text:
Page:American Archives, Series 4, Volume 1.djvu/519

909 of the Colony of the Massachusetts Say, to submit to a suspension of the administration of justice, where it cannot be procured in a legal and peaceable manner under the rules of their present Charter, and the Laws of the Colony founded thereon. Resolved unanimously, That every person and persons whomsoever, who shall take, accept, or act under any commission or authority, in any wise derived from the Act passed in the last session of Parliament changing the form of Government, and violating the Charter of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, ought to be held in detestation and abhorrence by all good men, and considered as the wicked tools of that despotism which is preparing to destroy those rights which God, nature, and compact, have given to America. The Committee brought in a draught of a Letter to General Gage, and the same being read and amended, was ordered to be copied, and to be signed by the President in behalf of the Congress. Tuesday, October 11, 1774. A copy of the Letter to General Gage was brought into Congress, and, agreeable to order, signed by the President, and is as follows: " Philaaelphia, October 10, 1774. " SIR: The Inhabitants of the Town of Boston have informed us, the Representatives of his Majesty's faithful subjects in all the Colonies from Nova Scotia to Georgia, that the Fortifications erecting within that Town, the frequent invasions of private property, and the repeated insults they receive from the Soldiery have given them great reason to suspect a plan is formed very destructive to them, and tending to overthrow the liberties of America. " Your Excellency cannot be a stranger to the sentiments of America with respect to the Acts of Parliament, under the execution of which those unhappy people are oppressed, the approbation universally expressed of their conduct, and the determined resolution of the Colonies, for the preservation of their common rights to unite in their opposition to those Acts. In consequence of these sentiments, they have appointed us the guardians of their rights and liberties; and we are under the deepest concern that whilst we are pursuing every dutiful and peaceable measure to procure a cordial and effectual reconciliation between Great Britain and the Colonies, your Excellency should proceed in a manner that bears so hostile an appearance, and which even those oppressive Acts do not warrant. " We entreat your Excellency to consider what a tendency this conduct must have to irritate and force a free people, however well disposed to peaceable measures, into hostilities, which may prevent the endeavours of this Congress to restore a good understanding with our parent state, aud may involve us in the horrours of a civil war. " In order therefore to quiet the minds and remove the reasonable jealousies of the people, that they may not be driven to a state of desperation, being fully persuaded of their pacifick disposition towards the King's Troops, could they be assured of their own safety, we hope sir, you will discontinue the Fortifications in and about Boston; prevent any further invasions of private property; restrain the irregularities of the Soldiers; and give orders that the communication between the Town and Country may be open, unmolested, and free. " Signed by order, and in behalf of the General Congress, PEYTON RANDOLPH, President." As the Congress have given General Gage an assurance of the peaceable disposition of the people of Boston and the Massachusetts Bay, Resolved, unanimously, That they be advised still to conduct themselves peaceably towards his Excellency General Gage, and his Majesty's Troops now stationed in the Town of Boston, as far as can possibly be consistent with their immediate safety and the security of the Town; avoiding and discountenancing every violation of his Majesty's property, or any insult to his Troops, and that they peaceably and firmly persevere in the line they are now conducting themselves, on the defensive. Ordered, That a copy of the foregoing Resolve, and of that passed on Saturday, and the three passed yesterday, be made out, and that the President enclose them in a Letter to the Committee of Correspondence for the Town of Boston, being the sentiments of the Congress on the matters referred to them by the Committee, in their Letter of the 29th of September last. Resolved unanimously, That a Memorial be prepared to the people of British America, stating to them the necessity of a firm, united, and invariable observation of the measures recommended by the Congress, as they tender the invaluable rights and liberties derived to them from the Laws and Constitution of their Country. Also that an Address be prepared to the People of Great Britain. Mr. Lee, Mr. Livingston, and Mr. Jay, are appointed a Committee to prepare a draught of the Memorial and Address. Wednesday, October 12, 1774. The Congress met according to adjournment. The Committee appointed to bring in a plan for carrying into effect the Non-Importation, Non-Consumption, and Non-Exportation Agreement, brought in a Report, which was read: Ordered, That the same lie on the table for the perusal of the Members. The Congress then resumed the Consideration of the Rights and Grievances of these Colonies, and after deliberating on the subject this and the following day, adjourned till Friday.

Friday, October 14, 1774.

The Congress met according to adjournment, and resuming the consideration of the subject under debate, came into the following Resolutions:

Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some Acts, expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretences, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these Colonies, established a Board of Commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of Courts of Admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a County:

And whereas, in consequence of other Statutes, Judges, who before held only estates at will in their offices, have been made dependent on the Crown alone for their salaries, and Standing Armies kept in times of peace: And it has lately been resolved in Parliament, that by force of a Statute, made in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, Colonists may be transported to England, and tried there upon accusations for treason, and misprisions, or concealments of treasons committed in the Colonies, and by a late Statute, such trials have been directed in cases therein mentioned:

And whereas, in the last session of Parliament, three Statutes were made, one, entituled "An Act to discontinue, in such manner, and for such time, as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping of Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, at the Town, and within the Harbour of Boston, in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America;" another, entituled "An Act for the better regulating the Government of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in New England;" and another, entituled "An Act for the impartial administration of Justice in the cases of persons questioned for any act done by them in the execution of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England;" and another Statute was then made "for making more effectual provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec," &c. All which statutes are impolitick, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of American rights:

And whereas, Assemblies have been frequently dissolved, contrary to the rights of the people, when they attempted to deliberate on grievances; and their dutiful, humble, loyal, and reasonable Petitions to the Crown for redress, have been repeatedly treated with contempt by his Majesty's Ministers of State:


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dicey, Edward

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


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dick, Robert


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/196

 on a salary of £80 a year, and stationed for the time being at Portsmouth, had married in 1809 Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Barrow, and she bore him a family of eight children, Charles being the second. In the winter of 1814 the family moved from Portsea in the snow, as he remembered, to London, and lodged for a time near the Middlesex hospital. The country of the novelist’s childhood, however, was the kingdom of Kent, where the family was established in proximity to the dockyard at Chatham from 1816 to 1821. He looked upon himself in later years as a man of Kent, and his capital abode as that in Ordnance Terrace, or 18 St Mary’s Place, Chatham, amid surroundings classified in Mr Pickwick’s notes as “appearing” to be soldiers, sailors, Jews, chalk, shrimps, officers and dockyard men. He fell into a family the general tendency of which was to go down in the world, during one of its easier periods (John Dickens was now fifth clerk on £250 a year), and he always regarded himself as belonging by right to a comfortable, genteel, lower middle-class stratum of society. His mother taught him to read; to his father he appeared very early in the light of a young prodigy, and by him Charles was made to sit on a tall chair and warble popular ballads, or even to tell stories and anecdotes for the benefit of fellow-clerks in the office. John Dickens, however, had a small collection of books which were kept in a little room upstairs that led out of Charles’s own, and in this attic the boy found his true literary instructors in Roderick Random, Peregrine Pickle, Humphry Clinker, Tom Jones, The Vicar of Wakefield, Don Quixote, Gil Blas and Robinson Crusoe. The story of how he played at the characters in these books and sustained his idea of Roderick Random for a month at a stretch is picturesquely told in David Copperfield. Here as well as in his first and last books and in what many regard as his best, Great Expectations, Dickens returns with unabated fondness and mastery to the surroundings of his childhood. From seven to nine years he was at a school kept in Clover Lane, Chatham, by a Baptist minister named William Giles, who gave him Goldsmith’s Bee as a keepsake when the call to Somerset House necessitated the removal of the family from Rochester to a shabby house in Bayham Street, Camden Town. At the very moment when a consciousness of capacity was beginning to plump his youthful ambitions, the whole flattering dream vanished and left not a rack behind. Happiness and Chatham had been left behind together, and Charles was about to enter a school far sterner and also far more instructive than that in Clover Lane. The family income had been first decreased and then mortgaged; the creditors of the “prodigal father” would not give him time; John Dickens was consigned to the Marshalsea; Mrs Dickens started an “Educational Establishment” as a forlorn hope in Upper Gower Street; and Charles, who had helped his mother with the children, blacked the boots, carried things to the pawnshop and done other menial work, was now sent out to earn his own living as a young hand in a blacking warehouse, at Old Hungerford Stairs, on a salary of six shillings a week. He tied, trimmed and labelled blacking pots for over a year, dining off a saveloy and a slice of pudding, consorting with two very rough boys, Bob Fagin and Pol Green, and sleeping in an attic in Little College Street, Camden Town, in the house of Mrs Roylance (Pipchin), while on Sunday he spent the day with his parents in their comfortable prison, where they had the services of a “marchioness” imported from the Chatham workhouse.

