Chapter II: Part 2

As soon as he had obtained the post of Astronomer Royal, he began to call the attention of the Commissioners of Longitude to the practicability of the method of lunar distances, and proposed to them to establish a Nautical Almanac, which should contain such an ephemeris of the moon’s path as would make the object in view attainable. The memorial on this subject was presented February 9, 1765, and the evidence of various officers of the East India Company’s service was taken as to the success of the method. The lunar tables of Mayer furnished the proposed materials for the moon’s places; and upon the adoption of the scheme of Maskelyne, a parliamentary reward of 3000_l._ was given to Mayer’s widow. To Maskelyne we are thus indebted for a work which has more than any other contributed to the advancement of navigation, in the removal of the great difficulty of finding the longitude. It is true that this first effort could hardly then be expected to give the longitude within a degree; but this was a great improvement, when it is considered that the reckoning of a ship might be out several degrees, and that chronometers had not yet been introduced. But the ‘Nautical Almanac’ must be considered as a work addressed to astronomers as well as seamen, from its earliest commencement. Maskelyne saw the importance of saving the observer the trouble and risk of error which would attend his reductions without such assistance, and contemplated the continual improvement of the lunar tables. It is not one of the least obligations which astronomical science owes to Maskelyne, that since his time a very slender portion of mathematical knowledge will enable a diligent observer to turn his means to good account in the promotion of sidereal and even of planetary astronomy. Without saying that the observer, as such, is employed about the highest department of the science, or in any way recommending the lover of observation to stop his career at that point, we may remind him that, with the assistance of an ephemeris, such as the ‘Nautical Almanac’ of Maskelyne did, still more as that of the present day, he can never want the means of turning his amusements to useful purpose.

The first Nautical Almanac was published in 1767, and was continued by Maskelyne to the end of his life. The requisite tables, intended to accompany that work, were first published by him in 1781.

With the exception of attending the meetings of the Royal Society, Maskelyne hardly ever quitted his observatory. His life is therefore difficult to describe, except by its results. But in 1772 he went to Scotland, to pursue his celebrated experiment for the discovery of the earth’s density. The Newtonian doctrine of attraction, in the general form, that all matter attracts all other matter, could hardly be said to be finally established, except as a point of strong probability. That a planet, considered as a whole, attracts a planet, might be thought to be demonstrated, but there was no proof of matter being the agent of attraction upon matter, _on the earth_, except in the case of magnetised or electrified bodies. The notion that the attraction of a mountain, if it existed, would cause a slight deviation of the plumb-line, which should be perceptible in its effect on the observed position of the stars, had been entertained, and the effect even suspected, but without being reduced to absolute proof. To give an idea of the minuteness of the angle of deviation which was to be looked for, we may state that a pendulum ten thousand inches long, vibrating through an angle of ten seconds, would only move through half an inch at the end farthest from the point of suspension, and that ten seconds was, as it turned out, nearly double of the angle in question. Maskelyne chose the mountain Schehallien, in Perthshire, as the scene of his operations. By observing well-known stars with an instrument depending on a plumb-line, both north and south of the mountain, he determined the difference of latitude of two stations, subject of course to an error if the plumb-line were affected in its position by the attraction of the mountain. He then measured the difference of latitude of his stations by a trigonometrical survey, which gave their relative position by a method independent of the plumb-line and its errors. He thus found that his north and south plumb-lines were inclined to each other at an angle of about eleven seconds and a half more than they should have been from their difference of position on the earth, and that the direction of their inclination was towards the mountain. He deduced his results from those among his observations which he considered as the best, being about one out of ten of the whole; but it is much to his credit as an observer, that Baron Zach afterwards found that all his observations, good and bad, gave the same average result as those he had selected. Zach also established the same fact by his observations in the neighbourhood of Marseilles, namely, that the vicinity of a mountain affects the level, which was the instrument he used, and not the plumb-line.

The labour of deducing an approximation to the earth’s mean density was undertaken by Dr. Hutton. By getting the best possible estimate of the materials of which Schehallien is composed, and comparing what we must call the weight of the plumb-line _towards the mountain_ with its weight towards the earth, it appeared that the mean density of the latter is about five times that of water. This, considered as a numerical approximation, alone and unsupported, would have been worth little, owing to the doubt which must have existed as to the correctness of the estimation of the mountain’s density. It would prove that there was attraction in the mountain, but would give no very great probability to the value of the earth’s density, as deduced. But a few years afterwards Cavendish made an experiment, with the same object, and by an entirely different method. By producing oscillations in leaden balls by means of other leaden balls, and by a process of reasoning wholly free from astronomical data, he inferred that the mean density of the earth was five and a-half times that of water. The experiment of Cavendish was published in 1798. It is much to be wished that the experiments of Cavendish should be repeated on a larger scale: but the expense of the apparatus will probably deter individuals from the attempt.

