Chapter XXIII: Part 23

BRÖNDSTED, PETER OLUF (1780-1842), Danish archaeologist and traveller, was born at Fruering in Jutland on the 17th of November 1780. After studying at the university of Copenhagen he visited Paris in 1806 with his friend Georg Koes. After remaining there two years, they went together to Italy. Both were zealously attached to the study of antiquities; and congeniality of tastes and pursuits induced them, in 1810, to join an expedition to Greece, where they excavated the temples of Zeus in Aegina and of Apollo at Bassae in Arcadia. After three years of active researches in Greece, Bröndsted returned to Copenhagen, where, as a reward for his labours, he was appointed professor of Greek in the university. He then began to arrange and prepare for publication the vast materials he had collected during his travels; but finding that Copenhagen did not afford him the desired facilities, he exchanged his professorship for the office of Danish envoy at the papal court in 1818, and took up his abode at Rome. In 1820 and 1821 he visited Sicily and the Ionian Isles to collect additional materials for his great work. In 1826 he went to London, chiefly with a view of studying the Elgin marbles and other remains of antiquity in the British Museum, and became acquainted with the principal archaeologists of England. From 1828-1832 he resided in Paris, to superintend the publication of his _Travels_, and then returned to Copenhagen on being appointed director of the museum of antiquities and the collection of coins and medals. In 1842 he became rector of the university; but a fall from his horse caused his death on the 26th of June. His principal work was the _Travels and Archaeological Researches in Greece_ (in German and French, 1826-1830), of which only two volumes were published, dealing with the island of Ceos and the metopes of the Parthenon.

BRONGNIART, ADOLPHE THÉODORE (1801-1876), French botanist, son of the geologist Alexandre Brongniart, was born in Paris on the 14th of January 1801. He soon showed an inclination towards the study of natural science, devoting himself at first more particularly to geology, and later to botany, thus equipping himself for what was to be the main occupation of his life--the investigation of fossil plants. In 1826 he graduated as doctor of medicine with a dissertation on the Rhamnaceae; but the career which he adopted was botanical, not medical. In 1831 he became assistant to R.L. Desfontaines at the Musée d'Histoire Naturelle, and two years later succeeded him as professor, a position which he continued to hold until his death in Paris on the 18th of February 1876.

Brongniart was an indefatigable investigator and a prolific writer, so that he left behind him, as the fruit of his labours, a large number of books and memoirs. As early as 1822 he published a paper on the classification and distribution of fossil plants (_Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat._ viii.). This was followed by several papers chiefly bearing upon the relation between extinct and existing forms--a line of research which culminated in the publication of the _Histoire des végétaux fossiles_, which has earned for him the title of "father of palaeobotany." This great work was heralded by a small but most important "Prodrome" (contributed to the _Grand Dictionnaire d'Hist. Nat._, 1828, t. lvii.) which brought order into chaos by a classification in which the fossil plants were arranged, with remarkably correct insight, along with their nearest living allies, and which forms the basis of all subsequent progress in this direction. It is of especial botanical interest, because, in accordance with Robert Brown's discoveries, the Cycadeae and Coniferae were placed in the new group _Phanérogames gymnospermes_. In this book attention was also directed to the succession of forms in the various geological periods, with the important result (stated in modern terms) that in the Palaeozoic period the Pteridophyta are found to predominate; in the Mesozoic, the Gymnosperms; in the Cainozoic, the Angiosperms, a result subsequently more fully stated in his "Tableau des genres de végétaux fossiles" (D'Orbigny, _Dict. Univ. d'Hist. Nat._, 1849). But the great _Histoire_ itself was not destined to be more than a colossal fragment; the publication of successive parts proceeded regularly from 1828 to 1837, when the first volume was completed, but after that only three parts of the second volume appeared. Brongniart, no doubt, was overwhelmed with the continually increasing magnitude of the task that he had undertaken. Apart from his more comprehensive works, his most important palaeontological contributions are perhaps his observations on the structure of _Sigillaria_ (_Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat._ i., 1839) and his researches (almost the last he undertook) on fossil seeds, of which a full account was published posthumously in 1880. His activity was by no means confined to palaeobotany, but extended into all branches of botany, more particularly anatomy and phanerogamic taxonomy. Among his achievements in these directions the most notable is the memoir "Sur la génération et le développement de l'embryon des Phanérogames" (_Ann. Sci. Nat._ xii., 1827). This is remarkable in that it contains the [v.04 p.0637] first account of any value of the development of the pollen; as also a description of the structure of the pollen-grain, the confirmation of G. B. Amici's (1823) discovery of the pollen-tube, the confirmation of R. Brown's views as to the structure of the unimpregnated ovule (with the introduction of the term "sac embryonnaire"); and in that it shows how nearly Brongniart anticipated Amici's subsequent (1846) discovery of the entrance of the pollen-tube into the micropyle, fertilizing the female cell which then develops into the embryo. Of his anatomical works, those of the greatest value are probably the "_Recherches sur la structure et les fonctions des feuilles_" (_Ann. Sci. Nat._ xxi., 1830), and the "Nouvelles Recherches sur l'Épiderme" (_Ann. Sci. Nat._ i., 1834), in which, among other important observations, the discovery of the cuticle is recorded; and, further, the "Recherches sur l'organisation des tiges des Cycadées" (_Ann. Sci. Nat._ xvi., 1829), giving the results of the first investigation of the anatomy of those plants. His systematic work is represented by a large number of papers and monographs, many of which relate to the flora of New Caledonia; and by his _Énumération des genres de plantes cultivées au Musée d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris_ (1843), which is an interesting landmark in the history of classification in that it forms the starting-point of the system, modified successively by A. Braun, A.W. Eichler and A. Engler, which is now adopted in Germany. In addition to his scientific and professorial labours, Brongniart held various important official posts in connexion with the department of education, and interested himself greatly in agricultural and horticultural matters. With J.V. Audouin and J.B.A. Dumas, his future brothers-in-law, he established the _Annales des Sciences Naturelles_ in 1824; he also founded the Société Botanique de France in 1854, and was its first president.