Already consumed by ambition, proud, sensitive and on his dignity to an extent not uncommon among boys of talent, he felt his position keenly, and in later years worked himself up into a passion of self-pity in connexion with the “degradation” and “humiliation” of this episode. The two years of childish hardship which ate like iron into his soul were obviously of supreme importance in the growth of the novelist. Recollections of the streets and the prison and its purlieus supplied him with a store of literary material upon which he drew through all the years of his best activity. And the bitterness of such an experience was not prolonged sufficiently to become sour. From 1824 to 1826, having been rescued by a family quarrel and by a windfall in the shape of a legacy to his father, from the warehouse, he spent two years at an academy known as Wellington House, at the corner of Granby Street and the Hampstead Road (the lighter traits of which are reproduced in Salem House), and was there known as a merry and rather mischievous boy. Fortunately he learned nothing there to compromise the results of previous instruction. His father had now emerged from the Marshalsea and was seeking employment as a parliamentary reporter. A Gray’s Inn solicitor with whom he had had dealings was attracted by the bright, clever look of Charles, and took him into his office as a boy at a salary of thirteen and sixpence (rising to fifteen shillings) a week. He remained in Mr Blackmore’s office from May 1827 to November 1828, but he had lost none of his eager thirst for distinction, and spent all his spare time mastering Gurney’s shorthand and reading early and late at the British Museum. A more industrious apprentice in the lower grades of the literary profession has never been known, and the consciousness of opportunities used to the most splendid advantage can hardly have been absent from the man who was shortly to take his place at the head of it as if to the manner born. Lowten and Guppy, and Swiveller had been observed from this office lad’s stool; he was now greatly to widen his area of study as a reporter in Doctors’ Commons and various police courts, including Bow Street, working all day at law and much of the night at shorthand. Some one asked John Dickens, during the first eager period of curiosity as to the man behind “Pickwick,” where his son Charles was educated. “Well really,” said the prodigal father, “he may be said—haw—haw—to have educated himself.” He was one of the most rapid and accurate reporters in London when, at nineteen years of age, in 1831, he realized his immediate ambition and “entered the gallery” as parliamentary reporter to the True Sun. Later he was reporter to the Mirror of Parliament and then to the Morning Chronicle. Several of his earliest letters are concerned with his exploits as a reporter, and allude to the experiences he had, travelling fifteen miles an hour and being upset in almost every description of known vehicle in various parts of Britain between 1831 and 1836. The family was now living in Bentwick Street, Manchester Square, but John Dickens was still no infrequent inmate of the sponging-houses. With all the accessories of these places of entertainment his son had grown to be excessively familiar. Writing about 1832 to his school friend Tom Mitton, Dickens tells him that his father has been arrested at the suit of a wine firm, and begs him go over to Cursitor Street and see what can be done. On another occasion of a paternal disappearance he observes: “I own that his absence does not give me any great uneasiness, knowing how apt he is to get out of the way when anything goes wrong.” In yet another letter he asks for a loan of four shillings.

In the meanwhile, however, he had commenced author in a more creative sense by penning some sketches of contemporary London life, such as he had attempted in his school days in imitation of the sketches published in the London and other magazines of that day. The first of these appeared in the December number of the Old Monthly Magazine for 1833. By the following August, when the signature “Boz” was first given, five of these sketches had appeared. By the end of 1834 we find him settled in rooms in Furnival’s Inn, and a little later his salary on the Morning Chronicle was raised, owing to the intervention of one of its chiefs, George Hogarth, the father of (in addition to six sons) eight charming daughters, to one of whom, Catherine, Charles was engaged to be married before the year was out. Clearly as his career now seemed designated, he was at this time or a little before it coquetting very seriously with the stage: but circumstances were rapidly to determine another stage in his career. A year before Queen Victoria’s accession appeared in two volumes Sketches by Boz, Illustrative of Everyday Life and Everyday People. The book came from a prentice hand, but like the little tract on the Puritan abuse of the Sabbath entitled “Sunday under three Heads” which appeared a few months later, it contains in germ all, or almost all, the future Dickens. Glance at the headings of the pages. Here we have the Beadle and all connected with him, London streets, theatres, shows, the pawnshop, Doctors’ Commons, Christmas, Newgate, coaching, the

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/196


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/197

 river. Here comes a satirical picture of parliament, fun made of cheap snobbery, a rap on the knuckles of sectarianism. And what could be more prophetic than the title of the opening chapter—Our Parish? With the Parish—a large one indeed—Dickens to the end concerned himself; he began with a rapid survey of his whole field, hinting at all he might accomplish, indicating the limits he was not to pass. This year was to be still more momentous to Dickens, for, on the 2nd of April 1836, he was married to George Hogarth’s eldest daughter Catherine. He seems to have fallen in love with the daughters collectively, and, judging by subsequent events, it has been suggested that perhaps he married the wrong one. His wife’s sister Mary was the romance of his early married life, and another sister, Georgina, was the dearest friend of his last ten years.

A few days before the marriage, just two months after the appearance of the Sketches, the first part of The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club was announced. One of the chief vogues of the day was the issue of humorous, sporting or anecdotal novels in parts, with plates, and some of the best talent of the day, represented by Ainsworth, Bulwer, Marryat, Maxwell, Egan, Hook and Surtees, had been pressed into this kind of enterprise. The publishers of the day had not been slow to perceive Dickens’s aptitude for this species of “letterpress.” A member of the firm of Chapman & Hall called upon him at Furnival’s Inn in December 1835 with a proposal that he should write about a Nimrod Club of amateur sportsmen, foredoomed to perpetual ignominies, while the comic illustrations were to be etched by Seymour, a well-known rival of Cruikshank (the illustrator of Boz). The offer was too tempting for Dickens to refuse, but he changed the idea from a club of Cockney sportsmen to that of a club of eccentric peripatetics, on the sensible grounds, first that sporting sketches were stale, and, secondly, that he knew nothing worth speaking of about sport. The first seven pictures appeared with the signature of Seymour and the letterpress of Dickens. Before the eighth picture appeared Seymour had blown his brains out. After a brief interval of Buss, Dickens obtained the services of Hablot K. Browne, known to all as “Phiz.” Author and illustrator were as well suited to one another and to the common creation of a unique thing as Gilbert and Sullivan. Having early got rid of the sporting element, Dickens found himself at once. The subject exactly suited his knowledge, his skill in arranging incidents—nay, his very limitations too. No modern book is so incalculable. We commence laughing heartily at Pickwick and his troupe. The laugh becomes kindlier. We are led on through a tangle of adventure, never dreaming what is before us. The landscape changes: Pickwick becomes the symbol of kind-heartedness, simplicity and innocent levity. Suddenly in the Fleet Prison a deeper note is struck. The medley of human relationships, the loneliness, the mystery and sadness of human destinies are fathomed. The tragedy of human life is revealed to us amid its most farcical elements. The droll and laughable figure of the hero is transfigured by the kindliness of human sympathy into a beneficent and bespectacled angel in shorts and gaiters. By defying accepted rules, Dickens had transcended the limited sphere hitherto allotted to his art: he had produced a book to be enshrined henceforth in the inmost hearts of all sorts and conditions of his countrymen, and had definitely enlarged the boundaries of English humour and English fiction. As for Mr Pickwick, he is a fairy like Puck or Santa Claus, while his creator is “the last of the mythologists and perhaps the greatest.”

When The Pickwick Papers appeared in book form at the close of 1837 Dickens’s popular reputation was made. From the appearance of Sam Weller in part v. the universal hunger for the monthly parts had risen to a furore. The book was promptly translated into French and German. The author had received little assistance from press or critics, he had no influential connexions, his class of subjects was such as to “expose him at the outset to the fatal objections of vulgarity,” yet in less than six months from the appearance of the first number, as the Quarterly Review almost ruefully admits, the whole reading world was talking about the Pickwickians. The names of Winkle, Wardle, Weller, Jingle, Snodgrass, Dodson & Fogg, were as familiar as household words. Pickwick chintzes figured in the linendrapers’ windows, and Pickwick cigars in every tobacconist’s; Weller corduroys became the stock-in-trade of every breeches-maker; Boz cabs might be seen rattling through the streets, and the portrait of the author of Pelham and Crichton was scraped down to make way for that of the new popular favourite on the omnibuses. A new and original genius had suddenly sprung up, there was no denying it, even though, as the Quarterly concluded, “it required no gift of prophecy to foretell his fate—he has risen like a rocket and he will come down like the stick.” It would have needed a very emphatic gift of prophecy indeed to foretell that Dickens’s reputation would have gone on rising until at the present day (after one sharp fall, which reached an extreme about 1887) it stands higher than it has ever stood before.

Dickens’s assumption of the literary purple was as amazing as anything else about him. Accepting the homage of the luminaries of the literary, artistic and polite worlds as if it had been his natural due, he arranges for the settlement of his family, decrees, like another Edmund Kean, that his son is to go to Eton, carries on the most complicated negotiations with his publishers and editors, presides and orates with incomparable force at innumerable banquets, public and private, arranges elaborate villegiatures in the country, at the seaside, in France or in Italy, arbitrates in public on every topic, political, ethical, artistic, social or literary, entertains and legislates for an increasingly large domestic circle, both juvenile and adult, rules himself and his time-table with a rod of iron. In his letter-writing alone, Dickens did a life’s literary work. Nowadays no one thinks of writing such letters; that is to say, letters of such length and detail, for the quality is Dickens’s own. He evidently enjoyed this use of the pen. Page after page of Forster’s Life (750 pages in the Letters edited by his daughter and sister-in-law) is occupied with transcription from private correspondence, and never a line of this but is thoroughly worthy of print and preservation. If he makes a tour in any part of the British Isles, he writes a full description of all he sees, of everything that happens, and writes it with such gusto, such mirth, such strokes of fine picturing, as appear in no other private letters ever given to the public. Naturally buoyant in all circumstances, a holiday gave him the exhilaration of a schoolboy. See how he writes from Cornwall, when on a trip with two or three friends, in 1843. “Heavens! if you could have seen the necks of bottles, distracting in their immense variety of shape, peering out of the carriage pockets! If you could have witnessed the deep devotion of the post-boys, the maniac glee of the waiters! If you could have followed us into the earthy old churches we visited, and into the strange caverns on the gloomy seashore, and down into the depths of mines, and up to the tops of giddy heights, where the unspeakably green water was roaring, I don’t know how many hundred feet below. . . . I never laughed in my life as I did on this journey. It would have done you good to hear me. I was choking and gasping and bursting the buckles off the back of my stock, all the way. And Stanfield”—the painter—“got into such apoplectic entanglements that we were obliged to beat him on the back with portmanteaus before we could recover him.”

