secondary education and charged them with the task of promoting the
co-ordination of all forms of education in consultation with the Board
of Education, it is probable that an elementary scholar who shows
artistic ability will be enabled to pass on from the elementary classes
in one school to the higher art and technical schools, secondary and
advanced, without retracing his steps, thus escaping the depression of
going over old ground.
The general movement of revival of interest in the arts of decorative
design and the allied handicrafts, with the desire to re-establish their
influence in art-teaching, has been due to many causes, among which the
work of the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society may count as important.
From the leading members of this body the London County Council
Technical Educational Board, when it was face to face with the problem
of organizing its new schools and its technical classes, sought advice
and aid. Success has attended their schools, especially the Central
School of Arts and Crafts at Morley Hall, Regent Street. The object of
the school is to provide the craftsman in the various branches of
decorative design with such means of improving his taste and skill as
the workshop does not afford. It does not concern itself with the
amateur or with theoretic drawing. The main difference in principle
adopted in this school in the teaching of design is the absence of
teaching design _apart from handicraft._ It is considered that a
craftsman thoroughly acquainted with the natural capacities of his
material and strictly understanding the conditions of his work, would be
able, if he had any feeling or invention, to design appropriately in
that material, and no designing can be good apart from a knowledge of
the material in which it is intended to be carried out. It should be
remembered, too, that graphic skill in representing the appearances of
natural objects is one sort of skill, and the executive skill of the
craftsman in working out his design, say in wood or metal, is quite
another. It follows that the works of drawing or design made by the
craftsman would be of quite a different character from a pictorial
drawing, and might be quite simple and abstract, while clear and
accurate. The training for the pictorial artist and for the craftsman
would, therefore, naturally be different.
The character of the art-teaching adopted in any country must of course
depend upon the dominant conception of art and its function and purpose.
If we regard it as an idle accomplishment for the leisured few, its
methods will be amateurish and superficial. If we regard art as an
important factor in education, as a language of the intelligence, as an
indispensable companion to literature, we shall favour systematic study
and a training in the power of direct expression by means of line. We
shall value the symbolic drawing of early civilizations like the
Egyptian, and symbolic art generally, and in the history of decorative
art we shall find the true accompaniment and illustration of human
history itself. From this point of view we shall value the acquisition
of the power of drawing for the purpose of presenting and explaining the
facts and forms of nature. Drawing will be the most direct means at the
command of the teacher to explain, to expound, to demonstrate where mere
words are not sufficiently definite or explicit. Drawing in this sense
is taking a more important place in education, especially in primary
education, though there is no need for it to stop there, and one feels
it may be destined to take a more important position both as a training
for the eye and hand and an aid to the teacher. Then, again, we may
regard art more from its social aspect as an essential accompaniment of
human life, not only for its illustrative and depicting powers, but also
and no less for its pleasure-giving properties, its power of awakening
and stimulating the observation and sympathy with the moods of nature,
its power of touching the emotions, and above all of appealing to our
sense of beauty. We shall regard the study of art from this point of
view as the greatest civilizer, the most permeating of social and human
forces. Such ideas as these, shared no doubt by all who take pleasure
and interest in art, or feel it to be an important element in their
lives, are crossed and often obscured by a multitude of mundane
considerations, and it is probably out of the struggle for ascendancy
between these that our systems of art teaching are evolved. There is the
demand of the right to live on the part of the artist and the teacher of
art. There is the demand on the part of the manufacturer and salesman
for such art as will help him to dispose of his goods. In the present
commercial rivalry between nations this latter demand is brought into
prominent relief, and art is apt to be made a minister, or perhaps a
slave to the market. These are but accidental relationships with art.
All who care for art value it as a means of expression, and for the
pleasure and beauty it infuses into all it touches, or as essential and
inseparable from life itself. Seeing then the importance of art from any
point of view, individual, social, commercial, intellectual, emotional,
economic, it should be important to us in our systems of art-teaching
not to lose sight of the end in arranging the means--not to allow our
teaching to be dominated by either dilettantism or commercialism,
neither to be feeble for want of technical skill, nor to sacrifice
everything to technique. The true object of art-teaching is very much
like that of all education--to inform the mind, while you give skill to
the hand--not to impose certain rigid rules, or fixed recipes and
methods of work, but while giving instruction in definite methods and
the use of materials, to allow for the individual development of the
student and enable him to acquire the power to express himself through
different media without forgetting the grammar and alphabet of design.
