Chapter 12

See G. M. Bonomi,Il Castello di Cavernago e i conti Martinengo Colleoni(Bergamo, 1884); for an account of his wars see S. Romanin,Storia documentata di Venezia, vol. iv. (Venice, 1855), and other histories of Venice. (L. V.*)

COLLETER(Gr.κόλλος, glue), a botanical term for the gum-secreting hairs on the buds of certain plants.

COLLETTA, PIETRO(1775-1831), Neapolitan general and historian, entered the Neapolitan artillery in 1796 and took part in the campaign against the French in 1798. On the entry of the French into Naples and the establishment of the Parthenopean republic (1799) he adhered to the new government, and when the Bourbon king Ferdinand IV. (q.v.) reconquered the city Colletta was thrown into prison and only escaped the death penalty by means of judiciously administered bribes. Turned out of the army he became a civil engineer, but when the Bourbons were expelled a second time in 1806 and Joseph Bonaparte seized the throne of Naples, he was reinstated in his rank and served in the expedition against the brigands and rebels of Calabria. In 1812 he was promoted general, and made director of roads and bridges. He served under Joachim Murat and fought the Austrians on the Panaro in 1815. On the restoration of Ferdinand Colletta was permitted to retain his rank in the army, and given command of the Salerno division. At the outbreak of the revolution of 1820 the king called him to his councils, and when the constitution had been granted Colletta was sent to put down the separatist rising in Sicily, which he did with great severity. He fought in the constitutionalist army against the Austrians at Rieti (7th of March 1821), and on the re-establishment of autocracy he was arrested and imprisoned for three months by order of the prince of Canosa, the chief of police, his particular enemy. He would have been executed had not the Austrians intervened in his favour, and he was exiled instead to Brünn in Moravia; in 1823 he was permitted to settle in Florence, where he spent the rest of his days engaged on hisStoria del reame di Napoli. He died in 1831. His history (1st ed., Capolago, 1834), which deals with the reigns of Charles III. and Ferdinand IV. (1734-1825), is still the standard work for that period; but its value is somewhat diminished by the author’s bitterness against his opponents and the fact that he does not give chapter and verse for his statements, many of which are based on his recollection of documents seen, but not available at the time of writing. Still, having been an actor in many of the events recorded, he is on the whole accurate and trustworthy.

See Gino Capponi’s memoir of him published in theStoria del reame di Napoli(2nd ed., Florence, 1848).

(L. V.*)

COLLEY, SIR GEORGE POMEROY(1835-1881), British general, third son of George Pomeroy Colley, of Rathangan,Co. Kildare, Ireland, and grandson of the fourth Viscount Harberton, was born on the 1st of November 1835, and entered the 2nd Queen’s Regiment from Sandhurst as ensign in 1852. From 1854 to 1860 he served in South Africa, and was employed in surveying and as a magistrate in charge of the Bashi river district in Kaffraria. Early in 1860 he went with his regiment to China to join the Anglo-French expedition, and took part in the capture of the Taku forts and the entry into Peking, returning to South Africa to complete his work in Kaffraria (brevet-majority). In 1862 he entered the Staff College and passed out in one year with honours. After serving as brigade-major at Devonport for five years, he went to the War Office in 1870 to assist in the preparation of (Lord) Cardwell’s measures of army reform. He was appointed professor of military administration at the Staff College in 1871. Early in 1873 he joined Sir Garnet Wolseley at the Gold Coast, where he took charge of the transport, and the success of the Ashanti expedition was in no small degree due to his exertions. He was promoted brevet-colonel and awarded the C.B. In 1875 he accompanied Wolseley to Natal (C.M.G.). On his return home he was appointed military secretary to Lord Lytton, governor-general of India, and in 1877 private secretary (K.C.S.I.). In 1879 he joined Wolseley as chief of the staff and brigadier-general in S.E. Africa, but, on the murder of Cavagnari at Kabul, returned to India. In 1880 he succeeded Wolseley in S.E. Africa as high commissioner and general commanding, and conducted the operations against the rebel Boers. He was defeated at Laing’s Nek and at the Ingogo river, and killed at Majuba Hill on the 27th of February 1881. He had a very high reputation not only for a theoretical knowledge of military affairs, but also as a practical soldier.

SeeLife of Sir George Pomeroy Colleyby Lieut.-Gen. Sir W. F. Butler (London, 1899).

COLLIER, ARTHUR(1680-1732), English philosopher, was born at the rectory of Steeple Langford, Wiltshire, on the 12th of October 1680. He entered at Pembroke College, Oxford, in July 1697, but in October 1698 he and his brother William became members of Balliol. His father having died in 1697, it was arranged that the family living of Langford Magna should be given to Arthur as soon as he was old enough. He was presented to the benefice in 1704, and held it till his death. His sermons show no traces of his bold theological speculations, and he seems to have been faithful in the discharge of his duty. He was often in pecuniary difficulties, from which at last he was obliged to free himself by selling the reversion of Langford rectory to Corpus Christi College, Oxford. His philosophical opinions grew out of a diligent study of Descartes and Malebranche. John Norris of Bemerton also strongly influenced him by hisEssay on the Ideal World(1701-1704). It is remarkable that Collier makes no reference to Locke, and shows no sign of having any knowledge of his works. As early as 1703 he seems to have become convinced of the non-existence of an external world. In 1712 he wrote two essays, which are still in manuscript, one on substance and accident, and the other calledClavis Philosophica. His chief work appeared in 1713, under the titleClavis Universalis, or aNew Inquiry after Truth, being aDemonstration of the Non-Existence or Impossibility of an External World(printed privately, Edinburgh, 1836, and reprinted inMetaphysical Tracts, 1837, edited by Sam. Parr). It was favourably mentioned by Reid, Stewart and others, was frequently referred to by the Leibnitzians, and was translated into German by von Eschenbach in 1756. Berkeley’sPrinciples of KnowledgeandTheory of Visionpreceded it by three and four years respectively, but there is no evidence that they were known to Collier before the publication of his book.