For accounts of his life and work see _Bull. de la Soc. Géol. de France_, 1876, and _La Nature_, 1876; the _Bulletin de la Soc. Bot. de France_ for 1876, vol. xxiii., contains a list of his works and the orations pronounced at his funeral.

(S. H. V.*)

BRONGNIART, ALEXANDRE (1770-1847), French mineralogist and geologist, son of the eminent architect who designed the Bourse and other public buildings of Paris, was born in that city on the 5th of February 1770. At an early age he studied chemistry, under Lavoisier, and after passing through the École des Mines he took honours at the École de Médecine; subsequently he joined the army of the Pyrenees as _pharmacien_; but having committed some slight political offence, he was thrown into prison and detained there for some time. Soon after his release he was appointed professor of natural history in the Collège des Quatre Nations. In 1800 he was made director of the Sèvres porcelain factory, a post which he retained to his death, and in which he achieved his greatest work. In his hands Sèvres became the leading porcelain factory in Europe, and the researches of an able band of assistants enabled him to lay the foundations of ceramic chemistry. In addition to his work at Sèvres, quite enough to engross the entire energy of any ordinary man, he continued his more purely scientific work. He succeeded Haüy as professor of mineralogy in the Museum of Natural History; but he did not confine himself to mineralogy, for it is to him that we owe the division of Reptiles into the four orders of Saurians, Batrachians, Chelonians and Ophidians. Fossil as well as living animals engaged his attention, and in his studies of the strata around Paris he was instrumental in establishing the Tertiary formations. In 1816 he was elected to the Academy; and in the following year he visited the Alps of Switzerland and Italy, and afterwards Sweden and Norway. The result of his observations was published from time to time in the _Journal des Mines_ and other scientific journals. Wide as was the range of his interests his most famous work was accomplished at Sèvres, and his most enduring monument is his classic _Traité des arts céramiques_ (1844). He died in Paris on the 7th of October 1847.

His other principal works are :--_Traité élémentaire de minéralogie, avec des applications aux arts_ (2 vols., Paris, 1807); _Histoire naturelle des crustacés fossiles_ (Paris, 1822); _Classification et caractères minéralogiques des roches homogènes et hétérogènes_ (Paris, 1827); the _Tableau des terrains qui composent l'écorce du globe, ou Essai sur la structure de la partie connue de la terre_ (Paris, 1829); and the _Traité des arts céramiques_ (1844). Brongniart was also the coadjutor of Cuvier in the admirable _Essai sur la géographie minéralogique des environs de Paris_ (Paris, 1811); originally published in _Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat._ (Paris, xi. 1808).

BRONN, HEINRICH GEORG (1800-1862), German geologist, was born on the 3rd of March 1800 at Ziegelhausen near Heidelberg. Studying at the university at Heidelberg he took his doctor's degree in the faculty of medicine in 1821, and in the following year was appointed professor of natural history. He now devoted himself to palaeontological studies, and to fieldwork in various parts of Germany, Italy and France. From its commencement in 1830 to 1862 he assisted in editing the _Jahrbuch für Mineralogie_, &c., continued as _Neues Jahrbuch._ His principal work, _Lethaea Geognostica_ (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1834-1838; 3rd ed. with F. Römer, 3 vols., 1851-1856), has been regarded as one of the foundations of German stratigraphical geology. His _Handbuch einer Geschichte der Natur_, of which the first part was issued in 1841, gave a general account of the physical history of the earth, while the second part dealt with the life-history, species being regarded as direct acts of creation. The third part included his famous _Index Palaeontologicus_, and was issued in 3 vols., 1848-1849, with the assistance of H. von Meyer and H. R. Göppert. This record of fossils has proved of inestimable value to all palaeontologists. An important work on recent and fossil zoology, _Die Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs_, was commenced by Bronn. He wrote the volumes dealing with Amorphozoa, Actinozoa, and Malacozoa, published 1859-1862; the work was continued by other naturalists. In 1861 Bronn was awarded the Wollaston medal by the Geological Society of London. He died at Heidelberg on the 5th of July 1862.

BRONSART VON SCHELLENDORF, PAUL (1832-1891), Prussian general, was born at Danzig in 1832. He entered the Prussian Guards in 1849, and was appointed to the general staff in 1861 as a captain; after three years of staff service he returned to regimental duty, but was soon reappointed to the staff, and lectured at the war academy, becoming major in 1865 and lieut.-colonel in 1869. During the war of 1870 he was chief of a section on the Great General Staff, and conducted the preliminary negotiations for the surrender of the French at Sedan. After the war Bronsart was made a colonel and chief of staff of the Guard army corps, becoming major-general in 1876 and lieut.-general (with a division command) in 1881. Two years later he became war minister, and during his tenure of the post (1883-1889) many important reforms were carried out in the Prussian army, in particular the introduction of the magazine rifle. He was appointed in 1889 to command the I. army corps at Königsberg. He died on the 23rd of June 1891 at his estate near Braunsberg. Bronsart's military writings include two works of great importance--_Ein Rückblick auf die taktischen Ruckblicke_ (2nd ed., Berlin, 1870), a pamphlet written in reply to Captain May's _Tactical Retrospect of 1866_; and _Der Dienst des Generalstabes_ (1st ed., Berlin, 1876; 3rd ed. revised by General Meckel, 1893; new ed. by the author's son, Major Bronsart von Schellendorf, Berlin, 1904), a comprehensive treatise on the duties of the general staff. The third edition of this work was soon after its publication translated into English and issued officially to the British army as _The Duties of the General Staff_. Major Bronsart's new edition of 1904 was reissued in English by the General Staff, under the same title, in 1905.

