another, she certainly was. And it was not till after nearly ten years' experience of the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" that she put forth the book which was the first word of a long controversy. The woman who wrote this book was not an abstract personage, or one of the class which is called strong-minded.

Mary Wollstonecraft's plea for women is of the mildest description. She vindicates their right to be considered as human creatures, bound by the general laws of truth and honour, and with a generous vehemence assails the sentimental teachings of Rousseau and of the more virtuous moralists-Gregory, Fordyce, and even Mrs. Chapone-who take it for granted that the highest mission of a woman is "to please," and excuse in her, nay, recommend to her, those arts by which she can govern while appearing to obey. All that Mary Wollstonecraft asks is education for her clients and an exemption from that false and mawkish teaching specially addressed to "the fair," in which the eighteenth century was so rich, and which has not quite died out, even among ourselves.OLIPHANT, MARGARET O. W., 1882, The Literary History of England, XVIII-XIX Century, pp. 209, 210.

A plainness of speech, amounting in some places to coarseness, and a deeply religious tone, are to many modern readers the most curious features of the book. . . A century ago men and women were more straightforward in their speech than we are to-day. They were not squeamish. Therefore, when it came to serious discussions for moral purposes, there was little reason for writers to be timid.

...

Hers is the plain speaking of the Jewish law-giver, who has for end the good of man; and not that of an Aretino, who rejoices in it for its own sake. Even more remarkable than this boldness of expression is the strong vein of piety running through her arguments. Religion was to her as important as it was to a Wesley or a Bishop Watts. The equality of man, in her eyes, would have been of small importance had it not been instituted by man's Creator. If women were without souls, they would, notwithstanding their intellects, have no rights to vindicate. If the Christian heaven were like the Mahometan paradise, then they might indeed be looked upon as slaves and playthings of beings who

are worthy of a future life, and hence are infinitely their superiors. But, though sincerely pious, she despised the meaningless forms of religion as much as she did social conventionalities, and was as free in denouncing them. -PENNELL, ELIZABETH ROBINS, 1884, Mary Wollstonecraft (Famous Women), pp. 162, 163.

The "Vindication of the Rights of Woman," on which Mary Wollstonecraft's fame as an author almost wholly rests, is in some ways a book nearly as faulty as it can be. It is not well-written; it is full of prejudices quite as wrong-headed as those it combats; it shows very little knowledge either of human nature or of good society; and its "niceness," to use the word in what was then its proper sense, often goes near to the nasty. But its protest on the one hand against the "proper" sentimentality of such English guides of female youth as Drs. Fordyce and Gregory, on the other against the "improper" sentimentality of Rousseau, is genuine and generous. Many of its positions and contentions may be accepted unhesitatingly to-day by those who are by no means enamoured of advanced womanhood; and Mary, as contrasted with most of her rights-of-woman followers, is curiously free from bumptiousness and the general qualities of the virago.-SAINTSBURY, GEORGE, 1896, A History of Nineteenth Century Literature, p. 38.

It was not an able book, and grave faults and frailties that clouded that later life of the authoress did much to discredit it, but in its general tendency it is far from extravagant or revolutionary. Mary Wollstonecraft indulges in none of those attacks on marriage which have sometimes been connected with the movement. She speaks of it with reverence, as "the foundation of almost every social virtue." She dwells on the transcendent importance of chastity and morality, and on the essentially domestic character of the chief duties of women; and although she desires to assimilate in a great measure the tastes and studies of the two sexes, it is worthy of notice that she expresses a strong antipathy to women who are addicted to field sports. These views would not now appear very startling, and it is difficult to realise the indignaiton they aroused. The political aspect of the case was only touched at rare intervals.-LECKY, WILLIAM EDWARD

GENERAL

The story that follows is an old one. Captain Imlay, whose name no generous mind who reads the following letters can ever hear mentioned without execration, took advantage of the ardent and tender heart which threw itself trustfully into his keeping. She considered herself his wife until death. He also addressed her, both by letters of affection and business, as his "beloved wife." But when absence, and other attractions which came during absence, asserted themselves over the shallow and base nature of the man, his affection began to wane. It is touching to trace the heart of the woman in these letters, and to see how it asserts itself over all her theories. She pours out to him her love, her reproaches, her fears, in words that seem written in "heart's blood turned to tears." It is touching also to read her first vague consciousness of the distinction between such a love as she felt and that of which he was only capable. There is nothing outside Hood's "Bridge of Sighs" which can parallel in sadness the description of the poor wretch as she stood on Putney Bridge, in a soaking rain, waiting till her clothes should be so saturated that they would more quickly "drag her down to muddy death." She was rescued, however, by a Thames boatman before life was gone, and was restored to her misery.

Like the letters of Vanessa to Swift, or of Keats to Fanny Brawne, they are too sacred for the vulgar eye, and ought to be read only by those who have hearts to feel for such suffering and such heart-break as is here made palpable upon the lifeless pages.-RICHARDSON, ABBY SAGE, 1882, ed., Old Love-Letters, pp. 110, 111, 112.