Practice may vary, but principles remain, and there is a certain logic
in art, as well as in reasoning. All art is conditioned in the mode of
its expression by its material, and even the most individual kind of art
has a convention of its own by the very necessities and means of its
existence. Methods of expression, conventions alter as each artist, each
age seeks some new interpretation of nature and the imagination--the
well-springs of artistic life, and from these reviving streams
continually flow new harmonies, new inventions and recombinations,
taking form and colour according to the temperaments which give them
birth. (W. Cr.)
ARTUSI, GIOVANNI MARIA, Italian composer and musical theorist, was born
in Bologna, and died on the 18th of August 1613. He was _canonico
regulare_ at the church of San Salvatore in his native city. He is
chiefly famous in the history of music for his attacks upon Monteverde
(q.v.) embodied in his _L'Artusi overo d. imp._ (1600). For an
exhaustive explanation and a translation of excerpts from these the
studies of Dr G. Vogel and O. Riemann should be consulted. These will be
found in the _Vierteljahrsschrift fur Musikwissenschaft_, Leipzig, vol.
3, pp. 326, 380 and 426.
ARU ISLANDS (Dutch _Aroe_), a group in the residency of Amboyna, Dutch
East Indies; between 5 deg. 18' and 7 deg. 5' S., and 134 deg. and 135
deg. E.; the member nearest to the south-west coast of New Guinea lying
about 70 m. from it. The larger islands (Wokan, Kobrur, Maikor and
Trangan), and certain of the lesser ones, are regarded by the Malays as
one land mass which they call _tana besar_ ("great land"). This is
justified inasmuch as its parts are only isolated by narrow creeks of
curious form, having the character of rivers. The smaller islands number
some eighty; the total land area is 3244 sq. m.; and the population
about 22,000. The islands are low, but it is only on the coast that the
ground is swampy. The principal formation is coralline limestone; the
eastern coast is defended by coral reefs, and the neighbouring sea
(extending as far as New Guinea, and thus demonstrating a physical
connexion with that land) is shallow, and abounds in coral in full
growth. A large part of the surface is covered with virgin forest,
consisting of screw-pines, palm trees, tree ferns, canariums, &c. The
fauna is altogether Papuan. The natives are also Papuans, but of mixed
blood. They are divided into two confederations, the Uli-luna and the
Uli-sawa, which are hostile to each other. The houses are remarkable as
being built on piles sunk in the solid rock and having two rooms, the
one surrounding the other. The people are in manners complete savages.
The natives are governed by rajas (_orang kajas_), the Dutch government
being represented by a _posthouder._ In the interior is said to exist a
tribe--the Korongoeis--with white skins and fair hair, but it has never
been seen by travellers. A few villages are nominally Christian, and the
Malays have introduced Mahommedanism, but most of the natives have no
religion. Dobbo, on a small western island, is the chief place; its
resident population is reinforced annually, at the time of the west
monsoon, by traders from that quarter, who deal in the tripang, pearl
shell, tortoise-shell, and other produce of the islands.
ARUNDEL, EARLDOM OF. This historic dignity, the premier earldom of
England, is popularly but erroneously supposed to be annexed to the
possession of Arundel Castle. Norman earls were earls of counties,
though sometimes styled from their chief residence or from the county
town, and Mr J.H. Round has shown that the earldom of "Arundel" was
really that of Sussex. Its origin was the grant by Henry I. to his
second wife, in dower, of the forfeited "honour" of Arundel, of which
the castle was the head, and which comprised a large portion of Sussex.
After his death she married William "de Albini" (i.e. d'Aubigny), who
from about the year 1141 is variously styled earl of Sussex, of
Chichester, or of Arundel, or even Earl William "de Albini." His first
known appearance as earl is at Christmas 1141, and it has been
ascertained that, after acquiring the castle by marriage, he had not
thereby become an earl. Henry II., on his accession, "gave" him the
castle and honour of Arundel, in fee, together with "the third penny of
the pleas of Sussex, of which he is earl." His male line of heirs became
extinct on the death of Hugh "de Albini," earl of Arundel, in 1243, who
had four sisters and co-heirs. In the partition of his estates, the
castle and honour of Arundel were assigned to his second sister's son,
John Fitzalan of a Breton house, from which sprang also the royal house
of Stuart. It is proved, however, by record evidence, that neither John
nor his son and successor were ever earls; but from about the end of
1289, when his grandson Richard came of age, he is styled earl of
Arundel. Richard's son Edmund was forfeited and beheaded in 1326, and
Arundel was out of possession of the family till 1331, when his son was
restored, and regained the castle and also the earldom by separate
grants. Both were again lost in 1397 on his son being beheaded and
attainted. But the latter's son was restored to both the earldom and the
estates by Henry IV. in 1400. He died without issue in 1415.
