value, but every year reduces the chances of success.

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/451


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/452

86 If the task is not undertaken soon, investigators will too often repeat Mrs. Routledge's experience with the tablets of Easter Island, and find themselves too late in their attempt to unravel mysteries, quite as important, though not perhaps so imposing, as that presented by the statues and tablets of Easter Island.

Books for Review should be addressed to Folk-Lore, c/o

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/452


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/112

Van Diest he sometimes wrote the names of the ships engaged, and even of their commanders, also noting the presence of ‘V. Velde's Gallijodt’ or ‘mijn galligodt,’ when the vessel supplied by the Dutch government had enabled father and son to witness the actual meeting of the fleets. The charm of Van de Velde lies in his excellent sense of composition, in his fine drawing, in his lightness of hand and transparency of colour, and, in his best pictures, in his wonderful sense of atmosphere and aerial perspective. His lightness of hand and transparency often desert him in his pictures of storms, which are apt to be opaque and inky, and are therefore less prized than his calms. Lord Northbrook possesses a full-length portrait, in small, of Willem van de Velde in his studio, by Michiel van Musscher. Van de Velde died at Greenwich on 6 April 1707.

[Bryan's Dictionary; Kugler; Nagler; Walpole; Smith's Catalogue; Catalogue of The Hague Museum, 1895.]   VAN DIEST, ADRIAEN (1656–1704), landscape-painter, born at The Hague in 1656, was son of Willem Van Diest, a well-known painter of marine subjects. Van Diest received his principal instruction from his father, and came to England with him when about seventeen years of age. He was patronised by various members of the nobility, and gained some repute for his landscapes. It is probable that he was employed by Sir Peter Lely for this purpose, for seven landscapes by Van Diest are enumerated in the catalogue of Sir Peter Lely's collection. The landscapes were chiefly in the Italian manner, suitable for mantelpieces or to be placed over doors. That he visited Italy at one time is evident from a statement by Vertue that he had seen a portrait, of Van Diest ‘from a drawing done at Rome when he was there by a painter in England; he is represented with a sort of Raysed stuff about his head and a drawing in his hand partly enrolled representing part of a landskip.’ His works were carefully if somewhat laboriously finished. Van Diest died of gout in 1704, aged 48, and was buried in St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. He left a son, J. Van Diest, who painted portraits, some of which have been engraved.

[Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting, ed. Wornum; Vertue's Diaries (Brit. Mus. Addit. MSS. 23068–9); Chaloner Smith's Mezzotinto Portraits.]

VAN DYCK, ANTHONY (ANTHONIS, ANTOON) (1599–1641), painter and etcher, was born in his father's house ‘den Berendans’ in the Grootmarkt at Antwerp on 22 March 1599. His grandfather, Antoon Van Dyck, was a prosperous and wealthy silk-mercer at Antwerp, who married Cornelia Pruystincx (of whom there is a portrait in the Estense Gallery at Modena), and left two sons and a daughter. The elder son, Frans Van Dyck, succeeded his father in his business, and was twice married. His first wife died at the birth of a son, who did not survive; but by his second wife, Maria, daughter of Dirk Cupers and Catharina Conincx, he had twelve children, of whom the seventh and elder surviving son was Antoon, the painter. Two sons and five daughters seem to have survived. The eldest daughter married a notary at Antwerp, Adriaen Dierckx, but the other daughters and the younger son all entered the service of the church, one daughter, Anna, as a nun, three (Susanna, Cornelia, and Isabella or Elisabeth) as ‘béguines,’ and the younger brother, Theodorus (Dirk) Waltmannus, as a pastor at Minderhout. Anthony Van Dyck was baptised in the cathedral church at Antwerp the day after his birth. In the same year his parents moved into a house, ‘het Kastel van Rijssel,’ No. 42 Korte Nieuw Straat, at Antwerp, changing rather more than a year later to No 46 in the same street, ‘de Stat Gent,’ where Van Dyck's childhood was spent. In 1607 he lost his mother, who died after the birth of her twelfth child. She appears to have been noted for her skill in embroidery, and from her Van Dyck may have received some early lessons in art. Throughout his life Van Dyck maintained an affectionate intercourse with his brother and sisters. His early education was probably such as befitted the son of a cultured and wealthy burgher of Antwerp.

As early as 1609, when only in his eleventh year, he had shown enough promise in art to be placed as a pupil in the studio of Hendrik Van Balen, a well-known painter of repute at Antwerp, a friend of Rubens, and the master of Snyders. By 1615 he had advanced sufficiently to be able to set up for himself in a house, ‘den Dom van Keulen’ in the Lange Minderbroeder Straat, which he seems to have shared with his friend, Jan Brueghel, the younger. Two lawsuits in 1616 and 1617, respecting family affairs, show that he was living in a separate establishment from his father. Here he painted a series of heads of Christ and the twelve apostles, and it is recorded that the engraver, Pieter de Jode, the elder, uncle to Brueghel, sat for one of the apostles. Van Dyck even at this date had pupils, one of whom, Servaes, copied this set of ‘Apostles.’ These thirteen paintings were


