text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/223

 his coffin, and to several statements made by himself, he was born about 1667. His birthplace was probably a small house in Tanich, Ross-shire, then occupied by his father, who suffered imprisonment for joining the expedition of Dundee in 1689; the next year served under General Buchan, and in 1696 joined with Lord Drummond and other noblemen in an attempt to surprise Edinburgh Castle (Memoirs, 1797, p. 211; letter to the Duke of Perth 9 Feb. 1704 in Correspondence of Nathaniel Hooke, i. 86). Simon was educated at King's College, Aberdeen, where, as would appear from his love of classical quotation and allusion, he acquired some proficiency in his studies. Indeed, he curiously united the peculiarities of a wild highland chief with those of a cultivated gentleman. When he had just taken the degree of M.A. in 1683, and was about to ‘enter upon the science of civil law,’ his studies were interrupted by the proposal that he should accept a commission in the regiment of Lord Murray, afterwards duke of Atholl. The proposal was, he states, extremely distasteful to him, and only assented to on the assurance that the design of Lord Murray in accepting the regiment was treacherously to aid King James with it ‘in a descent he had promised to make during the ensuing summer.’ In 1696 he accompanied Lord Murray (who in July was created Earl of Tullibardine) and his cousin, Lord Lovat, to London. He there so ingratiated himself with his cousin, whom he describes as of ‘contracted understanding,’ that Lord Lovat made a universal bequest to him of all his estates in case he should die without male issue, an opportune arrangement, for Lovat died very shortly after his return from London. By a deed made on 20 March it was found that the estates had been settled for life on Simon Fraser's father, Thomas Fraser of Beaufort, Simon having consoled himself for his filial piety in effecting this arrangement by securing for himself meanwhile a grant of five thousand merks Scots. The father thereupon assumed the title of Lord Lovat, and Simon styled himself Master of Lovat. Emilia, eldest daughter of the tenth lord, assumed, however, the title of Baroness of Lovat, and as she had the support of her mother's brother, the Earl of Tullibardine, lord high commissioner of Scotland, Simon prudently resolved to end the dispute by marrying the heiress. He attempted to get her into his hands, but the clansman who had been entrusted with conveying her, for whatever reason, failed to complete his commission, and brought her back to her mother. A treaty was then entered into for her marriage with the Master of Saltoun, whereupon Fraser raised a number of his followers, and falling in with Lords Saltoun and Tullibardine after they had left Castle Downie, captured them near Inverness, and conveyed them prisoners to the island of Aigas. He then invested Castle Downie, of which he soon obtained possession, and, finding the daughter had been removed beyond his reach, resolved, possibly rather from a sudden impulse of vengeance than from interested motives, to compel the mother to marry him instead. In the middle of the night he introduced into her chamber a clergyman, Robert Monroe of Abertarf, and the marriage was performed by force, the bagpipes being blown up to stifle the lady's cries (State Trials, xiv. 356). For some time afterwards the lady, whom he also removed to the island of Aigas, remained in a state of utter physical and mental prostration; but Fraser is said to have ultimately won her affection. At first he gave out that it was the lady herself who sent for the minister, and it has also been stated that she sent for a second minister; but in subsequent years, when he found it impossible to reap any benefit from the marriage, Lovat deemed it more convenient to treat the whole matter as a practical joke of his own, without legal validity. The Earl of Tullibardine at once took measures for punishing the outrage committed on his sister. Letters of ‘intercommuning’ and of fire and sword were issued against Fraser and his followers; proceedings were taken against him and his father and others in the court of justiciary, which ended on 6 Sept. 1698 in their being found guilty of high treason, and condemned to be executed as traitors (ib. xiv. 350–78). Simon removed his father to Skye, where he died in the castle of Dunvegan in 1699, when the son assumed the title of Lord Lovat. For some time he wandered with a band of trusty followers among the wilds of the northern highlands, eluding every effort to capture him, and occasionally inflicting severe losses on his pursuers. By cleverly working on the jealousy of the Duke of Argyll towards the rival house of Atholl he induced Argyll in the autumn of 1700 to intervene to procure him a pardon from King William. On Argyll's recommendation he took a journey to London, but King William was then on the continent, and Lovat utilised the opportunity to run over to France, where he paid two visits to the exiled court at St. Germain. His reason for doing so, he unblushingly states, was to dissipate the calumnies against the sincerity of his Jacobitism disseminated by the Marquis of Atholl, and he asserts that he was so successful that James promised when he came into power ‘to exterminate that perfidious and traitorous family’ (Memoirs, 103). He


text:
Page:An account of the English colony in New South Wales.djvu/11

 AN

OF THE

IN

FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT IN JANUARY I788, TO

AUGUST 1801:

WITH

REMARKS ON THE DISPOSITIONS, CUSTOMS, MANNERS, &c. OF

THE NATIVE INHABITANTS OF THAT COUNTRY.

TO WHICH ARE ADDED,

COMPILED, BY PERMISSION,

FROM THE MSS. OF LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR KING:

AND

AN ACCOUNT OF A VOYAGE PERFORMED BY CAPTAIN FLINDERS AND MR. BASS; BY WHICH THE EXISTENCE OF A STRAIT SEPARATING VAN DIEMEN’S LAND FROM THE CONTINENT OF NEW HOLLAND WAS ASCERTAINED.

ABSTRACTED FROM THE JOURNAL OF MR. BASS.

By Lieutenant-Colonel COLLINS, of the Royal Marines;

ILLUSTRATED BY NUMEROUS ENGRAVINGS.

THE SECOND EDITION.

LONDON:

Printed by A. Strahan, Printers Street,

FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, IN THE STRAND.

1804.

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


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/224

 then met William at the Loo, having, according to his own account, agreed, at the special request of King James, to ‘make his peace with the reigning government in order to save his clan.’ He played before William the part of a devoted subject with such seeming sincerity that, if he is to be believed, William gave instructions that there should be drawn up for him ‘an ample and complete pardon for every imaginable crime’ (ib. 105). The limitation of the pardon, after it passed through the various forms, to offences against the state was, Lovat asserts, due to the ‘unnatural treachery’ of his cousin who had charge of the matter; but the records of the privy council, on the contrary, prove that William declined to interfere in regard to offences against private persons. For his outrage against the Dowager Lady Lovat he was consequently summoned before the high court of justiciary, and failing to appear was outlawed 17 Feb. 1701. On 19 Feb. of the following year the lady also presented a petition for letters of ‘intercommuning’ against him, which were a second time granted. After the death of King William, acting, he asserted, on the advice of Argyll, Lovat for greater security went to France, which he reached in July 1702. He can scarcely, however, have been following Argyll's advice when he pretended to have authority from some of the Scottish nobility and chiefs of the highlands to offer their services to the court of St. Germain (MACPHERSON, Original Papers, 629). King James was then dead, but Lovat succeeded in obtaining an audience, not only of Mary of Modena, but of Louis XIV. It was probably to secure this that he found it expedient to become a convert to the catholic faith, and as a matter of fact it was through Gualterio, the papal legate, that he opened communications with the French king. Louis bestowed on him a valuable sword and other tokens of regard. Lovat's proposal was that the Scottish Jacobites should raise as many as twelve thousand men, on condition that the French king should land five thousand men at Dundee and five hundred at Fort William. The unsatisfactory condition of Lovat's private affairs was his chief reason for coquetting with Jacobitism, and he doubtless did not intend to do more than coquet until he was more certain of success and rewards. Though his proposals were regarded with favour by Louis, the Scotch Jacobites at St. Germain were far from satisfied with his credentials. It was therefore resolved to send him to Scotland to make further inquiries, John Murray, a naturalised Frenchman, brother of the laird of Abercairny, accompanying him to act as a check on his procedure, and to afford some assurance of the genuineness of his information (instructions to Simon Fraser, lord Lovat, in Original Papers, i. 630–1). Murray confined his attention chiefly to the lowland nobles and gentry, while Lovat made a tour through the clans. Not improbably Lovat intended at first to do his utmost to promote a rising in the highlands, but the clans were distrustful. Lockhart of Carnwath asserts (as did also the tories at the time) that Lovat had all along been acting as the spy of Argyll and Queensberry, and that he went to the highlands with their knowledge; but it would rather appear that Fraser introduced himself to Queensberry because he had met with insufficient encouragement in the highlands. Lovat states that he was particularly on his guard with Queensberry in order to ‘amuse him and throw him on the wrong scent;’ and this he certainly did, in so far as he made Queensberry the instrument of gratifying his own personal revenge against the Duke of Atholl. He showed Queensberry a letter from Mary of Modena addressed to Atholl, in which she wrote: ‘You may be sure that when my concerns require the help of my friends you are one of the first I have in my view.’ The letter was probably intended for any nobleman whom Lovat might select, but Queensberry having also a special grudge against Atholl did not fail at once to accept the bait. He gave Lovat a pass to proceed to the continent to obtain further evidence against Atholl and others. Lovat was of course seriously desirous to ruin Atholl, and would have fabricated sufficient evidence for this purpose but for the interposition in the matter of Robert Ferguson, the plotter [q. v.] Lovat actually justifies his accusations by pleading that they were groundless; that Atholl was ‘notoriously the incorrigible enemy of King James,’ and that he was bound not to spare this ‘incorrigible villain’ (Memoirs, 175). He asserted that he never made any revelations to Queensberry except regarding those who were not Jacobites; but there can be little doubt that, besides revenging himself on Atholl, Lovat's aim was, as his enemies asserted, by ‘treachery and villainy’ to regain through Queensberry the ‘complete possession of his province and estates.’ His machinations were, however, completely upset by the revelations of Ferguson, for while Queensberry was by means of them driven from power and rendered unable to assist him, the double part Lovat had been acting became known to the Jacobites at St. Germain. With a pass from Queensberry, Lovat succeeded in reaching Holland, and after many hair-breadth escapes arrived


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/225

 in Paris, where he states he was on account of fatigue attacked by a serious illness, which lasted three weeks (ib. 243). Lovat had sent to the queen an account of his mission in Scotland (‘Memorial to the Queen of all that my Lord Lovat did in his Voyage to England and Scotland by her Majesty's orders’ in Original Papers, i. 641–50), but on account of information regarding his procedure brought by Murray he was arrested. His own account is that ‘after spending thirty-two days in a dark and unwholesome dungeon’ he was confined for three years in the castle of Angoulême, and for other seven years had his liberty restricted to the city of Saumur (Memoirs, written by himself, p. 270); but in the short ‘Memoirs of the Life of Lord Lovat,’ published in 1746, and the ‘Life’ erroneously attributed to a Rev. Archibald Arbuthnot, he is stated to have been a prisoner in the Bastille, to have become a curé at St. Omer, acquiring considerable fame as a preacher, and to have been admitted into the order of jesuits.

