Bibliography.—Art. in theDict. of Nat. Biographyand authorities cited;Henry VIII.by A.F. Pollard (1905);Anne Boleyn, by P. Friedman (1884);The Early Life of Anne Boleyn, by J.H. Round (1886);The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, by J.A. Froude (1891); “Der Ursprung der Ehescheidung König Heinrichs VIII.” and “Der Sturz des Cardinals Wolsey,” by W. Busch (Historisches Taschenbuch, vi. Folge viii. 273 and ix. 41, 1889 and 1890);Lives, by Miss E.O. Benger (1821); and Miss A. Strickland,Lives of the Queens of England(1851), vol. ii.;Notices of Historic Persons Buried in the Tower of London, by D.C. Bell (1877);The Wives of Henry VIII.by M.A.S. Hume (1905);Excerpta Historica, by N.H. Nicolas (1831), p. 260;Spanish Chronicle of Henry VIII.tr. by M.A.S. Hume (1889);Records of the Reformation, by N. Pocock (1870);Harleian Miscellany(1808), iii. 47 (the love letters);Archaeologia, xxiii. 64 (memorial of G. Constantyne);Eng. Hist. Rev.v. 544, viii. 53, 299, x. 104;State Trials, i. 410;History of Henry VIII.by Lord Herbert of Cherbury; E. Hall’sChronicle: Original Letters, ed. by Sir H. Ellis, i. ser., ii. 37, 53 et seq., ii. ser., ii. 10;Extracts from the Life of Queen Anne Boleigne, by G. Wyat (1817);The Negotiations of Thomas Wolsey, by Sir W. Cavendish (1641, rep. Harleian Misc. 1810 v.); C. Wriothesley’sChronicle(Camden Soc., 1875-1877);Notes and Queries, 8 ser., viii. 141, 189, 313, 350;Il Successo de la Morte de la Regina de Inghilterra(1536);The Maner of the Tryumphe of Caleys and Bullen, and theNoble Tryumphaunt Coronacyon of Queen Anne(1533, rep. 1884);State Papers Henry VIII.;Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., by Brewer and Gardiner, esp. the prefaces;Cal. of State Pap. England and Spain, Venetian and Foreign(1558-1559), p. 525 (an account full of obvious errors);Colton MSS.(Brit. Mus.), Otho C. 10; “Baga de secretis” in Rep. iii., App. ii. of Dep. Keeper of Public Records, p. 242; “Römische Dokumente,” v., M.S. Ehses (Gorres-gesellschaft, Bd. ii., 1893). See also articles onCatherine of AragonandHenry VIII.
Bibliography.—Art. in theDict. of Nat. Biographyand authorities cited;Henry VIII.by A.F. Pollard (1905);Anne Boleyn, by P. Friedman (1884);The Early Life of Anne Boleyn, by J.H. Round (1886);The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, by J.A. Froude (1891); “Der Ursprung der Ehescheidung König Heinrichs VIII.” and “Der Sturz des Cardinals Wolsey,” by W. Busch (Historisches Taschenbuch, vi. Folge viii. 273 and ix. 41, 1889 and 1890);Lives, by Miss E.O. Benger (1821); and Miss A. Strickland,Lives of the Queens of England(1851), vol. ii.;Notices of Historic Persons Buried in the Tower of London, by D.C. Bell (1877);The Wives of Henry VIII.by M.A.S. Hume (1905);Excerpta Historica, by N.H. Nicolas (1831), p. 260;Spanish Chronicle of Henry VIII.tr. by M.A.S. Hume (1889);Records of the Reformation, by N. Pocock (1870);Harleian Miscellany(1808), iii. 47 (the love letters);Archaeologia, xxiii. 64 (memorial of G. Constantyne);Eng. Hist. Rev.v. 544, viii. 53, 299, x. 104;State Trials, i. 410;History of Henry VIII.by Lord Herbert of Cherbury; E. Hall’sChronicle: Original Letters, ed. by Sir H. Ellis, i. ser., ii. 37, 53 et seq., ii. ser., ii. 10;Extracts from the Life of Queen Anne Boleigne, by G. Wyat (1817);The Negotiations of Thomas Wolsey, by Sir W. Cavendish (1641, rep. Harleian Misc. 1810 v.); C. Wriothesley’sChronicle(Camden Soc., 1875-1877);Notes and Queries, 8 ser., viii. 141, 189, 313, 350;Il Successo de la Morte de la Regina de Inghilterra(1536);The Maner of the Tryumphe of Caleys and Bullen, and theNoble Tryumphaunt Coronacyon of Queen Anne(1533, rep. 1884);State Papers Henry VIII.;Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., by Brewer and Gardiner, esp. the prefaces;Cal. of State Pap. England and Spain, Venetian and Foreign(1558-1559), p. 525 (an account full of obvious errors);Colton MSS.(Brit. Mus.), Otho C. 10; “Baga de secretis” in Rep. iii., App. ii. of Dep. Keeper of Public Records, p. 242; “Römische Dokumente,” v., M.S. Ehses (Gorres-gesellschaft, Bd. ii., 1893). See also articles onCatherine of AragonandHenry VIII.
(P. C. Y.)
1SeeAnne Boleyn, by P. Friedman;The Early Life of Anne Boleyn, by J.H. Round; and J. Gairdner inEng. Hist. Review, viii. 53, 299, and x. 104.2According to theChronicle of King Henry VIII., tr. by M.A.S. Hume, p. 68, she was his mistress.3Of this there is no direct proof, but the statement rests upon contemporary belief and chiefly upon the extraordinary terms of the dispensation granted to Henry to marry Anne Boleyn, which included the suspension of all canons relating to impediments created by “affinity risingex illicito coituin any degree even in the first.” Froude rejects the whole story,Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, p. 54; and see Friedman’sAnne Boleyn, ii. 323.4Cat. of St. Pap. England and Spain, iii. pt. ii. p. 327.5According to Cranmer,Letters and Papers of Henry VIII.vi. p. 300, the only authority; and Cranmer himself only knew of it a fortnight after. The marriage was commonly antedated to the 14th of November 1532.6Cat. of St. Pap. England and Spain, v. 198.7Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., x. pp. 374, 381, 385.8According to the most trustworthy accounts, but seeLetters and Papers, x. p. 382. The well-known letter to Henry VIII. attributed to her is now recognized as an Elizabethan forgery.9Archaeologia, xxiii. 64.10Letters and Papers, x. 358.11“Sanuto Diaries,” October 31, 1532, inCal. of St. Pap. Venetian, iv. p. 365.12Original Letters, ed. by Sir H. Ellis, 1 ser. ii. 37, andCal. of St. Pap. Venetian, iv. 351, 418.
