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

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

It was difficult to be upon good terms with him. He was naturally quarrelsome, despised every one, and found no performances good but his own. A man of this temper could not be long without enemies. Some business that he had at Milan obliged him to leave this city, and make a journey to Venice, where he adopted Giorgioni’s manner. His stay here was but short, and he repaired to Rome. He was in such poor circumstances, that he was forced by necessity to work for Josehino, who gave him fruit and flowers to paint. This department was not that wherein he excelled; he therefore left Josehino, to go and paint large figures for Prospero, a painter of grotesque. Prospero every where sounded his praise, and made considerable profit by his works. A picture, the gamester, that Caravagio had painted, so highly pleased the cardinal del Monte, that, having bought it, he requested to see the artist, and kept him in his palace, where he caused him to paint several pieces for the pavilion in his garden.

All the painters of the time combined against Caravagie: they objected to him that he had neither genius, nor propriety, nor grace, nor sagacity, and that he knew not how to make a good choice; and it is certain that his figures are not noble. He used to paint the porters, who served him for models, without their heads, which he afterwards put on according to the saints, heroes, and other great personages they were to represent. The altar-pieces that he executed for churches and monasteries were obliged frequently to be taken down again from their places; this was particularly the case with a St. Matthias, who, instead of a haggard old fellow, looked like a jolly clown; and the Death of the holy Virgin, who had the appearance of a low drunken woman. But all these affronts were unable to correct him. At last, all the painters, following the stream of the fashion, imitated his example.

When Annibal Caracci came to Rome, Caravagio was so forcibly struck with his colouring, that, in spite of his vanity, he exclaimed, “God be thanked, at last I have found one painter in my life-time!” Caravagio used to say of his works, that the merit of every stroke of the pencil he made belonged to nature, and not to him. Without genius, without reading, without the study of his art, she was his only assistant and guide. He was therefore usually called “The naturalist;” a name given likewise to all the painters who, like him, adhered slavishly to nature.

He affronted a knight of some consequence, and was therefore thrown into prison. He found means to escape by night, and went to Sicily; where not thinking himself safe, he proceeded to Naples. Here he chose to remain till the grand master, to whom he had sent as a present an Herodias with the head of St. John, should procure his pardon. But one day, as he was going out of his inn, he was attacked at the door by armed people, and wounded in the face. Though severely smarting with the wound, he got immediately on board a felucca, and went to Rome, knowing that cardinal Gonzaga had obtained his pardon from the pope. On his landing from the vessel, he was seized upon by the Spanish guard, who took him for another cavalier, and carried him to prison, from whence he was not discharged till they had convinced themselves of their mistake. He now returned to the felucca, in order to fetch his baggage, but found it no longer there. Quite dejected under the pressure of so many misfortunes, he wandered about upon the shore, and at length, in the extreme heat of the sun, reached on foot the gate Porto Ercole, where his courage entirely forsook him a violent fever ensued, of which he died, 1601, in the fortieth year of his age.

, another eminent artist, was born in 1492, at Caravaggio jn the Milanese; from a labourer he became an assistant of Raphael in the works of the Vatican, and acquired supreme celebrity for unrivalled felicity in imitating the antique basso-relievos with a power little, if at all, inferior to that of the ancients themselves. These admirable works he executed in chiaroscuro. He was the inventor of a style which rose and perished with him. His design was without manner, compact, correct. He had the art of transposing himself into the times of which he represented the transactions, the costume, and rites: nothing modern swims on his works. Koine once abounded in friezes, facades, supraportas, painted by him and jVIaturino of Florence his companion, of which, to the irreparable detriment of the art, scarcely a fragment remains, if we except the Fable of Niobe, left in ruins by time and the rage of barbarians. This, one of his most classic labours, once decorated the outside of the Maschera d'Oro. All the compensation we have for these losses are the prints of Cherubino Albevti, and Henry Golzius, who engraved his Gods, the Niobe, and the Brennus; beside the etchings of Santes Bartoli and Gallestruzzi.

When Bourbon stormed and pillaged Rome in 1527, Polidoro fled to Naples, but did not live there, as Vasari was misinformed, in a starving condition. Having been received in the house of Andrea da Salerno, and introduced by him ro general notice, he soon was furnished with commissions sufficiently numerous, and even had begun to form a school, when he resolved to pass over to Sicily. He had now exchanged chiaroscuro for colour, and painted at Messina a numerous composition of te Christ led to Calvary," extolled by Vasari to the skies, but he did not long survive this work, being strangled in bed, in 1543, by a servant of his, who wanted to possess himself of his property. The merits of Polidoro as a colourist can only be learned in Sicily. To judge from some pieces once in the possession of Gavin Hamilton, his manner, for some time at least, was dim and pallid.

, an Italian physician, mathematician, and philosopher, was born at Pa via, Sept. 24, 1501. It appears that his father and mother were not married, and the latter, a woman of violent passions, endeavoured to destroy him by procuring abortion. He was, however, safely born, and his father who was a lawyer by profession, at Milan, and a man well skilled in what were then called secret arts, instructed him very early in the mysteries of numbers, and the precepts of astrology, He taught him also the elements of geometry, and was desirous to have engaged him in the study of jurisprudence. But his own inclination being rather to medicine and mathematics, at the age of twenty he went to the university of Pavia, where, two years after, he explained Euclid. He then went to Padua, and, in 1524, was admitted to the degree of master of arts, and in the following year to that of doctor in medicine. In 1529, he returned to Milan, where although he obtained little fame as a physician, he was appointed professor of mathematics, for which he was better qualified; and in 1539, he became one of the medical college in Milan. Here he attempted to reform the medical practice by publishing his two first works, “De malo recentiorurn medicorum medendi usu,” Venice, 1536; and “Contradicentium Medicorum libri duo,” Lyons, 1548; but he was too supercilious and peevish to profit by the kindness of his friends, who made repeated efforts to obtain an advantageous establishment for him; and he had, in 1531, formed a matrimonial connection of which he bitterly complained as the cause of all his subsequent misfortunes.

In 1547, an offer was made to him of the honourable post of physician to the king of Denmark, with an annual salary of eight hundred crowns, and a free table, which he refused on account of the climate and the religion of the country. This offer, which was made by the advice of Vesalius, is a proof that his medical reputation was considerably high; and we find that it was likewise very extensive, for in 1552, he was invited into Scotland by Hamilton, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, who had consulted the most eminent physicians in Europe without effect. Of his disease, which was of the asthmatic kind, he began to recover from the time that Cardan prescribed for him; and in less than two months Cardan left him with fair prospects of recovery, and gave him some prescriptions, which in two years effected a complete cure. For this he was amply rewarded by his patient, and great offers were made to persuade him to reside in Scotland. These, however, he rejected, and took an opportunity to visit France and Germany, from which he passed into England, and' at London he exercised his astrological knowledge in calculating the nativity of Edward VI. The most remarkable part of it was, that the young monarch should die a violent death; for which reason, he says, he left the kingdom for fear of further danger which might follow on it. He drew a very favourable character of Edward, which was probably just and sincere, because it was afterwards published in one of his works, in Italy, where Edward was detested as a heretic, and where Cardan could have no motive for flattering his memory. While at the English court Edward was solicitous to retain him in England, and appears to have honoured him with frequent conferences; but Cardan refused sril his offers, and returned to Milan, after an absence, in all, of only ten months, and resided there until 1559, practising physic and teaching the mathematics. He then went to Pavia, where he filled the chair of professor of medicine until 1562, when he removed to Bologna, and there likewise became professor of medicine until 1570. About this time he was, for some reason with which we are unacquainted, thrown into prison, which was exchanged soon after for a milder confinement in his own house. On his release, he was invited to Rome, and admitted into the college of physicians there, with a pension from the pope. Here he died Sept. 21, 1576, “more,” says Brucker, “like a maniac than a philosopher.” Thuanus and Scaliger both are of opinion that he starved himself, in order to verify his own prediction of his death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, brother to Richard, hereafter mentioned, and second son of Thomas Carew, esq. and Elizabeth his wife, was probably born at his father’s seat at East Anthony, but in what particular year we are not able to ascertain. He was educated in the university of Oxford, after which he studied law in the inns of court, and then set out on his travels. On his return to his native country he was called to the bar, and after some time was appointed secretary to sir Christopher Hatton, lord chancellor of England, by the especial recommendation of queen Elizabeth, who gave him a pro thonotary ship in the chancery, and conferred upon him the honour of knighthood. In 1597, being then a master in chancery, he was sent ambassador to the king of Poland. In the next rei.gn, he was one of the commissioners for treating with the Scotch concerning an union between the two kingdoms; after which he was appointed ambassador to the court of France, where he continued from the latter end of the year 1605 till 1609. During his residence in that country, he was regarded by the French ministers as being too partial to the Spanish interest, but probably ttoeir disgust to him might arise from his not being very tractable in some points of his negotiation, and particularly in the demand of the debts due to the king his master. Whatever might be, his political principles, it is certain, that he sought the conversation of men of letters; and formed an intimacy with Thuanus, to whom he communicated an account of the transactions in Poland, whilst he was employed there, which was of great service to that admirable author in drawing up the 12lst book of his History. After sir George Caret’s return from France, he was advanced to the post of master of the court of wards, which honourable situation he did not long live to enjoy; for it appears from a letter written by Thuanus to Camden, in the spring of the year 1613, that he was then lately deceased. In this letter, Thuanus laments his death as a great misfortune to himself; for he considered sir George’s friendship not only as a personal honour, but as very useful in his work, and especially in removing the calumnies and misrepresentations which might be raised of him in the court of England. Sir George Carew married Thomasine, daughter of sir Francis Godolphin, great grandfather of the lord treasurer Godolphin, and had by her two sons and three daughters. Francis, the elder son, was created knight of the bath at the coronation of king Charles the First, and Attended the earl of Denbigh in the expedition for the relief of ilochelle, where he acquired great reputation by his courage and conduct; but, being seized with a fit of sickness in his voyage homeward, he died in the Isle of Wight, on the 4th of June, 1628, at the age of twenty-seven.

When sir George Carew returned in 1G09 from his French embassy, he drew up, and addressed to king James the First, “A Relation of the state of France, with the characters of Henry the Fourth, and the principal persons of that court;” which reflects great credit upon his sagacity and attention as an ambassador, and his abilities as a writer. In this piece are considered, 1. The name of France. 2. Its ancient and modern limits. 3. Its quality, strength, and situation. 4. Its riches. 5. Its political ordeis. 6. Its disorders and dangers. 7. The persons governing, with those who are likely to succeed. 8. In what terms the French live with their bordering neighbours. And lastly, the state of matters between the king of England’s dominions and theirs. These heads are divided, as occasion requires, into other subordinate ones. The characters are drawn from personal knowledge and close observation, and might be of service to a general historian of that period. The composition is perspicuous and manly, and entirely free from the pedantry which prevailed in the reign of king James I. his taste having been formed in a better aera, that of Queen Elizabeth. The valuable tract we are speaking of lay for a long time in manuscript, till happily falling into the hands of the late earl of Hardwicke, it was communicated by him to Dr. Birch, who published it in 1749, at the end of his “Historical view of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France and Brussels, from the year 1592 to 1617.” That intelligent and industrious writer justly observes, that it is a model, upon which ambassadors may form and digest their notions and representations and the late celebrated poet, Gray, spoke of it as an excellent performance.

, of the Carews of Beddington, in Surrey, was the son of sir Richard Carew, knight banneret, and Magdalen, daughter of sir Robert Oxenbridge. At an early age he was introduced to the court of king Henry VIII. where he soon became a favourite, and was made one of the gentlemen of the privy chamber. Having been employed upon some public business in France, he became, as many other young men have been, so enamoured of French fashions and amusements, that, when he returned to his own country, he was continually makino- invidious comparisons to the- disadvantage of the English court. His majesty, who was too much of a Briton not to be disgusted at this behaviour, removed him from his person, and sentenced him to an honourable banishment, appointing him governor of Ruysbank in Picardy; to which government he was forthwith commanded to repair, much against his inclination. This little offence^ however, was soon passed over, and we find him again employed by the king, and for several years his constant companion, and a partaker with him in all the justs, tournaments, masques, and other diversions of the same kind, with wh'rch that reign abounded, and which are described very much at large in Hall’s Chronicle: and as a more substantial mark of his favour, the king appointed him master of the horse, an office of great honour, being reckoned the third in rank about the king’s household, and afterwards created him knight of the garter* His promotion may probably be attributed in some measure to the interest of Anne Bullen, to whom he was related through their common ancestor, lord Hoo. His good fortune was not of long continuance; for in 1539 he engaged in a conspiracy, as we are told by our historians, with the marquis of Exeter, the lord Montacute, and sir Edward Neville; the object of which was to set cardinal Pole upon the throne. The accuser was sir Geffrey Poole, lord Montacute’s brother; the trial was summary, and the conspirators were all executed. Sir Nicholas Carew was beheaded on Tower-hill, March 3, 1539, when he made, says Holinshed, “a godly confession, both of his fault and superstitious faith.” Fuller mentions a tradition of a quarrel which happened at bowls between the kipg and sir Nicholas Carew, to which he ascribes his majesty’s displeasure, and sir Nicholas’s death. The monarch’s known caprice, his hatred of the papists, to whom sir Nicholas was zealously attached, the absurdity of the plot, and the improbability of its success, might incline us to hearken to Fuller’s story, if sir Nicholas alone had suffered; but as he had so many partners in his punishment, with whom it is not pretended that the king had any quarrel, it will be more safe, perhaps, to rely upon the account given by our annalists. Sir Nicholas Carew was buried in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, in the same tomb with Thomas lord Darcy, and others of his family.

, author of the Survey of Cornwal, and brother of the preceding sir George Carew, the ambassador, was the eldest son of Thomas Carew, of Mast Anthony, esq. by Elizabeth Edgecombe, daughter of Richard Edgecombe, of Edgecombe, esq. both in the same county, and was born in 1555. When very young, he became a gentleman commoner of Christ Church college, Oxford; and at fourteen years of age had the honour of disputing, extempore, with the afterwards famous sir Philip Sydney, in the presence of the earls of Leicester, Warwick, and other nobility. After spending three years at the university, he removed to the Middle Temple, where he also resided three years, and then travelled into France, and applied himself so diligently to the acquisition of the French language, that by reading and conversation he gained a complete knowledge of it in three quarters of a year. Not long after his return to England he married, in 1577, Juliana Arundel, of Trerice. In 1581, Mr. Carew was made justice of the peace, and in 1586 was appointed high sheriff of the county of Cornwal; about which time he was, likewise, queen’s deputy for the militia. In 1589 he was elected a member of the college of antiquaries, a distinction to which he was entitled by his literary abilities and pursuits. What particularly engaged his attention was his native county, his “Survey” of which was published in quarto, at London, in 1602. It has been twice reprinted, first in 1723, and next in 1769. Of this work Camden speaks in high terms, and acknowledges his obligations to the author. In the present improved state of topographical knowledge, and since Dr. Borlase’s excellent publications relative to the county of Cornwall, the valae of Mr. Carew’s “Survey” must have been greatly diminished. Mr. Gough remarks, that the history and monuments of this county were faintly touched by Mr. Carew; but it is added, that he was a person extremely capable of describing them, if the infancy of those studies at that time had afforded him light and materials. Another work of our author was a translation from the Italian, but originally written by Huarte in Spanish, entitled “The Examination of Men’s Wits. In which, by discovering the variety of natures, is shewed for what profession each one is apt, and how far he shall profit therein.” This was published at London in 1504, and afterwards in 1604; and, thouo-h. Richard Carew’s name is prefixed to it, has been principally ascribed by some persons to his father. According to Wood, Mr. Carevv wrote also “The true and ready way to learn the Latin Tongue,” in answer to a query, whether the ordinary method of teaching the Latin by the rules of grammar, be the best mode of instructing youths in that language? This tract t is involved in Mr. Samuel Hartlib’s book upon the same subject, and with the same title. It is certain that Mr. Carew was a gentleman of considerable abilities and literature,and that he was held in great estimation by some of the most eminent scholars of his time. He was particularly intimate with sir Henry Spelman, who extols him for his ingenuity, virtue, and learning. Amongst his neighbours he was celebrated as the most excellent manager of bees in Cornwall. He died Nov. 6, 1620, and was buried with his ancestors, in the church of St. Anthony, where a splendid monument, with a large inscription, in Latin, was erected to his memory. In an epigram written upon him he was styled “another Livy, another Maro, another Papinian,” epithets somewhat too high fot his real merit. An English translation of “Godfrey of Bulloigne,” from Tasso, by him, was published in 1594, 4to. Of this an ample specimen has lately been given in the Bibliographer.

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

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

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

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

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

, whose family name has been lost in his poetical appellation, was a distinguished literary ornament of Naples in the fifteenth century. He is said to have been a native of Barcelona, and was related to Corvinus, bishop of Massa, who was also a member of the academy of Naples. Of his friendly intercourse w:th the first scholars and chief nobility of Naples, and even with the individuals of the reigning family there, his works afford innumerable instances, whilst in those of Sanazzarius and Pontanus, he is frequently mentioned with particular affection and commendation. His writings, which are wholly in the Italian tongue, were collected and published by his surviving friend Peter Summontc, at Naples, 1509, 4to; but before this were published “Sonetti e Canzoni del Chariteo intitolati Endimione a la Luna,” Naples, 1506, 4to; Venice, 1507,8vo; and in 1519, appeared “Opera nuova, e amorosa composta, &c.” 8vo, a very rare book. His writings are characterised by a vigour of sentiment, and a genuine vein of poetry; and without rivalling the elegance of the Tuscan poets, they possess a considerable share of ease and harmony. One of his Canzone may be seen in our authority.

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

Kircher, in his Musurgia, (tom. i. p. 603.) after describing his music and its effects in terms of high panegyric, speaks of him as a master then living, 1650, who had Jong filled the place of composer to the Collegio Apoliinare with great reputation, and according to Mattheson, he was living in 1672. His sacred and secular cantatas, and motets, have always had admission into every collection of good music. It has been often asserted by musical writers that he was the inventor of cantatas; but these monodies had a more early origin. Carissimi, however, must be allowed not only the merit of transferring the invention from the chamber to the church, where he first introduced cantatas on sacred subjects, but of greatly improving recitative in general, rendering it a more expressive, articulate, and intelligible language, by its approximation to speech and declamation. Many of Carissimi’s works are preserved in the British Museum, and in Dr. Aldrich’s collection at Christ church, Oxford.