Meantime Emilia Fraser, the heiress of Lovat, whom Fraser had endeavoured to carry off, was married to Alexander Mackenzie, son of Roderick Mackenzie of Prestonhall, a judge in the court of session, and with the aid of the judge's legal knowledge Mackenzie, in the absence of Lovat, obtained on 2 Dec. 1702 a decree from the court of session for the estate, and his wife for the title, an execution of entail being further made in favour of the issue of the marriage. Mackenzie also got a deed executed 23 Feb. 1706, permitting the heirs, ‘if they should think fit, in place of the surname of Fraser to bear the name of Mackenzie.’ This procedure deeply offended the clan, and after several meetings of the gentlemen had been held they in 1713 despatched Major Fraser of Castle Leathers to France to discover the whereabouts of their chief and bring him home. After a vain attempt to induce the chevalier to sanction Lovat's release, Lovat and the major, with the aid of the jesuits and on the pretence that they were entrusted by the chevalier with a search commission, concerted an escape. Arriving in London, they were arrested in their lodgings in Soho Square, and kept for some time in a sponging-house, but obtained their liberty on Lord Sutherland, Forbes of Culloden, and others, becoming bail for them for 5,000l. Lovat did not, however, proceed northwards till the outbreak of the rebellion in 1715, when, perhaps less from revenge for his treatment by the Jacobites in France than from regard to his personal interests, he resolved to take the side of the government. His defection from the cause of the Pretender was a serious calamity, and if it did not turn the balance against it rendered its defeat much easier than it would otherwise have been. Mar, writing in February 1716, says: ‘Lovat is the life and soul of the party here; the whole country and his name dote on him; all the Frasers have left us since his appearing in the country.’ He completely broke the back of the rebellion in the northern regions of Scotland by the capture of Inverness. His services were so valuable as to obliterate the memory of his former offences, but the rewards he obtained were by no means commensurate with his ambition. On account of a memorial signed by the Earl of Sutherland and others he received on 10 March 1716 a full pardon, and on 23 June was honoured by an audience of the king; but although Mackenzie had been outlawed and attainted for his connection with the rebellion, his lands could not be forfeited without a special act of parliament, and all that Lovat therefore received was a life-rent of the estates. In 1721, when his proxy was produced at an election of a representative Scottish peer, it was protested against on the ground that the peerage was vested in the person of Emilia, baroness of Lovat, by a decree of the court of session. For the same reason his vote was objected to in 1722 and 1727. In 1730 he commenced an action for ‘reducing’ the previous judgment of the court against him, as he had not been a party to the action in which it was decided, and on 30 July the dignity and honours of Lord Fraser of Lovat were declared to belong to him as eldest son of Thomas, lord Fraser of Lovat. The litigation was, however, continued, and it was not till 1733 that a compromise was agreed upon, whereby Hugh Mackenzie, son of the baroness, consented for a money consideration to renounce his claims to the honours and estates of Lovat.

Lovat's romantic adventures appealed to the clan sentiment. Burt also states that he made use of all arts to impress upon his followers ‘how sacred a character that of chief or chieftain was;’ and possibly in this instance he was himself thoroughly convinced of the truth of what he inculcated. At Castle Downie he kept a sort of rude court, and several public tables. ‘His table,’ says Sir Walter Scott, ‘was filled with Frasers, all of whom he called his cousins, but took care that the fare with which they were regaled was adapted, not to the supposed quality, but to the actual importance of his guests’ (Tales of a Grandfather). The manners and customs prevailing at Castle Downie were a reflection of the strange idiosyncrasy of the chief. A wild savagery in modes of punishment flourished along with an ardent sentiment of brother-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/226

 hood; and ceremonious formality was associated with unsavoury pleasantries and indecorous orgies. The territory of Lovat had in 1704 been erected into a regality, and as in addition to this he was appointed sheriff of Inverness, he found considerable scope for the exercise of his remarkable talents in augmenting his influence in the north of Scotland. In 1724 he addressed to the king a ‘Memorial concerning the State of the Highlands’ (printed in App. to Letters, 5th ed. ii. 254) recommending the establishment of independent highland companies commanded by the chiefs, and when his recommendation was adopted he was appointed to the command of one of the companies. Lovat always professed a special friendship for the Argyll family, whose interests he pretended to represent in the northern regions; but even as early as 1719 this friendship did not prevent him from writing to Seaforth, promising to join him on behalf of the Pretender (State Trials, xviii. 586). The government having obtained information of his intentions, he went to London to make explanations, meantime giving instructions to his clan to take up arms on the side of the government. His mission to London so successfully dissipated the doubts regarding his fidelity, that King George agreed to be godfather to his child, Colonel William Grant of Ballindalloch being appointed to act as his proxy. This barren honour was perhaps less than Lovat had expected, for his communications with the Jacobite party were soon resumed. He was the first to join the association formed about 1737 to invite the chevalier to land in Scotland, a patent for a dukedom being the price by which his services were won. The government became suspicious, and deprived him both of his command of the highland regiment and of his office as sheriff. The humiliation stung him to the quick. He himself said that if Kouli Khan had landed in Britain he thought ‘that would have justified him to have joined him with his clan, and he would have done it.’ At the same time Lovat modified his desire for vengeance by a keen regard to other advantages, and when the Pretender actually arrived in Lochaber manifested no special enthusiasm for his cause. The friendly correspondence he continued to keep up with Duncan Forbes of Culloden (see Culloden Papers) was no doubt chiefly meant to delude the government, but it is evident that he also wished to avoid committing himself irrevocably to the Pretender till the success of the enterprise became more certain. It was not till after the battle of Prestonpans on 21 Sept. 1745 that he ‘threw off the mask’ so far as to send round the fiery cross to summon his followers, but even then his friendly communications did not cease with Duncan Forbes, to whom he explained that his son had joined the Pretender contrary to his wishes, and that ‘nothing ever grieved his soul so much’ as his son's resolution to join the prince. It was impossible to believe such protestations. Lord Loudoun therefore on 11 Dec. marched to Castle Downie, and seizing Lovat brought him to Inverness as a hostage for the clan's fidelity, but on 2 Jan. he made his escape. He now wrote to his son that nothing ever made him ‘speak so much as a fair word’ to President Forbes, except to save himself from prison (State Trials, xviii. 771), and that his chief desire now was that his son ‘should make a figure in the prince's army;’ but at the same time he asked him to take measures to secure the patent of the dukedom, stating that if it was refused he must keep to his oath that he would never draw sword till that was done. The northward retreat of the prince's forces had already begun. Desirous to back out of the enterprise even at the eleventh hour, Lovat now sent a message to his son desiring him to come home, professedly that he might raise more troops; but such a shallow pretext did not for a moment deceive the son, who advised his father ‘not to lose on both sides’ (ib. p. 764). After the disaster of 10 April 1746 at Culloden, the one half of the highland army retreated by Gortuleg, where Lovat was then staying at the house of one of the gentlemen of his clan. He was anxiously awaiting news of the result of the struggle, when the ‘wild and desolate vale below him was suddenly filled with horsemen riding furiously towards the castle.’ A lady who was there at the time as a child records that the sudden appearance of the confused multitude in the plain below her seemed to her a vision of the fairies, and that, in accordance with highland tradition, she strove to refrain from moving her eyelid lest the vision should disappear. Driven to bay, Lovat now vainly advised the prince to make one resolute stand, telling him that his great ancestor Robert Bruce after losing eleven battles won Scotland by the twelfth. The prince in the morning fled westwards, and Lovat sought a retreat he had prepared for himself on Loch Muilly. On the way thither he is said to have witnessed from a hill-top the blaze of Castle Downie, set fire to by the soldiers of Cumberland. He had boasted of his retreat that he ‘would make a hundred good men defend it against all the forces that King George can have in Scotland’ (Letter to his son in State Trials, xviii. 759), but he left this retreat for another seventy miles further off, in the lake of


text:
Author:Richard Norton

Works

 * (in part)

title: Author:Richard Norton


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/227

 Morar on the western coast. As he possessed the only boat on the lake, he felt pretty secure in his hiding-place, but the sailors from a man-of-war towed a boat over the peninsula separating the lake from the sea, and launched it on the lake. Lovat was discovered in the hollow of a tree, his legs muffled in flannel betraying his presence. He was carried in a litter to Fort William and thence by easy stages to London. At St. Albans he had an interview in the White Hart with Hogarth, with whom he had a previous acquaintance, and who then had the opportunity of sketching the famous portrait of him, impressions of which were immediately prepared for sale, and were in such demand that the rolling-press was kept at work day and night. On reaching London Lovat was lodged in the Tower. He was tried for high treason before the House of Lords, and, being found guilty on 18 March 1747, was beheaded at the Tower on the 9th of the following April. In accordance with the regulations as to cases of high treason, all help from counsel was denied him except in regard to strictly legal points. Old and infirm, he was thus placed at great disadvantage. Much evidence was admitted against him the legal validity of which was very questionable. He conducted himself with great tact, and the objections he made as well as his set speeches fully bore out his reputation for shrewdness. On the lord high steward putting the question whether he wished to offer anything further, ‘Nothing,’ said Lovat, ‘except to thank your lordship for your goodness to me. God bless you all, and I wish you an eternal farewell. We shall not all meet again in the same place; I am sure of that’ (State Trials, xviii. 840). The story of Lovat's life, and possibly also his great age, attracted an extraordinary crowd to witness his execution. A scaffold fell, causing the deaths of several people, on which Lovat grimly remarked, ‘The more mischief the better sport.’ When on ascending to the place of execution he saw the immense crowds beneath him, ‘Why,’ he said, ‘should there be such a bustle about taking off an old grey head that cannot get up three steps without two men to support it?’ Before placing his head on the block he, with characteristic appropriation of the noblest sentiments, repeated the line from Horace: Dulce et decorum est pro patriâ mori; and in a vein of becoming moralising, he also quoted Ovid: Nam genus et proavos, et quæ non fecimus ipsi, Vix ea nostra voco. In the paper he delivered to the sheriff he declared that he died ‘a true but unworthy member of the holy catholic apostolic church.’ He had left a codicil to his will that all the pipers from John o' Groat's house to Edinburgh should be invited to play at his funeral; but events having rendered this impossible, he had desired before his execution that he might nevertheless be buried in his tomb at Kirkhill, that ‘some good old highland women might sing a coronach at his funeral.’ He died in this expectation, but although the body was given to an undertaker for this purpose, ‘leave not being given as was expected, it was again brought back to the Tower and interred near the bodies of the other lords’ (Gent. Mag. xvii. 162).