1SeeAnne Boleyn, by P. Friedman;The Early Life of Anne Boleyn, by J.H. Round; and J. Gairdner inEng. Hist. Review, viii. 53, 299, and x. 104.
2According to theChronicle of King Henry VIII., tr. by M.A.S. Hume, p. 68, she was his mistress.
3Of this there is no direct proof, but the statement rests upon contemporary belief and chiefly upon the extraordinary terms of the dispensation granted to Henry to marry Anne Boleyn, which included the suspension of all canons relating to impediments created by “affinity risingex illicito coituin any degree even in the first.” Froude rejects the whole story,Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, p. 54; and see Friedman’sAnne Boleyn, ii. 323.
4Cat. of St. Pap. England and Spain, iii. pt. ii. p. 327.
5According to Cranmer,Letters and Papers of Henry VIII.vi. p. 300, the only authority; and Cranmer himself only knew of it a fortnight after. The marriage was commonly antedated to the 14th of November 1532.
6Cat. of St. Pap. England and Spain, v. 198.
7Letters and Papers of Henry VIII., x. pp. 374, 381, 385.
8According to the most trustworthy accounts, but seeLetters and Papers, x. p. 382. The well-known letter to Henry VIII. attributed to her is now recognized as an Elizabethan forgery.
9Archaeologia, xxiii. 64.
10Letters and Papers, x. 358.
11“Sanuto Diaries,” October 31, 1532, inCal. of St. Pap. Venetian, iv. p. 365.
12Original Letters, ed. by Sir H. Ellis, 1 ser. ii. 37, andCal. of St. Pap. Venetian, iv. 351, 418.
BOLGARI,orBolgary, a ruined town of Russia, in the government of Kazan, 4 m. from the left bank of the Volga, in 55°N. lat. It is generally considered to have been the capital of the Bulgarians when they were established in that part of Europe (5th to 15th century). Ruins of the old walls and towers still survive, as well as numerouskurgansor burial-mounds, with inscriptions, some in Arabic (1222-1341), others in Armenian (years 557, 984 and 986), and yet others in Turkic. Upon being opened these tombs were found to contain weapons, implements, utensils, and silver and copper coins, bearing inscriptions, some in ordinary Arabic, others in Kufic (a kind of epigraphic Arabic). These and other antiquities collected here (1722) are preserved in museums at Kazan, Moscow and St Petersburg. The ruins, which were practically discovered in the reign of Peter the Great, were visited and described by Pallas, Humboldt and others. The city of Bolgari was destroyed by the Mongols in 1238, and again by Tamerlane early in the following century, after which it served as the capital of the Khans (sovereign princes) of the Golden Horde of Mongols, and finally, in the second half of the 15th century it became a part of the principality of Kazan, and so eventually of Russia. The Arab geographer Ibn Haukal states that in his time, near the end of the 10th century, it was a place of 10,000 inhabitants.
See Ibn Fadhlan,Nachrichten über die Wolga Bulgaren(Ger. trans. by Frähn, St Petersburg, 1832).
See Ibn Fadhlan,Nachrichten über die Wolga Bulgaren(Ger. trans. by Frähn, St Petersburg, 1832).
BOLI,the chief town of a sanjak of the Kastamuni vilayet in Asia Minor, altitude 2500 ft., situated in a rich plain watered by the Boli Su, a tributary of the Filiyas Chai (Billaeus). Pop. (1894) 10,796 (Moslems, 9642; Greeks, 758; Armenians, 396). Cotton and leather are manufactured; the country around is fertile, and in the neighbourhood are large forests of oak, beech, elm, chestnut and pine, the timber of which is partly used locally and partly exported to Constantinople. Three miles east of Boli, at Eskihissar, are the ruins ofBithynium, the birthplace of Antinous, also calledAntinoopolis, and in Byzantine timesClaudiopolis. In and around Boli are numerous marbles with Greek inscriptions, chiefly sepulchral, and architectural fragments. At Ilija, south of the town, are warm springs much prized for their medicinal properties.
BOLINGBROKE, HENRY ST JOHN,Viscount(1678-1751), English statesman and writer, son of Sir Henry St John, Bart. (afterwards 1st Viscount St John, a member of a younger branch of the family of the earls of Bolingbroke and barons St John of Bletso), and of Lady Mary Rich, daughter of the 2nd earl of Warwick, was baptized on the 10th of October 1678, and was educated at Eton. He travelled abroad during 1698 and 1699 and acquired an exceptional knowledge of French. The dissipation and extravagance of his youth exceeded all limits and surprised his contemporaries. He spent weeks in riotous orgies and outdrank the most experienced drunkards. An informant of Goldsmith saw him once “run naked through the park in a state of intoxication.” Throughout his career he desired, says Swift, his intimate friend, to be thought the Alcibiades or Petronius of his age, and to mix licentious orgies with the highest political responsibilities.1In 1700 he married Frances, daughter of Sir Henry Winchcombe, Bart., of Bucklebury, Berkshire, but matrimony while improving his fortune did not redeem his morals.