, Lord Dorchester, an eminent statesman in the beginning of the seventeenth century, the eldest surviving son of Anthony Carleton, esq. of Baldwin Briglitweli, near Watlington,Oxon. was born at his father’s seat, March 10, 1573. He was educated at Westminster school, and at Oxford, where he became a student of Christ church about 1591, and distinguished as a young man of parts. From hence, after taking a bachelor’s degree in 15L<5, he set out on his travels, and on his return to Oxford, was created master of arts in July loOO. In the same year we find him appointed secretary to sir Thomas Parry, our ambassador in France and in 1603 he served in the same capacity in the house of Henry earl of Northumberland. He probably became afterwards a courtier, as he speaks in one of his letters of holding the place of gentleman usher. In the first parliament of James I. he represented the borough of St. Mawes in Cornwall, and was considered as an active member and an able speaker. In April 1605, he accompanied lord Norris intoSpain, but in the latter end of that year was summoned to England, and on his arrival imprisoned, as being implicated in the gunpowder treason but his innocence being proved, he was honourably discharged. In 1607 he married a niece of sir Maurice Carey, with whom he resided some time in Chancery- lane, and afterwards in Little St. Bartholomew’s, near West Smitlitield. At this period he appears to have been unprovided for, as in one of his letters he complains of an “army of difficulties, a dear year, a plaguy town, a growing w if e and a poor purse.” After being disappointed, from political reasons, in two prospects, that of going to Ireland, and that of going to Brussels, in an official capacity, he was nominated to the embassy at Venice, and before setting out, in Sept. 1610, received the honour of knighthood. The functions of this appointment he discharged with great ability, and soon proved that he was qualified for diplomatic affairs. In 1615, he returned to England, sir Henry Wotton being appointed in his room, and on his arrival found all ministerial power and favour centered in sir George Villiers, afterwards duke of Buckingham. Soon after, on the recommendation of sir Ralph Win wood, one of the secretaries of state, he was employed in what was then one of the most important embassiesin the gift of the crown, that to the States General of Holland and in this he continued from 1616 to 1628, and was the last English minister who had the honour of sitting in the council of state for the United Provinces, a privilege which queen Elizabeth had wisely obtained, when she undertook the protection of these provinces, and which was annexed to the possession of the cautionary towns.

In December 1625, soon after his return to England, he was appointed vice chamberlain of his majesty’s household, and at the same time was joined with earl Holland in an embassy to France, respecting the restitution of the ships, which had been lent to Louis XIII. and were employed against the Rochellers; to obtain a peace for the French protestants agreeably to former edicts, and to obtain the French accession to the treaty of the Hague. Although all these objects were not attained in the fullest intention, yet the ambassadors were thought entitled to commendation for their firm and prudent management of the various conferences. On their return in March 1625-6, they found the parliament sitting, and the nation inflamed to the highest degree at the mismanagement of public affairs. At this crisis, sir Dudley Carleton, who represented Hastings in Sussex, endeavoured to mitigate the violence of the commons in their impeachment of the duke of Buckingham; but his arguments, although not well suited to the humour of the time, were acceptable at court, and immediately after he was called up to the house of peers by the style and title of Baron Carleton of Imbercourt in the county of Surrey: and his next employment was more fully adapted to his talents. This was an embassy-extraordinary to France to justify the sending away of the queen of England’s French servants, which he managed with his usual skill.

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

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

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

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

, late lord Dorchester, descended from an ancient northern family, which removed to Ireland, was the third son of Christopher Carleton, of Newry, co. Down, esq. who died in Ireland about 1738, leaving a widow who became the third wife of the rev. Thomas Skelton, brother to the late rev. Philip Skelton, and died in 1757. Mr. Carleton was born at Strabane, in Ireland, Sept. 3, 1724, and, according to the biographer of Philip Skelton, owed his futureeminence in a great degree to the care which his step-father took of his education. Having embraced a military life, he entered into the guards, in which corps he continued until the year 1748, when he was promoted to be lieutenant-colonel of the 72d regiment. In 1758 he embarked with general Amherst for the siege of Louisburg, where, and at the siege of Quebec, in the following year, he was distinguished for his bravery and good conduct. He was afterwards wounded for the first time, at the siege of Belleisle, where he acted as brigadier- general. In Feb. 1762, he was promoted to the rank of colonel in the army, and soon after embarked for the siege of the Havannah, where he was likewise distinguished for his bravery, and was wounded in investing the Moro castle. In Nov. 1766 he was appointed colonel of the 47th regiment of foot. In April 1772 he arrived at the rank of major-general, and in May following was appointed governor of Quebec, and was supposed to have been instrumental in passing the celebrated Quebec bill, for the government of that settlement.

In 1775, when the American war broke out, general Carleton had an ample field for the display of his military talents. The American congress, having resolved to resort to arms, began soon to turn their eyes to Canada, where they knew the late acts were very unpopular, not only among the British settlers, but the French Canadians themsi-lvrs, who having experienced the difference between a French and British constitution, gave the preference to the latter. To co-operate with the disaffected in Canada, and to anticipate the probable and suspected designs of general Carleton, the congress formed the bold project of invading this province. General Montgomery, their commander, headed the expedition, and proceeded with such vigour, that he compelled the fort of St. John’s to surrender at discretion on the 2d of November. Hence, crossing St. Laurence, he proceeded to Montreal, which being incapable of defence against the American force, general Carleton evacuated ir, and retired to" Quebec. Having taken possession of Montreal, Montgomery made dispositions for advancing to besiege the capital of Canada, and there were several circumstances favourable to his hopes of success. The works of the town had been neglected for a long time of peace; the garrison did not exceed 1100, of which few were regulars, and the majority of the inhabitants were disaffected to the framers of their new constitution, and particularly to general Carleton, who was supposed to have had a chief hand in that measure. While he was endeavouring to defend Quebec amidst all these disadvantages, the American generals Montgomery and Arnold summoned him to surrender, which he treated with contempt, and refused to hold any correspondence with rebels. The inhabitants too, displeased as they were with their new constitution, joined the British troops with cordial unanimity, and the American commander, unprepared for a regular siege, endeavoured to take the place by storm. In this attempt Montgomery fell at the head of his troops, whom the garrison, after an obstinate resistance, drove from the town with great loss; and although Arnold encamped on the heights of Abraham, where he fortified himself, and continued the siege of Quebec in the following year, 1776, he thought proper to retire on the arrival of an English squadron. General Carleton being now reinforced by troops, which, added to what he had, formed a body of 13,Ooo, prepared for offensive operations, and the Amer cans evacuated their conquests, stationing themselves at Crown Point, whither the British commander did not follow them for the present. An armament was now prepared for crossing Lake Champlain, in order to besiege Crown Point and Ticonderago. The Americans had a considerable fleet on Lake Champlain, whereas the British had not a single vessel. The general, therefore, used every effort to procure the requisite naval force; but October was begun before this was ready to oppose the enemy. On Oct. 11, the British fleet, commanded by capt. Pringle, and under the general direction of Carleton, discovered the American armament; and engaging them, the conflict continued on both sides for several hours with great intrepidity, but a contrary wind preventing the chief British ships from taking a part, and night coming on, it was thought prudent to discontinue the action, and Arnold took advantage of the night to retreat. The British pursued them the next day and the following, and overtook them a few leagues from Crown Point; where, after a furious battle of two hours, they yielded to our superior force and skill. General Carleton remained at Crown Point till Nov. 3, and as the winter was commencing, did not think proper to besiege Ticonderago. He returned therefore to St. John’s, whence he distributed his army into winter quarters.

, an eminent painter of history, was a native of Genoa, and having prosecuted the study of his art at Rome, and in the school of Passignano at Florence, he became one of the most fertile, original, and seducing machinists of Italy. The most splendid works of this artist, and of his brother John, are the frescoes of the cathedral del Guastato at Genoa, which exhibit a wonderful effect of colouring. He survived his brother 50 years, and distinguished himself by this novel style in the churches and collections of Liguria and Lombardy. It is not easy to conceive why a painter should not have acquired greater celebrity, who united with so many opportunities so many diverging powers; who had equal felicity in oil and fresco, colour and design, velocity and correctness, and had incessant employment, and unrivalled diligence and perseverance. After a prolonged life of 86 years, he died in 1680.

, B. D. vicar of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, chancellor of Carlisle, professor of Arabic in the university of Cambridge, chaplain to the bishop of Durham, and F. R. S. E. was born at Carlisle in 1759, where his father was a physician, and after receiving his early education at the grammar-school of his native city, was in 1775 entered of Christ’s-col'ege, Cambridge, whence after two years he removed to Queen’s, took his bachelor’s degree in 1779, and was elected a fellow. Besides an industrious and successful application to the usual branches of study, he entefed upon that of the Arabic language with unusual avidity, availing himself of a very fine collection of Arabic writings in the university library, and assisted by David Zamio, who, Mr. Carlyle informs us, was born at Bagdad, and resided with him some time at Cambridge. Mr. Carlyle, after taking his master’s degree in 1783, left college, married, and obtained some church preferment in his native city. In 1793 he took his degree of B. D. and succeeded Dr. Paley (by resignation) in the chancellorship of Carlisle. In 1794 he was elected Arabic professor in the university of Cambridge.

In 1799, he was appointed chaplain of lord Elgin’s embassy to Constantinople, an office which afforded him an opportunity of inspecting the libraries of that city, and afterwards of travelling through Asia Minor, and through countries generally unknown to Europeans; and before his return he made a tour through the principal parts of Italy, and through Tyrol and part of Germany, and landed in England in Sept. 1801. After his return he was presented by the bishop of Carlisle to the living of Newcastleupon-Tyne, which he did not long enjoy. His health had probably been injured by the fatigues of his travels, and he laboured for a considerable time under a painful and distressing malady, which proved fatal April 12, 1804. He was known to the learned world by, 1. “Maured Allatafet Jemaleddini Filii Togri-^ardii, seu rerum Ægyptiacarum Annales, ab anno Christi 971 usque ad annum 1453. E codice ms Bibliothecae Acad. Cantab.” Arab, et Lat. 4to, 1792, a work which unquestionably evinced a laudable desire in Mr. Carlyle to revive the study of Arabic literature, but in itself contains little information, and throws very little light on a period darkened by ignorance and superstition. 2. “Specimens of Arabic poetry, from the earliest time to the extinction of the Khalifs; with some account of the authors,” 4to. In this too the commendable industry of the author is perhaps more apparent than his success, in persuading his readers to an equal admiration of Arabic poetry. The work, however, is amusing, the accounts of the authors constitute a very useful part, and the translator’s skill in selection has been allowed by those who are acquainted with the original. Since his death has been published, “Poems, suggested chiefly by scenes in Asia-Minor, Syria, and Greece; with prefaces extracted from the author’s journal, embellished with two views of the source of the Scamander, and the aqueduct over the Simois,” 1805, 4to. This elegant volume will form a lasting monument of the author’s learning and taste. The poems with which the collection opens are particularly attractive. They relate to striking scenes in the East, and are prefaced by extracts from his journal, which, it has been justly remarked, if further improved by the author’s hand, might have formed such a volume of travels as is rarely seen. The premature death of the author is indeed to be regretted on many accounts. He was, among other important undertakings, engaged in a correct edition of the Arabic Bible, at the request of a society of eminent persons, among whom the present bishop of Durham is one of the most active; and he had likewise projected a complete edition of the New Testament in Greek, which was to contain the various readings collected by Mill, Bengelius, Wetstein, Griesbach, &c. and also those of more than thirty Greek manuscripts, which he had collected during his travels, together with a new and accurate collation of the Syriac and other ancient versions. The loss of such a man at any age will be felt; but in the prime of life is deeply to be regretted.

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

In 1524, when the controversy took place among the friends of the reformation respecting the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, Carolostadt became the open antagonist of Luther, and approached nearer to the sentiments held now by the majority of protestants; but his previous intemperate conduct at Wittemberg had so lowered his reputation, that he found it expedient to retire to Orlamund, a small town of Thuringia in the electorate of Saxony, where, without legitimate appointment, though with the consent of the inhabitants, he became their spiritual pastor. Here he not only soon broached his opinion of the eucharist, but raised new disturbances by his furious discourses concerning the abolition of images. He appears also to have boasted of having been favoured with supernatural communications, and was represented as a partizan of the turbulent fanatic Thomas Munzer. The university of Wittemberg summoned him to return back, and discharge in person the ordinary duties enjoined him by the statutes in their school and church. Carolostadt promised to obey, provided he could ‘obtain the leave of his parishioners of Orlamund, whom, however, at the same time he is said to have excited to arrogate to themselves the divine right of appointing their own pastor. The elector of Saxony was so disgusted with the insolent letters which they wrote on this occasion, treating the academical claim as a papistical encroachment, that he peremptorily commanded both them and their teacher to submit to the legal authority of the university and the chapter. Luther was also sent to Orlamund; but this appears to have only inflamed Carolostadt’ s zeal to a greater height of imprudence, and his violent proceedings at last provoked the elector and his brother to expel Carolostadt from their territories. Carolostadt, after his departure, wrote letters to his people.­which were read in full congregation upon the toll of the bell, and were suhscrihed thus, “Andreas Bodenstenius Carolostadt, unheard, unconvicted, banished by Martin Luther.” Mosheim and his translator have yielded too easily to this calumny against Luther, which appears to have been wholly unmerited on the part of that great reformer, who about five months afterwards interceded, although ineffectually, for him.

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

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

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

, a divine and poet of the seventeenth century, was educated at Eton college, and thence elected scholar of King’s college in Cambridge, in 1622. About three years after, he left England, and studied in Flanders, Artois, France, Spain, and Italy; and at length received holy orders at Rome from the hands of the pope’s substitute. Soon after, having taken upon him the order of St. Benedict, he was sent into England to make proselytes; in which employment he continued somewhat above a year, then returned to the protestant religion, and, through the archbishop of Canterbury’s interest, obtained the small vicarage of Poling by the seaside, near Arundel castle, in Sussex. Here he was exposed to the insults of the Romish party, particularly one Francis a S. Clara, living in that neighbourhood under the name of Hunt, who used to expose him to scorn before his parishioners. In the time, however, of the civil war, he quitted his living, retired to Paris, and reconciling himself to the Romish church, he made it his business to rail against the protestants. Afterwards, returning to England, he settled at Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire, where he had some relations; and, being once more a protestant, he would often preach there in a very fantastical manner, to the great mirth of his auditors. He was living there in 1670; but before his death he returned a third time to popery, causing his pretended wife to embrace that persuasion; and in that faith he died. He was generally esteemed a man of an absurd character, one that changed his opinions as often as his cloaths, and, for his juggles and tricks in religion, a theological mountebank.

He published the following sermons: 1. “The perfect Law of God, being a sermon and no sermon, preached and yet not preached,” 1652, 8vo. 2. “Astrology proved harmless, useful, pious; on Gen. i. 14. 'And let them be for signs’,” Lond. 1657, 4to; dedicated to Elias Ashmole. At the end of the epistle dedicatory is Richard Carpenter’s picture, with a face looking towards him, out of the mouth of which issues a serpent, and out of the serpent’s mouth fire. Underneath are written these words: “Ricardus Carpenterus porcello cuidam Gerasenorum, scilicet in omnia præcipiti, fluctibusque devoto, eidem porco loquaci pariter et minaci mendacique indicit silentium, et obmutescit.” 3. “Rome in her fruits,” preached the 1st of November 1662, near the Standard in Cheapside; in ansuer to a pamphlet entitled Reasons why the Roman Catholics should not be persecuted,“Lond. 1663, 4to, on Matth. vii. 16. There is extant by the same author, a treatise entitled” Experience, History, and Divinity, in five books,“Lond. 16'I2, 8vo, dedicated to the parliament then, sitting; with his picture before it. This book was republished in 1648, under the title of” The Downfall of Antichrist.“It contains several particulars of his personal history, and exposes many of the practices of the Romish missionaries, but the style, as in all his works, is quaint and extravagant. Granger thinks he must have studied the Spanish romances to produce the following beauty, prefixed to the list of errata:” I humbly desire all cleanhearted and right-spirited people, who shall readc this book (which because the prosse was oppressed, seems to have been suppressed, when it was by little and little impressed; but now at least hath pressed through the presse into the publicke) first to restore it by correcting the following errata.“His comedy, called” The pragmatical Jesuit,“came out after the Restoration. The picture before it represents him in.a very genteel lay-habit; whereas that before his” Experience," &c. exhibits him in the dress of a formal clergyman, with a mortified countenance. Mr. Langbainc speaks with some commendation of this play.

, a native of Italy, who flourished about the beginning of the sixteenth century, was not in any degree considerable as a painter, but is justly entitled to fame as an engraver on wood. He was not, however, the first engraver on that material, as some have asserted, but certainly invented that species distinguished by the name of chiaro-scuro, in imitation of drawing. This he performed by using three blocks the first for the outline and dark shadows the second for the lighter shadows and the third for the half tint. His prints, though slight, are usually very spirited, and in a masterly style. They preserve, at least, a bold, striking resemblance of the sketches of the great painters from whose designs they are taken. Strutt, and, before him, Vasari, mention the following viz. “A Sibyl reading in a book, with an infant holding a flambeau to light her” “The burning of Troy, with Æneas saving his father Anchises” “A descent from the cross” “David cutting off the head of'Goliah;” all from Raphael; and a “Magician seated on the ground, with a book open before him, and in the back-ground a bird with its feathers plucked off,” from Parmigiano. This species of engraving was carried to great perfection by Andrea Andriani, and also by Balthasar Perezzi of Siena, and Parmigiano

, an artist, who was born at Ferrara, in 1501, became a disciple of Garofalo, and proved the best artist of all those who studied in that academy; but when he quitted that master, he devoted his whole time, thoughts, and attention, to study the works of Correggio, and to copy them with a critical care and observation. Jn that labour he spent several years at Parma, Modena, and other cities of Italy, where the best works of that exquisite painter were preserved. He succeeded to admiration, and acquired such an excellence in the imitation of Correggio’s style, and copying his pictures, that many paintings finished by him were taken for originals, and were eagerly purchased by the connoisseurs of that time. Nor is it improbable, that several of the paintings of Girolamo da Carpi pass at this day for the genuine works of Correggio. He died in 1556.

, a clergyman of the episcopal church in Scotland, was born at Newcastle, Feb. 16, 1704, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts. Soon after his return to Newcastle he went into orders, and in 1737 was appointed senior clergyman of the episcopal chapel at Edinburgh, where he spent the remainder of his days, and officiated for the space of thirty-nine years. On the morning of Sunday, August 18, 1776, as he was preparing to go to the chapel, he suddenly expired. Three volumes of his “Sermons” were published in the following year, 12mo, by sir William Forbes, bart. who undertook the task of selecting these from his numerous manuscripts. On his private and public character, sir William lived to express himself with zeal and affection thirty years after the decease of his friend, and says of his “Sermons,” that although they do not contain the profound reasonings of Butler, nor the elegant discussions of Sherlock; neither the learning of Tillotson, nor the declamation of Seed, they exhibit the most useful and important truths of the gospel, not only with plainness and perspicuity, but in language always elegant and seldom incorrect. Dr. Beattie, on the occasion of his death, said, that “to his merits as a preacher, great as they were, the lustre of his private character was still superior,” and that " the death of such a man was a real loss to society.

