text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/51

 Scots, in their own country; and in all likelihood he might have given them the like now, if they had fought.

A. He might indeed: but it had been but a kind of superstition to have made him general upon that account, though many generals heretofore have been chosen for the good luck of their ancestors in like occasions. In the long war between Athens and Sparta, a general of the Athenians by sea won many victories against the Spartans; for which cause, after his death, they chose his son for general with ill success. The Romans that conquered Carthage by the valour and conduct of Scipio, when they were to make war again in Afric against Cæsar, chose another Scipio for general; a man valiant and wise enough, but that perished in the employment. And to come home to our own nation, the Earl of Essex made a fortunate expedition to Cadiz; but his son, sent afterwards to the same place, could do nothing. It is but a foolish superstition to hope that God has entailed success in war upon a name or family.

B. After the pacification broken, what succeeded next?

A. The King sent Duke Hamilton with commission and instructions into Scotland, to call a Parliament there, and to use all the means he could otherwise; but all was to no purpose. For the Scots were now resolved to raise an army and to enter into England, to deliver, as they pretended, their grievances to his majesty in a petition; because the King, they said, being in the hands of evil councillors, they could not otherwise obtain their right. But the truth is, they were animated to it by the democratical and Presbyterian English, with a promise of reward and hope of plunder. Some have said, that Duke Hamilton also did rather encourage them to, than deter them from, the expedition; as hoping by the disorder of the two kingdoms, to bring to pass that which he had formerly been accused to endeavour, to make himself King of Scotland. But I take this to have been a very uncharitable censure, upon so little ground to judge so hardly of a man, that afterwards lost his life in seeking to procure the liberty of the King his

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/51


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/52

 master.—This resolution of the Scots to enter England being known, the King wanting money to raise an army against them, was now, as his enemies here wished, constrained to call a parliament, to meet at Westminster the 13th day of April, 1640.

B. Methinks a Parliament of England, if upon any occasion, should furnish the King with money now, in a war against the Scots, out of an inveterate disaffection to that nation that had always anciently taken part with their enemies the French, and which always esteemed the glory of England for an abatement of their own.

A. It is indeed commonly seen that neighbour nations envy one another’s honour, and that the less potent bears the greater malice; but that hinders them not from agreeing in those things which their common ambition leads them to. And therefore the King found not the more, but the less help from this Parliament: and most of the members thereof, in their ordinary discourses, seemed to wonder why the King should make a war upon Scotland; and in that Parliament sometimes called them their brethren the Scots. But instead of taking the King’s business, which was the raising of money, into their consideration, they fell upon the redressing of grievances, and especially such ways of levying money as in the late intermission of Parliaments the King had been forced to use; such as were ship-money, for knighthood, and such other vails (as one may call them) of the regal office, which lawyers had found justifiable by the ancient records of the kingdom. Besides, they fell upon the actions of divers ministers of state, though done by the King’s own command and warrant. Insomuch, that before they were to come to the business for which they were called, the money which was necessary for this war (if they had given any, as they never meant to do) had come too late. It is true, there was mention of a sum of money to be given the King, by way of bargain, for the relinquishing of his right to ship-money, and some other of his prerogatives, but so seldom, and without determining any sum, that it was in

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

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/52


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/53

 vain for the King to hope for any success; and therefore upon the 5th of May following he dissolved it.

B. Where then had the King money to raise and pay his army?

A. He was forced the second time to make use of the nobility and gentry, who contributed some more, some less, according to the greatness of their estates; but amongst them all they made up a very sufficient army.

B. It seems then that the same men, that crossed his business in the Parliament, now out of Parliament advanced it all they could. What was the reason of that?

A. The greatest part of the Lords in Parliament, and of the gentry throughout England, were more affected to monarchy than to a popular government, but so as not to endure to hear of the King’s absolute power; which made them in time of Parliament easily to condescend to abridge it, and bring the government to a mixed monarchy, as they called it; wherein the absolute sovereignty should be divided between the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

B. But how, if they cannot agree?

A. I think they never thought of that; but I am sure they never meant the sovereignty should be wholly either in one or both the houses. Besides, they were loath to desert the King, when he was invaded by foreigners; for the Scotch were esteemed by them as a foreign nation.

B. It is strange to me, that England and Scotland being but one island, and their language almost the same, and being governed by one King, should be thought foreigners to one another.—The Romans were masters of many nations, and to oblige them the more to obey the edicts and laws sent unto them from the city of Rome, they thought fit to make them all Romans; and out of divers nations, as Spain, Germany, Italy, and France, to advance some, that they thought worthy, even to be senators of Rome, and to give every one of the common people the privileges of the city of Rome, by which they were protected from the contumelies

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/53


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/54

 of other nations where they resided. Why were not the Scotch and English united in like manner into one people?

A. King James at his first coming to the crown of England did endeavour it, but could not prevail. But for all that, I believe the Scots have now as many privileges in England as any nation had in Rome, of those which were so as you say made Romans. For they are all naturalized, and have right to buy land in England to themselves and their heirs.

B. It is true of them, that were born in Scotland after the time that King James was in possession of the kingdom of England.

A. There be very few now that were born before. But why have they a better right that were born after, than they that were born before?

B. Because they were born subjects to the King of England, and the rest not.

A. Were not the rest born subjects to King James? And was not he King of England?

B. Yes, but not then.

A. I understand not the subtilty of that distinction. But upon what law is that distinction grounded? Is there any statute to that purpose?

B. I cannot tell; I think not; but it is grounded upon equity.

A. I see little equity in this: that those nations that are bound to equal obedience to the same King, should not have equal privileges. And now seeing there be so very few born before King James’s coming in, what greater privilege had those ingrafted Romans by their naturalization in the state of Rome, or in the state of England the English themselves, more than the Scots?

B. Those Romans, when any of them were in Rome, had their voice in the making of laws.

A. And the Scots have their Parliaments, wherein their assent is required to the laws there made, which is as good. Have not many of the provinces of France their several

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/54


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/55

 parliaments and several constitutions? And yet they are all equally natural subjects of the King of France. And therefore for my part I think they were mistaken, both English and Scots, in calling one another foreigners. Howsoever that be, the King had a very sufficient army, wherewith he marched towards Scotland; and by the time he was come to York, the Scotch army was drawn up to the frontiers and ready to march into England; which also they presently did; giving out all the way, that their march should be without damage to the country, and that their errand was only to deliver a petition to the King, for the redress of many pretended injuries they had received from such of the court, whose counsel the King most followed. So they passed through Northumberland quietly, till they came to a ford in the river of Tyne, a little above Newcastle, where they found some little opposition, from a party of the King’s army sent thither to stop them; whom the Scots easily mastered; and as soon as they were over, seized upon Newcastle, and coming further on, upon the city of Durham; and sent to the King to desire a treaty, which was granted; and the commissioners on both sides met at Ripon. The conclusion was, that all should be referred to the Parliament, which the King should call to meet at Westminster on the 3rd of November following, being in the same year 1640; and thereupon the King returned to London.

B. So the armies were disbanded?

A. No; the Scotch army was to be defrayed by the counties of Northumberland and Durham, and the King was to pay his own, till the disbanding of both should be agreed upon in Parliament.

B. So in effect both the armies were maintained at the King’s charge, and the whole controversy to be decided by a Parliament almost wholly Presbyterian, and as partial to the Scotch as themselves could have wished.

A. And yet for all this they durst not presently make war upon the King: there was so much yet left of reverence to him in the hearts of the people, as to have made them

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/55


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/56

 odious, if they had declared what they intended. They must have some colour or other to make it believed that the King made war first upon the Parliament. And besides, they had not yet sufficiently disgraced him and his actions in sermons and pamphlets, nor removed from about him those they thought could best counsel him. Therefore they resolved to proceed with him like skilful hunters; first to single him out, by men disposed in all parts to drive him into the open field *with their noise,* and then in case he should but seem to turn head, to call that a making of war against the Parliament.

And first they called in question such as had either preached or written in defence of any of those rights, which, belonging to the Crown, they meant to usurp, and take from the King to themselves: whereupon some few preachers and writers were imprisoned. The King not protecting these, they proceeded to call in question some of the King’s own actions in his ministers, whereof they imprisoned some, and some went beyond sea. And whereas certain persons, having endeavoured by books and sermons to raise sedition, and committed other crimes of high nature, had therefore been censured by the King’s council in the Star-chamber, and imprisoned; the Parliament by their own authority, to try, it seems, how the King and the people would take it (for their persons were inconsiderable), ordered their setting at liberty; which was accordingly done, with great applause of the people, that flocked about them in London, in manner of a triumph. This being done, without resistance, *they called in question* the King’s right to ship-money—

B. Ship-money! what’s that?

A. The Kings of England, for the defence of the sea, had power to tax all the counties of England, whether they were maritime or not, for the building and furnishing of ships; which tax the King had then lately found cause to impose, and the Parliament exclaimed against it as an oppression.

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/56


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/57

 And by one of their members that had been taxed but 20s. (mark the oppression; a Parliament-man of 500l. a year, land-taxed at 20s.!) they were forced to bring it to a trial at law, he refused payment, and was cast. Again, when all the judges of Westminster were demanded their opinions concerning the legality of it, of twelve that there were, it was judged legal by ten; for which though they were not punished, they were affrighted by the Parliament.

B. What did the Parliament mean, when they did exclaim against it as illegal? Did they mean it was against statute-law, or against the judgments of lawyers given heretofore, which are commonly called reports; or did they mean it was against equity, which I take to be the same with the law of nature?