The Schehallien experiment was carried on under many difficulties and privations; and its successful result places its author in the list of those who first opened the road to the determination of a fundamental element of the solar system. But brilliant as it must appear, it is by no means the most useful of Maskelyne’s labours. Excepting Bradley, he may almost be called the first who systematically directed his efforts to the attainment of the minutest accuracy in astronomical observation. His celebrated catalogue, A.D. 1790, consisted only of thirty-six of the principal stars, but the places of these, especially in right ascension, were determined with a degree of precision which was then believed to be hardly attainable. The means by which he accomplished his objects, such as taking the nearest tenth of a second instead of the nearest second, or half second, of time in his transit observations, the practice of uniformly observing all the wires of the instrument, instead of one; the introduction of the movable eye-piece, by which the several wires could all be viewed directly, instead of obliquely, and many little things of the kind, are the indications of a man who was familiar above his contemporaries with the sources of error, and who had formed at once a bold estimate of the extent to which they might be avoided, and a correct view of the means of doing it. It is difficult to say what portion of the present improved spirit of observation in these points may be attributed to Maskelyne, but it certainly was not small. Delambre, who knew at least as well as any man of his time what had been done and was doing, and who was never profuse of praise, as his ‘History of Astronomy’ amply demonstrates, pays him the following compliment in the memoir which he contributed to the ‘Biographie Universelle:’—“Maskelyne était en correspondance avec tous les astronomes de l’Europe, qu’il considérait comme ses frères, et qui, de leur côté, le respectaient comme un doyen, dont les travaux leur avaient été éminemment utiles.”

We have spoken, in the life of Harrison, of the controversy about the merits of the time-piece of the latter. As Astronomer Royal, Maskelyne was the official investigator of the rates of those instruments, and both in the case of Harrison, and in that of Mudge, his decisions underwent printed attacks, which he answered. Without entering into the merits of these questions, since all the grave accusations which were brought against him have fallen harmless, we shall only state, that Maskelyne’s answers are full of documents, and free from passion; both very favourable symptoms.

Dr. Maskelyne held church preferment from his college, and was besides in possession of an easy fortune. He died Feb. 9, 1811, leaving behind him an unblemished personal reputation, and a character for scientific utility of the first order. He left behind him much evidence of his utility in the labours and character of the assistants whom he formed; all of whom, says Lalande, were useful astronomers. The late Dr. Brinkley, Bishop of Cloyne, who added the reputation of a distinguished mathematician to that of an eminent observer, was for sometime one of his pupils in the practical part of the science.

]

_Engraved by J. Posselwhite._

HOBBES.

_From a Picture by Dobson in the possession of The Royal Society._

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

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

HOBBES.

When Thomas Hobbes was eighty-four years of age he composed an amusing account of his own fortunes in Latin hexameter and pentameter verses; and in these it is mentioned that his birth was premature, owing to the terror occasioned to his mother by a false report of the approach of the Spanish fleet. To this accident he humorously ascribes his patriotic zeal and the peacefulness of his disposition. We quote from a translation made by a contemporary hand, which in elegance of expression is on a par with the original.

“And hereupon it was, my mother dear
Did bring forth twins at once, both me, and Fear.
For this my country’s foes I e’er did hate,
With calm Peace and my Muse associate.”

It was at Malmsbury, on the 5th of April, 1588, that this very singular man was thus called into an existence, which was continued, in perpetual activity, for ninety-one years.

One of the earliest efforts of his talents was to translate the Medea of Euripides into Latin iambics. At the age of fourteen, he commenced his more serious labours at Magdalen College, Oxford; and employed five years there in the study of logic and Aristotle’s Physics. Immediately afterwards he entered into the family of William Cavendish, Baron Hardwick, subsequently Earl of Devonshire, and became tutor to his eldest son. The companion alike of his sports and his studies, Hobbes presently acquired the affection of his pupil and the confidence of the family; and the two young men (for they were of the same age) set out together to travel in France and Italy.

A free intercourse with the learned men of other countries enlarged the mind of Hobbes, and opened new channels to his investigation. And it appears, in the first instance, that when he beheld the contempt in which the subjects of his academical industry were generally held, he turned from them to the more diligent study of Greek and Latin. Nor was it his object alone to become master of the languages, but also to meditate on the invaluable records of the history and the wisdom of the ancients. He employed his leisure hours in the translation of Thucydides; and he published it in the year 1628, to the end (says his contemporary biographer), that the absurdities of the democratical Athenians might become known to his own fellow-citizens. This was the first of his publications; and it may have been that perhaps to which, in later life, he attached the least importance. Yet has it so fallen out, that after a lapse of two long centuries of slowly progressive knowledge and wisdom, his other works are for the most part consigned to the shelves of the profound and curious student, while the “Translation of Thucydides” is familiar to the acquaintance and respect of every scholar.

It is related that Hobbes, while yet a youth, was present at an assembly of several eminent men of letters, when one of them asked, in a contemptuous manner, _And what is sensation?_ No one attempted to make any reply; and the question was thus silently acknowledged to be inscrutable. This piqued his curiosity and his pride; for he was astonished that those, who through their pretensions to wisdom so despised others, should be ignorant of the nature of their own senses. Accordingly he directed his deepest attention to that inquiry. The first result of his meditation was this position: that if all things were at _rest_, they would part with all their qualities. Hence, in his mind, it followed, that all the principles of natural science, including the senses of all animated things and all bodily affections, depended on the varieties of _motion_; and to these, rather than to any inherent or occult qualities, he referred all the phenomena of physics.