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/113

 exhibited in the house of a picture-dealer at Antwerp, and attracted much notice, especially from painters, including the great and, at the time, omnipotent Rubens. Two of the set are now in the Dresden Gallery with two of the copies, and others can be traced in the galleries at Schleissheim and elsewhere. It does not appear that Van Dyck ever was actually a pupil of Rubens, although it would be impossible for a young painter at that date, especially for one working in Van Balen's studio, to avoid being educated in the all-prevailing methods and style of Rubens, who had swept away all the pre-existing canons of art. Two portraits in the Dresden Gallery, dated 1618, by Van Dyck, have often been ascribed to Rubens. Another in the Brussels Gallery, dated 1619, still bears the latter's name. In February of that year Van Dyck was admitted to the freedom of the guild of St. Luke at Antwerp, an unusual honour for so young an artist. His earliest historical work seems to have been a ‘Christ bearing the Cross,’ one of a long series of pictures illustrating the ‘Passion’ in the Dominican (now St. Paul's) church at Antwerp. He painted some early portraits of himself, in which he appears beardless, with wavy chestnut hair falling about his forehead, and delicate rather feminine features. One of these is in the National Gallery. A portrait of a boy by Van Dyck in the academy at Vienna perhaps represents him at a still earlier age. In 1619 Van Dyck was working in close relations with Rubens, who practically monopolised the whole patronage of art in the Netherlands at that date. The precision of his drawing is shown by his being specially employed by Rubens to make the drawings from Rubens's paintings for reproduction by the engravers, who were then working under Rubens's direction. A series of six cartoons by Rubens for tapestry, representing the history of the consul, Decius Mus, was carried out in oils by Van Dyck, and is now in the Liechtenstein collection at Vienna. Early in 1620, when Rubens received a commission for thirty large paintings from the Jesuit order in Antwerp, it was stipulated that a large part of the preliminary work, usually done by Rubens's assistants, should be entrusted to Van Dyck, and one picture is wholly his work. A well-attested anecdote narrates that on one occasion, during the absence of Rubens, his pupils got access to his studio, when a painting, on which Rubens was then engaged, was accidentally damaged. In dismay, they could not think of any one among them, except Van Dyck, who could venture to repair the damage. This he did, but did not deceive Rubens, who, however, thought so highly of Van Dyck's work that he allowed it to remain. From his earliest days his work shows a breadth and certainty, which he maintained throughout. That Van Dyck's reputation already stood very high is shown by a letter in July 1620 from a correspondent in Antwerp to the art-collector, Thomas Howard, second earl of Arundel [q. v.], in which it is said that Van Dyck is always with Rubens, and that, as he was the son of wealthy parents, it would be difficult to persuade him to leave Antwerp. By November, however, in the same year, Van Dyck appears to have yielded to the persuasion of the earl or perhaps the Countess of Arundel, for Sir Tobie Matthew [q. v.] writes to Sir Dudley Carleton [q. v.] that Van Dyck had gone into England, and that the king had given him a pension of 100l. per annum. On 26 Feb. 1620–1 payment of 100l. was made to Van Dyck for special service performed for his majesty. It is uncertain what this service was. James I seems to have cared little for any form of art but portraiture, and it was probably for portraits of the king and queen (then lately dead) and their children, including perhaps the deceased Prince Henry, that Van Dyck's services were required. A full-length portrait of James I, now in St. George's Hall at Windsor Castle, has always been ascribed to Van Dyck, and has the appearance of having been executed by him. It does not, however, seem to have been taken from life, and from a note by George Vertue [q. v.] in one of his diaries it would appear that it was an enlarged copy from a limning. Two days after the date of this order for payment Van Dyck received, as his majesty's servant, a pass to travel for eight months, the permission being due apparently to his friend and patron, the Earl of Arundel. Van Dyck painted Arundel more than once, and it seems probable that one of these portraits at least (engraved by W. Hollar) was painted during this visit to England. That Van Dyck's absence from England and the royal service was intended to be temporary would appear from the wording of this pass. It does not seem likely, however, that he returned. The journey to be made was probably that to Italy, the goal of all northern artists, with the wonders of which Arundel was well acquainted, and where Rubens himself had spent much time with great profit at Genoa, Mantua, Rome, and elsewhere. Rubens, who seems always to have taken the most kindly interest in Van Dyck's welfare, no doubt urged on him the importance of


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/114

 going to Italy. Van Dyck had had many opportunities of studying the fine collection of Italian paintings and works of art stored in Rubens's house, and had already been deeply affected there by the works of Titian and other great artists of the Venetian school. He had, however, by this time developed a style of his own, which, although based upon that of Rubens, was marked by a restraint and refinement, which, if it lacked the strength, was also wanting in the somewhat boisterous exuberance of his master. Rubens is, without any ground, said to have been jealous of Van Dyck, and to have advised him to confine his art to portraits and animals. This advice, if really given, would be nothing more than the advice of a master, whose knowledge of his art was supreme, to a pupil, whose future was uncertain, and who seemed likely to devote himself to a branch of art in which, if sure to succeed, he was not likely to excel, rather than follow out the true bent of his genius. In reality the two painters were the best of friends. Van Dyck presented Rubens with portraits of himself and his wife, Isabella Brant, and also with a fine picture of ‘The Betrayal of Christ,’ now in the Prado Gallery of Madrid. Rubens is said to have given Van Dyck the best horse in his stables for his journey.

Van Dyck left Antwerp on 3 Oct. 1621, in company of Cavaliere Gian Battista Nani, an Italian friend of Rubens. He stopped on his way at Brussels, and on 20 Nov. 1621 arrived at Genoa. The romantic legend of his delay at Saventhem has now been disproved. At Genoa a colony of Flemish artists was settled, perhaps at the instigation of Rubens, who had spent some time in that city some years before. Among these were two brothers, Lucas and Cornelis De Wael, sons of Jacobus De Wael of Antwerp. One of Van Dyck's finest portrait groups is that of Jacobus De Wael and his wife at Munich, and one of the most interesting that of the brothers De Wael, now in the Capitol Gallery at Rome. Van Dyck was warmly received by the brothers, and took up his residence in Genoa for a considerable time. In the great palaces of the Genoese nobility, the Dorias, Spinolas, and others, there were many fine works of Titian, Paolo Veronese, and other Venetian painters, which continued to be the object of Van Dyck's special study. It would seem probable that most of the mythological paintings by Van Dyck date from his first residence in Genoa, ‘The Education of Bacchus’ (painted for the Gentili family), the ‘Drunken Silenus’ of the Durazzo Gallery, and others, all showing the influence of Rubens, which at the time carried much weight in Genoa. It is, however, to the period of his residence at Genoa that one portion, perhaps the finest, of Van Dyck's life-work belongs, the wonderful series of portraits of the Genoese nobility, equestrian full-length military knights and senators, noble ladies and children, many of which still adorn and make famous the great palaces of the Spinola, Balbi, Lommelini, Durazzo, Brignole-Sala, Adorno, Lercari, and other great families. A few of these have come to England, including the splendid ‘Lommelini Family’ at Edinburgh; but the majority can be studied only in Genoa. In these portraits Van Dyck made full use of the rich and costly robes of the nobility, the velvets and jewels and heavy brocades, and added to the already italianised side of his art a rich glow of colour which is worthy of Titian himself. These paintings are all the more valuable as being in all probability entirely or for the greater part the work of Van Dyck's own hands. In February 1622 he left Genoa for Rome, but, after a short stay, left again for Florence, where his friend and fellow-townsman, Justus Suttermans, was now employed in the service of the Medici family. There he may have met that strange genius, Sir Kenelm Digby [q. v.], who afterwards had a considerable influence in Van Dyck's career. From Florence he went by Bologna to Venice, where he made a special study of the paintings by Titian and Paolo Veronese. A painting of ‘The Martyrdom of St. Lawrence’ is in the church of Sta. Maria dell' Orto at Venice. In 1623 Van Dyck, after visiting Mantua, returned to Rome, where his refined and courtly manners and mode of life were in strong contrast to the rough and roystering habits of his fellow-countrymen. The ‘pittore cavalleresco’ they called him, and mocked him for his sensitive sobriety of demeanour. At Rome Van Dyck found a ready patron in Cardinal Bentivoglio, who had been lately papal nuncio in the Netherlands, was acquainted with Rubens, and no doubt also with the growing fame of Van Dyck. The portrait of Bentivoglio, painted by Van Dyck, now in the Pitti Palace at Florence, is one of the most famous portraits in the world. Van Dyck was employed by the Colonna, Odescalchi, Barberini, and other great families in Rome, where several of his works still remain. He returned, however, to Genoa. His next visit was across the sea to Palermo, where he painted the portrait of the governor of Sicily, Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy (at Turin). He was, however, forced to quit Palermo, through an outbreak of the plague, before completing


