WOBO: Search for words and phrases in the texts here...

Being now more at liberty, he travelled in 1600 as far as Carlisle, with his intimate friend Mr. (afterwards sir) Robert Cotton, and having surveyed the northern counties, returned to London in December. This year he published his account of the monuments in Westminster abbey, “Reges, Regina?, Nobiles, et alii in ecclesia collegiata B. Petri Westmonasterii sepulti, usque ad annum reparatae salutis 1600,” 4to; which, though no more than a collection of epitaphs, has preserved many that have been since destroyed or effaced. He reprinted it with enlargements in 1603, and 1606. This year also, came out a fifth edition of his Britannia, to which he added “An apology to the reader,” in answer to what Ralph Brooke had published to the prejudice of his work. The original difference related only to some mistakes which Brooke imagined he had discovered. But when he fancied himself under the necessity of appealing to the world and to the earl of Essex, then earl marshal, and his patron, he brought in other matter, foreign to his purpose, cljarging Camden with errors in the pedigrees of noble families, with not acknowledging the assistance he derived from Glover’s papers in lord Burleigh’s library, and from Leland, whom he pretends he had pillaged largely. Camden, in answer, acknowledges himself to have been misled by one of his predecessors, Robert Cook, clarencieux; that he had indeed borrowed from Leland, but not without citing him, and that where he says the same things on his own knowledge, that Leland had mentioned on his, he did not think himself obliged to him; and that whereas Leland had spent five years in this pursuit, he had spent thirty in consulting authors both foreign and domestic, living and dead. He concludes with rallying his antagonist, as utterly ignorant of his own profession, incapable of translating or understanding the Britannia, and offers to submit the disputed points to the earl marshal, the college of heralds, the society of antiquaries, or four persons learned in these studies. This did not prevent Brooke from writing “A Second Discoverie of Errors,” in which he sets down the passages from Camden, with his objections to it in his first book; then Camden’s reply, and last of all, his own answer: and in the appendix in two columns, the objectionable passages in the edition of 1594, and the same as they stood in that of 1600. This was not printed till about 100 years after the death.of its author, by Mr. Anstis, in 1723, 4to. The story which Mr. Camden, in his Annals, and Dr. Smith tell of Brooke’s dirty treatment of sir William Segar, another officer in the college, whom he had a pique against, in 1616, will justify us in believing him capable of any thing.

Camden’s next publication is entitled “Remaines of a greater work concerning Britain, the inhabitants thereof, their language, names, surnames, empresses, wise speeches, poesies, and epitaphs,” London, 1605, 4to. In his dedication to sir Robert Cotton, dated 1603, and signed only by his initials, he calls it “the outcast rubbish of a greater and more serious work;” so that Dr. Smith mistakes when he dates its publication 1604, contrary to the express note of its author in his Diary. The number of the editions it has run through (not less than seven), and the additions made to it in 1636, or earlier, by sir John Philipot, Somerset herald, and W. D. gent, are proofs of its value, notwithstanding the slight put upon it by bishop Nicolson. It is a kind of common place from his Britannia, and has preserved a number of curious things. Many other of his lesser essays have been printed by Hearne in his “Collection of curious discourses,” and more were added to the second edition of that work in 177 1; which may be considered as the earliest transactions of the Society of Antiquaries, of which Mr. Camden was a distinguished member.

Mr. Camden being confined many months in consequence of a hurt in his leg by a fall from his horse, Sept. 7, 1607, employed himself in putting the last hand to the complete edition of his Britannia in folio, considerably augmented, adorned with maps, and applauded by a variety of poetical compliments from his friends both at home and abroad. He did not to the last give up thoughts of revising and enlarging it, for in 1621, we find him at Sandhurst in Kent, searching without success for a camp of Alexander Severus, who was, without any foundation, supposed to have been killed there instead of at Sisila or Sicila in Gaul. Dr. Smith gave Mr. Hearne, who left it to the Bodleian library, a copy of the last edition of the Britannia, with notes and emendations by Mr. Camden himself, in the margin and on little pieces of paper fixed in their proper places; and from this copy Hearne once had thoughts of publishing a new edition of the Britannia in the original language. Before Camden undertook this elaborate and finished work, he had formed a design for writing a general history of this nation in Latin, of which the account of the conquest inserted in the Britannia, article Normans, is a part: but foreseeing that the bare collecting materials would take up a man’s life, he contented himself with publishing the volume of original historians before mentioned.

Not, however, to neglect the leisure he now enjoyed, he began in 1608 to digest the matter which he had been years collecting towards a history of the reign of queen Elizabeth, to which he had been first incited by his old patron the lord treasurer in 1597, ten years before, and solicited by other great personages. But the death of Burleigh next year, the queen’s decease soon after, and the difficulty of the task, obliged him to defer it. While he was meditating this great work, he was seized on his birthday, 1609, with a dangerous illness, and the plague breaking out in his neighbourhood, he was removed to his friend Heather’s house, and by the care of his physician Dr. Giffard, he, though slowly, recovered his health, retired to Chiselhurst Aug. 15 of that year, and returned Oct. 23. This year upon the passing of the act to erect a college at Chelsea, for a certain number of learned men, who were to be employed in writing against popery, on a plan proposed by Dr. Sutcliffe, dean of Westminster, consisting of a dean or provost, seventeen fellows and two historians, Mr. Camden was appointed one of the latter. But this design failing, as we have more than once had occasion to notice, he received from it only the honour of being thought qualified to fill such a department. From this time his history of Elizabeth employed his whole attention, and when the first part was ready, which reached to the year 1589, he obtained the king’s warrant to sir Robert Cotton and himself to print and publish it. It was accordingly published in 1615, folio, under the title of “Annales rerum Anglicarum et Hibernicarum regnante Elizabetha ad ann. salutis 1589,” Lond.

From this time he seems to have lived in retirement at Chiselhurst, declining the solicitations of his friend Saville, to make his house at Eton his own, and to have amused himself with entering memoranda of events as they happened,- which have been printed at the end of his epistles by Dr. Smith, and called “Apparatus annalium regis Jacobi I.” These are called by Wood “A skeleton of a history of James I. or bare touches to put the author in mind of greater matters,” or rather memoranda for private use. He adds, bishop Hacket stole, and Dugdale borrowed and transcribed them, as did sir Henry St. George, Clarencieux, both incorrectly. The original is in Trinity college, Cambridge, and Dr. Smith printed these and parts of an English Diary.

In his last testament, after a devout introduction, and bequeathing eight pounds to the poor of the parish in which he should happen to die, he bequeaths to sir Fulke Grevile, lord Brooke, who preferred him gratis to his office, a piece of plate of ten pounds; to the company of painter stainers of London, he gave sixteen pounds to buy them a piece of plate, upon which he directed this inscription, “Gul. Camdenus Clarenceux filius Sampsonjs, Pictoris Londinensis, dono dedit;” he bestowed the sum of twelve pounds on the company of cordwainers, or shoemakers of London, to purchase them a piece of plate, on which the same inscription was to be engraved. Then follow the legacies to his private friends. As to his books and papers, he directs that sir Robert Cotton of Conington, should take out such as he had borrowed of him, and then he bequeaths to him all his printed books and manuscripts, excepting such as concern arms and heraldry, which, with his ancient seals, he bequeaths to his successor in the office of Clarenceux, provided, because they cost him a considerable sum of money, he gave to his cousin John Wyat, what the kings at arms Garter and Norroy for the time being should think fit, and agreed also to leave them to his successor. But notwithstanding this disposition of his books and papers, Dr. John Williams, then dean of Westminster, and bishop of Lincoln, afterwards archbishop of York, procured all the printed books for the new library erected in the church of Westminster. It is understood, that his collections in support of his History, with respect to civil affairs, were before this time deposited in the Cotton library; for as to those that related to ecclesiastical matters, when asked for them by Dr. Goodman, son to his great benefactor, he declared he stood engaged to Dr. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury. They came afterwards to archbishop Laud, and are supposed to have been destroyed when his papers fell into the hands of Mr. Prynne, Mr. Scot, and Hugh Peters; for upon a diligent search made by Dr. Sancroft, soon after his promotion to that see, there was not a line of them to be found, as we have already mentioned. His body was removed to his house in London, and on the 19th of November, carried in great pomp to Westminster abbey, and after a sermon preached by Dr. Christopher Sutton, was deposited in the south aile, near the learned Casaubon, and over against Chaucer. Near the spot was erected a handsome monument of white marble, with an inscription, erroneous as to his age, which is stated to be seventy-four, whereas he wanted almost six months of seventy-three. At Oxford, Zouch Townley, of Christ Church, who was esteemed a perfect master of the Latin tongue in all its purity and elegance, was appointed to pronounce his funeral oration in public, which is printed by Dr. Smith. The verses written on his death were collected and printed in a thin quarto, entitled “Insignia Camdeni,” Ox. 1624, and his name was enrolled in the list of public benefactors.

Carnden’s personal character is drawn by bishop Gibson in few words: that he was “easy and innocent in his conversation, and in his whole life even and exemplary.” We have seen him unruffled by the attacks of envy, which his merit and good fortune drew upon him. He seems to have studied that tranquillity of temper which the love of letters generally superinduces, and to which one may, perhaps, rationally ascribe his extended life. The point of view in which we are to set him, is as a writer; and here he stands foremost among British antiquaries. Varro, Strabo, and Pausanias, among the ancients, fall short in the comparison; and however we may be obliged to the two latter for their descriptions of the world, or a small portion of it, Camden’s description of Britain must be allowed the pre-eminence, even though we should admit that Leland marked out the plan, of which he filled up the outlines. A crowd of contemporaries, all admirable judges of literary merit, and his correspondents, bear testimony to his merit. Among these may be reckoned Ortelius, Lipsius, Scaliger, Casaubon, Merula, De Thou, Du Chesne, Peiresc, Bignon, Jaque Godefre, Gruter, Hottoman, Du Laet, Chytraeus, Gevartius, Lindenbrogius, Mercator, Pontanus, Du Puy, Rutgersius, Schottus, Sweertius, Liinier, with many others of inferior note. Among his countrymen, dean Goodman and his brother, lord Burleigh, sir Robert Cotton, Dr. (afterwards archbishop) Usher, sir Philip Sidney, and archbishop Parker, were the patrons of his literary pursuits, as the first two had befriended him in earliest life: and if to these we add the names of Allen, Carleton, Saville, Stradling, Carew, Johnston, Lambarde, Mathews, Spelroan, Twyne, Wheare, Owen, Spenser, Stowe, Thomas James, Henry Parry, afterwards bishop of Worcester, Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, Richard Hackluyt, Henry Cuff, Albericus Gentilis, John Hanmer, sir William Beecher, Dr. Budden, Dr. Case, sir Christopher Hey don, bishop Godwin, Richard Parker, Thomas Ryves, besides others whose assistance he acknowledges in the course of his Britannia, we shall find no inconsiderable bede-roll of associates, every one of them more or less eminent in the very study in which they assisted Mr. Camden, or were assisted by him.

The Britannia was translated in 1694 by bishop Gibson, and published in folio, with large additions at the end of each county; others are inserted in the body of the book, distinguished from the original, and Holland’s most material notes placed at the bottom of each page. As this was grown scarce, and many improvements were communicated to the editor, he published a new edition 1722, 2 vols. fol. and additions, greatly enlarged, incorporated with the text, distinguished by hooks. This edition was reprinted 1753, 2 vols. fol. and again in 1772, with a few corrections and improvements from his lordship’s ms. in his own copy, by his son-in-law, George Scot, esq. of Wolstonhall, near Chigwell, Essex, who died 1780. A first volume of a translation, by W. O. (William Oldys), esq. was printed in 4to, but, as Mr. Gough thinks, was never finished or dated. A manuscript most erroneous translation of it, without acknowledgment, by Richard Butcher, author of the “Antiquities of Stamford,” is in St. John’s college library, Cambridge, with a few immaterial additions. The last and most complete translation of the Britannia, by such an antiquary as Camden would have chosen, the late learned and excellent Richard Gough, esq. was published in 1789, 3 vols. fol. of which we shall speak more at large in his article. Some years afterwards he had made preparations for a new edition, of which he superintended only the first volume, and announced that fact in a public advertisement, which did not, however, prevent an attempt to pass off the whole of a recent edition as his. Of Mr. Cough’s Life of Camden we have here availed ourselves, as far preferable to the ill-digested compilation in the Biog. Britannica.

, one of the most learned writers of his age, was born at Bamberg April 12, 1500. The ancient family name was Leibhard, but it was afterwards changed into that of Cammermeister, in Latin Camerarius, or Chamberlain, from one of his ancestors having held that office at court. He was sent to a school at Leipsic when he was 13 years of age, and soon distinguished himself by his application to Greek and Latin authors, which he read without ceasing. When Leipsic, on one occasion, was in a tumult, Camerarius shewed no concern about any thing but an Aldus’s Herodotus, which he carried under his arm; and which indeed to a scholar at that time was of some consequence, when printing was in its infancy, and Greek books not easily procured. It is yet more to his praise that his Greek professor, when obliged to be absent, entrusted him to read his lectures, although at that time he was but sixteen years old. In 1517 he studied philosophy under Moseilanus; and this was the year, when the indulgences were preached, which gave occasion to the reformation. Camerarius was at St. Paul’s church in Leipsic with Heltus, who was his master in Greek and Latin literature, when these indulgences were exposed from the pulpit; but Heltus was so offended with the impudence of the Dominican who obtruded them, that he went out of the church in the middle of the sermon, and ordered Camerarius to follow him. When he had staid at Leipsic five years, he went to Erford; and three years after to Wittemberg, where Luther and Melancthon were maintaining and propagating the reformation. He knew Melancthon before lived afterwards in the utmost intimacy with him and, after Melancthon' s death, wrote a very copious and accurate life of him. He was also soon after introduced to Erasnrus, and his uncommon abilities and industry made him known to all the eminent men of his time.

, son of the preceding, was born at Nuremberg, in 1534, and there first educated. As his mind was early turned to the study of botany and medicine, with the view of improving himself he visited the principal seminaries in Germany, and thence went to Padua, and afterwards to Bologna, where he took the degree of doctor in 1562. Two years after he returned to Nuremberg, and by his superior skill and ability, seemed the legitimate inheritor of his father’s fame. In 1592, he founded a medical college, of which he was appointed dean or president, and continued to direct its affairs for the remainder of his life. He formed an extensive garden, stored with the choicest plants, the cultivation of which he superintended with great assiduity, and assisted the landgrave of Hesse in forming a botanical garden; and with a view of disseminating the knowledge of plants, he purchased the collections of Gesner and Wolfe, which he methodised, and corrected, and with considerable additions from his own stores, together with the works of Matthiolus, he published them in 1586, under the title of “De Plantis Epitome utilissima Petri Andrew Matthioli novis Iconibus et Descriptionibus plurimis diligenter aucta,” 4to. “Hortus Medicus et Philosophicus, in quo piurimarum Stirpium breves Descriptiones, novae Icones non paucae, continentur,” 1588, 4to. “Opercula de Re Rustica, quibus, praeter alia, Catalogus Rei Botanicac et Rusticae Scriptorum veterum et recentiorum insertus est,” 1577, 4to. Also “De recta et necessaria Ratione preservandi a Pestis Contagione,” 1583, with other small tracts on the same subject, and three centuries of emblems. On his death, which happened October 11, 1598, he was succeeded by his son Joachim in his practice, and in the honour of being dean of the college. Elias Rodolphus Camerarius, and his son of the same names, appear likewise to have been of the same family, and were physicians of considerable fame, although their works are now in little request.

, one of the most famous divines of the seventeenth century, among the French Protestants, was born at Glasgow, in Scotland, about the year 1580, and educated at the university of his native city. After reading lectures on the Greek language for a year, he began his travels in 1600, and at Bourdeaux evinced so much ability and erudition, that the ministers of that city appointed him master of a college which they had established at Bergerac, for teaching Greek and Latin; and from this the duke de Bouillon removed him to the philosophical professorship at Sedan, where he remained for two years. He then went to Paris, and from Paris to Bourdeaux, where he arrived in 1604, and began his divinity studies, and in 1608 was appointed one of the ministers of Bourdeaux, and officiated there with such increasing reputation, that the university of Saumur judged him worthy to succeed Gomarus in the divinity chair. Having accepted this offer, he gave his lectures until 1620, when the university was almost dispersed by the civil war. He now came over to England with his family, and was recommended to king James, who appointed him professor of divinity at Glasgow, in the room of Robert Boyd, of Trochrig, (whom Bayle and his translators call Trochoregius), because he was supposed to be more attached to the episcopal form of church government. This situation, however, not suiting his taste, he returned to Saumur in less than a year; but even there he met with opposition, and the court having prohibited his public teaching, he was obliged to read lectures in private. After a year passed in this precarious state of toleration, he went in 1624 to Montauban, where he was chosen professor of divinity, but having declared himself too openly against the party which preached up the civil war, he created many enemies, and among the rest an unknown miscreant who assaulted him in the street, and wounded him so desperately as to occasion his death, which took place, after he had languished a considerable time, in 1625. Bayle says, he was a man of a great deal of wit and judgment, had a happy memory, was very learned, a good philosopher, of a chcarful temper, and ready to communicate not only his knowledge, but even his money: he was a great talker, a long preacher, little acquainted with the works of the fathers, obstinate in his opinions, and somewhat troublesome. He frankly owned to his friends, that he found several things still to reform in the reformed churches. He took a delight in publishing particular opinions, and in going out of the beaten road; and he gave instances of this when he was a youth, in his theses “De Tribus Frederibus,” which he published and maintained at Heidelberg, although yet but a proposant, or candidate for the ministry. He also mixed some novelties in all the theological questions which he examined; and when in explaining some passages of the holy scripture, he met with great difficulties, he took all opportunities to contradict the other divines, and especially Beza; for he pretended that they had not penetrated into the very marrow of that science. It was from him that monsieur Amyraut adopted the doctrine of universal grace, which occasioned so many disputes in France, and will always be found, at least upon Amyraut’s principles, to be too inconsistent for general belief. Cameron’s works are his “Theological Lectures,” Saumur, 1626 1628, 3 vols. 4to, published by Lewis Capellus, with a life of the author, and afterwards at Geneva in one vol. folio, with additions, by Frederick Spanheim. Capellus also published, in 1632, Cameron’s “Myrothecium Evangelicum.”

, a very celebrated Portuguese poet, and from his much-admired poem the “Lusiadas,” called the Virgil of Portugal, was descended from an illustrious, and originally, Spanish family, and was born at Lisbon about the year 1524. His father Simon Vaz de Camoens is said to have perished by shipwreck in the year which gave being to his son, although this is somewhat doubtful. It appears, however, that our poet was sent to the university of Coimbra, and maintained there by his surviving parent. On his arrival in Lisbon, he became enamoured of Donna Catarina de Ataide, whom he addressed with all the romantic ardour of youth and poetry, but according to the prescribed reserve, or prudery of the age, obtained no higher mark of her favour, after many months of adoration, than one of the silken fillets which, encircled her head. His impatience, however, hurried him into some breaches of decorum, while pursuing his coy mistress, who was one of the queen’s ladies, and her parents took this opportunity to terminate an intercourse which worldly considerations rendered, on her part, of the highest imprudence. This interference produced its usual effect. Camoens was banished the court, and on the morning of his departure, Catarina confessed to him the secret of her long-concealed affection. Thus comforted, he removed to Santarem, the place of his banishment, but is said to have speedily returned to Lisbon, where he was again detected, and again sent into exile.

Camoens wrote a variety of poetical compositions, some of which have been lately very elegantly translated into English by lord viscount Strangford, who has also prefixed a life of the author, from which we have extracted some remarks. According to the researches his lordship has made into the character of Camoens, he appears to have possessed a lofty and independent spirit, with a disposition to gallantry which may probably have involved him in difficulties. His genius, however, appears principally io the “Lusiad,” the subject of which is the first discovery of the East Indies by Vasco de Gama the poem is conducted according to the epic plan: both the subject and the in r cidents are magnificent, but the machinery is perfectly extravagant. Not only, says Blair, is it formed of a singular mixture of Christian ideas and pagan mythology, tout it is so conducted, that the pagan gods appear to be the true deities, and Christ and the blessed Virgin, to be subordinate agents. One great scope of the Portuguese expedition, our author informs us, is to propagate the Christian faith, and to extirpate Mahometanism. In this religious undertaking, the great protector of the Portuguese is Venus, and their great adversary is Bacchus, whose displeasure is excited by Vasco’s attempting to rival his tame in the Indies. Councils of the gods are held, in which Jupiter is introduced, as foretelling the downfall of Mahometanism, and the propagation of the gospel Vasco, in a great distress from a storm, prays most seriously to God; implores the aid of Christ and the Virgin; and begs for such assistance as was given to the Israelites, when they were passing through the Red Sea; and to the apostle Paul, when he was in hazard of shipwreck. In return to this prayer, Venus appears, who, discerning the storm to be the work of Bacchus, complains to Jupiter, and procures the winds to be calmed. Such strange and preposterous machinery, shews how much authors have been misled by the absurd opinion, that there could be no epic poetry without the gods of Homer. Towards the end of the work, indeed, the author gives us an awkward salvo for his whole mythology: making the goddess Thetis inform Vasco, that she, and the rest of the heathen deities, are no more than names to describe the operations of Providence. There is, however, says the same judicious critic, some fine machinery of a different kind in the Lusiad. The genius of the river Ganges, appearing to Emanuel king of Portugal, in a dream, inviting that prince to discover his secret springs, and acquainting him that he was the destined monarch for whom the treasures of the East were reserved, is a happy idea. But the noblest conception of this sort is in the fifth canto, where Vasco is recounting to the king of Melinda all the wonders which he met with in his navigation. He tells him, that when the fleet arrived at the Cape of Good Hope, which never before had been doubled by any navigator, there appeared to them on a sudden, a huge and monstrous phantom rising out of the sea, in the midst of tempests and thunders, with a head that reached the clouds, and a countenance that filled them with terror. This was the genius, or guardian, of that hitherto unknown ocean. It spoke to them with a voice like thunder: menaced them for invading those seas which he had so long possessed undisturbed, and for daring to explore those secrets of the deep, which never had been revealed to the eye of mortals; required them to proceed no farther: if they should proceed, foretold all the successive calamities that were to befall them: and then, with a mighty noise, disappeared. This is one of the most solemn and striking pieces of machinery that ever was employed, and is sufficient to show that Camoens is a poet, though of an irregular, yet of a bold and lofty imagination. The critical student will find a more severe censure of Canioens in Rapin, Dryden, and Voltaire. But the Lusiad lias generally been considered as a poem of very superior merit, and has been often reprinted and translated into several languages, once into French, twice into Italian, four times into Spanish; and lately, with uncommon excellence, into English, by Mr. Mickle; but it had beea translated in the 17th century by sir Richard Fanshaw. Mickle’s translation will be considered in his life. It was translated into Latin by Thomas de Faria, bishop of Targa in Africa; who, concealing his name, and saying nothing of its being a translation, made some believe that the Lusiadas was originally in Latin. Large commentaries have been written upon the Lusiadas; the most considerable of which are those of Emanuel Faria de Sousa, in 2 vols. folio, Madrid, 1639. These commentaries were followed the year after with the publication of another volume in folio, written to defend them; besides eight volumes of observations upon the miscellaneous poems of Camoens, which this commentator left behind him in manuscript.

, an Italian poet and prelate, was born in 1427 at Cavelli, a village of Campania, of parents so obscure that he bore no name but that of his country, and was employed in his early years as a shepherd, in which situation an ecclesiastic discovering some promise of talents in him, sent him to Naples, where he studied under Laurentius Valla. He went afterwards to Perugia, where he rose to be professor of eloquence, and filled that chair with so much reputation, that when, in 1459, pope Pius II. happened to pass through Perugia in his way to the council of Mantua, he bestowed his patronage on him, and made him bishop of Crotona, and secondly of Teramo. Enjoying the same favour under pope Paul II. this pontiff sent him to the congress of Ratisbon, which assembled for the purpose of consulting on a league of the Christian princes against the Turks. Sixtus IV. who had been one of his scholars at Perugia, made him successively governor of Todi, of Foligno, and of Citta di Castello; but the pope having thought proper to besiege this last named city, because the inhabitants made some scruple about receiving his troops, Campano, touched with the hardships they were likely to suffer, wrote to the pope with so much freedom and spirit as to enrage his holiness, and provoke him to deprive him of his government, and banish him from the ecclesiastical states. Campano on this went to Naples, but not rinding the reception he expected, he retired to his bishopric at Teramo, where he died July 15, 1477, of chagrin and disappointment. His works, which were first printed at Rome in 1495, fol. consist of several treatises on moral philosophy, discourses, and funeral orations, and nine books of letters, in which there is some curious information with respect both to the political and literary history of his times. This volume contains likewise, the life of pope Pius II. and of Braccio of Perugia, a famous military character, and lastly, of eight book of elegies and epigrams, some of which are rather of too licentious a nature to accord with the gravity of his profession. These, or part of them, were reprinted at Leipsic in 1707, and in 1734. Campano was at one time a corrector of the press to Udalric, called Gallus, the first printer of Rome, and wrote prefaces to Livy, Justin, Plutarch, and some other of the works which issued from that press.

, a very learned divine of the church of Scotland, and principal and professor of divinity of the Marischal college, Aberdeen, was born in that city Dec. 25, 1719. His father, the rev. Colin Campbell, who was one of the ministers of Aberdeen, and a man of primitive piety and worth, died in 1728. George, the subject of this article, who was his youngest son, was educated in the grammar-school of his native city, and afterwards in Marischal college, but appears to have originally intended to follow the profession of the law, and for thatpurpose served an apprenticeship to a writer of the signet in Edinburgh. By what inducements he was made to alter his purpose we are not told; but in 1741 he began to study divinity at the university of Edinburgh, and continued the same pursuit both in King’s college and Marischal college, Aberdeen and here he delivered, with great approbation, those discourses, which are usually prescribed to students of divinity in the Scotch universities. After studying the usual number of years at the divinity hall, he was, according to the practice of the Scotch church, proposed to the Synod; and having undergone the ordinary trials before the presbytery of Aberdeen, was licensed as a probationer, or preacher of the gospel, on the llth of June, 1746. In this rank he remained two years, before he obtained a settlement in the church of Scotland, but at the end of that period was presented to the church of Banchory Ternan, about seventeen miles west from Aberdeen, and was ordained June 2, 1748.

While he held this charge, the powers of his mind began more fully to unfold themselves, and his character rose in the opinion of men of learning. Here he prosecuted the study of the holy scriptures, and instructed others with great success. In the church of Scotland, it is the practice to explain a chapter, or large portion of scripture, every Lord’s day, or at least every other Sunday. Mr. Campbell paid so much attention to this, and was so much master of it, that his character as a scripture critic, and lecturer of holy writ, was deservedly very high. It was while explaining the New Testament to his parishioners, that he first formed a plan of translating that part of it, viz. the four gospels, which he afterwards published. And it was in this country parish, long before any attention was paid, in the north of Scotland, to the niceties of grammar, that he composed a part of the philosophy of rhetoric.

After remaining nine years in this country parish, he was chosen one of the ministers of Aberdeen in June, 1757, where his various and extensive talents were appreciated by those who knew best their worth, and where his fame was most likely to be rewarded. Accordingly in 1759, he was presented by his majesty to the office of principal of Marischal college, and soon made it appear that he was worthy of this dignity. Hume had recently published his “Essay on Miracles,” and despised his opponents until principal Campbell published his celebrated “Dissertation on Miracles,” which deservedly raised his character as an acute metaphysician and an able polemical writer. This “Dissertation” was originally drawn up in the form of a sermon, which he preached before the provincial synod of Aberdeen, Oct. 9, 1760, and which, on their requesting him to publish it, he afterwards enlarged into its present form. Some circumstances attended the publication which are rather singular, and which we shall relate in the words of his biographer. “Before it was published, he sent a copy of his manuscript to Dr. Blair of Edinburgh, with a request that, after perusing it, he would communicate the performance to Mr. Hume. The learned aud judicious Blair read the dissertation both as a friend, and as a critic, then showed it to his opponent, and afterwards wrote to Mr. Campbell both what had occurred to himself, and what Mr. Hume chose at first to write on the subject. It soon appeared, that this sceptical philosopher, with all his affected equanimity, felt very sensibly, on reading so acute, so learned, and so complete an answer to his essay on miracles. He complained of some harsh expressions, and stated a few objections to what Mr. Campbell had advanced, shewing, in some cases, where his meaning had been misunderstood. Instead of being displeased, his generous adversary instantly expunged, or softened, every expression that either was severe, or was only supposed to be offensive, removed every objection that had been made to his arguments, and availed himself of the remarks both of his friend, and of his opponent, in rendering his dissertation a complete and unanswerable performance. Thus corrected and improved, it was put to the press, and a copy of it sent to Mr. Hume. That philosopher was charmed with the gentlemanly conduct of Mr. Campbell, confessed that he felt a great desire to answer the dissertation, and declared that he would have attempted to do something in this way, if he had not laid it down as a rule, in early life, never to return an answer to any of his opponents. Thus principal Campbell, from a rnanly and well-bred treatment of his adversary, rendered his own work more correct, gained the esteem of his opponent, and left an example worthy to be imitated by all polemical writers.” How far such an example is worthy to be imitated, may surely be questioned; in Mr. Campbell’s conduct we see somewhat of timidity and irresolution, nor does he seem to have been aware of the impropriety of gratifying Hume by personal respect; and after all no good was produced, for Hume reprinted his essay again and again without any notice of Campbell or any other of his opponents, a decisive proof that in this respect he had no title to the character of philosopher. The “Dissertation on Miracles” was published in 1763, previously to which the author received the degree of D.D. from King’s college, Old Aberdeen. The sale of the work was in proportion to its merit, most extensive in Great Britain, and being translated into the French, Dutch, and nan languages, the name of Dr. Campbell was from this time always mentioned with the highest respect among the learned men of Europe.

Dr. Campbell continued for twelve years to discharge the offices of principal of Marischal college-, and of one of the ministers of Aberdeen. In the former capacity he was equally esteemed by the professors and students; as he united great learning to a conduct strictly virtuous, and to manners equally gentle and pleasant. lit the latter office he lived in the greatest harmony with his colleagues, over whom he affected no superiority; and by all his hearers was esteemed as a worthy man, a good preacher, and one of the best lecturers they had ever heard. In lecturing, indeed, he excelled, while he rarely composed sermons, but preached from a few, and sometimes without any notes. Yet his discourses on particular occasions, were such as maintained his reputation. In June 1771, he was, on a vacancy by resignation, elected professor of divinity in Marischal college. This appointment was attended with the resignation of his pastoral charge, as one of the ministers of Aberdeen; but as minister of Gray Friars, an office conjoined to the professorship, he had to preach once every Sunday in one of the churches, and besides this, had the offices both of principal and professor of divinity to discharge. In the latter office he increased the times of instructing his pupils, so thak they heard nearly double the number of lectures which were usual with his predecessors, and he so arranged his subjects, that every student who chose to attend regularly during the shortest period prescribed by the laws of the church, might hear a complete course of lectures on thelgy embracing, under the theoretical part, every thing that the student of divinity should know; and under the practical branch, every thing that he should do, as a reader of sacred or church history, a biblical critic, a polemic divine, a pulpit orator, a minister of a parish, and a member of the church courts on the Scotch establishment. Some idea may be formed of the value of his labours, by the canons of scripture criticism, and a few other prelections on the same subject, which are included in preliminary dissertations/printed along with his “Translation of the Gospels,” and by the “Lectures” published after his death. In 1776 Dr. Campbell published his “Philosophy of Rhetoric,” which established his reputation as an excellent grammarian, an accurate and judicious critic, a scholar of delicate imagination and taste, and a philosopher of great acuteness and deep penetration. Our author also published a few occasional sermons, which were much admired, but not equally. That “On the Spirit of the Gospel,” 1771, placed him at variance with many members of his own church, who adhered more closely to the Caivinistic creed than the doctor. That in 1776, a Fast Sermon on account of the American war, inculcating the duty of allegiance, was circulated in an edition of six thousand, in America, but it had no effect, at that period of irritation among the colonies, in persuading the Americans that they had no right to throw off their allegiance. In 1779, when a considerable alarm, followed by riots in Scotland, took place in consequence of a bill introduced into parliament; for the relief of the Roman catholics, Dr. Campbell published an address well calculated to quiet the public mind, at the same time that he took occasion to express his abhorrence of the tenets of Popery. The same year he published a sermon on the happy influences of religion on civil society. It has already been noticed that he did not often, write sermons, but the few which he did compose, were in general highly finished.

In his seventy-second year, he was seized with a severe illness, from which he unexpectedly recovered, and though his bodily strength was impaired, resumed his former occupations. Some years before his death, he made. a dis^ interested and unsolicited offer of resigning his professorship of divinity, provided that any one of three gentlemen whom he named, and to whom he applied for their consent, should succeed him; but this offer not being accepted by the patrons of the professorship, he continued to hold his office, lest an improper person should in his life-time be chosen as his successor. But afterwards application was made to him, and also to the patrons of the professorship, in Lehalf of Dr. William Laurence Brown, late minister of the English church, and professor of moral philosophy, &c. in the university of Utrecht. This gentleman had been driven from these offices by the French invasion of Holland, on account of his attachment to the house of Orange, and his native country; and because, in some of his writings, he had opposed the progress of French principles, and maintained the cause of religion. Dr. Campbell, knowing the excellence of his character, instantly resigned the offices of professor of divinity, and minister of Gray Friars church, which were worth 160l. a year, and soon after his resignation, government, desirous of testifying in a public manner, the high respect so justly entertained of his abilities and services, offered him, on condition of resigning the principalship of Marischal college, a pension of 300l. a year. Dr. Campbell accepted this token of his majesty’s munificence, and was succeeded in the office of principal also by Dr. Brown. This pension, however, he did not long live to enjoy, though he continued writing till within a week of his death; an event which he expected with great tranquillity and composure. On the 31st of March, 1796, after some previous symptoms of uneasiness, he was struck with the palsy, which deprived him of speech, and under which he languished for a few days till he died. He had long accustomed himself to prepare for death; and in a former illness he had given the testimony of a dying man in favour of religion. A funeral sermon was preached on occasion of his death, by Dr. Brown, in which he has given a sketch of his character as a public teacher, as the head of a public seminary of learning, and as a private Christian. His character is thus summed up in a few sentences by his biographer, Dr. Keith: “His imagination was lively and fertile his understanding equally acute and vigorous and his erudition was at once very deep and wonderfully diversified. His piety was unfeigned his morals unimpeached his temper chearful and his manners gentle and unassuming. His love of truth was even more remarkable than the uncommon success with which he sought after it. Where intuitive faculties could be of service to any man, he saw at once if he saw at all. But his deep perspicacity was not satisfied with a superficial view of any thing; his piercing eye darted to the bottom of every sul/ic < i to which discernment could be applied. Where study aud reflection were necessary, he could bestow as much time on patient thinking, as if he had been possessed of no genius at all, and had acquired only a small share of erudition. And when once he began to examine any subject, he was never satisfied till he had viewed it in every light in which it could be seen. He always sought for truth in the love of truth, but he could not bear to be suspected of deviating from it for he neither courted those who might support, nor feared those who did oppose him. The tone of his mind was high, and he would not let it down from the elevation of truth and of virtue. Whether engaged in conversation, or employed in study, he could pass easily from the lightest subject to the most serious one. And the reach of his mind was so great, as to comprehend a great variety of subjects. He could explore the causes of that pleasure which arises in the mind from dramatic entertainments, and lay down the rules of Scripture criticism. He could illustrate the whole theory of evidence, or detect the false reasonings of Mr. Hume. He could explain the spirit of the Gospel, marking the extremes of superstition and enthusiasm; and both as a philosopher and a divine, declare the nature, extent, and importance of the duty of allegiance. While he zealously contended for the faith, he could warn the Christian against imbibing a persecuting spirit, and yet shew the influence of religion upon civil society, warning his countrymen against infidelity, before they had seen its dreadful effects. He could with manly eloquence describe the success of the fishermen of Galilee, while preaching the doctrine of the cross to prejudiced Jews, learned Greeks, and ambitious Romans; and at the same time, with well -applied erudition, he could delineate the characters of the pretended successors of the apostles, and trace the progress of the hierarchy through all the dark and middle ages, until the reformation of religion. As the principal of a college, a professor of divinity, or a minister of the Gospel, as a true patriot, a good man, and a sincere Christian, qwndo ullum invenies 'par tin”

In 1705, he was nominated her majesty’s lord high commissioner to the Scottish parliament, though he was then only twenty-three years of age, an appointment which gave much satisfaction to that nation, where, on his arrival, he was received with unusual ceremony. On the 28th of June, his grace opened the parliament by a speech, and was so well convinced of the advantages which would result to both kingdoms from an union between England and Scotland, that he employed his whole interest in the promotion of that measure; for which, on his arrival in England, her majesty created him a peer of England, by the title of Baron of Chatham, and Earl of Greenwich. In 1706, he made a campaign under the duke of Marlborough; and greatly distinguished himself by his courage and conduct in the battle of Ramillies, in which he acted as a brigadier-general; and also at the siege of Ostend, and in the attack of Menin, of which his grace took possession on the 25th of August. After that event, he returned to Scotland, in order to be present in the parliament of that kingdom, when the treaty for the union was agitated; and was, as before, very active in the promotion of it, though he declined being one of the commissioners. When a riotous multitude came to the parliament-close, demanding, with loud clamours, “That the treaty of union should be rejected,” his grace went out of the house, and appeased the people who were assembled, by the calmness and strength of reason with which he addressed them; but his zeal in this affair diminished his popularity, though even his enemies did justice to the rectitude of his intentions. In 1708, he commanded twenty battalions at the battle of Oudenarde; and the troops under his command were the first of the infantry that engaged the enemy, a*nd they maintained their post against unequal numbers. He likewise assisted at the siege of Lisle and commanded as major-general at the siege of Ghent, taking possession of the town and citadel on the 3d or' January, 1703-9. He was afterwards raised to the rank of lieutenant-general, and commanded in chief under general Schuyiemberg, at the attack of Tournay. He had also a considerable share, on the llth of September, 1709, in the victory a Malplaquet, where he was much exposed, and gained great honour. On the 20th of December, 1710, he was installed a knight of the garter; and about this time took some part in the debates in parliament, relative to the inquiry which was set on foot concerning the management of affairs in Spain, when he spoke and voted with the tofies, and joined in the censure that was passed on the conduct of the late whig ministry.

In June 1712, the queen appointed him general and commander in chief of all the land forces in Scotland, and captain of the company of foot in Edinburgh castle. But he did not long continue upon good terms with the ministry; and spoke against a bill which was brought in by the administration, appointing commissioners to examine the value of all the grants of crown lands made since the revolution, by which a general resumption was intended to have been made. In 1714, when it was debated in the house of peers, whether it should be resolved, that the protestarit succession was in danger under the then administration, the duke of Argyle maintained the affirmative; and also declared his disapprobation of the proceedings of the ministry, relative to the peace of Utrecht. His grace likewise zealously opposed the extension of the malt- tax to Scotland and was appointed with the earl of Mar, and two Scotch members of the house of commons, to attend the queen, and make a remonstrance to her majesty on this subject. He also supported the motion that was made by the earl of Seafield, for leave to bring in a bill for dissolving the union. In his speech in parliament upon this subject, he admitted, “that he had a great hand in making the union, and that the chief reason that moved him to it was the securing the protestant succession; but that he was satisfied that might be done as well now, if the union were dissolved.” He added, “that he believed in his conscience, it was as much for the interest of England, as of Scotland, to have it dissolved: and if it were not, he did not expect long to have either property left in Scotland, or liberty in England.” This conduct, which was certainly not very consistent, having given great offence to the ministry, he was about this time deprived of all the employments he held under the crown; and continued to oppose the administration to the end of this reign. But when queen Anne’s life was despaired of, he attended the council-chamber at Kensington, without being summoned; and his attendance on this occasion, was considered as highly serviceable to the interests of the house of Hanover. On the demise of the queen, the duke of Argyle was appointed one of the lords justices for the government of the kingdom, till George I. should arrive in England, and on the 27th of September, 1714, he was again. constituted general and commander in chief of the forces in Scotland; and, on the 1st of October following, he was sworn a member of the new privy council. On the 5th of the same month, he was appointed governor of Minorca; and on the 15th of June, 1715, made colonel of the royal regiment of horse-guards in England. He was also one of the commissioners for establishing the household of the prince and princess of Wales, and was made groom of the stole to the prince.

On the 10th and 16th of April he spoke in the house of peers in defence of the bill for repealing the triennial act, and rendering parliaments septennial. But soon after this his grace seems to have conceived some disgust against the court, or some dislike was taken at his conduct there, for in June following he resigned all his places. The particular grounds of his dissatisfaction, or of his being removed from his offices, are not mentioned; but we now find him in several instances voting against the ministry. In February 1717-18, he spoke against the mutiny-bill, and endeavoured to shew, by several instances drawn from the history of Great Britain, that “a standing army, in the time of peace, was ever fatal, either to the prince or the nation.” But on the 6th of February 1718-19, he was made lord-steward of the household; and, after that event, we again find his lordship voting with administration; which he generally continued to do for many years afterwards. On the 30th of April, 1718, he was advanced to the dignity of a duke of Great Britain, by the title of duke of Greenwich. His grace opposed, in 1722, the bill “for securing the Freedom of election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament:” and promoted the resolution of the house for expunging the reasons that were urged by some of the lords in their protest against the rejection of the bill. He also supported a motion made by the earl of Sunderland, for limiting the time for entering protests: and he spoke in favour of the bill for suspending the habeas corpus act for a year, on occasion of the discovery of Layer’s plot; as he did likewise, with great zeal and warmth, for the bill of pains and penalties against bishop Atterbury. In 1724, he defended the mutiny-bill; and, it appears, that his grace had not the same fears of a standing army now, as when he was out of place a few years before.

His biographer, Dr. Campbell, says of him, that he was a nobleman of great political abilities, an eloquent and distinguished senator, of high spirit, undaunted courage, and eminent military talents. But he has been accused of being much actuated by motives of avarice and ambition; and, indeed, the uniformity with which he supported alt the measures of government at one period, and opposed them at another, cannot be reconciled to principles of real patriotism. He had, however, the honour to be celebrated in very high terms both by Pope and Thomson. In private life his conduct is said to have been very respectable. He was an affectionate husband, and an indulgent master. He seldom parted with his servants till age had rendered them incapable of their employments; and then he made provision for their subsistence. He was liberal to the poor, and particularly to persons of merit in distress: but though he was ready to patronize deserving persons, he was extremely cautious not to deceive any by lavish promises, or leading them to form vain expectations. He was a strict œconomist, and paid his tradesmen punctually every month; and though he maintained the dignity of his rank, he took care that no part of his income should be wasted in empty pomp, or unnecessary t-xpences." Mr. Macpherson’s character of him, as a public character, is less favourable, but the reader may consult, with more confidence, the judicious and impartial sketches in Coxe’s Life of Walpole.

honour of claiming a descent from the poet Waller. Our anthor was their fourth son; and at the age of five years, was brought to Windsor from Scotland, which country he never saw afterwards. At a proper age he was placed out as clerk to an attorney, being intended for the law; but whether it was that his genius could not be confined to that dry study, or to whatever causes besides it might be owing, it is certain that he did not pursue his original designation: neither did he engage in any other profession, unless that of an author, in which he did not spend his time in idleness and dissipation, but in such a close application to the acquisition of knowledge of various kinds, as soon enabled him to appear with great advantage in the literary world. What smaller pieces might be written by Mr. Campbell in the early part of his life, we are not capable of ascertaining, but, in 1736, before he had completed his thirtieth year, he gave to the publick, in 2 vols. folio, “The military history of prince Eugene, and the duke of Marlborough; comprehending the history of both those illustrious persons to the time of their decease.” This performance was enriched with maps, plans, and cuts, by the best hands, and particularly by the ingenious Claude de Bosc. The reputation hence acquired by our author, occasioned him soon after to be solicited to take a part in the “Ancient Universal History.” In this work Dr. Kippis says he wrote on the Cosmogony; but Dr. Johnson assigns him the history of the Persians, and of the Constantinopolitan empire. Whilst employed in this capital work, Mr. Campbell found leisure to entertain the world with other productions. In 1739 he published the “Travels and adventures of Edward Brown, esq.” 8vo. In the same year appeared his “Memoirs of the bashaw duke de Rippercla,” 8vo, reprinted, with improvements, in 1740. These memoirs were followed, in 1741, by the “Concise history of Spanish America,” 8vo. In 1742 he was the author of “A letter to a friend in the country, on the publication of Thurloe’s State papers;” giving an account of their discovery, importance, and utility. The same year was distinguished by the appearance of the 1st and 2d volumes of his “Lives of the English Admirals, and other ^eminent Britisii ^eamen.” The two remaining volumes were completed in 1744; and the whole, not long after, was translated into German. This, we believe, was the first of Mr. Campbell’s works to which he prefixed his name; and it is a performance of great and acknowledged merit. The good reception it met with was evidenced in its passing through three editions in his own life-time; and a fourth was afterwards given to the public, under the inspection of Dr. Berkenhout. In 1743 he published “Hermippus Revived” a second edition of which, much improved and enlarged, came out in 1749, under the following title “Hermippus Redivivus or, the sage’s triumph over old age and the grave. Wherein a method is laid down for prolonging the life and vigour of man. Including a commentary upon an ancient inscription, in which this great secret is revealed; supported by numerous authorities. The whole interspersed with a great variety of remarkable and well-attested relations.” This extraordinary tract had its origin in a foreign publication, under the title of “Hermippus Redivivus,” Coblentz, 1743, but it was much improved by our author, and is a singular mixture of gravity and irony. The “great secret” is no other than inhaling the breath of young females, by which, we learn from an inscription in Reinesius’s Supplement to Gruter, one Hermippus prolonged his life to the age of 115. Mr. Campbell, in 1744, gave to the public in 2 vols. fol. his “Voyages and Travels,” on Dr. Harris’s plan, being a very distinguished improvement of that collection, which had appeared in 1705. The work contains all the circumnavigators from the time of Columbus to lord Anson; a complete history of the East Indies; historical details of the several attempts made for the discovery of the northeast and north-west passages; the commercial history of Corea and Japan; the Russian discoveries by land and, sea; a distnct account of the Spanish, Portuguese, British, French, Dutch, and Danish settlements in America; with other pieces not to be found in any former collection. The whole was conducted wijh eminent skill and judgment, and the preface is acknowledged to be a master-piece of composition and information. The time and care employed by Mr. Campbell in this important undertaking did not prevent his engaging in another great work, the Biographia Britannica, which began to be published in weekly numbers in 1745, and the first volume of which was completed in 1746, as was the second in 1748.

When the late Mr. Dodsley formed the design of “The Preceptor,” which appeared in 1748, Mr. Campbell was requested to assist in the undertaking, and the parts written by him were, the Introduction to chronology, and the Discourse on trade and commerce, both of which displayed an extensive fund of knowledge upon these subjects. In 1750 he published the first separate edition of his “Present state of Europe;” a work which had been originally begun in 1746, in the “Museum,” a very valuable periodical performance, printed for Dodsley. There is no production of our author’s that has met with a better reception. It has gone through six editions, and fully deserved this encouragement. The next great undertaking which called for the exertion of our author’s abilities and learning, was “The modern Universal History.” This extensive work was published irom time to time in detached parts, till it amounted to 16 vols. tol. and a 2d edition of it in 8vo, began to make its appearance in 1759. The parts of it written by Campbell, were the histories of the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, French, Swedish, Danish, and Ostend settlements in the East Indies; and the histories of the kingdoms of Spain, Portugal, Algarve, Navarre, and that of France, foin Clovis to 1656. As our author had thus distinguished himself in the literary world, the degree of LL. D. was very properly and honourably conferred upon him, June 18, 1754, by the university of Glasgow. With regard to his smaller publications, there are several, Dr. Kippis apprehends, that have eluded his most diligent inquiry; but the following account, we believe, is tolerably accurate: In early life, he wrote: 1. “A Discourse on Providence,” 8vo, the third edition of which was printed in 1748. In 1742 he published 2. “The Case of the Opposition impartially stated,” 8vo. Mr. Reed had a copy of this pamphlet, with various corrections and additions in Dr. Campbell’s own hand, evidently written with a view to a second impression. He published in 1746, 3. “The Sentiments of a Dutch patriot; being the speech of Mr. V. H***n, in an august assembly, on the present state of affairs, and the resolution necessary at this juncture to be taken for the safety of the republic,” 8vo. The history of this little tract, the design of which was to expose the temporising policy of the states of Holland, is somewhat amusing. His amanuensis, when he was going to write the pamphlet, having disappointed him, he requested, after tea in the afternoon, that Mrs. Campbell, when she had ordered a good fire to be made, would retire to bed as soon as possible, with the servants; and, at the same time, leave him four ounces of coffee. This was done, and he wrote till 12 o‘clock at night, when, finding his spirits flag, he took two ounces. With this assistance he went on till six in the morning, when again beginning to grow weary, he drauk the remainder of the coffee. Hence he was enabled to proceed with fresh vigour till nine or ten o’clock in the morning, when he finished the pamphlet, which had a great run, and was productive of considerable profit. Mr. Campbell having succeeded so well in a performance hastily written, expected much greater success from another work, about which he had taken extraordinary pains, and which had cost him a long time in composing. But when it came to be published, it scarcely paid the expence of advertising. Some years afterwards, a book in French was brought to him that had been translated from the German; and he was asked whether a translation of it into English would not be likely to be acceptable. Upon examining it, he found that it was his own neglected work, which had made its way into Germany, and had there been translated and published, without any acknowledgement of the obligation due to the original writer. But it is rather singular that his biographers have not told us what work this was.

In 1749, he printed, 4. “Occasional thoughts on moral, serious, and religious subjects,” 8vo. In 1754, he was the author of a work, entitled, 5. “The Rational Amusement, comprehending a collection of letters on a great variety of subjects, interspersed with essays, and some little pieces of humour,” 8vo. 6. “An exact and authentic account of the greatest white-herring-fishery in Scotland, carried on yearly in the island of Zetland, by the Dutch only,” 1750, 8vo. 7. “The Highland Gentleman’s Magazine, for Jan. 1751,” 8vo. 8. “A Letter from the Prince of the infernal legions, to a spiritual lord on this side the great gulph, in answer to a late invective epistle levelled at his highness,” 1751, 8vo. 9. “The naturalization bill confuted, as most pernicious to these united kingdoms,” 1751, 8vo. 10. “His royal highness Frederick late prince of Wales deciphered: or a full and particular description of his character, from his juvenile years until his death,” 1751, 8vo. 11. “A Vade Mecum: or companion for the unmarried ladies: wherein are laid down some examples whereby to direct them in the choice of husbands,” 1752, 8vo. 12. “A particular but melancholy account of the great hardships, difficulties, and miseries, that those unhappy and much to be pitied creatures, the common women of the town, are plunged into at this juncture,” 1752, 8vo. 13. “A full and particular description of the Highlands of Scotland,” 1752, 8vo. 14. “The case of the publicans, both in town and country, laid open,” 1752, 8vo. 15. “The Shepherd of Banbury’s rules,” a favourite pamphlet with the common people; and “The history of the war in the East-Indies,” which appeared in 1758 or 1759, under the name of Mr. Watts, are supposed to have been of Mr. Campbell’s composition. Upon the conclusion of the peace of Paris, our author was requested by lord Bute to take some share in the vindication of that peace. Accordingly, he wrote “A description and history of the new Sugar Islands in the West-Indies,” 8vo, the design of which was to shew the value and importance of the neutral islands that had been ceded to us by the French. The only remaining publication of Dr. Campbell’s, that has hitherto come to our knowledge, is, “A Treatise upon the Trade of Great-Britain to America,” 1772, 4to. His last grand work was “A political survey of Britain being a series of reflections on the situation, lands, inhabitants, revenues, colonies, and commerce of this island. Intended to shew that they have not as yet approached near the summit of improvement, but that it will afford employment to many generations, before they push to their utmost extent the natural advantages of Great Britain.” This work, which was published in 1774, in 2 vols. royal 4to, cost Dr. Campbell many years of attention, study, and labour. As it was his last, so it seems to have been his favourite production, upon which he intended to erect a durable monument of his sincere and ardent love to his country, but in the success of it, he is said to have been greatly disappointed; yet a more truly patriotic publication never appeared in the English language. The variety of information it contains is prodigious and there is no book that better deserves the close and constant study of the politician, the senator, the gentleman, the merchant, the manufacturer; in short, of every one who has it in any degree in his power to promote the interest and welfare of Great-Britain; and this praise it may be allowed to deserve, although the accuracy of many of his facts may be disputed, and much of his reasoning appear ill-founded. Among other encomiums produced by Dr. Kippis on the literary merit of his predecessor, that of Mr. Burke, the author of the “Account of the European settlements in America,” is perhaps the most honourable . Dr. Campbell’s reputation was not confined to his own country, but extended to the remotest parts of Europe. As a striking instance of this, we may mention, that in the spring of 1774, the empress of Russia was pleased to honour him with the present of her picture, drawn in the robes rom in that country in the days of Ivan Vassiilievitch, grand duke of Russia, who was contemporary with queen Elizabeth. To manifest the doctor’s sense of her imperial majesty’s goodness, a set of the “Political survey of Britain,” bound in Morocco, highly ornamented, and accompanied with a letter descriptive of the triumphs and felicities of her reign, was forwarded to St. Petersburg, and conveyed into the hands of that great princess, by prince Gregory Orloff, who had resided some months in this kingdom. The empress’s picture, since the death of our author, has been presented by his widow to lord Macartney.