BRONTË, CHARLOTTE (1816-1855), EMILY (1818-1848), and ANNE (1820-1849), English novelists, were three of the six children of Patrick Brontë, a clergyman of the Church of England, who for the last forty-one years of his life was perpetual incumbent of the parish of Haworth in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Patrick Brontë was born at Emsdale, Co. Down, Ireland, on the 17th of March 1777. His parents were of the peasant class, their original name of Brunty apparently having been changed by their son on his entry at St John's College, Cambridge, in 1802. In the intervening years he had been successively a weaver and schoolmaster in his native country. From Cambridge [v.04 p.0638] he became a curate, first at Wethersfield in Essex, in 1806, then for a few months at Wellington, Salop, in 1809. At the end of 1809 he accepted a curacy at Dewsbury, Yorkshire, following up this by one at Hartshead-cum-Clifton in the same county. At Hartshead Patrick Brontë married in 1812 Maria Branwell, a Cornishwoman, and there two children were born to him, Maria (1813-1825) and Elizabeth (1814-1825). Thence Patrick Brontë removed to Thornton, some 3 m. from Bradford, and here his wife gave birth to four children, Charlotte, Patrick Branwell (1817-1848), Emily Jane, and Anne, three of whom were to attain literary distinction.

In April 1820, three months after the birth of Anne Brontë, her father accepted the living of Haworth, a village near Keighley in Yorkshire, which will always be associated with the romantic story of the Brontës. In September of the following year his wife died. Maria Brontë lives for us in her daughter's biography only as the writer of certain letters to her "dear saucy Pat," as she calls her lover, and as the author of a recently published manuscript, an essay entitled _The Advantages of Poverty in Religious Concerns_, full of a sententiousness much affected at the time.

Upon the death of Mrs Brontë her husband invited his sister-in-law, Elizabeth Branwell, to leave Penzance and to take up her residence with his family at Haworth. Miss Branwell accepted the trust and would seem to have watched over her nephew and five nieces with conscientious care. The two eldest of those nieces were not long in following their mother. Maria and Elizabeth, Charlotte and Emily, were all sent to the Clergy Daughters' school at Cowan Bridge in 1824, and Maria and Elizabeth returned home in the following year to die. How far the bad food and drastic discipline were responsible cannot be accurately demonstrated. Charlotte gibbeted the school long years afterwards in _Jane Eyre_, under the thin disguise of "Lowood," and the principal, the Rev. William Carus Wilson (1792-1859), has been universally accepted as the counterpart of Mr Naomi Brocklehurst in the same novel. But congenital disease more probably accounts for the tragedy from which happily Charlotte and Emily escaped, both returning in 1825 to a prolonged home life at Haworth. Here the four surviving children amused themselves in intervals of study under their aunt's guidance with precocious literary aspirations. The many tiny booklets upon which they laboured in the succeeding years have been happily preserved. We find stories, verses and essays, all in the minutest handwriting, none giving any indication of the genius which in the case of two of the four children was to add to the indisputably permanent in literature.

At sixteen years of age--in 1831--Charlotte Brontë became a pupil at the school of Miss Margaret Wooler (1792-1885) at Roe Head, Dewsbury. She left in the following year to assist in the education of the younger sisters, bringing with her much additional proficiency in drawing, French and composition; she took with her also the devoted friendship of two out of her ten fellow-pupils--Mary Taylor (1817-1893) and Ellen Nussey (1817-1897). With Miss Taylor and Miss Nussey she corresponded for the remainder of her life, and her letters to the latter make up no small part of what has been revealed to us of her life story. Her next three years at Haworth were varied by occasional visits to one or other of these friends. In 1835 she returned to Miss Wooler's school at Roe Head as a governess, her sister Emily accompanying her as a pupil, but remaining only three months, and Anne then taking her place. The year following the school was removed to Dewsbury. In 1838 Charlotte went back to Haworth and soon afterwards received her first offer of marriage--from a clergyman, Henry Nussey, the brother of her friend Ellen. This was followed a little later by a second offer from a curate named Bryce. She refused both and took a situation as nursery governess, first with the Sidgwicks of Stonegappe, Yorkshire, and later with the Whites at Rawdon in the same county. A few months of this, however, filled her with an ambition to try and secure greater independence as the possessor of a school of her own, and she planned to acquire more proficiency in "languages" on the continent, as a preliminary step. The aunt advanced some money, and accompanied by her sister Emily she became in February 1842 a pupil at the Pensionnat Héger, Brussels. Here both girls worked hard, and won the goodwill and indeed admiration of the principal teacher, M. Héger, whose wife was at the head of the establishment. But the two girls were hastily called back to England before the year had expired by the announcement of the critical illness of their aunt. Miss Branwell died on the 29th of October 1842. She bequeathed sufficient money to her nieces to enable them to reconsider their plan of life. Instead of a school at Bridlington which had been talked of, they could now remain with their father, utilize their aunt's room as a classroom, and take pupils. But Charlotte was not yet satisfied with what the few months on Belgian soil had done for her, and determined to accept M. Héger's offer that she should return to Brussels as a governess. Hence the year 1843 was passed by her at the Pensionnat Héger in that capacity, and in this period she undoubtedly widened her intellectual sphere by reading the many books in French literature that her friend M. Héger lent her. But life took on a very sombre shade in the lonely environment in which she found herself. She became so depressed that on one occasion she took refuge in the confessional precisely as did her heroine Lucy Snowe in _Villette_. In 1844 she returned to her father's house at Haworth, and the three sisters began immediately to discuss the possibilities of converting the vicarage into a school. Prospectuses were issued, but no pupils were forthcoming.