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/115

 any other commissions. The interesting sketch-book used by Van Dyck in Italy (in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire; some copies in the British Museum) contains many studies after Titian and others, noted as having been made in Genoa, Rome, &c. One of the most interesting sketches in the volume is that of the nonagenarian and blind painter, Sofonisba Anguisciola, whom Van Dyck saw at Palermo, and who gave him most valuable advice upon the art of painting. Returning to Genoa, he resumed his painting there, and produced several mythological and sacred pictures, besides portraits. Nicholas Lanier [q. v.] was then travelling in Italy in search of pictures for Charles I's collection. Van Dyck now met Lanier and painted his portrait. In one of the diaries of Charles Beale, husband of Mary Beale [q. v.] the painter, there is an interesting note that Sir Peter Lely had been told by Lanier himself that he had sat for this portrait seven entire days, Van Dyck working both morning and afternoon, and that it was this portrait of Lanier which first caused Charles I to send for Van Dyck into England. During a visit to Turin Van Dyck painted some fine portraits of the house of Savoy. There also he met again his old friend the Countess of Arundel, who renewed her endeavours to persuade Van Dyck to go into England.

In December 1625 Van Dyck was still absent from his home, but appears to have started on his journey back. His movements, however, during the next two years are uncertain. He seems to have returned by Aix, where he visited and painted the famous writer and savant Peiresc, and he probably also visited Paris, a well-known portrait of François Langlois dit Ciartres, the art publisher, playing the bagpipes (in the possession of Mr. Garnett), being probably due to this visit. The exact date of his return to Antwerp seems uncertain. There is no certain proof of his being there before March 1628, when he made his will, but it seems likely that he may have returned as early as January 1626.

With Van Dyck's return to Antwerp commences the period of his career when he reached his highest point in the world of art. For the next five or six years he resided in Antwerp, the rival of Rubens in the painting of history, unapproachable in portraiture, attached as court painter to the regents, Albert and Isabella of Austria, while his aristocratic appearance and refined habits made him, as it were, the preux chevalier of painting. His father had died on 1 Dec. 1622, during his absence in Italy, and one of Van Dyck's first duties on his return was to paint a large picture of ‘Christ on the Cross between St. Catherine of Siena and St. Dominick’ as an epitaph for the tomb of his father in the church of the Dominicans at Antwerp (1629). In this picture (now in the Antwerp Museum) Van Dyck shows a preference for sober blacks and greys, and for expressing sentiment by expression rather than by action, which is in strong contrast to the vehemence and brilliant colouring of Rubens's later works. Many were the paintings, chiefly sacred, which Van Dyck painted during this period, and some of them are of the highest merit. The influence of Titian is frequently obvious, as in the ‘Samson and Delilah’ and ‘Venus at the Forge of Vulcan’ at Vienna. Sometimes also his works reveal his study of the Bolognese school. He repeated the same subject many times with but slight variations, such as ‘Christ on the Cross,’ or the ‘Pietà,’ or ‘Lamentation over the Body of Christ,’ a subject in which he particularly excelled. The finest examples are now to be seen in the galleries at Antwerp, Vienna, Munich, and elsewhere, while some isolated examples remain in their original places, such as the ‘St. Augustine’ at Antwerp, the ‘Raising of the Cross’ at Courtrai, and the ‘Crucifixion’ at Termonde. In some cases Van Dyck seems to have deliberately used a sketch or design by Rubens, as in the case of the ‘Archbishop Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius’ in the National Gallery, or that of the ‘Pietà’ in the Liechtenstein collection at Vienna, and made it into a painting of his own. This was probably with the full knowledge and approval of Rubens, who was most liberal to his brother artists. He employed the same school of engravers as Rubens, and many of his pictures were finely engraved by Paulus Pontius, Lucas Vorsterman, and other first-rate engravers. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the works of Rubens and Van Dyck when Van Dyck was working after Rubens. This is noteworthy in the case of the ‘St. Martin dividing his Cloak’ at Windsor, and the similar subject in the church of Saventhem. These two pictures closely resemble each other, the former, long ascribed to Rubens, being an early work and obviously the prior in execution, while the latter has for centuries been the centre of the romance in Van Dyck's early life on his way to Italy. It is probable that both were painted by Van Dyck. The picture at Saventhem seems to have been executed about 1629 for Ferdinand de Boisschot, Comte d'Erps and Baron van


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/360

x

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/360


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/116

 Saventhem, whose portrait Van Dyck painted with that of his wife, Maria de Camudio (the latter is in the Aremberg Gallery at Brussels). Another noteworthy instance is the well-known ‘Raising of the Brazen Serpent,’ in the Prado Gallery at Madrid, to which the signature of Rubens has been affixed, and of which a fine variant belongs to Sir Frederick Cook, bart. (at Richmond); both are the work of Van Dyck. Probably, like Rubens, Van Dyck kept a school of pupils, and superintended the work after the fashion of his master. Some of Van Dyck's finest portraits were executed at this time, notably the equestrian portraits of the Marquis d'Aytona (in the Louvre) and the Duc d'Aremberg (at Holkham). His portraits of this period are less rich and glowing than those of his Genoese period, but they have the dignity of pose, the courtliness of manner, the sober colouring, and exquisite rendering of the tints, especially the hands and the drapery, which are usually associated with the name of Van Dyck. If any fault is to be found with them, it might be said that he has invested the rather ordinary burghers and artists of his acquaintance with all the airs and attributes of the oldest nobility or the heroes of romance. Van Dyck no doubt profited greatly by the absence of Rubens on his diplomatic missions to Spain and England. On 18 May 1628 the Earl of Carlisle visited Van Dyck in his house at Antwerp, and met Rubens there.

One of the most important sitters to Van Dyck, besides the Archduchess Isabella Clara Eugenia, was the exiled queen mother of France, Marie de Médicis, who, while in Antwerp, visited Van Dyck in his own house and was painted by him, as was her son Gaston, duc d'Orléans (full-length, in the collection of the Earl of Radnor). Good examples of Van Dyck's portrait-painting at this period to be found in English collections are Philippe le Roy and his wife (Hertford House), Cornelis van der Geest (National Gallery), the Burgomaster Triest (Earl Brownlow at Ashridge), the organist Liberti (Knole, Euston, and Munich), the Abbé Scaglia, a noted political intriguer (Dorchester House), and Frans Snyders, the painter (Castle Howard). On the continent attention may be drawn to the portraits of Snyders and his wife (Hermitage, St. Petersburg, and Cassel), the Prince of Pfalz-Neuburg and the Duke and Duchess of Croy (full-lengths, at Munich), Maria Luisa de Tassis (Liechtenstein collection, Vienna), Anna Wake (The Hague), and the president Richardot and his son (Louvre, Paris).

