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

The strength of his constitution seemed to give him hopes of a long life: but in the month of July, 1764, a humour settled in one of his legs, which entirely destroyed his health. Whilst he was obliged to keep his bed he seemed less affected by what he suffered, than with the restraint upon his natural activity. When the wound was closed he resumed his usual occupations with great eagerness, visited his friends, and animated the labours of the artists, while he himself was dying. Carried in the arms of his domestics, he seemed to leave a portion of his life in every place he went to. He expired Sept. 5, 1765. By his death his family became extinct, and literary France lost one of her greatest benefactors. He was interred in the chapel of St. Germain L'Auxerrois, where his tomb was that of an antiquary. It was a sepulchral antique, of the most beautiful porphyry, with ornaments in the Egyptian taste. From the moment that he had procured it he had destined it to grace the place of his interment. While he awaited the fatal hour, he placed it in his garden, where he used to look upon it with a tranquil, but thoughtful eye, and pointed it out to the inspection of his friends. He has even given a description of it in the 7th volume of his Antiquities, which was published after his death by Le Beau, to whom we owe this interesting account of him. Count Caylus’s character is to be traced in the different occupations which divided his cares and his life. In society he had all the frankness of a soldier, and a politeness which had nothing in it of deceit or circumvention. Born independent, he applied to studies which suited his taste. His disposition was yet better than his abilities; the former made him beloved, the latter entitled him to respect. Many anecdotes are related of his charity and humanity, and particularly of his generous patronage of rising merit; but this article has already extended to its full proportion, and we must refer to our authorities for more minute particulars.

, is the adopted name of Francis, or Francesco Stabili; a native of Ascoli, in the march of Ancona, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, whg acquired considerable reputation, unfortunately for himself, as a critic and poet. Among the many anachronisms and contradictions in the accounts given of his life, which Tirabotchi has endeavoured to correct, we find that when young, he was professor of astrology in the university of Bologna, that he published a book on that science, which being denounced to the Inquisition, he escaped by recanting what was offensive but that the same accusations being afterwards renewed at Florence, he was condemned to be burnt, and suffered that horrible deatb in 1327, in the seventieth year of his age. We have already seen, in former lives, that it was no uncommon thing for enraged authors to apply to the secular arm for that revenge which they could not otherwise have inflicted on one another. The pretence for putting this poor man to death, was his “Commentary on the Sphere of John de Sacrabosco,” in which, following the superstition of the times, he asserted that wonderful things might be done by the agency of certain demons who inhabited the first of the celestial spheres. This was foolish enough, but it was the prevalent folly of the times, and Cecco probably believed what he wrote. That he was not an impostor wiser than those whom he duped, appears from his conduct to Charles, duke of Calabria, who appointed him his astrologer, and who, having consulted him on the future conduct of his wife and daughter, Cecco, by his art, foretold that they would turn out very abandoned characters. Had he not persuaded himself into the truth of this, he surely would have conciliated so powerful a patron by a prediction of a more favourable kind; and this, as may be supposed, lost him the favour of the duke. But even the loss of his friend would not have brought him to the stake, if he had not rendered himself unpopular by attacking the literary merit of Dante and Guido Cavalcanti, in his poem entitled “Acerba.” This provoked the malice of a famous physician, named Dino del Garbo, who never desisted until he procured him to be capitally condemned. This poem “Acerba,” properly “Acerbo,” or “Acervo,” in Latin Acervus, is in the sesta rima divided into five books, and each of these into a number of chapters, treating of the heavens, the elements, virtues, vices, love, animals, minerals, religion, &c. The whole is written in a bad style, destitute of harmony, elegance, or grace; and, according to a late author, much of the plan, as well as the materials, are taken from the “Tresor” of Brunetto Latini. It is, however, a work in demand with collectors, and although often printed, most of the editions are now very scarce. The first was printed at Venice in 1476, 4to, with the commentary of Nicolo Massetti, and was reprinted in 1478. Haym (in the edition of his Biblioteca, 1771) speaks of a first edition as early as 1458, which we apprehend no bibliographer has seen.

, lord Burleigh, an illustrious statesman of the sixteenth century, descended from the ancient and honourable family of Sitsilt, or Cecil, of Alterennes, in Herefordshire, was the son of Richard Cecil, master of the robes to Henry VIII. by Jane, daughter and heiress of William Hickington, of Bourne, co. Lincoln, esq. He was born in the house of his grandfather, David Cecil, at Bourne, in Lincolnshire, Sept. 13, 1520, and was first educated at the grammar-school at Grantham, whence he afterwards removed to Stamford. On May 27, 1535, he entered of St. John’s-college, Cambridge, and was no less distinguished by the regularity of his life, than by an uncommonly diligent application to his studies. Finding several persons of eminent talents at that time students there, this inspired him with such a thirst for learning, that he made an agreement with the bell-ringer to call him up at four o'clock every morning, and this sedentary life brought on a humour in his legs, which, although removed with some difficulty, his physicians considered as one of the principal causes of that inveterate gout with which he was tormented in the latter part of his life. Dr. Nicholas Medcalfe, who was at this time master of the college, was his principal patron, and frequently gave him money to encourage him; but the strong passion he had to excel his contemporaries, and to distinguish himself early in the university, was the chief spur to his endeavours. At sixteen he read a sophistry lecture, and at nineteen a Greek lecture, not for any pay or salary, but as a gentleman for his pleasure, and this at a time when there were but few who were masters of Greek, either in that college or in the university. But though he applied himself with so much assiduity to Greek literature, he laid up at the same time a considerable stock of general knowledge, having then no particular predilection to any single branch of science.

On his being liberated, he was again introduced to court, where his acknowledged abilities regained him his office, under the duke of Northumberland, the enemy and accomplisher of the ruin of his old patron the duke of Somerset. This re-appointment took place, as we have noticed, in September 1551, and in October following he was knighted, and sworn of the privy-council. He has been much blamed for this transfer of his services, as a sacrifice of his gratitude to his interest; and many excuses, palliations, and even justifications, have been urged for him. The best seems to be that his pretensions to the promotion were founded, not on his servility and dependence on one or the other of these great men, but on his superior fitness for the office. It is universally allowed that he possessed great abilities, and his credit now increased with the young king, for whom he is said to have written many of those papers, &c. which are generally attributed to Edward. The princess Mary affected on one occasion to discover this, for when a letter from his majesty was presented to her on her obstinate adherence to the popish religion, she cried, “Ah! Mr. Cecil’s pen took great pains here.”

Sir William Cecil acted \yith such caution and prudence in the various intrigues for the crown on the death of king Edward, that on queen Mary’s accession, although known to be a zealous protestaut, he remained unmolested in person, property, or reputation. Rapin has given a very unfair colouring to sir William’s conduct at this critical period. After stating that he waited upon the queen, was graciously received, and might have kept his employment, if he would have complied so far as to have declared himself of her majesty’s religion, he closes with the following remark: “He was nevertheless exposed to no persecution on account of his religion, whether his artful behaviour gave no advantages against him, or his particular merit procured him a distinction above all other protestants.” As to the artfulness of his behaviour, it will best appear from the answer he gave to those honourable persons, who by command of the queen communed with him on this subject, to whom he declared, “That he thought himself bound to serve God first, and next the queen; but if her service should put him out of God’s service, he hoped her majesty would give him leave to chuse an everlasting, rather than a momentary service; and as for the queen, she had been his so gracious lady, that he would ever serve and pray for her in his heart, and with his body and goods be as ready to serve in her defence as any of her loyal subjects, so she would please to grant him leave to use his conscience to himself, and serve her at large as a private man, which he chose rather than to be her greatest counsellor,” The queen took him at his word, and this was all the art that sir William used to procure liberty of conscience for himself; unless we should call it art, that he behaved himself with much prudence and circumspection afterwards. Nor is it true, as insinuated by Rapin, that he was the only protestant unmolested in this reign. Among others, the names of sir Thomas Smith, and the celebrated Roger Ascham, may be quoted; but as Mary’s bigotry increased with her years, it may be doubtful whether those would have been long spared. Almost the last act of her life was an attempt to kindle the flames of persecution in Ireland.

All this was very gratefully acknowledged by Elizabeth, on her accession to the throne, Norember 16, 1558. The first service that he rendered her was on that day, when he presented her with a paper, consisting of twelve particulars, which were necessary for her to dispatch immediately. At the time of her sister’s decease, queen Elizabeth was at her manor of Hatfield, whither most of the leading men repaired to her; and on the 20th of the same month, her council was formed, when sir William Cecil was first sworn privy-counsellor and secretary of state; and as he entered thus early into his sovereign’s favour, so he continued in it as long as he lived; which if in one sense it does honour to the abilities and services of Cecil, it was in another no less glorious to the queen his mistress, who, in this respect, did not act from any spirit of partiality or of prepossession, but with that wisdom and prudence which directed her judgment in all things. She saw plainly that sir William Cecil’s interests were interwoven with her own, and that he was fittest to be her counsellor whose private safety must depend upon the success of the counsel he gave; and though there were other persons, who were sometimes as great or greater favourites than Cecil, yet he was the only minister whom, she always consulted, and whose advice she very rarely rejected. The first thing he advised was to call a parliament, for the settlement of religion; and caused a plan of deformation to be drawn with equal circumspection and moderation; for, though no man was a more sincere protestant, yet he had no vindictive prejudices against papists, nor did he on the other hand lay any greater weight upon indifferent things, than he judged absolutely necessary for preserving decency and order. It was his opinion that without an established church, the state could not at that time subsist; and whoever considers the share he had in establishing it, and has a just veneration for that wise and excellent establishment, cannot but allow that the most grateful reverence is due to his memory.

The remainder of his administration would in fact be a history of that memorable reign, and in such a sketch as the present, we can advert only to the leading events. He had not been long seated in his high office, before foreign affairs required his care. France, Spain, and Scotland, all demanded the full force of his wisdom and skill. Spain was a secret enemy; France was a declared one, and had Scotland much in her power. By the minister’s advice, therefore, the interest of the reformed religion in Scotland was taken under Elizabeth’s protection. This produced the convention of Leith; and Cecil, as a remuneration for his services in this affair, obtained the place of master of the wards, Jan. 10, 1561, an office which he did not take as a sinecure, but of which he discharged the load of business with patience and diligence to the satisfaction of all. In his management of the house of commons, sir William exhibited equal caution, address, and capacity. The question of the future succession to the crown was often brought forward, sometimes from real and wellfounded anxiety; sometimes from officiousness; and often from factious motives. On this subject both the sovereign and the minister preserved an unbroken reserve, from which neither irritation nor calumny could induce him to depart. Perhaps this reserve, on his part, arose from his deference to the queen, but it seems more likely that his advice influenced her behaviour on this critical point. There were no less than three claimants publicly mentioned, viz. the queen of Scots, the family of Hastings, and the family of Suffolk; and the partizans of each of these were equally vehement and loud, as appears by “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” Doleman’s “Treatise of the Succession,” and other pieces on the same subject. The queen observed a kind of neutrality, but still in such a manner as sufficiently intimated she favoured the first title, or rather looked upon it as the best, notwithstanding the jealousies she had of her presumptive successor. This appeared by her confining John Hales, who wrote a book in defence of the Suffolk line, and by imprisoning one Thornton, upon the complaint of the queen of Scots, for writing against her title. The secretary kept himself clear of all this, and never gave the least intimation of his own sentiments, farther than that he wished the question of the succession might rest during the queen’s life, or till she, thought proper to determine it in a legal way.

Some Spanish ships, having great treasure on board, put into the English ports to secure it from the French, and afterwards landed it, the queen’s officers assisting, and the Spanish ambassador solemnly affirming it was his master’s money, and that he was sending it into the Netherlands for the pay of his army. The secretary, in the mean time, received advice that this was not true, and that it was the money of some Genoese bankers, who were in the greatest terror lest the duke of Alva should convert the same to his master’s use, in order to carry on some great design, which the court of Spain kept as an impenetrable secret. Cecil therefore advised the queen to take the money herself, and give the Genoese security for it, by which she would greatly advantage her own affairs, distress the Spaniards, relieve the Netherlands, and wrong nobody. The queen took his advice, and when upon this the duke of Alva seized the effects of the English in the Netherlands, she made reprisals, and out of them immediately indemnified her own merchants. The Spanish ambassador at London behaved with great violence upon this occasion, giving secretary Cecil ill language at the council-table, and libelling the queen, by appealing to the people against their sovereign’s administration. This produced a great deal of disturbance, and Leicester and his party took care to have it published every where, that Cecil was the sole author of this counsel. While things were in this ferment, Leicester held a private consultation with the lords he had drawn to his interest, wherein he proposed that they should take this occasion of removing a man whom they unanimously bated. Some of the lords inquiring how this could be 4one? sir Nicholas Throgmorton answered, “Let him be charged with some matter or other in council when the queen is not present, commit him to the Tower thereupon, and when he is once in prison we shall find things enow against him.” It so happened, that about this time a flagrant libel being published against the nobility, lord Leicester caused Cecil to be charged before the council, either with being the author of it, or it’s patron; of which he offered no other proof than that it had been seen on Cecil’s table. This the secretary readily confessed, but insisted that he looked upon it in the same light they did, as a most scandalous invective; in support of which he produced his own copy with notes on the margin, affirming that he had caused a strict inquiry to be made after the author and publisher of the work. All this, however, would have been but of little use to him, if the queen had not had private notice of their design. While therefore the secretary was defending himself, she suddenly and unexpectedly entered the council-room, and having in few words expressed her dislike of such cabals, preserved her minister, and shewed even Leicester himself that he could not be overthrown. The affair of the duke of Norfolk’s ruin followed, not long after he had been embarked in the faction against Cecil; and therefore we find this minister sometimes charged, though very unjustly, with being the author of his misfortunes, a calumny from which he vindicated himself with candour, clearness, and vivacity, as equally abhorring the thoughts of revenge, and hazarding the public safety to facilitate his private advantage. Cecil, indeed, had no greater share in the duke’s misfortune, than was necessarily imposed upon him by his office of secretary, and which consequently it was not in his power to avoid; to which we may add, that the duke himself was in some measure accessary thereto, by acting under the delusive influence of his capital enemy as well as Cecil’s. The duke’s infatuated conduct, after having once received a pardon, rendered his practices too dangerous to be again forgiven. It cannot be doubted that this great nobleman was the tool of the views of the catholic party: and there is reason to believe that the previous design of ruining Cecil was to get rid of him before this plan was ripe, from a just fear of his penetration, and his power to defeat it. Cecil’s fidelity was followed by much, public and some severe private revenge. His sonin-law, lord Oxford, put his threat into execution of ruining his daughter, by forsaking her bed, and wasting the fortune of her posterity, if the duke’s life was not spared.

With regard to his person, though he was not remarkably tall, nor eminently handsome, yet his person was always agreeable, and became more and more so, as he grew in years, age becoming him better than youth. The hair of his head and beard grew perfectly white, and he preserved almost to his dying day a fine and florid complexion. His temper contributed much towards making him generally beloved, for he was always serene and cheerful; so perfect a master of his looks and words, that what passed in his mind was never discoverable from either; patient in hearing, ready in answering, yet without any quickness, and in a style suited to the understanding of him to whom he spoke. Idleness was his aversion; and though from twenty-five years of age, at which he was sworn a privy counsellor, being then the youngest, as at his death the oldest in Europe, he laboured under a great weignt of public business; yet when he had any vacant moments he spent them not in trifles, or in pursuit of sensual pleasures, but in reading, meditating, or writing. He had a perfect knowledge, not only of foreign countries, but of foreign courts; knew the genius of every prince in Europe, his counsellors and favourites. At home he kept exact lists of all the great officers, and particularly of the sages in the law. He was acquainted with the course of every court of judicature in England, knew its rise, jurisdiction, and proper sphere of action; within which he took care that it should act with vigour, and was no less careful that it should not exceed its bounds. He wrote not only elegant Latin in prose, but also very good verses in that, and in the English language. He understood Greek as well as most men in that age; and was so learned in divinity, that divines of all persuasions were desirous of submitting to his judgment. His peculiar diversions were the study of the state of England, and the pedigrees of its nobility and gentry: of these last he drew whole books with his own hand, so that he was better versed in descents and families, than most of the heralds; and would often surprize persons of distinction at his table, by appearing better acquainted with their manors, parks, woods, &c. than tfcey were themselves. To this continual application, and to his genius, naturally comprehensive, was owing that fund of knowledge, which made him never at a loss in any company, or upon any subject. It was also owing to this that he spoke with such wonderful weight on all public occasions, generally at the end of the debate, but without repetition of what was said before, stating the matter clearly, shewing the convenience sought, the inconveniences feared; the means of attaining the former, and the methods by which the latter might be avoided, with a succinctness and accuracy which, perhaps, hardly ever fell to any other man’s share. But what was stiH more surprising, was the great facility with which he did this; for he required no preparation, no time for his most laboured speeches, nor ever turned a book for his most learned writings, but thought, and spoke, digested, and dictated, without any hesitation, with the greatest perspicuity of sentiment, and the utmost fulness of diction.

With regard to his domestic habits, he had during queen Elizabeth’s reign, four places of residence; his lodgings at court, his house in the Strand, his family seat at Burleigh, and his own favourite seat at Theobalds. At his house in London he had fourscore persons in family, exclusively of those who attended him at court. His expences there, as we have it from a person who lived many years in his family, were thirty pounds a week in his absence, and between forty and fifty when present. At Theobalds he had thirty persons in family; and besides a constant allowance in charity, he directed ten pounds a week to be laid out in keeping the poor at work in his gardens, &c. The expences of his stables were a thousand marks a year: so that as he had a great income, and left a good estate to his children, he was not afraid of keeping up also a style suited to his offices. He also kept a standing table for gentlemen, and two other tables for persons of meaner condition, which were always served alike, whether he were in town or out of town. About his person he had people of great distinction, and had twenty gentlemen retainers, who had each a thousand pounds a year; and as many among his ordinary servants, who were worth from lOOOl. to 3, 5, 10, and 20,000. Twelve times he entertained the queen at his house for several weeks together, at the expence of 2 or 3000l. each time. Three fine houses he built, one in London, another at Burleigh, and the third at Theobalds: all of which were less remarkable for their largeness and magnificence, than for their neatness and excellent contrivance. Yet with all this mighty expence, it was the opinion of competent judges, that an avaricious man would have made more of his offices in seven years, than he did in forty. At his death he left about 4000l. a year inland, ll,000l. in money, and in valuable effects about 14,000l.

He was considered as the best parent of his time, for he had all his children, and their descendants, constantly at his table; and in their conversation lay the greatest pleasure of his life, especially while his mother lived, who was able to see the fifth descent from herself, there being no degree of relation, or consanguinity, which at festival times were not to be found at lord Burleigh’s table. It was there that, laying aside all thoughts of business, he was so affable, easy, and merry, that he seemed never to have thought of any, and yet this was the only part of his life which was entirely free therefrom; and his frankness and familiarity brought so many persons of high rank to his house, as did him great credit and service. In respect to his friends, he was always easy, cheerful, and kind; and whatever their condition was, he talked to them, as if they had been his equals in every respect; yet it is said, that he was held a better enemy than friend; and that this was so well known, that some opposed him from a view of interest. It is certain, that those who were most intimate with him, had no sort of influence over him, and did not care to ask him for any thing; because he did not readily grant, and was little pleased with such sort of suits. One reason of this was, that most of those whom he preferred became his enemies, because he would not gratify them in farther pretensions. His secrets he trusted with none, indulged a general conversation, and would not suffer affairs of state to be canvassed in mixed company, or when friends were met to divert themselves. With respect to his enemies, he never said any thing harsh of them, farthered on every occasion their reasonable requests, and was so far from seeking, that he neglected all opportunities of revenge; always professing, that he never went to bed out of charity with any man; and frequently saying, that patience, and a calm bearing of aspersions and injuries, had wrought him more good than his own abilities. He was far, however, from being an ungrateful man, for without intreaty he would serve his friends as far as it was just; and for his servants, and those about him, he was very careful of their welfare, mostly at his own expence. He never raised his own rents, or displaced his tenants; and as the rent was when he bought land, so it stood; insomuch, that some enjoyed, for twenty pounds a year, during his whole life, what might have been let for two hundred: yet in his public character he was very severe; and as he never meddled with the queen’s treasure himself, so he would see that it was not embezzled by others; for it was his saying, that whoever cheated the crown oppressed the people. In the midst of all his grandeur he was ever easy of access, free from pride, and alike complaisant to all degrees of people: for as he was grave in council, exact in courts of justice, familiar towards his friends, outwardly and inwardly fond of his children, so when he went into the country he would converse with all his servants as kindly as if he had been their equal; talk to country people in their own style and manner, and would even condescend to sooth little children in their sports and plays so gentle was his temper, and so abundant his good-nature. At Theobalds he had fine gardens, which cost him a great deal of money, and which were laid out according to his own directions. He had a little mule, upon which he rode up and down the walks; sometimes he would look on those who were shooting with arrows, or playing with bowls; but as for himself, he never took any diversion, taking that word in its usual sense. He had two or three friends, who were constantly at his table, because he liked their company; but in all his life he never had one favourite, or suffered any body to get an ascendant over him. His equipage, his great house-keeping, his numerous dependents, were the effects of his sense, and not at all of his passions, for he delighted little iri any of them; and whenever he had any time to spare, he fled, as his expression was, to Theobalds, and buried himself in privacy.

The queen’s regard to lord Burleigh, though sincere and permanent, was occasionally intermixed with no small degree of petulance and ill humour. He was severely reproached by her in 1594, on account of the state of affairs in Ireland; and, on another occasion, when he persisted, against her will, in a design of quitting the court for a few days, for the purpose of taking physic, she called him “a froward old fool.” He fell also under her majesty’s displeasure because he disagreed with her in opinion concerning an affair which related to the earl of Essex. Having supported the earl’s claim, in opposition to the queen, her indignation was so much excited against the treasurer, that she treated him as a miscreant and a coward. Lord Burleigh being in the latter part of his life much subject to the gout, sir John Harrington observes, in a letter to his lordship, that he did not invite the stay of such a guest by rich wines, or strong spices. It is probable that the frequent return of this disorder, in conjunction with the weight of business, and the general infirmities of age, contributed to the peevishness into which he was sometimes betrayed. In a conversation which he had with Mons. de Fouquerolles, an agent from Henry the Fourth, king of France, he lost himself so much, as to yeflect in the grossest terms upon that monarch. This was, indeed, an astonishing act of imprudence, in a man of his years and experience; and affords a striking instance of the errors and inadvertencies to which the wisest and best persons are liable. When the lord treasurer died, queen Elizabeth was so much affected with the event, that she took it very grievously, shed tears, and separated herself, for a time, from all company.

Besides these lesser failings of this great man, he has been accused of illiberality to the poet Spenser, which perhaps may be attributed to his dislike of Leicester, under whose patronage Spenser had come forward, but perhaps more to his want of relish for poetry. On the other hand, our historians are generally agreed in their praises of his high character. Smollett only has endeavoured to lessen it, but as this is coupled with a disregard for historical truth, the attempt is entitled to little regard, and the advocates for Mary queen of Scots cannot be supposed to forgive the share he had in her fate. Lord Orford has given lord Burleigh a place among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” but at the same time justly observes, that he is one of those great names, better known in the annals of his country than in those of the republic of letters. Besides lord Burleigh’s answer to a Latin libel published abroad, which he entitled “Slanders and Lies,” and “A Meditation of the State of England, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth,” lord Orford mentions “La Complainte de PAme pecheresse,” in French verse, extant in the king’s library; “Car mina duo Latina in Obitum Margaretae Nevillee, Reginoe Catherine a Cubiculis;” “Carmen Latinum in Memoriain Tho. Challoneri Equitis aurati, prsefixum ejusdem Libro de restaurata Republica;” “A Preface to Queen Catherine Parr’s Lamentation of a Sinner.” When sir William Cecil accompanied the duke of Somerset on his expedition to Scotland, he furnished materials for an account of that war, which was published by William Patten, under the title of “Diarium Expeditions Scoticae,” London, 1541, 12mo. This is supposed to be the reason why lord Burleigh is reckoned by Holinshed among the English historians. “The first paper or memorial of sir William Cecil \ anno primo Eliz.” This, which is only a paper of memorandums, is printed in Somers’s tracts, from a manuscript in the Cotton library. “A Speech in Parliament, 1592.” This was first published by Strype in his Annals, and has since been inserted in the Parliamentary History. “Lord Burleigh’s Precepts, or directions for the well-ordering and carriage of a man’s life,” 1637. “A Meditation on the Death of his Lady.” Mr. Ballard, in his Memoirs of British Ladies, has printed this Meditation from an original formerly in the possession of James West, esq. but now in the British Museum. Lord Burleigh was supposed to be the author of a thin pamphlet, in defence of the punishments inflicted on the Roman catholics in the reign of queen Elizabeth: it is called “The Execution of Justice in England, for maintenance of public and Christian peace, against certain stirrers of sedition, and adherents to the traitors and enemies of the realm, without any persecution of them for questions of religion, as it is falsely reported, &c.” London, 1583, second edition. Other political pieces were ascribed to him, and even the celebrated libel, entitled “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” It was asserted, that the hints, at least, were furnished by him for that composition. But no proof has been given of this assertion, and it was not founded on any degree of probability. His lordship drew up also a number of pedigrees, some of which are preserved in the archbishop of Canterbury’s library at Lambeth. These contain the genealogies of the kings of England, from William the Conqueror to Edward the Fourth; of queen Anne Boleyn; and of several princely houses in Germany.

In 1597 he was constituted cbancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. In February 1597-8 he went to France with Mr. Herbert and sir Thomas Wylkes, to endeavour to divert Henry IV. from the treaty at Vervins; and in May 1599, succeeded his father in the office of master of the court of wards, for which he resigned a better place, that of chancellor of the duchy, being so restrained in the court of wards, by new orders, that he was, as he expressed it, a ward himself. He succeeded his father likewise in the post of principal minister of state, and from that time public affairs seem to have been entirely under his direction. During the last years of his queen, he supported her declining age with such vigour and prudence as at once enabled her to assist her allies the States General, when they were ingloriously abandoned by France, and to defeat a dangerous rebellion in Ireland, which was cherished by powerful assistance from Spain. But though he was a faithful servant to his mistress, yet he kept a secret correspondence with her successor king James, in which he was once in great danger of being discovered by the queen. As her majesty was taking the air upon Blackheath, near her palace at Greenwich, a post riding by, she inquired from whence it came; and being told from Scotland, she stopped her coach to receive the packet. Sir Robert Cecil, who attended her, knowing there were in it some letters from his correspondents, with great presence of mind, called immediately for a knife toopen it, that a delay might not create suspicion. When he came to cut it open, he told the queen that it looked and smelt very ill, and therefore was proper to be opened and aired before she saw what it contained; to which her majesty consented, having an extreme aversion to bad smells. Upon her decease he was the first who publicly read her will, and proclaimed king James; and his former services to that prince, or the interest of sir George Hume, afterwards earl of Dunbar, so effectually recommended him to his majesty, that he took him into the highest degree of favour, and continued him in his office of principal minister; and though in that reign public affairs were not carried on with the same spirit as in the last, the fault cannot justly be charged on this minister, but on the king, whose timid temper induced him to have peace with all the world, and especially with Spain at any rate. But though sir Robert Cecil was far from approving, in his heart, the measures taken for obtaining that inglorious peace, yet he so far ingratiated himself with his sovereign that he was raised to greater honours; being on May 13, 1603, created baron of Essenden, in Rutlandshire; on the 20th of August, 1604, viscount Cranborne, in Dorsetshire (the first of that degree who bore a coronet), and on May 4, 1605, earl of Salisbury.

He shewed himself upon all occasions a zealous servant to his prince, without neglecting at the same time, the real advantage of his country, and never heartily espousing the Spanish interest, though it was the only one countenanced by king James; and some of the courtiers, by encouraging it, acquired great riches. The court of Spain was so sensible of his disinclination to them, that they endeavoured to alienate the king’s favour from him by means of the queen; and it was moved there in council, to send complaints to England of his malignant humour, or envy to the Spanish nation; upon which, if he did not alter his conduct, then a shorter course should be taken with him, by destroying him. Afterwards they entertained great hopes of him, and resolved to omit no means to gain him over to their side. But when all the popish designs were defeated by the discovery of the gunpowder plot, which has since been represented by some of that party as a political contrivance of his, his activity in the detection of it, and zeal for the punishment of those concerned in it, enraged them to such a degree, that several of the papists formed a combination against him. This, however, taking no effect, they again attempted to ruin him in the king’s favour, by reporting that he had a pension of forty thousand crowns from the States of the United Provinces, for being their special favourer and patron. They branded him likewise with the appellation of a puritan, a name peculiarly odious to king James. At last they conspired to murder him by a musquet-shot out of the Savoy, or some house near, as he was going by water to court. But these nefarious designs proved abortive, though it appears they had not desisted from them in 1609. Upon the death of sir Thomas Sackville, earl of Dorset, lord-high-treasurer, in April 1605, he succeeded him in that post and his advancement to it was universally applauded, a great reformation being expected from him in the exchequer, which he accordingly effected. Finding it almost totally exhausted, he devised several means for replenishing it with money, particularly by causing the royal manors to be surveyed, which before were but imperfectly known: by reviving the custody of crown lands by commissions of assets; by taking care to have the king’s woods and timber viewed, numbered, marked, and valued; by having an exact survey made of the copyholds held of the crown, which he ordered to be printed; by compounding with the copyholders of the inheritance, and the possessors of wastes and commons, originally appertaining to the king; by appointing commissioners to gather in the fines arising from penal laws, and such as accrued from the king’s manors; by improving the customs from 86,000/, to 120,000l. and afterwards to 135,000l. per ann. and by surrendering up his patent of master of the wards to the king, for his benefit and advantage.

It will be but justice, says Dr. Birch, to the character of so eminent a person as the earl of Salisbury, to consider him as he now appears to us from fuller and more impartial lights than the ignorance or envy of his own time would admit of; and which may be opposed to the general invectives and unsupported libels of Weldon and Wilson, the scandalous chroniclers of the last age. He was evidently a man of quicker parts, and a more spirited writer and speaker than his father, to whose experience he was at the same time obliged for his education and introduction into public business, in the management of which he was accounted, and perhaps justly, more subtle, and less open. And this opinion of his biass to artifice and dissimulation was greatly owing to the singular address which he shewed in penetrating into the secrets and reserved powers of the foreign ministers with whom he treated; and in evading, with uncommon dexterity, such points as they pressed, when it was not convenient to give them too explicit an answer. His correspondence with king James, during the life of queen Elizabeth, was so closely and artfully managed, that he escaped a discovery, which would have ruined his interest with his royal mistress, though he afterwards justified that correspondence from a regard to her service. “For what,” says he, “could more quiet the expectation of a successor, so many ways invited to jealousy, than when he saw her ministry, that were most inward with her, wholly bent to accommodate the present actions of state for his future safety, when God should see his time!” He was properly a sole minister, though not under the denomination of a favourite, his master having a much greater awe of than love for him; and he drew all business, both foreign and domestic, into his own hands, and suffered no ministers to be employed abroad but who were his dependents, and with whom he kept a most constant and exact correspondence: but the men whom he preferred to such employments, justified his choice, and did credit to the use he made of his power. He appears to have been invariably attached to the true interest of his country, being above corruption from, or dependence upon, any foreign courts; which renders it not at all surprising, that he should be abused by them all in their turns; as his attention to all the motions of the popish faction made him equally odious to them. He fully understood the English constitution, and the just limits of the prerogative; and prevented the fatal consequences which might have arisen from the frequent disputes between king James I. and his parliaments. In short, he was as good a minister as that prince would suffer him to be, and as was consistent with his own security in a factious and corrupt court; and he was even negligent of his personal safety, whenever the interest of the public was at stake. His post of lord treasurer, at a time when the exchequer was exhausted by the king’s boundless profusion, was attended with infinite trouble to him, in concerting schemes for raising the supplies; and the manner in which he was obliged to raise them, with the great fortune which he accumulated to himself, in a measure beyond perhaps the visible profits of his places, exposed him to much detraction and popular clamour, which followed hi ui to his grave; though experience shewed 1 that the nation sustained an important loss by his death since he was the only minister of state of real abilities during the whole course of that reign. He has been thought too severe and vindictive in the treatment of his rivals and enemies: but the part which he acted towards the earl of Essex, seems entirely the result of his duty to his mistress and the nation. It must, however, be confessed, that his behaviour towards the great but unfortunate sir Walter Raleigh is an imputation upon him, which still remains to be cleared up; and it probably may be done from the ample memorials of his administration in the Hatfield library.

, a late clergyman of the church of England, was born in Chiswell-street, London, on -Nov. 8, 1743. His father and grandfather were scarlet-dyers to the East India company. His mother was the only child of Mr. Grosvenor, a merchant of London, and was a strict dissenter, but his father belonged to the established church. In his early years his father intended him for business, but the son had a stronger predilection for general literature; and the success of some juvenile attempts, inserted in the periodical journals, with a taste for music and painting, diverted him still more from trade. At length his father determined to give him an university education, and, by the advice of Dr. Phanuel Bacon, an old acquaintance, sent him to Oxford, where he entered of Queen’s college, May 19, 1773. Before this he had fallen into a course of reading which dispelled the religious education of his infancy, and had made him almost a confirmed infidel. Previously, however, to going to the university, he had recovered from this infatuation, and became noted for that pious conduct and principles which he maintained through life. With his studies he combined his former attachment to the fine arts, particularly music and painting, and might be deemed a connoisseur in both, and upon most subjects of polite literature manifested a critical taste and relish for the productions of genius and imagination, of both which he had himself no small portion. In 1776 he was ordained deacon, and in 1777 priest, having only taken his bachelor’s degree, after which he withdrew his name from the college books, and exercised his talents as a preacher in some churches in Lancashire. Soon after, by the interest of some friends, two small livings were obtained for him at Lewes in Sussex, together in value only about 80l. a year. These he did not long enjoy, a rheumatic affection in his head obliging him to employ a curate, the expence of which required the whole of the income, but he continued to hold them for some years, and occasionally preached at Lewes. Removing to London, he officiated in different churches and chapels, particularly the chapel in Orangestreet and thai in Long-acre, &c. In 1780 he was invited to undertake the duty of the chapel of St. John’s, in Bedford-row, and by the assistance of some friends who advanced considerable sums of money, was enabled to repair it, and collected a most numerous and respectable congregation. But for many years he derived little emolument I from it, as he devoted the produce of the pews most conscientiously to the discharge of the debts incurred. Even in 1798, a debt of 500l. remained on it, which his friends and hearers, struck with his honourable conduct, generously defrayed by a subscription. In this year appeared that complaint, of the schirrous kind, which more or less afflicted him with excruciating pain during the remainder of his life, and frequently interrupted his public labours, but which he bore with incredible patience and constancy. In 1800 he was presented by the trustees of John Tiiornton, esq. to the livings of Chobham and Bisley in Surrey, by which 150l. was added to his income, the remainder of their produce being required to provide a substitute at St. John’s chapel, and defraying the necessary travelling expences. In these parishes, notwithstanding the precarious state of his health, he pursued his ministerial labours with unabated assiduity, and conciliated the affections of his people by his affectionate addresses, as well as by an accommodation in the matter of tithes, which prevented all disputes. In 1807 and 1808 two paralytic attacks undermined his constitution, and at length terminated in a fit of apoplexy, which proved fatal August 15, 1810. Few men have left a character more estimable in every quality that regards personal merit, or public services, but for the detail of these we must refer to the “Memoirs” prefixed to an edition of his Works, in 4 vols. 8vo, published in 1811 for the benefit of his family. Such was the regard in which he was held, that the whole of this edition of 1250 copies, was subscribed for by his friends and congregation. The first volume contains his “Life of Mr. Cadogan,” printed separately in 1798; that of “John Bacon, esq. the celebrated sculptor,” in 1801; and that of the “Rev. John Newton” in 1808. Vol. II. contains his “Miscellanies,” practical tracts published in the course of his life vol. Ill; his “Sermons,” and vol. IV. his “Remains,” consisting of remarks made by Mr. Cecil in conversation with the editor (the rev. Josiah Pratt, B. D.) or in discussions when he was present, with an appendix communicated by some friends.

Musical and other historians have not been able to assign any better reason for honouring St. Cecilia as the patroness of music, than what may be found in her “Acts,” which still exist in Surius, but are now considered as of no authority. Yet as they were credited in more credulous times, painters fixed upon organs as the appropriate emblem of this saint; musicians chose her for their patroness, and poets have described her as the in ven tress of the organ, and as charming angels to leave their celestial spheres, in order to listen to her harmony. The earliest notice of her as the tutelar saint of music seems to have been in the works of the great painters of the Italian school; some representing her as performing on the harp, and others on the organ. Raphael, in his celebrated portrait of the saint, has placed in her hands a column of organ pipes, or rather the front of a portable instrument called the regals, which in Roman catholic times used to be carried by one person and played by another in processions. But of the celebration of her birth-day by assemblies of musicians, we have been able to discover no instance earlier than the latter end of the seventeenth century, when there was a rage among the votaries of music for celebrating the birth-day of this saint, November 22, not only in London, but in all the considerable cities and provincial towns in the kingdom, where music was cultivated. Dryden’s Ode to St. Cecilia has led Mr. Malone into a prolix and probably very accurate history of this saint, and into a chronological account of all the great Cecilian festivals held in London from 1683 to 1740, with a list of all the odes written expressly for the celebration of St. Cecilia, by whom written, and by whom set to music.

, a Grecian monk, who lived in the eleventh century, wrote annals, or an abridged history, from the beginning of the world to the reign of Isaac Comnenus, emperor of Constantinople, who succeeded Michael IV. in 1057. This work is no more than an extract from several historians, and chiefly from Georgius Syncellus, whose chronology he has followed from the creation to the reign of Dioclesian. Theophanes is another historian he has made use of from Dioclesian to Michael Curopalates. The next he borrows from is Thracesius Scylitzes from Curopalates to his own time. This compilation, although not executed with much judgment, was probably once in request. It was translated into Latin by Xylander, Basil, 1566, and was again printed at Paris in 1647, 2 vols. folio, with the Latin version of Xylander, and the notes of father Goar, a Dominican.

, Pope, and the only one of his name who seems to deserve much notice, was born in Apulia about the year 1221, and lived as a hermit in a little cell. He was admitted into holy orders; but after that, he lived five years in a cave on mount Morroni near Sulmona, where he founded a monastery in 1274. The see of Rome having been vacant two years and three months, Celestine was unanimoifsly chosen pope on account of the fame of his sanctity. The archbishop of Lyons, presenting him with the instrument of his election, conjured him to submit to the vocation. Peter, in astonishment, prostrated himself on the ground: and after he had continued in prayer for a considerable time, consented to his election, and' took the name of Celestine V. Since the days of the fir* Gregory, no pope had ever assumed the pontifical dignity with more purity of intention. But he had not Gregory’s talents for business and government; apd the Roman see was far more corrupt in the thirteenth than it was in the sixth century. Celestine soon became sensible of his incapacity. He attempted to reform abuses, to retrench the luxury of the clergy, to do, in short, what he found totally impracticable. He committed mistakes, and exposed himself to ridicule. His conscience, in the mean time, was kept on the rack through a variety of scruples, from which he could not extricate himself; and from his ignorance of the world and of canon law, he began to think he had done wrong in accepting the office. He spent much of his time in retirement; nor was he easy there, because his conscience told him, that he ought to be discharging the pastoral office. In this dilemma he consulted cardinal Cajetan, who told him he might abdicate, which he accordingly did in 1294, after having endeavoured to support the rank of pope for only four or five months, and before his abdication made a constitution that the pontiff might be allowed to abdicate, if he pleased; but there has been no example since of any pope taking the benefit of this constitution. Cajetan succeeded him under the title of Boniface VIII. and immediately imprisoned him in the castle of Fumone, lest he should revoke his resignation, although nothing was more improbable, and treated him with such harshness as brought him to his grave, after ten months imprisonment, in 1296. Clement V. canonized him in 1313. Several of his “Opuscula” are in the Bibl. Patrum. The order of the Celestins, which takes its name from him, still subsists.

, a celebrated sculptor and engraver of Florence, was born in 1500, and intended to be trained to music but, at fifteen years of age, bound himself, contrary to his father’s inclinations, apprentice to a jeweller and goldsmith, under whom he made such a progress, as presently to rival the most skilful in the business. He had also a turn for other arts: and in particular an early taste for drawing and designing, which he afterwards cultivated. Nor did he neglect music, but must have excelled in some degree in it; for, assisting at a concert before Clement VII. that pope took him into his service, in the double capacity of goldsmith and musician. He applied himself also to seal-engraving; learned to make curious damaskeenings of steel and silver on Turkish daggers, &c. and was very ingenious in medals and rings. But Cellini excelled in arms, as well as in arts; and Clement VII. valued him as much for his bravery as for his skill in his profession. When the duke of Bourbon laid siege to Rome, and the city was taken and plundered, the pope committed the castle of St. Angelo to Cellini; who defended it like a man bred to arms, and did not suffer it to surrender but by c?.pitulation. Meanwhile, Cellini was one of those great wits, wh'o may truly be said to have bordered upon madness; he was of a desultory, capricious, unequal humour, which involved him perpetually in adventures that often threatened to prove fatal to him. He travelled among the cities of Italy, but chiefly resided at Rome where he was sometimes in favour with the great, and sometimes out. He consorted with all the first artists in their several ways, with Michael Angelo, Julio Romano, &c. Finding himself at length upon ill terms in Italy, he formed a resolution of going to France; and, passing from Rome through Florence, Bologna, and Venice, he arrived at Padua, where he was most kindly received by, and made some stay with, the famous Pietro Bembo. From Padua he travelled through Swisserland, visited Geneva in his way to Lyons, and, after resting a few days in this last city, arrived safe at Paris. He met with a gracious reception from Francis I. who would have taken him into his service; but, conceiving a dislike to France from a sudden illness he fell into there, he returned to Italy. He was scarcely arrived, when, being accused of having robbed the castle of St. Angelo of a great treasure at the time that Rome was sacked by the Spaniards, he was arrested and sent prisoner thither. When set at liberty, after many hardships and difficulties, he entered into the service of the French king, and set out with the cardinal of Ferrara for Paris: where when they arrived, being highly disgusted at the cardinal’s proposing what he thought an inconsiderable salary, he abruptly undertook a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He was, however, pursued and brought back to the king, who settled a handsome salary upon him, assigned him a house to work in at Paris, and granted him shortly after a naturalization. But here, getting as usual into scrapes and quarrels, and particularly having offended madame d'Estampes, the king’s mistress, he was exposed to endless troubles and persecutions; with which at length being wearied out, he obtained the king’s permission to return to Italy, and went to Florence; where he was kindly received by Cosmo de Medici, the grand duke, and engaged himself in his service. Here again, disgusted with some of the duke’s servants (for he could not accommodate himself to, or agree with, any body), he took a trip to Venice, where he was greatly caressed by Titian, Sansovino, and other ingenious artists; but, after a short stay, returned to Florence, and resumed his business. He died in 1570. His life was translated into English by Dr. Nugent, and published in 1771, 2 vols. 8vo, with this title: “The Life of Benevenuto Cellini, a Florentine artist; containing a variety of curious and interesting particulars relative to painting, sculpture, and architecture, and the history of his own time.” The original, written in the Tuscan language, lay in manuscript above a century and a half. Though it was read with the greatest pleasure by the learned of Italy, no man was hardy enough, during this long period, to introduce to the world a book, in which the successors of St. Peter were handled so roughly; a narrative, where artists and sovereign princes, cardinals and courtezans, ministers of state and mechanics, are treated with equal impartiality. At length, in 1730, an enterprising Neapolitan, encouraged by Dr. Antonio Cocchi, one of the politest scholars in Europe, published it in one vol. 4to, but it soon was prohibited, and became scarce. According to his own account, Cellini was at once a man of pleasure and a slave to superstition; a despiser of vulgar notions, and a believer in magical incantations; a fighter of duels, and a composer of divine sonnets; an ardent lover of truth, and a retailer of visionary fancies; an admirer of papal power, and a hater of popes; art offender against the laws, with a strong reliance on divine providence. Such heterogeneous mixtures, however, generally form an amusing book, and Cellini’s life is amusing and interesting in a very high degree. It must not, however, be omitted, that Cellini published two treatises on the subject of his art, “Duo trattati, uno intorno alle oito principal! arti dell* oreficiera, Paltro in materia dell* arte della scoltura,” &c. 1568, 4to.

