Chapter V: Part 5

In 1773 the reigning King of Sweden appointed him, in conjunction with others, to make a new translation of the Bible into the Swedish language. In the month of May, 1774, whilst lecturing in the Botanical Garden, he was attacked by apoplexy, the debilitating effects of which obliged him to relinquish the more active parts of his professional duties, and to close his literary career. In 1776 a second apoplectic fit paralysed his right side and impaired his mental powers. Even in this painful and miserable state the study of nature remained his greatest pleasure, and he was constantly carried into his museum to survey the treasures there accumulated. He died January 10, 1778, in the seventy-first year of his age.

On his death a general mourning took place at Upsal. A medal was struck upon the occasion, and a monument erected to his memory in the cathedral church of Upsal. The King of Sweden himself pronounced a panegyric on his distinguished subject before the Royal Academy of Sweden.

Nature was eminently liberal in the endowments of Linnæus’s mind. He had a lively imagination; a correct judgment, guided by the strict laws of system; a most retentive memory; and unremitting industry. He laboured to inspire the great and opulent with a taste for natural history, and he wished particularly that ecclesiastics should have some knowledge of it. He thought such knowledge would sweeten retirement, and that pastors had great opportunities for observing nature. He was decidedly religious himself, and not one of his greater works begins or ends without some passage expressive of admiration for the Supreme Creator.

His strength and weakness alike consisted in a rigid adherence to system. He arranged, according to a system of his own invention, all natural objects, from man down to the simple crystals. The Linnæan school is more fitted to arrange and describe the materials of science than to extend its boundaries. Its pupils have too rigidly adhered to a system, which is ill adapted to our increased sphere of knowledge.

In botany, the merits of Linnæus were transcendent. He found it a chaos, and reduced it to a system, which enabled the student to study it with ease. The great objection to his arrangement, founded on the sexual parts of plants, is, that it is artificial, and has rather retarded the knowledge of a system more philosophical, and in stricter accordance with the rules of nature. The labours of the Jussieus and De Candolle have done much to introduce a better system; but much still is wanting to complete it.

After the death of Linnæus’s only son, in November, 1783, the late eminent botanist, Sir James Smith, purchased his museum of natural history, books, and manuscripts, for 1029_l._ This collection consisted of nearly everything possessed by the great Linnæus and his son. Sir James Smith directed in his will that these treasures should be offered, after his own death, to the Linnæan Society of London. They were accordingly purchased by that body for 3000 guineas; and are now placed in the Society’s rooms in London.

This memoir is compiled almost entirely from a Life of Linnæus written for the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, and from the article ‘Linnæus,’ in the ‘Biographie Universelle,’ by the late Baron Cuvier.

[Linnæus in his Lapland dress.]
]

_Engraved by W. Holl._

PRIESTLEY.

_From a Picture by Gilbert Stewart
in the possession of T. B. Barclay, Esq^r. of Liverpool._

Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful
Knowledge.

_London. Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street, & Pall Mall
East._
]

PRIESTLEY.

It was the fortune of this eminent philosopher, in the course of a long, uncompromising advocacy of his own views of truth, to become prominently engaged in controversy on those two great sources of discord, religion and politics. He was grossly maltreated by those who disapproved of his doctrines; and, as the natural consequence, he was regarded with warm, not to say immoderate, admiration by his friends. His opinions, however, were the result of patient inquiry, instituted and pursued, as we believe, with a sincere desire to arrive at truth; and therefore he is entitled to be treated with respect, even by those who think his opinions of pernicious tendency. A good life of such a man can hardly satisfy both friends and enemies. It is, however, as a man of science, not as a party disputant, that Priestley is entitled to a place here; and we shall therefore hold ourselves excused from entering at length into his political or theological controversies.

JOSEPH PRIESTLEY was born at Fieldhead, near Leeds, March 13, 1733, O.S. His father was of middle rank, engaged in the woollen manufactures of the neighbourhood. His mother died while he was still a child: but this loss was alleviated by the kindness of his paternal aunt, who undertook the care of his education from the time that he was nine years old. He underwent some disadvantage, in being shifted about from one tutor to another; but being of a studious turn, he made considerable progress in the study of ancient and modern languages, Asiatic as well as European, of mathematics, metaphysics, and other branches of learning; so that he was found to be unusually well informed, on his admission at the Dissenting Academy at Daventry, in 1752. His father and his aunt were Calvinistic Dissenters, and Priestley was brought up in an unusually strict observance of all the external duties of religion. He acknowledges in his memoirs an obligation to this course of life, as having early given him a serious turn of mind, but without recommending a similar course for general adoption. As was natural, he imbibed the principles of Calvinism; and suffered at one time severe uneasiness, because he could not realize in his mind those feelings which he had been taught to consider as the index of salvation. This we mention, because it shows that his early prepossessions were diametrically opposed to that system of religion to which he ultimately worked his way.

