text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/119

Rh

LESTOCK, RICHARD (1679?–1746), admiral, was the second son of Richard Lestock, captain in the navy and magistrate for the county of Middlesex. It is said that the father belonged to the family of Lestocq, formerly owning large estates in Picardy (information from M. Witasse of Amiens), but the exact relationship is doubtful; the arms on his monument, which are not recognised by Burke (General Armoury), are not those of Lestocq (Nobiliaire de Picardie), and the circumstances of his family's settlement in England are unknown. It seems more probable that he was ‘of an obscure family in the parish of Stepney’ (Notes and Queries, 7th ser. vi. 453). As early as 1667 the elder Lestock commanded the Gabriel fireship (, i. 294). He afterwards had employment in the mercantile marine, and with other commanders of merchant ships was called before the board of admiralty on 26 Dec. 1690, and, declaring himself willing to serve in the navy, was appointed on 6 Jan. 1690–1 to be captain of the Cambridge, and took post from that day (Admiralty Minute-book). He died at Ashton in Northamptonshire, in his seventy-first year, in May 1713 (, Hist. of Northampton, ii. 128).

The younger Richard is said (Add. MS. 24436, f. 52 b) to have been born on 22 Feb. 1679; it is more probable that he was born some years earlier. There is no record of his earliest service in the navy. In April 1701 he was appointed third lieutenant of the Cambridge, in November lieutenant of the Solebay, in January 1701–2 of the Exeter, in February 1703–4 of the Barfleur, flagship of Sir Clowdisley Shovell [q. v.] in the battle of Malaga. In the following year he was again with Shovell in the Britannia, and was promoted to command the Fowey on 29 April 1706, from which date he took post. After the capture of Alicante [see ] he was sent home with despatches, and returning to the Mediterranean was employed with good success against the enemy's privateers in the Straits of Gibraltar; but on 14 April 1709, on her passage from Alicante to Lisbon, the Fowey fell in with two of the enemy's 40-gun frigates, and was captured after a running fight of several hours. Lestock was shortly afterwards exchanged, and on his return to England was tried by court-martial for the loss of his ship and fully acquitted 31 Aug. 1709 (Minutes of the Court-martial). In 1710 he commanded the Weymouth in the West Indies with Commodore James Littleton [q. v.]; in 1717 he commanded the Panther in the Baltic with Sir George Byng [q. v.]; and in 1718 he was second captain of the Barfleur, Sir George Byng's flagship, in the battle off Cape Passaro, and in the subsequent operations in Sicilian waters. In 1728 he was appointed to the Princess Amelia, and in 1729 to the Royal Oak, in the fleet under Sir Charles Wager [q. v.] On 21 Feb. 1732 he was moved into the Kingston, to go out to the West Indies as commander-in-chief at Jamaica. On 6 April he received his instructions and an order to wear a red broad pennant. He was directed to sail at once, but touching at Plymouth, contrary winds detained him there till the end of the month; he did not sail till the 29th. But on 19 May Sir Chaloner Ogle (d. 1750) [q. v.] was appointed ‘commander-in-chief of the ships at Jamaica, in the room of Commodore Lestock’ (Admiralty Minute-book). On 15 June a letter was written to Lestock by the lords themselves, ordering him to strike his flag and return to England. In this, the only official letter on the subject, no reason is assigned; but Lestock, writing from Port Royal on 21 Nov., reporting the arrangements he had made for his passage, adds: ‘My affair being without precedent I cannot say much, but such a fate as I have met with is far worse than death, many particulars of which I doubt not will be heard from me when I shall be able to present myself to my lords of the admiralty’ (Captains' Letters, L. vol. vii.) Without any further official explanation or investigation he was appointed on 22 Feb. 1733–4 to be captain of the Somerset, one of twenty-nine ships commissioned on the same day as a precautionary measure, on account of the war of the Polish succession (, i. 23, iii. 8; Admiralty Minute-book).

The Somerset was stationed as guardship at Chatham and in the Medway, and in her Lestock continued till April 1738, when he was turned over to the Grafton, employed on the same service. In August 1739 he was moved to the Boyne, one of the ships which in the following year went out to the West Indies with Sir Chaloner Ogle. As a captain, Lestock was senior to the Earl of Granard and four others, including Nicholas Haddock [q. v.] and Ogle, who were all promoted to flag rank before him; Granard and Haddock in May 1734. The date suggests that Lestock was passed over for the same mysterious reasons which led to his recall from Jamaica. Charnock (Biog. Nav.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/120

Rh iii. 338) wrongly asserts that he retired from the service between 1731 and 1740. He was actually in command of a ship during the whole time.

In the West Indies Lestock was authorised to fly a broad pennant as commodore and third in command of the fleet under Vice-admiral Edward Vernon (1684–1757) [q. v.], and took part in the operations against Cartagena, actually commanding in the attack on Fort San Luis on 23 March, when the Boyne suffered severely and had to be warped out of action. On the return of the fleet to Jamaica Lestock was ordered home, with most of the larger ships. With his broad pennant in the Royal Caroline he arrived in England in the end of August, and was shortly afterwards appointed to the Neptune, to command a large reinforcement going out to the Mediterranean. His sailing was, however, delayed for several weeks, and he did not join Haddock till the end of January 1742, and then with the ships so shattered by bad weather, and the crews so disabled by sickness and death, that the long-expected reinforcement was of no immediate use (, Letters, Cunningham's ed., i. 95; see ). ‘The Neptune arrived with a jury foremast and bowsprit, 250 people sick on board, and had buried 54 in the passage’ (Haddock to Duke of Newcastle, 1 Feb. 1741–2). On 13 March 1741–2 Lestock was promoted to be rear-admiral of the white. When, a couple of months later, Haddock was compelled by his weak health to return to England, Lestock succeeded temporarily to the command, and he both hoped and expected to be appointed to it from England. Other officers—notably Vernon and Mathews—who had been passed over for their flag, had been restored with their original seniority; he applied to have the same favour shown to him (Lestock to Duke of Newcastle, 8 May 1742), and was bitterly disappointed when he learned that Mathews was on his way out to supersede him [see ].

It has been said that between Lestock and Mathews there was a quarrel of long standing, and that Mathews, in accepting the command, had stipulated that Lestock should be recalled (, i. 153). On their first meeting, when Lestock went on board Mathews's flagship, he was publicly reprimanded in a very blunt manner for not having sent a frigate to meet the admiral at Gibraltar (ib.) During the next eighteen months, however, the two were seldom together, Mathews being much occupied by his diplomatic duties away from the fleet, though from time to time he wrote complaining of the responsibility which Lestock's bad health threw on him (Mathews to Duke of Newcastle, 2 Aug.–1 Oct. 1743). Honest and hearty co-operation between the two seemed impossible. Accordingly in the action off Toulon on 11 Feb. 1743–4, when Lestock, who on 29 Nov. 1743 had been promoted to be vice-admiral of the white, commanded the rear of the fleet, he was determined to do nothing to help Mathews, whose orders were confused and signals faulty. He obeyed the letter of the signals and of the ‘Fighting Instructions,’ careless, it would seem, of the disgrace which fell on the British flag. On the night of the 10th the rear division was a long way astern and to windward of its station; but when Mathews made the signal to ‘bring to’ for the night, Lestock, ignoring the signal for the line of battle, at once brought to, and, allowing his squadron to drift, was at daybreak on the 11th some five or six miles astern. Repeated signals were made to him to close the line; he could not or would not obey them, and remained astern during the whole day. When Mathews made the signal to engage, he argued that, as the signal for the line was still flying, he was bound primarily to keep the line, and to engage only when he could do so in the line. After the action, Mathews, dissatisfied with his conduct and his explanation of it, suspended him from his command and sent him to England, where, on the request of the House of Commons, he was tried by court-martial in May 1746. The trial lasted through the whole month, and ended in a unanimous acquittal. The finding has often been spoken of as a gross miscarriage of justice; the meaning of the signals was clear, and in presence of the enemy, when battle was once joined, it was the duty of every ship to be alongside one of the enemy's. But the court, considering the regulations in force at the time, could come to no other decision on the technical, as distinct from the moral question.

Two days after his acquittal Lestock was promoted to be admiral of the blue, 5 June 1746, and appointed to command a squadron destined, in the first instance, to operate against Quebec, but diverted from that end to an expedition against Lorient. This proved a miserable failure, and the troops were brought back after an ignominious repulse (Vie privée de Louis XV, ii. 290;, i. 308; Gent. Mag. 1746, p. 601). But beyond convoying them there and back again the fleet had little share in the work, and it does not appear that Lestock was responsible for this fiasco. On his return to Portsmouth he was ordered to strike his flag, which he did, meekly protest-

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


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Paul, Apocalypse of

PAUL,. See , section on New Testament.


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Paul, Charles Kegan

PAUL, (1828-1902). An English publisher and author, born at White Lackington, Somersetshire. He was educated at Eton and at Exeter College, Oxford; from 1853 to 1862 was a master at Eton, and, after twelve years as vicar of Sturminster, entered the publishing business, from which he retired in 1899. As an author he is best known for his biographies and translations: A Translation of Faust (1873); Life of William Godwin (1876); Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft (1879); Biographical Sketches (1883); Maria Drummond (1891); Huysmans's En Route (1896); and Memories (1899). In Faith and Unfaith (1891) Paul hinted at his own religious beliefs; he left the Church of England for Positivism, and in his last years entered the Roman Catholic Church.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/123

Rh  works: 1. ‘Some Important Duties and Doctrines of Religion prov'd from the Sacred Scriptures. With some occasional Thoughts on Deism,’ Bury St. Edmunds, 1739, 8vo. 2. ‘Essays on the Being of a God, his Governing and Preserving Providence,’ London, 1753, 8vo. 3. ‘No Way more delightful than the Conjugal,’ London, 1753, 8vo. 4. ‘A Legacy to the World, or Essays to Promote Practical Christianity. By a Civil Magistrate,’ London, 1762, 8vo; 2nd edition entitled ‘A Friendly and Charitable Legacy to the World … with some Remarks on a late Pamphlet intitled “Justification by Faith alone”’ [by John Berridge, q. v.], Bury, 1767, 8vo.

