and this connection led to his being selected by the Whig section of the ministry to displace Sir Charles Hedges, when, in December 1707, they found themselves strong enough to force the queen to give them a person of their own politics as one of the secretaries of state, their opponent Harley still continuing to be the other, which he did how ever only for a few months. The history of this movement is told at great length by the Duchess of Marlborough, in her Account of her Conduct, p. 172, &c. Its result was to produce a completely Whig government, in which Sunderland retained his office of secretary till June 1710, when his dismissal, without any reason being assigned, was the first intimation of the complete break-up of the ministry, which immediately followed. It is said that Anne, who never liked the notion of taking away a man's income, even when she wished to deprive him of power, offered to compensate Sunderland when thus turned off by a pension of 3000l. a year, to which he replied, that "he was glad her majesty was satisfied he had done his duty; but if he could not have the honour to serve his country, he would not plunder it." He remained out of office for the rest of this reign; but the ability he had shown during the short time he was a member of the government, and the prominent part he continued to take in the debates of the House of Lords, made him be generally regarded as the head of the Whig party, and the man most likely to be placed at the head of affairs when the Hanover family should come to the throne. When George I. came over, in September 1714, Sunderland was received with distinguished marks of regard by his majesty; such indeed as could not be omitted to one who had always been looked upon as the most devoted friend of the Hanoverian succession: but it had already excited some surprise that he had not been nominated one of the lords justices to whom the government was committed on the death of the queen, and it soon appeared that there was another interest more powerful than his at the new court. His rival was Lord Townshend, the friend of Walpole, who had obtained the first place in the favour of Bothmar, the Hanoverian resident, and who, on his recommendation, was now appointed secretary of state, while Sunderland was obliged to put up with the lord-lieutenancy of Ireland, which he considered a kind of exclusion and banishment. 66 Though he did not openly show his disgust," says Coxe, "yet he scarcely took any active part in defending the measures of government. He, who was before accustomed to make a conspicuous figure in every debate, seems to have remained almost uniformly silent; and from the accession of George I. till the beginning of 1717 his name seldom occurs in the proceedings of the Honse of Lords." It is probable that his relation ship to the Duke of Marlborough, who was personally disliked by George I., had much to do with his being thus kept in the background. In August 1715, soon after the death of the Marquis of Wharton, he was made lord privy seal; but this place still gave him little or no share in the direction of affairs, and did not remove his disgust. Nor did he remain inactive. On the contrary, he sought support for himself, and the means of annoying and weakening his opponents, from all quarters. He, "increased his party," says Coxe, "with a number of disaffected persons. He particularly gained among the Whigs Carleton, Cadogan, Lechmere, and Hampden; courted the Tories; entered into cabals against his colleagues; and was prepared to use all his efforts and employ any opportunities which might offer to prejudice the king against them." His majesty had gone over to Hanover, attended by secretary Stanhope, in July 1716. "One of the principal charges," says Coxe, "which Stanhope had received from his friends in England was to be on his guard against the intrigues of Sunderland, who had, under pretence of ill health, obtained the king's permission to go to Aix-la-Chapelle. Although at the time of his departure he had given the most positive assurances of repentance and concern for his late endeavours to remove his colleagues, and, after the most solemn professions of friendship and union, had condescended to ask their advice for the regulation of his conduct at Hanover, to which place he intended to apply for leave to proceed, Townshend and Walpole suspected his sincerity: they had experienced his abilities; they knew his ambition; and they dreaded the ascendancy which he might obtain, through the channel of the Hanoverians, over the king. But they implicitly trusted in the sagacity and integrity of Stanhope, either to prevent his appearance at Hanover, or, if he came, to counteract his views. Stanhope however did not follow their directions; for when Sunderland demanded access to the king, instead of opposing, he promoted the request with all his influence." This statement is however undoubtedly overcharged. It is certain that Walpole and Townshend wished Stanhope to place no obstacle in the way of Sunderland's visit to Hanover, however desirous they may have been that his proceedings should be watched whilst there. The result was that Sunderland, who had arrived at Hanover in the latter part of October, soon acquired the complete confidence both of the king and of Stanhope. Lord Townshend, after much complicated manoeuvring and intriguing by the faction in whose hands the king was, and much indecision on the part of his majesty himself, was removed; Sunderland was in the first instance appointed treasurer of Ireland for life, resigning his office of lord privy seal to the Duke of Kingston; and finally, in April 1717, a complete reconstruction of the ministry was effected by the resignation of Walpole, Devonshire, Pulteney, and others of their friends, and by the appointment of Sunderland and his friend Addison as secretaries of state (the former

BIOG. DIV. VOL. V.

