text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/117

 such that he conceived not only a dislike for oaths, but a rooted objection to commit himself even to a promise. Impey formed an attachment for him in spite of his eccentricities, but he insisted on having his indentures cancelled on the score of the scruples which he entertained about practising the profession. He was now for a time to become dependent wholly upon his pen. He had already written for the periodicals, and in 1787 he published ‘Poems upon various Subjects’ (London, 2 vols. 8vo) which was favourably noticed in the ‘Critical Review.’ About the same time he became editor of the ‘Biographical and Imperial Magazine,’ for which he received a salary of 50l. He made perhaps as much by contributions to other periodicals, and devoted half his income to the support of his mother, who had failed in her business.

Thelwall commenced his political career by speaking at the meetings of the society for free debate at the Coachmakers' Hall. In the course of the discussions in which he took part a number of radical views became grafted upon his original high tory doctrines, and when the States-General met at Versailles in 1789, he rapidly became ‘intoxicated with the French doctrines of the day.’ Though he suffered originally from a marked hesitation of speech and even a slight lisp, he gradually developed with the voice of a demagogue a genuine declamatory power. He made an impression at Coachmakers' Hall by an eloquent speech in which he opposed the compact formed by the rival parties to neutralise the voice of the Westminster electors in 1790. When it was determined to nominate an independent candidate, he was asked to act as a poll clerk, and he soon won the friendship of the veteran Horne Tooke when the latter resolved to contest the seat. Tooke so appreciated his talents that he offered to send him to the university and to use his influence to obtain his subsequent advancement in the church. But Thelwall had formed other plans for his future. His income was steadily increasing, and during the summer of 1791 he married and settled down near the Borough hospitals in order that he might attend the anatomical and medical lectures of Henry Cline [q. v.], William Babington [q. v.], and others. He was also a frequent attendant at the lecture-room of John Hunter. He joined the Physical Society at Guy's Hospital, and read before it ‘An Essay on Animal Vitality,’ which was much applauded (London, 1793, 8vo).

In the meantime the advanced opinions which Thelwall shared were rapidly spreading in London, and 1791 saw the formation of a number of Jacobin societies. Thelwall joined the Society of the Friends of the People, and he became a prominent member of the Corresponding Society founded by Thomas Hardy (1752–1832) [q. v.] in January 1792. One of ‘Citizen Thelwall's’ sallies at the Capel Court Society, in which he likened a crowned despot to a bantam cock on a dunghill, caught the radical taste of the day. When this rodomontade was reproduced with some embellishments in ‘Politics for the People, or Hogswash’ (No. 8; the second title was in reference to a contemptuous remark of Burke's upon the ‘swinish multitude’), the government precipitately caused the publisher, Daniel Isaac Eaton, to be indicted at the Old Bailey for a seditious libel; but, in spite of an adverse summing-up, the jury found the prisoner not guilty (24 Feb. 1794), and the prosecution was covered with ridicule owing to the grotesque manner in which the indictment was framed—the phrase ‘meaning our lord the king’ being interpolated at each of the most ludicrous passages in Thelwall's description. The affair gave him a certain notoriety, and he was marked down by the government spies. One of these, named Gostling, declared that Thelwall upon a public occasion cut the froth from a pot of porter and invoked a similar fate upon all kings. He was not finally arrested, however, until 13 May 1794, when he was charged upon the deposition of another spy, named Ward, with having moved a seditious resolution at a meeting at Chalk Farm. Six days later he was sent to the Tower along with Thomas Hardy and Horne Tooke, who had been arrested upon similar charges. On 6 Oct. true bills were found against them, and on 24 Oct. they were removed to Newgate. His trial was the last of the political trials of the year, being held on 1–5 Dec. at the Old Bailey before Chief-baron Macdonald. The testimony as to Thelwall's moral character was exceptionally strong, and his acquittal was the signal for a great outburst of applause. At the beginning of the trial he handed a pencilled note to counsel, saying he wished to plead his own cause. ‘If you do, you will be hanged,’ was Erskine's comment, to which he at once rejoined, ‘Then I'll be hanged if I do’. Soon after his release he published ‘Poems written in Close Confinement in the Tower and Newgate’ (London, 1795, 4to). He was now living at Beaufort Buildings, Strand, and during 1795 his activity as a lecturer and political speaker was redoubled. When in December Pitt's act for more effectually preventing seditious


text: Index:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 3, 1892.djvu

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


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/118

 meetings and assemblies received the royal assent, he thought it wisest to leave London; and Mathias, in the ‘Pursuits of Literature,’ mentions how Thelwall for the season quits the Strand, To organise revolt by sea and land (Dial. iv. l. 413). But he continued for nearly two years denouncing the government to the provinces, and commenting freely upon contemporary politics through the medium of ‘Lectures upon Roman History.’ He was warmly received in some of the large centres; in the eastern counties, especially at Yarmouth (where he narrowly escaped capture by a pressgang), King's Lynn, and Wisbech, mobs were hired which effectually prevented his being heard.

About 1798 he withdrew altogether from his connection with politics and took a small farm near Brecon. There he spent two years, gaining in health, but suffering a great deal from the enforced silence; and about 1800 he resumed his career as a lecturer, discarding politics in favour of elocution. His illustrations were so good and his manner so animated that his lectures soon became highly popular. At Edinburgh during 1804 he had a fierce paper war with Francis Jeffrey [q. v.], whom he suspected of inspiring some uncharitable remarks about him in the ‘Edinburgh Review.’ Soon after this he settled down as a teacher of oratory in Upper Bedford Place, and had many bar students among his pupils. He made the acquaintance of Southey, Hazlitt, and Coleridge (who spoke of him as an honest man, with the additional rare distinction of having nearly been hanged), and also of Talfourd, Crabb Robinson, and Charles Lamb. From the ordinary groove of elocutionary teaching, Thelwall gradually concentrated his attention upon the cure of stammering, and more generally upon the correction of defects arising from malformation of the organs of speech. In 1809 he took a large house in Lincoln's Inn Fields (No. 57) so that he might take the complete charge of patients, holding that the science of correcting impediments involved the correcting and regulating of the whole mental and moral habit of the pupil. His system had a remarkable success, some of his greatest triumphs being recorded in his ‘Treatment of Cases of Defective Utterance’ (1814) in the form of a letter to his old friend Cline. Crabb Robinson visited his institution on 27 Dec. 1815, and was tickled by Thelwall's idea of having Milton's ‘Comus’ recited by a troupe of stutterers, but was astonished at the results attained. Much as Charles Lamb disliked lectures and recitations, his esteem for Thelwall made him an occasional visitor at these entertainments in Lincoln's Inn Fields. Reports of some cases of special interest were contributed by him to the ‘Medical and Physical Journal.’

Thelwall prospered in his new vocation until 1818, when his constitutional restlessness impelled him to throw himself once more prematurely into the struggle for parliamentary reform. He purchased a journal, ‘The Champion,’ to advocate this cause; but his Dantonesque style of political oratory was entirely out of place in a periodical addressed to the reflective classes, and he soon lost a great portion of his earnings. He subsequently resumed his elocution school at Brixton, and latterly spent much time as an itinerant lecturer, retaining his cheerfulness and sanguine outlook to the last. He died at Bath on 17 Feb. 1834.

He married, first, on 27 July 1791, Susan Vellum, a native of Rutland, who died in 1816, leaving him four children. She supported him greatly during his early trials, and was, in the words of Crabb Robinson, his ‘good angel.’ He married secondly, about 1819, Cecil Boyle, a lady many years younger than himself. A woman of great social charm and some literary ability, she wrote, in addition to a ‘Life’ of her husband, several little works for children. She died in 1863, leaving one son, Weymouth Birkbeck Thelwall, a watercolour artist, who was accidentally killed in South Africa in 1873.

Talfourd and Crabb Robinson testify strongly to Thelwall's integrity and domestic virtues. His judgment was not perhaps equal to his understanding; but, apart from a slight warp of vanity and self-complacency, due in part to his self-acquired knowledge, few men were truer to their convictions. In person he was small, compact, and muscular, with a head denoting indomitable resolution. A portrait engraved by J. C. Timbrell, from a bust by E. Davis, forms the frontispiece to the ‘Life of John Thelwall by his Widow,’ London, 1837, 8vo. A portrait ascribed to William Hazlitt [q. v.] has also been reproduced. The British Museum possesses two stipple engravings—one by Richter.

Apart from the works already mentioned and a large number of minor pamphlets and leaflets, Thelwall published: 1. ‘The Peripatetic, or Sketches of the Heart of Nature and Society,’ London, 1793, 3 vols. 12mo. 2. ‘Political Lectures: On the Moral Tendency of a System of Spies and Informers, and the Conduct to be observed by the Friends of Liberty during the Continuance of such a System,’ London, 1794,


text: Index:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 2, 1891.djvu


text: Index:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/119

 8vo. 3. ‘The Natural and Constitutional Rights of Britons to Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Freedom of Popular Association,’ London, 1795, 8vo. 4. ‘Peaceful Discussion and not Tumultuary Violence the Means of redressing National Grievance,’ London, 1795, 8vo. 5. ‘The Rights of Nature against the Usurpation of Establishments: a Series of Letters on the recent Effusions of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke,’ London, 8vo, 1796. 6. ‘Sober Reflections on the Seditious and Inflammatory Letter of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke to a Noble Lord,’ London, 1796, 8vo. 7. ‘Poems chiefly written in Retirement (including an epic, “Edwin of Northumbria”),’ Hereford, 1801, 8vo; 2nd ed. 1805. 8. ‘Selections from Thelwall's Lectures on the Science and Practice of Elocution,’ York, 1802, 8vo; various editions. 9. ‘A Letter to Francis Jeffrey on certain Calumnies in the “Edinburgh Review,”’ Edinburgh, 1804, 8vo. 10. ‘Monody on the Right Hon. Charles James Fox,’ London, 1806, 8vo; two editions. 11. ‘The Vestibule of Eloquence … Original Articles, Oratorical and Poetical, intended as Exercises in Recitation,’ London, 1810, 8vo. 12. ‘Selections for the Illustration of a Course of Instructions on the Rhythmus and Utterance of the English Language,’ London, 1812, 8vo. 13. ‘Poetical Recreations of the Champion and his Literary Correspondents; with a Selection of Essays,’ London, 1822, 8vo.