During the lifetime of the Dowager Countess of Lovat, whom he had forcibly married, Lovat was twice married: first, in 1717, to Margaret, daughter of Ludovic Grant of Grant, by whom he had two sons and two daughters; and secondly, to Primrose Campbell, daughter of John Campbell of Mamore, whom he is said to have induced to accept his addresses by inveigling her into a house in Edinburgh, which he asserted was notoriously one of ill-fame, and threatening to blast her character unless she complied with his wishes. By this lady he had one son. His eldest son by the previous marriage was Simon [see {{sc|Fraser, Simon, 1726–1782]. The second son, Alexander, rose to the rank of brigadier-general. Janet, the eldest daughter, married Macpherson of Clunie; Sybilla, the younger, died unmarried. Archibald Campbell Fraser [q. v.], the son of the second marriage, succeeded to the estates on the death, without issue, of his half-brother Simon in 1782. Archibald survived his five sons, and on his death in 1815, the descendants not merely of Simon, twelfth Lord Lovat, but of Hugh, ninth Lord Lovat, became extinct, the estates and male representation of the family devolving on the Frasers of Strichen, Aberdeenshire. Besides the portrait taken at St. Albans, there is another of Lovat by Hogarth, done at an earlier period. The original St. Albans portrait came into the possession of the Faringtons of Worden, Lancashire (Notes and Queries, 4th ser. ii. 59, 191). There is an engraving of Lovat in the prime of life in Mrs. Thomson's ‘Memoirs of the Jacobites.’ The description of Lovat by a correspondent in the ‘Gentleman's Magazine,’ at the time of his trial, tallies closely with the Hogarth likeness: ‘Lord Lovat makes an odd figure, being generally more loaded with clothes than a Dutchman with his ten pair of breeches; he is tall, walks very upright considering his great age, and is tolerably well shaped; he has a large mouth and short nose, with eyes


text:
The Little Red Hen

An Old English Folk Tale Retold and Illustrated

by FLORENCE WHITE WILLIAMS

The PRINTED IN U. S. A.

Little Red Hen lived in a barnyard. She spent almost all of her time walking about the barnyard in her picketty-pecketty fashion, scratching everywhere for worms.

he dearly loved fat, delicious worms and felt they were absolutely necessary to the health of her children. As often as she found a worm she would call:

"Chuck-chuck-chuck!" to her chickies.

hen they were gathered about her, she would distribute choice morsels of her tid-bit. A busy little body was she!

cat usually napped lazily in the barn door, not even bothering herself to scare the rat who ran here and there as he pleased. And as for the pig who lived in the sty – he did not care what happened so long as he could eat and grow fat.

ne day the Little Red Hen found a Seed. It was a Wheat Seed, but the Little Red Hen was so accustomed to bugs and worms that she supposed this to be some new and perhaps very delicious kind of meat. She bit it gently and found that it resembled a worm in no way whatsoever as to taste although because it was long and slender, a Little Red Hen might easily be fooled by its appearance.

arrying it about, she made many inquiries as to what it might be. She found it was a Wheat Seed and that, if planted, it would grow up and when ripe it could be made into flour and then into bread.

When she discovered that, she knew it ought to be planted. She was so busy hunting food for herself and her family that, naturally, she thought she ought not to take time to plant it.

o she thought of the Pig - upon whom time must hang heavily and of the Cat who had nothing to do, and of the great fat Rat with his idle hours, and she called loudly:

"Who will plant the Seed?"

But the Pig said, "Not I," and the Cat said, "Not I," and the Rat said, "Not I."

"Well, then," said the Little Red Hen, "I will."

Then she went on with her daily duties through the long summer days, scratching for worms and feeding her chicks, while the Pig grew fat, and the Cat grew fat, and the Rat grew fat, and the Wheat grew tall and ready for harvest.

o one day the Little Red Hen chanced to notice how large the Wheat was and that the grain was ripe, so she ran about calling briskly: "Who will cut the Wheat?"

The Pig said, "Not I," the Cat said, "Not I," and the Rat said, "Not I."

"Well, then," said the Little Red Hen, "I will." And she did.

he got the sickle from among the farmer's tools in the barn and proceeded to cut off all of the big plant of Wheat.

On the ground lay the nicely cut Wheat, ready to be gathered and threshed, but the newest and yellowest and downiest of Mrs. Hen's chicks set up a "peep-peep-peeping" in their most vigorous fashion, proclaiming to the world at large, but most particularly to their mother, that she was neglecting them.

oor Little Red Hen! She felt quite bewildered and hardly knew where to turn.

Her attention was sorely divided between her duty to her children and her duty to the Wheat, for which she felt responsible.

So, again, in a very hopeful tone, she called out, "Who will thresh the Wheat?"

But the Pig, with a grunt, said, "Not I," and the Cat, with a meow, said, "Not I," and the Rat, with a squeak, said, "Not I."

So the Little Red Hen, looking, it must be admitted, rather discouraged, said, "Well, I will, then."

And she did.

Of course, she had to feed her babies first, though, and when she had gotten them all to sleep for their afternoon nap, she went out and threshed the Wheat. Then she called out: "Who will carry the Wheat to the mill to be ground?"

Turning their backs with snippy glee, that Pig said, "Not I," and that Cat said, "Not I," and that Rat said, "Not I."

o the good Little Red Hen could do nothing but say, "I will then." And she did.

Carrying the sack of Wheat, she trudged off to the distant mill. There she ordered the Wheat ground into beautiful white flour. When the miller brought her the flour she walked slowly back all the way to her own barnyard in her own picketty-pecketty fashion.

he even managed, in spite of her load, to catch a nice juicy worm now and then and had one left for the babies when she reached them. Those cunning little fluff-balls were so glad to see their mother. For the first time, they really appreciated her.

After this really strenuous day Mrs. Hen retired to her slumbers earlier than usual - indeed, before the colors came into the sky to herald the setting of the sun, her usual bedtime hour.

She would have liked to sleep late in the morning, but her chicks, joining in the morning chorus of the hen yard, drove away all hopes of such a luxury.

Even as she sleepily half opened one eye, the thought came to her that to-day that Wheat must, somehow, be made into bread.

She was not in the habit of making bread, although, of course, anyone can make it if he or she follows the recipe with care, and she knew perfectly well that she could do it if necessary.

So after her children were fed and made sweet and fresh for the day, she hunted up the Pig, the Cat and the Rat.

Still confident that they would surely help her some day she sang out, "Who will make the bread?"

las for the Little Red Hen! Once more her hopes were dashed! For the Pig said, "Not I,"

the Cat said, "Not I," and the Rat said, "Not I."

o the Little Red Hen said once more, "I will then," and she did.

Feeling that she might have known all the time that she would have to do it all herself, she went and put on a fresh apron and spotless cook's cap. First of all she set the dough, as was proper. When it was time she brought out the moulding board and the baking tins, moulded the bread, divided it into loaves, and put them into the oven to bake. All the while the Cat sat lazily by, giggling and chuckling.

And close at hand the vain Rat powdered his nose and admired himself in a mirror. In the distance could be heard the long-drawn snores of the dozing Pig.

t last the great moment arrived. A delicious odor was wafted upon the autumn breeze. Everywhere the barnyard citizens sniffed the air with delight.

The Red Hen ambled in her picketty-pecketty way toward the source of all this excitement.

lthough she appeared to be perfectly calm, in reality she could only with difficulty restrain an impulse to dance and sing, for had she not done all the work on this wonderful bread?

Small wonder that she was the most excited person in the barnyard!

he did not know whether the bread would be fit to eat, but - joy of joys! - when the lovely brown loaves came out of the oven, they were done to perfection.

Then, probably because she had acquired the habit, the Red Hen called:

All the animals in the barnyard were watching hungrily and smacking their lips in anticipation, and

the Pig said, "I will," the Cat said, "I will," the Rat said, "I will."

But the Little Red Hen said,

"No, you won't. I will."

And she did.

title: The Little Red Hen


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/228

 very much contracted and down-looking, a very small forehead, almost all covered with a large periwig; this gives him a grim aspect, but upon addressing any one he puts on a smiling countenance’ (xvi. 339). A gold-headed cane, said to be that handed by Lord Lovat to his cousin on the scaffold, was sold by auction in January 1870 for 24l. 10s., but the genuine cane was afterwards asserted never to have left the possession of the Frasers of Ford (Notes and Queries, 4th ser. v. 137, 213).

[John Anderson's Historical Account of the Family of Fraser, 1825; Genuine Memoirs of the Life of Lord Lovat, 1746; French translation published at Amsterdam, 1747, under the title Mémoires Autentiques de la vie du Lord Lovat, which is included in Mémoires de la vie du Lord Lovat, 1747 (containing in addition an account of Lord Kilmarnock, &c.); A Candid and Impartial Account of the Behaviour of Lord Lovat, 1747; The Life, Adventures, &c., of Lord Lovat, n.d., reprinted erroneously as by Rev. Archibald Arbuthnot, 1747; Memoirs of Lord Lovat, 1746, reprinted 1767; Memoirs of the Life of Simon Lord Lovat, written by himself in the French language, and now first translated from the original manuscript, 1797; Information for Simon Lord Lovat against Hugh Mackenzie, and various other legal documents on the Lovat Peerage Case, 1729; State Trials, xiv. 350–78, xviii. 530–858; Spalding Club Miscellany, ii. 1–25; Macpherson's Original Papers; Culloden Papers; Lockhart of Carnwath's Papers; Account of the Scotch Plot in Somers Tracts, xii. 433–7; Hooke's Correspondence; Correspondence of Lord Lovat, 1740–5, in University Library, Edinburgh (Laing collection); Ferguson's Robert Ferguson the Plotter, 1887; Gent. Mag. vols. xvi. and xvii.; Scots Mag. vol. ix.; Mrs. Thomson's Memoirs of the Jacobites, ii. 208–388; Hill Burton's Life of Simon Lord Lovat; Major Fraser's Manuscript, ed. Lieutenant-Colonel Fergusson.]