A. It is a hard matter, or rather impossible, to know what other men mean, especially if they be crafty; but sure I am, equity was not their ground for this pretence of immunity from contributing to the King but at their own pleasure. For when they have laid the burthen of defending the whole kingdom, and governing it, upon any person whatsoever, there is very little equity he should depend on others for the means of performing it; or if he do, they are his Sovereign, not he theirs. And as for the common law contained in reports, they have no force but what the King gives them. Besides, it were unreasonable, that a corrupt or foolish judge’s unjust sentence should by any time, how long soever, obtain the authority and force of a law. But amongst Statute Laws there is one, called Magna Charta, or the Great Charter of the liberties of Englishmen, in which there is one article, wherein a King heretofore hath granted that no man shall be distrained, that is, have his goods taken from him, otherwise than by the law of the land.

B. Is not that a sufficient ground for their purpose?

A. No; that leaves us in the same doubt, which you think it clears. For where was that law of the land then? Did they mean another Magna Charta, that was made by some King more ancient yet? No; that statute was made,

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/57


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/58

 not to exempt any man from payments to the public, but for securing every man from such as abused the King’s power, by surreptitiously obtaining the King’s warrants, to the oppressing of those against whom he had any suit in law. But it was conducing to the ends of some rebellious spirits in this Parliament, to have it interpreted in the wrong sense, and suitable enough to the understanding of the rest, or most part of them, to let it pass.

B. You make the members of that Parliament very simple men; and yet the people chose them for the wisest of the land.

A. If craft be wisdom, they were wise enough. But wise, as I define it, is he that knows how to bring his business to pass (without the assistance of knavery and ignoble shifts) by the sole strength of his good contrivance. A fool may win from a better gamester, by the advantage of false dice, and packing of cards.

B. According to your definition, there be few wise men now-a-days. Such wisdom is a kind of gallantry, that few are brought up to, and most think folly. Fine clothes, great feathers, civility towards men that will not swallow injuries, and injury towards them that will, is the present gallantry. But when the Parliament afterwards, having gotten the power into their hands, levied money for their own use; what said the people to that?

A. What else, but that it was legal and to be paid, as being imposed by consent of Parliament?

B. I have heard often that they ought to pay what was imposed by consent of Parliament to the use of the King, but to their own use never before. I see by this, it is easier to gull the multitude, than any one man amongst them. For what one man, that has not his natural judgment depraved by accident, could be so easily cozened in a matter that concerns his purse, had he not been passionately carried away by the rest to change of government, or rather to a liberty of every one to govern himself?

A. Judge then, what kind of men such a multitude of

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/58


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/59

 ignorant people were like to elect for their burgesses and knights of shires.

B. I can make no other judgment, but that they who were then elected, were just such as had been elected for former Parliaments, and as likely to be elected for Parliaments to come. For people always have been, and always will be, ignorant of their duty to the public, as never meditating anything but their particular interest; in other things following their immediate leaders; which are either the preachers, or the most potent of the gentlemen that dwell amongst them: as common soldiers for the most part follow their immediate captains, if they like them. If you think the late miseries have made them wiser, that will quickly be forgot, and then we shall be no wiser than we were.

A. Why may not men be taught their duty, that is, the science of just and unjust, as divers other sciences have been taught, from true principles and evident demonstration; and much more easily than any of those preachers and democratical gentlemen could teach rebellion and treason?

B. But who can teach what none have learned? Or, if any man have been so singular, as to have studied the science of justice and equity; how can he teach it safely, when it is against the interest of those that are in possession of the power to hurt him?

A. The rules of just and unjust sufficiently demonstrated, and from principles evident to the meanest capacity, have not been wanting; and notwithstanding the obscurity of their author, have shined, not only in this, but also in foreign countries, to men of good education. But they are few, in respect of the rest of the men, whereof many cannot read: many, though they can, have no leisure; and of them that have leisure, the greatest part have their minds wholly employed and taken up by their private businesses or pleasures. So that it is impossible that the multitude should ever learn their duty, but from the pulpit and upon holidays; but then, and from thence, it is, that they learned

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/59


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/60

 their disobedience. And, therefore, the light of that doctrine has been hitherto covered and kept under here by a cloud of adversaries, which no private man’s reputation can break through, without the authority of the Universities. But out of the Universities, came all those preachers that taught the contrary. The Universities have been to this nation, as the wooden horse was to the Trojans.

B. What was the Pope’s design in setting up the Universities?

A. What other design was he like to have, but (what you heard before) the advancement of his own authority in the countries where the Universities were erected? There they learned to dispute for him, and with unintelligible distinctions to blind men’s eyes, whilst they encroached upon the rights of kings. And it was an evident argument of that design, that they fell in hand with the work so quickly. For the first Rector of the University of Paris (as I have read somewhere) was Peter Lombard, who first brought in them the learning called School-divinity; and was seconded by John Scot of Duns, who lived in, or near the same time; whom any ingenious reader, not knowing it was the

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/60


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/61

, would judge to have been two of the most egregious blockheads in the world, so obscure and senseless are their writings. And from these the schoolmen that succeeded, learnt the trick of imposing what they list upon their readers, and declining the force of true reason by verbal forks; I mean, distinctions that signify nothing, but serve only to astonish the multitude of ignorant men. As for the understanding readers, they were so few, that these new sublime doctors cared not what they thought. These schoolmen were to make good all the articles of faith, which the Popes from time to time should command to be believed: amongst which, there were very many inconsistent with the rights of kings, and other civil sovereigns, asserting to the Pope all authority whatsoever they should declare to be necessary in ordine ad spiritualia, that is to say, in order to religion.

From the Universities also it was, that all preachers proceeded, and were poured out into city and country, to terrify the people into an absolute obedience to the Pope’s canons and commands, which, for fear of weakening kings and princes too much, they durst not yet call laws.

From the Universities it was, that the philosophy of Aristotle was made an ingredient in religion, as serving for a salve to a great many absurd articles, concerning the nature of Christ’s body, and the estate of angels and saints in heaven; which articles they thought fit to have believed, because they brought some of them profit, and others reverence to the clergy, even to the meanest of them. For when they shall have made the people believe that the meanest of them can make the body of Christ; who is there that will not both show them reverence, and be liberal to them or to the Church, especially in the time of their sickness, when they think they make and bring unto them their Saviour?

B. But, what advantage to them, in these impostures, was the doctrine of Aristotle?

A. They have made more use of his obscurity than of his doctrine. For none of the ancient philosophers’ writings are comparable to those of Aristotle, for their aptness to

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/61


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/62

 puzzle and entangle men with words, and to breed disputation, which must at last be ended in the determination of the Church of Rome. And yet in the doctrine of Aristotle, they made use of many points; as, first, the doctrine of Separated Essences.

B. What are Separated Essences?

A. Separated beings.

B. Separated from what?

A. From every thing that is.

B. I cannot understand the being of any thing, which I understand not to be. But what can they make of that?

A. Very much, in questions concerning the nature of God, and concerning the estate of man’s soul after death, in heaven, hell, and purgatory; by which you and every man know, how great obedience, and how much money they gain from the common people.—Whereas Aristotle holdeth the soul of man to be the first giver of motion to the body, and consequently to itself; they make use of that in the doctrine of free will. What, and how they gain by that, I will not say.—He holdeth further, that there be many things that come to pass in this world from no necessity of causes, but mere contingency, casuality, and fortune.

B. Methinks, in this they make God stand idle, and to be a mere spectator of the games of Fortune. For what God is the cause of, must needs come to pass, and (in my opinion) nothing else. But, because there must be some ground for the justice of the eternal torment of the damned; perhaps it is this, that men’s wills and propensions are not (they think) in the hands of God, but of themselves; and in this also I see somewhat conducing to the authority of the Church.

A. This is not much; nor was Aristotle of such credit with them, but that when his opinion was against theirs, they could slight him. Whatsoever he says is impossible in nature, they can prove well enough to be possible, from the Almighty power of God, who can make many bodies to be in one and the self-same place, and one body to be in many

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/62


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/63

 places at the same time, if the doctrine of transubstantiation require it, though Aristotle deny it. I like not the design of drawing religion into an art, whereas it ought to be a law; and though not the same in all countries, yet in every country indisputable; nor that they teach it not, as arts ought to be taught, by showing first the meaning of their terms, and then deriving from them the truth they would have us believe: nor that their terms are for the most part unintelligible; though, to make it seem rather want of learning in the reader, than want of fair dealing in themselves, they are, for the most part, Latin and Greek words, wryed a little at the point, towards the native language of the several countries where they are used. But that which is most intolerable is, that all clerks are forced to make as if they believed them, if they mean to have any Church preferment, the keys whereof are in the Pope’s hands; and the common people, whatsoever they believe of those subtile doctrines, are never esteemed better sons of the Church for their learning. There is but one way there to salvation; that is, extraordinary devotion and liberality to the Church, and readiness for the Church’s sake, if it be required, to fight against their natural and lawful sovereigns.

B. I see what use they make of Aristotle’s logic, physics, and metaphysics; but I see not yet how his politics can serve their turn.

A. Nor I. It has, I think, done them no good, though it has done us here much hurt by accident. For men, grown weary at last of the insolence of the priests, and examining the truth of those doctrines that were put upon them, began to search the sense of the Scriptures, as they are in the learned languages; and consequently (studying Greek and Latin) became acquainted with the democratical principles of Aristotle and Cicero, and from the love of their eloquence fell in love with their politics, and that more and more, till it grew into the rebellion we now talk of, without any other advantage to the Roman Church but that it was a weakening to us, whom, since we broke out of their net

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/63


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/64

 in the time of Henry VIII., they have continually endeavoured to recover.

B. What have they gotten by the teaching of Aristotle’s ethics?

A. It is some advantage to them, that neither the morals of Aristotle, nor of any other, have done them any harm, nor us any good. Their doctrines have caused a great deal of dispute concerning virtue and vice, but no knowledge of what they are, nor any method of attaining virtue nor of avoiding vice.—The end of moral philosophy is, to teach men of all sorts their duty, both to the public and to one another. They estimate virtue, partly by a mediocrity of the passions of men, and partly by that that they are praised. Whereas, it is not the Much or Little that makes an action virtuous, but the cause; nor Much or Little that makes an action vicious, but its being unconformable to the laws in such men as are subject to the law, or its being unconformable to equity or charity in all men whatsoever.

