text:
United States Code/Title 11/Chapter 5/Section 525

§ 525. Protection against discriminatory treatment

 * (a) Except as provided in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, and section 1 of the Act entitled “An Act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1944, and for other purposes,” approved July 12, 1943, a governmental unit may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant to, condition such a grant to, discriminate with respect to such a grant against, deny employment to, terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, a person that is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or a debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, or another person with whom such bankrupt or debtor has been associated, solely because such bankrupt or debtor is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, has been insolvent before the commencement of the case under this title, or during the case but before the debtor is granted or denied a discharge, or has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in the case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.

 * (b) No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title, a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act, or an individual associated with such debtor or bankrupt, solely because such debtor or bankrupt—
 * (1) is or has been a debtor under this title or a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act;
 * (2) has been insolvent before the commencement of a case under this title or during the case but before the grant or denial of a discharge; or
 * (3) has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in a case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.

 * (c)
 * (1) A governmental unit that operates a student grant or loan program and a person engaged in a business that includes the making of loans guaranteed or insured under a student loan program may not deny a student grant, loan, loan guarantee, or loan insurance to a person that is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, or another person with whom the debtor or bankrupt has been associated, because the debtor or bankrupt is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, has been insolvent before the commencement of a case under this title or during the pendency of the case but before the debtor is granted or denied a discharge, or has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in the case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.
 * (2) In this section, “student loan program” means any program operated under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 or a similar program operated under State or local law.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/172

 member of the Yorkshire clergy in a public discussion, in which he acquitted himself with only too great success and cleverness. In February he was committed to the care of the notorious [q. v.], under whose charge he was carried to London and placed a close prisoner in the Tower. It was not till 27 April that he was subjected to his first examination upon the information which the government had been collecting against him. This was a preliminary to a long succession of similar attempts to extort from the prisoner particulars which it was supposed he only was qualified to furnish on the movements of the catholics abroad and the plots which were assumed to be hatching at home. Minute reports of these examinations were drawn up at the time which have come down to us. Walpole was put upon the rack again and again, and Topcliffe seems to have used his utmost license in torturing his victim. In July 1594 he was still able to write, but after this he was handed over to Topcliffe to treat as he pleased. There is some reason for thinking that there was a motive for keeping him alive. Henry Walpole was his father's eldest son and heir. His father was at this time in failing health, and in the event of his son surviving him a considerable estate would have escheated to the crown. In the spring of 1595, however, he was sent back to York for trial on the capital charges: (1) that he had abjured the realm without license; (2) that he had received holy orders beyond the seas; and (3) that he had returned to England as a jesuit father and priest of the Roman church to exercise his priestly functions. Of course he was found guilty, though during the trial he acquitted himself with great ability, and he was condemned to death. The sentence was carried out on 17 April 1595. The long and minute accounts which have reached us of his conduct during the last few days of his life prove the great interest that was felt in his case, and though the judicial murder of Henry Walpole and of Robert Southwell [q. v.] by no means brought to an end the massacre of the jesuits and seminary priests in the queen's reign, yet after this year (1595) the rack was much more sparingly used than heretofore, and something like hesitation was shown in sending the Roman proselytisers to the gallows.

A portrait of Henry Walpole, stated to be contemporary, was preserved in the English College at Rome till the general spoliation of the religious houses. A copy of this was made for the late Hon. Frederick Walpole of Mannington Hall, Norfolk. A collection of nineteen ‘Letters of Henry Walpole, S. J., from the original manuscripts at Stonyhurst College, edited with notes by Aug. Jessopp, D.D.,’ was printed for private circulation in 1873, 4to. Only fifty copies were struck off. Twenty-five of these were presented to the fathers at Stonyhurst.

WALPOLE, HORATIO, first (1678–1757), diplomatist and politician, was the fifth son of Robert Walpole, and the younger brother of Sir, first earl of Orford [q. v.] He was born at Houghton on 8 Dec. 1678, and educated at Eton and King's College, Cambridge. A copy of Latin verses by him was included in the ‘Luctus Cantabrigienses’ published on the death of William III in 1702. In the same year Horatio, or, as he was more usually called, Horace Walpole, was elected a fellow of his college. After some hesitation as to the choice of a profession, and a brief residence as a law student at Lincoln's Inn, where he was admitted on 2 Oct. 1700, Walpole entered

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


text: The Rise and Fall of Society/11

title: The Rise and Fall of Society/11


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/173

 parliament. A consistent whig, and a member of the Hanover Club, he remained a member of the House of Commons for fifty-four years. On 24 July 1702 he was returned for Castle Rising, and he was re-elected by that constituency in May 1705, May 1708, December 1710, and April and September 1713. On 2 Feb. 1714–15 he was returned for Beeralston, Devonshire, and on 2 Dec. 1718 for East Looe, Cornwall. In the spring of 1722 he was returned for both East Looe and for Great Yarmouth, and chose to sit for the latter constituency. He was again elected for Great Yarmouth on 22 Aug. 1727 and 14 May 1730. Subsequently, from 15 May 1734 till his summons to the upper house in June 1756, he sat for Norwich.

While still a young member of the House of Commons, Walpole took office in the diplomatic service. In 1706 he was appointed secretary under General James Stanhope (afterwards first Earl Stanhope) [q. v.], envoy and minister-plenipotentiary to the titular king Charles III of Spain, and accompanied his chief to Spain in the expedition which relieved Barcelona (May). From 1707 to 1709 he acted as chief secretary to Henry Boyle, lord Carleton [q. v.], who during part of this time was secretary of state. In 1709 he was attached to The Hague embassy, and in the following year accompanied the ambassador, Lord Townshend, as secretary to the abortive peace conferences at Gertruydenberg. He seems already at this time to have gained Townshend's full confidence (see Townshend's letters in Manuscripts of the Marquess Townshend, Hist. MSS. Comm.; cf. Horatio Walpole's letters to his brother in Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, vol. i. App.). When on the advent of the whigs to power, at the accession of George I, Townshend became one of the principal secretaries of state, he appointed Walpole under-secretary. In 1715 he was made secretary of the treasury on his brother's becoming first lord and chancellor of the exchequer. In the same year he was sent to The Hague in order to support Lord Cadogan [see, first ] in his application for armed help against the expected invasion of the Pretender, and in 1716 he was associated with the same military diplomatist as joint plenipotentiary for obtaining from the States-General a fleet intended, under the pretext of protecting the Baltic trade, to further the Hanoverian designs on the Bremen and Verden territories. Furthermore, the Dutch government was to be induced to enter into a defensive alliance with Great Britain and France (afterwards known as the triple alliance). Walpole strongly objected to the pressure exercised by the Hanoverian interest, then much alarmed by the recent entry of Russian troops into Mecklenburg, and as a matter of good faith he warmly deprecated asking the Dutch to assent to a separate treaty, which, contrary to assurances previously given by him, had been concluded by Great Britain and France. In the end he obtained permission to quit The Hague, leaving the signing of the alliance treaty to his colleague (Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, i. 180). Hardly had he arrived in England, when he was sent to George II, then at the Göhrde (November), as the bearer of a despatch to Stanhope, which proved the beginning of Townshend's downfall [see, second ]. Intent upon diverting from the secretary of state to himself the blame for the delay about the French treaty, Horace remained ignorant and unobservant of the king's suspicion of cabals with the Prince of Wales on the part of Townshend and Robert Walpole (, i. 241 seq.). When, however, the former was finally dismissed, and the latter resigned (April 1717), Horace Walpole likewise went out of office. Shortly before this he had secured for life the appointment of surveyor and auditor general of the plantation (American) revenues of the crown (Calendar of Treasury Papers, 1717–19, ccxiii. 8 et al.) On the return of his brother and Townshend to power in 1720, he was named secretary to the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and in 1721 was reappointed secretary to the treasury, on his brother once more becoming first lord. About 1720 Lady Cowper describes Horace's lodgings as a useful place for the settlement of confidential court business (Diary, p. 144).

In 1722 (May–June) he negotiated at The Hague the grant of an auxiliary force, at the highly critical time of the discovery of ‘Atterbury's plot,’ and in October 1723 he proceeded to Paris on what proved the most important diplomatic employment of his career. The nominal purpose of his mission was to arrange for the accession of Portugal to the quadruple alliance; but he was really sent to uproot Sir Luke Schaub [q. v.], who was in Carteret's interest, and who had gained much influence during the ascendency of Dubois. Walpole, without succeeding better than Schaub in forwarding King George's wishes in the intrigue concerning the La Vrillière dukedom [see ], contrived to supplant Schaub, and was appointed envoy-extraordinary and minister-plenipotentiary in his place (March 1724). He had shown considerable judg-


text:
Page:Rise and Fall of Society.djvu/135

 CHAPTER 12

to be said in behalf of avowed and doctrinaire socialists, that their faith in the State is sublime. To them, the institution of political power is the unerring shepherd of the flock, the guide to the Good Society; it is also the antidote for all evil, the maker of abundance, the embodiment of justice, the sublimation of human aspirations. That they believe. To be sure, they affect an elaborate rationalism, something they call dialectical materialism, which in turn rests on a verbal agglomeration known as Marxian economics. Logic and fact without end have been applied to these notions to prove that they are only notions. But all this cerebration has turned out to be sheer waste of effort as far as influencing the true worshipers is concerned. They still believe. One cannot help but marvel at, and admire, their devotional integrity.