, LL. D. many years an eminent schoolmaster at Hertford, and known to the literary world as the translator of Lucian, was born at Muggleswick, in the county of Durham, in 1722. His father was a fanner, and had a small estate of his own, which the doctor possessed at his death. He was first educated at the village school, and privately by the rev. Daniel Watson, who was then a young man, and curate of that place. Afterwards he was sent to St. Paul’s school, where he continued longer than boys usually do, as his father could not afford to send him to either of the universities. He is supposed to have been once a candidate for the mastership of St. Paul’s, but the want of a degree was fatal to his application. When still young, however, he became usher to Dr. Hurst, who was master of the grammar-school at Hertford, and succeeded him in that situation, which he held for many years with the highest credit. He was honoured with the degree o/ LL. D. from the Marischal college, Aberdeen, by the influence of Dr. Beattie. He died June 6, 1807, after experiencing a gradual decay for nearly a year before, but on the day of his death was, as he supposed, in much better health than usual. He was buried in St. John’s church, Hertford, with an epitaph in Latin, written by himself, in which he seems to reflect a little on time lost, “studits inanibus.-” This may probably allude to his “Translation of Lucian,” on which he employed many of his leisure hours, and which was published in 5 vols. 8vo. from 1773 to 1798. It procured him considerable fame, which, however, lias been diminished, in the opinion of many, since the appearance of Dr. Francklin’s more classical translation. Dr. Carr’s other publications were trifles, on which himself perhaps set no very high value “Vol. III. of Tristram Shandy,” in imitation of Sterne, but soon detected, 1760 “Filial Piety,” a mock heroic, 1763, fol ts Extract of a Private Letter to a Critic,“1764, fol. and” Eponi-na, a Dramatic Essay, addressed to the ladies," 1765.

, a Dominican, born in 1504 at Miranda in Navarre, appeared with great distinction at the council of Trent, where he composed a treatise on trie residence of bishops, which he held to be of divine right, treating the contrary opinion as diabolical. Philip II. king of Spain, having married queen Mary in 1554, took Carranza with him into England, who laboured to restore the Catholic religion there, and pleased Philip so much, that he appointed him archbishop of Toledo 1557. This illustrious prelate was, however, accused before the Inquisition, 1559, and carried as a heretic to Rome, where he was thrown into prison, and suffered greatly during ten years, notwithstanding the solicitations of his friend Navarre, who openly undertook his defence. At length the Inquisition declared by a sentence passed 1576, that there was not any certain proof that Carranza was a heretic. They condemned him nevertheless to abjure the errors which had been imputed to him, and confined him to la Minerve, a monastery of his order, where he died the same year, aged 72. His principal works are, 1. “Summary of the Councils” in Latin, 1681, 4to, which is valued. 2. “A Treatise on the residence of Bishops,” 1547, 4to. 3. “A Catechism” in Spanish, 1558, fol.; censured by the Inquisition in Spain, but justified at the council of Trent in 1563.

, was born in 1663, in the province of Brie in France. His father, a substantial farmer, intended him for the church. But young Carre, after going through, the usual course of education for that purpose, having an utter aversion to it, refused to enter upon that function; by which he incurred his father’s displeasure. His resources being thus cut off, he was obliged to quit the university, and look out into the world for some employment. In this exigency he had the good fortune to be engaged as an amanuensis by the celebrated father Malebranche; by which he found himself transported at once from the mazes of scholastic darkness, to the source of the most brilliant and enlightened philosophy. Under this great master he studied mathematics and metaphysics, and after seven years spent in this excellent school, M. Carré found it necessary, in order to procure himself some less precarious establishment, to teach mathematics and philosophy in Paris; but especially that philosophy which, on account of its tendency to improve our morals, he valued more than all the mathematics in the world. And accordingly his greatest care was to make geometry serve as an introduction to his well-beloved metaphysics. Most of M. Carrels pupils were of the fair sex. The first of these, who soon perceived that his language was rather the reverse of elegant and correct, told him pleasantly, that, as an acknowledgment for the pains he took to teach her philosophy, she would teach him French; and he ever after owned that her lessons were of great service to him. In general he seemed to set more value upon the genius of women than that of men.

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

, an artist who from the place of his nativity was called Pontormo, had great natural ingenuity, and was in his earliest works admired by Raphael and Michel Angelo. He had had a few lessons from Lionardo da Vinci; after him from Albertinelli made some progress under Pier di Cosimo; and finished by entering the school of Andrea del Sarto, whose jealousy and ungenerous treatment, from a scholar, soon turned him into a rival. With such talents he became the victim of inconstancy, roaming from style to style. The Certosa of Florence exhibits specimens of the three different manners commonly ascribed to him. The first is correct in design, vigorous in colour, and approaches the style of Andrea del Sarto. The second, with good drawing combines a languid tone, and became the model of Bronzino and the subsequent epoch. The third is a downright imitation of Albert Durer, aod at present can only be found in some histories from the Passion in the cloister of that monastery, which are neither more nor less than copies from the prints of Albert. To these, perhaps, a fourth manner might be added, if the frescos of the General Deluge and Universal Judgment, on which he spent eleven years in S. Lorenzo, and his last work, had not been whitewashed, with the tacit acquiescence of all contemporary artists. In this labour he strove to emulate Michel Angelo, and to exemplify, like him, anatomic skill, which was then becoming the favourite pursuit of Florentine art. He died in 1558, aged sixty-five.

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

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

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

no reason to expect that honour.“Daniel Purcell, another nonjuror. Soon after the accession of George I., fraying the expences of transcribing letters, negotiations, and other materials of the like nature; and, in the December following, the companies of grocers and vintners subscribed 25l. a year each to the same purpose; and the chapter of Durham, 2 1l. The university of Oxford, and the societies of New-college, Magdalen, Brazen-nose, and Trinity, were contributors, but no mention is made of Cambridge in the dedication of the first volume. Pro^ posals for printing the history were circulated in 1746, and the first volume of it was completed in December 1747; when the credit of a work which had been ushered into the world with so much preparation and expectation, and which had been supported by such ample subscriptions, was almost wholly overturned by a remarkable act of literary indiscretion. Mr. Carte, having taken occasion to speak of the unction of our kings, and of the great effects annexed to it, introduced in a note a story of one Christopher JLovel, a native of Wells, in Somersetshire, who is represented as having been healed of the evil, at Avignon, in 1716, by application to the pretender. The indiscretion he had been guilty of was hurtful to his interest, and produced the three following pamphlets: 1.” Remarks on Mr. Carte’s General History of England;“2.” A letter to the Jacobite Journalist, concerning Mr. Carte’s History, by Duncan Mac Carte, a Highlander; 11 and 3. “Some Specimens of Mr. Carte’s History of England, with Remarks thereon, by Donald Mac Carte.” But this was not all: the corporation of London unanimously resolved, in April 1748, to withdraw their subscription; and the history fell into very general neglect . It is to the honour of Mr. Carte’s fortitude, that he was not discouraged from prosecuting his undertaking; and perhaps he might receive private aid and support, though public assistance was withdrawn. Whatever may have been the case in that respect, his second volume, containing an account of all public transactions, from the accession of Henry III. in 1216, to the death of Henry VII. in 1509, appeared in 1750. The third volume, which extended to the marriage of the elector palatine with the princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I. in 1613, was published in 1752. The fourth volume, which Mr. Carte did not live to complete, appeared in 1755. It was intended to have been carried on to the restoration, but concludes with the year 1654. It was his design to have brought the narration down to the revolution, for which purpose he had been at uncommon pains to cpllect materials wherever they could be found. Notwithstanding our author’s peculiar opinions and prejudices, his general history is undoubtedly a work of great merit in point of information. It is written with eminent exactness and diligence, and with a perfect knowledge of original authors; and has of late years risen considerably in reputation, as well as in price, especially since it was discovered how much Hume was indebted to it. Mr. Carte died at Caldecot-house, near Abingdon, Berkshire, April 2 S 1754, and was buried at Yattenden church, in a vault on the north side of the chancel. The disorder which carried him off, was a diabetes. At his decease, all his papers came into the hands of his widow, daughter of colonel Brett, who afterwards married Mr. Jernegan, a gentleman intended for orders in the church of Rome. Mrs. Carte left the papers to her second husband for life, and after his death to the university of Oxford. They are now deposited in the Bodleian library, having been delivered by Mr. Jernegan to the university, 1778, for a valuable consideration. Whilst they were in this gentleman’s possession, the earl of Hardwicke paid 200l. for the perusal of them, and, it is said, might have purchased them for 1500/, but we do not see how this can be reconciled with the terms of the will. It is certain, however, that as late as 1775, Mr. Jernegan advertised the use of them. For a consideration of 300l. Mr. Macpherson had the use of them; who, from these and other materials, compiled his history and state papers. Mr. Carte was a man of a strong constitution, and indefatigable application. When the studies of the day were over, he would eat heartily; and in conversation was cheerful and entertaining; but his external appearance was slovenly and uninviting.

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

, an English lady of profound learning and genius, was the eldest daughter of the rev. Dr. Nicholas Carter, a clergyman in Kent, who, with other preferment, held the cure of the chapel of Deal, where this daughter was born, Dec. 16, 1717, and educated by her father. At first she discovered such a slowness of faculties, as to make him despair of her progress ia intellectual attainment, even with the aid of the greatest industry, and the most ardent desire, which characterized her efforts. She herself, however, though mortified and sorrowful at her own difficulties, resolved to persevere, and her perseverance was crowned with unexampled success. She early became mistress of Latin, Greek, French, German, and afterwards understood Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Hebrew, and last of all acquired something of Arabic. Before she was seventeen years of age, many of her poetical attempts had appeared, particularly in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1734, with the signature of Eliza. This extraordinary display of genius and acquirements procured her immediate celebrity, and the learned flocked about her with admiration. In 1738, when she was about twenty, Cave, the proprietor of the Gentleman’s Magazine, published some of her poems in a quarto pamphlet, now little known, as it was published without her name. It is probable she did not think many of these worthy of her; as in 1762, when she published a small collection with her name, she admitted only two from the former publication, the “Lines on her birth-day,” and the “Ode of Anacreon.”

In 1739, she translated “The Critique of Crousaz on Pope’s Essay on Man;” and in the same year gave a translation of “Algarotti’s Explanation of Newton’s Philosophy for the use of the Ladies.” These publications extended her acquaintance among the literati of her own country and her fame reached the continent, where Baratier bestowed high praises on her talents and genius. In 1741 she formed an intimacy with Miss Catherine Talbot, niece to the lord chancellor Talbot, and a young lady of considerable genius and most amiable disposition. This was an important event of Miss Carter’s life on many accounts. The intimacy of their friendship, the importance of their correspondence, and the exalted piety of both, made it the main ingredient of their mutual happiness: and in addition to this, it procured a friendship with Dr. Seeker, then bishop of Oxford, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, with whom Miss Talbot resided, which extended her knowledge of the world, cherished her profound learning, and exercised the piety of her thoughts. To this event is to be traced her undertaking and completing the work by which her fame has been most known abroad, and will longest be remembered by scholars at home, her “Translation of Epictetus.” It was not, however, till the beginning of 1749, that this translation was commenced. It was then sent up in sheets, as finished, to Miss Talbot, who earnestly pressed its continuance, which was further urged by bishop Seeker, to whom her friend shewed it. Her biographer has given a minute account of its progress till its conclusion in December 1752. She then by the bishop’s desire, added notes and an introduction, both admirably executed; and the work was sent to press in June 1757, and finished in April 1758, in an elegant quarto volume. At the entreaty of her friends, she permitted it to published by subscription (at the price of \l. 1s.) and by their liberality, it produced her a clear 1000l.

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

In 1782 an event occurred, which once more disturbed the uniformity of Mrs. Carter’s life: she had been under great obligations to sir William Pulteney, who very liberally settled on her an annuity of 150l. a year, which it had been expected by her friends that lord Bath would have done. She therefore complied with his wishes to accompany his daughter to Paris, though she was now in her sixty-fifth year. She was only absent sixteen days, of which one week was spent at Paris. Mrs. Carter was not insensible to the fatigues and inconveniencies of her journey, but her sense of them yielded to her friendship. At home, however, she was able to enjoy summer tours, which doubtless contributed to her health and amusement. In 1791, she had the honour, by the queen’s express desire, of being introduced to her majesty at lord Cremorne’s house at Chelsea, an incident which naturally reminds us of a similar honour paid to her friends, Dr. Johnson at Buckingham-house, and Dr. Beattie at Kew. Afterwards, when the princess of Wales occupied lord Keith’s house in the Isle of Thanet, she called on Mrs. Carter at her house at Deal and the duke of Cumberland, when attending his regiment at Deal, also paid her a visit. Such was her reputation many years after she had ceased to attract public notice as an author, and when the common mass of readers scarcely knew whether such a person existed.

, F. S. A. Of this gentleman we have litde information. He was author of a “Journey from Malaga to Gibraltar/ 1 1776, 2 vols. 8vo, with piatts $<ld separately reprinted in 2 vols. 8vo, 1778, with the plates inserted. The many coins engraved in this work were from the collection of the celebrated Spanish medallist Fiores, whose cabinet Mr. Carter had purchased on his death, a?>d disposed of the duplicates to Dr. Hunter. Mr. Carter died August 1, 178'i, when he had just completed (and had actually printed the first sheet of)” An historical and critical account of early printed Spanish books;“in which, to use his own words, his intent was *” 10 write an historical and critical account of the mOft early printed volumes in the Spanish language, wnith had fallen into my possession during thirty years dil gently collecting them, both in Spain, France, and England." Of the lives of the authors he proposed to give a summary account, with occasional specimens of the style and manner of their writings, and strictures on the state and progress of learning and poetry, from the days of John II. king of Castile down to the present age: to appearance an humble and easy task, but which will be found in the execution to require no small labour, judgment, and experience, and be evidently of great advantage to those who wish to enrich their libraries with the best Spanish works, and be informed of the reputation, merit, and rank, each author holds in the literary world. We have to lament that this was never finished. A specimen of it may be seen in our authority.

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

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

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

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

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

The late duke of Newcastle used to say of lord Granville, that he was a man who never doubted. From his lordship’s acknowledged literature, it may naturally be supposed that he patronized learned men and learned undertakings. His regard for Dr. Swift, and his attention to the dean’s recommendations, we have already mentioned. He assisted and encouraged Mr. Lye, in his edition of Junius’s Etymologicon, and the learned Mrs. Grierson of Dublin, when he was lord lieutenant of Ireland. Of Dr. Taylor, the celebrated Grecian, he was the particular patron. The doctor owed his principal preferments to lord Granville; and has testified his gratitude, in the dedication of his Demosthenes, by warmly celebrating his lordship’s excellencies, and especially his eloquence, and his eminent skill in the ancient and modern languages. Our learned peer engaged Dr. Bentley to undertake an edition of Homer, and was very active in procuring the doctor the use of manuscripts, and- other necessary aids, for that purpose. Dr, Bentley, when he came to town, was accustomed, in his visits to lord Carteret, sometimes to spend the evenings with his lordship. One day ojjl lady Granville reproached her son with keeping the country tler^yman, who was with him the night before, till he was intoxicated. Lord Carteret denied the charge; upon which the lady replied, that the clergyman could not have sung in so ridiculous a manner, unless he had been in liquor. The truth was, that the singing thus mistaken by her ladyship, was Dr. Bentley’s endeavour to instruct and entertain his noble friend, by reciting Terence according to the? true cantilena of the ancients.

Earl Granville, amidst all his struggles for place and power, had an affectation of saying, “I love my fire-side; 11 which humour was vrell exposed, by Mr. Hawkins Browne, in a copy of verses, entitled” The Fire-side, a pastoral soliloquy.“Lord Carteret’s letter on the battle at Dettingen was much ridiculed at the time, and the only excuse for it was his lordship’s intoxication not merely with joy, In giving his judgment concerning men of high office in the state, earl Grauville sometimes spoke too incautiously for a politician. Having been asked who wrote the king’s speech in a certain year, he said,” Do you not see the blunt pen of the old attorney?“meaning lord Hardwicke. It was not always in his power to conceal the pangs of disappointed ambition. He made a present of a copy of the Polyglot Bible, which the owner got bound in an elegant manner. When lord Granville saw the book in its newdress, he said,” You have done with it as the king has done with me he made me fine, and he laid me by. "

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

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

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

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

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

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

Few men have ever been so praised and regretted by their contemporaries, who have left so little to perpetuate their fame. During his sickness, the king and queen, who were then at Oxford, made anxious inquiries about the progress of his disorder. His majesty wore black on the day of his funeral, and being asked the reason, answered that since the muses had so much mourned for the loss of such a son, it had been a shame that he should not appear in mourning for the loss of such a subject. His poems and plays, which were published in 1651, are preceded by fifty copies of verses by the wits of the time, and all in a most laboured style of panegyric. His other encomiasts inform us that his person was as handsome as his mind, and that he not only understood Greek and Latin, but French and Italian, as perfectly as his mother tongue. Dr. Fell, bishop of Oxford, said of him, “Cartwright is the utmost man can come to;” and Ben Jonson used to say, “My son Cartwright writes all like a man.”

Although it must be confessed that his works, particularly his dramas, afford little justification of this high character, his poems may perhaps deserve a place among those of his contemporaries. Many of them exhibit tenderness and harmony, a copious, but sometimes fanciful imagery, and a familiar easy humour which, connected with his amiable disposition as a man, probably led to those encomiums which, without this consideration, we should find it difficult to allow. “That,” says Wood, “which is most remarkable is, that these his high parts and abilities were accompanied with so much sweetness and candour, that they made him equally beloved and admired by all persons, especially those of the gown and court; who esteemed also his life a fair copy of practic piety, a rare example of heroic worth, and in whom arts, learning, and language, made up the true complement of perfection.” The same biographer informs us that he wrote “Poemata Graeca & Latina.”

, a native of Lisbon, where he was born in 1650, addicted himself to the study of mathematics, astronomy, and hydrography, and undertook the topographical description of his native country. He made the tour of Portugal with great care, following the courses of the rivers, climbing the mountains, and examining every thing with his own eyes. This work, by far the best upon the subject, is in 3 vols. folio, published from 1706 to 1712, under the title of “Geographia Portugueza.” It contains the history of the principal places, of the illustrious persons who were born in them, the genealogies of the most considerable families, with the natural curiosities, &c. of every place he visited. There is also by this author a compendium of geography, and a method of studying astronomy. He died in 1715, at the age of 65, and so poor that the parish was obliged to bury him.