B. It seems you make a difference between the ethics of subjects and the ethics of sovereigns.

A. So I do. The virtue of a subject is comprehended wholly in obedience to the laws of the commonwealth. To obey the laws, is justice and equity, which is the law of nature, and, consequently, is civil law in all nations of the world; and nothing is injustice or iniquity, otherwise, than it is against the law. Likewise, to obey the laws, is the prudence of a subject; for without such obedience the commonwealth (which is every subject’s safety and protection) cannot subsist. And though it be prudence also in private men, justly and moderately to enrich themselves, yet craftily to withhold from the public or defraud it of such part of their wealth, as is by law required, is no sign of prudence, but of want of knowledge of what is necessary for their own defence.

The virtues of sovereigns are such as tend to the maintenance of peace at home, and to the resistance of foreign

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/64


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/65

 enemies. Fortitude is a royal virtue; and though it be necessary in such private men as shall be soldiers, yet, for other men, the less they dare, the better it is both for the commonwealth and for themselves. Frugality (though perhaps you will think it strange) is also a royal virtue: for it increases the public stock, which cannot be too great for the public use, nor any man too sparing of what he has in trust for the good of others. Liberality also is a royal virtue: for the commonwealth cannot be well served without extraordinary diligence and service of ministers, and great fidelity to their Sovereign; who ought therefore to be encouraged, and especially those that do him service in the wars. In sum, all actions and habits are to be esteemed good or evil by their causes and usefulness in reference to the commonwealth, and not by their mediocrity, nor by their being commended. For several men praise several customs, and that which is virtue with one, is blamed by others; and, contrarily, what one calls vice, another calls virtue, as their present affections lead them.

B. Methinks you should have placed among the virtues that, which, in my opinion, is the greatest of all virtues, religion.

A. So I have; though, it seems, you did not observe it. But whither do we digress from the way we were in?

B. I think you have not digressed at all; for I suppose, your purpose was, to acquaint me with the history, not so much of those actions that passed in the time of the late troubles, as of their causes, and of the councils and artifice by which they were brought to pass. There be divers men that have written the history, out of whom I might have learned what they did, and somewhat also of the contrivance; but I find little in them of what I would ask. Therefore, since you were pleased to enter into this discourse at my request, be pleased also to inform me after my own method; and for the danger of confusion that may arise from that, I will take care to bring you back to the place from whence I drew you; for I well remember where it was.

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/65


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/66

 A. Well then, to your question concerning religion, inasmuch as I told you, that all virtue is comprehended in obedience to the laws of the commonwealth, whereof religion is one, I have placed religion amongst the virtues.

B. Is religion then the law of a commonwealth?

A. There is no nation in the world, whose religion is not established, and receives not its authority from the laws of that nation. It is true, that the law of God receives no evidence from the laws of men. But because men can never by their own wisdom come to the knowledge of what God hath spoken and commanded to be observed, nor be obliged to obey the laws whose author they know not, they are to acquiesce in some human authority or other. So that the question will be, whether a man ought in matter of religion, that is to say, when there is question of his duty to God and the King, to rely upon the preaching of his fellow-subjects or of a stranger, or upon the voice of the law?

B. There is no great difficulty in that point. For there are none that preach here or anywhere else, or at least ought to preach, but such as have authority so to do from him or them that have the sovereign power. So that if the King give us leave, you or I may as lawfully preach as any of them; and I believe we should perform that office a great deal better, than they that preached us into the rebellion.

A. The Church morals are in many points very different from these, that I have here set down, for the doctrine of virtue and vice; and yet without any conformity with that of Aristotle. For in the Church of Rome, the principal virtues are, to obey their doctrine, though it be treason, and that is to be religious; to be beneficial to the clergy, that is their piety and liberality; and to believe upon their word that which a man knows in his conscience to be false, which is the faith they require. I could name a great many more such points of their morals, but that I know you know them already, being so well versed in the cases of conscience written by their schoolmen, who measure the goodness and

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/66


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/67

 wickedness of all actions, by their congruity with the doctrine of the Roman clergy.

B. But what is the moral philosophy of the Protestant clergy in England?

A. So much as they show of it in their life and conversation, is for the most part very good, and of very good example; much better than their writings.

B. It happens many times that men live honestly for fear, who, if they had power, would live according to their own opinions; that is, if their opinions be not right, unrighteously.

A. Do the clergy in England pretend, as the Pope does, or as the Presbyterians do, to have a right from God immediately, to govern the King and his subjects in all points of religion and manners? If they do, you cannot doubt but that if they had number and strength, which they are never like to have, they would attempt to obtain that power, as the others have done.

B. I would be glad to see a system of the present morals, written by some divine of good reputation and learning, of the late King’s party.

A. I think I can recommend unto you the best that is extant, and such a one as (except a few passages that I mislike) is very well worth your reading. The title of it is, The whole Duty of Man laid down in a plain and familiar way. And, yet, I dare say, that if the Presbyterian ministers, even those of them which were the most diligent preachers of the late sedition, were to be tried by it, they would go near to be found not guilty. He has divided the duty of man into three great branches; which are, his duty to God, to himself, and to his neighbour. In his duty to God, he puts the acknowledgment of him in his essence and his attributes, and in the believing of his word. His attributes are omnipotence, omniscience, infiniteness, justice, truth, mercy, and all the rest that are found in Scripture. Which of these did not those seditious preachers acknowledge equally with the best of Christians? The word of

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/67


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/189

 TREMAMONDO, DOMENICO ANGELO MALEVOLTI (1716–1802), fencing master, the son of a wealthy Italian merchant, was born at Leghorn in 1716. After travelling widely upon the continent he settled in Paris, and studied horsemanship and fencing under the great Teillagory, who was instructor at the Manège Royal, as well as at the Académie d'Armes. While still at Paris he was fascinated by the charms of Peg Woffington, and is said to have migrated to England in her company, probably about 1755. His style of living was costly, and he became anxious to turn his handsome person and remarkable skill as a rider and swordsman to account. He was soon recognised as an authority on the manège. He became écuyer to Henry Herbert, tenth earl of Pembroke [q. v.], settled at Wilton in 1758, and undertook to train the riding instructors of Eliott's famous light horse (now 15th hussars), of which Pembroke in 1759 became lieutenant-colonel. One of those he trained was Philip Astley [q. v.], the founder of the well-known amphitheatre. While Pembroke patronised Tremamondo, Charles Douglas, third duke of Queensberry [q. v.], is said to have shown a partiality for his wife, for he appears to have married in England within a few years of his arrival. The equestrian (whom his patrons persuaded to adopt the simpler patronymic of Angelo) was introduced to George II, who pronounced him the most elegant horseman of his day. George III was no less emphatic in his commendation, and at a later date Angelo sat on horseback as West's model for William III in his picture of the battle of the Boyne. In the meantime Angelo, as he was now called, seems to have met with some pecuniary disappointment, and early in 1759 he resolved to devote his energies to obtaining remunerative pupils as a fencing master. This change of plan was soon justified by results. Among his first pupils were the Duke of Devonshire and the Prince of Wales, while his école d'escrime in Soho became a crowded and fashionable haunt for young men of rank. His income was now large; he set up a country house at Acton, and his hospitality was lavish in the extreme. Among his acquaintances were numbered Garrick, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Wilkes, Horne Tooke, and many other distinguished persons. Encouraged by such a clientèle, Angelo brought out in 1763 his superb ‘L'École d'Armes avec l'Explication générale des Principales Attitudes et Positions concernant l'Escrime,’ dedicated to Princes William Henry and Henry Frederic (London, 1763, oblong fol.; 2nd edit., with two columns of text, French and English, 1765; another, Paris, 1765; 3rd edit. 1767). The expense was covered by subscriptions among 236 noblemen and gentlemen, Angelo's patrons and pupils. The work was adorned by forty-seven copperplates, drawn by Gwynn, and engraved by Ryland, Grignion, and Hall. It rapidly established its position as an authority, being embodied under the heading ‘Escrime’ in Diderot's ‘Encyclopédie,’ and it was certainly the most important book that had appeared on the subject in England since the treatise of Vincentio Saviolo [q. v.] It appeared in a purely English guise in 1787 as ‘The School of Fencing’ (2nd edit. 1799). The Chevalier d'Eon resided for some years with Angelo in London, and it is understood that he assisted him in writing the letterpress [see ]. In 1770 Angelo purchased from Lord Delaval Carlisle House, at the end of Carlisle Street, overlooking Soho Square; but as this district became less select he transferred his salle d'armes, first to Opera House Buildings in the Haymarket, and then to Old Bond Street. Eventually he retired to Eton, but he continued to give lessons in fencing until his death in that town on 11 July 1802.

Domenico's younger brother, Anthony Angelo Malevolti Tremamondo, proceeded to Scotland about 1768 and became ‘Master of the Royal Riding Manège’ at Edinburgh, where he resided in Nicolson Square, and was widely known as Ainslie. He died at Edinburgh on 16 April 1805, ‘aged 84’ (Scots Mag. 1805, p. 565). A large equestrian portrait of him appears in ‘Kay's Original Portraits’ (Edinburgh, 1877, i. 69).