 LE STRANGE, HENRY L'ESTRANGE STYLEMAN (1815–1862), art amateur and decorative painter, born on 25 Jan. 1815, was only son of Henry Styleman of Snettisham and Hunstanton, Norfolk, by Emilia, daughter of Benjamin Preedy, his wife. His father was grandson of Nicholas Styleman, who married Armine, elder daughter of Sir Nicholas L'Estrange, fourth baronet, and coheiress of her brother, Sir Henry L'Estrange, sixth baronet, of Hunstanton [see under ]. Styleman was educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A. 1837), and on leaving Oxford travelled in Portugal, Spain, and Egypt. In 1839 he assumed by royal license the old family name of Le Strange, in addition to that of Styleman, and in the same year married Jamesina Joyce Ellen, daughter of John Stewart of Belladrum, Inverness-shire. In 1839 also he was declared by the House of Lords coheir of the barony of Camoys, and in 1841 coheir to that of Hastings. In 1847 he made an unsuccessful attempt to enter parliament for West Norfolk. Styleman le Strange was an amateur of art and practised painting. In 1853 he drew a design for the decoration of the tower of Ely Cathedral, which was accepted in 1854, and completed by him in 1855. In July 1856 he was invited by the dean and chapter to give a design for the decoration of the roof of the nave. After two years' research and study Le Strange commenced painting the roof in 1858, and worked on it for four years. In 1860 he was invited to co-operate with Mr. Butterfield, the architect, in the decoration of St. Alban's, Holborn, and spent two years in making and completing the cartoons for this work. In February 1862 he was nominated a member of the royal commission appointed to examine into the state of fresco-painting in England. Le Strange died suddenly of heart disease in London on 27 July 1862, and was buried at Hunstanton. He had only completed half the length of the roof in Ely Cathedral (finished by Mr. T. Gambier Parry), and his designs for St. Alban's, Holborn, on which he had not commenced work, were carried out by his cousin, Frederick Preedy. His designs were the fruits of much learned study and great religious enthusiasm. He left three sons and three daughters. Of the latter Alice was married to Laurence Oliphant [q. v.] A portrait of Le Strange is at Hunstanton.

 LE STRANGE, JOHN (d. 1269), lord marcher, third in descent from Roland le Strange (who occurs as a witness in 1112), held extensive estates in Shropshire and Norfolk, including Knokyn in the former, and Hunstanton in the latter county. He served in 1214 under King John in Poitou, and between 1233 and 1240 was successively appointed by Henry III constable of the castles of Montgomery, Shrewsbury, Bridgnorth, and Chester. He spent a long life in defending the Welsh border as a lord marcher, and during the rebellion of Simon de Montfort stood fast to the crown. One of his daughters, Hawise, married Griffin, prince of Powys; his younger son, Hamon, accompanied Prince Edward on the crusade of 1270, and in 1272 married at Cyprus Isabelle d'Ibelin, widow of Hugh II, king of Cyprus. Another son, Robert, was ancestor of the Lords Strange of Blackmere. John le Strange died in 1269, and was succeeded by his son John (d. 1275), who by his marriage with Joan de Someri, co-heiress of Hugh de Albini, earl of Arundel, added much to the influence and wealth of his family. His grandson, John, sixth baron of Knokyn (d. 1311), gave in 1310 his manor of Hunstanton to his younger brother, Hamon, from whom the Norfolk Le Stranges come in direct descent.

 L'ESTRANGE, JOHN (1836–1877), Norfolk antiquary, born at Norwich on 18 Jan. 1836, became a clerk in the stamp office at Norwich, and, though much tied by his occupation there, found time to make very large collections for the history of the county of Norfolk and the city of Norwich. He died, at the comparatively early age of forty-one, on 13 Oct. 1877, and was buried in the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/124

 Norwich cemetery. He was a Roman catholic. He married, on 4 June 1858, Mary Maris of Bacton, Norfolk. He left six children, three of whom have since died.

Most of L'Estrange's manuscripts passed on his death into the collection of the present writer. Among them may be named ‘A List of the Freemen and Apprentices of Norwich from Edward IV to Edward VI,’ containing many thousand names, which has been published since his death, edited by the writer of this notice (1888). He also made voluminous extracts from the court books of the city of Norwich and the book of St. George's guild, and transcribed no less than four of the early churchwardens' books of the city of Norwich. His most useful work, however, is found in his collections from the wills at the Norwich registry, now bound in four volumes fol.: they throw immense light on the history of the fabric of the Norfolk churches and the lives of their incumbents. He was editor of the ‘Eastern Counties Collectanea,’ which he conducted with success for twenty-four numbers (Jan. 1872 to Dec. 1873), but his only published work was one on ‘The Church Bells of Norfolk,’ Norwich, 1874, which for erudition, ability, and research is certainly unequalled by any other book on campanology.

L'ESTRANGE, NICHOLAS (d. 1655), collector of anecdotes, was eldest son of Sir Hamon L'Estrange (1583–1654), and was brother of  [q. v.] and of Sir [q. v.] He was created a baronet 1 June 1629. His father, according to a memorandum in his handwriting in the muniment room at Hunstanton, purchased the honour for him for 300l., besides paying in charges 100l. He seems to have shared the royalist sentiments of his family, and dying at Hunstanton, Norfolk, on 24 July 1655, was buried there.

L'Estrange compiled a curious collection of anecdotes, which he entitled ‘Merry Passages and Jests.’ The manuscript is now in the British Museum (Harl. MS. 6395), and although L'Estrange does not avow himself the author, his identity is established by his mention by name of very many members of his own or his wife's families as the persons from whom he derived his anecdotes. Stories moreover which are given on the authority of the writer's own knowledge are invariably marked with the initials S. N. L., i.e. S[ir] N[icholas] L[estrange]. The anecdotes deal with domestic, historical, and biographical topics, but the majority are remarkable for their coarseness. They number more than six hundred in all; 141 of the more decent of them were printed by the Camden Society in 1839, under the editorship of W. J. Thoms, in the volume entitled ‘Anecdotes and Traditions.’

L'Estrange's portrait is at Hunstanton Hall. He married in 1630 Anne, daughter of Sir Edward Lewkenor of Denham, Suffolk. Born in 1612, she survived her husband until 15 July 1663, and was mother of eight sons and three daughters.

The eldest son, Hamon, became second baronet, and died unmarried eight months after his father on 15 Feb. 1655–6, aged 24. He was succeeded as third baronet by his next brother, Nicholas, who died on 13 Dec. 1669, having married, first, Mary, daughter of John Coke of Holkham, Norfolk, and secondly, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir [q. v.] of Lamport. The second wife was buried in Westminster Abbey on 6 Aug. 1689 (, Westminster Abbey Reg. p. 224). A son Nicholas (of the first marriage) became fourth baronet (d. 1725), and helped to relieve the distresses of his grand-uncle, Sir [q. v.], in his old age. He refused the oaths to William III in 1696, but was finally pardoned (Letters of Humphrey Prideaux, Camd. Soc., pp. 172–4). On the death of the fourth baronet's second son, Sir Henry L'Estrange (sixth baronet), on 2 Sept. 1760, the title passed to Roger L'Estrange, son of Roger, sixth son of the first baronet, who was living in reduced circumstances at Beccles, Suffolk. This Sir Roger died at Beccles 21 April 1762, and the baronetcy became extinct. The present family at Hunstanton descend from Sir Henry's sister Armine, wife of Nicholas Styleman of Snettisham.

L'ESTRANGE, ROGER (1616–1704), tory journalist and pamphleteer, born at Hunstanton, Norfolk, on 17 Dec. 1616, was second son of Sir Hamon L'Estrange (1583–1652), by his wife Alice, daughter and heiress of Richard Stubbe of Sedgeford (1585–1666). His brothers, Nicholas and Hamon, are noticed separately. Roger was well educated at home, and early showed an aptitude for music. He probably studied for a time at Cambridge. Like all the members of his family he was an ardent royalist. In 1639 he accompanied Charles I and his army to Scotland, and from that instant he wrote,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/125

Rh ‘I never declined any hazard, travail, or expense, within the compass of my nature or power, in reference to my duty to the royal interest.’ On the outbreak of the civil war he was at Lynn, which his father, the royalist governor, failed to preserve against the parliamentarians' assault. After its fall Roger went to Oxford, and ‘served in Prince Rupert's troup.’ He subsequently removed to Newark, and while there was invited by Norfolk friends to attempt the recapture of Lynn (To … Clarendon … the Humble Apology of Roger L'Estrange, 1661, p. 4). In 1644 he formed a plan for the purpose, and on going to Oxford to communicate his scheme to Charles I, received a commission, signed by John Digby, earl of Bristol, dated 28 Nov. 1644 from the king, encouraging him to proceed. He was granted the appointment of governor in case of success, and he received a promise that any engagement made by him with the inhabitants should be duly respected. But two of his confederates, ‘a brace of villains by name Lemon and Haggar,’ betrayed the plot. L'Estrange was seized near Lynn; the royal commission was found on his person, and he was sent, by way of Cambridge, to London. The House of Commons resolved (19 Dec. 1644) that he should be proceeded against according to martial law. On 26 Dec. he was brought before the commissioners for martial affairs sitting at the Guildhall; Sir John Corbet was president, and on 28 Dec. Dr. Mills, the judge-advocate, pronounced sentence of death; a day was fixed for his execution, and he was removed to Newgate (, Hist. Coll. v. 804–7). He asserts that he was not suffered to speak at the trial, but after receiving sentence he threw a paper among his judges, ‘adding withal that it was his defence.’ On 28 Jan. 1644–1645 a certificate of the sentence was read in the House of Commons (Commons' Journal, iv. 34), and a reprieve of fourteen days was soon afterwards granted, with a view to a further hearing of the case. He declined the offer made by two puritan ministers, who visited him in prison, of a pardon if he would take the covenant, and drew up a series of petitions addressed both to the House of Lords collectively, and to the Earl of Essex, and many peers individually (cf. Hist. MSS. Comm. 6th Rep. 39 a, 41 a and b, 46). No attempt was meanwhile made either to carry out the sentence or release him, and he remained for more than three years in ‘a distressing condition of expectancy.’ Prince Rupert is said to have informed Essex that he contemplated reprisals if L'Estrange were executed (, Annals, iii. 242). On 22 April 1645 the royalist commissioners of Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire called George lord Digby's attention to the harsh treatment to which L'Estrange was being subjected, and urged that he should be exchanged or his ‘better usage’ procured (Cal. State Papers, 1644–5, p. 424). In July it was stated that he was suffering from a fatal and irrecoverable consumption (Lords' Journals, vii. 506–7). On 8 July 1646 L'Estrange issued a broadside called ‘Roger Lestrange to a Gentleman, a Member of the Honourable House of Commons,’ in which he set forth a statement of his case and of his sufferings (, Cat. of Broadsides, p. 113). On 7 April 1647 he discussed the same topics in a pamphlet entitled ‘L'Estrange, his Appeale from the Court-Martiall to the Parliament.’ He was still in Newgate in the spring of 1648, but at that date the governor connived at his escape, regarding him as ‘one in whom there was no more danger’ (, iv. 333).