, another unfortunate author in our own country, was a native of America. His grandfather, William Joseph Carver, of Wigan in Lancashire, a captain in king William’s army, was rewarded for his services in Ireland with the government of Connecticut in New England, in which province our author was born in. 1732, and where his father, a justice of the peace, died in 1747. Soon after, being designed for the study of physic, he was placed with a practitioner at Elizabeth-town; but this not suiting his enterprising spirit, he purchased, in. 1750, an ensigncy in the Connecticut regiment, and behaved so well as to obtain the command of a company. Nothing more is known of him till 1757, when being in general Webb’s army, he fortunately escaped the dreadful massacre at Fort William Henry, an instance of Indian ferocity and French perfidy which he has pathetically described in his “Travels.” In the five succeeding campaigns he served also, first as lieutenant and afterwards as captain of provincials, with a high reputation, not only for bravery, but also for piety and morals. On the conclusion of the peace in 1763, captain Carver, with a view to make that vast acquisition of territory gained by Great Britain advantageous to her, determined to explore the most unknown parts of North America, particularly the vast continent which extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. His failure in this is now less to be regretted, as captain Cook has since shewn the impracticability of a north-west passage in those parts. Captain Carver, however, penetrated farther north-westward than any other European, except father Hennepin in 1680, viz. to the river St. Francis. The utmost extent of his travels to the west was towards the head of the river St. Pierre, in the country of the Naudowessies of the plains, whose language he learned, and among whom he wintered in 1766, and resided seven months. In 1769 he came over to England, in hopes of a reimbursement from government for the sums he had expended in their service; but in this he was disappointed, and reduced to great difficulties. In 1778, he published “Travels through the interior parts of North America in the years 1766, 1767, and 1768,” 8vo, a work considered as peculiarly interesting. In the following year, he published also “A Treatise on the Culture of the Tobacco Plant.” Both these ought unquestionably to have procured him employment as a man of talents, but unfortunately no notice was taken of him. About this time he was induced to lend his name to a compilation entitled “The New Universal Traveller,” published in weekly numbers, but this afforded a scanty supply. Through the winter of 1779, he preserved his existence by acting as a clerk in a lottery office until Jan. 31, 1780, a putrid fever supervening a long-continued dysentery, brought on by mere want, put an end to the life of a man whose public services and character deserved a better fate. We know not, however, that he perished in vain. His case attracted the notice of Dr. Lettsom, who, in some excellent letters in the Gentleman’s Magazine, recommended it to the public attention with such effect, that while a temporary provision was made for captain Carver’s widow and children, by the publication. of a new edition of his “Travels,” a salutary impression was made on the public mind, to which, strengthened by other instances, we now owe that excellent institution, “The Literary Fund.”

, afterwards created viscount Falkland, and descended from the family of the Gary’s, of Cockington, in Devonshire, was the son of sir Edward Gary, of Betkhamsted and Aldenham, in the county of Hertford, knight, master of the Jewel-office to queen Elizabeth and king James I. by Catherine his wife, daughter of sir Henry Knevet, knight, and widow of Henry lord Paget. He was born at Aldenham; and, when about sixteen years of age, was sent to Exeter-college in Oxford, where it does not appear he took any degree: but when he quitted the university, he left behind a celebrated name. Soon after, he was introduced to court; and in 1608, made one of the knights of the bath at the creation of Henry prince of Wales. In 1617, he was sworn in comptroller of his majesty’s houshold, and one of his privy-council: and on the 10th of November, 1620, was created viscount of Falkland, in the county of Fife, in Scotland. King James I. knowing his great abilities and experience, constituted him lord deputy of Ireland; into which high office he was sworn, September 18, 1622; and continued in it till 1629. During his administration, he kept a strict hand over. the Roman catholics in that kingdom; who sent frequent complaints to the court of England against him, and though he proceeded very honourably and justly, yet by the clamour of the Irish, and the prevailing power of his Popish enemies, he was removed in disgrace; but his innocence being afterwards vindicated, this affront was in some measure atoned for by the subsequent t'avour of the king. At his return to England, he lived in honour and esteem, till 1633; when having the misfortune to break one of his legs, on a stand in TheobaldVpark, he died in September and was buried at Aldenham. He married Elizabeth, sole daughter andheir of sir Laurence Tanfield, chief baron of the exchequer, with whom he had the manor of Great Tew, Burford, and other estates in Oxfordshire. He is said to have written many things, which never were published, except, 1. “The History of the most unfortunate prince, king Edward II.” found among his papers, and printed in 1680, fol. and 8vo, with a preface of sir James Harrington; at a time, says Wood, “when the press was open for all books that could make any thing against the then government.” 2. “A Letter to James I.” and an “Epitaph on Elizabeth countess of Huntingdon,” which is in Wilford’s Memorials. The letter to the king was in behalf of his son, the subject of the following article; who, for challenging sir Francis Willoughby, had been thrown into the Meet. It was printed in the “Cabala.” In the Harl. ms. 1581, there are four original letters from lord Falkland to the duke of Buckingham.

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

He was one of the lords, who, June 5, 1642, signed a declaration, wherein they professed they were fully persuaded that his majesty had no intention to raise war upon his parliament. About the same time he subscribed to levy twenty horse for his majesty’s service. Upon which, and other accounts, he was excepted from the parliament’s favour in the instructions given by the two houses to their general the earl of Essex. Whilst he was with the king at Oxford, his majesty went one day to see the public library, where he was shewed among other books a Virgil, nobly printed and exquisitely bound. The lord Falkland, to divert the king, would have his majesty make a trial of his fortune by the Sortes Virgiliana?, an usual kind of divination in ages past, made by opening a Virgil. The king opening the book, the passage which happened to come up, was that part of Dido’s imprecation against ^Lneas, iv. 615, &c. which is thus translated by Dryden

King Charles seeming concerned at this accident, the lord Falkland, who observed it, would likewise try his own fortune in the same manner; hoping he might fall upon some passage that could have no relation to his case, and thereby divert the king’s thoughts from any impression the other might make upon him: but the place lord Falkland stumbled upon was yet more suited to his destiny, than the other had been to the king’s; being the following expressions of Evander, upon the untimely death of his son Pallas, JEn. xi. 152.

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

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

Lord Orford, in his “Royal and Noble Authors,” is the only writer of any credit that has ventured to attack the character of lord Falkland, and that with as much confidence as if he had not only witnessed his actions, but had known his motives. The opinion of lord Orford, however, cannot be expected to weigh much against that of Clarendon, and almost every writer who lived in those times. Lord Falkland’s failing appears to have been timidity and irresolution; he loved both his country and his king he probably saw the errors of both, and hovered between fluctuating principles in an age when no principle was settled, and when his honesty made him unserviceable to his friends, and the dupe of his enemies.

Something yet remains to be said of lady Falkland, who was the daughter of sir Richard Morison, of Tooley Park, in Leicestershire, knt. When her husband was killed, she sought relief in the consolations of religion. After the tumults of her grief had subsided, and her mind was restored to its former tranquillity, she began to experience that happiness to which all are strangers but the truly religious. She was constant in the public and private exercises of devotion, spent much of her time in family prayer, in singing psalms, and catechising her children and domestics. She frequently visited her poor neighbours, especially in their sickness, and would sometimes condescend to read religious books to them, while they were employed in spinning. She distributed a great many pious tracts. Lord Falkland left her all that he was possessed of by will; and committed his three sons, the only children he had, to her care. She died Feb. 1646, in her thirty-fifth year. In 1648 was published, “The holy Life and Death of the lady Lettice, viscountess Falkland, &c.” By John Duncon, 12mo. Of this a third edition appeared in 1653; and it has since been reprinted in Gibbons’ s “Memoirs of Pious Women.”

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

, probably a native of Sussex, was of the Roman catholic persuasion, being secretary to queen Mary, the wife of James II. and one who followed the fortunes of his abdicating master; who rewarded him first with knighthood, and then with the honorary titles of earl Caryl and baron Dartford. How long he continued in that service is not known: but he was in England in the reign of queen Anne, and was the intimate friend of Pope, to whom he recommended the subject of the “Rape of the Lock,” and who at its publication addressed it to him. From some of his letters in the last edition of Pope’s Works, he appears to have been living in 1717; but he was not the intimate friend of Pope’s unfortunate lady, as asserted in the last edition of this Dictionary. It is plain from one of his letters, dated July 1717, that he had no knowledge of her, and asks Pope “who was the unfortunate lady you address a copy of verses to?” to which Pope does not appear to have returned any answer.

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

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

, a learned Jesuit, of a distinguished family in Placentia, was born there in 1617, and became professor of mathematics and theology at Rome. He was one of the two ecclesiastics who contributed to convert Christina, queen of Sweden, to the popish faith. She had desired that two Jesuits might be sent to confer with her on the subject. In 1652 he returned to Italy, and, as he had considerable political talents, was appointed superior to several houses belonging to the society of Jesuits: and he presided over the university of Parma for thirty years, and acted as confessor to two successive duchesses of Parma. Amidst all these occupations he had leisure for his mathematical studies and publications. He died at Parma, Dec. 22, 1707. His principal works are, 1. “Vacuum proscriptum,” Genoa, 1649. 2. “Terra machinis mota,” Rome, 1668, 4to. 3. “Mechanicorum libri octo,” 1684, 4to. 4. “De igne dissertationes,” 1686 and 1695. 5. “De angelis disputatio theologica,” Placentia, 1703. 6. “Hydrostaticse dissertationes,” Parma, 1695* 7. “Opticae disputationes,” Parma, 1705. What is somewhat extraordinary is, that he composed this treatise on optics at the age of eighty-eight, when he was already blind. His works on physics abound with good experiments and just notions.

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

Casaubon is to be ranked amongst those learned men who, in the beginning of the last century, were very solicitous to have an union formed between the popish and protestant religions. This is expressly asserted by Burigny, in his life of Grotius. According to that biographer, Casaubon, who wished to see all Christians united in one faith, ardently desired a re-union of the protestants with the Roman catholics, and would have set about it, had he lived longer in France. He greatly respected the opinions of the ancient church, and was persuaded that its sentiments were more sound than those of the ministers of, Charentou. Grotius and he had imparted their sentiments to each other before the voyage to England, which we are to mention, and Arminius had a project of the same kind, which he communicated to Casaubon, by whom it was approved. In the year 1610 two things happened that afflicted Casaubou extremely; one was the murder of king Henry IV. which deprived him of all hopes of keeping his place; the other, his eldest son’s embracing popery. This made him resolve to come over into England, where he had often been invited by king James I.; and having obtained leave of absence from the queen-regent of France, he arrived in England October 1610,along with sir Henry Wotton, ambassador-extraordinary from king James I. and was received with the utmost civility, by most persons of learning and distinction, although he complains of being ill used by the rabble in the streets. He waited upon the king, who took great pleasure in discoursing with him, and even did him the honour of admitting him several times to eat at his own table. His majesty likewise made him a present of a hundred and fifty pounds, to enable him to visit the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. On the Christmas day after he arrived in England, he received the communion in the king’s chapel, though he did not understand the language. In his diary he says, that he had carefully considered the office for the sacrament the day before, and preferred it and the manner of receiving to that of other churches. The 3d ofJanuary, 1611, he was naturalized, and the 19th of the same month, the king granted him a pension of three hundred pounds; as also two prebends, one at Canterbury, and the other at Westminster. He likewise wrote to the queen regent of Franc*-, to desire Casaubon might stay longer in England than she had at first allowed him. But Casaubon did not long enjoy these great advantages, as a painful distemper in the bladder proved fatal July 1, 1614, in the 55th year of his age. He was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory, with a Latin epitaph in a high style of panegyric. Of his twenty children, John, the eldest, turned Roman catholic, as has been mentioned above. Another, named Augustin, became a capuchin, at Calais, where he was poisoned, with eleven oihers of the same order. Mr. Dupin relates, upon the authority of Mr. Cotelier, that before he took the vow of capuchiu, /he went to ask his father’s blessing, which the father readily granted him; adding, “My son, I do not condemn thee; nor do thou condemn me; we shall both appear before the tribunal of Jesus Christ.” What became of the rest of his children (except Meric, mentioned in the next article), is not known. In 1612, he had a son born in England, to which the king and the archbishop of Canterbury were godfathers, and sir George Gary’s lady, godmother. This great man received the highest encomiums from persons of learning in his time, which he amply deserved by his extensive knowledge, modesty, sincerity, and probity.

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

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

1659, 8vo. 18. “A true and faithful relation of what passed for many years between Dr. John Dee and some Spirits,” &c. And put in the beginning a long preface, to confirm the truth of what is said in that relation concerning Spirits, Lond. Io59, fol. 19. He was author of, 44 A Vindication of the Lord’s Prayer as a formal prayer, and by Christ’s institution to be used by Christians as a prayer. Against the antichristian practice and opinion of some men. Wherein also their private and ungrounded zeal is discovered, who are so strict for the observation of the Lord’s-day, and make so light of the Lord’s- prayer,“Lond. 1660. The first occasion of this treatise, as the author tells us in the preface, was a strange report that in St. Mary’s church in Oxford, Dr. John Owen, dean of Christ-church, who had the chief government of that university from 1652 to 1657, put on his hat when the Lord’s prayer was repeating by the preacher. This Dr. Owen denied afterwards. 20.” A King and his Subjects unhappily fallen out, and happily reconciled, in a sermon preached at Canterbury,“on Hosea iii. ver. 4, 5,” Lond.

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

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

Blessed is the affliction, and happy is he who suffers it, when it

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

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

, M. D. among Granger’s heroes, was a noted astrologer in the time of queen Anne, and succeeded Lilly, who left him possessed of his apparatus, particularly his darkened chamber, and pictures, with which he pretended to shew his customers their absent friends. Case used to exhibit these to his intimates, in the hours of conviviality, laughing at the folly and credulity of the people. Over his door was written, “Within this place Lives Dr. Case.”

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

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

, a German divine, was originally of the Netherlands, but born at Gottingen in the duchy of Brunswick, May 18, 1533, of a family that had been ruined in the wars for religion. His father, who had embraced the principles of the reformers, taught and preached in England, Scotland, and Spain. The son studied at various academies, and had, among his other masters, Melancthon and Camerarius. In 1563 he was invited to the chair of philosophy and eloquence at Rostock, and in a tour to Italy received the degree of doctor of laws in the university of Pisa. He was afterwards professor of philosophy at Helmstadt, where he died April 9, 1613. He carried on a correspondence with most of the learned men of his time. He was particularly conversant in the Greek fathers. Along with Dr. Duncan Liddel and Cornelius Martin, he opposed the opinion of Daniel Hoffman, and some others, who maintained that philosophy was irreconcileable with theology, and that there are many things true in the latter which are false in the former. He wrote a great many works in verse and prose, and in Greek and Latin, principally annotations on Cebes’ Table, Epictetus, Xenophon’s Cyropsedia, Demetrius Phalereus, Xenophon’s Memorabilia, &c. and a collection of letters, Francfort, 1687, 8vo. Many of his letters also occur in the writings of his contemporaries. His life is in “Vitæ eruditissimorum in re litteraria virorum,” Leipsic, 1713, 8vo.

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

, a German divine, who flourished in the sixteenth century, and died Aug. 1, 1607, aged fortyfive, was president of the college of Stade, and one of the first of those writers who were called Scriptural philosophers. They supposed all philosophy to be derived from divine revelation, and despairing of being able to arrive at any true knowledge of nature, by the light of reason, had recourse to the sacred oracles, and particularly to the Mosaic history of the creation, and endeavoured upon this foundation to raise a new structure of philosophy. Gasman was also dissatisfied with the unprofitable subtleties of the Aristotelian philosophy, and determined, in the study of nature, rather to rely upon the decision of the sacred writings, than upon the doctrine of the ancient heathen philosophers. Even in his explanation of scripture he refused to call in the assistance of philosophical rules of interpretation. In a work entitled “Cosmopceia,” on the formation of the world, he derives his physical doctrine from the scriptures; ard in his “Modesta Assertio Philosophise et Christianas et Verae,” he professes to write Christian institutes of grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, &c. Henry Alsted, Dr. Dickinson, and Dr. Burnett, &c. are also ranked among scriptural philosophers.

, a doctor of divinity, born at Nismes in 1633, was son of Michael Cassagnes, master of the requests to the duke of Orleans, afterwards treasurer to the demesne of the Seneschally of Nismes. He was admitted into the French academy at the age of twenty-seven, in consequence of an ode written in its praise, 1660; and the poem he published the year following, in which he introduces Henry IV. giving instructions to Louis XIV. gained him the friendship of M. Colbert. This minister procured him a pension from the court, appointed him keeper of the king’s library, and nominated him one of the first four academicians, who originally composed the academy of inscriptions. The abbe Cassagnes was preparing to preach at court, when Boileau placed his name by that of Cotin in his third satire: this satirical stroke made him renounce the pulpit, and preyed on a mind probably vain and weak. Imagining, afterwards, that he had entirely lost the esteem of the public, he thought to recover his reputation by publishing a multiplicity of works; but too great application, joined to a morose temper, and many disappointments, impaired his understanding, and his friends were obliged to place him at St. Lazare, where he died, May 19, 1675, aged 46. He left odes, which are printed separately, and in collections a translation of Cicero’s Rhetoric, 12mo, and of Sallust, 12mo, and other forgotten works.

, called Nicoletto, a Venetian, artist, was born at Venice in 1659, and was the eldest son, and disciple of John Francis Cassana, a Genoese, who had been taught the art of painting by Bernardino Strozzi, and under his direction became an eminent portraiupainter; and the grand duke of Tuscany invited him to his court, where he painted the portraits of that prince and the princess Violante his consort. Of the historical subjects painted by this master while he resided at Florence, perhaps the most considerable was the Conspiracy of Catiline it consisted of nine figures as large as life, down to the knees; and the two principal figures were represented, as with one hand joined in the presence of their companions, and in their other hand holding a cup of blood. Nicoletto was invited to England, with strong assurances of a generous reception; and on his arrival, painted the portrait of queen Anne, in which he succeeded so happily, that the queen distinguished him by many marks of favour and of honour; but he had not the happiness to enjoy his good fortune for any length of time, dying in London, universally regretted, in the year 1713. He had a younger brother, G. Augustine Cassana, who, though a good portrait- painter, preferred the representation of animals and various fruits his pictures of that class are frequent in the collections of Italy, and sometimes ascribed to Castiglione. He had a sister, Maria Vittoria Cassana, who painted images of devotion for private amateurs, and died at Venice in the beginning of the last century.

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

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

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

, an eminent astronomer, was born of noble parents, at a town in Piedmont in Italy, June 8, 1635. After he had laid a proper foundation in his studies at home, he was sent to continue them in a college of Jesuits at Genoa. He had an uncommon turn for Latin poetry, which he exercised so very early, that poems of his were published when he was but eleven years old. At length he fell in with books of astronomy, which he read with great eagerness; and feeling a strong propensity to proceed farther in that science, in a short time he made so amazing a progress, that, in 1650, the senate of Bologna invited him to be their public methematical professor. He was not more than fifteen years of age when he went to Bologna, where he taught mathematics, and made observations upon the heavens with great care and assiduity. In 1652 a comet appeared, which he observed with great accuracy; and discovered, that comets were not bodies accidentally generated in the atmosphere, as had usually been supposed, but of the same nature, and probably governed by the same laws, as the planets. The same year he solved an astronomical problem, which Kepler and Bullialdus had given up as insolvable; viz. to determine geometrically the apogee and eccentricity of a planet from its true and mean place. In 1653, when a church of Bologna was repaired and enlarged, he obtained leave of the senate to correct and settle a meridian line, which had been drawn by an astronomer in 1575. These were circumstances very remarkable in one who had not yet attained his twentieth year. In 1657 he attended, as an assistant, a nobleman, who was sent to Rome to compose some differences which had arisen between Bologna and Ferrara, from the inundations of the Po; and shewed so much skill and judgment in the management of that affair, that in 1663, Marius Chigi, brother of pope Alexander VII. appointed him inspector-general of the fortifications of the castle of Urbino; and he had afterwards committed to him the care of all the rivers in the ecclesiastical state.

