Chapter V: Vambéry, Mons., 484

Vaughan, Rev. Mr., 87

Vaughan, Rev. Dr., 647

Venice, 258, 267, 365

Verona, 365

Vestiges of Creation, 194

Vesuvius, 226

Victor Emmanuel, 368, 388

Villari, Madame, 269, 381

Virchow, Dr., 634

Vivisection (Movement against), chapter xx.

Vogt, Carl, 490, 663

Voltaire, 94, 97

W

Waddy, Mr., 673

Wakeley, Dr., 673

Walker, Dr., 635

Warburton, Elliot, 183

Ward, Mrs. Humphry, 524

Warren, Mr., 464

Waterford, Marquis of, 12, 23, 174

Watson, William, 558

Watts, Dr., 37

Watts, G. F., 456

Weber, Baron, 661, 671

Webster, Mrs., 577, 586

Wedgwood, Mr. H., 646

Wedgwood, Miss Julia, 578, 646

Weiss, Mr., 375

Wellborne, 7

Welldon, Mr., 677

Wellesley, 20, 209

Wellington, Duke of, 629

Weston, 20

Whately, Archbishop, 196

White, Blanco, 97

White, Rev. H., 532

White, Mrs., 662

Wicksteed, Rev. P., 524

Wilberforce, Canon, 671

Wilhelm, Emperor, 366

Willard, Miss, 607

Williams & Norgate, Messrs., 422, 471

Wilmot, Sir Eardley, 669

Windeyer, W. C., 334

Winchester, Bishop of, 629

Winkworth, Misses, 580

Wilson, Miss Dorothy, 214

Wister, Mrs., 499

Wollstoncraft, Mary, 466

Wood, Colonel Sir Evelyn, 629, 635, 648, 650

Woolman, John, 619

Workhouses, 286, chapter xi.

Wynne-Finch, Mr., 500

Y

Yates, Mrs. Richard Vaughan, 699, _seq._

Yeo, Professor, 674

Z

Zachly, 244

Zola, 369

Zoophilist, 670, 680, 682

-----

Footnote 1:

With respect to the Letters and Extracts from Letters to myself and to
Miss Elliot, from the late Master of Balliol,—(to be found Vol. I.,
pp. 316, 317, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, and 354),—I beg to record that
I have received the very kind permission of Mr. Jowett’s Executors for
their publication.

Footnote 2:

It is always amusing to me to read the complacent arguments of
despisers of women when they think to prove the inevitable mental
inferiority of my sex by specifying the smaller circumference of
our heads. On this line of logic an elephant should be twice as
wise as a man. But in my case, as it happens, their argument leans
the wrong way, for my head is larger than those of most of my
countrymen,—Doctors included. As measured carefully with proper
instruments by a skilled phrenologist (the late Major Noel) the
dimensions are as follows:—Circumference, twenty-three and a
quarter inches; greatest height from external orifice of ear to
summit of crown, 6²⁄₈ inches. On the other hand dear Mrs.
Somerville’s little head, which held three times as much as mine
has ever done, was below the average of that of women. So much for
that argument!

Footnote 3:

The aphorism so often applied to little girls, that “it is better to
be good than pretty,” may, with greater hope of success, be applied to
family names; but I fear mine is neither imposing nor sonorous. I may
say of it (as I remarked to the charming Teresa Doria when she
ridiculed the Swiss for their _mesquin_ names, all ending in “_in_”),
“Everybody cannot have the luck to be able to sign themselves Doria
_nata_ Durazzo!” Nevertheless “Cobbe” is a very old name (Leuricus
Cobbe held lands in Suffolk, _vide_ Domesday), and it is curiously
wide-spread as a word in most Aryan languages, signifying either the
_head_ (literal or metaphorical), or a head-shaped object. I am no
philologist, and I dare say my examples offend against some “law,” and
therefore cannot be admitted; but it is at least odd that we should
find Latin, “_Caput_;” Italian, _Capo_; Spanish, _Cabo_; Saxon, _Cop_;
German, _Kopf_. Then we have, as derivates from the physical head,
_Cape_, _Capstan_, _Cap_, _Cope_, _Copse_ or _Coppice_, _Coping
Stone_, _Copped_, _Cup_, _Cupola_, _Cub_, _Cubicle_, _Kobbold_,
_Gobbo_; and from the metaphorical Head or Chief, _Captain_,
_Capital_, _Capitation_, _Capitulate_, &c. And again, we have a
multitude of names for objects obviously signifying head-shaped,
_e.g._, _Cob-horse_, _Cob-nut_, _Cob-gull_, _Cob-herring_, _Cob-swan_,
_Cob-coal_, _Cob-iron_, _Cob-wall_; a _Cock_ (of hay), according to
Johnson, properly a “_Cop_” of hay; the _Cobb_ (or Headland) at Lyme
Regis, &c., &c.; the Kobbé fiord in Norway, &c.

