text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/67

Rh 7.

Ye dreams of my boyhood, how much I regret you!

Unfaded your memory dwells in my breast;

Though sad and deserted, I ne'er can forget you:

Your pleasures may still be in fancy possest.

8.

To Ida full oft may remembrance restore me,

While Fate shall the shades of the future unroll!

Since Darkness o'ershadows the prospect before me,

More dear is the beam of the past to my soul!

9.

But if, through the course of the years which await me,

Some new scene of pleasure should open to view,

I will say, while with rapture the thought shall elate me,

"Oh! such were the days which my infancy knew." 1806.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 27.djvu/157

 to 1832 he was, in succession to Montgomery, editor of the ‘Sheffield Iris.’ In 1832 he became editor of the ‘Newcastle Courant,’ but returned to Sheffield in 1833, and acted as joint editor of the ‘Sheffield Mercury’ from 1835 till the discontinuance of that journal in 1848. In acknowledgment of his journalistic services an annuity of 100l. was subscribed for by ten gentlemen of Sheffield, and presented to him in 1870. He died at his residence in Sheffield Park on 28 Dec. 1872, and was buried in Handsworth churchyard.

Holland's principal publications are:
 * 1) ‘Sheffield Park: a descriptive poem,’ Sheffield, 1820, 8vo.
 * 2) ‘The Village of Eyam; a poem,’ Macclesfield, 1821, 12mo.
 * 3) ‘The Hopes of Matrimony; a poem,’ London, 1822, 8vo.
 * 4) ‘The History, Antiquities, and Description of the Town and Parish of Worksop, in the County of Nottingham,’ Sheffield, 1826, 4to.
 * 5) ‘The Pleasures of Sight; a poem,’ Sheffield, 1829, 12mo.
 * 6) ‘A Treatise on the Progressive Improvement and present state of Manufactures in Metals,’ forming 3 vols. of Lardner's ‘Cabinet Cyclopædia,’ London, 1831–49, 12mo.
 * 7) ‘Cruciana. Illustrations of the most striking aspects under which the Cross of Christ, and symbols derived from it, have been contemplated by piety, superstition, imagination, and taste,’ Liverpool, 1835, 8vo.
 * 8) ‘The Tour of the Don. A series of extempore Sketches [chiefly by Holland] made during a pedestrian ramble along the Banks of that River and its Tributaries,’ 2 vols., London, 1837, 12mo.
 * 9) ‘Brief Notices of Animal Substances used in the Sheffield Manufactures,’ Sheffield, 1840, 8vo.
 * 10) ‘The Psalmists of Britain. Records, biographical and literary, of upwards of one hundred and fifty authors who have rendered the whole or parts of the Book of Psalms into English verse, with specimens and a general Introduction,’ London, 1843, 8vo.
 * 11) ‘The Poets of Yorkshire, by William Cartwright Newsam,’ completed and published by Holland, London, 1845, 8vo.
 * 12) ‘Diurnal Sonnets: Three Hundred and Sixty-six Poetical Meditations on various subjects,’ Sheffield, 1851, 8vo.
 * 13) ‘Memorials of Sir Francis Chantrey … in Hallamshire and elsewhere,’ London [1851], 8vo.
 * 14) ‘A Poet's Gratulation: addressed to James Montgomery on the eightieth Anniversary of his Birthday,’ Sheffield [1851], 8vo.
 * 15) ‘Memoirs of the Life and Writings of James Montgomery; including selections from his correspondence, remains in prose and verse, and conversations on various subjects,’ 7 vols., London, 1854–6, 8vo (conjointly with James Everett).

A portrait of Holland is prefixed to his ‘Life’ by William Hudson, London, 1874, 8vo.

HOLLAND, NATHANIEL DANCE- (1735–1811), painter, was third son of  the elder [q. v.], and elder brother of the younger [q. v.] He was born on 18 May 1735 (School Register), and entered Merchant Taylors' School in 1744 (ib.) He studied art under [q. v.] for some years, and also in Italy, where he became acquainted with and hopelessly attached to Angelica Kauffmann. In 1761 he was elected a member of the Incorporated Society of Artists, and two years afterwards sent to their exhibition from Rome his picture of ‘Dido and Æneas.’ On his return to England he took up portrait-painting, and attained considerable distinction in that branch of art, contributing to the first exhibition of the Royal Academy (of which he was a foundation member) full-length portraits of George III and his young queen. Until 1776 he was a frequent exhibitor of portraits and historical pieces, but after that date ceased to exhibit, and in 1790 retired from his profession on his marriage with Harriet, daughter of Sir Cecil Bisshopp, bart., and widow of Thomas Dummer, esq. Having taken the additional name of Holland, he entered parliament, and was M.P. for East Grinstead for many years. In 1800 he was created a baronet, but dying without issue on 15 Oct. 1811, the title became extinct. Through his marriage and by his profession he had amassed considerable wealth, and even late in life continued to paint landscapes with considerable success. His best-known pictures are the royal portraits already mentioned (now at Up Park, Sussex), a portrait of Captain Cook at Greenwich Hospital, ‘Timon of Athens,’ a subject picture in the royal collection, and a portrait of ‘Garrick as Richard III,’ which was engraved in mezzotint by Dixon.

HOLLAND, PHILEMON (1552–1637), translator, born at Chelmsford, Essex, in 1552, was a remote descendant of the Hollands of Denton, Lancashire. His grandfather was Edward Holland of Glassthorpe, Northamptonshire. His father, John Holland, was a protestant clergyman, who fled to the continent with [q. v.] in Mary's reign, and, returning home after Elizabeth's accession, became rector of Dunmow Magna, Essex, on 26 Sept. 1564, and died there in 1578 (, Repert. ii. 225). Philemon was educated at Chelmsford gram-

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


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 27.djvu/158

 school, and afterwards became a scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was a pupil of Whitgift; graduated B.A. in 1570–1 and M.A. in 1574, and was elected a minor fellow 28 Sept. 1573, and a major fellow 3 April 1574. He was incorporated M.A. of Oxford on 11 July 1585; subsequently studied medicine, and is said to have graduated M.D. about 1595. This degree, which Holland was fond of parading, was probably conferred by a Scottish or foreign university: no mention of it is made in the registers of Oxford or Cambridge universities. Soon after 1595 Holland settled at Coventry, where he remained for the rest of his life. His medical practice seems to have been small, and he chiefly occupied himself with translations of the classics. In 1608 he became usher of the Coventry free school, and in 1613, lord Berkeley, eighth baron [q. v.], was his pupil there. He was admitted to the freedom of the city on 30 Sept. 1612. On 2 Sept. 1617 James I visited Coventry on his return from Scotland, and Holland, acting as deputy to the recorder, delivered in his presence a eulogistic oration, which was published, along with a sermon by Samuel Buggs, B.D., in 1622 (London, by John Dawson for John Bellamie), and was reprinted in Nichols's ‘Progresses of James I,’ iii. 424–6. On 23 Jan. 1627–8 Holland, then aged 76, was appointed headmaster of the Coventry free school, but ten months later he applied for permission to resign on account of his age, 26 Nov. 1628. A successor assumed office at Lady-day, 1629. He suffered much from poverty and debility in his last years. As early as 1609 the corporation of Coventry seems to have made him gifts of money (cf. his transl. of Ammianus Marcellinus, ded.), and the council purchased many of his translations, paying 4l. in 1609 for his version of Ammianus, and 5l. for his rendering of Camden's ‘Britannia.’ On 24 Oct. 1632 the city gave him a pension of 3l. 6s. 8d. for three years, on account of his bodily weakness and the decay of his estate. On 11 April 1635 Henry Smyth, president of Magdalene College, Cambridge, authorised him to receive such charitable benevolence as the masters and fellows of the colleges in the university might bestow, in consideration of his ‘learning and worthy parts,’ and want of means. For sixty years, Smyth remarked, Holland had ‘kept good hospitality. Sic tota Coventria testis’ (Cole MSS.; cf., Restituta, iii. 41), but when Smyth added, ‘He wrote the Lepanto battle very finely,’ he confused Holland with his son Abraham [q. v.] Holland died of old age, after being bedridden for a year, at Coventry, on 9 Feb. 1636–7, aged 85, and was buried in Holy Trinity Church. A Latin epitaph penned by himself is still extant on the south wall of the choir. He never wore spectacles in his life, and until his last illness was ‘most indefatigable in his study.’

Holland married in 1579 Ann, daughter of William Bot, alias Peyton, of Perry Hall, Staffordshire. She died in 1627, aged 72, and was buried in Holy Trinity Church, Coventry, where a Latin epitaph by her son Henry is still legible. On 21 Dec. 1639 a Mrs. Holland was granted by the corporation a small sum ‘in respect of her poverty,’ and the recipient has been assumed to be Holland's second wife; but this seems improbable, and the lady, if a member of the doctor's family, may have been a widow of one of his sons. Holland was father of seven sons and three daughters. All his sons, except Henry, died before him. The sixth son, William (1592–1632), was a surgeon at Coventry, and was buried in Holy Trinity Church, near the grave of his father. Of his other sons, Abraham and Henry are separately noticed, and Compton Holland seems to have engaged in printselling in London with his brother Henry. A daughter, Elizabeth, married William Angell, merchant, of London (Visitation of London, 1633–1635, Harl. Soc. i. 18).

Holland's earliest translation—‘the first-fruits of a few years' study’—was the ‘Romane Historie’ of Livy, with the breviaries of Florus, and a ‘summarie’ of Roman topography by J. Bartholomew Marlian of Milan. It was published in 1600 by Adam Islip, in folio, with a dedication to Queen Elizabeth. Holland claimed to have written the whole manuscript with the same pen—‘a monumental pen,’ says Fuller, which ‘he solemnly kept,’ and which ultimately was enclosed in silver by a lady of his acquaintance. In 1601 appeared Holland's most popular translation, ‘The Historie of the World, commonly called the Naturall Historie of C. Plinius Secundus,’ London, by Adam Islip, fol. 2 vols., dedicated to Sir Robert Cecil. The labour involved was exceptionally great, but a new edition (carefully revised, according to a note at the close of vol. ii.) appeared in 1634; vol. i., in some copies of the second issue, bears the date 1635. ‘The Philosophie, commonly called the Morals, written by the learned philosopher Plutarch of Chæronea, translated out of Greek into English, and conferred with Latin and French,’ followed in 1603, with a dedication to James I (London, by Arnold Hatfield, fol.). A ‘newly revised and corrected’ edition appeared in 1657. While the plague raged at Coventry in 1605–6, Holland translated Suetonius's ‘Historie of Twelue Cæsars, Emperours of Rome … with a mar-


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/68

28 THOUGHTS SUGGESTED BY A COLLEGE EXAMINATION.

in the midst, surrounded by his peers,

his ample front sublime uprears:

Plac'd on his chair of state, he seems a God,

While Sophs and Freshmen tremble at his nod;

As all around sit wrapt in speechless gloom,

His voice, in thunder, shakes the sounding dome;

Denouncing dire reproach to luckless fools,

Unskill'd to plod in mathematic rules.