After Cassini had inhabited the royal observatory for more than forty years, and done great honour to himself and his royal master by many excellent and useful discoveries which he published from time to time, he died Sept. 14, 1712. He had been deprived of his sight for a few years before his death, but had no other complaint, and preserved the amiable simplicity and tranquillity of his mind and character to the last. His works are extremely numerous. Fabroni, who has written the best life of Cassini, has also given the most complete list of his works, the titles of which would occupy nearly a sheet of this work.

A tour which our author made in Flanders, in company with the king, about 1741, gave rise to the particular chart of France, at the instance of the king. Cassini published different works relative to these charts, and a great number of the sheets of the charts themselves. In 1761, Cassini undertook an expedition into Germany; for the purpose of continuing to Vienna the perpendicular of the Paris meridian; to unite the triangles of the chart of France with the points taken in Germany; to prepare the means of extending into this country the same plan as in France; and thus to establish successively for all Europe a most useful uniformity. Our author was at Vienna the 6th of June, 1761, the day of the transit of the planet Venus over the sun, of which he observed as much as the state of the weather would permit him to do, and published the account of it in his “Voyage en Allemagne.” M. Cassini, always meditating the perfection of his grand design, profited of the peace of 1762, to propose the joining of certain points taken upon the English coast with those which had been determined on the coast of France, and thus to connect the general chart of the latter with that of the British isles, like as he had before united it with those of Flanders and Germany. The proposal was favourably received by the English government, and presently carried into effect, under the direction of the royal society, the execution being committed to the late general Roy after whose death the business was for some time suspended but it was afterwards revived under the auspices of the duke of Richmond, master-general of the ordnance, and the execution committed to the care of col. Edward Williams and capt. William Mudge, both respectable officers of the artillery, and Mr. Isaac Dalby, who had before accompanied and assisted general Roy.

M. Cassini published in the volumes of Memoirs of the French academy a prodigious number of pieces, chiefly astronomical, too numerous to particularize in this place, between the years 1735 and 1770; consisting of astronomical observations and questions; among which are observable, Researches concerning the parallax of the Sun, the Moon, Mars, and Venus; on astronomical refractions, and the effect caused in their quantity and laws by the weather; numerous observations on the obliquity of the ecliptic, and on the law of its variations. In short, he cultivated astronomy for fifty years, of the most important for that science that ever elapsed, for the magnitude and variety of objects, in which he commonly sustained a principal share. M. Cassini was of a very strong and vigorous constitution, which carried him through the many laborious operations in geography and astronomy which he conducted. An habitual retention of urine, however, rendered the last twelve years of his life very painful and distressing, till it was at length terminated by the small-pox, the 4th of September, 178*, in the seventy-first year of his age; being succeeded in the academy, and as director of the observatory, by his only son, the present count John Dominic Cassini who is the fourth in order by direct descent in that honourable station.

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

, an eminent historical painter, was born at a small village called Castagno, belonging to Tuscany, in 1409, and being deprived of his parents when young, was employed by his uncle to attend the herds of cattle in the fields. His singular talents, which were first manifested in surprising efforts to imitate an ordinary painter, whom he accidentally observed at work, became the common topic of discourse in Florence, and excited the curiosity of Bernardetto de Medici, who perceiving that he had promising talents, placed him under the tuition of the best masters at that time in Florence. Andrea, assiduously improving his advantages, became particularly eminent in design, and found full employment. At first he painted only in distemper and fresco, with a manner of colouring that was not very agreeable, being rather hard and dry; but at length he learned the secret of painting in oil from Domenico Venetiano, who had derived his knowledge of it from Antonella da Messina. He was the first of the Florentine artists who painted in oil but envying the merit of Domenico, from whom he obtained the secret, and whose works were more admired than his own, he determined, with the basest ingratitude, to assassinate his friend and benefactor. At this time Domenico and Andrea lived together, and were partners in business. Insensible, however, of every obligation, and combining treachery with ingratitude, he way -laid Domenico in the corner of a street, and stabbed him with such secrecy, that he escaped unobserved and unsuspected to Jiis own house, where he sat down with apparent composure to work; soon after Domenico was conveyed thither to die in the arms of his assassin. The real author of this atrocious act was never discovered, till Andrea, through remorse of conscience, disclosed it on his death-bed, in 1480. Andrea finished several considerable works at Florence, by which he gained great wealth and reputation; but as soon as his complicated villainy became public, his memory was afterwards held in the utmost detestation. The most noted of his works is in the hall of justice at Florence, and represents the execution of the conspirators against the house of Medici.

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

, was born in 1515, in Dauphmy, according to some authors, but according to others in Savoy. Spon and Leti mention Chatillon as the place of his birth; of his early life we have little information. We are told that Calvin conceived such an esteem and friendship for him, during the stay he made at Strasbourg in 154-0 and 1541, that he lodged him for some days at his house, and procured him a regent’s place in the college of Geneva. Castalio, after continuing in this office near three years, was forced to quit it in 1544, on account of some peculiar opinions which he held concerning Solomon’s song and Christ’s descent into hell. He retired to Basil, where he was made Greek professor, and died in that place, Dec. 29, 1563, in extreme poverty. He incurred the displeasure of Calvin and Theodore Beza, from whom he differed concerning predestination and the punishment of heretics, and they called him a papist, which appears to have been an unreasonable accusation, although it is certain he did not embrace the opinions of the reformers on many points. Beza is accused of having said that he had translated the Bible into Latin at the instigation of the devil. Another story is his stealing wood, which is thus related: when rivers overflow, they frequently carry down several pieces of wood, which any body may lawfully get and keep for his own use. Castalio, who was very poor, and had a wife and eight children, got with a harping-iron some wood floating upon the Rhine. When Calvin and Beza heard of it, they proclaimed every where that he had stolen some wood belonging to his neighbour.

Castalio’s learning has been highly extolled. He was undoubtedly an able Latin, Greek, and Hebrew scholar, but aiming at classical taste, he betrayed the greatest want of judgment in the two works for which he is now principally known, his translation of the Bible into Latin, and his Dialogues. The quaintness of his Latin style in the former, evinces a deplorable inattention to the simple majesty of the original. In the song of Solomon he is particularly injudicious. This book he wished expunged from the canon, which was one of the causes of his differences with Calvin and Beza; when that could not be done, he contrived to debase the magnificence of the language and the subject by diminutives, which, though expressive of familiar endearment, are destitute of dignity, and therefore improper on solemn occasions . This incongruous mixture of sublime ideas and words comparatively mean, degrades the noblest poetry almost to the level of burlesque. In his “Sacred Dialogues,” says an author, who cannot be supposed prejudiced against him on account of his ancient controversies, Castalio is so imprudent in the verbosity of his paraphrases, that if his character as a man of learning and piety were not thoroughly established, we should be tempted to think he had meant to burlesque some passages of the Old Testament. Indeed these dialogues are so frequently farcical, not to say indecent, that the reading of them seems to be very improperly continued in some schools.

He published in 1546, a translation of the Sibylline verses into Latin heroic verse, and of the books of Moses into Latin prose, with notes. This was followed, in 1547, by his Latin version of the psalms of David, and of all the other songs found in scripture. In 1548, he printed a Greek poem on the life of John the baptist, and a paraphrase on the prophecy of Jonah, in Latin verse. He translated some passages of Homer, and some books of Xenophon and St. Cyril. He also turned into Latin several treatises of the famous Ochinus, particularly the thirty dialogues, some of which seem to favour polygamy. He advanced some singular notions in his notes on the books of Moses; as for instance, that the bodies of malefactors ought not to be left on the gibbets; and that they ought not to be punished with death, but with slavery. His reason for these opinions was, that the political laws of Moses bind all nations. His notes on the Epistle to the Romans were condemned by the church of Basil, because they opposed the doctrine of predestination and efficacious grace. He began his Latin translation of the Bible at Geneva in 1542, and finished it at Basil in 1550. It was printed at Basil in 1551, and dedicated by the author to Edward VI. king of England. He published a second edition of it in 1554, and another in 1556. The edition of 157& is most esteemed. The French version was dedicated to Henry II. of France, and printed at Basil in 1555, and in this he is accused of having made use of low and vulgar terms. Those who have indulged their invectives against- Calvin and Beza for their dislike of Castalio’s translations, do not seem to advert to the serious consequences of exhibiting bad translations to the people, who had but just been admitted to the privilege of reading the scriptures in any shape.

, a divine of the seventeenth century, who deserves to be recorded as a remarkable example of literary generosity, joined to literary industry, was born in 1606, at Hatley in Cambridgeshire. After going through a course of grammatical education, he became a member in 1621, of Emanuel college, in Cambridge, in which he continued many years. Afterwards he removed to St. John’s college for the convenience of the library there, which was of great service to him in compiling his grand work, his “Lexicon Heptaglotton.” In due course he took the several degrees of bachelor and master of arts, and of bachelor and doctor in divinity; and the fame of his learning occasioned his being chosen a member of the royal society. His “Lexicon Heptaglotton” cost him the assiduous labour of eighteen years, but his unwearied diligence in this undertaking, injured his health, and impaired his constitution. Besides this, the work was the entire ruin of his fortune; for he spent upon it upwards of twelve thousand pounds. The truth of the fact is positively asserted by Mr. Hearne, whose authority for it was a letter which he had under Dr. Castell’s own hand; and Hearne pathetically and justly complains, that our author should meet with so very poor a reward for his incredible and indeed Herculean labours. The doctor, in 1666, having wasted his patrimony, and incurred heavy debts, was reduced to extreme distress; when, probably in consideration of his learned labours and disinterested generosity, he was in that year made king’s chaplain, and Arabic professor at Cambridge; and in 1668, he obtained a prebend of Canterbury. In the next year he published his “Lexicon Heptaglotton;” but the publication procured him no compensation for his large expences and his indefatigable diligence. The copies of the book lay almost entirely unsold upon his hands. He received, indeed, some additional preferments; but they were by no means sufficient to recompense him for his great losses. The small vicarage of Hatfield Peverell in Essex was bestowed upon him; and he was afterwards presented to the rectory of Wodeham Walter in the same county. His last preferment, which was towards the close of his life, was the rectory of Higharn Gobion in Bedfordshire.

Dr. Castell’s industry and liberality were not confined to his Lexicon. He was eminently assistant to Dr. Walton, in the celebrated edition of the Polyglott Bible. This is acknowledged by Walton, who, after complimenting our author’s erudition and modesty, mentions the diligence he employed upon the Samaritan, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Ethiopia versions; his having given a Latin translation of the Canticles, under the last version; and his adding to all of them learned notes. These acknowledgments, however, were by no means equal to Casteli’s merit and services; for he translated several books of the New Testament, and the Syriac version of Job where it differs from the Arabic. Greater justice ought, likewise, to have been done to his generosity. Dr. Walton mentions the gratuities which he bestowed on the learned men who assisted him in his undertaking: But he forgot to mention that Castell not only spent his whole gratuity upon the work, but a thousand pounds besides; partly from his own private fortune, and partly from money which he had solicited from others. We know of nothing farther published by Dr. Castell, excepting a thin quarto pamphlet, in 1660, entitled “Sol Angliae Oriens Auspiciis Carolill. Regum Gloriosissimi,” and adorned with an admirable head of that monarch. From a letter of our author’s, which is still $xtant, and was written in 1674, it appears, that the many discouragements he had met with, had not extinguished his ardour for the promotion of oriental literature. The same letter shews, that in his application to the learned languages, he had forgotten the cultivation of his native tongue; and that even his orthography did not keep pace with the improvements of the time. Dr. Castell died at Higham Gobion, in 1685, being about seventy-nine years of age. All his oriental manuscripts were bequeathed by him to the university of Cambridge, on condition that his name should be written on every copy in the collection, Jt is supposed that about five hundred of his “Lexicons” were unsold at the time of his death. These were placed by Mrs. Crisp, Dr. Casti'lTs niece and executrix, in a room of one of her tenant’s houses at Martin in Surrey, where, for many years they lay at the mercy of the rats; and when they came into the possession of this lady’s executors, scarcely one complete volume could be formed out of the remainder, and the whole load of learned rags sold only for seven pounds. Dr. Castell was buried in the church of Higham Gobion, where, in his life-time, he erected a monument, being a tablet of black marble in a white stone frame, on which there is an inscription, that neither by its Latinity nor by its execution, reflects much honour on his taste.

, an eminent painter of history and portrait, was born at Genoa in 1557, and studied under Andrea Semini ancT Luca Cambiaso, preferring the principles of the first, though in his practice he imitated both, and afterwards visited Rome for farther improvement. He invented with facility, and when he chose to exert himself, he had sufficient correctness and grace; but he became a mannerist, and frequently adopted the colour and dispatch of Vasari and Zucchari. The most distinguished poets of his time, whose portraits he painted, and who celebrated him in their verses, particularly Marino and Tasso, were his intimate friends; and he made designs for the “Jerusalem” of the latter. The subject of his altar-piece for St. Peter’s at Rome was the call of St. Peter to the apostleship; which was afterwards removed to make room for one executed by Lanfranco. As an engraver, Strutt says, his style somewhat resembled that of Cornelius Bus. Among other works in this department is the set of prints for Tasso’s Jerusalem. He died in 1629.

, an eminent artist, the companion of Luca Cambiaso, is commonly called il Bergamasco, in contradistinction of Gio. Bat. Castelli a Genoese, scholar of Cambiaso, and -the most celebrated miniature-painter of his time. This, born at Bergamo in 1500, and conducted to Genoa by Aurelio Buso of Crema, a scholar of Polidoro, was at his sudden departure left by him in that city. In this forlorn state, he found a Maecenas in the Pallavicini family, who assisted him, sent him to Rome, and received in him at his return an architect, sculptor, and painter not inferior to Cambiaso. At Rome, Palomino numbers him with the scholars of Michael Angelo. Whatever master he may have had, his technic principles were those of Luca; which is evident on comparison in the church of S. Matteo, where they painted together. We discover the style of Raffaello verging already to practice, but not so mannered as that which prevailed at Rome under Gregory and Sixtus. We recognize in Cambiaso a greater genius and more elegance of design, in Castello more diligence, deeper knowledge, a better colour, a colour nearer allied to the Venetian than the Roman school. It may however be supposed^ that in such fraternal harmony each assisted the other, even in those places where they acted as competitors, where each claimed his work, and distinguished it by his name. Thus at the Nunziata di Portoria, Luca on the panneis represented the final doom of the blessed and the rejected in the last judgment; whilst G. Batista on the ceiling, expressed the judge in an angelic circle, receiving the elect. His attitude and semblance speak the celestial welcome with greater energy than the adjoined capitals of the words, “Venite Benedicti.” It is a picture studied in all its parts, of a vivacity, a composition, and expression, which give to the pannels of Luca, the air of a work done by a man half asleep. Frequently he painted alone; such are the S. Jerome surrounded by monks frightened at a lion, in S. Francesco di Castello, and the crowning of St, Sebastian after martyrdom, in his own church, a picture as rich in composition as studied in execution, and superior to all praise. That a man of such powers should have been so little known in Italy, rouses equal indignation and pity, unless we suppose that his numerous works in fresco at Genoa prevented him from painting for galleries.

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

, an Italian physician, who flourished about the end of the sixteenth century and the commencement of the seventeenth, published two works which have been often reprinted, and long held in high estimation; the first was “Totius artis medicae, methodo divisa, compendium et synopsis,” Messana, 1597, 4to, and, after many other editions, reprinted at Geneva, 1746, 4to. The other was his “Lexicon medicum Groeco-Latinum,” first published at Venice in 1607, 4to. After being often reprinted as the author left it, it was enlarged and improved by J. P. Bruno, and published at Nuremberg, 1682, 4to. The last edition is that of Geneva, 1748, 4to.

, an eminent Italian nobleman, was descended from an illustrious and ancient family, and born in his own villa at Casatico, in the durhy of Mantua, Dec. 6, 1478. Oncoming to a proper age, he had masters appointed him, under whom he acquired a, knowledge of the Greek and Latin tongues; in the latter of which he was instructed by Demetrius Chalcondylas, of Constantinople, who then resided at Milan; and in the former, by George Merula. He likewise applied himself to the study of painting, sculpture, and architecture, as appears from the book he wrote in favour of those arts; and he made so great a progress in them, that Raphael Urbino and Michael Angela, though incomparable artists, never thought their works perfect, unless they had the approbation of Castiglione.

When Castiglione was eighteen years of age, he went into military service, under Lewis Sforza, duke of Milan; but his father dying soon after, and some disastrous circumstances overtaking that state, he was obliged to quit the camp, and return to Mantua. He engaged a second time in the service of the duke, and distinguished himself much by his bravery and conduct; but returning soon after, and being desirous to see other courts, particularly that of Rome, he went thither at the very time that Julius II. obtained the popedom. His fame was not unknown to this pontiff; and the high opinion he had of his abilities and merit, made him write to Guido Ubaldo, duke of Urbino, his cousin, that if he would send him to the court of Rome, in his own name, with the character of a public minister, he should take it as a singular obligation. Castiglione was twenty-six years of age; and Guido Ubaldo sent him ambassador to pope Julius, to transact affairs of the highest importance. He was sent upon a second embassy to Lewis XII. of France, and upon a third to Henry VII. of England; whither he went to be invested with the order of the garter, as proxy for the duke his master. On his arrival in England he was received with every mark of honour and esteem, being met at the port where he landed by the earl of Huntingdon, who was then lord of the bedchamber, accompanied by many other lords, and a king at arms. After he had dispatched his business here, and was returned home, to gratify the importunities of Alfonso Ariosto, his particular friend, he began his celebrated work, “The Courtier,” which in a small space of time he completed at Rome, in March 1516. From this work we may perceive how intimate he was with the Greek and Latin authors, having here gleaned together the first flowers of their wit, and treasured up, as it were, in a single cabinet, the richest jewels of antiquity. The book has been universally well received, both in Italy, and abroad; often reprinted, and translated into several languages. It is lull of moral and political instructions; and, it' we wish to study the Italian tongue, it is said that it can no where be found in more purity.