The animation of Dickens’s look would attract the attention of any one, anywhere. His figure was not that of an Adonis, but his brightness made him the centre and pivot of every society he was in. The keenness and vivacity of his eye combined with his inordinate appetite for life to give the unique quality to all that he wrote. His instrument is that of the direct, sinewy English of Smollett, combined with much of the humorous grace of Goldsmith (his two favourite authors), but modernized to a certain extent under the influence of Washington Irving, Sydney Smith, Jeffrey, Lamb, and other writers of the London Magazine. He taught himself to speak French and Italian, but he could have read little in any language. His ideas were those of the inchoate and insular liberalism of the ’thirties. His unique force in literature he was to owe to no supreme artistic or intellectual quality, but almost entirely to his inordinate gift of observation, his sympathy with the humble, his power over the emotions and his incomparable endowment of unalloyed human fun. To

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/197


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/198

 contemporaries he was not so much a man as an institution, at the very mention of whose name faces were puckered with grins or wreathed in smiles. To many his work was a revelation, the revelation of a new world and one far better than their own. And his influence went further than this in the direction of revolution or revival. It gave what were then universally referred to as “the lower orders” a new sense of self-respect, a new feeling of citizenship. Like the defiance of another Luther, or the Declaration of a new Independence, it emitted a fresh ray of hope across the firmament. He did for the whole English-speaking race what Burns had done for Scotland—he gave it a new conceit of itself. He knew what a people wanted and he told what he knew. He could do this better than anybody else because his mind was theirs. He shared many of their “great useless virtues,” among which generosity ranks before justice, and sympathy before truth, even though, true to his middle-class vein, he exalts piety, chastity and honesty in a manner somewhat alien to the mind of the low-bred man. This is what makes Dickens such a demigod and his public success such a marvel, and this also is why any exclusively literary criticism of his work is bound to be so inadequate. It should also help us to make the necessary allowances for the man. Dickens, even the Dickens of legend that we know, is far from perfect. The Dickens of reality to which Time may furnish a nearer approximation is far less perfect. But when we consider the corroding influence of adulation, and the intoxication of unbridled success, we cannot but wonder at the relatively high level of moderation and self-control that Dickens almost invariably observed. Mr G. K. Chesterton remarks suggestively that Dickens had all his life the faults of the little boy who is kept up too late at night. He is overwrought by happiness to the verge of exasperation, and yet as a matter of fact he does keep on the right side of the breaking point. The specific and curative in his case was the work in which he took such anxious pride, and such unmitigated delight. He revelled in punctual and regular work; at his desk he was often in the highest spirits. Behold how he pictured himself, one day at Broadstairs, where he was writing Chuzzlewit. “In a bay-window in a one-pair sits, from nine o’clock to one, a gentleman with rather long hair and no neckcloth, who writes and grins, as if he thought he was very funny indeed. At one he disappears, presently emerges from a bathing-machine, and may be seen, a kind of salmon-colour porpoise, splashing about in the ocean. After that, he may be viewed in another bay-window on the ground-floor eating a strong lunch; and after that, walking a dozen miles or so, or lying on his back on the sand reading a book. Nobody bothers him, unless they know he is disposed to be talked to, and I am told he is very comfortable indeed. He’s as brown as a berry, and they do say he is as good as a small fortune to the innkeeper, who sells beer and cold punch.” Here is the secret of such work as that of Dickens; it is done with delight—done (in a sense) easily, done with the mechanism of mind and body in splendid order. Even so did Scott write; though more rapidly and with less conscious care: his chapter finished before the world had got up to breakfast. Later, Dickens produced novels less excellent with much more of mental strain. The effects of age could not have shown themselves so soon, but for the unfortunate loss of energy involved in his non-literary labours.

While the public were still rejoicing in the first sprightly runnings of the “new humour,” the humorist set to work desperately on the grim scenes of Oliver Twist, the story of a parish orphan, the nucleus of which had already seen the light in his Sketches. The early scenes are of a harrowing reality, despite the germ of forced pathos which the observant reader may detect in the pitiful parting between Oliver and little Dick; but what will strike every reader at once in this book is the directness and power of the English style, so nervous and unadorned: from its unmistakable clearness and vigour Dickens was to travel far as time went on. But the full effect of the old simplicity is felt in such masterpieces of description as the drive of Oliver and Sikes to Chertsey, the condemned-cell ecstasy of Fagin, or the unforgettable first encounter between Oliver and the Artful Dodger. Before November 1837 had ended, Charles Dickens entered on an engagement to write a successor to Pickwick on similar lines of publication. Oliver Twist was then in mid-career; a Life of Grimaldi and Barnaby Rudge were already covenanted for. Dickens forged ahead with the new tale of Nicholas Nickleby and was justified by the results, for its sale far surpassed even that of Pickwick. As a conception it is one of his weakest. An unmistakably 18th-century character pervades it. Some of the vignettes are among the most piquant and besetting ever written. Large parts of it are totally unobserved conventional melodrama; but the Portsmouth Theatre and Dotheboys Hall and Mrs Nickleby (based to some extent, it is thought, upon Miss Bates in Emma, but also upon the author’s Mamma) live for ever as Dickens conceived them in the pages of Nicholas Nickleby.

Having got rid of Nicholas Nickleby and resigned his editorship of Bentley’s Miscellany, in which Oliver Twist originally appeared, Dickens conceived the idea of a weekly periodical to be issued as Master Humphrey’s Clock, to comprise short stories, essays and miscellaneous papers, after the model of Addison’s Spectator. To make the weekly numbers “go,” he introduced Mr Pickwick, Sam Weller and his father in friendly intercourse. But the public requisitioned “a story,” and in No. 4 he had to brace himself up to give them one. Thus was commenced The Old Curiosity Shop, which was continued with slight interruptions, and followed by Barnaby Rudge. For the first time we find Dickens obsessed by a highly complicated plot. The tonality achieved in The Old Curiosity Shop surpassed anything he had attempted in this difficult vein, while the rich humour of Dick Swiveller and the Marchioness, and the vivid portraiture of the wandering Bohemians, attain the very highest level of Dickensian drollery; but in the lamentable tale of Little Nell (though Landor and Jeffrey thought the character-drawing of this infant comparable with that of Cordelia), it is generally admitted that he committed an indecent assault upon the emotions by exhibiting a veritable monster of piety and long-suffering in a child of tender years. In Barnaby Rudge he was manifestly affected by the influence of Scott, whose achievements he always regarded with a touching veneration. The plot, again, is of the utmost complexity, and Edgar Allan Poe (who predicted the conclusion) must be one of the few persons who ever really mastered it. But few of Dickens’s books are written in a more admirable style.

Master Humphrey’s Clock concluded, Dickens started in 1842 on his first visit to America—an episode hitherto without parallel in English literary history, for he was received everywhere with popular acclamation as the representative of a grand triumph of the English language and imagination, without regard to distinctions of nationality. He offended the American public grievously by a few words of frank description and a few quotations of the advertisement columns of American papers illustrating the essential barbarity of the old slave system (American Notes). Dickens was soon pining for home—no English writer is more essentially and insularly English in inspiration and aspiration than he is. He still brooded over the perverseness of America on the copyright question, and in his next book he took the opportunity of uttering a few of his impressions about the objectionable sides of American democracy, the result being that “all Yankee-doodle-dom blazed up like one universal soda bottle,” as Carlyle said. Martin Chuzzlewit (1843–1844) is important as closing his great character period. His sève originale, as the French would say, was by this time to a considerable extent exhausted, and he had to depend more upon artistic elaboration, upon satires, upon tours de force of description, upon romantic and ingenious contrivances. But all these resources combined proved unequal to his powers as an original observer of popular types, until he reinforced himself by autobiographic reminiscence, as in David Copperfield and Great Expectations, the two great books remaining to his later career.

After these two masterpieces and the three wonderful books with which he made his début, we are inclined to rank Chuzzlewit. Nothing in Dickens is more admirably seen and presented than Todgers’s, a bit of London particular cut out with a knife. Mr

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/198


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/199

 Pecksniff and Mrs Gamp, Betsy Prig and “Mrs Harris” have passed into the national language and life. The coach journey, the windy autumn night, the stealthy trail of Jonas, the undertone of tragedy in the Charity and Mercy and Chuffey episodes suggest a blending of imaginative vision and physical penetration hardly seen elsewhere. Two things are specially notable about this novel—the exceptional care taken over it (as shown by the interlineations in the MS.) and the caprice or nonchalance of the purchasing public, its sales being far lower than those of any of its monthly predecessors.

