text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/411

 whereof is that of Abbé E. Vacandard (1895); also in the Life of St Stephen Harding, in the English Saints. See also Henry Collins (one of the Oxford Movement, who became a Cistercian), Spirit and Mission of the Cistercian Order (1866). The facts are related in Helyot, ''Hist. des ordres religieux'' (1792), v. cc. 33-46, vi cc. 1, 2. Useful sketches, with references to the literature, are supplied in Herzog, Realencyklopädie (ed. 3), art. “Cistercienser”; Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexikon (ed. 2), art. “Cistercienserorden”; Max Heimbucher, Orden und Kongregationen (1896), i. §§ 33, 34. Prof. Brewer’s discriminating, yet on the whole sympathetic, Preface to vol. iv. of the Works of Giraldus Cambrensis (Rolls Series of Chronicles and Memorials) is very instructive. Denis Murphy’s Triumphalia Monasterii S. Crucis (1891) contains a general sketch, with a particular account of the Irish Cistercians.

 CITATION (Lat. citare, to cite), in law, a summons to appear, more particularly applied in England to process in the probate and divorce division of the high court. In the ecclesiastical courts, citation was a method of commencing a probate suit, answering to a writ of summons at common law, and it is now in English probate practice an instrument issuing from the principal probate registry, chiefly used when a person, having the superior right to take a grant, delays or declines to do so, and another having an inferior right desires to obtain a grant; the party having the prior right is cited to appear and either to renounce the grant or show cause why it should not be decreed to the citator. In divorce practice, when a petitioner has filed his petition and affidavit, he extracts a citation, i.e. a command drawn in the name of the sovereign and signed by one of the registrars of the court, calling upon the alleged offender to appear and make answer to the petition. In Scots law, citation is used in the sense of a writ of summons. The word in its more general literary sense means the act of quoting, or the referring to an authority in support of an argument.

 CÎTEAUX, a village of eastern France, in the department of Côte d’Or, 16 m. S.S.E. of Dijon by road. It is celebrated for the great abbey founded by Robert, abbot of Molesme, in 1098, which became the headquarters of the Cistercian order. The buildings which remain date chiefly from the 18th century and are of little interest. The church, destroyed in 1792, used to contain the tombs of the earlier dukes of Burgundy.

 CITHAERON, now called from its pine forests Elatea, a famous mountain range (4626 ft.) in the south of Boeotia, separating that state from Megaris and Attica. It was famous in Greek mythology, and is frequently mentioned by the great poets, especially by Sophocles. It was on Cithaeron that Aetaeon was changed into a stag, that Pentheus was torn to pieces by the Bacchantes whose orgies he had been watching, and that the infant Oedipus was exposed. This mountain, too, was the scene of the mystic rites of Dionysus, and the festival of the Daedala in honour of Hera. The carriage-road from Athens to Thebes crosses the range by a picturesque defile (the pass of Dryoscephalae, “Oak-heads”), which was at one time guarded on the Attic side by a strong fortress, the ruins of which are known as Ghyphto-kastro (“Gipsy Castle”). Plataea is situated on the north slope of the mountain, and the strategy of the battle of 479 was considerably affected by the fact that it was necessary for the Greeks to keep their communications open by the passes (see ). The best known of these is that of Dryoscephalae, which must then, as now, have been the direct route from Athens to Thebes. Two other passes, farther to the west, were crossed by the roads from Plataea to Athens and to Megara respectively.

 CITHARA (Assyrian chetarah; Gr.  ; Lat. cithara; perhaps Heb. kinura, kinnor), one of the most ancient stringed instruments, traced back to 1700 among the Semitic races, in Egypt, Assyria, Asia Minor, Greece and the Roman empire, whence the use of it spread over Europe. The main feature of the Greek kithara, its shallow sound-chest, being the most important part of it, is also that in which developments are most noticeable; its contour varied considerably during the many musical ages, but the characteristic in respect of which it fore-shadowed the precursors of the violin family, and by which they were distinguished from other contemporary stringed instruments of the middle ages, was preserved throughout in all European descendants bearing derived names. This characteristic box sound-chest (fig. 1) consisted of two resonating tables, either flat or delicately arched, connected by ribs or sides of equal width. The cithara may be regarded as an attempt by a more skilful craftsman or race to improve upon the (q.v.), while retaining some of its features. The construction of the cithara can fortunately be accurately studied from two actual specimens found in Egypt and preserved in the museums of Berlin and Leiden. The Leiden cithara (fig. 2), which forms part of the d’Anastasy Collection in the Museum of Antiquities, is in a very good state of preservation. The sound-chest, in the form of an irregular square (17 cm. × 17 cm.), is hollowed out of a solid block of wood from the base, which is open; the little bar, seen through the open base and measuring 2 cm. (1 in.), is also of the same piece of wood. The arms, one short and one long, are solid and are fixed to the body by means of wooden pins; they are glued as well for greater strength. W. Pleyte, through whose courtesy the sketch was revised and corrected, states that there are no indications on the instrument of any kind of bridge or attachment for strings except the little half-hoop of iron wire which passes through the base from back to front. To this the strings were probably attached, and the little bar performed the double duty of sound-post and support for strengthening the tail-piece and enabling it to resist the tension of the strings. The oblique transverse bar, rendered necessary by the increasing length of the strings, was characteristic of the Egyptian cithara, whereas the Asiatic and Greek instruments were generally constructed with horizontal bars resting on arms of equal length, the pitch of the strings being varied by thickness and tension, instead of by length. (For the Berlin cithara see .)

The number of strings with which the cithara was strung varied from 4 to 19 or 20 at different times; they were added less for the purpose of increasing the compass in the modern sense than to enable the performer to play in the different modes of the Greek musical system. Terpander is credited with having increased the number of strings to seven; Euclid, quoting him as his authority, states that “loving no more the tetrachordal chant, we will sing aloud new hymns to a seven-toned phorminx.”

What has been said of the scale of the lyre applies also to the cithara, and need therefore not be repeated here. The strings were vibrated by means of the fingers or plectrum (, from  , to strike; Lat. plectrum, from plango, I strike). Twanging with the fingers for strings of gut, hemp or silk was undoubtedly the more artistic method, since the player was able to command various shades of expression which are impossible

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/411


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/410

 of men who lived alongside of the choir monks, but separate from them, not taking part in the canonical office, but having their own fixed round of prayer and religious exercises. A lay brother was never ordained, and never held any office of superiority. It was by this system of lay brothers that the Cistercians were able to play their distinctive part in the progress of European civilization. But it often happened that the number of lay brothers became excessive and out of proportion to the resources of the monasteries, there being sometimes as many as 200, or even 300, in a single abbey. On the other hand, at any rate in some countries, the system of lay brothers in course of time worked itself out; thus in England by the close of the 14th century it had shrunk to relatively small proportions, and in the 15th century the régime of the English Cistercian houses tended to approximate more and more to that of the Black Monks.

The Cistercian polity calls for special mention. Its lines were adumbrated by Alberic, but it received its final form at a meeting of the abbots in the time of Stephen Harding, when was drawn up the Carta Caritatis (Migne, Patrol. Lat. clxvi. 1377), a document which arranged the relations between the various houses of the Cistercian order, and exercised a great influence also upon the future course of western monachism. From one point of view, it may be regarded as a compromise between the primitive Benedictine system, whereby each abbey was autonomous and isolated, and the complete centralization of Cluny, whereby the abbot of Cluny was the only true superior in the body. Cîteaux, on the one hand, maintained the independent organic life of the houses—each abbey had its own abbot, elected by its own monks; its own community, belonging to itself and not to the order in general; its own property and finances administered by itself, without interference from outside. On the other hand, all the abbeys were subjected to the general chapter, which met yearly at Cîteaux, and consisted of the abbots only; the abbot of Cîteaux was the president of the chapter and of the order, and the visitor of each and every house, with a predominant influence and the power of enforcing everywhere exact conformity to Cîteaux in all details of the exterior life—observance, chant, customs. The principle was that Cîteaux should always be the model to which all the other houses had to conform. In case of any divergence of view at the chapter, the side taken by the abbot of Cîteaux was always to prevail (see F. A. Gasquet, Sketch of Monastic Constitutional History, pp. xxxv-xxxviii, prefixed to English trans, of Montalembert’s Monks of the West, ed. 1895).

By the end of the 12th century the Cistercian houses numbered 500; in the 13th a hundred more were added; and in the 15th, when the order attained its greatest extension, there were close on 750 houses: the larger figures sometimes given are now recognized as apocryphal. Nearly half of the houses had been founded, directly or indirectly, from Clairvaux, so great was St Bernard’s influence and prestige: indeed he has come almost to be regarded as the founder of the Cistercians, who have often been called Bernardines. The order was spread all over western Europe,—chiefly in France, but also in Germany, England, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Italy and Sicily, Spain and Portugal,—where some of the houses, as Alcobaça, were of almost incredible magnificence. In England the first foundation was Furness (1127), and many of the most beautiful monastic buildings of the country, beautiful in themselves and beautiful in their sites, were Cistercian,—as Tintern, Rievaulx, Byland, Fountains. A hundred were established in England in the next hundred years, and then only one more up to the Dissolution (for list, see table and map in F. A. Gasquet’s English Monastic Life, or Catholic Dictionary, art. “”).

For a hundred years, till the first quarter of the 13th century, the Cistercians supplanted Cluny as the most powerful order and the chief religious influence in western Europe. But then in turn their influence began to wane, chiefly, no doubt, because of the rise of the mendicant orders, who ministered more directly to the needs and ideas of the new age. But some of the reasons of Cistercian decline were internal. In the first place, there was the permanent difficulty of maintaining in its first fervour a body embracing hundreds of monasteries and thousands of monks, spread all over Europe; and as the Cistercian very raison d’être consisted in its being a “reform,” a return to primitive monachism, with its field-work and severe simplicity, any failures to live up to the ideal proposed worked more disastrously among Cistercians than among mere Benedictines, who were intended to live a life of self-denial, but not of great austerity. Relaxations were gradually introduced in regard to diet and to simplicity of life, and also in regard to the sources of income, rents and tolls being admitted and benefices incorporated, as was done among the Benedictines; the farming operations tended to produce a commercial spirit; wealth and splendour invaded many of the monasteries, and the choir monks abandoned field-work.