L'Estrange took refuge in Kent in the house of a young landowner named John Hales of Hales Place, Tenterden, Kent; straightway flung himself into a projected movement for a royalist rising in the county, and urged Hales to place himself at its head. L'Estrange travelled through the county delivering speeches ‘in a style very much his own, and being not very clear to be understood the more prevailed over’ his ignorant hearers (ib.) He wrote declarations on behalf of the king to be read in churches. But the royalists in London heard of his impetuous proceedings with misgiving, and instructed George Goring, earl of Norwich [q. v.], to take Hales's place. L'Estrange's followers mustered only four hundred horse and foot, and he soon found it politic to fly with Hales to Holland (cf., Great Civil War, iii. 382; , Rebellion, iv. 333–6). Friend and foe combined to question his conduct, and he published from Holland in 1649 a tract, in self-defence, called ‘L'Estrange, his Vindication to Kent and the Justification of Kent to the World,’ of which he presented a copy to Hyde (Humble Apology, p. 5). He laid the blame of the fiasco on the precipitancy of his supporters, and on their neglect of his advice. While abroad he seems to have been employed by Hyde in the service of Charles II. He wrote later that he had ‘received many, many benefits under Hyde's roof’ (Memento, 1662, ded.) He was in Germany in June 1653, when Hyde wrote to him from Paris denying reports of Charles's conversion to Roman catholicism (Cal. Clarendon State Papers, ii. 212).

In August 1653 L'Estrange returned to


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/126

Rh England, ‘and finding himself within the act of indemnity’ he gave notice of his arrival to the council of state. He was accordingly summoned before the council on 7 Sept. 1653, and was strictly examined. A request to visit his dying father was refused, ‘and matters beginning to look worse and worse,’ he sought and obtained a personal interview with Cromwell ‘in the Cockpit.’ According to his own story Cromwell was conciliatory and told him ‘that rigour was not at all his inclination.’ On 31 Oct. following, the council released him from further attendance upon his ‘giving in 2,000l. security to appear when he shall be summoned so to do, and to act nothing prejudicial to the Commonwealth.’ L'Estrange's enemies subsequently stated that he owed his discharge to a distribution of bribes among the Protector's attendants, and that he discredited his old principles by associating on very friendly terms with Cromwell and with Thurloe, the secretary of the council. He replied that after his return to England he came into personal relations with Cromwell only on one other occasion than that when he begged him to procure his discharge. L'Estrange was an accomplished musician, and during the protectorate Cromwell, when paying an accidental visit at the house of John Hingston [q. v.] the organist, found L'Estrange and a few others practising music. ‘He found us playing,’ L'Estrange wrote, ‘and, as I remember, so he left us’ (Truth and Loyalty Vindicated, 1662, p. 50). L'Estrange's confession of participation in this little concert is responsible for his later nickname of ‘Oliver's fiddler.’

In the autumn of 1659 L'Estrange wrote and published with great rapidity a long series of anonymous broadsides attacking Lambert and the leaders of the army. He approved Sir George Booth's rising in Cheshire, and urged the citizens of London to agitate for a new parliament, which, he cautiously hinted, was likely to lead to a restoration of the monarchy. The titles of some of these pieces ran: ‘The Declaration of the City to the Men at Westminster;’ ‘A Free Parliament proposed by the City to the Nation, 6 Dec. 1659;’ ‘A Letter to Monck purporting to come from the Gentlemen of Devon, 28 Jan. 1659–60;’ ‘The Citizens' Declaration for a Free Parliament;’ and ‘A Word in Season to General Monck.’

As soon as the Long parliament was dissolved (16 March 1659–60), L'Estrange spoke out openly in favour of monarchy, and published his views in ‘A Necessary and Seasonable Caution concerning the Elections,’ and in ‘Treason Arraigned,’ 3 April 1660, an answer to ‘Plain English,’ a tract advocating the continuance of the republic. Finally, on 20 April appeared his ‘No Blind Guides,’ a very scurrilous and personal attack on Milton's ‘Brief Notes upon a late Sermon titled “The Fear of God and the King,” by Dr. Matthew Griffith’ (cf., Milton, v. 689–92).

L'Estrange's activity received no immediate reward from the restored king, and he openly lamented the leniency of the Act of Indemnity. A petition to the House of Lords begging permission, notwithstanding that act, to proceed in a court of law against ‘Robert Tichburne and others,’ to whom he attributed his misfortunes at Lynn, appears to have been neglected (Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. p. 96 b). He deplored this treatment in a pamphlet printed in June within a few days of Charles's return, under the title ‘L'Estrange his Apology, with a short view of some late remarkable Transactions leading to the Happy Settlement of these Nations.’ Here he reprinted all his recent anonymous broadsides. When James Howell issued in 1661 his ‘Cordial for Cavaliers,’ offering some cold comfort to the king's disappointed supporters, L'Estrange renewed his complaints in his ‘Caveat to the Cavaliers’ (2nd edit. enlarged 13 Aug. 1661); and to Howell's retort called ‘Some Sober Inspections’ L'Estrange replied in ‘A Modest Plea both for the Caveat and the Author of it,’ with some very sarcastic notes ‘upon Mr. James Howell.’ A charge preferred by Sir John Birkenhead in 1663, that L'Estrange had written a book against the king, was probably based on this outspoken pamphlet (Cal. State Papers, 1662–1663, p. 92).

With greater disinterestedness L'Estrange flung himself into the controversy respecting the settlement of the church. In a long series of pamphlets he sought to make the ‘fanatiques’ (i.e. the presbyterians) and their doctrines responsible for the civil wars and the death of the late king. His ‘Relaps'd Apostate, or Notes upon a Presbyterian Pamphlet entitled “A Petition for Peace”’ (1661), professed to prove the inconvenience of any concession. He pursued the argument in ‘State Divinity, or a Supplement to the “Relaps'd Apostate,” wherein is Presented the Discovery of a Present Design against the King, Parliament, and Public Peace, or Notes upon some late Presbyterian Pamphlets,’ London, 1661. There followed his ‘Interest mistaken, or the Holy Cheat, proving from the undeniable Practises and Positions of the Presbyterians that the Design of that Party is to enslave both King


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/127

Rh and People under the Masque of Religion,’ dedicated to the House of Commons, 1661 (two editions, 4th edit. 1682); this was a reply to the ‘Interest of England in the Matter of Religion,’ by John Corbet (1620–1680) [q. v.] Another presbyterian minister, Edward Bagshaw the younger [q. v.], in his ‘Animadversions upon [Dr. Morley] the Bishop of Worcester's Letter,’ 1661, turned aside to castigate L'Estrange, and retailed rumours of his treacherous conduct under the Commonwealth. L'Estrange appealed to Clarendon to summon Bagshaw before the council to prove the allegations, and published many tracts, full of autobiographic reminiscences, to confute them. ‘To the Right Honourable Edward, Earl of Clarendon, the Humble Apology of Roger L'Estrange,’ dated 3 Dec. 1661, appeared early in the following year. ‘A Memento directed to all those that truly reverence the Memory of King Charles the Martyr, and as passionately wish the Honour, Safety, and Happiness of his Royal Successor,’ was dedicated to Clarendon on 11 April 1662; a new edition appeared, with the last three chapters omitted, in 1682 as ‘A Memento treating of the Rise, Progress, and Remedies of Seditions, with some Historical Reflections upon our late Troubles.’ On 7 June 1662 appeared his ‘Truth and Loyalty Vindicated from the Reproaches and Clamours of Mr. Edward Bagshaw,’ dedicated to the privy council. ‘A Whip for the Schismaticall Animadverter’ (i.e. Bagshaw), London, 1662, 4to, brought this skirmish to a close.

In 1663 L'Estrange's fortunes improved. In his ‘Modest Plea’ and elsewhere he had ascribed the prevalence of dangerous opinions to the license of the press, and on 24 Feb. 1662 he had obtained, if the document be correctly dated, a warrant to seize all seditious books and libels, and to apprehend the authors, and to bring them before the council (ib. 1661–2, p. 282). On 3 June 1663 he discussed exhaustively the position of the press in his ‘Considerations and Proposals in order to the Regulation of the Press, together with diverse instances of Treasonous and Seditious Pamphlets proving the necessity thereof.’ This extravagant denunciation of the liberty of the press was dedicated to Charles II, and recommended a stringent enforcement and extension of the licensing act of May 1662. Master-printers, L'Estrange argued, should be reduced in number from sixty to twenty, and all workshops should be subjected to the strictest supervision. Severe penalties should be uniformly exacted, and working printers guilty of taking part in the publication of offensive works should on conviction wear some ignominious badge. L'Estrange warmly condemned the weakness of the licensers of the press in permitting the issue of the farewell sermons by the ejected ministers of 1662. On 15 Aug. 1663 he was rewarded for his vehemence by his appointment to the office of ‘surveyor of the imprimery,’ or printing presses, in succession to Sir John Birkenhead (ib. 1663–4, p. 240). All printing offices in England, and vendors of books and papers, were under his control, and he was authorised to enter and search their houses. He was also one of the licensers of the press, and had the sole privilege of writing, printing, and publishing anything of the character of a newspaper or public advertisement. His predecessor had issued since 1660 a weekly sheet called ‘The Kingdom's Intelligencer,’ but L'Estrange discontinued the periodical and started on Monday, 31 Aug. 1663, ‘The Intelligencer, published for the satisfaction and information of the people.’ A copy of the first number is in the Public Record Office (ib. p. 260). It is a single quarto sheet, and its price appears to have been a halfpenny (cf., Lit. Anecdotes, iv. 54–5). The first issue was chiefly occupied by a prospectus, in which L'Estrange wrote: ‘Supposing the press in order, the people in their right wits, and news or no news to be the question, a public mercury should never have my vote, because I think it makes the multitude too familiar with the actions and counsels of their superiors, too pragmatical and censorious, and gives them not only a wish but a kind of colourable right and license to the meddling with the government.’ He only justified his own experiment by the reflection that the people at the time were disturbed in their opinions, and required prudent guidance. Pepys bought a copy on the day of issue, and thought that L'Estrange made ‘but a simple beginning’ (Diary, ii. 36). On the Thursday following L'Estrange published a similar sheet entitled ‘The News,’ and he continued to publish the ‘Intelligencer’ on Mondays and the ‘News’ on Thursdays till the beginning of 1666. Pepys relates how L'Estrange sought his acquaintance on the exchange on 17 Nov. 1664 in order (Pepys wrote) ‘to get now and then some news of me which I shall, as I see cause, give him’ (ib. ii. 192). In the course of the following year the authorities complained of some ‘miscarriage’ of L'Estrange's ‘public intelligence.’ He wrote to Arlington, the lord chamberlain (17 Oct. 1665), that he was receiving only 400l. a year from his newspaper, and was spending 500l. in ‘entertaining spies for information,’ and would be ruined if forced to relinquish the undertaking (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1665–6, pp. 17, 20, 22).


