text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/254

 capture of St. Lucia on 13 Dec., and in the defence of the Vigie against the French under D'Estaing on the 18th. He was also in the naval engagement off the island of Grenada on 6 July 1779, and was promoted to be lieutenant on 15 Aug. following. He returned to England in 1781.

Wemyss was promoted to be captain on 31 May 1783, and shortly after, on reduction of his regiment, was placed on half-pay. He was brought into the 3rd foot (‘The Buffs’) on 9 June 1786, joining the head quarters at Jamaica. He was obliged by ill-health to return home in 1789. On 16 March 1791 he was promoted to be major in the 37th foot. In 1793 he served with his regiment under the Duke of York in the campaign in Flanders, where he took part in the affair of Saultain, the battle of Famars (22 May), and the siege of Valenciennes, which capitulated on 28 July. For his services he was promoted to be lieutenant-colonel in the 18th foot (Royal Irish) from 12 April 1793.

Wemyss commanded his new regiment in 1794, with the force under Sir Charles Stuart [q. v.] at the capture of Corsica, taking part in the sieges of Fiorenza in February, of Bastia in April, and of Calvi, where he was wounded, in August. He was favourably mentioned in despatches for his services, and in 1795 was appointed governor of Calvi and its dependencies. He was promoted to be brevet colonel on 3 May 1796. On the evacuation of Corsica in October he accompanied the troops to Porto Ferrajo in Elba, whence he commanded a force (including his own regiment) which landed on the Italian coast on 7 Nov., and succeeded in driving the French from Piombino, Campiglia, and Castiglione, but, the enemy receiving considerable reinforcements, the British troops were withdrawn from Italy and returned to Elba. On the evacuation of the Mediterranean in 1797 Wemyss took his regiment to Gibraltar, where he was employed as a brigadier-general on the staff until he was promoted to be major-general on 29 April 1802, when he returned to England.

In April 1803 Wemyss was appointed to the command of the forces in Ceylon. He returned home in 1806, was promoted to be lieutenant-general on 25 April 1808, and on 27 May of the following year was appointed governor of Tynemouth Castle and Cliffe Fort. He was promoted to be general on 12 Aug. 1819. He died on 29 Aug. 1839 at his residence, Upper Gore House, Kensington, and was buried at Kensal Green cemetery. Wemyss's portrait, painted by Stewardson and engraved by Cook, is in possession of Colonel Francis Charteris Wemyss of 5 Onslow Square, London. Wemyss's niece, Frances Maria, daughter of Captain Hugo Wemyss, and wife of Arthur Beresford Brooke of the 23rd Welsh fusiliers, inherited his property.

[Royal Military Cal. 1820; Gent. Mag. 1839, ii. 652; Cannon's Historical Records of the 18th Royal Irish Regiment; Evans's Cat. of Engraved Portraits; Times, 3 Sept. 1839; Burke's Peerage; Smith's Wars in the Low Countries; Calvert's Campaign in Flanders and Holland; Histories of the American War; Cust's Annals of the Wars of the Eighteenth Century.]  WEMYSS, JAMES (1610?–1667), master-gunner of England and general of the artillery in Scotland, born about 1610, belonged to the Fifeshire family of this name, which is now represented by the Earl of Wemyss. He was descended from James Wemyss, second son of Sir David Wemyss of Wemyss (1513–1544). His mother was Janet Durie, lady of Cardan in the parish of Auchtenderran in Fife. He came to London in the winter of 1629–30 with his uncle, Colonel Robert Scott, and devoted himself to gunnery and all that appertained thereto.

On 26 Feb. 1634 the king granted a warrant to Sir John Heydon, lieutenant-general of the ordnance, ‘for carrying such quantity of earth to Mr. Wemyss's garden at Foxhall [Vauxhall] as should suffice for making a butt to prove ordnance at.’ Three years later Wemyss's house at Vauxhall was burnt down. This misfortune deprived him of his scientific instruments and the tools he had acquired at his own expense for the furtherance of his inventions. He also had acquired debts to the amount of 2,000l. (Petition of James Wemyss to Charles I, State Papers, Dom. 1637). The king, who had been Wemyss's patron for seven years, appears to have helped the artillerist out of his most pressing liabilities, and in 1638 bestowed on Wemyss the honourable post of master-gunner of England. In February 1639, when an army was about to be levied to march into Scotland, Wemyss brought to the king's notice the lamentable fact that there were few gunners in England who understood the several ranges of ordnance or use of the mortar (Petition of James Wemyss to Charles I, State Papers, Dom. 12 Feb. 1639). Wemyss accompanied the train of artillery which followed the royal army to Berwick in the summer of 1639. He also was selected to serve with the army raised in 1640 to march against the Scots (Notes by Secretary Nicholas of business transacted at the Council of War, 30 Jan. 1640). The ill-success which attended the


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Wadlin, Horace Greeley

WADLIN, Horace Greeley, American statistician: b. Wakefield, Mass., 2 Oct. 1851.

He studied architecture in Salem and in Boston, Mass., and in 1875-79 was engaged in the practice of that profession in the latter city. He was appointed special agent for the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor in 1879 and upon becoming its chief in 1888 abandoned his professional practice. He resigned this position in 1903 to accept the post of librarian at the Boston Public library, which he has since occupied. He was a member of the Massachusetts legislature in 1884-88, was supervisor of the United States census in 1890 and in 1900 and also of the Massachusetts census of 1895. He has published ‘Reports on Statistics of Labor of Massachusetts’ (14 vols., 1888-1901); ‘Annual Statistics of Manufactures of Massachusetts’ (16 vols., 1888-1901); ‘Decennial Census of Massachusetts’ (7 vols, 1895), etc.

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


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/255

 king's arms on the outbreak of the civil war, and the side taken by the Scottish nation, induced Wemyss to transfer his services to the parliament. He was appointed master of the ordnance to Sir William Waller [q. v.], and in this capacity fought at Cropredy Bridge, 29 June 1644, where he was taken prisoner by the royalists, who also captured Waller's artillery, which consisted of eleven pieces of cannon, ‘with two barricadoes of wood, which were drawn upon wheels, and in each seven small brass and leather guns charged with case-shot’ (, Hist. of the Rebellion). The leather guns for field service were invented by Colonel Robert Scott (memorial inscription in Lambeth church), and were subsequently patented by Wemyss, who improved on his uncle's discovery.

Every effort was made by the Earl of Essex, Sir John Meldrum, Sir William Waller, and Sir Arthur Hesilrigge to get Wemyss, whom Lord Clarendon calls ‘a confessed good officer,’ exchanged, but he appears to have been a prisoner for some months. Charles I told Wemyss the post of master-gunner was not filled up, and offered to reinstate him (Lord Essex to the ‘Committee of both Kingdoms,’ 15 July 1644). In 1646 Wemyss, who held the rank of colonel in the parliamentary army, proved the ordnance and gunpowder for the parliamentary navy, and fitted out three new frigates with a hundred pieces of cannon, for which he was awarded 50l. The same sum was awarded him by the navy commissioners in March 1648 for similar services in the summer of 1647.

In March 1648 Wemyss returned to Scotland, and on the 27th of the same month an act was passed by the Scottish parliament ‘granting to Colonel James Wemyss the privilege of making leather ordnance for three terms of nineteen years, with power to enforce secresy.’ About this time Wemyss appears to have veered round to the side of the king and was deprived by the parliament of his post of master-gunner of England, which was bestowed on Richard Wollaston.

On 10 July 1649 an act nominating Colonel James Wemyss to be general of artillery in the room of Colonel Alexander Hamilton was passed by the Scottish parliament. His pay was fixed at six hundred Scots merks per month, and he was given in addition the command of a regiment (Harl. MS. 6844, f. 123). Wemyss fought at Dunbar (3 Sept. 1650), and had the good fortune to escape capture by Cromwell. He again commanded the Scottish artillery in the campaign of 1651, and was taken prisoner at Worcester. He was confined at Windsor Castle, and when private business of his own demanded his presence in London for a few days he had to find 2,000l. security (State Papers, Dom. 25 June 1652). In 1658 he petitioned Cromwell for an act to be passed in his favour, ‘enabling him to provide a place to erect his works for the making and practising certain inventions of light ordnance and engines of war, the fruits of his study and labour for thirty years.’ This petition, which bears date 27 May 1658, includes a list of Wemyss's scientific inventions for naval and military gunnery (Cal. State Papers, Dom.), which were far in advance of the artillery previously in use. Cromwell's death delayed matters, but Charles II granted a patent ‘to James Wemyss, senior, and James Wemyss, junior, of the invention of the former for making light ordnance, and of a way whereby all motions caused by the force of a river, wind, or horses may be done by one or two men, and may be useful for lifting of weights, draining of mines, &c.’

Wemyss was restored to his post of master-gunner of England by Charles II, and he retained it until 1666, when the king allowed him to return to Scotland. He was granted a certain sum for resigning his post to Captain Valentine Pyne (Petition of James Wemyss, General of the Artillery in Scotland, to the King, 18 Jan. 1667). Wemyss died in December 1667, and by his wife Katherine, widow of John Guilliams and daughter of Thomas Rayment, poulterer, of St. Botolph's, Bishopsgate, who predeceased him in February 1649, left with other issue a son James, who was associated with his father in the patent granted to Colonel Wemyss by Charles II, ‘for making and selling light ordnance, &c.’ The younger Wemyss inherited the estate of Caskieberry, and on 15 April 1672 was created Baron Burntisland for life. He married Margaret, countess of Wemyss in her own right, and at his death in 1685 left a son David, who succeeded his mother as third Earl of Wemyss, and is separately noticed.

[There is a memoir of Colonel James Wemyss by the present writer in the Proceedings Royal Artillery Institution, vol. xxiv. See also Fraser's Memorials of the Family of Wemyss, 1888; Acts of Parliament of Scotland; Calendars of State Papers, Dom.; Calendar of the Committee for the Advance of Money, 1642–56, pt. iii.; Clarendon's Hist. of the Rebellion; Douglas's Peerage of Scotland; Harleian MS. 6844, f. 123; Hist. MSS. Comm., Report on the Duke of Portland's MSS. i. 227.]  WEMYSS or WEEMES, JOHN (1579?–1636), divine, born about 1579, was the only son of John Wemyss of Lathockar in Fife.