Let us now advert a little to Dr. Campbell’s personal history. May 23, 1736, he married Elizabeth, daughter of Benjamin Vobe, of Leominster, in the county of Hereford, gentleman, with which lady he lived nearly forty years in the greatest conjugal harmony and happiness. So wholly did he dedicate his time to books, that he seldom went abroad: but to relieve himself, as much as possible, from the inconveniencies incident to a sedentary life, it was his custom, when the weather would admit, to walk in his garden; or, otherwise, in some room of his house, by way of exercise. By this method, united with the strictest temperance in eating, and an equal abstemiousness in drinking, he enjoyed a good state of health, though his constitution was delicate. His domestic manner of living did not preclude him from a very extensive and honourable acquaintance. His house, especially on a Sunday evening, was the resort of the most distinguished persons of all ranks, and particularly of such as had rendered themselves eminent hy their knowledge, or love of literature. He received foreigners, who were fond of learning, with an affability and kindness, which excited in them the highest respect and veneration; and his instructive and cheerful, conversation made him the delight of his friends in general. On March 5, 1765, Dr. Campbell was appointed his majesty’s agent for the province of Georgia, in North America, which employment he held till his decease. His last illness was a decline, the consequence of a life devoted to severe study, and which resisted every attempt for his relief that the most skilful in the medical science could devise. By this illness he was carried off, at his house in Queen-square, Ormond-street, on Dec. 28, 1775, when he had nearly completed the 68th year of his age. His end was tranquil and easy, and he preserved the full use of all his faculties to the latest moment of his life. On Jan. 4th following his decease, he was interred in the new burying- ground, behind the Foundling-hospital, belonging to St. George the Martyr, where a monument, with a plain and modest inscription, has been erected to his memory. Dr. Campbell had by his lady seven children, one of whom only survived him, but is since dead. Dr. Campbell’s literary knowledge was by no means confined to the subjects on which he more particularly treated as an author. He was well acquainted with the mathematics, and had read much in medicine. It has been with great reason believed, that, if he had dedicated his studies to the last science, he would have made a very conspicuous figure in the physical profession. He was eminently versed in the different parts of sacred literature; and his acquaintance with the languages extended not only to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin among the ancient, and to the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch, among the modern; but, likewise, to the oriental tongues. He was particularly fond of the Greek language. His attainment of such a variety of knowledge was exceedingly assisted by a memory surprisingly retentive, and which, indeed, astonished every person with whom he was conversant. A striking instance of this has been given by the honourable Mr. Daines Barrington, in his tract, entitled, “The probability of reaching the north pole discussed .” In communicating his ideas, our author had an uncommon readiness and facility; and the style of his works, which had been formed upon the model of that of the celebrated bishop Sprat, was perspicuous, easy, flowing, and harmonious. Should it be thought that it is sometimes rather too diffusive, it will, notwithstanding, indubitably be allowed, that it is, in general, elegant.

To all these accomplishments of the understanding, Dr. Campbell joined the more important virtues of a moral and pious character. His disposition was gentle and humane, and his manners kind and obliging. He was the tenderest of husbands, a most indulgent parent, a kind master,a firm and sincere friend. To his great Creator he paid the constant and ardent tribute of devotion, duty, and reverence; and in his correspondences he shewed, that a sense of piety was always nearest his heart. It was our author’s custom every day, to read one or more portions of scripture, in the original, with the ancient versions, and the best commentators before him; and in this way, as appears from his own occasional notes and remarks, he went through the sacred writings a number of times, with great thankfulness and advantage.

His works, if not numerous, are highly valuable, and contain many important facts, and successful experiments and improvements. He published, l. “Demonstrationum Anatomico-Pathologicarum liber primus, continens brachii humani fabricam et morbos, in folio maximo, cum quatuor figuris,” Amst. 1760. 2. “Liber secundus, continens pelvis human se fabricam et morbos,” 1762. 2. “An account of a method of performing the operation of Lithotomy at two different times,” published in a Dutch journal. The operation is performed at twice, that is, on the first day the surgeon makes the incision into the bladder; the patient is then to be put to bed, and the extraction of the stone deferred until the second, third, or fourth day; but this method has not been attended with the advantages expected from it. Camper’s other works were published by his son: 3. “A Dissertation on the fracture of the patella and olecranon,” 1789, 4to, 4. “A Treatise on the natural difference of features, &c.” which was translated by Dr. Cogan, and published at London in 1794, under the title “The Works of the late professor Camper, on the connection between the science of anatomy and the arts of drawing, painting, statuary, &c. &c. in 2 books containing a treatise on the natural difference of features in persons of different countries and periods of life; and on beauty, as exhibited in ancient sculpture, &c.” This is unquestionably a work of great curiosity and importance to artists, and is one of the best translated scientific books in our language. In 1803, a collection of Camper’s works was published at Paris, in 3 vols. 8vo. with a folio atlas of plates, containing his various dissertations on natural history, physiology, and comparative anatomy. To these is prefixed an account of his life by his son. Camper was! not less amiable in private life, than celebrated in his public character.

, was born at Amiens Jan. 31, 1643, of very poor parents. Serroni, bishop of Mende, took him from the Dominican convent of the fauxbourg St. Germain, in Paris, provided for his education, and made him his secretary. This prelate also gave him the priory at Flore, obtained for him the abbey of St. Marcel, the coadjutorship of Glandeves, and lastly the bishopric of Pamiers. But not able to obtain his bulls from Rome, on account of his bad conduct, he had by way of compensation the abbey of Signy. He is the author of several dissertations on medals, on the history of France, on the title of Most Christian given to the kings of France, on the guard of these monarchs, on the daughters of the house of France given in marriage to heretical or pagan princes, on the nobility of the royal race, on the heredity of the grand fiefs, on the origin of ensigns armorial, on the hereditary dignities attached to titled estates, &c. all which were published in the Paris Mercuries for 1719, 1720, 1722, and 1723. His cabinet was rich in medals; the celebrated Vaillant published the most curious of them accompanied with explications. Abbe de Camps died at Paris in 1723, aged 81. He was learned and laborious, and his investigations have been of great use to the historians that have come after him.

, a French physician, was born at Paris in 1722, and died in the same city in 1772, at 50 years of age. He practised medicine there with great success, and wrote, 1. “Medicine de l'esprit,” Paris, 1753, 2 vols. 12mo, in which his reasonings are not always just; but his conjectures are in general very ingenious, and may be of great service. 2. “Abdeker,” or the art of preserving beauty, 1756, 4 vols, small twelves; a romance in which the author introduces a variety of receipts and precepts for the benefit of the ladies. The true cosmetics are exercise and temperance. A translation of part of this appeared in English, but before the above date, 1754, in one vol. 12mo. 3. “Memoires sur divers sujets de medicine,” 1760, 8vo. 4. “Memoire sur Tetat actuel de la Pharmacia,” 1765, 12mo. 5. “Projet d'aneaniirla Petiteverole,” 1767, 12mo. 6. “Medicine pratique,” 3 vols. 12mo, and 1 vol. 4to. 7. “Amphitheatrum poeticum,” a poem, 1745, 4to. He also was editor of the “Journal Economique,” from 1753 to 1765, and exhibited in all his works various talents, and considerable powers of fancy as well as of science. One of his brothers, Nicolas Camus de Mezieres, was a skilful architect, and published some works on that subject particularly “Dissertations sur le bois de charpente,” Paris, 1763, 12mo. “Le Genie d'Architecture,” ibid. 1780, 8vo; “Traite de la force de bois,” 1782, 8vo; and “Le guide de reux qui veulent batir,” 2 vols. 8vo. He died July 24, 177.9. Another brother, Armand Gaston Camus, who died in 1804, was a very active agent in all the revolutionary measures of the different French assemblies, and being sent to arrest Dumourier in 1793, was delivered by him to the Austrians, and afterwards exchanged for the daughter of Louis XVI. His political conduct belongs to the history of those turbulent periods. In 1800 he was commissioned to inspect the libraries and collections of the united departments, and particularly examined the library of Brussels, which is rich in Mss. He was a man of some learning, and extensive knowledge of books; and published, 1. “Observations sur la distribution et le classement des livres d'une bibliotheque.” 2. “Memoire sur un livre Allemand,” the famous Tewrdannckhs. 3. “Memoire sur Thistoire et les procédés du Polytypage et de la Stereotype.” 4. “Rapport sur la continuation de la collection des Historiens de la France, et de celle des Chartres et Diplomes.” 5. “Notice d'un livre imprim6 a Bamberg in 1462,” a very curious memoir of a book, first described in the Magasin Hist. Litt. Bibliog. 1792. 6. “Memoire sur la collection des grands et petits voyages,” 1802, 4to. In the “Notices des Mss. de la Bibl. Nationale,” vol. VI. is an interesting memoir by him, relating to two ancient manuscript bibles, in 2 vols. fol. adorned with 5152 pictures, each of them having a Latin and French verse beautifully written and illuminated beneath.

, a celebrated French mathematician, examiner of the royal schools of Artillery and engineers, secretary and professor of the royal academy of architecture, honorary member of that of the marine, and fellow of the royal society of London, was, born at Cressy en Brie, Aqgust 25, 1699. His early ingenuity in mechanics and his own intreaties induced his. parents to send him to study at a college in Paris, at ten, years of age; where in the space of two years his progress was so great, that he was able to give lessons in mathematics, and thus to defray his own expences at the college without any farther charge to his parents. By the assist^ ance of the celebrated Varignon, young Camus soon ran through the course of the higher mathematics, and acquired a name among the learned. He made himself more particularly known to the academy of sciences in 1727 by his memoir upon the subject of the prize which they had proposed for that year, viz. “To determine the most advantageous way of masting ships;” in consequence of which he was named that year adjoint mechanician to the academy; and in 1730 he was appointed professor of architecture. In less than three years after, he was honoured with the secretaryship of the same; and the 18th of April 1733, he obtained the degree of associate in the academy, where he distinguished himself by his memoirs upon living forces, or bodies in motion acted upon by forces, on the figure of the teeth of wheels and pinions, on pump work, and severa^ other ingenious memoirs.

, an exemplary French prelate, was born at Paris in 1582, and on account of his excellent character and talents, was nominated to the bishopric of Bellay by Henry IV. in 1609, before he was of age, but having obtained the pope’s dispensation, he was consecrated on Dec. 30th of the same year. From this time he appears to have devoted his time and talents to the edification of his flock, and of the people at large, by frequent preaching, and more frequent publication of numerous works calculated to divert their attention to the concerns of an immortal life. In his time romances began to be the favourite books with all who would be thought readers of taste; and Camus, considering that it would not be easy to persuade them to leave off such books without supplying them with some kind of substitute, published several works of practical piety with a mixture of romantic narrative, by which he hoped to attract and amuse the attention of romancereaders, and draw them on insensibly to matters of religious importance. He contrived, therefore, that the lovers, in these novels, while they encountered the usual perplexities, should be led to see the vanity and perishable nature of all human enjoyments, and to form resolutions of renouncing worldly delights, and embracing a religious life. Among these works we find enumerated, 1. “Dorothee, ou recit de la pitoyable issue d'une volorite violentee,” Paris, 1621. 2. “Alexis,” 1^22, 3 vols. 8vo. 3. L'Hyacinte, histoire Catalane,“ibid. 1627, 8yo. 4.” Alcime, relation funeste, &c.“ibid. 12mo, 1625, &c. But the principal object of his reforming spirit was the conduct of the rnonks, or mendicant friars, against whom he wrote various severe remonstrances, and preached against them with a mixture of religious fervour and satirical humour. Among the works he published against them are, 1.” Le Directeur desinteresse,“Paris, 1632, 12mo. 2.” Desappropriation claustrale,“Besangon, 1634. 3.” Le Rabat-joy e du triomphe monagal.“4.” L'anti-Moine bien prepare,“1632, &c. &c. These monks teazed the cardinal Richelieu to silence him, and the cardinal told him,” I really find no other fault with you but this horrible bitterness against the monks; were it not for that, I would canonize you.“”I wish that may come to pass,“said the bishop,” “for then we should both have our wish; you would be pope, and I a saint.” Many of his bons-mots were long in circulation, and show that he had the courage to reprove vices and absurdities among the highest classes. In 1620 he established in the city of Bellay a convent of capuchins, and in 1622 one for the nuns of the visitation, instituted by St. Francis de Sales. In 1629 he resigned his bishopric that he might pass the remainder of his days in retirement, in the abbey of Cluny in Normandy, but the archbishop of Rouen, unwilling that so active a member of the church should not be employed in public services, associated him in his episcopal cares, by appointing him his grand vicar. At length he finally retired to the hospital of incurables in Paris, where he died April 26, 1652. Moreri has enumerated a large catalogue of his works, the principal of which, besides what we have enumerated, are, “L' Esprit de S. Frangois de Sales,” 6 vols. 8vo, reduced to one by a doctor of the Sorbonne; and “L'Avoisinement des Protestans avec TEglise Romaine,” republished in 1703 by Richard Simon, under the title of “Moyens de reunir les Protestans avec l'Eglise Romaine.” Simon asserted, that Bossuet’s exposition of the catholic faith was no more than this work in a new dress.

Lord Orford informs us that he came to England in 1746, when he was about the age of fifty, by persuasion of his countryman Amiconi, and encouraged by the multitude of pictures he had sold to, or sent over to the English. He was then in good circumstances, and it was said came over to vest his money in our stocks. Lord Orford thinks he did not stay above two years. At Strawberry hill is a perspective by him of the inside of King’s college chapel, Cambridge; and at Buckingham-house are several large pieces far superior to his common views of Venice. They had belonged to Smyth, the English consul at Venice, who early engaged Canaletto to work for him for a long term of years, at low rates, but retailed the pictures to travelling English at higher prices. Canaletto died in 1768, aged seventyone. Mr. Fuseli adds, that Francesco Guardi, his scholar, has been of late considered as the rival of his fame, and his views of Venice have excited in Italy and on this side of the Alps, the admiration of those whom the brilliancy of his effect and the taste of his method prevented from perceiving how much he wants of the precision and solidity of the master. He died 1793, aged eighty-one.

, one of the restorers and improvers of anatomy, was born at Ferrara, in Italy, in 1515, where he acquired so much reputation for his skill in medicine, that he was invited to Rome by pope Julius III. who made him archiator, and his principal physician. On the death of the pope he returned to Ferrara, and pursued his anatomical researches. He first discovered the valves of the veins, which were afterwards more completely described by Vesalius. The work by which he is known, of which only four complete copies are said to be in existence, is “Musculorum humani corporis picturata dissectio,” 4to, printed, Haller thinks, in 1543, no date or place named. The figures, twenty-seven in number, are neatly engraved on copper, and represent the muscles of the upper extremities. In the preface, he promises a continuation of the work, which he probably did not finish. He died in 1579.

, was an artist, whose real name was De Witte (or White), although Sandrart calls him Candido, as also does De Piles, on account of that name being inscribed on some of the prints engraved after the designs of this artist. Some authors affirm that he was born at Munich; but Descamps asserts, that he was born at Bruges, in Flanders, in 1548, although he probably might have resided for several years at Munich, and perhaps have died there. He painted with equal success in fresco and in oil, and had an excellent genius for modelling. He worked in conjunction with Vasari at the pope’s palace in Rome, and was also employed at Florence by the grand duke; ia both places affording competent proofs of his skill, and gaining reputation; till at last he was taken into the service of the elector Maximilian of Bavaria, and spent the remainder of his life in the court of that prince. Several prints are published by Sadeler, after his designs and paintings particularly the Hermits, and the Four Doctors of the Church.

, or Cambiaso, called Luchetto, an eminent Genoese painter, was born at Oneglia, near Genoa, in 1527, and became a most expeditious painter, working with both his hands, by which unusual power he executed more designs, and finished more great works with his own pencil in a much shorter time than most other artists could do with several assistants. It is mentioned as a memorable circumstance in his life, that at the age of seventeen he was employed in painting the front of a house in fresco; but whilst he was commencing his work, some Florentine painters who were actually engaged, conceived him to be a mere grinder of colours, and when he took up his pallet and pencils they wished to have prevented his proceeding with it, lest he should spoil the work, but after a few strokes of his pencil they were convinced of their mistake, and respected his singular abilities. Of Cangiagi, it is remarked, that he practised three different modes of painting at three different periods of his life. His first manner was gigantic and unnatural, which he corrected in consequence of the remonstrances of his friend Alessi, the celebrated architect, for his best style, in forming which he consulted nature with attention, and digested his thoughts in sketches, before he began to paint. His third manner was distinguished by a more rapid execution, to which he recurred in order to make more ample provision for his wife and family, and had a great deal of the mannerist. His works at Genoa are very numerous, and he was employed by the king of Spain to adorn part of the Escurial.

, or De Hondt, the nephew of Peter Canisius, first provincial of the Jesuits in Germany, who died in 1597, was born at Nimeguen, and became not only a celebrated lawyer, but a general scholar of great reputation, particularly in ecclesiastical antiquities. After studying at the university of Louvain, he was appointed professor of canon law in that of Ingolstadt, which situation he retained until his death in 1610. His professional writings were principally, 1. “Summa juris Canonici.” 2. “Commentarium in regulas juris.” 3. “Praelectiones academicae,” &c. all collected and republished by Andrew Bouvet in “Opera Canonica Canisii,” Louvain, 1649, 4to, Cologne, 1662. But the work by which he is best known is his 3. “Antiqute lectiones,” 1601—1603, 7 vols. 4to, reprinted by the care of M. James Basnage, under the title of “Thesaurus monumentorum ecclesiasticorum & historicorum,” &c. Amsterdam, 1725, in 7 parts, usually bound in 4 vols, folio. The learned editor has enriched them with particular prefaces at the head of each work, indicating the subject and the author, accompanied by useful and curious remarks, and some notes of Capperonier. This collection comprises several pieces of great importanee to the history of the middle ages, and to chronology in general. Basnage, as we have noticed in his life, died before this work was entirely printed.

How long he lived in this retirement, and when he died, is not very certain; but it is agreed by all, that he lived a very long time in it, and it is supposed by some, that he did not die till 1411, when he was 100 years of age, or upwards. Others, with considerable probability, place his death on Nov. 20, 1411. In this place, however, he wrote a history of his own times, in four books, or rather of the times in which he was engaged in worldly affairs; since the period it includes is only from 1320 to 1355. He was a very proper person to relate the transactions within this period, because he was not only an eye-witness of what was done, but himself the orderer and doer of a great part: upon which account Vossius has not scrupled to prefer him to all the Byzantine historians. A Latin translation of this history, from the Greek manuscript in the duke of Bavaria’s library, was published by Pontanus at Ingolstadt in 1603; and afterwards at Paris, 1645, a splendid edition in three volumes folio of the Greek from the ms. of M. Scguier, chancellor of France, with Pontanus’s Latin version, and the notes of him and Gretscr.

Besides this history, he wrote also some theological works, particularly an apology for the Christian religion against that of Mahomet, in four books: this he did at the request of a monk and friend of his, who had been solicited by a mussulman of Persia to desert Christianity, and embrace Muimmetanism. In this he does not content himself with replying to the particular objection of the musulman to Christianity, but writes a general defence of it against the Koran. He calls himself Christodulus as a writer. This apology was printed in Greek and Latin at Basil, 1543, by Bibliander and Gualtharus, from Greek Mss. Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” says, that the name and situation of the emperor John Cantacuzenus might inspire the most lively curiosity. His memorials of forty years extend from the revolt of the younger Andronicus to his own abdication of the empire and it is observed, that, like Moses and Cresar, he was the principal actor in the scenes which he describes. But in this eloquent work, “we should vainly seek the sincerity of an hero or a penitent. Retired in a cloister from the vices and passions of the world, he presents not a confession, but an apology, of the life of an ambitious statesman. Instead of unfolding the true counsels and characters of men, he displays the smooth and specious surface of events, highly varnished with his -own praises and those of his friends. Their motives are always pure their ends always legitimate they conspire and rebel without any views of interest and the violence which they inflict or suffer is celebrated as the spontaneous effect of reason and virtue.”

, a painter and engraver, called often from his native place Da Pesaro, was born in 1612, and was a pupil of Pandolfi. After proving himself, by the picture of St. Peter at Fano, less an imitator of Guido than his equal, he entered his school at Bologna more as a rival than as a pupil: the humility which he had affected at his entrance, soon dissolved in a proud display of his powers; and the modest student became the supercilious censor of his companions, and of the master himself. From the general disgust, which the insolence of this conduct had excited, Cantarini fled to Rome, and for some time studied Raffaello and the antiques. When he returned to Bologna, where he taught, and from thence to the court of Mantua, his powers seemed to smooth the road to new success; but fear of those whom he had provoked by arrogance or invective, with the mortification of having failed in the portrait of the duke, impaired his health and drove him to Verona, where he died in 1648, in his thirtysixth year, not without suspicion of having being poisoned by a painter of Mantua, whom he had reviled. Cantarini is not equal to Guido, because the most perfect imitator of a style cannot be called equal to its inventor: but the original beauties which he added, of conception and execution, raise him above all the pupils of that school. If his ideas have less dignity, they are, perhaps, more graceful than those of Guido: if he has less compass of knowledge, he has more accuracy, and no rival in the finish of the extremities. The heads of his saints have been called prodigies of beauty and expression. Sir Robert Strange had a picture of Cantarini’s, “Our Saviour standing on the Globe, attended by Cherubims,” which, he says, is nothing inferior to Guido, inimitably coloured; the composition extremely agreeable, and the whole apparently painted with great facility. Cantarini etched with great spirit. Strutt enumerates some of his works in this manner.

, of an illustrious family in Tartary, and prince of Moldavia, was born in 1673. His father, who was governor of the three cantons of Moldavia, became prince of this province in 1664. Demetrius, being sent early to Constantinople, flattered himself with the prospect of succeeding him; but was supplanted by a rival at the Porte. Being sent in 1710 by the Ottoman minister to defend Moldavia against the czar Peter, he delivered it up to that monarch and, following his new master through his conquests, indemnified himself for all he had lost; for he obtained the title of prince of the empire, with full power and authority over the Moldavians, who quitted their country to attach themselves to his fortunes. He died, 1723, in his territories of the Ukraine, much lamented. He was studious and learned, and is said to have understood eleven languages. He wrote in Latin a “History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire,” A. D. 1300 1683, which was published in an English translation by Tindal, Lond. 1734, fol. Gibbon says it contains strange blunders in Oriental history, though he acknowledges that the author was conversant with the language, annals, and institutions of the Turks. His “System of the Mahometan Religion” was written and printed in the Russian language, by order of czar Peter; his moral dialogues entitled “The World and the Soul,” were printed in Moldavia in Greek and Moldavian “The present state of Moldavia” was printed in Latin his e< Musical Airs with Turkish Words,“and” An Introduction to Music," in Moldavian. He was also the author of other pieces, which were either lost in his shipwreck, or still remain in ms.

It may justly seem a matter of wonder, how in so short a life a man could go through so many laborious tasks; and no less matter of curiosity to know how he contrived to do it. Melchior Adam has given us some account of this and according to him, Caaterus was, in the first place, very temperate and abstemious in point of diet He always began his studies at seven in the morning, and not sooner, because early rising did not agree with him; and pursued them very intensely till half past eleven. Then he walked out for an hour before dinner; and, after he had dined, walked for another hour. Then, retiring to his study, he slept an hour upon a couch, and after that resumed his studies, which he continued till almost sun-set in winter, and seven in summer. Then he took another hour’s walk; and, after returning again to his studies, continued them till midnight without interruption. These last hours of the day were not however devoted by him to severe study, but to writing letters to his friends, or any other business that required less labour and attention. In. these habits, Canterus was both assiduous and constant; and his studies were conducted with as much form and method, as if he himself had been a machine. He had not only his particular hours for studying, but he divided those by an hour-glass, some of which he set apart for reading, others for writing; and as he tells us himself in a preface to his Latin translation of Stobceus, he never varied from, his established method on any account whatever. During his short life, he collected a most excellent and curious library; not only full of the best authors in all the languages he understood, but abounding with Greek manuscripts, which he had purchased in his travels, and which, if death had spared him, he intended to have published with Latin versions and notes. He could have said with Antoninus, that “nothing was dearer to him than his books:” his inordinate love of which exposed him to a most severe trial, when a sudden inundation at Louvain greatly damaged, and had like to have destroyed his whole library. This happened in the winter of 1573, and was such an affliction to him, that, as Melchior Adam says, it would certainly have killed him, if his friends had not plied him with proper topics of consolation, and assisted him in drying and restoring his books and manuscripts.

On July 20, 1752, our philosopher was so fortunate as to be the first person in England, who, by attracting the electric fire from the clouds during a thunder storm, verified Dr. Franklin’s hypothesis of the similarity of lightning and electricity. Dec. 6, 1753, his paper, entitled, “Electrical experiments,” with an attempt to account for their several phenomena, was read at the Royal Society. In the same paper Mr. Canton mentioned his having discovered, by a great number of experiments, that some clouds were in a positive, and some in a negative state of electricity. Dr. Franklin, much about the same time, made the like discovery in America. This circumstance, together with our author’s constant defence of the doctor’s hypothesis, induced that eminent philosopher, immediately on his arrival in England, to pay Mr. Canton a visit, and gave rise to a friendship which ever after continued without interruption or diminution. On November 14, 1754, was read at the royal society, a letter to the right honourable the earl of Macclesfield, concerning some new electrical experiments. On St. Andrew’s day, 1754, he was a second time elected one of the council of the royal society for the year ensuing. In the Lady’s Diary for 1756, our author answered the prize question that had been proposed in the preceding year. The question was, “How can what we call the shooting of stars be best accounted for; what is the substance of this phenomenon; and in what state of the atmosphere doth it most frequently shew itself?” The solution, though anonymous, was so satisfactory to his friend Mr. Thomas Simpson, who then conducted that work, that he sent Mr. Canton the prize, accompanied with a note, in which he said he was sure that he was not mistaken, in the author of it, as no one besides, that he knew of, could have answered the question. Our philosopher’s next communication to the public was a letter in the Gentleman’s Magazine for September 1759, on the electrical properties of the tourmalin, in which the laws of that wonderful stone are laid down in a very concise and elegant manner. On Dec. 13, in the same year, was read, at the royal society, “An attempt to account for the regular diurnal variation of the horizontal magnetic needle; and also for its irregular variation at the time of an aurora borealis.” A complete year’s observations of the diurnal variations of the needle are annexed to the paper. On Nov. 5, 1761, our author communicated to the royal society an account of the transit of Venus, June 6, 1761, observed in Spitai- square. Mr. Canton’s next communication to the society was a letter addressed to Dr. Benjamin Franklin, and read Feb. 4, 1762, containing some remarks on Mr. Delaval’s electrical experiments. On December 16, in the same year, another curious addition was made by him to philosophical knowledge, in a paper entitled, “Experiments to prove that water is not incompressible.” These experiments are a complete refutation of the famous Florentine experiment, which so many philosophers have mentioned as a proof of the incompressibility of water. On St. Andrew’s day, 1763, our author was the third time elected one of the council of the royal society; and on Nov. 8, in the following year, were read, before that learned body, his farther experiments and observations on the compressibility of water, and some other fluids. The establishment of this fact, in opposition to the received opinion, formed on the hasty decision of the Florentine academy, was thought to be deserving of the society’s gold medal. Tt was accordingly moved for in the council of 1764 and after severalinvidious delays, which terminated much to the honour of Mr. Canton, it was pro sented to him Nov. 30, 1765.

was the only son and heir of sir Henry Capel, who died in the flower of his age. He succeeded to the family estate on the death of his grandfather, sir Arthur, and following the example of his virtuous ancestors, was very eminent for his hospitality to his neighbours, while his great charities to the poor endeared him to the hearts of the people, who chose him to serve in parliament for the county of Hertford, in 1639 and 1640. In the following year he was made a peer by Charles I. with the title of lord Capel, of Hadham. Upon the breaking out of the rebellion, he raised at his own charge some troops of horse, in defence of the royal cause, although he hud at first sided with the parliament; and did not attach himself particularly to the court, until he sawthat the designs of the republicans were no longer conducted with moderation or justice. He fought valiantly in many battles and skirmishes, and continued to adhere loyally to his king, till his majesty’s armies were dispersed, his garrisons lost, and his“person imprisoned, when lord Capel compounded with the parliamentarians, and retired to his manor of Hadham. Perceiving, some time after, the hard treatment his sovereign met with, he resolutely ventured again, with all the force he could raise, to rescue the king from his enemies; and joining his troops with those of lord Goring and sir Charles Lucas, underxvent the severest hardships in the memorable siege of Colchester, which was at length surrendered to general Fairfax upon articles which were immediately broke; for sir Charles Lucas and sir George Lisle were shot, and lord Capel sent prisoner to Windsor-castle. An act of attainder being ordered by the house of commons to be brought in against him, the house voted, Nov. 10, 1648, that he and some others should be banished, but that punishment not being thought severe enough, he was removed to the Tower. Lord Clarendon is of opinion that two or three sharp and bitter speeches which passed between Ireton and lord Capel, cost the latter his life. In the mean time, however, he contrived to escape out of his prison, but being discovered and apprehended at Lambeth, on Feb. 10, 1649, he was brought before a pretended high court of justice in Westminster- hall, to be tried for treason and other high crimes and though he strenuously insisted that he was a prisoner to the lord general Fairfax, that he had conditions given him, and was to have fair quarter for his life; yet his plea was over-ruled. In three days after he was brought again before the court, when the counsel moved that he should be hanged, drawn, and quartered. This, however, was changed for beheading, and the sentence was executed March 9. He trod the fatal stage, says lord Orford, with all the dignity of valour and conscious integrity. In these qualities all historians are agreed, if we except Mrs. Macaulay, whose hostility to the loyalists is rather a compliment. His literary remains were published in 1654, with the title” Daily observations or meditations; divine, moral, written by a person of honour and piety;“to which are added” Certain letters written to several persons,' 7 4to; and the whole were reprinted afterwards in 12mo, with the title of “Excellent Contemplations, &c.” and some account of his life. Some “Stanzas,” by lord Capel, written when he was a prisoner in the Tower, were inserted in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1757. His heart, which he had ordered to be kept, and deposited near the remains of his royal master, was afterwards placed in the family-vault at Hadham, as appears by a letter from the late incumbent of that parish, Dr. Anthony Hamilton, published in the fifteenth volume of the Archaeologia.

, son of Christopher Capel, an alderman of Gloucester, was born 1586 in that city, and after being educated there in grammar, became a commoner of Aiban hall, Oxford, in 1601, and soon after was elected demy of Magdalen-college. In 160.9 he was made perpetual fellow, being then M. A. the highest degree which he took at the university. While there, Wood says, “his eminence was great, and he was resorted to by noted men, especially of the Calvinist persuasion,” and was tutor to several young men who afterwards rose to high reputation, particularly Accepted Frewen, archbishop of York, Will. Pemble, &c. He left college on obtaining the rectory of Eastington in Gloucestershire, and became highly popular as a plain and practical preacher, and a man of exemplary life and conversation. In 1633, when the Book of Sports on the Lord’s day was ordered to be read in all churches, he refused, and resigned his rectory. He then obtained licence from the bishop of Gloucester to practise physic, which he did with much success for some years, residing at Pitchcomb, near Stroud, where he had an estate. In the commencement of the rebellion, he was called to be one of the assembly of divines, but did not accept the offer. Wood thinks he was restored to his benefice at this time, or had another conferred upon him, which we believe was Pitchcomb, where he died Sept. 21, 1656, and was buried in the church there. Clarke informs us that for some time he attended the court of James I. until the death of sir Thomas Overbury, who was his particular friend. His principal works are, 1. “Temptations, their nature, danger, and cure, &c.” Lond. 1650, 8vo, and an “Apology” against some exceptions, 1659, 8vo. 2. “Remains, being an useful Appendix to the former,” 1658, 8vo. His son Daniel Capel was also a divine, and, according to Walker, ejected from his living in Gloucestershjre by the Oxford visitors. He then practised physic at Stroud, where he died in 1679. He wrote, “Tentamen medicum de variolis,” and some other tracts.

, a gentleman well known by his indefatigable attention to the works of Shakspeare, was born at Troston, near Bury, Suffolk, June 11, 1713, and received his education at the school of St. Edmund’s Bury. In the dedication of his edition of Shakspeare, in 1768, to the duke of Grafton, he observes, that “his father and the grandfather of his grace were friends, and to the patronage of the deceased nobleman he owed the leisure which enabled him to bestow the attention of twenty years on that work.” The office which his grace bestowed on Mr. Capell was that of deputy inspector of the plays, to which a salary is annexed of 200l. a year. So early as the year 1745, as Capell himself informs us, shocked at the licentiousness of Hanmer’s plan, he first projected an edition of Shakspeare, of the strictest accuracy, to be collated and published, in due time, “ex fide codicum.” He immediately proceeded to collect and compare the oldest and scarcest copies; noting the original excellencies and defects of the rarest quartos, and distinguishing the improvements or variations of the first, second, and third folios. But while all this mass of profound criticism was tempering in the forge, he appeared at last a self-armed Aristarchus, almost as lawless as any of his predecessors, vindicating his claim to public notice by his established reputation, the authoritative air of his notes, and the shrewd observations, as well as majesty, of his preface. His edition, however, was the effort of a poet, rather than of a critic; and Mr. Capell lay fortified and secure in his strong holds, entrenched in the black letter. Three years after (to use his own language) he “set out his own edition, in ten volumes, small octavo, with an introduction,” 1768, printed at the expence of the principal booksellers of London, who gave him 300l. for his labours. There is not, among the various publications of the present literary aera, a more singular composition than that “Introduction.” In style and manner it is more obsolete, and antique, than the age of which it treats. It is lord Herbert of Cherbury walking the new pavement in all the trappings of romance; but, like lord Herbert, it displays many valuable qualities accompanying this air of extravagance, much sound sense, and appropriate erudition. It has since been added to the prolegomena of Johnson and Steevens’s edition. In the title-page of this work was also announced, “Whereunto will be added, in some other volumes, notes, critical and explanatory, and a body of various readings entire.” The introduction likewise declared, that these “notes and various readings” would be accompanied with another work, disclosing the sources from which Shakspeare “drew the greater part of his knowledge in mythological and classical matters, his fable, his history, and even the seeming peculiarities of his language to which,” says Mr. Capell, “we have given for title, The School of Shakspeare.” Nothing surely could be more properly conceived than such designs, nor have we ever met with any thing better grounded on the subject of “the learning of Shakspeare” than what may be found in the. long note to this part of Mr. Capell’s introduction. It is more solid than even the popular essay on this topic. Such were the meditated achievements of the critical knight-errant, Edward Capell. But, alas! art is long, and life is short. Three-andtvventy years had elapsed, in collection, collation, compilation, and transcription, between the conception and production of his projected edition: and it then came, like human births, naked into the world, without notes or commentary, save the critical matter dispersed through the introduction, and a brief account of the origin of the fables of the several plays, and a table of the different editions. Cenain quaintnesses of style, and peculiarities of printing and punctuation, attended the whole of this publication. The outline, however, was correct. The critic, with unremitting toil, proceeded in his undertaking. But while he was diving into the classics of Caxton, and working his way under ground, like the river Mole, in order to emerge with all his glories; while he was looking forward to his triumphs; certain other active spirits went to work upon his plan, and, digging out the promised treasures, laid them prematurely before the public, defeating the effect of our critic’s discoveries by anticipation. Steevens, Malone, Farmer, Percy, Reed, and a whole host of literary ferrets, burrowed into every hole and corner of the warren of modern antiquity, and overran all the country, whose map had been delineated by Edward Capell. Such a contingency nearly staggered the steady and unshaken perseverance of our critic, at the very eve of the completion of his labours, and, as his editor informs us for, alas! at the end of near forty years, the publication was posthumous, and the critic himself no more! we say then, as his editor relates, he was almost determined to lay the work wholly aside. He persevered, however (as we learn from the rev. editor, Mr. Collins), by the encouragement of some noble and worthy persons: and to such their Cih couragement, and his perseverance, the public was, in 1783, indebted for three large volumes in 4to, under the title of “Notes and various readings of Shakspeare; together with the School of Shakspeare, or extracts from divers English books, that were in print in the author’s time; evidently shewing from whence his several fables were taken, and some parcel of his dialogue. Also farther extracts, which contribute to a due understanding of his writings, or give a light to the history of his life, or to the dramatic history of his time.”

, an eminent Lutheran reformer, was born at Hagenau in Alsace, in 1478. His father was of the senatorian rank, and being averse to the lives of the divines of his time, had him brought up to the profession of physic at Basil, where he took his doctor’s degree, and likewise made great proficiency in other studies. After his father’s death, however, in 1504, he studied divinity, and also civil law, under Zasius, an eminent civilian, and took a degree in that faculty. At Heidelberg he became acquainted with Oecolampadius, with whom he ever after preserved the strictest intimacy and friendship. On their first acquaintance they studied Hebrew together under the tuition of one Matthew Adrian, a converted Jew, and Capito then became a preacher, first at Spire and afterwards at Basil, where he continued for some years. From thence he was sent for by the elector Palatine, who made him his counsellor, and sent him on several embassies, and Cliarles V. is said to have conferred upon him the order of knighthood. From Mcntz he followed Bucer to Strasburgh, where he astonished his hearers by preaching the reformed, or rather reforming religion, at 8t. Thomas’s church in that city, beginning his ministry by expounding St. Paul’s epistle to the Colossians. The fame of Capito and Bucer spread so wide, that James Faber and Gerard Rufus were sent privately from France to hear him, by Margaret queen of Navarre, sister to the French king; and by this means the protestant doctrine was introduced into France. Capito was a man of great learning and eloquence, tempered with a prudence which gave weight to his public services as well as to his writings. In all disputes, he insisted on brotherly love and peaceable discussion.

, nephew of the preceding, was born at Mondidier in 1716, and died at Paris in 1775. He was a member of the academy of inscriptions, professor of Greek in the royal college, to which he succeeded on his uncle’s death, and librarian to the king. He inherited much of his uncle’s taste for classical studies, and was not less esteemed for his private character. He published, 1. an edition of Joinville’s “History of St. Lewis,” Paris, 1761, fol. 2. An edition of “Anacreon,” 1748, 12mo, described in our authority as rare, nor do we find it in Harwood, Dibdin, or Clarke. 3. “Csesaris Opera,” Paris, Barbou, 1754, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Plautus,” with a good glossary, by Valart, 1759, 8 vols. 12mo. 5. “Sophocles,” prepared by our author, but published after his death by Vauvilliers, Paris, 1781, 2 vols. 4to. An ample account of this edition may be seen in Dibdin. Capperonnier also contributed various papers to the academy of inscriptions. His son, a very learned young man, who had also a place in the royal library, was unfortunately drowned a few years ago, while sailing in a pleasure-boat with some friends.

Meanwhile Hannibal continued working in the Farnese gallery at Rome; and, after inconceivable pains and care, finished the paintings in the perfection they are in at present. He hoped that the cardinal would have rewarded him in some proportion to the excellence of his work, and to the time it took him up, which was eight years; but he was disappointed. The cardinal, influenced by an ignorant Spaniard his domestic, gave him but a little above 200 pounds. When the money was brought him, he was so surprised at the injustice done him, that he could not speak a word to the person who brought it. This confirmed him in a melancholy which his temper naturally inclined to, and made him resolve never more to touch his pencil; and this resolution he had undoubtedly kept, if his necessities had not compelled him to break it. It is said that his melancholy gained so much upon him that at certain times it deprived him of the right use of his senses. It did not, however, put a stop to his amours; and his debauches at Naples, whither he had retired for the recovery of his health, brought a distemper upon him, of which he died at forty-nine years of age. As in his life he had imitated Raphael in his works, so he seems to have copied that great master in the cause and manner of his death. His veneration for Raphael was indeed so great, that it was his death- bed request to be buried in the same tomb with him which was accordingly done in the pantheon or rotunda at Rome. There are extant several prints of the blessed Virgin, and of other subjects, etched by the hand of this incomparable artist. He is said to have been a friendly, plain, honest, and open-hearted man; very com^ municative to his scholars, and so extremely kind to them, that he generally kept his money in the same box with his colours, where they might have recourse to either as they had occasion.

While Hannibal Caracci worked at Home, Lewis was courted from all parts of Lombardy, especially by the clergy, to make pictures in their churches; and we may judge of his capacity and facility, by the great number of pictures he made, and by the preference that was given him to other painters. In the midst of these employments, Hannibal solicited him to come and assist him in the Farnese gallery; and so earnestly that he could not avoid complying with his request. He w r ent to Rome; corrected several things in that gallery; painted a figure or two himself, and then returned to Bologna, where he died, 1619, aged 63.

Lodovico Caracci, far from subscribing to a master’s dictates, or implicit imitation of former styles, was the sworn pnipil of nature. To a modest but dignified design, to a simplicity eminently fitted for those subjects of religious gravity which his taste preferred, he joined that solemnity of hue, that sober twjlight, that air of cloistered meditation, which has been so often recommended as the proper tone of historic colour. Too often content to rear the humbler graces of his subject, he seldom courted elegance, but always, when he did, with enviable success. Even now, though they are nearly -n a state of evanescence, the three nymphs in the garden scene of S. Michele in Bosco, seem moulded by the hand, inspired by the breath, of love; this genial glow he communicates even to the open silvery tone of fresco: his master-piece in oil is the altar-piece of St. John the Baptist, formerly in the Certosa of Bologna, now in the Louvre, a work allsainted by this solemn hue, whose lights seem embrowned by a golden veil. But Lodovico sometimes indulged and succeeded in tones austere, unmixed and hardy: such is the Flagellation, of Christ in the same church, of which the tremendous depth of the flesh tints contrasts with therstern blue of the wide-expanded sky; and less conveys, than dashes its terrors on the astonished sense.

, often called Hobertus de Licio, from Leze“or Lecce”, where he was born in 1425, descended probably from the illustriou; family of Caraccioli, and became one of the most celebrated preachers of his time. Having an early inclination to the church, he entered the order of the Franciscans, but finding their discipline too rigid, he removed to the Conventuals, and according to Erasmus, lived with more iVi-eJoin. He was. however, distinguished for talents, and occupied some honourable offices, and was appointed professor oi divinity. His particular bias was to preaching, which he cultivated with such success, as to incline all his brethren to imitate one who, throughout all Italy, was bailed as a second St. Paul. He displayed his pulpit eloquence not only in the principal cities of Italy, Assisa, Florence, Venice, Ferrara, Naples, &c. but before the popes, and is said to have censured the vices and luxury of the Roman court with great boldness and some quaint humour. This, however, appears not to have given serious offence, as he was employed by the popes, as well as by the king of Naples, in several negotiations of importance, and was made successively bishop of Aquino, of Lecce*, and of Aquila. After more than fifty years’ exercise of his talent as a preacher, he died at his native place May 6, 14-y 5. Of his sermons eight volumes have been often printed. 1. “Sermones de adventu,” Venice, 1496, 8vo. 2. “De Quadragesima,” Cologne, 1475, fol. 3. “De Quadragesima, seu Quadragesimale perutilissimum de Pcenitentia,” Venice, 1472, 4to. There are Italian translations of some of these. 4. “De Tempore, &c. Sanctorum,” Naples, 1489, 4to. 5. “De Solemnitatibus totius anni,” Venice, 1471. 6. “De Christo,” &c. Venice, 1489, 4to. 7. “De timorejudiciorum Dei,” Naples, 1473, fol. 8. “De amore divinorum officiorum,” ibid. 1473. There is another volume under the title “Roberti de Licio Sermones,” Leyden, 1500, 4to. He wrote also some theological works, of which a catalogue may be seen in our authority. Domenico de Angelis wrote his life, which was published at Naples in 1703, 4to.

, Marquis, was a native of Paris, where he was born in 1723, and having embraced the military life, became a colonel in the Polish service. Having quitted that, he travelled in Italy, and afterwards returned to his own country, where he passed a considerable part of his time in writing and publishing, and where he died May 29, 1803. His works, which are rather numerous than valuable, are of the moral or historic kind. Of the first, we have, 1. “Charactere de l'Amitié,” 2. “Conversation avec Soi- meme.” 3. “Jouissance de Soi-meme.” 4. “Le Veritable Mentor,” &c. &c. and of the historic or biographical kind, are the lives of cardinal de Berulle, Benedict XIV. Clement XIV. madame de Maintenon, &c. these are each comprized in a duodecimo volume, a quantity and form for which he appears to have had a predilection. Above twenty other works are enumerated in the Diet. Hist, of which the only one worthy of notice is “Ganganelli’s Letters,” which were translated into English some years ago, and had considerable success in raising the opinions of the public in favour of that pontiff; but it is now generally acknowledged that they were the composition of Caraccioli. His life of Ganganeili, which was translated into English in 1770, is esteemed more authentic. There was another Caraccioli in this country some years ago, who called himself Charles Caraccioli, gent, and published a confused jumble under the title of a Life of Lord Clive, and, if we mistake not, some novels.

, a celebrated painter, was born at Caravagio, a place in the Milanese, in 1569. His father was a mason by trade, and employed him in making paste for the fresco-painters in Milan. The habit of being constantly among, painters, and seeing them work, produced in him a taste for that art, and without a teacher, without studying eitjier antiques, or the master-pieces of the moderns, he became a great painter. He employed himself entirely in making portraits for four or five years. He found nature the surest guide in his art, and he followed her with a servile obedience. He painted solely after her, without any selection, the beautiful as well as the ordinary; and copied her very defects. On being once shewn some fine antique fig ires, “See,” said he, pointing to the bystanders, “how many more models nature has given me than all your staiuos!” and went immediately into an alehouse, where he painted on the spot a gipsy who happened to be in the street, so as none could find any thing to correct in it.

Caravagio’s life was one continued series of misfortunes: he did not dare to go home to his country; on all hands he saw himself proscribed; he had scarcely a friend in the world, and died, quite destitute, on the common road. He usually went very ill clothed; he lived, without the ordinary accommodations, in any alehouse that would harbour him; and, once, when ho had not wherewith to pay his reckoning, he painted the sign for the alehouse, which, some time afterwards, was sold for a considerable sum. For many years the canvas of a portrait served him for a table-cloth at his dinner. Mr. Fuseli observes of this great artist, that he established a style of his own, in which energy and truth were to recover the rights supplanted by variety and manner. Of this style, the model, or what the Italians call “il vero,” dictated the forms, from which to deviate, or which to improve, was equally high treason against the art, or matter of derision in the eye of Caravagio. But to forms thus indiscriminately picked from the dregs of the street, he contrived to give energy and interest, by ideal light and shade. So novel a combination, substantiated by powers so decisive, could not fail to draw after it a number of followers. The great excellence of Caravagio consisted in truth of colour: he penetrated the substance of the thing before him, whether still life, fruit, flowers or flesh. His tints are few, but true, with little help from cinnabar or azure. Hence Hannibal Caracci declared, that he did not paint, but grind flesh. (Che costui macinava carne.)

His life was a series of adventures, which he has committed to writing in his work “De vita propria” with great freedom, and probably great truth, but with a thorough contempt for fame or decency. It would ap^ pear as if he had written this history of his life for no other purpose than to give the public a proof that he was a most uncommon compound of wisdom and folly, and it is certainly not often that a character is to be met with so capricious and unequal. He congratulates himself that he had not a friend in the world; but that to make up for the loss, he was attended by an aerial spirit, an emanation from Saturn and Mercury, which was the constant guide of his actions, and teacher of every duty to which he was bound. When nature did not visit him with any bodily pain, he would procure to himself that disagreeable sensation, by biting his lips so strongly, or pulling his fingers to such a degree, as sometimes to force the tears from his eyes; and the reason he assigned was, in order to moderate certain impetuous sallies of his mind, whose violence was far more insupportable than bodily pain; and that the sure consequence of such a severe practice was his better enjoying the pleasure of health.

He makes no scruple of owning that he was revengeful , envious, treacherous, a dealer in the black art, a backbiter, a calumniator, and unreservedly addicted to all the foul and detestable excesses that can be imagined. Yet, with all this, he was perhaps the vainest of human beings; and speaks thus of his talents. “I have been admired by many nations; and an almost infinite number of panegyrics in prose and verse have been composed to celebrate my fame. I was born to release the world from the manifold errors under which it groaned. What I have found out could not be discovered either by my predecessors, or my contemporaries; and that is the reason why those authors, who write any thing worthy of being remembered, blush not to own that they are indebted to me for it. I have composed a book on the dialectic art, in which there is neither a superfluous letter, nor one deficient. I finished it in seven days, which seems a prodigy. Yet where is there a person to be found, that can boast of his having become master of its doctrine in a year? And he, that shall have comprehended it in that time, must appear to have been instructed by a familiar demon.”

Cardanus certainly instructed himself in every species of knowledge, and made very considerable improvements in medicine, mathematics, and philosophy. Scaliger, who wrote against him with great warmth, owns that he was endowed with a very comprehensive and penetrating mind. He has been accused of impiety, and even of atheism. Of impiety it will not be easy to remove the imputation, many of his actions being grossly impious and immoral; but he appears to have thought better than he acted, and was rather a superstitious man than a free-thinker. He owns himself that he was not a devotee, parum pius; but at the same time he declares, that though he was naturally very vindictive, he often let slip the occasion of satisfying his resentment, out of veneration for the Deity, Dei ob vcncrat ion em. He says, “There is no form of worship more pleasing to the Deity, than that of obeying the law, notwithstanding the strongest impulses of our nature to trespass against it.” He says he was sometimes tempted to lay violent hands on himself, which he calls heroic love; and imagined that several other persons have been possessed with it, though they did not own it. Nothing gave him more pleasure, than to talk of things which made the whole company uneasy: he spoke on all subjects, in season and out of season; and was so fond of games of chance, as to spend whole days in them, to the great prejudice of his family and reputation; for he even staked his furniture and his wife’s jewels. He observes, that the poverty to which he was reduced, never compelled him to do apy thing beneath his birth or virtue; and that one of the methods he took to earn a subsistence, was the making of almanacs.