Domenico's eldest son, known as (1760–1839?), was sent in 1766 to Dr. William Rose's academy at Chiswick, but was transferred in the same year to Eton, where his father had already begun to give fencing lessons, and he remained there until 1774. He afterwards studied fencing in Paris under Motet, and became the virtual head of his father's académie from about 1785. Sheridan and Fox were in the habit of dropping in at the school in a friendly way, and Henry Angelo had almost as distinguished a circle of acquaintances as his father (for a list of his titled pupils see Reminiscences, ii. 406; cf., Recollections, 1866, iv. 159). He retired from the active conduct of the school about 1817, in favour of his son, also named Henry (1780–1852), who moved the academy in 1830 to St. James's Street, became in 1833 superintendent of sword exercise to the army, and died at Brighton on 14 Oct. 1852 (Gent. Mag. 1852, ii. 543).


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/68

 God are the books of Holy Scripture, received for canonical in England.

B. They receive the word of God; but according to their own interpretation.

A. According to whose interpretation was it received by the bishops and the rest of the loyal party, but their own? He puts for another duty, obedience and submission to God’s will. Did any of them, nay, did any man living, do any thing, at any time, against God’s will?

B. By God’s will, I suppose, he means there his revealed will, that is to say, his commandments, which I am sure they did most horribly break, both by their preaching and otherwise.

A. As for their own actions, there is no doubt but all men are guilty enough, if God deal severely with them, to be damned. And for their preaching, they will say, they thought it agreeable to God’s revealed will in the Scriptures. If they thought it so, it was not disobedience, but error. And how can any man prove they thought otherwise?

B. Hypocrisy hath *indeed* this great prerogative above other sins, that it cannot be accused.

A. Another duty he sets down is, to honour him in his house (that is, the Church), in his possessions, in his day, in his word and sacraments.

B. They perform this duty as well, I think, as any other ministers, I mean the loyal party; and the Presbyterians have always had an equal care to have God’s house free from profanation; to have tithes duly paid, and offerings accepted; to have the sabbath day kept holy, the word preached, and the Lord’s supper and baptism duly administered. But is not keeping of the feasts and fasts one of those duties that belong to the honour of God? If it be, the Presbyterians fail in that.

A. Why so? They kept some holidays, and they had fasts amongst themselves, though not upon the same days that the Church ordains, but when they thought fit; as when it pleased God to give the King any notable victory.

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/68


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/69

 And they governed themselves in this point by the Holy Scripture, as they pretend to believe. And who can prove they do not believe so?

B. Let us pass over all other duties, and come to that duty which we owe to the King, and consider whether the doctrine taught by those divines which adhered to the King, be such in that point, as may justify the Presbyterians, that incited the people to rebellion. For that is the thing you call in question.

A. Concerning our duty to our rulers, he hath these words: “An obedience we must pay, either active or passive; the active, in the case of all lawful commands, that is, whenever the magistrate commands something which is not contrary to some command of God, we are then bound to act according to that command of the magistrate, to do the things he requires; but when he enjoins anything contrary to what God hath commanded, we are not then to pay him this active obedience; we may, nay we must, refuse thus to act (yet, here we must be very well assured, that the thing is so contrary, and not pretend conscience for a cloak of stubbornness); we are, in that case, to obey God rather than men; but even this is a season for the passive obedience; we must patiently suffer what he inflicts on us for such refusal, and not, to secure ourselves, rise up against him.”

B. What is there in this, to give colour to the late rebellion?

A. They will say they did it in obedience to God, inasmuch as they did believe it was according to the Scripture; out of which they will bring examples, perhaps of David and his adherents, that resisted King Saul, and of the prophets afterward, that vehemently from time to time preached against the idolatrous Kings of Israel and Judah. Saul was their lawful King, and yet they paid him neither active nor passive obedience; for they did put themselves into a posture of defence against him, though David himself spared his person. And so did the Presbyterians put into their commissions to their general, that they should spare the

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/69


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/70

 King’s person. Besides, you cannot doubt but that they, who in the pulpit did animate the people to take arms in the defence of the then Parliament, alleged Scripture, that is, the word of God, for it. If it be lawful then for subjects to resist the King, when he commands anything that is against the Scripture, that is, contrary to the command of God, and to be judge of the meaning of the Scripture, it is impossible that the life of any King, or the peace of any Christian kingdom, can be long secure. It is this doctrine that divides a kingdom within itself, whatsoever the men be, loyal or rebels, that write or preach it publicly. And thus you see that if those seditious ministers be tried by this doctrine, they will come off well enough.

B. I see it; and wonder at people that have never spoken with God Almighty, nor knowing one more than another what he hath said, when the laws and the preacher disagree, should so keenly follow the minister (for the most part an ignorant, though a ready-tongued, scholar), rather than the laws, that were made by the King with the consent of the Peers and Commons of the land.

A. Let us examine his words a little nearer. First, concerning passive obedience. When a thief hath broken the laws, and according to the law is therefore executed, can any man understand that this suffering of his is in obedience to the law? Every law is a command to do, or to forbear: neither of these is fulfilled by suffering. If any suffering can be called obedience, it must be such as is voluntary; for no involuntary action can be counted a submission to the law. He that means that his suffering should be taken for obedience, must not only not resist, but also not fly, nor hide himself to avoid his punishment. And who is there amongst them that discourse of passive obedience, when his life is in extreme danger, that will voluntarily present himself to the officers of justice? Do not we see that all men, when they are led to execution, are both bound and guarded, and would break loose if they could, and get away? Such is their passive obedience. Christ saith (Matthew xxiii. 2, 3):

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/70


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/71

 The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ chair; all, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: which is a doing an active obedience. And yet the Scribes and Pharisees appear not by the Scripture to have been such godly men, as never to command anything against the revealed will of God.

B. Must tyrants also be obeyed in everything actively? Or is there nothing wherein a lawful King’s command may be disobeyed? What if he should command me with my own hands to execute my father, in case he should be condemned to die by the law?

A. This is a case that need not be put. We never have read nor heard of any King or tyrant so inhuman as to command it. If any did, we are to consider whether that command were one of his laws. For by disobeying Kings, we mean the disobeying of his laws, those his laws that were made before they were applied to any particular person; for the King, though as a father of children, and a master of domestic servants *command many things which bind those children and servants* yet he commands the people in general never but by a precedent law, and as a politic, not a natural person. And if such a command as you speak of were contrived into a general law (which never was, nor never will be), you were bound to obey it, unless you depart the kingdom after the publication of the law, and before the condemnation of your father.

B. Your author says further, in refusing active obedience to the King, that commanded anything contrary to God’s law, we must be very well assured that the thing is so contrary. I would fain know how it is possible to be *well* assured.

A. I think you do not believe that any of those refusers do, immediately from God’s own mouth, receive any command contrary to the command of the King, who is God’s lieutenant, nor any other way than you and I do, that is to say, than by the Scriptures. And because men do, for the most part, rather draw the Scripture to their own sense, than follow the true sense of the Scripture, there is no other way

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/71


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/72

 to know, certainly, and in all cases, what God commands, or forbids us to do, but by the sentence of him or them that are constituted by the King to determine the sense of the Scripture, upon hearing of the particular case of conscience which is in question. And they that are so constituted are easily known in all Christian commonwealths, whether they be bishops, or ministers, or assemblies, that govern the Church under him or them that have the sovereign power.

B. Some doubts may be raised from this that you now say. For if men be to learn their duty from the sentence which other men shall give concerning the meaning of the Scriptures, and not from their own interpretation, I understand not to what end they were translated into English, and every man not only permitted, but also exhorted, to read them. For what could that produce, but diversity of opinion, and consequently (as man’s nature is) disputation, breach of charity, disobedience, and at last rebellion? Again, since the Scripture was allowed to be read in English, why are not the translations such as might make all that is read, understood even by mean capacities? Did not the Jews, such as could read, understand their law in the Jewish language, as well as we do our statute laws in English? And as for such places of the Scripture, as had nothing of the nature of a law, it was nothing to the duty of the Jews, whether they were understood or not, seeing nothing is punishable but the transgression of some law. The same question I may ask concerning the New Testament. For, I believe, that those men to whom the original language was natural, did understand sufficiently what commands and councils were given them by our Saviour and his apostles, and his immediate disciples. Again, how will you answer that question which was put by St. Peter and St. John (Acts iv. 19), when by Annas the high-priest, and others of the Council of Jerusalem, they were forbidden to teach any more in the name of Jesus: Whether is it right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than unto God?

A. The case is not the same. Peter and John had seen

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/72


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/73

 and daily conversed with our Saviour; and by the miracles he wrought, did know he was God, and consequently knew certainly that their disobedience to the high-priest’s present command was just. Can any minister now say, that he hath immediately from God’s own mouth received a command to disobey the King, or know otherwise than by the Scripture, that any command of the King, that hath the form and nature of a law, is against the law of God, which in divers places, directly and evidently, commandeth to obey him in all things? The text you cite does not tell us, that a minister’s authority, rather than a Christian King’s, shall decide the questions that arise from the different interpretations of the Scripture. And therefore, where the King is head of the Church, and by consequence (to omit that the Scripture itself was not received but by the authority of Kings and States) chief judge of the rectitude of all interpretations of the Scripture, to obey the King’s laws and public edicts, is not to disobey, but to obey God. A minister ought not to think that his skill in the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew tongues, if he have any, gives him a privilege to impose upon all his fellow subjects his own sense, or what he pretends to be his sense, of every obscure place of Scripture: nor ought he, as oft as he *thinks he* hath found out some fine interpretation, not before thought on by others, to think he had it by inspiration: for he cannot be assured of that; no, nor that his interpretation, as fine as he thinks it, is not false: and then all this stubbornness and contumacy towards the King and his laws, is nothing but pride of heart and ambition, or else imposture. And whereas you think it needless, or perhaps hurtful, to have the Scriptures in English, I am of another mind. There are so many places of Scripture easy to be understood, that teach both true faith and good morality (and that as fully as is necessary to salvation), of which no seducer is able to dispossess the mind (of any ordinary readers), that the reading of them is so profitable as not to be forbidden without great damage to them and the commonwealth.

