text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/346

  Seth Ward, Salisbury, 1879; Wood's Athenæ Oxon., ed. Bliss, vol. i. p. clxx, iii. 588, 1209, iv. 246, 305, 512; Wood's Fasti Oxon., ed. Bliss, ii. 184; Biographia Britannica, 1766; Chauncy's Hist. of Hertfordshire, 1700, pp. 126, 127, 132; Clutterbuck's Hist. of Hertfordshire, 1827, iii. 356–9, 432, 437; Aubrey's Brief Lives, ed. Clark, 1898, ii. 183–90; Wood's Life and Times, passim, Oxford Hist. Soc.; Encyclopædia Brit. 8th ed. i. 611, 9th ed. xii. 36; Burnet's Hist. of his Own Time, 1823, i. 332, 391, iii. 136; Newcourt's Repert. Eccles. i. 387; Chandler's Hist. of Persecution, 1736, p. 384; Burnet's Letter to the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield about Anthony Harmer's Specimen, 1693, p. 10; Hutton's Phil. and Math. Dict. 1851; Warton's Life of Bathurst, 1761, p. 45; Robertson's Hobbes (Knight's Philosophical Classics), 1886, pp. 168–75; Oughtred's Clavis Mathematica, preface to 3rd ed.; D'Israeli's Quarrels of Authors, 1814, iii. 54, 96, 112, 307, 308; Pepys's Diary, ed. Braybrooke, iii. 429, iv. 155; Evelyn's Diary, ed. Bray, i. 290, ii. 176; Worthington's Life, ed. Crossley, passim; Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, 1714, ii. 159; Gardiner's Registers of Wadham College, i. 182; European Mag. 1792, ii. 341; Clerk's De Plenitudine Mundi, 1660.]

 WARD, THOMAS (1652–1708), controversialist, son of a farmer, was born at Danby Castle, near Guisborough, Yorkshire, on 13 April 1652, and educated at Pickering school. Afterwards he became tutor to the children of a gentleman of fortune. He had been brought up as a presbyterian or Calvinist, but his studies in theological controversy induced him to join the Roman catholic church. Subsequently he travelled in France and Italy. At Rome he accepted a commission in the pope's guards, and he remained in the service for five or six years, during which time he served in the maritime war against the Turks. In 1685 he returned to England. He took a leading part in the controversy of 1687–8, as a ‘Roman catholick soldier;’ but Dr. Tillotson believed he was really a jesuit in disguise, while Henry Wharton assured the public that the soldier was originally a Cambridge scholar, and had exchanged his black coat for a red one. He died in France in 1708, and was buried at St. Germain.

His works are: 1. ‘Speculum Ecclesiasticum; or, an ecclesiastical prospective glass, by T. Ward, a Roman Catholick Souldier,’ London [1686?], fol. Thomas Wharton wrote a reply to this. 2. ‘Some Queries to the Protestants, concerning the English Reformation. By T. W.,’ London, 1687, 4to. Dr. W. Clagett wrote a reply to this treatise. 3. ‘Monomachia; or a duel between Dr. Thomas Tenison, pastor of St. Martin's, and a Roman Catholick Souldier, wherein the “Speculum Ecclesiasticum” is defended,’ London, 1687, 4to. 4. ‘Errata to the Protestant Bible, or the Truth of the English Translations examined by T. W.,’ London, 1688, 4to; London, 1737, 4to; Dublin, 1807, 4to; Philadelphia, 1824, 8vo. This book is based on Gregory Martin's ‘Discouerie of the manifold corruptions of the Holy Scriptures by the heretiques of our daies,’ published at Rheims in 1582. The republication of the ‘Errata’ in Dublin, in 1807, with the sanction of the Irish bishops, elicited two answers, viz. ‘An Analysis of Ward's “Errata,”’ by Richard Ryan, D.D. (1808), and ‘An Answer to Ward's “Errata,”’ by Richard Grier, D.D. (1812). The work was again reprinted with a preface by Dr. Lingard in 1810, and also in 1841 with Lingard's preface, and a ‘Vindication’ by Bishop Milner in answer to Grier's ‘Reply.’ 5. ‘The Roman Catholic Soldier's Letter to Dr. Thomas Tenison,’ London, 1688. Tenison replied to this. Posthumous were: 6. ‘The Controversy of Ordination truly stated; as far as it concerns the Church of England as by law establish'd,’ London, 1719, 8vo. This was answered by David Williams in the ‘Succession of Protestant Bishops asserted,’ 1721, and by Thomas Elrington, afterwards bishop of Leighlin and Ferns, in the ‘Clergy of the Church of England truly ordained,’ 1808. 7. ‘England's Reformation (from the time of K. Henry VIII to the end of Oates's Plot): a Poem, in four cantos,’ Hamburg, 1710, 4to; London, 1715, 2 vols. 12mo; again 1716, 1719, and 1747. This Hudibrastic poem has passed through several other editions. 8. ‘An interesting Controversy with Mr. Ritschel, vicar of Hexham,’ published at Manchester, from Ward's manuscript, in 1819, 8vo. 9. ‘A Short Explanation of the Divine Office or Canonicall Hours,’ also ‘The Generall Rubricks of the Breviary or Directions how to say the Divine Office,’ Addit. MS. 28332. Ward is also said to have left in manuscript ‘A Confutation of Dr. Burnet's Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles’ and ‘A History of England.’

[Life prefixed to his Controversy with Ritschel (1819); Schroeder's Annals of Yorkshire, ii. 333; Catholicon, iv. 195; Dodd's Church Hist. iii. 459; Nichols's Lit. Anecd. i. 331 n.; Lowndes's Bibl. Man. (Bohn); D'Oyley's Life of Archbishop Sancroft, ii. 121; Kennett's Life, p. 145; Bibl. Anglo-Poetica, p. 422; Horne's Introd. to the Study of the Scriptures; Cotton's Rhemes and Doway; Retrospective Review, iii. 329; Lingard's Hist. of England (1849), x. 226; Jones's Popery Tracts.]

 WARD, THOMAS, of the Austrian Empire (1809–1858), groom and court favourite, was born in 1809 at


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jago, Richard

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


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/347

 , in Yorkshire, of humble parentage, and brought up as a groom and jockey. About 1823 he entered the stable of the Prince of Lichtenstein and went to Hungary. At that time he rode chiefly at Vienna. About 1827 he was recommended by his master to Charles Louis of Bourbon, duke of Lucca, a great lover of horses, who, attracted by his happy manner and witty speech, took him from the stable to become his personal groom and confidential servant. While in this position he suggested to his master, whose luxury and extravagance continually involved him in financial difficulties, that he might obtain assistance from Austria in return for political subservience. He brought about an arrangement in 1843 in a personal interview with Archduke Ferdinand. In 1846 he was promoted to be master of the horse and to be minister of the household and finance, with the title of baron. In these positions Ward showed undoubted ability, but his methods of administration were not too scrupulous. He is said to have sought popularity by arbitrarily lowering the price of corn, and the partial repudiation or ‘reduction’ of the debt of Lucca is also attributed to his counsels. In 1847, on the death of the Archduchess Marie Louise, duchess of Parma and former empress of the French, Ward was sent on a mission to Florence to superintend the details of the transfer of Lucca to Tuscany. In further accord with the convention of 1818 Charles Louis at the same time succeeded to the duchy of Parma.

At Parma Ward remained chief minister to the duke, and continued his subservience to the Austrian government. He was sent as ambassador-extraordinary to Spain in 1848 to negotiate the resumption of diplomatic relations, was well received by the queen, and created a knight grand cross of the order of Charles III. In the same year, on the accession of Francis Joseph, the emperor of Austria, he was deputed to congratulate him, and received the Iron Cross of Austria. On 20 May 1849 he brought about the abdication of his old patron and placed his son, Duke Charles III, on the throne of Parma. He was now sent as minister-plenipotentiary to represent the duchy at Vienna, and the emperor conferred on him the title of baron. Subsequently he came on a diplomatic mission to England, and impressed Palmerston with his tact and sagacity. Palmerston declared him to be one of the most remarkable men of the age. On 21 July 1853 he received a patent of concession of all the mining rights over iron and copper in the duchy.

In 1854 the Duke Charles III was assassinated in the gardens of his palace at Parma, and Ward was dismissed from all his offices, with some ignominy, on 27 March 1854. His late master's widow suspected that he had designs on the sovereignty of Parma. After his dismissal Ward claimed the protection of Austria, which was readily granted. For the rest of his life he devoted himself to farming near Vienna. He died on 5 Oct. 1858.

Ward, though a man of no education, acquired a fluent knowledge of German, Italian, and French. He married a Viennese girl in a humble station of life and left four children.

[Temple Bar, December 1897; Gent. Mag. 1858, ii. 535; Massei's Storia Civile di Lucca, ii. 283, to end, passim; Tivaroni's Italia degli Italiani, pp. 126 sqq.; Bianchi's Storia documentata della diplomat. Europ. in Italia, p. 42; Lord Lamington's In the Days of the Dandies, 1890, pp. 56–61.]  WARD or WARDE, WILLIAM (1534–1604?), physician and translator, born at Landbeach, Cambridgeshire, in 1534, was educated at Eton, whence he was elected scholar of King's College, Cambridge, 13 Aug. 1550. On 14 Aug. 1553 he became fellow. He proceeded B.A. in 1553–4, and M.A. in 1558. On 27 Feb. 1551–2 the provost of his college requested him to take up the study of medicine, and he became M.D. in 1567. In 1568 he vacated his fellowship. His name is attached to the petition signed in 1572 against the new statutes of the university. Letters patent dated from Westminster, 8 Nov. 1596 (, xvi. 303), appoint ‘Willielmus Warde’ and William Burton ‘readers in medicine or the medical art’ in the university of Cambridge, with a stipend of 40l. The document speaks of the position as hitherto held, under letters patent, by Ward alone. Ward is mentioned again in 1601 in a list of Cambridge officials as queen's professor of physic. The list occurs at the end of a ‘Project for the Government of the University of Cambridge’ (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1601–3, p. 116). It is probably in virtue of his official post at Cambridge that Ward is spoken of as physician to Queen Elizabeth and King James. He probably died soon after James's accession. In 1590 he gave to the parish of Great St. Mary, Cambridge, seven and a half acres of arable land in ‘Howsfield,’ and two acres of meadow land in Chesterton.