Happy the youth! in Euclid's axioms tried,

Though little vers'd in any art beside;

Who, scarcely skill'd an English line to pen,

Scans Attic metres with a critic's ken.


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/69

Rh What! though he knows not how his fathers bled,

When civil discord pil'd the fields with dead,

When Edward bade his conquering bands advance,

Or Henry trampled on the crest of France:

Though marvelling at the name of Magna Charta

Yet well he recollects the laws of Sparta;

Can tell, what edicts sage Lycurgus made,

While Blackstone's on the shelf, neglected laid;

Of Grecian dramas vaunts the deathless fame,

Of Avon's bard, rememb'ring scarce the name.

Such is the youth whose scientific pate

Class-honours, medals, fellowships, await;

Or even, perhaps, the declamation prize,

If to such glorious height, he lifts his eyes.

But lo! no common orator can hope

The envied silver cup within his scope:

Not that our heads much eloquence require,

Th' glowing style, or  fire.

A manner clear or warm is useless, since

We do not try by speaking to convince;

Be other orators of pleasing proud—

We speak to please ourselves, not move the crowd:

Our gravity prefers the muttering tone,

A proper mixture of the squeak and groan:


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/70

30 No borrow'd grace of action must be seen,

The slightest motion would displease the Dean;

Whilst every staring Graduate would prate,

Against what—he could never imitate.

The man, who hopes t' obtain the promis'd cup,

Must in one posture stand, and ne'er look up;

Nor stop but rattle over every word—

No matter what so it can not be heard:

Thus let him hurry on, nor think to rest:

Who speaks the fastest's sure to speak the best;

Who utters most within the shortest space,

May, safely, hope to win the wordy race.

The Sons of Science these, who, thus repaid,

Linger in ease in Granta's sluggish shade;

Where on Cam's sedgy banks, supine, they lie,

Unknown, unhonour'd live—unwept for die:

Dull as the pictures, which adorn their halls,

They think all learning fix'd within their walls:

In manners rude, in foolish forms precise,

All modern arts affecting to despise;

Yet prizing Bentley's, Brunck's, or Porson's note,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 27.djvu/166

 Erskine, was born 16 Jan. 1803, and was educated at Westminster School and at Worcester College, Oxford (B.A. 1825, M.A. 1828). He was for some years vicar of Oving, Sussex, then rector of Greatham, Hampshire, and in 1846 succeeded his father as rector of Poynings, where he died 18 Oct. 1888. He married Madalena, daughter of Major Philip Stewart, and left surviving him four sons and three daughters.

Holland was a writer of verse from the time when his earliest effort, suggested by a visit to Dryburgh Abbey, received the warm commendation of Sir Walter Scott, almost to the close of his long life. His poetical range was a wide one, passing from the paraphrase of a mediæval hymn to playful skit and epigram, from the romance of Scottish history to the scenery and bird-life of his Southdown parish. ‘Dryburgh Abbey and other Poems,’ originally published in 1826, reached a second edition in 1845, and a third, with many changes and additions, in 1884. Holland was also the author of several occasional sermons and pamphlets, and of a very complete history of Poynings, published in the Sussex Archæological Society's ‘Transactions’ for 1863.

 HOLLAR, WENCESLAUS (1607–1677), in Bohemian, engraver, was born at Prague on 13 July 1607. He was the son of Jan Holar, a lawyer, who held an official appointment in that city, and Margaret, his wife, daughter of David Löw von Löwengrün and Bareyt, a burgher of the same place. He was the eldest of the family. There were two other sons. Hollar asserted that he belonged to the Bohemian nobility, his father having received a patent from the Emperor Rudolf in 1600, and having taken the style of Hollar of Prachna. The family is now extinct in Bohemia, and no clear traces of it are to be found after 1643, but a house still standing in the Neustadt, Prague, is said to have belonged to them. It has undergone considerable alterations. The elder Hollar died in 1630, and his wife predeceased him. Wenceslaus seems at first to have been intended by his father for the profession of the law, but his passion for art soon showed itself, and we are told that he was placed under the instruction of Matthew Merian, a celebrated engraver, then residing at Prague; it is noticeable that he seems at an early age to have been especially attracted by the works of Dürer.

There seem to be no grounds for Aubrey's story that the father of Hollar was a protestant and an adherent of Frederick, the ‘Winter King.’ Whatever may have been the motives of Wenceslaus for leaving Prague, he could not have done so from any persecutions which his family underwent, for his father continued throughout his life in the enjoyment of his emoluments, and remained in the confidence of the Emperor Ferdinand II till his death. Evelyn in his memoirs has a story that the engraver was a protestant, and became a Roman catholic during his second stay at Antwerp; but this account seems to be mere gossip.

Young Wenceslaus first went to Frankfort, where he resided two years, then to Cologne, and afterwards to Antwerp, where he spent some time, and according to Vertue had ‘difficulty enough to subsist.’ He continued drawing and engraving with more or less success. Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel, when ambassador to the German emperor, saw at Cologne in 1635 his engraving of the city of Prague. He was much pleased with it, and brought Hollar to England in his train. Hollar was now in fairly flourishing circumstances, and works by him appeared in rapid succession, among which may be mentioned views of Richmond and Greenwich. Soon after his arrival he married, according to Aubrey, who knew him well, ‘at Arundel house my ladie's wayting woman, Mrs. Tracy, by whom he had a daughter, that was one of the greatest beauties I have seen; his son by her dyed in the plague, an ingeniose youth; drew delicately.’ About 1639 or 1640 Hollar was appointed teacher of drawing to the prince, afterwards Charles II. A volume of sketches by the royal pupil, to which Hollar has given the finishing touches, may be seen among the Harleian MSS. at the British Museum.

In 1640 appeared one of the most interesting of his works, the ‘Ornatus Muliebris Anglicanus, or the Severall Habits of English Women from the Nobilitie to the Country Woman, as they are in these times.’ The following year he engraved the portraits of Charles I and his queen from the originals by Vandyck; but according to Vertue, who was able to gain much information from persons who had known Hollar, he was no favourite with the great painter, ‘because he could not so well enter into that master's true manner of drawing.’ In 1643 appeared his ‘Theatrum Mulierum sive Varietas atque Differentia Habituum Fœminei sexus.’ In this well-known work are figured the various styles of female dress in the leading nations of Europe.

On the outbreak of the civil war Arundel, his patron, was obliged to leave the country. Hollar remained in England, and entered the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 27.djvu/167

 royalist ranks as a soldier in the regiment of the Marquis of Winchester. He was soon taken prisoner at Basing House by the parliamentary forces, but made his escape to Antwerp, where he found the Earl of Arundel settled with other royalist exiles. We find the entry ‘Wenceslaus Hollar, plaetsnyder,’ figuring in the book of the members of the Gild of St. Luke at Antwerp for 1645. The earl died at Padua in 1646. Hollar, reduced to great straits, was compelled to drudge at Antwerp at very low prices. In 1647 he engraved his own portrait. In 1652 he returned to England. He soon got employment, and illustrated among other works Ogilby's ‘Virgil,’ Dugdale's ‘St. Paul's,’ and Stapleton's ‘Juvenal.’ About 1654 he was employed in the house of Faithorne the engraver, and also by Stent and Overton the printsellers, who, according to Vertue, gave him very small pay, it seems about fourpence an hour ‘at his usual method by the hour-glass.’ Vertue tells us that he had it on the best authority that for the view of Greenwich, a large engraving in two plates, Hollar received from Stent only thirty shillings. The hour-glass by which the artist worked is constantly represented in his portraits.

On the accession of Charles II, Hollar was appointed ‘His Majestie's designer,’ and produced one of his chief works, the coronation of Charles II at Westminster. On 4 Sept. 1660 the king directed a letter to be sent to Sir Thomas Aleyn, lord mayor of London, informing him that Hollar had designed and cut in copper a large map of London and its suburbs, but that the work remained incomplete on account of the expenses incurred. The aldermen and other well-disposed citizens were therefore requested to assist Hollar in finishing the work (Remembrancia, p. 213; cf. Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1666–7, p. 111). The corporation of London on this and other occasions rendered Hollar some assistance. The plague in 1665 and the fire in the following year threw him again out of employment. He made suggestions to Evelyn for the rebuilding of London, and executed a very fine map of the city, leaving the burnt portions blank (cf., Diary, iii. 14). He was sworn the king's ‘scenographer’ on 21 Nov. 1666 (cf. Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1666–7, p. 256), and appealed to Charles II for pecuniary aid in the next year (ib. 1667, p. 430). In 1669 he was sent by the government in the suite of Lord Henry Howard to Tangier, where he remained for about a year. On his way back the ship in which he sailed, the Mary Rose, under the command of Captain Kempthorne, was almost captured by Algerine pirates. Of this adventure Hollar engraved a picture. For all his labours and perils he received only 100l. In 1672 he made a tour to the north of England, taking views on the way, which he afterwards engraved. He also illustrated Thoroton's ‘Antiquities of Nottinghamshire.’

He died on 28 March 1677, in the seventieth year of his age. We are told by Vertue that there was an execution in his house at the time, ‘of which when he was dying he was sensible enough to desire only to die in his bed, and not to be removed till he was buried.’ He was buried near the north-west corner of the tower of St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, but no stone marks the spot. He married a second time in 1665, and by this wife, who survived him many years, left several children. Of Hollar's personal character Aubrey says: ‘He was a very friendly, good-natured man as could be, but shiftless as to the world, and died not rich.’ Evelyn, who also knew him well, tells us that he was ‘a very honest, simple, well-meaning man.’

Of Hollar's prints 2,733 are enumerated in Parthey's account of his works (Berlin, 1853). They embrace a great variety of subjects, including scenes from the bible, historical pictures, maps, portraits of his chief contemporaries, views of cities, flower and fruit pieces, and various illustrations to books. His clever sketches of costume, his views of old London and other cities are invaluable to the historian. His engravings are executed with much spirit and carefully finished. They have steadily risen in value. An exhibition of them was held in London in 1875 at the Burlington Fine Arts Club.