The castle and estates now passed to the late earl's cousin and
heir-male under a family entail, but the representation in blood of the
late earl passed to his sisters and co-heirs, of whom the eldest had
married Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk. The descent of the earldom
remained in doubt, till the heir-male's son and heir successfully
claimed it in 1433, in virtue of his tenure of the castle, alleging that
it was "a dignity or name united and annexed to the castle and lordship
of Arundel for time whereof memory of man was not to the contrary." His
claim was opposed on behalf of the Mowbrays, and the allegation on which
it was based is discussed and refuted at great length in the _Lords'
Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_ (i. 404-429). In the descendants of
his brother the earldom remained vested till 1580, when the last
Fitzalan earl died, leaving as his sole heir his daughter's son Philip
Howard, whose father Thomas, duke of Norfolk, had been beheaded and
attainted in 1572.
Philip, who was through his father senior representative of the earls of
Arundel down to 1415, and through his mother sole representative of the
subsequent earls, was summoned to parliament as earl in January 1581,
but was attainted in 1589. His son Thomas was restored to the earldom
and certain other honours in 1604, and, in 1627, obtained an act of
parliament "concerning the title, name and dignity of Earl of Arundel,
and for the annexing of the Castle, Honour, Manor and Lordship of
Arundel ... with the titles and dignities of the Baronies of Fitzalan,
Clun and Oswaldestre, and Maltravers, ... to the same title, name and
dignity of Earl of Arundel." This act, which was based on the earl's
allegation that the title had been "invariably used and enjoyed" by the
owners of the castle, "and by reason of the said inheritance and
seisin," has been much discussed, especially in the _Lords' Reports_ (i.
430-434). There is no doubt that the earl's object was to entail the
earldom and the castle strictly on a certain line of heirs, and this was
effected by elaborate remainders (passing over the Howards, earls of
Suffolk). It is under this act of parliament that the earldom has been
held ever since, and that it passed with the castle in 1777 to the
heir-male of the Howards, although the representation in blood then
passed to heirs general. Thus the castle and the earldom cannot be
alienated from the line of heirs on whom it is entailed by the act of
1627; while the heirship in blood of the earlier earls (to 1415) is
vested in Lords Mowbray and Petre and the Baroness Berkeley, and that of
the later earls (to 1777) in Lords Mowbray and Petre.
The precedence of the earldom was challenged in 1446 by Thomas
Courtenay, earl of Devon, owing to the question as to its descent spoken
of above, but the king in council confirmed to the earl the precedence
of his ancestors "by reason of the Castle, Honour and Lordship of
Arundel." In the act of 1627 the "places" and "pre-eminences" belonging
to the earldom were secured to it. It would appear, however, that the
decision of the dispute with the earl of Devon in 1446 restricts that
precedency to such as the earl's ancestors had enjoyed, if indeed it
goes farther than to guarantee his precedence over the earl of Devon.
But as there is no other existing earldom older than that of Shrewsbury
(1442), the present position of Arundel as the premier earldom is beyond
dispute.
See _Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_; Dugdale's _Baronage_;
Tierney's _History of Arundel_; G.E. C[okayne]'s _Complete Peerage_;
Round's _Geoffrey de Mandeville_; Pike's _Constitutional History of
the House of Lords_. (J. H. R.)
ARUNDEL, EARLS OF. According to Cokayne (_Complete Peerage_, i. p. 138,
note a) there is an old Sussex tradition to the effect that
"Since William rose and Harold fell
There have been earls of Arundel."
This, he adds, "is the case if for 'of' we read 'at.'" The questions
involved in this distinction are discussed in the preceding article on
the earldom of Arundel, now held by the duke of Norfolk. The present
article is confined to a biographical sketch of the more conspicuous
earls of Arundel, first in the Fitzalan line, and then in the Howard
line.
RICHARD FITZALAN (1267-1302), earl of Arundel, was a son of John, lord
of Arundel (1246-1272), and a grandson of another John, lord of Arundel,
Clun and Oswaldestre (Oswestry), who took a prominent, if somewhat
wavering, part in the troubles during the reign of Henry III., and who
died in November 1267. Richard, who was called earl of Arundel about
1289, fought for Edward I. in France and in Scotland, and died on the
9th of March 1302.
