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

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

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

He shunned honours, but wasdesirous of being admitted into the number of the honorary members of the royal academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres: he accordingly was admitted in 1742, and then it was that he seemed to have found the place which nature designed for him. The study of literature now became his ruling passion, to which he consecrated his time and his fortune; he even renounced his pleasures, to give himself up wholly to that of making some discovery in the vast field of antiquity. But he confined himself generally to the sphere of the arts. In consequence of his researches, says his eulogist, we know how the Egyptians embalmed their mummies, and converted the papyrus into leaves fit for receiving writing. He shows us how that patient and indefatigable people laboured for years at rocks of granite; we see the most enormous masses floating along the Nile for hundreds of leagues, and, by the efforts of an art almost as powerful as nature, advancing by land to the place destined for their reception. His knowledge of drawing enabled him to explain many passages in Pliny, which were obscure to those who were unacquainted with that art. He has developed, in several memoirs, those expressive and profound strokes which that wonderful author has employed, with an energetic brevity, to paint the talents of celebrated painters and sculptors. In Pausanias he found the pencil of Polygnotus, and the composition of those famous pieces of painting wherewith that illustrious artist decorated the portico oi Delphos. He rebuilt the theatre of Curio, and, under the <iirecvion of Pliny, shewed again that astonishing machine, and presented us with the view of the whole Roman people moving round upon a pivot. The rival of the most celebrated architects of Greece, without any other assistance than a passage of the same Pliny, he ventured to build anew the magnificent tomb of Mausolus, and to give to that wo-icier of the world its original ornaments and proportions.

Still, in the hands of count Caylus, literature and the arts lent each other a mutual aid, and in the course of his studies he contributed above forty dissertations to the Memoirs of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. Never was there an academician more zealous for the honour of the society to which he belonged. He was particularly attentive to the artists; and to prevent their falling into mistakes from an ignorance of costume, which the ablest of them have sometimes done, he founded a prize of jive hundred livres, the object of which is to explain, by means of authors and monuments, the usages of ancient nations; with this view it was that he collected, at a very great expence, antiquities of every kind. Nothing that was ancient seemed indifferent to him. Gods and reptiles, the richest metals, the most beautiful marble monuments, pieces of glass, fragments of earthen vases, in a word, every thing found a place in his cabinet. The entry to his house had the air and appearance of ancient Egypt: the first object that presented itself was a fine Egyptian statue, of five feet five inches; the stair-case was adorned with medallions and curiosities from China and America. In his apartment for antiques, he was seen surrounded with gods, priests, Egyptian magistrates, Etruscans, Greeks and Romans, with some Gaulic figures that seemed ashamed to shew themselves. When he wanted room he sent his whole colony to the royal depositary for antiques, and in a very little time his apartment illed with new inhabitants, who Hocked to him from different nations. This happened twice during his life; and the third collection, in the midst of which he ended his days, was, by his orders, carried, after his death, to the same depository. In order that the world might partake of these treasures with him, he caused them to be engraved, with learned descriptions, in his valuable work “Recueil d‘Antiquites d’Egyptiennes, Etrusques, &c.” 7 vols. 4to, embellished with eight hundred plates.

His curiosity, though excessive, he was always careful to proportion to his income. He had too much pride to be burthensome to his friends. His name, which was known in every country where letters are respected, procured him a great number of correspondents. All the antiquaries, those who thought themselves such, and those who were desirous of being thought such, were ambitious of corresponding with him. They flattered themselves they were entitled to the character of learned men when they could show a letter from count Calus; “c'etoit pour eux,” says the author of his eloge, “un brevet d'antiquaire.” His literary talents were embellished with an inexhaustible fund of natural goodness, an inviolable zeal for the honour of his prince and the welfare of his country, an unaffected and genuine politeness, rigorous probity, a generous disdain of flatterers, the warmest compassion for the wretched and the indigent, the greatest simplicity of character, and the utmost sensibility of friendship.

, the author of a well-known and beautiful allegory in Greek, entitled “A Picture of Human Life,” is supposed to have flourished about 400 B. C. The piece is mentioned by some of the ancient writers, by Lucian, Diogenes Laertius, Tertullian, and Suidas; but of Cebes himself we have no account, unless that he is once mentioned by Plato, and once by Xenophon. The former says of him, in his “Phaedo,” that he was a sagacious investigator of truth, and never assented without the most convincing reasons; the latter, in his “Memorabilia,” ranks him among the few intimates of Socrates, who excelled the rest in the innocency of their lives; but the abbe* Sevin and professor Meiners have endeavoured to prove that the “Picture” is the work of a more modern author. Brucker seems to be of a different opinion. It is evidently Socratic in its moral spirit and character, althongh not without some sentiments which appear to have been borrowed from the Pythagorean school. It was translated by the rev. Joseph Spence for Dodsley’s “Museum,” and was afterwards inserted in his “Preceptor,” and in other moral collections. There are many separate editions of the original, but for above a century, it has usually been printed with Epictetus’s “Enchiridium,” for the use of schools.

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

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

About 1541, his father placed him in Gray’s-inn, with a view to the profession of the law, where he pursued the same indefatigable application, until by an accidental display of his knowledge, he became known at court. One O'Neil, an Irish chief, brought to court two of his chaplains, who falling in with Mr. Cecil, engaged in a dispute with him on the power of the Roman pontiff, in which he had so much the superiority, that the matter was mentioned to Henry VIII. who expressed a desire to see him, admired his abilities, and gave him the reversion of the place of custos brevium.

Such early encouragement diverted Mr. Cecil from the profession of the law, and his marriage with the sister of the celebrated sir John Cheke, who introduced him to the earl of Hertford, afterwards duke of Somerset, probably directed his views to politics. In the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. he came into possession of his office of custos brevium, worth 240l. a year, and having married, as his second wife, Mildred, daughter of sir Anthony Cook, his interest at court became more considerable. In 1547, his patron the protector duke of Somerset, bestowed on him the place of master of requests, and took him with him in his expedition into Scotland, in September of that year, where he was present at the battle of Musselburgh, and very narrowly escaped a cannon-shot. On his return to court, Edward VI. advanced him to the high post of secretary of slate, which he enjoyed twice in that reign, first in 1548, and then, after an interval, in 1551, but historians are not agreed in these dates, although what we have given appear to be pretty near the truth. When the party was formed against the protector, Mr. Cecil shared in his fall, which followed soon afterwards, and was sent to prison in November 1549, where he remained three months.

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

During the reign of Mary, sir William Cecil represented the county of Lincoln; and was active in the mollifying of a bill for confiscating the estates of those who had fled the kingdom for their religion, and while thus employed, he carried on a private correspondence with the princess Elizabeth, the presumptive heir to the crown. In these transactions he seems to have abated somewhat of that caution imputed to him by historians, and certainly encountered some danger; but his character, bold, spirited, and open, seems to have afforded him protection, while he refers his courage to a higher source. In his diary, he says, “I spoke my mind freely, whereby I incurred some displeasure. But better it is to obey God than man.”

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

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

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

The weight of business that now lay upon him, and the variety of his duties, was such as it seems almost incredible that one man could discharge; yet he went through them all with the utmost strictness and punctuality. All his power, talents, industry, and fortitude, could not however at all times place him above anxiety and disgust at the intrigues, troubles, and dangers that surrounded him. He had even thoughts of a resignation, which the queen would not hear of. The popish and Spanish factions were his incessant enemies; and the favourite Leicester never slackened in his arts to lower and counteract him. His vigour however was not lessened; and the next great affair in which he was engaged required it all. The trial of the queen of Scots approached; and the lord treasurer is charged with having been a strong promoter of this measure. Of an affair which has engaged the pens and passions of so many able historians, it would be impossible in this place to discuss the merits. We shall only add in the words of an able authority, whom we have in various instances followed, that the measure was a tremendously strong one but there might be a state- necessity for it. Burleigh was not a man of blood Mary’s intrigues were incessant and her constant intercourse and machinations with a truly dangerous, powerful, and unappeasable faction, notorious. In March 1587, the lord treasurer lost his mother at a great age, with which he was much affected; and on April 4, 1589, he lost his beloved wife, daughter of sir Anthony Cook, whose death he mourned with the deepest regret*. He had but lately been delivered from the fatigue of drawing up schemes for the defence of the country against the threatened Spanish armada. Not long afterwards he again requested to resign, but the queen still refused to spare his services, and the remaining part of his life was spent in the unabated discharge of his high office. In 1592 he managed the concerns of a supply, which he furthered in the upper house by a speech of great knowledge and talent. In short, even at this late period of his age, almost all the important affairs of state were under his guidance, and ecclesiastical affairs, in particular, required much of his moderating wisdom. Besides the catholic party, he had to contend with some of the ablest of the puritans, who maintained a hostility of a different kind with the established church. Matters of finance, and the affairs of the admiralty, were all continually referred to him; and he let nothing pass him without due consideration. The maxim which aided him through these complicated concerns was this, that “the shortest way to do many things was only to do one thing at once.”

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

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

His lordship was buried at Stamford, where an elegant monument is erected to his memory. By his first wife he had his son and heir Thomas earl of Exeter, and by his second a numerous issue, who all died before him except the subject of the following article, to whom he addressed those valuable “precepts” so often reprinted. Few men knew better than lord Burleigh how to advise the young. Peacham, in his “Gentleman,” informs us that when any one came to the lords of the council for a licence to travel, he would first examine him of England, and if he found him ignorant, he would bid him stay at home, and know his own country first.

, earl of Salisbury, son to the preceding, was born, probably, about the year 1550, and being of a weakly constitution, was tenderly brought up by his mother, and educated under a careful and excellent tutor till he was sent to St. John’s college, Cambridge. Here he had conferred upon him the degree of M. A. and was afterwards incorporated in the same degree at Oxford. In the parliaments of 1585 and 1586 he served for the city of Westminster; as he did afterwards, in 1588, 1592, 1597, and 1600, for the county of Hertford. In 1588 he was one of the young nobility who went volunteers on board the English fleet sent against the Spanish armada. He was a courtier from his cradle, having the advantage of the instructions and experience of his illustrious father, and living in those times when queen Elizabeth had most need of the ablest persons, was employed by her in affairs of the highest importance, and received the honour of knighthood in the beginning of June 1591, and in August following was sworn of the privy-council. In 1596 he was appointed secretary of state, to the great disgust of the earl of Essex, who was then absent in the expedition against Cadiz, and had been zealous for the promotion of sir Thomas Bodley. Whilst he was in that post he shewed an indefatigable address in procuring foreign intelligence from all parts of the world, holding, at his own charge, a correspondence with all ambassadors and neighbouring states. By this means he discovered queen Elizabeth’s enemies abroad, and private conspiracies at home* and was on this account as highly valued by die queen as he was hated by the popish party, who vented their malice against him in several libels, both printed and manuscript, and threatened to murder him; to some of which he returned an answer, both in Latin and English, declaring that he despised all their threats for the service of so good a cause as he was engaged in, that of religion and his country.

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

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

A more elaborate apology for the earl of Salisbury was written soon after his decease, and addressed to king James, by sir Walter Cope. This may be seen in Gutch’s “Collectanea Curiosa,” vol. I. from which, as well as from the account of his death in Peck’s “Desiderata,” the ambitious may derive a salutary lesson. His “Secret Correspondence” with king James, was published by lord Hailes in 1766, and the conclusion which his lordship thinks the reader will draw is, that Salisbury was no less solicitous to maintain his own power than to settle the succession to his aged benefactress queen Elizabeth. Various letters, speeches, memorials, &c. from his pen are mentioned in our authorities. Lord Salisbury married Elizabeth, sister tp the unhappy Henry Brooke, lord Cobham, by whom, who died in 1591, he had a daughter Frances, married to Henry Clifford, earl of Cumberland, and an only son, William, second earl of Salisbury. His descendant, James, the seventh earl of Salisbury, was advanced to the title of marquis in 1789.

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

, the reputed patroness of music, was a Roman virgin of distinguished birth, who lived in the second century. She was eminent for her piety, and had vowed virginity, but contrary to her inclinations-, was espoused by her parents to a heathen nobleman of the name of Valerian, whom she is said to have kept from her bed, by informing him that she had an angel appointed to protect her, and she engaged that Valerian should see this angel, in case he would prepare himself for such a favour by becoming a Christian. Valerian consented, saw the angel, abstained from Cecilia as a wife, and was converted along with his brother Tiburtius. Valerian and Tiburtius suffered martyrdom, and Cecilia was honoured with the same death some days after. These martyrdoms are variously placed under M. Aurelius, between 176 and 180, and under Alexander Severus, about 231. The body of St. Cecilia was found by pope Pascal I. in the cemetery of a church called by her name, which occurs as early as the sixth century; and her body and her husband’s, found in the same place, were translated in 821 to a monastery founded by pope Pascal in honour of the martyrs Tiburtius and Maximus, near the church of St. Cecilia in Rome, usually called in Trastevere, to distinguish it from two others dedicated to the sama saint.

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

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

, a voluminous French biographer, was born at Bar-le-duc in 1688, and was soon noted for learning and piety. He attached himself to the congregation of the Benedictines of St. Vanne and St. Hidulphe, and after he took the habit of that order, was intrusted with various business belonging to it, and became titular prior of Flavigni. He died in 1761. He published “Histoire generale des auteurs sacres et ecclesiastiques,” 1729 1763, 23 vols. 4to, containing their lives, a critical account of their works, the history of councils, &c. This compilation is accurate, rather more so, his countrymen think, than that of Dupin; but he had not Dupin’s art of arranging and compressing, nor, we suspect, his candour. That it is diffuse heyond all patience appears from these twenty-three volumes extending no farther than the time of St. Bernard in the twelfth century. His numerous extracts and translations are, however, Useful to those who cannot read the fathers in the original languages. In 1782 an index to this work was published at Paris, 2 vols. 4to, a proof that the work still holds its reputation. His only other publication was “Apologie de la Moraledes Peres contre Barbeyrac,” 1718, 4to, a learned treatise badly written. Cellier was fond of retirement and study, and conciliated the affections of hi-s brethren by his amiable personal character.

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

, a French botanist, and member of the Institute, was born at Versailles in 1745, and having been early introduced into the office of one of the farmersgeneral, acquired the once lucrative place of receiver. Amidst the duties of this office, he found leisure for study, and became so fond of books, as to attempt a new arrangement of libraries, which he published in 1773, under the title of “Coup-d‘ceil eclaire d’une grande bibliotheque a Tusage de tout possesseur de livres,” 8vo. He became also partial to the study of botany, and formed an extensive botanical garden, which he enriched by correspondence and exchanges with other horticulturists. When the revolution took place, he retired to the village of Montrouge near Paris, and confined himself entirely to the cultivation and selling of plants. The principal works on descriptive botany which have appeared in France, as those of Heretier, Decandolle, Redouté, &c. have been indebted to his assistance but it is to Ventenat that Gels’ future fame will be due, who published the “Description des plantes rare du jardin de M. Cels.” Cels died May 13, 1806.

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

, an ingenious dramatic writer, was daughter of Mr. Freeman, a gentleman of Halbeach in Lincolnshire, and was born about the year 1667. Her father had been possessedof an estate of no inconsiderable value but being a dissenter, and having discovered a zealous attachment to the cause of the parliament, was at the restoration under a necessity of flying into Ireland, and his estate was confiscated. Our poetess’s mother was daughter of Mr. Markham, a gentleman of fortune at Lynn Regis in Norfolk, who is represented as having encountered similar misfortunes with those of Mr. Freeman, in consequence of his political principles, which were the same with those of that gentleman, and he also was obliged to take refuge in Ireland. The subject of this article is asserted to have been born in Lincolnshire; but some have conjectured that she was born in, Ireland, which May, not improbably, have been the case, if her birth was so late as 1667. The editor, however, of sir James Ware’s Works does not claim her as an Irish writer. She had the unhappiness to lose her father before she was three years old, and her mother before she had completed her twelfth year. At an early period she discovered a propensity to poetry, and is said to have written a song before she was seven years old.

Being harshly treated by those to whose care she was committed after the death of her mother, she resolved, whilst very young, to quit the country, and to go up to London to seek her fortune. The circumstances of her life at this period are involved in much obscurity, and the particulars which are related seem somewhat romantic. It is said that she attempted her journey to the capital alone, and on foot, and on her way thither was met by Anthony Hammond, esq. father of the author of the “Love Elegies.” This gentleman, who was then a member of the university of Cambridge, was struck with her youth and beauty, and offered to take her under his protection. Her distress and inexperience inducing her to comply with his proposal, she accompanied him to Cambridge, where, having equipped her in boy’s clothes, he introduced her to his intimates at college, as a relation who was come down to see the university, and to pass some time with him. Under this disguise an amorous intercourse was carried on between them for some months; but at length, being probably apprehensive that the affair would become known in the university, he persuaded her to go to London. He provided her, however, with a considerable sum of money, and recommended her by letter to a lady in town with whom he was acquainted. He assured her at the same time, that he would speedily follow her, and renew their connection. This promise appears not to have been performed: but notwithstanding her unfavourable introduction into life, she was married in her sixteenth year to a nephew of sir Stephen Fox, who did not live more than a twelvemonth after their marriage; but her wit and personal attractions soon procured her another husband, whose name was Carrol, who was an officer in the army, but who was killed in a duel about a year and a half after their marriage, when she became a second time a widow She is represented as having a sincere attachment to Mr. Carrol, and consequently as having felt his loss as a severe affliction.