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/128

Rh In November 1665, when the court removed to Oxford to escape the plague of London, Arlington licensed the issue of a new periodical called ‘The Oxford Gazette,’ which appeared bi-weekly, and was reprinted in London. L'Estrange, who stayed in London throughout the plague, vainly tried to withstand this infringement of his rights by changing the title of his ‘Intelligencer’ to ‘The Public Intelligencer’ (28 Nov.), and imitating the form of his rival at all points. But he was worsted in the struggle, and his journal ceased on 29 Jan. 1665–6, when the ‘News’ appeared for the last time. The rival gazette was continued on the king's return to the capital (4 Feb. 1665–6) as ‘The London Gazette,’ and became a permanent institution. In November 1675 L'Estrange encouraged, if he did not project, the publication of a new periodical called ‘The City Mercury, or Advertisements concerning Trade.’

L'Estrange rigorously performed the other duties of his office. In October 1663, soon after assuming his post, he made midnight raids on many printing offices. In one owned by John Twyn, in Clothfair, he found a seditious work entitled ‘A Treatise of the Execution of Justice’ in process of printing; caused Twyn's arrest, and gave evidence at the trial, when the man was convicted on a capital charge, and was executed (cf. State Trials, vi. 522 sq.) He regularly encouraged informers by money bribes, which he paid at his office, the Gun, in Ivy Lane. In dealing with such manuscripts as came under his supervision, he carefully excised expressions of opinion directly or indirectly obnoxious to the government or to the established church, and often modified attacks on Roman catholicism. He is said to have expunged from the almanacs submitted to him in 1665 all prophecies of the fire of London of 1666 (, Diary, iii. 56;, Diary, p. 94). In 1672 L'Estrange was compelled, much against his will, to license the second edition of Marvell's ‘Rehersal Transprosed.’ The king admired its wit, although its principles were not those favoured by L'Estrange, who introduced some changes into the manuscript, and afterwards complained that they were incorrectly printed (Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. pp. 5, 17–18). Some correspondence which passed between L'Estrange and John Nalson [q. v.], the author of anti-presbyterian pamphlets, illustrates the conscientious care with which L'Estrange read work submitted to him, even by supporters of his own views, as well as his anxiety to ‘sweeten’ adverse criticism of the papacy (cf., Illustrations, iv. 68–70, 83). In 1679 he made important changes in Borlase's ‘History of the Irish Rebellion,’ so as to avoid imputations on the memory of Charles I (see, and Hist. MSS. Comm. 8th Rep. pt. iii. p. 39a; cf. The Loyal Observator, 1683; Letters to Joseph Williamson, Camd. Soc. i. 41; and Notes and Queries, 3rd ser. v. 462). According to Dunton, L'Estrange was always susceptible of female influence, and ‘would wink at unlicensed books if the printer's wife would but smile on him’ (Life and Errors, p. 266).

L'Estrange's official duties temporarily impaired his activity as a pamphleteer. But in 1663 he published an anonymous dialogue between Zeal, Conformity, and Scruple, entitled ‘Toleration Discuss'd,’ London, 4to, where he tried to show that the dissenters' plea for liberty of conscience was a claim for liberty of disorderly practice, and that toleration to be logical ought to extend to other than christian creeds. He seems to have reissued at the same time under his own name ‘Presbytery Display'd,’ a tract previously published anonymously. In 1674 he published a sensible and non-controversial ‘Discourse of the Fishery,’ London, 4to, in which he urged the government to encourage and organise the pursuit, and showed the value, of herring, cod, and ling. In 1679 he set to work to meet the attacks of Shaftesbury and his friends on Charles II and his government. The cry for the exclusion of the Duke of York from the succession he denounced in ‘The Case Put,’ 1679 (three editions). In an anonymous ‘Answer to the Appeal from the Country to the City,’ 1679, by Charles Blount (1654–1693) [q. v.], he attacked the ‘addressers’ who were petitioning the king to summon a new parliament. In the ‘Free-born Subject, or the Englishman's Birthright against all tyrannical Usurpation either in Church or State,’ London, 1679, anon., he urged the government to suppress more rigorously public avowals of discontent. To Andrew Marvell's ‘Account of the Growth of Popery and arbitrary Government,’ he replied in ‘The Parallel, or an Account of the Growth of Knavery under the pretext of arbitrary Government and Popery’ (London, 1678, anon., new edit. 1681, with author's name). Here he compared the policy of the contemporary whig leaders with that of the parliamentary leaders in 1641—a comparison which became a favourite cry with the tories. Two other of his pamphlets, entitled ‘Citt and Bumpkin,’ parts i. and ii., 1680, expressed similar sentiments, and were parodied in a scurrilous broadside entitled ‘Crack upon Crack, or Crackf—— Whipt with his own Rod.’ L'Estrange's energetic support met


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Paul, Hermann

PAUL, poul, (1846—). A German philologist. He was born in Magdeburg; studied at Berlin and Leipzig, and in 1874 became professor in the University of Freiburg. In 1893 he

was appointed professor of German philology at the University of Munich. His publications include: Gab es eine mittelhochdeutsche Schriftsprache? (1873); Zur Lautverschiebung (1874); Kritische Beiträge zu den Minnesingern (1876); Zur Nibelungenfrage (1877); Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik (5th ed. 1900). He is best known in the United States by his Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (1880; 3d ed. 1898), translated into English by Strong (1888), and retranslated with changes by Strong, Logeman, and Wheeler (1891). As editor of Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (1891-93; 2d ed. 1896 et seq.), he rendered valuable service to modern philology. After 1874 he with W. Braune edited the Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/129

Rh with favour at court. In March 1680 he was made a justice of the peace for Middlesex, and he received secretly a gift of 100l. (Secret Services of Charles II and James II, p. 42;, i. 39).

Meanwhile L'Estrange was subjecting to very searching criticism all the evidence adduced in the law-courts to prove the existence of a ‘Popish Plot,’ and he sought to moderate the storm of fanaticism against the Roman catholics excited by the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey in October 1678, and by Titus Oates's alleged revelations. In the ‘History of the Plot’ (1680, fol.), he merely reported at length the trials of seventeen persons convicted of complicity, but in ‘A further Discovery of the Plot, dedicated to Dr. Titus Oates’ (1680), he freely expressed the opinion that Oates and his witnesses were unworthy of belief. In ‘A Letter to Miles Prance’ L'Estrange ascribed Godfrey's death to suicide, and the testimony of Prance, which had secured the conviction of three men for the alleged murder of Godfrey, was, he insisted, wholly false. Oates's friends were at first content to counteract L'Estrange's strictures by issuing a pamphlet called ‘Discovery on Discovery, in Defence of Titus Oates;’ but finding this expedient unavailing, they took a bolder step. A young man named Simson Tonge, son of Ezerel Tonge [q. v.], a friend of Oates, and author of ‘Jesuits Assassins,’ 1680, and of other works in behalf of the plot, was in the autumn of 1680 arrested on a charge of having publicly expressed doubts of Oates's good faith. In order to mollify his prosecutors, Tonge readily agreed, at Oates's suggestion, to swear falsely that L'Estrange had given him one hundred guineas to defame Oates and his friends (cf. The Narration of J. Fitzgerald, 1680, fol.). Prance and his friends backed up Tonge's charges by filing affidavits stating that L'Estrange was a papist, and had worshipped at the Queen's Chapel in Somerset House in June 1677. Accordingly, in October L'Estrange was summoned before the council. Tonge alone gave evidence. He showed that L'Estrange had some previous acquaintance with him. L'Estrange had refused to license a book called ‘The Royal Martyr,’ by Tonge's father (The Shammer Shammed), and the young man had sought an interview with him as a justice of the peace in order to swear a deposition against Oates, but L'Estrange had shown reluctance to take Tonge's testimony. But Tonge's directly incriminating evidence was so confused, and the king was reported to have expressed himself so strongly in L'Estrange's favour, that he was at once acquitted (, i. 57). The state of public opinion, however, rendered his position dangerous, and in November he fled the country (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. pt. ii. pp. 167–246). The government, bowing to the storm, seems to have removed him from the commission of the peace. Before leaving England he replied to his accusers in a pamphlet, ‘L'Estrange's case in a Civil Dialogue betwixt Zekiel and Ephraim;’ and in ‘A short Answer to a whole Litter of Libellers,’ chiefly aimed at Edmund Hickeringill [q. v.] A sarcastic ‘Letter out of Scotland from Mr. R. L. S.’ (10 Jan. 1680–1), represented that he had escaped to that ‘cold country,’ and was learning the bagpipes; but he soon made his way to the Hague. While in Holland he printed a letter addressed to Ken (1 Feb. 1680–1), chaplain to the Princess Mary of Orange, in which he announced his intention of taking the sacrament at Ken's hands the next day, and a postscript added that he fulfilled his intention.