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/73


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/74

 B. All that is required, both in faith and manners, for man’s salvation is (I confess) set down in Scripture as plainly as can be. Children obey your parents in all things: Servants obey your masters: Let all men be subject to the higher powers, whether it be the King or those that are sent by him: Love God with all your soul, and your neighbour as yourself: are words of the Scripture, which are well enough understood; but neither children, nor the greatest part of men, do understand why it is their duty to do so. They see not that the safety of the commonwealth, and consequently their own, depends upon their doing it. Every man by nature (without discipline) does in all his actions look upon, as far as he can see, the benefit that shall redound to himself from his obedience. He reads that covetousness is the root of all evil; but he thinks, and sometimes finds, it is the root of his estate. And so in other cases, the Scripture says one thing, and they think another, weighing the commodities or incommodities of this present life only, which are in their sight, never putting into the scales the good and evil of the life to come, which they see not.

A. All this is no more than happens where the Scripture is sealed up in Greek and Latin, and the people taught the same things out of them by preachers. But they that are of a condition and age, fit to examine the sense of what they read, and that take a delight in searching out the grounds of their duty, certainly cannot choose but by their reading of the Scriptures come to such a sense of their duty, as not only to obey the laws themselves, but also to induce others to do the same. For commonly men of age and quality are followed by their inferior neighbours, that look more upon the example of those men whom they reverence, and whom they are unwilling to displease, than upon precepts and laws.

B. These men, of the condition and age you speak of, are, in my opinion, the unfittest of all others to be trusted with the reading of the Scriptures. I know you mean such as have studied the Greek or Latin, or both tongues, and

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/74


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/75

 that are withal such as love knowledge, and consequently take delight in finding out the meaning of the most hard texts, or in thinking they have found it, in case it be new and not found out by others. These are therefore they, that prætermitting the easy places which teach them their duty, fall to scanning only of the mysteries of religion. Such as are: how it may be made out with wit, ''That there be three that bear rule in heaven, and those three but one? How the Deity could be made flesh? How that flesh could be really present in many places at once? Where is the place, and what the torments, of hell? And other metaphysical doctrines: Whether the will of man be free, or governed by the will of God? Whether sanctity comes by inspiration or education? By whom Christ now speaks to us, whether by the King, or by the clergy, or by the Bible, to every man that reads it and interprets it to himself, or by private spirit to every private man?'' These and the like points are the study of the curious, and the cause of all our late mischief, and the cause that makes the plainer sort of men, whom the Scripture had taught belief in Christ, love towards God, obedience to the King, and sobriety of behaviour, forget it all, and place their religion in the disputable doctrines of these your wise men.

A. I do not think these men fit to interpret the Scripture to the rest, nor do I say that the rest ought to take their interpretation for the word of God. Whatsoever is necessary for them to know, is so easy, as not to need interpretation: whatsoever is more, does them no good. But in case any of those unnecessary doctrines shall be authorized by the laws of the King or other state, I say it is the duty of every subject not to speak against them: inasmuch as it is every man’s duty to obey him or them that have the sovereign power, and the wisdom of all such powers to punish such as shall publish or teach their private interpretations, when they are contrary to the law, and likely to incline men to sedition or disputing against the law.

B. They must punish then the most of those that have

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/75


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/76

 had their breeding in the Universities. For such curious questions in divinity are first started in the Universities, and so are all those politic questions concerning the rights of civil and ecclesiastic government; and there they are furnished with arguments for liberty out of the works of Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, and out of the histories of Rome and Greece, for their disputation against the necessary power of their sovereigns. Therefore I despair of any lasting peace amongst ourselves, till the Universities here shall bend and direct their studies to the settling of it, that is, to the teaching of absolute obedience to the laws of the King, and to his public edicts under the Great Seal of England. For I make no doubt, but that solid reason, backed with the authority of so many learned men, will more prevail for the keeping of us in peace within ourselves, than any victory can do over the rebels. But I am afraid that it is impossible to bring the Universities to such a compliance with the actions of state, as is necessary for the business.

A. Seeing the Universities have heretofore from time to time maintained the authority of the Pope, contrary to all laws divine, civil, and natural, against the right of our Kings, why can they not as well, when they have all manner of laws and equity on their side, maintain the rights of him that is both sovereign of the kingdom, and head of the Church?

B. Why then were they not in all points for the King’s power, presently after that King Henry VIII. was in Parliament declared head of the Church, as much as they were before for the authority of the Pope?

A. Because the clergy in the Universities, by whom all things there are governed, and the clergy without the Universities, as well bishops as inferior clerks, did think that the pulling down of the Pope was the setting up of them (as to England) in his place, and made no question, the greatest part of them, but that their spiritual power did depend not upon the authority of the King, but of Christ himself, derived to them by a successive imposition of

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/76


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/77

 hands from bishop to bishop; notwithstanding they knew that this derivation passed through the hands of popes and bishops whose authority they had cast off. For though they were content that the divine right, which the Pope pretended to in England, should be denied him, yet they thought it not so fit to be taken from the Church of England, whom they now supposed themselves to represent. It seems they did not think it reasonable that a woman, or a child, or a man that could not construe the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin Bible, nor knew perhaps the declensions and conjugations of Greek or Latin nouns and verbs, should take upon him to govern so many learned doctors in matters of religion; meaning matters of divinity: for religion has been for a long time, and is now by most people, taken for the same thing with divinity, to the great advantage of the clergy.

B. And especially now amongst the Presbyterians. For I see few that are by them esteemed very good Christians, besides such as can repeat their sermons, and wrangle for them about the interpretation of the Scripture, and fight for them also with their bodies or purses, when they shall be required. To believe in Christ is nothing with them, unless you believe as they bid you. Charity is nothing with them, unless it be charity and liberality to them, and partaking with them in faction. How we can have peace while this is our religion, I cannot tell. Hæret lateri lethalis arundo. The seditious doctrine of the Presbyterians has been stuck so hard into the people’s heads and memories (I cannot say into their hearts; for they understand nothing in it, but that they may lawfully rebel), that I fear the commonwealth will never be cured.

A. The two great virtues, that were severally in Henry VII. and Henry VIII., when they shall be jointly in one King, will easily cure it. That of Henry VII. was, without much noise of the people to fill his coffers; that of Henry VIII. was an early severity; but this without the former cannot be exercised.

B. This that you say looks (methinks) like an advice to

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/77


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/78

 the King, to let them alone till he have gotten ready money enough to levy and maintain a sufficient army, and then to fall upon them and destroy them.

A. God forbid that so horrible, unchristian, and inhuman a design should ever enter into the King’s heart. I would have him to have money enough readily to raise an army to suppress any rebellion, and to take from his enemies all hope of success, that they may not dare to trouble him in the reformation of the Universities; but to put none to death without actual committing such crimes as are already made capital by the laws. The core of rebellion, as you have seen by this, and read of other rebellions, are the Universities; which nevertheless are not to be cast away, but to be better disciplined: that is to say, that the politics there taught be made to be (as true politics should be) such as are fit to make men know, that it is their duty to obey all laws whatsoever that shall by the authority of the King be enacted, till by the same authority they shall be repealed; such as are fit to make men understand, that the civil laws are God’s laws, as they that make them are by God appointed to make them; and to make men know, that the people and the Church are one thing, and have but one head, the King; and that no man has title to govern under him, that has it not from him; that the King owes his crown to God only, and to no man, ecclesiastic or other; and that the religion they teach there, be a quiet waiting for the coming again of our blessed Saviour, and in the mean time a resolution to obey the King’s laws (which also are God’s laws); to injure no man, to be in charity with all men, to cherish the poor and sick, and to live soberly and free from scandal; without mingling our religion with points of natural philosophy, as freedom of will, incorporeal substance, everlasting nows, ubiquities, hypostases, which the people understand not, nor will ever care for. When the Universities shall be thus disciplined, there will come out of them, from time to time, well-principled preachers, and they that are now ill-principled, from time to time fall away.

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/78


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/79

 B. I think it a very good course, and perhaps the only one that can make our peace amongst ourselves constant. For if men know not their duty, what is there that can force them to obey the laws? An army, you will say. But what shall force the army? Were not the trained bands an army? Were they not the janissaries, that not very long ago slew Osman in his own palace at Constantinople? I am therefore of your opinion, both that men may be brought to a love of obedience by preachers and gentlemen that imbibe good principles in their youth at the Universities, and also that we never shall have a lasting peace, till the Universities themselves be in such manner, as you have said, reformed; and the ministers know they have no authority but what the supreme civil power gives them; and the nobility and gentry know that the liberty of a state is not an exemption from the laws of their own country, whether made by an assembly or by a monarch, but an exemption from the constraint and insolence of their neighbours.

And now I am satisfied in this point, I will bring you back to the place from whence my curiosity drew you to this long digression. We were upon the point of ship-money; one of those grievances which the Parliament exclaimed against as tyranny and arbitrary government; thereby to single out (as you called it) the King from his subjects, and to make a party against him, when they should need it. And now you may proceed, if it please you, to such other artifices as they used to the same purpose.

A. I think it were better to give over here our discourse of this business, and refer it to some other day that you shall think fit.

B. Content. That day I believe is not far off.

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/79


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/190

 The elder of the two Henry Angelos published two amusing anecdotal volumes, ‘Reminiscences of Henry Angelo, with Memoirs of his late Father and Friends’ (2 vols. 1830, 8vo), and ‘Angelo's Pic-Nic or Table Talk’ (1834, 8vo, with a frontispiece by Cruikshank, and original contributions by Colman, Theodore Hook, Bulwer, Horace Smith, Boaden, and others). The stories range among all ranks of society, from the regent and William IV to Macklin and Kean, and from Byron to Lady Hamilton. Verisimilitude is occasionally lacking, and the writer abstains throughout with a graceful ease from giving any dates. The Sophia Angelo who died on 7 April 1847, aged 88, ‘the oldest and most celebrated dame at Eton,’ was probably one of Domenico's daughters.