Ward was author of: 1. ‘The Secretes of the Reverende Maister Alexis Piemont. Containyng excellent remedies against divers diseases and other accidents, with


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jaguar

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jaguar


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/111

Plate ε, Number 26


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/348

 the manner to make distillations, parfumes, confitures, diynges, colours, fusions, and meltynges. … Translated out of French into English by William Warde. Imprinted at London by John Kingstone for Nicolas Inglande, dwellinge in Poules Churchyarde, Anno 1558. Mens. Novemb.,’ b.l., 4to. This apparently is the first edition of this work, containing only the first part, and consisting of six books. There is another edition (, Typogr. Antiq. ed. Herbert, ii. 844) ‘Londini, Anno 1559, 12 die Mens. Novemb.,’ printed ‘by H. Sutton, dwelling in Paternoster rowe at the signe of the blacke Moryan, Anno 1559;’ and yet another (Brit. Mus. Libr. Cat.), also in 1559, ‘imprinted for J. Wight, Londini.’ These contain a dedicatory letter by Ward to the Earl of Bedford, notable for its protest against the folly of ‘some curious Christians among us nowadays … which most impudently despise all manner of medicines,’ and for its defence of the ‘heavenly science’ of physic. Ward mentions Christopher Plantin's edition of a French translation (Antwerp, 1557) as his original. The work itself has not much claim to scientific method or accuracy, but became very popular as a treasury of medical and other knowledge in all the countries of Europe. The identity of Alessio of Piedmont has not been satisfactorily settled. Of this first part numerous editions were published in England. In 1580 it is ‘newlie corrected and amended and also somewhat enlarged in certain places.’ W. Stansby printed an edition in 1615. This first part of the ‘Secrets’ occurs usually bound up with ‘The Seconde Parte of the Secrets of Maister Alexis of Piemont, by him collected out of divers excellent authors and newly translated out of French into English. With a general table of all the matters contayned in the sayde Booke. By Will. Warde,’ b.l., n.d., 4to, and 1560, and 1563. This is usually followed by ‘The thyrde and last parte of the Secretes of the Reverende Maister Alexis of Piemont … Englished by Wyllyam Warde,’ 1562, 4to, 1566, 1588, and 1615. This contains six books, like the first part. Here Ward's work seems to have ended; but in many copies of the book a fourth and fifth part are added, translated by R. Androse. 2. ‘Thre notable sermones made by the godly and famous Clerke, Maister John Calvyn, on thre severall Sondayes in Maye, the yere 1561, upon the Psalm 46. … Englished by William Warde. Printed at London by Rouland Hill, dwellynge in Gutter Lane, at the sygne of the halfe Egle and the Keye,’ 1562, 16mo, b.l. 3. ‘The most excellent, profitable, and pleasaunt Booke of the famous doctor and expert astrologian Arcandam or Aleandrin, to finde the fatall destiny, constellation, complexion, and naturall inclination of every man and childe by his birth. With an addition of Phisiognomy, very pleasant to read. Now newly tourned out of French into our vulgar tongue by William Warde,’ London, 1578, 8vo, 1592, 1626, 1630, 1670. This is a work translated into Latin from ‘a confused and indistinct’ original by Richard Roussat, ‘Canonicus Lingoniensis,’ and published at Paris in 1542. There is a copy of Latin verses by Ward before James Robothum's ‘Pleausaunt and wittie Playe of the Cheastes [i.e. chess] … Lately translated out of Italian into French: and now set furth in Englishe,’ London, 1562. Possibly Ward translated the French (, Typogr. Antiq. ed. Herbert, ii. 803–4). ‘Gods Arrowes, or two Sermons concerning the Visitation of God by the Pestilence,’ London, 1607, 8vo, attributed in the ‘British Museum Catalogue’ to William Warde, are by a London minister of that name who can hardly have been identical with the Cambridge professor.

 WARD, WILLIAM (1769–1823), missionary, born at Derby on 20 Oct. 1769, was the son of John Ward, a carpenter and builder of that town, and grandson of Thomas Ward, a farmer at Stretton, near Burton in Staffordshire. His father died while he was a child, and the care of his upbringing devolved on his mother, a woman of great energy of character and of exemplary piety. He was placed with a schoolmaster named Congreve, near Derby, and afterwards with another named Breary. On leaving school he was bound apprentice to a printer and bookseller of Derby named Drewry, with whom he continued two years after the expiry of his indentures, assisting him to edit the ‘Derby Mercury.’ He then removed to Stafford, where he assisted Joshua Drewry, a relative of his former master, to edit the ‘Staffordshire Advertiser;’ and in 1794 or 1795 proceeded to Hull, where he followed his business as a printer, and was for some time editor of the ‘Hull Advertiser.’

Ward early in life became an anabaptist, and on 26 Aug. 1796, after many troubles of heart—‘fierce volcano fires not to be quenched by a mere sprinkling of words’—he was baptised at Hull. Preaching constantly in the neighbouring villages, he became known as a man of promise, and, with


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/113

Plate ζ, Number 27


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jahanabad

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jahanabad


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/349

 the assistance of a member of the baptist community named Fishwick, he proceeded in August 1797 to Ewood Hall, near Halifax in Yorkshire, the theological academy of John Fawcett (1740–1817) [q. v.], where he studied for a year and a half. In the autumn of 1798 the baptist mission committee visited Ewood, and Ward offered himself as a missionary, influenced perhaps by a remark made to him in 1793 by William Carey (1761–1834) [q. v.] concerning the need of a printer in the Indian mission field. He sailed from England in the Criterion in May 1799, in company with Joshua Marshman [q. v.] On arriving at Calcutta he was prevented from joining Carey by an order from government, and was obliged to proceed to the Danish settlement of Serampúr, where he was joined by Carey.

In India Ward's time was chiefly occupied in superintending the printing press, by means of which the scriptures, translated into Bengáli, Mahratta, Tamil, and twenty-three other languages, were disseminated throughout India. Numerous philological works were also issued. Ward found time, however, to keep a copious diary and to preach the gospel to the natives. Until 1806 he made frequent tours among the towns and villages of the province, but after that year the increasing claims of the press on his time, and the extension of the missionary labours in Serampúr and Calcutta, prevented him quitting headquarters. In 1812 the printing office was destroyed by fire. It contained the types of all the scriptures that had been printed, to the value of at least ten thousand pounds. The moulds for casting fresh type, however, were recovered from the débris, and by the liberality of friends in Great Britain the loss was soon repaired.

In 1818 Ward, having been for some time in bad health, revisited England. He was entrusted with the task of pleading for funds with which to endow a college at Serampúr for the purpose of instructing natives in European literature and science. He undertook a series of journeys through England and Scotland, and also visited Holland and North Germany. In October 1820 he embarked for New York, and travelled through the United States, returning to England in April 1821. On 28 May he sailed for India in the Alberta, bearing 3,000l. for the new college, which had been founded during his absence, and which is still successfully carried on. He died of cholera at Serampúr on 7 March 1823, and was interred in the mission burial-ground. On 10 May 1802 he was married at Serampúr to the widow of John Fountain, a missionary, by whom he left two daughters.

Besides sermons, Ward was the author of: 1. ‘Account of the Writings, Religion, and Manners of the Hindoos,’ Serampúr, 1811, 4 vols. 4to; 5th edit., abridged, Madras, 1863, 8vo. 2. ‘Farewell Letters in Britain and America on returning to Bengal in 1821,’ London, 1821, 12mo; 2nd edit. 1821. 3. ‘Brief Memoir of Krishna-Pal, the first Hindoo, in Bengal, who broke the Chain of the Cast by embracing the Gospel;’ 2nd edit., London, 1823, 12mo. He was also the author of several sonnets and short poems which were printed as an appendix to a memoir of him by Samuel Stennett. A portrait, engraved by R. Baker from a painting by Overton, is prefixed to the same work.

[Stennett's Memoirs of the Life of William Ward, 1825; Memoir of William Ward, Philadelphia; Simpson's Life prefixed to ‘View of History, Literature, and Religion of the Hindoos,’ 1863; Marshman's Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1864.]

WARD, WILLIAM (1766–1826), engraver, elder brother of James Ward (1769–1859) [q. v.], was born in London in 1766. He became a pupil of John Raphael Smith [q. v.], for whom he afterwards worked as an assistant. Ward became a very distinguished engraver, working occasionally in stipple, but chiefly in mezzotint, and his best plates are remarkable for their artistic and effective treatment. These include portraits of David Wilkie and Patrick Brydone, both after A. Geddes; daughters of Sir Thomas Frankland, after Hoppner; and Horne Tooke, after J. R. Smith; ‘Sleeping Nymph,’ after Hoppner; ‘The Snake in the Grass,’ after Reynolds; ‘The Blind Beggar of Bednall Green,’ after W. Owen; and a series of about twenty remarkably fine transcripts of pictures by his brother-in-law Morland, which are now much prized. He engraved many portraits from pictures by contemporary artists; also some historical and domestic subjects after Bol, Honthorst, Rubens, Bigg, Copley, Peters, J. Ward, R. Westall, and others, and several of the plates in ‘Gems of Art.’ From his own designs he executed in stipple a few charming female figures in the style of J. R. Smith. Ward was elected an associate of the Royal Academy in 1814, and he also held the appointment of mezzotint-engraver to the prince regent and the Duke of York. He lived latterly in Warren Street, Fitzroy Square, and there he died suddenly on 1 Dec. 1826. In 1786 he married Maria Morland, sister of George Morland [q. v.], who at the same time married Ward's sister Anne. Ward


text:
Page:Messages and Letters of William Henry Harrison Vol. 1.djvu/20

xvi


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/115

Plate ζ, Number 28


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/350

 had two sons—Martin Theodore, noticed below, and [q. v.]