The religion of socialism will come into its own, its devotees maintain, only when the devil worship of capitalism is done in. Until that happy day the State will suffer from imperfections, but these imperfections are not inherent in the State; they are merely malignant capitalistic growths that will easily succumb to socialistic surgery. The true glory of the State will become evident when the anointed priesthood are enthroned in its temples (by force, if necessary), who will 111

title: Page:Rise and Fall of Society.djvu/135


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/174

 ment when after the death of the regent Orléans (December 1723) power had temporarily passed into the hands of the Duke of Bourbon and Madame de Prie, by keeping more or less at a distance Bolingbroke, who, foreseeing the eclipse of Carteret, was anxious to conciliate the Townshend-Walpole interest. And, forecasting in his turn the course of ministerial changes in France, Horace Walpole gradually placed himself on a footing of thorough confidence with Fleury, bishop of Fréjus (afterwards Cardinal Fleury), who in June 1726 was definitively established in power. Fleury never forgot a visit which Walpole had paid him at Issy, when in December 1725 persons not so well informed supposed him to have been banished from court (see ST. SIMON, Mémoires, ed. 1863, x. 278 seq., where Sir Robert and Horace Walpole are said to have persuaded Fleury that their policy was directed by his counsels, and where that policy is very caustically characterised). The preliminaries of Paris, signed 31 May 1727, which averted what seemed the inevitable expansion of the existing state of war into a general European conflict, exhibit at its height the co-operation of the French and English prime ministers, between whom Horace was the chief intermediary agent. On the accession of George II (June) Walpole proceeded at once to England, armed with a letter from Fleury, promising adherence to the ‘system’ of the Anglo-French entente, if the new king would uphold it, and, though at first coldly received, was sent back by him to Paris with a gracious answer. Soon afterwards the reconciliation between France and Spain, which Walpole had laboured so persistently to obstruct, was brought about, and Germain Louis Chauvelin, a friend of the Bourbon entente, became secretary of state; but the continuance of an excellent understanding between Fleury and Walpole found expression in the settlement of the claims of Spain, satisfactory to Great Britain, arranged at the congress of Soissons (June 1728), where Walpole was one of the plenipotentiaries, and in the treaty of Seville (November 1729), which established a defensive alliance between Great Britain, France, and Spain (the Townshend manuscripts comprise four volumes of Walpole's Paris correspondence, of which extracts are given by, vol. i.; cf. as to the latter part of his French embassy, passages from his Apology).

On the resignation of Townshend (May 1730) Sir Robert Walpole offered the vacant secretaryship of state to his brother, who, however, declined it, chiefly from an honourable unwillingness to justify the suspicion that he had fomented the quarrel with Townshend with a view to succeeding him. While still in France he was appointed to the office of cofferer of the household, which gave him a ready access to the king, and, having thereupon resigned his embassy, he was in November 1730 sworn of the privy council. He remained in England till October 1733, when he was sent to The Hague on a confidential mission, which led to his appointment as envoy and minister-plenipotentiary there in the following year. He held this post till 1740, though paying occasional visits to England, where he attended in parliament. In the course of these years he was, together with his friend the grand pensionary Slingelandt, and his successor at Paris, James, lord Waldegrave [q. v.], largely instrumental in promoting the policy which, against the wish of George II, kept Great Britain out of the iniquitous war of the Polish succession, and in 1735 led to the peace of Vienna (to this period belongs the earlier part of his interesting correspondence with Robert Trevor [q. v.], afterwards viscount Hampden, who, after acting as his secretary of legation at The Hague, in 1741 succeeded him there as minister. See Manuscripts of the Earl of Buckinghamshire, Hist. MSS. Comm. Many of these letters had already been printed by, but very inaccurately. See also, for letters exchanged between the brothers in these years, Appendix to vol. iii. of the Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole).

Horace Walpole's free and frequent communications of his political views to the king and queen were not always palatable, and she is said to have told him: ‘Sir Robert would have gone into the war’ of the Polish succession, ‘but you would not let him.’ Before her death, however, he received many friendly communications from her, and in 1736, by her wish, resided at Hanover as minister of state during a long visit of the king to his electoral dominions (cf., Memoirs, ii. 297). Yet already in 1738 he was strongly in favour of a Prussian alliance, of all things the most detestable to George II. In this year he warmly advocated the maintenance of peace with Spain, and in March 1739, in a speech of two hours, moved the address in the House of Commons thanking the king for the convention by which it was vainly hoped that war might be averted (, ii. 275). In 1740 he strenuously exerted himself in support of his brother's policy of bringing about an understanding between Austria and Prussia, and his foresight in protesting against the obstinacy of Maria Theresa and her advisers and urging


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/175

 the use of every opportunity of securing the good will of Prussia is attested by numerous passages in his correspondence.

On the downfall of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742 (February), Horace thought it prudent to burn a large part of their private correspondence. He rendered a conspicuous service both to the late prime minister and to the existing government by defending in the House of Commons (December), doubtless much against the grain, his brother's very doubtful step of taking sixteen thousand Hanoverians into British pay. When among the pamphlets published on the subject one by Lord Chesterfield and Waller, entitled ‘The Case of the Hanover Tories,’ had created much attention, he was prevailed upon to write an answer to it under the title of ‘The Interest of Great Britain steadily pursued’ (April 1743), which ran through three editions, but which, according to his own account, met with so little encouragement from ministers that he abandoned his intention of following it up with a second part (see his amusing letter to Trevor in Buckinghamshire MSS. p. 87). During the ensuing years, while taking no part in the contests for power and place, he remained a close observer of events and men, displaying his usual courage by a letter to the king in which he urged the appointment of Pitt as secretary at war (January or February 1746), and by a series of letters to the Duke of Cumberland, as well as by an interview (20 Dec. 1747), in which he sought to impress upon the duke, and through him upon the king, that nothing but an alliance with Prussia could insure the conclusion of a satisfactory peace (COXE, ii. 185 seq.). The peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748) left the Prussian alliance apparently still out of the question. Walpole printed some comments on it, under the title of ‘A Rhapsody of Foreign Politics,’ in which he advocated the exchange of Gibraltar for Porto Rico or St. Augustin. In 1749 (March) he delivered an able speech, concurring, with the reverse of enthusiasm, in the grant to the Empress Maria Theresa, and subsequently he repeated its substance in a paper entitled ‘A Letter to a Friend,’ which remained unpublished. His ‘Observations on the System of Affairs in 1751,’ which dwell with rhetorical bitterness upon the impolicy of ‘subsidiary treaties in time of peace to German princes,’ he had the boldness to lay before the king (printed ap., ii. 307 seq.). In 1752 he, according to his nephew, excited the ridicule of the House of Commons by voting for the subsidy treaty with Saxony, against which he had delivered a convincing harangue (Memoirs of the Last Ten Years of George II, i. 241 sqq.). Although Walpole's long intimacy with Henry Pelham had ended in a suspension of their political connection, he was eagerly courted by the Duke of Newcastle on his succeeding as head of the government (1754), and early in 1755 read to some of the chief members of the duke's cabinet a remarkable expression of his opinion on the inexpediency of the king's going abroad, and of the desirability, in the case of his absence, of appointing the Duke of Cumberland regent (, ii. 372 seq.). His advice was only partially followed, and later in the year he failed in his efforts to effect a reconciliation between Newcastle and Pitt.

On 1 June 1756 Walpole, who chiefly on account of the recent marriage of his eldest son to a daughter of the Duke of Devonshire had solicited this rise in rank, was created a peer by the title of Baron Walpole of Wolterton (his seat near Aylsham in Norfolk). He survived the grant of this honour for less than a twelvemonth. In former years he had been much afflicted by the stone, but he had thought himself cured by a remedy of which he sent an account to the Royal Society. The return of the disease early in 1757 proved fatal. He died on 5 Feb. of that year, and was buried in the chancel of the parish church of Wickmere, near Wolterton.

Horace Walpole has been far from kindly dealt with by historical writers, partly perhaps in consequence of the dicta of his amiable nephew and namesake, who described him as ‘a dead-weight’ in his brother's ministry, and ‘one who knew something of everything but how to hold his tongue or how to apply his knowledge,’ besides adding further amenities as to the homely style of his language and oratory (Memoirs of the Last Ten Years of George II, i. 140). But the younger Horace had in 1756 been involved in a violent personal quarrel with his uncle, in which the right seems to have been on the younger man's side. It concerned the establishment, against Lord Orford's will, of a so-called mutual entail of the Houghton and Wolterton estates, and the consequent exclusion from the former estate of his grandchildren and daughter (see, Letters, ed. Cunningham, ix. 485). Cardinal Fleury qualified a compliment to his effective eloquence by allowing that it was clothed in bad French. His English speeches are described as delivered with a Norfolk accent, and he himself jested in parliament on the slovenliness of his dress. The engraving of Van Loo's portrait of him, formerly at Strawberry Hill, suggests a gross and unpleasing presence. Moreover, it is easy to perceive that at court and elsewhere the outspoken-


text:
Page:Rise and Fall of Society.djvu/136

 then proceed to give daily demonstrations of its miraculous omniscience, to say nothing of its omnipotence. Meanwhile, it is the duty of the faithful to build up the power of the State, to reduce the area of expression for baneful and heretical individualistic thought, so that when resistance to the State becomes fatuous there will be none competent to administer its grandeur properly except the learned bishops of the church.

For that reason we find socialists aligned with nonbelievers in the prosecution of reforms which promise to improve the power of the State. But they are not reformers. Their interest in reform stems from expediency; the reform is simply a tactical maneuver that fits in with their grand strategy.

The reformer is also a dedicated person, but the object of his devotion is not a completely revised political order, only a specific improvement in the going one. His enthusiasm may read panacea possibilities into his proposal, but he is primarily interested in correcting a specific evil, real or imaginary. He asks for a law, with necessary sanctions, that will compel people to change their wicked habits, that will effect social justice, that will abolish scarcities and create abundances, that will even harness wayward nature. Whatever it is that he hopes to achieve, his espousal is characterized by a strong sense of morality and the conviction that political power is the corrective moral instrument.

Whether or not the administration of the law, if the reformer succeeds in having it enacted, does produce the results he believed it would, or makes for evils worse than the one he sought to correct, the net effect is to increase political power, to weaken social power. The residuary legatee of all reforms is the State. So that the reformer turns out to be an 112

title: Page:Rise and Fall of Society.djvu/136


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/176

 ness which formed part of his nature must frequently have been out of season. Yet his mind was of no ordinary calibre, and his moral courage was, like his intellectual capacity, fully worthy of Walpole's brother. In domestic politics he was consistent, save when under the pressure of exceptional considerations affecting his party and its chief. In foreign affairs, which were the main business of his life, he was alike far- and clear-sighted, and may without hesitation be held to have been one of the most experienced and sure-footed as well as sagacious diplomatists of his times, not a few of whom were trained under his eye. Moreover, both at Versailles and at The Hague he understood how to win complete confidence in the most important quarters. He seems to have been an effective but the reverse of a fastidious speaker in the House of Commons. His writings have the merit of unmistakable lucidity, and often of argumentative strength. In addition to the pamphlets by him already mentioned, two—on the question of war with Spain, and on the Spanish convention (1738)—evidently from his pen, were discovered at Wolterton by his biographer. He also printed in 1763 an ‘Answer to the Latter Part of Lord Bolingbroke's Letters on the Study of History.’ His ‘Apology,’ written towards the close of his life, and dealing with his transactions from 1715 to 1739, the ‘Rhapsody of Foreign Politics’ occasioned by the pacifications of 1748 and 1750, and two manuscripts on his favourite project of a good understanding with Prussia (1740), remained unpublished; but of the first named of these the greater part is reproduced by his biographer.