Few women have worked so faithfully for the cause of humanity as Mary Wollstonecraft, and few have been the objects of such bitter censure. She devoted herself to the relief of her suffering fellow-beings with the ardor of a Saint Vincent de Paul, and in return she was considered by them a moral scourge of God. Because she had the courage to express opinions new to her generation, and the independence to live according to her own standard of right and wrong, she was denounced as another Messalina. The young were bidden not to

warned not to follow her example, the miseries she endured being declared the just retribution of her actions. Indeed, the infamy attached to her name is almost incredible in the present age, when new theories are more patiently criticised, and when purity of motive has been accepted as the vindication of at least one wellknown breach of social laws. . . . The mere admiration of Southey and Shelley had little weight against popular prejudice. Year by year Mary's books, like so many other literary productions, were less frequently read, and the prediction that in another generation her name would be unknown bade fair to be fulfilled. But the latest of her admirers, Mr. Kegan Paul, has, by his zealous efforts in her behalf, succeeded in vindicating her character and reviving interest in her writings. By his careful history of her life, and noble words in her defence, he has reestablished her reputation. She - PENNELL, lived a century too soon. ELIZABETH ROBINS, 1884, Life of Mary Wollstonecraft (Famous Women), pp. 1, 10, 269.

Some of the coarseness of this censor of her sex may, no doubt, be regarded as a mere affair of superficial style, and was referable to the tone of the coteries in which she had been living for several years: the coteries of Philosophical Radicalism, where speech was even more free than thought. But some of Mary Wollstonecraft's coarseness was due to natural want of refinement and a vein of vulgarity that, instead of playing only on the surface of her life, had its source in the depths of her soul. Her view of men and their feelings was as sordid as her view of women and their failings. Her conception of love as a force in human affairs would have discredited a chambermaid.-JEAFFRESON, JOHN CORDY, 1885, The Real Shelley, vol. II, p. 25.

The works of Mary Wollstonecraft display unusual versatility of mental powers. She was able to turn her mind to new tasks in way that made her eminent in several directions. She may be classed among pedagogical writers, but she also wrote on historical subjects and took part in discussions in political principles. She wrote fiction, and her letters descriptive of experiences in travel, and letters

to the lust of applause that he would sacrifice his best friend for a scurvy jest, and wound the heart of him whom he would at the very moment hazard his life and fortune to serve, only to raise a laugh. --JOHNSTONE, CHARLES, 1760, The Adventures of a Guinea.

Colonel Wilkes, of the Buckinghamshire Militia, dined with us. . . . I scarcely ever met with a better companion; he has inexhaustible spirits, infinite wit and humour, and a great deal of knowledge. He told us himself, that in this time of public dissension, he was resolved to make his fortune. GIBBON, EDWARD, 1762, Memoirs, Journal, Sep. 23.

With good and honest men

His actions speak much stronger than my pen,

And future ages shall his name adore,
When he can act and I can write no more.
England may prove ungrateful and unjust,
But fostering France shall ne'er betray her
trust:

'Tis a brave debt which gods on men impose, To pay with praise the merit e'en of foes. When the great warrior of Amilcar's race Made Rome's wide empire tremble to her base,

To prove her virtue, though it gall'd her pride,

Rome gave that fame which Carthage had denied.

-CHURCHILL, CHARLES, 1764, The Candidate, Poems, ed. Hannay, vol. 11, p. 200.

Wilkes is here, and has been twice to see me in my illness. He was very civil, but I cannot say entertained me much. I saw no wit; his conversation shows how little he has lived in good company, and the chief turn of it is the grossest bawdy.WALPOLE, HORACE, 1765, To George Montagu, Oct. 16; Letters, ed. Cunningham, vol. IV, p. 421.

Bristol, April 14th.-We hear that on Wednesday next, being the day of Mr. Wilkes' enlargement, forty-five persons are to dine at the "Crown," in the passage leading from Broad Street to Tower Lane. The entertainment is to consist of two rounds of beef, of 45 lbs. each; two legs of veal, weighing 45 lbs.; two ditto of pork, 45 lbs.; a pig, roasted, 45 lbs. ; two puddings of 45 lbs. ; 45 loaves; and, to drink, 45 tankards of ale. After dinner, they are to smoke 45 pipes of tobacco, and to drink 45 bowls of punch. Among others, the following toasts are to

be given:-1. Long live the King; 2. Long live the supporters of British Liberty; 3. The Magistrates of Bristol. And the dinner to be on the table exactly 45 minutes after two o'clock.-LONDON PUBLIC ADVENTURER, 1770.

Did we not hear so much said of Jack Wilkes, we should think more highly of his conversation. Jack has great variety of talk, Jack is a scholar, and Jack has the manners of a gentleman. But, after hearing his name sounded from pole to pole as the phoenix of convivial felicity, we are disappointed in his company. JOHNSON, SAMUEL, 1777, Life by Boswell, ed. Hill, vol. III, p. 208.

Wilkes desired that his tomb should be inscribed, "J. W., a friend to Liberty." I am glad he was not ashamed to show a little gratitude to her in her old age; for she was a great friend to him.—TOOKE, JOHN HORNE, 1812? Recollections by Samuel Rogers.

