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

Several epistles relating to ecclesiastical matters, written either by him, or in his name, are still extant as are his several edicts, as well concerning the doctrines as discipline of the church. Among these edicts is still to be seen, the noted one by which he bequeaths to Sylvester bishop of Rome, and to his successors for ever, the sovereignty of Rome and all the provinces of the Western empire. But this, though it carries the name of Constantine, is manifestly spurious; and though it might be of some use in supporting the authority of the Roman pontiff in dark and ignorant ages, yet since the revival of letters it has been given up even by the papists as a forgery too barefaced to be defended.

, son of Leo the Wise, was born at Constantinople in 905, and ascended the throne at the age of seven years, under the tutelage of his mother Zoe, the 11th of June 911. No sooner had he taken the reins of government in his hand, than he chastised the tyrants of Italy, took Benevento from the Lombards, and drove off, by means of money, the Turks who were pillaging the frontiers of* Epire; but he afterwards allowed himself to be entirely governed by Helena his wife, daughter of Romanus Lecapenes, grand-admiral of the empire. She sold the dignities of the church and the state, burdened the people with taxes, and exercised towards them every species of oppression, while her husband was employing his time in reading, and became as able an architect and as great a painter as he was a bad emperor. Romanus, the son of this indolent prince by his wife Helena, impatient to govern, caused poison to be mingled with some medicine prescribed to him; but Constantine, having rejected the greater part of it, survived till a year afterwards, and died Nov. 9, 959, at the age of 54, after a reign of 48 years. This prince, the patron of learning, and the friend of the learned, left behind him several works which would have done honour to a private person. The principal of them are 1 The Life of the emperor Basil ins the Macedonian, his grandfather, inserted in the collection of Allatius. It is sometimes deficient in point of truth, and savours too much of the panegyrical. 2. Two books of “Themata,” or positions of the provinces and the towns of the empire, published by father Banduri in the “Imperium Orientale,” Leipsic, 1754, folio. We have few works preferable to this for the geography of the middle ages, particularly as to the state and condition of places as they were in his time. 3. A Treatise on the Affairs of the Empire; in the above-mentioned work of Banduri, containing the origin of divers nations, their forces, their progress, their alliances, their revolutions, and the succession of their sovereigns, with other interesting particulars. 4. “De re llustica,” Cambridge, 1704, 8vo. 5. “Excerpta ex Polybio, Diodoro Siculo,” &c. Paris, 1634, 4to. 6. “Excerpta de legatis, Graec. & Lat.” 1648, fol. making a part of the Byzantine historians. 7. “De caeremoniis aulae Byzantines,” Leipsic, 1751, folio. 8. “A Body of Tactics”, 8vo.

, doctor of physic, and professor of the belles lettres in the university of Caen, was born in 1502, and acquired great reputation by his skill in the Greek, Latin, and oriental languages. He lived to 103 years of age, and, it is said, without any failure of powers in either body or mind, died of a pleurisy in 1605, but others have reduced his age to 75. He has left, “A Lexicon, Greek and Latin,” better digested, as some think, than that of Henry Stephens: Stephens ranging the Greek words according to their roots, Constantin in alphabetical order. The first edition, of little value, appeared in 1562, but the best is the secon4, Geneva, 1592, 2 vols. folio. Those of Geneva, 1607, and Leyden, 1637, are only the preceding with new title-pages. His editions, with annotations, of the works of Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Celsus, and Quintus Serenus, gained him much credit. They were published between the years 1554 and 1566, as was also his “Nomenclator insignium Scriptorum, quorum libri extant, vel manuscripti vel impressi,” 8vo.

, prince of, the second son of Henry II. prince of Conde, first prince of the blood royal of France, was born in 1629, and appears to have devoted himself to serious studies from his infancy, being at the age of sixteen able to dispute with learned divines on theological topics. It was probably this disposition which inclined his father to devote him to the church, and to procure for him the abbeys of St. Dennis, Cluni, &c. a mode of preferment common in those days. But having the misfortune to lose his father and mother in his infancy, he abandoned his pious pursuits, and engaged in the civil wars on the side which opposed the king; and became above all things attached to theatrical amusements, and even to the company of the players. In his twentyfourth year he married a niece of the cardinal Mazarine, who appears to have in some measure recalled him to his former way of thinking. After the troubles of the kingdom had been composed, and he received into favour, he was made governor of the province of Languedoc, and sent into Catalonia, to co.nmand the royal army as viceroy, where he distinguished himself for bravery and prudence. On his return from his last campaign, he had some conferences with the bishop of Alet, a man of great piety, who effectually revived in him the sentiments of his youth, and from this time the prince lived an example of regularity in religious matters, such as was rare in his family, or in the court. With respect to those of the reformed religion, however, he extended his liberality no farther than the strict letter of the law, and when any of them built churches in his government, contrary to the king’s edicts, he caused them to be demolished, at the same time endeavouring, what was at that time a favourite object, to bring about an union between the catholics and protestants. His wealth he employed in acts of benevolence, and his time in the instruction of his children and dependents in piety and virtue. He died at Pezenas in 1666, in the thirty-seventh year of his age. His “Life and Works” were translated, and published in English, in 1711, 8vo. The latter congist of treatises on the duties of the great; on the obligations of a governor of a province; instructions for various officers under government; and two treatises against plays and shews, with an appendix of the sentiments of the fathers, &c. on the same subject.

, an Italian poet, of an ancient family, was born about the end of the fourteenth, and died at Rimini about the middle of the fifteenth century. We have few particulars of his life. He appears to have been a lawyer by profession, and being at Bologna in 1409, he fell in love with the beauty whom he has celebrated in his verses. There is a collection of his poems, much esteemed, under the title of “La bella Mano,” Paris, 1595, 12mo, with some pieces of poetry by several of the old poets of Tuscany. This collection had been published for the first time at Venice, in 1492, 4to, and the abbe Salvini gave a new edition of it at Florence in 1715, accompanied with prefaces and annotations; but this is not so complete as either the edition of Paris, or that of Verona, 1753, in 4to. He was a professed imitator of Petrarch, but, although not destitute of merit, is greatly inferior to his model.

, an English officer and statesman, the second son of Francis, first lord Conway, was born in 1720, and appeared first in public life in 1741 as one of the knights for the county of Antrim, in the parliament of Ireland; and in the same year was elected for Higham Ferrers, to sit in the ninth parliament of Great Britain. He was afterwards chosen for various other places from 1754 to 1780, when he represented St. Edmund’s Bury. In 1741 he was constituted captain-lieutenant in the “first regiment of foot-guards, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel; and in April 1746, being then aid-de-camp to the duke of Cumberland, he got the command of the xorty-eighth regiment of foot, and the twenty-ninth in July 1749. He was constituted colonel of the thirteenth regiment of dragoons in December 1751, which he resigned upon being appointed colonel of the first, or royal regiment of dragoons, Septembers, 1759. In January 1756 he was advanced to the rank of major-general; in March 1759, to that of lieutenant-general; in May 1772, to that of general; and in October 12, 1793, to that of field marshal. He served with reputation in his several military capacities, and commanded the British forces in Germany, under prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, in 1761, during the absence of the marquis of Granby. He was one of the grooms of the bed-chamber to George II. and likewise to his present majesty till April 1764, when, at the end of the session of parliament, he resigned that office and his military commands, or, more properly speaking, was dismissed for voting against the ministry in the question of general warrants. His name, however, was continued in the list of the privy counsellors in Ireland; and William, the fourth duke of Devonshire, to whom he had been secretary when the duke was viceroy in Ireland, bequeathed him at his death, in 1764, a legacy of 5000l. on account of his conduct in parliament. On the accession of the Rockingham administration in 1765, he was sworn of the privy council, and appointed joint- secretary of state with the duke of Grafton, which office he resigned in January 1768. In February following, he was appointed colonel of the fourth regiment of dragoons; in October 1774, colonel of the royal regiment of horse-guards; and in October 1772, governor of the island of Jersey. On March 30, 1782, he was appointed commander in chief of his majesty’s forces, which he resigned in December 1783. He died at his seat at Park-place, near Henley upon Thames, July 9, 1795. General Conway was an ingenious man, of considerable abilities, but better calculated to be admired in the private and social circle, than to shine as a great public character. In politics, although we believe conscientious, he was timid and wavering. He had a turn for literature, and some talent for poetry, and, if we mistake not, published, but without his name, one or two political pamphlets. In his old age he aspired to the character of a dramatic writer, producing in 1789, a play, partly from the French, entitled” False Appearances," which was not, however, very successful. His most intimate friend appears to have been the late lord Orford, better known as Horace Walpole, who was his cousin, and addressed to him a considerable part of those letters which form the fifth volume of his lordship’s works. This correspondence commenced in 1 7-1-0, when Walpole was twenty-three years old, and Mr. Couway twenty. They had gone abroad together with the celebrated poet Gray in 1739, had spent three months together at Rheims, and afterwards separated at Geneva. Lord Orford’s letters, although evidently prepared for the press, evince at least a cordial and inviolable friendship for his correspondent, of which also he gave another proof in 3 letter published in defence of general Couway when dismissed from his offices; and a testimony of affection yet more decided, in bequeathing his fine villa of Strawberry Hill to Mrs. Darner, general Con way’s daughter, for her life.

, a learned divine and prelate of the church of England, was born at Pinhoe, near Exeter, on the 31st of January, 1691-2. His father was the rev. John Conybeare, vicar of Pinhoe; and his mother, Grace Wilcocks, was the daughter of a substantial gentleman farmer of that place. At a proper age, he was sent to the free-school of Exeter for grammatical education, where Hallet and Foster, afterwards two eminent dissenting divines, were his contemporaries. On the 23d of February, 1707-8, Mr. Conybeare was admitted a battler of Exeter college, Oxford, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Kennel, afterwards Dr. Kennel, many years rector of Drew’s Teington, Pevon. Mr. Conybeare, on his coming to the university, was, according to the language of that place, chum with Mr. Richard Harding, who was elected fellow of Exeter college in 1709, and died rector of Marwood in Devonshire, in 1782, in the ninety-fifth year of his age. How early our young student obtained the esteem of the learned society with which he was connected, appears from his having been chosen on the 30th of June, 1710, and admitted on the 8th of July following, a probationary fellow of his college, upon sir William Petre’s foundation, in the room of Mr. Daniel Osborrie. When he was proposed as a candidate, it was only with the design of recommending him to future notice; but such was the sense entertained of his extraordinary merit, that he was made the object of immediate election. Mr. Harding used to say, that Mr. Conybeare had every way the advantage of him, excepting in seniority; and that he should have had no chance in a competition with him, if they had both been eligible at the same time. The patronage of Dr. Ilennel, Mr. Conybeare' s worthy tutor, concurred with his own desert, in bringing him forward thus early to academical advantages. On the 17th of July, 1713, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts; and at the next election of college officers, upon the 30th of June, 1714, he was appointed praelector, or moderator, in philosophy. On the 19th of December following, he received deacon’s orders from the hanclaof Dr. William Talbot, bishop of Oxford; and on the 2rikof May, 1716, he was ordained priest by sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester. On the 16th of April, 1716, he proceeded to the degree of master of arts; soon after which he entered upon the curacy of Fetcham, in Surry, where he continued about a year. He was advised to this change of scene for the benefit of his health, which was always delicate, and had been greatly impaired by the intenseness of his application. Upon his return from Fetcham to Oxford, he became a tutor in his own college, and was much noticed in the university as a preacher. In the beginning of the year 1722, he published a sermon, which he had delivered before the university, on the 24th of December preceding, from Hebrews ii. 4, entitled “The nature, possibility, and certainty of Miracles, &c.” This discourse was so well received, that it went through four editions. Mr. Conybeare was hence encouraged to commit to the press a second sermon, from 1 Corinthians xiii. 12, which he had preached before the university, on the 21st of October, 1724, and the title of which was, “The Mysteries of the Christian Religion credible.” It is probable, that the reputation our author gained by these discourses, recommended him to the notice of the bishop of London (Dr. Gibson), who appointed him one of his majesty’s preachers at Whitehall, upon the first establishment of that institution. The esteem in which his abilities and character were held, procured him, also, the favour of the lord chancellor Macclesfield, who, in May 1724, presented him to the rectory of St. Clement’s in Oxford; a preferment of no great value, but which was convenient to iiim from his constant residence at that place, and from its being compatible with his fellowship. In 1725, he was chosen senior proctor of the university, which office he served in conjunction with Mr. Barnaby Smyth, fellow of Corpus-Christi college, and a scholar of eminence. In the same year, Mr. Conybeare was called upon to preach a visitation sermon before the bishop of Oxford, at whose request it was published, under the title of “The Case of Subscription to Articles of Religion considered,” and obtained no small degree of celebrity, being referred to in the controversy relating to subscription. The position of Mr. Conybeare is, that “every one who subscribes the articles of religion, does thereby engage, not only not to dispute or contradict them; but his subscription amounts to an approbation of, and an assent to, the truth of the doctrines therein contained, in the very sense in which the compilers are supposed to have understood them.” Mr. Conybeare’s next publication was an assize sermon, preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, in 1727, from Ezra vii. 26, and entitled “The Penal sanctions of laws considered.” This discourse was dedicated by him to the honourable Charles Talbot, at that time solicitor-general, afterwards lord high chancellor of Great Britain, who had honoured our author with the care of his two eldest sons, Mr. Charles Talbot, celebrated by the poet Thomson, and the late earl Talbot, steward of his majesty’s household. On the llth of July, 1728, Mr. Conybeare was admitted to the degree of bachelor of divinity; and on the 24th of January following, he took his doctor’s degree. In the year 1729, he again appeared from the press, in a sermon that had been preached before the lord mayor and aldermen at St. Paul’s cathedral, and which was entitled ^The Expediency of a Divine Revelation represented.“It was accompanied with a dedication to bishop Talbot, father of the solicitor-general. From Dr. Conybeare’s introduction to this family, and the reputation he had acquired as a divine, it was expected that he would soon have been promoted to some dignity in the church. But the good bishop was taken off before he had a proper opportunity of carrying his benevolent intentions in our author’s favour into execution. In 1730, the headship of Exeter college becoming vacant, by the death of Dr. Hole, Dr. Conybeare was chosen to succeed him. His competitor, on this occasion, was the rev. Mr. Stephens, vicar of St. Andrew’s, Plymouth, a truly worthy clergyxpan, and the author of several ingenious discourses, Nevertheless, as he had retired early from the society, he could not be supposed to carry such weight with him as Dr. Conybeare, who had resided constantly in the college. In this year Dr. Tindal’s famous deistical book had appeared, entitled” Christianity as old as the Creation, or the Gospel a Republication of the Law of Nature.“This work excited the greatest attention, and drew forth the pens of some of the ablest divines of the kingdom, both in the church of PZngland, and among the protestant dissenters. Bishop Gibson, who had himself engaged in the controversy in his” Pastoral Letters,“encouraged Dr. Conybeare to undertake the task of giving a full and particular answer to Tindal’s production. Accordingly, he published in 1732, his” Defence of Revealed Religion,“Londoq, 8vo, by which he gained great credit to himself, and performed an eminent service to the cause of Christianity. In his dedication to the learned prelate now mentioned, he observes, that if he has not succeeded in his book according to his wishes, he may plead that it was drawn up amidst a variety of interruptions, and under a bad state of health.” This,“says he,” will in some sort excuse the author, though it may detract from the performance.“But Dr. Conybeare’s work did not stand in need of an apology. It is distinguished by the perspicuity of its method, and the strength of its reasoning; and is, indeed, one of the ablest vindications of revelation which England has produced. So well was the work received, that the third edition of it was published in 1733. Dr. Warburton justly styles it one of the best reasoned books in the world. It is likewise recommended by the temper and candour with which it is composed. Dr. Conybeare' s Defence will always maintain its rank, and perhaps be thought to sustain the first place among the four capital answers which Tindal received. The other three were, Foster’s” Usefulness, Truth, and Excellency of the Christian Revelation;“Leland’s” Answer to a late book, entitled Christianity as old as the Creation;“and Mr. Simon Browne’s” Defence of the Religion of Nature and the Christian Revelation."

In the spring of 1750, Mr. Cook shipped himself as a seaman on board the Maria, belonging to Mr. John Wilkinson, of Wbitby, under the command of captain Gaskin. In her he continued all that year in the Baltic trade. Mr. Walker is of opinion he left this ship in the winter, and sailed the following summer, viz. 1751, in a vessel belonging to. Stockton; but neither the ship’s name, nor that of the owner, is now remembered by Mr. Walker. Early in February 1752, Mr. Walker sent for him, and made him mate of one of his vessels, called the Friendship, about 400 tons burthen. In this station he continued till Ma,y or June 1753, in the coal trade. At that period Mr. Walker made him an offer to go commander of that ship; but he declined it, soon after left her at London, and entered on board his majesty’s ship Eagle, a frigate of 28 or 30 guns, “having a mind,” as he expressed himself to his master, to “try his fortune that way.” Not long after, he applied to Mr. Walker for a letter of recommendation to the captain of the frigate, which was readily granted. On the receipt of this he got some small preferment, which he gratefully acknowledged, and ever remembered. Some time after, the Eagle sailed with ^another frigate on a cruise, in which they were very successful. After this Mr. Walker heard no more of Mr. Cook until August 1758, when he received from him a letter dated Pembroke, before Louisburgb, July 30, 1758, in which he gave a distinct account of our success in that expedition, but does not say what station he then filled.

To a perfect knowledge of all the duties belonging to a sea-life, Mr. Cook had added a. great skill in astronomy, In 1767 the royal society resolved, that it would be proper to send persons into some part of the South Seas, to observe the transit of the planet Venus over the sun’s disk; and by a memorial delivered to his majesty, they recommended the islands of Marquesas de Mencloza, or those ofRotterdam or Amsterdam, as the properest place then known for making such observation. To this memorial a favourable answer was returned; and the Endeavour, a ship built for the coal-trade, was put in commission, and the command of her given to lieutenant Cook. But before the vessel was ready to sail, captain Wallis returned from his voyage, and pointed out Otaheite as a place more proper for the purpose of the expedition than either of those mentioned by the royal society. This alteration was approved of, and our navigator was appointed by that learned body, with Mr. Charles Green, to observe the transit.

shipnaan with captain Cook in his first ship arrived in England. See Hawkesvoyage, and was appointed by him a worth’s Voyage, vol. iii. p. 395. lieutenant on the deaib of Mr. Hicks, was held as sacred as that of the king. During this time captain Cook was preparing to go ashore himself at the town of Kavaroah, in order to secure the person of Kariopoo, before he should have time to withdraw himself to another part of the island out of our reach. This appeared the most effectual step that could be taken on the present occasion, for the recovery of the boat. It was the measure he had invariably pursued, in similar cases, at other islands in these seas, and it had always been attended with the desired success: in fact, it would be difficult to point out any other mode of proceeding on these emergencies, likely to attain the object in view. We had reason to suppose that the king and his attendants had fled wheu the alarm was first given: in that case, it was captain Cook’s intention to secure the large canoes which were hauled up on the beach. He left the ship about seven o'clock, attended by the lieutenant of marines, a serjeant, corporal, and seven private men: the pinnace’s crew were also armed, and under the command of Mr. Roberts. As they rowed towards the shore, captain Cook ordered the launch to leave her station at the west point of the bay, in order to assist his own boat. This is a circumstance worthy of notice; for it clearly shews, that he was not unapprehensive of meeting with resistance from the natives, or unmindful of the necessary preparation for the safety of himself and his people. I will venture to say, that from the appearance of things just at that time, there was not one, beside himself, who judged that such precaution was absolutely requisite: so little did his conduct on the occasion bear the marks of rashness or a precipitate self-confidence! He landed, with the marines, at the upper end of the town of Kavaroah: the Indians immediately flocked round, as usual, and shewed him the customary marks of respect, by prostrating themselves before him. There were no signs of hostilities, or much alarm among them. Captain Cook, however, did not seem willing to trust to appearances; but was particularly attentive to the disposition of the marines, and to have them kept clear of the crowd. He first inquired for the king’s sons, two youths who were much attached to him, and generally his companions on board. Messengers being sent for them, they soon came lo him; and informing him that their father was asleep, at a house not far -from them, he accompanied them thither, and took the marines along with them. As he passed along, the natives every where prostrated themselves before him, and seemed to have lost no part of that respect they had always shewn to his person. He was joined by several chiefs, among whom was Kanynah, and his brother Koohowrooah. They kept the crowd in order, according to their usual custom; and being ignorant of his intention in coining on shore, frequently asked him, if he wanted any hogs, or other provisions: he told them, that he did not, and that his business was to see the king. When he arrived B.L the house, he ordered some of the Indians to go in and inform Kariopoo, that he waited without to speak with him. They came out two or three times, and instead of returning any answer from the king, presented some pieces of red cloth to him, which made captain Cook suspect that he was not in the house; he therefore desired the lieutenant of marines to go in. The lieutenant found the old man just awaked from sleep, and seemingly alarmed at the message; but he came out without hesitation. Captain Cook took him by the hand, and in a friendly manner asked him to go on board, to which he very readily consented. Thus far matters appeared in a favourable train, and the natives did not seem much alarmed or apprehensive of hostility on our side; at which captain Cook expressed himself a little surprisec), saying, that as the inhabitants of that town appeared innocent of stealing the cutter, he should not molest them, but that he must get the king on board. Kariopoo sat down before his door, and was surrounded by a great crowd: Kanynah and his brother were both very active in keeping order among them. In a little time, however, the Indians were observed arming themselves with long spears, clubs, and daggers, and putting on thick mats, which they use as armour. This hostile appearance increased, and became more alarming, on the arrival of two men in a canoe from the opposite side of the bay, with the news of a chief, called Kareemoo, having been killed by one of the Discovery’s boats, in their passage across: they had also delivered this account to each of the ships. Upon that information, the women, who were sitting upon the beach at their breakfast, and conversing familiarly with our people in the boats, retired, and a confused murmur spread through the crowd. An old priest came to captain Cook, with a cocoa nut in his hand, which he held out to him as a present, at the same time singing very loud. He was often desired to be silent, but in vain: he continued importunate and troublesome, and there was no such thing as getting rid of him or his noise: it seemed as if he meant to divert their attention from his countrymen, who were growing more tumultuous, and arming themselves in every quarter. Captain Cook, being at the same time surrounded by a great crowd, thought his situation rather hazardous: he therefore ordered the lieutenant of marines to march his small party to the water-side, where the boats lay within a few yards of the shore: the Indians readily made a lane for them to pass, and did not offer to interrupt them. The distance they had to go might be fifty or sixty yards; captain Cook followed, having hold of Kariopoo’s hand, who accompanied him very willingly: he was attended by his wife, two sons, and several chiefs. The troublesome old priest followed, making the same savage noise. Keowa, the younger son, went directly into the pinnace, expecting his father to follow; but just as he arrived at the water-side, his wife threw her arms about his neck, and, with the assistance of two chiefs, forced him to sit down by the side of a double canoe. Captain Cook expostulated with them, but to nopurpose they would not suffer the king to proceed telling him he would be put to death if he went on board the ship. Kariopoo, whose conduct seemed entirely resigned to the will of others, hung down his head, and appeared much distressed.

While the king was in this situation, a chief, well known to us, of the name of Coho, was observed near, with au iron dagger, partly concealed under his cloke, seemingly with an intention of stabbing captain Cook, or the lieutenant of marines. The latter proposed to fire at him, but captain Cook would notpermit it. Coho closing upon them, obliged the officer to strike him with his piece, which made him retire. Another Indian laid hold of the Serjeant’s musket, and endeavoured to wrench it from him, but was prevented by the lieutenant’s making a blow at him. Captain Cook, seeing the tumult increase, and the Indians growing more daring and resolute, observed, that if he were to take the king off by force, he could not do it without sacrificing the lives of many of his people. He then paused a little, and was on the point of giving his orders to reimbark, when a man threw a stone at him, which he returned with a discharge of small shot, with which one barrel of his double piece was loaded. The man, having a thick mat before him, received little or no hurt: he brandished his spear, and threatened to dart it at captain Cook, who being still unwilling to take away his life, instead of firing with ball, knocked him down with his musket. He expostulated strongly with the most forward of the crowd, upon their turbulent behaviour. He had given up all thoughts of getting the king on board, as it appeared impracticable; and his care was then only to act on the defensive, and to secure a safe embarkation for his small party, which was closely pressed by a body of several thousand people. Keowa, the king’s son, who was in the pinnace, being alarmed on hearing the first firing, was, at his own entreaty, put on shore again; for even at that time Mr. Roberts, who commanded her, did not apprehend that captain Cook’s person was in any danger, otherwise he would have detained the prince, which no doubt would have been a great check on the Indians. One man was observed, behind a double canoe, in the action of darting his spear at captain Cook; who was forced to fire at him in his own defence, but happened to kill another close to him, equally forward in the tumult: the serjeant, observing that he had missed the man he aimed at, received orders to fire at him, which he did, and killed him. By this time the impetuosity of the Indians was somewhat repressed: they fell back in a body, and seemed staggered; but being pushed on by those behind, they returned to the charge, and poured a volley of stones among the marines, who, without waiting for orders, returned it with a general discharge of musketry, which was instantly followed by a fire from the boats. At this captain Cook was heard to express his astonishment: he waved his hand to the boats, called to them to cease firing, and to come nearer in to receive the marines. Mr. Roberts immediate^ brought the pinnace as close to the shore as he could without grounding, notwithstanding the showers of stones that fell among the people: but Mr. John Williamson, the lieutenant, who commanded in the launch, instead of pulling in to the assistance of captain Cook, withdrew his boat further off, at the moment that every thing seems to have depended upon the timely exertions of those in the boats. By his own account, he mistook the signal: but be that as it may, this circumstance appears to me to have decided the fatal turn of the affair, and to have removed every chance which remained with captain Cook, of escaping with his life. The business of saving the marines out of the water, in consequence of that, fell altogether upon the pinnace; which thereby became so much crowded, that the crew were in a great measure prevented from using their fire-arms, or giving what assistance they otherwise might have done to captain Cook; so that he seems, at the most critical point of time, to have wanted the assistance of both boats, owing to the removal of the launch. For notwithstanding that they kept up a fire on the crowd from the situation to which they removed in that boat, the fatal confusion which ensued on her being withdrawn, to say the least of it, must have prevented the full effect, that the prompt co-operation of the two boats, according to captain Cook’s orders, must have had towards the preservation of himself and his people. At that time it was to the boats alone that captain Cook had to look for his safety; for when the marines had fired, the Indians rushed among them, and forced them into the water, where four of them were killed: their lieutenant was wounded, but fortunately escaped, and was taken up by the pinnace. Captain Cook was then the only one remaining on the rock: he was observed making for the pinnace, holding his left hand against the back of his head, to guard it from the stones, and carrying his musquet under the other arm. An Indian was seen following him, but with caution and timidity: for he stopped once or twice, as if undetermined to proceed. At last he advanced upon him unawares, and with a large club, or common stake, gave him a blow on the back of the head, and then precipitately retreated. The stroke seemed to have stunned captain Cook: he staggered a few paces, then fell on his hand and one knee, and dropped his musquet. As he was rising, and before he could recover his feet, another Indian stabbed him in the back of the neck with an iron dagger. He then fell into a bite of water about knee deep, where others crowded upon him, and endeavoured to keep him under; but struggling very strongly with them, he got his head up, and casting his look towards the pinnace, seemed to solicit assistance. Though the boat was not above five or six yards distant from him, yet from the crowded and confused state of the crew, it seems it was not in their power to save him. The Indians got him under again, but in deeper water: he was, however, able to get his head up once more; and being almost spent in the struggle, he naturally turned to the rock, and was endeavouring to support himself by it, when a savage gave him a blow with a club, and he was seen alive no more. They hauled him up lifeless on the rocks, where they seemed to take a savage pleasure in using every barbarity to his dead body; snatching the daggers out of each other’s hands, to have the horrid satisfaction of piercing the fallen victim of their barbarous rage."

“Such were the outlines of captain Cook’s character; but its most distinguishing feature was that unremitting perseverance in the pursuit of his object, which was not only superior to the opposition of dangers, and the pressure of hardships, but even exempt from the want of ordinary relaxation. Perhaps no science ever received greater accessions frbm the labours of a single man, than geography has done from those of captain Cook. In his first voyage to the South seas he discovered the Society islands; determined the insularity of New Zealand; discovered the straits which separate the two islands, and are called after his name; and made a complete survey of both. He afterwards explored the eastern coast of New Holland, hitherto unknown; an extent of upwards of two thousand miles. In his second expedition he resolved the great problem of a southern continent, having traversed that hemisphere in such a manner as not to leave a possibility of its existence, unless near the pole, and out of the reach of navigation. During this voyage he discovered New Caledonia, the largest island in the Southern Pacific, except New Zealand: the island of Georgia; and an unknown coast, which he named Sandwich land, the Thule of the southern hemisphere: and having twice visited the tropical seas, he settled the situations of the old, and made several new discoveries. But the last voyage is distinguished above all the rest by the extent and importance of its discoveries. Besides several smaller islands in the southern Pacific, he discovered, to the north of the equinoctial line, the groupe called the Sandwich islands; which, from their situation and productions, bid fairer for becoming an object of consequence in the system of European navigation, than any other discovery in the South sea. He afterwards explored what had hitherto remained-unknown of the western coast of America, containing an extent of three thousand five hundred miles; ascertained the proximity of the two great continents of Asia and America; passed the straits between them, and surveyed the coast on each side, to such a height of northern latitude, as to demonstrate the impracticability of a passage, in that hemisphere, from the Atlantic into the Pacific ocean, either by an eastern or a western course. In short, if we except the sea of Amur, and the Japanese archipelago, which still remain imperfectly known to Europeans, he has completed the hydrography of the habitable globe.” Captain King concludes his account of this extraordinary man, whose death cannot be sufficiently lamented, in the following words: “Having given the most faithful account I have been able to collect, both from my own observation and the relations of others, of the death of my ever-honoured friend, and also of his character and services, I shall now leave his memory to the gratitude and admiration of posterity; accepting with a melancholy satisfaction the honour, which the loss of his has procured me, of seeing my name joined with his; and of testifying that affection and respect for his memory, which, whilst ' he lived, it was no less my inclination than my constant study to shew him.”

We cannot close this article without giving a short sketch of the characters of the different writers by whom the last voyage was given to the world. Among these we ought to reckon the rev. Dr. Douglas, the editor, who, in a grave and dignified style, suitable to the sublimity of a journey or voyage round the globe, has arranged the matter; chastised, no doubt, in some instances, the language of our circumnavigators; and pointed out to the curious and philosophic eye, the benefits that have resulted, and may yet result, from the late discoveries in the great Pacific ocean; and the attempt, though unsuccessful, to explore a northern passage from thence into the Atlantic. Although this gentleman has levelled down the more striking peculiarities of the different writers of these voyages into some appearance of equality, yet a critic can discern in each his proper features. Captain Cook, accurate, minute, and severe, surveys every object with a mathematical eye, ever intent to fix or to discover some truth in astronomy, geography, and navigation. His observations on men and manners, and the produce of countries, are not very subtle or refined, but always sensible and judicious. He speculates in order to establish facts, but does not inquire into facts for the airy purposes of speculation. Captain King has perhaps a greater versatility of genius than captain Cook, as well as a more lively fancy, and a greater variety and extent of knowledge. Agreeably to this character of him, he paints the scenes that fall under his eye, in glowing and various colours. He has less perhaps of the mathematician and navigator in his composition than captain Cook, and more of the author. He himself seems conscious that this is his forte, and wields the pen with alacrity, with ease and satisfaction. The gleanings that were left to his industry by captain Cook, he seems too eager to pick up, to dwell upon, and to amplify. Mr. Anderson is superior to both these writers in variety of knowledge, and subtlety and sublimity of genius. He is versant in languages ancient and modern, in mathematics, in natural history, in natural philosophy, in civil history, in the metaphysics of both morality and theology; yet, as a counterbalance to these brilliant qualities and endowments, he launches forth too much into theory, and is, in some instances, too little constrained by the limits of fact and nature in his speculations. He has found the doctrines of the immortality and the immateriality of the soul among nations, who, in all probability, have not terms to express these, and very few to signify abstracted ideas of any kind. A quick imagination and a subtle intellect can see any thing in any subject, and extend the ideas most familiar to themselves over the boundless variety of the universe.

, preceptor to Edward VI. was born at Giddy, or Gidding-hall, in Essex, about 1506, and descended from sir Thomas Cooke, mayor of London. He was educated probably at Cambridge, as Wood makes no mention of him. However, he was such an eminent master of the whole circle of arts, of such singular piety and goodness, of such uncommon prudence in the management of his own family, that those noble persons who had the charge of king Edward appointed him to instruct that prince in learning, and to form his manners. He lived in exile during the persecution of Mary, but after Elizabeth’s accession returned home, and spent the remainder of his days in peace and honour, at Giddy-hall, where he died in 1576. He was, if Lloyd may be credited, naturally of a reserved temper, and took more pleasure to breed up statesmen than to be one. “Contemplation was his soul, privacy his life, and discourse his element: business was his purgatory, and publicness his torment.” To which may be added what king Edward VI. used to say of his tutors, that Rodolph, the German, spake honestly, Sir John Cheke talked merrily, Dr. Cox solidly, and sir Anthony Cooke weighingly.

, third daughter of sir Anthony Cooke, was born about the year 1529, and having enjoyed the same liberal education which was bestowed upon her sisters, was equally happy in improving it, and gained the applause of the most eminent scholars of the age. It was observed by sir John Harrington, that if Madam Vittoria, an Italian lady, deserved to have her name celebrated and transmitted to posterity by Ariosto, for writing some verses, in the manner of an epitaph, upon her husband, after his decease; no less commendation was due to the lady before us, who did as much and more, not only for two husbands, but for her son, daughter, brother, sister, and venerable old friend Mr. Noke of Shottesbrooke, in the Greek, Latin, and English tongues. She was married, first, to sir Thomas Hobby, and accompanied him to France, when he went there as ambassador from queen Elizabeth, and died there July 13, 1566. His disconsolate lady having erected a chapel in the chancel of the church at Bisham, in Berkshire, carefully deposited the remains of her husband, and of his brother, air Philip Hobby, in one tomb together, which she adorned with large inscriptions, in Latin and English verse, of her own composition. She had by sir Thomas Hobby four children, Edward, Elizabeth, Anne, and Thomas Posthumus. It does not appear that she had great comfort in either of her sons; and the youngest in particular, as is manifest from a letter written by her to lord treasurer Burleigh, was guilty of such extravagancies and undutifulness, as gave her much uneasiness. It is evident, from the letter, that she was a woman of uncommon spirit and sense, and an excellent economist. Some years after the decease of sir Thomas Hobby, she married John, lord Russel, son and heir to Francis Russel, earl of Bedford. Her husband dying before his father, in the year 1584, was buried in the abbey church of Westminster, where there is a noble monument erected to his memory, and embellished with inscriptions in Greek, Latin, and English, by this his surviving lady. Her children, by John lord Russel, were one son, who died young in 1580, and two daughters, Anne and Elizabeth. The last of them survived her father but a little time, and is said to have bled to death by the prick of a needle in the forefinger of her left hand. This story has been supported by the figure placed on her monument, which is in the same grate with that of her father; where, on a pedestal of black and white marble made column-wise, in imitation of a Roman altar, may be seen the statue of a young lady seated in a most curiously-wrought osier chair, of the finest polished alabaster, in a very melancholy posture, inclining her head to the right hand, and with the forefinger of her left only extended downwards, to direct us to behold the death’s head underneath her feet, and, as the tradition goes, to signify the disaster that brought her to her end. Mr. Ballard thinks, that if the fact be true, it must be attributed to some gangrene, or other dangerous symptom, occasioned perhaps at first by the pricking of an artery or nerve, which at last brought her to the grave. The matter, however, does not deserve to be reasoned upon; being, in truth, no other than an idle and groundless tale, which very well answers the purpose of amusing the crowd who go to visit the tombs in the Abbey.

, a poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Braintree in Essex, in 1702 or 1703, where his father was an inn-keeper, and as Pope used to say, a Muggletonian. He was educated at Felsted school, where he made considerable proficiency, but how long he remained here, or what was his destination in life is not known. For some time he appears to have been domesticated in the family of lord Pembroke, who died in 1733, and who probably suggested to him a translation of Hesiod, to which his lordship contributed some notes. Before this nobleman’s death, he came to London in 1722, and became a writer by profession, and a strenuous supporter of revolution-principles, which formed a bond of union between him and Tickell, Philips, Welsted, Steele, Dennis, and others, whose political opinions agreed with his own. He wrote in some of the weekly journals of the time, and was considered as a man of learning and abilities. He is supposed to have attacked Pope from political principles, but it is fully as probable, that, as he was a good Greek scholar, he wished to derive some reputation from proving that Pope, in his translation of Homer, was deficient in that language. In 1725 he published a poem entitled “The Battle of the Poets,” in which Pope, Swift, and some others were treated with much freedom and translated and published in the Daily Journal, 1727, the episode of Thersites, from the second book of the Iliad, to show how much Pope had mistaken his author. For this attack Pope gave him a place in the “Dunciad,” and notices him with equal contempt in his Epistle to Dr. Arbutlmot. In a note likewise he informs us that Cooke “wrote letters at the same time to him, protesting his innocence;” but Cooke’s late biographer, sir Joseph Mawbey, is inclined to doubt this, and rather to believe that he was regardless of Pope’s enmity. In a subsequent edition of “The Battle of the Poets” Cooke notices the Dunciad with becoming spirit, and speaks with little respect of Pope’s “philosophy or dignity of mind, who could be provoked by what a boy writ concerning his translation of Homer, and in verses which gave no long promise of duration.” In 1725 or 172G, Cooke published “The Knights of the Bath,” and “Philander and Cydippe,” both poetical tales; and several other pieces of poetry the former evidently meant to attract the public attention, on the revival, about that time, of the order of the Bath. He wrote soon after “The Triumphs of Love and Honour,” a play; “The Eunuch,” a farce; and “The Mournful Nuptials,” a tragedy; all performed at Drury-lane theatre, but with little success. In 1726 he published an account of the “Life and Writings of Andrew Marvell, esq.” prefixed to an edition of the poetical works of that celebrated politician, 2 vols. 12mo, and in 1728 his translation of “Hesiod.” In 1734 he published an edition of Terence, with an English translation, 3 vols. 12mo, and in 1737 “A Translation of Cicero on the Nature of the Gods,” with philosophical, critical, and explanatory notes, to which is added an examination into the astronomy of the ancients, 8vo. In 1741 he encreased his classical reputation by an edition of Virgil, with an interpretation in Latin, and notes in English. In 1742 he published a volume of his original “Poems,” with imitations and translations, and in 1746 undertook a new edition and translation of Plautus, by subscription. Of this he produced in 1754 the first volume, containing a dissertation on the life of Plautus, and a. translation of the comedy of Amphitryon, but although his list of subscribers was very copious, and he went on receiving more, he never completed the work.

He was always, however, employing his pen on temporary subjects, either in poems or pamphlets, and for some time was concerned in the political paper established in opposition to sir Robert Walpole, entitled “The Craftsman;” and at one time, in 1748, was apprehended for some libel against the government, but it does not appear that a prosecution followed. During his latter years he published a variety of single poems, which it would be unnecessary to enumerate, more particularly as they have been long consigned to oblivion; and he also contributed songs and ballads for Vauxhall, long the Parnassus of the minor poets. In 1756 Dr. Leonard Howard, rector of St. George’s, Southwark, published a collection of Ancient Letters, in 2 vols. 4to, but as he had not materials to fill up the second, Cooke, who was his intimate friend, gave him many letters from his correspondents, and some pieces of poetry, with which Howard completed this strange jumble. The letters, however, are in some respects amusing, and show that Cooke was complimented at least, by some persons of eminence, although probably not much respected. Sir Joseph Mawbey had a tragedy of his entitled “Germanicus,” which Garrick refused, and three folio volumes of his Mss. His residence in the latter part of his life was at Lambeth, in a small and insignificant house and garden, of which he used to speak with great pomp, and where he died Dec. 20, 1756, in great poverty. He was buried by a subscription among a few friends, who also contributed to the support of his widow and daughter, neither of whom survived long. His biographer’s account of his morals and religious principles is not very favourable, but it is unnecessary to dwell longer on the merits of an author whose productions it would, perhaps, be impossible to revive.

, earl of Shaftesbury, an eminent statesman of very dubious character, was son of sir John Cooper, of llockborn in the county of Southampton, bart. by Anne, daughter of sir Anthony Ashley of Winborne St. Giles in the county of Dorset, bart. where he was born July 22, 1621. Being a boy of uncommon parts, he was sent to Oxford at the age of fifteen, and admitted a gentleman commoner of Exeter college, under Dr. John Prideaux, the rector of it. He is said to have studied hard there for about two years; and then removed to Lincoln’s inn, where he applied himself with great vigour to the law, and especially that part of it which related to the constitution of the kingdom. He was elected for Tewksbury in Gloucestershire, in the parliament which met at Westminster, April 13, 1640, but was soon dissolved. He seems to have been well affected to the king’s service at the beginning of the civil war: for he repaired to the king at Oxford, offered his assistance, and projected a scheme, not for subduing or conquering his country, but for reducing such as had either deserted or mistaken their duty to his majesty’s obedience. He was afterwards invited to Oxford by a letter from his majesty; but, perceiving that he was not in confidence, that ins behaviour was disliked, and his person in danger, he retired into the parliament quarters, and soon after went up to London, where he was well received by that party “to which,” says Clarendon, “he gave himself up body and soul.” He accepted a commission from the parliament and, raising forces, took Wareham by storm, October 1644, and soon after reduced all the adjacent parts of Dorsetshire. This, and some other actions of the same nature, induced the above-mentioned historian to say that he “became an implacable enemy to the royal family.” The next year he was sheriff of Wiltshire, in 1651 he was of the committee of twenty, appointed to consider of ways and means for reforming the law. He was also one of the members of the convention that met after Cromwell had turned out the long parliament. He was again a member of parliament in 1654, and one of the principal persons who signed that famous protestation, charging the protector with tyranny and arbitrary government; and he always opposed the illegal measures of that usurper to the utmost. When the protector Richard was deposed, and the Rump came again into power, they nominated sir Anthony one of their council of state, and a commissioner for managing the army. He was at that very time engaged in a secret correspondence with the friends of Charles II. and greatiy instrumental in promoting his restoration; which brought him into peril of his life with the powers then in being. He was returned a member for Dorsetshire, in that which was called the healing parliament, which sat in April 1660; and a resolution being taken to restore the constitution, he was named one of the twelve members of the house of commons to carry their invitation to the king. It was in performing this service that he had the misfortune to be overturned in a carriage upon a Dutch road, by which he received a dangerous wound between the ribs, which ulcerated many years after, and was opened when he was chancellor.

Upon the king’s coming over he was sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. He was also one of the commissioners for the trial of the regicides; and though the Oxford historian is very severe on him on this occasion, yet his advocates are very desirous of proving that he was not any way concerned in betraying or shedding the blood of his sovereign. By letters patent, dated April 20, 1661, he was created barou Ashley of Winborne St. Giles; soon after made chancellor and nnder-treasurer of the exchequer, and then one of the lords commissioners for executing the office of high-treasurer. He was afterwards made lord lieutenant of the county of Dorset; and, April 23, 1672, created baron Cooper of Pawlet in the county of Somerset, and earl of Shaftesbury. November 4 following, he was raised to the post of lord high chancellor of England. He shone particularly in his speeches in parliament; and, if we judge only from those which he made upon swearing in the treasurer Clifford, his successor sir Thomas Osborne, and baron Thurland, we must conclude him to have been a very accomplished orator. The short time he was at the helm was a season of storms and tempests; and it is but doing him justice to say that they could not either affright or distract him. November 9, 1673, he resigned the great seal under very singular circumstances. Soon after the breaking up of the parliament, as Echard relates, the earl was sent for on Sunday morning to court; as was also sir Heneage Finch, attorney-general, to whom the seals were promised. As soon as the earl came he retired with the king into the closet, while the prevailing party waited in triumph to see him return without the purse. His lordship being alone with the king, said, “Sir, I know you intend to give the seals to the attorney-general, but 1 am sure your majesty never intended to dismiss me with contempt.” The king, who could not do an ill-natured thing, replied, “Gods fish, my lord, I will not do it with any circumstance that may look like an affront.” “Then, sir,” said the earl, “I desire your majesty will permit me to carry the seals before you to chapel, and send for them afterwards from my house.” To this his majesty readily consented; and the earl entertained the king with news and diverting stories till the very minute he was to go to chapel, purposely to amuse the courtiers and his successor, who he believed was upon the rack for fear he should prevail upon the king to change his mind. The king and the earl came out of the closet talking together and smiling, and went together to chapel, which greatly surprised, them all: and some ran immediately to tell the duke of York, that all his measures were broken. After sermon the earl went home with the seals, and that evening the king gave them to the attorneygeneral.

For the loss which was occasioned by Mr. Locke’s timidity or prudence, he was solicitous to make some degree of reparation. Accordingly, he formed an intention of writing, at large, the history of his noble friend; and if he had accomplished his intention, his work would undoubtedly have been a very valuable present to the public. But there was another biographer, who wrote a life of the earl, soon after his decease. This was Thomas Stringer, esq. of Ivy church, near Salisbury, a gentleman of great integrity and excellent character; who had held, we believe, under his lordship, when high-chancellor of England, the office of clerk of the presentations; and who was much esteemed by some of the principal persons of the age. With Mr. Locke in particular, he maintained an intimate friendship to the time of his death, which happened in 1702. Mr. Stringer’s account has been the ground-work on which the narrative intended for the public eye, by the noble family, has been built. It contained a valuable history of the earl’s life; but was probably much inferior in composition to what Mr. Locke’s would have been; and indeed, in its original form, it was too imperfect for publication. Sometime about the year 1732, this manuscript, together with the rest of the Shaftesbury papers, was put into the hands of Mr. Benjamin Marty n, a gentleman who was then known in the literary world, in consequence of having written a tragedy, entitled “Timoleoh,” which had been acted with success at the theatre royal in Drury-lane. Mr. Martyn made Mr. Stringer’s manuscript the basis of his own work, which he enriched with such speeches of the earl as are yet remaining, and with several particulars drawn from some loose papers left by his lordship. He availed himself, likewise, of other means of information, which more recent publications had afforded; and prefixed to the whole an introduction of considerable length, wherein he passed very high encomiums on our great statesman, and strengthened them by the testimonies of Mr. Locke and Mons. Le Clerc. He added, also, strictures on L' Estrange, sir William Temple, bishop Burnet, and others, who had written to his lordship’s disadvantage. One anecdote, which we well remember, it cannot but be agreeable to the public and to the noble family to see related. It is well known with what severity the earl of Shaftesbury’s character is treated by Dryden, in his Absalom and Achitophel. Nevertheless, soon after that fine satire appeared, his lordship having the nomination of a scholar, as governor of the Charter-house, gave it to one of the poet’s sons, without any solicitation on the part of the father, or of any other person. This act of generosity had such an effect upon IXryden, that, to testify his gratitude, he added, in the second edition of the poem, the four following lines, in celebration of the earl’s conduct as lord chancellor.

“In Israel’s court ne‘er sat an Abethdin With more discerning eyes, or hands more clean, Unbrib’cl, unsought, the wretched to redress, Swift of dispatch, and easy of access.”

, earl of Shaftesbury, the celebrated author of the Characteristics, was born Feb. 26, 1671, at Exeter-house in London. His father was Anthony earl of Shaftesbury; his mother lady Dorothy Manners, daughter of John earl of Rutland. He was born in the house of his grandfather Anthony first earl of Shaftesbury, and chancellor of England, of whom we have spoken in the preceding article; who was fond of him from his birth, and undertook the care of his education. He pursued almost the same method in teaching him the learned languages, as Montaigne’s father did in teaching his son Latin: that is, he placed a person about him, who was so thoroughly versed in the Greek and Latin tongues, as to speak either of them with the greatest fluency. This person was a female, a Mrs. Birch, the daughter of a schoolmaster in Oxfordshire or Berkshire; and a woman who could execute so extraordinary a task, deserves to have her name recorded with honour among the learned ladies of England. By this means lord Shaftesbury made so great a progress, that he could read both these languages with ease when but eleven years old. At that age he was sent by his grandfather to a private school; and in 1683 was removed to Winchester school, but such was the influence of party-spirit at the time, that he was insulted for his grandfather’s sake, by his companions, which made his situation so disagreeable, that he begged his father to consent to his going abroad. Accordingly he began his travels in 1686, and spent a considerable time in Italy, where he acquired great knowledge in the polite arts. This knowledge is very visible through all his writings; that of the art of painting is more particularly so, from the treatise he composed upon “The Judgement of Hercules.” He made it his endeavour, while he was abroad, to improve himself as much as possible in every accomplishment; for which reason he did not greatly affect the company of other English gentlemen upon their travels; and he was remarkable for speaking French so readily, and with so good an accent, that in France he was often taken for a native.