Horace Walpole the elder married, in 1720, Mary, daughter of Peter Lombard—the ‘Pug’ of Sir Charles Hanbury-Williams's elegant satire (, Works, ed. Horace Walpole, 1822, i. 48, and note). By her he had four sons and three daughters. The eldest son, Horatio (1723–1809), succeeded as second Baron Walpole of Wolterton, and was created Earl of Orford on 10 April 1806. His third son, George, is separately noticed.

WALPOLE, HORATIO or HORACE, fourth (1717–1797), author, wit, and letter-writer, was born in Arlington Street (No. 17) on 24 Sept. 1717 (O.S.), being the fourth son of Sir Robert Walpole, first earl of Orford [q. v.], by his first wife, Catherine Shorter, eldest daughter of John Shorter of Bybrook, near Ashford in Kent. He was eleven years younger than the rest of his father's children, a circumstance which, taken in connection with his dissimilarity, both personally and mentally, to the other members of the family, has been held to lend some countenance to the contemporary suggestion, first revived by Lady Louisa Stuart (Introduction to Lord Wharncliffe's edition of the Works of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu), that he was the son, not of Sir Robert Walpole, but of Carr, lord Hervey, the elder brother of John, lord Hervey, the ‘Sporus’ of Pope. His attachment to his mother and his lifelong reverence for Sir Robert Walpole, of whom he was invariably the strenuous defender, added to the fact that there is nowhere the slightest hint in his writings of any suspicion on his own part as to his parentage, must be held to discredit this ancient scandal. His godmother, he tells us (Corresp. ed. Cunningham, 1857–9, vol. i. p. lxi), was his aunt, Dorothy Walpole, lady Townshend; his godfathers the Duke of Grafton and Sir Robert's younger brother, Horatio (afterwards Baron Walpole of Wolterton) [q. v.] It was probably in compliment to his uncle that he was christened Horatio; but, as he told Pinkerton (Walpoliana, i. 62), he disliked the name, and wrote himself ‘Horace’—‘an English name for an Englishman.’ He received the first elements of his education at Bexley in Kent, where he was placed under the charge of a son of Stephen Weston (1665–1742) [q. v.], bishop of Exeter. But he spent much of his boyhood in his father's house ‘next the college’ at Chelsea, a building now merged in the hospital. One of the salient events of his youthful days was his being taken, at his own request, to kiss the hand of George I, then (1 June 1727) preparing to set out on that last journey to Hanover on which he died. Of this Walpole gives an account in his ‘Reminiscences of the Courts of George I and George II’ (Corresp. vol. i. pp. xciii, xciv; see also Walpoliana, p. 25).

On 26 April 1727 he went to Eton, where his tutor was Henry Bland, the headmaster's


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/177

 eldest son. From his own account his abilities were not remarkable. ‘I was a blockhead, and pushed up above my parts,’ he wrote to Conway (Corresp. i. 307). But there are other evidences that his powers were by no means contemptible. Among his schoolmates were his cousins, the two Conways—Henry Seymour (afterwards Marshal Conway) [q. v.], and his elder brother Francis Seymour Conway, lord Hertford [q. v.] —Charles Hanbury-Williams [q. v.], and George Augustus Selwyn (1719–1791) [q. v.] Another contemporary and associate was William Cole (1714–1782) [q. v.], the antiquary. But his closest allies were George and Charles Montagu, the sons of Brigadier-general Edward Montagu, and these formed with Walpole what was known as the ‘Triumvirate.’ A still more important group, which consisted of Walpole, Thomas Gray (afterwards the poet), Richard West, and Thomas Ashton (1716–1775) [q. v.], was styled the ‘Quadruple Alliance;’ and this, which was a combination of a more literary and poetical character than the other, had not a little to do with Walpole's future character. The influence of Gray in particular, both upon his point of view and his method of expression, has never yet been sufficiently traced out. While at Eton (27 May 1731) he was entered at Lincoln's Inn, but he never went thither. He left Eton on 23 Sept. 1734, proceeding, after an interval of residence in London, to his father's college at Cambridge (King's), where he began in March 1735. At Cambridge he found several of the Eton set, including Cole and the Conways. West had gone to Oxford, but Gray and Ashton were at Cambridge, the one as a fellow-commoner at Peterhouse, the other at King's. Of Walpole's university studies we know little but the names of his tutors. In civil law and anatomy he attended the lectures of Francis Dickins and William Battie [q. v.] respectively; his drawing-master was Bernard Lens [q. v.], and his mathematical professor the blind Professor Saunderson [q. v.], who appears to have told him frankly that he could never learn what he was trying to teach him (Corresp. ix. 467). In the classics his success was greater, but not remarkable, and he confessed to Pinkerton (Walpoliana, i. 105) that he never was a good Greek scholar. In French and Italian he was, however, fairly proficient, and already at Cambridge had made some literary essays, one being a copy of verses in the ‘Gratulatio Academiæ Cantabrigiensis’ of 1736 addressed to Frederick, prince of Wales, on his marriage with Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha.

On 20 Aug. 1737 Lady Walpole died, and was buried in Westminster Abbey under a eulogistic epitaph composed by her youngest son. Soon after this his father appointed him inspector of imports and exports in the custom-house, a post which he subsequently resigned, in January 1738, on receiving that of usher of the exchequer. Later in the year he came into ‘two other little patent-places,’ a comptrollership of the pipe and clerkship of the estreats, which had been held for him by a substitute. These three offices must have then been worth about 1,200l. a year, and were due of course to his father's interest as prime minister. He quitted King's College in 1739, and at the end of March in that year left England in company with Gray on the regulation grand tour. Walpole was to be paymaster, but Gray was to be independent. They made a short stay in Paris and then went to Rheims, where they remained three months to improve themselves in the language. From Rheims they went to Dijon and Lyons, where, after an excursion to Geneva, Walpole found letters from his father telling him to go on to Italy. Accordingly they crossed the Alps, travelling from Turin to Genoa, and ultimately, in the Christmas of 1739, entered Florence. Here they were welcomed by the English residents, and particularly by Mr. (afterwards Sir Horace) Mann [q. v.], the British minister-plenipotentiary, a distant relative of Walpole, and subsequently one of his most favoured correspondents. With a brief interval they resided in the Casa Ambrosio, Mann's villa on the Arno, for fifteen months. Walpole, when his first passion for antiquities had cooled, gave himself up to the pleasures of the place; Gray continued to take notes of statues and galleries and to copy music. They paid a flying visit to Rome, but they remained at Florence until May 1741, when they began their homeward journey. At Reggio a misunderstanding arose, of which the cause is obscure, and they separated. On Gray's side this was never explained; but after his death Walpole took all the blame on himself (Corresp. v. 441; Walpoliana, i. 95). Shortly afterwards he fell ill of quinsy, which might have ended seriously but for the timely advent of Joseph Spence [q. v.], who summoned a doctor from Florence. Upon his recovery Walpole returned to England, reaching Dover on 12 Sept. 1741 (O.S.) In his absence he had been returned member for Callington in Cornwall (14 May 1741).

During his stay in Italy he had addressed to his friend Ashton, now tutor to the Earl of Plymouth, an ‘Epistle from Florence’ in Dryden's manner; and he soon began to


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Herder, Bartholomäus

HERDER, hĕr'dẽr, (1774-1839). A German publisher, born at Rottweil, in Württemberg. In 1801 he opened a bookstore and printing-office in Meersburg, on Lake Constance, but soon afterwards removed to the city of Constance, and in 1810 to Freiburg, Baden, where he opened the Herdersche Universitätsbuchhandlung. He accompanied the Allies to Paris in 1814 as Imperial field printer in Metternich's suite, and on his return added to his printing business establishments for lithography, copper-engraving, and plastic art. The Catholic character of the firm was developed under his sons and successors, Karl Raphael Herder and Benjamin Herder, and it became one of the best-known publishing houses of this Church in Germany. In 1888 Hermann Herder, a son of Benjamin and grandson of the founder, inherited the business, which became known as the Herdersche Verlagshandlung. The firm also established an office at Saint Louis, Mo., U. S. A. Among the important works which the firm has published is Wetzer und Welte's Kirchenlexikon oder Encylclopädie der katholischen Theologie (12 vols., 1847-56; 2d ed. 1882-1901).


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/178

 correspond regularly with Mann, to whom he had written a first letter on his return journey. He took up his residence at first with his father in Downing Street, and subsequently at No. 5 Arlington Street, to which house Sir Robert Walpole removed after his resignation and elevation to the peerage as Earl of Orford in 1742. No. 5 Arlington Street, now marked by a Society of Arts tablet, long continued to be his residence after his father's death, and here, with intervals of residence at Houghton, the family seat in Norfolk, he continued to live. He hated Norfolk and the Norfolk scenery and products. But there were some compensations for endless doing the honours to uncongenial guests in Lord Orford's great mansion in the fens. The house had a wonderful gallery of pictures, brought together by years of judicious foraging in Italy and England, and far too distinctive in character to be allowed to pass, as it eventually did, into the hands of Catherine of Russia. This collection was to Walpole not only an object of enduring interest, but a prolongation of that education as a connoisseur which the grand tour had begun. One of his cleverest jeux d'esprit, the ‘Sermon on Painting,’ was prompted by the Houghton gallery, and he occupied much of his time about 1742–3 in preparing, upon the model of the ‘Ædes Barberini’ and ‘Giustinianæ,’ an ‘Ædes Walpolianæ,’ which, besides being something more than a mere catalogue, includes an excellent introduction. It was afterwards published in 1747, and is included in vol. ii. of the ‘Works’ of 1798 (pp. 221–78).