FRASER, SIMON (d. 1777), brigadier-general and lieutenant-colonel 24th foot, is described as the youngest son of Hugh Fraser of Balnain, Inverness-shire, by his wife, a daughter of Fraser of Forgie. Anderson likewise states that he entered the Dutch service and was wounded at the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom in 1748 (Account of Frisel or Fraser, pp. 195–6). The war department records at the Hague for this period are imperfect, but the name of Simon Fraser appears in the ‘Staten van Oorlog’ (or war budgets) of 1750–7 as a pensioned subaltern of the regiment of Drumlanrig, two battalions of the Earl of Drumlanrig's regiment of the Scots brigade in the service of Holland having been reduced to one in January 1749 (information supplied through the British Legation at the Hague). On 31 Jan. 1755 Fraser was appointed lieutenant in the 62nd royal Americans, which afterwards became the 60th royal rifles. This corps was then being raised by Lord Loudon, and Fraser's name appears in an order dated 23 March 1756, wherein he is described as a ‘second lieutenant from the Dutch service,’ and which directs the newly appointed officers to repair to their posts at New York and Philadelphia without delay (London Gazette, 9569). In January 1757 he became captain-lieutenant in the 2nd highland battalion, afterwards 78th or Fraser highlanders, commanded by the Hon. Simon Fraser, Master of Lovat [q. v.], in which regiment he was promoted captain 22 April 1759. He fought in the regiment at the siege of Louisburg, Cape Breton, and under Wolfe at Quebec, where a namesake, one of many in the regiment, Captain Simon Fraser, described by Stewart as of Inverallochy (Scottish Highlanders, vol. ii.), was killed. Fraser is said to have subsequently served on the staff in Germany. He was made brevet-major 15 March 1761, and on 8 Feb. 1762 was appointed to a majority in the 24th foot in Germany, with which regiment he afterwards served in Gibraltar and in Ireland, and of which he became lieutenant-colonel in 1768. When in Ireland Fraser served as first and principal aide-de-camp to the Marquis Townshend, then lord-lieutenant, and appears to have been repeatedly sent over to England to furnish the ministry with confidential information on Irish matters (Cal. Home Office Papers, 1766–9, under ‘Fraser, Simon’). In one letter he is described as an ‘intelligent and prudent man’ (ib. p. 493). In 1770 he was appointed quartermaster-general in Ireland in succession to Colonel Gisborne. Several papers in the home office records testify to the active and intelligent interest he took in his profession (ib. 1770–2, p. 454). In 1776 Fraser accompanied his regiment to Canada, and was appointed to the command of a brigade, composed of the 24th foot and the grenadier and light companies of the army, which was posted on the south side of the St. Lawrence. As brigadier he accompanied General Burgoyne [see, 1722–1792] in the pursuit of the American troops retreating from Ticonderoga, and gained a victory over them at Hubbardton, 7 July 1777. He was present at the battle of Stillwater, near Saratoga, 19 Sept. 1777, and was mortally wounded by a rifle-ball in the action which took place on the same ground, sometimes called Behmus, or Behmise Heights, on 7 Oct. 1777. He died at eight o'clock the following morning. Madame Riedesel, wife of the Hessian brigadier with


text: Folk-Lore/Volume 21/Correspondence (March)


text:
Page:The Life of Michael Angelo.djvu/219

Rh works in Rome gave me as little worry as affairs of State!"

The truth was he no longer hated. He could no longer hate. It was too late.

Ahime, lasso chi pur tropp' aspetta, Ch' i' gionga a suoi conforti tanto tardj! Ancor, se ben riguardj, Un generoso, alter' e nobil core Perdon' et porta a chi l' offend' amore.

He lived at Macel de' Corvi, on the forum of Trajan. There he had a house with a little garden. He occupied it with a valet, a servant and his domestic animals. He was not fortunate with his servants, "all of whom," says Vasari, "were dirty and negligent." He often changed them and complained bitterly. He had as many difficulties with them as Beethoven had; and his "Ricordi" (Notes), like Beethoven's Notebooks, mention


text:
Author:Wilhelm Wien

Works

 * On the Distribution of Energy in the Emission Spectrum of a Blackbody (1896, Wikisource translation)

 * On the Possibility of an Electromagnetic Foundation of Mechanics (1900, Wikisource translation)

title: Author:Wilhelm Wien


text: Folk-Lore/Volume 20/Presidential Address


text: Index:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/1

 by W. Wien.

(From the proceedings of the Société hollandaise des sciences à Harlem. Anniversary volume for, December 11, 1900.)

has recently tried to explain gravitation by electrostatic attractions between the elements of bodies consisting of ions. For that purpose, he makes the assumption that the attractions between positive and negative electricity outweighs the repulsion between electricities of same sign. I was animated by that to publish considerations (made by me already some time ago) on the same subject, and where I even go beyond 's standpoint.

It is without doubt one of the most important tasks of theoretical physics, to connect with each other the, at the beginning, completely isolated areas of mechanical and electromagnetic phenomena, and to derive the differential equations applying to any of them from a common foundation. and and subsequently  and, have taken the, at the beginning, surely natural way to chose mechanics as the foundation and to derive 's equations from it. Numerous analogies existing between electrodynamic and hydrodynamic as well as elastic processes, seemed to repeatedly allude to this way. 's mechanics appears to be devised in its entire structure, not only to include mechanical, but also electromagnetic phenomena. That a mechanical derivation of 's electrodynamics is possible, is known to be shown by himself.


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/2

 These investigations have without doubt the great merit, to have proven that both areas must be founded by something common, and that the current separation is not founded in the nature of this subject. On the other hand, it seems certain to me from these considerations, that the system of our recent mechanics is inappropriate for the representation of electromagnetic processes.

One will never acknowledge the complicated mechanical models, formed after the machines devised for special technical purposes, as a definitely satisfactory image for the inner composition of the aether.

Whether 's mechanics, whose structure is indeed appropriate for the inclusion of very general kinematic connections, can render more functional, must remain undecided. For the time being, it was unable to represent even the simplest processes lying outside of kinematics.

The opposite attempt seems to me much more promising as the foundation for further theoretical work, i.e., to consider the electromagnetic fundamental equations as the more general ones, from which the mechanical ones have to be derived.

The actual foundation would be formed by the electric and magnetic polarization in free aether, connected with each other by 's differential equations. As to how these equations can be derived best from the facts, is a question with which we don't have to deal with at this place.

If we denote $$X, Y, Z$$ the components of electric, $$L, M, N$$ those of the magnetic polarization, $$A$$ the reciprocal speed of light, $$x, y, z$$ the rectangular coordinates, we thus have:


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/3

 The electric and magnetic quanta are therefore given as integration constants, when we differentiate equations (1) with respect to $$x, y, z$$ and then sum up. Then it is namely

$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\frac{\partial X}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial Y}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial Z}{\partial z}\right)=0,\quad\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial M}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial N}{\partial z}\right)=0,$

thus

where $$\varsigma$$ and $$m$$ are independent from time, thus being temporally invariable quanta.

If one multiplies the first row of equations (1) with $$X/4\pi, Y/4\pi, Z/4\pi,$$, the second with $$L/4\pi, M/4\pi, N/4\pi,$$, and sum up all of them, one thus obtains after partial integration over a closed space, whose surface normal shall be $$n$$ and surface element be $$dS$$, the theorem

If either $$X, Y, Z$$ or $$L, M, N$$ vanish at the surface, we thus have

Those on the left, that are always being constant when summed over a sufficiently great space, we denote as the electromagnetic energy.

Now we make the assumption, that the mechanical processes are of electromagnetic nature as well, i.e., that they can be developed from the foundations considered.

For that purpose, we assume at first, that the substrate denoted as matter is composed of positive and negative electric quanta, namely of such elementary quanta,


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/4

 which we simply have to view as convergence points of electric force lines.

However, we must attribute to such an elementary quantum a certain extension, because otherwise the energy store represented by it, would be infinitely great compared with the quantum itself. Since the entire matter shall be constituted by those quanta, they have to be assumed as so small, so that the atomic weights are whole multiples of them. The positive elementary quantum is furthermore to be viewed as distant from the negative one by a certain small distance.

That matter is composed of such dipoles, is hardly a special assumption, and surely is currently admitted by all physicists. Until now, a ponderable substance was additionally assumed, that we want to identify with these quanta.

The statement, that matter as well as electricity is formed atomistically, is equivalent according to the view held by us.

The aether itself is to be viewed as stationary according to. Spatial changes can only occur with respect to electric quanta, and to speak about a motion of the aether would make no sense by the principles followed here.

All forces are to be reduced to the known electromagnetic ones, i.e., to tensions in the aether in the sense of, although the concept taken from the theory of elasticity is hardly still meaningful here.

At small velocities of the moving quanta, the electrostatic forces are the ones that are effective between the quanta.

Whether a reduction of molecular forces to such forces is possible, must remain undecided yet. It's only clear, that by different arrangements of positive and negative quanta in different distances, one can obtain very complicated effects. By that assumption, one would decrease the difficulty to the theory of stationary aether represented by 's interference experiment.


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/5

 has alluded to the fact, that the length of a body in the direction of Earth's motion is contracted by the velocity $$v$$ of this motion in the ratio $$\sqrt{1-A^{2}v^{2}}$$, if the molecular forces could be replaced by electrostatic forces.

By that, 's result would be explained, when one can neglect molecular motions. As to how far this is true, must be shown by gas-theoretical investigations.

For the explanation of gravitation, following, we must assume two different kinds of electric polarizations. Any of them satisfies for itself 's equations. Additionally, with respect to static fields it is given

$X=-\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x},\quad Y=-\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial y},\quad Z=-\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial z}$

and the energy

If $$\varphi$$ or $$\partial\varphi/\partial$$ vanishes at the surface of space, the energy is

$=-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int\int\int dx\ dy\ dz\ \phi\triangle\phi.$

Now, according to (2)

$\triangle\phi=-4\pi\varsigma,\quad\phi=\int\int\int\frac{dx\ dy\ dz\ \varsigma}{r},$

thus the integral


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/6

 If two quanta of same sign are located at the distance $$r$$

then the energy is

this energy was produced by work against a force acting repulsive between the quanta, of amount

By that, the force acting between two quanta is defined.

This law must hold for any of the two polarizations.

If positive and negative quanta start to interact, then 's assumption is, that the attracting force occurring, is greater in a certain ratio as the repulsive one between two quanta of equal sign. On greater distances, the dipoles act as if the positive and negative quantum would be located at the same place. Thus, by the total action of negative and positive quanta upon a second dipole, one obtains an excess of attraction.