, an ancient and elegant writer on the subject of physic, flourished in the first century, under the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius; but of his personal history, his family, or even his profession, we know little. It has been doubted whether he practised physic, but without the experience arising from practice, it is difficult to conceive how he could have so accurately described diseases and given the remedies. Dr. Freind, who studied his works with great attention, decides in favour of his having practised, and agrees with Le Clerc that he was a Roman by birth, and probably of the Cornelian family. He is said to have written on rhetoric and other subjects; but his “De iVlediciua iibri octo,” on which his fame rests, is the only work now remaining, and has gone through a great number of editions. The surgical part is most esteemed as corresponding nearest to the present practice; but the whole is written in a style so pure and elegant, as to entitle him to a place among the Latin classics. Dr. Clarke has enumerated nearly forty editions, the best of which are thought to be AUneloveen’s, Padua, 1722, 8vo, reprinted in 1750, and one by Krause, Leipsic, 1766, 8vo, with the notes of Scaliger, Casaubon, Almeloveen, Morgagni, &c. to which we may add a very recent edition published at Edinburgh and London in 1809, 8vo. In 1756, an English translation, with notes, was published by Dr. Grieve, the historian of Kamshatka. A short abridgement of rhetoric, “De arte dicendi,” attributed to Celsus, was first published at Cologne in 1569, 8vo, and is inserted in the Bibl. Lat. of Fabricius, but it is generally thought to have been the production of Julius Severianus.

, a celebrated philosopher of the Epicurean sect, flourished in the second century under Adrian and Antoninus Pius, and is the person to whom Lucian has dedicated his “Pseudamantis.” He wrote a bitter invective against the Christian religion, under the title of “The true Word,” which was answered by Origen with great ability in a work consisting of eight books. His “True Word” is lost; but his objections against Christianity may be known from the extracts which are preserved of it in Origen’s answer. It is agreed on all hands, that he was a most subtle adversary, perfectly versed in all the arts of controversy, and as learned as he was ingenious: so that it is no wonder if the primitive Christians thought nothing less than such a champion as Origen a match for him. Although he sometimes recurs to Platonic and Stoic modes of reasoning, he is expressly ranked by Lucian, as well as Origen, among the Epicureans; and this supposition best accounts for the violence with which he opposed the Christian religion; for an Epicurean would of course reject, without examination, all pretensions to divine communications or powers. Yet his hostility, or the great pains he took to display it, affords some strong testimonies in favour of the Christian religion, as may be seen in Lardner, and other writers.

It was at this period of her life that she commenced dramatic author; to which she was probably in some degree induced by the narrowness of her circumstances. Some of her earlier pieces were published under the name of Carrol. Her first attempt was in tragedy, in a play called “The Perjured Husband,” which was performed at Drurylane Theatre in 1700, and published in 4to the same year. In 1703, she produced “The Beau’s Duel, or a Soldier for the Ladies, a comedy;” and “Love’s Contrivances,” which is chiefly a translation from Moliere; and the following year another comedy, entitled “The Stolen Heiress, or the Salamanca Doctor outwitted.” In 1705, her comedy of “The Gamester” was acted at Lincoln’sinn-fields, which met with considerable success, and has since been revived at Drury-lane. The plot of this piece “was chiefly borrowed from a French comedy, called” Le Dissipateur." The Prologue was written by Mr. Rowe.

Her attachment to the theatre was so great, that she not only distinguished herself as a writer for it, but also became a performer on it; though she probably did not attain to any great merit as an actress, as she seems never to have played at the theatres of the metropolis. But in 1706, we are told, she performed the part of Alexander the Great, in Lee’s Rival Queens, at Windsor, where the court then was; and in this heroic character, she made so powerful an impression upon the heart of Mr. Joseph Centlivre, yeoman of the mouth, or principal cook to queen Anne, that he soon after married her, and with him she lived happily till her death.

The same year in which she married Mr. Centlivre, she produced the comedies of the “Basset-table,” and “Love at a venture.” The latter was acted by the duke of Grafton’s servants, at the new theatre at Bath. In 1708, her most celebrated performance, “The Busy Body,” was acted at Drury-lane theatre. It met at first with so unfavourable a reception from the players, that for a time they even refused to act in it, and were not prevailed upon to comply till towards the close of the season; and even then Mr. Wilks shewed so much contempt for the part of sir George Airy, as to throw it down on the stage, at the TShearsal, with a declaration, “that no audience would endure such stuff.” But the piece was received with the greatest applause by the audience, and still keeps possession of the stage. In 1711, she brought on at Drury-lane theatre, “Marplot, or the second part of the Busy Body.” This play, though much inferior to the former, met with a favourable reception; and the duke of Portland, to whom it was dedicated, made Mrs. Centlivre a present of forty guineas. Her comedy of “A Bold Stroke for a Wife,” was performed at Lincoln’s-Inn Fields in 1717. She was assisted in this play by Mr. Mottley, who wrote a scene or two entirely. It was extremely well received, and is still frequently performed, though Mr. Wilks had also entertained a very unfavourable opinion of it. Besides those which have been already mentioned, she also produced several other dramatic pieces, enumerated in the Biographia Dramatica.

, whose family name was Teyng, which he exchanged for Ceratinus, from xsfag, horn, an allusion to Horn or Hoorn in Holland, was born there in the beginning of the sixteenth century. It appears from Erasmus’s letters, that he thought Ceratinus one of the most profound scholars in Greek and Latin which the age afforded; yet, when he came to be ordained priest at Utrecht, he was rejected for ignorance of the rules of grammar; but when the examiners understood that he had given superior proofs of learning, they re-called him, pleaded that they were obliged to certain forms in their examination, and granted him letters of ordination. On the recommendation of Erasmus, George, elector of Saxony, appointed him to succeed Mosellanus in his professorship at Leipsic; and on this occasion Erasmus declared that he was worth, in point of learning, ten such as Mosellanus. He was also offered the Greek professorship in the college of three languages at Louvain. At Leipsic he did not meet with the reception he deserved, owing to its being suspected that he had imbibed Lutheran principles. He died at Louvain April 10, 1530, in the flower of his age. His works were, A very elegant translation of Chrysostom’s “Treatise concerning the Priesthood” an improved edition of the “Graeco- Latin Lexicon,” printed by Froben, in 1524, with a preface by Erasmus; and a treatise “De Sono Graecarum Literarum,” printed in 1529, 8vo, with a dialogue from the pen of Erasmus on pronunciation. These were reprinted ' by Havercamp in his “Sylloge Scriptorum,” or collection of commentators on the pronunciation of the Greek, Leyden, 1736.

, a famous Heresiarch, who lived at the end of the first, or beginning of the second century, is said to have maintained the existence of two gods, one good, the Creator of heaven, the other bad, and Creator of the earth to have rejected the law, the prophets, and all the New Testament, except part of St. Luke’s gospel, and some of St. Paul’s epistles. He is also said to have been Mansion’s master; but it is much more probable that he was only his disciple, if, as is asserted, he taught that the body assumed by Jesus Christ was a phantom, i. e. an apparent body, but not a real one, composed of flesh and bones like the human body; and all the ancient writers call Marcion the author of this heresy. The report of Cerdo’s having retracted his errors is doubted by Lardner, who gives a very ample account of him and his opinions.

, an ancient heretic, was contemporary with St. John towards the end of the first, or the commencement of the second century. He is said to have been a Jew, educated at Alexandria, but resident at Antioch. Authors differ as to his moral character, but Dr. Lardner has found nothing of a vicious kind imputed to him. With respect to his opinions, he ascribed the creation of the world, and the legislature of the Jews, to a created being, who derived from the Supreme. God extraordinary virtues and powers, but afterwards became apostate and degraded. He supposed that Jesus was a mere man, born of Joseph and Mary; but that, in his baptism, the Holy Ghost, or the Christ, who was one of the ^ons, descended upon him in the form of a dove; and that he was commissioned to oppose the degenerate god of the Jews, and to destroy his empire. In consequence of which, by his instigation, the man Jesus was seized and crucified; but Christ ascended up on high, without suffering at all. He recommended to his followers the worship of the Supreme God in conjunction with his Son; he required them to abandon the lawgiver of the Jews; and though they were permitted to retain circumcision and the rites of the Mosaic law, and, according to Jerom, this was the principal error of Cerinthus, that he was for joining the law with the gospel; yet they were to make the precepts of Christ the rule of their conduct. For their encouragement, he promised them the resurrection of the body; after which the millennium was to commence under the government of Christ united to the man Jesus: and this he represented as consisting in eating and drinking, nuptial entertainments, and other festivities. Cerinthus’ opinions, however, as a millenarian, have been doubted by some, and the question is accurately examined by Lardner, although with some degree of leaning towards Cerinthus’s opinion of Jesus Christ.

, an eminent painter, called M. A. DI Battague, from his excellence in painting battles, and Bambocciate, from his turn for painting markets, fairs, &c. was born at Rome in 1600, or 1602. His father, a jeweller, perceiving his disposition to the art, placed him with James d'As6, a Flemish painter, then in credit at Rome; after three years study with him, he went to the school of P. P. Cortonese, whom he quitted to become the disciple and imitator of Bamboccio. He surpassed all his fellow-students in taste, and had a manner of painting peculiar to himself. His chearful temper appeared in his pictures, in which ridicule was strongly represented. The facility of his pencil was such, that on the recital of a battle, a shipwreck, or any uncommon figure, he could express it* directly on his canvas. His colouring was vigorous, and his touch light. He never made designs or sketches, but only re-touched his pictures until he hud brought them to all the perfection of which he was capable. Such was his reputation that he could hardly supply the commissions he received, and he became so rich that the cares of wealth began to perplex him. He on one occasion took all his wealth to a retired place in order to bury it, but when he arrived, was so alarmed lest it should be found, that he brought it back, with much trouble, and having been two nights and a day without sleep or sustenance, this, it is said, injured his health, and brought on a violent fever which proved fatal in 1660. His personal character is highly praised. Mr. Fuseli says, that he differs from Bamboccio in the character and physiognomy of his figures; instead of Dutch or Flemish mobs, he painted those of Italy. Both artists have strongand vivid tints; Bamboccio is superior to him in landscape, and he excelis Bamboccio in the spirit of his figures. One of his most copious works is in the palace Spada at Rome, in which he has represented an arrny df fanatic Lazzaroni, who shout applause to Masaniello.

Upon his return to Spain in the spring of the year following, he fixed his residence in Madrid, where his mother and sister then lived. Following his own inclination to letters, he gave himself up anew to the reading of every kind of books, Latin, Spanish, and Italian, acquiring hence a great stock of various erudition. The first product of his genius was his “Galatea,” which he published in 1584, and on Dec. 12 of the same year he married at Esquivias, Donna Catalina de Salazar y Palacios. Madrid was still his place of residence in the years 1585 6 and 7. He turned his studies to the theatres, for which he wrote several pieces, which have never yet been published.- In the year 1596, he lived in Seville, and wrote an ironical sonnet upon the duke of Medina’s triumphal entry into Cadiz, after the earl of Essex had plundered and left the place. Probably Cervantes had a respect for the English from this event. In the fourth of his novels which takes its rise hence, he introduces La Espan'ola Inglesa to our queen Elizabeth, who gives her a very cordial reception, and bids her speak to her in Spanish. In 1598 he was still in Seville, where he wrote a sonnet upon a majestic tomb of enormous height, to celebrate the exequies of Philip II. which he then spoke of as the honour of his writings. It is probable that he had relations in this city, as the illustrious family of the Cervantes y Saavedras was established here. From this year, however, there is a void in his history, and nothing more is known of him till 1604. Some have been willing to supply this defect, and suppose him sent upon a commission to Toboso; that the natives brought a charge against him, threw him into prison, and that he in resentment made Don Quixote and Dulcinea Manchegans. Certain it is that he describes with such accuracy the chorography of that province, and paints with such marks of propriety the manners, dresses, and customs of its natives, that it may be suspected that he had been an eye-witness of the whole. This probably is the whole foundation of the conjecture, for there is no document in proof of this, or any other appointment of Cervantes iq La Mancha. What is certainly known is, that at the beginning of the seventeenth century he was in prison, but for an offence (as don Gregorio Mayans observes) which could not be ignominious, as he himself makes express mention of it. And from the same testimony it is kno.vn, that when in this prison, he wrote his history of “Don Quixote,” of which he published the first part at Madrid in 1605. There was a second edition of this in 1608, at the same place and by the same printer, much corrected and improved, no notice of which is taken by Pellicer, who speaks of that of Valentia of 1605. supposing such to exist, but which he had not seen. There is another of Lisbon in 1605, curious only on the score of its great loppings and amputations.

In 1606, Cervantes returned from Valladolid to Madrid, where he passed the last ten years of his life. In 1610, his second patron, don Pedro Fernandez de Castro, count of Lemos, was named viceroy of Naples, and from thence continued to him his protection and liberality: and the cardinal don Bernardo de Sandoval y Rojas, archbishop of Toledo, after the example of his cousin the count of Lemos, assigned him a pension, that he might bear with less inconvenience the troubles of old age. Although Madrid was now Cerva:es’s home, he passed certain seasons in Esquivias, either to take care of some effects of his wife, or to avoid the noise of the court, and to enjoy the quiet of the village, which afforded him opportunity to write more at his ease. Availing himself of this convenience, he hastened, as he was advanced in years, to publish the greater part of his works. He printed his “Novels” in 1613; his “Journey tq Parnassus” in 16 14-; his “Comedies and Interludes” in 1615; and in the same year the second part of his “Don Quixote.” He finished also his “Persilas and Sigismunda,” which was not published till after his death. In the mean time an incurable dropsy seized him, and gave him notice of his approaching dissolution, which he saw with Christian constancy and with a cheerful countenance. He has minutely described this in the prologue to his posthumous work. One of his late biographers says, that good-nature and candour, charity, humanity, and compassion for the infirmities of man in his abject state, and consequently an abhorrence of cruelty, persecution, and violence, the principal moral he seems to inculcate in his great work, were the glorious virtues and predominant good qualities of his soul, and must transmit his name to the latest ages with every eulogium due to so exalted a character. At length, on the same nominal day with his equally great and amiable contemporary Shakspeare, on the 23d of April, 16 16, died Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, and was buried in the church of the Trinitarian nuns in Madrid.

Of all the accounts hitherto published relative to Cervantes, we have given the preference to the preceding, for which we are indebted to the late rev. John Bowie, whose enthusiasm for “Don Quixote” is well known. It was translated by him from a work published in 1778 at Madrid by don Juan Antonio Pellicer y Safo^ada, one of the royal librarians, in a work entitled “Ensayo de una Bibliotheca de Traductores Espan'oles. Preceden varias Noticias Litterarias,” 4to. The particulars being the result of research in the only quarters where information could be procured, seem more worthy of confidence than the conjectures of some of Cervantes’s earlier biographers, whose chief object seems to have been to represent him as a man depressed and degraded by poverty or imprudence, and whose fate was a disgrace to his nation. It is necessary however to add that the above account was prefixed to the splendid edition of Don Quixote published by the Spanish academy about thirty years ago. from this M. Florian wrote a life prefixed to his translation of Cervantes’s “Galatea,” and added not a little of the marvellous when detailing Cervantes’s adventures in captivity at Algiers. Florian’s account was translated into English by a Mr. William Walbeck, and published at Leeds in 1785, 12mo. Dr. Smollett has made a very interesting story in his life of Cervantes, but wanting th accurate information which has lately been recovered, he too hastily adopts the common opinions, and presents an almost unvaried detail of miseries and poverty. Cervantes’s own account of his person is the following: “His visage was sharp and aquiline, his hair of a chesnut colour, his forehead smooth and high, his nose bookish or hawkish, his eye brisk and chearful, his mouth little, his beard originally of a golden hue, his upper lip furnished with large mustachios, his complexion fair, his stature of the middling size;” and he adds, “that he was thick in the shoulders, and not very light of foot.”

Of all Cervantes’s writings his “Don Quixote” is that only which now is entitled to much attention, although some of his “Novels” are elegant and interesting. But on his “Don Quixote” his fame will probably rest as long as a taste for genuine humour can be found. It ought also, says an elegant modern critic, to be considered as a most useful performance, that brought about a great revolution in the manners and literature of Europe, by banishing the wild dreams of chivalry, and reviving a tasta for the simplicity of nature. In this view, the publication of Don Quixote forms an important era in the history of mankind. Don Quixote is represented as a man, whom it is impossible not to esteem for his cultivated understanding, and the goodness of his heart; but who, by poring night and day upon old romances, had impaired his reason to such a degree, as to mistake them for history, and form the design of traversing the world, in the character, and with the accoutrements, of a knight-errant. His distempered fancy takes the most common occurrences for adventures similar to those he had read in his books of chivalry. And thus, the extravagance of these books being placed, as it were, in the same groupe with the appearances of nature and the real business of life, the hideous disproportion of the former becomes so glaring by the contrast, that the most inattentive reader cannot fail to be struck with it. The person, the pretensions, and the exploits, of the errant-knight, are held up to view in a thousand ridiculous attitudes. In a word, the humour and satire are irresistible; and their effects were instantaneous. This work no sooner appeared than chivalry vanished. Mankind awoke as from a dream. They laughed at themselves for having been so long imposed on by absurdity; and wondered they had not made the discovery sooner. They were astonished to find, that nature and good sense could yield a more exquisite entertainment than they had ever derived from the most sublime phrenzies of chivalry. This, however, was the case; and that Don Quixote was more read, and more relished, than any other romance had ever been, we may infer from the sudden and powerful effects it produced on the sentiments of mankind, as well as from the declaration of the author himself; who tells us, that upwards of 12,000 copies of the first part (printed at Madrid in 1605) were circulated before the second could be ready for the press; an amazing rapidity of sale, at a time when the readers and purchasers of books were but an inconsiderable number compared to what they are in our days. “The very children (says he) handle it, boys read it, men understand, and old people applaud the performance. It is no sooner laid down by one than another takes it up; some struggling, and some intreating, for a sight of it. In fine (continues he) this history is the most delightful, and the least prejudicial entertainment, that ever was seen; for, in the whole book, there is not the least shadow of a dishonourable word, nor one thought unworthy of a good catholic.” Don Quixote occasioned the death of the old romance, and gave birth to the new. Fiction from this time divested herself of her gigantic size> tremendous aspect, and frantic demeanour: and, descending to the level of common life, conversed with man as his equal, and as a polite and chearful companion. Not that every subsequent romance-writer adopted the plan, or the manner of Cervantes; but it was from him they learned to avoid extravagance and to imitate nature. And now probability was as much studied, as it had been formerly neglected.

Yesterday they gave me the extreme unction, and to-day I write this. Time is short, pains increase, hopes diminish and yet, for all this, I would live a little longer, methinks, not for the sake of living, but that I might kiss your excellency’s feet; and it is not impossible but the pleasure of seeing your excellency safe and well in Spain might make me well too. But, if I am decreed to die, heaven’s will be done: your excellency will at least give me leave to inform you of this my desire; and likewise that you had in me so zealous and well-affected a servant as was willing to go even beyond death to serve you, if it had been possible for his abilities to equal his sincerity. However, I prophetically rejoice at your excellency’s arrival again in Spain; my heart leaps within me to fancy you shewn to one another by the people, ` There goes the Condé de Lemos’ and it revives my spirits to see the accomplishment of those hopes which I have so long conceived of your excellency’s perfections. There are still remaining in my soul certain glimmerings of * The Weeks of Garden,‘ and of the famous Bernardo. If by good luck, or rather by a miracle, heaven spares my life, your excellency shall see them both, and with them the ` second part’ of ` Galatea,' which I know your excellency would not be ill-pleased to see. And so I conclude with my ardent wishes, that the Almighty will preserve your excellency.

, a French writer of eminence in polite literature, is said to have been born in America, of French parents, in 1730, and died in Paris July 12, 1792, but our only authority does not give his Christian name, nor have we been able to discover it in any of the French catalogues. He was a member of the French academy, and of that of the belles-lettres, a dramatic author, an indifferent poet, but much esteemed for his writings respecting criticism and elegant literature. His principal works are: 1. “Eponine,” a tragedy, 1762, which did not succeed. 2. “Eloge de Rameau,” 1764, 8vo. 3. “Sur le sort de la poesie, en ce siecle philosophe, avec un dissertation sur Homere,” 1764, 8vo. 4. “Euxodie,” a tragedy, 1769, 12mo. 5. “Discours sur Pindar,” with a translation of some of his odes, 1769, 8vo. 6. “Les Odes Pithiques de Pindare,” translated, with notes, 1771, 8vo. This, in the opinion of Voltaire, is an excellent translation. 7. “Vie de Dante,” 1775, 8vo. 8. “Sabinus,” a lyric tragedy, but unsuccessful, 1775. 9. “Epitre sur la manie des jardins Anglois,” 1775, 8vo. The design of this is to modify, or rather to attack the principle that engages many to respect all the caprices of nature, and to shew that this principle, or at least its unrestrained application, may be prejudicial to the arts, but he displays more ingenuity than taste in this discussion. 10. “Idylles de Theocrite,” a new translation, 1777, 8vo. The most valuable part of this volume is a judicious and elegant essay on the Bucolic poets, in which, however, he is thought to treat Fontenelle and madame Deshoulieres with too much severity. 11. “Vers sur Voltaire,” 1778, 8vo. 12. “De la Musique considereé en elle meme, et dans ses rapports avec la parole, les langues, la poesie, et la theatre,” 1788, 2 vols. 8vo. The first volume, if we mistake not, was published in 1735. In this, says Dr. Burney, he discovers a refined taste, nice discernment, much meditation and knowledge of the subject, and an uncommon spirit of investigation; and although Dr. Burney’s sentiments are not always in unison with the opinions and reasoning of M. de Chabanon, yet there are such enlarged views and luminous and elegant observations in analysing the sensations which music excites, in assigning reasons for the pleasures which this art communicates to ears that vibrate true to musical intervals and concordant sounds, that he thinks its perusal will generate reflections on the art, and set the mind of a musician at work, who had never before regarded music but as a mere object of sense. This book was written in the midst of the war of musical opinions between the Gluckists and Piccinists. The author is said to have been not only an excellent judge of instrumental composition and performance, but among dilettanti ranked high as a performer on the violin. 13. The “Discours” he pronounced on his admission into the academy Jan. 20, 1780, 4to. In 1795 was published from his manuscript, “Tableau de quelques circonstances de ma vie,” 8vo, containing a faithful but not very pleasing disclosure of his conduct and sentiments. It appears that in his youth he was a devot, as serious as madame Guyon, but that afterwards he went into the other extreme, no uncommon transition with his countrymen.

was a Platonic philosopher, concerning whose history ecclesiastical writers are much divided; Cave, Hody, Beausobre, and Lardner, have examined all the evidence they could find without coming to a conclusion, nor does it appear from his writings whether he was a Christian or a Gentile. It is supposed that he flourished about the year 330. He translated into Latin the former part of the Timæus of Plato, with a commentary, which afforded great scope for the speculations of the philosophers of the middle ages. This was printed in Gr. & Lat. by Meursius at Leyden, 1617, 4to, and reprinted by Fabricius in the second volume of his edition of the works of Hyppolitus, Hamburgh, 1718, fol.

, a native of Athens, of the fifteenth century, and the scholar of Theodore Gaza, was one of those Greeks who about the time of the taking of Constantinople went into the west. At the invitation of Lorenzo de Medici, he became professor of the Greek language at Florence in 1479; where he had for his rival Angelus Politianus, to whom Laurence had committed the tuition of one of his sons. After the death of Laurence, Chalcondyles was invited to Milan by Lewis Sfortia; which invitation he accepted, either because he was tired of contending with Politian, or because he was hurt with Politian’s acknowledged superiority in Latin learning. Such is the usually-received account, which rests only on the authority of Paul Jovius, who was always hostile to the character of Politian; but Mr. Roscoe in his life of Lorenzo has proved that the story is without foundation. At Milan, however, Chalcondyles taught Greek a long time with great reputation; and did not die before 1510, when there is reason to think he was above 80 years of age. Among the learned Greeks whom pope Nicolas V. sent to Rome to translate the Greek authors into Latin, Chalcondyles was one; from which we may collect, that he probably travelled into the west before the taking of Constantinople in 1453, since Nicolas died in 1455. He published a grammar, of which we shall presently take notice; and under his inspection and care was first published at Florence, in 1499, the Greek Lexicon of Suidas. Pierius Valerianus, in his book “De infelicitate literatorum,” says, that Chalcondyles, though a deserving man in his moral as well as literary character, led nevertheless a very unhappy life; and reckons perpetual banishment from his country among the chief of his misfortunes. Others have mentioned domestic evils that have attended him. The particulars of his life are very imperfectly given. Dr. Hody has probably collected all that now can be found, but he has merely given the notices from various authors, without attempting a regular narrative. Some have thought that he was at one time a printer, and that he printed the folio Homer of Florence, which goes by his name, and which was executed in 1488; but this report no doubt arose from the care he took in correcting the press, as the printers’ names are given in that rare edition. The “domestic evils” above alluded to have a better foundation, as he was unhappy in his wife, whose chastity was suspected, and in his sons: Theophilus, the eldest, who taught Greek at Paris, was assassinated in the streets in a riotous squabble; and two others, Saleucus and Basil, both of promising talents, died young.

, a gallant soldier, an able statesman, and a very learned writer in the sixteenth century, was descended from a good family in Wales, and born at London about 1515. His quick parts discovered themselves even in his infancy; so that his family, to promote that passionate desire of knowledge for whidh he was so early distinguished, sent him to the university of Cambridge, where he remained some years, and obtained great credit, as well by the pregnancy of his wit as his constant and diligent application, but especially by his happy turn for Latin poetry, in which he exceeded most of his contemporaries. Upon his removing from college he came up to court, and being there recommended to the esteem and friendship of the greatest men about it, he was soon sent abroad into Germany with sir Henry Knevet, as the custom was in the reign of Henry VIII. when young men of great hopes were frequently employed in the service of ambassadors, that they might at once improve and polish themselves by travel, and gain some experience in business. He was so well received at the court of the emperor Charles V. and so highly pleased with the noble and generous spirit of that great monarch, that he attended him in his journies, and in his wars, particularly in that fatal expedition against Algiers, which cost the lives of so many brave men, and was very near cutting short the thread of Mr. Chaloner’s; for in the great tempest by which the emperor’s fleet was shattered on the coast of Barbary in 1541, the vessel, on board of which he was, suffered shipwreck, and Mr. Chaloner having quite wearied and exhausted himself by swimming in the dark, at length beat his head against a cable, of which laying hold with his teeth, he was providentially drawn up into the ship to which it belonged. He returned soon after into England, and as a reward of his learning and services, was promoted to the office of first clerk of the council, which he held during the remainder of that reign. In the beginning of the next he came into great favour with the duke of Somerset, whom he attended into Scotland, and was in the battle of Mussleburgh, where he distinguished himself so remarkably in the presence of the duke, that he conferred upon him the honour of knighthood Sept. 28, 1547, and after his return to court, the duchess of Somerset presented him with a rich jewel. The first cloud that darkened his patron’s fortune, proved fatal to sir Thomas Chaloner’s pretensions; for being a man of a warm and open temper, and conceiving the obligation he was under to the duke as a tie that hindered his making court to his adversary, a stop was put to his preferment, and a vigilant eye kept upon his actions. But his loyalty to his prince, and his exact discharge of his duty, secured him from any farther danger, so that he had leisure to apply himself to his studies, and to cultivate his acquaintance with the worthiest men of that court, particularly sir John Cheke, sir Anthony Coke, sir Thomas Smith, and especially sir William Cecil, with whom he always lived in the strictest intimacy. Under the reign of queen Mary he passed his time, though safely, yet very unpleasantly; for being a zealous protestant, he could not practise any part of that complaisance which procured some of his friends an easier life. He interested himself deeply in the affair of sir John Cheke, and did him all the service he was able, both before and after his confinement. This had like to have brought sir Thomas himself into trouble, if the civilities he had shewn in king Edward’s reign, to some of those who had the greatest power under queen Mary, had not moved them, from a principle of gratitude, to protect him. Indeed, it appears from his writings, that as he was not only sincere, but happy in his friendships, and as he was never wanting to his friends when he had power, he never felt the want of them when he had it not, and, which he esteemed the greatest blessing of his life, he lived to return those kindnesses to some who had been useful to him in that dangerous season. Upon the accession of Elizabeth, he appeared at court with his former lustre; and it must afford us a very high opinion of his character as well as his capacity, that he was the first ambassador named by that wise princess, and that also to the first prince in Europe, Ferdinand I. emperor of Germany. In this negociation, which was of equal importance and delicacy, he acquitted himself with great reputation, securing the confidence of the emperor and his ministers, and preventing the popish powers from associating against Elizabeth, before she was well settled on the throne, all which she very gratefully acknowledged. After his return from this embassy, he was very soon thought of for another, which was that of Spain; and though it is certain the queen could not give a stronger proof than this of her confidence in his abilities, yet he was very far from thinking that it was any mark of her kindness, more especially considering the terms upon which she then stood with king Philip, and the usage his predecessor, Chamberlain, had met with at that court. But he knew the queen would be obeyed, and therefore undertook the business with the best grace he could, and embarked for Spain in 1561. On his first arrival he met with some of the treatment which he dreaded. This was the searching of all his trunks and cabinets, of which he complained loudly, as equally injurious to himself as a gentleman, and to his character as a public minister. His complaints, however, were fruitless; for at that time there is great probability that his Catholic majesty was not over desirous of having an English minister, and more especially one of sir Thomas’s disposition, at his court, and therefore gave him no satisfaction. Upon this sir Thomas Chaloner wrote home, set out the affront that he had received in the strongest terms possible, and was very earnest to be re-called; but the queen his mistress contented herself with letting him know, that it was the duty of every person who bore a public character, to bear with patience what happened to them, provided no personal indignity was offered to the prince from whom they came. Yet, notwithstanding this seeming indifference on her part, the searching sir Thomas Chaloner’s trunks was, many years afterwards, put into that public charge which the queen exhibited against his Catholic majesty, of injuries done to her before she intermeddled with the affairs of the Low Countries. Sir Thomas, however, kept up his spirit, and shewed the Spanish ministers, and even that haughty monarch himself, that the queen could not have entrusted her affairs in better hands than his. There were some persons of very good families in England, who, for the sake of their religion, and no doubt out of regard to the interest to which they had devoted themselves, desired to have leave from queen Elizabeth to reside in the Low Countries or elsewhere, and king Philip and his ministers made it a point to support their suit. Upon this, when a conference was held with sir Thomas Chaloner, he answered very roundly, that the thing in itself was of very little importance, since it was no great matter where the persons who made this request spent the remainder of their days; but that considering the rank and condition of the princes interested in this business, it was neither fit for the one to ask, nor for the other to grant; and it appeared that he spoke the sense of his court, for queen Elizabeth would never listen to the proposal. In other respects he was not unacceptable to the principal persons of the Spanish court, who could not help admiring his talents as a minister, his bravery as a soldier, with which in former times they were well acquainted, his general learning and admirable skill in Latin poetry, of which he gave them many proofs during his stay in their country. It was here, at a time when, as himself says in the preface, he spent the winter in a stove, and the summer in a barn, that he composed his great work of “The right ordering of the English republic.” But though this employment might in some measure alleviate his chagrin, yet he fell into a very grievous fit of sickness, which brought him so low that his physicians despaired of his life. In this condition he addressed his sovereign in an elegy after the manner of Ovid, setting forth his earnest desire to quit Spain and return to his native country, before care and sickness forced him upon a longer journey. The queen granted his petition, and having named Dr. Man his successor in his negociation, at length gave him leave to return home from an embassy, in which he had so long sacrificed his private quiet to the public conveniency. He accordingly returned to London in the latter end of 1564, and published the first five books of his large work before-mentioned, which he dedicated to his good friend sir William Cecil; but the remaining five books were probably not published. in his life-time. He resided in a fair large house of his own building in Clerkenwell-close, over-against the decayed nunnery; and Weever has preserved from oblivion an elegant fancy of his, which was penciled on the frontispiece of his dwelling. He died Oct. 7, 1565, and was buried in the cathedral church of St. Paul with great funeral solemnity, sir William Cecil, then principal secretary of state, assisting as chief mourner, who also honoured his memory with some Latin verses, in which he observes, that the most lively imagination, the most solid judgment, the quickest parts, and the most unblemished probity, which are commonly the lot of different men, and when so dispersed frequently create great characters, were, which very rarely happens, all united in sir Thomas Chaloner, justly therefore reputed one of the greatest men of his time. He also encouraged Dr. William Malim, formerly fellow of King’s college in Cambridge, and then master of St. Paul’s school, to collect and publish a correct edition of our author’s poetical works; which he accordingly did, and addressed it in an epistle from St. Paul’s school, dated August 1, 1579, to lord Burleigh. Sir Thomas Chaloner married Ethelreda, daughter of Edward Frodsham of EJton, in the county palatine of Chester, esq. by whom he had issue his only son Thomas, the subject of the next article. This lady, not long after sir Thomas’s decease, married sir * * * Brockett, notwithstanding which the lord Burleigh continued his kindness to her, out of respect to that friendship which he had for her first husband. Sir Thomas’s epitaph was written by one of the best Latin poets of that age, Dr. Walter Haddon, master of requests to queen Elizabeth.

the younger, the son of the former by his wife Ethelreda, daughter of Mr. Frodsham of Elton in Cheshire, was born in 1559, and being very young at the time of his father’s decease, and his mother soon after marrying a second husband, he owed his education chiefly to the care and protection of the lordtreasurer Burleigh, by whom he was first put under the care of Dr. Malim, master of St. Paul’s school, and afterwards removed to Magdalen college in Oxford, where he closely pursued his studies at the time when his father’s poetical works were published; and as a proof of his veneration for his father’s friend, and gratitude for the many kindnesses himself had received, he prefixed a dedication to this work to his patron the lord Burleigh, He left the college before he took any degree, but not before he had acquired a great reputation for parts and learning. He had, like his father, a great talent- for poetry, which he wrote with much facility both in English and in Latin, but it does not appear that he published any thing before he left England, which was probably about the year 1580. He visited several parts of Europe, but made the longest stay in Italy, fprmed an acquaintance with the gravest and wisest men in that country, who very readily imparted to him their most important discoveries in natural philosophy, which he had studied with much diligence and attention., At his return home, which was some time before 1584, he appeared very much at court, and was esteemed by the greatest men there, on account of his great learning and manners. About this time he married his first wife, the daughter of his father’s old friend sir William Fleetwood, recorder of London, by whom he had several children. In the year 1591 he had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, as well in regard to his own personal merit“as the great services of his father; and some years after, the first alum mines that were ever known to be in this kingdom, were discovered, by his great sagacity, not far from Gisborough in Yorkshire, where he had an estate. In the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign, sir Thomas Chaloner made a journey into Scotland, whether out of curiosity, with a view to preferment, or by the direction of sir Robert Cecil, afterwards earl of Salisbury, who was his great friend, is uncertain; but he soon grew into such credit with king James, that the most considerable persons in England addressed themselves to him for his favour and recommendation. Amongst the rest, sir Francis Bacon, afterwards chancellor, wrote him a very warm letter, which is still extant, which he sent him by his friend Mr. Matthews, who was also charged with another to the king; a copy of which was sent to sir Thomas Chaloner, and Mr. Matthews was directed to deliver him the original, if he would undertake to present it. He accomparried the king in his journey to England, and by his learning, conversation, and address, fixed himself so effectually in that monarch’s good graces, that, as one of the highest marks he could give him of his kindness and confidence, he thought fit to intrust him with the care of prince Henry’s education, August 17, 1603, not as his tutor, but rather governor or superintendant of his household and education. He enjoyed this honour, under several denominations, during the life-time of that excellent prince, whom he attended in 1605 to Oxford, and upon that occasion was honoured with the degree of master of arts, with many other persons of distinction. It does not appear that he had any grants of lands, or gifts in money, from the crown, in consideration of his services, though sir Adam Newton, who was preceptor to prince Henry, appears to have received at several times the sum of four thousand pounds by way of free gift. Sir Thomas Chaloner had likewise very great interest with queen Anne, and appears to have been employed by her in her private affairs, and in the settlement of that small estate which she enjoyed. What relation he had to the court after the death of his gracious master prince Henry, does no where appear; but it is not at all likely that he was laid aside. He married some years before his death his second wife Judith, daughter to Mr. William Biount of London, and by this lady also he had children, to whom he is said to have left a considerable estate, which he had at SteepleClaydon in the county of Buckingham. He died November 17, 1615, and was buried in the parish church of Chiswick in the county of Middlesex. His eldest son William. Chaloner, esq. was by letters patents dated July 20, in the 18th of James I. in 1620, created a baronet, by the title of William Chaloner of Gisborough in the county of York, esq. which title was extinct in 1681. Few or none, either of our historians or biographers, Anthony Wood excepted, have taken any notice of him, though he was so considerable a benefactor to this nation, by discovering the alum mines, which have produced vast sums of money, and still continue to be wrought with very great profit. Dr. Birch, indeed, in his” Life of Henry Prince of Wales,“has given a short account of sir Thomas, and has printed two letters of his, both of which shew him to have been a man of sagacity and reflection. In the Lambeth library are also some letters of sir Thomas Chaloner’s, of which there are transcripts by Dr. Birch in the British Museum. The only publication by sir Thomas Chalouer is entitled” The virtue of Nitre, wherein is declared the sundry cures by the same effected," Lond. 1584, 4to. In this he discovers very considerable knowledge of chemistry and mineralogy.

was descended from an ancient family, and born at Odington in Gloucestershire, 1616. He was educated at Gloucester; became a commoner of St. Edmund-hall in Oxford in 1634; took both his degrees in arts; and was afterwards appointed rhetoric reader. During the civil war in England, he made the tour of Europe. In 1658 he married the only daughter of Richard Clifford, esq. by whom he had nine children. In 1668 he was chosen F. R. S. and in 1669 attended Charles earl of Carlisle, sent to Stockholm with the order of the garter to the king of Sweden, as his secretary. In 1670 the degree of LL. D. was conferred on him at Cambridge, and two years after he was incorporated in the same at Oxford. He was appointed to be tutor to Henry duke of Grafton, one of the natural sons of Charles II. about 1679; and was afterwards appointed to instruct prince George of Denmark in the English tongue. He died at Chelsea in 1703, and was buried in a vault in the church-yard of that parish; where a monument was soon after erected to his memory, by Walter Harris, M. D. with a Latin inscription, which informs us, among other things, that Dr. Chamberlayne was so desirous of doing service to all, and even to posterity, that he ordered some of the books he had written to be covered with wax, and buried with him; which have been since destroyed by the damp. The six books vanity or dotage thus consigned to the grave, are, 1. “The present war paralleled; or a brief relation of the five years’ civil wars of Henry III. king of England, with the event and issue of that unnatural war, and by what course the kingdom was then settled again; extracted out of the most authentic historians and records,” 1647. It was reprinted in 1660, under this title, “The late war paralleled, or a brief relation,” &c. 2. “England’s wants; or several proposals probably beneficial for England, offered to the consideration of both houses of parliament,” 1667. 3. “The Converted Presbyterian; or the church of England justified in some practices,” &c. 1668. 4. “Anglix Notitia or the Present State of England with divers reflections upon the ancient state thereof,” 1668. The second part was published in 1671, &c. This work has gone through many editions; the first twenty of wkich were published by Dr. Edward Chamberlain, and the rest by his son. 5. “An academy or college, wherein young ladies or gentlewomen may, at a very moderate expence, be educated in the true protestant religion, and in all virtuous qualities that may adorn that sex, &c.” 1671. 6. “A Dialogue between an Englishman and a Dutchman, concerning the last Dutch war,‘ ’ 1672. He translated out of Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, into English, 1.” The rise and fall of count Olivarez the favourite of Spain.“2.” The unparalleled imposture of Mich, de Molina, executed at Madrid,“1641. 3.” The right and title of the present king of Portugal, don John the IVth." These three translations were printed at London, 1653.

, son to the preceding, was admitted into Trinity college, Oxford, 1685; but it does not appear that he took any degree. He continued his father’s “Angliae Notitia,” or “Present State,” as long as he lived, and it was continued after his death until 1755, which, we believe, is the last edition. He translated, 1. from French and Spanish, “The manner of making Tea, Coffee, and Chocolate, London,” 1685, 8vo. 2. From Italian into English, “A Treasure of Health,” London, 1686, 8vo, written by Castor Durant de Gualdo, physician and citizen of Rome. 3. “The Arguments of the books and chapters of the Old and New Testament, with practical observations written originally in French, by the rev. Mr. Ostervald, professor of divinity, and one of the ministers of the church at Neufchatel in Swisserland, and by him presented to the society for promoting Christian knowledge,” Lond. 1716, &c. 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Chamberlay ne was a member of that society. 4. “The Lives of the French Philosophers, translated from the French of M. de Fontenelle, republished since in 1721, under the title of” Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, epitomized, with t[ie lives of the late members of that society,“8vo. 5.” The Religious Philosopher; or, the right use of contemplating the works of the Creator, &c. translated from the original Dutch of Dr. Nieuwentyt,“Lond. 1713, &c. 3 vols. 8vo, reprinted several times since in 8vo, and once in 4to. 6.” The History of the Reformation in and about the Low Countries, translated from the Dutch of Gerrard Brandt,“Lond. 1721, &c. 4 vols. fol. 7.” The Lord’s Prayer in 100 languages, 8vo, which is erroneously attributed by Mr. Whiston the bookseller, in a ms note in his copy of this Dictionary, to a Thomas Chamberlayne. 8. “Dissertations historical, critical, theological, and moral, on the most memorable events of the Old and New Testaments; wherein the spirit of the sacred writings is shewn, their authority confirmed, and the sentiments of the primitive fathers, as well as the modern, critics, with regard to the difficult passages therein, considered and compared; vol. I. comprising the events related in the Books of Moses to which are added, chronological tables, fixing the date of each event, and connecting the several dissertations together,” 1723, folio. He likewise was elected F. R. S. in 1702, and communicated three pieces, inserted in the Philosophical Transactions one, concerning the effects of thunder and lightning at Sampford Courtney in Devonshire, Oct. 7, 1711. 2. An account of the sunk Islands in the Humber, recovered from the sea. 3. Remarks on the Plague at Copenhagen in 1711. It was said of him, that he understood ten languages but it is certain that he was master of the Greek, Latin, French, Dutch, German, Portuguese, and Italian. Though he was well qualified for employment, he had none but that of gentleman usher to George prince of Denmark. After a useful and well-spent life, he died in Oct. 1723. He was then in the commission of the peace for Middlesex and Westminster. He was a very pious and good man, and earnest in promoting the advancement of religion and the interest of true Christianity: for which purpose he kept a large correspondence abroad, in his capacity as secretary to the society for promoting Christian knowledge. By one of bishop Atterbury’s letters it appears that he once endeavoured to obtain the state- paper office, but did not succeed. At this time, in 1702, the bishop, somewhat superciliously, calls him “one Chamberlayne, secretary to the reformers, and to the committee for propagating religion in the Indies.” There are some of tylr. Chamberlayne’s letters in bishop Nicolson’s “Epistolary Correspondence” lately published. The bishop wrote a preface to Mr. Chamberlayne’s “Lord’s Prayer in 100 Languages.”