Lord Orford died in March 1744–5, leaving his youngest son ‘the house in Arlington Street … 5,000l. in money, and 1,000l. a year from the collector's place in the custom house’ (Corresp. vol. i. p. lxiv). Any surplus of the last item was to be divided with his brother, Sir Edward Walpole. After this, the next notable thing in his uneventful career seems to have been the composition in 1746 of a prologue for Rowe's ‘Tamerlane,’ which it was the custom to play on 4 and 5 Nov., being the anniversaries of King William's birth and landing at Torbay. The subject, as may be guessed, was the ‘suppression of the late rebellion’ (1745). In the same year (1746) he contributed two papers to Nos. 2 and 5 of the ‘Museum,’ and wrote a bright little poem on some court ladies, entitled ‘The Beauties.’ In August he took a country residence at Windsor, and resumed his interrupted intercourse with Gray, who had just completed his ‘Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College.’ In 1747, however, came what must be regarded as the great event of his life—his removal to the neighbourhood of Twickenham. He took the remainder of the lease of a little house which stood on the left bank of the Thames at the corner of the upper road to Teddington. Even then it was not without a history. Originally the ‘country box’ of a retired coachman of the Earl of Bradford, it had been subsequently occupied by Colley Cibber, by Dr. Talbot, bishop of Durham, by a son of the Duke of Chandos, and lastly by Mrs. Chenevix, the toywoman of Suffolk Street, sister to Pope's Mrs. Bertrand of Bath, who sublet it to Lord John Sackville. Walpole took the remainder of Mrs. Chenevix's lease, and by 1748 had grown so attached to the place that he obtained a special act to purchase the fee simple, for which he paid 1,356l. 10s. In some old deeds he found the site described as Strawberry-Hill-Shot, and he accordingly gave the house its now historic name of Strawberry Hill.

Strawberry Hill and its development thenceforth remained for many years his chief occupation in life. Standing originally in some five acres, he speedily extended his territory by fresh purchases to fourteen acres, which he assiduously planted and cultivated, until it ‘sprouted away like any chaste nymph in the Metamorphoses.’ Then he began gradually to enlarge and alter the structure itself. ‘I am going to build a little Gothic castle at Strawberry Hill,’ he says in January 1750 (Corresp. ii. 190). Accordingly, in 1753–4, he constructed a grand parlour or refectory with a library above it, and to these in 1760–1761 he added a picture gallery and cloister, a round-tower and a cabinet or tribune. A great north bedchamber followed in 1770, and other minor additions succeeded these. Having gothicised the place to his heart's content with battlements and arches and painted glass (‘lean windows fattened with rich saints’), he proceeded, or rather continued, to stock it with all the objects most dear to the connoisseur and virtuoso, pictures and statues, books and engravings, enamels by Petitot and Zincke, miniatures by Cooper and the Olivers, old china, snuff-boxes, gems, coins, seal-rings, filigree, cut-paper, and nicknacks of all sorts, which gave it the aspect partly of a museum and partly of a curiosity shop. Finally, after making a tentative catalogue in 1760 of the drawings and pictures in one of the rooms (the Holbein chamber), he printed in 1774 a quarto ‘Description of the Villa of Horace Walpole … at Strawberry Hill, near Twickenham, with an Inventory of the Furniture, Pictures, Curiosities, &c.’ Fresh acquisitions obliged him to add several appendices to this, which


text:
Page:Rise and Fall of Society.djvu/137

 unwitting ally of the socialists, who really despise him for his lack of spiritual understanding.

The best-advertised reform in all history was that effected by Joseph the Provider. The Bible tells us that the whole thing started with a dream, which is quite characteristic, because all reforms germinate in fantasy. In this case, the evil that Joseph sought to correct was an inadequacy in the ways of nature; or so the story says, although it might be that the hurt visited on the Egyptians by famine was intensified by Pharaoh's taxes; we have reason to believe that taxation, not profligacy, left little with which to tide over the depression. Joseph thought otherwise, and his remedial proposal proved quite pleasing to Pharaoh because it involved the imposition of a new levy. (Here we have the earliest known case of "taxation for social purposes.")

Joseph's reform was so sure-fire, airtight in every respect, that Pharaoh adopted it with alacrity. And, of course, he lifted the reformer right out of his seat in Potiphar's jail to the seat of prime minister. What was the result of the reform? The twenty-percent income tax which Joseph collected during the years of plenty piled up in the public treasury, as intended, but when the hungry workers asked for a return, as promised, they were informed that there was a purchase price on their confiscated property. The price, at first, was all their capital, their stock, and their lands, and when that was gone, being hungry, they sold themselves into slavery to Pharaoh. Thus, Joseph's reform did what all reforms do, it increased political power. Maybe Joseph did not intend it that way—reformers must not be blamed for the contrariness of their reforms; he was, perhaps, deficient in his knowledge of political science, from which he might have learned that 113

title: Page:Rise and Fall of Society.djvu/137


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/179

 was reprinted definitively in 1784, accompanied by engravings. In this form it was reproduced in his posthumous ‘Works’ (ii. 393–516).

The catalogues of 1774 and 1784 were printed at his own Officina Arbuteana or private press at Strawberry. This he set on foot in July 1757, in a cottage near his house, taking for his sole manager and operator an Irish printer named William Robinson. His first issue was the ‘Odes’ of Gray, which he set up for the Dodsleys in 1757. These in due course were followed by a number of works of varying importance. Of those from his own pen, the chief (in addition to the catalogues above mentioned) were ‘A Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors of England,’ 2 vols. 1758; ‘Fugitive Pieces in Verse and Prose,’ 1758; ‘Anecdotes of Painting in England’ (from Vertue's MSS.), 4 vols. 1762–1771 [1780]; ‘A Catalogue of Engravers who have been born or resided in England,’ 1763; ‘The Mysterious Mother, a Tragedy,’ 1768; ‘Miscellaneous Antiquities,’ Nos. 1 and 2, 1772; ‘A Letter to the Editor of the Miscellanies of Thomas Chatterton,’ 1779; ‘Hieroglyphic Tales,’ 1785; ‘Essay on Modern Gardening’ (with a French version by the Duc de Nivernais), 1785; and a translation of Voiture's ‘Histoire d'Alcidalis et de Zelide,’ 1789. Besides these, he printed Hentzer's ‘Journey into England,’ 1757; Whitworth's ‘Account of Russia in 1710,’ 1758; Spence's ‘Parallel’ (between Hill the tailor and the librarian Magliabecchi), 1758; Lord Cornbury's comedy of ‘The Mistakes,’ 1758; Lucan's ‘Pharsalia,’ with Bentley's notes, 1760; Countess Temple's ‘Poems,’ 1764; ‘The Life of Lord Herbert of Cherbury,’ 1764; Hénault's ‘Cornélie,’ 1768; Hoyland's ‘Poems,’ 1769; ‘Seven Original Letters of Edward VI,’ 1772; Grammont's ‘Memoirs,’ 1772; Fitzpatrick's ‘Dorinda, a Town Eclogue,’ 1775; Lady Craven's comedy of ‘The Sleep-walker,’ 1778; Hannah More's ‘Bishop Bonner's Ghost,’ 1789, and a number of minor pieces, single sheets, labels, and so forth. All the earlier of these books were printed by his first printer, Robinson. But Robinson was dismissed in 1759, and, after an interval of occasional hands, was succeeded by Thomas Kirgate, who continued to perform his duties until Walpole's death.

Apart from the history of Strawberry and its press, Walpole's life from 1747, when he came to Twickenham, has little incident. In 1747–9 his zeal for his father's memory involved him in some party pamphleteering, the interest of which has now evaporated. In the November of the last-mentioned year he was robbed in Hyde Park by the ‘gentleman highwayman,’ James Maclaine [q. v.], and narrowly escaped being shot through the head (World, No. 103; Corresp. ii. 218–230). In 1753 he contributed a number of papers to the ‘World’ of the fabulist Edward Moore (1712–1757) [q. v.], one of which was a futile plea for that bankrupt Belisarius, Theodore of Corsica, to whom he subsequently erected a memorial tablet in St. Anne's churchyard, Soho; and in the same year he was instrumental in putting forth the famous edition of Gray's ‘Poems,’ with the designs of the younger Bentley, the originals of which were long preserved at Strawberry. In 1754 he became member for Castle Rising in Norfolk, a seat which he vacated three years later for that of Lynn. About the same time he interested himself, but vainly, to save the unfortunate Admiral Byng. But his chief distraction, in addition to his house and press, was authorship. Most of his productions have been enumerated above. But a few either preceded the establishment of the press or were independent of it. One of the former class was a clever little skit, on the model of Montesquieu, entitled ‘A Letter from Xo Ho, a Chinese Philosopher at London, to his Friend Lien Chi, at Peking,’ 1757, an effort which to some extent anticipated the famous ‘Citizen of the World’ of Goldsmith. Another jeu d'esprit, three years later, was ‘The Parish Register of Twickenham,’ a list in octosyllabics of the local notables, afterwards included in vol. iv. of his ‘Works.’ To 1761 belongs ‘The Garland,’ a complimentary poem on George III, first published in the ‘Quarterly’ for 1852 (No. clxxx). But his most important effort was issued in December 1764. This was the ‘Gothic romance’ of ‘The Castle of Otranto,’ further described on its title-page as ‘Translated by William Marshal, Gent., from the original Italian of Onuphrio Muralto, Canon of the church of St. Nicholas at Otranto.’ The introduction gave a critical account of the supposed black-letter original, the existence of which at first seems to have been taken for granted, even by Gray at Cambridge. Its success was considerable. In a second edition, which was speedily called for, Walpole dropped the mask and disclosed his intention in a clever preface. He had sought to blend the ancient and modern romance; to combine supernatural machinery and every-day characters. His account of the inception and progress of the idea as given to his friend Cole (Corresp. iv. 328) is extremely interesting; but his book is more interesting still, for he had hit upon a new vein in romance, a vein which was to be worked by a crowd of writers from Clara


text:
Page:Rise and Fall of Society.djvu/138

 the State never passes up a chance to accumulate power.

Approximately forty centuries later the farmers of America were faced with an economic disability of proportions. In this case the hurt was not caused by nature but by the law of the land. There was a great disparity between their income and their cost of living, caused by the fact that while they were compelled to accept for their product the price set in the competitive world market they were concurrently compelled to pay tariff-laden prices for their manufactured needs. Equity demanded the abolition of tariffs, but this would have weakened the power of the State, which would not do at all. So, some reformer came up with the idea that the farmer's income be augmented with taxes levied on the rest of the population (even as the income of protected manufacturers is improved by tariffs) to the indefinable point where farm income would equal farm outgo. This was called "parity." The politicians took to it not because they either understood the terms of the proposed law or foresaw its effects, but because advocacy of it promised them the preferment to which their lives were dedicated.