The later history of the Cistercians is largely one of attempted revivals and reforms. The general chapter for long battled bravely against the invasion of relaxations and abuses. In 1335 Benedict XII., himself a Cistercian, promulgated a series of regulations to restore the primitive spirit of the order, and in the 15th century various popes endeavoured to promote reforms. All these efforts at a reform of the great body of the order proved unavailing; but local reforms, producing various semi-independent offshoots and congregations, were successfully carried out in many parts in the course of the 15th and 16th centuries. In the 17th another great effort at a general reform was made, promoted by the pope and the king of France; the general chapter elected Richelieu (commendatory) abbot of Cîteaux, thinking he would protect them from the threatened reform. In this they were disappointed, for he threw himself wholly on the side of reform. So great, however, was the resistance, and so serious the disturbances that ensued, that the attempt to reform Cîteaux itself and the general body of the houses had again to be abandoned, and only local projects of reform could be carried out. In 1598 had arisen the reformed congregation of the Feuillants, which spread widely in France and Italy, in the latter country under the name of “Improved Bernardines.” The French congregation of Sept-Fontaines (1654) also deserves mention. In 1663 de Rancé reformed La Trappe (see ).

The Reformation, the ecclesiastical policy of Joseph II., the French Revolution, and the revolutions of the 19th century, almost wholly destroyed the Cistercians; but some survived, and since the beginning of the last half of the 19th century there has been a considerable recovery. They are at present divided into three bodies: (1) the Common Observance, with about 30 monasteries and 800 choir monks, the large majority being in Austria-Hungary; they represent the main body of the order and follow a mitigated rule of life; they do not carry on field-work, but have large secondary schools, and are in manner of life little different from fairly observant Benedictine Black monks; of late years, however, signs are not wanting of a tendency towards a return to older ideas; (2) the Middle Observance, embracing some dozen monasteries and about 150 choir monks; (3) the Strict Observance, or (q.v.), with nearly 60 monasteries, about 1600 choir monks and 2000 lay brothers.

In all there are about 100 Cistercian monasteries and about 4700 monks, including lay brothers. There have always been a large number of Cistercian nuns; the first nunnery was founded at Tart in the diocese of Langres, 1125; at the period of their widest extension there are said to have been 900 nunneries, and the communities were very large. The nuns were devoted to contemplation and also did field-work. In Spain and France certain Cistercian abbesses had extraordinary privileges. Numerous reforms took place among the nuns. The best known of all Cistercian convents was probably (q.v.), reformed by Angélique Arnaud, and associated with the story of the Jansenist controversy. After all the troubles of the 19th century there still exist 100 Cistercian nunneries with 3000 nuns, choir and lay; of these, 15 nunneries with 900 nuns are Trappist.

Accounts of the beginnings of the Cistercians and of the primitive life and spirit will be found in the lives of St Bernard, the best

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

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/410


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/409

 he was in consequence relieved from duty. An inquiry subsequently held resulted in de Cissey’s favour (1881). He died on the 15th of June 1882 at Paris.

 CISSOID (from the Gr. , ivy, and  , form), a curve invented by the Greek mathematician Diocles about 180 , for the purpose of constructing two mean proportionals between two given lines; and in order to solve the problem of duplicating the cube. It was further investigated by John Wallis, Christiaan Huygens (who determined the length of any arc in 1657), and Pierre de Fermat (who evaluated the area between the curve and its asymptote in 1661). It is constructed in the following manner. Let APB be a semicircle, BT the tangent at B, and APT a line cutting the circle in P and BT at T; take a point Q on AT so that AQ always equals PT; then the locus of Q is the cissoid. Sir Isaac Newton devised the following mechanical construction. Take a rod LMN bent at right angles at M, such that MN = AB; let the leg LM always pass through a fixed point O on AB produced such that OA = CA, where C is the middle point of AB, and cause N to travel along the line perpendicular to AB at C; then the midpoint of MN traces the cissoid. The curve is symmetrical about the axis of x, and consists of two infinite branches asymptotic to the line BT and forming a cusp at the origin. The cartesian equation, when A is the origin and AB = 2a, is y2(2a−x) = x3; the polar equation is r = 2a sin tan. The cissoid is the first positive pedal of the parabola y2+8ax = 0 for the vertex, and the inverse of the parabola y2 = 8ax, the vertex being the centre of inversion, and the semi-latus rectum the constant of inversion. The area between the curve and its asymptote is 3a2, i.e. three times the area of the generating circle.

The term cissoid has been given in modern times to curves generated in similar manner from other figures than the circle, and the form described above is distinguished as the cissoid of Diocles.

A cissoid angle is the angle included between the concave sides of two intersecting curves; the convex sides include the sistroid angle.

 CIS-SUTLEJ STATES, the southern portion of the Punjab, India. The name, now obsolete, came into use in 1809, when the Sikh chiefs south of the Sutlej passed under British protection, and was generally applied to the country south of the Sutlej and north of the Delhi territory, bounded on the E. by the Himalayas, and on the W. by Sirsa district. Before 1846 the greater part of this territory w as independent, the chiefs being subject merely to control from a political officer stationed at Umballa, and styled the agent of the governor-general for the Cis-Sutlej states. After the first Sikh War the full administration of the territory became vested in this officer. In 1849 occurred the annexation of the Punjab, when the Cis-Sutlej states commissionership, comprising the districts of Umballa, Ferozepore, Ludhiana, Thanesar and Simla, was incorporated with the new province. The name continued to be applied to this division until 1862, when, owing to Ferozepore having been transferred to the Lahore, and a part of Thanesar to the Delhi division, it ceased to be appropriate. Since then, the tract remaining has been known as the Umballa division. Patiala, Jind and Nabha were appointed a separate political agency in 1901. Excluding Bahawalpur, for which there is no political agent, and Chamba, the other states are grouped under the commissioners of Jullunder and Delhi, and the superintendent of the Simla hill states.

 CIST (Gr. , Lat. cista, a box; cf. Ger. Kiste, Welsh kistvaen, stone-coffin, and also the other Eng. form “chest”), in Greek archaeology, a wicker-work receptacle used in the Eleusinian and other mysteries to carry the sacred vessels; also, in the archaeology of prehistoric man, a coffin formed of flat stones placed edgeways with another flat stone for a cover. The word is also used for a sepulchral chamber cut in the rock (see ).

“Cistern,” the common term for a water-tank, is a derivation of the same word (Lat. cisterna; cf. “cave” and “cavern”).

 CISTERCIANS, otherwise or  (from the colour of the habit, over which is worn a black scapular or apron). In 1098 St Robert, born of a noble family in Champagne, at first a Benedictine monk, and then abbot of certain hermits settled at Molesme near Châtillon, being dissatisfied with the manner of life and observance there, migrated with twenty of the monks to a swampy place called Cîteaux in the diocese of Châlons, not far from Dijon. Count Odo of Burgundy here built them a monastery, and they began to live a life of strict observance according to the letter of St Benedict’s rule. In the following year Robert was compelled by papal authority to return to Molesme, and Alberic succeeded him as abbot of Cîteaux and held the office till his death in 1109, when the Englishman St Stephen Harding became abbot, until 1134. For some years the new institute seemed little likely to prosper; few novices came, and in the first years of Stephen’s abbacy it seemed doomed to failure. In 1112, however, St Bernard and thirty others offered themselves to the monastery, and a rapid and wonderful development at once set in. The next three years witnessed the foundation of the four great “daughter-houses of Cîteaux”—La Ferté, Pontigny, Clairvaux and Morimond. At Stephen’s death there were over 30 Cistercian houses; at Bernard’s (1154) over 280; and by the end of the century over 500; and the Cistercian influence in the Church more than kept pace with this material expansion, so that St Bernard saw one of his monks ascend the papal chair as Eugenius III.

The keynote of Cistercian life was a return to a literal observance of St Benedict’s rule—how literal may be seen from the controversy between St Bernard and Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny (see Maitland, Dark Ages, § xxii.). The Cistercians rejected alike all mitigations and all developments, and tried to reproduce the life exactly as it had been in St Benedict’s time, indeed in various points they went beyond it in austerity. The most striking feature in the reform was the return to manual labour, and especially to field-work, which became a special characteristic of Cistercian life. In order to make time for this work they cut away the accretions to the divine office which had been steadily growing during three centuries, and in Cluny and the other Black Monk monasteries had come to exceed greatly in length the regular canonical office: one only of these accretions did they retain, the daily recitation of the Office of the Dead (Edm. Bishop, Origin of the Primer, Early English Text Society, original series, 109, p. xxx.).

It was as agriculturists and horse and cattle breeders that, after the first blush of their success and before a century had passed, the Cistercians exercised their chief influence on the progress of civilization in the later middle ages: they were the great farmers of those days, and many of the improvements in the various farming operations were introduced and propagated by them; it is from this point of view that the importance of their extension in northern Europe is to be estimated. The Cistercians at the beginning renounced all sources of income arising from benefices, tithes, tolls and rents, and depended for their income wholly on the land. This developed an organized system for selling their farm produce, cattle and horses, and notably contributed to the commercial progress of the countries of western Europe. Thus by the middle of the 13th century the export of wool by the English Cistercians had become a feature in the commerce of the country. Farming operations on so extensive a scale could not be carried out by the monks alone, whose choir and religious duties took up a considerable portion of their time; and so from the beginning the system of lay brothers was introduced on a large scale. The lay brothers were recruited from the peasantry and were simple uneducated men, whose function consisted in carrying out the various field-works and plying all sorts of useful trades; they formed a body

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/409


text:
Page:Blaise Pascal works.djvu/330

It is not absolution only which remits sins by the sacrament of penance, but contrition, which is not real if it does not seek the sacrament.