He was returned to parliament in 1701 for the family borough of Wootton Bassett in Wiltshire. He declared himself a Tory, attached himself to Harley (afterwards Lord Oxford), then speaker, whom he now addressed as “dear master,” and distinguished himself by his eloquence in debate, eclipsing his schoolfellow, Walpole, and gaining an extraordinary ascendancy over the House of Commons. In May he had charge of the bill for securing the Protestant succession; he took part in the impeachment of the Whig lords for their conduct concerning the Partition treaties, and opposed the oath abjuring the Pretender. In March 1702 he was chosen commissioner for taking the public accounts. After Anne’s accession he supported the bills in 1702 and 1704 against occasional conformity, and took a leading part in the disputes which arose between the two Houses. In 1704 St John took office with Harley as secretary at war, thus being brought into intimate relations with Marlborough, by whom he was treated with paternal partiality. In 1708 he quitted office with Harley on the failure of the latter’s intrigue, and retired to the country till 1710, when he became a privy councillor and secretary of state in Harley’s new ministry, representing Berkshire in parliament. He supported the bill for requiring a real property qualification for a seat in parliament. In 1711 he founded theBrothers’ Club, a society of Tory politicians and men of letters, and the same year witnessed the failure of the two expeditions to the West Indies and to Canada promoted by him. In 1712 he was the author of the bill taxing newspapers. But the great business of the new government was the making of the peace with France. The refusal of the Whigs to grant terms in 1706, and again in 1709 when Louis XIV. offered to yield every point for which the allies professed to be fighting, showed that the war was not being continued for English national interests, and the ministry were supported by the queen, the parliament and the people in their design to terminate hostilities. But various obstacles arose from the diversity of aims among the allies; and St John was induced, contrary to the most solemn obligations, to enter into separate and secret negotiations with France for the security of English interests. In May 1712 St John ordered the duke of Ormonde, who had succeeded Marlborough in the command, to refrain from any further engagement. These instructions were communicated to the French, though not to the allies, Louis putting Dunkirk as security into possession of England, and the shameful spectacle was witnessed of the desertion by the English troops of their allies almost on the battlefield. Subsequently St John received the congratulations of the French minister, Torcy, on the occasion of the French victory over Prince Eugene at Denain.
In August St John, who had on the 7th of July been created Viscount Bolingbroke and Baron St John of Lydiard Tregoze, went to France to conduct negotiations, and signed an armistice between England and France for four months on the 19th. Finally the treaty of Utrecht was signed on the 31st of March 1713 by all the allies except the emperor. The first production of Addison’sCatowas made by the Whigs the occasion of a great demonstration of indignation against the peace, and by Bolingbroke for presenting the actor Booth with a purse of fifty guineas for “defending the cause of liberty against a perpetual dictator” (Marlborough). In the terms granted to England there was perhaps little to criticize. But the manner of the peacemaking, which had been carried on by a series of underhand conspiracies with the enemy instead of by open conferences with the allies, and was characterized throughout by a violation of the most solemn international assurances, left a deep and lasting stain upon the national honour and credit; and not less dishonourable was the abandonment of the Catalans by the treaty. For all this Bolingbroke must be held primarily responsible. In June his commercial treaty with France, establishing free trade with that country, was rejected. Meanwhile the friendship between Bolingbroke and Harley, which formed the basis of the whole Tory administration, had been gradually dissolved. In March 1711, by Guiscard’s attempt on his life, Harley got the wound which had been intended for St John, with all the credit. In May Harley obtained the earldom of Oxford and was made lord treasurer, while in July St John was greatly disappointed at receiving only his viscountcy instead of the earldom lately extinct in his family, and at being passed over for the Garter. In September 1713 Swift came to London, and made a last but vain attempt to reconcile his two friends. But now a further cause of difference had arisen. The queen’s health was visibly breaking, and the Tory ministers could only look forward to their own downfall on the accession of the elector of Hanover. Both Oxford2and Bolingbroke had maintained for some time secret communications with James, and promised their help in restoring him at the queen’s death. The aims of the former, prudent, procrastinating and vacillating by nature, never extended probably beyond the propitiation of his Tory followers; and it is difficult to imagine that Bolingbroke could have really advocated the Pretender’s recall, whose divine right he repudiated and whose religion and principles he despised. Nevertheless, whatever his chief motive may have been, whether to displace Oxford as leader of the party, to strengthen his position and that of the faction in order to dictate terms to the future king, or to reinstate James, Bolingbroke, yielding to his more impetuous and adventurous disposition, went much further than Oxford. It is possible to suppose a connexion between his zeal for making peace with France and a desire to forward the Pretender’s interests or win support from the Jacobites.3During his diplomatic mission to France he had incurred blame for remaining at the opera while the Pretender was present,4and according to the Mackintosh transcripts he had several secret interviews with him. Regular communications were kept up subsequently. In March 1714 Herville, the French envoy in London, sent to Torcy, the French foreign minister in Paris, the substance of two long conversations with Bolingbroke in which the latter advised patience till after the accession of George, when a great reaction was to be expected in favour of the Pretender. At the same time he spoke of the treachery of Marlborough and Berwick, and of one other, presumably Oxford, whom he refused to name, all of whom were in communication with Hanover.5Both Oxford and Bolingbroke warned James that he could have little chance of success unless he changed his religion, but the latter’s refusal (March 13) does not appear to have stopped the communications. Bolingbroke gradually superseded Oxford in the leadership. Lady Masham, the queen’s favourite, quarrelled with Oxford and identified herself with Bolingbroke’s interests. The harsh treatment of the Hanoverian demands was inspired by him, and won favour with the queen, while Oxford’s influence declined; and by his support of the Schism Bill in May 1714, a violent Tory measure forbidding all education by dissenters by making an episcopal licence obligatory for schoolmasters, he probably intended to compel Oxford to give up the game. Finally, a charge of corruption brought by Oxford in July against Bolingbroke and Lady Masham, in connexion with the commercial treaty with Spain, failed, and the lord treasurer was dismissed or retired on the 27th of July.