He wrote a great number of books, now comprised in 10 vols. folio, Lyons*, 1663. His poverty, he tells us, was one reason why he wrote so many treatises, the digressions and obscurity of which puzzle the reader, who often finds in them what he did not expect to meet with. In his arithmetic he introduces several discourses concerning the motion of the planets, the creation, and the tower of Babel; and in his logic he has inserted a criticism on historians and letter- writers. He owns that he made these digressions to fill up his bargain with the booksellers being for so much a sheet and he wrote as much for bread as for reputation. With regard to the obscurity of his writings, Naudaeus alleges the following among other reasons for it: that Cardan imagined, that many things being familiar to him needed not to be expressed, and the heat of his imagination and his extensive genius hurried him from one thing to another, without staying to explain the medium or connection between them. Naudseus adds, that the amazing contradictions in his writings are an evident proof, that he was not always in his senses; that they can neither be imputed to a defect of memory, nor to artifice; and that the little relation there is between his several variations, proceeded from the different fits of madness with which he was seized. In the midst of all this weakness, Cardan is universally acknowledged to have been a man of great erudition and fertile invention, and is celebrated as the author of many new and singular observations in philosophy and medicine. His discoveries in mathematics may be seen in Dr. Hutton’s Dictionary, or the Cyclopædia, art. Algebra; and his treatise “De Met ho do Medendi” discovers a mind capable of detecting and renouncing established errors. His book “De snbtilitate et varietate rerum” shews, in the opinion of Brucker, that if he could have preserved his judgment free from the influence of a disordered imagination, he was able to have contributed to the improvement of natural philosophy. Of the dogmas of this philosopher, the following are a specimen: “Primary matter, which remains immutably the same, fills every place; whence, without the annihilation of matter there can be no vacuum. Three principles subsist every where; matter, form, and mind. There are in matter three kinds of motion; the h'rst, from form to element; the second, the reverse of this; the third, the descent of heavy bodies. The elements or passive principles are three; water, earth, and air, for naturally all things are cold, that is, destitute of heat. The agent in nature is celestial heat; the air, being exposed to the action of the solar rays, is perpetually in motion. The moon and all the other heavenly bodies are luminous from themselves. The heavens are animated by an ever-active principle, and are therefore never quiescent. Man, having mind as well as soul, is not an animal. The dispositions of men are produced, and all moral affairs are directed, by the influence of the stars. Mind is universally diffused; and though it appears multiplied, is but one; it is extrinsically, and for a time, attached to human bodies, but never perishes.”

, called also Cigoli and Civolt, an eminent painter, was born in 1559, at the castle of Cigoli, in Tuscany, and became the scholar of Santi di Titi, but after travelling into Lombardy, studied the works of the first masters, and particularly Correggio. He had some taste, also, for poetry and music, but soon became exclusively attached to his particular art. He was employed by the grand duke in the palace Pitti, and afterwards at Rome and Florence exhibited some excellent specimens of his genius. He gave a new style to the Florentine school; but to say that perhaps he was superior to all his contemporaries, that he approached nearer than any other the style of Correggio, are expressions of Baldinucci, which none will believe who has seen the imitations of that master by Baroccio, the Caracci, or Schidone. Cardi, to judge from his pictures as they are now, availed himself with success of Correggio’s chiaroscuro, joined it to learning in design, and set it off by judicious perspective and a far livelier colour than that of the Tuscan school; but his pictures do not exhibit that contrast of tints, that impasto, that splendour, that graceful air, those bold fore-shortenings, which constitute the character of the. heads of Lombard art. In short, he was the inventor of an original but not a steady style; that which he adopted at Rome differs from his former one. If the general tone of his colour be Lembardesque, his draperies resemble those of Paolo Veronese, and sometimes he approaches the depth of Guercino.

, afterwards earl of Totness (descended from an ancient family in the West of England, originally so named from Carew-castle in Pembrokeshire) was born in 1557. His mother was Anne, daughter of sir Nicolas Harvey, kiTight, and his father, George, archdeacon of Totness, and successively dean of Bristol, of the queen’s chapel, of Windsor, of Christ Church, Oxon, and of Exeter; besides several other preferments, most of which he resigned before his decease, which occurred in 1585. George Carew in 1572 was admitted gentleman commoner of Broadgate-hall (now Pembroke college) in Oxford; where he made a good proficiency in learning, particularly in the study of antiquitie’s, but being of an active temper, he left the university without a degree; and applying himself to military affairs, went and served in Ireland against the earl of Desmond. In 1580 he was made governor of Asketten-castle, and in 1589 was created master of arts at Oxford, being then a knight. Some time after, being constituted lieutenant-general of the artillery, or master of the ordnance in Ireland, he was one of the commanders at the expedition to Cadiz, in 1596; and again, the next year, in the intended expedition against Spain. Having in 1599 been appointed president of Munster, he was in 1600 made treasurer of the army, and one of the lords justices of Ireland. When he entered upon his government, he found every thing in a deplorable condition; all the country being in open and actual rebellion, excepting a few of the better sort, and himself having for his defence but three thousand foot and two hundred and fifty horse; yet he behaved with so much conduct and bravery, that he reduced many castles and forts, took James Fitz Thomas, the titular earl of Desmond, and O'Connor, prisoners; and brought the Bourkes, Obriens, and many other Irish rebels, to submission. He also bravely resisted the six thousand Spaniards, who landed at Kinsale, October 1, 1601, and had so well established the province of which he was president, by apprehending the chief of those he mistrusted, and taking pledges of the rest, that no person of consideration joined the Spaniards. In 1602 he made himself master of the castle of Donboy, which was a very difficult undertaking, and reckoned almost impracticable; and by this means prevented the arrival of an army of Spaniards, which were ready to sail for Ireland. He had for some time been desirous of quitting his burdensome office of president of Minister, but he could not obtain permission till the beginning of 1603, when, leaving that province in perfect peace, he arrived in England the 21st of March, three days before queen Elizabeth’s death. His merit was so great, that he was taken notice of by the nevr king, and made by him, in the first year of his reign, governor of the isle of Guernsey, and Castle Cornet: and having married Joyce*, the daughter and heir of William Clopton, of Clopton, co. Warwick, esq. he was June 4, J 605, advanced to the degree of a baron, by the title of lord Carew, of Clopton. Afterwards he was made vice-chamberlain and treasurer to king James’s queen; and in 1608 constituted master of the ordnance throughout England for life; and sworn of the privy-council to the king, as he had before been to queen Elizabeth. Upon king Charles Ist’s accession to the crown, he was created, Feb. 1, 1625, earl of Totness. At length, full of years and honours, he departed this life at the Savoy in London, March 27, 1629, aged seventy- three years and ten months and was buried at Stratford upon Avon, near Clopton leaving behind him the character of a faahful subject, a valiant and prudent commander, an honest counsellor, a genteel scholar, a lover of antiquities, and a great patron of learning. A stately monument was erected to his memory, by his widow, with a long inscription reciting his actions.

He wrote, or rather caused to be written under his direction, a book entitled “Pacata Hibernia,” of the history of the wars in Ireland, especially within the province of Munster, in the years 1599, 1600, 1601, and 1602; which, after his death, was printed at London' in 1633, fol. with seventeen maps; being published by his natural son, Thomas Stafford. Harris, in his edition of Ware’s Ireland, appeals to the preface, to p. 367, and other parts of this work, as proofs that Carew was not the author of it. Sir George Carew collected also, in four large volumes, several chronologies, charters, letters, monuments, maps, &c, relating to Ireland; which are preserved in the Bodleian

The natural son of the earl of Totness, afterwards sir Thomas Stafford, was secretary to that nobleman when president of Munster; and the earl bequeathed by his will (remaining at Doctors’ Commons, dated Nov. 30, 1625) all his books and Mss. to sir Thomas; who, in 1633, published the earl’s history, as already mentioned, which he dedicated to Charles 1. “to whom nothing could pass through the publisher’s hands which was not justly due, both by common allegiance and particular service.” To sir Thomas the earl also gave his lease of an annuity or pension of 500l. received from the Alienation office; and if sir Thomas survived him, he wished his countess to convey unto him all his estates of Woodgrove in Essex, at Salcombe, Abberton, and Lanceston, or elsewhere, in Devon and Cornwall. Sir Thomas survived both him and his countess; the latter of whom died Jan. 14, 1636-7; and by her will (in the Commons, dated June 9, 1636) she desires her trusty and good friend and chaplain, Richard Wright, clerk, dwelling in Warwickshire, and Richard Wootton, of Fleet-street, London, gent, to peruse all her deeds and evidences, and deliver unto sir Thomas Stafford such as belonged to him.

, an English poet, was the younger brother of sir Matthew Carevv, a zealous adherent to the fortunes of Charles I. and of the family of Carews in Gloucestershire, but descended from the more ancient family of that name in Devonshire. He is supposed to have been born in 1589. According to Anthony Wood, he received his academical education at Corpus Christi college, Oxford, but was neither matriculated, nor took any degree. After leaving college he improved himself by travelling, according to the custom of the age, and by associating with men of learning and talents both at home and abroad'; and being distinguished for superior elegance of manners and taste, he was received into the court of Charles I. as gentleman of the privy-chamber, and sewer in ordinary. His wit had recommended him to his sovereign, who, however, Clarendon informs us, incurred the displeasure of the Scotch nation by bestowing upon him the place of sewer, in preference to a gentleman recommended upon the interest of the courtiers of that nation. He appears after this appointment to have passed his days in affluence and gaiety. His talents were highly valued by his contemporaries, particularly Ben Jonson and sir William Davenant. Sir John Suckling only, in his Session of the Poets, insinuates that his poems cost him more labour than is consistent with the fertility of real genius. But of this there are not many marks visible in his works, and what sir John mistakes for the labour of costiveness, may have been only the laudable care he employed in bringing his verses to a higher degree of refinement than many of his contemporaries. His death is said to have taken place in 1639, which agrees with the information we have in Clarendon’s Life. “He was a person of a pleasant and facetious wit, and made many poems (especially in the amorous way) which for the sharpness of the fancy, and the elegance of the language in which that fancy was spread, were at least equal, if not superior to any of that time. But his glory was, that after fifty years of his life spent with less severity or exactness than it ought to have been, he died with great remorse for that licence, and with the greatest manifestation of Christianity, that his best friends could desire.” It is pleasing to record such a*mple atonement for the licentiousness of some of his poems, which, however, most of his editors have persisted in handing down to posterity.

"The consummate elegance of this gentleman entitles him to very considerable attention. Sprightly, polished, and perspicuous, every part of his works displays the man of sense, gallantry, and breeding; indeed many of his productions have a certain happy finish, and betray a dexterity both of thought and expression much superior to any thing of his contemporaries, and, on similar subjects, rarely surpassed by his successors. Carew has the ease without the pedantry of Waller, and perhaps less conceit. He reminds us of the best manner of lord Lyttelton. Waller is too exclusively considered as the first man who brought versification to any thing like its present standard. Carew’s pretensions to the same merit are seldom sufficiently either considered or allowed. Though love had long before softened us into civility, yet it was of a forma], ostentatious, and romantic cast; and, with a very few exceptions, its effects upon composition were similar to those on manners. Something more light, unaffected, and alluring, was still wanting: in every thing but sincerity of intention it was deficient. Panegyric, declamatory and nauseous, was rated by those to whom addressed, on the principle of Rubens’s taste for beauty, by its quantity, not its elegance. Satire, dealing in rancour rather than reproof, was more inclined to lash than to laugh us out of our vices; and nearly counteracted her intentions by her want of good manners. Carew and Waller jointly began to remedy these defects. In them, gallantry, for the first time, was accompanied by the graces, the fulsomeness of panegyric forgot its gentility, and the edge of satire rendered keener in proportion to its smoothness. Suckling says of our author, in his Session of the Poets, that

, earl of Monmouth, was the eldest son of Robert, the first earl of Monmouth, who died in 1639, and whose “Memoirs,” written by himself, and containing some curious particulars of secret history of the Elizabethan period, were published from a manuscript in the possession of the late earl of Corke and Orrery, in 1759, 8vo. Henry, his son, was born in 1596, admitted a fellow commoner of Exeter college, Oxford, at the age of fifteen, and took the degree of B. A. in 1613, after which he was sent to travel into foreign countries. In 1616 he was made a knight of the bath at the creation of Charles prince of Wales. In 1625 he was known by the name of lord Lepington, his father’s title before he was created earl of Monmouth, and was noted, Wood says, as “a person well skilled in modern languages, and a general scholar.” This taste for study was his consolation when the depression of the nobility after the death of Charles I. threw many of them into retirement. He died June 13, 1661. In Chauncey’s Hertfordshire is the inscription on his monument in the church at Rickmansworth, which mentions his living forty-one years in marriage, with his countess, Martha, daughter of the lord treasurer Middlesex. He was a most laborious writer, but chiefly of translations, and, as lord Orford observes, seems to have distrusted his abilities, and to have made the fruits of his studies his amusement rather than his method of fame. Of his lordship’s publications we have, 1. “Romulus and Tarquin; or De Principe et Tyranno,” Lond. 1637, 12mo, a translation from Malvezzi, in praise of which sir John Suckling has some verses in his “Fragmenta Aurea,” and others were prefixed by Stapylton, Davenant, Carew, &c. It came to a third edition in 1648. 2. “Speech in the house of peers, Jan. 30, 1641, upon occasion of the present distractions, and of his Majesty’s removal from Whitehall,” London, 1641. 3. “Historical relations of the United Provinces, and of Flanders,” London, 1652, fol. translated from Bentivoglio. 4. “History of the Wars in Flanders,” ibid. 1654, fol. from the same author, with a portrait of the translator. 5. Cf Advertisement from Parnassus, in two Centuries: with the politic touchstone,“ibid. 1656, fol. from Boccalini. 6.” Politic Discourses, in six books,“ibid. 1657, fol. 7.” History of Venice,“ibid. 1658, fol. both from Paul Paruta, a noble Venetian. 8.” The use of Passions,“ibid. 1649 and 1671, 8vo, from the French of J. F. Senault. 9.” Man become guilty or the corruption of his nature by sin,“ibid, from the same author. 10.” The History of the late Wair of Christendom,“1641, fol. which lord Orford thinks is the same work with his translation of” Sir Francis Biondi’s History of the Civil Wars of England, between the houses of York and Lancaster.“11.” Capriata’s “History of Italy,” 1663, fol. His lordship began also to translate from the Italian “Priorato’s History of France,” but died before he could finish it. It was completed by William Brent, esq. and printed at London, 1677.

, a musical composer and poet, once of great popular reputation, was an illegitimate son of George Savile, marquis of Halifax, who had the honour of presenting the crown to William III. Carey is said to have received an annuity from a branch of that family till the day of his death, and he annexed the name of Savile to the Christian names of all the male part of his own family. At what period he was born is not known. His first lessons in music he had from one Lennert, a German, and had somje instructions also from Roseingrave and Gecniniani, but he never attained much depth in the science. The extent of Jlis abilities seerns to have been the composition of a ballad air, or at most a little cantata, to which he was just able to set a bass yet if mere popularity be the test of genius, Carey was one of the first in his time. His chief employment was teaching the boarding-schools, and among people of middling rank in private families, before tradesmen’s daughters, destined to be tradesmen’s wives, were put under the tuition of the first professors.

Though Carey had but little skill in music, he had a prolific invention, and very early in his life distinguished himself by the composition of songs, being the author both of the words and music. One of these, beginning “Of all the girls that are so smart,” and since its late revival, known by the name of “Sally in our alley,” he set to an air so very pleasant and original, as still to retain its popular character. Addison praised it for the poetry, and Genii niani for the tune. In 1715 he produced two farces, one of which, “The Contrivances,” had considerable success. In 1720 he published a small collection of “Poems;” and in 1722, a farce called “Hanging and Marriage.” In 1732 he published six “Cantatas,” written and composed by himself; and about the same time composed several songs for the “Provoked Husband” and other modern comedies. In 1729, he published, by subscription, his poems much enlarged, with the addition of one entitled “Namby Pamby,” in ridicule of Ambrose Phillips’s lines on the infant daughter of lord Carteret. Carey’s talent lay in broad, burlesque humour; and in ridicule of the bombast of modern tragedies, he produced his “Chrononhotonthologos,*' in 1734, which will always be in season, as long as extravagance and bombast are encouraged on the stage. He also wrote a farce called the” Honest Yorkshireman,“which was very successful: two interludes,” Nancy,“and 46 Thomas and Sally,” and two serious operas, “Amelia,” set to music by John Frederic Lampe, and “Teraminta,” by John Christopher Smith, Handel’s disciple, friend, and successor, in superintending the performance of oratorios. The year 1737 was rendered memorable at Coventgarden theatre by the success of the burlesque opera of the “Dragon of Wantley,” written by Carey, and set by Lampe, “after the Italian manner.” This excellent piece of humour had run twenty-two nights, when it was stopped, with all other public amusements, by the death of her majesty queen Caroline, November 20, but was resumed again on the opening of the theatres in January following, and supported as many representations as the Beggar’s Opera had done, ten years before. And if Gay’s original intention in writing his musicaldrama was to ridicule the opera, the execution of his plan was not so happy as that of Carey; in which the mock heroic, tuneful monster, recitative, splendid habits, and style of music, all conspired toremind the audience of what they had seen and heard at the lyric theatre, more effectually than the most vulgar street tunes could do; and much more innocently than the tricks and transactions of abandoned thieves and prostitutes. Lampe’s music to this farcical drama, was not only excellent fifty years ago, but is still modern and in good taste. In 1738, “Margery, or the Dragoness,” a sequel to the “Dragon of Wantley,” written with equal humour, and as well set by Lampe, came out; but had the fate of all sequels. When the novelty of a subject is faded away, and the characters have been developed, it is difficult to revive the curiosity of the public about persons and things of which opinions are already formed. The “Dragoness” appeared but few nights, and was never revived.

As Carey was an entertaining companion, he shared the fate of those who mistake the roar of the table for friendship. At first, however, he was not altogether disappointed. The publication of his songs in 1740 in a collection entitled “The Musical Century,” and of his dramatic works in 1743, in a small quarto volume, was encouraged by a numerous subscription. But he who administered to the mirth of others, was himself unhappy; and whether from embarrassed circumstances, domestic uneasiness, or, as has been supposed, the malevolence of some of his own profession, he sunk into despondency, and put an end to his life by a cord, Oct. 4, 1743, at his house in Warner- street, Cold Bath Fields. Carey’s humour, however low, was never offensive to decency, and all his songs have a moral or patriotic tendency. As to his claim to the honour of having composed our great national air of “God save the King,” which his son, the subject of the next article, frequently brought forward, Dr. Burney is of opinion that it was of prior date, written for James II. while the prince of Orange was hovering over the coast; and when the latter became king, was forgot. It is certain that in 1745, when Dr. Arne harmonized it for Drury-lane theatre, and Dr. Burney for Covent-garden, the original author of the melody was wholly unknown. The writer of a “Succinct Account” of Carey, says that he was the principal projector of the fund for decayed musicians, which was held, when first established, at the Turk’s head in Gerrard- street, Soho.

, son of the above, inherited a considerable portion of his father’s taste and spirit, and much of his misfortunes. He was intended for a printer, but his “stage-struck mind' 7 led him to the theatres, in which he had little success, yet enough to give him a wandering unsettled disposition. For forty years, he employed himself in composing and singing a vast number of popular songs, chiefly of the patriotic kind, in which there was not much genuine poetry, or cultivated music. These he performed from town to town, in what he called 4t Lectures.” He wrote also from 1766 to 1792, several farces, a list of which may be seen in the Biographia Dramatica, and by the performance of which he earned temporary supplies. Like his father, he excluded every thing indecent or immoral from his compositions. Besides these dramatic pieces, he wrote, 1. “Analects in prose and verse,” 1771, 2 vols. 2. “A Lecture on Mimickry,” a talent in which he excelled, 1776. 3. “A Rural Ramble,” 1777 and 4. '< Balnea, or sketches of the different Watering-places in England," 1799. He died July 14, 1807, aged sixty-four, being born the year his father died, and was buried by a subscription among his friends, having never realized any property, or indeed having been ever anxious but for the passing hour.

, a Roman musical composer of the seventeenth century, whose productions were not only the delight of his contemporaries, but are still sought and hoarded by the curious as precious relics, was, very early in life, appointed master of the chapel to the German college at Rome, in preference to all other candidates. Alberto delle Valle, an excellent judge of music, speaking of the compositions of Carissimi, which he heard at Rome, without knowing his name, says, that he had heard the vespers performed on Easter Monday, by the nuns only, at the church dello Spirito Santo, in florid, music, with such perfection as he never in his life had heard before; and on the last Christmas-eve, in attending the whole service at the church of St. Apollinare, where every part of it was performed agreeably to so solemn an occasion; though, by arriving too late, he was obliged to stand the whole time in a very great crowd, he remained the*re with the utmost pleasure, to hear the excellent music that was performed. In the beginning, he was particularly enchanted by the “Venite exultemus,” which was more exquisite than words can describe. “I know not,” says Valle, “who was the author of it, but suppose it to have been the production of the Maestro di Capella of that church.” There was no master in Italy at this time, 1640, whose compositions this description will so well suit, as those of the admirable Carissimi, who was now, in all probability, the Maestro di Capella in question. It was in composing for this church that he acquired that great and extensive reputation which he enjoyed during a long life, and which his offspring, or musical productions, stifl deservedly enjoy.

In March 1626-7, he was ordered to resume his character of ambassador in Holland, where our interest, from various causes, was on the decline, and required all his address and knowledge to revive it. He had many conversations with the states on the existing differences, his conduct in all which received the approbation of his’royal master, but he had not the same influence with the States as on former occasions; and returned in May or June 1628, leaving as his deputy, Mr. Dudley Carleton, his nephew, who had discharged that trust before during his absence, with diligence and capacity. Soon after his arrival in England, king Charles bestowed an additional mark of his approbation, by creating him viscount Dorchester; and in the mean time he continued to attend the court in his office of vice chamberlain, and was employed in foreign affairs of the most secret nature, as assistant to the duke of Buckingham. When that minister set out for Portsmouth to take the command of the fleet and army, which was preparing for the relief of Rochelle, lord Dorchester accompanied him, and was entrusted by Contarini, the Venetian Ambassador here, to manage the first overtures of an accommodation with France, which was interrupted by the murder of the duke of Buckingham. King Charles, then declared he would, for the future, be his own first minister, and leave the executive part of the administration to every man within the compass of his province. The first question.of importance which came before the council was, whether the parliament should sit on the day appointed, the 20th of October. Some were of opinion, that it would be the most probable method of restoring a happy union between the king and his people; but his majesty declared his pleasure for a further prorogation till the 20th of January, 1628-9, which lord Dorchester says he thought the wisest course.

The king was now determined to give the seals of secretary of state to lord Dorchester; and as the measure^ was taken, though not yet divulged, of making peace as soon as possible both with France and Spain, he judo-ed it of the utmost consequence to have one in that department, whose judgment and skill in negotiation had been exercised in a long course of foreign employment. Lord Conway had for several years discharged that great trust, according to the earl of Clarendon’s expression, with notable insufficiency, and as old age and sickness were now added to his original incapacity, the court and nation must with great satisfaction have seen him succeeded by so able a minister as lord Dorchester, but the parliament, when it Inet on the day appointed, agreed no better with the court than it had done in the preceding session. The lord treasurer Weston, and Dr. Laud, bishop of London, were become as great objects of national dislike as Buckingham had ever been, while the commons shewed their aversion to Weston in the state, and to Laud in the church, by warm remonstrances against the illegal exaction of tonnage and poundage, and the increase of Popisb and Arminian doctrines; on which account the king dissolved the house on the lOth of March. According to some writers, lord Dorchester hi this parliament proposed the laying an excise upon the nation, which was taken so ill, that though he was a privy counsellor, and principal secretary of state, he with difficulty escaped being committed to the Tower. Of this story, which we believe originated in Howel’s letters, and is referred to in Lloyd’s StateWorthies, we find no traces in the parliamentary history, or in thejords and commons journals. It is, however, generally inferred from the authority of the earl of Clarendon, that lord Dorchester was better acquainted with the management of foreign affairs, than with the constitution, laws and customs of his own country. In his capacity of secretary of state, he was a chief agent in carrying on and completing the treaties with France and Spain; and besides these, he directed in the course of the years 1629 and 1630, the negociations of sir Henry Vane in Holland, and sir Thomas Roe in Poland and the maritime parts of Germany. The former was sent to the Hague, to explain to the States the motives of our treaty with Spain, and to sound their dispositions about joining- in it; and the latter was employed as mediator between the kings of Sweden and Poland after which he was very instrumental in persuading the heroic Gustavus Adolphus to undertake his German expedition. Lord Dorchester appears, likewise, to have kept up a private correspondence with the queen of Bohemia, who rising superior to her misfortunes, he used the best offices in his power to prevent misunderstandings between her and the king her brother; and he gave her advice, when the occasion required it, with the freedom and sincerity of an old friend and servant.

With regard to the general abilities and character of lord Dorchester, it appears from alt his political remains, that he was a judicious, faithful, and diligent minister, and better qualified for his department than any who were his immediate predecessors or successors in the same office. King Charles himself, who was a good judge of his servants’ abilities, used to say, as sir P. Warwick relates in his Memoirs, “that he had two secretaries of state, the lords Dorchester and Falkland; one of whom was a dull man in comparison of the other, and yet pleased him the best for he always brought him his own thoughts in his own woreds: the latter cloathed them in so fine a dress, that he did not always know them again.” Allowing for some defects of stiffness and circumlocution, which are common to all the writings of that time, lord Dorchester’s dispatches are drawn up in that plain, perspicuous, and unaffected stile which was fittest for business. Domestic concerns were no part of his province, but entirely managed by the lord treasurer Weston and archbishop Laud. He held the pen singly in foreign affairs, and was regretted by those who were used to receive the instructions of government from a secretary of state, upon whom they could depend that he would make a just report of their services, and that he would not mislead or misrepresent the ministers with whom he corresponded. That he died much lamented by the public in general, and with the reputation of an honest and well-deserving statesman, is declared by sir Thomas Roe, in a manuscript letter to a friend in Holland. The earl of Clarendon’s assertion, that lord Dorchester was unacquainted with the government, laws, and customs of his own country, and the nature of the people, is disputed by Dr. Birch, in his “Review of the Negociations,” who considers it as absolutely incompatible with the experience which he must have acquired in the house of commons. But, not to mention that the noble historian, who had no prejudice against his lordship, could not well be deceived in the fact, it is, we think, confirmed by the figure he made in the parliament of 1626, and by his acquiescence in all the obnoxious measures of Buckingham, Weston, and Laud. The following articles are attributed to his pen, by Anthony Wood and lord Orford: 1. “Balance pour peser en toute equite & droicture la Harangue fait vagueres en L'Assemblee des illustres & puissans Seignoures Messeigneurs les Estats generaux des Provinces Unies du Pais has, &c.” 1618, 4to. 2. “Harangue fait au Counseile de Mess, les Estats generaux des Provinces Unies, touchant le Discord & le Troubles de PEglise & la Police, causes par la Doctrine d'Arminius,” 6 Oct. 1617, printed with the former. 3. Various Letters in the “Cabala, or Scrinia sacra,” London, 1663, fol. 4. Various Letters to George, duke of Buckingham, in “Cabala, or Mysteries of State,” London, 1654, 4to. 5. Several French and Latin Letters to the learned Vossius, printed in “Ger. Jo. Vossii & clarorum Virorum ad.eum Epistoiae,” London, 1690, fol. 6. Several Speeches in Parliament, in 1626, in Rushworth’s Collections. 7. Several Letters in the three volumes of “Sir Ralph Winwood’s Memorials,” published at London, in folio, 1725. 8. A Letter to the earl of Salisbury, printed in “Howard’s Collection.” 9. Memoirs for Dispatches of political Affairs relating to Holland and England, arm. 1618; with several Propositions made to the States. Manuscript. 10. Particular Observations of the military Affairs in the Palatinate, and the Low Countries, annis 1621, 1622. Manuscript. 11. Letters relating to State Affairs, written to the king and viscount Rochester, from Venice, ann. 1613. Manuscript. The manuscript pieces here mentioned, are probably no more than parts of the collections preserved in the Paper office. The letters from and to sir Dudley Carleton, during his embassy in Holland, from January 1615-16, to December 1620, properly selected, and as occasion required, abridged, or only noted, were published by the late earl of Hardwicke, in 1757, in one vol. 4to, with an historical preface. The second edition of the same work, with large additions to the historical preface, appeared in 1775, and has been twice reprinted since. These letters, if some allowances be made for party violences and prejudices, contain more clear, accurate, and interesting accounts of that remarkable period of Dutch history to which they relate, than are anj where extant. There are, likewise, discussed in the course of them, many points of great importance, at that time, to the English commerce. Lord Hardwicke’s excellent preface has furnished the materials of the present sketch.

He perhaps wrote upon a greater variety of subjects than any other clergyman of his time. Among his works are enumerated: 1. “Heroici characteres, ad illustriss. equitem Henricum Nevillum,” Oxon. 1603, 4to. Several of his Latin verses are also in the university-book of verses made on the death of sir Philip Sidney, in “Bodleiomnema,” and in other books. 2. “Tithes examined, and proved to be due to the Clergy by a Divine Right,”- Lond. 1606, and '1611, 4to. 3. “Jurisdiction Regal, Episcopal, Papal: Wherein is declared how the Pope hath intruded upon the jurisdiction of Temporal Princes,and of the Church, &c.” Lond. 1610, 4to. 4. “Consensus Ecclesiae Catholicse contra Tridentinos, de Scripturis, Ecclesia, fide, & gratia,” &c. Lond. 1613, 8vo. 5. “A thankful! Remembrance of God’s Mercy. In an Historicall Collection of the great and mercifull Deliverances of the Church and State of England, since the Gospel began ne here to flourish, from the beginning of queene Elizabeth,” Loud. 1614; the third edition came out in 1627, and the fourth in 16 Jo. The historical part is chiefly extracted from Camden’s Annals of queen Elizabeth; and the latter editions are adorned at the beginning of each chapter, with figures engraved in copper, representing the most material things contained in the ensuing description. 6. “Short Directions to know the true Church,” Loud. 1615, &c. 12mo. 7. “Oration made at the Hague before the prince of Orange, and the Assembly of the high and mighty lords, the States General,” Lond. 1619, in one sheet and a half, 4to. 8. “Astrologimania or, the Madness of Astrologers or, an Examination of sir Christopher Heydon’s book entitled ' A Defence of judicial Astrology 1” written about the year 1604, and published at London, 1624, 4to, by Thomas Vicars, B. D. who had married the author’s daughter. It was reprinted at London, 1651. 9. “Examination of those things wherein the Author of the late Appeal (Montague afterwards bishop of Chichester) holdeth the Doctrine of Pelagians and Arminians, to be the Doctrines of the Church of England,” Lond. 1626, and 16S6, 4to. 10. “A joynt Attestation, avowing that the Discipline of the Church of England was not impeached by the Synod of Dort,” Lond. 1628, 4to. 11. “Vita Bernardi Gilpini, viri sanctiss. farnaque apud Anglos aquilonares celeberrimi,” Lond. 1626, 4to, inserted in Dr. W. Bates’s Collection of Lives, Lond. lf.81, 4to. It was also published in English, under this title, “The Life of Bernard Gilpin, a man most holy and renowned amongthe Northerne English,” Lond. 1629, 4to, and 1636, 8vo. 12. “Testimony concerning the Presbyterian discipline in the Low-countries, and Episcopal government in England,” printed several times in 4to and- 8vo, and at London in particular, in 1642, in one sheet. 13. Latin Letter to Mr. Camden, containing some Notes and Observations on his Britannia. Printed by Dr. Smith amongst “Camdeni Epistolae,” N 80. 14-. Several Sermons. 15. He had also a hand in the Dutch Annotations, and in the new translation of the Bible, undertaken by order of the Synod of Dort, but not completed and published till 1637. Two of hU letters to sir Dudley Carleton, are in lord Hardwicke’s publication of sir Dudley’s correspondence. By his first wife, Anne, daughter of sir Henry Killegrew, knt. and widow of sir Henry Neville, of Billingbere, in Berkshire, he had a son, Henry, who was chosen representative for Arundel, in Sussex, in the short parliament which met at Westminster on the 13th -of April 1640. Mr. Henry Carleton embraced the cause of the house of commons in the civil war with king Charles the First, accepted a captain’s commission in the parliamentary army, and in other respects did no honour to his father.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher, was an African, a native of Gyrene, and is supposed to have been born in the third year of the 141st olympiad, or B. C. 214. He was first instructed by Diogenes the stoic, and afterwards becoming a member of the academy, he attended upon the lectures of Egesinus, and by assiduous study acquired great skill and readiness in the method of disputing, which Arcesilaus had introduced. He succeeded Egesinus in the chair, and restored the declining reputation of the academy. With Diogenes the stoic, and Critolaus the peripatetic, he was sent on an embassy from Athens to Rome, complaining of the severity of a fine inflicted upon the Athenians, under the authority of the Romans, by their neighbours the Sicyonians, for having laid waste Oropus, a town in Bceotia. The three philosophers whom they entrusted with their embassy, whilst they were in Rome, gave the Roman people many specimens of Grecian learning and eloquence, with which till then they had been unacquainted. Carneades excelled in the vehement and rapid, Critolaus in the correct and elegant, and Diogenes in the simple and modest kind of eloquence. Carneades particularly attracted the attention and admiration of his new auditors, by the subtlety of his reasoning, and the fluency of his language. Before Galba, and Cato the censor, he harangued, with great variety of thought, and copiousness of diction, in praise of justice. The next day, to establish his doctrine of the uncertainty of human knowledge, he undertook to refute all his former arguments. Many were captivated by his eloquence; but Cato, apprehensive lest the Roman youth should lose their military character in the pursuit of Grecian learning, persuaded the senate to send back these philosophers, without further delay, to their own schools.

Carneades obtained such high -reputation in his school, that other philosophers, when they had dismissed their scholars, frequently came to hear him. In application to study he was indefatigable. So intensely did he fix his thgughts upon the subject of his meditations, that even at meals he frequently forgot to take the food which was set before him. He strenuously opposed the stoic Chrvsippus, but was always ready to do justice to his merit. He used to say, that if there were no Chrysippus, there would be no Carneades; intimating, that he derived much of his reputation as a disputant from the abilities of his opponent. His voice was remarkably strong, and he had such a habit of vociferation, that the master of the gymnastic exercises. in the public field, desired him not to speak so loud: in return, he requested some measure to regulate his voice; to which the master very judiciously replied, you have a measure, the number of your hearers. As Carneades grew old, he discovered strong apprehensions of dying; and frequently lamented, that the same nature which had composed the human frame could dissolve it. He paid the last debt to nature in the eighty-fifth, or, according to Cicero and Valerius Maximus, in the ninetieth year of his age.

It was the doctrine of the new academy, that the senses, the understanding, and the imagination, frequently deceive us, and therefore cannot be infallible judges of truth; but that, from the impressions which we perceive to be produced on the mind, by means of the senses, we infer appearances of truth, or probabilities. These impressions Carneades called phantasies, or images. He maintained, that they do not always correspond to the real nature of things, and that there is no infallible method of determining when they are true or false, and consequently that they afford no certain criterion of truth. Nevertheless, with respect to the conduct of life, and the pursuit of happiness, Carneades held, that probable appearances are a sufficient guide, because it is unreasonable not to allow some degree of credit to those witnesses who commonly give a true report. Probabilities he divided into three classes; simple, uncontradicted, and confirmed by accurate examination. The lowest degree of probability takes place, where the mind, in -the casual occurrence of any single image, perceives in it nothing contrary to truth and nature; the second degree of probability arises, when contemplating any object in connection with all the circumstances associated with it, we discover no appearance of inconsistency, or incongruity, to lead us to suspect that our senses have given a false report; as, when we conclude, from comparing the image of any individual man with our remembrance of that man, that he is the person we supposed him to be. The highest degree of probability is produced, when, after an accurate examination of every circumstance which might be supposed to create uncertainty, we are able to discover no fallacy in the report of our senses. The judgments arising from this operation of the mind are, according to the doctrine of the new academy, not science, but opinion, which is all the knowledge that the human mind is capable of attaining. Carneades, as Cicero has related at large, strenuously opposed the doctrine of the Stoics concerning the gods, and was likewise desirous of refuting their doctrine concerning fate. On this subject, he assumed on the ground of experience, the existence of a self-determining power in man, and hence inferred that all things did not happen, as the stoics maintained, in a necessary series of causes and effects, and consequently, that it is impossible for the gods to predict events dependent on the will of man. As" the foundation of morals, he taught, that the ultimate end of life is the enjoyment of those things, towards which we are directed by the principles of nature. Such, according to Brucker, is the general idea which the ancients have left us concerning the doctrine of Carneades: but after all, it must be owned, that his real tenets are not certainly known. Even his immediate successor, Clitomachus, confessed that he was never able to discover them.

Thus far Carolostadt appears in a light which was acceptable at least to the friends of the reformation; but about 1521, when Luther was in retirement, he betrayed a violence of temper which has been equally censured by catholics and protestants. Not content with promoting in a legal and quiet way the auspicious beginnings of reformation which had already appeared at Wittemberg, in the gradual omission and rejection of the private mass and other popish superstitions, he headed a multitude of unthinking impetuous youths, inflamed their minds by popular harangues, and led them on to actions the most extravagant and indefensible. They entered the great church of All Saints, broke in pieces the crucifixes and other images, and threw down the altars. He also went so far as to assert that human learning was useless, if not injurious to a student of the scriptures; frequented the shops of the lowest mechanics, and consulted them about the meaning of the scriptures. He would be called no longer by the appellation of Doctor, or any other honourable title, but employed himself in rustic occupations, and maintained that thinking persons stood in no need of learning, and had better labour with their hands. In consequence of such example and conversation, the young academics of Wittemberg left the university, and ceased to pursue their studies, and even the schools of the boys were deserted. Such was his pride at the same time, that he avowed to Melancthon that he wished to be as great and as much thought of as Luther.

Carolostadt now wandered from place to place through the higher Germany, and at length made a pause at Rotenburgh, where, as usual, he soon raised tumults, and incited the people to pull down the statues and paintings. When the seditious faction of the peasants, with Munzer their ringleader, was effectually suppressed, he became in the greatest difficulties, and even in danger of his life from his supposed connection with these enthusiastic rebels, and he narrowly escaped, through being let down by the wall of the town in a basket. Thus reduced to the last extremities, he and his wife incessantly intreatedboth the elector and Luther that they might be allowed to return into their own country. He said, he could clear himself of having had any concern in the rebellion; and if not, he would cheerfully undergo any punishment that could be inflicted upon him. With this view he wrote a little tract, in which he takes much pains to justify himself from the charge of sedition: and he sent a letter likewise to Luther, in which he earnestly begs his assistance in the publishing of the tract, as well as in the more general design of establishing his innocence. Luther immediately published Carolostadt’s letter, and called on the magistrates and on the people to give him a fair hearing. In this he succeeded; and Carolostadt was recalled about -the autumn of 1525, and then made a public recantation of what he had advanced on the sacrament, a condescension which did not procure a complete reconciliation between him and the other reformers, and indeed affords but a sorry proof of his consistency. We find Carolostadt, after this, at Zurich and at Basil, where he was appointed pastor and professor of divinity, and where he died with the warmest effusions of piety and resignation, ijec. 25, 1541, or 1543. He was a man of considerable learning, hut his usefulness both as a reformer and writer was perpetually obstructed by the turbulence of his temper, and his misguided zeal in endeavouring to promote that by violence which the other reformers projected only through the medium of reason and argument. That he should be censured by Moreri, Bossuet, and other Roman catholic writers, is not surprising, for he afforded too much ground of accusation; but it is more inexcusable in Mosheim, Beausobre, and some other ecclesiastical historians, to throw the blame of his banishment and restless life on Luther, and highly absurd to insinuate that the latter was jealous of his fame. The comparative merits of the conduct of Luther and Carolostadt throughout their whole connection, have been examined with great candour and perspicuity by Milner. One singularity in Carolostadt’s character still remains to be noticed, namely, that he was the first protestant divine who took a wife. His works were numerous, but are now fallen into oblivion. His followers, who for some time retained the name of Carolostadtians, were also denominated Sacramentarians and agree in most things with the Zuinglians.

, baron of Killaghy in the kingdom of Ireland, descended from an ancient and good family in Herefordshire, was born at Pitchers Ocul in that county, February 10, 1657. His father was Mr. Warncomb Carpenter, sixth son of Thomas Carpenter, esq, of the Homme or Holme, in the parish of Dilwyn in Herefordshire. His mother was daughter to Mr. Taylor of the same county, and widow to Mr. John Hill, by whom she had one son. George lord Carpenter was the youngest of seven children, whom his father left at his death, and was educated at a private school in the country. In 1672 he went into the third troop of guards as a private gentleman, and was afterwards appointed quarter-master to the regiment of horse commanded by the earl of Peterborough, and went through the several posts of cornet, lieutenant, captain, &c. till he was advanced to that of lieutenant-colonel of the regiment, in which commission he continued thirteen years, though the regiment was almost coastantly in service. In 1693 he married Alice, daughter of William lord viscount Charlemont, who having a considerable jointure from her first husband James Margetson, esq. by the sale of part of it for her life he was enabled to purchase the regiment of dragoons which he commanded till his death. He served in all the first wars in Ireland and Flanders, and the last in Spain, with unblemished honour and reputation, and distinguished himself to great advantage by his courage, conduct, and humanity. At the unfortunate battle of Almanza in Spain he commanded the rear, and brought up the last squadron in the retreat, which saved the baggage of the army. At the battle of Almenara he was wounded, but received the compliments of Charles then king of Spain, and afterwards emperor of Germany, for his conduct in the engagement. He was again desperately wounded in defending the breach at Britmega against the whole French and Spanish army, where they "were at last taken prisoners. In 1705 he was made a brigadier-general; in 1708 major-general; and in 1710 lieutenant-general. In 1714 he was chosen member of parliament for Whitchurch in Hampshire; and the year following was appointed envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the emperor, whose personal regard and esteem he had gained while he served under that prince in Spain. But the rebellion breaking out that year, he was sent into the North, where he not only prevented the rebels from seizing Newcastle, and marching into Yorkshire, but having overtaken them at Preston, where they were invested by major-general Wills, he, by altering the disposition which that general had made, cut off entirely both their escape and their receiving any supplies, which immediately reduced them to a capitulation. In the beginning of February 1715-16 he sent a challenge to general Wills, but they were prevented from fighting by the interposition of the dukes of Marlborough and Montague. In 1716 he was appointed governor of 'Minorca, and commander in chief of his majesty’s forces in Scotland; and in 1719 was created baron Carpenter of Killaghy in the kingdom of Ireland. In 1722 he was chosen member of parliament for the city of Westminster, and upon all occasions voted for what he thought to be the real good of his country, without any regard to party. In October 1731 being near seventy-four years of age, he began to labour under the failure of appetite, and having had a fall, by which his teeth were loosened on that side which had not been wounded, he was capable of taking but little nourishment, which together with old age, and a decay of nature, put an end to his life February 10, 1731-2. He was interred near his beloved wife in the chancel of the parish church of Owselbury in Hampshire, where a monument of marble was erected to his memory by his son, the late lord Carpenter, who was the only issue he left.

1 Gen. Diet. Biog. Brit. Richardsoniana, p. 259. See also an account of his conduct in Scotland in “A true relation of the Pursuit of the Rebels in the North, and of their Surrender at Preston to lieutenant-general Carpenter, commanding in chief his majesty’s forces there,” joined to a plan published under this title, “An exact Plan of the Town of Preston, with the barricades of the Rebels, and the disposition of the king’s forces, under the command of lieutenant-general Carpenter and major-general Wills.” See likewise “The Poltarchbishop Usher, then at Oxford, who admired his talents and piety, took him with him to Ireland, and made him one of his chaplains, and tutor to the king’s wards in Dublin. These king’s wards were the sons of Roman catholics who had fled for their religion, leaving them in their minority; and Mr. Carpenter’s charge was to bring them up in the protestant religion. Soon after he came to Ireland he was advanced to a deanery, but what deanery is not mentioned. He died at Dublin in 1635, according to Fuller, or in 1628, according to Wood. Dr. Robert Usher, afterwards bishop of Kildare, and brother to the archbishop, preached his funeral sermon, and gave a high character of him, which seems to be confirmed by all his contemporaries. He published, 1.” Philosophia libera, triplici exercitationum decade proposita,“Francfort, 1621, under the name of Cosmopolitanus London, 1622, 8vo, with additions, Oxford, 1636, 1675. This was considered as a very ingenious work, and one of the earliest attacks on the Aristotelian philosophy. Brucker, who has given our author a place among the” modern attempters to improve natural philosophy/* adds, that he has advanced many paradoxical notions, sufficiently remote from the received doctrines of the schools. 2. “Geography,” in two books, Oxford, 1625, and corrected and enlarged 1635, 4to. In the latter part he maintains that mountainous people are more stout, warlike, and generous than the inhabitants of flat countries, and supports this doctrine by an appeal to his countrymen in Devonshire. 3. “Achitophel or the picture of a wicked Politician, in three parts,” Dublin, 1627, 8vo, Oxford, 1628, 4to, 1640, 12mo. These three parts are the substance of three sermons on 2 Sam. xvii. 23. which he had formerly preached at Oxford. Some objections being made to several passages against (not, as Mr. Malone says, in favour of) Arminianism (for Carpenter was a Caivinist), the book was castrated by archbishop Laud in various places. “The scene,” says the writer in a dedication to archbishop Usher, “wherein I have bounded my discourse, presents unto your grace a sacred tragedy, consisting of four chief actors, viz. David, an anointed king; Absalom, an ambitious prince Achitophel, a wicked politician and Cushay, a loyal subject a passage of history, for variety pleasant, for instruction useful* for event admirable.” He inveighs in general against the inordinate ambition and subtle practices of courts and courtiers. Mr. Malone takes more pains than necessary to prove that Dry den adopted no hint from it for his “Absalom and Achitophel.” 4. “Chorazin and Bethsaida’s woe and warning,” Oxford, 1640. He wrote also a “Treatise of Optics,” of which there were some imperfect copies in Mss. but the original was by some means lost.

, or Carpocras, of Alexandria, a famous heretic of the second century, is reported to have carried the Gnostic blasphemies to an enormous degree of extravagance. He maintained that matter was eternal; that the world was created by angels; that God formed human souls, which were imprisoned in bodies of malignant matter; that Jesus was but a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and distinguished from others by his superior greatness of soul; that none can obtain everlasting salvation by him, unless, by committing all manner of crimes, they fill up the measure of their wickedness; that human lusts and passions, being implanted by God, ought to be gratified; that all actions are in themselves indifferent, and become good or evil, only by the opinions of men, or the laws of the state; and that women, and every thing else, ought to be common property. Such are the opinions imputed to him by ecclesiastical historians, which are said to have produced a corresponding practice among his followers. Dr. Lardner only has taken considerable pains to defend Carpocrates; and his conjectures are at least inr genious, although he has not been able to render this heretic an object of much interest or admiration.

, one of the sons of the preceding, was born in 1595, succeeded to his father’s employments, which he held for forty-six years, and died in 1666, He was accounted one of the ablest lawyers and law-writers of his time, and may likewise be praised as a legal antiquary, as he rescued from the archives, where they were unknown or forgot, many constitutions and decisions of great curiosity and importance. In his latter days he retired to Leipsic, and devoted his time entirely to the study of the Bible, which he is said to have read over fifty-three times, besides making notes as he went on, and consulting the commentators. The chief of his published works are, 1. “Practica rerum criminalium,” 1635, fol. often reprinted, and abridged by Suerus, Leipsic, 1655, 4to, 1669, 8vo. 2. “Detinitiones forenses,” 1638, fol.; also often reprinted, and abridged by Schroterus, with the author’s consent, Jena, 166 4-, 4to, and 1669, 8vo. 3. “Comment, ad legern regiam Germanorum,” 1640. 4. “Responsa juris Electoralia,” 1642, fol. 5. “Definitiones ecclesiastics,” 1649. 6. “Decisiones Saxonicae,” 1646 1654, 3 vols. folio, often reprinted. 7. “Processus Juris Saxonici,” 1657, folio. Other branches of this family acquired distinction as divines and philologists; but our accounts of them are too imperfect to be interesting, and those in the Diet. Historique evidently erroneous. The last upon record, John Benedict Carpzovius, was a very eminent classical scholar and critic. He published an excellent edition of Musaeus, Gr. and Lat. in 1775.

, one of those French philosophers and statesmen to whom the revolution gave a shortlived importance, was born at Pont-de-Vesle in Dombes, of poor parents. He early discovered an impetuous and ungovernable temper, and even his youth is said to have been stained with crimes. He travelled into Moldavia and Walachia, and wrote an account of those countries, which is the most unexceptionable of his works. On the commencement of the revolution he came to Paris, with all the talents requisite to give him consequence, a violent hatred of the royal family, and confused and ill-digested notions of political freedom. Mirabeau, during his short life, appears to have discerned and despised his character; but in 1792 he acted without controul, and was one of the chiefs of the revolt on the 10th of August, and gloried in having laid the plan of that fatal day. When the unhappy king was brought to trial, he was among the most active in preventing any change in the sentence, or any access to the voice of clemency. His triumph, however, was very short. Having fallen out with Robespierre and his colleagues, he joined the party of the Gironde, was implicated in their fate, and guillotined Nov. 1, 1793. The convention afterwards honoured him as a martyr to liberty, but his countrymen now seem disposed to revive his real character. As a writer, they tell us, he first acquired notice by some bad articles in the Encyclopaedia. His separate publications were, 1. “Systeme de la Raison,” a declamation against royalty; said to have been printed at London in 1773. 2. “Esprit de la Morale et de la Philosophic,” 1777, 8vo; in which the principles of infidelity are unblushingly brought forward. 3. “Histoire de la Moldavie et de la Valachie,” 1778, 12mo. 4. “Nouveaux principes de Physique,” 1782, 2 vols. 8vo, a work in which he has pretty nearly ascertained how far the imagination, without the aid of knowledge or experiment, can carry conjecture and paradox. 5. “Essai sur la nautique aerienneV' 1784, in which he assumes the merit of a plan. to guide air-balloons with safety and speed which in point of utility may be classed with the following 6.” Examen physique du magnetisme animal,“1785, 8vo. 7.” Dissertation elementaire sur la nature de la lumiere, de la chaleur, du feu, et de Pelectricite,“1787, 8vo. 8.” Un mot de reponse a M. de Calonne, sur s;i Kcquete au roi.“9.” L'Orateur des Etats-Generawx,“1781;, 8vo. 10.” Annales politiques,“a sort of newspaper, if we mistake not, at the time when every party had its newspaper. 1.” Mernoires historiques sur la Bastille," 1790, 3 vols. 8vo; and many anonymous pamphlets.

M. Carré, although he gave the preference to metaphysics, did not neglect mathematics and while he taught both, he took care to make himself acquainted with all the new discoveries in the latter. This was all that his constant attendance on his pupils would allow him to do, till the year 1697, when M. Varignon, so remarkable for his extreme scrupulousness in the choice of his eleves, took M. Carre* to him in that station. Soon after, viz. in 1700, our author thinking himself bound to do something that might render him worthy of that title, published the first complete work on the integral calculus, under the title of “A method of measuring surfaces and solids, and finding their centres of gravity, percussion, and oscillation.” He afterwards discovered some errors in the work, and was candid enough to own and correct them in a subsequent edition. In a little time M. Carre became associate, and at length one of the pensioners of the academy. And as this was a sufficient establishment for one who knew so well how to keep his desires within just bounds, he gave himself up entirely to study; and as he enjoyed the appointment of Mechanician, he applied himself more particularly to mechanics. He took also a survey of every branch relating to music; such as the doctrine of sounds, the description of musical instruments; though he despised the practice of music, as a mere sensual pleasure. Some sketches of his ingenuity and industry in this way may be seen in the Memoirs of the French Academy of Sciences. M. Carre also composed some treatises on other branches of natural philosophy, and some on mathematical subjects all which he bequeathed to that illustrious body; though it does not appear that any of them have yet been published. It is not unlikely that he was hindered from putting the last hand to them by a train of disorders proceeding from a bad digestion, which, after harassing him during the space of five or six years, at length brought him to the grave in 1711, at forty-eight years of age.