People who do not keep their word, without faith, without honour, without truth, deceitful in heart, deceitful in speech; for which that amphibious animal in fable was once reproached, which held itself in a doubtful position between the fish and the birds…

It is important to kings and princes to be considered pious; and therefore they must confess themselves to you.

title: Page:Blaise Pascal works.djvu/330


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/408

 inquisitions reiterated the abbot’s rights. These were confirmed in 1408–1409 and 1413; in 1418 the charter was annulled, and in 1477 parliament declared that Cirencester was not corporate. After several unsuccessful attempts to re-establish the gild merchant, the government in 1592 was vested in the bailiff of the lord of the manor. Cirencester became a parliamentary borough in 1572, returning two members, but was deprived of representation in 1885. Besides the “new market” of Domesday Book the abbots obtained charters in 1215 and 1253 for fairs during the octaves of All Saints and St Thomas the Martyr. The wool trade gave these great importance; in 1341 there were ten wool merchants in Cirencester, and Leland speaks of the abbots’ cloth-mill, while Camden calls it the greatest market for wool in England.

 CIRILLO, DOMENICO (1739–1799), Italian physician and patriot, was born at Grumo in the kingdom of Naples. Appointed while yet a young man to a botanical professorship, Cirillo went some years afterwards to England, where he was elected fellow of the Royal Society, and to France. On his return to Naples he was appointed successively to the chairs of practical and theoretical medicine. He wrote voluminously and well on scientific subjects and secured an extensive medical practice. On the French occupation of Naples and the proclamation of the Parthenopean republic (1799), Cirillo, after at first refusing to take part in the new government, consented to be chosen a representative of the people and became a member of the legislative commission, of which he was eventually elected president. On the abandonment of the republic by the French (June 1799), Cardinal Ruffo and the army of King Ferdinand IV. returned to Naples, and the Republicans withdrew, ill-armed and inadequately provisioned, to the forts. After a short siege they surrendered on honourable terms, life and liberty being guaranteed them by the signatures of Ruffo, of Foote, and of Micheroux. But the arrival of Nelson changed the complexion of affairs, and he refused to ratify the capitulation. Secure under the British flag, Ferdinand and his wife, Caroline of Austria, showed themselves eager for revenge, and Cirillo was involved with the other republicans in the vengeance of the royal family. He asked Lady Hamilton (wife of the British minister to Naples) to intercede on his behalf, but Nelson wrote in reference to the petition: “Domenico Cirillo, who had been the king’s physician, might have been saved, but that he chose to play the fool and lie, denying that he had ever made any speeches against the government, and saying that he only took care of the poor in the hospitals” (Nelson and the Neapolitan Jacobins, Navy Records Society, 1903). He was condemned and hanged on the 29th of October 1799. Cirillo, whose favourite study was botany, and who was recognized as an entomologist by Linnaeus, left many books, in Latin and Italian, all of them treating of medical and scientific subjects, and all of little value now. Exception must, however, be made in favour of the Virtù morali dell’ Asino, a pleasant philosophical pamphlet remarkable for its double charm of sense and style. He introduced many medical innovations into Naples, particularly inoculation for smallpox.

 CIRQUE (Lat. circus, ring), a French word used in physical geography to denote a semicircular crater-like amphitheatre at the head of a valley, or in the side of a glaciated mountain. The valley cirque is characteristic of calcareous districts. In the Chiltern Hills especially, and generally along the chalk escarpments, a flat-bottomed valley with an intermittent stream winds into the hill and ends suddenly in a cirque. There is an excellent example at Ivinghoe, Buckinghamshire, where it appears as though an enormous flat-bottomed scoop had been driven into the hillside and dragged outwards to the plain. In all cases it is found that the valley floor consists of hard or impervious rock above which lies a permeable or soluble stratum of considerable thickness. In the case of the chalk hills the upper strata are very porous, and the descending water with atmospheric and humous acids in solution has great solvent power. During the winter this upper layer becomes saturated and some of the water drains away along joints in the escarpment. An underground stream is thus developed carrying away a great deal of material in solution, and in consequence the ground above slowly collapses over the stream, while the cirque at the head, where the stream issues, gradually works backward and may pass completely through the hills, leaving a gap of which another drainage system may take possession. In the limestone country of the Cotteswold Hills, many small intermittent tributary streams are headed by cirques, and some of the longer dry valleys have springs issuing from beneath their lower ends, the dry valleys being collapsed areas above underground streams not yet revealed. In this case the pervious limestone is underlain by beds of impervious clay. There are many of these in the Jura Mountains. The Cirque de St Sulpice is a fine example where the impervious bed is a marly clay.

The origin of the glacial cirque is entirely different and is said by W. D. Johnson (Journal of Geology, xii. No. 7, 1904) to be due to basal sapping and erosion under the bergschrund of the glacier. In this he is supported by G. K. Gilbert in the same journal, who produces some remarkable examples from the Sierra Nevada in California, where the mountain fragments have been left behind “like a sheet of dough upon a board after the biscuit tin has done its work”; so that above the head of the glaciers “the rock detail is rugged and splintered but its general effect is that of a great symmetrical arc.” Descending one of the bergschrunds of Mt. Lyell to a depth of 150 ft., Johnson found a rock floor cumbered with ice and blocks of rock and the rock face a literally vertical cliff “much riven, its fracture planes outlining sharp angular masses in all stages of displacement and dislodgment.” Judging from these facts, he interprets the deep valleys with cirques at their head in formerly glaciated regions where at the head there is a “reversed grade” of slope, as due to ice-erosion at valley-heads where scour is impossible at the sides of the mountain but strongest under the glacier head where the ice is deepest. The opponents of ice-erosion nevertheless recognize the very frequent occurrence of glacial cirques often containing small lakes such as that under Cader Idris in Wales, or at the head of Little Timber Creek, Montana, and numerous examples in Alpine districts.

 CIRTA (mod., q.v.), an ancient city of Numidia, in Africa, in the country of the Massyli. It was regarded by the Romans as the strongest position in Numidia, and was made by them the converging point of all their great military roads in that country. By the early emperors it was allowed to fall into decay, but was afterwards restored by Constantine, from whom it took its modern name.

 CISSEY, ERNEST LOUIS OCTAVE COURTOT DE (1810–1882), French general, was born at Paris on the 23rd of September 1810, and after passing through St Cyr, entered the army in 1832, becoming captain in 1839. He saw active service in Algeria, and became chef d’escadron in 1849 and lieutenant-colonel in 1850. He took part as a colonel in the Crimean War, and after the battle of Inkerman received the rank of general of brigade. In 1863 he was promoted general of division. When the Franco-German War broke out in 1870, de Cissey was given a divisional command in the Army of the Rhine, and he was included in the surrender of Bazaine’s army at Metz. He was released from captivity only at the end of the war, and on his return was at once appointed by the Versailles government to a command in the army engaged in the suppression of the Commune, a task in the execution of which he displayed great rigour. From July 1871 de Cissey sat as a deputy, and he had already become minister of war. He occupied this post several times during the critical period of the reorganization of the French army. In 1880, whilst holding the command of the XI. corps at Nantes, he was accused of having relations with a certain Baroness Kaula, who was said to be a spy in the pay of Germany, and

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/408


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/407

 are still, and now afford the only instance from which an idea of the ancient circi in Rome can be obtained. It was traced to Caracalla, till the discovery of an inscription in 1825 showed it to be the work of Maxentius. Old topographers speak of six circi, but two of these appear to be imaginary, the Circus Florae and the Circus Sallustii.

Circus races were held in connexion with the following public festivals, and generally on the last day of the festival, if it extended over more than one day:—(1) The Consualia, August 21st, December 15th; (2) Equirria, February 27th, March 14th; (3) Ludi Romani, September 4th-19th; (4) Ludi Plebeii, November 4th-17th; (5) Cerialia, April 12th-19th; (6) Ludi Apollinares, July 6th-13th; (7) Ludi Megalenses, April 4th-10th; (8) Floralia, April 28th-May 3rd.

2. The Modern Circus.—The “circus” in modern times is a form of popular entertainment which has little in common with the institution of classical Rome. It is frequently nomadic in character, the place of the permanent building known to the ancients as the circus being taken by a tent, which is carried from place to place and set up temporarily on any site procurable at country fairs or in provincial towns, and in which spectacular performances are given by a troupe employed by the proprietor. The centre of the tent forms an arena arranged as a horse-ring, strewn with tan or other soft substance, where the performances take place, the seats of the spectators being arranged in ascending tiers around the central space as in the Roman circus. The traditional type of exhibition in the modern travelling circus consists of feats of horsemanship, such as leaping through hoops from the back of a galloping horse, standing with one foot on each of two horses galloping side by side, turning somersaults from a springboard over a number of horses standing close together, or accomplishing acrobatic tricks on horseback. These performances, by male and female riders, are varied by the introduction of horses trained to perform tricks, and by drolleries on the part of the clown, whose place in the circus is as firmly established by tradition as in the pantomime.