The son, (1799?–1874), painter, was born about 1799. He studied under Landseer, and painted dogs and horses. He exhibited at the Royal Academy from 1820 to 1825, and afterwards occasionally at the British Institution up to 1858. He died in poverty at York on 13 Feb. 1874.

WARD, WILLIAM (1787–1849), financier, born at Highbury Place, Islington, in July 1787, was the second son of George Ward (d. 1829), of Northwood Park, Cowes, a London merchant and large landowner in the Isle of Wight and Hampshire, by his wife Mary (d. 1813), daughter of [q. v.] [q. v.] was William's uncle.

William was educated at Winchester College. He was destined for commerce, and spent some time at Antwerp in a banking-house. On his return his father took him into partnership in 1810. In 1817 he was elected a director of the bank of England, and distinguished himself by his accurate knowledge of foreign exchanges. In 1819 he gave evidence before the parliamentary committees on the restrictions on payments in cash by the bank of England. On 9 June 1826 he was returned to parliament in the tory interest for the city of London, and in 1830 at the request of the Duke of Wellington, he acted as chairman of the committee appointed to investigate the affairs of the East India Company preparatory to the opening of the China trade. In 1831, discontented at the spirit of reform, he declined to stand for parliament. In 1835 he presented himself as a candidate, and was defeated by the whigs. From that period he retired from public life. In 1847 he published a treatise entitled ‘Remarks on the Monetary Legislation of Great Britain’ (London, 8vo), in which he condemned the act of 1816 establishing an exclusive gold standard, and called for a bi-metallic currency. Ward was a famous cricketer, and patron of the game. He made at that time the unequalled score of 278, on Lord's ground 24 July 1820, for the M.C.C. against Norfolk. In 1825 Ward bought the lease of Lord's ground to save it from builders' speculation. He continued to play occasionally down to 1845.

Ward died on 30 June 1849 in London at Wyndham Place. On 26 April 1811 he married Emily, fifth daughter of Harvey Christian Combe, a London alderman. She died on 24 Sept. 1848, leaving four sons— [q. v.], Henry Ward, Matthew Ward, and Arthur Ward—and two daughters.

WARD, WILLIAM GEORGE (1812–1882), Roman catholic theologian and philosopher, eldest son of (1787–1849) [q. v.], was born in London on 21 March 1812. He was educated at a private school at Brook Green, Hammersmith; at Winchester College, which he entered in 1823 and left in 1829, taking with him the gold medal for Latin prose; and at Oxford, where he matriculated from Christ Church on 26 Nov. 1830, was elected to a scholarship at Lincoln College in 1833, graduated B.A., and was elected fellow of Balliol College in 1834. He took holy orders in due course.

At school Ward evinced extraordinary aptitude for mathematics—he even discovered and applied for himself the principle of logarithms. He exhibited, too, a marked preponderance of the reflective over the imaginative faculty; a singular sensibility to music, a lively interest in dramatic performances of all kinds, and a vein of unobtrusive and deep piety—characteristics which he retained throughout life in their original proportion. At Oxford, with three other Wykehamists— (afterwards Earl of Selborne) [q. v.], [q. v.], and (afterwards Viscount Sherbrooke) [q. v.]—he distinguished himself as an easy and powerful speaker in the debates of the Union Society, of which in Michaelmas term 1832 he was president. He was also a member of the short-lived Rambler Club. In the dialectical encounters of which the Balliol common-room was the nightly scene, he developed the dexterity and subtlety of intellectual fence of a mediæval doctor invincibilis. In these disputations his principal antagonist was Archibald Campbell Tait, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, with whom an ever widening divergence of opinions by no means impaired the cordiality of his friendship.

Though only lecturer in mathematics and logic, he was early associated with Tait in the work of superintending the moral and religious training of the undergraduates. He had the faculty of winning the confidence of his juniors, and his conversation was felt as a potent stimulus by men of a fibre very unlike his own—by Benjamin Jowett, by [q. v.], and [q. v.] Too potent it proved


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/117

Plate η, Number 29


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/351

 for Clough, who in 1839 escaped with relief from ‘the vortex of philosophism and discussion whereof Ward is the centre’ (Remains, i. 84).

In theology Ward's earliest proclivities were latitudinarian. Evangelical dogmatism he loathed, and communicated his disgust to his friend, Frederick Oakeley [q. v.] But acquiescence in the ‘broad’ ideas of Whately or Arnold was impossible for a systematic thinker of profoundly religious temperament, attracted on the one hand by John Stuart Mill and Auguste Comte, and on the other by Hurrell Froude and John Henry Newman. For Ward, therefore, submission to ecclesiastical guidance in some form or another very soon came to present itself as the only alternative to limitless rationalism. In his melancholy, his devoutness, and his union of a severely logical intellect with a craving for more concrete assurance in matters spiritual than reason can afford, he closely resembled Pascal, and could never have rested content with theism. In this stage of his mental history he fell under Newman's influence, and thenceforth to find the true church became his main concern in life. While thus occupied he visited Arnold (1838), and opened his mind to him. A prolonged discussion followed, by which Arnold was so exhausted that, on Ward's departure, he took a day's rest in bed.

Ward started on his new quest unembarrassed by insular prejudices or Anglican traditions, in profound ignorance of history and the inductive sciences, and without systematic theological training of any kind. Satisfied by Newman that no form of protestantism could possibly have developed into catholicism, he strode straight to the conclusion that the Tridentine decrees were authoritative, and that the church of England must therefore reconcile her articles with them, or abandon her pretension to be a branch of the catholic church. In Newman's famous Tract xc. he saw nothing to regret except its reserve; and in two pamphlets, ‘A few Words in Support of No. xc.,’ and ‘A few more Words in Support of No. xc.,’ Oxford, 1841, he boldly claimed the right of substituting for the natural meaning of the articles his own conjectures as to the real intent of their framers [see ]. On account of these pamphlets Ward was deprived of his lectureships and quasi tutorial position at Balliol, a degradation to which he submitted with great good humour. He was appointed, however, junior bursar in 1841 and senior bursar in 1842.

Meanwhile Ward engaged in frequent colloquies with Newman at Littlemore, in which Ward's impetuous logic caused some distress to the more cautious and delicate spirit of his master. At the same time Ward was gaining by visits to Oscott, Grace-Dieu, and St. Edmund's College, Ware, some slight experience of the life of the Roman church, which, congenial from the first, became more so as the hope of corporate reunion faded away. The trend of his thought was manifest in the articles—‘Arnold's Sermons,’ ‘Whately's Essays,’ ‘Heurtley's Four Sermons,’ ‘Goode's Divine Rule,’ ‘St. Athanasius against the Arians’—which during this period (1841–3) he contributed to the ‘British Critic,’ and which evoked a protest from William Palmer (1803–1885) [q. v.] Ward's reply to so much as concerned himself in Palmer's ‘Narrative’ was a bulky volume entitled ‘The Ideal of a Christian Church considered in comparison with Existing Practice’ (Oxford, 1844, 8vo). In this clumsily written, ill-digested, but powerful work, which gained its author the sobriquet of ‘Ideal Ward,’ he depicted the Roman communion as the all but perfect embodiment of the Christian idea and ethos. The evident exultation with which he instituted his comparisons with the protestant communions was peculiarly odious to English churchmen of all parties.

It was not, however, until the book had been widely read, reviewed, and discussed that the universities determined to take action. Ward was cited (30 Nov.) before the vice-chancellor and hebdomadal council, and asked whether he desired to disavow the book itself or certain specified portions of its contents. He was allowed three days to make up his mind, and on 3 Dec. declined to commit himself in any way until he knew what further proceedings were to be taken against him. The vice-chancellor thereupon censured (13 Dec.) the selected passages as inconsistent with the Thirty-nine articles and the good faith of the author. This censure was formally adopted by convocation assembled in the Sheldonian theatre on 13 Feb. 1845, and Ward, who defended himself with great spirit and ability, was degraded by a large majority. A subsequent resolution condemnatory of Tract xc. was vetoed by the proctors.

Of the legality of the degradation there was grave doubt; but Ward, instead of applying for a mandamus for his restitution, resigned his fellowship, married, and took a cottage at Rose Hill, near Oxford. With his wife he was received into the Roman communion in the jesuit chapel, Bolton Street, London, on 5 Sept., and confirmed


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/119

Plate θ, Number 30


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/352

 by Cardinal Wiseman at Oscott on 14 Sept. 1845. In the following year he took up his quarters in a small house built for him by Pugin near St. Edmund's College, Ware. He found at first no work in the college; but he turned his leisure to good account in theological study and religious exercise; nor did he lose touch of wider interests. Two articles by him in the ‘Tablet’ (24 June and 15 July 1845) on the ‘Political Economy’ of John Stuart Mill led to an introduction to Mill, who had highly appreciated Ward's earlier review of his ‘Logic’ in the ‘British Critic’ (October 1843), and had read the ‘Ideal’ with interest. The two men had little in common except the qualities of intellectual thoroughness and perfect candour; for though in economics (the population question excepted) Ward was content to sit at Mill's feet, his docility was largely due to ignorance; and in logic and metaphysics, though his views were as yet crude, they tended in a direction as far as possible removed from empiricism. Their personal intercourse was inconsiderable; but an irregular correspondence was maintained until shortly before Mill's death.

In October 1851 Ward was appointed lecturer in moral philosophy, and in the following year professor—though his modesty declined any higher title than that of assistant-lecturer in dogmatic theology—in St. Edmund's College. This anomalous position he owed to Cardinal Wiseman, by whom he was sustained in it, against a strong opposition both within and without the college.