Thelwall's eldest son, (1795–1863), born at Cowes in 1795, entered Trinity College, Cambridge, and graduated B.A. as eighteenth wrangler in 1818, and M.A. in 1826. Having taken orders, he served as English chaplain and missionary to the Jews at Amsterdam 1819–26, became curate of Blackford, Somerset, in 1828, and then successively minister of Bedford Chapel, Bloomsbury (1842–3), and curate of St. Matthew's, Pell Street (1848–50). He was one of the founders of the Trinitarian Bible Society. From 1850 he was well known as lecturer on public reading and elocution at King's College, London. He died at his house in Torrington Square on 30 Nov. 1863 (Gent. Mag. 1864, i. 128).

Among his voluminous writings, the most important are: 1. ‘A Scriptural Refutation of Mr. Irving's Heresy,’ London, 1834, 12mo. 2. ‘The Iniquities of the Opium Trade with China,’ London, 1839, 12mo. 3. ‘Old Testament Gospel, or Tracts for the Jews,’ London, 1847, 12mo. 4. ‘The Importance of Elocution in connexion with Ministerial Usefulness,’ London, 1850, 8vo. 5. ‘The Reading Desk and the Pulpit,’ London, 1861, 8vo. He also compiled the ‘Proceedings of the Anti-Maynooth Conference of 1845’ (London, 8vo).

[Life of John Thelwall, 1837, vol. i. (no more published); Gent. Mag. 1834, ii. 549; Talfourd's Memoirs of Charles Lamb, ed. Fitzgerald; Crabb Robinson's Diary, passim; Smith's Story of the English Jacobins, 1881; Britton's Autobiography, 1850, i. 180–6 (a warm eulogy from one who knew him well); Coleridge's Table Talk; Life of William Wilberforce, 1838, iii. 499; Edmonds's Poetry of the Anti-Jacobin; Wallas's Life of Francis Place, 1898; Trial of Tooke, Thelwall, and Hardy, 1795, 8vo; Howell's State Trials, xxiii. 1013; Watt's Bibl. Britannica; Penny Encyclopædia; Brit. Mus. Cat; private information.]

THEOBALD or TEDBALDUS (d. 1161), archbishop of Canterbury, came of a Norman family of knightly rank, settled near Thierceville, in the neighbourhood of Bec Hellouin. He became a monk of Bec between 1093 and 1124, was made prior in 1127, and elected abbot in 1137. Difficulties with respect to the rights of the archbishop of Rouen delayed his benediction for fourteen months; they were finally settled through the mediation of Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, and Theodore received the benediction from the archbishop (Vita Theobaldi). The see of Canterbury having been vacant since the death of William of Corbeil [q. v.] in 1136, the prior of Christ Church and a deputation of monks were summoned before King Stephen [q. v.] and the legate Alberic, and on 24 Dec. 1138 elected Theobald archbishop. Henry of Blois (d. 1171) [q. v.], bishop of Winchester, desired the primacy for himself, but Stephen and his queen Matilda (1103?–1152) [q. v.] had arranged the election of Theobald, who was consecrated at Canterbury by the legate on 8 Jan. 1139. Before the end of the month he left for Rome, received the pall from Innocent II, was present at the Lateran council in April, and then returned to Canterbury (, i. 107–9, ii. 384; Cont. ii. 114–15). Innocent, however, did not renew to him the legatine commission held by his predecessor, but gave it to the bishop of Winchester. This was a slight on the archbishop, and an injury to the see of Canterbury. Theobald did not press his rights at the time; he probably thought it best to wait; for a legation of this kind expired on the death of the pope who granted it. He attended the legatine council held by Bishop Henry at Winchester on 29 Aug., and joined with him in entreating the king not to quarrel with the clergy (Historia Novella, ii. c. 477). Although he was inclined to the side of the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/124

 Johnson, by whom he was regarded kindly and spoken of as one 'who would have been a liberal patron if he had been rich.'

Orrery married in 1728 Lady Harriet Hamilton, third daughter of the Earl of Orkney, and after her death he married, in 1738, Miss Hamilton, of Caledon, in Tyrone. He was made a D.C.L. of Oxford in 1743, and F.R.S. in 1750. He died on 16 Nov. 1762. He wrote some papers in the 'World' and the 'Connoisseur,' and various prologues and fugitive verses. His other works are:
 * 1) 'A Translation of the Letters of Pliny the Younger' (2 vols. 4to, 1751).
 * 2) 'An Essay on the Life of Pliny.'
 * 3) 'Memoirs of Robert Carey, Earl of Monmouth,' published from the original manuscript, with preface and notes.
 * 4) 'Letters from Italy in 1754 and 1755,' published after his death (with a life) by the Rev. J. Buncombe in 1774.

 BOYLE, JOHN (1563?–1620), bishop of Roscarberry, Cork, and Cloyne, a native of Kent and elder brother of [q. v.], was born about 1563. John Boyle obtained the degree of D.D. at Oxford, and is stated to have been dean of Lichfield in 1610. Through the interest and pecuniary assistance of his brother, the Earl of Cork and other relatives, he was in 1617 appointed to the united sees of Roscarberry, Cork, and Cloyne. His consecration took place in 1618. He died at Cork on 10 July 1620, and was buried at Youghal.

 BOYLE, MICHAEL, the elder (1580?–1635), bishop of Waterford and Lismore, born in London about 1580, was son of Michael Boyle, and brother of, archbishop of Tuam [q. v.] Michael Boyle entered Merchant Taylors' School, London, in 1587, and proceeded to St. John's College, Oxford, in 1593. He took the degree of B. A. 5 Dec. 1597, of M.A. 25 June 1601, of B.D. 9 July 1607, and of D.D. 2 July 1611. He became a fellow of his college, and no high opinion was entertained there of his probity in matters affecting his own interests. Boyle was appointed vicar of Finden in Northamptonshire. Through the influence of his relative, the Earl of Cork, he obtained the deanery of Lismore in 1614, and was made bishop of Waterford and Lismore in 1619. He held several other appointments in the protestant church, and dying at Waterford on 27 Dec. 1635, was buried in the cathedral there.

 BOYLE, MICHAEL, the younger (1609?–1702), archbishop of Armagh, eldest son of, archbishop of Tuam [q.v.], and nephew of the elder [q. v.], was born about 1609. He was apparently educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he proceeded M.A., and on 4 Nov. 1637 was incorporated M.A. of Oxford. In 1637 he obtained a rectory in the diocese of Cloyne, received the degree of D.D., was made dean of Cloyne [(1640)], and during the war in Ireland acted as chaplain-general to the English army in Munster. In 1650 the protestant royalists in Ireland employed Boyle, in conjunction with Sir Robert Sterling and Colonel John Daniel, to negotiate on their behalf with Oliver Cromwell. Ormonde resented the conduct of Boyle in conveying Cromwell's passport to him, which he rejected. Letters of Boyle on these matters have been recently printed in the second volume of the 'Contemporary History of Affairs in Ireland, 1641-1652.' At the Restoration, Boyle became privy councillor in Ireland, and was appointed bishop of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross. In addition to the episcopal revenues, he continued to receive for a time the profits of six parishes in his diocese, on the ground of being unable to find clergymen for them. For Boyle's services in England in connection with the Act for the Settlement of Ireland, the House of Lords at Dublin ordered a special memorial of thanks to be entered in their journals in 1662. Boyle was translated to the see of Dublin in 1663, and appointed chancellor of Ireland in 1665. In the county of Wicklow he established a town, to which he gave the name of Blessington, and at his own expense erected there a church, which he supplied with plate and bells. In connection with this town he in 1673 obtained the title of Viscount Blessington for his eldest son, Murragh. In 1675 Boyle was promoted from the see of Dublin to that of Armagh. An autograph of Boyle at that time has been reproduced on plate lxxix of 'Facsimiles of National MSS. of Ireland,' part iv. p. 2. On the accession of James II, he was continued in office as lord chancellor, and appointed for the third time as lord justice in Ireland, in conjunction with the Earl of Granard, and held that post until Henry, earl of Clarendon, arrived as lord-lieutenant in December 1685. In Boyle's latter years his faculties are stated to have been much


text:
Page:The Effect of External Influences upon Development.djvu/37

Rh male reproductive apparatus was normally developed. My experiment proves this fact more clearly than could have been done by anatomical investigation; and evidence is thus afforded that no part of the reproductive organs was degenerated in any degree by limiting the food during the larval period.

By comparing the result of this experiment with the known facts as to bees, the difference in the behaviour of the two organisms is made clear. In the case of bees a distinct degeneration of the ovaries and various accessory organs of reproduction takes place in consequence of poor nourishment; while in flies the whole reproductive apparatus is formed quite as perfectly when the nourishment of the larva is deficient as when it is ample. There is even no delay in the maturing of the eggs—as is shown by the fact that the first batch was laid at exactly the same time as in the case of the flies arising from normally fed larvae.

It might, however, be said that flies and bees are very different organisms, and therefore react differently to external influences. This is quite true, and is exactly what I wish to be acknowledged. My experiments with the flies were merely meant to show that all insects, even though they may resemble bees in some respects, do not react in a similar way to the bee to meagreness of nutrition, and that accordingly this mode if reaction is a characteristic of bees:—it is and was not possessed by the ancestors of these insects.

But nevertheless I cannot quite agree with the view of Eméry, a great authority on ants, who has recently


text:
Page:The Effect of External Influences upon Development.djvu/38

34 given it as his opinion that the degeneration of the ovaries of the workers is simply due to an increased sensitiveness of the 'germ-plasm' to poor nourishment; and has explained the whole phenomenon of the formation of neuters among insects as consequent on such an altered mode of reaction in the germ-plasm. If it is thereby meant that the ovary is more easily affected by slight nutrition than are the ovaries of other insects, the supposition is hardly correct. It fails to explain the facts; for the ovary of the workers is not only in an undeveloped condition, but is actually rudimentary: the majority of the typical parts are wanting. Even if it be assumed that the number of ovarian egg-tubes has increased in the queen since the caste of workers arose, there can nevertheless be no doubt that at the same time it has diminished greatly in the case of the workers. This follows from the discoveries of Adlerz as regards ants, from which it appears that the degree of diminution in the number of egg-tubes is different in different species; the number varies from twelve to one, and in the case of Tetramorium caespitum they are even totally absent. But the rudimentary condition of the reproductive organs becomes even more apparent when we consider that both the bursa copulatrix and the receptaculum seminis have degenerated in the bee and ant workers; and we have every reason for believing that typical parts could never disappear owing to poor nourishment, no matter how poor it may have been—an egg-tube would no more disappear from this cause than would a leg or a wing. How often have caterpillars been reared


text:
Page:The Effect of External Influences upon Development.djvu/39

Rh en masse on starvation diet, either designedly or from carelessness, and yet none of them has ever given rise to a butterfly destitute of wings or to one with only four legs instead of six. Such butterflies are always very small but in other respects perfect, just as in the case of the ill-fed flies. The disappearance of a typical organ is not an ontogenetic but a phylogenetic process; it never in any case depends on mere influences of nutrition such as affect the development of each individual but is always due to variations of the primary constituents of the germ, which to all appearances can only come about in the course of numerous generations.