Although the “Cyclopædia” was the grand business of Mr. Chambers’s life, and may be regarded as almost the sole foundation of his fame, his attention was not wholly confined to this undertaking. He was concerned in a periodical publication entitled “The Literary Magazine,” which was begun in 1735, and continued for a few years, containing a review of books on the analytical plan. In this work he wrote a variety of articles, and particularly a review of Morgan’s “Moral Philosopher.” He was engaged likewise, in conjunction with Mr. John Marty n, F. R. S. and professor of botany at Cambridge, in preparing for the press a translation and abridgment of the “Philosophical history and memoirs of the royal academy of sciences at Paris or an abridgment of all the papers relating to natural philosophy which have been published by the members of that illustrious society.” This undertaking, when completed, was comprised in five volumes, 8vo, which did not appear till 1742, some time after our author’s decease, when they were published in the joint names of Mr. Martyn and Mr. Chambers. Mr. Marty n, in a subsequent publication, passed a severe censure upon the share which his fellow-labourer had in the abridgment of the Parisian papers; which, indeed, he appears to have executed in a very slovenly manner, and to have been unacquainted with the French terms in natural history. The only work besides, that we find ascribed to Mr. Chambers, is a translation of the “Jesuit’s Perspective,” from the French; which was printed in 4to, and has gone through several editions. How indefatigable he was in his literary and scientific collections, is manifest from a circumstance which used to be related by Mr. Airey, who was so well known to many persons by the vivacity of his temper and conversation, and his bold avowal of the principles of infidelity. This gentleman, in the very early part of his life, was five years (from 1728 to 1733) amanuensis to Mr. Chambers; and, during that time, copied nearly 20 folio volumes, so large as to comprehend materials, if they had been published, for printing 30 volumes in the same size. Mr. Chambers however acknowledged, that if they were printed, they would neither be sold nor read. His close and unremitting attention to his studies at length impaired his health, and obliged him occasionally to take a lodging at Canonbury-house, Islington. This not having greatly contributed to his recovery, he made an excursion to the south of France, of which he left an account in ms. but did not reap that benefit from the journey which he had himself hoped and his friends wished. Returning to England in the autumn of 1739, he died at Canonbury-house, and was buried at Westminster; where the following inscription, written by himself, is placed on the north side of the cloisters of the abbey:

We have already mentioned that the “Cyclopædia” came to a fifth edition in 1746. After this, whilst a sixth edition was in agitation, the proprietors thought that the work might admit of a supplement, in two additional folio volumes: this supplement, which was published in the joint names of Mr. Scott and Dr. Hill, though containing a number of valuable articles, was far from being uniformly conspicuous for its exact judgment and due selection; a small part only of it being executed by Mr. Scott, and Dr. Hill’s task having been discharged with his usual rapidity. Thus the matter rested for some years, when the proprietors determined to combine the whole into one work; and after several ineffectual efforts for accomplishing their plan, the business devolved on the rev. Dr. Abraham Rees, F. R. S. who derived from the favour of the public, and the singularly rapid and extensive sale of the work, a recompense, which, independently of every other consideration, he reckoned amply adequate to his labour. This edition began to be published in weekly numbers in 1778, and the publication was continued without a single interruption, till it was completed in the year 1785. The work was dedicated and presented to his majesty. The popularity of the “Cyclopædia” gave rise to a variety of similar publications; of many of which it may be truly said, that most of the articles which compose them, are extracted verbatim, or at least with very few alterations and additions, from this dictionary; and that they manifest very little labour of research, or of compilation. One defect seems to have been common to them all, with hardly any exception; and that is, that they do not furnish the reader witli references to the sources from which their materials are derived, and the authorities upon which they depend. This charge was alleged by the editors of the French Encyclopedic, with some justice, but at the same time with unwarrantable acrimony, against Mr. Chambers. The editors of that work, while they pass high encomiums on Mr. Chambers’s Cyclopædia, blend with them censures that are unfounded. They say, e. g. that the “merited honours it has received would, perhaps, never have been produced at all, if, before it appeared in English, we had not had in our own tongue those works, from which Chambers has drawn without measure, and without selection, the greatest part* of the articles of which his dictionary is composed. This being the case, what must Frenchmen think of a mere translation of that work? It must excite the indignation of the learned, and give just offence to the public, to whom, under a new and pompous title, nothing is presented but riches of which they have a long time been in possession?” They add, however, after appropriate and justly deserved commendation; “We agree with him, that the plan and the design of his dictionary are excellent, and that, if it were executed to a certain degree of perfection, it would alone contribute more to the progress of true science, than one half of the books that are known.” However, what their vanity has led them to assert, viz. that the greatest part of Chambers’s Cyclopædia is compiled from French authors, is not true. When Mr. Chambers engaged in his great undertaking, he extended his researches for materials to a variety of publications, foreign and domestic, and in the mathematical articles he was peculiarly indebted to Wolfius: and it cannot be questioned, that he availed himself no less of the excellent writers of his native land than those of France. As to the imperfections of which they complain, they were in a great measure removed, as science advanced, by subsequent improvements; nor could the work, in its last state, be considered as the production of a single person. Nevertheless it cannot be conceived, that any scientific dictionary, comprised in four volumes, should attain to the full standard of human wishes and human imagination. The proprietors, duly sensible of this circumstance, and of the rapid progress of literature and science in the period that has elapsed since the publication of Chambers’ s “Cyclopædia,” have undertaken a work on a much larger scale, which, with the encouragement already received and further reasonably expected, will, it is hoped, preclude most of the objections urged against the former dictionary. Of this a very considerable proportion has already been published, and the editor bids fair to accomplish what was once thought impossible. The learned Mr. Bowyer once conceived an extensive idea of improving Chambers’s Cyclopædia, on which his correspondent Mr. Clarke observes, “Your project of improving and correcting Chambers is a very good one; but alas! who can execute it? You should have as many undertakers as professions; nay, perhaps as many antiquaries as there are different branches of ancient learning.” This, in fact, which appeared to Mr. Clarke so impracticable, has been accomplished under Dr. Rees’s management, by combining the talents of, gentlemen who have made the various sciences, arts, &c. their peculiar study. Of the contemporary Cyclopædias, or Encyclopaedias, it may be sufficient to notice in this place, that printed at Edinburgh under the title of “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” the plan of which is different from that of Dr. Rees, but which has been uncommonly successful, a third edition (in twenty vols. 4to) being now in the press; and one begun by Dr. Brewster on a lesser scale, seems to be edited with care and accuracy.

, for several years chief justice of the supreme court of judicature in Bengal, a man of too exalted merit to be passed with a slight notice, was born in 1737, at Newcastle on Tyne, the eldest son of Mr. Robert Chambers, a respectable attorney of that town. He was educated, as well as his brothers, at the school of Mr. Moises in Newcastle, which had also the honour of training his younger friends sir William Scott and the present lord chancellor, whose attachment to him, thus commenced almost in infancy, was continued not only without abatement, but with much increase, to the very end of his life. Mr. Chambers, and the Scotts afterwards, went to Oxford without any other preparation than was afforded by this Newcastle school, but his abilities soon rendered him conspicuous; and in July 1754 he was chosen an exhibitioner of Lincoln college. He afterwards became a fellow of University college, where he was again united with the Scotts, and with other eminent men, among whom it may suffice to mention sir Thomas Plomer and the ]ate sir William Jones. In January 1762, Mr. Chambers was elected by the university Vinerian professor of the laws of England; a public testimony to his abilities, of the strongest and most unequivocal nature. In 1766, the earl of Lichfield, then chancellor of Oxford, gave him the appointment of principal of New-inn hall; which office, as it required no residence or attendance, he continued to hold through life. He was now advancing honourably in the practice of the law, and was employed in many remarkable causes, in which his professional abilities were evinced. About the same period, and probably by the same means, he attracted the notice and lasting friendship of the ablest men of the time, many of whose names have since been absorbed in well-earned titles of nobility. Among these may be mentioned, the earls Bathurst, Mansfield, Liverpool, and Rosslyn, lords Ashburton, Thurlow, Auckland, and Alvanley; to which list we may add the names of Johnson, Burke, Goldsmith, Garrick, and others of that class, whose judgment of mankind was as accurate as their own talents were conspicuous. At Oxford, he enjoyed the intimacy of Thurlow, afterwards bishop of Durham: and his Vinerian lectures were attended by many pupils, who have since done honour to the profession of the law, or to other public situations. It is a strong proof that his knowledge and talents were highly estimated at an early period, that in 1768, when he was only thirty-one years old, he was offered the appointment of attorney-general in Jamaica, which, from various considerations, he thought proper to decline. From this time he continued the career of his profession, and of his academical labours, till, in 1773, another situation of public trust and honour was proposed to him, which he was more easily induced to accept. This was the appointment of second judge to the superior court of judicature in Bengal, then first established. On this occasion, the esteem, and regard of the university of Oxford for their Vinerian professor was fully evinced. The convocation allowed three years for the chance of his return, from ill health or any other cause: during which interval his office was held for him, and his lectures read by a deputy. Immediately before his departure for the East Indies, Mr. Chambers married Miss Wilton, the only daughter of the celebrated statuary of that name, and his mother, Mrs. Chambers, a woman of uncommon virtues, talents, and accomplishments, undertook the voyage with them, and continued an inmate in their family till her death, which happened in 1782. They sailed for India in April, 1774; and the climate not proving unfriendly, the Vinerian professorship was in due time resigned.

The honour of knighthood was not conferred on Mr. Chambers at the time of his appointment, but, within four years after, was sent out to him unsolicited, as an express mark of royal approbation. How well his original nomination, and his subsequent advancement to the office of chief justice were deserved, it is not necessary here to demonstrate. They who acted with him, or were present in any arduous discussions, can bear witness how often his mild but convincing arguments contributed most essentially to the public service. Without taking a violent part in any contentions of politics, sir Robert Chambers was steady in pursuing the course which his mature judgment approved; and, in all the struggles that arose, no opponent ever ventured to insinuate a doubt of his integrity.

Sir Robert Chambers had that love for books which naturally arises from a sound education and early habits of study. His collection, therefore, was considerable, and his knowledge proportionally extensive. Even at the close of his life, of which so large a part had been engaged in the practice or administration of the laws, he had not lost his academical accomplishments: and a Latin epitaph on his friend sir William Jones, inscribed by Flaxman on a monument erected at Oxford in 1803, may testify that the cares of the judge had not obliterated the studies of the professor. His collection of Oriental books was particularly valuable. That his fortune, after so long continuance in office, was extremely moderate, must be considered as an important topic of his praise, since it was occasioned by his strict integrity and extensive bounty. He received no presents, and he gave abundant charities. On his resignation, therefore, he could not attempt to decline the pension which parliament has now assigned to the judges of India, after a much less period of service.

As an author, Mr. Chambers very soon distinguished himself. In 1759 he published “Designs for Chinese Buildings,” and a “Treatise on Civil Architecture.” Soon after his present majesty’s accession to the throne, he was employed to lay out and improve the royal gardens at Kevv. The result of his labours appeared in 1765, in a splendid publication in large folio, entitled “Plans, elevations, sections, and perspective views of the Gardens and Buildings at Kew in Surry, the seat of her royal highness the princess of Wales.” In the execution of this magnificent work, the talents of several of our ablest designers and engravers are eminently displayed: the architectural designs being drawn by Mr. Chambers, the figures by Cipriani, and the views by Kirby, Thomas Sandby, and Marlow. The engravings were executed by Paul Sandby, Woollett, Major, Grignion, Rooker, and others. The plates were, consequently, universally admired, but with respect to the designs, the greater part were considered rather as objects of curiosity than of taste; and Mr. Chambers himself, as if apprehensive that the style of decoration he had adopted would be censured, anticipates the objections by an apology for the disadvantages of situation under which he laboured.' “The gardens at Kew,” he observes, “are not very large: nor is their situation by any means advantageous, as it is low, and commands no prospects. Originally, the ground was one continued dead flat: the soil was, in general, barren, and without either wood or water. With so many disadvantages, it was not easy to produce any thing even tolerable in gardening; but princely munificence, and an able director, have overcome all difficulties, and converted what was once a desert into an Eden.”

In 1771, Mr. Chambers was announced in the catalogue of the royal academy as a knight of the Swedish order of the Polar Star; and the following year he published the work just alluded to, and entitled “A Dissertation on Oriental Gardening,” 4to. The design of this work is to demonstrate, that notwithstanding the boasted improvement of our national taste in ornamental gardening, we are yet in a state of ignorance and barbarism with respect to this pleasing art, of which the Chinese alone are masters. In. the preface he says, that his account of the Chinese manner of gardening was collected from his own observations in China, from conversations with their artists, and remarks transmitted to him at different times by travellers. Besides sir William’s failure in proving his main point, this publication was very unlucky in another respect. A sketch of it had been published some years before; but the performance itself appearing immediately after the publication of Mr. Mason’s “English Garden,” it was suggested, very invidiously perhaps, that our author’s intention was to depreciate the designs of our English gardeners, in order to divert his sovereign from his plan of improving Richmond gardens into the beautiful state in which they now appear. The strange and horrible devices described in this “Dissertation” have been much ridiculed, but are no more than what had been before published by father Attirer, in his account of the emperor of China’s gardens, near Pekin, translated by Mr. Spence (under the assumed literary name of sir Harry Beaumont) in 1753, and since republished in Dodsley’s “Fugitive Pieces.” In whatever light, however, the “Dissertation” might be considered, it was certainly productive of amusement, and the cause of gardeners and gardening was amply revenged by a publication which appeared next year, and was generally attributed to Mr. Mason, entitled “An Heroic Epistle to sir William Chambers, knt. comptroller- general of his majesty’s works, and author of a late Dissertation on Oriental Gardening; enriched with explanatory notes, chiefly extracted from that elaborate performance.” A vein of solemn irony, and delicate yet keen satire, runs through this poetical commentary; and sir William’s principles of design in gardening, or rather the Oriental principles, which he had so fondly adopted, are treated with very little respect. It was followed in 1774, by “.An Heroic Postscript.”

, a native of Mans, and king’s physician in ordinary. He was received into the French academy 1635, afterwards into that of sciences. Chancellor Sequier and cardinal Richelieu gave him public testimonies of their esteem; and he acquired great reputation by his knowledge in physic, philosophy, and the belles-lettres. He died November 29, 1669, at Paris, aged seventy-five, and left many works, the principal oif which are: “Les Characteres des Passions,” 4 vols. 4to; or Amsterdam, 1658, 5 vols. 12mo. “L'Art de connoitre les Hommes.” “De la Connoissance des Betes.” “Conjectures sur la Digestion.” “De l'Iris.” “De la Lumiere.” “Le Systeme de l'Ame.” “Le Debordement du Nil,” each 1 vol. 4to. Peter de la Chambre, his second son, was curate of St. Bartholomew, and one of the forty members of the French academy, and died 1693, leaving several panegyrics, printed separately in 4to.

, an ingenious French writer, and one of the victims of the revolution, was born in 1741, in a bailiwick near Clermont, in Auvergne. In supporting a revolution which levelled all family distinctions, he had no prejudices to overcome, being the natural son of a man whom he never knew. This circumstance, however, did not diminish his affection for his mother, who was a peasant girl, to supply whose wants he often denied himself the necessaries of life. He was taken at a very early age into the college des Prassins at Paris, as a bursar, or exhibitioner, and was there known by his Christian name of Nicolas. During the first two years he indicated no extraordinary talents, but in the third, out of the five prizes which were distributed annually, he gained four, failing only in Latin verses. The next year he gained the whole, and used to say, “I lost the prize last year, because 'I imitated Virgil; and this year I obtained it, because I took Buchanan, Sarbievius, and other moderns for my guides.” In Greek he made a rapid progress, but his petulance and waggish tricks threw the class into so much disorder, that he was expelled, and not long after left the college altogether. Thrown now on the world, without friends or money, he became clerk to a procurator, and afterwards was taken into the family of a rich gentleman of Liege, as tutor. After this he was employed on the “Journal Encyclopedique,” and having published his Eloges on Moliere and La Fontaine, they were so much admired as to be honoured with the prizes of the French academy, and that of Marseilles. About this time he had little other maintenance than what he derived from the patronage of the duke de Choiseul and madame Helvetius, and therefore was glad to take such employment as the booksellers offered. For them he compiled a “French Vocabulary,” and a “Dictionary of the Theatres.” While employed on this last, he fancied his talents might succeed on the stage, and was not disappointed. His tragedy of “Mustapha,” acted in 1778, was acknowledged to have great beauties; and Voltaire, who witnessed the performance, said with an exclamation, that he Was reminded of Racine. This was followed by two comedies, fugitive pieces of poetry, letters, epigrams, translations of the Anthology, and of Martial, all which contributed very considerably to his reputation. His poetical “Epistle from a father to a son, on the birth of a grandson,” gained him the prize of the French academy, although it appears inferior to his “L'Homme de Lettres, discours philosop.hic|iic en vers.” At length he gained a seat in the academy, on the death of St. Palaye, on whom he wrote an elegant eloge. His tragedy of “Mustapha” procured him the situation of principal secretary to the prince of Conde, but his love of liberty and independence prevented him from long discharging its duties. After resigning it, he devoted himself wholly to the pleasures of society, where he was considered as a most captivating companion. He also held some considerable pensions, which, however, he lost at the revolution.

When this great event took place, his intimacy with Mirabeau led him to join the revolutionists, and he assisted Mirabeau in many of his works. He even obtained admission into the Jacobin-club, and in 1791 was appointed secretary, but soon saw through their hypocrisy, detested their sanguinary principles, and left them. After the 10th of August, Roland procured him to be appointed national librarian, in conjunction with Carra. He saw with horror the excesses of all parties, and when the words “Fraternity or Death” appeared on all the walls of Paris, he exclaimed “The fraternity of these fellows is that of Cain and Abel.” These, and other sarcasms, made him obnoxious to Robespierre, and he was apprehended, and endeavoured to commit suicide. He only, however, mangled himself shockingly on this occasion, and lived till April 1794. He was unquestionably a man of talents, but in his political conduct inconsistent and frivolous, attaching himself to no party, yet maintaining the pernicious principles from which each party had arisen. In 1795, his friend Ginguene published his works in 4 vols. 8vo, with a Life. They are entirely of the miscellaneous kind, and the fourth volume consists of Maxims and Opinions, which have since been published separately under the title of “Chamfortiana.” Many of them are founded on an accurate observation of human nature, and of the manners of his age and country.

, an eminent French protestant divine, was born in Dauphiny, and was long minister at Montelimart, in that province, from whence he removed in 16 12 to Montaubon, to be professor of divinity; and was killed at the siege of that place by a cannon ball in 1621. He was no less distinguished among his party as a statesman than as a divine. No man opposed the artifices employed by the court to distress the protestants with more steadiness and inflexibility. Varillas says it was he who drew up the edict of Nantz. Though politics took up a great part of his time, he acquired a large fund of extensive learning, as appears from his writings. His treatise “De œcumenico pontifice,” and his “Epistolæ Jesuiticæ,” are commended by Scaliger. Hjs principal work is his “Catholica Panstratia, or the Wars of the Lord,” in which the controversy between the protestants and Roman catholics is learnedly handled. It was written at the desire of the synod of the reformed churches in France, to confute Bellarmine. The synod of Privas, in 1612, ordered him 2900 livres to defray the charges of the impression of the first three volumes. Though this work makes four large folio volumes, it is not complete: for it wants the controversy concerning the church, intended for a fifth volume, which the author’s death prevented him from finishing. This body of controversy was printed at Geneva in 1626, under the care of Turretin, professor of divinity. An abridgment of it was published in the same city in 1643, in one vol. folio, by Frederick Spanheim, the father. His “Corpus Theologicum,” and his “Epistolae Jesuiticae,” were printed in a small folio volume, 1693, but there are 8vo editions of the latter, one Genev. 1599, and the “De cecumenico pontifice” was also published in 8vo, Genev. 1601.

, a learned French antiquary, was born at Bourges, in 1656. In 1673 he entered among the Jesuits, and according to their custom, for some time taught grammar and philosophy, and was a popular preacher for about twenty years. He died at Paris, in 1730. He was deeply versed in the knowledge of antiquity. He published: 1. A learned edition of “Prudentius” for the use of the Dauphin, with an interpretation and notes, Paris, 1687, 4to, in which he was much indebted to Heinsius. It is become scarce. 2. Dissertations, in number eighteen, on several medals, gems, and other monuments of antiquity, Paris, 1711, 4to. Smitten with the desire of possessing something extraordinary, and which was not to be found in the other cabinets of Europe, he strangely imposed on himself in regard to two medals which he imagined to be antiques. The first was a Pacatianus of silver, a medal unknown till his days, and which is so still, for that it was a perfect counterfeit has been generally acknowledged since the death of its possessor. The other medal, on which he was the dupe of his own fancy, was an Annia Faustina, Greek, of the true bronze. The princess there bore the name of Aurelia; whence father Chainillnrd concluded that she was descended from the family of the Antonines. It had been struck, as he pretended, in Syria, by order of a Quirinus or Cirinus, descended, he asserted, from that Quit-in us who is spoken of by St. Luke. Chamillard displayed his erudition on the subject in a studied dissertation; but while he was enjoying his triumph, a dealer in antiques at Rome declared himself the father of Annia Faustina, at the same time shewing others of the same manufacture.

, a most voluminous medical and historical writer, was born in 1472. After studying medicine he took his degree of doctor at Pavia in 1515, and in 1520 was made consul at Lyons, an honour which he again enjoyed in 1533, on returning from Italy, whither he had accompanied Anthony duke of Lorrain as his army physician, and by whom he was knighted for his bravery as well as skill. He died in 1539 or 1540, after having founded the college of physicians at Lyons. His works amount to twenty-four volumes, mostly quarto, of which a list may be seen in our authorities, but there is not one of them that can be noticed for excellence either of matter or style. Perhaps the best of his historic cal compilations is, “Les Grandes Chroniques des dues jde Savoie,” Paris, 1516, fol.

, a celebrated English penman, was born at Chatham in 1709, and received his education chiefly under Snell, who kept sir John Johnson’s free writing-school in Foster-lane, Cheapside, and with whom he served a regular clerkship, he kept a boarding-school in St. Paul’s church-yard, and taught many of the nobility and gentry privately. He was several years settled in the New academy, in Bed ford -street, where he had a good number of scholars, whom he instructed with great success; and he has not hitherto been excelled in his art. The year of his death we cannot precisely ascertain. His first performance appears to have been his “Practical Arithmetic,” 1733, 8vo; and in 1747 he published his “Tutor’s assistant in teaching arithmetic,” in 40 plates, 4to. But his most elaborate and curious performance is his “Comparative Penmanship,” 24 oblong folio plates, 1750. It is engraved by Thorowgood, and is an honour to British penmanship in general. His “New and complete alphabets,” with the Hebrew, Greek, and German characters, in 21 plates oblong folio, engraved by Bickham, came out in 1754, and in 1758 he began to publish his “Livinghands,” or several copy-books of the different hands in common use, upwards of 40 plates, 4to. He contributed 47 folio pieces for Bickham’s “Universal Penman,” in which he displays a beautiful variety of writing, both for use and ornament. His principal pieces besides are “Engrossing hands for young clerks,” 1757. “The young Penman’s practice,” 1760. “The Penman’s employment,” folio, 1759—1762. In 1754 he addressed and presented to the Royal Society a large body of penmanship, in 20 leaves, folio, which remains in ms.

On leaving the academy, he continued his studies at Leyden, and these being finished, he began to preach about July 1714; and being soon distinguished by his talents in the pulpit, he was chosen, in 1716, minister of the presbyterian congregation at Peckham, near London, in which statioji he continued some years. Here he entered into the matrimonial state, and began to have an increasing family, when, by the fatal South-sea scheme of 1720, he unfortunately lost the whole fortune which he had received with his wife. His circumstances being thereby embarrassed, and his income as a minister being inadequate to his expences, he engaged in the trade of a bookseller, and kept a shop in the Poultry, London, in partnership with John Gray, who afterwards became a dissenting minister, but conformed, and had a living in Yorkshire. Mr. Chandler continued this trade for about two or three years, still continuing to discharge the duties of the pastoral office. It may not be improper to observe, that in the earlier part of his life Mr. Chandler was subject to frequent and dangerous fevers; one of which confined him more than three months, and threatened by its effects to disable him for public service. He was, therefore, advised to confine himself to a vegetable diet, which he accordingly did, and adhered to it for twelve years. This produced so happy an alteration in his constitution, that though he afterwards returned to the usual way of living, he enjoyed an uncommon share of spirits and vigour till seventy.

His writings having procured him a high reputation for learning and abilities, he might easily have obtained the degree of D. D. and offers of that kind were made him; but for some time he declined the acceptance of a diploma, and, as he once said in the pleasantness of con versation, “because so many blockheads had been made doctors.” However, upon making a visit to Scotland, in company with his friend the earl of Finlater and Seafield, he with great propriety accepted of this honour, which was conferred upon him without solicitation, and with every mark of respect, by the two universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. He had likewise the honour of being afterwards elected F. R. and A. Ss. the former in 1754. On the death of George II. in 1760, Dr. Chandler published a sermon on that event, in which he compared that prince to king David. This gave rise to a pamphlet, which was printed in 1761, entitled “The History of the Man after God’s own Heart” in which the author ventured to exhibit king David as an example of perfidy, lust, and cruelty, fit only to be ranked with a Nero or a Caligula; and complained of the insult that had been offered to the memory of the late British monarch, by Dr. Chandler’s parallel between him and the king of Israel. This attack occasioned Dr. Chandler to publish, in the following year, “A Review of the History of the Man after God’s own Heart;” in which the falsehoods and misrepresentations of the historian are exposed and corrected. He also prepared for the press a more elaborate work, which was afterwards published in 2 vols. 8vo, under the following title: “A Critical History of the Life of David; in which the principal events are ranged in order of time; the chief objections of Mr. Bayle, and others, against the character of this prince, and the scripture account of him, and the occurrences of his reign, are examined and refuted; and the psalms which refer to him explained.” As this was the last, it was, likewise, one of the best of Dr. Chandler’s productions. The greatest part of this work was printed off at the time of our author’s death, which happened May &> 1766, aged seventy-three. During the last year of his life, he was visited with frequent returns of a very painful disorder, which he endured with great resignation and Christian fortitude. He was interred in the burying-ground at Bunhill-fields, on the 16th of the month; and his funeral was very honourably attended by ministers and other gentlemen. He expressly desired, by his last will, that no delineation of his character might be given in his funeral sermon, which was preached by Dr. Amory. He had several children; two sons and a daughter who died before him, and three daughters who survived him. His library was sold the same year.

Dr. Chandler’s other works were: 1. “Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists, in their late writings against Christianity,” 1727. 2. “A Vindication of the Antiquity and Authority of Daniel’s Prophecies,” 1728, 3. A translation of Limborch’s “History of the Inquisition,” 1731, 2 vols. 4to. To this he prefixed “A large introduction, concerning the rise and progress of persecution, and the real and pretended causes of it.” This was attacked by Dr. Berriman, in a pamphlet entitled “Brief Remarks on Mr. Chandler’s Introduction to the History of the Inquisition.” Our author published, in the form of a letter, an answer to these “Remarks,” which engaged Dr. Berriman to write “A Review of his Remarks,” to which Mr. Chandler replied in “A second Letter to William Berriman, D. D. &c. in which his Review of his Hemarks on the Introduction to the History of the Inquisition is considered, and the Characters of St. Athanasius, and Martyr Laud, are farther stated and supported.” This publication was soon followed by another, entitled “A Vindication of a passage of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London, in his second Pastoral Letter, against the misrepresentations of William Berriman, D. D. in a Letter to his Lordship;” and here the controversy ended. 4. “The Dispute better adjusted about the proper time of applying for a repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts,” &c.“1732, 8vo. 5.” A Paraphrase and critical Commentary on the prophecy of Joel,“1735, 4to. This was part of a commentary on the whole of the prophets, which he did not live to finish. 6.” The History of Persecution,“1736, 8vo. 7.” A Vindication of the History of the Old Testament,“in answer to Morgan’s” Moral Philosopher,“1741, 8vo. 8.” A Defence of the Prime Ministry and Character of Joseph,“1742, 8vo. 9.” The Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ re-examined, and their Testimony proved consistent,“1744, 8vo. 10.” The Case of Subscription to explanatory articles of faith, &c. calmly considered,“1748, 8vo. 11.” A Letter to the rev. Mr. John Guyse, occasioned by his two sermojis on Acts ix. 20. in which the scripture notion of preaching Christ is stated and defended, and Mr. Guyse’s charges against his brethren are considered and proved groundless,“1729, 8vo. 12.” A second Letter to the rev. Mr. John Guyse, in which Mr. Guyse’s latitude and restrictive ways of preaching Christ are proved to be entirely the same; the notion of preaching Christ is farther cleared and defended; the charge alledged against 'him of defaming his brethren is maintained and supported; and his solemn arts in controversy are considered and exposed,“1730, 8vo. 13.” A Letter to the right hon. the Lord Mayor; occasioned by his lordship’s nomination of five persons, disqualified by act of parliament, as fit and proper persons to serve the office^ of Sheriffs, in which the nature and design of the corporation act is impartially considered and stated,“1738, 8vo. 14.” An Account of the Conferences held in Nicholas-lane, Feb. 13, 1734, between two Romish priests and some protestant divines; with some remarks on a pamphlet entitled The Conferences, c. truly stated/ 7 1735, 8vo. 15. “Cassiodori Senatoris Complexiones in Epistolas, Acta Apostolorum, & Apocalypsin, e vetustissimis Canonicorum Veronensium membranis nuper erutee. Editio altera ad Florentinam fideliter expressa, opera & cura Samuelis Chandleri,” 1722, 12mo. 16. “A short and plain Catechism, being an explanation of the Creed, Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer, by way of question and answer,” 1742, 12mo. 17. “Great Britain’s Memorial against the Pretender and Popery; to which is annexed, the method of dragooning the French protestants after the revocation of the edict of Nantes,” 1715, 12mo. This piece was thought so seasonable at the time of the rebellion, that it passed through ten editions. 18. “Many occasional sermons.” Dr. Chandler also wrote about fifty papers in the weekly publication called “The Old Whig, or Consistent Protestant.” In 1768, 4 vols. of his sermons were published by Dr. Amory, according to his own directions in his last will; to which was prefixed a neat engraving of him, from an excellent portrait by Mr. Chamberlin. He also expressed a desire to have some of his principal pieces, reprinted in 4 vols. 8vo; proposals were accordingly published for that purpose, but did not meet with sufficient encouragement. But in 1777, another work of our author was published, in 1 vol. 4to, “A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, with doctrinal and practical Observations; together with a critical and practical Commentary on the two Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians.” In this there are some valuable criticisms, but all are not entitled to that praise. Dr. Chandler also left in his interleaved Bible, a large number of critical notes, chiefly in Latin, and which were intended to be published; but the design has not yet been executed, and the four gentlemen to whom they were intrusted, Dr. Kippis, Mr. Farmer, Dr. Price, and Dr. Savage, are all dead, nor have we heard in what manner they disposed of the copy.

In 1774, Mr. (now Dr.) Chandler, published what maybe considered as a valuable supplement to the collections of ancient inscriptions by Gruter, Muratori, &c. under the title of “Inscriptiones antiques, pleraeque nondum editac, in Asia Minore et Graecia, praeseriim Athenis coilectse,” fol. Clarendon press. The year following he gratified a much larger proportion of the public by his “Travels in Asia Minor; or an Account of a Tour made at the expence of the Society of Dilletanti,” 4to, a work of considerable learning, and replete with curious information. This was immediately followed by his '< Travels in Greece," 1776, 4to: the principal part of this volume consists of a description of Attica and its celebrated capital Athens, which is highly interesting, although, both in this and the preceding volume of travels, there are marks of carelessness and haste which frequently obscure the author’s meaning.

In 1802, he published “The History of Ilium or Troy: including the adjacent Country, and the opposite Coast of the Chersonesus of Thrace.”

, a learned French antiquary, was born at Paris, Sept. 12, 1538, and became highly distinguished for general erudition, and especially for his knowledge of civil and canon law, history, politics, and the belles lettres. Nor was he less admired for the excellence of his private character. Louis XIII. made him intendant of the fortifications of the gabelles, or excise on salt, &c. in the principality of Sedan, and lastly intendant of the finances of the duchies of Bar and Lorrain. He compiled, from original records, “Historical Memoirs of the Houses of Lorrain and Bar;” the first part of which only was published at Paris, 1642, folio. He also published other works on detached parts of French history; and after his death, his son published his “Treatise on Fiefs,” 1662, folio, in which he maintains an opinion, which has been thought to be erroneous, viz. that hereditary fiefs commenced only after the time of Hugh Capet. He died at Paris in 1658.

, a celebrated French poet, was born at Paris Dec. 4, 1595, and having been educated under Frederic Morel, Nicholas Bourbon, and other eminent masters, became tutor to the children of the marquis de la Trousse, grand marshal of France, and afterwards steward to this nobleman. During an abode of seventeen years in this family, he translated “Guzman d'Alfarache,” from the Spanish, and directed his particular attention to poetry. He wrote odes, sonnets, the last words of cardinal Richelieu, and other pieces of poetry; and at length distinguished himself by his heroic poem called “La Pucelle,” or “France delivree.” Chapelain was thought to have succeeded to the reputation of Malherbe, and after his death was reckoned the prince of the French poets. Gassendi, who was his friend, has considered him in this light; and says, that “the French muses have found some comfort and reparation for the loss they have sustained by the death of Malherbe, in the person of Chapelain, who has now taken the place of the defunct, and is become the arbiter of the French language and poetry.” Sorbiere has not scrupled to say, that Chapelain “reached even Virgil himself in heroic poetry;” and adds, that “he was a man of great erudition as well as modesty.” He possessed this glorious reputation for thirty years; and, perhaps, might have possessed it now, if he had suppressed the “Pucelle:” but the publication of this poem in 1656, ruined his poetical character, in spite of all attempts of his friends to support it. He had employed a great many years about it; the expectation of the public was raised to the utmost; and, as is usual in such cases, disappointed. The consequence of this was, that he was afterwards set as much too low in his poetical capacity as perhaps before he was too high.

, a dramatic poet, and translator of Homer, was born in 1557, as generally supposed, in Kent, but we have no account at what school he was educated: he was, however, sent to the university when he was about seventeen years of age, and spent about two years at Trinity college, Oxford, where he paid little attention to logic or philosophy, but was eminently distinguished for his knowledge in the Greek and Roman classics. About the year 1576 he quitted the university, and repaired to the metropolis, where he commenced a friendship with Shakspeare, Spenser, Daniel, Marlow, and other celebrated wits. In 1595 he published, in 4to, a poem entitled “Ovid’s Banquet of Sauce, a coronet for his mistress philosophy, and his amorous zodiac:” to which he added, a translation of a poem into English, called “The amorous contention of Phillis and Flora,” written in Latin by a friar in 1400. The following year he published in 4to, “The Shield of Achilles,' 7 from Homer; and soon after, in the same year, a translation of seven books of the Iliad, in 4to. In 1600, fifteen books were printed in a thin folio; and lastly, without date, an entire translation of the Iliad, in folio, under the following title:” The Iliads of Homer, Prince of Poets. Never before in any language truly translated. With a comment upon some of his chief places: done according to the Greek by George Chapman. At London, printed by Nathaniel Butter."

In 1598 he produced a comedy entitled “The Blind Beggar of Alexandria, most pleasantly discoursing his various humours in disguised shapes, full of conceit and pleasure,” 4to, but not divided either into acts or scenes, and dedicated to the earl of Nottingham, lord high admiral. The following year he published another comedy in 4to, called “Humorous Day’s Mirth,” which was acted by the earl of Nottingham’s servants. He is said to have been much countenanced and encouraged by sir Thomas Walsingham, who, as Wood informs us, had a son of the same name, “whom Chapman loved from his birth.” Henry, prince of Wales, and Carr, earl of Somerset, also patronized him; but the former dying, and the latter being disgraced, Chapman’s hopes of preferment by their means were frustrated. His interest at court was likewise probably lessened by the umbrage taken by king James at some reflections cast on the Scotch nation in a comedy _ called “Eastward Hoe,” written by Chapman, in conjunction with Ben Jonson and John Marston. He is supposed, however, to have had some place at court, either under king James, or his queen Anne.

About this time he published an “Epicede, or Funeral Song on prince Henry;” and when the societies of Lincoln’s Inn and the Middle Temple, in 1613, had resolved to exhibit a splendid masque at Whitehall, in honour of the nuptials of the Palsgrave and the princess Elizabeth, Chapman was employed for the poetry, and Inigo Jones for the machinery. The same year he published, in 4to, a tragedy entitled “Bussy d'Amboise his Revenge,” not acted with much applause. In 1714 he published in 4tq, “Andromeda liberata; or, the Nuptials of Perseus and Andromeda,” dedicated, in a poetical epistle, to Robert, earl of Somerset, and Frances, his countess. The same year he printed his version of the “Odyssey,” which he also dedicated to the earl of Somerset. This was soon followed, by the “Batrachomuomachy,” and the “Hymns,” and “Epigrams.” In 1616 he published in 12mo, a translation of “Musceus,” with a dedication to Inigo Jones, in which he is addressed as the most skilful and ingenious architect that England had yet seen. Mr. Warton remarks, that “there was an intimate friendship between our author and this celebrated restorer of Grecian palaces.” Chapman also published a paraphrastic translation, in verse, of Petrarch’s “Seven Penitential Psalms,” with “A xHymn to Christ upon the Cross;” “The Tragedy of Al­>phonsus, emperor of Germany” “Revenge for Honour,” a tragedy and some attribute to him the “Two Wise Men,” a comedy. He is also supposed to have translated “Hesiod,” but it does not appear to have been printed.

He died in 1634, at the age of seventy-seven, and was buried on the south side of St. Giles’s church in the Fields. His friend Inigo Jones planned and erected a monument to his memory, which was unfortunately destroyed with the old church. He appears to have been much respected in his own time; and, indeed, the man who communicated Homer to his countrymen, even in such language as that of Chapman, might justly be considered as their benefactor; and in estimating the merit of his version, candid allowance ought to be made for the age in which he lived, and the then unimproved state of our language. Of this translation Mr. Warton says, Chapman “is sometimes paraphrastic and redundant, but more frequently retrenches or impoverishes what he could not feel and express. In the mean time he labours with the inconvenience of an aukward, inharmonious, and unheroic measure, imposed by custom, but disgustful to modern ears. Yet he is not always without strength or spirit. He has enriched our language with many compound epithets, much in the manner of Homer, such as the silver-footed Thetis, the silver-thorned Juno, the triple-feathered helme, the highwalled Thebes, the fair-haired boy, the silver-flowing floods, the hugely-peopled towns, the Grecians navy-bound, the strong-winged lance, and many more which might be collected. Dryden reports, that Waller never could read Chapman’s Homer without a degree of transport. Pope is of opinion that Chapman covers his defects by a daring fiery spirit, that animates his translation, which is something like what one might imagine Homer himself to have written before he arrived to years of discretion.' But his fire is too frequently darkened by that sort of fustian which now disfigured the face of our tragedy.” Mr. Warton’s copy once belonged to Pope in which he has noted many of Chapman’s absolute interpolations, extending sometimes to the length of a paragraph of twelve lines. A diligent observer will easily discern that Pope was no careless reader of his rude predecessor. Pope complains that Chapman took advantage of an unmeasureable length of line but in reality, Pope’s lines are longer than Chapman’s. If Chapman affected the reputation of rendering line for line, the specious expedient of chusing a protracted measure which concatenated two lines together, undoubtedly favoured his usual propensity to periphrasis. — As a dramatic writer, he had considerable reputation among his contemporaries, and was justly esteemed for the excellence of his moral character. Wood says that he was a person of most reverend aspect, religious and temperate, qualities rarely meeting in a poet."

, LL. D. a learned schoolmaster in Scotland, was born at Alvah in the county of Banff, in August 1723, and educated at the grammar-school of Banff, whence in 1737 he removed to King’s college, Aberdeen. During the academical vacation, which lasts from April to October, he engaged as a private tutor in the family of a gentleman, by whose interest he was appointed master of the school of Alvah, and being indulged with a substitute, he continued his academical course until April 1741, when he took the degree of master of arts. Feeling now a strong propensity to tuition, in order to qualify himself for conducting some respectable establishment of that kind, and in a situation of great publicity, he became assistant teacher in the grammar-school of Dalkeith. On the recommendation of his friend and patron Dr. George Stewart, professor of humanity in the university of Edinburgh, he was in February 1747 admitted joint master of the grammar-school of Dumfries with Mr. Robert Trotter, on whose resignation from age and infirmity, three years after, Mr. Chapman was promoted to be rector or head-master; and in this laborious office he continued with increasing reputation and success, until Martinmas 1774. A few years after he had formed and experienced the good effects of the plan of education which he adopted in this seminary, he committed it to writing, and occasionally submitted it, in the various stages of progression, to the inspection and observations of his particular friends, of whose animadversions he availed himself by subjecting them to the test of attentive experiment. In the autumn of 1774, desirous of some relief from his accumulated labours, the consequence of his extensive fame as a teacher, he resigned his office in the school, and confined himself to the instruction of a few pupils who boarded in his house, until conceiving that this limited kind of academy, which parents were often soliciting him to enlarge, might affect the interest of his successor in the school, he removed, in 1801, to Inchdrewer near Banff, a farm that had long been occupied by his father, and to the lease of which he had succeeded on his death. On this he erected a handsome dwelling-house, capable of accommodating a considerable number of boarders for tuition, an employment he could never relinquish, and for which few men were better qualified. He afterwards received the degree of LL. D. from the Marischal college of Aberdeen, and about the same time removed to Edinburgh to superintend a printing-house for the benefit of a relation, and occasionally gave his assistance to the students of the university. He died at his house in Rose-street, Edinburgh, Feb. 22, 1806, in the' eighty-third year of his age, leaving a character, as a schoolmaster and a gentleman, which will not soon be forgotten by his numerous pupils and friends. His publications were; 1. “A treatise on Education,” 1773, 8vo, already noticed, and which added much to his reputation. It is now in the fifth edition. 2. “Hints on the Education of the Lower Ranks of the People, and the appointment of Parochial Schoolmasters.” 3. “Advantages of a Classical Education, c.” 4. “An abridgment of Mr. Ruddiman’s Rudiments and Latin. Grammar.” 5. “East India Tracts; viz. Collegium Bengalense, a Latin poem, Translation and Dissertation. 7 ' This Latin poem, in Sapphic verse, and in which there is a considerable portion of fancy, with correct versification, may be considered as a very uncommon instance of vigour of mind at the advanced age of eighty-two. A new edition of his works, for the benefit of his family, was announced soon after his death, in a” Sketch of his Life," published in 1808, 8vo, and was to have been sent to press as soon as a requisite number of subscriptions were received, but we are sorry to find that this undertaking has not been so liberally patronized as might have been expected.

, an ingenious English lady, was the daughter of Thomas Mulso, esq. of Tvvy well in Northamptonshire, and was born Oct. 27, 1727. At a very early age she exhibited proofs of a lively imagination and superior understanding. It is said that at nine years of age she composed a romance, entitled “The Loves of Amoret and Melissa,” which, we are told, exhibited “fertility of invention, and extraordinary specimens of genius.” Her mother was a beauty, with all the vanity that unhappily attaches to beauty, and fearing that her daughter’s understanding might become a more attractive object than the personal charms on which she valued herself, she took no pleasure in the progress which Hester seemed to make, and if she did not obstruct, employed at least no extraordinary pains in promoting her education. This mother, however, died when her daughter was yet young, and a circumstance which otherwise might have been of serious consequence, seemed to strengthen the inclination miss Mulso had shewn to cultivate her mind. She studied the French and Italian languages, and made some progress in the Latin. She read the best authors, especially those who treat of morals and philosophy. To these she added a critical perusal of the Holy Scriptures, but history, we are told, made no part of her studies until the latter part of her life. Her acquaintance with Richardson, whose novels were the favourites of her sex, introduced her to Mr. Chapone, a young gentleman then practising law in the Temple. Their attachment was mutual, but not hasty, or imprudent. She obtained her father’s consent, and a social intimacy continued tor a considerable period, before it ended in marriage. In the mean time, miss Mulso became acquainted with the celebrated miss Carter; a correspondence took place between them, which increased their mutual esteem, and a friendship was thus cemented, which lasted during a course of more than fifty years.