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Wagner, Charles

WAGNER, Charles, French Protestant leader: b. Wibersville, Alsace, 3 Jan. 1852; d. 12 May 1918. At the age of 14 he was sent to Paris to school; was graduated at the Sorbonne in 1869; and studied theology at Strassburg and Göttingen. He was the pastor of a small parish in the French province of Vosges until 1882, when he went to Paris, and there opened a Sunday-school and later began preaching. The publication of his book ‘Jeunesse’ (“Youth”) in 1891 marked him as a leader in the ethical movement in France and his influence continually increased. Besides serving as pastor to a large congregation, he took an active part in many philanthropic and charitable undertakings, and in this work came into cordial relations with men of all shades of religious belief. His other publications translated into English include ‘The Soul of Things’; ‘By the Fireside’; ‘The Better Way’; ‘The Simple Life’; ‘On Life's Threshold’ (1905). Of these ‘The Simple Life’ attracted particular interest in the United States and was widely commended by religious and ethical leaders. In the fall of 1904 Pastor Wagner visited the United States, where he

made numerous addresses and gained material for ‘My Impressions of America’ (1906).


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/256

{{RunningHeader|Wemyss||250}Wendover}} He was educated at the university of St. Andrews, where he graduated M.A. in 1600. In 1608 he was appointed by the general assembly minister of Hutton in Berwickshire, ‘as one of the best learned and disposed for peace of those of the side of the ministers, for maintaining unity among the brethren, who were considered as tending to episcopacy.’ At the conference between the ministers and bishops at Falkland in May 1609, however, Wemyss was chosen a representative of the ministers (, Collections, Spalding Soc., p. 240). In 1613 he was translated to Dunse, and in 1618 was present at the assembly at Perth, where he was chosen by Archbishop Spottiswood as one of the ministers' representatives at the preliminary conference held on 26 Aug. On 26 Jan. 1619–20, in company with several other ministers, he appeared before the court of high commission to answer the charge of contumacy in not carrying out the form of ritual prescribed by the five articles of Perth, and on 2 March he and his fellows were dismissed with a reprimand and an earnest remonstrance from Spottiswood.

After this warning Wemyss devoted himself entirely to the peaceful paths of scriptural study. In 1623 he published ‘The Christian Synagogue. Wherein is contayned the diverse Reading, the right Poynting, Translation, and Collation of Scripture with Scripture. With the customes of the Hebrewes and Proselytes and of all those Nations with whom they were conversant’ (London, 4to). The work, which was dedicated to, earl of Melrose [q. v.], and contained an address to the Christian reader by William Symson, reached a fourth edition in 1633. It was followed in 1627 by ‘The Portraiture of the Image of God in Man’ (London, 4to; 3rd ed. 1636, 4to, dedicated to Sir [q. v.]), and in 1632 by ‘An Explication of the Judicial Lawes of Moses’ (London, 4to), dedicated to the Earl of Seaforth, by ‘An Explanation of the Ceremonial Lawes of Moses’ (London, 4to), dedicated to Sir  (afterwards first Earl of Ancrum) [q. v.], and by ‘An Exposition of the Morall Law or Ten Commandements of Almightie God, set downe by way of Exercitations’ (London, 4to), dedicated to, first earl of Carlisle [q. v.], which was frequently bound with the preceding work. In reward of his achievements Charles I nominated him to the second prebend of Durham, where he was installed on 7 June 1634. He died in 1636. He was twice married: first, to Margaret Cockburn, by whom he had a son David; and, secondly, to Janet Murray, by whom he had a daughter and a son John, who succeeded him in his estate at Lathockar.

Besides enjoying considerable contemporary fame, the expository works of Wemyss were praised and perhaps read by authors who flourished long after his death. In addition to the works already mentioned he was the author of:
 * 1) ‘Exercitations Divine containing diverse Questions and Solutions for the right understanding of the Scriptures,’ London, 1634, 8vo. Dedicated to Sir  [q. v.]
 * 2) ‘Observations Naturall and Morall, with a short Treatise of the Numbers, Weights, and Measures, used by the Hebrewes,’ London, 1636, 8vo. Copies of Wemyss's treatises were bound in three or four volumes and issued with fresh title-pages bearing the date 1636 or 1637 as ‘The Workes of Mr. Iohn Weemse of Lathocker.’

Wemyss must be distinguished from four contemporaries: John Wemyss, the commissary of St. Andrews University, a strong supporter of the crown; John Wemyss (d. 1659), minister of Cuikstone, afterwards Kinnaird in Brechin, who was equally zealous in opposing the ecclesiastical innovations of James VI and Charles I; John Wemyss (d. 1632?), minister of Nigg in Aberdeenshire, and John Wemyss (d. 1640), minister of Rothes, who was reputed a brother of John, first earl of Wemyss.

WENDOVER, RICHARD, (d. 1253), physician. [See .]

WENDOVER, ROGER (d. 1236), chronicler and monk of St. Albans, was probably a native of Wendover, Buckinghamshire, for in one of the manuscripts of his chronicle he is styled ‘Rogerus Wendovre de Wendovre’ (Wats, preface to ). He was perhaps near of kin to [q. v.], physician to Gregory IX, who seems to have been connected with St. Albans, for at his death in 1252 he left the abbey a crucifix given him by the pope (Chronica Majora, v. 299). Other ecclesiastics bore the name of Wendover about that time, and among them Richard de Wendover, bishop of Rochester, who died in 1250. Roger received priest's orders, and is said to have been precentor of St. Albans. He was prior of Belvoir, Leicestershire, a cell of St. Albans, when William de Trumpington, abbot of St. Albans from 1214 to 1235, came to Belvoir in the course of a visitation of the cells of his house, made probably in or about 1220, and


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/257

 received a complaint against the prior that he had wasted the goods of his church. Wendover was rebuked, and promised amendment; but the prior, though appearing satisfied, was determined to remove him, and some time later did so, and Wendover must then have returned to St. Albans (Gesta Abbatum, i. 270–1, 274; the date of this visitation is conjectural; it was after the death of John and the close of the war for the charter, and took place in a time of civil war, which would suit 1220–1, and it must have been fairly early in Trumpington's abbacy, for the abbot is described as being then 'floridus ætate;' in his Historia Anglorum, vol. i. pref. xiv, places it in 1219; but, laying too much stress on the order in which events are noted in the Gesta Abbatum, puts Wendover's removal as late as 'about 1231,' Cat. of Materials, iii. 79). It has been supposed that about 1231 he succeeded as historiographer of St. Albans (, u.s. pref. xxxvi, followed by Hewlett) a monk named Walter, who, according to Pits (De Angliæ Scriptoribus, p. 845), wrote a chronicle of England after 1180, but Walter's chronicle and position in the abbey cannot be accepted on such testimony, and all that can safely be asserted is that Wendover, after returning to St. Albans, devoted himself to historical work, and that he doubtless became the head of the scriptorium and historiographer of the convent. He died on 6 May 1236 (Chronica Majora, vol. vi. Addit. p. 274).

His work as a writer of history is commemorated by Walsingham, who says that the chroniclers of England owe nearly everything to him, and that his work extended to the reign of Henry II (, ii. 303); 'secundi' in this passage has been explained as merely a slip for 'tertii' (, Flores Hist. vol. i. pref. viii), but it seems probable that Walsingham was misled by the division of the 'Chronica Majora' into two volumes [see under ], the second beginning at 1189 with a rubrical note referring to Paris (Chronica Majora, ii. 336 nn.). Wendover's book is entitled 'Flores Historiarum,' and the first part of it answers to the name, the contents being largely culled from other historians. It begins, after a prologue chiefly taken from Robert de Monte [q. v.], with the creation, and ends somewhat abruptly at 1135 with the genealogy of the Empress Isabella, sister of the Emperor Henry III, after which in both manuscripts of his book is inserted 'Huc usque scripsit dominus Rogerus de Wendovre' (ib. iii. 327 n.), followed by a rhyming hexameter couplet. It is extant in two manuscripts, Douce MS. 207 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, of the thirteenth century, and Cottonian MS. Otho, B. v, independent, of the fourteenth century, described in 1696 as beginning with the birth of Christ, but, though beginning there, it has as heading, 'Incipit liber secundus,' &c., with a second prologue (printed by ), as though an earlier part had been removed; it was much damaged by the fire at Ashburnham House in 1731, and has been wonderfully restored by Sir F. Madden. The 'Flores' has been printed from 4471447 [sic] onwards in four volumes by the English Historical Society, 1841–2, under the editorship of Henry Octavius Coxe [q. v.], and from 1154 onwards in three volumes in the Rolls Series, 1886–9, under the editorship of H. S. Hewlett.

In the 'Flores' Wendover appears as an editor, a copyist, a compiler, and an original chronicler. He seems to have found an historical compilation written in the abbey extending from the creation to 1188, represented and revised by Paris, in C.C.C. MS. Cambr. 26, and to have written a revision of it to the year 231, from which date he copies from it down to 1012, making one long insertion under 621 from William of Tyre; he then omits and inserts passages until 1065, when he again copies (, Chron. Majora, vol. i. pref. xiii). The C.C.C. MS. 26 ends with 1188, and at that point the Douce manuscript of the 'Flores' has a marginal note, 'Huc usque in lib. cronic. Johannis abbatis,' but the Cottonian manuscript of the 'Flores' goes on without a break. Luard accordingly points out the probability that the early St. Albans compilation ended at that date, and that Wendover took up the work of compilation at 1189 (ib. ii. 336). Sir T. D. Hardy (u. s.), writing at an earlier date, somewhat arbitrarily fixed 1154 as the point at which 'Wendover may be said to assume the character of an original writer,' though it is obvious that from 1154 to 1202 the 'Flores' is a compilation. Mr. Hewlett in his edition of the 'Flores' has simply copied and approved Hardy's remark, and, in spite of Luard's acute and scholarly criticism, has acted upon it by beginning his edition at 1154. From 1188 to 1202 Wendover's work is similar in character to the earlier St. Albans compilation, but from 1202, that is after the end of the chronicle of Roger of Hoveden [q. v.], he may be considered as a first-hand authority (ib. vol. ii. pref. xix), for thenceforward he does not appear to use the work of any earlier historian for English affairs, except in a few places the chronicle of Ralph of Coggeshall [q. v.], though for affairs in the Holy Land he copies under 1217–18 from Oliverius Scholasticus


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/258

 (ib. vol. iii. pref. viii). His work was revised, augmented, and carried on without a break by Paris in his ‘Chronica Majora.’