This explanation of gravitation has the direct consequence, that the disturbance itself is propagating with the speed of light, and it must experience a modification by the motion of the mutually attracting bodies. has investigated, whether this modification of gravitation can explain the anomalies of the motion of mercury, yet he found a negative result. Some astronomers believed that it is necessary to assume a greater speed than that of light for the propagation of gravitation. However, one cannot speak about a propagation speed of gravitation (as a static force) itself.


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/7

 This would only make sense, when one was able to increase or decrease gravitation, and to observe the disturbances caused by that.

However, since gravitation always acts invariably, only the extraordinary small changes caused by motion can come into question, which are of second order as shown by.

The inertia of matter, which represents the second independent definition of matter besides gravitation, can be derived without further hypotheses from the concept of electromagnetic inertia, which is already employed many times.

We think of the electric elementary quantum as an electrified point. The forces and polarizations emanating from such a moving point, were derived by.

Since equal amounts of positive and negative quanta are always moving together, thus, in a distance great against the their mutual distance, the forces emanating from them and the polarizations are neutralizing each other, except gravitation discussed before. Though we will assume in the following, that the extension of the quanta is so small compared to their distance, that the energy of any of them is so great, as if the second one would not be present.

According to a calculation by, those polarizations emanate from an ellipsoid moving in the direction of its axis $$a$$ with velocity $$v$$, whose other two axes are $$a/\sqrt{1-A^{2}v^{2}}$$, and which carries the same charge upon its surface. The ratio of the axes therefore depends on the velocity.

The energy of such an ellipsoid is according to

$E=\frac{e^{2}}{2a}\left(1+\frac{1}{3}A^{2}v^{2}\right).$|undefined

The ellipsoid with the same axes, has the energy in a state of rest

$\mathfrak{E}=\frac{e^{2}\sqrt{1-A^{2}v^{2}}}{2a\quad Av}\arcsin Av.$|undefined


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/8

 Naturally, the energy $$\mathfrak{E}$$ of the resting ellipsoid, may not contain the velocity $$v$$.

Thus, since $$e$$ is invariable, $$a$$ is variable:

or by series expansion

The energy increase caused by motion, is thus in first approximation

$\frac{2}{3}\mathfrak{E}A^{2}v^{2}=\frac{m}{2}v^{2},$

thus the inertial mass $$m=\tfrac{4}{3}\mathfrak{E}A^{2}$$.

By that, the mass defined by inertia would only be constant at small velocities, and would increase with increasing velocity. Since inertia as well as gravitation emerging from the body, is proportional to the number of quanta composing the body, it follows, that the mass defined by inertia must be proportional to the one specified by gravitation. If a body with mass $$m=\tfrac{4}{3}\mathfrak{E}A^{2}$$, is attracted by a body of mass $$M$$ up to a distance of $$r$$, then the electromagnetic energy store of gravitation is diminished by the amount $$\epsilon\tfrac{4}{3}\mathfrak{E}A^{2}M/r$$, where $$\epsilon$$ denotes the gravitational constant.

This energy is transformed into kinetic energy to produce the velocity $$v$$. Thus we have

$\frac{2}{3}\mathfrak{E}A^{2}v^{2}\left(1+\frac{8}{15}A^{2}v^{2}\dots\right)=\epsilon\frac{\frac{4}{3}\mathfrak{E}A^{2}M}{r},$

or, since $$v = dr/dt$$

Instead of it, we can write


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/9

 If the masses $$M$$ and $$m$$ would attract each other according to $$Weber$$'s law, one would have

$m\frac{d^{2}r}{dt^{2}}=-\frac{\epsilon mM}{r}\left\{ 1-\frac{A^{2}}{2}\left(\frac{dr}{dt}\right)^{2}+rA^{2}\frac{d^{2}r}{dt^{2}}\right\}.$|undefined

If we multiply with $$dr/dt$$ and then integrate, we have:

where the integration constant is so specified, that the body is at rest in infinite distance.

If we write this equation

then it agrees with equation (9) up to a factor $$\tfrac{16}{15}$$ instead of 1. By consideration of the second approximation for inertia, we thus approximately obtain the same action between the two masses, as if the masses themselves would be invariable, but 's law would hold instead of 's law.

It's known, that 's law was applied with some success to the theory of molecular motion.

A precise test of these investigations, and an extension by applying it to other, fast moving celestial bodies with strong eccentric path, would lead us to a comparison of our results with experience. Though it is to be considered here, that new terms of same order are added by the motion in a curved path. For a body in elliptical path, the calculation would thus to be supplemented.

Only have with respect to cathode rays we have such great velocities required, so that the square of velocity multiplied with the reciprocal speed of light, is not getting too small.

The fastest, recently produced rays have $$\tfrac{1}{3}$$ of the speed of light. Here, the apparent increase of mass would be ca. 7 perc.; the slightest velocity is $$\tfrac{1}{30}$$ of the speed of light, the corresponding increase of mass would amount


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/229

 Burgoyne's troops, has left a painful narrative of his last hours, to which the American historian, Bancroft, makes ungenerous allusion. Burgoyne refers in touching terms to his death, and afterwards inscribed an ode, ‘To the Spirit of Fraser.’ He was buried in one of the British redoubts, and much feeling was caused at the time by the Americans, in ignorance of what was going on, opening a heavy fire on the work (Notes and Queries, 1st ser. ix. 161, 431). A large painting of the event by J. Graham, afterwards engraved by Nutter, is preserved at Farraline House, Stratherrick (ib. 6th ser. xi. 134, 238). Landmann states that the grave could just be traced at the end of the last century (Recollections, i. 221).

Fraser married 14 Oct. 1769 Mrs. Grant, of Percy Street, London (Scots Mag. xxxi. 558), who appears to have been a relative of Colonel Van Phran, then Dutch commandant at the Cape (Cal. Home Office Papers, 1770–1772, p. 278), and by that lady left issue.

[Anderson's Account of the Family of Frisel or Fraser (Edinburgh, 1825, 4to); London Gazettes; Army Lists; Stewart's Sketches of the Scottish Highlanders (Edinburgh, 1822); Knox's Hist. Memoirs (London, 1769); Calendars Home Office Papers, 1766–9, 1770–2; Bancroft's Hist. United States, vol. vi.; Beatson's Nav. and Mil. Memoirs (London, 1794), vols. iv–vi.; Burgoyne's Orderly Book, ed. Dr. O'Callaghan (Albany, N.Y., 1870); Gent. Mag. xlvii. 398, 455, 549, 576 et seq.]  FRASER, SIMON (1726–1782), sometime Master of Lovat, thirty-seventh Macshimi, a lieutenant-general, colonel 71st or Fraser highlanders, was eldest son, by his first wife, Margaret Grant, of Simon, twelfth lord Lovat [q. v.], who was executed in 1747. He was born 19 Oct. and baptised 30 Oct. 1726 (baptismal register, Kiltarlity parish). When the rebellion broke out in 1745, he was studying at the university of St. Andrews, and was sent for by his father to head the clan against his inclinations. When the rebels advanced southwards the clan Fraser set up a sort of blockade of Fort Augustus. With six hundred of his father's vassals Fraser joined Prince Charles at Bannockburn, before the battle of Falkirk, 17 Jan. 1746, and was one of those who met in the house of Mr. Primrose of Dumphall, on the evening of the battle, uncertain of the issue. Thenceforward he was active in the prince's cause. He was not at Culloden, where the Frasers were led by Charles Fraser, jun., of Inverallochy, who, according to stories current at the time, was cruelly shot by the personal order of the Duke of Cumberland when lying grievously wounded on the field of battle. The Frasers fought well and left the ground in some order, and when halfway between Culloden and Inverness met the master coming up with three hundred fresh men. He was one of forty-three persons included in the act of attainder of 4 June 1746. He surrendered to the government, and was kept a prisoner in Edinburgh Castle from November 1746 to 15 Aug. 1747, when he was allowed to proceed to Glasgow to reside there during the king's pleasure. A full and free pardon for him passed the seals in 1750. On 25 July 1752 Fraser entered as an advocate (, List of Advocates). He was one of the counsel for the pursuers in the trial of James Stewart of Aucharn, before a high court of justiciary, opened at Inverary 21 Sept. 1752, by Archibald Campbell, third duke of Argyll [q. v.], as lord justice-general, and Lords Elchies and Kilkerran as judges. The panel was arraigned as art and part in the murder, on 14 May previous, of Colin Campbell of Glenure, a factor appointed by the exchequer to the charge of a forfeited estate. A good deal of political significance attached to the trial, which is said to be the only one in which a lord justice-general and a lord advocate both took part (, pp. 225–9). The evidence on which a conviction was obtained was entirely circumstantial, and it is admitted that the view of the law upheld by the crown side was utterly indefensible. Fraser and James Erskine were counsel for the widow of the murdered man, and the former's address to the jury is given in full in a printed report (Trial of James Stewart, p. 81). Fraser appears to have come to London with Alexander Wedderburn, afterwards Earl of Rosslyn and lord chancellor. Boswell refers to kindnesses shown by the father of Richard Brinsley Sheridan to Fraser and Wedderburn when they came to London as young men (Life of Johnson, 1877 ed. p. 394). Wedderburn entered the Middle Temple in 1753. Fraser, by his own account, was offered a regiment in the French service, but declined, preferring to serve the British crown (petition in Gent. Mag. xliv. 137). At the commencement of the seven years' war Fraser obtained leave to raise a corps of highlanders for the king's service. By his influence with his clan, without the aid of land or money, he raised eight hundred recruits in a few weeks, to which as many more were shortly added. The corps was at first known as the 2nd highland battalion, but immediately afterwards became the 78th or Fraser highlanders, the first of three British regiments which in succession have borne that numerical title. Fraser's commission as colonel was dated 5 Jan. 1757. Under his command


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/10

 here only 0,07 perc. An increase of mass compared to the electric charge at cathode rays of great velocity, is indeed contained in 's observations. Though the differences found by are much too great, to find their explanation in the electromagnetic inertia.

However, these quantitative measurements are still not to be seen as decisive.

If we confine ourselves to small velocities, then we have the same expression for the kinetic energy, that is stated by mechanics for the living force. The magnitude of acceleration, however, cannot be derived from that without further ado.

Acceleration presupposes a variability of velocity. The expressions for electromagnetic energy, however, are only derived under the assumption of a time-independent value of velocity.

For variable velocities, the problem of a moving electric quantum is not rigorously solved thus far.

Though we obtain from 's equations a criterion concerning the magnitude of the error made by us when we apply the expressions for energy to variable velocities as well.

