« PreviousContinue »
the choice of the subject at a time when Portugal had actually fallen into the hands of Castile, as though Lobo meant to recommend the examples of Pereira and Don John to his subjugated countrymen, and urge them to another Aljubarrota ; and his dedication of his epic to Theodosius Duke of Braganza, to whom the Portugese secretly looked as their future deliverer, and whose son did, in 1640, expel the Castilians, and reign as John IV., strengthens the conjecture. It was about 1610 that he published the epic. In nine years after, when Philip III. visited Portugal as an unjust and oppressive master, Lobo addressed to him his pompous greetings, the “ Jorna. das," apparently as an antidote to, or an apology for, his “ Constable of Portugal," which he might fear would otherwise be remembered to his disad vantage when the foreign monarch came so near him as Lisbon.
The Portuguese, after their national calamity at Alcacerquiver, still fondly hoped that Sebastian was yet living, either a prisoner or a wanderer, and that he would re-appear to free them from the Spaniards. Their hopes were founded on the circumstances that the corpse said to be his was so decomposed by two days exposure to the African sun, and so mutilated and defaced by the trampling of the horses, that it was not recognisable, and that Resende, the King's page, had been heard to say that he pretended to recognise it only to draw off the Moors from the pursuit of his master, and that Don Nuno de Mascarenhas had affirmed his baving seen him slain, for the same reason ; that several persons of credit bad seen the King retreating towards the river after the time when he had been reported dead by Mascarenhas, and that Don Antonio, Prior de Crato (son of Sebastian's uncle, Don Louis, who, had he been legitimate, would bave been next heir) con. stantly affirmed that the King survived the battle, and his declaration was universally believed. After the death of Sebastian's grand-uncle and successor, the King.Cardinal, Don Henry, when Philip Second, had de feated the Prior de Crato, and seized the Portuguese throne, as descended from King Emmanuel's eldest daughter, two impostors, one after another, pretending to be the missing Sebastian, appeared, collected some follow
ers, and disturbed the public mind. But their imposture was too gross: they were well known-one as the son of a mason, the other the son of a parkkeeper; they were defeated and punished-the first with death, the other with the gallies. But in 1598, twenty years after the defeat at Alcacerquiver, a Sebastian of a very different order came forward, and his claims have never been satisfactorily disproved ; in fact, have never been opposed by anything more than the bare assertions of interested antago. nists. In the year above-named, a personage attracted public notice in Venice, who was asserted by all the Portuguese there, who had known Don Sebastian, to be that long-lost prince, and who, on being interrogated, declared himself to be so, and requested to be heard by the Venetian senate. He related, that having escaped from the battle, he disguised himself as a Moor, and thus reached Portugal, where he revealed himself to the Car. dinal-King; but the latter, desirous of retaining the throne, sought to put him to deatb, and he was obliged to fly. Not wishing to disturb the peace of Portugal under a native king, he resolved to do penance in obscurity for the rashness by which he had brought so much misery on his realm, and retired to Sicily, where he lived in seclusion. Afterwards he repaired to Venice, where he was recognised by many of his former subjects. The Spanish Ambassador, knowing how distasteful to his master would be the resuscitation of the King of Portugal, denounced the claimant as an impostor, affirmed him to be an apostate monk of Calabria, and accused him of many crimes. The supposed Sebas. tian was imprisoned, but on his repeated entreaties to be heard, he was brought before the senate and examined no less than twenty-eight times, when he completely refuted the charges brought against him, and gave the senate such clear and minute accounts of transactions between that body and Don Sebastian, which no one but the latter could have known so perfectly, that the senators were thrown into the utmost perplexity. It was remem. bered that Sebastian had twenty-four natural marks by which he could be recognised, some of which could not be counterfeited — such as one hand much larger than the other, and the remarkable lip of the house of Austria, of which his mother, Donna Joanna, and his grandmother, Donna Catherine, had been daughters. All these marks were found on the stran. ger. The proofs he gave of his iden. tity with the lost king were so strong, and the conviction of all the Portuguese who saw him was so unhesitate ing, that the senate, notwithstanding the urgent representations of the Spa. nish Ambassador instructed by his court, would not venture to condemn