He was succeeded by his son, EDMUND (1285-1326), who married Alice,
sister of John, earl de Warenne. A bitter enemy of Piers Gaveston,
Arundel was one of the ordainers appointed in 1310; he declined to march
with Edward II. to Bannockburn, and after the king's humiliation he was
closely associated with Thomas, earl of Lancaster, until about 1321,
when he became connected with the Despensers and sided with the king. He
was faithful to Edward to the last, and was executed at Hereford by the
partisans of Queen Isabella on the 17th of November 1326.
His son, RICHARD (c. 1307-1376), who obtained his father's earldom and
lands in 1331, was a soldier of renown and a faithful servant of Edward
III. He was present at the battle of Sluys and at the siege of Tournai
in 1340; he led one of the divisions of the English army at Crecy and
took part in the siege of Calais; and he fought in the naval battle with
the Spaniards off Winchelsea in August 1350. Moreover, he was often
employed by Edward on diplomatic business. Soon after 1347 Arundel
inherited the estates of his uncle John, earl de Warenne, and in 1361 he
assumed the title of earl de Warenne or earl of Surrey. He was regent of
England in 1355, and died on the 24th of January 1376, leaving three
sons, the youngest of whom, Thomas, became archbishop of Canterbury.
Richard's eldest son, RICHARD, earl of Arundel and Surrey (c.
1346-1397), was a member of the royal council during the minority of
Richard II., and about 1381 was made one of the young king's governors.
As admiral of the west and south he saw a good deal of service on the
sea, but without earning any marked distinction except in 1387 when he
gained a victory over the French and their allies off Margate. About
1385 the earl joined the baronial party led by the king's uncle, Thomas
of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, and in 1386 was a member of the
commission appointed to regulate the kingdom and the royal household.
Then came Richard's rash but futile attempt to arrest Arundel, which was
the signal for the outbreak of hostilities. The Gloucester faction
quickly gained the upper hand, and the earl was one, and perhaps the
most bitter, of the lords appellant. He was again a member of the royal
council, and was involved in a quarrel with John of Gaunt, duke of
Lancaster, whom he accused in the parliament of 1394. After a personal
altercation with the king at Westminster in the same year Arundel
underwent a short imprisonment, and in 1397 came the final episode of
his life. Suspicious of Richard he refused the royal invitation to a
banquet, but his party had broken up, and he was persuaded by his
brother, Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury, to surrender himself
and to trust to the king's clemency. At once he was tried, was attainted
and sentenced to death, and, bearing himself with great intrepidity, was
beheaded on the 21st of September 1397. He was twice married and had
three sons and four daughters. The earl founded a hospital at Arundel,
and his tomb in the church of the Augustinian Friars, Broad Street,
London, was long a place of pilgrimage.
His only surviving son, THOMAS (1381-1415), was a ward of John Holand,
duke of Exeter, from whose keeping he escaped about 1398 and joined his
uncle, Archbishop Thomas Arundel, at Utrecht, returning to England with
Henry of Lancaster, afterwards King Henry IV., in 1399. After Henry's
coronation he was restored to his father's titles and estates, and was
employed in fighting against various rebels in Wales and in the north of
England. Having left the side of his uncle, the archbishop, Arundel
joined the party of the Beauforts, and was one of the leaders of the
English army which went to France in 1411; then after a period of
retirement he became lord treasurer on the accession of Henry V. From
the siege of Harfleur he returned ill to England and died on the 13th of
October 1415. His wife was Beatrix (d. 1439), a natural daughter of John
I., king of Portugal, but he left no children, and the lordship of
Arundel passed to a kinsman, JOHN FITZALAN, Lord Maltravers (1385-1421),
who was summoned as earl of Arundel in 1416.
John's son, JOHN (1408-1435), did not secure the earldom until 1433,
when as the "English Achilles" he had already won great distinction in
the French wars. He was created duke of Touraine, and continued to serve
Henry VI. in the field until his death at Beauvais from the effects of a
wound on the 12th of June 1435. The earl's only son, Humphrey, died in
April 1438, when the earldom passed to John's brother, WILLIAM
(1417-1488).
HENRY FITZALAN, 12th earl of Arundel (c. 1517-1580), son of William,
11th earl, by Anne, daughter of Henry Percy, 4th earl of
Northumberland, was born about 1517. He entered King Henry's household,
attending the latter to Calais in 1532. In 1533 he was summoned to
parliament in his father's barony of Maltravers, and in 1540 he was made
deputy of Calais, where his vigorous administration was much praised. He
returned to England in April 1544 after the death of his father, and was
made a knight of the Garter. In July of the same year he commanded with
Suffolk the English expedition to France as lord marshal, and besieged
and took Boulogne. On his return to England he was made lord
chamberlain, an office which he retained after the accession in 1547 of
Edward VI., at whose coronation he acted as high constable. He was one
of the twelve counsellors nominated in Henry VIII.'s will to assist the
executors, but he had little power during the protectorship of Somerset
or the ascendancy of Warwick (afterwards duke of Northumberland), and in
1550 by the latter's device he was accused of embezzlement, removed from
the council, confined to his house, and fined L12,000--L8000 of this sum
being afterwards remitted and the charges never being proved.