This his system of physics is amply developed in the first section (De Corpore) of his book of the ‘Elements of Philosophy;’ which failed not to gain him a celebrity more than proportionate to the number of his proselytes. For many admired his ingenuity who did not adopt his conclusions. In conjunction with these pursuits, Hobbes engaged with zeal in the study of mathematics. He flattered himself that he had discovered how to square the circle, and published several treatises in relation to that celebrated problem, which at the time gained for him considerable reputation. In 1647 he was appointed mathematical tutor to the Prince of Wales. He engaged in a long mathematical controversy with Dr. Wallis, of which an amusing account will be found in D’Israeli’s ‘Quarrels of Authors,’ vol. 3. Wallis, however, was an adversary entirely above Hobbes’ strength in this department of science.

If Hobbes had confined his exertions to the pursuits of classical literature and physical philosophy, he would have spent a more peaceful, and therefore to him a happier, existence. But in the tumultuous times in which he lived, with a mind habituated to deep investigations, it was scarcely possible that he should do otherwise than fix his attention on the political phenomena which were passing before him, and endeavour to trace their causes and solve their difficulties. After a residence of three years in England, he returned to Paris in 1640, and enjoyed the society of some of the distinguished men who were collected around Cardinal Richelieu. There he wrote his first political work, the book _De Cive_, which he published in 1646. He then proceeded to compose a much more elaborate treatise on the same subject, which he published in England in the year 1651; this was his _Leviathan_—a name associated with that of Hobbes in the mind of every reader, though the _peculiar_ principles which are embodied under it are now known to few. Suffice it here to say, that the object of this work was to give a decided support to the monarchical institution: to show that there could be no safety without peace, no peace without a strong government; that arms and money were the elements which alone could give that strength; that even arms will scarcely avail to this end, unless placed in a single hand, or if opposed (as is the case in religious dissension), by motives and principles which do not terminate in this world.

Political researches in that age necessarily involved theological, or at least ecclesiastical, principles; and Hobbes had not feared to denounce some of the antient usurpations of the clergy, and to pronounce religious concord to be absolutely essential to the civil happiness of a people: and while he broached some principles not well pleasing to the pretensions of the hierarchy of the day, he advanced others which were thought to end, by no violent interpretation, in absolute infidelity. Accordingly, the theologians assailed him from every quarter; and his work, while it divided learned laymen, some of whom thought it a marvel of political genius, others a dangerous and unseemly monster, was condemned by the unanimous indignation of the ecclesiastical body. The churchmen of Rome united in hostility with those of England against doctrines which were dangerous to the common prerogatives of the whole order, if not to the integrity of religion itself. The latter, being more closely attacked, were more violent in their enmity. They denounced the opinions as false and heretical; and the divines of Cambridge went so far as publicly to stigmatize the author as an atheist. Besides this, he did not even escape the charges of being ill disposed to royalty, and a disguised adversary to the party of the king. These calumnies (such at least he constantly asserted both to be,) deprived him of the patronage of the Court, and seemed at one time even to have endangered his personal safety; insomuch that, under the Commonwealth, he found it expedient to escape from his enemies at Paris, and take refuge among those, whose enmity he had rather deserved, the republicans of England. He escaped however the fate, so common to men of moderation in violent times, of being persecuted by both parties; and only sustained the animosity of that which he had intended to serve.

Hobbes was a decided Episcopalian. He studied in all matters to conform both to the doctrines and the ceremonies of the church established; and avoided, even with a feeling of dislike, the conventicles of the Puritans. Still less did he incline, on the other hand, to the Roman Catholic faith. During a dangerous illness, which he suffered with great firmness at Paris, when he was supposed to be on the point of death, an intimate friend, named Mersenne, a learned Franciscan, approached him with spiritual consolation, and pressed him to depart in communion with the Roman church. Hobbes calmly replied, “Father, I have long ago considered all those matters well, and it would trouble me to reconsider them now. You can entertain me on some more agreeable subject. When did you see Gassendi?”

Yet neither his unmoved adhesion to Protestantism, nor even his affection for episcopal government, could disarm the wrath of the theologians, who continued to wage an unsparing warfare against him, and to inflict on his reputation, and even on his fortunes, such mischief as they were able. On the other hand, his singular qualities and talents failed not to procure him many powerful protectors; and he stood so balanced (says his biographer) between his friends and his enemies, that the former were just strong enough to prevent his destruction, the latter to obstruct his advancement. So that he continued, with a mighty reputation and a slender fortune, to remain, even to the end of his days, under the same noble patronage, under which his first distinctions had been acquired.

But in this comparative obscurity he was consoled by the society of the learned, the courtesy of the great, and the admiration of almost all men. Among his personal friends or acquaintances were numbered Francis Bacon of Verulam, Ben Jonson (who is said to have revised his Translation of Thucydides), the astronomer Galileo, the antiquarian Selden, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Harvey, physician to Charles I., Des Cartes, Gassendi; and his praises were celebrated by the contemporary muse of Cowley. He was sought by distinguished foreigners who visited England, even nobles and ambassadors; especially by Cosmo de’ Medici, then Prince, afterwards Duke of Tuscany, who offered him ample proofs of his esteem; and there were many among his own compatriots who received his opinions with respect, if not with favour.