berations, would only consent to command him to leave Venice, and to abandon the title of Don Sebastian. He wished to go to Rome, to discover himself to the Pope, and his adherents disguised him as a Dominican Friar, that he might elude the spies of Spain, In Florence, however, he was arrested by the Grand Duke Ferdinand (Di Medici) from whom he was claimed by Philip of Spain. Ferdinand refused to surrender him to Philip, but sent him on to Orbitello, where he fell into the hands of the Spaniards, and was conveyed to Naples (then under the dominion of Spain), and cast into a miserable cell in the Castello del Ovo, where he was left for three days with out food, and goaded to the commission of suicide, but he opposed a mild and pious fortitude to his persecutions. The Viceroy of Naples, the Spanish Count de Lemos, who had been am bassador from Philip Second to Don Sebastian, was curious to see the prisoner, who was brought before him The Count was standing bare-headed, the day being hot. The stranger addressed him, “ Be covered, Count de Lemos !" so exactly with the majestic tone and manner of the Portu. guese King, that the Count was start. led and alarmed, and his confusion in creased when the stranger related to him circumstantial details of occur rences known only to himself and Se. bastian. The captive was sent back to the Castello del Ovo, but the Count de Lemos, who had been deeply affect ed by the interview, caused him to be treated with kindness and consider. ation during his (the Count's) life time. But when de Lemos died, his son, who succeeded him as Viceroy, behaved with the utmost rigour to the stranger,
whom he removed to the prison of the Castello Nuovo. In vain the lat. ter urged to be taken to Portugal, where there were so many persons living who could be competent wit. nesses in the cause. All the favour be could obtain was, to be seen by such persons as interest or curiosity prompt. ed to visit him ; and all those, Spaniards, Italians, and Portuguese, left his presence deeply impressed by his dignity, meekness and piety, and fully convinced of his identity.
In vain did the Spanish Govern. ment bring forward persons to swear to him as the Calabrian; a woman suborned to claim him as her husband, retracted when confronted with him; pretended brothers and kinsmen did the same; a soldier bribed by a large sum to swear that he was a fellowCalabrian, and had known the prisoner from boyhood, was seized with remorse, and publicly abjured his per. jury. The people of Portugal in vain petitioned that he should be sent to that country for examination — that step Philip thought too dangerous; but the anxious people flocked to the churches to pray for the safety and deliverance of the sufferer. The Viceroy of Naples commanded him, on pain of death, to confess himself an imposter, which he firmly and indig. nantly refused, calling upon heaven to witness his truth. He was consequently treated with the utmost inhumanity, nearly starved for some days, and then whipped through the streets of Naples, a cryer going before him and proclaiming that such was the punishment adjudged by King Philip to a traitorous Calabrian (at which words he always exclaimed, “ that is false") who assumed the name of Don Sebastian (to which he never failed to reply, “ And Sebastian I am."). He was then loaded with chains and sent to the gallies, where, for three months, he suffered every kind of barbarity and humiliation that Philip's cruel policy could dictate.
Subsequently he was sent on board a galley to the Spanish Port of St. Lucar, * frequented by persons of many nations. There, all who saw him were satisfied of his being Sebastian. The French declared it publicly, and several Spaniards ventured to say that the persecution of the unfortunate prince would call down vengeance on the head of Philip. The Duke and Duchess of Medina Sidonia, who had been intimately acquainted with Sebastian, went to see the mysterious personage, believing him, however, to be an imposter; but at the first look, both duke and duchess turned away their heads with an air of dismay. He recalled to them some particulars which increased their perplexity; and reminded the duke that Sebastian, at their last interview, had given him a sword, which he said he could identify. The duke sent, by an attendant, for a number of swords, among which the true one was unostentatiously placed ; but the stranger selected it without hesitation. He also reminded the duchess that Sebastian had presented her with a ring, but that he did not tell her the secret that Sebastian's name was engraved under the jewel. The duchess caused the stone to be taken out, and the name was found, as he had stated ; and the noble pair became impressed with a conviction (which, as Spanish subjects, they dared not openly avow) that the unhappy galley-slave was, indeed, Sebastian. The Portuguese beginning loudly to demand his liberation, Philip took alarm, and after sending him to the Sicilian galleys, and then remanding him to St. Lucar, he was finally removed to some secret prison in Castile, and was never heard of more. Assuming him to have been Sebastian (which has never been disproved), what a dreadful vicissitudewhat a horrible fate for a king but too brave - what an atonement for his rash expedition to Africa! His fate was even worse (being more deeply degraded, and more prolonged) than that of the peculiarly unhappy Louis XVI.
