46 R IT B R U B of Seneca, the only copy of which is in the Print Room at the British Museum, and a beautiful figure of St Catherine, we can admit none of the other plates, said to proceed from Rubens, as authentic. Rubens nevertheless exercised an immense influence on the art of engraving. Under his direct guidance Soutman, Vorstennan, Pontius, Witdoeck, the two Bolswerts, Peter de Jode, N. Lituwers, and many others of less note left an immense number of beautiful plates, reproducing the most celebrated of his paint- ings. To give an idea of what his influence was capable of accom- pKshing, pictorially speaking, it might be sufficient to notice the transformation undergone by the Antwerp school of engraving under Rubens; even the modern school of engraving, in more than one respect, is a continuation of the style first practised in Antwerp. His influence is scarcely less apparent in sculpture, and the celebrated Luke Fayd'herbe was his pupil. Neither in name nor in fact did the Flemish school ever find a second Rubens. None of his four sons became a painter, nor did any of his three daughters marry an artist. According to Rubens's will, his drawings were to belong to that one of his sons who might become a painter, or in the event of one of his daughters marrying a celebrated artist they were to be her portion. The valuable collection was dispersed only in 1659, and of the pictures sold in 1640 thirty-two became the property of the king of Spain. The M:idrid Gallery alone possesses a hundred of his works. Four years after her husband's death Helena Fourment married J. B. Van Brouckhoven de Bergheyck, knight of St James, member of the privy council, &c. She died in 1673. In 1746 the male line of Rubens's descendants was completely extinct. In the female line more than a hundred families of name in Europe trace their descent from him. The paintings of Rubens are found in all the principal galleries in Kurope : Antwerp and Brussels, Madrid, Paris, Lille, Dresden, Berlin, Munich, Vienna, St Petersburg, London, Florence, Milan, Turin exhibit several hundreds of his works. J. Smith's Catalogue gives descriptions of more than thirteen hundred compositions. Literature. A. van ITasselt, Hiitoire df P. P. Rnbens, Brussels, 1840 ; E. Gachrt. Letlret intdiles de P. P. Rubens, Brussels, 1840; W. Noel Sainsbury, Original unpublished Papert illustrative of the Life of Sir Peter Paul Rubens, London, 1859 ; C. Uuelens, Pierre Paul Rubens, Documents et Lettres, Brussels, 1877; Annand Bnschet Rubens en Italle et en Espagne," in the Gazette des Beaux Artt, vol.. xxii. to xxtr., Paris, 1867-68; A. Michiels, Rubens et l'cole d"Anceri, Paris, 1877; Cruzada Villaamil, Rubens diplomatico espaHol, Madiid, 1874 ; Gnch*d, Hiitoire politique et diplomatique de P. P. Rubent, Brussels, 1877; P. Genard, P. P. Rubens, Aanteekeningen over den Orooten Afeester, Antwerp, 1877 ; .Max Rooses, Titret et Portraits graves tfapres P. P. Rubens, pour Cimprimerie pJantinienne, Antw., 1877; J. Smith, Catalogue Raisonne of the Works of the most eminent Dutch and Flemish Painters, part ii., London, 1830; i, Peter Paul Rubens (translated from the German by R. Noel, edited by Mrs Jameson, London, 1840) ; H. Hymans, Histoire de la gravure dans I'ficole de Rubens, Brussels, 1879; C. G. Vourlicliu Schneevoogt, Catalogue des Estampes graves d'apres Rubens, Haarlem, 1873. (11. II.) RUBIDIUM. See POTASSIUM METALS. RUBRUQUIS, the name which, has most commonly been given to William of Rubruk, a Franciscan friar and the author of a remarkable narrative of Asiatic travel in the 13th century. Nothing is known of him save what can be gathered from his own narrative, with the exception of a word from the pen of Roger Bacon, his contemporary and brother Franciscan, indicating personal acquaintance. The name of Rubruquis has adhered to him, owing to this form ("Willielmus de Rubruquis") being found in the imperfect copy of the Latin original printed by Hakluyt in his collection, and followed in his English translation, as well as in the completer issue of the English by Purchas. Writers, again, of the 16th and 17th centuries have called the traveller Risbroucke and Rysbrokius, for which there is no authority, an error founded on the too hasty identification of his name of origin with Ruysbroeck in Brabant (a few miles south of Brussels). This error was probably promoted by the fame of John of Ruysbroeck or Rysbroeck (1294-1381), a Belgian mystic theologian, whose treatises have been reprinted as late as 1848 (see vol. xvii. p. 133). Our traveller is styled 'Guillaume de Rysbroeck" and "Ruysbroek" in the Biographic Universelle and in the Nouv. Biog. Generate. It is only within the last twenty years that attention has been called to the fact that Rubrouck is the name of a village and commune in what was formerly called French Flanders, belonging to the canton of Cassel in the department du Nord, and lying some 8 miles north-east of St Omer. In the library of the latter city many mediaeval documents exist referring expressly to Rubrouck, and to persons in the 12th and 13th centuries styled as "de Rubrouck." 