During the long period of his declining life, Hobbes is related to have pursued with most assiduity his studies in natural philosophy; but the publications of his old age (if we except the Decameron Physiologicum, published in 1676) rather indicate a return to his earliest tastes, which inclined, we are told, to history and poetry. At the age of about 80, he wrote, in English, the _Behemoth_, or History of the Civil Wars between Charles and the Parliament; besides a long Latin poem on the origin and increase of the pontifical power. At about 86, he translated the Odyssey into English verse, and the Iliad at 87: and he persevered for the four following years, which were his last, in the same peaceful course of literary recreation. A list of his works, forty-two in number, is given in Chalmers’ ‘Biographical Dictionary:’ the great majority of them are forgotten.

He died towards the end of the year 1679, and was buried at Hault-Bucknall, close by the grave of his faithful patroness, the Countess of Devonshire. Respecting his personal character and conversation it is recorded, that he was agreeable and courteous in his familiar intercourse with all, those alone excepted who approached him for the mere purpose of disputation: and these he treated with more severity than was necessary. Above all things, he detested theological controversy, and always strove to turn his hearers away from it to the exercise of piety and the practice of Christian morality. His favourite authors were Homer, Virgil, Thucydides, and Euclid: but his reading was not extensive; as he thought the careful meditation on a few good works more profitable to the understanding than a more abundant draught of indiscriminate learning; and was fond of saying upon this subject, that if he read as much as others he should be as ignorant as they were. He persisted in a life of celibacy, that he might be able to pursue his studies with the less interruption. In his disposition he was generous and charitable; but his means were scanty: for even at the end of his life he had little else but two small pensions, the one from the family of Devon, the other from the king.

RAPHAEL.

Raffaello Sanzio, the greatest of painters, was born in 1483 at Urbino, where the house in which he passed the first years of his life is still preserved, consecrated by a suitable inscription. His first teacher was his father, Giovanni Sanzio, a painter who, allowing for the technical imperfections of the time, was perhaps entitled to more praise than Vasari has awarded him; the evidence of the remaining works of this master has indeed led his recent biographer, Pungileoni, to conclude that he was in many essential points equal to the best of his contemporaries, and that his feeling for expression may have had no unimportant influence on the genius he was destined to instruct. An interesting altar-piece by the elder Sanzio still exists at Urbino, in the church of S. Francesco, representing the Madonna with St. Francis and other saints: the members of the painter’s family are introduced, and among them the infant Raphael kneels by his mother’s side.

_Engraved by J. Thomson._

RAFFAELLE.

_From a Miniature copy of the original Picture in the Gallery at
Florence. In the Possession of the Rev^d. Horace Cholmondeley
Kingston House, Dorchester._

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

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

The silence of the historians of art as to the claims of Giovanni Sanzio is less surprising than their omitting to notice the importance of his city and province at the period in question. The duchy of Urbino, at the close of the fifteenth century, could boast, as Sismondi justly remarks, a population as warlike, and a court as lettered and polished as any in Italy. The hereditary dukes of the ancient family of Montefeltro ranked high among the captains of the age, and among the distinguished patrons of science. Federigo da Montefeltro, who died a few months before the birth of Raphael, had employed the talents of some of the best painters of Italy, and of other countries, to adorn his capital. Among the native artists, Fra Carnevale was one of the earliest who attempted perspective; and to him, or at least to his works, Bramante, as well as Raphael, may have been indebted for a knowledge of the rudiments of architecture; Pietro della Francesca, whose compositions on mathematics and geometry enriched the ducal library, was domiciliated with Giovanni Sanzio; Lucian, a painter and architect of Dalmatia, superintended for a time the building of the castle; but the most remarkable guest was Justus van Ghent, called by the Italians Giusto da Guanto; a considerable work painted by him contained portraits of the Duke Federigo and his successor Guid’ Ubaldo, under whose auspices again the talents of the celebrated Luca Signorelli were put in requisition. Pictures by most of these artists probably still exist at Urbino, and undoubtedly were seen and studied by Raphael in his early youth. Among the first reputed works of the great artist himself, which are preserved in his native city, may be mentioned a Madonna, originally painted on the wall in his father’s house, and a holy family on wood in the church of S. Andrea.

It is difficult to fix with precision the time when Raphael first studied under Perugino; but if, as Rumohr supposes, that painter only settled finally at Perugia about 1500, his distinguished scholar must have joined him at the age of sixteen or seventeen, and not some years earlier, as has been generally assumed. Even at this age it is sufficiently wonderful that the scholar should have been fitted to select the best qualities in his master’s style, and indeed very soon to improve upon them.

