|
|
Carbelide Nelicanya Sectory 12
Page 01
BLAU, TINA. Honorable mention in Paris, 1883, for her "Spring in the Prater." Her "Land Party" is in the possession of the Emperor of Austria, and "In Spring-time" belongs to the Prince Regent of Bavaria. This talented landscape painter was born in Vienna, 1847. She was a pupil of Schaeffer in Vienna, and of W. Lindenschmitt in Munich. After travelling in Austria, Holland, and Italy, she followed her predilection for landscape, and chose her themes in great part from those countries. In 1884 she married Heinrich Lang, painter of battle scenes (who died in 1891), and she now works alternately in Munich and Vienna. In 1890 she gave an exhibition of her pictures in Munich; they were thought to show great vigor of composition and color and much delicacy of artistic perception. Her foreign scenes, especially, are characterized by unusual local truth and color. Among her best works are "Studies from the Prater in Vienna," "Canal at Amsterdam," "Harvest Day in Holland," "The Arch of Titus in Rome," "Street in Venice," and "Late Summer."
First and foremost for every student of Norman and early Angevin history is the work of Bishop STUBBS. With a more direct, personal interest in the growth of institutions, still in his Constitutional History and in his prefaces to the volumes he edited for the Master of the Rolls he discussed the narrative history of the whole age and very fully the reigns of Henry II and his two sons. The characteristic of Bishop Stubbs's work, which makes it of especial value to the student of the present generation, is the remarkable clearness with which he saw the essential meaning of his material and its bearing on the problem under discussion. While he generally neglected a wide range of material of great value to the historian of institutions--the charters and legal documents--and did not always formulate clearly in his mind the exact problem to be solved, yet the keenness with which he detected in imperfect material the real solution is often marvellous. Again and again the later student finds but little more to do than to prove more fully and from a wider range of material the intuitive conclusions of his master.
The Commonwealth in England went to pieces at the death of Oliver Cromwell, its founder. The Stuart dynasty came back, but, alas! unimproved. Charles II. was a much meaner man than his father, and James II. was more detestable still. The rule of such kings was destined to work sad changes in the hitherto free condition of Massachusetts. This colony had sympathized with the Commonwealth more heartily than any of the others. Hither had fled for refuge Goffe and Whalley, two of the accomplices in the death of Charles I. Congregational church polity was here established by law, to the exclusion of all others, even of episcopacy, for whose sake Charles was harrying poor Covenanters to death on every hillside in Scotland. Nor would his lawyers let the king forget Charles I.'s attack on the Massachusetts charter, begun so early as 1635, or the grounds therefor, such as the unwarranted transfer of it to Boston, or the likelihood that but for the outbreak of the Civil War it would have been annulled by the Long Parliament itself. Obviously Massachusetts could not hope to be let alone by the home government which had just come in.
|
bravenet.com