Part 25

COLLEY, SIR GEORGE POMEROY (1835-1881), British general, third son of George Pomeroy Colley, of Rathangan, Co. Kildare, Ireland, and grandson of the fourth Viscount Harberton, was born on the 1st of November 1835, and entered the 2nd Queen's Regiment from Sandhurst as ensign in 1852. From 1854 to 1860 he served in South Africa, and was employed in surveying and as a magistrate in charge of the Bashi river district in Kaffraria. Early in 1860 he went with his regiment to China to join the Anglo-French expedition, and took part in the capture of the Taku forts and the entry into Peking, returning to South Africa to complete his work in Kaffraria (brevet-majority). In 1862 he entered the Staff College and passed out in one year with honours. After serving as brigade-major at Devonport for five years, he went to the War Office in 1870 to assist in the preparation of (Lord) Cardwell's measures of army reform. He was appointed professor of military administration at the Staff College in 1871. Early in 1873 he joined Sir Garnet Wolseley at the Gold Coast, where he took charge of the transport, and the success of the Ashanti expedition was in no small degree due to his exertions. He was promoted brevet-colonel and awarded the C.B. In 1875 he accompanied Wolseley to Natal (C.M.G.). On his return home he was appointed military secretary to Lord Lytton, governor-general of India, and in 1877 private secretary (K.C.S.I.). In 1879 he joined Wolseley as chief of the staff and brigadier-general in S.E. Africa, but, on the murder of Cavagnari at Kabul, returned to India. In 1880 he succeeded Wolseley in S.E. Africa as high commissioner and general commanding, and conducted the operations against the rebel Boers. He was defeated at Laing's Nek and at the Ingogo river, and killed at Majuba Hill on the 27th of February 1881. He had a very high reputation not only for a theoretical knowledge of military affairs, but also as a practical soldier.

See _Life of Sir George Pomeroy Colley_ by Lieut.-Gen. Sir W. F. Butler (London, 1899).

COLLIER, ARTHUR (1680-1732), English philosopher, was born at the rectory of Steeple Langford, Wiltshire, on the 12th of October 1680. He entered at Pembroke College, Oxford, in July 1697, but in October 1698 he and his brother William became members of Balliol. His father having died in 1697, it was arranged that the family living of Langford Magna should be given to Arthur as soon as he was old enough. He was presented to the benefice in 1704, and held it till his death. His sermons show no traces of his bold theological speculations, and he seems to have been faithful in the discharge of his duty. He was often in pecuniary difficulties, from which at last he was obliged to free himself by selling the reversion of Langford rectory to Corpus Christi College, Oxford. His philosophical opinions grew out of a diligent study of Descartes and Malebranche. John Norris of Bemerton also strongly influenced him by his _Essay on the Ideal World_ (1701-1704). It is remarkable that Collier makes no reference to Locke, and shows no sign of having any knowledge of his works. As early as 1703 he seems to have become convinced of the non-existence of an external world. In 1712 he wrote two essays, which are still in manuscript, one on substance and accident, and the other called _Clavis Philosophica_. His chief work appeared in 1713, under the title _Clavis Universalis_, or a _New Inquiry after Truth_, being a _Demonstration of the Non-Existence or Impossibility of an External World_ (printed privately, Edinburgh, 1836, and reprinted in _Metaphysical Tracts_, 1837, edited by Sam. Parr). It was favourably mentioned by Reid, Stewart and others, was frequently referred to by the Leibnitzians, and was translated into German by von Eschenbach in 1756. Berkeley's _Principles of Knowledge_ and _Theory of Vision_ preceded it by three and four years respectively, but there is no evidence that they were known to Collier before the publication of his book.