Bolingbroke was now supreme, and everything appeared tending inevitably to a Jacobite restoration. The Jacobite Sir William Windham had been made chancellor of the exchequer, important military posts were placed in the hands of the faction, and a new ministry of Jacobites was projected. But now the queen’s sudden death on the 1st of August, and the appointment of Shrewsbury to the lord treasurership, instantly changed the whole scene and ruined Bolingbroke. “The earl of Oxford was removed on Tuesday,” he wrote to Swift on the 3rd of August, “the queen died on Sunday! What a world is this and how does fortune banter us!” According to Herville, the French envoy, Bolingbroke declared to him that in six weeks he could have secured everything. Nevertheless the exact nature of his projects remains obscure. It is probable that his statement in his letter to Windham that “none of us had any very settled resolution” is true, though his declaration in thePatriot Kingthat “there were no designs on foot ... to place the crown on the head of the Pretender” is a palpable falsehood. His great object was doubtless to gain supreme power and to keep it by any means, and by any betrayal that the circumstances demanded; and it is not without significance perhaps that on the very day of Oxford’s dismissal he gave a dinner to the Whig leaders, and on the day preceding the queen’s death ordered overtures to be made to the elector.6
On the accession of George I. the illuminations and bonfire at Lord Bolingbroke’s house in Golden Square were “particularly fine and remarkable,”7but he was immediately dismissed from office. He retired to Bucklebury and is said to have now written the answer to theSecret History of the White Staffaccusing him of Jacobitism. In March 1715 he in vain attempted to defend the late ministry in the new parliament; and on the announcement of Walpole’s intended attack upon the authors of the treaty of Utrecht he fled in disguise (March 28, 1715) to Paris, where he was well received, after having addressed a letter to Lord Lansdowne from Dover protesting his innocenceand challenging “the most inveterate of his enemies to produce any instance of his criminal correspondence.” Bolingbroke in July entirely identified himself with the interests of the Pretender, whose secretary he became, and on the 10th of September he was attainted. But his counsel was neglected for that of ignorant refugees and Irish priests. The expedition of 1715 was resolved upon against his advice. He drew up James’s declaration, but the assurances he had inserted concerning the security of the Church of England were cancelled by the priests. He remained at Paris, and endeavoured to establish relations with the regent. On the return of James, as the result of petty intrigues and jealousies, Bolingbroke was dismissed from his office. He now renounced all further efforts on the Pretender’s behalf.8Replying to Mary of Modena, who had sent a message deprecating his ill-will, he wished his arm might rot off if he ever used pen or sword in their service again!9
He now turned to the English government in hopes of pardon. In March 1716 he declared his final abandonment of the Pretender and promised to use his influence to secure the withdrawal of his friends; but he refused to betray any secrets or any individuals. He wrote hisReflexions upon Exile, and in 1717 his letter to Sir W. Windham in explanation of his position, generally considered one of his finest compositions, but not published till 1753 after his death. The same year he formed a liaison with Marie Claire Deschamps de Marcilly, widow of the marquis de Villette, whom he married in 1720 after the death in 1718 of Lady Bolingbroke, whom he had treated with cruel neglect. He bought and resided at the estate of La Source near Orleans, studied philosophy, criticized the chronology of the Bible, and was visited amongst others by Voltaire, who expressed unbounded admiration for his learning and politeness. In 1723, through the medium of the king’s mistress, the duchess of Kendal, he at last received his pardon, returned to London in June or July, and placed his services at the disposal of Walpole, by whom, however, his offers to procure the accession of several Tories to the administration were received very coldly. During the following winter he made himself useful in France in gaining information for the government. In 1725 an act was passed enabling him to hold real estate but without power of alienating it.10But this had been effected in consequence of a peremptory order of the king, against Walpole’s wishes, who succeeded in maintaining his exclusion from the House of Lords. He now bought an estate at Dawley, near Uxbridge, where he renewed his intimacy with Pope, Swift and Voltaire, took part in Pope’s literary squabbles, and wrote the philosophy for theEssay on Man. On the first occasion which offered itself, that of Pulteney’s rupture with Walpole in 1726, he endeavoured to organize an opposition in conjunction with the former and Windham; and in 1727 began his celebrated series of letters to theCraftsman, attacking the Walpoles, signed an “Occasional Writer.” He gained over the duchess of Kendal with a bribe of £11,000 from his wife’s estates, and with Walpole’s approval obtained an audience with George. His success was imminent, and it was thought his appointment as chief minister was assured. In Walpole’s own words, “as St John had the duchess entirely on his side I need not add what must or might in time have been the consequence,” and he prepared for his dismissal. But once more Bolingbroke’s “fortune turned rotten at the very moment it grew ripe,”11and his projects and hopes were ruined by the king’s death in June.12Further papers from his pen signed “John Trot” appeared in theCraftsmanin 1728, and in 1730 followedRemarks on the History of England by Humphrey Oldcastle, attacking the Walpoles’ policy. The assault on the government prompted by Bolingbroke was continued in the House of Commons by Windham, and great efforts were made to establish the alliance between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs. The Excise Bill in 1733 and the Septennial Bill in the following year offered opportunities for further attacks on the government, which Bolingbroke supported by a new series of papers in theCraftsmanstyled “A Dissertation on Parties”; but the whole movement collapsed after the new elections, which returned Walpole to power in 1735 with a large majority.
Bolingbroke retired baffled and disappointed from the fray to France in June, residing principally at the château of Argeville near Fontainebleau. He now wrote hisLetters on the Study of History(printed privately before his death and published in 1752), and theTrue Use of Retirement. In 1738 he visited England, became one of the leading friends and advisers of Frederick, prince of Wales, who now headed the opposition, and wrote for the occasionThe Patriot King, which together with a previous essay,The Spirit of Patriotism, andThe State of Parties at the Accession of George I., were entrusted to Pope and not published. Having failed, however, to obtain any share in politics, he returned to France in 1739, and subsequently sold Dawley. In 1742 and 1743 he again visited England and quarrelled with Warburton. In 1744 he settled finally at Battersea with his friend Hugh Hume, 3rd earl of Marchmont, and was present at Pope’s death in May. The discovery that the poet had printed secretly 1500 copies ofThe Patriot Kingcaused him to publish a correct version in 1749, and stirred up a further altercation with Warburton, who defended his friend against Bolingbroke’s bitter aspersions, the latter, whose conduct was generally reprehended, publishing aFamiliar Epistle to the most Impudent Man Living. In 1744 he had been very busy assisting in the negotiations for the establishment of the new “broad bottom” administration, and showed no sympathy for the Jacobite expedition in 1745. He recommended the tutor for Prince George, afterwards George III. About 1749 he wrote thePresent State of the Nation, an unfinished pamphlet. Lord Chesterfield records the last words heard from him: “God who placed me here will do what He pleases with me hereafter and He knows best what to do.” He died on the 12th of December 1751, his wife having predeceased him in 1750. They were both buried in the parish church at Battersea, where a monument with medallions and inscriptions composed by Bolingbroke was erected to their memory.