# At the mouth of the Guadalquiver.
While anxiety for the recognition of Sebastian was agitating the bosoms of the Portuguese, it does not appear that Rodriguez Lobo, peaceable and appa rently timid, ventured openly to avow any share in the public feeling, though he was employed upon his “ Constable of Portugal” before the professed Sebastian had disappeared from the world.
Other works of Lobo's are, “ The History of the Sorrowful Tree,” in ninety-six octavo stanzas-an“ Auto," or religious play, on the birth of our Lord-an elegy on the robbery of the consecrated Host, committed in the
cathedral of Oporto (a strange subject), and a comedy called “Euphro. syne," which was at first erroneously attributed to another pen.
He was also author of a celebrated prose work called “ The Court in the Country,or the Winter Nights,"in which a party of friends, assembled in a coun. try house, discuss, in dialogues, the kind of education requisite to form an accomplished man for society. It has been much admired for its gentlemanlike sentiments, its stores of knowledge, its sound criticisms, the well-told anecdotes and tales with which it is interspersed, and the excellence of its style and language. Portuguese prose owes as much to Lobo as Portuguese poetry to Camoens ; he was the first who attempted to refine his native prose, and give it elegance and eloquence; his * Court in the Country,” and his three pastoral romances, had a strong and beneficial influence in improving the prose literature of Portugal.
Notwithstanding the placid and uneventful life which Rodriguez Lobo led, wholly devoted to study, to the Muses, and to Nature, his death was tragical. On a certain day, the date of which is unknown, he took boat at Santarem to proceed to Lisbon down the Tagus, that river of which he was so great a lover. A sudden storm arose, the boat was wrecked, and the poet sunk in the waters, never to rise again in life. His remains were subsequently found and interred in the Chapel das Queimadas, belonging to the Convent of San Francisco, near the spot where his body was washed ashore.
He was generally lamented, as an amiable man and a popular poet; and many poetical tributes were dedicated to his memory. But Thomas Noronha displayed his perverted taste by a burlesque sonnet on this melancholy subject, to which, with repulsive levity, he strove to impart an air of ridicule. He wishes (in the sonnet) that the Tagus may lose its golden sands, Apollo's lyre go out of tune, Bacchus' cup be spilled, Venus, " and her bantling” die ; and swears by a name too sacred for transcribing on such a subject, that if he can catch that villainous Eolus, the god of the winds, that did the mischief, he will give him a sound thrashing ; nay, " by St. Peter, he will even cudgel him to death."
We gladly turn from these absurdi
" For heaven's sake put aside that book !" was the advice of a friend who observed upon our table a goodly vo lume of some 650 pages of close print, labelled Food and its Adulterations. " Don't read it if you wish ever to eat, drink, or take physic more." We were not deterred by this kindly warning, but, true to the maternal nature, boldly essayed to know good and evil; and yet we live - eating, drinking, but taking no physic, just as if we knew no more of the horrid secrets of adul. teration than is conveyed in the old proverb, which tells man he must eat a peck of dirt before his final conjunction of ashes to ashes. We shall see presently by what deeper draughts of knowledge we were enabled to regain the equanimity which, we must confess, was considerably disturbed by that dangerous thing, a little learning, when we first sipped it from the scanty spring of a volunteer “ Sanitary Commission.” We now intimate the fact, that one may taste of knowledge, and not die or even languish, because we conceive the subject to be one of very grave public interest, respecting which it is desirable the whole of the people should be well informed. It is true, « death in the pot" is not a novel manifestation of the King of Terrors; for long before Mr. Frederick Accum in. troduced the subject of adulteration of food to the world by that quaint name, the cominon and statute law had dealt with it under various heads. The as size of bread and beer, both as to qua
lity and quantity, was vested in the chief magistrates of cities, probably from the date of their institution; and the offence of changing corn by a miller, and returning bad corn in the stead, has been punishable by indictment from time immemorial. In both these instances, and in many others, countless attempts were made to regulate the evils of pot and pan by legislative acts, apparently with so little encouragement in the result, that the latest legislation has gone well nigh to unfetter the two staffs of English life from all practical securities against their corruption. A considerable excitement was, however, raised and kept up during the years 1851 to 1854, by the publication, in a medical journal, of a large number of reports of microscopical and chemical analyses of various articles of food, drink, and physic; and the subject baving at. tracted the notice of Parliament, it was referred to the consideration of a Committee of the House of Commons during the session of last year. The Committee have reported that they were unable to complete the inquiry entrusted to them within the time at their disposal, and they have recommended the investigation to be renewed in the ensuing session of Parliament. The published evidence, nevertheless, seems to us to be ample; but, as it is probable the recommendation of the Committee will be adopted, the present time may not seem inappropriate to a short digest of the multifarious crude
material upon which the public as well as the Committee may be called upon to found opinions destined to be the basis of legislation.