The popularity of the circus in England may be traced to that kept by Philip Astley (d. 1814) in London at the end of the 18th century. Astley was followed by Ducrow, whose feats of horsemanship had much to do with establishing the traditions of the circus, which were perpetuated by Hengler’s and Sanger’s celebrated shows in a later generation. In America a circus-actor named Ricketts is said to have performed before George Washington in 1780, and in the first half of the 19th century the establishments of Purdy, Welch & Co., and of van Amburgh gave a wide popularity to the circus in the United States. All former circus-proprietors were, however, far surpassed in enterprise and resource by (q.v.), whose claim to be the possessor of “the greatest show on earth” was no exaggeration. The influence of Barnum, however, brought about a considerable change in the character of the modern circus. In arenas too large for speech to be easily audible, the traditional comic dialogue of the clown assumed a less prominent place than formerly, while the vastly increased wealth of stage properties relegated to the background the old-fashioned equestrian feats, which were replaced by more ambitious acrobatic performances, and by exhibitions of skill, strength and daring, requiring the employment of immense numbers of performers and often of complicated and expensive machinery. These tendencies are, as is natural, most marked in shows given in permanent buildings in large cities, such as the London Hippodrome, which was built as a combination of the circus, the menagerie and the variety theatre, where wild animals such as lions and elephants from time to time appeared in the ring, and where convulsions of nature such as floods, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions have been produced with an extraordinary wealth of realistic display. At the Hippodrome in Paris—unlike its London namesake, a circus of the true classical type in which the arena is entirely surrounded by the seats of the spectators—chariot races after the Roman model were held in the latter part of the 19th century, at which prizes of considerable value were given by the management.

 CIRENCESTER (traditionally pronounced Ciceter), a market town in the Cirencester parliamentary division of Gloucestershire, England, on the river Churn, a tributary of the Thames, 93 m. W.N.W. of London. Pop. of urban district (1901) 7536. It is served by a branch of the Great Western railway, and there is also a station on the Midland and South-Western Junction railway. This is an ancient and prosperous market town of picturesque old houses clustering round a fine parish church, with a high embattled tower, and a remarkable south porch with parvise. The church is mainly Perpendicular, and among its numerous chapels that of St Catherine has a beautiful roof of fan-tracery in stone dated 1508. Of the abbey founded in 1117 by Henry I. there remain a Norman gateway and a few capitals. There are two good museums containing mosaics, inscriptions, carved and sculptured stones, and many smaller remains, for the town was the Roman Corinium or Durocornovium Dobunorum. Little trace of Corinium, however, can be seen in situ, except the amphitheatre and some indications of the walls. To the west of the town is Cirencester House, the seat of Earl Bathurst. The first Lord Bathurst (1684–1775) devoted himself to beautifying the fine demesne of Oakley Park, which he planted and adorned with remarkable artificial ruins. This nobleman, who became baron in 1711 and earl in 1772, was a patron of art and literature no less than a statesman; and Pope, a frequent visitor here, was allowed to design the building known as Pope’s Seat, in the park, commanding a splendid prospect of woods and avenues. Swift was another appreciative visitor. The house contains portraits by Lawrence, Gainsborough, Romney, Lely, Reynolds, Hoppner, Kneller and many others. A mile west of the town is the Royal Agricultural College, incorporated by charter in 1845. Its buildings include a chapel, a dining hall, a library, a lecture theatre, laboratories, classrooms, private studies and dormitories for the students, apartments for resident professors, and servants’ offices; also a museum containing a collection of anatomical and pathological preparations, and mineralogical, botanical and geological specimens. The college farm comprises 500 acres, 450 of which are arable; and on it are the well-appointed farm-buildings and the veterinary hospital. Besides agriculture, the course of instruction at the college includes chemistry, natural and mechanical philosophy, natural history, mensuration, surveying and drawing, and other subjects of practical importance to the farmer, proficiency in which is tested by means of sessional examinations. The industries of Cirencester comprise various branches of agriculture. It has connexion by a branch canal with the Thames and Severn canal.

Corinium was a flourishing Romano-British town, at first perhaps a cavalry post, but afterwards, for the greater part of the Roman period, purely a civilian city. At Chedworth, 7 m. N.E., is one of the most noteworthy Roman villas in England. Cirencester (Cirneceaster, Cyrenceaster, Cyringceaster) is described in Domesday as ancient demesne of the crown. The manor was granted by William I. to William Fitzosbern; on reverting to the crown it was given in 1189, with the township, to the Augustinian abbey founded here by Henry I. The struggle of the townsmen to prove that Cirencester was a borough probably began in the same year, when they were amerced for a false presentment. Four inquisitions during the 13th century supported the abbot’s claims, yet in 1343 the townsmen declared in a chancery bill of complaint that Cirencester was a borough distinct from the manor, belonging to the king but usurped by the abbot, who since 1308 had abated their court of provostry. Accordingly they produced a copy of a forged charter from Henry I. to the town; the court ignored this and the abbot obtained a new charter and a writ of supersedeas. For their success against the earls of Kent and Salisbury Henry IV. in 1403 gave the townsmen a gild merchant, although two

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/407


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/406

 external sign of God’s covenant with Israel, and later Judaism now regards it in this symbolical sense. Barton (Semitic Origins, p. 100) declares that “the circumstances under which it is performed in Arabia point to the origin of circumcision as a sacrifice to the goddess of fertility, by which the child was placed under her protection and its reproductive powers consecrated to her service.” But Barton admits that initiation to the connubium was the primitive origin of the rite.

As regards the non-ritual use of male circumcision, it may be added that in recent years the medical profession has been responsible for its considerable extension among other than Jewish children, the operation being recommended not merely in cases of malformation, but generally for reasons of health.

 CIRCUMVALLATION, LINES OF (from Lat. circum, round, and vallum, a rampart), in fortification, a continuous circle of entrenchments surrounding a besieged place. “Lines of Contravallation” were similar works by which the besieger protected himself against the attack of a relieving army from any quarter. These continuous lines of circumvallation and contravallation were used only in the days of small armies and small fortresses, and both terms are now obsolete.

 CIRCUS (Lat. circus, Gr.  or , a ring or circle; probably “circus” and “ring” are of the same origin), a space, in the strict sense circular, but sometimes oval or even oblong, intended for the exhibition of races and athletic contests generally. The circus differs from the theatre inasmuch as the performance takes place in a central circular space, not on a stage at one end of the building.

1. In Roman antiquities the circus was a building for the exhibition of horse and chariot races and other amusements. It consisted of tiers of seats running parallel with the sides of the course, and forming a crescent round one of the ends. The other end was straight and at right angles to the course, so that the plan of the whole had nearly the form of an ellipse cut in half at its vertical axis. Along the transverse axis ran a fence (spina) separating the return course from the starting one. The straight end had no seats, but was occupied by the stalls (carceres) where the chariots and horses were held in readiness. This end constituted also the front of the building with the main entrance. At each end of the course were three conical pillars (metae) to mark its limits.

The oldest building of this kind in Rome was the Circus Maximus, in the valley between the Palatine and Aventine hills, where, before the erection of any permanent structure, races appear to have been held beside the altar of the god Consus. The first building is assigned to Tarquin the younger, but for a long time little seems to have been done to complete its accommodation, since it is not till 329 that we hear of stalls being erected for the chariots and horses. It was not in fact till under the empire that the circus became a conspicuous public resort. Caesar enlarged it to some extent, and also made a canal 10 ft. broad between the lowest tier of seats (podium) and the course as a precaution for the spectators’ safety when exhibitions of fighting with wild beasts, such as were afterwards confined to the amphitheatre, took place. When these exhibitions were removed, and the canal (euripus) was no longer necessary, Nero had it filled up. Augustus is said to have placed an obelisk on the spina between the metae, and to have built a new pulvinar, or imperial box; but if this is taken in connexion with the fact that the circus had been partially destroyed by fire in 31, it may be supposed that besides this he had restored it altogether. Only the lower tiers of seats were of stone, the others being of wood, and this, from the liability to fire, may account for the frequent restorations to which the circus was subject; it would also explain the falling of the seats by which a crowd of people were killed in the time of Antoninus Pius. In the reign of Claudius, apparently after a fire, the carceres of stone (tufa) were replaced by marble, and the metae of wood by gilt bronze. Under Domitian, again, after a fire, the circus was rebuilt and the carceres increased to 12 instead of 8 as before. The work was finished by Trajan. See further for seating capacity, &c., : Archaeology, § “Places of Amusement.”

The circus was the only public spectacle at which men and women were not separated. The lower seats were reserved for persons of rank; there were also various state boxes, e.g. for the giver of the games and his friends (called cubicula or suggestus). The principal object of attraction apart from the racing must have been the spina or low wall which ran down the middle of the course, with its obelisks, images and ornamental shrines. On it also were seven figures of dolphins and seven oval objects, one of which was taken down at every round made in a race, so that spectators might see readily how the contest proceeded. The chariot race consisted of seven rounds of the course. The chariots started abreast, but in an oblique line, so that the outer chariot might be compensated for the wider circle it had to make at the other end. Such a race was called a missus, and as many as 24 of these would take place in a day. The competitors wore different colours, originally white and red (albata and russata), to which green (prasina) and blue (veneta) were added. Domitian introduced two more colours, gold and purple (purpureus et auratus pannus), which probably fell into disuse after his death. To provide the horses and large staff of attendants it was necessary to apply to rich capitalists and owners of studs, and from this there grew up in time four select companies (factiones) of circus purveyors, which were identified with the four colours, and with which those who organized the races had to contract for the proper supply of horses and men. The drivers (aurigae, agitatores), who were mostly slaves, were sometimes held in high repute for their skill, although their calling was regarded with contempt. The horses most valued were those of Sicily, Spain and Cappadocia, and great care was taken in training them. Chariots with two horses (bigae) or four (quadrigae) were most common, but sometimes also they had three (trigae), and exceptionally more than four horses. Occasionally there was combined with the chariots a race of riders (desultores), each rider having two horses and leaping from one to the other during the race. At certain of the races the proceedings were opened by a pompa or procession in which images of the gods and of the imperial family deified were conveyed in cars drawn by horses, mules or elephants, attended by the colleges of priests, and led by the presiding magistrate (in some cases by the emperor himself) seated in a chariot in the dress and with the insignia of a triumphator. The procession passed from the capitol along the forum, and on to the circus, where it was received by the people standing and clapping their hands. The presiding magistrate gave the signal for the races by throwing a white flag (mappa) on to the course.