His views are grounded on two presuppositions:--first, the utter aversion of common sense to any theory of representative perception; second, the opinion which Collier held in common with Berkeley, and Hume afterwards, that the difference between imagination and sense perception is only one of degree. The former is the basis of the negative part of his argument; the latter supplies him with all the positive account he has to give, and that is meagre enough. The _Clavis_ consists of two parts. After explaining that he will use the term "external world" in the sense of absolute, self-existent, independent matter, he attempts in the first part to prove that the visible world is not external, by showing--first, that the seeming externality of a visible object is no proof of real externality, and second, that a visible object, as such, is not external. The image of a centaur seems as much external to the mind as any object of sense; and since the difference between imagination and perception is only one of degree, God could so act upon the mind of a person imagining a centaur, that he would perceive it as vividly as any object can be seen. Similar illustrations are used to prove the second proposition, that a visible object, as such, is not external. The first part ends with a reply to objections based on the universal consent of men, on the assurance given by touch of the extra existence of the visible world, and on the truth and goodness of God (Descartes), which would be impugned if our senses deceived us. Collier argues naively that if universal consent means the consent of those who have considered the subject, it may be claimed for his view. He thinks with Berkeley that objects of sight are quite distinct from those of touch, and that the one therefore cannot give any assurance of the other; and he asks the Cartesians to consider how far God's truth and goodness are called in question by their denial of the externality of the secondary qualities. The second part of the book is taken up with a number of metaphysical arguments to prove the impossibility of an external world. The pivot of this part is the logical principle of contradiction. From the hypothesis of an external world a series of contradictions are deduced, such as that the world is both finite and infinite, is movable and immovable, &c.; and finally, Aristotle and various other philosophers are quoted, to show that the external matter they dealt with, as mere potentiality, is just nothing at all. Among other uses and consequences of his treatise, Collier thinks it furnishes an easy refutation of the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation. If there is no external world, the distinction between substance and accidents vanishes, and these become the sole essence of material objects, so that there is no room for any change whilst they remain as before. Sir William Hamilton thinks that the logically necessary advance from the old theory of representative perception to idealism was stayed by anxiety to save this miracle of the church; and he gives Collier credit for being the first to make the discovery.

His _Clavis Universalis_ is interesting on account of the resemblance between its views and those of Berkeley. Both were moved by their dissatisfaction with the theory of representative perception. Both have the feeling that it is inconsistent with the common sense of mankind, which will insist that the very object perceived is the sole reality. They equally affirm that the so-called representative image is the sole reality, and discard as unthinkable the unperceiving material cause of the philosophers. Of objects of sense, they say, their _esse_ is _percipi_. But Collier never got beyond a bald assertion of the fact, while Berkeley addressed himself to an explanation of it. The thought of a distinction between direct and indirect perception never dawned upon Collier. To the question how all matter exists in dependence on percipient mind his only reply is, "Just how my reader pleases, provided it be somehow." As cause of our sensations and ground of our belief in externality, he substituted for an unintelligible material substance an equally unintelligible operation of divine power. His book exhibits no traces of a scientific development. The most that can be said about him is that he was an intelligent student of Descartes and Malebranche, and had the ability to apply the results of his reading to the facts of his experience. In philosophy he is a curiosity, and nothing more. His biographer attributes the comparative failure of the _Clavis_ to its inferiority in point of style, but the crudeness of his thought had quite as much to do with his failure to gain a hearing. Hamilton (_Discussions_, p. 197) allows greater sagacity to Collier than to Berkeley, on the ground that he did not vainly attempt to enlist men's natural belief against the hypothetical realism of the philosophers. But Collier did so as far as his light enabled him. He appealed to the popular conviction that the proper object of sense is the sole reality, although he despaired of getting men to give up their belief in its externality, and asserted that nothing but prejudice prevented them from doing so; and there is little doubt that, if it had ever occurred to him, as it did to Berkeley, to explain the genesis of the notion of externality, he would have been more hopeful of commending his theory to the popular mind.

In theology Collier was an adherent of the High Church party, though his views were by no means orthodox. In the Jacobite _Mist's Journal_ he attacked Bishop Hoadly's defence of sincere errors. His views on the problems of Arianism, and his attempt to reconcile it with orthodox theology, are contained in _A Specimen of True Philosophy_ (1730, reprinted in _Metaphysical Tracts_, 1837) and _Logology, or a Treatise on the Logos in Seven Sermons on John i. 1, 2, 3, 14_ (1732, analysed in _Metaph. Tracts_). These may be compared with Berkeley's _Siris_.

See Robt. Benson, _Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Arthur Collier_ (1837); Tennemann, _History of Philosophy_; Hamilton, _Discussions_; A. C. Fraser, edition of _Berkeley's Works_; G. Lyon, "Un Idéaliste anglais au XVIII. siècle," in _Rev. philos._ (1880), x. 375.