The view that a mere increase of sensitiveness to poor nourishment is the cause of a worker's ovary consisting of few or no egg-tubes is therefore not satisfactory. We must rather suppose that the primary constituents of two distinct reproductive systems—e.g. those of the queen and worker—are contained in the germ-plasm of the egg.

But even as regards the maturation of such egg-germs as are present in the worker's ovary, we can hardly ascribe to the social insects a heightened sensitiveness to poverty of food. We do, however, find this sensitiveness developed in a high degree in many animals. Let me refer for instance to the observations I made many years ago on the disintegration of half-ripe eggs in the ovary of the Daphnidae as soon as the animals lacked a sufficiency of food (see Note XI,


text:
Page:State Documents on Federal Relations.djvu/51

 1. Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware, in General Assembly met, That we cannot approve the policy of those measures that have annihilated the commerce of the United States, and brought distress and ruin on our citizens, while at the same time they have done no injury to the enemies of our country; that we cannot approve the policy of an administration that does not act with impartiality and sincerity towards all foreign nations.

2. Resolved, That the people of the United States have a right freely to navigate the ocean, and to carry on a fair and honest commerce, and that we highly disapprove a policy that relinquishes those rights, or dares not defend them.

3. Resolved, That we consider the embargo, as a war measure, worse than futile, as a measure injurious to ourselves, destructive to the best interests of the country, and evidently intended to be partial in its operations against the belligerent nations; and that it becomes the United States, a great and gallant nation, to defend its rights in a manly, open, and efficient manner.

4. Resolved, That we consider the act to enforce, and make more effectual, an act, entitled, "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," and the several acts supplementary thereto, approved on the ninth of January, one thousand eight hundred and nine, by the President of the United States, as an invasion of the liberty of the people, and the constitutional sovereignty of the State governments.

5. Resolved, That it will be dangerous to the freedom of these States, to place at the disposal of the President of the United States a standing army of fifty thousand volunteers.

6. Resolved, That, in our opinion, the present embarrassed and unhappy situation of our country might have been avoided, if the administration had pursued the wise and prudent policy of the immortal.

7. Resolved nevertheless, that we have the fullest confidence, that the patriotism of the good people of the United States will induce them to submit to unwise and arbitrary laws, rather than resort to violence; and that they will use the remedy pointed out by the constitution for the evils under which they suffer, rather


text:
Page:The Effect of External Influences upon Development.djvu/40

36 p. 62). The degree in which the maturation of the eggs of insects depends on their food is also shown by my experiments with flies, which when poorly fed after reaching the imago-state produced no eggs at all, the ovaries remaining in the unripe condition in which they are always found in the young image, even when there has been abundant food for the larva.

The facts, therefore, support neither the idea that the degeneration of the ovary of the workers is a direct consequence of poverty of nutrition, nor the view that an increased sensitiveness of the ovary to the influence of nourishment is here concerned. But they do show that poor nourishment acts as the stimulus for the latent primary constituents for the workers in the germ-plasm;—not only for those of the ovary, but also for those of all characters by which the worker is distinguished from the queen.

It might at first perhaps appear peculiar that one and the same egg should contain double primary constituents of numerous parts of the body; but we need not be surprised at this if we reflect that double primary constituents of many parts of the body—namely those for the male and female—must certainly be contained in the eggs of almost all animals. In a few cases these constituents are even distributed to two different kinds of eggs which differ in size: take the case, for instance, of rotifers and of the Phylloxera, in which it is consequently beyond doubt that each sex has its own


text:
Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/18

viii To my sisters Harriet and Florence, and my cousin M. Eliza Audubon, I am especially indebted. The first and last have lent me of their choicest treasures; letters, journals, and other manuscripts they have placed unconditionally in my hands, besides supplying many details from other sources; and my sister Florence has been my almost hourly assistant in more ways than I can specify.

The arrangement of the papers and journals was suggested by the late Dr. G. Brown Goode; and many names come to mind of friends who have helped me in other ways. Among them are those of Mr. W. H. Wetherill, Messrs. Richard R. and William Rathbone, my aunt, Mrs. James Hall, Dr. Arthur T. Lincoln, Mr. Morris F. Tyler, Mr. Joseph Coolidge, Rev. A. Gordon Bakewell, and Mr. George Bird Grinnell. I wish also to say that without the loving generosity of my friend the late Miss M. Louise Comstock, I should never have had the time at my command which I have needed for this work; and last, but by no means least, I thank my mother for her many memories, and for her wise criticisms. There came into my hands about twelve years ago some of these journals,—those of the Missouri and Labrador journeys; and since then others have been added, all of which had been virtually lost for years. The story of how I heard of some, and traced others, is too long to tell here, so I will only say that these journals have formed my chief sources of information. So far as has been possible I have verified and supplemented them by every means. Researches have been made in San Domingo, New Orleans, and France; letters and journals have been consulted which

title: Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/18


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Boyle, John (1707-1762)


text:
Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/19

Rh prove this or that statement; and from the mass of papers I have accumulated, I have used perhaps one fifth.

"The Life of Audubon the Naturalist, edited by Mr. Robert Buchanan from material supplied by his widow," covers, or is supposed to cover, the same ground I have gone over. That the same journals were used is obvious; and besides these, others, destroyed by fire in Shelbyville, Ky., were at my grandmother's command, and more than all, her own recollections and voluminous diaries. Her manuscript, which I never saw, was sent to the English publishers, and was not returned to the author by them or by Mr. Buchanan. How much of it was valuable, it is impossible to say; but the fact remains that Mr. Buchanan's book is so mixed up, so interspersed with anecdotes and episodes, and so interlarded with derogatory remarks of his own, as to be practically useless to the world, and very unpleasant to the Audubon family. Moreover, with few exceptions everything about birds has been left out. Many errors in dates and names are apparent, especially the date of the Missouri River journey, which is ten years later than he states. However, if Mr. Buchanan had done his work better, there would have been no need for mine; so I forgive him, even though he dwells at unnecessary length on Audubon's vanity and selfishness, of which I find no traces. In these journals, nine in all, and in the hundred or so of letters, written under many skies, and in many conditions of life, by a man whose education was wholly French, one of the journals dating as far back as 1822, and some of the letters even earlier, —there is not one sentence, one expression, that is other than that of a refined and

title: Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/19


text:
Page:State Documents on Federal Relations.djvu/52

 than jeopardize the union of the States, and the independence of their country, by an open opposition to the laws.

8. Resolved also. That the legislature and people of the State of Delaware feel no foreign partiality, and that they will defend their country from the aggression of every foreign foe.

Connecticut and the Enforcement Act.

February, 1809


text:
Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/20

x gentleman. More than that, there is not one utterance of "anger, hatred or malice." Mr. George Ord and Mr. Charles Waterton were both my grandfather's bitter enemies, yet one he rarely mentions, and of the latter, when he says, "I had a scrubby letter from Waterton," he has said his worst. But the journals will speak for themselves better than I can, and so I send them forth, believing that to many they will be of absorbing interest, as they have been to me. M. R. A.

title: Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/20


text: Page:Collected Works of Dugald Stewart Volume 1.djvu/5


text: State Documents on Federal Relations/18

title: State Documents on Federal Relations/18


text:
Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/27

 N the brief biography of Audubon which follows, I have given, I believe, the only correct account that has been written, and as such I present it. I am not competent to give an opinion as to the merits of his work, nor is it necessary. His place as naturalist, woodsman, artist, author, has long since been accorded him, and he himself says: "My enemies have been few, and my friends numerous."

I have tried only to put Audubon the man before my readers, and in his own words so far as possible, that they may know what he was, not what others thought he was. M. R. A.

title: Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/27


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/120

 empress, he was not forgetful of the ties that bound him to the king. When Bishop Henry received the empress at Winchester in March 1141, he pressed the primate to acknowledge her. Theobald hesitated, and, when he met her by arrangement at Wilton, declined to do her homage until he had received the king's permission, on the ground that it was not lawful for him to withdraw his fealty from a king who had been acknowledged by the Roman church (Historia Pontificalis, c. 2; Cont. ii. 130;, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 65, 260). He therefore proceeded to Bristol, where the king was imprisoned. On 7 April, however, he attended the council at Winchester at which Matilda was elected. Having avowedly joined the side of the empress, he was with her at Oxford on 25 July and at Winchester a few days later, and shared in her hasty flight from that city on 13 Sept., reaching a place of safety after considerable danger, and perhaps some loss (Gesta Stephani, p. 85). On Stephen's release on 1 Nov., Theobald returned to his allegiance. It is asserted that sentence of banishment was pronounced against him (‘proscriptus’); but if so, it did not come into effect (Historia Pontificalis, c. 15), and he was present at the council held by the legate on 7 Dec. at which Bishop Henry declared his brother king. At Christmas he received the king and queen at Canterbury, and placed the crown on the king's head in his cathedral church (, i. 123; Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 137–8).

Theobald attached to his household many young men of legal and political talent, and made his palace the training college and home ‘of a new generation of English scholars and English statesmen’ (, Angevin Kings, i. 352). Chief among them were Roger of Pont l'Evêque [q. v.], afterwards archbishop of York, John Belmeis [q. v.], afterwards archbishop of Lyons, and Thomas (Becket) [q. v.], his successor at Canterbury, who entered his service in 1143 or 1144. On all matters Theobald consulted with one or other of these three, and chiefly with Thomas (, ap. Becket Materials, i. 4). It is interesting to find that the former abbot of Lanfranc's house established a law school at Canterbury, and was the first to introduce the study of civil law into England. Possibly before 1144 Theobald sent for a famous jurist, Vacarius of Mantua, to come and lecture on civil law at Canterbury [see ]. Vacarius became the archbishop's advocate, and must have been of great use to him in his correspondence with the Roman court, which was of unusual importance, for the appointment of Bishop Henry as legate caused a division of authority in the church of England, and brought Theobald much trouble. Bishop Henry pushed his authority as legate to the utmost; he tried to persuade Innocent to make his see an archbishopric, and it was believed that the pope had even sent him a pall (Annales Winton. ii. 53;, i. 255).