Besides the works which his native city contained, Raphael doubtless had had opportunities of seeing the productions of Andrea Luigi di Assisi, called Ingegno, of Niccolò di Fuligno, and other painters of the school of Umbria. Their robust style of colour, which was somewhat modified by Perugino and Pinturicchio, is occasionally to be traced in Raphael’s early works. There was another quality which Perugino, in his best time, possessed in common with other painters of his province, and which may be said generally to characterize the school of Umbria. This was an intensity of expression in sacred subjects indicating a deep religious feeling; and it is so striking in the best productions of the artist last named, that it has been considered sufficient of itself to prove the orthodoxy of his creed, which Vasari had called in question. The impulse was probably derived from Assisi, where some of the earliest Italian masters had left specimens of their powers, and the source was the doctrine of St. Francis. The history and legends of this saint (who died in 1226), frequently exercised the pencil of the early Italians, even to the danger of causing Bible subjects to be neglected, from the time of Giotto to that of Angelico da Fiesole: but the chief influence on the school above-mentioned is apparent rather in the treatment than in the subject; it is to be recognised in a certain subdued earnestness of expression, allied to the severe tenets of the saint of Assisi, and exhibiting religion rather in its suffering than in its triumphant character. This tendency received an additional impulse from the works which Taddeo di Bartolo of Siena had left in Perugia and other parts of Umbria early in the fifteenth century. The painters most remarkable for the quality alluded to were Niccolò Alunno, called Niccolò di Fuligno, and Pietro Perugino; but the same feeling had extended itself to Francia in Bologna. The taste of the Florentine painters on the other hand, with the single exception of Angelico da Fiesole, had long taken another direction: their pictures of this time abound in portraits; the saints and Madonnas of the school, those for instance of Domenico Ghirlandajo, seem to have been taken from common nature, and are seldom inspired with that sanctity of expression so frequent and so remarkable in the painters above-named. In later times, the painters of the various Italian schools, who were supposed to copy nature with too little selection, were called _naturalisti_, and, at the period alluded to, Florence may be considered comparatively the seat of this kind of imitation; a tendency greatly owing, it appears, to the introduction of early Flemish pictures, in which portraits were frequent, and in which the back-ground and accessories were treated with an attention new to the Italian painters.

Thus it cannot but be considered among the greatest of Raphael’s advantages, that he had opportunities of studying in both the schools alluded to; and in both, he of all men knew or felt what was fittest to be imitated. The depth and fervour of expression which he imbibed from the masters he first contemplated, and which he never relinquished, was improved and enlivened by the accurate study of the forms and varieties of nature to which the Florentines were devoted: again, before Raphael arrived in Florence, Lionardo da Vinci had laid the foundation of that profound anatomical knowledge, the only true means of representing action, which was afterwards carried to its greatest results in the works of Michael Angelo. The celebrated Cartoons of both these great designers were the object of study and admiration in Florence at the time Raphael resided there, although they were not completed quite so soon as might be inferred from a passage in Vasari. The importance of considering and accounting for the earliest tendency of Raphael’s feeling, will be apparent when we remember that it reappeared in his later, and even in his latest, works. The Dispute of the Sacrament, his altar-pieces, and even the Cartoons, are not Florentine in their taste, but are rather allied to the school from which he derived his first impressions.

From 1500, or perhaps a little earlier, to 1504–5, Raphael was employed at Perugia, or at Città di Castello (a township midway between Perugia and Urbino); his works in the latter place must, however, have been executed after he became a pupil of Perugino, as they clearly evince an imitation of that painter’s manner. An altar-piece, originally in the church of S. Niccola di Tolentino, at Città di Castello, is now in the Vatican; a Crucifixion from the church of S. Domenico, in the same place, is in the Fesch collection at Rome; and the celebrated Marriage of the Virgin, from the church of S. Francesco, is at Milan. The last, which was copied almost without alteration from a painting of Perugino, has the date 1504, and immediately precedes Raphael’s first visit to Florence.

The works done by Raphael in Perugia were much more numerous, to say nothing of his assistance in pictures which pass for Perugino’s. Among his own may be mentioned an Assumption of the Virgin, now in the Vatican, as well as another picture of the same subject begun by Raphael, but finished, not till after his death, by his scholars. The fresco, in the cloister of S. Severo, at Perugia, which resembles the upper part of the _Disputa_ (to be hereafter mentioned), has the date 1505; the lower part was finished by Perugino when very old, after Raphael’s death. The style of this fresco bespeaks an acquaintance with higher examples of art than Perugia contained; it was probably done after a first visit to Florence. The interesting picture at Blenheim, mentioned by Vasari as having been painted for the chapel Degli Ansidei, in the church De’ Servi at Perugia, has the date 1505; it may be considered to be the last example of Raphael’s imitation of Perugino, and to mark the transition from that imitation to the Florentine manner.

While Raphael was studying at Perugia, Pinturicchio, a native of that place, and an assistant of Perugino, was employed to paint some subjects relating to the Life of Pius II., in the library, now the sacristy, of the Duomo at Siena. Vasari relates, not without contradicting himself in the separate lives of Raphael and Pinturicchio, that the latter availed himself of his young friend’s skill in composition, in engaging him to design the whole series of subjects; he further adds, that Raphael accompanied Pinturicchio to Siena, but left him to proceed to Florence, in order to see the Cartoons of Michael Angelo and Lionardo da Vinci. The works in the sacristy at Siena appear to have been done before the death of Pius III., in 1503: at that time the Cartoons in question were not completed (M. Angelo’s was not finished and publicly shown before 1506, Vinci’s not much earlier); and as we have before seen, Raphael was employed at Città di Castello in 1504, probably before he had seen Florence at all. It is however certain that Raphael made some designs for Pinturicchio, since two small compositions, almost identical with the frescoes at Siena, and other separate studies by his hand exist, although various reasons, too long to adduce here, render it extremely improbable that he was ever employed at Siena. The vast number of works which this great man executed in his very short life, make it sufficiently difficult to assign time enough for the production of those that are undoubted.