Wendover, while an outspoken and honest writer, is more moderate in his language than Paris, and therefore probably more trustworthy where personal character is concerned; but his chronicle, partly because it reveals less strong feeling, lacks the vigour and brightness that distinguish the work of Paris. A fairly complete picture of the younger historian can be gained from his writings, but the ‘Flores’ do not enable us to become acquainted with Wendover. Nor does Wendover systematically expound the causes of events; and for this reason may perhaps accurately be described as a chronicler, while Paris deserves to be called an historian. As a chronicler, however, he stands high; he was industrious in collecting information, and, though he sometimes makes mistakes—as in asserting that the second coronation of Henry in 1220 took place at Canterbury, in placing the consecration of Walter Mauclerk [q. v.] to Carlisle under 1223 instead of 1224, in describing the grant of 1224 as two marcs on the carucate instead of two shillings, and in calling the count of Brittany in 1229 Henry instead of Peter—is generally accurate, and shows some narrative power, though in this respect too he is eclipsed by Paris. He seems to have been specially interested in ecclesiastical matters, and relates many miracles and other wonders. He does not seem to have had a wide acquaintance with Latin classical authors, for in the part of his work which is original he scarcely ever quotes from them. His Latin, which exhibits some marked though unimportant characteristics, is clear and correct, though sometimes rather bald.

[Luard's prefs. to Chron. Maj. vols. i. ii. iii., Hardy's Cat. of Materials, iii. 36, 79–83, Madden's pref. to Hist. Angl. vol. i., Hewlett's pref. to Wendover's Flores, vol. i. (all Rolls Ser.); Stevenson's pref. to Wendover, vol. i. (Engl. Hist. Soc.).]  WENDY, THOMAS (1500?–1560), court physician, born between May 1499 and May 1500, was the second son of Thomas Wendy of Clare, Suffolk (Addit. MS. 19154, f. 342). He was educated at Cambridge, graduating B.A. in 1518–19 and on Lady day following was elected fellow of Gonville Hall (afterwards Gonville and Caius College). He proceeded M.A. in 1522, and then went abroad to study medicine; he graduated M.D. at Ferrara, and was incorporated in this degree at Cambridge in 1527 (, Biogr. Hist. of Gonville and Caius Coll. p. 24). He was subsequently appointed physician to Henry VIII, who on 12 June 1541 granted to him and his wife the manor of Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire (Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, xvi. 947). Wendy plays some part in Foxe's story of Gardiner's alleged intrigue against Catherine Parr for heresy (, Essays, 1849, pp. 319–21). He attended Henry VIII on his deathbed, was one of the witnesses to his will, and was bequeathed 100l. by the king. He was continued as royal physician with a salary of 100l. by Edward VI, who made him further grants of land (Acts P. C. ii. 432; Lit. Remains of Edward VI, p. cxcvii). On 12 Nov. 1548 he was appointed one of the ecclesiastical visitors of Oxford, Cambridge, and Eton, and on 6 May 1552 was again commissioned to visit Eton (cf., iii. 120). He was admitted fellow of the College of Physicians on 22 Dec. 1551, and became an elect in 1552. He attended Edward VI on his deathbed, and was continued as royal physician by Mary, to whom he performed a like service. On 26 March 1554 he was returned to parliament for St. Albans, and for Cambridgeshire on 10 Oct. 1555. He was appointed an ecclesiastical visitor by Elizabeth in 1559, and died at Haslingfield on 11 May 1560 in the sixty-first year of his age; he was buried at Haslingfield on the 27th. He was a friend of Dr. John Caius (1510–1573) [q. v.], who dedicated to him in 1557 the first of his ‘Galeni Pergameni libri;’ he gave many medical and classical books to the library of Gonville and Caius College, founded a fellowship there, and is commemorated in the college by a service held on 11 May.

Wendy left no issue by his wife Margery, and was succeeded by his nephew Thomas, son of his elder brother John. Thomas was sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire in 1573–4, 1585–6, and 1602–3 (Lists of Sheriffs, 1898, p. 14); in 1586–7 he was in trouble with the privy council for refusing the oath ( and, Cambr. Trans. ii. 420–9); he added his lands at Barrington, Cambridgeshire, to his uncle's endowment of Gonville and Caius College. His descendants are given in Le Neve's ‘Pedigrees of Knights’ (Harl. Soc. p. 17).

[Authorities cited; Sloane MSS. 1301 f. 151, 3562 f. 51; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1547–80, p. 11 (indexed as Hendy); Davy's Suffolk Coll. in Addit. MS. 19154; Cooper's Athenæ Cantabr. i. 205; Munk's Coll. of Phys. i. 50; Dixon's Hist. vol. iii. (indexed as Windrie); Lit. Rem. of Edward VI (Roxburghe Club); Hist. MSS. Comm. 13th Rep. App. iv. 414, 441; Baker's St. John's, i. 125, 146, ii. 628; Acts of the Privy Council.]


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/259

 WENGHAM, HENRY (d. 1262), bishop of London. [See .]

WENHAM, JANE (d. 1730), the last woman condemned for witchcraft in England, was a native of Walkern, Hertfordshire. On 9 Feb. 1712 she obtained a warrant on a charge of defamation against a farmer, who had called her a witch; but the quarrel was referred to the rector of Walkern, John Gardiner. He admonished Jane to live more peaceably with her neighbours, and awarded her the sum of one shilling as compensation from the farmer. Shortly after Jane Wenham had left the presence of the parson the servant-maid at the parsonage behaved in a most unaccountable manner, and it was alleged that, in order to show her dissatisfaction at the manner in which she had been treated, Jane had bewitched this young girl in exactly the same manner in which the villagers said she previously bewitched a farm labourer. A warrant was now obtained to arrest her, on a charge of witchcraft, from the local justice, Sir Henry Chauncy [q. v.], who directed four women to search her for witch marks, but these eluded all search. Rather than be sent to gaol, the reputed witch offered to submit herself to the swimming test. As an alternative Robert Strutt, vicar of the neighbouring parish of Ardley, tried her with the Lord's Prayer. Having repeated this incorrectly, she subsequently confessed that she was a witch, and was sent to Hertford gaol for three weeks to await the assizes. She was tried before Sir John Powell (1645–1713) [q. v.] on 4 March, when sixteen witnesses, three of whom were clergymen, appeared against the prisoner. The lawyers refused to draw up the indictment for any other charge than that of conversing with the devil in the form of a cat. Upon this indictment, in despite of the leading of the judge (who, when it was alleged that the prisoner could fly, remarked that there was no law against flying), the jury found her guilty, and she was sentenced to death. Powell succeeded in obtaining her pardon from the queen. The high-flying section of the country clergy endeavoured to get up a demonstration and a protest. A long war of pamphlets ensued, and the clergy who had been engaged in the prosecution drew up a document strongly asserting their belief in the guilt of the accused, animadverting severely upon the conduct of the judge, and concluding with the solemn words ‘Liberavimus animas nostras.’ The controversy was pursued in ‘Witchcraft farther Display'd … with an Answer to the most general Objections against the Being and Power of Witches,’ followed by ‘A Full Confutation of Witchcraft … proving that Witchcraft is Priestcraft,’ ‘The Impossibility of Witchcraft … in which the Depositions against Jane Wenham are confuted,’ ‘A Defence of the Proceedings against Jane Wenham’ [by Francis Bragge of Peterhouse], and a more dispassionate investigation, entitled ‘The Case of the Hertfordshire Witchcraft consider'd.’ All these pamphlets appeared in 1712.

The case of Jane Wenham was the last instance of a witch being condemned to death by an English jury. In 1718 Francis Hutchinson [q. v.] may be said to have given the superstition its deathblow by the publication of his ‘Historical Essay,’ in which the delusions of witch-finders are ably exposed, and in 1736 the statute against witchcraft was repealed. It was, however, in this same county of Hertford, in April 1751, that the poor old woman Ruth Osborne [q. v.] was done to death by a ferocious rabble at Long Marston, near Tring.

Jane Wenham retired to Hertingfordbury, where she was supported by the charity of Colonel Plumer, and after his death by that of Earl and Countess Cowper. She died on 11 June 1730, and ‘her funeral sermon was preached by the Rev. Mr. Squire.’

[A Full and Impartial Account of the Discovery of Sorcery and Witchcraft, practis'd by Jane Wenham … also her Tryal at the Assizes at Hertford before Mr. Justice Powell, where she was found Guilty of Felony and Witchcraft, and receiv'd Sentence of Death for the Same, March 4, 1711–12; ‘Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live,’ London, 1712; Wright's Narratives of Sorcery and Witchcraft, ii. 319–25; Lecky's Hist. of Rationalism in Europe, chap. iii.; Buckle's Posthumous Fragments, i. 66; Hutchinson's Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft, with Observations tending to confute the vulgar errors about that point, 1718, p. 144; Clutterbuck's Hertfordshire, ii. 461 n.; Brit. Museum Cat. s.v. ‘Wenham.’]  WENLOCK, JOHN, (d. 1471), was the son of William Wynell de Wenlock, commonly called William Wenlock, knight of the shire for Bedford county in 1404, by his wife Margaret Breton, an heiress of Houghton Conquest in Bedfordshire. He took part in the invasion of France, and on 16 Aug. 1421 he received a grant of lands in the bailiwick of Gisors in Normandy, and shortly after, in April 1422, is styled constable of Vernon. In 1433 he was returned to parliament for Bedfordshire, and again in 1436, 1447, 1449, and 1455 (Official Return of Members of Parl.) He was escheator for Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire in 1438–9, and he early entered


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Wagner, Moritz

WAGNER, väg'nĕr, Moritz, German naturalist: b. Baireuth, 3 Oct. 1813; d. Munich, 31 May 1887. He studied at Erlangen and Munich and made extensive scientific journey in 1852-55 through North and Central America and the West Indies; in 1857-60 through the Andes from Panama to Ecuador. He was made professor of geography and ethnology at Munich. Among his writings are ‘Travels in the Regency of Algiers’ (1841); ‘The Caucasus and the Land of the Cossacks’ (1847); ‘Journey to Colchis’ (1850); ‘Journey to Ararat and the Armenian Highlands’ (1848); ‘Travels in Persia and in the Land of the Kurds’ (1851); ‘Scientific Travels in Tropical America’ (1870); ‘The Darwinian Theory and the Law of Migration of Organisms’ (1868).