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

Mrs. Centlivre enjoyed, for many years, the intimacy and esteem of some of the most eminent wits of the time, particularly -ir Richard Steele, Mr. Rowe, Dr. Sewell, and Mr. Farquhar. P^ustace Budgell was also of the number of her acquaintance. But she had the misfortune to incur the displeasure of Mr. Pope, who introduced her into the Dunciad, for having written a ballad against his Homer. She died in Spring-garden, Charing-cross, on the first of December, 1723, and was buried at St. Martin’s in the Fields. She possessed a considerable share of beauty, was of a friendly and benevolent disposition, and in conversation was sprightly and entertaining. Her literary acquisitions appear to have been merely the result of her own application; but she is supposed to have understood the French, Dutch, and Spanish languages, and to have had some knowledge of the Latin. An extensive acquaintance with men and manners is exhibited in her dramatic wri tings; but they are sometimes justly censurable for their licentiousness. In 1761, her dramatic works were collected to Tether, and printed in three volumes 12 mo. She was also the author of “several copies of verses on divers subjects and occasions, and many ingenious letters, entitled, Letters of Wit, Politics, and Morality,” which were collected and published by Mr. Boyer.

, a Spanish Jesuit, and native of Toledo, who entered among the Jesuits in 1574, was a man of great learning, and, as his brethren have represented him, of as great simplicity and candour. He distinguished himself by several productions; and the fame of his parts and learning was so great, that Urban VIII. is said to have had his picture in his cabinet; and, when that pope sent his nephew cardinal Barberini ambassador into Spain, it was part of his business to pay Cerda a visit, and to assure him of the pope’s esteem. Cerda’s “Commentaries upon Virgil,” Paris, 1624 1641, 3 vols. fol. contain many useful and learned remarks, buried, however, in a multitude of what are superfluous and trifling. Baillet says, there are some good things in them, and some very moderate. His Commentaries upon the works of “Tertullian,” begun in 2 vols. but not finished, have not been so much esteemed; Dupin says, they are long and tedious, full of digressions and explications of passages which are too clear to need any explaining. There is also of Cerda’s a volume of “Adversaria Sacra,” printed in folio at Lyons, in 1626. He died in 1643, aged above 80.

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

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

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

, the author of Don Quixote, was born at Alcala de Henares in 1547. He was the son of Rodrigo de Cervantes and Donna Leonora de Cortinas, and baptised Sunday, Oct. 9 of that year, as appears from the parish register of Santa Maria la Mayor in Alcala. Several concurring testimonies furnished the clue for this discovery, although six other places, Seville, Madrid, Esquivias, Toledo, Lucena, and Alcazar de San Juan, called him their son, and each had their advocates to support their claims, in which respect his fame resembles that of Homer’s. His parents designed him for the profession of letters, and although he had at home the opportunity of instruction in the university, he studied Latin in Madrid. He afterwards resided there in 1568, but two years afterwards we find him at Rome in the service of cardinal Aquaviva in the capacity of chamberlain. Some time after this, pope Pius V. Philip IL of Spain, and the republic of Venice, united in a league, which was concluded May 29, 1571, against Selim the grand Turk. Cervantes, not satisfied with an idle court life, desirous of military renown, determined to commence soldier. Marco Antonio Colonna being appointed general of the pope’s galleys, Cervantes went with him, and was present in the famous battle of Lepanto, where he was so wounded in his left hand by a gun-shot as totally to lose the use of it; but he thought this such an honour, that he afterwards declared he would rather have been present in this glorious enterprise, than to be whole in his limbs, and not to have there at all. Colonna returned to Rome in the end of 1572, and it is probable that Cervantes was with him,; as he tells us that for some years he followed his conquering banners. He was ordered to join his regiment at Naples, notwithstanding his being maimed. In his “Viage del Parnaso,” he tells us that he walked its streets more than a year: and in the copy of his ransom, it appears that he was there a long time. Don J. A. Pellicer supposes that in this city he employed his leisure hours in cultivating his knowledge of the Italian tongue, and in reading of its good writers, with whom he appears conversant in his works. As he was going from Naples to Spain on board the galley of the Sun, Sept. 26, 1575, he had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Moors, who carried him captive to Algiers. The several hardships he underwent in his five years’ captivity are noticed by a contemporary writer: and though the events mentioned in the story of “The Captive,” in the first part of Don Quixote, cannot strictly be applied to himself, yet they could hardly have been so feelingly described but by one who had been a spectator of such treatment as he relates. Several extraordinary and dangerous attempts were made by him and his companions to obtain their liberty, which was effected at last by the regular way of ransom, which took place Sept. 19, 1580. The price was 500 escudos; towards which his mother, a widow, contributed 250 ducats, and his sister 50.

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

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

These sentiments, which we have adopted from Dr. Seattle’s “Dissertations,” are the sentiments of sober criticism; but those who have allowed their imaginations to be heated by a frequent perusal of Don Quixote, have not scrupled to attribute to Cervantes more serious puiv poses than he could possibly have had in contemplation. They have supposed that his object was to bring knighterrantry into ridicule, and they infer that he was so successful as to banish knight-errantry from the nations of Europe. But no assumption can be worse founded than the existence of knight-errantry in Cervantes’s time. No man in all Europe at that time went about defending virgins, redressing grievances, and conquering whole armies with the assistance of enchanters. Such imaginary beings and events existed only in the old romances, which being the favourite reading in Spain, Cervantes very properly levelled his satire at them in the person of Don Quixote, whom he describes as become insane by a constant perusal of them; and so far is he from insinuating that knighterrantry existed, that he makes his hero the ridicule of every person he meets. Cervantes’s sole purpose was to introduce a better style of writing for popular amusement, and he fully succeeded; and we may say with Dr. Warton, how great must be the native force of Cervantes’s humour, when it can be relished by readers even unacquainted with Spanish manners, with the institution of chivalry, and with the many passages of old romances, and Italian poems, to which it perpetually alludes! The great art, says the same critic, of Cervantes, consists in having painted his mad hero with such a number of amiable qualities, as to make it impossible for us totally to despise him. This light and shade in drawing characters, shews the master. It is thus that Addison has represented his sir Roger de Coverley, and Shakspeare his Falstaff. We know not, however, how to applaud what Dr. Warton calls a striking propriety in the madness of Don Quixote, “not frequently taken, notice of,” namely, his time of life. Thuanus informs us that madness is a common disorder among the Spaniards at the latter part of life, about the age in which the knight is represented. Without resting on this assertion, for which we know no better authority than the “Perroniana et Tlmana,” we conceive it highly probable that Cervantes made his hero elderly, that his pretended vigour of arm, and above all, his love addresses, might appear more ridiculous. We adopt with more satisfaction a sentiment of the late Mr. Owen Cambridge, in the preface to his “Scribleriad,” because it exalts Cervantes’s great work to that superiority of rank, as a mock-heroic, to which it seems justly entitled, and in which it is likely to remain undisturbed. Mr. Cambridge says, that in reading the four celebrated mock-heroic poems, the Lutrin, Dispensary, Rape of the Lock, and Dunciad, he perceived they had all some radical defect; but at last he found, by a diligent perusal of Don Quixote, that Propriety was the fundamental excellence of that work; that all the marvellous was reconcileable to probability, as the author leads his hero into that species of absurdity only, which it was natural for an imagination heated with the continual reading of books of chivalry, to fall into; and that the want of attention to this was the fundamental error of those poems above mentioned.

, a French poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Turin in 1738, and after being educated among the Jesuits, joined their order, and became professor of their college at Lyons. In 1761 he gained two academical prizes at Toulouse and Dijon; the subject of the one was “Duelling,” and the other an answer to the question “Why modern republics have acquired less splendour than the ancient.” This last, before Cerutti was known as its author, was attributed to Rousseau. It was printed at the Hague in 1761, 8vo, and reprinted at Paris in 1791. When the order of the Jesuits was about to be abolished, Cerutti wrote in their defence “L'Apologie de Pinstitut des Jesuites,” 1762, two parts, 8vo, the materials being furnished by the two Jesuits Menoux and Griffet. Some time after, he was obliged to appear before the procurator-general of the parliament of Paris, to abjure the order which he had defended. It is said that after he had taken the prescribed oath, he asked if there was any thing to subscribe, to which the magistrate answered, “Yes, the Alcoran.” His “Apology,” however, was much admired, and recommended him to the Dauphin, who welcomed him to court. Here he contracted an unhappy and violent passion for a lady of the first rank, which brought on a tedious illness, from which the friendship of the duchess of Brancas recovered him, and in her house at Fleville he found an honourable asylum for fifteen years. This lady, who appears to have been somewhat of the romantic kind, as soon as she received him into her house, put a ring on his finger, telling him that friendship had espoused merit. When the revolution broke out, he came to Paris, and became a zealous partizan, and was much employed by Mirabeau in drawing up reports. His Memoir on patriotic contributions procured him a place in the legislative body, but he died in 1792, after which the municipality of Paris honoured him by giving his name to one of the new streets. Besides the works already mentioned, he published 1. “L'Aigle et le hibou,” an apologue in verse, Glasgow and Paris, 1783, 2. <c Recueil de quelques pieces de literature en prose et en vers,“ibid. 1784. The best of these is a dissertation on antique monuments, occasioned by some Greek verses discovered on a tomb at Naples, in 1756. 3.” Les Jardins de Betz,“a descriptive poem, 1792, 8vo. 4.” Lettre sur les avantages et l'origine de la gaiete“Francaise,” Lyons, 1761, 12mo; Paris, 1792, 8vo. 5. An essay on the question “Combien un esprit trop subtil ressemble a un esprit faux,” 1750, 8vo. 6. “Les vrais plaisirs ne sont faits que pour la vertu,” 1761, 4to. These two last were honoured with the academical prizes of Montauban. 7. “Pourquoi les arts utiles ne sont-ils pas cultives preferablement aux arts agreables,” 1761, 4to. 8. “Sur l'origine et les effets du desir de transmettre son nom a la posterite,” Hague, 1761, 8vo Paris, 1792, 8vo. 9. “Traduction libre de trois odes d'Horace,” 1789. 10. “De Tinteret d'un ouvrage dans le sujet, le plan, et le style,” Paris, 1763, 8vo. Besides these, he published some tracts on the subjects which arose out of the revolution, and was joint editor with Rabaut de St. Etienne, of the “Feuille. villageoise,” a paper calculated to spread the revolutionary delusions among the country people, but his style was not sufficiently simple and popular. In 1793, a collection of his works was published in an 8vo volume. Those which are on subjects of literature are ingenious and interesting, but as a poet he cannot be allowed to rank high.

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

, first master of Emanuel-­college, Cambridge, and a benefactor to that house, was born of an ancient family at Chatterton, in Lancashire, in 1546. His parents were papists, and educated him in that religion, sending him afterwards to study law in one of the inns of court, but in the twentieth year of his age, he renounced this pursuit, and went to Cambridge, where his talents and industry recommended him to a scholarship in Christ’s-college. His father, enraged at this, sent him a bag with a groat in it, and told him he might beg, as he meant to disinherit him, and afterwards executed his threat. Young Chaderton, however, persisted in his studies, and in 1567, when B.A., was chosen fellow of his college. In 1578 he commenced B, D. and in the same year preached a sermon at St. Paul’s cross, which he afterwards printed. He was then chosen lecturer of St. Clement’s church, Cambridge, where he preached for about sixteen years, much followed and admired. Such was his reputation for learning and piety, that when sir Walter Mildmay refounded Emanuel college, in 1584, he chose Chaderton for the first master, and on his expressing some reluctance, declared that if Chaderton would not be master, the foundation should not go on. In the beginning of the reign of James I. he was one of the four divines for the conference at Hampton-court, and the same year was chosen one of the translators of the Bible, and was one of the Cambridge divines who translated from Chronicles to Canticles inclusive. In 1612, when the prince elector palatine visited Cambridge, he requested Mr. Chaderton to commence D. D. with which he complied; and having regretted that the founder of Emanuel had provided for only three fellows, he made such application among his friends, as to make provision for twelve fellows, and above forty scholars, and procured some church livings for the college. Towards the close of his life, when Arminian doctrines became prevalent, dreading lest he might have an Arminian successor, he resigned in favour of Dr. Preston, but survived him, and lived also to see Drs. Sancroft and Holdsworth masters. He was a man of acknowledged piety, benevolence, and learning, and lived in great respect for many years after his resignation. He died Nov. 1640, aged about ninety-four, and was buried in St. Andrew’s church. He appears to have been related to Dr. William Cha-derton, successively bishop of Chester and Lincoln, of whom some account is given by Peck in the preface to his “Desiderata.” Besides the sermon noticed above, Dr. L. Chaderton wrote a treatise on Justification, which Anthony Thysius, professor of divinity at Leyden, published with other tracts on the same subject; and some of his Mss. are still in the public libraries, particularly in the Brit, Mus, among the Harleian Mss. Moreri says his “Life” was published by William Dillingham, at Cambridge, in 1700, but this we have not seen.

, an able antiquary, was of a good family of Riom, in Auvergnjg, where he was born, in 1564, and was educated at Bourges for five years, under the celebrated Cujas. On his return to Riom, he was in 1594 made a counsellor of the presidial, and discharged the duties of that office with great ability and integrity for the space of forty-four years. During this time he found leisure to improve his knowledge of antiquities, and accumulated a large library, and many series of medals. In order to gratify his curiosity more completely, he took a journey to Italy, and visited at Rome all the valuable remains of antiquity, receiving great kindness from the literati of that place, and particularly from cardinal Bellarmin. From this tour he brought home many curious Mss. scarce books, medals, antique marbles, and above two thousand gems, which rendered his collection one of the most valuable then in France. After his return he caused all these gems to be engraven on copper-plate, ranging them under fifteen classes, of which he made as many chapters of explanation, but the bad state of his health during his latter years prevented his publishing this curious work. He also wrote a treatise “De Annulis,” which he modestly withheld from the press on hearing that Kirchman, a German antiquary, had published on the same subject. Notwithstanding his not appearing in print, he was well known to the learned of his time, and held a correspondence with most of them. Savaro, in his Commentary upon Sidonius Apollinaris, and Tristan, in his “Historical Commentaries,” speak highly of him, nor was he less esteemed by Bignon, Petau, and Sirmond. He died at Riom, Sept. 19, 1638, of a sickness which lasted two years, almost without any interruption. His heirs sent all his curiosities to Paris, where they were purchased by the president de Mesmes, who gave them to the duke of Orleans, and from him they passed to the royal cabinet.

, an eminent protestant divine, was born in 1701, at Geneva, where he probably received the first rudiments of education. The church being chosen for his profession, after passing through the usual probationary exercises, he was admitted into the order of priesthood. In the ministry his reputation as a preacher and an orator soon became so popular and extensive, that in 1728 he was elected pastor at the Hague, and his conduct in this establishment, while it contributed to his own reputation, redounded no less to the honour of those who had appointed him. Having adorned his ministry by the purity of his manners, the excellence of the discourses which he delivered from the pulpit, and his numerous writings in defence of revealed religion, he died in 1786, at the age of eighty-five, after having punctually discharged his duty as a pastor during the period of fifty-eight years. The unfortunate supported by his consolation, the youth enlightened by his instructions, and the poor succoured by his charity, lamenting the loss which they had sustained by the death of a benefactor and a friend, proved more eloquent attestations of his merit, than any panegyric which might have been pronounced by the most sublime orator. His sermons were distinguished by a perspicuous style and a pure morality. They seemed to flow not only from a man who practised what he taught, but from one who, acquainted with the inmost recesses of the human heart, could exert his eloquence to win his hearers to the interests of virtue and religion. His portrait, which is prefixed to his translation of the Holy Bible, seems to confirm the relation of his friends, who say that his countenance was interesting and attractive. In his manners he was polite and attentive; in his address mild and insinuating. His literary excellence consisted in a judicious and happy arrangement of his subjects, delivered in a plain and unaffected style. He made no pretensions to originality, but he illustrated the works of other writers, by introducing them to his countrymen in a language that was more familiar to them.