1 It may be fairly assumed that Friar William came from this place ; indeed, if attention had been paid to the title of the MS. belonging to Lord Lumley, which was published by Hakluyt (Itinerarium friitris Willielmi de Rubruquis de Ordine fratrum Minorum, Galli, Anno Gratiae 1253, ad partes Orientates), there need have been no question as to the traveller's quasi-French nationality; 2 but this (erroneously) has always been treated as if it were an arbitrary gloss of Hakluyt's own. Friar William went to Tartary under orders from Louis IX. (St Louis). That king, at an earlier date, viz., December 1248, when in Cyprus, had been visited by certain persons representing themselves to be envoys from a great Tartar chief Elchigaday (Ilchikadai), who com- manded the Mongol hosts in Armenia and Persia. The king then despatched a return mission consisting of Friar Andrew of Lonjumel and other ecclesiastics, who carried presents and letters for both Ilchikadai and the Great Khan. They reached the court of the latter in the winter of 1249-50, when there was in fact no actual khan on the throne ; but in any case they returned, along with Tartar envoys, bearing a letter to Louis, which was couched in terms so arrogant and offensive that the king repented sorely of having sent such a mission (li rois se repenti fort quant ily envoia, Joinville, 492). These returned envoys reached the king when he was at Csesarea, therefore be- tween March 1251 and May 1252. It was, however, not very long after that the zealous king, hearing that a great Tartar prince called Sartak was a baptized Christian, felt strongly moved to open communication with him, and for this purpose deputed Friar William of Rubruk with com- panions. But it is evident that the former rebuff had made the king chary as to giving these emissaries the character of his royal envoys, and Friar William on every occasion, beginning with a sermon delivered in St Sophia's (on Palm Sunday, i.e., April 13, 1253), formally disclaimed that character, alleging that, though he was the bearer of the king's letters and presents, he went simply in fulfilment of his duty as a Franciscan and preacher of the gospel. Various histories of St Louis, and other documents which have come down to us, give particulars of the despatch of the mission of Friar Andrew from Cyprus, but none mention that of Friar William ; and the first dates given by the latter are those of his sermon at Constanti- nople, and of his embarkation from Sinope (May 7, 1253). He must therefore have received his commission at Acre, where the king was residing from May 1252 to June 29, 1253; but he had travelled by way of Constantinople, as has just been indicated, and there received letters to some of the Tartar chiefs from the emperor, who was at this time Baldwin de Courtenay, the last of the Latin dynasty. The narrative of the journey is everywhere full of life and interest, but we cannot follow its details. The vast conquests of Jenghiz Khan were still in nominal dependence on his successors, at this time represented by Mangu Khan, reigning on the Mongo- lian steppes, but practically those conquests were splitting up into several great monarchies. Of these the Ulus of Jivji, the eldest son of Jenghiz, formed the most westerly, and its ruler was Batu Khan, established on the Volga. Sartak is known in the history of the Mongols as Batu's eldest son, and was appointed his suc- cessor, though he died immediately after his father (1255). The story of Sartak's profession of Christianity may have had some kina of foundation ; it was currently believed among the Asiatic 1 A detailed notice of such documents was published by M. Edm. Coussemaker of Lille. See remarks by M. D'Avezac in Bull, de la Soc. de Geog., 2d vol. for 1868, pp. 569-570.
- The country of Flanders was at this time a fief of the French
crown (see Natalis de Wailly, Notes on Joinville, p. 576). William's mother-tongue may probably have been Flemish. But this cannot be proved by his representation to Mangu Khan (p. 361) that certain Teutonici who had been carried away as slaves by a Tartar chief were noslrae linguae, as Dr Franz Schmidt inclines to think.