Matters were complicated by the fact that the only brother, Patrick Branwell, had about this time become a confirmed drunkard. Branwell had been the idol of his aunt and of his sisters. Educated under his father's care, he had early shown artistic leanings, and the slender resources of the family had been strained to provide him with the means of entering at the Royal Academy as a pupil. This was in 1835. Branwell, it would seem, indulged in a glorious month of extravagance in London and then returned home. His art studies were continued for a time at Leeds, but it may be assumed that no commissions came to him, and at last he became tutor to the son of a Mr Postlethwaite at Barrow-in-Furness. Ten months later he was a booking-clerk at Sowerby Bridge station on the Leeds & Manchester railway, and later at Luddenden Foot. Then he became tutor in the family of a clergyman named Robinson at Thorp Green, where his sister Anne was governess. Finally he returned to Haworth to loaf at the village inn, shock his sisters by his excesses, and to fritter his life away in painful sottishness. He died in September 1848, having achieved nothing reputable, and having disappointed all the hopes that had been centred in him. "My poor father naturally thought more of his _only_ son than of his daughters," is one of Charlotte's dreary comments on the tragedy. In early years he had himself written both prose and verse; and a foolish story invented long afterwards attributed to him some share in his sisters' novels, particularly in Emily Brontë's _Wuthering Heights_. But Charlotte distinctly tells us that her brother never knew that his sisters had published a line. He was too much under the effects of drink, too besotted and muddled in that last year or two of life, to have any share in their intellectual enthusiasms.

The literary life had, however, opened bravely for the three girls during those years. In 1846 a volume of verse appeared from the shop of Aylott & Jones of Paternoster Row; "_Poems_, by Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell," was on the title-page. These names disguised the identity of Charlotte, Emily and Anne Brontë. The venture cost the sisters about £50 in all, but only two copies were sold. There were nineteen poems by Charlotte, twenty-one by Emily, and the same number by Anne. A consensus of criticism has accepted the fact that Emily's verse alone revealed true poetic genius. This was unrecognized then except by her sister Charlotte. It is obvious now to all.

The failure of the poems did not deter the authors from further effort. They had each a novel to dispose of. Charlotte Brontë's was called _The Master_, which before it was sent off to London was retitled _The Professor_. Emily's story was entitled [v.04 p.0639] _Wuthering Heights_, and Anne's _Agnes Gray_. All these stories travelled from publisher to publisher. At last _The Professor_ reached the firm of Smith, Elder & Co., of Cornhill. The "reader" for that firm, R. Smith Williams (1800-1875), was impressed, as were also his employers. Charlotte Brontë received in August 1847 a letter informing her that whatever the merits of _The Professor_--and it was hinted that it lacked "varied interest"--it was too short for the three-volume form then counted imperative. The author was further told that a longer novel would be gladly considered. She replied in the same month with this longer novel, and _Jane Eyre_ appeared in October 1847, to be wildly acclaimed on every hand, although enthusiasm was to receive a counterblast when more than a year later, in December 1848, Miss Rigby, afterwards Lady Eastlake (1809-1893), reviewed it in the _Quarterly_.

Meanwhile the novels of Emily and Anne had been accepted by T. C. Newby. They were published together in three volumes in December 1847, two months later than _Jane Eyre_, although the proof sheets had been passed by the authors before their sister's novel had been sent to the publishers. The dilatoriness of Mr Newby was followed up by considerable energy when he saw the possibility of the novels by Ellis and Acton Bell sailing on the wave of Currer Bell's popularity, and he would seem very quickly to have accepted another manuscript by Anne Brontë, for _The Tenant of Wildfell Hall_ was published by Newby in three volumes in June 1848. It was Newby's clever efforts to persuade the public that the books he published were by the author of _Jane Eyre_ that led Charlotte and Anne to visit London this summer and interview Charlotte's publishers in Cornhill with a view to establishing their separate identity. Soon after their return home Branwell died (the 24th of September 1848), and less than three months later Emily died also at Haworth (the 19th December 1848). Then Anne became ill and on the 24th of May 1849 Charlotte accompanied her to Scarborough in the hope that the sea air would revive her. Anne died there on the 28th of May, and was buried in Scarborough churchyard. Thus in exactly eight months Charlotte Brontë lost all the three companions of her youth, and returned to sustain her father, fast becoming blind, in the now desolate home at Haworth.

