text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Comedy of Errors, The

COMEDY OF ERRORS, The. This, Shakespeare's shortest play, is certainly one of his earliest. Conservative modern critics are inclined to fix upon 1591 as the probable date of composition and to place it second only to ‘Love’s Labour's Lost' in the order of the poet's independent works. To the general reader the comedy is chiefly known as Shakespeare's solitary effort at direct imitation of a classic model; and the neglect it suffers may be due to the mistaken notion that it is no more than a free rendering of the ‘Menæchmi’ of Plautus. The idea of the indistinguishable Antipholus twins and the rough pattern of their adventures, to be sure, come from the ‘Menæchmi,’ and certain other points from a second Plautine play, the ‘Amphitruo’ — notably the situation in Act III, scene I, where the true master and his slave are shut out of their house while their doubles revel within. Both in plot, however, and in development the Shakespearean play invents more than it borrows, and it deserves respect as an instance of the same kind of treatment of sources which marks the poet's maturest work. Short as it is, ‘The Comedy of Errors’ is vastly richer and more varied than the ‘Menæchmi.’ The clever notion of duplicating the twin Antipholi by twin servants (the Dromios) trebles the opportunity for mirthful misunderstanding; while the creation of the pathetic figures of the old father and mother and the charming sister-in-law, Luciana, introduces a depth of human feeling and a romantic atmosphere entirely alien to Plautus. The reader of ‘The Comedy of Errors’ will find many suggestions of later plays. Compare the old father Ægeon with Egeus in ‘A Midsummer Night's Dream’; the business of the chain with the trouble over the ring in ‘The Merchant of Venice,’ and note particularly the forecast of ‘Twelfth Night’ in the story of the escape of the shipwrecked twins, their subsequent confusion and the episode of the supposed madman bound and laid

in a dark room. An English translation of the ‘Menæchmi’ was printed in 1595 and may conceivably have been accessible to Shakespeare in manuscript at an earlier date. It seems more likely that he got his general knowledge of this play as well as of the untranslated ‘Amphitruo’ while at school, where Plautus was often a regular subject of study. For the influence of Plautus on English drama in the 16th century, consult the introduction to M. W. Wallace's edition of ‘The Birth of Hercules’ (Chicago 1903). The 1595 translation of the ‘Menæchmi,’ with parallel Latin text and introduction, has been edited by W. H. D. Rouse in the ‘Shakespeare Classics Series’ (New York 1912).


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/61

 Rh But here arises the question, What interest can we, the descendants of the practical brother, heirs to so much historical renown, possibly take in the records of a race so historically characterless, and so sunk in reveries and mysticism? The answer is easy. Those records are written in a language closely allied to the primeval common tongue of those two branches before they parted, and descending from a period anterior to their separation. It may, or it may not, be the very tongue itself, but it certainly is not further removed than a few steps. The speech of the emigrants to the west rapidly changed with the changing circumstances and various fortune of each of its waves, and in their intercourse with the aboriginal population they often adopted foreign elements into their language. One of these waves, it is probable, passing by way of Persia and Asia Minor, crossed the Hellespont and, following the coast, threw off a mighty rill, known in after times as Greeks; while the main stream, striking through Macedonia, either crossed the Adriatic, or, still hugging the coast, came down on Italy, to be known as Latins. Another, passing between the Caspian and the Black Sea, filled the steppes round the Crimea, and, passing on over the Balkan and the Carpathians towards the west, became that great Teutonic nationality which, under various names, but all closely akin, filled, when we first hear of them in historical times, the space between the Black Sea and the Baltic, and was then slowly but surely driving before them the great wave of the Celts which had preceded them in their wandering, and which had probably followed the same line of march as the ancestors of the Greeks and Latins,—a movement which lasted until all

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


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/62

 lvi that was left of Celtic nationality was either absorbed by the intruders, or forced aside and driven to take refuge in mountain fastnesses and outlying islands. Besides all these, there was still another wave, which is supposed to have passed between the Sea of Aral and the Caspian, and, keeping still further to the north and east, to have passed between its kindred Teutons and the Mongolian tribes, and so to have lain in the background until we find them appearing as Slavonians on the scene of history. Into so many great stocks did the Western Aryans pass, each possessing strongly marked nationalities and languages, and these seemingly so distinct that each often asserted that the other spoke a barbarous tongue. But, for all that, each of those tongues bears about with it still, and in earlier times no doubt bore still more plainly about with it, infallible evidence of common origin, so that each dialect can be traced up to that primeval form of speech still in the main preserved in the Sanscrit by the Southern Aryan branch, who, careless of practical life, and immersed in speculation, have clung to their ancient traditions and tongue with wonderful tenacity. It is this which has given such value to Sanscrit, a tongue of which it may be said that if it had perished the sun would never have risen on the science of comparative philology. Before the discoveries in Sanscrit of Sir William Jones, Wilkins, Wilson, and others, the world had striven to find the common ancestor of European languages, sometimes in the classical, and sometimes in the Semitic tongues. In the one case the result was a tyranny of Greek and Latin over the non-classical tongues, and in the other the most uncritical and unphilosophical waste of learning.


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Comedy

COMEDY, a dramatic representation of a light and amusing nature, in which are satirized pleasantly the weaknesses or manners of society and the ludicrous incidents of life. Comedy took its origin in the Dionysian festivals, with those who led the phallic songs of the band of revelers (Gr. kōmos) who, at the vintage festivals, gave expression to the exuberant joy and merriment by parading about, dressed up, and singing jovial songs in honor of Dionysus. These songs were frequently interspersed with extemporized jokes at the expense of the bystanders. Comedy first assumed a regular shape among the Dorians. The first attempts at it among the Athenians were made by Susarion, a native of Megara, about 578 B.C. Epicharmus first gave comedy a new form and introduced a regular plot. That branch of the Attic drama known as the Old Comedy begins properly with Cratinus. It lasted from 458 B.C. to 404 B.C. The later pieces of Aristophanes belong to the Middle Comedy. The chorus in a comedy consisted of 24. The Middle Comedy lasted from 404 B.C. to 340 B.C. and the New Comedy till 260 B.C. Middle Comedy found its materials in satirizing classes of people instead of individuals. New Comedy answers to the comedy of the present day. The most distinguished of Roman comic writers were Plautus and Terence, whose plots were mainly derived from the Greek. See ; .


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/63

 Rh No doubt some striking analogies exist between the Indo-European family and the Semitic stock, just as there are remarkable analogies between the Mongolian and Indo-European families; but the ravings of Vallancey, in his effort to connect the Erse with Phœnician, are an awful warning of what unscientific inquiry, based upon casual analogy, may bring itself to believe, and even to fancy it has proved.

These general observations, then, and this rapid bird's-eye view, may suffice to show the common affinity which exists between the Eastern and Western Aryans; between the Hindoo on the one hand, and the nations of Western Europe on the other. That is the fact to keep steadily before our eyes. We all came, Greek, Latin, Celt, Teuton, Slavonian, from the East, as kith and kin, leaving kith and kin behind us; and after thousands of years, the language and traditions of those who went East, and those who went West, bear such an affinity to each other, as to have established, beyond discussion or dispute, the fact of their descent from a common stock.

DIFFUSION.

This general affinity established, we proceed to narrow our subject to its proper limits, and to confine it to the consideration, first, of Popular Tales in general, and, secondly, of those Norse Tales in particular, which form the bulk of this volume.

In the first place, then, the fact which we remarked on setting out, that the groundwork or plot of many of


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/64

 lviii these tales is common to all the nations of Europe, is more important, and of greater scientific interest, than might at first appear. They form, in fact, another link in the chain of evidence of a common origin between the East and West, and even the obstinate adherents of the old classical theory, according to which all resemblances were set down to sheer copying from Greek or Latin patterns, are now forced to confess not only that there was no such wholesale copying at all, but that, in many cases, the despised vernacular tongues have preserved the common traditions far more faithfully than the writers of Greece and Rome. The sooner in short that this theory of copying, which some even besides the classicists have maintained, is abandoned, the better, not only for the truth but for the literary reputation of those who put it forth. No one can, of course, imagine that during that long succession of ages when this mighty wedge of Aryan migration was as driving its way through that prehistoric race, that nameless nationality, the traces of which we everywhere find underlying the intruders in their monuments and implements of bone and stone—a race akin, in all probability, to the Mongolian family, and whose miserable remnants we see pushed aside, and huddled up in the holes and corners of Europe, as Lapps, and Finns, and Basques—no one, we say, can suppose for a moment, that in that long process of contact and absorption, some traditions of either race should not have been caught up and adopted by the other. We know it to be a fact with regard to their language, from the evidence of philology, which cannot lie; and the witness borne by such a word as the Gothic Atta for father, where a Mongolian has been


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/65

 Rh adopted in preference to an Aryan word, is irresistible on this point; but that, apart from such natural assimilation, all the thousand shades of resemblance and affinity which gleam and flicker through the whole body of popular tradition in the Aryan race, as the Aurora plays and flashes in countless rays athwart the Northern heaven, should be the result of mere servile copying of one tribe's traditions by another, is a supposition as absurd as that of those good country-folk, who, when they see an Aurora, fancy it must be a great fire, the work of some incendiary, and send off the parish engine to put it out. No! when we find in such a story as "The Master Thief" traits which are to be found in the Sanscrit Hitopadesa, and which


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/66

lx reminds us at once of the story of Rhampsinitus in Herodotus; which are also to be found in German, Italian, and Flemish popular tales, but told in all with such variations of character and detail, and such adaptations to time and place, as evidently show the original working of the national consciousness upon a stock of tradition common to all the race, but belonging to no tribe of that race in particular; and when we find this occurring not in one tale but in twenty, we are forced to abandon the theory of such universal copying, for fear lest we should fall into a greater difficulty than that for which we were striving to account.