Footnote 4:

As such things as mythical pedigrees are not _altogether_ unknown in
the world, I beg to say that I have myself noted the above from
Harleian MS. in British Museum 1473 and 1139. Also in the College of
Arms, G. 16, p. 74, and C. 19, p. 104.

Footnote 5:

Wife of Thomas Cobbe’s half-brother.

Footnote 6:

Lady Huntingdon was doubly connected with Thomas Cobbe. She was his
first cousin, daughter of his maternal aunt Selina Countess of
Ferrers, and mother of his sister-in-law, Elizabeth Countess of Moira.
The pictures of Dorothy Levinge, and of her father; of Lady Ferrers;
and of Lord Moira and his wife, all of which hang in the halls at
Newbridge, made me as a child, think of them as familiar people.
Unfortunately the portrait of chief interest, that of Lady Huntingdon,
is missing in the series.

Footnote 7:

Pronounced “Lock Nay.”

Footnote 8:

Part of the following description of my own and my mother’s school
appeared some years ago in a periodical, now, I believe, extinct.

Footnote 9:

“It is a fact of Consciousness to which all experience bears witness
and which it is the duty of the philosopher to admit and account for,
instead of disguising or mutilating it to suit the demands of a
system, that there are certain truths which when once acquired, no
matter how, it is impossible by any effort of thought to conceive as
reversed or reversible.”—Mansel’s _Metaphysics_, p. 248.

Footnote 10:

We should now say _Altruism_.

Footnote 11:

I am thankful to believe that he would be no longer accorded such a
rank in 1890 as in 1850!

Footnote 12:

Mr. Hutton, whose exceedingly interesting and brilliant _Life of the
Marquess of Wellesley_ (in the “_Rulers of India_” series) includes an
account of the whole campaign, has been so kind as to endeavour to
identify this Frenchman for me, and tells me that in a note to
Wellington’s _Despatches_, Vol. II., p. 323, it is given as _Dupont_;
Wellington speaking of him as commanding a “brigade of infantry.” My
father certainly spoke of him or some other Frenchman as commanding
Scindias’ artillery. Mr. Hutton has also been good enough to refer me
to Grant Duff’s _History of the Mahrattas_, Vol. III., p. 240, with
regard to the number of British troops engaged at Assaye. He (Mr.
Grant Duff) says the handful of British troops did not exceed 4,500 as
my father also estimated them.

Footnote 13:

The mistake recorded in these little verses was made by a daughter of
Louis Philippe when visiting her uncle, the Grand Duke of Lucca. The
incident was narrated to me by the sculpturess, Mdlle. Felicie
Fauveau, attendant on the Duchesse de Berri.

Footnote 14:

See General Sleeman’s _India_.

Footnote 15:

The Proteus Anguinus.

Footnote 16:

Miss Elliot and I had begun it a year sooner, as stated above.

Footnote 17:

Mr. Jowett referred to Dean Elliot’s purchases of some fine old
pictures.

Footnote 18:

“Then, soul of my soul! I shall meet thee again,
And with God be the rest!”