In the beginning of the year after, viz. 1703, he made a second journey to Holland, and returned to England in the end of the year following. The French prophets soon after having by their enthusiastic extravagances created much disturbance throughout the nation, among the different opinions as to the methods of suppressing them, some advised a prosecution. But lord Shaftesbury, who abhorred any step which looked like persecution, apprehended that such measures tended rather to inflame than to cure the disease: and this occasioned his “Letter concerning Enthusiasm,” which he published in 1708, and sent it to lord Somers, to whom he addressed it, though without the mention either of his own or lord Somers’s name. Jan. 1709, he published his “Moralists, a philosophical rhapsody:” and, in May following, his “Sensus communis, or an essay upon the freedom of wit and humour.” The same year he married Mrs. Jane Ewer, youngest daughter of Thomas Ewer, esq. of Lee in Hertfordshire; to whom he was related, and by whom he had an only son, Anthony the fourth earl of Shaftesbury. From his correspondence, it does not appear that he had any very extraordinary attachment to this lady, or that the match added much to his happiness, which some have attributed to a disappointment in a previous attachment. In 1710, his “Soliloquy, or advice to an author,” was printed. In 1711, finding his health still declining, he was advised to leave England, and seek assistance from a warmer climate. He set out therefore for Italy in July 1711, and lived above a year after his arrival; dying at Naples, Feb. 4, 1713.

But lord Shaftesbury’s principal study was the writings of antiquity; and those which he most admired, were the moral works of Xenophon, Horace, the Enchiridion of Epictetus, with Arrian’s Commentaries, and Marcus Antoninus. From these he formed to himself the plan of his philosophy: and the idea which he framed to himself of philosophy in general, may be best comprehended from the following words of his, where addressing himself to a correspondent, he says: “Nor were there indeed any more than two real distinct philosophies; the one derived from Socrates, and passing into the old academic, the peripatetic, and stoic; the other derived in reality from Democritus, and passing into the Cyrenaic, and Epicurean. For as for that mere sceptic or new academic, it had no certain precepts, and so was an exercise of sophistry, rather than of philosophy. The first therefore of these two philosophies recommended action, concernment in civil affairs, religion, &c. the second derided all this, and advised inaction and retreat. And good reason for the first maintained, that society, right, and wrong, were founded in nature, and that nature had a meaning, and was herself; that is to say, in her wits, well governed, and administered by one simple and perfect intelligence. The second again derided this, and made providence and dame nature not so sensible as a doting old woman. So the Epicurean in Cicero treats providence, Anus fatidica stoicomm Kfoma. The first therefore of these philosophies is to be called the civil, social, and theistic: the second the contrary.”

It remains now to notice more particularly the writings of lord Shaftesbury, which by one class of critics, have received the most extravagant applause, and, by another, have been the subjects of indiscriminate condemnation. They have been examined with a critical eye, and in rather an elaborate manner, by Dr. Kippis, to whose article, in the Biographia Britannica, we refer the reader, contenting ourselves with a brief outline. Lord Shaftesbury’s “Letter on Enthusiasm” was written from excellent motives it contains many admirable remarks, delivered in a neat and lively strain but it wants precision conveys but little information and contains some exceptionable passages. The same character may be given, with truth and justice, of “The Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Huphour,” designed to defend the application of ridicule to subjects of speculative inquiry, and among others to religious opinions. His “Soliloquy, or Advice to an Author,” met with more general approbation. It contains a variety of excellent matter; and what the noble lord has advanced in recommendation of self-examination, and in defence of critics and criticism, is particularly valuable: it is evidently the result of the author’s knowledge and refined taste in books, in life, and manners. Lord Shaftesbury’s “Enquiry concerning Virtue” obtained more general applause, although in some points it is liable to objection. It is ably and finely written, and maintains with great force the important truth, that virtue -is the greatest happiness, and vice the greatest misery of men. In this “Enquiry,” the noble author appeared in the close, the logical, and the didactic form. But in the “Moralists,” he is the emulator of Plato, in the boldest poetic manner of that eminent philosopher. Bishop Hurd ranks it among the best compositions of the kind in our language. Its matter is highly valuable and important, and presents us with a truly argumentative and eloquent defence of the doctrines of a Deity and a Providence. The “Miscellaneous Reflections on the preceding treatises, and other critical subjects,” are intended as a sort of defence and explanation of his former works; but, although they contain a variety of just and ingenious remarks, they abound with many exceptionable passages concerning revelation. With respect to the style of lord Shaftesbury, we may quote the opinion of Dr. Blair, which is at once accurate and judicious. “His language has many beauties; it is firm and supported in an uncommon degree; it is rich and musical. No English author has attended so much to the regular construction of his sentences, both with respect to propriety and with respect to cadence. All this gives so much elegance and pomp to his language, that there is no wonder it should sometimes be highly admired. It is greatly hurt, however, by perpetual stiffness and affectation. This is its capital fault. His lordship can express nothing with simplicity. He seems to have considered it as vulgar, and beneath the dignity of a man of quality, to speak like other men. Hence he is ever in buskins, full of circumlocutions and artificial elegance. In every sentence we see the marks of labour and art; nothing of that ease which expresses a sentiment coming natural and warm from the heart. Of figures and ornaments o/ every kind he is exceedingly fond; sometimes happy in them; but his fondness for them is too visible, and having once laid hold of some metaphor or allusion that pleased, he knows not how to part with it. What is most wonderful, he was a professed admirer of simplicity; is always extolling it in the ancients, and censuring the moderns for want of it, though he departs from it himself as far as any one modern whatever. Lord Shaftesbury possessed delicacy and refinement of taste to a degree that we may call excessive and sickly; but he had little warmth of passion; few strong or vigorous feelings; and the coldness of his character led him to that artificial and stately manner which appears in his writings. He is fonder of nothing than of wit and raillery; but he is far from being happy in it. He attempts it often, but always awkwardly: he is stiff even in his pleasantry, and laughs in form like an author, and not like a man.” Lord Shaftesbury sometimes professed himself a Christian; but his writings, in many parts, render his faith in the divine mission of Christ very questionable. The noble lord left one son, Anthony Ashley Cooper, the fourth earl, of whom the learned Bp. Huntingford says, “there never existed a man of more benevolence, moral worth, and true piety.” He was the author of the life of his father, in the great General Dictionary, including Bayle. It may not be improper to add in this place, that the translator of Xenophon’s Cyropedia was the honourable Maurice Ashley Cooper, brother to the third earl.

, an English poet and miscellaneous writer, was born in 1723. He descended, according to the account of his life in the Biographia Britannica, from an ancient family in Nottinghamshire, impoverished on account of its loyalty during the rebellion in Charles the First’s time. Thurgaton Priory in that county was granted to one of his ancestors by Henry VIII. and after some interruption, became the residence of our poet’s father, and still continues in the family. In Thoroton’s Nottinghamshire, it is stated that the family name was Gilbert, and that, in 1736, John Gilbert, esq. obtained leave to use the surname and arms of Cooper, pursuant to the will of John Cooper, of Thurgaton, esq. He was educated at Westminster-school under Dr. John Nichols, and in 1743 became a fellow-commoner of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he resided two or three years, without taking a degree, but not without a due attention to his studies. With some tincture of foppery, he was a young man of very lively parts, and attached ^to classical learning, which it is only to be regretted he did not pursue with judgment* He quitted the university on his marriage with Susanna, the grand-daughter of sir Nathan Wright, lord keeper. la. 1745, he published “The Power of Harmony,” in two books, in which he endeavoured to recommend a constant attention to what is perfect and beautiful in nature, as the means of harmonizing the soul to a responsive regularity and sympathetic order. This imitation of the language of the Shaftesbury school was not affectation. He had studied the works of that nobleman with enthusiasm, and seems entirely to have regulated his conduct by the maxims of the ancient and modern academics. The poem brought him into notice with the public, but he appears not at this time to have courted the fame of authorship. When Dodsley began to publish his “Museum,” he invited the aid of Mr. Cooper among others who were friendly to him, and received a greater portion of assistance from our author’s pen than from that of any other individual. His papers, however, were signed, not Pkilalethes, as mentioned in the Biographia Britannica, but Philaretes.

In 1754 he appeared to more advantage as the author of “Letters on Taste,” a small volume which soon passed through three or four editions. Taste had not at this time been treated in a philosophical manner, and as the author set out with liberal professions, his readers were induced to take for granted that he had thrown much new light on the subject. He is, however, original only in the manner in which he has contrived to throw a charm over a few acknowledged truths and common-place opinions. Instead of beginning by definition, and proceeding gradually to analyze the pleasure resulting from what are generally considered as the objects of true taste, he lets loose his imagination, invites his reader into fairy-land, and delights him by excursive remarks and allegorical details, but in a style which even Johnson, who had no great opinion of Cooper, allowed to be splendid and spirited.

Dr. Kippis, who knew him personally, informs us that he was a gentleman of polite address and accomplishments, and if the general tenour of his works may be credited, he possessed an amiable and affectionate heart. His chief foible was vanity, but this is more discoverable in his writings than it probably was in his life. There are few of the minor poets who have higher claims to originality. The “Epistles to Aristippus/' his songs, and the” Father’s Advice to his Son,“although of unequal merit, contain many passages that are truly poetical. His veneration for some of the French poets, particularly Gresset, induced him to attempt a mode of versification in the Epistles, to which the English ear cannot easily become familiar, and which is not to be justified from any defect in the manliness or copiousness of the English language. Yet this study of the French writers, of no use in other respects, has rendered his translation of the” Ver Vert" almost a perfect copy of the original, and far superior to the coarse version since published by the late Dr. Geddes.

, a learned English bishop, was born at Oxford about 1517, and educated in the school adjoining to Magdalen college; and, having made great progress in grammar learning, and gained high reputation, he was there elected first demy, then probationer in 1539, and perpetual fellow the year after. He quitted his fellowship in 1546, being then married, as it is supposed; and when queen Mary came to the crown, applied himself to the study of physic, and, faking a bachelor’s degree, practised it at Oxford, because he was secretly inclined to the Protestant religion; but upon the death of that queen, he returned to his former study of divinity. March 156,7, he took the degree of D.D. and about that time was made dean of Christ-church. In 1569 he was made dean of Gloucester, and the year after bishop of Lincoln. July 1572, he preached a sermon at St. Paul’s cross, in vindication of the church of England and its liturgy; to which an answer was sent him by a disaffected person, which answer Strype has printed at length in his “Annals of the Reformation.” In 1577 the queen sent him a letter to put a stop to those public exercises called prophesyings, in his diocese. These prophesyings were grounded upon 1 Cor. xiv. 31. “Ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” They were set on foot in several parts of the kingdom about 1571; and consisted of conferences among the clergy, for the better improving of themselves, and one another, in the knowledge of scripture and divinity; but in 1577 were generally suppressed, on account of their being thought seminaries of puritanism. In 1584 he was translated to the bishopric of Winchester; which diocese abounding greatly with papists, he petitioned the privy-council to suppress them; and among other methods proposed, “that an hundred or two of obstinate recusants, lusty men, well able to labour, might by some convenient commission be taken up, and be sent into Flanders as pioneers and labourers, whereby the country should be disburdened of a company of dangerous people, and the rest that remained be put in some fear.”

His writings were: 1. “The epitome of Chronicles from the 17th year after Christ to 1540, and thence to 1560.” The two first parts of this chronicle, and the beginning of the third, as far as the 17th year after Christ, were composed by Thomas Lanquet, a young man of 24 years old: but he dying immaturely, Cooper finished the work, and published it under the title of “Cooper’s Chronicle,” though the running-title of the first and second partis “Lanquet’s Chronicle.” A faulty edition of this work was published surreptitiously in 1559; but that of 1560, in 4to, was revised and corrected by Cooper. 2. “Thesaurus Linguae Romanae & Britannicse,” &c. and, “Dictionarium historicum & poeticum,” 1565, folio. This dictionary was so much esteemed by queen Elizabeth, that she endeavoured, as Wood tells us, to promote the author for it in the church as high as she could. It is an improvement of “Bibliotheca Eliotae,” Eliot’s library or dictionary, printed in 1541; or, as some think, it is taken out of Robert Stephens’s “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, and” Frisii Lexicon Latino-Teutonicum.“3.” A brief exposition of such chapters of the Old Testament as usually are read in the church at common prayer, on the Sundays throughout the year,“1573, 3to. 4.” A sermon at Lincoln,“1575, 8vo. 5. ”Twelve Sermons,“1580, 4to. 6.” An admonition to the people of England, wherein are answered not only the slanderous untruths reproachfully uttered by Martin the libeller, but also many other crimes by some of his brood, objected generally against all bishops and the chief of the clergy, purposely to deface and discredit the present state of the church,“1589, 4to, This was an answer to John ap Henry’s books against the established church, published under the name of Martin Mar-Prelate. Ap Henry, or his accomplices, replied to the bishop’s book, in two ludicrous pamphlets, entitled,” Ha' ye any work for a Cooper?“and” More work for a Cooper."

The siege of this place commenced on the 26th of November, and was carried on with unremitted diligence until the middle of January 1761, when the English forces took possession of this important town; the garrison, consisting of 1400 European soldiers, became prisoners of war; and a. vast quantity of military forces, and great riches, were given up at discretion to the victors. This was the final blow to the French power in India. On the colonel’s return to England, the next year, he was presented by the court of directors with a diamond-hilted sword, which cost 700l. as a testimony of gratitude for the important services he had done. At the close of 1769, or very early in 1770, he was appointed commander in chief of the East India Company’s forces in India. He reached Madras in 1770, but left that place again in October to proceed to Bussorah, from whence he prosecuted his journey to Europe overland. The reason of his quitting Fort St. George was supposed to have been owing to a dispute with the governor there. On the 31st of August 1771 he was invested witH the order of the Bath; and in March 1773 he became colonel of the 37th regiment of foot, which being stationed in Scotland, he resided at Fort George there as governor. On the death of general Clavering in the East Indies, sir Eyre Coote was appointed a member of the supreme council at Bengal, and commander of the British troops. In 1780, Hyder Ally having invaded the Carnatic, general Coote was sent with money and a reinforcement of troops from Bengal to the coast of Coromandel, where he assumed the command of the army.

This system he began to consider, and to write upon, when he was about thirty- five years of age. He carefully contemplated the phenomena made mathematical calculations examined the observations of the ancients, and made new ones of his own till, after more than twenty years chiefly spent in this manner, he brought his scheme to perfection, establishing that system of the world which goes by his name, and is now universally received by all philosophers. It had, indeed, been maintained by many of the ancients; particularly Ecphantus, Seleucus, Aristarchus, Philolaus, Cleanthes Samius, Nicetas, Heraclides Ponticus, Plato, and Pythagoras; from the last of whom it was anciently called the Pythagoric, or Pythagorean system. It was also held by Archimedes, in his book of the number of the grains of sand; but after him it became neglected, and even forgotten, for many ages, till Copernicus revived it; from whom it took the new name of the Copernican system.

Sedulus oro." These demonstrate, that when near his dissolution, all cares or inquiries, except those of a religious nature, had ceased to affect or agitate him.

, an eminent philanthropist, was born about 1668, bred to the sea, and spent the first part of his life as master of a vessel trading to our colonies. While he resided in that part of the metropolis which is the common residence of sea-faring people, business often obliged him to come early into the city and return late; when he had frequent occasions of seeing young children exposed, through the indigence or cruelty of their parents. This excited his compassion so far, that he projected the Foundling Hospital; in which humane design he laboured seventeen years, and at last, by his sole application, obtained the royal charter for it. He was highly instrumental in promoting another good design, viz. the procuring a bounty upon naval stores imported from the colonies; and was eminently concerned in setting on foot the colonies of Georgia and Nova Scotia. His last charitable design, in which he lived to make some progress, but not to complete, was a scheme for uniting the Indians in North America more closely to the British interest, by an establishment for the education of Indian girls. Indeed he spent a great part of his life in serving the public, and with so total a disregard to his private interest, that towards the latter part of it he was himself supported by the voluntary subscriptions of public-spirited persons; at the head of whom was that truly amiable and benevolent prince Frederic, late prince of Wales. When Dr. Brocklesby applied to the good old man, to know whether his setting on foot a subscription for his benefit would not offend him, he received this noble answer: “I have not wasted the little wealth, of which I was formerly possessed, in self-indulgence or vain expences, and am not ashamed to confess that, in this my old age, I am poor.”

The Foundling Hospital, for several years after its institution, was an eminently popular object: numbers of affluent persons were ardent to encourage it, and the benefactions to the hospital flowed in, in a very great abundance. It was at length taken under the direction of parliament, and, from 1756 to 1759, annual and liberal grants were made for its support; in consequence of which children were poured in from every part of the kingdom. This circumstance, after some time, excited a general alarm. It was suggested, that the children, being cut off from all intercourse with their fathers and mothers, would, when they grew up, be aliens in their native land, without any tisible obligations, and consequently without 'affections, It was farther suggested, that they might look upon themselves as a kind of independent beings in society; and that, if they were permitted to increase as they had lately done, no one could tell what harm might ensue to the state, when there were such numbers who could scarcely be said to be connected with the body politic. Nay, it was asked, whether they might not, in time, rise like the slaves of Rome, and throw the kingdom into confusion? Sentiments of this nature were first thrown out to the world by a Mr. Massie, a political writer of that period. In a pamphlet, entitled “A plan for the establishment of Charity-houses for exposed or deserted women and girls, and for penitent prostitutes,” and which was printed in 1758, he introduced some observations concerning the Foundling Hospital, shewing the ill consequences of its receiving public support. Afterwards, in 1759, he made a second attack upon the Hospital, in a tract written solely for that purpose. In this tract, the good man’s zeal upon the subject led him to several extravagancies and absurdities: but his general principles, concerning the evil that might arise from bringing up large multitudes of people who were not bound to society by the common ties of private and domestic affection, had a powerful influence on the public mind. The indiscriminate admission of infants into the Hospital was put a stop to; parliamentary support was withdrawn; and the institution was left to be maintained, as it now is very handsomely, by the generosity of individuals.

, in Latin Corasitjs, was born at Toulouse, or rather at Realmont, 1513. He taught law at Anger, Orleans, Paris, Padua, Ferrara, and Toulouse, with universal applause, and was afterwards counsellor to the parliament of Toulouse, and chancellor of Navarre; but, turning protestant, was driven from Toulouse, 1562, and, with difficulty, restored by the patronage of chancellor de l'Hospital, his friend. This return, however, proved unfortunate; for he was murdered in that city, 1573, after the massacre of St. Bartholomew was known there. He left only a daughter. Coras wrote some excellent works in Latin and French, the principal of which were printed, 1556 and 1558, 2 vols. fol. His “Miscellaneorum Juris Civilis libri tres,” is particularly valued. His life was written by a descendant, James Coras, also a protestant, and published in 1673, 4to.

, an English prelate, but better known and perhaps more respected as a poet, was the son of Vincent Corbet, and was born at Ewell in Surrey, in 1582. His father, who attained the age of eighty, appears to have been a man of excellent character, and is celebrated in one of his son’s poems with filial ardour. For some reason he assumed the name of Pointer, or, perhaps, relinquished that for Corbet, which seems more probable: his usual residence was at Whitton in the county of Middlesex, where he was noted for his skill in horticulture, and amassed considerable property in houses and land, which he bequeathed to his son at his death in 1619. Our poet was educated at Westminster school, and in Lenu term, 1597-8, entered in Broadgate hall (afterwards Pembroke college), and the year following was admitted a student of Christ Church, Oxford, where he soon became noted among men of wit and vivacity. In 1605 he took his master’s degree, and entered into holy orders. In 3612 he pronounced a funeral oration in St. Mary’s church, Oxford, on the death of Henry, prince of Wales; and the following year, another on the interment of that eminent benefactor to learning, sir Thomas Bodley. In 1618 he took a journey to France, from which he wrote the epistle to sir Thomas Aylesbury. His “Journey to Fiance,” one of his most humorous poems, is remarkable for giving some traits of the French character that are visible in the present day. King James, who showed no weakness in the choice of his literary favourites, made him one of his chaplains in ordinary, and in 1627 advanced him to the dignity of dean, of Christ Church. At this time he was doctor in divinity, vicar of Cassington near Woodstock, in Oxfordshire, and prebendary of Bedminster Secunda in the church of Sarum.

On the 30th of July, 1629, he was promoted to the see of Oxford, and on the 7th. of April 1632 was translated to that of Norwich. He married, probably, before this time, Alice, the daughter of Dr. Leonard Hutton, vicar of Flower, or Flore, in Northamptonshire, who had been his contemporary at the university, and with whom he appears to have renewed his acquaintance during his Iter Boreale. By this wife he had a son, named after his grandfather, Vincent, to whom he addresses some lines of parental advice and good wishes. Of the rest of his life little can be now recovered. He died July 28, 1635, and was buried at the upper end of the choir of the cathedral church of Norwich. Besides his son Vincent, he had a daughter named Alice. They were both living in 1642, when their grandmother, Anne Hutton, made her will, and the son administered to it in 1648, but no memorial can be found of their future history. It would appear that his wife died before him, as in his will he committed his children to the care of their grandmother.

His most accurate biographer, Mr. Gilchrist, to whom, this sketch is greatly indebted, has collected many particulars illustrative of his character, which are, upon the whole, favourable. Living in turbulent times, when the church was assailed from every quarter, he conducted himself with great moderation towards the recusants, or puritans; and although he could not disobey, yet contrived to soften by a gracious pleasantry of manner, the harsher orders received from the metropolitan Laud. In his principles he inclined to the Arminianism of Laud, in opposition to the Calvinism of his predecessor, archbishop Abbot; and it is evident from his poems, entertained a hearty contempt for the puritans, who, however, could not reproach him for persecution. As he published no theological works we are unable to judge of his talents in his proper profession, but his munificence in matters which regarded the church has been justly extolled. When St. Paul’s cathedral stood in need of repairs, he not only contributed four hundred pounds from his own purse, but dispersed an epistle to the clergy of his diocese, soliciting their assistance. This epistle, which Mr. Gilchrist has published, is highly characteristic of his propensity to humour, as well as of the quaint and quibbling style of his age.

, a man of wit and learning of the sixteenth century, was born of an illustrious family at Florence. He went into France in the reign of Catherine de Medicis; and that queen, to whom he had the honour of being allied, placed him with her son, the duke of Anjou, as a man of learning, and a good counsellor. Corbinelli paid his court without servility, and was compared to those ancient Romans who were full of integrity, and incapable of baseness. Chancellor de l'Hospital had a high esteem for him. He was a professed friend and patron of the learned, and frequently printed their works at his own expence, adding notes to them, as he did to Fra. Paolo del Rosso’s poem, entitled “La Fisica,” Paris, 1578, 8vo; and to Dante, “De Vulgari Eloquentia,” 1577, 8vo. Corbinelli was also a man of great courage and resolution, address and intrigue. He wrote down every thing which he heard, while Henry IV. was at the gates of Paris, and carried the paper to him openly, as if it had contained only common affairs, or causes. His easy and confident appearance deceived the guard^ who were placed at the gates; and, as he seemed to trust every body, no body mistrusted him. Raphael Corbinelli, his son, was secretary to queen Mary de Medicis, and father of M. Corbinelli, who died at Paris, June 19, 1716. This last was one of the most distinguished beaux esprits of France; and a man of strict honour and integrity, who was a welcome guest in the best companies. A report prevailing that at one of those social suppers which were given by the princes and princesses, who were Mad. de Maintenon’s enemies, all the other party had been lampooned, it was thought that some particulars might be known from Corbinelli, who was present. M. d'Argenson, lieutenant of the police, accordingly visited the gouty epicurean, and asked him “where he supped such a day” “I think I do not remember,” replied Corbinelli, yawning. “Are you not acquainted with such and such princes” “I forget.” “Have you not supped with them” “I remember nothing of it.” “But I think such a man as you ought to remember things of this kind.” “Yes, sir; but in the presence of such a man as you, I am not such a man as myself.” He left “Les anciens Historiens Latins reduits en Maximes,” with a preface, which was attributed to P. Bouhours, printed 1694, 12mb; “Hist, genealogique de la Maison de Gondi,” Paris, 1705, 2 vols. 4to, and other works.

, in Latin Corderius, lived in the sixteenth century, and was an eminent teacher. He understood the Latin tongue critically, was a man of virtue, and performed his functions with the utmost diligence, mixing moral with literary instruction. He spent his long life in teaching children at Paris, Nevers, Bordeaux, Geneva, Neufchastel, Lausanne, and lastly again at Geneva, where he died September the 8th, 1564, at the age of eighty-five, having continued his labours until three or four days before his death. He studied divinity for some time at Paris in the college of Navarre, about the year 1528, after he had taught a form in the same college but he left off that study in order to apply himself to his former functions of a grammarian. He had taught at Nevers in 1534, 1535, and 1536. Calvin, who had been his scholar at Paris in the college de la Marche, dedicated his Commentary on the 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians to him. It is not exactly known of what province Mathurin Cordier was; some say he was born in Normandy; others pretend he was born in the earldom of Perche. He published several books for the use of schools, among which were, 1. “Epistres Chrestiennes,” Lyons, 1557, 16to. 2. “Sentences extraictes de la Saincte Escriture pour Tinstruction des Enfans,” Latin and French, 1551. 3. “Cantiques spirituels en nombre 26,” 1560. 4. “Le Miroir de la Jeunesse, pour la former a bonnes mceurs, et civilite de la vie,” Paris, 16to. 5. “L‘ Interpretation et construction en Francois des distiques Latins, qu’on attribue a Caton,” Lyons, 8vo, and since, perhaps, above an hundred times. His “Colloquia” have long been used in schools, and have been printed, says Bayle, a thousand times.

The performance and compositions of this admirable musician, says Dr. Burney, form an sera in instrumental music, particularly for the violin, and its kindred instruments, the tenor and violoncello, which he made respectable, and fixed their use and reputation, in all probability, as long as the present system of music shall continue to delight the ears of mankind. Indeed, this most excellent master had the happiness of enjoying part of his fame during mortality; for scarce a contemporary musical writer, historian, or poet, neglected to celebrate his genius and talents; and his productions have contributed longer to charm the lovers of music by the mere powers of the bow, without the assistance of the human voice, than tho.se of any composer that has yet existed. Haydn, indeed, with more varied abilities, and a much more creative genius, when instruments of all kinds are better understood, has captivated the musical world in perhaps a still higher degree; but whether the duration of his favour will be equal to that of Corelli, who reigned supreme in all concerts, and excited undiminished rapture full half a century, must be left to the determination of time, and the encreased rage of depraved appetites for novelty.

The concluding remarks of the same learned critic are too ingenious to be omitted. There was, he observes, little or no melody in instrumental music before Corelli' s time. And though he has much more grace and elegance in his cantilena than his predecessors, and slow and solemn movements abound in his works; yet true pathetic and impassioned melody and modulation seem wanting in them all. He appears to have been gifted with no uncommon powers of execution; yet, with all his purity and simplicity, he condescended to aim at difficulty, and manifestly did all he could in rapidity of finger and bow, in the long unmeaning allegros of his first, third, and sixth solos; where, for two whole pages together, common chords are broken into common divisions, all of one kind and colour, which nothing but the playing with great velocity and neatness could ever render tolerable. But like some characters and indecorous scenes in our best old plays, these have been long omitted in performance. Indeed his knowledge of the power of the bow, in varying the expression of the same notes, was very much limited. Veracini and Tartini greatly extended these powers; and we well remember our pleasure and astonishment in hearing Giardini, in a solo that he performed at the oratorio, 1769, play an air at the end of it with variations, in which, by repeating each strain with different bowing, without changing a single note in the melody, he gave it all the effect and novelty of a new variation of the passages.

However, if we recollect that some of Corelli’s works are now more than a hundred years old, we shall wonder at their grace and elegance; which can only be accounted for on the principle of ease and simplicity. Purcell, who composed for ignorant and clumsy performers, was obliged to write down all the fashionable graces and embellishments of the times, on which account his music soon became obsolete and old-fashioned; whereas the plainness and simplicity of Corelli have given longevity to his works, which can always be modernised by a judicious performer, with very few changes or embellishments. And, indeed, Corelli’s productions continued longer in unfading favour in England than in his own country, or in any other part of Europe; and have since only given way to the more fanciful compositions of the two Martini’s, Zanesti, Campioni, Giardini, Bach, Abel, Schwindl, Boccherini, Stamitz, Haydn, Mozart, and Pleyel.

, a late celebrated improvisatrice, was born at Pistoia in 1740, and gave, in her infancy, the most unequivocal marks of uncommon genius; and her acquirements in natural and moral philosophy, and ancient and modern history, were at the age of seventeen very remarkable. At the age of twenty she began to display that talent for extempore composition which is so common in Italy, and so uncommon elsewhere as to be questioned. Of this lady’s abilities, however, we are not permitted to doubt, if we give any credit to the popularity she gained among all classes, and especially among persons of the highest rank. The empress Maria Theresa offered her the place of female poet laureat at court, which she accepted, And went to Vienna in 1765. Previously to this she had married signer Morelli, a gentleman of Leghorn; but her conduct after marriage became grossly licentious, a circumstance which does not appear to have diminished the respect paid to her by all ranks. At Vienna, she wrote an epic poem and a volume of lyric poetry, both which she dedicated to the empress. She attracted the enthusiastic admiration of Metastasio himself, and rendered the taste for Italian poetry more predominant than it had ever been in Vienna. Soon after 1771, she settled in Rome, was admitted a member of the academy of the Arcadi, under the name of Gorilla Olympica, and for some years continued to charm the inhabitants of Rome by her talents in improvisation. At length when Pius VI. became pope, he determined that she should be solemnly crowned, an honour which had been granted to Petrarch only. An account of this singular transaction, beautifully printed at Parma, by Bodoni, in 1779, contains her diploma and all the discourses, poems, sonnets, &c. written on the occasion, with the examination which she underwent, concerning her knowledge of the most important subjects upon which she was required to Improvisare, or treat extemporaneously, in verse publicly at the Campidoglio in Rome. The Italian title of this narrative is, “Atti della solenne coronazione fatta in Campidoglio della insigne poetesia D-na. Maria Maddalena Morelli Fernandez Pistoiese, Tragli Arcadi Gorilla Olimpica.” Twelve members of the Arcadian academy were selected out of thirty, publicly to examine this new edition of a Tenth Muse which has been so often dedicated to ladies of poetical and literary talents. Three several days were allotted for this public exhibition of poetical powers on the following subjects: sacred history, revealed religion, moral philosophy, natural history, metaphysics, epic poetry, legislation, eloquence, mythology, fine arts, and pastoral poetry.

, orHAGUENBOT (John), a celebrated German physician, was born at Zwickaw in Saxony in 1500. His preceptor made him change his name of Haguenbot, or Haubut, to that of Cornarius, but such changes were frequently voluntary. In his twentieth year, he taught grammar and explained the Greek and Latin poets and orators to his scholars, and two years after was admitted licentiate in medicine. He found fault with most of the remedies provided by the apothecaries; and observing, that the greatest part of the physicians taught their pupils only what is to be found in Avicenna, Rasis, and the other Arabian physicians, he carefully sought for the writings of the best physicians of Greece, and employed about fifteen years in translating them into Latin, especially the works of Hippocrates, Aetius, Eginetes, and a part of those of Galen. Meanwhile he practised physic with reputation at Zwickaw, Francfort, Marpurg, Nordhausen, and Jena, where he died of an apoplexy, March 16, 1558. He also wrote some medical treatises; published editions of some poems of the ancients on medicine and botany; and translated some of the works of the fathers, particularly those of Basil, and a part of those of Epiphanius. His translations are now little consulted, but they undoubtedly contributed to lessen the difficulties of his successors in the same branch of useful labour.

Some sensualists, as it appears, had objected to his manner of living; and in order to evince the reasonableness of their own, had urged, that it was not worth while to mortify one’s appetites at such a rate, for the sake of being old since all that was life, after the age of sixty-five, could not properly be called vita viva, sed vita mortua not a living life, but a dead life. “Now,” says he, “to shew these gentlemen how much they are mistaken, I will briefly run over the satisfactions and pleasures which I myself now enjoy in this eighty-third year of my age. In the first place I am always well; and so active withal, that I can with ease mount a horse upon a flat, and walk to the tops of very high mountains. In the next place I am always cheerful, pleasant, perfectly contented, and free from all perturbation, and every uneasy thought. I have none of that fastidium vita?, that satiety of life, so often to be met with in persons of my age. I frequently converse with men of parts and learning, and spend much of my time in reading and writing. These things I do, just as opportunity serves, or my humour invites me; and all in my own house here at Padua, which, I may say, is as commodious and elegant a seat, as any perhaps that this age can shew; built by me according to the exact proportions of architecture, and so contrived as to be an equal shelter against heat and cold. I enjoy at proper intervals my gardens, of which I have many, whose borders are refreshed with streams of running water. I spend some months in the year at those Eugancan hills, where I have another commodious house with gardens and fountains: and I visit also a seat I have in the valley, which abounds in beauties, from the many structures, woods, and rivulets that encompass it. I frequently make excursions to some of the neighbouring cities, for the sake of seeing my friends, and conversing with the adepts in all arts and sciences: architects, painters, statuaries, musicians, and even husbandmen. I contemplate their works, compare them with the ancients, and am always learning something, which it is agreeable to know. I take a view of palaces, gardens, antiquities, public buildings, temples, fortifications: and nothing escapes me, which can afford the least amusement to a rational mind. Nor are these pleasures at all blunted by the usual imperfections of great age: for I enjoy all my senses in perfect vigour; my taste so very much, that I have a better relish for the plainest food now, than I had for the choicest delicacies, when formerly immersed in a life oi luxury. Nay, to let you see what a portion of fire and spirit I have still left within me, know, that I have this very year written a comedy, full of innocent mirth and pleasantry; and, if a Greek poet was thought so very healthy and happy, for writing a tragedy at the age of 73, why should not I be thought as healthy and as happy, who have written a comedy, when I am ten years older? In short, that no pleasure whatever may be wanting to my old age, I please myself daily with contemplating that immortality, which I think I see in the succession of my posterity. For every time I return home, I meet eleven grandchildren, all the offspring of one father and mother; all in fine health; all, as far as I can discern, apt to learn, and of good behaviour. I am often amused by their singing; nay, I often sing with them, because my voice is louder and clearer now, than ever it was in my life before. These are the delights and comforts of my old age; from which, I presume, it appears, that the life I spend is not a dead, morose, and melancholy life, but a living, active, pleasant life, which I would not change with the robustest of those youths who indulge and riot in all the luxury of the senses, because I know them to be exposed to a thousand diseases, and a thousand kinds of deaths. I, on the contrary, am free from all such apprehensions: from the apprehension of disease, because I have nothing for disease to feed upon; from the apprehension of death, because I have spent a life of reason. Besides, death, I am persuaded, is not yet near me. I know that (barring accidents) no violent disease can touch me. I must be dissolved by a gentle and gradual decay, when the radical humour is consumed like oil in a lamp, which affords no longer life to the dying taper. But such a death as this cannot happen of a sudden. To become unable to walk and reason, to become blind, deaf, and bent to the earth, from all which evils I am far enough at present, must take a considerable portion of time: andI verily believe, that this immortal soul, which still inhabits my body with so much harmony and complacency, will not easily depart from it yet. I verily believe that I have many years to live, many years to enjoy the world and all the good that is in it; by virtue of that strict sobriety and temperan-ce, which I have so loug and so religiously observed; friend as I am to reason, but a foe to sense.” His wife, who survived him, lived also to nearly the same age. Sir John Sinclair, in his “Code of Health and Longevity,” mentions the edition of 1779 as the best English translation of Cornaro’s works. There are four discourses on one subject, penned at different times; the first, already mentioned, which he wrote at the age of eighty-three, in which he declares war against every kind of intemperance. The second was composed three years after, and contains directions for repairing a bad constitution. The third he wrote when he was ninety-one, entitled “An earnest exhortation to a sober life;” and the last is a letter to Barbaro, patriarch of Aquileia, written when he was ninety-five, which contains a lively description of the htalth, vigour, and perfect use of all his faculties, which he had the happiness of enjoying at that advanced period of life.

, a learned Venetian lady, born in 1646, was the daughter of Gio Baptista Cornaro, and educated in a very different manner from the generality of her sex, being taught languages and sciences, and all the philosophy of the schools. After having studied many years, she took her degrees at Padua, and was perhaps the first lady that ever was made a doctor. She was also admitted of the university of Rome, wherei she had the title of Humble given her, as she had at Padua that of Unalterable, titles which she is said to have deserved, because her learning had not inspired her with vanity, nor was any thing capable of disturbing her train of thought. With all this, however, she was not free from the weaknesses of her religion, and the age in which she lived. She early made a vow of perpetual virginity; and though all means were used to persuade her to marry, and even a dispensation with her vow obtained from the pope, yet she remained immoveable. It is affirmed, that not believing the perpetual study to which she devoted herself, and which shortened her days, sufficient to mortify the flesh, she addicted herself to other superstitious restraints, fasted often, and spent her whole time either in study or devotion, except those few hours when she was obliged to receive visits. All people of quality and fashion, who passed through Venice, were more solicitous to see her, than any of the curiosities of that superb city. The cardinals de Bouillon and D'Etrees, in passing through Italy, were commanded by the king of France, to examine whether what some said of her was true and their report was that her parts and learning were equal to her high reputation. At length her incessant study of books, particularly such as were in Greek and Hebrew, impaired her constU tution so much, that she fell into an illness, of which she died in 1685. We are told that she had notice of her death a year before it happened, and that, talking one day to her father of an old cypress-tree in his garden, she advised him to cut it down, since it would do well to make her a coffin.

, an Italian poet, was born at Placentia, and flourished in the fifteenth century, but we have no dates of his birth or death. He passed some part of his life at Milan, and afterwards travelled into France; and on his return he went to Ferrara, where he remained until his death, patronized by the duke Hercules I. who had a high regard for him. Some of his biographers inform us that he served under the celebrated Venetian general, Bartholomew Coglioni, of whom he has left a life, in Latin, published by Burman. He left also a great many other works, the most considerable of which is an Italian poem, in nine books, on the military art, with the Latin title of “De Re Militari,” Venice, 1493, fol.; Pesaro, 1507, 8vo, &c. He has likewise given Latin titles to his three small poems, on the art of governing, the vicissitudes of fortune, and on the ablest generals: these were published at Venice, 1517, 8vo, but are rather dull and uninviting. His “Lyric poems,” sonnets, canzoni, &c. were published at Venice, 1502, 8vo, and Milan, 1519. In these we find a little more spirit and vivacity, but they partake of the poetical character of his time. Quadrio, however, ranks them among the best in the Italian language.

, born at Paris in 1642, was one of those eminent painters who adorned the age of Louis XIV. His father, who was himself a painter of merit, instructed him with much care. Having gained a prize at the academy, young Corneille was honoured with the king’s pension, and sent to Rome; where the princely generosity of Louis had founded a school for young artists of genius. Here he studied some time; but thinking himself under restraint to the routine of study there established, he gave up his pension, and pursued a plan more suitable to his own inclination. He applied himself to the antique particularly with great care; and in drawing is said to have equalled Carache. In colouring he was deficient; but his advocates say, his deficiency in that respect was solely owing to his having been unacquainted with the nature of colours; for he used many of a changeable nature, which in time lost their effect. Upon his return from Rome, he was chosen a professor in the academy or' Paris; and was employed by the king in all the great works he was carrying on at Versailles and Trianon, where some noble efforts of his genius are to be seen. He died at Paris in 1708.

, one of the most celebrated French poets, and called by his countrymen the Shakspeare of France, was born at Roan, June 6, 1606, of considerable parents, his father having been ennobled for his services by Louis XIII. He was brought up to the bar, which he attended some little time; but having no turn for business, he soon deserted it. At this time he had given the public no specimen of his talents for poetry, nor appears to have been conscious of possessing any such: and they tell us, that it was purely a trifling affair of gallantry, which gave occasion to his first comedy, called “Melite.” The drama was then extremely low among the French; their tragedy fiat and languid, their comedy more barbarous than the lowest of the vulgar would now tolerate. Corneille was astonished to find himself the author of a piece entirely new, and at the prodigious success with which his “Melite” was acted. The French theatre seemed to be raised, and to flourish at once; and though deserted in a manner before, was now filled on a sudden with a new company of actors. After so happy an essay, he continued to produce several other pieces of the same kind; all of them, indeed, inferior to what he afterwards wrote, but much superior to any thing which the French had hitherto seen. His “Medea” came forth next, a tragedy, borrowed in part from Seneca, which succeeded, as indeed it deserved, bul indifferently; but in 1637 he presented the “Cid,” another tragedy, in which he shewed the world how high his genius was capable of rising, and seems to confirm Du Bos’s assertion, that the age of thirty, or a few years more or less, is that at which poets and painters arrive at as high a pitch of perfection as their geniuses will permit. All Europe has seen the Cid: it has been translated into almost all languages: but the reputation which he acquired by this play, drew all the wits of his time into a confederacy against it. Some treated it contemptuously, others wrote against it. Cardinal de Richelieu himself is said to have been one of this cabal; for, not content with passing for a great minister of state, he affected to pass for a wit and a critic; and, therefore, though he had settled a pension upon the poet, could not abstain from secret attempts against his play . It was supposed to be under his influence that the French Academy drew up that critique upon it, entitled, “Sentiments of the French academy upon the tragi-comedy of Cid:” in which, however, while they censured some parts, they did not scruple to praise it very highly in others. Corneille now endeavoured to support the vast reputation he had gained, by many admirable performances in succession, which, as Bayle observes, “carried the French theatre to its highest pitch of glory, and assuredly much higher than the ancient one at Athens;” yet still, at this time, he had to contend with the bad taste of the most fashionable wits. When he read his “Polyeucte,” one of his best tragedies, before a company of these, where Voiture presided, it was very coldly received; and Voiture afterwards told him, it was the opinion of his friends that the piece would not succeed. In 1647 he was chosen a member of the French academy; and was what they call dean of that society at the time of his death, which happened in 1684, in his 79th year.

, the eldest son of Charles fifth lord and first earl Cornwailis, by Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Charles, second viscount Townsend, was born Dec. 31, 1738, and educated at Eton, and at St. John’s college, Cambridge. Preferring a military life, he was, in August 1765, appointed aid-de-camp to the king, with the rank of colonel of foot. In Sept. 1775 y he became major-general; in August, 1777, lieutenantgeneral; and in October, 1793, general. He represented, in, two parliaments, the borough of Eye, in Suffolk, until he succeeded his father in the peerage, June 23, 1762. In parliament, he was not a frequent or distinguished speaker. In the house of peers he appears to have been rather favourable to the claims of the American colonies, which, however, when they came to an open rupture with the mother country, did not prevent him from accepting a command in America, where he distinguished himself at the battle of Brandywine, in 1777, and afterwards at the siege of Charlestown, and was left in the command of South Carolina, where his administration was commended for its wisdom. He was soon obliged to take the field, and obtained the decisive victory of Camden, and was next victorious at Guildford, but not without a considerable loss of men. His plan of invading Virginia, in 1781, was of more doubtful prudence, and ended in his capture, with his whole army of four thousand men. Thus defeated, he laid the blame on the failure of expected succour from sir Henry Clinton, who in return equally blamed both the scheme and its conduct, and several pamphlets were published by both these commanders, into the merits of which we cannot pretend to enter. It is sufficient for our purpose to be able to add, that lord Cornwailis lost no reputation by this misfortune, either for skill or courage.

, a celebrated geographer of the Minime order, and a most laborious and voluminous compiler, was born at Venice, and admitted doctor at the age of 24. Becoming known to cardinal d'Estrees by his skill in mathematics, he was employed by his eminence to make globes for Louis XIV. He staid some time at Paris for that purpose, and left many globes there, which were at that time much esteemed. Coronelli was appointed cosmographer to the republic of Venice in 1685, and public professor of geography in 1689. He afterwards became definitor-general of his order, and general May 14, 1702. After founding a cosmographical academy at Venice, he died in that city, December 1718, leaving above four hundred maps. His publications were so numerous as to fill about thirty volumes, most of them in folio. Among these are, 1. “Atlante Veneto,” 4 vols. folio, Venice, 1691. 2. “Ritratti de celebri personaggi dell 1 academia cosmografica, &.c.” Venice, 1697, folio. 3. “Specchio del mare Mediterraneo,” ibid, 1698, folio. 4. “Bibliotheca universalis,” or an universal Dictionary, an immense undertaking, to be extended to forty-five folio volumes. All the accounts we have of Coronelli differing, we know not how far he had proceeded in this work. Moreri says he had published seven volumes; but an extract from some foreign journal, in the “Memoirs of Literature,” states that, in 1709, eighteen volumes had appeared, which went no farther than the word Cavalieri, in letter C. We doubt, therefore, if the author could have compressed his materials in 45. That he should entertain a favourable opinion of his labours, and predict that all other dictionaries must sink before his, and that he should exult in the idea of leaving behind him the largest compilation ever made, is not surprizing: we are more disposed to wonder at the spirit of literary enterprize among the printers and booksellers in those clays, which encouraged such undertakings.

, the son of Ant. Corranus, LL.D. was born at Seville, in Spain, in 1527, and educated for the Roman Catholic church; but being afterwards desirous of embracing the reformed religion, became to England in 1570, and being admitted into the English church, became a frequent preacher. In 1571 he was made reader of divinity in the Temple, by the interest of Dr. Edwin Sandys, bishop of London, and continued in that office about three years. In the beginning of March 1575, he was recommended to the university of Oxford for a doctor’s degree, by their chancellor, the earl of Leicester; but doubts being raised as to the soundness of his principles on certain contested points, his degree was refused until he should give full satisfaction, which he probably did, although the matter is not upon record. At Oxford he became reader of divinity to the students in Gloucester, St. Mary’s, and Hart-hail, and resided as a student of Christchurch, holding at the same time the prebend of Harleston in St. Paul’s. He died at London in March 1591, and was buried either at St. Andrew’s, Hoiborn, or St. Andrew Wardrobe. His works are, 1. “An Epistle to the pastors of the Flemish church at Antwerp,” originally written in Latin, Lond. 1570, 8vo. 2. “Tabulae Divinorum operum, de humani generis creatione,” 1574, 8vo; and afterwards published in English. 3. “Dialogus Theologicus,” an explanation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, collected from his lectures, 1574, 8vo; also translated, 1579. 4. “Supplication to the king of Spain,” respecting the protestants in the Low Countries, 1577, 8vo, published in Latin, French, and English. 5. “Notsc in concionem Solomonis” i. e. Ecclesiastes, 1579 and 1581, 8vo and again, by Scultetus, in 1618. 6. “Sermons on Ecclesiastes,” abridged by Thomas Pitt, Oxon. 1585, 8vo, probably an abridgement of the preceding. 7. “A Spanish grammar, with certain rules for teaching both the Spanish and French tongues,” translated into English by Thorius. Lond. 1590, 4to.

, sometimes called Laeti, an eminent historical painter, was born in 1490* or 1494. Being descended of poor parents, and educated in an obscure village, he enjoyed none of those advantages which contributed to form the other great painters of that illustrious age. He saw none of the statues of ancient Greece or Rome; nor any of the works of the established schools of Rome and Venice. But nature was his guide; and Corregio was one of her favourite pupils. To express the facility with which he painted, he used to say that he always had his thoughts ready at the end of his pencil.

ther he was horn in 1490, or 1494, is vol. II. of his works, published by Ninot ascertainedthe time of his death, cole d'Azara. in 1534, is more certain. The best temporaries and successors. Annibal Caracci, who flourished fifty years after him, studied and adopted his manner in preference to that of any other master. In a letter to his cousin Louis, he expresses with great warmth the impression which was made on him by the first sight of Corregio’s paintings tf Every thing which I see here,“says he,” astonishes me particularly the colouring and the beauty of the children. They live they breathe They smile with so much grace and so much reality, that it is impossible to refrain from smiling and partaking of their enjoyment. My heart is ready to break with grief when I think on the unhappy fate of poor Corregio-^-that so wonderful a man (if he ought not rather to be called an angel) should finish his days so miserably in a country where his talents were never known!"

From want of curiosity or of resolution, or from want of patronage, Corregio never visited Rome, but remained his whole life at Parma, where the art of painting was little esteemed, and of consequence poorly rewarded. This concurrence of unfavourable circumstances occasioned at last his premature death, at the age of forty. He was employed to paint the cupola of the cathedral at Parma, the subject of which is an “Assumption of the Virgin;” and having executed it in a manner that has long been the admiration of every person of good taste, for the grandeur of design, and especially for the boldness of the fore-shortenings (an art which he first and at once brought to the utmost perfection), he went to receive his payment. The canons of the church, either through ignorance or baseness, found fault with his work; and although the price originally agreed upon had been very moderate, they aU ledged that it was far above the merit of the artist, and forced him to accept of the paltry sum of 200 livres; which, to add to the indignity, they paid him in copper money. To carry home this unworthy load to his indigent wife and children, poor Corregio had to travel six or eight miles from Parma. The weight of his burden, the heat of the weather, and his chagrin at this treatment, threw him into a pleurisy, which in three days put an end to his life and his misfortunes in 1534.