The amiable character, as well as the extraordinary talents of Raphael, soon procured him the notice and admiration of the Florentine artists. Among his chief friends were Taddeo Gaddi (in return for whose hospitality he probably painted the Madonna del Gran Duca and the Madonna Tempi), Ridolfo Ghirlandajo, and Fra Bartolommeo. It would be impossible here to give a list of the works which he executed during his residence in Florence from 1504–5 to 1508, when we find him in Rome. Some pictures were left unfinished at the time of his departure for that city, and were completed by Ridolfo Ghirlandajo. A picture sent to Siena, by some supposed the Giardiniera, now at Paris, but more probably the Lanti Madonna, was among these, as well as the Madonna painted for the Dei family: an accurate critic, Rumohr, even supposes that the celebrated entombment done for Perugia, which is now in the Borghese palace in Rome, was completed from Raphael’s designs by Ridolfo Ghirlandajo. The number of Madonnas, portraits, and altar-pieces produced in the three or four years of Raphael’s residence in Florence, must of necessity lead to the conclusion that the _repetitions_ of these works, which all pretend to originality, must have been done by his imitators. Again Vasari states, not without some probability, that Raphael visited his native place, and painted several works there for the Duke Guid’ Ubaldo, during the short time above-mentioned: and Malvasia, in his account of the Bolognese school, enumerates various works which were unknown even to Vasari.

Meanwhile Raphael reaped all the improvement which the sight of the excellent works of art in Florence was calculated to communicate. The inspection of the works of Michael Angelo and Lionardo da Vinci enlarged his knowledge of form and his execution, while the inventions of the earlier Florentine masters were diligently examined and remembered; yet it is here important to remark, that he never imitated even the highest examples alluded to, as he had imitated the first models from which he studied. This is naturally to be accounted for in some degree by the greater docility of earlier youth; but as so much has been said of the inspiration which Raphael caught from Michael Angelo, in Florence from a sight of the Cartoons, and in Rome from that of the ceiling of the Capella Sistina, it is necessary to remember that a direct imitation of Michael Angelo is no where to be traced in Raphael, and that he seemed desirous rather of exhibiting his own feeling as distinct from that of the great Florentine master, than of aiming at that master’s style.

From 1508 to 1520, the year of his death, Raphael resided in Rome. Vasari relates that Bramante, the architect of Julius II., being from the same city with Raphael and distantly related to him, had recommended him to the Pope, as qualified to paint in fresco certain rooms of the Vatican; but it was more probably Raphael’s great reputation, now second to none, which was the real cause of the Pope’s notice, although Bramante may have been the medium of communication. To the honour of Julius it should be remembered, that he had discernment enough to fix in every instance on the best artists of his age, and he left no means unemployed, sometimes even to an indulgence at variance with the haughtiness of his character, to secure their best efforts in his service.

At no period of Raphael’s laborious life were his exertions greater than during the reign of Julius II., that is, till 1513, the year of that pontiff’s death. The room called the Camera della Segnatura, where the great artist began to work, was evidently planned by him as one design, and its four walls were appropriated to four comprehensive subjects,—theology, philosophy, poetry, and jurisprudence. The ceiling is occupied with single figures and subjects forming part of the same scheme. The subject of Theology, commonly called the _Disputa_, was begun the first, and the right hand of the upper part was first painted. This is evident from a certain inexperience in the mechanical process of fresco painting, which is found to disappear even in the same work. Six of these vast subjects, besides other works, were executed between 1508 and 1513, and the two last, the Miracle of Bolsena and the Heliodorus, are unsurpassed in colour, as well as in every other excellence fitted for the subject and dimensions. For richness and force of local colour these two works have often been compared to those of Titian; it should be added that they are earlier in date than the finest oil pictures of Titian, and that they are decidedly superior in colour to the frescoes by that master in Padua. The supposition of Rumohr, that Giorgione may have seen and profited by these specimens, is, however, not to be reconciled with the date of that painter’s death. The impatience of the character of Julius, who was bent on the speedy prosecution of this undertaking, makes it probable that some works attributed by Vasari to this period were executed later. The portrait of Julius, that of Bindo Altoviti, the musician in the Sciarra palace, the Madonna di Fuligno, the Madonna della Sedia, and the Vision of Ezekiel, belong however to this time. The St. Cecilia, begun in 1513, was not sent to Bologna till some years afterwards. In the last, the assistance of subordinate hands is evident; and the variety of works in which Raphael was employed under Leo X. made this practice of intrusting the execution of his designs to others more and more necessary. Unfortunately, his grand works, the frescoes of the Vatican, with the exception of two excellent specimens, the Attila and the Liberation of Peter (painted immediately after the accession of Leo), were completed very much in this way by his scholars. Even the Incendio del Borgo, so remarkable for its invention and composition, has but few traces of his own hand in the execution. The frescoes of the Vatican have often been described as exhibiting one comprehensive plan as to their meaning, but it is well known that the subjects of the Attila and the Liberation of Peter were suggested by incidents in the life of Leo, and consequently that they could not have been thought of before the accession of that pope. Of all these works the Attila is justly considered to be the most perfect example of fresco painting, and to exhibit the greatest command over the material; though produced after the death of Julius, it may be regarded as the noblest result of that impulse which the pontiff’s energy had communicated to Raphael. The character of Leo X., as a protector of art, has been perhaps sometimes too favourably represented. More educated than his predecessor, he loved the refinement which the arts and letters imparted to his court; but he had no deep interest, like Julius, in inciting such men as Raphael and Michael Angelo to do their utmost under his auspices. Whether from the indifference of Leo, or from his neglecting, as Vasari hints, to discharge his pecuniary debts to Raphael, we soon find the painter employed in various other works, and the remaining frescoes of the Vatican bear evidence of the frequent employment of other hands. Many works of minor importance in the same palace were entirely executed by his assistants.