, a political character of considerable fame in Scotland, was the descendant of an ancient family, and born in 1649 at Cathcart in Glasgow. He was educated in divinity and philosophy at Edinburgh and Utrecht, to which his father sent him that he might avoid the political contests which disturbed the reign of Charles II. but he had a zeal which prompted him to interfere in what regarded his country, although removed from it, and he must have given some proofs of a talent for political affairs at a very early period. When England was alarmed about the popish succession, Carstares was introduced to the pensionary Fagel, and afterwards to the prince of Orange, and entrusted with his designs relating to British affairs. During his residence in Holland, his principles both in religion and politics, were strongly confirmed; and upon his return to his native country he entered with zeal into the counsels and schemes of those noblemen and gentlemen who opposed the tyrannical measures of government; and although about this time he took orders in the Scotch church, his mind seemed to have acquired such a decided bias towards towards politics, that he determined to revisit Holland. On his way thither he passed through London, and was employed by Argyle, and the other Scots patriots, in treating with the English, who were for excluding the duke of York from succession to the crown. Towards the close of 1682, he held various conferences with the heads of that party, which terminated in his being privy to what has been called the “Rye-house plot.” Accordingly, he was committed to close custody in the Gate-house, Westminster. After several examinations before the privy council, he was sent for trial to Scotland; and as he refused to give any information respecting the authors of the exclusion scheme, he was put to the torture, which he endured with invincible firmness, but yielded to milder methods of a more insidious nature, and when a pardon was proposed, with an assurance that no advantage should be taken of his answers as evidence against any person, he consented to answer their interrogatories. The privy-council immediately caused to be printed a paper, entitled, “Mr. Carstares’s Confession,” which contained, as he said, a false and mutilated account of the whole transaction; and in direct violation of their promise, they produced this evidence in open court against one of his most intimate friends. This treachery and its conquences very deeply affected him; but as soon as he was cleared, he obtained permission to retire to Holland, towards the close of 1684, or the beginning of 1685, where he was kindly received by the prince of Orange, who appointed him one of his chaplains, caused him to be elected minister of the English protestant congregation at Leyden; and when the prince determined to transport an army to England, Carstares accompanied him as his chaplain, and continued about his person till the settlement of the crown. During the whole of this reign he was the chief agent between the church of Scotland and the court, and contributed by his influence with the king to the establishment of presbytery in Scotland, to which his majesty was disinclined, and to a degree of coalescence or accommodation on the part of the presbyterian clergy with the episcopalians. When an act was passed in 1693, by the Scots parliament, obliging all officers, civil and ecclesiastical, to take an oath of allegiance, and also to sign an assurance (as it was called) declaring William to be king dejure, as well as de facto, the ministers refused to sign the declaration, and appealed to the privy council, who recommended to the king to enforce the obligation. Accordingly, measures were adopted for this purpose; and the body of the clergy applied to Carstares, requesting his interference in their favour. The king persisted in his resolution; orders were renewed in peremptory terms, and dispatches were actually delivered to the messenger to be forwarded next morning. In these critical circumstances Carstares hastened to the messenger at night, demanded the dispatches, which had been delivered to him in the king’s name, and instantly repaired to Kensington, where he found his majesty gone to bed. Having obtained admission into his chamber, he gently waked him, fell on his knees, and asked pardon for the intrusion, and the daring act of disobedience of which he had been guilty. The king at first expressed his displeasure; but when Carstares further stated the case, his majesty caused the dispatches to be thrown into the fire, and directed him to send such instructions to the royal commissioners of the general assembly as he thought most conducive to the public good. In consequence of this seasonable interposition, the oath and assurance were dispensed with on the part of the clergy. By this timely service Carstares acquired the confidence of the presbyterian party to such a degree, and so successfully cultivated the friendship of the earl of Portland, and other men of influence about the court, that he was regarded in the management of Scotch affairs, as a kind of viceroy for Scotland, though he possessed no public character. All applications passed through his hands, all employments, honours, and offices of state, were left to his disposal; and without public responsibility, he engrossed the secret direction of public affairs. Few Scotchmen obtained access to the king, unless through his intervention; and in his correspondence with every department, says a late historian, it is curious to remark how the haughty nobility condescended to stoop and truckle to a presbyterianx clergyman, whom their predecessors in office had tortured and deceived. His moderation, secrecy, and a prudence apparently disinterested, recommended him to king William, who once said of him, in the presence of several of his courtiers, “that he had long known Mr. Carstares; that he knew him well, and knew him to be an honest man” He is represented on the other hand, as a cunning, subtle, insinuating priest, whose dissimulation was impenetrable; an useful friend when sincere; but, from an air of smiling sincerity, a dangerous enemy.

Although, after the death of king William, Carstares was not much employed in public affairs, queen Anne continued him in the office of royal chaplain for Scotland, and obtained for him the offer of an appointment to the vacant place of principal of the university of Edinburgh; which he accepted in 1704, with the first professorship of divinity. After this appointment, whilst he refused any addition to his own salary, he used his influence at courtfor augmenting the very small salaries pertaining to the regents in the several universities of Scotland; and in the execution of his office, as principal, he secured the affection and respect of those that were subject to his authority, by the dignified affability and gentleness of his deportment. In the year of his appointment to the principalship of the university, he was unanimously invited to the pastoral office in one of the parishes of Edinburgh, which he performed with exemplary diligence; and as moderator of the general assembly, which post he occupied four times in eleven years, he maintained great weight in its debates. When the union of the two kingdoms was agitated, it engaged his cordial concurrence, and he was the principal instrument of preventing any public opposition from the presbyterian clergy. His efforts to controul the opinions of this body rendered him unpopular; and with a view of gaining their assistance, he accepted the office of one of the agents sent to London to oppose the bills for the restoration of patronage in Scotland, and for the toleration of the episcopal clergy; though in the latter instance, at least, his opposition must have counteracted his principles. His excuse seems to have been an apprehension that the Scots episcopalians wished the exiled family to be restored. His efforts, however, whether they were sincere or not, proved unsuccessful. To the succession of the house of Hanover hegave his active support and he obtained from the general assembly an address of congratulation to George I. on his accession to the throne and in return for this service his office of royal chaplain was continued. His death happened soon after this event, in December 1715. Some years ago was published a volume, entitled “State papers and letters addressed to William Carstares, confidential secretary to king William during the whole of his reign, afterwards principal of the university of Edinburgh, relating to public affairs in Great Britain, but more particularly in Scotland, during the reign of king William and queen Anne; to which is prefixed the life of Mr. Carstares, published from the originals by Joseph M'Connick, D. D. minister at Preston-pans,” 1774, 4to. This is unquestionably a collection of great importance in illustrating that period of 'the history of Great Britain, and particularly Scotland; and the Ine of Mr. Carstares is Loth interesting and amusing. We have already hinted that his character was not contemplated in the most favourable light by all his contemporaries. It appears, however, by his biographer’s account, that his private character was, in every view of it, amiable and respectable. His religion was not tinctured with the extravagancies of enthusiasm, or debased by the rigours of superstition. He was distinguished for his discharge of the duties of hospitality; and his charity was unbounded. Such of the episcopal clergy as had been deprived of their livings at the Revolution, he always treated with peculiar tenderness and humanity. He often relieved their families when in distress, and was solicitous to dispense his benefactions in the manner that would be the least offensive to the delicacy of their feelings. His ingenuity was sometimes exercised in devising methods of imposing upon the modesty and pride of such as would have rejected his good offices with disdain, if he had not disguised his intentions. Several of the episcopal clergy, who were his annual pensioners, never knew from what channel their relief flowed, till they found by his death that the source of it was dried up.

, an English divine, was the son of Thomas Carte, a clothier at Coventry, where he was born. October 21, 1652, or 1653, and in the free-school of which place he received his grammatical education. He was afterwards removed to Magdalen college, Oxford, where he took his degree of B. A. 1672; and M. A. 1675. After he entered into holy orders he had several preferments, the chief of which were, a prebend in the cathedral church of Litchfield, the rectory of Eastwell in Leicestershire, and, last of all, the vicarage of St. Martin’s, in the town of Leicester. It has been supposed that he resigned his preferments at the accession of king George the First, and that at one time he assisted the celebrated Jeremiah Collier, in preaching to a nonjuring congregation in Broad-street, London; but this belongs to his son. It is certain that Mr. Samuel Carte spent the latter part of his life on his living at Leicester, where he died on the 16th of April, 1740, in the eightyseventh year of his age. A high, and, we doubt not, a just character is given of him, in an inscription to his memory in the chancel of St. Martin’s church. He published two sermons, and “Tabula Chronologica Archiepiscopatuum et Episcopatuum in Anglia et Wallia, Ortus, Divisiories, TransUuiones, &c. breviter exhibens; una cum Indice alphabetioo Nominum, quibus apucl Authores insigniuntur,” folio, without date. Part of a letter of his on a tesselated pavement at Leicester is in Phil. Trans. No. 331, and his account of Leicester is in the Bib]. Top. Britannica. Those eminent antiquaries, Dr. Willis and Mr. Stukeley, acknowledged his assistance and correspondence.

In 1712 be made the tour of Europe with a nobleman, and on his return entered into orders, and was appointed render of the Abbey-church at Bath; where he preached a sermon on Jan. 30, 171 J-, in which he took occasion to vindicate Charles I. from aspersions cast upon his memory with regard to the Irish rebellion. This drew Mr. Carte into a controversy with Mr. (afterwards the celebrated Dr.) Chandler, and gave rise to our historian’s first publication, entitled “The Irish Massacre sot in a clear light,” &c. which is inserted in lord Sotners’s Tracts. ‘ Upon the accession of George I. Mr. Carte’s principles not permitting him to take the oaths to the new government, he assumed a lay-habit, and at one time assisted the celebrated Jeremiah Collier, who preached to a non’} tiring congregation in a house in Broad-street, London, and on a Sunday he used to put on his gown and cassock, and perform divine service in his own family. What particular concern he had in the rebellion of 1715 does not appear; but that he had some degree of guilt in this respect, or, at least, that he was strongly suspected of it by administration, is evident, from the king’s troops having orders to discover and apprehend him. He had the good fortune to elude their search, by concealing himself at Coleshili, Warwickshire, in the house of Mr. Badger, then curate of that town. Mr. Carte himself officiated for a time as curate of the same place; after which, he was some time secretary to bishop Atterbury. This connexion threw him into fresh difficulties: so deeply was he thought to he engaged in the conspiracy ascribed to that eminent prelate, that a charge of high treason was brought against him; and a proclamation was issued, Aug. 13, 1722, offering a reward of 1000l. for seizing his person. He was again successful in making his escape, and fled into France, where he resided several years, under the borrowed name of Philips. Whilst Mr. Carte continued in that country, he was introduced to the principal men of learning and family, and gained access to the most eminent libraries, public and private, by which means he was enabled to collect large materials for illustrating an English edition of Thuanus. The collection was in such forwardness in 1724, that he consulted Dr. Mead r at that time the great patron of literary undertakings, on the mode of publication. The doctor, who perceived that the plan might he rendered more extensively useful, obtained Mr. Carte’s materials at a very considerable price, and engaged Mr. Buckley in the noble edition completed in 17^3, in 7 vols. fol. Mr. Carte would probably himself have been the principal editor, if he had not been an exile at the time the undertaking commenced, but we find that the Latin address to Dr. Mead, prefixed to that work, and dated from the Inner-temple, Jan. 1733, is signed Thomas Carte. Whilst this grand work was carrying on, queen Caroline, whose regard to men of letters is well known, received such favourable impressions of Mr. Carte, that she obtained permission for his returning to England in security; which he did some time between the years 1728 and 1730. He had not long been restored to his own country before he engaged in one of the most important of his works, “The history of the life of James duke of Ormonde, from his birth, in 1610, to his death, in 1688,” 3 vols. fol. The third volume, which was published first, came out in 1735, and the first and second volumes in 1736. From a letter of Mr. Carte’s to Dr. Swift, dated Aug. 11, 1736, it appears, that in writing the life of the duke of Ormonde, he had availed himself of some instructions which he had derived from the dean . In the same letter he mentions his design of composing a general history of England and finds great fault, not only with Rapin, but with Ilymer’s Fcedera; but his accusations of that noble collection are in several respects erroneous and groundless.

It is highly probable that the success and popularity of Kapin’s History gave considerable disgust to Mr. Carte, and other gentlemen of the same principles, and suggested the scheme of a new undertaking. It is evident, from some letters written about this time to Dr. Z. Grey by our author, that he laid a great stress upon that part of his Life of the duke of Ormonde which vindicated Charles I. in his transactions with the earl of Glamorgan, and which brought a charge of forgery against that nobleman, but in this it has since been proved he was mistaken. Some booksellers of Dublin having formed a design of printing in Ireland a piratical edition of the “History of the duke of Ormonde,” Mr. Carte recollected an order of the house of lords, made in 1721, which was full to his purpose. By this order, which had been issued upon occasion of Curll’s publication of the duke of Buckingham’s writings, it was declared that whoever should presume to print any account of the life, the letters, or other works of any deceased peer, without the consent of his heirs or executors, should be punished as guilty of a breach of privilege of that house. An attested copy of the order was carried by our historian to the earl of Arran, and his lordship sent it to his agent in Dublin, to serve upon the booksellers concerned in the pirated impression, and to discharge them in his name from proceeding in the design. But as this was a remedy only in Mr. Carte’s case, and arising from the particular naiure of his work, he was very solicitous that a new act of parliament should be passed, to secure the property of authors in their writings, and. drew up a paper recommending such an act. Lord Cornbury, at the instance of the university of Oxford, had procured the draught of a bill to be prepared, which was approved by the speaker of the house of commons but we do not find that any farther measures were pursued in the affair. In April 1738, Mr. Carte published on a separate sheet, “A general account of the necessary materials for a history of England, of the society and subscriptions proposed for defraying the expences of it, and the method in which he intended to proceed in carrying on the work.” In the following October he had obtained subscriptions, or the promise of subscriptions, to the amount of 600l. a year. Not long after, he was at Cambridge, collecting materials for his history, from the university and other libraries. Whilst he was thus employed, his head quarters were at Madingly, the seat of sir John Hinde Cotton, bart. whose large collection of old pamphlets and journals, published during the civil war between 1639 and 1660, he methodized, and procured to be bound in a great number of volumes now in the library there. March 8, 1744, a cause in chancery was determined in his favour against his brother Samuel and his sister Sarah, with regard to a doubt concerning their father’s will. Not many weeks after, our author fell under the suspicions of administration, and was taken into custody, together with a Mr. Garth, at a time when the habeas-corpus act was suspended, in consequence of some apprehended designs in favour of the pretender. It is certain that nothing material was discovered against him, for he was soon discharged out of custody, May 9, 1744- *. This event did not detract from his popularity, or prevent his receiving such encouragement in his historical design, as never before or since has been afforded, or expected in any literary undertaking. On July 18, the court of common-council of the city of London agreed to subscribe 5()l. a year for seven years to Mr, Carte, towards defraying the expence of his writing the history of England. In the next month was printed, in an 8vo pamphlet, “A collection of the several papers that had been published by him relative to his rgreat work.” Oct. 18, the company of goldsmiths voted 2 5l. a year for seven years, towards de­* Whilst under examination, the walking in a heavy shower, he wa

Besides the works mentioned, he was the author of the following publications: 1. “A collection of original letters and papers, concerning the affairs of England, from 1641 to 1660,” 1739, 2 vols. 8vo. 2. “The History of the Revolutions of Portugal, from the foundation of that kingdom to the year 1567, with letters of sir Robert Southwell, during his embassy there, to the duke of Ormonde; giving a particular account of the deposing don Alphonso, and placing don Pedro on the throne,” 1740, 8vo. 3. “A full Answer to the Letter from a bystander,” a pamphlet, 1742, 8vo. 4. “A full and clear vindication of the full answer to a Letter from a bystander,” ditto, 1743. The letter from a bystander, was written by the late Corbyn Morris, esq. 5. “Catalogue des rolles Gascons, Normans, et Francois, conserves dans les archives de la Tour de Londres; tire* d‘apres celui du Garde* desdites archives; & contenant la precis & le sommaire de tous les titres qui s’y trouvent concernant la Guienne, la Normandie, & les autres provinces de la France, sujettes autres fois auX rois d’Angleterre, &c.” Paris, 1743, 2 vols. folio, with two most exact and correct indexes of places and persons. This valuable collection, being calculated for the use of the French, is introduced with a preface in that language. 6. “A preface to a translation, by Mrs. Thompson, of the history of the memorable and extraordinary calamities of Margaret of Anjou, queen of England, &c. by the chevalier Michael Baudier,” London, 1736, 8vo. 7. “Advice of a Mother to her son and daughter,” translated from the French of the marchioness de Lambert. This has gone through several editions. 8. “Farther reasons, addressed to parliament, for rendering more effectual an act of queen Anne, relating to the vesting in authors the right of copies, for the encouragement of learning, by R. H.” about 1737. Mr. Carte wrote, also, a paper (the ms. of which is in Mr. Nichols’s possession), recommending a public library to be formed at the Mansion-house, and that the twelve great companies of the city of London should each of them subscribe 2,000l. for that purpose. No notice appears to have been taken of this proposal at the time, but very lately, 1806, in the mayoralty of sir James Shaw, bart. and at the suggestion of that magistrate, the foundation of a library at the Mansion-house was laid, and a fine collection of English classics deposited there, by a vote of the court of aldermen, under the direction of John Nichols, esq. then a member of the corporation, who was assisted in the selection by the late very learned professor Porson. A translation, of Mr. Carte’s General History of England into French, was undertaken by several gentlemen in conjunction, but was never completed. Some parts of the translation were in Dr. Ducarel’s possession. Mr. Carte left behind him, in ms. a Vindication of Charles I. with regard to the Irish massacre. In 1758 was published a book, partly upon the same subject, entitled “The case of the royal martyr considered with candour,” in 2 vols. 8vo, the author of which acknowledges his obligations to Mr. Carte. It was written by the rev. J. Boswell, M. A. a clergyman and a schoolmaster, at Taunton, in Somersetshire, and the author of a “Method of Study, or a useful library,” printed in 1738, in 8vo, a work of no distinguished merit; and of two pamphlets, called “Remarks on the Free and Candid Disquisitions,” which appeared in 1750 and 1751.

Mrs. Carter and Mrs. Montague had been acquainted from their earliest years. The latter, though not born in Kent, had an early connection with it, by her father’s succession to the estate and seat at Horton near Hythe, where she passed many of her juvenile years. From 1754 their correspondence was regular and uninterrupted; and MrsCarter’s visits to Mrs. Montague at her house in London, where she met an union of rank and talent, were constant, and at her seat at Sandleford in the summer or autumn, not unfrequent. The epistolary communication between these two celebrated women would unquestionably be highly acceptable to the public, and we trust it will not be long withheld. In 1756, sir George Lyttelton, afterwards lord Lyttelton, visited Mrs. Carter at Deal; and from thence a gradual intimacy grew up between them, which ended only with his life. About the same time she became acquainted with the celebrated William Pulteney, earl of Bath, who delighted in her society, and regarded her intellectual powers and acquisitions with unfeigned admiration. By his persuasion she published the volume of her poems, already noticed, 1762, 8vo, and dedicated them to him. They are introduced by some poetical compliments from the pen of lord Lyttelton.

She was indeed now arrived at a time of life when every year was stealing from her some intimate friend or dear relation. In 1774, she lost her father, in his eightyseventh year, to which late period he had preserved all his faculties unimpaired, except that his hearing was a little difficult. She had passed the greater part of her life with him. The house in which they latterly resided was bought by her; and their affection had been uninterrupted. Half the year she was in the habit of passing in London; the other half was spent together in this house.

About nine years before her death, she experienced an alarming illness, of which she never recovered the effects in bodily strength, but the faculties of her mind remained unimpaired; lt;nd and her heart was as warm as ever. In the summer of 1805, her weakness evidently increased. As the winter approached, and the time of her annual journey to London, which she never omitted, drew near, her strength and spirits appeared to revive. On the 23d of December, she left Deal for the last time, having six days before completed her eighty-eighth year, and on the 24th arrived at her old lodgings in Clarges-street. For some days she seemed better, and visited some of her old friends, particularly her very intimate friend Lady Cremorne. On Jan. 4, she exhibited symptoms of alarming weakness, after which all her strength gradually ebbed away, till about 3 o'clock in the morning of Feb. 19, 1806, when she expired without a struggle or groan. She lies interred in the burial-ground of Grosvenor chapel, under a stone on which is a plain prose epitaph, reciting the dates of birth, &c. A mural monument was afterwards erected to her memory in the chapel of the town of Deal.

In this interesting volume a more perfect portrait is exhibited of Mrs. Carter than can be admitted in any sketch like the present. With respect to genius, she had unquestionably a considerable portion, but she had it not easily at command; it did not precipitate her into any of those dazzling productions which are admired even for their faults. What she accomplished was the fruit of labour, but it was labour which amply made up for the time it consumed. Her poems, the only productions which can be considered under this head, are distinguished for elegance of style and sentiment, often for sublimity and a peculiar vigour of thought. Her versification is harmonious, and her language pure* and forcible. But the more remarkable qualities of her character must be sought in a mind cultivated with the highest degree of care, and enriched with a greater fund of various learning than fell to the lot of many of her contemporaries of the other sex. Mrs. Carter was a learned lady in the most honourable sense, and appears uniformly to have applied it to the most valuable purposes. In the sexual rivalship she was not ambitious to attain either equality or superiority by affecting new discoveries in religion, morals, or politics, yet attained a higher and more enviable rank in tke literary world than any of those unsexed females, in whose case the world has lately been obliged to add pity to its admiration, and to withhold esteem. Her principles, on all the great leading topics that are interesting to human beings, were sound, the result of examination and conviction; and while, by adhering to them, she secured her own happiness, she added to that of others by example and precept.

, a loyalist in the time of Charles f. of uncommon firmness and bravery, the descendant of an ancient family, originally from Normandy, but afterwards settled at Guernsey and Jersey, was born at Jersey in 1599, his father Ilelier Carteret, esq. being at that time deputy governor of the island. He entered early into the sea service, and had acquired the character of an experienced officer, when king Charles I. ascended the throne. This circumstance recommending him to the notice and esteem of the duke of Buckingham, he was appointed, in 1626, joint governor of Jersey, with Henry, afterwards lord Jermyn and, in 1C '6 9, he obtained a grant of the office and place of comptroller of all his Majesty’s ships. At the commencement of the civil war, when the parliament resolved to send out the earl of Warwick as admiral of the fleet, they also resolved, that captain Carteret should be vice-ad miral. But he, thinking that he ought not to accept the command without knowing the royal pleasure, addressed himself to the king for direction, who ordered him to decline the employment; and captain, Batten, surveyor-general, was substituted in his place. His Majesty was probably mistaken in this advice; for, if captain Carteret had accepted of the charge, he might probably have prevented the greater part of the fleet from engaging in the cause of the parliament. Captain Carteret, however, likewise quitted the post of comptroller, and retired, with his family, to the island of Jersey, the inhabitants of which were confirmed by him in their adherence to the king; and desirous of more active service, he transported himself into Cornwall, with the purpose of raising a troop of horse. When he arrived in that country, finding there was a great want of powder, he went into France to procure that and other necessary supplies; and was so successful, that, through the remainder of the war, the Cornish army was never destitute of ammunition. This was so important and seasonable a service, that the king acknowledged it by particular approbation; and by conferring upon him, at Oxford, the honour of knighthood, which was speedily followed by his being advanced, on the 9th of May 1645, to the dignity, of a baronet. Returning the same year into Jersey, he found that several of the inhabitants had been induced to embrace the cause of the parliament, on which account he threw some of them into confinement. This was so alarming and offensive to the members at Westminster, that an order was made, that if, for the future, he should put to death any of the island whom he should take prisoners, for every one so slain, three of the king’s men should be hung up. From the words here used, it seems implied that sir George Carteret had actually executed some one or more of the people of Jersey who had appeared for the Parliament; a step highly injudicious, whence, in all the subsequent propositions for peace with the king, sir George was excepted from pardon. When the prince of Wales, and many persons of distinction with him, came into Jersey in 1646, and brought with them very little for their subsistence, they were all chear fully entertained, and at a large expence, by sir George Carteret who, being sensible how much it behoved him to take care for supplies, equipped about half a score small frigates and privateers, which soon struck a terror through the whole channel, and made a number of captures. Upon the prince’s leaving the island, at the positive command of the queen, several of the council chose to stay with sir George; au<=! the chancellor of the exchequer (afterwards earl of Clarendon) resided with him above two years. After the death of the king, sir George Carteret, though the republican party was completely triumphant, and though Charles II. was at the Hague in a very destitute condition, immediately proclaimed him at Jersey, with all his titles. Some months afterwards his Majesty determined to pay a second visit to the island of Jersey, and arrived in the latter end of September 1649, accompanied by his brother the duke of York, with several of the nobility. Here they were supplied by sir George with all necessaries. The king, when prince of Wales, had procured his father’s leave for making sir George Carteret his vice-chamberlain, and he now appointed him treasurer of his navy; which however, at this time, chiefly consisted of the privateers that sir George hue! provided, and of the men of war with prince Rupert. Charles II. staid in the island till the latter end of March 1650, when he embarked for Holland, in order to be more commodiously situated for treating with the Scots, who had invited him into that kingdom. This defiance of sir George Carteret in harbouring the king, and taking many of their trading vessels, enraged the republicans so much, that they determined to exert every nerve for the reduction of Jersey. A formidable armament being prepared, it put to sea in October 1651, under the command of admiral Blake, and major-general Holmes, to the last of whom the charge of the forces for the descent was committed. In this crisis, sir George Carteret prevented the landing of the republican army as long as possible; and when that was effected, and the remaining forts of the island were taken, he retired into Elizabeth castle, resolving to hold it out to the last extremity. The king being safely arrived in France, after the, fatal battle of Worcester, sir George informed him of the state of the garrison, but the king not being able to assist him, he advised sir George Carteret, rather to accept of a reasonable composition, than, by too obstinate a defence, to bring himself and the loyal gentlemen who were with him into danger of being made prisoners of war. Sir George was ambitious that Elizabeth castle should be the last of the king’s garrisons (as was in fact the case) which should yield to the prevailing powers. He determined, therefore, to conceal his majesty’s permission to treat, that the knowledge of it might not renew the cry for a surrender. But, at length, provisions growing scarce, the number of defenders lessening daily by death and desertion, and there being no possibility of supplies or recruits, Elizabeth castle was surrendered in the? latter end of December, and sir George went first to St. Maloes, and afterwards travelled through several parts of Europe. To facilitate his reception at the different courts and places he might be disposed to visit, he obtained from his royal master a very honourable and remarkable certificate of recommendation. In 1657, sir George had given such offence to Oliver Cromwell, by some hostile design or attempt against the English vessels trading to the French ports, that, by the Protector’s interest with cardinal Mazarine, he was committed prisoner to the Bastile from which he was, after some time, released by the intercession of his friends, upon condition of his quitting France. In 1659, however, we find him at Rheims, from whence, he repaired to the king at Brussels, and followed him to Breda. Upon his majesty’s being restored to his kingdoms, sir George Carteret rode, with him in his triumphant entry into the city of London, on the 2<nh of May 1660, and next day he was declared vice-chamberlain of the hoiishold, an-d sworn of the privy council. He was also constituted treasurer of the navy; and at the coronation of the king, he had the honour of being almoner for the day. In the first parliament called by Charles II. in May, 1661, sir George Carteret was elected representative for the corporation of Portsmouth; and it appears, that he was au active member of the house. When the duke of York, 1673, resigned the office of high admiral of England, sir George was constituted one of the commissioners of the admiralty; and“in 1676, he was appointed one of the lords of the committee of trade. He was also vice-treasurer of Ireland, and treasurer of the military forces there. At length, in consequence of his merit and services, the king determined to raise him to the dignity of a peerage; but before the design could be accomplished, he departed this life, on the 14th of January, 1679, being nearly eighty years of age. On the 11th of February following, a royal warrant was issued, in which it is recited,” That whereas sir George Carteret died before his patent for his barony was sued out, liis Majesty authorizes Elizabeth, his widow, and her youngest children, James Carteret, Caroline, wife of sir Thomas S<:ot, kut. and Louisa, wife of sir Robert Atkins, knt. to enjoy their precedency and pre-eminency, as if the said sir George Carterei hail actually been created a baron." Sir George’s rldest son, by his jady Elizabeth, who was his cousin-gr nnan, being the daughter of sir PhiUp Carteret, was ijained Philip after his grandfather. This gentleman eminently distinguished himself in the civil wars, and was khighted by Charles II on his arrival in Jersey. After the king’s restoration, sir Philip Carteret married Jemima, daughter of Edward Montague, the first earl of Sandwich, and perished with that illustrious nobleman, in the great sea-fight with the Dutch, in Solbay, on the 28th of May, 1672. Sir Philip determined, whilst many others left the ship, to share the fate of his father-in-law. His eldest son George was the first lord Carteret, and father to the subject of the following article.

, earl Granville, one of the most distinguished orators and statesmen of the last century, was born on the 22d of April, 1690. His father was George lord Carteret, baron Carteret, of Hawnes in the county of Bedford, having been so created on the 19th of October 1681, when he was only fifteen years of age and his mother was lady Grace, youngest daughter of John earl of Bath. He succeeded his father when only in his fifth year. He was educated at Westminster school, from which he was removed to Christ-church Oxford in both which places he made such extraordinary improvements, that he became one of the most learned young noblemen of his time; and he retained to the last his knowledge and love of literature. Dr. Swift humorously asserts, that he carried away from Oxford, with a singularity scarcely to be justified, more Greek, Latin, and philosophy, than properly became a person of his rank; indeed, much more of each, than most of those who are forced to live by their learning will be at the unnecessary pains to load their heads with. Being thus accomplished, lord Carteret was qualified to make an early figure in life. As soon as he was introduced into the house of peers, which was on the 25th of May, 1711, he distinguished himself by his ardent zeal for the protestant succession, which procured him the eariy notice of king George 1. by whom he was appointed, in 1714, one of the lords of the bed-chamber in 1715, bailiff of the island of Jersey and in 1716, lord lieutenant and custis rotulorum of the county of Devon which last office he held till August 1721, when he resigned it in favour of Hugh lord Clinton. His mother also, lady Grace, was created viscountess Carteret and countess Grai>ville, by letters patent, bearing date on the first of January, 1714-15, with limitation of these honours to her son John lord Carteret. His lordship, though still young, became, from the ea.ly part of king George the First’s reign, an eminent speaker in the house of peers. The first instance of the display of his eloquence, was in the famous debate on the bill for lengthening the duration of Parliaments, in which he supported the duke of Devonshire’s motion for the repeal of the triennial act. On the 18th of February, 17 t 7- 18, he spoke in behalf of the bill for punishing mutiny and desertion; and in the session of parliament which met on the llth of November following, he moved, for the address of thanks to the king, to congratulate his majesty on the seasonable success of his naval forces; and to assume him, that the house would support him in the pursuit of those prudent and necessary measures he had taken to secure the trade and quiet of his dominions, and the tranquillity of Europe. In Jan. 1718-19 he was appointed ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the queen of Sweden, with whom his first business was to, remove the difficulties which the British subjects had met with* Jo their commerce in the Baltic, and to procure satisfaction for the losses they had sustained; and in both he completely succeeded. On the 6th of November, 1719, lord Carteret first took upon him the character of ambassador extraordinary ana plenipotentiary; at which time, in a private audience, he offered his royal master’s mediation t<v make peace between Sweden and Denmark, and between Sweden and the Czar; both of which were readily accepted by the queen. A peace between Sweden, Prussia, and Hanover, having been concluded by lord Carteret, it was proclaimed at Stockholm on the 9th of March, 1719-L'O. This was the prelude to a reconciliation between Sweden and Denmark, which he also effected, and the treaty was signed July 3, 1720. In August his lordship was appointed, together with earl Stanhope and sir Robert Siutcm, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at the congress of Cambray but whether he acted in this capacity does not appear. From Denmark, however, he arrived in England Dec. 5, and a few weeks after took a share in the debates on the state of the national credit, occasioned by the unfortunate and iniquitous effects of the South-Sea scheme, maintaining that the estates of the criminals, whether directors or not directors, ought to be confiscated. Whilst this affair was in agitation, he was appointed ambassador extraordinary to the court of France, and was on the point of setting out, when the death of secretary Craggs induced his majesty to appoint lord Carteret his successor, May 4, 1721, and next day he was admitted into office, and sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privy council. Whilst lord Carteret was secretary of state, he not only discharged the general duties of his employment to the satisfaction of his royal master, but ably defended in parliament the measures of administration. This he did in the debate concerning Mr. Law, the famous projector of the Mississippi scheme, whose arrival in England, in 1721, by the connivance, as it was thought, and even under the sanction of the ministry, excited no small degree of disgust; and he also took a part on the side of government, in th debate on the navy debt, and with regard to the various other motions and bills of the session. In the new parliament, which met on the llth of October, 1722, his lordship, on occasion of Layer’s plot, spoke in favour of suspending the habeas corpus act for one year; acquainted the house with the bishop of Rochester’s, lord NortU and Grey’s, and the earl of Orrery’s commitment to the Tower; and defended the motion for the imprisonment of the duke of Norfolk. In all the debates concerning this conspiracy, and particularly with regard to Atterbury, lord Carteret vindicated the proceedings of the tectart; as he did, likewise, in the case of the act for laying an extraordinary tax upon papists. On the 26th of May, 1723, when the king’s affairs called him abroad, his lordship was appointed one of the lords justices of the kingdom; but notwithstanding this, he went to Hanover, in conjunction with lord Townshend, the other secretary; and both these noblemen, in their return to England, had several conferences at the Hague, with the principal persons of the Dutch administration, on subjects of importance. In the session of parliament, January, 1723-4, lord Carteret, in the debate on the mutiny bill, supported the necessity of eighteen thousand men being kept up, as the number of land- forces, in opposition to lord Trevor, who had moved that the four thousand additional men, who had been raised the year before, should be discontinued., Not many days after this debate, several alterations took place at court. Lord Carteret quitted the office of secretary of state, in which he was succeeded by the duke of Newcastle; and on the same day, being the third of April, 1724, he was constituted lord -lieutenant of Ireland, and in October arrived at Dublin, where he was received with the usual solemnity. The Irish were at that time in a great ferment about the patent for Wood’s halfpence, which makes so signal a figure in the life and writings of Dr. Swift. One of the first things done by the lord-lieutenant was to publish a proclamation, offering a reward of three hundred pounds for a discovery of the author of the Drapier’s Letters. When he was asked, by Dr. Swift, howhe could concur in the prosecution of a poor honest fellow, who had been guilty of no other crime than that of writing three or four letters for the good of his country, his excellency replied, in the words of Virgil,

But who hath something to hope, or something to fear."

His lordship, however, kept on good terms with Swift, and obliged him by conferring preferment on Dr. Sheridan, and others of his friends. Even in the Drapier’s Letters, the dean expressed a very high opinion of the lord- lieutenant. Besides revoking Wood’s patent, lord Carteret’s administration was, in other respects, very acceptable and beneficial to the Irish. He discharged the duties of his high station, in general, with wisdom and fidelity, and the people were happy under his government. After the close of the session in March, 1725-6, his lordship having constituted lords justices during his absence, embarked for England, where he arrived in May, 1726, and received his majesty’s approbation of his prudent conduct. On the 24th of January, 1726-7, lord Carteret ably defended the king’s speech, which had been warmly animadverted upon by the opposition. On the 31st of May, 1727, he was appointed one of the chief justices during his majesty’s absence, and upon the decease of George I. who died suddenly at Osnabrug, in his way to Hanover, on the llth of June, 1727, lord Carteret was one of the old privy council who assembled at Leicester house, where the new king was proclaimed. This was on the 14th of June, and the same day he was sworn of his majesty’s privy council. On the 29th of July following, he was again appointed lord lieutenant and chief governor of the kingdom of Ireland, and having arrived there, the parliament was opened, by his excellency, Nov. 28, and the session continued till the 6th of May, 1728, when he gave the royal assent to twenty public acts, and concluded with a speech, expressive of his high regard for the welfare of the kingdom. After this, he embarked for England, but in 1729, returned again to Ireland, and held another session of parliament, which began on the 23d of September, and on the 15th of April, 1730. His lordship’s second vicegerency over the Irish nation was as popular, if not more so, as the first. His polite and sociable manners were highly acceptable to all ranks of people. What particularly recommended him was, his being above the little distinctions of party. He maintained a good correspondence with several of those who were called or reputed tories, and occasionally distributed a few preferments, of no great significance, in that line. This having excited the complaint of some of the bigotted whigs, gave occasion to a facetious and sensible tract of Dr. Swift’s, entitled, “A Vindication of his excellency John lord Carteret, from the charge of favouring none but Tories, Highchurch-men, and Jacobites.” With Dr. Swift the lordlieutenant appears to have maintained a strict friendship; and he was solicitous to act agreeably to the dean’s views of the interest of the kingdom. In one of his letters, written to the dean some years afterwards, he thus expresses himself; “When people ask me how I governed Ireland? I say, that I pleased Dr. Swift.” The preferments which his excellency bestowed, at the instance of the dean of St. Patrick’s, were conferred on learned and worthy men, who did not disgrace their recommender; and whatever may be thought of the pride, petulance, and peculiarities of Swift} it cannot rationally be denied, that he was sincerely devoted to the welfare of the Irish nation. His lordship, having continued the usual time allotted to his high office, quitted it in 1730, and was succeeded by the duke of Dorset.

We now come to a part of lord Carteret’s life, including nearly twelve years, from 1730 to 1742, during which he engaged in the grand opposition, that was carried on so long, and with so much pertinacity, against sir Robert Walpole. In this opposition he took a very distinguished part, and was one of its ablest and most spirited leaders. There was scarcely any motion or question on which his eloquence was not displayed. His powers of oratory are allowed to have been eminently great; and it is highly probable, that they were invigorated and increased by that superior ardour which naturally accompanies an attack upon the measures of government. In the session of parliament, 1730-1, he supported the bill against pensioners being permitted to sit in that house; and the motion for discharging the twelve thousand Hessian forces in the pay of Great Britain. In the subsequent session, which opened on the 13th of January, 1731-2, besides speaking in favour of the pension bill, lord Carteret exerted his whole ability against the passing of the act for reviving the salt duty. This tax he asserted to be grievous, pernicious, and insupportable; oppressive to the lower part of the people; and dangerous to public liberty, by the numerous dependents it would create upon the crown. In the next year, the grand objects that engaged the attention of the minority were, the motion for the reduction of the land forces; the produce of the forfeited estates of the SouthSea directors in 1720; and the bill for granting eightythousand pounds for the princess-royal’s marriage settlement, and a sum out of the sinking fund; on which occasions lord Carteret displayed his usual energy and eloquence. In the session which began on the 17th of January, 1733-4, his lordship made the motion for an address to the king, to know who had advised the removal of the duke of Bolton and lord Cobham from their regiments; and took the lead in the memorable debate which arose upon that question, and an, active part in the other matters that were agitated in this and the following sessions. It is observable that, about this time, Dr. Swift had some doubts concerning lord Carteret’s steadiness in the cause of opposition, yet, in the session>f parliament which opened on the 1st of February, 1736-7, his lordship distinguished himself greatly in the several question-s concerning the riots at Edinburgh, and the affair of captain Porteus; and he was the mover, in the house of peers, for the settlement of an hundred thousand pounds a year, out of the civil list, upon the prince of Wales; a matter which excited a very long and violent debate. He exercised the same vigour with regard to all the motions and questions of that busy session; and it is evident, from the records of the times, that he was the prime leader of opposition in the upper house. This character was preserved by lord Carteret in the parliament which met on the 15th of November, 1739; and in the following session, when the minority exerted their whole strength to overturn the administration, he made the motion in the house of peers, Feb. 13, 1740-1, to address his majesty, that he would graciously be pleased to remove sir Robert Walpole from his presence and councils for ever, and prefaced his proposal with the longest, as well as the ablest speech that, he ever appears to have delivered. A year after, when views of opposition were attained, so far as related to the displacing of sir Robert Walpole, lord Carteret, Feb. 12> 1741-42, was appointed one of his majesty’s principal secretaries of state, and then began to change his parliamentary language, opposing the motion for the commitment of the pension -bill, and the bill to indemnify evidences against Robert earl of Orford, not consistently, although with some reason. In September 1742, he was sent to the States General, to concert measures with them, for the maintenance of the liberties of the United Provinces, and the benefit of the common cause and soon after his return, he opposed the motion for discharging the Hanoverian troops in British pay and distinguished himself in favour of the bill for retailing spirituous liquors. In 1743 he waited upon his majesty at Hanover, and attended him through the whole interesting campaign of that year; and the king placed the greatest confidence in his counsels, to which he was the more entitled, as he was eminently ^killed in foreign affairs. On the death of his mother, upon the 18th of October, 1744, he succeeded to the titles of viscount Carteret and earl Granville, and, a few weeks after, resigned the seals as secretary of state, unable to oppose the patriotic party, whom he had suddenly forsaken, and the duke of Newcastle and his brother, Mr. Pelham, who formed analliance with them against him. George II. however, with reluctance parted with a minister who had gained his personal affection by his great knowledge of the affairs of Europe, by his enterprizing genius, and, above all, by his ready compliance with the king’s favourite views. In the beginning of 1746, his lordship made an effort to retrieve his influence in the cabinet, but the duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pelham, who knew his aspiring disposition, refused to admit him into administration, yet mismanaged their intrigues so much, that at first they were themselves obliged to resign, and earl Granvilie was appointed secretary of state, and resumed the reins of administration, in February 1745-6: finding, however, that he could not counteract the accumulated opposition that preponderated against him, he resigned the seals four days after they had' been put into his hands. Still lord Granville’s political antagonists were not able to prevent his receiving,. personal marks of royal favour. On the 22d of June, 1749J he was elected at Kensington, one of the knights companions of the most noble order of the garter, and next year was again brought into the ministry, in connection with the very men by whom he had been so long and so warmly opposed. He was then constituted president of the council, and notwithstanding the various revolutions of administration, was continued in this high post till his decease. When his majesty went to Hanover, in 17- r >2, earl Granville was appointed one of the lords justices of the kingdom and he was in the commissions for opening and concluding the session of parliament, which began on the 31st of May, 1754, and ended on the 5th of June following. The Ifist time in which he spoke in the house of peers, was in opposition to the third reading of the militia-bill, on the 24th of May, 1756, but not with his usual effect. When, in October 1761, Mr. Pitt proposed in council, an immediate declaration of war with Spain, and urged the measure with his usual energy, threatening a resignation, if his advice should not be adopted; lord Granville is said to have replied to him in terms both pointed and personal. Mr. Wood, in the preface to his “Essay on the original Genius and Writings of Homer,” informs us, that “being directed to wait upon his lordship, a few days before he died, with the preliminary articles of the treaty of Paris, he found him so languid, that he proposed postponing his business for another time; but earl Granville insisted that he should stay, saying, it could not prolong his life to neglect his duty; and repeating a passage out of Sarpedon’s speech in Homer, he dwelled with particular emphasis on one of the lines which recalled to his mind the distinguishing part he had taken in public affairs.” After a pause he desired to hear the treaty read and gave it the approbation of a “dying statesman (his own words) on the most glorious war, and most honourable peace, this nation ever saw.” In other respects, lord Granville so much retained his vivacity to the close of his life, as to be able to break out into sallies of wit and humour. He died Jan. 2, 1763, in. the seventy-third year of his age. He was twice married; first at Long-Leat, on the 17th of October, 1710, to Frances, only daughter of sir Robert Worsley, bart.; and secondly, on the 14th of April, 1744, to lady Sophia, daughter of Thomas earl of Pomfret. By his former wife he had three sons and five daughters; by the latter, only one daughter. Lord Granville’s character has been drawn as follows, by the late earl of Chesterfield: “Lord Granville had great parts, and a most uncommon share of learning for a man of quality. He was one of the best speakers in the house of lords, both in the declamatory and the argumentative way. He had a wonderful quickness and precision in seizing the stress of a question, which no art, no sophistry, could disguise in him. In business he was bold, enterprizing, and overbearing. He had been bred up in high monarchical, that is, tyrannical principles of government, which his ardent and impetuous temper made him think were the only rational and practicable ones. He would have been a great first minister in France, little inferior, perhaps, to Richelieu; in this government, which is yet free, he would have been a dangerous one, little less so, perhaps, than lord Strafford. He was neither ill-natured nor vindictive, and had a great contempt for money. His ideas were all above it. In social life he was an agreeable, good-humoured, and instructive companion; a great but entertaining talker. He degraded himself by the vice of drinking, which, together with a great stock of Greek and Latin, he brought away with him from Oxford, and retained and practised ever afterwards. By his own industry, he had made himself master of all the modern languages, and had acquired a great knowledge of the law. His political knowledge of the interest of princes and of commerce was extensive, and his notions were just and great. His character may be summed up, in nice precision, quick decision, and unbounded presumption.”

In lord Egmont’s manuscripts are some curious traits of earl Granville' s character. He was one of those politicians who make religion subservient to the state. The considering the kingdom of Christ as a separate kingdom from those of this world he counted absurd. On the contrary, be maintained that Christianity is incorporated with civil government as sand with lime, each of which by itself makes no mortar. Where he imagined that the public interest might receive prejudice by Christianity, he was against its being taught. He hoped, therefore, never to see our negroes in America become Christians, because he believed that this would render them less laborious slaves. On the same principle, he was against any attempts to convert the American savages. In learning Christianity, they would fall into the use of letters, and a skill in the arts being the consequence, they would become more formidable to the plantations. Pursuing a similar train of reasoning, lord Granville wished to God that the pope might never turn protestant, or the Italians cease to be papists, for then we should sell them no fish. He was glad % N that the clergy sent abroad to our plantations were immoral and ignorant wretches, because they could have no influence over the inhabitants, as better and wiser men would have, and who would use that influence for the purpose of inspiring the planters with a spirit of iadependence on their mother country. He was hostile to the scheme of sending bishops to America. These, he thought, would labour to bring the several sects to one religion; whereas the security of that people’s dependence on England he conceived to arise from their mutual divisions. He was an enemy likewise to the improvement of our colonies in learning. This he said would take off their youth from wholly attending to trade, fill them with speculative notions of government and liberty, and prevent the education of the sons of rich planters in England, where they contract a love to this kingdom, and when grown old, come back and settle, to the great increase of our wealth. Even" at home he was against charity-schools, and was not for having the vulgar taught to read, that they might think of nothing but the plow, and their other low avocations. However unsound some of these opinions may appear, most readers may recollect that they did not die with his lordship.

, whose proper name was Forteguerra, an eminent Italian scholar, was born of a good family at Pistoia in Tuscany, Feb. 4, 1467. He was at first educated at a college in Pistoia called “la Sapienza de' Forteguerri,” from a cardinal of that name who founded it for the benefit of twelve students, three of whom should he of the family of Forteguerra. He studied afterwards at Rome and Florence, where Politian was his Greek preceptor. In 1500, the senate of Venice appointed him to teach Greek in that city, and his reputation for knowledge of that language was most extensive. He was afterwards invited to Rome by pope Julius II. who appointed him preceptor to his nephew, the cardinal Galeotto and Leo X. is said to have chosen him in the same capacity for his cousin Julius de Medici; but whatever benefits might have accrued from this or other instances of Leo’s favour, were prevented by Carteromachus’s death, Oct. 1G, 1513. He is indebted for his literary reputation rather to the numerous commendations of his contemporaries and friends than to his own writings, many of which are said to have been dispersed at his death, and usurped by others into whose hands they had fallen. Among those which remain is his “Oratio de laudibus literarum Graecarum,” Venice, 1504, 4to, Basil, 1517, and prefixed to Stephens’ s “Thesaurus Linguae Grasctf.” Several epigrams of his also are extant in Greek and Latin in the publications of the times. During his residence at Venice, he frequently acted as corrector of the Ahline press, and had a considerable hand in the edition of Ptolomy’s Geography printed at Rome in 1507, folio.

Mr. Cartwright took occasion, in his lectures, to deliver his sentiments on church-discipline; which being unfavourable to the established hierarchy, public accusations were soon exhibited against him though Mr. Strype says, “that he had indeed a great party in the university, and some of them men of learning, who stuck close to him, exceedingly admiring him; though some of them, better informed, fell off afterwards.” Archbishop Grindal wrote a letter to sir William Cecil, chancellor of the university, on the 23d of June 1570, requesting him to take some speedy course against Mr. Cartwright; alleging, that in his readings he daily made invectives against the external policy, and distinction of states, in the ecclesiastical government in consequence of which the youth of the university, who frequented his lectures in great numbers, “were in danger to be poisoned with a love of contention and a liking of novelty.” He therefore recommended, that the chancellor should write to the vice-chancellor, to enjoin silence upon Cartvvright and all his adherents, both in schools and pulpits; and afterwards, upon examination, and hearing of the matters before him, and some of the heads of houses, to reduce the offenders to conformity, or to expel them out of the colleges, or the university, as the cause should require; and also that the vice-chancellor should not suffer Mr. Cartwright to take his degree of D. D. at the approaching commencement, for which he had applied. Dr. Whitgift also zealously opposed Cartwright, and wrote another letter to the chancellor upon the occasion, communicating to him not only what Cartwright had “openly taught,” but also “what he had uttered to him in private conference.”

Mr. Cartwright vindicated his conduct in a letter to sir William Cecil, dated the 9th of July; in which he declared his extreme aversion to every thing that was seditious and contentious, and affirmed that he had taught nothing but what naturally flowed from the text concerning which he had treated. He observed, that when an occasion offered itself of speaking concerning the habits, he had waved it: though he acknowledged that he had taught, that the ministry of the church of England had declined from the ministry of the ancient and apostolical church, and that he wished it to be restored to greater purity. But these sentiments, he said, he had delivered calmly and sedately, and in such a manner as could give offence to none but the ignorant or the malignant, and those who were eager to catch at something to calumniate him. He asserted, that he had the utmost reason to believe that he should have obtained the testimony of the university in favour of his innocence, had not the vicechancellor denied him a congregation. He solicited the protection of the chancellor, so far as his cause was just; and transmitted to him a testimonial of his innocence, signed by several learned members of the university, and in which his abilities, learning, and integrity, were spoken of in very high terms. After this he was cited to appear before Dr. Mey, the vice-chancellor of the university, and some of the heads of houses, and examined upon sundry articles of doctrine said to be delivered by him in his public lectures, and which were affirmed to be contrary to the religion received and allowed by public authority in the realm of England; and it was demanded of him, whether he would stand to those opinions and doctrines, or whether Le wuuid renounce them. Mr. Cartwright desired that he might be permitted to commit to writing what his judgment was upon the points in controversy; which being assented to, he drew up six propositions to the following purport, and which he subscribed with his own hand: “I. The names and functions of archbishops and archdeacons ought to be abolished. II. The offices of the lawful ministers of the church, viz. bishops and deacons, ought to be reduced to the apostolical institution: bishops to preach the word of God and pray, and deacons to be employed in taking care of the poor. III. The government of the church ought not to be entrusted to bishops chancellors, or the officials of archdeacons; but every church should be governed by its own minister and presbyters. IV. Ministers ought not to be at large, but every one should have the charge of a certain flock. V. No man should solicit, or stand as a candidate for the Ministry. VI. Bishops should not be created by civil authority, but ought to be openly and fairly chosen by the church.” Propositions also which were said to be dangerous and seditious were collected out of Mr. Cartwright’s lectures, and sent to court by Dr. Whitgift, to incense the queen and chancellor against him; and he was forbidden by the vice-chancellor and heads of the university to read any more lectures till they should receive some satisfaction that he would not continue to propagate the same opinions. He was also prevented from taking his doctor’s degree by the authority of the vice-chancellor: which appears to have given great umbrage to many in the university, and to have occasioned a considerable disturbance. In 1571 Dr. Whitgift became vice-chancellor of the university; and by his influence more rigorous statutes were procured for its government; and Mr. Cartwright was deprived of his place of Margaret- professor. But he still continued senior tellow of Trinity-college; though the following year he was also deprived of his fellowship; it being alleged that he had forfeited it by not entering into priest’s orders in due time, in conformity to the statutes. Being thus driven from the university, and out of all employment, he travelled beyond sea, where he became acquainted with the most celebrated divines in the several protestant universities of Europe, with many of whom he established a correspondence. They appear to have entertained a very high esteem for him; and the celebrated Beza, in a letter to one of his English correspondents, expressed himself thus concerning him: “Here is now with us your countryman, Thomas Cartwright, than whom I think the sun doth not see a more learned man.” While he was abroad, he was chosen minister to the English merchants at Antwerp, and afterwards at Middleburgh, where he continued two years, with little or no profit to himself; though his labours as a preacher are said to have been extremely acceptable and successful. But the importunity of his friends in England at length prevailed on him to return again to his native country.