In 1760 she was married to Mr. Chapone, removed to London, and for some time lived with her husband in lodgings in Carey-street, and afterwards in Arundel-street. She enjoyed every degree of happiness which mutual attachment could confer, but it was of short duration. In less than ten months after they were married, Mr. Chapone was seized with a fever which terminated his life, after about a week’s illness. At first Mrs. Chapone seemed to bear this calamity with fortitude, but it preyed on her health, and for some time her life was despaired of. She recovered, however, gradually, and resigned herself to a state of life in which she yet found many friends and many consolations. Most of her time was passed in London, or in occasional visits to her friends, among whom she had the happiness to number many distinguished characters of both sexes, lord Lyttelton, Mrs. Montague, and the circle who usually visited her house. In 1770 she accompanied Mrs. Montague into Scotland. In 1773 she published her “Letters on the Improvement of the Mind,” originally intended for the use of her niece, but given to the world at the request of Mrs. Montague, and her other literary friends. As this was her first avowed publication, it made her name more generally known, and increased the number of her admirers. This work was followed by a “Volume of Miscellanies,” including some pieces formerly published without her name.

Another transit of Venus, which, according to astronomical calculation, was to happen on the 3d of June 1769, afforded the abbe Chappe a new opportunity of manifesting his zeal for the advancement of astronomy. California was pointed out as the properest place in that quarter for observing this phenomenon; and the abbe, who had triumphed over the rigours of the north, thought he could brave also the ardours of the torrid zone. He departed therefore from Paris in 1768, in company with M. Pauli, an engineer, and M. Noel, a draftsman, whose talents gave reason to hope, that he might contribute to render the expedition interesting in more respects than one. He carried with him also a watchmaker, to take care of his instruments, and to keep them in proper repair. On his arrival at Cadiz, the vessel belonging to the Spanish flota, in which he was to embark for Vera Cruz, not being ready in time, he obtained an order for equipping a brigantine, which carried twelve men. The fragility of this vessel, which would have alarmed any other person, appeared to the abbe as adding to the merit of the enterprise. Judging of its velocity by its lightness, he considered it as better calculated to gratify his impatience; and in this he was not deceived: for he arrived safe at the capital of New Spain, where he met with no delay. The marquis de Croix, governor of Mexico, seconded his activity so well, that he reached St. Joseph nineteen days before the time marked out for the observation. The village of St. Joseph, where the abbé landed, was desolated by an infectious disorder, which had raged for some time, and destroyed great numbers of the inhabitants. In vain did his friends, from a tender solicitude for his preservation, urge him to remove from the infection, not to expose himself imprudently, and to take his station at some distance towards Cape San Lucar. His lively and ardent zeal for the promotion of science, shut his ears against all these remonstrances; and the only danger he dreaded was, that of losing the opportunity of accomplishing the object of his wishes. He had the good fortune, however, to make his observation in the completest manner on the 3d of June but, becoming a victim to his resolution, he was three days after attacked by the distemper which seemed hitherto to have respected him. Surrounded by his acquaintances, either sick or dying, and destitute of that assistance which he had given them as long as health remained, the abbé was struggling between life and death, when by his own imprudence he destroyed every ray of hope, and hastened that fatal period which deprived the world of this valuable member of society. The very day he had taken physic he insisted upon observing an eclipse of the moon; but, scarcely had he finished his observation, when his disorder grew considerably worse, and the remedies administered not being able to check its progress, he died on the 1st of August 1769, in the 42d year of his age.

Mr. Chappelow' s next publication, at a considerable distance of time, was “A Commentary on the book of lob, in which is inserted the Hebrew text, and English translation with a paraphrase from the third verse of the third chapter, where it is supposed the metre begins, to the seventh verse of the forty-second chapter, where it ends,” 1752, 2 vols. 4to. In this curious work Mr. Chappelow maintains that an Arabic poem was written by Job himself, and that it was modelled by a Hebrew at a later period, but this period he does not take upon him to ascertain. In other respects his opinions, as to the intention of this sublime book, are judicious. In 1758 he published “The Traveller; an Arabic poem, entitled Tograi, written by Abu Ismael; translated into Latin, and published with notes in 1661, by Dr. Pocock, and now rendered into English in the same Iambic measure as the original; with some additional notes to illustrate the poem,” 4to. This, although ably executed, is rather a paraphrase than a translation, but well expresses the sense of the original. In 1765 he published “Two Sermons concerning the State of the Soul on its immediate separation from the body written by bishop Bull, together with some extracts relating to the same subject; taken from writers of distinguished note and character. With a preface,” 8vo. This preface is all that belongs to Mr. Chappelow, and is very short. He coincides with bishop Bull’s opinion, that the final state of man is determined at death, and he supports it by extracts from Tillotson, Whitby, Lightfoot, Stanhope, Smalridge, and Limborch. His last publication was entitled “Six Assemblies; or Ingenious Conversations of learned men among the Arabians, &c. formerly published by the celebrated Schultens, in Arabic and Latin, with large notes and observations, &c.” 1767, 8vo. This amusing collection of prose and poetry is part of a larger work written in Arabic by Hariri of Barsa, a city in the kingdom of Babylon, and throws considerable light upon many passages of Scripture. The editor’s notes are very valuable. Mr. Chappelow, after holding his professorship with much reputation for nearly half a century, died Jan. 14, 1768, in his seventyfifth year, leaving a widow, who died July 1779, at Cambridge.

After Chardin’s return to Paris, he remained there only fifteen months, the king of Persia having made him his agent in 1666, and commissioned him to purchase several trinkets of value. Chardin accordingly left Paris Aug. 17, 1671, and set sail in November from Leghorn in a vessel bound for Smyrna, again visited Persia, and did not return to Europe until 1677. He now determined to settle in England, and came to London in April 1681, and on the 24th of that month was knighted by Charles II. The same day he married a young lady of Rouen, the daughter of a protestant refugee in London. Next year he was chosen a fellow of the royal society. After this, Charles II. sent him to Holland; and in 1683, we find him there as agent for the English East India Company. In 1686 he published the first part of his Voyages, (the other not appearing until 1711), under the title of “Journal duVoyage de Chardin en Perse, et aux Inde? Orientates, par la Mer Noire et par la Colchide,” folio. This was immediately translated into English under his inspection, and published the same year. The dedication to James II. is singular for a high complimentary strain, arising from his gratitude to Charles and James for their patronage of him, and, what he was more unfortunate in attempting, a prophecy of the duration of James’s reign. After this he carried on a considerable trade in jewels, but continued his studies of the oriental languages and antiquities. The continuation of his Travels was published along with the first part much enlarged at Amsterdam in 3 vols. 4to, and 10 vols. 8vo, with plates on which he employed the skill of M. Grelot, being himself no draftsman. There was also a new edition at Amsterdam in 1735, 4 vols. 4to. He died, according to Musgrave’s “Adversaria,” on Dec. 26, and not Jan. 5, 1713, as the French biographers report, and the register of C his wick proves that he was buried there December 29. There is no memorial of him at Chiswick, but there is a monument to his memory in Westminster Abbey, with only this inscription, “Sir John Chardin. Nomen sibi fecit enndo.” He lived in his latter days at a house in Turnham-green, which at his death was sold to Thomas Lutwyche, esq. His Travels have been translated into English, or at least large extracts in Harris’s and other collections of voyages, and into German, and Flemish; and as they contain authentic and valuable information with regard to the religion, manners, products, and commerce, &c. of the countries he visited, they obtained an extensive circulation. Among other curious particulars, he records several medical facts; and particularly an account of his own case, when he was attacked with a dangerous fever at Gombron, and cured by the country physicians, who employed the repeated affusion of cold water. This fact has suggested an useful hint to modern practitioners.

In the preface to his Voyages, he promised other works, as “A Geography of Persia;” “A Compendious History of that Empire, taken from Persian Authors;” and “Observations on Passages of the Holy Scripture, explained by the manners and customs of the East,” but the two former never appeared, and the latter was discovered by a public advertisement In 1770, sir John’s descendants advertised a reward of twenty guineas for this manuscript, which they call “A Commentary or Explanation of the Old Testament, from the manners and customs of the East, written in French by sir J. Chardin,” and which, they add, about twenty years before, i. e. 1750, was seen by a gentleman in the possession of Dr. Oldfield. It was describecTto have been a thin quarto volume, in a very small hand. But when Mr. Harmer compiled his “Observations on divers passages of Scripture, &c.” illustrated by books of travels, he recovered this treasure by means of sir William Jlusgrave, bart. in whose possession it was, not a single quarto volume, but six small ms volumes, the principal part of which Mr. Harmer incorporated in his valuable work.

Her adventures during the remainder of her life are nothing but one variegated scene of distresses, of a kind to which no one can be a stranger, who has either seen or read the accounts of those most wretched of all human beings, the members of a strolling company of actors we may therefore be excused the entering into particulars. In 1755 she came to London, where she published the “Narrative of her own Life:” whether the profits of her book enabled her to subsist for the short remainder of it, without seeking for farther adventures, is uncertain. Death, however, put a period to it, and thereby to one continued course of misery, April 6, 1760.

This war being finished in less than six weeks, in the course of the year 1700, he marched against the Russians, who were then besieging Narva with 100,000 men. He attacked them with 8000, and forced them into their entrenchments. Thirty thousand were slain or drowned, 20,000 asked for quarter, and the rest were taken or dispersed. Charles permitted half the Russian soldiers to return without arms, and half to repass the river with their arms. He detained none but the commanders in chief, to whom, however, he returned their arms and their money. Among these there was an Asiatic prince, born at the foot of mount Caucasus, who was now to live captive amidst the ice of Sweden; “which,” says Charles, “is just the same as if I were some time to be a prisoner among the Crim-Tartars:” words, which the capriciousness of fortune caused afterwards to be recollected, when this Swedish hero was forced to seek an asylum in Turkey. It is to be noted, that Charles had only 1200 killed, and 800 wounded, at the battle of Narva.

This peace was concluded in 1706, and now he might and ought to have been reconciled with the tzar Peter; but he chose to turn his arms against him, apparently with a design to dethrone him, as he had dethroned Augustus. Peter was aware of it, and said, that “his brother Charles affected to be Alexander, but would be greatly disappointed if he expected to find him Darius.” Charles Jeft Saxony in the autumn of 1707, with an army of 43,000 men: the Russians abandoned Grodno at his approach He drove them before him, passed the Boristhenes, treated with the Cossacks, and came to encamp upon the Dezena; and, after several advantages, was marching to Moscow through the deserts of the Ukraine. But fortune abandoned him at Pultowa, July 1709; where he was beaten by Peter, wounded in the leg, had all his army either destroyed or taken prisoners, and forced to save himself by being carried off in a litter. And, thus reduced to seek an asylum among the Turks, he gained Otchakof, and retired to Bender. All which replaced Augustus on the throne of Poland, and immortalized Peter.

The grand seignor gave Charles a handsome reception, and appointed him a guard of 400 Tartars. The king of Sweden’s view, in coming to Turkey, was to excite the Porte against the tzar Peter: but, not succeeding either by menaces or intrigues, he grew in time obstinate and restive, and even braved the grand seignor, although he was his prisoner. The Porte wanted much to get rid of their guest, and at length was compelled to offer a little violence. Charles entrenched himself in his house at Bender, and defended himself against an army with 40 domestics, and would not surrender till his house was on fire. From Bender he was removed to Demotika, where he grew sulky, and was resolved to lie in bed all the time he should be there: and he actually did lie in bed 10 months, feigning to be sick.

As to his person, he was tall and of a noble mien, had a fine open forehead, large blue eyes, flaxen hair, fair complexion, an handsome nose, but little beard, and a laugh not agreeable. His manners were harsh and austere, not to say savage: and, as to religion, he was indifferent towards all, though outwardly a Lutheran. A few anecdotes will illustrate his character. No dangers, however great, made the least impression upon him. When a horse or two were killed under him at the battle of Narva in 1700, he leaped nimbly upon fresh ones, saying, “These people find me exercise.” One day, when he was dictating letters to a secretary, a bomb fell through the roof into the next room of the house, where they were sitting. The secretary, terrified lest the house should come down upon them, let his pen drop out of his hand: “What is the matter,” says the king calmly. The secretary could only reply, “Ah, sir, the bomb.” “The bomb!” says the king; “what has the bomb to do with what I am dictating? Go on.”

, a very learned physician, and voluminous writer, the son of the rev. Walter Charleton, M. A. some time vicar of Ilminster, and afterwards rector of Shepton Mallet, in the county of Somerset, was born at Shepton Mallet, February 2, 1619, and was first educated by his father, a man of extensive capacity, though but indifferently furnished with the goods of fortune. He was afterwards sent to Oxford, and entered of Magdalen Hall in Lent term 1635, where he became the pupil of the famous Dr. John Wilkins, afterwards bishop of Chester, under whom he made great progress in logic and philosophy, and was noted for assiduous application and extensive capacity, which encouraged him to aim at the accomplishments of an universal scholar. But as his circumstances confined him to some particular profession, he made choice of physic, and in a short time made as great a progress in that as he had done in his former studies. On the breaking out of the civil war, which brought the king to Oxford, Mr. Charleton, by the favour of the king, had the degree of doctor of physic conferred upon him in February 1642, and was soon after made one of the physicians in ordinary to his majesty. These honours made him be considered as a rising character, and exposed him to that envy and resentment which he could never entirely conquer. Upon the declension of the royal cause, he came up to London, was admitted of the college of physicians, acquired considerable practice, and lived in much esteem with the ablest and most learned men of the profession; such as sir Francis Prujean, sir George Ent, Dr. William Harvey, and others. In the space of ten years before the Restoration, he wrote and published several very ingenious and learned treatises, as well on physical as other subjects, by which he gained great reputation abroad as well as at home; and though they are now less regarded than perhaps they deserve, yet they were then received with almost universal approbation. He became, as Wood tells us, physician in ordinary to king Charles II. while in exile, which honour he retained after the king’s return; and, upon the founding of the royal society, was chosen one of the first members. Among other patrons and friends were William Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, whose life Dr. Cliarleton translated into Latin in a very clear and elegant style, and the celebrated Hobbes, but this intimacy, with: his avowed respect for the Epicurean philosophy, drew some suspicions upon him in regard to his religion, notwithstanding the pains he had taken to distinguish between the religious and philosophical opinions of Epicurus in his own writings against infidelity. Few circumstances seem to have drawn more censure on him than his venturing to differ in opinion from the celebrated Inigo Jones respecting Stonehenge, which Jones attributed to the Romans, and asserted to be a temple dedicated by them to the god Coelus, or Coelum; Dr. Charleton referred this antiquity to later and more barbarous times, and transmitted Jones’s book, which was not published till after its author’s death, to Olaus Wormius, who wrote him several letters, tending to fortify him in his own sentiment, by proving that this work ought rather to be attributed to his countrymen the Danes. With this assistance Dr. Charleton drew up a treatise, offering many strong arguments to shew, that this could not be a Roman temple, and several plausible reasons why it ought rather to be considered as a Danish monument; but his book, though learned, and enriched with a great variety of curious observations, was but indifferently received, and but coldly defended by his friends. Jones’s son-in-law answered it with intemperate warmth, and many liberties were taken by others with Dr. Charleton’s character, although sir William Dugdale and some other eminent antiquaries owned themselves to be of our author’s opinion; but it is now supposed that both are wrong. Notwithstanding this clamour, Dr. Charleton’s fame was advanced by his anatomical prelections in the college theatre, in the spring of 1683, and his satisfactory defence of the immortal Harvey’s claim to the discovery of the circulation of the blood, against the pretence that was set up in favour of father Paul. In 1689 he was chosen president of the college of physicians, in which office he continued to the year 1691. A little after this, his circumstances becoming narrow, he found it necessary to seek a retreat in the island of Jersey; but the causes of this are not explained, nor have we been able to discover how long he continued in Jersey, or whether he returned afterwards to London. All that is known with certainty is, that he died in the latter end of 1707, and in the eighty-eighth year of his age. He appears from his writings to have been a man of extensive learning, a lover of the constitution in church and state, and so much a lover of his country as to refuse a professor’s chair in the university of Padua. In his junior years he dedicated much of his time to the study of philosophy and polite literature, was as well read in the Greek and Roman authors as any man of his time, and he was taught very early by his excellent tutor, bishop Wilkins, to digest his knowledge so as to command it readily when occasion required. In every branch of his own profession he has left testimonies of his diligence and his capacity; and whoever considers the plainness and perspicuity of his language, the pains he has taken to collect and produce the opinions of the old physicians, in order to compare them with the moderns, the just remarks with which these collections and comparisons are attended, the succinctness with which all this is dispatched, and the great accuracy of that method in which his books are written, will readily agree that he was equal to most of his contemporaries. As an antiquary, he had taken much pains in perusing our ancient historians, and in observing their excellencies as well as their defects. But, above all, he was studious of connecting the sciences with each other, and thereby rendering them severally more perfect; in which, if he did not absolutely succeed himself, he had at least the satisfaction of opening the way to others, of showing the true road to perfection, and pointing out the means of applying and making those discoveries useful, which have followed in succeeding times. There is also good reason to believe, that though we have few or none of his writings extant that were composed during the last twenty years of his life, yet he was not idle during that space, but committed many things to paper, as materials at least for other works that he designed. There is now a large collection of his ms papers and letters on subjects of philosophy and natural history in the British Museum. (Ayscough’s Catalogue.) His printed works are, 1 . “Spiritus Gorgonicus vi sua saxipara exutus, sive de causis, signis, et sanatione Lithiaseos,” Leyden, 1650, 8vo. This book is usually called De Lithiasi Diatriba. 2. “The darkness of Atheism discovered by the light of nature, a physicotheological treatise,” London, 1651, 4to. 3. “The Ephesian and Cimmerian Matrons, two remarkable examples of the power of Love and Wit/ 7 London, 1653 and 1658, 8vo. 4.” Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charletoniana: or a fabric of natural science erected upon the most ancient hypothesis of atoms,“London, 1654, in fol. 5.” The Immortality of the human Soul demonstrated by reasons natural,“London, 1657, 4to. 6.” Oeconomia Animalis novis Anatomicorum inventis, indeque desumptis modernorum Medicorum Hypothesibus Physicis superstructa et mechanice explicata,“London, 1658, 12mo; Amsterdam, 1659, 12mo; Leyden, 1678, 12mO; Hague, 1681, 12mo. It is likewise added to the last edition of” Gulielmi Cole de secretione animali cogitata.“7.” Natural history of nutrition, life, and voluntary motion, containing all the new discoveries of anatomists,“&c. London, 1658, 4to. 8.” Exercitationes Physico-Anatomicse de Oeconomia Animali,“London, 1659, 8vo printed afterwards several times abroad. 9.” Exercitationes Pathologicæ, in quibus morborum pene omnium natura, generatio, et causae ex novis Anatomicorum inventis sedulo inquiruntur,“London, 160, and 1661, 4to. 10.” Character of his most sacred Majesty Charles II. King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,“London, 1660, one sheet, 4to. 11.” Disquisitiones duae Anatomico-Physica? altera Anatome pueri de ccelo tacti, altera de Proprietatibus Cerebri humani,“London, 1664, 8vo. 12.” Chorea Gigantum, or the most famous antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called Stonehenge, standing on Salisbury Plain, restored to the Danes,“London, 1663, 4to. 13.” Onomasticon Zoicon, plerorumque animalium differentias et nomina propria pluribus linguis exponens. Cui accedunt Mantissa Anatomice, et quiedam de variis Fossilium generibus,“London, 1668 and 1671, 4to; Oxon. 1677, fol. 14.” Two Philosophical Discourses the first concerning the different wits of men the second concerning the mystery of Vintners, or a discourse of the various sicknesses of wines, and their respective remedies at this day commonly used, &c. London, 1663, 1675, 1692, 8vo. 15. “De Scorbuto Liber singularis. Cui accessit Epiphonema in Medicastros,” London, 1671, 8vo; Leyden, 1672, 12mo. 16. “Natural History of the Passions,” London, 1674, 8vo. 17. “Enquiries into Humane Nature, in six Anatomy-prelections in the new theatre of the royal college of physicians in London,” London, 1680, 4to. 18. “Oratio Anniversaria habita in Theatro inclyti Collegii Medicorum Londinensis 5to Augusti 1680, in commemorationem Beneficiorum a Doctore Harvey aliisque præstitorum,” London, 1680, 4to. 19. “The harmony of natural and positive Divine Laws,” London, 1682, 8vo. 20. “Three Anatomic Lectures concerning, l.The motion of the blood through the veins and arteries. 2. The organic structure of the heart. 3. The efficient cause of the heart’s pulsation. Read in the 19th, 20th, and 21st day of March 1682, in the anatomic theatre of his majesty’s royal college of Physicians in London,” London, 1683, 4to. 21. “Inquisitio Physlca de causis Catameniorum, et Uteri Rheumatismo, in quo probatur sanguinem in animali fermentescere nunquam,” London, 1685, 8vo. 22. “Gulielmi Ducis Novicastrensis vita,” London, 1668, fol. This is a translation from the English original written by Margaret, the second wife of William duke of Newcastle. 23. “A Ternary of Paradoxes, of the magnetic cure of wounds, nativity of tartar in wine, and image of God in man,” London, 1650, 4to. 24. “The errors of physicians concerning Defluxions called Deliramenta Catarrhi,” London, 1650, 4to, both translations from Van Helmont. 25. “Epicurus his Morals,” London, 1655, 4to. This work of his is divided into thirty-one chapters, and in these he fully treats all the principles of the Epicurean philosophy, digested under their proper heads; tending to prove, that, considering the state of the heathen world, the morals of Epicurus were as good as any, as in a former work he had shewn that his philosophic opinions were the best of any, or at least capable of being explained in such a manner as that they might become so in the hands of a modern philosopher. This work was translated into several modern languages. 26. “The Life of Marcellus,” translated from Plutarch, and printed in the second volume of “Plutarch’s Lives translated from the Greek by several hands,” London, 1684, 8vo.

, was born in 1613, with a very delicate body, and a mind of the same quality. He was passionately fond of polite literature, and gained the love of all that cultivated it. His conversation was mingled with the gentleness and ingenuity that are apparent in his writings. Scarron, who was ludicrous even in his praises, speaking of the delicacy of his genius and taste, said, “that the muses had fed him upon, blanc-mange and chicken broth.” His benevolence was active and munificent. Having learnt that M. and madame Dacier were about to leave Paris, in order to live more at their ease in the country, he offered them ten thousand francs in gold, and insisted on their acceptance of it. Notwithstanding the feebleness of his constitution, by strictly adhering to the regimen prescribed him by the faculty, he spun out his life to the age of eighty. The frequent use of rhubarb heated him so much, that it brought on a fever, which the physicians thought of curing by copious bleeding, and one of them said to the rest: “There, the fever is now going off.” “I tell you,” replied Thevenot, the king’s librarian, who happened to be present, “it is the patient that is going off;” and Charleval died in an hour or two after, in 1693. J His poetical pieces fell into the hands of the president de Ris, his nephew, who never would consent to publish them. A small collection, however, was printed in 1759, 12mo; but they have scarcely supported their original reputation, although in France several of his epigrams are yet frequently quoted in all companies. The conversation of the marechal d'Horquincourt and father Canaye, printed in the works of St. Evremond, a piece full of originality and humour, is the composition of Charleval, excepting the little dissertation on Jansenism and Molinism, which St. Evremond subjoined to it; but it falls far short of the ingenuity of the rest of the work.

, esq. F. S. A. an ingenious but unfortunate writer, was born Nov. 28, 1756, the only son of John Charnock, esq. a native of the island of Barbadoes, and formerly an advocate of eminence at the English bar, by Frances, daughter of Thomas Boothby, of Chingford in Essex, esq. About 1767 he was placed at the rev. Reynell Cotton’s school at Winchester, and went from thence to the college, where, in the station of a commoner, he was under the immediate care of the celebrated Dr. Joseph Warton, the head master, in whose house he boarded, and became the peculiar favourite of that eminent tutor. Having attained to the seniority of the school, and gained the prize medal annually given for elocution, he removed from Winchester to Oxford, and was, in 1774, entered a gentleman-commoner of Merton college. Here he soon discovered his passion for literary composition, in a multiplicity of fugitive pieces on various subjects, which appeared in the periodical papers; many of them, however, were not of a kind likely to confer permanent reputation, being invectives against the American war, written in a vehement spirit of opposition, under the signatures of Casca, Squib, or Justice.

He left the university to return to a domestic life totally nnsuited to the activity both of body and mind for whicU he was remarkable, but which, amidst some family differences, he contrived to employ on the study of naval and military tactics; and with no other assistance than that of his mathematical knowledge, aided by a few books, he made a very considerable proficiency. The noble collection of drawings which he left, executed during that short period solely by his own hand, would alone furnish an ample proof of his knowledge of these subjects, and of the indefatigable zeal with which he pursued them. He now became anxious to put into practice what he had learnt, and earnestly pressed for permission to embrace the naval or military profession. He was at this time sole heir to a very considerable fortune, and the darling of his parents, but derived none of the advantages which usually follow these circumstances. His request being denied, he entered a volunteer into the naval service, and very soon attained that proficiency of which his publications on the subject will be lasting monuments. A sense of duty afterwards withdrew him again into private life; but his mind had received a wound in the disappointment, and other circumstances, which, his biographer says, it would be indelicate to particularize, contributed to keep it open. By the unkindness of those to whom he had most reason to look up, and partly by his own imprudence, he was obliged to have recourse to his pen for support, and although he employed it with talent and industry, it did not yield him the due recompence of his labours, nor the necessary supplies for his own maintenance and that of a beloved wife. Hence he became embarrassed in his circumstances, and the sources fromwhich he had the fairest right to expect relief being unaccountably closed against him, he was suffered to linger out the remainder of life in the prison of the King’s- Bench, in which he died May 16, 1807. His funeral deserves to be recorded. It was not that of an insolvent debtor. To the surprise of all who knew his melancholy history, he was interred with great ceremony and expence at Lea, near Biackheath, in the same grave which, within two years after, received his father and mother.

His works, besides many smaller pieces, were, 1. “The Rights of a Free People,” 1792, 8vo, an irony on the democracy of that period. 2. “Biographia Navalis,” 1794, &c. 6 vols. 8vo. 3. “A Letter on Finance and on National Defence,' 7 1798. 4.” A History of Marine Architecture,“3 vols. 4to. 5.” A Life of Lord Nelson,“1806. His” Biograpliia Navalis“is a truly valuable work, and supplies those deficiencies in the previous naval biographies of Campbell and Berkenhout, over whom Mr. Charnock had the superior advantage of professional knowledge. After his death was printed,” Loyalty or Invasion defeated," 1810, an historical tragedy.

He died April 22, 1702, aged 82. His harangues and discourses, delivered before the academy, or when he was chosen to make a speech to the king, are extant in the collections of the academy. As to the character of his works, it may be said in general, that wit and learning are every where visible but although we meet with some high flights of eloquence, and masterly strokes of composition, his taste has not been thought equal to his learning. His principal works are, “La Vie de Socrate,” 1650, 12mo. A translation of the “Cyropredia,” 1659, 12 mo. “Discours touchant l‘Etablissement d’une Compagnie Frangoise pour le Commerce des Indes Orientales,” 4to. “De Pexcellence de la Langue Francoise,” 1683, 2 vols. 12mo. “Carpentariana,” 12mo, &c. in which there are some amusing anecdotes, but they are not esteemed the best of the Ana.

, was born at Paris in 1541. Though his parents were in narrow circumstances, yet discovering their son’s capacity, they were particularly attentive to his education. After making a considerable proficiency in grammar-learning, he applied to logic, metaphysics, moral and natural philosophy, and afterwards studied civil and common law at the universities of Orleans and Bourges, and commenced doctor in that faculty. Upon his return to Paris, he was admitted an advocate in the court of parliament. He always declared the bar to be the best and most improving school in the world; and accordingly attended at all the public hearings for five or six years: but foreseeing that preferment in this way, if ever attained at all, was like to come very slow, as he had neither private interest, nor relations among the solicitors and proctors of the court, he gave over that employment, and closely applied to the study of divinity. By his superior pulpit eloquence, he soon came into high reputation with the greatest and most learned men of his time, insomuch that the bishops seemed to strive which of them should get him into his diocese; making him an offer of being theological canon or divinity lecturer in their churches, and of other dignities and benefices, besides giving him noble presents. He was successively theologal of Bazas, Aqcs, Lethoure, Agen, Cahors, and Condom, canon and schoolmaster in the church of Bourdeaux, and chanter in the church of Condom. Queen Margaret, duchess of Bulois, entertained him for her preacher in ordinary; and the king, though at that time a protestant, frequently did him the honour to be one of his audience. He was also retained by the cardinal d'Armagnac, the pope’s legate at Avignon, who had a great value for him; yet amidst all these promotions, he never took any degree or title in divinity, but satisfied himself with deserving and being capable of the highest. After about eighteen years absence from Paris, he resolved to end his days there; and being a lover of retirement, vowed to become a Carthusian. On his arrival at Paris, he communicated his intention to the prior of the order, but was rejected, notwithstanding his most pressing entreaties. They told him that he could not be received on account of his age, then about forty-eight, and that the order required all the vigour of youth to support its austerities. He next addressed himself to the Celestines at Paris, but with the same success, and for the same reasons: in this embarrassment, he was assured by three learned casuists, that as he was no ways accessary to the non -performance of his vow, it was no longer binding; and that he might, with a very safe conscience, continue in the world as a secular. He preached, however, a course of Lent sermons at Angers in 1589. Going afterwards to Bourdeaux, he contracted a very intimate friendship with Michael de Montagne, author of the well known Essays, from whom he received all possible testimonies of regard; for, among other things, Montagne ordered by his last will, that in case he should leave no issue-male of his own, M. Charron should, after his decease, be entitled to bear the coat of arms plain, as they belonged to his noble family, and Charron, in return, made Montagne’s brotherin-law his residuary legatee. He staid at Bourdeaux from 1589 to 1593; and in that interval composed his book, entitled, “Les Trois Verge’s,” which he published in 1594. These three truths are the following 1. That there is a God and a true religion 2. That of all religions the Christian is the only true one 3. That of all the Christian communions the Roman catholic is the only true church. This work procured him the acquaintance of M. de Sulpice, Bishop and count of Cahors, who sent for him and offered him the places of his vicar-general and canon theological in his church, which he accepted. He was deputed to the general assembly of the clergy in 1595, and was chosen first secretary to the assembly. In 1599 he returned to Cahors; and in that and the following year composed eight discourses upon the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; and. others upon the knowledge and providence of God, the redemption of the world, the communion of saints, and likewise his “books of Wisdom.” Whilst he was thus employed, the bishop of Condom, to draw him into his diocese, presented him with the chaptership in his church; and the theologal chair falling vacant about the same time, made him an offer of that too, which -Charron accepted, and resolved to settle there. In 1601 he printed at Bourdeaux his books “of Wisdom,” which gave him a great reputation, and made his character generally known. October 1603, he made a journey to Paris, to thank the Bishop of Boulogne; who, in order to have him near himself, had oifered him the place of theologal canon. This he was disposed to accept of; but the moisture and coldness of the air at Boulogne, and its nearness to the sea, not only made it, he said to a friend, a melancholy and unpleasant place, but very unwholesome too; adding, that the sun was his visible god, as God was his invisible sun. At Paris he began a new edition of his books “of Wisdom,” of which he lived to see but three or four sheets printed, dying Nov. 16, 1603, of an apoplexy. The impression of the new edition of his book “of Wisdom,” with alterations by the author, occasioned by the offence taken at some passages in the former, was completed in 1604, by the care of a friend; but as the Bourdeaux edition contained some things that were either suppressed or softened in the subsequent one, it was much sought after by the curious. Hence the booksellers of several cities reprinted the book after that edition; and this induced a Paris bookseller to print an edition, to which he subjoined all the passages of the first edition which had been struck out or corrected, and all those which the president Jeannin, who was employed by the chancellor to examine the book, judged necessary to be changed. This edition appeared in 1707. There have been two translations of it into English, the last by George Stanhope, D. D. printed in 1697. Dr. Stanhope says, that M. Charron “was a person that feared God, led a pious and good life, was charitably disposed, a person of wisdom and conduct, serious and considerate; a great philosopher, an eloquent orator, a famous and powerful preacher, richly furnished and adorned with the most excellent virtues and graces both moral and divine; such as made him very remarkable and singular, and deservedly gave him the character of a good man and a good Christian; such as preserve a great honour and esteem for his memory among persons of worth and virtue, and will continue to do so as long as the world shall last.” From this high praise considerable deductions may surely be made. Charron’s fame has scarcely outlived his century; his book on “Wisdom” certainly abounds in ingenious and original observations on moral topics, but gives a gloomy picture of human nature and society. Neither is it free from sentiments very hostile to revealed religion, but so artfully disguised as to impose on so orthodox a divine as dean Stanhope.

, who was born August 17, 1659, at Paris, studied at the college de la Marche, and there became acquainted with M. de Seigneley, who procured him an employment in the marine. The greatest part of his life passed in voyages to the Levant, Canada, and the East Indies. In Canada he was taken prisoner by the English; he was also a prisoner in Turkey. Chasles was gay, sprightly, and loved good cheer, but yet satirical, particularly against the monks, and the constitution. He was banished from Paris to Chartres, for some of these liberties, where he was living in a sordid manner, in 1719 or 1720. He wrote “Les Illustres Francoises,” 3 vols. 12mo, containing seven histories, to which two others are added in the edition of Utrecht, 1737, 4 vols. 12mo, and of Paris, 4 vols.; but these two are much inferior to the rest. “Journal d'un Voyage fait aux Indes Orientales sur Tescadre de M. du Quesrie en 1690 et 1691,” Rouen, 1721, 3 vols. 12mo; and a sixth volume of Don Quixote. Though Chasles was an advocate, the “Diet, de Justice, Police, et Finances,”, written by Francis James Chasles, 1725, 3 vols. fol. must not be ascribed to him.

, descended of a very ancient family of Picardy, was born December 17, 1706. Among the women of her nation who have rendered themselves illustrious, she is certainly entitled to the first rank. Before her, many of them had acquired reputation by agreeable romances, and by poetical pieces, in which there appeared the graces of wit, and the charms of sentiment. Several also, by applying themselves to the study of languages, by making their beauties to pass into their own, and by enriching their versions with valuable commentaries, had deserved well of the republic of letters. By composing works on subjects which unfold themselves only to men of rare genius, she has classed herself, in the opinion of her countrymen, with the greatest philosophers, and may be said to have rivalled Leibnitz and Newton. From her early youth she read the best authors, without the medium of a translation: Tasso, Milton, and Virgil were alike familiar to her; and her ear was particularly sensible to the melody of verse. She was endowed with great eloquence, but not of that sort which consists only in displaying wit or acquirements; precision was the character of her’s. She would rather have written with the solidity of Pascal than with the charms of S6vigne. She loved abstract sciences, studied mathematics deeply, and published an explanation of the philosophy of Leibnitz, under the title of “Institutions de Physique,” in 8vo, addressed to her son, the preliminary discourse to which is said to be a model of reason and eloquence. Afterwards she published a treatise on “The Nature of Fire.” To know common geometry did not satisfy her. She was so well skilled in the philosophy of Newton, that she translated his works, and enriched them by a commentary, in 4 vols. 4to its title is “Principes Mathematiques de la Philosophe Naturelle.” This work, which cost her infinite labour, is supposed to have hastened her death, which took place in 1749. With all her talents and personal qualifications, however, it is generally admitted that she had no pretensions to chastity.

, a marshal in the French army, and a member of the French academy, and of many other literary societies, was born in 1734, of a distinguished family. His military talents raised him to the rank of brigadier-general, and he is said to have served in that capacity with great reputation in America. Of his military, however, we know less than of his literary career, which he pursued amidst all his public employments. He had early in life a strong passion for poetry and music. Many of his comedies, written for private theatres, and heard with transport, might have been equally successful on the public stages, had he had courage sufficient to make the experiment. He was an officer in the French guards in 1765, when he published his ingenious “Essay on the Union of Poetry and Music.” This essay was the consequence of a voyage into Italy, where he seems to have adopted an exclusive taste for the dramatic music of that country, as Rousseau had done before. He even adopts some of Rousseau’s ideas upon music; but in general he thinks for himself, both deeply and originally. By his reflections on the musical drama, he not only offended the musicians of France, but the lyric poets of every country; not scrupling to assert that in an opera, music, which ought to be the principal consideration, had been too long a slave to syllables; for since the cultivation of the melo-drama, it was found that music had its own language, its tropes, metaphors, colouring, movements, passions, and expression of sentiment. This little tract, for it was but a pamphlet of 90 or 100 pages, 12mo, gave birth to a long controversy in France, in which the author was supported by the abbe Arnaud, M. D'Alembert, the abb Morellet, and M. Marmontel. His chief antagonist was the author of a “Treatise on the Melo-Drama,” who, loving poetry better than music, wished to reduce the opera to a mere recitative or musical declamation. During the subsequent feuds between the Gluckists and Piccinists, the opponents of the marquis de Chastellux enlisted with the former, and his friends with the latter of these sects.

The next work which the marquis wrote, was his essay “De la felicite publique,” published at Amsterdam, without his name, which was given to the English public in a translation entitled “An Essay on Public Happiness, investigating the state of human nature, under each of its particular appearances, through the several periods of history to the present times,” London, 2 vols. 8vo. While the marquis was engaged on this work he frequently shifted his abode, and was also obliged to attend his regiment (that of Guienne) during four months of the year: at these times he could only have recourse to such books as were at hand, many of which were translations, and but a small number originals; yet, notwithstanding these disadvantages, he has brought together a great variety of historical information, accompanied with many useful, and some fanciful observations. Viewing the then placid state of society in his own and neighbouring countries, he was deceived by his love of peace and happiness, into a kind of prediction that wars would be no more so frequent, or produce such great calamities, as they had in ages past! The translation, we have heard, was by J. Kent, esq. a country gentleman.

, an English poet of singular genius and character, was born Nov. 20, 1752. His father was originally a writing usher to a school in Bristol, afterwards v a singing man in the cathedral, and lastly, master of the free-school in Pyle-street in the same city. He died about three months before this son was born. It is not quite unimportant to add that our poet was descended from a long line of ancestors who held the office of sexton of St. Mary Reclcliffe; since it was in the muniment room of this church that the materials were found from which he constructed that system of imposture which has rendered his name celebrated, and his history interesting. At five years of age he was sent to the school in Pyle-street, then superintended by a Mr. Love; but here he improved so little that his mother took him back. While under her care his childish attention is said to have been engaged by the illuminated capitals of an old musical manuscript in French, which circumstance encouraged her to initiate him in the alphabet, and she afterwards taught him to read from an old black-letter Testament or Bible. That a person of her rank in life should be able to read the blackletter is somewhat extraordinary, but the fact rests upon her authority, and has been considered as an introduction to that fondness for antiquities for which he was afterwards distinguished.

His next removal was to Colston’s charity school, at the age of eight years, where he was taught reading, writing, and arithmetic, at the daily rate of nine hours in summer, and seven in winter. Such at least was the prescribed discipline of the school, although it was far more than a boy of his capacity required. One of his masters, Phillips, whom he has celebrated in an elegy, was a frequent writer of verses in the magazines, and was the means of exciting a degree of poetical emulation among his scholars, but to this Chatterton appeared for some time quite indifferent. About his tenth year he began to read from inclination sometimes hiring his books from a circulating library, and sometimes borrowing them from his friends; and before he was twelve, had gone through about seventy volumes, principally history and divinity. Before this time also he had composed some verses, particularly those entitled “Apostate Will” which, although they bear no comparison with what he afterwards produced, discover at that early age a disposition to personal satire, and a consciousness of superior sense. It would be more remarkable, were it true, that while at this school he is said to have shown to his master Phillips, one of those mawuscripts which he pretended had been found in a chest in Redcliffe church, but as neither Phillips or another person to whom this treasure was exhibited, could read it, the commencement of his Rowleian impostures must be postponed to a future period.

In the beginning of October 1768, the completion of the new bridge at Bristol suggested to him a fit opportunity for playing off the first of his public deceptions. This was an account of the ceremonies on opening the old bridge, said to be taken from an ancient manuscript, a copy of which he sent to Farley’s Bristol Journal, in a short letter signed Dunhelmus Bristoliensis. Such a memoir, at so critical a time, naturally excited attention; and Farley, who was called upon to give up the author, after touch inquiry, discovered that Chatterton had sent it. Chatterton was consequently interrogated, probably without much ceremony, where he had obtained it. And here his unhappy disposition shewed itself in a manner highly affecting in one so young, for he had not yet reached his sixteenth year, and according to all that can be gathered, had not been corrupted either by precept or example. “To the threats,” we are told, “of those who treated him (agreeably to his appearance) as a child, he returned nothing but haughtiness, and a refusal to give any account. By milder usage he was somewhat softened, and appeared inclined to give all the information in his power.”

The effect, however, of this mild usage was, that instead of all or any part of the information in his power, he tried two different falsehoods: the first, “that he was employed to transcribe the contents of certain ancient manuscripts by a gentleman, who had also engaged him to furnish complimentary verses inscribed to a lady with whom that gentleman was in love.” But as this story was to rest on proofs which he could not produce, he next asserted, “that he had received the paper in question, together with many other manuscripts, from his father, who had found them in a large chest in the upper room over the chapel, on the north side of Redcliffe church.”

“Over the north porch of St. Mary Redcliffe church, which was founded, or at least rebuilt, by Mr. W. Canynge (an eminent merchant of Bristol, in the fifteenth century, and in the reign of Edward the Fourth), there is a kind of muniment room, in which were deposited six v or seven chests, one of which in particular was called Mr. Canynge’s cofre: this chest, it is said, was secured by six keys,- two of which were entrusted to the minister and procurator of the church, two to the mayor, and one to each of the church-wardens. In process of time, however, the six keys appear to have been lost: and about the year 1727, a notion prevailed that some title deeds, and other vyrjtings of value, wtrje contained in Mr. Ciniynge’s cofre. In consequence of this opinion an order of vestry was made, that the chest should be opened under the inspection of an attorney; and that those writings which appeared of consequence should be removed to the south porch of the church. The locks were therefore forced, and not only the principal chest, but the others, which were also supposed to contain writings, were all broken open. The deeds immediately relating to the church were removed, and the other manuscripts were left exposed as of no value. Considerable depredations had, from time to time, been committed upon them by different persons: but the most insatiate of these plunderers was the father of Chatterton. His uncle being sexton of St. Mary Redcliffe gave him free access to the church. He carried off, from time to time, parcels of the parchments, and one time alone, with the assistance of his boys, is known to have filled a large basket with them. They were deposited in a cupboard in the school and employed for different purposes, such as the covering of copy-books, &c. in particular, Mr. Gibbs, the minister of the parish, having presented the boys with twenty Bibles, Mr. Chatterton, in order to preserve these books from being damaged, covered them with some of the parchments. At his death, the widow being under a necessity of removing, carried the remainder of them to her own habitation. Of the discovery of their value by the younger Chatterton, the account of Mr. Smith, a very intimate acquaintance, which he gave to Dr. Glynn of Cambridge, is too interesting to be omitted. When young Chatterton was first articled to Mr. Lambert, he used frequently to come home to his mother, by way of a short visit. There one day his eye was caught by one of these parchments, which had been converted into a thread-paper. He found not only the writing to be very old, the characters very different from common characters, but that the subject therein treated was different from common subjects. Being naturally of an inquisitive and curious turn, he was very much struck with their appearance, and, as might be expected, began to question his mother what those threadpapers were, how she got them, and whence they came. Upon further inquiry, he was led to a full discovery of all the parchments which remained; the bulk of them consisted of poetical and other compositions, by Mr. Canynge, and a particular friend of his, Thomas Rowley, whom Chatterton at first called a monk, and afterwards a secular priest of the fifteenth century. Such, at least, appears to be the account which. Chatterton thought proper to give, and which he wished to be believed. It is, indeed, confirmed by the testimony of his mother and sister. Mrs. Chatterton informed a friend of the dean of Exeter (Dr. Milles), that on her removal from Pyle-street, she emptied the cupboard of its contents, partly into a large long deal box, where her husband used to keep his clothes, and partly into a square oak box of a smaller size; carrying both with their contents to her lodgings, where, according to her account, they continued neglected and undisturbed till her son first discovered their value; who having examined their contents, told his mother ‘ that he had found a treasure, and was so glad nothing could be like it.’ That he then removed all these parchments out of the large long deal box in which his father used to keep his clothes, into the square oak box: that he was perpetually ransacking every corner of the house for more parchments; and from time to time, carried away those he had already found by pockets full. That one day happening to see Clarke’s History of the Bible covered with one of those parchments, he swore a great oath, and stripping the book, put the cover into his pocket, and carried it away; at the same time stripping a common little Bible, but finding no writing upon the cover, replaced it again very leisurely. Upon being informed of the manner in which his father had procured the parchments, he went himself to the place, and picked up four more.”