The following are Hollar's more characteristic works: 1. Figures and portraits: ‘Ornatus Muliebris Anglicanus’ (1640), 26 plates; ‘Theatrum Mulierum’ (1643), 48 plates; portraits of Charles I and his queen after Vandyck (1649), James, duke of York, at the age of eighteen, Oliver Cromwell, Hobbes (1665) (cf. Notes and Queries, 1st ser. viii. 369), Oughtred, Lady Venetia Digby, and his own portrait. 2. Landscapes and buildings: A number of Dutch and German views, including Strassburg, Augsburg, and Stuttgart; Cambridge, Oxford, Birmingham, Hull, and Greenwich; six views of Albury, the seat of Arundel; Dutch shipping (1665); tomb of Edward IV at Windsor; view of Richmond Park (1638); plates illustrating Dugdale's ‘St. Paul's;’ the choir of St. George's Chapel, Windsor; Antwerp Cathedral; Whitehall, Lambeth, and views of Windsor, and views in and about Tangier (1673). 3. Miscellaneous: ‘Charles and the army quartered at Newcastle on the way to Scotland in 1639;’ ‘Trial of Archbishop


text: United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/4th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 24


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 27.djvu/168

 Laud’ (1645); ‘Trial and Execution of Thomas, Earl of Strafford;’ ‘Coronation of Charles II;’ ‘Kempthorne's Engagement with the Algerine Pirates;’ the ‘Four Seasons;’ map of England, surrounded by miniature portraits of kings; a map of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales; maps of the Isle of Man and Hungary; and ‘A New Mappe of the Cities of London, Westminster, and the Borough of Southwark’ (1675).

HOLLES, DENZIL (1599–1680), statesman, second son of John Holles, first earl of Clare [q. v.], was born 31 Oct. 1599 (, Westminster Abbey Registers, p. 4). In the parliament of 1624 Holles represented the borough of St. Michael in Cornwall, and Dorchester in that of 1628. From the commencement of his career Holles seems to have associated himself with the opponents of Buckingham. His indignation was roused by the failure and disgrace which marked that minister's foreign policy. ‘Since England was England,’ he wrote of the disaster at the Isle of Rhé, ‘it received not so dishonourable a blow’ (Strafford Letters, i. 41). The fact that Wentworth was his brother-in-law and Eliot his friend no doubt influenced his political course. On 2 March 1629, when, contrary to the will of the House of Commons, the speaker pleaded the king's order to adjourn it, and sought to leave the chair, Holles and another member kept him in it by force. ‘God's wounds!’ swore Holles, ‘you shall sit till we please to rise.’ At the end of the same stormy sitting it was Holles who recited and put to the house Eliot's three resolutions against innovation in religion and arbitrary taxation (, History of England, vii. 68, 75; Old Parliamentary History, viii. 332, 354, 361). Two days later he was arrested and committed to the Tower. Holles, with five other prisoners, applied to the court of king's bench for a writ of habeas corpus, but the judges refused to allow bail, except on condition of giving a bond for good behaviour (3 Oct. 1629). An information had been exhibited against Holles and the rest in the Star-chamber (7 May 1629), but this was dropped, and they were finally proceeded against in the king's bench. Refusing to acknowledge the jurisdiction of that court with respect to matters transacted in parliament, he was treated as acknowledging his fault, and sentenced to be fined one thousand marks (2 Feb. 1630). He was in addition to be imprisoned during the king's pleasure, and not to be released except on giving security for good behaviour and confessing his offence (, vi. 90, 111, 119;, pp. 104–6). To avoid this, writes Holles, ‘I made an escape, and lived a banished man … for the space of seven or eight years, and then at last was glad to pay my fine. I can with confidence say that my imprisonment and my suits cost me three thousand pounds; and that I am ten thousand pounds the worse in my estate upon that occasion’ (, Memorials of the Civil War, i. 150). The Long parliament treated the prosecution as a breach of privilege, and referred the question to a committee, whose report was delivered by Glyn on 6 July 1641 (, Notes of the Long Parliament, p. 102; Commons' Journals, ii. 53, 201–3). Holles was voted 5,000l. in compensation for his losses and sufferings, and the thousand marks which he had paid into the exchequer for his fine were repaid to him.

In the parliament of April 1640, and also in the Long parliament, Holles again represented Dorchester. His sufferings and abilities gave him a leading place among the opposition (, Rebellion, iii. 35). The fact that his sister had been Strafford's second wife led him to separate himself from his political associates on one point. ‘In all other contrivances he was in the most secret councils with those who most governed, and was respected by them with very much submiss application as a man of authority’ (ib.) Holles spoke on behalf of Strafford's children, and endeavoured to negotiate an arrangement by which the king's consent to the abolition of episcopacy should be accepted as the ransom of Strafford's life (, p. 339;, Works, iii. 442; , Own Time, ed. 1833, i. 56). Clarendon represents Holles as not one of the root-and-branch men, yet he was certainly one of the tellers for the second reading of the Root-and-branch Bill, spoke often against the bishops, and was chosen to carry up to the House of Lords both the impeachment of Laud and the protestation (, pp. 364, 418;, pp. 106, 116; , Notes of the Long Parliament, pp. 67, 70). On 6 July he made a great speech on the conduct of the judges, urging the restoration of Sir Randulphe Crew to the chief justiceship, of which he had been deprived. Holles was the mouthpiece of the commons when they announced their resolution to support the cause of the elector


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/71

Rh More than the verse on which the critic wrote:

Vain as their honours, heavy as their Ale,

Sad as their wit, and tedious as their tale;

To friendship dead, though not untaught to feel,

When Self and Church demand a Bigot zeal.

With eager haste they court the lord of power,

(Whether 'tis or  rules the hour;)

To him, with suppliant smiles, they bend the head,

While distant mitres to their eyes are spread;

But should a storm o'erwhelm him with disgrace,

They'd fly to seek the next, who fill'd his place.

Such are the men who learning's treasures guard!

Such is their practice, such is their reward!

This much, at least, we may presume to say—

The premium can't exceed the price they pay. 1806.


text: United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/4th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 25


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 27.djvu/169

 palatine, and represented them also in the disputes with the lords about the protestation and the king's journey to Scotland (, pp. 113, 118; Old Parliamentary History, ix. 295, 511). In the second session Holles was equally active and equally decided. He spoke on behalf of the Grand Remonstrance, and was eager for the punishment of Mr. Palmer (, pp. 124, 127).

When the Irish rebellion broke out, Holles uncompromisingly supported the proposed declaration against the toleration of the catholics; when the lords opposed the Impressment Bill, Holles was charged to represent to them their responsibility for the blood and misery which might ensue (, x. 103; Lords' Journals, iv. 484). On 27 Dec. he pressed for the impeachment of Lord Digby and the Earl of Bristol (, p. 453). Impeached himself by the king at Digby's advice on 3 Jan. 1642, he took refuge in the city with the rest of the accused members, and returned like them in triumph to Westminster on 11 Jan. The control of the militia became now the chief question at issue, and, to overcome the reluctance of the lords to join the commons in demanding it, Holles in an impassioned speech presented to them a petition purporting to come from many thousands of unemployed artisans in and about London (, iv. 263–71; Lords' Journals, iv. 559). Impatient of any opposition, he was eager for the punishment of the Duke of Richmond, demanded the impeachment of the nine royalist peers who had refused to obey the summons of parliament, and conducted himself the charge against them (, p. 478; Old Parliamentary History, xi. 200).

When actual war began, he was at first equally thoroughgoing. He had been appointed lieutenant of Bristol, was nominated a member of the committee of safety (4 July 1642), and undertook to raise a regiment of foot for the parliament. Under the command of the Earl of Bedford, Holles took part in the operations against the Marquis of Hertford at Sherborne, and defended Bedford against the attacks made on his generalship. At Edgehill he and his regiment distinguished themselves, and at Brentford they bore the brunt of the fighting (, v. 37, 59;, pp. 523, 532; , vi. 7). But during the winter of 1642–3 it was as an advocate of peace that Holles was most prominent. He had from the beginning of the quarrel protested that he desired ‘more than his own life’ a good understanding between king and parliament (, Corfe Castle, ed. 1853, p. 124). Frequent references in the diary of Sir Symonds D'Ewes show how anxious he now was for an accommodation (, pp. 530, 532, 535). In August 1643, when a majority in the commons proposed to take into consideration the peace propositions sent down from the lords, the war party contemplated the summary arrest of Holles and other leaders of the peace section. When the commons retracted their resolution, Holles for a moment thought of leaving England, and obtained a pass for the continent (9 Aug. 1643, Commons' Journals, iii. 19;, Great Civil War, i. 217). However, on 9 April 1644 he addressed the citizens of London in the Guildhall to persuade them to devote ‘their purses and their persons’ to strengthening the army under Essex (Old Parliamentary History, xiii. 162). In November 1644 Holles and several others were sent to carry to the king the propositions offered him by parliament. Of this embassy his companion, Whitelocke, and Holles himself have both given accounts (, Memorials, ed. 1853, i. 331–41; Commons' Journals, iii. 710). He was likewise employed as one of the parliamentary commissioners at the Uxbridge treaty (16 Jan. 1645). Meanwhile the struggle between presbyterians and independents had commenced, and from the first Holles took the lead of the presbyterians. In conversation he did not conceal from his friends among the king's commissioners ‘his animosity and indignation against the Independent party’ (Rebellion, viii. 248). In concert with the Scotch members of the committee of both kingdoms he projected, in December 1644, the impeachment of Cromwell as an incendiary (, ed. 1853, i. 343). In the following summer Lord Savile, who had just deserted the royal party, charged Holles and Whitelocke with betraying their trust when sent to convey the parliament's proposals to the king. It was affirmed that they had secretly consulted with the king on the answer to be given to the propositions, and it was stated also that Holles had throughout maintained secret communications with Lord Digby. The charge was eagerly taken up by some of the independents. ‘Those who were of a contrary party to the Earl of Essex,’ says Whitelocke, ‘set their interest upon it to ruin Mr. Hollis, whom they found to be a great pillar of that party.’ Both the accused were cleared by vote of the commons on 19 July 1645 (ib. i. 457–81; Old Parliamentary History, xiii. 501, 505; xiv. 22). Nevertheless, the accusation was repeated with additional details in the charge brought against him by the army in 1647 (ib. xvi. 70–2). With the conclusion of the war and the attempted


text: United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/4th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 26


text: United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/4th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 27