also holding for some months the presidency of the council, which le eventually resigned to the Duke of Kingston), with Stanhope as first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer an arrangement which about a year after was modified by Stanhope (now a peer) taking the office of secretary, and Sunderland who had all along been the head of the government, going himself to the treasury, the chancellorship of the exchequer being given to Mr. Aislabie. [STANHOPE, JAMES, EARL.] About the same time the opportunity was taken of substituting Craggs for Addison as the other secretary. On the 5th of March, 1719, the famous bill for limiting the number of peerages was first brought into the House of Lords. "This bill," says Coxe, "was projected by Sunderland: his views were to restrain the power of the Prince of Wales when he came to the throne, whom he had offended beyond all hopes of forgiveness, and to extend and perpetuate his own influence by the creation [of course the reverend historian must mean before the measure should pass] of many new peers." The bill was abandoned that session; but it was brought forward again in the next, the first of a new parliament, when it was passed by the Lords, 30th November, 1719, apparently without a division, and was only defeated in the Commons, after it had been read a second time, on the motion for its committal, principally by the strenuous exertions of Walpole. Coxe asserts that before the new parliament met no means had been left unemployed by Sunderland to secure the success of this measure; "bribes were profusely lavished; promises and threats were alternately employed, in every shape which his sanguine and overbearing temper could suggest." Now that he found himself signally beaten however-for Walpole's eloquence and influence had procured the triumphant majority of 269 to 177 against the ministerial project-he deemed it his best policy to enter into an alliance with the potent commoner; and accordingly, in the beginning of June 1720, Walpole and his friend Townshend were both reinstated in the government, the former being appointed paymaster of the forces, the latter president of the council. This proved a fortunate arrangement for Sunderland: in the beginning of the following year came the investigation by the House of Commons into the transactions connected with the South Sea scheme, in which Sunderland, with others of the ministers, had been deeply involved; the secret committee had reported that of the fictitious stock distributed by the directors of the company, with the object of influencing or bribing the government and the legislature, 50,000l. had been given to Sunderland: Lord Stanhope and Secretary Craggs, who were also implicated, had only escaped prosecution by having both suddenly died in the midst of the investigation, nor did even his death save the estate of the latter: Aislabie, the chancellor of the exchequer, had already been expelled and committed to the Tower; when, on the 8th of March, Walpole's earnest entreaties with difficulty prevailed upon the House to adjourn the consideration of the part of the committee's report relating to Lord Sunderland till the 15th. In the interval Walpole exerted himself privately to gain votes for an acquittal by representing to his Whig friends in strong colours the disgrace and possible ruin that would be brought upon their party by the conviction of the prime minister. "His personal weight," to adopt the language of Coxe, "his authoritative and persuasive eloquence, were effectually employed on this occasion, and aided by the influence of government, met with success. The minister was acquitted by a majority of 61 votes, 233 against 172." It is right to state however that the evidence in support of the charge was far from being perfectly satisfactory, coming as it did principally from one of the directors, himself convicted of gross fraud. Although the public voice," Coxe adds in a note, "notwithstanding his acquittal by so large a majority, criminated Sunderland, yet several extenuations may be urged in his favour. For it appears from private documents which have casually fallen under my inspection, that so early as July he had refused to recommend to the directors any more lists for subscriptions: that he did not at least enrich himself or his friends; that he expressed great satisfaction that neither himself nor his friends had sold out any South Sea Stock, as he would not have profited of the public calamity." It is said that if he had sold out the stock he held at one time, he might have realised by it not less than 300,000l.

Notwithstanding his acquittal, it was found impossible to retain him in office; he was very reluctant to go out, and the king was equally averse to parting with him: in particular, it is said, he desired to be allowed to retain the disposal of the secret service money; but he was at last forced to give up everything, and on the 3rd of April Walpole was appointed both to his place of first lord of the treasury, and to that of chancellor of the exchequer, of which Aislabie had been deprived. Sunderland however still retained the most unbounded influence over the king; he even regulated the appointments to the highest offices in the government, carrying his nominations in several instances against the united efforts of Townshend and Walpole. Coxe asserts, on the evidence of private papers, that he not only set himself industriously to undermine the cabinet, but even intrigued with the Tories, and made overtures to Bishop Atterbury, the agent of the Pretender. He proposed to the king, according to Coxe, when the ferment of public indignation occasioned by the explosion of the South Sea scheme was at its height, to dissolve the parliament, with the view of bringing in a Tory majority, who under his conduct would quash all inquiry on the subject: the

3 H

835

SURREY, EARL OF

project obtained his majesty's concurrence, but was defeated by the firmness and intrepidity of Walpole. "The Pretender and the Jacobites certainly at this time," Coxe adds, "entertained the most sanguine hopes. Sunderland became a great favourite with them and the Tories, his health was constantly drunk by them, and they affected to be secure of attaining, by his means, the accomplishment of their wishes." There are some strong assertions by Pope as to Sunderland's dealings with the Pretender, both at this and at an earlier period, in Spence's 'Anecdotes,' p. 313; but it is certain that the Pretender himself did not place any hope in Sunderland, and it seems probable that his negociations with the Jacobites were carried on as far as they went with the full knowledge and approval of the king. (Mahon's England,' vol. ii. c. 11.) Another assertion is, that he had contrived a plot for the political annihilation of Walpole by persuading the king to offer to make him postmaster-general for life, with a view that if Walpole accepted the office, it would take him out of parliament, or, if he refused it, that he would give offence to his majesty. The king however, when he found that Walpole had never expressed any desire for the place, nor was even acquainted with Sunderland's proposal, refused to allow the offer to be made to him. Sunderland nevertheless, by persevering, or shifting his mode of attack, might possibly have succeeded ere long in effecting the downfall of his rival ; but in the midst of his intrigues he was suddenly arrested by death, on the 19th of April 1722, being as yet only in the forty-seventh year of his age. He had been thrice married: first, in 1695, to the Lady Arabella Cavendish, daughter of Henry, duke of Newcastle, by whom he had a daughter; secondly, in or before 1702, to the Lady Anne Churchill, second daughter of the Duke of Marlborough, by whom he had three sons, and who died 15th April 1716; thirdly, to Judith, daughter of Benjamin Tichbourne, Esq. (a younger brother of Viscount Tichbourne, in Ireland), by whom according to some of the peerages, he had no issue, but who is stated in other works of the kind to have borne him a son, who died three days after himself, a daughter who died in infancy, and a second son which came into the world five months after his death, and died at six months old. Of his three sons by his second wife, Robert, the eldest, succeeded to the earldom, and died unmarried, 27th of November 1729; Charles, the second, became Earl of Sunderland on the death of his elder brother, and on the death of his aunt, in 1733, became Duke of Marlborough; and John, the youngest, who then succeeded to the family estates, was the father of the first Earl Spencer.

Lord Sunderland, who associated much with the wits and literary men of his day, was one of the members of the famous Kit-Kat Club, and was also one of the set of noblemen who, about the beginning of the last century, used to make a weekly perambulation among the old book-shops in the metropolis in search of early-printed books, scarce pamphlets, manuscripts, and other rarities and curiosities of literature. To this fashion of collecting early literature, which then prevailed, we are undoubtedly indebted for the preservation of many things of more or less interest or value; and the great libraries of Althorpe, Devonshire House, Blenheim, and the Harleian collection of manuscripts, probably acquired in this way many of what are now accounted their most precious articles.