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Innocent/Innocent X


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Wagner, Richard

WAGNER, Richard, German composer, creator of the modern music drama: b. Leipzig, 22 May 1813; d. Venice, 13 Feb. 1883. His father, a clerk in the police court, who had been appointed chief of police by Marshal Davoust during the French occupation of Leipzig, died when Richard was only six months old; and the widow, left with seven children, married, nine months later, Ludwig Geyer, a well-known actor, playwright and portrait painter, as well as a tenor. His appearances at the opera in Dresden, where he lived, gave young Richard opportunity to become familiar with the operas then in vogue, his favorite being Weber's ‘Freischutz,’ which made a deep impression on him and determined the direction of his own genius to such a degree that it has been aptly said that it was Weber who wrote the first “Wagner Operas.” When Geyer died, Richard was eight years old and he had not, up to that time, shown any special talent for music; indeed, he played the piano so badly that his teacher told him he would never amount to anything. His poetic talent began to manifest itself when he was 11. Shakespeare became his model and at 16 he had completed a tragedy, a sort of compound of Hamlet and Lear, in which he killed off so many of the characters (42) that most of them had to be brought back as ghosts to prevent the play from coming to an untimely end. It was his desire to set this to music that first decided him, at 16, to become a musician. He took some lessons and after a few preliminary trials wrote a piece concerning which he himself said afterward that ‘Beethoven's ninth symphony appeared like a simple Pleyel sonata by the side of this marvelously complicated overture.’ These youthful extravagances were prophetic of the man who was to revolutionize the opera by his bold defiance of all conventions. In 1830 he entered the University of Leipzig as a student of philology and aesthetics; but music claimed most of his attention, and he wrote, among other things, a symphony which showed such a remarkable mastery of the methods of classical composition as to indicate that he could have become one of the great masters in the concert field had not the inclination of his genius taken him into the operatic domain. He wrote his first opera at Würzburg, where he had secured an engagement as chorus master; it was entitled ‘The Fairies,’ but was not performed till five years after his death at Munich.

His second opera, ‘Das Liebesverbot’ (based on ‘Measure for Measure’), had a deservedly unsuccessful production at Magdeburg. Then he accepted an appointment as conductor at Königsberg, where he married a pretty actress, Minna Planer; and in the following year he moved again, to the Russian town of Riga, where he wrote the libretto and the music of the first two acts of ‘Rienzi.’ This opera was planned on such a big scale that he knew he never could have it properly produced at a provincial theatre, wherefore he boldly resolved to go to the headquarters of spectacular opera — Paris — and try there to rival the popular idol, Meyerbeer, in his own field. With his wife and a huge Newfoundland dog he embarked at Pillau for London: the voyage lasted nearly four weeks; three times the ship was tossed by violent storms and it was during these that Wagner got the realistic “local color” for his ‘Flying Dutchman,’ the story of which was engaging his attention at the time. Paris did not prove hospitable to the German musician. He tried in vain to have one of his operas produced; no one cared for the French songs he wrote and which he was finally glad to sell in Germany at $4 apiece; he could not even get a place as chorus singer in a Boulevard theatre. Luckily he found a music publisher, Schlesinger, who paid him for proof-reading and arranging popular melodies and operatic scores for piano and cornet and other instruments. Wagner also wrote some interesting musical essays and novelties which were printed and paid for and which contain many autobiographic details. He completed ‘Rienzi’ and also wrote the music of the ‘Flying Dutchman’; but finally after nearly three years of starvation and numberless disappointments, left Paris for Dresden, whence he had received a request for his ‘Rienzi.’

With the return to Germany begins the second period in Wagner's life. ‘Rienzi’ was produced at Dresden 20 Oct 1S42 and proved such a brilliant success that there was a demand for his other opera, ‘The Flying Dutchman,’ which was given 2 Jan. 1843, only about 10 weeks after ‘Rienzi.’ This proved to be less of a success; the performance was poor and the audience was puzzled and displeased when in place of the usual airs and processions it found an opera without arias, duos and dances — an opera so new in form and spirit that few could understand it. Only four performances were given. However, ‘Rienzi’ had made Wagner the hero of the day; he was appointed royal conductor and kept that position aoout six years. His next opera, ‘Tannhäuser’ departed more widely still from the accepted models. It was produced 19 Oct. 1845 and, to Wagner's chagrin, seemed to give pleasure only in so far as it resembled the old-fashioned operas. However, he persevered in his path of reform and wrote ‘Lohengrin.’ It was finished in 1848, but he could not even get it accepted for performance. Nor could be get any attention for his plans for reforming the Dresden Opera. He became more and more dissatisfied with his position, and when, in 1849, the Revolution broke out, he foolishly joined the insurgents. The result was that he had to seek safety in flight; his companions were caught and imprisoned, while he succeeded in reaching Weimar where Liszt took care of him and provided him with the means of escape to Switzerland. In that home

of political refugees he dwelt during most of the years — more than a decade — that he was exiled from Germany. For six years he composed no more operas, devoting his time to writing essays on musical and dramatic subjects by way of explaining his theories. Little attention was paid to these and he might have starved but for the assistance of Liszt and other friends. All this time the plans for his great ‘Nibelung Tetralogy’ were slowly maturing in his mind. In 1852 the poems were finished and printed and 1 Nov. 1853 he began to write the music for ‘Rheingold’; it was finished the following year and ‘Die Walküre’ was completed by March 1856. In the meantime he had unwisely accepted an offer to conduct a series of Philharmonic concerts in London (1855). Queen Victoria and the public were kind to him, but the press treated him shamefully, his music being described as an “inflated display of noise and extravagance,” as void of melody, etc. He got only $1,000 for four months' work. Returning to Switzerland, he finished ‘Die Walküre’ and began the third opera of the Nibelung Tetralogy, ‘Siegfried.’ When he had got to the middle of the second act, he despaired of ever finishing and producing this great cy c lic work, and so abandoned it tor the time being (in June 1857} and began his ‘Tristan und Isolde,’ which, being a separate work, would, he hoped, re-establish his connection with the stage. He completed it in 1859, but seven years elapsed before he succeeded in producing it. In 1860 he gave a series of concerts in Paris; they resulted in a large deficit. In the following year Napoleon ordered a performance of ‘Tannhäuser.’ Wagner was given to understand that he must introduce a ballet in the second act; he refused to do so, and the members of the Jockey Club took their revenge by creating such a disturbance that Wagner declined to allow more than three performances to be given. He thus received only $150 for a year's hard work. Immediately after this disaster he wrote the poem for his only comic or humorous opera, ‘Die Meistersinger,’ of which he had made a sketch as early as 1845.

It was while composing this opera that the most important event of his life happened. He seldom had much money, but wben he had he spent it with artistic lavishness, nor did he hesitate to live beyond his means. The failure, through no fault of his, of a Russian concert project, left him so deeply in debt in Vienna, that, to escape prison, he had to hide in Germany. On 3 May 1864, he was preparing to disappear in the Suabian Alps, there to complete his ‘Meistersinger’ score, when a message arrived from the new king of Bavaria, Ludwig II, who invited him to come to Munich to live there at his expense, to compose operas and produce them. Wagner wept for joy, and promptly proceeded to Munich, where ‘Tristan und Isolde’ was produced on 10 June 1865 and ‘Die Meistersinger’ 21 June 1868. But Wagner's enemies made life so unpleasant for him that he left Munich and took up his abode in a villa on Lake Lucerne, where, after completing his comic opera, he took up ‘Siegfried’ and finished that (1869). The fourth and last opera of the Tetralogy, ‘Götterdammerung,’ was not completed till 1874. His plan of having a special theatre for the Tetralogy built in Munich having failed, notwithstanding the king's friendship, he now chose Baireuth as the best place for such a theatre, in which his novel worlc could be presented in exact accordance with his intentions. To secure the large sum needed, Wagner societies were founded in the cities of Europe and America. In August 1876 three complete perfomances of the Tetralogy were given, before audiences including two emperors, a king and many musical and other celebrities. But the deficit of $37,000 discouraged a repetition of the festival. In 1882, however, after the completion of ‘Parsifal,’ another was held devoted entirely to that work; 20 performances were given in July and August. In the following February, Wagner died at Venice and his remains were taken in a special funeral train to Baireuth. After his death his widow (Cosima, the daughter of Liszt, whom he had married in 1870, four years after the death of his first wife) continued the festivals, which soon became enormously profitable. ‘Parsifal’ remained a Baireuth monopoly until 24 Dec. 1903, when manager Conried produced it at the Metropolitan Opera House, New York, the receipts being over $200,000 for 12 performances.

In personal appearance Wagner was barely of medium stature; his head was large in proportion to his body, his forehead massive, his chin prominent, his lips refined, his eyes keen yet kindly in expression. His life was full of disappointments, which left their traces in the lines of his face. He was 44 years old before any of his operas were heard in Vienna, Munich or Stuttgart, and 56 before any of them were sung outside of Germany. This, of course, was largely due to the fact that he refused to make any concessions to popular taste, except in ‘Rienzi.’ The next three operas — ‘Flying Dutchman,’ ‘Tannhäuser,’ and ‘Lohengrin’ — created an entirely new style, and by the time the public had become accustomed to that, he made another equally great step forward in his ‘Tristan,’ ‘Meistersinger,’ ‘Nibelung Tetralogy’ and ‘Parsifal.’ These were derisively referred to as “music of the future,” by way of burlesquing his idea of the “art work of the future.” This idea was that music, sculpture, poetry, painting and architecture had had their day as separate arts, and that the art work of the future was the music-drama, in which all these arts are united inseparably. His wonderful pictorial imagination is best exemplified in ‘Parsifal.’ Being almost as great a poet as he was a composer, he always wrote his own librettos, whose theatric and literary merits place him among the world's greatest playwrights, although they must not be judged apart from the music any more than the music must be judged apart from the plot, the scenery and the action. He preferred mythical, supernatural subjects to the historic. His operas are not, like those of his predecessors, a mere mosaic of unconnected arias, duos, choruses and orchestral interludes, but, especially in those of the last period, every part is connected with every other part by means of leading motives, or characteristic musical phrases which are associated with a particular person, incident or dramatic emotion, and which recur in the music whenever the person or dramatic idea with which they are assodated recurs in the play. This practically gives the faculty of definite speech to the orchestra, the

beauty and emotional power of which be further enhanced beyond all precedent by an endless variety of new tone colors and expressive harmonies. He also created an entirely new style of dramatic vocalism, which it took the singers years to master, but with which they are now celebrating their greatest triumphs; to-day Wagner's operas are more popular and profitable than any others. Apart from his operas, the list of Wagner's works includes some mediocre pianoforte pieces, several good songs, and, for orchestra, the ‘Siegfried Idyll,’ and three marches, the ‘Huldigungsmarch,’ the ‘Kaisermarch’ and the 'Philadelphia Centennial.' This last, like his other miscellaneous works, is mediocre. His literary works comprise 10 volumes of dramatic poems and essays on musical and philosophical subjects, some of them wordy and wearisome, others extremely keen and suggestive; English version by Ellis, Vho is also translator of Glasenapp's monumental biognraphy in five or six volumes. The letters of Wagner to Liszt and other friends are extremely valuable; full use is made of them in the most elaborate biography in the English language, by Finck (1893). Other biographic and critical books are by Ashton (1902), Julien (1886), Tappert (1883), Muncker (1891), Liszt, Wolzogen (1883), Pohl, Nohl, Porges, Hueffer, Chamberlain (1896), Nietzsche, Schuré, Kufferath, Oesterlein, Dannreuther (in Grove), Henderson (1901), Krehbiel (1891), Finck (1893), Glasenapp (1876-1911), Koch (1907), Wagner, R., ‘Mein Leben’ (1911); thematic guides by Wolzogen, Kobbé, Heintz, Freda Winworth.