Dufresnoy says of this artist, that he “struck out certain natural and unaffected graces for his Madonnas, his saints, and little children, which were peculiar to himself. His manner, design, and execution, are all very great, but yet without correctness. He had a most free and delightful pencil; and it is to be acknowledged, that he painted with a strength, relief, sweetness, and vivacity of colouring, which nothing ever exceeded. He understood how to distribute his lights in such a manner, as was wholly peculiar to himself, which gave a great force and great roundness to his figures. This manner consists in extending a large light, and then making it lose itself insensibly in the dark shadowings, which he placed out of the masses: and those give them this relief, without our being able to perceive from whence proceeds so much effect, and so vast a pleasure to the sight. It appears that in this part the rest of the Lombard school copied him. He had no great choice of graceful attitudes, or distribution of beautiful groupes. His design often appears lame, and his positions not well chosen: the look of his figures is often unpleasing; but his manner of designing heads, hands, feet, and other parts, is very great, and well deserves our imitation. In the conduct and finishing of a picture he has done wonders; for he painted with so much union, that his greatest works seem to have been finished in the compass of one day, and appear as if we saw them in a looking-glass. His landscape is equally beautiful with his figures.”

Mr. Fuseli’s opinion of Corregio may with great propriety close these criticisms. “Another charm,” says the professor, “was yet wanting to complete the round of art harmony. It appeared with Antonio Laeti, called Corregio, whose works it attended like an enchanted spirit. The harmony and the grace of Corregio are proverbial: the medium which by breadth of gradation unites two opposite principles, the coalition of light and darkness, by imperceptible transition, are the element of his style. This inspires his figures with grace, to this their grace is subordinate: the most appropriate, the most elegant attitudes were adopted, rejected, perhaps sacrificed to the most aukvvard ones, in compliance with this imperious principle: parts vanished, were absorbed, or emerged in obedience to it. This unison of a whole, predominates over all that remains of him, from the vastness of his cupolas to the smallest of his oil-pictures. The harmony of Corregio, though assisted by exquisite hues, was entirely independent of colour: his great organ was chiaroscuro in its most extensive sense: compared with the expanse in which he floats, the effects of Lionarda da Vinci are little more than the dying ray of evening, and the concentrated flash of Giorgione discordant abruptness. The bland central light of a globe, imperceptibly gliding through lucid demitints into rich reflected shades, composes the spell of Corregio, and affects us with the soft emotions of a delicious dream.”

Of Corregio’s best oil-pictures, Italy has been deprived by purchase or by spoil. Dresden possesses the celebrated “Night,” or rather “Dawn” the “Magdalen reading” and a few more of less excellence, or less authentic character. The two allegoric pictures, called “Leda and Danae,” once in the possession of queen Christina, migrated to France, and with the picture of lo, were mangled or destroyed by bigotry. A duplicate of the lo, and a “Rape of Ganymede” are at Vienna. Spain possesses “Christ praying in the Garden,” and “Mercury teaching Cupid to. read in the presence of Venus.” To the “Sposalizio of St. Catharine,” which France possessed before, the spoils of the revolution have added the “St. Jerome with the Magdalen,” the “Madonna della Scudella,” the “Descent from the Cross,” and the “Martyrdom of St. Placido,” from Parma.

, a celebrated engraver, was born at Hoorn in Holland in 1536. After having learned the-first principles of drawing and engraving, he went to Italy to complete his studies, and visited all the places famous for the works of the great masters. At Venice he was courteously received by Titian; and engraved several plates from the pictures of that admirable painter. He at last settled at Rome, where he died, 1578, aged forty -two. According to Basan, he was the best engraver with the burin or graver only that Holland ever produced. “We find in his prints,” adds he, “correctness of drawing, and an exquisite taste.” He praises also the taste and lightness of touch with which he engraved landscapes, and that without the assistance of the point. It is no small honour to this artist, that Agostino Carracci was his scholar, and imitated his style of engraving rather than that of any other master. His engravings are very numerous (151 according to abbe Marolles), and by no means uncommon.

, a Spanish commander, famous under the emperor Charles V. for the conquest of Mexico, was born at Medellin in Estremadura, in 1485. His parents intended him for study, but his dissipated habits and overbearing temper made his father willing to gratify his inclination by sending him abroad as an adventurer. Accordingly he passed over to the Indies in 1504, continued some time at St. Domingo, and then went to the isle of Cuba. He so distinguished himself by his exploits, that Velasquez, governor of Cuba, made him captain general of the army which he destined for the discovery of new countries. Cortes sailed from San-Iago Nov. 13, 1518, stationed his little army at the Havannah, and arrived the year after at Tabasco in Mexico. He conquered the Indians, founded Vera-Cruz, reduced the province of TJascala, and marched directly to Mexico, the capital of the empire. Montezuma, the emperor of the Mexicans, was constrained to receive him, and thus became a prisoner in his own capital: and Cortes not only demanded immense monies of him, but obliged him to submit all his states to Charles V. Meanwhile Velasquez, growing jealous of this success, resolved to traverse the operations of Cortes, and with this view sent a fleet of 12 ships against him: but Cortes already distrasted him; and, having obtained new succours from the Spaniards, made himself master of all Mexico, and detained as prisoner Guatimosin, the successor of Montezuma, and last emperor of the Mexicans. This was accomplished Aug. 13, 1521. Charles V. rewarded these services with the valley of Guaxaca in Mexico, which Cortes erected into a marquisate. He afterwards returned to Spain, where he was not received with the gratitude he expected, and where he died in 1554, aged sixty-three. Many have written the history of this “Conquest of Mexico,” and particularly Antonio de Solis, whose work has been translated into many other languages besides the English, and Clavigero; and in 1800 a very interesting work was published entitled “The true History of the Conquest of Mexico, by captain Bernal Diaz del Castello, one of the conquerors, written in 1568, and translated from the original Spanish, by Maurice Keatinge, esq.” 4to. Dr. Robertson, in his history of America, has given a long life of Cortes, which, we are sorry to add, does more honour to his pen than to his judgment or humanity. It is a laboured defence of cruelties that are indefensible, and is calculated to present to the reader the idea of a magnanimous and politic hero, instead of an insatiate invader and usurper more barbarous than those he conquered; a murderer, who appears, like his historians in modern times, to have been perfectly insensible to the true character of the victories which accompanied his arms. From his correspondence with the emperor Charles V. published at Paris in 1778, by the viscount de Flavigny, it appears that this insensibility was so great in himself, that in his account of his exploits he neither altered facts, nor modified circumstances, to redeem his name from the execration of succeeding ages. “His accounts of murders, assassinations, and perfidious stratagems, his enumeration of the victims that fell in Mexico, to the thirst of gold, covered with the bloody veil of religion, are,” says a judicious writer, “minute, accurate, infernal.” To these works, and to the general history of Mexico, we refer for that evidence by which the merit of Cortes may be more justly appreciated than by some of his late biographers.

, called Borgognone, was a Jesuit, born in Franche Comte, 1621, who carried the art of battle-painting to a degree unknown before or after him. M. A. Cerquozzi himself did justice to his power, and dissuading him from the pursuit of other branches of painting, fixed him to that in which he could not but perceive that Cortesi would be his superior rather than his rival. The great model on which he formed himself was the “Battle of Constantine” in the Vatican. He had been a soldier, and neither the silence of Rome, nor the repose of the convent, could lay his military ardour, He has personified courage in attack or defence, and it has been said that his pictures sound with the shouts of war, the neighing of horses, the cries of the wounded His manner pf painting was rapid, in strokes, and full of colour; hence its effect is improved by distance. His style was his own, though it may have been invigorated by his attention to the works of Paolo at Venice, and his intercourse with Gnido at Bologna. He died in 1676, leaving a brother William Cortesi, like him called Borgognone, who was the scholar of Pietro da Cortona, though not his imitator. He adhered to Maratta in the choice and variety of his heads, and a certain modesty of composition, but differed from him in his style of drapery and colour, which has something of Flemish transparence his brother, whom he often assisted, likewise contributed to form his manner. A Crucifixion in the church of St. Andrea on Monte Cavallo, and the Battle of Joshua in the palace of the Q.uirinal, by his hand, deserve to be seen.* He died in 1679, aged 51. The brothers are both mentioned by Strutt as having etched some pieces.

, a Latin poet of some note in his day, was born in the parish of St. Thomas, in Salisbury. He received his education at Winchester-school, and in the year 1562 was admitted perpetual fellow of New college, Oxford. In the year 1566, on queen Elizabeth’s visiting the university, he, together with W. Reynolds, bachelor of arts, received her majesty and her train at New college; on which occasion he pronounced an oration, for which he received great praises and a handsome purse of gold. He afterwards took his degree in arts, and, in June 1570, became rector of Odcombe on the death of Thomas Reade, and some time after, bachelor of divinity. In the year 1594, he was appointed prebendary of Warthill, in the cathedral church of York, and also held some other dignity, but what we are not informed. He died at the parsonage-house at Odcombe, on the 4th of March, 1606. It is asserted that his son, the celebrated traveller, agreeably to his whimsical character, entertained a design of preserving his body from stench and putrefaction, and with that view caused it to be kept above ground until the 14th of April following, when it was buried in the chancel of the church of Odcombe. George Cory ate was much commended in his time for his fine fancy in Latin poetry; and for certain pieces which he had written was honourably quoted by several eminent writers. The only pieces Mr. Wood had seen of his composition were, 1. “Poemata varia Latina,” London, 1611, 4to, published by his son after his death, and by him entitled “Posthuxna fragmenta Poematum Georgii Coryate.” 2. “Descriptio Anglise, Scotiæ, et Hiberniæ,” written in Latin verse, and dedicated to queen Elizabeth, but it does not appear that this piece was ever printed. In 1763, James Liunley Kingston, esq. of Dorchester, published, from a ms. found amongst the papers belonging to a considerable family in one of the western counties, a Latin poem, which appears to have been written in the reign of queen Elizabeth, entitled “Descriptio Angli.se et Descriptio Londini,” being two poems in Latin verse, supposed to be written in the fifteenth century. This pamphlet Mr. Gough thinks may be part of the poem noticed by Mr. Wood. The mention of only fifteen colleges at Oxford, fixes the date of the verses before the year 1571. Mr. Coryate’s wife, Gertrude, outlived her husband and son many years, and resided at Odcombe or near it until her death. Dr. Humphry Hody, a native of that place, informed Mr. Wood, that she was buried near the remains of her husband on the 3d of April, 1645. It appears that after her husband’s death she married a second time.

, the eccentric son of the preceding, was born at Odcombe, in 1577. He was first educated at Westminster-school, and became a commoner of Gloucester-hall, Oxford, in 1596; where continuing about three years, he attained, by mere dint of memory, some skill in logic, and more in the Greek and Latin languages. After he had been taken home for a time, he went to London, and was received into the family of Henry prince of Wales, either as a domestic, or, according to some, as a fool, an office which in former days was filled by a person hired for the purpose. In this situation he was exposed to the wits of the court, who, finding in him a strange mixture of sense and folly, made him their whetstone; and so, says Wood, he became too much known to all the world. In 1608, he took a journey to France, Italy, Germany, &c. which lasted five months, during which he had travelled 1975 miles, more than half upon one pair of shoes, which were once only mended, and on his return were hung up in the church of Odcombe. He published his travels under this title; “Crudities hastily gobbled up in five months travels in France, Savoy, Italy, Rhetia, Helvetia, some parts of High Germany, and the Netherlands, 1611,” 4to, reprinted in 1776, 3 vols. 8vo. This work was ushered into the world by an Odcombian banquet, consisting of near 60 copies of verses, made by the best poets of that time, which, if they did not make Cory ate pass with the world for a man of great parts and learning, contributed not a little to the sale of his book. Among these poets were Ben Jonson, sir John Harrington, Inigo Jones the architect, Chapman, Donne, Drayton, &c. In the same year he published “Coryate’s Crambe, or his Colwort twice sodden, and now served in with other Macaronic dishes, as the second course of his Crudities,” 4to. In 1612, after he had taken leave of his countrymen, by an oration spoken at the cross in Odcombe, he took a long and large journey, with intention not to return till he had spent ten years in travelling. The first place he went to was Constantinople, where he made his usual desultory observations; and took from thence opportunities of viewing divers parts of Greece. In the Hellespont he took notice of the two castles Sestos and Abydos, which Mu­saeus has made famous in his poem of Hero and Leander, He saw Smyrna, from whence he found a passage to Alexandria in Egypt; and there he observed the pyramids near Grand Cairo. From thence he went to Jerusalem; and so on to the Dead Sea, to Aleppo in Syria, to Babylon in Chaldea, to the kingdom of Persia, and to Ispahan, where the king usually resided; to Seras, anciently called Shushan; to Candahor, the first province north-east under the subjection of the great mogul, and so to Lahore, the chief city but one belonging to that empire. From Lahore he went to Agra; where, being well received by the English factory, he made a halt. He staid here till he had learned the Turkish and Morisco, or Arabian languages, in which study he was always very apt, and some knowledge in the Persian and*Indostan tongues, all which were of great use to him in travelling up and down the great mogul’s dominions. In the Persian tongue he afterwards made an oration to the great mogul; and in the Indostan he had so great a command, that we are gravely told he actually silenced a laundry-woman, belonging to the English ambassador in that country, who used to scold all the day long. After he had visited several places in that part of the world, he went to Surat in East-India, where he was seized with a diarrhoea, of which he died in 1617.

At the restoration of Charles II. Cosin returned to England, and took possession of all his preferments, and before the year was out, was raised to the see of Durham. As soon as he could get down to his diocese, he set about reforming abuses there during the late anarchy; and distinguished himself by his charity and public spirit. He laid out a great share of his large revenues in repairing or rebuilding the several edifices belonging to the bishopric of Durham, which had either been demolished, or neglected, during the civil wars. He repaired the castle at Bishop’s Aukland, the chief country-seat of the bishops of Durham; that at Durham, which he greatly enlarged; and the bishop’s house at Darlington, then very ruinous. He also enriched his new chapel at Aukland, and that at Durham, with several pieces of gilt plate, books, and other costly ornaments; the charge of all which buildings, repairs, and ornaments, amounted, according to Dr. Smith, to near 16,000l. but, as others say, to no less than 26,000l. He likewise built and endowed two hospitals; the one at Durham for eight poor people, the other at Aukland for four. The annual revenue of the former was TOl. that of the latter 30l.; and near his hospital at Durham, he rebuilt the school-houses, which cost about 300l. He also built a library near the castle of Durham, the charge whereof, with the pictures with which he adorned it, amounted to 800l. and gave books thereto to the value of 2000l. as also an annual pension of 20 marks for ever to a librarian. But his generosity in this way was not confined within the precincts of his diocese. He rebuilt the east end of the chapel at Peter-house in Cambridge, which cost 320l. and gave books to the library of that college to the value of 1000l. He founded eight scholarships in the same university: namely, five in Peter-house* of 101. a year each and three in Caius college, of 20 nobles apiece per-annum: both which, together with a provision of 8l. yearly, to the common chest of those two colleges respectively, amounted to 2500l. Without mentioning the whole of his benefactions, we shall only notice farther that he gave, in ornaments to the cathedral at Durham, 45l.; upon the new building of the bishop’s court, exchequer, and chancery, and towards erecting two sessions houses in Durham, \000l.; towards the redemption of Christian captives at Algiers, 500l.; towards the relief of the distressed loyal party in England, 800l.; for repairing the banks in Howdenshire, 100 marks; towards repairing St. Paul’s cathedral in London, 50l. In a word, this generous bishop, during the eleven years he sat in the see of Durham, is said to have spent above 2000l. yearly in pious and charitable uses.

He died, Jan. 15, 1672, of a pectoral dropsy, in his 78th year, after having been much afflicted with the stone for some time before; and his body was conveyed from his house in Westminster to Bishop’s Aukland, where it was buried in the chapel belonging to the palace, under a tomb of black marble, with a plain inscription prepared by the bishop in his life-time. Besides the son already mentioned, he had four daughters. By his will he bequeathed considerable sums of money to charitable purposes: to be distributed among the poor in several places, a sum amounting to near 400l.; towards rebuilding St. Paul’s cathedral, when it should be raised five yards from the ground, 1001.; to the cathedral at Norwich, whereof the one half to be bestowed on a marble tablet, with an inscription in memory of Dr. John Overall, some time bishop there, whose chaplain he had been, the rest for providing some useful ornaments for the altar, 40l.; towards repairing the south and north side of Peter-house chapel in Cambridge, suitable to the east and west sides, already by him perfected, 200l.; towards the new building of a chapel at Emanuel college in Cambridge, 50l.; to the children of r. John Hayward, late prebendary of Lichfield, as a stimony of his gratitude to their deceased father, who in his younger years placed him with his uncle bishop Overall, 20l. each; to some of his domestic servants 100 marks, to some 50l. and to the rest half a year’s wages, over and above their last quarter’s pay. In his will also, he made a large and open declaration of his faith, and was particularly explicit and emphatical in vindicating himself from the imputation of popery: “I do profess,” says he, “with holy observation, and from my very heart, that I am now, and ever have been from my youth, altogether free and averse from the corruptions, and impertinent, new-fangled, or papistical superstitions and doctrines, long since introduced, contrary to the holy scripture, and the rules and customs of the ancient fathers.” In the third volume of the Clarendon State Papers, lately published, we find a letter, written, in 1658, to the lord chancellor Hyde, by Dr. Cosin, which affords a farther proof that, notwithstanding his superstition and his fondness for the pomp of external worship, he was steadily attached to the protestant religion. In this letter, speaking of the queen dowager Henrietta and lord Jermyn, he says, “They hold it for a mortal sin to give one penny towards the maintenance of such heretics as Dr. Cosin is.” The accusation of popery, however, answered the purposes of his persecutors, and his minute attention to the decorations and repairs of churches and cathedrals afforded some ground of suspicion even with those of more honest and candid minds.

Dr. Cosin wrote a great number of books, from all which he has sufficiently confuted the calumny of his being a papist, or popishly affected. Besides his “Collection of Private Devotions,” mentioned above, he published “A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture; or, the certain and indubitable books thereof, as they are received in the Church of England,” Condon, 1657, 4to, reprinted in 1672. This history, which is still in esteem, is deduced from the time of the Jewish church, to the year 1546, that is, the time when the council of Trent corrupted, and made unwarrantable additions to, the ancient Canon of the Holy Scriptures, and was written by the author during his exile at Paris. He dedicated it to Dr. M. Wren, bishop of Ely, then a prisoner in the Tower. Dr. P. Gunning had the care of the edition. Since the bishop’s decease the following books and tracts of his have been published: 1. “A Letter to Dr. Collins, concerning the Sabbath,” dated from Peterhouse, Jan. 24, 1635, printed in the “Bibliotheca Literaria,” 1723, 4to; in which he proves, that the keeping of our Sunday is immutable, as being grounded upon divine institution and apostolical tradition, which he confirms by several instances. 2. “A Letter from our author to Mr. Cordel, dated Paris, Feb. 7, 165O,” printed at the end of a pamphlet entitled “The Judgment of the Church of England, in the case of Laybaptism, and of Dissenters baptism,' 1 a second edition of which was published in 1712, 8vo. 3.” Regni Anglise Religio Catholica, prisca, casta, defoecata: omnibus Christianis monarchis, principibus, ordinibus, ostensa, anno MDCLII.“i. e. A short scheme of the ancient and pure doctrine and discipline of the Church of England. Written at the request of sir Edward Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon, and printed at the end of Smith’s Life of bishop Cosin. 4.” The History of Popish Transubstantiation,“&c. written in Latin by the author at Paris, for the use of some of his countrymen, who were frequently attacked upon that point by the papists. It was published by Dr. Durrell, at London, 1675, 8vo, and translated into English in 1676, by Luke de Beaulieu, 8vo. There is a second part still in manuscript. 5.” The differences in the chief points of religion between the Roman Catholics and us of the Church of England; together with the agreements which we, for our parts, profess, and are ready to embrace, if they, for theirs, were as ready to accord with us in the same. Written to the countess of Peterborough, “printed at the end of bishop Bull’s” Corruptions of the Church of Rome.“6.” Notes on the Book of CommonPrayer.“Published by Dr. William Nicholls, at the end of his Comment on the Book of Common-Prayer, Lond. 171O, fol. 7.” Account of a Conference in Paris, between Cyril, archbishop of Trapezond, and Dr. John Cosin;“printed in the same book. 8.” A Letter from Dr. Cosin to bishop Moreton his predecessor, giving an account of his studies and employment when an exile abroad;“and,” A Memorial of his, against what the Romanists call the Great General Council of Lateran under Innocent III. in 1215,“both published by Des Maizeaux in vol. VI. of” The Present State of the Republic of Letters,“1730. 9.” An Apology of Dr. John Cosin,“in answer to Fuller’s misrepresentations of him in that author’s Church History, printed at the end of the first part of Heylin’s” Examen Historicum.“The following pieces were also written by bishop Cosin, but never primed: I.” An Answer to a Popish pamphlet pretending that St. Cyprian was a Papist.“2.” An Answer to four queries of a Roman Catholic, about the Protestant Religion.“3. ti An Answer to a paper delivered by a Popish BifUop to the lord Inchiquin. ' 4.” Annales Ecclesiastic!,“imperfect. 5.” An Answer to Father Robinson’s Papers concerning the validity of the Ordinations of the Church of England.“6.” Historia Conciliorum,“imperfect. 7.” Against the foraakers of the Church of England, and their seducers in this time of her tryal.“8.” Chronologia Sacra,“imperfect. 9.” A Treatise concerning the abuse of auricular confession in the Church of Rome." Some few of Dr. Cosin’s letters are extant among Dr. Birch’s collections in the British Museum.

, of Alexandria in Egypt, called Indopleustj-:S or Indicopleustes, on account of a voyage which he made to the Indies, was at first a merchant, afterwards a monk, and author, and is supposed to have flourished about the year 547. He wrote several things, particularly the “Christian Topography, or the opinion of Christians concerning the World, in 12 books still extant, and published by Montfaucon in 1707, in the” Nova collectio Patrum,“vol. II. Cosmas performed his voyage in 522, and pub^ lished his book at Alexandria in 547: it contains some very curious information, but contrary to the sentiments of all astronomers, he denies the earth to be spherical, and endeavours to prove his opinion from reason, scripture, and Christian writers, who lived before him. As his testimony to the authenticity of the scriptures, however, is very considerable, Lardner has selected many passages from” The Christian Topography,“in his” Credibility."

, a learned clergyman of the church of England, was born at Shrewsbury about the year 1710. He was educated at Wadham-college, Oxford, of which he was admitted a member in 1726, if not earlier; and on^ the 28th of June 1733, took the degree of master of arts. He also became a tutor, and fellow of his college; and, indeed, seems to have spent a great part of his life there, though the fellows of Wadham-college hold their fellowships only for a limited number of years. The same year in which he took the degree of M.A. he published, in 8vo, “Critical observations on some Psalms.” The first ecclesiastical situation in which he was placed, was that of curate of Islip in Oxfordshire. He afterwards became vicar of Whitchurch, in Dorsetshire, where he served two churches for some years. Part of a letter written by him to Mr. John Catlain, containing an account of a fiery meteor seen by him in the air, on the 14th of July 1745, was read at the Royal Society on the 7th of November in that year, and published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 477. The following year he published at London, in 8vo, “A Letter to Martin Folkes, esq. president of the Royal Society, concerning the rise and progress of Astronomy amongst the Ancients,” in which he endeavoured to prove, that the Greeks derived but a very small portion of their astronomical knowledge from the Egyptians or Babylonians; and that though the Egyptians and Babylonians may be allowed, by their observations of the heavens, to have laid the foundation of astronomy; yet, as long as it continued amongst them, it consisted of observations only, and nothing more; till Geometry being improved by the Greeks, and them alone, into Sl science, and applied to the heavens, they became the true and proper authors of every thing deserving the name of astronomy.

His next publication, which appeared in 1750, in 8vo, was “Two dissertations: I. Containing an inquiry into the meaning of the word Kesitah, mentioned in Job, ch. xlii. ver. 11.” attempting to prove, that though it most probably there stands for the name of a coin, yet that there is no reason for supposing it stamped with any figure at all; and, therefore, not with that of a lamb in particular. II. “On the signification of the word Hermes; in which is explained the origin of the custom, among the Greeks, of erecting stones called Hermae; together with some other particulars, relating to the mythology of that people.” At the conclusion, Mr. Costard observes, that the study of the oriental languages seems to be gaining ground in Europe every day; and provided the Greek and Latin are equally cultivated, we may arrive in a few years at a greater knowledge of the ancient world, than may be expected, or can be imagined; and he adds, that for such researches few places, if any, in Europe are so well adapted as the university of Oxford.

In 1752, he published, in 8vo, at Oxford, “Dissertationes II. Critico^Sacrae, qnarum prima explicatur Ezek. xiii. 18. Altera vero, 2 Reg. x. 22.” The same year a translation was published of the latter of these dissertations, under the following title “A Dissertation on 2 Kings x. 22, translated from the Latin of Rabbi C———d (i. e. Costard), with a dedication, preface, and postscript, critical and explanatory, by the translator.” In the preface and dedication to this publication, the satirical author has placed Mr. Costard in a very ludicrous light. On the 25th of January, in the year following, a letter written by Mr. Costard to Dr. JBevis, concerning the year of the eclipse foretold by Thales, was read at the Royal Society, and was afterwards published in the Philosophical Transactions, as was also another letter written by him to the-same gentleman, concerning an eclipse mentioned by Xenophon. At the close of the same year, another letter written by Mr. Costard, and addressed to the earl of Macclesfield, concerning the age of Homer and Hesiod, was likewise read at the Royal Society, and afterwards published in the Philosophical Transactions for the year 1754, in which he fixes the ages of Homer and Hesiod much lower than the ordinary computations. He endeavours to make it appear, from astronomical arguments, that Homer and Hesiod both probably lived about the year before Christ 589; which is three centuries later than the computation of sir Isaac Newton, and more than four later than that of Petavius. In 1755, he wrote a letter to Dr. Birch, which is preserved in the British Museum, respecting the meaning of the phrase Sphacra Barbarica. Some time after this, he undertook to publish a second edition of Dr. Hyde’s “Historia religionis veterutn Persarum eorumque Magorum;” and which was accordingly printed, under his inspection, and with his corrections, at the Clarendon press at Oxford, in 4to, in 1760. Mr. Costard’s extensive learning having now recommended him to the notice of lord Chancellor Northington, he obtained, by the favour of that nobleman, in June 1764, the vicarage of Twickenham, in Middlesex, in which situation he continued till his death. The same year he published, in 4to, “The use of Astronomy in history and chronology, exemplified in an inquiry into the fall of the stone into the Ægospotamos, said to be foretold by Anaxagoras in which is attempted to be shewn, that Anaxagoras did not foretell the fall of that stone, but the solar eclipse in the first year of the Peloponnesian war. That what he saw was a comet, at the time of the battle of Salamis: and that this battle was probably fought the year before Christ 478; or two years later than it is commonly fixed by chronologers.”

In 1767, he published, in one volume 4to, “The History of Astronomy, with its application to geography, history, and chronology; occasionally exemplified by the globes,” chiefly intended for the use of students, and containing a distinct view of the several improvements made in geography and astronomy, at what time, and by whom, the principal discoveries have been made in geography and astronomy, how each discovery has paved the wav to what followed, and by what easy steps, through the revolution of so many ages, these very useful sciences have advanced towards their present state of perfection. The following year he published, in 4 to, “Astronomical and philological conjectures on a passage in Homer:” but these conjectures appear to be fanciful and ill grounded. About this time a correspondence took place between the learned Jacob Bryant, esq. and Mr. Costard, concerning the. land of Goshen, which was afterwards published by Mr. Nichols, in his “Miscellaneous Tracts by Mr. Bowyer.” We do not find that from this period our author printed any work for some years; but in 1778, he published, in 8vo, “A Letter to Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, esq. containing some remarks on his Preface to the code of Gentoo laws.” This appears to have been the last of his publications; and its object was, to invalidate Mr. Halhed' s opinion concerning the great antiquity of the Gentoo laws, and to refute the notion which had been adopted by several writers, drawn from the observation of natural phenomena, that the world is far more ancient than it is represented to be by the Hebrew chronology. Mr. Costard died on the 10th of January 1782, and was buried on the South side of Twickenham church-yard, but without any monument or inscription, agreeably to his own desire *. He was a man of uncommon learning, and eminently skilled in Grecian and oriental literature; but upon the whole dealt too much in conjectures, and appears to have been possessed of more erudition than judgment. His private character was amiable, and he was much respected in the neighbourhood in which he lived for his humanity and benevolence. From some passages in his writings, he appears to have been strongly attached to the interests of public freedom. He had a great veneration for the ancient Greeks; of whom he says, that “'Tis to the happy genius of that once glorious people, and that people alone, that we owe all that can properly be styled astronomy.” And in another place, he says of the Greeks, that “their public spirit and love of liberty claim both our admiration and imitation. How far the sciences suffer where oppression, superstition, and arbitrary power prevail, that once glorious nation affords at this day too melancholy a proof.” Mr. Costard’s library, oriental manuscripts, and philosophical instruments, were sold by auction by Mr. Samuel Paterson, in March, 1782.

* So says the author of a life of Mr. to man, not to the gratitude of a nation Costard, which accompanies his por- whose literary character he had coutritrait in the Gent. Mag. vol. LXXV. buted to exalt, but to the private chaBut according to an account very feel- rity of a few humble individuals; who, ingly given in the Month. Rev. vol. while they wept over the ashes of their LXXV“I. p. 419, it appears that he pastor, knew not the variety of his tadied so poor as to be” indebted, even lents, or the extent of his acquire, for the last sad duties that man owes ments.“ Paris August 21, 1661, aged 66, leaving several works, full of curious and interesting particulars, but written without any regard to the rules of criticism. The principal are: 1.” Hist. Catholique, ou sont ecrites toutes les vies, faits, &c. des hommes et dames illustres, du 16emeet 17eme siecle,“1625, fol. 2.” La Vie de Jeanne de France, fondatrice des Annonciades.“3.” Les eloges et les vies des reines, des princesses, et dames illustres,“1647, 2 vol. 4to. 4.” Les eloges de nos rois et des enfans de France qui ont et6 Dauphins,“1643, 4to. 5.” Vie du pere Marin Mersene,“1649, 8vo. 6.” Le portrait en petit de St. Franc.ois de Paul,“1655, 4to. 7.” Le parfait Ecclesiastique, ou la vie de Francois le Picart, docteur de Paris, avec les“eloges de 40 autres docteurs de la Faculte”," 1658, 8vo. This last work is the most sought after, and the most curious.

, or Laurensz Jansz Koster, an inhabitant of Haerlem, who died about 1440, has acquired a name in the annals of printing, as the Dutch affirm him to be the inventor of that art about the year 1430, but this claim has been obstinately disputed. It is objected that it was not till 130 years after the first exercise of this art at Mentz, that the town of Haerlem formed any pretence to the honour of this invention; and that, to the known and certain facts, to the striking and incontestable proofs of its belonging to Mentz, the men of Haerlem oppose nothing but obscure traditions and conjectures, and not one typographical production that can in any way shew the merit of it to belong to Coster. All that such objectors allow to Haerlem, is the circumstance of being one of the first towns that practised the art of cutting in wood, which led by degrees to the idea of printing a book, first in wooden blocks engraved, then in moveable characters of wood, and lastly in fusile types. But it still remains to be proved, that this idea was conceived and executed at Haerlem; whereas it is demonstrated that Gutemberg printed, first at Strasburg, and afterwards at Mentz, in moveable characters of wood, and that the fusile types were invented at Mentz by Schojffert. The learned Meerman, counsellor and pensionary of Rotterdam, zealous for the honour of his country, supported the cause of Haerlem with all the sagacity and all the erudition that could be exerted, in a work entitled “Oru gines Typographies:,” printed at the Hague in 1765, 2 vols. 4to, and of which an abridgment may be seen in Bowyer and Nichols’s “Origin of Printing.” The question is too complicated for discussion in this place: we shall therefore only add the tradition respecting Coster’s invention. It is said that walking in a wood near Haerlem, he amused himself by cutting letters upon the bark of a tree, which he impressed upon paper. Improving this incident, he proceeded to cut single letters upon wood, and uniting them by means of thread, he printed a line or two for his children. It is added, that he afterwards printed a book, entitled, “Speculum salvationis.” Baron Heinecken, who has minutely investigated the whole story, considers it as not entitled to the least credit; and pronounces the prints, attributed to Coster, to be the works of a later date.

January 1706, he was appointed professor of astronomy and experimental philosophy, upon the foundation of Dr. Thomas Plume, archdeacon of Rochester; being the first that enjoyed that office, to which he was unanimously chosen, on account of his high reputation and merits. He took the degree of M. A. in 1706 and went into orders in 1713. The same year, at the desire of Dr. Bentley, he published at Cambridge the second edition of sir Isaac Newton’s “Mathematica Principia, &c.” and inserted all the improvements which the author had made to that time. To this edition he prefixed a most admirable preface, in which he expressed the true method of philosophising, shewed the foundation on which the Newtonian philosophy was built, and refuted the objections of the Cartesians and all other philosophers against it. It may not be amiss to transcribe a paragraph from this preface, in which the editor has given an answer to those who supposed that gravity or attraction, in sir Isaac Newton’s system, was in no wise a clearer principle, and more adapted to explain the phaenomena of nature, than the occult qualities of the peripatetics; because there are still philosophers who persist in the same supposition. Gravity, say the objectors, is an occult cause; and occult causes have nothing to do with true philosophy. To this Mr. Cotes replies, that “occult causes are, not those whose existence is most clearly demonstrated by observation and experiment, but those only whose existence is occult, fictitious, and supported by no proofs. Gravity therefore can never be called an occult cause of the planetary motions; since it has been demonstrated from the phenomena, that this quality really exists. Those rather have recourse to occult causes, who make vortices to govern the heavenly motions; vortices, composed of a matter entirely fictitious, and unknown to the senses. But shall gravity, therefore, be called an occult cause, and on that account be banished from philosophy, because the cause of gravity is occult, and as yet undiscovered? Let those, who affirm this, beware of laying down a principle, which will serve to undermine the foundation of every system of philosophy that can be established. For causes always proceed, by an uninterrupted connexion, from those that are compound, to those that are more simple; and when you shall have arrived at the most simple, it will be impossible to proceed farther. Of the most simple cause therefore no mechanical solution can be given;. for if there could, it would not be the most simple. Will you then call these most simple causes occult, and banish them from philosophy? You rnay so; but you must banish at the same time the causes that are next to them, and those again that depend upon the causes next to them, till philosophy at length will be so thoroughly purged of causes, that there will not be one left whereon to build it.” The publication of this edition of Newton’s Principia added greatly to his reputation nor; was the high opinion the public now conceived of him in the least diminished, but rather much increased, by several productions of his own, which afterwards appeared. He gave a description of the great fiery meteor, that was seen March 6, 1716, which was published in the Phil. Trans, a little after his death. He left hehind hirn also some admirable and judicious tracts, part of which, after his decease, were published by Dr. Robert Smith, his cousin and successor in his professorship, afterwards master of Trinity college. His “Harmonia Mensurarum,” &c. was published at Cambridge, 1722, 4to, and dedicated to Dr. Mead by the learned editor; who, in an elegant and affectionate preface, gives us a copious account of the performance itself, the pieces annexed to it, and of such other of the author’s works as were unpublished. He tells us how much this work was admired by professor Saunderson, and how dear the author of it was to Dr. Bentley. The first treatise of the miscellaneous works annexed to the “Harmonia Mensurarum” is “Concerning the estimation of errors in mixed mathematics/' The second,” Concerning ^he differential method;“which he handles in a manner somewhat different from sir Isaac Newton’s treatise upon that subject, having written it before he had seen that treatise. The name of the third piece is” Canonotechnia, or concerning the construction of tables by differences.“The book concludes with three small tracts,” Concerning the descent of bodies, the motion of pendulums in the cycloid, and the motion of projectiles;“which tracts, the editor informs us, were all composed by him when very young. He wrote also” A compendium of arithmetic, of the resolutions of equations, of dioptrics, and of the nature of curves.“Besides these pieces, he drew up a course of” Hydrostatical and Pneumatical Lectures" in English, which were published by Dr. Smith in 1737, and again in 1747, 8vo.

, an advocate in the parliament of Paris, and a native of Aix or of Avignon, who died at the beginning of the eighteenth century, gained a reputation in the literary world by several works. The principal are: 1. “The voyages of Peter Texeira, or the history of the kings of Persia down to 1609,” translated from the Spanish into French, 1681, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “The Life of St. Francis de Sales,” 1689, 4to. 3. “The Life of Christopher Columbus,” translated into French, 1681, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “The Life of the Duchess of Montmorenci,” 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “Arlequiniana, or bon-mots,” &c. collected from the conversations of Harlequin, 1694. 6. “The book without a name,” 1711, 2 vols. 12rno, and, as his countrymen say, worthy of its title. 7. “Dissertation on the works of St. Evremont,” 1704, 12rno, under the name of Dumont. “I find many things in this work, justly censured,” says St. Evremont; “I cannot deny that the author writes well; but his zeal for religion and morals surpasses all things else. 1 should gain less in changing iny style for his, than my conscience for his. Favour surpasses severity in the judgment, and I feel more gratitude for the former than resentment against the latter.” This certainly discovers modesty, which, if sincere, should atone for many faults in St. Evremont.

, an English poet, was the son of Charles Cotton, esq. of Beresford in Staffordshire, a man of considerable fortune and high accomplishments. His son, who inherited many of these characteristics, was born on the 28th of April, 1630, and educated at the university of Cambridge, where he had for his tutor Mr. Ralph Rawson, whom he celebrates in the translation of an ode of Joannes Secundus. At the university, he is said to have studied the Greek and Roman classics with distinguished success, and to have become a perfect master of the French and Italian languages. It does not appear, however, that he took any degree, or studied with a view to any learned profession; but after his residence at Cambridge, travelled into France and other parts of the continent. On his return, he resided during the greater part of his life at the family seat at Beresford. In 1656, when he was in his twenty-sixth year, he married Isabella, daughter of sir Thomas Hutchinson, knt. of Owthorp in the county of Nottingham, a distant relation, and took her home to his father’s house, as he had no other establishment. In 1658 he succeeded to the family estate encumbered by some imprudencies of his deceased father, from which it does not appear that he was ever able to relieve it.

From this time, almost all we have of his life is comprized in a list of his various publications, which were chiefly translations from the French, or imitations of the writers of that nation. In 1664, he published Mons. de Vaix’s “Moral Philosophy of the Stoics,” in compliance, sir John Hawkins thinks, with the will of his father, who was accustomed to give him themes and authors for the exercise of his judgment and learning. In 1665, he translated the Horace of Corneille for the amusement of his sister, who, in 1670, consented that it should be printed. In this attempt he suffered little by being preceded by sir William Lower, and followed by Mrs. Catherine Phillips. In 1670 he published a translation of the Life of the duke D'Espernon and about the same time, his affairs being much embarrassed, he obtained a captain’s commission in the army, and went over to Ireland. Some adventures he met with on this occasion gave rise to his first burlesque poem, entitled “A Voyage to Ireland,” in three cantos. Of his more serious progress in the army, or when, or why he left it, we have no account.

In 1674, he published the translation of the “Fair One of Tunis,” a French novel; and of the “Commentaries of Blaise de Montluc,” marshal of France; and in 1675, “The Planter’s Manual,” being instructions for cultivating all sorts of fruit-trees. In 1678 appeared his most celebrated burlesque performance, entitled “Scarronides, or Virgil Travestie a mock poem, on the First and Fourth Books of Virgil’s Æneis, in English burlesque.” To this was afterwards added, “Burlesque upon Burlesque, or the Scoffer scoffed; being some of Lucian’s Dialogues newly put into English fustian.” In 1681, he published “The Wonders of the Peak,” an original poem, which, however, proved that he had not much talent for the descriptive branch of poetry. His next employment was a translation of Montaigne’s Essays, which was highly praised by the marquis of Halifax, and has often been reprinted, as conveying the spirit and sense of the original with great felicity. His style at least approaches very closely to the antiquated gossip of that “old prater.” Besides these he wrote “An elegie upon the Lord Hastings,” signed with his name, in the “Lachrymae Musarum,” published on that nobleman’s death, London, 1649, 8vo; and in 1660, he published a folio of about forty leaves, entitled “A Panegyrick to the King’s most excellent majesty.'” This last is in the British Museum. His father has also a copy of verses in the “Lachrymae Musarum,” on the death of lord Hastings, published by Richard Brome.

The only remaining production of our author is connected with his private history. One of his favourite recreations was angling, which led to an intimacy between him and honest Izaac Walton, whom he called his father. His house was situated on the banks of the Dove, a fine trout stream, which divides the counties of Derby and Stafford. Here he built a little fishing-house dedicated to anglers, piscatoribus sacrum, over the door of which the initials of the names of Cotton and Walton were united in a cypher. The interior of this house was a cube of about fifteen feet, paved with black and white marble, the walls wainscotted, with painted pannels representing scenes of fishing; and on the doors of the beaufet were the portraits of Cotton and Walton. His partnership with Walton in this a Cement induced him to write “Instructions how to angle for a Trout or Grayling, in a clear stream,” which have since been published as a second part, or supplement to Walton’s “Complete Angler.”

His fate as a poet has been very singular. The “Virgil Travestie,” and his other burlesque performances, have been perpetuated by at least fifteen editions, while his “Poems,” published in 1689, in which he displays true taste and elegance, have never been reprinted until they were admitted into the late edition of the Poets; or, at least, a selection, for many of his smaller pieces abound in those indelicacies which were the reproach of the reign of Charles II. In what remain, we find a strange mixture of broad humour and drollery, mixed with delicacy and tenderness of sentiment, and even with devotional poetry of a superior cast. His Pindarics will probably not be thought unworthy of a comparison with those of Cowley. His verses are often equally harmonious, while his thoughts are less encumbered with amplification. In his burlesque poems, Butler appears to have been his model, but we have the Hudibrastic measure only; nothing can be more vulgar, disgusting, or licentious than his parodies on Virgil and Lucian. That they should- have been so often reprinted, marks the slow progress of the refinement of public taste during the greater part of the eighteenth century; but within the last thirty years it has advanced with rapidity, and Cotton is no longer tolerated. The Travestie, indeed, even when executed with a more chaste humour than in Cotton’s Virgil, or Bridges’s Homer, is an extravagance pernicious to true taste, and ought never to be encouraged unless where the original is a legitimate object of ridicule.

, an English physician, poet, and amiable man, was born in 1707, but in what county, or of what family, is not known. He studied physic under the celebrated Boerhaave, at Leyden, and is supposed to have taken his degree at that university, which was then the first medical school in Europe, and the resort of all who wished to derive honour from the place of their education. On his return he endeavoured to establish himself as a general practitioner, but circumstances leading him more particularly to the study of the various species of lunacy, he was induced to become the successor of a Dr. Crawley, who kept a house for the reception of lunatics at Dunstable, in Bedfordshire: and having engaged the housekeeper, and prevailed on the patients’ friends to consent to their removal, he opened a house for their reception at St. Alban’s. Here he continued for some years, adding to his knowledge of the nature of mental disorders, and acquiring considerable fame by the success and humanity of his mode of treatment. When his patients began to increase, he found it necessary to hire a larger house, where he formed a more regular establishment, and dignified it by the name of The College. His private residence was in St. Peter’s street in the town of St. Alban’s, and was long known as the only house in that town defended from the effects of lightning by a conductor.

Dr. Cotton was twice married: first, about the year 1738, to Miss Anne Pembroke, sister to George Pembroke, esq. formerly of St. Alban’s, receiver- general for the county of Hertford, and to Joseph Pembroke, town-clerk of St. Alban’s. By this lady, who died in 1749, he had issue, 1. Mary, who became the second wife of John Osborn, esq. of St. Alban’s, and died without issue, Nov. 2, 1790; 2. Anne, who became the second wife of major Brooke of Bath, and died July 13, 1800, leaving a son and daughter, since dead; S.Nathaniel, who was entered of Jesus college, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. 1766, and M. A. 1769, and is now vicar of Welford, in Northamptonshire; 4. Joseph, now a director of the honourable East India company; 5. Phebe, married to George Bradshaw, esq. since dead; 6. Katherine, who died unmarried, Dec. 2, 1780, and is buried under an altar tomb in the churchyard of St. Peter’s, St. Alban’s. He had also bv his first wife, a son and daughter, who died in infancy. He married, secondly, in 1750, or 1751, Miss Hannah Everett, who died May 1772, leaving a son, now living, and two daughters, since dead.

From his letters it appears that about the year 1780 his health was greatly impaired. He was much emaciated, and his limbs so weak as to be insufficient to support his weight. The languors, likewise, which he suffered, were so frequent and severe, as to threaten an entire stop to the circulation, and were sometimes accompanied with that most distressing of all sensations, an anxiety circa priecordia. His memory too began to fail, and any subject which required a little thought was a burthen hardly supportable. He died August 2, 1788, and we are told his age was so far unknown, that the person who entered his burial in the parish register, wrote after his name, “eighty-eight at least.” In a letter, however, written on the death of his daughter Katherine, in 1780, he says, “he had passed almost three winters beyond the usual boundary appropriated to human life, and had thus transcended the longevity of a septuagenarian” This, therefore, will fix his age at eighty-one, or eighty-two. He was interred with his two wives in St. Peter’s church-yard, under an altartomb between those of his two daughters, Mary and Katherine, on which nothing more is inscribed than “Here are deposited the remains of Anne, Hannah, and Nathaniel Cotton.”

If we have few particulars of the life of Dr. Cotton, we have many testimonies to the excellence of his character. We find from Mr. Hayley’s Life of Cowper, that he had at one time among his patients, that amiable and interesting poet, who speaks of Dr. Cotton’s services in a manner that forms a noble tribute to his memory: and Mr. Hayley says, that Dr. Cotton was “a scholar and a poet, who added to many accomplishments, a peculiar sweetness of manners, in very advanced life,” when Mr. Hayley had the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with him. In a subsequent part of his Life of Cowper, the latter, alluding to an inquiry respecting Dr. Cotton’s works, pays the following compliment to his abilities: “I did not know that he had written any thing newer than his Visions: 1 have no doubt that it is so far worthy of him as to be pious and sensible, and I believe no man living is better qualified to write on such subjects as his title seems to announce. Some years have passed since I heard from him, and considering his great age, it is probable that I shall hear from him no more: but I shall always respect him. He is truly a philosopher, according to my judgment of the character, every tittle of his knowledge in natural subjects being connected in his mind with the firm belief of an omnipotent agent.” His writings, indeed, are uniformly in favour of piety and benevolence, and his correspondence, from which many extracts are given in the lute edition of his Works, justifies the high respect in which he was held by his numerous friends. His prose pieces consist of reflections on some parts of scripture, which he has entitled “Sermons;” and various essays on health, husbandry, zeal, marriage, and other miscellaneous topics. One of these, entitled “Mirza to Selim” (an imitation of Lyttelton’s Persian Letters) is said to relate to the death of the Rev. Robert Romney, D, D. vicar of St. Alban’s, which happened in 1743. When dying, this gentleman prophesied that his brother and heir would not long enjoy his inheritance, which proved true, as he died in June 1746. Some of these essays were probably written for the periodical journals, and others for the amusement of private friends. As a poet, he wrote with ease, and had a happy turn for decorating his reflections in familiar verse: but we find very little that is original, fanciful, or vigorous. He scarcely ever attempts imagery, or description, and nowhere rises beyond a certain level diction adapted to the class of readers whom he was most anxious to please. Yet his “Visions” have been popular, and deserve to continue so. Every sensible and virtuous mind acquiesces in the truth and propriety of his moral reflections, and will love the poems for the sake of the writer.

, an eminent English antiquary, “whose name,” says Dr. Johnson, “must always be mentioned with honour, and whose memory cannot fail of exciting the warmest sentiments of gratitude, whilst the smallest regard for learning subsists among us,” was son of Thomas Cotton, esq. descended from a very ancient family, and born at Denton in Huntingdonshire, Jan. 22, 1570; admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. 1585; and went to London, where he soon made himself known, and was admitted into a society of antiquaries, who met at stated seasons for their own amusement. Here he indulged his taste in the prosecution of that study for which he afterwards became so famous; and in his 18th year began to collect ancient records, charters, and other Mss. In 1600 he accompanied Camden to Carlisle, who acknowledges himself not a little obliged to him for the assistance he received from him in carrying on and completing his “Britannia;” and the same year he wrote “A brief abstract of the question of Precedency between England and Spain.” This was occasioned by queen Elizabeth’s desiring the thoughts of the society of antiquaries upon that point, and is still extant in the Cotton library. Upon the accession of James I. he was created a knight; and during this reign was very much courted and esteemed by the great men of the nation, and consulted as an oracle by the privy counsellors and ministers of state, upon very difficult points relating to the constitution. In 1608 he was appointed one of the commissioners to inquire into the state of the navy, which had lain neglected ever since the death of queen Elizabeth; and drew up a memorial of their proceedings, to be presented to the king, which memorial is still in his library. In 1609 he wrote “A discourse of the lawfulness of Combats to be performed in the presence of the king, or the constable and marshal of England,” which was printed in 1651 and in 1672. He drew up also, the same year, “An answer to such motives as were offered by certain military men to prince Henry, to incite him to affect arms more than peace.” This was composed by order of that prince, and the original ms. remains in the Cotton library. New projects being contrived to repair the royal revenue, which had been prodigally squandered, none pleased the king so much as the creating a new. order of knights, called baronets; and sir Robert Cotton, who had been the principal suggester of this scheme, was in 1611 chosen to be one, being the thirty-sixth on the list. His principal residence was then at Great Connington, in Huntingdonshire; which he soon exchanged for Hatley St. George, in the county of Cambridge.