To set this question in a plainer light, let us take a well-known instance; let us take the story of William Tell and his daring shot, which is said to have been made in the year 1307. It is just possible that the feat might be historical, and, no doubt, thousands believe it for the sake of the Swiss patriot, as firmly as they believe in anything; but, unfortunately, this story of the bold archer who saves his life by shooting an apple from the head of his child at the command of a tyrant is common to the whole Aryan race. It appears in Saxo Grammaticus, who flourished in the twelfth century, where it is told of Palnatoki,


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Comedones

COMEDONES, kŏm'ẹ-dōnz, a name applied to the little cylinders of sebaceous and epithelial substances which are apt to accumulate in the follicles of the skin and to appear on the surface as small round black spots. When squeezed out they have the appearance of minute maggots or grubs with black heads, and thence have derived their name. They are generally associated with a weak state of the skin as well as of the individual. Generous diet and tonic treatment with soap-and-water cleansing and friction will be useful; as an astringent to invigorate a debilitated skin, a lotion of corrosive sublimate (two grains) in emulsion of bitter almonds (one ounce) and dilute alcohol will be effective. See.


text:
Translation:The Field Equations of Gravitation

By

I have shown in two recently published reports, how one can arrive at field equations of gravitation, that are in agreement with the postulate of general relativity, i.e. which in their general form are covariant in respect to arbitrary substitutions of space-time variables.

The line of development was as follows. At first I found equations, that contain 's theory as approximation and that are covariant in respect to arbitrary substitutions of the determinant 1. Afterwards I found, that those equations in general correspond to covariant ones, if the scalar of the energy tensor of "matter" vanishes. The coordinate system had to be specialized in accordance with the simple rule, that $$\sqrt{-g}$$ is made to 1, whereby the equations of the theory experience an eminent simplification. In the course of this, however, one had to introduce the hypothesis, that the scalar of the energy tensor of matter vanishes.

Recently I find now, that one is able to dispense with hypothesis concerning the energy tensor of matter, if one fills in the energy tensor of matter into the field equations in a somehow different way than it was done in my two earlier reports. The field equations for vacuum, upon which I based the explanation of the perihelion motion of mercury, remain untouched by this modification. I give the complete consideration again at this place, so that the reader is not forced to uninterruptedly consultate the earlier reports.

From the well known ian covariant of fourth rank, the following covariant of second rank is derived:

We obtain the ten general covariant equations of the gravitational field in spaces, in which "matter" is absent, by putting

These equations can be formed in a simpler way, when one choses the reference system so that $$\sqrt{-g}=1$$. Then $$S_{im}$$ vanishes due to (1b), so that one obtains instead of (2)

Here we put

which magnitudes we will denote as the "components" of the gravitational field.

If "matter" exists in the considered space, then its energy tensor appears on the right hand side of (2) or (3). We put

where we put

$$T$$ is the scalar of the energy tensor of "matter", the right hand side of (2a) is a tensor. If we specialize the coordinate system in the ordinary way again, then we obtain instead of (2a) the equivalent equations

Like always we assume, that the divergence of the energy tensor of matter vanishes in the sense of the general differential calculus (Momentum-Energy theorem). When specializing the coordinate choice in accordance with (3a), it follows from it, that the $$T_{im}$$ shall fulfill the conditions

or

If one multiplies (6) by $$\tfrac{\partial g^{im}}{\partial x_{\sigma}}$$ and sums over $$i$$ and $$m$$, then one obtains in respect to (7) and in respect to the relation following from (3a)

$\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits _{im}g_{im}\frac{\partial g^{im}}{\partial x_{\sigma}}=-\frac{\partial lg\sqrt{-g}}{\partial x_{\sigma}}=0$|undefined

the conservation law for matter and the gravitational field together in the form

where $$t_{\sigma}^{\lambda}$$ (the "energy tensor" of the gravitational field) is given by

The reasons that drove me to the introduction of the second member on the right-hand side of (2a) and (6), become clear from the following considerations, that are completely analogous to those given at the place just mentioned (p. 785).

If we multiply (6) by $$g^{im}$$ and sum over the indices $$i$$ and $$m$$, then we obtain after simple calculation

where corresponding to (5) it is put for abbreviation

Note, that it follows from the additional term, that in (9) the energy tensor of the gravitational field occurs besides that of matter in the same way, which is not the case in equations (21) l.c..

Furthermore one derives instead of equation (22) l.c., in the way as it is given there by the aid of the energy equation, the relations:

From our additional term it follows, that these equations contain no new condition in respect to (9), so that concerning the energy tensor of matter, no other presupposition has to be made than the one, that it has to be in agreement with the momentum-energy theorem.

By that, the general theory of relativity as a logical building is eventually finished. The relativity postulate in its general form that makes the space-time coordinates to physically meaningless parameters, is directed with stringent necessity to a very specific theory of gravitation that explains the perihelion motion of mercury. However, the general relativity postulate offers nothing new about the essence of the other natural processes, which wasn't already taught by the special theory of relativity. My opinion regarding this issue, recently expressed at this place, was erroneous. Any physical theory equivalent to the special theory of relativity, can be included in the general theory of relativity by means of the absolute differential calculus, without that the latter gives any criterion for the admissibility of that theory.


text: Template:Iwpages

title: Template:Iwpages


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/67

 Rh King Harold Gormson's thane and assassin. In the thirteenth century the Wilkina Saga relates it of Egill, Völundr's—our Wayland Smith's—younger brother. So also in the Norse Saga of Saint Olof, king and martyr: the king, who died in 1030, eager for the conversion of one of his heathen chiefs Eindridi, competes with him in various athletic exercises, first in swimming and then in archery. After several famous shots on either side, the king challenges Eindridi to shoot a tablet off his son's head without hurting the child. Eindridi is ready, but declares he will revenge himself if the child is hurt. The king has the first shot, and his arrow strikes close to the tablet. Then Eindridi is to shoot, but at the prayers of his mother and sister, refuses the shot, and has to yield and be converted. So, also, King Harold Sigurdarson, who died 1066, backed himself against a famous marksman, Hemingr, and ordered him to shoot a hazel-nut off the head of his brother Björn, and Hemingr performed the feat. In the middle of the fourteenth century, the Malleus Maleficarum refers it to Puncher, a magician of the Upper Rhine. Here in England, we have it in the old English ballad of Adam Bell, Clym of the Clough, and William of Cloudesly, where William performs the feat. It is not told at all of Tell in Switzerland before the year 1499, and the earlier Swiss chronicles omit it altogether. It is common to the Turks and Mongolians; and a legend of the wild Samoyeds, who never heard of Tell


text: Template:IwpageSection

title: Template:IwpageSection


text:
Template:Iwpage/doc

Usage
Interwiki transclusions

 * Template:Iwpage
 * Template:Iwpages
 * Template:IwpageSection
 * Template:Iwtrans

Style is defined at mul:MediaWiki:InterWikiTransclusion.js

Iwpage
This template is used for transcluding a page ("Page" namespace) from another Wikisource domain into another page ("Page" namespace):

Code:

E.g. br:Page:Barzaz Breiz, huitième édition.djvu/13 has

"iwpage" class is defined at oldwikisource:MediaWiki:InterWikiTransclusion.js.

Iwpages
This template is used for transcluding various pages (from "Page" namespace) from another Wikisource domain:

Code:

(section_from and section_too are optional.)

And this will do the following at the end Wikisource:

IwpageSection
This template is used for transcluding a section from one page (from "Page" namespace) from another Wikisource domain into another page ("Page" namespace):

Code:

For example:

will bring from ca (Catalan) Wikisource, the section named "oc" from the page named "Cansons de la terra (1866).djvu/92":

Iwtrans
This template allows the transclusion of a page (in any namespace) from another Wikisource domain; useful for multilingual books. Parameters (used at "iw_trans" function at oldwikisource:MediaWiki:InterWikiTransclusion.js):
 * 1) The first is the ISO code of the language ("es" for Spanish, "fr" for French, etc.).
 * 2) The second one, is the title of the outer Wikisource. The namespace prefix must be included.
 * 3) num: page number that will appear.
 * 4) position: indentation in "em" units. By default, 1em.

title: Template:Iwpage/doc


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/68

 lxii or saw a book in their lives, relates it, chapter and verse, of one of their famous marksmen. What shall we say then, but that the story of this bold master-shot was primeval amongst many tribes and races, and that it only crystallised itself round the great name of Tell by that process of attraction which invariably leads a grateful people to throw such mythic wreaths, such garlands of bold deeds of precious memory, round the brow of its darling champion.


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/69

 Rh Nor let any pious Welshman be shocked if we venture to assert that Gellert, that famous hound upon whose last resting-place the traveller comes as he passes down the lovely vale of Gwynant, is a mythical dog, and never


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography. Sup. Vol II (1901).djvu/83

still greater liability. Only a fragment of the property still remains to the family. Lord Devon had before his succession returned to the conservative party, and in the Derby ministry he became chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and was created a privy councillor (July 1866). He remained in that office until May 1867, and from that month to December 1868 he was president of the poor-law board. After that date he ceased to take an active part in politics, but his statement in the House of Lords on 7 June 1869 in favour of reading the Irish Church bill a second time produced much effect on public opinion. He was chairman in 1870 of the commission appointed to inquire into the treatment of Fenian prisoners in English convict prisons (, Memoirs, pp. 163-8).

Lord Devon was for many years the most influential man in his county, and was generally known as 'the good earl.' For fifty-two years he presided at quarter sessions, and he was at first director and then chairman of the Bristol and Exeter Railway. He made extensive improvements at Powderham Castle, planted the famous cedar avenue in its grounds, and aided in all the charitable foundations of Devonshire. In 1859 he built and endowed the church of St. Paul at Newton Abbot, where he was the chief landed proprietor. A statue of him, by E. B. Stephens, A.R.A., was placed in 1880 by public subscription in the Bedford Circus at Exeter.

In 1877, while riding through the plantations at Powderham on his seventieth birthday, Lord Devon was thrown from his horse. Though he did not altogether recover from this accident, he was engaged in active life until a few weeks before his death. He died at Powderham Castle on 18 Nov. 1888, and on 24 Nov. was buried in the family vault in the chancel of Powderham church. He married, at Filleigh, Devonshire, on 27 Dec. 1830, Lady Elizabeth Fortescue, youngest daughter of Hugh, first earl Fortescue. She was born in 1801, and died on 27 Jan. 1867. Memorials of her and her husband are in Powderham church. They had issue three sons and one daughter.