The electric and magnetic polarizations are in our case, when the motion occurs in the direction $$x$$,

Here, the coordinate system is rigidly connected with the moving point.


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/11

 These expressions satisfy 's equations, when

$\frac{d}{dt}=-v\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$

and lead to equation

$\left(1-A^{2}v^{2}\right)\frac{\partial^{2}U}{\partial x^{2}}+\frac{\partial^{2}U}{\partial y^{2}}+\frac{\partial^{2}U}{\partial z^{2}}=0.$|undefined

But if $$v$$ is depending on $$t$$, we have

$\frac{d}{dt}=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-v\frac{\partial}{\partial x}.$

If our value shall generally hold for $$x$$, it also must be

$\frac{\partial X}{\partial t}$ small against $v\frac{\partial X}{\partial x}$.

Now it is

$\frac{\partial X}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x\partial t}U\left(1-A^{2}v^{2}\right),$|undefined

thus it must be

$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}\left(1-A^{2}v^{2}\right)\right]$ small against $v\frac{\partial^{2}U}{\partial x^{2}}\left(1-A^{2}v^{2}\right)$,|undefined

or

$A^{2}x\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}$ small against $1-A^{2}v^{2}$,

Also the values of $$Y, Z$$ and $$M, N$$, give

$\left[2x^{2}-\left(1-A^{2}v^{2}\right)\varrho^{2}\right]A^{2}\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}$ is small against $3x\left(1-A^{2}v^{2}\right)$

and

must be small against $$3x\left(1-A^{2}v^{2}\right)v^{2}$$.

This condition is fulfilled, when the dimensions of the space, in which the energy comes essentially into consideration, are sufficiently small. Because the terms to be neglected all contain the linear dimensions in a higher power. Though $$dv/dt$$ may not be too great and the absolute velocity $$v$$ not too small.

When this neglect is allowed, then we can put for the change of kinetic energy

$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{m}{2}v^{2}\right)=mv\frac{dv}{dt}=K\frac{dr}{dt}dt=m\frac{dr}{dt}\frac{d^{2}r}{dt^{2}},$|undefined


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 21, 1910.djvu/554

 CORRESPONDENCE.

In the history of any given study there occur moments when circumstances seem, as it were, to call a halt, and bid the student survey the distance travelled, to sum up gains and losses, and estimate alike the ground traversed, and the point attained.

To Arthurian scholars the untimely death of one whose name has so long, and so honourably, been associated with these studies offers such a halting-place, and it has seemed to me, as one who for upwards of twenty years had been closely connected with Alfred Nutt in those studies in which he took so deep and unselfish an interest, that it would be well for us to look a little more closely at the work which he achieved in these special fields, and appreciate more accurately the debt which English scholarship owes to him.

In a letter which I received a short time ago from Dr. Nitze, a review of whose study on The Fisher King was one of the last contributions from Mr. Nutt's pen, the impression made by his work abroad was thus summarized: "It is a great loss to scholarship. Mr. Nutt had an excellent trainings an accurate method, and a sense of style," The testimony voices, I think, the opinion even of those who felt unable to accept the conclusions to which he came.

To my mind the great value of Mr. Nutt's work has been his appreciation of the fact that the progress of Arthurian romance has been along the road of evolution, that direct literary invention has played but a secondary part in the growth of this wonderful body of romance, and that the study of folklore might, therefore, aid us


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/12

 where $$K$$ denotes the electric force. In this manner, we have obtained the first and second law of motion of.

Because when no external force is acting, the law of inertia is simply the law of conservation of electromagnetic energy, and the second law of says here, that the work expended by the force during $$dt$$, is equal to the corresponding change of electromagnetic energy.

The third law of, that maintains the equality of action and reaction, holds for all electrostatic forces between electric quanta. The mechanical forces must, for our stand point, identified with such forces. Since we make the assumption of a resting aether, this law doesn't hold for the general electromagnetic forces.

The theorem of parallelogram of forces is contained in our foundations in so far, as it holds for electric polarizations and for the forces acting between two electric quanta.

At last, as regards the rigid connections that can exist between several electric masses, those actually wouldn't exist from stand point. Only forces can arise, that are mutually in equilibrium. For example, if a pendulum swings, gravity is acting in a stretching way on the pendulum string, until the electric forces produced became equally great. Such forces expending no work, are to be introduced into the known Lagrangian form.

One can describe the foundation of mechanics sketched here, as diametrically opposed to that of. The rigid connections, belonging to the presuppositions according to, here show up as the action of complicated individual forces. Also the law of inertia is a comparably late consequence from the electromagnetic presuppositions. While 's mechanics is obviously aimed at presenting the electromagnetic equations as consequences, the relation is directly reversed here. With respect to


text:
Page:Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik.djvu/13

 logical form, the electromagnetically founded mechanics of course cannot compare itself to 's one, just because the system of 's differential equations has found no precise-critical treatment at all, but it has, as it seems to me, a very remarkable advantage, namely (as it was shown) that it transcends ordinary mechanics, which therefore is only to be described as a first approximation. By that, the possibility is given, to decide for or against it by experience.

(Received May 19, 1901.)


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/230

 the regiment went to America, and was much remarked for its brilliant conduct in the field during the ensuing campaigns, and the thrift and sobriety of the officers and men (, Hist. Mems.) Wolfe, in a letter to Lord George Sackville, speaks of the regiment as ‘very useful, serviceable soldiers, and commanded by the most manly lot of officers I have ever seen’ (Hist. MSS. Comm. 9th Rep. iii. 74). Fraser was with it at the siege of Louisburg, Cape Breton, in 1758, and in the expedition to Quebec under Wolfe, where he was wounded at Montmorenci. He was wounded again at Sillery, 28 April 1760, during the defence of Quebec, and commanded a brigade in the advance on Montreal. He appears to have been still serving in America in 1761. In 1762 he was a brigadier-general in the British force sent to Portugal, and was one of the officers appointed to commands in the Portuguese army, in which he held the temporary rank of major-general. At the peace of 1763 the 78th highlanders were disbanded, and Fraser was put on half-pay. In the ‘Official Return of Lists of Members of Parliament’ Fraser is shown in 1768 as a lieutenant-general in the Portuguese service, and in 1771 as a major-general in the British army. He petitioned the government for the restoration of his family estates (Gent. Mag. xliv. 137), and as it was held that his military services entitled him to ‘some particular act of grace,’ all the forfeited lands, lordships, &c., were restored to him on the payment of a sum of 20,983l. sterling, by a special act of parliament (24 George III, c. 37), ten years before the same grace was extended to any other family similarly circumstanced. The family title was not revived until 1837. At the outbreak of the American war of independence, Fraser, then a major-general, raised another regiment of two battalions, known as the 71st or Fraser highlanders, the third of five regiments which in succession have been so numbered. Many officers and men of the old 78th joined the colours, for Fraser appears to have been liked by his men, and possessed in a remarkable degree all the attributes of a highland military chieftain. Stewart relates a story of an aged highlander who, after intently watching Fraser harangueing his men in Gaelic, accosted him with the respectful familiarity then common, ‘Simon, you are a good soldier. So long as you live Simon of Lovat never dies’ (Scottish Highlanders, vol. ii.) Mrs. Grant of Laggan, however, describes him as hard and rapacious under a polished exterior. Fraser did not accompany his regiment to America, where, after several years of arduous and distinguished service, the men were taken prisoners with Lord Cornwallis at York Town, 19 Oct. 1781. The two battalions of the 71st or Fraser highlanders, and a corps known as the second 71st regiment, formed after the surrender at York Town, were disbanded at the peace of 1783, after Fraser's death. Fraser was returned to parliament for the county of Inverness, when away with his first regiment in Canada in 1761, and was thrice re-elected, representing the constituency until his death. A speech of his in the house, in which he accused the government of lukewarmness in prosecuting the war with the colonies, is given in ‘Gent. Mag.’ xlviii. 657. Fraser married a Miss Bristo, an English lady, by whom he left no issue, and who survived him and was alive in 1825 (see ). He died in Downing Street, London, 8 Feb. 1782.

Fraser's only brother, the Hon. Alexander Fraser, born in 1729 (reg. Kiltarlity parish), became a brigadier-general in the Dutch service, and died unmarried in 1762. By a deed of entail dated 16 May 1774, and registered in Edinburgh 18 June and 28 July 1774, the recovered estates passed at Fraser's death to his younger half-brother, the Hon. Archibald Campbell Fraser [q. v.], M.P. for Inverness county and colonel of the Inverness local militia.

[Anderson's Account of the Family of Frisel or Fraser (Edinburgh, 1825, 4to); Foster's Peerage, under ‘Lovat;’ Aikman's List of Advocates, in Library of Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh; Arnot's Scottish Criminal Trials (Edinburgh, 1785, 4to); Trial of James Stewart of Aucharn (Edinburgh, 1753); Army Lists, 1757–82; London Gazettes; Knox's Hist. Memoirs (London, 1769); Journal of Siege of Quebec, printed in Proc. Hist. Soc. of Quebec, 1870; Stewart's Sketches of the Scottish Highlanders (Edinburgh, 1822); Beatson's Nav. and Mil. Memoirs (London, 1794); Scots Mag. various vols. vi. to xliv.]  FRASER, SIMON (1738–1813), lieutenant-general, is described by Stewart as the son of a tacksman (Scottish Highlanders, ii. App. xxxi.). He was senior of the Simon Frasers serving as subalterns (not captain-lieutenant as stated by Stewart) in the 78th or Fraser highlanders, commanded by Simon Fraser (1726–1782), Master of Lovat [q. v.], in the campaigns in Canada under Wolfe, Murray, and Amherst in 1759–61. He was wounded at the battle of Sillery 28 April 1760. When the regiment was disbanded in 1763 he was placed on half-pay as a lieutenant. In 1775 he raised a company for the 71st or Fraser highlanders, then forming under the command of his old colonel, Fraser of Lovat. He became senior captain and afterwards major in this regiment, with which he


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/231

 served in America in the campaigns of 1778–1781. When the regiment was disbanded in 1783, he was again placed on half-pay. In 1793 he raised a highland regiment, which was numbered as 133rd foot, or Fraser highlanders, and which after a brief existence was broken up and drafted into other corps. He became a major-general in 1795, commanded a force of British troops stationed in Portugal in 1797–1800, became lieutenant-general in 1802, and was for some years lieutenant-general and second in command of the forces in North Britain. He died in Scotland 21 March 1813.