His views are grounded on two presuppositions:—first, the utter aversion of common sense to any theory of representative perception; second, the opinion which Collier held in common with Berkeley, and Hume afterwards, that the difference between imagination and sense perception is only one of degree. The former is the basis of the negative part of his argument; the latter supplies him with all the positive account he has to give, and that is meagre enough. TheClavisconsists of two parts. After explaining that he will use the term “external world” in the sense of absolute, self-existent, independent matter, he attempts in the first part to prove that the visible world is not external, by showing—first, that the seeming externality of a visible object is no proof of real externality, and second, that a visible object, as such, is not external. The image of a centaur seems as much external to the mind as any object of sense; and since the difference between imagination and perception is only one of degree, God could so act upon the mind of a person imagining a centaur, that he would perceive it as vividly as any object can be seen. Similar illustrations are used to prove the second proposition, that a visible object, as such, is not external. The first part ends with a reply to objections based on the universal consent of men, on the assurance given by touch of the extra existence of the visible world, and on the truth and goodness of God (Descartes), which would be impugned if our senses deceived us. Collier argues naively that if universal consent means the consent of those who have considered the subject, it may be claimed for his view. He thinks with Berkeley that objects of sight are quite distinct from those of touch, and that the one therefore cannot give any assurance of the other; and he asks the Cartesians to consider how far God’s truth and goodness are called in question by their denial of the externality of the secondary qualities. The second part of the book is taken up with a number of metaphysical arguments to prove the impossibility of an external world. The pivot of this part is the logical principle of contradiction. From the hypothesis of an external world a series of contradictions are deduced, such as that the world is both finite and infinite, is movable and immovable, &c.; and finally, Aristotle and various other philosophers are quoted, to show that the external matter they dealt with, as mere potentiality, is just nothing at all. Among other uses and consequences of his treatise, Collier thinks it furnishes an easy refutation of the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation. If there is no external world, the distinction between substance and accidents vanishes, and these become the sole essence of material objects, so that there is no room for any change whilst they remain as before. Sir William Hamilton thinks that the logically necessary advance from the old theory of representative perception to idealism was stayed by anxiety to save this miracle of the church; and he gives Collier credit for being the first to make the discovery.HisClavis Universalisis interesting on account of the resemblance between its views and those of Berkeley. Both were moved by their dissatisfaction with the theory of representative perception. Both have the feeling that it is inconsistent with the common sense of mankind, which will insist that the very object perceived is the sole reality. They equally affirm that the so-called representative image is the sole reality, and discard as unthinkable the unperceiving material cause of the philosophers. Of objects of sense, they say, theiresseispercipi. But Collier never got beyond a bald assertion of the fact, while Berkeley addressed himself to an explanation of it. The thought of a distinction between direct and indirect perception never dawned upon Collier. To the question how all matter exists in dependence on percipient mind his only reply is, “Just how my reader pleases, provided it be somehow.” As cause of our sensations and ground of our belief in externality, he substituted for an unintelligible material substance an equally unintelligible operation of divine power. His book exhibits no traces of a scientific development. The most that can be said about him is that he was an intelligent student of Descartes and Malebranche, and had the ability to apply the results of his reading to the facts of his experience. In philosophy he is a curiosity, and nothing more. His biographer attributes the comparative failure of theClavisto its inferiority in point of style, but the crudeness of his thought had quite as much to do with his failure to gain a hearing. Hamilton (Discussions, p. 197) allows greater sagacity to Collier than to Berkeley, on the ground that he did not vainly attempt to enlist men’s natural belief against the hypothetical realism of the philosophers. But Collier did so as far as his light enabled him. He appealed to the popular conviction that the proper object of sense is the sole reality, although he despaired of getting men to give up their belief in its externality, and asserted that nothing but prejudice prevented them from doing so; and there is little doubt that, if it had ever occurred to him, as it did to Berkeley, to explain the genesis of the notion of externality, he would have been more hopeful of commending his theory to the popular mind.In theology Collier was an adherent of the High Church party, though his views were by no means orthodox. In the JacobiteMist’s Journalhe attacked Bishop Hoadly’s defence of sincere errors. His views on the problems of Arianism, and his attempt to reconcile it with orthodox theology, are contained inA Specimen of True Philosophy(1730, reprinted inMetaphysical Tracts, 1837) andLogology, or a Treatise on the Logos in Seven Sermons on John i. 1, 2, 3, 14(1732, analysed inMetaph. Tracts). These may be compared with Berkeley’sSiris.See Robt. Benson,Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Arthur Collier(1837); Tennemann,History of Philosophy; Hamilton,Discussions; A. C. Fraser, edition ofBerkeley’s Works; G. Lyon, “Un Idéaliste anglais au XVIII. siècle,” inRev. philos.(1880), x. 375.

HisClavis Universalisis interesting on account of the resemblance between its views and those of Berkeley. Both were moved by their dissatisfaction with the theory of representative perception. Both have the feeling that it is inconsistent with the common sense of mankind, which will insist that the very object perceived is the sole reality. They equally affirm that the so-called representative image is the sole reality, and discard as unthinkable the unperceiving material cause of the philosophers. Of objects of sense, they say, theiresseispercipi. But Collier never got beyond a bald assertion of the fact, while Berkeley addressed himself to an explanation of it. The thought of a distinction between direct and indirect perception never dawned upon Collier. To the question how all matter exists in dependence on percipient mind his only reply is, “Just how my reader pleases, provided it be somehow.” As cause of our sensations and ground of our belief in externality, he substituted for an unintelligible material substance an equally unintelligible operation of divine power. His book exhibits no traces of a scientific development. The most that can be said about him is that he was an intelligent student of Descartes and Malebranche, and had the ability to apply the results of his reading to the facts of his experience. In philosophy he is a curiosity, and nothing more. His biographer attributes the comparative failure of theClavisto its inferiority in point of style, but the crudeness of his thought had quite as much to do with his failure to gain a hearing. Hamilton (Discussions, p. 197) allows greater sagacity to Collier than to Berkeley, on the ground that he did not vainly attempt to enlist men’s natural belief against the hypothetical realism of the philosophers. But Collier did so as far as his light enabled him. He appealed to the popular conviction that the proper object of sense is the sole reality, although he despaired of getting men to give up their belief in its externality, and asserted that nothing but prejudice prevented them from doing so; and there is little doubt that, if it had ever occurred to him, as it did to Berkeley, to explain the genesis of the notion of externality, he would have been more hopeful of commending his theory to the popular mind.

