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

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

Lord Clarendon’s character of him, however, appears superior to any given by those who had no personal knowledge of Chillingworth. “Mr. Chillingworth,” says that admirable portrait-painter, "was of a stature little superior to Mr. Hales, (and it was an age in which there were many great and wonderful men of that size) and a man of so great a subtilty of understanding, and so rare a temper in debate, that as it was impossible to provoke him into any passion, so it was very difficult to keep a man’s self from being a little discomposed by his sharpness, and quickness of argument, and instances, in which he had a rare facility, and a great advantage over all the men I ever knew. He had spent all his younger time in disputation; and had arrived to so great a mastery, as he was inferior to no man in those skirmishes; but he had, with his notable perfection in this exercise, contracted such an irresolution, and habit of doubting, that by degrees he grew confident of nothing, and a sceptic at least, in the greatest mysteries of faith.

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

"Such a levity and propensity to change is commonly attended with great infirmities in, and no less reproach and prejudice to the person; but the sincerity of his heart was so conspicuous and without the least temptation of any corrupt end, and the innocence and candour in his nature so evident and without any perverseness; that all who knew him, clearly discerned, that all those restless motions and fluctuations proceeded only from the warmth and jealousy of his own thoughts, in a too nice inquisition for truth. Neither the books of the adversary, nor any of their persons, though he was acquainted with the best of both, had ever made great impression upon him: all his doubts grew out of himself, when he assisted his scruples with all the strength of his own reason, and was then too hard for himself; but finding as little quiet and repose in those victories, he quickly recovered, by a new appeal to his own judgment; so that he was in truth, upon the matter, in all his sallies, and retreats, his own convert; though he was not so totally divested of all thoughts of this world, but that when he was ready for it, he admitted some great and considerable churchmen to be sharers with him in his public conversion.

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

, an eminent French physician, was born 1650, at Conques in ^anguedoc. M. Chicoineau entrusted him with the education of his two sons, and perSuaded him to study physic. Chirac became a member of the faculty at Montpellier, and in five years time taught physic there, which he afterwards practised, taking M. Barbeyrac for his model, who then held the first rank at Montpellier. In 1692 he was appointed physician to the army of Roussillon; the year following a dysentery became epidemical among the troops, and ipecacoanha proving unsuccessful, Chirac gave miHt mixed with lye, made of vine branches, which cured almost all the sick. Some years after he returned to his situation of professor and physician at Montpellier, and was engaged in two disputes, which were the subjects of much conversation; one with M. Vieussens, an eminent physician at Montpellier, on the discovery of the acid of the blood; the other with M. Sorazzi, an Italian physician, on the structure of the hair. He attended the duko of Orleans into Italy 1706, whom he cured of q. wound in the arm, by putting it into the water of Balaruc, which was sent for on purpose. In 1707, he accompanied the s^me prince into Spain, and was appointed his first physician 1713; admitted a free associate of the academy of sciences the following year, and succeeded M. Fagon as superintendant of the king’s garden, 1718. In 1728 he received letters of nobility from his majesty; and in 1730, the place of first physician, vacant by the death of M. Dodart, was conferred upon him. He died March 11, 1732, aged 52. He left 30,000 livres to the university of Montpellier for the purpose of founding two anatomical professorships. M. Chirac was skilful in surgery, and sometimes performed operations himself. He gained great honour during the epidemical disorder which prevailed at Ilochefort, and was called the Siam sickness. When there was danger of an inflammation on the brain in the small-pox, he advised bleeding in the foot. His Dissertations and Consultations, are printed with those of Silva, 3 vols. 12mo.

, a learned divine and antiquary, was born at Ey worth, in Bedfordshire, and was the son of Paul Chishull, formerly bible clerk of Queen’s college, Cambridge, and master of arts, as a member of Pembroke college, Oxford. His son being intended for the church, was sent to Oxford, became a scholar of Corpus Christi college, and received the degree of master of arts in February 1693; and he was chosen, likewise, a fellow of his college. Previously to his commencing master of arts, he had published in 1692, a Latin poem, inquarto, on occasion of the famous battle of La Hogue, entitled, “Gulielmo Tertio terra manque principi invictissimo in Gallos pugna navali nuperrime devictos, ' carmen heroic urn,” Oxon. When queen Mary died, on the 28th of December 1694, Mr. Chishull was one of the Oxford gentlemen who exerted their poetical talents in deploring that melancholy event, and his tribute of loyalty is preserved in the third volume of the Musse Anglicans, but is rather a school exercise, than a production of genius. In 1698, having obtained a grant of the traveller’s place, from the society of Corpus Christi college, he sailed from England on the 12th of September, and arrived on the 19th of November following at Smyrna. Before he set out on his voyage, he preached a sermon to the Levant company, which was published, and probably procured him to be appointed chaplain to the English factory at Smyrna, in. which station he continued till the 12th of February, 1701-2. On the 16th of June, 1705, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity. In the next year he engaged in a controversy, which at that time excited considerable attention, by publishing “A charge of Heresy maintained against Mr. Dodwell’s late Epistolary Discourse concerning the Mortality of the Soul,” London, 8vo. This was one of the principal books written in answer to Dodwell on that subject. In 1707, Chishull exerted his endeavours in opposing the absurdities and enthusiasm of the French prophets, and their followers, in a sermon, on the 23d of November, at Serjeant’s-inn chapel, in Chancery-lane, which was published in the beginning of 1708, and was entitled, “The great Danger and Mistake of all new uninspired Prophecies relating to the End of the World,” with an appendix of historical collections applicable to subject. On the 1st of September, in the same year, he was presented to the vicarage of Walthamstow, in Essex; and in 1711, he had the honour of being appointed one of the chaplains in ordinary to the queen. About the same time, he published a visitation and a few other occasional sermons, preached on public occasions, all which were favourably received. But he, soon became more distinguished for his researches in ancient literature and history.

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

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

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

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

, a French physician, was the son of Noel Chomel, an agriculturist, and the author of the “DictionTiaire œconomique,” of which we have an English translation by Bradley, 1725, 2 vols. folio. He was born at Paris towards the end of the seventeenth century, and studied medicine at Montpellier, where he took his degree of doctor, in 1708. Returning to his native city, he was appointed physician and counsellor to the king. The following year he published “Universal Medicince Theoricse pars prima, seu Physiologia, ad usum scholae accommodata,” Montpellier, 1709, 12mo; and in 1734, “Traite des Eaux Minerales, Baines et Douches de Vichi,” 1734, 12mo, and various subsequent editions. To that of the year 1738 the author added a preliminary discourse on mineral waters in general, with accounts of the principal medicinal waters found in France. His elder brother, Peter John Baptiste, studied medicine at Paris, and was admitted to the degree of doctor there in 1697. Applying himself more particularly to the study of botany, while making his collection, he sent his observations to the royal academy of sciences, who elected him one of their members. He was also chosen, in November 1738, dean of the faculty of medicine, and the following year was reelected, but died in June 1740. Besides his “Memoirs” sent to the academy of sciences, and his “Defence of Tournefort,” published in the Journal des Savans, he published “Abrege de L'Histoire des Pi antes usuelles,” Paris, 1712, 12mo. This was in 1715 increased to two, and in 1730, to three volumes in 12mo, and is esteemed an useful manual. His son, John Baptiste Lewis, was educated also at Paris, and took his degree of doctor in medicine in 1732. He was several years physician in ordinary to the king, and in November 1754 was chosen dean of the faculty. He died in 1765. He published in 1745, 1. “An account of the disease then epidemic among cattle,” and boasts of great success in the cure, which was effected, he says, by using setons, imbued with white hellebore. 2. “Dissertation historique sur la Mai de Gorge Gangreneaux, qui a regne parmi les enfans, en 1748:” the malignant sore throat, first treated of in this country by Dr. Fothergill, about ten years later than this period. 3. “Essai historique sur la Medicine en France,” 1762, 12mo. He also wrote, “Vie de M. Morin,” and “Eloge historique de M. Louis Duret,” 1765.

, an eminent lawyer, born 1537, at Bailleul in Anjou, was counsellor to the parliament of Paris, in which situation he pleaded with great reputation a long time, and afterwards, confining himself to his study, composed a considerable number of works, printed in 1663, 5 vols. folio; and there is a Latin edition of them in 4 vols. He was consulted from all parts, and was ennobled by Henry III. in 1578, for his treatise “De Domanio.” What he wrote on the custom of Anjou, is esteemed his best work, and gained him the title and honours of sheriff of the city of Angers. His books “De sacra Politia Monastica,” and “De Privilegiis Rusticorum,” are also much valued. Chopin’s attachment to the league drew upon him a macaronic satire, entitled “Anti-Chopinus,” 1592, 4to, attributed to John de Villiers Hoi man; but the burlesque style of this piece being unsuitable to the subject, it was burned by a decree of council. The occasion of its being written was, “Oratio de Pontificio Gregorii XIV. ad Gallos Diplomate a criticis notis vindicate,” Paris, 1591, 4to, which is not among Chopin’s works. On the day that the king entered Paris, Chopin’s wife lost her senses, and he received orders to leave the city; but remained there through the interest of his friends, upon which he wrote the eulogy of Henry IV. in Latin, 1594, 8vo, which is also omitted in his works, as well as “Bellum Sacrum Gallicum, Poema,” 1562, 4to. He died at Paris Jan. 30, 1606, under the hands of the surgeon, who was cutting him for the stone.

, a learned philosopher, and one of the most eminent magistrates of Geneva, was born there in 1642. He was the first who taught the philosophy of Descartes at Saumur. In 1669, he was recalled to Geneva, and gave lectures there with great applause. Chouet became afterwards counsellor and secretary of state at Geneva, and wrote a history of that republic. He died September 17, 1731, aged 89. His publications are, “An Introduction to Logic,” in Latin, 1672, 8vo; “Theses Physicae de varia Astrorum luce,” 1674, 4to; “Memoire succinct sur la Reformation,” 1694; “Reponses a des Questions de Milord Townsend sur Geneve ancienne fakes, en 1696, et publiees en 1774.” Besides these, he left in ms. in 3 vols. folio, a work, entitled “Diverses Recherches sur l'Hist. cle Geneve, sur son Gouvernement et sa Constitution.”

, an ingenious writer, was the son of a merchant of Montrose in Scotland, where he was born in October 1761; and after a good school education, was placed in the counting-house by his father, whose opinion was, that whatever course of life the young man might adopt, a system of mercantile arrangement would greatly facilitate his pursuits. It is probable that he went through the routine of counting-house business with due attention, especially under the guidance of his father; but his leisure hours were devoted to the cultivation of general literature with such assiduity, that at a very early age he was qualified to embrace any of the learned professions with every promise of arriving at distinction. His inclination appears to have led him at first to the study of medicine, and this brought him to London in 1787, where he entered himself at the Westminster Dispensary, as a pupil to Dr. Simmons, for whom he ever after expressed the highest esteem. At this time Mr. Christie possessed an uncommon fund of general knowledge, evidently accumulated in a long course of reading, and knew literary history as well as most veterans. While he never neglected his medical pursuits, and to all appearance had nothing else in view, his mind constantly ran on topics of classical, theological, and philosophical literature. He had carefully perused the best of the foreign literary journals, and could refer with ease to their contents; and he loved the society in which subjects of literary history and criticism were discussed. The writer of this article, somewhat his senior in years, and not wholly inattentive to such pursuits, had often occasion to be surprized at the extent of his acquirements. It was this accumulation of knowledge which suggested to Mr. Christie the first outline of a review of books upon the analytical plan; and finding in the late Mr. Johnson of St. Paul’s Church-yard, a corresponding spirit of liberality and enterprise, the “Analytical Review” was begun in May 1788; and, if we mistake not, the preface was from Mr. Christie’s pen, who, at the same time, and long afterwards contributed many ingenious letters to the Gentleman’s Magazine, with the editor of which (Mr. Nichols) he long lived in habits of friendship.

Having studied medicine for some time, under Dr. Simmons, he spent two winters, attending the medical classes at Edinburgh, and afterwards travelled, in search of general knowledge, to almost every considerable town in the kingdom, where his letters of recommendation, his insatiable thirst for information, and above all, his pleasing manners, and interesting juvenile figure, procured him admission to all who were distinguished for science, and by many of the most eminent literary characters he was welcomed and encouraged as a young man of extraordinary talents. He then went to the continent for further improvement; and while he was at Paris, some advantageous offers from a mercantile house in London, induced him to resume his original pursuit, and to become a partner in that house. This journey to Paris, however, produced another effect, not quite so favourable to his future happiness. Becoming acquainted with many of the literati of France, and among them, with many of the founders of the French revolution, he espoused their principles, was an enthusiast in their cause, and seemed to devote more attention, more stretch of mind, to the study and support of the revolutionary measures adopted in that country, than was consistent with the sober pursuits of commerce. This enthusiasm, in which it must be confessed he was at that time not singular, produced in 1790, “A Sketch of the New Constitution of France,” in two folio sheets; and in 1791, he enlisted himself among the answerers of Mr. Burke’s celebrated “Reflections,” in “Letters on the Revolution of France, and the new Constitution established by the National Assembly,” a large 8vo volume, which was to have been followed by a second; but the destruction of that constitution, the anarchy which followed, and the disappointment of his, and the hopes of all the friends of liberty, probably prevented his prosecuting the subject. In 1792, having dissolved partnership with the mercantile-house above alluded to, he became a partner in the carpet-manufactory of Messrs. Moore and Co. in Finsbury- square but in 1796, some necessary arrangements of trade induced him to take a voyage to Surinam, where he died in the prime of life in October of that year.

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

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

, a learned English bishop, was a Lancashire man by birth, and educated in St. John’s college, Cambridge. He was one of the first fellows of Trinity college after its foundation by Henry VIII. in 1546, and shortly after became master of it; and in 1554 was made dean of Norwich. In the reign of Edward VI. he lived abroad in a state of banishment, in which, as he tells us in the preface to his translation of Philo Judxus, he was all the while supported by his college; but upon queen Mary’s succeeding to the crown, returned, and was made bishop of Chichester. He is said to have died a little before this queen in 1558. He translated Philo Judaeiis into Latin, Antwerp, 1553, 4to, and also the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Evagrius, and Theodoret, Louvain, 1570, 8vo; Cologn, 1570, fol. hut his translations are very defective. Valesius, in his preface to Eusebius, says, that compared with Rufinus and Musculus, who had translated these historians before him, he may be reckoned a diligent and learned man; but yet that he is very far from deserving the character of a good translator: that his style is impure, and full of barbarism; that his periods are long and perplexed: that he has frequently acted the commentator, rather than the translator; that he has enlarged and retrenched at pleasure; that he has transposed the sense oftimes, and has not always preserved the distinction even of chapters. The learned Huet has passed the same censure on him, in his book “De Interpretatione.” Hence it is that all those who have followed Christopherson as their guide in ecclesiastical antiquity, and depended implicitly upon his versions, have often been led to commit great faults; and this has happened not seldom to Baronius among others.