Next in importance to the Circus Maximus in Rome was the Circus Flaminius, erected 221, in the censorship of C. Flaminius, from whom it may have taken its name; or the name may have been derived from Prata Flaminia, where it was situated, and where also were held plebeian meetings. The only games that are positively known to have been celebrated in this circus were the Ludi Taurii and Plebeii. There is no mention of it after the 1st century. Its ruins were identified in the 16th century at S. Catarina dei Funari and the Palazzo Mattei.

A third circus in Rome was erected by Caligula in the gardens of Agrippina, and was known as the Circus Neronis, from the notoriety which it obtained through the Circensian pleasures of Nero. A fourth was constructed by Maxentius outside the Porta Appia near the tomb of Caecilia Metella, where its ruins

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu/406


text:
Page:Atharva-Veda samhita.djvu/474

vi. 31- {{smaller block|hūyate. Ppp. reads -gāya su çriyat. In c, RV. (etc.) reads áha, particle, for áhas, and the comm. does the same; TS. gives, for the whole pāda, práty asya vaha dyúbhiḥ; while MS. substitutes our 2 c, in its RV. version, having given its wholly independent version of this as 2 c (see above); Ppp. has at end divi. In a, MS. reads triṅçáddhāmā, as compound; the other texts (and three of SPP's authorities) have triṅçád dhā́ma (the pada-reading is dhā́ma). Both TS. and MS., it may be added, put vs. 3 before 2.

With this hymn ends the third anuvāka, of 11 hymns and 33 verses; the extracted item of Anukr. is simply tṛtīya (see end of the next anuvāka).{{smaller block/e}}

{{c|'''32. Against demons.'''}}

{{smaller block|{{c|[''1, 2. Cātana; 3. Atharvan.—agnidāivatam. trāiṣṭubham: 2. prastārapan̄kti.'']}}

The first two verses found also in Pāipp. xix.* Kāuç. has the hymn (or vss. 1, 2) in a remedial rite against demons (31. 3); the fire is circumambulated three times, and a cake is offered; and it is reckoned (note to 8. 25) to the cātana gaṇa. Verse 3 is by itself reckoned (note to 16. 8) to the abhaya gaṇa, and also (note to 25. 36) to the svastyayana gaṇa. *⌊Ppp. then has a third verse, whose a {{=}} vi. 40. 1 a, and whose b is corrupt. Roth's note seems incomplete.⌋

Translated: Florenz, 291 or 43; Griffith, i. 262; Bloomfield, 36, 475.}}

1. Within the flame, pray, make ye this sorcerer-destroying libation with ghee; from afar, O Agni, do thou burn against the demons; mayest thou not be hot toward our houses.

{{smaller block|Our mss. (so far as noted) and nearly all SPP's, accent juhutā́ in a; but his text, as well as ours, emends to juhutā. The comm. understands at the beginning antar dāve as two separate words; and that is a preferable, and probably the true, reading. The gen. in d is peculiar; we should expect with it tītapāti, in impers. sense: 'may there be no sickness befalling our houses.' Ppp. reads ghṛhaṁ naḥ at end of b; and, for d, mā ’smākaṁ vasū ’pa tītipanthā. The verse (10 + 10: 12 + 11 {{=}} 43) is ill-defined as a mere triṣṭubh.}}

2. Rudra hath crushed (çṛ) your necks, O piçācás; let him crush in (api-çṛ) your ribs, O sorcerers; the plant of universal power hath made you go to Yama.

{{smaller block|A few of SPP's authorities (also the Anukr., in citing the verse) read açarīt in a. Some of our mss. accent piçācā́ḥ at end of a (P.M.I.p.m.), and yātudhānā́ḥ (P.M.I.); all the pada-mss. absurdly have viçvátaḥ॰vīryāḥ at end of c. Ppp. has, for a, b, çarvo vo grīvāy açarīṣ piçācā vo ’pa çṛṇāty agniḥ and in d it gives mṛtyunā for yamena. ⌊The "verbal forms with suspicious āi" in the AV. (çarāis etc., asaparyāit: cf . Gram. §§555 c, 904 b, 1068 a) have been treated by Bloomfield, ZDMG. xlviii. 574 ff., and Böhtlingk, ibidem, liv. 510 ff. Cf. also note to xviii. 3. 40.⌋}}

3. Fearlessness, O Mitra-and-Varuṇa, be ours here; drive ye backward the devourers with your gleam; let them not find a knower, nor a foundation (pratiṣṭhā́); mutually destroying one another let them go unto death.

{{smaller block|The verse occurs also in AGS. (iii. 10. 11), which has, in a, b, -ṇā mahyam astv arciṣā çatrūn dahatam pratītya; in c, vindantu; in d, bhindānās. The latter half-verse is found again as viii. 8. 21 c, d. Pāda a has a redundant syllable unheeded by the Anukr.}}

title: Page:Atharva-Veda samhita.djvu/474


text: Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VI/Hymn 31

title: Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VI/Hymn 31


text: Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VI/Hymn 32

title: Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VI/Hymn 32


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/309

 RICH, CLAUDIUS JAMES (1787–1821), English traveller and scholar, was born near Dijon on the 28th of March 1787. His youth was spent at Bristol. He early developed a gift for languages, becoming familiar not only with Latin and Greek but also with Hebrew, Syriac, Persian, Turkish and other Eastern tongues. In 1804 Rich went to Constantinople, where, and at Smyrna, he stayed some time, perfecting himself in Turkish. Proceeding, to Alexandria as assistant to the British consul-general there, he devoted himself to Arabic and its various dialects, and made, himself master of Eastern manners and usages. On leaving Egypt he travelled by land to the Persian Gulf, disguised as a Mameluke, visiting Damascus, and entering the great mosque undetected. At Bombay, which he reached in September 1807, he was the guest of Sir James Mackintosh, whose eldest daughter he married in January 1808, proceeding soon after to Bagdad as resident. There he began his investigations into the geography, history and antiquities of the district. He explored the remains of Babylon, and projected a geographical and statistical account of the pashalic of Bagdad. The results of his work at Babylon appeared first in the Vienna serial Mines de l’orient, and in 1815 in England, under the title Narrative of a Journey to the Site of Babylon in 1811. In 1813–14 Rich spent some time in Europe, and on his return to Bagdad devoted himself to the study of the geography of Asia Minor, and collected much information in Syrian and Chaldaean convents concerning the Yezidis. During this period he made a second excursion to Babylon, and in 1820 undertook an extensive tour to Kurdistan—from Bagdad north to Sulimania, eastward to Sinna, then west to Nineveh, and thence down the Tigris to Bagdad. The narrative of this journey, which contained the first accurate knowledge (from scientific observation) regarding the topography and geography of the region, was published by his widow under the title, Narrative of a Residence in Koordistan and on the site of Ancient Nineveh, &c. (London, 1836). In 1821 Rich went to Basora, whence he made an excursion to Shiraz, visiting the ruins of Persepolis and the other remains in the neighbourhood. At Shiraz he died of cholera on the 5th of October 1821. His fine collections of manuscripts and coins was purchased by the British Museum.

RICH, JOHN (1692–1761), English actor, the “father of English pantomime, ” was the son of Christopher Rich (d. 1714), the manager of Drury Lane, with whose quarrels and tyrannies Colley Cibber’s Apology is much occupied. John Rich opened the new theatre in Lincoln’s Inn Fields left unfinished”by his father, and here, in 1716, under the stage name of Lun, he first appeared as Harlequin in an unnamed entertainment which developed into an annual (q.v.). By this departure he made successful headway in his competition with the stronger company at Drury Lane, including Cibber, Wilks and Booth. Rich was less happy in his management of Covent Garden, which he opened in 1733, until Garrick’s arrival (1746), when a most prosperous season ensued, followed by a bad one when Garrick went to Drury Lane. During Rich’s management occurred the rival performances of Romeo and Juliet—Barry and Mrs Cibber at Covent Garden, and Garrick and Miss Bellamy at Drury Lane—and the subsequent competition between the two rival actors in King Lear. Rich died on the 26th of November 1761. Garrick’s lines show that his acting was pantomime pure and simple, without words:—

RICH, PENELOPE, (c. 1562–1607), the Stella of Sir Philip Sidney’s Astrophel and Stella, was the daughter of Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex. She was a child of fourteen when Sir Philip Sidney accompanied the queen on a visit to Lady Essex in 1576, on her way from Kenilworth, and must have been frequently thrown into the society of Sidney, in consequence of the many ties between the two families. Essex died at Dublin in September 15761 He had sent a message to Philip Sidney from his death-bed expressing his desire that he should marry his daughter, and later his secretary wrote to the young man’s father, Sir Henry Sidney, in words which seem to point to the existence of a very definite understanding. Penelope’s great-grandmother was a sister of Anne Boleyn, and she and her brother Robert were therefore distantly connected with Elizabeth. Perhaps the marriage of Lady Essex with the earl of Leicester, which destroyed Sidney’s prospects as his uncle’s heir, had something to do with the breaking off of the proposed match with Penelope. Her relative and guardian, Henry Hastings, earl of Huntingdon, secured Burghley’s assent in March 1581 for her marriage with Robert Rich, 3rd Baron Rich. Penelope is said to have protested in vain against the alliance with Rich, who is represented as a rough and overbearing husband. The evidence against him is, however, chiefly derived from sources as interested as Sir Philip Sidney’s violent denunciation in the twenty-fourth sonnet of Astrophel and Stella, “Rich fooles there be whose base and filthy hart.” Sidney’s serious love for Penelope appears to date from her marriage with Rich. The earlier sonnets are in praise of her beauty, or treat of the conventional topic of the struggle between reason and love, while the later ones are marked by unmistakable passion. The eighth song of Astrophel and Stella narrates Stella’s refusal to accept Sidney as a lover. Lady Rich was the mother of six children by her husband when she contracted in 1595 an open liaison with Charles Blount, 8th Lord Mountjoy, a brilliant courtier and favourite of Elizabeth, to whom she had long been attached. Rich took no steps against his wife during her brother’s lifetime, and she nursed him through an illness in 1600, but they obtained a legal separation in 1601, and Mountjoy acknowledged her five children born after 1595. Mountjoy was created earl of Devonshire on the accession of James I., and Lady Rich was in high favour at court. In 1605, however, they legitimized their connexion by a marriage celebrated by William Laud, the earl’s chaplain. This proceeding, carried out in defiance of canon law, was followed by the disgrace of both parties, who were banished from court. Devonshire died on the 3rd of April 1606, and his wife within a year of that date. Her eldest son by Lord Rich, who became earl of Warwick in 1618, was Robert Rich, 2nd earl of Warwick (1587–1658). The second, Henry Rich, earl of Holland, was beheaded in 1649 for his share in the second Civil War. Her eldest son by Mountjoy, Mountjoy Blount, Baron Mountjoy and earl of Newport (c. 1597–1665) also figured in the Civil War.