[Burke's Peerage; Foster's Peerage; Foster's Alumni Oxon.; Barker and Stenning's Westminster School; Men of the Time, ed. 1887; Times, 19 Nov. 1888, p. 6; Devon and Exeter Daily Gazette, 19-26 Nov. 1888 ; Speaker Denison's Notes from my Journal, 1900, p. 244.]

COVENTRY, ANDREW (1764–1832), agriculturist, born in 1764, was eldest son of George Coventry, minister of Stitchell in Roxburghshire. Through his mother, whose maiden name was Horn, he inherited the estate of Shanwell, near Kinross, and some other landed property in Perthshire. He was educated at the university of Edinburgh, and on 15 Dec. 1782 he was elected a member of the Medical Society of Edinburgh (List of Members of the Medical Society of Edinburgh, 1820). In September 1783 he graduated M.D. (List of Graduates in Medicine in University of Edinburgh, 1867) for a thesis, 'De Scarlatina Cynanchica.' It is not clear whether he ever practised as a physician; but he appears to have specialised in the sciences bearing upon agriculture.

On 7 July 1790 Sir William Pulteney took the first steps towards endowing a chair of agriculture in the Edinburgh University,nominating at the same time Coventry to be the first professor. Hitherto occasional lectures on this subject had been delivered by other professors, e.g. by the professor of chemistry, Dr. William Cullen [q. v.], at the instigation of Lord Kames. A much fuller course had also been given by John Walker (1731–1803) [q. v.], then professor of natural history, in 1788.

The foundation of the new chair appears to have been regarded with a good deal of jealousy; the professor of natural history protesting that he was not to be hindered thereby from teaching 'any branch of natural science,' to which the professor of botany objected as infringing his rights; while Coventry on his part insisted that none but himself had the right to give 'a separate course of georgical lectures.' Moreover,the endowment and patronage of a chair by a private individual was at that date without precedent in the university, and appears to have aroused feelings of opposition.

In spite of these obstacles Coventry became, on 17 Nov. 1790, the first professor of agriculture in the university, and continued to hold the post until 1831. The endowment of the chair amounted to only 50l. per annum; but Coventry supplemented his work as a teacher by many other duties. 'He was constantly called on to arbitrate in land questions, and to give evidence before the court of session and before committees of the House of Commons; the drainage of Loch Leven and the reclamation of the surrounding lands were carried out under his directions' (, Story of the University of Edinburgh, 1884, i. 345-7). Coventry gave evidence before the royal commission appointed in 1826 to investigate the condition of the universities and colleges of Scotland, when he said that he had delivered thirty-two courses, some of them, consisting of more than 140 lectures each.


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/70

 lxiv snuffed the fresh breeze in the forest of Snowdon, nor saved his master's child from ravening wolf. This, too, is a primeval story, told with many variations. Sometimes the foe is a wolf, sometimes a bear, sometimes a snake. Sometimes the faithful guardian of the child is an otter, a weasel, or a dog. It, too, came from the East. It is found in the Pantcha-Tantra, in the Hitopadesa, in Bidpai's


text: Page:A Hebrew and English Lexicon (Brown-Driver-Briggs).djvu/59


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Comedietta

COMEDIETTA, kō-mā-dĭ-ĕt'tạ (It. diminutive of commedia), a dramatic composition of the comedy class, but not so much elaborated as a regular comedy, and generally consisting of one or at most two acts.


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/71

 Rh Fables, in the Arabic original of the Seven Wise Masters,—that famous collection of stories which illustrate a step-dame's calumny and hate—and in many medieval versions of those originals. Thence it passed into the Latin Gesta Romanorum, where, as well as in the Old English version published by Sir Frederick Madden, it may be read as a


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/190

 whigs a period of apprehension, aroused by the queen's visible leaning to the Pretender and the suspected intrigues of Bolingbroke [see ]. On 15 April 1714 the whigs raised a debate upon the question ‘whether the protestant succession in the house of Hanover be in danger under her majesty's government.’ Walpole replied with much spirit to the defence made by Bromley, then secretary of state. With that strong sense of constitutional propriety which distinguished him, he insisted that the responsibility was not, as the tories endeavoured to put it, upon the queen, but on the queen's ministers (Parl. Hist. vi. 1346).

Swift, writing on 18 Dec. 1711, prophesied of Walpole, ‘He is to be secretary of state if the ministry changes.’ Nevertheless it is remarkable that when George I formed his first ministry, Walpole was not only without a seat in the cabinet, but was forced to content himself with the lucrative post of paymaster of the forces and treasurer of Chelsea Hospital. The fact is that Bothmar, George's agent in London, by whose advice he was guided, disliked Walpole (see, ii. 119, 125), and suggested no better place for him than a junior lordship of the treasury (Bothmar to Bernstorff, 6 Aug. (O.S.) 1714, Macpherson Papers, ii. 640). He was sworn a privy councillor on 1 Oct. 1714. The new parliament was summoned for 17 March 1715. ‘Before the opening of the session Mr. Walpole was in full power,’ wrote Lady Mary Wortley-Montagu [q. v.] His brother-in-law, Lord Townshend, was nominally at the head of the government, but the same acute observer writes, ‘Walpole is already looked upon as chief minister.’ He was certainly recognised as leader of the House of Commons, and moved the address attacking the late government. To a house now consisting of a large majority of whigs he announced the intention of the ministers ‘to bring to condign punishment’ those responsible for recent intrigues for the restoration of the Pretender. A committee of secrecy was appointed, and Walpole was chosen chairman on 6 April. On the following day he was taken ill, and on 3 May was ‘in a very bad way’ (anon. letter in Hist. MSS. Comm. 8th Rep. p. 59 a). Despite his illness, he received full information of the committee's proceedings, and on 9 June was sufficiently recovered to present to the House of Commons a report which he had himself prepared with indefatigable industry—‘a masterpiece of party strategy’ (, Hist. Engl. v. 368). It consisted of ten articles (see, iv. 426) charging the late ministry with treasonable misconduct in the negotiations for the peace of Utrecht. It was so voluminous and detailed that its first and second reading occupied from one to half-past eight o'clock on 9 June, and from eleven to four o'clock on 10 June. At the conclusion of the reading Walpole impeached Bolingbroke of high treason (Parl. Hist. vii. 66). The conduct of the impeachment, as well as of that of the Duke of Ormonde and the Earl of Stafford, was entrusted to Walpole. On 4 Aug. 1715 he laid the articles of the impeachment of Bolingbroke before the House of Commons (State Trials, xv. 993), on the following day those against the Duke of Ormonde, and on 31 Aug. those against the Earl of Stafford. A doubt had arisen whether the conduct of Harley, earl of Oxford, amounted to treason. Walpole, who had prepared the articles against him, vigorously maintained the affirmative, and the continuance of proceedings against him was consequently resolved upon (7 July).

It has been said that these proceedings were unjust because the conduct of the late ministers could only be brought within the law of treason by a strained interpretation (, Hist. i. 191). What Bolingbroke and Ormonde thought of the justice of the case was shown by their flight. Oxford had no apprehension that a fair trial would be denied him, and remained. It is true that Walpole pushed these measures with determination. But malice bore no part in his action. By the universal consent of friend and foe he was, as Burke said, ‘of the greatest possible lenity in his character and in his politics’ (‘Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs,’ Works, iv. 437). Lord Chesterfield, a political opponent whom he had disgraced, admitted that he was ‘very placable to those who had injured him most’ (Letters, iii. 1418). Bolingbroke could never have returned to England without his consent, and, when he returned, Walpole invited him to dine with him at Chelsea. Walpole's justification lies in the events which followed. In the following autumn the rising of 1715 broke out. He knew that if the protestant succession, which he had at heart, was to be preserved, the time had come to strike.

In recognition of these services Walpole was on 11 Oct. 1715 appointed by Townshend first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. The suppression of the rebellion was accompanied by unprecedented clemency so far as the rank and file were concerned, but of the rebel lords he determined to make an example. Efforts were made to bribe him. Sixty thousand pounds, he told the House of Commons, had been


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/191

 offered him for the life of the Earl of Derwentwater [see, third ]. Walpole's answer discloses not only the reasons which necessitated severity, but the secret information upon which he had acted in the matter of the impeachments. Derwentwater, he told the house, had to his knowledge been preparing for the rebellion ‘six months before he appeared in arms.’ Not even the remonstrances of Steele and a considerable section of his party could prevail on him to spare the earl.

The extraordinary fatigues and anxieties of 1715, arising at a time when Walpole was already in bad health, brought on an illness in the spring of 1716 in which ‘his life was despaired of’ (Townshend to Stanhope,, ii. 116). During his absence from the house the septennial bill, of which he had already approved, was passed. Walpole retired for convalescence to a house he occupied at Chelsea, perhaps upon the site of the present Walpole Street. From here he wrote on 11 May to his brother Horatio that he ‘gathered strength daily … from the lowest and weakest condition that ever poor mortal was alive in.’ On 9 July George I, accompanied by Stanhope, left for Hanover.

A series of court intrigues now began against Walpole and Townshend, set on foot by the king's German favourites, headed by Bothmar, who desired titles and pensions for themselves and continental aggrandisement for their master. Sunderland's restless ambition discerned an opportunity for his own advancement, and he gathered round him a cabal of disappointed whigs. He was now lord privy seal with a seat in the cabinet. In the autumn of 1716 he made his way over to Germany, ostensibly to drink the waters at Aachen, really to gain the ear of George I—a design which Walpole shrewdly foresaw (COXE, ii. 59). Walpole had so far met the king's views as to foreign policy that he supported the proposed acquisition of Bremen and Verden from Sweden, but only because they offered increased facilities to a British fleet operating upon the German coasts. But he absolutely declined to find money either for a war with Russia or for the payment of a force of German troops who had been taken into the king's service at the time of the pretender's invasion of Scotland. The king asserted that Walpole had promised to repay him the advance which had been made out of the privy purse for this purpose; Walpole protested ‘before God that I cannot recollect that ever the king mentioned one syllable of this to me or I to him.’ Sunderland found the king incensed against Walpole on this account. He inflamed the king's resentment by suggesting that Walpole and Townshend were intriguing with the personal friends of the prince regent, the Duke of Argyll, and his brother the Earl of Islay, with ‘designs against the king's authority.’