He was afterwards employed by king James to vindicate the conduct of Mary queen of Scots, from the supposed misrepresentations of Buchanan and Thuanus; and what he wrote upon this subject is thought to be interwoven in Camden’s “Annals of queen Elizabeth,”“or else printed at the end of Camden’s” Epistles.“In 1616 the king ordered him to examine, whether the papists, whose numbers then made the nation uneasy, ought by the laws of the land to be put to death, or to be imprisoned? This task he performed with great learning, and produced upon that occasion twenty- four arguments, which were published afterwards in 1672, among” Cotton! Posthuina.“It was probably then that he composed a piece, still preserved in ms. in the royal library, entitled,” Considerations for the repressinge of the encrease of preests, Jesuits, and recrusants, without drawinge of blood.“He was also employed by the house of commons, when the match between prince Charles and the infanta of Spain was in agitation, to shew, by a short examination of the treaties between England and the house of Austria, the unfaithfulness and insincerity of the latter; and to prove that in all their transactions they aimed at nothing but universal monarchy. This piece is printed among” Cottoni Posthuma,“under the title of” A remonstrance of the treaties of amity,“&c. He wrote likewise a vindication of our ecclesiastical constitution against the innovations attempted to be brought in by the puritans, entitled,” An answer to certain arguments raised from supposed antiquity, and urged by some members of the lower house of parliament, to prove that ecclesiastical laws ought to be enacted by temporal men.“In 1621 he compiled” A relation to prove, that the kings of England have been pleased to consult with their peeres, in the great councel and commons of parliament, of marriadge, peace, and war;“printed first in 1651, then in 1672 among” Cottoni Posthuma,“and then in 1679 under the title of” The antiquity and dignity of Parliaments." Being a member of the first parliament of Charles I. he joined in complaii: -g of the grievances which the nation was said in 1628 to groan under'; but was always for mild remedies, zealous for the honour and safety of the king, and had no views but the nation’s advantage.

“Amongst other books,” says he, “which Mr. Richard James lent out, one Mr. St. John, of Lincoln’s-inn, a young studious gentleman, borrowed of him, for money, a dangerous pamphlet that was in a written hand, by which a course was laid down, how the kings of England might oppress the liberties of their subjects, and for ever enslave them and their posterities. Mr. St. John shewed the book to the earl of Bedford, o.r a copy of it; and so it passed from hand to hand, in the year 1629, till at last it was lent to sir Robert Cotton himself, who set a young fellow he then kept in his house to transcribe it; which plainly proves, that sir Robert knew not himself that the written tract itself had originally come out of his own library. This untrusty fellow, imitating, it seems, the said James, took one copy secretly for himself, when he wrote another for sir Robert; and out of his own transcript sold away several copies, till at last one of them came into Wentworth’s hands, of the North, now lord deputy, of Ireland. He acquainted the lords and others of the privy-council with it. They sent for the said young fellow, and examining him where he had the written book, he confessed sir Robert Cotton delivered it to him. Whereupon in the beginning of November, in the same year 1629, sir Robert was examined, and so were divers others, one after the other as it had been delivered from hand to hand, till at last Mr. St. John himself was apprehended, and, being conceived to be the author of the book, was committed close prisoner to the Tower. Being in danger to have been questioned for his life about it, upon examination upon oath, he made a clear, full, and punctual declaration that he had received the same manuscript pamphlet of that wretched mercenary fellow James*, who by this means proveed the wretched instrument of shortening the life of sir Robert Cotton; for he was presently thereupon sued in the star-chamber, his library locked up from his use, and two or more of the guards set to watch his house continually. When I went several times to visit and comfort him in the year 1630, he would tell me, ‘ they had broken his heart, that had locked up his library from him.’ I easily guessed the reason, because his honour and esteem were much impaired by this fatal accident; and his house, that was formerly frequented by great and honourable personages, as by learned men of all sorts, remained now upon the matter desolate and empty. I understood from himself and others, that Dr. Neile and Dr. Laud, two prelates that had been stigmatized in the first session of parliament in 1628, were his sore enemies. He was so outworn, within a few months, with anguish and grief, as his face, which had been formerly ruddy and well coloured, (such as the picture I have of him shews), was wholly changed into a grim blackish paleness, near to the resemblance and hue of a dead visage. I, at one time, advised him to look into himself, and seriously consider, why God had sent this chastisement upon him; which, it is possible, he did; for I heard from Mr. Richard Holdesworth, a great and learned divine, that was with him in his last sickness, a little before he died, that he was exceedingly penitent, and was much confirmed in the faithful expectation of a better life.”

It may be necessary, in order to elucidate this matter still farther, to take notice, that one of the articles in the attorney-general’s information against sir Robert Cotton was, “that the discourse or project was framed and con­* This was Richard James, fellow of three years before hi* death, he beCorpus Christ! college, in Oxford, born stowed the custody of his whole library at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, and on him and he being a needy sharkauthor of several sermons, both in La- ing companion, and very expensive, tin and English. H-- died at the house like old sir Ralph Starkie when he of sir Thomas Cotton, bart. in the be- lived, let out, or lent out, sir Robert ginning of Dec. 1636. Sir Symcmds Cotton’s most precious manuscripts for D'Ewes gives a very severe character money, to any that would be his cusof him; an atheistical profane scholar, tomers; which,” says sir Symonds, “I but otherwise witty and moderately once made known to sir Robert Cotton, learned; and he adds, that he had so before the said James’s face.” But this screwed himself info the good opinion appears to be in some essential points of srt- Robert Cotton, “that whereas incorrect, as will be shewn when we at first he had only permitted him the come to the article of Richard James, use of his books, at last, some two or trived within five or six months past here in England;” but sir David Foulis testified upon oath, being thereunto required, that it was contrived at Florence seventeen years before, by sir Robert Dudley; upon which most of the parties were released, and sir Robert Cotton had his library restored to him soon after.

The other works of.sir Robert Cotton, not already mentioned, are, 1. “A relation of the proceedings against Ambassadors, who have miscarried themselves, and exceeded their commission.” “2. That the sovereign’s person is required in the great councils or~ assemblies of the states, as well at the consultations as at the conclusions.” 3. “The argument made by the command of the house of commons, out of the acts of parliament and authority of law expounding the same, at a conference of the lords, concerning the liberty of the person of every freeman.” 4. “A brief discourse concerning the power of the peers and commons of parliament in point of judicature.” These lour are printed in “Cottoni Posthuma.” 5. “A short view of the long life and reign of Henry III. king of England,” written in 1614, and presented to king James I. printed in 1627, 4to, and reprinted in “Cottoni Posthuma.” 6. “Money raised by the king without parliament, from the conquest until this day, either by imposition or free gift, taken out of records or ancient registers,” printed in the “Royal treasury of England, or general history of taxes, by captain J. Stevens,” 8vo. 7. “A narrative of count Gondomar’s transactions during his embassy in England,” London, 1659, 4to. 8. “Of antiquity, etymology, and privileges of castles.” 9. “Of towns.” 10. “Of the measures of Land.” 11. “Of the antiquity of Coats of Arms.” All printed in Hearne’s Discourses, p. 166, 174, 178, 182. He wrote books upon several other subjects, that remain still in ms. namely, Of scutage; of enclosures, and converting arable land into pasture; of the antiquity, authority, and office of the high steward and marshal of England; of curious collections; of military affairs; of trade; collections out of the rolls of parliament, different from those that were printed under his name, in 1657, by William Pry nne, esq. He likewise made collections for the history and antiquities of Huntingdonshire; and had formed a design of writing an account of the state of Christianity in these islands, from the first reception of it here to the reformation. The first part of this design was executed by abp. Usher, in his book “De Britannic-arum ecclesiarum primordiis,” composed probably at the request of sir Robert Cotton, who left eight volumes of collections for the continuation of that work. Two of sir Robert’s speeches are printed in the Parliamentary History. A “Treatise of the Court of Chancery,” in ms. by sir Robert Cotton, is often cited in disputes concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and the authority of the Master of the Rolls, as a ms. in lord Sorners’s library. A copy of it, however, is in Mr. Hargrave’s Collection of Law Mss. The “Cottoni Posthuma,” so often mentioned above, was published by James Howell, fol. 1651, 1672, and 1679. The first of these editions contains a life of Henry III. omitted in the subsequent editions. Mr. Petyt, however, terms this a fictitious work (Petyt’s ms. vol. II. p. 281.), yet it contains several valuable and curious particulars.

But, without intending to derogate from the just merits of this learned and knowing man as an author, it may reasonably be questioned, whether he has not done more service to learning by securing, as he did, his valuable library for the use of posterity, than by all his writings. This library consists wholly of Mss. many of which being in loose skins, small tracts, or very thin volumes, when they were purchased, sir Robert caused several of them to be bound up in one cover. They relate chiefly to the history and antiquities of Great Britain and Ireland, though the ingenious collector refused nothing that was curious or valuable in any point of learning. He lived indeed at a time when he had great opportunities of making such a fine collection: when there were many valuable books yet remaining in private hands, which had been taken from the monasteries at their dissolution, and from our universities and colleges, at their visitations when several learned antiquaries, such as Joceline, Noel, Allen, Lambarde, Bowyer, Elsinge, Camden, and others, died, who had made it their chief business to scrape up the ^scattered remains of our monastical libraries: and, either by legacy or purchase, he became possessed of all he thought valuable in their studies. This library was placed in his own house at Westminster, near the house of commons; and very much augmented by his son sir Thomas Cotton, and his grandson sir John (who died in 1702, aged 71). In 1700 an act of parliament was made for the better securing and preserving that library in the name and family of th\ Cottons, for the benefit of the public; that it might not be sold, or otherwise disposed of and embezzled Sir John, great grandson of sir Robert, having sold Cotton -house to queen Anne, about 1706, to be a repository for the royal as well as the Cottonian library, an act was ma le for the better securing of her Majesty’s purchase of that house; and botli house and library were settled and vested in trustees. The books were then removed into a more convenient room, the former being very damp; and Cotton-house was set apart for the use of the king’s library-keeper, who had there the royal and Cottonian libraries under his care. In 1712 the Cottonian library was removed to Essex house, in Essexstreet; and in 1730 to a house in Little DeanVyard, Westminster, purchased by the crown of the lord Ashburnham; where a fire happening, Oct. 23, 1731, 111 books were lost, burnt, or entirely defaced, and 99 rendered imperfect. It was thereupon removed to the Old Dormitory belonging to Westminster-school; and finally, in 1753, to the British Museum, where they still remain.

, a very learned English divine, was born at Horningsheath in Suffolk, in 1638, and educated in classical learning in the school of St. Edmund’s Bury. March 31, 1654, he was admitted of Christ’s college, in Cambridge; of which, after taking his degrees in arts, he was elected fellow. Some time after he went into orders, and in 1670 went as chaplain to sir Daniel Harvey, ambassador from Charles II. to the Porte; where he served, in that quality, both him and his successor, sir John Finch, for the space of seven years. Upon his return to England in 1679, he was created D. D. and the same year chosen lady Margaret’s preacher in the university of Cambridge. March 15, 1680, he had institution to the sinecure rectory of Littlebury in Essex', to which he was presented by Gunning, bishop of Ely. In 1681 he got the college living of Kegworth in Leicestershire, and was also made one of the chaplains to the Princess of Orange, afterwards queen Mary, and oil that account resided at that court, till, for some cause or other, which he never would mention to his most intimate friends, he was dismissed his attendance at three hours warning, and came over to England. On Nov. 9, 1687, he was installed into the chancellorship of York, conferred upon him by the king during the vacancy of that see. July 7, 1688, he was elected master of Christ’s college, in Cambridge, and the same year he was made vice-chancellor of the university. In October, 1689, king William being at Newmarket, came to Cambridge; and it being commonly known that Dr. Covel was in disgrace with his Majesty, it was asked his Majesty whether he would be pleased to see the vice-chancellor; to which he replied, that he knew how to distinguish Dr. Covel from the vice-chancellor of Cambridge; and it was remarked, that the royal visitor was more than usually gracious and affable with him. In 1708 he again served the office of vice-chancellor; and in 1722, just before his death, published his account of the Greek church.

As the famous dispute between M. Arnauld, of the Sorbonne, and M. Claude, minister at Charenton, concerning the faith of the Greek church in the article of the real presence, was then in its full height, which much interested learned men of all denominations in Europe, and particularly the English clergy, Dr. Cove! was desired, by some of the principal persons of the university of Cambridge, particularly the doctors (afterwards bishops) Gunning, Pearson, and Sancroft, to inquire into this matter at Constantinople. When he arrived there, the controversy was handled with great warmth by the Roman Catholic party, at the head of which was the marquis de Nointel, ambassador from the king of France at the Porte, a man of great learning; but Dr. Covel’s disputes with him were conducted rather in an amicable manner, Nointel being a man of a liberal mind. Dr. Covel remained here, as we have already noticed, for the space of seven years, daring which he had an opportunity of informing himself well of the ancient and present state of the Greek church; and having collected several observations and notices relating thereto, digested them afterwards into a curious and useful book, entitled “Some account of the present Greek church, with reflections on their present doctrine and discipline, particularly in the Eucharist,” &c. Cambridge, 1722, folio. In the preface he informs us, that Arnauld, not content to say that the church in all ages believed transubstantiation, did also positively affirm, that all the eastern churches do at this very day believe it, in the same sense as it was defined by the council of Trent. Claude, in answer to him, brought most authentic proofs of the contrary; upon which Arnauld set all the missionaries of the East at work to procure testimonies for him: these, by bribes and other indirect means, they obtained in such numbers, that there was soon after a large quarto in French, printed at Paris, full of the names of patriarchs, bishops, and doctors of those churches, who all approved the Roman doctrine. But Claude, having had most certain information, by means of a French gentleman at Colchis, that some of those testimonies were mere fictions, and others quite different from what they were represented, sent some queries into the East, and desired the English clergymen residing there to inquire of the Greeks, and other eastern Christians of the best note, who had no connections with the Romanists, “Whether transubstantiation, or the real and natural change of the whole substance of the bread into the same numerical substance as the body of Christ, which is in heaven, be an article of faith amongst them, and the contrary be accounted heretical and impious?” Dr. Covel, having instituted this inquiry, published the result in the volume above mentioned.

, the eldest son of Thomas Coventry, esq. by Anna Maria Brown, was born in Cambridgeshire, and educated at Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1748, and his master’s in 1752. He was a young man of very considerable talents, and would probably have been more distinguished for polite literature, had he not been cut off in the prime of life by the small pox, in 1759, soon after he bad been presented by his relation, the earl of Coventry, to the donative or perpetual curacy of Edgware. He published “Penshurst,” an elegant poem, 1750, reprinted in Dodsley’s collection, with a poetical epistle to “The hon. Wilmot Vaughari in Wales.” He was also the author of a paper in the “World,” on the absurdities of modern gardening and of the well-known satirical romance of “Pompey the Little,” 1751. Mr. Gray told Mr. Waipole, in a letter of that date, “Pompey is the hasty production of Mr. Coventry (cousin to him you know), a young clergyman. I found it out by three characters, which made part of a comedy that he shewed me, of his own writing.” This cousin was Henry Coventry, author of the “Letters of Philemon to Hydaspes,” and who was one of the writers of the “Athenian Letters.” He was a fellow of Magdalen college; once, we are told, a religious enthusiast, and afterwards an infidel. He died Dec. 29, 1752.

He died at Durham-house in the Strand on the 14th of January, 1639-40, and was interred in the church of Croome d'Abitot on the 1st of March following, after he had continued in his post of lord-keeper with an universal reputation for his exact administration of justice, for the space of about sixteen years; which was another important circumstance of his felicity, that great office being of a tenure so precarious, that no man had died in it before for near the space of forty years; nor had his successors for some time after him much better fortune. And he himself had made use of all his strength to preserve him-­self from falling by two attacks; the one hy the earl Portland, lord high treasurer of England; the other by the marquis of Hamilton, who had the greatest power over the affections of the king of any man of that time. Whitelocke indeed tells us, that he was of “no transcendant parts or fame;” and sir Anthony Weldon, an author, whose very manner of writing weakens the authority of whatever he advances, asserts, that if his actions had been scanned by a parliament, he had been found as foul a man as ever lived. But our other historians represent him in a much more advantageous light. Mr. Lloyd observes, that he had a venerable aspect, but was neither haughty nor ostentatious; that in the administration of justice, he escaped even the least reproach or suspicion; that he served the king most faithfully; and the more faithfully, because he was a zealous opposer of all counsels which were prejudicial to his majesty, and highly disliked those persons who laboured to stretch the prerogative. But lord Clarendon’s character of him seems entitled to higher respect, not only as a faithful portrait, but a useful lesson. “He was,” says that noble writer, " a man of wonderful gravity and wisdom and not only understood the whole science and mystery of the law, at least equally with any man who had ever sat in his post, but had likewise a clear conception of the whole policy of the government both of church and state; which, by the unskilfulness of some well-meaning men, jostled each other too much. He knew the temper, disposition, and genius of the kingdom most exactly; saw their spirits grow every day more sturdy, inquisitive, and impatient; and therefore naturally abhorred all innovations, which he foresaw would produce ruinous effects. Yet many, who stood at a distance, thought he was not active and stout enough in opposing those innovations. For though by his place he presided in all public councils, and was most sharp-sighted in the consequence of things, yet he was seldom known to speak in matters of state, which he well knew were, for the most part, concluded before they were brought to that public agitation; never in foreign affairs, which the vigour of his judgment could well have comprehended; rior indeed freely in any thing, but what immediately and plainly concerned the justice of the kingdom; and in that, as much as he could, he procured references to the judges. Though in his nature he had not only a firm gravity, but a severity, and even some moroseness; yet it was so happily tempered, and his courtesy and affability towards all men so transcendent, and so much without affectation, that it marvellously recommended him to men of all degrees; and he was looked upon as an excellent courtier, without receding from the natural simplicity of his own manners. He had in the plain way of speaking and delivery, without much ornament of elocution, a strange power of making himself believed (the only justifiable design of eloquence) so that though he used very frankly to deny, and would never suffer any man to depart from him with an opinion that he was inclined to gratify, when in truth he was not; holding that dissimulation to be the worst of lying: yet the manner of it was so gentle and obliging, and his condescension such, to inform the persons whom he could not satisfy, that few departed from him with illwill and ill-wishes.

“But then this happy temper, and those good faculties, rather preserved him from having many enemies, and supplied him with some well-wishers, than furnished him with any fast and unshaken friends, who are always procured in courts by more ardour and more vehement professions and applications than he would suffer himself to be entangled with: so that h,e was a man rather exceedingly liked, than passionately loved; insomuch that it never appeared that he had any one friend in the court of quality enough to prevent or divert any disadvantage he might be exposed to. And therefore it is no wonder, nor to be imputed to him, that he retired within himself as much as he could; and stood upon his defence, without making desperate sallies against growing mischiefs; which, he knew well, he had no power to hinder, and which might probably begin in his own ruin. To conclude, his security consisted very much in his having but little credit with the king; and he died in a season the most opportune in which a wise man would have prayed to have finished his course, and which, in truth, crowned his other signal prosperity in the world.”

, the pious and learned bishop of Exeter in the reign of Edward VI. was born in Yorkshire in 1487, as appears by his age on his epitaph. He was educated at Cambridge, in the house of the Augustine friars, of which Dr. Barnes, afterwards one of the protestant martyrs, was then prior. One of his name took the degree of bachelor of law in 1530, but Lewis thinks this must have been too late for the subject of the present article; yet it is not improbable it was the same, as he appears to have been in Cambridge at that time. He afterwards, according to Godwin, who does not furnish the date, received the degree of D. D. from the university of Tubingen, and was, though late in life, admitted ad eundem at Cambridge. Being in his early years attached to the religion in which he was brought up, he became an Augustine monk. In 1514 he entered into holy orders, being ordained at Norwich; but afterwards changing his religious opinions, Bale says he was one of the first, who, together with Dr. Robert Barnes, his quondam prior, taught the purity of the gospel, and dedicated himself wholly to the service of the reformation. About this time, probably 1530, or 1531, the reformed religion began to dawn at Cambridge. Various eminent men, not only in the colleges, but monasteries, began to assemble for conference on those points which had been discussed by the reformers abroad, and their usual place of meeting was a house called the White Horse, which their enemies nicknamed Germany, in allusion to what was passing in that country; and this house being contiguous to King’s, Queen’s, and St. John’s colleges, many members of each could have access unobserved. Among the names on record of these early converts to protestantism, we find that of Coverdale. In 1532 he appears to have been abroad, and assisted Tyndale in his translation of the Bible, and in 1535 his own translation of the Bible appeared, with a dedication by him to king Henry VIII. It formed a folio volume, printed, as Humphrey Wanley thought, from the appearance of the types, at Zurich, by Christopher Froschover. If so, Coverdale must have resided there while it passed through the press, as his attention to it was unremitting. He thus had the honour of editing the first English Bible allowed by royal authority, and the first translation of the whole Bible printed in our language. It was called a special translation, because it was different from the former English translations, as Lewis shews by comparing itwithTyndale’s; and the psalms in it are those now used in the Book of Common Prayer. In 1538 a quarto New Testament, in the Vulgate Latin, and in Coverdale’s English, though it bore the name of Hollybushe, was printed with the king’s licence, and has a dedication by Coverdale, in which he says, “he does not doubt but such ignorant bodies as, having cure of souls, are very unlearned in the Latin tongue, shall, through this small labour, be occasioned to attain unto more knowledge, or at least be constrained to say well of the thing which heretofore they have blasphemed.”

About the end of this year we find Coverdale again abroad on the business of a new edition of the Bible, on which occasion an event happened which shewed the vigilance and jealousy of the Romanists with respect to vernacular translations. Grafton, the celebrated pri liter, had permission from Francis I. king of France, at the request of king Henry himself, to print a Bible at Paris, on account of the superior skill of the workmen, and the comparative goodness and cheapness of the paper. But, notwithstanding the royal licence, the inquisition interposed by an instrument dated Dec. 17, 1538. The Frenchprinters, their English employers, and our Coverdale, who was the corrector of the press, were summoned by the inquisitors; and the impression, consisting of 2500 copies, was seized and condemned-to the flames. But the avarice of the officer who superintended the burning of these “heretical books,” as they were called, induced him to sell some chests of them to a haberdasher for the purpose of wrapping his wares, and thus some copies were preserved. The English proprietors, who fled at the alarm, returned to Paris when it-subsided; and not only recovered some of those copies which had escaped the fire, but brought with them to London the presses, types, and printers. This valuable importation enabled Grafton and Whitchurch to print in 1539, what is called Cranmer’s, or the “Great Bible,” in which Coverdale compared the translation with the Hebrew, corrected it in many places, and was the chief overseer of the work. Dr. Fulk, who was one of Coverdale’s hearers when he preached at St. Paul’s Cross, informs us that he took an opportunity in his sermon to defend his translation against some slanderous reports then raised against it, confessing-, “that he himself now saw some faults, which, if he might review the book once again, as he had twice before, he doubted not he should amend: but for any heresy, he was sure that there was none maintained in his translation.” In all these labours Coverdale found a liberal patron in Thomas lord Cromwell.

It is highly probable also that Coverdale was held in estimation for piety or talents at court, for he was almoner to queen Catherine Parr, the last wife of Henry VIII. a lady who was a favourer of the reformed religion, and as such he officiated at her funeral in Sept. 1548, in the chapel at Sudeley castle in Gloucestershire, the seat of her third husband, Thomas, lord Seymour of Sudley; and took that opportunity of declaring his sentiments on religion in the sermon he preached, which, says our manuscript authority, “was very good and godlie, and in one place thereof he toke occasion to declare unto the people howe that there shulde none there thinke, seye nor spread abrode, that the offeringe which was there don, was don anye thing to proffytt the deade, but for the poore onlye; and also the lights which were caried and stode abowte the corps, were for the honnour of the parson, and for none other entente nor purpose; and so wente thorowghe with his Sermon de, and made a godly e Prayer, &c.”

In 1547 we find him preaching at St. Paul’s with such effect against certain anabaptists, that they are said to have recanted their opinions. On the 14th of August, 1551, he succeeded Dr. John Harman, or Voysey, in the see of Exeter, his collocation, with licence of entry, bearing date July of that year, and it was expressly stated that king Edward VI. had promoted him “on account of his extraordinary knowledge in divinity, and his unblemished character.” When lord Russel was sent down to quell the rebellion in the West of England in 1549, he was attended by Coverdale to preach among them, and it was probably the influence of his preaching in composing the religious differences in that quarter, which pointed him out as a fit person to succeed Hartnan, a bigotted papist, who seldom resided, and took little care of his diocese, and to whom, some time before, Coverdale had been appointed coadjutor, an office not uncommon in those days. On his appointment to this bishopric, Coverdale was so poor as to be unable to pay the first fruits, which, therefore, the king, at the solicitation of archbishop Cranmer, excused. In the same year he was nominated one of the commissioners for compiling a new body of ecclesiastical laws, a favourite object with Cranmer, which, however, did not then take effect.

In his diocese he exerted himself to promote the reformed religion, and as he was not technically versed in civil and ecclesiastical law, which he wished to be executed with justice and equity, he applied to the university of Oxford for a competent person to be chancellor of his diocese; and Dr. Robert Weston, afterwards lord chancellor in Ireland*, being recommended, he invested him ivith full ecclesiastical jurisdiction, allowing him not only all the fees of office, but a house for him and his family, with proper attendants, and a salary of 40l. per annum. Yet, notwithstanding the integrity of his chancellor’s conduct, and his own endeavours to promote religion, by preaching constantly every Sunday and holy day, and by a divinity lecture twice a week in one or other of the churches of Exeter, and notwithstanding his hospitality, charity, and humility, the enemies of the new religion, as it was called, took every opportunity to thwart his endeavours, and to misrepresent his conduct, all which, however, during the reign of Edward VI. gave him but little disturbance.

On the accession of queen Mary, and the consequent re-establishment of popery, he was ejected from the see and thrown into prison, out of which he was released after two years confinement, at the earnest request of the king of Denmark. Coverdale and Dr. John Machabseus, chap­* Dr. Weston does not occur in Le Neve’s List of Chancellors, bu.1 there can be no doubt of the fact. lain to that monarch, had married sisters, and it was at his chaplain’s request that the king interposed, but was obliged to send two or three letters be Core he could accomplish his purpose. By one of these, dated April 25, 1554, it would appear that Coverdale was imprisoned in consequence of being concerned in an insurrection against the queen, but this is not laid to his charge in the queen’s answer, who only pretended that he was indebted to her concerning his bishopric. As the first fruits had been forgiven by Edward VI. this must be supposed to allude to his tenths; and Coverdale’s plea, as appears by the king of Denmark’s second letter, was, that he had not enjoyed the bishopric long enough to be enabled to pay the queen. This second letter bears date Sept. 24, 1554, and, according to Strype, the queen’s grant of his request was not given till Feb. 18, 1555. Strype, therefore, from his own evidence, is erroneous in his assertion that in 1554 Coverdale was preacher to a congregation of exiled protestants at Wesel, until he was called by the duke of Deux Fonts, to be preacher at Bergzabern . On his release, which was on the condition of banishing himself, he repaired to the court of Denmark, where the king would fain have detained him, but as he was not so well acquainted with the language as to preach in Danish, he preferred going to the places above mentioned, where he could preach with facility in Dutch; and there and at Geneva he passed his time, partly in teaching and partly in preaching. He also, while here, joined some other English exiles, Goodman, Gilby, Whittingham, Sampson, Cole, &c. in that translation of the Bible usually called the “Geneva translation;” part of which, the New Testament, was printed at Geneva, by Conrad Badius, in 1557, and again in 1560, in which last year the whole Bible was printed in the same place by Rowland Harte. Of this translation, which had explanatory notes, and therefore was much used in private families, there were above thirty editions in folio, quarto, and octavo, mostly printed in England by the king’s and queen’s printers, from the year 1560 to 1616. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he returned from his exile, but, unfortunately for the church, had imbibed the principles of the Geneva reformers, as far as respected the ecclesiastical habits and ceremonies. In 1559, however, we find him taking his turn as preacher at St. Paul’s Cross, and he assisted also at the consecration of archbishop Parker, in which ceremony, although he performed the functions of a bishop, he wore only a long black cloth gown. This avowed non-compliance with the habits and ceremonies prevented his resuming his bishopric, or any preferment being for some time offered to him. In 1563 bishop Grindal recommended him to the bishopric of Llandaff; and in 1564, Coverdale had the honour to admit that prelate to his doctor’s degree, by a mandate from the vicechancellor of Cambridge, a proof that he was still in high estimation. Grindal, particularly, had a great regard for him, and was very uneasy at his want of preferment. On one occasion he exclaimed, “I cannot excuse us bishops.” He also applied to the secretary of state, “telling him, that surely it was not well that father Coverdale,” as he styled him, “qui ante nos omnes fuit in Christo,” “who was in Christ before us all,” should be now in his age without stay of living.“It was on this occasion that Grindal recommended him to the bishopric of Llandaff, as already noticed, but it is supposed Coverdale’s age and infirmities, and the remains of the plague, from which he had just recovered, made him decline so great a charge. In lieu of it, however, the bishop collated him to the rectory of St. Magnus, London Bridge; and here again the good man’s poverty presented an obstruction, as appears from some affecting letters he wrote to be excused from the first fruits, amounting to 60l. which he was utterly incapable of paying: one of these letters, in which he mentions his age, and the probability of not enjoying the preferment long, he concludes with these words:” If poor old Miles might be thus provided for, he should think this enough to be as good as a feast." His request being granted, he entered upon his charge, and preached about two years; but resigned it in 1566, a little before his death. He was very much admired by the puritans, who flocked to him in great numbers while he officiated at St. Magnus’s church, which he did without the habits, and when he had resigned it, for it does not appear that he was deprived of it, as Neal asserts, his followers were obliged to send to his house on Saturdays, to know where they might hear him the next day, which he declined answering lest he should give offence to government. Yet, according to Strype, he had little to fear; for, Fox, Humphrey, Sampson, and others of the same way of thinking, were not only connived at, but allowed to hold preferments. He died, according to Richardson in his edition of Godwin, May 20, 1565 and according to Neal in his History of the Puritans, May 20, 1567 but both are wrong. The parish register proves that he was buried Feb. 19, 1568, in the chancel of the church of St. Bartholomew, Exchange, with the following inscription on his tombstone, which was destroyed at the great fire along with the church.

Coverdale was the author of several tracts calculated to promote the doctrines of the reformation, and of several translations from the writings of the foreign reformers. All these are now of such rare occurrence, that it is very difficult to make out a correct list. That in Bale, and in the meagre account of him in the Biographia Britannica, is both defective and indistinct. The following, which probably is also imperfect, may, in some measure, assist the collectors of curiosities, and has been taken principally from Ames and Herbert: 1. “A faithful and true Prognostication upon the Year 1548, &c.” translated from the German, 8vo, 1536, 1548, and often reprinted. 2. Translation of “Luther’s Exposition of the 23d Psalm,” 1537, 16mo. 3. “How and whither a Chryten man ought to fly the horryble Plague and Pestilence,” a sermon, from the German, to which is added, “A comfort concerning them that be dead, and howe wyfe, chyldren, and other frendes shal be comforted, the husband being dead,” 1537, 8vo. 4. “The Olde Faithe,” 1541 and 1547, 16mo. 5. A translation of Bullinger’s “Christen State of Matrimony,” 1541, 8vo, and 1543, one of the books prohibited by proclamation of Henry VIII. but reprinted twice in 1552. 6. “A Confutacion of that Treatise, which one John Standish made against the Protestacion of D. Barnes, in the year 1540,” 1541, 8vo. 7. Translation of “The Actes of the Disputation in the cowncell of the empyre, holden at Regenspurg 1” 8vo, about 1542. 8. Translation from the German of “The Defence of a certayne poore Christen Man who als shuld have beene condemned by the Popes Lawe,” Nuremberg, 1545, 16mo. 9. “An Abridgment of Erasmus’s Enchiridion militis Christiani,” 1545, 12mo. 10. A translation of the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, in “The second volume of the Paraphrase ef Erasmus on the New Testament,” 1549, fol. 11. Translation of “A godly Treatise, wherein is proved the true Justification of a Christian Man to come freely to the Mercie of God,” 1579, 16mo. 12. Translation of “The Hope of the Faithfull, &c.” 1579, 16mo, and of 13. “The Booke of Death, or how a Christian Man ought to behave himself in the danger of Death, &c.” 1579, 16mo. 14. Translation of “A spiritual and most precious pearle, teaching all men to love and embrace the Cross,” from the German of Otho Wermylierus, or Wermulerus, no date, but printed by Singleton about 1588. 15. ,“Fruitful Lessons upon the passion, buriall, resurrection, ascension, and of the sending of the Holy Ghost,” 1593, 4to. 16. Translation of “The Supplication of the nobles and commons of Ostericke made unto king Ferdinandus, in the cause of Christian Religion, &c.” 8vo, no date. 17. “Declaration of the Order that the churches in Denmark, and many other places in Germany, do use, not only at the Holy Supper, but also at Baptisme,” printed beyond sea; no date, 16mo. No manuscripts of bishop Coverdale exist in any of our public libraries, except a short letter in the Harleian collection, lately printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine.

, a learned divine of the church of Rome, who was long resident in England, was born at Vernon in “Normandy, in the year 1681, and being educated for the church, became canon regular and librarian of the abbey of St. Genevieve, a situation extremely favourable to the prosecution of his studies, as the library of which he had the care is a very considerable one. Among other theological inquiries, he engaged in one, which was productive of very important consequences respecting his future life. Having been employed in reading abbe Reuaudot’s” Memoire sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois,“inserted in abbe Gould’s” La veritable croyance de T'eglise Catholique,“he was induced to enter into a farther examination of that subject. Accordingly he drew up a memoir upon it, for his own satisfaction only, but which grew insensibly into a treatise; and at the instance of some friends to whom it was communicated, he was at length prevailed with to consent to its publication. He therefore made the usual application for permission to print it; and obtained the approbation of Mons. Arnaudin, the royal licenser of the press. Some persons, however, afterwards found means to prevail on the chancellor to refuse to affix the seal to the approbation of the licenser. Terms were proposed to father Courayer, to which he could not accede, and he gave up all thoughts of publishing. Some of his friends, however, being in possession of a copy, resolved to print it; and this obliged him to acquiesce in the publication. When he first wrote his treatise, all his materials were taken from printed authorities, and he had no acquaintance or correspondence in England. But sundry difficulties, which occurred to him in the course of his inquiries, suggested to him the propriety of writing to England, in order to obtain clearer information on some points; and knowing that a correspondence had been carried on between Dr. Wake, then archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Dupin, on the project of re-uniting the churches of England and France, he took the liberty, in 1721, although entirely unknown to that prelate, to desire his information respecting some particulars. The archbishop answered his inquiries with great readiness, candour, and politeness, and many letters passed between them on this occasion. Father Courayer’s book was at length published in 1723, in two volumes small 8vo, entitled,” Dissertation sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois, et sur la Succession des Evesques de l'Eglise Anglicane: avec les preuves justificatives des faits avancez dans cet ouvrage.“It was printed at Nancy, though Brussels is placed in the title. It was afterwards translated into English, by the rev. Mr. Daniel Williams, and published at London in one volume 8vo, under the title” A Defence of the validity of the English Ordinations, and of the Succession of the Bishops in the Church of England: together with proofs justifying the facts advanced in this treatise.“Father Courayer’s work was immediately attacked by several popish writers, particularly by father le Quien and father Hardouin. But in 1726 he published, in four volumes 12mo,” Defense de la Dissertation sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois, coutre les differentes reponsesqui y out 6te faites. Avec les preuves justiticatives des faits avancez dans cet ouvrage. Par l'Auteur de la Dissertation.“An English translation of this also was afterwards published at London, in two volumes 8 vo, under the following title:” A Defence of the Dissertation on the validity of the English Ordinations," &c.

He was well received in England: the marquis of Blandford made him a present of fifty pounds, and he obtained a pension of one hundred pounds a year from the court. In 1729 he published, at Amsterdam, in two vols. 12mo, “Relation Historique et Apologetique des sentimens et de la conduite du P. le Courayer, chanoine regulier de Ste. Genevieve: avec les preuves justificatives des faits avancez dans l'ouvrage.” In this work he entered into a farther justification of his sentiments and of his conduct, and shewed the necessity that he was under of quitting France, from the virulence and power of his enemies. In 1733 he was at Oxford, and was present in the theatre at the public act that year, and made a speech there upon the occasion, which was afterwards printed both in Latin and English. In 1726 he published at London, in two vols. folio, a translation, in French, of “Father Paul’s History of the Council of Trent;” with notes critical, historical, and theological. He dedicated this work to queen Caroline, and speaks of it as having been undertaken by her command; and he expresses, in the strongest terms, his gratitude to her majesty for her patronage, and for the liberality which she liad manifested towards him. A list of subscribers is prefixed, in which are found the names of the prince of Wales, the duke of Cumberland, the prince and princess of Orange, the princesses Amelia and Caroline, the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord Chancellor, lord Hardwicke, then chief Justice of the King’s Bench, sir Robert Walpole, and many of the nobility, andother persons of distinction. By the sale of this work he is said to have gained fifteen hundred pounds, and the queen also raised his pension to two hundred pounds per annum. He gave sixteen hundred pounds to lord Feversham, for an annuity of one hundred pounds per annum, which he enjoyed forty years. By these means he came into very easy circumstances, which were rendered still more so by the reception which his agreeable and instructive conversation procured him, among persons of rank and fortune, with many of whom it was his custom to live for several months at a time. He wrote some other works in French, besides those that have been mentioned; and, in particular, he translated into that language Sleidan’s “History of the Reformation.” His exile from his own country was probably no diminution of his happiness upon the whole; for he appears to have passed his time in England very agreeably, and he lived to an uncommon age. Even in his latter years, he was distinguished for the cheerfulness of his temper and the sprightliness of his conversation. He died in Downingstreet, Westminster, after two days illness, on the 17th of October, 1776, at the age of ninety-five. Agreeably to his own desire, he was buried m the cloister of Westminsterabbey, by Dr. Bell, chaplain to the princess Amelia. In his will, which was dated Feb. 3, 1774,* he declared, “That he died a member of the Catholic church, but without approving of many of the opinions and superstitions which have been introduced into the Romish church, and taught in their schools and seminaries, and which they have insisted on as articles of faith, though to him they appeared to be not only not founded in truth, but also to be highly improbable.” It is said, that soon after he came to England, he went to a priest of the Romish church for confession, and acquainted him who he was. The priest would not venture to take his confession, because he was excommunicated, but advised him to consult his superior of Genevieve. Whether he made any such application, or what was the result, we are not informed bat it is certain that, when in London, he made it his practice to go to mass; and when in the country, at Ealing, he constantly attended the service of the parish-church, declaring, at all times, that he had great satisfaction in the prayers of the church of England. In discoursing on religious subjects he was reserved and cautious, avoiding controversy as much as possible. He left 500l. to the parish of St. Martin; and gave, in his life-time, his books to the library there, founded by archbishop Tenison. He bequeathed 200l. to the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, and a handsome sum of money to the poor of Vernon, in Normandy; and, after many legacies to his friends in England, the remainder to two nephews of his name at Vernon. During his lifetime, he was occasionally generous to some of his relations in France, and in England was very liberal to the poor. He had two sisters, who were nuns; and a brother at Paris, in the profession of the law, to whom he gave a handsome gold snuff-box, which had been presented to him by queen Caroline.

By his “Last Sentiments,” published by Dr. Bell, it appears that although he professed to die a member of the Roman Catholic church, he could not well be accounted a member of that or of any other established church. In rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, he became nearly, if pot quite, a Socinian, or modern Unitarian; he denied also the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, as to matters of fact; and as to baptism, seems to wish to confine it to adults. In 1811, however, a more full exposure of his sentiments was published by Dr. Bell, entitled “Trait ou Ton expose ce qui I'ecriture nous apprend de la Divinite* de Jesus Christ,” 8vo, a publication which we have little hesitation in saying ought never to have appeared. At the distance of almost thirty years from the publication of his “Last Sentiments,” it could not be wanted to illustrate the wavering, unsettled character of the author, and it was surely not necessary to increase the number of writings of the same description, already too numerous. The apology of the editor, we observe with regret, is far from being conclusive.

One other circumstance respecting Courayer’s history remains to be noticed. From the fourth volume of bishop Atterbury’s Epistolary Correspondence, we learn that the bishop was exposed to some trouble on account of Courayer' s escape from France, which he was supposed to have facilitated. The French king and cardinal Fleury sent him a message on the subject by the lieutenant de police. “I did not mince the matter to the magistrate,” says the bishop, “nor am I at all ashamed of what has happened, or concerned for it. I owned my friendship for Pere Courayer told them frankly a great deal more than they knew of that matter, as <far as I was concerned and thought there was no reason to wonder at, or blame my conduct. I convinced them of that point, and I believe there is an end of it. I shewed the lieutenant the picture of Pere Courayer hanging up in my room; told him I had visited him in his retreat at Hanment, while he was in disgrace there; and that he came to take his leave of me the night before he left Paris; and that in all this I thought I had done nothing that misbecame me.” The lieutenant, who behaved with great politeness, was perfectly satisfied with our prelate’s explanation but this was not the case with the cardinal, who was persuaded that father Courayer’s escape was entirely owing to Atterbury, and displayed much resentment on that account. The picture of Courayer, in the bishop’s possession, was left by him to the university of Oxford.

, the son of a tailor at Menin, was one of many who experienced the oppression of Olivarez duke of Alva, who, being appointed by Philip II. governor of the seventeen provinces, endeavoured, with execrable policy, to establish over all the Netherlands an irreligious and horrible court of judicature, on the model of the Spanish inquisition. By consequence, in 1567, great numbers of industrious, thriving, and worthy people were imprisoned by the rigorous orders of this petty tyrant, and treated with great injustice and cruelty. Courten had the good fortune to escape from prison; and in the year following, 1568, arrived safe in London, with his wife Margaret Casiere, a daughter named Margaret, her husband, son of a mercantile broker at Antwerp of the name of Boudean, and as much property as they could hastily collect under such disadvantages. Soon after their arrival, they took a house in Abchurch-lane, where they lived together, following for some time the business of making what were commonly called French hoods, much worn in those days and long after, which they vended in wholesale to the shopkeepers who sold them in retail. Encouraged by great success in this employment, they soon removed to a larger house in Pudding-lane or Love-lane, in the parish of St. Mary Hill, where they entered on a partnership trade, in silks, fine linens, and such articles as they had dealt in before when in Flanders. Michael Boudean, the daughter Margaret’s husband, died first, leaving behind him, unfortunately for the family, a son and only child, named Peter, after an uncle certainly not much older than himself. The widow married John Money, a merchant in London, who instantly became an inmate with the family, which was moreover increased by the parents themselves, with two sons, William, born in 1572, and Peter, born in 1581. The young men, being instructed in reading, writing, and arithmetic, were early initiated in business, and soon after sent abroad as factors for the family: William to Haerlem, Peter to Cologne, and Peter Boudean the grandchild to Middleburg. At what time William Courten and Margaret Casiere died is at present uncertain most probably their deaths happened about the end of queen Elizabeth’s, or in the beginning of king James’s reign; but it seems certain, that they left their descendants not only in easy, but even in affluent circumstances. At the following aera of this little history it does not appear clearly, whether the old people were actually dead, or had only declined all farther active, responsible concern in business: but, in 1606, William and Peter Courtens entered into partnership with John Money, their sister Margaret’s second husband, to trade in silks and fine linen. Two parts, or the moiety of the joint stock, belonged to William Courten, and to each of the others, Peter Courten and John Money, a fourth share. As for Peter Boudean, the son of Margaret Courten by her first husband, he seems to have been employed to negotiate for the partnership at Middleburg on some stipulated or discretionary salary; for it does not appear that he had any certain or determinate share in the trade, which was carried on prosperously till 1631, with a return, it is said, one year with another, of 150,000l. During the course of this copartnership, there is nothing upon record unfavourable to the character of John Money. The characters too of William and Peter Courtens appear unexceptionable, fair, and illustrious. They prospered, it seems, remarkably in all their undertakings, for twenty years and more; in the course of which time they were both dignified with the honours of knighthood.

The elder brother, sir William Courten, besides his capital concern in the original partnership above mentioned, traded very extensively on his own account to Guinea, Portugal, Spain, and the West Indies. He married first a Dutch woman of the name of Cromling, the daughter of Mr. Peter Cromling, an opulent merchant in Haerlem, who, though both deaf and dumb, was book-keeper to her father. By this marriage he got, it is said, 60,000l. of which he was enjoined to lay out 50,000l. in the purchase pf lands in England, to be settled upon his son by this lady, of whom she was delivered in London, and whose name was Peter. This son, who was all the offspring from this marriage, king James I. made one of the first rank of his baronets. He was afterwards married to lord Stanhope’s daughter, but died without issue, leaving the estate in lands to his father sir William, who settled that estate, and 3000l. more per annum, upon his only son and heir, by a second wife, the daughter of Mr. Moses Tryon. Sir Peter, the uncle to Peter just mentioned, and brother to sir William Courten, kept the books of the family partnership, and died unmarried in 1630 at Middleburgh. It is affirmed that he was worth at his death 100,000l. and that he left his nephew Peter Boudean, the son of his sister by her first husband, his sole heir and executor, who seems at this time to have taken the name of Courten, which he annexed to his own. This crafty man took immediate possession, not only of his uncle sir Peter’s property, which could not have been ascertained without balancing the accounts of the copartnership, but seized likewise the shipping and goods that belonged unquestionably to his other uncle sir William, and Mr. Money, amounting, as it is stated, to 100,000l. more; nor could he, to the very end of his life, which lasted above thirty years longer, be brought, by argument or law, to settle the accounts of the company.

Sir William Courten, after the death of his Dutch lady, married a second wife of the name of Tryon, by whom he had one son, named William, and three daughters. Sir William seems to have been possessed of a comprehensive mind, an enterprising spirit, abundance of wealth, and credit sufficient to enable him to launch out into any promising branch of trade and merchandize whatsoever. It is stated, with apparent fairness, that he actually lent to king James I. and his son Charles I. at different times, of his own money, or from the company trade, 27,000l. and in another partnership wherein he was likewise concerned with sir Paul Pyndar, their joint claims on the crown amounted, it seerns, to 200,000l. Sir William employed, one way or other, for many years, between four and five thousand seamen; he built above twenty ships of burthen; was a great insurer, and besides that, a very considerable goldsmith, or banker, for so a banker was then called. It appears likewise, that he was very deeply engaged in a herring fishery, which was carried on at one time with great spirit and at great expence: but shortly after, much to his cost, it came to nothing, in consequence of the supervening dissensions, confusion, and misery, that accompanied the rebellion. Previous to this, however, about the year 1624, two of sir William Courten’s ships, in their return from Fernambuc, happened to discover an uninhabited island, now of considerable importance to Great Britain, to which sir William first gave the name of Barbadoes. On the 25th of February 1627, he obtained the king’s letters patent for the colonization of this island, sheltering himself, for whatever reasons, under the earl of Pembroke. On the faith of this grant, afterwards superseded by the influence of James then earl of Carlisle, though its validity was acknowledged by the first, and indeed by all the lawjers, sir William sent two ships with men, arms, ammunition, &c. which soon stored the island with inhabitants, English, Indians, &c. to the number of one thousand eight hundred and fifty; and one captain Powel received from sir William a commission to remain in the island as governor, in behalf of him and the earl of Pembroke. After sir William had expended 44,000l. on this business, and been in peaceable possession of the island about three years, James earl of Carlisle claiming on grants said to be prior, though dated July 2, 1627, and April 7, 1628; affirming too that he was lord of all the Caribbee islands lying between 10 and 20 degrees of latitude, under the name of Carliola, gave his commission to colonel Royden, Henry Hawley, and others, to act in his behalf. The commissioners of lord Carlisle arrived at Barbadoes with two ships in 1629, and having invited the governor captain Powel on board, they kept him prisoner, and proceeded to invade and plunder the island. They carried off the factors and servants of sir William Courten and the earl of Pembroke, and established the earl of Carlisle’s authority in Barbadoes; which continued there under several governors, till 1646, when the government of it was vested by lease and contract in lord Willoughby of Parham. Sir William Courten, it is said, had likewise sustained a considerable loss several years before this blow in the West Indies, by the seizure of his merchandize, after the cruel massacre of his factors at Amboyna in the East Indies. But after all the losses above mentioned, he was still possessed, in the year 1633, of lands in various parts of this kingdom to the value of 6 500l. per annum, besides personal estates rated at 128,Ogo/. and very extensive credit. Such were his circumstances when he opened a trade to China, and, as if he had grown* young again, embarked still more deeply in mercantile expeditions to the East Indies, where he established sundry new forts and factories. In the course of this new trade he lost unfortunately two of his ships richly laden, the Dragon and the Katharine, which were never heard of more: and he himself did not long survive this loss, which involved him in great debt; for he died in the end of May or beginning of June 1636, in the 64th year of his age, and was buried in the church or church-yard of St. Andrew Hubbard, the ground of both which was after the fire of 1666 disposed of by the city for public uses, and partly laid into the street, the parish being annexed to St. Mary Hill. There is an abstract of sir William Courten’s will in the British Museum.