In the interval between the death of Branwell and of Emily, Charlotte had been engaged upon a new novel--_Shirley_. Two-thirds were written, but the story was then laid aside while its author was nursing her sister Anne. She completed the book after Anne's death, and it was published in October 1849. The following winter she visited London as the guest of her publisher, Mr George Smith, and was introduced to Thackerary, to whom she had dedicated _Jane Eyre_. The following year she repeated the visit, sat for her portrait to George Richmond, and was considerably lionized by a host of admirers. In August 1850 she visited the English lakes as the guest of Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, and met Mrs Gaskell, Miss Martineau, Matthew Arnold and other interesting men and women. During this period her publishers assiduously lent her books, and her criticisms of them contained in many letters to Mr George Smith and Mr Smith Williams make very interesting reading. In 1851 she received a third offer of marriage, this time from Mr James Taylor, who was in the employment of her publishers. A visit to Miss Martineau at Ambleside and also to London to the Great Exhibition made up the events of this year. On her way home she visited Manchester and spent two days with Mrs Gaskell. During the year 1852 she worked hard with a new novel, _Villette_, which was published in January of 1853. In September of that year she received a visit from Mrs Gaskell at Haworth; in May 1854 she returned it, remaining three days at Manchester, and planning with her hostess the details of her marriage, for at this time she had promised to unite herself with her father's curate, Arthur Bell Nicholls (1817-1906), who had long been a pertinacious suitor for her hand but had been discouraged by Mr Brontë. The marriage took place in Haworth church on the 29th of June 1854, the ceremony being performed by the Rev. Sutcliffe Sowden, Miss Wooler and Miss Nussey acting as witnesses. The wedded pair spent their honeymoon in Ireland, returning to Haworth, where they made their home with Mr Brontë, Mr Nicholls having pledged himself to continue in his position as curate to his father-in-law. After less than a year of married life, however, Charlotte Nicholls died of an illness incidental to childbirth, on the 31st of March 1855. She was buried in Haworth church by the side of her mother, Branwell and Emily. The father followed in 1861, and then her husband returned to Ireland, where he remained some years afterwards, dying in 1906.

The bare recital of the Brontë story can give no idea of its undying interest, its exceeding pathos. Their life as told by their biographer Mrs Gaskell is as interesting as any novel. Their achievement, however, will stand on its own merits. Anne Brontë's two novels, it is true, though constantly reprinted, survive principally through the exceeding vitality of the Brontë tradition. As a hymn writer she still has a place in most religious communities. Emily is great alike as a novelist and as a poet. Her "Old Stoic" and "Last Lines" are probably the finest achievement of poetry that any woman has given to English literature. Her novel _Wuthering Heights_ stands alone as a monument of intensity owing nothing to tradition, nothing to the achievement of earlier writers. It was a thing apart, passionate, unforgettable, haunting in its grimness, its grey melancholy. Among women writers Emily Brontë has a sure and certain place for all time. As a poet or maker of verse Charlotte Brontë is undistinguished, but there are passages of pure poetry of great magnificence in her four novels, and particularly in _Villette_. The novels _Jane Eyre_ and _Villette_ will always command attention whatever the future of English fiction, by virtue of their intensity, their independence, their rough individuality.

The _Life of Charlotte Brontë_, by Mrs Gaskell, was first published in 1857. Owing to the many controversial questions it aroused, as to the identity of Lowood in _Jane Eyre_ with Cowan Bridge school, as to the relations of Branwell Brontë with his employer's wife, as to the supposed peculiarities of Mr Brontë, and certain other minor points, the third edition was considerably changed. The _Life_ has been many times reprinted, but may be read in its most satisfactory form in the Haworth edition (1902), issued by the original publishers, Smith, Elder & Co. To this edition are attached a great number of letters written by Miss Brontë to her publisher, George Smith. The first new material supplied to supplement Mrs Gaskell's _Life_ was contained in _Charlotte Brontë: a Monograph_, by T. Wemyss Reid (1877). This book inspired Mr A.C. Swinburne to issue separately a forcible essay on Charlotte and Emily Brontë, under the title of _A Note on Charlotte Brontë_ (1877). A further collection of letters written by Miss Brontë was contained in _Charlotte Brontë and her Circle_, by Clement Shorter (1896), and interesting details can be gathered from the _Life of Charlotte Brontë_, by Augustine Birrell (1887), _The Brontës in Ireland_, by William Wright, D.D. (1893), _Charlotte Brontë and her Sisters_, by Clement Shorter (1906), and the Brontë Society publications, edited by Butler Wood (1895-1907). Miss A. Mary F. Robinson (Madame Duclaux) wrote a separate biography of Emily Brontë in 1883, and an essay in her _Grands Écrivains d'outre-Manche_. _The Brontës: Life and Letters_, by Clement Shorter (1907), contains the whole of C. Brontë's letters in chronological order.

(C. K. S.)

BRONTE, a town of the province of Catania, Sicily, on the western slopes of Mt. Etna, 24 m. N.N.W. of Catania direct, and 34 m. by rail. Pop. (1901) 20,366. It was founded by the emperor Charles V. The town, with an extensive estate which originally belonged to the monastery of Maniacium (Maniace), was granted, as a dukedom, to Nelson by Ferdinand IV. of Naples in 1799.

BRONX, THE, formerly a district comprising several towns in Westchester county, New York, U.S.A., now (since 1898) the northernmost of the five boroughs of New York City (_q.v._). Several settlements in the Bronx were made by the English and the Dutch between 1640 and 1650.