His works were: 1. “La Sainte Bible, avec un commentaire literal & des notes choisies, tirees de divers auteurs Anglois,” printed at the Hague. The publication of this work was begun in 1742, and continued till 1777, forming 6 vols. in 4to. The 7th volume was left by the author in ms. and published in 1790, by Dr. Maclaine, who wrote also the preliminary dissertations. This volume completes the historical books of the Old Testament. 2. “Le sens literal de Tecriture sainte traduit de PAnglois de Stackhouse,” ibid. 1751, 3 vols. 8vo. 3. “Lettres historiques et dogmatiques sur les Jubilés,” ibid, 1750, 1751, 3 tom. 8vo. 4. “Theologie de Tecriture S. ou la Science da Salut, comprise dans une ample collection de passages du V. & N. Testament,” ibid. 1752, 2 torn. 8vo. 5. “Essai apologetique sur F Inoculation,” ibid. 1755; and several volumes of “Sermons.” Besides these works, he superintended the publication of Hainault’s History of France, which was published at the Hague in 1747, 8vo. He was besides engaged as a writer in the “Bibliotheque Historique,” which was begun at the Hague in 1738, and also contributed some articles in the “Bibliotheque des sciences et beaux arts.”

, a Jesuit of uncommon abilities, and confessor to Lewis XIV. was born in the chateau of Aix, in 1624, of an ancient but reduced family. He gave early indications of talents when at school, and performed his philosophical exercises under father de Vaux, who was afterwards advanced to the highest employments in his order. When he was arrived at a proper age, he was ordained priest; and became afterwards professor of divinity in the province of Lyons, and rector and provincial of a college there. He spent at several seasons a good deal of time in Paris, where his great address, his wit, and love of letters, made him almost universally known: and in 1663, the bishop of Bayeux introduced him to cardinal Mazarine, who shewed him many marks of favour, and offered him his patronage. In 1665, he presented la Chaise to the king, as a person of whose great abilities and merit he was well convinced, and afterwards got him admitted into the council of conscience, which indeed was no less than to make him coadjutor to the confessor, and when the cardinal died, he was made, in 1675, confessor to the king; and about ten years after, was the principal adviser and director of his marriage with madame de Maintenon. The king was then arrived at an age when confessors have more than an ordinary influence: and la Chaise found himself a minister of state, without expecting, and almost before he perceived it. He did business regularly with the king, and immediately saw all the lords and all the prelates at his feet. He had made himself a master in the affairs of the church; which, by the disputes that often arose between the courts of France and Rome, were become affairs of state. Yet, in spite of all his address and the influence which he had gained over the king, he was sometimes out of favour with his master, and in danger of being disgraced. Provoked at the ill success of the affair concerning the electorate of Cologn in 1689, the king shewed his displeasure to the confessor, by whose counsels he had been influenced. La Chaise excused himself, by laying the blame upon the marquis de Louvois; but the king told him with some indignation, “that an enterprise suggested by Jesuits had never succeeded; and that it would be better if they would confine themselves to teaching their scholars, and never presume to meddle in affairs of state.” La Chaise was very solicitous to establish an interest with madam e de Maintenon; but does not appear to have done it effectually, till that favourite found herself unable, by all her intrigues and contrivances, to remove him from the place of confessor. The Jesuit, it has been said, had not religion enough for this devout lady. He loved pleasures, had a taste for magnificence, and was thought too lukewarm in the care of his master’s conscience. The jealousy and dislike with which she regarded him were expressed in her letters; but her unfavourable representations of his temper and character were counteracted by those of the duke of St. Simon, who describes him as mild and moderate, humane and modest, possessed of honour and probity, and though much attached to his family, perfectly disinterested. La Chaise died Jan. 1709, and possessed to the very last so great a share of favour and esteem with the king, that his majesty consulted him upon his death-­bed about the choice of his successor.

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

, was also a native of Athens, who flourished in the latter part of the fifteenth century, but nothing farther is known of his history, and his name is perpetuated only by his work “De Origine et' rebus gestis Turcoman,” Paris, 1650, fol. containing, in ten books, a history of the Turks from 1298 to 1462. He describes the ruin of the empire of Constantinople, and at the end are the “Annales Sultanorum,” translated into Latin by Leunclavius. There is a French translation of it by Blaise de Vignere, 1660, 2 vols. fol. continued by Mezerai and others. It is esteemed a work of considerable authority.

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

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

, another brother of the preceding, was a commoner of Brazen-nose college in Oxford, and afterwards studied in the inns of court. He was a man of great learning, and distinguished himself as an antiquary, as also by writing the History of the Isle of Man, a manuscript copy of which was in the valuable museum of Mr. Thoresby, of Leeds, and afterwards bought by Edmondson, but it has been also printed at the end of King’s “Vale Royal of Cheshire,” in 1656. He was likewise a member of the Long Parliament, deep in the transactions of those times, and one of the king’s judges; for which, at the restoration, he was excepted from the benefit of his estate, but his life spared; and this distinction seems to have been owing to his not having, signed the warrant for the king’s death, which his brother Thomas did. He married Ursula, daughter of sir William Fairfax, of Seeton, in the county of York, and dying in 1661, was succeeded in his estate by his only son Edmund. Wood says he poisoned himself, when a search was making for him. One James Chaloner made collections of arms, &c. in the city of Chester, which, Mr. Gough informs us, came into Vincent’s hands; but this perhaps is one of the three Chaloners who were herald-painters of that city, and no wise related to sir Thomas Chaloner’s family, although in a late history of Chester, 1791, James the herald-painter is said to be the author of the History of the Isle of Man. Mr. Gough also informs us that the author of that history made collections of arms, monuments, &c. in Shrophire, which in 1700 were in the Heralds’ office, numbered 2 So among Vincent’s books; but they were purloined from thence (probably when lord Oxford was collecting his library, and gave any price for Mss.), and are now in the British Museum, No. 2163, Harl. Cat. But it appears from other parts of the British Topography, that even Mr. Gough has not always kept in view the distinction between the two James Chaloners.

, in Latin Calventius, president of the Inquests of the parliament of Toulouse, was born in May 1523. He was brought to Paris in 1539 by Mr. Lizet his uncle, at that time advocate-general in the parliament of Paris, who kept him six years to his studies under Orontius Fineus, Tusan, Buchanan, and some other learned persons. He went to Toulouse in 1546, to learn the civil law, and lodged in the same house with Turnebus, Mercerus, and Govea. He travelled into Italy in 1550, in order to pursue his studies, and was Alciat’s disciple at Pavia, and Socinus’s at Bologna. Being returned to France, he went to Toulouse, and there completed his course of law-studies, and was associated with Roaldes and Bodinus, reading law lectures together in the public schools with reputation. Having taken his doctor’s degree in that university, he resolved to go to Paris, in order to make his fortune; but though this resolution of his was strengthened by some letters he received from Mr. Lizet, yet he chose rather to settle in Toulouse, where he married, in 1552, Jane de Bernuy, daughter of the lord de Palficat, baron of Villeneufve. He was admitted counsellor in the parliament of that city in 1553, afterwards created judge of French poesy, and maintainer of the floral sports. He was appointed president of the inquests by the parliament in 1573. Being of a peaceable temper, he retired to his house in Auvergne, during the first and last furies of the civil wars, in order that he might not be an eye-witness of the confusions which he saw would break out in Toulouse. It was in this retirement he studied and translated Seneca, to administer some consolation to himself during the wild havock that was then making, and to employ his leisure to advantage. His attachment to his sovereign gained him the particular esteem of Henry IV. who in 1603 appointed him counsellor of state and privy counsellor. The year after, he resigned his dignity of president to Francis Chalvet sieur de Fenouiliet, one of his sons, and retired from business to spend the remainder of his days in peace and among his books. He spent two years in this -retirement, with so much satisfaction to himself, that he used frequently to declare to his relations, that he could not say he had lived during the previous years of his life. He died at Toulouse the 20th of June, 1607, being seventy-nine years of age. Several authors have honoured him with eulogiums. His “Translation of Seneca,” was published at Paris, 1604, folio, and reprinted there in 1638, with a life of the translator, and some encomiastic verses in French and Latin. Chalvet himself wrote much French and Latin poetry, which was not published. Huet, in his treatise “De claris interpretibus,” thinks that his translation of Seneca is too diffuse.

, an eminent man-midwife, was grandson to Dr. Peter Chamberlen, who, with his fathers and uncles, were physicians to the kings James I. Charles I. and II. James II. William, and queen Anne. He was born in 1664, and educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1683, and that of M. D. in 1690. He has a Latin poem in the “Hymenæus Cantabrigiensis,” on the marriage of prince George of Denmark with the princess Anne, 1683. He, his father, and brothers, invented among them an obstetric forceps, with which they were enabled to deliver women with safety in cases where, before this discovery, the child was usually lost. In 1672 he went to Paris, but happening to be unsuccessful in a case there, he thought it adviseable to remove to Holland, where he is said to have succeeded better. Here he imparted his secret to two eminent practitioners, and received a considerable reward. On his return to London he had great practice, and realized a handsome fortune. In 1683 he published his translation of “Mauriceau’s Midwifery,” a work in great request, and republished as late as 1755. Mauriceau mentions him often in some of his works, but always with the littleness of jealousy. Chamberlen’s forceps, improved by Smellie and some other practitioners, continues in use, and gives the inventor an honourable rank among the improvers of art. In 1723 we find him attending bishop Atterbury in the Tower, in lieu of Dr. Freind, who was himself a prisoner. He died at his house in Covent-garden, June 17, 1728; and a very fine marble monument was erected to his memory in Westminster-abbey at the expence of Edmund, duke of Buckingham. The long Latin epitaph, the production of bishop Atterbury, records, besides his skill, his benevolence, liberality, and many other amiable personal characteristics. Dr. Chamberlen was thrice married; and his widow, the daughter of sir Willoughby Aston, bart. was afterwards married to sir Thomas Crew, of Utkinton, in Cheshire, knight, who also left her a widow, but she died suddenly, April 6, 1734, and that year Dr. Chamberlen’s library was sold by Fletcher Gyles.

, a Scotch historian, priest, and lawyer, was born in the shire of Ross about the year 1530, and educated in the university of Aberdeen. From thence he went to France and Italy, and continued some time, particularly at Bologna, where in 1556 he was a pupil of Marianus Sozenus. After his return to Scotland he was appointed by queen Mary, parson of Suddy, and chancellor of Ross. He was soon after employed in digesting the laws of Scotland, and was principally concerned in publishing the acts of parliament of that kingdom by authority in 1566, which, from the type, were commonly called the “Black Acts.” Not long after this he was appointed one of the lords of session, by the title of lord Ormond, and continued attached to the queen until the decline of her power, when he and her other adherents were obliged to go abroad. He then went into Spain, and to France, in both which countries he was kindly received by their respective sovereigns, Philip and Charles IX. to which last in 1572 he presented his “Abridgment of the History of Scotland, France, and Ireland.” He died at Paris in 1552, much regretted by all who knew him. His works, which were published in one vol. 8vo, Paris, 1579, and which relate to the succession to the crown, the right of Mary to that of England, &c. consist of, 1. “Histoire abrege de tous les Roys c'e France, Angleterre, et Escosse.” 2. “La recherche des singularitez plus remarkables concernant le estat d'Ecosse.” 3. “Discours de la legitime succession des femmes aux possessions de leurs parens, et du government des princesses aux empires et royaumes.” Machenzie gives a full analysis of all these, but bishop Nicolson has not so high an opinion of the soundness of the author’s principles. Dempster and others highly extol his learning and character.

, author of the scientific dictionary which goes under his name, was born at Kendal in the county of Westmorland, the youngest of three brothers. His parents were dissenters of the presbyterian persuasion; and not quakers, as has been reported; and their occupation was that of farming. He was sent early to Kendal school, where he received a good classical education. But his father, who had already placed his eldest son at Oxford, and could not afford the same expence a second time, determined to bring up Ephraim to trade. He was accordingly, at a proper age, sent to London, and spent some time in the shop of a mechanic in that city; but, having an aversion to the business, he tried another, to which he was equally averse, and was at last put apprentice to Mr. Senex the globe-maker, a business which is connected with literature, and especially with astronomy and geography. It was during Mr. Chambers’s residence with this skilful mechanic, that he contracted that taste for science and learning which accompanied him through life, and directed all his pursuits, and in which his master very liberally encouraged him. It was even at this time that he formed the design of his grand work, the “Cyclopaedia;” and some of the first articles of it were written behind the counter. Having conceived the idea of so great an undertaking, he justly concluded that the execution of it would not consist with the avocations of trade; and, therefore, he quitted Mr. Senex, and took chambers at Gray’s-inn, where he chiefly resided during the rest of his days. The first edition of the “Cyclopædia,” which was the result of many years intense application, appeared in. 1728, in 2 vols. folio. It was published by subscription, the price being 4l. 4s.; and the list of subscribers was very numerous. The dedication, to the king, is dated Oct. 15, 1727. The reputation that Mr. Chambers acquired by his execution of this undertaking, procured him the honour of being elected F. R. S. Nov. 6, 1729. In less than ten years’ time, a second edition became necessary; which accordingly was printed, with corrections and additions, in 1738. It having been intended, at first, to give a new work instead of a new edition, Mr. Chambers had prepared a considerable part of the copy with that view, and more than twenty sheets were actually printed off. The purpose of the proprietors, according to this plan, was to have published a volume in the winter of 1737, and to have proceeded annually in supplying an additional volume, till the whole was completed. But from this design they were diverted, by the alarm they took at an act then agitated in parliament, in which a clause was contained, obliging the publishers of all improved editions of books to print the improvements separately. The bill, which carried in it the appearance of equity, but which, perhaps, might have created greater obstructions to the cause of literature than a transient view of it could suggest, passed the house of commons, but was rejected in the house of lords. In an advertisement prefixed to the second edition of the “Cyclopaedia,” Mr. Chambers endeavoured to obviate the complaints of such readers as might have been led to expect (from a paper of his published some time before) a newwork, instead of a new edition. So favourable was the public reception of the second edition of Chambers’s dictionary, that a third was called for in the very next year, 1739; a fourth two years afterwards, in 1741; and a fifth in 1746. This rapid sale of so large and expensive a work, is not easily to be paralleled in the history of literature: and must be considered, not only as a striking testimony of the general estimation in which it is held, but likewise as a strong proof of its real utility and merit.

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

His writings were those of a man who had a sound judgment, a clear and strong memory, a ready invention, an easy method of arranging his ideas, and who neither spared time nor trouble. His life was spent rather in the company of books than men, and his pen was oftener employed than his tongue: his style is in general good, and his definitions clear and unaffected. In language he applied rather to the judgment than to the ear; and if he deserves to be censured for baldness, it should also be remembered how difficult technical expression is, which must be accommodated at once to the scholar and the artificer. In his epistolary correspondence, some specimens of which may be seen in the Gentleman’s Magazine, he was lively and easy.

His personal character had many peculiarities. What we record with most regret is that his religious sentiments leaned to infidelity, although it has been said in excuse that he avoided propagating his opinions, and certainly did not introduce them in his writings. His mode of life was reserved, for he kept little company, and no table. An intimate friend who called on him one morning, was asked by him to stay and dine. “And what will you give me, Ephraim?” said the gentleman, “I dare engage you have nothing for dinner;” to which Mr. Chambers calmly replied, “Yes, I have a fritter; and if you‘ll stay with me, I’ll have two.” Yet, though thus inattentive to himself, he was very generous to the poor. He was likewise sufficiently conscious of his defects in social qualities, and when urged to marry that he might then have a person to look after him, which his health required, he replied somewhat hastily, “What! shall 1 make a woman miserable, to contribute to my own ease? For miserable she must be the moment she gives her hand to so unsocial a being as myself.”

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

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

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

, an eminent architect, was a native of Sweden, but originally descended from the family of Chalmers in Scotland, barons of Tartas, in France. His grandfather was an opulent merchant, who supplied the armies of Charles XII. with money and military stores, and suffered considerably in his fortune by being obliged to receive the base coin issued by that monarch. This circumstance occasioned his son to reside many years in, Sweden, in order the more effectually to prosecute his pecuniary claims. The subject of this article was born in that country, and for what reason is not known, was brought over from Sweden in 1723, at the age of two years, and placed at a school at Rippon, in Yorkshire. His first entrance into life was as a supercargo to the Swedish East India company. In this capacity he made one voyage to China; and, it appears, lost no opportunity of observing what was curious in that country. At the age of eighteen, however, he quitted this profession, and with it all commercial views, to follow the bent of his inclination, which led him to design and architecture.

Previously to his death, he had sustained a long and severe illness, arising from a derangement of the nervous system, for which many remedies were applied without success. He died at his house in Norton-street, Marybone, March 8, 1796, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, and was interred on the 18th, in Poets-corner, Westminster-abbey. He left a son and three daughters, who shared his ample fortune, which he acquired with great honour, and enjoyed with hospitality bordering on magnificence. His country retirement for some years had been at Whitton-place, near Hounslow-heath; in the improvement of which delightful spot he appears to have studied the decorations of an Italian villa. His character in private life was very amiable, and the courtesy and affability with which he treated the workmen employed under him endeared him to them, and made it easy for him to collect a numerous and able body of artificers when any of his works required extraordinary expedition.