At Rome, where Ward had a staunch and influential friend in Monsignor Talbot, the appointment was approved, and in 1854 Ward received from the pope the diploma of Ph.D. His lectures were carefully studied with a view not only to the needs of his pupils, but to the construction of a systematic treatise ‘On Nature and Grace.’ Only the philosophical introduction to the projected work saw the light (London, 1860, 8vo); but the vigour of its polemic against agnosticism and of its defence of independent morality, established Ward's reputation as a thinker (cf., Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, 6th ser. p. 209 n.). Ward resigned his lectureship at St. Edmund's College in 1858, and for three years resided at Northwood Park, to which, with another estate in the Isle of Wight, he had succeeded on the death of his uncle in 1849. From the irksome business of managing his property he found relief in occasional visits to London, where he became intimate with [q. v.] Meanwhile he closely observed the signs of the times, and prepared himself for the polemics in which the rest of his life was to be passed. His aversion from liberalism, even in the mild form represented within the church by Döllinger, Montalembert, and the ‘Rambler Review,’ edited (from 1859) by Sir John (now Lord) Acton, became intense; and in 1861 he returned to his former quarters, near St. Edmund's College, with a mind made up to wage war to the knife against it. His crusade was carried on chiefly in the ‘Dublin Review,’ which he raised from decadence and edited with conspicuous success from 1863 to 1878. In its pages he defended the encyclical ‘Quanta Cura’ and ‘Syllabus Errorum’ of 1864, and led the extreme wing of the ultramontane party in the controversy on papal infallibility. He speculated freely on the extent of infallibility, and reduced the interpretative functions of the ‘schola theologorum’ to a minimum. His startling conclusions he enunciated with the serenity of a philosopher and defended with the vehemence of a fanatic. The mortification caused him by the triumph of the moderate party at the Vatican council was salved by a brief conveying the papal commendation and benediction (4 July 1870). The heat evolved in this controversy, and also the part he took in frustrating the scheme for a catholic hall at Oxford, strained his relations with Newman, for whom he nevertheless retained in secret his old veneration. His horror of liberalism carried him to the verge of obscurantism. He gravely proposed to dethrone the classics from their place of honour in the higher culture, and suggested that the progress of science would probably be accelerated by the submission of hypotheses to papal censorship. On Wiseman's death all the influence which Ward possessed at Rome was exerted to secure the appointment of Manning to the see of Westminster. Both men were at one in their detestation of the modern spirit and their unswerving loyalty to the holy see, though Manning was far too cautious a controversialist to imitate Ward's intemperate tone or explicitly identify himself with Ward's extreme positions.

As a philosopher Ward throughout life exhibited a largeness of mind, a temperateness of tone, and a generosity of temper in striking contrast to his theological narrowness and intolerance. In the Metaphysical Society, of which he was a founder (March 1869), president (1870), and while health permitted a mainstay, he showed himself a disputant as fair, genial, and generous as he was keen, dexterous, and unsparing; and the same characteristics are apparent not only in the fragment ‘On Nature and Grace,’


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/121

Plate ι, Number 31


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/353

 but in the ‘Essays on the Philosophy of Theism,’ reprinted from the ‘Dublin Review’ (ed. Wilfrid Ward, London, 1884, 2 vols. 8vo), in which he attempted the reconstruction of metaphysics in opposition to the then prevalent empiricism. In these remarkable prolegomena—the substantive argument was never cast into shape—Ward substitutes for the appeal to experience a canon of certitude essentially Cartesian; but while maintaining that the ultimately indubitable is necessarily true, he declines to admit that the ultimately inconceivable is necessarily false. With Kant (though rather perhaps by way of coincidence than of obligation) he insists on the universal presuppositions of experience and experimental science; the foundation of ethics he lays in an intuition of ‘moral goodness’ and resultant ‘moral axioms;’ on the question of liberty and necessity he adopts a middle course, admitting determinism so far as the will obeys ‘the predominant spontaneous impulse,’ but finding place for freedom in ‘anti-impulsive’ effort.

Ward's declining years were passed chiefly on his estate, Weston Manor, Freshwater, Isle of Wight, in the intimate society of his near neighbour, Tennyson. The operatic season he usually spent at Hampstead, where he had congenial friends in Richard Holt Hutton, editor of the ‘Spectator,’ and Baron Friedrich von Hügel. There, after a prolonged and painful illness, he died on 6 July 1882. His remains rest beneath a stone octagon base supporting a Gothic cross in Weston Manor catholic churchyard. ‘Fidei propugnator acerrimus,’ so runs the inscription; but the words, though apt, indicate only a small part of a complex character. His best epitaph is by Tennyson (Demeter and other Poems, edit. 1893, p. 281): Farewell, whose living like I shall not find, Whose faith and work were bells of full accord, My friend, the most unworldly of mankind, Most generous of all ultramontanes, Ward, How subtle at tierce and quart of mind with mind, How loyal in the following of thy Lord.’

By his wife, Frances Mary, youngest daughter of John Wingfield, prebendary of Worcester, whom he married on 31 March 1845, Ward had issue, besides five daughters, of whom three took the veil, three sons: 1. Edmund Granville, b. 9 Nov. 1853, appointed private chamberlain in 1888 to Leo XIII; 2. Wilfrid Philip, his father's biographer, b. 2 Jan. 1856; 3. Bernard Nicholas, b. 4 Feb. 1857, priest since 1882, and since 1893 president of St. Edmund's College, Ware. Ward's widow died in August 1898 (cf. Tablet, 13 Aug. 1898).

Besides the works mentioned above, Ward was the author of: 1. ‘Three Letters to the Editor of the “Guardian;” with a preliminary paper on the Extravagance of certain Allegations which imply some similarity between the Anglican Establishment and some Branch existing at some Period of the Catholic Church. And a preface including some Criticism of Professor Hussey's Lectures on the Rise of the Papal Power,’ London, 1852, 8vo. 2. ‘The Relation of Intellectual Power to Man's True Perfection considered in two Essays read before the English Academy of the Catholic Religion,’ London, 1858; reprinted in ‘Essays on Religion and Literature,’ ed. Manning, 2nd series, London, 1867, 8vo. 3. ‘The Authority of Doctrinal Decisions which are not definitions of Faith considered in a short series of Essays reprinted from the “Dublin Review,”’ London, 1866, 8vo. 4. ‘A Letter to Father Ryder,’ and ‘A Second Letter to Father Ryder,’ London, 1867, 8vo; followed by ‘A Brief Summary of the recent Controversy on Infallibility: being a reply to Rev. Father Ryder on his Postscript,’ London, 1868, 8vo. 5. ‘De Infallibilitatis Extensione theses quasdam et quæstiones theologorum judicio subjicit G. G. W.’ London, 1869, 8vo. 6. ‘Strictures on Mr. Ffoulkes's Letter to Archbishop Manning’ (on the filioque question, from the ‘Dublin Review’), London, 1869, 8vo. 7. ‘The Condemnation of Pope Honorius: an essay republished and newly arranged from the “Dublin Review,”’ London, 1879, 8vo. 8. ‘Essays on the Church's Doctrinal Authority, mostly reprinted from the “Dublin Review,”’ London, 1880, 8vo. [For Ward's life the principal authorities are: Wilfrid Ward's William George Ward and the Oxford Movement (1889), with portrait, and William George Ward and the Catholic Revival (1893), with portrait; the same author's Life of Cardinal Wiseman; Church's Oxford Movement; Newman's Letters, ed. Anne Mozley; Abbott and Campbell's Life of Benjamin Jowett; Prothero's Life of A. P. Stanley; Mozley's Reminiscences of Oriel College and the Oxford Movement, ii. 5, 225; Liddon's Life of E. B. Pusey; Martin's Life of Viscount Sherbrooke; Browne's Annals of the Tractarian Movement, 3rd edit., pp. 106, 561; Illustrated London News, 15 and 22 Feb. 1845; Tablet, 13 and 27 Sept. 1845, 8 and 15 July 1882; Times, 26 April, 1 Sept. 1845; Gent. Mag. 1845, i. 644; Ann. Reg. 1882, ii. 138; Dublin Review, lxxxvii. 115, cv. 243, cxv. 1; Edinburgh Rev. lxxxi. 385, lxxxviii. 172, clxxviii. 331; Quart. Rev. clxix. 356; Church Quart. Rev. xxxvii. 67; London


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/123

Plate κ & Λ, Number 32


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/125

Plate (1-8) Number 33


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/127

Plate (9-17) Number 34


text: Folk-Lore/Volume 30/Review/Rondes Enfantines et Quétes Saisonnières


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/129

Plate (18-28) Number 35


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/354

 Quart. Rev. lxxiii. 130; Burke's Landed Gentry, ‘Ward;’ Royal Kalendar, 1818 p. 315, 1829 p. 303. For criticism and elucidation of Ward's philosophical views see Mill's Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, 4th edit., p. 209, and Logic, 9th edit. ii. 109; Bain's Emotions of the Will, 3rd edit., p. 498; and J. S. Mill: A Criticism, p. 121; also Mind, v. 116, 226, 264, vi. 107; Contemporary Review, xxv. 44, 527; Nineteenth Century, iii. 530; British Quarterly Review, lxxx. 389; London Quarterly Review, new ser. No. 8.]

 WARD, WILLIAM JAMES (1800?–1840), mezzotint engraver, born about 1800, was the son of William Ward (1766–1826) [q. v.], by his wife Maria, sister of George Morland [q. v.] Under his father's teaching his talent for art showed itself very early, and he gained three medals from the Society of Arts for drawings (1813–15). He became engraver to the Duke of Clarence (afterwards William IV). He engraved ‘The Marriage of St. Catherine,’ after Van Dyck; ‘The Infant Hercules,’ after Reynolds; ‘Garrick in the Green-room,’ after Hogarth, and numerous portraits after John Jackson and others, among them those of Prince George of Cambridge, Earl Grey, Admiral Durham, Lady Anne Vernon Harcourt, Sir John Conroy, George Canning, Thomas Moore, and John Jackson. He became insane some time before his death, which took place on 1 March 1840.

 WARD-HUNT, GEORGE (1825-1877), politician. [See .]

WARDE, HENRY (1766–1834), general, born on 7 Jan. 1766, was the fourth son of John Warde (1721–1775) of Squerryes, by his second wife, Kitty Anne (d. 1767), daughter and sole heiress of Charles Hoskins of Croydon, Surrey. The family is descended from a younger branch of that established at Hooton Pagnell in Yorkshire.