During this period also Van Dyck, besides employing the fine engravers of the Rubens school, tried his own hand at etching, with the result of producing a series of about twenty-two etchings, mostly portraits, including one of himself, which are ranked by all connoisseurs among the greatest treasures of the painter-etcher's art, the supreme gift of portraiture being linked with the most exquisite sense of the scope of that particular art. It would appear that during his voyage in Italy Van Dyck commenced a series of portrait studies in grisaille of his friends, especially artists, and the various eminent personages with whom from time to time he was brought into contact. He continued to make these studies at Antwerp and elsewhere, whenever the opportunity presented itself. When they amounted to a considerable number, Van Dyck seems to have thought of publishing them in engraving, and to have intended commencing the engravings himself by etching the heads before handing them over to the engravers for completion. The plates on which he etched these heads do not seem to have left his possession during his lifetime. Some of the portrait studies were, however, engraved and published by an Antwerp print-dealer, Martin van der Enden. After Van Dyck's death the whole collection seems to have passed to another print-dealer, Gilles Hendricx of Antwerp, who had Van Dyck's etchings completed as engravings, and published the whole series, rather over a hundred plates, in 1641 under the title of ‘Icones Principum, Virorum Doctorum, Pictorum, Chalcographorum, Statuariorum, nec non Amatorum pictoriæ artis numero centum ab Antonio Van Dyck pictore ad vivum expressæ ejusque sumptibus æri incisæ.’ From this title it is evident that this series, which is known as the ‘Centum Icones’ or ‘Iconographiæ’ of Van Dyck, was actually projected by him. The original studies in grisaille are dispersed among the collections of Europe, but no fewer than thirty-seven are in that of the Duke of Buccleuch at Montague House, Whitehall.

Meanwhile overtures were not wanting to induce Van Dyck to come back to England. Charles I had seen and acquired the portrait of Nicholas Lanier, brought home by that agent from Genoa. Arundel and Kenelm Digby added their attempts to persuade. It is possible that Van Dyck may have paid a short visit to England, and stayed at the house of his friend, George Geldorp [q. v.] in Drury Lane, but there is no proof of this other than the tradition of his having been Geldorp's guest. In 1629 Endymion Porter


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/117

 [q. v.], who was agent for Charles I in the Netherlands and became acquainted with Van Dyck, purchased from the painter at Antwerp a picture of ‘Rinaldo and Armida,’ which he brought over and delivered to the king. This is probably the picture now in the possession of the Duke of Newcastle at Clumber. Van Dyck painted Porter's portrait in 1631. In May 1631 he was in Antwerp, for he stood sponsor at the christening of a daughter of Lucas Vorsterman. Before the end of 1631 the overtures to Van Dyck had been so far successful that he seems to have seriously contemplated removing to England. According to a tradition handed down to Vertue from Remigius Van Leemput [q. v.], the painter, this was due to the Duke of Buckingham, who saw Van Dyck at Antwerp, and had his portrait painted by him. This portrait he showed to Charles I, who ordered Van Dyck to be sent for. He came and drew the portrait of Queen Henrietta Maria. This the king showed to Daniel Mytens [q. v.], then court painter, who at once asked leave to withdraw to his native land, since the king had got a better painter. Van Dyck asked leave to return and settle his affairs before coming to reside in England. The negotiations were, however, delayed by the shifty conduct of another political agent and artist, Sir Balthasar Gerbier [q. v.], who in December 1631 offered Lord-treasurer Weston for the king or queen a small painting by Van Dyck which he had bought in Brussels. Geldorp seems to have heard from Van Dyck that this picture was only a copy, and to have told the lord treasurer so. In consequence of this Van Dyck drew back and postponed his journey, which was ostensibly only to bring over the portraits of the Infanta and Marie de Médicis as presents to the king and queen. Instead of coming to England, Van Dyck seems to have gone into Holland and painted portraits at the court of Frederic Henry of Orange in the Hague. To this journey may be ascribed the famous visit to Frans Hals, with the picturesque exchange of portraits and compliments between the two painters, and also the full-length portrait of the young princes, Charles Louis and Rupert, sons of the exiled king and queen of Bohemia (at Vienna).

By April 1632 Van Dyck had arrived in London, and lodged with Edward Norgate [q. v.] in the Blackfriars. Charles I took immediate steps to find him a suitable lodging, consulted Inigo Jones upon the matter, paid Norgate's expenses, and finally assigned Van Dyck a house in the Blackfriars and apartments for the summer in the royal palace at Eltham in Kent. In the Blackfriars Van Dyck was the neighbour of Cornelius Janssen [q. v.] and other artists, who had selected that neighbourhood as being outside the jurisdiction of the guilds in the city of London. Charles I treated the painter with unusual honour. On 5 July 1632 Van Dyck was knighted at St. James's Palace, and is described as principal painter in ordinary to their majesties. The king bestowed on him a heavy gold chain, with the king's portrait set in brilliants, and this chain is conspicuous in Van Dyck's later portraits of himself. The king and queen were constant visitors to Van Dyck's studio, and a special landing-stage was erected at Blackfriars to allow of the royal party passing easily to the painter's house. Van Dyck now commenced a series of portraits of the royal family which in themselves would be sufficient to establish him in the front rank of painters. The earliest seems to have been the large group of the king and queen and their two children. This group is at Windsor Castle, where are also the great portrait of Charles I on horseback, attended by an equerry, of which other versions exist, a full-length of the king in royal robes, and the famous painting of the king's head in three positions, which was sent to the sculptor Bernini at Rome for him to make a bust from. Among the portraits of Henrietta Maria at Windsor are two said to have been ordered from Van Dyck for the same purpose. Elsewhere the most noteworthy portraits of the king and queen are the great equestrian portrait of Charles, formerly at Blenheim, and now in the National Gallery, the full-lengths of the king and queen, which have passed through the Wharton and Houghton collections to the Hermitage at St. Petersburg, and, above all, the famous portrait, ‘Le Roi à la Chasse,’ in the Louvre at Paris, which may safely be ranked among the finest portraits in the world. The portraits of the queen are very numerous and of varying excellence, but special note may be made of those at Longford Castle and at Dresden. The queen extended her patronage of Van Dyck so far as to send for his pastor-brother from the Netherlands to be one of her chaplains. The king gave him in 1633 a pension of 200l. per annum. In March 1634 Van Dyck returned to Antwerp, probably to settle certain family affairs, for he then gave his sister Susanna a deed of temporary power to administer his affairs, thus showing that he did not consider his stay in England to be a permanent one. At Antwerp he enjoyed the favour of the new regent, Don Ferdinand of Austria, whom he painted, and executed some other important works, such as the family of Count John of


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/213

 most persevering labour not of one man only, but of whole generations of observers and thinkers, nor did he apply himself with painful unremitting industry to the attainment of this exalted aim.