BRONZE, an alloy formed wholly or chiefly of copper and tin in variable proportions. The word has been etymologically connected with the same root as appears in "brown," but according to M.P.E. Berthelot (_La Chimie au moyen âge_) it is a place-name derived from _aes Brundusianum_ (cf. Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ xxxiii. ch. ix. §45, "specula optima apud majores fuerunt Brundusiana, stanno et aere mixtis"). A Greek MS. of about the 11th century in the library of St Mark's, Venice, contains [v.04 p.0640] the form [Greek: brontêsion], and gives the composition of the alloy as 1 lb of copper with 2 oz. of tin. The product obtained by adding tin to copper is more fusible than copper and thus better suited for casting; it is also harder and less malleable. A soft bronze or _gun-metal_ is formed with 16 parts of copper to 1 of tin, and a harder gun-metal, such as was used for bronze ordnance, when the proportion of tin is about doubled. The _steel bronze_ of Colonel Franz Uchatius (1811-1881) consisted of copper alloyed with 8% of tin, the tenacity and hardness being increased by cold-rolling. Bronze containing about 7 parts of copper to 1 of tin is hard, brittle and sonorous, and can be tempered to take a fine edge. _Bell-metal_ varies considerably in composition, from about 3 to 5 parts of copper to 1 of tin. In _speculum metal_ there are 2 to 2½ parts of copper to 1 of tin. Statuary bronze may contain from 80 to 90% of copper, the residue being tin, or tin with zinc and lead in various proportions. The bronze used for the British and French copper coinage consists of 95% copper, 4% tin and 1% zinc. Many copper-tin alloys employed for machinery-bearings contain a small proportion of zinc, which gives increased hardness. "Anti-friction metals," also used in bearings, are copper-tin alloys in which the amount of copper is small and there is antimony in addition. Of this class an example is "Babbitt's metal," invented by Isaac Babbitt (1799-1862); it originally consisted of 24 parts of tin, 8 parts of antimony and 4 parts of copper, but in later compositions for the same purpose the proportion of tin is often considerably higher. Bronze is improved in quality and strength when fluxed with phosphorus. Alloys prepared in this way, and known as _phosphor bronze_, may contain only about 1% of phosphorus in the ingot, reduced to a mere trace after casting, but their value is nevertheless enhanced for purposes in which a hard strong metal is required, as for pump plungers, valves, the bushes of bearings, &c. Bronze again is improved by the presence of manganese in small quantity, and various grades of _manganese bronze_, in some of which there is little or no tin but a considerable percentage of zinc, are extensively used in mechanical engineering. Alloys of copper with aluminium, though often nearly or completely destitute of tin, are known as _aluminium bronze_, and are valuable for their strength and the resistance they offer to corrosion. By the addition of a small quantity of silicon the tensile strength of copper is much increased; a sample of such _silicon bronze_, used for telegraph wires, on analysis was found to consist of 99.94% of copper, 0.03% of tin, and traces of iron and silicon.

The bronze (Gr. [Greek: chalkos], Lat. _aes_) of classical antiquity consisted chiefly of copper, alloyed with one or more of the metals, zinc, tin, lead and silver, in proportions that varied as times changed, or according to the purposes for which the alloy was required. Among bronze remains the copper is found to vary from 67 to 95%. From the analysis of coins it appears that for their bronze coins the Greeks adhered to an alloy of copper and tin till 400 B.C., after which time they used also lead with increasing frequency. Silver is rare in their bronze coins. The Romans also used lead as an alloy in their bronze coins, but gradually reduced the quantity, and under Caligula, Nero, Vespasian and Domitian, coined pure copper coins; afterwards they reverted to the mixture of lead. So far the words [Greek: chalkos] and _aes_ may be translated as bronze. Originally, no doubt, [Greek: chalkos] was the name for pure copper. It is so employed by Homer, who calls it [Greek: eruthros] (red), [Greek: aithups] (glittering), [Greek: phaennos] (shining), terms which apply only to copper. But instead of its following from this that the process of alloying copper with other metals was not practised in the time of the poet, or was unknown to him, the contrary would seem to be the case from the passage (_Iliad_ xviii. 474) where he describes Hephaestus as throwing into his furnace copper, tin, silver and gold to make the shield of Achilles, so that it is not always possible to know whether when he uses the word [Greek: chalkos] he means copper pure or alloyed. Still more difficult is it to make this distinction when we read of the mythical Dactyls of Ida in Crete or the Telchines or Cyclopes being acquainted with the smelting of [Greek: chalkos]. It is not, however, likely that later Greek writers, who knew bronze in its true sense, and called it [Greek: chalkos], would have employed this word without qualification for objects which they had seen unless they had meant it to be taken as bronze. When Pausanias (iii. 17. 6) speaks of a statue, one of the oldest figures he had seen of this material, made of separate pieces fastened together with nails, we understand him to mean literally bronze, the more readily since there exist very early figures and utensils of bronze so made.

For the use of bronze in art, see METAL-WORK.

BRONZE AGE, the name given by archaeologists to that stage in human culture, intermediate between the Stone and Iron Ages, when weapons, utensils and implements were, as a general rule, made of bronze. The term has no absolute chronological value, but marks a period of civilization through which it is believed that most races passed at one time or another. The "finds" of stone and bronze, of bronze and iron, and even of stone and iron implements together in tumuli and sepulchral mounds, suggest that in many countries the three stages in man's progress overlapped. From the similarity of types of weapons and implements of the period found throughout Europe a relatively synchronous commencement has been inferred for the Bronze Age in Europe, fixed by most authorities at between 2000 B.C. to 1800 B.C. But it must have been earlier in some countries, and is certainly known to have been later in others; while the Mexicans and Peruvians were still in their bronze age in recent times. Not a few archaeologists have denied that there ever was a distinct Bronze Age. They have found their chief argument in the fact that weapons of these ages have been found side by side in prehistoric burial-places. But when it is admitted that the ages must have overlapped, it is fairly easy to undertand the mixed "finds." The beginning, the prevalence and duration of the Bronze Age in each country would have been ordered by the accessibility of the metals which form the alloy. Thus in some lands bronze may have continued to be a substance of extreme value until the Iron Age was reached, and in tumuli in which more than one body was interred, as was frequently the case, it would only be with the remains of the richer tenants of the tomb that the more valuable objects would be placed. There is, moreover, much reason to believe that sepulchral mounds were opened from age to age and fresh interments made, and in such a practice would be found a simple explanation of the mixing of implements. Another curious fact has been seized on by those who argue against the existence of a Bronze Age. Among all the "finds" examined in Europe there is a most remarkable absence of copper implements. The sources of tin in Europe are practically restricted to Cornwall and Saxony. How then are we to explain on the one hand the apparent stride made by primitive man when from a Stone Age civilization he passed to a comparatively advanced metallurgical skill? On the other, how account for a comparatively synchronous commencement of bronze civilization when one at least of the metals needed for the alloy would have been naturally difficult of access, if not unknown to many races? The answer is that there can be but little doubt that the knowledge of bronze came to the races of Europe from outside. Either by the Phoenicians or by the Greeks metallurgy was taught to men who no sooner recognized the nature and malleable properties of copper than they learnt that by application of heat a substance could be manufactured with tin far better suited to their purposes. Copper would thus have been but seldom used unalloyed; and the relatively synchronous appearance of bronze in Europe, and the scanty "finds" of copper implements, are explained. We may conclude then that there was a Bronze Age in most countries; that it was the direct result of increasing intercommunication of races and the spread of commerce; and that the discovery of metals was due to information brought to Stone-Age man in Europe by races which were already skilful metallurgists.