Footnote 19:

This refers to an afternoon party we gave to witness poor Mr. Bishop’s
interesting thought-reading performances. He was wonderfully
successful throughout, and the company, which consisted of about 30
clever men and women, were unanimous in applauding his art, of
whatever nature it may have been. I may add that after my guests were
departed, when I took out my cheque-book and begged to know his fee,
Mr. Bishop positively refused to accept any remuneration whatever for
the charming entertainment he had given us. The tragic circumstances
of the death of this unhappy young man will be remembered. He either
died, or fell into a deathlike trance, at a supper party in New York,
in 1889; and within _four hours_ of his real (or apparent) decease,
three medical men who had been supping with him, dissected his brain.
One doctor who conducted this autopsy alleged that Bishop had been
extremely anxious that his brain should be examined _post mortem_, but
his mother asserted on the contrary, that he had a peculiar horror of
dissection, and had left directions that no _post mortem_ should be
held on his remains. It was also stated that he had a card in his
pocket warning those who might find him at any time in a trance, to
beware of burying him before signs of dissolution should be visible.
In a leading article on the subject in the _Liverpool Daily Post_, May
21st, 1889, it is stated that by the laws of the United States “it is
distinctly enacted that no dissection shall take place without the
fiat of the coroner, or at the request of the relatives of the
deceased; so that some explanation of the anxiety which induced so
manifest a breach of both laws and custom is eminently desirable. A
second examination of the body at the instance of the coroner, has
revealed the fact that all the organs were in a healthy state, and
that it was impossible to ascribe death to any specific cause or to
say whether Mr. Bishop were alive or dead at the time of the first
autopsy.” Both wife and mother believed he was “murdered;” and ordered
that word to be engraved on his coffin. His mother had herself
experienced a cataleptic trance of six days’ duration, during the
whole of which she was fully conscious. The three doctors were
proceeded against by her and the widow, and were put under bonds of
£500 each; but, as the experts alleged that it was impossible to
decide the cause of death, the case eventually dropped. Whether it
were one of “_Human Vivisection_” or not, can never now be known. If
the three physicians who performed the autopsy on Mr. Bishop did not
commit a murder of appalling barbarity on the helpless companion of
their supper-table, they certainly _risked_ incurring that guilt with
unparalleled levity and callousness.

Footnote 20:

A statue of Miss Hosmer exhibited in London, purchased by an American
gentleman for £1,000.

Footnote 21:

Not quite so good a story as that of another American child who,
having been naughty and punished, was sent up to her room by her
mother and told to ask for forgiveness. On returning downstairs the
mother asked her whether she had done as she had directed? “Oh yes!
Mama,” answered the child, “_And God said to me, Pray don’t mention
it, Miss Perkins!_”

Footnote 22:

See Spenser—The “West” District of London was the one which elected
Miss Garrett for the School Board.

Footnote 23:

Sir W. Harcourt interrupted Mr. Russell when speaking of Vivisections
before students, by the assertion—

“Under the Act demonstrations were forbidden.”—_Times_, April 5th,
1883.

In the Act in question—39 & 40 Vict., c. 77, Clause 3, Sect. 1—are
these words, “Experiments _may be performed_ ... by a person giving
illustrations of lectures,” &c., &c. By the Returns issued from Sir W.
Harcourt’s own (Home) Office in the previous year, _sixteen_ persons
had been registered as holding certificates permitting experiments in
illustration of lectures. It seems to me a shocking feature of modern
politics that an outrageous falsehood—or must we call it mistake?—of
this kind is allowed to serve its purpose at the moment but the author
never apologizes for it afterwards.

Footnote 24:

Most of the following letters were lent by me to Mr. Walrond when he
was preparing the biography of Dean Stanley, and in returning them he
said that he had kept copies of them, and meant to include them in his
book. The present Editor not having used them, I feel myself at
liberty to print them here.

Footnote 25:

We had many good stories floating about in Rome at that time and he
was always ready to enjoy them, but one, I think, told me by the
painter Penry Williams, would not have tickled him as it did us
heretics. The Pope, it seems, offered one of his Cardinals (whose
reputation was far from immaculate) a pinch of snuff. The Cardinal
replied more facetiously than respectfully “_Non ho questo vizio,
Santo Padre_.” Pius IX. observed quietly, snapping his snuffbox, “_Se
vizio fosse, l’avreste_” (If it had been a vice you would have had
it)!