In October the king was anxious for the signature of a treaty with France by which France was to discard the pretender and England should guarantee the succession to the regent in the event of the death of the king (Louis XV) childless. This treaty Horatio Walpole, then envoy extraordinary at the Hague, flatly refused to sign on the ground that it would be a betrayal of his promises to the Dutch. This accumulation of grievances led to the dismissal of Townshend by appointment to the lord-lieutenancy of Ireland in December 1716. Walpole would naturally have been dismissed with Townshend, but Townshend was the acting foreign minister, and the presence of Walpole in the cabinet inspired confidence in the city whigs (Thomas Brereton to Charles Stanhope, December 1716,, ii. 149). Walpole determined to throw in his lot with his chief. The animosities of the king disappeared before the apprehension of losing the minister whose reputation as a financier was one of the props of his throne. Stanhope, whom diplomatic exigencies had led to take sides with Sunderland, wrote to Walpole imploring him to persuade Townshend to accept the lord-lieutenancy and to remain in the cabinet (3 Jan. 1717). Townshend's acceptance implied the continuance of Walpole in office. Upon this basis a truce was established between the contending factions. But so long as the king gave his confidence to Sunderland and Stanhope, Townshend and Walpole did little beyond formally defend ministerial measures. The resulting friction became insupportable. On 9 April 1717 Stanhope announced to Townshend his dismissal from the lord-lieutenancy. On 10 April Walpole sought an audience and resigned the seals. Ten times did the king replace them in his hat (, ii. 169). Walpole, though touched by this confidence and with tears in his eyes, persisted in his resignation. He did so upon the constitutional ground, on which he always insisted, of the indivisible responsibility of an administration which he declined to share. On the same day he announced his resignation to the House of Commons by introducing a bill, ‘as a country gentleman,’ which as first lord of the treasury he had been instructed to prepare (5 March). He had for some time past


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Comédie Humaine

COMÉDIE HUMAINE, ü-mān, La, a series of novels by Balzac, so designated by their author, and intended to form a picture of the manners and morals of the period. The first volume of the ‘Comédie Humaine’ appeared in 1829; but it was not until 1842 that Balzac adopted the general title. The author intended to present a panorama of his time in France, and he wrote nearly 100 novels without completing the herculean task he had set himself.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography. Sup. Vol II (1901).djvu/84

 Although the subject he taught was not available for graduation, he had attracted classes varying in number from thirty to seventy-eight. Towards the end of his tenure of office, however, he appears to have lectured only in alternate years, 'persuading persons who wished to attend him during any session when he was to be absent to put off doing so, and to attend the classes of chemistry and botany in the meantime.' The royal commission, which concluded its labours in 1830, recommended among other reforms that the chair of agriculture should be abolished 'unless a class could be provided for it, and taught regularly.'

Coventry, who was now sixty-three, accordingly resigned, and was succeeded by (1786–1859) [q. v.] on 16 March 1831. He died in the next year.

He wrote, in addition to the thesis referred to above: The treatises attributed to him by Grant, on 'Dairy Produce' and 'The Succession of Crops and the Valuation of Soils,' are not to be found either in the British Museum or in the library of the Faculty of Advocates. They are perhaps identical with (1) and (3) above.
 * 1) 'Remarks on Live Stock and relative Subjects,' 1806 (not in British Museum, but in library of Faculty of Advocates).
 * 2) 'Discourses explanatory of the Object and Plan of the Course of Lectures on Agriculture and Rural Economy,' 1808.
 * 3) 'Notes on the Culture and Cropping of Arable Land,'1811.

The Andrew Coventry who in 1829 edited, and presented to the Bannatyne Club, Petruccio Ubaldini's 'Descrittione del regno di Scotia' was a different person, in spite of the direct statement made against his name in the British Museum Catalogue; he was an advocate, and would appear, from the list of members of the Bannatyne Club published in 1846, to have been still living in that year. A third Andrew Coventry, also declared in the British Museum Catalogue to be the professor of agriculture, delivered the Ulbster Hall lecture 'On some of the most curious inventions and discoveries in recent times,' which was printed for private circulation in 1856.

COWDEN-CLARKE, MARY (1809–1898), writer on Shakespeare. [See .]

COWEN, JOSEPH (1829–1900), politician and journalist, born at Stella Hall, Blaydon-on-Tyne, on 9 July 1831 [sic], was eldest son of Sir Joseph Cowen, who represented Newcastle in parliament from 1865 to his death in 1873, and was knighted for personal services extending over many years on the River Tyne commission with the result of rendering the river navigable for sea-going ships instead of for coal barges merely. His ancestors came from Lindisfarne, and they lived, laboured, and died on Tyneside during three centuries, many being employed at Winlaton in Sir Ambrose Crowley's factory for smith's wares. Their employer is believed to be the Sir John Anvil of Addison's 'Spectator.'

Cowen's grandfather was the last member of the Cowen family in Sir John's employment, and, on the closing of the factory in 1816, this grandfather began business on his own account at Blaydon Burn. The works there were devoted to making fire-bricks and gas retorts; Sir Joseph Cowen greatly enlarged them. Cowen himself, who derived a very large income from them, sold them shortly before his death.

Cowen was educated, first at a private school in Ryton, and secondly at the university of Edinburgh. His university career was chiefly remarkable for his pre-eminence in the debating society. While a student he interested himself in the revolutionary movements on the continent in 1848, and made Mazzini's acquaintance by letter. He took no degree.

After leaving the university Cowen joined his father in business; but he still continued to promote revolution throughout Europe. His movements were closely watched by spies in the service of foreign police in order that they might discover how revolutionary documents were imported into their respective countries. These papers were really smuggled among the shipments of fire-bricks which were made from Blaydon Burn to foreign parts. Cowen numbered among his guests and friends Mazzini, Kossuth, Louis Blanc, and Ledru Rollin; Wysocki, who was a leader of the insurgent Hungarians; Mieroslawski and Worcell, who were Poles in revolt against Russia; and Herzen and Bakunin, who were Russians and the declared enemies of the Russian government. Without his aid the lot of many foreign refugees in England would have been far harder, his purse being always open to help them, while his pen was always ready to advocate their cause and encourage their efforts. At home Cowen sympathised with chartists, and strenuously laboured on their behalf. He was an active member of the northern reform league, which was founded on 3 Jan. 1858, and existed till 1862. In


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/192

 reducing the interest on the national debt. With a view to this he had endeavoured to raise a loan of 600,000l. for the government at four per cent. But the moneyed interests took alarm. They abstained from subscribing, and after three days no more than 45,000l. had been raised (Parl. Hist. vii. 425, 8 March 1717). The new measure was for redeeming the debt, so far as it did not consist of irredeemable annuities, and reducing the interest from seven and eight to five per cent. The surplus arising out of the taxes appropriated to the interest at its existing rate would then constitute a fund for the discharge of the capital of the debt. This was the first general sinking fund (, iv. 534–6). A concurrent agreement was made with the bank of England and the South Sea Company by which the interest due to them from government was reduced from six to five per cent., and they agreed to advance 2,500,000l. and 2,000,000l. respectively for the purpose of paying off such fundholders as should decline to accept the reduction of their interest. ‘I believe,’ wrote Steele on 19 March, ‘the scheme will take place, and, if it does, Walpole must be a very great man’ (Corresp. ii. 423). While the measure was passing through the house a violent altercation arose between Stanhope and Walpole. Stanhope had long been smarting under the reproaches with which Walpole had visited his defection to Sunderland. Irritated at the necessity of confessing his incapacity to deal with the financial question, Stanhope attacked Walpole for bestowing a reversion to an office upon his son. Walpole retorted to the effect that it was better so disposed than on one of the king's foreign favourites to whom Sunderland and Stanhope had truckled. ‘One of the chief reasons,’ he added, referring to this, ‘that made me resign was because I could not connive at some things that were carrying on’ (Parl. Hist. vii. 460; 9 May 1717). Walpole entered into opposition with the declaration that he did not intend ‘to make the king uneasy or to embarrass his affairs’ (ib. vii. 449, 16 April 1717). This pledge he regarded as compatible with a harassing opposition to the king's ministers, between whom and his majesty he distinguished (ib. vii. 565). ‘The parties of Walpole and Stanhope,’ wrote Pope in June 1717, ‘are as violent as whig and tory’ (Works, ix. 383). So often did Walpole find himself in the same division lobby with Shippen [see ], the leader of the extreme tories, that Shippen caustically remarked that ‘he (Walpole) was no more afraid than himself of being called a Jacobite.’

In 1717 Walpole supported the tories in an unsuccessful attack upon Lord Cadogan [see ], commander-in-chief, one of the allies of Sunderland and Stanhope, who had been accused of embezzlement in connection with the transport of some Dutch auxiliaries. He echoed the tory outcry against a standing army, declared twelve thousand men an adequate force, and opposed, though he finally voted for, the mutiny bill of 1718. His tolerance upon religious matters has already been seen. In 1711 and 1714 he had warmly opposed the occasional conformity bill and the schism bill; yet in 1719 he resisted the repeal of this last act. He denounced (11 Nov. 1718) the quadruple alliance concluded on the previous 2 Aug. between the emperor, France, England, and subsequently the United Provinces, of which he was himself afterwards the advocate. He disapproved the attack by Byng upon the Spanish fleet, though this must be acknowledged to have been consistent with his own pacific temper. It was also characteristic of his incapacity to maintain resentment that he withdrew from the prosecution of the impeachment of Oxford. However factious his opposition may have seemed, the vigour of his attacks and the feebleness of ministers increased his influence in the House of Commons. His crowning opportunity came with the introduction of the peerage bill on 2 March 1718. The object of this measure was to limit the number of peers to 216, 191 from England and 25 from Scotland. It was really aimed at the Prince of Wales (George II), whom it would prevent from flooding the House of Lords with tory peers upon his father's death. It would, of course, have rendered the lords the dominant member of the constitution. Walpole found the whig peers not indisposed to the measure. He wrote a pamphlet against it with the title of ‘The Thoughts of a Member of the Lower House,’ &c. He stirred up the opposition of the more ambitious country gentlemen. He addressed a meeting of whig peers at Devonshire House in a speech which produced a complete revulsion of feeling. With them he made arrangements for an opposition to the bill when it reached the commons. On 8 Dec. in the House of Commons he demolished the proposal in ‘a very masterly speech,’ and secured its rejection by 269 to 177 votes.