, a celebrated stoic philosopher, was born at Soli, a city of Cilicia, afterwards called Pompeiopolis, and was not the disciple of Zeno, as some have said, but of Cleanthes, Zeno’s successor. He had a very acute genius, and wrote a great many books, above 700, as we are told, several of which belonged to logic; for he applied himself with great care to cultivate that part of philosophy. Val. Maximus relates, that he began his 39th book of logic when he was eighty years old: and Lucian, who sought out absurdities in order to laugh at them, could not forbear ridiculing the logical subtilties of this philosopher. The great number of books he composed will not appear so surprising if it be considered that his manner was to write several times upon the same subject; to set down whatever came into his head; to take little pains in correcting his works; to crowd them with an infinite number of quotations: add to all these circumstances, that he was very laborious, and lived to a great age. Of his works nothing remains except a few extracts in the works of Cicero, Plutarch, Seneca, and Aulus Gellius. He had an unusual portion of vanity, and often said to Cleanthes, “Shew me hut the doctrines; that is sufficient for me, and all I want I shall find the proofs of them myself.” A person asked him one day whom he should choose for a tutor to his son? “Me,” answered Chrysippus; “for, if I knew any body more learned than myself, 1 would go and study under him.” There is another apophthegm of his preserved, which does him much more honour than either of these; and therefore we hope it is not spurious. Being told that some persons spoke ill of him, “It is no matter,” said he, “I will live so, that they shall not be believed.”

Chrysippus aimed at being an universal scholar; and wrote upon almost every subject, and even condescended to give rules for the education of children. Quintilian has preserved some of his maxims upon this point. He ordered the nurses to sing a certain kind of songs, and advised them to choose the most modest. He wished, that, if it were possible, children might be nursed by none but learned women. He would have children be three years under the care of their nurses; and that the nurses should begin to instruct them without waiting till they were older; for he was not of the opinion of those who thought the age of seven years soon enough to begin. He died in the 143d olympiad, eighty-three years of age, B. C. 208, and had a monument erected to him among those of the illustrious Athenians. His statue was to be seen in the Ceramicus, a place near Athens, where they who had been killed in the war were buried at the expence of the public. He accepted the freedom of the city of Athens, which neither Zeno nor Cleanthes had done and is censured for it, but without much reason, by Plutarch.

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

, one of the most learned and eloquent of the fathers, was born at Antioch, of a noble family, about the year 354. His father, Secundus, dying when he was very young, the care of his education was left to his mother, Anthusa. He was designed at first for the bar, and was sent to learn rhetoric under Libanius; who had such an opinion of his eloquence, that when asked who would be capable of succeeding him in the school, he answered, “John, if the Christians had not stolen him from us.” He soon, however, quitted all thoughts of the bar, and being instructed in the principles of the Christian religion, was afterwards baptized by Meletius, and ordained by that bishop to be a reader in the church of Antioch, where he converted his two friends, Theodorus and Maximus. While he was yet young, he formed a resolution of entering ugon a monastic life, and in spite of all remonstrances from his mother, about the year 374, he betook himself to the neighbouring mountains, where he lived four years with an ancient hermit; then retired to a more secret part of the desert, and shut himself up in a cave, in which situation he spent two whole years more; till at length, worn out almost by continual watchings, fastings, and other severities, he was forced to return to Antioch, to his old way of living.

In the year 400, he went into Asia, at the request of the clergy of Ephesus; and by deposing thirteen bishops of Lydia and Phrygia, endeavoured to settle some disorders which had been occasioned in that church. But while he was here, a conspiracy was formed against him at home, by Severian, bishop of Gabala, to whom Chrysostom had committed the care of his church in his absence, and who endeavoured to insinuate himself into the favour of the nobility and people, at Chrysostom’s expence. He had even formed a confederacy against him with his old adversary, Theophilus of Alexandria, which the empress Eudoxia encouraged, for the sake of revenging some liberties which Chrysostom had taken in reproving her. By her intrigues, chiefly, the emperor was prevailed upon to call Theophilus from Alexandria, and he, who wanted an opportunity to ruin Chrysostom, came immediately to Constantinople, and brought several Egyptian bishops with him. Those of Asia, also, whom Chrysostom had deposed for the tumults they raised at Ephesus, appeared upon this occasion at Constantinople against him. Theophilus now arrived, but instead of taking up his quarters with his brother Chrvsostom, as was usual, he had apartments in the empress’s palace, where he called a council, and appointed judges. Chrysostom, however, with much spirit, excepted against the judges, and refused to appear before the council; declaring that he was not accountable to strangers for any supposed misdemeanour, but only to the bishops of his own and the neighbouring provinces. Notwithstanding this, Theophilus held a synod of bishops, to which he sumtnoned Chrysostom to appear, and answer to various articles of accusation. But Chrysostom sent three bishops and two priests to acquaint Theophilus and his synod, that though he was very ready to submit himself to the judgment of those who should be regularly assembled, and have a legal right to judge him, yet he absolutely refused to be judged by him and his synod; and having persisted in this refusal four several times, he was in consequence deposed in the beginning of the year 403. The news of his deposition was no sooner spread about Constantinople, than all the city was in an uproar, and when the emperor ordered him to be banished, the people determined to detain him by force. In three days, however, to prevent any further disturbance, he surrendered himself to those who had orders to seize him, and was conducted by them to a small town in Bithynia, as the residence of his banishment. His departure made the people more outrageous than ever: they prayed the emperor that he might be recalled; they even threatened him; and Eudoxia was so frightened with the tumult, that she herself solicited for it. A numerous synod, assembled at Constantinople, now rescinded all former proceedings, and Chrysostom was recalled in triumph; but his troubles were not yet at an end. The empress about the latter end of this year had erected her own statue near the church; and the people, to do honour to her, had celebrated the public games before it. This Chrysostom thought indecent; and the fire of his zeal, far from being extinguished by his late misfortunes, urged him to preach against those who were concerned in it. His discourse provoked the empress, who still retained her old enmity to him; and made her resolve once more to have him deposed from his bishopric. He irritated her not a little, as soon as he was apprized of her machinations against him, by most imprudently beginning one of his sermons with these remarkable words: “Behold the furious Herodias, insisting to have the head of John Baptist in a charger!” We are not to wonder, therefore, that a synod of bishops was assembled, who immediately deposed him, alleging that he stood already deposed, by virtue of the former sentence given against him; which, they said, had never been reversed, nor himself re-established in hk see, in that legal and orderly manner which the canons required. In consequence of that judgment, the emperor forbade him to enter the church any more, and ordered him to be banished. His followers and adherents were now insulted and persecuted by the soldiery, and stigmatized particularly by the name of Johannites. He had, indeed, a strong party among the people, who would now have armed themselves in his defence; but he chose rather to spend the remainder of his days in banishment, than be the unhappy cause of a civil war to his country; and therefore surrendered himself a second time to those who were to have the care of him. He set out in June 404, under a guard of soldiers, to Nicca, where he did not make any long stay, but pursued his jourrjey to Cucusus, the destined place of his banishment, at which he arrived in September. It is remarkable that the very day Chrysostom left Constantinople, the great church was set on fire and burnt, together with the palace, which almost adjoined to it, entirely to the ground. The same year there fell hail-stones of an extraordinary size, that did considerable damage to the town; which calamity was also followed by the death of the empress Eudoxia, and of Cyrinus, one of Chrysostom’s chief enemies. All these were considered by the partisans of Chrysostom, as so many judgments from heaven upon the country which thus persecuted Chrysostom.

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

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

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

, who had the character of a very philosophic and poetic lady, was born in 1656, and was the daughter of Richard Lee, of Winsloder, in Devonshire, esq. She was married to sir George Chudleigh, bart. by whom she had several children; among the rest, Eliza-Maria, who dying in the bloom of life, was lamented by her mother in a poem entitled “A Dialogue between Lucinda and Marissa.” She wrote another poem called “The Ladies Defence,” occasioned by an angry sermon preached against the fair sex. These, with many others, were collected into a volume in 1703, and printed a third time in 1722. She published also a volume of Essays upon various subjects in verse and prose, in 1710, which have been much admired far delicacy of style. These were dedicated to her royal highness the princess Sophia, electress and duchess dowager of Brunswick; on which occasion that princess, then in her eightieth year, honoured her with a very polite epistle.

He was in his twenty-seventh year when he began to relax from the obligations of virtue, and more openly to enter into those dissipations, which, while they ruined his character and impaired his health, were, not indirectly, the precursors to his celebrity in public life. He was immoderately fond of pleasure; a constant attendant at the theatres, and the associate of men who united wit and profligacy, and qualified themselves for moral teachers by practising the vices they censured in others. Lloyd, the poet, had been one of his school-fellows at Westminster, and their intimacy, renewed afresh, became now a close partnership in debt and dissipation. In one respect this proved beneficial to Churchill. Dr. Lloyd, his companion’s father, persuaded Churchill’s creditors to accept of five shillings in the pound, and to grant releases; nor ought it to be concealed, that there is some reason for believing that Churchill, as soon as he had acquired money by his publications, voluntarily paid the full amount of the original debts.

The success of the Rosciad,“and of” The Apology," opened new prospects to their author. He saw in his genius a source of plentiful emolument, but unfortunately also he contemplated it as an object of terror, which might be employed against the friends of virtue, with whom he no longer thought it necessary to keep any terms. While insulting public decency by the grossest immorality, he aimed his vengeance on those who censured him, with a sprightliness of malignity and force of ridicule which he deemed irresistible. His conduct, as a clergyman, had long shocked his parishioners, and incurred at length the displeasure of Dr. Pearce, the dean of Westminster, who remonstrated as became his station. But Churchill was now too far gone in profligacy, and being, as his friends have been pleased to say, too honest to dissemble, he resigned his curacy and lectureship *, and with this acknowledged sacrifice to depravity, threw off all the external restraints which his former character might be thought to impose. That his contempt for the clerical dress might be more notorious, he was seen at all public places habited in a blue coat with metal buttons, a gold-laced waistcoat, a gold-laced hat, and rufHes.

In February 1761 a separation took place between him and his wife, whose imprudence is said to have kept pace With his own ; but from a licentious passage in one of his letters to Wiikes, it appears that he was tired of her person, and probably neglected her in pursuit of vagrant amours. As his conduct in this and other matters was too notorious to pass without animadversion, he endeavoured to vindicate it in a poem entitled “Night,” addressed to his wretched partner Lloyd. The poetical beauties of this poem, which are very striking, can never atone for the absurdity as well as immorality of his main argument, that avowed vice is more harmless than concealed; and did not prevent his readers from perceiving, that he who maintains it, must have lost shame as well as virtue.

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

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

Towards the end of October, 1764, he accompanied Humphrey Cotes, one of Wilkes’s dupes, to visit this patriot in his voluntary exile in France. The party met at Boulogne, where Churchill, immediately on his arrival, was attacked by a miliary fever, which terminated his iife, Nov. 4, in the thirty- fourth year of his age. It was reported, that his last words were, “What a fool have I been” but Wilkes, who was present, thought it his duty, on all occasions, to contradict this. He considered it as a calumny on a man whose “firmness of philosophy,” he gravely informs us, “shone in full lustre during the whole time of his very severe illness.” His body was brought from Boulogne for interment at Dover, where it was deposited in the old church-yard, formerly belonging to the collegiate church of St. Martin. A stone was afterwards placed oa his grave, on which are inscribed his age, the time of his death, and this Hue from his works:

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

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

After the dissolution of the parliament in 1678, sir Winston was dismissed from the post of clerk of the green cloth, much against his master’s will, who restored him again, and continued him in it during the rest of his reign. He enjoyed the same degree of favour from court, during the short reign of James II.; and having lived to see his eldest son raised to the peerage, he departed this life, March 26, 1688. Besides three sons, and as many daughters, who died in their infancy, sir Winston had several sons and daughters, who lived to grow up. The eldest of his sons was John Churchill, afterwards duke of Marlborough, of whom we shall speak largely in the next article. Arabella, the eldest of his children, born in March 1648,. was maid of honour to the duchess of York, and mistress to the duke, afterwards James II. by whom she had two sons and two daughters. The eldest, James Fitz-James, was created by his father duke of Berwick: he was also knight of the garter and of the golden fleece, marshal of France, and grandee of Spain of the first class. He was reputed one of the greatest officers in his time; and when generalissimo of the armies of France, fell by a cannon-shot at the siege of Phillipsburg in 1734. Henry Fitz-James, grand prior of France, lieutenant-general and admiral of the French gal lies, Was born in 1673, and died in 1702. Henrietta, born in 1670, married sir Henry Waldgrave of Cheuton, and died 1730. The youngest daughter was a nun but afterwards married colonel Godfrey, by whom she had two daughters.

, duke of Marlborough, and prince of the holy Roman empire, was eldest son of sir Winston Churchill, and born at Ashe in Devonshire on Midsummerday in 1650. A clergyman in the neighbourhood instructed him in the first principles of literature, and he was for some time educated at St. Paul’s school but his father, having other views than what a learned education afforded, carried him to court in the twelfth year of his age, where he was particularly favoured by James duke of York. He had a pair of colours given him in the guards, during the first Dutch war, about 1666; and afterwards obtained leave to go over to Tangier, then in our hands, and besieged by the Moors, where he resided for some time, and cultivated the science of arms. Upon his return to England, he attended constantly at court, and was greatly respected by both the king and the duke. In 1672, the duke of Monmouth commanding a body of English auxiliaries in the service of France, Churchill attended him, and was soon after made a captain of grenadiers in his grace’s own regiment. He had a share in all the actions of that famous campaign against the Dutch; and at the siege of Nimeguen, distinguished himself so much, that he was particularly taken notice of by the celebrated marshal Turenne, who bestowed on him the name of the handsome Englishman. He appeared also to so much advantage at the reduction of Maestricht, that the French king thanked him for his behaviour at the head of the line, and assured him that he would acquaint his sovereign with it, which the duke of Monmouth also confirmed, telling the king his father how much he had been indebted to the bravery of captain Churchill.

The laurels he brought from France could not fail to gain him preferment at home; accordingly the king made him a lieutenant-colonel, and the duke made him gentleman of his bed-chamber, and soon after master of the robes. The second Dutch war being over, colonel Churchill was again obliged to pass his days at court, where he behaved with great prudence and circumspection in the troublesome times that ensued. In 1679, when the duke of York was constrained to go to the Netherlands, colonel Churchill attended him; as he did through all his peregrinations, till he was suffered to reside again in London. While he waited upon the duke in Scotland, he had a regiment of dragoons given him; and thinking it now time to take a consort, he made his addresses to Sarah Jennings, who waited on the lady Anne, afterwards queen of Great ­Britain. This young lady, then about twenty-one years of age, and universally admired both for her person and wit, he married in 1681, and by this match strengthened the interest he had already at court. In 1682 the duke of York returned to London; and, having obtained leave to quit Scotland, resolved to bring his family from thence by sea. For this purpose he embarked in May, but unluckily ran upon the Lemon Oar, a dangerous sand, that lies about 16 leagues from the mouth of the Humber, where his ship was lost, with some men of quality, and upwards of 120 persons on board. He was particularly careful of colonel Churchill’s safety, and took him into the boat in which himself escaped. The first use made by his royal highness of his interest, after he returned to court, was to obtain a title for his favourite; who, by letters patent, bearing date Dec. 1, 1682, was created baron of Eymouth in Scotland, and also appointed colonel of the 3d troop of guards. He was continued in all his posts upon the accession of James II. who sent him also his ambassador to France to notify that event. On his return, he assisted at the coronation in April 1685; and May following was created a peer of England, by the title of baroti Churchill of Sandridge in the county of Hertford.