Soon after Schleiden's 'Grundzüge' first stirred the scientific world, a man of a very different character of mind began to address himself to the great task. This was, whose researches from this time onwards laid the foundations of knowledge in every department of botany. He showed what points were the most immediately attainable, and aided in perfecting the inductive method of enquiry and in advancing the study of the history of development. He did not make discoveries here and there by desultory efforts, but worked with earnest endurance at every question which he took up till he had arrived at a positive result; and this was almost always an enlargement of previous knowledge, and a new foundation on which others might build, and a copious literature be developed.

Nägeli like others felt the necessity of first determining his position with respect to the philosophical principles of the investigation of nature, but he did not proceed to give a general exposition of the inductive method as opposed to the dogmatism of the idealistic school. He went straight to the application of the laws of induction to the most general problems of organic nature, and specially of vegetation. It is easy to say that the task of natural science is simply to deduce conceptions and laws from the facts of experience by aid of exact observation. Many considerations present themselves as soon as the attempt is made to satisfy this demand; for it is not enough merely to accumulate individual facts, the point to which the inductive enquiry is to lead must be kept constantly and clearly before the mind. Nägeli insisted that it is only in this way that facts and observations have any scientific value; that the one important thing is to make every single conception obtained by induction find its place in the scheme of all the rest of our knowledge. With greater


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/119

 he was frustrated by the work being entrusted to the native painters, Simon Vouet and Nicolas Poussin. In November 1641, broken in health and spirits, Van Dyck returned to London. On 1 Dec. his wife gave birth to a daughter at Blackfriars. On 4 Dec. Van Dyck made a fresh will. On the 9th, the same day that his daughter Justiniana was baptised, the great painter died in his house at Blackfriars, aged 42 years, eight months, and seventeen days. On the 11th he was buried in St. Paul's Cathedral, near the tomb of John of Gaunt, where a monument was erected to his memory; but both grave and monument were destroyed by the great fire in 1666. In his will he provides for his newly born daughter, and also for an illegitimate daughter, Maria Theresa, born at Antwerp apparently before he went to Italy. His sister Susanna was appointed guardian to the infant.

Van Dyck's widow married Sir Richard Pryse, bart., of Gogerddan in Wales, and died in 1645. Justiniana married, in 1653, when only twelve years old, Sir John Baptist Stepney, bart., of Pendergast, Pembrokeshire. She appears to have inherited her father's art of painting, and is known to have painted a picture of the ‘Crucifixion’ which excited some attention. In 1660 she and her husband were received into the Roman catholic church at Antwerp, where her three daughters afterwards became béguines, like their aunts. Her son, Sir Thomas Stepney, was the ancestor of Sir Arthur E. Cowell-Stepney, bart. (d. 1909). At the Restoration Lady Stepney claimed the renewal of her father's pension, and succeeded in her suit. Maria Theresa, the illegitimate daughter of Van Dyck, married, in 1641, the year of her father's death, Gabriel Essers Drossart van Bouchout of Antwerp, and her children assumed the name of Essers Van Dyck.

The whole course of painting in England was altered by the brilliant career and achievements of Van Dyck. He destroyed the somewhat hard and narrow traditions of portraiture which had obtained before, and established a principle by which nearly all his successors in England have been guided. His merits as an historical painter have received less recognition in England, and even at Antwerp and elsewhere on the continent they have been overshadowed by the overwhelming and colossal genius of Rubens. In many ways his sacred and mythological paintings are in strong contrast to his master's in their sober and refined key of colour, their freedom from violent or contorted action, and the delicate shrinking from the nude or the more fleshly aspect of his art. As a portrait-painter Van Dyck may lack the precision of Holbein or tender intimacy of Cornelius Janssen, the directness and amazing technical skill of Velazquez or Frans Hals, the mysterious pathos of Rembrandt; but in his own manner he reigns supreme, and his genius needs no interpreter. It is curious that in England, where his fame ranks so high, Van Dyck's works can be studied only with difficulty, since they are so widely dispersed. Windsor, Petworth, and The Grove (the seat of the Earl of Clarendon), all have several fine examples. Better opportunities are afforded by the superb collections at Antwerp, Paris, Madrid, Munich, Cassel, Vienna, and at St. Petersburg, where, in the Hermitage Gallery, is the series of full-lengths painted by Van Dyck for Philip, fourth baron Wharton [q. v.], the finest works of his latest years. The National Gallery possesses but five pictures of importance, and the National Portrait Gallery only one.

[Carpenter's Pictorial Notices of Van Dyck, 1844; Michiel's Rubens et l'Ecole d'Anvers; F. van den Branden's Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche Schilderschool; Guiffrey's Antoine Van Dyck et son Œuvre; Van Dyck by P. R. Head, 1879, and by Lionel Cust, 1900, 1903; Smith's Cat. Raisonné of the Works; Hymans's ‘Van Dyck’ in the Encyclopædia Britannica (9th ed.); Cunningham's ‘Van Dyck in England’ in the Builder, 1864; Woltmann and Woermann's Geschichte der Malerei; Menotti's ‘Van Dyck in Genoa’ in Archivio Storico dell' Arte, 1897; Néve's Notes sur quelques Portraits de la Galerie d'Arenberg; Catalogues of chief galleries in England and on the Continent; Cat. of the Van Dyck Exhibition, Grosvenor Gallery, 1887; De Piles's Lives of the Painters; Max Rooses' Rubens et son Œuvre; Wibiral's Iconographie d'Antoine Van Dyck; Rathgeber's Annalen der niederländischen Malerei, &c.; manuscript notes by the late Sir G. Scharf, K.C.B.; information kindly supplied by Mons. Henri Hymans of Brussels.]

VANDYKE, PETER (fl. 1767), painter, born in Holland in 1729, came over to England at the invitation of Sir Joshua Reynolds to assist in painting draperies and similar work for him. He exhibited a few pictures at the Incorporated Society of Artists in 1762 and 1764, and six portraits at the Free Society of Artists in 1767. Subsequently he settled at Bristol and practised as a portrait-painter there. He painted for Joseph Cottle [q. v.], the publisher, portraits of Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Southey, which are now in the National Portrait Gallery. The portrait of Coleridge was engraved. The date of his death has not been ascertained. It has been stated,