SURREY, HENRY HOWARD, EARL OF, son of Thomas Howard, third duke of Norfolk, by his second duchess Elizabeth Stafford, daughter of Edward duke of Buckingham, was born about the year 1516, but the exact time and place of his birth are uncertain. Nothing particular is known of his life until his marriage in 1532, at which time he could not have been more than sixteen. In that year he visited France in company with the Duke of Richmond, Henry VIII's natural son, and was present at the interview between Henry and the king of France. At Anne Boleyn's coronation (1533) he bore | one of the swords in the procession, and soon after paid that visit to Windsor which he notices in one of his sweetest poems; this at least is the opinion of the author of his life prefixed to Pickering's edition of his poems, while Dr. Nott, his more learned but less judicious biographer, supposes the visit to have been made in his childhood. In 1536 his eldest son was born. We find him soon after assisting at Anne Boleyn's trial, and in the same year he lost by death his friend the Duke of Richmond. In 1540 he served his first campaign in France, and two years afterwards was elected a knight of the garter. The short remainder of his life appears to have been clouded by misfortunes, the first of which was bis quarrel with John à Leigh, and consequent imprisonment in the Fleet. This was soon followed by a summons from the Privy Council for eating flesh in Lent, and for walking about the streets at night in a "lewd and unseemly manner," and breaking windows with a cross-bow. On the first charge he excused himself; the second he confessed, and on it he was again confined. Dr. Nott, with singular obtuseness, appears utterly to misunderstand a poem in which Surrey defends himself in a half jocose manner, and assumes the whole proceeding to have been one of sober purpose, not a mere freak of youthful folly. In the next October he made another campaign in France, and after his return took Hadrian Junius into his family as physician. In July 1546 he was again imprisoned for using bitter language against the Earl of Hertford, after which nothing further is worth note until his last imprisonment, the real grounds of which are doubtful; the king's suspicious temper and Surrey's haughty spirit would however supply ample means of accusa

release.

tion to an unprincipled enemy. He was arrested on the 12th of December. The charge was that of having quartered the royal arms with his own, which it appears he had a right to do, although the point is not quite clear. This however was taken as a proof of treasonable intentions, and by the joint testimony of his sister the duchess of Richmond and of his father's mistress he was condemned and executed January 19, 1547. His father, who was involved in the same charge, had the better fortune of a reprieve, which, by the king's death within nine days of Surrey's execution, was converted into a Surrey seems to have been on bad terms with his mother, and as he was betrayed by his sister, he could not have been fortunate in family matters. The controversy respecting the existence of Geraldine, his supposed mistress, can hardly be said to be determined; it appears however that there was an Irish lady of that name, the daughter of Gerald Fitzgerald, Earl of Kildare, to whom the famous sonnet no doubt refers; but it is evident that Dr. Nott has understood other of Surrey's poems to refer to Geraldine, when they do not; and all the romantic incidents connected with his 'passion for the lady, related by the earlier biographers, may be regarded as utterly exploded. Surrey's works are principally remarkable as forming an important era in English literature. He was the first whose ear taught him to substitute the present method of poetical accent for that which we find in the writings of Chaucer and his followers. He is also the earliest writer of English blank verse, of which his translation of some parts of the Eneid' is a beautiful example. In addition to both these characteristics he is the leader of the second school of English poets who admired and followed the Italian models. As such, Spencer directly, and Milton indirectly, are indebted to Surrey, who, if for no other reason, for this at least deserves remembrance. His works went through four editions in two months, and through seven more in the thirty years after their appearance in 1557, besides appearing in garlands, broad-sheets, and miscellanies. Many people who could not afford to buy printed copies multiplied them in manuscript, which sufficiently proves their popularity. It is a curious fact however that the literary tyranny of Pope was so absolute, and the national taste so much altered, in the beginning of the 18th century, that the booksellers, who reprinted Surrey's poems about the year 1714, apologised for their audacity in thus restoring to notice a forgotten and antiquated poet by a reference to the authority of Mr. Pope.

SUSA'RION, son of Philinus, was a native of the ancient village of Tripodiscus, in the territory of Megara. He lived about the time of Solon (about Ol. 50), and the Parian Marbles (Ep.' 39) call him the inventor of comedy, and seem also to indicate that he gained the prize of comedy then instituted, which consisted of a basket of figs and a jar of wine. But as regards Susarion's invention of comedy the matter is not quite clear. We know indeed that the Megarians were very fond of farcical entertainments, but it is also certain that the invention of real and written comedies belongs to a later time; and there is indeed, as Bentley ('A Dissert. on the Epist. of Phalaris,' p. 144) has shown, no evidence that the four iambic verses of Susarion still extant formed part of a play. It is further probable that he performed his extempore farces upon a waggon, as was customary at the country Dionysia in Attica. The place where he acted his farces was Icarius, a hamlet of Attica, whence some writers call him an Icarian. What is called his invention of comedy must therefore have consisted in introducing into Attica the Doric form of comedy, or he introduced some innovation into these farces, and constructed them on better dramatic principles, which seems to be implied in the statement that he employed a chorus, which had not been the case before. But whatever we may think of his improvements, a considerable time passed from the period in which he acted at Icarius, until comedy experienced real improvement, and was composed on artistic principles. (Bentley, A Dissertat. on the Epist. of Phalaris, p. 144-152; Müller, Dor., iv. 7, § 2; Hist. of the Lit. of Ant. Greece, chap. xxvii. § 3.) SU'SRUTA, one of the earliest and most celebrated of the Hindoo writers on medicine, was the son of Viswamitra, and the pupil of Dhanwantari. Nothing is known of the events of his life, and his date is rather uncertain. His medical work is still extant, and was published in 2 vols. 8vo, Calcutta, 1835-36. It is unquestionably of some antiquity, but it is not easy to form any conjecture as to its real date, except that it cannot have the prodigious age which Hindoo fable assigns it; it is sufficient to know that it is perhaps the oldest work on the subject which the Hindoos possess, excepting that of Charaka. The only direct testimony that we have with respect to the dates of Charaka aud of Susruta is that of Professor Wilson, who states that, from their being mentioned in the Puranas, the 9th or 10th century is the most modern limit of our conjecture; while the style of the authors, as well as their having become the heroes of fable, indicate a long anterior date. One commentary on the text of Susruta, made by Ubhatta, a Cashmirian, is probably as old as the 12th or 13th century, and his comment, it is believed, was preceded by others. The work is divided into six portions: the 'Sutra St'hana,' or Chirurgical Definitions; the 'Nidana St'hana,' or Section on Symptoms, or Diagnosis; 'Sarira St'hana,' Anatomy; Chikitsa St'hana,' the internal administration of Medicines; Kalpa St'hana,' Antidotes; 'Uttara St'hana,' or a supplementary section on various local diseases, or