During all these various pursuits, he employed his pen in essays, in prose and verse, chiefly of the satirical kind. He appears to have read the party pamphlets of the day, and imbibed much of their abusive spirit. In 1769, we find him a very considerable contributor to the Town and Country Magazine, which began about that time. His ambition seems to have been to rise to eminence, entirely by the efforts of his genius, either in his own character, or that of some of the heroes of the Redcliffe chest, in which he was perpetually discovering a most convenient variety of treasure, with which to reward his admirers and secure their patronage. Mr. Burgum, another pewterer, maintains the authenticity of Rowley’s poems. Chatterton rewards him with a pedigree from the time of William the Conqueror, allying him to some of the most ancient fanrilies in the kingdom, and presents him with the “Romaunt of the Cnyghte,” a poem, written by John de Bergham, one of his own ancestors, about four hundred and fifty years before. In order to obtain the good opinion of his relation Mr. Stephens of Salisbury, he informs him that he is descended from Fitzstephen, grandson of the venerable Od, earl of Blois, and lord of Holderness, who flourished about the year 1095. In this manner Chatterton contrived to impose on men who had no means of appreciating the value of what he communicated, and were willing to believe what, in one respect or other, they wished to be true.

But the most remarkable of his pretended discoveries issued in an application to one who was not so easily to be deceived. This \yas the celebrated Horace Walpole, the late lord Orford, who had not long before completed his “Anecdotes of Painters.” In March 1769, Chatterton, with his usual attention to the wante or prejudices of the persons on whom he wished to impose, sent Mr. Walpole a letter, offering to furnish him with accounts of a series of great painters who had flourished at Bristol, and remitted also a small specimen of poems of the same remote sera. Mr. Walpole, although he could not, as he informs us, very readily swallow “a series of great painters at Bristol,” appears to have been in some measure pleased with the offer, and discovered beauties in the verses sent. He therefore returned a polite and thankful letter, desiring farther information. From this letter Chatterton appears to have thought he had made a conquest, and therefore, in his answer, came to the direct purpose of his application. He informed his correspondent that he was the son of a poor widow, who supported him with great difficulty; that he was an apprentice to an attorney, but had a taste for more elegant studies; he affirmed that great treasures of ancient poetry had been discovered at Bristol, and were in the hands of a person who had lent him the specimen already transmitted, as well as a pastoral (“Elinoure and Juga”) which accompanied this second letter. He hinted also a wish that Mr. Walpole would assist him in emerging from so dull a profession, by procuring some place, in which he might pursue the natural bias of his genius. Mr. Walpole immediately submitted the poems to Gray and Mason, who at first sight pronounced them forgeries, on which he returned Chatterton an answer, advising him to apply to the duties of his profession, as more certain means of attaining the independence and leisure of which he was desirous. This produced a peevish letter from Chatterton, desiring the manuscripts back, as they were the property of another, and after some delay, owing to Mr. Walpole' s taking a trip to Paris, the poems were returned in a blank cover. This affront, as Chatterton considered it, he never forgave, and at this no man need wonder, who reflects how difficult it must ever be for an impostor to forgive those who have attempted to detect him.

About this time (1769) we are told that Chatterton became an infidel; but whether this was in consequence of any course of reading into which he had fallen, or that he found it convenient to get rid of the obligations which stood in the way of his past or future schemes, it is not very material to inquire. Yet although one of his advocates, the foremost to accuse Mr. Walpole of neglecting him, asserts hat "his profligacy was at least as conspicuous as his abilities/' it does not appear that he was more profligate in the indulgence of the grosser passions, than other young men who venture on the gaieties of life at an early age. While at Bristol he had sot mixed with improper company; his few associates of the female sex were persons of character. In London the case might have been otherwise; but of this we have no direct proof; and he practised at least one rule which is no inconsiderable preservative, he was remarkably temperate in his diet. In his writings, indeed, we find some passages that are more licentious than could have been expected from a young man unhackneyed in the ways of vice, but not more so than might be expected in one who was premature in every thing, and had exhausted the stock of human folly at an age when it is usually found unbroken. All his deceptions, his prevarications, his political tergiversation, &c. were such as we should have looked for in men of an advanced age, hardened by evil associations, and soured by disappointed pride or avarice. One effect of liis infidelity, we are told, was to render the idea of suicide familiar. This he had cherished before he left Bristol, and when he could not fairly complain of the world’s neglect, as he had preferred no higher pretensions than those of a man who has by accident discovered a treasure which he knows not how to make current. Besides repeatedly intimating to Mr. Lambert’s servants that be intended to put an end to his life, he left a paper in sight of some of the family, specifying the day on which he meant to carry this purpose into execution. The reason assigned for this appointment was the refusal of a gentleman whom he had occasionally complimented in his poems, to supply him with money. It has since been supposed to be merely an artifice to get rid of his apprenticeship; and this certainly was the consequence, as Mr. Lambert did not choose that his house should be honoured by such an act of heroism. He had now served this gentleman about two years and ten months, during which he learned so little of law as to be unable to draw up the necessary 7 document respecting the dissolution of his apprenticeship. We have seen how differently he was employed; and there is reason to think that he had fabricated the whole of his ancient poetry and antique manuscripts during his apprenticeship, and before he left Bristol. His object now was to go to London, where he had full confidence that his talents would be duly honoured. He had written letters to several booksellers of that city wha encouraged him to reside among them. Some literary adventurers would have entered on such a plan with diffidence; and of many who have become authors by profession, the greater part may plead the excuse that they neither foresaw, nor could be made to understand the many mortifications and difficulties that are to be surmounted. Chatterton, on the contrary, set out with the confidence of a man who has laid his plans in such deep wisdom, that he thinks it impossible they should fail. He boasted to his correspondents of three distinct resources, one at least of which was unfortunately in his own power. He first meant to employ his pen then to turn methodist preacher and if both should fail, to shoot himself. As his friends do not appear to have taken any steps to rectify his notions on these schemes, it is probable they either did not consider him as serious; or had given him up, as one above all advice, and curable only by a little experience, which they were not sorry he should acquire in his own way, and at his own expence.

His first literary attempts by which he was to realize the dreams of presumption, were of the political kind, chiefly satires against the members and friends of administration. In March 1770, he wrote a poem called “Kew Gardens,” part of which only has been published, but enough to show that he had been supplied by some patriotic preceptor with the floating scandal of the day against the princess dowager, lord Bute, and other statesmen. It is highly improbable that a boy who had spent the greater part of his time since he left school, in fabricating or deciphering the -poetry, heraldry, and topography of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, should on a sudden become well acquainted with the intrigues of political men and their families. In all this, his materials must have been supplied by some persons who lived by propagating the calumnies of personal and political history, and who would rejoice in the dauntless spirit of their new associate. Another poem, of the same description, was entitled “The Whore of Babylon.” Of both these there are specimens in his works, but it does not appear that the whole of them were printed.

On his arrival in London, near the end of April, he received, according to his own account, the most flattering encouragement, and various employment was recommended. Among other schemes was a History of London, which, if he had lived to complete it, must have been a suitable companion to Mr. Barret’s History of Bristol. In the meati time he wrote for many of the magazines and newspapers; his principal contributions appeared in the Freeholder’s Magazine, the Town and Country, the Court and City, the Political Register, and the Gospel Magazine. He wrote songs also for the public gardens, and for some time got so much money that he thought himself comparatively affluent, and able to provide for his mother and sister, whose hearts he gladdened by frequent intimations of his progress. During this career he became acquainted with Wilkes, and with Beckford, who was then lord mayor. These patriots, however, he soon discovered were not so ready with their money as with their praise, and as the former appears to have been his only object, he had some thoughts of writing for the ministerial party. After Beck Ford’s death, which he affected to lament as his ruin, he addressed a letter to lord North, signed Moderator, complimenting administration for rejecting the city remonstrance, and one of the same date signed Probus, abusing administration for the same measure, While this unprincipled young man was thus demonstrating how unsafe it would be for any party to trust him, his letters to all his friends continued to be full of the brightest prospects of honours and wealth. But about the month of July some revolution appears to have taken place in his mind or his affairs, which speedily put an end to all his hopes.

Of what nature this was, remains yet a secret. About the time mentioned, he removed from a house in Shoreditch, where he had hitherto lived, to the house of a Mrs. Angel, a sack- maker in Brook-street, Holborn, where he became poor and unhappy, abandoning his literary pursuits, and projecting to go out to Africa, as a naval surgeon’s mate. He had picked up some knowledge of surgery from Mr. Barret, and now requested that gentleman’s recommendation, which Mr. Barret, who knew his versatile turn, and how unfit in other respects he was for the situation, thought proper to refuse. If this was the immediate cause of his catastrophe, what are we to think of his lofty spirit? It is certain, however, that he no longer employed his pen, and that the short remainder of his days were spent in a conflict between pride and poverty. On the day preceding his death, he refused with indignation, a kind offer from Mrs. Angel to partake of her dinner, assuring her that he was not hungry, although he had not eaten any thing for two or three days. On the 25th of August, 1770, he was found dead, in consequence, as is supposed, of having swallowed arsenic in water, or some preparation of opium. He was buried in a shell in the burying-ground belonging to Shoe-lane workhouse. Previous to this rash act he appears to have destroyed all his manuscripts, as the room when broken open was found covered with little scraps of paper.

It has been regretted that we know very little of the life of this extraordinary young man, whose writings have since become an object of so much curiosity; and great surprize has been expressed, that from the many with whom he appears to have been acquainted, such scanty information has been obtained. For this, however, various reasons may be assigned, which will lessen the wonder. In the first place, his fame, using that word in its most common application, was confined principally to his native city, and there it appears that his friends undervalued his talents, because they considered him in no better light than that of an unprincipled young man, who had accidentally become possessed of certain ancient manuscripts, some of which he had given up, some he had mutilated, and the rest he had destroyed. He was with them an illiterate charity-boy, the run-away apprentice or hackney-writer of an attorney, and after he came to London, they appear to have made very few inquiries after him, congratulating themselves that they had got rid of a rash, impetuous, headstrong boy, who would do some mischief, and disgrace himself and his relations. Again, in London, notwithstanding his boasting letters to his mother and sister, he rose to no high rank among the reputable writers of the day, his productions being confined to publications of the lower order, all of which are now forgotten. But there cannot be a more decisive proof of the little regard he attracted in London, than the secrecy and silence which accompanied his death. This event, although so extraordinary, for young suicides are surely not common, is not even mentioned in any shape, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, the Annual Register, the St. James’s or London Chronicles, nor in any of the respectable publications of the day. He died, a coroner’s jury sat upon the body, and he was buried among paupers, so long before his acquaintance heard of these circumstances, that it was with some difficulty they could be traced with any degree of authenticity. And lastly, it does not appear that any inquiries were made into his early history for nearly seven years after his death, when the Poems of Rowley were first published, and led the way to a very acute and long protracted discussion on their merits. It may be added, too, that they who contended for the authenticity of the poems, were for sinking every circumstance that could prove the genius of Chatterton, until Mr. Thomas Warton and some others took the opposite side of the question, brought the poems to the test of internal evidence, and discovered that however extraordinary it was for Chatterton to produce them in the eighteenth century, it was impossible that Rowley could have written them in the fifteenth.

When public attention was at length called to Chattertori’s history, his admirers took every step to excite compassion in his favour. It became the fashion to repeat that he was starved by an insensible age, or suffered, by the neglect of patrons, to perish in want of the common necessaries of life. But of this there is no satisfactory evidence. On the contrary, he appears to have been fully employed by his literary friends almost up to the day of his death, and from one of them he solicited money a very little before that catastrophe, and received it with an assurance that he should have more if he wanted it. This benefactor was the late Mr. Hamilton senior, the proprietor of the Critical Review, a man of well-known liberality, both of mind and purse. One who knew him well, when in London, and who wrote under the inspection of Mr. Hamilton in the Critical Review, gives it as a probable conjecture, that “he wished to seal his secret with his death. He knew that he and Rowley were suspected to be the same; his London friends spoke of it with little scruple, and he neither confessed nor denied it. He might fear somewhat from himself; might dread the effects of increasing obligations, and be struck with horror at the thought of a public detection. He sometimes seemed wild, abstracted, and incoherent; at others he had a Settled gloominess in his countenance, the sure presage of his fatal resolution. In short, this was the very temperament and constitution from which we should, in similar circumstances, expect the same event. He was one of those irregular meteors which astonish the universe for a moment, and then, disappear for ever.” This is at least plausible; but the immediate cause of his death must perhaps yet remain a mystery. He had written so recently to his Bristol friends (about a month before), without a syllable indicating discontent or despair, that it was wholly unexpected on their part; but suicide, at one time or other, his biographers have proved, was his fixed purpose, and the execution of it was probably to depend on his disappointment in whatever wild or impracticable scheme he might meditate. He got enough in London by his literary labours, to supply the decent necessaries of life, but his dreams of affluence were over, and had probably left that frightful void in his mind at which despair and disappointed pride entered.

The person of Chatterton is said to have been like his genius, “premature; he had a manliness and dignity beyond his years; and there was a something about him uncommonly prepossessing. His most remarkable feature was his eyes, which, though grey, were uncommonly piercing; when he warmed in argument, or otherwise, they sparkled* with fire, and one eye, it is said, was still more remarkable than the other.”

As to his genius, it must ever be the subject of admiration, whether he was, or was not, the author of the poems ascribed to Rowley. If we look at the poems avowedly his own, together with his productions in prose, where shall we find such and so many indubitable proofs of genius at an early age, struggling against many difficulties? Let us contemplate him as a young man, without classical education, and who knew nothing of literary society, but during the few months of his residence in London; and if to this we add what has been most decidedly proved, that he was not only the author of the poems attributed to Rowley, but consumed his early days in the laborious task of disguising them in the garb of antiquity, perpetually harassed by suspicion and in dread of discovery; if likewise we reflect that the whole of his career closed before he had completed his eighteenth year, we must surely allow that he was one of the most extraordinary young men of modern times, and deserves to be placed high among those instances of premature talents recorded by Kleferus in his “Bibliotheca Eruditorurn Praecocium,” and by Baillet in his “Enfans Celebres.” Still our admiration should be chastened by confining it to the single point of ChtUterton’s extreme youth. If we go farther, and consider Rowley’s poems as the most perfect productions of any age; if, with dean Milles, we prefer him to Homer, Virgil, Spenser, and Shakspeare, we go far beyond the bounds of sober criticism, or rather we defy its laws. Wonderful as those poems are, when considered as the productions of a boy, many heavy deductions must be made from them, if we consider them as the productions of a man, of one who has bestowed labour as well as contributed genius, and who has learned to polish and correct, who would not have admitted such a number of palpable imitations and plagiarisms, and would have altered or expunged a multitude of tame, prosaic, and bald lines and metres.

The general character of his works has been both fairly and elegantly appreciated by lord Orford, in the last edition of his lordship’s works. His life, says this critic, should be compared with “the powers of his mind, the perfection of his poetry, his knowledge of the world, which though in some respects erroneous, spoke quick intuition; his humour, his vein of satire, and above all, the amazing number of books he must have looked into, though chained down to a laborious and almost incessant service, and confined to Bristol, except at most for the last five months of his life, the rapidity with which he seized all the topics of conversation then in vogue, whether of politics, literature, or fashion; and when added to all this 'mass of reflection, it is remembered that his youthful passions were indulged to excess, faith in such a prodigy may well be suspended and we should look for some secret agent behind the curtain, if it were not as dificult to believe that any man who possessed such a vein of genuine poetry would have submitted to lie concealed, while he actuated a puppet; or would have stooped to prostitute his muse to so many unworthy functions. But nothing in Chatterton can be separated from Chatterton. His noblest flight, his sweetest strains, his grossest ribaldry, and his most common- place imitations of the productions of magazines, were all the effervescences of the same ungovernable impulse, which, cameleon-like, imbibed the colours of all it looked on. It was Ossian, or a Saxon monk, or Gray, or Smolldt, or Jun i us ant l if it failed most in what it most affected to be, a poet of the fifteenth century, it was because it could not imitate what had not existed.” The facts already related are principally taken from the account drawn up originally for the Biographia Britannica, and at the distance of eighteen years, prefixed to an edition of his works, without any addition or alteration. Something yet remains to be said of his virtues, which, if the poetical eulogiums that have appeared deserve any credit, were many. Except his temperance, however, already noticed, we find only that he preserved an affectionate attachment for his mother and sister, and even concerning this, it would appear that more has been said than is consistent. It has been asserted that he sent presents to them from London, when in want himself; but it is evident from his letters that these were unnecessary articles for persons in their situation, and were not sent when he was in want . Six weeks after, when he felt himself in that state, he committed an act which affection for his relations, since he despised all higher considerations, ought to have retarded. His last letter to his sister or mother, dated July 20, is full of high-spirited hopes, and contains a promise to visit them before the first of January, but not a word that can imply discontent, far less an intention to put an end to his life. What must have been their feelings when the melancholy event reached them! How little these poor women were capable of ascertaining his character appears from the very singular evidence of his sister, who affirmed that he was “a lover of truth from the earliest dawn of reason.” The affectionate prejudices of a fond relation may be pardoned, but it was surely unnecessary to introduce this in a life every part of which proves his utter contempt for truth at an age when we are taught to expect a disposition open, ingenuous, and candid.

With respect to the place of his birth, we cannot produce better authority than his own. In his “Testament of Love,” he calls himself a Londoner, and speaks of the city of London as the place of his “kindly engendrure.” In spite of this evidence, however, Leland, who is more than usually incorrect in his account of Chaucer, reports him to have been born in Oxfordshire or Berkshire. The time of his birth is, by general consent, fixed in the second year of Edward III. 1328, and the foundation of this decision seems to have originally been an inscription on his tomb, signifying that he died in 1400 at the age of seventy-two. Collier fixes his death in 1440, but he is so generally accurate, that this may be supposed an error of the press. Phillips is more unpardonable; for, contrary to all evidence, he instances the reigns of Henry IV. V. and VI. as those in which Chaucer flourished.

His biographers have provided him with education both at Oxford and Cambridge, a circumstance which we know occurred in the history of other scholars of that period, and is not therefore improbable. But in his “Court of Love,” which was composed when he was about eighteen, he speaks of himself under the name of” Philogenet, of Cambridge, clerk.” Mr. Tyrwhitt, while he does not think this a decisive proof that he was really educated at Cambridge, is willing to admit it as a strong argument that he was not educated at Oxford. Wood, in his Annals (vol. I. book I. 484.) gives a report, or rather tradition, that “when Wickliff was guardian or warden of Canterbury college, he had to his pupil the famous poet called Jeffry Chaucer (father of Thomas Chaucer, of Ewelme in Oxfordshire, esq.) who following the steps of his master, reflected much upon the corruptions of the clergy.” This is something like evidence if it could be depended on; at least it is preferable to the conjecture of Leland, who supposes Chaucer to have been educated at Oxford, merely because he had before supposed that he was born either in Oxfordshire or Berkshire. Those who contend for Cambridge as the place of his education, fix upon Solere’s hall, which he has described in his story of the Miller of Trompington; but Solere’s hall is merely a corruption of Soler hall, i.e. a hall with an open gallery, or solere window. The advocates for Oxford are inclined to place him in Merton college, because his contemporaries Strode and Occleve were of that college. It is equally a matter of conjecture that he was first educated at Cambridge, and afterwards at Oxford. Wherever he studied, we have sufficient proofs of his capacity and proficiency. He appears to have acquired a very great proportion of the learning of his age, and became a master of its philosophy, poetry, and such languages as formed the intercourse between men of learning. Leland says he was “acutus Dialecticus, dulcis Rhetor, lepidus Poeta, gravis Philosophus, ingeniosus Mathematicus, denique sanctus Theologus.” It is equally probable that he courted the muses in those early days, in which he is said to have been encouraged by Gower, although there are some grounds for supposing that his acquaintance with Gower was of a later date.

After leaving the university, we are told that he travelled through France and the Netherlands, but the commencement and conclusion of these travels are not specified. On his return, he is said to have entered himself of the Middle Temple, with a view to study the municipal law, but even this fact depends chiefly on a record, without a date, which, Speght informs us, a Mr. Buckley had seen, where Jeffery Chaucer was fined “two shillings for beating a Franciscane frier in Fleet-street.” Leland speaks of his frequenting the law colleges after his travels in France, and perhaps before. Mr. Tyrwhitt doubts these travels in France, and has indeed satisfactorily proved that Leland’s account of Chaucer is full of inconsistencies—Leland is certainly inconsistent as to dates, but from the evidence Chaucer gave in a case of chivalry, we have full proof of one journey in France, although the precise period cannot be fixed. Whatever time these supposed employments might have occupied, we discover, at length, with tolerable certainty, that Chaucer betook himself to the life of a courtier, and probably with all the accomplishments suited to his advancement in the court of a monarch who was magnificent in his establishment, and munificent in his patronage of learning and gallantry. At what period of life he obtained a situation here, is uncertain. The writer of the life prefixed to Urry’s edition supposes he was not more than thirty, because his first employment was in quality of the king’s page; but the first authentic memorial, respecting Chaucer at court, is the patent in Rymer, 41 Edward III. by which that king grants him an annuity of twenty marks, about 200l. of our money, by the title of Valettus noster, “our yeoman,” and this occurred when Chaucer was in his thirty-ninth year. Several mistakes have arisen respecting these grants, from his biographers not understanding the meaning of the titles given to our poet. Speght mentions a grant from king Edward four years later than the above, in which Chaucer is styled valettus hospitii, which he translates grome of the pallace, sinking our author, Mr. Tyrwhitt observes, as much too low, as his biographer in Urry’s edition had raised him too high, by translating the same words gentleman of the king’s privy chamber. Valet or yeoman was, according to the same acute scholiast, the intermediate rank between squier and grome.

It would be of more consequence to be able to determine what particular merits were rewarded by this royal bounty. Mr. Tyrwhitt can find no proof, and no ground for supposing that it was bestowed on Chaucer for his poetical talents, although it is almost certain that he had distinguished himself, as a poet, before this time. The “Assemblee of Foules,” the “Complaint of the Blacke Knight,” and the translation of the “Roman de la Rose,” were all composed before 1367, the sera which we are now considering. What strengthens Mr. Tyrwhitt' s opinion of the king’s indifference to Chaucer’s poetry, is his appointing him, a few years after, to the office of comptroller of the custom of wool, with an injunction that “the said Geffrey write with his own hand his rolls touching the said office in his own proper person, and not by his substitute.” The inferences, however, which Mr. Tyrwhitt draws from this fact, viz. “that his majesty was either totally insensible of our author’s poetical talents, or at least had no mind to encourage him in the cultivation or exercise of them,” savours rather too much of the conjectural spirit which he professes to avoid. He allows that, notwithstanding what he calls “the petrifying quality, with which these Custom-house accounts might be expected to operate upon Chaucer’s genius,” he probably wrote his “House of Fame” while he was in that office. Still less candid to the memory of Edward will these inferences appear, if we apply modern notions of patronage to the subject; for in tvhat manner could the king more honourably encourage the genius of a poet, than by a civil employment which rendered him easy in his circumstances, and free from the suspicious obligations of a pension or sinecure?

One effect of this connection was the marriage of our poet, by which he became eventually related to his illustrious patron. John of Gaunt’s duchess, Blanche, entertained in her service one Catherine Rouet, daughter of sir Payne, or Pagan Rouet, a native of Hainault, and Guion king at arms for that country. This lady was afterwards married to sir Hugh Swinford, a knight of Lincoln, who died soon after his marriage, and on his decease, his lady returned to the duke’s family, and was appointed governess of his children. While in this capacity, she yielded to the duke’s solicitations, and became his mistress. She had a sister, Philippa, who is stated to have been a great favourite with the duke and duchess, and by them, as a mark of their high esteem, recommended to Chaucer for a wife. He accordingly married her about 1360, when he was in his thirty-second year, and this step appears to have increased his interest with his patron, who took every opportunity to promote him at court. Besides the instances already given, we are told that he was made shield-­bearer to the king, a title at that time of great honour, the shield-bearer being always next the king’s person, and generally, upon signal victories, rewarded with military honours. But here again his biographers have mistaken the meaning of the courtly titles of those days. In the 46 Edward III. 1372, the king appointed him envoy, with two others, to Genoa, by the title of scutifer noster, “our squier.” Scutifer and armiger, according to Mr. Tyrwhitt, are synonymous terms with the French escuier; but Chaucer’s biographers thinking the title of squier too vulgar, changed it to shield-bearer, as if Chaucer had the special office of carrying the king’s shield. With respect to the nature of this embassy to Genoa, biography and history are alike silent, and from that silence, the editor of the Canterbury tales is inclined to doubt whether it ever took place, or whether he had that opportunity of visiting Petrarch, an event which his biographers refer to the same period.

But although history is silent as to the object of Chaucer’s embassy, his biographers have endeavoured to supply the defect, by conjecturing that it might be for the purpose of hiring ships for the king’s navy. They find that in those days, though we frequently made great naval armaments, we had but very few ships of our own, and were therefore obliged to hire them from the free states either of Germany or Italy. Having thus discovered an object for Chaucer’s embassy, they represent it as heing so successful, that the king bestowed new marks of favour upon him; and it is certain, whatever might be the cause, that at the distance of two years, namely, in the 48th year of that reign, 1374, he had a grant for life of a pitcher of wine daily; and in the same year a grant, which has already been mentioned, during pleasure, of the offices of comptroller of the custom of wools, and comptroller of the parva custuma vinorum, &c. in the port of London. This office, we are told, he filled with great integrity, as well as advantage, his conduct not being in the least tainted with any of those connivings or frauds which had become frequent in the customs, and were detected towards the latter end of Edward’s reign.

About a year after this, the king granted to him the wardship of sir Edmund Staplegate’s heir, for which he received 104l. and in the next year some forfeited wool to the value of 71l. 4s. 6d. These, and his other pecuniary advantages, are said to have raised his income to a thousand pounds per annum, a prodigious sum at that time, but quite incredible. Whatever his income was, however, he informs us in the “Testament of Love,” it enabled him to live with dignity and hospitality. In the last year of king Edward III. 1377, he was sent to France, with sir Guichard Dangle, and Richard Stau or Sturry, to treat of a marriage between the prince of Wales, Richard, and a daughter of the French king. Such is Froissart’s account; but the English historians, Hollingshed and Barnes, inform us, that the principal object of this mission was to complain of some infringement of the truce concluded with the French, and that although they were not very successful in that remonstrance, it produced some overtures towards the said marriage, and this ended in a new treaty.

Soon after this, however, Chaucer’s biographers concur in the fact that he experienced a very serious reverse in his affairs, which in the second year of Richard II. were in such disorder, that he was obliged to have recourse to the king’s protection, in order to screen him from the importunities of his creditors. But as to the cause of this embarrassment, we find no agreement among those who have attempted a narrative of his life. Some think his distresses were temporary, and some that they were artificial. Among the latter, the writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica hazards a supposition which is at least ingenious. He is of opinion that Chaucer about this time found out a rich match for his son Thomas, namely, Maud, the second daughter of sir John Burghershe; and in order to obtain this match, he was obliged to bring his son somewhat upon a level with her, by settling all his landed estates upon him: and that this duty might occasion those demands which put him under the necessity of obtaining the king’s protection. The conclusion of the matter, according to this conjecture, must be, that Chaucer entailed his estates upon his son, and found means to put off his creditors, a measure not very honourable. But we are still in the dark as to the nature of those debts, or the existence of his landed property, and it is even doubtful whether this Thomas Chaucer was his son. We know certainly of no son but Lewis, who was born in 1381, twenty-one years after his marriage, if the date of his marriage before given be correct.

It appears from the historians of Richard II. that the duke of Lancaster, about the third or fourth year of that monarch’s reign, began to decline in political influence, if not in popularity, owing to the encouragement he had given to the celebrated reformer Wickliffe, whom he supported against the clergy, to whose power in state affairs he had long looked with a jealous eye. Chaucer’s works show evidently that he concurred with the duke in his opinion of the clergy, and have procured him to be ranked among the few who paved the way for the reformation. Yet when the insurrection of Wat Tyler was imputed to the principles of the Wicklevites, the duke, it is said, withdrew his countenance from them, and disclaimed their tenets. Chaucer is likewise reported to have altered his sentiments, but the fact, in neither case, is satisfactorily confirmed. The duke of Lancaster condemned the doctrines of those followers of Wickliff only, who had excited public disturbances; and Chaucer was so far from abandoning his former notions, that in 1384, he exerted his utmost interest in favour of John Comberton, commonly called John of Northampton, when about to be re-chosen mayor of London. Comberton was a reformer on WicklifFs principles, and so obnoxious on that account to the clergy, that they stirred up a commotion on his re-election, which the king was obliged to quell by force. The consequence was, that some lives were lost, Comberton was imprisoned, and strict search was made after Chaucer, who contrived to escape first to Hainault, then to France, and finally to Zealand. The date of his flight has not been ascertained, but it was no doubt upon this occasion that he lost his place in the customs.

While in Zealand, he maintained some of his countrymen who had fled thither upon the same account, by sharing the money he brought with him, an act of liberality which soon exhausted his stock. In the mean time, the partizans of his cause, whom he left at home, contrived to make their peace, not only without endeavouring to procure a pardon for him, but without aiding him in his exile, where he became greatly distressed for want of pecuniary supplies. Such ingratitude, we may suppose, gave him more uneasiness than the consequences of it; but it did not lessen his courage, as he soon ventured to return to England. On this he was discovered, and committed to the Tower, where, after being treated with great rigour, he was promised his pardon, if he would disclose all he knew, and put it in the power of government to restore the peace of the city. His former resolution appears now to have forsaken him, or, perhaps, indignation at the ungrateful conduct of his associates induced him to think disclosure a matter of indifference. It is certain that he complied with the terms offered; but we are not told what was the amount of his confession, or what the consequences of it were to others, or who they were whom he informed against. We know only that he obtained his liberty, and that an oppressive share of blame and obloquy followed. To alleviate his regret for this treatment, and partly to vindicate his conduct, he now wrote the “Testament of Love;" and although this piece, from want of dates, and obscurity of style, is not sufficient to form a very satisfactory biographical document, it at least furnishes the preceding account of his exile and return.

It was not long after this period that the duke of Lancaster resumed his influence at court; but whether Chaucer was enabled to profit by this reverse, or whether he had seen too much of political revolutions to induce him to quit his retreat, his biographers are doubtful. It appears, however, probable that the duke of Lancaster had it still as much in his will as in his power to befriend him; and it might be owing to his grace’s influence, that in 1389 we find him clerk of the works at Westminster; and in the following year at Windsor and other palaces: but Mr. Tyrwhitt doubts whether these offices were sufficient to indemnify him for the loss of his place in the customs. In the “Testament of Love,” he complains of “being berafte out of dignitie of office, in which he made a gatheringe of worldly godes;” and in another place he speaks of himself as “once glorious in worldly welefulnesse, and having such godes in welthe as maken men riche.” All this implies a very considerable reverse of fortune; although Speght’s tradition of his having been possessed of “lands and revenues to the yearly value almost of a thousand pounds,” remains utterly incredible.

But the king’s favour did not end with the offices just mentioned. In the seventeenth year of his reign, 1394, he granted to Chaucer a new annuity of twenty pounds; in 1398, his protection for two years; and in 1399, a pipe of wine annually. From the succeeding sovereign Henry IV. he obtained, in the year last mentioned, a confirmation of his two grants of 20l. and of the pipe of wine, and at the same time an additional grant of an annuity of forty marks. Notwithstanding this dependent state of his affairs, some of his biographers represent him as possessed of Dunnington castle in Berkshire, which he must have purchased at the time he received the above annuity of twenty pounds; for up to that date (1394) it was in the possession of sir Richard Abberbury. Mr. Tyrwhitt remarks that the tradition which Evelyn notices in his Sylva, of an oak in Dunnington park called Chaucer’s oak, may be sufficiently accounted for, without supposing that it was planted by Chaucer himself, as the castle was undoubtedly in the hands of Thomas Chaucer for many years. During his retirement in 1391, he wrote his learned treatise on the Astrolabe, for the use of his son Lewis, who was then ten years old; and this is the only circumstance respecting his family which we have on his own or any authority that deserves credit. Leland, Bale, and Wood place this son under the tuition of his father’s friend Nicholas Strode (whom, however, they call Ralph) of Merton college, Oxford; but if Wood could trace Strode no farther than the year 1370, it is impossible he could have been the tutor of Chaucer’s son in 1391.

The language, therefore, in use in Chaucer’s days, among the upper classes, and by all that would be thought learned, was a Norman-Saxon dialect, introduced by the influx and influence of a court of foreigners, and spread wherever that influence extended. Journeys to France were also common, for the purposes of improvement in such accomplishments as were then fashionable, and this kind of intercourse, which is always in favour of the country visited, would perhaps tend to introduce a still greater proportion of French phraseology. But still the foundation was laid at home, in the prevailing modes of education. With respect to the progress of this mixture, and the effects of the accessions which in the course of nearly three centuries, the English language received from Normandy, the reader is referred to Mr. Tyrwhitt’s very elaborate “Essay on the Language and Versification of Chaucer,” prefixed to his edition of the” Canterbury Tales.” It appears, upon the whole, that the language of our ancestors was complete in all its parts, and had served them for the purposes of discourse, and even of composition in various kinds, long before they had any intimate acquaintance with their French neighbours.” They had therefore “no call from necessity, and consequently no sufficient inducement, to alter its original and radical constitutions, or even its customary forms.” And accordingly, notwithstanding the prevalence of the French from the causes already assigned, it is proved by Mr. Tyrwhitt that “in all the essential parts of speech, the characteristical features of the Saxon idiom were always preserved; and the crowds of French words which from time to time were imported, were themselves made subject, either immediately, or by degrees, to the laws of that same idiom.”

As to what English poetry owes to Chaucer, Dr. Johnson has pronounced him “the first of our versifiers who wrote poetically,” and Mr. Warton has proved “that in elevation and elegance, in harmony and perspicuity of versification, he surpasses his predecessors in an infinite proportion; that his genius was universal, and adapted to themes of unbounded variety; that his merit was not less in painting familiar manners with humour and propriety, than in moving the passions, and in representing the beautiful or the grand objects of nature with grace and sublimity. In a word, that he appeared with all the lustre and dignity of a true poet, in an age which compelled him to struggle with a barbarous language, and a national want of taste; and when to write verses at all, was regarded as a singular qualification.”

The Saxons had a species of writing which they called poetry, but it did not consist of regular verses, nor was it embellished by rhime. The Normans, it is generally thought, were the first who introduced rhime or metre, copied from the Latin rythmical verses, a bastard species, which belongs to the declining period of the Latin language. To deduce the history of versification from the earliest periods is impossible, for want of specimens. Two very trifling ones only are extant before the time of Henry II. namely, a few lines in the Saxon Chronicle upon the death of William the Conqueror, and a short canticle, which, according to Matthew Paris, the blessed virgin was pleased to dictate to Godric, an hermit near Durham. In the time of Henry II. Layamon, a priest, translated chiefly from the French of Wace, a fabulous history of the Britons, entitled Le Brut, which Wace himself, about 1155, had translated from the Latin of Geffry of Monmouth. In this there are a number of short verses, of unequal lengths, but exhibiting something like rhime. But so common was it to write whatever was written, in French or Latin, that another century must be passed over before we come to another specimen of English poetry, if we except the Ormulum, and a moral piece upon old age, &c. noticed by Mr. Tyrwhitt, and which he conjectures to have been written earlier than the reign of Henry III.

Between the latter end of the reign of Henry III. and the time of Chaucer, the names of many English rhimers have been recovered, and many more anonymous writers, or rather translators of romances, flourished about this period; but they neither invented nor imported any improvements in the art of versification. Their labours, however, are not to be undervalued. Mr. Warton has very justly remarked, that “the revival of learning in most countries appears to have first owed its rise to translation. At rude periods the modes of original thinking are unknown, and the arts of original composition have not yet been studied. The writers, therefore, of such periods are chiefly and very usefully employed in importing the ideas of other languages into their own.” But, as many of these metrical romances were to be accompanied by music, they were less calculated for reading than recitation.

These authors, whatever their merit, were the only English poets, if the name may be used, when Chaucer appeared, and the only circumstances under which he found the poetry of his native tongue, were, that rhime was established very generally; that the metres in use were principally the long Iambic, consisting of not more than fifteen, nor less than fourteen syllables, and broken by a cæsura at the eighth syllable; the Alexandrine metre, consisting of not more than thirteen syllables, nor less than twelve, with a cæsura at the sixth; the octosyllable metre; and the stanza of six verses, of which the first, second, fourth and fifth were in complete octosyllable metre, and the third and last catalectic, i.e. wanting a syllable, or even two.

Such were the precedents which a new poet might be expected to follow. But Chaucer composed nothing in the first or second of these four metres. In the fourth he wrote only the Rhime of sir Thopas, which being intended to ridicule the vulgar romances, seems to have been purposely written in their favourite metre. In the third, or octosyllable metre , he wrote several of his compositions, particularly an imperfect translation of the Roman de la Rose, the House of Fame, the Dethe of the Duchesse Blanche, and his Dreme, all which are so superior to the versification of his contemporaries and predecessors, as to establish his pre-eminence, and prove that the reformer of English poetry had at length appeared.

The age of Chaucer had little of what we now understand by refinement. The public shows and amusements were splendid and sumptuous. They had all somewhat of a dramatic air; at their tournaments and carousals the principal personages acted parts, with some connection of story, borrowed from the events, and conducted according to the events and manners of chivalry. But the national manners and habits were barbarous, unless where the restraints of religion repressed public licentiousness; and, with respect to taste, the spectacles in which the higher orders indulged, were such as would not now be tolerated perhaps even at a fair. What influence they had on public decency, it is difficult to ascertain. In Chaucer’s time there was indeed no public, because there was little or nothing of that communication of sentiment and feeling which we owe to the invention of printing.

In such an age, it is the highest praise of Chaucer, that he stood alone, the first poet who improved the art by melody, fancy, and sentiment, and the first writer, whether we consider the quantity, quality, or variety of his productions. It is supposed that many of his writings are lost. What remain, however, and have been authenticated with tolerable certainty, must have formed the occupation of a considerable part of his life, and been the result of copious reading and reflection. Even his translations are mixed with so great a portion of original matter as, it may be presumed, required time and study, and those happy hours of inspiration, which are not always within command. The principal obstruction to the pleasure we should otherwise derive from Chaucer’s works, is that profusion of allegory which pervades them, particularly the “Romaunt of the Rose,” the “Court of Love,” “Flower and Leaf,” and the “House of Fame.” Pope, in the first edition of*his Temple of Fame, prefixed a note in defence of allegorical poetry, the propriety of which cannot be questioned, but which is qualified with an exception which applies directly to Chaucer. “The incidents by which allegory is conveyed, should never be spun too long, or too much clogged with trivial circumstances, or little particularities.” But this is exactly the case with Chaucer, whose allegories are spun beyond all bounds, and clogged with many trivial and unappropriate circumstances.

For upwards of seventy years after the death of Chaucer, his works remained in manuscript. Mr. Tyrwhitt enumerates twenty-six manuscripts which he had an opportunity of consulting in the various public and private libraries of London, Oxford, Cambridge, &c. but of all these he is inclined to give credit to only five. Caxton, the first English printer, selected Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales,” as one of the earliest productions of his press, but happened to copy a very incorrect manuscript. This first edition is supposed by Mr. Ames to have been printed in 1475 or 1476. There are only two complete copies extant, one in his majesty’s library, and another in that of Merton-college, both without preface or advertisement. About six years after, Caxton printed a second edition, and in his preface apologized for the errors of the former. No perfect copy of this edition is known. Ames mentions an edition “collected by William Caxton, and printed by Wynken de Worde, 1495, folio,” but the existence of this is doubtful. Pynson printed two editions; the first, it is conjectured, in 1491, and the second in 1526, which was the first in which a collection of some other pieces of Chaucer was added to the Canterbury Tales. Ames notices editions in 1520 and 1522, but had not seen them, nor are they now known. In 1532 an edition was printed by Thomas Godfrey, and edited by Mr. Thynne, which Mr. Tyrwhitt informs us, was considered, notwithstanding its many imperfections, as the standard edition, and was copied, not only by the booksellers, in their several editions of 1542, 1546, 1555, and 1561, but also by Mr. Speght, in 1597 and 1602. Speght’s edition was reprinted in 1687, and in 1721 appeared Mr. Urry’s, who, while he professed to compare a great many manuscripts, took such liberties with his author’s text as to render this by far the worst edition ever published.

, author of a very useful Biographical Dictionary, was descended from the ancient and noble family of the Calfopedi of Florence, which removed into France under Francis I. At the revocation of the edict of Nantz, Samuel de Chaufepié, the representative of the family, and pfotestant minister at Couhé in Poitou, was obliged to take refuge in Friesland, where he died pastor of the church of Leuwarden in 1704. He had ten children by his wife Maria Marbœuf de la Rimbaudiere, of whom the subject of the present article was the youngest, and born at Leuwarden, Nov. 9, 1702. He was educated partly at Franeker, under professor Andala, as appears by his maintaining an academical thesis before that professor, in 1718, on “Innate Ideas,” and probably about the same time, a second on “The punishment of the Cross,” which was afterwards published in a collection by Gerdes, in 1734. After being admitted into the ministry, he preached for some time at Flushing, then at Delft, and lastly at Amsterdam, where he was pastor of the Walloon church, and where he died, highly respected for piety and learning, and much lamented, July 3, 1786. He was not more diligent in the discharge of his professional functions, than attached to studious researches, which he pursued throughout the whole of his long life. In 1736 he published, “Lettres sur divers sujets importans de la Religion,” 12mo, and in 1746 prefixed a life or historical eulogium to the sermons of John Brutel de la Riviere. In 1756 he published three sermons, intended to prove the truth of the Christian religion from the present state of the Jews; and wrote an account of the life and writings of our celebrated poet Pope, which was prefixed to a French translation of his works, printed at Amsterdam in 1758. He also translated from the Dutch an abridgement, in question and answer, of the history of his country; and from the English, part of Shuckford’s works, with additions, and several volumes of the “Universal History,” which he improved very considerably, particularly in the history of Venice. This labour, however, he discontinued in 1771, and does not appear after that to have published any thing of consequence, confining himself to his pastoral duties, if we except his “Life of Servetus,” which in 1771 was translated into English, by James Yair, minister of the Scots church at Campvere, and published at London, 8vo. The chief object of it seems to be to vindicate Calvin from the reproaches usually thrown upon him for the share he had in the prosecution of Servetus; but some will probably think that he has at least been equally successful in throwing new and not very favourable light on the conduct and principles of Servetus.

years, when he was visited by the gout, the pains of which he contrived to alleviate, by conversations with his friends and the muses, and prolonged his life to a very advanced age, dying in 1726, in his 81st year. He was extremely desirous of becoming a member of -the academy of fine arts; and, on seeing another preferred to him, he took his revenge by satirical attacks on the management of the institution. It was the perfect consonance of his life with his poems, that gave them the natural air for which they have ever been so greatly admired. The philosophy of the graces, that animates his works, was also the rule of his life. But few of his poems were published during his lifetime, and those occasionally and detached; the trouble of collecting them he left to his friends after his death. The first editions were very imperfect, till Camusac and St. Marc took the pains to publish them in a completer collection, 1750, 2 vols. 12mo. They consist of epistles in verse, and letters in prose intermingled with verses. Both are characterised by an easy gaiety, agreeable pictures, lively strokes, genuine wit, pleasing fictions, Epicurean morality, or “sagesse commode,” as Saint Marc used to call it, and a style varied as the subject requires. They are not, however, without flat, incorrect, and puerile passages. His versification is flowing and harmonious, but frequently faulty and contrary to the rules of speech, and sometimes designedly negligent, in imitation of the simple style of Marot. Some find great harmony in the continual recurrence of the same rhymes, in which he followed Chapelle, and is praised by Dubos; and Camusac thinks that such verses are eminently adapted to music. Saint Marc, on the other hand, and the younger Racine, complain of their monotony, and conceive that the beauty of them consists solely in the conquest of greater difficulties, and that the French language is not so poor in sonorous phraseology as to stand in need of such a practice. Though the letters of Chaulieu were all actually written, and mostly directed to Bouillon, yet they are frequently interspersed with ingenious fictions. Excepting that to the chevalier Bouillon, the most remarkable letter is that addressed to M. la Fare, as the poet, with great frankness, gives us in it his own portrait. Chaulieu’s odes are not of the higher species.