For three years Priestley continued at Daventry, labouring sedulously in studying to qualify himself for the ministry. At the end of that time, he accepted an invitation to become assistant preacher to a dissenting congregation at Needham Market, near Ipswich. His residence there, a period of three years more, was one of considerable want and difficulty. His stipulated salary amounted only to 40_l._, and was so ill paid, that his receipts generally fell short of 30_l._: insomuch that, without occasional assistance, procured from different charities by his friends, he could scarcely have subsisted. This deficiency arose partly from the poverty of the congregation, partly from his own unpopularity. His religious views, which, during his abode at Daventry, had changed to Arianism, did not accord with those of his hearers; and he laboured under an impediment of speech. Yet, notwithstanding these unfavourable circumstances, he says, “I was far from being unhappy at Needham. I firmly believed that a wise Providence was disposing every thing for the best, and I applied with great assiduity to my studies, which were classical, mathematical, and theological. These required but few books. As to experimental philosophy, I had always cultivated an acquaintance with it, but I had not the means of prosecuting it.” The result of his theological studies was a still more decided rejection of the doctrines in which he had been brought up In his own words, “I had become, in consequence of much pains and thought, persuaded of the falsity of the doctrine of atonement, of the inspiration of the authors of the books of scripture as writers, and of all idea of supernatural influence, except for the purpose of miracles. But I was still an Arian, having never turned my attention to the Socinian doctrine, and contenting myself with seeing the absurdity of the Trinitarian system.”

Priestley’s situation was somewhat improved by an invitation to Nantwich, in Cheshire, in 1758. He remained there for three years, engaged in the double duty of preaching and keeping a school; and then accepted an appointment as tutor of languages in the Dissenting Academy newly established at Warrington. Not confining himself to the strict letter of his duties, he composed and delivered lectures on the theory of language, oratory, and criticism; on history in general, and on the history, laws, and constitution of England. It is a remarkable instance of his versatility and activity of mind, that, in addition to this extensive course of study, he undertook to write his History of Electricity, a subject with which he then was little acquainted, and finished it within a year, though in the course of the work he had been led into a large field of original experiments. After a residence of six years, the situation affording him a bare livelihood, he removed to Leeds, and took the charge of Mill Hill Chapel, in September, 1767.

At Leeds, Priestley resided for another period of six years, actively employed in clerical and scientific labours. Here his experiments on fixed air were undertaken, and published. He undertook a History of Discoveries relating to Vision, Light, and Colours, as part of a projected history of all the branches of experimental philosophy; but the sale of this portion was discouraging, and he abandoned the rest of the undertaking. He also published his well-known Chart of History, and wrote an Essay on Government, with other pieces, in addition to a great number of religious pamphlets. These various pursuits, with occasional visits to London, made him well known to literary men; and, by the friendship of Dr. Price, he was recommended to the Earl of Shelburne, as well qualified to fill the station of a literary companion and friend. In consequence, he removed to Calne in Wiltshire, close to that nobleman’s seat, Bowood. Nominally filling the office of librarian, and treated by Lord Shelburne with uniform respect and kindness, he had access to the best society, both at Bowood and in London: he also had the advantage of foreign travel. But at length a coldness grew up on the part of his patron; and at the end of seven years the connection was dissolved. By the terms of his agreement, Dr. Priestley became entitled to an annuity of 150_l._, which was punctually paid. Each party bore testimony to the honourable conduct of the other. The cause of this estrangement never was avowed; but it is probable that the boldness with which Priestley wrote in support of his peculiar metaphysical and religious doctrines may have displeased Lord Shelburne.

Induced by motives of family connection, Dr. Priestley now took up his residence at Birmingham. Local convenience and the society of various distinguished men, among whom James Watt was pre-eminent, rendered that town peculiarly suitable to his scientific pursuits, which, however, were never suffered to occupy him to the exclusion of theology. He undertook the ministry of a chapel. He revived the Theological Repository, which had been commenced and discontinued at Leeds. He composed and published his History of the Corruptions of Christianity. This work involved him in a well-known controversy with Dr. Horsley, who is commonly said to have owed his bishopric to his exertions in it. Priestley pursued the dispute in a history of early opinions concerning Jesus Christ; and for some time he wrote an annual pamphlet in answer to the attacks on Unitarianism. His intimate friend, Dr. Price, was the most distinguished among his opponents, and their controversy was carried on with eminent decency and candour. It was published in 1778, entitled “A free Discussion of the Doctrines of Materialism and Necessity, in a Correspondence between Dr. Price and Dr. Priestley, &c.” The Socinian tenets of the latter were again advocated in his General History of the Christian Church to the Fall of the Western Empire. These active labours in the field of controversy, backed by his general reputation, caused Priestley to be regarded as the leading person among the Dissenters, a body at that time distrusted by the government, and disliked by a large portion of their fellow-countrymen. The agitation of the repeal of the Test Act increased the prejudice against them, while it gave Priestley a fresh motive for exertion. Loud was the outcry, and bitter the hatred of the “Church and King” party. One of the clergy of Birmingham attacked him from the pulpit. To him and to another he replied in a series of Familiar Letters to the Inhabitants of Birmingham. At length party rage grew so high, that a meeting (at which Priestley was not present) being held by some persons, who looked favourably on the commencement of the French Revolution, July 14, 1791, to celebrate the anniversary of the destruction of the Bastile, the house in which they assembled was attacked by an infuriated mob. Dr. Priestley’s meeting-house and dwelling-house were the next objects of outrage; and the latter, with his valuable library, philosophical apparatus, papers, &c., was destroyed. The houses of several other Dissenters were more or less injured. He recovered a certain compensation for his losses; but the sum awarded, according to his statement, fell two thousand pounds short of their real amount. The liberality of his friends, however, more than made up the pecuniary deficiency. The French testified a warm sense of his ill-usage; and on the meeting of the National Convention, several of the departments invited him to become a member of it. This compliment he wisely declined.