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

He was on the point of returning to Holland, when, Feb. S, 1703, his only son, the marquis of Blandford, died at Cambridge, at the age of 18, and was interred in the magnificent chapel of King’s college. This very afflicting accident did not however long retard him; but he passed over to Holland, and arrived at the Hague March 6. The nature of our work will not suffer us to relate all the military acts in which the duke of Marlborough was engaged: it is sufficient to say, that, numerous as they were, they were all successful. The French had a great army this year in Flanders, in the Netherlands, and in that part of Germany which the elector of Cologn had put into their hands; and prodigious preparations were made under the most experienced commanders: but the vigilance and activity of the duke baffled them all. When the campaign was over, his grace went to Dusseldorp to meet the late emperor, then styled Charles III. king of Spain, who made him a present of a rich sword from his side, with very high compliments; and then returning to the Hague, after a very short stay, came over to England. He arrived Oct. 13, 1703; and soon after king Charles, whom he had accompanied to the Hague, came likewise over to England, and arrived at Spithead on Dec. 26; upon which the dukes, of Somerset and Marlborough were immediately sent down to receive and conduct him to Windsor. In January the States desired leave of the queen for the duke to come to the Hague; which being granted, he embarked on the 15th, and passed over to Rotterdam. He went immediately to the Hague, where he communicated to the pensionary his sense of the necessity there was of attempting something the next campaign for the relief of the emperor; whose affairs at this time were in the utmost distress, having the Bavarians on one side, and the Hungarian malcontents on the other, making incursions to the very gates of Vienna, while his whole force scarce enabled him to maintain a defensive war. This scheme being, approved of, and the plan of it adjusted, the duke returned to England in the middle of February.

The next year, 1705, he went over to Holland in March, with a design to execute some great schemes, which he had been projecting in the winter. The campaign was attended with some successes, which would have made a considerable figure in a campaign under any other general, but are scarcely worth mentioning where the duke of Marlborough commanded. He could not carry into execution his main project, on account of the impediments he met with from the allies, and in this respect was greatly disappointed. The season for action being over, he made a tour to the courts of Vienna, Berlin, and Hanover. At the first of these he acquired the entire confidence of the new emperor Joseph, who presented him with the principality of Mindelheim: at the second, he renewed the contract for the Prussian forces: and at the third, he restored a perfect harmony, and adjusted every thing to the elector’s satisfaction. After this he returned to the Hague, and towards the close of the year embarked for, and arrived safe in England. In January the house of commons came to a resolution, to thank his grace of Marlborough, as well for his prudent negotiations, as for his great services: but notwithstanding this, it very soon appeared that there was a strong party formed againjt the war, and steps were taken to censure and disgrace the duke.

These points adjusted, the duke made haste to return to his charge, it being thought especially necessary he should acquaint the foreign ministers at the Hague, that the queen of Great Britain would hearken to no proposals for a peace, but what would firmly secure the general tranquillity of Europe. The campaign of the year 1707 proved the most barren he ever made, which was chiefly owing to a failure on the part of the allies, who began to be remiss in supporting the common cause. Nor did things go on more to his mind at home; for upon his return to England, after the campaign was over, he found that the fire, which he suspected the year before, had broke out in his absence; that the queen had a female favourite, who was in a fair way of supplanting the duchess; and that she listened to the insinuations of a statesman who was no friend to him. He is said to have borne all this with firmness and patience, though he easily saw whither it tended; and went to Holland as usual, early in the spring of 1708, arriving at the Hague March 19. The ensuing campaign was carried on by the duke, in conjunction with prince Eugene, with such prodigious success, that the French king thought fit, in the beginning of 1709, to set on foot a negotiation for peace. The house of commons this year gave an uncommon testimony of their respect for the duke of Marlborough; for, besides addressing the queen, they, January 22, 1709, unanimously voted him thanks, and ordered them to be transmitted to him abroad by the speaker. He returned to England Feb. 25, and on his first appearance in the house of lords, received the thanks of that august assembly. His stay was so very short, that we need not dwell upon what passed in the winter. It is sufficient to say, that they who feared the dangerous effects of those artful proposals France had been making for the conclusion of a general' peace, were also of opinion, that nobody was so capable of setting their danger, in a true light in Holland as his grace of Marlborough. This induced the queen to send Mm thither, at the end of March, with the character of her plenipotentiary, which contributed not a little to the enemy’s disappointment, by defeating all their projects. Marshal Villars commanded the French army in the campaign of 1709; and Lewis XIV. expressed no small hopes of him, in saying a little before the opening of it, that “Villars was never beat.” However the siege of Tournay, and the battle of Malplaquet, convinced the monarch that Villars was not invincible. Upon the news of the glorious victory gained Aug. 1, 1709, the city of London renewed their congratulatory addresses to the queen; and her majesty in council, Oct. 3, ordered a proclamation for a general thanksgiving. The duke of Marlborough came t6 St. James’s Nov. 10, and soon after received the thanks of both houses: and the queen, as if desirous of any occasion to shew her kindness to him, appointed him lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Oxford. But amidst these honours, preferments, and favours, he was really chagrined to the last degree. He perceived that the French intrigues began to prevail both in England and Holland: the affair of Dr. Sacheverell had thrown the nation into a ferment: and the queen was not only estranged from the duchess of Marlborough, but had taken such a dislike to her that she seldom appeared at court.

In the beginning of 1710 the French set on foot a new negotiation for a peace, which was commonly called the treaty of Gertruydenburg. The States upon this having shewn an inclination to enter into conferences with the French plenipotentiaries, the house of commons immediately framed an address to the queen, that she would be pleased to send the duke of Marlborough over to the Hague. Accordingly, towards the latter end of February he went to the Hague, where he met with prince Eugene, and soon after set out with him for the army, which was assembled in the neighbourhood of Tournay. This campaign was very successful, many towns being taken and fortresses reduced: notwithstanding which, when the duke came over to England, as he did about the middle of December, he found his interest declining, and his services undervalued. The negotiations for peace were carried on during a great part of the summer, but ended at last in nothing. In the midst of the summer, the queen began the great change in her ministry, by removing the earl of Sunderland from being secretary of state; and on Aug. 8, the lord treasurer Godolphin was likewise removed. Upon the meeting of parliament no notice was taken in the addresses of the duke of Marlborough’s success: an attempt indeed was made to procure him the thanks of the house of peers, but it was eagerly opposed by the duke of Argyle. His grace was kindly received by the queen, who seemed desirous to have him live upon good terms with her new ministry; but this was thought impracticable, and it was every day expected that he would lay down his commission. He did not do this; but he carried the golden key, the ensign of the duchess of Marl borough’s office, January 19, 1711, to the queen, and resigned all her employments with great duty and submission. With the same firmness and composure he consulted the necessary measures for the next campaign, with those whom he knew to be no friends of his; and treated all parties with candour and respect. There is no doubt that the duke felt some inward disquiet, though he shewed no outward concern, at least for himself: but when the earl of Galway was very indecently treated in the house of lords, the duke of Marlborough could not help saying, “it was somewhat strange, that generals, who had acted according to the best of their understandings, and had lost their limbs in their service, should be examined like offenders about insignificant things.” An exterior civility, in court language styled a good understanding, being established between the duke and the new ministry, the duke went over to the Hague, to prepare for the next campaign, which at the same time he knew would be his last. He exerted himself in an uncommon manner, and was attended with the same success as usual. There was in this campaign a continued trial of skill between the duke of Marlborough and marshal Villars; and brave and judicious as the latter was, he was obliged at length to submit to the former. The duke embarked for England when the campaign was over, and came to London Nov. 8; and happening to land the very night of queen Elizabeth’s inauguration, when great rejoicings were intended by the populace, he continued very prudently at Greenwich, and the next day waited on the queen at Hampton-court, who received him graciously. He was visited by the ministers, and visited them; but he did not go to council, because a negotiation of peace was then on the carpet, upon a basis which he did by no means approve. He acquainted her majesty in the audience he had at his arrival, that as he could not concur in the measures of those who directed her councils, so he would not distract them by a fruitless opposition. Yet finding himself attacked in the house of lords, and loaded with the imputation 5 of having protracted the war, he vindicated his conduct and character with great dignity and spirit; and in a most pathetic speech appealed to the queen his mistress, who was there incognito, for the falsehood of thut imputation; declaring, that he was as much for peace as any man, provided it was such a peace as might be expected from a war undertaken on such just motives, and carried on with uninterrupted success. This had a great effect on that august assembly, and perhaps made some impression on the queen; but at the same time it gave such an edge to the resentment of his enemies, who were then in power, that they resolved at all adventures to remove him. Those who were thus resolved to divest him of his commission, found themselves under a necessity to engage the queen to take it from him. This necessity arose chiefly from prince Eugene’s being expected to come over with a commission from the emperor; and to give some kind of colour to it, an inquiry was promoted in the house of commons, to fix a very high imputation upon the duke, as if he had put very large sums of public money into his own pocket. When a question to this purpose had been carried, the queen, by a letter, conceived in very obscure terms, acquainted him with her having no farther occasion for his service, and dismissed him from all his employments.

He was from this time exposed to a most painful persecution. On the one hand, he was attacked by the clamours of the populace, and by those hirelings of the press who are always ready to espouse the quarrels of a ministry, and to insult without mercy whoever they know may be insulted with impunity: on the other hand, a prosecution was commenced against him by the attorney-general, for applying public money to his private use; and the workmen employed in building Blenheim-house, though set at work by the crown, were encouraged to sue him for the money that was due to them. All his actions were also shamefully misrepresented. These uneasinesses, joined to his grief for the death of the earl of Godolphin, induced him* to gratify his enemies, by going into a voluntary exile. Accordingly he embarked at Dover, November 14, 1712; and landing at Ostend, went to Antwerp, and so to Aix la Chapelle, being every where received with the honours due to his high rank and merit. The duchess also attended her lord in all his journeys, and particularlyin his visit to the principality of Mindelheim, which was given him by the emperor, and exchanged for another at the peace, which was made while the duke was abroad. The conclusion of that peace was so. far from restoring harmony among the several parties of Great- Britain, that it widened their differences exceedingly insomuch that the chiefs, despairing of safety in the way they were in, are said to have secretly invited the duke back to England. Be that as it will, it is very certain that he took a resolution of returning, a little before the queen’s death; and landing at Dover, came to London, Aug. 4, 1714. He was received with all demonstrations of joy, by those who, upon the demise of the queen, which had happened upon the 1st, were entrusted with the government; and upon the arrival of George I. was particularly distinguished by acts of royal favour: for he was again declared captain-general and commander in chief of all his majesty’s Jand forces, colonel of the first regiment of foot guards, and master of the ordnance.

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

Various characters have been given of this illustrious nobleman, whom party prejudice misrepresented in his life-time, and who has since been censured by succeeding writers, some of whom seem to have become more bold in proportion to their distance from his time, and from all opportunities of judging with impartiality. A late historian, however, seems with great justice to characterise him as possessing the accomplishments of a statesman and courtier in a degree inferior to none of his contemporaries; while his military talents raised him far above all rivalship and competition. The natural advantages of a fine figure and dignified mien, embellished with all the graces of the court, to which he was introduced at an early stage of life, hefore his more useful qualifications were discovered, made lord Churchill the first object of notice and admiration in every polite circle. While these exterior excellencies recommended him as the fittest person to be employed on business of compliment at foreign courts, his fascinating address, his political knowledge, and his acute penetration into characters, rendered him the most able and successful negociator in the more weighty affairs of state. His early proficiency in every branch of warlike science, and his meritorious exploits in the station of a subaltern commander, had excited a general expectation of his ascending to distinguished superiority in the line of his profession. The history of ten eventful campaigns demonstrated that nothing was expected from him which he did not perform; and that there was not a single accomplishment of a general, in which he did not excell. His comprehensive and various capacity was equally adapted to complicated and detached objects. In the several departments of plan and stratagem, and of enterprize and action, he was alike successful. The general arrangement of the campaign, and the dispositions which he made in the day of battle, the choice of ground, his composure and presence of mind in the heat of an. engagement, his improvement of victory, and" his ready expedients under bad fortune, for a defeat he never knew, were all evidences of such diversity of talents, and such a stupendous pitch of military genius, as never were surpassed by those of the greatest commanders in ancient and modern times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Careless Husband,” which is reckoned his best play, was acted in 1704 with great success, a great portion of which he very handsomely places to the account of Mrs. Oldfield, a celebrated actress, who gave great spirit to the character of Lady Betty Modish; yet not more than the author himself in the part of Lord Foppington, wherein he was inimitable. But of all his plays, none was of more importance to the public and to himself, than his comedy called the “Nonjuror,” which was acted in 1717, and dedicated to the king: the hint of it he took from the TartufFe of Moliere. It was considered, however, as a party piece, and it is said that, as he foresaw, he had never after fair-play given to any thing he wrote, and was the constant butt of Mist in his “Weekly Journal,” and of all the Jacobite faction. But this is not an exact state of the case. It is true that he incurred the ridicule of the Jacobites, but the Jacobites only laughed at him in common with all the wits of the day. This general contempt was afterwards heightened by Pope’s making him the hero of the “Duneiad” instead of Theobald, a transfer undoubtedly mean and absurd on Pope’s part, since what was written for Theobald, a dull plodder, could never suit Cibber, a gay lively writer, and certainly a man of wit However, if the Nonjuror brought upon its author some imaginary evils, it procured him also some advantage, for when he presented it to George I. the king ordered him 200l. and the merit of it, as he himself confesses, made him poet-laureat in 1730. Here again he incurred the ridicule of his brother wits, by his annual odes, which had no merit but their loyalty, lyric poetry being a species of writing for which he had not the least talent, and which he probably would not have attempted, had not his office rendered it necessary. These repeated efforts of his enemies sometimes hindered the success of his dramatic pieces; and the attacks against him, in verse and in prose, were now numerous and incessant, as appears by the early volumes of the Gentleman’s Magazine. But he appears to have been so little affected by them, that he joined heartily in the laugh agaiost himself:, and even contributed to increase the merriment of the public at his own expence.