text:
Author:John Faithfull Fleet

Works

 * Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum (1888)
 * Articles in The Indian Antiquary (1885–1891)
 * ATAKUR INSCRIPTION OP THE TIME OF KRISHNA III.; DATED SAKA-SAMVAT 872. Epigraphia Indica
 * "The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquests" in Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency
 * (Indian)
 * (Indian)

title: Author:John Faithfull Fleet


text:
Author:Henry Theophilus Finck

Works

 * Lotos-time in Japan (1895)
 * Edvard Greig (1905)

title: Author:Henry Theophilus Finck


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Wagner, Rudolf

WAGNER, Rudolf, German physiologist: b. Baireuth, Bavaria, 30 July 1805; d. Göttingen, Germany, 13 May 1864. He was educated at Erlangen Würzburg and at Paris, was appointed professor of zoology at the University of Erlangen in 1833 and in 1840 was called to that chair at the University of Göttingen, where he remained until his death. He published ‘Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie’ (2 vols., 1834-35); ‘Handwörterbuch der Physiologie’ (4 vols., 1842-43); ‘Vorstudien zu einer wissenschaftlichen Morphologie des menschlichen Gehirns als Seelenorgans’ (2 vols., 1860-62), etc.


text: Author:Frank Albert Fetter

title: Author:Frank Albert Fetter


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Wagner, Siegfried

WAGNER, Siegfried, German musical conductor, son of Richard Wagner (q.v.): b. Lucerne, Switzerland, 6 June 1869. He was intended for an architect, but being bent on adopting the profession of his father, he left the Polytechnic school and studied music under Kniese and Humperdinck. He became a musical conductor in 1893, traveling in this capacity on the Continent and in England and in 1896, and again in 1899, conducted the performances of ‘Der Ring des Nibelungen’ at Baireuth. He is the composer of the operas ‘Der Bärenhäuser’ to his own text (1899) and ‘Herzog Wildfang’ (1901), and various orchestral pieces.


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Wagon

WAGON, a four-wheeled vehicle for the transport of goods or passengers, drawn generally by horses. To enable the vehicle to turn as quickly and in as little space as possible, the fore pair of wheels are often made smaller

than the hind pair, and to increase this advantage still further the axle of the fore-wheels is frequently fixed to the bottom of the vehicle by a swivel joint, in which case the shafts are attached to the fore-axle. The framework of the wagon is usually mounted on springs. See .

title: The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Wagon


text:
Author:Charles Augustus Maude Fennell

Works

 * (in part)

as editor

 * Editor of Pindar's Odes and Fragments
 * Stanford Dictionary of Anglicized Words and Phrases

title: Author:Charles Augustus Maude Fennell


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/260

 the service of Margaret of Anjou, being first usher of the chamber, and about 1450 chamberlain to her. In this capacity he laid the first stone of Queens' College, Cambridge, on 15 April 1448. In 1442 he accompanied Richard, duke of York, during his negotiations in France. This was the commencement of his diplomatic career, in the course of which he was employed in eighteen or more embassies, and was brought into close relations with the Duke of York and the Earl of Warwick. In 1444 he was nominated high sheriff of Buckinghamshire, and is described for the first time as ‘of Sommaries’ in Bedfordshire. In 1447–8 he was made constable of Bamborough, and on 21 Nov. 1448 the family property at Wenlock in Shropshire, which had been alienated, was restored to him. He was knighted before 1449, when he is mentioned as an executor of Lord Fanhope. In the wars of the roses he at first took the Lancastrian side, fighting at the first battle of St. Albans in 1455, at which he was wounded (Paston Letters, i. 331). He must have turned Yorkist at this time, as he was speaker of the House of Commons in the parliament of 1455. In 1458 he was sufficiently Yorkist to be trusted with the mission to the Burgundians, and afterwards to the French as to the marriage of a daughter of the Count of Charolais with one of the sons of the Duke of York. He must have crossed the Channel with Warwick just before Bloreheath, as he was with Salisbury in a little ship when he escaped after the panic of Ludlow to Calais. He was attainted, like other Yorkists, in the parliament of Coventry. He took part in the little expedition to Sandwich in 1460, when Osbert Mundeford [q. v.] was captured, and directly afterwards he went to London with the other Yorkist leaders. His part consisted in besieging the Tower, which surrendered on 19 July 1460. Thus he was not at the battle of Northampton on the 10th. He was with Edward, duke of York, when he entered London in February 1460–1, and on 8 Feb. he was elected a knight of the Garter at a chapter of the order held by Henry VI during his imprisonment. He was present at the battle of Ferrybridge on 28 March, and, being given command of the rear, fought bravely at Towton on the next day. Directly afterwards he was placed in a commission to inquire into the treasons committed by Morton in and about York. He was created Baron Wenlock the same year, and on 1 May was made chief butler of England. He was in the north again in December 1462, and besieged Dunstanborough Castle in company with Lord Hastings. It was at this time, presumably, that he was made governor of Bamborough Castle.

Edward rewarded him with valuable grants as well as with his peerage. He also sent him on missions abroad; in 1463 he went with the bishop of Exeter and others to the conference with France and Burgundy at St. Omer and Hesdin, and he had a similar mission in the spring of 1469. About this time he was seemingly Warwick's deputy in the command of Calais, probably holding the office of lieutenant of the castle. When in 1470 Warwick appeared off the town, Wenlock would not admit him, and advised him to go away to a French port; the garrison were all on Edward's side, and Wenlock thought, as Commines shows, that it was best to wait. Commines tells us that Edward was very pleased and gave him the command of the fortress, and, if we may believe the same historian, the Duke of Burgundy allowed him a pension of a thousand écus. Commines says also that he was sent to take an oath of fidelity to Edward from the garrison and from Wenlock. It will readily be believed, however, that he found little difficulty in coming over to the Lancastrian side, and when Commines in 1471 went to Calais, he found him with Warwick's badge in his hat. This strange series of changes first, says Commines in a celebrated passage, reminded him of the instability of things human.

In 1471 Wenlock landed at Weymouth with Margaret, and was killed on 4 May at the battle of Tewkesbury—according to one story, by Somerset, as a traitor; according to another while fighting in the middle line. He was probably buried at Tewkesbury, though the monument in the Abbey formerly thought to commemorate him has proved to be the tomb of another. He was twice married, but left no issue. His first wife Elizabeth was daughter and coheiress of Sir John Drayton of Kempston in Bedfordshire. She died about the beginning of 1461, and he erected to her memory Wenlock chapel in Luton church in the same year. He probably married his second wife, Agnes, daughter of Sir John Danvers of Cothorpe in Oxfordshire, about 1467. He was her third husband, and after his death she married Sir John Say [q. v.], speaker of the House of Commons.

[Notes from a manuscript life of Wenlock by the late Rev. Henry Cobbe, kindly supplied by his daughter, Miss Cobbe; Ramsay's Lancaster and York, ii. 185, &c.; Burke's Extinct Peerage; G. E. C[okayne]'s Complete Peerage; Cal.


text: A Thousand-Mile Walk To The Gulf/Chapter 1


text:
Page:United States Reports, Volume 545.djvu/990

 Opinion of the Court would readily have been understood in the Napster market as the ability to download copyrighted music files. Grokster distributed an electronic newsletter containing links to articles promoting its software’s ability to access popular copyrighted music. And anyone whose Napster or free file-sharing searches turned up a link to Grokster would have understood Grokster to be offering the same file-sharing ability as Napster, and to the same people who probably used Napster for infringing downloads; that would also have been the understanding of anyone offered Grokster’s suggestively named Swaptor software, its version of OpenNap. And both companies communicated a clear message by responding affirmatively to requests for help in locating and playing copyrighted materials.

In StreamCast’s case, of course, the evidence just described was supplemented by other unequivocal indications of unlawful purpose in the internal communications and advertising designs aimed at Napster users (“When the lights went off at Napster … where did the users go?” App. 836 (ellipsis in original)). Whether the messages were communicated is not to the point on this record. The function of the message in the theory of inducement is to prove by a defendant’s own statements that his unlawful purpose disqualifies him from claiming protection (and incidentally to point to actual violators likely to be found among those who hear or read the message). See supra, at 935—937. Proving that a message was sent out, then, is the preeminent but not exclusive way of showing that active steps were taken with the purpose of bringing about infringing acts, and of showing that infringing acts took place by using the device distributed. Here, the summary judgment record is replete with other evidence that Grokster and StreamCast, unlike the manufacturer and distributor in Sony, acted with a purpose to cause copyright violations by use of software suitable for illegal use. See supra, at 924—927.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/264

 stately oak which still grows hard by the mansion at Toddington (for a view of the Monmouth Oak in 1890, see Wentworth Family, p. 130). The barony passed to Henrietta's aunt, Anne, lady Lovelace (the poet's Lucasta), only surviving daughter of the Earl of Cleveland, and on her death, 7 May 1697, it was transmitted to her granddaughter Martha, only surviving child of John Lovelace, third lord Lovelace of Hurley.