affections of the eye, ear, &c. In all these divisions however surgery, and not general medicine, is the object of the book of Susruta; though, by an arrangement not uncommon with our own writers, he introduces occasionally the treatment of general diseases, and the management of women and children, when discussing those topics to which they bear relation. As this is the only Sanscrit medical work which (as far as the writer is aware) has been published, it will not be out of place here to give some account of the state of medicine among the Hindoos, extracted from two notices by Professor Wilson, published originally in the 'Oriental Magazine' (Calcutta, February and March, 1823), from which several passages are inserted by Professor Royle in his Essay on the Antiquity of Hindoo Medicine,' 8vo, London, 1837. The instrumental part of medical treatment was, according to the best authorities, of eight kinds-' Chhedana,' cutting or scission; Bhedana,' division or excision; 'Lek'hana,' which means 'drawing lines,' appears to be applied to scarification and inoculation; "Vyadhana,' puncturing; Eshyam,' probing or sounding; Aharya,' extraction of solid bodies; Visravana,' extraction of fluids, including venesection; and 'Sevana,' or sewing. The mechanical means by which these operations were performed scem to have been sufficiently numerous of these, the principal are the following:-"Yantras,' properly machines,' in the present case instruments; but to distinguish them from the next class, to which that title more particularly applies, we may call them 'implements;' 'Sastras,' weapons or instruments; 'Kshara,' alkaline solutions or caustics; 'Agni,' fire, the actual cautery; 'Salaka,' pins or tents; 'Sringa', horns, the horns of animals open at the extremities, and, as well as 'alabu,' or gourds, used as our cupping-glasses; the removal of the atmospheric pressure through the first being effected by suction, and in the second by rarifying the air by the application of a lamp. The next subsidiary means are Jalauka,' or leeches.

"Besides these, we have thread, leaves, bandages, pledgets, heated metallic plates for erubescents, and a variety of astringent or emollient applications."

The descriptions of the very numerous Hindoo instruments not being very minute or precise, Professor Wilson says we can only conjecture what they may have been from a consideration of the purport of their names, and the objects to which they were applied, in conjunction with the imperfect description given.

"The 'sastras, or cutting instruments, were of metal, and should be always bright, handsome, polished, and sharp, sufficiently so indeed to divide a hair longitudinally.

"The means by which the young practitioner is to obtain dexterity in the use of his instruments are of a mixed character; and whilst some are striking specimens of the lame contrivances to which the want of the only effective vehicle of instruction, human dissection, compelled the Hindoos to have recourse, others surprise us by their supposed incompatibility with what we have been hitherto disposed to consider as insurmountable prejudices. Thus the different kinds of scission, longitudinal, transverse, inverted, and circular, are directed to be practised on flowers, bulbs, and gourds. Incision, on skins or bladders filled with paste and mire; scarification, on the fresh hides of animals from which the hair has not been removed; puncturing or lancing, on the hollow stalks of plants, or the vessels of dead animals; extraction, on the cavities of the same, or fruits with many large seeds, as the Jack and Bel; sutures, on skin and leather; and ligatures and bandages, on well-made models of the human limbs. The employment of leather, skin, and even of dead carcasses, thus enjoined, proves an exemption from notions of impurity we were little to expect, when adverting to their actual prevalence. Of course their use implies the absence of any objections to the similar employment of human subjects; and although they are not specified, they may possibly be implicated in the general direction which the author of the 'Susruta' gives, that the teacher shall seek to perfect his pupil by the application of all expedients which he may think calculated to effect his proficiency.

"Of the supplementary articles of Hindoo surgery, the first is "Kshara,' alkaline or alkalescent salts. This is obtained by burning different vegetable substances, and boiling the ashes with five or six times their measure of water. In some cases the concentrated solution is used after straining, and is administered internally, as well as applied externally.

Care is enjoined in their use, and emollient applications are to be applied, if the caustic occasions very great pain. At the same time these and the other substitutes for instrumental agents are only to be had recourse to where it is necessary to humour the weakness of the patient. They are especially found serviceable where the surgeon has to deal with princes and persons of rank, old men, women and children, and individuals of a timid and effeminate character.

"The cautery is applied by hot seeds, combustible substances inflamed, boiling fluids of a gelatinous or mucous consistence, and heated metallic bars, plates, and probes. The application is useful in many cases, as to the temples and forehead, for headaches; to the eyelids, for diseases of the eyes; to the part affected, for indurations in the skin; to the sides, for spleen and liver; and to the abdomen, for mesenteric enlargements. As amongst the Greeks, however, the chief use of the cautery was in the case of hemorrhages, bleeding being stopped by searing the wounded vessels,

"If leeches, when applied, are slow and sluggish, a little blood may be drawn from the part by a lancet, to excite their vivacity; when they fall off the bleeding may be maintained by the use of the horns and gourds, or the substitutes already mentioned for the cuppingglasses of our own practice." The operations are rude, and very imperfectly described. They were evidently bold, and must have been hazardous: their being attempted at all is however very extraordinary, unless their obliteration from the knowledge, not to say the practice, of later times be considered as a still more remarkable circumstance. It would be an inquiry of some interest, to trace the period and causes of the disappearance of surgery from amongst the Hindoos; it is evidently of comparatively modern occurrence, as operative and instrumental practice forms so principal a part of those writings which are undeniably most ancient, and which, being regarded as the composition of inspired writers, are held of the highest authority.