Birmingham was no longer a pleasant, nor even a safe abode for the philosopher. He removed to Hackney, where the congregation of Dr. Price soon invited him to become the successor of his deceased friend. By degrees he replaced his philosophical instruments, and resumed his studies, hoping to finish his life without more removals. But as the French Revolution advanced, and political dissension in England ran higher and higher, his situation grew more unpleasant, and, in his estimation, more dangerous. He found himself shunned at the meetings of the Royal Society, and he ceased to attend them; he was harassed by threats and insults; he believed the violence of the high church party against him to be on the increase; he saw oppressive political prosecutions instituted against others, and thought himself a likely person to be marked for ruin. Above all, he found the evil repute into which he had fallen an effectual bar to the favourable establishment of his sons in England; and when they were gone to seek their fortunes in America, he resolved to follow them. He landed at New York in June, 1794, and shortly after settled at Northumberland, a town about one hundred and thirty miles N. W. of Philadelphia. There rejecting more than one advantageous offer of situations in the University of Philadelphia, he spent the remainder of life, continuing to the last his philosophical and theological studies. The chief fruit of these latter years was his General History of the Christian Church, in four volumes. After a gradual decline of strength, he died, February 6, 1804.

The private character of Priestley was such as to command respect. Modest, benevolent, pious, of studious and retired habits and unimpeached morals, the worst his enemies had to say of him was, that he taught heresy, and was an enemy of the established order of things. His works, not including those on scientific subjects, have recently been edited by Mr. Rutt, in twenty-five volumes 8vo., the first of which contains his own memoirs, illustrated by notes by the editor, and very numerous letters; and a catalogue of his publications in the order in which they appeared. The same memoirs, written by himself, in an unpretending and dispassionate style, and continued down to the author’s death, by his son Joseph Priestley, appeared in 1805, with an appendix, containing notices of his works and opinions. With respect to his philosophical merits, the eloge pronounced on him by Cuvier to the Institute, of which Priestley was an associate, in 1805, will command attention, like every production of its distinguished author.

In the space to which we are restricted, it will be impossible to give an adequate idea of the vast importance of Dr. Priestley’s chemical discoveries: they are justly regarded as forming the basis of our knowledge of pneumatic chemistry, and indeed of the science in general; for upon one of them alone, that of oxygen gas, is founded our acquaintance with the nature of air, earth, and water, and the same discovery has served also to explain the action of fire.

Dr. Priestley’s residence at Leeds was near a brewery; and his first pneumatic experiments were made on the carbonic acid gas, or _fixed air_, largely generated during fermentation. Gradually pursuing the subject, he examined various other aëriform bodies, and submitted to experiment numerous substances which were convertible into, or capable of yielding, air. These investigations led him to the discovery of new gaseous bodies, both elementary and compound. So little cultivated had been the field in which he commenced his researches, that he was under the necessity of imagining and constructing new instruments, in order to carry them on. To his inventive genius chemistry is indebted for the pneumatic trough, the method of receiving and retaining gases over mercury, and the process of combining and decomposing them by electricity. “The very implements,” Dr. Henry remarks, in his Estimate of the Philosophical Character of Dr. Priestley, “with which he was to work were, for the most part, to be invented; and of the merits of those which he did invent, it is a sufficient proof that they continue in use to this day, with no very important modification. All his contrivances for collecting, transferring, and preserving different kinds of air, and for submitting those airs to the action of solid and liquid substances, were exceedingly simple, beautiful, and effectual. They were chiefly, too, the work of his own hands, or were constructed under his directions by unskilled persons.” Dr. Priestley’s first publication on pneumatic chemistry appeared in 1772; it was called “Directions for impregnating Water with fixed Air,” &c. &c. In this work he proposed the use of a condensing engine for the purpose of causing the water to dissolve a larger quantity of the gas, and thus to prepare artificial mineral waters: this plan, it is well known, is now practised to a great extent. In the Philosophical Transactions for 1772, he announced the discovery that air, which had been vitiated by respiration or the burning of candles, was restored by the vegetation of plants; that air exposed to a mixture of sulphur and iron filings, as had previously been done by Hales, was diminished by about one-fourth or one-fifth in bulk, and that the residual air was lighter than atmospheric air, and noxious to animals. This diminished air he afterwards called phlogisticated air; it is now named azotic, or nitrogen gas. The discovery of this fluid is generally attributed to Dr. Rutherford, who, in his treatise “De Aëre Mephitico,” also published in 1772, mentioned a few of its properties without giving it any name. As Dr. Priestley’s papers were read before the Royal Society so early as in March, it is not improbable that he was the first discoverer of the gas in question. In 1774 appeared the first of three volumes, entitled “Experiments and Observations on different kinds of Air;” and these were followed by three more, entitled “Experiments and Observations relating to various Branches of Natural Philosophy, with a continuation of the Observations on Air:” the last of these was published in 1786. This work contains a series of experiments, unrivalled for their number, novelty, and importance.

Dr. Priestley’s greatest discovery, that of oxygen gas, which he called dephlogisticated air, was made on the 1st of August, 1774, and announced in the Philosophical Transactions for 1775. This gas he first procured from red oxide of mercury, and afterwards from red oxide of lead, and several other substances.

In 1776 Dr. Priestley’s Observations on Respiration were read before the Royal Society. In these he showed that atmospheric air, during inspiration, was diminished in quantity, and deteriorated in quality, by the action of the blood upon it through the blood-vessels of the lungs. He also proved that gases have the power of acting through bladders, and one of his latest papers was on this curious subject: it appeared in the fifth volume of the American Philosophical Transactions, and seems to have been completely overlooked by later experimenters on the same subject. Another of his early and important observations related to the permanent mixture of gases of different densities, in cases in which they do not combine; and he cited this circumstance to account for the perfect mixture of the two gases which form the atmosphere, and which are well known to be of different densities.