In theology Collier was an adherent of the High Church party, though his views were by no means orthodox. In the JacobiteMist’s Journalhe attacked Bishop Hoadly’s defence of sincere errors. His views on the problems of Arianism, and his attempt to reconcile it with orthodox theology, are contained inA Specimen of True Philosophy(1730, reprinted inMetaphysical Tracts, 1837) andLogology, or a Treatise on the Logos in Seven Sermons on John i. 1, 2, 3, 14(1732, analysed inMetaph. Tracts). These may be compared with Berkeley’sSiris.

See Robt. Benson,Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Arthur Collier(1837); Tennemann,History of Philosophy; Hamilton,Discussions; A. C. Fraser, edition ofBerkeley’s Works; G. Lyon, “Un Idéaliste anglais au XVIII. siècle,” inRev. philos.(1880), x. 375.

COLLIER, JEREMY(1650-1726), English nonjuring divine, was born at Stow-with-Quy, Cambridgeshire, on the 23rd of September 1650. He was educated at Ipswich free school, overwhich his father presided, and at Caius College, Cambridge, graduating B.A. in 1673 and M.A. in 1676. He acted for a short time as a private chaplain, but was appointed in 1679 to the small rectory of Ampton, near Bury St Edmunds, and in 1685 he was made lecturer of Gray’s Inn.

At the Revolution he was committed to Newgate for writing in favour of James II. a tract entitledThe Desertion discuss’d in a Letter to a Country Gentleman(1688), in answer to Bishop Burnet’s defence of King William’s position. He was released after some months of imprisonment, without trial, by the intervention of his friends. In the two following years he continued to harass the government by his publications: and in 1692 he was again in prison under suspicion of treasonable correspondence with James. His scruples forbade him to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court by accepting bail, but he was soon released. But in 1696 for his boldness in granting absolution on the scaffold to Sir John Friend and Sir William Parkyns, who had attempted the assassination of William, he was obliged to flee, and for the rest of his life continued under sentence of outlawry.

When the storm had blown over he returned to London, and employed his leisure in works which were less political in their tone. In 1697 appeared the first volume of hisEssays on Several Moral Subjects, to which a second was added in 1705, and a third in 1709. The first series contained six essays, the most notable being that “On the office of a Chaplain,” which throws much light on the position of a large section of the clergy at that time. Collier deprecated the extent of the authority assumed by the patron and the servility of the poorer clergy.

In 1698 Collier produced his famousShort View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage.... He dealt with the immodesty of the contemporary stage, supporting his contentions by a long series of references attesting the comparative decency of Latin and Greek drama; with the profane language indulged in by the players; the abuse of the clergy common in the drama; the encouragement of vice by representing the vicious characters as admirable and successful; and finally he supported his general position by the analysis of particular plays, Dryden’sAmphitryon, Vanbrugh’sRelapseand D’Urfey’sDon Quixote. The Book abounds in hypercriticism, particularly in the imputation of profanity; and in a useless display of learning, neither intrinsically valuable nor conducive to the argument. He had no artistic appreciation of the subject he discussed, and he mistook cause for effect in asserting that the decline in public morality was due to the flagrant indecency of the stage. Yet, in the words of Macaulay, who gives an admirable account of the discussion in his essay on the comic dramatists of the Restoration, “when all deductions have been made, great merit must be allowed to the work.” Dryden acknowledged, in the preface to hisFables, the justice of Collier’s strictures, though he protested against the manner of the onslaught;1but Congreve made an angry reply; Vanbrugh and others followed. Collier was prepared to meet any number of antagonists, and defended himself in numerous tracts.The Short Viewwas followed by aDefence(1699), aSecond Defence(1700), andMr Collier’s Dissuasive from the Playhouse, in a Letter to a Person of Quality(1703), and aFurther Vindication(1708). The fight lasted in all some ten years; but Collier had right on his side, and triumphed; his position was, moreover, strengthened by the fact that he was known as a Troy and high churchman, and that his attack could not, therefore, be assigned to Puritan rancour against the stage.

From 1701 to 1721 Collier was employed on hisGreat Historical, Geographical, Genealogical and Poetical Dictionary, founded on, and partly translated from, Louis Moréri’sDictionnaire historique, and in the compilation and issue of the two volumes folio of his ownEcclesiastical History of Great Britain from the first planting of Christianity to the end of the reign of Charles II. (1708-1714). The latter work was attacked by Burnet and others, but the author showed himself as keen a controversialist as ever. Many attempts were made to shake his fidelity to the lost cause of the Stuarts, but he continued indomitable to the end. In 1712 George Hickes was the only survivor of the nonjuring bishops, and in the next year Collier was consecrated. He had a share in an attempt made towards union with the Greek Church. He had a long correspondence with the Eastern authorities, his last letters on the subject being written in 1725. Collier preferred the version of theBook of Common Prayerissued in 1549, and regretted that certain practices and petitions there enjoined were omitted in later editions. His first tract on the subject,Reasons for Restoring some Prayers(1717), was followed by others. In 1718 was published a newCommunion Office taken partly from Primitive Liturgies and partly from the first English Reformed Common Prayer Book,...which embodied the changes desired by Collier. The controversy that ensued made a split in the nonjuring communion. His last work was a volume ofPractical Discourses, published in 1725. He died on the 26th of April 1726.

Bibliography.—There is an excellent account of Collier in A. Kippis’sBiographia Britannica, vol. iv. (1789), where some sensible observations by the editor are added to the original biography. A full list of Collier’s writings is given by the Rev. Wm. Hunt in the article in theDictionary of National Biography. For particulars of Collier’s history as a nonjuring bishop, see Thomas Lathbury,A History of the Nonjurors ...(1845). There is an excellent account of theShort Viewand the controversy arising from it in A. Beljame’sLe Public et les hommes de lettres en Angleterre au XVIIIe siècle(2nd ed., 1897), pp. 244-263.