Castiglione was highly esteemed and favoured by the duke Francisco Maria, who constituted him his first minister of state, as well in civil as military affairs; and for his services, particularly at the siege of Mirandola, at which pope Julius was present, made him a free gift of the castle of Nuvolara, in the county of Pesaro, with the most ample privileges to himself, and to his heirs and successors for ever. This was in 1513. Not long after, Leo X. confirmed it to him by two briefs; the one written to him by Peter Bembo, and dated March 14, 1514; the other by Jacomus Sadolet, in May following. Having now reached his thirty-sixth year, he married a noble lady, who was the daughter of the famous Bentivoglio, and very remarkable for her wit and beauty. She brought him a son and two daughters, and then died; having lived no more than four years with him.

A little before this misfortune, the marquis of Mantua sent him to Leo X. as his ambassador; and after the death of Leo he continued at Rome in that capacity, under Hadrian VI. and Clement VII. Clement sent him to the emperor Charles the Fifth’s court in quality of legate; where affairs were to be transacted of the highest importance, not only to the pontifical see, but to all Italy. He went into Spain, Oct. 1524; and in his negotiations and transactions not only answered the pope’s expectations, but also acquired the good-will of the emperor, by whom he was soon received as a favourite counsellor and friend, as well as an ambassador. Among other marks of affection which the emperor shewed Castiglione, one was rather singular, that being then at war with Francis I. of FVance, he always desired him to be present at the military councils of that war and, when it was supposed that the war would be ended by a single combat between Charles V. and Francis I. with only three knights attending them, the emperor chose Castiglione to be one of the number. He also made him 'a free denizen of Spain; and soon alter nominated him to the bishopric of Avila. And because this happeped at the juncture of the sacking of Rome, some took occasion to reflect upon Castiglicwie, as if he had neglected the affairs of the court of Rome, for the sake of gratifying the inclinations of the emperor; at least such was indeed the current opinion at Rome; but Castiglione defended himself from the imputation in his letter to Clement VII. It is probable that there were no real grounds for it, since Clement himself does not appear to have given the least credit to it. Paul Jovius says, that if Castiglione had lived, the pope intended to have made him a cardinal; and after his death, in two of his holiness" briefs, both of condolence to his mother, there are the strongest expressions of his unblemished fidelity and devotion to the see of Rome. The imputation, however, affected Castiglione so sensibly, that it was supposed in some measure to have contributed to his death. His constitution was already impaired with the continual fatigues, civil as well as military, in which he had always been engaged; and falling at length sick at Toledo, he died Feb. 2, 1529. The emperor, who was then at Toledo, was extremely grieved, and commanded all the prelates and lords of his court to attend his corpse to the principal church there; and the funeral offices were celebrated by the archbishop with such solemnity and pomp as was never permitted to any one before, the princes of the blood excepted. Sixteen months after, his body was removed by his mother from Toledo to Mantua, and interred in a church of her own building; where a sumptuous monument was raised, and a Latin epitaph inscribed, which was written by cardinal Bern bo.

Besides his incomparable book the “Courtier,” he composed many Latin and Tuscan poems; which, with some of his letters, are placed at the end of the English version of the “Courtier,” published at London in 1727; a, book of very frequent occurrence, and which sells for a trifle, although it forms a very handsome 4to, printed by Bowyer. The translation was made by A. P. Castiglione, a gentle^ man of the same family, who lived here in England, under the patronage of Edmund Gibson, bishop of London. The Italian is printed with it; and before the whole is prefixed the life of the author, to which the reader is indebted for the account here given.

The first edition of this “Libro del Cortegiano” was published at Venice, in 1528, and has been since translated into most of the European languages. The Italians call it “II libro d'oro,” and it has been characterised as always new, always interesting and instructive. It now, however, is chiefly interesting to persons of curiosity, as the speakers introduced in it are the same eminent characters who actually belonged to the court in his time. Castiglione’s Letters were published at Padua, by Sarassi, 1769, 2 vols. 8vo, with a lite.

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

, a Spanish painter, was born at Cordova, in 1603, and after the death of his father, Augustine Castillo, whose disciple he was, repaired to Seville for the purpose of improving himself in the school of Francis Zurbaran. Being returned to his native country, he acquired great reputation by his works; which was so well established, that even at this day no one is considered as a man of taste who does not possess some piece by this great artist. He treated history, landscape, and portrait, with equal success. His drawing is excellent; but his colouring is deficient in graces and taste. It is said, that, on his return to Seville, he was seized with such a fit of jealousy at seeing the pictures of the young Murello of a freshness and colouring much superior to his, that he died of vexation shortly after his return to Cordova, in 1667. He once marked one of his pictures with the whimsical inscription: “Non pinxit Alfaro,” to ridicule the vanity of that pupil, noted as the most conceited artist of his day, who nerer suffered a picture to escape his hand without stamping it with the words “Alfaro pinxit.” The best works of Castillo are at Cordova.

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

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

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

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

This letter is said to have drawn tears from the king. In a few days after, she died at Kimbolton. In her will, she appointed her interment to be private, in a convent of Observant friars, who had done and suffered much for her: the king complied with her request in regard to her servants; but would not permit her remains to be buried as she desired. The corpse was interred in the abbey church at Peterborough, with the honours due to the birth of Catherine, between two pillars, on the north side the choir, near the great altar. Her hearse was covered with a pall of black velvet, crossed with cloth of silver, which was afterwards exchanged for one of black say. It is recorded by lord Herbert, in his “History of Henry VIII.” that, from respect to the memory of Catherine, Henry not only spared the abbey church at the general dissolution of religious houses, but advanced it to be a cathedral.

, queen of England, and fifth wife of Henry VIII. was daughter of lord Edmund Howard (third son of Thomas duke of Norfolk, and grandson of John first duke of Norfolk), by Joyce, daughter of sir Richard Culpepper, of Holingbourne in Kent, knight. Her mother dying while she was young, she was educated under the care of her grandmother, the duchess dowager of Norfolk; and when she grew up, the charms of her person soon captivated the affections of Henry VIII, who, upon his divorce from Anne of Cleves, married her, and shewed her publicly as queen, Aug. 8, 1540, But this marriage proved of the utmost prejudice to the cause of the reformation, which had begun to spread itself in the kingdom. ' The queen being absolutely guided by the counsels of the duke of Norfolk, her uncle, and Gardiner bishop of Winchester, used all the power she had over the king to support the credit of the enemies of the protestants, In the summer of 1541, she attended his majesty to York, to meet his nephew the king of Scotland, who had promised to give him an interview in that city, but was diverted by his clergy, and a message from the court of France, from that resolution; and during that progress she gained so entire an ascendant over the king’s heart, that at his return to London, on All-Saints day, when he received the sacrament, he gave public thanks to God for the happiness which he enjoyed by her means and desired his confessor, the bishop of Lincoln, to join with him in the like thanksgiving. But this proved a very short-lived satisfaction, for the jiext clay, archbishop Cranmer came to him with information that the queen had been unfaithful to his bed. By the advice of the lord chancellor and other privy counsellors, the archbishop wrote the particulars on a paper, which he delivered to the king, being at a loss how to open so delicate a matter in conversation. When the king read it, he was much confounded, and his attachment to the queen made him at first consider the story as a forgery, but having full proof, the persons with whom the queen Jiad been guilty, Dierham and Mannoch, two of the duchess dowager of Norfolk’s domestics, were apprehended, and not only confessed what was laid to their charge, but revealed some other circumstances, which placed the guilt of the queen in a most heinous light. The report of this struck the king so forcibly, that he lamented his misfortune with a flood of tears. The archbishop and some other counsellors were sent to examine the queen, who at first denied every thing, but finding that her crime was known, confessed all, and subscribed the paper. It appeared likewise, that she had intended to continue in that scandalous course of life; for as she had brought Dierham into her service, she had also retained one of the women, who had formerly been privy to their familiarities, to attend upon her in her bed-chamber; and while the king was at Lincoln, by the lady Rochford’s means, one Culpepper was brought to her at eleven at night, and stayed with her till four next morning; and at his departure received from her a gold chain. Culpepper being examined, confessed the crime: for which he, with Dierham, suffered death on the 1 Oth of December.

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

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

, sixth and last queen to Henry VIII. celebrated for her learning, whose perfections, though a widow, attracted the heart of this monarch, and whose prudence preserved her from the effects of his cruelty and caprice, was the daughter of sir Thomas Parr, and was married first to Edward Burghe, and secondly to John Neville, lord Latimer, whose widow she was when king Henry cast his affections on her. She was early educated in polite literature, as was the fashion of noble women at that time in England, and in her riper years was much given to reading and studying the Holy Scriptures. Several learned men were retained as her chaplains, who preached to her every day in her privy chamber, and often touched such abuses as were common in the church. The king approved of this practice, and often permitted her to confer with him on religious subjects. But when disease and confinement added to his natural impatience of contradiction, and when in the presence of the bishop of Winchester and others of the popish faction, she had been urging her old topic of perfecting the reformation, the king broke out into this expression after she was retired, “A good hearing it is, when women become such clerks and a thing much to mycomfort, to come in mine old age to be taught by my wife” Winchester failed not to improve this opportunity to aggravate the queen’s insolence, to insinuate the danger of cherishing such a serpent in his bosom, and to accuse her of treason cloaked with heresy; and the king was prevailed upon to give a warrant to draw lip articles to touch her life. The day and hour was appointed, when she was to be seized: but the design being accidentally discovered to her, she waited upon the king, who received her kindly, and purposely began a discourse about religion. She answered, <* That women by -their creation at first were made subject to men; that they, being made after the image of God, as the women were after their image, ought to instruct their wives, who were to learn of them: and she much more was to be taught of his majesty, who was a prince of such excellent learning and wisdom.*' “Not so, by St. Mary,” said the king, “you are become a doctor, Kate, able to instruct us and not to be instructed by us.” To which she replied, “that it seemed he had much mistaken her freedom in arguing with him, since she did it to ejigage him in discourse, to amuse this painful time of his infirmity, and that she might receive profit by his learned discourse; in which last point she had not missed of her aim, always referring herself in these matters, as she ought to do, to his majesty.” “And is it even so, sweetheart?” said the king, “then we are perfect friends again.”

The day which had been appointed for carrying her to the Tower being fine, the king took a walk in the garden, and sent for the queen. As they were together, the lord chancellor, who was ignorant of the reconciliation, came with the guards. The king stepped aside to him, and after a little discourse, was heard to call him “Knave, aye, errant knave, a fool, and beast;” and bid him presently avaunt out of his sight. The queen, not knowing on Tvhat errand they came, endeavoured with gentle words to qualify the king’s anger. “Ah! poor soul,” said the king, “thou little knowest how ill he deserves this at thy hands: on my word, sweetheart, he hath been toward thee an errant knave; and so let him go.” The king, as a mark of his affection, left her a legacy of 4000l. besides her jointure. She was afterwards married to sir Thomas Seymour, lord-admiral of England, and uncle to Edward VI. but she lived a very short time, and that unhappily, with this gentleman. She died, in 1548, in child-bed; though, as some writers observe, not without a suspicion of poison, to make way for Seymour’s marriage with the princess Elizabeth. She was buried in the chapel of Sudley-castle. Her leaden coffin having been explored by female curiosity in 1782, her features, and particularly her eyes, are said to have appeared in a state of perfect preservation.

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

Her private life during her short reign was very irregular; averse from business, she frequently passed whole nights in the open air, and indulged to excess in the use of Tokay wine and strong liquors. These irregularities, joined to a cancer and a dropsy, hastened her end. She died May 17, 1727, in the thirty-ninth year of “her age. The personal attractions and mental abilities of this empress have been much exaggerated by her panegyrists. In her person she was under the middle size, and in her youth delicate and well-formed; but as she advanced in years, inclined to corpulency. She had a fair complexion, dark eyes, and light hair, which she was accustomed to dye black. She could neither read nor write with facility, yet is said to have maintained the pomp of majesty, united with an air of ease and grandeur; and Peter himself frequently expressed his admiration at the propriety with which she occupied her high station, without forgetting that she was not born to that dignity. Her estimable qualities, after all the abatements of panegyric, were generally acknowledged. She was humane in an exemplary degree, goodhumoured and obliging in her temper and manners, and duly mindful of the good offices which had been performed for her in her low condition. She availed herself of her ascendancy over Peter, in softening the asperity of his passions, and restraining their violence; insomuch, that a word from her, in behalf of a wretch who was about to be sacrificed to his anger, would instantly disarm him; and if be determined to indulge his resentment, he would orders for the execution when she was absent, for fear sh<i should plead for the victim. Upon the whole, she merited the honourable title bestowed upon her by the celebrated Munic, of” the Mediatrix between the monarch and his subjects."

late empress of Russia, whose original name was Sophia Augusta Fredeiuca, the daughter of Christian Augustus, prince of Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg, and of the princess of Holstein, was born at Stettin, in Prussian Pomerania, May 2, 1729. In early life she was distinguished by her good humour, intelligence, and spirit, and was fond of reading, reflection, learning, and employment. About the beginning of the year 1744, she was introduced at the court of Petersburg!], where the empress Elizabeth received her very graciously, and formed the scheme of a matrimonial union between her nephew, the grand-duke, afterwards Peter III. and Sophia; who, though instructed under the tuition of her mother in the Lutheran doctrines, embraced the religion of the Greek church, and on this occasion changed her name to that of Catherine Alcxievna. Before the nuptials were celebrated, the grand duke was seized with the small-pox, which so much deformed his face, as to render it for a time almost hideous. This metamorphosis produced a horror in the mind of the young princess at the first Interview, which, however, she had sufficient art to disguise, and which proved no impediment to their marriage, which took place in 1745. At first their attachment appeared to be mutual, but their dispositions and accomplishments were soon discovered to be different. Catherine displayed a superior understanding, which in time Peter felt, and thus the seeds of mutual dislike were very early sown. Their consolations were now also different. Peter had recourse to drinking and gaming, while Catherine entered into all the arcana of political measures, and began to form a party. She also now formed the first of those personal attachments for which she has been so remarkable, with Soltikof, the prince’s chamberlain; and although, when accused, she defended her character with some address and spirit, her intercourse with Soltikof was renewed, and became less secret. At length, the grand chancellor Bestuchef prevailed with the empress to appoint Soltikof minister plenipotentiary from the court of Russia to Hamburgh. For some time Catherine corresponded with him, but in 1755 formed a new connection of the same kind with Stanislaus Poniatowsky, the late king of Poland, and he being appointed plenipotentiary from Poland at the court of Russia, their intimacy was long visible to all, except the grand duke Peter. His jealousy being at length roused, he forbade the grand duchess to be seen with Poniatowsky, and prevailed on the empress to banish Bestuchef, who had been the means of Poniatowski’s mission to the court of Russia, and incensed her majesty against Catherine to such a degree, that it required her utmost cunning to effect a reconciliation, which was however at length brought about, and on the death of the empress Elizabeth, Dec. 25, 1761, Peter III. ascended the throne.

For some time his conduct was at least blameless, and he even discovered more wisdom and talent than had been attributed to him. He seemed also to live in harmony with Catherine, who was congratulated on the prudent and improved state of her husband’s actions. But these appearances, we are taught to think, were delusive; his uatural weakness and versatility returned, and whatever his intentions, many of his measures created enemies without, as well as within his court. His alienating the church revenues, and assigning to the clergy yearly salaries, rendered him very unpopular among that numerous body; and his attachment to the Greek church began to be questioned. Many of his expressions, very probably unguarded and weak, were circulated abroad to render him obnoxious, and alarm the pride of his subjects; and in the mean time his sensual habits of drinking and smoking rendered him an easyprey to the courtiers, who were meditating his ruin. With respect to his empress, he sometimes affected to honour her, but this in a way too capricious to impose upon her, and at length, when he thought himself secure on the throne, insulted her by introducing his mistress, the countess Woronzoff, at a public exhibition. Catherine despised him, but her pride was hurt, and when she saw that her tears gained her that popularity which he was losing, she was not sparing of them, nor of a wonderful shew of humility and circumspection, and even of piety, performing all the public ceremonies of religion with great apparent devotion and she also kept her court with a mixture of dignity and affability which charmed all who approached her.

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

In 1764, when the throne of Poland had become vacant by the death of Augustus III. in the October of the preceding year, Catherine displayed her political talents and influence in the advancement of her early favourite count Poiu'atowsky to that dignity. At this time she made a tour through Esthonia, Livonia, and Courland; but during her absence on this expedition, an insurrection broke out in the prison of the dethroned Ivan, which threatened the stability of her own throne. But this was soon quelled by the murder of that unhappy prince. What share the empress had in this affair is not very clear, but the event was certainly in her favour, and she now proceeded in her improvements, and in the establishment of useful institutions, endeavouring to soften the manners of her subjects by instruction. She also seemed determined to be at once both conqueror and legislatrix, and it is certain that the laws of the Russian empire were much simplified under her reign, and the administration of justice rendered milder and more impartial. Her purpose was to form a solid, and not an arbitrary legislation. Her whole plan was directed to prevent all those who governed under her from exercising a capricious and cruel authority, by subjecting them to invariable laws, which no authority should be able to infringe, but in this, when they were at a distance, she was not always successful. She also continued to cultivate and encourage the arts and sciences; to make her empire an asylum to the learned and ingenious and the transit of Vqihis, which happened in 1769, afforded an opportunity of exhibiting as well the munificence of Catherine as the attention she paid to astronomy. About the middle of the year 1767, the empress conceived the useful project of sending several learned men to travel into the interior of her immense territories, for the purpose of determining the geographical position of the principal places, of marking their temperature, and of examining into the nature of their soil, their productions, their wealth, as well as the manners and characters of the several people by whom they are inhabited. The selection of the learned travellers destined for this expedition, the helps that were granted them, and the excellent instructions that were given them, will be a lasting honour to the academy of sciences, by which they were appointed. About this time, viz. in 1768, the court of Catherine became the asylum of the sciences, to which she invited learned men from every part of Europe. She encouraged artists and scholars of all denominations; she granted new privileges to the academy of sciences, and exhorted the members to add the names of several celebrated foreigners to those which already conferred a lustre on their society. Nor was she less attentive to the academy of arts, by increasing the number of its pupils, and adding such regulations as tended more than ever to the attainment of the end for which it was endowed. For the further encouragement of the fine arts in her dominions, the empress assigned an annual sum of 5000 rubles for the translation of foreign works into the Russian language. The improvement of the state of physic was another important object of her concern; and in order to give the highest possible sanction to the salutary practice of inoculating for the small pox, she herself submitted to the operation under the care of an English practitioner, and she persuaded the grand duke to follow her example. In 1768, Dr. T Dimsdale, of Hertford, was invited to Russia for the purpose of introducing inoculation:. upon the recovery of trie grand duke, Catherine rewarded his services by creating him a baron of the Russian empire, and appointed him counsellor of state and physician to her imperial majesty, with a pension of 500l. a year, to be paid him in England; besides 10,000l. sterling, which he immediately received; and she also presented him with a miniatnre picture of herself, and another of the grand duke, as a memorial of his services. Her majesty likewise expressed her approbation of the conduct of his son, by conferring on him the same title, and ordering him to be presented with a superb gold snuff-box, richly set with diamonds. On December 3, 1768, a thanksgiving service was performed in the chapel of the palace on account of her majesty’s recovery and that of the grand duke from the small-pox: and the senate decreed, that this event should be solemnized by an anniversary festival, which has been regularly observed ever since.