Very severe measures had now been adopted for several years against the puritans; on whose behalf a piece was published, intituled, “An admonition to the parliament;” to which were annexed, A letter from Beza to the earl of Leicester, and another from Gualter to bishop Parkhurst, recommending a reformation of church discipline. This work contained what was called the “platform of a church;” the manner of electing ministers; their several duties; and arguments to prove their equality in government. It also attacked the hierarchy, and the proceedings of the bishops, with much severity of language. The admonition was concluded with a petition to the two houses, that a discipline more consonant to the word of God, and agreeing with the foreign reformed churches, might be established by law. Mr. Field and Mr. Wilcox, authors of the admonition, and who attempted to present it to parliament, were committed to Newgate on the second of October 1572. Notwithstanding which, Mr. Cartwright, after his return to England,“wrote” a second admonition to the parliament,“with an humble petition to the two houses, for relief against the subscription required by the ecclesiastical commissioners. The same year Dr. Whitgift published an answer to the admonition: to which Mr. Cartwright published a reply in 1573; and aboat this time a proclamation was issued for apprehending him. In 1574 Dr. Whitgift published, in folio,” A defence of the answer to the admonition, against the reply of T. C.“In 1575 Mr. Cartwright published a second reply to Dr. Whitgift; and in 1577 appeared,” the rest of the second reply of Thomas Cartwright, against master Doctor Whitgift’s answer, touching the church discipline.“This seems to have been printed in Scotland; and it is certain, that before its publication Mr. Cartwright had found it necessary to leave the kingdom, whilst his opponent was raised to the bishopric of Worcester. Mr. Cartwright continued abroad about five years, during which time he officiated as a minister to some of the English factories. About the year 1580 James VI. king of Scotland, having a high opinion of his learning and abilities, sent to him, and offered him a professorship in the university of St. Andrew’s; but this he 'thought proper to decline. Upon his return to England, officers w.e re sent to apprehend him, as a promoter of sedition, and he was thrown into prison. He probably obtained his li­* berty through the interest of the lord treasurer Burleigh, and the earl of Leicester, by both of whom he was favoured: and the latter conferred upon him the mastership of the hospital which he had founded in Warwick. In 1583 he was earnestly persuaded, by several learned protestant divines, to write against the Rhemish translation of the New Testament. He was likewise encouraged in this design by the earl of Leicester and sir Francis Walsingham: and the latter sent him a hundred pounds towards the expences of the work. He accordingly engaged in it; but after some time received a mandate from archbishop Whitgift, prohibiting him from prosecuting the work any farther. Though he was much discouraged by this, he nearly completed the performance; but it was not published till many years after his death in 1618, fol. under the title” A Confutation of the Rhemish Translation, Glosses, and Annotations on the New Testament.“It is said, that queen Elizabeth sent to Beza, requesting him to undertake a work of this kind; but he declined it, declaring that Cartwright was much more capable of the task than himself. Notwithstanding the high estimation in which he was held, and his many admirers, in the year 1585 he was again committed to prison by Dr. Aylmer, bfshop of London; and that prelate gave some offence to the queen by making use of her majesty’s name on the occasion. When he obtained his liberty is not mentioned: but we find that in 1590, when he was at Warwick, he received a citation to appear in the starchamber, together with Edmund Snape, and some other puritan ministers, being charged with setting up a new discipline, and a new form of worship, and subscribing their names to stand to it. This was interpreted an opposition and disobedience to the established laws. Mr. Cartwright was also called upon to take the oath ex officio; but this he refused, and was committed to the Fleet. In May 1591 ije was sent for by bishop Ay liner to appear before him, and some others of the ecclesiastical commissioners, at that prelate’s house. He had no previous notice given him, to prevent any concourse of his adherents upon the occasion. The bishop threw out some reproaches against him, and again required him to take the oath ex officio. The attorney general did the same, and represented to him” how dangerous a thing it was that men should, upon the conceits of their own heads, and yet under colour of conscience, refuse the things that had been received for laws for a long time.“Mr. Cartwright assigned sundry reasons for refusing to take the oath; and afterwards desired to be permitted to vindicate himself from some reflections that had been thrown out against him by the bishop and the attorney general. But to this bishop Aylmer would not consent, alleging,” that he had no leisure to hear his answer,“but that he might defend himself from the public charges that he had brought against him, by a private letter to his lordship. With this Mr. Cartwright was obliged to be contented, and was immediately after again committed to the Fleet. In August 1591 he wrote a letter to lady Russel, stating some of the grievances under which he laboured, and soliciting her interest with lord Burleigh to procure him better treatment. The same year king James wrote a letter to queen Elizabeth, requesting her majesty to shew favour to Mr. Cartwright and his brethren, on account of their great learning and faithful labours in the gospel. But he did not obtain his liberty till about the middle of the year 1592, when he was restored to his hospital at Warwick, and was again permitted to preach: but his health appears to have been much impaired by his long confinement and close application to study. He died on the 27th of December 1603, in the 68th year of his age, having preached a sermon ou mortality but two days before. He was buried in the hospital at Warwick. He was pious, learned, and laborious; an acute disputant, and an admired preacher; of a disinterested disposition, generous and charitable, and particularly liberal to poor scholars. It is much to be regretted that such a man should have incurred the censure of the superiors either in church or state; but inuovations like those he proposed, and adhered to with obstinacy, could not be tolerated in the case of a church establishment so recently formed, and which required every effort bf its supporters to maintain it. How far, therefore, the reflections which have been cast on a the prelates who prosecuted him are just, may be safely left to the consideration of the reader. There is reason also to think, that before his death Cartwright himself thought differently of his past conduct. Sir Henry Yelverton, in his epistle to the reader, prefixed to bishop Moreton’s” Episcopacy justified,“says that the last words of Thomas Cartwright, on his death-bed, were, that he sorely lamented the unnecessary troubles he had caused in the church, by the schism, of which he had been the great fomenter; and that be wished he was to begin his life again, that he might testify to the world the dislike he had of his former ways In tnis opinion, says sir Henry, he died; and it appears certain, that he abated something of the warmth of his spirit towards the close of his days. When he had obtained his pardon, of the queen, which, as sir George Paule asserts, was at the instance of aichbishop Whitgilt, Cartwright, in his letters of acknowledgment to that prelate, vouchsafed to stile him a” Right Reverend Fatner in God, and his Lord the Archbishop’s Grace of Canterbury.“This title of Grace he often yielded to Whitgift in the course of their correspondence. Nay, the archbishop was heard to say, that if Mr. Cartwright had not so far engaged himself as he did in the beginning, he verily thought tnat he would, in his letter time, have been drawn to conformity: for when he was freed from his troubles, he often repaired to the archbishop, who used him kindly, and was contented to tolerate his preaching at Warwick for several years, upon his promise that he would not impugn the laws, orders, and government of the church of England, but persuade and procure, as much as he could, both publicly and privately, the estimation and peace of the same. With these terms he complied; notwithstanding which, when queen Elizabeth understood that he preached again, though in the temperate manner which had been prescribed, she would not permit him to do it any longer without subscription; and was not a little displeased with the archbishop, for his having connived at his so doing. Sir George Paule farther adds, that, by the benevolence and bounty of his followers, Mr Cartwright was said to have died rich. Besides the pieces already mentioned, Mr. Cartwright was author of the following works: 1.” Commentaria practica in totam historiam evangelicam, ex quatuor evangelistis harmonice concinnatam,“1630, 4to. An elegant edition of this was printed at Amsterdam, by Lewis Elzevir, in 1647, under the following title:” Harmonia evangelica commentario analytico, metaphrastico, practice, illustrata,“&c. 2.” Commentarii succincti & dilucidi in proverbia Salomonis,“Amst. 1638, 4to. 3.” Metaphrasis & homiliae in librum Salomonis qui inscribitur Ecclesiastes,“Amst. 1647, 4to. 4.” A Directory of Church Government,“1644, 4to. 5.” A Body of Divinity," Lond. 1616, 4to.

, bishop of Chester, and supposed to be grandson to the preceding, was born at Northampton, Sept. 1, 1634. His father was for some time master of the endowed school of Brentwood, in Essex, and he appears to have been educated in the religious principles which prevailed among the anti-episcopal party. He was entered of Magdalen hall, Oxford, but was soon removed to Queen’s college by the power of the parliamentary visitors in 1649; and after taking orders, became chaplain of that college, and vicar of Walthamstow in Essex. In 1659, he was preacher at St. Mary Magdalen’s, Fish-street. After the restoration, he recommended himself so powerfully by professions of loyalty, as to be made domestic chaplain to Henry duke of Gloucester, prebendary of Twyford, in the church of St. Paul; of Chalford, in the church of Wells; a chaplain in ordinary to the king, and rector of St. Thomas Apostle, London, and was created D. D. although not of standing for it. To these, in 1672, was added a prebend of Durham; and in 1677, he was made dean of Rippon. He had likewise a hard struggle with Dr. Womack for the bishopric of St. David’s; but in the reign of James II. in 1686, he succeeded to that of Chester, for boldly asserting in one of his sermons, that the king’s promises to parliament were not binding. The most remarkable event of his life, was his acting as one of the commissioners in the memorable attempt which his infatuated master made to controul the president and fellows of Magdalen college, Oxford, when they rejected a popish president intruded upon them by the king. Upon the revolution he fled to France, where he officiated as minister to the protestant part of the king’s household; and upon the death of Dr. Seth Ward, became titular bishop of Salisbury. He afterwards accompanied the abdicated monarch to Ireland, where he died of a dysentery, April 15, 1689, and was sumptuously interred in the choir of Christ-church, Dublin. The report by Richardson, in his edition of Godwin, of his having died in the communion of the church of Rome, seems doubtful; but on his death-bed his expressions were certainly equivocal. His “Speech spoken to the society of Magdalen college,” his examination of Dr. Hough, and several occasional sermons, enumerated by Wood, are in print. He appears to have been a man too subservient to the will of James, to act with more prudence or principle than his master, who, it is said, looked upon him as neither protestant nor papist, and had little or no esteem for him.

, an English poet of the seventeenth century, was born at Northway near Tewkesbury, in Gloucestershire, Sept. 1611. His father, after spending a good estate, was reduced to keep an inn at Cirencester; at the free-school of which town his son was educated under Mr. William Topp. Being chosen a king’s scholar, he was removed to Westminster school, under Dr. Osbaldiston, and thence elected a student of Christ church, Oxford, in 1628. After pursuing his studies, with the reputation of an extraordinary scholar and genius, he took his master’s degree in 1635, and in 1638 went into holy orders, becoming “a most florid and seraphical preacher in the university.” One sermon only of his is in print, from which we are not able to form a very high notion of his eloquence; but whdn Mr. Abraham Wright, of St. John’s, Oxford, compiled that scarce little book, entitled “Five Sermons in five several styles, or ways of Preaching,” it appears that Dr. Maine and Mr. Cartwright were of consequence enough to be admitted as specimens of university preaching. The others are bishop Andrews’, bishop Hall’s, the presbyterian and independent “ways of preaching.” In 1642, bishop Duppa, with whom he lived in the strictest intimacy, bestowed on him the place of succentur of the church of Salisbury. In the same year he was one of the council of war or delegacy, appointed by the university of Oxford, for providing for the troops sent by the king- to protect the colleges. His zeal in this office occasioned his being imprisoned by the parliamentary forces when they arrived at Oxford, but he was bailed soon after. In 1643, he was chosen junior proctor of the university, and was also reader in metaphysics. “The exposition of them,” says Wood, “was never better performed than by him and his predecessor Thomas Barlow, of Queen’s college.” Lloyd asserts that he studied at the rate of sixteen hours a day. From such diligence and talents much might have been expected, but he survived the last- mentioned appointments a very short time, dying on December 23, 1643, in the thirty-second year of his age, of a malignant fever, called the camp disease, which then prevailed at Oxford. He was honourably interred towards the upper end of the south aile of the cathedral of Christ church.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born, as is supposed, at Burford in Oxfordshire, about 1610. He received his academical learning at Trinity college in Dublin, and St. John’s college in Cambridge* Before he came to be twenty years of age, he was muster of an ample fortune, which descended to him by the gift of a grandfather, without passing through his father and mother, who were then alive. Shortly after that, and before he was of age, he went into the Low Countries, with a resolution of procuring a command; but was diverted from it by the complete inactivity of that summer. On his return to England, he entered upon a very strict course of study. We are informed by lord Clarendon, that his house being within a little more than ten miles of Oxford, he contracted familiarity and friendship with the most polite and accurate men of that university, who found such an immenseness of wit, and such a solidity of judgment in him, so infinite a fancy, bound in by most exact reasoning, such a vast knowledge, that he was not ignorant in any thing, yet. such an excessive humility, as if he had known nothing, that they frequently resorted, and dwelt with him, as in a college situated in a purer air; so that his house was a university in a less volume, whither they came, not so much for repose, as study; and to examine and refute those grosser propositions which laziness and consent made current in vulgar conversation. Before he was twenty-three years of age, he had read over all the Greek and Latin fathers, and was indefatigable in looking over all books, which with great expence he caused to be transmitted to him from all parts. About the time of his father’s death, in 1633, he was made one of the gentlemen of the privy-chamber to Charles I. In 1639 he was in the expedition against the Scots, and afterwards went a volunteer with the earl of Essex. He was chosen, in 1640, a member of the house of commons for Newport in the isle of Wight, in the parliament which began at Westminster April 13, the same year. The debates being there managed with all imaginable gravity and sobriety, he contracted such a reverence for parliaments, that he thought it really impossible they could ever procjiice mischief or inconvenience to the kingdom, or that the kingdom could be tolerably happy in the intermission of them. From the unhappy and unseasonable dissolution of that parliament, he probably harboured some jealousy and prejudice to the court, towards which he was not before immoderately inclined. He was chosen again for the same place in that parliament which began the 3d of November following;, and in the beginning of it declared himself very sharply and severely against those exorbitances of the court, which Vo*. Viij, Z had been most grievous to the state. He was so rigid an observer of established laws and rules, that he could not endure a breach or deviation from them; and thought no mischief so intolerable, as the presumption of ministers of state to break positive rules for reasons of state, or judges to transgress known laws upon the plea of conveniency or necessity. This made him so severe against the earl of Strafford and the lord Finch, contrary to his natural gentleness and temper. He likewise concurred in the first bill to take away the votes of bishops in the house of lords. This gave occasion to some to believe that he was no friend to the church, and the established government of it; it also caused many in the house of commons to imagine and hope that he might be brought to a further compliance with their designs. Indeed the great opinion he had of the uprightness and integrity of those persons who appeared most active against the court, kept him longer from suspecting any design against the peace of the kingdom; and though he differed from them commonly in conclusions, he believed their purposes were honest. When better informed what was law, and discerning in them a desire to controul that law by a vote of one or both houses, no man more opposed those attempts, and gave the adverse party more trouble, by reason and argumentation. About six months after passing the above-mentioned bill for taking away the bishops’ votes, when the same argument came again into debate, he changed his opinion, and gave the house all the opposition he could, insomuch that he was by degrees looked upon as an advocate for the court; to which he contributed so little, that he declined those addresses, and even those invitations which he was obliged almost by civility to entertain. He was so jealous of the least imagination of his inclining to preferment, that he affected even a moroseness to the court and to the courtiers, and left nothing undone which might prevent and divert the king’s or queen’s favour towards him, but the deserving it. When the king sent for him once or twice to speak to him, and to give him thanks for his excellent comportment in those councils which his majesty termed doing him service, his answers were more negligent, and Jess satisfactory, than might be expected; as if he cared only that his actions should be just, not that they should be acceptable: and he took more pains, and more forced his nature to actions unagreeable and unpleasant to it, that he might not be thought to incline to the court, than most men have done to procure an office there: not that he was in truth averse from receiving public employment, for he had a great devotion to the king’s person* and had before used some small endeavour to be recommended to him for a foreign negotiation, and had once a desire to be sent ambassador into France; but he abhorred an imagination or doubt should sink into the thoughts of any man, that in the discharge of his trust and duty in parliament he had any bias to the court; or that the king himself should apprehend that he looked for a reward for being honest. For this reason, when he heard it first whispered, that the king had a purpose to make him a privy-counsellor, for which there was in the beginning no other ground but because he was known to be well qualified, he resolved to decline it, and at last suffered himself to be over-ruled by the advice and persuasion of his friends to submit to it. Afterwards, when he found that the king intended to make him secretary of state, he was positive to refuse it, declaring to his friends that he was most unfit for it, and that he must either do that which would be great disquiet to his own nature, or leave that undone which was most necessary to be done by one that was honoured with that place; for the most just and honest men did, every day, that which he could not give himself leave to do. He was so exact and strict an observer of justice and truth, that he believed those necessary condescensions and applications to the weakness of other men, and those arts and insinuations which are necessary for discoveries and prevention of ill, would be in him a declension from his own rules of life, though he acknowledged them fit, and absolutely necessary to be practised in those employments. However, he was at last prevailed upon to submit to the king’s command, and became his secretary: but two things he could never bring himself to whilst he continued in that office (which was to his death), for which he was contented to be reproached, as for omissions in a most necessary part of his place. The one, employing of spies, or giving any countenance or entertainment to them; not such emissaries, as with danger would venture to view the enemy’s camp, and bring intelligence of their number* or quartering, or any particulars that such an observation can comprehend; but those who, by communication of guilt, or dissimulation of manners, wind themselves into such trusts and secrets, as enable them to make discoveries. The other, the liberty of opening letters, upon a suspicion that they might contain matter of dangerous consequence. For the first, he would say such instruments must be void of all ingenuity and common honesty, before they could be of use and afterwards they could never be fit to be credited and that no single preservation could be worth so general a wound and corruption of human society, as the cherishing such persons would carry with it. The last he thought such a violation of the law of nature, that no qualification by office could justify him in the trespass; and though he was convinced by the necessity and iniquity of the time, that those advantages of information were not to be declined, and were necessarily to be practised, he found means to put it off from himself, whilst he confessed he needed excuse and pardon for the omission. In all other particulars he filled his place with great sufficiency, being well versed in languages, and with the utmost integrity, being above corruption of any kind.

From the beginning of the civil war his natural cheerfulness and vivacity greW clouded, and a kind of sadness and dejection of spirit stole upon him, which he had never been used to: yet being among those who believed that one battle would end all differences, and that there would be so great a victory on one side, that the other would be compelled to submit to any conditions from the victor (which supposition and conclusion generally sunk into the minds of most men, and prevented the looking after many advantages that might then have been laid hold of), he re sisted those indispositions, “et in luctu bellum inter remedia erat.” But after the resolution of the two houses, not to admit any treaty for peace, those indispositions, which had before touched him, grew into a perfect habit of uncheerfulness; and he, who had been so exactly easy and affable to all men, became on a sudden less communicable, sad, pale, and exceedingly affected with the spleen. In his clothes and habit, which he had minded before always with more neatness and industry and expence than is usual to so great a soul, he was now not only incurious, but too negligent; and in his reception of suitors, and the necessary or casual addresses to his place, so quick and sharp, and severe, that there wanted not some men (strangers to his nature and disposition) who believed him proud and imperious. When there was any overture or hope of peace, he would be more erect and vigorous, and exceedingly solicitous to press any thing which he thought might promote it: and sitting among his friends, often, after a deep silence and frequent sighs, would, with a shrill and sad accent, repeat the word Peace, Peace; and'would passionately profess, that the very agony of the war, and the view of the calamities and desolation the kingdom did and must endure, took his sleep from him, and would shortly break his heart. This made some think, or pretend to think, that he was so much enamoured of peace, that he would have been glad the king should have bought it at any price; which was a most unreasonable calumny yet it made some impression on him, or at least he used it for an excuse of the daringness of his spirit; for at the siege of Gloucester, when his friend passionately reprehended him for exposing his person unnecessarily to danger (for he delighted to visit the trenches and nearest approaches, and to discover what the enemy did) as being so. much beside the duty of his place, that it might be understood rather to be against it, he would say merrily, “That his office could not take away the privilege of his age; and that a secretary in war might be present at the greatest secret of danger:” but withal alleged seriously, “That it concerned him to be more active in enterprises of hazard than other men, that all might see that his impatience for peace proceeded not from pusillanimity, or tear to adventure his own person.” In the morning before the first battle of Newbury *, as always upon action, he was very cheerful; and putting himselt into the first rank of the lord Byron? s regiment, advanced upon the enemy, who had lined the hedges on both sides with musqueteers; from whence he was shot with a musquet in the lower part of the belly, and in the instant falling from his horse, his body was not found till the next morning. Thus fell that incomparable young man, Sept. 20, 1643, in the 34th year of his age, having so much dispatched the true business of life, that the eldest rarely attain to that immense knowledge, and the youngest enter not into the world with more innocency.

in foul linen.“Being dissuaded by his should be out of it ere night.' 7 genuity and honour, of the most exemplary manners, and singular good nature, and of the most unblemished integrity; of that inimitable sweetness and delight in conversation, of so flowing and obliging a humanity and goodness to mankind, and of that primitive simplicity and integrity of life, as was scarce ever equalled. His familiarity and friendship, for the most part, was with men of the most eminent and sublime parts, and of untouched reputation in point of integrity. He was a great cherisher of wit and ianc}', and good parts, in any man; and, if he found them clouded with poverty or want, a most liberal and bountiful patron towards them, even above his fortune. As he was of a most incomparable gentleness, application, and even submission, to good and worthy, and entire men, so he was naturally (which could not but be more evident in his place of secretary of state, which subjected him- to another conversation and intermixture than his own election would have done) adversus malos injucundus, unpleasant to bad men; and was so ill a dissembler of his dislike and disinclination to ill men, that it was not possible for such not to discern it. There was once in the house of commons such a declared acceptation of the good service an eminent member had done to them, and, as they said, to the whole kingdom, that it was moved, he being present,” That the speaker might, in the name of the whole house, give him, thanks; and then, that every member might, as a testimony of his particular acknowledgement, stir or move his hat towards him:“the which (though not ordered) when very many did, the lord Falkland, who believed the service itself not to be of that moment, and that an honourable and generous person could not have stooped to it for any recompense, instead of moving his hat, stretched both his arms out, and clasped his hands together upon the crown of his hat, and held it close down to his head, that all men might see how odious that flattery was to him, and the very approbation of the person, though at that time most popular. He was constant and pertinacious in whatsoever he resolved to do, and not to be wearied by any pains that were necessary to that end. And therefore having once resolved not to see London, which he loved above all places, till he had perfectly learned the Greek tongue, he went to his own house in the country, and pursued it with that indefatigable industry, that it will not be believed in how short a time he was r master of it, and accurately react all the Greek historians. He had a courage of the most clear and keen temper, and so far from fear, that he seemed not without some appetite of danger; and therefore, upon any occasion of action, he always engaged his person in those troops which he thought, by the forwardness of the commanders, to be most like to he farthest engaged; and in all such encounters he had about him an extraordinary cheerfulness, without at all affecting the execution that usually attended them; in which he took no delight, but took pains to prevent it, where it was not by resistance made necessary. At Edge-hill, when the enemy was routed, he was like to have incurred great peril, by interposing to save those who had thrown away their arms, and against whom, it may be, others were more fierce for their having thrown them away: so that a man might think he came into the field, chiefly out of curiosity to see the face of danger, and charity to prevent the shedding of blood. Yet in his natural inclination, he acknowledged he was addicted to the profession of a soldier. Many attempts were made upon him, by the instigation of his mother (who was a lady of another persuasion in religion, and of a most masculine understanding, allayed with the passion and infirmities of her own sex) to pervert him in his piety to the church of England, and to reconcile him to that of Rome; which they prosecuted with the more confidence, because he declined no opportunity or occasion of conference with those of that religion, whether priests or laics; diligently studied the controversies, and, as was observed before, exactly read all, or the choicest of the Greek and Latin fathers; and having a memory so stupendous, that he remembered, on all occasions, whatsoever he read. He was so great an enemy to that passion and uncharitableness which he saw produced by difference of opinion in matters of religion, that in all those disputations with priests and others of the Roman church, he affected to manifest all possible civility to their persons, and estimation of their parts but this charity towards them was much lessened, and any correspondence with them quite declined, when by sinister arts they had corrupted his two younger brothers, being both children, and stolen them from his house, and transported them beyond seas, and perverted his sisters: upon which occasion he wrote two large discourses against the principal positions of that religion, with that sharpness of wit and full weight of reason, that the church, says lord Clarendon, is deprived of great jewels in the concealment of them, and that they are not published to the world. As to his person he was little, and of no great strength: his hair was blackish, and somewhat flaggy; and his eye black and lively. His body was buried in the church of Great Tew. His usual saying was,” I pity unlearned gentlemen in a rainy day."

Lord Falkland wrote, 1. “A Speech on ill Counsellors about the king.” 2. “Speech against the Lord Keeper Finch and the Judges.” 3. “A Speech against the Bishops, Feb. 9, 1640.” 4. “A draught of a speech concerning Episcopacy,” found among his papers, printed at Oxford 1644. 5. “A Discourse on the Infallibility of the Church of Rome,” 1645, written in an easy and familiar style, without the least affectation of learning. Swift, in his “Letter to a young gentleman lately entered into holy orders,” informs us, that lord Falkland, in some of his writings, when he doubted whether a word were perfectly intelligible, used to consult one of his lady’s chambermaids, and by her judgment was guided whether to receive or reject it. 6. “A View of some exceptions made against the preceding discourse,” 1646. This objector was one George Holland, a popish priest. 7. “A Letter to F. M. anno 1636,” printed at the end of Charles Gataker’s (his chaplain’s) “Answer to five captious questions, propounded by a factor for the Papacy,” &c. 1673, 4to. 8. “A Letter to Dr. Beale, master of St. John’s College, Cambridge.” From bishop Barlow’s Remains, p. 329, we learn that he assisted Chillmgworth in his “Religion of Protestants;” and he wrote some verses on the death of Ben Jonson, published in the collection called “Jonsonus Virbius.” Some other verses are mentioned by Mr. Park, but they cannot be allowed much praise.

, a learned Chronologer in the seventeenth century, and great nephew of sir George Cary, knt. lord deputy of Ireland in queen Elizabeth’s reign, was born at Cockinton, in the county of Devon, about the year 1615; being the second son of George Cary, esq. and“Elizabeth, daughter of sir Edward Seymour, of Berry-castle, bart. When he was well-grounded in school -learn ing, he went to Oxford, and was admitted sojourner of Exeter college, on the 4th of October 1631, aged sixteen. Having continued there about three years, he was, in October 1634, chosen scholar of Corpus Christi college in the same university. The next year, on December the 3d, he was admitted bachelor of arts; and the 23d of February 1638-9, proceeded master of arts: and it is probable, that he was also chosen fellow of his college, though Mr. Wood professes he did not know. On Nov. 4, 1644, he was created doctor of laws, by virtue of mandatory letters from the chancellor, William marquis of Hertford, who was his kinsman. Some time after, he travelled into Fiance, the Low Countries, and other foreign parts. At his return, he was presented by the marquis of Hertford, to the rectory of Portlemouth, near Kingsbridge in Devonshire, a living of very good value. There he settled, and lived in good repute: and being distinguished by his birth, degrees, and learning, the presbyterian ministers of those times made him moderator of that part of the second divisional* the county of Devon, which was appointed to meet at Kingsbridge; yet he was never zealous in their interest: for, upon the restoration of Charles II. he was one of the first that congratulated that king upon his return. For this, he was soon after preferred to the archdeaconry of Exeter, which he was installed into August 18, 1662. But he was in a little while, namely, in 1664, affrighted and ejected out of it by some great men then in power: who taking advantage of some infirmities, or perhaps imprudences, of his, resolved to throw him out, in order to raise a favourite upon his ruin. Being thus deprived of his archdeaconry, he retired to his rectory at Portlemouth, where he spent the remainder of his days in a private, cheerful, and contented condition in good repute with his neighbours and as much above content as he was below envy. He died at the parsonage-house of Portlemouth, and was buried in his own church there, on the 19th of September, 1688, without any funeral monument. He was a man very perfect in curious and critical learning, particularly in chronology; of which he gave a full testimony, in the excellent book he published, entitled” Palaelogia Chronica, a chronological account of ancient time, in three parts, 1. Didactical. 2. Apodeictical. 3. Canonical," Lond. 1677, folio. He was also in his younger years well skilled in poetry, as well Latin as English; though he published nothing in this kind but those hymns of our church, that are appointed to be read after the lessons, together with the creed, &c. These being translated by him into Latin verse, were printed on the flat sides of two sheets in folio. In person he was of a middle stature, sanguine complexion, and in his elder years somewhat corpulent. In his carriage he was a gentleman of good address, free and generous, and courteous and obliging.

Mr. Caryl was the author of two plays: 1. “The English Princess; or, the death of Richard III.” 1667, 4to. 2. “Sir Salomon, or the cautious coxcomb,” '167 1, 4to. And in 1700 he published “The Psalms of David, translated from the Vulgate,” 12mo. In Tonson’s edition of Ovid’s epistles, that of Briseis to Achilles is said to be by sir John Caryl; and in Nichols’s select collection of miscellany poems, vol. II. p. 1, the first eclogue of Virgil is translated by the same ingenious poet.

, an eminent Italian writer, was born at Florence in 1503, and educated at Bologna, and at Florence under Ubaldino Bandinelli. In 153S he became clerk of the apostolic chamber, and was in his youth distinguished for the elegance of his writings, and the licentiousness of his morals. In 1544 he was promoted to the archbishopric of Benevento, and sent as pope’s nuncio to Venice, and it is thought would have been made a cardinal, but for some indecent writings which he had published in his youth: but there must have been some other reason than this for his not obtaining that honour, as these writings had been no obstruction to his advancement to the archbishopric. He was engaged, however, in several political negociations, until he became involved in the disgrace of the cardinal Alexander Farnese, and retired to Venice. Upon the accession of pope Paul IV. who had an esteem for him, he returned to Rome, where he amused himself with literary pursuits, and where he died in 1556 or 1557. He was considered as one of the most elegant writers of his time, both in Latin and Italian; of the former we have sufficient proof in his “Latina Monimenta,” Florence, 1564, 4to, which include his elegant lives of Bembo and Contarini, and his translations from Thucydides. His most celebrated work in Italian prose is the “Galateo,” or art of living in the world, which is a system of politeness, and has been translated into most European languages. In 1774, it was published in an English translation, 12mo. There are complete editions of Casa’s works, Venice, 1752, 3 vols. and 5 vols. and Naples, 6 vols. 4to. Some of his Italian poems are sufficiently licentious, but the authenticity of other works of that description attributed to him has been questioned, particularly by Marchand, and by other authorities specified by Saxius.

, a Latin poet of the sixteenth century, was a native of Rome, and gained a reputation in the epigrammatic species of poetry, for which he had a natural bent. He imitated Martial, particularly in his lively style, and was master of the art of pointing his terminations, which he exercised with the greatest ease. In the verses he composed for the illustrious characters of antient Rome he proposed Catullus for his model; but he is far from attaining to that purity and delicacy which charm us in the Latin poet; and though he sometimes comes up to him in elegance, yet his diction is more strong than mellow. His poems are to be found in the “Delicise Poetaruin Italorum.” Having exercised his wit at the expence of pope Clement VII. to please the Colonna family, he was imprisoned and condemned to death, but received a pardon. When Rome was taken by the Imperialists in 1527, he was stripped of all, reduced to beggary, and died in that year, either of famine or the plague.

, a Spaniard, and the illustrious bishop of Chiapa, was born at Seville in 1474; and, at the age of nineteen, attended his father, who went with Christopher Columbus to the Indies in 1493. Upon his return he became an ecclesiastic, and a curate in the isle of Cuba; but quitted his cure and his country -in order to devote himself to the service of the Indians, who were then enslaved to the most ridiculous superstitions, as well as the most barbarous tyranny. The Spanish governors had long since made Christianity detested by their unheardof cruelties, and the Indians trembled at the very name of Christian. This humane and pious missionary resolved to cross the seas, and to lay their cries and their miseries at the feet of Charles V. The affair was discussed in council; and the representations of Casas so sensibly affected the emperor, that he made ordinances, as severe to the persecutors as favourable to the persecuted. But these ordinances were never executed the Spanish governors, or rather tyrants, continued to plunder and murder; and they had a doctor, one Sepulveda, who undertook even to justify these outrages by human and divine laws, and by the examples of the Israelites who conquered the people of Canaan. This horrible book was printed at Rome, but proscribed in Spain; and Casas, now become bishop of Chiapa, refuted this apology for tyranny and murder. His treatise, entitled, “The Destruction of the Indians,” and translated into most European languages, is full of details which shock humanity. Soto, the emperor’s confessor, was appointed arbiter of the difference between Casas, a bishop worthy of the first ages of the church, and Sepulveda, a doctor and advocate for principles which would not have been adopted by an heathen: and the result of all this was laid before Charles V. who, however, had too many affairs upon his hands to pay a due attention to it; and the governors continued to tyrannize as usual. Casas employed above fifty years in America, labouring with incessant zeal, that the Indians might be treated with mildness, equity, and humanity: but, instead of succeeding, he drew upon himself endless persecutions from the Spaniards; and, though he escaped with his life, might properly enough be called a martyr to the liberty of the Indians. After refusing several bishoprics in America, he was constrained to accept that of Chiapa in 1544. He reided there till 1551, when the infirm state of his health obliged him to return to his native country; and he died at Madrid in 156G, aged ninety-two. Besides his “Destruction of the Indians,” and other pieces on the same subject, there is a very curious Latin work of his upon this question “Whether kings or princes can in conscience, by any right, or by virtue of any title, alienate citizens and subjects from their natural allegiance, and subject them to a new and foreign jurisdiction?” Ail his writings shew a solid judgment, and profound learning and piety.

, a very learned critic, was born at Geneva, February 18, 1559, being the son of Arnold Casaubon, a minister of the reformed church, who had taken refuge in Geneva, by his wife Jane Rosseau. He was educated at first by his father, and made so quick a progress in his studies, that at the age of nine he could speak and write Latin with great ease and correctness. But his father being obliged, for three years together, to be absent from home, on account of business, his education was neglected, and at twelve years of age he was forced to begin his studies again by himself, but as he could not by this method make any considerable progress, he was sent in 1578 to Geneva, to complete his studies under the professors there, and by indefatigable application, quickly recovered the time he had lost. He learned the Greek tongue of Francis Portus, the Cretan, and soon became so great a master of that language, that this famous man thought him worthy to be his successor in the professor’s chair in 1582, when he was but three and twenty years of age. In 1586, Feb. 1, he had the misfortune to lose his father, who died at Dil, aged sixty- three. The 28th of April following he married Florence, daughter of Henry Stephens the celebrated printer, by whom he had twenty children. For fourteen years he continued professor of the Greek tongue at Geneva; and in that time studied philosophy and the civil law under Julius Pacius. He also learned Hebrew, and some other of the Oriental languages, but not enough to be able to make use of them afterwards. In the mean time he began to be weary of Geneva; either because he could not agree with his father-in-law, Henry Stephens, who is said to have been morose and peevish; or that his salary was not sufficient for his maintenance; or because he was of a rambling and unsettled disposition. He resolved therefore, after a great deal of uncertainty, to accept the place of professor of the Greek tongue and polite literature, which was offered him at Montpelier, with a more considerable salary than he had at Geneva. To Montpelier he removed about the end of 1596, and began, his lectures in the February following. About the same time, the city of Nismes invited him to come and restore their university, but he excused himself, and some say he had an invitation from the university of Franeker. At his first coming to Montpelier, he was much esteemed and followed, and seemed to be pleased with his station. But this pleasure did not last long; for what had been promised him was not performed; abatements were made in his salary, which also was not regularly paid, and upon the whole, he met there with so much uneasiness that he was upon the point of returning to Geneva, when a journey he took to Lyons in 1598, gave him an opportunity of taking another, that proved extremely advantageous to him. Having been recommended by some gentlemen of Montpelier to M. de Vicq, a considerable man at Lyons, this gentleman took him into his house, and carried him along with him to Paris, where he caused him to be introduced to the first- president de Harlay, the president de Thou, Mr. Gillot, and Nicolas le Fevre, by whom he was very civilly received . He was also presented to king Henry IV. who being informed of his merit, requested him to leave Montpelier for a professor’s place at Paris. Casaubon having remained for some time in suspense which course to take, went back to Montpelier, and resumed his lectures. Not long after, he received a letter from the king, dated January 3, 1599, by which he was invited to Paris in order to be professor of polite literature, and he set out the 26th of February following. When he came to Lyons, M. de Vicq advised him to stay there till the king’s coming, who was expected in that place. In the mean while, some domestic affairs obliged him to go to Geneva, where he complains that justice was not done him with regard to the estate of his father-in-law. Upon his return to Lyons, having waited a long while in vain for the king’s arrival, he took a second journey to Geneva, and then went to Paris; though he foresaw, as M. de Vicq and Scaliger had told him, he should not meet there with all the satisfaction he at first imagined. The king gave him, indeed, a gracious reception; but the jealousy of some of the other professors, and his being a protestant, procured him a great deal of trouble and vexation, and were the cause of his losing the professorship, of which he had the promise. Some time after, he was appointed one of the judges on the protestants’ side, at the conference between James Davy du Perron, bishop of Evreux, afterwards cardinal, and Philip du Plessis-Mornay f. As Casaubon was not favourable to the latter, who, some think, did not acquit himself well in that conference, it was reported that he would soon change his religion; but the event showed that this report was groundless. When Casaubon came back to Paris, he found it very difficult to get his pension paid, and the charges of removing from Lyons to Paris, because M. de Rosny was not his friend; and it was only by an express order from the king that he obtained the payment even of three hundred crowns. The 30th of May 1600, he returned to Lyons, to hasten the impression of his “Athenseus,” which was printing there; but he had the misfortune of incurring the displeasure of his great friend M. de Vicq, who had all along entertained him and his whole family in his own house when they were in that city, because he refused to accompany him into Switzerland. The reason of this refusal was, his being afraid of losing in the mean time the place of library-keeper to the king, of which he had a promise, and that was likely soon to become vacant, on account of the librarian’s illness. He returned to Paris with his wife and family the September following, and was well received by the king, and by many persons of distinction. There he read private lectures, published several works of the ancients, and learned Arabic; in which he made so great a progress, that he undertook to compile a dictionary, and translated some books of that language into Latin. In 1601 he was obliged, as he tells us himself, to write against his will to James VI. king of Scotland, afterwards king of England, but does not mention the occasion of it. That prince answered him with great civility, which obliged our author to write to him a second time. In the mean time, the many affronts and uneasinesses he received from time to time at Paris, made him think of leaving that city, and retiring to some quieter place, but king Henry IV. in order to fix him, made an augmentation of two hundred crowns to his pension: and granted him the reversion of the place of his library-keeper. He took a journey to Dauphine in May 1603, and from thence to Geneva about his private affairs; returning to Paris on the 12th of July. Towards the end of the same year he came into possession of the place of king’s library-keeper, vacant by the death of Gosselin. His friends of the Roman catholic persuasion made now frequent attempts to induce him to forsake the protestant religion. Cardinal du Perron, in particular, had several disputes with him, after one of which a report was spread that he had then promised the cardinal he would turn Roman catholic: so that, in order to stifle that rumour, the ministers of Charenton, who were alarmed at it, obliged him to write a letter to the cardinal to contradict what was so confidently reported, and took care to have it printed. About this time the magistrates of Nismes gave him a second invitation to their city, offering him a house, and a salary of six hundred crowns of gold a year, but he durst not accept of it for fear of offending the king. In 1609 he had, by that prince’s order, who was desirous of gaining him over to the catholic religion, a conference with cardinal du Perron, but it had no effect upon him.

His writings are 1 “In Diogenem Laertium Notae Isaaci Hortiboni,” Morgiis, 1583, 8vo. He was but twenty-five years old when he made these notes, and intended to have enlarged them afterwards, but was hindered. He dedicated them to his father, who commended him, but told him at the same time, “He should like better one note of his upon the holy Scriptures, than all the pains he could bestow upon profane authors.” These potes of Casaubon were inserted in the editions of Diogenes Laertius, printed by H. Stephens in 15l>4 and 1598, in 8vo, and in all the editions published since. The name of Hortibonus, which Casaubon took, is of the same import as Casaubon, i. e. a good garden; Casait, in the language of Dauphiné, signifying a garden, and bon, good. 2. “Lectiones Theocriticæ,” in Crispinus’s edition of Theocritus, Genev. 1S84, 12mo, reprinted several times since. 3. “Strabonis Geographiae Libri XVII. Grsece & Latine, ex Guil. Xylandri Interpretatione,” Genevae, 1587, fol. Casaubon’s notes were reprinted, with additions, in the Paris edition of Strabo in 1620, and have been inserted in all other editions since. 4. “Novurn Testamentum. Grace urn,” Geneva;, 1587, 16 to, with notes which were reprinted afterwards, at the end of Whitaker’s edition of the New Testament, Lond. and inserted in the “Critici Sacri.” V. “Animadversiones in Dionysium Halicarnassensem,” in the edition of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, published by our author with Æmilius Portus’s Latin version, Genev. 1588, fol. These were written in haste, and are of no great value. 6. “Polyseni Stratagematum,” Libri VIII.“Lugduni, 1589, 16to. Casaubon was the first who published the Greek text of this author. The Latin version, joined to it, was done by Justus Vulteius, and first published in 1550. 7.” Dicsearchi Geographica quaedam, sive de Statu Grascise; ejusdem descriptio Grrcciae versibus Greeds jambicis, ad Theophrastum; cum Isaaci Casauboni & Henrici Stephani nods,“Genevac, 1589, 8vo. 8.” Aristotelis Opera Grasce, cum variorum Interpretatione Latina, & variis Lectionibus & Castigationibus Isaaci Casauboni,“Lugduni, 1590, fol.; Genevae, 1605, fol. These notes are only marginal, and were composed at leisure hours. 9.” C. Plinii Caec. Sec. Epist. Lib. IX. Ejusdem & Trajani imp. Epist. amcebaea?. Ejus­* clem Pi. & Pacati, Mamertini, Nazarii Panegyrici. Item Claudiani Panegyrici. Adjunctae sunt Isaaci Casauboni Notae in Epist.“Geneva, 1591, 12mo; ibid. 1599, 1605, 1610, and 1611, 12mo. These notes are but very short. 10.” Theophrasti Characteres Ethici Grasce & Latine,“Lugduni, 1592, 12mo, and 1612, 12mo. This latter edition is the most exact of the two, being revised by the author. Casaubon’s edition of Theophrastus is still highly esteemed, and was one of those works which procured him most reputation. Joseph Scaliger highly extols it. 11.” L. Apuleii Apologia,“Typis Commeiini 1593, 4to. In this edition he shewed himself as able a critic in the Latin, as he had done before in the Greek tongue. It is dedicated to Joseph Scaliger. 12.” C. Suetonii Tranquilli Opera,“Genevas, 1595, 4to, and Paris, 1610, an enlarged edition. 13.” Publii Syri Mimi, sive sententiae selectae, Latine, Graece versas, & Notis illustrate per Jos. Scaligerum; cum prefatione Isaaci Casaubon i,“Lugd. Batav. 1598, 8vo. 14.” Athenaei Deipnosophistarmn, LibriXV. Graece Latine, Interprete JacoboDalechampio, cum Isaaci Casauboni Animadversion um Libris XV.“Geneva, 1597, 2 vols. fol.; ibid. 1612, 2 vols. fol Casaubon’s notes take up the second volume, and are copious and learned, and constitute the most valuable part of this edition. 15.” Historiae Augustae Scriptures, “Paris, 1603, 4to, reprinted at Paris in 1620, with Saiivmsius’s Commentaries on the same autnors, fol. and at Leyden, in 1670, 2 vols. 8vo. 16.” Diatnba ad Dionis Chrysostomi Orationes,“published in the edition of that author by Frederick Morel, at Paris, 1604, fol. 17.” Persii Satyrae ex recensione &- cum Commentar.“Pans, 1605, 8vo; Lond. 1647, 8vo. These notes upon Persius ar Lectures he had formerly read at Geneva. They were enlarged in the edition of 1647. Scaliger used to say of them,” That the sauce was better than the fish.“18.” De Satyrica Graecorum Poesi, & llomanorum Satyra Libri duo,“Paris, 1605, 8vo. In this work Casaubon affirms, that the satire of the Latins was very different from that of the Greeks, which Daniel Heinsius contradicts in his two books,” De Satyra Horatiana,“Lugd. Batava. 1629, 12mo. But the learned Ezekiel Spanheim, after having examined the arguments of these two learned men, declares for Casaubon. Crenius has inserted this tract of Casaubon, in his” Musceum Philologicum & Historicom,“Ludg. Batav. 1699, 8vo; and also the following” piece, which was published by our author at the end of his two books, “De Satyrica Poesi,” &c. 19. “Cyclops Euripidis Latinitate donata a Q. Septimio Florente.” 20. “Gregorii Nysseni Epistola ad Eustathiam, Ambrosiam, & Basilissam, Gr. & Lat.” Paris, 1601, 8vo Hanoviac, 1607, 8vo. This letter was first published by Casaubon. 21. “De Libertate Ecclesiastica Liber,” 1607, 8vo; composed by the author during the disputes between pope Paul V. and the republic of Venice; and contained a vindication of the rights of sovereigns against the incroachmentsof the court of Rome. As those differences were adjusted while the book was printing, king Henry IV. caused it to be suppressed; but Casaubon having se4it the sheets, as they came out of the press, to some of his friends, some copies were preserved. Melchior Goldast inserted that fragment in his “Collectanea de Monarchia S. Imperil,” torn. I. p. 674, and Almeioveen reprinted it in his edition of our author’s letters. It was also published by Dr. Hickes in 1711. 22. “Inscriptio vetus dedicationem fundi continens, ab Herode rege facta, cum notis.” This small piece, published in 1607, has been inserted by T. Crenius in his “Musoeum. Phiiologicum.” Casaubon’s notes are short, but learned; however, he appears to have been mistaken in ascribing the inscription on which they were made to Herod king of Judaea, instead of Herodes the Athenian. 23. “Polybii Opera Gr. & Lat. Accedit Æneas Tracticus detoleranda obsidione, Gr. & Lat.” Paris, 1609, fol. & HanoviiE, 1609, fol. The Latin version of these two authors was done by Casaubon, who intended to write a commentary upon them, but went no farther than the first book of Polybius, being hindered by death. Thuanus, and Fronto Ducaeus the Jesuit, were so pleased with that Latin version, that they believed it was not easy to determine whether Casaubon had translated Polybius, or Polybius Casaubon. At the head of this edition there is a dedication to king Henry IV. a species of writing in which, as well as in prefaces, he is allowed to excel. In the former, he praises without low servility, and in a manner remote from flattery; in the latter, he lays open the design and excellences of the books he publishes, without ostentation, and with an air of modesty. 24. “Josephi Scaligeri Opusculavaria,” Paris, 1610, 4to; and Francofurti, 1612, 8vo, with a preface of his own. 25. “Ad Frontonem Ducseum Epistola, de Apologia, Jesuitarum nomine, Parisiis edita,” Londini, 1611, 4to. Casaubon, after his coming to England, being obliged to write against the papists, in order to please his patron king James I. began with this letter, dated July 2, 1611, which is the 730th in Almeloveen’s collection, and for which king James made him a considerable present. It is a confutation of “la Reponse Apologetique a I'Anti-coton, par Francois Bonald.” Au Pont, 1611, 8vo. 26. “Epistola ad Georgium Michaelem Lingelshemium de quodam libello Sciopii,” 1612, 4to. This letter is dated Aug. 9, 1612, and is the 828th of Almeloveen’s collection. 27. “Epistola ad Cardinalem Perronium,” Londini, 1612, 4to. This letter, which is the 838th in Almeloveen’s collection, and is written with moderation, is not so much Casaubon’s own composition, as an exact account of the sentiments of king James I. whose and the church of England’s secretary he was, as he tells us, with regard to some points of religion. Accordingly, it was inserted in the edition of that king’s works, published in 1619, by Dr. Montague, bishop of Winchester. Cardinal du Perron undertook to give an answer to it, which was left unfinished at his death. It has been likewise animadverted upon by Valentine Smalcius, the Socinian, in his “Ad Isaacum Casaubonum Paraenesis,” Racoviae, 1614, 4to, published under the name of Anton. Ileuchlin. 28. “De Rebus sacris & Ecclesiasticis Exercitationes xvi. Ad Cardinalis Baronii Prolegomena in Annales, & primam eorum partem, de Domini nostri Jesu Christi Nativitate, Vita, Passione, Assumtione,” Londini, 1614, fol. Francofurti, 1615, 4to; Genevx, 1655, & 1663, 4to. Soon after Casaubon' s arrival in England, Peter du Moulin wrote to Dr. James Montagu, then bishop of Bath and Wells, to inform him that Casaubon had a great inclination to popery; that there were only a few articles, which kept him among the protestants; and that if he returned to France, he would change his religion, as he had promised. Therefore, he desired him to endeavour to keep him in England, and to engage him in writing against the Annals of Baronius, since he knew “that he had materials ready for that purpose.” Accordingly, king James employed him in that work, which was finished in eighteen months’ time. Niceron thinks that Casaubon was not equal to this work, because he had not sufficiently studied divinity, chronology, and history, and was not conversant enough in the fathers, and is charged with having committed more errors than Baronius in a less compass. Besides, as he comes no lower than the year 34 after Christ, he is said to have pulled down only the pinnacles of Baronius’ s great building. It appears from letter 1059th of our author, that Dr. Richard Montague, afterwards bishop of Norwich, had undertaken to write against Baronius at the same time with himself; and he threatens to complain of him to the king, who had engaged him in that work. 29. “Ad Polybii Historiarum Libruni primum Commentarius,” Paris, 1617, 8vo, See above, No. 23. 30. “Isaaci Casauboni Epistohp,” Hagie Comin. 1638, 4to, published by John Frederick Gronovius. A second edition, enlarged and arranged in chronological order, was published afterwards by John George Gramus at Magdeburgb, and Helmstadt, 1656, 4to; but the best, which includes his life, is entitled “Is. Casauboni Epistolae,” &c. Curante Theodore Janson ab Almeloveen,“Roterodami, 1709, foL The letters in this volume are 1059 in number, placed according to the order of the time in which they were written; and 5 1 without dates. Niceron finds in them neither elegant style, nor fine thoughts; and censures, as very disagreeable, the mixture of Greek words and expressions that are dispersed throughout; affirming besides, that they contain no particulars tending to the advancement of learning, or that are of any great importance. In the” Sorberiana“it is said that there is in them the history of a man of probity and learning; but nothing otherwise very remarkable, excepting the purity of the language, and the marks of a frank and sincere mind. Argonne, however, in his” Melanges d'Histoire,“assures us that they are all perfectly beautiful; and makes no scruple to compare them to those of Grotius and Scaligerwith regard to learning; and to assert that they exceed them for the easiness and purity of the style, which is entirely epistolary, and not at all affected. 31.” Casauboniana," Hamburg!, 1710, 8vo. There is nothing very material in this collection.