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

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

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

, a celebrated painter, was born at Brussels in 1602. He discovered an inclination to painting from his youth; and owed but little to masters for the perfection he attained in it, excepting that he learned landscape from Fouquiere. In all other branches of his art nature was his master, and he is said to have followed her very faithfully. At nineteen years of age he set off for Italy, taking France in his way; but he proceeded, as it happened, no farther than Paris, and lodged in the college pf Laon, where Poussin also dwelt; and these two painters became very good friends. Du Chesne, painter to queen Mary of Medicis, was employed about the paintings in the palace of Luxembourg, and set Poussin and Champagne at work under him. Poussin did a few small pieces in the cieling, and Champagne drew some small pictures in the queen’s apartment. Her majesty liked them so well, that du Chesne grew jealous, of him; upon which Champagne, who loved peace, returned to Brussels, with an intent to go through Germany into Italy. He was scarcely got there, when a letter came to him from the abbot of St. Ambrose, who was surveyor of the buildings, to advertise him of du Chesne’s death, and to invite him back to France. He accordingly returned thither, and was presently made director of the queen’s paintings, who settled on him a yearly pension of 1200 livres, and allowed him lodgings in the palace of Luxembourg. Being a lover of his business, he went through a great deal of it. There are a vast number of his pieces at Paris, and other parts of the kingdom: and among other places, some of his pictures are to be seen in the chapter-house of Notre-dame at Paris, and in several churches in that city; without reckoning an infinity of portraits, which are noted for their likeness, as well as for being finished to a very high degree. The queen also ordered him to paint the vault of the Carmelites, church in the suburbs of St. James, where his crucifix is much esteemed: but the best of his works is thought to be his cieling in the king’s apartment at Vincennes, composed on the subject of the peace in 1659. After this hi. 1 was made rector of the royal academy of painting, which office he exercised many years.

He had been a long while famous in his profession, when le Brun arrived at Paris from Italy; and, though le Brun was soon at the head of the art, and made principal painter to the king, he shewed no disgust at the preference that was given to his detriment and loss. There is another instance upon record of Champagne’s goodness of disposition and integrity. Cardinal Richelieu had offered to make his fortune, if he would quit the queen-mother’s service; but Champagne refused. The cardinal’s chief valet-de-chambre assured him farther, that whatever he would ask, his eminency would grant him to which Champagne replied, “if the cardinal could make me a better painter, the only thing I am ambitious of, it would be something but since that was impossible, the only honour he begged of his eminency was the continuance of his good graces.” It is said, the cardinal was highly affected with the integrity of the painter; who, though he refused to enter into his service, did not however refuse to work for him. Among other things he drew his picture, and it is supposed to be one of the best pieces he ever painted. Sir Robert Strange had his portrait of Colbert, which he thought claimed a rank with the finest of Vandyke’s.

, in Latin Campellensis, was a native of the village of Champeaux near Melun, in the province of Brie, and flourished in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. After studying law under Ansehn, dean of the cathedral church of Melun, he was ordained archdeacon of Paris, and appointed to read lectures on logic in the schools of that church. Some time after he retired with some of his pupils to a monastery, in which was St. Victor’s chapel, near Paris, and there founded the abbey of regular canons. He continued to teach in that convent, and, as generally supposed, was the first public professor of scholastic divinity. He was made bishop of Chalons in 1113, and died in Jan. 1121. None of his works are extant, for the “Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew,” printed under his name in the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” belongs to Gilbert of Westminster. It is thought that he wrote a book of sentences before Peter Lombard, of which a ms copy was in the library of Notre-dame at Paris. He maintained the doctrine of the Realists, who held that all individual things partake of the one essence of their species, and are only modified by accident. He had the appellation of the Venerable Doctor. Brucker has given a Jong account of his disputes with Abelard, who was one of his scholars, and who ventured to question the opinions of his master, and leaving him, opened a school of his own at Melun, where the splendour of his superior talents in disputation attracted general admiration, and eclipsed the fame of Champeaux.

, a miscellaneous writer, was the son of Peter Champion, a gentleman of an ancient and respectable family, seated at St. Columb in Cornwall, who Acquired a considerable fortune as a merchant at Leghorn he was born February 5, 1724-5, at Croydon, in Surrey, and received his first instruction in the Greek and Latin languages at Cheani school in that county; from whence, in 173y, he was removed to Eton, and in February 1742, became a member of the university of Oxford having been placed at St. Mary-hall, under the care of the rev. Walter Harte, a celebrated tutor, who was selected at a later period by the earl of Chesterfield to finish his son Mr. Stanhope’s education in classical literature. After having passed two years at Oxford, he was entered as a student of law at the Middle Temple, where he continued to reside to the day of his decease; and was a bencher of that society, to which he bequeathed one thousand pounds. He served in two parliaments, having been elected in 1754 for the borough of St. Germain’s, and in 1761 for Liskard in Cornwall; but the same great modesty and reserve restrained him from displaying the powers of his very discerning and enlightened mind in that illustrious assembly, which prevented him also from communicating to the world his poetical effusions, a collection of which was published in an elegant volume in 1801, by William Henry lord Lyttelton, who prefixed a biographical article, from which the above account is taken. He died Feb. 22, 1801, beloved and lamented, as his noble friend says, by all who were acquainted with the brightness of his genius, his taste for the finer arts, his various and extensive learning, and the still more valuable qualities of his warm and benevolent heart. From his “Miscellanies in prose and verse, English and Latin,” it is discernible that he was a polite scholar, and had many qualities of a poet, but not unmixed with a love for those disgusting images in which Swift delighted.

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

, born in Saintonge, was sent by Henry IV. on a voyage to the newly-discovered continent of America, in quality of captain of a man of war. In this expedition he signalized himself not less by his courage than his prudence, and may be considered as the founder of New France. It was he who caused the town of Quebec to be built; he was the first governor of that colony, and greatly exerted himself in the settling of a new commercial company at Canada. This company, established in 1628, was called the company of associates, and the cardinal de Richelieu put himself at their head. He published: “Voyages de la Nouvelle France, dite Canada,” 1632, 4to. He goes back to the first discoveries made by Verazani, coming down to the year 1631. This work is excellent in regard to material points, and the simple and natural manner in which they are exhibited. If he is censurable for any thing, it is for rather too much credulity. The author seems to be a person of sound judgment and strong resolution; disinterested, and zealous for the religion and interests of his country. He was expelled, with the French, from the colony in 1631, but when restored at the peace, he returned again in 1634, and was appointed governor-general. He died about 1635. Lake Champlain in North America had its name from him, He discovered it in 1608, and before his time it was called Corlaer’s lake.

, an ingenious English lady, sister to the subject of the following article, was born at Malmsbury, in Wiltshire, in 1687, and was carefully trained up in the principles of religion and virtue. As her father’s circumstances rendered it necessary that she should apply herself to some business, she was brought up to that of a milliner. But, as she had a propensity to literature, she employed her leisure hours in perusing the best modern writers, and as many as she could of the antient ones, especially the poets, as far as the best translations could assist her. Amongst these, Horace was her particular favourite, and she greatly regretted that she could not read him in the original. She was somewhat deformed in her person, in consequence of an accident in her childhood. This unfavourable circumstance she occasionally made a subject of her own pleasantry, and used to say, “That as her person would not recommend her, she must endeavour to cultivate her mind, to make herself agreeable.” This she did with the greatest care, being an admirable œconornist of her time; and it is said, that she had so many excellent qualities in her, that though her first appearance could create no prejudice in her favour, yet it was impossible to know her without valuing and esteeming her. She thought the disadvantages of her shape were such, as gave her no reasonable prospect of being happy in the married state, and therefore chose to remain single. She had, however, an honourable offer from a worthy country gentleman, of considerable fortune, who, attracted merely by the goodness of her character, took a. journey of an hundred miles to visit her at Bath, where she kept a milliner’s shop, and where he paid her his addresses. But she declined his offers, and is said to have convinced him that such a match could neither be for his happiness, nor her own. She published several poems in an 8vo volume, but that which she wrote upon “Bath” was the best received. It passed through several editions. She intended to have written a large poem upon the being and attributes of God, and did execute some parts of it, but did not live to finish it. It was irksome to her to be so much confined to her business, and the bustle of Bath was sometimes disagreeable to her. She often languished for more leisure and solitude: but the dictates of prudence, and a desire to be useful to her relations, whom she regarded with the warmest affection, brought her to submit to the fatigues of her business for thirty-five years. She did, however, sometimes enjoy occasional retirements to the country seats of some of her acquaintance; and was then extremely delighted with the pleasures of solitude, on which she wrote some beautiful verses, and the contemplation of the works of nature. She was honoured with the esteem and regard of the countess of Hertford, afterwards duchess of Somerset, who several times visited her. Mr. Pope also visited her at Bath, and complimented her for her poem on that place, and the celebrated Mrs. Howe was one of her particular friends. She had the misfortune of a very valetudinary constitution, which was supposed to be, in some measure, owing to the irregularity of her form. By the advice of Dr. Cheyne, she entered on a vegetable diet, and adhered to it even to an extreme. She died en the llth of September, 1745, in the fifty-eighth year of her age, after about two days illness.

, an eminent dissenting minister, was born at Hungerford, in Berkshire, in 1693, where his father was then pastor of a congregation of protestant dissenters. He early discovered a genius for literature, which was carefully cultivated; and being placed under proper masters, he made a very uncommon progress in classical learning, and especially in the Greek tongue. As it was intended by his friends to bring him up for the ministry, he was sent to an academy at Bridgewater; but was sbort removed to Gloucester, that he might become a pupil to Mr. Samuel Jones, a dissenting minister of great erudition and abilities, who had opened an academy in that city, afterwards transferred to Tewkesbury. Such was the attention of that gentleman to the morals of his pupils, and to their progress in literature, and such the skill and discernment with which he directed their studies, that it was a singular advantage to be placed under so able and accomplished a tutor. Chandler made the proper use of so happy a situation, applying himself to his studies with great assiduity, and particularly to critical, biblical, and oriental learning. Among the pupils of Mr. Jones, were Mr. Joseph Butler, afterwards bishop of Durham, and Mr. Thomas Seeker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, with whom he contracted a friendship that continued to the end of their lives, notwithstanding the different views by which their conduct was afterwards directed, and the different situations in which they were placed.

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

While Mr. Chandler was minister of the congregation at Peckham, some gentlemen of the several denominations of dissenters in the city, came to a resolution to set up and support a weekly evening lecture at the Old Jewry, for the winter half year. The subjects to be treated in this lecture were the evidences of natural and revealed religion, and answers to the principal objections against them. Two of the most eminent young ministers among the dissenters were appointed for the execution of this design, of which Mr. Chandler was one, and Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Lardner, who is so justly celebrated for his learned writings, was another. But after some time this lecture was dropped, and another of the same kind set up, to be preached by one person only, it being judged that it might then be conducted with more consistency of reason and uniformity of design; and Mr. Chandler was appointed for this service. In the course of this lecture he preached some sermons on the confirmation which miracles gave to the divine mission of Christ, and the truth of his religion; and vindicated the argument against the objections of Collins, in his “Discourse of the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion.” These sermons, by the advice of a friend, he enlarged, and threw into the form of a continued treatise, and published in 1725, 8vo, under the following title: “A Vindication of the Christian Religion, in two parts, I. A discourse on the nature and use of Miracles II. An answer to a late book,entitled a Discourse on the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion.” Having presented a copy of this book to archbishop Wake, his grace expressed his sense of the value of the favour, in a letter, which is an honourable testimony to Mr. Chandler’s merit. It appears from the letter, that the archbishop did not then know that the author was any other than a bookseller; for he says: “I cannot but own myself to be surprised to see so much good learning and just reasoning in a person of your profession; and do think it a pity you should not rather spend your time in writing books than in selling them. But I am glad, since your circumstances oblige you to the latter, that you do not wholly omit the former.” Besides gaining the archbishop’s approbation, Mr. Chandler’s performance considerably advanced his reputation in general, and contributed to his receiving an invitation, about 1726, to settle as a minister with the congregation in the Old Jewry, which was one of the most respectable in London. Here he continued, first as assistant, and afterwards as pastor, for the space of forty years, and discharged the duties of the ministerial office with great assiduity and ability, being much esteemed and regarded by his own congregation, and acquiring a distinguished reputation, both as a preacher and a writer.

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

His next publication arose from his connection with the Dilletanti, a society so called, composed originally (in 1734) of some gentlemen who had travelled in Italy, and were desirous of encouraging at home a taste for those objects which had contributed so much to their entertainment abroad. On a report of the state of this society’s finances in 1764, it appeared that they were in possession of a considerable sum above what their current services required. Various schemes were proposed for applying part of this money to some purpose which might promote taste, and do honour to the society; and after some consideration it was resolved, that persons properly qualified should be sent, with sufficient appointments, to certain parts of the east, to collect information relative to the former state of those countries, and particularly to procure exact descriptions of the ruins of such monuments of antiquity as are yet to be seen in those parts. Three persons were accordingly selected for this undertaking; Mr. Chandler was appointed to execute the classical part of the plan; the province of architecture was assigned to Mr. Revett; and the choice of a proper person for taking views and copying bas-reliefs, fell upon Mr. Pars, a young painter of promising talents.

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

Chapelain died at Paris, Feb. 22, 1674, aged seventynine. He was of the king’s counsellors; very rich, and had some amiable qualities, but was covetous. “Pelisson and I,” says Menage, “had been at variance a long time with Chapelain; but, in a fit of humility, he called upon me and insisted that we should go and offer a reconciliation to him, for that it was his intention,” as much as possible, to live in peace with all men.“We went, and I protest I saw the very same billets of wood in the chimney which I had observed there twelve years before. He had 50,Ooo crowns in ready cash by him; and his supreme delight was to have his strong box opened and the bags taken out, that he might contemplate his treasure. In this manner were his bags about him when he died; which gave occasion to a certain academician to say,” there is our friend Chapelain just dead, like a miller among his bags.“He had no occasion therefore to accept of cardinal Richelieu’s offer. Being at the height of his reputation, Richelieu, who was fond of being thought a wit as well as a statesman, and was going to publish something which he would have pass for an excellent performance, could not devise a better expedient than prefixing Chapelain’s name to it.” Chapelain,“says he,” lend me your name on this occasion, and I will lend you my purse on any other.“The learned Huet endeavoured to vindicate his great poem, but could not succeed against the repeated attacks of Boileau, Racine, and Fontaine. Chapelain, however, was a man of learning, and a good critic, and he has found an able defender in the abbe cT Olivet, in his History of the French Academy, It was at the desire of Malherbe and Vaugelas that Chapelain wrote the famous preface to the” Adone“of Marino; and it was he who corrected the very first poetical composition of Racine, his” Ode to the Queen," who introduced Racine to Colbert, and procured him a pension, for which Racine repaid him by joining the wits in decrying his poem.

, a celebrated French poet, called Chapelle from the place of his nativity, a village between Paris and St. Denys, was born in 1621. He was the natural son of Francis Lullier, a man of considerable rank and fortune, who was extremely tender of him, and gave him a liberal education. He had the celebrated Gassendi for his master in philosophy; but he distinguished himself chiefly by his poetical attempts. There was an uncommon ease in all he wrote; and he was excellent in composing with double rhymes. We are obliged to him for that ingenious work in verse and prose, called “Voyage de Bachaumont,” which he wrote in conjunction with Bachaumont. Many of the most shining parts in Moliere’s comedies it is but reasonable to ascribe to him: for Moliere consulted him upon all occasions, and paid the highest deference to his taste and judgment. He was intimately acquainted with all the wits of his time, and with many persons of quality, who used to seek his company: and we learn from one of his own letters to the marquis of Chilly, that he had no small share in the favour of the king, and enjoyed, probably from court, an annuity of 8000 livres. He is said to have been a very pleasant, but withal a very voluptuous man. Among other stories in the Biographia Gallica, we are told that Boileau met him one day; and as he had a great value for Chapelle, ventured to tell him, in a very friendly manner, that “his inordinate love of the bottle would certainly hurt him.” Chapelle seemed very seriously affected; but this meeting happening unluckily by a tavern, “Come,” says he, “let us turn in here, and I promise to attend with patience to all that you shall say.” Boileau led the way, in hopes of converting him, but both preacher and hearer became so intoxicated that they were obliged to be sent home in separate coaches. Chapelle died in 1686, and his poetical works and “Voyage” were reprinted with additions at the Hague in 1732, and again in 1755, 2 vols. 12mo.