In January 1720 the government began to entertain a scheme for the reduction of the irredeemable annuities which amounted


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/72

 lxvi service rendered by a faithful hound against a snake. This, too, like Tell's master-shot, is as the lightning which shineth over the whole heaven at once, and can be claimed by no one tribe of the Aryan race, to the exclusion of the rest. "The Dog of Montargis" is in like manner mythic, though perhaps not so widely spread. It first occurs in France, as told of Sybilla, a fabulous wife of Charlemagne; but it is at any rate as old as the time of Plutarch, who relates it as an anecdote of brute sagacity in the days of Pyrrhus.

There can be no doubt, with regard to the question of the origin of these tales, that they were common in germ at least to the Aryan tribes before their migration. We find those germs developed in the popular traditions of the Eastern Aryans, and we find them developed in a hundred forms and shapes in every one of the nations into which the Western Aryans have shaped themselves in the course of ages. We are led, therefore, irresistibly to the conclusion, that these traditions are as much a portion of the common inheritance of our ancestors, as their language unquestionably is; and that they form, along with that language, a double chain of evidence, which proves their Eastern origin. If we are to seek for a simile, or an analogy, as to the relative positions of these tales and traditions, and to the mutual resemblances which exist between them as the several branches of our race have developed them from the common stock, we may find it in one which will come home to every reader as he looks round the domestic hearth, if he should be so happy as to have one. They are like as sisters of one house are like. They have what would be called a strong family likeness;


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/73

 Rh but besides this likeness, which they owe to father or mother, as the case may be, they have each their peculiarities of form and eye and face, and, still more, their differences of intellect and mind. This may be dark, that fair; this may have grey eyes, that black; this may be open and graceful, that reserved and close; this you may love, that you can take no interest in. One may be bashful, another winning, a third worth knowing and yet hard to know. They are so like, and so unlike. At first it may be, as an old English writer beautifully expresses it, "their father hath writ them as his own little story," but as they grow up they throw off the copy, educate themselves for good or ill, and finally assume new forms o feeling and feature under an original development of their own.

Or shall we take another likeness, and say they are national dreams; that they are like the sleeping thoughts of many men upon one and the same thing. Suppose a hundred men to have been eye-witnesses of some event on the same day, and then to have slept and dreamt of it; we should have as many distinct representations of that event, all turning upon it and bound up with it in some way, but each preserving the personality of the sleeper, and working up the common stuff in a higher or lower degree, just as the fancy and the intellect of the sleeper was at a higher or lower level of perfection. There is, indeed, greater truth in this likeness than may at first sight appear. In the popular tale, properly so called, the national mind dreams all its history over again; in its half-conscious state it takes this trait and that trait, this feature and that feature, of times and ages long past. It


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/193

 to 800,000l. a year. An offer was made by the South Sea Company to take them over and to pay 7,567,000l. for the privilege. The scheme was warmly opposed by Walpole as financially and constitutionally unsound; nevertheless it was accepted by the house. Walpole published a pamphlet condemning it by the title of ‘The South Sea Scheme Considered.’ But speculation in South Sea stock spread like a fever. The Princess of Wales (Caroline) took to gambling in stocks, and, Walpole having the reputation of extraordinary financial ability, she sought his advice. To Walpole's career this association proved of momentous importance. It was cemented, scandal said, by an intrigue between the prince and Mrs. Walpole, ‘which both he and the princess knew’ (, Diary, p. 134). On 20 May 1720 Lady Cowper wrote, ‘Mr. Walpole so possessed her [the princess's] mind that there was not room for the least truth;’ and again, ‘The prince is guided by the princess as she is by Walpole’ (10 May 1720). He himself took advantage of the public mania, bought largely in South Sea stock, and sold out at the top of the market at 1,000 per cent. profit. With the fortune thus acquired he rebuilt Houghton and began his famous collection of pictures. His association with the prince through the princess led to his becoming an intermediary for the reconciliation of the prince to the king. Sunderland felt the ground slipping under his feet. He made overtures to Walpole, who at first refused to take service under him (ib. 15 April 1720). As Walpole afterwards explained to Lord Holland, ‘his [Sunderland's] temper was so violent that he would have done his best to throw me out of window’ (, Autobiogr. i. 35). This probably explains why Walpole was content to accept the inferior but lucrative position of paymaster of the forces instead of desiring to sit in the cabinet. Sunderland was deeply involved in the South Sea business, and, as Walpole had predicted the collapse (, Diary, p. 136), he probably foresaw Sunderland's speedy and compulsory retirement. His personal dislike of Sunderland perhaps led him, contrary to his custom, to spend the summer of 1720 in the country.

Meanwhile South Sea stock was declining. By September panic had set in. Walpole was called up from the country to assist the Bank of England with his advice. He drew what was afterwards known as ‘the bank contract,’ by which the bank agreed to take the bonds of the company at 400 per cent. premium for a sum of 3,700,000l. due to it. But the fall still continued. Prompted by Sunderland, the king, who used to say of Walpole that he could convert stones to gold (, ii. 520), now called upon him to produce a scheme for the restoration of public credit. In Lord Hervey's belief the commission was given him by Sunderland with the expectation that he would fail, and that the odium attaching to the cabinet would be transferred to him. Walpole undertook the task. On 21 Dec. he presented to the House of Commons a plan suggested by Jacombe, under-secretary at war, the substance of which was to engraft nine millions of South Sea stock into Bank and East India stock respectively. This proposal became law in 1720 (7 Geo. I, st. 1, c. 5), but before taking effect it was partly superseded by another act of 1721 (7 Geo. I, c. 2), also framed by Walpole, remitting more than 5,000,000l. of the 7,500,000l. which the South Sea directors had agreed to pay the public. The 2,000,000l. was remitted in December 1723 (Parl. Hist. viii. 53) and other measures taken to lighten the disaster to the sufferers. While the tide of indignation was flowing in full force against the South Sea promoters, Walpole behaved with consummate tact and judgement. He pleaded extenuating circumstances for Aislabie [see ], who had been compelled to resign the chancellorship of the exchequer (23 Jan. 1721). He successfully defended Sunderland (15 March), not for love of the man, but to avert the danger of a tory ministry. He insisted that the accused directors should be allowed counsel. His fairness drew obloquy upon himself. In the squibs and caricatures of the day he was nicknamed ‘The Screen’ (, ii. 216). On 4 Feb. 1721 Stanhope, on 16 Feb. James Craggs the younger [q. v.], and on 16 March James Craggs the elder [q. v.] died. Sunderland was compelled by public opprobrium to retire, and on 3 April Walpole was appointed chancellor of the exchequer and first lord of the treasury. On 10 Feb. his brother-in-law Townshend had taken Stanhope's post as secretary of state. An extraordinary conjuncture of circumstances had thus restored the two ministers to power and annihilated the opposing faction.

In the administration that followed Walpole began by affecting a comparative indifference to foreign policy. As Palm wrote to the emperor on 13 Dec. 1726, ‘Sir R. Walpole … does not meddle in foreign affairs, but receives accounts of them in general, leaving for the rest the direction of them entirely to Lord Townshend.’ Walpole in return was left absolute master of home


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Comédie Française

COMÉDIE FRANÇAISE, kō'mā-dē' frän'sāz' the official name of the national theatre of France which is supported by public funds for the purpose of advancing dramatic art. It was long known popularly as “La Maison de Molière,” or Molière's Theatre, even after it had become, by royal decree in 1680, a national institution; and the two great bodies of actors then in Paris, those acting at the Hotel de Bourgogne Theatre and those at the Génégaud Theatre, had been united and fused into one body. The former, which was Molière's dramatic institution, had originally been an old theatre where miracle plays had been presented as early as 1543. Thus the Comédie Française may be said to have an unbroken tradition reaching back to the days of Molière, and to have had theatre connections for more than a century previous to the death of the great dramatist in 1673. Two years after the amalgamation of the dramatic companies they received a royal grant of 12,000 livres ($2,400) per year; and seven years later they took, for the first, their present designation of players of the “Comédie Française.” From 1770 to 1782 the “Comédie” had quarters in the royal palace of the Tuileries. But the Revolution of 1789 divided the players of the “Comédie Française” into two strongly antagonistic political parties and disrupted the organization to such an extent that all public performances were suspended. Each party reorganized, some months later, as an independent theatrical organization, the Royalists taking the name “Théâtre de la Nation” and the Republicans that of “Théâtre de la République.” In 1793 the former theatre closed its doors and the players were arrested by the Committee of Public Safety; but they were subsequently released and allowed to again open their theatre. Napoleon, in 1812, issued regulations for the government

of the national theatre, which are still, with some subsequent modifications, in force. The government appoints a general manager of the theatre, the members of the stock company of which divide the profits according to laws and regulations prescribed by the articles of incorporation of the organization. The “Comédie Française” receives from the French government an annual pension of 240,000 francs. Its membership is divided into “sociétaires” and “pensionnaires.” The former are regular members of the organization and as such receive a pension of 4,000 francs a year after 20 years of service, while the latter are paid actors who may, after a certain length of service, become “sociétaires.”

The building of the “Comédie Française” was so badly damaged by fire in 1900 that it had to be practically rebuilt. This resulted in making the edifice much more modern in every way. The names of nearly all the great actors and dramatists of France have, at some time in their career, been associated with that of the “Comédie.”