RICH, RICHARD (fl. 1610), English soldier and adventurer, the author of Newes from Virginia, sailed from England on the 2nd of June 1609 for Virginia, with Captain Christopher Newport and the three commissioners entrusted with the foundation of the new colony. In his verse pamphlet he relates the adventures undergone by the expedition, and describes the resources of the new country, with the advantages offered to colonists. The title runs: ''Newes from Virginia. The lost Flocke Triumphant. With the happy Arrivall of that famous and worthy Knight Sr. Thomas Gates: and the well reputed and valiant Captaine Mr Christopher Newport, and others, into England. With the maner of their distresse in the Iland of Devils (otherwise called Bermoothawes), where they remayned 42 weeks, and builded two Pynaces, in which they returned into Virginia.'' By R. Rich, Gent., one of the Voyage (1610).” The only known copy of this tract is in the Huth Library. A reprint edited by J. O. Halliwell-Phillips appeared in 1865 (another ed., 1874). The adventures related by Rich are supposed to have been in Shakespeare's mind when he wrote The Tempest. Another tract by Rich mentioned in the Stationers’ Register, Good Speed to Virginia, is unknown.

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/309


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/333

 certain operation of war. Enfilade fire by itself was neutralized by (q.v.) in the defences, but by the new method a shot could be so aimed as to skip over each successive traverse and thus to search ground that was immune from direct fire. The application of ricochet fire to operations in the field came somewhat later. In the 18th century field artillery, which was not, before Napoleon's time, sufficiently mobile to close with the enemy, relied principally upon the ricochet of round shot, which, sweeping a considerable depth of ground, took effect upon several successive lines of hostile troops. But once artillery was able to gallop up to the enemy and to use its far more terrible close-range projectile, case-shot, ricochet fire came to be used less and less, until finally, with the general adoption of shell (which, of course, burst at the first contact with the ground), the round shot disappeared altogether from the battlefield. Similarly in siege warfare, as soon as high-angle fire with shells became sufficiently accurate, there was no further need of round shot and ricochet.

The term “ ricochet ” is now only applied, in modern rifle shooting, to the graze of a bullet that has struck short. A modern bullet-that has ricochetted inflicts a very severe wound, as its nickel or other hard envelope is torn and jagged by its contact with the ground. With its high remaining velocity it is dangerous even after more than one ricochet, except at extreme ranges.

RICOLD OF MONTE CROCE (1242–1320), Italian Dominican missionary, was born at Monte Croce, near Florence. In 1267 he entered the Dominican house of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, and in 1272 that of St Catherine in Pisa. He started for Acre with a papal commission to preach in 1286 or 1287: in 1288 or 1289 he began to keep a record of his experiences in the Levant; this record he probably reduced to final book form in Bagdad. Entering Syria at Acre, he crossed Galilee to the Sea of Tiberias; thence returning to Acre he seems to have travelled down the coast to Jaffa, and so up to Jerusalem. After visiting the Jordan and the Dead Sea he quitted Palestine by the coast road, retracing his steps to Acre and passing on by Tripoli and Tortosa into Cilicia. From the Cilician port of Lajazzo he started on the great high road to Tabriz in north Persia. Crossing the Taurus he travelled on by Sivas of Cappadocia to Erzerum, the neighbourhood of Ararat and Tabriz. In and near Tabriz he preached for several months, after which he proceeded to Bagdad via Mosul and Tekrit. In Bagdad he stayed several years, studying the Koran and other works of Moslem theology, for controversial purposes, arguing with Nestorian Christians, and writing. In 1301 Ricold again appeared in Florence: some time after this he proposed to submit his Confutatio Alcorani to the pope, but did not. He died on the 31st of October 1320. As a traveller and observer his merits are conspicuous. His account of the Tatars and his sketch of Moslem religion and manners are especially noteworthy. In spite of strong prejudice, he shows remarkable breadth of view and appreciation of merit in systems the most hostile to his own.

Of Ricold's Itinerary (Itinerarius [sic]) fifteen MSS. exist, of which the chief are: (1) Florence, Laurentian Library, Fineschi, 326; (2) Paris, National Library, Lat. 49535, fols. 46-55; (3) Wolfenbiittel, od. Weissenb. 40, fols. 73 B.-94 (all of 14th century). Of his Epistles there is one MS., viz. Rome, Vatican, 3717, fols. 249 A.–267 A. The best edition of the Itinerary is by J. C. M. Laurent, in Peregrinatores Medii Aevi Quatuor, pp. 105 (101)-41 (Leipzig, 186 and 1873). The Epistles have been edited by R. Röhricht in Archives de l’orient latin, vol. ii. part ii. (Documents) pp. 258-96 (Paris 1884). The Corgutatio Aleorani, printed at Seville in 1500, at Venice in 1607, adds hardly anything to the sections of the Itinerary devoted to Moslem belief, &c. Ricold's Libellus contra Nationes Orientales and Contra errores Judaeorum have never been printed. See also C. Raymond Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, iii. 190-202, 218, 390-91, 547, 554, 564.

RICOTTI-MAGNANI, CESARE (1822–), Italian general and knight of the Annunziata, was born at Borgo Lavezzaro on the 30th of June 1822. As artillery lieutenant he distinguished himself and was wounded at the siege of Peschiera in 1848, and in 1852 gained further distinction by his efforts to prevent the explosion of a burning powder magazine. After serving from 1856 to 1859 as director of the Artillery School, he became general of division in 1864, commanding the 5th division at the battle of San Martino. In the war of 1866 he stormed Borgoforte, to open a passage for Cialdini's army. Upon the death of General Govone in 1872 he was appointed minister of war, and after the occupation of Rome bent all his efforts to army reform, in accordance with the lessons of the Franco-German War, He shortened the period of military service; extended conscription to all able-bodied men; created a permanent army, a mobile militia and a reserve; commenced the renewal of armaments; and placed Italy in position to put 1,800,000 men on a war footing. Ricotti fell from power with the Right in 1876, but returned office with Depretis in 1884, and amended his previous scheme of reform. Resigning in April 1887, he became a member of the senate in 1890, but took little part in public life until 1896, when, after the battle of Adowa, he was entrusted by King Humbert with the formation of a cabinet. Having constructed his ministry, he made over the premiership to the marquis di Rudini, retaining for himself the portfolio of war, and seeking to satisfy popular demands 'for the reduction of military expenditure by consolidating .the tactical structure of the army without weakening its fighting power. Rudini, however, finding that Ricotti's ideas, Which he himself shared, were not acceptable at court, obliged him to resign office. His prestige. as creator of the modern Italian army remained unimpaired, and his views on army consolidation enjoyed a large measure of technical and public favour.

RIDDING, GEORGE (1828–1904), English headmaster and bishop, was born at Winchester College, of which his father, the Rev. Charles Ridding, vicar of Andover, was a fellow, on the 16th of March 1828. He was educated at Winchester and at Balliol College, Oxford. He became a fellow of Exeter College and was a tutor from 1853 to 1863. In 1853 he married Mary Louisa Moberly, who died within a year of her marriage. He was appointed second master of Winchester College in 1863, and on the retirement of his father-in-law, Dr Moberly, he succeeded to the headmastership. During the tenure of this office (1867-1884) he carried out successfully a series of radical reforms in the organization of the school, resulting in a great increase both in its reputation and numbers. In 1884 he became the first bishop of Southwell, and brought his powers of organization and conspicuous tact and moderation, to bear on the management of the new diocese. He took an active share in its educational and social work, and was materially assisted in these respects by his second wife, Lady Laura Palmer, daughter of the 1st earl of Selborne. He resigned his see a short time before his death, which took place on the 30th of August 1904.,

RIDDLES (A.S. raedan, to interpret), probably the oldest extant form of humour. They spring from man's earliest perception that there are such things as analogies in nature. Man observes an example of analogy, puts his observations in the form of a question, and there is the riddle ready made. Some Boeotian humorist, for example, detected the analogy between the life of humanity—the child on all fours, the man erect, on two legs, old age with its staff-on one side, and on the other the conception of an animal with a varying number of limbs. Put this in a question and it is the riddle of the Sphinx; Another instance is the question, “What we caught we threw away, what we could not catch we kept.” Homer is said to have died of vexation at not being able to discover the answer to this riddle, still current on the coast of Brittany, in Germany and in Gascony. After inventing the riddle, men began to use it in a kind of game; bets were staked on the answer and sides were made, each side backing its champion. These sports in, Marriner's time were common in Tonga; they are no less popular among the African Woloffs. Samson's riddle set to the Philistines is an instance of the sport in a Semitic country, In märchen and ballads, the hero's chance of

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/333


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/319

 condescending suit of clothes” by which Hazlitt unfairly defines Miss Burney’s Lord Orville. When Richardson delineated Sir Charles Grandson he was at his best, and his experiences and opportunities for inventing such a character were infinitely greater than they had ever been before. And he lost nothing of his gift for portraying the other sex. Harriet Byron, Clementina della Porretta and even Charlotte Grandison, are no whit behind Clarissa and her friend Miss Howe. Sir Charles Grandison, in fine, is a far better book than Pamela, although M. Taine regarded the hero as only fit to be stuffed and put in a museum.