The writings and career of Bolingbroke make a far weaker impression upon posterity than they made on contemporaries. His genius and character were superficial; his abilities were exercised upon ephemeral objects, and not inspired by lasting or universal ideas. Bute and George III. indeed derived their political ideas fromThe Patriot King, but the influence which he is said to have exercised upon Voltaire, Gibbon and Burke is very problematical. Burke wrote hisVindication of Natural Societyin imitation of Bolingbroke’s style, but in refutation of his principles; and in theReflections on the French Revolutionhe exclaims, “Who now reads Bolingbroke, who ever read him through?” Burke denies that Bolingbroke’s words left “any permanent impression on his mind.” Bolingbroke’s conversation, described by Lord Chesterfield as “such a flowing happiness of expression that even his most familiar conversations if taken down in writing would have borne the press without the least correction,” his delightful companionship, his wit, good looks, and social qualities which charmed during his lifetime and made firm friendships with men of the most opposite character, can now only be faintly imagined. His most brilliant gift was his eloquence, which according to Swift was acknowledged by men of all factions to be unrivalled. None of his great orations has survived, a loss regretted by Pitt more than that of the missing books of Livy and Tacitus, and no art perishes more completely with its possessor than that of oratory. His political works, in which the expression is often splendidly eloquent, spirited and dignified, are for the most part exceedingly rhetorical in style, while his philosophical essays were undertaken with the chief object of displaying his eloquence, and no characteristic renderswritings less readable for posterity. They are both deficient in solidity and in permanent interest. The first deals with mere party questions without sincerity and without depth; and the second, composed as an amusement in retirement without any serious preparation, in their attacks on metaphysics and theology and in their feeble deism present no originality and carry no conviction. Both kinds reflect in their Voltairian superficiality Bolingbroke’s manner of life, which was throughout uninspired by any great ideas or principles and thoroughly false and superficial. Though a libertine and a free-thinker, he had championed the most bigoted and tyrannical high-church measures. His diplomacy had been subordinated to party necessities. He had supported by turns and simultaneously Jacobite and Hanoverian interests. He had only conceived the idea ofThe Patriot Kingin the person of the worthless Frederick in order to stir up sedition, while his eulogies on retirement and study were pronounced from an enforced exile. He only attacked party government because he was excluded from it, and only railed at corruption because it was the corruption of his antagonists and not his own. His public life presents none of those acts of devotion and self-sacrifice which often redeem a career characterized by errors, follies and even crimes.
One may deplore his unfortunate history and wasted genius, but it is impossible to regret his exclusion from the government of England. He was succeeded in the title as 2nd Viscount Bolingbroke, according to the special remainder, by his nephew Frederick, 3rd Viscount St John (a title granted to Bolingbroke’s father in 1716), from whom the title has descended.
Bibliography.—Bolingbroke’s collected works, including his chief political writings already mentioned and his philosophical essaysConcerning the Nature, Extent and Reality of Human Knowledge,On the Folly and Presumption of Philosophers,On the Rise and Progress of Monotheism, andOn Authority in Matters of Religion, were first published in Mallet’s faulty edition in 1754,—according to Johnson’s well-known denunciation, “the blunderbuss charged against religion and morality,”—and subsequently in 1778, 1809 and 1841.A Collection of Political Tractsby Bolingbroke was published in 1748. HisLetterswere published by G. Parke in 1798, and by Grimoard,Lettres historiques, politiques, philosophiques, &c., in 1808; for others see Pope’s and Swift’sCorrespondence; W. Coxe’sWalpole; Phillimore’sLife of Lyttelton;Hardwick State Papers, vol. ii.;Marchmont Papers, ed. by Sir G.H. Rose (1831); Letters to Lord Chancellor Hardwicke inAdd. MSS. Brit. Museum(see Index, 1894-1899), mostly transcribed by W. Sichel;Hist. MSS. Comm., MSS. of Marquis of Bath, Duke of Portland at Welbeck; while a further collection of his letters relating to the treaty of Utrecht is in the British Museum. For his attempts at verse see Walpole’sRoyal and Noble Authors(1806), iv. 209 et seq. See also bibliography of his works in Sichel, ii. 456, 249.A life of Bolingbroke appeared in his lifetime about 1740, entitledAuthentic Memoirs(in the Grenville Library, Brit. Mus.), which recounted his escapades; other contemporary accounts were published in 1752 and 1754, and a life by Goldsmith in 1770. Of the more modern biographies may be noted that in theDict. of Nat. Biog.by Sir Leslie Stephen, 1897; by C. de Remusat inL’Angleterre au 18me siècle(1856), vol. i.; by T. Macknight (1863); by J. Churton Collins (1886); by A. Hassall (1889); and by Walter Sichel (1901-1902), elaborate and brilliant, but unduly eulogistic.
Bibliography.—Bolingbroke’s collected works, including his chief political writings already mentioned and his philosophical essaysConcerning the Nature, Extent and Reality of Human Knowledge,On the Folly and Presumption of Philosophers,On the Rise and Progress of Monotheism, andOn Authority in Matters of Religion, were first published in Mallet’s faulty edition in 1754,—according to Johnson’s well-known denunciation, “the blunderbuss charged against religion and morality,”—and subsequently in 1778, 1809 and 1841.A Collection of Political Tractsby Bolingbroke was published in 1748. HisLetterswere published by G. Parke in 1798, and by Grimoard,Lettres historiques, politiques, philosophiques, &c., in 1808; for others see Pope’s and Swift’sCorrespondence; W. Coxe’sWalpole; Phillimore’sLife of Lyttelton;Hardwick State Papers, vol. ii.;Marchmont Papers, ed. by Sir G.H. Rose (1831); Letters to Lord Chancellor Hardwicke inAdd. MSS. Brit. Museum(see Index, 1894-1899), mostly transcribed by W. Sichel;Hist. MSS. Comm., MSS. of Marquis of Bath, Duke of Portland at Welbeck; while a further collection of his letters relating to the treaty of Utrecht is in the British Museum. For his attempts at verse see Walpole’sRoyal and Noble Authors(1806), iv. 209 et seq. See also bibliography of his works in Sichel, ii. 456, 249.