, son of the preceding, was born at Geneva, August 14, 1599, and had the name of Meric from Meric de Vicq, a great friend and benefactor to his father. His first education he received at Sedan, but coming to England with his father, in the year 1610, he was instructed by a private master till 1614, when he was sent to Christ Church, Oxford; and being put there under a most careful tutor, Dr. Edward Meetkirk (afterwards Regius Hebrew professor), was soon after elected a student of that house. He took the degree of bachelor of arts, May 8, 1618, and that of master, June 14, 1621, being even then eminent for his extensive learning; and the same year, though he was but two and twenty, he published a book in defence of his father, against the calumnies of certain Roman catholics, entitled “Pietas contra maledicos, &c.” Loud. 1621, 8vo. This book made him known to king James I. who ever after entertained a good opinion of him; and also brought him into reputation abroad, especially in France, whither he was invited with offers of promotion, when his godfather, Meric de Vicq, was keeper of the great seal of that kingdom. Three years after, he published another vindication of his father, written by the command of king James I. and entitled, “Vindicatio Patris, &c.” 1624, 4to. About that time he was collated by Dr. Lancelot Andrews, bishop of Winchester, to the rectory of Bledon in Somersetshire; and June 1628, took the degree of bachelor of divinity. He had now formed the design of continuing his father’s “Exercitations against Baronius’s Annals,” but was diverted by some accident. At length, when he came to maturity of years for such a work, and had acquainted archbishop Laud, his great friend and patron, with his design, who was very ready to place him conveniently in Oxford or London, according to his desire, that he might be furnished with books necessary for such a purpose, the rebellion broke out in England. Having now no fixed habitation, he was forced to sell a good part of his books; and, after about twenty years’ sufferings, became so infirm, that he could not expect to live many years, and was obliged to relinquish his design. Before this, however, in June 1628, he was made prebendary of Canterbury, through the interest of bishop Laud; and when that prelate was promoted to the archbishopric of Canterbury, he collated him, in Oct. 1634, to the vicarage of Minster, in the Isle of Thanet; and in the same month, he was inducted into the vicarage of Monckton, in that island. In August 1636, he was created doctor in divinity, by order of king Charles I. who was entertained at the same time, with his queen, by the university of Oxford. About the year 1644, during the heat of the civil wars, he was deprived of his preferments, abused, fined, and imprisoned. In 1649, one Mr. Greaves, of Gray’s inn, an intimate acquaintance of his, brought him a message from Oliver Cromwell, then lieutenant-general of the parliament forces, desiring him to come to Whitehall, on purpose to confer with him about matters of moment; but his wife being lately dead, and not, as he said, buried, he desired to be excused. Greaves came again afterwards, and Dr. Casaubon being somewhat alarmed, desired him to tell him the meaning of the matter; but Greaves refusing, went away the second time. At length he returned again, and told him, that the lieutenant-general intended his good and advancement; and his particular errand was, that he would make use of his pen to write the history of the late war; desiring withal, that nothing but matters of fact should be impartially set down. The doctor answered, that he desired his humble service and hearty thanks should be returned for the great honour done unto him; but that he was uncapable in several respects for such an employment, and could not so impartially engage in it, as to avoid such reflections as would be ungrateful, if not injurious, to his lordship. Notwithstanding this answer, Cromwell seemed so sensible of his worth, that he acknowledged a great respect for him; and, as a testimony of it, ordered, that upon the first demand there should be delivered to him three or four hundred pounds, by a bookseller in London, whose name was Cromwell, whenever his occasions should require, without acknowledging, at the receipt of it, who was his benefactor. But this ofter he rejected, although almost in want. At the same time, it was proposed by Mr. Greaves, who belonged to the library at St. James’s, that if our author would gratify him in the foregoing request, Cromwell would restore to him all his father’s books, which were then in the royal library, having been purchased by king James; and withal give him a patent for three hundred pounds a year, to be paid to the family as long as the youngest sou of Dr. Casaubon should live, but this also was refused. Not long after, it was intimated to him, by the ambassador of Christiana, queen of Sweden, that the queen wished him to come over, and take upon him the government of one, or inspection of all her universities; and, as an encouragement, she proposed not only an honourable salary for himself, but offered to settle three hundred pounds a year upon his eldest son during life: but this also he waved, being fully determined to spend the remainder of his days in England. At the restoration of king Charles II. he recovered his preferments; namely, his prebend of Canterbury in July 1660, and his vicarages of Monckton and Minster the same year: but, two years after, he exchanged this last for the rectory of Ickham, near Canterbury, to which he was admitted Oct. 4, 1662. He had a design, in the latter part of his days, of writing his own life; and would often confess, that he thought himself obliged to do it, out of gratitude to the Divine Providence, which had preserved and delivered him from more hazardous occurrences than ever any man (as he thought) besides himself had encountered with; particularly in his escape from a fire in the night-time, which happened in the house where he lived, at Geneva, while he was a boy: in his recovery from a sickness at Christ Church, in Oxford, when he was given over for dead, by a chemical preparation administered to him by a young physician: in his wonderful preservation from drowning, when overset in a boat on the Thames near London, the two watermen being drowned, and himself buoyed up by his priest’s coat: and in his bearing several abuses, fines, imprisonments, &c. laid upon him by the republicans in the time of his sequestration: but this he did not execute. He died July 14, 1671, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was buried in the south part of the first south cross aile of Canterbury cathedral. Over his grave was soon after erected a handsome monument with an inscription. He left by will a great number of manuscripts to the university of Oxford. His character is thus represented. He was a general scholar, but not of particular excellence, unless in criticism, in which probably he was assisted by his father’s notes and papers. According to the custom of the times he lived in, he displays his extensive reading by an extraordinary mixture of Greek and Latin quotations and phrases. He was wont to ascribe to Descartes’s philosophy, the little inclination people had in his time for polite learning. Sir William Temple very highly praises his work, hereafter mentioned, on “Enthusiasm;” and unquestionably it contains in any curious and learned remarks; buthisbeingamaintainer of the reality of witches and apparitions, shews that he was not more free from one species of enthusiasm than most of his contemporaries. In his private character he was eminent for his piety, charity to the poor, and his courteous and affable disposition towards scholars. He had several children, but none made any figure in the learned world; one, named John, was a surgeon at Canterbury .

His works, besides his two vindications already mentioned, are, 1. “Optati Libri vii. de Schismate Donatistarum, cum Notis & Emendationibus,” Lond. 1632, 8vo. 2. A translation from Greek into English of “M. Aurelius Antoninus’s Meditations concerning himself, with notes,” Lond. 163 4-, and 1635, 4to; again with additions and corrections, Lond. 1664, 8vo. 3. “A Treatise of Use and Custom,” Lond. 1638, 8vo. 4. “The Use of daily public Prayers in three positions,” Lond. 1641, 4to. 5. “Marci Antonini Imperatoris de Seipso & ad Seipsum libri xii. Guil. Xylander Augustanus Graece &, Latine primus edidit: nunc vero, Xylandri versionem locis plurimis etnendavit, & novam fecit in Antonini libros Notas & Emendationes adjecit Mericus Casaubonus, Is. F. In eosdem Xylandri Annotationes,” Lond. 1643, 8vo, a neat and accurate edition. 6. “The original of Temporal Evils; the opinions of the most ancient Heathens concerning it examined by the Sacred Scriptures, and referred unto them, as unto the source and fountain, from whence they spring,” Lond. 1645, 4to. 7. “A discourse concerning Christ his Incarnation and Exinanition. With an introduction concerning the principles of Christianity and Divinity,” Lond. 1646, 4to. 8. “De verborum usu, & accuratse eorum cognitionis utilitate Diatriba,” Lond. 1647, 8vo. 9. A more complete edition of his father’s notes upon Persius, than that of 1605. “Persii Satyrse cum notis Isaaci Casaubon,” Lond. 1647, 8vo. 10. “De quatuor Linguis Commentationis, Pars I. Quse de Lingua Hebraica & de Lingua Saxonica. Accesserunt Gulielmi Somneri ad verba vetera Germanica Lipsiana Notae,” Lond. 1650, 8vo. He had not an opportunity of finishing the two other languages, Greek and Latin. 11. “Terentius, cum notis Thomoe Farnabii in quatuor priores Comoedias, & Merici Casauboni in Phormionem & Hecyram,” Lond. 1651, 12mo. Farnaby dying before he had finished his notes upon Terence, the bookseller engaged Casaubon to write notes upon the two last comedies, the Phormio and the Hecyra. 12. “Some Annotations on the Psalms and Proverbs.” He tells us, that these observations were extorted from him, by the importunity of printers, when he was not very well furnished either with books or leisure; but, worst of all, of will, when nothing could be expected to be acceptable and welcome, but what relished of schism and rebellion. These Annotations were inserted in one of the latter editions of the “Assembly’s Annotations on the Bible.” 13. “In Hieroclis commentarium de Providentia & Fato, notae & emendationes,” Lond. 1655, 8vo, and 1673, 8vo. To this he only added a few grammatical and critical notes at the end. 14. “A Treatise concerning Enthusiasm, as it is an effect of Nature; but is mistaken by many for either divine inspiration, or diabolical possession,” Lond.- 1655, 8vo, 15. “De nupera Homeri editione Lugduno-Batavica Hackiana, cum 'Latina versione, & Didymi Scholiis sed & Eustathio, & locis aliquot insignioribus ad Odysseam pertinentibus. Item super loco Homerico dubise apud antiques interpretations, quo Dei in hominum tarn mentes quam fortunas imperium asseritur, binse dissertationes,” Lond. 1659, 8vo, reprinted in Almeloveen’s edition of Casaubon’s Letters. 16. “Epicteti Enchiridion, Graere & Latine, cum notis Merici Casauboni & Cebetis Tabula, cum notis ejusdem,” Lond. 1659, 8vo. The Latin translation in this edition is that of Jerom Wolfius. 17. An English translation of, and notes on, “Lucius FJorus’s History of the Romans,” Lond.

1660, 4to. 21. “The Question to whom it belonged anciently to preach? And whether all priests might or did? Discussed out of antiquity. Occasioned by the late directions concerning preachers,” Lond. 1663, 4to. These directions were set forth by the king, October 14, 1662, to restrain the abuses and extravagances of preachers. 22. “Notse & emendationes in Diogenem Laertium de Vitis, &c. Philosophorum” added to those of his father, in the editions of Laertius printed at London 1664, fol. and Amsterdam in 1692, 4to. 23. “Of the necessity of Reformation in and before Luther’s time, and what visibly hath most hindered the progress of it Occasioned by some late virulent books written by papists, but especially by that, entitled, Labyrinthus Cantuariensis,” Lond. 1664, 4to. This is chiefly an answer to “Labyrinthus Cantuariensis,” printed at Paris in 1658; which pretends to confute “Archbishop Laud’s relation of a conference with Fisher the Jesuit.” 24. “An answer concerning the new way of Infallibility lately devised to uphold the Roman cause; the ancient fathers and councils laid aside, against J. S. (the author of Sure-footing) his Letter lately published,” Lond. 1665, 8vo. This letter of J. S. (i, e. John Sarjeant, the author of Sure-footing, &c. so learnedly confuted by archbishop Tillotson) was a sort of an answer to some passages in Dr. Casaubon’s book “Of the necessity of Reformation,” &c. and was printed at the end of Sarjeant’s Surefooting in Christianity. 25. “A Letter of Meric Casaubon, D.D. &c. to Peter du Moulin, I). D. &c. concerning natural experimental philosophy, and some books lately set out about it,” Cambridge, 1669, 4to. 26. “Of Credulity and Incredulity in things natural, civil, and divine; wherein, among other things, the sadducism of these times in denying spirits, witches, and supernatural operations, by pregnant instances and evidences is fully confuted; Epicurus his cause discussed, and the juggling and false dealing lately used to bring him and atheism into credit, clearly discovered; the use and necessity of ancient learning against the innovating humour all along proved and asserted^” Lond. 1668, 8vo, two parts. The third part was printed at London, 1670, 8vo, under the title “Of Credulity and Incredulity in things divine and spiritual: wherein (among other things) a true and faithful account is given of the Platonic philosophy, as it hath reference to Christianity: as also the business of witches and witchcraft, against a late writer, fully argued and disputed.” The late writer, attacked only in the two last sheets of this book, was Mr. John Wag-staff, who published “The question of Witchcraft debated; or a discourse against their opinion, that affirm witches,” Lond. 1669, 8vo. But these two parts of Dr. Casaubon’s book remaining unsold, he printed a new title to them, running thus, “A treatise proving Spirits, Witches, and supernatural operations by pregnant instances and evidences, &c.” London, 1672. 27. “Notse in Polybium,” printed for the first time in Gronovius’s edition, Amsterdam, 1670, 8vo. 28. “Epistolae, Dedicationes, Prsefationes, Prolegomena, & Tractatus quidam rariores. Curante Theodore Janson ab Almeloveen;” printed at the end of Isaac Casaubon’s Letters, Roterodami, 1709. 29. “De Jure concionandi apud antiques.” This seems to be the same as the treatise mentioned above No. 22, or perhaps it was a Latin translation of it.

, the surname of Kemaleddin Abulganem Abdalrazzak ben Yemaleddin, a famous doctor, classed by Yafei among the mussulman saints, is the author of several works, and among them one entitled “Esthelahah al Sosiah,” of the practices and mode of speaking of the sophis, or monks of the mussulmans, of whom he was one of the chiefs. That which bears the title of “Menazel ai sairin,” the lodgings for travellers, is another spiritual book of the same author. “Tavilat al Koran al hakim,” commentaries on the Koran, are likewise by him, and were in the French king’s library, number 641. The Rabi al Abrar relates, that this doctor, who was the oracle of his time, preaching one day at Medina, a contemplative person retired to a corner of the mosque for the purpose of meditation, without paying any attention to the discourse of Caschi. One of the audience asking him why he did not hearken like the rest, this spiritual man replied: “When the master speaks, it is not reasonable to listen to what the servant says.” The two following lines of Persian poetry are quoted from Caschi:

The allusion of the words bela and bala is extremely beautiful in the Persian original. Caschi is also the surname of Yahia ben Ahmed, who lived in the tenth century of the hegira, of whom we have scholia or marginal notes, entitled “Haschiah,” on the book of Samarcandi, named Adab al bahath.28

, or Cascheri, is the surname of Imam Abul Hassan, who wrote the lives of the mussulman saint*. Yafei makes mention of this book in the work he composed on the same subject: he is likewise author of the book entitled “Lathaif,” which is highly esteemed for its ingenious fictions and its spiritual allegories. On the words that Mohammed puts into the mouth of Pharaoh, in the Chapter of the Koran entitled Nazeat: “I am thy master and thy God,” he says that the devil, having heard them, complained, that for having only tempted Adam with the desire of a knowledge equal to that of God, he was plunged into his present unhappy condition; and that Pharaoh, who wanted to pass himself for God, had only incurred the same punishment. This Imam is in universal esteem as one of the greatest divines of Mohammedanism; it is he who explains the right way, spoken of in the first chapter of the Koran in these terms: “That man walks in the right way who never stops till he is arrived at the end of his journey, which is the union with God.” He likewise makes this reflection on the chapter in the same book, entitled Anaam, where it is said that we must avoid both inward and outward sins: the reason, he says, is presently subjoined in these words: “God has loaded you with benefits both within and without: therefore, adds he, these benefits ought to be not only the motive to the keeping of the commandments and the avoiding of sin, but they should teach us also that the best means of obtaining the pardon of our transgressions is to be continually thanking God for his favours.” This Imam has made an abridgement of the book of Takieddin, entitled “Sahih.” There is another Caschiri, whose proper name is Mossalem ben Hegiage al Nischaburi, a native of Nischabur, a city of Khorassan, who died in the year of the hegira 261.

By which distich the author of the Tatler says, he probably got more than Dryden did by all his works. Haller also mentions a doctor John Case who published in 1694, “Compendium Anatomicum, nova methodo instructum,” 12mo, in which the writer strenuously defends the opinion of De Graaf, that quadrupeds, and all other animals, as well as birds, proceed ab ovo. But we doubt whether our astrologer had learning enough for a work of this description, or ever published more than a hand-bill Those who have the curiosity to peruse some of these effusions may indulge it in our authorities.

, an eminent nonconformist divine, the son of George Case, vicar of Boxley in Kent, was born there in 1598 or 1599, and became student of Christ church, Oxford, upon the recommendation of Toby Mathew, archbishop of York, in 1616. After taking his degrees in arts, he went into the church, and preached for some time in Oxfordshire and Kent, and held the living of Erpingham in Norfolk, from which he was ejected for nonconformity. In 1641, he joined in principle and practice with the parliament, and about that time was minister of St. Mary Magdalen, Milk-street, London, in the room of a sequestered loyalist. One of the party jour nafs of the time informs us that in administering the sacrament, he used to say, instead of “Ye that do truly and earnestly repent, &c.” “Ye that have freely and liberally contributed to the parliament, &c.;” but this was probably the squib of the day. Case, with all his republican zeal, was a man of real piety but the former certainly betrayed him into extreme violence in his discourses, which is poorly excused by his biographer telling us of his having been ejected from his living by bishop Wren. When in London he wasthe institutor of the Morning Exercise, which was kept up in the city many years after, and produced some of the ablest sermons of the nonconformist clergy. From the living of Milk-street he was turned out, for refusing the engagement, and was afterwards lecturer at Aldermanbury and St. Giles’s Cripplegate. He was imprisoned six months in the Tower, for being implicated in Love’s plot, but Love only was made a sacrifice, and Mr. Case and his fellow-prisoners Mr. Jenkyn, Mr. Watson, &c. were released and restored to their livings. He was afterwards rector of St. Giles’s in the Fields. In 1660, he was one of the ministers deputed to wait on the king at the Hague; and in 1661, one of the commissioners at the fruitless Savoy conference. He appears to have retained his living in Milk-street after the restoration, as it was from that he was finally ejected. He died May 30, 1682, and was buried in Christ church, Newgate-street. Dr. Jacomb, who preached his funeral sermon, gives him an excellent and probably a just character: and it is certain that he lived to repent of the intemperance of his harangues at the commencement of the rebellion. This led him to subscribe the two papers declaring against the proceedings of the parliament in 1648, and the bringing king Charles to a trial. His works consist chiefly of sermons preached on public occasions, before the parliament and at funerals, enumerated by Calamy.

, eminent in an art of the greatest consequence to literature, that of letter-founding, was born in 1692, in the part of the town of Hales-Owen which is situated in Shropshire. Though he justly attained the character of being the Coryphaeus in letter-founding, he was not brought up to the business; and it is observed by Mr. Mores, that this handiwork is so concealed among the artificers of it, that he could not discover that any one had taught it to another; but every person who had used it had acquired it by his own ingenuity. Mr. Caslon served a regular apprenticeship to an engraver of ornaments on gun-barrels, and, after the expiration of his term, carried on this trade in Vine-street, near the Minories. He did not, however, solely confine his ingenuity to that instrument, but employed himself likewise in making tools for the book-binders, and for the chasing of silver plate. Whilst he was engaged in this business, the elder Mr. Bowyer accidentally saw in a bookseller’s shop, the lettering of a book uncommonly neat; and inquiring who the artist was by whom the letters were made, was thence induced to seek an acquaintance with Mr. Caslon. Not long after, Mr. Bowyer took Mr. Caslon to Mr. James’s foundery, in Bartholomew-close. Caslon had never before that time seen any part of the business; and being asked by his friend if he thought he could undertake to cut types, he requested a single day to consider the matter, and then replied that he had no doubt but he could. Upon this answer, Mr. Bowyer, Mr. Bettenham, and Mr. Watts, then eminent printers, had such a confidence in his abilities, that they lent him 500l. to begin the undertaking, and he applied himself to it with equal assiduity and success. In 1720, the society for promoting Christian knowledge, in consequence of a representation from Mr. Solomon Negri, a native of Damascus, in Syria, who was well skilled in the Oriental tongues, and had been professor of Arabic, in places of note, deemed it expedient to print, for the use of the eastern churches, the NVw Testament and Psalter in the Arabic language. These were intended for the benefit of the poor Christians in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, and vEgypt, the constitution of which countries did not permit the exercise of the art of printing. Upon this occasion, Mr. Caslon was pitched upon to cut the fount; in his specimens of which he distinguished it by the name of English Arabic. After he had finished this fount, he cut the letters of his own name in pica Roman, and placed them at the bottom of one of the Arabic specimens. The name being seen by Mr. Palmer (the reputed author of a history of printing, which was, in fact, written by Psalmanaazar), he advised our artist to cut the whole fount of pica. This was accordingly done, and the performance exceeded the letter of the other founders of the time. But Mr. Palmer, whose circumstances required credit with those whose business would have been hurt by Mr. Caslon’s superior execution, repented of the advice he had given him, and endeavoured to discourage him from any farther progress. Mr. Caslon, being justly disgusted at such treatment, applied to Mr. Bowyer, under whose inspection he cut, in 1722, the beautiful fount of English which was used in printing Selden’s works, and the Coptic types that were employed in Dr. Wilkins’s edition of the Pentateuch. Under the farther encouragement of Mr. Bowyer, Mr. Bettenham, and Mr. Watts, he proceeded with vigour in his employment, and Mr. Bowyer was always acknowledged by him to be his master, from whom he had learned his art. In letter-founding he arrived at length to such perfection, that he not only relieved his country from the necessity of importing types from Holland, but in the beauty and elegance of those made by him, he so far exceeded the productions of the best artificers, that his workmanship was frequently exported to the continent. Indeed, it may with great justice and confidence be asserted, that a more? beautiful specimen than his is not to be found in any part of the world. Mr. Caslon’s first foundery was in a small house in Helmet-row, Old-street. He afterwards removed into Ironmonger-row; and about 1735, into Chiswell-street, where his foundery became, in process of time, the most capital one that exists in this or in foreign countries. Having acquired opulence in the course of his employment, he was put into the commission of the peace for the county of Middlesex. Towards the latter end of his life, his eldest son, William, being in partnership with him, he retired in a great measure from the active execution of business. His last country residence was at Bethnal-green, where he died Jan. 23, 1766, aged seventy-four. He was interred in the church-yard of St. Luke, Middlesex, in which parish all his different founderies were situated, and where they are still carried on by one of his descendants, under the firm of Caslon and Cattierwood. Mr. Caslon was universally esteemed as a fist-rate artist, a tender master, and an nonest, friendly, and benevolent man and sir John Hawkins has particularly celebrated his hospitality, his social qualities, and his love of music.

, a learned popish divine of conciliatory principles, was born in 1515, in the isle of Cadsand, near Bruges, whence he took his name. He was deeply skilled in the languages, polite literature, civil law, and divinity; and taught the belles lettres at Ghent, Bruges, and other places with great reputation. He afterwards directed almost his sole attention to theological studies, and retiring to Cologne, prosecuted his favourite idea of forming an union and reconciliation between the Roman catholics and protestants. With this view he published without his name in 1562, a small work, entitled “De Officio Viri pii, &c.” which favouring the Roman catholic church, on the general ground of authority, engaged him in a controversy with Calvin, who thought that it was written by Baudouin, a celebrated lawyer; and although the true author was discovered, the controversy went on. The sentiments of Cassander, however, appeared in so favourable a light to the German princes, that they fixed upon him as a mediator in the religious disputes. Under this character he composed his famous piece entitled “Consultatio Cassandri,” in which he discusses the several articles of the Augsburg confession, stating their difference from the doctrines of the catholic church, and the concessions that might be safely made with respect to them. This work, which was written with great liberality, was much applauded by those who were desirous of a coalition, but who were soon convinced that every attempt of this kind was nugatory. Cassander died in 1566. M. De Thou represents him as modest, void of arrogance and acrimony; and he was as ardent in his wishes for a religious union, and made as many concessions for the accomplishment of this object, as could be expected from a person who continued in the catholic communion. Others, his contemporaries, speak highly of him, but many of his works were censured or condemned by the council of Trent. His works were first printed separately, and afterwards collected in a folio volume, Paris, 1616. Dupin bestows a prolix, but interesting article on Cassander.

, a distinguished anatomist, of humble parentage, but of great talents, was born at Placentia in1545. His genius leading him to the study of anatomy, he went to Padua, and became a servant to Fabricius, who made him his pupil and assistant, and at length, coadjutor in the professorship of anatomy. This office, to which he was preferred in 1609, he continued to fill with credit until 1616, when he died. As his diligence and industry equalled his genius, he became in a few years more knowing and skilful in his profession than his preceptor. Fabricius, in the opinion of Douglas, excelled in philosophy, Casserius in anatomy. This excited, however, no jealousy. Fabricius, who was far advanced in years, was well pleased with the prospect of leaving a successor so well qualified to advance the knowledge of the art; but in this he was disappointed, as he survived his pupil by more than three years. Of Casserius’s anxious desire to leave behind him a name, we have numerous proofs. Almost the whole of the revenue he obtained by teaching anatomy was expended in procuring subjects for dissection, and in paying draughtsmen and engravers to delineate figures of such parts of the body as he either discovered, or thought he had juster conceptions of than his predecessors. In the prefaces to his anatomical works he is not backward in affirming that he has furnished future anatomists with delineations of the parts of human and animal bodies, exceeding in elegance, perspicuity, and correctness, all that had preceded them. It will be observed he made use of animals, not as succedanea, but only to enable him to discover minute parts which were not easily distinguishable in the human body. The title of his first work, published in 1600, is “De Vocis Auditusque Organis Historia Anatomica, &c. Tractatibus duobus explicata,” Ferrara, fol. He here lays claim to the discovery of a muscle, moving the malleus, one of the ossiculae auditus. He also improved, Haller says, the anatomy of the larynx. “Pentaesthesejon, id est, de quinque Sensibus Liber, Organorum Fabricam, Actionem, et Usum continens,” Venet. 1609, fol. This is an extension of the former work to the rest of the senses, executed with equal skill. They have both been several times reprinted. It was not until some years after the death of Spigelius, his successor, which happened in 1622, that the remainder of Casserius’s works, consisting of 78 anatomical plates, with the explanations, was published. Bucretius, to whom Spigelius had left the care of his productions, incorporated the works of Casserius with them, and published them together at Venice, 1627, royal folio. Two of the plates by Casserius, viz. one representing the placenta, and another the hymen, are printed with Spigelius’s work, “De Formato Fcetu,” 1627, folio.

, was a celebrated solitary, a native of Scythia, of the fifth century, who spent part of his life in the monastery of Bethlehem with the monk Germain, his friend. They engaged openly in the defence of St. Chrysostom, against Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria. Cassian went to Rome, and from thence to Marseilles, where he founded two monasteries, one of men, the other of virgins. He ranks among the greatest masters of the monastic life, and died about the year 448. He left “Collations,” or conferences of the fathers of the desert, and “Institutions,” in 12 books, translated iHto French by Nic. Fontaine, 1663, 2 vols. 8vo; and seven books upon the Incarnation. These are all written in Latin, with a clearness and simplicity of style excellently calculated to inspire the heart with virtuous dispositions. They were printed at Paris, 1642, and at Leipsic, 1722, folio, and are in the library of the fathers. St. Prosper has written against the “Conferences.” Cassian is reckoned among the first of the Semi-Pelagians, of which sect Faustus of Riez, Vincent of Lerins, Gennadius of Marseilles, Hilerias of Aries, and Arnobius the younger, were the principal defenders. The semi-pelagians were opposed by the whole united forces of St. Augustin and Prosper, without being extirpated, or overcome by them. This sect was condemned by some synods, and was rejected by the church.

The royal observatory of Paris had been finished some time. The occasion of its being built was this: In 1638, the famous minim Mersenne was the author and institutor of a society, where several ingenious and learned men met together to talk upon physical and astronomical subjects; among whom were Gassendi, Descartes, Monmort, Thevenot, Bulliald, our countryman Hobbes, &c. and this society was kept up by a succession of such men for many years. At length Lewis XIV. considering that a number of learned men acting in a body would succeed abundantly better in the promotion of science, than if they acted separately, each in his particular art or province, established under the direction of Colbert, in 1666, the royal academy of sciences: and for the advancement of astronomy in particular, erected the royal observatory at Paris, and furnished it with all kinds of instruments that were necessary to make observations. The foundation of this noble pile was laid in 1667, and the building completed in 1670. Cassini was appointed to be the first inhabiter of the observatory; and he took possession of it Sept. 1671, when he applied himself with fresh alacrity to the business of his profession. In 1672 he endeavoured to determine the parallax of Mars and the sun, by comparing some observations which he made at Paris, with some which were made at the same time in America* In 1677 he demonstrated the diurnal revolution of Jupiter round his axis, to be performed in nine hours and fifty-eight minutes, from the motion of a spot in one of his larger belts. In 1684 he discovered four satellites of Saturn, besides that which Huygens had found out. In 1693 he published a new edition of his “Tables of Jupiter’s Satellites,” corrected by later observations. In 1695 he took a journey to Bologna, to examine the meridian line, which he had fixed there in 1655; and he shewed, in the presence of eminent mathematicians, that it had not varied in the least during those forty years. In 1700 he continued the meridian line through France, which Picard had begun, to the extremest southern part of that country.

After some education in his father’s house he was sent to study philosophy at the Mazarine college, where the celebrated Varignon was then professor of mathematics; from whose assistance young Cassini profited so well, that at fifteen years of age he supported a mathematical thesis with great honour. At the age of seventeen he was admitted a member of the academy of sciences; and the same year he accompanied his father in his journey to Italy, where he assisted him in the verification of the meridian at Bologna, and other measurement* On his return he made other similar operations in a journey into Holland, where he discovered some errors in the measure of the earth by Snell, the result of which was communicated to the academy in 1702. He made also a visit to England in 1696, where he was made r a member of the royal society. In 1712 he succeeded his father as astronomer royal at the observatory. In 17 17 he gave to the academy his researches on the distance of the fixed stars, in which he shewed that the whole annual orbit, of near 200 million of miles diameter, is but as a point in comparison of that distance. The same year he communicated also his discoveries concerning the inclination of the orbits of the satellites in general, and especially of those of Saturn’s satellites and ring. In 1723 he undertook to determine the cause of the moon’s libration, by which she shews sometimes a little towards one side, and sometimes a little on the other, of that half which is commonly behind or hid from our view.

Although astronomy was the principal object of our author’s consideration, he made occasional excursions into other fields. We owe also to him, for example, Experiments on Electricity, or the light produced by bodies by friction; Experiments on the recoil of fire-arms; Researches on the rise of the mercury in the barometer at different heights above the level of the sea; Reflections on the perfecting of burning-glasses; and other memoirs. The French academy had properly judged that one of its most important objects was the measurement of the earth. In 1669, Picard measured a little more than a degree of latitude to the north of Paris; but as that extent appeared too small from which to conclude the whole circumference with sufficient accuracy, it was resolved to continue that measurement on the meridian of Paris to the north and south, through the whole extent of the country. Accordingly, in 1683, the late M. de la Hire continued that on the north side of Paris, and the older Cassini that on the south side. The latter was assisted in 1700 in the continuation of this operation by his son, our author. The same work was farther continued by the same academicians; and finally the part left unfinished by de la Hire in the north, was finished in 1718 by our author, with the late Maraldi, and de la Hire the younger.

These operations produced a considerable degree of precision. It appeared also, from this measured extent of six degrees, that the degrees were of different lengths in different parts of the meridian; and in such sort that our author concluded, in the volume published for 17 18^ that they decreased more and more towards the pole, and that therefore the figure of the earth was that of an oblong spheroid, or having its axe longer than the equatorial diameter. He also measured the perpendicular to the same meridian, and compared the measured distance with the differences of longitude as before determined by the eclipses of Jupiter’s satellites; from whence he concluded that the length of the degrees of longitude was smaller than it would be on a sphere, and that therefore again the figure of the earth was an oblong spheroid; contrary to the determination of Newton by the theory of gravity. In consequence of these assertions of our author, the French government sent two different sets of measurers, the one to measure a degree at the equator, the other at the polar circle; and the comparison of the whole determined the figure to be an oblate spheroid, contrary to Cassini’s determination.

After a long and laborious life, our author, James Cassini, lost his life by a fall, in April 1756, in the eightieth year of his age, and was succeeded in the academy and observatory, by his second son, Cæsar- Francois de Thury. He published '5 A Treatise on the Magnitude and Figure of the Earth“as also” The Elements or Theory of “the Planets, with Tables” beside an infinite number of papers in the Memoirs of the Academy, from 1699 to 1755.

, a man of eminence in many respects, and called by way of distinction “the senator,” was born at Squillace, in Calabria, about the year 4i>7. He had as liberal an education as the growing barbarism of his times afforded; and soon recommended himself by his eloquence, his learning, and his wisdom, to Theodoric king of the Goths in Italy. Theodoric first made him governor of Sicily; and when he had Sufficiently proved his abilities and prudence in the administration of that province, admitted him afterwards to his cabinet-councils, and appointed him to be his secretary. After this he had all the places and honours at his command, which Theodoric had to bestow; and, having passed through all the employments of the government, was raised to the consulate, which he administered alone, in the year 514. He was continued in the same degree of confidence and favour by Athalaric, who succeeded Theodoric, about the year 524; but afterwards, in the year 537, being discarded from all his offices by king Vitiges, he renounced a secular life, and retired into a monastery of his own founding in the extreme parts of Calabria. Here he led the life of a man of letters, a philosopher, and a Christian. He entertained himself with forming and improving several curious pieces of mechanism, such as sun-dials, water clocks, perpetual lamps, &c. He collected a very noble and curious library, which he enlarged and improved by several books of his own composing. About the year 556, he wrote two books “De Divinis Lectionibus;” and afterwards a book “De Orthographia,” in the preface to which he tells us, that he was then in his ninety-third year. There are extant of his twelve books of letters, ten of which he wrote as secretary of state, in the name of kings Theodoric and Athalaric, and two in his own. He composed also twelve books “De rebus gestis Gothorum,” which are only extant in the abridgment of Jornandes; though it has been surmised that a manuscript of Cassiodorus is still remaining in some of the libraries in France. He wrote also a commentary upon the Psalms, and several other pieces, theological and critical. Father Simon has ?poken of him thus “There is no need,” says he, “of examining Cassiodorus’s Commentaries on the Psalms, which is almost but an abridgment of St. Augustin’s Commentaries, as he owns in his preface. But besides these commentaries, we have an excellent treatise of this author’s, entitled < De institutione ad Divinas Lectiones,' which shews, that he understood the criticism of the scriptures, and that he had marked out what were the best things of this nature in the ancient doctors of the church. In the same book Cassiodorus gives many useful rules for the criticism of the scriptures; and he takes particular notice of those fathers who have made commentaries upon the Bible, &c.” It seems generally agreed that he was in all views a very extraordinary man; and we think that those have done him no more than justice, who have considered him as a star, which shone out amidst the darkness of a barbarous age. When he died we cannot precisely determine, but most writers seem to be of opinion this happened in the year 575. His works have been collected and printed several times; the best edition is that of Rohan, 1679, 2 vols. fol. with the notes and dissertations of John Garret, a Benedictine monk. In 1721, Signer Scipio Maffei published a work of Cassiodorus, which had long been missing; and in the following year the same was published at London, by Mr. Samuel Chandler, entitled “Complexions, or short Commentaries upon the Epistles, the Acts, and the Revelation,” which Dr. Lardner has enumerated among the testimonies to the credibility of the gospel history.

, a lawyer of Italy, who acquired considerable reputation in the sixteenth century, by his poetical compositions in Latin and Italian, was born at Feltri about 1480, of a noble family. He studied philosophy ai>d the arts at Padua, where he received his doctor’s degree in 1503. He afterwards studied law, and amidst the fatigues of his profession, found leisure to cultivate the muses. The town of Feltri employed him as their agent at Venice, where, as well as at Padua, he formed an intimacy with many eminent scholars and persons of rank. He died in 1537, lamented by his friends and by his country, to which he had rendered important services. Both during his life and after his death, he was celebrated by the contemporary poets, and a medal was struck to his memory. He was married, but having no children, he founded a college or academy at Padua, with three scholarships, one of civil and canon law, another of medicine, and the third of arts; and whoever enjoyed these was obliged to teach poor scholars gratis for a certain period. His poetical works remained unpublished, and indeed unknown until 1757, when they were printed in a small quarto volume, “Poesi volgari e Latine di Cornelio Castaldi,” &c. with his life by Thomas Joseph Farsetti, a patrician of Venice. His Italian poems are written with ease, and abound in imagery, and in his Latin ' efforts he has imitated the ancients with success. M. Conti was the editor of the collection.

His “Clavecin Oculaire,” or ocular harpsichord, though silent, made a considerable noise in the world, and excited much curiosity and considerable expectation among opticians as well as musicians. His idea of producing the same pleasure to the eye by the melody and harmony of colours, as the ear received from the succession and combination of musical tones, was published in 1725. Sir Isaac Newton, having discovered (Optics, book i. p. 2, prop. 3.) that the breadths of the seven primary colours in the sun’s image, produced by the refraction of his rays through a prism, are proportional to the seven differences of the lengths of the eight musical strings, D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D, when the intervals of their sounds are T, H, t, T, t, T, t, H: which order is remarkably regular. Smith’s Harmonies. From this analogy, Pere Castel sets off by telling us that there is a fundamental and primitive sound in nature to which we may give the name of ret, or C. There is also a primitive and original tone which serves for base and fundamental to all colours, which is blue.

There are three essential sounds which depend on this primitive tone of C, and which together compose the perfect, primitive, and original chord, which is Ceg. There are likewise three original colours dependent on the blue; they are compounded of no other colours, and they produce the rest: these three colours are blue, yellow, and red. The blue is the key-note, the red the fifth, and the yellow the third. There are five tones, C, D, E, G, A; and two semi-tones, F and C. In the same manner there are five principal colours, blue, green, yellow, red, and violet: and two semi-tone colours, which are orange and indigo. The musical scales, c, d, e, f, g, a, b. The scale of colours is blue, green, yellow, orange, red, and violet. These are the data of father Castel, upon which he has founded his organ or harpsichord of colours.

This artist passed the last years of his life at Madrid, as painter to the court. After his death in 1570, or, as some say 1580, Luca Cambiaso was sent for to finish the larger historic subjects; but the ornamental parts and the grotesques interspersed with figures remained to his two sons^ Fabrizio and Granello, whom he had carried with him to Spain as his assistants. Palomino, and the writers on the Escurial, enumerate these works, with praise of their variety, singularity, and beauty of colour.

, an eminent Italian antiquary, was born at Palermo, Feb. 18, 1727, of a noble family, and was placed under a private tutor, with a view to study botany, chemistry, &c. but an accident gave. a new and decided turn to his pursuits. Not far from Motta where he lived, stood the ancient Halesa, or Alesa (Tosa), a colony of Nicosia, celebrated by the Greek and Latin poets, which was swallowed up by an earthquake in the year 828, leaving scarcely a \estige of its former state. One day a ploughman dug up a quantity of coins, which, he brought to Castello, who conceived an uncommon desire to decypher them, that he might not seem a stranger to the ancient history of his own country: and applying himself for instructions to the literati of Palermo, they recommended the study of antiquities as found in the Greek and Roman authors; and Castello engaged in this pursuit with such avidity and success, as within three years to be able to draw up a very learned paper on the subject of a statue which had been dug up, which he published under the title of “Dissertazione sopra una statua cli marmo trovata nelle campagne di Alesa,” Palermo, 1749, 8vo, with letters on some antiquities of Solanto near Palermo; and before he had reached his twenty-sixth year he published his History and Antiquities of Alesa, which procured him the reputation of an able antiquary, and was censurable only for certain redundancies of style, which more mature progress enabled him to correct in his subsequent writings. In the mean time he formed a splendid collection of the remains of antiquity to be found in Sicily, and his museum was always open to strangers as well as natives of curiosity, and by will he bequeathed a vast collection of books, &c. to the public library of Palermo. This learned author died March 5, 1794, at that time an honorary member of the Royal Society and of the Paris academy. Besides what we have mentioned, he published, 1. “Osservazioni critiche sopra un libro stampato in Catania nel 1747, esposta in una lettera da un Pastor Arcade acl un Accademico Etrnsco,” Rome, 1749, 4to. 2. “Storia di Alesa antica citta di Sicilia col rapporto de' suoi pin insigni monumenti, ike.” Palermo, 1753, 4to. 3. “Inscrizioni Palermitane,” Palermo, 1762, fol. 4. “Sicilise et objacentium Insularum veterum inscriptionum nova collectio, cum prolegomenis et notis illustrata,” ibid. 1769. 5. “Sicilian Populorum et Urbium, Regum quoque et Tyrannorum veteres nummi Saracenorum epocham antecedentes,” Palermo, 1731, fol. To this, his greatest work, he published two supplements in 1789 and 1791. Besides these he contributed some papers on subjects of antiquity, printed in the “Storia Letteraria della Sicilia,” and other works. There was another of the same name, Ignatius Paterno Castello, a contemporary, and likewise an able antiquary, who died in 1776, and published among other works, “Descrizione del terribile Terremoto de' 5. Febraro 1783, che afflisse la Sicilia, distrtisse Messina, e gran parte della Calabria, diretta alle Reale Accademia di Bordeaux, Poesia del Pensante Peloritano,” Naples, 1784, &c.

, called Grechktto, an admired artist, was born at Genoa, in 161h, and in that city was at Hrst a disciple of Battisca Pagi, and afterwards studied in the academy of Joan Andrea de Ferrara; but his principal improvement was derived from the instructions of Vandyck, who at that time came to reside in Genoa. He formed to himself a very grand manner of design in every branch of his art, and succeeded equally well in all; in sacred and profane history, landscape, cattle, and portrait; executing every one of them with an equal degree of truth, freedom, and spirit. But, although his genius was so universal, his predominant turn was to rural scenes and pastoral subjects, markets, and animals, in which he had no superior. He had great readiness of invention, a bold and noble tint of colouring, and abundance of nature in all his compositions. His drawing is elegant, and generally correct, his touch judicious, and his pencil free and firm. And still to add to his accomplishments, he had a thorough knowledge of the chiaroscuro, which he very happily applied through all his works. In a chapel of St. Luke’s church at Genoa, is an excellent picture by this master. The composition and design are good, the heads of the figures extremely fine, the draperies well chosen and judiciously cast, the animals lively and correct; and the manner through the whole is grand, and yet delicate; though it must be observed, that the colouring is a little too red. In the Palazzo Brignole* is a grand composition, the figures being eighteen or twenty inches high, which is admirably finished, though perhaps a little too dark. And at the Palazzo Caregha, in the same city, is an historical picture of Rachel concealing the Teraphim from Luba*i, in which the figures and animals are exceedingly fine.

His son, Francesco Castiglione, was the disciple of his father, and was born at Genoa. He inherited in a very considerable degree the talents of his father, and imitated his style and manner exactly in composition, handling, and design. Many pictures ascribed to Benedetto, and occurring in sales and collections, are thought to be copies after him by his son Francesco, or perhaps originals of the younger Castiglione.

, a celebrated Italian general, was born at Lucca, in Tuscany, in 1284; where, it is said, he was taken up one morning accidentally in a vineyard, where he had been laid and covered with leaves; but others deduce him from an ancient and great family. The former account, however, goes on to inform us that he was found by Dianora, a wi.iow lady, and sister of Antonio, a canon ot rft Michael in Lucca, who was descended from the illustrious family of the Castracani. Antonio be ing priest, and Dianora having no children, they determined to bring him up, christened him Castruccio, by the name of their father, and educated him as carefully as if he had been their own. Antonio designed him for a priest, and accordingly trained him to letters; but Castruccio was scarcely fourteen years old when he began to neglect his books, and to devote himself to military exercises, to wrestling, running, and other athletic sports, which very well suited his great strength of body. At that time the two great factions, the Guelfs and Ghibilins, shared all Italy between them, divided the popes and the emperors, and engaged in their different interests, not only the members of the same town, but even the members of the same family. Francisco, a considerable man on the side of the Ghibilins, observing one day in the market-place, the uncommon spirit and qualities of Castruccio, prevailed with Antonio to let him turn soldier. As nothing could be more agreeable to the inclination of Castruccio, he presently became accomplished in every thing which could adorn his profession. He was eighteen years old when the faction of the Guelfs drove the Ghibilins out of Pavia, and was then made a lieutenant of a company of foot, by Francisco Guinigi, of whom the prince of Milan had solicited succours. The first campaign this new lieutenant made, he gave such proofs of his courage and conduct, as spread his fame all over Lombardy; and Guinigi conceived such an opinion of him, and had so much confidence in him, that, dying soon after, he committed the care of his son and the management of his estate to him. So great a trust and administration made Castruccio more considerable than before but at the same time created him many enemies, and lost him some friends for, knowing him to be of an high and enterprising spirit, many began to fancy his views were to empire, and to oppress the liberty of his country. He went on still, however, to distinguish himself by military exploits, and at last raised so much jealousy in his chief commander, that he was imprisoned by stratagem, with a view of being put to death; but the people of Lucca soon released him, and in a short time after, solemnly chose him their sovereign prince, and there were not then, either in Lombardy or Tuscany, any of the Ghibilins who did not look upon Castruccio as the true head of their faction. Those who were banished their country upon that account fled to him for protection, and promised unanimously, that if he could restore them to their estates, they would serve him so effectually, that the sovereignty of their country should be his reward. Flattered by these promises, and encouraged by the strength of his forces, he entertained a design of making himself master of Tuscany; and to give more reputation to his affairs, he entered into a league with the prince of Milan. He kept his army constantly on foot, and employed it as suited best with his own designs. For the services he did the pope he was made senator of Rome with more than ordinary ceremony. The day of his promotion, he came forth in a habit suitable to his dignity, but enriched with a delicate embroidery, and with two devices artificially wrought in, one before, the other behind. The former was in these words, “He is as it pleases God” the latter, “And shall be what God will have him.” While Castruccio was at Rome, news was brought him which obliged him to return in all haste to Lucca. The Florentines were making war upon him, and had already done him some damage; and conspiracies were forming against him as an usurper, at Pisa and in several places; but Castruccio surmounted all these difficulties, and the supreme authority of Tuscany was just falling into his hands, when a period was put to his progress and his life. An army of 30,000 foot and 10,000 horse appeared against him in May 1328. Of these he destroyed 22,000, with the loss of not quite 1600 of his own men, and was returning from the field of battle; but, happening to halt a little for the sake of thanking and caressing his soldiers as they passed fi,red with an action as fatiguing as glorious, and covered with sweat, a north wind blew upon him, and affected him so, that he fell immediately into a fit of ague. At first he neglected it, believing himself sufficiently hardened against such attacks; but the fit increasing, and with it the fever, his physicians gave him over, and he died in a few days. He was in his forty-fourth year; and from the time he came to appear first in the world, he always, as well in his good as bad fortune, expressed the same steadiness and equality of spirit. As he left several monuments of his good fortune behind him, so he was not ashamed to leave some memorials of his adversity. Thus, when he was delivered from the imprisonment above-mentioned, he caused the irons with which he was loaded, to be hung in the most public room of his palace, where they were to be seen many years after.

Machiavel, who has written the Life of Castruccio, and from whom we have extracted this account of him, says, that he was not only an extraordinary man in his own age, but would have been so in any other. He was tall and well-made, of a noble aspect, and so winning an address, that all men went away from him satisfied. His hair was inclining to red; and he wore it above his ears. Whereever he went, snow, hail, or rain, his head was always uncovered. He had all the qualities that make a man great; was grateful to his friends, terrible to his enemies, just with his subjects, subtle with strangers; and, where stratagem would do the business, he never had recourse to force. No man was more forward to encounter dangers, no man more careful to escape them. He had an uncommon presence of mind, and often made repartees with great smartness. Machiavel’s Life, however, abounds in fiction. The younger Aldus published a better at Lucca, 1590, 4to. Castracani’s Life was also written in Latin by Nicolas Tegrimo, and printed at Modena, 1496, 4to, and Paris, 1546; and Muratori has inserted it in vol. XL of his “Script. Italic.”

, an eminent French physician and surgeon, was born at Blerancourt, between Noyon and Coucy, Sept. 6, 1700. If chirurgical skill be hereditary, his claims were considerable, as he was descended both by the father’s and mother’s side from eminent practitioners. His parents, however, first intended him for the church; but after completing his philosophy course, he applied himself to the study of medicine, not altogether with his inclination. From his infancy he had amused himself with making geometrical figures, and without the aid of a master, used to make drawings of military architecture with considerable accuracy, and at one time seems to have had an inclination for the bar, but at last he had no alternative but the church, or the profession of his ancestors, and having determined in favour of the latter, he went to Paris for education in the different branches of the healing art. The first publication by which he was known, was a curious dissertation, which he printed in his twenty-fourth year, on the mechanism of the buttresses of the church of St. Nicaise at Rheuns: these buttresses have always been an object of curiosity, as a motion is perceptible in them, which has never affected their solidity. la 1729, he was appointed surgeon and physician to M. de Tressan, archbishop of Rouen. He did not take his degree, however, until 1732, when he took it at Rheims, to avoid the heavy expence of 6000 livres, which it would have cost at Paris. In 1733, he settled at Rouen, and began to give a course of anatomical lectures, and there first he established a high reputation for his dextrous method of operation for the stone. In 1731 he obtained the reversion of the place of surgeon-major to the hospital at Rouen; and when the royal academy of surgery was established, he gained the first prize, and continued to gain all the prizes of that academy to the year 17:58 inclusive, when they paid him the high compliment of requesting that he would no longer become a candidate, but leave to others a chance of obtaining these rewards. Flattering as this seemed, M. Le Cat was aware that the academicians had it in their power to prevent his contending for prizes in a more effectual way, by electing him one of their body, and accordingly stood for the prize of 1739 with his usual success: about the end of the year, however, he was elected into the academy, and pursued his career of fame by those numerous publications on which it was so justly founded.

In 1736, he established at Rouen a public school of surgery and anatomy, built an ample theatre at his own expence, and gave lectures for ten or twelve years gratis, at the end of which time he received a pension from the king. From this school, in the course of time, arose a literary association, which is now the academy of Rouen, and of which he was many years secretary; and the parliament, to testify their respect for the zeal and patriotism he had displayed, allowed him a pension of 1000 livres for some years. In 1739, he published a dissertation on solvents for the stone, and particularly on that sold in this country by Mrs. Stephens, which was once thought infallible. In December of that year, he was admitted a corresponding member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris, to whose memoirs he had contributed many curious papers; and in 1740, a similar honour was paid to him by the Royal Society of London. About the same time, he refused the most liberal offers made him to remove to Paris; his attachment to the city of Rou^n, and the regard paid him by all classes there, inducing him to prefer residing among them. In 1741 the academy of Madrid elected him one of their body; and the year following he exhibited another proof of his attachment to the promotion of science, by establishing a school for design at Rouen, for which purpose he accommodated M. Descarnp, a Flemish artist, with the use of his amphitheatre. In 1746 he began a course of experimental philosophy at Rouen, which he continued as well as his ordinary lectures on surgery and anatomy; and in 1749 he founded three anatomical prizes. In this last year^ he published various papers on the operation for the stone in the female subject; and in 1750> his love for the arts and sciences induced him to publish an energetic refutation of Rousseau’s famous discourse which had received the prize of the academy of Dijon* In the course of his progress he was honoured by admission into most of the learned societies in Europe, and contributed papers to their various memoirs.

, one of those men whom a passion for natural history very early allured from the interesting pursuits of domestic life to cross the Atlantic, was born about the latter end of 1679, or the beginning of 1680; He acquaints us himself that he had very early a propensity to the study of nature, and that his wish for higher gratifications in this way first led him to London, and afterwards to distant parts of the globe. The residence of some relations in Virginia favouring this latter design, he went thither in 1712, and staid seven years, admiring and collecting the various productions of the country, without having laid any direct plan for the work which he afterwards accomplished. On his return to England in 1719, he was encouraged by the assistance of several of the nobility, of sir Hans Sloane, Dr. Sherard, and other naturalists, whose names he has recorded, to return to America, with the professed design of describing, delineating, and painting the most curious objects of nature. Carolina was fixed on, as the place of his residence, where he arrived in May 1722. He first examined the lower parts of the country, making excursions from Charles Town; and afterwards sojourned, for some time, among the Indians in the mountainous regions at and about Fort Moore, He then extended his researches through Georgia and Florida; and having spent nearly three years on the continent, he visited the Bahama islands, taking his residence in the Isle of Providence; carrying on his plan, and particularly making collections of fishes and submarine productions.

, Queen Of England, and first consort of Henry VIII. was the fourth daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen of Castile and Arragon. She was born in 1485. In the sixteenth year of her age, Nov. 14, 1501, she was married to Arthur, prince of Wales, son of Henry VII. who died a few months after. The king, either from political reasons, or, as some think, because he was unwilling to restore Catherine’s dowry, which was 200,000 ducats, obliged his second son Henry, whom he created prince of Wales, and who was then in his twelfth year, to be contracted to the infanta. The prince resisted this injunction to the utmost of his power; but the king was invincible, and the espousals were at length, by means of the pope’s dispensation, contracted between the parties. Immediately after the accession of Henry VIII. to the crown, in 1509, the king began to deliberate on his former engagements, to which he had many objections, but his privy council, though contrary to the opinion of the primate, gave him their advice for celebrating the marriage. Even the prejudices of the people were averse to an union betwixt such near relations as Henry and his brother’s widow; and the late king is thought to have had an intention to avail himself of a proper opportunity of annulling the contract. In 1527 several circumstances occurred which combined to excite scruples in the king’s mind concerning the lawfulness of his marriage, but probably the chief were what arose from his own passions. The queen was six years older than the king; and the decay of her beauty, together with particular infn-mities and diseases, had contributed, notwithstanding her blameless character and deportment, to render her person unacceptable to him. Though she had borne him several children, they all died in early infancy, except one daughter, Mary; and it was apprehended, that if doubts of Mary’s legitimacy concurred with the weakness of her sex, the king of Scots, the next heir, would advance his pretensions, and might throw the kingdom into confusion. But most of all, Anne Boleyn had acquired an entire ascendant over his affections, and he was now determined on a divorce, and upon consulting them, all the prelates of England, except Fisher, bishop of Rochester, unanimously declared that they deemed his marriage unlawful. In this they were supported by cardinal Wolsey, who had political purposes to answer in breaking off the match with Catherine, although he was no friend to Anne Boleyn. Accordingly Henry determined to apply to the pope, Clement VII. for a divorce, who, though at first disposed to favour Henry’s application, and had actually concerted measures for its successful issue, was overawed by the interference of the emperor, Charles V. Catherine’s nephew; and when the negociation was protracted to such a length as to tire Henry’s patience, the pope, importuned by the English ministers, put into their hands a commission to Wolsey, as legate, in conjunction with the archbishop of Canterbury, or any other English prelate, to examine the validity of the king’s marriage, and of the late pope’s dispensation. He also granted them a provisional dispensation for the king’s marriage with any other person; and promised to issue a decretal bull, annulling the marriage with Catherine; but he enjoined secrecy, and conjured them not to publish these papers, or to make any farther use of them, till his afflxirs with regard to the emperor were in such a train as to secure his liberty and independence. After considerable hesitation and delay, the legates, Campeggio and Wolsey, to whom the pope had granted a new commission for the trial of the king’s marriage, opened their court in London, May 31, 1529, and cited the king and queen to appear before it. They both presented themselves, and the king answered to his name, when called; but the queen, instead of answering to her’s, threw herself at the king’s feet, and appealed to his justice, declaring that she would not submit her cause to be tried by the members of a court who depended on her enemies; and making the king a low reverence, she departed, and never would again appear in that court.