Theobald opposed the wishes of the king and Bishop Henry with reference to the election of their nephew, William of Thwayt [see ] to the archbishopric of York, and steadily refused to consecrate him. Bishop Henry, however, consecrated him on 26 Sept. 1143, without the archbishop's sanction (, i. 123). The supersession of the archbishop encouraged resistance to his authority. Hugh, abbot of St. Augustine's at Canterbury, claiming that his house was under the immediate jurisdiction of Rome, appealed to the pope against a citation from the archbishop. The pope took his side, and finally ordered that the matter should be heard before the legate. At a council held by the legate at Winchester a composition was arranged which did not satisfy the archbishop. Theobald was thwarted by the legate even in his own monastery. He found that Jeremiah, the prior of Christ Church, was setting aside his jurisdiction; a quarrel ensued, and Jeremiah appealed to Rome, almost certainly with the legate's approval, and went thither himself. Theobald deposed him, and appointed another prior. Jeremiah, however, gained his cause, and on his return was reinstated by the legate. On this Theobald withdrew his favour from the convent, and vowed that he would never celebrate in the church so long as Jeremiah remained prior (ib. pp. 74, 127).

The death of Innocent II on 24 Sept. 1143 put an end to the legatine authority of Bishop Henry, and he was no longer able to supersede Theobald in his own province. In November, Theobald went to Rome accompanied by Thomas of London; Bishop Henry also went thither, hoping for a renewal of his commission, but the new pope, Celestine II, deprived him of the legation, though he does not appear to have granted it to the archbishop (ib. ii. 384). Celestine was strongly in favour of the Angevin cause, and is said to have ordered Theobald to allow no new arrangement to be made as to the English crown, as the matter was contentious, thereby guarding against any settlement to the prejudice of the Angevin claim (Hist. Pontif. c. 41). Lucius II, who succeeded Celestine on 12 March 1144, also refused the legation to Bishop Henry (, c. 17). While Theobald was in Rome Lucius heard


text:
Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/29

HE village of Mandeville in the parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana, is about twenty miles from New Orleans on the north shore of Lake Ponchartrain. Here, on the plantation of the same name, owned by the Marquis de Mandeville de Marigny, John James Laforest Audubon was born, the Marquis having lent his home, in the generous southern fashion, to his friend Admiral Jean Audubon, who, with his Spanish Creole wife, lived here some months. In the same house, towards the close of the last century, Louis Philippe found refuge for a time with the ever hospitable Marigny family, and he named the beautiful plantation home "Fontainebleau." Since then changes innumerable have come, the estate has other owners, the house has gone, those who once dwelt there are long dead, their descendants scattered, the old landmarks obliterated.

Audubon has given a sketch of his father in his own words in "Myself," which appears in the pages following; but of his mother little indeed is known. Only within the year, have papers come into the hands of her great-grand-children, which prove her surname to have been Rabin. Audubon himself tells of her tragic death, which was not, however, in the St. Domingo insurrection of 1793, but in one of the local uprisings of the slaves which were of

title: Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/29


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/121

 the case between him and St. Augustine's, and the archbishop's claims were fully satisfied (on the whole case see, cols. 1800–6; , pp. 369–81, 390–1). Theobald then left Rome, and on 11 June was present at the consecration of the new church of St. Denis in France (Recueil des Historiens, xiv. 316). He returned to England without a rival in his province, and Jeremiah consequently resigned the priorate of Christ Church. In this year a cardinal named Hicmar arrived in England as legate, but his coming does not appear to have affected Theobald; he returned on the death of Lucius in February 1145. The new pope, Eugenius III, was favourably inclined to Theobald through the influence of his great adviser, Bernard of Clairvaux, who described Theobald as a man of piety and acceptable opinions, and expressed a hope that the pope would reward him (, Ep. 238). It might be expected that some notice should occur of a grant of a legatine commission by Eugenius to Theobald as a consequence of this letter, but, in default of finding him described as legate before 1150, good modern authorities have given that year as the date of the grant (, Constitutional History, iii. 299;, Angevin Kings, i. 364). Nevertheless, the historian of St. Augustine's Abbey speaks of him as papal legate in 1148 (, col. 1807). Against this must be set that he is not so called in any bull of Eugenius known to have been sent to him before 1150, and that the ‘Historia Pontificalis’ is equally silent on the matter. Thorn, who was not earlier than the fourteenth century, may have merely been mistaken, or he may have been swayed by a desire to make an excuse for the monks of his house (see below). He says that when they disobeyed Theobald in 1148, they did not know that he had legatine authority; and an eminent scholar suggests that this story and the position of affairs at the time being taken into consideration, ‘it is possible, if not actually probable,’ that there was a secret commission to Theobald. A suit was instituted in the papal court against Theobald in 1147 by Bernard, bishop of St. David's, who sought to obtain the recognition of his see as metropolitical. The pope appointed a day for the hearing of the case; but Bernard died before the date fixed, and the suit dropped ( iii. 51, 168, 180). On 14 March 1148 Theobald consecrated to the see of Rochester his brother Walter, whom he had previously made archdeacon of Canterbury.

A summons having been sent to the English prelates to attend the council that Eugenius held at Rheims on the 21st, Stephen refused to allow Theobald or the prelates generally to leave the kingdom. Knowing that Theobald was determined to go, he ordered various seaports to be watched lest he should get away secretly, and declared that if he went he should be banished. Theobald, after obtaining leave to send some of his clerks to the council to make his excuses, secretly embarked in a crazy boat, crossed the Channel at great risk, and presented himself at the council. He was received with much rejoicing, the pope welcoming him as one who, for the honour of St. Peter, had crossed the sea rather by swimming than sailing (, i. 134, ii. 386; Hist. Pontif. c. 2;, Ep. 250 ap. Materials, vi. 57–8). When, on the last day of the council, Eugenius was about to excommunicate Stephen, Theobald earnestly begged him to forbear; the pope granted the king a respite of three months, and on leaving Rheims committed the case of the English bishops whom he had suspended to Theobald's management. On the archbishop's return to Canterbury the king ordered him to quit the kingdom; his revenues were seized and he hastily returned to France. He sent messengers to acquaint the pope with his exile; they overtook Eugenius at Brescia, and he wrote to the English bishops, ordering them to bid the king recall the archbishop and restore his possessions, threatening an interdict, and at Michaelmas to excommunicate Stephen. Theodore published the interdict; but, as the bishops were generally on the king's side, it was not observed except in Kent, and a party among the monks of St. Augustine's, led by their prior Silvester and the sacristan, disregarded it. Queen Matilda, anxious for a reconciliation with Theobald, with the help of William of Ypres [q. v.] persuaded him to remove to St. Omer, where negotiations might be carried on more easily. Constant communication was carried on between the English clergy and laity and the archbishop, whose dignified behaviour, gentleness, and liberality to the poor excited much admiration (ib. i. 123; Hist. Pontif. c. 15). While at St. Omer he, on 5 Sept., with the assistance of some French bishops, consecrated Gilbert Foliot [q. v.] to the see of Hereford, and when Henry [see ], duke of Normandy, complained that the new bishop had broken his promise to him by swearing fealty to Stephen, he appeased him by representing that it would have been schismatical to withdraw obedience from a king that had been recognised by the Roman church. Before long Theobald returned to England; he sailed from Gravelines, landed at Gosford


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/122

 in the territories of Hugh Bigod (d. 1176 or 1177) [q. v.], and was hospitably entertained by the earl at Framlingham in Suffolk, where three bishops and many nobles visited him. The king was reconciled to him, and he took off the interdict; he received the submission of the bishops and removed the sentence of suspension, but had no power to deal with the case of Bishop Henry, though personally Theobald was reconciled to him (, c. 19). He was brought to Canterbury with rejoicing. In the following spring the monks of St. Augustine's made submission to him; they had appealed to the pope, and it is alleged in their excuse that, though Theobald had published the interdict in virtue of his legatine authority, they did not know that he was legate, and thought that he was acting simply as ordinary (, u.s.). Eugenius decided against them. The prior and sacristan were absolved after receiving a flogging, and the convent was also absolved by the archbishop after a period of suspension of divine service in their church.

While Theobald was at Rheims he must have met with John of Salisbury [q. v.], who, in or about 1150, came to him with a letter of introduction from Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 361); he became the archbishop's secretary, and transacted his official business. As Ireland was without any real archiepiscopal authority, Irish bishops-elect sometimes sought consecration from the archbishops of Canterbury, who claimed that Ireland was under their primatial jurisdiction, and in 1140 Theobald consecrated and received the profession of a bishop of Limerick. In 1152, however, Armagh was made the primatial see of Ireland—a step which was held in England to be a diminution of the rights of Canterbury (, c. 24;, i. 212; Annals of Waverley, ii. 234; , Ireland and the Celtic Church, pp. 317, 319, 325, 345–7). In Lent 1151 Theobald, as papal legate, held a council in London, at which many appeals were made to Rome ( viii. c. 31). A new attempt was made by the monks of St. Augustine's to shake off the archbishop's authority after the death of Abbot Hugh. The prior, Silvester, was chosen to succeed him. Theobald objected to the election, and refused Silvester's demand that the benediction should be given him in the church of his monastery as contrary to the rights of Christ Church. Silvester went to Rome, and returned with an order for his benediction by the archbishop in St. Augustine's. Theobald, while going to the abbey as though to perform the ceremony, was met, it is said by arrangement, by the prior of Christ Church, who forbade him to give the benediction except in Christ Church, and appealed to Rome. In July 1152 Eugenius ordered that the archbishop should give the benediction in St. Augustine's without requiring a profession of obedience. Theobald complied with this order, but made further appeals, and the matter was settled later (, cols. 1810–14;, pp. 400–1, 404–6; , i. 76, 147–8). Meanwhile he had a quarrel with the monks of Christ Church. As the convent was in pecuniary difficulties, he had at their request taken the administration of their revenues into his own hands. When, however, he began to insist on retrenchments, the monks declared that he was using their revenues for the support of his own household, and had broken the agreement made with them. The dispute waxed hot; Theobald imprisoned two monks sent by the convent to appeal to the pope, suspended the performance of divine service in the convent church, and set guards to keep the gates of the house shut. Finally he deposed the prior, Walter the Little, and sent him under a guard to the abbey of Gloucester, bidding the abbot keep him safely; so he was kept there until Theobald's death, and a worthier prior was chosen in his place (ib. i. 143–6, ii. 386–8, must be read as a violent ex parte statement on the convent's side).