, knt. author of the “Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire,” which bears a higher price than any other topographical volume, was descended from a family which came into England with William the conqueror. He was born in 1632, and had his grammatical education at Bishop’s Stortford school, under Mr. Thomas Leigh; and in 1647, was admitted in Gonvil and Caius college in Cambridge. He removed, in 1649, to the Middle-Temple; and in 1656, was called to the bar. In 1661, he was constituted a justice of peace lor aie county of Hertford; made one of the benchers of the Middle-Temple in 1675, and steward of the Burgh-coujt in Hertford; and likewise, in 1680, appointed by charter, recorder of that place. In 1681, he was elected reader of the Middle-Temple; and on the 4th of June, the same year, received the honour of knighthood at Windsor-castle, from king Charles II. He was chosen treasurer of the Middle-Temple in 1685. On the llth of June, 1688, he was called to the degree of a serjeant at law, and the same year advanced to be a Welsh judge, or one of his majesty’s justices for the counties of Glamorgan, Brecknock, and Radnor, in the principality of Wales. He married three wives; 1. Jane, youngest daughter of Francis Flyer, of Brent-Pelham, in Hertfordshire, esq. by whom he had seven children. She died December 31, 1672. 2. Elizabeth, the relict of John Goulsmith, of Stredset, in Norfolk, esq one of the coheirs of Gregory Wood, of Risby, in Suffolk, gent. By her he had no issue. She died August 4, 1677. 3. His third wife was Elizabeth, the second daughter of Nathaniel Thruston, of Hoxny, in Suffolk, esq. by whom he had two children. He died April 1719, and May 1, was buried at Tardley-Bury. He published “The Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire,” 1700, fol. To this work he left some additions, which afterwards came into the hands of Salmon, and were the foundation of his History of Hertfordshire. The first essay towards a delineation of Hertfordshire was attempted by John Norden, in his “Speculum Britanniae,” published in 1593; but it is not to be compared, in point of compleatness and perfecr tion, with sir Henry Chauncy’s historical description. Sir Henry’s digressions, however, are pedantic, and the work would have admitted of greater care with respect to the execution of the engravings. Mr. Forester, of Bradfield in this county, father of Dr. Pulter Forester, chancellor of Lincoln, and a near relation of sir Henry Chauncy, had made large additions to sir Henry’s book. The copy was in the hands of the late William Forester, esq. who died about 1767. Mr. Cole was possessed of another copy, with great manuscript additions by the late Browne Willis. A third copy, with large additions, by Peter Le Neve, is in the library of the Society of Antiquaries. Two copies, with copious additions in ms. were given by Mr. Gough to the Bodlefan Library. The rev. Dr. Paul Wright, vicar of Oakley in Essex, and who formerly resided, as curate and lecturer, in the town of Hertford, having received some manuscript papers relative to sir Henry Chuancy’s work, proposed to publish an accurate edition of it with continuations to the present time, but this was never executed. A new edition has lately been announced by Mr. Clutterbuck of Watford, who has purchased the ms Collections of Mr. Blore.

, a painter, engraver, and designer of great talents and industry, was born at Paris in 1613) and died there in 1676. His first performances were some engravings from the pictures of Laurence de la Hire, who was his master; but the liveliness of his imagination not comporting with the tardiness of the graving tool, he began to delineate his own thoughts in aquafortis. If his works have not the delicacy and mellowness that distinguish the engravings of some other artists, yet he threw into them all the fire, all the force and sentiment of which his art is susceptible. He worked with surprising facility. His children used to read to him after supper the passages of history he intended to draw. He instantly seized the most striking part of the subject, traced the design of it on the plate of copper with the point of his graver; and, before he went to bed, fitted it for being corroded by the aquafortis the next day, while he employed himself in engraving or drawing something else. He supplied not only painters and sculptors with designs, but also carvers and goldsmiths, jewellers and embroiderers, and even joiners and smiths. Besides 4000 pieces engraved by his hand, and 1400 executed from his designs, he painted several small pictures, which were much admired, and many of them were purchased by Le Brun. The multitude of works on which he was employed brought their authors to his house, and their frequent meetings and conversations there terminated in the establishment of the French academy. He was admitted into the royal academy of painting and sculpture in 1663, and obtained a pension farengraving the plates of the Carousal. His small plates, Mr. Strutt says, are executed in a style much resembling that of Le Clerc, founded upon that of Callot. In his large prints he approaches near to that coarse, dark style, which was adopted by his tutor, La Hire. Among the sets of prints executed from his own compositions, are those for the “Bible History” the “History of Greece” the “Metamorphosis of Benserade” the “Jerusalem of Tasso” the “Fables of La Fontaine” “Alaric,” or “Rome conquered” and several romances. Among the prints engraved from other masters are, “Christ with the Disciples at Emmaus,” from Titian a “Concert,” from Dominichino; the “Life of St. Bruno,” from Le Sueur; “Apollo and Daphne,” from N. Poussin; “A Virgin and Child, with St. John and little Angels,” finely etched, and finished with much taste; and “Meleager presenting the Head of the Boar to Atalanta.” With all his talents and fame, Perrault assures us that he was a man of great modesty.

, a French mathetician and engineer, was born at Lyons July 24, 1657, and educated there in the college of Jesuits, from whence he removed to Paris in 1675. He first made an acquaintance with du Hamel, secretary to the academy of sciences; who, observing his genius to lie strongly towards astronomy, presented him to Cassini. Cassini took him with him to the observatory, and employed him under him, where he made a very rapid progress in the science. In 1683, the academy carried on the great work of the meridian to the north and south, begun in 1670, and Cassini having the southern quarter assigned him, took in the assistance of Chazelles. In 1684, the duke of Montemart engaged Chazelles to teach him mathematics, and the year after procured him the preferment of hydrography-professor for the gallies of Marseilles, where he set up a school for young pilots designed to serve on board the gailies. In 1686, the gallies made four little campaigns, or rather four courses, for exercise, during which Chazelles always went on board, kept his school on the sea, and shewed the practice of what he taught. He likewise made a great many geometrical and astronomical observations, which enabled him to draw a new map of the coast of Provence. In 1687 and 1688 he made two other sea campaigns, and drew a great many plans of ports, roads, towns, and forts, which were so much prized as to be lodged with the ministers of state. At the beginning of the war which ended with the peace of Ryswick, Chazelles and some marine officers fancied the gailies might be so contrived as to live upon the ocean, and might serve to tow the men of war when the wind failed, or proved contrary; and also help to secure the coast of France upon the ocean. He was sent to the western coasts in July 1689 to prove this scheme; and in 1690 fifteen gailies, new-built, set sail from Rochefort, cruised as far as Torbay in England, and proved serviceable at the descent upon Tinmouth. Here he performed the functions of an engineer, and shewed the courage of a soldier. The general officers he served under declared that when they sent him to take a view of any post of the enemy, they could rely entirely upon his intelligence. The gallies, after their expedition, came to the mouth of the Seine into the basons of Havre de Grace and Honfleur; but could not winter because it was necessary to empty these basons several times, to prevent the stagnation and stench of the water. He proposed to carry them to Rohan; and though all the pilots were against him, objecting insuperable difficulties, he succeeded in the undertaking* While he was at Rohan he digested into order the observations which he had made on the coasts, and drew distinct maps, with a portulan to them, viz. a large description of every haven, of the depth, the tides, the dangers and advantages discovered, &c. which were inserted in the “Neptune Francois,” published in 1692, in which year he was engineer at the descent at Oneille. In 1693 M. de Pontchartrain, then secretary of state for the marine, and afterwards chancellor of France, resolved to get the “Neptune François” carried on to a second volume, which was also to include the Mediterranean. Chazelles desired that he might have a year’s voyage in this sea, for making astronomical observations; and, the request being granted, he passed by Greece, Egypt, and the other parts of Turkey, with his quadrant and telescope in his hand. When he was in Egypt he measured the pyramids, and found that the four sides of the largest lay precisely against the four quarters of the world. Now as it is highly probable that this exact position to east, west, north, and south, was designed 3000 years ago by those that raised this vast structure, it follows, that, during so long an interval, there lias been no alteration in the situation of the heavens; or, that the poles of the earth and the meridians have all along continued the same. He likewise made a report of his voyage in the Levant, and gave the academy all the satisfaction they wanted concerning the position of Alexandria: upon which he was made a member of the academy in 1695. Chazelles died Jan. 16, 1710, of a malignant fever. He was a very extraordinary and useful man; and, besides his great genius and attainments, was also remarkable for his moral and religious endowments.

, in Latin, a Capite Fontium, a learned divine, fifty-fifth general of the cordeliers, was a native of Bretany, descended from a noble and ancient family, and born in 1632. He was titular archbishop of Csesarea, to exercise the episcopal office in the diocese of Sens, in the absence of cardinal de Peleve. He died May 26, 1595, at Rome, leaving several theological works; among them, “De necessaria Theologian Scholasticse correctione,” Paris, 1586, 8vOj of which bibliographers desire us to be careful that the leaf marked E be not wanting, or is not from another book, it being frequently wanting. He wrote also a volume against duels, entitled “Confutation du Point d'Honneur,” 1579, 8vo, and “De Virgiuitate Marias et Josephi,” 1578, 8vo, &c. Dupin has a very long article on Chefforitaines. He appears to have been a man of great learning, and understood six languages besides his native Bas Breton.

, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, descended from an ancient family in the Isle of Wight, was born at Cambridge, June 16, 1514, being the son of Peter Cheke, gent, and Agnes, daughter of Mr. Dufford of Cambridgeshire. After receiving his grammatical education under Mr. John Morgan, he was admitted into St. John’s college, Cambridge, in 1531, where he became very eminent for his knowledge in the learned languages, particularly the Greek tongue, which was then almost universally neglected. Being recommended as such, by Dr. Butts, to king Henry VIII. he was soon after made kind’s scholar, and supplied by his majesty with money for his education, and for his charges in travelling into foreign countries. While he continued in college he introduced a more substantial and useful kind of learning than what had been received for some years; and encouraged especially the study of the Greek and Latin languages, and of divinity. After having taken his degrees in arts he was chosen Greek lecturer of the university. There was no salary belonging to tnat place: but king Henry having founded, about the year 1540, a professorship of the Greek tongue in the university of Cambridge, with a stipend oi forty pounds a year, Mr. Cheke, though but twenty-six years of age, was chosen the first professor. This place he held long after he left the university, namely, till October 1551, and was highly instrumental in bringing the Greek language into repute. He endeavoured particularly to reform and restore the original pronunciation of it, but met with great opposition from Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, chancellor of the university, and their correspondence on the subject was published. Cheke, however, in the course of his lectures,- went through all Homer, all Euripides, part of Herodotus, and through Sophocles twice, to the advantage of his hearers and his own credit. He was also at the same time universityorator. About the year 1543 he was incorporated master of arts at Oxford, where he had studied some time. On the 10th of July 1544 he was sent for to court, in order to be school- master, or tutor, for the Latin tongue, jointly with sir Anthony Cooke, to prince Edward and, about the same time, as an encouragement, the king granted him, being then, as it is supposed, in orders, one of the canonries in his new- founded college at Oxford, now Christ Church but that college being dissolved in the beginning of 1545, a pension was allowed him in the room of his canonry. While he was entrusted with the prince’s education, he made use of all the interest he had in promoting men of learning and probity. He seems also to have sometimes had the lady Elizabeth under his care. In 1547, he married Mary, daughter of Richard Hill, serjeant of the wine-cellar to king Henry VIII. When his royal pupil, king Edward VI. came to the crown, he rewarded him for his care and pains with an annuity of one hundred marks; and also made him a grant of several lands and manors . He likewise caused him, by a mandamus, to be elected provost of King’s college, Cambridge, vacant by the deprivation of George Day, bishop of Chichester. In May 1549, he retired to Cambridge, upon some disgust he had taken at the court, but was the same Summer appointed one of the king’s commissioners for visiting that university. The October following, he was one of the thirty-two commissioners appointed to examine the old ecclesiastical law books, and to compile from thence a body of ecclesiastical laws for the government of the church; and again, three years after, he was put in a new commission issued out for the same purpose. He returned to court in the winter of 1549, but met there with great uneasiness on account of some offence given by his wife to Anne, duchess of Somerset, whose dependent she was. Mr. Cheke himself was not exempt from trouble, being of the number of those who were charged with having suggested bad counsels to the duke of Somerset, and afterwards betrayed him. But having recovered from these imputations, his interest and authority daily increased, and he became the liberal patron of religious and learned men, both English and foreigners. In 1550 he was made chief gentleman of the king’s privy -chamber, whose tutor he still continued to be, and who made a wonderful progress through his instructions. Mr. Cheke, to ground him well in morality, read to him Cicero’s philosophical works, and Aristotle’s Ethics; but what was of greater importance, instructed him in the general history, the state and interest, the laws and customs of England. He likewise directed him to keep a diary of all the remarkable occurrences that happened, to which, probably, we are indebted for the king’s Journal (printed from the original in the Cottonian library) in Burnett’s History of the Reformation. In October, 1551, his majesty conferred on him the honour of knighthood; and to enuhle him the better to support that rank, made him a grant, or gift in fee simple (upon consideration of his surrender of the hundred marks abovementioned), of the whole manor of Stoke, near Clare, exclusively of the college before granted him, and the appurtenances in Suffolk and Essex, with divers other lands, tenements, &c. all to the yearly value of 145l. 19$. 3d. And a pasture, with other premises, in Spalding; and the rectory, and other premises, in Sandon. The same year he held two private conferences with some other learned persons upon the subject of the sacrament, or transubstantiation. The first on November the 25th, in -secretary Cecil’s house, and the second December 3d the same year, at sir Richard Morison’s. The auditors were, the lord Russel, sir Thomas Wroth of the bed-chamber, sir Anthony Cooke, one of the king’s tutors, Throgmorton, chamberlain of the exchequer, Mr. Knolles, and Mr. Harrington, with whom were joined the marquis of Northampton, and the earl of Rutland, in the second conference. The popish disputants for the real presence were, Feckenham, afterwards dean of St. Paul’s, and Yong; and at the second disputation, Watson. The disputants on the other side were, sir John Cheke, sir William Cecil, Horn, dean of Durham, Whitehead, and Grindal. Some account of these disputations is still extant in Latin, in the library of Mss. belonging to Bene't college, Cambridge and from thence published in English by Mr. Strypein his interesting Life of sir John Cheke. Sir John also procured Bucer’s Mss. and the illustrious Leland’s valuable, collections for the king’s library but either owing to sir John’s misfortunes, or through some other accident, they never reached their destination. Four volumes of these collections were given by his son Henry Cheke, to Humphrey Purefoy, esq. one of queen Elizabeth’s council in the north, whose son, Thomas Purefoy, of Barvvell in Leicestershire, gave them to the famous antiquary, William Burton, in 1612 and he made use of them in his description of Leicestershire. Many years after, he presented them to the Bodleian library at Oxford, where they now are. Some other of these collections, after Cheke’s death, came into the hands of William lord Paget, and sir William Cecil. The original of the “Itinerary,” in five volumes, 4to, is in the Bodleian library; and two volumes of collections, relating to Britain, are in the Cottonian.

Mr. Cheke being at Cambridge at the commencement in 1552, disputed there against Jesus Christ’s local descent into hell. On the 25th of August, the same year, he was made chamberlain of the exchequer for life; and in 1553 constituted clerk of the council; and, soon after, one of the secretaries of state, and a privy-counsellor. In May the same year, the king granted to him, and hb heirs male, the honour of Clare in 'Suffolk, with divers other lands, to the yearly value of one hundred pounds. His zeal for the protestant religion induced him to approve of the settlement of the crown upon the lady Jane Grey; and he acted, but for a very short time, as secretary to her and hercouncil after king Edward’s decease, for which, upon queen Mary’s accession to the throne, he was committed to the Tower, and an indictment drawn up against him, the 12th or 13th of August. The year following, after he was almost stripped of his whole substance, he obtained the queen’s pardon, and was set at liberty September 3, 1554. But not being able to reconcile himself to popery, and foreseeing the days of persecution, having obtained a licence from the queen to travel for some time into foreign parts, he went first to Basil, where he staid some time; and thence passed into Italy. At Padua he met with some of his countrymen, whom he directed in their studies, and read and explained to them some Greek orations of Demosthenes. Upon his return from Italy he settled at Strasburgh, where the English service was kept up, and many of his pious and learned friends resided. But this having offended the popish zealots in England, his whole estate was confiscated to the queen’s use, under pretence that he did notcome home at the expiration of his travel. Being now reduced in circumstances, he was forced to read a Greek lecture at Strasburgh for his subsistence.

In the beginning of the year 1556, his wife being come to Brussels, he resolved, chiefly upon a treacherous invitation he received from the lord Paget and sir John Mason, to go thither. But first he consulted astrology, in which he was very credulous, to know whether he might safely undertake that journey; and being deceived by that delusive art, he fell into a fatal snare between Brussels and Antwerp. For, by order of king Philip II. being way- laid there by the provost-marshal, he was suddenly seized on the 15th of May, unhorsed, blindfolded, bound, and thrown into a waggon; conveyed to the nearest harbour, put on board a ship under hatches, and brought to the Tower of London, where he was committed close prisoner. He soon -found that this was on account of his religion; for two of the queen’s chaplains were sent to the Tower to endeavour to reconcile him to the church of Rome, though without success. But the desire of gaining so great a man, induced the queen to send to him Dr. Feckenham, dean of St. Paul’s, a man of a moderate temper, and with whom he had been acquainted in the late reign. This man’s arguments being inforced by the dreadful alternative, “either comply, or burn,” sir John’s frailty was not able to withstand them. He was, therefore, at his own desire, carried before cardinal Pole, who gravely advised him to return to the unity of the church: and in this dilemma of fear and perplexity, he endeavoured to escape by drawing up a paper, consisting of quotations out of the fathers that seemed to countenance transubstantiation, representing them as his own opinion, and hoping that would suffice to procure him his liberty, without any other public declarations of his change. This paper he sent to cardinal Pole, with a letter dated July 15, in which he desired him to spare him from making an open recantation but that being refused, he wrote a letter to the queen the same day, in which he declared his readiness to obey her laws, and other orders of religion. After this, he made his solemn submission before the cardinal, suing to be absolved, and received into the bosom of the Roman catholic church; which was granted him as a great favour. But still he was forced to make a public recantation before the queen, on the 4th of October, and another long one before the whole court; and submitted to whatever penances should be enjoined him by the pope’s legate, i. e. the cardinal. After all these mortifications, his lands were restored to him, but upon condition of an exchange with the queen for others*. The papists, by way of triumph over him and the protestants, obliged him to keep company generally with catholics, and even to be present at the examinations and convictions of those they called heretics. But his remorse, and extreme vexation for what he had done, sat so heavy upon his mind, that pining away with shame and regret, he died September 13, 1557, aged forty-three, at his friend Mr. Peter Osborne’s house, in Wood-street, London, and was buried in St. Alban’s church there, in the north chapel of the choir, the 16th of September. A stone was set afterwards over his grave, with an inscriptionf. He left three sons; John and Edward, the two youngest, died without issue; Henry, the eldest, was secretary to the council in the north, and knighted by queen Elizabeth: he died about the year 1586. Thomas, his eldest son and heir, was knighted by

His works are: 1. A Latin translation of two of St. Chrysostom’s Homilies, never before published, “Contra observatores novilunii;” and “De dormientibus in Christo,” London, 1543, 4to. 2. A Latin translation of six homilies of the same father, “De Fato,” and “Providentia Dei,” Lond. 1547. 3. “The hurt of Sedition, how grievous it is to a commonwealth.” The running title is, “The true subject to the rebel*” It was published in 1549, on occasion of the insurrections in Devonshire and Norfolk; and besides being inserted in Holinshed’s Chronicle, under the year 1549, was reprinted in 1576, as a seasonable discourse upon apprehension of tumults from malcontents at home, or renegadoes abroad. Dr. Gerard Langbaine of Queen’s college, Oxon, caused it to be reprinted again about 1641, for the use and consideration of those who took arms against Charles I. in the time of the civil wars, and prefixed to it a short life of the author. 4. A Latin translation of the English “Communion-book;” done for the use of M. Bucer, and printed among Bucer’s “Opuscula Angiicana.” 5. “De obitu doctissimi et sanctissimi Theologi domini Martini Buceri, &c. Epistolae duse,” Lond. 1551, 4to, printed in Bucer’s “Scripta Angiicana.” He also wrote an epicedium on the death of that learned man. 6. “Carmen heroicum, or Epitaphium, in Antonium Deneium clarissimum virum,” Lond. 4to. This sir Anthony Denny was originally of St. John’s college in Cambridge, and a learned man: afterwards he became one of the gentlemen of the privy chamber, and groom of the stole to Henry VIII. and one of the executors of his will. 7. “De Pronuntiatione Graecse potissimum linguae disputationes,” &c. containing his dispute on this subject with Gardiner, Basil, 1555, 8vo. 8. “De superstitione ad regem Henricum.” This discourse on superstition was drawn up for king Henry’s use, in order to excite that prince to a thorough reformation of religion. It is written in very elegant Latin, and was prefixed by the author, as a dedicar tion to a Latin translation of his, of Plutarch’s book of Superstition. A copy of this discourse, in manuscript, is still preserved in the library of University college, Oxon, curiously written, and bound up in cloth* of silver, which makes it probable, that it was the veiy book that was presented to the king. An English translation of it, done by the learned W. Elstob, formerly fellow of that college, was published by Mr. Strype, at the end of his Life of sir John Cheke. 9. Several “Letters” of his are published in the Life just now mentioned, and eight in Harrington’s “Nugae antiquae,” and perhaps in other places. 10. A Latin translation of Archbishop Cranmer’s book on the Lord’s Supper, was also done by sir John Cheke, and printed in 1553. 11. He likewise translated “Leo de apparatu bellico,” Basil, 1554, 8 vo. Strype gives also a long catalogue of his unpublished writings, which are probably lost. Sir John Cheke, like some other learned men of his time, particularly Smith, Cecil, and Ascham, wrote a very fair and beautiful hand.

, an eminent surgeon and anatomist, and a celebrated writer, was born Oct. 19, 1688, at Burrow-on-the-Hill, near Somerby in Leicestershire. After having received a classical education, and been instructed in the rudiments of his profession at Leicester, he was placed about 1703, under the immediate tuition of the celebrated anatomist Cowper, and resided in his house, and at the same time studied surgery under Mr. Feme, the head surgeon of St. Thomas’s hospital. Such was the proficiency he made under these able masters, that he himself began, at the age of twenty-two, to read lectures in anatomy, a syllabus of which, in 4to, was first printed in 1711. Lectures of this kind were then, somewhat new in this country, having been introduced, not many years before, by M. Bussiere, a French refugee, and a surgeon of high note in the reign of queen Anne. Till then, the popular prejudices had run so high against the practice of dissection, that the civil power found it difficult to accommodate the lecturers with proper subjects; and pupils were obliged to attend the universities, or other public seminaries, where, likewise, the procuring of bodies was no easy task. It is an extraordinary proof of Mr. Cheselden’s early reputation, that he had the honour of being chosen a member of the royal society in 1711, when he could be little more than twenty- three years of age but he soon justified their choice, by a variety of curious and useful communications. Nor were his contributions limited to the royal society, but are to be found in the memoirs of the royal academy of surgeons at Paris, and in other valuable repositories. In 1713 Mr. Cheselden published in 8vo, his “Anatomy of the Human Body,” reprinted in 1722, 1726, 1732; in folio in 1734, and in 8vo, 1740, and an eleventh edition aslate as 1778. During the course of twenty years, in which Mr. Cheselden carried on his anatomical lectures, he was continually rising in reputation and practice, and upon Mr. Feme’s retiring from business, he was elected head surgeon of St. Thomas’s hospital. At two other hospitals, St. George’s, and the Westminster Infirmary, he was chosen consulting surgeon; and at length had the honour of being appointed principal surgeon to queen Caroline, by whom he was highly esteemed; and was indeed generally regarded as the first man in his profession.

In 1723 he published in 8vo, his “Treatise on the high operation for the Stone.” This work was soon attacked in an anonymous pamphlet, called “Lithotomus castratus, or an Examination of the Treatise of Mr. Cheselden,” and in which he was charged with plagiarism. How unjust this accusation was, appears from his preface, in which he had acknowledged his obligations to Dr. James Douglas and Mr. John Douglas, from one of whom the attack is supposed to have come. Mr. Cheselden’s solicitude to do justice to other eminent practitioners is farther manifest, from his having annexed to his book a translation of what had been written on the subject by Franco, who published “Traite des Hernies,” &c. at Lyons, in 1561, and by Rosset, in his “Cæsarei Partus Assertio Historiologica,” Paris, 1590. The whole affair was more candidly explained in 1724, by a writer who had no other object than the public goodj in a little work entitled “Methode de la Tailie au haut appareile recuillie des ouvrages du fameux Triumvirat.” This triumvirate consisted of Rosset, to whom the honour of the invention was due; Douglas, who had revived it after long disuse; and Cheselden, who had practised the operation with the most eminent skill and success. Indeed Mr. Cheselden was so celebrated on this account, that, as a lithotomist, he monopolized the principal business of the kingdom. The author of his eloge, in the “Memoires de L' Academic Royale de Chirurgerie.,” who was present at many of his operations, testifies, that one of them was performed in so small a time as fifty-four seconds. In 1728, Mr. Cheselden added greatly to his reputation in another view, by couching a lad of nearly fourteen years of age, who was either born blind, or had lost his sight so early, that he had no remembrance of his having ever seen. The observations made by the young gentleman, after obtaining the blessing of sight, are singularly curious, and have been much attended to, and reasoned upon by several writers on vision. They may be found in the later editions of the “Anatomy.” In 1729, our author was elected a corresponding member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris; and in 1732, soon after the institution of the royal academy of surgery in that city, he had the honour of being the first foreigner associated with their learned body. Mr. Cheselden’s “Osteography, or Anatomy of the Bones,” inscribed to queen Caroline, and published by subscription, came out in 1733, a splendid folio, in the figures of which all the bones are represented in their natural size. Our author lost a great sum of money by this publication, which in 1735 was attacked with much severity by Dr. Douglas, whose criticism appeared under the title of “Remarks on that pompous book, the Osteography of Mr. Cheselden.” The work received a more judicious censure from the celebrated Haller, who, whilst he candidly pointed out its errors, paid the writer that tribute of applause which he so justly de­“served. Heister, likewise, in his” Compendium of Anatomy,“did justice to his merit. Mr. Cheselden having long laboured for the benefit of the public, and accomplished his desires with respect to fame and fortune, began at length to wish for a life of greater tranquillity and retirement; and in 1737 he obtained an honourable situation of this kind, by being appointed head surgeon to Chelsea hospital; which place he held, with the highest reputation, till his death. He did not, however, wholly remit his endeavours to advance the knowledge of his profession; for, upon the publication of Mr. Gataker’s translation of Mons. le Dran’s” Operations of Surgery," he contributed twenty-one useful plates towards it, and a variety of valuable remarks, some of which he had made so early as while he was a pupil to Mr. Feme. This was the last literary work in which he engaged. In 1751, Mr. Cheselden, as a governor of the Foundling hospital, sent a benefaction of fifty pounds to that charity, enclosed in a paper with the following lines, from Pope:

The connections of our eminent surgeon and anatomist were not confined to persons whose studies and pursuits were congenial to those of his own profession. He was fond of the polite arts, and cultivated an acquaintance with men of genius and taste. He was honoured, in particular, with the friendship of Pope, who frequently speaks of dining with him, but once had an interview rather of an unpleasing kind. In 1742, Mr. Cheselden, in a conversation with Mr. Pope at Mr. Dodsley’s, expressed his surprize at the folly of those who could imagine that the fourth book of the Dunciad had the least resemblance in stylo, wit, humour, or fancy, to the three preceding books. Though he was not, perhaps, altogether singular in this opinion, which is indeed a very just one, it was no small mortification to him to be informed by Pope, tbat he himself was the author of it, and was sorry that Mr. Cheselden did not like the poem. Mr. Cheseklen is understood to have too highly valued himself upon his taste in poetry and architecture, considering the different nature of his real accomplishments and pursuits. His skill in the latter art is said not to have been displayed to the best advantage in Surgeons’ -hall, in the Old Bailey, which was principally built under his direction. These, however, are trifling shades in eminent characters.

With respect to his collection of French historians, he published the first two volumes in 1636, fol. after having two years before issued a prospectus of the whole, and the third and fourth volumes were in the press, when on May 30, 1640, he was crushed to death by a cart, as he was going to his country-house at Verrieres. He was at this time in full health, and bade fair for long life and usefulness. The two volumes, then in the press, were completed by his son, and published in 1641, to which he added a fifth volume in 1649, without any assistance from government, as the pension granted to his father, and continued to hirn on his death, was taken from him about three years after that event. Some particulars of the continuation of the work to the present time may be seen in our life of Bouquet. In Du Chesne’s “Historic Norluannorum,” is the “Emmae Anglorum reginse encomium,” of which an edition, with William of Poictier’s history of William the Conqueror, and other historical documents, was published, or rather printed for private distribution, in 1783, 4to, by the learned Francis Maseres, esq. F. 11. S. cursitor-baron of the court of exchequer.

, was the son of Dr. Edward Chetwynd, dean of Bristol, who published some single sermons, enumerated by \Vood, and died in 1639. His mother was Helena, daughter of the celebrated sir John Harrington, author of the “Nugae Antiques.” He was born in 1623, at Ban well in Somersetshire, and admitted commoner of Exeter college, Oxford, in 1638, where he took one degree in arts; but in 1642 left the college. Having espoused the cause of the presbyterians, he returned to Oxford, when the parliamentary visitors had possession of the university, and in 1648 took his master’s degree. He was afterwards one of the joint-pastors of St. Cuthbert in Wells, 'and printed some occasional sermons preached there, or in. the neighbourhood: but on the restoration he conformed, and became vicar of Temple in Bristol, and one of the city lecturers, and a prebendary of the cathedral. He was much admired as a preacher, and esteemed a man of great piety. He died Dec. 30, 1692, and was buried in the chancel of the Temple church. Besides the “Sermons” already noticed, he published a curious and scarce book, entitled “Anthologia Historica containing fourteen centuries of memorable passages, and remarkable occurrences, &c.” Lond. 1674, 8vo, republished in 1691, with the title of “Collections Historical, Political, Theological, &c.” He was also editor of his grandfather sir John Harrington’s “Briefe View of the State of the Church of England, &c. being a character and history of the Bishops,” 1653, ISmo.

, a doctor and librarian of the Sorbonne, was born at Pontoise in the isle of France in 1636, of poor parents. One of his uncles, a clergyman of Veaux in the diocese of Rouen, undertook his education, and afterwards sent him to Paris, where he took his degrees in divinity, and he was received into the house and society of the Sorbonne in 1658, where he was equally admired for learning, piety, and charity, often stripping himself to clothe the poor, and even selling his books to relieve them, which, all book-collectors will agree, was no small stretch of benevolence. Having been appointed librarian to the Sorbonne, his studies in that collection produced a valuable work, well known to bibliographers, entitled “Origine de I'lmprimerie de Paris, dissertation historique et critique,” Paris, 1694, 4to. Maittaire frequently quotes from this dissertation. 2. A translation, or rather paraphrase of the “Grand Canon de l'Eglise Grecque,” written by Andrew of Jerusalem, archbishop of Candy, Paris, 1699, 12mo. He also published in 1664, a Latin dissertation on the council of Chalcedon, on formularies of faith, and had some hand in the catalogue of prohibited books which appeared in 1685. Chevillier died Sept. 8, 1700.

Dr. Cheyne’s retirement into the country, and low regimen, having not entirely removed his complaints, he was persuaded by his medical and other friends, to try the Bath waters. He accordingly went to Bath, and for some time found considerable relief from drinking the waters. But he afterwards returned to London for the winter season, and had recourse to a milk diet, from which he derived the most salutary consequences. He now followed the business of his profession, with great diligence and attention, in summer at Bath, and in the winter at London, applying himself more particularly to chronical, and especially to low and nervous cases: and at this period of his life, he generally rode on horseback ten or fifteen miles every day, both summer and winter: in summer on the Downs at Bath, and in winter on the Oxford road from London.

After our author had found his health to be thoroughly established, he again made a change in his regimen, gradually lessening the quantity of his milk and vegetables, and by slow degress, and in moderate quantities, living on the lightest and tenderest animal food. This he did for some time, and at last gradually went into the common mode of living, and drinking wine, though within the bounds of temperance; and appears to have enjoyed good health for several years. But his mode of living, though he indulged in no great irregularities, was still more free than his constitution would admit-, and at length produced very ill effects. In the course of ten or twelve years he continued to increase in size, and at length weighed more than thirty-two stone. His breath became so short, that upon stepping into his chariot quickly, and with some effort, he was ready to faint away, and his face would turn black. He was not able to walk up above one pair of stairs at a time, without extreme difficulty; he was forced to ride from door to door in a chariot even at Bath; and if he had but a hundred paces to walk, he was obliged, as he informs us himself, to have a servant following him with a stool to rest upon. He had also some other complaints, and grew extremely lethargic; and at Midsummer in 1723, he was seized with a severe symptomatic fever, which terminated in a most violent erisipelas. He continued to be in a very bad state of health for about a year and a half, having now resided for a considerable time almost entirely at Bath. But in December 1725, he went to London, where he had the advice of his friend Dr. Arbuthnot, Dr. Mead, Dr. Freind, and some other physicians. From nothing, however, did he find so much, relief as from a milk and vegetable diet; by a strict adherence to which, in. somewhat more than two years, his health was at length thoroughly established; and he almost entirely confined himself to this regimen during the remainder of his life.

In the mean time, our author continued to publish some other medical works; particularly “An essay of the truk nature and due method of treating the Gout, together with an account of the nature and quality of Bath Waters, the manner of using them, and the diseases in which they are proper: jas also of the nature and cure of most Chronical distempers.” This passed through at least five editions; and was followed by “An essay on Health and Long Life;” which was well received by the public, but occasioned sundry reflections to be thrown out against him by some persons of the medical profession. In 1726, he published the same work in Latin, enlarged', under the following title: “GeorgiL Cheynsei Tractatus de Infirmorum Sanitate tuenda, Vitaque producenda, libro ejusdern argument! Anglice edito longe auctior et limatior; huic accessit de natura fibrse ej usque laxae sive resolutae morbis tractatus mine primum editus.” In 1733, he published a piece in 8vo, under the title “The English Malady: or, a treatise of Nervous diseases of all kinds; as Spleen, Vapours, Lowness of Spirits, Hypochondriacal and Hysterical distempers, &c.” His next publication, which was printed in 1740, was entitled “An essay on Regimen; together with five discourses, medical, moral, and philosophical: serving to illustrate the principles and theory of philosophical Medicine, and point out some of its moral consequences.” The last work of our author, which he dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield, was entitled “The natural method of curing the Diseases of the Body, and the Disorders of the Mind depending on the $ody; in three parts. Part I. General reflections on the œconomy of nature in animal Life. Part II. The means and methods for preserving life and faculties; and also concerning the nature* and cure of acute, contagious, and cephalic disorders. Part III. Heflections on the nature and cure of particular chronical distempers.”

, professor of philosophy, and rector of the Scotch college at Doway in Flanders, was of the ancient family of Arnage, or Arnagie in Aberdeenshire, where he was born in the early part of the sixteenth century. After studying classical and philosophical learning in the university of Aberdeen, he applied to divinity under Mr. John Henderson, a celebrated divine of that time; but on the establishment of the reformation, Cheyne (as well as his master) went over to France, and taught philosophy for fcome time in the college of St. Barbe at Paris. From thence he went to Doway, where he taught philosophy for several years, and was made rector of the Scotch college, and canon and great penitentiary of the cathedral ofTournay. He died in 1602, and was buried in that church under a marble monument, with an inscription. The authors quoted by Machenzie give him the character of one of the first mathematicians and philosophers and most learned men of his time. He wrote, 1. “Analysis in Philosophiam Aristot.” Duac. (Doway), 1573, 1595, 8vo. 2. “De sphaera sen globi ccelestis fabrica,” ibid. 1575. 3. “De Geographia, Kb. duo,” ibid. 1576, 8vo. 4. “Orationes duo, de perfecto Philosopho, &c.” ibid. 1577, 8vo. 5. “Analysis et scholia in Aristot. lib. XIV.” ibid. 1578, 8vo.

Dr. Cheynell (for he had taken his doctor’s degree) was a man of considerable parts and learning, and published a great many sermons and other works; but now he is chiefly memorable for his conduct to the celebrated Chillingworth, in which he betrayed a degree of bigotry that has not been defended by any of the nonconformist biographers. In 1643, when Laud was a prisoner in the Tower, there was printed by authority a book of Cheynell’s, entitled “The rise, growth, and danger of Socinianism,” and unquestionably one of his best works. This came out about six years after Chillingworth' s more famous work called “The Religion of Protestants,” &c. and was written, as we are told in the title-page, with a view of detecting a most horrid plot formed by the archbishop and his adherents against the pure Protestant religion. In this book the arcfrbishop, Hales of Eton, Chillingworth, and other eminent divines of those times, were strongly charged with Socinianism. The year after, 1644, when Chillingworth was dead, there came out another piece of CheyneJPs with this strange title, “Chillingworthi Novissima; or, the sickness, heresy, death and burial of William Chillingworth.” This was also printed by authority and is, as the writer of Chillingworth’s life truly observes, a most ludicrous as well as melancholy instance of fanaticism, or religious madness. To this is prefixed a dedication to Dr. Bayly, Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Fell, &c. of the university of Oxford, who had given their imprimatur to Chillingworth’s book; in which those divines are abused not a little, for giving so much countenance to the use of reason in religious matters, as they had given by their approbation of Chillingworth’s book. After the dedication follows the relation itself; in which Cheynell gives an account how he came acquainted with this man of reason, as he calls Chillingworth; what care he took of him; and how, as his illness increased, “they remembered him in their prayers, and prayed heartily that God would be pleased to bestow saving graces as well as excellent gifts upon him; that He would give him new light and new eyes, that he might see and acknowledge, and recant his error; that he might deny his carnal reason, and submit to faith:” in all which he is supposed to have related nothing but what was true. For he is allowed by bishop Hoadly to have been as sincere, as honest, and as charitable as his religion would suffer him to be; and, in the case of Chillingworth, while he thought it his duty to consign his soul to hell, was led by his humanity to take care of his body. Chillingworth at length died; and Cheynell, though he refused, as he tells us, to bury his body, yet conceived it very fitting to bury his book. For this purpose he met Chillingworth' s friends at the grave with his book in his hand; and, after a short preamble to the people, in which he assured them “how happy it would be for the kingdom, if this book and all its fellows could be so buried that they might never rise more, unless it were for a confutation,” he exclaimed, “Get thee gone, thou cursed book, which has seduced so many precious souls: get thee gone, thou corrupt rotten book, earth to earth, and dust: to dust get thee gone into the place of rottenness, that thou mayest rot with thy author, and see corruption.”

Cheynell’s death happened in 1665, at an obscure village called Preston, in Sussex, where he had purchased an estate, to which he retired upon his being turned out of the living of Petworth. The warmth of his zeal, increased bv the turbulence of the times in which he lived, and by the opposition to which the unpopular nature of some of his employments exposed him, was at last heightened to distraction, and he was for some years disordered in his understanding. Wood thinks that a tendency to madness was discoverable in a great part of his life; Calamy, that it was only transient and accidental, though he pleads it as an extenuation of that fury with which his kindest friends confess him to have acted on some occasions, particularly, we may add, at Oxford, when one of the parliamentary visitors, where his behaviour was savage enough to justify more than the retaliation inflicted on his party. Wood declares that he died little better than distracted; but Calamy, that he was perfectly recovered before the restoration. He had many good qualities, particularly a hospitable disposition, and a contempt for money; but his extravagant zeal marred his usefulness, and reflected no honour on his general character, or on his party. With regard, however, to his charging Chillingworth with Socinianism, that is now universally allowed.

, in Latin Claramontius, an eminent Italian astronomer and philosopher, was born at Cesena in the province of Romagna in June 1565. His father was a physician at Cesena. He studied at Perugia and Ferrara, and became distinguished for his progress in philosophy and mathematics;, the former of which he taught for some time at Pisa. He passed, however, the greater part of his long life at Cesena, and in his history of that place, which he published in 1641, he informs us, that for fifty -nine years he had served his country in a public capacity. He was, in particular, frequently deputed to Rome, either to offer obedience to the pope in the name of his countrymen, or on other affairs. He had married a Jady whom he calls Virginia de Abbatibus, but becoming a widower at the age of eighty, he went into the church, received priest’s orders, and retired with the priests of the congregation of the oratory, for whom he built a church at Cesena, and there he died Oct. 3, 1652, in his eightyseventh year. He established at Cesena the academy of the Oifuscati, over which he presided until his death. His works, written partly in Italian and partly in Latin, are very numerous, and filled a considerable space in the literary history of his time: 1. “Discorso della Cometa pogonare dell' anno 1618, &c.” Venice, 1619, 4to, in which he suggests that comets are sublunary, and not celestial bodies. 2. “Anti-Tycho, in quo contra Tychonem Brahe, et nonnullos alios, &.c. demonstrator Cometas esse sublunares,” Venice, 1621, 4to. Kepler on this occasion stept forward in defence of Tycho Brahe, who had been dead some years. 3. “De conjectandis cuj usque moribus et latitantibus animi affectibus semeiotice moralis, seu de signis libri decem,” ibid. 1625, 4to, reprinted by Herman Conringius, who calls it an incomparable work, at Helmstadt, in 1665, 4to. MorhofT also praises it highly. M. Trichet Dufresne brought a copy of it for the first time into France, and M. de la Chambre availed himself of it in his work on the passions. 4. “Notse in moralem suam semeioticam, seu de signis,” Cesena, 1625, 4to. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to inform our readers that physiognomy was a favourite study from the beginning of the fifteenth to the end of the sixteenth century, and Chiaramonti appears to have made as much progress in it as any of his contemporaries. 5. An answer to Kepler, under the title “Apologia pro Anti-Tychone suo adversus Hypcraspiten Joannis Kepleri,” Venice, 1626, 4to. 6. “De tribus novis stellis, quse annis 1572, 1600, et 1604, comparuere,” Cesena, 1628, 4to. Galileo now took the part of Tycho Brahe, and published in Italian a work against Chiaramonti, who answered it in, 7. “Difesa di Scipioni Chiaramonti, &c.” Florence, 1633, 4to. 8. “Delia ‘ragione di stato libri tre, nel quale trattato da primi priticipii dedotto si suo prona la natura, le massime, e le specie cle’ governi buoni, cattivi e mascherati,” Florence, 1635, 4to, and translated into Latin, Hamburgh, 1679, 4to. 9. “Examen ad censuram Joannis Camilli Gloriosi in hbrum de tribus novis stellis,” ibid. 1636, 4to. 10. “De sede sublunari Cometarum, opuscula tria,” Amst. 1636, 4to. If. “Castigatio J. Camilli Gloriosi adversus Claramontium castigata ab ipso Claramontio,” Cesena, 1638, 4to. 12. “De methodo ad doctrinam spectante, libri quatuor, &c.” ibid. 1639, 4to. 13. “Csesense Historia libris sexdecim, ab initio civitatis ad haec tempera,” with a sketch of the general history of Italy during the same period, Cesena, 1641, 4to. 14. “De atrabile, quoad mores attinet,” Paris, 1641, 8vo, dedicated to Naude, but in the licence it is erroneously said that the author was physician to the pope. 15. “Anti-Philolaus, in quo Philolaus redivivus de terrse motu et solis ac fixarum quiete impugnalur,” &c. Cesena, 1643, 4to. This was written against Bullialdus’s attempt to revive the system of Philolaus, but in this we doubt whether our author was equal to his antagonist. 16. “Defensio ab oppugnationibus Fortunii Liceti de sede Cometarum,” Cesena, 1644, 4to. 17. “De Universo, libri sexdecim,” Cologne, 1644, 4to. 18. One of his best works, “De altitudine Caucasi liber unus, cura Gab. Naudasi editus,” Paris, 1649, 4to, and 1680, 4to. 19. “Philosophia naturalis methodo resolutiva tradita, &c.” Cesena, 1652, 4to. 20. “Opuscula varia mathematica,” Bologna, 1653, 4to. 21. “Commentaria in Aristotelem de iri.de, &c.” ibid. 1654, 4to. 22. “In quatuor meteorum Aristotelis librum commentaria,” Venice, 1668, 4to. 23. “Delle, scene, e theatri opera posthuma,” Cesena, 1675, 4to.