Upon her departure, the king, after acknowledging that she had ever been a dutiful and affectionate wife, and that the whole tenor of her behaviour had been conformable to the strictest rules of probity and honour, insisted on his own scruples with regard to the lawfulness of their marriage; and craved a sentence of the court agreeable to the justice of his cause. The legates, after citing the queen anew, declared her contumacious, notwithstanding her appeal to Rome, and then proceeded to the examination of the cause; but while the king was all impatience for a sentence, Campeggio suddenly prorogued the court to a future day. This threw the king into the utmost perplexity, from which he was relieved by Dr. Cranaaer, who suggested, that the readiest way, either to quiet Henry’s conscience, or to extort the pope’s consent, would be to consult all the universities of Europe. If they agreed to approve of the king’s marriage with Catherine, his remorse would naturally cease; if they condemned it, the pope would find it difficult to resist his majesty’s solicitations. In consequence of this application several of the foreign universities gave an opinion in the king’s favour; as did Oxford and Cambridge, although subsequently, and with more reluctance; and the convocations both of Canterbury and York, pronounced the king’s marriage invalid, and contrary to the law of God. But pope Clement, still subject to the influence of the emperor, continued to summon the king to appear, either by himself or proxy, before his tribunal at Rome; and the king, apprized that no fair trial could be expected there, refused to submit to such a condition, and would not admit of any citation, which he regarded as a high insult, and a violation of his royal prerogative. In the progress of this business, the queen’s appeal was received at Rome. The king was cited to appear; and several consistories were held to examine the validity of their marriage. The king retained his purpose of not sending any proxy to plead his cause before this court, and alleged, that the prerogatives of his crown must be sacrificed if he allowed appeals from his own kingdom. For the purpose of adding greater security to his intended defection from Rome, he procured an interview with Francis at Boulogne and Calais, and renewed his alliance with that monarch; and it is said that he even persuaded Francis to follow his example, in withdrawing his obedience from the bishop of Rome, and administering ecclesiastical affairs without having further recourse to that see. In the mean time he privately celebrated his marriage with Anne Boleyn, Nov. 14, 1532; and in April of the following year he publicly owned it, and prepared measures for declaring, by a formal sentence, the invalidity of his marriage with Catherine. Catherine, however, did not quit the kingdom; but fixed her abode for some time at Ampthill, in Bedfordshire, where, after several preliminary steps, Cranmer pronounced a sentence which annulled the king’s marriage with her. Catherine still continued obstinate in maintaining the validity of her marriage; and she would admit no person to her presence who did not approach her with the customary formalities. Although Henry employed menaces against such of her servants as complied with her commands in this particular, he was never able to make her relinquish her title and pretensions.

soul, which you ought to prefer before mortal things, or all worldly blessings. It is for this immortal spirit you must neglect the care of your body, for the love of which you have thrown me headlong into many calamities, and your own self into infinite disturbances. But I forgive you with all my heart, humbly beseeching Almighty God, he will in heaven confirm the pardon I on earth give you. I recommend unto you our most dear Mary, your daughter and mine, praying you to be a better father to her than you have been a husband to me: remember also three poor maids, companions of my retirement, as likewise all the rest of my servants, giving them a whole year’s wages besides what is due, that so they may be a little recompensed for the good service they have done me; protesting unto you, in the conclusion of this my letter and life, that my eyes love you, and desire to see you more thau any thing mortal."

This unfortunate affair occasioned a new parliament to be summoned on Jan. 16, 1541-2, in which the archbishop, the duke of Suffolk, the earl of Southampton, and the bishop of Winchester, were appointed to examine the queen; which they did on the 28th of that month. Their report is recorded only in general, that she confessed; but no particulars are mentioned. Upon this the parliament passed an act in the form of a petition, in which, after desiring the king not to be grieved at this misfortune, they requested, that the queen and her accomplices, with her procuress the lady Rochford, might be attainted of high treason; and that all those, who knew of the queen’s Vicious course before her marriage, and had concealed it, as the duchess dowager of Norfolk her grandmother, the countess of Bridgwater, the lord William Howard her uncle, and his kidy, with the four other men and five women, who were already attainted by the course of common law (except the duchess of Norfolk and the countess of Bridgwater), might be attainted of misprision of treason. It was enacted also, that whoever knew any thing of the incontinence of the queen for the time being, should reveal it with all possible speed, under the pains of treason: and that if the king, or his successors, should incline to marry any woman, whom they took to be a virgin, if she, not being so, did not declare the same to the king, it should be high treason; and all, who knew it, and did not reveal it, were guilty of misprision of treason: and if the queen, or the prince’s wife, should procure any person, by messages or words, to have criminal conversation with her; or any other, by messages or words, should solicit them; they, their counsellors and abettors, were to be adjudged guilty of high treason.

This remarkable act being passed, the queen and the lady llochford were beheaded on Tower-hill on the 12tli of February, about seventeen months after she had been married to the king. The queen confessed the miscarriages of her former life before marriage, which had brought her to this fatal end; but protested to Dr. White, afterwards bishop of Winchester, that she took God and his angels to be her witnesses, upon the salvation of her soul, that she was guiltless of the charge of defiling her sovereign’s bed. Yet the unbounded looseness of her former course of living inclined the world to believe the most scandalous things that could be reported. But all observed the judgment of Heaven upon the lady Rochford, who had been the principal instrument in the death of queen Anne Boleyn, her sister-in-law, and that of her own husband; and her appearing now so enormously profligate tended much to raise their reputations again, in whose fall her malice and artifices had so great a share. It was thought, however, extremely cruel to shew such extraordinary severity against the queen’s kindred for not discovering her former ill life, since the making such a discovery would have been a very hard instance of duty. The duchess dowager of Norfolk being her grandmother, had educated her from a child; and it was said, that for her to have acquainted the king with her grand-daughter’s lewd behaviour, when he intended to marry her, as it was an unheard-of thing, so the not doing it could not have drawn so high a punishment from any but a prince of the king’s temper. However he pardoned her, and most of the rest, though some continued in prison after others were discharged. That other proviso, which obliged a young lady to discover her own frailties, if his majesty should please to make love to her, seemed likewise a strange piece of tyranny; since if a king, especially one of so imperious a disposition as Henry VIII, should design such an honour to any of his subjects, who had failed in, their former life, they must either disgrace themselves by publishing so odious a secret, or run the hazard of being afterwards attainted of high treason. Upon this, some persons, who were inclined to rally the sex, took occasion to say, “that after such a regulation, no one, reputed a virgin, could be induced to marry the king; and therefore it was not so much choice as necessity, that caused him to marry a widow two years after.” But this part of the act was afterwards repealed in the first parliament of king Edward VI.

Her majesty wrote, “Queen Catherine Parr’s Lamentation of a Sinner, bewailing the Ignorance of her blind life.” This was a contrite meditation on the years she had passed in popery, in fasts, and pilgrimages; and, being found among her papers after her death, was published with a preface, by the great lord Burleigh, in 1548, 8vo, and afterwards, in 1563. In her life-time she published a volume of psalms, prayers, and pious discourses, with this title; “Prayers or Meditations, wherein the mind is stirred patiently to suffer all afflictions here, and to set at nought the vain prosperitie of this worlde, and always to long for the everlasting felicitee,” 1545, 12mo. Several letters of this queen’s are preserved in “Strype’s Annals,” in “Haynes’s collection of State Papers,” in the “Ashmoiean Collection,” and in the library of C. C. C. Cambridge.

, a country girl of the name of Martha, which she changed for Catherine when she embraced the Greek religion, and came to be empress of Russia, was born in 1688, of very indigent parents, who lived at Ringen, a small village not far from Dorpat, on the lake Vitcherve, in Livonia. While yet only three years old, she lost her father, who left her with no other support than what an infirm and sickly mother could afford her; whose labour was barely sufficient to procure them a scanty maintenance. She was handsome, of a good figure, and gave intimations of a quick understanding. Her mother had taught hereto read, and an old Lutheran clergyman, of the name of Gluck, instructed her in the principles of that persuasion. Scarcely had she attained her fifteenth year, when she lost her mother. The good pastor took her home to him, and employed her in attending his children. Catherine availed herself of the lessons in music and dancing that were given them by their masters; but the death of her benefactor, which happened not long after her reception into his family, plunged her once more into the extremity of indigence; and her country being now become the seat of vv.-r between Sweden and Russia, she went to seek an asylum at Marienburg. In 1701 she espoused a dragoon of the Swedish garrison of that fortress. If we are to believe some authors, the very day that these two lovers had fixed on for plighting their faith at the altar, Marienburg was besieged by the Russians; the lover, who was on duty, was obliged to march with his troop to repel the attack, and perished in the action, before the marriage was consummated. Marienburg was at last carried by assault; when general Bauer, seeing Catherine among the prisoners, a'nd being smitten with her youth and beauty, took her to his house, where she superintended his domestic affairs, and was supposed to be his mistress. Soon afterwards she was removed into the family of prince Menzicof, who was no less struck with the attractions of the fair captive: with him she lived till 1704, when, in the seventeenth year of her age, she became the mistress of Peter the Great, and won so much upon his affections, that he espoused her on the 29th of May, 1711. The ceremony was secretly performed at Yaverhof, in Poland, in the presence of general Bruce; and on the 20th of February, 1712, it was publicly solemnized with great pomp at Petersburg; on which occasion she received the diadem and the sceptre from the hands of her husband. After the death of that prince, in 1725, she was proclaimed sovereign empress of all the Russias. In this high station she shewed herself not unworthy of reigning, by endeavouring to complete some of the grand designs which the tzar had begun. The first thing she did on her accession to the imperial dignity, was to cause all the gibbets to be taken down, and all the implements of torture to be destroyed. She instituted a new order of knighthood, in honour of St. Alexander Nefski; and performed some other actions that bespoke a greatness of mind not to be expected from her, although some of these have been rather exaggerated. She attended Peter the Great in his expeditions, and rendered him essential services in the unfortunate affair of Pruth; it was she who advised the tzar to tempt the vizir by presents; which succeeded beyond expectation. It cannot, however, be dissembled, that she had an attachment which excited the jealousy of the tzar. The favoured object was a chamberlain of the court, originally from France, named mons. de la Croix. The tzar Peter caused him to be decapitated, under pretence of some treasonable correspondence; after which he had his head stuck on a pike, and placed in one of the public places of Petersburg. In order that his empress might contemplate at leisure the view of the mangled carcase of her lover, he drove her across this place in all directions, and even conducted her to the foot of the scaffold. Catherine had address or firmness enough to restrain her tears. This princess has been suspected of not being favourably disposed towards the tzarevitsh Alexius, who died under the displeasure of his father. As the eldest born, and sprung from the first marriage, he excluded from the succession the children of Catherine: this is perhaps the sole foundation on which that reproach has been built.

Peter’s conduct, on the other hand, was mere infatuation. He permitted his mistress the countess Woronzoff to have the most complete ascendancy over him, and this woman had the hardihood to claim the performance of a promise which he had made when grand duke, to marry her, place her, in the room of Catherine, on the throne, and bastardize his son Paul, whose place he was to supply by adopting prince Ivan, who had been dethroned by the empress Elizabeth. Whatever ground he might have for expecting success to this wild project, he had not the sense to conceal it; and his mistress openly made her boast of it. Such indiscretion was, no doubt, in favour of Catherine^ but still the part she had to play required all her skill. It was no less than a plot to counteract that of her husband, and dethrone him. The minute details of this would extend too far in a sketch like the present; her conspirators were numerous, secret, and well prepared, and by their means she, who had been confined at Peterhof by her husband, was enabled to enter Petersburgh July 9, 1762, where she was received as empress, and where, while the enthusiasm was fresh in the minds of her troops and subjects, she was crowned in the church of Kazan, by the archbishop of Novogorod, who proclaimed her with a loud voice, sovereign of all the Russias, by the title of Catherine II. and declared at the same time the young grand duke, Paul Petrovitch, her successor. But of all this Peter III. had yet no suspicion. Such was his security, that he set out, after having received some intimations of the conspiracy, from Oranienbaum in a calash with his mistress, his favourites, and the women of his court, for Peterhof; but in the way, Gudovitch, the general aidede-camp, met one of the chamberlains of the empress, by whom he was informed of her escape from Peterhof; and upon his communicating the intelligence to Peter, he turned pale, and appeared much agitated. On his arrival at Peterhof, his agitation and confusion increased, when he found that the empress had actually left the palace, and he soon received the certain tidings of the revolution that had been accomplished; and the chancellor Worouzof offered his services to hasten to Petersburgh, engaging to bring the empress back. The chancellor, on entering the palace, found Catherine surrounded by a multitude of people in the act of doing homage; and forgetting his duty, he took the oath with the rest. He was permitted, however, at his earnest request, to return to his house, under the guard of some trusty officers; and thus secured himself from the vindictive spirit of the partisans of Catherine, and from the suspicions of the czar. After the departure of the chancellor, Peter became a prey to the most distressing anxieties, and he every instant received some fresh intelligence of the progress of the revolution, but knew not what steps to pursue. Although his Holstein guards were firmly attached to him, and the veteran marshal Munich offered to risk every thing for his service, he remained hesitating and undetermined; and after some fruitless attempts, he found it absolutely necessary to submit unconditionally to her will, in consequence of which he was compelled to sign a most humiliating act of abdication, in which he declared his conviction of his inability to govern the empire, either as a sovereign, or in any other capacity, and his sense of the distress in which his continuance at the head of affairs would inevitably involve it, and in the evening an officer with a strong escort came and conveyed him prisoner to Ropscha, a small imperial palace, at the distance of about 20 versts from Peterhof. He now sent a message to Catherine, requesting, that he might retain in his service the negro who had been attached to him, and who amused him with his singularities, together with a dog, of which he was fond, his violin, a Bible, and a few romances; assuring her, that, disgusted at the wickedness of mankind, he would henceforward devote himself to a philosophical life. Not one of these requests was granted. After he had been at Ropscha six days without the knowledge of any persons besides the chiefs of the conspirators, and the soldiers by whom he was guarded, Alexius Orlof, accompanied by Teplof, came to him with the news of his speedy deliverance, and asked permission to dine with him. While the officer amused the czar with some trifling discourse, his chief rilled the wine-glasses, which are usually brought in the northern countries before dinner, and poured a poisonous mixture into that which he intended for the prince. The czar, without distrust, swallowed the potion; on which he was seized with the most excruciating pains; and on his being offered a second glass, on pretence of its giving him relief, he refused it with reproaches on him that offered it. Being pressed to take another glass, when he called for milk, a French valet-de-chamhre, who was greatly attached to him, ran in; and throwing himself into his arms, he said in a faint tone of \oice, “It was not enough, then, to prevent me from reigning in Sweden, and to deprive me of the crown of Russia! I must also be put to death.” The valet-dechamhre interceded in his behalf; but the two miscreant forced him out of the room, and continued their ill treatment of him. In the midst of the tumult, the younger of the princes Baratinsky, who commanded the guard, entered; Orlof, who in a struggle had thrown down the emperor, was pressing upon his breast with both his knees, and firmly griping his throat with his hand. In this situation the two other assassins threw a napkin with a running knot round his neck, and put an end to his life by suffocation, July 17th, just one week after the revolution; and it was announced to the nation, that Peter had died of an haemorrhoidal colic. When Catherine received the news of Peter’s death, she appeared at court, whither she was going, with a tranquil air; and afterwards shut herself up with Orlof, Panin, Rasumofsky, and others who had been concerned in her counterplot, and resolved to inform the senate and people next day of the death of the emperor. On this occasion she did not forget her part, but rose from her seat with her eyes full of tears, and for some days exhibited all the marks of profound grief. The best part of her conduct was, that she showed no resentment to the adherents of Peter, and even pardoned the countess Woronzoff.

In September, having had her title acknowledged by the sovereigns of Europe, she took a journey to Moscow, the ancient capital of the empire, for the purpose of celebrating her coronation; but her reception here was so cool on the part of her subjects, that she hastened her departure after the ceremony, and went back to Petersburgh. Being now securely established on the throne, she meditated a variety of enterprises and plans of improvement, which might in the mean time divert the people from contemplating 'the late revolution too closely, and hereafter redound to her glory and their benefit. She consulted in particular the advancement of commerce, the augmentation of the marine, and devised proper means for recovering the national finances. After engaging in business with her ministers, she would frequently converse in private with Bestuchef and Munich. With the one she studied politics and the resources of the several courts of Europe, and the other communicated to her a plan for driving the Turks from Constantinople, which was ever after a favourite object with Catherine. In her internal policy she introduced those changes which could not fail to be popular, abolishing the secret-inquisition-chancery, and the use of the torture, and rendering her criminal laws so mild, that during her long reign, a sentence of death was extremely rare. She also held out liberal encouragement to foreigners to settle in her empire, either as agriculturists, artificers, or merchants. In order to eradicate a physical and moral cause of depopulation, the empress laid the foundation of the foundling and lying-in hospital at Moscow, and afterwards of another at St. Petersburgh. She also founded the medicinal college of the empire in the latter city, an:l colleges and hospitals in every part of her empire. She encouraged commerce and industry; and ordered new ships of war to be put upon the stocks. The beneficial consequence of the spirit she manifested, and of the regulations she adopted, have been since manifest in a variety of instances. Courland, on the Baltic, with its havens, was subjected by her to the Russian sceptre; and on the opposite side of Europe the Euxine laves her extensive conquests; Otchakow, the Cherson, the Crim, and the Cuban, bear witness to the force of her arms. The sails of her ships of commerce and of war are spread even in the Mediterranean. Qn the Greek islands the Russian banners are displayed. Her troops opened a road into Egypt, and there, in 1772, fought in support of Ali Bey, against the Turks. The free inhabitants of the extreme north-eastern point of Asia, the Tschuktsches, were at length obliged to submit; and a channel of no great width (the straits of Behring) there only divides the empire from America. A multitude of Russian islands in the northern part of the southern ocean, the Kuriles and several additional acquisitions, connect it with other islands, and even with the continent of the fourth quarter of the world; and there also the Russians have got a firm footing. The differences" that arose with China in 1778, were at length compromised; and if no caravans go from Moscow to Pekin, yet the merchants of these two great empires prosecute their trade together, and perhaps better, in the frontier towns of Kiachta and Maimatshin. Orenburg, in Asiatic Russia, is excellently situated for commercial intercourse with the East Indies; the caravans require only three months for the whole journey; accordingly, at the half-way thither, at Balk, a town in Bactriana, or Khorasan, Russian and East Indian caravans already meet together. Towards the end of 1763, Catherine gave a proper form to the supreme college of the empire, the directing senate, which had been instituted by Peter I. She divided it into six departments, of which the four former should have their seat in St. Pete rsburo'n, and the two latter in Moscow.

During this tumultuous state of affairs, Catherine prosecuted her designs for encouraging the sciences and the arts of peace, and improved the finances so far as to be able to take off the war-taxes, and others which were unfavourable to agriculture, or oppressive to particular provinces or orders of the people. She also lent large sums of money, free of interest, and for a specified term of years, to those provinces which were ruined by the late rebellion. She likewise established a number of other salutary regulations, abolishing pernicious distinctions, destroying numerous monopolies, restraining the cruelty of punishment, and removing oppressive or impolitic restrictions or prohibitions. Imprisoned debtors were, under certain circumstances, released from confinement; and all the heirs of the debtors to the crown were discharged from their bonds and obligations. The insurgents every where returned to their duty; nor were the victims to justice numerous. As a general famine prevailed in the desolated countries, government was at great expence and trouble in supplying them with corn and meal from the magazines at Moscow and other places; and various methods were clevised for preventing th progress of famine.

The independence of Cam Tartary, however, soon occasioned an open rupture between the Turkish and Russian parties; and in 1778 it produced a declaration of war. From the measures that were pursued, it sufficiently appeared, that the ambition of the empress would not be satisfied till she had gained entire possession of that peninsula. Her intrigues in the neighbouring courts of Denmark and Sweden tended to render these powers little more than dependencies on her crown; however, in 1780 her influence over them was employed in establishing the famous “armed neutrality,” the purpose of which was to protect the commercial rights of neutral states, then continually violated by the belligerent powers, and particularly by England, which availed itself of its superiority at sea, in preventing France and Spain from receiving naval stores from the Baltic. In this year Catherine had an interview at Mohilow with the emperor of Germany, Joseph II. and they travelled together in familiar intercourse into Russia; the prince of Prussia (afterwards Frederic William II.) also visited her court; and it was customary for the neighbouring princes to make visits of policy or curiosity to Petersburgh, where they were always treated with extraordinary magnificence. In 1782, Catherine, with a view of affording an asylum to the proscribed order of Jesuits, and probably imagining that all the Jesuits of Europe and America would bring into White Russia their treasures and their industry, erected a Roman catholic archbishopric at Mohilow, for the spiritual government of her subjects of that persuasion, and also gave him a Jesuit coadjutor. But the spoils of Paraguay never found their way to Mohilow. This year was marked by an event which indicated Catherine’s respect for the memory of Peter the Great, whom she affected to imitate: it was the erection at Petersburgh of his famous equestrian statue, which was executed by Stephen Falconet of Paris. This, artist conceived the design of having for the pedestal of his statue a huge and rugged rock, in order to indicate to posterity, whence the heroic legislator had set out and what obstacles he surmounted. This rock, the height of which from the horizontal line was 21 feet by 42 in length, and 34 in breadth, was conveyed, with great labour, from a bay on the gulf of Finland to Petersburgh, through the distance of 11 versts, or about 41,250 English feet. On the side next the senate it has this Latin inscription, which is in a style of sublime and proud simplicity: “Petro primo, Catharina secunda;” “Catherine the second to Peter the first.”

In the following year, 1783, she augmented the splendour of her court, by instituting the new order of St. Wolodimir, or Vladimir, and this year, having acquired, without a war, the sovereignty of the Crimea, of the isle of Taman, and a great part of the Kuban, she called the former of these countries Taurida, and the other Caucasus. Thus Catherine gained a point of much importance towards the main object of her ambition, i. e. the destruction of the Turkish empire in Europe; in the view of which she had named the grand duke’s second son Constantine, and had put him into the hands of Greek nurses, that he might be thoroughly acquainted with the language of his future subjects. Instigated by Potemkin, the empress formed a design in 1787 of being splendidly crowned in her new dominions “queen of Taurida;” but the expence being objected to by some of her courtiers, she contented herself with making a grand progress through them. At her new city of Cherson, she had a second interview with the emperor Joseph. She then traversed the Crimea, and returned to Moscow, having left traces in her progress of her munificence and condescension. This ostentatious tour was probably one cause of the new rupture with the Turkish court, in which the emperor of Germany engaged as ally to Russia, and the king of Sweden as ally to the Porte. The latter prevented the empress from sending a fleet into the Mediterranean; and even endangered Petersburgh itself by a sudden incursion into Finland. The danger, however, was averted by the empress’s own vigorous exertions, by the desertion of some of Gustavus’s troops, who would not fight against the Russians, and by an attack of Sweden, on the part of the prince of Denmark, who proceeded as far as Gottenburgh. The Turkish army, though superior to that of the empress, could not resist the efforts of the Russian generals. Potemkin at the head of a numerous army, and a large train of artillery, laid siege to Otchakof, and it was at length taken by storm, with the loss of 25,000 Turks and 12,000 Russians, but the issue of the war was upon the whole unfavourable, and all parties consented to the peace signed in 1792, by which the Dniester was declared to be in future the limit of the two empires. Mr. Pitt at this time had a strong desire to compel Russia to restore Otchakof to the Turks, but not being supported by the nation, this point was conceded. When the French revolution took place, the empress finding Prussia and Austria engaged in opposing it by force of arms, turned her attention to Poland, marched an army thither, overturned the new constitution the Poles had formed, and finally broke the spirit of the Poles by the dreadful massacre made on the inhabitants of the suburbs of Warsaw by her general Suvarof: a new division took place of this illfated country, between Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and afforded precedents for other divisions which the two latter powers little suspected.

Catherine II. had been handsome in her youth; and at the age of seventy years she preserved some remains of beauty, connected with a peculiar gracefulness and majesty. Her stature was of the middle size, somewhat corpulent, but well proportioned; and as she carried her head very high, and raised her neck, she appeared very tall; she had an open front, an aquiline nose, an agreeable mouth, and her chin, though long, was not misshapen. Her hair was auburn, her eye-brows black (brown, says Rulhiere), and rather thick; and her blue eyes (animated hazle eyes, says Rulhiere, discovering shades of blue), indicated a gentleness which was often aiFected, but more frequently a mixture of pride. Haughtiness, says Rulhiere, was the true character of her physiognomy. The grace and kindness which were likewise visible in it, seemed, to the penetrating observer, only the effect of an extreme desire of pleasing; and these seducing expressions manifested too perceptibly even the design of seducing. A painter, desirous of expressing this character by an allegory, proposed to represent her under the figure of a charming nymph, who, with one hand extended, presents wreaths of flowers, and in the other, which she holds behind her, conceals a lighted torch. The empress was usually dressed in the Russian manner. She wore a green gown (green being the favourite colour with the Russians), somewhat short, forming in front a kind of vest, and with close sleeves reaching to the wrist. Her hair, slightly powdered, flowed upon her shoulders, topped with a small cap covered with diamonds. In the latter years of her life she used much rouge; for she was still desirous of preventing the impressions of time from being visible in her countenance; and she always practised the strictest temperance, making a light breakfast and amoderate dinner, and never eating any supper. In her private life, the good humour and confidence with which she inspired all about her, seemed to keep her in perpetual youth, playfulness, and gaiety. Her engaging conversation and familiar manners placed all those who had constant access to her, or assisted at her toilette, perfectly at their ease; but the moment when she had put on her gloves to make her appearance in the neighbouring apartments, she assumed a sedate demeanour, and a very different countenance. From being an agreeable and facetious woman, she appeared all at once the reserved and majestic empress. A person, who then saw her, would spontaneously pronounce, “This is indeed the Setniramis of the north.” Her mode of saluting was dignified and graceful; by a slight inclination of the body, not without grace, but with a smile at command, that came and vanished with the bow.

With respect to the government of Catherine, it was as mild and moderate, within the immediate circle of her influence, as it was arbitrary and terrible at a distance. Whoever, directly or indirectly, enjoyed the protection of the favourite, exercised, wherever he was situated, the most undisguised tyranny. He insulted his superiors, trampled on his inferiors, and violated justice, order, and the “ukases,” with impunity. The empress having usurped a throne, which she was desirous of retaining, was under the necessity of treating her accomplices with kindness. -Being a foreigner in the empire over which she reigned, she endeavoured to identify herself by adopting and flattering its tastes and prejudices. But her reign was more particularly distinguished by the toleration which she afforded to all religions.

Catherine had two passions which never left her but with her last breath; the love of the other sex, which degenerated into licentiousness; and the love of glory, which sunk into vanity. By the former of these passions she was never so far governed as to become a Messalina; but she often disgraced both her rank and sex; and by the second, she was led to undertake many laudable projects, which were seldom completed: and to engage in unjust wars, from which she derived that kind of fame which is the usual result of success. Her crimes, it is said, were the crimes of her station, not of her heart: this is a nice distinction, and perhaps incomprehensible; but it is certain that the butcheries of her armies at Ismail and Praga appeared, to her court, to be humanity itself. If she had known misfortune, she might probably have possessed the purest virtues; but she was spoiled by the unvaried prosperity of her arms. Yet, in whatever light she is considered, she will ever be placed in the first rank among those who by their genius, their talents, and especially by their success, have attracted the admiration of mankind; and her sex, giving a bolder relief to the great qualities displayed by her on the throne, will place her above all comparison in history, nor can we find a woman who ha executed or undertaken such daring projects.

Misled by an extravagant confidence in her own abilities, she was desirous of emulating the literary talents of Frederic of Prussia, at one time the first royal author in Europe. With this view she wrote her celebrated “Instructions for a Code of Laws,” which she translated herself from the German, and printed at Petersburg, 1769, but not for sale. It was afterwards reprinted in French, Latin, German, and Husse, at Petersburg!), 1770, 4to. She wrote also several moral tales and allegories, for the education of her grandchildren; and a number of dramatic pieces and proverbs, which were acted and admired at the Hermitage, and published under the title of “The Theatre of the Hermitage,” 2 vols. 8vo. She likewise had a -design of collecting a number of words from 300 different languages, and forming them into a dictionary, but this was never executed. <>t all her writings, her letters to Voltaire are certainly the best. Catherine was neither fond of poetry nor of music; and she often confessed it. She could not even endure the noise of the orchestra between the acts of a play, and therefore commonly silenced it. At her Tauridan palace she constantly dined with the two pictures of the sacking of Otchakof and Ismail before her eyes, in which Cazanova has represented, with hideous accuracy, the blood flowing in streams, the limbs torn from the bodies, and still palpitating, the demoniac fury of the slaughterers, and the convulsive agonies of the slaughtered. It was upon these scenes of horror that her attention and imagination were fixed, while Gasparini and Mandini were displaying their vocal powers, or Sarti was conducting a concert in her presence.

, the censor, one of the greatest men among the ancients, was born at Tusculum in the year of Rome 519, about the 232d B. C. He began to bear arms at the age of seventeen; and on all occasions shewed extraordinary courage. He was a man of great sobriety, and reckoned no bodily exercise unworthy of him. He had but one horse for himself and his baggage, and he looked after and dressed it himself. At his return from his campaigns, he betook himself to plough his ground; not that he was without slaves to do it, but it was his inclination. He dressed also like his slaves, sat down at the same table with them, and partook of the same fare. He did not in the mean while neglect to cultivate his mind, especially in regard to the art of speaking; and he employed his talents, which were very great, in generously pleading causes in the neighbouring cities without fee or reward. Valerius Flaccus, who had a country-seat near Cato, conceiving an esteem for him, persuaded him to come to Rome; where Cato, by his own merit, and the influence of so powerful a patron, was soon taken notice of, and promoted. He was first of all elected tribune of the soldiers for the province of Sicily, and then made questor in Africa under Scipio. Having in this last office reproved him for his profuseness to his soldiers, the general answered, that he did not want so exact a questor, but would make war at what expence he pleased; nor was he to give an account to the Roman people of the money he spent, but of his enterprises, and the execution of them. Cato, provoked at this answer, left Sicily, and returned to Rome. Afterwards he was made praetor, and fulfilled the duties of his office with the strictest justice. He conquered Sardinia, governed with admirable moderation, and was created consul. Being tribune in the war of Syria, he gave distinguished proofs of his valour against Antiochus the Great; and at his return stood candidate for the office of censor. But the nobles, who envied him, and dreaded his severity, set up against him seven powerful competitors, in spite of whom however he was successful. Cato’s merit, upon the whole, was superior to that of any of the great men who stood against him. He was temperate, brave, and indefatigable; frugal of the public money, and not to be corrupted. There is scarce any talent requisite for public or private life which he had not received from nature, or acquired by industry. Yet, with all these accomplishments, he had very great faults. His ambition being poir soned with envy, disturbed both his own peace and that of the whole city as long as he lived. Though he would not take bribes, he was unmerciful and unconscionable in amassing wealth by all such means as the law did not punish. Notwithstanding this, it is certain, that the people in general were pleased with his conduct; insomuch that they ordered a statue to be erected to his honour in the temple of Health, with an inscription that mentioned nothing of his victories or triumph, but imported only that by his wise ordinances in his censorship he had reformed the manners of the republic. He was the occasion of the third Punic war; for, being dispatched to Africa to terminate a difference between the Carthaginians and the king of Numidia, on his return to Rome he reported, that Carthage was grown excessively rich and populous, and he warmly exhorted the senate to destroy a city and republic, during the existence of which,Rome could never be safe. Having brought from Africa some very large figs, he shewed them to the conscript fathers in one of the lappets of his gown. “The country (says he) where this fine fruit grows, is but a three days’ voyage from Rome.” We are told, that from this tiiiie he never spoke in the senate upon any subject, without concluding with these words, “I am also of opinion, that Carthage ought to be destroyed.” But though dignified and severe, Cato had nevertheless some disposition to mirth, and some intervals of good humour. He dropped now and then some words that were not unpleasant, and we may judge of the rest (says Balzac) by this: “He had married a very handsome wife, and history tells us that she was extremely afraid of the thunder, and loved her husband well. These two passions prompted her to the same thing; she always pitched upon her husband as a sanctuary against thunder, and threw herself into his arms at the first noise she fancied she heard in the sky. Cato, who was well pleased with the storm, and very willing to be caressed, could not conceal his joy. He revealed that domestic secret to his friends; and told them one day, speaking of his wife, c that she had found out a way to make him love bad weather; and that he never was so happy as when Jupiter was angry'.” It is worth observing, that this was during his censorship; when he degraded the senator Manlius, who would probably have been consul the year after, only for giving a kiss to his wife in the day-time, and in the presence of his daughter. Cato died in the year of Rome 604, aged 85. Rewrote, 1. A Roman History. 2. Concerning the art of war. 3. Of rhetoric. 4. A treatise of husbandry. Of these, the last only is extant.

, commonly called Cato Minor, or Cato of Utica, was great-grandson of Cato the censor. It is said, that from his infancy he discovered an inflexibility of mind, and a disposition to go through whatever he undertook, even though the task was ill-suited to his strength. He was rough towards those that flattered him, and quite intractable when threatened; was rarely seen to laugh, or even to smile; was not easily provoked to anger, but, if once incensed, hard to be pacified. Sylla, having had a friendship for the father of Cato, sent often for him and his brother, and talked familiarly with them. Cato, who was then about fourteen years of age, seeing the heads of great men brought there, and observing the sighs of those that were present, asked his preceptor, “Why does no body kill this man?” “Because,” said the other, “he is more feared than he is hated.” The boy replied, “Why then did you not give me a sword when you brought me hither, that I might have stabbed him, and freed my country from this slavery?”

, a learned and industrious writer, was born at Paris Dec. 28, 1659. After studying classics and philosophy, he relinquished the bright prospects of promotion held out to him by his maternal uncle M. de Lubert, who was treasurer-general of the marine; entered the society of the Jesuits in 1677, and completed his vows in 1694 at the college of Bourges, where he then resided. After teaching for a certain number of years, agreeably to the custom of his society, his superiors ordained him to the pulpit, and he became a very celebrated preacher for some years, at the end of which the “Journal de Trevoux” was committed to his care: he appears to have been editor of it from 1701, and notwithstanding his almost constant attention to this journal, which for about twelve years he enriched with many valuable dissertations and extracts, he found leisure for various separate publications. In 1705, he published his “Histoire generate de Tempire du Mogul,” Paris, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo, and often reprinted. It is taken from the Portuguese memoirs of M. Manouchi, a Venetian. In 1706 appeared his “Histoire duFanatisme des religions protestantes,” Paris, 12mo, containing only the history of the anabaptists; but he reprinted it in 1733, 2 vols. 12mo, with the history of Davidism, and added the same year in a third volume, the history of the Quakers. This work is in more estimation abroad than it probably would be in this country. He employed himself for some time on a translation of Virgil into prose, which was completed in 1716, Paris, 6 vols. 12mo, and was reprinted in 1729, 4 vols. The notes and life of Virgil are the most valuable part of the book, although his admirers affected to consider him as excelling equally as commentator, critic, and translator. That, however, on which his fame chiefly rests, is his “Roman History,” to which his friend Rouilie contributed the notes. This valuable work was completed in 20 vols. 4to, and was soon translated into Italian and English, the latter in 1728, by Dr. Richard Bundy, 6 volg. folio. Rouilie, who undertook to continue the history, 'after the death of his colleague, published only one volume in 1739, 4to, and died himself the following year. Father Routh then undertook the continuation, but the dispersion of the Jesuits prevented his making much progress. As a collection of facts, this history is the most complete we have, and the notes are valuable, but the style is not that of the purest historians. Catrou preserved his health and spirits to an advanced age, dying Oct. 18, 1737, in his seventy-eighth year

, an Italian scholar of the thirteenth century, was born of one of the most illustrious and powerful families in Florence. He was a zealous Ghibelin, and became more so by marrying the daughter of Farinara Uherti, then at the head of that faction. Curso Donati, chief of the Guelphs, a man in much credit then at Florence, and the bitter personal enemy of Guido, formed a plan to assassinate him, and although Guido got notice of this, and made preparations for defence, he saved his life only by flight. The state of Florence, tired with such disgraceful dissentions, banished the chiefs of both parties. Guido was sent to Sarzana, or Serezano, where the bad air affecting his health, he obtained leave to return to Florence, and died there in 1300, of the disorder he had contracted in his exile. His father, Cavalcante de' Cavalcanti, passed for an Epicurean philosopher, and an atheist, and was therefore placed by Dante, in his Inferno, among that class of the condemned. The son, however, although likewise a philosopher, appears not to have belonged to the same sect. On one occasion, when the attempt was made to assassinate him, he made a pilgrimage to St. James of Galicia: but of this, whatever might be the motive, love was the consequence, for at Toulouse he met with his Mandetta, a lady whom he has made the subject of his love verses. His poems, elegant, correct, and occasionally tinged with a tender melancholy, consist of sonnets and canzones, and compose the sixth book of the collection of ancient Italian poets, printed by the Giuuti, 1527, 8vo, a rare book. His “Canzone d'Amore” was often printed with the comments of his countrymen, particularly at Florence, 1568, 8vo; Venice, 1585, 4to; and Sienna, 1602, 8vo.

, an eminent Italian mathematician, was born at Milan in 1593, and entered at an early age into the order of Jesuates or Hieronymites. In the course of his studies he manifested such talents, that his superiors, after he had taken orders, thought proper to send him to the university of Pisa, a circumstance to which, though at first against his will, he owed the celebrity which he afterwards acquired. Here, with the advice of Benedict Castelli, the disciple and friend of Galileo, he applied to the study of geometry, in order to relieve the pains of the gout to which he was subject; and in this science he made such progress, and acquired such an accurate acquaintance with the ancient geometers, that Castelli and Galileo concurred in predicting the eminence at which he afterwards arrived. Soon after this period he invented his method of indivisibles. In 1629 he communicated to some ingenious persons and to the magistrates of Bologna, his treatise of indivisibles, and another on the conic sections; and obtained the honour of succeeding Maginus as professor in the university, in 1629. His celebrated work on indivisibles, entitled, “Geometria Indivisibilibus continuorum nova quadam ratione prornota,” and published at Bologna in 1635, 4to? and again in 1653, is a curious original work, in which the author conceives the geometrical figures as resolved into their very small elements, or as made up of an infinite number of infinitely small parts, and on account of which he passes in Italy for the inventor of the infinitesimal calculus. He also published a treatise of conic sections, under the title of “La Spechio Ustorio overo Trattato delle Settioni Coniche,” or “De Speculo Ustorio, &c.” Bologn. 1632, 4to; a system of trigonometry under the title of “Directorium generale Uranometricum,” 1632, 4to, including an account of logarithms, together with tables of the logarithms of common numbers and trigonometrical tables of natural sines, and logarithmic sines, tangents, fluents, and versed sines; of which a new and enlarged edition was published at Bologna in 1643, 4to, entitled “Trigonometria Plana. ac Sphaerica, Linearis ac Logarithmica, &c.” a “Compendium Regularum de Triangulis; and a” Centuria Problematum Astronomicorum.“He was also the author of a treatise of astrology, entitled” Rota Planetaria,“and published under the appellation of Sylvius Philomantius; and this publication was the more surprising, as he was an enemy of judicial astrology. The last of his works was entitled” Fxercitationes Geometricae sex," Bonon. 1647, 4to, and contains exercises on the method of indivisibles; answers to the objections ofGuldinus; the use of indivisibles in cossic powers, or algebra, and in considerations about gravity: with a miscellaneous collection of problems. Towards the close of this year, 1647, he died a martyr to the gout, which had deprived him of the use of his fingers.

, an ingenious philosopher, was the son of an eminent physician of Naples, where he was born in 1749. His original destination was to be initiated at London in mercantile pursuits, and he came to England with that view, in 1771, but the study of nature displaying superior attractions, he was seduced from the accompting-house, to embrace the leisure of a philosophical retreat; and acquired a well -merited reputation as a digester and elucidator of philosophical discoveries. In 1779, he was admitted a member of the Neapolitan academy of sciences, as well as of the royal society of London. To the latter he contributed many ingenious papers and was the author of the following separate publications 1. “A complete Treatise of Electricity in theory and practice, with original experiments,” 1777, 8vo enlarged to 3 vols. in 1795. 2. “An Essay on the theory and practice of Medical Electricity,” 1780, 8vo. 3. “A Treatise on the nature and properties of Air, and other permanently elastic fluids, with an Introduction to Chemistry,” 1781, 4to. 4. “The History and Practice of Aerostation,” 1785, 8vo. 5. “Mineralogical Tables,” folio, accompanied with an 8vo explanatory pamphlet, 1785. 6. “A Treatise on Magnetism, in theory and practice, with original experiments,” 1787, 8vo. 7 “Description and use of the Telescopical Mother-of-Pearl Micrometer, invented by T. C.” a pamphlet, 1793, 8vo. 8. “An Essay on the Medicinal properties of Factitious Airs, with an Appendix on the nature of Blood,” 1798, 8vo. All these possess every requisite for popular or elementary treatises; perspicuity of style, proper selection of materials, and clear arrangement. The merit of Mr. Cavallo is not, however, the merit of a merely judicious compiler, as he generally improves in some degree the stock of valuable facts, by his own occasional experiments. More than thirty years have elapsed since the Treatise of Electricity, whicn is thought his best work, was first presented to the public. During the interval, it has passed through repeated impressions, and the recent discoveries in electricity affording large additions of curious and useful matter, the work was successively augmented from one volume to three. It is unquestionably the neatest, the clearest, and the most sensible elementary treatise to be found on this popular science; and it is excellently adapted to furnigh the mind with those brilliant images and facts which provoke inquisitive genius to closer and more profound researches. Mr. Cavallo died at his house in Wellsstreet, Oxford-road, Dec. 26, 1809, and was interred in St. Pancras church-yard, in a vault constructed for the purpose, close to the monument of his intimate friend general Paoli.

It was fortunate for Edward Cave, that having a disposition to literary attainments, he was not cut off by the poverty of his parents from opportunities of cultivating his faculties. The school of Rugby, in which he had, by the rules of its foundation, a right to be instructed, was then in high reputation, under the rev. Mr. Holyock, to whose care most of the neighbouring families, even of the highest rank, entrusted their sons. He had judgment to discover, and, for some time, generosity to encourage the genius of young Cave; and was so well pleased with his quick progress in the school, that he declared his resolution to breed him for the university, and recommend him as a servitor to some of his scholars of high rank. But prosperity which depends upon the caprice of others, is of short duration. Cave’s superiority in literature exalted him to an invidious familiarity wjth boys who were far above him in rank and expectations; and, as in unequal associations it always happens, whatever unlucky prank was played, was imputed to Cave. When any mischief, great or small, was done, though perhaps others boasted of the stratagem when it was successful, yet, upon detection or miscarriage, the fault was sure to fall upon poor Cave. At last, his mistress by some invisible means lost a favourite cock; Cave was with little examination stigmatized as the thief or murderer; not because he was more apparently criminal than others, but because he was more easily reached by vindictive justice. From that time Mr. Holyock withdrew his kindness visibly from him, and treated him with harshness which the crime, in its utmost aggravation, could scarcely deserve; and which surely he would have forborne, had he considered how hardly the habitual influence of birth and fortune is resisted; and how frequently men, not wholly without sense of virtue, are betrayed to acts more atrocious than the robbery of a henroost, by a desire of pleasing their superiors. Those reflections his master never made, or made without effect; for, under pretence that Cave obstructed the discipline of the school, by selling clandestine assistance, and supplying exercises to idlers, he was oppressed with unreasonable tasks, that there might be an opportunity of quarrelling with his failure; and when his diligence had surmounted them, no regard was paid to the performance. Cave bore this persecution awhile, and then left the school, and the hope of a literary education, to seek some other means of gaining a livelihood.

He was first placed with a collector of the excise. He used to recount with some pleasure a journey or two which he rode with him as his clerk, and relate the victories that he gained over the exciseman in grammatical disputations. But the insolence of his mistress, who employed him in servile drudgery, quickly disgusted him; and he went up to London in quest of more suitable employment. Here he was recommended to a timber-merchant at the Bankside, and while he was on liking, is said to have given hopes of great mercantile abilities; but this place he soon left, for whatever reason, and was bound apprentice to Mr. Collins, a printer of some reputation, and deputy alderman. This was a trade for which men were formerly qualified by a literary education; and which was pleasing to Cave, because it furnished some employment for his scholastic attainments. Here, therefore, he resolved to settle, though his master and mistress lived in perpetual discord, ana their house was therefore no comfortable habitation. From the inconveniences of these domestic tumults he was soon released, having in only two years attained so much skill in his art, and gained so much the confidence of his master, that he was sent, without any superintendant, to conduct a printing-house at Norwich, and publish a weekly paper. In this undertaking he met with some opposition, which produced a public controversy, and procured young Cave the reputation of a writer.

His master died before his apprenticeship was expired, and he was not able to bear the perverseness of his mistress. He therefore quitted her house, upon a stipulated allowance, and married a young widow, with whom he lived at Bow. When his apprenticeship was over, he worked as a journeyman at the printing-house of Mr. Barber, a man much distinguished and employed by the tories, whose principles had at that time so much prevalence with Cave, that he was for some years a writer in Mist’s Journal; which, though he afterwards obtained by his wife’s interest a small place in the post-office, he for some time continued. But as interest is powerful, and conversation, however mean, in time persuasive, he by degrees inclined to another party; in which, however, he was always moderate, though steady and determined. When he was admitted into the post-office, he still continued, at his intervals of attendance, to exercise his trade, or to employ himself with some typographical business. He corrected the “Gradus ad Parnassum” and was liberally rewarded by the Company of Stationers. He wrote an “Account of the Criminals,” which had for some time a considerable sale and published many little pamphlets that accident brought into his hands, of which it would be very difficult to recover the memory. By the correspondence which his place in the post-office facilitated, he procured country news-papers, and sold their intelligence to a journalist in London, for a guinea a week. He was afterwards raised to the office of clerk of the franks, in which he acted with great spirit and firmness; and often slopped franks which were given by members of parliament to their friends, because he thought such extension of a peculiar right illegal. This raised many complaints; and having stopped among others a frank given to the old duchess of Marlborough by Mr. Walter Plummer, he was cited before the house, as for breach of privilege, and accused, perhaps very unjustly, of opening letters to detect them. He was treated with great harshness and severity, but declining their questions by pleading his oath of secrecy, was at last dismissed. And it must be recorded to his honour, that, when he was ejected from his office, he did not think himself discharged from his trust, but continued to refuse to his nearest friends any informationabout the management of the office.

Cave now began to aspire to popularity; and being a greater lover of poetry than any other art, he sometimes offered subjects for poems, and proposed prizes for the best performers. The first prize was 50l. for which, being but newly-acquainted with wealth, and thinking the influence of 50l. extremely great, he expected the first authors of the kingdom to appear as competitors; and offered the allotment of the prize to the universities. But when the time came, no name was seen among the writers that had been ever seen before; the universities, and several private men, rejected the province of assigning the prize. At all this, Mr. Cave wondered for a while; but his natural judgment, and a wider acquaintance with the world, soon cured him of his astonishment, as of many other prejudices and errors. Nor have many men been seen raised by accident or industry to sudden riches, that retained lees of the meanness of their former state.

He continued to improve his Magazine, and had the satisfaction of seeing its success proportionate to his diligence, till in 1751, his wife died of an asthma. He seemed not at first much affected by her death, but in a few days lost his sleep and his appetite, which be never recovered; but after having lingered about two years, with many vicissitudes of amendment and relapse, fell by drinking acid liquors into a diarrhoea, and afterwards into a kind of lethargic insensibility, in which one of the last acts of reason which he exerted, says Dr. Johnson, was "fondly to press the hand that is now writing this little narrative. 91 He died Jan. 10, 1754, having just concluded the 23d annual collection He was a man of a large stature, not only tall but bulky, and was, when young, of remarkable strength and activity. He was generally healthful, and capable of much labour and long application; but in the latter years of his life was afflicted with the gout, which he endeavoured to cure or alleviate by a total abstinence both from strong liquors and animal food. From animal food he abstained about four years, and from strong liquors much longer; but the gout continued unconquered, perhaps unabated.

, a very learned divine, was born at Pickwell, in Leicestershire, of which parish his father was rector, Dec. 30, 1637. On the 9th of May, 1653, he was admitted into St. JohnVcollege, in Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1656, and that of M. A. in 1660. In August 1662, he was admitted to the vicarage of Islington, in Middlesex-, and some time after became chaplain in ordinary to king Charles 11. He took the degree of D. D. in 1672, and on the 16th of September, 1679, was collated by the archbishop of Canterbury to the rectory of Allhallows the Great, in Thames-street, London. In July 1681, he was incorporated D. D. at Oxford, and in November 1684, he was installed canon of Windsor, upon the death of Mr. John Rosewell; about which time, as Mr. Wood tells us r he became rector of Hasely, in Oxfordshire; but that seems to be a mistake, as the rectory of Hasely is annexed to the deanery of Windsor. He resigned his rectory of Allhallows in 1689, and the vicarage of Islington in 1691; but on the 19th of November before, namely, in 1690, he was admitted to the vicarage of Isleworth, in Middlesex, which being a quiet and retired place, probably suited best his most studious temper. He published: 1. “Primitive Christianity; or the Religion of the ancient Christians in the first ages of the Gospel,” London, 1672, reprinted several times since. 2. “Tabulae Ecclesiastics,” tables of the ecclesiastical writers, Lond. 1674, reprinted at Hamburgh, in 1676, without his knowledge. 3. “Antiquitates Apostolicae: or the history of the lives, acts, and martyrdoms of the holy apostles of our Saviour, and the two evangelists, St. Mark and St. Luke. To which is added an introductory Discourse concerning the three great dispensations of the church, Patriarchal, Mosaical, and Evangelical. Being a continuation of `Antiquitates Christianas,' or the Life and Death of Holy Jesus,” written by Jeremy Taylor, afterward bishop of Down and Connor, Lond. 1676, fol. 4. “Apostolici, or the History of the lives, acts, deaths, and martyrdomsof those who were contemporaries with or immediately succeeded the Apostles as also of the most eminent of the primitive fathers for the first three hundred years. To which is added, a Chronology of the three first ages of the Church,” Lond. 1677, fol. 5. “A Sermon preached before the right honourable the lordmayor, aldermen, and citizens of London, at St. Mary-leBuw, on the fifth of November, M.DC.LXXX.” London, 1680, 4to. 6. “A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church, by bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs. More particularly concerning the ancient power and jurisdiction of the bishops of Rome, and the encroachments of that upon other sees, especially the see of Constantinople;” Lond. 1683, 8vo. 7. “Ecclesiastic!, or the History of the lives, acts, deaths, and writings of the most eminent Fathers of the Church that flourished in the fourth century. Wherein, among other things, an account is given of the rise, growth, and progress of Arianism, and all other sects of that age descending from it. Together with an Introduction, containing an historical account of the state of Paganism under the first Christian emperor,” Lond. 1682, fol. 8. “A Sermon preached before the king at Whitehall, on Sunday, January 18, 1684-5, on Psalm iv. 7. Publisheo 1 by his majesties special command,” Lond. 1685, 4to. 9. “Chartopbylax Ecclesiasticus,” Lond. 1685, 8vo. This is aii improvement of the “Tabulae Ecclesiastics,” above-mentioned, and a kind of abridgment of the “Historia Literaria,” and contams a short account of most of the ecclesiastical writers from the birth of Christ to 1517. 1O. “Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria i. e. A Literary History of Ecclesiastical Writers, in two parts,” fol. the first printed at Lond. 1688; and the second in 1698. 11. “A Serious Exhortation, with some important advices relating to the late cases about Conformity, recommended to the present dissenters from the Church of England.” It is the twenty-second in the “London Cases.” This very learned person died at Windsor, on the 4th of August, 1713, and was buried in Islington church, where a monument was erected to his memory. He was an excellent pud universal scholar, an elegant and polite writer, and a florid and very eloquent preacher. He was thoroughly acquainted with the history and constitution of the Christian church. His works, particularly his Lives of the apostles, Lives of the fathers, and Primitive Christianity, evince his great knowledge of antiquity, and are justly esteemed the best books written upon those important subjects. Yet the “Historia Literaria” is perhaps the work on which his fume will now be thought principally to depend. This very useful work was reprinted at Geneva, in 1705 and 1720, but the best edition is that printed at the Clarendon press, by subscription, in 2 vols. fol, 1740— 1743, which contains the author’s last corrections and additions, and additions by other hands. What share Mr. Henry Wharton had in this work will be noticed in our life of that writer. From a manuscript letter of Cave’s in our possession, it appears that he had much reason to complain of Wharton. During the last twelve years of his life Cave had repeatedly revised this history, and made alterations and additions equal to one third part of the work, all which were carefully incorporated in the new edition. The copy thus improved, he left in the hands of his executors, the lord chief justice Reeve, and the rev. Dr. Jones, canon of Windsor, but they both dying soon after the work went to press, Dr. Daniel Waterland undertook the care of it. The venerable Dr. Watson, bishop of Llandaff, observes, that “Casimiri Oudini Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesix, &c.” Leipsic, 1722, 3 vols. fol. is a kind of supplement to Cave’s “Historia Literaria,” and other works of the same kind.