A life of Bolingbroke appeared in his lifetime about 1740, entitledAuthentic Memoirs(in the Grenville Library, Brit. Mus.), which recounted his escapades; other contemporary accounts were published in 1752 and 1754, and a life by Goldsmith in 1770. Of the more modern biographies may be noted that in theDict. of Nat. Biog.by Sir Leslie Stephen, 1897; by C. de Remusat inL’Angleterre au 18me siècle(1856), vol. i.; by T. Macknight (1863); by J. Churton Collins (1886); by A. Hassall (1889); and by Walter Sichel (1901-1902), elaborate and brilliant, but unduly eulogistic.
(P. C. Y.)
1Swift’sInquiry into the Behaviour of the Queen’s Last Ministry; Mrs Delaney’sCorrespondence, 2 ser., iii. 168.2Berwick’s Mem.(Petitot), vol. lxvi. 219.3Hist. MSS. Comm., Portland MSS.v. 235.4Stuart MSS.(Roxburghe Club), ii. 383.5Hist. MSS. Comm., MSS. of H.M. the King, Stuart Papers, i. p. xlviii.6Sichel’sBolingbroke, i. 340;Lockhart Papers, i. 460; Macpherson, ii. 529.7Wentworth Papers, 408.8Hist. MSS. Comm., Stuart Papers, i. 500; Berwick’sMem. (Petitot), vol. lxvi. 262.9Coxe’sWalpole, i. 200;Stuart Papers, ii. 511, and also 446, 460.10Hist. MSS. Comm., Onslow MSS.515.11Bolingbroke to Swift, June 24th, 1727. He adds, “to hanker after a court is below either you or me.”12Sichel’sBolingbroke, ii. 267;Stanhope, ii. 163;Hist. MSS. Comm., Onslow MSS.516, 8th Rep. Pt. III. App. p. 3. This remarkable incident is discredited by H. Walpole inLetters(ed. 1903), iii. 269; but he was not always well informed concerning his father’s career.
1Swift’sInquiry into the Behaviour of the Queen’s Last Ministry; Mrs Delaney’sCorrespondence, 2 ser., iii. 168.
2Berwick’s Mem.(Petitot), vol. lxvi. 219.
3Hist. MSS. Comm., Portland MSS.v. 235.
4Stuart MSS.(Roxburghe Club), ii. 383.
5Hist. MSS. Comm., MSS. of H.M. the King, Stuart Papers, i. p. xlviii.
6Sichel’sBolingbroke, i. 340;Lockhart Papers, i. 460; Macpherson, ii. 529.
7Wentworth Papers, 408.
8Hist. MSS. Comm., Stuart Papers, i. 500; Berwick’sMem. (Petitot), vol. lxvi. 262.
9Coxe’sWalpole, i. 200;Stuart Papers, ii. 511, and also 446, 460.
10Hist. MSS. Comm., Onslow MSS.515.
11Bolingbroke to Swift, June 24th, 1727. He adds, “to hanker after a court is below either you or me.”
12Sichel’sBolingbroke, ii. 267;Stanhope, ii. 163;Hist. MSS. Comm., Onslow MSS.516, 8th Rep. Pt. III. App. p. 3. This remarkable incident is discredited by H. Walpole inLetters(ed. 1903), iii. 269; but he was not always well informed concerning his father’s career.
BOLIVAR, SIMON(1783-1830), the hero of South American independence, was born in the city of Caracas, Venezuela, on the 24th of July 1783. His father was Juan Vicente Bolivar y Ponte, and his mother Maria Concepcion Palacios y Sojo, both descended from noble families in Venezuela. Bolivar was sent to Europe to prosecute his studies, and resided at Madrid for several years. Having completed his education, he spent some time in travelling, chiefly in the south of Europe, and visited Paris, where he was an eye-witness of some of the last scenes of the Revolution. Returning to Madrid, he married, in 1801, the daughter of Don N. Toro, uncle of the marquis of Toro in Caracas, and embarked with her for Venezuela, intending, it is said, to devote himself to the improvement of his large estate. But the premature death of his young wife, who fell a victim to yellow fever, drove him again to Europe. Returning home in 1809 he passed through the United States, where, for the first time, he had an opportunity of observing the working of free institutions; and soon after his arrival in Venezuela he appears to have identified himself with the cause of independence which had already agitated the Spanish colonies for some years. Being one of the promoters of the insurrection at Caracas in April 1810, he received a colonel’s commission from the revolutionary junta, and was associated with Louis Lopez Mendez in a mission to the court of Great Britain. Venezuela declared its independence on the 5th of July 1811, and in the following year the war commenced in earnest by the advance of Monteverde with the Spanish troops. Bolivar was entrusted with the command of the important post of Puerto Cabello, but not being supported he had to evacuate the place; and owing to the inaction of Miranda the Spaniards recovered their hold over the country.