A fine portrait by Kneller was engraved by R. Williams, and is reproduced in Rutton's ‘Wentworth Family’ (p. 102; cf. Notes and Queries, 9th ser. ii. 12). A very dissimilar portrait was engraved by W. Richardson after an original dated 1675, and ascribed to Lely.

[Rutton's Family of Wentworth, London, 1891, pp. 102 sq.; Wentworth's Wentworth Genealogy, Boston, 1878, i. 43; Miscellanea Genealog. et Herald. 1884, new ser. iv. 341; Burnet's Own Time, i. 630, 645; Evelyn's Diary, 15 July 1685; Sidney's Diary, ed. Blencowe; Fox's Life of James II, 1808, p. 266; Roberts's Life of Monmouth, i. 177, ii. 339; Welwood's Memoirs, 1702, p. 377; Cartwright's Sacharissa, pp. 233, 273; Macaulay's Hist. of England 1858, i. 535, 625; Granger's Biogr. Hist. of England, iii. 347; Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. App. pp. 264 seq.]  WENTWORTH, JOHN (1737–1820), successively governor of New Hampshire and Nova Scotia, baptised on 14 Aug. 1737, was the son of Mark Hunking Wentworth (1709–1785), a wealthy merchant of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of John Rindge of Portsmouth.

The New Hampshire family of Wentworth was derived from William Wentworth (1616–1697), baptised at Alford, Lincolnshire, on 15 March 1615–16. He was the eldest son of William Wentworth of Rigsby in the same county, by his wife Susannah, daughter of Edward Carter and widow of Uther Fleming. He held strong puritan views, and was a firm friend of John Wheelwright, the vicar of Bilsby, a neighbouring village, who was a man of like beliefs. To avoid persecution, they emigrated to Boston together in 1636. But even there they failed to find toleration, for Wheelwright embraced the opinions of his sister-in-law, Anne Hutchinson [q. v.], and was banished from the town in November 1637. In the following year Wentworth joined him in founding the settlement of Exeter in New Hampshire on lands purchased from the Indians. In 1641, however, Exeter was included in the Massachusetts territory, and Wheelwright was obliged to remove to Wells in Maine, whither his faithful friend Wentworth accompanied him. In 1649 Wentworth again removed to Dover, a place then in Massachusetts, but afterwards transferred to New Hampshire, which he made his permanent abode. He became ruling elder in the church there. In 1689, when an old man, he saved Heard's garrison from a massacre planned by the natives. Discovering that Indians were being admitted by treachery during the darkness of night, he drove them back single-handed, and held the door of the fort till assistance came. He died at Dover on 16 March 1696–7, leaving a numerous family.

His descendant, John Wentworth, graduated B.A. at Harvard College in 1755, proceeding M.A. in 1758, and became early associated in his father's business at Portsmouth. Before 1765 he was sent to England to look after the interests of the firm, and on the passage of the Stamp Act in that year he and the agent for the province, Barlow Trecothick, were instructed to use their influence for its repeal. On 11 Aug. 1766 he was nominated governor of New Hampshire, in place of his uncle, Benning Wentworth (1696–1770), and also ‘surveyor of the king's woods’ for all North America. Before embarking to take up his governorship he received the honorary degree of D.C.L. from Oxford University on 12 Aug. 1766. He landed at Charlestown in South Carolina in March 1767, and travelled through the continent, registering his commission as surveyor in each of the colonies, and reaching Portsmouth in June.

In face of the widespread disaffection Wentworth found his office of governor very arduous; the discontent of the colonists grew more acute, and his difficulties increased. Although he considered the taxes imposed by the home government impolitic and oppressive, and did all in his power to obtain their repeal, he wished to preserve the colony in loyalty to the crown. He wrote urgent remonstrances to the home government, and endeavoured to maintain internal tranquillity. His popularity was great in the early stages of the revolution, and after the imposition of the duties on paper, glass, painters' colours, red and white lead, and tea by Townshend in 1767, he had sufficient influence to prevent the adoption of a non-importation agreement in Portsmouth until 1770, when the merchants of the other colonies threatened to cease trade unless an association were formed. Wentworth even found time for improving the internal administration, dividing the province into counties in 1771, and abolishing the paper currency, a relic of the French war. When the final


text:
The Fiddler (Melville)

my poem is damned, and immortal fame is not for me! I am nobody forever and ever. Intolerable fate!

Snatching my hat, I dashed down the criticism and rushed out into Broadway, where enthusiastic throngs were crowding to a circus in a side-street near by, very recently started, and famous for a capital clown.

Presently my old friend Standard rather boisterously accosted me.

"Well met, Helmstone, my boy! Ah! what's the matter? Haven't been committing murder? Ain't flying justice? You look wild!"

"You have seen it, then!" said I, of course referring to the criticism.

"Oh, yes; I was there at the morning performance. Great clown, I assure you. But here comes Hautboy. Hautboy—Helmstone."

Without having time or inclination to resent so mortifying a mistake, I was instantly soothed as I gazed on the face of the new acquaintance so unceremoniously introduced. His person was short and full, with a juvenile, animated cast to it. His complexion rurally ruddy; his eye sincere, cheery, and gray. His hair alone betrayed that he was not an overgrown boy. From his hair I set him down as forty or more.

"Come, Standard," he gleefully cried to my friend, "are you not going to the circus? The clown is inimitable, they say. Come, Mr. Helmstone, too—come both; and circus over, we'll take a nice stew and punch at Taylor's."

The sterling content, good-humor, and extraordinary ruddy, sincere expression of this most singular new acquaintance acted upon me like magic. It seemed mere loyalty to human nature to accept an invitation from so unmistakably kind and honest a heart.

During the circus performance I kept my eye more on Hautboy than on the celebrated clown. Hautboy was the sight for me. Such genuine enjoyment as his struck me to the soul with a sense of the reality of the thing called happiness. The jokes of the clown he seemed to roll under his tongue as ripe magnum-bonums. Now the foot, now the hand, was employed to attest his grateful applause. At any hit more than ordinary, he turned upon Standard and me to see if his rare pleasure was shared. In a man of forty I saw a boy of twelve; and this too without the slightest abatement of my respect. Because all was so honest and natural, every expression and attitude so graceful with genuine good-nature, that the marvelous juvenility of Hautboy assumed a sort of divine and immortal air, like that of some forever youthful god of Greece.

But much as I gazed upon Hautboy, and much as I admired his air, yet that desperate mood in which I had first rushed from the house had not so entirely departed as not to molest me with momentary returns. But from these relapses I would rouse myself, and swiftly glance round the broad amphitheatre of eagerly interested and all-applauding human faces. Hark! claps, thumps, deafening huzzas; the vast assembly seemed frantic with acclamation; and what, mused I, has caused all this? Why, the clown only comically grinned with one of his extra grins.

Then I repeated in my mind that sublime passage in my poem, in which Cleothemes the Argive vindicates the justice of the war. Ay, ay, thought I to myself, did I now leap into the ring there, and repeat that identical passage, nay, enact the whole tragic poem before them, would they applaud the poet as they applaud the clown? No! They would hoot me, and call me doting or mad. Then what does this prove? Your infatuation or their insensibility? Perhaps both; but indubitably the first. But why wail? Do you seek admiration from the admirers of a buffoon? Call to mind the saying of the Athenian, who, when the people vociferously applauded in the forum, asked his friend in a whisper, what foolish thing had he said?

Again my eye swept the circus, and fell on the ruddy radiance of the countenance of Hautboy. But its clear honest cheeriness disdained my disdain. My intolerant pride was rebuked. And yet Hautboy dreamed not what magic reproof to a soul like mine sat on his laughing brow. At the very instant I felt the dart of the censure, his eye twinkled, his hand waved, his voice was lifted in jubilant delight at another joke of the inexhaustible clown.

Circus over, we went to Taylor's. Among crowds of others, we sat down to our stews and punches at one of the small marble tables. Hautboy sat opposite to me. Though greatly subdued from its former hilarity, his face still shone with gladness. But added to this was a quality not so prominent before; a certain serene expression of leisurely, deep good sense. Good sense and good humor in him joined hands. As the conversation proceeded between the brisk Standard and him—for I said little or nothing—I was more and more struck with the excellent judgment he evinced. In most of his remarks upon a variety of topics Hautboy seemed intuitively to hit the exact line between enthusiasm and apathy. It was plain that while Hautboy saw the world pretty much as it was, yet he did not theoretically espouse its bright side nor its dark side. Rejecting all solutions, he but acknowledged facts. What was sad in the world he did not superficially gainsay; what was glad in it he did not cynically slur; and all which was to him personally enjoyable, he gratefully took to his heart. It was plain, then—so it seemed at that moment, at least—that his extraordinary cheerfulness did notarise either from deficiency of feeling or thought.

Suddenly remembering an engagement, he took up his hat, bowed pleasantly, and left us.

"Well, Helmstone," said Standard, inaudibly drumming on the slab, "what do you think of your new acquaintance?"

The last two words tingled with a peculiar and novel significance.

"New acquaintance indeed," echoed I.

"Standard, I owe you a thousand thanks for introducing me to one of the most singular men I have ever seen. It needed the optical sight of such a man to believe in the possibility of his existence."

"You rather like him, then," said Standard, with ironical dryness.

"I hugely love and admire him, Standard. I wish I were Hautboy."

"Ah? That's a pity now. There's only one Hautboy in the world."

This last remark set me to pondering again, and somehow it revived my dark mood.

"His wonderful cheerfulness, I suppose," said I, sneering with spleen, "originates not less in a felicitous fortune than in a felicitous temper. His great good sense is apparent; but great good sense may exist without sublime endowments. Nay, I take it, in certain cases, that good sense is simply owing to the absence of those. Much more, cheerfulness. Unpossessed of genius, Hautboy is eternally blessed."

"Ah? You would not think him an extraordinary genius then?"

"Genius? What! Such a short, fat fellow a genius! Genius, like Cassius, is lank."

"Ah? But could you not fancy that Hautboy might formerly have had genius, but luckily getting rid of it, at last fatted up?"

"For a genius to get rid of his genius is as impossible as for a man in the galloping consumption to get rid of that."

"Ah? You speak very decidedly."