Henry entered the army as an ensign in the 1st foot guards in 1783, and on 6 July 1790 was promoted to a lieutenancy with the brevet rank of captain. In the following year he accompanied his regiment to Holland, but was so severely wounded at the siege of Valenciennes that he was compelled to return to England. He rejoined his regiment in June 1794, and continued to serve with it, acting as adjutant to the third battalion, until his promotion to a company, with the brevet rank of lieutenant-colonel, on 15 Oct. 1794, when he was sent home.

He served in the expeditions to Ostend and the Helder, and received the brevet rank of colonel on 1 Jan. 1801. In 1804 he was nominated brigadier-general, and in 1807 took part in the expedition to Copenhagen, his name being included in the votes of thanks from both houses of parliament. In the following year he obtained the rank of major-general. He commanded the first brigade of foot guards sent to Spain in 1808 with the force under Sir David Baird [q. v.], and returned to England in 1809 after the battle of Coruña, his name again appearing in the parliamentary vote of thanks. He also received a medal for his services. In the same year he was sent to India, and served under Lieutenant-general (afterwards Sir John) Abercromby (1772–1817) [q. v.] at the capture of Mauritius in 1810. He remained there for some time in command of the troops, and acted as governor from 9 April to 12 July 1811. For his services at the conquest of the island he once more received the thanks of parliament. In 1813 he was appointed to the colonelcy of the 68th foot, and in the same year was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general. On the enlargement of the order of the Bath on 2 Jan. 1815 he was nominated K.C.B. On 8 Feb. 1821 he was appointed governor of Barbados, in succession to Lord Combermere [see, first ]. He arrived in the island on 25 June, and continued in office until 21 June 1827. His administration was popular, although differences between the two branches of the legislature, the council and the house of assembly, at times made the governor's course difficult. The restlessness of the slaves, who were disturbed by rumours of emancipation, also occasioned him anxiety. In 1830 he attained the rank of general, and in 1831 was appointed colonel of the 31st foot. On 13 Sept. of the same year he was nominated G.C.B. He died at his residence, Dean House, near Alresford in Hampshire, on 1 Oct. 1834. On 18 May 1808 he was married to Molina (1776–1835), daughter of John Thomas of Hereford. By her he had five sons—Henry John, Edward Charles (who is noticed below), Frederick Moore, Walter, and Augustus William—and a daughter, Harriett (d. 1874), who on 4 May 1826 was married to Francis North, sixth earl of Guilford. After his death, on 29 Jan. 1861, she was married, secondly, to John Lettsom Elliott on 10 Feb. 1863.

(1810–1884), general, born on 13 Nov. 1810, was the second son of Sir Henry Warde. On 19 May 1828 he was gazetted second lieutenant in the royal artillery, and on 30 June


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/131

Plate (29-37) Number 36


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/133

Plate (a-e) Number 37


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/135

Plate (f-i) Number 38


text: Folk-Lore/Volume 30/Review/Études Archéologiques et Ethnologiques


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/137

Plate (k-n) Number 39


text:
Translation:The Evolution of Space and Time

The attention of the physicists was recently led towards the fundamental notions of space and time, as new experimental facts obliged us to alter them; nothing can better demonstrate the empirical origin of these notions than their progressive adaptation, still not finished, with the increasing subtlety of human experiments.

I would like to show that the form, usually insufficiently analyzed, in which these notions arose up to the present, was determined and conditioned by a particular and provisional synthesis of the world by the mechanistic theory. Our space and time were given as required by rational mechanics.

The new synthesis that is increasingly powerful, and which is represented by the electromagnetic theory of physical phenomena, corresponds to space and time (especially time) which are different from those of mechanics, and which are favored by our current means of experimental investigation. It is particularly remarkable that the increasing perfection of our measurement methods, which accuracy has been pushed beyond a billionth, obliges us to continue the adaptation to the facts of the most fundamental categories of our thought. For the philosopher, there is an excellent opportunity to penetrate the intimate nature of these categories, when they are still in the process of evolution, to see them living and transforming before his eyes.

There is neither space nor time à priori: to every moment, every level of perfection of our theories of the physical universe corresponds a conception of space and time. Mechanics implied the old conception, electromagnetism requires a new one, and nothing permits us to say that this is the definite one.

It is also difficult for our brain to get used to these new forms of thought: reflection is particularly delicate and can only be aided by the formation of an adequate language.

This is the task, for facilitating the evolution of mankind, for which today philosophers and physicists have to work together.

All living beings have the capability of internal and spontaneous expansion, that is even greater when they are better adapted to the milieu in which they arose. When, as a result of this expansion, an encounter takes place between individuals or species, there may be mutual adaptation, or, if accordance is impossible, a conflict resulting in the survival of the fittest, which generally assimilates the substance of the other and imposes it a new form that life seems to have judged better.

It is the same for our physical theories: some are particularly well established, have succeeded brilliantly in the interpretation and the grouping of a category of experimental facts, to which they impose a form; and then they develop (spontaneously and in agreement with this form) this rhythm of their own, by taking the already known but scattered facts as substance of the building which they construct, and those facts to which they are directed to learn, and finally those facts already established as synthesis in the form of various theories that will be absorbed by the new one after coming in conflict with them.

Just as the growth effort of living beings is facilitated by organic syntheses already realized in other beings that were absorbed, the new theory conserves and uses more or less completely the body of facts already established by the theories over which it triumphed.

We are now witnessing a conflict of this kind between two conceptions of the universe that are of particular importance and beauty: the rational mechanics of  and  on the one hand, and on the other hand the electromagnetic theory in the advanced form as it was given by, , and.

Rational mechanics was created for the interpretation of the phenomena of visible motion and it succeeded admirably. All the scientific effort of the eighteenth century and much of the nineteenth was devoted to extend this capability to explain all physical phenomena by applying these laws to the motions of various invisible material particles or fluids.

Thus developed the doctrine known as mechanics, by the fusion of rational mechanics and of the atomistic hypotheses. The success was great in certain domains, such as the kinetic theory of fluids for example, less in others such as elasticity and optics.

We shall not forget, that it was only the atomistic conception that was often made responsible for the failure of mechanics, today however it is definitively established by indisputable experimental facts, and its association with the electromagnetic theory proved its remarkable fertility in the last fifteen years. What really seems to be questionable, is the application of mechanical laws to the invisible motions, which were at first established for visible motions, and even for them it represents only a first approximation, albeit it is excellent.

The theory of electromagnetic phenomena such as we have it today, is certainly independent of the laws prescribed in the motion of matter by rational mechanics, although it appears to be involved in certain fundamental definitions: the best evidence of this independence is provided by the contradictions that currently exist between the two syntheses.

Electromagnetism is just as remarkably adapted to its original domain, as rational mechanics was adapted to its domain; with its notions of a very special medium that transmits the actions step by step, the electric and magnetic fields characterizing the state of this medium, with very particular forms of relations between the simultaneous variation of these fields in space and time; electromagnetism constitutes a discipline, a way of thinking that is quite different, quite separated from mechanics, and endowed with an immense force of expansion that has assimilated the immense domains of optics and radiant heat to which mechanics remained incapable, and every day it provokes new discoveries in this field. Electromagnetism has conquered much of physics, invaded chemistry, and grouped an immense number of facts that were hitherto formless and disconnected.

Of our two opposing theories, the first possesses the titles of nobility of a longstanding history, and the authority of having seen the verification of its laws by the most distant stars and the molecules of the most tenuous gas; the second which is younger and more alive, is much better adapted to the entirety of physics and possesses an inner force of growth that the other seems to have lost.

had thought, that it's possible to reconcile the two theories and to show that electromagnetic phenomena are susceptible of mechanistic interpretations; but his demonstration, made elsewhere on the particular case of phenomena presented by closed currents, proves only that the two syntheses share common characteristics, such as the common property of leaving certain integrals stationary, but they may remain irreconcilable with other characteristics.

These differing characteristics have been recently demonstrated by new experimental facts, by the negative result of all experiments, some of extraordinary delicacy, which were attempted to try to demonstrate the total uniform translational motion of a material system by experiences within this system, to show the absolute translational motion.

We knew already, and rational mechanics is perfectly consistent with this fact, that mechanical experiments on visible motions, performed within a material system, do not permit to demonstrate a uniform translational motion of the entire system, but on the contrary for rotational motion it can be achieved by the  pendulum or the gyroscope. In other words, according to the mechanical point of view, the collective uniform translation has no absolute sense, rotation on the contrary has one.

But within a material system, other experiments can be tried which involve electromagnetic or optical phenomena. Electromagnetic theory involves a medium for its explanation, the aether, which transmits the electrical and magnetic actions and in which electromagnetic disturbances (light in particular) propagate with a determined velocity.

It was hoped that if a material system moves with a uniform translation in respect to this medium, electromagnetic or optical experiments inside the system permit the demonstration of this translation.

As the Earth, in its annual motion, possesses a translation velocity which is constantly varying by amounts of up to sixty kilometers per second for the relative velocity corresponding to two diametrically opposed positions of the globe in the orbit, it was hoped that at least at certain times of the year, observers on Earth and their equipment will move in relation to the aether with a velocity of this order and might be able to demonstrate their motion.

This could be expected, because by combining the fundamental equations of electromagnetism, which were believed to be accurate for stationary observers in the aether, with the ordinary notions of space and time as required by rational mechanics, that these equations would change their form to observers moving in the aether, and the differences for velocities like that of Earth in its orbit should be visible in certain experiments of extraordinary delicacy.

But the result was found consistently negative, and independent of any interpretation, we can state as an experimental fact the contents of the following principle, namely that of relativity:

If different groups of observers are in uniform translation against each other (such as observers attached to Earth for different positions of the latter in its orbit) all mechanical and physical phenomena follow the same laws for all these groups of observers. None of them, by experiments inside of the material system to which they are attached, can demonstrate the uniform translation of the whole system.

From the electromagnetic point of view we can still say that the fundamental equations, in their usual form, are valid for all these groups of observers at the same time, that everything happens for each one as if it were stationary relative to the aether.

So it's an experimental fact that the equations between physical quantities by which we translate the laws of the outside world, must have exactly the same form for different groups of observers, for various systems of reference in uniform translation relative to each other.