The squadron of Spiridof was soon joined by that of Elphinston, a native of England, vice-admiral in the Russian service, and the Turks, though possessing a superior navy, were compelled to shelter themselves in the narrow bay of Tschesme, near Lemnos, where some of them ran aground, and the others were so pressed for room, that it was impossible for them to act. The Russians, perceiving their disadvantageous situation, sent among them some fire-ships, commanded by British officers, and destroyed their whole fleet. This war,however, was not terminated till 1774, when the grand vizir, being invested on all sides by the Russian armies, was reduced to the necessity of si^ninjr a peace, by which were secured the independence of the Crimea, the free navigation of the Russians on the Euxine, and through the Dardanelles, with the stipulation that they should never have more than one armed vessel in the seas of Constantinople, and a cession to them of that tract of land that lies on the Euxine between the Bog and the Danube. Russia, retaining Azof, Togaurok, Kertsch, and Kinburn, restored the rest of her conquests. These terms were undoubtedly favourable to Russia, but various circumstances at home rendered peace peculiarly desirable. The disordered state of the finances, the ravages of the plague, and a spirit of revolt in certain provinces, and above all, the rebellion of Pugatshef, afforded ample employment to the empress’s resources. This Pugatshef was a Cossack, and from some resemblance of features to Peter III. was encouraged to assume his name, and raise a revolt, which for some time threatened serious consequences, but about the end of 1774 it was terminated by the capture of Pugatshef, who was put to death.

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

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

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

, of Sienna, was born in that city in 1347, and having vowed virginity at eight years old, she took the Dominican habit some time after, and became eminent for her genius, charity, zeal, and writings. Going to Avignon, in order to reconcile the Florentines with Gregory XI. who had excommunicated them, she pressed that pope so much, by her discourses and solicitations, that she engaged him to quit France and go to Rome in 1377, where he again fixed the pontifical seat, seventy years after Clement V. had removed it to France. She died 1380, aged 33, and was canonized by Pius II. 1461. Various “Letters” in Italian are ascribed to her, which were printed at Venice, 1500, fol. “Italian poems,” Sienna, 1505, 8vo, and some small devotional treatises. Her whole works were collected at Sienna, 1707, 4 vols. 4to. Her Legend, in Italian, is very scarce, Florence, 1477: and the editions of 1524, 4to, and 1526, 8vo, are also scarce. Johndu Pins wrote the life of St. Catherine in Latin, Bologna, 1505, 4to; there is another in French by P. de Rechac, Paris, 1647, 12mo.

Her “Letters” are written in a style so pure and elegant, that Sienna has pretended to rival Florence in the production of classical language. Girolamo Gigli, a learned man of Sienna, who published a fine edition of St. Catherine’s Letters in 1707, had a design of subjoining a vocabulary of words and expressions peculiar to her, but in this attempt took so many liberties with the language and academy of Florence, that his “Vocabolario Cateriniano” was stopt by an order from pope Innocent XII. the author banished, his work burnt by the hands of the hangman, and his name struck out of the list of the Florentine academicians, as guilty, says a late Italian historian, not only of leze-grammar, but of leze-majesty. The vocabulary, however, was afterwards published, without a date, 4to, and with the fictitious name of Manille.

, a celebrated divine of the sixteenth century, was born in 1487 at Sienna, and taught law, till the age of thirty, under the name of Lancelot Politi, but took that of Catharinus upon turning Dominican in 1515. He then applied to the study of divinity, and became very eminent; appeared with great distinction at the council of Trent, was made bishop of Minori 1547, and archbishop of Conza 1551. He died 1553, aged 70, leaving several works, printed at Lyons, 1542, 8vo and at the end of his “Enarrationes in Genesim,” Rome, 1552, fol. in which he maintains singular opinions concerning predestination and other theological points, he says, that St. John the Evangelist is not dead, but has been taken up to heaven, like Enoch and Elijah; that Jesus Christ would have come into the world, even though Adam had not sinned; that the evil angels fell because they would not acknowledge the decree of the incarnation; and that children) who die unbaptized, enjoy a degree of happiness suited to their state. It was he who first warmly defended the opinion, that the exterior intention is sufficient in-him who administers the sacraments, i. e. that the sacrament is valid provided the minister performs such outward ceremonies as are required, though he should in his heart m?.ke a jest of sacred things. Catharinus is very free in other respects in his sentiments, and does not scruple to depart from those of St. Austin, St. Thomas, and other divines. His opinion, however, concerning the exterior intention of the minister who gives the sacrament, has been always followed by the Sorbonne, when cases of conscience were to be decided. He wrote “Commentaries on St. Paul’s,” and the other canonical epistles, Venice, 1551, fol.; and there is a book ascribed to him which is in request, and is entitled, “Remedio alia pestilente Dottrina d'Ochino,” Rome, 1544, 8vo.

, one of the ablest generals under Louis XIV. the son of the dean of the counsellors of parliament, was born at Paris, Sept. 1, 1637, and began his career at the bar; but having lost a cause that had justice on its side, he renounced the profession for that of arms. He first served in the cavalry, where he never omitted an opportunity of distinguishing himself. In 1667, in the presence of Louis XIV. at the attack on the counterscarpe of Lisle, he performed an action so honourable both to his judgment and his courage, that it procured him a lieutenantcy in the regiment of guards. Gradually rising to the first dignities in the army, he signalized himself at Maestricht, at Besangon, at Senef, at Cambray, at Valenciennes, at St. Omer’s, at Ghent, and at Ypres. The great Comic“set a proper value on his merit, and wrote to him, after the hattle of Senef, where Catinat had been wounded:” No one takes a greater interest in your wound than I do; there are so few men like you, that in losing you our loss would be too great.' 7 Having attained to the rank of lieutenant-general, in 1688, he beat the duke of Savoy at Staffarde and at the Marsaille, made himself master of all Savoy and a part of Piedmont; marched from Italy to Flanders, besieged and took the fortress of Ath in 1697. He had been marechal of France from 1693, and the king, reading the list of the marechals in his cabinet, exclaimed, on coming to his name: “Here valour has met with its deserts!” The war breaking out again in 1701, he was put at the head of the French army in Italy against prince Eugene, who commanded that of the emperor. The court, at the commencement of this war, was undecided on the choice of the generals, and hesitated between Catinat, Vendome, and Villeroi. This circumstance was talked of in the emperor’s council. “If Villeroi has the command,” said Eugene, “I shall beat him; if Vendome be appointed, we shall have a stout struggle; if it be Catinat, 1 shall be beaten.” The bad state of the army, the want of money for its subsistence, the little harmony there was between him and the duke of Savoy, whose sincerity he suspected, prevented him from fulfilling the prediction of prince Eugene. He was wounded in the atfair of Chiari, and forced to retreat as far as behind the Oglio. This retreat, occasioned by the prohibition he had received from the court to oppose the passage of prince Eugene, was the source of his subsequent mistakes and misfortunes. Catinat, notwithstanding his victories and his negociations, was obliged to serve under Villeroi; and the last disciple of Turenne and Conde was no longer allowed to act but as second in command.' He bore this injustice like a man superior to fortune. “I strive to forget my misfortunes,” he says in a letter to one of his friends, “that my mind may be more at ease in executing the orders of the marechal de Villeroi.” In 1705 the king named him to be a chevalier; but he refused the honour intended him. His family testifying their displeasure at this procedure, “Well, then,” said he to his relations, “strike me out of your genealogy” He increased as little as possible the crowd of courtiers. Louis XIV. once asking him why he was never seen at Marli; and whether it was some business that prevented his coming? “None at all,” returned the marechal; “but the court is very numerous, and I keep away in order to let others have room to pay their respects to you.” He died at his estate of St. Gratian, Feb. 25, 1712, at the age of 74, with the same sedateness of mind that had accompanied him through life. Numberless anecdotes are related of him, which shew that this calmness of temper never forsook him. After an ineffectual attack at the unfortunate affair of Chiari, rallying his troops, an officer said to him: “Whither would you have us to go? to death?” “It is true,” replied Catinat, “death is before us; but shame is behind.” He had qualities yet more estimable than bravery. He was humane and modest. The part of his labours most interesting to humanity, was a regular correspondence with marechal Vauban, on the administration of the revenues of the various countries which they had visited during their military expeditions. They did not seek for means of increasing the revenues of their sovereign beyond measure; but they endeavoured to find the most equitable repartition of the taxes, and the cheapest way of collecting them. Catinat, on account of his cautiousness and judgment, was, by the soldiers under his command, significantly called Pere la Pensee, “Father Thought,” a sirname which he appears to have deserved in his peaceable retreat, not less than in his military expeditions.

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

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

He learned the principles of the stoic philosophy, which so well suited his character, under Antipater of Tyre, and applied himself diligently to the study of it. Eloquence he likewise studied, as a necessary means to defend the cause of justice, and he made a very considerable proficiency in that science. To increase his bodily strength, he inured himself to suffer the extremes of heat and cold; and used to make journeys on foot and bare-headed in all seasons. When he was sick, patience and abstinence were his only remedies: he shut himself up, and would see nobody till he was well. Though remarkably sober in the beginning of his life, making it a rule to drink but once after supper, and then retire, he insensibly contracted a habit of drinking more freely, and of sitting at table till morning. He affected singularity, and, in things indifferent, to act directly contrary to the taste and fashions of the age. Magnanimity and constancy are generally ascribed to him; and Seneca would fain make that haughtiness and contempt for others, which in Cato accompanied those virtues, a matter of praise. Cato, says Seneca, having received a blow in the face, neither took revenge nor was angry; he did not even pardon the affront, but denied that he had received it. His virtue raised him so high, that injury could not reach him. He served as a volunteer under Gallius in the war of Spartacus; and when military rewards were offered him by the commander, he refused them, because he thought he had no right to them. Some years after, he went a legionary tribune into Macedonia under the praetor Rubrius; in which station he appeared, in his dress, and during a march, more like a private soldier than an officer but the dignity of his manners, the elevation of his sentiments, and the superiority of his views, set him far above those who bore the titles of generals and proconsuls. It is said, that Cato’s design in all his behaviour was to engage the soldiers to the love of virtue; whose affections he engaged thereby to himself, without his having any such intention.

One thing by which Cato extremely pleased the people, was his making the assassins to whom Sylla had given considerable rewards out of the treasury for murdering the proscribed, disgorge their gains. Plutarch tells us, that Cato was so exact in discharging the duties of a senator, as to be, always the first who came to the house, and the last who left it; and that he never quitted Rome during those days when the senate was to sit. Nor did he fail to be present at every assembly of the people, that he might awe those who, by an ill-judged facility, bestowed the public money in largesses, and frequently through mere favour granted remission of debts due to the state. At first his austerity and stiffness displeased his colleagues: but afterwards they were glad to have his name to oppose to all the unjust solicitations, against which they would have found it difficult to defend themselves. Cato very readily took upon him the task of refusing.

On one occasion, to keep out a very bad man, he was a candidate for the tribunate. He afterwards laboured to bring about an agreement between Cæsar and Pompey, but seeing it in vain, he sided with the latter. When Pompey was slain, he fled to Utica, and being pursued by Cæsar, he advised his friends to leave him, and throw themselves on Cæsar’s mercy. They complied, and his son only, and a young man, Statilius, who was remarkable for his hatred of Cæsar, remained with him. The execution of the purpose which Cato had formed with regard to himself has furnished Addison with the story of his interesting tragic poem, called Cato, which has particularly familiarized the history of Cato to English readers. Notwithstanding the interference of his friends, and particularly of his son, who by every method endeavoured to dissuade him from the resolution he had taken to dispatch himself rather than fall into Cæsar’s hands, he committed suicide in the fortyeighth year of his age, after some deliberation, and after twice reading Plato’s dialogue on the immortality of the soul an instance which has been imitated since in too many cases of political disappointment, and in the absence of all moral and religious principle. But, as Brucker has observed, it should be remembered, that the situation of Cato, in concurrence with his stoical principles, strongly impelled him to the fatal deed; and that whatever censure he may deserve on this account, he supported, through his whole life, a character of inflexible integrity and uncorrupted public spirit. Whilst he lived, he held up before his fellow-citizens a pattern of manly virtue; and when he died, he taught the conquerors of the world that the noble mind can never be subdued.

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

, a Roman poet, born at Verona A. C. 86, was descended from a good family and his father was familiarly acquainted with Julius Cæsar, who lodged at his house. The beauty and elegance of his verses easily procured him the attention and friendship of the wits who were then at Rome, whither he was carried in his youth by Manlius, a nobleman, to whom he has inscribed several of his poems. Here he soon discovered the vivacity of his genius, and so distinguished himself by his pleasantry and wit, that he became universally esteemed, and gained even Cicero for his patron. It is believed that he gave the name of Lesbia to his principal mistress, in honour of Sap ho, who was of the island of Lesbos, and whose verses he much admired. Her true name, however, was supposed to be Clodia, sister of Clodius, the great enemy of Cicero. Like other poets, Catullus is said to have been very poor. His merit, indeed, recommended him to the greatest men of his time, as Plancus, Calvus, Cinna, &c. and he travelled into Bithynia with Memmius, who had obtained the government of that province after his praetorship: but it is plain from some of his epigrams, that he did not make his fortune by it. He died in the forty-sixth year of his age, B. C. 40, and in the height of his reputation.

And in this he has been followed by Paul Jovius and Barthius among the moderns. Dr. Warton maintains that the Romans can boast but of eight poets who are unexceptionably excellent, and places Catullus as the third on this list, in which he is preceded by Terence and Lucretius, and followed by Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, and Phaedrus. The same critic seems to doubt whether the story of Atys in Catullus’s works be genuine. It is so much above the tender and elegant genius of Catullus, that he is inclined to think it a translation from some Grecian writer. Catullus’s writings got him the name of “the learned” amongst the ancients, for which we have the authority of Aulus Gellius, Apuleius, and both the Plinys; but we have no compositions of his remaining, nor any lights from antiquity, which enable us to explain the reason of it. Among others that Catullus inveighed against and lashed in his iambics, none suffered more severely than Julius Cæsar, under the name of Mamurra which, however, only furnished Cæsar with an opportunity of shewing his moderation and humanity. For after Catullus, by repeated invectives, had given sufficient occasion to Cæsar to resent such usage, especially from one whose father had been his familiar friend Cæsar, instead of expressing any uneasiness, generously invited the poet to supper with him, and there treated him with so much affability and good-nature, that Catullus was ashamed at what he had done, and resolved to make him amends for the future.

, pensionary of Holland, keeper of the great seals there, and stadtholder of the Fiefs, was born in Zealand, 1577. He was an ingenious poet, as well as a dexterous politician. He divested himself, however, at length of all employments, for the sake of cultivating poetry and letters; nor was he drawn afterwards from his retirement, but at the reiterated application of the states, who, in the critical season of Cromwell’s protectorate, sent him ambassador into England. Upon his return, he retired to one of his country-houses, where he died in 1660. His poems have been printed in all forms, the Hollanders highly valuing them: and the last edition of his works was, 1726, in 2 vols. folio.

Mr. Vertue, according to the Anecdotes of Painting, vol. I. p. 17, thinks it highly probable, that the shrine of Edward the Confessor, and the crosses erected to the memory of queen Eleanor, were constructed from the designs of Pietro Cavallini, by abbot Ware; and he supposes Cavallini to be the inventor of Mosaic, alleging that Giotto was twenty years younger than the other. But those suppositions seem not to be very defensible; for, by the testimony of Vasari, and other writers, and also by the Historical Tables of Ancient and Modern Painters, published by Anthony Harms, at Brunswick, it appears that Giotto was three years older than Cavallinj, instead of being twenty years younger; and was really his instructor in the art of Mosaic; as may be evident from the dates of their birth, according to Vasari: Giotto was born in 1276, and CavaiJini was born in 1279. Indeed, Vasari does not mention the precise year of the birth of Cavallini but as he testifies that he died in 1364, at the age of eighty-five, he determines the year of his birth in 1279. Nor can the other supposition of abbot Ware’s constructing those crosses and shrine from the designs of Cavallini, be any ways established; for, according to the Anecdotes, Ware was at Rome in 1260, and there saw a shrine that had been erected in 1254; and the abbot himself died in 1283, which, it is observable, was eight years before the death of queen Eleanor,' who died in 1291. Now, as it appears that Giotto was born in 1276, he could have been but seven years old at the death of Ware; and Cavallini being three years younger than Giotto, it must appear impossible that he should have been a designer for Ware, as that abbot died when Cavallini was only four years old.

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

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

His resolution and perseverance were very uncommon; in whatever he undertook, neither expence nor fatigue were able to repress him; but his constancy was calm, and, to those who did not know him, appeared faint and languid, but he always went forward, though he moved slowly. The same chillness of mind was observable in his conversation: he was watching the minutest accent of those whom he disgusted by seeming inattention; and his visitant was surprised when he came a second time, by preparations to execute the scheme which he supposed never to have been heard. He was, consistently with this general tranquillity of mind, a tenacious maintainer, though not a clamorous demander of his right. In his youth having summoned his fellow journeymen to concert measures against the oppression of their masters, he mounted a kind of rostrum, and harangued them so efficaciously, that they determined to resist all future invasions; and when the stamp officers demanded to stamp the last half-sheet of the magazines, Mr. Cave alone defeated their claim, to which the proprietors of the rival magazines would meanly have submitted.

He was a friend rather easy and constant, than zealous and active; yet many instances might be given, where both his money and his diligence were employed liberally for others. His enmity was in like manner cool and deliberate; but though cool, it was not insidious, and though deliberate, not pertinacious. His mental faculties were slow. He saw little at a time, but that little he saw with great exactness. He was long in finding the right, but seldom failed to find it at last. His affections were not easily gained, and his opinions not quickly discovered. His reserve, as it might hide his faults, concealed his virtues btit such he was, as they who best knew him have most lamented.

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

, an historical artist, was born at Sassuolo, near Modena, in 1580, and was educated in the academy of the Caracci, where he learned design; but he frequently attended the schools of Baldi and Passerotti, to study after the naked. Yet to acquire a proper knowledge of colouring, he visited Venice, and carefully examined the productions of Titian; and at. his return to his own country, the best judges of the art of painting were much pleased with his works, as they seemed to possess an agreeable mixture of the style of the Caracci, and the tints of Titian. For some time, at Bologna, the works of Cavedone were esteemed equal to the compositions of Annibale; and it is recorded, that in the king of Spain’s chapel there is a “Visitation of the Virgin,” which Rubens, Velasquez, and Michel Angelo Colonna, supposed to be the performance of Annibale Caracci, although it was really the work of Cavedone; nor could there be a more honourable testimony in favour of this master. His best manner was strong and free, and the tints of his colouring were natural and beautiful; but by those who have judiciously considered his works, it is observed that this painter had three different manners at three different periods of his life that of the first was excellent the second but indifferent and his last was feeble, and miserably ba.d. for, in the latter part of his life he was depressed by sickness and extreme poverty; and a few years before his death, he received a violent shock by the fall of a scaffold, while he was painting; and his unhappiness was completed by the death of his only son, who had given strong proofs of a promising genius.