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 27.djvu/170

 disbanding of the army which followed it, the animosity between Holles and the independents increased. He was regarded as the leader of the party in the House of Commons which refused to concede the just claims of the soldiers, was opposed to toleration, and willing to make a treaty with the king without adequate security for its performance. Personally, he was held responsible for the severity with which the commons sometimes treated petitioners against its chosen policy. According to Ludlow, the declaration of the commons of 29 March 1647, in which the promoters of the army petition were declared enemies of the state, was drawn up by Holles (Memoirs, ed. 1751, p. 74). During these debates a challenge was exchanged between Holles and Ireton, but the intervention of Sir William Waller and the orders of the house prevented a duel (Clarendon MSS. 2478, 2495;, p. 94). On 15 June 1647 Holles and ten other members of parliament were impeached by the army. In addition to the charges already referred to, he was accused of holding secret correspondence with the queen and inviting the Scots to invade England (Old Parliamentary History, xv. 470, xvi. 70). The answer of the eleven accused members, which was delivered to the House of Commons on 19 July, is printed as ‘A Full Vindication and Answer of the Eleven Accused Members to a late Printed Pamphlet entitled “A Particular Charge or Impeachment in the Name of Sir Thomas Fairfax and the Army under his Command”’ (ib. xvi. 116). It is said to have been drawn up by Prynne. On 20 July the accused members asked and obtained leave of absence for six months, and passes to go beyond sea. Holles on taking leave of the house made a speech in his own vindication (‘A Grave and Learned Speech, or an Apology Delivered by Denzil Holles, Esq.,’ 4to, 1647). Ten days later a new vote recalled the eleven members, and that portion of the parliament which remained at Westminster prepared to fight the army, and appointed a new committee of safety, of which Holles was a member (, vi. 652). He asserts that he had no share in the tumults which produced this sudden revolution. ‘I was not in the city all the time those businesses were in agitation—knew nothing of the petitions nor actings in the common council’ (Memoirs, § 148). The army marched triumphantly into London on 6 Aug., and Holles was again obliged to fly. Several of the accused members were captured as they were crossing to Calais, of whom Holles was reported to be one; but the fact is contradicted in a statement published by the officers of the squadron in the Downs (, vii. 785; A Declaration of the Representations of the Officers of the Navy concerning the Impeached Members, 26 Aug. 1647). On 4 Sept. the commons ordered the fugitive members to return and stand their trials, and as they refused they were, on 27 Jan. 1648, disabled from sitting during the existing parliament (, vii. 800, 977). On 3 June 1648 these votes were annulled, and Holles took his seat again in the house on 14 Aug. (ib. pp. 1130, 1226).

Holles was one of the ten commissioners appointed by the commons to represent them at the Newport treaty; he presented their report to the house, and was thanked for his services (1 Dec. 1648) (ib. vii. 1248, 1360). ‘The Humble Proposals and Desires’ of the army, presented to parliament on 6 Dec., demanded the arrest and punishment of Holles and other impeached persons who had retaken their seats, but he succeeded in escaping again to France (ib. p. 1354; Old Parliamentary History, xviii. 458). In March 1651 Charles II summoned him to Scotland with the intention of making him secretary of state for England, but he seems to have refused the invitation (, Original Letters, ii. 448; Nicholas Papers, i. 227). However, when the Protector sent him a pass permitting him to return to England, Holles availed himself of it (Clarendon State Papers, iii. 223; Cal. Clarendon Papers, ii. 323). When, at Monck's instigation (21 Feb. 1660), the secluded members were readmitted to parliament, Holles took his seat again, and on 2 March 1660 the special votes against him and the sequestration of his estate were repealed. He was also appointed a member of the council of state which was to govern between the dissolving of the Long parliament and the meeting of the convention (Commons' Journals, vii. 849). Clarendon describes him as one of the presbyterian cabal which met at Northumberland House, and wished to make terms with Charles before restoring him (Rebellion, xvi. 160;, Own Time, ed. 1836, i. 156). In the convention he acted as chairman of the committee appointed to answer the king's letter, and was one of the commissioners sent to the Hague (Commons' Journals, viii. 4, 20). The speech made by Holles to Charles (16 May 1660) is a remarkable expression of loyalty and joy: ‘a king of so many vows and prayers cannot but crown the desires of his people’ (Somers Tracts, ed. Scott, vii. 415). In reward for these services Holles was admitted to the privy council, and created a peer by the title of Baron Holles of Ifield, Sussex (20 April 1661). From July 1663 to May 1666 he was English ambassador at Paris, and distinguished himself by the tenacity


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 27.djvu/171

 with which he contested points of etiquette (, Portraits Politiques, pp. 25–44). His letters during this period show with what jealous hostility he regarded the commercial and political projects of Louis XIV (, Life of Clarendon, iii. 409, 414). In June 1667 he was one of the negotiators of the treaty of Breda between England and Holland, an unpopular task, of which he observes: ‘My conscience tells me that in this conjuncture we could not have done better service to king and country’ (ib. p. 467; see also A Narrative of the Proceedings of Lord Holles and Coventry at Breda, by a person of quality concerned in this Embassy, 4to, 1667). In the following December Holles was one of the four peers who protested against the bill for the banishment of the Earl of Clarendon, and it was reported that he was to be put out of the privy council (Lords' Journals, xii. 167;, Diary, 30 Dec. 1667). In 1674 the opposition leaders are described as meeting at the house of Lord Holles to concert their policy for the next session (Essex Papers, Camd. Soc., i. 168;, Shaftesbury, ii. 189). Holles opposed the Test Act (1675) with great vigour, protested against it himself, and vindicated the right of the peers to protest (‘A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country,’ in State Tracts of the Reign of Charles II, 1692, i. 40, 41). Like many other leaders of the parliamentary opposition, he entered into secret negotiations with the French ambassador in order to frustrate the policy of the king. Barillon, writing 14 Dec. 1679, describes Holles as ‘the man of all England for whom the different cabals have the most consideration. He is respected in general by all parties, but principally by the presbyterians. Although he does not often go to parliament, he is consulted by many people, and his advice has great weight. He is very moderate. He is apprehensive the court will always adhere to the design of governing more absolutely than the laws of England admit, and he knows your majesty alone can facilitate the success of such a design. Upon this account he wishes that the nation may not be stirred up against France.’ Barillon adds that Holles was particularly useful in the impeachment of Danby (1678) and the disbanding of the army (1678). Like Shaftesbury and Lord Russell, he was convinced that Charles II meant to use the army, raised on the pretext of defending Flanders, to suppress the English opposition and establish his absolute power (, Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, ed. 1790, pp. 184–90, 337; see also, Négociations relatives à la Succession d'Espagne, iv. 434, 533). He received no money from Barillon, and refused to accept a portrait of Louis XIV set in diamonds, which the ambassador offered him.

For some years Holles had acted in close agreement with Lord Shaftesbury, but on the question of the Exclusion Bill he separated from him (, ii. 202, 283, 306). ‘He is very moderate,’ writes Barillon, ‘on the subject of the Duke of York, and declares that he cannot consent to his exclusion; but at the same time he is of opinion that the power of a catholic king of England should be limited.’ Holles was appointed one of the new privy council established by Charles II on 21 April 1679 (, History of England, p. 630). He died on 17 Feb. 1679–1680, and was buried 10 April 1680 in St. Peter's Church, Dorchester (, p. 161;, Dorset, ii. 383). His character is briefly sketched by Clarendon (History of the Rebellion, iii. 35) and by Burnet (Own Time, ed. 1833, i. 177). ‘Holles,’ says the latter, ‘was a man of great courage, and as great pride. … He was faithful and firm to his side, and never changed through the whole course of his life. … He was well versed in the records of parliament, and argued well, but too vehemently, for he could not bear contradiction. He had the soul of an old stubborn Roman in him. He was a faithful but a rough friend, and a severe but a fair enemy. He had a true sense of religion, and was a man of an unblameable course of life, and of a sound judgment, when it was not biassed by passion.’

A portrait of Holles, belonging to the Duke of Portland, was No. 723 in the Exhibition of National Portraits at South Kensington in 1868. An engraving by White is prefixed to the 1699 edition of his ‘Memoirs.’

Holles was three times married, and Collins, in his history of the family (p. 162), confuses the history of the three wives.

He married, first, 4 June 1626, Dorothy, only daughter and heiress of Sir Francis Ashley of Dorchester; she died 21 June 1640: secondly, 12 March 1641–2, Jane, eldest daughter and coheiress of Sir John Shirley of Isfield, Sussex, and widow of Sir Walter Covert of Slougham, Sussex, and of John Freke of Cerne, Dorsetshire; she was buried 25 April 1666: thirdly, 14 Sept. 1666, Esther, daughter of Gideon le Lou of Colombiers, Normandy; she was naturalised by act of parliament (8 Feb. 1667), and died in 1684 (, Westminster Abbey Registers, p. 4).

By his second and third wives Holles had no issue. He was succeeded by his only son, Sir Francis Holles, born 1627, created a


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 27.djvu/172

 baronet 27 June 1660, died 1 March 1690. The peerage became extinct with the death of Denzil, third lord Holles, 25 Jan. 1693–4 (, p. 162).