Besides these sacred writings, there are many valuable professional tracts which correspond with, and are in fact commentaries on them. These are said to have been composed by prophets and holy men (Maha Rishis), to whom is generally given a divine origin.

The different nations of India have their respective medical authors, in the peninsula and the south of India, in Tamul; those of the Telingas, in Teloogoo; in Bengal and the northern provinces the works in use among the Hindoos are in Sanscrit; while among the Mohammedan population Persian works and translations from the Arabic are chiefly in use.

The work of Susruta was one of those ordered to be printed by the Indian government for the use of its native subjects; but the printing of this, as well as of many others, was stopped, when most of them were nearly completed-the first volume and three-fourths of the second of the Susruta having been printed. Fortunately, the Asiatic Society of Calcutta, with the spirit and zeal which has ever distinguished it, undertook at their own risk to complete the works. The treatise of Susruta was published by the society in 1836, in 2 vols. 4to. It has been translated into Latin by F. Hessler, 3 vols. 4to, Erl., 1846-50. SUSSEX, DUKE OF. [AUGUSTUS FREDERICK.] SUSTERMANS, JUSTUS, a distinguished Flemish painter, was born at Antwerp in 1597. He was the pupil of William de Vos. is little known in Flanders; he lived chiefly in Florence, where he was appointed his court painter by the Grand-Duke Cosmo II. He was favoured also by Ferdinand II., whose portrait he painted, and who ennobled him. His master-piece is a large picture of the Floren tine nobility swearing allegiance to Ferdinand upon his succession. He died at Florence in 1681. There are several portraits by him in the Pitti Palace at Florence. Rubens is said to have pronounced Sustermans an honour to his country. (Descamps, La Vie de Peintres Flamands, &c.; Lanzi, Storia Pittorica, &c.)

He

* SUTZOS, ALEXANDROS, one of two brothers who have taken a conspicuous share in the politics of Greece, and who are at the same time the Castor and Pollux of its modern poetical literature. Alexandros was born at Constantinople, in 1802: his mother, the sister of the Greek poet, Rizo Nerulos, was the wife of Constantine Sutzos, or Soutzo, of a Fanariote family, which has given many Hospodars to Wallachia and Moldavia. On the death of their father the children were adopted by their uncle, Alexandros, hospodar of Wallachia, who, in 1820, sent Alexandros and Panagiotes to Paris to be educated. Their elder brother, Demetrius, who remained at home, took part in the unsuccessful outbreak of Ypsilanti, encouraged by Michael Sutzos, hospodar of Moldavia, which commenced the Greek insurrection, became one of the chiefs of the 'Sacred Battalion,' and fell at Dragatsan, in 1821, fighting with the Turks. Alexandros returned to Greece to take part in the war, and in 1826 made his first appearance as a poet by the publication of five satires against the government, which at once established his reputation as the most conspicuous rising poet of Greece. At the close of the war he again visited Paris, and published in French an 'Histoire de la Révolution Grecque' (Paris, 1829), or History of the Greek Revolution, by an eye-witness of a great part of the events described.' The history is dedicated "to the manes" of his brother Demetrius; the style is animated, but more poetical than historical; and the French is so classical that it received the praise of Chateaubriand. The volume concludes with an anticipation of benefit to Greece from the government of Capodistria, which the writer soon thought he saw cause to abandon. One of his first productions, on his return to Greece in 1830, was a collection of satirical poems on Capodistria and his party entitled The Panorama;' and after the assassination of Capodistria, Sutzos was still more vehement against him in his "EcópiaTos Tov 1831,' or 'Exile of 1831,' a political novel published at Athens in 1838. He greeted with a poetical epistle the arrival of King Otho in Greece, in 1833, and satirised those who deprecated the government of the Bavarians; but here again he saw reason to change his opinions, and was a few years after one of the most energetic opponents of the Bavarian ministry. The interference of foreigners in general with the affairs of Greece became the object of his denunciations, and "the wild English," and "the tame Russians" were stigmatised as equal enemies of Greek independence. His poem 'O Пepiλavάuevos, 'The Wanderer' (1839), perhaps his finest work, is a mixture of a love-story, descriptive of the character of nations and countries in the