[Gent. Mag. 1802 ii. 692, 1839, ii. 419, 1847 i. 561, 1852 ii. 543; Cooper's Register and Mag. of Biogr. 1869, ii. 206; Egerton Castle's Schools and Masters of Fence, 1892, pp. 299 seq.; Thimm's Bibliography of Fencing, 1896; Merignac's Histoire de l'Escrime, 1883–6, ii. 568; Pollock's Fencing, in Badminton Library; Wheatley and Cunningham's London, i. 330.]  TREMAYNE, EDMUND (d. 1582), clerk of the privy council, was second son of Thomas Tremayne of Collacombe, Lamerton, Devonshire, where the Devonshire branch of this old Cornish family had been established since 1366. His mother was Philippa, eldest daughter of Roger Grenville of Stow. Of this marriage were born sixteen children, of whom four—Edmund, Richard (see below), and the twins Nicholas and Andrew—acquired some reputation. The twins Andrew and Nicholas were strikingly alike, physically and mentally. The elder, Andrew, fled with Sir Peter Carew [q. v.] on 25 Jan. 1553–4, and both were imprisoned on suspicion of piracy on 24 Feb. 1554–5, but escaped to France, where they were pensioned by the French king. They were also implicated in Sir Anthony Kingston's plot in 1556. After Elizabeth's accession they entered her service. Andrew led a brilliant cavalry charge against the French at Leith in April 1560, and was killed at Newhaven (Havre) on 18 July 1562. Nicholas, who seems to have been a special favourite of Elizabeth, was frequently employed in carrying important despatches between France and England, and distinguished himself at the siege of Newhaven, where he was killed on 26 May 1562.

Edmund entered the service of Edward Courtenay, earl of Devonshire [q. v.], in the autumn of 1553, but was committed to the Tower in February or March following, on suspicion of being concerned in Wyatt's rebellion. He was racked during the time Elizabeth was a prisoner in the Tower (Fox), but would not implicate her or Courtenay, his master. On Friday, 18 Jan. 1554–5, he was released with Sir Gawen Carew, the three sons of the late Duke of Northumberland, and others. His fine (40l.) was the lowest enforced. Tremayne seems to have joined Courtenay in Italy. Courtenay wrote from Venice on 2 May 1556: ‘I am sorry for Tremayne's foolish departure, albeit satisfied and content therewith as he shall well perceive, but I trust the cause thereof will prove as you have written.’ This probably means that the earl thought it foolish of Tremayne to leave England and lay himself open to a charge of treason. Courtenay died at Padua on 18 Sept. 1556, and it is possible that Tremayne afterwards entered the service of Francis, earl of Bedford, who was in Venice in 1557. The appointment he received in 1561 of deputy butler for Devonshire must have been through the influence of the Earl of Bedford, then lord-lieutenant of Devonshire. Tremayne spent some time at Elizabeth's court, and Burghley thought so highly of him that in July 1569 he sent him on a special mission to Ireland, ‘to examine into the truth and let him know quietly the real condition of the country.’ Tremayne remained in Ireland until the close of 1569, writing frequently to Cecil on Irish affairs. On 3 May 1571 he was sworn clerk of the privy council at Westminster (Acts of the Privy Council). He wrote in June a paper entitled ‘Causes why Ireland is not Reformed,’ which was endorsed by Burghley with the words ‘a good advice.’ Tremayne was returned M.P. for Plymouth (1572) with John Hawkyns. In June he drew up, with Lord Burghley, an important document, ‘Matters wherewith the Queen of Scots may be Charged,’ from which Burghley's signature was afterwards erased.

Tremayne succeeded to the family estates on his elder brother's death on 13 March 1571–2. He still maintained a special interest in Irish affairs, and revisited the country late in 1573 (cf. ‘Instructions given to Mr. E. Tremayne upon his being sent to the Lord Deputy of Ireland by the Lord Treasurer,’ 1573, in Lambeth MSS.) The city of Exeter granted Tremayne in 1574 a reversion to Sir Gawen Carew's pension of 40l. ‘in reward of their good services done this city’. Carew outlived Tremayne, so the latter never benefited by the grant. The family mansion of Collacombe was altered and enlarged by him; the date 1574 still appears with the family arms and those of his royal mistress in the great hall.


text:
Author:William Markby

Works

 * Lectures on Indian Law
 * Elements of Law

title: Author:William Markby


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/191

 Tremayne was in 1578 senior of the four clerks to the privy council, but he chiefly resided in Devonshire, where he acted as commissioner for the restraint of grain and held other local offices. On 24 Oct. 1580 the queen wrote from Richmond commanding him to assist Francis Drake in sending to London bullion brought into the realm by Drake, but to leave ten thousand pounds' worth in Drake's hands. This last instruction ‘to be kept most secret to himself alone.’

Tremayne made his will, 17 Sept. 1582. The Earl of Bedford wrote to announce his death to Burghley a few days later. Burghley, in reply, described Tremayne as ‘a man worthy to be beloved for his honesty and virtues.’ In September 1576 he married Eulalia, daughter of Sir John St. Leger of Annery. A son Francis, named after Tremayne's ‘good lord’ Bedford, lived for only six weeks after his father, and at his death the estates passed to Degory, Edmund's third brother. Degory erected in 1588 a fine monument to his five brothers, Roger, Edmund, Richard, and the twins, with their effigies well modelled and lifelike. Edmund appears as an elderly man with a refined and thoughtful face.

Tremayne's ‘Discourses on Irish Affairs’ remain unprinted among the Cottonian manuscripts at the British Museum.

(d. 1584), younger brother of Edmund, was fourth son (the younger of twins) of Thomas Tremayne. He was sent to Exeter College, Oxford, where he graduated B.A. in 1547–8. He was elected a fellow on 28 March 1553, and proceeded M.A. on 17 July. He vacated his fellowship by flying to Germany in the first year of Mary's reign (Ex. Coll. Reg. ed. Boase). On his epitaph he is stated to have ‘fled for the gospel's sake.’ He was at Louvain on 16 Nov. 1555, acting as tutor to Sir Nicholas Arnold's son. He was reckoned among the conspirators against the queen, and on 4 April 1556 was declared a traitor with his brother Nicholas and others who were concerned in Sir Anthony Kingston's plot. Tremayne returned to England very soon after Elizabeth's accession, and was favourably regarded at court. He was made archdeacon of Chichester by Elizabeth on 7 April 1559. Cecil had some correspondence (17 July) with Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, ambassador in France, regarding Tremayne's employment in the diplomatic service, ‘he having the high Dutch tongue very well.’ But he stayed at home, and was ordained deacon by Grindal, bishop of London, on 25 Jan. 1559–60. He had been re-elected fellow of his college on 17 Oct. 1559, but vacated his fellowship by absence the ensuing May. He was also presented by the college to the vicarage of Menheniot, and was installed treasurer of Exeter Cathedral on 10 Feb. 1559–60. For reasons not stated in the ‘Bishops' Register’ he was deprived of his treasurership, but reinstalled on 27 Oct. 1561, and held the office until his death. He became rector of Doddiscombleigh on 15 Jan. 1560–61, holding the living until 1564, when he resigned.

Tremayne was something of a puritan. He sat in convocation as proctor for the clergy of Exeter, and signed the canons establishing the Thirty-nine Articles. On 13 Feb. he spoke, and gave his two votes in favour of sweeping alterations in the Book of Common Prayer. He was elected fellow of Broadgates Hall (afterwards Pembroke College), Oxford, on 20 Feb. 1564–5. On 15 Feb. 1565–6 he took the degree of B.D., proceeding D.D. on 26 April. He became rector of Combe-Martin in 1569, and the Earl of Bedford vainly recommended him on 23 July 1570 to Cecil for the vacant bishopric of Exeter.

Tremayne was buried on 30 Nov. 1584 at Lamerton, and his will was proved on 15 Dec. at Exeter. On 19 Sept. 1569 he married Joanna, daughter of Sir Piers Courtenay of Ugbrooke. His only child, Mary, married Thomas Henslowe. He gave to Exeter College a copy of the polyglot bible in eight volumes, printed by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp, 1569–72, at the command of Philip II.

[State Papers, Dom., For., and Irish; Carew manuscripts; Burnet's Hist. of the Reformation, ed. Pocock; Strype's Life of Archbishop Grindal, Annals of the Reformation, and Ecclesiastical Memorials; Foxe's Acts and Monuments, 1849; Reg. Univ. Oxon.; Boase's Reg. Coll. Exon.; Froude's Hist.; Prince's Worthies of Devon; Carew's Survey of Cornwall; Risdon's Devon; Bibl. Cornub. ed. Boase and Courtney; Life of Sir Peter Carew, by Sir John Maclean; Antiquities of the City of Exeter, 1731, ed. R. Isaacke; Visitations of Devon, edited by Vivian; Burghley Papers, Hist. MSS. Comm. Report.]  TREMAYNE or TREMAINE, JOHN (d. 1694), lawyer, eldest son of Lewis Tremayne, lieutenant-governor of Pendennis Castle, who married Mary, daughter and coheiress of John Carew of Penwarne in Mevagissey, was born in the parish of St. Ewe, Cornwall. He was brought up to the study of the law, by 1678 was a man to be consulted (Fitzherbert MSS., Hist. MSS. Comm. 13th Rep. App. vi. p. 8), and soon acquired considerable


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/192

 practice. His name frequently occurs in cases before the House of Lords from 1689 to 1693 (Lords' MSS. ib. 12th, 13th, and 14th Reps.); he was counsel for the crown against Sir Richard Graham, otherwise Lord Preston, and others for high treason, January 1690–1 (, State Trials, xii. 646), was engaged for Sir John Germaine in the action brought against that adventurer by the Duke of Norfolk for adultery with the duchess (ib. xii. 883), and he acted for the crown on the trial of Lord Mohun, a brother Cornishman, for the murder of Mountford the actor, January 1692–3 (ib. xii. 950).