Like others of the revolutionists Bolivar took to flight, and succeeded in reaching Curaçao in safety. He did not, however, remain long in retirement, but in September 1812, hearing of important movements in New Granada, repaired to Cartagena, where he received a commission to operate against the Spanish troops on the Magdalena river. In this expedition he proved eminently successful, driving the Spaniards from post to post, until arriving at the confines of Venezuela he boldly determined to enter that province and try conclusions with General Monteverde himself. His troops did not number more than 500 men; but, in spite of many discouragements, he forced his way to Merida and Truxillo, towns of some importance in the west of Venezuela, and succeeded in raising the population to his support. Forming his increased forces into two divisions, he committed the charge of one to his colleague Rivas, and pushing on for Caracas the capital, issued his decree of “war to the death.” A decisive battle ensued at Lastoguanes, where the Spanish troops under Monteverde sustained a crushing defeat. Caracas was entered in triumph on the 4th of August 1813, and Monteverde took refuge in Puerto Cabello. General Mariño effected the liberation of the eastern district of Venezuela, and the patriots obtained entire possession of the country in January 1814. This success was, however, of very brief duration. The royalists, effectually roused by the reverses they had sustained, concentrated all their means, and a number of sanguinary encounters ensued. Bolivar was eventually defeated by Boves near Cura, in the plains of La Puerta, and compelled to embark for Cumana with the shattered remains of his forces. Caracas was retaken by the Spaniards in July; and before the end of the year 1814 the royalists were again the undisputed masters of Venezuela. From Cumana Bolivar repaired to Cartagena, and thence to Tunja, where the revolutionary congress of New Granada was sitting. Here, notwithstanding his misfortunes and the efforts of his personal enemies, he was received and treated with great consideration. The congress appointed him to conduct an expedition against Santa Fé de Bogota, where Don Cundinamarca had refused to acknowledge the new coalition of the provinces. In December 1814 he appeared before Bogota with a force of 2000 men, and obliged the recalcitrant leaders to capitulate,—a service for which he received the thanks of congress. In the meanwhile Santa Martha had fallen into the hands of the royalists, and Bolivar was ordered to the relief of the place. In this, however, he was not successful, General Morillo having landed an overwhelming Spanish force. Hopeless of the attempt he resigned his commission and embarked for Kingston, Jamaica, in May 1814. While residing there an attempt was made upon his life by a hired assassin, who, in mistake, murdered his secretary.
From Kingston Bolivar went to Aux Cayes in Haiti, where he was furnished with a small force by President Petion. An expedition was organized, and landed on the mainland in May 1816, but proved a failure. Nothing daunted, however, he obtained reinforcements at Aux Cayes, and in December landed first in Margarita, and then at Barcelona. Here a provisional government was formed, and troops were assembled to resist Morillo, who was then advancing at the head of a strong division. The hostile forces encountered each other on the 16th of February 1817, when a desperate conflict ensued, which lasted during that and the two following days, and ended in the defeat of the royalists. Morillo retired in disorder, and being met on his retreat by J.A. Paez with hisllaneros, suffered an additional and more complete overthrow. Being now recognized as commander-in-chief, Bolivarproceeded in his career of victory, and before the close of the year had fixed his headquarters at Angostura on the Orinoco. At the opening of the congress which assembled in that city on the 15th February 1819 he submitted an elaborate exposition of his views on government, and concluded by surrendering his authority into the hands of congress. Being, however, required to resume his power, and retain it until the independence of the country had been completely established, he reorganized his troops, and set out from Angostura, in order to cross the Cordilleras, effect a junction with General Santander, who commanded the republican force in New Granada, and bring their united forces into action against the common enemy. This bold and original design was crowned with complete success. In July 1819 he entered Tunja, after a sharp action on the adjoining heights; and on the 7th of August he gained the victory of Boyaca, which gave him immediate possession of Bogota and all New Granada.
His return to Angostura was a sort of national festival. He was hailed as the deliverer and father of his country, and all manner of distinctions and congratulations were heaped upon him. Availing himself of the favourable moment, he obtained the enactment of the fundamental law of the 17th of December 1819, by which the republics of Venezuela and New Granada were henceforth to be united in a single state, under his presidency, by the title of the Republic of Colombia. The seat of government was also transferred provisionally to Rosario de Cucuta, on the frontier of the two provinces, and Bolivar again took the field. Being now at the head of the most numerous and best appointed army the republicans had yet assembled, he gained important advantages over the Spaniards under Morillo, and on the 25th of November 1820 concluded at Truxillo an armistice of six months, probably in the hope that the Spaniards would come to terms, and that the further effusion of blood might be spared. If such were his views, however, they were disappointed. Morillo was recalled, and General Torre assumed the command. The armistice was allowed to expire, and a renewal of the contest became inevitable. Bolivar therefore resolved, if possible, to strike a decisive blow; and this accordingly he did at Carabobo, where, encountering Torre, he so completely routed the Spaniards that the shattered remains of their army were forced to take refuge in Puerto Cabello, where two years after they surrendered to Paez. The battle of Carabobo may be considered as having put an end to the war in Venezuela. On the 29th of June 1821 Bolivar entered Caracas, and by the close of the year the Spaniards were driven from every part of the province except Puerto Cabello. The next step was to secure, by permanent political institutions, the independence which had been so dearly purchased; and, accordingly, on the 30th of August 1821 the constitution of Colombia was adopted with general approbation, Bolivar himself being president, and Santander vice-president.
There was, however, more work for him to do. The Spaniards, though expelled from Colombia, still held possession of the neighbouring provinces of Ecuador and Peru; and Bolivar determined to complete the liberation of the whole country. Placing himself at the head of the army, he marched on Quito in Ecuador. A severe battle was fought at Pichincha, where, by the prowess of his colleague Sucre, the Spaniards were routed, and Quito was entered by the republicans in June 1822. Bolivar then marched upon Lima, which the royalists evacuated at his approach; and entering the capital in triumph, he was invested with absolute power as dictator, and authorized to call into action all the resources of the country. Owing, however, to the intrigues of the republican factions in Peru he was forced to withdraw to Truxillo, leaving the capital to the mercy of the Spaniards under Canterac, by whom it was immediately occupied. But this misfortune proved only temporary. By June 1824 the liberating army was completely organized; and taking the field soon after, it routed the vanguard of the enemy. Improving his advantage, Bolivar pressed forward, and on the 6th of August defeated Canterac on the plains of Junin, after which he returned to Lima, leaving Sucre to follow the royalists in their retreat to Upper Peru—an exploit which the latter executed with equal ability and success, gaining a decisive victory at Ayacucho, and thus completing the dispersion of the Spanish force. The possessions of the Spaniards in Peru were now confined to the castles of Callao, which Rodil maintained for upwards of a year, in spite of all the means that could be employed for their reduction. In June 1825 Bolivar visited Upper Peru, which, having detached itself from the government of Buenos Aires, was formed into a separate state, called Bolivia, in honour of the liberator. The first congress of the new republic assembled in August 1825, when Bolivar was declared perpetual protector, and requested to prepare for it a constitution of government.