In addition to oxygen gas, already mentioned, Dr. Priestley also discovered muriatic acid gas, sulphurous acid gas, fluoric acid gas, nitrous oxide gas, ammoniacal gas, and carbonic oxide gas; but he entirely mistook the nature of the last-mentioned body. He also showed that muriatic acid gas and ammoniacal gas, when mixed, condense into solid sal ammoniac. He must also have obtained chlorine gas, but it escaped his notice, because, being received over mercury, it quickly combined with it. Hydrogen gas and carbonic acid gas were known before his time; but his experiments upon them greatly extended our acquaintance with their properties. Nitrous gas, barely discovered by Dr. Hales, was first investigated by Priestley, and applied by him to eudiometry, a most important branch of chemical science originating with himself.

In 1778, he pursued his experiments on the property of vegetables growing in the light, to renovate impure air, and on the use of vegetation in this part of the economy of nature. Chemistry is also indebted to him for the method of decomposing metallic oxides by means of hydrogen gas, and for noticing that this gas has the property of dissolving iron. He observed also that lime is less soluble in hot than cold water; and that when a solution of lime in cold water is heated, part of the lime is deposited.

In the first volume of his work on air (p. 278), Dr. Priestley has anticipated the idea of Dr. Arnott and Sir J. F. W. Herschel, that electricity, acting on the brain and nerves, may excite muscular action.

Dr. Henry, in the memoir already quoted, has remarked, that facts are to be met with in various parts of Dr. Priestley’s works that might have given him a hint of the law, since unfolded by the sagacity of M. Gay-Lussac, “that gaseous substances combine in definite volumes.” From the same memoir we extract the following observations, in conclusion of this short account of Dr. Priestley’s scientific labours:—“He greatly enlarged our knowledge of the important class of metals, and traced out many of their most interesting relations to oxygen and to acids. He unfolded, and illustrated by simple and beautiful experiments, distinct views of combustion; of the respiration of animals, both of the inferior and higher classes; of the changes produced in organized bodies by putrefaction, and of the causes that accelerate or retard that process; of the importance of azote as the characteristic ingredient of animal substances, observable by the action of dilute nitric acid on muscle and tendon; of the functions and economy of living vegetables; and of the relations and subserviency which exist between the animal and vegetable kingdoms.”

_Engraved by Rob^t. Hart._

ARIOSTO.

_From a Print by Raffaelle Morghen._

Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful
Knowledge.

_London. Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._
]

ARIOSTO.

Ludovico Ariosto was born at Reggio, near Modena, in September, 1474. From boyhood he showed a turn for versifying, and a distaste for the severer study of the law, to which he was destined. This repugnance triumphed over the wishes of his father, an Officer in the Duke of Ferrara’s service, and obtained license for him to pursue his own inclinations. His father died about the year 1500, leaving a small inheritance, and ten children, of whom Ludovico was the eldest. Thus, the care of the family, and the education and establishment of its younger branches, devolved upon him; and this onerous and important duty he faithfully performed, while to his mother, who survived his other parent many years, he ever manifested a filial affection.

In the midst of his domestic cares he still found time to cultivate literature, and he composed several lyric pieces; among others, a Latin epithalamium on the marriage of Alfonso d’Este, son of the reigning Duke of Ferrara, with the infamous Lucrezia Borgia, daughter of Pope Alexander VI. Ariosto was then but a young man, and probably little acquainted with the political and domestic history of the Borgias; the praises therefore which he bestows on Lucrezia, not merely for her beauty, but for her moral qualities, ought not to be too severely criticised; the same excuse, however, cannot be made for a repetition of the same eulogium in his subsequent great poem, when he must certainly have become acquainted with the contemporary chronicles. But all poets were in that age tainted with court flattery, and Ariosto’s object was to gain the favour of his sovereigns and patrons, the princes of Este. Princely patronage was then absolutely necessary to a literary man who was not himself rich, as there was no reading public upon which to depend. Italy was divided into principalities, and distracted by foreign war and intestine dissensions, and the notice of the courts could alone bestow fame upon an author, and save him from neglect and distress.

These compositions attracted the favourable notice of Cardinal Ippolito d’Este, Alfonso’s younger brother, a man of information and abilities. Upon personal acquaintance, he was pleased with Ariosto’s manners, and received him as one of the gentlemen of his retinue about the year 1503. Ippolito was a busy politician, and deeply concerned in all the intrigues of that most busy period of Italian politics. He soon perceived that Ariosto’s talents might be turned to account, and employed him in various missions, to Florence, Urbino, and other Italian courts; in the course of which the poet became acquainted with many persons of rank and consequence, and especially with Cardinal Giovanni de’ Medici, afterwards Leo X., who took a particular liking to him, and admitted him to his familiar society.

Ariosto was recommended by his first patron, Cardinal Ippolito, to Alfonso d’Este, who succeeded to the ducal crown of Ferrara in 1505; and from that time he enjoyed the confidence of both the brothers.