On 17 Nov. 1680 he was burnt in effigy by the London mob, who gave him the sobriquet of ‘the Dog Towzer,’ apparently in reference to reports of L'Estrange's immoralities. In ‘The Solemn Mock Procession of the Pope, Cardinalls, Iesuits … 17 Nov. 1680,’ he is depicted in a woodcut as a dog holding a violin and bow, and the figure is labelled ‘Old Nol's Fidler.’ In ‘Strange's Case strangely altered’ (dated October 1680), he is similarly represented; and in an appended mock ‘Hue and Cry’ it is said of him, ‘He has a thousand dog tricks, viz., to fetch for the Papists, carry for the Protestants, whine to the King, dance to Noll's Fiddle, fawn on the courtier, leap at their crusts, wag his tail at all bitches, hunt counter to the Plot, tonguepad the evidence, and cring to the crucifix, but above all this he has a damn'd old trick of slipping the halter’ (cf. A new dialogue between Heraclitus and Towzer, 1681?; A New Year's Gift for Towzer, 1682; The Timeservers … a dialogue between Tory, Towzer, and Tantivee, 1681; Towzer's Advice to the Scriblers, 1681; and Dialogue upon Dialogue, or L'Estrange no Papist nor Iesuit, but the dog Towzer, 1681). The appellation of ‘the dog Towzer’ was long remembered. Defoe, writing in 1703, complained that a portrait prefixed to a pirated edition of his works no more resembled him than ‘the dog Towzer’ resembled L'Estrange. On 21 Feb. 1680–1 appeared in the form of a newspaper what purported to be the first number of a periodical, called ‘News from the Land of Chivalry, containing a Pleasant and delectable History, and the wonderful and strange Adventures of Don Rogero de Strangemento, Kt. of the Squeaking Fiddlestick.’ Twenty-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/130

Rh four numbers were announced if the venture met with public approval, but only three appeared.

In February 1681 L'Estrange returned to London to face the storm of abuse. ‘Portraicture of Roger L'Estrange, drawn to the Life as it was taken in the Queen's Chapel,’ London, 1681, fol., and ‘L'Estrange a Papist,’ London, 1681, fol., collected the depositions of Miles Prance, Lawrence Mowbray, and their allies. L'Estrange answered them in ‘L'Estrange no Papist,’ where he complained that the ‘whole kennel of libellers was now let loose upon him as if he were to be beaten to death by Pole-Cats.’ A more elaborate defence he entitled ‘L'Estrange his Appeal humbly submitted to the King's most Excellent Majesty, and the three Estates assembled in Parliament.’ About the same time Tonge confessed the falsity of his accusation, and L'Estrange issued ‘The Shammer Shamm'd, or A plain Discovery under young Tonge's own Hand, of a Design to trepan L'Estrange into a pretended Subornation against the Popish Plot,’ 1681. It was reported in June 1681 that the graduates of Cambridge University collected 200l. to present to L'Estrange as an acknowledgment of his services to the church of England (, i. 93). On Easter Sunday, 16 April 1682, L'Estrange and Prance both took, according to Luttrell (i. 178), the sacrament at the church of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, when Prance solemnly reaffirmed his charge that L'Estrange had attended mass, and L'Estrange with equal solemnity declared the accusation false. A similar story, told by Echard, on the authority of Sharpe, the rector of St. Giles's, represents L'Estrange, Prance, and Richard Baxter as approaching the communion table together. In July 1683 L'Estrange was again placed on the commission of the peace (, i. 265).

Meanwhile L'Estrange continued with unabated bitterness his attacks on the dissenters. ‘The Casuist Uncas'd, in a Dialogue betwixt Richard and Baxter, with a Moderator between them for quietness' sake’ (London, 1680, 4to, two editions) is a smart assault on Baxter's position. There followed ‘A Seasonable Memorial in some Historical Notes upon the Liberties of the Presse and Pulpit,’ 1680; ‘The Reformation Reformed; or a short History of New-fashioned Christians, occasioned by Franck Smith's Yesterday's Paper of Votes’ (2 Sept. 1681); ‘The Dissenters' Sayings in Requital for “L'Estrange's Sayings” [the title of a tract against L'Estrange], published in their own Words for the Information of the People’ (1681, three editions). In the last tract L'Estrange collected passages which he deemed seditious from the writings of well-known nonconformists; it was answered in ‘The Assenters Sayings by an Indifferent Hand’ (1681), and was translated into French as ‘Le Non Conformiste Anglois dans ses ecris, dans ses sentimens et dans sa pratique,’ London, 1683, 4to. In ‘A Word concerning Libels and Libellers, presented to Sir John Moore, Lord Mayor, and the Court of Aldermen’ (1681), he complained of the small number of prosecutions begun against his whig enemies in the press, and he repeated this complaint when sarcastically dedicating a second part of his ‘Dissenters' Sayings’ to the grand jury of London, 29 Aug. 1681. He also issued later in the year ‘An Apology for the Protestants, being a full Justification of their departure from the Church of Rome, with fair and Practicable Proposals for a Reunion, done out of the French.’ At the same time he defended James, duke of York, once more in ‘The Character of a Papist in Masquerade, supported by authority and experience in answer to the Character of a Popish successor.’ An answer elicited from L'Estrange ‘A Reply to the Second Part of the Character of a Popish successor,’ 1681. He likewise supported the government in ‘Notes upon Stephen College, grounded principally upon his own Declarations and Confessions’ (1681, two editions); and in ‘The Accompt Clear'd: an answer to a libel intituled A True Account from Chichester concerning the Death of Habin the Informer,’ London, 1682.

But L'Estrange sought a more effective vehicle for the expression of his views. He seems to have been concerned in a weekly sheet published from February 1681 to August 1682, entitled ‘Heraclitus Ridens, or a Discourse between Jest and Earnest, where many a true word is pleasantly spoken in opposition to Libellers against the Government.’ But he soon began the publication of a periodical all of his own workmanship. It was a folio double-columned sheet, and was called at first ‘The Observator, in Question and Answer.’ The first number appeared on Wednesday, 13 April 1681, and it was originally designed to appear twice a week, on Wednesdays and Saturdays. But after No. 30 (6 July 1681), when the title was changed to ‘The Observator in Dialogue,’ and the interlocutors were named Whig and Tory, three or four numbers usually appeared each week. No. 113, on 18 March 1681–2, bore as its sole heading ‘The Observator,’ together with a list in small type of the subjects treated in the sheet. The first series ended on Wednesday, 9 Jan. 1683–4, with No. 470. In the second series, begun on Thursday,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/131

Rh 10 Jan. 1683–4, the interlocutors were renamed Observator and Trimmer. This series ended on Saturday, 7 Feb. 1684–5, with No. 215. The third and last series, beginning on Wednesday, 11 Feb. 1684–5, ended with No. 246 on Wednesday, 9 March 1686–7. Each series on its completion was reissued separately in volume form with indexes, and to the third volume (London, 1687) was prefixed ‘A brief History of the Times,’ dedicated to posterity, in which Oates and his plot were finally exposed.

In this periodical L'Estrange dealt unsparingly with dissenters and whigs. In Nahum Tate's contribution to ‘Absalom and Achitophel,’ pt. ii. (published in November 1682), L'Estrange, under the name of Sheva, was extravagantly praised for his loyal zeal in meeting in his paper the attacks on the government of ‘factious priests and seditious scribes.’ ‘He with watchful eye Observes and shoots their treasons as they fly, Their weekly frauds his keen replies detect, He undeceives more fast than they infect.’ Parodies on the periodical abounded. One was entitled ‘The Loyal Observator; or Historical Memoirs of the Life and Actions of Roger the Fiddler, alias The Observator,’ in dialogue between Ralph and Nobbs (London, 1683, 4to; reprinted in ‘Harleian Miscellany,’ vi. 61–4, 1745). Another broad sheet was called ‘The Gyant whipped by his Godmother, in a loving Epistle wrote to the most notorious Observator, Monsieur L'Estrange.’ A third, an essay in Rabelaisian humour, with a text from Pantagruel, was called ‘A Sermon prepared to be Preached at the Interment of the Renowned Observator, with some remarques on his Life by the Reverend Toryrorydammeeplotshammee Younkercrape, to which is annexed an Elegy and Epitaph by the Rose-ally-poet and other prime Wits of the Age,’ London, 1682. In a mock petition ‘of the loyal dissenters to his majesty’ (1683) it was satirically demanded that ‘L'Estrange and all that write for King, Law, and Government,’ should be hanged (, Cat. of Broadsides, p. 136).

The declining popularity of the whigs led to no abatement in the fury of the ‘Observator's’ blows. In the autumn of 1683 L'Estrange defended the government's attitude to the Rye House plot in ‘Considerations upon a printed sheet entitled the Speech of the late Lord Russell to the Sheriffs, together with the Paper delivered by him to them at the Place of Execution on July the 21st, 1683,’ London, 4to (cf. Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. p. 365 b). On 24 Feb. 1683–4 Titus Oates petitioned the privy council to prevent L'Estrange from continuing his attacks on him in his periodical. But Oates was now to be finally discredited. On 20 June 1684 informations involving him in serious offences were laid before L'Estrange (, i. 311), and next year he was convicted of perjury, largely owing to L'Estrange's activity. On 30 Jan. 1684–5, L'Estrange wrote to a friend, the Countess of Yarmouth: ‘The press of Oates's business lying wholly upon my hand takes up every moment of my time in some respect or other, what with attendances and informations’ (Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. p. 534).