At the close of 1843, to pay outstanding debts of his now lavish housekeeping, he wrote that pioneer of Christmas numbers, that national benefit as Thackeray called it, A Christmas Carol. It failed to realize his pecuniary anticipations, and Dickens resolved upon a drastic policy of retrenchment and reform. He would save expense by living abroad and would punish his publishers by withdrawing his custom from them, at least for a time. Like everything else upon which he ever determined, this resolution was carried out with the greatest possible precision and despatch. In June 1844 he set out for Marseilles with his now rapidly increasing family (the journey cost him £200). In a villa on the outskirts of Genoa he wrote The Chimes, which, during a brief excursion to London before Christmas, he read to a select circle of friends (the germ of his subsequent lecture-audiences), including Forster, Carlyle, Stanfield, Dyce, Maclise and Jerrold. He was again in London in 1845, enjoying his favourite diversion of private theatricals; and in January 1846 he experimented briefly as the editor of a London morning paper—the Daily News. By early spring he was back at Lausanne, writing his customary vivid letters to his friends, craving as usual for London streets, commencing Dombey and Son, and walking his fourteen miles daily. The success of Dombey and Son completely rehabilitated the master’s finances, enabled him to return to England, send his son to Eton and to begin to save money. Artistically it is less satisfactory; it contains some of Dickens’s prime curios, such as Cuttle, Bunsby, Toots, Blimber, Pipchin, Mrs MacStinger and young Biler; it contains also that masterpiece of sentimentality which trembles upon the borderland of the sublime and the ridiculous, the death of Paul Dombey (“that sweet Paul,” as Jeffrey, the “critic laureate,” called him), and some grievous and unquestionable blemishes. As a narrative, moreover, it tails off into a highly complicated and exacting plot. It was followed by a long rest at Broadstairs before Dickens returned to the native home of his genius, and early in 1849 “began to prepare for David Copperfield.”

“Of all my books,” Dickens wrote, “I like this the best; like many fond parents I have my favourite child, and his name is David Copperfield.” In some respects it stands to Dickens in something of the same relation in which the contemporary Pendennis stands to Thackeray. As in that book, too, the earlier portions are the best. They gained in intensity by the autobiographical form into which they are thrown; as Thackeray observed, there was no writing against such power. The tragedy of Emily and the character of Rosa Dartle are stagey and unreal; Uriah Heep is bad art; Agnes, again, is far less convincing as a consolation than Dickens would have us believe; but these are more than compensated by the wonderful realization of early boyhood in the book, by the picture of Mr Creakle’s school, the Peggottys, the inimitable Mr Micawber, Betsy Trotwood and that monument of selfish misery, Mrs Gummidge.

At the end of March 1850 commenced the new twopenny weekly called Household Words, which Dickens planned to form a direct means of communication between himself and his readers, and as a means of collecting around him and encouraging the talents of the younger generation. No one was better qualified than he for this work, whether we consider his complete freedom from literary jealousy or his magical gift of inspiring young authors. Following the somewhat dreary and incoherent Bleak House of 1852, Hard Times (1854)—an anti-Manchester School tract, which Ruskin regarded as Dickens’s best work—was the first long story written for Household Words. About this time Dickens made his final home at Gad’s Hill, near Rochester, and put the finishing touch to another long novel published upon the old plan, Little Dorrit (1855–1857). In spite of the exquisite comedy of the master of the Marshalsea and the final tragedy of the central figure, Little Dorrit is sadly deficient in the old vitality, the humour is often a mock reality, and the repetition of comic catch-words and overstrung similes and metaphors is such as to affect the reader with nervous irritation. The plot and characters ruin each other in this amorphous production. The The Tale of Two Cities, commenced in All the Year Round (the successor of Household Words) in 1859, is much better: the main characters are powerful, the story genuinely tragic, and the atmosphere lurid; but enormous labour was everywhere expended upon the construction of stylistic ornament.

The Tale of Two Cities was followed by two finer efforts at atmospheric delineation, the best things he ever did of this kind: Great Expectations (1861), over which there broods the mournful impression of the foggy marshes of the Lower Thames; and Our Mutual Friend (1864–1865), in which the ooze and mud and slime of Rotherhithe, its boatmen and loafers, are made to pervade the whole book with cumulative effect. The general effect produced by the stories is, however, very different. In the first case, the foreground was supplied by autobiographical material of the most vivid interest, and the lucidity of the creative impulse impelled him to write upon this occasion with the old simplicity, though with an added power. Nothing therefore, in the whole range of Dickens surpassed the early chapters of Great Expectations in perfection of technique or in mastery of all the resources of the novelist’s art. To have created Abel Magwitch alone is to be a god indeed, says Mr Swinburne, among the creators of deathless men. Pumblechook is actually better and droller and truer to imaginative life than Pecksniff; Joe Gargery is worthy to have been praised and loved at once by Fielding and by Sterne: Mr Jaggers and his clients, Mr Wemmick and his parent and his bride, are such figures as Shakespeare, when dropping out of poetry, might have created, if his lot had been cast in a later century. “Can as much be said,” Mr Swinburne boldly asks, “for the creatures of any other man or god?”

In November 1867 Dickens made a second expedition to America, leaving all the writing that he was ever to complete behind him. He was to make a round sum of money, enough to free him from all embarrassments, by a long series of exhausting readings, commencing at the Tremont Temple, Boston, on the 2nd of December. The strain of Dickens’s ordinary life was so tense and so continuous that it is, perhaps, rash to assume that he broke down eventually under this particular stress; for other reasons, however, his persistence in these readings, subsequent to his return, was strongly deprecated by his literary friends, led by the arbitrary and relentless Forster. It is a long testimony to Dickens’s self-restraint, even in his most capricious and despotic moments, that he never broke the cord of obligation which bound him to his literary mentor, though sparring matches between them were latterly of frequent occurrence. His farewell reading was given on the 15th of March 1870, at St James’s Hall. He then vanished from “those garish lights,” as he called them, “for evermore.” Of the three brief months that remained to him, his last book, The Mystery of Edwin Drood, was the chief occupation. It hardly promised to become a masterpiece (Longfellow’s opinion) as did Thackeray’s Denis Duval, but contained much fine descriptive technique, grouped round a scene of which Dickens had an unrivalled sympathetic knowledge.

In March and April 1870 Dickens, as was his wont, was mixing in the best society; he dined with the prince at Lord Houghton’s and was twice at court, once at a long deferred private interview with the queen, who had given him a presentation copy of her Leaves from a Journal of our Life in the Highlands with the inscription “From one of the humblest of authors to one of the greatest”; and who now begged him on his persistent refusal of any other title to accept the nominal distinction of a privy councillor. He took for four months the Milner Gibsons’ house at 5 Hyde Park Place, opposite the Marble Arch, where he gave a brilliant reception on the 7th of April. His last public appearance was made at the Royal Academy banquet early in May.

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/199


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/12

xii

{{EB1911 contributor table B/entry | initials    = S. D. H. | name         = S. D. Hopkinson. | description = | brace       ={{Fs|150%|{}} | subject1    = Dividend}}

 * }

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/12


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/13

Rh

 * }

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/13


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/200

 He returned to his regular methodical routine of work at Gad’s Hill on the 30th of May, and one of the last instalments he wrote of Edwin Drood contained an ominous speculation as to the next two people to die at Cloisterham: “Curious to make a guess at the two, or say at one of the two.” Two letters bearing the well-known superscription “Gad’s Hill Place, Higham by Rochester, Kent” are dated the 8th of June, and, on the same Thursday, after a long spell of writing in the Châlet where he habitually wrote, he collapsed suddenly at dinner. Startled by the sudden change in the colour and expression of his face, his sister-in-law (Miss Hogarth) asked him if he was ill; he said “Yes, very ill,” but added that he would finish dinner and go on afterwards to London. “Come and lie down,” she entreated; “Yes, on the ground,” he said, very distinctly; these were the last words he spoke, and he slid from her arms and fell upon the floor. He died at 6-10 P.M. on Friday, the 9th of June, and was buried privately in Poets’ Corner, Westminster Abbey, in the early morning of the 14th of June. One of the most appealing memorials was the drawing by his “new illustrator” Luke Fildes in the Graphic of “The Empty Chair; Gad’s Hill: ninth of June, 1870.” “Statesmen, men of science, philanthropists, the acknowledged benefactors of their race, might pass away, and yet not leave the void which will be caused by the death of Charles Dickens” (The Times). In his will he enjoined his friends to erect no monument in his honour, and directed his name and dates only to be inscribed on his tomb, adding this proud provision, “I rest my claim to the remembrance of my country on my published works.”

Dickens had no artistic ideals worth speaking about. The sympathy of his readers was the one thing he cared about and, like Cobbett, he went straight for it through the avenue of the emotions. In personality, intensity and range of creative genius he can hardly be said to have any modern rival. His creations live, move and have their being about us constantly, like those of Homer, Virgil, Chaucer, Rabelais, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Bunyan, Molière and Sir Walter Scott. As to the books themselves, the backgrounds on which these mighty figures are projected, they are manifestly too vast, too chaotic and too unequal ever to become classics. Like most of the novels constructed upon the unreformed model of Smollett and Fielding, those of Dickens are enormous stock-pots into which the author casts every kind of autobiographical experience, emotion, pleasantry, anecdote, adage or apophthegm. The fusion is necessarily very incomplete and the hotch-potch is bound to fall to pieces with time. Dickens’s plots, it must be admitted, are strangely unintelligible, the repetitions and stylistic decorations of his work exceed all bounds, the form is unmanageable and insignificant. The diffuseness of the English novel, in short, and its extravagant didacticism cannot fail to be most prejudicial to its perpetuation. In these circumstances there is very little fiction that will stand concentration and condensation so well as that of Dickens.

For these reasons among others our interest in Dickens’s novels as integers has diminished and is diminishing. But, on the other hand, our interest and pride in him as a man and as a representative author of his age and nation has been steadily augmented and is still mounting. Much of the old criticism of his work, that it was not up to a sufficiently high level of art, scholarship or gentility, that as an author he is given to caricature, redundancy and a shameless subservience to popular caprice, must now be discarded as irrelevant.