The bonanza promised the farmers turned out to be largely promise; since most of the farms of the country are owned on mortgage or are operated on a tenancy arrangement, a considerable portion of the subsidy goes to the mortgagees or real owners; more important, the artificial price which the State sets on crops puts them out of the world market while the domestic market is constricted by the tax-reduced purchasing power of consumers. As with all subsidies, some people do get something for nothing out of "farm relief," the rest of Society pay the bill, and the net profit is an augmentation of State power. For the reform measure, in operation, produced a multitude of unforeseen problems, each of which 114

title: Page:Rise and Fall of Society.djvu/138


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/180

 Reeve [q. v.] to Sir Walter—and after. With the ‘Castle of Otranto’ tentatively and inexpertly, but unmistakably, began the modern romantic revival.

By the time the ‘Castle of Otranto’ was in its second edition, Walpole had carried out a long-cherished project and started for Paris. This he did in September 1765. He saw much of cultivated French society, especially its great ladies, of whom his letters contain vivacious accounts (cf. Corresp. iv. 465–73). But the most notable incident of this visit to France, and the pretext of later ones, was the friendship he formed with the blind and brilliant Madame du Deffand, then nearing seventy, whose attraction to the mixture of independence, effeminacy, and real genius which made up Walpole's character speedily grew into a species of infatuation. He had no sooner quitted Paris than she wrote to him, and thenceforward until her death her letters, dictated to her faithful secretary, Wiart, continued, except when Walpole was actually visiting her (and she sometimes wrote to him even then), to reach him regularly. He went to Paris to see her in 1767, and again in 1775. Her attachment lasted five years later, until 1780, when she died painlessly at eighty-four. She left Walpole her manuscripts and her books. Many of her letters are included in the selection published in 1810, and eight hundred of the originals were sold at the Strawberry Hill sale of 1842. Walpole's own letters, which he had prevailed upon her to return to him, though extant in 1810, have not been printed; and those received subsequently to 1774, a few belonging to 1780 excepted, were burnt by her at Walpole's desire. Good Frenchman though he was, he no doubt felt apprehensive lest his compositions in a foreign tongue should, in a foreign land, fall into unsympathetic keeping.

One of his jeux d'esprit while at Paris in 1765 had been a mock letter from Frederick the Great to the self-tormentor Rousseau, offering him an asylum in his dominions. Touched up by Helvétius and others, this missive gave great delight to the anti-Rousseau party, and, passing to England, helped to embitter the well-known quarrel between Rousseau and David Hume (1711–1776) [q. v.] Three years later Walpole was himself the victim of spurious documents. In March 1769 Thomas Chatterton [q. v.], then at Bristol, sent to him, as author of the ‘Anecdotes of Painting,’ some fragments of prose and verse, hinting that he could supply others bearing on the subject of art in England. Walpole was drawn, and replied encouragingly. Chatterton rejoined by partly revealing his condition, and Walpole, consulting Gray and Mason, was advised that he was being imposed upon. Private inquiries at Bath brought no satisfactory account of Chatterton, and he accordingly wrote him a fatherly letter of counsel, in which he added that doubts had been thrown upon the genuineness of the documents. He appears to have neglected or forgotten Chatterton's subsequent communications, until upon receipt of one more imperative than the rest (24 July), demanding the return of the papers, he snapped up both letters and poems in a pet, enclosed them in a cover without comment, and thought no more of the matter until Goldsmith told him at the Royal Academy dinner, a year and a half later, that Chatterton had destroyed himself—an announcement which seems to have filled him with genuine concern. He might no doubt have acted more benevolently or more considerately. But he had been misled at the outset, and it is idle to make him responsible for Chatterton's untimely end because he failed to show himself an ideal patron. His own account of the circumstances, printed, as already stated, at his private press, is to be found in vol. iv. pp. 205–45 of his ‘Works’ (see also Chatterton, 1869).

In May 1767 he had resigned his seat in parliament, and in the following year produced two of his most ambitious works—the ‘Historic Doubts on Richard the Third,’ and the sombre and powerful but unpleasant tragedy of the ‘Mysterious Mother,’ already mentioned as one of the issues from the Strawberry Hill press. From 1769, however, the year of his last communication to Chatterton, until his death some eight-and-twenty years later, his life is comparatively barren of incident. It was passed pleasantly enough between his books and prints and correspondence, but, as he says himself, ‘will not do to relate.’ ‘Loo at Princess Amelie's [at Gunnersbury House], loo at Lady Hertford's, are the capital events of my history, and a Sunday alone, at Strawberry, my chief entertainment’ (Corresp. vi. 287). With being an author, he declared, he had done. Nevertheless, in 1773 he wrote a little fairy comedy called ‘Nature will prevail,’ which five years later was acted at the Haymarket with considerable success. He also printed various occasional pieces at the Strawberry Hill press, the more important of which have been enumerated; and he added to Strawberry itself in 1776–8 a special closet to contain a series of drawings in soot-water which his neighbour at Little Marble Hill, Lady Di Beau-


text:
United States Code/Title 11/Chapter 13/Section 1321

§ 1321. Filing of plan

The debtor shall file a plan.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/181

 clerk, had made to illustrate the ‘Mysterious Mother.’ But the more notable events of his history between 1769 and 1797 are his succession in 1791 to the earldom of Orford at the death of the third earl, his elder brother's son, and his friendship with two charming sisters, Agnes and Mary Berry [q. v.], whose acquaintance he first made formally in 1789, nine years after the death of Madame du Deffand. Travelled, accomplished, extremely amiable, and a little French, their companionship became almost a necessity of his existence. In 1791 they established themselves with their father close to him in a house called Little Strawberry, which had formerly been occupied by an earlier friend, the actress Kitty Clive. It was even reported that rather than risk losing the solace of their society he would, at one time, have married the elder sister, Mary. But this was probably no more than a passing thought, begotten of vexation at some temporary separation. His ‘two Straw-Berries,’ his ‘Amours,’ his ‘dear Both,’ as he playfully called them, continued to delight him with their company until his death, which took place on 2 March 1797 at 40 (now 11) Berkeley Square, to which he had moved in October 1779 from Arlington Street. He left the sisters each 4,000l. for their lives, together with Little Strawberry and its furniture. Strawberry Hill itself passed to Mrs. Damer, the daughter of his friend General Conway, together with 2,000l. a year to keep it in repair. After living in it for some time she resigned it to the Countess Dowager of Waldegrave, in whom the remainder in fee was vested. It subsequently passed to George, seventh earl of Waldegrave, who sold its contents by auction in 1842. When he died four years later he left it to Frances, Countess of Waldegrave [q. v.]

Walpole was, above all, a wit, a virtuoso, and a man of quality. As a politician he scarcely counts, and it is difficult to believe that, apart from the fortunes of his father and friends, he took any genuine interest in public affairs. His critical taste was good, and as a connoisseur he would be rated far higher now than he was in those early Victorian days when the treasures of Strawberry were brought to the hammer, and the mirth of the Philistine was excited by the odd mingling of articles of real value with a good many trivial curiosities which, it is only fair to add, were often rather presents he had accepted than objects of art he had chosen himself. As a literary man he was always, and professed to be, an amateur, but the ‘Castle of Otranto,’ the ‘Mysterious Mother,’ the ‘World’ essays, the ‘Historic Doubts,’ and the ‘Anecdotes of Painting’ all show a literary capacity which only required some stronger stimulus than dilettantism to produce enduring results. If his more serious efforts, however, generally stopped short at elegant facility, his personal qualities secured him exceptional excellence as a chroniqueur and letter-writer. The posthumous ‘Memoirs’ of the reigns of George II and George III, published by Lord Holland and Sir Denis le Marchant in 1822 and 1845 respectively, the ‘Journal of the Reign of George III (1771–83),’ published by Dr. Doran in 1859, and the ‘Reminiscences’ written in 1788 for the Misses Berry, and first published in folio in 1805, in spite of some prejudice and bias, are not only important contributions to history, but contributions which contain many graphic portraits of his contemporaries. It is as a letter-writer, however, that he attains his highest point. In the vast and still incomplete correspondence which occupies Mr. Peter Cunningham's nine volumes (1857–1859), it is not too much to say that there is scarcely a dull page. In these epistles to Mann, to Montagu, to Mason, to Conway, to Lady Hervey, to Lady Ossory, to Hannah More, to the Misses Berry, and a host of others (see list in Corresp. vol. ix. p. xlvi), almost every element of wit and humour, variety and charm, is present. For gossip, anecdote, epigram, description, illustration, playfulness, pungency, novelty, surprise, there is nothing quite like them in English, and Byron did not overpraise them when he called them ‘incomparable.’

Of Walpole's person and character a good contemporary account is given in Pinkerton's ‘Walpoliana’ (vol. i. pp. xl–xlv) and the ‘Anecdotes,’ &c., of L. M. Hawkins (1822, pp. 105–6). There are many portraits of him, the most interesting of which are by J. G. Eckhardt and Sir Thomas Lawrence. The former, which hung in the blue bedchamber at Strawberry, represents him in manhood; the other in old age. There are also likenesses by Müntz, Hone (National Portrait Gallery, London), Zincke, Hogarth (at ten), Reynolds (1757), Rosalba, Falconet, Dance, and others. Walpole's ‘Works,’ edited by Mary Berry, under the name of her father, Robert Berry, were published in 1798 in 5 vols. 4to, with 150 illustrations. Of the ‘Royal and Noble Authors’ an enlarged edition was prepared by Thomas Park, in 5 vols. (London, 1806, 8vo). The standard edition of Walpole's ‘Anecdotes of Painting’ was edited by Ralph N. Wornum in 1849 (3 vols.). The ‘Memoirs


text:
Page:Rise and Fall of Society.djvu/139

 called for a remedial law and more enforcement agents, until at long last the farmer of America finds himself controlled, regulated, and otherwise harassed by the authorities. The dream of reform always portends a profit for Pharaoh.