His care was now directed to the administration of the affairs of the freed provinces. His endeavours to satisfy his countrymen in this respect did not always meet with encouragement, and sometimes exposed him to slander. In December 1824 Bolivar convoked a constituent congress for the February following; but this body, taking into consideration the unsettled state of the country, thought it proper to invest him with dictatorial power for another year. His project of a constitution for Bolivia was presented to the congress of that state on the 25th of May 1826, accompanied with an address, in which he embodied his opinions respecting the form of government which he conceived most expedient for the newly established republics. This code, however, did not give satisfaction. Its most extraordinary feature consisted in the provision for lodging the executive authority in the hands of a president for life, without responsibility and with power to nominate his successor, a proposal which alarmed the friends of liberty, and excited lively apprehensions amongst the republicans of Buenos Aires and Chile; whilst in Peru, Bolivar was accused of a design to unite into one state Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, and to render himself perpetual dictator of the confederacy.
In the meanwhile the affairs of Colombia had taken a turn which demanded the presence of Bolivar in his own country. During his absence Santander had administered the government of the state ably and uprightly, and its independence had been recognized by other countries. But Paez, who commanded in Venezuela, having been accused of arbitrary conduct in the enrolment of the citizens of Caracas in the militia, refused obedience to the summons of the senate, and placed himself in a state of open rebellion against the government, being encouraged by a disaffected party in the northern departments who desired separation from the rest of the republic.
Accordingly, having entrusted the government to a council nominated by himself, with Santa Cruz at its head, Bolivar set out from Lima in September 1826, and hastening to Bogota, arrived there on the 14th of November. He immediately assumed the extraordinary powers which by the constitution the president was authorized to exercise in case of rebellion. After a short stay in the capital he pressed forward to stop the effusion of blood in Venezuela, where matters had gone much farther than he could have contemplated. On the 31st of December he reached Puerto Cabello, and the following day he issued a decree offering a general amnesty. He had then a friendly meeting with Paez and soon after entered Caracas, where he fixed his headquarters, in order to check the northern departments, which had been the principal theatre of the disturbances. In the meanwhile Bolivar and Santander were re-elected to the respective offices of president and vice-president, and by law they should have qualified as such in January 1827. In February, however, Bolivar formally resigned the presidency of the republic, at the same time expressing a determination to refute the imputations of ambition which had been so freely cast upon him, by retiring into private life, and spending the remainder of his days on his patrimonial estate. Santander combated this proposal, urging him to resume his station as constitutional president, and declaring his own conviction that the troubles and agitations of the country could only be appeased by the authority and personal influence of the liberator himself. This view being confirmed by a resolution of congress, although it was not a unanimousone, Bolivar decided to resume his functions, and he repaired to Bogota to take the oaths. Before his arrival, however, he issued simultaneously three separate decrees—one granting a general amnesty, another convoking a national convention at Ocaña, and a third for establishing constitutional order throughout Colombia. His arrival was accelerated by the occurrence of events in Peru and the southern departments which struck at the very foundation of his power. Not long after his departure from Lima, the Bolivian code had been adopted as the constitution of Peru, and Bolivar had been declared president for life on the 9th of December 1826, the anniversary of the battle of Ayacucho. At this time the Colombian auxiliary army was cantoned in Peru, and the third division, stationed at Lima, consisting of veteran troops under Lara and Sands, became distrustful of Bolivar’s designs on the freedom of the republic. Accordingly, in about six weeks after the adoption of Bolivar’s new constitution, a counter-revolution in the government of Peru was effected by this body of dissatisfied veterans, and the Peruvians, availing themselves of the opportunity, abjured the Bolivian code, deposed the council appointed by the liberator, and proceeded to organize a provisional government for themselves. After this bloodless revolution the third division embarked at Callao on the 17th of March 1827, and landed in the southern department of Colombia in the following month. Intelligence of these events reached Bolivar while in the north of Colombia, and he lost no time in preparing to march against the refractory troops, who formerly had placed such implicit confidence in him. But he was spared the necessity of coming to blows, for the leaders, finding the government in the hands of the national executive, had peaceably submitted to General Ovando. In the meanwhile Bolivar had accepted the presidency, and resumed the functions belonging to his official position. But although Colombia was, to all external appearance, restored to tranquillity, the nation was divided into two parties. Bolivar had, no doubt, regained the personal confidence of the officers and soldiers of the third division; but the republican party, with Santander at their head, continued to regard with undisguised apprehension his ascendancy over the army, suspecting him of a desire to imitate the career of Napoleon. In the meanwhile all parties looked anxiously to the convention of Ocaña, which was to assemble in March 1828, for a decided expression of the national will. The republicans hoped that the issue of its deliberations would be favourable to their views; whilst the military, on the other hand, did not conceal their conviction that a stronger and more permanent form of government was essential to the public welfare. The latter view seems to have prevailed. In virtue of a decree, dated Bogota, the 27th of August 1828, Bolivar assumed the supreme power in Colombia, and continued to exercise it until his death, which took place at San Pedro, near Santa Marta, on the 17th of December 1830.
Bolivar spent nine-tenths of a splendid patrimony in the service of his country; and although he had for a considerable period unlimited control over the revenues of three countries—Colombia, Peru and Bolivia—he died without a shilling of public money in his possession. He achieved the independence of three states, and called forth a new spirit in the southern portion of the New World. He purified the administration of justice; he encouraged the arts and sciences; he fostered national interests, and he induced other countries to recognize that independence which was in a great measure the fruit of his own exertions. His remains were removed in 1842 to Caracas, where a monument was erected to his memory; a statue was put up in Bogota in 1846; in 1858 the Peruvians followed the example by erecting an equestrian statue of the liberator in Lima; and in 1884 a statue was erected in Central Park, New York.