Footnote 26:

Curiously enough I have had occasion to repeat this remark this Spring
(1894) in a controversy in the columns of the _Catholic Times_.

Footnote 27:

I had talked to him of our Ragged School at Bristol.

Footnote 28:

When our Bill was debated in Parliament in 1883, Mr. Gladstone left
us, totally unaided, to the mercies (not tender) of Sir William
Harcourt, who interrupted Mr. George Russell’s speech in support of
our Bill by the remark that the demonstrations to students, to which
he referred, were forbidden by the Vivisection Act. _Sixteen_
certificates granting permission for the performance of such
experiments in demonstration to students passed through his own office
that year!

Footnote 29:

This opinion of the great _Philanthropist_ deserves to be remembered
with those of the many thinkers who have reached the same conclusion
from other sides.

Footnote 30:

The General Secretary, then, and, I am happy to say, still,—of the
Victoria Street Society.

Footnote 31:

The lines to which Lord Shaftesbury refers—“Best in the Lord” (since
included in many collections) begin with the words:

“God draws a cloud over each gleaming morn.
Wouldst thou ask, why?
It is because all noblest things are born
In agony.

Only upon some Cross of pain or woe
God’s Son may lie.
Each soul redeemed from self and sin must know
Its Calvary.”

Lord Shaftesbury entirely understood the point of view from which I
regarded that sacred spot.

Footnote 32:

Here is what Dr. Russell Reynolds, F.R.S., said in 1881 in an address
to the Medical Society of University College:—“There is meddling and
muddling of a most disreputable sort, and the patients” (he is
speaking of women) “grow sick of it, and give it all up and get well;
or they go from bad to worse.”... “Physicians have coined names for
trifling maladies, if they have not invented them, and have set
fashions of disease. They have treated or maltreated their patients by
endless examinations, applications, and the like, and this sometimes
for months, sometimes for years, and then, when by some accident the
patient has been removed from their care, she has become quite well
and there has been no more need for caustic,” &c., &c.

And here is what Dr. Clifford Allbut said in the Gulstonian Lecture
for 1884 at the Royal College of Physicians. After admitting that
women feel more pain than men, he mentioned the “_morbid chains_,” the
“_mental abasement_,” into which fall “the flock of women who lie
under the wand of the Gynæcologist” (specialist of women’s diseases);
“the women who are _caged up in London back drawing-rooms_, and
visited almost daily; their brave and active spirits broken under a
_false_ (!!) _belief in the presence of a secret and over-mastering
local malady_; and the best years of their lives honoured only by a
distressful victory over pain.” (Italics mine.)—_Medical Press_, March
19th, 1884.

Footnote 33:

The certificate (A) dispensing with Anæsthetics was doubtless inserted
after Lord Shaftesbury saw the Bill.

Footnote 34:

Mr. Cartwright, speaking in the House of Commons, April 4th, 1883, in
reply to Mr. R. T. Reid, said: “The hon. member should have said
something about the prosecution of Dr. Ferrier for having evaded the
Act. He does not do that. He has wisely given the go-by to it, for
that prosecution lamentably failed, altogether broke down. The charge
brought against Dr. Ferrier was that he operated without a licence and
infringed the law by doing those things to which the hon. and learned
member referred; but the charge was not supported by one tittle of
evidence.”

Footnote 35:

Many persons have supposed that I am still concerned with the
management of that journal; but, except as an occasional contributor,
such is not the case. The credit of the editorship for the last ten
years (which I consider to be great) rests entirely with Mr. Bryan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. P. 169, changed “but really achieved” to “but rarely achieved”. 2. P. 277, changed “straight on end” to “straight on in”. 3. P. 319, changed “bought forth fruit” to “brought forth fruit”. 4. P. 354, changed “thoughts, I don’t” to “thoughts, I won’t”. 5. Corrected the issues identified in the Errata. 6. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling. 7. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. 8. Re-indexed foot-notes using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter. 9. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.