When we reduce the abstraction "political power" to its operational reality, to the way it actually works, we see how it feeds on reform. Every proposal to improve man's lot by political measures calls for the enactment of a law or an official edict. The law presupposes that some people are not doing what they ought to do or are doing something that ought not to be done. Hence, the purpose of the law is to regulate human behavior. The very premise of the law is that violation or evasion will ensue from its enactment, that it will not be self-enforcing; therefore, the heart of the law is a punishment clause. No law is worth the paper it is printed on without such a clause, and no law has any effect unless it is implemented with a corps of enforcers. Therein lies the secret of the accumulation and perpetuation of political power.

Joseph's reform law was carried out by what the Bible calls "officers"—stout fellows who performed their duties with finality. Where authority is diffused and highly formalized, as in this country, the arbitrament of force is resorted to only when the subtler methods of suasion and bribery have been exhausted, methods that require the services of highly trained "officers," currently known as bureaucrats. The bureaucrats are people, not unlike the people whose direction is entrusted to their care under the law; they too are bent on getting the most out of life with the minimum of exertion, and they too adjust their thinking to the means at hand. They develop an occupational frame of mind, a bureaucratic 115

title: Page:Rise and Fall of Society.djvu/139


text:
A Standard History of Kansas and Kansans/Biography/Herschel C Porterfield

Thirty-five years in the oil fields and thirty years as a contractor and producer constitute the record of this veteran of an industry which has brought Kansas untold wealth. Like hundreds of men of this class, he has found Independence as the most satisfactory city for residence and business headquarters.

In another respect he is typical of perhaps a majority of the oil men of the country—his native state is Pennsylvania. Born in Butler County, August 10, 1856, he was one of several brothers to become identified with the oil industry in one way or another. Up to the age of eighteen he lived at home and attended the public schools of his native county. Then after six years more spent assisting in the work of his father's farm, he began regular employment as a worker in the oil district, first in Butler, then in Venango County, afterwards in Cattaraugus County, New York, Washington County and Toledo, Ohio, and from the East came to Kansas on April 1, 1903. He spent a time in Chanute, then went to Peru, but since 1904 has had his home and headquarters in Independence.

It was in Venango County, Pennsylvania, in 1886, that Mr. Porterfield did his first contracting. He bought a string of tools, and since then has worn out many sets and is now interested in five strings, which in recent years he has had at work in the oil districts of Kansas and Oklahoma.

He and M. D. Mitchell are the constituent members of the Amherst Oil Company, which has sixty-five producing oil and two gas wells, he being manager, foreman and director of the company. He is manager and has a fourth interest, besides what his sons own, in the Skinner Oil Company, that has seven producing oil wells. Nearly a half interest is owned by Mr. Porterfield in the Argue-Porterfield Company with its eight producing wells.

In the twelve years since he came to Independence Mr. Porterfield and family have resided at 1114 West Main Street. In politics he is independent with strong leanings toward prohibition, and is a member of the Methodist Church.

He comes of excellent family stock, largely Irish and Scotch, and has good reason to be proud of his own children. His Grandfather William Porterfield, of Irish descent, was born in Pennsylvania in 1784, was a farmer, and died in Butler County in 1864. He married Jane Lowry, who was of Scotch family, and she was born in 1791 and died in Butler County in 1866. The Lowrys were very prominent in Pennsylvania early affairs, and her two brothers, Mathew and Walter, were especially men of note.

Mr. Porterfield's father, Pliny F. Porterfield, was born in Butler County in 1826, spent nearly all his life there, and died in 1908 in the house where his son Herschel was born and on the place which has been in the family since the pioneers drove back the Indians and took possession of the land. Though a farmer, he was well educated, had taught school, and studied to be a physician. He was elected and served a long time as justice of the peace, and was a loyal worker and trustee of the Presbyterian Church. He was a republican, and a member of the Ancient Order of United Workmen. The maiden name of his wife was Amy A. Boomer, who was of Irish descent. She was born in 1833, and died at MacDonald, Pennsylvania, in 1912. This is a brief record of their children: Amelia Jane married Jonathan Hartman, and they reside at Lima, Ohio, Mr. Hartman having been connected with the Standard Oil Company until he was retired on a pension; Herschel C. is the second in age; Pliny Fisk died at the age of twelve; Carrie May, residing in Butler County, is the widow of Harry Gates, who was an oil producer; Amy Luella, deceased, married U. S. Rhodabarger, now an oil producer in Cleveland, Oklahoma; Harry B., resident of MacDonald, Pennsylvania, among other business interests is an assistant superintendent of the Standard Oil Company; William K. is an oil contractor and producer at Emlenton, Pennsylvania; P. F. is a foreman for the Standard Oil Company and lives in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; Mary J. married Joseph McQuiston, of MacDonald, Pennsylvania, who has been a foreman for the Standard Oil; and B. L. is a foreman for the Standard Oil at Oakdale, Pennsylvania.

Most of Mr. Porterfield's own children are grown and established in business or homes of their own. In Venango County, Pennsylvania, in 1880, he married Miss Lydia A. Ogden, a daughter of J. N. and Priscilla Ogden. Her father is still living, a retired farmer and music teacher, at Oil City, Pennsylvania. Five children were born to Mr. and Mrs. Porterfield: Garnette Luella is the wife of Frank McKenna, a boiler maker by trade and a resident of Marietta, Ohio; H. M. is an oil producer and oil worker and lives at Wayside, Kansas; C. E. has followed in the same line as his father and brother and lives at Sedan, Kansas; Twila Annetta, living with her parents, is stenographer with Tomlinson & Shukers, attorneys; Virgil Lowry died December 2, 1915, at the age of eight years.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/182

 of the Reign of George III’ were re-edited by Mr. G. F. Russell Barker in 1894 (4 vols.). Peter Cunningham's collected edition of Walpole's ‘Letters’ (1857–9, 9 vols.) embodied many separately published volumes of his correspondence with respectively George Montagu (London, 1818, 8vo), William Cole (1818, 4to), Sir Horace Mann (1833, 8vo, and 1843–4, 8vo), with the Misses Berry (1840), with the Countess of Ossory (1848), and with William Mason (1850), besides his ‘Private Correspondence’ (1820, 4 vols.).

 WALPOLE, MICHAEL (1570–1624?), jesuit and controversialist, youngest of the four brothers of [q. v.], was baptised at Docking, Norfolk, on 1 Oct. 1570. When [q. v.] landed in Norfolk in 1588 he made the acquaintance of the Docking household, and young Michael attached himself to the jesuit. When Henry Walpole was taken prisoner at Flushing, Michael went to his assistance and procured his ransom. He entered the Society of Jesus on 7 Sept. 1593. Doña Luisa de Carvajal came to England in 1606, and he appears to have been her confessor or spiritual adviser. In 1610, while in attendance on this lady, he was arrested and thrown into prison; but on the intervention of the Spanish ambassador he was released, though compelled to leave the country. In 1613 he returned to England in company with Gondomar, when Doña Luisa's house was broken into and the lady imprisoned. Walpole very narrowly escaped arrest. When Doña Luisa died in 1614, Walpole was with her, and he accompanied her body on its removal to Spain next year, and died some time after 12 Aug. 1624.

Walpole wrote much. He published: 1. ‘A Treatise on the Subjection of Princes to God and the Church,’ St. Omer, 1608, 4to. 2. ‘Five Books of Philosophical Comfort, with Marginal Notes, translated from the Latin of Boethius,’ London, 1609, 8vo. 3. ‘Admonition to the English Catholics concerning the Edict of King James,’ St. Omer, 1610, 4to. 4. ‘Anti-Christ Extant, against George Downham,’ St. Omer, 1613–14, 2 vols. 4to; 2nd edit. 1632. 5. ‘Life of St. Ignatius of Loyola,’ St. Omer, 1616, 12mo: a translation of Ribadeneyra which was often reprinted.

 WALPOLE, RALPH (d. 1302), bishop of Norwich and afterwards of Ely, was probably a member of the family of the Walpoles of Houghton, which since the early part of the twelfth century had possessed a competent landed estate in the fen country of West Norfolk and Northern Cambridgeshire. The family name comes from the village of Walpole, in the extreme west of Norfolk, a few miles north of Wisbech. Ely, where the family possessed a town house, was another centre of its estates. The future bishop can without much hesitation be identified with Ralph de Walpole, clerk, of Houghton, and son of John de Walpole, who in an undated deed gave a piece of land in Houghton to Thomas of Clenchwardetoun (, Peerage, v. 30, ed. 1779;, Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany, i. 274). In that case he was the son of Sir John de Walpole and his wife Lucy. John was alive in 1254, and seems to have been succeeded by his son, Henry de Walpole, who fought with the younger Simon de Montfort against Edward in the Isle of Ely in 1267 (ib. i. 273), and died before 1305.

The younger brother Ralph adopted an ecclesiastical career. He became a doctor of divinity, possibly at Cambridge, where he possessed a messuage, which, on 21 June 1290, he obtained license to alienate in mortmain to Hugh de Balsham's new foundation of Peterhouse (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1281–92, p. 371). He became rector of Somersham, Huntingdonshire, and in 1268 appears as archdeacon of Ely, holding this preferment for at least twenty years. In March 1287 Archbishop Peckham addressed him a letter, ordering him to make personal investigation at Cambridge of certain slanders on Peckham and other bishops alleged to have been


text:
Page:Triangles of life, and other stories.djvu/44

 The parlour with a long table piano at one end and a small-paned window at the other—like one of our narrower ones laid on its side to fit the inn. A model of a ship over the mantel and above it a portrait of the landlord's own ship. For he was a youngish man-o'-warsman, retired on rheumatism, and his wife a youngish woman with reddish hair, the last and only surviving child of a long line of village publicans. They were childless, and during his rheumatic attacks she referred to him to gentlemen customers as "her baby." There was a hole into the bar, opposite the piano, through which the landlord might serve drinks—and keep an eye on his wife. Clients, for whom the landlord refused to "slate it" further until settled with, made grumbling and nasty comments about babies.

The long side parlour, sacred to Leonard and his equals and one or two of the elders, and doubly sacred on Club or meeting nights when births, deaths, accidents and widows and orphans were provided against, or arranged for, or disposed of. Then the solemn conclave would relax.

Leonard, who always said " As the sayin' is," and would be indicated, particularized and disposed of right off and at once and for ever in the Bush by some variation of his habitual expression. "The Sayin' Ass," for instance.