The Bronze Age in Europe is characterized by weapons, utensils and implements, distinct in design and size from those in use in the preceding or succeeding stage of man's civilization. Moreover--and this has been employed as an argument in favour of the foreign origin of the knowledge of bronze--all the [v.04 p.0641] objects in one part of Europe are identical in pattern and size with those found in another part. The implements of the Bronze Age include swords, awls, knives, gouges, hammers, daggers and arrow-heads. A remarkable confirmation of the theory that the Bronze Age culture came from the East is to be found in the patterns of the arms, which are distinctly oriental; while the handles of swords and daggers are so narrow and short as to make it unlikely that they would be made for use by the large-handed races of Europe. The Bronze Age is also characterized by the fact that cremation was the mode of disposal of the dead, whereas in the Stone Age burial was the rule. Barrows and sepulchral mounds strictly of the Bronze Age are smaller and less imposing than those of the Stone Age. Besides varied and beautiful weapons, frequently exhibiting high workmanship, amulets, coronets, diadems of solid gold, and vases of elegant form and ornamentation in gold and bronze are found in the barrows. These latter appear to have been used as tribal or family cemeteries. In Denmark as many as seventy deposits of burnt bones have been found in a single mound, indicating its use through a long succession of years. The ornamentation of the period is as a rule confined to spirals, bosses and concentric circles. What is remarkable is that the swords not only show the design of the cross in the shape of the handle, but also in tracery what is believed to be an imitation of the Svastika, that ancient Aryan symbol which was probably the first to be made with a definite intention and a consecutive meaning. The pottery is all "hand-made," and the bulk of the objects excavated are cinerary urns, usually found full of burnt bones. These vary from 12 to 18 in. in height. Their decoration is confined to a band round the upper part of the pot, or often only a projecting flange lapped round the whole rim. A few have small handles, formed of pierced knobs of clay and sometimes projecting rolls of clay, looped, as it were, all round the urn. The ornamentation consists of dots, zigzags, chevrons or crosses. The lines were frequently made by pressing a twisted thong of skin against the moist clay; the patterns in all cases being stamped into the pot before it was hardened by fire.

See ARCHAEOLOGY, &c. Also Lord Avebury, _Prehistoric Times_ (1900); Sir J. Evans, _Ancient Bronze Implements of Great Britain_ (1881); Chartre's _Age du bronze en France_.

BRONZING, a process by which a bronze-like surface is imparted to objects of metal, plaster, wood, &c. On metals a green bronze colour is sometimes produced by the action of such substances as vinegar, dilute nitric acid and sal-ammoniac. An antique appearance may be given to new bronze articles by brushing over the clean bright metal with a solution of sal-ammoniac and salt of sorrel in vinegar, and rubbing the surface dry, the operation being repeated as often as necessary. Another solution for the same purpose is made with sal-ammoniac, cream of tartar, common salt and silver nitrate. With a solution of platinic chloride almost any colour can be produced on copper, iron, brass or new bronze, according to the dilution and the number of applications. Articles of plaster and wood may be bronzed by coating them with size and then covering them with a bronze powder, such as Dutch metal, beaten into fine leaves and powdered. The bronzing of gun-barrels may be effected by the use of a strong solution of antimony trichloride.

BRONZINO, IL, the name given to ANGELO ALLORI (1502-1572), the Florentine painter. He became the favourite pupil of J. da Pontormo. He painted the portraits of some of the most famous men of his day, such as Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio. Most of his best works are in Florence, but examples are in the National Gallery, London, and elsewhere.

BRONZITE, a member of the pyroxene group of minerals, belonging with enstatite and hypersthene to the orthorhombic series of the group. Rather than a distinct species, it is really a ferriferous variety of enstatite, which owing to partial alteration has acquired a bronze-like sub-metallic lustre on the cleavage surfaces. Enstatite is magnesium metasilicate, MgSiO_3, with the magnesia partly replaced by small amounts (up to about 5%) of ferrous oxide; in the bronzite variety, (Mg,Fe)SiO_3, the ferrous oxide ranges from about 5 to 14%, and with still more iron there is a passage to hypersthene. The ferriferous varieties are liable to a particular kind of alteration, known as "schillerization," which results in the separation of the iron as very fine films of oxide and hydroxides along the cleavage cracks of the mineral. The cleavage surfaces therefore exhibit a metallic sheen or "schiller," which is even more pronounced in hypersthene than in bronzite. The colour of bronzite is green or brown; its specific gravity is about 3.2-3.3, varying with the amount of iron present. Like enstatite, bronzite is a constituent of many basic igneous rocks, such as norites, gabbros, and especially peridotites, and of the serpentines which have been derived from them. It also occurs in some crystalline schists.