style of Childe Harold,' and of political diatribe, chiefly directed against the Bavarians. He seems in consequence to have found it expedient to quit the country, and his next volume appeared at Brussels, in 1843. "I draw out of my poetical portfolio," he says at the beginning of the preface, "two dramas, entitled 'The Prime Minister,' and The Unshaken Poet.' I sketched some scenes of the former in Greece; I composed the whole of the latter at a distance from her, seeking more inspiration in the land where Coray died, and on the shores where Byron was born." He concludes by saying that he shall return to Greece, where, he says, "full of the confidence given me by a good conscience I shall place myself between the nation and the government, between the law and violence." Soon after his return the establishment of the constitution of Greece took place on the 15th of September 1843; and this event, which fulfilled the poet's warmest wishes, led almost instantaneously to a fresh banishment. The publication of a series of miscellaneous prose and poetry on the subject The Revolution of the 3rd of September' (the Greeks retain the old calendar) excited the displeasure of the ministry. The house of Sutzos was assailed by a mob on the 30th of November, and he received, it is said, an intimation from the ministry that he could not in safety continue at Athens, which made him consider it expedient to disappear. His friends, and among others Spiridion Trikupis, the present Greek envoy to England, demanded explanations in the assembly from the ministry, which was supposed to have instigated the riot; and in reply Metaxa, the minister, disclaimed all knowledge of the transaction, and said that Sutzos had gone away to suit his own pleasure, and might return when he pleased. The poet however thought it advisable to continue for some time absent. In 1850 he published four cantos of an epic poem on the history of his country, entitled 'H Toupxoμáxos 'Exλás, but this is not considered equal to his former efforts. He is said to be now engaged in a great historical work, on the history of Greece from the 13th century to the year 1828. His brother PANAGIOTES, born at Constantinople in 1806, was sent to Paris for his education and afterwards studied at Padua and Bologna. He was residing at Kronstadt in Transylvania when in 1828 he composed his first poem 'O 'Odonópos, or 'The Traveller,' a drama, but in its general character more lyrical than dramatic, and full of fine passages. His brother's subsequent poem of 'The Wanderer' bears some resemblance to it, and his brother's novel of 'The Exile of 1831,' was also preceded by a novel by Panagiotes intitled 'Leander,' which in many points suggests a comparison. The Traveller' was first published in 1831 at Nauplia as part of a volume of poems which includes among other things an elegy to the memory of the assassin of Capodistria, whose deed is described as that of an ardent and deserving patriot, a strong instance of the force of political prejudice. In 1839 Panagiotes who avowed in the preface that he had primarily been an unbeliever, celebrated his conversion to Christianity by a sacred drama entitled 'The Messiah.' He has also written some historical tragedies founded on some of the most striking events in modern Greek history, Euthy. mius Vlacavas,' ' Georgios Karaiskos,' and 'The Unknown.' He has been successively the editor of four political journals at Athens, 'The Sun' (in which he was assisted by his brother), 'Regenerated Greece,' The Union,' and 'The Age.' Much attention was excited by an article in 'The Age' at the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war in 1853, in which he excited the Greeks to a denunciation against the Turks, and the Greek government was remonstrated with on the subject by the French and English ambassadors, but excused itself by alleging the liberty of the press. Sutzos is one of the most active agents in the philological revolution which is now going on in Greece, to purify the common language of its barbarisms and restore as much as possible the ancient Greek language, a measure which has had an astonishing degree of success, and which is one of the most interesting philological experiments it is possible to conceive. The two brothers though exhibiting some instability and much violence in their opinions and conduct, have both a reputation for their patriotism, and are considered to have deserved much of their country. Their poetical talents are unques tionable, and some of their productions are of a high order.

SUVO'ROV RYMNIKSKI, ALEXANDER VASSILIVICH, COUNT, PRINCE ITALINSKI, field-marshal and generalissimo of the Russian forces, one of the most celebrated generals of the eighteenth century, was born in Finland on the 13th of November 1730. His family was of Swedish origin, and, before its settlement in Russia, was called Suvor. The father of Suvórov had distinguished himself in the army, and had been promoted to the rank of généralen chef in the reign of Catherine I. Upon his retiring from service he was made senator, and lived at his country-seat in the south of Russia, upon a moderate income which his services had procured him. The predilection he had for a military life induced him to put his son in the army at the age of thirteen years. Young Suvórov remained in the regiment of Semenov until 1754, when in the twenty-fifth year of his age, he obtained a lieutenancy in a regiment of the line, and distinguished himself so much, that three years after the date of his commission he was raised to the rank of first lieutenant, and in 1758, when the war with Prussia broke out, he was entrusted with the command of the garrison of Memel. But this situation was ill-suited to the active spirit of young Suvorov, whose energies demanded a far wider field of action. He begged to be sent on active service. His

petition was granted, and in 1759 he was present at the battle of Kunnersdorf. He continued in the rank of first lieutenant until the death of the empress Elizabeth, when the Russian troops were recalled from Prussia. Suvórov, who during the war had received the approbation of his superior officers, was despatched in 1763 to announce to the court of St. Petersburg the return of the Russian army. A letter of introduction brought him before Catherine II, who named him colonel of the Astrakhan regiment of infantry. Five years afterwards he was commanding officer of a part of the Russian troops which were engaged in warfare with the confederation of Bary in Poland. Here he first showed how worthy he was of the command entrusted to him: in a time almost incredibly short he dispersed the armies of both Pulawskis, took Cracow by storm, and obtained so many advantages over the enemy, that the success of the campaign has chiefly been attributed to him. On his return he was made major-general, and such was the fame he had already acquired, that in 1773 he was sent against the Turks: field-marshal Rumyantsow was commander-in-chief. Three victories by Suvórov over the troops of Mustapha III., which were commanded by the khan of the Crimea, prepared for the complete defeat of the Turks, and having effected a junction with the army of General Kamenskoy, a fourth victory put an end to the contest. This battle, one of the most sanguinary in this war, was fought at Kasledgi, about the end of June 1774.

In the meantime Pugacheff, a Cossak of the Don, who pretended that he was Peter III., had assembled a numerous army. A formidable insurrection threatened to overthrow the throne of Catherine; the negociations with the Ottoman Porte had scarcely terminated when Suvórov was ordered to meet the insurgents. He settled the troubles and soon restored perfect tranquillity to the empire. In 1783 he subjugated the Cuban Tartars and those of Budziac, and having forced them to swear allegiance to the Russian crown, the empress raised him to the chief command, which he held throughout the second Turkish war, which broke out in 1787. He had now no superior to bear off the credit of his actions, and could show that his skill as a tactician was fully equal to his courage. Suvórov was well aware of the enormous responsibility which now lay upon him; his measures therefore were extreme, and although he is accused of having sacrificed too many lives, he cannot be charged with not exposing his own. It was in this war that he first made almost exclusive use of the bayonet, which afterwards so much distinguished the Russian troops. In the battle of Kinburn, in 1787, he ordered his regiments of infantry to throw away their knapsacks and to attack the enemy with the bayonet. The Turks, who occupied a position much stronger than he suspected, repelled the repeated attacks of the Russians; Suvórov himself was wounded, his cavalry fled, and the Cossaks retreated from the field of battle. In this critical moment, Suvórov, regardless of bis wound, mounted his horse, overtook his flying horsemen, and, throwing himself in the midst of them, exclaimed, "Run, cowards, and leave your general to the mercy of the Turks." The effect was instantaneous, and notwithstanding the disadvantages he had to contend with, the battle was won. Nevertheless his courage frequently led him into difficulties which he could have avoided, as at the siege of Oczakow (December 17, 1788), where he would have been irretrievably lost, if Prince Repnin had not come to his assistance. The celebrated battle of Fokshany, which took place on the 1st of August 1789, between the Seraskier Mehmet Pasha and the Prince of Coburg, who commanded a part of the Russian army, was chiefly won through Suvórov's intrepidity. In September of the same year the Prince of Coburg was surrounded by the Turks; and the Russian army stationed on the river Rymnik was in imminent danger. Suvórov reached the spot with a comparatively small force; the armies met on the 22nd of September, and the Turks were completely defeated. It was for this victory that the Emperor Joseph II. raised him to the rank of count of the empire, and Catherine to the dignity of a Russian count with the name of Rymnikski (i.e. he of the Rymnik).