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/366

xvi

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/366


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/214

 of reasoning than Schleiden, and in entire accordance with the nominalist view of genuine investigation of nature in its sternest opposition to the idealistic school, Nägeli's first principle is not only to deduce conceptions from the observation of phenomena, to classify them and establish their subordination, but to treat these conceptions as mere subjective products of the understanding and employ them as instruments of thought and communication, and to be always ready to modify them as soon as inductive enquiry renders such modification necessary. Till this happens, the conception once laid down and connected with a word is to be strictly adhered to, and every arbitrary change or confusion with another conception is strictly forbidden. Since in nature everything is in movement, and every phenomenon is transitory, presenting itself to us in organic life especially as the history of development, all due regard must be paid to this condition of constant motility in forming scientific conceptions. The history of development is not merely to be treated generally as one of various means of investigation, but as identical with investigation into organic nature. These views are expressed in Nägeli's detailed observations on method in the first and second volume of the journal which he brought out in conjunction with Schleiden in 1844 and 1855, where the chief hindrance to his carrying them out fully and consistently is also to be found; for, like all his contemporaries, Nägeli believed at that time in the constancy of species, and consistently with this view he looked upon the natural system as a framework of conceptions, though these do not take the form of Platonic ideas with him as with the systematists of the idealistic school. It is equally consistent with his philosophical position, which refused to regard a change in our conceptions as a change in things themselves, that 'the idea of metamorphosis' in the sense of Goethe and Alexander Braun disappears in Nägeli from the field of scientific observation. It has been shown in the previous chapter that what Goethe called


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/215

 the normal or ascending metamorphosis has no scientific meaning unless species are supposed to be variable. It appeared moreover that if the Cryptogams are made the chief subjects of investigation, as Nägeli made them, the so-called metamorphosis of the leaves is a phenomenon of secondary importance, and only attains to its full importance in the Phanerogams. If Schleiden, illogically from his point of view, conceived of metamorphosis as the principle of development, Nägeli on the contrary scarcely employed the word. He regarded the history of development as the law of growth of the organs, and, in accordance with the theory of the constancy of species, the law of growth of every species and every organ was invariable in the same sense in which we apply the term to natural laws in physics and chemistry. In a word, Nägeli's considerations on the 'present task of natural history' in the work above cited, are not only logically and entirely consistent on the principles of the inductive method, but they are also consistent where others have been misled by the theory of the constancy of species into illogical conclusions.

Nägeli set himself in earnest to meet the demands of inductive enquiry, such as he had himself described them. It will be shown more in detail in the history of phytotomy, how he satisfied these demands in his refutation of Schleiden's doctrine of the cell, and in the establishment of his own, and at a later time in the framing of his theory of molecular structure and of the growth of organised bodies, and how he made these investigations true models of genuine inductive enquiry. Here we are concerned only with what he effected in this way for morphology and systematic botany. In this field of research he introduced two innovations of the profoundest importance, which affected both the aim and method of enquiry for some years. He connected his own morphological investigations, as far as possible, with the lower Cryptogams, extending them afterwards to the higher Cryptogams and to the Phanerogams; that is, he proceeded from simple and plain facts to the more


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/216

 difficult, thus not only introducing the Cryptogams into the field of systematic investigation, but making them its starting-point. In this way morphology not only secured a foundation in exact historical development, but it assumed a different aspect, inasmuch as the morphological ideas hitherto drawn from the Phanerogams were now examined by the light of the history of development in the Cryptogams. This was one innovation; the second, closely connected with it, was the way in which Nägeli made the new doctrine of the cell the starting-point of morphology. Both the first commencement of organs and their further growth were carried back to the formation of the separate cells; and the remarkable result was to show, that in the Cryptogams especially, whose growth is intimately connected with cell-division, precise conformity to law obtains in the succession and direction of the dividing walls, and that the origin and further growth of every organ is effected by cells of an absolutely fixed derivation. The most remarkable thing was, that every stem and branch, every leaf or other organ has a single cell at its apex, and that all succeeding cells are formed by division of this one cell according to fixed laws, so that the origin of all cell-tissue can be traced back to an apical cell; and as early as the years 1845 and 1846 Nägeli described in the 'Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Botanik' the three main forms, according to which the segmentation of an apical cell proceeds, namely, in one, two, and three rows (Delesseria, Echinomitrium, Phascum, Jungermannia, Moss-leaves). In this way the separate points in the history of growth in the Cryptogams were brought out with unusual clearness and decision; but on the other hand, Nägeli showed in 1844 in the case of a genus of Algae (Caulerpa) that the growth of a plant may show the usual morphological differentiation into axis, leaf, and root, when the propagative cell undergoes no cell-divisions in the process of development and further growth, and similar conditions were for the first time demonstrated in 1847 in Valonia, Udotea, and Acetabularia. Beside other


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Bürger, Gottfried August

BÜRGER, Gottfried August, German poet: b. 1 Jan. 1748, at Wolmerswende, near Halberstadt; d. Göttingen, 8 June 1794. He showed an early predilection for solitary and gloomy places and the making of verses, for which he had no other model than hymnbooks. He learned Latin with difficulty. In 1764 he studied theology at the University of Halle, and in 1768 he went to Göttingen, in order to exchange theology for law, but soon formed connections here equally disadvantageous to his studies and his morals, so that his grandfather, who had hitherto maintained him, withdrew his support. The friendship of several distinguished young men at the university was now of great service to him. He studied the ancient classics and the best works in French, Italian, Spanish and English, particularly Shakespeare, and the old English and Scottish ballads. Percy's ‘Reliques’ was his constant companion. His poems soon attracted attention. In 1772 he obtained the office of baillie in Alten-Gleichen, but throughout his life he was involved in pecuniary difficulties. In 1774 he married the daughter of a neighboring baillie, named Leonhart, but his marriage was unfortunate. He conceived a violent passion for the sister of his wife and married her in 1784, soon after his first wife's death. She also his celebrated “Molly,” died the first year of their marriage. At the same time be was obliged by intrigues, to resign his place. He was made professor extraordinary in Göttingen, but received no salary, and this favorite poet of the nation was obliged to gain his living by poorly rewarded translations for booksellers. A third marriage in 1790, with a young lady of Swabia, who had

publicly offered him her hand in a poem, completed his misfortunes; he procured a divorce from her two years afterward. The government of Hanover afforded him some assistance shortly before his death. His songs, odes, elegies, ballads, narrative poems and epigrams hold a very high place in German literature, Schlegel especially commending his work, though Schiller criticised him very severely. The first collection of his poems appeared in Göttingen in 1778. His complete works were first published by Reinhard at Göttingen in four volumes in 1796-98, and this edition has been repeatedly published since. Other editions of his work and letters have also been published, and his life has been written by Döring; Pröhle, ‘G. A. Bürger: Sein Leben und Seine Dichtungen’ (Leipzig 1865), and others.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 44.djvu/373

Pepys the French church (28 March 1667) (, Life of Pepys, i. 146-53;, Samuel Pepys, 241-50). In 1656 Pepys entered the family of his father's first cousin, Sir Edward Montagu, who, as Mr. Wheatley suggests, may perhaps have enabled him to go to college. Pepys was employed as a kind of factotum in matters of business during Montagu's absences from London. On 26 March 1658 he underwent a successful operation for the stone, and commemorated the day ever afterwards. In June 1659 Sir Edward Montagu took him on the expedition to the Sound, but did not let him into the secret of the negotiations with Charles II. On his return he became clerk in the office of (Sir) George Downing (1623?-1684) [q. v.], one of the tellers of the exchequer ; and when he began his 'Diary' (1 Jan. 1659-60) was living in Axe Yard, Westminster, with his wife and one maid. His salary was 50l. a year, but he was erroneously 'esteemed rich.' On 19 Jan. Downing obtained his appointment to be a clerk of the council, in order, as Pepys thought, to escape paying his salary himself. In March Pepys was made secretary to Sir Edward Montagu, upon his taking command of the fleet which brought Charles II to England. Pepys was now an ardent loyalist, took part in all the ceremonials with infinite satisfaction, heard Charles tell the story ot his escape from Worcester, was civilly treated by the Duke of York, and got a share of the presents. Montagu showed much confidence in him, and on 23 June promised him appointment as 'clerk of the acts.'