Subsequently he allied himself with Somerset, and was implicated in 1551
in the latter's plot against Northumberland, being imprisoned in the
Tower in November. On the 3rd of December 1552, though he had never been
brought to trial, he signed a submission and confession before the privy
council, and was liberated after having been again heavily fined. As
Edward's reign drew to its close, Arundel's support was desired by
Northumberland to further his designs on the throne for his family, and
he was accordingly reinstated in the council and discharged of his fine.
In June 1553 he opposed Edward's "device" for the succession, which
passed over his sisters Mary and Elizabeth as illegitimate, and left the
crown to the children of the duchess of Suffolk, and alone of the
council refused the "engagement" to support it, though he signed the
letters patent. On the death of Edward (July 6, 1553) he ostensibly
joined in furthering the duke's plans, but secretly took measures to
destroy them, and according to some accounts sent a letter to Mary the
same evening informing her of Edward's death and advising her to retreat
to a place of security. Meanwhile he continued to attend the meetings of
the council, signed the letter to Mary declaring her illegitimacy and
Lady Jane Grey's right to the throne, accompanied Northumberland to
announce to Jane her accession, and urged Northumberland to leave London
and place himself at the head of the forces to attack Mary, wishing him
God-speed on his departure. In Northumberland's absence, he gained over
his fellow-councillors, and having succeeded with them in getting out of
the Tower, called an assembly of the corporation and chief men of the
city, denounced Northumberland, and had Mary proclaimed queen,
subsequently riding off to join her with the Great Seal at Framlingham.
On the 20th of July he secured Northumberland at Cambridge, and returned
in triumph with Mary to London on the 3rd of August, riding before her
with the sword of state. He was now made a privy councillor and lord
steward, and was granted several favours and privileges, acting as high
constable at the coronation, and obtaining the right to create sixty
knights. He took a prominent part in various public acts of the reign,
was a commissioner to treat for the queen's marriage, presided at the
trial of the duke of Suffolk, assisted in suppressing Wyatt's rebellion
in 1554, was despatched on foreign missions, and in September 1555
accompanied Philip to Brussels. The same year he received, together with
other persons, a charter under the name of the Merchant Adventurers of
England, for the discovery of unknown lands, and was made high steward
of Oxford University, being chosen chancellor in 1559, but resigning his
office in the same year. In 1557, on the prospect of the war with
France, he was appointed lieutenant-general of the forces for the
defence of the country, and in 1558 attended the conference at the abbey
of Cercamp for the negotiation of a peace. He returned to England on the
death of Mary in November 1558, and is described to Philip II. at that
time as "going about in high glee, very smart" and with hopes of
marrying the queen, but as "flighty" and of "small ability." He was
reinstated in all his offices by Elizabeth, served as high constable at
her coronation, and was visited several times by the queen at Nonsuch in
Surrey. As a Roman Catholic he violently opposed the arrest of his
co-religionists and the war with Scotland, and in 1560 came to blows
with Lord Clinton in the queen's presence on a dispute arising on those
questions. He incurred the queen's displeasure in 1562 by holding a
meeting at his house during her illness to consider the question of the
succession and promote the claims of Lady Catherine Grey. In 1564, being
suspected of intrigues against the government, he was dismissed from the
lord-stewardship and confined to his house, but was restored to favour
in December. In March 1566 he went to Padua, but being summoned back by
the queen he returned to London accompanied by a large cavalcade on the
17th of April 1567. Next year he served on the commission of inquiry
into the charges against Mary, queen of Scots. Subsequently he furthered
the marriage of Mary with the duke of Norfolk, his son-in-law, together
with the restoration of the Roman Catholic religion and government, and
deposition of Elizabeth, in collusion with Spain. He made use of the
incident in 1568, of the seizure of treasure at Southampton intended for
Philip, as a means of effecting Cecil's overthrow, and urged upon the
Spanish government the stoppage of trade. He is described in 1569 to
Philip as having "good intentions," "whilst benefiting himself as he was
very needy." In January he alarmed Elizabeth by communicating to her a
supposed Spanish project for aiding Mary and replacing her on her
throne, and put before the queen in writing his own objections to the
adoption of extreme measures against her. In June he received with
Norfolk and Lumley 6000 crowns from Philip. In September, on the
discovery of Norfolk's plot, he was arrested, but not having committed
himself sufficiently to incur the charge of treason in the northern
rebellion he escaped punishment, was released in March 1570, and was
recalled by Leicester to the council with the aim of embarrassing Cecil.