As regards formal excellence it is plain that Dickens labours under the double disadvantage of writing in the least disciplined of all literary genres in the most lawless literary milieu of the modern world, that of Victorian England. In spite of these defects, which are those of masters such as Rabelais, Hugo and Tolstoy, the work of Dickens is more and more instinctively felt to be true, original and ennobling. It is already beginning to undergo a process of automatic sifting, segregation and crystallization, at the conclusion of which it will probably occupy a larger segment in the literary consciousness of the English-spoken race than ever before.

Portraits of Dickens, from the gay and alert “Boz” of Samuel Lawrence, and the self-conscious, rather foppish portrait by Maclise which served as frontispiece to Nicholas Nickleby, to the sketch of him as Bobadil by C. R. Leslie, the Drummond and Ary Scheffer portraits of middle age and the haggard and drawn representations of him from photographs after his shattering experiences as a public entertainer from 1856 (the year of his separation from his wife) onwards, are reproduced in Kitton, in Forster and Gissing and in the other biographies. Sketches are also given in most of the books of his successive dwelling places at Ordnance Terrace and 18 St Mary’s Place, Chatham; Bayham Street, Camden Town; 15 Furnival’s Inn; 48 Doughty Street; 1 Devonshire Terrace, Regent’s Park; Tavistock House, Tavistock Square; and Gad’s Hill Place. The manuscripts of all the novels, with the exception of the Tale of Two Cities and Edwin Drood, were given to Forster, and are now preserved in the Dyce and Forster Museum at South Kensington. The work of Dickens was a prize for which publishers naturally contended both before and after his death. The first collective edition of his works was begun in April 1847, and their number is now very great. The most complete is still that of Messrs Chapman & Hall, the original publishers of Pickwick; others of special interest are the Harrap edition, originally edited by F. G. Kitton; Macmillan’s edition with original illustrations and introduction by Charles Dickens the younger; and the edition in the World’s Classics with introductions by G. K. Chesterton. Of the translations the best known is that done into French by Lorain, Pichot and others, with B. H. Gausseron’s excellent Pages Choisies (1903).

—During his lifetime Dickens’s biographer was clearly indicated in his guide, philosopher and friend, John Forster, who had known the novelist intimately since the days of his first triumph with Pickwick, who had constituted himself a veritable encyclopaedia of information about Dickens, and had clung to his subject (in spite of many rebuffs which his peremptory temper found it hard to digest) as tightly as ever Boswell had enveloped Johnson. Two volumes of Forster’s Life of Charles Dickens appeared in 1872 and a third in 1874. He relied much on Dickens’s letters to himself and produced what must always remain the authoritative work. The first two volumes are put together with much art, the portrait as a whole has been regarded as truthful, and the immediate success was extraordinary. In the opinion of Carlyle, Forster’s book was not unworthy to be named after that of Boswell. A useful abridgment was carried out in 1903 by the novelist George Gissing. Gissing also wrote Charles Dickens: A Critical Study (1898), which ranks with G. K. Chesterton’s Charles Dickens (1906) as a commentary inspired by deep insight and adorned by great literary talent upon the genius of the master-novelist. The names of other lives, sketches, articles and estimates of Dickens and his works would occupy a large volume in the mere enumeration. See R. H. Shepherd, The Bibliography of Dickens (1880); James Cooke’s Bibliography of the Writings of Charles Dickens (1879); Dickensiana, by F. G. Kitton (1886); and Bibliography by J. P. Anderson, appended to Sir F. T. Marzials’s Life of Charles Dickens (1887). Among the earlier sketches may be specially cited the lives by J. C. Hotten and G. A. Sala (1870), the Anecdote-Biography edited by the American R. H. Stoddard (1874), Dr A. W. Ward in the English Men of Letters Series (1878), that by Sir Leslie Stephen in the Dictionary of National Biography, and that by Professor Minto in the eighth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The Letters were first issued in two volumes edited by his daughter and sister-in-law in 1880. For Dickens’s connexion with Kent the following books are specially valuable:—Robert Langton’s Childhood and Youth of Charles Dickens (1883); Langton’s Dickens and Rochester (1880); Thomas Frost’s In Kent with Charles Dickens (1880); F. G. Kitton’s The Dickens Country (1905); H. S. Ward’s The Real Dickens Land (1904); R. Allbut’s Rambles in Dickens Land (1899 and 1903). For Dickens’s reading tours see G. Dolby’s Charles Dickens as I knew him (1884); J. T. Fields’s In and Out of Doors with Charles Dickens (1876); Charles Kent’s Dickens as a Reader (1872). And for other aspects of his life see M. Dickens’s My Father as I recall him (1897); P. H. Fitzgerald’s Life of C. Dickens as revealed in his Writings (1905), and Bozland (1895); F. G. Kitton’s Charles Dickens, his Life, Writings and Personality, a useful compendium (1902); T. E. Pemberton’s Charles Dickens and the Stage, and Dickens’s London (1876); F. Miltoun’s Dickens’s London (1904); Kitton’s Dickens and his Illustrators; W. Teignmouth Shore’s Charles Dickens and his Friends (1904 and 1909); B. W. Matz, Story of Dickens’s Life and Work (1904), and review of solutions to Edwin Drood in The Bookman for March 1908; the recollections of Edmund Yates, Trollope, James Payn, Lehmann, R. H. Horne, Lockwood and many others. The Dickensian, a magazine devoted to Dickensian subjects, was started in 1905; it is the organ of the Dickens Fellowship, and in a sense of the Boz Club. A Dickens Dictionary (by G. A. Pierce) appeared in 1872 and 1878; another (by A. J. Philip) in 1909; and a Dickens Concordance by Mary Williams in 1907.

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/200


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 22.djvu/94

 letters which already show his characteristic style. He made a trip to the highlands in the spring of 1753, but the Scots and their country were not very congenial to his tastes. He speaks with respect of Alexander Monro, the professor of anatomy, but soon decided to finish his studies on the continent. At the end of 1753 he started, intending to go to Paris and Leyden. He was released by two friends, Sleigh and Lauchlan Macleane [q. v.], from a debt incurred on behalf of a friend, and sailed for Bordeaux. The ship was driven into Newcastle, where Goldsmith went ashore with some companions, and the whole party was arrested on suspicion of having been enlisting for the French service in Scotland. Goldsmith was in prison for a fortnight, during which the ship sailed and was lost with all the crew. He found another ship sailing for Rotterdam, took a passage and went to Leyden. Here he was befriended by a fellow-countryman named Ellis. He soon set off on a fresh journey, stimulated perhaps by the precedent of Baron Holberg (1684–1754), whose travels he describes in his ‘Polite Learning’ (ch. v.). Ellis lent him a small sum, which he spent upon some bulbs for his uncle Contarine. He started with ‘one clean shirt’ and next to no money.

The accounts given of his travels are of doubtful authenticity. They have been constructed from the story of George Primrose in the ‘Vicar of Wakefield,’ assumed to be autobiographical from occasional hints in his books, and from reports of his conversation and missing letters. Goldsmith probably amused himself with travellers' tales, taken too seriously by his friends. He started about February 1755; his biographers trace him to Louvain, to Paris, Strasburg, Germany, and Switzerland; thence to Italy, where he is supposed to have visited Venice, and to have studied at Padua for ‘six months’ (Works, 1812, i. 36), to Carinthia (mentioned in the ‘Traveller’), and back through France to England, landing at Dover 1 Feb. 1756. He is said to have acted as tutor to a stingy pupil, either from Paris to Switzerland, or from Geneva to Marseilles; but he travelled chiefly on foot, paying for the hospitality of peasants by playing on his flute. In Italy, where every peasant played better than himself, he supported himself by disputing at universities or convents. It seems very improbable that Goldsmith could have disputed to any purpose, or that disputation was then at all profitable. Perhaps the anecdote was suggested by ‘the Admirable Crichton.’ He is reported to have taken the M.B. degree at Louvain, or again at Padua (M'Donnell in , ii. 346). He says in his ‘Polite Learning’ (ch. viii.) and ‘Percy’ that he had heard chemical lectures in Paris, and in No. 2 of the ‘Bee’ he describes the acting of Mlle. Clairon. In the ‘Animated Nature’ (v. 207) he speaks of walks round Paris, of having flushed woodcocks on the Jura in June and July, and of having seen the Rhine frozen at Schaffhausen. He speaks of hearing Voltaire talk in ‘his house at Monrion,’ near Lausanne, and in his ‘Life of Voltaire’ gives a detailed account of a conversation at Paris between Voltaire, Diderot, and Fontenelle. Voltaire was certainly in Switzerland during the whole of 1755, and Goldsmith may have seen him at Monrion; but Diderot was certainly at Paris; Fontenelle, then aged 98, could not possibly have taken the part described by Goldsmith; and the conversation, for which Goldsmith vouches, must be set down as pure fiction. He was no doubt in Switzerland, Padua, and Paris; but all details are doubtful.