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

As a writer, he has not rendered himself very conspicuous, excepting in some appeals to the public, written in a fantastical style, on peculiar circumstances of his own distressed life. He altered for the stage three pieces of other authors, and produced one of his own, viz. 1. “Henry VI.” a tragedy from Shakspeare. 2. “The Lover,” a comedy. 3. “Pattie and Peggy,” a ballad opera. 4. An alteration of Shakspeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.” His name has also appeared to a series of “The Lives of the Poets,” 5 vols.,12mo, with which some have said he had no concern. Two accounts, however, have lately been published, which we shall endeavour to incorporate, as they do not difl'er in any material point, and indeed the one may be considered as a sequel to the other. The first is taken from a note written by Dr. Caider for the edition of the Tatler printed in 1786, 6 vols. 12mo. By this we learn that Mr. Oldys, on his departure from London, in 1724, to reside in Yorkshire, left in the care of the rev. Mr. Burridge, with whom he had lodged for several years, among many other books, &c. a copy r of Langbaine’s “Lives, &c.” in which he (Mr. Oldys) had written notes and references for further information. Returning to London in 1730, Mr. Oldys discovered that his books were dispersed, and that Mr. Thomas Coxeter had bought this copy of Langbaine, and would not even permit Mr, Oldys to transcribe his notes from it into another copy of Langbaine, in which he likewise wrote annotations. This last annotated copy, at an auction of Oldys’s books, Dr, Birch purchased for a guinea, and left it by will, with his other books, to the British Museum. Mr. T. Coxeter, who died in April 1747, had added his own notes to those of Mr. Oldys, in the first copy of Langbaine above-mentioned, which, at the auction of Mr. Coxeter' s books, was bought by Theophilus Cibber. On the strength of it, the compilation called “The Lives of the Poets” was undertaken.

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

, wife of the preceding, and for several years the best actress in England, was the daughter of an eminent upholsterer in Covent-garden, and sister to Dr. Thomas Augustin Arne, the musician. Her first appearance on the stage was as a singer, in which the sweetness of her voice rendered her very conspicuous, although she had not much judgment, nor a good ear. It was in this situation, that, in April 1734, she married Theoph. Cibber, then a widower for the second time. The first year of their nuptials was attended with as much felicity as could be expected, but the match was by no means agreeable to his father, who had entertained hopes of settling his son in a higher rank in life than the stage; but the amiable deportment of his daughter-in-law, and the seeming reformation of his son, induced him to take the young couple into favour. As he was a manager of Drury-lane play-house at that time, and his son having hinted somewhat respecting Mrs. Cibber’s talents as an actress, he desired to hear a specimen. Upon this her first attempt to declaim in tragedy, he was happy to discover that her speaking voice was perfectly musical, her expression both in voice and feature, strong and pathetic at pleasure, and her figure at that time perfectly in proportion. He therefore assiduously undertook to cultivate those talents, and produced her in 1736, in the character of Zara, in Aaron Hill’s tragedy, being its first representation. The audience were both delighted and astonished. The piece, which was at best an indifferent translation, made its way upon the stage; and Mrs. Cibber’s, reputation as an actress was fully established, with its agreeable concomitants, a rise of salary, &c. The character, however, which she acquired in public, was lost in private life. She was married to a man who was luxurious and prodigal, and rapacious after money to gratify his passions or vanity, and at length he resolved to make a profit of the honour of his wife. With this view, therefore, he cemented the closest friendship with a gentleman, whom he introduced to his wife, recommended to her, gave them frequent interviews, and even saw them put, as if by accident, in the same bed, and had then the impudence to commence a trial for criminal correspondence, which brought to light his nefarious conduct. He laid his damages at 5000l. but the jury discerning the baseness of his conduct, gave only 10l. costs; a sum not sufficient to reimburse him a fortieth part of his expences. From that time Mrs. Cibber discontinued living with her husband, and resided entirely with the gentleman who was the defendant in this abominable trial.

, one of the greatest orators of antiquity, was born Jan. 3, in the 647th year of Rome, about 107 years before Christ. His mother, Helvia, was rich and well descended. His father’s family was ancient and honourable in that part of Italy in which it resided, and of equestrian rank, from its first admission to the freedom of Rome. The place of his birth was Arpinum, a city anciently of the Samnites, now part of the kingdom of Naples, and which produced two citizens, C. Marius and Cicero, who had, each in his turn, preserved Rome from ruin.

He was educated at Rome with his cousins, the young Aculeos, by a method approved and directed by L. Crassus, and placed there in a public school under an eminent Greek master. His father, indeed, discerning the promising genius of his son, spared no expence in procuring the ablest masters among whom was the poetA re hi as, who came to Rome with a high reputation, when Cicero was about five years old; and who was afterwards defended by Cicero in a most elegant oration, still extant.

After finishing the course of his juvenile studies, he took the manly gown, or the ordinary robe of the citizens, at the accustomed age of sixteen: and being then introduced into the forum, was placed under the care of Q. Mucius Scoevola the augur, the principal lawyer as well as statesman of that age; and after his death under that of Scaevola, who had equal probity and skill in the law. Under these masters he acquired a complete knowledge of the laws of his country; which was thought to be of such consequence at Rome, that boys at school learned the laws of the twelve tables by heart, as a school exercise. In the mean time he did not neglect his poetical studies, which he had pur­'sued under Archias: for he now translated “Aratus on the phenomena of the Heavens,” into Latin verse, of which many fragments are still extant; and published also an original poem of the heroic kind, in honour of his countryman C. Marius. This was much admired and often read by Atticus; and old Sca3vola was so pleased with it, that in the epigram, which he seems to have made upon it, he fondly declares, that it would live as long as the Roman name and learning subsisted. But though some have said, that Cicero’s poetical genius would not have been inferior to his oratorial, if it had been cultivated with the same diligence, it is more generally agreed that his reputation is least of all indebted to his poetry. He may, however, have been a critic, and it is certain jhat Lucretius submitted his poem to him for correction.

The peace of Rome being now disturbed by a domestic war, which writers call the Italic, Social, or Marsic, Cicero served as a volunteer under Sylla. For though his natural inclination was not much bent on military renown, yet even those who applied themselves to studies and civil affairs at Rome, found it necessary to acquire a competent share of military skill, that they might be qualified to govern provinces and command armies, to which they all succeeded of course in the administration of the great offices of state. Cicero’s natural disposition, however, led him chiefly to improve himself in those studies which conduced eventually to the establishment of his high fame He was constant in his attendance upon orators and philosophers; resumed his oratorial studies under Molo the Rbodian, one of the ablest of that profession, and is supposed to have written those rhetorical pieces on the subject of invention, which he afterwards condemned in his advanced age, as unworthy of his maturer judgment. He also became the scholar of Philo the academic; studied logic with Diodorus the stoic; and declaimed daily in Latin and Greek with his fellow students M. Piso and Q. Pompeius, both somewhat older than himself, with whom he had contracted an intimate friendship. And that he might neglect nothing which could any ways contribute to his perfection, he spent the intervals of his leisure with such ladies as were remarkable for their politeness and knowledge of the fine arts, and in whose company his manners acquired a polish. Having now run through all his course of oratory, he offered himself to the bar at the age of twenty-six, and pleaded some causes in a manner which gained him the applause of the whole city, thus beginning his career at the same age in which Demosthenes first began to distinguish himself in Athens. Three years afterwards he travelled to Greece and Asia, then the fashionable tour either for curiosity or improvement. His first visit was to Athens, the seat of arts and sciences, where he met with his school-fellow T. Pomponius, who, from his love to and long residence in Athens, obtained the surname of Atticus: and here they revived and confirmed that memorable friendship which subsisted between them through life, with exemplary constancy. From Athens he passed into Asia, and after an excursion of two years, came back again to Italy.

On his arrival at Rome, after one year more spent at the bar, he obtained the dignity of quaestor. The quaestors were the general receivers or treasurers of the republic, and were sent annually into the provinces distributed to them by lot, and Lilybseum, one of the provinces of the island of Sicily, happened to fall to Cicero’s share;. and he acquitted himself so as to gain the love and admiration of all the Sicilians, and in his leisure hours he employed himself very diligently, as he used to do at Rome, in his. rhetorical studies. Before he left Sicily, he made the tour of the island, and at the city of Syracuse discovered the tomb of Archimedes, and pointed it out to the magistrates, who, to his surprise, knew nothing at all of any such tomb. He came away from Sicily, highly pleased with the success of his administration, and flattering himself that all Rome was celebrating his praises, and that the people would grant him whatever he should desire. With these hopes he landed at Puteoli, a considerable port adjoining to Baiie, wherewas a perpetual resort of the rich and great but here he was not a little mortified by the first friends he met, whose conversation convinced him that his fame was not so extensive as he imagined.

We have no account of the precise time of Cicero’s marriage with Terentia, but it is supposed to have been celebrated immediately after his return from his travels to Italy, when he was about thirty years old. He was now disengaged from his quaestorship in Sicily, by which office he had gained an immediate right to the senate, and an actual admission into it during life; and settled again in Rome, where he employed himself constantly in defending the persons and properties of its citizens, and was indeed a general patron. Five years were almost elapsed since Cicero’s election to the qusestorship, the proper interval prescribed by law, before he could hold the next office of sedile; to which he was now, in his thirty-seventh year, elected by the unanimous suffrage of all the tribes. But before his entrance into the office, he undertook the celebrated prosecution of C. Verres, the late praetor of Sicily; who was charged with many flagrant acts of injustice, rapine, and cruelty, during his triennial government of that island. This was one of the most memorable transactions of his life; for which he was greatly and justly celebrated by antiquity, and for which he will in all ages be admired and esteemed by the friends of mankind. The public administration was at that time, in every branch of it, most infamously corrupt, and the prosecution of Verres was both seasonable and popular, as it was likely to give some check to the oppressions of the nobility, and administer relief to the distressed subjects. Cicero had no sooner agreed to undertake it, than an unexpected rival started up, one Q,. Caecilius, a Sicilian by birth, who had been quaestor to Verres; and by a pretence of personal injuries received from him, and a particular knowledge of his crimes, claimed a preference to Cicero in the task of accusing him, or at least to bear a joint share with him. But this pretended enemy was in reality a secret friend, employed by Verres himself to get the cause into his hands in order to betray it: and on the first bearing Cicei'o easily shook off this weak antagonist, rallying his character and pretensions with a great deal of wit and humour, and the cause being committed to Cicero, an hundred and ten days were granted to him by law for preparing the evidence; to collect which, he was obliged to go to Sicily, in order to examine witnesses, and facts to support the indictment. Aware that all Verres’s art would be employed to gain time, in hopes to tire out the prosecutors, and allay the heat of the public resentment, he took along with him his cousin L. Cicero, that he might be enabled to finish his

After the expiration of his ædileship, his cousin L. Cicero, the late companion of his journey to Sicily, died an event the more unfortunate at this juncture, because he wanted his help in making interest for the prsetorship, for which he now offered himself a candidate. However, such was the people’s regard for him, that in three different assemhlies convened for the choice of praetors, two of which were dissolved without effect, he was declared every time the first proctor, by the suffrages of all the centuries. This year a law was proposed by Manilius, one of the tribunes, that Pompey, who was then in Cilicia, extinguishing the remains of the piratic war, should have the government of Asia added to his commission, with the command of the Mithridatic war, and of all the Roman armies in those parts. Cicero supported this law with all his eloquence in a speech still extant, from the rostra, which he never mounted till this occasion; where, in displaying the character of Pompey, he drew the picture of a consummate general, with great strength and beauty. He was now in sight of the consulship, the grand object of his ambition; and therefore, when his praetorship was at an end, he would not accept any foreign province, the usual reward of that magistracy, and the usual object with those who held it. So attached indeed was he to a certain path to renown, that amidst all the hurry and noise of his busy life, he never neglected those arts and studies in which he had been educated, but paid a constant attention to every thing which deserved the notice of a scholar and a man of taste. Even at this very juncture, though his ambition was eagerly fixed on the consulship, he could find time to write to Atticus about statues and books. Atticus resided many. years at Athens, where Cicero employed him to buy statues for the ornament of his several villas; especially his favourite Tusculum, his usual retreat from the hurry and fatigues of the city. Here he had built several rooms and galleries, in imitation of the schools and porticos of Athens; which he called likewise by their Attic names of the Academy and Gymnasium, and designed for the same use, of philosophical conferences with his learned friends. He had given Atticus a general commission to purchase for him any piece of Grecian art or sculpture, that was elegant and curious, illustrative of literature, or proper for the furniture of his academy; which Atticus executed to his great satisfaction. Nor was he less eager in collecting Greek books, and forming a library, by the assistance of Atticus, who, having the same taste and free access to all the libraries of Athens, procured copies of the works of their best writers, not only for his own use, but for sale also. Having with much pains made a very large collection of choice and curious books, he signified to Cicero his design of selling them; yet seems to have intimated that he expected a larger sum for them than Cicero could easily spare; which induced Cicero to beg of him to reserve the whole number for him, till he could raise money enough for the purchase.

Cicero being now in his forty-third year, the proper age required by law, declared himself a candidate for the consulship along with six competitors. The two first were patricians; the two next plebeians, yet noble; the two last the sons of fathers, who had first imported the public honours into their families: Cicero was the only new man, as he was called, amongst them, or one born of equestrian rank. Two of them, C. Antonius and Catiline, employed bribery on this occasion in the most shameful manner, but as the election approached, Cicero’s interest appeared to be superior to that of all the candidates, and in his case, instead of choosing consuls by a kind of ballot, or little tickets of wood distributed to the citizens with the names of the several candidates severally inscribed upon each, the people loudly and universally proclaimed Cicero the first consul; so that, as he himself says, “he was not chosen by the votes of particular citizens, but the common suffrage of the city; nor declared by the voice of the crier, but of the whole Roman people.” This year several alterations happened in his own family. His father died; his daughter Tullia was given in marriage at the age of thirteen to C. Piso Frugi, a young nobleman of great hopes, and one of the best families in Rome; and his son and heir was also born in the same year.

His first care, after his election to the consulship, was to gain the confidence of Antonius, who was elected with him, by the offer of power to his ambition, and money to his pleasures; and it was presently agreed between them, that Antonius should have the choice of the best province, which was to be assigned to them at the expiration of their year. Immediately after his coming into office, he had occasion to exert himself against P. Servilius Rullus, one of the new tribunes, who had been alarming the senate with the promulgation of an Agrarian law: the purpose of which was, to create a decemvirate, or ten commissioners, with absolute power for five years over all the revenues of the republic, to distribute them at pleasure to the citizens;, &c. These laws used to be greedily received by the populace, and were proposed therefore by factious magistrates, as oft as they had any point to carry with the multitude, so that Cicero’s first business was to quiet the apprehensions of the city, and to baffle, if possible, the intrigues of the tribune. After defeating him therefore in the senate, he pursued him into the forum; where he persuaded the people to reject this law. Another alarm was occasioned by the publication of a law of L. Otho, for the assignment of distinct seats in the theatres to the equestrian order, who used before to sit promiscuously with the populace, a very invidious distinction, which might have endangered the peace of the city, if the effects of it had not been prevented by the authority of Cicero.