In the spring of 1152 Stephen held a great council in London, at which, the earls and barons having sworn fealty to his son Eustace, he called upon Theobald and the bishops to crown his son king. Theobald had procured a letter from Eugenius forbidding the coronation, and thus repeating the prohibitions of his predecessors Celestine and Lucius. Theobald therefore refused the king's demand. Stephen and his son shut him and his suffragans up in a house together, and tried to intimidate them. Theobald remained firm, though some of his suffragans withdrew their support from him; he escaped down the Thames in a boat, sailed to Dover, and thence crossed over to Flanders. The king seized the lands of the archbishopric. Eugenius ordered the English bishops to excommunicate him and lay the kingdom under an interdict. On this Stephen recalled the archbishop, who returned to Canterbury before 28 Sept. (ib. i. 151, ii. 76;, Ep. 250; viii. c. 32; Vita Theobaldi, p. 338). When Henry, duke of Normandy, was in England in 1153, Theobald laboured to bring about a peace between him and the king. He was successful, and the treaty between the king and the duke was proclaimed at Westminster before Christmas


text:
Template:Section-sam

.

title: Template:Section-sam


text:
Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/30

6 frequent occurrence in that beautiful island, whose history is too dark to dwell upon. Beyond this nothing can be found relating to the mother, whom Audubon lost before he was old enough to remember her, except that in 1822 one of the family Marigny told my father, John Woodhouse Audubon, then a boy of ten, who with his parents was living in New Orleans, that she was "une dame d'une beauté incomparable et avec beaucoup de fierté." It may seem strange that nothing more can be found regarding this lady, but it is to be remembered these were troublous days, when stormy changes were the rule; and the roving and adventurous sailor did not, I presume, encumber himself with papers. To these circumstances also it is probably due that the date of Audubon's birth is not known, and must always remain an open question. In his journals and letters various allusions are made to his age, and many passages bearing on the matter are found, but with one exception no two agree; he may have been born anywhere between 1772 and 1783, and in the face of this uncertainty the date usually given, May 5, 1780, may be accepted, though the true one is no doubt earlier.

The attachment between Audubon and his father was of the strongest description, as the long and affectionate, if somewhat infrequent letters, still in the possession of the family, fully demonstrate. When the Admiral was retired from active service, he lived at La Gerbétière in France with his second wife, Anne Moynette, until his death, on February 19, 1818, at the great age of ninety-five.

In this home near the Loire, Audubon spent his happy boyhood and youth, dearly beloved and loving, and receiving the best education time and place afforded. As the boy grew older and more advantages were desired for him, came absences when he was at school in La Rochelle and Paris; but La Gerbétière was his home till in early manhood he returned to America, the land he loved above

title: Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/30


text:
Template:Section-sam/doc

 * Used to simplify the formatting of the typical variations found between publication and codification of basic legislation of South Africa with numbered section headings, section titles and/or the introductory paragraphs/clauses that immediately follow them. Other legislative documents which also use a relatively consistent format similar to the legislation of South Africa may also apply.

 *  redirects to this base-template for convenience.

Usage

 * Parameters
 * : Designated numerical section number. An using this number is automatically embedded.
 * : Heading or Title associated with
 * : the introductory sentence, paragraph or clause for the section

title: Template:Section-sam/doc


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/123

 at a great council which Theobald attended. In Lent 1154 he received the king and the duke at Canterbury. He secured the election of Roger of Pont l'Evêque, archdeacon of Canterbury, to the see of York, and in consecrating him on 10 Oct. acted as legate, so that Roger was not required to make a profession of obedience (, i. 298; i. c. 32). He appointed Thomas of London to succeed Roger as archdeacon and as provost of Beverley. On the death of Stephen on the 25th, Theobald, in conjunction with the other magnates of the realm, sent to Henry, who was then in Normandy, to call him back to England, and during the six weeks that elapsed before his return maintained peace and order in the kingdom, in spite of the large number of Flemish mercenaries that were in the country (, i. 159).

On Sunday, 19 Dec., Theobald crowned Henry and his queen at Westminster. The coronation seemed the sign of the fulfilment of his long-cherished hopes. The policy of the Roman see with respect to the crown that he had so faithfully and fearlessly carried out had been brought to a successful issue. Nevertheless he evidently felt no small anxiety as to the future. During the reign of Stephen the church had become far more powerful at home than it had been since the Conquest, and at the same time had been more strongly bound to the Roman see by ties of dependence; Theobald was anxious that it should maintain its position, and knew that it was likely to be endangered by the accession of a king of Henry's disposition and hereditary anti-clerical feelings. He hoped to insure the maintenance of his ecclesiastical policy by securing power for men whom he trusted, and shortly after Henry's accession recommended the Archdeacon Thomas to the king as chancellor (Auct. Anon. iv. 11, 12;, ii. 304 ap. Becket Materials; , i. 160; , Thomas of London, pp. 58–62). As chancellor, Thomas disappointed his hopes.

The closing years of Theobald's life were full of administrative activity exercised through John of Salisbury, for after Thomas had left him for the king's service John became his chief adviser and official (, Lectures, p. 346). He appears to have disliked the tax levied under the name of scutage in 1156 on the lands of prelates holding in chief of the crown (, Ep. 128). Nor was he at one with the crown in the case of Battle Abbey [see under, d. 1169)]. He attended the hearing of the case before the king at Colchester in May 1157, and vainly tried to persuade the king to allow him to deal with it according to ecclesiastical law (Chronicon Monasterii de Bello, pp. 72–104). In July he attended the council at Northampton, when the long dispute between him and the abbot of St. Augustine's was terminated in his favour, and, in pursuance of the decision of Hadrian IV, abbot Silvester made profession to him (, i. 76–7, 163–5). A disputed election having been made to the papacy in 1159, he wrote to the king requesting his direction as to which of the two rivals should be acknowledged by the church of England (, Ep. 44). Having received from Arnulf, bishop of Lisieux, a statement of the claim of Alexander III, he wrote again to Henry recommending him to acknowledge Alexander. This Henry did, and accordingly he was at the archbishop's bidding acknowledged by a council of bishops and clergy of the whole kingdom that Theobald called to meet in London (ib. Epp. 48, 59, 64, 65;, Ep. 148).

Theobald was then very ill, and his death was expected. He wrote to the chancellor, then absent with the king in Normandy, that he had determined to reform certain abuses in his diocese, and specially to abolish a payment called ‘second aids’ made to the archdeacon, and instituted by his brother Walter, and he spoke of his sorrow at not being able to see the chancellor, who still retained the archdeaconry (, Ep. 48). In 1161 he was present at the consecration of Richard Peche [q. v.] to the see of Lichfield, but could not officiate himself (, i. 168). During his illness he wrote several letters to the king, commending his clerks, and, specially John of Salisbury, to his favour, begging him to uphold the authority and welfare of the church, and praying that Henry might return to England so that he might behold his son, the Lord's anointed, before he died (, Epp. 54, 63, 64 ter). Very earnestly, too, but in vain, he begged that the king would spare Thomas, his archdeacon, to visit him (ib. Ep. 70, 71, 78). Theobald hoped that the chancellor would succeed him at Canterbury (ib. v. 280). Theobald made a will leaving his goods to the poor (ib. Ep. 57), and took an affectionate farewell of John of Salisbury, who was with him to the end (Ep. 256). He died on 18 April 1161, and was buried in his cathedral church. Eighteen years afterwards, during the repairs of the church after the fire of 1174, his marble tomb was opened, and his body was found entire; it was exhibited to the convent, and, the news being spread, many people spoke of him as ‘Saint Theobald.’ The body was translated


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/124

 and buried before the altar of St. Mary in the nave, according to a desire which he is said to have expressed in his lifetime (, i. 26). His coffin was opened in 1787, and his remains were identified by an inscription on a piece of lead.

Theobald, as may be gathered from the letters he wrote during his illness, was a man of deep religious feeling. He was charitable to the poor and liberal in all things (Becket Materials, ii. 307; Monasticon, iv. 363). He loved learning, and took care to be surrounded by learned men. In manner he was gracious, and in temperament gentle, affectionate, and placable. While calm and patient, he was also firm and courageous. As a ruler he was wise and able; he was highly respected by the leaders of the religious movement of which St. Bernard was the head, and by relying on the help of the Roman see, and taking advantage of the civil disorder of Stephen's reign, he succeeded in raising the church of England to a position of great power. In his ordinary administration he promoted worthy and capable men; he may be said to have been the founder of canonical jurisprudence in England, and through John of Salisbury introduced system and regularity into the working of the ecclesiastical courts. Though himself a Benedictine, he wisely did all he could to check the efforts made by monasteries to rid themselves of episcopal control. In secular matters he acted with loyalty and skill; he remained faithful to Stephen as the king recognised by the Roman see, though he did not shrink from opposing him whenever he tried to override the will of the church or use it as a mere political instrument. At the same time he worked steadily to secure the succession for the house of Anjou. His character, the success of his work, and the means by which he accomplished it entitle him to a place among the best and ablest archbishops of Canterbury.

THEOBALD, LEWIS (1688–1744), editor of Shakespeare, was the son of Peter Theobald, an attorney practising at Sittingbourne in Kent. He was born in that town and was baptised at the parish church, as the register testifies, on 2 April 1688. He was placed under the tuition of an able schoolmaster, the Rev. M. Ellis of Isleworth (Baker MSS. extract in Gentleman's Magazine, lxi. 788). To Ellis he must have owed much, for Theobald's classical attainments were considerable, and it does not appear that he received any further instruction. It would seem from what he says in his dedication of the ‘Happy Captive’ to Lady Monson that he had early been left an orphan in great poverty, that he had been protected and educated by Lady Monson's father, her brother, Lord Sondes, being his fellow-pupil, but that he had not made the best of what ‘might have accrued to him from so favourable a situation in life.’ Like his father, he became an attorney; but the law was distasteful to him, and he very soon abandoned it for literature. His first publication was a Pindaric ode on the union of England and Scotland, which appeared in 1707. In his preface to his tragedy ‘The Persian Princess,’ printed in 1715, he tells us that that play was written and acted before he had completed his nineteenth year, which would be in 1707. In May 1713 he translated for Bernard Lintot the ‘Phædo’ of Plato, and entered into a contract for a translation of the tragedies of Æschylus. Lintot's account-books show that Theobald contracted for many translations which were either not finished or not published, but between 1714 and 1715 he published translations of the ‘Electra’ (1714), of the ‘Ajax’ (1714), and of the ‘Œdipus Rex’ (1715) of Sophocles, and of the ‘Plutus’ and the ‘Clouds’ (both in 1715) of Aristophanes. The translations from Sophocles are in free and spirited blank verse, the choruses in lyrics, and the tragedies are divided into acts and scenes; the versions of the ‘Plutus’ and the ‘Clouds’ are in vigorous and racy colloquial prose.