Bibliography. — Bonnassies, J., ‘La Comedie Française, histoire administrative’ (Paris 1874); Cochrane, ‘The Théâtre Français in the Reign of Louis XV’ (London 1879); Etienne and Martainville, ‘Histoire du Théatre Français’ (Paris 1802); Hawkins, F. W., ‘The French Stage in the Eighteenth Century’ (London 1888); Joannides, ‘La Comédie Française 1680 à 1900’ (Paris 1901); Lucas, ‘Histoire philosophique et littéraire du Théâtre Français’ (Paris 1862); Pougin, A., ‘Dictionnaire historique et pittoresque du théâtre’ (Paris 1888); Rigal, Eugène, ‘Les Théâtres de Paris 1548 à 1635’ (Paris 1887); Soubies, A., ‘Almanach des Spectacles’ (1890); Weiss, ‘Autour de la Comédie Française’ (Paris 1892).


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/194

 policy. He now proved himself the first great commercial minister since the days of Thomas Cromwell. On 19 Oct. 1721 the speech from the throne announced his proposals. He recommended the removal of export duties from 106 articles of British manufacture, and of import duties from 38 articles of raw material. He also relieved the colonies from export duties upon naval stores, hoping to encourage supplies for the navy from that source, and thereby to render the country independent of political contingencies in the Baltic. He thus reversed the traditional attitude of statesmen's minds towards imports. They were to be treated, so far as possible, as raw materials for our manufactures rather than as intrusive foreign products. Encouragement to imports would, he saw, facilitate exportation, which up to that time had exclusively monopolised attention. It is not unlikely that Arthur Moore [q. v.], who had been the real author of Bolingbroke's commercial treaty with France in 1713, was Walpole's adviser in this policy (, Bolingbroke, pp. 149, 245). The restless Sunderland now began to coquet with the tories. With the hope of getting rid of Walpole, he suggested to the king his appointment for life to the lucrative office of postmaster-general. This would have excluded him from parliament. The proposal elicited from the king the reply, ‘I will never part with him again.’ On 19 April 1722 Sunderland died. Early in May 1722 the regent Orleans disclosed to Walpole the Atterbury conspiracy [see ]. It was accompanied by a plot to assassinate Walpole himself (, Reminiscences, p. cxiv). Walpole with characteristic vigour ‘took the chief part in unravelling this dark mystery’ (Onslow MSS. p. 462). His usual moderation towards political opponents showed itself in proceeding against the bishop by a bill of pains and penalties instead of by attainder. He appeared as a witness against the bishop in the House of Lords, where a memorable duel of wits took place, ‘but he was too hard for the bishop upon every turn’ (ib. p. 463). In the following October (17th) he took the unprecedented step of suspending the habeas corpus act for a year—‘too long,’ Hallam not unjustly says. On 31 Oct. he intimated to the House of Commons his intention to introduce a bill for raising 100,000l. by a special tax on the estates of Roman catholics and nonjurors. This bill when brought into the house on 23 Nov. 1722 proved to refer to Roman catholics only. Walpole justified it, against the objection that it savoured of persecution, upon purely political grounds—that the recent plot had been hatched in Rome, and that the Roman catholics were unanimously favourable to the restoration of the pretender. Upon this reasoning the house revived his original intention and extended the bill to all nonjurors (10 May 1723). The consequence was ‘a ridiculous sight to see, people crowding to give a testimony of their allegiance to a government, and cursing it at the same time for giving them the trouble’ (Onslow MSS. p. 463). This act (9 Geo. I, c. 24) was one of Walpole's least judicious measures, the disaffection it excited more than compensating for the aid it brought to the treasury.

On 10 June 1723 the king rewarded Walpole's services by creating his eldest son Robert a peer, by the title of Lord Walpole of Walpole. For himself the minister had refused the honour, a significant indication that he regarded the House of Commons as the seat of power. About this time the elements of a new whig opposition began to crystallise. The centre was John, lord Carteret [q. v.], who had been nominated by Sunderland to succeed James Craggs, jun., on 5 March 1721. He followed Sunderland's example and intrigued with the German dependents of the king. Daniel Pulteney [q. v.] and Sir John Barnard [q. v.], Walpole's principal opponents on matters of finance, were at first the leaders of this faction in the commons; in 1726 the Earl of Chesterfield [see ] became the chief ally of Carteret in the lords.

In the summer of 1723 Townshend and Carteret, the two secretaries of state, accompanied the king to Hanover, leaving Walpole in undisputed possession of power in England. So tranquil were public affairs that on 30 Aug. 1723 Walpole boasted to Townshend that money could be raised at 3l. 12s. 6d. per cent. Meanwhile Carteret was attempting to play again the part enacted by Sunderland in 1716. A struggle took place at the Hanoverian court between Townshend, supported by the Duchess of Kendal, and Carteret in alliance with Bernstorff and Bothmar, the Hanoverian ministers. The immediate question at issue, the Platen marriage [see ], ended in the victory of Townshend and the substitution (12 Oct. 1723) of Horatio Walpole [q. v.] for Carteret's agent, Sir Luke Schaub [q. v.], as envoy to Paris. Carteret had in the meantime been casting about for supporters in parliament, and projected a coalition with the tories to oust Walpole. This intrigue was betrayed to Walpole in July


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/74

 lxviii snatches up bits of its old beliefs, and fears, and griefs, and glory, and pieces them together with something that happened yesterday, and then holds up the distorted reflection in all its inconsequence, just as it has passed before that magic glass, as though it were genuine history, and matter for pure belief. And here it may be as well to say, that besides that old classical foe of vernacular tradition, there is another hardly less dangerous, which returns to the charge of copying, but changes what lawyers call the venue of the trial from classical to Eastern lands. According to this theory, which came up when its classical predecessor was no longer tenable, the traditions and tales of Western Europe came from the East, but they were still all copies. They were supposed to have proceeded entirely from two sources: one the Directorium Humancæ Vitæ of John of Capua, translated between 1262-78 from a Hebrew version, which again came from an Arabic version of the eighth century, which came from a Pehlvi version made by one Barzouyeh, at the command of Chosrou Noushirvan, King of Persia, in the sixth century, which again came from the Pantcha-Tantra, a Sanscrit original of unknown antiquity. This is that famous book of Calila and Dimna, as the Persian version is called, attributed to Bidpai, and which was thus run to earth in. India. The second source of Western tradition was held to be that still more famous collection of stories commonly known by the name of the "Story of the Seven Sages," but which, under many names—Kaiser Octavianus, Diocletianus, Dolopathos, Erastus, etc.—plays a most important part in medieval romance. This, too, by a similar process, has been traced to India, appearing first in


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/75

 Rh Europe at the beginning of the thirteenth century in the Latin Historia Septem Sapientum Romæ, by Dame Jehans, monk in the Abbey of Haute Selve. Here, too, we have a Hebrew, an Arabic, and a Persian version; which last came avowedly from a Sanscrit original, though that original has not yet been discovered. From these two sources of fable and tradition, according to the new copying theory, our Western fables and tales had come by direct translation from the East. Now it will be at once evident that this theory hangs on what may be called a single thread. Let us say, then, that all that can be found in Calila and Dimna, or the later Persian version, made A.D. 1494, of Hossein Vaez, called the Anvari Sohaïli, "the Canopic Lights,"—from which, when published in Paris by David Sahid of Ispahan, in the year 1644, La Fontaine drew the substance of many of his best fables.—Let us say, too, that all can be found in the "Life of the Seven Sages," "or the Book of Sendabad," as it was called in Persia, after an apocryphal Indian sage—came by translation—that is to say, through the cells of Brahmins, magians, and monks, and the labours of the learned—into the popular literature of the West. Let us give up all that, and then see where we stand. What are we to say of the many tales and fables which are to be found in neither of those famous collections, and not tales alone, but traits and features of old tradition, broken bits of fable, roots and germs of mighty growths of song and story, nay, even the very words, which exist in Western popular literature, and which modern philology has found obstinately sticking in Sanscrit, and of which fresh proofs and instances are discovered every day? What


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/195

 1723 by Bolingbroke, who had received a pardon in the previous May. Bolingbroke suggested that Walpole should accept his aid in forming such a coalition in his own interest. But Walpole was no lover of intrigue. When Sunderland made a similar proposal, ‘Mr. Walpole took the other point of standing or falling with the whigs’ (Carlisle MSS. p. 38). He now as firmly rejected Bolingbroke's overtures. It was at this period that he detected Pulteney [see ] in secret correspondence with Carteret, and never put confidence in him again (, Memoirs, i. 12). Townshend's success over Carteret was marked by the dismissal of Carteret from the secretaryship of state and his appointment as lord-lieutenant of Ireland (3 April 1724). From this time may be dated a resolution apparent in Walpole to keep men of brilliant talent out of his administrations. He nominated as Carteret's successor the Duke of Newcastle [see ], ‘having experienced how troublesome a man of parts was in that office’ (, Mem. i. 163). The natural consequence was that the whig opposition was constantly recruited by the men of promise whose numbers and abilities eventually proved equal to the overthrow of Walpole's administration.

Carteret arrived in Ireland (23 Oct. 1724) in the midst of the excitement aroused over ‘Wood's halfpence.’ This grant had been made by Sunderland to gratify the Duchess of Kendal [see ], who had sold it to Wood [see d. 1730]. Walpole had, in fact, opposed it (Lord Midleton to Thomas Brodrick, 15 Aug. 1725,, ii. 427), but it was his duty as first lord of the treasury to sign the treasury warrant of 23 Aug. 1722 authorising ‘William Wood of Wolverhampton to establish at or near Bristol his office for carrying out the affairs of his patent giving him sole power and authority to coin copper farthings and halfpence for the service of Ireland’ (Hist. MSS. Comm. 8th Rep. App. p. 79 a). The value was limited to 108,000l. Walpole made diligent inquiry into the justification of the outcry raised. In a letter to Townshend on 12 Oct. 1723 he showed in detail that it was utterly baseless, and proved it by the verdict of a practical assayer (January 1724,, ii. 410). He was for resolute measures. On 24 Sept. and 3 Oct. 1723 he wrote angry letters to Grafton, Carteret's predecessor as lord lieutenant, for his weakness in face of the opposition to the patent in the Irish parliament (MSS. Record Office). Carteret, whom Walpole had, perhaps on insufficient grounds, suspected of inciting his friends the Brodricks [see ], who led the Irish party, to resistance, had originally been nominated lord lieutenant, as Sir W. Scott, in his ‘Life of Swift,’ says, by a ‘refined revenge,’ that he might carry the matter through with a high hand. Wood was said to have indiscreetly boasted, ‘Mr. Walpole will cram his brass down their throats’ (‘Fourth Drapier Letter,’ Works, vi. 428). But it was never Walpole's policy to fly in the face of popular passion. He bowed to the storm by recommending to the king to substitute 40,000l. for the 100,000l. as the limit of value of the coin to be imported into Ireland (see the report of the privy council, dated 24 July 1724, in Works, vi. 366–76). Primate Hugh Boulter [q. v.] had warned the ministry on 19 Jan. 1724 that not even a reduction to 20,000l. would be accepted. He was right. On 4 Aug. appeared the second ‘Drapier Letter,’ assailing Walpole's concession as savagely as the original grant. Walpole then felt that no safe course was left but to withdraw the patent altogether, and wrote to that effect to Newcastle on 1 Sept. 1724. But Townshend and the king were still for strong measures, and Carteret, whose private opinion was known to be adverse to the patent (St. John Brodrick to Midleton, 10 May 1724), went to Ireland determined to regain the royal favour by his zeal in enforcing it. By December Carteret had come round to Walpole's opinion, and in May 1725 the king, on Walpole's advice, consented that the patent should be cancelled. So tranquil was England during 1724 that only one public division took place in the House of Commons, where Walpole was now all-powerful.