He was really a sad dog, but most delightfully amusing, facetious, witty, wellinformed, and with much various, though not profound learning. He was sometimes so intolerably sarcastic, and more particularly at the expence of his friends in the city, that the wonder is, how he could so long continue in their good graces. BELOE, WILLIAM, 1817, The Sexagenarian, vol. II, p. 5.

Wilkes had, till very lately, been known chiefly as one of the most profane, licentious, and agreeable rakes about town. He was a man of taste, reading, and engaging manners. His sprightly conversation was the delight of green-rooms and taverns, and pleased even grave hearers when he was sufficiently under restraint to abstain from detailing the particulars of his amours and from breaking jests on the New Testament. His expensive debaucheries forced him to have recourse to the Jews. He was soon a ruined man, and determined to try his chance as a political adventurer. In Parlianemt he did not succeed. His speaking, though pert, was feeble, and by no means interested his hearers so much as to make them forget his face, which was so hideous that the caricaturists were forced, in their own despite, to flatter him. As a writer he made a better figure. MACAULAY, THOMAS BABINGTON, 1844, The Earl of Chatham, Edinburgh Review, vol. 80, p.560.

He was clever, courageous, unscrupulous. He was a good scholar, expert in resource, humorous, witty, and a ready master of the arts of conversation. He could "abate and dissolve a pompous gentleman" with singular felicity. Churchill did not know the crisis of his fortune that had given him to patriotism. He was ignorant, that, early in the preceding year, after loss of his last seven thousand pounds on his seat of Aylesbury, he had made an unsuccessful attempt upon the Board of Trade. He was not in his confidence when, a little later, he offered to compromise with the Government for the embassy to Constantinople. He was dead when, many years later, he settled into a quiet supporter of the most atrocious of "things as they were." What now presented itself in the form of Wilkes to Churchill, had a clear unembarrassed front; passions unsubdued as his own; principles rather unfettered than depraved; apparent manliness of spirit; real courage; scorn of conventions; an open heart and a liberal hand; and the capacity of ardent friendship. They entered at once into an extraordinary alliance, offensive and defensive. It is idle to deny that this has damaged Churchill with posterity, and that Wilkes has carried his advocate along with him into the Limbo of doubtful reputations. But we will deny the justice of it.-FORSTER, JOHN, 184555, Charles Churchill, p. 51.

All, then, that we dare now say of him is, that with all his faults he was a trueborn Englishman, with the marking characteristics, good and bad; who, having once taken up a position, even though driven to do so by his adversary, would maintain and defend it with bull-dog pertinacity, and at all costs, personal, political and social. His courage amounted almost to reckless daring; and he would resent an insult, whether it came from a Chatham, a Grafton, an Onslow, a Martin, or even a Grenville, though it should cost him the friendship of a Temple. He was a good, kind, and dutiful son,-a gentle, tender, and affectionate father. There is something morally beautiful in the fact that when challenged by Lord Talbot, his last act before the mad moonlight devilry began was, to write to Lord Temple thanking him for the friendship which he had ever shown to him, and entreating as a last and

crowning favour, that if he fell his Lordship and Lady Temple would superintend the education of his daughter. Though drinking and gaming were amongst the vices of his age, he was no gambler,—and his abstinence was remarkable and a subject of remark. He rose early and read diligently. Indeed, his reading was extensive and varied beyond that of most men of his age not being professed scholars; not merely in the Classics, which he especially loved, but in most of the modern languages that had a literature-French, Spanish, and Italian. As the amusement of his leisure hours, and of that quiet domestic life which in truth he loved, he published editions of Catullus and Theophrastus, said to be almost unrivalled for accuracy and translated Anacreon so well, that Dr. Joseph Warton, no bad judge, pressed him to publish it.—DILKE, SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH, 1852, Wilkes, The Papers of a Critic, vol. II, p. 262.

One morning when I was a lad, Wilkes came into our banking-house to solicit my father's vote. My father happened to be out, and, I as his representative, spoke to Wilkes. At parting, Wilkes shook hands with me; and I felt proud of it for a week after. He was quite as ugly, and squinted as much, as his portraits make him; but he was very gentlemanly in appearance and manners. I think I see him at this moment, walking through the crowded streets of the city, as Chamberlain, on his way to Guildhall, in a scarlet coat, military boots, and a bag-wig,- the hackneycoachman in vain calling out to him, “A coach, your honour?"-ROGERS, SAMUEL, 1855, Table-Talk, p. 42.

Wilkes was without morals of any kind; and only fought for "liberty," when there was nothing to be made by jobbing.HANNAY, JAMES, 1866, ed., The Poetical Works of Charles Churchill, Memoir, p. xviii.

To attempt any analysis of such a character would be superfluous; it is so patent in his actions that those who run may read. Trickster, tuft-hunter, bully, humbug, roué, false alike to man and woman, friend and foe, a sceptic in morals, politics, and religion, without honour or honesty, what can be said in his favour? Well, he had courage enough to defend his misdeeds, was a jovial boon companion; and ugly, squinting, lying, dishonest, dissolute as he