He would like to say a few words, as the sayin' is. He had heard, as the sayin' is, all as had been said, as the sayin' is, here this afternoon, as the sayin' is. Now, gentlemen, as the sayin' ——He started to


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/662

296 Images, sometimes of stone, but more frequently of wood, were also habitually made in the Marquesas to represent the dead, but we do not know of the presence of pyramids in these islands. The me’ae or sacred places had two or more platforms, but there is no evidence of a pyramidal form. The nature of these structures in the Marquesas may have been due, as Tautain suggests, to the nature of the mountainous country in which the people built their villages.

While there are statues in the Marquesas comparable with those of Easter Island, but pyramids are unrepresented, it is this latter feature which is prominent in Tahiti. An especially large example of a pyramid was recorded by Captain Cook, and pyramidal structures were regular features of the marae, or sacred places, of this island. According to the description of a Tahitian pyramid given by Moerenhout they seem to have been not far removed from the platform of Easter Island and, as in that island, to have been surmounted by images. The example described by Moerenhout was 300 feet long by 120 broad at the base, while at the summit, 60 feet above the ground, the length had diminished to 200 and the breadth to only 12 feet. It was on this narrowed platform at the summit of the pyramid that the images were placed. It is probable that some at least of these images were, as in the Marquesas, images of the dead, and certainly the marae with which they are associated are closely connected with a cult of the dead.

Statues of stone also occurred in other islands of the Pacific. Gill speaks of a great stone “idol” of the god Rongo in Mangaia which was smashed to atoms when the people renounced their native gods.

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/662


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/183

 uttered by a ‘religious’ person at Cambridge (Peckham's Letters, iii. 943, Rolls Ser.).

At the death of William de Middleton, Walpole became bishop of Norwich. Edward I's license to elect having been obtained, the ‘via compromissi’ was adopted, and a committee of seven monks unanimously chose Walpole on 11 Nov. 1288. The election caused great dissatisfaction in the diocese, and everybody cursed the convent of Norwich, and in particular the seven electors (, pp. 169–170, who gives very full details of the whole election). A more friendly critic only praises Walpole for his industry ( in Ann. Monastici, iv. 315). The bishop-elect at once proceeded to Gascony to present himself for approval by the king. He found Edward at Bonnegarde ‘in ingressu Aragoniæ,’ and obtained from him a cheerful consent to his election. On 25 Jan. 1289 Walpole was back in England, and on 1 Feb. visited Archbishop Peckham at South Malling, where his temporalities were restored and arrangements made for his consecration. Before confirming Walpole the scrupulous archbishop insisted that he should relinquish the grant of first-fruits which Bishop Pandulf [q. v.] had obtained from the pope to supplement the wasted revenue of his bishopric (, Concilia, ii. 404;, Anglia Sacra, i. 412). On 7 Feb. his temporalities were restored (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1281–92, p. 312). He was consecrated bishop by Peckham on Mid-Lent Sunday, 20 March, at Canterbury (, p. 272).

As bishop, Walpole took little part in politics, though his sympathies with the strong ecclesiastical and papalist party ultimately brought him into collision with the crown. He energetically supported Archbishop Winchelsea in his resistance to Edward I's excessive taxation of the clergy, and was one of the deputation headed by Richard de Swinfield [q. v.], bishop of Hereford, appointed on 20 Jan. 1297 to explain to Edward the clerical position (, Concilia, ii. 220). Walpole was one of the three bishops who persisted in refusing the king's demands after Winchelsea had allowed individual clerks to make a personal submission to the king's will (, Chron. p. 475, Rolls Ser.)

Within his diocese Walpole showed great activity and energy. In the very first year of his bishopric he conducted a visitation (, p. 172). In 1291 he took some part in the movement for a crusade. He kept his promise to Peckham as to the levying of first-fruits fairly well, but not completely. It was almost set down as a merit to him that he did not take on this pretext a quarter of the sums that he might have exacted (, Concilia, ii. 404). In his time the building of the cloisters of Norwich Cathedral was begun, and the eastern and the southern sides still remain of his work. A stone on the south side bears an inscription to that effect (Genealogical Mag. October 1898, p. 242). He was tenacious of his rights, and had a long quarrel with the burgesses of his town of Lynn (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1292–1301, pp. 163, 441, 458).

In 1299 Walpole was translated to Ely. The election had been disputed between John Salmon [q. v.] and John de Langton [q. v.], who was supported by Edward I (‘Historia Eliensis’ in Anglia Sacra, i. 639–40, gives a detailed account of the conflict; cf. ‘Ann. Wigorn.’ in Ann. Monastici, iv. 542–3; Flores Hist. iii. 105–6). Ultimately Boniface VIII, who had been appealed to, induced both Salmon and Langton to resign, and directed the monks attending his court to proceed to a fresh election. But they could not agree even now, whereupon the pope, irritated at their conduct, took the appointment into his own hands. On 5 June 1299 he issued at Anagni a bull, translating the bishop of Norwich to Ely (Cal. Papal Letters, 1198–1304, p. 582; Flores Hist. iii. 105–6;, Fasti Eccl. Anglicanæ, i. 332, erroneously dates the translation 15 July). This was doubtless the reward of Walpole's obstinate adherence to the principle of clericis laicos, and is likely to have been displeasing to Edward I. However, Boniface smoothed the way for his nominee by dealing liberally with the vanquished claimants. Langton was allowed to hold the rich archdeaconry of Canterbury in addition to his existing preferments. On 29 June Salmon was appointed by provision to Norwich, and allowed to impoverish Walpole's old see by charging it with the loan of thirteen thousand florins which he had raised to ‘meet his expenses at Rome’ (Cal. Papal Letters, pp. 582, 583). It is significant that Walpole's proctor at Rome, Master Bartholomew of Ferentino, canon of London, had also to contract loans of fifteen hundred marks and 200l. in his principal's name (ib. p. 590). These were also to ‘meet his expenses at Rome.’

On 10 Oct. 1299 Walpole received the temporalities of his new see (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1292–1301, p. 441;, i. 332, is a year wrong). Walpole ruled Ely for less than three years. His chief endeavour was to reform the disordered discipline of the chapter, with which object he compiled and enforced a new body of statutes (, Hist. of Ely, p. 154). He died on 20 March 1302, the anniversary of his


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Yukon Territory


text:
Page:Triangles of life, and other stories.djvu/45

 tell me a yarn once (as the sayin' is), and after about half an hour, introductory, mostly "as the savin' is," an' so to make it short, as the sayin' is, he went to Australia, as the sayin' is, and kept an hotel, as the sayin' is, but, anyhows, as the sayin' is——Another as the sayin' is—or whatever you call them places, as the sayin' is—I was never up in geography, as the sayin' is, but, anyhows, as the sayin' is——Another tall good-natured sawney arose occasionally to say he " 'ad a happy thought." Who would he be in the Bush but "Happy Thought"? or some pleasant variation of it, say Happy Squeak, Happy Yell, Happy Shriek, Happy Streak, Happy Smell—or Happy Stink.

This was in the House of Lords—with a gentleman or two—walking tourists or cyclists, occasionally at the lower side table by the window, when the lords of the village would edge further along the table and lower their voices in respect to strangers who were or might be gents. Or a motor would break down, and the folk come in out of the rain. Then the lords of the village would sidle out and home with all expedition, despite a polite protest from one of the gents, and a footman or two would drop in for a glass in the bar, amongst the British commons, who'd make room, but were never so impressed as the lords.

The British commons sat round on narrowest of stools, and by narrowest of tables, boxed in with narrowest of settees, with the window, by the fireplace, in the little, low, saw-dusted bar-room; one generally in front of the fire in a position favourable for holding


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/184

  as bishop (, p. 395). He was buried on 1 April in his cathedral, under the pavement of the presbytery before the high altar. Hervey de Staunton [q. v.], the justice, was one of his executors (Cal. Close Rolls, 1313–18, p. 20).

WALPOLE, RICHARD (1564–1607), jesuit and controversialist, was the second of the four brothers of [q. v.], and was baptised at Docking, Norfolk, on 8 Oct. 1564. Another brother was [q. v.] Richard entered at St. Peter's College, Cambridge, on 1 April 1579, a fortnight before his brother Henry left the university. He was elected to one of the scholarships lately founded at his college by Edward, lord North [q. v.], but took no degree at Cambridge. In the summer of 1584 he left England and at once became an alumnus of the seminary at Rheims. Here he continued only a few months, and on 25 April 1585 he entered himself at the English College at Rome. His ability and scholarship were at once recognised, and, after remaining there for the next four years, he was admitted to priest's orders on 3 Dec. 1589, and was then sent to Spain, where Father Parsons was busily engaged in founding the Spanish colleges for which Philip II provided the larger part of the funds. Parsons at once recognised that in Richard Walpole he would have a very able coadjutor. He became accordingly the first rector of the college of Valladolid (1592), and in the ceremonials at the opening of the college of Seville in February 1593 he took a prominent part, and became rector there also. At this time he was admitted to the Society of Jesus. Though he had signified a strong wish to accompany his brother Henry on his disastrous mission to England, Parsons overruled him, and kept the younger brother at his own side, while Henry Walpole was allowed to go on his way. When, after Henry Walpole's execution at York, Father Cresswell wrote his friend's ‘Life’ (1596), the little book produced a profound impression upon Doña Luisa de Carvajal, who thereupon became consumed by a fanatical desire to set out for the conversion of England. This she did in 1606, and, after going through a great deal, she died in London in January 1614 (, Hist. of the Spanish Marriage, i. 11 et seq.). In the meantime Richard Walpole became her spiritual adviser, and in the will which Doña Luisa made previous to her departure from Spain he appears as the lady's executor.

In 1598 Walpole was denounced by [q. v.] as having suggested the ‘fantastic plot’ ‘whereby it was said to have been contrived to poison Queen Elizabeth by rubbing a fatal salve upon her saddle. Squire was hanged, but no man of sense believed in the plot’ (, Court of James I, 1839, i. 156). Richard remained in almost constant attendance on Father Parsons till his death at Valladolid in 1607.