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

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

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

, D. D. was the son of the rev. William Chapman, rector of Stratfield-say in Hampshire, where he was probably born in 1704. He was educated at King’s college, Cambridge, A. B. 1727, and A. M. 1731. His first promotion was the rectory of Mersham in Kent, and of Alderton, with the chapel of Smeeth; to which he was appointed in 1739 and 1744, being then domestic chaplain to archbishop Potter. He was also archdeacon of Sudbury, and treasurer of Chichester, two options. Being educated at Eton, he was a candidate for the provostship of that college, and lost it by a small majority, and after a most severe contest with Dr. George. Among his pupils he had the honour to class the first lord Camden, Dr. Ashton, Horace Walpole, Jacob Bryant, sir W. Draper, sir George Baker, and others who afterwards attained to considerable distinction in literature. His first publication was entitled “The Objections of a late anonymous writer (Collins) against the book of Daniel, considered/' Cambridge, 1728, 8vo. This was followed by his” Remarks on Dr. Middleton’s celebrated Letter to Dr. Waterland,“published in 1731, and which has passed through three editions. In his” Eusebius,“2 vols. 8vo, he defended Christianity against the objections of Mor-­gan, and against those of Tindal in his” Primitive Antiquity explained and vindicated.“The first volume of Eusebius, published in 1739, was dedicated to archbishop Potter; and when the second appeared, in 1741, Mr. Chapman styled himself chaplain to his grace. In the same year he was made archdeacon of Sudbury, and was honoured with the diploma of D. D. by the university of Oxford. He is at this time said to have published the” History of the ancient Hebrews vindicated, by Theophanes Cantabrigiensis,“8vo but this was the production of Dr. Squire. He published two tracts relating to” Phlegon,“in answer to Dr. Sykes, who had maintained that the eclipse mentioned by that writer had no relation to the wonderful darkness that happened at our Saviour’s crucifixion. In 1738 Dr. Chapman published a sermon preached at the consecration of bishop Mavvson, and four other single sermons, 1739, 1743, 1748, and 1752. In a dissertation written in elegant Latin, and addressed to Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Tunstall, then public orator of the university of Cambridge, and published with his Latin epistle to Dr. Middleton concerning the genuineness of some of Cicero’s epistles, 1741, Dr. Chapman proved that Cicero published two editions of his Academics; an original thought that had escaped all former commentators, and which has been applauded by Dr. Ross, bishop of Exeter, in his edition of Cicero’s” Epistolse ad familiares,“1749. In 1744 Mr. Tunstall published” Observations on the present Collection of Epistles between Cicero and M. Brutus, representing several evident marks of forgery in those epistles,“&c. to which was added a” Letter from Dr. Chapman, on the ancient numeral characters of the Roman legions.“Dr. Middleton had asserted, that the Roman generals, when they had occasion to raise new legions in distant parts of the empire, used to name them according to the order in which they themselves had raised them, without regard to any other legions whatever. This notion Dr. Chapman controverts and confutes. According to Dr. Middleton there might have been two thirtieth legions in the empire. This Dr. Chapman denies to have been customary from the foundation of the city to the time when Brutus was acting against Anthony, but affirms nothing of the practice after the death of Brutus. To this Dr. Middleton made no reply. In 1745 Dr. Chapman was employed in assisting Dr. Pearce, afterwards bishop of Rochester, in his edition of” Cicero de Officiis.“About this time Dr. Chapman introduced Mr. Tunstall and Mr. Hall to archbishop Potter, the one as his librarian, the other as his chaplain, and therefore had some reason to resent their taking an active part against him in the option cause, though they both afterwards dropped it. Dr. Chapman’s above-mentioned attack on Dr. Middleton, which he could not parry, and his interposition in defence of his much-esteemed friend Dr. Waterland, provoked Dr. Middleton to retaliate in 1746, by assailing him in what he thought a much more vulnerable part, in his Charge to the archdeaconry of Sudbury, entitled <e Popery the true bane of letters.” In 1747, to Mr. Mounteney’s edition of some select orations of Demosthenes, Dr. Chapman prefixed in Latin, without his name, observations on the Commentaries commonly ascribed to Ulpian, and a map of ancient Greece adapted to Demosthenes. Mr. Mounteney had been schoolfellow with Dr. Chapman at Eton, and was afterwards a baron of the exchequer in Ireland. If archbishop Potter had lived to another election, Dr. Chapman was intended for prolocutor. As executor and surviving trustee to that prelate, his conduct in that trust, particularly his presenting himself to the precentorship of Lincoln, void by the death of Dr. Trimnell (one of his grace’s options), was brought into chancery by the late Dr. Richardson, when lord keeper Henley in 1760 made a decree in Dr. Chapman’s favour; but, on an appeal to the house of lords, the decree was reversed, and Dr. Richardson ordered to be presented, When Mr. Yorke had finished his argument, in which he was very severe on Dr. Chapman, Mr. Pratt, afterwards lord Camden, who had been his pupil, and was then his counsel, desired him, by a friend, not to be uneasy, for that the next day he “would wash him as white as snow.” Thinking his case partially stated by Dr. Burn, in his “Ecclesiastical Law,' 1 vol. I. (article Bishops), as it was taken from the briefs of his adversaries, he expostulated with him on the subject by letter, to which the doctor candidly replied,” that he by no means thought him criminal, and in the next edition of his work would certainly add his own representation." On this affair, however, Dr. Hurd passes a very severe sentence in his correspondence with Warburton lately published. Dr. Chapman died the 34th of October, 1784, in the 80th year of his age.

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

Miss Mulso’s first production appears to have been the Ode to Peace, and that addressed to miss Carter on her intended publication of the translation of Epictetus. About the same lime she wrote the story of Fidelia, which miss Carter aftd her other friends who had read it, persuaded her to send to the editor of the “Adventurer.”

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

His active genius discovered to him in the silence and solitude of the cloister resources which he had little expected. During his course of philosophy, he formed an acquaintance with a carthusian, named Dom Germain, from whom he learned the elements of the mathematics and of astronomy. In these two sciences he made a rapid progress; for the zeal of the master was well seconded by the diligence of the scholar, who followed his literary pursuits with the same ardour and enthusiasm as the generality of young men follow dissipation and pleasure. So singular a phenomenon could not long remain unknown. Father de la Tour, then principal of the college, being struck with young Chappe, mentioned him to M. Cassini, and spoke of the progress he had made in such high terms, that the latter became very desirous to see some of his works. After causing him to make a few experiments in his presence, that celebrated academician could not help admiring his happy disposition; but he did not confine himself to praises only. Being a warm patron and protector of merit, he from that moment resolved to cultivate young Chappe' s talents, and to endeavour to render them useful to society. With this view he employed him in taking plans of several of the royal buildings, and made him assist in delineating the general map of France.

The two comets which appeared in 1760 gave the abbe an opportunity of shewing that he was not unworthy of the honour conferred on him; he observed them both with the greatest assiduity and attention, and the result of his observations was published in the memoirs of that year, with reflections on the zodiacal light, and an aurora boreal is which appeared about the same period. As the transit of Venus over the sun’s disk, which Halley announced would happen on the 6th of June 1761, seemed to promise great advantage to astronomy, it very much excited the curiosity of the learned throughout all Europe. It was necessary, however, in order to derive benefit from it, that it should be observed in some very remote places; and as Tobolsk, the capital of Siberia, and the island of Roderigo in the East- Indies, were thought to be the properest, the difficulty was to find astronomers bold enough to transport themselves thither. But what will not the love of science prompt men to do M. Pinge offered to go to the island of Roderigo, and Tobolsk remained to the abbé Chappe, who, had the matter been left to himself, would have made no other choice.

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

Had it not been for the care of a very respectable French academician, the fruits of this observation would have been entirely lost to the learned. The abbé Chappe having at his death committed his papers to the care of M. Pauli, they were afterwards arranged and published by M. Cassini, the son, who at an age when others only afford hopes of their future celebrity, had acquired the highest reputation; and if any thing could console the public for the loss occasioned by the abbé being prevented from putting the last hand to his work, it certainly was the seeing it appear under the auspices of so able an editor.

, a very learned and pious divine, bishop of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross, in Ireland, was descended, as he himself tells us, from parents in narrow circumstances, and was born at Lexington, in Nottinghamshire, Dec. 10, 1512. He was sent to a grammar-­school at Mansfield, in the same county; and thence, at the age of seventeen, removed to Christ’s-college, in Cambridge; of which, after having taken his degrees of B. and M. A. he was elected fellow in 1607. He became a very eminent tutor, and was also remarkable for his abilities as a disputant, concerning which the following anecdotes are recorded. In 1624 king James visited the university of Cambridge, lodged in Trinity-college, and was entertained with a philosophical act, and other academical performances. At these exercises Dr. Roberts of Trinity-­college was respondent at St. Mary’s, where Chappel as opponent pushed him so hard, that, finding himself unable to keep up the dispute, he fainted. Upon this, the king, who valued himself much upon his skill in such matters, undertook to maintain the question, but with no better success than the doctor; for Chappel was so much his superior at these logical weapons, that his majesty openly professed his joy to find a man of great talents so good a subject. Many years after this, sir William St. Leger riding to Cork with the popish titular dean of that city, Chappel, then dean of Cashel, and provost of Dublin, accidentally overtook them; upon which sir William, who was then president of Munster, proposed that the two deans should dispute, which, though Chappel was not forward to accept, yet he did not decline. But the popish dean, with great dexterity and address, extricated himself from this difficulty, saying, “Excuse me, sir; I don't care to dispute with one who is wont to kill his man.”

It is probable that he would have spent his days in college, if he had not received an unexpected offer from Laud, then bishop of London, of the deanery of Cashel, in Ireland; which preferment, though he was much disturbed at Cambridge by the calumnies of some who envied his reputation, he was yet very unwilling to accept. For being a man of a quiet easy temper, he had no inclination to stir, nor was at all ambitious of dignities; but he determined at length to accept the offer, went over to Ireland accordingly, and was installed August 20, 1633. Soon after he was made provost of Trinity-college, Dublin, by Laud, then archbishop of Canterbury, and chancellor of the university of Dublin, who, desirous of giving a new form to the university, looked upon Chappel as the fittest person to settle the establishment that was proposed. Chappel took great pains to decline this charge, the burden of which he thought too heavy, and for this purpose returned to England in May 1634, but in vain. Upon this he went down to Cambridge, and resigned his fellowship; which to him, as himself says, was the sweetest of earthly preferments. He also visited his native country, and taking his last leave of his ancient and pious mother, he returned to Ireland in August. He was elected provost of Trinity-college, and had the care of it immediately committed to him; though he was not sworn into it till June 5, 1637, on account of the new statutes not being sooner settled and received. The exercises of the university were never more strictly looked to, nor the discipline better observed than in his time; only the lecture for teaching Irish was, after his admission, wholly waved. Yet, that he might mix something of the pleasant with the profitable, and that young minds might not be oppressed with too much severity, he instituted, as sir James Ware tells us, among the juniors, a Roman commonwealth, which continued during the Christmas vacation, and in which they had their dictators, consuls, censors, and other officers of state in great splendour. And this single circumstance may serve to give us a true idea of the man, who was remarkable for uniting in his disposition two very different qualities, sweetness of temper, and severity of manners.

In 1638 his patrons, the earl of Strafford, and the archbishop of Canterbury, preferred him to the bishoprics of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross; and he was consecrated at St. Patrick’s, Dublin, Nov. 11, though he had done all he could to avoid this honour. By the king’s command he continued in his provostship till July 20, 1640; before which time he had endeavoured to obtain a small bishopric in England, that he might return to his native country, as he tells us, and die in peace. But his endeavours were fruitless; and he was left in Ireland to feel all the fury of the storm, which he had long foreseen. He was attacked in the house of commons with great bitterness by the puritan party, and obliged to come to Dublin from Cork, and to put in sureties for his appearance. June 1641, articles of impeachment were exhibited against him to the house of peers, consisting of fourteen, though the substance of them was reduced to two; the first, perjury, on a supposed breach of his oath as provost; the second, malice towards the Irish, founded on discontinuing the Irish lecture during the time of his being provost. The prosecution was urged with great violence, and, as is supposed, for no other reason but because he had enforced uniformity and strict church discipline in the college. This divine’s fate was somewhat peculiar, for although his conduct was consistent, he was abused at Cambridge for being a puritan, and in Ireland for being a papist. Yet as we find the name of archbishop Usher among his opponents in Ireland, there seems reason to think that there was some foundation for his unpopularity, independent of what was explicitly stated. While, however, he laboured under these troubles, he was exposed to still greater, by the breaking out of the rebellion in the latter end of that year. He was under a kind of confinement at Dublin, on account of the impeachment which was still depending; but at length obtained leave to embark for England, for the sake of returning thence to Cork, which, from Dublin, as things stood, he could not safely do. He embarked Dec. 26, 1641, and the next day landed at Milford-haven, after a double escape, as himself phrases it, from the Irish wolves and the Irish sea. He went from Milford-haven to Pembroke, and thence to Tenby, where information was made of him to the mayor, who committed him to gaol Jan. 25. After lying there seven weeks, he was set at liberty by the interest of sir Hugh Owen, a member of parliament, upon giving bond in 1000l. for his appearance; and March 16, set out for Bristol. Here he learnt that the ship bound from Cork to England, with a great part of his effects, was lost near Minehead; and by this, among other things, he lost his choice collection of books. After such a series of misfortunes, and the civil confusions increasing, he withdrew to his native soil, where he spent the remainder of his life in retirement and study; and died at Derby, where he had some time resided, upon Whitsunday, 1649. He published the year before his death, “Methodus concionandi,” that is, the method of preaching, which for its usefulness was also translated into English. His “Use of Holy Scripture,” was printed afterwards in 1653. He left behind him also his own life, written by himself in Latin, which has been twice printed; first from a ms. in the hands of sir Philip Sydenham, bart. by Hearne, and a second time by Peck, from a ms. still preserved in Trinity-hall, Cambridge, for the author left two copies of it. Mr. Peck adds, by way of note upon his edition, the following extract of a letter from Mr. Beaupre Bell: “’Tis certain ‘The whole Duty of Man’ was written by one who suffered by the troubles in Ireland; and some lines in this piece give great grounds to conjecture that bishop Chappel was the author. March 3, 1734.” Thus we see this prelate, as well as many other great and good persons, comes in for part of the credit of that excellent book; yet there is no explicit evidence of his having been the author of it. It appears indeed to have been written before the death of Charles I. although it was not published till 1657, and the manner of it is agreeable enough to this prelate’s plain and easy way of writing; but then there can be no reason given why his name should be suppressed in the title-page, when a posthumous work of his was actually published with it but a few years before.

, an eminent oriental scholar, of whom we regret that our information is so scanty, was born in 1683, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1712, his master’s in 1716, and that of B. D. in 1723. To his other studies he united an uncommon application to oriental languages, in which such was his reputation, that he was chosen to succeed the learned Simon Ockley in 1720, as Arabic professor. He held also a fellowship in his college, until they bestowed on him the livings of Great and Little Hormead, in Hertfordshire. To this fellowship he was chosen in 1717, in the room of a Mr. Tomkinson, one of the nonjuror-fellows ejected at that time by act of parliament. The celebrated Mr. Baker was another, and always afterwards designated himself “Socius ejectus.” In February 1734-5, we find Mr. Chappelow a candidate for the mastership of St. John’s college, but he failed, although after a very severe contest. Mr. Chappelow constantly read lectures during one term on the Oriental languages, for which he had a peculiar enthusiasm, and in which he was critically versed. This inclined him to the publication of the first work by which his name was more extensively known, his edition of Spencer “De Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus.” Spencer, after the first publication of this capital work in 1685, had continued to make improvements in it, and by will left such of his papers and writings as were perfect, to be added in their proper places, if ever there should be occasion to reprint it with the full right and property of them to his executor, bishop (afterwards archbishop) Tenison, who bequeathed them to the university of Cambridge, after having caused them to be prepared for the press, with fifty pounds towards the expences of printing. These the senate, by grace, gave leave to Mr. Chappelow to publish, and as an encouragement, bestowed upon him the archbishop’s benefaction likewise. The work was accordingly executed in 1727, 2 vols. fol. by a subscription of two guineas the small, and three guineas the large paper, begun in 1725. B en e't college, on this occasion, was at the expence of prefixing an elegant engraving of the author, as a small testimony of gratitude to their munificent benefactor. In 1730, he published “Elementa Linguae Arabicae,” chiefly from Erpenius.

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

, a skilful apothecary, born at Usez, in Upper Languedoc, in 1618, followed ins profession at Orange, from whence he went and settled at Paris. Having obtained a considerable share of reputation by his treatise on the virtues and properties of treacle, he was chosen to deliver a course of chemistry at the royal garden of plants at Paris, in which he acquitted himself with general applause during nine years. His “Pharmacopeia,” 1673, of which an improved edition by Monnier was published in 1753, 2 vols. 4to, was the fruit of his lectures and his studies, and has been translated into all the languages of Europe, and even into the Chinese, for the accommodation of the emperor. The edicts against the Calvinists obliged him to quit his country in 1680. He went over to England, from thence to Holland, and afterwards into Spain with the ambassador, who brought him to the assistance of his master Charles II. Languishing in sickness from his birth. Every good Spaniard was at that time convinced that the vipers for twelve leagues round Toledo were innoxious, ever since they were deprived of their venom by the fiat of a famous archbishop. The French doctor endeavoured to combat this error, and the physicians of the court, envious of the merit of C haras, failed not to take umbrage at this impiety; they complained of him to the inquisition, from whence he was not dismissed till he had abjured the protestant faith. Charas was then seventy -two years old. He returned to Paris, and was admitted a member of the royal academy, and there he continued until his death, Jan. 17, 1698.