COLLIER, JEREMY (1650-1726), English nonjuring divine, was born at Stow-with-Quy, Cambridgeshire, on the 23rd of September 1650. He was educated at Ipswich free school, over which his father presided, and at Caius College, Cambridge, graduating B.A. in 1673 and M.A. in 1676. He acted for a short time as a private chaplain, but was appointed in 1679 to the small rectory of Ampton, near Bury St Edmunds, and in 1685 he was made lecturer of Gray's Inn.

At the Revolution he was committed to Newgate for writing in favour of James II. a tract entitled _The Desertion discuss'd in a Letter to a Country Gentleman_ (1688), in answer to Bishop Burnet's defence of King William's position. He was released after some months of imprisonment, without trial, by the intervention of his friends. In the two following years he continued to harass the government by his publications: and in 1692 he was again in prison under suspicion of treasonable correspondence with James. His scruples forbade him to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court by accepting bail, but he was soon released. But in 1696 for his boldness in granting absolution on the scaffold to Sir John Friend and Sir William Parkyns, who had attempted the assassination of William, he was obliged to flee, and for the rest of his life continued under sentence of outlawry.

When the storm had blown over he returned to London, and employed his leisure in works which were less political in their tone. In 1697 appeared the first volume of his _Essays on Several Moral Subjects_, to which a second was added in 1705, and a third in 1709. The first series contained six essays, the most notable being that "On the office of a Chaplain," which throws much light on the position of a large section of the clergy at that time. Collier deprecated the extent of the authority assumed by the patron and the servility of the poorer clergy.

In 1698 Collier produced his famous _Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage..._. He dealt with the immodesty of the contemporary stage, supporting his contentions by a long series of references attesting the comparative decency of Latin and Greek drama; with the profane language indulged in by the players; the abuse of the clergy common in the drama; the encouragement of vice by representing the vicious characters as admirable and successful; and finally he supported his general position by the analysis of particular plays, Dryden's _Amphitryon_, Vanbrugh's _Relapse_ and D'Urfey's _Don Quixote_. The Book abounds in hypercriticism, particularly in the imputation of profanity; and in a useless display of learning, neither intrinsically valuable nor conducive to the argument. He had no artistic appreciation of the subject he discussed, and he mistook cause for effect in asserting that the decline in public morality was due to the flagrant indecency of the stage. Yet, in the words of Macaulay, who gives an admirable account of the discussion in his essay on the comic dramatists of the Restoration, "when all deductions have been made, great merit must be allowed to the work." Dryden acknowledged, in the preface to his _Fables_, the justice of Collier's strictures, though he protested against the manner of the onslaught;[1] but Congreve made an angry reply; Vanbrugh and others followed. Collier was prepared to meet any number of antagonists, and defended himself in numerous tracts. _The Short View_ was followed by a _Defence_ (1699), a _Second Defence_ (1700), and _Mr Collier's Dissuasive from the Playhouse, in a Letter to a Person of Quality_ (1703), and a _Further Vindication_ (1708). The fight lasted in all some ten years; but Collier had right on his side, and triumphed; his position was, moreover, strengthened by the fact that he was known as a Troy and high churchman, and that his attack could not, therefore, be assigned to Puritan rancour against the stage.

From 1701 to 1721 Collier was employed on his _Great Historical, Geographical, Genealogical and Poetical Dictionary_, founded on, and