On our founder’s return, he passed some months in discharging the functions of his diocese. In May 1410, he was again sent to France, with other negociators, to obtain a renewal of the truce between the two kingdoms; but this was not accomplished until the year following, nor without considerable difficulties. For nearly two years after this, we find him residing on his diocese, or paying occasional visits to the metropolis, which his high character as a statesman rendered no less necessary than grateful to his royal master.

After the death of Henry V. in 1422, and the appointment of Humphrey duke of Gloucester to be regent during the minority of Henry VI., Chichele retired to his province, and began to visit the several dioceses included in it, carefully inquiring into the state of morals and religion. The principles of Wickliffe had made considerable progress, and it was to them chiefly that the indifference of the public towards the established clergy, and the efforts which had been made to alienate their revenues, were attributed. Officially, therefore, we are not to wonder that Chichele, educated in all the prejudices of the times, endeavoured to check the growing heresy, as it was called; but from the silence of Fox on the subject, there is reason to hope that his personal interference was far more gentle than that of his predecessor Arundel. On the other hand, history has done ample justice to the spirit with which he resisted the assumed power of the pope in the disposition of ecclesiastical preferments, and asserted the privileges of the English church. In all this he was supported by the nation at large, by a majority of the bishops, and by the university of Oxford, nor at this time was more zeal shown against the Lollards, or first protestants, than against the capricious and degrading encroachments of the court of Home. Among the vindications of Chichele’s character from the imputations thrown upon it by the agents of the pope, that of the university of Oxford must not be omitted. They told the pope, that “Chichele stood in the sanctuary of God as a firm wall that heresy could not shake, nor simony undermine, and that he was the darling of the people, and the foster parent of the clergy.” These remonstrances, however, were unsatisfactory to the proud and restless spirit of Martin V. but after he had for some time kept the terrors of an interdict hanging over the nation, the dispute was dropped without concessions on either side, and the death of this pope, soon after, relieved the archbishop from farther vexation.

In 1442, he applied to pope Eugenius for an indulgence to resign his office into more able hands, being now nearly eighty years old, and, as he pathetically urges, “heavy laden, aged, infirm, and weak beyond measure.” He intreats that he may be released from a burthen which he was no longer able to support either with ease to himself, or advantage to others. He died, however, before the issue of this application could be known, on the 12th of April 1443, and was interred with great solemnity in the cathedral of Canterbury, under a monument of exquisite workmanship built by himself. As a farther mark of respect, the prior and monks decreed that no person should be buried in that part of the church where his remains were deposited.

At what time he first conceived this plan is not recorded. It appears, however, to have been in his old age, when he obtained a release from interference in public measures. The purchases he made for his college consisted chiefly of Berford hall, or Cherleton’s Inn, St. Thomas’s hall, Tingewick hall, and Godknave hall,- comprising a space of one hundred and seventy-two feet in length in the High street, ana one hundred and sixty-two in breadth in Cat, or Catherine street, which runs between the High street and Hertford college: to these additions were afterwards made, which enlarged the front in the High street. The foundation stone was laid with great solemnity, Feb. 10, 1437. John Druell, archdeacon of Exeter, and Roger Keyes, both afterwards fellows of the college, were the principal architects, and the charter was obtained of the king in 1438, and confirmed by the pope in the following year. In the charter, the king, Henry VI. assumed the title of founder, at the archbishop’s solicitation, who appears to have paid him this compliment to secure his patronage for the institution, while the full exercise of legislative authority was reserved to Chichele as co-founder.

For the more ample endowment of this college, the founder purchased and bestowed on it the manor of Wedon and Weston, or Wedon Pinkeney in Northamptonshire. King’s college, Cambridge, became afterwards possessed of a part of it, but All Souls has, besides the advowsort of the churches belonging to it, the largest estate, and the lordship of the waste. The founder also gave them the manors of Horsham, and Scotney, or Bletching-court in Kent, and certain lands called the Tariffs or Friths in

, Mus. D, was a native of Bristol, and a disciple of Elway Bevin. In 1631, being then of Christ-church college, Oxford, he took his degree of bachelor in music; and in 1636, was appointed one of the organists of St. George’s chapel at Windsor, in the room of Dr. John Munday, and soon after one of the organists of the royal chapel at White-hall. After the restoration he was appointed chanter of the king’s chapel, and one of the chamber musicians to Charles II. In 1663, the university of Oxford conferred on him the degree of doctor in music, at an act celebrated in St. Mary’s church. Dr. Child, after having been organist of Windsor chapel sixtyfive years, died in that town 1697, at ninety years of age. In the inscription on his grave -stone, in the same chapel, it is recorded that he paved the body of that choir at his own expense; he likewise gave 20l: towards building the town -hall at Windsor, and 50l. to the corporation to be disposed of in charitable uses, at their discretion. His works are “Psalms for Three Voices,” &c. with a continued base either for the organ or theorbo, composed after the Italian way, London, 1639. “Catches, Hounds, and Canons,” published in Hilton’s “Catch that Catch can,” 1652. “Divine Anthems and Compositions to several Pieces of Poetry,” some of which were written by Dr. Thomas Pierce, of Oxford. Some of his secular compositions likewise appeared in a book entitled “Court Ayres,” printed 1655. But his principal productions are his services and full anthems, printed in Dr. Boyce’s collection. His style was so remarkably easy and natural, compared with that to which choirmen had been accustomed, that it was frequently treated by them with derision. Indeed, his modulation, at present, is so nearly modern, as not to produce that solemn and seemingly new effect on our ears, which we now experience from the productions of the sixteenth century. There are several inedited and valuable compositions by Dr. Child preserved in Dr. Tudvvay’s manuscript “Collection of English Church Music,” in the British Museum.

, a divine and natural philosopher, was born in 1623, and educated at Rochester, whence he removed to Magdalen-college, Oxford, in 1640. and became one of the clerks of the house, but appears to have left the university on the breaking out of the rebellion. When Oxford was surrendered to the parliamentary forces, he returned and took his bachelor’s degree, but two years after was expelled by the parliamentary visitors. He then subsisted by teaching school at Feversham, in Kent, although not without interruption from the republican party; but on the restoration, he was made chaplain to Henry lord Herbert, was created D. D. and had the rectory of Upway, in Dorsetshire, bestowed upon him. Jn Jan. 1663, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Salisbury, and in June 1664 to the prebend of Yatminster prima in the same church, by bishop Earle, who valued him as a learned and pious divine, and a great virtuoso. He died at Upway, Aug. 26, 1670, and was buried in the chancel of his church. He published, 1. a pamphlet entitled “Indago Astrologica,” 1652, 4to. 2. “Syzygiasticon instauratum, or an Ephemerisof the places and aspects of the Planets, &c.” Lond. 1653, 8vo. In both *hese is somewhat too much leaning to the then fashionable reveries of astrology but it appears by his correspondence with the secretary of the royal society, that he had made large collections for a more sound pursuit of the subjects usually investigated by that learned body, particularly of natural curiosities. His other publication was entitled “Britannia Baconica, or the natural rarities, of England, Scotland, and Wales, historically related, ac­$ording to the precepts of lord Bacon,” &c.“Lond. 1661, 8vo. It was this work which first suggested to Dr. Plot his” Natural History of Oxfordshire."

The conversation and study of the university scholars, in his time, turned chiefly upon the controversies between the church of England and the church of Rome, occasioned by the uncommon liberty allowed the Romish priests by James I. and Charles I. Several of them lived at or near Oxford, and made frequent attempts upon the young scholars; some of whom they deluded to the Romish religion, and afterwards conveyed to the English seminaries beyond sea. Among these there was the famous Jesuit, John Fisher, alias John Perse, for that was his true name, who was then much at Oxford and Chillingworth being accounted a very ingenious man, Fisher used all possible means of being acquainted with him. Their conversation, soon turned upon the points controverted between the two churches, but particularly on the necessity of an infallible living judge in matters of faith. Chillingworth found himself unable to answer the arguments of the Jesuit on this head; and being convinced of the necessity of such a judge, he was easily brought to believe that this judge was to be found in the church of Rome; that therefore the church of Rome must be the true church, and the only church in which men could be saved. Upon this he forsook the communion of the church of England, and cordially embraced the Romish religion.

In order to secure his conquest, Fisher persuaded him to go over to the college of the Jesuits at Doway; and he was desired to set down in writing the motives or reasons which had engaged him to embrace the Romish religion. But his godfather, Laud, who was then bishop of London, hearing of this affair, and being extremely concerned at it, wrote to him; and Chillingworth’s answer expressing much moderation, candour, and impartiality, that prelate continued to correspond with him, and to press him with several arguments against the doctrine and practice of the Romanists, This set him upon a new inquiry, which had the desired effect. But the place where he was not being suitable to the state of a free and impartial inquirer, he resolved to come back to England, and left Doway in 1631, after a short stay there. Upon his return, he was received with great kindness and affection hy bishop Laud, who approved his design of retiring to Oxford, of which university that prelate was then chancellor, in order to complete the important work he was then upon, “A free Enquiry into Religion.” At last, after a thorough examination, the protestant principles appearing to him the most agreeable to holy scripture and reason, he declared for them; and having fully discovered the sophistry of the motives which had induced him to go over to the church of Rome, he wrote a paper about 1634 to confute them, but did not think proper to publish it. This paper is now lost; for though we have a paper of his upon the same subject, which was first published in 1687, among his additional discourses, yet it seems to have been written on some other occasion, probably at the desire of some of his friends. That his return to the church of England 'was owing to bishop Laud, appears from that prelate’s appeal to the letters which passed between them; which appeal was made in his speech before the lords at his trial, in order to vindicate himself from the charge of popery.

As, in forsaking the church of England, as well as in returning to it, he was solely influenced by a love of truth, so, upon the same principles, even after his return to protestantism, he thought it incumbent upon him to re-examine the grounds of it. This appears from a letter he wrote to Sheldon, containing some scruples he had about leaving the church of Rome, and returning to the church of England; and these scruples, which he declared ingenuously to his friends, seemed to have occasioned a report that he had turned papist a second time, and then protestant again. It would have been more just, perhaps, to conclude that his principles were still unsettled, but, as his return to the protestant religion made much noise, he became engaged in several disputes with those of the Homish; and particularly with John Lewgar, John Floyd a Jesuit, who went under the name of Daniel, or Dan. a. Jesu, and White. Lewgar, a great zealot for the church of Rome, and one who had been an intimate friend of our author, as soon as he heard of his return to the church of England, sent him a very angry and abusive letter; to which Chillingvvorth returned so mild and affectionate an answer, that Lewgar could not help being touched with it, and desired to see his old friend again. They had a conference upon religion before Skinner and Sheldon and we have a paper of Chillingworth printed among the additional discourses above-mentioned, which seems to contain the abstract or summary of their dispute. Besides the pieces already mentioned, he wrote one to demonstrate, that “the doctrine of infallibility is neither evident of itself, nor grounded upon certain and infallible reasons, nor warranted by any passage of scripture.” And in two other papers, he shews that the church of Rome had formerly erred; first, “by admitting of infants to the eucharist, and holding, that without it they could not be saved;” and secondly, “by teaching the doctrine of the millenaries, viz. that before the world’s end Christ shall reign upon the earth 1000 years, and that the saints should live under him in all holiness and happiness;” both which doctrines are condemned as false and heretical by the present church of Rome. He wrote also a short letter, in answer to some objections by one of his friends, in which he shews, that “neither the fathers nor the councils are infallible witnesses of tradition and that the infallibility of the church of Rome must first of all be proved from Scripture.” Lastly, he wrote an answer to some passages in the dialogues published under the name of Rush worth. In 1635 he was engaged in a work which gave him a far greater opportunity to confute the principles of the church of Rome, and to vindicate the religion of protestants. A Jesuit called Edward Knott, though his true name was Matthias Wilson, had published in 1630 a little book called “Charity mistaken, with the want whereof catholics are unjustly charged, for affirming, as they do with grief, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation.” This was answered by Dr. Potter, provost of Queen Vcollege, Oxford, in 1633, in a tract entitled “Want of Charity justly charged on all such Romanists as dare without truth or modesty affirm, that protestancy destroyeth salvation.” The Jesuit in 1634 published an answer, called “Mercy and Truth, or Charity maintained by catholics with the want whereof they are unjustly chargetl, for affirming that protestancy destroyeth salvation.” Knott being informed of Chillingworth’s intention to reply to this, resolved to prejudice the public both against the author and his book, in a pamphlet called “A Direction to be observed by N. N. if he means to proceed in answering the book entitled Mercy and Truth, &c. printed in 1636, permissu superiorum:” in which he makes no scruple to represent Chillingworth as a Socinian, a charge which has been since brought against him with more effect. Chillingworth’s answer to Knott was very nearly finished in the beginning of 1637, when Laud, who knew our author’s freedom in delivering his thoughts, and was under some apprehension he might indulge it too much in his book, recommended the revisal of it to Dr. Prideaux, professor of divinity at Oxford, afterwards bishop of Worcester; and desired it might be published with his approbation annexed to it. Dr. Baylie, vice-chancellor, and Dr. Fell, lady Margaret’s professor in divinity, also examined the book; and at the end of the year it was published, with their approbation, under this title: “The religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation: or, an answer to a book entitled Mercy and Truth, or Charity maintained by Catholics, which pretends to prove the contrary.” It was presented by the author to Charles I. with a very elegant dedication i from whence we learn this remarkable circumstance, that Dr. Potter’s vindication of the protestant religion against Knott’s books was written by special order of the king 5 and that, by giving such an order, that prince, besides the general good, had also some aim at the recovery of Chillingworth from the danger he was then in by the change of his religion. This work was received with general applause; and what perhaps never happened to any other controversial work of that bulk, two editions of it wer6 published within less than five months: the first at Oxford, 1638, in folio; the second at London, with some small improvements, the same year. A third was published in 1664 to which were added some pieces of Chillingworth a fourth in 1674; a fifth in 1684, with the addition of his Letter to Lewgar, mentioned above. In 1687, when the nation was in imminent danger of popery, and this work was in its Cull popularity, Dr. John Patrick, at the request of the London clergy, published an abridgment of it in 4to, with the additional pieces, which we have taken notice of already. The sixth edition of the original appeared in 1704, with the “Additional Discourses,” but full of typographical errors; the seventh edition in 1719; the eighth in ———; and the ninth in 1727. This last edition was prepared from that of 1664, carefully examined and compared with the two preceding editions. The various readings of these editions are. taken notice of at the bottom of each page, with the words Oxf, or Lond. after them. The tenth and last edition is of the year 1742, with the “Life of Mr. Chillingworth,”by Dr. Birch', which life was copied into the General Dictionary, 10 vols. fol. The Jesuit Knott, as well as Floyd and Lacy, Jesuits, wrote against Chillingworth; but their answers were soon forgotten.

In the mean time he had refused preferment, which was offered him by sir Thomas Coventry, keeper of the great seal, because his conscience would not allow him to subscribe the thirty-nine articles. Considering that, by subscribing the articles, he must not only declare, willingly, and ex animo, that every one of the articles is agreeable to the word of God, but also that the book of common prayer contained nothing contrary to the word of God; that it might lawfully be used; and that he himself would use it: and conceiving at the same time that, both in the articles and in the book of common prayer, there were some things repugnant to the scripture, or which were not lawful to be used, he fully resolved to lose for ever all hopes of preferment, rather than comply with the subscriptions required. One of his chief objections to the common prayer related to the Athanasian dreed, the damnatory clauses of which he lodked upon as contrary to the word of God. Another objection concerned the fourth corttmantlmentj which, by the prayer subjoined to it, f; Lord, have mercy updn us,“&c. appeared to him to be mfcde a part of the Christian law, and consequently to bind Christians to the observation of the Jewish sabbath. These scruples of but authoi'j about subscribing the articles, furnished his antagonist Knott with an objection against him, as an improper champion for the protestant caw&e. To which he answers in the close of his preface to the” Religion of Protestants.“He expresses here not only his readiness to subscribe, but also what he conceives to be the sense and intent of such a subscription; that is, a subscription of peace or union, and not of belief or assent, as he formerly thought it was. This was also the sense of archbishop Laud, with which he could not then be unacquainted; and of his friend Sheldon, who laboured to convince him of it, and was, no doubt, the person that Brought him at last into it. For there is in Des Maizeaux’s Account, a letter which he wrote to Sheldon upon this occasion; and it seems there passed several letters between them upon this subject. Such at least is the apqjqgy which his biographers have offered for his ready subscription, after it had appeared to every impartial person that his objections were insurmountable. The apology we tiring as weak, as his subscription was strong and decisive, running in the usual language,” omnibus hisce articulis et singulis in iisdem contentis volens, et ex animo subscribe, et conspnsum meum iisdem praebeo.“The distinction, after such a declaration, between peace and union, and belief and assent, is, we fear, too subtle for common understandings. When, by whatever means, he had got the better of his scruples, he was prompted to the chancellorship of Salisbury, with the prebend of Bri$wqrth, in Northamptonshire, annexed and, as appears from the subscription-book of the church of Salisbury, upon July 20, 1638, complied with the usual subscription, in the manner just related. About the same time he was appointed master of Wigston’s hospital, in Leicestershire” both which,“says Wood,” and perhaps some other preferments, he kept to his dying day.“In 1646 he was deputed by the chapter of Salisbury their proctor in convocation. He was likewise deputed to the convocation which met the same year with the new parliament, and was opened Nov. 4. In 1642 he was put into the roll with some others by his majesty, to be created D. D.; but the civil war breaking out, he never received it. He was zealously attached to the royal party, and at the siege of Gloucester, begun Aug. 10, 1643, was present in the king’s army, where he advised and directed the making certain engines for assaulting the town, after the manner of the Roman testudines cum pluteis, but which the success of the enemy prevented him from employing. Soon after f having accompanied the lord Hopton, general of the king’s forces ip the west, to Arundel castle, in Sussex, and choosing to repose himself in that garrison, on account of an indisposition, occasioned by the severity of the season, he was taken prisoner Dec, 9, 1643, by the parliament forces under the command of sir William Waller, when the castle surrendered. But his illness increasing, and not being able to go to London with the garrison, he obtained leave to be conveyed to Chichester; where he was lodged in the bishop’s palace; and where, after a short illness, he died. We have a very particular account of his sickness and death, written by his great adversary, Mr. Cheynell, in his” Chillingworthi Novissima, or the sickness, heresy, death, and burial, of William Chillingworth, &c.“London, 1644, 4to. Cheynell accidentally met him at Arundel castle, and frequently visited him at Chichester, till he died. It was indeed at the request of this gentleman, that our author was removed to Chichester; where Cheynell attended him constantly, and behaved to him with as much compassion and charity as his bigotted and uncharitable principles would suffer him. There is no reason, however, to doubt the truth of Cheynell’s account, as to the most material circumstances, which prove that Chillingworth was attended during his sickness, and provided with all necessaries, by one 1 lieutenant Golledge, and his wife Christobel, at the command of the governor of Chichester; that at first he refused the assistance of sir William Waller’s physician, but afterwards was persuaded to admit his visits, though there were no hopes of his recovery; that his indisposition was increased by the abusive treatment he met with from most of the officers who were taken prisoners with him in Arundel castle, and who looked upon him as a spy set over them and their proceedings; and that during his whole illness he was often teased by Cheynell himself, and by an officer of the garrison of Chichester, with impertinent questions and disputes. And on the same authority we may conclude that lord Clarendon was misinformed of the particulars of his death for, after having observed that he was taken prisoner in Arundel castle, he adds” As soon as his person was known, which would have drawn reverence from any noble enemy, the clergy that attended that army prosecuted him with all the inhumanity imaginable; so that by their barbarous usage, he died within a few days, to the grief of all that knew him, and of many who knew him not, but by his book, and the reputation he had with learned men." From this it appears that the noble historian did not know, or had forgot, that he was sent to Chichester, but believed that he died in Arundel castle, and within a few days after the taking of it by sir William Waller. Wood tells us also, that the royal party in Chichester looked upon the impertinent discourses of Cheynell to our author, as a shortening of his days. He is supposed to have died Jan. 30, though the day is not precisely known, and was buried, according to his own desire, in the cathedral church of Chichpster, Cheynell appeared at his funeral, and gave that instance of bigotry and buffoonery which we have related already under his article.

For his character Wood has given the following: “He was a most noted philosopher and orator, and, without doubt, a poet also; and had such an admirable faculty in reclaiming schismatics and confuting papists, that none in his time went beyond him. He had also very great skill in mathematics. He was a subtle and quick disputant, and would several times put the king’s professor to a push. Hobbes of Malmesbury would often say, that he was like a lusty fighting fellow, that did drive his enemies before him, but would often give his own party smart back-blows; and it was the current opinion of the university, that he and Lucius lord Falkland,” who by the way was his most intimate friend, “had such extraordinary clear reason, that, if the great Turk or devil were to be converted, they were able to do it. He was a man of little stature, but of great soul: which, if times had been serene, and life spared, might have done incomparable services to the church of England.” Archbishop Tillotson has spoken of him in the highest terms: “I know not how it comes to pass,” says that eminent prelate, “but so it is, that every one that offers to give a reasonable account of his faith, and to establish religion upon rational principles, is presently branded for a Socinian; of which we have a sad instance in that incomparable person Mr. Chillingworth, the glory of this age and nation: who, for no other cause that I know of, but his worthy and successful attempts to make the Christian religion reasonable, and to discover those firm and solid foundations upon which our faith is built, has been requited with this black and odious character. But, if this be Socinianism, for a man to inquire into the grounds and reasons of Christian religion, and to endeavour to give a satisfactory account why he believes it, I know no way, but that all considerate and inquisitive men, that are above fancy and enthusiasm, must be either Socinians or atheists.” Mr. Locke has also spoken of Chillingworth with equal commendation. In a small tract, containing “Some thoughts concerning reading and study for a gentleman,” after having observed that the art of speaking well consists chiefly in two things, namely, perspicuity and right reasoning, and proposed Dr. Tillotson as a pat tern for the attainment of the art of speaking clearly, he adds: “Besides perspicuity, there masjt-be also right reasoning, without which, perspicuity serves but to expose the speaker. And for attaining of this, I should propose the constant reading of Chillingworth, who, by his example, will teach both perspicuity and the way of right reasoning, better than any book that I know: and therefore will deserve to be read upon that account over and over again; not to say any thing of his argument.”

"This made him from first wavering in religion, and indulging to scruples, to reconcile himself too soon, and too easily to the church of Rome; and carrying still his own inquisitiveness about him, without any resignation to their authority (which is the only temper can make that church sure of its proselytes) having made a journey to St. Omers (Doway), purely to perfect his conversion, by the conversation of those who had the greatest name, he found as little satisfaction there, and returned with as much haste from them; with a belief that an entire exemption from error was neither inherent in, nor necessary to any church: which occasioned that war, which was carried on by the Jesuits with so great asperity and reproaches against him, and in which he defended himself by such an admirable eloquence of language, and clear and incomparable power of reason, that he not only made them appear unequal adversaries, but carried the war into their own quarters $ and made the pope’s infallibility to be as much shaken, and declined by their own doctors (and as great an acrimony amongst themselves upon that subject) and to be at least as much doubted, as in the schools of the reformed or protestant; and forced them since, to defend and maintain those unhappy controversies in religion, with arms and weapons of another nature, than were used, or known in the church of Rome, when Bellarmine died; and which probably will in time undermine the very foundation that supports it.

"He did readily believe all war to be unlawful and did not think that the parliament (whose proceedings he perfectly abhorred) did in truth intend to involve the nation in a civil war, till after the battle of Edgehill; and then he thought any expedient, or stratagem that was like to put a speedy end to it, to be the most commendable.

, an excellent Greek and Latin scholar and mathematician, was born in 1610 at Slow in the Wold, in Gloucestershire, and became one of the clerks of Magdalen college, Oxford; and in 1632, one of the petty canons or chaplains of Christ church. Being ejected from this by the parliamentary visitors in 1648, he came to London in great necessity, and took lodgings in the house of Thomas Est, a musician and music printer, in Aldersgate street. There being a large room in this house, Chilmead made use of it for a weekly music meeting, from the profits of which he derived a slender subsistence, and probably improved it by being employed as translator. He died in 1653, having for some years received relief from Edward Bysshe, esq. garter king at arms, and sir Henry Hoibrook, the translator of Procopius. He was interred in the church of St. Botolph without Aldersgate. Among his works, our musical historians notice his tract “De musica antiqua Graeca,” printed in 1672, at the end of the Oxford edition of Aratus: he also wrote annotations on three odes of Dionysius, in the same volume, with the ancient Greek musical characters, which Chilmead rendered in the notes of Guide’s scale. His other works are, 1 “Versio Latina et Annotationes in Joan. Malalae Chronographiam,” Oxf. 1691, 8vo. 2. A translation, from the French of Ferrand, of “A Treatise on Love, or Erotic Melancholy,” 1640, 8vo. 3. Gaffarel’s “Unheard-of Curiosities.” 4. Campanella’s “Discourse touching the Spanish monarchy,” which not selling, Prynne prefixed an epistle and a new title, “Thomas Campanella’s advice to the king of Spain, for obtaining the universal monarchy of the world,” Lond. 1659, 4to. 5. Hues’ “Treatise of the Globes,” ibid. 1639 and 1659; and 6. Modena’s “History of the Rites, Customs, &c. of the Jews,” ibid. 1650. He also compiled the “Catalogus Mss. Grsecorum in Bibl. Bodl.” 1636, a manuscript for the use of the Bodleian, and the most complete of its time.

, one of the wise men of Greece, as they are called, flourished about the first year of the fifty-sixth Olympiad, or 556 B. C. Diogenes Laertius, however, thinks he was an old man in the fifty-second olympiad. Fenelon, with his usual respect for the ancient philosophers, asserts that he was a perfect model of virtue. About the fifty-fifth olympiad, he was made one of the ephori at Lacedaemon, a dignity which counterbalanced the authority of the kings. He appears to have been superstitiously attached to divination, and stories are told of his foretelling future events, which he contended might be done by the human intellect. He died at Pisa, through excess of joy, when embracing his son, who had returned from the Olympic games, crowned as victor. He executed the offices of magistracy with so much uprightness, that in his old age, he said, that he recollected nothing in his public conduct which gave him uneasiness, except that, in one instance, he had endeavoured to screen a friend from punishment. He held, however, the selfish maxim of Pittacus, that “we ought to love as if we were one day to hate, and hate, as if we were one day to love.” The more valuable of his precepts and maxims, were: Three things are difficult: to keep a secret, to bear an injury patiently, and to spend leisure well. Visit your friend in misfortune rather than in prosperity. Never ridicule the unfortunate. Think jbefore you speak. Do not desire impossibilities. Gold is tried by the touchstone, and men are tried by gold. Honest loss is preferable to shameful gain; for by the one, a man is a sufferer but once; by the other, always. In conversation use no violent motion of the hands; in walking, do not appear to be always upon business of life or death; for rapid movements indicate a kind of phrenzy. If you are great, be condescending; for it is better to be loved then feared. Speak no evil of the dead. Re­\erence the aged. Know thyself.

One of his, first publications in these sciences appeared in 1721, and was entitled, “Inscriptio Sigæa antiquissima Βουστροφηδον exarata. Commentario earn HistoricoGrammatico-Critico illustravit Edmundus Chishull, S.T.B. regiae majestati à sacris,” folio. This was followed by “Notarum ad inscriptionem Sigaeam appendicula; addita a Sigaeo altera Antiochi Soteris inscriptione,” folio, in fifteen pages, without a date. Both these pieces were afterwards incorporated in his “Antiquitates Asiaticae.” When Dr. Mead, in 1724, published his Harveian oration, delivered in the preceding year at the royal college of physicians, Mr. Chishull added to it, by way of appendix, “Dissertatio de Nummis quibusdam a Smyrnseis in Medicorum honorem percussis,” which gave rise to a controversy very interesting to the professors of the medical art, and amusing to the learned world in general. The question was, whether the physicians of ancient Rome were not usually vile and despicable slaves, or whether there were not some, at least, among them, who enjoyed the privileges of a free condition, and the respect due to their services. The history of this controversy will be found in the articles of Mead and Middleton; but Mr. Chishull has not been deemed happy in all his explanations of the Smyrnsean inscriptions. In 1728 appeared in folio, his great work, “Antiquitates Asiaticoe Christianam Æram antecedentes ex primariis Monumentis Graecis descriptae, Latine versae, Notisque et Commentariis illustratae. Accedit Monumentum Latinum Ancyranum.” Dr. Mead contributed fifty-one guineas, Dr. William Sherard twenty, and Dr. Lisle five guineas towards this book, which was published by subscription, at one guinea the common copy, and two o-uineas the royal paper. The work contains a collection of inscriptions made by consul Sherard, Dr. Picenini, and Dr. Lisle, afterwards bishop of St. Asaph, which was deposited in the earl of Oxford’s library, and is now in the British Museum. Mr. Chislmll added to the “Antiquitates Asiatics;” two small pieces which he had before published, viz. “Conjectaneade Nummo Ckhiii inscripto,” and “her Asite Poeticum,” addressed to the rev. John Horn. Our author not having succeeded in his explication of an inscription to Jupiter Ourios, afterwards cancelled it, and substituted a different interpretation by Dr. Ashton, which was more satisfactory; but our author did not submit in, this case with so good a grace as might have been wished, and was reasonably to be expected. He added also, at the same time, another half sheet, with the head of Homer, of which only fifty copies 'were printed. He had formed the design of publishing a second volume, under the title of “Antiquitates Asiatics? pars altera diversa, diversarum Urbium inscripta Marmora complectens,” and the printing was begun; but the author’s death put a stop to the progress of it, and the manuscript was purchased at Dr. Askew’s sale in 1785 for the British Museum, for about 60l. It is to be regretted that the learned Thomas Tyrwhitt declined being the editor of this second volume. Mr. ChishulPs printed books were sold by a marked catalogue by Whiston in 1735. In 1731, Mr. Chishull was presented to the rectory of South-church in Essex. This preferment he did not long live to enjoy; for he departed the present life at Walthamstow, on the 18th of May, 1733. Mr. Clarke, of Chichester, writing to Mr. Bowyer, says, “I was very sorry for Mr. Chishull' s death as a public loss.” That our author sustained an excellent character, as a clergyman and a divine, cannot be doubted. Two letters, written by him to his friend Mr. Bowyer, and which Mr. Nichols has preserved, are evident proofs both of the piety and benevolence “of his disposition. With respect to his literary abilities, Dr. Taylor styles him” Vir celeberrimus ingenii acumine et literarum peritia, quibus excellebat maxime;“and Dr. Mead has bestowed a high encomium upon him, in the preface which introduces Mr. ChishulPs Dissertation on the Smyrnxan Coins. The same eminent physician testified his regard to the memory of his learned friend, by publishing in 1747 our author’s” Travels in Turkey, and back to England," fol. They were originally published at a guinea, in sheets, and in 1759, the remaining copies, which were numerous, were advertised by the proprietors at fourteen shillings bound.

, a merchant at Rome, and a patron of literature and the arts, was a native of Siena, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, who having frequent occasion, in his mercantile concerns, to resort to Rome, at length fixed his abode there, and erected for himself a splendid mansion in the Transtevere, which he decorated with works in painting and sculpture by the greatest artists of the time. He had long been considered as the wealthiest merchant in Italy; and on the expedition of Charles VIII. against the kingdom of Naples, had advanced for the use of that monarch a considerable sum of money, which it is thought he never recovered,* His wealth he employed in encouraging painting, sculpture, and every branch of the fine arts, and likewise devoted himself to the restoration of ancient learning. Among the learned men whom he distinguished by his particular favour, was Cornelio Benigno of Viterbo, who united to a sound critical judgment an intimate acquaintance with the Greek tongue, and had before joined with a few other eminent scholars in revising and correcting the geographical work of PtolomsEUs, which was published at Rome in 1507. Under the patronage of Chisi, Cornelio produced at Zaccaria Calliergo’s press, the fine edition of the works of Pindar, 1515, 4to, the first Greek book printed at Rome; and from the same press issued the correct edition of the Idyilia and Epigrams of Theocritus, 1516. It is said that it was not only in his patronage of letters and of the arts that Chisi emulated the Roman pontiffs, but vied with them also in the luxury of his table, and the costly and ostentatious extravagance of his feasts. His death is said to have occurred in 1520. After this event, his family were driven from Rome by Paul III. who seized upon their mansion in the Transtevere, and converted it into a sort of appendage to the Farnese palace, whence it has since been called the Farnesina. But in the ensuing century, the family of Chisi, or Chigi, rose to pontifical honours in the person of Alexander VII. Fabio Chigi who established it in great! credit, without, however, restoring to it the family mansion, which has descended with the possessions of the Farnese to the king of Naples, to whom it now belongs.

, dean of the cathedral at Bayeux, and one of the members of the French academy, was born April 16, 1644, at Paris. He was sent to the king of Siam, with the chevalier de Chaumont in 1685, and ordained priest in the Indies by the apostolical vicar. He died October 2, 1724, at Paris, aged 81. Although his life in our authorities is very prolix, he seems entitled to very little notice or respect. His youth was very irregular. Disguised as a woman, under the name of comtesse des Barres, he abandoned himself to the libertinism which such a disguise encouraged; but we are told that he did not act thus at the time of writing his ecclesiastical history; though such a report might probably arise from his having been so accustomed from his youth to dress in woman’s clothes, to please Monsieur, brother of Louis XIV. who liked such amusements, that he wore petticoats at his house as long as he lived, equally a disgrace to himself and his patron. The principal of his works are, 1. “Quatre Dialogues sur l‘Immortalite de I’Ame,” &c which he wrote with M. Dangeau, 12mo. 2. “Relation du Voyage de Siam,” 12mo. 3. “Histoires de Piett- et de Morale,” 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Hist. Ecclesiastique,” 11 vols. in 4to, and in 12mo. 5. “La Vie de David, avec une Interpretation des Pseaumes,” 4to. 6. “The Lives of Solomon 3 of St. Louis, 4to 'of Philip de Valois, and of king John, 4to of Charles V. 4to; of Charles VI. 4to and of Mad. de Miramion, 12mo his Memoirs, 12mo. These are all superficial works, and have found readers only from their being written in that free and natural style which amuses the attention. What he wrote on the French history has been printed in 4 vols. 12mo. His life was published at Geneva, 1748, 8vo, supposed to be written by the abbe tT Olivet, who has inserted in it the History of la comtesse des Barres, 1736, small 12mo, written by t)ie abbe” Choisi himself.

, the brother of Erasmus de Surlet, lord of Chokier (one of the ablest lawyers of his time, who died in 1625), was born at Liege Jan. 14, 1571, of an ancient and noble family. He studied law at the university of Lovaine, and especially the Roman history and antiquities under Lipsius. After taking the degree of doctor in canon and civil law at Orleans, he went to Rome, and was introduced to pope Paul V. On his return to Liege, he received some promotion in the church; and Ferdinand of Bavaria, bishop and prince of Liege, made him vicar-general of his diocese, and one of his counsellors. Chokier was not more esteemed for his learning than for his benevolence, which led him to found two hospitals, one for poor incurables, and the other for female penitents. He died at Liege, either in 1650 or 1651; but his biographers have not specified the particular time, although they notice that he was buried in the cathedral of Liege, under a magnificent tomb. Among his works, are, 1. “Notae in Senecse libellum de tranquillitate animi,” Leige, 1607, 8vo. 2. “Thesaurus aphorismorum politicorum, seu commentarius in Justi-Lipsii politica, cum exemplis, notis et monitis,” Rome, 1610, Mentz, 1613, 4to, and with corrections and the addition of some other treatises, at Liege, 1642, folio. Andrew Hetdemann translated this work into German, but with so little fidelity, as to oblige, the author to publish against it in a volume entitled “Specimen candoris Heidemanni,” Liege, 1625, 8vo. 3. “Notae et dissertationes in Onosandri strategicum,” Gr. and Lat. 1610, 4to, and inserted in the latter editions of his “Aphorismi.” 4. “Tractatus de permutationibus beneficiorunV 1616, 8vo, and afterwards Rome, 1700, folio, with other treatises on the same subject. 5.” De re numjnaria prisci sevi, collata ad aestimationem monetae presentis,“Cologne, 1620, 8vo, Liege, 1649. Another title of this work we have seen is” Monetae antiquae diversarum gentium maxime Romanae consideratio et ad nostram hodiernam reductio.“He published some other works on law subjects and antiquities of the courts of chancery, the office of ambassador, &c. and some of controversy against the protestants, and one against the learned Samuel Marets, entitled ff Apologeticus adversus Samuel Maresii librum, cui titulus, Candela sub modio posita per clerum Romanum,” 1635, 4to; but he had not complete success in proving that the Roman catholic clergy at that time did not hide their candle under a bushel."

, or as he was called Quintus Septimus Florens Christianus, a French poet, was born at Orleans Jan. 26, 1541. He was called Quintus, because he was his father’s fifth child, and Septimus, because he was born in the seventh month of his mother’s pregnancy. He was well skilled in languages and in the belles lettres; and was tutor to Henry IV. whom he educated in the reformed religion; but he himself returned to the Roman catholic church before his death, which happened in 1596. He was author of some satires against Ronsard, under the name of “La Baronnie,” 1564, 8vo; poems, printed separately in 8vo, and some translations; the principal of which is that of Oppian, 4to. He had a part in the Satyrae Menipeae. Notwithstanding his disposition to satire, he preserved the attachment of his friends, and the general esteem of the public. William his father, physician -to Francis I. and Henry II. translated some medical works into French.

, queen of Sweden, one of the few sovereigns whose history is entirely personal, was the only child of the great Gustavus Adolphus, by Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg. She was born Dec. 18, 1626, and succeeded to the throne of her father when she was only five years of age. During her minority, the long war with the German empire, in consequence of the invasion of Gustavus, as supporter of the protestant league, was carried on by able men, and particularly Oxentiern. Her education was conducted upon a very liberal plan, and she possessed a strong understanding, and was early capable of reading the Greek historians. Thucydides, Polybius, and Tacitus, were her favourite authors; but she as early manifested a distaste for the society and occupations of her sex, and delighted in manly sports and exercises. She affected likewise an extraordinary love of letters, and even for abstract speculations. When at the age of eighteen she assumed the reins of government, she was courted by several princes of Europe, but rejected their proposals from various motives, of which the true one appears to have been a conceited sense of superiority, and a desire to rule uncontrouled. Among her suitors were the prince of Denmark, the elector Palatine, the elector of Brandenburgh, the kings of Portugal and Spain, the king of the Romans, and Charles Gustavus, duke of Deux Ponts, her first cousin. Him the people, anxious for her marriage, recommended to her; but she rejected the proposal, and to prevent its renewal, she solemnly appointed Gustavus her successor. In 1650, when she was crowned, she became weary and disgusted with public affairs, and seemed to have no ambition but to become the general patroness of learning and learned men. With this view, she invited to her court men of the first reputation in various studies among these were Grotius, Descartes, Bochart, Huet, Vossius, Paschal, Salmasius, Naude, Heinsius, Meibom, Scudery, Menage, Lucas, Holstenius, Lambecius, Bayle, and others, who did not fail to celebrate her in poems, letters, or literary productions of some other kind, the greatest part of which are now forgotten. Her choice of learned men seems to have been directed more by general fame, than by her own judgment, or taste for their several excellencies, and she derived no great credit either as a learned lady, or as a discriminating patroness of literature. She was much under the influence of Bourdelot the physician, who gained his ascendancy by outrageous flattery: and her inattention to the high duties of her station disgusted her subjects. She was a collector of books, manuscripts, medals, and paintings, all which she purchased at such an enormous expence as to injure her treasury, and with so little judgment, that having procured some paintings of Titian at a most extravagant price, she had them clipped to fit the pannels of her gallery.

In 1652 she first proposed to resign in favour of her successor, but the remonstrances of the States delayed this measure until 1654, when she solemnly abdicated the crown, that she might be at perfect liberty to execute a plan of life which vanity and folly seem to have presented to her imagination, as a life of true happiness, the royal cum dignitatc. Some time before this step, Anthony Macedo, a Jesuit, was chosen by John IV. king of Portugal, to accompany the ambassador he sent into Sweden to queen Christina; and this Jesuit pleased this princess so highly, that she secretly opened to him the design she had of changing her religion. She sent him to Rome with letters to the general of the Jesuits; in which she desired that two of their society might be dispatched to her, Italians by nation, and learned men, who should take another habit that she might confer with them at more ease upon matters of religion. The request was granted; and two Jesuits were immediately sent to her, viz. Francis Malines, divinity professor at Turin, and Paul Casati, professor of mathematics at Rome, who easily effected what Macedo, the first confidant of her design, had begun. Having made her abjuration of the Lutheran religion, at which the Roman catholics triumphed, and the protestants were discontented, both without much reason, she began her capricious travels: from Brussels, or as some say, Inspruck, at which she played the farce of abjuration, she went to Rome, where she intended to fix her abode, and where she actually remained two years, and met with such a reception as suited her vanity. But some disgust came at last, and she determined to visit France, where Louis XIV. received her with respect, but the ladies of the court were shocked at her masculine appearance, and more at her licentious conversation. Here she courted the learned, and appointed Menage her master of ceremonies, but at last excited general horror by an action, for which, in perhaps any other country, she would have been punished by death. This was the murder of an Italian, Moualdeschi, her master of the horse, who had betrayed some secret entrusted to him. He was summoned into a gallery in the palace, letters were then shewn to him, at the sight of which he turned pale, and intreated for mercy, but he was instantly stabbed by two of her own domestics in an apartment adjoining that in which she herself was. The French court was justly offended at this atrocious deed, yet it met with vindicators, among whom was Leibnitz, whose name was disgraced by the cause which he attempted to justify. Christina was sensible that she was now regarded with horror in France, and would gladly have visited England, but she received no encouragement for that purpose from Cromwell: she therefore, in 1658, returned to Rome, and resumed her amusements in the arts and sciences. But Rome had no permanent charms, and in 1660, on the death of Gustavus, she took a journey to Sweden for the purpose of recovering her crown and dignity. She found, however, her ancient subjects much indisposed against her and her new religion. They refused to confirm her revenues, caused her chapel to be pulled down, banished all her Italian chaplains, and, in short, rejected her claims. She submitted to a second renunciation of the throne, after which she returned to Rome, and pretended to interest herself warmly, first in behalf of the island of Candia, then besieged by the Turks, and afterwards to procure supplies of men and money for the Venetians. Some differences with the pope made her resolve, in 1662, once more to return to Sweden; but the conditions annexed by the senate to her residence there, were now so mortifying, that she proceeded no farther than Hamburgh, and from Hamburgh again to Rome, where she died in 1689, leaving a character in which there is little that is amiable. Vanity, caprice, and irresolution deformed her best actions, and Sweden had reason to rejoice at the abdication of a woman who could play the tyrant with so little feeling when she had given up the power. She left some maxims, and thoughts and reflections on the life of Alexander the Great, which were translated and published in England in 1753; but several letters attributed to her are said to be spurious.