, a celebrated traveller, the son of an opulent protestant jeweller, was born at Paris Nov. 16, 1643. For some time it is probable that he followed his father’s profession; but he was only twenty-two years old when, in 1664 (not 1665, as Niceron says), he went to the East Indies. There he remained for six years, passing his time chiefly in Persia. He published no regular account of this voyage, which he modestly says he conceived might be uninteresting, but confined himself to a detail of certain events of which he had been an eye-witness. This was contained in a twelves volume printed at Paris in 1671, the year after he returned, under the title of “Le Couronnement de Soliman II. roi de Perse, et ce qui s’est passe de plus memorable darts les deux premieres anne*es de son regne.” In this work he was assisted by a Persian nobleman, Mirza Sefi, one of the most learned men of the kingdom, who was at that time in disgrace, and confined to his palace at Ispahan, where Mr. Chardin was entertained and instructed by him in the Persian language and history. It is introduced by a dedication to the king which, according to the “Carpenteriana,” was written by M. Charpentier. M. Petis de la Croix criticised the work with soijae severity, as to the orthography and etymology of some Persian words, and Tavernier objected to the title, insisting that Soliman never wore the crown; but Chardin found an able defender in P. Ange de la Brosse.

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

, an ancient statuary, a native of Lindas, and disciple of Lysippus in the seventh century, immortalized himself by the Colossus of the Sun at Rhodes, which has been reckoned one of the seven wonders of the world. This statue was of brass, and above 100 feet high; and was placed at the entrance of the harbour at Rhodes, with the feet upon two rocks, in such a manner, that ships could pass in full sail betwixt them. Chares employed twelve years upon it; and after standing forty-six, it was thrown down by an earthquake. Moavius, a caliph of the Saracens, who invaded Rhodes in the year 667, sold it to a Jew merchant, who is said to have loaded 900 camels with the materials of it.

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

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

The conqueror turned himself now, to be revenged upon the king of Poland. He passed the river Duna, beat marshal Stenau, who disputed the passage with him, forced the Saxons into their ports, and gained a signal victory over them. He hastened to Courland, which surrendered to him, passed into Lithuania, made every thing bow down before him, and went to support the intrigues of the cardinal primate of Poland, in order to deprive Augustus of the crown. Being master of Warsovia, he pursued him, and gained the battle of Clifsaw, though his enemy opposed tb him prodigies of valour. He again fell in with the Saxon army commanded by Stenau, besieged Thorn, and caused Stanislaus to be elected king of Poland. The terror of his arms carried all before them: the Russians were easily dispersed; Augustus, reduced to the last extremities, sued for peace; and Charles, dictating the conditions of it, obliged him to renounce his kingdom, and acknowledge Stanislaus.

He preserved more humanity than is usually found among conquerors. Once, in the middle of an action, finding a young Swedish officer wounded and unable to march, he obliged the officer to take his horse, and continued to command his infantry on foot. The princess Lubomirski, who was very much in the interest and good graces of Augustus, falling by accident into the hands of one of his officers, he ordered her to be set at liberty; saying, “that he did not make war with women.” One day, near Leipsic, a peasant threw himself at his feet, with a complaint against a grenadier, that he had robbed him of certain eatables provided for himself and his family. “Is it true,” said Charles sternly, “that you have robbed this man” The soldier replied, “Sir, I have not done near so much harm to this man, as your majesty has done to his master: for you have taken from Augustus a kingdom, whereas I have only taken from this poor scoundrel a dinner.” Charles made the peasant amends, and pardoned the soldier for his firmness “however, my friend,” says he to him, “you will do well to recollect, that, if I took a kingdom from Augustus, I did not take it for myself.”

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

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

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

, son of Richard Charnock an. attorney, descended from an ancier.t family of that name in Lancashire, was born in London in 1628, and educated first in Emanuel college in Cambridge, from whence be removed to New college, Oxford, in 1649, and obtained a fellowship by the parliamentarian interest. Afterwards he went into Ireland, where he preached, and was much admired by the presbyterians and independents. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. he refused to conform, but returned into England, and lived mostly in London, where adhering to the principles of the nonconformists, he preached in private meetings, and had the reputation of a man of good parts, learning, and elocution. He died in July 27, 1680. He printed only a single sermon in his life-time, which is in the “Morning Exercise;” but after his death, two folio volumes from his manuscripts were published in 1683, and still bear a high price. Wood says that those who differed from him in opinion, admired his extensive learning, into which he was first initiated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, by his tutor, Dr. Sancroft, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury.

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

, a native of Bayeux, one of the first French writers who aspired to elegance, flourished about 1430. He was secretary to the kings Charles VI. and VII. and employed in several embassies. His compositions in prose excelled those that were poetical, and he spoke as well as he wrote, so that he was esteemed the father of French eloquence. The following curious anecdote relating to him is recorded: Margaret of Scotland, first wife to the dauphin, afterwards Lewis XI. as she passed through the Louvre, observed Alain asleep, and went and kissed him. When her attendants expressed their surprize that she should thus distinguish a man remarkable for his ugliness, she replied, “I do not kiss the man, but the mouth that has uttered so many charming things.” His works were published by the elder Du Chesne, in 1617, 4to; the first part consisting of his works in prose, viz. the “Curial;” a “Treatise on Hope;” the “Luadrilogus Invectif,” against Edward III.; and others, partly spurious; and the second part containing his poems, which are for the most part obscure and tedious. Alain Chartier died at Avignon in 1449. We find much difference in the biographers of Chartier, some ascribing to him the “Chroniques de St. Denys,” Paris, 1493, 3 vols. fol. and others to his brother John; and the “History of Charles VII.” likewise attributed to him, is given by Du Chesne to Berri, first herald to Charles VII. and by Moreri to Gilles de Bouvier.

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

, a Flemish gentleman, who was educated at the court of the dukes of Burgundy, and esteemed as one of those by whom the French language was at that time best understood. John Molinet was his pupil. He died 1475, leaving in French verse, an account of all the extraordinary things which happened in his time, 1531, 4to; and at the end of the Legend of Fairfeu, 1723, 8vo; “Le Chevalier delibere, ou la Mort du Due de Bourgogne devant Nanci,” 1489, 4to. Some attribute this work to Oliver de la Marche. “Hist, du Chevalier Jaques de Lalain,” Antwerp, 1634, 4to; “Les Epitaphes d‘Hector et d’Achille,” 1525, 8vo.

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

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

We have already noticed that the marquis served in America, under Rochatnbeau, during the war with Great Britain. This produced his “Voyage dans l'Amerique,” which was immediately translated into English, under the title “Travels in North- America, in the years 1780, 1781, 1782,” 1787, 2 vols. 8vo. In this work, which is rather to be read as amusing than relied on as authentic, there is much of that enthusiasm for theoretic liberty and happiness which pervades the marquis’s former work; but his want of impartiality did not escape even his own countrymen. Brissot de Warville wrote an “Examen Critique' 7 of the travels, in which he convicted the writer of great partiality, as well as of unjust representations of events; and the same charges were brought against him by an anonymous writer in our own country, who, after the appearance of the translation, published” Remarks on the Travels, &c.“1787, 8vo. The only other publication of the marquis’s pen, was” Notice sur la vie et les ecrits d'Helvetius,“printed with his poem” Du Bonheur." We give this on the authority of the Dict. Hist, but it has been attributed to Duclos, to Saurin, and to the baron Holbach. The marquis de Chastellux died suddenly at Paris, Oct. 24, 1788.

, in Latin Castellanus, a very learned French prelate, is said by some to have been of obscure birth, but his biographer Galland makes him of an ancient family, and the son of a brave knight. Yet this is doubtful, if what he said to king Francis I. be more than a witticism. The king once asked him if he was a gentleman; to which Chatel answered “that there were three in the ark, but he did not really know from which of them he descended.” He was, however, born at Arc, in Burgundy, and in the eleventh year of his age, before which his parents died, he was sent to Dijon, for education, where he made an astonishing progress, and before he had been there six years, was appointed a teacher, in which capacity he soon distinguished himself, and on one occasion made a public display of more than grammatical talents. His master, Peter Turreau, was accused of being an astrologer, and Chatel pleaded his cause so ably that he was acquitted. He afterwards travelled, in order to cultivate the acquaintance of the learned men of his time, and particularly of Erasmus, whom he met at Basil, and who conceived such a high opinion of his learning, as to recommend him to Frobenius, to be corrector of the Greek and Latin authors, printed at his celebrated press. While here he had also an opportunity of correcting some of Erasmus’s works; but they left Basil together, when the popish religion was established there. Erasmus retired to Fribourg, and Chatel returned to France, where he accepted the offer made him by some persons of distinction, to be tutor to certain young men who were to study law at Bourges, under the celebrated Alciat. As they were not yet prepared to depart, he read public lectures on the Greek text of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans; and unfortunately for his reputation, was entrapped into an intrigue with a young woman, a circumstance on which Bayle expatiates with his usual delight ~in what is indelicate. ChatePs scholars, however, being at length ready, he accompanied them to Bourges, and studied law, filling up his leisure hours with topics of polite literature. His diligence was unremitting, as he slept scarcely three hours in the night, and the moment he waked ran with eagerness to his books. This method of study he preserved, even afterwards, when appointed reader to the king.

Having an inclination to visit Italy, the bishop of Auxerre, who was going there in a diplomatic character, took him with him, but at Rome he found little enjoyment except in contemplating the remains of antiquity. The corruption of morals at the court of Rome appeared so atrocious in his eyes, that for many years afterwards he could not speak on the subject without indignation, and appears indeed to have conceived as bad an opinion of the court of Rome as any of the reformers, and expressed himself with as much severity. From Rome he went to Venice, and was induced to accept the office of teaching polite literature in the island of Cyprus, with a pension of two hundred crowns, and there he read lectures for two years with great success. He afterwards went into Egypt, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, and on his return home, the French ambassador at the Porte gave him letters of strong recommendation to Francis I. who appointed him his reader; and entertained him with the utmost familiarity. Chatel availed himself of this favour to procure advantages to learning and learned men; but although his sentiments were so far liberal as to admit that the church wanted reforming, he supported the catholic religion, and even assisted the inquisitors and informers. He was also averse to capital punishments for heresy, and involved himself in danger by pleading for some pretended heretics, who, it was reported, were to be put to death. He likewise appeased the king’s wrath against the Waldenses before the slaughter of Cabrioles and Merindol, and once delivered Dolet out of prison. His zeal for maintaining the rights of the Gallican church against the pretensions of the court of Rome, rendered him odious there, and the doctors of the Sorbonne were not less displeased with him for the protection he granted in 1545, to Robert Stephens, the celebrated printer. These were favourable symptoms of liberality, at least, if not of an inclination to befriend the cause of the reformation, and soften the rigours of persecution. But Chatel wanted firmness, and withdrawing his protection from Stephens, the latter was forced to retire into another country. Chatel was perhaps influenced by the favours heaped upon him by Francis T. who made him bishop of Tulle in 1539, and afterwards bishop of Macron. He is said never to have appeared to more advantage as a divine and a man of eloquence than when he prepared Francis I. for death, and delivered his funeral oration. Yet in this oration, by hinting that the soul of Francis had immediately gone to heaven, he alarmed the doctors of the Sorbonne, who complained that he was heretic enough to oppose the doctrine of purgatory. A more valid objection, perhaps, might have been his high praise of Francis I. whose character was not that of perfect purity.

, a gentleman descended froman ancient family in Bretany, one of the members of the French, academy, advocate-general to the parliament of Rennes, afterwards master of the requests, and counseller of state, was born in 1593. The court entrusted him with several important commissions; but, upon his refusing to be among the judges at the trial of the marechal de Marillac, he was sent to prison, but set at liberty some time after. It is said, that, being one day with M. de St. Preuil, who was soliciting the due de Montmorenci’s pardon, the king said to him, “I believe M. du Chatelet would willingly part with an arm to save M. de Montmorenci.” To which he replied, “I would, sire, that I could lose them both, for they can do you no service, and save one who has gained many battles for you, and would gain many more.” After his release from prison above noticed, he went to the king’s chapel; but that prince affecting to look another way that he might not meet the eyes of a person to whom he had lately done such a flagrant injury, Du Chatelet whispered one of the noblemen, “Be so good, my lord, as to tell the king, that I freely forgive him, and beg the honour of one look.” This made the king smile, and Du Chatelet was forgiven. It was after the same release, that, when the cardinal de Richelieu (most of whose state papers were the products of Lis pen) made some excuses for his detention, he answered, “I make a great difference betwixt any ill your eminency does of yourself, and any which you permit to be done nor shall you find me the less devoted to your service.” Du Chatelet died April 6, 1636, leaving several works in prose and verse, the principal of which are, 1. “Histoire de Bertrand du Gueschin, connetable de France,” 1666, fol. and 1693, 4to. 2. “Observations sur la vie et la condamnation du mareschal de Marillac,” Paris, 1633, 4to. 3. “Plusieurs de pieces pour servir a l'Histoire,” 1635, fol. and some satires and poems which are not in much estimation.

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

At school he had gathered some knowledge of music, drawing, and arithmetic, and with this stock he was bound apprentice July 1767, to Mr. John Lambert, an attorney at Bristol, for seven years. His apprenticeship appears to have been of the lower order, and his situation more resembling that of a servant than a pupil. His chief employment was to copy precedents, which frequently did not require more than two hours in a day. The rest of his time was probably filled up by the desultory course of reading which he had begun at school, and which terminated chiefly in the study of the old English phraseology, heraldry, and miscellaneous antiquities: of the two last he acquired, not a profound knowledge, but enough to enable him to create fictions capable of deceiving those who had less. His general conduct during his apprenticeship was decent and regular. On one occasion only Mr. Lambert thought him deserving of correction for writing an abusive letter in a feigned hand to his old school-master. So soon did this young man learn the arts of deceit, which he was now preparing to practise upon a more extensive scale.

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

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

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

Such is the story of the discovery of the poems attributed to Rowley, which Chatterton evidently made up from the credulity of his mother and other friends, who could not read the parchments on which he affected to set so high a value, and which he afterwards endeavoured to render of public importance by producing these wonderful treasures of Canynge’s cofre. In his attempt already related, respecting the old bridge, he had not been eminently successful, owing to his prevarication. He now imparted some of these manuscripts to George Catcot, a pewterer of Bristol, who had heard of the discovery, and desired to be introduced to Chatterton. The latter very readily gave him the “Bristow Tragedy,” Rowley’s epitaph on Canynge’s ancestor, and some smaller pieces. These Catcot communicated to Mr. Barret, a surgeon, who was writing a History of Bristol, and would naturally be glad to add to its honours that of having produced such a poet as Rowley, In his conversations with Barret and Catcot, he appears to have been driven to many prevarications, sometimes owning that he had destroyed several of these valuable manuscripts, and at other times asserting that he was in possession of others which he could not produce. These contradictions must have entirely destroyed his evidence in any other case, in the opinion of thinking and impartial judges; but the historian of Bristol could not forego the hopes of enriching his book by originals of so great importance; and having obtained from Chatterton several fragments, some of considerable length, actually introduced them as authentic in his history, long after the controversy ceased, which had convinced the learned world that he had been egregiously duped.

In return for these contributions, Barret and Catcot supplied Chatterton occasionally with money, and introduced him into company. At his request, too, Mr. Barret lent our poet some medical authors, and gave him a few instructions in surgery, but still his favourite studies were heraldry and English antiquities, which he pursued with as much success as could be expected from one who knew no language but his own. Camden’s Britannia appears to have been a favourite book; and he copied the glossaries of Chaucer and others with indefatigable perseverance, storing his memory with antiquated words. Even Bailey’s dictionary has been proved to have afforded him many of those words which the advocates for Rowley thought could be known only to a writer of his pretended age.

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

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

The only remarkable consequence of this correspondence was the censure Mr. Wai pole incurred from the admirers of Chatterton, who, upon no other authority than the circumstances now related, persisted in accusing him of barbarous neglect of an extraordinary genius who solicited his protection, and finally of being the cause of his shocking end. Mr. Walpole, when he found this calumny transmitted from hand to hand, and probably believed by those who did not take the trouble to inquire into the facts, drew up a candid narrative of the whole correspondence, which was broken off nearly two years before Chatterton died, during which two years the latter had resided, with every encouragement, in London; and, according to his own account, was within the prospect of ease and independence, without the aid of Mr. Walpole' s patronage. Of all this Mr. Walpole’s accusers could not be ignorant, if they knew any thing of Chatterton’s history. They must have known that Chatterton did not apply to Walpole, as a poet, but merely as a young man who was transmitting the property of another, and who had no claims of his own, but that he was tired of a dull profession, and wished for a place in which he might indulge his taste in what was more lively. A patron must have had many places in his gift and few applicants, if he could spare one to a person who professed no other merit than an inclination to exchange labour for ease. Yet Walpole has been held forth to public indignation as the cause of Chatterton’s death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With regard to the controversy occasioned by the publications attributed to Rowley, it is unnecessary to enter upon it, although it has lately been attempted to be revived, but without exciting much interest. Whether the object of this controversy was not disproportioned to the warmth it excited, and the length of time it consumed, the reader may judge from a perusal of the whole of Chatterton’s productions. The principal advocates for the existence of Rowley, and the authenticity of his poems, were Mr. Bryant, Dean Milles, Dr. Glynn, Mr. (now Dr.) Henley, Dr. Langhorn (in the Monthly Review), and Mr. James Harris. Their opponents were Mr. Tyrwhitt, Horace Walpole, the two Wartons, Dr. Johnson, Mr. Steevens, Dr. Percy (bishop of Dromore), Mr. Gibbon, Mr. Jones, Dr. Farmer, Mr. Colman, Mr. Sheridan, Dr. Lort, Mr. Astle, Mr. (sir Herbert) Croft, Mr. Hayley, lord Camden, Mr. Gough, Mr. Mason, the writer of the Critical Review, Mr. Badcock (in the Monthly Review), the Reviewers in the Gentleman’s Magazine, and various Correspondents in the same Miscellany. To these may be added, Mr. Malone, who lived to detect another forgery by a very young impostor, in the history of which the reader will probably recollect many corresponding circumstances; and will be inclined to prefer the shame of Chatterton, fatal as it was, to the unblushing impudence and unnatural fraud of one who brought disgrace and ruin on a parent.