## partly translated from, Louis Moréri's _Dictionnaire historique_, and in

the compilation and issue of the two volumes folio of his own _Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain from the first planting of Christianity to the end of the reign of Charles II_. (1708-1714). The latter work was attacked by Burnet and others, but the author showed himself as keen a controversialist as ever. Many attempts were made to shake his fidelity to the lost cause of the Stuarts, but he continued indomitable to the end. In 1712 George Hickes was the only survivor of the nonjuring bishops, and in the next year Collier was consecrated. He had a share in an attempt made towards union with the Greek Church. He had a long correspondence with the Eastern authorities, his last letters on the subject being written in 1725. Collier preferred the version of the _Book of Common Prayer_ issued in 1549, and regretted that certain practices and petitions there enjoined were omitted in later editions. His first tract on the subject, _Reasons for Restoring some Prayers_ (1717), was followed by others. In 1718 was published a new _Communion Office taken partly from Primitive Liturgies and partly from the first English Reformed Common Prayer Book,..._ which embodied the changes desired by Collier. The controversy that ensued made a split in the nonjuring communion. His last work was a volume of _Practical Discourses_, published in 1725. He died on the 26th of April 1726.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--There is an excellent account of Collier in A. Kippis's _Biographia Britannica_, vol. iv. (1789), where some sensible observations by the editor are added to the original biography. A full list of Collier's writings is given by the Rev. Wm. Hunt in the article in the _Dictionary of National Biography_. For particulars of Collier's history as a nonjuring bishop, see Thomas Lathbury, _A History of the Nonjurors ..._ (1845). There is an excellent account of the _Short View_ and the controversy arising from it in A. Beljame's _Le Public et les hommes de lettres en Angleterre au XVIIIe siècle_ (2nd ed., 1897), pp. 244-263.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] "He is too much given to horse-play in his raillery, and comes to battle like a dictator from the plough. I will not say, 'the zeal of God's house has eaten him up'; but I am sure it has devoured some part of his good manners and civility." (Dryden, _Works_, ed. Scott, xi. 239).

COLLIER, JOHN PAYNE (1789-1883), English Shakespearian critic, was born in London, on the 11th of January 1789. His father, John Dyer Collier (1762-1825), was a successful journalist, and his connexion with the press obtained for his son a position on the _Morning Chronicle_ as leader writer, dramatic critic and reporter, which continued till 1847; he was also for some time a reporter for _The Times_. He was summoned before the House of Commons in 1819 for giving an incorrect report of a speech by Joseph Hume. He entered the Middle Temple in 1811, but was not called to the bar until 1829. The delay was partly due to his indiscretion in publishing the _Criticisms on the Bar_ (1819) by "Amicus Curiae." His leisure was given to the study of Shakespeare and the early English drama. After some minor publications he produced in 1825-1827 a new edition of Dodsley's _Old Plays_, and in 1833 a supplementary volume entitled _Five Old Plays_. In 1831 appeared his _History of English Dramatic Poetry and Annals of the Stage to the Restoration_, a badly arranged, but valuable work. It obtained for him the post of librarian to the duke of Devonshire, and, subsequently, access to the chief collections of early English literature throughout the kingdom, especially to the treasures of Bridgwater House. These opportunities were unhappily misused to effect a series of literary fabrications, which may be charitably, and perhaps not unjustly, attributed to literary monomania, but of which it is difficult to speak with patience, so completely did they for a long time bewilder the chronology of Shakespeare's writings, and such suspicion have they thrown upon MS. evidence in general. After _New Facts_, _New Particulars_ and _Further

## Particulars_ respecting Shakespeare had appeared and passed muster,

Collier produced (1852) the famous _Perkins Folio_, a copy of the second folio (1632), so called from a name written on the title-page. On this book were numerous MS. emendations of Shakespeare said by Collier to be from the hand of "an old corrector." He published these corrections as _Notes and Emendations to the Text of Shakespeare_ (1852), and boldly incorporated them in his edition (1853) of Shakespeare. Their authenticity was disputed by S. W. Singer in _The Text of Shakespeare Vindicated_ (1853) and by E. A. Brae in _Literary Cookery_ (1855) on internal evidence; and when in 1859 the folio was submitted by its owner, the duke of Devonshire, to experts at the British Museum, the emendations were incontestably proved to be forgeries of modern date. Collier was exposed by Mr Nicholas Hamilton in his _Inquiry_ (1860). The point whether he was deceiver or deceived was left undecided, but the falsifications of which he was unquestionably guilty among the MSS. at Dulwich College have left little doubt respecting it. He had produced the _Memoirs of Edward Alleyn_ for the Shakespeare Society in 1841. He followed up this volume with the _Alleyn Papers_ (1843) and the _Diary of P. Henslowe_ (1845). He forged the name of Shakespeare in a genuine letter at Dulwich, and the spurious entries in Alleyn's _Diary_ were proved to be by Collier's hand when the sale of his library in 1884 gave access to a transcript he had made of the _Diary_ with interlineations corresponding with the Dulwich forgeries. No statement of his can be accepted without verification, and no manuscript he has handled without careful examination, but he did much useful work. He compiled a valuable _Bibliographical and Critical Account of the Rarest Books in the English Language_ (1865); he reprinted a great number of early English tracts of extreme rarity, and rendered good service to the numerous antiquarian societies with which he was connected, especially in the editions he produced for the Camden Society and the Percy Society. His _Old Man's Diary_ (1871-1872) is an interesting record, though even here the taint of fabrication is not absent. Unfortunately what he did amiss is more striking to the imagination than what he did aright, and he will be chiefly remembered by it. He died at Maidenhead, where he had long resided, on the 17th of September 1883.