The celebrated Cartoons were designs for tapestries, of which more than twenty of various sizes are preserved in the Vatican. The Cartoons, it may be inferred, were equally numerous, but seven only, now fit Hampton Court, remain entire. A portion of another was bequeathed by the late Prince Hoare to the Foundling Hospital, where it is now to be seen. These works owed their existence to the Pope’s love of magnificence rather than to a true taste for art; but although destined for a merely ornamental purpose, some of the designs are among the very finest of Raphael’s inventions, and a few may have been, at least in part, executed by his hand. The Ananias, the Charge to Peter, the Paul and Barnabas at Lystra, and the Paul preaching at Athens, are generally considered to have the greatest pretensions to this additional interest. The fine portrait of Leo with the Cardinals de’ Medici and de’ Rossi completes the list of larger works undertaken for the Pope, but the many designs by Raphael from classical or mythological subjects may be supposed to have been also made at the suggestion of the pontiff. In obedience to his wishes, Raphael undertook the inspection of the ancient Roman monuments, and superintended the improvements of St. Peter’s. Among the numerous and extensive works done for other employers may be mentioned the Sybils in the Chiesa della Pace, the frescoes from Apuleius’s story of Cupid and Psyche in the palace of Agostino Chigi, called the Farnesina, where the so-called Galatea was the beginning of another Cyclus from the same fable, the Madonna del Pesce, the Madonna di S. Sisto, and the Spasimo di Sicilia. Many a palace in the neighbourhood of Rome still exhibits remains of frescoes for which Raphael at least furnished the designs; and his own Casino, near the more modern Villa Borghese, may retain traces of his hand, but it is now fast falling to decay. A long list of portraits might be added to the above works, together with many interesting designs in architecture, and even some productions in sculpture. In reviewing the amazing number of works attributed to Raphael, it must not however be forgotten that many are his only in the invention, and some pictures that bear his name may have been even designed as well as finished by his imitators. The Flemish copies of Raphael are frequent, and are to be detected, among other indications, by their extreme smoothness; the contemporary imitations, especially those of the earlier style of the master, by Domenico Alfani and Vincenzo di S. Geminiano, are much less easily distinguished. The question respecting the Urbino earthenware may be considered to have been set at rest by Passeri (Storia delle pitture in Maiolica di Pesaro e di altri luoghi della Provincia Metaurense). From this inquiry, it appears, first, that the art of painting this ware had not arrived at perfection till twenty years after Raphael’s death: and secondly, that about that time Guid’ Ubaldo II. (della Rovere) collected engravings after Raphael, and even original designs by him, and had them copied in the Urbino manufactory. Battista Franco at one time superintended the execution, and one of the artists was called Raffaello del Colle; his name may perhaps occasionally be inscribed on the Urbino ware, but the initials O. F. (Orazio Fontana) are the most frequent.

The Transfiguration was the last oil picture of importance on which Raphael was employed; it was unfinished at his death, and was afterwards completed, together with various other works, by his scholars. The last and worst misstatement of Vasari cannot be passed over, for unfortunately, none of the biographer’s mistakes have been oftener repeated than that which ascribes the death of this great man to the indulgence of his passion for the Fornarina. Cardinal Antonelli was in possession of an original document, first published by Cancellieri, which assigns a different, and a much more probable, cause for Raphael’s death; it thus concludes,—“Life in him (Raphael) seemed to inform a most fragile bodily structure, for he was all mind; and moreover, his physical forces were much impaired by the extraordinary exertions he had gone through, and which it is wonderful to think he could have made in so short a life. Being then in a very delicate state of health, he received orders one day while at the Farnesina to repair to the court; not to lose time, he ran all the way to the Vatican, and arrived there heated and breathless; there the sudden chill of the vast rooms, where he was obliged to stand long consulting on the alterations of St. Peter’s, checked the perspiration, and he was presently seized with an indisposition. On his return home, he was attacked with a fever, which ended in his death.” Raphael was born and died on Good Friday. Some of his biographers have hence, through an oversight, asserted that he lived exactly thirty-seven years. He was born March 28, 1483, and died April 6, 1520. He was buried in the Pantheon, now the church of Sta. Maria ad Martyres, in a niche or chapel which he had himself endowed. His remains have been lately found there.