The next transaction of moment in which he was engaged, was the defence of C. Rabirius, an aged senator, in whose favour there is an oration of his still extant. But that which constituted the glory of his consulship, was the suppression of that horrid conspiracy which was formed by Catiline, the model of all traitors since, for the subversion of the commonwealth. Catiline was now renewing his efforts for the consulship with greater vigour than ever, and by such open methods of bribery, that Cicero published a new law against it, with the additional penalty of a ten years’ exile. Catiline, who knew the law to be levelled at himself, formed a design to kill Cicero, with some other chiefs of the senate, on the day of election, which was appointed for October 20. But Cicero gave information of it to the senate, the day before, upon which the election was deferred, that they might have time to deliberate on an affair of so great importance: and the day following, in a full house, he called upon Catiline to clear himself of this charge; where, without denying or excusing it, he bluntly told them,> that “there were two bodies in the republic,” meaning the senate and the people, “the one of them infirm with a weak head; the other firm without a head; which last had so well deserved of him, that it should never want a head while he lived.” He had made a declaration of the same kind, and in the same place, a few days before, when, upon Cato’s threatening him with an impeachment, he fiercely replied, that, “if any flame should be excited in his fortunes, he would extinguish it, not with water, but a general ruin.” These declarations startled the senate, and convinced them, that nothing but a desperate conspiracy, ripe for execution, could inspire so daring an assurance:. so that they proceeded immediately to that decree, which was the usual refuge in all cases of imminent danger, “of ordering the consuls to take care that the republic received no harm.”

Catiline, repulsed a second time from the consulship, and breathing nothing but revenge, was now eager and impatient to execute his grand plot. He called a council therefore of all the conspirators, to settle the plan of the work, and divide the parts of it among themselves, and fix a proper day for the execution. The number of their chiefs was above thirty-five partly of the senatorial!, partly of the equestrian order the senators were P. Cornelius Lentulus, C. Cethegus, P. Autronius, L. Cassius Longinus, P. Sylla, Serv. Sylla, L,. Vargtinteius, Q. Curius, Q. Annius, M. Porcius Lecca, L. Bestia. At a meeting of these it was resolved that a general insurrection should be raised through Italy, the different parts of which were assigned to different leaders: that Rome should be fired in many places at once, and a massacre begun at the same time of the whole senate and all their enemies; that in the consternation of the fire and massacre, Catiline should be ready with his Tuscan army, to take the benefit of the public confusion, and make himself master of the city, where Lentulus in the mean time, as first in dignity, was to preside in their general councils; Cassius to manage the affair of firing it; Cethegus to direct the massacre. But the vigilance of Cicero being the chief obstacle to all their hopes, Catiline was very desirous to see him taken off before he left Rome: upon which two knights of the company undertook to kill him the next morning in his bed, in an early visit on pretence of business. They were both of his acquaintance, and used to frequent his house; and knowing his custom of giving free access to all, made no doubt of being readily admitted, as one of the two afterwards confessed. But the meeting was no sooner over, than Cicero had information of all that passed in it; for by the intrigues of a woman named Fulvia, he had gained over Curius her gallant, one of the conspirators of senatorian rank, to send him a punctual account of all their deliberations. He presently imparted his intelligence to some of the chiefs of the city, who were assembled that evening, as usual, at his house; informing them not only of the design, but naming the men who were to execute it, and the very hour when they would he at his gate. All which fell out exactly as he foretold; for the two knights came before break of day, but had the mortification to find the house well guarded, and all admittance refused to them.

In the midst of all this hurry, and soon after Catiline’s flight, Cicero found leisure, according to his custom, to defend L. Muraena, one of the consuls elect, who was now brought to a trial for bribery and corruption. Catb had declared in the senate, that he would try the force of Cicero’s late law upon one of the consular candidates; and he was joined in the accusation by one of the disappointed candidates, S. Sulpicius, a person of distinguished worth and character, and the most celebrated lawyer of the age; for whose service, and at whose instance, Cicero’s law against bribery was chiefly provided. Muraena was unanimously acquitted: but the parties in this trial were singularly opposed to each other. Cicero had a strict intimacy all this while with Sulpicius, whom he had supported in this very contest for the consulship; and he had a great friendship also with Cato, and the highest esteem of his integrity. Yet he not only defended this cause against them both, but, to take off the prejudice of their authority, laboured even to make them ridiculous; rallying the profession of Sulpicius as trifling and contemptible, the principles of Cato as absurd and impracticable, with so much humour and wit, that he not only amused his audience, but forced Cato to cry out, “what a facetious consul have we!” This, however, occasioned no interruption to their friendship. Cicero, who survived both, procured public honours for the one, and wrote the life and praises of the other.

In the mean time Lentulus, and the rest of Catiline’s associates, who were left in the city, were preparing for the execution of their grand design, and soliciting men of all ranks, who seemed likely to favour their cause. Among the rest they agreed to make an attempt upon the ambassadors of the Allobroges; a warlike, mutinous, faithless people, inhabiting the countries now called Savoy and Dauphiny, greatly disaffected to the Roman power, and already ripe for rebellion. These ambassadors, who were preparing to return home, much out of humour with the senate, and without any redress of the grievances they were sent to complain of, received the proposal at first very greedily; but reflecting afterwards on the difficulty and danger of the enterprise, discovered what they knew to Q. Fabius Sanga, the patron of their city, who immediately gave intelligence of it to the consul. Cicero advised the ambassadors to feign the same zeal which they had hitherto shewn, till they had got distinct proofs against the particular actors in it: and that then upon their leaving Rome in the night, they might be arrested with their papers and letters about them. All this was successfully executed, and the whole company brought prisoners to Cicero’s house by break of day. Cicero summoned the senate to meet immediately, and sent at the same time for Gabinius, Statilius, Cethegus, and Lentulus; who all came, suspecting nothing of the discovery. With them, and the ambassadors in custody, he set out to meet the senate: and after he had given an account of the whole affair, Vulturcius, one of the conspirators who was taken with the ambassadors, was called in to be examined separately; who soon confessed, that he had letters and instructions from Lentulus to Catiline, to press him to accept the assistance of the slaves, and to lead his army with all expedition towards Rome, to the intent that when it should be set on fire in different places, and the general massacre Gegun, he might be at hand to intercept those who escaped, and join with his friends in the city. The ambassadors were examined next; who produced letters to their nation from Lentulus, Cethegus, and Statilius, which so confounded the conspirators, that they had nothing to say. After the criminals were withdrawn and committed to close custody, the senate unanimously resolved that public thanks should be decreed to Cicero in the amplest manner; by whose virtue, council, and providence, the republic was delivered from the greatest dangers. Cicero however thought it prudent to bring the question of their punishment without further delay before the senate, which he summoned for that purpose the next morning. As soon as he had opened the business, Silanus, the consul elect, advised, that those who were then in custody, with the rest who should afterwards be taken, should all be put to death. To this all who spoke after him readily assented, except J. Caesar, then praetor elect, who gave it as his opinion, that the estates of the conspirators should be confiscated, and their persons closely confined in the strong towns of Italy. This had Jike to have been adopted, when Cicero rose up, and made his fourth speech which now remains on the subject of this transaction; which turned the scale in favour of Silanus’s opinion. The vote was no sooner passed, than Cicero resolved to put it in execution, lest the night, which was coming on, should produce any new disturbance. He went therefore from the senate, attended by a numerous guard; and taking Lentulus from his custody, conveyed him through the forum to the common prison, where he was presently strangled, as were Cethegus, Statilius, and Gabinius. Catiline in the mean time was enabled to make a stouter resistance than they iuiagined, having filled up his troops to the number of two legions, or about 12,000 fighting men; but when the account came of the death of Lentulus and the. rest, his army began to desert, and after many fruitless attempts to escape into Gaul by long marches and private roads through the Apennines, he was forced at length to a battle; in which, after a sharp and bloody action, He and all his army were entirely destroyed. Thus ended this famed conspiracy: and Cicero, for the great part he acted in the suppression of it, was honoured with the glorious title of Pater Patria3, which he. retained for a long time after.

Cicero was now about to resign the consulship, according to custom, in an assembly of the people, and to take the usual oath of having discharged it with fidelity; which also was generally accompanied with a speech from the expiring consul. He had mounted the rostra, and was ready to perform this last act of his office, when Metellus, one of the new tribunes, would not suffer him to speak, or to do any thing more, than barely take the oath: declaring, that he who had put citizens to death unheard, ought not to be permitted to speak for himself. Upon which Cicero, who was never at a loss, instead of pronouncing the ordinary form of an oath, exalting the tone of his voice, swore out aloud, that he had saved the republic and city from ruin: which the multitude below confirmed with an universal shout. Yet he became now the common mark of all the factious, against whom he had declared perpetual war, and who at length drove him out of that city, which he had so lately preserved. He now, however, upon the expiration of his consulship, sent a particular account of his whole administration to Pompey, who was finishing the Mithridatic war in Asia; in hopes to prevent any wrong impression there, from the Calumnies of his enemies, and to draw from him some public declaration in his favour. But Pompey, being prejudiced by Metellus and Caesar, answered him with great coldness, and took no notice at all of his services in the affair of Catiline.*

The most remarkable event that happened in this year, the forty-fifth of Cicero’s life, was the pollution of the mysteries of the Bona Dea by P. Clodius; which, by an unhappy train of consequences, deeply involved Cicero. Clodius had an intrigue with Caesar’s wife Pompeia, who, according to annual custom, was now celebrating in her house those awful sacrifices of the goddess, to which no male creature ever was admitted; and where every thing masculine was so scrupulously excluded, that even male portraits were covered during the ceremony. Clodius, however, eager to witness it, dressed himself in a woman’s habit, but was detected before he could execute his project; and when brought to trial, endeavoured to prove himself absent at the time of the fact; but Cicero deposed, that Clodius had been with him that very morning at his house in Rome. Ciodius, however, was absolved by a majority of thirty-one to twenty-five of his judges, the iniquity of which decision, Cicero constantly inveighed against. In revenge for this, about a year after, Clodius endeavoured to get himself chosen tribune, and in that office to drive Cicero out of the city, by the publication of a law, which by some stratagem or other he hoped to obtrude upon the people. Caesar was at the bottom of the scheme, and Pompey secretly favoured it: not that they intended to ruin Cicero, but to lessen his importance. Cicero affected to treat all this with contempt, sometimes rallying Clodius with much pleasantry, sometimes admonishing him with no less gravity; but it appears to have alarmed him, and to have inclined him to unite himself more closely with Pompey, in hopes of his protection against a storm, which he saw ready to burst upon him.

The first triumvirate, as it has commonly been called, was now formed; which was in reality a traitorous conspiracy of three of the most powerful citizens of Rome, Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus, to extort from their country by violence, what they could not obtain by law. Cicero might have been admitted a partner in their league: but he would not enjer into any engagements, which he and all the friends of the republic abhorred. Clodius now began to threaten Cicero with all the -terrors of his tribunate, to which he had been chosen without any opposition. Ctesar’s whole aim was to subdue Cicero’s spirit, and force him to A dependence upon him: and therefore while he was privately encouraging Clodius, he vras proposing expedients to Cicero for his security. But though his enemies seemed to gain ground, he was unwilling to owe the obligation of his safety to Caesar, whose designs he always suspected, and whose measures he never approved, and who now therefore resolved to assist Clodius with all his power to oppress him; while Pompey gave him the strongest assurances, confirmed by oaths and vows, that he would sooner be killed himself, than suffer him to be hurt. Clodius in the mean time was courting the people by several new laws, contrived chiefly for their advantage, that he might introduce with a better grace the banishment of Cicero: which was now directly attempted by a special law, importing, that whoever had taken the life of a citizen uncondemned and without trial, should be prohibited from fire and water. Though Cicero was not named, yet he was marked out by the law: his crime was, the putting Catiline’s accomplices to death; which, though done by a general vote of the senate, was alleged to be illegal, and contrary to the liberties of the people. Cicero, finding himself thus reduced to the condition of a criminal, changed his habit upon it, as was usual in the case of a public impeachment; which, however, was thought an hasty and inconsiderate step, since he was not named in the law, which reached only to those who had taken the life of a citizen illegally: but it seems doubtful whether his taking no notice of it would have saved him, as the combination against him was deeply laid. Even Caesar, who affected great moderation, was secretly his adversary; and Pompey became reserved, and at last flatly refused to help him: while the Clodian faction treated his character and consulship with the utmost derision, and even insulted his person in the public streets. Cicero now called a council of his friends, to decide whether it was best to defend himself by force, or to save the effusion of blood by retreating till the storm should blow over: and the issue was, that he should submit to a voluntary exile.

As soon as it was known that Cicero was gone, Clodius had influence enough with the populace to procure a law in form against him for putting citizens to death unheard and uncondemned, and confirming his banishment in the usual terms, employed on such occasions. This law having passed without opposition, Clodius immediately began to plunder, burn, and demolish Cicero’s houses both in the city and the country. The news of this seems to have deprived Cicero of the accustomed firmness of his character, and of the resignation of one conscious of his integrity, and suffering in the cause of his country; and his friends were forced to admonish him sometimes, to rouse his courage, and remember his former character: yet, in the midst of this affliction, before he had been absent two months, a motion was made in the senate by one of the tribunes,* who was his friend, to recall him, and repeal the law of Clodius, to which the whole house readily agreed t and in spite of the opposition of the Clodian faction, passed a vote, that no other business should be done, till Cicero’s return was carried; which at last it was, and in so splendid and triumphant a manner, that he had reason, he says, to fear, lest people should imagine that he himself had contrived his late flight, for the sake of so glorious a restoration.

Cicero, now in his fiftieth year, was restored to his former dignity, and a compensation made to him for his estates and houses, which last were built up again by himself with more magnificence than before. But he had domestic grievances about this time, which touched him very nearly; arising chiefly from the petulant humour of his wife, which ended at last in a divorce. As to his public concerns, his chief point was how to support his former authority in the city, which it was not easy to do: and, therefore, we find him acting a subservient part, and managing the triumvirate in the best manner he could for the public welfare. In the fifty-sixth year of his age he was sent into Asia, and obliged to assume a new character, that of governor of a province, and general of an army; which preferments had no charms for Cicero, who, as we have noticed, was averse to them in his early life. However, he acquitted himself ably in administering the civil affairs of his province of Cilicia; nor was he deficient in military affairs, for he had the honour of a supplication decreed to him at Rome, and was not without some expectation even of a triumph.