Theobald had now settled down to the pursuits of the literary hack, being in all probability dependent on his pen for his livelihood. In 1713 he hurried out a catchpenny ‘Life of Cato’ for the benefit of the spectators and readers of Addison's tragedy which then held the town. Next year he published two poems—‘The Cave of Poverty,’ which he calls an imitation of Shakespeare, presumably because it is written in the measure and form of ‘Venus and Adonis,’ and ‘The Mausoleum,’ a funeral elegy in heroics on the death of Queen Anne. These poems, like all Theobald's


text:
Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/31

Rh all others, as his journals show repeatedly. The impress of the years in France was never lost; he always had a strong French accent, he possessed in a marked degree the adaptability to circumstances which is a trait of that nation, and his disposition inherited from both parents was elated or depressed by a trifle. He was quick-tempered, enthusiastic, and romantic, yet affectionate, forgiving, and with unlimited industry and perseverance; he was generous to every one with time, money, and possessions; nothing was too good for others, but his own personal requirements were of the simplest character. His life shows all this and more, better than words of mine can tell; and as the only account of his years till he left Henderson, Ky., in 1819, is in his own journal, it is given here in full.

The precise period of my birth is yet an enigma to me, and I can only say what I have often heard my father repeat to me on this subject, which is as follows: It seems that my father had large properties in Santo Domingo, and was in the habit of visiting frequently that portion of our Southern States called, and known by the name of, Louisiana, then owned by the French Government.

During one of these excursions he married a lady of Spanish extraction, whom I have been led to understand was as beautiful as she was wealthy, and othenwise attractive, and who bore my father three sons and a daughter,—I being the youngest of the sons and the only one who survived extreme youth. My mother, soon after my birth, accompanied my father to the estate of Aux Cayes, on the island of Santo Domingo, and she was one of the victims during the ever-to-be-lamented period of the negro insurrection of that island.

title: Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/31


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/8

iv


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/125

 poems, are perfectly worthless. On 11 April 1715 he began in ‘Mist's Journal’ ‘The Censor,’ a series of short essays on the model of the ‘Spectator,’ which appeared three times a week, ceasing with the thirtieth number on 17 June. Eighteen months afterwards they were resumed (1 Jan. 1717) as an independent publication running on to ninety-six numbers. When they were discontinued later in the same year, they were collected and published in three duodecimo volumes. By some remarks (see vol. ii. No. xxxiii.) which he had made on John Dennis he brought himself into collision with that formidable critic, who afterwards described him as ‘a notorious idiot, one hight Whachum, who, from an under spurleather to the law, is become an understrapper to the playhouse’ (, Remarks on Pope's Homer).

Meanwhile Theobald had been engaged in other works. In 1715 appeared his tragedy, ‘The Perfidious Brother,’ which became the subject of a scandal reflecting very seriously on Theobald's honesty. It seems that Henry Meystayer, a watchmaker in the city, had submitted to Theobald the rough material of this play, requesting him to adapt it for the stage. The needful alterations involved the complete recasting and rewriting of the piece, costing Theobald, according to his own account, four months' labour. As he had ‘created it anew,’ he thought he was entitled to bring it out as his own work and to take the credit of it; and this he did. But as soon as the play was produced Meystayer claimed it as his own, and in the following year published what he asserted was his own version, with an ironical dedication to the alleged plagiarist. A comparison of the two shows that they are identical in plot and very often in expression. But as Meystayer's version succeeded Theobald's, it is of course impossible to settle the relative honesty or dishonesty of the one man or of the other. The fact that Theobald did not carry out his threat of publishing Meystayer's original manuscript is not a presumption in his favour.

His next performances were a translation of the first book of the ‘Odyssey,’ with notes (1716); a prose romance founded on Corneille's tragi-comedy ‘Antiochus,’ entitled ‘The Loves of Antiochus and Stratonice;’ and an opera in one act, ‘Pan and Syrinx,’ both of which appeared in 1717. These were succeeded in 1718 by ‘The Lady's Triumph,’ a dramatic opera, and by ‘Decius and Paulina,’ a masque, both performed at Lincoln's Inn. In 1719 he published a ‘Memoir of Sir Walter Raleigh’ which is of no importance. In 1720 his adaptation of Shakespeare's ‘Richard II,’ though it procured for him a banknote for a hundred pounds ‘enclosed in an Egyptian pebble snuffbox’ from Lord Orrery, proved that the most exquisite of verbal critics may be the most wretched of dramatic artists. Next year he led off a poetical miscellany, ‘The Grove,’ published by William Meres [see under ], with a vapid and commonplace poetical version of the ‘Hero and Leander’ of the pseudo-Musæus. Nor can anything be said in favour of his pantomimes, ‘The Rape of Proserpine,’ or his ‘Harlequin a Sorcerer’ (1725), or his ‘Vocal Parts of an Entertainment, Apollo and Daphne’ (1726). He seems to have materially aided his friend John Rich [q. v.], the manager of Drury Lane, in establishing the popularity of his novel pantomimic entertainments.

But Theobald was about to appear in a new character. In March 1725 Pope gave to the world his edition of Shakespeare—a task for which he was ill qualified. But what Pope lacked Theobald possessed, and early in 1726 appeared in a substantial quarto volume ‘Shakespeare Restored, or a Specimen of the many errors as well Committed as Unamended by Mr. Pope in his late edition of this poet: designed not only to correct the said Edition, but to restore the true Reading of Shakespeare in all the Editions ever published. By Mr. Theobald.’ It was dedicated to John Rich, the manager, who on the 24th of the following May gave Theobald a benefit (, Account of the English Stage, iii. 188). In the preface Pope is treated personally with the greatest respect. But Theobald asserted that his veneration for Shakespeare had induced him to assume a task which Pope ‘seems purposely, I was going to say, with too nice a scruple to have declined.’ In the body of the work he confines himself to animadversions on ‘Hamlet,’ but in an appendix of some forty-four closely printed pages in small type he deals similarly with portions of most of the other plays. This work not only exposed the incapacity of Pope as an editor, but gave conclusive proof of Theobald's competence for the task in which Pope had failed. Many of Theobald's most felicitous corrections and emendations of Shakespeare's text are to be found in this, his first contribution to textual criticism.

Pope's resentment expressed itself characteristically. ‘From this time,’ says Johnson, ‘Pope became an enemy to editors, collators, commentators, and verbal critics, and hoped to persuade the world that he miscarried in this undertaking only by having a mind too great for such minute employment.’ In 1728 Pope brought out a second edition of his


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/126

 Shakespeare, in which he incorporated, without a word to indicate them, the greater part of Theobald's best conjectures and regulations of the text, inserting in his last volume the following note: ‘Since the publication of our first edition, there having been some attempts upon Shakespeare published by Lewis Theobald which he would not communicate during the time wherein that edition was preparing for the press, when we by public advertisement did request the assistance of all lovers of this author, we have inserted in this impression as many of 'em as are judged of any the least importance to the poet—the whole amounting to about twenty-five words’ (a gross misrepresentation of his debt to Theobald); ‘but to the end that every reader may judge for himself, we have annexed a complete list of the rest, which, if he shall think trivial or erroneous either in part or the whole, at worst it can but spoil half a sheet of paper that chances to be left vacant here’ (Appendix to vol. viii. of Shakespeare). Nor was Pope content with this. In March 1727–8 the third volume of the ‘Miscellanies’ containing the ‘Treatise on the Bathos’ was published, in which, in addition to three sarcastic quotations from Theobald's ‘Double Falsehood,’ L. T. figures among the swallows—‘authors that are eternally skimming and fluttering up and down, but all their ability is employed to catch flies’—and the eels, ‘obscure authors that wrap themselves up in their own mud, but are mighty nimble and pert.’ Two months afterwards appeared the first edition of the ‘Dunciad,’ of which poor Theobald was the hero (in 1741 ‘Tibbald,’ as Pope contemptuously called him, was ‘dethroned’ and Colley Cibber elevated in his place). It is, however, due to Pope to say that since the publication of ‘Shakespeare Restored,’ Theobald had been continually irritating him by further remarks about his edition. These were inserted in ‘Mist's Journal,’ to which he was in the habit of communicating notes on Shakespeare. To this Pope refers in the couplet: Old puns restore, lost blunders nicely seek, And crucify poor Shakespeare once a week (Dunciad, i. 154–5, 1st edit.).

Pope's satire is chiefly directed against Theobald's pedantry, dulness, poverty, and ingratitude. Against the charge of ingratitude Theobald defended himself. In a publication called ‘The Author,’ dated 16 April 1729, from Wyan's Court, Great Russell Street, where Theobald continued to reside till his death, he says that he had asked Pope two favours: one was that he would assist him ‘in a few tickets towards my benefit,’ and the other that he would subscribe to his intended translation of Æschylus; that to each of these requests Pope had sent civil replies, but had granted neither. The charge of ingratitude, he adds, had been circulated for the purpose of injuring him in a subscription he was getting up for some ‘Remarks on Shakespeare,’ and to prejudice the public against a play which was about to be acted at a benefit for him at Drury Lane. The work referred to as ‘Remarks on Shakespeare’ he was induced to abandon for an edition of Shakespeare; the play to which he refers was ‘The Double Falsehood,’ a tragedy, first acted at Drury Lane in 1727, and published in 1728. Theobald professed to believe that it was by Shakespeare, and a patent was granted him giving him the sole and exclusive right of printing and publishing the work for a term of fourteen years, on the ground that he had, at considerable cost, purchased the manuscript copy (for its history see Theobald's dedication of it to Bubb Dodington; and for conjectures as to its real authorship, see Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare, pp. 29–32, where it is assigned to Shirley. Malone was inclined to attribute it to Massinger. Reed thought it was in the main Theobald's own composition. To the present writer it seems all but certain that it was founded on some old play, the plot being borrowed from the story of Cardenio in ‘Don Quixote,’ but that it is for the most part from Theobald's own pen). In 1728 Theobald edited the posthumous works of William Wycherley and contributed some notes to Cooke's translation of Hesiod.