1“He is too much given to horse-play in his raillery, and comes to battle like a dictator from the plough. I will not say, ‘the zeal of God’s house has eaten him up’; but I am sure it has devoured some part of his good manners and civility.” (Dryden,Works, ed. Scott, xi. 239).

COLLIER, JOHN PAYNE(1789-1883), English Shakespearian critic, was born in London, on the 11th of January 1789. His father, John Dyer Collier (1762-1825), was a successful journalist, and his connexion with the press obtained for his son a position on theMorning Chronicleas leader writer, dramatic critic and reporter, which continued till 1847; he was also for some time a reporter forThe Times. He was summoned before the House of Commons in 1819 for giving an incorrect report of a speech by Joseph Hume. He entered the Middle Temple in 1811, but was not called to the bar until 1829. The delay was partly due to his indiscretion in publishing theCriticisms on the Bar(1819) by “Amicus Curiae.” His leisure was given to the study of Shakespeare and the early English drama. After some minor publications he produced in 1825-1827 a new edition of Dodsley’sOld Plays, and in 1833 a supplementary volume entitledFive Old Plays. In 1831 appeared hisHistory of English Dramatic Poetry and Annals of the Stage to the Restoration, a badly arranged, but valuable work. It obtained for him the post of librarian to the duke of Devonshire, and, subsequently, access to the chief collections of early English literature throughout the kingdom, especially to the treasures of Bridgwater House. These opportunities were unhappily misused to effect a series of literary fabrications, which may be charitably, and perhaps not unjustly, attributed to literary monomania, but of which it is difficult to speak with patience, so completely did they for a long time bewilder the chronology of Shakespeare’s writings, and such suspicion have they thrown upon MS. evidence in general. AfterNew Facts,New ParticularsandFurther Particularsrespecting Shakespeare had appeared and passed muster, Collier produced (1852) the famousPerkins Folio, a copy of the second folio (1632), so called from a name written on the title-page. On this book were numerous MS. emendations of Shakespeare said by Collier to be from the hand of “an old corrector.” He published these corrections asNotes and Emendations to the Text of Shakespeare(1852), and boldly incorporated them in his edition (1853) of Shakespeare. Their authenticity was disputed by S. W. Singer inThe Text of Shakespeare Vindicated(1853) and by E. A. Brae inLiterary Cookery(1855) on internal evidence; and when in 1859 the folio was submitted by its owner, the duke of Devonshire, to experts at the British Museum, the emendations were incontestably proved to be forgeries of modern date. Collier was exposed by Mr Nicholas Hamilton in hisInquiry(1860). The point whether he was deceiver ordeceived was left undecided, but the falsifications of which he was unquestionably guilty among the MSS. at Dulwich College have left little doubt respecting it. He had produced theMemoirs of Edward Alleynfor the Shakespeare Society in 1841. He followed up this volume with theAlleyn Papers(1843) and theDiary of P. Henslowe(1845). He forged the name of Shakespeare in a genuine letter at Dulwich, and the spurious entries in Alleyn’sDiarywere proved to be by Collier’s hand when the sale of his library in 1884 gave access to a transcript he had made of theDiarywith interlineations corresponding with the Dulwich forgeries. No statement of his can be accepted without verification, and no manuscript he has handled without careful examination, but he did much useful work. He compiled a valuableBibliographical and Critical Account of the Rarest Books in the English Language(1865); he reprinted a great number of early English tracts of extreme rarity, and rendered good service to the numerous antiquarian societies with which he was connected, especially in the editions he produced for the Camden Society and the Percy Society. HisOld Man’s Diary(1871-1872) is an interesting record, though even here the taint of fabrication is not absent. Unfortunately what he did amiss is more striking to the imagination than what he did aright, and he will be chiefly remembered by it. He died at Maidenhead, where he had long resided, on the 17th of September 1883.

For an account of the discussion raised by Collier’s emendations see C.M. Ingleby,Complete View of the Shakespeare Controversy(1861).

COLLIN, HEINRICH JOSEPH VON(1771-1811), Austrian dramatist, was born in Vienna, on the 26th of December 1771. He received a legal education and entered the Austrian ministry of finance where he found speedy promotion. In 1805 and in 1809, when Austria was under the heel of Napoleon, Collin was entrusted with important political missions. In 1803 he was, together with other members of his family, ennobled, and in 1809 madeHofrat. He died on the 28th of July 1811. His tragedyRegulus(1801), written in strict classical form, was received with enthusiasm in Vienna, where literary taste, less advanced than that of North Germany, was still under the ban of French classicism. But in his later dramas,Coriolan(1804),Polyxena(1804),Balboa(1806),Bianca della Porta(1808), he made some attempt to reconcile the pseudo-classic type of tragedy with that of Shakespeare and the German romanticists. As a lyric poet (Gedichte, collected 1812), Collin has left a collection of stirringWehrmannsliederfor the fighters in the cause of Austrian freedom, as well as some excellent ballads (Kaiser Max auf der Martinswand,Herzog Leupold vor Solothurn). His younger brother Matthäus von Collin (1779-1824), was, as editor of theWiener Jahrbücher für Literatur, an even more potent force in the literary life of Vienna. He was, moreover, in sympathy with the Romantic movement, and intimate with its leaders. His dramas on themes from Austrian national history (Belas Krieg mit dem Vater, 1808,Der Tod Friedrichs des Streitbaren, 1813) may be regarded as the immediate precursors of Grillparzer’s historical tragedies.

HisGesammelte Werkeappeared in 6 vols. (1812-1814); he is the subject of an excellent monograph by F. Laban (1879). See also A. Hauffen,Das Drama der klassischen Periode, ii. 2 (1891), where a reprint ofReguluswill be found. M. von Collin’sDramatische Dichtungenwere published in 4 vols. (1815-1817); hisNachgelassene Schriften, edited by J. von Hammer, in 2 vols. (1827). A study of his life and work by J. Wihan will be found inEuphorion, Ergänzungsheft, v. (1901).