The fortress of Ismail had in the course of this war withstood

repeated attacks from the Russian armies. Prince Potemkin at last gave orders to Suvórov for its reduction. Suvórov was determined to take the fortress; he promised his soldiers the plunder of the place, and ordered them to give no quarter. The evening before the storining, he said to his soldiers: "To-morrow morning, an hour before daylight, I shall rise, say my prayers, wash myself and dress, then crow like a cock, and you will storm according to my orders." The signal was given, and the army began the attack. The Russians were twice forced to give ground under the overwhelming fire of the enemy; at last they succeeded in scaling the walls. Thirty-three thousand Turks were killed or severely wounded, and ten thousand were made prisoners after the slaughter had ceased. Suvórov's report to the empress on this occasion is laconic. "Praise be to God, and praise be to you: the fortress is taken, and I am in it." Eight days were required to bury the dead. Suvórov took a horse to supply the place of the one he had lost in the action, and this was all the share he had in the booty.

In 1792, when peace was made between Russia and the Porte at Yassy in Moldavia (January 9), the Empress Catherine appointed Suvórov governor-general of the province of Yekaterinoslav, the Crimea, and the lately acquired provinces round the mouth of the Dniester. Kherson was the chief town in these districts, and there

Suvórov remained two years. In 1794, when the Poles revolted, Suvorov received the command of the regiments destined to repress the insurrection. He gained several victories over the insurgents, and the storming of Praga, which was taken after a desperate fight of four hours, and which opened to him the gates of Warsaw, on the 9th of November, reduced the Poles to obedience. On this occasion Catherine made him a field- marshal, and gave him a staff of command made of gold, with a wreath of jewels in the form of oak-leaves, the diamonds alone of which were valued at 60,000 roubles.

In 1795 Catherine died, but Suvórov did not lose any of his authority. In 1799 the Emperor Paul gave him the command of the troops which fought in Italy against the French. The Russian armies combined with those of Austria, and Suvórov was appointed to the chief command. His brilliant victories, as those of Piacenza, Novi, and Alessandria, and the activity with which he took from the French all the towns of Upper Italy, procured him the title of Prince Italinski. In consequence of a change in the plan of operations, he crossed the Alps and Mount St. Gothard, in order to help Prince Korsakov in the neighbourhood of Zürich. Through mismanagement on the part of the Austrians, Suvórov came too late, and Korsakov was defeated by Massena, and obliged to retreat over the Rhine. This mishap, as well as the want of energy shown by the Austrians, obliged Suvorov to retreat as far as the lake of Constance. His object was to join the army of Korsakov. The French general tried to prevent this junction. Suvórov was surrounded by them, and entirely enclosed in the valley of the Reuss. On the 28th of September he threw himself into the valley of Schlacken, and led his men, one by one, along a footpath, known only to chamois hunters, over steep rocks and bordered by deep abysses, into the village of Mulden, where Korsakov's troops were stationed. The extraordinary behaviour of the Austrian army and the apathy of the court of Vienna roused the indignation of Paul, and he recalled his forces. The protestations of Suvórov were in vain, and his representations regarding the necessity of the war being continued were rejected. Meanwhile the emperor had given orders for the reception of the generalissimo. He was to make a triumphal entry into St. Petersburg, and apartments were prepared for him in the Imperial palace. Scarcely however had Suvórov arrived in Russia, when a severe illness obliged him to stay at his country-seat in Lithuania. The emperor's own surgeon was despatched to him. Yet in the midst of the preparations for Suvórov's triumphal procession Paul changed his mind; and Suvórov learnt in Riga that he was in disgrace; nevertheless he continued his journey to St. Petersburg, and was received in the house of a niece. Sixteen days after his arrival at St. Petersburg, on the 18th of November 1800, Suvórov died, at the age of seventy.

His funeral was celebrated with great solemnity, and 15,000 of his soldiers accompanied his body to the grave. The Emperor Alexander erected in St. Petersburg, in 1801, a colossal statue of the first of Russian generals. Suvórov was an extraordinary man. Though thin and of a weak constitution, he maintained himself in good health by severe exercise and cold baths. He slept on a bed of straw or hay, under a light blanket, and his food was the same as that of his soldiers. Change in his fortune did not induce him to change his diet. His wardrobe consisted merely of his uniform and a sheepskin. Owing to his temperate mode of life, he preserved his youthful vigour even in his old age. He was very strict in performing all the duties of the Russian church, and compelled all who were under his command to observe them with the same strictness. He was equally firm in his resolves and true to his promises; and his quickness of decision showed itself in the short and laconic style of his orders. A studied conciseness was likewise observable in his conversation, where, as well as in his writings, he frequently used rhyme. His rough and uncouth manners made him the favourite of his soldiers, for whom he had peculiar terms of endearment. Although he used to say that the whole of his tactics consisted in the two magic words, 'Stupay i bey !' (Advance and strike!') he showed in the course of his career great skill in the higher parts of the art of war. He has been accused of cruelty and blamed for want of deliberation; nevertheless he is one of the few generals who never lost a battle.