[Stewart's Sketches of Scottish Highlanders (Edinburgh, 1822), vol. ii.; Army Lists; London Gazettes; Gent. Mag. vol. lxxxiii. pt. i. p. 591.]

FRASER, WILLIAM (d. 1297), bishop of St. Andrews, chancellor of Scotland, was the son of Sir Gilbert Fraser, the ancestor of the Frasers of Touchfraser and Philorth, and also of the Frasers of Oliver Castle of Tweeddale. He took holy orders, and was rector of Cadzow (Hamilton) and dean of Glasgow. On the promotion of William Wishart in or before 1276 to the see of St. Andrews, Fraser was appointed chancellor of Scotland, and held the seals of office for several years. When Wishart died in 1279 Fraser was elected his successor, and proceeding to Rome, was there, on 18 June 1280, consecrated as bishop of St. Andrews by Pope Nicholas III.

At a meeting of the Scottish estates held shortly after the death of Alexander III, Fraser was chosen as one of six regents, three of whom were to govern north of the Firth of Forth and three south, pending the arrival of Margaret, the Maid of Norway, who was next heir to the throne. He supported the proposal for the marriage of the princess of Scotland to Edward, prince of Wales, and in connection with the negotiations therewith made a journey to the court of Edward I in Gascony. The Scots ratified the proposals in their parliament at Birgham on 17 March 1290, but these were frustrated by the death of the Maid of Norway at Orkney on her way to Scotland. In a Latin letter (the original of which is preserved in the Public Record Office, London) Fraser informed Edward I of the occurrence, and as there were a number of rival claimants for the vacant throne and a civil war seemed imminent, he requested the intervention of the English king for the preservation of the peace. After stating, among other things, that a number of the nobles had already taken arms, he concludes his letter thus: ‘If Sir John de Baliol come to your presence, we advise that you be careful to treat with him so that whatever be the issue your honour and interest may be preserved. And if it prove true that our lady foresaid is dead (which God forbid), then, if it please your excellency, draw near the borders for the comfort of the Scottish people and preventing of bloodshed.’ The consequence of the intervention of Edward I in this juncture was the enforcement of his claim as lord paramount of Scotland, and the Scots being divided among themselves were for the time obliged to yield. They tendered homage to the English king, and accepted his award as arbiter in the rival claims for the crown of Scotland in favour of John Baliol. On Baliol's accession to the throne Fraser resigned his office of regent and stood loyally by his sovereign during his short and unhappy reign. He was, however, a participator in some of the events which brought about the final rupture between Edward and Baliol. Appeals in certain judicial causes in which he was concerned were made from the court of Baliol to that of Edward. The Scottish king was summoned to appear before Edward in England to answer these appeals, but the Scots refused to allow him to do so, and Edward took steps to enforce his authority. To secure the friendship of France in the struggle, Fraser and several others were sent to negotiate a treaty with Philip IV. They were successful, but their aid was unavailing. Edward inflicted summary chastisement upon the Scots, and Baliol, forced by his countrymen to do so, abdicated the crown he had accepted at the English king's hands. Fraser retired to France, and during his absence, William Wallace having driven the English armies across the borders, the bishop's surrogates, William of Kinghorn and Patrick of Campania, deprived of their benefices every Englishman in the see of St. Andrews.

Fraser died in exile at Arteville in France, 19 Sept. 1297, having been bishop, as Wyntoun says, for seventeen winters. His body was buried in the church of the predicant friars at Paris, but his heart was enshrined in a rich casket and brought to Scotland and interred with much ceremony in the wall of the cathedral of St. Andrews.

Lord Hailes and other historians have described Fraser as a creature of Edward and a traitor to his country. With these accusations the late Lord Saltoun deals at length in his family history, ‘The Frasers of Philorth’ (ii. 96–115).

[Registrum Glasguense; Registrum Prioratus Sancti Andree; Fordun's Annalia, cap. lxviii., xci.; Wyntoun's Chronicle, bk. viii. chap. xiv.; Palgrave's Hist. Documents; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. i.]


text:
Page:The Life of Michael Angelo.djvu/220

152 these household quarrels. "Oh, that she had never been here!" he wrote in 1560, after dismissing a servant named Girolama.

His room was as dark as a tomb, "spiders created there a thousand pieces of work and unwound their little distaffs." Halfway up the staircase he had painted a figure of Death, bearing a coffin on his shoulders.

He lived like a poor man, ate hardly anything, and, "being unable to sleep, used to get up at night to work with his chisel. He had made a helmet of paper, and kept a lighted candle above the middle of his head, which lighted the work without embarassing his hands."


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 21, 1910.djvu/555

 Rh in distinguishing the elements of which that body was composed; further, he pointed out the part which specifically Celtic tradition had played in this evolutionary process.

The earlier studies contributed to this Review,—the examination of J. G. von Hahn's "Aryan Expulsion and Return Formula," and the study on the "Mabinogi of Branwen, the daughter of Llyr" —and the later essay on The Influence of Celtic upon Mediæval Romance, (which inaugurated the series of Popular Studies on Romance and Folklore), dealt with this question in its main aspect, and brought to light many hitherto unsuspected parallels between Welsh and Irish tradition and the literary Arthurian cycle.

The Studies on the Legend of the Holy Grail carried the attack further, to the very heart of the citadel in which Christian mediæval tradition and imagery had been for so long securely intrenched. The first English "Travail d' ensemble" on the subject, it at once freed English scholarship from the reproach of having too long neglected a study which might have been expected to make a special claim upon the attention of English scholars, and drew attention to the pressing character of the folklore problem. The opposition which the work met with in certain quarters may be best realized by a perusal of Mr. Nutt's Apologia contra Zimmer, which, appearing originally in the Revue Celtique was subsequently published in pamphlet form. From that time forward Alfred Nutt's name was, on the Continent, definitely associated with the plea for the insular, Celtic, and popular provenance of the Arthurian cycle, and he was regarded as the most prominent advocate of the views championed, more moderately, by the late M. Gaston Paris.

At that time the theory associated with the names of Professors Foerster and Golther practically held the field. These scholars staked, (and stake), all on the genius and originality of Chrétien de Troyes; with him the romantic Arthurian tradition had taken a definite literary form, before Chrétien all was chaos, after him all was imitation, and the indignation with which the ' evolutionary ' theory, militating as it did against the inventive genius of their idol, was received, was unbounded.

But 'Wisdom is justified of her children'; doubtless many readers of Folk-Lore have perused with interest Mr. Lawson's


text:
Translation:On the Possibility of an Electromagnetic Foundation of Mechanics

Über die Möglichkeit einer elektromagnetischen Begründung der Mechanik


text: Translation talk:On the Possibility of an Electromagnetic Foundation of Mechanics


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/232

 FRASER, WILLIAM, eleventh (1654–1715), second son of Alexander Fraser, master of Saltoun, and Lady Ann Ker, was born on 21 Nov. 1654. He was educated at King's College, Aberdeen. His elder brother, Alexander, having died in 1672, he, on the death of his father in 1682, became Master of Saltoun, and in August 1693 he succeeded as Lord Saltoun on the death of his grandfather, Alexander, tenth lord. In the earlier period of his life the family fortunes were at a very low ebb, nearly all the estates being mortgaged heavily. To save them so far as possible, he was infeft in them in 1676 on a disposition by his father and grandfather, and having acquired a considerable dowry with his wife, Margaret Sharp, daughter of James Sharp, archbishop of St. Andrews, whom he married on 11 Oct. 1683, he succeeded, by judicious sales and otherwise, in redeeming the estates out of the hands of the creditors. He wrote a narrative of this part of the family history, so far as concerned the efforts of his father and himself, which is preserved at Philorth. Previous to his marriage he was in command of a regiment of infantry, under a commission from James, duke of York. In 1697 the marriage of his eldest son to Emilia Fraser, eldest daughter and heiress of Hugh, lord Lovat, was arranged, by which means the barony of Lovat would have been annexed to that of Saltoun. But Fraser of Beaufort and his son Simon (afterwards twelfth Lord Lovat) [q. v.], being next heirs of entail to Lovat, determined to frustrate the match, and took arms to enforce their plans. Lord Saltoun was forbidden to visit Beauly, where lay Castle Downie, the residence of Lovat, but disregarding their threats he did so, and was seized, imprisoned, and threatened with the gallows, which was erected in front of his prison, unless he bound himself to terminate the marriage negotiations. He was taken back to Castle Downie as a prisoner, and there is sufficient warrant for believing that Simon Fraser would have executed his threat. The marriage was broken off. As a lord of parliament Saltoun took his seat and the oath on 9 May 1695, and used his influence and vote in furtherance of the Darien scheme, and in opposition to the treaty of union with England. He died on 18 March 1715, his wife, by whom he left three sons and four daughters, surviving till 1734. The eldest son, Alexander (1684–1748), succeeded as twelfth lord, and his great-grandson, Alexander George Fraser [q. v.], sixteenth lord Saltoun, was the famous general.

[Lord Saltoun's The Frasers of Philorth; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, ix. 347, 350.]

FRASER, WILLIAM (1784?–1835), Indian civilian, youngest son of Edward Satchell Fraser of Reelick, Inverness-shire, arrived in India to take up a nomination to the Bengal civil service in 1799. After acting in subordinate capacities, he was appointed secretary to Sir David Ochterlony, then resident at Delhi, in 1805, and in 1811 he accompanied Mountstuart Elphinstone's expedition to Cabul as secretary. In 1813 he was promoted to be assistant to Mr. Seton, the resident at Delhi, and in 1815 was political agent to General Martindale's army, and subsequently travelled with his brother, James Baillie Fraser [q. v.], in the Himalayas. In 1819 he was sent to settle the hill state of Garhwal, which had just been freed from the Goorkhas. In 1826 he was appointed second member of the board of revenue of the north-western provinces, and in 1830 he was promoted resident and agent to the governor-general at Delhi, in succession to Sir T. F. Colebrooke. He held this appointment until the evening of 22 March 1835, when he happened to be riding along the junction of the roads leading from the Cashmere and Lahore gates of Delhi, attended only by a single sowar, and was suddenly shot dead by a Muhammadan, named Kureem Khan. The actual perpetrator of the deed was tried and hanged, and earnest efforts were made to find out who had suggested the murder. Suspicion fell upon a wealthy Muhammadan nobleman, Shams-ud-din, nawab of Firozpur, against whom Fraser had issued a decree, and after a long trial he too was found guilty and hanged. His trial greatly excited the Muhammadans of Delhi.