COLLIN D’HARLEVILLE, JEAN FRANÇOIS(1755-1806), French dramatist, was born at Mévoisins, near Maintenon (Eure-et-Loire), on the 30th of May 1755. His first dramatic success wasL’Inconstant, a comedy accepted by the Comédie Française in 1780, but not produced there until six years later, though it was played elsewhere in 1784. This was followed byL’Optimiste, ou l’homme toujours content(1788), andChâteaux en Espagne(1789). His best play,Le Vieux Célibataire, appeared in 1793. Among his other plays are—the one-act comedyMonsieur de Crac dans son petit castel(1791),Les Artistes(1796),Les Mœurs du jour(1800) andMalice pour malice(1803). Collin was one of the original members of the Institute of France, and died in Paris on the 24th of February 1806.

The 1822 edition of hisThéâtre et poésies fugitivescontains a notice by his friend the dramatist Andrieux. HisThéâtrewas also edited by L. Moland in 1876; and by Édouard Thierry in 1882.

COLLING, ROBERT(1749-1820), andCHARLES(1751-1836), English stock breeders, famous for their improvement of the Shorthorn breed of cattle, were the sons of Charles Colling, a farmer of Ketton near Darlington. Their lives are closely connected with the history of the Shorthorn breed. Of the two brothers, Charles is probably the better known, and it was his visit to the farm of Robert Bakewell at Dishley that first led the brothers to realize the possibilities of scientific cattle breeding. Charles succeeded to his father’s farm at Ketton. Robert, after being first apprenticed to a grocer in Shields, took a farm at Barmpton. An animal which he bought at Charles’s advice for £8 and afterwards sold to his brother, became known as the celebrated “Hubback,” a bull which formed the basis of both the Ketton and Barmpton herds. The two brothers pursued the same system of “in and in” breeding which they had learned from Bakewell, and both the Ketton and the Barmpton herds were sold by auction in the autumn of 1810. The former with 47 lots brought £7116, and the latter with 61 lots £7852. Robert Colling died unmarried at Barmpton on the 7th of March 1820, leaving his property to his brother. Charles Colling, who is remembered as the owner of the famous bulls “Hubback,” “Favourite” and “Comet,” was more of a specialist and a business man than his brother. He died on the 16th of January 1836.

See the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, 1899, for a biographical sketch of the brothers Colling, by C. J. Bates.

COLLINGWOOD, CUTHBERT COLLINGWOOD,Baron(1750-1810), British naval commander, was born at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on the 26th of September 1750. He was early sent to school; and when only eleven years of age he was put on board the “Shannon,” then under the command of Captain (afterwards Admiral) Brathwaite, a relative of his own, to whose care and attention he was in a great measure indebted for that nautical knowledge which shone forth so conspicuously in his subsequent career. After serving under Captain Brathwaite for some years, and also under Admiral Roddam, he went in 1774 to Boston with Admiral Graves, and served in the naval brigade at the battle of Bunker Hill (17th of June 1775), where he gained his lieutenancy. In 1779 he was made commander of the “Badger,” and shortly afterwards post-captain of the “Hinchinbroke,” a small frigate. In the spring of 1780 that vessel, under the command of Nelson, was employed upon an expedition to the Spanish Main, where it was proposed to pass into the Pacific by navigating boats along the river San Juan and the lakes Nicaragua and Leon. The attempt failed, and most of those engaged in it became victims to the deadly influence of the climate. Nelson was promoted to a larger vessel, and Collingwood succeeded him in the command. It is a fact worthy of record that the latter succeeded the former very frequently from the time when they first became acquainted, until the star of Nelson set at Trafalgar—giving place to that of Collingwood, less brilliant certainly, but not less steady in its lustre.

After commanding in another small frigate, Collingwood was promoted to the “Sampson” (64); and in 1783 he was appointed to the “Mediator,” destined for the West Indies, where, with Nelson, who had a command on that station, he remained till the end of 1786. With Nelson he warmly co-operated in carrying into execution the provisions of the navigation laws, which had been infringed by the United States, whose ships, notwithstanding the separation of the countries, continued to trade to the West Indies, although that privilege was by law exclusively confined to British vessels. In 1786 Collingwood returned to England, where, with the exception of a voyage to the West Indies, he remained until 1793, in which year he was appointed captain of the “Prince,” the flag-ship of Rear-Admiral Bowyer. About two years previous to this event he had married Miss Sarah Roddam—a fortunate alliance, whichcontinued to be a solace to him amidst the privations to which the life of a seaman must ever be subject.

As captain of the “Barfleur,” Collingwood was present at the naval engagement which was fought on the 1st of June 1794; and on that occasion he displayed equal judgment and courage. On board the “Excellent” he shared in the victory of the 14th of February 1797, when Sir John Jervis (Lord St Vincent) humbled the Spanish fleet off Cape St Vincent. His conduct in this engagement was the theme of universal admiration throughout the fleet, and greatly advanced his fame as a naval officer. After blockading Cadiz for some time, he returned for a few weeks to Portsmouth to repair. In the beginning of 1799 Collingwood was raised to the rank of vice-admiral, and hoisting his flag in the “Triumph,” he joined the Channel Fleet, with which he proceeded to the Mediterranean, where the principal naval forces of France and Spain were assembled. Collingwood continued actively employed in watching the enemy, until the peace of Amiens restored him once more to the bosom of his family.