In 1509, Alfonso joined in the league of Cambray with the Pope, the French, and the Emperor Maximilian, against the Venetians; and Ippolito, who was a soldier as well as a statesman, took the command of his brother’s troops. Ariosto accompanied his master to the field, and was present at the campaign of that year on the banks of the Po. He has described, in the thirty-sixth canto of his Furioso, the atrocities perpetrated by the Sclavonian mercenaries in the Venetian service.

It is not our province to follow the operations of this war, farther than to state, that Ariosto was present in several battles, and employed in two political missions to Pope Julius II. The second time, he was compelled to make a hasty retreat from Rome, as Julius had publicly threatened to have him thrown into the Tiber. In 1513, Leo X. succeeded to the Papal throne. Ariosto soon after repaired to Rome to congratulate the new Pope. Leo received him as an old and intimate acquaintance. “He stooped graciously from his holy chair towards me, took me by the hand, and saluted me on both the cheeks. From that moment my credulous hopes were raised to the unknown regions of heaven.” In short, Ariosto now thought his fortune was made. But he had not sufficient patience; he soon grew tired of waiting at Rome without receiving any more substantial proofs of Leo’s benevolence, and, too independent to be importunate at levees and audiences, he turned his back upon all his prospects from that quarter. Having returned to Ferrara, he applied himself with renewed earnestness to his favourite studies. He had long since formed the plan of a great poem on the subject of the wars of Charlemagne against the Saracens, a traditional theme derived from the fabulous chronicle of Turpin, in which some truth was intermixed with a mass of exaggerations, anachronisms, and wondrous tales of paladins, knights-errant, and giants, the offspring of older traditions of Welch or Armorican invention. (See Warton’s “History of English Poetry,” Ellis’s “Specimens of early English Metrical Romances,” etc.) Many French, Spanish, and Italian ballad and romance writers had treated this fanciful theme, each adding something to the common stock of the marvellous from his own imagination. In Italy, three poets of considerable genius, Pulci, Boiardo, and Bello, had composed long poems on the subject, in which the celebrated Orlando or Roland, figured as the great champion of Christendom. Boiardo, departing from his predecessors, gave a new interest to his poem by making Orlando fall in love with Angelica, a Pagan or Saracen (the two are often taken as synonymous in all these romances) princess, of supernatural beauty, and possessed of magical powers, who had come from the farthest Asia to Charlemagne’s camp for the express purpose of exciting the jealousy of the Christian leaders, and thus, by spreading dissension among them, rendering them unable to cope successfully with the infidels. Boiardo did not complete his poem, which he called “Orlando Innamorato;” and he left off the story of Angelica, where Charlemagne, weary of the discord which raged in his camp since Angelica’s appearance, gives her in charge to Namo, one of his squires, until such time as he shall have decided upon the rival claims of Rinaldo and Orlando, his two bravest paladins, to her hand. It is from this point that Ariosto took up the thread of his story, and in consonance with the proverb that from love to madness there is but one step, he determined to make Orlando run mad with jealousy, on discovering that Angelica had eloped with a young and handsome, but obscure squire, of the name of Medoro, for whom she forgets all the objects of her journey to the west, and despises the sighs of Orlando and the other renowned paladins of Charlemagne’s court. Ariosto styled his poem “Orlando Furioso,” and he wrote it at first in forty cantos, which he afterwards increased to forty-six. Orlando’s madness runs through the greater part of the poem, until he is restored to reason by his cousin Astolpho, who brings back his wits in a phial from the moon. Meantime the principal action of the poem, namely, the war between Charlemagne and the Saracens, continues throughout, and ends with the final expulsion of the Moors from France, and the death of their great champion Rodomonte, whose death, like that of Turnus in the Æneid, closes the poem. But it would be idle to look for the unity and the consecutiveness of epic action, as some critics have done, in a poem which is not an epic. There are many actions in the Furioso, all skilfully interwoven together, and making in the end an harmonious whole; but during their progress, the reader finds himself often lost as in a labyrinth, and perplexed how to recover the thread of his recollections. And yet the beauties of description, the fine touches of character and feeling, are so many, that we wander on delighted, as pilgrims who have strayed into an enchanted world, and then gaze, and wonder, and idle along, thoughtless of the end or purport of their journey.

Ariosto was employed for ten years about his poem, from his first beginning to the completion of it in forty cantos. It was printed at his own expense, at Ferrara, in April, 1516, by Mazocco del Bondeno, in one volume quarto. He sold one hundred copies of this first edition to the bookseller, Gigli, for twenty-eight scudi, being at the rate of about fifteen pence a copy, on condition that the bookseller should not sell the copies for more than twenty pence each. This edition is now extremely rare.