1642. He had probably no knowledge or remembrance of his father, who, the next year after his son was born, in

1643, became insolvent, and quitted this kingdom, to which it does not appear that he ever returned. When he died at Florence, in 1655, the subject of this article was about thirteen years of age; and it is most likely that his mother did not survive her husband above four or five years: for as no mention is made of lady Katharine in 1660, when Mr. Carew obtained letters of administration to the estates of the Courten family, it is probable she was then dead. In a petition to parliament, a rough draught of which is in the British Museum, there is a like ground for the same supposition, no mention being made of his mother; for it is only said there, that he the petitioner, and his only sister, had been left for many years destitute of a livelihood. It is not said at what time this gentleman’s father sold the great bulk of sir William Courten’s lands. Even the wrecks of a fortune, once so ample, must have been very considerable, and more than sufficient for the proper education and decent maintenance of William Courten and his sister. She could very well live in those days on no more income, as appears, than 30l. per annum. That this moderate annual sum was her principal support, we are led to believe from a slight attention to two papers still in being. If he and his sister had even been more reduced in point of income than we can well suppose, they still had infallible resources in the number, rank, and riches of their relations. Their grandfather the earl of Bridgewater, two uncles, with eleven aunts on the side of their mother, and three aunts on their father’s side, were people of fortune and distinction; many of them married into honourable and wealthy families, and all of them apparently in affluent or easy circumstances. It may therefore be reasonably concluded that William Courten was well educated, though the fact were not ascertained by other testimony. Having previously received a good education in this country, forwarded probably with peculiar care, and earlier certainly than is now usual, William Courten began his travels; or was sent, while yet a minor, to prosecute his studies abroad. The genius of a naturalist, which he discovered, it seems, from his infancy, led him to cultivate it at Montpellier, distinguished then, as Upsal since, for its botanical garden, its peculiar attention to natural history, and the abilities and celebrity of masters in various branches of this science. Here he met, as might be probably expected, with students of a congenial taste, and persons then and afterwards eminent in various walks of literature, with several of whom he appears to have lived in great familiarity, and to have cultivated long correspondence. Tournefort, the celebrated French botanist, was of this number. William Courten, who was the senior by several years, had no doubt made a very considerable proficiency in botany before his acquaintance with this illustrious foreigner commenced; but it must have been much improved by the intimacy that appears to have subsisted between them. It was at Montpellier probably, but many years after his primary settlement there, that William Courten contracted his first acquaintance with sir Hans Sloane, a zealous naturalist, who spared no pains or expence in the acquisition and promotion of knowledge in natural history, and who was yet more honourably distinguished by his skill in his own profession, his general patronage of scholars, his public spirit, and extensive phiJanthropy. Sir Hans Sloane unquestionably spent a considerable time at Montpellier, probably to improve his knowledge and to establish his health; and here too it is said he got his degree of M. D. But at what place and at what time soever their acquaintance began, being forwarded'by a similarity of studies, in which William Courten had undoubtedly the pre-eminence, it ripened into a friendship that continued without interruption to the end of his life.

Soon after his arrival in England, in concert with his friends, William Courten began his litigations in behalf of himself and his sister. The first object he aimed at was to set aside the letters that, in his absence and minority, Carew had surreptitiously obtained, and to get himself legally invested with the administration of the estate and effects of his ancestors. He contended that George Carew was an officious intruder, under false pretexts of being a sufferer, and an agent for other sufferers by the losses of his father and grandfather; and urged that this man’s intermeddling with the wrecks of their fortunes, had been equally t > the prejudice of the rightful heirs, and to the detriment of the legal creditors of the family. He claimed therefore for himself, as his natural right, the administration of the Courten estates and his aunt, lady Knightly, who seems to have been then the only surviving child of sir William, from whom the estates descended, concurred with her nephew in this claim. George Carew, who was both a courtier and a lawyer, seems to have exerted his utmost address and professional skill to stop or frustrate these proceedings. He expressly owns in one of his papers that he had indeed paid indefinite sums of money to William Courten, esq. after he came of age, though he says at the same time that he did not pay the monies because William Courten had a right to them, but solely to prevent and terminate debates. The causes here assigned for the payments to William Courten, esq. after he came of age, are very questionable; for Carew does not appear a man likely to have parted with money on such principles merely to prevent or terminate debates.

Of the course or duration of his travels no particular information can now be given. It may be reasonably judged, that, after a peregrination of three or four years at most, he settled in his former place of abode, at Montpellier, where he certainly resided for the greatest part of the time that he lived abroad. Sir Hans Sioane says expressly that he was absent from England, at different times, no doubt, twenty-five years in all; and though the particular years are not stated, it would not be very difficult, if it was of any importance, to ascertain them. Mr. Courten seems all along to have paid great and general attention to polite literature. His papers and place-books, many of which are preserved in the British Museum, discover various, judicious, and extensive reading, and his own frequent rejnarks shew that he thought as well as read. About this time he seems to have been engaged in the study of coins, both ancient and modern. On this entertaining and useful, but expensive branch of knowledge, he certainly made great proficiency, and attained at last extraordinary skill. It appears from one of his pocket-books, that in 1669 he began to collect coins, in both kinds, and in all metals, at considerable expence.

It was most probably abroad, and about the year 1675, that Mr. Courten’s acquaintance and friendship with the celebrated Mr. John Locke began; for in the summer of that year the bad state of Locke’s health, and an apprehended consumption, induced him to repair to Montpellier, then famous for the cure of diseases in the lungs. For many years past people have discontinued to resort to Montpellier, when afflicted with pulmonary and consumptive complaints, its air having been long judged peculiarly improper for them; though it is now said to be much mended, by draining a morass, or planting, or destroying a wood. Bishop Atterbury, who was there in the summer 1729, represents it as so uncomfortable, that he was forced to take shelter from the sultry heats, at Vigan in the Cevennes, ten leagues distant.

It appears that Mr. Courten was one of the select friends among whom Locke practised physic, of which he had taken a bachelor’s degree at Oxford. That Mr. Courten attended particularly to Locke’s prescription, and derived benefit from it, is evident from his answer, and from the following entries in a Saunders’s almanac for 1698, in which there is a ms diary, not by Dr. Walter Charleton, as it is entitled in the Museum, and the catalogue of Mss. but relative solely to Mr. William Courten, being his own hand-writing, which is sufficiently distinguishable, and moreover vouched as his by the information itself. “July 27, 1698, being distressed with my headach and giddiness, I left off entirely taking tobacco in snuff, having only taken it but four times a day, for several days before, and never after seven at night.” “Aug. 20, 1698, must shew my things [meaning his Museum] but seldom, never two days consecutively for the future.” Certainly Mr. Courten cultivated medallic science with pleasure, avidity, and considerable success, as is evident in the British Museum, both in the coins he collected, and in the accounts he has given of them. It appears likewise from many of his papers in the same repository, that as a general scholar he was far from being contemptible, and that he was not unskilled in making experiments. Mr. Courten’s intimacies, correspondences and friendships, with doctor, afterwards sir Hans Sloane, with doctor, afterwards sir Tancred Robinson, physician in ordinary to George I. with doctor Martin Lister, with Mr. L. Plukenet, with Mr. Edward Llwyd, &c. were certainly founded on congenial taste, and argue no inferior degrees of proficiency in the various branches of natural history. Mr. Courten' s own museum remains to this day, though improved, as may well be supposed, and now arranged for the most part to greater advantage, according to the Linnaean system. Of his curious collection it is now impossible to ascertain the exact catalogues or precise value. Swelled with short histories and accounts of their contents, they amount, it is said, in all, to thirty-eight volumes in folio, and eight volumes in quarto. It remained for about half a century after the death of Mr. Courten, in the possession of his executor and residuary legatee, who certainly added very much to it, and was then purchased in 1753, for the use of the public, without so much as the mention of the name of its first and most scientific collector and proprietor, so far as appears in the whole course of the transaction, for 20,000l. though the coins and precious stones alone were said to be of that value. It is now preserved in the British Museum. Mr. Courten passed the last fourteen or fifteen years of his life in chambers at the Temple, promoting the knowledge of natural history, and exhibiting his collection gratis in an instructive way. Latterly the declining state of his health obliged him to practise more abstemiousness than was agreeable to his convivial turn; and for several years he was^ under the necessity of abstaining almost entirely from wine and all spirituous liquors, in which, from a companionable disposition, and in compliance with a fashion then much more prevalent than at present, it seems that he indulged at times rather too freely. He died at Kensington gravel-pits, on the 26th of March 1702, aged 63, and was buried in the church-yard of that parish.

, sieur de Sandras, was born at Paris in 1644. After having been captain in the regiment of Champagne, he went over to Holland in 1683, ivhere he wrote several works, published under different names, and with opposite views. Among these are, I. “The conduct of France since the peace of Nimeguen,” 1683, i'2mo, a work in which he censures the conduct of his countrymen. 2. “An answer to the foregoing,” in which he produces the arguments on the other side of the question. 3. “The new interests of the Princes.” 4. “The Life of Coligni,” 1686, 12mo, in which he affects to speak as belonging to the reformed religion, although he was always a Roman catholic. 5. “Memoirs of Rochfort,” 12mo. 6. “History of the Dutch War from the year 1672 to 1677; a work which obliged him for some time to quit the territories of the republic. 7.” Political Testament of Colbert,“12mo. The French clergy were highly incensed against him, for relating in it an expression of Colbert, that” the bishops of France were so much devoted to the will of the king, that if he should think fit to substitute the koran instead of the gospel, they would readily subscribe to it.“8.” Le grand Alcandre frustre,“or the last efforts of love and virtue. 9.” The Memoirs“of John Baptist cle la Fontaine; those of Artagnan, 3 vols. 12mo; those of Montbrun, 12mo; those of the marchioness Dufresne, 12mo; those of Bordeaux, 4 vols. 12mo; those of Saint- Hilaire, 4 vols. 12mo. 10.” Annals of Paris and of the Court, for the years 1697 and 1698.“11.” The Life of the Vicomte Turenne,“12mo, published under the name of Dubuisson. On his return to France in 1702, he was shut up in the Bastille, where he was kept in a dungeon for nine years, or, as Moreri says, only three years. Having obtained his liberty, he married a bookseller’s widow, and died at Paris the 6th of May, 1712, at the age of 68. He is also the author of, 12. Memoirs of Tyrconnel, composed from the verbal accounts of that nobleman, a close prisoner, like him, in the bastille. 13.” Historical and political Mercury,“&c. He, besides, left manuscripts sufficient in quantity to make 40 volumes in 12 mo.” The Memoirs of Vortlac," 2 vols. I 2mo, are unjustly attributed to him but enough was avowed to give us but an unfavourable opinion of his judgment or consistency.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of king Richard II. was the fourth son of Hugh Courtney, earl of Devonshire, by Margaret, daughter of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of king Edward I. and was born in the year 1341. He had his education at Oxford, where he applied himself to the study of the civil and canon law. Afterwards, entering into holy orders, he obtained three prebends in three cathedral churches, viz. those of Bath, Exeter, and York. The nobility of his birth, and his eminent learning, recommending him to public notice, in the reign of Edward III. he was promoted in 1369 to the see of Hereford, and thence translated to the see of London, September 12, 1375, being then in the 34th year of his age. In a synod, held at London in 1376, bishop Courtney distinguished himself by his opposition to the king’s demand of a subsidy; and presently after he fell under the displeasure of the high court of chancery, for publishing a bull of pope Gregory II. without the king’s consent, which he was compelled to recall. The next year, in obedience to the pope’s mandate, he cited Wickliff to appear befofe his tribunal in St. Paul’s church: but that reformer being accompanied by John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and other nobles, who favoured his opinions, and appeared openly in the bishop’s court for him, and treated the bishop with very little ceremony, the populace took his part, went to the duke of Lancaster’s house in the Savoy, plundered it, and would have burnt it to the ground, had not the bishop hastened to the place, and drawn them off by his persuasions. The consequences of this difference with so powerful a nobleman as John of Gaunt, were probably dreaded even by Courtney; for, with respect to Wickliff, he at this time proceeded no farther than to enjoin him and his followers silence. In 1378, it is said by Godwin, but without proper authority, that Courtney was made a cardinal. In 1381, he was appointed lord high chancellor of England. The same year, he was translated to the see of Canterbury, in the room of Simon Sudbury; and on the 6th of May, 1382, he received the pall from the hands of the bishop of London in the archiepiscopal palace at Croydon. This year also he performed the ceremony of crowning queen Anne, consort of king Richard II. at Westminster. Soon after his inauguration, he restrained, by ecclesiastical censures, the bailiffs, and other officers, of the see of Canterbury, from taking cognizance of adultery and the like crimes, which then belonged to the ecclesiastical court. About the same time, he held a synod at London, in which several of Wickliff’s tenets were condemned as heretical and erroneous. In 1383, he held a synod at Oxford, in which a subsidy was granted to the king, some of WicklifT's followers obliged to recant, and the students of the university to swear renunciation of his tenets. The same year, in pursuance of the pope’s bull directed to him for that purpose, he issued his mandate to the bishop of London for celebrating the festival of St. Anne, mother of the blessed virgin. In 1386, the king, by the advice of his parliament, put the administration of the government into the hands of eleven commissioners, of whom archbishop Courtney was the first; but this lasted only one year. In 1387, he held a synod at London, in which a tenth was granted to the king. The same year, it being moved in a parliament held at London on occasion of the dissension between the king and his nobles, to inflict capital punishment on some of the ringleaders, and it being prohibited by the canons for bishops to be present and vote in cases of blood, the archbishop and his suffragans withdrew from the house of lords, having first entered a protest in relation to their peerage and privilege to sit upon all other matters. In 1399, he held a synod in St. Mary’s church in Cambridge, in which a tenth was granted to the king, on condition that he should pass over into France with an army before the 1st of October following. This year, archbishop Courtney set out upon his metropolitical visitation, in which he was at first strongly opposed by the bishops of Exeter and Salisbury; but those prelates being at last reduced to terms of submission, he proceeded in his visitation without farther opposition: only, at the intercession of the abbot of St. Alban’s, he refrained from visiting certain monasteries at Oxford. The same year, the king directed his royal mandate to the archbishop, not to countenance or contribute any thing towards a subsidy for the pope. In a parliament held at Winchester in 1392, archbishop Courtney, being probably suspected of abetting the papal encroachments upon the church and state, delivered in an answer to certain articles exhibited by the commons in relation to those encroachments, which is thought to have led the way to the statute of pr&munire. The same year, he visited the diocese of Lincoln, in which he endeavoured to check the growth of Wickliff’s doctrines. In 1395, he obtained from the pope a grant of four-pence in the pound on all ecclesiastical benefices; in which he was opposed by the bishop of Lincoln, who would not suffer it to be collected in his diocese, and appealed to the pope. But before the matter could be decided, archbishop Courtney died, July 31, 1396, at Maidstone in Kent, where he was buried, but has a monument in the cathedral church of Canterbury, on the south side, near the tomb of Thomas Becket, and at the feet of the Black Prince. His remains at Maidstone, only a few bones, were seen some years ago. This prelate founded a college of secular priests at Maidstone. He left a thousand marks for the repair of the cathedral church of Canterbury also to the same church a silver- gilt image of the Trinity, with six apostles standing round it weighing 160 pounds some books, and some ecclesiastical vestments. He obtained from king Richard a grant of four fairs to be kept at Canterbury yearly within the site of the priory. The character of archbishop Courtney, weighed in the balance of modern opinions, is that of a persecuting adherent to the church of Rome, to which, however, he was not so much attached as to forget what was due to his king and country. He appears to have exhibited in critical emergencies, a bold and resolute spirit, and occasionally a happy presence of mind. One circumstance, which displays the strength and firmness of Courtney’s mind in the exercise of his religious bigotry, deserves to be noticed. When the archbishop, on a certain day, with a number of bishops and divines, had assembled to condemn the tenets of Wickliff, just as they were going to enter upon business, a violent earthquake shook the monastery. Upon this, the terrified bishops threw down their papers, and crying out, that the business was displeasing to God, came to a hasty resolution to proceed no farther. “The archbishop alone,” says Mr. Gil pin in his Life of Wickliff, “remained unmoved. With equal spirit and address he chid their superstitious fears, and told them, that if the earthquake portended any thing, it portended the downfall of heresy; that as noxious vapours are lodged in the bowels of the earth, and are expelled by these violent concussions, so by their strenuous endeavours, the kingdom should be purified from the pestilential taint of heresy, which had infected it in every part. This speech, together with the news that the earthquake was general through the city, &s it was afterwards indeed found to have been through the island, dispelled their fears Wickliff would often merrily speak of this accident; and would call this assembly the council of the herydene; herydene being the old English word for earthquake.”

, in Latin, Cognatus, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, was born at Nozeret, in Franche-Comte, Jan. 21, 1506. Having a turn for the law, he went to study at Dole in 1526, but not relishing it after six months application, he entered upon a course of divinity, and being introduced to Erasmus, was employed by him as an amanuensis or copyist. Erasmus also instructed him in the learned languages and in polite literature. In 1535 the prince of Orange conferred on him a canonry of St. Antony at Nozeret, in consequence of which preferment, he was obliged to leave Erasmus, who expressed a very high regard for him in several of his letters. When established at Nozeret, he appears to have taught school. In 1553, he accompanied the archbishop of Besancon on a tour into Italy; but being soon after suspected of heresy, he was arrested by order of pope Pius V. and thrown into prison, in which he died in 1567. It is generally agreed that he inclined in some measure to the sentiments of the reformers. His works, of which a collection was published in 1562, 3 ' vols. folio, at Basle, consist of translations from various authors, a treatise on grammar, erroneously ascribed to St. Basil Latin dissertations letters historical and critical treatises, &c. Niceron has an elaborate article on this author; and in 1775 was published at Altorf, “Commentatio de vita Gilberti Cognati, et Commentatio de scriptis,” by Schwartz, 4to. Cousin’s notes upon Lucian are in Bourdelot’s edition of that classic, 1615, folio, but had been published before by himself, in an edition printed at Basil, 1563, and reprinted in 1602, and 1619, 4 vols. 8vo.

, president of the Mint, one of the forty members of the French academy, was born Aug. 12, 1627, at Paris. He was intended for the ecclesiastical profession, and admitted bachelor of the Sorbonne; but, quitting that situation afterwards, was received advocate, married, and attended the bar till 1657, when he was appointed president of the Mint. He assisted in the “Journal des Savans” from 1687 to 1702. President Cousin was well acquainted with ecclesiastical antiquity, and learned Hebrew at the age of 70, that he might spend his last years in reading the Scripture in the original. He died. February 26, 1707, at Paris, aged 80. He founded six scholarships at the college of Laon, and left his library to the abbey of St. Victor, with 20,000 livres; the interest to be employed in augmenting that library. His works are, “The Roman History of Xiphilin,” &c. 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo, a French translation of the “Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomenus, and Theodoret,” 4 vols. 4to, or 6 vols. 12 mo: there are often hut five, because the History of Constantine has been taken out, and added to that of Constantinople. A translation of the authors of the “Byzantine History,” 1672—1674, in 8 vols. 4to, or 11 12mo and some other works. These translations are written in very good French.

, born at Paris in 1716, the nephew of Nicholas, was son of the last- mentioned, and succeeded to his talents, which he improved at Rome. On his return to France, where previous to his departure for Italy he had carried off the prize for sculpture at the age of nineteen, he was employed repeatedly by many persons of rank. He was engaged to make the mausoleum of the dauphin, father to Louis XVI. and his illustrious consort: a monument which embellishes the cathedral of Sens. It was just finished when its author died in July 1777, in the 6 1st year of his age. His coffin was decorated with the ribbon of St. Michael, which the king had bestowed on him not long before. His other performances are: the apotheosis of St. Francis Xavier, which he executed in marble for the Jesuits of Bourdeaux; an Apollo placed at Bellevue; Venus and Mars, which the king or' Prussia bought as an ornament to his gallery at Berlin, &c. His Venus is particularly conspicuous for the grace, the precision, and the majesty of its form.

, a medical and metaphysical writer, was the son of Mr. William Coward of Winchester, where he was born in the year 1656 or 1657. It is not certain where young Coward received his grammatical education; but it was probably at Winchester-school. In his eighteenth year he was removed to Oxford, and in May 1674 became a commoner of Hart-hall; the inducement to which might probably be, that his uncle was at the head of that seminary. However, he did not long continue there; for in the year following he was admitted a scholar of Wadham college. On the 27th of June, 1677, betook the degree of B. A. and in January 1680 he was chosen probationer fellow of Merton college. In the year 1681, was published Mr. Dvyden’s Absalom and Achitophel, a production on the celebrity of which we need not expatiate. At Oxford it could not fail to be greatly admired for its poetical merit; besjde which, it might be the better received on account of its containing a severe satire on the duke of Monmouth and the earl of Sbftftesboryj two men who were certainly no favourites with tnat loyal university. Accordingly, the admiration of the poem produced two Latin versions of it, both of which were written and printed at Oxford; one by Mr. Francis Atterbury (afterwards the celebrated bishop of Rochester), who was assisted in it by Mr. Francis Hickman, a student of Christchurch; and the other by Mr. Coward. These translations were published in quarto, in 1682. Whatever proof Mr. Coward’s version of the Absalom and Achitophel might afford oi“his progress in classical literature, he was not very fortunate in this first publication. It was compared with Mr. Atterbury’s production, not a little to its disadvantage. According to Anthony Wood, he was schooled for it in the college; it was not well received in the university; and Atterbury’s poem was extolled as greatly superior. To conceal, in some degree, Mr. Coward’s mortification, a friend of his, in a public paper, advertised the translation, as written by a Walter Curie, of Hertford, gentleman; yet Coward’s version was generally mistaken for Atterbury’s, and a specimen given of it in Stackhouse’s life of that prelate. On the 13th of December, 1683, Mr. Coward was admitted to the degree of M.A. Having determined to apply himself to the practice of medicine, he prosecuted his studies in that science, and took the degree of bachelor of physic on the 23d of June 1685, and of doctor on the 2,d of July 1687. After his quitting Oxford he exercised his profession at Northampton, from which place he removed to London in 1693 or 1694, and settled in Lombard-street. In 1695 he published a tract in 8vo, entitled” De fermento volatili nutritio conjectura rationis, qua ostenditur spiritum volatilemoleosum, e sanguine suffusurn, esse verum ac genuinum concoctionis ac nutritionis instrumentum.“For this work he^iad an honourable approbation from the president and censors of the college of physicians. But it was not to medical studies only that Dr. Coward confined his attention. Besides being fond of polite learning, he entered deeply into metaphysical speculations, especially with regard to the nature of the soul, and the natural immortality of man. The result of his inquiries was his publication, in 1702, under the fictitious name of Estibius Psycalethes, entitled” Second Thoughts concerning Human Soul, demonstrating the notion of human soul, as believed to be a spiritual immortal substance united to a human body, to be a plain heathenish invention, and not consonant to the principles of philosophy, reason, or religion; but the ground only of many absurd and superstitious opinions, abominable to the reformed church, and derogatory in general to true Christianity.“This work was dedicated by the doctor to the clergy of the church of England; and he professes at his setting out,” that the main stress of arguments, either to confound or support his opinion, must be drawn from those only credentials of true and orthodox divinity, the lively oracles of God, the Holy Scriptures.“In another part, in answer to the question, Does man die like a brute beast? he says,” Yes, in respect to their end in this life; both their deaths consist in a privation of life.“” But then,“he adds,” man has this prerogative or pre-eminence above a brute, that he will be raised to life again, and be made partaker of eternal happiness in the world to come.“Notwithstanding these professions to the authority of the Christian Scriptures, Dr. Coward has commonly been ranked with those who have been reputed to be the most rancorous and determined adversaries of Christianity. Swift has ranked him with Toland, Tindal, and Gildon; and passages to the like purpose are not unfrequent among controversial writers, especially during the former part of the last century. His denial of the immateriality and natural immortality of the soul, and of a separate state of existence between the time of death and the general resurrection, was so contrary to universal opinion, that it is not very surprising that he should be considered as an enemy to revelation. It might be expected that he would immediately meet with opponents; and accordingly he was attacked by various writers of different complexions and abilities; among whom were Dr. Nichols, Mr. John Broughton, and. Mr. John Turner. Dr. Nichols took up the argument in his” Conference with a Theist.“Mr. Broughton wrote a treatise entitled” Psychologia, or, an Account of the nature of the rational Soul, in two parts;“and Mr. Turner published a” Vindication of the separate existence of the Soul from a late author’s Second Thoughts.“Both these pieces appeared in 1703. Mr. Turner’s publication was answered by Dr. Coward, in a pamphlet called” Farther Thoughts upon Second Thoughts,“in which he acknowledges, that in Mr. Turner he had a rational and candid adversary. He had not the same opinion of Mr. Broughton who therefore was treated by him with severity, in” An Epistolary Reply to Mr. Broughton’s Psychologia;“which reply was not separately printed, but annexed to a work of the doctor’s, published in the beginning of the year 1704, and entitled,” The Grand Essay or, a Vindication of Reason and Religion against the impostures of Philosophy." In this last production, the idea of the human soul’s being an immaterial substance was again vigorously attacked.

So obnoxious were Dr. Coward’s positions, that on Friday, March 10, 1704, a complaint was made to the house of commons of the “Second Thoughts” and the “Grand Essay;” which books were brought up to the table, and some parts of them read. The consequence of this was, an order, “that a committee be appointed to examine the said books, and collect such parts thereof as are offensive; and to examine who is the author, printer, and publisher thereof.” At the same time the matter was referred to a committee, who were directed to meet that afternoon, and had power given them to send for persons, papers, and records. On the 17th of March, Sir David Cullum, the chairman, reported from the committee, that they had examined the books, and had collected out of them several passages which they conceived to be offensive, and that they found that Dr. Coward was the author of them; that Mr. David Edwards was the printer of the one, and Mr. W. Pierson of the other; and that both the books were published by Mr. Basset. Sir David Cullum having read the report in his place, and the same being read again, after it had been delivered in at the clerks’ table, the house proceeded to the examination of the evidence with regard to the writing, printing, and vending of the two books. Sufficient proof having been produced with respect to the writer of them, Dr. Coward was called in. Being examined accordingly, he acknowledged that he was the author of the books, and declared that he never intended any thing against religion; that there was nothing contained in them contrary either to morality or religion; and that if there were any thin^ therein contrary to religion or morality, he was heartily sorry, and ready to recant the same. The house then resolved, “that the said books do contain therein divers doctrines and positions contrary to the doctrine of the church of England, and tending to the subversion of the Christian religion;” and ordered that they should be burnt, next day, by the common hangman, in New Palace-yard, Westminster; which order was carried into execution. Notwithstanding this proceeding, in the course of the same year he published a new edition of his “Second Thoughts;” which was followed by a treatise, entitled, “The just Scrutiny; or, a serious inquiry into the modern notions of the Soul.”

From a letter of our author to Dr. Hans Sloane, dated May 2ti, 1706, it appears that he was in habits of intimacy with this eminent physician and naturalist. Dr. Sloane carried his friendship so far as take upon himself the supervisal of the “Oplulialrniatria.” As the letter to Dr. Sloane is dated from the Green Bell, over against the Castle tavern, near Holborn, in Fetter-lane, there is reason to believe that Dr. Coward had quitted London, and was now only a visitant in town, for the purpose of his publication. Indeed the fact is ascertained from the list of the college of physicians for 1706, where Dr. William Coward, who stands under the head of candidates, is then for the first time mentioned as residing in the country. The opposition he had met with, and the unpopularity arising from his works, might be inducements with him for leaving the metropolis. It does not appear, for twelve years, to what part of the kingdom he had retired nor, from this period, do we hear more of Dr. Coward as a medical or metaphysical writer. Even when he had been the most engaged in abstruse and scientific inquiries, he had not omitted the study of polite literature; for we are told, that in 1705 he published the “Lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” an heroic poem, which was little noticed at first, and soon sunk in total oblivion. Another poetical performance by Dr. Coward, and the last of his writings that has come to our knowledge, was published in 1709, and is entitled, “Licentia poetica discussed; or, the true Test of Poetry: without which it is difficult to judge of or compose a correct English poem. To which are added, critical observations on the principal ancient and modern poets, viz. Homer, Horace, Virgil, Milton, Cowley, Dryden, &c. as frequently liable to just censure.” This work, which is divided into two books, is dedicated to the duke of Shrewsbury, and introduced by a long and learned preface. Prefixed are three copies of commendatory verses, signed A. Hill, J. Gay, and Sam. Barklay. The two former, Aaron Hill and John Gay, were then young poets, who afterwards, as is well known, rose to a considerable degree of reputation. Coward is celebrated by them as a great bard, a title to which he had certainly no claim; though his “Licentia,” considered as a didactic poem, and as such poems were then generally written, is not contemptible. It is not so correct as lord Roscommon’s essay on translated verse; but it is little, if at all, inferior to the duke of Buckingham’s essay on poetry, which was so much extolled in its day. The rules laid down by Dr. Coward for poetical composition are often minute, but usually, though not universally, founded on good sense and just taste; but he had not enough of the latter to feel the harmony and variety of Milton’s numbers. Triplets, double rhymes, and Alexandrines, are condemned by him; the last of which, however, he admits on some great occasion. The notes, which are large and numerous, display no small extent of reading; and to the whole is added, by way of appendix, a political essay, from which it appears that our author was a very zealous whig.

In the list of the college of physicians for 1718, Dr. Coward begins to be mentioned as residing at Ipswich. From this place he wrote, in 1722, a letter to his old friend, sir Hans Sloane, the occasion of which is somewhat curious. He had learned from the newspapers, that the duchess dowager of Maryborough proposed to give five hundred guineas to any person who should present her with an epitaph, suitable to the late duke her husband’s character. “Now,” says he, “I have one by me, which gives him his just character, without flattery or ostentation, and which I verily believe may be acceptable to any learned man.” He adds, that he hears it was to be approved by Dr. Hare, Dr. Freind of Westminster-school, and Dr. Bland of Eton-school; and, if this be true, he begs that sir Hans would give him leave to send it for his approbation and recommendation. What was the issue of this we know not. From the omission of Dr. Coward’s name in the catalogue of the college of physicians for 1725, it is evident that he was then dead. Though his medical works are now in no reputation, and his other writings are but little attended to, it is nevertheless certain that he was a man of considerable abilities and literature. We cannot dismiss this article without taking notice of a mistake which was commit Led by the late Dr. Caleb Fleming; who, in the year 1758, published a treatise, entitled “A Survey of the Search after Souls,” imagining that he was writing against Dr. Coward. But the Search after Souls was the production of Henry Layton, a barrister of Gray’s Inn .

, a learned and eminent civilian, was born at Ernsborough, in Devonshire, about 1554; educated at Eton school; and elected a scholar of King’s college in Cambridge, in 1570. He was afterwards chosen fellow of that college; and, by the advice of Bancroft bishop of London, applied himself particularly to the study of ci-vil law. He was regularly admitted to the degree of LL.D. in his own university; and, in 1600, was incorporated into the same degree at Oxford. Soon after he was made the king’s professor of civil law in Cambridge, and about the same time master of Trinity-hall. His patron, Bancroft, being advanced to the see of Canterbury in 1604, and beginning to project many things for the service of the church and state, put him upon that laborious, work the “Interpreter,” or an explanation of law-terms, which he published at Cambridge in 1607, 4to. It was reprinted in 1609, and several times since, particularly in 1638, for which archbishop Laud was reflected upon; and it was made an article against him at his trial, as if the impression of that book had been done by his authority, or at least with his connivance, in order to countenance king Charles’s arbitrary measures. In 1677 and 1684 it was published with large additions by Thomas Manley of the Middle Temple, esq. and again in 1708, with very considerable improvements, by another hand: in all which later editions the exceptionable passages have been corrected or omitted.

In 1633, being still at Westminster, and only fifteen years of age, he published a collection of poems, under the title of “Poetical Blossoms;” in which, says Sprat, there were many things that might well become the vigour and force of a manly wit. Of these his Pyramus and Thisbe was written at ten, and his Constantia and Philetus, at twelve years old. Cowley tells us of himself, that he had so defective a memory at that time, that he never could be brought to retain the ordinary rules of grammar; however, as Sprat observes, he abundantly supplied that want, by conversing with the books themselves, from whence those rules had been drawn. He was removed in 1636 from Westminster to Trinity-college, in Cambridge, where he wrote some, and laid the designs of most of those masculine works which he afterwards published. In 1638 he published his “Love’s Riddle,” a pastoral comedy, which was written while he was at Westminster, and dedicated in a copy of verses to sir Kenelm Digby; and a Latin comedy, called “Naufragium Joculare,” or “The merry Shipwreck,” after it had been acted before the university by the members of Trinity college.

The first occasion of his entering into business, was an elegy he wrote on the death of Mr. William Hervey. This brought him into the acquaintance of John Hervey, the brother of his deceased friend, from whom he received many offices of kindness, and principally this, that by his means he came into the service of the lord St. Alban’s. la 1643, being then M. A. he was, among many others, ejected his college and the university, by the prevalence f parliament; upon which, he retired to Oxford, settled in St. John’s college there, and that same year, under the name of an Oxford Scholar, published a satire entitled “The Puritan and the Papist.” His affection to the royal cause engaged him in the service of the king and he attended in several of his majesty’s journies and expeditions. Here he became intimately acquainted with lord Falkland, and other great men, whom the fortune of the war had drawn together. During the heat of the civil war, he was settled in the family of the earl of St. Alban’s, and attended the queen mother when she was forced to retire into France. He was absent from England about ten years, says Wood; about twelve, says Sprat; which, be they more or less, were wholly spent, either in bearing a share in the distresses of the royal family, or in labouring in their affairs. To this purpose he performed several dangerous journies into Jersey, Scotland, Flanders, Holland, and elsewhere; and was the principal instrument in maintaining a correspondence between the king and his royal consort, whose letters he cyphered and decyphered with his own hand, an employment of the highest confidence and honour.

In 1647 his “Mistress” was published f for he imagined, as he declared in his preface to a subsequent edition, that “poets are scarcely thought freemen of their company, without paying some duties, or obliging themselves to be true to love.” Barnes informs us, that whatever Cowley may talk of his own inflammability, and the variety of characters by which his heart was divided, he in reality was in love but once, and then never had the resolution to tell his passion. At Paris, however, he did not much employ his thoughts upon phantoms of gallantry, having constant employment as secretary to lord St. Alban’s.

In 1656 he was sent over into England, with all imaginable secrecy, to take cognizance of the state of affairs here; but soon after his arrival, while he lay hid in London, he was seized on by a mistake, the search having been intended after another gentleman of considerable note in the king’s party. He was often examined before the usurpers, who tried all methods to make him serviceable to their purposes; but proving inflexible, he was committed to close imprisonment, and scarce at last obtained his liberty upon the terms of 1000l. bail, which was tendered by Dr. Scarborough. Thus he continued a prisoner at large, till the general redemption; yet, taking the opportunity of the confusions that followed upon Cromwell’s death, he ventured back into France, and there remained in the same situation as before, till' near the time of the king’s return. Upon his return to England, in 1656, he published a new edition of all his poems, consisting of four parts; viz. 1. Miscellanies. 2. The Mistress. 3. Pindaric Odes. 4. “Davideis.” The “Mistress” had been published in his absence, and his comedy called “The Guardian,” afterwards altered and published under the title of “Cutter of Coleman-street,” but both very incorrectly. In the preface to his poems, he complains of the publication of some things of his, without his consent or knowledge; and those very mangled and imperfect, particularly of the “Guardian,” already noticed. In this preface also he seems to have inserted something suppressed in subsequent editions, which was interpreted to denote some relaxation of his loyalty. He declares, that “his desire had been for some days past, and did still very vehemently continue, to retire himself to some of the American plantations, and to forsake this world for ever.” From the obloquy which the appearance of submission to the usurpers brought upon him, Dr. Sprat and Dr. Johnson have successfully laboured to clear him, and indeed it does not seem to have lessened his reputation. His wish for retirement, says Dr. Johnson, we can easily believe to be undissembled; a man harassed in one kingdom, and persecuted in another, who, after a course of business that employed all his days and half his nights in cyphering and deciphering, comes to his own country and steps into a prison, will be willing enough to retire to some place of quiet and safety. As to the verses on Oliver’s death, which Ant. Wood seems to hint were of the encomiastic kind, no judgment can be formed, since they have not been published. There is, indeed, a discourse concerning his government, with verses intermixed, but such as certainly gained its author no friends among the abettors of usurpation.

During his stay in England, he wrote his two books of Plants, published first in 1662, to which he afterwards added four books more; and all the six, together with his other Latin poems, were printed after his death at London, in 1678. The occasion of his choosing the subject of his six books of plants, Dr. Sprat tells us, was this: When he returned into England, he was advised to dissemble the main intention of his coming over, under the disguise of applying himself to some settled profession; and that of physic was thought most proper. To this purpose, after many anatomical dissections, he proceeded to the consideration of simples, and having furnished himself with books of that nature, retired into a fruitful part of Kent, where every field and wood might shew him the real figures of those plants of which he read. Thus he soon mastered that part of the art of medicine; but then, instead of employing his skill for practice and profit, he laboured to digest it into its present form. The two first books treat of Herbs, in a style, says Sprat, resembling the elegies of Ovid and Tibullus; the two next, of Flowers, in all the variety of Catullus and Horace’s numbers, for which last author he is said to have had a peculiar reverence; and the two last, of Trees, in the way of Virgil’s Georgics. Of these, the sixth book is wholly dedicated to the honour of his country; for, making the British oak to preside in the assembly of the forest trees, he takes that occasion to enlarge upon the history of the late troubles, the king’s affliction and return, and the beginning of the Dutch war; and he does it in a way which is honourable to the nation. Such is Dr. Sprat’s judgment. A more recent and accomplished botanical critic, however, observes that neither the text, nor the notes, manifest sufficient proof of Cowley’s intimate acquaintance with those authors of true fame, among the moderns, through whose assistance the want of that information might in some measure have been supplied. Nevertheless, as in the language of Dr. Johnson, “botany, in the mind of Cowley, turned into poetry,” to those who are alike enamoured with the charms of both, the poems of Cowley must yield delight; since his fertile imagination has adorned his subject with all the beautiful allusions that ancient poets and mythologists could supply; and even the fancies of the modern Signatores, of Baptista Porta, Crollius, and their disciples, who saw the virtues of plants in the physiognomy, or agreement in colour or external, forms with the parts of the human body, assisted to embellish his verse. Vol. X. C c It appears by Wood’s Fasti, that Cowley was created M. D. at Oxford, Dec. 2, 1657, who says, that he had this degree conferred upon him by virtue of a mandamus from the then prevailing powers, and that the thing was much taken notice of by the royal party. At the commencement of the royal society, according to Dr. Birch’s history, he appears busy among the experimental philosophers, with the title of Dr. Cowley, but there is no reason for supposing that he ever attempted practice.

To these calumnies, says Mr. D'Israeli, it would appear that others were added of a deeper dye, and in malignant whispers distilled into the ear of royalty. Cowley has commemorated the genius of Brutus in an Ode, with all the enthusiasm of a votary of liberty. After the king’s return, when Cowley solicited some reward for his sufferings and services in the royal cause, the chancellor is said to have turned on him with a severe countenance, saying: “Mr. Cowley, your pardon is your reward.” All these causes evidently operated to incline Cowley to retirement; and accordingly he spent the last seven or eight years in his beloved obscurity, and possessed that solitude, which, from his very childhood, he had always most passionately desired. His works, especially his essays in prose and verse, abound with the praises of solitude and retirement. His three first essays are on the subjects of liberty, solitude, and obscurity; and most of the translations are of such passages from the classic authors, as display the pleasures of a country life, particularly Virgil’s “O fortunatos nimium, &c.” Horace’s “Beatns ille qui procui, &c.” Claudian’s “Old Man of Verona,” and Martial’s “Vitam quae faciunt beatiorem, &c.” But his solitude, from the very beginning, had never agreed so well with the constitution of his body, as of his mind. The chief cause of it was, that out of haste to be gone away from the tumult and noise of the town, he had not prepared so healthful a situation in the country as he might have done if he had made “a more leisureable choice. Of this he soon began to find the inconvenience at Barn-Elms, where he was afflicted with a dangerous and lingering fever. After that, he scarce ever recovered his former health, though his mind was restored to its perfect vigour; as may be seen, says Sprat, from his two last books of plants, which were written since that time, and may at least be compared with the best of his other works. Shortly after his removal to Chertsey, where he was disappointed of his expectations of finding a place of solitude and rural simplicity, he fell into another consuming disease; under which, having languished for some months, he seemed to be pretty well cured of its bad symptoms. But in the heat of the summer, by staying too long amongst his labourers in the meadows, he was taken with a violent defluxion and stoppage in his breast and throat. This he at first neglected as an ordinary cold, and refused to send for his usual physicians, till it was past all remedies; and so in the end, after a fortnight’s sickness, it proved mortal to him . He died at Chertsey, July 28, 1667, in his 49th year, in the house that has long been inhabited by an amiable and worthy magistrate, Richard Clark, esq. formerly alderman, sheriff, and lord mayor, and now chamberlain of London. Cowley was buried in Westminster-abbey, near Chaucer and Spenser, where a monument was erected to his memory, in May 1675, by George duke of Buckingham, with a Latin inscription by Dr. Sprat. When Charles II. heard of his death, he was pleased to say, IC that Mr. Cowley had not left a better man behind him in England.”

“After so much criticism on his poems, the essays which accompany them must not be forgotten. What is said by Sprat of his conversation, that no man could draw from it any suspicion of his excellence in poetry, may be applied to these compositions. No author ever kept his verse and his prose at a greater distance from each other. His thoughts are natural, and his style has a smooth and placid equability, which has never yet obtained its due commendation. Nothing is far-sought, or hard-laboured; but all is easy without feebleness, and familiar without grossness.” Of his poetry, Dr. Johnson subjoins that “it may be affirmed, without any encomiastic fervour, that he brought to his poetic labours a mind replete with learning, and that his passages are embellished with all the ornaments which books could supply; that he was the first who imparted to English numbers the enthusiasm of the greater ode, and the gaiety of the less; that he was qualified for sprightly sallies, and for lofty flights; that he was among those who freed translation from servility, and, instead of following his author at a distance, walked by his side; and that if he left versification yet improvable, he left likewise from time to time such specimens of excellence as enabled succeeding poets to improve it.”

Those around Mrs. Cowley, we are told, perceived with surprize, that she had none of the vanity of being thought a literary lady; her conversation was never literary; nor did she indulge or solicit correspondence for the sake of publicity. Her reading lay more in books of travels, or of history, than in works of imagination. Of her own works she appears to have been regardless after they had once passed through her hands: and what is more remarkable, she had very little pleasure in theatrical representations; successive years elapsed without her being at a theatre once; and she never witnessed a first performance of any of her own plays. Her more solid pleasure was in domestic life, in superintending the education of her children. Her residence, which had been chiefly in London from the time of her marriage, she exchanged for Tiverton, the place of her birth, where she passed the last eight years of her life. She died there March 11, 1809. Her dramatic and poetical works, with the addition of some unpublished poems, were collected into three vofumes 8vo, in 1813: to these is prefixed a tribute to her memory, both affectionate and just.

, earl Cowper, lord high chancellor of Great Britain, was descended from an ancient family, and son to sir William Cowper, baronet, and member of parliament for the town of Hertford in the reigns of Charles II. and William III. He is supposed to have been born in the castle of Hertford, of which his family had been a considerable time in possession; but of the place or time of his birth, or where he was educated, we have not been able to obtain any certain information. It appears, however, that he made so great a proficiency in the study of the law, that, soon after he was called to the bar, he was chosen recorder of Colchester, and in the reign of king William he was appointed one of his majesty’s council. In 1695 he was chosen one of the representatives in parliament for the town of Hertford, and on the day he took his seat had occasion to speak three times, with great applause. The following year he appeared as counsel for the crown on the trials of sir William Perkins, and others, who were convicted of high treason, for being concerned in the plot to assassinate king William. He was also counsel for the crown on the trial of captain Thomas Vaughan, for high treason on the high seas; and he likewise supported in parliament the bill of attainder against sir John Fenwick. In 1704, in a speech in the house of commons, in the famous case of Ashby and White, he maintained that an action did lie at common law, for an elector who had been denied his vote for members of parliament. His reputation continuing greatly to increase, on the accession of queen Anne he was again appointed one of the counsel to the crown; and on October 11, 1705, he was constituted lord keeper of the great seal of England. A few days after, queen Anne addressed both houses of parliament in a speech, which was well received, and which was said to be written by the new lord keeper.

Soon after the new ministry came into office, Mr. Harley being at the head of the treasury, some inquiries were set on foot in order to criminate the late administration; and a vote of censure was passed relative to the management of the war in Spain. Lord Cowper took an active part in the debates occasioned by these inquiries, joining in several protests against the determinations of the house of peers concerning the conduct of that war. When prince Eugene was in England, he is said to have been consulted about some dangerous schemes formed by that prince and the duke of I\iarlborough. It may reasonably be questioned, whether any such schemes were ever really formed by those great men; but it is allowed on all hands, that they received no countenance or approbation from lord Cowper. The general opposition, however, which he gave to the administration of the earl of Oxford, occasioned him to be attacked by dean Swift with much virulence in the Examiner; and some reflections were thrown out against him relative to his private character, which is said to have been somewhat licentious with respect to women. In reply to Swift, his lordship wrote “A Letter to Isaac Bickerstaff, occasioned by a Letter to the Examiner,” 1710, which was printed in lord, Somers’s Tracts, vol. IV.

After his resignation, lord Cowper diligently attended in the house of peers, and frequently opposed the measures of the court, particularly the peerage bill, and the famous South-sea scheme. When a motion was made, that the South-sea bill should be referred to a committee of the whole house, he observed, “That, like the Trojan horse, the bill was ushered in, and received with great pornp and acclamations of joy, but it was contrived for treachery and destruction.” He advanced a variety of arguments against the bill, but it was carried by a large majority, and was productive of great national evils. Lord Cowper also opposed a bill “for the more effectual suppressing of blasphemy and profaneness;” by which persons were to be subjected to penalties, who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, or the inspiratioa of the scriptures; and by which any preachers, who should deny any of “the fundamental articles of the Christian religion,” were to be deprived of the benefit of the act of toleration. This bill did not pass. On the 13th of December, 1721, he endeavoured to procure the repeal of so much of an act, which had passed the preceding session, relative to the plague, as gave a power to remove to a lazaretto, or pest-house, any persons whatsoever infected with the plague, or ‘healthy persons out of an infected family, from their habitations, though distant from any other dwelling; and also so much of the said act, as gave’ power for drawing lines or trenches round any city, town, or place infected: but he was unsuccessful, and indeed his conduct in this affair seems to have proceeded from too fastidious a regard for the liberty of the subject, which never could be endangered by a measure for the preservation of health. He was yet more unfortunate in signing a protest against the rejection of the bill for the better securing the freedom of election of members to serve for the commons in parliament, which was also signed by twenty-three lay-lords, and two bishops, and gave so much offence, that a vote was passed for expunging it from the Journals. Omitting the other parliamentary proceedings in which his lordship took a part, we must now advert to a circumstance in which he was personally concerned. In the year 1723, Christopher Layer, who had been convicted of high treason, underwent a long examination before a secret committee of the house of commons, relative to a conspiracy for raising the pretender to the throne; in the course of which he mentioned a club of disaffected persons, of which, he said, John Plunket had told him, that lord Cowper was one. This occasioned his lordship to remark in the house of peers, that after having on so many occasions, and in the most difficult times, given undoubted proofs of his hearty zeal and affection for the protestant succession, and of his attachment to his majesty’s person and government, he had just reason to be offended, to see his name bandied about in a list of a chimerical club of disaffected persons, printed in the report of the secret committee, on the bare hearsay of an infamous person, notoriously guilty of prevarication; and who, in the opinion even of the secret committee, “in order to magnify the number of the pretender’s friends, did, in several lists, insert the names of persons as well affected to the pretender’s service, without having the least authority for so doing:” which alone was sufficient to give an air of fiction to the whole conspiracy. But, in justice to his own character, he thought it necessary to move, that John Plunket, from whom Layer pretended to have received the list of the club, mentioned in the report of the committee, should be immediately sent for to the bar of that house, to be there examined. This motion, alter some debate, was rejected by the majority; and it was observed by lord Townshend, that as the secret committee had declared, that they were entirely satisfied of lord Cowper’s innocence, his lordship’s reputation could not have suffered. Lord Cowper, however, thought proper to make a public declaration of his innocence, which is inserted in the Historical Register for 1723.