The domestic repose, however, which he so highly relished, was cut short by the recommencement of hostilities with France, and in the spring of 1803 he quitted the home to which he was never again to return. The duty upon which he was employed was that of watching the French fleet off Brest, and in the discharge of it he displayed the most unwearied vigilance. Nearly two years were spent in this employment; but Napoleon had at length matured his plans and equipped his armament, and the grand struggle which was to decide the fate of Europe and the dominion of the sea was close at hand. The enemy’s fleet having sailed from Toulon, Admiral Collingwood was appointed to the command of a squadron, with orders to pursue them. The combined fleets of France and Spain, after spreading terror throughout the West Indies, returned to Cadiz. On their way thither they bore down upon Admiral Collingwood, who had only three vessels with him; but he succeeded in eluding the pursuit, although chased by sixteen ships of the line. Ere one-half of the enemy had entered the harbour he drew up before it and resumed the blockade, at the same time employing an ingenious artifice to conceal the inferiority of his force. But the combined fleet was at last compelled to quit Cadiz; and the battle of Trafalgar immediately followed. The brilliant conduct of Admiral Collingwood upon this occasion has been much and justly applauded. The French admiral drew up his fleet in the form of a crescent, and in a double line, every alternate ship being about a cable’s length to windward of her second, both ahead and astern. The British fleet bore down upon this formidable and skilfully arranged armament in two separate lines, the one led by Nelson in the “Victory,” and the other by Collingwood in the “Royal Sovereign.” The latter vessel was the swifter sailer, and having shot considerably ahead of the rest of the fleet, was the first engaged. “See,” said Nelson, pointing to the “Royal Sovereign” as she penetrated the centre of the enemy’s line, “see how that noble fellow Collingwood carries his ship into action!” Probably it was at the same instant that Collingwood, as if in response to the observation of his great commander, remarked to his captain, “What would Nelson give to be here?” The consummate valour and skill evinced by Collingwood had a powerful moral influence upon both fleets. It was with the Spanish admiral’s ship that the “Royal Sovereign” closed; and with such rapidity and precision did she pour in her broadsides upon the “Santa Anna,” that the latter was on the eve of striking in the midst of thirty-three sail of the line, and almost before another British ship had fired a gun. Several other vessels, however, seeing the imminent peril of the Spanish flag-ship, came to her assistance, and hemmed in the “Royal Sovereign” on all sides; but the latter, after suffering severely, was relieved by the arrival of the rest of the British squadron; and not long afterwards the “Santa Anna” struck her colours. The result of the battle of Trafalgar, and the expense at which it was purchased, are well known. On the death of Nelson, Collingwood assumed the supreme command; and by his skill and judgment greatly contributed to the preservation of the British ships, as well as of those which were captured from the enemy. He was raised to the peerage as Baron Collingwood of Coldburne and Heathpool, and received the thanks of both Houses of Parliament, with a pension of £2000 per annum.

From this period until the death of Lord Collingwood no great naval action was fought; but he was much occupied in important political transactions, in which he displayed remarkable tact and judgment. Being appointed to the command of the Mediterranean fleet, he continued to cruise about, keeping a watchful eye upon the movements of the enemy. His health, however, which had begun to decline previously to the action of Trafalgar in 1805, seemed entirely to give way, and he repeatedly requested government to be relieved of his command, that he might return home; but he was urgently requested to remain, on the ground that his country could not dispense with his services. This conduct has been regarded as harsh; but the good sense and political sagacity which he displayed afford some palliation of the conduct of the government; and the high estimation in which he was held is proved by the circumstance that among the many able admirals, equal in rank and duration of service, none stood so prominently forward as to command the confidence of ministers and of the country to the same extent as he did. After many fruitless attempts to induce the enemy to put to sea, as well as to fall in with them when they had done so (which circumstance materially contributed to hasten his death), he expired on board the “Ville de Paris,” then lying off Port Mahon, on the 7th of March 1810.

Lord Collingwood’s merits as a naval officer were in every respect of the first order. In original genius and romantic daring he was inferior to Nelson, who indeed had no equal in an age fertile in great commanders. In seamanship, in general talent, and in reasoning upon the probability of events from a number of conflicting and ambiguous statements, Collingwood was equal to the hero of the Nile; indeed, many who were familiar with both give him the palm of superiority. His political penetration was remarkable; and so high was the opinion generally entertained of his judgment, that he was consulted in all quarters, and on all occasions, upon questions of general policy, of regulation, and even of trade. He was distinguished for benevolence and generosity; his acts of charity were frequent and bountiful, and the petition of real distress was never rejected by him. He was an enemy to impressment and to flogging; and so kind was he to his crew, that he obtained amongst them the honourable name of father. Between Nelson and Collingwood a close intimacy subsisted, from their first acquaintance in early life till the fall of the former at Trafalgar; and they lie side by side in the cathedral of St Paul’s.

The selections from the public and private correspondence of Lord Collingwood, published in 2 vols., 8vo, in 1828, contain some of the best specimens of letter-writing in the language. See alsoA Fine Old English Gentleman exemplified in the Life and Character of Lord Collingwood, a Biographical Study, by William Davies (London, 1875).

COLLINGWOOD, a city of Bourke county, Victoria, Australia, suburban to Melbourne on the N.E., on the Yarra Yarra river. Pop. (1901) 32,766. It was the first town in Victoria incorporated after Melbourne and Geelong. It is esteemed one of the healthiest of the metropolitan suburbs.

COLLINGWOOD, a town of Simcoe county, Ontario, Canada, 90 m. N.N.W. of Toronto, on Georgian Bay, and on the Grand Trunk railway. Pop. (1901) 5755. It is the eastern terminus of two lines of steamers for the ports of Lakes Huron and Superior. It contains a large stone dry-dock and shipyard, pork factory, and saw and planing mills, and has a large lumber, grain and produce export trade, besides a shipbuilding plant and steel works.

COLLINS, ANTHONY(1676-1729), English deist, was born at Heston, near Hounslow in Middlesex, on the 21st of June 1676. He was educated at Eton and King’s College, Cambridge, and was for some time a student at the Middle Temple. The most interesting episode of his life was his intimacy with Locke, who in his letters speaks of him with affection and admiration. In 1715 he settled in Essex, where he held the offices of justice of the peace and deputy-lieutenant, which he had before held in Middlesex.He died at his house in Harley Street, London, on the 13th of December 1729.

His writings are important as gathering together the results of previous English Freethinkers. The imperturbable courtesy of his style is in striking contrast to the violence of his opponents; and it must be remembered that, in spite of his unorthodoxy, he was not an atheist or even an agnostic. In his own words, “Ignorance is the foundation of atheism, and freethinking the cure of it” (Discourse of Freethinking, 105).