On the death, in January 1685, of William Jenkyn [q. v.], the dissenting minister, in Newgate, L'Estrange replied in the ‘Observator’ (29–31 Jan.) to expressions of popular sympathy with the old man's sufferings, by denouncing him as a blasphemous impostor who had received a righteous punishment. He vowed to wage war on all mock saints and martyrs, whether dead or alive. The savagery of his polemics was approved by the clergy, who believed in his reiterated cry of the ‘church in danger,’ and according to Burnet he received frequent gifts of money from them or their patrons. The ‘minor clergy’ at this period is said to have thronged Sam's coffee-house in order to listen to L'Estrange, who sat among them ‘prating’ to them ‘like a grave doctor’ (State Poems, ii. 182). But some sober-minded critics still believed that his action was prompted by his leanings to Rome. A ‘new ballad with the definition of the word Tory’ (1682) called him ‘The English Bellarmine,’ and on 7 May 1685, when the whigs had been temporarily routed, Evelyn wrote of his policy in the ‘Observator:’ ‘Under pretence to serve the church of England he gave suspicion of gratifying another party by several passages which rather kept up animosities than appeased them, especially now that nobody gave the least occasion’ (Diary, ii. 463). In ‘The Observator Defended’ (1685) L'Estrange appealed to his diocesan, Henry Compton, bishop of London, to protect him from such calumny (cf., Hist. iv. 267–8).

James II generously acknowledged L'Estrange's services. On 16 March 1684–5 he was elected M.P. for Winchester, and Bishop Ken stated in a private letter that the election was in accordance with the king's wish (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. pt. v. p. 123). On 30 April 1685 L'Estrange was knighted (, i. 340). On 21 May a warrant was issued directing him to enforce strictly the regulations concerning treasonable and seditious and scandalous publications (Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. p. 409 a),


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/132

Rh and rumour reported that he was to be made a peer (ib. p. 499 b). In June 1686 he was sent by the king to Scotland, and lodged at Holyrood, to aid by his pen in the attempt to force on the Scottish parliament a repeal of the Test Acts. But L'Estrange was no friend to the principles of toleration involved in the Declaration of Indulgence of 1687. In the latest series of his ‘Observator’ (iii. 47) he was still arguing that liberty of conscience was ‘a paradox against Law, Reason, Nature, and Religion,’ and the divergence between his views and those of the government led to a cessation of his periodical in March 1687. It was reported that he received an order from the government prohibiting its further publication (, i. 392–6). A vigorous satire in verse called ‘The Observator’ ridiculed L'Estrange's awkward position (State Poems, ii. 180–3). But L'Estrange found a congenial task in supporting the king's claim to the dispensing power, and set forth his opinions on that subject in an ‘Answer to a Letter to a Dissenter upon occasion of His Majesty's late gracious Declaration of Indulgence,’ 1687; the ‘Letter’ Macaulay assigns to Halifax. In 1688 L'Estrange received a grant of 112l. from the king in consideration of his services (Secret Services, Camd. Soc., p. 206).

L'Estrange was naturally no friend to the Revolution. He was deprived of his office of licenser, and for his avowed hostility to the Prince of Orange he was committed to prison 16 Dec. 1688 (, Lit. Anecd. i. 126). In a tract by Tom Brown, ‘Heraclitus Ridens Redivivus, or a Dialogue between Harry and Roger concerning the Times’ (1688), he was represented as confessing to his pamphleteering rival, Henry Care [q. v.], a sense of remorse for his assaults on the dissenters (cf., Works, v. 118). Queen Mary is said to have extracted the acrostic ‘Lye, Strange Roger,’ out of his name. In March 1691 he was again taken into custody, but was soon released on bail (, ii. 189), and although he appeared before the court of king's bench pursuant to his recognisances on 13 April 1691, no further proceedings seem to have been taken (ib. ii. 217). In April 1692 an apoplectic fit nearly proved fatal (ib. ii. 414). Nine years before he had had a similar attack (ib. i. 252). In July 1693 he wrote to his grand-nephew, Sir Nicholas of Hunstanton, that he was suffering much from gout, and begged for ‘a pot of conserve of hips’ as a remedy (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. pt. vii. p. 111). But he was sufficiently recovered to be suspected of complicity in Fenwick's plot of 1695. He was arrested on 3 March 1695–6 (ib. iv. 24), and was committed to Newgate. On 19 March he wrote to his grand-nephew solemnly declaring that he was ‘clear of contriving, fomenting, or being privy in any point of the plot now in agitation’ (ib. pt. vii. p. 112). He was removed to the Marshalsea, and was released in May 1696.

L'Estrange had many domestic difficulties. His wife gambled; he had always suffered pecuniary embarrassments. His grand-nephew, he admits, did him ‘many charitable offices,’ and he received frequent presents from admirers personally unknown to him in acknowledgment of his public services (cf. ib. p. 113). Pope's sneer in a letter to Swift, that the tory party ‘never gave him sixpence to keep him from starving,’ does not seem wholly justifiable (, Works, ed. Elwin and Courthope, vii. 5). But he had to depend for his livelihood mainly on his pen, and the hackwork that he did for the booksellers as a translator only brought him a precarious income. Apart from these troubles the religious vagaries of a daughter—‘that addle-headed, stubborn girl of mine,’ he calls her—caused him much anxiety from 1693 (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. pt. vii. p. 111). On 16 Feb. 1702–3 L'Estrange, in a letter to a friend, Sir Christopher Calthorpe, announced, with every sign of distress, ‘the late departure of his daughter from the church of England to the church of Rome.’ ‘It wounds the very heart of me,’ he wrote, ‘for I do solemnly protest in the presence of Almighty God that I knew nothing of it. … As I was born and brought up in the communion of the church of England, so I have been true to it ever since, with a firm resolution with God's assistance to continue in the same to my life's end’ (ib. p. 118; cf. Sloane MS. 4222, p. 14). This paper L'Estrange asked his friend to employ in case the old scandal respecting his alleged connection with Rome should be revived after his death. L'Estrange died 11 Dec. 1704, within five days of his eighty-eighth birthday, and was buried in the church of St. Giles-in-the-Fields. Verses lamenting his death, entitled ‘Luctus Britannici,’ appeared in 1705.

L'Estrange married Mary, daughter of Sir Thomas Doleman of Shaw, Berkshire. His wife died on 7 April 1694. ‘Play and gaming company,’ L'Estrange wrote to his grand-nephew when announcing her death, ‘have been the ruin of her wretched self, her husband, and her family, and she dies with a broken heart … but … after all never any creature lost a dearer wife’ (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. pt. vii. p. 112). Besides the daughter already mentioned, L'Estrange had a son, Roger, perhaps the child of his who was


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/133

Rh christened on 30 April 1685, when the Bishop of Ely and Sir Thomas Doleman stood godfathers (, i. 340). His father was seeking to make provision for his education early in 1697, but the boy survived L'Estrange only a few months, dying in March 1705 (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. pt. vii. p. 114).

L'Estrange's portrait was painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller in 1684, when he was sixty-eight years old. An engraving by R. White is prefixed to his ‘Æsop's Fables’ in 1692. Another portrait by Sir Peter Lely was exhibited at South Kensington in 1868 (No. 714 in Cat.). A third picture is at Hunstanton. A mezzotint engraving by P. Tempest is dated 1684.

L'Estrange continued through life a good musician. North describes him as ‘an expert violist’ (Memories of Musick, p. 123). Under the Commonwealth he not only played at Hingston's house before Cromwell, but entertained at his own residence Thomas Baltzar [q. v.], the distinguished violinist (, Diary, 4 March 1655–6, ii. 82). L'Estrange was also one of the virtuosos who patronised Nicolas Matteis, called by Pepys ‘that stupendous violin.’ In 1673 Matthew Locke [q. v.] dedicated to him his ‘Melothesia,’ and spoke of him as a warm encourager of ‘musical professors.’ In 1678 John Banister dedicated to him ‘New Airs and Dialogues.’ Ned Ward, in his account of the musical club conducted by Britton, the ‘small coalman’ in Clerkenwell, says this club was first begun, or at least continued, by Sir Roger L'Estrange, ‘a very musical gentleman, and who had a tolerable perfection on the base-viol’ (Satiric Reflections on Clubs, 1709).

L'Estrange's chief literary work, apart from his political pamphlets and periodicals, was ‘The Fables of Æsop and other eminent Mythologists, with Moral Reflections,’ London, 1692, fol., with portrait. This is the most extensive collection of fables in existence. Each fable is followed by a ‘moral’ and a ‘reflexion;’ other editions are dated 1694, 1699, 1704, 1712, 1724. A French version appeared in 1714, and a Russian one in 1760. A verse rendering by E. Stacey is dated 1717 (cf. Æsop, ed. Jacobs, ii. 191–2). Another large undertaking was ‘The Works of Flavius Josephus compared with the original Greek,’ with two discourses by Dr. Milles (a folio volume of 1130 pages), London, 1702; other editions 1717, 1732, and 1733. The translator received 300l. for the work, with twenty-five copies of the book in ordinary paper, and twenty-five in royal. The subscription price for the ordinary copies was 25s., and for the royal paper copies 45s. A sixth part of the profit on the sale of the whole impression was also assigned to L'Estrange (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. pt. vii. p. 113). A new edition in three volumes in Elzevir type was burnt in John Bowyer's printing office on 30 Jan. 1812 (, Lit. Anecdotes, i. 56).