This requires, in the language of mathematics, that these equations admit of a group of transformations corresponding to a change of reference system to another moving relative to it. The equations of physics must be preserved for all transformations of this group. In such a transformation, when one moves from one reference system to another, measures of various magnitudes, especially those that are related to space and time, are changed in a manner that corresponds to the structure of these notions.

Now the equations of rational mechanics actually admit of a group of transformations corresponding to the change of reference system, and the part of that group that is related to measurements of space and time is in accordance with the usual form of these notions.

It is the great merit of H. A. to have shown that the fundamental equations of electromagnetism also admit of a group of transformations that allow them to take the same form when we pass from a reference system to another; this group deeply differs from the preceding concerning the transformations of space and time.

We must choose: if we want to maintain an absolute value of the equations of rational mechanics and of space and time corresponding to them, we must consider as false those of electromagnetism, and reject the admirable synthesis that I mentioned above, and introduce for example an optical emission theory with all the difficulties it entails and which were dismissed over fifty years ago. However, if we want to keep electromagnetism, we must adapt our minds to new concepts that are required for space and time and consider rational mechanics as having no more than the value of a first approximation, but it is largely sufficient when it comes to motions which velocity does not exceed a few thousand kilometers per second. Electromagnetism, or the laws of mechanics admitting the same transformation group as it, alone permits to go further and take the important place of rational mechanics.

To better highlight the contrast between the two syntheses, it is easier to merge, as proposed by, the two notions of space and time in the more general notion of world.

The world is the ensemble of all events: an event consists in the fact that it happens, or there is something in a certain place at a certain moment. If a reference system is given, that is to say a system of axes connected with a certain group of observers, any event is determined in terms of its position in space and time by four coordinates measured in this reference system, three for space and one for time.

If two events measured in a certain reference system are given, they generally differ in both space and time, and occur in different places at different times. To a couple of events their corresponds a spatial distance (the points where the two events are happening) and a temporal interval.

We can define time by all the events that follow one another at one point, for example in the same portion of matter in relation to a reference system, and define space by all the simultaneous events. This definition of space corresponds in effect to that the shape of a moving body is defined by the set of simultaneous positions of the various portions of matter it contains, its various material points, or by all events posed by the simultaneous presence of these different material points. If we agree to call with the world line of a portion of matter that may be in motion relative to the reference system, all events that occur in that portion of matter, then the shape of a body at a given moment is determined by the set of simultaneous positions on the world lines of various material points which constitute this body.

The notion of simultaneity of events happening at different places is fundamental for the very definition of space when a body in motion is concerned, and this is generally the case.

In the ordinary conception of time one attributes to simultaneity an absolute sense, supposedly independent of the reference system; it is necessary that we analyze more closely the content of this generally tacit hypothesis.

Why do we usually not admit that two events that are simultaneous for a certain group of observers, may not be simultaneous for another group moving relative to the first, or, equivalently, why don't we admit that a change of reference system permits to reverse the order of temporal succession of two events?

This is obviously a consequence of our implicit admission, that if two successive events occur in a certain order for a given reference system, the one that occurred first would be able to intervene as a cause and change the conditions under which the second occurs, regardless of their spatial separation.

In these circumstances it is absurd to suppose that for other observers, for another reference system, the second event, the effect, may occur before its cause.

The absolute nature usually admitted to the notion of simultaneity is a consequence of the implicit hypothesis that causality can propagate with infinite velocity, the hypothesis that an event can occur simultaneously as cause at any distance.

This hypothesis is consistent with the mechanistic conception and since it is required by the concept of the perfect rigid body of rational mechanics, for example an inextensible bell cord that is interposed between the two points where the events occur, would instantly signal the occurrence of the first event to the point where the latter will occur, and would consequently allow to take the first in account, to utilize it as cause under the conditions which determine the second. So there is mutual adaptation of rational mechanics and ordinary conceptions of space and time in which the simultaneity of two distant events in space has an absolute sense.

We are therefore not surprised to find that in the transformation group which preserves the equations of mechanics, the time interval of two events is conserved, and it is measured in the same way by all groups of observers regardless of their relative motions.

It is different for the spatial distance: it's a simple fact and contained in the usual notions that the spatial distance of two events generally has no absolute sense and depends on the reference system that is used.

A concrete example will show how the spatial distance of the same two events may be different for different groups of observers in relative motion to each other. Imagine a hole in the floor of a car in motion relative to the ground, and then one drops two objects in succession: the two events that constitute the exits of the two objects through the hole, occur at the same point for observers related to the car, but at different points for observers related to the ground. The spatial distance of these two events is zero for the first observers, but for the other it is equal to the product of the velocity of the car with the time interval between the fall of the two objects.

Only if the two events are simultaneous their distance in space has an absolute sense so that they don't vary with the reference system. It follows immediately that the dimensions of an object, the length of a ruler for example, has also an absolute sense, and are the same for observers at rest or in motion relative to this object: we have noticed that for any observation, the length of a ruler is the distance between two simultaneous positions of the ends of the ruler, that is to say the spatial distance of two simultaneous events, two simultaneous occurrences of both ends of the ruler. We have seen that simultaneity, as well as the spatial distance of two simultaneous events, have an absolute sense in the usual conceptions of time and space.

Given any two successive events, i.e. two events separated in time, we can always find a reference system in which these two events coincide in space, with observers to whom these two events happen at one point. It will indeed be sufficient to give these observers, compared to the original reference system, a motion so that they attend the first event and next they attend the second event, so that for them the two events occur at the same point close to them; it suffices to give the observers a velocity equal to the ratio of the spatial distance to the time interval between both events in the original reference system, and this is always possible if the time interval is not zero, i.e. if the two events are not simultaneous.

What can be achieved for space, namely the coincidence of two events in space by a suitable choice of reference system, cannot be achieved for time since the time interval of two events has an absolute sense, it is measured in the same way in all reference systems.

There is an asymmetry between space and time as they are habitually given, that disappears in the new concepts: the interval in time, as well as the distance in space will become variable with the reference system, that is, with motion of the observers.

In the new concepts, only one case remains and must remain where the change of reference system is ineffective: it is where the two events coincide in both space and time: this double coincidence must indeed have an absolute sense since it is the encounter of the two events, and this encounter may produce a phenomenon, a new event, which necessarily has an absolute sense. Remember the previous example, if the two objects coming out of the car by the same hole, leave simultaneously i.e. if their endpoints coincide in both space and time, it may result in a shock and the breaking of the objects, and this shock phenomenon has an absolute sense, so that in any conception of the universe, electromagnetic or mechanical, the coincidence in both space and time if it exists for a group of observers, cannot be denied by another group regardless of their motion relative to the first. For those who see the car passing by, as for those who are there, the two objects will break each other because they come together at the same point.

Except for this very special case, it is easy to see that the electromagnetic conception requires a major overhaul of the notion of world. The equations of electromagnetism imply, in their usual form, that an electromagnetic disturbance, e.g. a light wave, propagates in vacuum with the same velocity in all directions, equal to three hundred thousand kilometers per second.

The newly established experimental facts have shown that if these equations are exact for a group of observers, they should also be exact for all others regardless of their motion relative to the first, resulting in the paradoxical fact that a light disturbance must be spread with the same velocity for different groups of observers in motion relative to each other. A first group of observers sees a light wave propagate in a certain direction with a velocity of three hundred thousand kilometers per second and sees another group of observers following this wave with an arbitrary velocity; however, for this second group, the light wave will move relative to them with the same velocity of three hundred thousand kilometers per second.

first showed how this necessary consequence of the electromagnetic theory is sufficient to determine the characteristics of space and time required by the new conception of the world. It is conceivable, according to the above, that the velocity of light must play an essential role in the new formulations: it is the only velocity that is preserved when passing from one reference system to another and plays in the electromagnetic world the role which is played by the infinite velocity in the mechanical world. This will be clear from the results that follow.

For any pair of events, changing the reference system changes both the distance in space and time interval, but in view of the importance of these changes, we are led to classify couples of events into two major categories for which time and space play symmetric roles.

The first category consists of pairs of events for which their spatial distance is greater than the path traveled by light during the time interval, that is to say, when the emission of light signals accompanies the production of two events, each will take place before the passage of the signal from the other. Such a relationship has an absolute sense, that is to say, it is valid for all reference systems, when it is valid for one of them.

The transformation equations required by the electromagnetic theory show, that in this case the order of succession of two events in time has no absolute sense. If, for a first reference system, the two events follow each other in a certain order, this order will be reversed for observers moving in respect to the first with a velocity less than that of light, that is to say at a physically attainable velocity.

It is evidently impossible for two events whose order of succession may be reversed, are united by a relation of cause and effect, because if such a relationship would exist between our two events, some observers would see the cause after the effect, which is absurd.

However, since the spatial distance of our two events is greater than the path traveled by light during their time interval, the first cannot be involved in the occurrence of the other and the second cannot be informed of the first, except if the causal connection could propagate with a velocity exceeding that of light. We must therefore, according to the above, eliminate this possibility: Causality, whatever its nature, must not propagate with a velocity exceeding that of light, there should be no messenger or signal which can travel at more than three hundred thousand kilometers per second.

We must therefore admit that an event cannot act instantly as a remote cause, that its impact can only be felt immediately on the position or the point where it took place, and subsequently at increasing distances, and increasing with at most the velocity of light. In this view, the new concept plays the same role that was played in the old concept by the infinite velocity, and represents the velocity limit at which causality can propagate.

Hence we see that the current antagonism between mechanics and electro-magnetism only manifests in a new form the opposition between two conceptions which followed one another in the development of electrical theories: that of instantaneous action at a distance consistent with mechanics, and transmission through a medium, by direct action as introduced by. This old opposition occurs nowadays even for the most fundamental concepts.

From the foregoing various consequences follow: firstly it is impossible for a portion of matter to move in relation to another with a velocity exceeding that of light. This paradoxical result is contained in the formulas that led to the new kinematics of velocities: the composition of any number of velocities below the velocity of light always gives a lower velocity than that of light. Similarly as in the ordinary conception, the composition of any number of finite velocities still gives a finite velocity.

We can say then that no action at a distance, as gravitation for example, can propagate faster than light and we know that this condition is not refuted by the astronomical results currently established.