The year 1725 was marked by disturbances in Scotland. In February 1724 the English country gentlemen in parliament had expressed a grievance at the evasion by the Scots of their share of the malt tax. Walpole, apprehensive of exciting the latent disaffection of Scotland, at first resisted the proposal to enforce its levy; but in December 1724 a motion was carried to substitute a duty of sixpence a barrel on beer in Scotland instead of the malt tax. In July 1725 this led to a riot in Glasgow and a combination among the brewers of Edinburgh to discontinue brewing, which it was expected would lead to fresh disturbances. Walpole had reason to believe that the riots were being fomented for political purposes by the Duke of Roxburghe [see ], one of the Carteret faction, secretary of state for Scotland, who was persuaded that they would lead to Walpole's overthrow. On


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/76

 lxx are we to say of such a remarkable resemblance as this?—

Well, this is a story neither in the Pantcha-Tantra nor the Hitopadesa, the Sanscrit originals of Calila and Dimna. It is not in the Directorium Humanæ Vitæ, and has not passed west by that way. Nor is it in the Book of Sendabad, and thence come west in the "History of the Seven Sages." Both these paths are stopped. It comes from the Katha Sarit Sagara, the "Sea of Streams of Story" of Somadeva Bhatta of Cashmere, who, in the middle of the twelfth century of our era, worked up the tales found in an earlier collection, called the Vrihat


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/77

Rh Katha, "the lengthened story," in order to amuse his mistress, the Queen of Cashmere. Somadeva's collection has only been recently known and translated. But west the story certainly came long before, and in the extreme north-west we still find it in these Norse Tales in "The Three Princesses of Whiteland," p. 181.

Nor in the Norse Tales alone. Other collections shew how thoroughly at home this story was in the East. In the Relations of Ssidi Kur, a Tartar tale, a Chan's son first gets possession of a cloak which two children stand and fight for, which has the gift of making the wearer invisible, and afterwards of a pair of boots, with which one can wish one's-self to whatever place one chooses. Again, in a Wallachian tale, we read of three devils who


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/196

 25 Aug. 1725 the duke was dismissed. Walpole made his trusted friend the Earl of Islay then Privy Seal for Scotland, the ministerial manager for that country [see, third ]. In obedience to Walpole's instructions and as Walpole's representative in Scotland, the earl levied the tax and put down the brewers' combination. The session in parliament of 1725 was made memorable by the impeachment for corruption of the Earl of Macclesfield [see ], lord chancellor. It is said that Walpole was jealous of the chancellor's personal influence with the king and the German ministers. He himself took the decisive measure of appointing a committee of the privy council to investigate the rumours against Macclesfield (, Lives of the Chancellors, iv. 518), and his friend Sir George Oxenden moved the impeachment in the commons. On the other hand, William Pulteney, now in open opposition, and Sir William Wyndham [q. v.], the leader of the tories, were the chancellor's defenders. After George I's death Walpole refused to make Macclesfield any further payments from the treasury in discharge of the fine of 30,000l. which the king had promised to defray (ib. p. 539).

On 20 April 1725 Walpole seconded a motion made by Lord Finch in the House of Commons for removing so much of Bolingbroke's attainder as to enable him to succeed upon his father's death to the family estates. Walpole, who knew his restless temper, had always opposed his return, and in 1733 spoke of his yielding to it as ‘a much repented fault’ (, Memoirs, i. 224). He was induced to support this motion only by the peremptory insistence of the king, prompted by the Duchess of Kendal, who pocketed a bribe of 11,000l. His reluctance, and still more his insertion of a clause in the act restoring Bolingbroke's estates, which prevented Bolingbroke from exercising a free disposition over them, excited keen resentment (Onslow MSS. p. 515). Bolingbroke at once set to work to unite the scattered factions which had hitherto offered but a desultory and feeble opposition to Walpole's administration.

In 1725 Walpole persuaded the king to revive the order of the Bath, ‘an artful bank of thirty-six ribands to supply a fund of favours’ (, Reminiscences, p. cxiv). He was himself on 27 May invested with the order, which he quitted on 26 June 1726 for the Garter. This promotion of a commoner, for the first time since 1660, caused much jealousy among the nobility, and suggested the nickname ‘Sir Bluestring’ by which he was commonly assailed in the pasquinades of the time.

Foreign affairs now first began to press upon Walpole's attention. The treaty of Vienna, signed on 30 April 1725, had effected a coalition between Philip V of Spain and the emperor Charles VI of Austria. It was suspected to include, and in fact did so, secret articles for the wresting of Gibraltar from the English, of Hanover from the king, for the restoration of the pretender, and for the suppression of protestantism. As a counter move to this, Townshend, then with the king, devised the treaty of Hanover. This established an alliance between England, France, and Prussia. In England an outcry at once arose that the country was to be sacrificed to the king's German dominions. Walpole, who had not been consulted, blamed Townshend as ‘too precipitate.’ He dreaded a war which, he wrote to Townshend on 13 Oct., was only to be justified by the imminence of an invasion. As evidences of a projected invasion multiplied (Walpole to Townshend, 21 Oct. 1725,, ii. 488), his dislike of the treaty abated, and on 19 Feb. 1726 he carried in the House of Commons an address expressing approval of it. Nevertheless, he still resented Townshend's conduct, and henceforth insisted upon being made acquainted with the progress of foreign affairs (, Memoirs, i. 23). It is not without significance that we find him on 19 June 1726 addressing a complimentary letter to Fleury. Townshend, on the other hand, resented this new departure. On 23 May 1726 Pozobueno wrote to Ripperda, ‘The misunderstanding between Townshend and Walpole daily increases’ (, ii. 501).

While this rift was widening in the ministry, Pulteney, as leader of the opposition, was adding to his following in the House of Commons. In a letter to the emperor on 17 Dec. 1726, Palm estimated his supporters as nearly a third of the house, and outside the house as consisting ‘in the richest and most considerable persons of this nation.’ His policy was an alliance with the emperor, Walpole's for the maintenance of friendship with France. Upon the assembling of parliament, on 17 Jan. 1727, Walpole dexterously turned the popular feeling against Pulteney's policy by the king's speech which revealed the terms of the treaty of Vienna. So intense was the public indignation that ministers carried the address by 251 to 81.

In December 1726 the opposition had started the ‘Craftsman,’ a paper chiefly inspired by Bolingbroke. It contained scurrilous invectives against the Walpoles and


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/379

 Rh cut its little finger, and smeared the queen's mouth with the blood, telling her now she should be as grieved as she had been when the lassie let out the sun.

And now the Prince could not save her any longer. She must and should be burnt. But just as they were leading her to the stake, all at once they saw her foster-mother, who came with all three children—two she led by the hand, and the third she had on her arm; and so she went up to the young queen and said,—

"Here are your children; now you shall have them again. I am the Virgin Mary, and so grieved as you have been, so grieved was I when you let out sun, and moon, and star. Now you have been punished for what you did, and henceforth you shall have your speech."

How glad the Queen and Prince now were all may easily think, but no one can telL After that they were always happy; and from that day even the Prince's mother was very fond of the young queen.

THE THREE AUNTS.

on a time there was a poor man who lived in a hut far away in the wood, and got his living by shooting. He had an only daughter, who was very pretty, and as she had lost her mother when she was a child, and was now half grown up, she said she would go out into the world and earn her bread.

"Well, lassie!" said the father, "true enough you have


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/384

 198 just as good-looking when I was her age; but the reason why I've got this long nose is, because I was always kept sitting, and poking, and nodding over my spinning, and so my nose got stretched and stretched, until it got as long as you now see it."

"And I," said the second, "ever since I was young, I have sat and scuttled backwards and forwards over my loom, and that's how my back has got so broad and humped as you now see it."

"And I," said the third, "ever since I was little, I have sat, and stared and sewn, and sewn and stared, night and day; and that's why my eyes have got so ugly and red, and now there's no help for them."

"So, so!" said the Prince, "'twas lucky I came to know this; for if folk can get so ugly and loathsome by all this, then my bride shall neither spin, nor weave, nor sew all her life long."

THE COCK, THE CUCKOO, AND THE BLACKCOCK.

[This Is another of those tales in which the birds' notes must be imitated.]

on a time the Cock, the Cuckoo, and the Blackcock bought a cow between them. But when they came to share it, and couldn't agree which should buy the others out, they settled that he who woke first in the morning should have the cow.