Meanwhile he was accumulating materials for his edition of Shakespeare, corresponding on the subject with Matthew Concanen, who appears to have been on the staff of the ‘London Journal,’ with the learned Dr. Styan Thirlby [q. v.], then a fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, and with Warburton, at that time an obscure country clergyman in Lincolnshire. His correspondence with Warburton, to whom he was introduced by Concanen, was regularly continued between March 1729 and October 1734, and is printed in Nichols's ‘Illustrations of Literature’ (ii. 204–654). In September 1730 the death of Eusden left the poet-laureateship open, and Theobald became a candidate. Lord Gage introduced him to Sir Robert Walpole, who recommended him to the Duke of Grafton, then lord chamberlain, and these recommendations being seconded by Frederick, prince of Wales, Theobald had every prospect of success. But ‘after standing fair for the post at least three weeks,’ he had ‘the mor-


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/9

ADIES AND GENTLEMEN,—I have the honour to address you a second time from this chair—an honour I feel all the more keenly because I really did not anticipate being asked to keep better men out of it any longer, and because there is so much evidence that the Society is taking year by year a more prominent place among learned bodies.

My duty is to survey our last year's work, and that is as difficult as it is pleasing. By this I mean to say that so much good work has been accomplished, that it is really no easy task to summarise it satisfactorily, partly on account of its magnitude, partly on account of its excellence. The papers of the session and the publications are duly set forth in the annual report, though, personally, I demur to the classification there adopted, which appears to relegate to a minor order of importance papers which are short as distinguished from those that are long.

Most of the papers have been published in the Society's official organ,, while some have found a home elsewhere. It is a noteworthy fact that more attention has been paid this year to custom and belief than has hitherto been the case; and, as this has been my own especial department of inquiry, I cannot help expressing my pleasure at it—a pleasure, however, damped to a considerable degree


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/127

 tification to be supplanted’ by Colley Cibber (Letter to Warburton, December 1730;, Illustr. ii. 617). In the following year (1731) he had an opportunity of proving his claims to Greek scholarship. Jortin, with the assistance of two of the most eminent scholars of that time—Joseph Wasse [q. v.] and Zachary Pearce [q. v.], the editor of Longinus—published the first number of a periodical entitled ‘Miscellaneous Observations on Authors Ancient and Modern.’ To this Theobald contributed some ingenious, and in one or two cases very felicitous, emendations of Æschylus, Anacreon, Athenæus, Hesychius, Suidas, and Eustathius; and Jortin was so pleased with them that he not only inserted them, but asked Theobald for more.

It seems that as early as 10 Nov. 1731 Theobald completed an arrangement with Tonson for bringing out his edition of Shakespeare, for which he was to receive eleven hundred guineas. But two laborious years passed before it was ready for the public. Meanwhile a pantomime, ‘Perseus and Andromeda,’ almost certainly from his pen, was produced (1730) at Lincoln's Inn Fields, and next year appeared at the same theatre ‘Orestes,’ described as a dramatic opera, but really a tragedy. In 1733 Pope's attack was followed by one from the pen of Mallet in the form of an epistle to Pope, entitled ‘Verbal Criticism.’ ‘Hang him, baboon!’ exclaimed Theobald, in the words of Falstaff; ‘his art is as thick as Tewkesbury mustard; there is no more conceit in him than in a Mallet.’

At last, in March 1733–4, the long-expected edition of Shakespeare was given to the world in seven volumes, dedicated to Lord Orrery. A long list of influential subscribers, including the Prince of Wales and the prime minister, Sir Robert Walpole, shows that no pains had been spared to insure its success. It would not be too much to say that the text of Shakespeare owes more to Theobald than to any other editor. Many desperate corruptions were rectified by him, and in the union of learning, critical acumen, tact, and good sense he has perhaps no equal among Shakespearean commentators. (For the general character of Theobald's work as an editor, and for a detailed exposure of the shameful injustice done him by succeeding editors, see the present writer's essay, ‘The Porson of Shakespearean Criticism,’ in Essays and Studies, 1895, pp. 263–315; cf. introduction to the Cambridge Shakespeare). In spite of the incessant attacks of contemporaries and successors, Theobald's work was properly appreciated by the public. Between 1734 and 1757 it passed through three editions, while between 1757 and 1773 it was reprinted four times, no less than 12,860 copies being sold (, Illustrations, ii. 714 n.) Theobald's net profits from his edition appear to have amounted to 652l. 10s., a large sum when compared with the receipts of other editors for similar work.

But poverty still pursued Theobald, and he was driven back to his old drudgery for the stage. Between 1734 and 1741 he produced a pantomime, ‘Merlin, or the Devil at Stonehenge’ (1734); ‘The Fatal Secret,’ a tragedy, which is an adaptation of Webster's ‘Duchess of Malfi;’ two operas, ‘Orpheus and Eurydice’ (1740) and ‘The Happy Captive’ (1741), founded on a story in the fourth book of the first part of ‘Don Quixote,’ and he also completed a tragedy, ‘The Death of Hannibal,’ which was neither acted nor printed. But misfortunes were now pressing hard on him, and in the ‘Daily Post,’ 13 May 1741, appears a letter from him announcing that the ‘situation of his affairs from a loss and disappointment obliged him to embrace a benefit, and laid him under the necessity of throwing himself on the favour of the public and the assistance of his friends;’ and from another part of the paper we learn that the play to be acted for his benefit was ‘The Double Falsehood.’ Next year he issued proposals for a critical edition of the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, ‘desiring the assistance of all gentlemen who had made any comments on them.’ He was engaged on this when he died; and in 1750, six years after his death, appeared the well-known edition of Beaumont and Fletcher's plays in ten volumes, ‘edited by the late Mr. Theobald, Mr. Seward of Eyam in Derbyshire, and Mr. Sympson of Gainsborough.’ From the work itself we learn that Theobald had completed the editing and annotation of ‘The Maid's Tragedy,’ ‘Philaster,’ ‘A King and No King,’ ‘The Scornful Lady,’ ‘The Custom of the Country,’ ‘The Elder Brother,’ the first three acts of ‘The Spanish Curate,’ and part of ‘The Humorous Lieutenant’ (see vol. i. pref.)

Of Theobald's death an account has been preserved written by a Mr. Stede of Covent Garden Theatre (printed in Nichols's ‘Illustrations,’ ii. 745 n.): ‘September 18th, 1744, about 10 A.M., died Mr. Lewis Theobald. … He was of a generous spirit, too generous for his circumstances; and none knew how to do a handsome thing or confer a benefit when in his power with a better grace than himself. He was my ancient friend of near thirty years' acquaintance.


text:
Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/32

8 My father, through the intervention of some faithful servants, escaped from Aux Cayes with a good portion of his plate and money, and with me and these humble friends reached New Orleans in safety. From this place he took me to France, where, having married the only mother I have ever known, he left me under her charge and returned to the United States in the employ of the French Government, acting as an officer under Admiral Rochambeau. Shortly afterward, however, he landed in the United States and became attached to the army under La Fayette.

The first of my recollective powers placed me in the central portion of the city of Nantes, on the Loire River, in France, where I still recollect particularly that I was much cherished by my dear stepmother, who had no children of her own, and that I was constantly attended by one or two black servants, who had followed my father from Santo Domingo to New Orleans and afterward to Nantes.

One incident which is as perfect in my memory as if it had occurred this very day, I have thought of thousands of times since, and will now put on paper as one of the curious things which perhaps did lead me in after times to love birds, and to finally study them with pleasure infinite. My mother had several beautiful parrots and some monkeys; one of the latter was a full-grown male of a very large species. One morning, while the servants were engaged in arranging the room I was in, "Pretty Polly" asking for her breakfast as usual, "Du pain au lait pour le perroqitet Mignonne," the man of the woods probably thought the bird presuming upon his rights in the scale of nature; be this as it may, he certainly showed his supremacy in strength over the denizen of the air, for, walking deliberately and uprightly toward the poor bird, he at once killed it, with unnatural composure. The sensations of my infant heart at this cruel sight were agony to me. I prayed the servant to beat the monkey, but he, who for some reason preferred the monkey to the parrot, refused. I uttered long and piercing cries, my mother rushed into the room, I was tranquillized, the monkey was forever afterward chained, and Mignonne buried with all the pomp of a cherished lost one.

title: Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/32


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/34

 26 There is much to indicate that folk-lore has a brilliant future before it. as a philosophical as well as a scientific subject. This is, perhaps, too dangerous a topic to speak of now, and it is hardly yet within the range of practical folklore objects. What we can say, however, without danger to individual opinions, is that no science dealing with man is quite perfect without the aid of folk-lore. Anthropology is not perfect without it, because folk-lore is the anthropology of the civilised races, and without this complement the anthropology of barbarism and savagery is incomplete, and hence faulty.

The greatest problem of anthropology is the connection of modern with prehistoric man, and that this is still a burning question is shown by what Dr. Tylor only last year made the subject of his address at the Oriental Congress. But geology, archæeology, philology, and the physical history of man cannot get on without the aid of folk-lore. To find a savage custom in a civilised country, and to search out its counterpart among modern savagery, is a scientific act only when we have proved, as nearly as proof is possible, that the parallel is not represented by one simple line drawn from civilisation to savagery, but by the three sides of a parallelogram, the connecting line between the two vertical ones being the horizon of prehistoric life.

.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 56.djvu/128

 Interred at Pancras, the 20th, 6 o'clock P.M. I only attended him.’ This date is corroborated by a notice in the ‘Daily Post’ for 20 Sept. 1744: ‘Last Tuesday died Mr. Theobald, a gentleman well known for his poetical productions already printed, and for many more promised and subscribed for.’ He had a good private library, including two hundred and ninety-five old English plays in quarto, which was advertised to be sold by auction on 20 Oct. succeeding his death (Reed's note in Variorum Shakespeare, ed. 1803, i. 404).

Theobald was married and left a son Lewis, who, by the patronage of Sir Edward Walpole, was appointed a clerk in the annuity pell office, and died young.

It was suggested by George Steevens [q. v.] that Hogarth's plate, ‘The Distressed Poet,’ as first published on 3 March 1736, was intended as a satire on the much-abused Theobald. The composition was doubtless inspired by Pope's vivid picture of the dunce-laureate-elect brooding over his sunken fortunes (see, Works, ed. Courthope, iv. 28).