Ariosto hastened to present a copy to Cardinal Ippolito, to whom there is an affectionate dedication in the third stanza of the first canto, besides several other passages throughout the work which are highly laudatory of him, of his brother Alfonso, and of the house of Este in general. The Cardinal, after perusing the poem, seems to have been puzzled about the meaning and purpose of it, and he is said to have asked the author “Where in the devil’s name he had picked up so many absurdities?” But whether this story be true or not, it is certain that Ippolito did not relish the work, and that Ariosto gained by it no additional favour with him. Cardinal Ippolito was a busy worldly man; his mind was anything but poetical, his tastes and pursuits were matter of fact; his abilities—and he had abilities—were in a different line, and he told Ariosto that “he would have been better pleased, if, instead of praising him in idle verse, he had exerted himself more earnestly in his service.” This remark we have from Ariosto himself, in his second satire. Much declamation has been wasted on the Cardinal for his want of taste, and for what has been called his ungenerous conduct towards the great poet. But a want of taste for poetry is no ground for moral censure; and if the Cardinal thought no better of Ariosto for exerting a talent which he could not appreciate, at least it does not appear that he esteemed him the less. He retained him in his service as before, until the end of 1517, when being on the point of setting off for his diocese of Gran in Hungary, of which he was Archbishop, he requested Ariosto to follow him; but Ariosto excused himself on the plea of his delicate health and the rudeness of the Hungarian climate. His brother Alessandro, however, accompanied the Cardinal. Ippolito was certainly displeased at Ariosto’s refusal, but he did not stop his pension in consequence of it. It was not until a year or two after that the small pension of twenty-five scudi every four months, of which Ariosto speaks, was stopped, during the Cardinal’s absence; and it is stated by Barotti, in his life of Ariosto, that this took place in consequence of the Duke’s abolishing a local tax, on the produce of which Ariosto’s pension was assigned. Besides this pension, Ariosto enjoyed one-third of the fees paid to the Notarial Chancery for every deed registered, which brought him about one hundred scudi per annum. This he did not lose after the Cardinal’s departure. He seems to have enjoyed some other perquisites, which were, of course, the fruits of his connection with the princes of Este. He was not rich, but, at the same time, he was not in distress. Although he sometimes indulges in outbreakings of poetical querulousness in his satires, which are the best authority for his biography, yet, in the very midst of these, we find expressions of sincere regard and grateful affection for both the Cardinal and the Duke, for Ariosto was a right-hearted man.

After the Cardinal’s death, which happened in 1520, Ariosto was taken by Duke Alfonso into his own service, as one of his gentlemen attendants. The duties of this office, we are told by the poet himself, were merely nominal, and left him ample leisure to pursue his favourite studies. Yet the Duke was very fond of his company, and willingly granted those favours which he requested for himself or his friends. (See Ariosto’s Seventh Satire.) From the general character of Ariosto, however, we may conclude that he was not an indiscreet or importunate petitioner. In 1521, he published a second edition of his great poem, with many corrections, but still in forty cantos only: this edition is as scarce as the first. As he expressed a wish to be more actively employed, Alfonso, in 1522, appointed him Governor of the province of Garfagnana, bordering on the Modenese territory, and situated on the western slope of the Apennines, on the side of Lucca. This country had just been restored to the house of Este, after having been for years occupied by the Florentines and the Pope. The people were divided into factions, which openly defied the law. Ariosto humorously describes in his fifth satire the difficulties of his new office. He remained about three years at Castelnuovo, the chief town of this mountain district, and seems to have succeeded by his firm, yet liberal and conciliatory conduct, in restoring order among that turbulent and rude population, who showed him marked proofs of esteem on several occasions. In 1523, the Duke’s secretary, Pistofilo, wrote to offer him the appointment of ambassador to the new Pope, Clement VII.; but Ariosto declined the honour, saying, that he had already had enough of Rome and the Medici, alluding to his disappointment which he had experienced from Leo X. In 1524, he returned from his government to Ferrara, which he does not seem to have ever quitted afterwards. He had there long before formed an attachment to a lady, whose name he has carefully concealed; and this appears, from his own hints, to have been an additional reason, on several occasions above mentioned, for his not wishing to remove far from Ferrara. By this lady he had a son, Virginio, whom he legitimated by a regular act done before Cardinal Campeggio, in April, 1530. Virginio was then twenty-one years of age. The deed still exists in the archives of the house of Ariosti. In it the Christian name alone of Virginio’s mother, Orsolina, is mentioned, and she is qualified as a spinster; but her family name and rank are left out, _honestatis causâ_, as it is there stated. This Virginio took orders, and became afterwards a canon of the Cathedral of Ferrara. Ariosto had another natural son, Giovanbattista, who rose to the rank of captain in the Duke’s service.

After his return from Garfagnana, Ariosto recast some comedies which he had composed in youth, and wrote others, making in all five comedies in blank verse, which pleased the Duke so much upon perusal that he resolved on having them performed, and for this purpose had a theatre constructed in a wing of the ducal palace. No pains or expense were spared to add to the splendour of the representation, which the Duke and his court attended. These plays are modelled upon Plautus and Terence; the unities are preserved, and the plot is made to turn upon the shifts and stratagems of dissipated and needy young men, aided by base domestics or panders, to deceive their parents, or the parents or guardians of their mistresses. And, like the contemporary comedies of Bibbiena and Machiavelli (co-founders with Ariosto of Italian comedy,) they are stained by frequent indecency of allusion and language.

In the division of his father’s scanty property, Ludovico had for his share the house at Ferrara, which stands, or stood till lately, in the street of Santa Maria di Bocche, and on the door of which was seen the marble escutcheon of the Ariosti. He purchased, in 1526, a small house of a person of the name of Pistoja, near the street Mirasole. He afterwards bought several adjoining lots of ground, and built himself a commodious house, which he surrounded by a garden and trees. This is still seen in the street Mirasole, with an inscription to commemorate its former inmate. There he spent, in studious and pleasant retirement, the latter years of his life, continuing to enjoy the favour of Duke Alfonso, and of his son Prince Ercole d’Este, afterwards Duke Hercules II., to whom he gave instruction in literature.

