men, and devoted to the literary pursuits in which he
delighted.In the beginning of 1788 he returned home, being then a few months past his majority, to lay the first stone of his literary fame by an attack on Peter Pindar, under the form of a poem in the manner of Pope On the Abuse of Satire. Published, as it was, at a most appropriate moment, it at once attained popularity. Its authorship became the great subject of debate in literary circles, and it was attributed by some to Hayley, upon whom it was actually revenged, with characteristic savageness, by its victim. It is greatly to Wolcott's credit that, sensitive though he was to attacks upon himself, he at once, on learning his mistake, sought the acquaintance of his young opponent, towards whom he seems to have borne no malice, and whose friend he remained to the end of his life. But of all the fortunate issues of this success not the least fortunate was that it brought D'Israeli what he had so long earnestly desired—the friendship of a refined man of letters. Through it he made the acquaintance of Henry James Pye, who helped to persuade his father that it would be a mistake to force him into a business career, and who introduced him into literary circles. Henceforth his life was passed in the way he best liked—in quiet and almost uninterrupted study. His health was for the most part sufficiently robust, though he was for some years the victim of a nervous depression and weakness, which came upon him when he was about twenty-eight years of age, and which doubtless was chiefly caused by his sedentary habits. He was able to maintain his strenuous and extraordinary devotion to study till he reached the advanced age of seventy-two, when, though still in the enjoyment of unimpaired health, and in the very midst of what would have been his greatest undertaking, he was forced, by paralysis of the optic nerve, to give up work almost entirely. He lived ten years longer, and his death, which took place at his seat at Bradenham House on the 19th January 1848, was due not to old age but to an epidemic which carried him off after a few hours' illness.
Isaac D'Israeli is most celebrated as the author of the Curiosities of Literature, by far the best and most popular of all the many works of the kind which have appeared in England. It is a miscellany of literary and historical anecdotes, of original critical remarks, and of interesting and curious information of all kinds, animated by genuine literary feeling, taste, and enthusiasm. The first volume was published anonymously in 1791; and it immediately attained the popularity it deserved. Two years later it was followed by a second volume; it was not, however, till the lapse of twenty-four years that the third made its appearance. Three other volumes were subsequently added, and in the later editions the first two volumes were much improved. With the Curiosities of Literature may be appropriately classed D'Israeli's Miscellanies, or Literary Recreations (1796), the Calamities of Authors (1812), and the Quarrels of Authors (1814). Towards the close of his life D'Israeli formed the project of embodying his wide knowledge of English literature in a continuous history ; loss of sight, however, prevented him from publishing more than three volumes, which appeared in 1841 under the title of the Amenities of Literature. But of all his literary works the most interesting and delightful is his Essay on the Literary Character (1795), which, like most of his writings, abounds in illustrative ancedotes. His contribu tion to the famous “Pope controversy”—in which Bowles and Hazlitt so vigorously attacked, and Byron and Campbell so vigorously asserted, the poetical merit and personal worth of the great poet of the 18th century,—a defence of Pope contained in a criticism of Spence's Anecdotes contributed to the Quarterly Review (July 1820) is of interest, both as indicating the nature of his critical views, and as founded upon elaborate study of the life and era of the poet. He also published a slight sketch of Jewish history, and especially of the growth of the Talmud, entitled the Genius of Judaism, as well as a few poems in imitation of Pope, and several novels.
He was, besides, the author of two historical works—a brief defence of the literary merit and personal and political character of James I. (1816), and a work of considerable research and magnitude entitled a Commentary on the Life and Reign of King Charles I. (1828–31). The latter work was recognized by the University of Oxford, which conferred upon the author the honorary degree of D.C.L. As an historian D'Israeli is distinguished by two characteristics. In the first place, he had small interest in politics, and no sympathy with the passionate fervour, or adequate appreciation of the importance, of political struggles. And, secondly, with a laborious zeal then less common than now among historians, he sought to bring to light fresh historical material by patient search for letters, diaries, and other manuscripts of value which had escaped the notice of previous students. Indeed, the honour has been claimed for him of being one of the founders of the modern school of historical research, whose patient labours have thrown so much light upon important events and characters.
Of the amiable personal character and the placid life of Isaac D'Israeli a charming picture is to be found in tho brief memoir prefixed to the Curiosities of Literature, by his son the earl of Beaconsfield, from which the following may be quoted:—Isaac D'Israeli “was a complete literary character, a man who really passed his life in his library. . . . . He disliked business, and he never required relaxation; he was absorbed in his pursuits. In London his only amusement was to ramble among booksellers; if he entered a club, it was only to go into the library. In the country he scarcely ever left his room but to saunter in abstraction upon a terrace, muse over a chapter, or coin a sentence. . . . . He had by nature a singular volatility which never deserted him. His feelings, though always amiable, were not painfully deep, and amid joy or sorrow, the philosophic vein was ever evident. He more resembled Goldsmith than any man I can compare him to; in his conversation, his apparent confusion of ideas ending with some felicitous phrase of genius, his naivete, his simplicity not untouched with a dash of sarcasm affecting innocence—one was often reminded of the gifted and interesting friend of Burke and Johnson. There was, however, one trait in which my father did not resemble Goldsmith; he had no vanity. Indeed one of his few infirmities was rather a deficiency in self-esteem.”
operations which all agree in this, that the substance operated upon is heated in a close vessel (“retort,” “still”) and thereby wholly or, partially converted into vapour, which vapour is then condensed, by the application of cold, in another apparatus (the “condenser”) connected with the vessel, and allowed to collect in a third portion of the apparatus, called a “receiver.” In most cases the substance is a liquid, or assumes the liquid form previous to emitting vapours, and the product obtained (the “distillate”) is also in greater proportion liquid. The comparatively few and special cases of distillation, wherein solids are converted into vapours which condense directly from the gaseous into the solid form, are designated “sublimations.” Thus we speak of the “distillation” of water or of spirits, while we speak of the “sublimation” of sal-ammoniac. Distillations may be divided into two classes viz., 1st, those which are not, and 2d, those which are, accompanied by chemical changes. The word “distillation,” in a narrower sense, is
generally understood to apply to the first class only. The