"Yes, Standard," cried I, increasing in spleen, "your cheery Hautboy, after all, is no pattern, no lesson for you and me. With average abilities; opinions clear, because circumscribed; passions docile, because they are feeble; a temper hilarious, because he was born to it—how can your Hautboy be made a reasonable example to a heady fellow like you, or an ambitious dreamer like me? Nothing tempts him beyond common limit; in himself he has nothing to restrain. By constitution he is exempted from all moral harm. Could ambition but prick him; had he but once heard applause, or endured contempt, a very different man would your Hautboy be. Acquiescent and calm from the cradle to the grave, he obviously slides through the crowd."

"Ah?"

"Why do you say ah to me so strangely whenever I speak?"

"Did you ever hear of Master Betty?"

"The great English prodigy, who long ago ousted the Siddons and the Kembles from Drury Lane, and made the whole town run mad with acclamation?"

"The same," said Standard, once more inaudibly drumming on the slab.

I looked at him perplexed. He seemed to be holding the master-key of our theme in mysterious reserve; seemed to be throwing out his Master Betty too, to puzzle me only the more.

"What under heaven can Master Betty, the great genius and prodigy, an English boy twelve years old, have to do with the poor commonplace plodder Hautboy, an American of forty?"

"Oh, nothing in the least. I don't imagine that they ever saw each other. Besides, Master Betty must be dead and buried long ere this."

"Then why cross the ocean, and rifle the grave to drag his remains into this living discussion?"

"Absent-mindedness, I suppose. I humbly beg pardon. Proceed with your observations on Hautboy. You think he never had genius, quite too contented and happy, and fat for that ah? You think him no pattern for men in general? affording no lesson of value to neglected merit, genius ignored, or impotent presumption rebuked? all of which three amount to much the same thing. You admire his cheerfulness, while scorning his commonplace soul. Poor Hautboy, how sad that your very cheerfulness should, by a by-blow, bring you despite!"

"I don't say I scorn him; you are unjust. I simply declare that he is no pattern for me."

A sudden noise at my side attracted my ear. Turning, I saw Hautboy again, who very blithely reseated himself on the chair he had left.

"I was behind time with my engagement," said Hautboy, "so thought I would run back and rejoin you. But come, you have sat long enough here. Let us go to my rooms. It is only five minutes' walk."

"If you will promise to fiddle for us, we will," said Standard.

Fiddle! thought I—he's a jigembob fiddler then? No wonder genius declines to measure its pace to a fiddler's bow. My spleen was very strong on me now.

"I will gladly fiddle you your fill," replied Hautboy to Standard. "Come on."

In a few minutes we found ourselves in the fifth story of a sort of storehouse, in a lateral street to Broadway. It was curiously furnished with all sorts of odd furniture which seemed to have been obtained, piece by piece, at auctions of old-fashioned household stuff. But all was charmingly clean and cosy.

Pressed by Standard, Hautboy forthwith got out his dented old fiddle, and sitting down on a tall rickety stool, played away right merrily at Yankee Doodle and other off-handed, dashing, and disdainfully care-free airs. But common as were the tunes, I was transfixed by something miraculously superior in the style. Sitting there on the old stool, his rusty hat sideways cocked on his head, one foot dangling adrift, he plied the bow of an enchanter. All my moody discontent, every vestige of peevishness fled. My whole splenetic soul capitulated to the magical fiddle.

"Something of an Orpheus, ah?" said Standard, archly nudging me beneath the left rib.

"And I, the charmed Bruin," murmured I.

The fiddle ceased. Once more, with redoubled curiosity, I gazed upon the easy, indifferent Hautboy. But he entirely baffled inquisition.

When, leaving him, Standard and I were in the street once more, I earnestly conjured him to tell me who, in sober truth, this marvelous Hautboy was.

"Why, haven't you seen him? And didn't you yourself lay his whole anatomy open on the marble slab at Taylor's? What more can you possibly learn? Doubtless your own masterly insight has already put you in possession of all."

"You mock me, Standard. There is some mystery here. Tell me, I entreat you, who is Hautboy?"

"An extraordinary genius, Helmstone," said Standard, with sudden ardor, "who in boyhood drained the whole flagon of glory; whose going from city to city was a going from triumph to triumph. One who has been an object of wonder to the wisest, been caressed by the loveliest, received the open homage of thousands on thousands of the rabble. But today he walks Broadway and no man knows him. With you and me, the elbow of the hurrying clerk, and the pole of the remorseless omnibus, shove him. He who has a hundred times been crowned with laurels, now wears, as you see, a bunged beaver. Once fortune poured showers of gold into his lap, as showers of laurel leaves upon his brow. To-day, from house to house he hies, teaching fiddling for a living. Crammed once with fame, he is now hilarious without it. With genius and without fame, he is happier than a king. More a prodigy now than ever."

"His true name?"

"Let me whisper it in your ear."

"What! Oh Standard, myself, as a child, have shouted myself hoarse applauding that very name in the theatre."

"I have heard your poem was not very handsomely received," said Standard, now suddenly shifting the subject.

"Not a word of that, for heaven's sake!" cried I. "If Cicero, traveling in the East, found sympathetic solace for his grief in beholding the arid overthrow of a once gorgeous city, shall not my petty affair be as nothing, when I behold in Hautboy the vine and the rose climbing the shattered shafts of his tumbled temple of Fame?"

Next day I tore all my manuscripts, bought me a fiddle, and went to take regular lessons of Hautboy.

title: The Fiddler (Melville)


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/266

  passim; Belknap's Hist. of New Hampshire, ed. Farmer, 1831; McClintock's Hist. of New Hampshire, 1889; Hurd's Hist. of Rockingham and Strafford Counties, New Hampshire, 1882, p. 77; Dwight's Travels in New England, 1822, iv. 162; Palfrey's Compendious Hist. of New England, 1884, iv. 427–9; Murdoch's Hist. of Nova Scotia, 1867, iii. 100–283; Hist. MSS. Comm. 14th Rep. App. x. index.]  WENTWORTH, PAUL (1533–1593), parliamentary leader, born in 1533, was the third son of Sir Nicholas Wentworth, and younger brother of Peter Wentworth [q. v.] He acquired Burnham Abbey, Buckinghamshire, by his marriage with Helen, daughter of Richard Agmondesham of Heston, Middlesex, and widow of William Tyldesley, to whom the abbey, formerly a convent of Benedictine nuns, had been granted at the dissolution. He also held property in Huntingdonshire and near Buckingham.

During the inquiry of 1564 by the bishops as to the affection or disaffection of the country gentry, Wentworth was certified as one of ‘those earnest in religion and fit to be trusted.’ He was returned for Buckingham to the parliament which met on 11 Jan. 1562–3, and in 1566 ‘those two great businesses of her majesty's marriage and declaring a successor coming into agitation,’ Paul Wentworth and others ‘used so great liberty of speech as (I conceive) was never used in any … session … before or since’. The queen on 5 Nov. had received a petition from parliament desiring her to marry and name a successor. She returned an evasive reply. On 8 Nov. the House of Commons revived the matter, and on the 9th the vice-chamberlain, Sir Francis Knollys [q. v.], declared the queen's command to proceed no further in their suit. At the next sitting of the house, on Monday, 11 Nov. 1566, Wentworth, by way of motion, desired to know whether the queen's command were not against the liberties and privileges of the house, and thereupon arose diverse arguments which continued from nine of the clock in the morning till two of the clock in the afternoon, when the debate was adjourned (ib.; cf. ). This is probably the first instance of an adjourned debate. Camden, in his ‘Annals,’ charges Paul Wentworth with ‘rending the queen's authority too much, and insisting that a sovereign is bound to name a successor.’

On the next day, 12 Nov., there was a second message from the queen forbidding a renewal of the discussion in the house, but suggesting that any member who was dissatisfied and had further reasons to give should go before the privy council and show them there. On 25 Nov. the speaker declared the queen's pleasure to be to revoke her two former orders. The commons then agreed to stir no more in the matter that session. The compromise was, on the whole, a victory for Wentworth and the house.

From 1572 to 1583 Wentworth was member for Liskeard. On 21 Jan., the first business day of the session of 1581, he made a motion for a public fast and for daily preaching, ‘the preaching to be every morning at seven o'clock before the house did sit, that so they beginning their proceedings with the service and worship of God, He might the better bless them in all their consultations and actions.’ Sir Francis Knollys [q. v.], treasurer of the household, opposed the motion, but on a division it was carried by 115 to 100. On Monday the 23rd the speaker was sent for by the queen early in the morning, and could not reach the house till 11 A.M. He then directed that the whole house should be in attendance next day, Tuesday, at 8 A.M. On the latter occasion he declared himself sorry for the accident that had happened on Saturday in resolving to have a public fast, showing that the queen greatly misliked the proceeding. The vice-chamberlain delivered a message from the queen reproving the ‘undutiful proceeding of the house, but construing the said offence to proceed of zeal, and imputing the cause thereof partly to her own leniency towards a brother [i.e. Peter Wentworth] of that man [i.e. Paul Wentworth] which now made this motion, who in the last session was by this house for just cause reprehended and committed, but by her majesty graciously pardoned and restored again.’ After a speech from the comptroller of the household, the house submitted.

In 1589 Wentworth, in a letter to the queen praying for a further and longer lease of Burnham Abbey, states that the queen had shown her confidence in him by committing to his charge at his house at Burnham ‘the late Duke of Norfolk.’ The note of the queen's reply at the bottom of the letter says, ‘Her majesty most princely calling to mind the long and dutiful service of this suppliant, her highness's servant, his loyal care, trouble and charge, at the committing of the late Duke of Norfolk to his house, most graciously did consent’ (Cal. Hatfield MSS. iii. 457). In 1590 he was granted a thirty-one years' lease of Burnham.

Wentworth died in 1593 and was buried in Burnham church. His will, dated in the 35th Elizabeth (1592–3), is a good example of the puritan style at its best. He


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/267

 left to his wife all his crown leases in the property ‘of the late dissolved monastery’ of Burnham, and the rectories of Dornye (or Dorney) and Burnham, and many other things. The manor of Clewer and Clewer's Court, and his Berkshire property, he left to his son Peter. He left large sums of money to his daughters, making them come of age at twenty-five. The inquisition after death is dated 36th Elizabeth (1593–4).

Either Wentworth or his nephew Paul [see under ] was the author of the famous devotional work, Wentworth's ‘The Miscellanie, or a Regestrie and Methodicall Directorie of Orizons,’ published in 1615 (London, 4to, 2 parts) and dedicated to King James. There are copies in the British Museum and the Bodleian Library. A third copy belonged to Mr. John Wentworth, mayor of Chicago, and was burnt in the Chicago fire of 1871.