[The fullest account of Theobald will be found in Nichols's Illustrations of Literature, ii. 707–748, but it contains several inaccuracies. Theobald's correspondence with Concanen and Warburton is of great interest, and embodies some biographical particulars, ib. pp. 189–653. There is a meagre memoir of him in Cibber's Lives of the Poets, v. 276–83, and brief notices in Giles Jacob's Historical Account of the Lives and Writings of English Poets, and in Baker's Biographia Dramatica. His own preface to his Shakespeare and the Dedications and Prefaces to his several works yield a few details; Meystayer's Dedication to his ‘Perfidious Brother;’ Dennis's Observations on Pope's Homer; A Miscellany on Taste (1732); Mist's Journal and the Daily Post passim; Genest's Account of the English Stage; notes to the various editions of the Dunciad; Warton's Essay on Pope; prefaces to the editions of Shakespeare by Pope, Warburton, Hanmer, Johnson, and Malone; Capell's appendix to the Preface to the edition of Beaumont and Fletcher (1750). See, too, Johnson's Life of Pope; Boswell's Life of Johnson; Watson's Life of Warburton. A few notes have been furnished by W. J. Lawrence, esq., of Belfast.]  THEODORE (602?–690), archbishop of Canterbury, a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, was born in or about 602 (, Historia Ecclesiastica, iv. 1). He studied at Athens (Monumenta Moguntina, ed. Jaffé, p. 185), had a scholarly knowledge of Greek and Latin, and was well versed in sacred and profane literature and in philosophy, which caused him to receive the surname ‘Philosopher’ (Gesta Pontificum, p. 7). He was a monk, and had not taken subdeacon's orders when in 667 he was at Rome, having perhaps been led to come to Italy by the visit to that country of the Emperor Constans II in 663. When Theodore was in Rome, Pope Vitalian was anxious to find a primate for the English church in place of Wighard, who had died in Rome before consecration. He fixed on Hadrian, an African by birth and an abbot of a monastery not far from Naples, who was learned both in Greek and Latin, in the Scriptures, and in ecclesiastical discipline. Hadrian refused the pope's offer, and finally presented Theodore to him. Vitalian promised to consecrate him, provided that Hadrian, who had twice visited Gaul and would therefore be useful as a guide, would accompany him to England, and remain with him to assist him in doctrinal matters; for the pope seems to have feared that Theodore might be affected by the monothelite heresy. Theodore was ordained subdeacon in November, and as he was tonsured after the Eastern fashion—his whole head being shaved—he had to wait four months before receiving further orders, to allow his hair to grow sufficiently for him to be tonsured after the Roman fashion. At last, on Sunday, 26 March 668, he was consecrated by Vitalian. He set out from Rome on 27 May, in company with Hadrian and Benedict Biscop [q. v.] At Arles he and his party were detained by John, the archbishop of the city, in accordance with the command of Ebroin, mayor of the palace in Neustria and Burgundy, who suspected them of being political emissaries sent by the emperor Constans to the English king. When Ebroin gave them leave to proceed, Theodore went on to Paris, where he was received by Aligbert, the bishop, formerly bishop of the West-Saxons, and remained with him during the winter. At last Egbert, king of Kent, being informed that the archbishop was in the Frankish kingdom, sent his high reeve Raedfrith to conduct him to England. Ebroin gave Theodore leave to depart, but detained Hadrian, whom he still suspected of being an imperial envoy. Theodore was conducted by Raedfrith to Quentavic or Etaples, where he was delayed for some time by sickness. As soon as he began to get well he crossed the Channel, and was received at Canterbury on 27 May 669. Hadrian joined him soon afterwards.

At the time of Theodore's arrival the English church lacked order, administrative organisation, discipline, and culture. The work of the Celtic missionaries had been carried on rather by individual effort than through an ordered ecclesiastical system. The Roman party had gained a decisive victory in 664,


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 12.djvu/141

 with wash-leather for piano effects. The peal was unique at the time it was made for the Golden Legend, but a smaller bell of the same shape, in. thick, with a diameter measuring about 16 in., specially made for the performance of Liszt’s St Elizabeth, when conducted by the composer in London, evidently suggested the idea for the peal.

GLOGAU, a fortified town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Silesia, 59 m. N.W. from Breslau, on the railway to Frankfort-on-Oder. Pop. (1905) 23,461. It is built partly on an island and partly on the left bank of the Oder; and owing to the fortified enceinte having been pushed farther afield, new quarters have been opened up. Among its most important buildings are the cathedral, in the Gothic, and a castle (now used as a courthouse), in the Renaissance style, two other Roman Catholic and three Protestant churches, a new town-hall, a synagogue, a military hospital, two classical schools (Gymnasien) and several libraries. Owing to its situation on a navigable river and at the junction of several lines of railway, Glogau carries on an extensive trade, which is fostered by a variety of local industries, embracing machinery-building, tobacco, beer, oil, sugar and vinegar. It has also extensive lithographic works, and its wool market is celebrated.

In the beginning of the 11th century Glogau, even then a populous and fortified town, was able to withstand a regular siege by the emperor Henry V.; but in 1157 the duke of Silesia, finding he could not hold out against Frederick Barbarossa, set it on fire. In 1252 the town, which had been raised from its ashes by Henry I., the Bearded, became the capital of a principality of Glogau, and in 1482 town and district were united to the Bohemian crown. In the course of the Thirty Years’ War Glogau suffered greatly. The inhabitants, who had become Protestants soon after the Reformation, were dragooned into conformity by Wallenstein’s soldiery; and the Jesuits received permission to build themselves a church and a college. Captured by the Protestants in 1632, and recovered by the Imperialists in 1633, the town was again captured by the Swedes in 1642, and continued in Protestant hands till the peace of Westphalia in 1648, when the emperor recovered it. In 1741 the Prussians took the place by storm, and during the Seven Years’ War it formed an important centre of operations for the Prussian forces. After the battle of Jena (1806) it fell into the hands of the French; and was gallantly held by Laplane, against the Russian and Prussian besiegers, after the battle of Katzbach in August 1813 until the 17th of the following April.

See Minsberg, Geschichte der Stadt und Festung Glogau’s (2 vols., Glogau, 1853); and H. von Below, Zur Geschichte des Jahres 1806. Glogau’s Belagerung und Verteidigung (Berlin, 1893).

GLORIOSA, in botany, a small genus of plants belonging to the natural order Liliaceae, native of tropical Asia and Africa. They are bulbous plants, the slender stems of which support themselves by tendril-like prolongations of the tips of some of the narrow generally lanceolate leaves. The flowers, which are borne in the leaf-axils at the ends of the stem, are very handsome, the six, generally narrow, petals are bent back and stand erect, and are a rich orange yellow or red in colour; the six stamens project more or less horizontally from the place of insertion of the petals. They are generally grown in cultivation as stove-plants.

GLORY (through the O. Fr. glorie, modern gloire, from Lat. gloria, cognate with Gr.  ), a synonym for fame, renown, honour, and thus used of anything which reflects honour and renown on its possessor. In the phrase “glory of God” the word implies both the honour due to the Creator, and His majesty and effulgence. In liturgies of the Christian Church are the Gloria Patri, the doxology beginning “Glory be to the Father,” the response Gloria tibi, Domine, “Glory be to Thee, O Lord,” sung or said after the giving out of the Gospel for the day, and the Gloria in excelsis, “Glory be to God on high,” sung during the Mass and Communion service. A “glory” is the term often used as synonymous with halo, nimbus or (q.v.) for the ring of light encircling the head or figure in a pictorial or other representation of sacred persons.

GLOSS, GLOSSARY, &c. The Greek word  (whence our “gloss”), meaning originally a tongue, then a language or dialect, gradually came to denote any obsolete, foreign, provincial, technical or otherwise peculiar word or use of a word (see Arist. Rhet. iii. 3. 2). The making of collections and explanations of such  was at a comparatively early date a well-recognized form of literary activity. Even in the 5th century, among the many writings of Abdera was included a treatise entitled . It was not, however, until the Alexandrian period that the , glossographers (writers of glosses), or glossators, became numerous. Of many of these perhaps even the names have perished; but Athenaeus the grammarian alone (c. 250) alludes to no fewer than thirty-five. Among the earliest was Philetas of Cos (d. c. 290 ), the elegiac poet, to whom Aristarchus dedicated the treatise  ; he was the compiler of a lexicographical work, arranged probably according to subjects, and entitled  or  (sometimes  ). Next came his disciple Zenodotus of Ephesus (c. 280 ), one of the earliest of the Homeric critics and the compiler of  ; Zenodotus in turn was succeeded by his greater pupil Aristophanes of Byzantium (c. 200 ), whose great compilation  (still partially preserved in that of Pollux), is known to have included , and the like. From the school of Aristophanes issued more than one glossographer of name,—Diodorus, Artemidorus (, and a collection of ), Nicander of Colophon (, of which some twenty-six fragments still survive), and Aristarchus (c. 210 ), the famous critic, whose numerous labours included an arrangement of the Homeric vocabulary in the order of the books. Contemporary with the last named was Crates of Mallus, who, besides making some new contributions to Greek lexicography and dialectology, was the first to create at Rome a taste for similar investigations in connexion with the Latin idioms. From his school proceeded Zenodotus of Mallus, the compiler of or  , a work said to have been designed chiefly to support the views of the school of Pergamum as to the allegorical interpretation of Homer. Of later date were Didymus (Chalcenterus, c. 50 ), who made collections of , &c.; Apollonius Sophista (c. 20 ), whose Homeric Lexicon has come down to modern times; and Neoptolemus, known distinctively as . In the beginning of the 1st century of the Christian era Apion, a grammarian and rhetorician at Rome during the reigns of Tiberius and Claudius, followed up the labours of Aristarchus and other predecessors with  , and a treatise  ; Heliodorus or Herodorus was another almost contemporary glossographer; Erotian also, during the reign of Nero, prepared a special glossary for the writings of Hippocrates, still preserved. To this period also Pamphilus, the author of the , from which Diogenian and Julius Vestinus afterwards drew so largely, most probably belonged. In the following century one of the most prominent workers in this department of literature was Aelius Herodianus, whose treatise  has been edited in modern times, and whose we still possess in an abridgment; also Pollux, Diogenian ( ), Julius Vestinus ( ) and especially Phrynichus, who flourished towards the close of the 2nd century, and whose Eclogae nominum et verborum Atticorum has frequently been edited. To the 4th century belongs Ammonius of Alexandria (c. 389), who wrote , a dictionary of words used in senses different from those in which they had

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 12.djvu/141


text: State Documents on Federal Relations/19

title: State Documents on Federal Relations/19