In 1803, an edition of Chatterton’s works, far more complete than any that had yet appeared, was published under the care of Messrs. Southey and Cottle, for the benefit of Mrs. Newton, Chatterton’s sister (since dead), and of her daughter; but the coldness with which it was received by the public is perhaps a proof that it will not be possible to perpetuate the fame of an author, who has concealed his best productions under the garb of a barbarous language, which few will be at the trouble of learning. The controversy is no longer interesting, and perhaps the warmth with which so many great names engaged in it, may hereafter be reckoned as surprising as the object itself.

, styled the Father of English poetry, is one of whose birth and family nothing has been decided. It has been contended on the one hand, that he was of noble origin; on the other, that he descended from persons in trade. Even the meaning of his name in French, Chaucier, a shoemaker, has been brought in evidence of a low origin, while the mention of the name Chaucer, in several records, from the time of William the conqueror to that of Edward I. has been thought sufficient to prove the contrary. Leland says he was nobili loco natus but Speght, one of his early biographers, informs us, that, “in the opinion of some heralds, he descended not of any great house, which they gather by his arms;” and Mr. Tyrwhitt is inclined to believe the heralds rather than Leland. Speght, however, goes farther, and makes his father a vintner, who died in 1348, and left his property to the church of St. Mary Aldermary, where he was buried. This is confirmed by Stowe, who says, “Richard Chawcer, vintner, gave to that church his tenement and tavern, with the appurtenance, in the Royal-­streete the corner of Kerion-lane, and was there buried, 1348.” But neither Stowe nor Speght afford any proof that this Richard Chawcer was the father of our poet.

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

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

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

Chaucer’s biographers have given some particulars of his life, before the office just mentioned was conferred upon him. He is said to have been in constant attendance on his majesty, and when the court was at Woodstock, resided at a square stone house near the park gate, which long retained the name of Chaucer’s house; and many of the rural descriptions in his works have been traced to Woodstock park, the favourite scene of his walks and studies. But besides his immediate office near the royal person, he very early attached himself to the service of the celebrated John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and from this connection his public life is to be dated. The author of the life prefixed to Urry’s edition observes, that the duke’s “ambition requiring all the assistance of learned men to give it a plausible appearance, induced him to do Chaucer many good offices, in order to engage him in his interest.” But although the assistance of learned men to an ambitious statesman is very well understood in modern times, it is somewhat difficult to conceive what advantage could be derived from such assistance before the invention of printing. It is more probable that the duke had a relish for the talents and taste of Chaucer, and became his patron upon the most liberal grounds, although Chaucer might afterwards repay his favours by exposing the conduct of the clergy, who were particularly obnoxious to the duke by their monopoly of power.

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

Whichever of these accounts is the true one, it appears that this was the last political employment which Chaucer filled, although he did not cease to take an interest in the measures of his patron, the duke of Lancaster. On the accession of Richard II. in 1377, his annuity of twenty marks was confirmed, and another annuity of twenty marks granted to him in lieu of the daily pitcher of wine. He was also confirmed in his office of comptroller. When Richard II. succeeded his grandfather, he was but eleven years of age, and his uncle the duke of Lancaster was consequently entrusted with the chief share in the administration of public affairs. One of his first measures was to solemnize the young king’s coronation with great pomp, previously to which a court of claims was established to settle the demands of those who pretended to have a right to assist at the ceremony. Among these, Chaucer claimed in right of his ward, who was possessed of the manor of Billington in Kent; and this was held of the crown, by the service of presenting to the king three maple cups on the day of his coronation; but this claim was contested, and if it had not, is remote enough from the kind of information which it would be desirable to obtain respecting Chaucer. All we know certainly of this period, is, that the duke of Lancaster still preserved his friendship for our poet, and probably was the means of the grants just noticed having been renewed on the accession of the young king.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is an interleaved copy of Urry’s edition in the British Museum, presented by Mr. William Thomas, a brother of Dr. T. Thomas, who furnished the preface and glossary, and upon whom the charge of publishing devolved after Mr. Urry’s death. This copy has many manuscript notes and corrections. From one of them we learn that the life of Chaucer was very incorrectly drawn up by Mr. Dart, and corrected and enlarged by Mr. William Thomas; and from another, that bishop Atterbury prompted Urry to this undertaking, but “did by no means judge rightly of Mr. Urry’s talents in this case, who though in many respects a most worthy person, was not qualified for a work of this nature.” Dr. Thomas undertook to publish it, at the request of bishop Smalridge. In the Harleian collection is a copy of an agreement between William Brome, executor to Urry, the dean and chapter of Christ Church, and Bernard Lintot the bookseller. By this it appears that it was Urry’s intention to apply part of the profits towards building Peckwater quadrangle. Lintot was to print a thousand copies on small paper at 1l. 10s. and two hundred and fifty on large paper at 2l. 10s. It does not appear that this speculation succeeded. Yet the edition, from its having been printed in the Roman letter, the copiousness of the glossary, and the ornaments, &c. continued to be the only one consulted, until the publication of the “Canterbury Tales” by Mr. Tyrwhitt, in 1775. This very acute critic was the first who endeavoured to restore a pure text by the collation of Mss. a labour of vast extent, but which must be undertaken even to greater extent, before the other works of Chaucer can be published in a manner worthy of their author. Mr Warton laments that Chaucer has been so frequently considered as an old, rather than a good poet; and recommends the study of his works. Mr. Tyrwhitt, since this advice was given, has undoubtedly introduced Chaucer to a nearer intimacy with the learned public, but it is not probable that he can ever be restored to popularity. His language will still remain an insurmountable obstacle with that numerous class of readers to whom poets must look for universal reputation. Poetry is the art of pleasing; but pleasure, as generally understood, admits of very little that deserves the name of study.

, was born at Fontenay in Normandy, in 1639. His father, counsellor of state at Rouen, placed him in the college de Navarre at Paris, where he acquired a profound knowledge of the ancient authors, and contracted an intimacy with the duke de Rochefoucault and the abbé Marsillac, whose patronage he acquired by his lively conversation and his various talents; and while he was countenanced by them, he formed an acquaintance that had a great influence on his poetical efforts. The duchess of Bouillon, a niece of cardinal Mazarin, was about to lay out a large garden, and for that purpose thought it necessary to obtain a piece of ground belonging to the estate of the family of Chaulieu. The poet, with much address, brought the treaty to effect agreeably to the desires of the duchess, and thus acquired the favour of a lady, who afterwards became the inspirer of his sonnets. Her house was a temple of the muses; she encouraged, rewarded, and inspired all such as shewed marks of poetic genius; and evinced a particular regard for Chaulieu. Through her he became known to the duke de Vendome, a great friend of the muses, who, as grand prior of France, presented him with a priorate on the isle of Oleron, with an annual revenue of 28,000 livres. To this were afterwards added the abbacies of Pouliers, Renes, Aumale, and St. Stephen, the profits of which enabled him to pass his life in ease and affluence. The first thing by which Chaulieu became known as a poet was a rondeau on Benserade’s translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. He soon found opportunities for appearing frequently before the public; and his acquaintance with Chapelle determined him entirely for jovial poetry. Chaulieu was no poet by profession he sung with the flask in his hand, and we are told that in the circle of genial friends he acquired those delicate sentiments which render his poetry at once so natural and so charming. The muses were the best comforts of his age, as they had frequently been in his younger

, an eminent nonconformist, and great uncle to the historian of Hertfordshire, was the fifth and youngest son of George Chauncy, esq. of Yardley-bury and New-place in Hertfordshire, by Agnes, the daughter of Edward Welch, and widow of Edward Humberstone, and was born in 1592. He was educated at Westminster school, from which he went to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he was admitted to his several degrees, till he became bachelor of divinity. His reputation for learning was such as gained him the esteem and friendship of the celebrated Dr. Usher, archbishop of Armagh. In consequence of his distinguished skill in Oriental literature, he was chosen, by the heads of houses, Hebrew professor; but Dr. Williams, the vice-chancellor, preferring a relation of his own, Mr. Chauncy resigned his pretensions, and was appointed to the Greek professorship. He was the author of the sTriKpuris which is prefixed to Leigh’s “Critica Sacra' 7 upon the New Testament. When Mr. Chauncy quitted the university, he became vicar of Ware in Hertfordshire. Being of puritanical principles, he was jnuch offended with the” Book of Sports;“and opposed, although with less reason, the railing in of the Communion table. Besides this, he had the indiscretion to say in a sermon, that idolatry was admitted into the church; that much Atheism, Popery, Arminianism, and Heresy had crept into it; and that the preaching of the gospel would be suppressed. Having by these things excited the indignation of the ruling powers, he was questioned in the high commission; and the cause being referred, by order of that court, to the determination of his ordinary, he was imprisoned, condemned in costs of suit, and obliged to make a recantation; which, as it had been extorted from him through fear, lay heavy on his mind. He continued, indeed, some years in his native country, and officiated at Marston Lawrence, in the diocese of Peterborough; but at length retired to New England, where he made an open acknowledgment of his crime in signing a recantation contrary to the dictates of his conscience. For some considerable time succeeding his arrival at New England in 1637, he assisted Mr. Reyner, the minister of that place; after which he removed to a town at a little distance, called” Scituate," where he continued twelve years in the discharge of his pastoral office. When the republican party became predominant in England, Mr. Chauncy was invited, by his old parishioners at Ware, to return back to his native country, and had thoughts of complying, but was so earnestly pressed by the trustees of Harvard college, in Cambridge, which then wanted a president, to accept of the government of that society, that he could not resist their solicitations. This event took place in 1654; and from that time to his death, which happened on the 19th of February, 1671-2, in the 80th year of his age, Mr. Chauncy continued with great reputation at the head of the college, discharging the duties of his station with distinguished attention, diligence, and ability. So high was the esteem in which he was held, that when he had resided about two years in Cambridge, the church of that town, to whom he was united, and among whom he preached, kept a whole day of thanksgiving to God, for the mercy they enjoyed in their connection with him. Mr. Chauncy, by his wife Catherine, whose life was published, had six sons, all of whom were brought up for the ministry. Isaac the eldest of them, became pastor of a nonconformist society in London, and wrote several treatises . Mr. Charles Chauncy had a number of descendants, who long flourished both in Old and New England. One of them was the late Dr. Chauncy the physician, who died in 1777, well known for his skill and taste in pictures, and for his choice collection of them, afterwards in the possession of his brother, Nathaniel Chauncy, esq. of Castle-street, Leicester-fields, who died in 1790.

, whose name we find sometimes spelt Chamney, Chancy, and Channy, was a monk of the Charter-house, London, and with many others of the same order, was imprisoned in the reign of Henry VIII. for refusing to own his supremacy. When the monastery was dissolved, and several of his brethren executed in 1535, Chauncy and a few others contrived to remain unmolested partly in England and partly in Flanders, until the accession of queen Mary, when they were replaced at Shene near Richmond, a monastery formerly belonging to the Carthusians. On the queen’s death, they were permitted to go to Flanders, under Chauncy, who was now their prior. The unsettled state of the reformation there obliged them to remove from Bruges to Doway, and from Doway to Louvain, where they remained until a house was prepared for them at Nieuport, and there at length they obtained a settlement under the crown of Spam, Chauncy, however, died at Bruges July 15, 1581, highly respected by those of his own order. Of his works one only is worth mentioning, entitled “Historia aliquot nostri saeculi Martyrum, cum pia, turn lectu jucunda, nuuqua.ni antehac typis excusa,” printed at Mentz, 1550, 4to, with eurious copper-plates. This work, which is very rare, contains the epitaph of sir Thomas More, written by himself; the captivity and martyrdom of Fibber, bishop of Rochester; and the same of sir Thomas More; and of other eminent persons, who were executed in Henry VIII.'s reign. Wood mentions a second edition at Cologne in 1608, which we think we have seen.

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

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

, a protestant clergyman, was born at Nismes in 1640, and being obliged to leave his country upon the revocation of the edict of Nantes, went to Rotterdam, and afterwards to Berlin, where he became professor of philosophy. He died in 1725 at the age of eighty-five. He published, 1. A “Lexicon philosophicum,” Rotterdam, 1692, fol. and at Leuwarden, 1713, with plates. 2. A new “Journal des Savans,” begun in 1694 at Rotterdam, and continued at Berlin, but less esteemed than the “Histoire des Ouvrages des Sçavans” by Basnage, who on the continent was considered as a better writer, and a man of more taste.

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

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

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

f- It was composed by his learned “Doctrine Checus linguaeque utriusfriend Dr. Walter Haddon. que magister.” James I. He purchased the seat of Pyrgo near Romford in Essex, where he and his posterity were settled several years. He was buried March 25, 1659, in St. Albau’s, Wood-street, near his grandfather. Sir Thomas’s second son, Thomas, commonly known by the name of colonel Cheke, inherited the estate, and was lieutenant, of the Tower in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. This Thomas had two sons, Henry, who died young, and Edward, who succeeded him in his estates. Edward dying in 1707, left two sons; but they died both under age; and the estate devolved to Edward’s younger sister Anne, wife of sir Thomas Tipping of Oxfordshire, bart. who left only two daughters, whereof Catherine, the youngest, was married to Thomas Archer of Underslade in Warwickshire, esq. the late possessor of the Essex estate of the Chekes.

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

, an eminent Lutheran divine, and one of the reformers in Germany, was born at Britzen, a town in the marquisate of Brandenburg, in 1522. His father was a poor wool-comber, who found it difficult to give him much education, but his son’s industry supplied the want in a great measure. After having learned the rudiments of literature in a school near home, he went to Magdeburg, where he made some progress in arts and languages. Then he removed to Francfort upon the Oder, to cultivate philosophy under his relation George Sabinus; and to Wittenburg, where he studied under Philip Melancthon. Afterwards he became a school-master in Prussia; and, in 1552, was made librarian to the prince. He now devoted himself wholly to the study of divinity, though he was a considerable mathematician, and skilled particularly in astronomy. After he had continued in the court of Prussia three years, he returned to the university of Wittemberg, and lived in friendship with Melancthon, who employed him in reading the com-mon-places. From thence he removed to Brunswick, where he spent the last thirty years of his life as pastor, and commenced D. D. at Rostock. He died April 8, 1586. His principal works are, 1. “Harmonia Evangeliorum,” Francfort, 1583 and 1622, Geneva, 1623, 4to. 2. “Examen Concilii Tridentini.” 3. “A treatise against the Jesuits,” wherein he explained to the Germans the doctrines and policy of those crafty devisers, &c. His “Examination of the Council of Trent” has always been reckoned a very masterly performance, and was translated and published in English, 1582, 4to.

Chemnitz, according to Thuanus and many others, was a man of great parts, learning, judgment, and of equal modesty; and was very much esteemed by the princes of his own communion, who often made use of him in the public affairs of the church. Some protestant writers have not scrupled to rank him next to even Luther himself, for the services he did in promoting the reformation, and exposing the errors of the church of Rome. Blount has an ample collection of these encomiums. His son of the same names, who was born at Brunswick Oct. 15, 1561, studied at Leipsic and Francfort, and became successively syndic of the council of Brunswick, professor of law at Rostock, chancellor and counsellor at Stettin, and lastly chancellor at Sleswick, where he died Aug. 26, 1627. He wrote several works, and among them “Historia Navigations Indiae Orientalis.”