[East India Directory; Gent. Mag. February 1836.]

FRASER, WILLIAM, LL.D. (1817–1879), educationist, was born at Cullen in Banffshire about the end of 1817. At an early period he entered the Normal Seminary in Glasgow, where he soon became one of the head-masters and a zealous coadjutor of David Stow in carrying out his training system—a new feature in Scottish education. Soon after the disruption of the Scottish church, the Normal Seminary was claimed by the church of Scotland, and Stow, Fraser, and nearly all the other teachers, having become members of the free church, had to leave, but were soon provided with a new building. In 1849 Fraser, after completing his studies for the ministry, was ordained to the pastoral charge of the Free Middle congregation, Paisley. In this office he remained till his death, greatly distinguished both for his pulpit and pastoral labours, and especially his work among young


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 21, 1910.djvu/556

 542 recently published work, Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek Religion, a review of which appears below. The reviewer remarks that the principle of the work,—i.e. the idea of illustrating from present popular belief the beliefs and practices of classical times,—is a perfectly sound one, but it was precisely for this that Alfred Nutt, twenty years ago, incurred the biting scorn of his foreign critics,—i.e. for daring to use modern folk-tales in elucidation of mediaeval romance. The gulf Mr. Lawson proposes to span is far wider, but the bridge is of identical construction, and the feat of literary engineering which was received with opprobrium twenty years ago, meets with no more than ordinary criticism to-day.

The latest work of importance published by Mr. Nutt, the text of The Voyage of Bran, with essays on "The Happy Other-World," and "The Celtic Doctrine of Re-birth," is one which I think has not yet received its due meed of appreciation. Mr. Nutt, I know, felt this himself; when discussing the support which the theory of the Life-Cult origin of the Grail tradition receives from the facts collected in the work referred to, he wrote to me as follows,—"I do believe The Voyage of Bran is a good sound piece of work, seminal, and creative, and I think it should have received higher recognition than it did." The book was, indeed, ahead of the critical knowledge of the day, and at the moment we did not possess the facts which would enable us to appreciate the importance and critical value of the evidence to which Mr. Nutt drew attention. In my opinion the book,—certainly the second volume,—is likely to gain in interest as time goes on, and will probably prove to be the most valuable legacy the writer has left us. But, if due recognition was not forthcoming, Alfred Nutt did not fight a losing battle; as his notice of Dr. Nitze's work, above referred to, clearly shows, he was keenly aware of the progress which Arthurian criticism has made in these latter years, and, if the cause in which he spent himself so generously has not yet quite come to its own, the time is not far distant; the future is with the Folklore School, and their opponents know it.

.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 21, 1910.djvu/373

 IN MEMORIAM: ALFRED NUTT (1856-1910).

BY EDWARD CLODD.

" free man," says Spinoza, "thinks of nothing less than of death, and his wisdom is meditation not of death but of life." When the thoughts of such an one dwell on the inevitable, his desire is that it should be without warning; nevertheless, the sudden death of a friend comes as a shock, the greater when memory recalls regrets,—neglect of chances of more frequent intercourse where interest in things that endure is common,—and all else that is unavailing.

So, when the news from Melun reached London that in striving to rescue an invalid son, who, through the shying of his horse, had been thrown into the Seine, Alfred Nutt had been swept away by the current, his friends were stunned as with a blow dealt by an unseen hand. Only six days before his tragic end our President received a letter from him in which, after touching in bright vein on topics of the day, he spoke cheerfully about his health, which, for some months past, had not been good, compelling him to take a holiday. "I am feeling better," he said, "and hope that a quiet summer in the open air will give me back my full working powers. I am still unequal to any serious or prolonged effort. I am amusing myself at present with annotating Arnold's Study of Celtic Literature. Whether anything will come of it I don't know."

My friendship with Alfred Nutt dates from the formation of the Folk-Lore Society in 1878, and, although our opportunities of intercourse were rare and fitful, I saw enough of him to warrant a hearty tribute to his genial nature, and to an enthusiasm about everything connected with folklore, which, with equipment of learning that few among us possess, made his services to our Society of special and abiding value. He was not only of the rare species of author-publisher; he was of the yet more rare species of scholar-publisher. In many ways, notably in the format of the series of the very scarce Tudor Translations, the fortunate owners of which treasure them for their beauty,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 20.djvu/233

 men. In 1857, at the request of some gentlemen of influence, he undertook an inquiry into educational work throughout Great Britain and Ireland, the results of which were published in a large volume entitled ‘The State of our Educational Enterprises,’ embodying important suggestions for educational legislation, which were brought by an influential deputation before the lord advocate, and several of which were made use of in the Education Bill for Scotland. In 1872, as a recognition of his scientific work, the university of Glasgow conferred on him the degree of LL.D. For nearly thirty years he laboured unweariedly on behalf of a literary association and a natural science association in Paisley. In 1850 he instituted a special class for boys who had attended the Sunday-school, in order to give them higher instruction; this class developed into the Paisley Young Men's Bible Institute, which he met with on Sunday evenings without intermission for many years. Some of his prelections were published in a volume called ‘Blending Lights, or the Relations of Natural Science, Archæology, and History to the Bible.’ In 1857 he took on himself the resuscitation of the Paisley Philosophical Society, and besides rendering many other services made valuable collections which became the basis of a free museum in connection with a free library. Having proposed that a free library should be formed for Paisley, and this project being approved of, he was able to intimate on behalf of a wealthy citizen, Sir Peter Coats, a gift of site and buildings both for museum and library. Another of his undertakings was to compile a list of about three thousand volumes and raise a sum of 1,000l. in order to furnish a reference library as an addition to the free lending library. Fraser was twice a member of the Paisley school board. His services obtained more than one public recognition. In 1873, in acknowledgment of his long services as president of the Philosophical Society, he was presented with a microscope and a purse of sovereigns; in April 1879, on the part of the museum and library, with his portrait; and in August 1879, on the part of the community, with a cheque for two thousand guineas. He was highly respected in Paisley. He died 21 Sept. 1879.

FRAUNCE, ABRAHAM (fl. 1587–1633), poet, was a native of Shropshire, and is said by Oldys to have been educated at Shrewsbury School, but his name not to be found in the register. Sir Philip Sidney, according to the same authority, interested himself in his education, and sent him to St. John's College, Cambridge, where he became a pensioner 20 May 1575, a Lady Margaret scholar 8 Nov. 1578, and a fellow in 1580. He proceeded B.A. in 1579–80 and M.A. in 1583, and in 1580 acted in Dr. Legge's play, ‘Richardus Tertius,’ which was produced at the college. Having been called to the bar at Gray's Inn, he practised in the court of the marches of Wales. So long as Sidney lived he seems to have favoured Fraunce, and when Sidney died in 1586, Sidney's sister Mary, countess of Pembroke, took him under her patronage. To her he dedicated nearly all his works, one of which he called ‘The Countess of Pembroke's Ivychurch,’ from the name of one of his patroness's residences, and another ‘The Countess of Pembroke's Emanuel.’ Her husband Henry, earl of Pembroke, president of the council of Wales, who also treated the poet with unvarying kindness, recommended him to Lord Burghley in 1590 for the office of queen's solicitor in the court of the marches. He seems to have been an officer of that court as late as 1633, when he celebrated in verse the marriage of Lady Margaret Egerton with Sir Gervase Cutler. The lay was daughter of, first earl of Bridgewater [q. v.], who was appointed president of the council of Wales in 1631. Fraunce claims to have paid poetical honours to all the earl's daughters.

Fraunce proved himself one of the most obstinate champions of the school which sought to naturalise classical metres in English verse. All his poems are in hexameters, and all are awkward and unreadable. Yet Fraunce gained the highest commendation from his contemporaries. As the protégé of Sir Philip Sidney, he was introduced at an early age into Sidney's circle of literary friends, which included Spenser, Sir Edward Dyer, and Gabriel Harvey. With Spenser he was very intimate, and he was able to quote, in his ‘Arcadian Rhetorike,’ 1588, the ‘Faerie Queene’ before its publication. Spenser refers to him in ‘Colin Clout's come home again’ (1595) as ‘Corydon, … hablest wit of most I know this day,’ a reference to Fraunce's translation from Virgil of Corydon's lamentation for Alexis. Thomas Watson was his closest literary associate. Both translated separately Tasso's ‘Aminta,’ and Fraunce translated Watson's Latin poem ‘Amintas.’ Nashe, in his epistle prefixed to Greene's ‘Arcadia,’ or ‘Menaphon’ (1589), writes of ‘the excellent translation of Master Thomas Watson's sugared “Amintas”’ by ‘sweet Master France.’ Fraunce is apparently


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 21, 1910.djvu/374

 336 he revived the well-nigh vanished traditions of Aldus, Elzevir, Stephens, and Plantin. And, because his heart often got the better of his head, there was, not infrequently, a debit balance against books on folklore, for which, as for most serious literature nowadays (perhaps it has been so always), the demand is small. So, like the showman who lost on the roundabouts, but more than made it up on the swings, it was only in other branches of his business which his skill and energy developed, that he could recoup the losses that the publication of his own works and those of fellow folklorists involved.

As the great-grandson of one publisher,—William Miller, whose business John Murray acquired,—and the son of another, there were inherited bookish traditions whose influence shaped his career. It was his misfortune to lose his father, David Nutt (whose name the firm retains), in 1863, when he was but seven, but this did not disturb the plans for his education, which was carried on in England and France, and followed by three years' business training in Leipzig, Berlin, and Paris. At the age of twenty-two he became the head of his late father's firm, remaining so till his death, and leaving to his widow and their eldest son the conduct of a business which plays a leading part in the distribution of high-class continental literature in this country.

The last words of the letter to Miss Burne, which are quoted above, give the key to his favourite pursuit, the study of Celtic mythology. He was happy in his choice, because, save in Germany, whence largely came his impulse thereto, that branch of mythology had received but scant attention. So far as mythology entered into the education of those of us who are well-on in life, it was restricted to that of Rome and Greece, chiefly as given in the arid pages of Lemprière and Dr. William Smith. As late as 1867, Matthew Arnold, in his Study of Celtic Literature, "labouring to show that in the spiritual frame of us English ourselves, a Celtic fibre, little as we may have ever thought of tracing it, lives and works," added, "and yet in the great and rich universities of this great and rich country there is no chair of Celtic; there is no study or teaching of Celtic matters, those who want them must go abroad for them. So I am inclined to beseech Oxford, instead of expiating her over-addiction to the Ilissus by