In addition to the published speeches already mentioned, Holles was the author of many pamphlets, most of them anonymous. 1. ‘The Grand Question concerning the Judicature of the House of Peers Stated and Argued,’ 8vo, 1669 ( and, Dict. of Anonymous and Pseudonymous Literature, p. 1042). 2. ‘A True Relation of the Unjust Accusation of certain French Gentlemen, published by Denzil, Lord Holles,’ 4to, 1671; an account of the endeavours of Holles to save some Frenchmen accused of highway robbery, and of his consequent quarrel with Chief-justice Keeling (see Journals of the House of Lords, xii. 440, 444, 452). 3. ‘The Long Parliament Dissolved,’ 4to, 1676 ( and, p. 1509). ‘Some Considerations upon the Question whether the Parliament is Dissolved by its Prorogation for Fifteen Months,’ 4to, 1676, which is also attributed to Holles by Halkett and Laing (p. 2423), is probably the same pamphlet with a different title. 4. ‘A Letter to Monsieur Van B[euninghen] de M——, at Amsterdam, written Anno 1676, by Denzil, Lord Holles,’ 4to, n. d.; reprinted in ‘Somers Tracts,’ viii. 32, ed. Scott. 5. ‘The Case Stated touching the Judicature of the House of Lords in Point of Impositions,’ 8vo, 1676. 6. ‘A Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend, showing that Bishops ought not to be Judges in Parliament in Cases Capital,’ 8vo, 1679. 7. ‘Lord Holles his Remains, being a Second Letter to a Friend concerning the Judicature of the Bishops in Parliament, in the Vindication of what he Wrote in his First, &c. It contains likewise part of his intended Answer to a second Tractate, entitled “The Grand Question touching the Bishops' Right in Parliament Stated and Argued,”’ 8vo, 1682. On this controversy see Burnet's ‘Own Time,’ ii. 214–19, and Oldmixon, p. 632. 8. ‘Memoirs of Denzil, Lord Holles, from the Year 1641 to 1648,’ 8vo, 1699. This was written in the winter of 1647–8. The dedication is dated, ‘at St. Mère Eglide in Normandy, this 14th of February 1648.’ The book is in part a vindication of his own conduct, especially during 1647, but mainly an attack on Cromwell, the army, and the independents. It is violent, prejudiced, and generally untrustworthy. Walpole criticises it with great justice (Royal and Noble Authors, ed. Park, iii. 223). It is reprinted in Baron Maseres's ‘Select Tracts relating to the Civil Wars in England,’ 1815.

 HOLLES, FRESCHEVILLE (1641–1672), captain in the navy, only surviving son of Gervase Holles [q. v.], antiquary, probably served as a volunteer in the naval campaign of 1665, but his first commission was as captain of the Antelope in 1666. He is said by Charnock to have lost an arm in the four days' fight off the North Foreland, 1–4 June; but this seems improbable, for he is described by Pepys (24 March 1667–8) as playing the bagpipes ‘beyond anything of that kind that ever I heard in my life, and with great pains he must have obtained it.’ He was, at any rate, able to command the Henrietta, a third rate, in the action of 25 July 1666, previous to which he had been knighted (State Papers, Dom., Charles II, clxiv. 124). In 1667 he was captain of the Cambridge at Portsmouth, but was employed by a special commission in command of the fireships for the protection of the Thames in June (Cal. State Papers, Dom., freq.;, 10 June). At this time he must have piqued Pepys's vanity, for the many entries concerning him in the ‘Diary’ are all abusive. According to these the men brought up from the Cambridge were ‘the most debauched, damning, swearing rogues that ever were in the navy,’ worthy of their commander, who was profane (14 June), useless (25 June), a coward (9 Aug.), a liar (28 Sept.), and as ‘idle and insignificant a fellow as ever came into the fleet’ (18 Feb. 1667–8).

After the peace with the Dutch, Holles appears to have held a commission in the land service, and (24 March 1667–8) while on guard entertained Pepys in a handsome room, with drink and the bagpipes, a ‘mighty barbarous music.’ In 1667 he was returned to parliament for Grimsby as his father's colleague. In 1672 he commanded the Cambridge in the squadron under Sir Robert Holmes [q. v.], which attacked the Dutch Smyrna fleet on its passage up Channel (13 March); and when Holmes's ship, the St. Michael, was disabled, he went on board the Cambridge. Holles fell in the battle of Solebay, 28 May, and was buried in St. Edmund's Chapel in Westminster Abbey (, Collect. vii. 376).

In 1662, being then ‘a bachelor,’ aged 21, he married Jane, daughter of Mr. Richard Lewis of Marr in Yorkshire, and widow of Mr. Crome, described as of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch, aged 30 (, London Marriage Licenses, 24 Nov. 1662). By his will,


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/305

 of Limulus and Scorpio. Perhaps the most important general agreement of Scorpio compared with Limulus and the Eurypterines is the division of the body into the three regions (or tagmata)—prosoma, mesosoma and metasoma—each consisting of six segments, the prosoma having leg-like appendages, the mesosoma having foliaceous appendages, and the metasoma being destitute of appendages.

In 1893, some years after the identification of the somites of Limulus with those of Scorpio, thus indicated, had been published, zoologists were startled by the discovery by a Japanese zoologist, Kishinouye (8), of a seventh prosomatic somite in the embryo of Limulus longispina. This was seen in longitudinal sections, as shown in fig. 19. The simple identification of somite with somite in Limulus and Scorpio seemed to be threatened by this discovery. But in 1896 Dr August Brauer of Marburg (9) discovered in the embryo of Scorpio a seventh prosomatic somite (see VII PrG, figs. 17 and 18), or, if we please so to term it, a praegenital somite, hitherto unrecognized. In the case of Scorpio this segment is indicated in the embryo by the presence of a pair of rudimentary appendages, carried by a well-marked somite. As in Limulus, so in Scorpio, this unexpected somite and its appendages disappear in the course of development. In fact, more or less complete “excalation” of the somite takes place. Owing to its position it is convenient to term the somite which is excalated in Limulus and Scorpio “the praegenital somite.” It appears not improbable that the sternal plates wedged in between the last pair of legs in both Scorpio and Limulus, viz. the pentagonal sternite of Scorpio (fig. 10) and the chilaria of Limulus (see figs. 13 and 20), may in part represent in the adult the sternum of the excalated praegenital somite. This has not been demonstrated by an actual following out of the development, but the position of these pieces and the fact that they are (in Limulus) supplied by an independent segmental nerve, favours the view that they may comprise the sternal area of the vanished praegenital somite. This interpretation, however, of the “metasternites” of Limulus and Scorpio is opposed by the coexistence in Thelyphonus (figs. 55, 57 and 58) of a similar metasternite with a complete praegenital somite. H. J. Hansen (10) has recognized that the “praegenital somite” persists in a rudimentary condition, forming a “waist” to the series of somites in the Pedipalpi and Araneae. The present writer is of opinion that it will be found most convenient to treat this evanescent somite as something special, and not to attempt to reckon it to either the prosoma or the mesosoma. These will then remain as typically composed each of six appendage-bearing somites—the prosoma comprising in addition the ocular prosthomere. When the praegenital somite or traces of it are present it should not be called “the seventh prosomatic” or the “first mesosomatic,” but simply the “praegenital somite.” The first segment of the mesosoma of Scorpio and Limulus thus remains the first segment, and can be identified as such throughout the Eu-arachnida, carrying as it always does the genital apertures. But it is necessary to remember, in the light of recent discoveries, that the sixth prosomatic pair of appendages is carried on the seventh somite of the whole series, there being two prosthomeres or somites in front of the mouth, the first carrying the eyes, the second the chelicerae; also that the first mesosomatic or genital somite is not the seventh or even the eighth of the whole senes of somites which have been historically present, but is the ninth, owing to the presence or to the excalation of a praegenital somite. It seems that confusion and trouble will be best avoided by abstaining from the introduction of the non-evident somites, the ocular and the praegenital, into the numerical nomenclature of the component somites of the three great body regions. We shall, therefore, ignoring the ocular somite, speak of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth leg-bearing somites of the prosoma, and indicate the appendages by the Roman numerals, I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and whilst ignoring the praegenital somite we shall speak of the first, second, third, &c., somite of the mesosoma or opisthosoma (united mesosoma and metasoma) and indicate them by the Arabic numerals.

There are a number of other important points of structure besides those referring to the somites and appendages in which Limulus agrees with Scorpio or other Arachnida and differs from other Arthropoda. The chief of these are as follows:—

1. The Composition of the Head (that is to say, of the anterior part of the prosoma) with especial Reference to the Region in Front of the Mouth.—It appears (see ) that there is embryological evidence of the existence of two somites in Arachnida which were originally post-oral, but have become prae-oral by adaptational shifting of the oral aperture. These forwardly-slipped somites are called “prosthomeres.” The first of these has, in Arachnids as in other Arthropods, its pair of appendages represented by the eyes. The second has for its pair of appendages the small pair of limbs which in all living Arachnids is either chelate or retrovert (as in spiders), and is known as the chelicerae. It is possible, as maintained by some writers (Patten and others), that the lobes of the cerebral nervous mass in Arachnids indicate a larger number of prosthomeres as having fused in this region, but there is no embryological evidence at present which justifies us in assuming the existence in Arachnids of more than two prosthomeres. The position of the chelicerae of Limulus and of the ganglionic nerve-masses from which they receive their nerve-supply, is closely similar to that of the same structures in Scorpio. The cerebral mass is in Limulus more easily separated by dissection as a median lobe distinct from the laterally-placed ganglia of the chelceral somite than is the case in Scorpio, but the relations are practically the same in the two forms. Formerly it was supposed that in Limulus both the chelicerae and the next following pair of appendages were prosthomerous, as in Crustacea, but the dissections of Alphonse Milne-Edwards (6) demonstrated

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/305


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holgate, Robert


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holinshed, Raphael


text: User:Zil/Scambles amongst the Alps/Chapter 13


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holker, John (1719-1786)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holker, John (1828-1882)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holl, Francis (1815-1884)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holl, Francis Montague


text: User:Zil/Scambles amongst the Alps/Chapter 14


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holl, William


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Abraham


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Charles (1733-1769)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Charles (1768-1849?)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Cornelius


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, George Calvert


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Guy


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Henry (d.1604)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Henry (d.1625)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Henry (1583-1650?)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Henry (1746?-1806)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Henry (1788-1873)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Hezekiah


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, James


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, John (d.1722)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, John (1794-1872)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Nathaniel Dance-


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Philemon


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/72

32 TO MARY,

.

1.

faint resemblance of thy charms,

(Though strong as mortal art could give,)

My constant heart of fear disarms,

Revives my hopes, and bids me live.

2.

Here, I can trace the locks of gold

Which round thy snowy forehead wave;

The cheeks which sprung from Beauty's mould,

The lips, which made me Beauty's slave.

3.

Here I can trace—ah, no! that eye,

Whose azure floats in liquid fire,

Must all the painter's art defy,

And bid him from the task retire.

4.

Here, I behold its beauteous hue;

But where's the beam so sweetly straying,


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Richard (fl.1450)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Richard (1596-1677)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Robert


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Thomas (d.1360)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Thomas (1350-1397)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Thomas (1374-1400)


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/73

Rh Which gave a lustre to its blue,

Like Luna o'er the ocean playing?

5.

Sweet copy! far more dear to me,

Lifeless, unfeeling as thou art,

Than all the living forms could be,

Save her who plac'd thee next my heart.

6.

She plac'd it, sad, with needless fear,

Lest time might shake my wavering soul,

Unconscious that her image there

Held every sense in fast controul.

7.

