from the will of the Tudor king and from the contract made by the executors of the Lancastrian earl, with remarkable significance illustrate the gradual development of the idea of true personal portraiture in monumental effigies, during the course of the 15th and at the commencement of the 16th century in England. A glance upwards naturally first rests on the royal effigies still preserved in this country, which commence in Worcester Cathedral with King John. This earliest example of a series of effigies of which the historical value has never yet been duly appreciated is rude as a work of art, and yet there is on it the impress of such individuality as demonstrates that the sculptor did his best to represent the king. Singularly fine as achievements of the art of the sculptor are the effigies of Henry III., Queen Alianore of Castile, and her ill-fated son Edward II, the two former in Westminster Abbey, the last in Gloucester Cathedral ; and of their fidelity also as portraits no doubt can be entertained. In like manner, the effigies of Edward III. and his queen Philippa, and those of their grandson Richard II. and his first consort, Anne of Bohemia (all at Westminster), and of their other grandson, the Lancastrian Henry, whose greater might made his better right to Richard s throne, with his second consort, Joan of Navarre, at Canterbury these all speak for themselves that they are true portraits. Next follow the effigies of Henry VII. and Elizabeth of York, to be succeeded, and the royal series to be completed, by the effigies of Queen Elizabeth and the hapless Mary Stuart, all of them in Westminster Abbey. Very instruc tive would be a close comparison between the two last- named works and the painted portraits of the rival queens, especially in the case of Mary, whose pictures differ so
remarkably from one another.As the 15th century advanced, the rank of the personage represented and the character of the art that distinguishes any effigy will go far to determine its portrait qualities. Still later, when more exact face-portraiture had become a recognized element, sculptors must be supposed to have aimed at the production of such similitude as their art would enable them to give to their works ; and accordingly, when we compare effigies with painted portraits of the same personages, we find that they corroborate one another. The prevalence of portraiture in the effigies of the IGth and 17th centuries, when their art generally underwent a palpable decline, by no means raises all works of this class, or indeed the majority of them, to the dignity of true portraits ; on the contrary, in these effigies, as in those of earlier periods, it is the character of the art in each parti cular example that will go far to determine its merit, value, and authority as a portrait. In judging of these latter effigies, however, they must be estimated by the standard of art of their own era ; and, as a general rule, the effigies that are the best as works of art in their own class are the best also and the most faithful in their portraiture. The earlier effigies, evidently produced in the great majority of instances without any express aim at exact portraiture, as we now employ that expression, have nevertheless strong claims upon our veneration. Often their sculpture is very noble ; and even when they are rudest as works of art, there rarely fails to be a rough grandeur about them, as exhibited in the fine bold figure of Fair Rosamond s son, Earl William of the Long Sword, which reposes in such dignified serenity in his own cathedral at Salisbury. These effigies may not bring us closely face to face with the more remote generations of our ancestors, but they do place before us true images of what the men and women of those generations were.
Observant students of monumental effigies assuredly will not fail to appreciate the singular felicity with which the mediaeval sculptors adjusted their compositions to the recumbent position in which their * images " necessarily had to be placed. Equally worthy of regard is the manner in which not a few monumental effigies, and particularly those of comparativsly early date, are found to have assumed an aspect neither living nor lifeless, and yet im pressively life-like. The sound judgment also, and the good taste of those early sculptors, were signally exempli fied in their excluding, almost without an exception, the more extravagant fashions in the costume of their era from their monumental sculpture, and introducing only the simpler but not less characteristic styles of dress and appointments. In all representations of monumental effigies, it must be kept in remembrance that they represent recumbent figures, and that the accessories of the effigies themselves have been adjusted to that position. With rare exceptions, when they appear resting on one side, these effigies lie on their backs, and as a general rule (except in the case of episcopal figures represented in the act of benediction, or of princes and warriors who sometimes hold a sceptre or a sword) their hands are uplifted and conjoined as in supplication. The crossed-legged attitude of numer ous armed effigies of the era of mail-armour has been sup posed to imply the personages so represented to have been crusaders or Knights of the Temple ; but in either case the supposition is unfounded, and inconsistent with unquestion able facts. Much beautiful feeling is conveyed by figures of ministering angels being introduced as in the act of sup porting and smoothing the pillows or cushions that are placed, in very many instances to give support to the heads of the recumbent effigies. The animals at the feet of these effigies, which frequently have an heraldic significance, enabled the sculptors, with equal propriety and effectiveness, to overcome one of the special difficulties inseparable from the recumbent position. In conclusion, it remains only to remark upon the masterly treatment of outline composition which so honourably distinguishes the earlier examples of the engraven effigies in monumental brasses.
EGBERT, or Ecgberht, king of the West Saxons, was born about 775, and laid claim to the throne in 786, but Brihtric was elected, and he was compelled to take refuge with Oft a, king of Mercia. Although Offa refused to surrender him when requested by Brihtric, he declined to give him further protection. Egbert thereupon fled to France, and took up his residence at the court of Charlemagne ; and it is doubtless to the training he received from that great general and statesman that the success of his reign in Wessex is in a large measure to be traced. When Brihtric was poisoned by his queen Edbrugha in 800, Egbert was recalled and ascended the West Saxon throne. From his reign may be dated the supremacy of the West Saxon kings in England. In 823 he defeated Beornwulf, king of Mercia, at Ellandun (near Wilton) ; and in the same year he united Kent, Essex, and Sussex to his crown, and compelled East Anglia to acknowledge him as its over-lord. In 827 he compelled the submission of Mercia, and leading an army into Northumbria received its submission without trial of battle. In 828 he conquered Wales, and thus the isle of Britain, with the exception of the Picts, the Scots, and the Strathclyde Welsh, acknowledged a West Saxon king as its over-lord. During the last period of his reign his kingdom was subjected to repeated attacks by the Danes. In 832 they ravaged Sheppey,and in 833 defeated Egbert at Carrum (thought by some to be Charmouth, in Devon), but in 835 he gained a great victory over a united force of Danes and Welsh at Hengestesdun, in Cornwall. He died in 836.
Greenland, was born in the vogtship of Senjen, in Norway, on the 31st January 168G. In his 22d year he became
pastor at Waagen, in the bishopric of Drontheim, but the