For an account of the discussion raised by Collier's emendations see C.M. Ingleby, _Complete View of the Shakespeare Controversy_ (1861).

COLLIN, HEINRICH JOSEPH VON (1771-1811), Austrian dramatist, was born in Vienna, on the 26th of December 1771. He received a legal education and entered the Austrian ministry of finance where he found speedy promotion. In 1805 and in 1809, when Austria was under the heel of Napoleon, Collin was entrusted with important political missions. In 1803 he was, together with other members of his family, ennobled, and in 1809 made _Hofrat_. He died on the 28th of July 1811. His tragedy _Regulus_ (1801), written in strict classical form, was received with enthusiasm in Vienna, where literary taste, less advanced than that of North Germany, was still under the ban of French classicism. But in his later dramas, _Coriolan_ (1804), _Polyxena_ (1804), _Balboa_ (1806), _Bianca della Porta_ (1808), he made some attempt to reconcile the pseudo-classic type of tragedy with that of Shakespeare and the German romanticists. As a lyric poet (_Gedichte_, collected 1812), Collin has left a collection of stirring _Wehrmannslieder_ for the fighters in the cause of Austrian freedom, as well as some excellent ballads (_Kaiser Max auf der Martinswand_, _Herzog Leupold vor Solothurn_). His younger brother Matthäus von Collin (1779-1824), was, as editor of the _Wiener Jahrbücher für Literatur_, an even more potent force in the literary life of Vienna. He was, moreover, in sympathy with the Romantic movement, and intimate with its leaders. His dramas on themes from Austrian national history (_Belas Krieg mit dem Vater_, 1808, _Der Tod Friedrichs des Streitbaren_, 1813) may be regarded as the immediate precursors of Grillparzer's historical tragedies.

His _Gesammelte Werke_ appeared in 6 vols. (1812-1814); he is the subject of an excellent monograph by F. Laban (1879). See also A. Hauffen, _Das Drama der klassischen Periode_, ii. 2 (1891), where a reprint of _Regulus_ will be found. M. von Collin's _Dramatische Dichtungen_ were published in 4 vols. (1815-1817); his _Nachgelassene Schriften_, edited by J. von Hammer, in 2 vols. (1827). A study of his life and work by J. Wihan will be found in _Euphorion_, Ergänzungsheft, v. (1901).

COLLIN D'HARLEVILLE, JEAN FRANÇOIS (1755-1806), French dramatist, was born at Mévoisins, near Maintenon (Eure-et-Loire), on the 30th of May 1755. His first dramatic success was _L'Inconstant_, a comedy accepted by the Comédie Française in 1780, but not produced there until six years later, though it was played elsewhere in 1784. This was followed by _L'Optimiste, ou l'homme toujours content_ (1788), and _Châteaux en Espagne_ (1789). His best play, _Le Vieux Célibataire_, appeared in 1793. Among his other plays are--the one-act comedy _Monsieur de Crac dans son petit castel_ (1791), _Les Artistes_ (1796), _Les Moeurs du jour_ (1800) and _Malice pour malice_ (1803). Collin was one of the original members of the Institute of France, and died in Paris on the 24th of February 1806.

The 1822 edition of his _Théâtre et poésies fugitives_ contains a notice by his friend the dramatist Andrieux. His _Théâtre_ was also edited by L. Moland in 1876; and by Édouard Thierry in 1882.