*SWAIN, CHARLES, known by the name of the Manchester Poet,' was born in Manchester in 1803; his father being an Englishman and his mother a native of France. His father dying when he was a child, he was taken charge of by his mother's brother, M. Tavaré, an intelligent and educated man, who was owner of extensive dye-works in Manchester. After receiving a good education at school, Mr. Swain entered his uncle's establishment at the age of fifteen, and remained in it fourteen years; when he exchanged the dyeing business for that of an engraver, in which he still continues. While yet with his uncle he began to write for periodicals, chiefly in verse; and in 1828 (having married in the preceding year), he published his first work, called 'Metrical Essays on Subjects of History and Imagination.' This was followed, in 1831, by 'Beauties of the Mind: : a Poetical Sketch, with Lays Historical and Romantic.' These poems, and one entitled 'Dryburgh Abbey,' written in 1832, by way of elegy on Sir Walter Scott's death, obtained the author much reputa tion; and Southey, amongst others, predicted that Manchester would be proud of her poet. Mr. Swain's subsequent publications have been Memoir of Henry Leversedge,' 1835; The Mind' and other

Poems' (a re-publication), 1841; Rhymes for Childhood,' 1846; Dramatic Chapters, Poems, and Songs,' 1847; 'English Melodies,' 1849; and 'Letters of Laura d'Auverne,' 1853. In 1863 he published a volume of poetical sketches on art and artistic biography, under the title of "Art and Fashion."

*SWAINSON, WILLIAM, one of the most copious of living writers upon natural history. In early life he travelled much in various parts of the world, and made collections of natural history objects,devoting especial attention to birds and insects. In 1820 he commenced the publication of a series of descriptions of animals with the title Zoological Illustrations, or Original Figures and Descriptions of New, Rare, or Interesting Animals.' In 1821 he commenced a work on the Mollusca, entitled 'Exotic Conchology,' 4to, London. Of this work a new edition by Mr. S. Hanley, appeared in 1841. In 1822 he published a work entitled 'The Naturalist's Guide for collecting and preserving all Subjects of Natural History and Botany, particularly Shells,' &c. From this time he published a large number of valuable papers in the Journal of the Royal Institution,' the 'Zoological Journal,' and the 'Magazine of Natural History,' descriptive of new birds and shells.

In 1834 he published the first of a series of volumes on natural history in Lardner's 'Cabinet Cyclopædia.' This work was entitled A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural History.' In 1835, in the same series, appeared a treatise 'On the Geography and Classification of Animals. In 1835, a treatise On the Natural History and Classification of Quadrupeds.' This was followed in 1836 by a treatise 'On the Natural History and Classification of Birds.' In 1838 and 1889 appeared 'The Natural History and Classification of Fishes, Amphibians and Reptiles, or Monocaudian Animals.' In 1838 also a volume in the same series on Animals in Menageries.' In 1840 a volume on the Habits and Instincts of Animals.' In these works Mr. Swainson advocated a special system of the classification of animals known as the Quinary Arrangement. Besides these works he published several other independent volumes, amongst which the following demand particular notice. Two volumes in 1837 on the Birds of Western Africa,' and in 1838 one volume on the Fly Catchers,' a group of birds, all in Jardine's Naturalist's Library. In 1840 A Treatise on Malacology, or the Natural Classification of Shells and Shell-fish. From 1834 to 1841, a series of Ornithological Drawings,' being a selection of Birds from the Brazils and Mexico.

In 1831 Mr. John Richardson published the second part of his Fauna Boreali Americana,' which was devoted to the description of North American birds, and in which he was assisted by Mr. Swainson. In conjunction with Mr. Shuckard, Mr. Swainson published, in 1840, a volume on the 'History and Natural Arrangement of Insects.' About the year 1841 Mr. Swainson emigrated with his family to New Zealand, where he now resides.

SWAMMERDAM, JOHN, was born at Amsterdam in 1637. His father was an apothecary in that city, and was celebrated for a large collection of objects of natural history and other curiosities which he had formed. His grandfather first took the name of Swammerdam from the place of his birth, a village on the Rhine between Leyden and Woerden.

John Swammerdam was originally intended for the church, but he preferred medicine. During his preparatory studies, following the example of his father, he devoted himself with great ardour to the study of natural history, and especially that of insects, in which he is said to have obtained, even while a young man, far more knowledge than the writers of all preceding ages. In 1651 he went to Leyden, and studied under Van Horne and Francis Sylvius. He applied himself very diligently to minute dissections of the human body, and bringing with him the tact which he had acquired in the examination of insects, was eminently successful. After two years' residence at Leyden he went to Saumur in France, where he continued his observations upon insects, and in 1664 discovered the valves of the lymphatics, but lost the full credit of his industry by Ruysch having at the same time made similar observations, and published them before his were printed. From Saumur Swammerdam went to Paris, and lived with Nicolas Steno, with whom he had been a fellow-pupil and an intimate friend at Leyden. Here also he gained the acquaintance of M. Thevénot, who was afterwards his chief patron, and obtained leave for him, on his return to Amsterdam, to dissect the bodies of those who died in the hospital. In 1666 he went again to Leyden, and made numerous anatomical researches in company with Van Horne. Early in the following year he first employed the method of preparing the blood-vessels by means of waxen injections, and was soon after admitted doctor of medicine: his thesis was an essay on respiration. About this time also he invented the method of making dry preparations of hollow organs, which is now usually employed.

After receiving his diploma, Swammerdam devoted nearly all his time to the study of the anatomy and the natural history of insects; and in 1669 he first published his general history of them. In 1672 he communicated to the Royal Society of London some plates of the human uterus, together with an account of his injections of the spermatic vessels, and some specimens of the success of his invention. At this time also he was engaged in numerous dissections of fishes, especially of their glands; and made several useful investigations respecting the pancreatic fluid. In 1673 he discovered an important