"She described him as of rather short stature, but the handsomest, best-looking, lively gentleman she had ever seen. There was nothing like pride about him; but affable and friendly with the humblest in life." (Vol. i. p. 55.)

Clarkson, relying, I presume, on traditions gathered among the English Quakers, describes him as a tall man; and I am inclined to think this is correct. Hemskirck's painting of the Quaker meeting represents him as rather tall, and Hemskirck would be apt to give his figure correctly. He might be inaccurate in his recollections of Penn's face, but he could easily remember whether he was tall or short,

Penn was a man of education, and, indeed, quite learned. He knew something of Latin, and corresponded in that tongue with Sewell the Quaker historian. He also studied Greek, as a matter of course, like any Oxford man, and he seems to have known French, German, and Dutch well enough to read and speak in them. He read widely on theology, government, and all the topics of his time, as is abundantly shown in his writings. But the most striking proof of his wide reading is to be found in some of his essays or pamphlets, to which he has added quotations and citations of all the ancient and modern authors that he could find in support of his theses. In his "Treatise of Oaths," there are over fifty instances in which he either quotes the words or states the opinion of some Greek or Roman philosopher or statesman, or of some saint or father of the church. In the second part of "No Cross, No Crown," there are over one hundred and thirty

of these instances, and they range from the most remote antiquity through the days of Greece and Rome, and the distinguished men of the Middle Ages, down to the men of his own day in England. The labor of hunting for these in the libraries of the time must have been very great, and he could not have collected such masses for the particular occasions on which he used them, unless he was already somewhat acquainted with them in a general way.

It is easy to see in his life and character that he was inspired by this labor. He loved great and noble thoughts, grand ideas of world-wide improvement and reform. This passion led him to read the lives of all who had been remarkable, and their soulstirring words, the enthusiasm of their success, or the heroism of failure or defeat, stimulated to still loftier heights the passion that had led him to this study.

He was evidently one of those who study history largely through biographies; and if one wishes to be aroused and inspired, that is certainly the best method to pursue. From his natural bent, and these studies, he had filled his mind with all the most progressive and philanthropic ideas that had been suggested in the whole course of written human history. He knew all the distinguished men in England of his day; and many of them he knew very intimately. He travelled, both in England and in foreign countries, more than most people of that time. He was born and educated among the aristocracy, and always associated with them freely; and, as a Quaker, he became very intimate with the middle and lower classes.

He was certainly in a way to be a man of enlarged mind; and, in truth, he was too much so. His liberality was developed at the expense, as we shall see, of many practical qualities. Although he had read so many biographies, he was not a shrewd judge of the characters by whom he was surrounded in actual life. He could arouse people into enthusiasm for his great ideas, but he had not a corresponding power for carrying those ideas into practical effect. When living in his colony he managed it well, and when away from it he managed it very badly; and he was a careless man of business. He planned everything on a vast scale, with an attempt to look far into the future. He was so far in advance of his time in everything that he constantly suffered defeats, which a shrewder man, like Franklin, for example, would have avoided by being more moderate. He knew that he was much ahead of his age, but he would not be otherwise; and, indeed, there is much to be said in favor of setting a high and absolute standard and holding to it heroically.

It was a great misfortune to him that in his religious and political writings he lacked the power of lucid and concise expression. He was a rather voluminous writer; but in politics and theology a very dull one. When he had a good thought, he usually suffocated it in an inextricable tangle of words and parentheses. His writings could be made excellent object-lessons to show how not to use the parenthesis. When he sat down to write one of his essays, he seems to have tried to make it as long as possible,