He reached London in great destitution. Stories are told that he tried acting (probably an inference from his ‘Adventures of a Strolling Player’ in the ‘British Magazine’), and that he was usher in a country school (, Historical Survey of South of Ireland, pp. 286–9). He became assistant to a chemist named Jacob on Fish Street Hill. After a time he met his friend Dr. Sleigh, who received him kindly, and he managed to set up as a physician in Bankside, Southwark. He told a friend (, i. 215) that he ‘was doing very well;’ but his dress was tarnished and his shirt a fortnight old. Reynolds (ib.) repeated an anecdote of the pains which he took to carry his hat so as to conceal a patch in his coat. From the statement of an old Edinburgh friend (Dr. Farr) it appears that he had written a tragedy, which he had shown to Richardson, and that he had a scheme for travelling to Mount Sinai, to decipher the ‘written mountains.’ A salary of 300l. per annum had been left for the purpose. Boswell says that he had been a corrector of the press, possibly to Richardson. About the end of 1756 he became usher in a school at Peckham kept by Dr. Milner, a dissenting minister, whose daughter and one of whose pupils, Samuel Bishop, preserved a few traditions of his flute-playing, his fun with the boys, and his pecuniary imbecility. Milner's son had known Goldsmith at Edinburgh, and Dr. Milner wanted an assistant, on account of an illness which proved fatal not long after (Percy Memoir, p. 45). At Milner's house he met a bookseller named Griffiths, proprietor of the ‘Monthly Review,’ one of the chief periodicals of the day. Early in 1757 he agreed to lodge with Griffiths, and work for the review


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/201

 DICKINSON, ANNA ELIZABETH (1842–), American author and lecturer, was born, of Quaker parentage, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 28th of October 1842. She was educated at the Friends’ Free School in Philadelphia, and was for a time a teacher. In 1861 she obtained a clerkship in the United States mint, but was removed for criticizing General McClellan at a public meeting. She had gradually become widely known as an eloquent and persuasive public speaker, one of the first of her sex to mount the platform to discuss the burning questions of the hour. Before the Civil War she lectured on anti-slavery topics, during the war she toured the country on behalf of the Sanitary Commission, and also lectured on reconstruction, temperance and woman’s rights. She wrote several plays, including The Crown of Thorns (1876); Mary Tudor (1878), in which she appeared in the title rôle; Aurelian (1878); and An American Girl (1880), successfully acted by Fanny Davenport. She also published a novel, Which Answer? (1868); A Paying Investment, a Plea for Education (1876); and A Ragged Register of People, Places and Opinions (1879).

 DICKINSON, JOHN (1732–1808), American statesman and pamphleteer, was born in Talbot county, Maryland, on the 8th of November 1732. He removed with his father to Kent county, Delaware, in 1740, studied under private tutors, read law, and in 1753 entered the Middle Temple, London. Returning to America in 1757, he began the practice of law in Philadelphia, was speaker of the Delaware assembly in 1760, and was a member of the Pennsylvania assembly in 1762–1765 and again in 1770–1776. He represented Pennsylvania in the Stamp Act Congress (1765) and in the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1776, when he was defeated owing to his opposition to the Declaration of Independence. He then retired to Delaware, served for a time as private and later as brigadier -general in the state militia, and was again a member of the Continental Congress (from Delaware) in 1779–1780. He was president of the executive council, or chief executive officer, of Delaware in 1781–1782, and of Pennsylvania in 1782–1785, and was a delegate from Delaware to the Annapolis convention of 1786 and the Federal Constitutional convention of 1787. Dickinson has aptly been called the “Penman of the Revolution.” No other writer of the day presented arguments so numerous, so timely and so popular. He drafted the “Declaration of Rights” of the Stamp Act Congress, the “Petition to the King” and the “Address to the Inhabitants of Quebec” of the Congress of 1774, and the second “Petition to the King” and the “Articles of Confederation” of the second Congress. Most influential of all, however, were The Letters of a Farmer in Pennsylvania, written in 1767–1768 in condemnation of the Townshend Acts of 1767, in which he rejected speculative natural rights theories and appealed to the common sense of the people through simple legal arguments. By opposing the Declaration of Independence, he lost his popularity and was never able entirely to regain it. As the representative of a small state, he championed the principle of state equality in the constitutional convention, but was one of the first to advocate the compromise, which was finally adopted, providing for equal representation, in one house and proportional representation in the other. He was probably influenced by Delaware prejudice against Pennsylvania when he drafted the clause which forbids the creation of a new state by the junction of two or more states or parts of states without the consent of the states concerned as well as of congress. After the adjournment of the convention he defended its work in a series of letters signed “Fabius,” which will bear comparison with the best of the Federalist productions. It was largely through his influence that Delaware and Pennsylvania were the first two states to ratify the Constitution. Dickinson’s interests were not exclusively political. He helped to found Dickinson College (named in his honour) at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, in 1783, was the first president of its board of trustees, and was for many years its chief benefactor. He died on the 14th of February 1808 and was buried in the Friends’ burial ground in Wilmington, Del.

 DICKSON, SIR ALEXANDER (1777–1840), British artillerist, entered the Royal Military Academy in 1793, passing out as second lieutenant in the Royal Artillery in the following year. As a subaltern he saw service in Minorca in 1798 and at Malta in 1800. As a captain he took part in the unfortunate Montevideo Expedition of 1806–07, and in 1809 he accompanied Howorth to the Peninsular War as brigade-major of the artillery. He soon obtained a command in the Portuguese artillery, and as a lieutenant-colonel of the Portuguese service took part in the various battles of 1810–11. At the two sieges of Budazoz, Ciudad Rodrigo, the Salamanca forts and Burgos, he was entrusted by Wellington (who had the highest opinion of him) with most of the detailed artillery work, and at Salamanca battle he commanded the reserve artillery. In the end he became commander of the whole of the artillery of the allied army, and though still only a substantive captain in the British service he had under his orders some 8000 men. At Vitoria, the Pyrenees battles and Toulouse he directed the movements of the artillery engaged, and at the end of the war received handsome presents from the officers who had served under him, many of whom were his seniors in the army list. He was at the disastrous affair of New Orleans, but returned to Europe in time for the Waterloo campaign. He was present at Quatre Bras and Waterloo on the artillery staff of Wellington’s army, and subsequently commanded the British battering train at the sieges of the French fortresses left behind the advancing allies. For the rest of his life he was on home service, principally as a staff officer of artillery. He died, a major-general and G.C.B., in 1840. A memorial was erected at Woolwich in 1847. Dickson was one of the earliest fellows of the Royal Geographical Society.

 DICKSON, SIR JAMES ROBERT (1832–1901), Australian statesman, was born in Plymouth on the 30th of November 1832. He was brought up in Glasgow, receiving his education at the high school, and became a clerk in the City of Glasgow Bank. In 1854 he emigrated to Victoria, but after some years spent in that colony and in New South Wales, he settled in 1862 in Queensland, where he was connected with many important business enterprises, among them the Royal Bank of Queensland. He entered the Queensland House of Assembly in 1872, and became minister of works (1876), treasurer (1876–1879, and 1883–1887), acting premier (1884), but resigned in 1887 on the question of taxing land. In 1889 he retired from business, and spent three years in Europe before resuming political life. He fought for the introduction of Polynesian labour on the Queensland sugar plantations at the general election of 1892, and was elected to the House of Assembly in that year and again at the elections of 1893 and 1896. He became secretary for railways in 1897, minister for home affairs in 1898, represented Queensland in the federal council of Australia in 1896 and at the postal conference at Hobart in 1898, and in 1898 became premier. His energies were now devoted to the formation of an Australian commonwealth. He secured the reference of the question to a plebiscite, the result of which justified his anticipations. He resigned the premiership in November 1899, but in the ministry of Robert Philp, formed in the next month, he was reappointed to the offices of chief secretary and vice-president of the executive council which he had combined with the office of premier. He represented Queensland in 1900 at the conference held in London to consider the question of Australian unity, and on his return was appointed minister of defence in the first government of the Australian Commonwealth. He did not long survive the accomplishment of his political aims, dying at Sydney on the 10th of January 1901, in the midst of the festivities attending the inauguration of the new state.

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/201


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dickinson, Anna Elizabeth


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 22.djvu/95

 at an ‘adequate salary.’ He contributed many miscellaneous articles from April to September 1757, the last being a review of Gray's ‘Odes’ in September 1757. He also reviewed Home's ‘Douglas,’ Burke's ‘On the Sublime and Beautiful,’ Smollett's ‘History,’ and Wilkie's ‘Epigoniad.’ Both Griffiths and his wife edited his papers remorselessly, and Goldsmith became disgusted. He probably contributed to other papers, and was engaged in a translation of the ‘Memoirs of Jean Marteilhe’ of Bergerac, which was published by Griffiths and Dilly in February 1758. After leaving Griffiths he returned for a time to Dr. Milner. A letter to his brother-in-law, Hodson, of December 1757 says that he was making a shift to live by a ‘very little practice as a physician, and a very little reputation as a poet.’ His younger brother Charles was paying him a visit, prompted by an erroneous impression of his prosperity, which soon terminated. Three letters, written in August 1758 to friends in Ireland, show that he was trying to get subscribers for his essay ‘On the Present State of Taste and Literature in Europe,’ which was then going through the press. He was still hoping to obtain an appointment as physician and surgeon to a factory on the coast of Coromandel. The appointment was obtained through Milner. He would have a salary of 100l. a year, and the practice was worth 1,000l. His book was to pay for his passage. On 21 Dec. 1758 he was examined at Surgeons' Hall for a certificate as ‘hospital mate’ and found ‘not qualified.’ Although his hopes of the Indian appointment survived for a time (, i. 297), he was henceforth doomed to be a literary hack.

Goldsmith had borrowed a suit of clothes from Griffiths in order to appear decently before his examiners. He contributed in return four articles to the December number of the ‘Monthly Review’ to show his gratitude. Goldsmith was driven to pawn these clothes, and Griffiths suspected him of having also disposed of some books which (as Goldsmith declared) were not pawned, but were ‘in the custody of a friend from whom he had borrowed some money.’ A letter to Griffiths promising repayment (PRIOR, i. 286) in January 1759 appears to have led to some reconciliation. Goldsmith wrote a catchpenny ‘Life of Voltaire,’ for which Griffiths paid 20l., and which was advertised for publication in February. It ultimately came out in the ‘Lady's Magazine’ (edited by Goldsmith) in 1761. An attack upon Goldsmith, however, appeared in the ‘Monthly Review’ on the appearance of his ‘Polite Literature,’ written by Kenrick, who had succeeded him as writer of all work for Griffiths. Although some apology was afterwards made, cordiality was never restored.