Thro' hours, thro' years, thro' time, 'twill cheer—

My hope, in gloomy moments, raise;

In life's last conflict 'twill appear,

And meet my fond, expiring gaze.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Thomas (d.1612)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Thomas (1600-1642)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holland, Thomas Agar


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hollar, Wenceslaus


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Holles, Denzil


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/74

34 ON THE DEATH OF MR. FOX,

THE FOLLOWING ILLIBERAL IMPROMPTU APPEARED IN THE "MORNING POST."

TO WHICH THE AUTHOR OF THESE PIECES SENT THE FOLLOWING REPLY FOR INSERTION IN THE "MORNING CHRONICLE."

, factious viper! whose envenom'd tooth

Would mangle, still, the dead, perverting truth;

What, though our "nation's foes" lament the fate,

With generous feeling, of the good and great;

Shall dastard tongues essay to blast the name

Of him, whose meed exists in endless fame?

When expir'd in plenitude of power,

Though ill success obscur'd his dying hour,


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/75

Rh Pity her dewy wings before him spread,

For noble spirits "war not with the dead:"

His friends in tears, a last sad requiem gave,

As all his errors slumber'd in the grave;

He sunk, an Atlas bending 'neath the weight

Of cares o'erwhelming our conflicting state.

When, lo! a Hercules, in Fox, appear'd,

Who for a time the ruin'd fabric rear'd:

He, too, is fall'n, who Britain's loss supplied,

With him, our fast reviving hopes have died;

Not one great people, only, raise his urn,

All Europe's far-extended regions mourn.

"These feelings wide, let Sense and Truth unclue,

To give the palm where Justice points its due;"

Yet, let not canker'd Calumny assail,

Or round her statesman wind her gloomy veil.

Fox! o'er whose corse a mourning world must weep,

Whose dear remains in honour'd marble sleep;

For whom, at last, e'en hostile nations groan,

While friends and foes, alike, his talents own.—


text:
Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 1.djvu/228

114 sends it forth in a name. In a name the sacred hymns are contained, in the sacred hymns all sacrifices.

2. 'All these (beginning with mind and ending in sacrifice) centre in consideration, consist of consideration, abide in consideration. Therefore if a man is inconsiderate, even if he possesses much learning, people say of him, he is nothing, whatever he may know; for, if he were learned, he would not be so inconsiderate. But if a man is considerate, even though he knows but little, to him indeed do people listen gladly. Consideration is the centre, consideration is the self, consideration is the support of all these. Meditate on consideration.

3. 'He who meditates on consideration as Brahman, he, being himself safe, firm, and undistressed, obtains the safe, firm, and undistressed worlds which he has considered; he is, as it were, lord and master as far as consideration reaches—he who meditates on consideration as Brahman.'

'Sir, is there something better than consideration?'

'Yes, there is something better than consideration.'

'Sir, tell it me.'

1. 'Reflection (dhyâna) is better than consideration. The earth reflects, as it were, and thus does the sky, the heaven, the water, the mountains, gods and men. Therefore those who among men obtain


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/76

36 Fox! shall, in Britain's future annals, shine,

Nor e'en to, the patriot's palm resign;

Which Envy, wearing Candour's sacred mask,

For, and alone, has dar'd to ask. [, Oct., 1806.]

TO A LADY WHO PRESENTED TO THE AUTHOR A LOCK OF HAIR BRAIDED WITH HIS OWN, AND APPOINTED A NIGHT IN DECEMBER TO MEET HIM IN THE GARDEN.

locks, which fondly thus entwine,

In firmer chains our hearts confine,

Than all th' unmeaning protestations

Which swell with nonsense, love orations.

Our love is fix'd, I think we've prov'd it;

Nor time, nor place, nor art have mov'd it;

Then wherefore should we sigh and whine,

With groundless jealousy repine;

With silly whims, and fancies frantic,

Merely to make our love romantic?

Why should you weep, like Lydia Languish,

And fret with self-created anguish?


text: Page:EB1911 - Volume 19.djvu/511

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 19.djvu/511


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/77

Rh Or doom the lover you have chosen,

On winter nights to sigh half frozen;

In leafless shades, to sue for pardon,

Only because the scene's a garden?

For gardens seem, by one consent,

(Since Shakespeare set the precedent;

Since Juliet first declar'd her passion)

To form the place of assignation.

Oh! would some modern muse inspire,

And seat her by a sea-coal fire;

Or had the bard at Christmas written,

And laid the scene of love in Britain;

He surely, in commiseration,

Had chang'd the place of declaration.

In Italy, I've no objection,

Warm nights are proper for reflection;

But here our climate is so rigid,

That love itself, is rather frigid:

Think on our chilly situation,

And curb this rage for imitation.

Then let us meet, as oft we've done,

Beneath the influence of the sun;

Or, if at midnight I must meet you,

Within your mansion let me greet you:

There we can love for hours together,

Much better, in such snowy weather,

Than plac'd in all th' Arcadian groves,


text:
Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 1.djvu/229

Rh greatness here on earth, seem to have obtained a part of the object of reflection (because they show a certain repose of manner). Thus while small and vulgar people are always quarrelling, abusive, and slandering, great men seem to have obtained a part of the reward of reflection. Meditate on reflection.

2. 'He who meditates on reflection as Brahman, is lord and master, as it were, as far as reflection reaches—he who meditates on reflection as Brahman.'

'Sir, is there something better than reflection?'

'Yes, there is something better than reflection.'

'Sir, tell it me.'

1. 'Understanding (vigñâna) is better than reflection. Through understanding we understand the Rig-veda, the Yagur-veda, the Sâma-veda, and as the fourth the Âtharvana, as the fifth the tihâsapurâna, the Veda of the Vedas, the Pitrya, the Râsi, the Daiva, the Nidhi, the Vâkovâkya, the Ekâyana, the Deva-vidyâ, the Brahma-vidyâ, the Bhûta-vidyâ, the Kshatra-vidyâ, the Nakshatra-vidyâ, the Sarpa and Devagana-vidyâ, heaven, earth, air, ether, water, fire, gods, men, cattle, birds, herbs, trees, all beasts down to worms, midges, and ants; what is right and what is wrong; what is true and what is false; what is good and what is bad; what is pleasing and what is not pleasing; food and savour, this world and that, all this we understand through understanding. Meditate on understanding.

2. 'He who meditates on understanding as Brahman, reaches the worlds where there is understanding


text:
Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 1.djvu/239

Rh (fire, water, earth), he becomes five, he becomes seven, he becomes nine; then again he is called the eleventh, and hundred and ten and one thousand and twenty ."

'When the intellectual aliment has been purified, the whole nature becomes purified. When the whole nature has been purified, the memory becomes firm. And when the memory (of the Highest Self) remains firm, then all the ties (which bind us to a belief in anything but the Self) are loosened.

'The venerable Sanatkumâra showed to Nârada, after his faults had been rubbed out, the other side of darkness. They call Sanatkumâra Skanda, m.'

1. Harih, Om. There is this city of Brahman (the body), and in it the palace, the small lotus (of


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/78

38 That ever witness'd rural loves;

Then if my passion fail to please

Next night I'll be content to freeze;

No more I'll give a loose to laughter,

But curse my fate, for ever after.

TO A BEAUTIFUL QUAKER.

girl! though only once we met,

That meeting I shall ne'er forget;


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/306

 the true limitations of the cerebrum, whilst embryological researches have done as much for Scorpio. Limulus thus agrees with Scorpio and differs from the Crustacea, in which there are three prosthomeres—one ocular and two carrying palpiform appendages. It is true that in the lower Crustacea (Apus, &c.) we have evidence of the gradual movement forward of the nerve-ganglia belonging to these palpiform appendages. But although in such lower Crustacea the nerve-ganglia of the third prosthomere have not fused with the anterior nerve-mass, there is no question as to the prae-oral position of two appendage-bearing somites in addition to the ocular prosthomere. The Crustacea have, in fact, three prosthomeres in the head and the Arachnida only two, and Limulus agrees with the Arachnida in this respect and differs from the Crustacea. The central nervous systems of Limulus and of Scorpio present closer agreement in structure than can be found when a Crustacean is compared with either. The wide divarication of the lateral cords in the prosoma and their connexion by transverse commissures, together with the “attraction” of ganglia to the prosomatic ganglion group which properly belong to hinder segments, are very nearly identical in the two animals. The form and disposition of the ganglion cells are also peculiar and closely similar in the two. (See Patten (42) for important observations on the neuromeres, &c., of Limulus and Scorpio.)

2. The Minute Structure of the Central Eyes and of the Lateral Eyes.—Limulus agrees with Scorpio not only in having a pair of central eyes and also lateral eyes, but in the microscopic structure of those organs, which differs in the central and lateral eyes respectively. The central eyes are “simple eyes,” that is to say, have a single lens, and are hence called “monomeniscous.” The lateral eyes are in Limulus “compound eyes,” that is to say, consist of many lenses placed close together; beneath each lens is a complex of protoplasmic cells, in which the optic nerve terminates. Each such unit is termed an “ommatidium.” The lateral eyes of Scorpio consist of groups of separate small lenses each with its ommatidium, but they do not form a continuous compound eye as in Limulus. The ommatidium (soft structure beneath the lens-unit of a compound eye) is very simple in both Scorpio and Limulus. It consists of a single layer of cells, continuous with those which secrete the general chitinous covering of the prosoma. The cells of the ommatidium are a good deal larger than the neighbouring common cells of the epidermis. They secrete the knob-like lens (fig. 22). But they also receive the nerve fibres of the optic nerve. They are at the same time both optic nerve-end cells, that is to say, retina cells, and corneagen cells or secretors of the chitinous lens-like cornea. In Limulus (fig. 23) each ommatidium has a peculiar ganglion cell developed in a central position, whilst the ommatidium of the lateral eyelets of Scorpio shows small intermediate cells between the larger nerve-end cells. The structure of the lateral eye of Limulus was first described by Grenacher, and further and more accurately by Lankester and Bourne (5) and by Watase; that of Scorpio by Lankester and Bourne, who showed that the statements of von Graber were erroneous, and that the lateral eyes of Scorpio have a single cell-layered or “monostichous” ommatidium like that of Limulus. Watase has shown, in a very convincing way, how by deepening the pit-like set of cells beneath a simple lens the more complex ommatidia of the compound eyes of Crustacea and Hexapoda may be derived from such a condition as that presented in the lateral eyes of Limulus and Scorpio. (For details the reader is referred to Watase (11) and to Lankester and Bourne (5).) The structure of the central eyes of Scorpio and spiders and also of Limulus differs essentially from that of the lateral eyes in having two layers of cells (hence called diplostichous) beneath the lens, separated from one another by a membrane (figs. 24 and 25). The upper layer is the corneagen and secretes the lens, the lower is the retinal layer. The mass of soft cell-structures beneath a large lens of a central eye is called an “ommatoeum.” It shows in Scorpio and Limulus a tendency to segregate into minor groups or “ommatidia.” It is found that in embryological growth the retinal layer of the central eyes forms as a separate pouch, which is pushed in laterally beneath the corneagen layer from the epidermic cell layer. Hence it is in origin double, and consists of a true retinal layer and a post-retinal layer (fig. 24, B), though these are not separated by a membrane. Accordingly the diplostichous ommatoeum or soft tissue of the Arachnid’s central eye should strictly be called “triplostichous,” since the deep layer is itself doubled or folded. The retinal cells of both the lateral and central eyes of Limulus and Scorpio produce cuticular structures on their sides; each such piece is a rhabdomere and a number (five or ten) uniting form a rhabdom (fig. 26). In the specialized ommatidia of the compound eyes of Crustacea and Hexapods the rhabdom is an important structure. It is a very significant fact that the lateral and central eyes of Limulus and Scorpio not only agree each with each in regard to their monostichous and diplostichous structure, but also in the formation in both classes of eyes of rhabdomeres and rhabdoms in which the component pieces are five or a multiple of five (fig. 26). Whilst each unit of the lateral eye of Limulus has a rhabdom of ten pieces

