Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 17.djvu/535

Rh NIEBUHR 493 the Etruscans, so summarily set aside by him, would now be con sidered strong priina facie evidence. Yet, after every deduction, Dr Leonhard Schmitz, prefacing the English translation of the Roman History by Mommsen which has for readers of general culti vation superseded Niebuhr, is able to say of the latter, &quot;The maiu pillars of his grand structure are still unshaken.&quot; The endowments which enabled him to achieve so much in the absence of so many of the historian s most essential gifts may be character ized as learning, memory, sagacity, imagination. His erudition is marvellous for a man so much engaged in public affairs, and the perfect ease with which it is wielded is even more rare and admir able. This facility was greatly assisted by the prodigious memory which remembered things not only in themselves but in their relations to other things, and hence would often quite unexpectedly bring one circumstance to bear upon the interpretation of another. Niebuhr s sagacity is considerably overestimated when it is spoken of as &quot; divination &quot; ; this dangerous term, however, may be service able in expressing his faculty for remote inference, and for detect ing how much may be implied in a statement, an allusion, or an omission previously disregarded. It must be confessed that this faculty was sometimes perverted by a tendency to paradox, particularly observable in some of his minor speculations, such as his disquisitions on the dates of Quintus Curtius and Petrouius. Imagination, nevertheless, was Niebuhr s most signal endowment, not the historical imagination that reanimates actors departed from the world s theatre, but the critical imagination that makes past social conditions living and real. In the pourtrayal of men Niubuhr s touch is uncertain, but his treatment of institutions is an actual contact. Everything becomes alive to him, and to the reader s elation at finding himself thus apparently introduced to realities where he had looked only for abstractions must be ascribed much of the overwhelming influence and success of a work so deficient in the ordinary attractions of history. Niebuhr s other works are interesting, but would not of them selves have made a great reputation. The notes of his Bonn lectures on ancient history and geography disappointed expectation, but expectation had been pitched unreasonably high. They were not finished compositions, and could not be more than useful and suggestive commonplace books. A detailed examination of their obiter dicta by the light of recent discovery and more exact research would be highly interesting. His lectures on the French Revolu tion, delivered in 1825, though well worth hearing, were not worth publishing, especially as the editor cannot vouch for their verbal or even their substantial fidelity. The Kleinc Sclirifteii include many valuable essays. His letters form one of the most interesting collections of correspondence extant, alike for the multiplicity of important subjects treated in them, and their revelation of the writer in all his strength and weakness. The luminous profundity of his remarks is frequently startling. Like Coleridge he seems to have an intuitive faculty for descending below the apparent surface of things, while he is no more successful than Coleridge in applying this gift to the appreciation of the practical problems of his own age. There is hardly another book from which it would be possible to select more entirely perverse and erroneous views respecting human society in general, and more admirable observations on individual men and things. A selection of remarks and aphorisms, both from his correspondence and his historical writings, would be a compilation of great value. Niebuhr s personal character was in most respects exceedingly attractive. His heart was kind and his affections were strong ; he was magnanimous and disinterested, simple and honest. He had a kindling sympathy with everything lofty and generous, and framed his own conduct upon the highest principles. His chief defect was an over-sensitiveness leading to peevish and unreasonable behaviour in his private and official relations, to hasty and unbalanced judg ments of persons and things that had given him annoyance, and to a despondency and discouragement which have frustrated the great good he might have effected as a critic of public affairs from the point of view of a lofty morality. His imagination sometimes usurps the functions of his judgment, arid his sagacity is traversed by a vein of paradox. In this, as in many other features of his intellectual character, he strikingly resembles Bentley, but his moral constitution is totally dissimilar. The principal authority for Niebuhr s life is the Lebensnachrichten, prepared by Madame Hensler in 1838, and consisting mainly of correspondence linked by a brief biographical narrative. In the English translation by Miss Vinkworth (1852) a great part of the