As to the public news of the year, the grand affair that engaged all people’s thoughts was the expectation of a breach between Caesar and Pompey, which seemed to be now unavoidable, and which Cicero soon learned from his friends, as he was returning from uis province of Cilicia, But as he foresaw the consequences of a war more coolly and clearly than any of them, his first resolution was to apply all his endeavours and authority to the mediation of a peace. He had not yet declared for either side, although his inclination was to follow Pompey and while he was endeavouring to remain neuter, he had an interview with Pompey, who, finding him wholly bent on peace, contrived to have a second conference with him hefore he reached the city, in hopes to prevent any project of an accommodation. Cicero, however, the more he observed the disposition of both parties, the more he perceived the necessity of it; and that a war must necessarily end in a tyranny of some kind or other. When he arrived at the city, he found the war in effect proclaimed: for the senate had just voted a decree, that Caesar should dismiss his army by a certain day, or be declared an enemy; and Cæsar’s sudden march towards Rome effectually confirmed it. In the midst of all this hurry and confusion, Caesar was extremely solicitous to prevail with Cicero to stand neuter, but in vain, for Cicero was impatient to be gone to Pompey. In the mean time Caesar’s letters on the subject afford a striking proof of the high esteem and credit in which Cicero flourished at this time in Rome: when, in a contest for empire, which force alone was to decide, the chiefs on both sides were so solicitous to gain a man to their party, who had no peculiar talents for war. Steadfast to his purpose, he embarked at length for Dyrrhachium; and arrived safely in Pompey’s camp with his son, his brother, and his nephew, committing the fortunes of the whole family to the issue of that cause. But he soon had reason to dislike every thing which they had done, or designed to do; and saw that their own councils would ruin their cause. In this disagreeable situation he declined all employment; and finding his counsels wholly slighted, resumed his usual way of raillery, for he was a great jester, and what he could not dissuade by his authority, endeavoured to make ridiculous by his jests. When Pompey put him in mind of his coming so late to them: “How can I come late” said he, “when I find nothing in readiness among you?” and upon Pompey’s asking him sarcastically, where his son-in-law Dolabella was; “He is with your father-in-law,” replied he. To a person newly arrived from Italy, and informing him of a strong report at Rome, that Pompey was blocked up by Caesar; “And you sailed hither therefore,” said he “that you might see it with your own eyes.” By the frequency of these splenetic jokes, he is said to have provoked Pompey so far as to tell him, “I wish you would go over to the other side, that you may begin to fear us.”

After the battle of Pharsalia, in which Pompey was defeated, Cicero returned to Italy, and was afterwards received into great favour by Caesar, who was now declared dictator for the second time, and Marc Antony his master of the horse. At his interview with Caesar he had no occasion to depart from the dignity of his character, for Caesar no sooner saw him than he alighted, and ran to embrace him, and walked with him alone, conversing very familiarly for several furlongs. About the end of the year, Caesar embarked for Africa, to pursue the war against the Pompeian generals, and Cicero, despairing of any good from either side, chose to live retired; and whether in the city or the country, shut himself up with his books; which, as he often says, “had hitherto been the diversion only, but were now become the support of his life.” In this retreat he entered into a close friendship and correspondence with M. Terentius Varro, who is said to have been the most learned of all the Romans; and wrote two of those pieces upon orators and oratory, which are still extant in his works. He was now in his sixty-first year, and having been divorced from his wife Terentia, he incurred both censure and ridicule for marrying a handsome young woman named Publilia, of an age disproportioned to his own, and to whom he was guardian. But at present he was yet more imprudent in frequently hazarding Caesar’s displeasure by his sarcastic remarks. Some of these jests upon Caesar’s administration are still preserved, and shew an extraordinary want of caution in times so critical. Caesar had advanced Laberius, a celebrated player, to the order of knights; but when he stepped from the stage to take his place on the equestrian benches, none of the knights would admit him to a seat amongst them. Cicero, however, as he was marching off therefore with disgrace, said, “I would make room for you here on our bench, if we were not already too much crowded:” alluding to Caesar’s filling up the senate also with the lowest of his creatures, and even with strangers and barbarians. At another time, being desired by a friend in a public company to procure for his son the rank of a senator in one of the corporate towns of Italy, He shall have it,“says he,” if you please, at Rome; but it will be difficult at Pompeii.“An acquaintance likewise from Laodicea, coming to pay his respects to him, and being asked what business had brought him to Rome, said, that he was sent upon an embassy to Caesar, to intercede with him for the liberty of his country: upon which Cicero replied,” If you succeed, you shall be an ambassador also for us." Caesar, it must be allowed, to his honour, preserved such a reverence for his character, that he gave him many marks of personal favour; and this influence Cicero employed only to screen himself in the general misery of the times, and to serve those unhappy men who were driven from their country and families for the adherence to that cause which he himself had espoused. Cicero was now oppressed by a new affliction, the death of his beloved daughter Tullia; who died in childbed, soon after her divorce from her third husband Dolabella. She was about thirty-two years old at the time of her death, and was most affectionate to her father. To the usual graces of her sex, she added the more solid accomplishments of knowledge and polite letters, was qualified to be the companion as well as the delight of his age; and was justly esteemed not only as one of the best, but the most learned of the Roman ladies. His affliction for the death of this daughter was so great, that he endeavoured to shun all company by removing to Atticus’s house, where h'e lived chiefly in his library, turning over every book he could meet with on the subject of moderating grief. But, rinding his residence even here too public, he retired to Asturia, one ol his seats near Antium, a little island on the Latian shore, at the mouth of a river of the same name, covered with woods and groves, cut out into shady walks; a scene of all others the fittest to indulge melancholy, and where his whole time was employed in reading and writing. After the death of Caesar, Cicero was freed at once from all subjection to a superior, whose power he perpetually dreaded, and was now without competition the first citizen in Rome, the first in credit and authority both with the senate and people. The conspirators had no sooner killed Caesar in the senate-house, which Cicero tells us he had the pleasure to see, than Brutus, lifting up his bloody dagger, called upon him by name, to congratulate with him on the recovery of their liberty. It is evident from several of his letters, that he had an expectation- of such an attempt; for he prophesied very early, that Caesar’s reign could not last six months, but must necessarily fall, either by violence, or of itself; nay farther, he hoped to live to see it; yet it is equally certain that he had no hand in it, nor was at all acquainted with it.

But though the conspiracy had succeeded against Csesar, it drew after it a train of consequences, which, in little more than a year, ended in the destruction not only of the commonwealth, but of even Cicero himself. The detail of all this belongs to history: it may be sufficient here to notice, that when Antony had driven Brutus and Cassuis from Rome, Cicero also left it, not a little mortified to see things take so wrong a turn by the indolence of his friends. In his retreat he had frequent meetings and conferences with his old friends of the opposite party, the late ministers of Caesar’s power; among whom were Hirtius, and Pansa, who, if they must have a new master, were disposed, for the sake of Caesar, to prefer his heir and nephew, Octavius, and presented Wim to Cicero immediately upon his arrival, with the strongest professions on the part of the young man, that he would be governed entirely by his direction. Cicero, however, could not be persuaded to enter heartily into his affairs, and when he did consent at last to unite himself to Octavius’s interests, it was with no other view than to arm him with a power sufficient to oppress Antony, and so limited, that he should not be able to oppress the republic.

Octavius had no sooner settled the affairs of the city> and subdued the senate to his mind, than he marched back towards Gaul to meet Antony and Lepidus, who had already passed the Alps, and brought their armies into Italy, in order to have a personal interview with him; which had been privately concerted for settling the terms of a triple league, the substance of which was, that the three should be invested jointly with supreme power for the term of five years, with the title of triumvirs, for settling the state of the republic; that they should act in all cases by common consent; nominate the magistrates and governors both at home and abroad, and determine all affairs relating to the public by their sole will and pleasure, &c. The last thing which they adjusted was, the list of a proscription, which they were determined to make of their enemies, consisting of 300 senators and 2000 knights, among whom was Cicero, who was at his Tusculan villa when he first received this unexpected news, and immediately set forward towards Asturia, the nearest village which he had upon the sea, where he embarked in a vessel ready for him; but the winds being unfavourable, he landed at Circaeum, and spent a night near that place in great anxiety and irresolution. This at last ended in his returning to his Formian villa, about a mile from the coast, weary of his life and the sea, and declaring he would die in that country which he had so often saved. Here he slept soundly for several hours, till his slaves forced him into his litter or portable chair, and carried him away towards the ship, having just heard that soldiers were already come into the country in quest of him. As soon as they were gone, the soldiers arrived at the house, and pursuing towards the sea, overtook him in the wood. As soon as they appeared, the servants prepared to defend their master’s life at the hazard of their own; but Cicero commanded them to set him down, and to make no resistance. Then looking upon his executioners with great presence and firmness, and thrusting his neck as forwardly as he could out of the litter, he bade them do their work, and take what they wanted. Upon which they cut off his head, and both his hands, and returned with them in all haste and great joy towards Rome, as the most agreeable present which they could carry to Antony. Popilius, the commander of the soldiers, whom Cicero had formerly fended In an accusation for a capital crime, charged himself with the conveyance, without reflecting on the infamy of carrying that head which had saved his own. He found Antony in the forum, and upon shewing from a distance the spoils which he brought, he was rewarded upon the spot with the honour or' a crown, and about 8000l. sterling. Antony ordered the head to be fixed upon thd rostra between the two hands; and, satiated with Cicero’s blood, declared the proscription at an end. This barbarous murder was committed Dec. 7, B. C. 43, A. U. C. 710, and in the sixty-fourth year of Cicero’s age.

, the son of Marcus Tullius Cicero, was born, as has been observed in the foregoing article, in the year that his father obtained the consulship: that is, in the year of Rome 690, and about 64 years before Christ. In his early youth, while he continued under the eye and discipline of his father, he was modest, tractable, and dutiful; diligent in his studies, and expert in his exercises: so that in the Pharsalic war, at the age of seventeen, he acquired great reputation in Pornpey’s camp. Not long after Pompey’s death he was sent to Athens to study under Cratippus; and here first his irregularity of conduct and extravagance of expence made his father uneasy, but he was soon made sensible of his folly, and recalled to his duty by the remonstrances of his friends, and particularly of Atticus; so that his father readily paid his debts, and enlarged his allowance, which seems to have been about 700l. per annum. From this time, all the accounts from the principal men of the place as well as his Roman friends who had occasion to visit Athens, are uniform in 'their praises of him. When Brutus arrived there, he entrusted him, though but twenty years old, with a principal command in his army, in which he acquitted himself with great courage and conduct; and in several expeditions and encounters with the enemy, where he commanded in chief, always came off victorious. After the battle of Philippi, and the death of Brutus, he escaped to Pompey, who had taken possession of Sicily with a great army, and fleet superior to any in the empire. This was the last refuge of the poor republicans, where young Cicero was received again with particular honours; and continued fighting in the defence of his country’s liberty, till Pompey, by a treaty of peace with the triumvirate, obtained, as one of the conditions of it, the pardon and restoration of all the proscribed and exiled Romans, who were then -in arms with him. Cicero therefore took his leave of Pompey, and returned to Rome with the rest of his party, where he lived for some time in the condition of a private nobleman, remote from all public affairs; partly through the envy of the times, averse to his name and principles; partly through choice, and his zeal for the republican cause, which he retained to the last. But here at the same time he sunk into a life of indolence and pleasure, and the intemperate love of wine, which began to be the fashionable vice of this age.

Augustus, however, now made him a priest or augur, as well as one of those magistrates who presided over the coinage of the public money: and no sooner became the sole master of Rome, than he took him for his partner in the consulship: and by these favours to the son, Augustus made some atonement for his treachery to the father. Soon after his consulship, he was made proconsul of Asia, or, as Appian says, of Syria, one of the most considerable provinces of the empire: from which time we find no farther mention of him in history. He died probably soon after; before a maturity of age and experience had given him an opportunity of retrieving the reproach of his intemperance, and distinguishing himself in the councils of the state. But from the honours already mentioned, it is evident that his life, though blemished by some scandal, yet was not void of dignity; and, amidst all the vices with which he is charged, he is allowed to have retained his father’s wit and politeness.

The cardinal San Csesareo passing through Forli, where Cignani at that time resided with his family, desired to have one of his paintings; and Carlo shewed him a picture of Adam and Eve, which he had painted for his own use, intending to have kept it by him. On viewing that performance, the cardinal was so pleased that he gave him five hundred pistoles, and politely told Carlo, that he only paid him for the canvas, and accepted the painting as a present. In the Palazzo Zambeccari, at Bologna, is a Sampson by Cignani, in a noble and grand style; in the superb collection of the duke of Devonshire, there is a picture of Joseph disengaging himself from the immodesty of his Mistress; and one of the same subject is in the Palazzo Arnaldi, at Florence. Sir Robert Strange, who had two pictures by Cignani, “Bacchanalian Boys,” and “Madona with the child and St. John,” speaks highly of his talents; but there was in the Dusseidorp gallery, when sir Joshua Reynolds visited it, an immense picture of the Ascension of the Virgin, which sir Joshua thought heavy, and in no point excellent. Cignani died at Forli, 1719, in his ninety-first year.

, another renowned painter, was born at Florence in 1240, and was the first who revived the art of painting in Italy. Being descended of a noble family, and of sprightly parts, he was sent to school to study the belles lettres, but he generally betrayed his natural bias by drawing figures upon paper, or on his books. The fine arts having been extinct in Italy, ever since the irruption of the barbarians, the senate of Florence had sent at that time for painters out of Greece. Cimabue was their first disciple, and used to elope from school and pass whole days in viewing their work. His father, therefore, agreed with these Greeks to take him under their care, and he soon surpassed them both in design and colouring. Though he wanted the art of managing his lights and shadows, was but little acquainted with the rules of perspective, and in other particulars but indifferently accomplished, yet the foundation which he laid for future improvement, entitled him to the name of the “father of the first age, or infancy of modern painting.”

Cimabue was also a great architect as well as painter, and concerned in the fabric of Sancta Maria del Fior in Florence during which employment he died in 1300. He left many disciples, and among the rest Giotto, who proved an excellent master, and was his first rival. Dante mentions him in the eleventh canto of his purgatory as without a rival till Giotto appeared. Cimabue’s portrait, by Simon Sanese, was in the chapel-house of Sancta Maria Novella. It is a figure which has a lean face, a little red beard, in point; with a capuche, or monk’s hood upon his head, after the fashion of those times.

, an eminent musician and composer, was born at Capo di Monte, Naples: he studied music at the couservatorio of Loretto, and was a disciple of the admirable Duronte. He was carefully educated in other respects, and his docility and sweetness of temper, during his youth, gained him the affection of all who knew him. On quitting the conservatorio his talents were soon noticed, and his operas, chiefly comic, became the delight of all Italy. But though he composed for buffo singers, his style was always graceful, never grotesque or capricious. There is an ingenuity in his accompaniments which embellishes the melody of the voice part, without too much occupying the attention of the audience. His operas of “Il Pittore Parigino,” and “L'Italiana in Londra,” were carried to Rome, and thence to the principal cities of Italy, where their success was so great in 1782 and 1783, that he received an order from Paris to compose a cantata for the birth of the dauphin, which was performed by a band of more than 100 voices and instruments. In 1784 he was engaged to compose for the theatres and cities which seldom had operas expressly composed for them; bringing on their stage such as were set for great capitals, such as Rome, Naples, Venice, and Milan. By these means the expences of poet and composer were saved. He composed operas likewise at Petersburgh and Madrid, and his success and fame were more rapid than those of any composer of the last century, except Piccini, and the fame of his comic opera of “L'ltaliana in Londra,” seems to have been as extensive as that of the “Buona Figliuola.”

, was a celebrated Roman, who was taken from the plough to be consul and, a second time, to be dictator, 458 A. C. when the army of the consul, Marcus Minutius, was on the point of being forced in its entrenchments by the -/Equi and Volsci. Cincinnatus conquered these enemies, made them pass under the yoke; and, having triumphed, returned to his plough. He was created dictator a second time when eighty years of age, vanquished the Praenestians, and abdicated twentyone days after. The time of his death is not known. From the leading trait in his history, a society was formed in America at the close of the revolutionary war in 1783, called the order of the Cincinnati, but it met with some opposition, although it still subsists, principally in the form of a charitable institution.