Goldsmith had now taken a lodging in 12 Green Arbour Court, between the Old Bailey and Fleet Market, a small yard approached by ‘Breakneck Steps.’ A print of it is in the ‘European Magazine’ for January 1803 (partially reproduced in, 1877, i. 154). The court was destroyed by the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway (for a description see Notes and Queries, 3rd ser. vii. 233). Here he used to collect the children to dance to his flute, and made friends with a clever watchmaker. He was beginning to win some reputation as a writer. The ‘Enquiry into the Present State of Polite Learning in Europe’ appeared in April 1759. The information is, of course, acquired for the nonce. The book shows pessimistic views as to the state of literature, which is naturally attributed to the inadequate remuneration of authors. It attracted some notice, and some useful visitors came to Green Arbour Court. Among them was Thomas Percy [q. v.], afterwards bishop of Dromore, who had been introduced to Goldsmith by James Grainger [q. v.], a contributor to the ‘Monthly Review.’ Percy was collecting materials for the ‘Reliques,’ and Goldsmith shared his love of old ballads. Percy found only one chair in Goldsmith's room, and a neighbour sent a child during his visit to borrow ‘a chamberpot full of coals.’ Smollett, another acquaintance, was at this time connected with the ‘Critical Review,’ to which Goldsmith contributed a few articles in 1757–9, and in 1760 started the ‘British Magazine,’ for which Goldsmith also wrote. He was employed on three periodicals started in this year, the ‘Lady's Magazine,’ the ‘Bee,’ and the ‘Busybody,’ of which the first numbers appeared on 1, 6, and 9 Oct. 1759 respectively. The ‘Bee’ only lasted through eight weekly numbers, of which Goldsmith was the principal if not the sole author. His contributions to the ‘British Magazine’ in 1760 are said to have included ‘The History of Mrs. Stanton,’ which has been regarded as the germ of the ‘Vicar of Wakefield.’ Mr. Austin Dobson, with apparent reason, doubts the authorship. He left the ‘British Magazine’ for a time to edit the ‘Lady's Magazine,’ but appears to have afterwards contributed a series of articles on the ‘Belles-Lettres,’ which began in July 1761, and continued with intervals until 1763. Another periodical to which he contributed was Dodd's ‘Christian Magazine.’

Goldsmith had formed a more important connection with John Newbery, bookseller, in St. Paul's Churchyard. He is mentioned


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dickinson, John


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 22.djvu/96

 in the ‘Vicar of Wakefield’ (ch. xviii.) as the ‘philanthropic bookseller’ who has ‘written so many little books for children.’ Newbery started the ‘Public Ledger,’ a newspaper of which the first number appeared 12 Jan. 1760. He engaged Goldsmith for 100l. a year to contribute papers twice a week. Johnson was at the same time writing the ‘Idler’ for another paper of Newbery's, the ‘Universal Chronicle.’ The first of Goldsmith's papers, called the ‘Chinese Letters,’ appeared on 24 Jan. They continued during the year, in which ninety-eight letters appeared in all. He afterwards used some of them, together with his ‘Life of Voltaire,’ in the ‘Lady's Magazine,’ which occupied much of his time in 1761.

The ‘Chinese Letters,’ which were printed in 2 vols. 12mo in 1762 as ‘The Citizen of the World,’ raised Goldsmith's reputation. He inserted some of his other anonymous essays. They contain many descriptions of character, which, if surpassed by himself, were surpassed by no other writer of the time. His position improved as his reputation rose, and he moved in 1760 to superior lodgings at No. 6 Wine Office Court, Fleet Street, where he lodged with one of Newbery's connections. He had paid a compliment to Johnson in the fifth number of the ‘Bee,’ and on 31 May 1761 Johnson came to a supper at Goldsmith's lodgings, dressed with scrupulous neatness, because, as he told Percy, he had heard that he had been quoted by Goldsmith as a precedent for slovenly habits. Goldsmith was generally more inclined to lavishness in the matter of tailors' bills. About this time, on the accession of Bute to office (, i. 383), Goldsmith is said to have memorialised him, asking to be sent to the East to make scientific inquiries. He also applied to Garrick to recommend him for the secretaryship of the Society of Arts, which was vacant in 1760. Garrick refused in consequence of passages by Goldsmith in ‘Polite Literature’ reflecting upon his theatrical management (ib. p. 379).

During 1762 Goldsmith did various pieces of hackwork for Newbery. He wrote a pamphlet on the Cock Lane ghost for 3l. 3s.; a ‘History of Mecklenburgh,’ the country of the new queen, Charlotte; and he began a ‘Compendium of Biography,’ based upon Plutarch's ‘Lives.’ Seven volumes appeared during the year, the last two volumes of which were probably compiled by a hack named Collyer. Goldsmith's health was weak at this period, and he visited Bath, paying for his expenses, it is to be hoped, by a life of Nash (published 14 Oct. 1762), for which he received fourteen guineas. Prior estimates his whole income for 1762 at under 120l.

At the end of 1762 he moved to Islington. Newbery occupied a room in the old tower of Canonbury House in that parish (description and engraving in, A Bookseller of the last Century, p. 46); and Goldsmith lodged with a Mrs. Elizabeth Fleming, paying 50l. a year for his board and lodging. He worked for Newbery at a variety of odd jobs, writing prefaces, correcting the press, and so forth, though Newbery's advances during the year previous to October 1763 exceeded the amount due for ‘Copy of different kinds,’ namely, 63l., by 48l. 1s. 6d., for which Goldsmith gave a promissory note dated 11 Oct. 1763. On 17 Dec. he borrowed twenty-five guineas from Newbery. According to one story he needed the money for an excursion to Yorkshire, in the course of which the ‘Vicar of Wakefield’ was suggested by some incident. He was absent from Islington, as his bills show, during the first quarter of 1764. ‘A History of England in a Series of Letters from a Nobleman to his Son,’ in 2 vols. 12mo, for which Goldsmith received some 50l. (, i. 498), appeared in June 1764 anonymously, and was attributed to many eminent writers. About this time he became one of the original nine members of Johnson's famous club which met during his life at the Turk's Head, Gerrard Street, Soho. Hawkins, an original member, says that ‘we’ considered him ‘as a mere literary drudge.’ The election was no doubt due to Johnson's good opinion, who told Boswell in June 1763 that Goldsmith was ‘one of the first men we now have as an author.’ The opinion, then esoteric, became general on the publication of the ‘Traveller,’ 19 Dec. 1764, inscribed to his brother Henry, to whom he had sent some portions from Switzerland. Four editions appeared during 1765, a fifth in 1768, a sixth (the last revised by the author) in 1770, and a ninth in 1774. He received twenty guineas for it on publication, and probably an additional twenty guineas on its success. Johnson declared in the ‘Critical Review’ that it would not be easy to find its equal since the death of Pope. He also contributed a few lines (‘nine,’ as he told Boswell), and was therefore supposed to have written more. The ‘Traveller’ owes something to Johnson's own didactic poems, and something to Addison's ‘Letter from Italy.’ But Johnson's eulogy is fully deserved, and the ‘Traveller’ is still among the most perfect examples of its style. The ‘Traveller’ brought him the acquaintance of Robert Nugent (afterwards Viscount Clare), and it seems that Nugent introduced him to the Earl of Northumberland, lord-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 22.djvu/149

 of this work. Chabas speaks enthusiastically of Goodwin's labours in hieratic as having effected ‘a genuine revolution in the science.’ During his residence in the East he worked assiduously at Egyptology, continuing frequently from 1866 to 1876 the contributions to Lepsius and Brugsch's ‘Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache,’ which he had begun before leaving England. Communications from him were utilised and acknowledged by Canon Cook in his disquisition ‘On Egyptian Words in the Pentateuch’ in vol. i. pt. I. of the ‘Speaker's Commentary on the Bible,’ 1871.

After being several years at Shanghai Goodwin was transferred to Yokohama, where he spent three years as acting judge of the supreme court. He retained this position in 1876 when he returned to Shanghai, and he remained there, a visit to England intervening, until his death, after a long illness, in January 1878. The event caused the deepest regret among the British residents at Shanghai and Yokohama. Goodwin had endeared himself to all his friends as a delightful companion, cheerful and unaffected, his great acquirements being unaccompanied by the slightest trace of pedantry or pretension. He was fond of music, of which he had studied the theory, playing on more than one instrument. He is understood to have been for years the musical critic of the ‘Guardian,’ and to have contributed to the ‘Saturday Review.’ He was the author of at least two law books: 1. ‘The Succession Duty Act’ (16 and 17 Vict. cap. 51), with introduction, notes, and an appendix, containing the Legacy Duty Acts 1853. 2. ‘The Practice of Probate and Administration under 20 and 21 Vict. cap. 77, together with the statute and appendix,’ 1858.