Finally it is necessary to abandon the perfectly rigid body of mechanics in which we could find a way to signal immediately at a distance and to establish a causal connection propagating faster than light. Nothing of what we know about real rigid bodies is opposed to this, that any action or any wave must be propagated less fast than light; elastic waves in the most rigid solids, in fact propagate with a much lower velocity. The important thing is that we must reject the conception of a perfect rigid body, of a body that could be put in motion simultaneously at all its points.

We can summarize the above reasoning as follows: if there were a signal that could propagate with a velocity exceeding that of light, observers could be found for whom this signal would have arrived before it departed, and for whom the causal connection allowed by the signal would be reversed: we could telegraph in the past, as it was said by, and we consider that this would be absurd.

The two events of the pair in question, with no definite order of succession in time, are thus necessarily without possible mutual influence, so they are truly independent events. Evidently, having no causal connection between them, they can not follow upon each other in the same portion of matter, and can not belong to the same world line in the life of a single being. This impossibility is in accordance with the fact that, to be successively the seat of these two events, this portion of matter should move with a velocity exceeding that of light.

Both events cannot be brought to coincide in space for any choice of reference system, but they can be brought to coincide in time: since their sequence can be reversed, there are reference systems for which the two events are simultaneous.

We can call pairs in space those pairs of events that have just been considered and to which the order of succession in time has no absolute sense, but are spatially distant in an absolute way.

It is noteworthy that, while the spatial distance of two events can not be canceled, it reaches a minimum precisely for reference systems in which the two events are simultaneous.

Hence the following statement:

The spatial distance of two events that are simultaneous for a certain group of observers, is shorter for them than for all other observers in arbitrary motion relative to them.

This statement contains, as a particular case, what is called the contraction, that is to say, the fact that the same ruler considered by different groups of observers, some resting, others in motion relative to it, is shorter for those who see it passing by as for those who are attached to it. We have already seen that the length of a ruler for observers who see it passing by, is defined by the distance in space of two simultaneous positions (for those observers) on both ends of the ruler. According to the preceding this distance will be shorter for those observers than for all others, especially those attached to the ruler.

We also easily understand how the contraction can be reciprocal, that is to say how two rulers that are equal when at rest, appear mutually shortened when they slide against one another, and observers attached to one of the rulers will see the other one shorter than its own. This reciprocity holds, because observers associated with the two rulers in motion relative to each other don't define simultaneity the same way.

We will find for the pairs of events of the second category, properties exactly correlative to the preceding one by permutation of space and time. These pairs, which I will call pairs in time, are defined by the following condition, which has an absolute sense: the spatial distance of two events is less than the path traveled by light during their time interval; otherwise said, the second event occurs after the passage of the light signal whose emission coincides in space and time with the first. This introduces, from the point of view of time, an asymmetry between the two events, as the first occurs before the passage of the light signal whose emission coincides in space and time with the second event, while the second occurs after the passage of the light signal which accompanies the first one. A causal connection may exist at least by light between the two events, so the second has been informed of the first, and this requires that the order of succession has an absolute sense, and cannot be reversed by any change of reference system. We immediately see that such a reversal would require a velocity exceeding that of light for the second reference system in respect to the first.

Two events between which thus exists a real possibility of influence, when they cannot be brought to coincide in time, can always be brought to coincide in space by a suitable choice of reference system. Especially if the two events belong to the same world line, following each other in an absolute order in the life of a portion of matter, they will coincide in space for observers attached to that portion of matter.

In correlation to what was happening earlier, if the time interval of two events cannot be canceled, it passes by a minimum precisely for the reference system in which the two events coincide in space.

Hence the statement:

The time interval between two events that coincide in space, which follow each other at the same point for a certain reference system, is less for it than for any other system in arbitrary uniform translation relative to the first.

In all the above, the employed reference systems are supposed to possess uniform translational motion: for only such systems, observers associated with them cannot experimentally detect their collective motion, only for such systems the equations of physics must hold their shape when switching from one to another. For such systems it is thus, as if they were stationary relative to the aether: a uniform translation in the aether has no experimental sense.

But because of this it should not be concluded, as has sometimes happened prematurely, that the concept of aether must be abandoned, that the aether is non-existent and inaccessible to experiment. Only a uniform velocity relative to it cannot be detected, but any change of velocity, or any acceleration has an absolute sense. In particular it is a fundamental point in the electromagnetic theory that any change of velocity or any acceleration of an electrified center is accompanied by the emission of a wave that propagates in the medium with the velocity of light, and the existence of this wave has an absolute sense; and conversely any electromagnetic wave, light for example, has its origins in the change of velocity of the electrified center. We therefore have hold on the aether through accelerations, and acceleration has an absolute sense as determining the production of waves from matter that has undergone a change in velocity, and the aether manifests its reality as the vehicle, as the carrier of energy transported by these waves.

The theory provides the opportunity to demonstrate, by electromagnetic or optical experiments, any acceleration of the collective motion of a material system by means of experiments inside this system, if only in finding the wave emission by electrified bodies related to the system, which are immobile relative to it. We also know that if the acceleration of the collective motion is communicated to the system by external actions that are exerted, contrary to what happens with gravity, only on parts of the system, we have many other means to demonstrate it, for example, strains within the system through which the acceleration is transmitted from portions of the system, that suffer external actions, to other portions that do not undergo them.

In a uniform gravitational field, where each portion of the system would suffer direct external action which would communicate the overall acceleration, as in the projectile of, similar reactions do not occur , but, as I said above, the possibility of electromagnetic or optical experiments to detect the change of velocity of the collective motion would remain: the laws of electromagnetism are not the same in respect to axes attached to this material system as in respect to axes in collective uniform motion of translation.

We will see the appearance of this absolute character of acceleration in another form.

Consider a portion of matter in arbitrary motion and the sequence of events that constitute the life of this portion of matter, its world line.

For two of these events that are sufficiently close, observers in uniform motion who attend these two events successively can be regarded as related to this portion of matter, the velocity change of the latter being imperceptible in the interval between the two events. For these observers, the time interval between the two events constitute an element which we call the proper time of the portion of matter, will be shorter than for any other group of observers associated with a reference system in arbitrary uniform motion.

If we now take any two events in the life of our portion of matter, then their time interval measured by observers in non-uniform motion who will constantly monitor the portion of matter, will be, by integrating the previous result, shorter than for the reference system in uniform motion.

In particular, in this reference system the two events considered may be taking place at the same point, in relation to which a portion of matter has traveled a closed cycle and has come back to its starting point thanks to its non-uniform motion. And we can say that for observers related to that portion of matter, the time period elapsed between the departure and return, i.e. the proper time of the portion of matter will be shorter than for observers who would have stayed connected to the reference system in uniform motion. That portion of matter will have aged less between its departure and its return than if it had not been accelerating, i.e. as if it had remained stationary relative to a reference system in uniform translation.

We can still say that it is sufficient to be agitated or to undergo accelerations, to age more slowly, and we'll see in a moment how much you can expect to get in this way.

Giving concrete examples: Imagine a laboratory attached to the Earth, which motion can be considered as uniform translation, and in this laboratory there are two perfectly identical samples of radium. What we know about the spontaneous evolution of radioactive materials allows us to say that if these samples are kept in the laboratory, they will lose both their activity the same way over time and their activities remain continuously equal. But then send one of these samples with a sufficiently high velocity and then bring it back to the laboratory; this requires that at least at certain times this sample has undergone accelerations. We can say that on return, its proper time between departure and return is less than the measured time interval between these events by observers attached to the laboratory, so that it has less evolved than the other sample and therefore it will be more active than the latter; it will have aged less, having been more agitated. The calculation shows that for a difference of one ten-thousandth between changes of activity of two samples, it will be necessary to maintain (during separation) the velocity of the traveling sample at approximately four thousand kilometers a second.

Before we give another example, yet let us represent our result in a different light. Suppose that two pieces of matter meet for the first time, separate and meet again. We can say that observers attached to the portions during the separation, will not evaluate that duration in the same way, as some have not aged as much as the others. It follows from the foregoing that those have aged the least, for whom the motion during separation was most distant from uniform, and who have suffered the greatest accelerations.

This remark provides the means for any among us who wants to devote two years of his life, to find out what the Earth will be in two hundred years, and to explore the future of the Earth, by making in his life a jump ahead that will last two centuries for Earth and for him it will last two years, but without hope of return, without possibility of coming to inform us of the result of his voyage, since any attempt of the same kind could only transport him increasingly further.

For this it is sufficient that our traveler consents to be locked in a projectile that would be launched from Earth with a velocity sufficiently close to that of light but lower, which is physically possible, while arranging an encounter with, for example, a star that happens after one year of the traveler's life, and which sends him back to Earth with the same velocity. Returned to Earth he has aged two years, then he leaves his ark and finds our world two hundred years older, if his velocity remained in the range of only one twenty-thousandth less than the velocity of light. The most established experimental facts of physics allow us to assert that this would actually be so.

It is amusing to realize how our explorer and the Earth would see if they could, by light signals or by wireless telegraphy, mutually stay in constant communication during their separation, and thus understand how the asymmetry between two measures of the duration of separation is possible.

As they move away from each other with a velocity close to that of light, each seems to flee before the electromagnetic or optical signals that were sent to the other, so that there will be a very long time to receive signals that were emitted during a given time. The calculation shows that each of them will see the other live two hundred times slower than usual. During the year of this distant motion, the explorer will receive the news from Earth of the first two days after his departure, and during this year he will see the Earth make the motions of two days. Moreover, for the same reason, the radiation he receives from the Earth during this time has wavelengths that are two hundred times greater due to the  principle. What seems to him as light radiation by which he can see the Earth, has been emitted as extreme ultraviolet radiation, maybe close to rays. And if one wants to maintain communication between them by ian signals or by wireless telegraphy, the explorer who brought with him a receiving apparatus with a certain antenna length, the transmission devices used by the Earth during these two days of departure must have a antenna length two hundred times shorter than his.