[Cal. State Papers, Dom. passim; Cal. Hatfield MSS.; Acts of the Privy Council, ed. Dasent; D'Ewes's Journals; Rutton's Three Branches of the Wentworth Family; John Wentworth's Wentworth Genealogy, English and American, first privately printed in two volumes, and then published in three volumes, Boston, 1878, 8vo; some authorities attribute to Paul Wentworth the speech of 20 April 1571 about the chameleon [see ]. ‘Mr. Wentworth’ is often used in the ‘Parliamentary History’ when both Peter and Paul were members.]  WENTWORTH, PETER (1530?–1596), parliamentary leader, born about 1530, was descended from the Wentworths of Nettlestead, Suffolk [see under ]. His father, Sir Nicholas Wentworth (d. 1557), held the office of chief porter of Calais. He is variously styled chief porter, master porter, or knight porter. He was knighted by Henry VIII at the siege of Boulogne, 1544, and died in 1557. He married the sister of Sir Thomas Josselyn, K.B., and lived at Lillingstone Lovell, then a detached bit of Oxfordshire surrounded by Buckinghamshire. Lady Wentworth survived to live with her younger son, [q. v.], at Burnham Abbey, and was buried in Burnham church.

Sir Nicholas's eldest son, Peter Wentworth, succeeded to Lillingstone Lovell, Buckinghamshire, which Sir Nicholas had held only for eleven years (by exchange with the king for lands in Northamptonshire). His first wife was Letitia, daughter of Sir Ralph Lane of Horton, by Maud Parr, first cousin of Queen Katherine Parr. But long before his father's death Peter had married his second wife, Elizabeth, sister of Sir [q. v.], and aunt by marriage to Sir [q. v.] and to [q. v.]

In 1571 Wentworth was returned to parliament for Barnstaple. He continued to sit in the House of Commons for twenty-two years, through six parliaments, representing successively Barnstaple, Tregony, and Northampton. He was certainly over forty when first elected to the house in 1571. On 20 April, on the first reading of a ‘bill for fugitives or such as were fled beyond the sea without licence,’ he attacked Sir Humphrey Gilbert [q. v.] for a speech delivered on 14 April deprecating interference by the house with the prerogative. ‘He noted’ Gilbert's ‘disposition to flatter and fawn upon the prince,’ comparing him to ‘the chameleon which can change himself into all colours saving white; even so … this reporter can change himself into all fashions but honesty.’ He declared that Gilbert's speech was an injury to the house, that it tended to no other end than to ‘inculcate fear into those who should be free,’ and ‘requested care for the credit of the house, and for the maintenance of free speech, to preserve the liberties of the house, and to reprove liars—inveighing greatly out of the scriptures and otherwise against liars.’

Wentworth was a member of a committee on a bill by which several of the Thirty-nine articles were rejected, and on 25 April six members were appointed to attend the archbishop of Canterbury for answer touching matters of religion (, Annals). ‘The said Mr. Wentworth (a man of hot temper and impatient for the new discipline) was one of them, and undertook to talk to the archbishop in behalf of their book that they had drawn. The archbishop asked “why they did put out of their book … the article of the homilies, and that for the consecration of bishops, and some others?” And when Wentworth had answered, “Because they were so occupied in other matters that they had no time to examine them how they agreed with the word of God,” the archbishop replied, “Surely you mistake the matter. You will refer yourself wholly to us therein,” to which the hot gentleman presently made answer, “Know, by the faith I bear to God, we will pass nothing before we understand what it is. For that were to make you popes; make you popes who list, for we will make you none.”’ (In his Life of Parker Strype misdates this interview 1572, but gives it correctly in his Annals, and is confirmed by Wentworth's own


text:
Page:Shrinking the Commons.djvu/27

 allow commercial uses, and even whether to require attribution are each choices that the licensor may make essentially independently.

The Creative Commons license documents are expressed in what the organization refers to as “legal code.” At its most essential level, the “legal code” constitutes the license; it is the formal language expressing the grants of rights and the limiting conditions selected by the licensor. To encourage widespread adoption and use of its licenses, however, Creative Commons also provides so-called “commons deeds”: accessible, plain-English summaries of the rights and limitations of each of the six standard licenses. Finally, the organization offers each license as machine-readable metadata to aid indexing of the licensed work by search engines.

The “legal code” of each Creative Commons license includes a “termination” (or forfeiture) clause of the same kind as the GPL. Section 7(a) of the current version of each of the six standard licenses states, in part, that “[t]his License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License,” subject to specified exceptions. Absent default by the licensee, however, Creative Commons licenses are expressly declared to be perpetual and, indeed, not capable of withdrawal by the licensor:

Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distribut- ing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such elec- tion will not serve to withdraw this License. . . and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.

title: Page:Shrinking the Commons.djvu/27


text:
Translation:Your name is a finch in my hand ...

* * *

Your name is a finch in my hand, A small bit of ice on tongue’s end One movement of lips slightly stirred, Your name is a four-letter word A marble right-caught in mid-air, A silvery tinkle of bells at a fair

A stone cast in a placid pond Will snort in the likeness of family bond As light as the clip-clop of horses’ hoofs, As loud as the cling-clang of steel-shod hoofs ... The dry-click of firing-pin at our head Will sharply recall as your name is said

Your name is like – that I say not! It’s like a kiss on the eyes wrought When shut, they are laden with frosty grace … Your name is like kissing a snow-swept glaze A draught of cool blue from a spring-cleft rock, Your name grants deep sleep around the clock

Стихи_к_Блоку_(Цветаева)/1


text: A Thousand-Mile Walk To The Gulf/Introductory


text: Harvard Law Review/Volume 1/Issue 7/Correspondence


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/166

 Braddock and ending, after (it is said) two hours' fighting, in a panic-stricken rout. Braddock, who strove bravely to re-form his men, after having several horses shot under him, was himself struck down by a bullet, which passed through his right arm and lodged in the body. His aide-de-camp Orme and some provincial officers with great difficulty had him carried off the field. He rallied sufficiently to give directions for succouring the wounded, but gradually sank and died at sundown on Sunday, 13 July 1755, at a halting-place called Great Meadows, between fifty and sixty miles from the battlefield. 'We shall know better how to deal with them next time' were his last words as he rallied momentarily before expiring. He was buried before dawn in the middle of the track, and the precaution was taken of passing the vehicles of the retreating force, now reduced to some degree of order, over the grave, to efface whatever might lead to desecration by the pursuers. Long after, in 1823, the grave was rifled by labourers employed in the construction of the national road hard by, and some of the bones, still distinguishable by military trappings, were carried off. Others were buried at the foot of a broad spreading oak, which marks or marked the locality, about a mile to the west of Fort Necessity.

No portrait of Braddock is known to exist, but he is described as rather short and stout in person in his later years. To failings common among military men of his day he added the unpopular defects of a hasty temper and a coarse, self-assertive manner, but his fidelity and honour as a public servant have never been questioned, even by those who have portrayed his character in darkest colours. He was a severe disciplinarian, but his severity, like his alleged incapacity as a general, has probably been exaggerated. The difficulties he appears to have encountered at every step have been forgotten, as well as the fact that the ponderous discipline in which he had been trained from his youth up, and which was still associated with the best traditions of the English foot, had never before been in serious collision with the tactics of the backwoods. Two shrewd observers among those who knew him personally judged him less harshly than have most later critics. Wolfe, on the first tidings of the disaster, wrote of Braddock as 'a man of courage and good sense, although not a master of the art of war,' and added emphatic testimony to the wretched discipline of most line regiments at the time (, Life of Wolfe, p. 324). Benjamin Franklin said of him : 'He was, I think, a brave man, and might have made a good figure in some European war, but he had too much self-confidence, and had too high an idea of the validity of European troops, and too low a one of Americans and Indians' (, Franklin, i. 140). One of Braddock's order-books, said to have belonged to Washington, is preserved in the library of Congress, and a silken military sash, worked with the date 1707, and much stained as with blood, which is believed to have been Braddock's sash, is in the possession of the family of the late General Zachary Taylor, United States army, into whose hands it came during the Mexican war. In after years more than one individual sought a shameful notoriety by claiming to have traitorously given Braddock his death-wound during the fight. Mr. Winthrop Sargent has exposed the absurdity of these stories. One is reproduced in 'Notes and Queries,' 3rd ser. xii. 5. Braddock had two sisters, who received from their father a respectable fortune of 6,000l., and both of whom predeceased their brother. The unhappy fate of Fanny Braddock, the surviving sister, who committed suicide at Bath in 1739, has been recorded by Goldsmith (Miscellaneous Works, Prior's ed. iii. 294). Descendants of a brother were stated in 'Notes and Queries' (1st ser. xi. 72) some time back to be living at Martham in Norfolk, in humble circumstances, and to believe themselves entitled to a considerable amount of money, the papers relating to which had been lost. No account has been found of moneys standing to the credit of Braddock or his representatives in any public securities.

The accounts of the Fort Duquesne expedition published at the time appear to have been mostly catchpenny productions; but two authentic narratives are in existence. Of these one is the manuscript journal of Braddock's favourite aide-de-camp, Captain Orme, Coldstream guards, who afterwards retired from the service and died in 1781. This is now No. 212 King's MSS. in British Museum. The other is the manuscript diary of a naval officer attached to Braddock's force, which is now in the possession of the Rev. F. O. Morris of Nunburnholme Rectory, Yorkshire, by whom it was published some years ago under the title, 'An Account of the Battle on the Monagahela River, from an original document by one of the survivors' (London, 1854, 8vo). Copies of these journals have been embodied with a mass of information from American and French sources by Mr. Winthrop Sargent, in an exhaustive monograph forming vol. v. of 'Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania' (Philadelphia, 1856). A map of Braddock's route was prepared from traces found still extant in 1846, when a railway survey was in progress in the locality, and first appeared in a Pittsburg periodical, entitled 'Olden Time' (vol. ii.) An excel-


text: Page:Dictionary of National Biography. Errata (1904).djvu/152


text: Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Olmsted, Denison


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Wells, Edward


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Wells, Henry Lake


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Wells, John (d.1388)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Wells, John (1623-1676)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Wells, Mary


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Wells, Samuel


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Wells, Thomas Spencer


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Wells, William (1818-1889)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Wells, William Charles


text:
User talk:69.58.36.15

--Xxagile (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:69.58.36.15