He again renewed his treasonable intrigues, which were at length to some
extent exposed by the discovery of the Ridolfi plot in September 1571.
He was once more arrested, and not liberated till December 1572 after
Norfolk's execution. He died on the 24th of February 1580, and was
buried in the chapel at Arundel, where a monument was erected to his
memory.
He married (1) Catherine, daughter of Thomas Grey, 2nd marquess of
Dorset, by whom he had Henry, who predeceased him, and two daughters, of
whom Mary married Thomas Howard, 4th duke of Norfolk; and (2) Mary,
daughter of Sir John Arundell and dowager countess of Sussex, by whom he
had no children. Arundel was the last earl of his family, the title at
his death passing through his daughter Mary to the Howards.
AUTHORITIES.--MS. Life by a contemporary in _Royal MSS._, British
Museum, 17 A ix., printed with notes in _Gent. Mag._ (1833)(ii.), pp.
11, 118, 210, 490; M.A. Tierney, _Hist. of Arundel_, p. 319;
_Chronicle of Queen Jane_ (Camden Soc. 1850); _Literary Remains of
Edward VI._ (Roxburghe Club, 1857); J. Nichols, _Progresses of Queen
Elizabeth_ (1823), i. 74; Wood, _Fasti Oxon._ (Bliss), i. 153, 156;
_Cal. State Papers, Simancas_, i. 18, ii. 152, &c., _Notes and
Queries_, 2 Ser. iv. 84, &c.
PHILIP HOWARD, 1st earl[1] of Arundel (1557-1595), eldest son of Thomas
Howard, 4th duke of Norfolk, executed for high treason in 1572, and of
Lady Mary, daughter and heiress of Henry Fitzalan, 12th earl of Arundel,
was born on the 28th of June 1557. He was married in 1571 to Anne,
daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Dacre, Lord Dacre (1566), and was
educated at Cambridge, being accorded the degree of M.A. in 1576.
Subsequently Lord Surrey, as he was styled, came to court, partook in
its extravagant gaieties and dissipations, and kept his wife in the
background; but he nevertheless failed to secure the favour of
Elizabeth, who suspected the Howards generally. On the death of his
maternal grandfather in February 1580 he became earl of Arundel and
retired from the court. In 1582 his wife joined the church of Rome, and
was committed to the charge of Sir Thomas Shirley by the queen. He was
himself suspected of disloyalty, and was regarded by the discontented
Roman Catholics as the centre of the plots against the queen's
government, and even as a possible successor. In 1583 he was with some
reason suspected of complicity in Throgmorton's plot and prepared to
escape to Flanders, but his plans were interrupted by a visit from
Elizabeth at his house in London, and by her order subsequently to
confine himself there. In September 1584 he became a Roman Catholic,
dissembling his conversion and attempting next year once more to escape
abroad; but having been brought back he was placed in the Tower on the
25th of April 1585, and charged before the Star Chamber with being a
Romanist, with quitting England without leave, sharing in Jesuit plots,
and claiming the dukedom of Norfolk. He was sentenced to pay L10,000 and
to be imprisoned during the queen's pleasure. In July 1586 his liberty
was offered to him if he would carry the sword of state before the queen
to church. In 1588 he was accused of praying, together with other
Romanists, for the success of the Spanish Armada. He was tried for high
treason on the 14th of April 1589, found guilty and condemned to death;
but lingered in confinement under his sentence, which was never
executed, till his death on the 19th of October 1595. He was buried in
the Tower, whence his remains were removed in 1624 to Arundel. His
career, his later religious constancy and his tragic end have evoked
general sympathy, but his conduct gave rise to grave suspicions, and the
punishment inflicted upon him was not unwarranted; while the account of
the severity of his imprisonment given by his anonymous and contemporary
biographer should be compared with his own letters expressing gratitude
for favours allowed.[2] There appears no foundation for the belief that
he was poisoned, and according to Camden his death was caused by his
religious austerities.[3] He was the author of a translation of _An
Epistle of Jesus Christ to the Faithful Soule_ by Johann Justus (1595,
reprinted 1871) and of three MS. treatises _On the Excellence and
Utility of Virtue_. Inscriptions carved by his hand are still to be seen
in the Tower. He had two children, Elizabeth, who died young, and
Thomas, who (restored in blood) succeeded him as 2nd earl of Arundel,
and was created earl of Norfolk in 1644.