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

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

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

Dr. Kippis, in the last edition of the Biographia Britannica, observes, that the Life of the duke of Newcastle, written for the first edition by Dr. Campbell, is“one of the articles in which that biographer has carried his praise to the utmost height of which they were capable of being raised,” and therefore agrees with Mr. Walpple (lord Orford) that “the ample encomiums would endure some abatement.” Dr. Campbell on some occasions certainly earned his praises too far, but, as we have confined ourselves chiefly to the facts in the duke’s life, we have no apology to make for what we have not inserted. If, however, we have shunned Dr. Campbell’s error, we have little hesitation in say ing that we should admit of one more absurd, were we to copy those “abatements” which Dr. Kippis has brought together from such writers as lord Orford , and Messrs. Hume and Granger. In themselves they amount to little more than that general charge of imprudence which it is easy to advance against an unsuccessful commander, and most easy for those who living at a distance from the time cannot be supposed much acquainted with the real truth. But the character lord Clarendon has given of the duke, which lord Orford admits to be “one of the noble historian’s finest portraits,” and which has been since confirmed by the opposite party in the recently- published “Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson,” is a far better foundation on which to rest our opinion. The duke was not without his failings; his character has a greater portion of the romantic in it than is agreeable to the sobriety of mind which now prevails, but still it cannot be denied that his Quixotism, if we must use such an expression, was demonstrated in a series of persevering acts of bravery and munificence, of which we have few examples on record.

Of his grace’s literary labours, it is less possible to entertain a high opinion. Except the first article we shall mention, they may be passed over with very slight notice as the amusements of a nobleman, who, with a strong attachment to poetry, and the polite arts, was not qualified to advance either, unless by his patronage. It has been remarked by Granger, with a sneer borrowed from Strawberry-hill, that “the duke of Newcastle was so attached to the muses, that he could not leave them behind him, but carried them to the camp, and made Davenant, the poet-laureat, his lieutenant-general of the ordnance.” Why did he not add, that his scout-master-general was a clergyman, the rev. Mr. Hudson, and that the celebrated Chillingworth served in the engineers? The fact was, that after Davenant, at the risk of his life, returned to England to devote himself to the king’s service, the duke did promote him to the above office, and his majesty bestowed the honour of knighthood on him for his able and judicious conduct at the siege of Gloucester. While the duke was permitted to devote his time, his health, and his fortune, to the royal cause, he never suffered his thoughts to stray far from his employment. It was in his exile, that being extremely fond of the breaking and managing^ horses, which is now almost entirely left to grooms and jockies, he thought fit to publish his sentiments on those subjects in a work we are about to notice, and which is still held in high esteem. He also, for the amusement of his leisure hours, applied himself to dramatic poetry, the produce of which, says Mr. Reed, cannot but give us a strong idea of his fortitude and cheerfulness of temper, even under the greatest difficulties, since, though written during his. banishment, and in the midst of depression and poverty, all the pieces he has left us in that way of writing are of the comic kind.

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

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

But though the duchess’s literary character and works are now treated with general disregard, this was by no means the case during her own life. The most extravagant compliments were paid her not only by persons whose applauses might be deemed of little estimation, but by learned bodies, and by men of great eminence in literature. They were probably dazzled, and almost blinded by the high rank and solemn pomp of the duke and duchess of Newcastle. Absurd, however, as were her grace’s pretensions to philosophical knowledge, and extravagant as are her other compositions, it cannot, we apprehend, be denied that she had considerable powers of imagination and invention; and if her fancy had been enriched by information, restrained by judgment, and regulated by correctness of taste, she might probably have risen to considerable excellence. A very elegant writer in the Connoisseur has paid a much higher compliment to her genius and poetical merit than has been customary with modern authors, insinuating that even Milton might have borrowed from her. The duchess of Newcastle departed this life at London, in the close of 1673, and was buried in Westminster-abbey, on the 7th of January, 1673-4. Her person is reported to have been very graceful. With regard to her character, her temper was naturally reserved; so tha$ she seldom said much in company, and especially among strangers. In her studies, contemplations, and writings, she was most indefatigable. She was truly pious, charitable, and generous very kind to her servants an excellent Œconomist and a complete pattern of conjugal affection and duty. It hath been thought surprising, that she who devoted her time so greatly to writing, cuuld acquit herself with so much propriety in the several duties and relations of life.

, son of lord Charles Cavendish (who was brother to the third duke of Devonshire), and the lady Anne Grey, third daughter of Henry duke of Kent, was born at Nice, whither his mother had gone for her health, on Oct. 10, 1731, and after an education befitting his rank, partly at Newcombe’s school at Hackney, and partly at Cambridge, devoted his life to scientific pursuits, and became one of the most eminent chemists and natural philosophers of the age. He had studied and rendered himself particularly conversant with every part of sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy, the principles of which he applied near forty years ago to an investigation of the Jaws on which the phenomena of electricity depend. Pursuing the same science on the occasion of Mr. Walsh’s experiments with the torpedo, he gave a satisfactory explanation of'the remarkable powers of the electrical fishes; pointing out that distinction between common and animal electricity, which has since been amply confirmed by the discoveries in galvanism. Having turned his attention very early to pneumatic chemistry, he ascertained, in 1760y the extreme levity of in flammable air, now called hydrogen gas. On this discovery many curious experiments, and particularly that of aerial navigation, have been founded. In the same paths of science, he made the important discovery of the composition of water by union of two airs; and that laid the foundation of the modern system of chemistry, which rests principally on this fact, and that of the decomposition of water, announced soon afterwards by Mons. Lavoisier.

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

, an English poet, the son of Thomas Cawthorn, upholsterer and cabinet-maker in Sheffield, by Mary, daughter of Mr. Edward Laughton, of Gainsborough, was born at Sheffield Nov. 4, 17 J 9. His early inclination to letters, joined to a sprightly turn and quick apprehension, induced his parents to send him to the grammar-school of Sheffield, then superintended by the rev. Mr. Robinson. Here he made a considerable proficiency in classical learning, and became so soon ambitious of literary fame as to attempt a periodical paper, entitled “The Tea Table,” but was discouraged by his father, who probably thought that he was too young for an observer of men and manners, and too ignorant of the world to become its adviser. In 1735, Mr. Cawthorn was removed to the grammar-school at Kirkby Lonsdale in Westmoreland, where he made his first poetical attempts, several of which are said -to be still extant in his hand-writing: three of these were admitted into the edition of his works published in 1771; but one of them proved to be a production of Mr. Christopher Pitt. In 1736, however, he published at Sheffield, a poem entitled “The Perjured Lover,” formed on a lesser poem which he wrote about that time, on the popular story of Inkle and Yarico. This has been consigned to oblivion. In the same year he appears to have been employed as an assistant under the rev. Mr. Christian of liotheram. In 1758 he was matriculated of Clarehall, Cambridge, but his name is not to be found among the graduates, nor can we learn how long he pursued his academical studies. When promoted to the school of Tunbridge, he had obtained the degree of M. A. probably from some northern university.

After he left Cambridge, he came to the metropolis, and was for some time assistant to Mr. Clare, master of an academy in Soho-sqnare, whose daughter Mary he married. By her he had several chijdren, who all died in their iniiuicy. -He appears about this period to have taken orders, and in 1743 was elected master of Tunbridge school. In this situation he wrote the poetical exercises which were spoken by the young gentlemen on the annual visitations of the company of Skinners, who are the patrons of the school. These exercises form a considerable, and perhaps the best part of his printed works. On April 15, 1761, he was killed by a fall from his horse, and was buried in Tunbridge church.

As a poet, he displays considerable variety of power, but perhaps he is rather to be placed among the ethical versifiers, than ranked with those who have attempted with success the higher flights of genius. As an imitator of Pope, he is superior to most of those who have formed themselves in that school, and sometimes his imitations are so close as to appear the effect rather of memory than of judgment. His “Abelard to Eloisa” was a bold attempt, yet we miss the impassioned bursts and glowing scenes, true to nature and feeling, which have placed the Eloisa of Pope beyond all reach of competition. His “Epistle from Lady Jane Grey to Lord Dudley” is another attempt in the heroic manner, in which he has been more successful; the subject was his own, and there is less of ambitious effort in treating it. His principal excellence, however, lies in solid reflection on men and manners, and in satirical pictures and allusions: here he has all the gaiety of the most favoured disciples of the Horatian school, and far more ease than in his other compositions.

, a puritan clergyman of the church of England, exiled for his loyalty during the rebellion, was born at Rainham in Norfolk in 1605, of parents who were not in circumstances to give him an education suited to his capacity and their wishes, but were so much respected as to procure the patronage of sir Roger Townsend, knt. who not only sent him to school, but took the pains to assist him in his tasks, particularly in the Greek. By the same interest he was sent to Cambridge, and entered of Queen’s college, and made a distinguished figure, not only in the usual studies preparatory to the ministry, but in that of the languages, acquiring an uncommon acquaintance with the oriental languages, the Saxon, high and low Dutch, and the Italian, French, and Spanish. His religious principles he imbibed from Drs. Preston and Sibbs, and Mr. Herbert Palmer, puritans of great reputation at that time. After taking orders, he resided for four years in the house of sir William Armine of Orton in Huntingdonshire; and his old patron sir Roger Townscncl, just before his death in r presented him to the living of \V ivcnhoc in Essex. Alter he had been on this living about seven years, a violent and long continued tit of ague rendered it necessary to try a change of air, and in compliance with the advice of his physicians, he removed to London, where, by the interest of sir Ilai bottle Grirnston, he was promoted to the valuable rectory of St. Bartholomew, Exchange. He had not been here above five years when Charles I. was put to death. A few weeks after, Mr. Gawton was called upon to preach before the lord mayor and aldermen of London, at Mercers’ chapel, when he delivered himself in such plain terms against the hypocrisy of the predominant powers, that he was first sent for to Westminster, and then committed to the Gatehouse. This served only to raise his character among the loyal presbyterians, who, when Charles II. had thoughts of entering England, and asserting his right, intrusted him, with Mr. Christopher Love, and some other worthy persons, with the money raised by them for his majesty’s service, for which Mr. Love was imprisoned, and afterwards executed. Mr. Cawton then betook himself to a voluntary exile, and retiring to Rotterdam, became minister of the English church there, and died Ang. 7, 1659. His son, th.e subject of our next article, took care to preserve a just account of his merits and sufferings by writing “The Life nnd Death of that holy and reverend man of God Mr. Thomas Cawton, some time minister of St. Bartholomew,” &c. To which is added, his father’s Sermon, entitled “God’s Rule for a godly Life, from Philippians i. 27.” which is the sermon for the preaching of which he was imprisoned, London, 1662, 8vo. This account is an artless picture of a man who did great honour to his profession, and was a pattern of virtue in every social relation. His life is important in another respect, as proving that the ambition of civil power was as much the cause of the trpu-f bles of that time, as any want of liberty of conscience in matters of religion. Cawton knew how to unite the puritan with the loyalist. His biographer informs us that when he first received the sacrament, he ever afterwards expressed the profoundest reverence, and the most elevated devotion at that solemnity.

, son of the above, was born at Wivenhoe, about the year 1637, his father being then minister of the place. The first rudiments of learning he received from his father, whom he attended in his banishment, and lived with him several years in Holland, where he studied the oriental languages under Mr. Robert Sheringham, at Rotterdam, with equal diligence and success. About the year 1656, he was sent to the university of Utrecht, where he distinguished himself by his extraordinary skill in the oriental languages, in such a manner as did honour to his country. On the 14th of December, 1657, he maintained a thesis in relation to the Syriac version of the New Testament, and printed his discourse, as he did some time after another dissertation on the usefulness of the Hebrew language in the study of theoretic philosophy, Utrecht, 1637, 4to; which treatises sufficiently shew both the extent of his learning, and the solidity of his judgment. When he left Utrecht, the celebrated professor. Leusden subscribed an ample testimonial in his favour, and expresses a great regard for his person, as well as his talents. Ou his return to England, he went to Oxford, and was entered of Merton college, for the sake of M,r. Samuel Clark, famous for his thorough knowledge of the oriental languages. Our author shewed his loyalty by writing a copy of Hebrew verses on his majesty’s restoration, having been pretty early in the year 1660, admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts, at which time professor Leusden’s certificate was read publicly. In 1661, he was ordained by the bishop of Oxford; and in 1662, he published the “Life of his Father.” In all probability he might have obtained very considerable preferment, if his principles had not led him to nonconformity. When he retired from the university, he was taken into the family of sir Anthony Irbj a of Lincolnshire, where b officiated for some years as chaplain; but the air of that country disagreeing with him, and the family going down thither on account of the plague in 1665, he was obliged to quit it, and lived afterwards with the lady Armin till about the year 1670, when he gathered a congregation of dissenters in the city of Westminster, to whom be preached with some interruption from the severities of the government, for about seven years, tiil falling into a bad state of health, he died of 4 gradual decay, April 10, 1677, being then about forty years of age. He was buried in the New church in. Tothil-street Westminster, at which time his friend and fellow-collegian, Mr. Henry Hurst, preached his funeral sermon; as did also >lr. Nath. Vincent in another place. He was a man whose learning rendered him admired, and his virtues beloved by all parties. Anthony Wood, speaking of the praises bestowed upon him by Mr. Hurst in his discourse, t>ives them also his sanction; “they were,” he -ays, “deservedly spoken.” His congregation followed the advice he gave them on his death-bed; for he told them that he knew none so proper to be his successor, as a certain Northamptonshire minister, who wrote against Dr. Sherlock, Mr. Vincent Alsop, whom they accordingly chose. The changes of religious opinion in this congregation may be estimated by those who are acquainted with the character of Mr. Alsop’s successors, Dr. Calamy, Mr. Samuel Say, Dr. Obadiah Hughes, and the late Dr. Kippis. The only publication of Mr. Cawton’s, besides those mentioned, was a single sermon entitled “Balaam’s Wish,” London, 1670, and 1675, 8vo.

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

There is no account whatever of the typographical labours of Caxton from the year 1471 to 1474; although it is extremely probable that a curious and active mind like his, just engaged in the exercise of a newly-discovered and important art, would have turned its attention to a variety of objects for publication. Of the exact period of his return to his native country no information has yet been obtained, and what Oldys and Lewis have advanced on this subject amounts to mere conjecture: still less credit is to be given to the fabricated story of Henry VI. paving sent a person to Holland who brought si way Frederick Corsellis, a vorkxnan, and that Caxton had a hand in this seduction. All that is certainly known is, that previously to the year 1477, Caxton, after printing there the three works nentioncd, had quitted the Low Countries, and taken up his residence in the vicinity of Westminster-abbey, vhen Thomas Milling, bishop of Hereford, held the abbctship of St. Peter’s in commendam; and he had no doubt brought over with him all the necessary implements and materials of his trade. The particular spot where Caxton first sxercised his business, if we may credit Stowe, was an old chapel about the entrance of the abbey, and Oldys, somewhat whimsically, concludes that the name of chapel, which is sometimes given to a printing room, is derived from this circumstance; but what is called a chapel, in a printing-office, is not a building, but a convocation of journeymenprinters, to inquire into and punish certain faults in each other. Where the place occurs in any of Caxton’s publications, Westminster is mentioned generally, but the greater number of the productions of his press specify only the. date of their execution. According to Bagford, Caxton’s ofHce was afterwards removed into King-street, but whereabouts is not known; and we have yet to regret, as of more importance, that the precise period of his first essay in the art of printing is a matter of conjecture. Mr, Dibdin has summed up the evidence with precision and judgment; and to his valuahle work we must refer the reader, as well as for a chronological detail of the works which issued from the Caxton press. Exclusive of the labours attached to the working of Caxton’s press, as a new art, he contrived, though “well stricken in years,” to translate no fewer than 5000 closely printed folio pages; and, as Oldys expivsses it, “kept preparing copy for the press to the very last.” From the evidence of Wynkyn de Worde, in the colophon of his edition of the “Vitas Patrum,” 1495, it appears that these lives of the fathers were “translated out of French into English by William Caxton, of Westminster, late dead,” and that he finished it “at the last day of his life.” He might have chosen this work as his final literary effort, from a consideration, according to Oldys, that “from the examples of quiet and solemn retirement therein set forth, it might farther serve to wean his mind from all worldly attachments, exalt it above the solicitudes of this life, and inure him to that repose and tranquillity with which he seems to have designed it.”

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

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

, a Spanish artist, the son of Patrizio Caxes, of Arezzo, who settled in Spain, was born at Madrid in 1577, and learned the art of his father, with whom he was employed by Philip III. in the palace del Pardd. Their chief work in the queen’s gallery there, was the story of “Joseph and Potiphar’s wife,” which perished with many other works of art in the fire which consumed that palace. The father died in 1625, before which his son had attained high favour and eminence. The excellence of his frescos in the Sala d' Udienza procured him the favour of Philip III. who appointed him painter to the court in 1612. He soon after painted one of the principal altar-pieces for the church de la Merced at Madrid; and in 1615, various pictures in company with Vinzenzio Caoducho in the cathedral of Toledo and elsewhere. Though, his pencil, in common^with his contemporaries, was chiefly devoted to church legends, he found means to paint the “History of Agamemnon” in the Alcazar at Madrid. His scholars were, Luis Fernandez of Madrid, who painted the life of S. Ramori in the cloisters of La Merced Calzada, a celebrated series; Juan de Arnau of Barcellona; and Don Pedro de Valpuesta of Burgo de Osma, a young man of education, who probably would have excelled his fellow-scholars, had he not entered the church, in which he arrived at the dignity of licentiate. Caxes died in 1642.

, a very celebrated amateur and patron of the arts, was horn at Paris Oct. 31, 1692. He was the eldest of the two sons of John, count de Caylus, lieutenant-general of the armies of the king of France, and of the marchioness de Villette. His ancestors were particularly distinguished in the twelfth century; and his mother was a descendant of the celebrated D'Aubigne, who was the friend and historian of Henry IV. His parents were particularly attentive to the education of their son. The father instructed him in the profession of arms, and in athletic“exercises, and his mother watched over and fostered the virtues of his mind, a delicate task, which she discharged with singular success. The countess was the niece of madame de Maintenon, and was remarkable for the solidity of her understanding, and the charms of her wit. She was the author of a pleasant miscellany, entitled” Mes Souvenirs," a collection of anecdotes of the court of Louis XIV. which her son used to relate to her to amuse her during her illness. She was ever careful to inspire her son with the love of truth, justice, and generosity, and with the nicest sentiments of honour. The amiable qualities and talents of the mother appeared in the son, but they appeared with a bold and masculine air. In his natural temper he was gay and sprightly, had a taste for pleasure, a strong passion for independence, and an invincible aversion to the servile etiquette and constrained manners of a court.

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