During the return, conditions are reversed: for each of them see the life of the other as remarkably fast, two hundred times faster than usual, and during the year for him to return the Explorer sees the Earth perform the actions of two centuries: so it is understood how he can find the Earth aged by two hundred years. During this period he will also see waves that are bright for him, but they will be emitted as far infrared rays of around one hundred microns in wavelength as and  have recently discovered in the emission spectrum of a  mantle. For him to continue to receive radio signals of Earth, it shall, after the first two days and for two centuries thereafter, use a transmitting antenna two hundred times longer than that of the traveler, forty thousand times longer than that used during the first two days.

To understand the asymmetry, it is noteworthy that the Earth will spend two centuries to receive the signals sent by the explorer during his motion away from it which lasted a year: he will live during this time in his ark a life two hundred times slower, while he will make the gestures of a year. In the two centuries during which the Earth sees the observer moving away, it must, to receive the ian signals emitted by him, use an antenna two hundred times longer than that of the observer. At the end of two centuries the news of the encounter of the projectile with the star will come to Earth, that marks the beginning of the return voyage. The arrival of the traveler will occur two days afterwards during which the Earth will see him living two hundred times more quickly than usually, and it will see him achieving the gestures of another year to find him only two years aged at the return. During these two last days, to receive news of him, the Earth will have to use a reception antenna two hundred times shorter than the antenna of the traveler.

Thus the asymmetry - which occurred because only the traveler, in the middle of his journey, has undergone an acceleration that changes the direction of his velocity, and which brings him back to the starting point on Earth - results in the fact that the traveler sees the Earth moving away and approaching during times that are equal to one year, while the Earth, which is informed of the acceleration only by the arrival of light waves, sees the traveler moving away during two centuries and returning during two days, i.e. during a time forty thousand times shorter.

Now, if we look after the conditions under which a similar program could be realized, one encounters, of course, enormous physical difficulties.

The theory permits to calculate the work that the Earth should spend to launch the projectile, to transmit the kinetic energy corresponding to its enormous velocity. Assuming the mass of the projectile is only equal to one ton, it can easily be calculated if one wants to spend only one year to launch it, for example by turning it at the end of a sling before releasing it, then it should function nonstop for that year by four hundred billion horsepowers, and to produce them it must burn at least a thousand cubic kilometers of coal.

These difficulties at the beginning would be followed by difficulties not less large at the time of the reflexion or stop. We should first of all, for reflection, find a system capable of storing the enormous kinetic energy of the projectile, then restore it to return it in the opposite direction with the same velocity. To stop, one should gradually dissipate this energy without resulting at any moment in an acceleration or temperature elevation harmful to the projectile, while the amount of heat equal to its kinetic energy is sufficient to raise it to a temperature of 10$16$ degrees or more.

We also have every reason to think that if a projectile coming toward Earth with such velocity, it wouldn't even notice its passage and would stop only at a certain depth in the soil without leaving any holes in the same area of the surface where this would have happened. It would hardly produce on its trajectory through the atmosphere a slight increase in electrical conductivity of the air. We know, indeed, by the example of α-particles of radium, i.e. the material atoms of helium with a velocity of just 20,000 kilometers per second, can follow a perfectly straight trajectory and cross through other atoms without leaving any trace of their passage other than increased conductivity, and our projectile has per unit mass a kinetic energy a hundred thousand times greater than α particles. It would be an extraordinarily penetrating radiation. If we want to avoid these difficulties, we have to find a way to slow its motion gradually as it approaches Earth. It does not seem possible either to use the principle of the rocket that my friend proposes for interplanetary travel.

I developed these speculations, only to show by a striking example to which consequences, far away from the usual concepts, the new form of the concepts of space and time leads. It must be remembered that this development is based on perfectly correct determinations required by indisputable experimental facts, of which our ancestors were not aware when they constituted, in their experience in relation that synthesized mechanics, the categories of space and time which we have inherited from them. It's up to us to extend their work by pursuing with greater detail, in connection with the means at our disposal, the adaptation of thought to the facts.

It is not only in the field of space and time that the redesign of the most fundamental concepts of the mechanistic synthesis is required. The mass, which was measured by inertia, an essential attribute of matter, was regarded as an essentially invariable element, characterizing a given portion of matter. This notion now vanishes and merges with that of energy: the mass of a piece of matter varies with the internal energy of it, rises and falls with it. A piece of matter which radiates, loses its inertia in an amount proportional to the energy radiated. It is the energy which is inert; matter can resist the change in velocity only in proportion of the energy it contains.

The concept of energy itself loses its absolute sense: its measurement varies with the reference system to which the phenomena are related, and physicists are currently, in the expression of the laws of the universe, looking after the real elements that possess an absolute sense, i.e. the elements that remain invariant when changing from one reference system to another, and which will play the role in the electromagnetic conception of the world, that which was played by time, mass and energy in the mechanistic synthesis.

 * Paris, Collège de France.

L’Évolution de l’espace et du temps


text:
Page:Nicaraguan Antiquities (1886).djvu/139

Plate (o-p) Number 40


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/355

 1830 was promoted to a first lieutenancy in the royal horse artillery. He obtained a company on 5 June 1841, and was nominated lieutenant-colonel on 17 Feb. 1854. He commanded the siege train before Sebastopol until incapacitated by fever three weeks before the fall of the fortress; and on the conclusion of the war received, on 29 Aug. 1857, the rank of colonel, taking command of the artillery at Aldershot. In 1859, when war with France seemed imminent, he was ordered to superintend the rearmament of Malta. In 1861 he was appointed to command the artillery in the south-west district, and in 1864 was selected to command the Woolwich district. While in command of this district an explosion at Erith destroyed the river wall and threatened to flood the country to Camberwell, and burst the great sewers just completed. In less than an hour Warde had taken measures which averted the catastrophe. He received the thanks of government, and, on resigning the command in 1869, was appointed K.C.B. He attained the rank of major-general on 27 Feb. 1866, of colonel commandant on 29 March 1873, of lieutenant-general on 17 Nov. 1878, and of general on 1 Oct. 1877. He died at Brighton on 11 June 1884. On 24 Aug. 1843 he married Jane (d. 1895), eldest daughter of Charles Lane, rector of Wrotham and rural dean of Shoreham, Kent. By her he had four sons and three daughters (Times, 14 June 1881; Army Lists;, Baronetage and Knightage).

[Gent. Mag. 1835, ii. 207; Burke's Landed Gentry; Schomburgk's Hist. of Barbados, 1848, pp. 413–25.]

WARDE, JAMES PRESCOTT (1792–1840), actor, born in the west of England in 1792, was son of J. Prescott. A cadet at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich (15 Sept. 1807), and a second-lieutenant in the royal artillery (December 1809), he devoted himself to the stage, and was superseded for ‘absence without leave’ (1 April 1815). He adopted the name of Warde. His first recorded appearance was at Bath on 28 Dec. 1813 as Achmet in Browne's tragedy of ‘Barbarossa,’ a part created by Mossop. Genest says of him at this date: ‘He had not been long on the stage—he made a gradual improvement in his acting—and before he left Bath was deservedly a great favourite with the audience’ (, viii. 440). During 1814 he played at Bath Faulkland in the ‘Rivals’ (5 March) and Harry Dornton in Holcroft's ‘Road to Ruin’ (17 April); and on 10 Dec. was ‘very good’ in the title-rôle of an improved version of Pocock's ‘John of Paris.’ At Christmas he was Aladdin in a pantomime, ‘but he was too good an actor to play in such a piece’ (ib. 491). In 1815 he was on 3 Jan. Laertes to the Hamlet of Macready. Ten days later he took his benefit as Fitzharding in Tobin's ‘Curfew,’ acting ‘very well.’ On 1 April he was the original Fitz-James in the ‘Lady of the Lake.’ As Dorilas in Hill's ‘Merope’ (1 Jan.) he overdressed the part. During 1816 he was on 18 Jan. Orlando in ‘As you like it,’ and on 8 Feb. Jaffier in ‘Venice Preserved,’ on 5 Oct. Joseph Surface, and on 14 Dec. Dudley in Cumberland's ‘West Indian.’

Next year he was seen as Doricourt in the ‘Belle's Stratagem’ (1 Nov.), was very good as Biron in Southerne and Garrick's ‘Isabella,’ and played during December Standard in a revival of Farquhar's ‘Constant Couple,’ Macduff, and Philaster. During January and February 1818 he appeared as Shylock, Hotspur, Alonzo in ‘Pizarro,’ Beverley, Belmour, and Durimel in Roberdeau's ‘Point of Honour.’ On 15 April he was seen as Rob Roy (first time in Bath), one of his best parts. ‘Rob Roy,’ says Genest, ‘did great things for the treasury.’ During the remainder of that season, which closed with May, he played Bevil in Steele's ‘Conscious Lovers,’ Lord Townly in the ‘Provoked Husband,’ and also Romeo and the Stranger to the Juliet and Mrs. Haller of Miss O'Neill. Others of Warde's leading parts at Bath, where he was seen at his best, were George Barnwell, Young Norval, Rolla, Inkle, Edgar, Posthumus, Florizel, Woodville in Lee's ‘Chapter of Accidents,’ and numerous other parts in forgotten plays. Cole says that Warde and Conway each had a patronising dowager in the city, who sat in opposite stage-boxes and led the applause for their respective protégés (Life of Charles Kean, 1859, i. 94).

Warde made his first appearance in London at the Haymarket on 17 July 1818 as Leon in Fletcher's ‘Rule a Wife and have a Wife.’ His choice of part was judicious, and he was well received. He was less successful as Shylock eleven days later, but was good as the Duke in Tobin's ‘Honeymoon’ (for his benefit on 11 Sept.). Next season he opened as Leon (26 July), and was seen as Faulkland, Don Felix in Centlivre's ‘Wonder,’ Valmont in ‘Foundling of the Forest’ (his benefit on 28 Aug.), Inkle, and the Stranger. From 1820 Warde's name disappears completely from the London bills, nor was he seen again at Bath until 1823, and then but rarely. He reappears on the London stage in the autumn of 1825, when he was engaged at Covent Garden as second lead to Charles Kemble, and was seen as Brutus (26 Sept.), Rob Roy, Iago