, the principal of those learned men who brought the Greek language and literature into the West, was born at Constantinople, as it is supposed, about 1355. He was of considerable rank, and descended from so ancient a family that his ancestors are said to have removed with Constantine from Rome to Byzantium. He was sent ambassador to the sovereigns of Europe by the emperor John Palseologus in 1387, to solicit assistance against the Turks, and was here in England in the reign of Richard II. In an epistle which he wrote at Rome to the emperor, containing a comparison of ancient and modern Rome, he says that he was two years before at London with his retinue. When he had finished this embassy in somewhat more than three years, he returned to Constantinople; but afterwards, whether through fear of the Turks, or for the sake of propagating the Greek learning, left it again, and came back into Italy about 1396, by invitation from the city of Florence, with the promise of a salary, to open a school there for the Greek language. With this he complied, and taught there for three years, and had Leonard Aretin for his scholar. From Florence he went to Milan, at the command of his emperor, who was come into Italy, and resided in that city; and while he was here, Galeazzo, duke of Milan, prevailed with him to accept the Greek professorship in the university of Pavia, which had lately been founded by his father. This he held till the death of Galeazzo, and then removed to Venice on account of the wars which immediately followed. Between 1406 and 1409 he went to Rome upon an invitation from Leonard Aretin, who had formerly been his scholar, but was then secretary to pope Gregory XII. In this city his talents and virtues procured him the honour of being sent, in 1413, into Germany by pope Martin V. as ambassador to the emperor Sigismund, along with cardinal Zarabella, in order to fix upon a place for holding a general council; and Chrysoloras and the cardinal fixed upon Constance. Afterwards he returned to his own emperor at Constantinople, by whom he was sent ambassador with others as representatives of the Greek church, to the council of Constance; but a few days after the opening of the council he died, April 15, 1415. He was buried at Constance and a handsome monument was erected over him, with an inscription upon it by Peter Paul Vergerio. His scholar Poggio also honoured his memory with an elegant epitaph, and a volume of eulogies upon him lately existed in the monastery at Camaldoli, justly due to one who contributed so essentially to revive Grecian literature, which had lain dormant in the West for seven hundred years. Emanuel had a nephew, John Chrysoloras, who likewise taught Greek in Italy, and died in 1425. Emanuel’s. Greek Grammar was published soon after the invention of printing, and there are a great many editions from 1480 to 1550, 4to and 8vo, almost all of which are very scarce.

Cucusus was a city of Armenia, whose situation was remarkably barren, wild, and inhospitable; so that Chrysostom was obliged to change his place of residence frequently, on account of the incursions which were made by the barbarous nations around him. He did not, however, neglect his episcopal functions; but sent forth priests and monks to preach the gospel to the Goths and Persians, and to take care of the churches of Armenia and Phoenicia. This probably provoked his enemies, not yet satiated with revenge, to molest him even in this situation, wretched as it was, and they prevailed with the emperor to have him sent to a desert region of Pontus, upon the borders of the Euxine sea. But the fatigue of travelling, and the hard usage he met with from the soldiers, who were conducting him thither, had such an effect upon him, that he was seized with a violent fever, and died in a few hours, at Comanis, in Armenia, in the year 407. Afterwards, the western and eastern churches were divided about him; the former holding him in great veneration, while the latter considered him as a bishop excommunicated. But the death of Arcadius happening about five months after, the eastern churches grew softened by degrees and it is certain, that about thirty years after, his bones were removed to Constantinople, and deposited in the temple of the holy apostles, with all pomp and solemnity. It was from his eloquence, that the name of Chrysostomns, or goldenmouth, was given to him after his death, his usual name being only John.

, once a noted deistical writer, and the idol of that party, was born at East Harnham, a small village near Salisbury, Sept. 29, 1679. His father, a maltster, dying when he was young, and the widow having threte more children to maintain by her labour, he received no other education: than being instructed to read and write ati ordinary hand. At fifteen he was put apprentice to a glover in Salisbury; and when his term was expired, continued for a time to serve his master as a journeyman, but this trade being prejudicial to his eyes, he was admitted by a tallow-chandler, an intimate friend of his, as companion and sharer with him in his own business. Being endued with considerable natural parts, and fond of reading, he employed all his leisure to gain such knowledge as could be acquired from English books; for of Latin, Greek, or any of the learned languages, he was totally ignorant by dint of perseverance- he also acquired a smatitering of mathematics, geography, aud many other branches of science.

But divinity was, unfortunately for himself, his favourite fitudy and it is said that a little society was formed at Salisbury, under the management and direction of Chubb, for the sake of debating upon religious subjects. Here the scriptures were at first read, under the guidance of some commentator; but in time every man delivered his sentiments freely, and without reserve, and commentators were no longer in favour, the ablest disputant being the man who receded most from established opinions. About this time the controversy upon the Trinity was carried on very warmly between Clarke and Waterland; and falling under the cognizance of this theological assembly, Chubb, at the request of the members, drew up his sentiments about it, in a kind of dissertation which, after it had undergone some correction, and been submitted to Whiston, who saw not much in it averse to his own opinions, published it under the title of “The Supremacy of the Father asserted, &c.” A literary production from one of a mean and illiberal education will always create wonder, and a tallow-chandler arbitrating between such men as Clarke and Waterland, could not fail to excite attention. Those who would have thought nothing of the work had it come from the school of Clarke, discovered in this piece of Chubb’s, great talents in reasoning, as well as great perspicuity and correctness in writing; so that he began to be considered as one much above the ordinary size of men. Hence Pppe, in a letter to his friend Gay, was led to ask him if he had seen or conversed with Mr. Chubb, who is a wonderful phenomenon of Wiltshire?“and says, in relation to a quarto volume of tracts, which were printed afterwards, that he had” read through his whole volume with admiration of the writer, though not always with approbation of Jus doctrine." How far Pope, was a judge of controversial divinity is not now a question, but the friends of Chubb appear to have brought forward his evidence with triumph.

He left behind him two volumes of posthumous works, which he calls “A Farewell to his readers,” from which we may fairly form this judgment of his opinions: “that he had little or no belief of revelation; that indeed he plainly rejects the Jewish revelation, and consequently the Christian, which is founded upon it; that he disclaims a future judgment, and is very uncertain as to any future state of existence; that a particular providence is not deducible from the phenomena of the world, and therefore that prayer cannot be proved a duty, &c. &c.” With such a man we may surely part without reluctance. The wonder is that he should have ever drawn any considerable portion of public attention to the reveries of ignorance, presumption, and disingenuous sophistry. Like his legitimate successor, the late Thomas Paine, he was utterly destitute of that learning and critical skill which is necessary to the explanation of the sacred writings, which, however, he tortured to his meaning without shame and candour, frequently bringing forward the sentiments of his predecessors in scepticism, as the genuine productions of his own unassisted powers of reasoning. His writings are now indeed probably little read, and his memory might long ago have been consigned to oblivion, had not the editors of the last edition of the Biographia Britannica brought forward his history and writings in a strain of prolix and laboured panegyric. By what inducement such a man as Dr. Kippis was persuaded to admit this article, we shall not now inquire, but the perpetual struggle to create respect for Chubb is evidently as impotent as it is inconsistent. While compelled to admit his attacks upon all that the majority of Christians hold sacred, the writer tells us that “Chubb’s views were not inconsistent with a firm belief in our holy religion,” and in another place, he says that “Chubb appears to have had very much at heart the interests of our holy religion.” To his own profound respect for Chubb, this writer also unites the “admiration” of Dr. Samuel Clarke, bishop Hoadly, Dr. John Hoadly, archdeacon Rolleston, and Mr. Harris; but he does not inform us in what way the admiration of these eminent characters was expressed; and the only evidence he brings is surely equivocal. He tells us that “several of his tracts, when in manuscript, were seen by these gentlemen but they never made the least correction in them, even with regard to orthography, in which Chubb was deficient.” Amidst all these efforts to screen Chubb from contempt, his biographer has not suppressed the character of him given by Dr. Law, bishop of Carlisle, in his “Considerations on the theory of religion,” and which, from the well-knowncandour of that prelate, may be adopted with safety. “Chubb,” says Dr. Law, “notwithstanding a tolerably clear head, and strong natural parts, yet, by ever aiming at things far beyond his reach, by attempting a variety of subjects, for which his narrow circumstances, and small compass of reading and knowledge, had in a great measure disqualified him; from a fashionable, but a fallacious kind of philosophy, (with which he set out, and by which one of his education might very easily be misled), fell by degrees to such confusion in divinity, to such low quibbling on some obscure passages in our translation of the Bible, and was reduced to such wretched cavils as to several historical facts and circumstances, wherein a small skill either in the languages or sciences, might have set him right; or a small share of real modesty would have supplied the want of them, by putting him upon consulting those who could and would have given him proper assistance; that he seems to have fallen at last into an almost universal scepticism; and quitting that former serious and sedate sobriety which gave him credit, contents himself with carrying on a mere farce for some time; acts the part of a solemn grave buffoon; sneers at all things he does not understand; and after all his fair professions, and the caveat he has entered against such a charge, must unavoidably be set down in the seat of the scorner.” Every point in this charge is fully proved in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Dr. Leland’s View of Deistical Writers.

, D. D. was born in 1707, and educated at Brasen Nose college, Oxford, where he took liis degree of M. A. in 1731. In 1740 he was instituted to the vicarage of Battersea, which, with a prebendai stall in St. Paul’s cathedral, was the only preferment he obtained. He distinguished himself much in the field of controversy, in which he engaged with men of very opposite talents and pursuits; with Wesley and Whitfield, for their industry in promoting methodism, and with Middleton for equal zeal in attacking the doctrines of Christianity. Against the latter he published “A Vindication of the Miraculous Powers which subsisted in the three Centuries of the Christian Church, in answer to Dr. Middleton’s Free Inquiry. By which it is shewn, that we have no sufficient reason to believe, from the Doctor’s reasonings and objections, that no such powers were continued to the church after the days of the Apostles. With a preface, containing some observations on Dr. Mead’s account of the Demoniacs, in his Medica Sacra,” 1749. This was followed about a year after, by “An Appeal to the serious and unprejudiced, or a Second Vindication, &c.” These were so highly approved of, that the university of Oxford conferred on him the degree of D. D. by diploma. He was also too zealously attached to religion to let the opinions of lord Bolingbroke pass unnoticed, notwithstanding he had been his patron. His publication upon this subject, however, was anonymous, “An Analysis of the Philosophical Works of the late lord Bolinghroke,” 1755. Dr. Church published eight single sermons between 1748 and 1756, in which last year he died.

The reason of his abandoning the university may have been an attachment which he formed while at Westminsterschool, and which ended in a clandestine marriage at the Fleet. This was a severe disappointment to his father’s hopes, but he wisely became reconciled to what was unavoidable, and entertained the young couple in his house about a year, during which his son’s conduct was irreproachable. In 1751 he retired to Sunderland, in the north of England, where he applied himself to such studies as might qualify himfor the church, and at the customary age he received deacon’s orders from Dr. Willes, bishop of Bath and Wells, and in 1756 was ordained priest by Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London. He then exercised his clerical functions at Cadbury in Somersetshire, and at Rainham, his father’s living, but in what manner, or with what display of abilities, is not remembered. A story was current some time after his death that he received a curacy of 30l. a year in Wales, and kept a public house to supply his deficiencies, but for this there appears to have been no other foundation than what the irregularities of his more advanced life supplied. So regardless was he of character, that his enemies found ready credit for any fiction at his expence. While at Rainham, he endeavoured to provide for his family by teaching the youth of the neighbourhood, an occupation which necessity rendered eligible, and habit might have made pleasing; but in 1758 his father’s death opened a more flattering prospect to him in the metropolis, where he was chosen his successor in the curacy and leetureship of St. John’s. For some time he performed the duties of these offices with external decency at least, and employed his leisure hours in the instruction of some pupils in the learned languages, and was also engaged as a teacher at a ladies’ boarding-school.

At what period he made the first experiment of his poetical talents is not known. He had, in conjunction with Lloyd, the care of the poetical department in the “The Library,” a kind of magazine, of which Dr. Kippis was editor, and he probably wrote some small pieces in that work, but they cannot now be distinguished. About the year 1759 or 1760, he wrote a poem of some length, entitled “The Bard,” which was rejected by an eminent bookseller, perhaps justly, as the author did not publish it afterwards, when it might have had the protection of his name. He wrote also “The Conclave,” a satire levelled at the dean and chapter of Westminster, which his friends prevailed upon him to suppress. Thus disappointed in his first two productions, his constant attendance at the theatres suggested a third, levelled at the players. This was his celebrated “Hosciad,” in which the professional characters of the performers of Drury Lane and Co vent Garden theatres were examined with a severity, yet with an acuteness of criticism, and easy flow of humour and sarcasm, which rendered what he probably considered as a temporary trifle, a publication of uncommon popularity; He had, however, so little encouragement in bringing this poem forward, that five guineas were refused as the price he valued it at; and he printed it at his own risk when he had scarcely ready money enough to pay for the necessary advertisements. It was published in March 1761, and its sale exceeded all expectation, but as his name did not appear to the first edition, and Lloyd had not long before published “The Actor,” a poem on the same subject, the Rosciad was generally supposed to be the production of the same writer; while, by others, it was attributed to those confederate wits, Colman and Thornton. Churchill, however, soon avowed a poem which promised so much fame and profit, and as it had been not only severely handled in the Critical Review, but positively attributed to another pen, he published “The Apology: addressed to the Critical Reviewers,” 1761. In this he retaliated with great bitterness of personal satire.

His next publication was “The Ghost,” 1762, exfended, at irregular intervals, to four books. This was founded on the well-known imposture of a ghost having disturbed a family in Cock-lane; but our poet contrived to render it the vehicle of many characteristic sketches, and desultory thoughts on various subjects unconnected with its title. About this time he appears to have formed a connection with the celebrated John Wiikes, an impostor of more ingenuity, who encouraged him to add faction to profligacy, and increase the number of his enemies by reviling every person of rank or distinction with whom Wiikes chose to be at variance. His pen is said to have been also employed in Wiikes’ s “North Briton,” and in “The Prophecy of Famine.” Churchill’s next production was originally sketched in prose for that paper. What other contributions he made cannot now be ascertained, but it may be suspected that Churchill’s satirical talent would ill submit to the tameness of prose, nor indeed was such an employment worthy of the author of “The llosciad,” and “The Apology.” Wiikes suggested “The Prophecy of Famine,” as a more suitable vehicle for the bitterness of national scurrility, and he was not mistaken.

The “Epistle to Hogarth” which followed, was occasioned by that artist’s having taken some liberties in his political engravings, with the characters of the earls Temple and Chatham. The only revenge he now took was a paltry print representing Churchill as a Russian bear, but whether this preceded or followed the “Epistle” is not quite clear. The parties had been once intimate, and Churchill paid due reverence to the talents of Hogarth, but in his present humour he stuck at nothing which could vex and irritate. Hogarth died soon after, and some of Churchill’s friends asserted, with malicious satisfaction, that the poem had accelerated that event. Mr. Nichols, in his copious life of Hogarth, starts some reasonable doubts on this subject.

The duel which took place between Wilkes and Martin gave rise to “The Duellist,” 1763, which he extended to three books, and diversified, as usual, by much personal satire. In “The Author,” published about the end of the same year, he gave more general satisfaction, as the topics were of a more general satire. His first publication in 1764 was “Gotham,” which, without a definite object, or much connexion of parts, contains many passages of sterling merit. The “Candidate” was written soon after, to expose lord Sandwich, who was a candidate for the office of high steward of the university of Cambridge. His lordship’s deficiencies in moral conduct were perhaps no unfair objects for satire; but this from the pen of a man now debilitated by habitual excess, served only to prove that Churchill was a profligate in contempt of knowledge and reason.

The merit of Churchill, as a poet, has but lately been, appreciated with impartiality. During his life, his works were popular beyond all competition. While he continued to supply that species of entertainment which is more generally gratifying than a good mind can conceive, or a bad one will acknowledge, he was more eagerly and more frequently read than any of his contemporaries. Churchill was admirably suited to the time in which he lived. But if his poems were popular with those who love to see worth depreciated, and distinctions levelled, with the vulgar, the envious, and the malignant, they were no less held in abhorrence by those who were as much hurt at the prostitution, as charmed by the excellence of his talents, and who were afraid to praise his genius lest they should propagate his writings. Few men, therefore, made so much noise during their lives, or so little after their deaths. His partners in vice and faction shrunk from the task of perpetuating his memory, either from the fear of an alliance with a character so obnoxious as to injure their party, or from the neglect with which bad men usually treat their associates, when they can be no longer useful. Lloyd, to whom he had been more kind than Colman or Thornton, did not survive him above a month. Colman and Thornton preserved a cautious silence about a man whom to praise was to engage with the many enemies he had created; and Wilkes, to whom he bequeathed the editorship and illustration of his poems by notes, &c. neglected the task, until he had succeeded in his ambitions manoeuvres, became ashamed of the agents who had supported him, and left his poorer parti zans to shift for themselves. Even when Dr. Kippis applied to him for such information as might supply a life of Churchill for the Biographia, he seemed unwilling or unable to contribute much; and a comparison of that life with the scattered accounts previously published, may convince the reader that Dr. Kippis thanked him for more assistance than he received.

While the friends of Churchill were thus negligent of his fame, it was not to be expected that his enemies would be very eager to perpetuate the memory of a man by whom they had suffered so severely. Perhaps no writer ever made so many enemies, or carried his hostilities into so many quarters, without provocation. If we except the ease of Hogarth, it is doubtful whether he ever attacked the character of one individual who did him an injury, or stood in his way. Such wantonness of detraction must have naturally led to the general wish that his name and works might be speedily consigned to oblivion. His writings, however, may now be read with more calmness, and his rank as a poet assigned with the regards due to genius, however misapplied. Jf those passages in which his genius shines most conspicuously were to be selected from the mass of defamation by which they are surrounded, he might be allowed to approach to Pope in every thing but correctness; and even of his failure in this respect, it may be justiy said that he evinces carelessness rather than want of taste. But he despised regularity in every thing, and whatever was within rules, bore an air of restraint to which his proud spirit could not submit; hence he persisted in despising that correctness which he might have attained with very little care. The opinion of Cowper upon this subject is too valuable to be omitted. Churchill “is a careless writer for the most part, but where shall we find in. any of those authors, who finish their works with the exactness of a Flemish pencil, those bold and daring strokes of fancy, those numbers so hazardously ventured upon, and so happily finished, the matter so compressed, and yet so clear, and the colouring so sparingly laid on, and yet with such a beautiful effect? In short it is not his least praise, that he is never guilty of those faults as a writer which he lays to the charge of others. A proof, that he did not judge by a borrowed standard, or from rules laid down by critics, but that he was qualified to do it by his own native powers, and his great superiority of genius*.” The superiority of his genius, indeed, is so obvious from even a slight perusal of his works, that it must ever be regretted that his subjects were temporary, and his manner irritating, and that he should have given to party and to passion what might have so boldly chastised vice, promoted the dignity of virtue, and advanced the honours of poetry. His fertility was astonishing, for the whole of his poems were designed and finished within the short space of three years and a half. Whatever he undertook, he accomplished with rapidity, although such was the redundancy of his imagination, and such the facility with which he committed his thoughts to paper, that he has not always executed what he began, and perhaps delights too much in excursions

In some cases, the poet may be considered separate from the man, and indeed of many eminent poets we know too little to be able to determine what influence their character had on their writings. But ChurchilPs productions are Sq connected with his turbulent and irregular life, that they must necessarily be brought in contact. He frequently alludes to his character and situation, and takes every opportunity to vindicate what seems to redound most to his discredit, his vices and his associates; and as his works will probably long be read with admiration as works of genius, or from curiosity as specimens of obloquy, it is necessary to be told that he had very little veneration for truth, that he drew his characters in extravagant disproportion, and that he was regardless of any means by which he could bring temporary or lasting disgrace on the persons whom either faction or revenge made him consider as enemies. Mr. Tooke, of Gray’s-inn, lately published an edition of Churchill’s works, illustrated by much contemporary history and we owe some particulars of Churchill’s life to the well-written memoirs prefixed to this work.

, a distinguished English gentleman, son of John Churchill, esq. of Minthorn in Dorsetshire, by Sarah, daughter and coheiress of sir Henry Winston, of Standiston in Gloucestershire, was descended from a very ancient family, and born at Wooton Glanville in Dorsetshire, or, according to Wood, at London, in 1620. He was sent to St. John’s college in Oxford when he was scarce sixteen years of age, where he made an uncommon progress in his studies; but, on account of the civil commotions which arose soon after, was obliged to leave the university before he had taken a degree. He engaged on the side of the king, for which he suffered severely in his fortune; and having married a daughter of sir John Drake of Ashe in Devonshire, was forced to seek refuge in that gentleman’s house, where many of his children were born. At the restoration he represented Weyinouth in the parliament which met in May 8, 1661. In 1663, Charles II. conferred on him the honour of knighthood; and soon after the foundation of the Royal Society, he was, for his Icnown love of letters and conversation with learned men, elected a member of it in Dec. 1664. In the same year he was appointed one of the commissioners of the court of claims in Ireland; and, upon his return, one of the clerks comptrollers of the green cloth. Notwithstanding his engagements in these public offices, he found time to draw up a kind of political essay upon the history of England, which was published in folio, 1675, under the title of “Divi Britannici, being a remark upon the lives of all the kings of this isle, from the year of the world 2855, unto the year of grace 1660.” It was dedicated to Charles II; and in the dedication the author takes notice, that having served his majesty’s father as long as he could with his sword, he spent a great part of those leisure hours, which were forced upon him by his misfortunes, in defending that prince’s cause, and indeed' the cause of monarchy itself, with his pen: and he franklyowns, that he considered his work as the funeral oration of that deceased government, or rather, as his title speaks it, the apotheoses of departed kings. We are told by Wood, that there were some passages in this work about the king’s power of raising money without parliament, which gave such offence to the members then sitting, that the author had them cancelled, and the book reprinted. Nicolsou speaks very slightly of this performance, and represents it as “only giving the reader a diverting view of the arms and exploits of our kings down to the restoration in 1660;” but it is very accurate as to dates and authorities.

In June, being then lieutenant-general of his majesty’s forces, he was ordered into the west to suppress Monmouth’s rebellion; which he did in a month’s time, with an inconsiderable body of horse, and took the duke himself prisoner. He was extremely well received by the king at his return from this victory; but soon discerned that it only served to confirm the king in an opinion that, by virtue of a standing army, the religion and government of England might easily be changed. How far lord Churchill concurred with or opposed the king, while he was forming this project, has been disputed by historians. According to bishop Burnet, “he very prudently declined meddling much in business, spoke little except when his advice was asked, and then always recommended moderate measures.” It is said he declared very early to lord Galway, that if his master attempted to overturn the established religion, he would leave him; and that he signed the memorial transmitted to the prince and princess of Orange, by which they were invited to fill the throne. Be this as it will, it is certain that he remained with the king, and was entrusted by him, after the prince of Orange was landed in 1688. He attended king James when he marched with his forces to oppose the prince, and had the command of 5000 men; yet the earl of Feversham, suspecting his inclinations, advised the king to seize him. The king’s affection to him was so great, that he could not be prevailed upon to do it; and this left him at liberty -to go over to the prince, which accordingly he did, but without betraying any post, or carrying off any troops. Whoever considers the great obligations lord Churchill lay under to king James, must naturally conclude, that he could not take the resolution of leaving him, and withdrawing to the prince of Orange, but with infinite concern and regret; and that this was really the case, appears from a letter, which he left for the king, to shew the reasons of his conduct, and to express his grief for the step he was obliged to take.

Lord Churchill was graciously received by the prince of Orange; and it is supposed to have been in consequence of his lordship’s solicitation, that prince George of Denmark took the same step, as his consort the princess Anne did also soon after, by the advice of lady Churchill. He was entrusted in that critical conjuncture by the prince of Orange, first to re-assemble his troop of guards at London, and afterwards to reduce some lately-raised regiments, and to new model the army, for which purpose he was invested with the rank and title of lieutenant-general. The prince and princess of Orange being declared king and queen of England, Feb. 6, 1689, lord Churchill was on the 14th sworn of their privy council, and one of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber to the king; and on the 9th of April following, raised to the dignity of earl of Marlborough in the county of Wilts. He assisted at the coronation of their majesties, and was soon after made commander in chief of the English forces sent over to Holland. He presided at the battle of Walconrt, April 15, 1689, and gave such extraordinary proofs of his skill, that prince Waldeck, speaking in his commendation to king William, declared, that “he saw more into the art of war in a day, than some generals in many years.” It is to be observed, that king William commanded this year in Ireland, which was the reason of the earl of Marlborough’s being at the head of the English troops in Holland, where he laid the foundation of that fame among foreigners, which he afterwards extended all over Europe. He next did great services for king William in Ireland, by reducing Cork and some other places of much importance; in all which he shewed such uncommon abilities, that, on his first appearance at court after his return, the king was pleased to say, that “he knew no man so fit for a general, who had seen so few campaigns.” All these services notwithstanding did not hinder his being disgraced in a very sudden manner: for, being in waiting at court as lord of the bed-chamber, and having introduced to his majesty lord George Hamilton, he was soon followed to his own house by the same lord, with this short and surprising message, “That the king had no farther occasion for his services;” the more surprising, as his majesty just before had not discovered the least coldness or displeasure towards him. The cause of this disgrace is not even at present known; but only suspected to have proceeded from his too close attachment to the interest of the princess Anne. This strange and unexpected blow was followed by one much stranger, for soon after he was committed to the Tower for high treason; but was released, and acquitted, upon the principal accuser being convicted of perjury and punished; yet it is now believed that a correspondence had been carried on between the earl of Marlborough and the exiled king; and during queen Mary’s life, he kept at a distance from court, attending principally, with his lady, on the princess Anne. After queen Mary’s death, when the interests of the two courts were brought to a better agreement, king William thought fit to recall the earl of Marlborough to his privy council; and in June 1698, appointed him governor to the duke of Gloucester, with this extraordinary compliment, “My lord, make him but what you are, and my nephew will be all I wish to see him.” He continued in favour to the king’s death, as appears from his having been three times appointed one of the lords justices during his absence namely, July 16, 1698; May 31, 1699; and June 27, 1700. As soon as it was discerned that the death of Charles II. of Spain would become the occasion of another general war, the king sent a body of troops over to Holland, and made lord Marlborough commander in chief of them. He appointed him also ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to their high mightinesses. The king following, and taking a view of the forces, dined with him at his quarters in Sept. 1700; and this was one of the last favours he received from king William, who died the 8th of March following, unless we reckon his recommendation of him to the princess of Denmark, a little before his death, as the fittest person to be trusted with the command of the army which was to protect the liberty of Europe. About a week after, he was elected knight of the most noble order of the garter, and soon declared captaingeneral of all her majesty’s forces in England and abroad; upon which he was immediately sent over to the Hague with the same character that he had the year before. His stay in Holland was very short, but enough to give the States General the necessary assurances of his mistress’s sincere intention to pursue the plan that had formerly been settled. The States concurred with him in all that he proposed, and made him captain-general of all their forces, appointing him 100,000 florins per annum.

His advice was of great use in concerting those measures by which the rebellion in 1715 was crushed; and this advice was the last effort he made in respect to public affairs; for his infirmities increasing with his years, he retired from business, and spent the greatest part of his time, during the remainder of his life, at one or other of his countryhouses. During his last years he suffered a decay of his mental faculties, which terminated in his death June 16, 1722, in his 73d year, at Windsor-lodge; and his corpse, on Aug. 9, was interred with the highest solemnity in Westminster-abbey. Besides the marquis of Bland ford, whom we have already mentioned, he had four daughters, who married into the best families of the kingdom.

The only personal failing attributed to the duke of Marlborough, upon any fair evidence, was avarice; but how far he owes the imputation of that to himself, or to the misconduct and caprice of one nearly allied to him. and to whom it was his weakness to be too subservient, may admit of a doubt. That Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, brought her husband into frequent trouble and disgrace seems to be generally acknowledged; and Swift was not far wrong when he said that the duke owed to her both his greatness (his promotions) and his fall. No woman was perhaps ever less formed by nature and habit for a court, yet she arrived to such a pitch of grandeur at the court of queen Anne, that her sovereign was, in fact, but the second person in it. Never were two women more the reverse of one another in their natural dispositions, than queen Anne and the duchess of Marlborough; yet never had any servant a greater ascendancy over a mistress, than the latter had over the former. But though the duchess did not rise by a court, yet she rose by a party, of which she had the art to put her mistress at the head, who was merely the vehicle of her sentiments, and the minister of her avarice. Few sovereign princes in Europe could, from their own revenues, command such sums of ready money, as the duchess did during the last thirty-five years of her life. Conscious at length that she had incurred the contempt of the nation, she employed Hooke, the Roman historian, at the price of 5000l. to write a defence of her, which was published in 1742, under the title of “An account of the conduct of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough, from her first coming to court to the year 1710. In a letter from herself to my lord ——————” This work excited considerable

attention at the time of its appearance, and gave rise to many strictures and some controversy. The ease and elegance with which the book is composed, the anecdotes it relates, and the original letters it contains, render it by no means an uninteresting performance; and it is not without its use in the elucidation of our general history. Nevertheless, from the prejudice and passion wherewith the duchess, or rather her amanuensis, writes, from her severity to her enemies, and from the malignity she displays against the memories of king William and queen Mary, she has contrived to make her own character stand in no higher a degree of estimation than that in which it was held before. Lord Orford, who, on account of this book, has introduced her among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” very justly remarks on it, that “it is seldom the public receives information on princes and favourites from the fountain-head: flattery or invective is apt to pervert the relations of others. It is from their own pens alone, whenever they are so gracious, like the lady in question, as to have * a passion for fame and approbation,' that we learn exactly, how trifling and foolish and ridiculous their views and actions were, and how often the mischief they did proceeded from the most inadequate causes.”

It is well known that Pope’s character of Atossa was designed for her; and when these lines were shewn to her grace, as if they were intended for the portrait of the duchess of Buckingham, she soon stopped the person that was reading them to her, and called out aloud—“I cannot be so imposed upon—I see plainly enough for whom they are designed;” and abused Pope for the attack, though she was afterwards reconciled to, and courted him. The violence of the duchess of Marlborough‘ s temper, which is so strongly painted in the character of Atossa, frequently broke out into wonderful and ridiculous indecencies. In the last illness of the great duke her husband, when Dr. Mead left his chamber, the duchess, disliking his advice, followed him down stairs, swore at him bitterly, and was going to tear oft’ his perriwig. Dr. Hoadly, the late bishop of Winchester, was present at this scene. Disappointed ambition, great wealth, and increasing years, rendered her more and more peevish. She hated courts, says lord Hailes, over which she had no influence, and she became at length the most ferocious animal that is suffered to go loose a violent party-woman. In the latter part of her life she became bed-ridden. Paper, pens, and ink were placed by her side, and she used occasionally to write down either what she remembered, or what came into her head. A selection from these loose papers was made in the way of diary, by sir David Dalryraple, lord Hailes, under the title of “The Opinions of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, published from the original Mss.” 1788, 12mo, which Mr. Park, who has given a specimen, very properly characterises as the effusions of caprice and arrogance. This lady died Oct. 18, 1744.

, a voluminous poet of the sixteenth century, w,as born in Shrewsbury about the year 1520. Wood, who has given a long account of him, says he was of a genteel family, and well educated; and that at the age of seventeen, his father gave him a sum of money, and sent him to court, where he lived in gaiety while his finances lasted. He does not seem, however, to have gained any thing by his attendance at court, except his introduction to the celebrated earl of Surrey, with whom he lived some time as domestic, and by whose encouragement he produced some of his poems. He certainly had no public employment either now or in queen Elizabeth’s reign, although some have denominated him poet laureat, merely, as Mr. Malone thinks, “because he had addressed many of the noblemen of Elizabeth’s court for near forty years, and is called by one of his contemporaries, the old court poet.” He appears, however, to have continued with the earl of Surrey, until this virtuous and amiable nobleman was sacrificed to the tyrannical caprice of Henry VIII. Churchyard now became a soldier, and made several campaigns on the continent, in Ireland, and in Scotland. Tanner is inclined to think that he served the emperor in Flanders against the French in the reign of Henry VIII.; but the differences of dates between his biographers are not now so reconcileable as to enable us to decide upon this part of his history. Wood next informs us that he spent some time at Oxford, and was afterwards patronized by the earl of Leicester. He then became enamoured of a rich widow; but his passion not meeting with success, he once more returned to the profession of arms, engaged in foreign service, in which he suffered great hardships, and met with many adventures of the romantic kind; and in the course of them appears to have been always a favourite among the ladies. At one time, in Flanders, he was taken prisoner, but escaped by the “endeavours of a lady of considerable quality;” and at another time, when condemned to death as a spy, he was reprieved and sent away by the “endeavours of a noble dame.” On his return he published a great variety of poems on all subjects; but there is reason to think that by these he gained more applause than profit, as it is very certain that he lived and died poor. The time of his death, until lately was not ascertained; Winstanley and Cibber place that event in 1570, Fuller in 1602, and Oldys in 1604, which last is correct. Mr. George Chalmers, in. his “Apology for the believers in the Shakspeare Mss.” gives us an extract from the parish register, proving that he was buried April 4, of that year, in St. Margaret’s church, Westminster, near the grave of Skelton. Mr. D'Israeli, who has introduced him in his “Calamities of Authors,” very aptly characterises him as “one of those unfortunate men, who have written poetry all their days, and lived a long life, to complete the misfortune.” His works are minutely enumerated by Ritson in his “Bibliographia Poetica,” and some well- selected specimens have lately appeared in the Censura Literaria. The best of his poems, in point of genius, is his “Legende of Jane Shore,” and the most popular, his “Worthiness of Wales,” 1580, 8vo, of which an edition was published in 1776. It may be added, as it has escaped his biographers, that he is mentioned by Strype, in his life of Grind*!, as “an excellent soldier, and a man of honest principles,” who in 1569 gave the secretary of state notice of an intended rising at Bath (where Churchyard then was) among the Roman catholics.

, whose family name was Kochhafe, or Rochhafe, was an eminent Lutheran divine, and a promoter of the reformation. He was born at Ingelsing in Suabia, in 1530, of parents who, discerning his capacity, bestowed much pains on his education, and in his ninth year sent him to Tubingen, where he was placed under the ablest masters. Such was his proficiency that he was soon after admitted into the university of that place, and at the age of fifteen took his master’s degree with the greatest credit. He then went to Wittemberg, and studied under Melancthon, who expressed himself surprised at his having so early attained academic honours, and received him into his house. There also he heard some of Luther’s lectures. After Luther’s death, and the interruption which the wars occasioned to the university of Wittemberg, Chytreeus went to Heidelberg, where he studied Hebrew, and to Tubingen, where he took some lessons in mathematics; but prince Maurice having restored the university of Wittemberg, and recalled Melancthon, Chytraeus went back also, and completed his theological course. In 1548, having raised some money by private teaching, he visited a considerable part of Italy, and on his return was invited to become one of the professors of the university of Rostock, where he acquired such reputation for learning, that various offers were made to him by the princes of Germany, and by the universities, all which he declined; and yet when prince John Albert offered to increase his stipend as an inducement for him to remain at Rostock, he refused to accept it. He travelled, however, occasionally during his residence here to such places as he was invited to assist the reformation, or to give advice in founding schools and colleges, but always returned in time for his regular courses of lectures; and amidst his many public employments, found leisure to write a great many works on subjects of theology, philology, and history, which extended his fame, he died June 25, 1600. His principal works are, a commentary on the Revelations, and “C|ironologia historice lierodoti et Thucydidis,” Strasburgh, 1563, 8vq; “Chroniconanni 1593, 1594, etinitii 1595,” Leipsic, 1595, 8vo. We have also, written by his son, “Vita D. Chytraei memoriae posteritatis orationibus et carminibus consecrata,” Rostock, 1601, 4to. There is an edition of his whole works, printed at Hanover, 1604, 2 vols. folio but'Freytag gives the preference to the life of Chytvoeus, written by Otto Frederic Schurzius, under the title “De vitaD. Chytrasi commentariorum libri quatuor, ex editis et ineditis monumentis ita conpinnata, ut sit annalium instar et supplementorum pist_ Eccles. seculi XVI. speciatim rerum in Lutherana ecclesia et academia Rostochiensi gestarum,” IJamtmrgh, 1720 1728, 4 vols. 8vo, Of so much importance was Chytncus above a century after his death, that hi$ personal history was thought a proper foundation and connecting medium, for a general history of the Lutheran church,

, poet-laureat to George II. and a dramatic writer of considerable genius, was born in Southampton-street, London, November 6, 1671. His father, Caius Gabriel Cibber, was an eminent statuary, and his mother was the daughter of William Colley, esq. of an ancient family of Glaiston, in Rutland. He took his Christian name from her brother, Edward Colley, esq. In 1681—2 he was sent to the free-school of Grantham, in Lincolnshire and such learning he tells us, as that school could give him, is the most he ever pretended to, neither utterly forgetting, nor much improving it afterwards by study. In 1687 he stood at the election of Winchester scholars, upon the credit of being descended by his mother’s side from William of Wykeham, the founder; but not succeeding, he prevailed with his father, who intended him for the church, to send him to the university. The revolution of 1688, however, gave a turn to Cibber’s fortune; and instead of going to an university, he supplied his father’s place in the army, under the earl of Devonshire, at Nottingham, who was on his road to Chatsworth, in Derbyshire. There his father was then employed, with other artists of all kinds, changing the architecture and decorations of that seat. The revolution having been accomplished without bloodshed, Cibber had no opportunity of proving his valour, and immediately determined to gratify a very early inclination he had somehow formed for the stage. Here, however, he did not meet with much encouragement at first, being full three quarters of a year before he was taken into a salary of 105. per week; yet this, with the assistance of food and raiment at his father’s house, he tells us he then thought a most plentiful accession, and himself the happiest of mortals. The first part in which he appeared with any success, was the chaplain in the “Orphan,” which he performed so well, that Goodman, an old celebrated actor, affirmed with an oath, that he would one day make a good actor. This commendation from an acknowledged judge, filled his bosom, as he tells us, with such transports, that he questioned whether Alexander himself, or Charles XII. of Sweden, felt greater at the head of their victorious armies. The next part he played, was that of Lord Touchwood, in Congreve’s “Double Dealer,” acted before queen Mary which he prepared upon only one day’s notice, by the recommendation of the author, and so well, that Congreve declared he had not only answered, but exceeded his expectations; and from the character he gave of him, his salary was raised from 15s. a week, as it then stood, to 20s. The part of Fondlewife, in the “Old Batchelor,” was the next in which he distinguished himself.

The same year (1730) he quitted the stage, though he occasionally appeared on it afterwards; in particular, when “Papal Tyranny in the reign of king John,” a tragedy of his own, was acted in 1744, he performed the part of Pandulph, the pope’s legate, with great spirit and vigour, though he was at that time above seventy years of age. He died Dec. 12, 1757. His plays, such of them as he thought worth preserving, he collected and published in 2 vols. 4to. Though Pope has made him the prince of dunces, yet he was a man of parts, but vain, and never so happy as when among the great, making sport for people who had more money, but less wit than himself. Dr. Johnson says he was by no means a blockhead, but by arrogating to himself too much, he was in danger of losing that degree of estimation to which he was entitled. Of this we have a proof in a work he published in 1747, entitled “The Character and Conduct of Cicero considered, from the History of his Life by the Rev. Dr. Middleton; with occasional Essays and Observations upon the most memorable Facts and Persons during that Period,” 4to. Cibber was much better qualified to estimate the merits of his brother comedians, than to investigate the conduct of Cicero. As to his moral character, we know not that any thing mean or dishonourable has ever been imputed to him, and his “Letter to Pope,” expostulating with him for placing him in the Dunciad, does some credit to his spirit, and is a more able defence of his conduct than Pope could answer. Although addicted to the promiscuous gallantries of the stage, and affecting the “gay seducer” to the last, he pleased the moral Richardson so well by his flattery, that the latter conceived a high idea of him, and wondered on one occasion, that Dr. Johnson, then a young man, could treat Cibber with familiarity! The best edition of Cibber’s Works is that of 1760, in 5 vols. 12mo. His “Life,” from which much of this article is taken, has been often reprinted.

, son of the above, was born in 1703, and about 1716 sent to Winchester school; from which, like his father, he passed almost directly to the stage, on which the power his father possessed as a manager, enabled him to come forward with considerable advantages, and, by his merit, he soon attained a share of the public favour. His manner of acting was in the same walk of characters which his father had supported, although, owing to some natural defects, he did not attain equal excellence. His person was far from pleasing, and the features of his face rather disgusting. His voice had the shrill treble, but not the musical harmony of his father’s. Yet still an apparent good understanding and quickness of parts, a perfect knowledge of what he ought to express, together with a confident vivacity in his manner, well adapted to the characters he was to represent, would have ensured his success, had his 'private conduct been less imprudent or immoral. But a total want of œconomy led him into errors, the consequences of which it was almost impossible he should ever be able to retrieve. A fondness for indulgences, which a moderate income could not afford, induced him to submit to obligations, which it had the appearance of meanness to accept; and his life was one continued series of distress, extravagance, and perplexity, till the winter, 1757, when he was engaged by Sheridan to go over to Dublin. On this expedition Cibber embarked at Park Gate, on board the Dublin Trader, some time in October; but the high winds, which are frequent tjien in St. George’s Channel, and which are fatal to many vessels in their passage from this kingdom to Ireland, proved particularly so to this. The vessel was driven on the coast of Scotland, where it was cast away; and Cibber lost his life. A few of the passengers escaped in a boat, but the ship was so entirely lost, that scarcely any vestiges of it remained, excepting a box of books and papers, which were known to be Cibber’s, and which were cast up on the western coast of Scotland.

The question now is, as to the share Cibber had in the compilation, The authority we have hitherto followed, attributes a very inconsiderable part to him, and makes Robert Shiels, one of Dr. Johnson* s amanuenses, the chief writer; but from an article in the Monthly Review, apparently drawn up by the late proprietor of it, and who must have been well acquainted with all the circumstances of compilation and publication, we learn that although Shiels was the principal collector and digester of the materials for the work, yet, as he was very raw in authorship, an indifferent writer in prose, and his language full of -Scotticisms, Cibber, who was a clever lively fellow, and then soliciting employment among the booksellers, was engaged to correct the style and diction of the whole work, then intended to make only four volumes, with power to alter, expunge, or add, as he liked, and he was to supply notes occasionally, especially concerning those dramatic poets with whom he had been chiefly conversant. He also engaged to write several of the lives; which (says this authority, “we are told”) he accordingly performed. He was further useful in striking out the Jacobitical and Tory sentiments, which Shiels had industriously interspersed whereever he could bring them in; and as the success of the work appeared, after all, very doubtful, he was content with 2 \L for his labour, besides a few sets of the books to disperse among his friends. Shiels had nearly 70l. besides the advantage of many of the best lives being communicated by his friends, and for which he had the same consideration as for the rest, being paid by the sheet for the whole. Such is the history of this work, in which Dr. Johnson appears to have sometimes assisted Shiels, but upon the whole it was not successful to the proprietors.