correspondence is omitted, but the narrative is rendered more full, especially as concerns Niebuhr s participation in public affairs. It also contains interesting communications from Bunsen and Professor Loebell, and select translations from the Kleine Schnften. The reminiscences of Francis Lieber (London, 1835) convey a pleasing view of Niebuhr s character, and preserve passages of his conversation when ambassador at Rome. The first edition of his Roman History was translated into English by F. A. Walter (1827), but was immediately superseded by the translation of the second edition by Julius Hare and Connop Thirwall, completed by Dr William Smith and Dr Leonhard Schmitz (last edition, London, 1847-51). The History has been dis cussed and criticized in a great number of publications, the most important of which, perhaps, is Sir George Cornwall Lewis s Essay on the Credibility of the Eqrly Roman History. The Lectures on Ancient History have been translated by Dr Schmiu (London, 1352-53). (R. G.) NIEBUHR, KAESTEN (1733-1815), Eastern traveller, was born at Liidingworth, Lauenburg, on the southern border of Holstein, March 17, 1733, the son of a small farmer. He had little elementary education, and for several years of his youth had to do the work of a peasant. His bent was towards mathematics, and he managed to obtain some lessons in surveying. It was while he was working at this subject that one of his teachers, in 1760, proposed to him to join the expedition which was being sent out by Frederick V. of Denmark for the scientific exploration of Egypt, Arabia, and Syria. To qualify himself for the work of surveyor and geographer, he studied hard at mathematics for a year and a half before the expedition set out, and also managed to acquire some knowledge of Arabic. The expedition sailed in January 1761, and, landing at Alexandria, ascended the Nile and devoted some time to an examination of the pyramids and of the hieroglyphic writings of Egypt. Proceeding to Suez, Niebuhr made a visit to Mount Sinai, and in October 1762 the expedition sailed from Suez to Jiddah, journeying thence overland to Mocha. Here in May 1763 the philologist of the expedition, Van Haven, died, and was followed shortly after by the naturalist Forskiil. San a, the capital of Yemen, was visited, but the remaining members of the expedition suffered so much from the climate or from the mode of life that they returned to Mocha. Niebuhr seems to have saved his own life and restored his health by adopting the native habits as to dress and food. From Mocha the ship was taken to Bombay, the artist of the expedition dying on the passage, and the surgeon soon after landing. Niebuhr was now left alone, the only surviving member of the expedition. He stayed fourteen months at Bombay, and then returned home by Muscat, Bushire, Shiraz, and Persepolis, visited the ruins of Babylon, and thence went to Baghdad, Mosul, and Aleppo. After a visit to Cyprus he made a tour through Palestine, crossing Mount Taurus to Brussa, reaching Constantinople in February 1767, and Copenhagen in the following November. On his return Niebuhr at once set himself to the task of preparing the records of the expedition. His first volume, Beschreibuny von Arabien, was published at Copenhagen in 1772, the Danish Government defraying the expenses of the abundant illustrations. This was followed in 1774-78 by other two volumes, Beisebeschreibung von Arabien und anderen umliegenden Ldndern. The fourth volume was not pub lished till long after his death, in 1837, under the editor ship of Niebuhr s daughter. He also undertook the task of bringing out the work of his friend Forskal, the naturalist of the expedition, under the titles of Descriptiones Animalium, Flora JEgyptiaco-Arabica, and Icones Rerum Naturalium (Copenhagen, 1775-76). To a German periodical, the Deutsches Museum, Niebuhr contributed papers on the interior of Africa, the political and military condition of the Turkish empire, and other subjects. He married in 1773, and for some years held a post in the Danish military service which enabled him to reside at Copenhagen. In 1778, however, he accepted a position in the civil service of Holstein, and went to reside at Meldorf, where he died, April 26, 1815. Niebuhr was in no sense a genius nor even a man of many accomplishments, but he was one of the best scientific travellers that ever lived. He was well equipped for the particular service which he had to perform in connexion with the Eastern expedi tion ; above all, he was an accurate and careful observer, had the instincts of the scholar, was animated by a high moral purpose, and was rigorously conscientious and anxiously truthful in recording the results of his observation. His works have long been classical, and even now must be consulted by any one who desires to have the most trustworthy accounts, not only of the geography, but of the people, the antiquities, and the archaeology of much of the
 * district of Arabia which he traversed. His narratives are simple,