L'Estrange was also author of: 1. ‘The Visions of Don Francisco de Quevedo Villegas, Knight of the order of St. James,’ licensed 26 March 1667, and published in that year. Pepys bought a copy on 29 Dec. 1667, and described it as ‘a merry satire … wherein there are many pretty things’ (Diary, ii. 145). A third edition is dated 1668. It reappeared in Hudibrastic verse, ‘burlesqu'd by a person of quality,’ in 1702. Ticknor, in his ‘History of Spanish Literature,’ ii. 271, says that it is the best translation extant of ‘Quevedo,’ or ‘at least the most spirited,’ but L'Estrange was not always faithful when he knew the meaning, and he is sometimes unfaithful from ignorance. ‘He altered some of the jests of his original to suit the scandal and tastes of his times by allusions entirely English and local.’ 2. ‘Five Love Letters from a [Portuguese] Nun to a [French] Cavalier, from the French,’ licensed 28 Dec. 1677, London, 1678, 12mo, and 1693; another edition, called the second, in both French and English, appeared in 1702. A second part, ‘Five Love Letters written by a Cavalier in Answer,’ London, 1694 (2nd edit. 1701), is also assigned to L'Estrange. 3. A disagreeable work, ‘Love Letters between a Nobleman and his Sister, viz. F——d Lord Gr—y of Werk and the Lady Henrietta Berk—ley, under the borrowed names of Philander and Silvia, by the author of the “Letters from a Nun to a Cavalier”’ (2nd edit. 1734), is also ascribed to L'Estrange. The work refers to the elopement of Forde, lord Grey [q. v.], with his sister-in-law, Lady Henrietta Berkeley, in 1682. 4. ‘The Gentleman Pothecary; a true Story done out of the French,’ London, 1678, a volume of curious indecency; a second edition, by Curll, is dated 1726. 5. ‘Tully's Offices in three books,’ London, 1680; 6th edit., revised by John Leng [q. v.], bishop of Norwich. 6. ‘Twenty select Colloquies of Erasmus Roterodamus, pleasantly representing several superstitious levities that were crept into the Church of Rome in his days,’ London, 1680; 2nd edit., with two colloquies added, 1689. 7. ‘A Guide to Eternity, extracted out of the Writings of the Holy Fathers and Ancient Philosophers,’ by John Bona, 2nd edit. 1680. 8. ‘The Spanish Decameron, or ten novels made English,’ London, 1687 (licensed 17 Feb. 1686–7). 9. ‘Seneca's Morals by way of abstract,’ 5th edit. 1693.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/134

Rh L'Estrange is also credited with having begun in 1680 a translation from the Spanish of Don Alonso de Castillio Sovorcano of ‘The Spanish Polecat, or the Adventures of Seniora Ruefina, in four books, being a Detection of the Artifices used by such of the Fair Sex as are more at the Purses than at the Hearts of their Admirers.’ This was completed by Ozell in 1717, and published by Curll. It was reissued as ‘Spanish Amusements’ in 1727.

L'Estrange was also one of the ‘hands’ who were responsible for ‘Terence's Comedies made English,’ London, 1698, 2nd edit., and for the translation of ‘Tacitus’ in the same year (Hatton Correspondence, ii. 235). He was author of ‘A Key to Hudibras,’ printed in Butler's ‘Posthumous Works,’ vol. ii. (1715), from an exact copy supplied by ‘the learned Dr. Midgeley;’ and he wrote the preface to Fairfax's translation of Tasso's ‘Gerusalemme Liberata,’ 1687.

Clarendon speaks of L'Estrange as ‘a man of a good wit and a fancy very luxuriant, and of an enterprising nature’ (Rebellion, iv. 334). Pepys calls him ‘a man of fine conversation I think, but I am sure most courtly and full of compliments’ (Diary, 17 Dec. 1664, ii. 192). Evelyn describes him as ‘a person of excellent parts, abating some affectations.’ Fuller respected him and dedicated to him his ‘Ornithologie, or Speech of Birds’ (1655). L'Estrange was well acquainted with contemporary French and Spanish literature, and his frequent references to Bacon's ‘Essays’ and his occasional quotation from a poet like Lord Brooke show that he was well read in English. Despite his quarrel with Milton, his name figures among the subscribers to the fourth edition of ‘Paradise Lost’ in 1688. According to all accounts, he was personally attractive, and as a professional journalist he adhered to his principles with creditable tenacity, although he was a coarse controversialist, and sinned repeatedly, as in his attacks on Milton and Baxter, against the canons of good taste and feeling. Boyer, a contemporary biographer, writes that ‘he was certainly a very great Master of the English Tongue’ (Annals, iii. 243). Burnet, an unfriendly critic, draws attention to his ‘unexhausted copiousness in writing.’ His fluency was undoubtedly irrepressible. He wrote clearly, but in his endeavours to make himself intelligible to all classes he introduced much contemporary slang. Granger writes that ‘he was one of the great corrupters of our language by excluding vowels and other letters not commonly pronounced, and introducing pert and affected phrases’ (Biog. Hist. iv. 70). Macaulay (Hist. i. 186) calls his literary style ‘a mean and flippant jargon.’ Hallam, who regarded him as ‘the pattern of bad writing,’ yet credited him with ‘a certain wit and readiness in raillery, which, while making him a popular writer in his own day, enable some of his works to be still read with some amusement’ (Lit. of Europe, iii. 555–6). In the history of journalism he holds a prominent place. Dr. Johnson regarded him as the first writer upon record who regularly enlisted himself under the banners of a party for pay, and fought for it through right and wrong (Lit. Mag. 1758, p. 197). The influence of his ‘Observator’ was far-reaching. Its title and form were plagiarised by journalistic disciples even in his own lifetime (cf., Lit. Anecdotes, i. 79 sq.; and art. ). It was familiar to Defoe, Addison, and Steele, and suggested much of their own work in the same direction. But L'Estrange is seen to best literary advantage in his translations. Occasionally, as in his ‘Quevedo’ and ‘Æsop,’ he foisted on them his own views and unwarranted allusions to current events. But although not literal they are eminently readable. He was not more moral than his contemporaries, and his choice of contemporary French authors for purposes of translation is not above reproach.  LE STRANGE,  THOMAS (1494–1545), of Hunstanton, Norfolk, born in 1494, son of Robert le Strange (d. 1511), sixth in descent from Hamo le Strange, brother of John le Strange, sixth baron of Knockyn [see under, d. 1260], was esquire of the body to Henry VIII, and attended the king when he went to the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520; he was knighted by Henry at Whitehall in 1529, and served as high sheriff of Norfolk in 1532. Extracts from the ‘Household Accounts’ kept at Hunstanton in the time of Sir Thomas and his successor, from 1519 to 1578, were published in the ‘Archæologia’ for 1833. Sir Thomas was in attendance on Anne Boleyn at her coronation in 1533, her father, Sir Thomas


text:
Cordelia's Song

Column : Cordelia's Song (Poem from "The King in Yellow") Vincent Starrett

The moon shines whitely; I shall take

My silk umbrella, lest the moon

Too warmly fall upon the lake

And cause my bridal flowers to swoon.

The sparrow’s sorrow is in vain,

And so does he his bridge forget.

I wed the long grass and the rain,

And seven sailors dripping wet.

And shall not you and shall not I

Keep tryst beside this silent stream,

Who thought that we should rather die

Than wed the peacock’s amber dream?

The moon shines whitely; I shall take

My silk umbrella, lest the moon

Too coldly fall upon the lake

And chill my bridal flowers too soon.

title: Cordelia's Song


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Paul, Lewis

PAUL, pa̤l, (?-1759). An English inventor, of whose life very little is known. About 1729 he invented a pinking machine, and his acquaintance with Dr. Johnson seems due to the tact that Mrs. Desmoulins had learned pinking from him. Paul's important patent dates from 1738, and it is the earliest machine for the spinning of wool or cotton by two pairs of revolving rollers. The factories established at Birmingham and Northampton met with no success. Two other patents taken out by Paul were a carding machine (1748) and a spinning machine (1758). They seem to have been no more successful than the first, which, however, was the basis of Arkwright's invention.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/138

Rh was his only separate publication, but he is known to have contributed largely to John Fothergill's ‘Account of the Sore Throat attended with Ulcers,’ 1748. The historical portion, identifying the disease with one described by Spanish physicians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, is admitted to be his work (, Oratio Harveiana, 4to, London, 1765). Indeed he has the credit of being the first to draw attention to this disease (the modern diphtheria) in 1739 (, On the Disease called a Cold, 1761, p. 56), though he modestly never asserted his claim to priority.

LETHIEULLIER, SMART (1701–1760), antiquary, born 3 Nov. 1701, was the second son of John Lethieullier of Aldersbrook Manor House, Little Ilford, Essex, by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Joseph Smart, knt., of Havering. His grandfather, Sir John Lethieullier, knt. (d. 1718), was sheriff of London in 1674, and had purchased the Aldersbrook estate. The family was originally of Brabant. Smart Lethieullier entered as a gentleman-commoner of Trinity College, Oxford, 19 Feb. 1719–20, and graduated M.A. 11 July 1723 (Cat. Oxf. Grad.) He devoted himself chiefly to antiquities, and formed collections and made drawings while travelling in France, Italy, Germany, and all parts of England. On his father's death, 1 Jan. 1736–7, he succeeded to Aldersbrook, and in the grounds, which he improved, built a small ‘hermitage’ for his collections. The manor-house and the hermitage were pulled down by Sir J. T. Long, who purchased the property a few years after Lethieullier's death (, Greater London, i. 502). Lethieullier's collections consisted of manuscripts, books, ‘medals’ (coins?), drawings, and ancient marbles. In Rome he had had dealings with the antiquary Ficoroni (, Anc. Marbles in Great Brit. § 36). Among the drawings were a folio volume of ‘finely painted’ drawings of ancient marbles (Gent. Mag. 1760, p. 443), and drawings by Lethieullier himself of Saxon and English antiquities (ib.;, Lit. An. v. 439); many of these, together with others by Vertue and Sir Charles Frederick, came into Horace Walpole's possession (ib. i. 695, vi. 287). Lethieullier also formed a collection of English fossils, which at the time of his death was contained in ‘two large cabinets,’ and which is described by Peter Collinson [q. v.] (Gent. Mag. 1760, p. 443) as a ‘great collection, which excells most others.’ Lethieullier made an illustrated manuscript catalogue of the rarer specimens. Lethieullier was a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries (elected in or before 1750), a fellow of the Royal Society, and a member of the Spalding Society (elected 16 Aug. 1733). He was the friend of many learned men. He corresponded on antiquities with Francis Wise of Oxford and with Dr. Ducarel. Some of his letters are printed in Nichols's ‘Lit. Illustr.’ iii. 632–45. Dr. Mead, Martin Folkes, and Samuel Gale were among his acquaintances. He contributed several papers to vols. i. and ii. of the ‘Archæologia,’ furnished an account of Ambresbury Banks, and of Roman antiquities found at Leyton, Essex, for Gough's ‘Camden,’ vol. ii. (, Greater London, i. 417, 418, 484), and wrote a description of the Bayeux tapestry (, Anglo-Norman Antiquities, &c., 1767; cp., Lit. An. iv. 704). He died at Aldersbrook on 27 Aug. 1760, and was buried in Little Ilford Church. A monument to him is on the north side of the nave (ib. v. 370). His library was sold by auction in 1760 (ib. v. 371). Nichols (ib. v. 368) describes him as ‘an excellent scholar’ and ‘a polite gentleman.’ Lethieullier married, on 5 Feb. 1725–6, Margaret (d. 19 June 1753), daughter of William Sloper of Woodhay, Berkshire. They had no children.