, second son of Thomas Cavendish of Cavendish, in Suffolk, clerk of the pipe in the reign of Henry VIII. was born about 1505. He received a liberal education, and had settled upon him, by his father, certain lands in Suffolk. Cardinal Wolsey, who was a native of Suffolk, took him into his splendid i'an;ily, which consisted of one earl, nine barons, and several hundred knights, gentlemen, and inferior officers. He served the Cardinal as gentleman usher, and was admitted into more intimacy with him than any other servant, and therefore would not desert him in his fall; but was one of the few who stuck close to him when he had neither office nor salary to bestow. This singular fidelity^ joined to his abilities, recommended him to his sovereign, who received him into his own family and service. In 1540 he was appointed one of the auditors of the court of augmentation, and soon after obtained a grant of several lordships in the county of Hertford. In 1546 he was made treasurer of the chamber to his majesty, had the honour of knighthood conferred on him, and was soon after sworn of the privy council. He continued to enjoy both these honours during eleven years; in which time his estate was much increased by grants from Edward VI. in seven different counties; nor does it appear that he was in less credit or favour with queen Mary, under whose reign he died in 1557. He married three wives. His third and last, who survived him, was the widow of Robert Barley, esq. and justly considered as one of the most famous women of her time. She was the daughter of John Hard wick, of Hard wick, in Derbyshire, by Elizabeth the daughter of Thomas Leeke, of Lousland in the same county, esq. and in process of time became coheiress of his fortune, by the death of her brother without children. When she was scarce fourteen, she was married to Robert Barley, of Barley, in Derbyshire, esq. a young* gentleman of a large estate, all which he settled absolutely upon her on their marriage; and by his death without issue she came into possession of it in 1532. After remaining a widow about twelve years she married Cavendish, by whom she had Henry Cavendish, esq, who was possessed of considerable estates in Derbyshire, but settled at Tutbury in Staffordshire; William Cavendish the first earl of Devonshire; and Charles Cavendish settled at Welbeck in Nottinghamshire, father of William baron Ogle and duke of Newcastle; and three daughters: Frances, who married sir Henry Pierpoint of Holm Pierpoint, in the county of Nottingham, from whom the dukes of Kingston are descended; Elizabeth, who espoused Charles Stuart earl of Lenox, younger brother to the father of James I.; and Mary. After the death of sir William Cavendish, this lady consenting to become a third time a wife, married sir William St. Lowe, captain of the guard to queen Elizabeth, who had a large estate in Gloucestershire; which in articles of marriage she took care should be settled on her and her own heirs, in default of issue; and accordingly, having no child by him, she lived to enjoy his whole estate, excluding as well his brothers who were heirs male, as his own female issue by a former lady. In this third widowhood the charms of her wit and beauty captivated the then greatest subject of the realm, George Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, whom she brought to terms of honour and advantage to herself and children; for he not only yielded to a considerable jointure, but to an union of families, by taking Mary her youngest daughter to be the wife of Gilbert his second son, and afterwards his heir; and giving the lady Grace, his youngest daughter, to Henry her eldest son. Nov. 18, 1590, she was a fourth time left, and to death continued, a widow. A change of condition that perhaps never fell to any one woman to be four times a happy wife to rise by every husband into greater wealth and higher honours to havein unanimous issue by one husband only to have all those children live, and honourably disposed of in her lifetime and, after all, to live seventeen years a widow in absolute power and plenty .

Sir William Cavendish xvrote the life of his old master cardinal Wolsey, and therein gives him a very high character; affirming that, in his judgment, he never saw the kingdom in better obedience and quiet than during the time of his authority, or justice better administered. Indeed, impartial inquirers into the history of Wolsey will be ready to conclude that he was not the worst man in the court of Henry VIII. No work, however, has experienced a more singular fate than sir William Cavendish’s “Life of' Wolsey.” It was long known only by manuscripts, and by the large extracts from it, inserted by Stowe in his “Annals,” and in this state it remained from the reign of queen Mary in which it was composed, until 1641, when it was first printed under the title of “The Negociations of Thomas Wolsey,” &c. 4to; and as the chief object of the publication was to institute a parallel between the cardinal and archbishop Laud, in order to reconcile the public to the murder of that prelate, the manuscript was mutilated and interpolated without shame or scruple, and no pains having been taken to compare the printed edition with the original, the former passed for genuine above a century, and was reprinted, with a slight variation in the title, in 1667 and 1706, besides being inserted in the Harleian Miscellany. At length Dr. Wordsworth printed a correct transcript in his valuable “Ecclesiastical Biography,” 1810, 6 yols. 8vo, collated with four Mss. two in the Lambeth, one in the York cathedral library, and one in the British Museum.

, the first duke of Devonshire, was born Jan. 25, 1640. He made the tour of Europe, under the care of Dr. Killigrew, afterwards master of the Savoy. In 1661 he was chosen to represent the county of Derby, and continued a member of the long parliament till its dissolution. Sept. 21, 1663, he was created M. A. of the university of Oxford, by the special command of the chancellor. In 1665 he went a volunteer on board the fleet under the duke of York, and in 1669 accompanied Mr. Montague in his embassy to France. Being accidentally at the opera in Paris, three officers of the French king’s guard, intoxicated with liquor, came upon the stage, and one of them coming up to him with a very insulting question, he gave him a severe blow on the face; upon which they all drew, and pushed hard upon him. He set his back against one of the scenrs, and made a stout defence, receiving several wounds; till a sturdy Swiss, belonging to the ambassador Montague, caught him up in his arms, and threw him over the stage into the pit. In his fall one of his arms caught upon an iron spike, which tore out the flesh. The three assailants were, by the king’s command, sent to prison, and not released but by his intercession. In 1677 he distinguished himself in the house of commons, by a vigorous opposition to the measures of the court. The year following he assiduously promoted an inquiry into the murder of sir Edmundbury Godfrey, and other particulars of the popish plot; and was one of the committee appointed to draw up articles of impeachment against the treasurer Dan by. In the parliament which met in the spring of 1679, he again represented Derby. This year he was chosen one of the king’s new privy-council: but soon finding that his attendance at the board would be wholly ineffectual, he, in conjunction with lord Russel and others, desired leave to withdraw. The county of Derby again elected him their representative in that parliament which met Oct. 21, 1680. The articles of impeachment against the chief justice Scroggs, for his arbitrary and illegal proceedings in the court of king’s bench, were carried up by him to the house of lords. When the king declared his resolution not to consent to a bill of exclusion, lord Cavendish made a motion, that a bill might be brought in for the association of all his majesty’s protestant subjects. He was also one of those who openly named the evil counsellors, and promoted the address to his majesty to remove them from all offices, and from his majesty’s councils and presence for ever. He shewed the same steadiness and zeal in the next parliament, in which also he represented Derbyshire. When parliaments were kid aside, though he was as obnoxious to the court as any, he was not afraid of meeting and conversing with his noble friends; but he condemned a bold overture which was made at one of those meetings, and declared, with great earnestness, that he would never more go with them. At the lord Russel’s trial, when it was almost as criminal to be a witness for him as to be his accomplice, he dared to appear to vindicate him in the face of the court. He afterwards sent him a message by sir James Forbes, that he would come and change clothes with him in the prison, and stay there to represent him, if he thought he could make his escape, but lord Russei was too generous to accept of this proposal. He prosecuted the immediate murderers of his friend Mr. Thynne to condign punishment, and brought the great abettor of it, count Koningsmark, to his trial, who happened to be acquitted by a jury prepossessed, or rather prepared, in favour of him. Lord Cavendish felt great indignation at the discharge of the count, which he thought owing to corruption; and knowing that an appeal to single combat was anciently the last resort in law for convicting a murderer, he obtained the favour of a noble peer to go in his name to count Koningsmark to charge the guilt of blood upon him, and to offer to prove it in the open field; but this method of trial the count thought fit to decline. In Nov. 1684 he became, by the decease of his father, earl of Devonshire. In the reisrn of James he was the same man in greater honour, and in greater zeal and concern for his country. He had been very much affronted within the verge of the court by colonel Culpepper; but restrained his resentment at the time, and pardoned him upon condition he should never more appear at Whitehall, but when, immediately after the defeat of the duke of Mon mouth, the colonel was encouraged to come publicly to court, and was rising to some degree of favour, the earl of Devonshire meeting him in the king’s presencechamber, and receiving from him, as he thought, an insulting look, took him by the nose, led him out of the room, and gave him some di>dainful blows with the head of his cane. For this bold act he v\as prosecuted in the king’s-bench upon an information, and had an exorbitant fine of 30,000l. imposed upon him; and, though a peer, was committed to the king’s-bench prison till he should make payment of it. He was never able to bear any confinement he could break from; and therefore escaped. only to go home to his scat at Chatsworth. Upon the news of his being there, the sheriff of Derbyshire had a precept to apprehend him, and bring him with his posse to town. But he invited the sheriff in, and kept him a, prisoner of honour, till he had compounded for his own liberty, by giving bond to pay the full sum of 3O,000l. This bond was found among the papers of king James, and given up by king William.

, baron Ogle, viscount Mansfield, earl, marquis, and duke of Newcastle, one of the most accomplished persons, as well as one of the most able generals and most distinguished patriots of the age, was son of sir Charles Cavendish, youngest son of sir William Cavendish, and younger brother of the first earl of Devonshire, by Catherine, daughter of Cuthbert lord Ogle. He was born in 1592, and discovering great capacity in his infancy, his father had him educated with such success, that he early acquired a large stock of solid learning, to which he added the graces of politeness. This soon made him be taken notice of at the court of James I. where he was quickly distinguished by the king’s favour; and in 1610, was made knight of the bath, at the creation of Henry prince of Wales. In 1617, his father died, by which he came to the possession of a very large estate and having a great interest at court, he was by letters- patent, dated November 3, 1620, raised to the dignity of a peer of the realm, by the style and title of baron Ogle and viscount Mansfield; and having no less credit with Charles I. than with his father king James, was in* the third year of the reign of that prince advanced to the higher title of earl of Newcastle upon Tyne, and at the same time he was created baron Cavendish of Bolesover. Our genealogists and antiquaries give us but a very obscure account of these honours, or at least, of the barony of Ogle, to which, in the inscription upon his own and his grandmother the countess of Shrewsbury’s tomb, he is said to have succeeded in right of his mother. His attendance on the court, though it procured him honour, brought him very early into difficulties; and there is some reason to believe that he was not much liked by the great duke of Buckingham, who perhaps was apprehensive of the large share he had in his master’s favour. However, he did not suffer, even by that powerful favourite’s displeasure, but remained in full credit with his master; which was notwithstanding so far from being beneficial to him, that the services expected from him, and his constant waiting upon the king, plunged him very deeply in debt, though he had a large estate, of which we find him complaining heavily in his letters to his firm and steady friend the lord viscount Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford. But th&e difficulties never in the least discouraged him from doing his duty, or from testifying his zeal and loyalty, when the king’s service required it. In 1638, when it was thought requisite to take the prince of Wales, afterwards Charles II. from the nursery, the king made choice of the earl of Newcastle, as the person in his kingdom most fit to have the tuition of his heir-apparent and accordingly declared him governor to the prince. In the spring of 1639, the first troubles in Scotland broke out, which induced the king to assemble an army in the north; soon after which, he went down thither to put himself at the head of it; and in his way, was most splendidly entertained by the earl of Newcastle, at his noble seat at Welbeck, as he had been some years before when he went into that kingdom to be crowned; which though in itself a very trivial matter, yet such was the magnificence of this noble peer, that from the circumstances attending them, both these entertainments have found a place in general histories. But this was not the only manner in which he expressed his warm affection for his master. Such expeditions require great expences, and the king’s treasury was but indifferently provided, for the supply of which, the earl contributed ten thousand pounds, and also raised a troop of horse, consisting of about two hundred knights and gentlemen, who served at their own charge; and this was honoured with the title of the Prince’s troop. These services, however, rather heightened than lessened that envy borne to him by some great persons about the court, and the choice that had been made of his lordship for the tuition of the prince, which was at first so universally approved, began now to be called in question by those who meant very soon to call every thing in question. On this the earl desired to resign his office, which he did; and in June 1640, it was given to the marquis of Hertford. As his lordship took this step from the knowledge he had of the ill-will borne him by the chief persons amongst the disaffected, so he thought he could not take a better method to avoid the effects of their resentment, than to retire into the country; which accordingly. he did, and remained there quietly till he received his majesty’s orders to visit Hull; and though these came at twelve o'clock at night, his lordship went immediately thither, though forty miles distant, and entered the place with only two or three servants, early the next morning. He cffered his majesty to have secured for him that important fortress, and all the magazines that were there: but instead of receiving such a command as he expected, his majesty sent him instructions to obey whatever directions were sent him by the parliament; upon the heels of which, came their order for him to attend the service of the house; which he accordingly did, when a design was formed to have attacked him, but his general character was so good, that this scheme did not succeed. He now again retired into the country, but soon after, upon the king’s coming to York, his lordship was sent for thither; and in June 1642, his majesty gave him directions to take upon him the care of the town of Newcastle, and the command of the four adjacent counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham. These orders were easily issued, but they were not so easily to be carried into execution; for at this time, the king had not either money, forces, or ammunition; and yet there never was more apparent necessity, for at that juncture his majesty had not a single port open in his dominions; and if either the order had been delayed a few days, or had been^ sent to any other person, the design had certainly miscarried. But, as soon as he received his majesty’s commands, he repaired immediately to the place, and by his own interest there secured it: he raised also a troop of one hundred and twenty horse, and a good regiment; of foot, which secured him from any sudden attempts. Soon after, the queen, who was retired out of the kingdom, sent a supply of arms and ammunition, which being designed for the troops under the king’s command, the earl took care they should be speedily and safely conducted to his majesty under the escdVt of his only troop, which his majesty kept, to the great prejudice of his own affairs in the nor x th. The parliament, in the mean time, had not forgotten the earl’s behaviour towards them, but as a mark of their resentment excepted him by name; which was so far from discouraging, that it put his lordship upon a more decided part: and having well considered his own influence in those parts, he offered to raise an army in the north for his majesty’s service. On this the king gave him a commission, constituting him general of all the forces raised north of Trent; and likewise general and commander in chief of such as might be raised in the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Lancaster, Chester, Leicester, Rutland, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex; with power to confer the honour of knighthood, coin money, and to print and set forth such declarations as should seem, to him expedient; of all which extensive powers, though freely conferred, and without reserve, his lordship made a very sparing use. But with respect to the more material point of raising men, his lordship prosecuted it with such diligence, that in less than three months he had an army of eight thousand horse, foot, and dragoons, with which be marched directly into Yorkshire; and his forces having defeated the enemy at Fierce-bridge, his lordship advanced to York, where sir Thomas Glen ham, the governor, presented him with the keys, and the earl of Cumberland and many of the nobility resorted thither to compliment and to assist his lordship. He did not long remain there; but, having placed a good garrison in the city, marched on towards Tadcaster, where the parliament forces were very advantageously posted. The design which the earl had formed, not only for reducing that 'place, hut for making the troops that were there prisoners, tailed, through the want of diligence in some of his officers; hut notwithstanding this, his lordship attacked the place so vigorously, that the enemy thought fit to retire, and leave him in possession of the hest part of Yorkshire. This advantage he improved to the utmost, hy estahiishing garrisons in proper places, particularly at Newark upon Trent, by which the greatest part of Nottinghamshire, and some part of Lincolnshire, were kept in obedience. In the beginning of 1643, his lordship gave orders for a great convoy of ammunition to be removed from Newcastle to York, under the escort of a body of horse, commanded by lieutenantgeneral King, a Scotch officer, whom his majesty had lately created lord Ethyn. The parliament forces attempted to intercept this convoy at Y arum-bridge, but were beaten on the 1st of February with a great loss. Soon after this, her majesty landing at Burlington, the earl drew his forces that way to cover her journey to York, where she safely arrived on the 7th of March, and having pressing occasions for money, his lordship presented her with three thousand pounds, and furnished an escort of fifteen hundred men, under the command of lord Percy, to conduct a supply of arms and ammunition to the king at Oxford, where he kept them for his own service. Not long after, sir Hugh Cholmondley and captain Brown Bushel were prevailed upon to return to their duty, and give up the important port and castle of Scarborough. This was followed by the routing Ferdinando lord Fairfax on Seacroft, or as some call it Bramham-moor, by lord George Goring, then general of the horse under the earl, when about eight hundred of the enemy were taken prisoners; and this again made way for another victory gained on Tankersly-moor. In the month of April, the earl marched to reduce Rotherham, which he took by storm, and soon after Sheffield; but in the mean time, lord Goring and sir Francis Mackworth were surprised, on the 2 1st of May, at Wakefield, where the former and most of his men were made prisoners, which was a great prejudice to the service. In the same month her majesty went from York to Pomfret under the escort of the earPs forces; and from thence she continued Jier journey tp Oxford, with a body of seven thousand horse, foot, and dragoons, detached for that service by the earl; and those forces, likewise, the king kept about him. In the month of June the earl reduced Howly-house by storm; and on the 30th gained a complete victory over Ferdinando lord Fairfax, though much superior to him in numbers, on Adderton- heath, near Bradford, where the enemy had seven hundred men killed, and three thousand taken prisoners; and on the 2d of July following Bradford surrendered. The earl advanced next into Lincolnshire, where he took Gainsborough and Lincoln; but was then recalled by the pressing solicitations of the gentlemen of Yorkshire into that country, wherq Beverley surrendered to him on the 28th of August, and in the next month, his lordship was prevailed on to besiege Hull, the only place of consequence then held for the parliament in those parts. Notwithstanding these important successes obtained by an army raised, and in a great measure kept up by his lordship’s personal influence and expence, there have not been wanting censures upon his conduct; of which, however, his majesty had so just a sense, that by letters-patent dated the 27th of October, he advanced him to the dignity of marquis of Newcastle; and in the preamble of his patent all his services are mentioned with suitable encomiums. That winter the earl marched into Derbyshire, and from thence to his own house at Welbeck in Nottinghamshire, where he received the news of the Scots intending to enter England, which brought him back into Yorkshire, from whence he sent sir Thomas Glenham to Newcastle, and himself for some time successfully opposed the Scots in the bishopric of Durham: but, the forces he left behind under the command of lord Bellasis at Selby being routed, the marquis found himself obliged to retire, in order, if possible, to preserve York; and this he did with so much military prudence, that he arrived there safely in the month of April 1644, and retaining his infantry and artillery in that city, sent his horse to quarter in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Leicestershire, for the sake of subsistence. The city was very soon blocked up by three armies, who quickly commenced a regular siege, and were once very near taking the place by storm; and at last, having lain before it three months, brought the garrison into great distress for want of provision; and if the marquis had not very early had recourse to a short allowance, had infallibly reduced it by famine. For though sir Charles Lucas, who commanded the marquis’s horse, importuned the king for relief, yet it was the latter end of June before his majesty could send a sufficient body, under the command of prince Rupert, to join sir Charles Lucas, and attempt the forcing the enemy to raise the siege; which, however, upon their approach, they did, remaining on the west side of the Owse with all their forces, while the king’s army advanced on the east side of the same river. By this quick and vigorous march, prince Rupert had done his business; but, as is very well observed by a most judicious historian of these times, he would needs overdo it; and not content with the honour of raising the siege of York by a confederate army much superior to his own, he was bent upon having the honour to beat that army also; and this brought on the fatal battle of Hessom, or, as it is more generally called, Marston-moor, which was fought July 2, 1644, against the consent of the marquis of Newcastle, who, seeing the king’s affairs totally undone thereby, made the best of his way to Scarborough, and from thence, with a few of the principal officers of his army, took shipping for Hamburgh. After staying about six months at Hamburgh, he went by sea to Amsterdam, and from thence made a journey to Paris, where he continued for some time; and where, notwithstanuing the vast estate he had when the civil war broke out, his circumstances were now so bad, that himself and his young wife were reduced to the pawning their cloaths for a dinner. He removed afterwards to Antwerp, that he might be nearer his own country; and there, though under very great difficulties, he resided for several years; while the parliament in the mean time levied prodigious sums upon his estate, insomuch that the computation of what he lost by the disorders of those times, though none of the particulars "can be disproved, amount in the whole to a sum that is almost incredible. It has been computed at 733,579l. All these hardships and misfortunes never broke his spirit in the least, which his biographer somewhat fondly says was chiefly owing to his great foresight; for as he plainly perceived after the battle of Marston-moor, that the affairs of Charles I. were irrecoverably undone, so he discerned through the thickest clouds of Charles lid’s adversity, that he would be infallibly restored: and as he had predicted Hie civil war to the father before it began, so he gave the strongest assurance to the son of his being called home, by addressing to him a treatise upon Government and the Interests of Great Britain with respect to the other powers of Europe; which he wrote at a time when the hopes of those about his majesty scarcely rose so high as the marquis’s expectations. During this long exile of eighteen years, in which he suffered so many and so oreat hardships, this worthy nobleman wanted not some consolations that were particularly such to one of his high and generous spirit. He was, notwithstanding his low and distressed circumstances, treated with the highest respect, and with the most extraordinary marks of distinction, by the persons entrusted with the government of the countries where he resided. He received the high compliment of having the keys of the cities he passed through in the Spanish dominions offered him: he was visited by don John of Austria, and by several princes of Germany. But what comforted him most was the company very frequently of his royal master, who, in the midst of his sufferings, bestowed upon him the most noble order of the garter. On his return to England at the restoration, he was received with all the respect due to his unshaken fidelity and important services was constituted chief justice in Eyre of the counties north of Trent, and, by letters- patent dated the 16th of March 1664, was advanced to the dignity of earl of Ogle, and duke of Newcastle. He spent the remainder of his life, for the most part, in a country retirement, and in reading and writing, in which he took singular pleasure. He also employed a great part of his time in repairing the injuries which his fortune had received, and at length departed this life December 25, 1676, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. His grace was twice married, but had issue only by his first lady. His body lies interred, with that of his duchess, under a most noble monument at the entrance into Westminster-abbey, with an inscription suitable to his merits. His titles descended to his son Henry, earl of Ogle, who was the last heir male of this family, and died July 26, 1691, in whom the title of Newcastle, in the line of Cavendish, became extinguished, but his daughters married into some of the noblest families of this kingdom.

, duchess of Newcastle, and second wife of the preceding, was born at St. John’s, near Colchester in Essex, about the latter end of the reign of James I. Her father, of whom she was the youngest daughter, was sir Charles Lucas, a gentleman of a very ancient and honourable family, and who was himself a man of great spirit and fortune. Dying young, he left the care of his children to his widow, a lady of exquisite beauty and admirable accomplishments, who took upon herself the education of her daughters, and instructed them in needlework, dancing, music, the French tongue, and other things that were proper for women of fashion. As, however, she had from her infancy an inclination for literature, and spent much of her time in study and writing, her biographers have lamented that she had not the advantage of an acquaintance with the learned languages, which might have improved her judgment, and have been of infinite service to her in the numerous productions of her pen. In 1643 she obtained permission from her mother to go to Oxford, where the court then resided, and where she could not fail of meeting with a favourable reception, on account of the distinguished loyalty of her family, as well as of her own accomplishments. Accordingly, she was appointed one of the maids of honour to Henrietta Maria, the royal consort of Charles I.; and in that capacity accompanied her majesty to France, when the queen was obliged by the civil war to quit England. At Paris Miss Lucas first saw the marquis of Newcastle, then a widower, who admiring her person, disposition, and ingenuity, was married to her at that place, in 1645. The marquis had heard of the lady’s character before he met with her in France; for having been a friend and patron of her gallant brother lord Lucas, he took occasion one day to ask his lordship in what respect he could promote his interest. To this his lordship replied, that he was not solicitous about his own affairs, as being prepared to suffer either exile or death in the royal cause; but that he was chiefly concerned for his sister, on whom he could bestow no fortune, and whose beauty exposed her to danger. At the same time, he represented her other amiable qualities in so striking a light, as raised the marquis’s curiosity to see her. After their marriage, the marquis and marchioness of Newcastle went from Paris to Rotterdam, where they resided six months, and from that to Antwerp, which they fixed upon as the place of their residence during the time of their exile. In this city they enjoyed as quiet and pleasant a retirement as their ruined fortunes would permit. Though the marquis had much respect paid him by all men, as well foreigners as those of his own country, he principally confined himself to the society of his lady, who, both by her writings and her conversation, proved a most agreeable companion to him during his melancholy recess. The exigency of their affairs obliged the marchioness once to come over to England. Her view was to obtain some of the marquis’s rents, in order to supply their pressing necessities, and pay the debts they had contracted; but she could not procure a grant from the rulers of those times, to receive one penny out of her noble husband’s vast inheritance: and had it not been for the seasonable generosity of sir Charles Cavendish, she and her lord must have been exposed to extreme poverty. At length, however, having obtained a considerable sum from her own and the marquis’s relations, she returned to Antwerp, where she continued with him till the restoration, and employed herself in writing several of her works.

When, upon the restoration, the marquis of Newcastle came back to his native country, he left his lady some little time abroad, to dispatch his affairs there, after which she followed her consort to England. The remaining part of her life was principally employed in composing and writing letters, plays, poems, philosophical discourses, and orations. It is said, that she was of a very generous turn of mind, and kept a number of young ladies about her person, who occasionally wrote what she dictated. Some of them slept in a room contiguous to that in which her grace lay, that they might be ready at the call of her bell to rise at any hour of the night, to take down her conceptions, lest they should escape her memory. The task of these young ladies was not very pleasant; and there can be no doubt but that they frequently wished that their lady’s poetical and philosophical imagination had been less fruitful; especially as she was not destitute of some degree of peevishness. If the duchess’s merit as an author were to be estimated from the quantity of her works, she would have the precedence of all female writers ancient or modern, for she produced no less than thirteen folios, ten of which are in print. The life of the duke her husband, is the most estimable, of her productions; although it abounds in trifling circumstances. The touches on her own character arc curious: she says, “That it pleased God to command his servant Nature to indue her with a poetical and philosophical genius even from her birth, for she did write some books even in that kind before she was twelve years of age.” But though she had written philosophy, it seems she had read none; for at nearly forty years of age, she informs us that she applied to the perusal of philosophical authors “in order to learn the terms of art.” But what gives one, continues Mr. Walpole, the best idea of her unbounded passion for scribbling, was her seldom revising the copies of her works, “lest it should disturb her following conceptions.”

Mr. Jonathan Richardson, on the authority of a Mr. Fellows, relates that the duke of Newcastle being once complimented by a friend on the great wisdom of his wife, answered, “Sir, a very wise woman is a very foolish thing.” The known attachment of his grace to the duchess, the high compliments he paid her, and the assistance he gave her in her works, detract from the credit of this story. If there be any truth in it, the duke’s reply might be uttered in a fit of ill-humour, or in one of those capricious starts of temper to which most characters are occasionally subject. In general, it is certain, that no couple could live more happily, or diverted their hours more harmlessly, while their serious employment was to recover the wreck of their fortunes. Lord Orford’s character of this lady, part of which is given above, is more tolerable than that of her husband. It is certain, as his ingenious continuator remarks, that “her grace’s literary labours have drawn down less applause than her domestic virtues.” And when she says in one of her letters, “You will find my works like infinite nature, that hath neither beginning nor end, and as confused as the chaos wherein is neither method nor order, but all mixed together without separation, like evening-light and darkness,” we must allow that she has characterised them with great justice.

The following is a list of her works, almost all of which are now very scarce, and in considerable demand by the collectors of literary curiosities: 1. “The World’s Olio,” Lond. 1655, folio. 2. “Nature Picture, drawn by fancy’s pencil to the life. In this volume there are several feigned stories of natural descriptions, as comical, tragical, and tragicomical, poetical, romancical, philosophical, and historical, both in prose and verse, some all verse, some all prose, some mixt, partly prose and partly verse. Also there are some morals, and some dialogues; but they are as the advantage loaf of bread to the baker.'s dozen, and a true story at the latter end, wherein there is no feigning,” London, 1656, folio. To this book was prefixed a curious print of the duke and duchess sitting at a table with their children, to whom the duchess is telling stories; and at the end is a very curious account of her birth, education, and life; the same, if we mistake not, which sir William Musgrave transcribed into his copy of the life of the duke, now in the British Museum, and from which Mr. Park has given an extract. 3. “Orations of divers sorts, accommodated to divers places,” Lond. 1662, fol. 4. “Plays,” Lond. 1662. 5. “Philosophical and Physical Opinions,” Lond. 1663, fol. 6. “Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: to which is added, the Description of a new World,” Lond. 1666, fol. Mr. James Bristow began to translate some of these philosophical discourses into the Latin tongue, but found it impossible to understand them. 7. “Philosophical Letters or Modest Reflections upon some opinions in Natural Philosophy, maintained by several famous and learned authors of this age, expressed by way of letters,” Lond. 1664, fol. 8. “Poems and Phancies,” Lond. 1653, and 1664, fol. 9. “CCXI Sociable Letters,” Lond. 1664, fol. 10. “The Life of the thrice noble, high, and puissant Prince William Cavendishe, duke, marquiss, and earl of Newcastle, &c.” Lond. 1667, fol. This work (which Mr. Langbaine styles the crown of her labours) was translated into Latin, and printed with the following title “De Vita & rebus gestis nobilissimi illustrissimique Principis Gulielmi, Ducis Novo-Castrensis, commentarii: Ab excellentissima principe Margareta, ipsius Uxore sanctissima conscripti, et ex Anglico in Latinum conversi,” Lond. 1668, folio. 11. “Plays, never before printed,” Lond. 1668. To one of these plays are added twenty-nine supernumerary scenes, and in another, entitled “The unnatural Tragedy,” is a whole scene written against Camden’s Britannia! Three more volumes in folio, of her poems, are preserved in manuscript, which Gibber says were once in the possession of Mr. Thomas Richardson and bishop Willis. In 1676, a folio volume was printed containing “letters and poems in honour of the incomparable princess Margaret duchess of Newcastle.” These, says Mr. Park, consist of such inflated eulogies on her grace’s parts, from the rector magnificus of Leyden, and the academical caputof Cambridge, to the puffs of Tom Shadwell, that it must have been enough to turn any brain previously diseased with a cacocthes scribendi.

So many and such great discoveries, spread his fame throughout Europe, and he was universally considered as one of the first philosophers of his age. He combined, in the highest degree, a depth and extent of mathematical knowledge, with delicacy and precision in the methods of experimental research. It might be said of him., what perhaps could hardly be said of any other person, that whatever he has done, has been perfect at the moment of its production. His processes were all of a finished nature executed bv the hand of a master, they required no correction and though many of them were performedin the very infancy of chemical philosophy, yet their accuracy and beauty have remained unimpaired amidst the progress of discovery; and their merits have been illustrated by discussion, and exalted by time. His grand stimulus was evidently the love of truth and knowledge. Unambitious, unassuming, it was often with difficulty that he was persuaded to bring forward his important discoveries. He disliked notoriety; he was, as it were, fearful of the voice of fame. His labours are recorded with the greatest simplicity, and in the fewest possible words, without parade or apology; and it seemed as if in publication he was performing not what was a duty to himself, but was a duty to the public. His life was devoted to science, and his social hours were passed amongst a few of his friends, principally members of the royal society. He was reserved to strangers, but where he was familiar, his conversation was lively, and full of varied information. Upon all subjects of science he was luminous and profound, and in discussion wonderfully acute. Even to the last week of his life, when he was nearly seventy-nine, he retained his activity of body, and all his energy and sagacity of intellect. In the course of his last year, he prepared and described improvements in the manner of dividing large astronomical instruments, which promise very great advantages; among his latter labours, also, may be mentioned the nice and difficult experiment by which he determined the mean density of the earth; an element of consequence in delicate calculations f astronomy, as well as in geological inquiries. He died at his house at Clapham Common, Feb. 24, 1810, leaving the greatest sum in funded property which any person perhaps ever possessed, amounting to one million two hundred thousand pounds. This he bequeathed among his noble relations. “Since the death of sir Isaac Newton,” says the eloquent professor to whom we owe a part of this character, “England has sustained no scientific loss so great as that of Cavendish.” His publications on subjects of science, which are very numerous, appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, from J7G6, whence they have been since borrowed to illustrate every scientific work of late years.

None of his works did him more honour in his day, than that which he entitled “La cour sainte,” or “The holy court,” a moral work, illustrated by stories well known once to the readers of old folios in this country. It has been often reprinted and translated into Latin, Italian, Spanish, Portugueze, German, and English. He published several other books, both in Latin and French particularly, 1. “De Kloquentia sacra et humana,” 1619, 4to, which* was several times reprinted. It exhibits numerous examples of different styles in writing. 2. “Klectorum Symbolorum et Parabolarum historicarum Syntagmata,” 1618, 4to. 3. “Disputes sur les quatre livres des Hois, touchant l'Education des Princes,” fol. 4. “Tragedise Sacra,” 1620. 5. “Apologie pour les Religieux de la Compagnie de Jesus,” 1644, 8vo. 6. “La Vie neutre des Filles devotes,” &c. 1G44-. 7. “Symbolica ^gyptiorum Sapientia,” 1647, 4to; and some other works of devotion and controversy, of which his “Christian Diary” was printed in English, 1648, 12mo. There is a strange singularity related of father Caussin by one of his eulogists, which was, that he had a very extraordinary sympathy with the heavens, especially with the sun, which he called his star; and which had very remarkable effects both upon his body and mind, according as it was more or less distant, or as it shined bright or was covered with clouds. The effects of the sun upon him were not transient, but appeared constantly by the sparkling of his eyes, and the lively colour of his face, in which there was something that made a very strong impression upon Henry IV. of France. Caussin, when very young, attended father Gonteri, a famous preacher of his time, to court, and there that king observed him very attentively. He had never seen him before, nor heard of him; but as soon as he perceived him, he went to him, took him by the hand, and treated him with so much kindness, that Caussin was as much ashamed as the by-standers were astonished. But the king said, that he had distinguished this youth among the crowd, and expected that he would serve him and his family very faithfully. Then, turning to father Gonteri, he spoke with a loud voice, “Father, you have here an attendant, who, if I am not mistaken, will become in time one of the greatest ornaments in your society.”

In 1746, he published his “Abelard to Eloisa,” and two occasional sermons, one in 1745, preached at St. Margaret’s church, Westminster, afe the election of two burgesses; the other in 1748, preached at St. Antholin’s, before the Skinners’ company, whose hall is situated in that parish. These, with “The Perjured Lover,” were the only pieces published in his life-time. In 1771, his poems were collected in an 8vo volume, and printed by subscription, but without any account of the author, or much attention to his memory. Several trifling pieces were included, which he would probably have rejected.

, to whom this country owes the introduction of printing, was born in Kent in the Weald, probably about the year 1412, but nothing is known with certainty of the date of his birth. His father, William Caxton, who resided with him at Westminster when he was in the height of his business there, must have lived to a good old age, as his death is placed in 1480. By his parents he was sent to school at a period when general ignorance prevailed among the lower orders of the people, and having received some part of his education in Kent, it was probably completed in London, as far as schools then taught It is supposed that between his fifteenth and eighteenth year, he was put apprentice to one Robert Large, a mercer or merchant of considerable eminence, who afterwards served the offices of sheriff and lord mayor of London. It is very probable that mercers in those days were general merchants, trading in all sorts of rich goods, and that even books formed a part of their traffic. Hence it has been conjectured that Caxton’s residence with Large may be considered as the particular and fortunate cause of his future passion for books and learning, a passion which never seems to have deserted him. But whatever were the leading traits of Caxton’s juvenile character, or the particular objects of his pursuit, it appears that he conducted himself entirely to his master’s satisfaction, for on the decease of the latter in 1441, Caxton was remembered in his will by a legacy of twenty marks, a considerable sum in those days.

Caxton at this time had become a freeman of the company of Mercers, but on his master’s death does not appear to have continued on the same spot. His knowledge of business, however, induced him, either upon his own account, or as agent for some merchants, to travel to the Low Countries for a short time. In 14G4 we find him joined in a commission with one Richard Whitehill, “to continue and confirm a treaty of trade and commerce between Edward IV. and Philip duke of Burgundy,” or, if they found it necessary, to make a new one: and the commission gives both or either of them, full power to transact and conclude the same. They are also styled “ambassadors and special deputies.” Of the issue of this we have no account, but the commission itself is a sufficient proof that Caxton had acquired a reputation for knowledge of business. Seven years afterwards, however, he describes himself as leading rather an idle life, “for having no great charge or occupation, and wishing to eschew sloth” and idleness, which is mother and nourisher of vices he set about finishing the translation of Raoul Le Fevre’s “Recueil des Histoires de Troye,” which he commenced two years before, in 1469. The original was the first book he printed, and this translation the third.

Of his pursuits and travels abroad nothing further is known with certainty, except that in his peregrinations, he declares that he confined himself “for the most part to the countries of Brabant, Flanders, Holland, and Zealand and in France was never.” It is, however, reasonable to suppose that he preserved the same respectable character in foreign countries which he had acquired in his own; and that, whilst he was indulging his favourite literary passion in the perusal of histories and romances, to which he seems to have been excited by his friend Bolomyer, canon of Lausanne, he was placed by his sovereign, or his sister, the lady Margaret, on the household establishment of the Jatter, when she came with a splendid retinue to Bruges to offer her hand to Charles, duke of Burgundy; and Caxton was, without doubt, privy to all the splendid spectacles and festivities of this marriage. In what rank or Duality he served the duchess is not known; but the freedom with which she used Mr. Caxton, in finding fault with his English, and ordering him to correct it, &c. seems to shew that the place he had in her grace’s family was no mean or ordinary one. Lewis and Oldys, in Mr. Dibdiu'.s opinion, are incorrect in saying that he was employed by the duchess to translate into English Kaoul Le Fevre’s French History of Troy t the fact was, that Caxton had commenced the translation voluntarily, without her knowledge, and had proceeded as far as five or six quires when he for some reason gave it up. About this time, having mentioned to Jady Margaret the progress he had made, she desired to see his manuscript, and it was on this occasion that she found fault with his English, but commanded him at the same time to finish the translation, and amply rewarded him on the completion of it. From the prologues and epilogues of this work we learn several particulars of the author, as that, at the time of finishing the performance, iiis eyes “were dimmed with over-much looking on the white paper; that his courage was not so prone and ready to labour as it had been; and that age was creeping on him daily, and enfeebling all his body: that he had practised and learnt, at his great charge and expense, to ordain this said book in print, after the manner and form as v.e there see it: and that it was not written with pen and ink as other books be.” Hence we discover that he was now adyanced in years, and that he had learnt to exercise the art of printing, but by what steps he had acquired this knowledge his biographers have not been able to discover. It appears, as already noticed, that the original of Ilaonl’s Trojan History was the first book Caxton printed: “The Oration of John llussel on Charles duke of Burgundy being created a Knight of the Garter,” was the second, and Caxton’s translation of Raoul, the third; and this third was most probably printed in 1471. That he was particularly curious to know, and inquisitive after, the invention of printing, can scarcely be doubted, but his inquiries as well as his experience seem to have been con lined to such specimens as the presses of the Low Countries produced, and he does not appear to have seen any of the beautiful productions of the Roman, Venetian, and Parisian presses before he caused his own fount of letters to be cut. The types used by Caxion in the French and English editions of Raoul Le Fevre’s history, as well as those in the “Game of Chess,” resemble, in character and form, rather than in size, the types of Ulric Zel and other printers in the Low Countries. Nor is it at all improbable that Caxton consulted Zel and Olpe, the earliest typographical artists in the city of Cologne, about the formation of his own letters, as those able men are supposed to have learnt the art of printing in the office of Gutenberg and Fust. Colard Mansion, a printer at Bruges, might also have assisted him in the necessary materials for his office.

For some time previously to his decease, Caxton appear? to have attended the making up of the church-warden’s accounts, as one of the principal parishioners, and as a -egular vestryman; his name being several times subscribed at the passing of them. He died either ia 1491 or 1492 “If his funeral,” says Mr. Dibdin, “was not embhzoned by ‘ the pomp of heraldry,’ and * the great ones Df rank' were not discoverable among his pall-bearers, yet Caxton descended into his grave in full assurance of a monunent; which, like the art that he had practised, would bid defiance to decay.” A greater benefactor, indeed, to the in:ellectual improvement of his country, it would be difficult to mention than him who introduced the art of printing.

The erudition of Caxton appears to be deserving of better treatment than Bale and others have bestowed upon it. That he had a far greater claim to intellectual reputation than that of possessing the mere negative excellence of “not being downright stupid or slothful,” (Bale’s words,) must be allowed by the most fastidious reader of his numerous prologues and translations. That he was not a poet, however, must be conceded, for nothing can be more barbarous than the couplets for which he has been admitted, by Ritson, into the list of English poets. At the same time, whoever reads his criticism upon Chaucer, must not only allow that he was a better judge, than writer, of poetry; but that it will be difficult to find a criticism upon our venerable bard, in the whole compass of our language, which is more sober and just; more clearly and forcibly expressed. As to Caxton’s knowledge of languages, that seems to have been extremely creditable to him; for he was, in all probability, a complete master of the Dutch, German, and French, and considering his long absence from England (in the prime of his life), he wrote his own language with fluency, simplicity, and occasional melody and force.

It will be difficult, however, to give Caxton praise for the general strength and soundness of his judgment; not so much from the selection of such pieces as he has printed (for these were published in conformity with the prevailing studies of the day), as from the promptitude and prodigality of his praises towards objects not always deserving of commendation. Nor can we admire him for his unqualified belief of all the marvellous stones recorded in Godfrey of Boulogne; although the admiration with which he speaks of, and his uniform attachment to, this kind of composition, may dispose us to forgive him for the plenitude of his faith. In a word, if Caxton does not enjoy the intellectual reputation of an Aldus, a Stephens, a Turnebus, a Plantin, or a Bowyer, it must be remembered with what a slender stock of materials, and in what an uncivilized period, he commenced his career; that our land was then yet moist with the blood that had flowed in the civil wars of the houses of York and Lancaster; and that the education of youth, and the encouragement of what is called the belles lettres, were confined within the narrowest boundaries. The most illustrious patrons of which our printer could boast, were the earl Rivers and the earl of Worcester; but even the rank and accomplishment of these noblemen, especially of the latter, were insufficient to protect them from insult, persecution, and a premature end.

Caxton, Mr. Warton observes, by translating, or procuring to be translated, a great number of books from the French, greatly contributed to promote the state of literature in England. It was only in this way that he could introduce his countrymen to the knowledge of many valuable publications, at a time when an acquaintance with the learned languages was confined to a few ecclesiastics. Ancient learning had as yet made too little progress among us, to encoumge him to publish the Roman authors in their original tongue. Indeud, had not the French furnished Caxton with materials, it is not probable, that Virgil, Ovid, Cicero, and many other good writers, vtoukl by the means of his press have been circulated in the English language, so early as the close of the fifteenth century. It is remarkable, that from the time in which Caxton began ta print, down to the year 1540, during which period the English press flourished greatly under the conduct of many indnstrious, ingenious, and even learned artists, only a few classics, some of which scarcely deserve that name, were printed in England. The university of Oxford, during this period, produced only the first book of “Tully’s Epistles,” at the expence of cardinal Wolsey, without date or printer’s name. The university of Cainbridge cannot boast, during the term specified, the honour Of having printed a single classic. No Greek book, of any kind, had hitherto appeared from an English press. It is believed, that the first Greek characters used in any work printed in England, are in Linacet’s translation of “Galen de Temperamentis,” printed at Cambridge in 15LM. In. this book a few Greek words, and abbreviatures, are here and there introduced. In the same author’s treatise, “De emendata Structura Latini Sermonis,” printed by Pinson in 1522, many Greek characters are intermixed; and in the sixth book there are seven lines together in that language. But the printer apologises for his imperfections and unskilfulness in the Greek types. These, he says, were but recently cast, and not in a sufficient quantity for such a work. The same embarrassments appear to have happened with regard to Hebrew types, as might still ipore be expected, from that language’s being much less known. Doctor Robert Wakefield, chaplain to Henry the Eighth, published in 1522, his “Oratio de Laudibus & Utilitate trium Linguarum Arabicae, Chaldaicse, & Hebraicae;” but he was obliged to omit his whole third part, because the printer, who was Wynkyn de Worde, had no Hebrew types. There are, however, some few Hebrew and Arabic characters introduced; but they are extremely rude, and evidently cut in wood. They are the first of the sort used in England. It was a circumstance favourable at least to English literature, that the illiteracy of the times obliged our first printers to employ themselves so little on books written in the learned languages. Most of the works printed by Caxton and his immediate successors were English. The multiplication of English copies multiplied English readers, and these again produced new vernacular writers; the existence of a press inducing many persons to turn authors, who were only qualified to write in their native tongue.

About eight months after, he set out for the Levant. When he arrived at Smyrna, he availed himself of a few days delay, and visited the ruins of Ephesus. It was in vain that the dangers attending a journey of this kind were represented to him. The formidable Caracayali had put himself at the head of a troop of robbers, and spread consternation over all Natolia, but our adventurer was superior to fear, and saved himself by a stratagem. Having procured a mean garb, and taking nothing with him that could attract attention, or tempt any robber, he put himself under the protection of two of Caracayali’s band, who had come from Smyrna. He made an agreement with them, but they were to have no money till they returned; and, as they had an interest in protecting and taking care of him, never were guides more faithful. They introduced him, with his interpreter, to their chief, who received him very graciously, and even assisted him in gratifying his curiosity. The chief informed him, that at no great distance, there were ruins worthy of being visited, and accommodated him with a pair of fine Arabian horses. The count soon found the ruins, which were those of Colophon. He was particularly struck with the remains of a theatre, the seats of which being scooped out of a hill that looks towards the sea, the spectator, beside the pleasure of the representation^, enjoyed a delightful prospect. The next day he examined the site of the ancient Ephesus, which he has described in one of his Memoirs. He passed the streights of the Dardanelles to indulge himself with a view of those plains which make so rich and beautiful an appearance in Homer’s poems. He did not expect to meet with any yestiges of ancient Ilium; but he flattered himself with the hopes of walking on the banks of the Xanthus, and the Simois; these rivers, however, had disappeared. The vallies of Mount Ida, drenched with the blood of so many heroes, were now a dreary waste, scarce affording nourishment to a few puny oaks, whose branches crept upon the ground, and died almost as soon as they appeared.

From the Levant he was recalled in February 1717, by the tenderness of his mother, and from that time he never left France, unless to make two excursions to London. The countess de Caylus died in 1729, aged fifty-six. When the count settled at Paris, he applied himself to music, drawing, and painting. He wrote, too, some works of the lighter kind, but it was chiefly for the amusement of his friends; in these he discovered spirit and ingenuity, but did not aim at correctness or elegance of style. In order to judge of the works of art, he had taste, that instinct, says his eulogist, superior to study, surer than reasoning, and more rapid than reflection. With one glance of his eye, he %vas able to discover the defects and the beauties of every piece. The academy of painting and sculpture admitted him as an honorary member in 1731, and the count, who loved to realize titles, spared neither his labour, his credit, nor his fortune, to instruct, assist, and animate the artists. He wrote the lives of the most celebrated painters ^ind engravers that have done honour to this illustrious academy; and in order to extend the limits of the art, which seemed to him to move in too narrow a circle, he collected in three different works, new subjects for the painter, which he had met with in the works of the ancients. One of these, entitled “Tableaux tire’s de L‘lliade, et de L’Odysse d'Homere,” published in 1757, is mentioned by Dr. Warton in his “Essay on Pop,” in terms of praise. In this he has exhibited the whole series of events contained in these poems, arranged in their proper order has designed each piece, and disposed each figure with much taste and judgment. He seems justly to wonder, that artists have so seldom had recourse to this great store-house of beautiful and noble images, so proper for the employment of their pencils, and delivered with so much force and distinctness, that the painter has nothing to do but to substitute his colours for the words of Homer. He complains that a haphael, and a Julio Romano, should copy thr crude and unnatural conceptions of Ovid’s Metamorpnoses, and Apuleius’s Ass; and that some of their sacred subjects were ill-chosen. Among the lew who borrowed their subjects from Homer, he mentions Bouchardon with the honour he deserves, and relates the anecdote which we have already given in the life of that sculptor.

The zeal of writers, who propose to instruct mankind, is not always disinterested; they pay themselves for their instructions by the reputation which they expect to derive from them. Count Caylus did not despise this noble recompense, but he loved the arts on their own account, as plainly appeared from the many private instances of his generosity to those who were possessed of talents, but were not the favourites of fortune; he even searched for such in those retreats where indigence kept them in obscurity. He anticipated their wants, for he had few himself; the whole of his luxury consisted in his liberality. Though his income was much inferior to his rank, he was rich for the artists; and when towards the close of his life, his fortune was increased by that of his uncle, the duke de Caylus, he added nothing to his expense, had no new wants, but employed the whole of his fortune for the benefit of literature and the arts. Besides the presents which he made from time to time to the academy of painting and sculpture, he founded an annual prize in it for such of the pupils as should succeed best in drawing, or modelling a head after nature, and in giving the truest expression of the characteristical features of a given passion. He encouraged the study of anatomy and perspective by generous rewards; and if he had lived longer, he would have 'executed the design which he had formed, of founding a new prize in. favour of those who should apply themselves with most success to these two essential branches of. the art.

But nothing seemed more flattering to him than his discovery of encaustic painting. A description of Pliny’s, but too concise to give him a clear view of the matter, suggested the idea of it; and he availed himself of the friendship and skili of M. Majault, a physician in Paris, and an excellent chemist; and by repeated experiments, found out the secret of incorporating wax with differents tints and colours, of making it obedient to the pencil, and thus rendering paintings immortal. M. Muntz afterwards made many experiments to bring this art to perfection, and published in English a work entitled " Encaustic, or Count Caylus’s method of painting in the manner of the ancients. To which is added, a sure and easy method of fixing of Crayons, London, 1760, 8vo. The experience and practice of artists since have, however, proved that the discovery of the encaustic is more curious than useful where wax is employed.