The office of 'clerk of the king's ships,' or of the 'acts of the navy' ( Samuel Pepys, p. 279, &c.), is mentioned in the time of Edward IV. The clerk was a member of the 'navy board' constituted by Henry VIII ; and in Pepys's patent, dated 13 July 1660, he was entitled to the ancient fee of 33l. 6s. 8d. per annum. Pepys's salary, however, was fixed at 350l. (7 July 1660). The board included a treasurer, controller, surveyor, and four commissioners; and Pepys was not merely secretary, but had equal authority with other members of the board. The clerkship of the acts had been abolished under the Commonwealth, and a new set of regulations was issued by the Duke of York, as lord high admiral, in January 1661-2.

Pepys had some difficulty in securing the place. Monck brought forward a candidate of his own ; and Thomas Barlow, who had been clerk of the acts under Charles I, was still alive, and claimed the office. Pepys finally agreed to give Barlow 100l. a year, having observed that he was an 'old, consumptive man' (17 July 1660). Barlow lived till 1665, when Pepys had some trouble to reconcile his regret for the death of a 'worthy, honest man' with his thankfulness to God for a saving of 100l. a year (9 Feb. 1664-5). On 6 Aug. 1660 he had an offer of 1,000l. for his place, which 'made his mouth water,' but which he judiciously declined. On 23 July he also became a clerk of the privy seal by Montagu's influence. He did not expect much from this, but considered that it would be a convenient refuge if he lost his other post. On 10 Aug. 1660 he found that he was making about 3l. a day by it. As clerk of the acts Pepys had a house in the navy office, between Crutched Friars and Seething Lane (demolished after the removal of the office to Somerset House). He feared that the other officials might 'shuflle him out' of his lodgings, but was soon settled there, and on 17 Sept. got rid of his house in Axe Yard. He was sworn in as justice of the peace on 24 Sept., and 'mightily pleased,' though 'wholly ignorant' of the duties of his new position.

On 15 Feb. 1661-2 Pepys was sworn in as younger brother of the Trinity House. In the following August he was put on the Tangier commission, his colleague (Sir) William Coventry [q. v.] observing at the time that he was 'the life of the navy office' (20 Sept. 1662). On 10 March 1663-4 he was appointed an assistant of the 'corporation of the royal fishing,' of which the Duke of York was governor. The accounts of the Tangier commission having got into disorder, he was appointed, through the favour of the Duke of York, to succeed Pavy as treasurer (20 March 1664-5). No 'harsh words passed,' which was 'a good fortune beyond all imagination.' On the 27th of the following October he was appointed surveyor-general of the victualling office, in accordance with suggestions made by himself. An elaborate letter of 1 Jan. 1665-6, in which he describes his plan for regulating the pursers, is in the Harleian MSS. 'A purser,' he says, 'would not have twice what he got unless he cheated.' Pepys had apparently begun with no more knowledge of the navy or accounts than he had of the duties of a justice of the peace. He had engaged a mathematical tutor in July 1662, when his first business was to learn the multiplication table. This, however, was his only trouble in arithmetic. He applied vigorously to work, and took great trouble to acquire a thorough knowledge of all the details of his office. He was often at his office at four in the morning, looked


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Perceval, Arthur Philip


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/217

 results it was established by these facts, that morphological differentiation during growth must not be regarded as an effect of cell-divisions, and from such cases as these the conception of the cell experienced a notable expansion.

Moreover, Nägeli was not satisfied with seeking instructive examples for general morphological axioms in the lower Cryptogams; he devoted special study to the Algae for systematic and descriptive purposes; and his 'Neuen Algensysteme,' which appeared in 1847, and 'Gattungen einzelliger Algen,' of 1849, were the first successful attempts to substitute serious investigation for the mere zeal of the collector in this part of the vegetable kingdom, which had not indeed been hitherto neglected, but had not been systematically worked since the time of Vaucher. In the same spirit Alexander Braun also in his 'Verjüngung' contributed a rich material of new observations on the mode of life of the Algae and the morphological conditions connected with it, and his labours were followed in the succeeding years by the important researches of Thuret, Pringsheim, De Bary, and others, to which we shall recur in a later portion of this history.

But before the examination of the Algae, and soon after of the Fungi also, led to such great results, the systematic botany of the higher plants underwent important changes through the methodical study of the embryology of the Muscineae and Vascular Cryptogams. These groups had been frequently and carefully examined by good observers since the last century, and the systematists, without penetrating deeply into the peculiarities of their organisation, had brought the species and genera, the families and even the higher divisions into tolerable order. Comprehensive and methodically arranged catalogues of these plants had been formed, and attempts had been made to explain their morphology by that of the Phanerogams; Schmidel published valuable observations on the Liverworts


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/355

Rh

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/355


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/218

 in the year 1750, Hedwig especially on the Mosses in 1782; these works were followed by Mirbel's thorough examination of Marchantia in 1835, by Bischoff's of Marchantieae and Riccieae, by Schimper's study of the Mosses in 1850, and by Lantzius Beninga's contributions to the knowledge of the structure of the moss-capsule in 1847. The organisation, and to some extent the germination, of the Vascular Cryptogams had become better known since 1828 through Bischoff's researches; Unger had as early as 1837 described the spermatozoids in the antheridia of various Mosses, Nägeli had discovered them on an organ of the Ferns which had up to that time been taken for the cotyledonary leaf of these plants, and on the same part of the plant Suminski in 1848 observed the female sexual organs and the entrance of the spermatozoids into them. The history of the germination of the Rhizocarps, from which Schleiden thought that he had proved his erroneous theory of fertilisation with more than usual certainty, had been examined some years before by Nägeli, and also by Mettenius, in great detail; here too Nägeli detected the spermatozoids. Thus important fragments of the life and organisation of these plants had been described up to the year 1848, but until they were more fully understood and connected together they had but little scientific value, the one fact perhaps excepted, that fertilisation in the Cryptogams