AUTHORITIES.--Article in the _Dict. of Nat. Biography_ and authorities
there collected; the contemporary _Lives of Philip Howard, Earl of
Arundel and of Anne Dacre his Wife_, ed. by the duke of Norfolk
(1857); M. Tierney, _History of Arundel_ (1834), p. 357; C.H. Cooper,
_Athenae Cantabrigenses_ (1861), with bibliography, ii. 187 and 547;
H. Howard, _Memoirs of the Howard Family_ (1824).
THOMAS HOWARD, 2nd earl of Arundel, and earl of Surrey and of Norfolk
(c. 1585-1646), son of Philip, 1st earl of Arundel and of Lady Anne
Dacre, was born in 1585 or 1586 and educated at Westminster school and
at Trinity College, Cambridge. Owing to the attainder of his father he
was styled Lord Maltravers, but at the accession of James I. he was
restored to his father's earldoms of Arundel and Surrey, and to the
baronies of his grandfather, Thomas, 4th duke of Norfolk. He came to
court, travelled subsequently abroad, acquiring a taste for art, and was
created K. G. on his return in May 1611. In 1613 he escorted Elizabeth,
the electress palatine, to Heidelberg, and again visited Italy. On
Christmas day 1615 Arundel joined the Church of England, and took
office, being appointed a privy councillor in 1616. He supported
Raleigh's expedition in 1617, became a member of the New England
Plantations Committee in 1620 and planned the colonization of
Madagascar. He presided over the House of Lords Committee in April 1621
for investigating the charges against Bacon, whom he defended from
degradation from the peerage, and at whose fall he was appointed a
commissioner of the great seal. On the 16th of May he was sent to the
Tower by the Lords on account of violent and insulting language used by
him to Lord Spencer. He incurred Prince Charles's and Buckingham's anger
by his opposition to the war with Spain in 1624, and by his share in the
duke's impeachment, and on the occasion of his son's marriage to Lady
Elizabeth Stewart without the king's approval he was imprisoned in the
Tower by Charles I., shortly after his accession, but was released at
the instance of the Lords in June 1626, being again confined to his
house till March 1628, when he was once more liberated by the Lords. In
the debates on the Petition of Right, while approving its essential
demands, he supported the retention of some discretionary power by the
king in committing to prison. The same year he was reconciled to the
king and again made a privy councillor. On the 29th of August 1621 he
had been appointed earl marshal, and in 1623 constable of England, in
1630 reviving the earl marshal's court. In 1625 he was made
lord-lieutenant of Sussex and in 1635 of Surrey. He was sent to the
Hague in 1632 on a mission of condolence to the queen of Bohemia on her
husband's death. In 1634 he was made chief justice in eyre of the
forests north of the Trent; he accompanied Charles the same year to
Scotland on the occasion of his coronation, and in 1636 undertook an
unsuccessful mission to the emperor to procure the restitution of the
Palatinate to the young elector. In 1638 he supported the king's
exactions from the vintners, was entrusted with the charge of the Border
forts, and, supporting alone amongst the peers the war against the
Scots, was made general of the king's forces in the first Bishops' War,
though according to Clarendon "he had nothing martial about him but his
presence and looks." He was not employed in the second Bishops' War, but
in August 1640 was nominated captain-general south of the Trent. In
April he was appointed lord steward of the royal household, and in 1641
as lord high steward presided at the trial of Strafford. This closed his
public career. He became again estranged from the court, and in 1641 he
escorted home Marie de' Medici, remaining abroad, with the exception of
a short visit to England in 1642, for the rest of his life, and taking
up permanent residence at Padua. He contributed a sum of L34,000 to the
king's cause, and suffered severe losses in the war. On the 6th of June
1644 he was created earl of Norfolk. He died at Padua, when on the point
of returning home, on the 14th of September 1646, and was buried at
Arundel.