Grandison was published in 1753, and by this time Richardson was sixty-four. Although the book was welcomed as warmly as its predecessors, he wrote no other novel, contenting himself instead with indexing his works, and compiling an anthology of the “maxims,” “cautions” and “instructive sentiments” they contained. To these things, as a professed moralist, he had always attached the greatest importance. He continued to correspond relentlessly with a large circle of worshippers, mostly women, whose counsels and fertilizing sympathy had not a little contributed to the success of his last two books. He was a nervous, highly strung little man, intensely preoccupied with his health and his feelings, hungry for praise when he had once tasted it, and afterwards unable to exist without it; but apart from these things, well meaning, benevolent, honest, industrious and religious. Seven vast folio volumes of his correspondence with his lady friends, and with a few men of the Young and Aaron Hill type, are preserved in the Forster Library at South Kensington. Parts of it only have been printed. There are several good portraits of him by Joseph Highmore, two of which are in the National Portrait Gallery.

Richardson is sometimes styled the “Father of the English Novel,” a title which has also been claimed for Defoe. It would be more accurate to call him the father of the novel of sentimental analysis. As Sir Walter Scott has said, no one before had dived so deeply into the human heart. No one, moreover, had brought to the study of feminine character so much prolonged research, so much patience of observation, so much interested and indulgent apprehension, as this twittering little printer of Salisbury Court. That he did not more materially control the course of fiction in his own country was probably owing to the new direction which was given to that fiction by Fielding and Smollett, whose method, roughly speaking, was synthetic rather than analytic. Still, his influence is to be traced in Sterne and Henry Mackenzie, as well as in Miss Burney and Miss Austen, both of whom, it may be noted, at first adopted the epistolary form. But it was in France, where the sentimental soil was ready for the dressing, that the analytic process was most warmly welcomed. Extravagantly eulogized by the great critic, Diderot, modified with splendid variation by Rousseau, copied (unwillingly) by Voltaire, the vogue of Richardson was so great as to tempt some modern French critics to seek his original in the Marianne of a contemporary analyst, Marivaux. As a matter of fact, though, there is some unconscious consonance of manner, there is nothing whatever to show that the little-lettered author of Pamela, who was also ignorant of French, had the slightest knowledge of Marivaux or Marianne. In Germany Richardson was even more popular than in France. Gellert, the fabulist, translated him; Wieland, Lessing, Hermes, all imitated him, and Coleridge detects him even in the Robbers of Schiller. What was stranger still, he returned to England again under another form. Having given a fillip to the French comédie larmoyante, that comedy crossed the channel as the sentimental comedy of Cumberland and Kelly, which, after a brief career of prosperity, received its death-blow at the hands of Goldsmith and Sheridan.

RICHELIEU, ARMAND EMMANUEL SOPHIE SEPTE-MANIE DU PLESSIS, (1766–1822), French statesman, was born in Paris on the 25th of September 1766, the son of Louis Antoine du Plessis, duc de Fronsac and grandson of the marshal de Richelieu (1696–1788). The Comte de Chinon, as the heir to the Richelieu honours was called, was married at fifteen to Rosalie de Rochechouart, a deformed child of twelve, with whom his relations were never more than formal. After two years of foreign travel he entered the Queen’s dragoons and next year received-a place at court, where he had a reputation for Puritan austerity. He left Paris in 1790 for Vienna, and- in company with his friend Prince Charles de Ligne joined the Russian army as a volunteer, reaching the Russian headquarters at Bender on the 21st of November. He was present at the capture of Ismailia and received from the empress Catherine the cross of St George and a golden sword. By the death of his father in February 1791, he succeeded to the title of duc de Richelieu. He .returned to Paris shortly afterwards on the summons of Louis XVI., but he was not sufficiently in the confidence of the court to be informed of the projected flight to Varennes. In July he obtained a passport from the National Assembly for service in Russia. In the Russian army he obtained the grade of general-major, only to be forced by the intrigues of his enemies to resign. The accession of Alexander I. brightened his prospects. His erasure from the list of émigrés, which he had failed to secure from Napoleon, was accorded on the request of the Russian government, and in 1803 he became governor of Odessa. Two years later he became governor general of the Chersonese, of Ekaterinoslav and the Crimea, then called New Russia. In the eleven years of his administration, Odessa rose from a miserable village to an important city. He commanded a division in the Turkish War of 1806-7, and was engaged in frequent expeditions to the Caucasus. Richelieu returned to France in 1814; on the triumphant return of Napoleon from Elba he accompanied Louis XVIII. in his flight as far as Lille, whence he went to Vienna to join the Russian army, believing that he could best serve the interests of the monarchy and of France by attaching himself to the headquarters of the emperor Alexander. Richelieu’s character and antecedents alike marked him out as valuable support of the monarchy after its second restoration. Though the bulk of his confiscated estates were lost beyond recall, he did not share the resentment of the mass of the returned émigrés, from whom and their intrigues he had held aloof during his exile, and was far from sharing their delusions as to the possibility of undoing the work of the Revolution. As the personal friend of the Russian emperor his influence in the councils of the Allies was likely to be of great service. He refused, indeed, Talleyrand’s offer of a place in his ministry, pleading his long absence from France and ignorance of its conditions; but after Talleyrand’s retirement he consented to follow him as prime minister, though-as he himself said—he did not know the face of one of his colleagues.

The events of Richelieu’s tenure of office are noticed elsewhere (see : History). Here it need only be said that it was mainly due to his efforts that France was so early relieved of the burden of the allied army of occupation. It was for this purpose mainly that he attended the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. There he had been informed in confidence of the renewal by the Allies of their treaty binding them to interfere in case of a renewal of revolutionary trouble in France; and it was partly owing to this knowledge that he resigned office in December of the same year, on the refusal of his colleagues to support a reactionary modification of the electoral law. After the murder of the duc de Berry and the enforced retirement of Decazes, he again became president of the council (21st February 1821); but his position was untenable owing to the attacks of the “Ultras” on the one side and the Liberals on the other, and on the 12th of December he again resigned. He died of apoplexy on the 17th of May 1822.

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/319


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/318

 set to work. And thus originated his first novel of Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded.

But not forthwith, as is sometimes supposed. Proceeding with the compilation of his model letter-writer, and seeking, in his own words, “to instruct handsome girls, who were obliged to go out on service  how to avoid the snares that might be laid against their virtue”—a danger which appears to have always abnormally preoccupied himf»he came to recollect a story he had heard twenty years earlier, and had often proposed to other persons for fictitious treatment. It occurred to him that it would make a book of itself, and might moreover be told wholly in the fashion most congenial to himself, namely, by letters. Thereupon, with some domestic encouragement, he completed it in a couple of months, between the 10th of November 1739 and the 10th of January 1740. In November 1740 it was issued by Messrs Rivington & Osborn, who, a few weeks afterwards (January 1741), also published the model letter writer under the title of Letters written to and for Particular Friends, on the most Important Occasions. Both books were anonymous. The letter-writer was noticed in the Gentleman’s Magazine for January, which also contains a brief announcement as to Pamela, already rapidly making its way without waiting for the reviewers. A second edition, it was stated, was expected; and such was its popularity, that not to have read it was judged “ as great a sign of want of curiosity as not to have seen the French and Italian dancers”—i.e. Mme Chateauneuf and the Fausans, who were then delighting the town. In February a second edition duly appeared, followed by a third in March and a fourth in May. At public gardens ladies held up the book to show they had got it; Dr Benjamin Slocock of Southwark openly commended it from the pulpit; Pope praised it; and at Slough, when the heroine triumphed, the enraptured villagers rang the church bells for joy. The other volume of “familiar letters”' consequently fell into the background in the estimation of its author, who, though it went into several editions during his lifetime, never acknowledged it. Yet it scarcely deserves to be wholly neglected, as it contains many useful details and much shrewd criticism of lower middle-class life.

For the exceptional success of Pamela there was the obvious excuse of novelty. People were tired of the old “mouthy” romances about impossible people doing impossible things. Here was a real-life story, which might happen to any one—a story which aroused curiosity and arrested attention—which was not exclusively about “high life,” and which had, in addition, a moral purpose, since it was avowedly “ published in order to cultivate the principles of virtue and religion in the minds of the youth of both sexes.” Whether it had exactly this effect, or owed its good fortune chiefly to this proclamation, may be doubted. The heroine in humble life who resists the licentious advances of her master until he is forced to marry her, does not entirely convince us that her watchful prudence and keen eye for the main chance have not, in the long run, quite as much to do with her successful defence as her boasted innocence and purity. Nor is the book without passages which more than smack of an unpleasant prurience. Nevertheless, in its extraordinary gift of minute analysis; in its intimate knowledge of feminine character; in the cumulative power of its shuffling, loose-shod style, and, above all, in the unquestionable earnestness and sincerity of the writer, Pamela had qualities which—particularly in a dead season of letters—sufficiently account for its favourable reception by the contemporary public.