So the Cock woke first


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/197

 much declamation against corruption. It produced a great effect upon the public mind, so much so that the tories confidently anticipated that, with the assistance of the king's German chamberlain Fabrice and the Duchess of Kendal, Bolingbroke would supplant Walpole in the king's confidence (‘Anecdote of Mr. Pelham’ in, ii. 572; cf. Onslow MSS. p. 516). Bolingbroke, anxious to produce an impression on the king, induced the duchess to lay before him a memorandum against Walpole in the style of the ‘Craftsman.’ Walpole, hearing of this and shrewdly anticipating George I's distaste for declamation, insisted that the duchess should procure Bolingbroke an audience. On Walpole's inquiry as to the substance of Bolingbroke's indictment, the king replied ‘Bagatelles! Bagatelles!’ Nevertheless, so shaken did Walpole feel his position to be by the defection of the duchess that, if we are to believe a statement made by Pelham to Onslow (Onslow MSS. p. 516), he was only dissuaded by the Duke of Devonshire and the Princess of Wales from retiring with a peerage in the summer of George I's last visit to Hanover. This inclination was strengthened by a serious illness which attacked him on 26 April 1727 (Hist. MSS. Comm. 9th Rep. App. p. 401 b), and was thought to endanger his life (Primate Boulter to Lord Townshend, 9 May 1727). He was so weakened that in June, when anticipating dismissal by George II, he burst into tears at a visit from Onslow, and ‘declared he would never leave the court if he could have any office there, and would be content even with the comptroller's staff’ (Onslow MSS. p. 517).

The news of the sudden death of George I on 12 June 1727 reached Walpole at Chelsea on the 14th. Aware of the importance of a first audience, he ‘killed two horses in carrying the tidings’ to the new king at Richmond (Walpoliana, i. 86). The king, who when he quarrelled with his father had called Walpole ‘rogue and rascal,’ received him coldly and nominated his treasurer Compton [see ] to draw up the declaration to the privy council. Compton, unequal to the task, requested Walpole to draft it for him. Walpole eagerly seized the opportunity to put Compton under an obligation. He anticipated a possible impeachment, and promised Compton his support in parliament in return for protection (, Memoirs, i. 32–3). The courtiers at once began to trim their sails. ‘Sir Robert's presence, that used to make a crowd wherever he appeared, now emptied every corner he turned to’ (ib. p. 37). But the queen hated Compton, who had injudiciously paid court to Mrs. Howard [see ], the king's mistress. Compton himself became sensible that he could neither form a ministry with the tories nor without them. The king was anxious for the maintenance of the French alliance; Horatio Walpole had Fleury's ear, and Fleury dismissed him to London to exhort George to adhere to his father's policy. Lastly, Walpole appealed to the king's strongest passion—avarice. The civil list of his father had been fixed at 700,000l. Walpole offered to make it 800,000l. [see ]. Compton had proposed that the queen's jointure should be 60,000l. a year; Walpole undertook to ask for 100,000l. Compton had neither the courage nor the following to carry the larger proposals. The king greedily swallowed the bait. ‘It is for my life,’ he said to Walpole, ‘it is to be fixed, and it is for your life.’ On 24 June 1727 Walpole was reappointed first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, and Townshend secretary of state.

The new parliament met on 23 Jan. 1728 with a considerable majority in favour of the ministry. Pulteney, who in 1725 and 1727 had assumed the part of financial critic on behalf of the opposition, attacked Walpole on the ground of an improper application of the sinking fund. Walpole successfully defended his version as to the state of the national debt and the rate of its discharge, and carried the division by the decisive vote of 250 to 97 (4 March). But as public feeling had been aroused, especially by Pulteney's pamphlet ‘On the State of the National Debt,’ he deemed it prudent to draw up an elaborate report (Parl. Hist. viii. 654), which was accepted by the House of Commons by 243 to 77 (8 April) and presented to the king (11 April). In this session Walpole was placed in a critical position by the avarice of the king, which he once declared one of his two principal difficulties, Hanover being the other (, Anecdotes, p. 41). The king complained that 115,000l. was deficient on the civil list. The claim was more than doubtful, and Walpole refused to endorse it. The tories thereupon made overtures to the king, offering to add another 100,000l., and George intimated plainly to Walpole that he must either undertake to press the claim through parliament or resign (, Memoirs, i. 124). Walpole with much reluctance yielded, but the opposition in parliament was strong, and fourteen peers signed a protest (10 May 1729). The failure of the opposition to displace Walpole was


text:
Page:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu/81

 It forms a fine thick octavo volume of six hundred and seventy-one pages, which are thus arranged: Title, as above; verso to the title, copyright certificate to, Junior,—both unpaged; 3 to 7, "Prefatory Remarks," dated "City of Washington, May, 1818"; 8, blank; 9 to 550, "The Federalist"; 551 to 593, "Appendix. The Letters of Pacificus. By "; 594 to 638, "The Letters of Helvidius. By "; 639 to 650, "The original articles of confederation"; 651 to 671, "Constitution of the United States."

It is printed in signatures of eight pages each, on paper of good quality, with a fine full-faced pica type, solid,—the "Prefatory Remarks" with a fine clean bourgeois, leaded,—and is entirely without illustrations.

This description is the result of a careful examination of the copy which is in the private library of, Esq., in the city of New York.

In the year 1826 an edition of The Fœderalist, probably the eleventh, was published at Hallowell, of which the following is a copy of the title-page:—

"The | Federalist, | on | the new constitution, | written in | the year 1788, | by | Mr., Mr. , and Mr. : | with | an appendix, | containing | the letters of Pacificus and Helvidius, | on the | proclamation of neutrality of 1793; | also, the | original articles of confederation, | and the | constitution of the United States, | with the | amendments made thereto. | A new edition. | The numbers written by Mr. corrected by himself. | Hallowell, (Me.): | Printed and published by  & Co. | 1826."

It forms a large octavo volume, of five hundred and eighty-two pages, which are thus arranged: Title-page, as above; verso of the title-page, with certificate of copyright granted to, Junior, in 1818,—


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/385

 Rh

he crew, and as he crew, up awoke the Cuckoo,

sang the Cuckoo, and woke up the Blackcock,

That's what the Blackcock said.

And now, can you tell me which of them ought to have the cow?

RICH PETER THE PEDLAR.

on a time there was a man whom they called Rich Peter the Pedlar, because he used to travel about with a pack, and got so much money that he became quite rich. This Rich Peter had a daughter, whom he held so dear that all who came to woo her were sent about their business, for no one was good enough for her, he thought. Well, this went on and on, and at last no one came to woo her, and as years rolled on, Peter began to be afraid that she would die an old maid.

"I wonder now," he said to his wife, "why suitors no longer come to woo our lass, who is so rich. 'Twould be odd if nobody cared to have her, for money she has, and more she shall have. I think I'd better just go off to the


text:
Page:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu/82

 both unpaged; 3 to 6, "Prefatory Remarks"; 7 to 493, "The Federalist"; 494 to 525, "Appendix. The Letters of Pacificus, by "; 526 to 558, "The Letters of Helvidius, by "; 559 to 567, "The original Articles of Confederation"; 568 to 582, "Constitution of the United States."

It is printed in signatures of sixteen pages each, on paper of a fair quality, with a small size of small-pica type, leaded, and is not illustrated. The running-titles at the heads of the pages are in small capital letters; the titles of the respective numbers are in capitals,—"No. LXXX."; the contents of the numbers are in Italics; and the "Prefatory Remarks" are in small pica, solid.

This description is the result of a careful examination of a copy in the library of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, compared with one in the library of the American Institute, in the city of New York.

In 1827, it is said, another edition of The Fœderalist was published at Hallowell, but every effort to find a copy of it has proved fruitless.

The catalogue of the library of the State of New York, at Albany, alludes to the existence, in that collection, of a copy of this edition; but Mr., the assistant librarian in charge of that department, has not been able to find it during the ten years which he has spent in the institution, nor has a copy been found elsewhere, notwithstanding a diligent search has been instituted for that purpose in various directions.


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/386

 200 Stargazers, and ask them whom she shall have, for not a soul comes to us now."

"But how," asked the wife, "can the Stargazers answer that?"

"Can't they?" said Peter; "why! they read all things in the stars."

So he took with him a great bag of money, and set off to the Stargazers, and asked them to be so good as to look at the stars, and tell him the husband his daughter was to have.

Well, the Stargazers looked and looked, but they said they could see nothing about it. But Peter begged them to look better, and to tell him the truth; he would pay them well for it. So the Stargazers looked better, and at last they said that his daughter's husband was to be the miller's son, who was only just born, down at the mill below Rich Peter's house. Then Peter gave the Stargazers a hundred dollars, and went home with the answer he had got.

Now, he thought it too good a joke that his daughter should wed one so newly born, and of such poor estate. He said this to his wife, and added,—

"I wonder now if they would sell me the boy; then I'd soon put him out of the way?"

"I daresay they would," said his wife; "you know they're very poor."

So Peter went down to the mill, and asked the miller's wife whether she would sell him her son; she should get a heap of money for him?

"No!" that she wouldn't.

"Well!" said Peter, "I'm sure I can't see why you


text:
Page:Popular tales from the Norse (1912).djvu/387

 Rh shouldn't; you've hard work enough as it is to keep hunger out of the house, and the boy won't make it easier, I think"

But the mother was so proud of the boy she couldn't part with him. So when the miller came home, Peter said the same thing to him, and gave his word to pay six hundred dollars for the boy, so that they might buy themselves a farm of their own, and not have to grind other folks' corn, and to starve when they ran short of water. The miller thought it was a good bargain, and he talked over his wife; and the end was, that Rich Peter got the boy. The mother cried and sobbed, but Peter comforted her by saying the boy should be well cared for; only they had to promise never to ask after him, for he said he meant to send him far away to other lands, so that he might learn foreign tongues.

So when Peter the Pedlar got home with the boy he sent for a carpenter, and had a little chest made, which was so tidy and neat, 'twas a joy to see. This he made water-tight with pitch, put the miller's boy into it, locked it up, and threw it into the river, where the stream carried it away.

"Now, I'm rid of him," thought Peter the Pedlar.

But when the chest had floated ever so far down the stream, it came into the mill-head of another mill, and ran down and hampered the shaft of the wheel, and stopped it. Out came the miller to see what stopped the mill, found the chest, and took it up. So when he came home to dinner to his wife, he said,—

"I wonder now whatever there can be inside this chest, which came floating down the mill-head and stopped our mill to-day?"