Quatremère de Quincy’s ‘Histoire de la Vie et des Ouvrages de Rafael, etc. Paris, 1824,’ has been improved and superseded by the notes to the Italian translation of Longhena, Milan, 1829. Pungileoni, the author of the ‘Elogio Storico di Giovanni Santi, Urbino, 1822,’ has been long employed in preparing a life of Raphael. The observations of Rumohr, in the third volume of his ‘Italienische Forschungen, Berlin, 1831,’ are original and valuable. A few interesting facts will be found in Fea’s ‘Notizie intorno Raffaele Sanzio, Rome 1822.’ The author, however, fails to prove the regularity of Leo’s payments to Raphael, since the latest document concerning the frescoes in the _Stanze_ has the date 1514.

The engraving is from a miniature after the portrait by Raphael himself, in his first manner, cut from the stucco of a wall at Urbino, which forms the chief attraction of the Camera di’ ritratti at Florence. The head engraved by Morghen, and so generally known, represents the features of Bindo Altoviti, which do not even resemble in a single point those of Raphael. The notion arose solely from a passage in Vasari’s Lives:—‘_E a Bindo Altoviti fece il ritratto suo_;’ for Bindo Altoviti he did his portrait (not _his own_): these words were distorted by the Editor Bottari in a marginal note; but the error has been decisively exposed by Missirini and others, whose account is every where received in Italy. Nor does it appear that the Tuscans in general fell into the mistake, for the portrait now given, and not, as Bottari asserts, the Altoviti portrait, is engraved in the _Museum Florentinum_.

]

KNOX.

John Knox was born in East Lothian, in 1505, probably at the village of Gifford, but, according to some accounts, at the small town of Haddington, in the grammar-school of which he received the rudiments of his education. His parents were of humble rank, but sufficiently removed from want to support their son at the University of St. Andrew’s, which Knox entered about the year 1524. He passed with credit through his academical course, and took orders at the age of twenty-five, if not sooner. In his theological reading, he was led by curiosity to examine the works of ancient authors quoted by the scholastic divines. These gave him new views of religion, and led him on to the perusal of the scriptures themselves. The change in his opinions appears to have commenced about 1535. It led him to recommend to others, as well as to practise, a more rational course of study than that prescribed by the ancient usage of the University. This innovation brought him under suspicion of being attached to the principles of the Reformation, which was making secret progress in Scotland: and, having ventured to censure the corruptions which prevailed in the Church, he found it expedient to quit St. Andrew’s in 1542, and return to the south of Scotland, where he openly avowed his adherence to the Reformed doctrines.

_Engraved by B. Holl._

JOHN KNOX.

_From a Picture in the possession of Lord Somerville._

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

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

Having cut himself off from the emoluments of the Established Church, Knox engaged as tutor in the family of Douglas of Langniddrie, a gentleman of East Lothian. As a man of known ability, and as a priest, he was especially obnoxious to the hierarchy; and it is said that Archbishop Beatoun sought his life by private assassination, as well as openly under colour of the law. At Easter, 1547, Knox, with many other Protestants, took refuge in the castle of St. Andrew’s, which was seized and held, after the archbishop’s murder, by the band of conspirators who had done the deed. He here continued his usual course of instruction to his pupils, combined with public reading and explanation of the scriptures to those who sought his assistance. His talents pointed him out as a fitting person for the ministry; but he was very reluctant to devote himself to that important charge, and was only induced to do so, after a severe internal struggle, by a solemn call from the minister and the assembled congregation. He distinguished himself during his short abode at St. Andrew’s by zeal, boldness, and success in preaching. But in the following July the castle surrendered; and, by a scandalous violation of the articles of capitulation, the garrison were made prisoners of war, and subjected to great and unusual ill-treatment. Knox, with many others, was placed in a French galley, and compelled to labour like a slave at the oar. His health was greatly injured by the hardships which he underwent in that worst of prisons; but his spirit rose triumphant over suffering. During this period he committed to writing an abstract of the doctrines which he had preached, which he found means to convey to his friends in Scotland, with an earnest exhortation to persevere in the faith through persecution and trial. He obtained liberty in February, 1549, but by what means is not precisely known.

At that time, under the direction of Cranmer, and with the zealous concurrence of the young King Edward VI., the Reformation in England was advancing with rapid pace. Knox repaired thither, as to the safest harbour; and in the dearth of able and earnest preachers which then existed, he found at once a welcome and active employment. The north was appointed to be the scene of his usefulness, and he continued to preach there, living chiefly at Berwick and Newcastle, till the end of 1552. He was then summoned to London, to appear before the Privy Council on a frivolous charge, of which he was honourably acquitted. The King was anxious to secure his services to the English Church, and caused the living of All Hallows, in London, and even a bishopric, to be offered him. But Knox had conscientious scruples to some points of the English establishment. He continued, however, to preach, itinerating through the country, until, after the accession of Mary, the exercise of the Protestant religion was forbidden by act of parliament, December 20, 1553. Shortly afterwards he yielded to the importunity of his friends, and consulted his own safety by retiring to France. Previous to his departure, he solemnised his marriage with Miss Bowes, a Yorkshire lady of good family, to whom he had been some time engaged.