In October, 1532, Ariosto, after sixteen years passed, since its first publication, in the continual and almost daily revision of his great poem, published a third edition in forty-six cantos, which, notwithstanding some misprints, has remained the legitimate text of the Orlando Furioso. This was the last edition which he published himself. The six additional cantos are the 33d, 37th, 39th, 42d, 44th, and 45th; and in the others, stanzas are added or altered from time to time. Soon after Ariosto had thus completed his work, he fell ill of a painful internal complaint, which, after several months of lingering sufferings, terminated in death, June 6, 1533. He was then in his fifty-ninth year. He was buried privately in the church of San Benedetto, near his house, and his funeral was attended by the monks, who volunteered to pay this honour to his remains. Forty years later, the church having been rebuilt, a monument was raised to him on the right of the great altar by Agostino Mosti of Ferrara, who in his youth had studied under Ariosto, to which the poet’s bones were transferred with great ceremony. In 1612, Ludovico Ariosto, the poet’s grand-nephew, raised another monument, more splendid than the first, and placed it in the chapel to the left of the great altar; and thither Ariosto’s remains underwent removal for the second time. They were then left in peace for nearly two centuries, until the French took possession of the country at the beginning of the present century, when they removed the monument (we believe the last of the two, though we cannot positively say) to the Lyceum or University; where Ariosto’s chair and his ink-stand are also preserved, as well as the autographs of the Furioso. In the convent of San Benedetto is a painting, representing paradise, by Garofalo, who had known Ariosto personally, in which the poet is seen between St. Catherine and St. Sebastian.

Virginio Ariosto left several curious memoranda of his father’s habits, which are given by Barotti. He was tall, of a robust and naturally healthy frame, and a good pedestrian. One summer’s morning he strayed out of Carpi, near Reggio, where he then resided, in his morning gown and slippers, to take a walk. Being absent in thought, he had gone more than half way to Ferrara before he recollected himself; and then continued his route, and arrived at Ferrara in the evening, having walked a distance of at least forty miles. He was generally frugal, and not choice in his meals, though at times he ate much and hurriedly, because, his son says, he was not then thinking of what he was doing, being busy in his mind about his verses or about his plans for building. One day a visiter appeared just after he had dined. While they were conversing, the servant brought up dinner for the stranger; and, as the latter was engaged in talking, Ariosto fell on the viands laid on the table, and ate all himself, the guest of course not presuming to interrupt him. After the visiter was gone, Ariosto’s brother remonstrated with him on his inhospitable behaviour, when the poet, coming to himself, exclaimed, “Well, it is his fault, after all; why did he not begin to eat his dinner at once?”

The Italians have bestowed on Ariosto the epithet of “the Divine,” and they also call him “the Homer of Ferrara.”

The character of Ariosto may be easily gathered from this brief sketch of his life. He was trustworthy, loyal, and sincere, free from envy or jealousy, and a warm friend; he was fond of meditation and retirement, often absent and absorbed in thought, and yet he could be very pleasant and jovial in company. He was not a great reader, and he selected the Latin classics in preference to other authors. He studied men and nature more than books. Of Greek he acquired some knowledge late in life. He was very fond of architecture, and regretted that his means did not permit him to satisfy his passion for building. He also took pleasure in gardening, but he was too absent and impatient to prosper in that occupation. His character, by his own confession, was stained by licentious amours: and his works are tainted by impure passages, which render them unfit for indiscriminate perusal. Still this is the fault of detached passages, not of the general spirit or object of his compositions; and if judged in comparison with his contemporaries, he will not be severely censured as an immoral writer.

Ariosto’s great poem, the Orlando Furioso, is too generally known to require a long discussion of its merits. It is by universal consent the first of all poems of chivalry and romance. It is a wonderful creation of man’s imaginative powers, extending far beyond the limits of the natural world. But the poet in his wildest flights takes care not to fall into too palpable extravagance or absurdity. He has the art of endowing the creatures of his fancy with features and attributes apparently so appropriate to their supposed nature, as to remove from his readers the feeling of the improbability of their existence. There are also other merits in the poem besides those of imagination and description. There is often a vein of moral allusion half concealed within Ariosto’s fanciful strains, the evidence of a mind deeply acquainted with the mysteries of the human heart, fully alive to the beauty of virtue, and imbued with sound notions of moral philosophy. At other times he tries to cast off his pensive mood and to appear careless and satirical, and he succeeds in exciting laughter at men’s follies and even vices; a laughter which we doubt whether the writer felt in his own heart. In his satire, however, although rather broad and licentious, he was not bitter or misanthropical. His is the humour of a good-tempered _poco curante_, who has no intention to break with mankind on account of its faults, and who wishes to make the best of the present world, such as it is. His touches of the pathetic, though not many, are exquisite of their kind: we will only mention, as instances, the story of Ginevra, that of Zerbino and Isabella, and the death of Brandimarte. His acquaintance with history, geography, and other sciences, was respectable, considering the time he lived in. His language is generally natural and flowing, and the justness and clearness of his expressions render the perusal of his poem of great use even to prose writers. Galileo used to say that he had formed his style chiefly by assiduous study of the Furioso. Ariosto has been accused of using trivial expressions, borrowed from popular use rather than from books. Many of these, however, have been since adopted by the best Italian writers. Several of his lines certainly are harsh and inharmonious, but it is not improbable that this was intentional, for the sake of expression, or to give variety to the sound of his verse, as it is well known that Ariosto was not a negligent writer; he corrected and recorrected his poem with the greatest care, and his apparent facility is the result of much study and labour. It is said that he altered not less than twenty times the 142d stanza of the eighteenth canto, in which he describes the beginning of a storm at sea, before he fixed on the text as it how stands.