His first work of note was hisEssay concerning the Use of Reason in Propositions the Evidence whereof depends on Human Testimony(1707), in which he rejected the distinction betweenabovereason andcontrary toreason, and demanded that revelation should conform to man’s natural ideas of God. Like all his works, it was published anonymously, although the identity of the author was never long concealed. Six years later appeared his chief work,A Discourse of Freethinking, occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect called Freethinkers(1713). Notwithstanding the ambiguity of its title, and the fact that it attacks the priests of all churches without moderation, it contends for the most part, at least explicitly, for no more than must be admitted by every Protestant. Freethinking is a right which cannot and must not be limited, for it is the only means of attaining to a knowledge of truth, it essentially contributes to the well-being of society, and it is not only permitted but enjoined by the Bible. In fact the first introduction of Christianity and the success of all missionary enterprise involve freethinking (in its etymological sense) on the part of those converted. In England this essay, which was regarded and treated as a plea for deism, made a great sensation, calling forth several replies, among others from William Whiston, Bishop Hare, Bishop Hoadly, and Richard Bentley, who, under the signature ofPhileleutherus Lipsiensis, roughly handles certain arguments carelessly expressed by Collins, but triumphs chiefly by an attack on trivial points of scholarship, his own pamphlet being by no means faultless in this very respect. Swift also, being satirically referred to in the book, made it the subject of a caricature.

In 1724 Collins published hisDiscourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, withAn Apology for Free Debate and Liberty of Writingprefixed. Ostensibly it is written in opposition to Whiston’s attempt to show that the books of the Old Testament did originally contain prophecies of events in the New Testament story, but that these had been eliminated or corrupted by the Jews, and to prove that the fulfilment of prophecy by the events of Christ’s life is all “secondary, secret, allegorical, and mystical,” since the original and literal reference is always to some other fact. Since, further, according to him the fulfilment of prophecy is the only valid proof of Christianity, he thus secretly aims a blow at Christianity as a revelation. The canonicity of the New Testament he ventures openly to deny, on the ground that the canon could be fixed only by men who were inspired. No less than thirty-five answers were directed against this book, the most noteworthy of which were those of Bishop Edward Chandler, Arthur Sykes and Samuel Clarke. To these, but with special reference to the work of Chandler, which maintained that a number of prophecies were literally fulfilled in Christ, Collins replied by hisScheme of Literal Prophecy Considered(1727). An appendix contends against Whiston that the book ofDanielwas forged in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (seeDeism).

In philosophy, Collins takes a foremost place as a defender of Necessitarianism. His briefInquiry Concerning Human Liberty(1715) has not been excelled, at all events in its main outlines, as a statement of the determinist standpoint. One of his arguments, however, calls for special criticism,—his assertion that it is self-evident that nothing that has a beginning can be without a cause is an unwarranted assumption of the very point at issue. He was attacked in an elaborate treatise by Samuel Clarke, in whose system the freedom of the will is made essential to religion and morality. During Clarke’s lifetime, fearing perhaps to be branded as an enemy of religion and morality, Collins made no reply, but in 1729 he published an answer, entitledLiberty and Necessity.

Besides these works he wroteA Letter to Mr Dodwell, arguing that it is conceivable that the soul may be material, and, secondly, that if the soul be immaterial it does not follow, as Clarke had contended, that it is immortal;Vindication of the Divine Attributes(1710);Priestcraft in Perfection(1709), in which he asserts that the clause “the Church ... Faith” in the twentieth of the Thirty-nine Articles was inserted by fraud.

See Kippis,Biographia Britannica; G. Lechler,Geschichte des englischen Deismus(1841); J. Hunt,Religious Thought in England, ii. (1871); Leslie Stephen,English Thought in the 18th Century, i. (1881); A. W. Benn,Hist. of English Rationalism in the 19th Century(London, 1906), vol. i. ch. iii.; J. M. Robertson,Short History of Freethought(London, 1906); and Deism.

COLLINS, JOHN CHURTON(1848-1908), English literary critic, was born on the 26th of March 1848 at Bourton on the Water, Gloucestershire. From King Edward’s school, Birmingham, he went to Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated in 1872, and at once devoted himself to a literary career, as journalist, essayist and lecturer. His first book was a study of Sir Joshua Reynolds (1874), and later he edited various classical English writers, and published volumes onBolingbroke and Voltaire in England(1886), aStudy of English Literature(1891), a study ofDean Swift(1893),Essays and Studies(1895),Ephemera Critica(1901),Essays in Poetry and Criticism(1905), andRousseau and Voltaire(1908), his original essays being sharply controversial in tone, but full of knowledge. In 1904 he became professor of English literature at Birmingham University. For many years he was a prominent University Extension lecturer, and a constant contributor to the principal reviews. On the 15th of September 1908 he was found dead in a ditch near Lowestoft, at which place he had been staying with a doctor for the benefit of his health. The circumstances necessitated the holding of an inquest, the verdict being that of “accidental death.”

COLLINS, MORTIMER(1827-1876), English writer, was born at Plymouth, where his father, Francis Collins, was a solicitor, on the 29th of June 1827. He was educated at a private school, and after some years spent as mathematical master at Queen Elizabeth’s College, Guernsey, he went to London, where he devoted himself to journalism in the Conservative interest. In 1855 he published hisIdyls and Rhymes; and in 1865 appeared his first story,Who is the Heir?A second volume of lyrics,The Inn of Strange Meetings, was issued in 1871; and in 1872 he produced his longest and best sustained poem,The British Birds, a communication from the Ghost of Aristophanes. He also wrote several capital novels, the best of which is perhapsSweet Anne Page(1868). Some of his lyrics, in their light grace, their sparkling wit, their airy philosophy, are equal to anything of their kind in modern English. On his second marriage in 1868 he settled at Knowl Hill, Berkshire. Collins was an athlete, an excellent pedestrian, and an enthusiastic lover of country life; and from this time he rarely left his home for a day. Conservative in his political and literary tastes, an ardent upholder of Church and State, he was yet a hater of convention; and his many and very varied gifts endeared him to a large circle of friends. He died on the 28th of July 1876.

