man,' says John Doyle (H.B.) of him in 1822 (Doyle, p. 619). Hls activity and endurance, physical and mental, were extraordinary. His papers were marked, as Peel said, by 'comprehensiveness of views, simplicity, and clearness of expression and profound sagacity' (Peel, ii. 535). De Quincey spoke of his 'Despatches' as 'a monument raised to his reputation which will co-exist with our language,' showing for the first time to his countrymen the 'quality of intellect which had been engaged in their service' (Postscript on the Duke of Wellington and the Opium Question). Cobbett might find flaws in his grammar, but to a larger-minded critic he has the gift of style, and 'is able to stamp both his speech and his bearing with the indefinable mark of greatness' (Birrell, Nineteenth Century, xxv. 224). He was not a good speaker; his articulation was indistinct, and his delivery, 'without being either fluent or rapid, was singularly emphatic and vehement' (Reeve, p. 127; Stanhope, p. 141). This striving for emphasis made him prone to superlatives, both in speaking and writing, though no one could measure his words better when he chose.
His chief characteristics were manliness and public spirit. The former showed itself in his simplicity, straightforwardness, self-reliance, imperturbable nerve, and strength of will. He was lively, buoyant, and quick-tempered; but temper and feelings were under strict control. He was 'placable because occasions rise so often that demand such sacrifice,' but he sometimes forgot services as well as injuries. He regarded his friends as possible enemies, his enemies as possible friends (Napier, v. 16). He had 'an active busy mind, always looking to the future,' and did not dwell long on losses (Larpent, i. 285). Not only his soldiers, but his principal officers and his political colleagues were in his eyes mere tools for the public service; and he won their confidence and admiration rather than their affection. He sought neither one nor the other; his aim was to do his duty, to 'satisfy himself (Desp. 22 July 1829). The name of 'the Iron Duke' is said to have been borrowed from a steamboat (Gleig, iv. 305), but it attached itself to him by its fitness. Yet there are many instances of his kindliness and generosity (e.g. to Alava, see Stanhope, p. 241), and between him and Charles Arbuthnot there was the truest friendship (Gleig, iv. 150; Greville, ii. iii. 302). His self-esteem made him very slow to own himself in the wrong, or to admit any infirmity (Gleig, iii. 187, iv. 170). As a rule he took no notice of reports about him; but when John Adolphus instanced him as a gambler, he wrote to say that 'in the whole course of his life he had never won or lost 20l. at any game;' and in reply to a letter of good advice from Henry Phillpotts, bishop of Exeter, he assured him that he was not the irreligious libertine he was represented to be (Desp. 17 Sept. 1823, and 6 Jan. 1832).
As a general he has been variously estimated. French critics, following Napoleon's lead, dwell on his good luck. But Thiers admits that if he did not create opportunities, he seized upon those which fortune ottered him; and 'I propose to get into fortune's way' was a favourite phrase of his (ib. 10 Dec. 1812). As his motto ran, 'Virtutis fortuna comes.' With some inconsistency, the same critics lay stress on his extreme caution, and some English writers have associated his name with that of Fabius. How little justification there is for this has been shown by Napier (vi. 196; cf. Gleig, iv. 265). He was much more akin to Hannibal than to Fabius. His caution came of his situation. By nature he was inclined to daring enterprises, 'to throw for victory at all hazards, with a coolness and self-possession that nothing could shake' (Kennedy, p. 177). But with him, as with Moltke, it was 'erst wäg's, dann wag's.' 'Nul ne se rendit jamais un compte plus exact de la portée de ses enterprises, nul ne prépara et ne mérita mieux ses succés, nul ne les arracha plus opiniâtrement à l'aveugle fortune' (Lanfrey, v. 377). 'It may be conceded that the schemes of the French emperor were more comprehensive, his genius more dazzling, and his imagination more vivid than Wellington's. On the other hand, the latter excelled in that coolness of judgment which Napoleon himself described "as the foremost quality in a general"' (Lord Roberts, p. 190).
[Wellington's published correspondence is in three series: Despatches, 1799-1815, including general orders (ed. Gurwood), 13 vols. 1834-9 (2nd ed in 8 vols. 1844-7); Supplementary Despatches, &c., 1794-1818 (ed. his son), 15 vols. 1858-72; Despatches, &c., 1819-32 (ed. his son), 8 vols. 1867-80. Selections from the first series were published in 1851, and from the Indian despatches in 1880. Many letters written during '.he last twenty years of his life are to be found in the Croker Papers; Sir Robert Peel's papers (ed. Parker); T. Raikes's correspondence with him; Lord Ellenborough's Indian Administration (ed. Lord