, a physician at Florence, where he was born in 1625, had not only great skill in his profession, but very extensive literary knowlege, and few men were better acquainted with books of rarity and curiosity. He was a member of the academy of Apatisti at Florence, and of the academy of Parma, and of other learned societies. But he had, unfortunately, the art of creating enemies by the severity of his censures and personal remarks; and having taken some liberties of this kind in his “Biblioteca volante” with Dr. Moniglia, first physician to Cosmo III. he was sent to prison, and released only on condition of retracting what he had so imprudently advanced. After this, he quitted the dominions of the grand duke, and having travelled over most part of Italy, settled at Loretto, where he practised physic, and where he died in 1706. In 1677 he published the first two parts of his “Biblioteca volante,” or fugitive library; a curious and useful collection of remarks and information respecting rare books, in which he was assisted by the learned Magliabechi, who was his intimate friend. The third, fourth, and fifth parts he published at Naples about the year 1686. The whole was reprinted, with additions by Sancassani, at Venice, 4 vols. 4to, 1734—1747. He had a design of publishing an account of Tuscan authors, which we are sorry to find was prevented by his poverty and want of encouragement. The only other publication we know of Cinelli’s, was a new edition, with improvements, of “Bocchi’s Curiosities of Florence,” 1677, 8vo.

, a celebrated Italian lawyer and poet of the fourteenth century, who usually is known by that name, although he was of the ancient family of the Sinibaldi or Sinibuldi, and his first name was Guittoncino (not Ambrogino, as Le Quadrio says), the diminutive of Cuittone, and by abbreviation Cino. Much pains were bestowed on his education, and according to the fashion of the times, he studied law; but nature had made him a poet, and he cultivated that taste in conjunction with his academical exercises. He took his first degree in civil law at Bologna, and in 1307 was appointed assessor of civil causes but at that time was obliged to leave Pistoia, owing to the civil commotions. Cino was a zealous Ghibelin, and was now glad to seek an asylum in Lombardy, whither he followed his favourite Selvaggia, whose charms he so often celebrates in his poems, but where he had the misfortune to lose her. After her death he travelled for some time in Lombardy, and is thought to have visited Paris, the university of which was at that time the resort of many foreigners. On his return, however, to Bologna in 1314, he published his “Commentary on the first nine Books of the Code,” a very learned work, which placed him among the ablest lawyers of his time, and has been often printed, first at Pavia in 1483; the best edition is that improved by Cisnez, Franefort, 1578. He now took his doctor’s degree, ten years after he had received that of bachelor, and his reputation procured him invitations to become law-professor, an office which he filled for three years at Trevisa, and for seven years at Perugia. Among his pupils in the latter place was the celebrated Bartolo, who studied under him six years, and declared that he owed his knowledge entirely to the writings and lessons of Cino. From Perugia he went to Florence, but his reputation was confined to the civil law. At this time the canonists and legists were sworn enemies, and Cino, not only in his character as a legist, but as a Ghibelin, had a great aversion to decretals, canons, and the whole of papal jurisprudence. It is not true, however, as some have asserted, that he taught civil law to Petrarch, or canon law to Boccaccio, although he communicated with Petrarch on poetical matters, and exhibited to him a style which Petrarch did not disdain to imitate.

Cino was professor at Florence in 13. '54, when he was appointed gonfalonier at Pistoia, where his party had gained the ascendancy; but either from a partiality for his present situation, or some other motive, he declined accepting the honour. We find him, however, on his return to his native country, when he was seized with a disorder which proved fatal in 1336, or the beginning of 1337, and not, according to Tiraboschi, in 1341, leaving, as his biographer says, two reputations which long subsisted without injuring one another, that of one of the revivers of civil jurisprudence, and one of the founders of Italian poetry. It is ia the latter character that his fame has been of longest duration, and in which he has been praised by Dante, and more abundantly by Petrarch, who chose him for one of his models. Modern critics, however, have discovered among many beauties, an occasional flatness and obscurity in some of his poetical pieces. They were first printed at Rome in 1559, and reprinted thirty years after with a second part, and are in several collections.

, an eminent artist, claimed by the English school, from England being so long the theatre of his art, was born at Pistoia, about the year 1727. He received his first instructions from an English artist of the name of Heckford (who had settled in that city), and afterwards went under the tuition of Gabbiani, by the study of whose works he became a vigorous designer. Italy possesses few of his pictures, but Lanzi mentions two, painted for the abbey of St. Michele, in Pelago, in the neighbourhood of Pistoia; the one of St. Tesauro, the other of Gregory VII. In 1750 he went to Rome, where he had much employment, but chiefly in drawing; and in August 1755 came to England with Mr. Wilton and sir William Chambers, who were then returning from the continent. His reputation having preceded him, he was patronized by lord Tilney, and the late duke of Richmond, and other noblemen. When, in 1758, the duke of Richmond opened the gallery at his house in Privy- garden as a school of art, Wilton and Cipriani were appointed to visit the students the former giving them instructions in sculpture, and the latter in painting; but this scheme was soon discontinued. At the foundation of the Royal Academy, Cipriani was chosen one of the founders, and was also employed to make the design for the diploma, which is given to the academicians and associates at their admission. For this work, which he executed with great taste and elegance, the president and council presented him with a silver cup, “as an acknowledgment for the assistance the academy received from his great abilities in his profession.” The original drawing of this diploma was purchased at the marquis of Lansdowne’s sale of pictures, drawings, &c. in 1806 for thirty-one guineas by Mr. G. Baker.

, nephew to Nicolas Cirillo, a Neapolitan physician of considerable eminence, was born at Naples in 1730, and liberally educated. His principal study was medicine, as a profession but his inclination led him more particularly to natural history and at the age of thirty he was appointed botanical professor at Naples. In 1761, he published his “Introductio ad Botanicam,” which in the then state of botany was considered as a useful book. In the mean time, his knowledge of the English language made him be consulted by all visitors from that nation, and among others by lady Walpole, who engaged him to accompany her to England, as her travelling physician; and here he attended Dr. Hunter’s, and probably other medical lectures. On his return he published his “Nosologiae methodicse rudimenta,” 1780; and in 1784 another work, “De essentialibus nonnullarum plantarum characteribus,” which was followed by other botanical treatises, learned, but badly written, his Latin and Italian style being both ungrammatical and uncouth. His most splendid work was an account of the “Papyrus,” printed by Bodoni in 1796, and this was his last. He soon caught the delusion of French liberty; and when the French army entered Naples, he not only joined them, but was appointed a functionary, for which treasoiij on the restoration of the lawful government, he was executed in 1799.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born at St. Edmundsbury, in Suffolk, September 14, 1646, and educated in the free-school there, under the care of Dr. Thomas Stephens, author of the notes on Statius’s Sylvse, who took very early notice of the promising parts of his scholar. Before he was full thirteen years of age, he was admitted a pensioner in Emanuel-college, in Cambridge, September 5, 1659, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Jackson, where he took his degree of A. B. 1663, A.M. 1667, and commenced D. D. in 1683. He was then chosen one of the preachers of St. Edmundsbury, which office he discharged for seven years with universal reputation. From thence, at the instance of some considerable men of the long robe, whose business at the assizes there gave them opportunities of being acquainted with his great worth and abilities, he was thought worthy by the society of Gray’s-inn, to succeed the eminent Dr. Cradock, as their preacher, which he continued to be all the remaining part of his life, much to the satisfaction of the society. He was also presented by the lord keeper North (who was his wife’s kinsman) to the rectory of Farnham-royal, in Buckinghamshire, into which he was instituted May 14, 1683; but what he most valued next to his preacher’s place at Gray’s-inn, was the lectureship of St. Michael Bassishaw, to which he was elected by that parish about two years before his death. He was also chaplain in ordinary to his majesty. He was cut off, however, in the prime of life. He was seized with the small-pox on a Sunday evening, March the 16th, after having preached at St. Martin in the Fields, in his Lent course there; and died March 28, 1638. He was buried in a vault under part of the church of St. Michael Bassishaw, in the grave with his wife, Mrs. Thornasin North, a most virtuous and accomplished woman, who died eighteen days after him, of the same disease. We are assured by the testimony of Dr. Sharp, that no man of a private condition, in the last age, died more lamented, and his private virtuesand public services are spoken of by all his contemporaries in the highest terms. Bishop Burnet ranks him among those worthy and eminent men whose lives and labours in a great measure rescued the church from those reproaches that the follies of others drew upon it; nor ought it to be forgotten, that he was one of those excellent divines who made that noble stand against popery in the reign of king James II. which will redound to their immortal honour. The several things published by Dr. Clagett, are as follows: 1. “A Discourse concerning the Operations of the Holy Spirit; with a confutation of some part of Dr. Owen’s book upon that subject,” Part I. Lond. 1677, 8vo; Part II. Lond. 1680, 8vo. In this second part there is an answer to Mr. John Humphreys’s Animadversions on the first Part. The author intended a third part, proving that the Fathers were not on Dr. Ovven’s side, which was burnt by an accidental fire, and the author never found leisure to re-write it. We are not of opinion, however, that what is published ranks among his most successful performances. In 1719 Dr. Stebbing published an abridgment of the two parts mentioned above. 2. “A Reply to a pamphlet called The Mischief of Impositions, by Mr. Alsop, which pretends to answer the dean of St. Paul’s (Dr. Stillingfleet’s) Sermon concerning the Mischief of Separation,” Lond. 1681, 4to. 3. “An Answer to the Dissenters’ Objections against the Common Prayers, and some other parts of the divine service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England,” Lond. 1683, 4to. 4. “The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants fromthe Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England,” Lond. 1683, 4to. 5. “The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began, as it appears by the advices given to pope Paul III. and Julius III. by creatures of their own.” 6. “A Discourse concerning the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints,” Lond. 1686, 4to. 7. “A Paraphrase, with notes, upon the sixth Chapter of St. John, shewing that there is neither good reason, nor sufficient authority to suppose that the Eucharist is discoursed of in that chapter, much less to infer the doctrine of Transubstantiation from it.” Lond. 1686, 4to. Reprinted in 1689, 8vo, at the end of his second volume of sermons. 8. “Of the Humanity and Chanty of Christians. A Sermon preached at the Suffolk Feast, at St. Michael, Cornhill, London, November 30, 1686.” 9. “A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction, &.c.” in three parts. “With a letter to the Vindicator of the bishop of Condom,” Lond. 1687, 4to. 10. “A second letter to the Vindicator of the bishop of Condom,” Lond. 1637, 4to. 11. “Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith, with an answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Trial of the English Reformation.” The first part, about Councils, by Hutchinson, esq. the rest by Dr. Clagett, 4to. 12. “Notion of Idolatry considered and confuted,” Lond. 1688. 13. “Cardinal Bellarmine’s seventh note, of the Union of the Members among themselves, and with the Head.” 14. “His twelfth note, Of the Light of Prophecy, examined and confuted.” 15. “A View of the whole Controversy between the Representer and the Answerer; in which are laid open some of the methods by which Protestants are misrepresented by Papists,” Lond. 1687, 4to. 16. “An Answer to the Representer’s Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversy. With a Reply to the Vindicator’s full Answer; shewing that the Vindicator has utterly ruined the new design of expounding and representing Popery,” London, 1688, 4to. 17. “Several captious Queries concerning the English Reformation, first in Latin, and afterwards by T. W. in English, briefly and fully answered,” Lond. 1688, 4to. 18. “A Preface concerning the Testimony of Miracles, prefixed to The School of the Eucharist established upon the miraculous respects and acknowledgements, which Beasts, Birds, and Insects, upon several occasions, have rendered to the Sacrament of the Altar.” Translated by another hand, from the original French of F. Toussain Bridoul, a Jesuit," Lond. 1687, 4to. Besides these, after his decease, his brother, Mr. Nicolas Clagett, published four volumes of his sermons: the first in 1689, contained seventeen sermons; one of which was greatly admired by queen Mary, who desired to have it read more than once during her last illness: Text, Job ii. 10. The second volume, printed in 1693, contained eleven sermons; a Paraphrase and Notes upon the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth Chapters of the Gospel of St. John. The Paraphrase, and Notes on the sixth Chapter, which had been published before: A Discourse of Church- Unity, with Directions now, in this divided State of Christendom, to keep within the Unity of the Church A Discourse of Humanity and Charity And a Letter concerning Protestants Charity to Papists published by Dr. Clagett. The third and fourth volumes did not come out till 1720, at so great a distance of tune from the two former volumes, that the booksellers would not call them the third and fourth volumes, but the first and second volumes, as well as the former; only notice was given, that they were never before published.

, younger brother to the preceding, was born in May 1654, and educated in the freeschool of Bury St. Edmund’s, under Mr. Edward Leeds, a Greek scholar of considerable eminence. He was admitted of Ciirist’s-college, Cambridge, January 12, 1671, under the tuition of Dr. Widdrington, and regularly took his degrees in arts, and in 1704 commenced D. D. Upon his brother’s removal to Gray’s- inn, he was elected in his room, March 21, 1680, preacher at St. Mary’s, in St. Edmundsbury. In this station, which he held near forty-six years, he was a constant preacher, and diligent in every other part of his ministry. On the first of February, 1683, he was instituted to the rectory of Thurlo parva. Dr. John Moore, then bishop of Norwich, who was well acquainted with his merit and abilities, collated him on the 14th of June, 1693, to the archdeaconry of Sudbtfry; and in March 1707, he was instituted to the rectory of Hitchain, in Suffolk. This eminent divine, extremely valued and respected on account of his exemplary charity and other virtues, died January 27, 1726-7, in the seventy-third year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of the parish church of St. Mary’s, in St. Edmundsbury. Among other children, he had Nicolas, afterwards bishop of Si. David’s, and of Exeter, who died Dec. 8, 1746. Dr. Clagett published some occasional sermons, a pamphlet entitled “A Persuasive to an ingenuous Trial of Opinions in Religion,” Lond. 1685, 4to, and a volume entitled “Truth defended, and Boldness in Error rebuked or, a Vindication of those Christian Commentators who have expounded some Prophecies of the Messias not to be meant only of him. Being a Confutation of part of Mr. Whiston’s book, entitled, The Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies; wherein he pretends to disprove all duplicity of sense in prophecy. To which is subjoined, an Examination of his hypothesis, That our Saviour ascended up into Heaven several times after his Resurrection. And in both, there ar,e some remarks upon other Essays of the said author, as likewise an Appendix and a Postscript. With a large Preface,” Lond. 1710, 8vo.