COLLINS, WILLIAM(1721-1759), English poet, was born on the 25th of December 1721. He divides with Gray the glory of being the greatest English lyrist of the 18th century. After some childish studies in Chichester, of which his father, a rich hatter, was the mayor, he was sent, in January 1733, to Winchester College, where Whitehead and Joseph Warton were his school-fellows. When he had been nine months at the school, Pope paid Winchester a visit and proposed a subject for a prize poem; it is legitimate to suppose that the lofty forehead, the brisk dark eyes and gracious oval of the childish face, as we know it in the only portrait existing of Collins, did not escape the great man’s notice, then not a little occupied with the composition of theEssay on Man.

In 1734 the young poet published his first verses, in a sixpenny pamphlet onThe Royal Nuptials, of which, however, no copy has come down to us; another poem, probably satiric, calledThe Battle of the Schoolbooks, was written about this time, and has also been lost. Fired by his poetic fellows to further feats in verse,Collins produced, in his seventeenth year, thosePersian Eclogueswhich were the only writings of his that were valued by the world during his own lifetime. They were not printed for some years, and meanwhile Collins sent, in January and October 1739, some verses to theGentleman’s Magazine, which attracted the notice and admiration of Johnson, then still young and uninfluential. In March 1740 he was admitted a commoner of Queen’s College, Oxford, but did not go up to Oxford until July 1741, when he obtained a demyship at Magdalen College. At Oxford he continued his affectionate intimacy with the Wartons, and gained the friendship of Gilbert White. Early in 1742 thePersian Ecloguesappeared in London. They were four in number, and formed a modest pamphlet of not more than 300 lines in all. In a later edition, of 1759, the title was changed toOriental Eclogues. Those pieces may be compared with Victor Hugo’sLes Orientales, to which, of course, they are greatly inferior. Considered with regard to the time at which they were produced, they are more than meritorious, even brilliant, and one at least—the second—can be read with enjoyment at the present day. The rest, perhaps, will be found somewhat artificial and effete.

In November 1743 Collins was made bachelor of arts, and a few days after taking his degree published his second work,Verses humbly addressed to Sir Thomas Hanmer. This poem, written in heroic couplets, shows a great advance in individuality, and resembles, in its habit of personifying qualities of the mind, the riper lyrics of its author. For the rest, it is an enthusiastic review of poetry, culminating in a laudation of Shakespeare. It is supposed that he left Oxford abruptly in the summer of 1744 to attend his mother’s death-bed, and did not return. He is said to have now visited an uncle in Flanders. His indolence, which had been no less marked at the university than his genius, combined with a fatal irresolution to make it extremely difficult to choose for him a path in life. The army and the church were successively suggested and rejected; and he finally arrived in London, bent on enjoying a small property as an independent man about town. He made the acquaintance of Johnson and others, and was urged by those friends to undertake various important writings—aHistory of the Revival of Learning, several tragedies, and a version of Aristotle’sPoetics, among others—all of which he began but lacked force of will to continue. He soon squandered his means, plunged, with most disastrous effects, into profligate excesses, and sowed the seed of his untimely misfortune.

It was at this time, however, that he composed his matchlessOdes—twelve in number—which appeared on the 12th of December 1746, dated 1747. The original project was to have combined them with the odes of Joseph Warton, but the latter proved at that time to be the more marketable article. Collins’s little volume fell dead from the press, but it won him the admiration and friendship of the poet Thomson, with whom, until the death of the latter in 1748, he lived on terms of affectionate intimacy. In 1749 Collins was raised beyond the fear of poverty by the death of his uncle, Colonel Martyn, who left him about £2000, and he left London to settle in his native city. He had hardly begun to taste the sweets of a life devoted to literature and quiet, before the weakness of his will began to develop in the direction of insanity, and he hurried abroad to attempt to dispel the gathering gloom by travel. In the interval he had published two short pieces of consummate grace and beauty—theElegy on Thomson, in 1749, and theDirge in Cymbeline, later in the same year. In the beginning of 1750 he composed theOde on the Popular Superstitions of the Highlands, which was dedicated to the author ofDouglas, and not printed till long after the death of Collins, and anOde on the Music of the Grecian Theatre, which no longer exists, and in which English literature probably has sustained a severe loss. With this poem his literary career closes, although he lingered in great misery for nearly nine years. From Gilbert White, who jotted down some pages of invaluable recollections of Collins in 1781, and from other friends, we learn that his madness was occasionally violent, and that he was confined for a time in an asylum at Oxford. But for the most part he resided at Chichester, suffering from extreme debility of body when the mind was clear, and incapable of any regular occupation. Music affected him in a singular manner, and it is recorded that he was wont to slip out into the cathedral cloisters during the services, and moan and howl in horrible accordance with the choir. In this miserable condition he passed out of sight of all his friends, and in 1756 it was supposed, even by Johnson, that he was dead; in point of fact, however, his sufferings did not cease until the 12th of June 1759. No journal or magazine recorded the death of the forgotten poet, though Goldsmith, only two months before, had begun the laudation which was soon to become universal.

No English poet so great as Collins has left behind him so small a bulk of writings. Not more than 1500 lines of his have been handed down to us, but among these not one is slovenly, and few are poor. His odes are the most sculpturesque and faultless in the language. They lack fire, but in charm and precision of diction, exquisite propriety of form, and lofty poetic suggestion they stand unrivalled. The ode namedThe Passionsis the most popular; thatTo Eveningis the classical example of perfect unrhymed verse. In this, and theOde to Simplicity, one seems to be handling an antique vase of matchless delicacy and elegance. In his descriptions of nature it is unquestionable that he owed something to the influence of Thomson. Distinction may be said to be the crowning grace of the style of Collins; its leading peculiarity is the incessant personification of some quality of the character. In theOde on Popular Superstitionshe produced a still nobler work; this poem, the most considerable in size which has been preserved, contains passages which are beyond question unrivalled for rich melancholy fulness in the literature between Milton and Keats.

Back to Index Next