After the three editions of the Furioso superintended by Ariosto himself, numerous editions appeared in various parts of Italy during the sixteenth century, all however more or less incorrect, and some of them—for instance, the one of 1556, by Ruscelli—deliberately mutilated or interpolated, either by editorial presumption, or through scruples of morality. The Aldine edition of 1545 is one of the best of that age; it is also the first that contains five additional cantos, which are the beginning of a new chivalric poem, left in MS. by the author, and given by his son Virginio to Antonio Manuzio. The edition of 1584, by Franceschi of Venice, is rich in comments and illustrations, but the text is often incorrect. The editions of the seventeenth century are all likewise imperfect. The edition of Orlandini, 2 vols. folio, Venice, 1731, contains all the works of Ariosto, with three biographies by Pigna, Fornari, and Garofalo, and several comments and illustrations. The learned Barotti of Ferrara brought out an edition of all Ariosto’s works, Venice, 6 vols. 12mo., 1766, in which he restored in many places the original reading, and added a life of Ariosto, which is still considered the best extant. The Birmingham edition of the Furioso, 4 vols. 4to., with plates, some of which are by Bartolozzi, is remarkably handsome, and one of the most correct. But the best text of the Furioso is that of the edition of Pirotta, Milan, 1818, in 4to., in which the editor, Morali, has succeeded in faithfully restoring the original text of Ariosto’s last edition of 1532, which has been since adopted by Molini in his edition, Florence, 2 vols. 12mo., 1823, by the Padua edition of 1827 in 4to., and by other later Italian editors. Ciardetti has published all the works of Ariosto, Florence, 8 vols. large 8vo., 1823–4.

The Orlando Furioso has been translated into most European languages. Of the English translations, Harrington’s is spirited, but far from faithful; it is in reality rather an imitation than a translation. That by T. H. Croker, 1755, has the merit of being faithful and literal, stanza for stanza. The recent translation by Mr. S. Rose is considered the best.

The Satires of Ariosto are seven in number; they are addressed to his brothers and other friends. As the author did not intend them for publication in his lifetime, he expressed himself freely in them, and related many curious particulars of his history. They were first published in 1534, and have been often reprinted, both separately and with the rest of his works. They have been twice translated into English, by Robert Toft in 1608, and by Croker in 1759. Ariosto is one of the best Italian satirists. He has followed the Horatian model; he corrects without too much bitterness or scurrility. He reprobates the vices of his age and country, and they were many and great. He speaks of popes, princes, and cardinals, of the learned and the unlearned, of clergymen and laymen, of nobles and plebeians, with great freedom, but without violence or exaggeration, and in language generally, though not always, decorous. Ariosto’s satires deserve to be more generally read than they are, both as a mirror of the times, and as a model of that species of composition which, from the pens of ill-tempered or vulgar men, has too often assumed a tone of malignancy and licentiousness equally remote from justice and truth.

Besides the Orlando Furioso, his comedies, and his satires, Ariosto left some minor works, in Italian and in Latin verse, such as epigrams, canzoni, sonnets, capitoli in terza rima, and other lyrics; and a curious Latin eclogue, which long remained inedited, composed in 1506, on the occasion of a conspiracy against the life of Duke Alfonso by his two brothers, Ferrante and Giulio. He also wrote a dialogue in Italian prose, called “l’Erboleto,” on medicine and philosophy. We have no other works of his in prose, except one or two letters; his correspondence, which probably was extensive, has never been collected.

The number of commentators, critics, and biographers of Ariosto is very great: a complete collection of them would form a considerable library. Some of the best have been mentioned in this sketch. We must add Baruffaldi, junior, who wrote a life of Ariosto, Ferrara, 1807, and Count Mazzuchelli, who has given a good biography of him in his “Scrittori d’Italia.”

[House of Ariosto at Ferrara.]
]

MARLBOROUGH.

John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough, was born at Ashe in Devonshire, the seat of his maternal grandfather, Sir John Drake, June 24, 1650. His father, Sir Winston Churchill, was a man of some literary repute, a zealous royalist, and in good esteem at the court of Charles II., to which John Churchill was introduced at the early age of twelve. He soon became one of the Duke of York’s pages; gained that prince’s favour, and was presented with a commission in the guards. In 1672, he held the rank of Captain in the English troops which served as auxiliaries to France under the Duke of Monmouth; and he was so fortunate as to gain the good opinion of Turenne, and to be honoured with the public thanks of Louis XIV. for his gallant conduct at the siege of Maestricht. On his return to England, he was again attached to the Duke of York’s household. He married Miss Sarah Jennings in 1681; and was created a peer of Scotland in 1682, and a peer of England soon after the Duke’s accession to the throne, by the title of Baron Churchill of Sandridge in Hertfordshire. In this early part of his life he prudently abstained from active interference in politics. Gratitude and present interest combined to render him averse to thwart the wishes or policy of his master: political foresight and attachment to the established church warned him not to co-operate in the King’s imprudent measures. He does not appear to have been embarrassed by an over-generous and enthusiastic temper; and therefore, whether or no he was of those who invited William of Orange to England, he had the less difficulty, on the landing of that prince, in making up his mind to the painful task of abandoning a kind master and a falling cause. But, in doing so, he was guilty of no treachery. Entrusted with the command of 6000 men, he carried over no troops, and betrayed no post; but quietly withdrew with a few fellow-officers from King James’s camp.

_Engraved by J. Posselwhite._

MARLBOROUGH.