, a very distinguished modern English poet, and one whose singular history will apologize for the length of the present article, was the descendant of an ancient and honourable family. His father was the second son of Spencer Cowper (a younger brother of the lord chancellor Cowper) who was appointed chief justice of Chester in 1717, and afterwards a judge in the court of common pleas. He died in 1728, leaving a daughter, Judith, a young lady who had a striking taste for poetry, and who married colonel Madan, and transmitted her poetical taste and devotional spirit to a daughter. This daughter was married to her cousin major Cowper, and was afterwards the friend and correspondent of our poet. His father, John Cowper, entered into the church, and became rector of Great Berkhamstead in Hertfordshire. He married Anne, the daughter of Roger ponne, esq. of Ludlam-hall in Norfolk, by whom he had several children who died in their infancy, and two sons,William and John, who survived their mother. William was born at Berkhamstead Nov. 26, 1731, and from his infancy appears to have been of a very delicate habit both of mind and body. To such a child the loss of a mother is an incalculable misfortune, and must have been particularly so to young Cowper. In his biographer’s opinion, it contributed in the highest degree to the dark colouring of his subsequent life. Undoubtedly when a child requires a more than ordinary share of attention, the task can seldom be expected to be performed with so much success as by a mother, who to her natural affection joins that patience and undisturbed care which are rarely to be found in a father: but at the same time it may be remarked, that Cowper’s very peculiar frame of mind appears to have been independent of any advantages or misfortunes in education. In 1737, the year of his mother’s death, he was sent to a school at Market-street in Hertfordshire, under the conduct of Dr. Pitman, but was removed from it, at what time is uncertain, on account of a complaint in his eyes for which he was consigned to the care of a female oculist for the space of two years. It does not, however, appear that he profited so much from her aid as from the small-pox, which seized him at the age of fourteen, and removed the complaint for the present, but left a disposition to inflammation, to which he was subject nearly the whole of his life.

When he had fulfilled the terms of his engagement in Mr. Chapman’s office, he entered the Temple with a view to the further study of the law, a profession that has been more frequently deserted by men of lively genius than any other. Cowper was destined to add another instance to the number of those who, under the appearance of applying to an arduous and important study, have employed their time in the cultivation of wit and poetry. He is known to have assisted some contemporary publications with essays in prose and verse, and what is rather more extraordinary, in a man of his purity of conduct, cultivated the acquaintance of Churchill, Thornton, Lloyd, and Colman, who had been his schoolfellows at Westminster. It is undoubtedly to Churchill and Lloyd, that he alludes in a letter to lady Hesketh, dated Sept. 4, 1765. “Two of my friends have been cut off during my illness, in the midst of such a life as it is frightful to reflect upon; and here am I, in better health and spirits than I can almost remember to have enjoyed before, after having spent months in the apprehension of instant death. How mysterious are the ways of Providence! Why did I receive grace and mercy? Why was I preserved, afflicted for my good, received, as I trust, into favour, and blessed with the greatest happiness I can ever know, or hope for, in this life, while these were overtaken by the great arrest, unawakened, unrepenting, and every way unprepared for it?”

About the period alluded to, he assisted Colman with, some papers for the Connoisseur, and probably Thornton and Lloyd, who then carried on various periodical undertakings, but the amount of what he wrote cannot now be ascertained, and was always so little known, that on the appearance of his first volume of poems, when he had reached his fiftieth year (1782), he was considered as a new writer. But his general occupations will best appear in an extract from one of his letters to Mr. Park in 1792. “From the age of twenty to thirty-three (when he left the Temple) I was occupied, or ought to have been, in the study of the law from thirty-three to sixty, I have spent my time in the country, where my reading has been only an apology for idleness, and where, when I had not either a magazine or a review, I was sometimes a carpenter, at others a bird-cage maker, or a gardener, or a drawer of landscapes. At fifty years of age I commenced an author; it is a whim that has served me longest, and best, and will probably be my last.” His first poetical effort was a translation of an elegy of Tibullus, made at the age of fourteen; at eighteen, he wrote the beautiful verses “On finding the heel of a Shoe;” but as little more of his juvenile poetry has been preserved, all the steps of his progress to that perfection which produced the “Task,” cannot now be traced.

On these employments, Mr. Hayley passes the following opinion: Where the nerves are tender, and the imagination tremblingly alive, any fervid excess in the exercise of the purest piety, may be attended with such perils to corporeal and mental health, as men of a more firm and hardy fibre would be far from apprehending. Perhaps the life that Cowper led, on his settling at Olney, had a tendency to increase the morbid propensity of his frame, thcmgh it was a life of admirable sanctity." It appears however, by his letters, that this was the life of his choice, and that it was varied by exercise and rational amusements. How such a life could have a tendency to increase a morbid propensity, or what mode of life could have been contrived more likely to diminish that propensity, it is difficult to imagine.

From this period, his life affords little of the narrative kind, until 1773, when, in the language of his biographer, “he sunk into such severe paroxysms of religious despondency, that he required an attendant of the most gentle, vigilant, and inflexible spirit. Such an attendant he found in that faithful guardian (Mrs. Unwin), whom he had professed to love as a mother, and who watched over him, during this long fit of depressive malady, extended through several years, with that perfect mixture of tenderness and fortitude, which constitutes the inestimable influence of maternal protection. I wish to pass rapidly over this calamitous period, and shall only observe, that nothing could surpass the sufferings of the patient, or excel the care of the nurse. That meritorious care received from heaven the most delightful of all rewards, in seeing the pure and powerful mind, to whose restoration it has contributed so much, not only gradually restored to the common enjoyments of life, but successively endowed with new and marvellous funds of diversified talents and courageous application.” His recovery was slow; and he knew enough of his malady, to abstain from literary employment' while his mind was in any degree unsettled. The first amusement which engaged his humane affections was the laming of three hares, a circumstance that would have scarcely deserved notice unless among the memoranda of natural history, if he had not given to it an extraordinary interest in every heart, by the animated account he wrote of this singular family. In the mean time his friends, Mrs. Unwin and Mr. Newton, redoubled their efforts to promote his happiness, and to reconcile him to the world, in which he had yet a very important part to act; but as, in 1780, Mr. Newton was obliged to leave Olney, and accept of the living of St. Mary Woolnoth, London, he contrived to introduce Cowper to the friendship of the rev. Mr. Bull, of Newport Pagnell. This gentleman, who had many excellent qualities to recommend him as a fit successor to Mr. Newton, soon acquired the unreserved confidence of our author . It was at Mr. Bull’s request that he translated several spiritual songs from the French of Madame de la Mothe Guion , which have since been published separately. His recovery from this second illness may be dated from the summer of 1778, after which he began to meditate those greater exertions upon which his fame rests.

About this time he was advised to make application to lord Thurlow, who had been one of his juvenile companions, for some situation of emolument; but he declined this from motives of highly justifiable delicacy; intimating, that he had hopes from that quarter, and that it would be better not to anticipate his patron’s favours by solicitation. He afterwards sent a copy of his first volume of poems to his lordship, accompanied with a very elegant letter; and seems to murmur a little, on more occasions than one, at his lordship’s apparent neglect. A correspondence took place between them at a more distant period; but whether from want of a proper representation of his situation, or from forgetfulness, it is to be lamented that this nobleman’s interest was employed when too late for the purpose which Cowper’s friends hoped to promote. It will be difficult to impute a want of liberality to lord Thurlow, while his voluntary and generous offer to Dr. Johnson remains on record.

The success of this volume was undoubtedly not equal to its merit; for, as his biographer has justly observed, “it exhibits such a diversity of poetical powers as have beep given very rarely indeed to any individual of the modern, or of the ancient world.” As an apology for the inattention of the public to a present of such value, Mr. Hayley has supposed that he gave offence by his bold eulogy on Whitefield, “whom the dramatic satire of Foote, in his comedy of the ‘ Minor,’ had taught the nation to deride as a mischievous fanatic;” and that he hazarded sentiments too precise and strict for public opinion. The character of Whitefield, however, had been long rescued from the impious buffooneries of Foote, and the public could now bear his eulogium with tolerable patience: but that there are austerities in these poems, which indicate the moroseBess of a recluse, Cowper was not unwilling to allow. Whether he softened them in the subsequent editions, his biographer has not informed us. It may be added, that the volume was introduced into the world without any of the quackish parade so frequently adopted, and had none of those embellishments by which the eye of the purchaser is caught, at the expence of his pocket. The periodical critics, whose opinions Cowper watched with more anxiety than could have been wished, in a man so superior to the common candidates for poetic fame, were divided; and even those who were most favourable, betrayed no extraordinary raptures. In the mean time, the work crept slowly into notice, and acquired the praise of those who knew the value of such an addition to our stock of English poetry.

The public was soon laid under a far higher obligation to lady Austen for having suggested our author’s principal poem, “The Task,' 1” a poem,“says Mr. Hayley,” of such infinite variety, that it seems to include every subject, and every style, without any dissonance or disorder; and to have flowed without effort, from inspired philanthropy, eager to impress upon the hearts of all readers, whatever may lead them most happily to the full enjoyment of human life, and to the final attainment of Heaven.“This admirable poem appears to have been written in 1783 and 1784, but underwent many careful revisions. The public had iiot done much for Cowper, but he had too much regard for it and for his own character, to obtrude what was incorrect, or might be made better. It was his opinion, an opinion of great weight from such a critic, that poetry, in order to attain excellence, must be indebted to labour; and it was his correspondent practice to revise his poems with scrupulous care and severity. In a letter to his friend Air. Bull, on this poem, he says,” I find it severe exercise to mould and fashion it to my mind." Much of it was written in the winter, a season generally unfavourable to the author’s health, but there is reason to think that the encouragement and attentions of his amiable and judicious friends animated him to proceed, and that the regularity of his progress was favourable to his health and spirits. Disorders, like his, have been known to give way to some species of mental labour, if voluntarily undertaken, and pursued with steadiness. The Task rilled up many of those leisure hours, for which rural walks and employments would have amply provided at a more favourable season. It may be added, likewise, that no man appears to have had a more keen relish for the snugness of a winter fireside, and that, free from ambition, or the love of grand and tumultuous enjoyments, his heart was elated with gratitude for those humbler comforts which a mind like his would be apt to magnify by reflecting on the misery of those who want them.

In this year, when he was beginning his translation of Homer, the quiet and even tenour of his life was disturbed by the necessity he felt of parting with lady Austen. A short extract from Mr. Hayley will give this matter as clear explanation as delicacy can permit: “Delightful and advantageous as his friendship with lady Austen had proved, he now began to feel that it grew -impossible to preserve that triple cord, which his own pure heart had led him to suppose not speedily to be broken. Mrs. Unwin, though by no means destitute of mental accomplishments, was eclipsed by the brilliancy of the poet’s new friend, and naturally became uneasy, under the apprehension of being so, for to a woman of sensibility, what evil can be more afflicting, than the fear of losing all mental influence over a man of genius and virtue, whom she has long been accustomed to inspirit and to guide? Cowper perceived the painful necessity of sacrificing a great portion of his present gratifications. He felt, that he must relinquish that ancient friend, whom he regarded as a venerable parent; or the new associate, whom he idolized as a sister of a heart and mind peculiarly C9ngenial to his own. His gratitude for past services of unexampled magnitude and weight, would not allow him to hesitate: with a resolution and delicacy, that do the highest honour to his feelings, he wrote a farewell letter to lady Austen, explaining and lamenting the circumstances that forced him to renounce the society of a friend, whose enchanting talents and kindness had proved so agreeably instrumental to the revival of his spirits and to the exercise of his fancy. In those very interesting conferences with which I was honoured by lady Austen, I was irresistibly led to express an anxious desire for the sight of a letter written by Cowper, in a situation that must have called forth all the finest powers of his eloquence as a monitor and a friend. The lady confirmed me in my opinion that a more admirable letter could not be written; and had it existed at that time, I am persuaded from her noble frankness and zeal for the honour of the departed poet, she would have given me a oopy; but she ingenuously confessed, that in a moment of natural mortification, she burnt this very tender yet resolute letter. Had it been confided to my care, I am persuaded I should have thought it very proper for publication, as it displayed both the tenderness and the magnanimity of Cowper, nor could I have deemed it a want of delicacy towards the memory of lady Austen, to exhibit a proof, that animated by the warmest admiration of the great poet, whose fancy slie could so successfully call forth, she was willing to devote her life and fortune to his service and protection. The sentiment is to be regarded as honourable to the lady; it is still more honourable to the poet, that with such feelings as rendered him perfectly sensible of all lady Austen’s fascinating powers, he could return her tenderness with innocent gallantry, and yet resolutely preclude himself from her society when he could no longer enjoy it without appearing deficient in gratitude towards the compassionate and generous guardian of his sequestered life. No person can justly blame Mrs. Unwin for feeling apprehensive that Cowper’s intimacy with a lady of such extraordinary talents, might lead him into perplexities, of which he was by no means aware. This remark was suggested by a few elegant and tender verses, addressed by the poet to lady Austen, and shown to me by that lady. Those who were acquainted with the unsuspecting innocence, and sportive gaiety of Cowper, would readily allow, if they had seen the verses to which I allude, that they are such as he might have addressed to a real sister; but a lady only called by that endearing name, may be easily pardoned if she was induced by them to hope, that they might possibly be a prelude to a still dearer alliance. To me they appeared expressive of that peculiarity in his character, a gay and tender gallantry, perfectly distinct from arr-orous attachment. If the lady, who was the subject of the verses, had given them to me with a permission to print them, I should have thought the poet himself might have approved of their appearance, accompanied with such a commentary.”

Notwithstanding this interruption to his tranquillity, for such it certainly proved, although he was conscious that he had acted the part which was most honourable to him, he proceeded with the “Tirocinium,” and the other pieces which composed his second volume. These were published in 1785, and soon engaged the attention and admiration of the public, in a way that left him no regret for the cool reception and slow progress of his first volume. Its success also obtained for him another female friend and associate, lady Hesketh, his cousin, who had long been separated from him. Their intercourse was first revived by a correspondence, of which Mr. Hayley has published many interesting specimens, and says, with great truth, that Cowper’s letters “are rivals to his poems in the rare excellence of representing life and nature with graceful and endearing fidelity.” In explaining the nature of his situation to lady Hesketh, who came to reside at Olney in the month of June 1786, he informs her, that he had lived twenty years with Mrs. Unwin, to whose affectionate care it was owing that he lived at all; but that for thirteen of those years he had been in a state of mind which made all her care and attention necessary. He informs her at the same time that dejection of spirits, which may have prevented many a man from becoming an author, made him one. He found employment necessary, and therefore took care to be constantly employed. Manual occupations do not engage the mind sufficiently, as he knew by experience, having tried many. But composition, especially of verse, absorbs it wholly. It was his practice, therefore, to write generally three hours in a morning, and in an evening he transcribed. He read also, but less than he wrote, for bodily exercise was necessary, and he never passed a day without it. All this shews that Cowper understood his own case most exactly, and that he was not one of those melancholies who are said to give way to their disorder. No man could have discussed the subject with more perspicuity, or treated himself with more judgment. The returns of his malady, therefore, appear to have been wholly unavoidable, and wholly independent of his employments, whether of a religious or literary kind.

In October 1785, he had reached the twentieth book of his translation of Homer, although probably no part was finished as he could have wished. His stated number was forty lines each day, with transcription and revision. His immediate object was to publish the Homer by subscription, in order to add something to his income which appears to have been always scanty, and in this resolution he persisted, notwithstanding offers from his liberal bookseller far more advantageous than a subscription was then likely to have produced. He seems to have felt a certain degree of pleasure, not wholly unmixed, in watching the progress of his subscription, and the gradual accession of names known to the learned world, or dear to himself by past recollections.

During the composition of this work, he at first declined what he had done before, shewing specimens to his friends; and on this subject, indeed, his opinion seems to have undergone a complete change. To his friend Mr. Unwin, who informed him that a gentleman wanted a sample, he says, with some humour, “When I deal in wine, cloth, or cheese, I will give samples, but of verse, never. No consideration would have induced me to comply with the gentleman’s demand, unless he could have assured me, that h^s wife had longed.” From this resolution he afterwards departed in a variety of instances. He first sent a specimen, with the proposals, to his relation general Cowper; it consisted of one hundred and seven lines, taken from the interview between Priam and Achilles in the last book. This specimen fell into the hands of Mr. Fuseli, the celebrated painter, whose critical knowledge of Homer is universally acknowledged; and Cowper likewise agreed that if Mr. Maty, who then published a Review, wished to see a book of Homer, he should be welcome, and the first book and a part of the second were accordingly sent . Mr. Fuseli was afterwards permitted to revise the whole of the manuscript, and how well Cowper was satisfied in falling in with such a critic, appears (among other proofs of his high esteem) from the short character he gives of him in one of his letters: “For his knowledge of Homer, he has, I verily believe, no fellow.” Colman, likewise, his old companion, with whom he had renewed an epistolary intimacy, revised some parts in a manner which afforded the author much satisfaction, and he appears to have corrected the sheets for the press. With Maty he was less pleased, as his criticisms appeared “unjust, and in part illiberal.”

For some time, however, the fears of Mr. Cowper’s affectionate friend appeared to be groundless. His correspondence after the departure of Mr. Hayley, in November, 1793, bespoke a mind considerably at ease, and even cheerful and active. From various circumstances, the scheme of publishing an edition of Milton appears to have been totally relinquished, and as his enthusiasm for this undertaking had abated, he expresses considerable satisfaction that he could devote the whole of his time to the improvement of his translation of Homer. A new scheme, more suitable to his original talents, had been suggested in 1791, by the rev. Mr. Buchanan, curate of Ravenstone, a man of worth and genius. This was a poem to be entitled “The Four Ages, or the four distinct periods, of Infancy, Youth, Manhood, and Old Age.” For some time our poet meditated with great satisfaction on this design, and probably revolved many of the subordinate subjects in his mind. It seems to have been particularly calculated for his powers of reflection, his knowledge of the human heart, and his exquisite talent for depicting life and manners; and it was intended likewise to unite the fascinations of the graphic art. Mr. Hayley has published a fragment of this work, imperfect as the author left it, but more than enough to make us regret that his situation and the situation of his aged companion soon forbade all hopes of its being executed .

At this time, in consequence of a humane and judicious letter from the rev. Mr. Greathead, of Newport-Pagnel, Mr. Hayley paid a visit to this house of mourning, but found his poor friend “too much overwhelmed by his oppressive malady to show even the least glimmering of satisfaction at the appearance of a guest, whom he used to receive with the most lively expressions of affectionate delight.” In this deplorable state he continued during Mr. Hayley’s visit of some weeks, and the only circumstance which contributed in any degree to cheer the hearts of the friends who were now watching over him, was the intelligence that his majesty had been pleased to confer upon him such a pension as would insure an honourable competence for his life. Earl Spencer was the immediate agent in procuring this favour, and it would no doubt have added to its value, had the object of it known that he was indebted to one, who of all his noble friends, stood the highest in his esteem. But he was now, and for the remainder of his unhappy life, beyond the power of knowing or acknowledging the benevolence in which his heart delighted. Mr. Hayley left him for the last time in the spring of 1794, and from that period till the latter end of July 1795, Cowper remained in a state of the deepest melancholy.

Here his affectionate kinsman endeavoured by various means to rouse in him an attention to literary or common subjects, such as might prevent his mind from preying on itself, and on some occasions appears to have succeeded in a small degree; but the recurrence of fixed melancholy was so frequent as to destroy the transient hopes which these promising appearances excited. In the following year, change of scene was again adopted, and not without such effect as justified the measure, even when all prospect of permanent advantage had vanished. In December 1796, death removed Mrs. Unwin by a change as tranquil as her decayed body and mind promised. Cowper, about an hour after her departure, looked at the corpse, but started suddenly away, with a broken sentence of passionate sorrow, and spoke of her no more. He was now in that state, and at that age, when grief is neither exasperated by memory, nor relieved by consolation; and was mercifully relieved from feelings which neither religion nor reason could any longer regulate.

That such a man should have been doomed to endure a life of mental distraction, relieved by few intervals, will probably ever be the subject of wonder; but that wonder will not be removed by curious inquiries into the state of Cowper’s mind, as displaying circumstances that have never occurred before. Awful as his case was, and most deeply as it ever must be deplored, there was nothing singular in the dispensation, unless that it befell one of more than common powers of genius, and consequently excited more general sympathy. Mr. Hayley, who has often endeavoured to reason on the subject, seems to resolve it at last into a bodily disorder, a sort of scorbutic affection, which, when repelled, brought on derangement of more or less duration. It appears to the present writer, from a careful perusal of that instructive piece of biography, that Cowper from his infancy had a tendency to errations of mind; and without admitting this fact in some degree, it must seem extremely improbable that the mere dread of appearing as a reader in the house of lords should have brought on his first settled fit of lunacy. Much, indeed, has been said of his uncommon shyness and diffidence, and more, perhaps, than the history of his early life will justify. Shyness and diffidence are common to all young persons who have not been early introduced into company; and Cowper, who had not, perhaps, that advantage at home, might have continued to be shy when other boys are forward. But had his mind been, even in this early period, in a healthful state, he must have gradually assumed the free manners of an ingenuous youth, conscious of no unusual imperfection that should keep him back. At school, we are told, he was trampled upon by ruder hoys, who took advantage of his weakness, yet we find that he mixed in their amusements, which must in some degree have advanced him on a level with them; and what is yet more extraordinary, we find him for some years associating with men of more gaiety than pure morality admits, and sporting with the utmost vivacity and wildness with Thurlow and others, when it was natural to expect that he would have been glad to court solitude for the purposes of study, as well as for the indulgence of his habitual shyness, if indeed at this period it was so habitual as we are taught to believe.

Although, therefore, it be inconsistent with the common theories of mania, to ascribe his first attack to his aversion to the situation which was provided for him, or to the operation of delicacy or sensibility on a healthy mind, it is certain that at that time, and when, by his own account, he was an entire stranger to the religious system which he afterwards adopted, he was visited by the first attack of his disorder, which was so violent, and of such a length, as to put an end to all prospect of advancement in his profession. It is particularly incumbent on all who venerate the sound and amiable mind of Cowper, the clearness of his understanding, and his powers of reasoning, to notice the date and circumstances of this first attack, because it has been the practice with superficial observers, and professed infidels, who are now running down all the important doctrines of revealed religion, under the name of methodism, to ascribe Cowper' s malady to his religious principles, and his religious principles to the company he kept. But, important as it may be to repel insinuations of this kind, it is become less necessary since the publication of Mr. Hayley’s life, which affords the most complete vindication of Mr. Cowper’s friends, and decidedly proves that his religious system was no more connected with his malady than with his literary pursuits; that his malady continued to return without any impulse from either, and that no means of the most judicious kind were omitted by himself or his friends to have prevented the attack, if human means could have availed. With respect to his friends, there can be nothing conceived more consolatory to him who wishes to cherish a good opinion of mankind, than to contemplate Cowper in the midst of his friends, men and women exquisitely tender, kind, and disinterested, animated by the most pure benevolence towards the helpless and interesting sufferer, enduring cheerfully every species of fatigue and privation, to administer the least comfort to him, and sensible of no gratification but what arose from their success in prolonging and gladdening the life on which they set so high a value.

If this p'raise be admitted, it will be needless to inquire in what peculiar charms Cowper’s poems consist, or why he, above all poets of recent times, has become the universal favourite of his nation. Yet, as he appears to have been formed not only to be an ornament, but a model to his brethren, it may not be useless to remind them, that in him the virtues of the man, and the genius of the poet, were inseparable; that in every thing he respected the highest interests of human kind, the promotion of religion, morality, and benevolence, and that while he enchants the imagination by the decorations of genuine poetry, and even condescends to trifle with innocent gaiety, his serious purposes are all of the nobler kind. He secures the judgment by depth of reflection on morals and manners; and by a vigour of sentiment, and a knowledge of human nature, such as every man’s taste and every man’s experience must confirm. In description, whether of objects of nature, or of artificial society, he has few equals, and whether he passes from description to reasoning, or illustrates the one by the other, he has found the happy art of administering to the pleasures of the senses and those of the intellect with equal success. But what adds a peculiar charm to Cowper, is, that his language is every where the language of the heart. The pathetic, in which he excels, is exclusively consecrated to subjects worthy of it. He obtrudes none of those assumed feelings by which some have obtained the character of moral, tender, and sympathetic, who in private life are known to be gross, selfish, and unfeeling. In Cowper we have every where the happiness to contemplate not only the most favourite of poets, but the best of men.

, a celebrated surgeon and anatomist, the youngest son of Richard Cowper of Hampshire, esq. was born in 1666, probably at Bishop’s Sutton, near Alresford in that county, where he lies interred. After a medical education, he practised in London, where his first work, “Myotomia reformata, or a new administration of all the Muscles of the Human Body,” was published in 1694, 8vo, and reprinted in a splendid folio, by Dr. Mead in 1724, several years after the death of the author, with an introductory discourse on muscular motion, and some additions; but the figares, although elegant, are said to be somewhat deficient in correctness. In 1697, the author published at Oxford, in folio, “The Anatomy of Human Bodies,” many of the plates of which were purchased by some London booksellers in Holland, and belonged to Bidloo’s anatomy. The dispute which this occasioned, we have already noticed (see Bidloo), and may now add that it terminated very little to Cowper’s credit. Bidloo complained of the theft to the royal society, and wrote a very severe pamphlet, entitled “Gul. Cowperus citatus coram tribunali.” Cowper, instead of acknowledging the impropriety of his conduct, published a virulent pamphlet, entitled “Vindiciae;” in which he endeavours to shew that they were not really Bidloo’s figures, but hacl been engraved by Swammerdam, and purchased by Bidloo from Swammerdam’s widow, a malicious charge which some subsequent writers have been malevolent enough to propagate and defend. Cowper has the merit of giving a description of some glands, seated near the neck of the bladder, which have obtained the name of Cowper’s mucous glands. He was also author of several communications to the royal society, on the subjects of anatomy and surgery, which are printed in their Transactions, and of some observations inserted in the “Anthropologia” of Drake. He is said to have ruined his constitution by severe labour and watchings, and was seized at first with an asthmatic complaint, and afterwards with the dropsy, of which he died March 8, 1709.

, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, was the second son of Laurence Cox, son of John Cox, of the city of Monmouth. His mother’s name was Elizabeth Willey. He was educated at Cambridge, where he took his bachelors degree in arts, but at what college is not known. In 1528 he went to Oxford, and was incorporated in the same degree in February 1529. He supplicated also for the degree of M. A. but it does not appear that he was admitted to it. About this time he became master of Reading school; and was living there, in great esteem, at the time when Fryth, the martyr, was first persecuted by being set in the stocks. Cox, who soon, discovered his merit by his conversation, relieved his wants, and out of regard to his learning, procured his release. In 1532 he published “The art or craft of Rhetoryke,” inscribed to Hugh Farington, abbot of Reading, in which he divides his subject into four parts, invention, judgment, disposition, and eloquence in speaking; but the present treatise is confined to the first. In 1540 he published tc Commentaries on William Lilly’s construction of the eight parts of speech,“which are mentioned in Dr. Ward’s edition of Lilly’s grammar; and, according to Wood, he translated from Greek into Latin,” Marcus Eremita de lege et spiritu;“and from Latin into English,” The paraphrase of St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus,“by Erasmus, with whom he was well acquainted. These, Wood says, were published in 1540, but by a ms note of Mr. Baker, we are told, that the paraphrase of Erasmus was published in 1549, at which time, the author says,” he was then in hand“with Eremita, who had written” on the law and the spirit,“and” of them that thynke to be justyfyed by their works."

, a learned English bishop, was born at Whaddon in Buckinghamshire, of mean parentage, in the year 1499. He had probably his first education in the small priory of Snelshall, in the parish of Whaddon; but being afterwards sent to Eton-school, he was elected into a scholarship at King’s college in Cambridge, of which he became fellow in the year 1519. Having the same year taken his bachelor of arts degree, and being eminent for his piety and learning, he was invited to Oxford by cardinal Wolsey, to fill up his new foundation. He was accordingly preferred to be one of the junior canons of Cardinal college; and on the 7th of December, 1525, was incorporated bachelor of arts at Oxford, as he stood at Cambridge. Soon after, having performed his exercises, he took the degree of M. A. July 2, 1526, and at this time was reputed one of the greatest scholars of his age; and even his poetical compositions were in great esteem. His piety and virtue were not inferior to his learning, and commanded the respect of all impartial persons. But shewing himself averse to many of the popish superstitions, and declaring freely for some of Luther’s opinions, he incurred the displeasure of his superiors, who stripped him of his preferment, and threw him into prison on suspicion of heresy. When he was released from his confinement, he left Oxford; and, some time after, was chosen master of Eton-school, which flourished under his care. In 1537, he commenced doctor in divinity at Cambridge, and December 4, 1540, was made archdeacon of Ely; as he was also appointed in 1541, the first prebendary in the first stall of the same cathedral, upon its being new founded by king Henry VIII. September 10, 1541. He was likewise, June 3, 1542, presented by the same king to the prebend of Sutton with Buckingham in the church of Lincoln, and installed the llth of that month, but this he surrendered up in 1547. In the year 1543, he supplicated the university of Oxford, that he might take place among the doctors of divinity there, which was unusual, because he was not then incorporated in that degree, but this took place in June 1545. When a design was formed, of converting the collegiate church of Southwell into a bishopric, Dr. Cox was nominated bishop of it. On the 8th of January, 1543-4, he was made the second dean of the new-erected cathedral of Osney near Oxford; and in 1546, when that see was translated to Christ church, he was also made dean there. These promotions he obtained by the interest of archbishop Cranmer and bishop Goodrich, to the last of whom he had been chaplain; and, by their recommendation, he was chosen tutor to the young prince Edward, whom he instructed with great care in the true principles of religion, and formed his tender mind to an early sense of his duty, both as a Christian and a king. On that prince’s accession to the throne, he became a great favourite at court, and was made a privy-counsellor, and the king’s almoner. The 2 1st of May, 1547, he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford; installed July 16, 1548, canon of Windsor; and the next year made dean of Westminster. About the same time he was appointed one of the commissioners to visit the university of Oxford, in which he and his brother commissioners destroyed some of the most valuable treasures in the libraries, from a notion that they encouraged popery and conjuration *. In 1550, he was ordered to go down into Sussex, and endeavour by his learned and affecting sermons, to quiet the minds of the people, who had been disturbed by the factious preaching of Day bishop of Chichester, a violent papist: and when the noble design of reforming the canon law was in agitation, he was appointed one of the commissioners. Both in this and the former reign, when an act passed for giving all chantries, colleges, &c. to the king, through Dr. Cox’s powerful intercession, the colleges in both universities were excepted out of that act. In November 1552, be resigned the office of chancellor of Oxford and soon after queen Mary’s accession to the crown, he was stripped of his preferments and on the 15th of August, 1553, committed to the Marshalsea. He was indeed soon discharged from this confinement; but foreseeing the inhuman persecution likely to ensue, he resolved to quit the realm, and withdraw to some place where he might enjoy the free exercise of his religion, according to the form established in the reign of king Edward. With this view he went first to Strasburgh in Germany, where he heard with great concern of some English exiles at Francfort having thrown aside the English Liturgy, and set up a form of their own, framed after the French and Geneva models. On the 13th of March 1555, he came to Francfort in order to oppose this innovation, and to have the Common- Prayer-Book settled among the English congregation there, which he had the satisfaction to accomplish. Then he returned to Strasburgh for the sake of conversing with Peter Martyr, with whom he had contracted an intimate friendship at Oxford, and whom he loved and honoured for his great learning and moderation. After the death of queen Mary he returned to England; and was one of those divines who were appointed to revise the Liturgy. When a disputation was to be held at Westminster between eight papists and eight of the reformed clergy, he was the chief champion on the protestants’ side. He preached often before queen Elizabeth in Lent; and, in his sermon at the opening of her first parliament, exhorted them in most affecting terms to restore religion to its primitive purity, and banish all the popish innovations and corruptions. These excellent discourses, and the great zeal he had shewn in support of the English liturgy at Francfort, so effectually recommended him to the queen’s esteem, that in June 1559, she nominated him to the bishopric of Norwich; but altering her mind, preferred him to the see of Ely in July 1559, in the room of Dr. Thirlby, who was deprived. Before his consecration (Dec. 19) he joined with Dr. Parker, elect archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops elect of London, Chichester, and Hereford, in a petition to the queen, against an act lately passed for the alienating and exchanging the lands and revenues of the bishops; and sent her several arguments from scripture and reason against the lawfulness of it; observing withal, the many evils and inconveniencies both to church and state that would thence arise. In 1559 we find him again appointed one of the visitors of the university of Oxford, but this visitation was conducted so moderately as to obtain a letter of thanks to queen Elizabeth for the services of the commissioners. He enjoyed the episcopal dignity about twenty-one years and seven months, and was justly considered one of the chief pillars and ornaments of the church of England, having powerfully co-operated with archbishop Parker, and his successor Grindal, in restoring our church in the same beauty and good order it had enjoyed in king Edward’s reign. He indeed gave some offence to the queen by his zealous opposition to her retaining the crucifix and lights on the altar of the Chapel Royal, and his strenuous defence of the lawfulness of the marriage of the clergy, to which the queen was always an enemy. He was a liberal patron to all learned men whom he found well affected to the church; and shewed a singular esteem for Dr. Whitgift, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, made him his chaplain, and gave him the rectory of Teversham in Cambridgeshire, and a prebend of Ely. He did his utmost to get a body of ecclesiastical laws established by authority of parliament; but through the opposition of some of the chief courtiers, this design miscarried a third time. As he had, in his exile at Francfort, been the chief champion against the innovations of the puritans, he still continued, with some vigour and resolution, to oppose their attempts against the discipline and ceremonies of the established church. At first he tried to reclaim them by gentle means; but finding that they grew more audacious, and reviled both church and bishops in scurrilous libels, he wrote to archbishop Parker, to go on vigorously in reclaiming or punishing them, and not be disheartened at the frowns of those court-favourites who protected them; assuring him that he might expect the blessing of God on his pious labours to free the church from their dangerous attempts, and to establish uniformity. When the privycouncil interposed in favour of the puritans, and endeavoured to screen them from punishment, he wrote a bold letter to the lord- treasurer Burieigh in which he warmly expostulated with the council for meddling with the affairs of the church, which, as he said, ought to be left to the determination of the bishops; admonished them to keep within their own sphere; and told them he would appeal to the queen if they continued to interpose in matters not belonging to them. He is blamed by some for giving up several manors and other estates belonging to his see, while others thought he deserved commendation for his firmness in resolving to part with no more, and for being proof against the strongest solicitations and most violent attacks which he had to encounter, even from those who were most in favour at court, and who were backed by royal command and authority. In the years 1574- and 1575, sir Christopher Hatton, a noted favourite of the queen, endeavoured to wrest Ely-house in Holborn from him; and in order to preserve it to his see he was forced to have a long and chargeable suit in chancery, which was not determined in 1579. The lord North also attempted, in 1575, to oblige him to part with the manor of Somersham, in Huntingdonshire, one of the best belonging to his bishopric; and with Downham park; which he refusing to yield, that lord endeavoured to irritate the queen against him, and to have him deprived. For that purpose, North, and some others of the courtiers, examined and ransacked his whole conduct since his first coming to his see, and drew tip a large body of articles against him addressed to the privy-council. But the bishop, in his replies, so fully vindicated himself, that the queen was forced to acknowledge his innocence, though the lord North boasted he had found five prsemunires against him. Vexed, however, with the implacable malice of the lord North, and other his adversaries, he desired, in 1577, leave to resign his bishopric, which the queen refused. North, though disappointed in his former attempt, yet not discouraged, brought three actions against the poor old bishop for selling of wood, on which the bishop offered again, in 1579, to resign, provided he had a yearly pension of two hundred pounds out of his see, and Donnington (the least of five country houses belonging to Ely bishopric) for his residence during life. The lord- treasurer Burieigh, at the bishop’s earnest desire, obtained leave of the queen for him to resign; and in February 1579-80, upon the bishop’s repeated desires, forms of resignation were actually drawn up. But the court could not find any divine of note who would take that bishopric on their terms, of surrendering* up the best manors belonging to it. The first offer of it was made to Freak, bisbop of Norwich; and, on his refusal, it was proffered to several others; but the conditions still appeared so ignominious that they all rejected it; by which means bishop Cox enjoyed it till his death, which happened on the 22d of July 1581, in the eighty-second year of his arge. By his will he left several legacies, amounting in all to the sum of 945l.; and died worth, in good debts, 2,322l. He had several children. His body was interred in Ely cathedral, near bishop Goodrich’s monument, under a marble stone, with an inscription, now nearly effaced. His character is said to have been that of a man of a sound judgment and clear apprehension, and skilled in all polite and useful learning. He wanted no advantages of education, and improved them with such diligence and industry, that he soon became an excellent proficient both in divine and human literature. The holy scriptures were his chief study; and he was perfectly well versed in the original language of the New Testament. He was extremely zealous for the true interest of the reformed church, and a constant and vigorous defender of it against alj, the open, assaults of all its enemies. He is accused by some of having been a worldly and covetou’s person; and is said to have made a great havock and spoil of his woods and parks, feeding his family with powdered venison to save expences. Several complaints and long accusations were exhibited against him and his wife, in 1579, to queen Elizabeth upon these accounts, but the bishop fully vindicated himself, and shewed that all these complaints were malicious calumnies. It is likewise said, that he appears to have been of a vindictive spirit, by reason of his prosecution of, and severity to, the deprived catholics in his custody; and especially by his complaints against Dr. Feckenham, the last abbot of Westminster. But the bishop alleges in his own excuse, that these complaints were well founded; and that his endeavours to convert him were by order of the court. It must be remembered of this bishop, that he was the first who brought a wife to live in a college; and that he procured a new body of statutes for St, John’s college in Cambridge, of which, as bishop of Ely, he was, visitor.

, bart. lord chancellor of Ireland, and author of a history of that kingdom, was son to Richard Cox, esq. captain of a troop of horse, and was born at Bandon, in the county of Cork, on the 25th of March 1650. He had the misfortune to become an orphan before he was full three years of age and was then taken care of by his mother’s father, Walter Bird, esq. of Cloghnakilty. But his grandfather also dying when he was about nine years old^ he was then taken under the protection of his uncle, John Bird, esq. who placed him at an ordinary Latin school at Cloghnakiity, where he soon discovered a strong inclination to learning. In 1668, in his eighteenth year, he began to practise as an attorney in several manor courts where his uncle was seneschal, and continued it three years, and was entered of Gray’s Inn in 1671, with a view of being called to the bar. Here he was so much distinguished for his great assiduity and consequent improvement, that in the summer of 1673 he was made one of the surveyors at sir Robert Shaftoe’s reading. He soon after married a lady who had a right to a considerable fortune; but, being disappointed in obtaining it, he took a farm near Cloghnakiity, to which he retired for seven years. Being at length roused from his lethargy by a great increase of his family, he was, hy the interest of sir Robert Southwell, elected recorder of Kinsale in 1680. He now removed to Cork; where he practised the law with great success. But, foreseeing the storm that was going to fall on the protestants, he quitted his practice, and his estate, which at that time amounted to 300l. per ann. and removed with his wife and five children to England, and settled at Bristol. At this place he obtained sufficient practice to support his family genteelly, independently of his Irish estate; and at his leisure hours compiled the History of Ireland;“the first part of which he published soon after the revolution, in 1689, under the title of” Hibernia Anglicana; or the History of Ireland, from the conquest thereof by the English to the 'present time." When the prince of Orange arrived in London, Mr. Cox quitted Bristol, and repaired to the metropolis, where he was made undersecretary of state. Having given great satisfaction to the king in the discharge of this office, Mr. Cox was immediately after the surrender of Waterford made recorder of that city. On the 15th of September 1690, he was appointed second justice of the court of common pleas. In April 1691 Mr. Justice Cox was made governor of the county and city of Cork. His situation now, as a judge and a military governor, was somewhat singular; and he was certainly not deficient in zeal for the government, whatever objections may be made to his conduct on the principles of justice and humanity. During the time of Mr. Cox’s government, which continued till the reduction of Limerick, though he had a frontier of 80 railes to defend, and 20 places to garrison, besides Cork and the fort of Kinsale, yet he did not lose a single inch of ground. On the 5th of November 1692, Mr. justice Cox received the honour of knighthood; in July 1693 was nominated lord chancellor of Ireland, and in October 1706 was created a baronet. On the death of queen Anne, and the accession of king George I. sir Richard Cox, with the other principal Irish judges, was removed from his office, and also from the privy council. He then retired to his seat in the county of Cork, where he hoped to have ended his days in peace; hut his tranquillity was disturbed by several attacks which were made against him in the Irish parliament, but though several severe votes were passed against, him, they were not followed by any farther proceedings. He now divided his time between study, making improvements on his estate, and acts of beneficence. But in April 1733, he was seized by a fit of apoplexy, which ended in a palsy, under which he languished till the 3d of May that year, when he expired without pain, at the age of 83 years one month and a few days.

, a faithful and industrious collector of old English literature, was born of an ancient and respectable family at Lechdale in Gloucestershire, Sept. 20, 1689. He was educated in grammatical learning, first under the rev. Mr. Collier, at Coxwell in Berkshire, and afterwards under the rev. Mr. Collins, at Magdalen school, Oxford, from which he entered a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1705. From Oxford, where he wore a civilian’s gown, he came to London, with a view of pursuing the civil law; but losing his friend and patron sir John Cook, knight, who was dean of the arches and vicargeneral, and who died in 1710, he abandoned civil law and every other profession. An anonymous funeral poem to the memory of sir John Cook, entitled “Astrea lacrirnans,” the production probably of Coxeter, appeared in 1710. Continuing in London without any settled pursuit, he became acquainted with booksellers and authors. He amassed materials for a biography of our poets, which were afterwards used in what is called Gibber’s Lives. (See art. The Cibber). He also assisted Mr. Ames in the History of British typography. He had a curious collection of old plays, and pointed out to Theobald many of the blackletter books which that critic used in his edition of Shakspeare. He compiled one, if not more, of the indexes to Hudson’s edition of Josephus in 1720. In 1739 he published a new edition of Baily’s, or rather Hall’s, lire of bishop Fisher, first printed in 1655. In 1744 he circulated proposals “for printing the dramatic works of Thomas May, esq. a contemporary with Ben Jonson, and, upon his decease, a competitor for the bays. With notes, and an account of his life and writings.” fl The editor,“says he,” intending to revive the best of our plays, faithfully collated with all the editions, that could be found in a search of above thirty years, happened to communicate his scheme to one who now invades it. To vindicate which, he is resolved to publish this deserving author, though out of the order of his design. And, as a late spurious edition of “Gorboduc” is sufficient to shew what mistakes and confusion may be expected from the medley now advertising in ten volumes, a correct edition will be added of that excellent tragedy; with other poetical works of the renowned Sackville, his life, and a glossary. These are offered as a specimen of the great care that is necessary, and will constantly be used, in the revival of such old writers as the editor shall be encouraged to restore to the public in their genuine purity.“Such are the terms of the proposals: and they shew, that, though this design did not take effect, Coxeter was the first who formed the scheme, adopted by Dodsley, of publishing a collection of our ancient plays. Sackville’s” Gorboduc,“here referred to, is the edition published by Mr. Spence in 1736. In 1747 he was appointed secretary to a society for the encouragement of an essay towards a complete English history; under the auspices of which appeared the first volume of Carte’s” History of England.“Mr. Warton made considerable use of his Mss. in his” History of Poetry“and in 1759, an edition of Massinger’s works was published in 4 vols. 8vo. said to be” revised, corrected, and the editions collated by Mr. Coxeter." He died of a fever April 19, 1747, in his 59th year, and was buried in the chapel-yard of the Royal hospital of Bridewell: leaving an orphan daughter, who was often kindly assisted with money by Dr. Johnson, and in her latter days by that excellent and useful institution, the Literary Fund. She died in Nov. 1807.

, an eminent benefactor to the taste, elegance, and literature of his time, was the son of col. Mordaunt Cracherode, who sailed with lord Anson, and in 1753 was appointed lieut. governor of Fort St. Philip, in Minorca. His mother was Mary, the daughter of Thomas Morice, esq. paymaster of the British forces in Portugal in queen Anne’s time, and brother to William Morice, esq. who married bishop Atterbury’s daughter. The colonel died June 20, 1773, and his widow Dec. 27, 1784, at their house in Queen’s-square, Westminster, which was afterwards inhabited by their son, the subject of the present article. Mr. Cracherode was born in 1729, and educated at Westminster school, where his contemporary the late Mr. Cumberland says, he was “as grave, studious, and reserved as he was through life; but correct in morals and elegant in manners, not courting a promiscuous acquaintance, but pleasant to those who knew him, beloved by many, and esteemed by all.” He was admitted a scholar at Westminster in 1742, and in 1746 was elected to Christ-church, Oxford, where he took his degree of B. A. and M.A. at the usual periods: the latter, April 5, 1753. He entered into holy orders, and atone time held the curacy of Binsey, a donative, near Oxford, but accepted no preferment afterwards. At the same time, he maintained that simplicity and purity in his appearance, manners, and sentiments, which belong to the character he professed. The tenor of Mr. Cracherode’s life, after he came to reside in London, that of a man of literary taste and research, was even and uniform: his principal object was the collection of a library and museum, and while his thoughts were confined to it, his associations were necessarily with men of similar pursuits. He employed a considerable part of a large revenue in making collections of what was best and most curious in literature, and certain branches of the arts. His library soon became unrivalled in its kind; and his cabinet of prints, drawings, and medals, was considered as among the most select and valuable in a country that possesses so many of them. He was an exquisite judge of art, both ancient and modern, particularly of sculpture, painting, and music, and collected the choicest'of early printed books, drawings, coins, and gems. Many of hisarticles were unique for their beauty, their preservation, or the rarity of their occurrence: such, for instance, as his cameo of a lion on a sardonyx, and intaglio of the discobolos; his Tyndale’s New Testament on vellum, that formerly belonged to Anne Boleyn; his lord Finch, with wings on his head, by Marshal; his Olbiopolis, and his Dichalcos, the first and smallest coin, being the fourth part of an obolus. Of these, and every other curiosity in his possession, he was, at all times, most obligingly communicative. His books, which he used modestly to call a specimen collection, particularly books of the fifteenth century, form perhaps the most perfect series ever brought together by one man. His passion for collecting was strong in death, and while he was at the last extremity, his agents were buying prints for him. In his farewell visit to Payne’s shop he put an Edinburgh Terence in one pocket, and a large paper Cebes in another, and expressed an earnest desire to carry away “Triveti Annales,” and Henry Stephens’s “Pindar” in old binding, both beautiful copies, and, as he thought, finer than his own, but which Mr. Payne had destined for lord Spencer.

, a learned mathematician, was a native of Scotland, in the seventeenth century, and well known for many papers recorded in the Philosophical Transactions, and in the Acta Eruditorum. He had a controversy with Bernouilli, in which Leibnitz took the part of Craig. He made his name, however, famous chiefly by a pamphlet of 36 pages, 4to, entitled “Theologise Christianae prinfcipia mathematica,” printed at London in 1699, and reprinted at Leipsic in 1755, with a preface upon the life and works of Craig. The author calculates the force and diminution of the probability of things. He establishes, as his fundamental proposition, that whatever we believe upon the testimony of men, inspired or uninspired, is nothing more thau probable. He then proceeds to suppose, that this probability diminishes in proportion as the distance of time from this testimony increases: and, by means of algebraical calculations, he finds at length, that the probability of the Christian religion will last only 1454 years from the date of his book; but will be nothing afterwards, unless Jesus Christ should prevent the annihilation of it by his second coming, as he prevented the annihilation of the Jewish religion by his first coming. Some in Germany and France have seriously refuted these learned reveries. The time of his death is not known.