He published: His younger brother, Christopher (1569–1606?), born in October 1569, was one of John Gerard's early converts when that busy proselytiser was at work in Norfolk. He was admitted as a jesuit at Rome on 27 Sept. 1592. During the last few years of his life he seems to have been associated with his brother Richard in the management of the college at Valladolid. He appears to have died in 1606.
 * 1) ‘The Discoverie and Confutation of a Tragical Fiction devysed and played by Ed. Squyer, yeoman, soldiar, hanged at Tyburn on the 23rd of November 1598—.’
 * 2) ‘Answere to Matthew Sutcliffe's Challenge,’ Antwerp, 1605, 8vo.

WALPOLE, ROBERT, first  (1676–1745), statesman, was born in 1676 at Houghton, Norfolk. His great-great-grandfather, Calibut Walpole,


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/663

Rh In Melanesia both stone images in human form and pyramidal structures occur. The nanga of Fiji, in many respects similar to the marae of Polynesia, had pyramids of stone as part of their structure. Though it is probable that degenerate representatives of pyramids occur elsewhere in Melanesia, we only know of the existence of definite pyramids of stone in Fiji.

Stone images are more frequent. As in Polynesia, they may form part of houses, especially of the men’s houses, and they also occur among the ceremonial objects of the Banks Islands and the New Hebrides, where they are connected with the organisations known as the Sukwe and Mangge It is only recently, however, that we have become acquainted with a definite example of the association of stone images with pyramidal burial-places in Melanesia. This information comes from the Rev. C. E. Fox, who has recorded the presence in San Cristoval in the Solomon Islands of burial-mounds, often pyramidal in form, on the top of which are placed images in human form carved out of coral. We have here just such an association of burial-place, pyramidal form and stone-image as through the work of the Routledges we have now come to know in Easter Island. There seems little doubt that San Cristoval and Easter Island are two places where there has been preserved for us an association which in other places has been broken, so that pyramidal form and stone image do not appear together. It is probable, however, that the dissociation of elements of culture which occur together in San Cristoval and Easter Island is only apparent, and that the two features will be found together elsewhere. The place where the evidence in this direction is most definite is the Marquesas, and it is to be hoped that the American Expedition which is now investigating the

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/663


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/664

298 ethnography and archaeology of these islands will obtain definite evidence towards the solution of this problem.

If the future should show the association elsewhere of the three features of burial-place, pyramid and image of stone, the case for a common origin will become still stronger should it reveal a motive for the meaning of the image similar to that of San Cristoval. In this island the stone image is regarded as the representative of the dead chief who is buried in the pyramidal mound it surmounts, and it is believed that the soul or ghost of the dead man has its abode in the image. This suggests a motive for the presence of the statues on the ahu of Easter Island. In other parts of Melanesia, as in Ambrim, we know that the ghost of a dead man is believed to go into an image in human form. In Ambrim these statues are not situated on burial-places, but are connected with an institution called the Mangge, an organisation which has a cult of the dead as its motive. Ambrim and San Cristoval suggest that the great statues of Easter Island were made in order that they should act as abiding-places of the ghosts of the dead over whose bodies they watch.

I can now return to the problem raised by the presence of two chief kinds of ahu. There are two main possibilities. One is that the two modes of burial belong to different cultures. The other, and the more probable, is that the pyramidal form of burial-place was that proper to the culture of the people who introduced the practice of stone-working, but that when the statues increased in size the original form of pyramid was unable to bear their weight, and a process was set in action which produced the platforms or terraces upon which the images stood. It is quite in keeping with all we know of Oceanic culture, however, that the people should have continued to use the pyramidal form when no image was made, and that the sentiment in favour of monuments of this kind was of considerable strength is suggested by the use of the

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/664


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/665

Rh pyramidal form when it became necessary to reconstruct dilapidated ahu of the platform variety.

If I am right in my interpretation of the association of burial-place, pyramid and image in Easter Island and San Cristoval it will become necessary to understand why the human image, which is not very conspicuous in the Solomons, should have become the imposing statue of Easter Island. It is a remarkable fact that these images occur especially in three small islands of the Pacific, Easter and Pitcairn Islands and Lavaïvaï, I have already mentioned the large image of Mangaia, and according to Moerenhout large statues once existed in other islands of the Pacific, but even if this were so, it would be necessary to understand why the images should be so large in tiny islets such as Easter Island and Pitcairn.

According to the view here put forward, the images are the expression of an art which was introduced into many parts of the Pacific. In large islands, such as the Marquesas and Tahiti, the stone-workers would find many outlets for their energy and for the satisfaction of their religious and artistic impulses. There would be no reason why any one element of their culture should undergo hypertrophy; why their energies should take the direction of magnifying the images which, as I suggest, they may have trusted their souls would occupy when they were no longer living.

A little place like Easter Island, on the contrary, would give no outlet for the energies of the immigrants in an economic or social direction. The volcanic soil would soon provide them with an ample supply of such foods as were either there already, or were provided by plants they had brought with them. We know that the supply of timber was so scanty that the people were driven to depend upon driftwood to make their canoes, and still find it diffcult to obtain sufficient wood to cook their food. Even if they had not already possessed the practice of using stone for

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/665


text:
Author:Arthur Philemon Coleman

Works

 * (Geography)
 * (in part)
 * The Causes of Mountain Forms in the Canadian Rockies in Canadian Alpine Journal (1908)
 * The Causes of Mountain Forms in the Canadian Rockies in Canadian Alpine Journal (1908)

title: Author:Arthur Philemon Coleman


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Herder, Johann Gottfried von

HERDER, (1744-1803). An eminent German philosophical and critical writer, of the classical period, born at Mohrungen. He was the son of a schoolmaster and cantor. His frail health unfitted him for industrial life, and his first earnings were as copyist to Deacon Trescho, a voluminous but forgotten author. Here he was neither appreciated nor justly treated, but he gained a knowledge of books and an easy style. He had begun independent composition when he awakened the interest of a Prussian surgeon, with whom he went to Königsberg, where he hoped to have an operation performed on an eye, and then to study medicine. But for the latter his nerves proved too weak, and he turned to theology, getting a small scholarship and eking out a livelihood by teaching. He soon won notice both as pedagogue and preacher, and became intimate with Kant, the philosopher, who, with Rousseau, was the guide of his future metaphysical speculations. In 1764 he accepted a call to the Cathedral School at Riga, where he maintained his reputation, and would have remained had he not become involved in a literary controversy with Klotz about Lessing, in the course of which he was led to protest that he had not written articles that universal opinion, supported by circumstantial evidence, held that he had. Thus he lost reputation, and resolved to recruit his health in the south of France in 1769. He returned to Germany in that year. He became tutor to the Prince of Holstein-Eutin, sharpened his critical genius in a fortnight with Lessing at Hamburg, found at Darmstadt his future congenial mate in Karoline Flachsland, and accepted a call to the pastorate of Bückeburg. He went thither in 1771, after a long stay in Strassburg for optical treatment, during which he was a helpful friend and critic of the young Goethe. He had printed the famous critical attacks on the artificial literary spirit of his time, Fragmente über die neuere dentsche Litteratur (1767) and the Kritische Wälder (1769), and a prize essay, Ueber den Urssprung der Sprache (1772). He now began to gather material for the Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit, his greatest work, though unfinished, published 1784-91 (translated by Churchill), for Aelteste Urkunde des Menschengeschlechts (1774), an aesthetic study of Genesis, and for the studies in popular poetry (Volkslieder, 1778-79), the works that were to constitute his chief title to fame. In 1773 he married. In 1776 Goethe procured for him the posts of Court preacher and member of the Upper Consistory at Weimar, where he found the environment best suited to his delicately organized genius and labored effectively for Church reform, though he soon found himself in moral estrangement from Goethe and his associates. Many of Herder's important publications were completed in the period between 1778 and his journey to Italy in 1788. They consist of theological, æsthetic, philosophic, philologic, and political studies, of Vom Geiste der Ebräischen Poesie (1782), translated by Marsh (The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, 1833), of a translation of The Cid (1805), and of Stimmen der Völker (Voices of the Peoples) (1778-80), in which he translated the popular songs of many nations with a felicity and sympathy that preserve in wonderful degree the local color and feeling. Herder's original work in æsthetics, philosophy, literature, and philology has powerfully influenced German thought. He was possibly best as an interpreter of others: for he had a truer perception of the relation of language to human nature and national character than any other of his day. He was thought, if not a systematic a most stimulating thinker, perhaps more a seer than a scholar, yet by the scope of his intuitional perceptions he abounded in suggestions that have borne fruit in the modern correlation of the sciences. Herder's Works are in 60 vols. (1827-30). The literary portion has been best reëdited by Suphan and

Redlich (9 vols., Berlin, 1884 et seq.). For Herder's biography, consult his widow's Erinnerungen aus dem Leben Johannis Gottfried von Herders (Stuttgart, 1830); his sons, Lebensbild (Erlangen, 1846-47); and his Letters (ib., 1846-48). There are Lives by Haym (Berlin, 1880-85); Kühnemann (Munich, 1894); and in English by Nevinson (London, 1884).


text:
Page:Folklore1919.djvu/666

300 the construction of their ceremonial objects, they might have been driven to use this material in the satisfaction of their religious needs. Having unlimited time and copious supplies of the stone they needed for the construction of their burial-places and images, it is not difficult to understand that the immigrants should have sought to enhance their importance through the feature of size just as was done by the ancient kings of Egypt when they contrived the pyramids within which their bodies were to rest. The chief difficulty is to understand how immigrants stranded in a tiny island, perhaps among an earlier population inferior to themselves in culture, should have succeeded in transmitting their zeal and desire for commemoration to their descendants.

In such a case as that of the statues of Easter Island we cannot expect certainty when we seek for the motive which inspired people of long ago. But, if the statues were to serve as resting-places for the souls of the dead, the limitation of activities in other directions provides a reason for the presence of these images in islands so small that it must have been difficult to find that interest which makes human activity possible. In view of the great importance of interest in life to the welfare of a people, I would even venture to suggest that it is because the people found an outlet for their energies in the construction of these monuments that they were able to persist and keep alive the spirit of their society.

I mentioned at the outset the discovery of the Routledges that it is only the statues of the burial-places which were surmounted by the crowns, and I propose now briefly to consider this special feature of the statues. Several students of anthropology have been stimulated by the work of the Routledges to speculate about the nature of these crowns which have usually been regarded as hats. Mr.

title: Page:Folklore1919.djvu/666