GOODWIN, CHRISTOPHER (fl. 1542), poet, was author of ‘The Chaunce of the Dolorous Lover,’ London, by Wynkyn de Worde, 1520, 4to, ‘a lamentable story without pathos,’ writes Warton. A more interesting production is ‘The maydens dreme. Compyled and made by Chrystofer Goodwyn. In the yere of our Lorde, .,’ London, ‘by me Robert Wyer for Richard Bankes.’ The only copy known belonged to Heber. It is in seven-line stanzas; in the concluding stanza the four words ‘Chryst,’ ‘offre,’ ‘good,’ and ‘wyn’ (forming together the author's name) are introduced into different lines enclosed in brackets. Warton describes the second piece as ‘a vision without imagination.’ A young lady is supposed to listen in a dream to ‘a dispute between Amour and Shamefacedness for and against love.’

In 1572 Christopher Goodwin or Goodwyn and John Johnson proposed to Queen Elizabeth's ministers to convert Ipswich into ‘a mart town,’ in order to draw thither the whole trade from Antwerp. Much of the promoters' notes and correspondence with Lord Burghley, Sir Thomas Smith, and others is in the Record Office (Cal. State Papers, 1547–80, pp. 447–8); and among Lord Calthorpe's manuscripts is ‘a device’ on the same subject by the same authors (Hist. MSS. Comm. 2nd Rep. p. 40). It is doubtful whether this Christopher Goodwin is identical with the poet, but the identity of name suggests kinship, and, like the poet, the Ipswich projector usually spells his name ‘Goodwyn.’

GOODWIN, FRANCIS (1784–1835), architect, was born 23 May 1784, at King's Lynn, Norfolk, and became a pupil of J. Coxedge of Kensington. He exhibited in the Royal Academy in 1806 an ‘Internal View of St. Nicholas' Chapel, Lynn,’ after which he appears to have devoted himself to the study of his profession, and from 1822 to 1834 exhibited twenty-three drawings made for competition or for his executed works, which were chiefly in the pointed style. In 1821 he built the church at West Bromwich, which was his first completed structure of the kind, and in the same year a chapel of ease at Portsea, Hampshire, a new church at Ashton-under-Lyne, and rebuilt the parish church at Walsall, with the exception of the spire and chancel. He was occupied from 1821 to 1824 with a church at Kidderminster; in 1822, added the steeple to St. Peter's, Manchester; in 1823, the tower and spire to St. Paul's, Birmingham, and completed Trinity Church, Bordesley, Birmingham, a view of which was published in the ‘Gentleman's Magazine’ for 1827. In 1824 he built Holy Trinity Church, Burton-on-Trent; in 1825, St. James's, Oldham, Lancashire; and in 1826, St. Paul's Chapel, Walsall, of which plans and sections were published in Tress's ‘Modern Churches,’ 1841. From 1826 to 1827 he was erecting St. John's, Derby; from 1826 to 1828, St. George's, Hulme, near Manchester; and in 1830 he completed St. Mary's, Bilston. He also rebuilt the old church at


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dickson, Sir Alexander


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dickson, Sir James Robert


text:
United States Code/Title 28/Appendix/Federal Rules of Civil Procedure/Rule 4

Rule 4. Summons

(a) Contents; Amendments.
 * (1) Contents. A summons must:
 * (A) name the court and the parties;
 * (B) be directed to the defendant;
 * (C) state the name and address of the plaintiff’s attorney or—if unrepresented—of the plaintiff;
 * (D) state the time within which the defendant must appear and defend;
 * (E) notify the defendant that a failure to appear and defend will result in a default judgment against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint;
 * (F) be signed by the clerk; and
 * (G) bear the court’s seal.
 * (2) Amendments. The court may permit a summons to be amended.

(b) Issuance. On or after filing the complaint, the plaintiff may present a summons to the clerk for signature and seal. If the summons is properly completed, the clerk must sign, seal, and issue it to the plaintiff for service on the defendant. A summons—or a copy of a summons that is addressed to multiple defendants—must be issued for each defendant to be served.

(c) Service.
 * (1) In General. A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4 (m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.
 * (2) By Whom. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint.
 * (3) By a Marshal or Someone Specially Appointed. At the plaintiff’s request, the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court. The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.

(d) Waiving Service.
 * (1) Requesting a Waiver. An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4 (e), (f), or (h) has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons. The plaintiff may notify such a defendant that an action has been commenced and request that the defendant waive service of a summons. The notice and request must:
 * (A) be in writing and be addressed:
 * (i) to the individual defendant; or
 * (ii) for a defendant subject to service under Rule 4 (h), to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process;
 * (B) name the court where the complaint was filed;
 * (C) be accompanied by a copy of the complaint, 2 copies of a waiver form, and a prepaid means for returning the form;
 * (D) inform the defendant, using text prescribed in Form 5, of the consequences of waiving and not waiving service;
 * (E) state the date when the request is sent;
 * (F) give the defendant a reasonable time of at least 30 days after the request was sent—or at least 60 days if sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States—to return the waiver; and
 * (G) be sent by first-class mail or other reliable means.
 * (2) Failure to Waive. If a defendant located within the United States fails, without good cause, to sign and return a waiver requested by a plaintiff located within the United States, the court must impose on the defendant:
 * (A) the expenses later incurred in making service; and
 * (B) the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, of any motion required to collect those service expenses.
 * (3) Time to Answer After a Waiver. A defendant who, before being served with process, timely returns a waiver need not serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the request was sent—or until 90 days after it was sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States.
 * (4) Results of Filing a Waiver. When the plaintiff files a waiver, proof of service is not required and these rules apply as if a summons and complaint had been served at the time of filing the waiver.
 * (5) Jurisdiction and Venue Not Waived. Waiving service of a summons does not waive any objection to personal jurisdiction or to venue.

(e) Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:
 * (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or
 * (2) doing any of the following:
 * (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally;
 * (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or
 * (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.

(f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
 * (1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;
 * (2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice:
 * (A) as prescribed by the foreign country’s law for service in that country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction;
 * (B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or
 * (C) unless prohibited by the foreign country’s law, by:
 * (i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; or
 * (ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a signed receipt; or
 * (3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.

(g) Serving a Minor or an Incompetent Person. A minor or an incompetent person in a judicial district of the United States must be served by following state law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the state where service is made. A minor or an incompetent person who is not within any judicial district of the United States must be served in the manner prescribed by Rule 4 (f)(2)(A), (f)(2)(B), or (f)(3).

(h) Serving a Corporation, Partnership, or Association. Unless federal law provides otherwise or the defendant’s waiver has been filed, a domestic or foreign corporation, or a partnership or other unincorporated association that is subject to suit under a common name, must be served:
 * (1) in a judicial district of the United States:
 * (A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4 (e)(1) for serving an individual; or
 * (B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and—if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires—by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant; or
 * (2) at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, in any manner prescribed by Rule 4 (f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i).

(i) Serving the United States and Its Agencies, Corporations, Officers, or Employees.
 * (1) United States. To serve the United States, a party must:
 * (A)
 * (i) deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States attorney for the district where the action is brought—or to an assistant United States attorney or clerical employee whom the United States attorney designates in a writing filed with the court clerk—or
 * (ii) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United States attorney’s office;
 * (B) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C.; and
 * (C) if the action challenges an order of a nonparty agency or officer of the United States, send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the agency or officer.
 * (2) Agency; Corporation; Officer or Employee Sued in an Official Capacity. To serve a United States agency or corporation, or a United States officer or employee sued only in an official capacity, a party must serve the United States and also send a copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail to the agency, corporation, officer, or employee.
 * (3) Officer or Employee Sued Individually. To serve a United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on the United States’ behalf (whether or not the officer or employee is also sued in an official capacity), a party must serve the United States and also serve the officer or employee under Rule 4 (e), (f), or (g).
 * (4) Extending Time. The court must allow a party a reasonable time to cure its failure to:
 * (A) serve a person required to be served under Rule 4 (i)(2), if the party has served either the United States attorney or the Attorney General of the United States; or
 * (B) serve the United States under Rule 4 (i)(3), if the party has served the United States officer or employee.

(j) Serving a Foreign, State, or Local Government.
 * (1) Foreign State. A foreign state or its political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality must be served in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608.
 * (2) State or Local Government. A state, a municipal corporation, or any other state-created governmental organization that is subject to suit must be served by:
 * (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer; or
 * (B) serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state’s law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant.

(k) Territorial Limits of Effective Service.
 * (1) In General. Serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant:
 * (A) who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located;
 * (B) who is a party joined under Rule 14 or 19 and is served within a judicial district of the United States and not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued; or
 * (C) when authorized by a federal statute.
 * (2) Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction. For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if:
 * (A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction; and
 * (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.

(l) Proving Service.
 * (1) Affidavit Required. Unless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the court. Except for service by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, proof must be by the server’s affidavit.
 * (2) Service Outside the United States. Service not within any judicial district of the United States must be proved as follows:
 * (A) if made under Rule 4 (f)(1), as provided in the applicable treaty or convention; or
 * (B) if made under Rule 4 (f)(2) or (f)(3), by a receipt signed by the addressee, or by other evidence satisfying the court that the summons and complaint were delivered to the addressee.
 * (3) Validity of Service; Amending Proof. Failure to prove service does not affect the validity of service. The court may permit proof of service to be amended.

(m) Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4 (f) or 4 (j)(1).

(n) Asserting Jurisdiction over Property or Assets.
 * (1) Federal Law. The court may assert jurisdiction over property if authorized by a federal statute. Notice to claimants of the property must be given as provided in the statute or by serving a summons under this rule.
 * (2) State Law. On a showing that personal jurisdiction over a defendant cannot be obtained in the district where the action is brought by reasonable efforts to serve a summons under this rule, the court may assert jurisdiction over the defendant’s assets found in the district. Jurisdiction is acquired by seizing the assets under the circumstances and in the manner provided by state law in that district.