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/219

 as in animals was effected by spermatozoids. A perfect insight into the embryological conditions in question could only be obtained when the embryology of the Phanerogams especially had been cleared up, for according to Schleiden's theory, which made the pollen-tube enter the embryo-sac in the ovule and develop into the embryo, the ovule was no longer to be regarded as a female sexual organ, but only as a place of incubation for the embryo, which was thus really produced asexually. This important question was set at rest by work, 'Die Entstehung des Embryos der Phanerogamen,' which appeared in 1849. In this work, and in a series of subsequent treatises, he showed that the egg-cell is formed in the embryo-sac before fertilisation, and that it is this which is excited to further development by the appearance of the pollen-tube, and produces the embryo. Hofmeister had observed the organisation of the ovule, the nature of the embryo-sac and of the pollen-grain, and the formation of the embryo from the fertilised egg-cell step by step and cell by cell, and his account of these processes was aided by the light which Nägeli's theory of the cell, and his reference of all processes of development to the processes of cell-formation, had thrown upon the history of development. He went on to apply the same method to the study of the embryology of the Muscineae and the Vascular Cryptogams, and followed the development of the sexual organs cell by cell in a large number of species; he observed the origination of the egg-cell which was to be subsequently fertilised, and the formation of spermatozoids, and above all he showed the divisions which take place in the fertilised egg-cell, and the relation of its segments to the further growth of the sexual product in course of formation. The whole course of development in the Muscineae and Vascular Cryptogams displayed a return twice repeated to the single cell as the starting-point in each case of a new phase of development; the true relation between the asexually produced spore and its germ-product on the one side, and the sexually generated


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/220

 embryo on the other, and their significance in the history of development, were brought out clearly by Hofmeister's investigation, while the exactness of his method rendered lengthy discussions on the subject unnecessary. With these embryological processes, especially those of the Rhizocarps and Selaginellae, in which the presence of two kinds of spores was now for the first time correctly interpreted, Hofmeister compared the embryology of the Conifers, and by their aid that of the Angiosperms also.

The results of the investigations published in the 'Vergleichende Untersuchungen' in 1849 and 1851 were magnificent beyond all that has been achieved before or since in the domain of descriptive botany; the merit of the many valuable particulars, shedding new light on the most diverse problems of the cell-theory and of morphology, was lost in the splendour of the total result, which the perspicuity of each separate description revealed to the reader before he came to the conclusion of the work, and there a few words in plain and simple style gave a summary of the whole. Briefly to describe this result in all its importance for botanical science is a difficult task; the idea of what is meant by the development of a plant was suddenly and completely changed; the intimate connection between such different organisms as the Liverworts, the Mosses, the Ferns, the Equisetaceae, the Rhizocarps, the Selaginellae, the Conifers, the Monocotyledons, and Dicotyledons could now be surveyed in all its relations with a distinctness never before attained. Alternation of generations, lately shown to exist though in quite different forms in the animal kingdom, was proved to be the highest law of development, and to reign according to a simple scheme throughout the whole long series of these extremely different plants. It appeared most clearly in the Ferns and Mosses, though at the same time with a certain difference in each; in the Ferns and allied Cryptogams a small inconspicuous body grows out of the asexually produced spore, and immediately produces the sexual organs; from the


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/221

 fertilisation of these organs proceeds the root-bearing and leafy stem of the Fern, which in its turn again produces only asexual spores. In the Muscineae, on the other hand, a much differentiated and usually long-lived plant is developed from the spore, and this plant proceeds again after some time to form sexual organs, the product of which is the so-called Moss-plant. The first generation that arose from the spore, the sexual, is in the Muscineae the vegetative plant, while in the Ferns and their allies the whole fulness of vital activity and of morphological differentiation is unfolded in the second generation which is asexually produced. Here all was at once clear and obvious; but Hofmeister's researches also showed that the same scheme of development holds good in the Rhizocarps and Selaginellae where two kinds of spores are formed; and it appeared plainly from their case that the recognition of the true relation between the production of spores and sexual organs is the guide to the morphological interpretation. When the processes in the large female spore of the most perfect of the Cryptogams was known, the formation of the seeds in the Conifers was at once understood; the embryo-sac in these answered to this large spore, while the endosperm represented the prothallium, and the pollengrain the microspore; the last trace of alternation of generations, so obvious in the Ferns and Mosses, was seen in the formation of the seed in the Phanerogams. The changes, which the alternation of generations passes through from the Muscineae upwards to the Phanerogams, were, if possible, still more surprising than the alternation of generations itself. The reader of Hofmeister's 'Vergleichende Untersuchungen' was presented with a picture of genetic affinity between Cryptogams and Phanerogams, which could not be reconciled with the then reigning belief in the constancy of species. He was invited to recognise a connection of development which made the most different things appear to be closely united together, the simplest Moss with Palms, Conifers, and angiospermous trees, and which was incompatible with the


text:
Page:History of botany (Sachs; Garnsey).djvu/222

 theory of original types. The assumption that every natural group represents an idea was here quite out of place; the notion entertained up to that time of what was really meant by the natural system had to be entirely altered; it could as little pass for a body of Platonic ideas as for a mere framework of conceptions. But the effect of the work was great in respect to the system also; the Cryptogams were now the most important objects in the study of morphology; the Muscineae were the standard by which the lower Cryptogams must be tried, the Ferns were the measure for the Phanerogams. Embryology was the thread which guided the observer through the labyrinth of comparative and genetic morphology; metamorphosis now received its true meaning, when every organ could be referred back to its parent-form, the staminal and carpellary leaves of the Phanerogams, for example, to the spore-bearing leaves of the Vascular Cryptogams. That which Häckel, after the appearance of Darwin's book, called the phylogenetic method, Hofmeister had long before actually carried out, and with magnificent success. When Darwin's theory was given to the world eight years after Hofmeister's investigations, the relations of affinity between the great divisions of the vegetable kingdom were so well established and so patent, that the theory of descent had only to accept what genetic morphology had actually brought to view.

So gorgeous a picture as Hofmeister had designed of the genetic connection of the vegetable kingdom, except the Thallophytes, could not possibly be completely perfect and correct in all its separate features; there were still many gaps to fill up and particular observations to correct. Hofmeister himself continued his labours; the remarkable genera Isoetes and Botrychium were in the following years more carefully studied by himself, the fertilisation and embryology of the Equisetaceae by himself and Milde, and those of Ophioglossum by Mettenius, and all were fitted into their place in the system. To the present day it is always a profitable


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Burger, Ludwig

BURGER, Ludwig, German historical painter and illustrator: b. Cracow, 19 Sept. 1825; d. Berlin, 22 Oct. 1884. He studied at the Berlin Art Academy, at the same time working at book-illustrating; he was also a pupil of Couture in Paris. Among his best drawings are the illustrations for the works of La Fontaine and a collection of 20 plates known as ‘Die Kanone.’ After 1869 he devoted himself to decorative painting, his most important work in this line being the walls and ceilings in the Berlin City Hall (1870) and the colossal figures symbolizing the warlike virtues at the School of Cadets at Lichterfelde (1878).