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/306


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/79

Rh And though we ne'er may meet again,

Remembrance will thy form retain;

I would not say, "I love," but still,

My senses struggle with my will:

In vain to drive thee from my breast,

My thoughts are more and more represt;

In vain I check the rising sighs,

Another to the last replies:

Perhaps, this is not love, but yet,

Our meeting I can ne'er forget.

What, though we never silence broke,

Our eyes a sweeter language spoke;

The tongue in flattering falsehood deals,

And tells a tale it never feels:

Deceit, the guilty lips impart,

And hush the mandates of the heart;

But soul's interpreters, the eyes,

Spurn such restraint, and scorn disguise.

As thus our glances oft convers'd,

And all our bosoms felt rehears'd,

No spirit from within, reprov'd us,

Say rather, "'twas the spirit mov'd us."

Though, what they utter'd, I repress,

Yet I conceive thou'lt partly guess

For as on thee, my memory ponders,

Perchance to me, thine also wanders.

This, for myself, at least, I'll say,


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/80

40 Thy form appears through night, through day;

Awake, with it my fancy teems,

In sleep, it smiles in fleeting dreams;

The vision charms the hours away,

And bids me curse Aurora's ray

For breaking slumbers of delight,

Which make me wish for endless night.

Since, oh! whate'er my future fate,

Shall joy or woe my steps await;

Tempted by love, by storms beset,

Thine image, I can ne'er forget.

Alas! again no more we meet,

No more our former looks repeat;

Then, let me breathe this parting prayer,

The dictate of my bosom's care:

"May Heaven so guard my lovely quaker.

That anguish never can o'ertake her;

That peace and virtue ne'er forsake her,

But bliss be aye her heart's partaker!

Oh! may the happy mortal, fated

To be, by dearest ties, related,

For her each hour, new joys discover,

And lose the husband in the lover!


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/81

Rh May that fair bosom never know

What 'tis to feel the restless woe,

Which stings the soul, with vain regret,

Of him, who never can forget!" 1806.

TO LESBIA!

1.

! since far from you I've rang'd,

Our souls with fond affection glow not;

You say, 'tis I, not you, have chang'd,

I'd tell you why,—but yet I know not.

2.

Your polish'd brow no cares have crost;

And Lesbia! we are not much older,

Since, trembling, first my heart I lost,

Or told my love, with hope grown bolder.

3.

Sixteen was then our utmost age,

Two years have lingering pass'd away, love!

And now new thoughts our minds engage,

At least, I feel disposed to stray, love!


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/82

42 4.

'Tis I that am alone to blame,

I that am guilty of love's treason;

Since your sweet breast is still the same,

Caprice must be my only reason.

5. I do not, love! suspect your truth,

With jealous doubt my bosom heaves not;

Warm was the passion of my youth,

One trace of dark deceit it leaves not.

6.

No, no, my flame was not pretended;

For, oh! I lov'd you most sincerely;

And though our dream at last is ended

My bosom still esteems you dearly.

7.

No more we meet in yonder bowers;

Absence has made me prone to roving;

But older, firmer hearts than ours

Have found monotony in loving.

8.

Your cheek's soft bloom is unimpair'd,

New beauties, still, are daily bright'ning,

Your eye, for conquest beams prepar'd,

The forge of love's resistless lightning.


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/83

Rh 9. Arm'd thus, to make their bosoms bleed,

Many will throng, to sigh like me, love!

More constant they may prove, indeed;

Fonder, alas! they ne'er can be, love! [1806.]

TO WOMAN.

! experience might have told me

That all must love thee, who behold thee:

Surely experience might have taught

Thy firmest promises are nought;

But, plac'd in all thy charms before me,

All I forget, but to adore thee.

Oh memory! thou choicest blessing,

When join'd with hope, when still possessing;

But how much curst by every lover

When hope is fled, and passion's over.

Woman, that fair and fond deceiver,

How prompt are striplings to believe her!

How throbs the pulse, when first we view

The eye that rolls in glossy blue,


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/84

44 Or sparkles black, or mildly throws

A beam from under hazel brows!

How quick we credit every oath,

And hear her plight the willing troth!

Fondly we hope 'twill last for ay,

When, lo! she changes in a day.

This record will for ever stand,

"Woman, thy vows are trac'd in sand."


text:
Page:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu/31

HOUGH the word "cartoon," as used to designate certain kinds of satirical drawings, has strayed far from its original meaning, it has achieved in its present uses an adequate definition which the public profitably may bear in mind. That effective instrument of the artist turned satirist, "must always figure," according to an authority, "as a leading article transformed into a picture." It is, in short, an editorial expressed in line. By this rule, then, should be judged the cartoon, properly so called. By this rule the work of Bradley's brain and pen invariably measures true.

To the writer, whose privilege it has been for more than twenty years to confer almost daily with some cartoonist of proved ability or of excellent promise while the latter was developing the idea which was to take pictorial form under his skillful hand a few hours later, it is a pleasure to record here the belief that, like Abou Ben Adhem, the successful producer of cartoons loves his fellow men. It follows that he is continually seeking for truth and not in the mood of jesting Pilate. This may serve to explain why the older term "caricature," which sufficed to describe, for example, the tremendously effective brutalities of Gillray and Rowlandson in Napoleon's day, cannot be applied with entire propriety to the work of enlightened and conscientious artists of the present, who make pictures which are leading articles. Truth if caricatured becomes a lie. In the successful cartoon everything may be distorted except the truth.

Bradley had a high respect for his art and for his position as a teacher through his art. He was a student of cartooning, historically and otherwise. It was a source of satisfaction to him that as an American cartoonist he had among his predecessors men of such strong convictions as Paul Revere, Thomas Nast and Joseph Keppler. He had no patience with milk-and-watery cartoons. Whatever came from his pen had to deliver a message of no uncertain kind. Any idea which could not prove itself worth while when roughly sketched out in half a dozen pencil strokes was

title: Page:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu/31


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/85

Rh AN OCCASIONAL PROLOGUE,

DELIVERED BY THE AUTHOR PREVIOUS TO THE PERFORMANCE OF "THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE" AT A PRIVATE THEATRE.

the refinement of this polish'd age

Has swept immoral raillery from the stage;

Since taste has now expung'd licentious wit,

Which stamp'd disgrace on all an author writ;

Since, now, to please with purer scenes we seek,

Nor dare to call the blush from Beauty's cheek;

Oh! let the modest Muse some pity claim,

And meet indulgence—though she find not fame.

Still, not for her alone, we wish respect,

Others appear more conscious of defect:

To-night no vet'ran Roscii you behold,

In all the arts of scenic action old;


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/86

46 No, no , can salute you here,

No draw the sympathetic tear;

To-night you throng to witness the début

Of embryo Actors, to the Drama new:

Here, then, our almost unfledg'd wings we try;

Clip not owr pinions, ere the birds can fly:

Failing in this our first attempt to soar,

Drooping, alas! we fall to rise no more.

Not one poor trembler, only, fear betrays,

Who hopes, yet almost dreads to meet your praise;

But all our Dramatis Personæ wait,

In fond suspense this crisis of their fate.

No venal views our progress can retard,

Your generous plaudits are our sole reward;

For these, each Hero all his power displays,

Each timid Heroine shrinks before your gaze:

Surely the last will some protection find?

None, to the softer sex, can prove unkind:

While Youth and Beauty form the female shield,

The sternest Censor to the fair must yield.

Yet, should our feeble efforts nought avail,

Should, after all, our best endeavours fail;

Still, let some mercy in your bosoms live,

And, if you can't applaud, at least forgive.


text:
Page:Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays.djvu/109

HEN we try to ascertain the motives which have led men to the investigation of philosophical questions, we find that, broadly speaking, they can be divided into two groups, often antagonistic, and leading to very divergent systems. These two groups of motives are, on the one hand, those derived from religion and ethics, and, on the other hand, those derived from science. Plato, Spinoza, and Hegel may be taken as typical of the philosophers whose interests are mainly religious and ethical, while Leibniz, Locke, and Hume may be taken as representatives of the scientific wing. In Aristotle, Descartes, Berkeley, and Kant we find both groups of motives strongly present.

Herbert Spencer, in whose honour we are assembled to-day, would naturally be classed among scientific philosophers: it was mainly from science that he drew his data, his formulation of problems, and his conception of method. But his strong religious sense is obvious in much, of his writing, and his ethical preoccupations are what make him value the conception of evolution—that conception in which, as a whole generation has believed, science and morals are to be united in fruitful and indissoluble marriage.

It is my belief that the ethical and religious motives


text:
Page:Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays.djvu/110

98 in spite of the splendidly imaginative systems to which they have given rise, have been on the whole a hindrance to the progress of philosophy, and ought now to be consciously thrust aside by those who wish to discover philosophical truth. Science, originally, was entangled in similar motives, and was thereby hindered in its advances. It is, I maintain, from science, rather than from ethics and religion, that philosophy should draw its inspiration.