Lord Arundel was a man of high character, an exemplary husband and
parent, but reserved and unpopular, and Clarendon ridicules his family
pride. His claim to fame rests upon his patronage of arts and learning
and his magnificent collections. He employed Hollar, Oughtred, Francis
Junius and Inigo Jones; included among his friends Sir Robert Cotton,
Spelman, Camden, Selden and John Evelyn, and his portrait was painted by
Rubens and Vandyck. He is called the "Father of vertu in England," and
was admired by a contemporary as the person to whom "this angle of the
world oweth the first sight of Greek and Roman statues."[4] He was the
first to form any considerable collection of art in Great Britain. His
acquisitions, obtained while on his travels or through agents, and
including inscribed marbles, statues, fragments, pictures, gems, coins,
books and manuscripts, were deposited at Arundel House, and suffered
considerable damage during the Civil War; and, owing to the carelessness
and want of appreciation of his successors, nearly half of the marbles
were destroyed. After his death the treasures were dispersed. The
marbles and many of the statues were given by his grandson, Henry, 6th
duke of Norfolk, to the university of Oxford in 1667, became known as
the _Arundel_ (or Oxford) _Marbles_, and included the famous _Parian
Chronicle_, or _Marmor Chronicon_, a marble slab on which are recorded
in Greek events in Grecian history from 1582 B.C. to 354 B.C., said to
have been executed in the island of Paros about 263 B.C. Its narration
of events differs in some respects from the most trustworthy historical
accounts, but its genuineness, challenged by some writers, has been
strongly supported by Porson and others, and is considered fairly
established. Other statues were presented to the university by Henrietta
Louisa, countess of Pomfret, in 1755. The cabinets and gems were removed
by the wife of Henry, 7th duke of Norfolk, in 1685, and after her death
found their way into the Marlborough collection. The pictures and
drawings were sold in 1685 and 1691, and Lord Stafford's moiety of the
collection in 1720. The coins and medals were, bought by Heneage Finch,
2nd earl of Winchelsea, and dispersed in 1696; the library, at the
instance of John Evelyn, who feared its total loss, was given to the
Royal Society, and a part, consisting of genealogical and heraldic
collections, to the College of Heralds, the manuscript portion of the
Royal Society's moiety being transferred to the British Museum in 1831
and forming the present Arundel Collection. The famous bust of Homer
reached the British Museum after passing through various hands.
Lord Arundel married in 1606 Lady Alethea, daughter and heir of Gilbert
Talbot, 7th earl of Shrewsbury, by whom, besides three sons who died
young and one daughter, he had John, who predeceased him, Henry
Frederick, who succeeded him as 3rd earl of Arundel and earl of Surrey
and of Norfolk, and William, Viscount Stafford, executed in 1680. In
1849 the Arundel Society for promoting artistic knowledge was founded in
his memory. Henry Frederick's grandson Thomas, by the reversal (1660) of
the attainder of 1572, succeeded to the dukedom of Norfolk, in which the
earldom has since then been merged.
AUTHORITIES.--See the article in the _Dict, of Nat. Biography_, and
authorities there collected; D. Lloyd, _Memoires_ (1668), p. 284; Sir
E. Walker, _Historical Discourses_ (1705), p. 209 (MS. in Harleian,
6272 f. 152); M. Tierney, _History of Arundel_ (1834), p. 414; Sir
Thomas Roe's _Negotiations_ (1740: letters relating to his
collections), 334, 444, 495; W. Crowne, _A True Relation of all the
Remarkable Places ... in the Travels of ... Thomas, Earl of Arundell:
A.D. 1636_ (1637); _Die englische Mission des Grafen v. Arundel in
Nurnberg_ (_archivalische Zeitschrift_: neue Folge, Bd. xi., 1904); H.
Howard, _Memorials of the Howard Family_ (1834), p. 31; H.K.S.
Causton, _The Howard Papers_ (1862); _Preface to Catalogue of Arundel
MSS_., Brit. Museum (1840), &c. For publications relating to the
Parian Chronicle see _Marmora Arundelliana_, publ. J. Selden (1628);
Prideaux's _Marmora Oxoniensia_ (1676); Maittaire's variorum edition
(1732); Chandler's _Marmora Oxoniensia_ (1763 and 1791), G. Roberts;
J. Robertson, _The Parian Chronicle_ (1788); J. Hewlett, _A
Vindication_ (1789); R. Porson, "The Parian Chronicle," in _Tracts_,
ed. by T. Kidd (1815); _Chronicon Parium_, ed. by C.F.C. Wagner
(1832-1833); C. Muller's _Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum_ (1841), i.
533; F. Jacoby, _Das Marmor Parium_ (1904).
FOOTNOTES:
[1] i.e. in the Howard line.
[2] See _Cal. of St. Pap. Dom. 1581-1590_. 611; and _Hist. MSS. Comm.
Marq. of Salisbury's MSS._ iii. 253, 414.
[3] Camden's _Elizabeth_ in _Hist. of England_ (1706), 587.
[4] Peacham in _Compleat Gentleman_ (1634), p. 107, and _Secret Hist.
of James I._ (1811), i. 199.