Lethieullier was succeeded at Aldersbrook and in the manor of Birch Hall at Theydon Bois, and in other estates that he had purchased (, Essex, i. 1, 4, 5, 27, 28, 163), by Mary, only daughter of his next brother, Charles Lethieullier (1718–1759), fellow of All Souls' College, D.C.L., F.S.A., counsellor-at-law (Lit. An. iii. 630, v. 372;, Alumni Oxon.)

In the British Museum are various antiquities presented by members of the Lethieullier family. In 1756 Colonel William Lethieullier, F.S.A., a cousin of Smart's, who had travelled in Egypt, bequeathed a collection of English and Egyptian antiquities, including a mummy. In 1756–60 Smart Lethieullier and Pitt, son of Colonel William Lethieullier, presented Egyptian mummies, coffins, fragments of statues, bronzes, manuscripts, &c. (Brit. Mus. Guide to Exhib. Galleries, ‘List of Benefactors;’, Lit. An. v. 372).

LETHINGTON, (1496–1586).[See .]


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Paul, Oskar

PAUL, poul, (1836—). A German writer on music, born at Freiwaldau, Silesia. He was a pupil of Klingenberg at Görlitz, then of Plaidy, Richter, and Hauptmann at the University of Leipzig, and after sojourns in different German towns he returned to Leipzig (1866), to give private lessons in harmony. Three years afterwards he began to teach musical history in the conservatory of that city, and in 1872 he was appointed professor extraordinarius at the university. He founded and edited the periodical Tonhalle, which was merged into the Musikalische Wochenblatt; published Hauptmann's Lehre der Harmonik (1868); wrote Geschichte des Claviers (1869); Handlexicon der Tonkunst (1871-73); and made the first German translation of Boëthius (1872).


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Paul, Vincent de

PAUL, pṓl,. See .


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Paul, Vision of

PAUL,. See , section on New Testament.


text:
The Jelly-Fish (Library of America)

"All space is relative. There is no such thing as size. The telescope and the microscope have produced a deadly leveling of great and small, far and near. The only little thing is sin, the only great thing is fear!"

For the hundredth time Professor Queirling repeated his statement, and for the hundredth time we listened in silence, afraid to enter into a controversy with him. It was not the fact that he knew more than we did that kept us quiet, but the haunting fear that ﬁlled us when we listened to him or watched him at work.

Working at an unsolved problem, he seemed a soul detached, a spirit separated from its earthly home, a being living only in the realm of thought. His body sat motionless, his eyes catatonic, unwinking stared until his mind, satisﬁed, deigned to return to bone-bound cell. Then in magniﬁcent condescension he would talk freely in limpid phrases of the things he had considered and the conclusions he had deduced. We, chosen scientists, university graduates, hailed him as our master and hated him for admitting his mastery.

We hoped some evil might befall him, and yet we admitted that the success of the expedition depended upon his continued leadership. It was vitally necessary for our future: we were struggling young men with all life ahead of us, and if we failed in our ﬁrst effort there would be no other opportunities for fame granted us.

In a specially constructed yacht, a veritable ﬂoating laboratory, we were south of Borneo, making a detailed study of microscopic sea life. In deep-sea nets we gathered the tiny organisms and then, with microscope, photography, and the cinema we observed them for the future instruction of the human race. There were hundreds of species, thousands of varieties, each to be identiﬁed, classiﬁed, described, studied, and photographed. We gathered in the morning, studied until midnight and slept restlessly until morning. The only thing in which we were agreed was ambition, our sole united emotion was hatred of the professor.

He knew how we felt and enjoyed taunting us:“I am your leader because I willed it so,” he would say, speaking in a low restrained voice. “With me the will to attain is synonymous with accomplishment. I believe in myself and through this irreducible faith I succeed. There is nothing a strong man cannot do if he wills to do it and believes in his strength. Our ideas of space, size, and time are but the fanciful dreams of children. I am ﬁfty-nine inches tall and fully clothed, weigh one hundred and ten pounds. If I desired I could make myself a colossus and swallow the earth as a child swallows a pill. If I willed it I could ﬂy through space like a comet or hang suspended in the ether like the morning star. My will is greater than any other physical force, because I believe in it: I have conﬁdence in my ability to do whateverI wish. So farI have conducted myself like an average man because I desire to so behave and not because of any limitations: Man has a soul and that ethereal force is greater than any law of nature that man ever thought of or any God ever created. He is purely and totally supreme—if he so desires.”

It was after such a deﬁant declaration to us that our chemist, Bullard, gathered courage to challenge his power. He stated his opinion sharply and to the point, “I do not believe you.”

“What is that that to me?” answered the professor.

“Simply this: You make a statement that you have certain powers. I say that it is not true: Of what good to boast if you know we think you a liar? Can you do these things? If you can, do them for us, and I for one, will hail you as greater than God. Fail to do them and I will brand you a boasting poseur.”

The professor looked steadily at the chemist. We waited breathlessly for the blow to fall, but he only laughed.

“You want a sign? A proof? I have thought of just such a thing and I would have proposed it myself had one of you not asked for it. The thing must be visible to all of you, something that I can demonstrate, a thing unheard of, an act all men consider impossible and yet I will do it. Listen to me.

“You have all seen the jellyﬁsh called the Bishop’s Miter. When it is magniﬁed three hundred times under the microscope it looks like a small balloon with a large opening at one end. It propels itself through the water by the ﬂagellate movement of its cilia. The walls are translucent and transparent. At the top there are two specialized groups of nerve cells which we believe may serve as eyes. The opening at the bottom serves as a mouth. Smaller cells enter there and are absorbed. I describe it to refresh your memory, though you have all seen it. I will secure one in a hanging drop under the microscope and then we will attach the camera and cinema to it. We will project the picture on our screen. You will see the Miter move and live; you will observe the cilia move.

“While we have the actual specimen under observation I will look at it through the microscope. Then I will demonstrate to you that I am not the idle boaster you think me. I will force myself to pass through the glass eye-piece down into the brass tube. As I go, I will make myself grow smaller. Finally I will pass through the objective and jump into the hanging drop. I will swim in that drop—swim up to the jellyﬁsh and touch it, make actual observations concerning its structure and functions. While I am in the drop of water you will be able to observe my every motion on the screen: Then I will disappear, pass through the microscope upwards and ﬁnally resume my original size and position in the room. I presume that if I do this you will be satisﬁed.”

We were too astonished to reply. It was evident that the man had suddenly become insane. He smiled superciliously, as though we were children.

He waited for an answer, but we had none and then he began to prepare the apparatus for the experiment. Finally all was to his satisfaction. After examining several drops of water from our specimen-jar he was able to imprison a Bishop’s Miter in the hanging drop under the microscope. He switched on the electricity and we saw the jellyﬁsh move upon the screen.

The professor carefully adjusted the apparatus until the organism appeared with more than usual distinctness. We saw the little animal he had so carefully described to us. We even saw the little projections which we believed were its rudimentary visual organs.

Then Professor Queirling told the cinema operator what he the jelly-fish wanted done. He was to take a picture starting from the time the professor disappeared down the brass tube of the microscope and continue until he reappeared. No matter what happened, he was to go on taking pictures.

“It is all well enough,” said our master, “for you children to see what is happening and to talk about it later on, but who would believe you? We know that the camera cannot lie. That is why it is important to take a consecutive picture of what occurs. Otherwise you might think that I have been able to hypnotize you. Now I will look down this tube. At the bottom of the hanging drop I see a transparent balloon. It is a pretty sight. Now watch me carefully as I will myself to shrink. I will go on talking as longas I can and you must listen carefully because the smaller I am the less audible will be my voice.

“Now I am twelve inches high. I am standing near the microscope. I grow still smaller and now I am only one inch tall and am standing on the eye-piece. No doubt you can barely hear me. Now I am smaller yet and am ready to will myself through the glass of the eye-piece.” The room became silent. Shivering, we looked at the microscope. The professor was gone. The chemist staggered over to the instrument, looked into it, and silently reeled back to his seat.

On the screen before us, the living inhabitants of the drop of water lived and moved and had their being. Largest of all was the transparent jellyﬁsh, which was moving restlessly as though seeking a way of escape. The only sound in the room was the hum of the cinema and the stertorous breathing of the chemist.

Then on the screen came a new ﬁgure we were able to identify as the professor, swimming among the infusoria. Gaining his balance, at last he stood upright and waved his hand at us. It was easy to see his smile, that condescending smug smile that had so often driven us frantic. There was no doubt from his expression that he was highly pleased with his performance. None of us dared look at his fellow; not one of the audience thought for a second of taking his eyes off the silver screen. We were stunned, stupeﬁed, and ﬁlled with a wild terror all the more horrible because of the silence.

The professor started to swim again and now approached the jellyﬁsh. He tapped the crystal walls. Then as though seized with a sudden impulse, he went to the bottom, jumped up through the mouth, and entered the translucent ball of protoplasm. He peered at us through the transparent walls. His arms made a series of peculiar movements and once again he smiled at us.

“My God!” exclaimed the artist. “He is wigwagging to us in army code. He says, ‘I have done it, and now I will return to your world.’”

As though to keep his promise he started for the mouth of the jellyﬁsh, and then—the mouth closed.

The professor circled the glasslike ball seeking a way of exit. Once he waved at us in a peculiar manner and then suddenly he sought the wall and with arms and feet tried to break through. On his face was now the look of ghastly despair. The things on top of the jellyﬁsh began to glow—no doubt now that they were eyes, and bright ones.

Before our eyes the professor slowly disappeared into a globule of milky protoplasm. The jellyﬁsh not only had made him a prisoner, but had actually dissolved and digested him. With a shriek the artist went over to the wall and turned on the electric lights. Trembling, the chemist looked down the tube of the microscope and told us that there was nothing in the hanging drop save the jellyﬁsh.

The next day, after a conference, in which each of us said only part of what he thought, we decided to destroy the roll of ﬁlm—and sent word to the university that the professor had disappeared from the ship and our only explanation was that he had been drowned.

title: The Jelly-Fish (Library of America)