But there are two different ways in which a philosophy may seek to base itself upon science. It may emphasise the most general results of science, and seek to give even greater generality and unity to these results. Or it may study the methods of science, and seek to apply these methods, with the necessary adaptations, to its own peculiar province. Much philosophy inspired by science has gone astray through preoccupation with the results momentarily supposed to have been achieved. It is not results, but methods that can be transferred with profit from the sphere of the special sciences to the sphere of philosophy. What I wish to bring to your notice is the possibility and importance of applying to philosophical problems certain broad principles of method which have been found successful in the study of scientific questions.

The opposition between a philosophy guided by scientific method and a philosophy dominated by religious and ethical ideas may be illustrated by two notions which are very prevalent in the works of philosophers, namely the notion of the universe, and the notion of good and evil. A philosopher is expected to tell us something about the nature of the universe as a whole, and to give grounds for either optimism or pessimism. Both these expectations seem to me mistaken. I believe the conception of "the universe" to be, as its etymology indicates, a


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 1.djvu/87

47 TO ELIZA.

1.

! what fools are the Mussulman sect,

Who, to woman, deny the soul's future existence;

Could they see thee, Eliza! they'd own their defect,

And this doctrine would meet with a general resistance.

2.

Had their Prophet possess'd half an atom of sense,

He ne'er would have woman from Paradise driven;

Instead of his Houris, a flimsy pretence,

With woman alone he had peopled his Heaven.

3.

Yet, still, to increase your calamities more,

Not content with depriving your bodies of spirit,

He allots one poor husband to share amongst four! —

With souls you'd dispense; but, this last, who could bear it?


text:
Page:Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays.djvu/111

Rh mere relic of pre-Copernican astronomy: and I believe the question of optimism and pessimism to be one which the philosopher will regard as outside his scope, except, possibly, to the extent of maintaining that it is insoluble.

In the days before Copernicus, the conception of the "universe" was defensible on scientific grounds: the diurnal revolution of the heavenly bodies bound them together as all parts of one system, of which the earth was the centre. Round this apparent scientific fact, many human desires rallied: the wish to believe Man important in the scheme of things, the theoretical desire for a comprehensive understanding of the Whole, the hope that the course of nature might be guided by some sympathy with our wishes. In this way, an ethically inspired system of metaphysics grew up, whose anthropocentrism was apparently warranted by the geocentrism of astronomy. When Copernicus swept away the astronomical basis of this system of thought, it had grown so familiar, and had associated itself so intimately with men's aspirations, that it survived with scarcely diminished force—survived even Kant's "Copernican revolution," and is still now the unconscious premiss of most metaphysical systems.

The oneness of the world is an almost undiscussed postulate of most metaphysics. "Reality is not merely one and self-consistent, but is a system of reciprocally determinate parts" —such a statement would pass almost unnoticed as a mere truism. Yet I believe that it embodies a failure to effect thoroughly the "Copernican revolution," and that the apparent oneness of the world is merely the oneness of what is seen by a single spectator or apprehended by a single mind. The Critical Philosophy, although it intended to emphasise the subjective element


text:
Page:Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays.djvu/112

100 in many apparent characteristics of the world, yet, by regarding the world in itself as unknowable, so concentrated attention upon the subjective representation that its subjectivity was soon forgotten. Having recognised the categories as the work of the mind, it was paralysed by its own recognition, and abandoned in despair the attempt to undo the work of subjective falsification. In part, no doubt, its despair was well founded, but not, I think, in any absolute or ultimate sense. Still less was it a ground for rejoicing, or for supposing that the nescience to which it ought to have given rise could be legitimately exchanged for a metaphysical dogmatism.

As regards our present question, namely, the question of the unity of the world, the right method, as I think, has been indicated by William James. "Let us now turn our backs upon ineffable or unintelligible ways of accounting for the world's oneness, and inquire whether, instead of being a principle, the 'oneness' affirmed may not merely be a name like 'substance' descriptive of the fact that certain specific and verifiable connections are found among the parts of the experiential flux. . . . We can easily conceive of things that shall have no connection whatever with each other. We may assume them to inhabit different times and spaces, as the dreams of different persons do even now. They may be so unlike and incommensurable, and so inert towards one another, as never to jostle or interfere. Even now there may actually be whole universes so disparate from ours that we who know ours have no means of perceiving that they exist. We conceive their diversity, however; and by that


text:
Page:Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays.djvu/113

Rh fact the whole lot of them form what is known in logic as a 'universe of discourse.' To form a universe of discourse argues, as this example shows, no further kind of connexion. The importance attached by certain monistic writers to the fact that any chaos may become a universe by merely being named, is to me incomprehensible." We are thus left with two kinds of unity in the experienced world; the one what we may call the epistemological unity, due merely to the fact that my experienced world is what one experience selects from the sum total of existence; the other that tentative and partial unity exhibited in the prevalence of scientific laws in those portions of the world which science has hitherto mastered. Now a generalisation based upon either of these kinds of unity would be fallacious. That the things which we experience have the common property of being experienced by us is a truism from which obviously nothing of importance can be deducible: it is clearly fallacious to draw from the fact that whatever we experience is experienced the conclusion that therefore everything must be experienced. The generalisation of the second kind of unity, namely, that derived from scientific laws, would be equally fallacious, though the fallacy is a trifle less elementary. In order to explain it let us consider for a moment what is called the reign of law. People often speak as though it were a remarkable fact that the physical world is subject to invariable laws. In fact, however, it is not easy to see how such a world could fail to obey general laws. Taking any arbitrary set of points in space, there is a function of the time corresponding to these points, i.e. expressing the motion of a particle which traverses these points: this function may be regarded as a general law to which the behaviour of such a particle is subject. Taking all such functions for


text:
Page:Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays.djvu/114

102 all the particles in the universe, there will be theoretically some one formula embracing them all, and this formula may be regarded as the single and supreme law of the spatio-temporal world. Thus what is surprising in physics is not the existence of general laws, but their extreme simplicity. It is not the uniformity of nature that should surprise us, for, by sufficient analytic ingenuity, any conceivable course of nature might be shown to exhibit uniformity. What should surprise us is the fact that the uniformity is simple enough for us to be able to discover it. But it is just this characteristic of simplicity in the laws of nature hitherto discovered which it would be fallacious to generalise, for it is obvious that simplicity has been a part cause of their discovery, and can, therefore, give no ground for the supposition that other undiscovered laws are equally simple.

The fallacies to which these two kinds of unity have given rise suggest a caution as regards all use in philosophy of general results that science is supposed to have achieved. In the first place, in generalising these results beyond past experience, it is necessary to examine very carefully whether there is not some reason making it more probable that these results should hold of all that has been experienced than that they should hold of things universally. The sum total of what is experienced by mankind is a selection from the sum total of what exists, and any general character exhibited by this selection may be due to the manner of selecting rather than to the general character of that from which experience selects. In the second place, the most general results of science are the least certain and the most liable to be upset by subsequent research. In utilizing these results as the basis of a philosophy, we sacrifice the most valuable and remarkable characteristic of scientific method,


text:
Page:Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays.djvu/115

 namely, that, although almost everything in science is found sooner or later to require some correction, yet this correction is almost always such as to leave untouched, or only slightly modified, the greater part of the results which have been deduced from the premiss subsequently discovered to be faulty. The prudent man of science acquires a certain instinct as to the kind of uses which may be made of present scientific beliefs without incurring the danger of complete and utter refutation from the modifications likely to be introduced by subsequent discoveries. Unfortunately the use of scientific generalisations of a sweeping kind as the basis of philosophy is just that kind of use which an instinct of scientific caution would avoid, since, as a rule, it would only lead to true results if the generalisation upon which it is based stood in no need of correction.

We may illustrate these general considerations by means of two examples, namely, the conservation of energy and the principle of evolution.

(1) Let us begin with the conservation of energy, or, as Herbert Spencer used to call it, the persistence of force. He says:


text:
Page:Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays.djvu/116

104 This paragraph illustrates the kind of way in which the philosopher is tempted to give an air of absoluteness and necessity to empirical generalisations, of which only the approximate truth in the regions hitherto investigated can be guaranteed by the unaided methods of science. It is very often said that the persistence of something or other is a necessary presupposition of all scientific investigation, and this presupposition is then thought to be exemplified in some quantity which physics declares to be constant. There are here, as it seems to me, three distinct errors. First, the detailed scientific investigation of nature does not presuppose any such general laws as its results are found to verify. Apart from particular observations, science need presuppose nothing except the general principles of logic, and these principles are not laws of nature, for they are merely hypothetical, and apply not only to the actual world but to whatever is possible. The second error consists in the identification of a constant quantity with a persistent entity. Energy is a certain function of a physical system, but is not a thing or substance persisting throughout the changes of the system. The same is true of mass, in spite of the fact that mass has often been defined as quantity of matter. The whole conception, of quantity, involving, as it does, numerical measurement based largely upon conventions, is far more artificial, far more an embodiment of mathematical convenience, than is commonly believed by those who philosophise on physics. Thus even if (which I cannot for a moment admit) the persistence of some entity were among the necessary postulates of science, it would be a sheer error to infer from this the constancy of any physical quantity, or the a priori necessity of any such constancy which may be empirically discovered. In the third place, it


text:
Page:Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays.djvu/117

Rh has become more and more evident with the progress of physics that large generalisations, such as the conservation of energy or mass, are far from certain and are very likely only approximate. Mass, which used to be regarded as the most indubitable of physical quantities, is now generally believed to vary according to velocity, and to be, in fact, a vector quantity which at a given moment is different in different directions. The detailed conclusions deduced from the supposed constancy of mass for such motions as used to be studied in physics will remain very nearly exact, and therefore over the field of the older investigations very little modification of the older results is required. But as soon as such a principle as the conservation of mass or of energy is erected into a universal a priori law, the slightest failure in absolute exactness is fatal, and the whole philosophic structure raised upon this foundation is necessarily ruined. The prudent philosopher, therefore, though he may with advantage study the methods of physics, will be very chary of basing anything upon what happen at the moment to be the most general results apparently obtained by those methods.

(2) The philosophy of evolution, which was to be our second example, illustrates the same tendency to hasty generalisation, and also another sort, namely, the undue preoccupation with ethical notions. There are two kinds of evolutionist philosophy, of which both Hegel and Spencer represent the older and less radical kind, while Pragmatism and Bergson represent the more modern and revolutionary variety. But both these sorts of evolutionism have in common the emphasis on progress, that is, upon a continual change from the worse to the better, or from the simpler to the more complex. It