Our readers must not be frightened when we tell them that abundant evidence of a trustworthy nature has been adduced, to prove that almost every substance whose name is a familiar household word, and many of which a majority of them never heard - in a word "all articles which it will pay to adulterate, whether of food, drink, or drugs,"* are frequently and extensively the subjects of adulteration. The fact would be scarcely credible upon any testimony, were it not that what must be considered as a plea of confession has been put in by the dealers in those articles, in the mode in which they have dealt with an accusation that, if preferred in a less sweeping manner, would undoubtedly have been repudiated as a libel. In the original investigation, instituted by the proprietor of the Lancet
“The method pursued was this. Two persons, in whom confidence could be reposed, were sent to purchase the articles which it was proposed to take in hand and to analyse. Immediately on each purchase the name and address of the party was placed on the wrapper containing the article bought, with the date and the initials of the Person purchasing. The results have been published from time to time, in connexion with the names of the parties from whom the different articles were purchased ; if, therefore, there had been any general inaccuracy in the results, it cannot be questioned for a moment but that some of those parties would have proceeded to show any error in the statements made. The statements were made regularly during a period of four years, and involved the publication of the names and addresses of many hundreds of manufacturers and traders.”+
The practice of adulteration, as established by many competent witnesses, seems to be readily divisible into two kinds, or forms. In the first, which is the kind most frequently practised, the adulteration consists in the addition of substances of inferior value, in order to increase the weight or bulk of the article sold. It is, in fact, adulteration for profit, and it involves the admixture of various substances required to restore the colour, taste, smell, and other properties of the matter adulterated. It is necessarily practised upon, and by the use of a vast variety of articles whose names are to be found under every letter of the alphabet ; but a few examples will show the nature of these practices, which vary in character from simple cheating to a mere accommodation of supply to demand. Foremost in the former category, we find the adulteration of coffee, respecting which Dr. Hassall arrived at the following conclusions, viz :--That of twenty-nine samples of canister coffee analysed, the whole were adulterated, twenty-eight of them containing chicory in large proportions, and five being mixed with roasted wheat and substances bearing a close resemblance to mangel-wurzel and acorn ; of twenty sainples examined later, nineteen were adulterated with chicory, and the chicory itself was adulterated with some red ferruginous earth ; of thirty-four samples, purchased as genuine coffee, subsequent to the regulation authorising the sale of mixed chicory and coffee in labelled packages, nine only were genuine, while twenty-five contained various proportions of chicory, in eight of them to the amount of one-third of the whole article. $ The gist of these statements is corroborated to a considerable extent by Mr. Phillips, the intelligent chief officer of the chemical department of the Board of Inland Revenue, who found a proportion of twelve nine-tenths of the samples of coffee submitted to him for examination, during nearly twelve years, adulterated with chicory, and the adulterating medium itself occasionally adulterated with beans, rye, oats (roasted and ground), caramel, or
The manufacturers and traders, in truth, treated the whole affair with profound contempt; and therein, we doubt not, they exercised a wise discretion. The fact is, nevertheless, remarkable, and it will be found to throw some light upon the public bearings of the subject that ought not to be disregarded, in considering the possibility and mode of legislative intervention.
* Reports of Select Committee on Adulteration of Food, &c.—Minutes of Evidence, Question 3. Ibid. Q. 9-10.
Ibid. Q. 16. VOL. XLVII.-NO. CCLXXVII.