Such a popularity, of course, was not without its drawbacks. That it would lead to Anti-Pamelas, censures of Pamela and all the spawn of pamphlets which spring round the track of a sudden success, was to be anticipated. One of the results to which its rather sickly morality gave rise was the Joseph Andrews (1742) of (q.v.). But there are two other works prompted by Pamela which need brief notice here. One is the Apology for the Life of Mrs Shamela Andrews, a clever and very gross piece of raillery which appeared in April 1741, and by which Fielding is supposed to have preluded to Joseph Andrews. Fielding’s own works contain no reference to Shamela. But Richardson in his Correspondence, both printed and unprinted, roundly attributes it to the writer who was to be his rival; andit is also assigned to Fielding by other contemporaries (Hist. MSS. Commn., Rept; 12, App. Pt. IX. p. 204). All that can be said is, that Fielding’s authorship cannot be proved. If it could, it would go far to justify the after animosity of Richardson to Fielding—much farther, indeed, than what Richardson described as the “lewd and ungenerous engraftment” of Joseph Andrews. The second noteworthy result of Pamela was Pamela’s Conduct in High Life (September 1741), a spurious sequel by John Kelly of the Universal Spectator. Richardson tried to prevent its appearance, and, having failed, lset about two volumes of his. own, which followed in December, and professed to depict his heroine “ in her .exalted condition.” Butfthe public interest in Pamela had practically ceased with her marriage, and the author’s continuation, like other continuations—particularly continuations prompted by extraneous circumstances attracted no permanent attention.

About 1744 we begin to hear something of the progress of Richardson’s second and greatest' novel, Clarissa; or, the History of a Young Lady, usually miscalled Clarissa Harlowe. The first edition was in seven volumes, two of which came out in November 1747, two more in April 1748 and the last three in December. Upon the title-page of this, of which the mission was as edifying as that of Pamela, its object was defined as showing the distresses that may attend the misconduct both of parents and children in relation to marriage. Virtue, in Clarissa, is not “rewarded,” but hunted down and outraged. The heroine, no longer an opportunist servant-girl, is a most pure, refined and beautiful young woman, invested with every attribute to attract and charm, while her pursuer, Lovelace, the libertine hero of the book—a personage of singular dash and vivacity, in spite of his worthlessness—is drawn with extraordinary tenacity of power. The wronged Clarissa eventually dies of grief, and her cold-blooded betrayer, whom strict justice would have hanged, is considerately killed in a duel by her soldier cousin. Of the genius of the story there can be no doubt. Nor is there any doubt as to the ability shown in the delineation of the two chiel characters, to whom the rest are merely subordinate. The chief drawbacks of Clarissa are its merciless prolixity (seven volumes, which only cover eleven months); the fact' that (like Pamela) it is told by letters; and a certain haunting and uneasy feeling that many of the heroine’s obstacles are only molehills which should have been readily surmounted. As to its success, accentuated as this was' by its piecemeal method of publication, there has never been any question. Clarissa’s sorrows set all England sobbing, and her fame and her fate spread rapidly to the Continent.

Between Clarissa and Richardson’s next work appeared the Tom Jones of Fielding—a rival by no means welcome to the elder writer, although a rival who generously (and perhaps penitently) acknowledged Clarissa’s rare merits.

Fielding had written in the Jacobite’s Journal. But even this could not console Richardson for the popularity of the “ spurious brat” whom Fielding had made his hero, and his next effort was the depicting of a genuine fine-gentleman—a task to which he was incited by at chorus of feminine worshippers. In the History of Sir Charles Grandison, “by the Editor of Pamela and Clarissa” (for he still preserved the fiction of anonymity), he essayed to draw a perfect model of manly character and conduct. In the pattern presented there is, however, too much buckram, too much ceremonial—in plain words, too much priggishness—to make him the desired exemplar of propriety in excelsis. Yet he is not entirely a failure. still. less is- he to be regarded as no more than “the

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/318


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/317

 who followed him and brought him wide acknowledgment. It is notable that American architects who have studied in Europe, especially in Paris, are apt to drift either into a pathless eclecticism or into the English current. Richardson did neither. The Romanesque that he saw in Europe, especially in the middle and south of France, appealed so strongly to his sense for mass and broad picturesqueness that he soon followed its leading, away from the style he had learned in Paris. His earliest work was modern French in style; his first church, in Springfield, a startlingly independent version of English Gothic. Yet half a dozen, buildings made the transition to that derivative of Romanesque to which afterwards in all his buildings he steadfastly adhered. In Trinity church, his first monumental work, perhaps his finest, he broke away absolutely from the prevailing English Gothic fashion. Instead of the long Latin cross with aisles and transepts, he made a wide cross almost Greek in plan, with short arms fifty feet broad and aisles that are only passages, a narthex flanked by two western towers, a nave of one double bay, an eastern arm prolonged into a great apse of the full width of the crossing, .over which sits a massive square tower. The arms of the church are barrel-vaulted in wood; under the great tower is a flat coffered ceiling a hundred feet above the floor. The style, though mixed, shows his surrender to the attraction of the churches in Auvergne, which have furnished the material for the design of the apse. The central tower is a reminiscence of the noble lantern of the old cathedral of Salamanca, but the square outline is insisted on instead of the polygonal, and the forms are in other ways much changed. The alteration of the Capitol at Albany, half a dozen years later, shared with Leopold Eidlitz, was a compromise in style, and so lacks the sure handling of his best work, except in that part of the interior in which he was untrammelled, the Senate Chamber and the great staircase. In the buildings at Pittsburg, on the other hand, he was free from interference, and these satisfied him more than any other of his buildings. His great design for the new cathedral at Albany, an adaptation of the Romanesque forms of Auvergne to a large modern problem, would have displayed his mature manner, and been perhaps his greatest work; but the plan did not lend itself to the tradition or the ritual of the Anglican Church, and it was rejected, to his great disappointment.

At first the breadth of his compositions was offset by a richness of ornament which he afterwards called flamboyant, but there was a continual growth in simplicity. Some of his imitators have abused his example, running into mere baldness and brutality, but his own work never lost the flneness of quality with which he began, nor the adequacy of its detail.

Richardson’s uncommon personality so embodied itself in his works that it cannot be overlooked. He had an inexhaustible energy of body and mind, an enthusiasm more genial than combative, but so abounding and at times vehement that few men and few bodies of men could resist him.

Abounding energy he had, but not health. A serious bodily injury, and later a chronic malady, made his last years a constant struggle with suffering and infirmity, borne with indomitable cheerfulness, but at last fatal.

It is likely that the small number of his designs enhanced their quality. He put twice the labour into his work that the average architect would have given to it, and often twice the time, but the result was apt to be twice as good. He found American architecture restless, incoherent and exuberant; his example did much to turn it back to simplicity and repose. He came as near to establishing a style as it is given to any one man to come; but the tendency of the time was too strong, and the classic styles, reasserting themselves, once more drove out the medieval.

 RICHARDSON, SIR JOHN (1787–1865), British naturalist, was born at Dumfries on the 5th of November 1787. He studied medicine at Edinburgh, and became a surgeon in the navy in 1807. In 1819 he was appointed surgeon and naturalist to Franklin’s first arctic expedition (1819–22), and he served in the same capacity to the second (1825–26). The scientific results of these expeditions he described in contributions to Franklin’s Narratives, and especially in the four quarto volumes of his Fauna Boreali-Americana (1829–37). He was knighted in 1846, and in the following year was chosen commander of the Franklin search expedition (1848–49), the journal of which he published in 1851 under the title of An Arctic Searching Expedtion. In 1855 he retired to Grasmere, where he died on the 5th of June 1865. He also wrote accounts dealing with the natural history, and especially the ichthyology, of several other arctic voyages, and was the author of Icones Piscium (1843), Catalogue of Apodal Fish in the British Museum, translated from the German MS. (1856), the second edition of Yarrell’s History of British Fishes (1860), and The Polar Regions (1861), expanded from an article with the same title which he wrote for the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

RICHARDSON, SAMUEL (1680–1761), English novelist, is a notable example of that “late-flowering” sometimes applied to Oliver Goldsmith. Born under William and Mary, the reign of the second George was well advanced before, at fifty years of age, he made his first serious literary effort—an effort which was not only a success, but the revelation of a new literary form. He was the son of a London joiner, who, for obscure reasons, probably connected with Monmouth’s rebellion, had retired to an unidentified town in Derbyshire, where, in 1689, Samuel was born. At first intended for holy orders, and having little but the common learning of a private grammar school—for the tradition that upon the return of the family to the metropolis he went to Christ’s Hospital cannot be sustained-he was eventually, as some compensation for a literary turn, apprenticed at seventeen to an Aldersgate printer named John Wilde. Here, like the typical “good apprentice” of his century, he prospered became successively compositor, corrector of the press, and printer on his own account; married his master’s daughter according to programme; set up newspapers and books; dabbled a little in literature by compiling indexes and “honest dedications,” and ultimately proceeded Printer of the Journals of the House of Commons, Master of the Stationers’ Company, and Law-Printer to the King. Like all well-to-do citizens, he had his city -house of business and his “country box” in the suburbs; and, after a thoroughly respectable” life, died on the 4th of July 1761, being buried in St Bride’s Church, Fleet Street, close to his shop (now demolished), No. 11 Salisbury Court.

To this uneventful and conventional career one would scarcely look for the birth and growth of a fresh departure in fiction. And yet, although Richardson’s manifestation of his literary gift was deferred for half a century, there is no life to which the Horatian “qualis ab incepto” can be more appropriately applied. From his youth this moralist had moralized from his youth—nay, from his childhood—this letter-writer had written letters; from his youth this supreme delineator of the other sex had been the confidant and counsellor of women. In his boyhood he was secretary-general to all the love-sick girls of the neighbourhood; at eleven he addressed a hortatory epistle, stuffed with texts, to a scandal-loving widow; and whenever it was possible to correspond with any one he was as “corresponding” as even Horace Walpole could have desired. At last, when he was known to the world only as a steady business man, who was also a “dab at an index” and an invaluable compiler of the “puff prefatory,” it occurred to Mr Rivington of St Paul’s Churchyard and Mr Osborn of Paternoster Row, two book selling friends who were aware of his epistolary gifts, to suggest that he should prepare a little model letter-writer for such “country readers" as “were unable to indite for themselves.” Would it be any harm, he suggested in answer, if he should also “instruct them how they should think and act in common cases”?, His friends were all the more anxious that he should

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/317