It is not to be supposed that a preacher of such eminence, especially at a time when this mode of preaching was rare, should remain unknown or unnoticed. He soon received a presentation from Mr. Lockhart of Cambusnethan, to be minister of that parish and settled there in the year 1737. About this time great opposition was made by the people of Scotland, and particularly by those of Clydesdale, to the manner of appointing ministers by presentations from lay-patrons, and Mr. Craig encountered considerable opposition. Zealous, however, in the discharge of his duty, and hoping, in the conscious ardour of his endeavours, to reconcile his parishioners to that system of instruction which he thought best suited to their condition, and most consistent with Christianity, he refused a presentation to a church in Airshire, offered him by Mr. Montgomery of Coilsfield; and another offered him by the amiable but unfortunate earl of Kilmarnock. At length he accepted of a presentation to a church in Glasgow, the place of his nativity, where most of his relations resided, where he could have opportunities of conversing with his literary friends, and where the field for doing good was more extensive. He was first appointed minister of the Wyndchurch in that city: and, after the building of St. Andrew’s churrh, one of the most elegant places of public worship in Scotland, he was removed thither. His audience was at no time so numerous, but especially during the last fiveand-twenty years of his life, as those who valued good composition and liberality of sentiment apprehended that he deserved.

Craig about this time married the daughter of Mr. Anderson, a considerable merchant in Glasgow. She lived with him sixteen years; and by her he had several children; two of whom, namely, William, an eminent lawyer at the Scottish bar, and John, a merchant in Glasgow, survived their father. But the excellent understanding and amiable dispositions of his wife, which rendered his married state happy, contributed, by their painful recollection, to embitter the sufferings of his declining age. She died in 1758 and though he afterwards formed a very happy marriage with the daughter of Gilbert Kennedy, esq. of Auchtifardel, he scarcely ever recovered the shock of his first separation. Several years before he died, his strength and health gradually declined; his spirits were overwhelmed with melancholy; he seemed to have lost the power of enjoying happiness-; no amusement could relieve his depressions; he lamented that he was become useless; and that he felt, not only his body, but the faculties of his soul impaired. His sufferings were heightened by many additional afflictions; particularly by the death of his son Alexander, a very agreeable young man, who had been bred a merchant, but who was strongly inclined to the study of polite literature: and soon after by the death of his second wife, whose affectionate assiduities had been invariably employed in endeavouring to solace and support his infirmities. In this state of feebleness and dejection, notwithstanding the unwearied attention of, his surviving sons, he continued to languish: and, at length, in 1784, in the seventy-fifth year of his age, he was released by an easy death. Great sensibility seems to have given the general and prevailing colour to his character. It rendered his piety devout, his benevolence tender, and his friendship affectionate. In the culture of his understanding it inclined him to those studies that please by their beautiful imagery, or touch the heart with agreeable feelings. He was therefore very early addicted to classical learning; and cherished those views of religion that represent both God and man in a favourable light. Such sentiments and propensities, though not altogether singular at the time that he commenced his studies, were, however, so rare among students of theology, that, speaking figuratively, we may call them singular. But singularity of disposition or opinion is usually disliked or opposed. The man of fortitude and strong nerves encounters the opposition; and either makes converts, or, by a bold authoritative tone, though he fails to conciliate affection, imposes respect. But the man of extreme sensibility, yielding to his native bias, is afraid of the struggle, declines the contest; and, excepting in the retirements of confidential friendship, not only appears, but really becomes shy and reserved. This disposition is nearly allied to modesty, and even humbleness of mind; yet the appearance of distance it so often assumes, is misrepresented by the undiscerning multitude; and, by a violent misapplication of terms, is misconstrued into pride. Effects almost of an opposite appearance are produced by the same principle, yet tend in their final issue to confirm this mistaken reserve. The man of sensibility, conscious of powers, exerts them; and, conscious of his own candour, expects suitable returns. He is disappointed. The observation of men is otherwise engaged: accidental circumstances, and other causes than such as arise from perversion of mind, carry away their attention from the merit that claims and deserves their notice. Of these the man of shy and retired sensibility is not aware; he becomes still more cautious in his intercourse with mankind; more shy, and more retired. But Craig, under the sacred shade, and in the retirements of intimate and confidential friendship, was unreserved, open, and even ardent. The spirit of real enjoyment, with which in his better days he engaged in familiar and literary conversation with his friends, displayed the most interesting view of his character. Conversations on the merits of elegant authors, both ancient and modern, but, above all, the liberal discussion of moral and religious topics, were the joy of his soul. On these occasions, his eyes, naturally animated, sparkled with additional lustre; his voice, naturally musical, became delightfully mellow; his features brightened, for his heart glowed. These were blessed intervals, anticipations, perhaps, of what he now enjoys. By degrees, this glowing mood became tinged with melancholy: at first it was amiable and interesting; but became at last distressful. The sensibility which gave him such moments of rapture, had not, perhaps, been duly managed; and contributed to or occasioned his sufferings. It had rendered him averse to indiscriminate society, and thus precluded him from many innocent means of relieving the lassitude, or alleviating the weight of declining age. It quickened his sense of misfortune, and rendered his affliction for the loss of friends too poignant. It overwhelmed him with too much sorrow, if at any time he apprehended that the affection of those in whose love he trusted had suffered change. His sense of deity was strong and lively. Even though the dejection and the despondency of affliction might at times have brought a gloomy cloud between him and the radiance of heaven, the cloud was transient: his religious opinions, founded not merely on feeling, but on conviction, were permanent: and even in the earlier periods of his life he often lamented that men of worth and integrity were not pious; and though they performed many charitable and disinterested actions from very laudable motives, yet that their conduct did not seem to be founded on any principles of religion. It might be friendship, it might be compassion, it might be beneficence; but it wanted those aids, those supports and comforts, which alone could arise from hope and trust in God. It is unnecessary to say of such a character, that he was just, charitable, and temperate. His virtues were those of a Christian, his failings were those incident to the weakness of human nature; and his sufferings were occasioned, or much aggravated by his feelings.

, originated from a gentleman’s family at Strickland in Westmoreland, where he was born in 1567, and in 1583 was admitted in Queen’s college in Oxford, of which he obtained a fellowship in 1598. He was esteemed a celebrated preacher and a deep controversial divine, and was particularly admired by the puritans. When king James 1. sent the lord Evers ambassador to the emperor, Mr. Crakanthorpe went along with him in 1603 as chaplain; and upon his return he was chaplain to Dr. Ravis, bishop of London, and presented to the rectory of Black Notley, near Braintry in Essex. He had the reputation of a general scholar, was a considerable canonist, and perfectly acquainted with ecclesiastical antiquity and scholastic divinity. He died in 1624, at his rectory of Black-Notley. His works are, 1. “Justinian the emperor defended against cardinal Baronius,” 1616, 4to. 2. “Introductio in Metaphysicam, lib. 4.” Oxon. 1619, 8vo Lond. 1641, 4to. 3. “A Defence of Constanthie, with a treatise of the pope’s Temporal Monarchy,” Lond. 1621, 4to. 4. “Pefensio ecclesiae Anglicanse contra M. Anton, cle Dominis archiepisc. Spalatensis injurias,” Lond. 1625, 4to; this book has the character of a most exact piece of controversy. 5. “Vigilius dormitans; or, a treatise of the 5th general council held at Constantinople, ann. 553,” Lond. 1631, fol. 6. “Logicae libri quinque,” Lond. 1622; Ox. 1677, 4to. 7. “Tractatus de providentia,” Camb. 1622, 4to; with several sermons, and some controversial Mss. left behind him, a part of which are in Queen’s college library.

, the first Protestant archbishop of Canterbury, was the son of Thomas Cranmer, esq. and of Agnes, daughter of Laurence Hatfield, of Willoughby, in Nottinghamshire. He was born at Aslacton, in that county, July 2, 1489, and educated in grammar learning, under a rude and severe parish-clerk, of whom he learned little, and endured much. In 1503, at the age of fourteen, he was admitted into Jesus college, in Cambridge; of which he became fellow, and where he studied such learning as the times afforded, till the age of twenty-two, For the next four or five years he applied himself to polite literature; and for three years more, to the study of the Scriptures. After he was M. A. he married a gentleman’s daughter named Joan, living at the Dolphin, opposite Jesus-lane, and having by this match lost his fellowship, he took up his residence at the Dolphin, and became reader of the common lecture in Buckingham, now Magdalen college; but his wife dying in child-bed within a year, he was again admitted fellow of Jesus college. Upon cardinal Wolsey’s foundation of his new college at Oxford, Cranmer was nominated to be one of the fellows; but he refused the offer, or, as some say, was on the road to Oxford, when he was persuaded to return to Cambridge. In 1523, he was made D. D. reader of the theological lecture in his own college; and one of the examiners of those that took the degrees in divinity. The most immediate cause of his advancement to the greatest favour with king Henry VIII. and, in consequence of that, to the highest dignity in the church of England, was the opinion he gave in the matter of that king’s divorce. Having, on account of the plague at Cambridge, retired to Waltham-abbey, in Essex, to the house of one Mr. Cressy, to whose wife he was related, and whose sons were his pupils at the university; Edward Fox, the king’s almoner, and Stephen Gardiner, the secretary, happened accidentally to come to that house, and the conversation turning upon what then was a popular topic, the king’s divorce, Cranmer, whose opinion was asked, said, that “it would be much better to have this question, e whether a man may marry his brother’s wife, or no?' decided and discussed by the divines, and by the authority of the word of God, than thus from year to year prolong the time by having recourse to the pope; and that this might be done as well in England in the universities here, as at Rome, or elsewhere.” This opinion being communicate-d by Dr. Fox to the king, his majesty approved of it much; saying, in his coarse language, that Cranmer “had the sow by the right ear.” On this, Cranmer was sent for to court, made the king’s chaplain, ordered to write upon the subject of the divorce, furnished with books for that purpose, and placed in the family of Thomas Boleyn, earl of Wiltshire and Ormond. When he had finished his book, he went to Cambridge to dispute upon that point, and brought several over to his opinion, which was, that, according to the Scriptures, general councils, and ancient writers, the pope had no authority to dispense with the word of God. About this time he was presented to a living, and made archdeacon of Tauntpn. In 1530 he was sent, with some others, into France, Italy, and Germany, to discuss the affair of the king’s marriage. At Rome he got his book presented to the pope, and offered to dispute openly against the validity of king Henry’s marriage; but no one chose to engage him. While he was at Rome, the pope constituted him his pcenitentiary throughout England, Ireland, and Wales. In Germany he was sole embassador on the same affair; and in 1532 concluded a treaty of commerce between England and the Low Countries. He was also employed on an embassy to the duke of Saxony, and other Protestant princes. During his residence in Germany, he married at Nuremberg a second wife, named Anne, niece of Osiander’s wife. Upon the death of archbishop Warham, in August 1532, Cranmer was nominated for his successor; but, holding still to his opinion on the supremacy, he refused to accept of that dignity, unless he was to receive it immediately from the king, without the pope’s intervention Before his consecration, the king so far engaged him in the business of his divorce, that he made him a party and an actor almost in every step he took in that affair. He not only pronounced the sentence of divorce between king Henry and queen Catherine, at Dunstable, May the 23d, 1533, but, according to Parker, married him to Anne Boleyn; although lord Herbert says they were privately married by Rowland Lee, afterwards bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, in the presence of lady Anne’s father, mother, and brother, Dr. Cranmer, and the duke of Norfolk. However this may be, on March 30th, 1533, he was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, by the bishops of Lincoln, Exeter, and St. Asaph, when he made an unusual protestation. His design was by this expedient to save his liberty, to renounce every clause in his oath which barred him doing his duty to God, the king, and his country. Collier, who often argues as if he were fee'd by the church of Rome, thinks there was something of human infirmity in this management, because it was not made at Koine to the pope, nor by Cranmer’s proxies there, before the obtaining of the bulls, not perceiving that Cranmer’s opposition to the power of the pope was as uniform as it had been early, and the effect of conviction. The temporalities of the archbishopric were restored to Cranmer the 29th of April following. Soon after, he forbad all preaching throughout his diocese, and visited it this year in December. The pope threatening him with excommunication, on account of his sentence against queen Catherine, he appealed from his holiness to a general council, and in the ensuing parliaments, strenuously disputed against the pope’s supremacy. All along he showed himself a zealous promoter of the reformation; and, as the first step towards it, procured the convocation to petition the king that the Bible might be translated into English. When that was obtained, he diligently encouraged the printing and publication of it, and caused it to be recommended by royal authority, and to be dispersed as much as he possibly could. Next, he forwarded the dissolution of the monasteries, which were one of the greatest obstacles to a reformation *. He endeavoured also to restore the church of England to its original purity. In 1535 he performed a provincial visitation, in order to recommend the king’s supremacy, and preached upon that subject in several parts of his diocese, urging that the bishop of Rome was not God’s vicar upon earth, as supposed, and that that see so much boasted of, and by which name popes affected to be styled, was but a holiness in name, and that there was no such holiness at Rome, as he easily proved from the vices of the court of Rome. In

Vol.X. H H “that he, with his learned men, had so infected the whole realm with their unsavoury doctrine, that three parts of the land were hecome abominable heretics. And that it might prove dangerous to the king, being likely to produce such commotions and uproars as were sprung up in Germany. And therefore, they desired that the archbishop might be cojnmitted to the Tower, till he could be examined.” In 1545 he undertook to reform the canonlaw; but the book he compiled upon that subject, was, through bishop Gardiner’s artifices, never confirmed by the king. He likewise corrected some service, or prayerbooks. Upon king Henry’s decease, he was one of the executors of his will, and one of the regents of the kingdom. February the 20th, 1545-6, he crowned king Edward VI. to whom he had been godfather; as he was also to the lady Elizabeth. Soon after, he took out a commission for executing his office of archbishop; and caused the Homilies to be composed, being himself the author of some of them; and likewise encouraged the translation of Erasmus’s paraphrase on the New Testament. He also laboured earnestly in the reformation of religion; and for that purpose, procured the repeal of the Six Articles, the establishment of the Communion in both kinds, and a new office for that sacrament, the revisal and amendment of the rest of the offices of the church, frequent preaching, a royal visitation to inspect into the manners and abilities of the clergy, and visited his own diocese himself for the same purpose. He likewise showed himself a patron to the universities, in defending their rights, securing their revenues, and encouraging learning. In 1549, he was one of the commissioners for examining bishop Bonner, with a power to imprison or deprive him of his bishopric. Upon the insurrection in Devonshire, he expressed hie zeal for religion and his prince, by giving an excellent" and full answer to the rebels’ articles, and ordered sermons to be composed and preached upon that occasion. The same year he ordained several priests and deacons according to the new form of ordination in the Common-prayer book; which, through the archbishop’s care, was now finished and settled by act of parliament*. A review was made of this

bishop of Canterbury; Nicolas Rid- Lincoln; John Skip, bishop of Hereley, bishop of Rochester, afterwards ford; Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Westbook towards the end of the next year, and several things changed or amended that were thought to savour too much of superstition. In 1552, it was printed again with amendments and alterations, by the archbishop’s care, and authorized by parliament. This same year, he and some others compiled the articles of religion, and caused them, to be enjoined by the king’s authority. He confined not his care to the church of England, but extended it also to those protestant foreigners who fled to England, by obtaining churches for them, and recommending them to the favour and protection of the crown.

After queen Mary’s accession to the throne, so obnoxious an enemy to popery could not long escape, and accordingly he was first ordered to appear before the council, and bring an inventory of his goods; which he did August the 27th, when he was commanded to keep his house, and be forth-coming. September the 13th, he was again summoned before the council, and enjoined to be at the Starchamber the next day, when he was committed to the Tower; partly, for setting his hand to the instrument of the lady Jane’s succession; and, partly, for the public offer he had made a little before, of justifying openly“the religious proceedings of the late king. Some of his friends, foreseeing the storm that was likely to fall upon him, advised him to fly, but he absolutely refused, as unworthy of his character and the station he held. In the ensuing parliament, on November the 3d, he was attainted, and at Guildhall found guilty of high treason; on which the fruits of his archbishopric were sequestered; yet, upon his humble and repeated application, he was pardoned the treason, but it was resolved he should be proceeded against for heresy. In April 1554, he, and Ridley and Latimer, were removed to Oxford, for a public disputation with the papists on the subject of the sacrament; which was accordingly held there towards the middle of the month, with great noise, triumph, and confidence on the papists’ side, and with as much gravity, learning, modesty, and argument on the side of the protestant bishops. The 20th of April, two days after the end of these disputations, Cranmer and the two others were brought before the commissioners, and asked, whether they would subscribe (to Popery)? which they unanimously refusing, were condemned as heretics. From this sentence the archbishop appealed to the just judgment of the Almighty; and wrote to the council, giving them an account of the disputation, and desiring the queen’s pardon for his treason, which it seems was not yet remitted. By the convocation, which met this year, his” Defence of the true and Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ," was ordered to be burnt. Some of his friends petitioned the queen in his behalf; putting her in mind, how he had once preserved her, by his earnest intercessions for her, when her father had determined to send her to the Tower, and make her suffer for disobedience to the laws; so that she had reason to believe he loved her, and would speak the truth to her, more than all the rest of the clergy. But all these endeavours were ineffectual. The sentence pronounced against him by Weston at Oxford being void in law, because the Pope’s authority was not yet re-established in England, a new commission was sent from Rome for his trial and conviction. Accordingly, on September the 12th, 1555, he appeared before the commissioners; viz. Brooks bishop of Gloucester, for the pope; and Drs. Martin and Story for the queen: the commission was opened at St. Mary’s church, Oxford, and Cranmer was accused of blasphemy and heresy, for his writings against popery; of perjury, for breaking his oath to the pope; and of incontinency, or adultery, on account of his being married: against all which he vindicated himself. At last, he was cited to appear *at Rome within eighty days, to answer in person; which he said he would do, if the king and queen would send him, but this was not done, and therefore the pope dispatched, on December the 14th, his letters executory to the king and queen, and to Bonner and Thirlby bishops of London and Ely, to degrade and deprive him. In these letters, Cranmer was declared contumacious, for not appearing at Rome within eighty days, according to his citation; as if he could have appeared at Rome, when he was all the while kept a prisoner. Upon the arrival of the letters, Bonner and Thirlby, with Dr. Martin and Dr. Story the king’s and queen’s proctors, went to Oxford to degrade him. They dressed him in all the garments and ornaments of an archbishop, only in mockery every thing was of canvass and old clouts: and then he was, piece by piece, stripped of all again. When they came to take the crosier gut of his hand, he refused to part with it, and appealed to the next general council. After he was degraded, they put him on a poor yeoman -beadle’s gown, thread- bare, and a towns-man’s cap, and remanded him to prison. From thence he wrote letters to the queen, to give her an impartial account of vyhat had passed at his degradation, to prevent mis-reports, and to justify himself in what he had said and done; and hitherto he manifested a great deal of courage and wisdom in his sufferings; but at last human frailty made him commit what he felt as the greatest blemish of his life. For, through flatteries, promises, importunities, threats, and the fear of death, he was prevailed upon to sign a recantation *, wherein he renounced the Protestant

the third, he submitted to the king and qii'vn, and to all their laws, as well concerning the pope’s supremacy, as others: and promised, that he would stir and move all others to live in quietness and obedience to their majesties. As for his book, he was content to submit to the judgment of the Catholic church, and the next general council. Tiiis was followed by a fourth, wherein be- professed firmly, stedfastly, and assnndly to believe in all articles and points of the Christian religion and Catholic faith, as the Catholic church doih believe. Moreover, as concerning the sacraments, he declared he believed uiiiVig-iiediy in all poinis as the said Catholic church did. In the fifth paper, which is that in Fox, and has been thought to be his only recantation, they required of him, to renounce and anathematize all Lutheran and Zumglian heresies and errors; to acknowledge the one only Catholic church, to be that whereof the pope is the head; and to declare him Christ’s vicar. Then followed an express acknowledgment of transubstantiation, the seven sacraments, and of all the doctrines of the church of Rome in general. A sixth was still required of him, which was drawn up in so strong terms, that nothing was capable of being added to it. For it contained a large acknowledgment of all the popish errors and corruptions, and a most grievous accusation of himself as a blasphemer, enemy of Christ, and murderer of souls, on account of his being the author of king Henry’s divorce, and of all the calamities, schisms, and heresies of which that was the fountain. This was subscribed on the 18lh of March. These six papers were, soon after his death, sent to the press by Bonner, and published with the addition of another, which they had prepared for him to speak at St. Mary’s, before his execution: and though he then spoke to a quite contrary effect, and revoked his former recantations, Bonner had the confidence to publish this to the world, as if it had been approved and made use of by the archbishop. In 1736, William Whiston, M. A. published a little book, entitled “An Enquiry into the Evidence of Archbishop Cranmer’s Recantation: or reasons for a suspicion that the pretended copy of it is not genuine.” In this he supposes, that what Cranmer signed, was only the first part of the Recantation printed in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments,” as far as the words -“without which there is no Salvation,” that the rest was added by the papists, but that Cranmer never set his hand to it. the king and queen; to love each other; and to be charitable. After this he made a confession of his faith, beg nning with the Creed, and concluding with these words, “And I believe every word and sentence taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, his apostles and prophets, in the Old and New Testament. And now,” added he, “I come to the great thing, that so much troubleth my conscience more than any thing I ever did or said in my whole life-; and that is the setting abroad a writing contrary to the truth, which 1 here now renounce as things written with my hand contrary to the truth which 1 thought in my heart, and written for fear of death, and to save my life if it might be; that is, all such bills and papers which I have written or signed with my hand since my degradation, wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished; for, may I come to the fire, it shall be first burned. As for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine. And as for the Sacrament, I believe as I have taught in my book against the bishop of Winchester.” Thunderstruck as it were with this unexpected declaration, the enraged popish crowd admonished him not to dissemble: “Ah,” replied he with tears, “since I lived hitherto, I have been a hater of falsehood, and a lover of simplicity, and never before this time have I dissembled.” On this, they pulled him off the stage with the utmost fury, and hurried him to the place of his martyrdom, over against Baliol-college; where he put off his clothes in haste, and standing in his shirt, and without shoes, was fastened with a chain to the stake. Some pressing him to agree to his former recantation, he answered, showing his hand, “This is the hand that wrote it, and therefore it shall first suffer punishment.” Fire being applied to him, he stretched out his right hand into the flame, and held it there unmoved (except that once with it he wiped his face) till it was consumed, crying with a loud voice, “This hand hath offended;” and often repeating, “This unworthy right hand.” At last, the fire getting up, he soon expired, never stirring or crying out all the while, only keeping his eyes fixed to heaven, and repeating more than once, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Such was the end of the renowned Thomas Cranmer, in the 67th year of his age, a man who deservedly ranks high among the most illustrious characters in ecclesiastical history, although his conduct was not in all respects free from blame. Of the two instances in which Cranmer has been accused of retaining the spirit of persecution, after he had got rid of every other attribute of popery, Mr. Gilpin gives the following account: “Joan Bocher and George Paris were accused, though at different times, one for denying the humanity of Christ the other for denying his divinity. They were both tried, and condemned to the stake: and the archbishop not only consented to these acts of blood; but even persuaded the aversion of the young king into a compliance.” Your majesty must distinguish (said he, informing his royal pupil’s conscience) between common opinions, and such as are the essential articles of faith. These latter we must on no account suffer to be opposed.“Mr. Gilpin justly observes, that” nothing even plausible can be suggested in defence of the archbishop on this occasion; except only that the spirit of popery was not yet wholly repressed." That he was not, however, a man of blood, and that in every case of personal injury he was the most placable of human beings, is amply confirmed by all authorities. The last act of Henry’s reign, says the same biographer, was an act of blood; and gave the archbishop a noble opportunity of shewing, how well he had learned that great Christian lesson of forgiving an enemy. Almost without the shadow of justice, Henry had given directions to have the duke of Norfolk attainted by an act of parliament. The king’s mandate stood in lieu of guilt; and the bill passed the house with great ease. No man, except the bishop of Winchester, had been so great an enemy to the archbishop as the duke of Norfolk. He had always thwarted the primate’s measures; and oftener than once had practised against his life. How many would have seen with secret pleasure the workings of Providence against so rancorous an enemy; satisfied in having themselves no hand in his unjust fate! But the archbishop saw the affair in another light; he saw it with horror: and although the king had in a particular manner interested himself in this business, the primate opposed the bill with all his might; and when his opposition was vain, he left the house with indignation, and retired to Croydon.

As archbishop Cranmer was a learned man hiinself, so he was also a great patron of all solid learning, and of whatever he thought calculated to promote it. Mr. Gilpin observes, that the archbishop always thought himself much interested in the welfare of both the universities, but of Cambridge in particular; and though he does not appear to have bad any legal power there, yet such was his interest at court, and such was the general dependence of the more eminent members of that society upon him, that scarcely any thing was d,one there, either of a public or a private nature, without consulting him. It was his chief endeavour to encourage, as much as possible, a spirit of inquiry; and to rouse the students from the slumber of their predecessors; well knowing, the libertas philosophandi was the great mean of detecting error, and that true learning could never be at variance with true religion. Ascham and Cheke, two of the most elegant scholars of that age, were chiefly relied on, and consulted by the archbishop in this work. Leia'.id, also, the first British antiquary, was among the archbishop’s particular friends. Leland had a wonderful facility in learning languages, and was esteemed the first linguist in Europe. The archbishop soon took notice of him; and, with his usual discernment, recommended him to be the king’s librarian. His genius threw him on the study of antiquities; and his opportunities, on those of his own country. The archbishop, in the mean time, by procuring preferment for him, enabled him to make those inquiries to which his countrymen have been so much indebted.

He was a great ceconomist of his time. He rose commonly at five o'clock; and continued in his study till nine. These early hours, he would say, were the only hours he could call his own. After breakfast he generally spent the remainder of the morning either in public or private business. His chapel-hour was eleven; and his dinner-hour twelve. After dinner, he spent an hour either in conversation with his friends, in playing at chess, or in what he liked better, overlooking a chess-board. He then retired again to his study, till his chapel- bell rang at five. After prayers, he generally walked till six, which was, in those times, the hour of supper. His evening meal was sparing. Often he ate nothing; and when that was the case, it was his usual custom, as he sat down to table, to draw on a pair of gloves; which was as much as to say, that his hands had nothing to do. After supper, he spent an hour in walking, and another in his study, retiring to his bed-chamber about nine. This was his usual mode of living when he was most vacant; but very often his afternoons, as well as his mornings, were engaged in business. To this his chess-hour after dinner was commonly first assigned, and the remainder of the afternoon as the occasion required. He generally, however, contrived, if possible, even in the busiest day, to devote some proportion of his time to his books besides the morning. And Mr. Fox tells us, he always accustomed himself to read and write in a standing posture; esteeming constant sitting very pernicious to a studious man.

His printed works are, 1. An account of Mr. Pole’s book, concerning king Henry Vlllth’s Marriage. 2. Several Letters to divers persons to king Henry VIII. to secretary Cromwell to sir William Cecil to foreign divines. 3. Three discourses upon his review of the king’s book, entitled “The Erudition of a Christian man.” 4. Other Discourses of his. 5. The Bishops’ Book, in which he had a part. 6. Answers to the fifteen articles of the rebels in Devonshire in 1549. 7. The examination of most points of religion. 8. A form for the alteration of the mass into a communion. 9. Some of the homilies. 10. A catechism, entitled “A short Instruction to Christian Religion, for the singular profit of children and young people.” 11. Against unwritten verities. 12. A defence of the true and catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ; with a confutation of sundry errors concerning the same. Grounded and established upon God’s holy word, and approved by the consent of the most ancient doctors of the church. This was translated into Latin by John Young. In opposition to it, Gardiner published “An Explication and Assertion of the true Catholic Faith touching the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, with the Confutation of a book wrote against the same.” 13. Cranmer replied in the following book, “An Answer by the reverend father in God, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, unto a crafty and sophistical caviilation, devised by Stephen Gardiner, doctor of law, late bishop of Winchester, against the true and godly doctrine of the most Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ. Wherein is also, as occasion serveth, answered such places of the book of Dr. Richard Smith, as may seem any thing worthy the answering. Also a true Copy of the book written, and in open court delivered by Dr. Stephen Gardiner, not one word added or diminished, but faithfully in all points agreeing with the original,” London, 1551, reprinted in 1580. It was translated into Latin by sir John Cheke. An answer was also made to this book by Stephen Gardiner, under the feigned name of Marcus Antonius Constantinus, and entitled “Confutatio cavillationum, quibus sacrosanctum Eucharistiae Sacramentum ab impiis Capernaitis impeti soiet.” Paris, 1552. 14. Craumer began an Answer to this, and finished three parts of it, but lived not to complete the whole. 15. Preface to the English translation of the Bible. 16. A Speech in the house of lonls, concerning a general council. 17. Letter to king Henry VIII. in justification of Anne Boleyn, May 3, 15‘35. Is. The Reasons that led him to oppose the Six Articles. For this he had like to come into great trouble, as may be seen in Fox. 19. Resolution of some questions concerning the Sacrament. 20. Injunctions given at his visitation within the diocese of Hereford. ’Jl. A collection, of passages out of the canon law, to shew the necessity of reforming it. 22. Some queries in order to the correcting of several abuses. 23. Concerning a farther reformation, and against sacrilege. 24. Answers to some queries concerning confirmation. 25. Some considerations offered to king Edward VI. to induce him to proceed to a farther reformation. 26. Answer to the lords of the privy-council. 27. Manifesto against the Mass.

Those works of his which still remain in manuscript, are, 1. Two large volumes of collections out of holy scripture, and the ancient fathers, and later doctors and schoolmen. The first volume contains 545 pages, and the second above 559. They are chiefly upon the points controverted between us and the church of Rome; namely, about their seven sacraments, invocation of saints, images, relics, of true religion and superstition, the mass, prayer, the Virgin Mary, &c. These two volumes are in the king’s library. When they were offered to sale, they were valued at 100l. but bishop Beveridge and Dr. Jane, appraisers for the king, brought down the price to 50l. 2. The lord Burleigh had six or seven volumes more of his writing. 3. And Dr. Burnet mentions two volumes besides, that he saw, but they are supposed to be now lost. 4. There are also several letters of his in the Cottonian library.

, an English poet, was the son of the rev. William Crashaw, a divine of some note in his day, and preacher at the Temple church, London. He published several volumes on points controverted between the Roman catholics and protestants, either original or translated; and in 1608, a translation of the Life of Galeacius Caracciolo, marquis of Vico, an Italian nobleman, who was converted by the celebrated reformer Peter Martyr, and forsook all that rank, family, and wealth could yield, for the quiet enjoyment of the reformed religion. Mr. Crashaw also translated a supposed poem of St. Bernard’s, entitled “The Complaint or Dialogue between the Soule and the Bodie of a damned man,” 1616, and in the same year published a “Manual for true Catholics, or a handfull or rather a heartfull of holy Meditations and Prayers.” All these show him to have been a zealous protestant; but, like his son, somewhat tinctured with a love of mystic poetry and personification.

In 1641, Wood informs us, he took degrees at Oxford. At what time he was admitted into holy orders is uncertain, but he soon became a popular preacher, full of energy and enthusiasm. In 1644, when the parliamentary army expelled those members of the university who refused to take the covenant, Crashaw was among the number; and being unable to contemplate with resignation or indifference, the ruins of the church-establishment, went over to France, where his sufferings and their peculiar influence on his mind prepared him to embrace the Roman catholic religion. Before he left England, he appears to have practised many of the austerities of a mistaken piety, and the poems entitled “Steps to the Temple,” were so called in allusion to his passing his time almost constantly in St. Mary’s church, Cambridge. “There,” says the author of the preface to his poems, “he lodged under Tertullian’s roof of angels; there he made his nest more gladly than David’s swallow near the house of God; where like a primitive saint he offered more prayers in the night, than others usually offer in the day; there he penned these poems,” Steps for happy souls to climb Heaven by.“The same writer informs us that he understood Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, and Spanish, and was skilled in poetry, music, drawing, painting, and engraving, which last he represents as” recreations for vacant hours, not the grand business of his soul."

, the most distinguished philosopher of the Cynic sect after Diogenes, was by birth a Theban, and flourished about the 113th olympiad, B. C. 328, and died after the year 287 B. C. He was honourably descended, and inherited a large estate; but when he devoted himself to philosophy, that he might be free from the dominion of those passions which are fostered by wealth, he distributed his whole properly among the poorer citizens. Leaving his native city, where he had been a disciple of Bryso, he went to Athens, and hecame a zealous disciple of Diogenes adopting all the singularities of his master. In his natural temper, however, he was not, like Diogenes, morose and gloomy, but cheerful and facetious. The following whimsical tarif of expences is attributed to him: To a cook should be given two minae, to a physician a drachma, to a flatterer five talents, to an adviser smoke, a talent to a courtezan, and three oboles to a philosopher. Being asked of what use philosophy was to him? “To teach me,” returned he, “to be contented with a vegetable diet, and to live exempt from care and trouble.” Alexander, curious to see this Cynic, offered to rebuild Thebes, the place of his nativity; “To what purpose?” interrogated Crates; “Another Alexander will destroy it afresh. The contempt of fame, and my complacency with poverty stand me in stead of a country: these are comforts that are above the reach of fortune.” Patient under injuries, he took no other revenge for a blow he had received from a certain Nicodromus, than by writing under the mark of it on his cheek, “Nicodromus fecit.” This disposition attached to him many friends, and procured for him access to the houses of the most wealthy Athenians, and he frequently became an arbiter of disputes and quarrels among relations. His influence in private families is said to have had a great e fleet in correcting the luxuries and vices which prevailed at that time in Athens. His wife, Hipparchia, who was rich and of a good family, and had many suitors, preferred Crates to every other, and when her parents opposed her inclination, so determined was her passion, she threatened to put an end to her life. Crates, at the request of her parents, represented to Hipparchia every circumstance in his condition and manner of -living, which might induce her to change her mind. Slill she persisted in her resolution, and not only became his wife, but adopted all the Cynic peculiarities. Disgraceful tales have been circulated concerning Crates and his wife; but since they do not appear in any writings of the period in which they lived, and are neither mentioned by Epictetus, who wrote an apology for the Cynic philosophy, nor by Lucian or Athenxus, who were so industrious in accumulating calumnies against philosophers, Brucker thinks they must be set down among the malicious fictions of later writers, who were desirous to bring the Cynic and Stoic sects into discredit. Had either Diogenes or Crates been the beasts which some have represented them, it is wholly incredible that Zeno and the Stoics would have treated their memory with so much respect.

, an ancient comic poet, frequently mentioned by Quhuilian, Horace, and Persius, along with Eupolis and Aristophanes, as the great masters of what we call the ancient comedy, flourished in the 81st olympiad, about twenty or thirty years before Aristophanes. He was un Athenian, and appears to have spent his long life in his native city; where, if he did not invent comedy, he was at least the first who brought it into some form and method, and made it fit for the entertainment of a civilized audience, although it still retained many marks of its rude original. Persons and vices were exposed in barefaced satire, and the chief magistrates of the commonwealth ridiculed by name upon the stage. We find in Plutarch’s life of Pericles several passages out of Cratinus’s plays, where he reflected boldly on that great general. Cratinus appears to have been an excessive drinker, for which he offered the excuse that it was absolutely necessary to warm his fancy, and Horace quotes his authority to shew what short-lived things the offspring of water poets commonly prove. For the same reason, Aristophanes, in his “Irene,” attributes the death of Cratinus to the shock he received at the sight of a noble cask of wine split in pieces and washing the streets. The time of it is preserved in the same jest of Aristophanes, and referred to the year in which the Lacedaemonians first invested Athens; namely, in the 37th olympiad, or B. C. 431. Suidas tells us, that be wrote twenty-one plays, none of which are extant, and he gives only this short description of his excellencies, that he was “splendid and animated in his characters.”

His works were numerous the titles of the principal of them were, “De Morbo Gallico Commentarius,” Franc. 1594, 8vo; “De vera praecavendi et curandi Febrem contagiosam pestiientem ratione,” 1594; “Methodus Therapeutica ex Galeni et Montani Sententia.” There were also published seven volumes in 8vo, of Epistles and Consultations; and, according to Niceron, he was the editor of Luther’s “Table Talk;” or, as some say, that work was compiled from his recollections of conversation with Lmher, but this seems doubtful. He died Nov. 9, 1585.

Crawfurd’s “Memoirs” have hitherto been held in considerable estimation, and frequently quoted as authorities; but a discovery has lately been made which proves him to Jiave been in one instance at least, shamefully regardless of veracity, and has procured him the disgrace of being “the first Scotchman who published his own compositions as the genuine productions of a former age.” This discovery was made by Mr. Laing, the editor of “The Historic and Life of king James the sext,” published in 1804, 8vo. He informs us that in Crawfurd’s “Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland,” references occur to a ms. in support of certain positions, which includes nothing that in the least countenances them, and the above “Historic,” printed from that identical ms. amply confirms this heavy charge, “the earliest, if not the most impudent literary furgery ever practised in Scotland.” Every circumstance in the ms. unfavourable either to queen Mary or to Bothwell, or favourable to their adversaries, Crawford carefully suppressed; while every vague assertion in Camden, Spottiswood, Melvill, and others, or in the state papers which Crawfurd had transcribed from the Cotton Mss. is inserted in the Memoirs; and these writers are quoted on the margin as collateral authorities, confirming the evidence of some unknown contemporary. Fictions, invented by Crawfurd himself, are profusely intermixed: and even the illdigested form of the genuine narrative is a pretext for the transposition and alteration of facts. Crawfurd, having thus, on the narrow basis of the original ms. constructed spurious memoirs of his own, “declares solemnly that he has not wrested any of the words to add to one man’s credit, or to impair the honesty of another: that he has neither heightened nor diminished any particular character or action; but that he has kept as close as possible to the meaning and sense of his author;” and even in his titlepage professes that the work “is faithfully published from an authentic manuscript.” The Memoirs, adds the editor of the “Historic,” have been quoted as genuine by Hume and Robertson, and their authority has been re-echoed by disputants as a full confirmation of the most absolute fictions. Nor is it possible to acquit Goodall of connivance at the fraud: he had collated the memoirs with two copies of the original ms. and was conscious of the imposture, which, in the preface to the second edition, he endeavours partly to vindicate, and partly to conceal.

, an eminent artist, was born at Antwerp in 1585, and was a disciple of Raphael Coxis, the son of that Coxis who had studied under Raphael; but Crayer soon shewed such proofs of genius, that he far surpassed his master, and therefore quitted him. Afterwards he made judicious observations on the particular excellencies of the most renowned masters, and taking nature for his constant guide, formed for himself a manner that was extremely pleasing. The first work which established him in the favour of the court of Brussels, was a portrait of cardinal Ferdinand, brother to the king of Spain, a full length, as large as life, in which he succeeded so happily, that when it was viewed by the court at Madrid it laid the foundation of his fame and fortune. The king sent him a gold chain with a medal; and added, as a farther instance of his favour, a considerable pension. The testimony of Rubens was also highly in his favour, who went to Antwerp to visit Crayer, and after examining attentively a picture of his painting in the refectory of the abbey of Affleghem, he publicly declared that no painter could surpass Crayer. Nor was he less distinguished by Vandyck, who always expressed a friendship for him, and painted his portrait. It has been said that he had somewhat less fire in his compositions than Rubens; but that his design was frequently more correct. Yet, says Mr. Fuseli, let not this high strain of commendation seduce the reader to imagine that Crayer was a painter of the same rank with Rubens. If he was more equal, the reason lay in his inferiority. Rubens had the flights, the falls, and the neglects of genius. Crayer steered a middle course, and preserved dignity by caution. His composition generally consisted of a small number of figures; and he very judiciously avoi ded the encumbering his design with superfluous particulars, or loading his subject with any thing that seemed not to contribute to its elegance. He grouped his figures with skill, and his expressions have all the truth of nature. There is a remarkable variety in his draperies, and an equal degree of simplicity in their folds; and his colouring is admirable. Of all his contemporaries he was reckoned to approach nearest to Vandyck, not only in history, but in portrait. He principally painted religious subjects, and was continually at work; and although he lived to a great age, yet his temperance and regular habits preserved the full use of his faculties; and to the last month of his long life his pencil retained the same force and freedom which it possessed in his most vigorous days. He died in 1669, aged eighty-four. The subject of the picture which was so highly honoured by the approbation of Rubens, is the centurion alighting from his horse to prostrate himself at the feet of Christ. Yet sir Joshua Reynolds says of it, that though it cannot be said to be defective in drawing or colouring, it is far from being a striking picture. There is no union between his figures and the ground; the outline is every where seen, which takes away the softness and richness of effect; the men are insipid characters, and the women want beauty. The composition is something on the plan of the great picture of Rubens in the St. Augustins at Antwerp: that is, the subject is of the same kind, but there is a great difference indeed in their degree of merit.

The following is a list of his translations; for we do not find him to have been the author of any original works. 1. A translation of “Lucretius,” printed in 8vo, at Oxford, 1682. Dryden, in the preface to the “Miscellany Poems,” which were published by him, speaks of this translation in the highest terms of approbation, calling Creech “the ingenious and learned translator of Lucretius” and every body else entertained the same opinion of it.' In the edition of 1714, in 2 vols. 8vo, all the verses of the text, which Creech had left untranslated, particularly those in the fourth book about the nature of love, are supplied; and many new notes added and intermixed by another hand, by way of forming a complete system of the Epicurean philosophy. Creech had published in 1695 an edition of Lucretius in Latin, with notes, which were afterwards printed at the end of the English translation. Another edition of this, much enlarged, but very incorrect, was published in 1717 in 8vo. The best is that of Glasow, 1759, 12 mo. He will perhaps be far longer rememred as the editor than the translator of Lucretius. 2. In 1684 he published a translation of “Horace” in which, however, he has omitted some few odes. As to the satires, he was advised, as he tells us in the preface, “to turn them to our own time; since Rome was now rivalled in her vices; and parallels for hypocrisy, profaneness, avarice, and the like, were easy to be found.” But those crimes,“he declares,” were out of his acquaintance; and since the character is the same whoever the person is, he was not so fond of being hated, as to make any disobliging application. Such pains,“says he,” would look like an impertinent labour to find a dunghill.“3. The” Idylliums“of Theocritus, with Rapin’s discourse of pastorals, 1684,- 8vo. 4. The second elegy of Ovid’s first book of elegies the sixth, seventh, eighth, and twelfth of the second book; the story of Lucretia, out of the Fasti; and the second and third of Virgil’s eclogues; printed in a collection of miscellany poems, 1684. 5. The thirteenth satire of Juvenal, with notes. Printed in the English translation of the satires, 1693, in folio. 6. A translation into English of the verses prefixed to Quintinie’s Complete Gardener. 7. The Lives of Solon, Pelopidas, and Cleomenes, from Plutarch. 8. The Life of Pelopidas, from Cornelius Nepos. 9. Laconic apophthegms, or remarkable sayings of the Spartans, from Plutarch. 10. A discourse concerning Socrates’s da3mon, and the two first books of the Symposiacs, from Plutarch. These translations from Plutarch were published in the English translations of his” Lives“and” Morals.“11. A translation of Manilius’s Astronomicon, dated from All-Souls, Oct. 10, 1696. On his father’s monument he is called” the learned, much admired, and much envied Mr. Creech.“By whom he could have been envied, we know not, yet there is a ridiculous story that Dryden became so jealous of him, as to incite him to translate Horace that he might lose as much reputation by that poet, as he had gained by Lucretius. His poetry will scarcely at present be deemed an object which calls for much criticism, as he is rather a good scholar than a good poet; and in the instance of Lucretius, a most judicious editor. Dr. Warton, however, who will be allowed Jto be an admirable judge, has spoken of him in terms of applause.” Creech,“says the doctor,” in truth, is a much better translator than he is usually supposed and allowed to be. He is a nervous and vigorous writer: and many parts, not only of his Lucretius, but of his Theocritus and Horace (though now decried) have not been excelled by other translators. One of his pieces may be pronounced excellent; his translation of the thirteenth satire of Juvenal; equal to any that Dryden has given us of that author.“Pope certainly paid him no small compliment by beginning his epistle to Mr. Murray (afterwards lord Mansfield) with two lines from Creech’s Horace. Pope used to say that” he hurt his translation of Lucretius very much by imitating Cowley, and bringing in turns even into some of the most grand parts. He has done more justice to Manilius."

, a very amiable and ingenious lady, nearly related to the poet Dryden, was the only daughter of sir Gilbert Pickering, bart. by Elizabeth, the only daughter of sir Sidney Montagu, knt. and sister of Edward Montagu, first earl of Sandwich. She was born in 1642, and was married to John Creed of Oundle, esq. a wise, learned, and pious man (as his inscription, written by her, intimates), “who served his majesty Charles II. in diverse honourable employments at home and abroad; lived with honour, and died lamented, 1701.” By this gentleman she had a numerous family, one of whom, the brave major Richard Creed, is commemorated by a monument in Westminster-abbey, as well as by one erected by his mother in the church of Tichmarsh. During her widowhood, Mrs. Creed resided many years in a mansionhouse at Barnwell, near Oundle in Northamptonshire, belonging to the Montagu family, where she amused and employed herself in painting, and gratuitously instructed many young women in drawing, fine needle-work, and other elegant arts. Many of the churches in the neighbourhood of Oundle are decorated with altar-pieces, monuments, and ornaments of different kinds, the works of her hand; and her descendants are possessed of many portraits, and some good pictures painted by her. Two days in every week she constantly allotted to the public; on one, she was visited by all the nobility and gentry who resided near her; on the other, she received and relieved all the afflicted and diseased of every rank, giving them food, raiment, or medicine, according to their wants. Her reputation in the administration of medicine was considerable; and as she afforded it gratis, her practice was of course extensive. Her piety was great and unaffected. That it was truly sincere, was evinced by the magnanimity with which she endured many trials more heavily afflictive than what usually fall to the lot even of those whose life is prolonged to so great an extent. In 1722, when in her eightieth year, she erected a monument in the church of Ticbmarsh to the memory of Dryden and his ancestors, with a:; inscription by herself. She died at Ountlle in May 1728, and her remains were removed to Tichmarsh, where she was buried with her ancestors. Her funeral sermon, which Mr. Malone doesnot appear to have seen, was preached hy Henry Lee, D. D. rector of Tichmarsh in May 1728, and therefore probably the date of her death, in Malone’s Life of Dryden, viz. “the beginning of 1724-5,” must be incorrect. This sermon, printed at London the same year, 8vo, is dedicated to Mrs. Stuart, executrix and sole surviving daughter of Mrs. Creed. An extract from it, confirming the excellence of her character, may be seen in a compilation less respected than it deserves, Wilford’s “Memorials.”

, a once celebrated writer of the Sociriian persuasion, was born in Franconia in 1590, and after some early education received from his father, studied at Nuremberg, and other German schools or universities. He was brought up in the Lutheran church, but in the course of his reading, having formed to himself a set of opinions nearly coinciding with those of Socinus, he declined the offers of promotion in the Lutheran church, where he probably would not have been favourably received, and determined to go to Poland, where such opinions as his were no bar to advancement. In 1612 he went to Racow, and besides becoming a preacher, was appointed Greek professor and afterwards rector of the university. His theological works form a considerable part of the works’ of the “Fratres Poloni,” and he engaged in a controversy with Grotius, who had written against Socinus, and a correspondence, of great politeness, took place between them, which made Grotius be suspected of inclining too much to the opinions of his antagonist. He certainly carried his politeness very far, when he told Crellius that “he was, grieved to see so much enmity between those, who call themselves Christians, for such trifling matters,” these matters being no less than the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ. Crellius, we are told, like many of his descendants, would not be called a Socinian, but an Artemonite, after Artemon, who lived in the reign of the emperor Severus, and denied the pre-existence and divinity of Christ. Crellius’ opinions on other subjects will not probably procure him much respect, at least from one sex. In his “Ethics,” he is said to maintain that it is lawful for men upon certain occasions to beat their wives! Crellius died at Racow, of an epidemic fever, 1633. Father Simon’s opinion of him may be quoted as generic. “Crellius is a grammarian, a philosopher, and a divine throughout. He has a wonderful address in adapting St. Paul’s words to his own prejudices. He supports the doctrines of his sect with so much subtlety, that he does not seem to say any thing of himself, but to make the scriptures speak for him, even where they are most against him.”

, or, as he called himself, de Crescentiis, was born at Bologna about 1233, and after studying philosophy, medicine, and natural history, engaged in a course of law, but did not take his doctor’s degree; by which means, although he might plead causes, he was not at liberty to give lectures, a privilege which belonged only to doctors. For thirty years he was employed as assessor, or judge to the civil and military governors of various cities in Italy, an office of which he discharged the duties with impartiality, and witb the happiest effect in preserving peace in those places. In the mean time having contracted a taste for agriculture, wherever he removed, he collected such observations as might improve his knowledge of that branch, and on his return to Bologna, which he had left during the political dissentions there, he wrote in 1304 a treatise on agriculture, with the title of “Ruralia Commoda,” dedicated to Charles II. king of Naples. The first edition appeared in 147 1 at Augsburgh, fol. under the title of “Petri de Crescentiis rurahum commodorum, libri duodecim.” It was translated into Italian, Florence, 1478, fol. but the two best editions are that of Cosmo Giunta, ] 605, and that of Naples, 1724, 2,vols. 8vo. It is a book of considerable value, and gives a very correct display of the modes of agriculture in Italy at that time, which are said to approximate nearer to the modern than could have been expected. Crescentius died in 1320, nearly eighty-seven years old.