, daughter of Henry Cheron, a painter in enamel, of the town of Meaux, was born at Paris in 1648, studied under her father, and at the age of fourteen had acquired a name. The celebrated Le Brun in 1676 presented her to the academy of painting and sculpture, which complimented her talents by admitting her to the title of academician. This ingenious lady divided her time between painting, the learned languages, poetry, and music. She drew on a large scale a great number of gems, a work in which she particularly excelled. These pictures were no less admirable for a good taste in drawing, a singular command of pencil, a fine style of colouring, and a superior judgment in the chiaroscuro. The various manners in painting were all familiar to her. She excelled in history, in oil-colours, in miniature enamels, in portrait painting, and especially in those of females. It is said that she frequently executed the portraits of absent persons, merely from memory, to which she gave as strong a likeness as if the persons had sat to her. The academy of Ricovrati at Padua honoured her with the surname of Erato, and gave her a place in their society. She died at Paris, Sept. 3, 1711, at the age of 63, two years after she had been induced to marry M. La Hay, engineer to the king, who was also advanced in years. Strutt says she amused herself with engraving. Of the gems which she designed, three were etched by herself, viz. Bacchus and Ariadne, Mars and Venus, and Night scattering her poppies. She also engraved a “Descent from the Cross,” and a “Drawing-book,” consisting of 36 prints in folio.

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

In the latter end of the same year, he was seized with a paralytic stroke, from which in appearance he soon perfectly recovered. The flattering prospect, however, of his continuanc6 in life, soon vanished; for, on the 1 Oth of April, 1752, he was suddenly carried off by a fit of an apoplexy, at Bath, in the sixty -fourth year of his age. He married Deborah Knight, a citizen’s daughter, and, if we mistake not, sister of the famous Robert Knight, cashier to the South-sea company in 1720. By this lady Mr. Cheselden had only one daughter, Wilhelmina Deborah, who was married to Charles Cotes, M. D. of Woodcote, in Shropshire, and member of parliament for Tamworth, in Staffordshire. Dr. Cotes died without issue, on the 2 1st of March, 1748; and Mrs. Cotes, who survived him, died some years since at Greenhithe, in the parish of Swanscombe, in the county of Kent. Mrs. Cheselden died in 1764. Mr. Cheselden’s reputation was great in anatomy, but we apprehend that it was still greater, and more justly founded, in surgery. The eminent surgeon Mr. Sharp, in a dedication to our author, celebrates him as the ornament of his profession; acknowledges his own skill in surgery to have been chiefly derived from him; and represents, that posterity will be ever indebted for the signal services he has done to this branch of the medical art. In surgery he was undoubtedly a great improver, having introduced simplicity into the practice of it, and laid aside the operose and hurtful French instruments which had been formerly in use. Guided by consummate skill, perfectly master of his hand, fruitful in resources, he was prepared for all events, and performed every operation with remarkable dexterity and coolness. Being fully competent to each possible case, he was successful in all. He was at the same time eminently distinguished by his tenderness to his patients. Whenever he entered the hospital on his morning visits, the reflection of what he was unavoidably to perform, impressed him with uneasy sensations; and it is even said that he was generally sick with anxiety before he began an operation, though during the performance of it he was, as hath already been observed, remarkably cool and self-collected. Our author’s eulogist relates a striking contrast between him and a French surgeon of eminence. The latter gentleman, having had his feelings rendered callous by a course of surgical practice, was astonished at the sensibility shewn by Mr. Cheselden previously to his operations, and considered it as a great mark of weakness in his behaviour. Yet the same gentleman, being persuaded to accompany Mr. Cheselden to the fencing-school, who frequently amused himself with it as a spectator, could not bear the sight, and was taken ill. The adventure was the subject of conversation at court, and both were equally praised for goodness of heart; but the principle of humanity appears to have been stronger in Mr. Cheselden, because the feeling of it was not weakened by his long practice.

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

In 1617 he undertook an edition of the “Histoire de la Maison de Luxembourg,” written in 1574, by Nicholas Viguier, and continued it to the year 1557. He was also editor this year of the works of Alain Chartier, and of Alcuinus, and at the same time projected two great works the one, “A Geographical Description of France,” which was to extend to many volumes. This work, of which he published a specimen, was begun to be printed in Hoiland, but was not continued; the other was that on which his fame chiefly rests, his collection of French historians, under the title “Historia Francorum Scriptores cocetanei ab ipsius gentis origine ad nostra usque tempora.” In the preface to his collection of the historians of Normandy, he gives some account of the plan, which may be seen in the life of Bouquet, in this Dictionary, (vol. VI.) Peter Pithou and Marquard Freher had given him the idea of it, and he undertook it by order of Louis XIII. who encouraged him, by a pension of 2400 livres, which he enjoyed till his death, with the title of royal geographer and historiographer in ordinary. As a preparation for this work, he published in 1618, his “Bibliotheque des Auteurs qui ont ecrit Histoire et Topographic de la France,” 8vo, which is now superseded by the more extensive work of Le Long. It appears that in forming his collections for the French historians, he was assisted by Peiresc, who examined the church and monastic libraries for him.

Extensive as Du Chesne’s published labours were, they give but a faint idea of his immense industry in collecting historical materials, and of the works which might have been expected from him. He had intended to confine his collection of French historians to 24 folio volumes; but according to Le Long, forty would not be sufficient to contain the manuscripts worthy of publication, and which were discovered after his death; and he had himself written with his own hand above an hundred folio volumes of extracts, transcripts, observations, genealogies, &c. most of which were deposited, for the use of his successors, in the king’s library. Du Fresuoy speaks with less respect of Da Chesne’s labours than they deserve. In collecting so many original authorities, and producing so many transcripts from valuable and perishing Mss. he has surely proved himself a great benefactor to general history; and it is much to his honour that he always was ready to communicate his discoveries to persons engaged in the same study, but who did not always acknowledge their obligations.

, called also Quercetanus, lord of La Violette, and physician to the French king, was born at Armagnac, about the middle of the sixteenth century. After having passed a considerable time in Germany, and being admitted to the degree of M. D. at Basle, 1573, he practised his art in Paris, and was made physician to Henry IV. He had made great progress in the study of chemistry, to which he was particularly devoted. The success that attended his practice in this science, excited the spleen of the rest of the physicians, and especially that of Guy Patin, who was continually venting sarcasms and satires against him, but experience has since shewn that Du Chesne was better acquainted with the properties of antimony than Patin and his colleagues. This learned chemist, who is called Du Quesne by Moreri, died at Paris, at a very advanced age, in 1609. He wrote in French verse, “The Folly of the World,” 1583, 4to. 2. “The great Mirror of the World,” 1593, 8vo. He also composed several books of chemistry, which had great reputation once, although they are now forgotten. Haller has given the titles of them, and analyses of the principal of their contents. The most celebrated among them, which passed through the greatest number of editions, is his “Pharmacopoeia Dogmaticorum restituta, pretiosis, selectisque Hermeticorum Floribus illustrata,” Giesse Hess. 1607. This is said to have been recommended by Boerhaave to his pupils.

Jacob mentions that Dr. Chetwood had a claim to an ancient English barony, which was fruitlessly prosecuted by his son, and which accounts for his being styled “a person of honour,” in a translation which he published of some of St. Evremont’s pieces. By the favour probably of the earl of Dartmouth, he was nominated to the see of Bristol by king James II. but soon after his nomination, the king’s abdication took place. In April 1707, he was installed dean of Gloucester, which preferment he enjoyed till his death, which happened April 11, 1720, at Tempsford, in Bedfordshire, where he had an estate, and where he was buried. He married a daughter of the celebrated Samuel Shute, esq. sheriff of London in the time of Charles II. by whom he left a son, John, who, was fellow of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, and died in 1735. Two copies of verses by Dr. Chetwood, one in English, and the other in Latin, are prefixed to lord Roscommon’s “Essay on translated Verse,” 1685, 4to. He was author also of several poems, some of which are preserved in Dryden’s Miscellany, and in Mr. Nichols’s Collection. He likewise published three single sermons, and “A Speech to the Lower House of Convocation, May 20, 1715, against the late riots.”

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

, a physician of considerable eminence and singular character, was descended from a good family in Scotland, ' where he was born in 1671. He received a regular and liberal education, and was at first intended by his parents for the church, though that design was afterwards laid aside. He passed his youth, as he himself informs us, in close study, and in almost continual application to the abstracted sciences; and in these pursuits his chief pleasure consisted. The general course of his life, therefore, at this time, was extremely temperate and sedentary; though he did occasionally admit of some relaxation, diverting himself with works of imagination, and “rousing nature by agreeable company and good cheer.” But upon the slightest excesses he found such disagreeable effects, as led him to conclude, that his glands were naturally lax, and his solids feeble: in which opinion he was confirmed, by an early shaking of his hands, and a disposition to be easily ruffled on a surprize. He studied physic at Edinburgh under the celebrated Dr. Pitcairne, to whom he was much attached, and whom he styles “his great master and generous friend.” Having taken the degree of doctor of physic, he repaired to London to practise as a physician, when he was about thirty years of age. On his arrival in the metropolis, he soon quitted the regular and temperate manner of life to which he had been chiefly accustomed, and partly from inclination, and partly from, a view to promote his practice, he passed much of his time in company, and in taverns. Being of a cheerful temper, and having a lively imagination, with much acquired knowledge, he soon rendered himself very agreeable to those who lived and conversed freely. He was, as he says, much caressed by them, “and grew daily in bulk, and in friendship with these gay gentlemen, and their acquaintances.” But, in a few years, he found this mode of living very injurious to his health: he grew excessively fat, shortbreathed, listless, and lethargic.

Dr. Cheyne died at Bath, April 12, 1743, in the seventysecond year of his age. He had great reputation in his own time, both as a practitioner and as a writer; and most of his pieces passed through several editions. He is to be ranked among those physicians who have accounted for the operations of medicine, and the morbid alterations which take place in the human body, upon mechanical principles. A spirit of piety and of benevolence, and an ardent zeal for the interests of virtue, are predominant throughout his writings. An amiable candour and ingenuousness are also discernible, and which led him to retract with readiness whatever appeared to him to be censurable in what he had formerly advanced. Some of the metaphysical notions winch he has introduced into his books may perhaps justly be thought fanciful and illgrounded; but there is an agreeable vivacity in his productions, together with much openness and frankness, and in general great perspicuity. Of his relations, his halfbrother, the rev. William Cheyne, vicar of Weston near Bath, died Sept. 6, 1767, and his son the rev. John Cheyne, vicar of Brigstock, Northamptonshire, died August 11, 1768.

, a nonconformist of some note, the son of John Cheynell a physician, was born at Oxford in 1608; and after he had been educated in grammar learning, became a member of the university there fri 1623. When he had taken the degree of B. A. he was, by the interest of his mother, at that time the widow of Abbot, bishop of Salisbury, elected probationer fellow of Merton college in 1629. Then he went into orders, and officiated in Oxford for some time; but when the church began to be attacked in 1640, he took the parliamentarian side, and became an enemy to bishops and ecclesiastical ceremonies. He embraced the covenant, was made one of the assembly of divines in 1643, and was frequently appointed to preach before the members of parliament. He was one of those who were sent to convert the university of Oxford in 1646, was made a visitor by the parliament in 1647, and the year after took possession by force of the Margaret professorship of that university, and of the presidentship of St. John’s college. But being found an improper man for those places, he was forced to retire to the rectory of Petworth in Sussex, to which he had been presented about 1643, where he continued an useful member to his party till the time of the restoration, when he was ejected from that rich parsonage.

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

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

, archbishop of Canterbury, and founder of All Souls college, Oxford, was born, probably in 1362, at Higham-Ferrars in Northamptonshire, of parents who, if not distinguished by their opulence, were at least enabled to place their children in situations which qualified them for promotion in civil and political life. Their sons, Robert and Thomas, rose to the highest dignities in the magistracy of London; and Henry, the subject of this memoir, was, at a suitable age, placed at Winchester school, and thence removed to New college, where he studied the civil and canon law. Of his proficiency here, we have little information, but the progress of his advancement indicates that he soon acquired distinction, and conciliated the affection of the first patrons of the age. From 1392 to 1407, he can be traced through . various ecclesiastical preferments and dignities, for some at least of which he was indebted to Richard Metford, bishop of Salisbury. This valuable friend he had the misfortune to lose in the last mentioned year; but his reputation was so firmly established, that king Henry IV. about this time employed him on an embassy to pope Innocent VII. on another to the court of France, and on a third to pope Gregory XII. who was so much pleased with his conduct as to present him to the bishopric of St. David’s, which happened to become vacant during his residence at the apostolic court in 1408. In the following year he was deputed, along with Hallum, bishop of Salisbury, and Chillingdon, prior of Canterbury, to represent England in the council of Pisa, which was convoked to settle the disputed pretensions of the popes Gregory and Benedict, both of whom were deposed, and Alexander V. chosen in their room, who had once studied at Oxford.

On the accession of Henry V. he was again consulted and employed in many political measures, and appears to have completely acquired the confidence of the new sovereign, who sent him a third time into France on the subject of peace. The English were at this time in possession of some of the territories of that country, a circumstance which rendered every treaty of peace insecure, and created perpetual jealousies and efforts towards emancipation on the part of the French.

His first intentions with respect to Oxford ended in the erection of a house for the scholars of the Cistercian order, who at that time had no settled habitation at Oxford. This mansion, which was called St. Bernard’s College, was afterwards alienated to sir Thomas White, and formed part of St. John’s college. The foundation of All Souls, however, is that which has conveyed his memory to our times with the highest claims of veneration. Like his predecessor and friend Wykeham, he had amassed considerable wealth, and determined to expend it in facilitating the purposes of education, which, notwithstanding the erection of the preceding colleges, continued to be much obstructed during those reigns, the turbulence of which rendered property insecure, and interrupted the quiet progress of learning and civilization.

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

According to this charter, the society was to consist of a warden and twenty fellows, with power in the warden to increase their number to forty, and to be called The warden and college of the souls of all the faithful deceased, Collegium Omnium slnimarum Fiddium defunctorum de Oxon. The precise meaning of this may be understood from the obligation imposed on the society to pray for the good estate of Henry VI. and the archbishop during their lives, and for their souls after their decease; also for the souls of Henry V. and the duke of Clarence, together with those of all the dukes, earls, barons, knights, esquires, and other subjects of the crown of England, who had fallen in the war with France; and for the souls of all the faithful deceased.

It was not till within a few days of his death that the archbishop gave a body of statutes for the regulation of his college, modelled after the statutes of his illustrious precursor Wykeham. After the appointment of the number of fellows, already noticed, he ordains that they should be born in lawful wedlock, in the province of Canterbury, with a preference to the next of kin, descended from his brothers Robert and William Chichele*. To the society were also added chaplains, clerks, and choristers, who appear to have been included in the foundation, although they are not mentioned in the charter.

These transactions passed chiefly during the building of the college, which the aged founder often inspected. In 1442, it was capable of receiving the warden and fellows, who had hitherto been lodged at the archbishop’s expense in a hall and chambers hired for that purpose. The chapel was consecrated, early in the same year, by the founder, assisted by the bishops of Lincoln (Alnwick), Worcester (Bourchier), Norwich (Brown), and others who were suffragans. The whole of the college was not finished before the latter end of 1444, and the expense of building, according to the accounts of Druell and Keys, may be estimated at 41 56l. 6s. 3jd The purchases of ground, books, chapel furniture, &c. amounted to 4302l. 3s. Sd. The subsequent history of this college is amply detailed in our authorities.

, a physician and politician, was born at Besanon, a town of Franche Comte, in 1588. He was descended from a family distinguished by literary merit, as well as by the services it had done its country. He was educated at Besanc/ni, and then travelled through several parts of Europe, where he became acquainted with all the men of letters, and in every place made his way into the cabinets of the curious. At his return he applied himself to the practice of physic; but being sent by the town of Besan^on, where he had been consul, on an embassy to Elizabeth Clara Eugenia, archduchess of the Low Countries, that princess was so pleased with him, that she prevailed with him to continue with her in quality of physician in ordinary. Afterwards he became physician to Philip IV. of Spain, who honoured him very highly, and treated him with great kindness. Chifflet imagined, that these bounties and honours obliged him to take up arms against all who were at variance with his master; and accordingly wrote his book entitled “Vindiciae Hispanicse,” against the French. He wrote several pieces in Latin, which were both ingenious and learned, and were collected and published at Antwerp, 1659, fol.

Chifflet died in 1660, leaving a son, John Chifflet, who afterwards made a figure in the republic of letters, particularly for his knowledge of the Hebrew. He had another son, called Julius Chifflet, well skilled in languages and in the civil law, and who had the honour to be invited to Madrid by the king of Spain in 1648, where he was made chancellor of the order of the golden fleece. He published the “Hist. duChevalierJaq.de Lalain,” Brussels, 1634, 4to “Ge*nealogie de la Maison de Rye,” 1644, folio “Ge‘ne’alogie de la Maison de Tassis,” 1645, fol.; Historia Velleris Aurei,“Ant. 1652, 4to. There was also Philip Chifflet, canon of Besanc,on, &c. Laurence and Peter Francis Chifflet, Jesuits, who were all men of high reputation in the learned world. The last-mentioned, who died May 11, 1682, aged ninety-two, left various works: among the rest,” L'Histoire de PAbbaye de Tournus,“1664, 4to;” Lettre sur Beatrix Comtesse de Champagne." There have been other learned men of this name, as may be seen in Moreri, who is rather prolix on this family.

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

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

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

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

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