Tremayne was called with others to be serjeant-at-law on 1 May 1689, was made king's serjeant, and next day took the oaths, when he and his colleagues entertained the ‘nobility, judges, serjeants, and others with a dinner at Serjeants' Inn in Fleet Street,’ London. He was knighted at Whitehall on 31 Oct. 1689, and in 1690 was returned to parliament for the Cornish borough of Tregony. In June 1692 he was a candidate for the recordership of London, but was beaten at the poll. It is recorded by Luttrell on 20 Feb. 1693–4 that Tremayne was dead. He died issueless; his brother's descendant now lives at Heligan, near Mevagissey (where the serjeant rebuilt the family mansion), and inherits the ample estates in Cornwall and Devon (, Parl. Rep. of Cornwall, p. 173).

His useful volume, ‘Placita Coronæ, or Pleas of the Crown in matters Criminal and Civil,’ was published in 1723, many years after his death, when it had been ‘digested and revised by the late Mr. John Rice of Furnival's Inn.’ An English translation by Thomas Vickers came out in two volumes at Dublin in 1793. A collection by Tremayne of ‘entries, declarations, and pleadings’ in the reigns of Charles II and James II, numbering in all 182 pages, is at the British Museum (Lansd. MS. 1142).

[Woolrych's Serjeants-at-Law, i. 416–19; Le Neve's Knights (Harl. Soc.), p. 429; Luttrell's Hist. Relation, i. 529, 598, ii. 476, iii. 272–3; Boase and Courtney's Bibl. Cornub. ii. 777.]  TREMELLIUS, JOHN IMMANUEL (1510–1580), Hebraist, son of a Jew of Ferrara, was born in that city in 1510. Between 1530 and 1540 he pursued classical studies at the university of Padua, where he made the acquaintance of Alexander Farnese, afterwards Paul III. He was converted to Christianity about 1540 chiefly through the persuasions of Cardinal Reginald Pole, who stood his godfather. In the following year, while teacher of Hebrew at the monastic school at Lucca, the persuasions of the prior, Peter Martyr [see ], led him to embrace protestant opinions. On the publication of the papal bull of 21 July 1542 introducing the inquisition into Lucca, Tremellius left Italy in company with Martyr and proceeded to Strassburg, where, at the end of the year, he commenced to teach Hebrew in the school of Johann Sturm. At a later date he also obtained a prebend in Strassburg Cathedral (, Catalogue of Corpus Christi College MSS. p. 112). The conclusion of the war of Schmalkald, disastrous to German protestantism, drove Tremellius to seek a refuge in England. In November 1547, on the invitation of Archbishop Cranmer, he and Peter Martyr took up their abode at Lambeth Palace. At the end of 1549 he succeeded Paul Fagius as ‘king's reader of Hebrew’ at the university of Cambridge, and on 24 Oct. 1552 he obtained a prebend in the diocese of Carlisle (, Eccles. Memorials, 1822, II. i. 323, 324, ii. 53; cf. Lansdowne MS. ii. 70). He lived in much friendship with Matthew Parker and Cranmer, and stood godfather to Parker's son (, Life of Parker, 1821, i. 59). On the death of Edward VI he retired from England, and, after visiting Strassburg, Bern, Lausanne, and Geneva, at the end of 1555 he was appointed tutor to the young children of Wolfgang, duke of Zweibrücken or Deux-Ponts, a post which he exchanged on 1 Jan. 1559 for that of head of the gymnasium at Hornbach. In the following year Wolfgang, who had embraced Lutheranism, took umbrage at Tremellius's Calvinistic opinions, deprived him of his post, and sent him to prison. On his release in 1560 he proceeded to Metz, and during that and the beginning of the next year was employed in negotiations between the French and German protestants. On 4 March 1561 he was appointed by Frederic III, count palatine, himself a Calvinist, professor of Old Testament studies at the university of Heidelberg. After receiving the degree of doctor of theology he was enrolled a member of the senatus on 9 July. About 1565, while the university was closed on account of the plague, he paid a visit of some duration to England as an envoy of the elector, and resided with Parker for nearly six months (Cabala sive Scrinia Sacra, 1591, p. 126; Corresp. of Matthew Parker, Parker Soc. pp. 332–3). The elector Frederic died in 1576, and his successor, Louis VI, being a strong Lutheran, expelled Tremellius from Heidelberg, depriving him of his post in the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/193

 university on 5 Dec. 1577. He sought an asylum in Metz, and ultimately was employed by Henri La Tour d'Auvergne, duc de Bouillon, to teach Hebrew at his newly founded college at Sedan. He died in that town on 9 Oct. 1580, his will being dated 31 July of that year. In October 1554 he married a widow named Elizabeth, an inhabitant of Metz, by whom he had two daughters and a son.

The great work of Tremellius was the translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Syriac into Latin, accomplished during his residence at Metz. Although his version was far from faultless, it evinced very thorough scholarship, and for long, both in England and on the continent, was adopted by the reformers as the most accurate Latin rendering. With some alterations it even received the sanction of the universities of Douai and Louvain. Tremellius was assisted in his task by Franciscus Junius or Du Jon, but the latter's share in the work was limited to translating the Apocrypha. In 1569 Tremellius published a folio edition of the New Testament at Geneva, containing the Syriac text and a Latin translation in parallel columns. This was followed between 1575 and 1579 by the issue at Frankfurt of a Latin translation of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha in five parts. They were reprinted in quarto at London in 1579–80 with the Latin rendering of the New Testament of 1569 as a sixth part. Numerous later editions appeared both in London and abroad. In London the Old Testament and Apocrypha were published in quarto in 1581 and in 1585 with Beza's version of the New Testament. A folio edition followed in 1592–3 and a duodecimo in 1640. In 1585 a quarto edition of the New Testament was issued containing the translations of Tremellius and Beza in parallel columns. A separate edition of the Psalms was printed in 1580, 16mo.

Besides his translation of the Bible, Tremellius published: 1. ‘Catechismus Hebraice et Græce,’ Paris, 1551, 8vo: a translation into Hebrew of Calvin's Catechism; this was reissued as ‘Liber Institutionis Electorum Domini,’ Paris, 1554, 8vo; and an edition was published at Leyden with the further title ‘Catechesis sive Prima Institutio aut Rudimenta Religionis Christianæ Hebr. Græce et Latine explicata,’ 1591, 8vo. 2. ‘In Hoseam prophetam Interpretatio et Enarratio I. Tremellii,’ Heidelberg, 1563, 4to. 3. ‘Grammatica Chaldæa et Syra,’ Paris, 1569; published both separately in octavo and with his New Testament in folio, and dedicated to Parker. On account of the dedication his name was included in the ‘Index Expurgatorius.’ 4. ‘Immanuelis Tremellii Specularius,’ Neustadt-an-der-Hart, 1581, 4to. He also edited Bucer's ‘Commentaria in Ephesios’ (Basle, 1562, fol.), and wrote a Hebrew letter prefixed to the ‘Rudimenta Hebraicæ Linguæ’ of Anthony Rodolph Chevallier [q. v.], Geneva, 1567, 4to. A manuscript copy of Tremellius's ‘Epistolæ D. Pauli ad Galatas et ad Ephesios ex Syriaca lingua in Latinam conversæ’ is preserved at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

[Becker's Immanuel Tremellius, 1890 (Berlin Institutum Judaicum, Schriften No. 8); F. Butters's E. Tremellius, eine Lebenskizze, 1868; Cooper's Athenæ Cantabr. i. 425–7; Tiraboschi's Storia della Letteratura Italiana, 1824, vii. 1583–1584; Adamus's Vitæ Theol. Exterorum principum, 1618, p. 142; Tanner's Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica; Gerdes's Specimen Italiæ Reformatæ, 1765, pp. 341–3; Fuller's Abel Redevivus, ed. Nichols, 1867, ii. 45–6; Ames's Typogr. Antiq., ed. Herbert, pp. 1058, 1059, 1071; Nichols's Lit. Anecd. iv. 22; Corresp. of Matthew Parker (Parker Soc.), p. 332; Junius's Opera Theol. 1593, ii. 1789–1806; Nouvelle Biogr. Générale, 1856; Historia Bibliothecæ Fabricianæ, 1719, iii. 323–34; Saxe's Onomasticon Literarium, 1780, iii. 326; Freher's Theatrum Virorum Eruditione Clarorum, i. 248; Blount's Censura celebriorum Authorum, 1710, pp. 723–5; Nicéron's Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire des Hommes illustres, 1739, xl. 102–7.]  TREMENHEERE, HUGH SEYMOUR (1804–1893), publicist and author, was born at Wootton House, Gloucestershire, on 22 Jan. 1804.