, an Italian poet, and poetical historian, the son of John Philip Crescimbeni, a lawyer, and Anna Virginia Barbo, was born Oct. 9, 1663, at Macerata in the marche ofAncona. Jerome Casanati, afterwards cardinal, was his godfather, and gave him the names of John-Maria-Ignatius-Xavier-Joseph-Antony, of which he retained only John Maria, and afterwards changed the latter into Mario. After receiving grammatical education at home, his uncle Antony-Francis, an advocate, invited him to Rome in 1674; hut the following year his father and mother recalled him to Macerata, where he engaged in a course of study among the Jesuits. His teacher of rhetoric was Charles d' Aquino, under whom he made great progress in eloquence and poetry. Among his early attempts, he wrote a tragedy in the style of Seneca, “The Defeat of Darius, king of Persia,” and translated the first two hooks of Lucan’s Pharsalia into Italian verse from which performances he derived so much reputation, as to be admitted a member of the academy of the Disposti, in the town of Jesi, although only in his fifteenth year. About that time he continued his classical studies for eight months under Nicolas Antony Raffaelli, and entered upon a course of philosophy. His father now recommending the law as a profession, Crescimbeni took his doctor’s degree Oct. 3, 167 y, and was appointed to lecture on the institutes, which he did for a year. His uncle before mentioned, aoain inviting him to Rome, he divided his time there between law and polite literature, and in 1685, the academy of the Infecondi admitted him a member. Hitherto his studies in Italian poetry had not been conducted so as to inspire him with a very pure taste; but about 1687, he entered on a course of reading of the best Italian poets, which not only enabled him to correct his own taste and style, but gave him hopes that tie might improve those of his countrymen. With this intention he endeavoured to form a new society, or, as they are called in Italy, academy, rindcr the name of Arcadia, the members to be called the shepherds of Arcadia, and each to take the name of a shepherd, and that of some place in ancient Arcadia, and his own name accordingly was Alfesibeo Cario. Such was the origin of this celebrated academy, and surely no origin was ever mure childishly romantic, or unpromising as to any beneficial e licet on solid or elegant literature, to which purposes, however, we are told it has eminently contributed. It was established Oct. 5, 1690. A short account of it, written in 1757, informs us that the first members were those itained persons chiefly who were about queen Christina of Sweden. (See Christina, vol. IX.) It admits all sciences, all arts, all nations, all ranks, and both sexes. The number of its members is not determined; they are said at present to be upwards of two thousand, but we have heard a much larger number assigned, for they sometimes aggregate whole academies. At Home, the academicians assemble in pastoral habits, in a most agreeable garden, called Bosco Parrhasia. The constitution of the society being democratic, they never chusje a prince for their protector. At the end of each olympiad, for that is the method of computing adopted by the Arcadians, they cbuse a custode, who is the speaker, and has the sole right of assembling the society, who are also represented by him alone, when they are not assembled. In order to be admitted a member, it is requisite that the person should be twenty-four years of age complete, of a reputable family, and to have given some specimen of abilities in one or more branches of education. As to the ladies, a poem, or a picture, is a testimony of genius that is held sufficient. The stated assemblies of this academy are fixed to seven different days, between the first of May and the seventh of October. In the first six they read the works of the Roman shepherds, the productions of strangers being reserved for the seventh and last. Each author reads his own compositions, except ladies and cardinals, who are allowed to employ others.

Crescimbeni was the first custode, or president of this academy, and retained that office for thirty-eight years, during which the academy is said to have produced very beneficial effects on public taste, and on the style of Italian poetry. Crescimbeni, however, was so intent on this establishment, as to neglect his profession as a lawyer, and now embraced, as it is termed, the ecclesiastical state. In 1705, pope Clement XI. bestoweu on him a canonry of St. Mary in Cosmedino, and in 1719 appointed him archpriest of the same city, at which time he took the regular orders of the priesthood. In 1728, during a fit of sickness, he took the vows of the Jesuits, but died March 8, of that year. He appears to have enjoyed great literary reputation in his time, and was a member of most of the Italian, academies, and of the Naturae Curiosorutn in Germany.

, an artist, better known by the name of Cerano, where he was born in 1557, descended from a family of painters, studied at Rome and Venice, and with painting united a knowledge of modelling, architecture, and literature. With such talents he occupied the first rank at the court of Milan, in the direction of the academy, and the vast plans of cardinal Federigo: he painted a number of pictures, whose beauties are not seldom balanced by blemishes of equal magnitude, free, spirited, harmonious, but often mannered from affectation of grace or grandeur. The singular talent he possessed of painting birds and quadrupeds in cabinet pictures, is mentioned by Soprani. One of his best pictures is the “Madonna del Rosario,” in the church of St. Lazzaro at Milan. He died in 1633.

His imagination was lively, and often whimsical; he was very famous for caricatures, and frequently amused himself with designing comic and burlesque fancies, which he expressed with abundance of humour and drollery. Sometimes he etched those designs with aqua fortis, selecting his subjects from the writings of the facetious and burlesque poets. He was remarkably singular, in accustoming himself to paint in a chamber properly darkened, and so contrived as to admit a ray of the sun, or the light of a flambeau, to enable him to give a greater roundness and relief to his paintings, by a nice observation of the force of natural light and shadow. His works are dispersed into different parts of Europe. In the gallery of Dresden were “The Seven Sacraments,” in seven pieces; “The Virgin, Christ, and St. John,” “An Ecce Homo, attended by two Soldiers.” He died in 1747. His sons, Antonio and Lewis, were some of the best of their father’s scholars, but though their works were much studied, and composed with more sobriety than those of their father, they never attained his eminence in the art. Lewis, indeed, quitted the pencil for the pen, and wrote many considerable works relating to the arts, and amongst others, the Supplement or 3d volume of the “Felsina Pittrice.” He died in 1779, and Antonio survived him only three years.

, a celebrated popish writer, descended from an ancient and honourable family, seated formerly in Nottinghamshire, but before his time it had removed into Yorkshire, in which county he was born, at Wakefield, in 1605. His father was Hugh Cressey, esq. barrister of Lincoln’s-inn; his mother’s name was Margery, the daughter of Dr. Thomas Doylie, an eminent physician in London. He was educated at a grammar-school at Wakefield, and about the age of fourteen, in Lent term 1619, he was removed to Oxford, where he studied with great vigour and diligence, and in the year 1626 was admitted fellow of Merton college, in that university. After taking the degrees of B. A. and M. A. he entered into holy orders, and became chaplain to Thomas lord Wentworth, then lord president of the north, with whom he lived some years. About 1638, he went over to Ireland with Lucius Carey, lord viscount Falkland, to whom he was likewise chaplain; and by him, when he was secretary of state, Cressey was, in 1642, promoted to a canonry in the collegiate church of Windsor, and to the dignity of dean of Laughlin, in the kingdom of Ireland, but through the disturbances of the times, he never attained the possession of either of these preferments. After the unfortunate death of his patron, who was killed in the battle of Newbury, he found himself destitute of subsistence, and therefore readily accepted a proposal that was made him, of travelling with Charles Bertie, esq. afterwards created earl of Falmouth, a great favourite of king Charles II. who was unhappily killed in a battle at sea in the first Dutch war after the restoration. Cressey quitted England in 1644, and making the tour of Italy with his pupil, moved by the declining state of the church of England, he began to listen to the persuasion of the Romish divines, and in 1646 made a public profession at Rome of his being reconciled to that church. He went from thence to Paris, where he thought fit to publish what he was pleased to style the motives of his conversion, which work of his, as might reasonably be expected, was highly applauded by the Romanists, and was long considered by them as a very extraordinary performance. It is entitled, “Exomologesis, or a faithfal narration of the occasions and motives of his conversion to Catholic Unity,” Paris, 1647, and 1653, 8vo. To the last edition is an appendix, “In which are cleared certain misconstructions of his Exomologesis, published by J. P. author of the preface to the lord Falkland’s discourse of Infallibility.” As soon as this was finished, he sent it over to his friend Dr. Henry Hammond, as to one whose sincerity he had experienced, and for whose judgment he had a high esteem. That learned person wrote him a kind letter of thanks for his book, but at the same time told him there was a vein of fallacy ran through the whole contexture of it; adding, “we are friends, and I do not propose to be your antagonist.” At the close of this epistle, he invited him into England, assuring him that he should be provided with a convenient place to dwell in, and a sufficient subsistence to live comfortably, without being molested by any about his religion and conscience. This offer, though our author did not accept, yet he returned, as became him, an answer full of respect and gratitude to the kind friend who had made it.

After this, he was much inclined to become a monk of the Carthusian order, and had thoughts of entering into the monastery of English Carthusians at Newport, in Flanders, but from this he was dissuaded by some of his zealous countrymen, who were desirous that he should continue to employ his pen in defence of their religion, for which the severe discipline of that order would have allowed him but little time; and therefore by their advice he laid aside that design, and being recommended to Henrietta-Maria, queen-dowager of England, he was taken under her protection, and being invited by the Benedictine college of English monks at Douay, in Flanders, he at length resolved to retire thither, and for the expence of his journey received one hundred crowns as a bounty from that princess, who could but ill spare even so small a sura at that time. Some time after his arrival at Douay he entered into the Benedictine order, and upon that occasion changed the name he received at his baptism, of Hugh Paulin, for that of Serenus de Cressey, by which he was afterwards known to the learned world. He remained about seven years or more in that college, and during his residence tnere published a large work, of the mystical kind, entitled “Sancta Sophia, or directions for the prayers of contemplation, &c. extracted out of more than XL treatises, written by the late reverend father Aug. Baker, a monk of the English congregation of the holy order of St. Benedict,” Douay, 1657, 2 vols. 8vo. To which are added, “Certain patterns of devout exercises of immediate acts and affections of the will.” This father Augustine Baker, whose true name was David Baker, who had studied the law in the Middle temple, and who from being little better than an atheist, became a convert to popery, and a very zealous devotionist, had once, it seems, some intention of writing the Ecclesiastical History of England, for which he had made very copious collections, that were of great service to Cressey, when he entered upon the execution of the same project.

After the restoration, and the marriage of king Charles II. queen Catharine appointed our author, who was then become one of the mission in England, her chaplain, and from that time he resided in Somerset-house, in the Strand. The great regularity of his life, his sincere and unaffected piety, his modest and mild behaviour, his respectful deportment to persons of distinction, with whom he was formerly acquainted when a protestant, and the care he took to avoid all concern in political affairs or intrigues of state, preserved him in quiet and safety, even in the most troublesome times- He was, however, a very zealous champion in the cause of the church of Rome, and was continually writing in defence of her doctrines, or in answer to the books of controversy written by protestants of distinguished learning or figure; and as this engaged him in a variety of disputes, he had the good fortune to acquire great reputation with both parties, the papists looking upon him to be one of their ablest advocates, and the protestants allowing that he was a grave, a sensible, and a candid writer. Among the works he published after his return to England, were: 1. “A non est inventus returned to Mr. Edward Bagshaw’s enquiry and vainly boasted discovery of weakness in the Grounds of the Church’s Infallibility,” 1662, 8vo. 2. “A Letter to an English gentleman, dated July 6th, 1662, wherein bishop Morley is concerned, printed amongst some of the treatises of that reverend prelate,” 3. “Roman Catholic Doctrines no Novelties; or, an answer to Dr. Pierce’s court-sermon, miscalled The primitive rule of Reformation,” 1663, 8vo; answered by Dr. Daniel Whitby. But that which contributed to make him most known, was his large and copious ecclesiastical history, entitled “The Church History of Britanny,” Roan, 1668, fol. which was indeed a work of great pains and labour, and executed with much accuracy and diligence. He had observed that nothing made a greater impression upon the people in general of his communion, than the reputation of the great antiquity of their church, and the fame of the old saints of both sexes, that had flourished in this island; and therefore he judged that nothing could be more serviceable in promoting what he styled the catholic interest, than to write such a history as might set these points in the fairest and fullest light possible. He had before him the example of a famous Jesuit, Michael Alford, alias Griffith, who had adjusted the same history under the years in which the principal events happened, in four large volumes, collected from our ancient historians; but, as this was written in Latin, he judged that it was less suited to the wants of common readers, and therefore he translated what suited his purpose into English, with such helps and improvements as he thought necessary. His history was very much approved by the most learned of his countrymen of the same religion, as appears by the testimonies prefixed to it. Much indeed may be said in favour of the order, regularity, and coherence of the facts, and the care and punctuality shewn in citing his authorities. On the other hand, he has too frequently adopted the superstitious notions of many of our old writers; transcribing from them such fabulous passages as have been long ago exploded by the inquisitive and impartial critics of his own faith. The book, however, long maintained its credit among the Romanists, as a most authentic ecclesiastical chronicle, and is frequently cited by their most considerable authors. He proposed to have published another volume of this history, which was to have carried it as low as the dissolution of monasteries by king Henry VIII. but he died before he had proceeded full three hundred years lower than the Norman conquest. Dodd, however, informs us that a considerable part of the second volume was preserved in ms. in the Benedictine monastery at Douay, and that it was never published “upon account of some nice controversies between the see of Rome, and some of our English kings, which might give offence.” While engaged on this work, he found leisure to interfere in all the controversies of the times, as will presently be noticed. His last dispute was in reference to a book written by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet, afterwards bishop of Worcester, to which, though several answers were given by the ablest of the popish writers, there was none that seemed to merit reply, excepting that penned by father Cressey, and this procured him the honour of a very illustrious antagonist, his old friend and acquaintance at Oxford, Edward earl of Clarendon. Being now grown far in years, and having no very promising scene before his eyes, from the warm spirit that appeared against popery amongst all ranks of people, and the many excellent books written to confute it by the most learned of the clergy, he was the more willing to seek for peace in the silence of a country retirement; and accordingly withdrew for some time to the house of Richard Caryll, esq. a gentleman of an ancient family and affluent fortune, at East Grinstead, co. Sussex, and dying upon the 10th of August 1674, being then near the seventieth year of his age, was buried in the parish church there. His loss was much regretted by those of his communion, as being one of their ablest champions, ready to draw his pen in their defence on every occasion, and sure of having his pieces read with singular favour and attention. His memory also was revered by the protestants, as well on account of the purity of his manners, and his mild and humble deportment, as for the plainness, candour, and decency with which he had managed all the controversies that he had been engaged in, and which had procured him, in return, much more of kindness and respect, than almost any other of his party had met with, or indeed deserved. It is very remarkable, however, that he thought it necessary to apologize to his popish readers for the respectful mention he made of the prelates of our church. Why this should require an apology, we shall not Inquire, but that his candour and politeness deserve the highest commendation will appear from what he says of archbishop Usher: “As for B. Usher, his admirable abilities in ‘chronological and historical erudition,’ as also his faithfulness and ingenuous sincerity in delivering without any provoking reflection*, what with great labour he has observed, ought certainly at least to exempt him from being treated by any one rudely and contemptuously, especially by me, who am moreover always obliged to preserve a just remembrance of very many kind effects of friendship, which I received from, him.” We have already taken notice of his inclination to the mystic divinity, which led him to take so much pains about the works of father Baker, and from the same disposition he also published “Sixteen revelations of divine love, shewed to a devout servant of our Lord, called mother Juliana, an anchorete of Norwich, who lived in the days of king Edward Hi.” He left also in ms. “An Abridgment of the book called The cloud of unknowing, and of the counsel referring to the same.” His next performance, was in answer to a famous treatise, written by Dr. Stillingfleet, against the church of Rome, which made a very great noise in those days, and put for some time a stop to the encroachments their missionaries were daily making, which highly provoked those of the Roman communion. This was entitled “Answer to part of Dr. Stillingfleet’s book, entitled Idolatry practised in the church of Rome,” 1672, 8vo, and was followed by “Fanaticism fanatically imputed to the Catholic Church by Dr. Stillingfleet, and the imputation refuted and retorted,” &c. 1672, 8vo, and “Question, Why are you a Catholic? Question, Why are you a Protestant?” 1673, 8vo. In support of Dr. Stillingfleet, the earl of Clarendon wrote “Animadversions” upon our author’s answer; in which he very plainly tells him and the world, that it was not devotion, but necessity and want of a subsistence, which drove him first out of the church of England, and then into a monastery. As this noble peer knew him well at Oxford, it may be very easily imagined that what he said made a very strong impression, and it was to efface this, that our author thought tit to send abroad an answer under the title of “Epistle apologetical to a person of honour, touching his vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet,' 1 1674, 8vo. In this work he gives a large relation of the state and condition of his affairs, at the time of what he styles his conversion, in order to remove the imputation of quitting his faith to obtain bread. The last work that he published was entitled” Remarks upon the Oath of Supremacy."

, bishop of Durham, the fifth sen of John lord Crewe, of Stean, co. Northampton, by Jemima, daughter and coheir of Edward Walgrave, of Lawford, in Essex, esq. was born at Stean, the 3 1st of January, 1633; and in 1652 admitted commoner of Lincoln college, in Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. Feb. 1, 1655-6; soon after which he was chosen fellow of that college. On June 29th, 1658, he took the degree of M. A. At the restoration he declared heartily in favour of the crown and hierarchy; and in 1663 was one of the proctors of the university. The year following, on the 2d of July, he took the degree of LL. D.; and soon after went into holy orders. August the 12th, 1668, he was elected rector of Lincoln -college, upon the decease of Dr. Paul Hood. On the 29th of April, 1669, he was installed dean of Chichester, and held with that dignity, the praecentorship, in which he had been installed the day before. He was also appointed clerk of the closet to king Charles II. In 1671, upon the translation of Dr. Blandford to the see of Worcester, he was elected hishop of Oxford in his room, on the 16th of June, confirmed June the ISth, consecrated July the 2d, and enthroned the 5th of the same month; being allowed to hold with it, in commendam, the living of Whitney, and the rectorship of Lincoln college, which last he resigned in October 1672. In 1673 he performed the ceremony of the marriage of James duke of York with Maria of Este; and through that prince’s interest, to whom he appears to have been subservient, he was translated, the 22d of October, 1674, to the bishopric of Durham. In the beginning of J6.75, he baptized Katharina- Laura, the new-born daughter of James duke of York. The 26th of April, 1676, he was sworn of the privy council to king Charles II. and upon the accession of king James II. to the crown, he was in great favour with that prince; he was made dean of his majesty’s royal chapel in 1685, in the room of Compton, bishop of London, who had been removed; and within a few days after, was admitted into the privy council. In 1686 he was appointed one of the commissioners in the new ecclesiastical commission erected by king James, an honoqr which he is said to have valued beyond its worth. By virtue of that commission, he appeared on the 9th of August, at the proceedings against Henry bishop of London, and was for suspending him during the king’s pleasure; though the earl and bishop of Rochester, and chief justice Herbert, were against it. Immediately after that bishop’s suspension, commissioners were appointed to exercise all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the diocese of London, of which bishop Crewe was one. The 20th of November following, he was present at, and consenting to, the degradation of Mr. Samuel Johnson, previously to the most severe punishment that was inflicted on that eminent divine; and countenanced with his presence a prosecution carried on, in May 1687, against Dr. Peachy, vice-chancellor of Cambridge, for refusing to admit one Alban Francis, a Benedictine monk, to the degree of master of arts in that university, without taking the oaths. In July the same year, he offered to attend the pope’s nuncio at his public entry into London; but we are told his coachman refused to "drive lijm that way. His name was put again in a new ecclesiastical commission issued out this year, in October; in which he acted, during the severe proceedings against Magdalen college in Oxford, for refusing to elect one Anthony Farmer their president, pursuant to the king’s mandate. The bishop continued acting as an ecclesiastical commissioner till October 1688; when that commission was abolished. Towards the end of the year 1687, he was employed, with the bishops of Rochester and Peterborough, to draw up a form of thanksgiving for the queen’s being with child. But finding that the prince of Orange’s party was likely to' prevail, he absented himself from the council-board, and told the archbishop of Canterbury, that he was sorry for having so long concurred with the courtand desired now to be reconciled to his grace, and the other bishops. Even in the convention that met January 22, 1688-9, to consider of filling the throne, he was one of those who voted, on the 6th of February, that king James II. had abdicated the kingdom. Yet his past conduct was too recent to be forgotten, and therefore he was excepted by name out of the pardon granted by king William and queen Mary, May 23, 1690, which so terrified him, that he went over to Holland, and returned just in time to take the oaths to the new government, and preserved his bishopric. But, in order to secure to himself the possession of that dignity, he was forced to permit the crown to dispose of, or at least to nominate to, his prebends of Durham, as they should become vacant. By the death of his two elder brothers, he became in 1691, baron Crewe of Stean; and, about the 21st of December the same year, he married, but left no issue. During the rest of king William’s reign, he remained quiet and unmolested; and in the year 1710, he was one of the lords that opposed the prosecution then carried on against Dr. Sacheverell, and declared him not guilty; and likewise protested against several steps taken in that affair. He applied himself chiefly, in the latter part of his life, to works of munificence and charity. Particularly, he was a very great benefactor to Lincoln college, of which he had been fellow and rector; and laid out large sums in beautifying the bishop’s palace at Durham; besides many other instances of generosity and munificence of a more private nature. At length, his lordship departed this life on Monday September 18, 1721, aged eighty-eight; and was buried in his chapel at Stean, the 30th of the same month, with an inscription on his monument. He held the see of Durham forty-seven years. Dying without issue, the title of Baron Crewe of Stean became extinct with him.

, was a Scotch gentleman, who lived in the sixteenth century, and has furnished a sort of biographical romance. His endowments both of body and mind were esteemed so great, that he obtained the appellation of “The admirable Crichton,” and by that title he has continued to be distinguished down to the present day. The accounts given of his abilities and attainments are indeed so wonderful, that they seem scarcely to be credible; and many persons have been disposed to consider them as almost entirely fabulous, though they have been delivered with the. utmost confidence, and without any degree of hesitation, by various writers. The time of Crichton’s birth is said, by the generality of authors, to have been in 1551; but according to lord Buchan, it appears from several circumstances, that he was born in the month of August, 1560. His father was Robert Crichton of Elliock in the county of Perth, and lord advocate of Scotland in queen Mary’s reign, from 1561 to 1573; part of which time he held that office in conjunction with Spens of Condie. The mother of James Crichton was Elizabeth Stuart, the only daughter of sir James Stuart of Beath, who was a descendant of Robert duke of Albany, the third son of king Robert II. by Elizabeth Muir, or More, as she is commonly called. It is hence evident, that when the admirable Crichton boasted, as he did abroad, that he was sprung from Scottish kings, he said nothing but what was agreeable to truth. Nevertheless, Thomas Dempster, who sufficiently amplifies his praises in other respects, passes a severe censure upon him on this account; which is the more remarkable, as Dempster lived so near the time, and was well acquainted with the genealogies of the great families of Scotland. James Crichton is said to have received his grammatical education at Perth, and to have studied philosophy in the university of St. Andrew. His tutor in that university was Mr. John Rutherford, a professor at that time famous for his learning, and who distinguished himself by writing four books on Aristotle’s Logic, and a commentary on his Poetics. But nothing, according to Mackenzie, can give us a higher idea of Rutherford’s worth and merit, than his being master of that wonder and prodigy of his age, the great and admirable Crichton. However, it is not to this professor alone that the honour is ascribed of having formed so extraordinary a character. There are others who may put in their claim to a share in the same glory; for Aldus Manutius, who calls Crichton first cousin to the king, says that he was educated, along with his majesty, under Buchanan, Hepburn, and Robertson, as well as Rutherford. Indeed, whatever might be the natural force of his genius, jnany masters must have been necessary, in order to his acquiring such a variety of attainments as he is represented to have possessed. For it is related, that he had scarcely reached the twentieth year of his age, when he had run through the whole circle of the sciences, and could speak and write to perfection in ten different languages. Nor was this all; for he had likewise improved himself to the highest degree in riding, dancing, and singing, and in playing upon all sorts of instruments. Crichton, being thus accomplished, went abroad upon his travels, and is said to have gone to Paris; of his transactions at which place the following account is given. He caused six placards to be fixed on the gates of the schools, halls, and colleges belonging to the university, and on the pillars and posts before the houses of the most renowned men for literature in the city, inviting all those who were well versed in any art or science to dispute with him in the college of Navarre, that day six weeks, by nine o'clock in the morning, where he would attend them, and be ready to answer to whatever should be proposed to him in any art or science, and in any of these twelve languages, Hebrew, Syrlac, Arabic, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, English, Dutch, Flemish, and Sclavonian; and this either in verse or prose, at the discretion of the disputant. During this whole time, instead of closely applying to his studies, he regarded nothing but hunting, hawking, tilting, vaulting, riding of a well-managed horse, tossing the pike, handling the musquet, and other military feats; or else he employed himself in domestic games, such as balls, concerts of music, vocal and instrumental; cards, dice, tennis, and other diversions of youth. This conduct so provoked the students of the university, that, beneath the placard that was fixed on the Navarre gate, they caused the following words to be written: “If you would meet with this monster of perfection, to search for him either in the tavern or t)ie brothel is the readiest way to find him.” Nevertheless, when the day appointed arrived, Crichton appeared in the college of Navarre, and acquitted himself beyond expression in the disputation, which lasted from nine in the morning till six at night. At length, the president, after extolling him highly for the many rare and excellent endowments which God and nature had bestowed upon him, rose from his chair; and, accompanied by four of the most eminent professors of the university, gave him a diamond ring and a purse full of gold, as a testimony of their approbation and favour. The whole ended with the repeated acclamations and huzzas of the spectators; and henceforward our young disputant was called “The admirable Crichton.” It is added, that he was so little fatigued with the dispute, that he went the very next day to the Louvre, where he had a match'at tilting, an exercise then in great vogue; and, in presence of some princes of the court of France, and a great many ladies, carried away the ring fifteen times successively, and broke as many lances on the Saracen, whatever that might be; probably a sort of mark.

The chief design of Crichton in this poem was to obtain a favourable reception at Venice, and particularly from Aldus JMamitius, whose praises he celebrates in very high strains. When he presented his verses to Manutins, that critic was struck with a very agreeable surprise; and judged, from the performance, that the author of it must be a person of extraordinary genius. Upon discoursing with the stranger, he was filled with admiration; and, finding him to be skilled in every subject, he introduced him to the acquaintance of the principal men of learning and note in Venice. Here he contracted an intimate friendship not only with Aldus Manutius, but with Laurentius Massa, Spero Speronius, Johannes Donatus, and various other learned persons, to whom he presented several poems in commendation of the city and university. Three of CrichtoH's odes, one addressed to Aldus Manutius, and another to Laurentius Massa, and a third to Johannes Donatus, are still preserved; but are certainly not the productions either of an extraordinary genius, or a correct writer. At length he was introduced to the doge and senate; in whose presence he made a speech, which was accompanied with such beauty of eloquence, and such grace of person and manner, that he received the thanks of that illustrious body; and nothing was talked of through the whole city but this rara in tcrris avis, this prodigy of nature. He held likewise disputations on the subjects of theology, philosophy, and mathematics, before the most eminent professors, and large multitudes of people. His reputation was so great, that the desire of seeing and hearing him brought together a vast concourse of persons from different quarters to Venice. It may be collected from Manutius, that the time in which Crichton exhibited these demonstrations of his abilities, was in the year 1580. During his residence at Venice, he fell into a bad state of health, which continued for the space of four months, and before he was perfectly recovered, he went, by the advice of his friends, to Padua, the university of which city was at that time in great reputation. The day after his arrival, there was a meeting of all the learned men of the place, at the house of Jacobus Aloysius Cornelius; when Crichton opened the assembly with an extemporary poem in praise of the city, the university, and the company who had honoured him with their presence. After this, he disputed for six hours with the most celebrated professors, on various subjects of learning; and he exposed, in particular, the errors of Aristotle, and his commentators, with so much solidity and acuteness, and, at the same time, with so much modesty, that he excited universal admiration. In conclusion, he delivered, extempore, an oration in praise of ignorance, which was conducted with such ingenuity and elegance, that his hearers were astonished. This display of Crichton’s talents was on the 14th of March, 1581. Soon after, he appointed another day for disputation at the palace of the bishop of Padua; not for the purpose of affording higher proofs of his abilities, for that could not possibly be done, but in compliance with the earnest solicitations of some persons, who were not present at the former assemhly. However, several circumstances occurred, which prevented this meeting from taking place. Such is the account of Manutius; but Imperialis relates, that he was informed by his father, who was present upon the occasion, that Crichton was opposed by Archangel us Mercenarius, a famous philosopher, and that he acquitted himself so well as to obtain the approbation of a very honourable company, and even of his antagonist himself. Amidst the discourses which were occasioned by our young Scotchman’s exploits, and the high applauses that were bestowed on his genius and attainments, there were some persons who endeavoured to detract from his merit. For ever, therefore, to confound these invidious impugners of his talents, he caused a paper to be fixed on the gates of St. John and St. Paul’s churches, in which he offered to prove before the university, that the errors of Aristotle, and of all his followers, were almost innumerable; and that the latter had failed, both in explaining their master’s meaning, and in treating on theological subjects. He promised likewise to refute the dreams of certain mathematical professors; to dispute in all the sciences and to answer to whatever should be proposed to him, or objected against him. All this he engaged to do, either in the common logical way, or by numbers and mathematical figures, or in an hundred sorts of verses, at the option of his opponents. According to Manutius, Crichton sustained this contest without fatigue, for three days; during which time he supported his credit, and maintained his propositions, with such spirit and energy, that, from an unusual concourse of people, he obtained acclamations and praises, than which none more magnificent were ever heard by men.

The next account we have of Crichton, and which appears to have been transmitted, through sir Thomas Urquharr, to later biographers, is of an extraordinary instance of bodily courage and skill. It is said, that at Mantua there was at this time a gladiator, who had foiled, in his travels, the most famous fencers in Europe, and had lately killed three persons who had entered the lists with him. The duke of Mantua was much grieved at having granted this man his protection, as he found it to be attended with such fatal consequences. Crichton, being informed of his highness’s concern, offered his service, not only to drive the murderer from Mantua, but from Italy, and to fight him for fifteen hundred pistoles. Though the duke was unwilling to expose such an accomplished gentleman to so great a hazard, yet, relying upon the report he had heard of his warlike achievements, he agreed to the proposal; and, the time and place being appointed, the whole court attended to behold the performance. At the beginning of the combat, Crichton stood only on his defence; while the Italian made his attack with such eagerness and fury, that, having over-acted himself, he began to grow weary. Our young Scotchman now seized the opportunity of attacking his antagonist in return; which he did with so much dexterity and vigour, that he ran him through the body in three different places, of which wounds he immediately died. The acclamations of the spectators were loud and extraordinary upon this occasion; and it was acknowledged by all of them, that they had never seen art grace nature, or nature second the precepts of art, in so lively a manner as they had beheld these two things accomplished on that day. To crown the glory of the action, Crichton bestowed the prize of his victory upon the widows of the three persons who had lost their lives in fighting with the gladiator. It is asserted, that, in consequence of this, and his other wonderful performances, the duke of Mantua made choice of him for preceptor to his son Vincentio di Gonzaga, who is represented as being of a riotous temper and a dissolute life. The appointment was highly pleasing to the court. Crichton, to testify his gratitude to his friends and benefactors, and to contribute to their diversion, framed, we are told, a comedy, wherein he exposed and ridiculed all the weaknesses and failures of the several employments in which men are engaged. This composition was regarded as one of the most ingenious satires that was ever made upon mankind. But the most astonishing part of the story is, that Crichton sustained fifteen characters in the representation of his own play. Among the rest, he acted the divine, the philosopher, the lawyer, the mathematician, the physician, and the soldier, with such inimitable grace, that every time he appeared upon the stage he seemed to be a different person . From being the principal actor in a comedy, Crichton soon became the subject of a dreadful tragedy. One night, during the time of carnival, as he was walking along the streets of Mantua, and playing upon his guitar, he was attacked by half a dozen people in masks. The assailants found that they had no ordinary person to deal with; for they were not able to maintain their ground against him. In the issue, the leader of the company, being disarmed, pulled off his mask, and begged his life, telling him that he was the prince his pupil. Crichton immediately fell on his knees, and expressed his concern for his mistake; alleging, that what he had done was only in his own defence, and that if Gonzaga had any design upon his life he might always be master of it. Then, taking his own sword by the point, he presented it to the prince, who immediately received it, and was so irritated by the affront which he thought he had sustained in being foiled with all "his attendants, that he instantly ran Crichton through the heart. Various have been the conjectures concerning the motives which could induce Vincentio di Gonzaga to be guilty of so ungenerous and brutal an action. Some have ascribed it to jealousy, asserting that he suspected Crichton to be more in favour than himself with a lady whom he passionately loved; and sir Thomas Urqnhart has told a story upon this head which is extravagant and ridiculous in the highest degree. Others, with greater probability, represent the whole transaction as the result of a drunken frolic; and it is uncertain, according to Imperiaiis, whether the meeting of the prince and Crichton was by accident or design. However, it is agreed on all hands, that Crichton lost his life in this rencontre. The time of his decease is said, by the generality of his biographers, to have been in the beginning-of July 1583; but lord Buchan, most likely in consequence of a more accurate immiry, fixes it to the same month in the preceding year. There is a difference likewise with regard to the period of life at which Crichton died. The common accounts declare that he was killed in the thirty-second year of his age; but Imperialis asserts that he was only in his twenty-second when that calamitous event took place; and this fact is confirmed by lord Buchan. Criehton’s tragical end excited a very great and general lamentation. If the foolish ravings of sir Thomas Urquhart are to be credited, the whole court of Mantua went three quarters of a year into mourning for him; the epitaphs and elegies that were composed upon his death, and stuck upon his hearse, would exceed, if collected, the bulk of Homer’s works; and, for a long time afterwards, his picture was to be seen in most of the bed-chambers and galleries of the Italian nobility, representing him on horseback, with a lance in one hand and a book in the other. From all this wonderful account we can only infer, with any degree of confidence, that Crichton was a youth of such lively parts as excited great present admiration, and high expectations with regard to his future attainments. He appears to have had a fine person, to have been adroit in his bodily exercises, to have possessed a peculiar facility in learning languages, to have enjoyed a remarkably quick and retentive memory, and to have excelled in a power of declamation, a fluency of speech, and a readiness of reply. His knowledge likewise was probably very uncommon for his years; and this, in conjunction with his other qualities, enabled him to shine in public disputation. But whether his knowledge were accurate or profound, may justly be questioned; and it may equally be doubted whether he would have arisen to any extraordinary degree of eminence in the literary world, which, however, his early and untimely death prevented from being brought to the test of experiment.

, of an illustrious family of Italy, established in the comtat Venaissin, knight of Malta, and one of the greatest generals of his age, was born in 1541, and entered into the service in 1557. At the age of fifteen he was at the siege of Calais, and contributed greatly to the taking of that place, by a brilliant action that brought him to the notice of Henry II. He afterwards signalized himself against the Huguenots, or protestants, at the battles of Dreux, of Jarnac, and of Moncontour, in 1562, 1568, and 1569. The youthful hero so greatly distinguished himself in his caravans, especially at the battle of Lepanto in 1571, that he was made choice of, though wounded, to carry the news of the victory to the pope and to the king of France. We find him two years afterwards, in 1573, at the siege of la Rochelle, and in almost all the other considerable rencontres of that period. He every where shewed himself worthy of the name usually given him hy Henry IV. of the Brave Crillon. Henrv Hi. who was well acquainted with his valour, made him knight of his orders in 1585. The specious pretences of the league, the mask of religion which it put on, could never shake the fidelity of the brave Crillon, however great his antipathy to the Huguenots. He rendered important services to his prince in the affair of the Barricades, at Tours, and elsewhere. Henry III. ventured to propose to Crillon to assassinate the duke de Guise, a rebellious subject whom he was afraid to put to death by the sword of the law. Crillon offered to fiorht him; but disdained to hear of assassination. When Henry IV. had made the conquest of his kingdom, Crillon was as faithful to him as he had been to his predecessor. He repulsed the leaguers before Boulogne. The army of Villars having invested Villebceuf in 1592, he vigorously defended that place, replying to the besiegers, on their summoning the besieged to surrender, “Crillon is within, and the enemy without.” Henry, however, did but little for him; “because,” said he, “I was sure of the brave Crillon and I had to gain over my persecutors.” The peace of Vervins having put an end to the wars that had troubled Europe, Crillon retired to Avignon, and there died, in the exercises of piety and penance, the 2d of December 1615, at the age of seventy-four. Francis Bening, a Jesuit, pronounced the discourse at his funeral: a piece of burlesque eloquence, printed in 1616, under the title of “Boucher d'Honnenr,” the “Buckler of Honour,” and reprinted not many years since, as a specimen of ridiculous jargon. Mademoiselle de Lusson published in 2 vols. 12mo, 1757, the life of this hero, called by his contemporaries I'homme sans peur (the man without fear), le brave des braves (the bravest of the brave). This was translated into English by Miss Lomax, of Hertfordshire, and after being revised by Richardson, the author of Clarissa, was published at London, 1760, 2 vols. 12mo. Crillon appears to have been a second chevalier Bayard, not on account of his fantastic and sullen humour, but from the excellence of his heart and his attachment to religion. It is well known that being present one day at a sermon on the sufferings of Christ, when the preacher was come to the description of the flagellation, Crillon, seized with a sudden fit of enthusiasm, put his band to his sword, crying out, “Where wert thou, Crillon?” These sallies of courage, the effect of an exuberant vivacity of temper, engaged him too frequently in duels, in which he always came off with honour. Two instances are recorded of an intrepidity highly characteristic of Crillon. At the battle of Moncontour in 1569, a Huguenot soldier thought to serve his party by dispatching the bravest and most formidable of the catholic generals. In this view he repaired to a place where Crillon, in his return from pursuing the fugitives, must necessarily pass. The soldier no sooner perceived him than he drew the trigger of his piece. Crillon, though severely wounded in the arm, ran up to the assassin, laid hold on him, and was instantly going to thrust him through with his sword, when the soldier threw himself at his feet and begged his life. “I grant it thee,” said Crillou; “and if any faith could be put in a man that is at once a rebel to his king, and an apostate to his religion, I would put thee on thy parole never to bear arms but in the service of thy sovereign.” The soldier, confounded at this act of magnanimity, swore that he would for ever shake off all correspondence with the rebels, and return to the catholic religion. — The young duke of Guise, to whom Henry IV. had sent him at Marseilles, was desirous of trying how far the fortitude of Crillon would go. In this design he caused the alarm to be sounded before the quarters of his brave commander, and two horses to be led to his door. Then, running up to his apartments, pretended that the enemy was master of the port and town, and proposed to him to make his escape, that he might not swell the triumph of the conquerors. Though Crillon was hardly well awake when he heard these tidings, he snatched up his arms without the least trepidation, maintaining that it was better to die sword in hand, than survive the loss of the place. Guise, finding it impossible, by all the arguments he could use, to alter his resolution, accompanied him out of the chamber; but, when they were about the middle of the stairs, he burst out into a violent laughter, which plainly discovered the trick to Crillon. He then put on a graver countenance than when he thought he was going to fight; and griping the duke of Guise by the hand, he said, with an oath, according to his custom, “Young man, never again amuse thyself with putting to the test the heart of an honest man. Par la mort! if thou hadst found me weak, I would have poignarded thee!” After these words he retired without saying any thing more. We will conclude with the laconic billet written to him from the field of battle by Henry IV. after the victory of Arques, where Crillon was unable to be present: “Hang thyself, Crillon! We have been fighting at Arques, and thou wert not there. Adieu, brave Crillon! I love thee whether right or wrong.”

, or more properly Peter Ricci, an Italian scholar, whose memory Mr. Roscoe has rescued from the misrepresentations of his biographers, was descended from the noble family of the Ricci, of Florence, and, when young, was instructed by, and obtained the friendship of Politian. He afterwards became an associate in the literary and convivial meetings at the palace of the Medici at Florence, and after the death of Lorenzo still continued to enjoy the society of Picus and Politian till the death of these distinguished scholars, in 1494. After this it is probable that he quitted his native place, and took an active part in the political commotions which soon occurred, as he frequently refers in his writings to the labours and misfortunes which he sustained, and avows his determination to return to his literary studies. Some part of his time he appears to have passed at Naples, and at Ferrara. He died, according to Negri, about the close of the fifteenth century, at the age of thirty-nine years; but his writings refer to many events beyond that period; and his dedication of his treatise “De Poetis Latinis” to Cosmo de Pazzi, is dated in 1505, which period, it is probable, he did not long survive. His death was the issue of a long sickness, on which he wrote a beautiful and pathetic Latin ode, from which we learn that he resigned himself to his untimely fate, at the same time asserting his claim to the esteem of posterity from the integrity of his life and conduct. The principal work of Crinitus, “De Honesta Disciplina,” as well as his treatise on the Latin poets, before mentioned, Paris, 1520, fol. demonstrates the extent of his learning, and the accuracy of his critical taste. His poetry, all of which is in the Latin language, is also entitled to commendation, and is frequently introduced by Mr. Roscoe, as illustrating the public transactions of the times in which he lived.

, an eminent and loyal citizen in the reigns of king Charles the First, and king Charles the Second, the son of a very eminent merchant of London, was born in 1598, and bred, according to the custom of those times, in a thorough knowledge of business, though heir to a great estate. He made a considerable addition to this by marriage; and being a man of an enterprizing genius, ever active and solicitous about new inventions and discoveries, was soon taken notice of at court, was knighted, and became one of the farmers of the king’s customs. When the trade to Guinea was under great difficulties and discouragements, he framed a project for retrieving it, which required a large capital, but his reputation was so great, that many rich merchants willingly engaged with him in the prosecution of the design; and to give a good example, as well as to shew that he meant to adhere to the work that he had once taken in hand, he caused the castle of Cormantyn upon the Gold Coast, to be erected at his own expence. By this judicious precaution, and by his wise and wary management afterwards, himself and his associates carried their trade so successfully, as to divide amongst them fifty thousand pounds a year. When the rebellion began, and the king was in want of money, sir Nicholas Crispe, and his partners in the farming of the customs, upon very short warning, and when their refusing it would have been esteemed a merit with the parliament, raised him one hundred thousand pounds at once. After the war broke out, and in the midst of all the distractions with which it was attended, he continued to carry on a trade to Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Norwaj', Moscovy, and Turkey, which produced to the king nearly one hundred thousand pounds a year, besides keeping most of the ports open and ships in them constantly ready for his service. All the correspondence and supplies of arms which were procured by the queen in Holland, and by the king’s agents in Denmark, were consigned to his care, and by his prudence and vigilance safely landed in the north, and put into the hands of those for whom they were intended. In the management of so many nice and difficult affairs, he was obliged to keep up a very extensive correspondence, for which he hardly ever made use of cypher, but penned his letters in such a peculiar style, as removed entirely his intentions from the apprehension of his enemies, and yet left them very intelligible unto those with whom he transacted. He had also great address in bringing any thing to bear that he had once contrived, to which it contributed not a little, that in matters of secrecy and danger he seldom trusted to any hands but his own, and made use of all kinds of disguises. Sometimes, when he was believed to be in one place, he was actually at another; letters of consequence he carried in the disguise of a porter; when he wanted intelligence he would be at the water side, with a basket of flounders upon his head, and often passed between London and Oxford in the dress of a butter-woman on horseback, between a pair of panniers. He was the principal author of a well-laid design for publishing the king’s commission of array at London, in which there was nothing dishonourable, so far as sir Nicholas Crispe was concerned, which, however, Clarendon inadvertently confounds with another design, superinduced by Mr. Waller, of surprizing the parliament, in bringing which to bear he proceeded very vigorously at first, till, finding that he had engaged in a matter too big for his management, he suddenly lost his spirits, and some of the chief men in the house of commons gaining intelligence that something was in agitation to their prejudice, May 31st, 1643, they presently seized Mr. Waller, and drew from him a complete discovery, which, from the account they published, plainly distinguished these two projects. By the discovery of this business, sir Nicholas Crispe found himself obliged to declare openly the course he meant to take; and having at his own expence raised a regiment of horse for the king’s service, he distinguished himself at the head of it as remarkably in his military, as he had ever done in his civil capacity. When the siege of Gloucester was resolved on, sir Nicholas Crispe was charged with his regiment of horse to escort the king’s train of artillery from Oxford, which important service he very gallantly performed; but in the month of September following, a very unlucky accident occurred, and though the circumstances attending it clearly justified his conduct to the world, yet the concern it gave him was such as he could not shake off so long as he lived. He happened to be quartered at Rouslidge, in Gloucestershire, where one sir James Ennyon, bart. of Northamptonshire, and some friends of his took up a great part of the house, though none of them had any commands in the army, which, however, sir Nicholas bore with the utmost patience, notwithstanding he was much incommoded by it. Some time after, certain horses belonging to those gentlemen were missing, and sir James Ennyon, though he had lost none himself, insinuating that some of sir Nicholas’s troopers must have taken them, insisted that he should immediately draw out his regiment, that search might be made for them. Sir Nicholas answered him with mildness, and offered him as full satisfaction as it was in his power to give, but excused himself from drawing out his regiment, as a thing improper and inconvenient at that juncture, for reasons which he assigned. Not content, however, sir James left him abruptly, and presently after sent him a challenge, accompanied with a message to this effect, that if he did not comply with it, he would pistol him against the wall. Upon this, sir Nicholas Crispe taking a friend of his with him, went to the place appointed, and finding sir James Ennyon and the person who brought him the challenge, sir Nicholas used his utmost endeavours to pacify him; but he being determined to receive no satisfaction, unless by the sword, they engaged, and sir James received a wound in the rim of the belly, of which he died in two days. Before this, however, he sent for sir Nicholas Crispe, and was sincerely reconciled to him. Upon the 2d of October following, sir Nicholas was brought to a court-martial for this unfortunate affair, and upon a full examination of every thing relating to it, was most honourably acquitted. He continued to serve with the same zeal and fidelity during 1644, and in the spring following; but when the treaty of Uxbridge commenced, the parliament thought fit to mark him, as they afterwards did in the Isle of Wight treaty, by insisting that he should be removed from his majesty’s presence; and a few months after, on April 16th, 1645, they ordered his large house in Breadstreet to be sold, which for many years belonged to his family. Neither was this stroke of their vengeance judged a sufficient punishment for his offences, since having resolved to grant the elector palatine a pension of eight thousand pounds a year, they directed that two thousand should be applied out of the king’s revenue, and the remainder made up out of the estates of lord Culpeper and sir Nicholas Crispe, Sir Nicholas finding himself no lon^ev in a capacity to render his majesty any service, thought it expedient to preserve himself; and in April 1646 embarked with lord Culpeper and colonel Monk for France, but as he had many rich relations who had interest with those in power, they interposed in his favour; and as sir Nicholas perceived that he could be of no service to the royal cause abroad, h did not look upon it as any deviation from his duty, to return and live quietly at home. Accordingly, having submitted to a composition, he came back to London, to retrieve his shattered fortunes, and very soon engaged again in business, with the same spirit and success as before. In this season of prosperity he was not unmindful of the wants of Charles II. but contributed cheerfully to his relief, when his affairs seemed to be in the most desperate condition. After the death of Oliver Cromwell, he was instrumental in reconciling many to their duty, and so well were his principles known, and so much his influence apprehended, that when it was proposed that the royalists in and about London should sign an instrument signifying their inclination to preserve the public tranquillity, he was called upon, and very readily subscribed it. He was also principally concerned in bringing the city of London, in her corporate capacity, to give the encouragement that was requisite to leave general Monk without any difficulties or suspicion as to the sincerity and unanimity of their inclinations. It was therefore very natural, after reading the king’s letter and declaration in common-council, May 3d, 1660, to think of sending some members of their own body to preSent their duty to his majesty; and having appointed nine aldermen and their recorder, they added sir Nicholas Crispe, with several other worthy persons, to the committee, that the king might receive the more satisfaction from their sentiments being delivered by several of those who had suffered deeply in his own and in his father’s cause. His majesty accordingly received these gentlemen very graciously, as a committee, and afterwards testified to them separately the sense he had of their past services, and upon his return, sir Nicholas Crispe and sir John Wolstenholme, were re-instated as farmers of the customs. Sir Nicholas was now in years, and somewhat infirm, spent a great part of his time at his noble country seat near Hammersmith, where he was in some measure the founder of the chapel, and having an opportunity of returning the tbligation he had received from some of his relations, he procured for them that indemnity from the king, gratis, for which he had so dearly paid during the rebellion. The last testimony he received of his royal master’s favour, was his being created a baronet, April 16th, 1665, which he did not long survive, dying February 26th, the next year, in the sixty-seventh year of his age, leaving a very large estate to his grandson, sir Nicholas Crispe. His corpse was interred with his ancestors, in the parish church of St. Mildred, in Bread-street, and his funeral sermon was preached by his reverend and learned kinsman Mr. Crispe, of Christ-church, Oxford. But his heart was sent to the chapel at Hammersmith, where there is a short and plain inscription upon a cenotaph erected to his memory; or rather upon that monument which himself erected in grateful commemoration of king Charles I. as the inscription placed there in sir Nicholas’s life-time tells us, under which, after his decease, was placed a small white marble urn, upon a black pedestal, containing his heart.