Bronzite is sometimes cut and polished, usually in convex forms, for small ornamental objects, but its use for this purpose is less extensive than that of hypersthene. It often has a more or less distinct fibrous structure, and when this is pronounced the sheen has a certain resemblance to that of cat's-eye. Masses sufficiently large for cutting are found in the norite of the Kupferberg in the Fichtelgebirge, and in the serpentine of Kraubat near Leoben in Styria. In this connexion mention may be made of an altered form of enstatite or bronzite known as _bastite_ or _schiller-spar_. Here, in addition to schillerization, the original enstatite has been altered by hydration and the product has approximately the composition of serpentine. In colour bastite is brown or green with the same metallic sheen as bronzite. The typical locality is Baste in the Radauthal, Harz, where patches of pale greyish-green bastite are embedded in a darker-coloured serpentine. This rock when cut and polished makes an effective decorative stone, although little used for that purpose.

(L. J. S.)

BROOCH, or BROACH (from the Fr. _broche_, originally an awl or bodkin; a spit is sometimes called a broach, and hence the phrase "to broach a barrel"; see BROKER), a term now used to denote a clasp or fastener for the dress, provided with a pin, having a hinge or spring at one end, and a catch or loop at the other.

Brooches of the safety-pin type (_fibulae_) were extensively used in antiquity, but only within definite limits of time and place. They seem to have been unknown to the Egyptians, and to the oriental nations untouched by Greek influence. In lands adjacent to Greece, they do not occur in Crete or at Hissarlik. The place of origin cannot as yet be exactly determined, but it would seem to have been in central Europe, towards the close of the Bronze Age, somewhat before 1000 B.C. The earliest form is little more than a pin, bent round for security, with the point caught against the head. One such actual pin has been found. In its next simplest form, very similar to that of the modern safety-pin (in which the coiled spring forces the point against the catch), it occurs in the lower city of Mycenae, and in late deposits of the Mycenaean Age, such as at Enkomi in Cyprus. It occurs also (though rarely) in the "terramare" deposits of the Po valley, in the Swiss lake-dwellings of the later Bronze Age, in central Italy, in Hungary and in Bosnia. (fig. 1).[1]

From the comparatively simple initial form, the fibula developed in different lines of descent, into different shapes, varying according to the structural feature which was emphasized. On account of the number of local variations, the subject is extremely complex, but the main lines of development were approximately as follows.

Towards the end of the Bronze Age the safety-pin was arched into a bow, so as to include a greater amount of stuff in its compass.

In the older Iron Age or "Hallstatt period" the bow and its accessories are thickened and modified in various directions, so as to give greater rigidity, and prominences or surfaces for decoration. The chief types have been conveniently classed by [v.04 p.0642] Montelius in four main groups, according to the characteristic forms:--

I. The wire of the catch-plate is hammered into a flat disk, on which the pin rests (fig. 2)

II. The bow is thickened towards the middle, so as to assume the "leech" shape, or it is hollowed out underneath, into the "boat" form. The catch-plate is only slightly turned up, but it becomes elongated, in order to mask the end of a long pin (fig. 3).

III. The catch-plate is flattened out as in group I., but additional convolutions are added to the bow (fig. 4).

IV. The bow is convoluted (but the convolutions are sometimes represented by knobs); the catch-plate develops as in group II. (fig. 5). For further examples of the four types, see _Antiquities of Early Iron Age in British Museum_, p. 32.

Among the special variations of the early form, mention should be made of the fibulae of the geometric age of Greece, with an exaggerated development of the vertical portion of the catch-plate (fig. 6).

The example shown in fig. 7 is an ornate development of type II. above.

In the later Iron Age (or early La Tène period) the prolongation of the catch-plate described in the second and fourth groups above has a terminal knob ornament, which is reflexed upwards, at first slightly (fig. 8), and then to a marked extent, turning back towards the bow.

A far-reaching change in the design was at the same time brought about by a simple improvement in principle, apparently introduced within the area of the La Tène culture. Instead of a unilateral spring--that is, of one coiled on one side only of the bow as commonly in the modern safety-pin--the brooch became bilateral. The spring was coiled on one side of the axis of the bow, and thence the wire was taken to the other side of the axis, and again coiled in a corresponding manner before starting in a straight line to form the pin. Once invented, the bilateral spring became almost universal, and its introduction serves to divide the whole mass of ancient fibulae into an older and a younger group.

With the progress of the La Tène period (300-1 B.C.) the reflection of the catch-plate terminal became yet more marked, until it became practically merged in the bow (fig. 9). Meanwhile, the bilateral spring described above was developing into two marked projections on each side of the axis. In order to give the double spring strength and protection it was given a metal core, and a containing tube. When the core had been provided the pin was no longer necessarily a continuation of the bow, and it became in fact a separate member, as in a modern brooch of a non-safety-pin type, and was no longer actuated by its own spring.

The T-shaped or "cross-bow" fibula was thus developed. During the first centuries of the Empire it attained great size and importance (figs. 10-12). The form is conveniently dated at its highest development by its occurrence on the ivory diptych of Stilicho at Monza (c. A.D. 400).

In the tombs of the Frankish and kindred Teutonic tribes between the 5th and 9th centuries the crossbar of the T becomes a yet more elaborately decorated semicircle, often surrounded by radial knobs and a chased surface. The base of the shaft is flattened out, and is no less ornate (fig. 13). At the beginning of this period the fibula of King Childeric (A.D. 481) has a singularly complicated pin-fastening.