His father, (1761–1855), colonel, a member of a very ancient Cornish family, was born at Penzance on 10 Sept. 1761, and, entering the royal marines as second lieutenant in 1799, was present in the action off the Doggerbank on 5 Aug. 1781 and at the capture of Martinique and Guadeloupe in 1794–5. He attained the rank of captain in 1796, and served as lieutenant-governor of the island of Curaçoa from 1800 to 1802. He was in the action off Brest in 1805, from 1831 to 1837 was colonel commandant of the Chatham division of the marines, and served as aide-de-camp to William IV from 28 Dec. 1830 to some time in the following year. On 18 June 1832 he was gazetted a knight of Hanover. Some of the views in Polwhele's ‘History of Cornwall’ were engraved from his drawings. He died at 33 Somerset Street, Portman Square, London, on 7 Aug. 1855, having married in 1802 Frances, third daughter of Thomas Apperley ( and, Bibl. Cornub. 1878, ii. 783). His fifth son, Charles William Tremenheere (1813–1898), lieutenant-


text:
Author:Otis Tufton Mason

Works

 * (Ethnology and Archæology)
 * (with Cyrus C. Adams, James Wilford Garner, and Edward Gaylord Bourne)
 * (with Cyrus C. Adams, James Wilford Garner, and Edward Gaylord Bourne)
 * (with Cyrus C. Adams, James Wilford Garner, and Edward Gaylord Bourne)

As editor

 * Miscellaneous Papers Relating to Anthropology (1883)

title: Author:Otis Tufton Mason


text: Portal talk:Dacian Wars

title: Portal talk:Dacian Wars


text: Portal talk:Messenian Wars

title: Portal talk:Messenian Wars


text: Portal talk:Punic Wars

title: Portal talk:Punic Wars


text: Portal talk:Peloponnesian War

title: Portal talk:Peloponnesian War


text: Portal talk:Hundred Years War

title: Portal talk:Hundred Years War


text: Portal talk:Peasants' War

title: Portal talk:Peasants' War


text: Portal talk:War of Spanish Succession

title: Portal talk:War of Spanish Succession


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Trapp, John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Travers, Benjamin


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Travers, Eaton Stannard


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Travers, James


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Travers, Rebecca


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Travers, Walter


text: Author:John Torrey Morse

title: Author:John Torrey Morse


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Travis, George


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Treby, George


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tredenham, John


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


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


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tregellas, Walter Hawken


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tregelles, Edwin Octavius


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


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tregian, Francis


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tregury, Michael


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


text:
Page:Book of the Riviera.djvu/400

Absolution from vows, 164-5, 303 Adam de Craponne, 8 Addison, 53-4 Ægitna, 180

Æschylus, 8

Agay, 152

Agricola, 121-2

Aix, 14, 55-71 Alassio, 288-90

Albenga, 293-5

Albizzola, 312-3

Algerine pirates, 225

Aloes, 7

Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, 209

Ambrons and Teutons, 56-9

Ambrose, S., 28-9

Andora, 290

Ampelio, S., 273-4

Amphitheatres, 14, 15, 119, 120, 206 Andrew, King, 136 Angers, 70

Annulling of marriage, 239-40

Antibes, 3, 14, 165, 187-8, 190

Architecture, domestic, 279-80; Gothic, 22-3

Arco Romans, 289

Argens River, 97, 114

Arles, 6, 13, 15, 16, 18, 25, 39

Arluc, 185-6

Armentarius, S., 131

Augustine predestination, 100-1

Augustus, Emperor, 241-2

Aurelian Way, 55, 118, 148, 261, 272 Avignon, sale of, 3, 137; union with France, 17

Baal, 13, 121 Bagne, 76-7

Balaun, Pierre de, 35 Balbs, Bertrand de, 208

Baptistery, 272, 294

Bar, le, 174

Barbarossa, 211, 292 Barjac, Pierre de, 35 Barma Grande, 261

Barras, 82

Baux, les, 236

Bazaine, Marshal, 195-9

Belzunce, Bishop, 51 Berengarius, Marquess, 107

Bishop and chapter, 179 Blanc, M., 237-8

Boccaccio, 37-8, 139, 143 Bonaparte, Joseph, 52-3

—Napoleon. See Napoleon

Bordighera, 264, 267, 273-5

Bormes, 175

Bourbon, Constable de, 48-9

Bozo, King of Arles, 17, 207 Bravade, 111-12

Bresca family, 285-6

Brougham, Lord, 2

Brumaire, the 18th, 126

Burning Bush, triptych, 70-1

Butillo Prignano, 142, 144

Cabane, Philippine, 135-7

—Raymond, 135-6 Cabasse, 11 Cabastaing, William de, 37 Cabris, Louise de, 169-72

Cæsar, Julius, 27, 41-3, 118

Cagnes, 224-5

title: Page:Book of the Riviera.djvu/400


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Trelawny, Edward (1699-1754)


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


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Trelawny, John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Trelawny, Jonathan


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tremamondo, Domenico Angelo Malevolti


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tremayne, Edmund


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tremayne, John


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Tremellius, John Immanuel


text:
Author:Richmond Mayo-Smith

Works

 * 1891: 'The Eleventh Census of the United States'. In: The Economic Journal, Vol. 1, p. 43 - 58
 * (in part)

title: Author:Richmond Mayo-Smith


text:
Author:John Milne

Works

 * Earthquakes (1883)
 * Seismology (1898)
 * (in part)
 * (in part)

title: Author:John Milne


text:
Page:Book of the Riviera.djvu/401

Rh Californie, la, 183

Calvinus, 14, 56

Camporosso, 273

Cannes, 2, 180-204 Cap Roux, 153 Carbo, 57

Carcists and Razats, 90, 111, 132, 176-7

Carlone, 225 Carnival, 19, 127-8 Carob tree, 100-1

Carteaux, 79, 80

Cassien, S. 185-6

Castellar, 259-60

Castellaro, 282

Cavalaire, 98

Caveau Moderne, 127

Cemenelium, 206

Chalk, 8-9

Charles of Anjou, 134-5, 160-4, 269

—of Durazzo, 135-42, 144, 209

—the Lame, 163-5

—V., Emperor, 149, 150, 210-12 Choirs at West End, 23, 167 Cians, Gorge of, 226

Cimbri, 56-9

Cimiez, 206-7

Clary damsels, 52-3

Clement IV., 160

—VI., 136-7

—VII., 141-2

Clus, 4, 222 Cœpio, 58 Cognard, 77-9 Cogolin, 109, 110 Colouring of Provence, 10

Collet, 217-24

Conradin, 134, 163

Cork trees, 99, 100 Corniche Road, 148, 156, 225, 241, 256, 261 Court of Love, 33 Crowned images, 311

Dance of Death, 174 Dancing in churches, 19

David, the artist, 225-6

Desangiers, 126-9

Devota, Ste., 243-4 Dolceacqua, 273

Dolmen, 131 Dome falls in, 213

Doria, Andrew, 232-3, 290-2

—Bartholomew, 231-2

—family, 269, 273, 278 Durance, River, 6, 7, 49

Embues, 204

Estérel, 4, 9, 147-56, 183

Eze, 225-6

Farcing canticles, 21 Faron, 72, 81

Fauxbourdons, 20-1

Fayence, 132-3

Feast of Fools, 69

Fieschi family, 293

Flowers at Grasse, 179 Folk song, 18-22 Font, large, 272, 294

Fos family, 88

Foux, 4, 158, 204

Fragonard, 178

Francis I., 210, 212, 291

Franks, 206

Fraxinet, 113, 114, 126

Frederick II., 268

Fréjus, 113, 114-26 Fréron, 82

Fronde, 131-2

Gallinaria, 289-90

Galley slaves, 74-5

Gambling, 244-54

Garlenda, 295-6

Gapeau, River, 87, 88, 97 Garagoul, le, 62

Gaspard de Besse, 150-1 Genlis, Mme. de, 52-3, 313-4

Genoa, 266-7, 278, 314

Geology, 4-6, 8

Gerard de Roussillon, 31-2

Gibbets, 234-5

Godeau, Bishop, 165-7

Gold dust, 4

Gorge of the Loup, 172-4

Granite, 97 Grasse, 18, 23, 157-9

Gregory IX., 159

Grimaud, 109, 110

title: Page:Book of the Riviera.djvu/401


text: Author:Frederick James Hamilton Merrill

title: Author:Frederick James Hamilton Merrill


title: User:Eliyak/test3


text: The Amateur Emigrant and The Silverado Squatters/The Silverado Squatters


text:
Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Orach Chaim/396

The Law of Four Amot That Every Man Has on Shabbat

דין ארבע אמות שיש לכל אדם בשבת

Paragraph 1- "Let every man reside in his place." From here, we learn that every person has four amot [in which he is permitted to move] in every place, even if he left the techum. We measure this by his forearms ["amot"]. If he has unusually short limbs, we give him four average amot, each of which is six tefachim. Rem"a: These four amot are measured generously, and he is situated in the middle of them. There are some who say that he is permitted to walk four amot in eery direction, but regarding carrying, he is only given four [square] amot with their diagonal, as was explained in chapter 349 (Tur in the name of the Raza"h and the Magid chapter 12 in the name of the Rashb"a).

סעיף א - שבו איש תחתיו, מכאן שכל אדם יש לו ארבע אמות בכל מקום, אפלו יצא חוץ לתחום. ומודדים לכל אדם באמה שלו, ואם היה ננס באבריו, נותנים לו ארבע אמות בינוניות של כל אדם, שכל אחת מהן ששה טפחים. הגה: ''ואלו ארבע אמות מודדין לו מרוחות, והא באמצען. ויש אומרים דדממתר להלך ארבע אמות לכל צד, אבל לטלטל אין לו רק ארבע אמות עם אלכסונן, כמו שנתבאר לעיל סימן שמ"ט (טור בשם הרז"ה והמגיד פק י"ב בשם רשב"א),,.

Paragraph 1 - If he is somewhere that is enclosed for dwelling when Shabbat started, even if there are currently no residents, the whole enclosed area is considered his four amot. If it was not enclosed for dwelling, it can be his four amot if it is not more than two seahs. Even if he is on a tall hill or a harvested area with stalks surrounding him, it is considered his four amot if it is not two seahs.

סעיף ב - בכל מקום שקדש עליו היום, אם הוא מקף לדירה, אפלו אין בו עתה דיורין, חשוב כלו כארבע אמות. ואם אינו מקף לדירה, עד סאתים כשות כלו כארבע אמות. ואפלו שבת בתל גבוה ובקמה קצורה ושבלים מקיפות אותה, חשיבי כארבע אמות עד סאתים.

 * }


text:
Author:David Binning Monro

Works

 * (a few points were added by Thomas William Allen)

title: Author:David Binning Monro