, a celebrated French mathematician and academician, was born at Paris, May 13, 1713, and died May 17, 1765. His father, a teacher of the mathematics at Paris, who was his sole instructor, taught him even the letters of the alphabet on the figures of Euclid’s Elements, by which he was able to read and write at four years of age, and by a similar stratagem calculations were rendered familiar to him. At nine years of age he put into his hands Guisnee’s “Application of Algebra to Geometry” at ten he studied l'Hopital’s “Conic Sections;” and between twelve and thirteen, he read a memoir to the academy of sciences, concerning four new geometrical curves of his own invention. About the same time he laid the first foundation of his work upon curves that have a double curvature, which he finished in 1729, at sixteen years of age. He was named adjoint-mechanician to the academy in 1731, at the age of eighteen, associate in 1733, and pensioner in 1738. During his connection with the academy, he sent a great multitude of learned and ingenious communications to their Memoirs, from 1727, almost every year, to 1762, and wrote several other works, which he published separately, as, 1. “On Curves of a Double Curvature,” in 1730, 4to. 2. “Elements of Geometry,” 1741, 8vo. 3. “Theory of the Figure of the Earth,” 1743, 8vo. 4. “Elements of Algebra,” 1746, 8vo. 5. “Tables of the Moon,” 1754, 8vo.

, the founder of the Clares, an order of nuns so called from her, was born at Assisi, in 1193, and was a model of piety and devotion from her infancy, according to her biographers, whose account is certainly a model of credulity and superstition. Her parents were persons of rank, from whom in 1212 she ran away, and went to St. Francis, who cloathed her in his habit, a piece of sackcloth tied about her with a cord, and sent her to a Benedictine nunnery, and from this epoch the poor Clares date their foundation. She was next placed by St. Francis in a new house of nuns, of which she was appointed the superior, and which was soon crowded with devotees of rank. This female community practised austerities, “of which,” we are told, “people in the world have hardly any conception.” They not only went without shoes and stockings, lay on the ground, and kept perpetual abstinence, but were enjoined profound silence, unless in cases of the greatest necessity. Pope Innocent IV. in 1251, confirmed to this order the privilege of poverty, without any property in common. St. Clare’s abstinence and mortifications brought her into a miserable state of disease, from which she was released Aug. 11, 1253, and was buried the day following, on which her festival is kept. Alexander IV. canonized her in 1255. The nuns of St. Clans are divided into Damianists and Urbanists. The former follow the rule given by St. Francis to St. Clare; the latter are mitigated, and follow the rules given by Urban IV. From their name, Minoresses, sometimes given them, our Minories near Aldgate, is derived, where they had a nunnery from the year 1293.

, a writer of eminence among the Quakers, was born at Farmborough, in Warwickshire, in 1649, and after school-education, in which he made considerable proficiency, was entered of Balio-college, Oxford, in 1666, but removed to St. Mary-hall, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1670. He soon after received ordination, and in 1673 was presented to the rectory of Peopleton, in the county of Worcester, although it does not appear that he took his master’s degree until 1676. At Peopleton he lived in good esteem, and was accounted an energetic preacher, but after several years, he entertained many serious scruples, not only on the subject of personal religion, which he was afraid he had recommended to others, while a stranger to it himself, but also respecting certain doctrines and ceremonies of the church of England; and these scruples dwelt so strongly on his mind, that after much deliberation, he voluntarily resigned his benefice in 1691, a step which must have been conscientious, as his living was of considerable emolument, and after quitting it, he does not appear to have possessed any certain income. The same year he joined himself in communion with the Baptists, after submitting to their mode of initiation. An incident on this occasion made a lasting impression on his mind. Immediately after the ceremony of baptism, while his wet clothes were still upon him, a person accosted him thus, “You are welcome, sir, out of one form into another.” But, although this struck him forcibly at the time, it led to no sudden alteration, and he continued for some years in connection with the baptists; till at length his desires after what he conceived to be greater spirituality in religion, induced him to leave their communion; and having adopted the principles of the Quakers, he became one of their society about 1697. With the Quakers he continued in religious fellowship the remainder of his life, and was a well-approved minister amongst them. In 1700 he removed from London, where he had some time resided, to Barking, in Essex. At Barking, and afterwards at Tottenham, in Middlesex, he kept a boarding-school for several years, but in the latter place he met with difficulty from a suit commenced against him. under the Stat. 1 Jac. 1. for teaching school without license from the bishop of the diocese. The cause came to be tried in the court of king’s-bench, before lord chief justice Holt, who at the same time that he discountenanced the prosecution, declined determining whether the defendant was within the reach of the Act, and directed the jury to return a special verdict; upon which the adverse party thought proper not to proceed any further, and Claridge continued his useful occupation unmolested. In 1713, finding his health decline, and having a competency for his subsistence, he gave up the employment of schoolkeeping, and returned into London, where he appears to have passed serenely, but not inactively, the remainder of his time, and where he died, in 1723, in the seventyfourth year of his age. In his last illness, which was short, “he expressed,” says his biographer, “his peace and satisfaction of soul, and an humble resignation to the will of God.” He left some descendants, the children of a daughter who died before him.

, an English divine, who deserves to be recorded among the benefactors of mankind, was the son of Alured Clarke, gent, by Ann, the fourth daughter of Charles Trimnell, rector of Abbots Riptou in Hampshire, and a sister of the bishop of Winchester of that name. He was born in 1696; and alter receiving his early education at St. Paul’s school, was admitted pensioner in Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, April 1, 1713, where after taking the degree of A. B. he was made fellow in 1718, and proceeded A.M. two years after. At this early age he became a candidate with Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Ward, for the professorship of rhetoric in Gresham college, but without success. In May 1723, he was collated to the rectory of Chilbolton in Hampshire, and installed prebendary of Winchester on the 23d of that month. He was appointed one of the chaplains in ordinary to king George I. and continued in the same dignity in the subsequent reign, when George II. on his visit to Cambridge in April 1728, honoured him with the degree of D. D. and promoted him to a prebend in the church of Westminster, in which he was installed May 8, 1731; being then one of the deputy clerks of the closet. As a farther mark of the royal favouiy his majesty advanced him to the deanery of Exeter May 12, 1740; but he did not enjoy this long, being always of an infirm and weak constitution, which was worn out before he had completed his forty-sixth year. He died May 31, 1742, and was interred without any monument in Westminster.

As a man, his character stands very high. He is said to have spent the whole surplus of his annual income in works of hospitality and charity; and determined with himself never to have in reserve, how great soever his revenue might be, more than a sum sufficient to defray the expences of his funeral. The most remarkable instance of his active benevolence was in the case of the sick hospital at Winchester. Its institution, which was the first of the kind in England, those of the metropolis only excepted, owes its existence chiefly to the industry and indefatigable zeal of Dr. Alured Clarke, who in 1736 recommended the scheme to the public by every art of persuasion, and was so successful, that the first annual subscription amounted to upwards of 600l. And when the great utility of such a foundation became more apparent, its revenue soon increased to upwards of a thousand pounds per ann. and institutions of a like nature were in a short time established throughout the kingdom. The orders and constitutions of Winchester infirmary were drawn up by Dr. Clarke, and are a proof of great wisdom in a branch of political ceconomy, at that time very little understood. He began a similar institution upon his removal to Exeter, (where he had, with his usual liberality, expended a large sum of money upon the repair of his deanry house), but did not live long enough to see his laudable design fully executed. Dr. Clarke’s brother, Charles Clarke, esq. applied to the study of the law, in which he acquired great eminence, and was nominated one of the barons of the Exchequer in 1742. In the execution of this office, he caught the infectious disorder at the Old Bailey sessions in 1750, which proved at the same time fatal to the lord mayor, sir Samuel Pennant, sir Daniel Lambert, sir Thomas Abney, and others in court. Baron Clarke died in May, and was buried at Godmanchester. One of his sons is the present sir Alured Clarke, K. B.

, an English organist and composer of church music, was educated in the Chapel Royal, under Dr. Blow, who seems to have had a paternal affection for hir. In 1693 he resigned, in his favour, the place of master of the children and almoner of St. Paul’s, of which cathedral Clarke was soon after likewise appointed organist. In 1700 Dr. Blow and his pupil were appointed gentlemen extraordinary in the King’s chapel; of which, in 1704, on the death of Mr. Francis Pigoot, they were jointly admitted to the place of organist. The compositions of Clarke are not numerous, as an untimely aud melancholy end was put to his life before his genius had been allowed time to expand. Early in life he was so unfortunate as to conceive a violent and hopeless passion for a very beautiful lady of a rank far superior to his own; and his sufferings, under these circumstances, became at length so intolerable, that he resolved to terminate them by suicide. The late Mr. Samuel Wiley, one of the lay-vicars of St. Paul’s, who was very intimate with him, related the following extraordinary story. “Being at the house of a friend in the country, he found himself so miserable, that he suddenly determined to return to London: his friend, observing in his behaviour great marks of dejection, furnished him with a horse, and a servant to attend him. In his way to town, a fit of melancholy and despair having seized him, he alighted, and giving his horse to the servant, went into a field, in the corner of which there was a pond surrounded with trees, which pointed out to his choice two ways of getting rid of life; but not being more inclined to the one than the other, he left it to the determination of chance; and taking a piece of money out of his pocket, and tossing it in the air, determined to abide by its decision; but the money falling on its edge in the clay, seemed to prohibit both these means of destruction. His mind was too much disordered to receive comfort, or take advantage of this delay; he therefore mounted his horse and rode to London, determined to find some other means of getting rid of life. And in July 1707, not many weeks after his return, he shot himself in his own hotise in St. Paul’s church -yard; the late Mr. John Reading, organist of St. Dunstan’s church, a scholar of Dr. Blow, and master of Mr. Stanley, intimately acquainted with Clarke, happening to go by the door at the instant the pistol went off, upon entering the house, found his friend and fellow-student in the agonies of death.”

, celebrated for his skill in oriental learning, was the son of Thomas Clarke, of Brackley in Northamptonshire, where it is supposed he was born, in 1623, and became a student at Merton college, Oxford, in 1638. He resided in that university three years, and then left it, when the town was about to be garrisoned for the use of Charles I.: but after its surrender to the parliament, he returned to his college, submitted to the visitors appointed by the powers in being; and the same year, 1648, took the degree of M. A. The year following he was designed the tirst architypographus of the university, and for his better encouragement in that office, had the grant of the superior beadleship of the civil law, when it should become vacant, given to him, and to his successors in that place for ever; but Clarke, after all, was the last in whose person these offices were united. In 1650 he was master of a boarding-school at Islington, near London, during his continuance at which place he assisted in correcting and publishing Walton’s Polyglott Bible. In 1658 he returned a second time to the university; and, in contemplation of the death of him who held the superior beadleship of law, was elected architypographus May the 14th that year, and on the 29th superior beadle of the civil law; both which places he held to the time of his death, which happened at Holy well in the suburbs of Oxford, Dec. 27, 1669.

, a very industrious and useful writer of the seventeenth century, less known than his services deserved, and particularly entitled to notice in a work of this kind, was born Oct. 10, 1599, at Woolston, in the county of Warwick, of which place his father had been minister for upwards of forty years. Under his tuition he remained until he was thirteen years old, when he was sent to school under one Crauford, an eminent teacher at that time. Here he informs us that he fell into loose practices from keeping bud company, but occasionally felt the reluctance which a pious education usually leaves. At the end of four years he was sent to Cambridge, and entered of Emanuel, which was then, according to his account, the Puritan college. After taking his bachelor’s degree, his father recalled him home, and he was for some time employed as a family-tutor in Warwickshire, after which, being now in orders, he was invited into Cheshire, as assistant to Mr. Byrom, who had the living of Thornton, and with whom he continued almost two years, preaching twice every Sunday during that time. Some scruples respecting the ceremonies occasioned him much trouble, and. he had an intention of removing to London; but happening to receive a pressing invitation from the inhabitants of Wirrall, a peninsula beyond West Chester, he consented to settle among them at Shotwick, where no regular service had been performed, and became here very useful as a preacher, and very popular through an extensive district. After, however, five years’ quiet residence here, a prosecution was instituted against him for the omission of ceremonies (what they were he does not inform us) in the Chancellor’s court; and while about to leave Shotwick in consequence of this, the mayor, aldermen, and many of the inhabitants of Coventry, invited him to preach a lecture in that city, which he accepted, and carried on for some time; but here likewise he excited the displeasure of Dr. Buggs, who held the two principal livings in Coventry, and who prosecuted him before the bishop, Dr. Morton. After this, by the influence of Robert earl of Warwick, he was enabled to preach at Warwick, and although complained of, was not molested in any great degree. Soon after, lord Brook presented him to the rectory of Alcester, where he officiated for nine years, and, as he informs us, “the town, which before was called * drunken Alcester,' was now exemplary and eminent for religion.” When the et c<etcra oath was enjoined, the clergy of the diocese met and drew up a petition against it, which Mr. Clarke and Mr. Arthur Salway presented to his majesty at York, who returned for answer, that they should not be molested for refusing the oath, until the consideration of their petition in parliament. This business afterwards requiring Mr. Clarke to go to London, he was chosen preacher of the parish of St. Bennet Fink, a curacy which is said to have been then, as it is now, in the gift of the canons of Windsor. Walker, from having included this among the livings sequestered by the parliamentary reformers, would seem to intimate that Mr. Clarke must have succeeded to it at the expence of the incumfyent; but the fact is, there was no incumbent at the time. We learn from Clarke’s dedication of his “Mirror” to Philip Holman, esq. of Warkworth in. Northamptonshire, a native of St. Bennet Fink, and a great benefactor to it, that for many years before this time (probably before 1646) the parish had little maintenance for a minister; theif tithes, being impropriated, went another way. They had no stock, no land, no house for the minister, no lecture, nor any one gift sermon in the year. This Mr. Holman, however, had furnished a house for the curate and settled it upon feoffees in trust, and had promised to add something towards his further maintenance. Such was the situation of the parish when Mr. Clarke was elected, and he remained their preacher until the restoration. During the whole of this period, he appears to have disapproved of the practices of the numerous sectaries which arose, and retained his attachment to the constitution and doctrines of the church, although he objected to some of those points respecting ceremonies and discipline, which ranks him among the ejected non-conformists. Most of his works appear to have been compiled, as indeed they are generally dated there, at his house in Threadneedle- street, and it was the sole business of his future life, to enlarge and republish them. In 1660, when Charles II. published a declaration concerning ecclesiastical affairs, the London clergy drew up a congratulatory address, with a request for the removal of re-ordination and surplices in colleges, &,c, Vol. IX. D D which Mr. Clarke was appointed to present. In the following year he was appointed one of the commissioners for revising the book of Common Prayer, but what particular share he took we are not informed; nor are we told more of his history, while in the church, than that he was seven or eight years a governor, and two years president of Sion college. When ejected for non-conformity, such was his idea of schism and separation, that he quietly submitted to a retired and studious life. From the church, which he constantly attended as a hearer, he says, he dared not to separate, or gather a private church out of a true church, which he judged the church of England to be. In this retirement he continued twenty years, partly at Hammersmith, and partly at Isleworth, revising what he had published, and compiling other works, all of which appear to have been frequently reprinted, notwithstand­*ig their size and price. He died Dec. 25, 1682, universally respected for his piety, and especially for his moderation in the contests which prevailed in his time.

His principal publications were, 1. “A Mirror or Looking-glass for Saints and Sinners,” containing remarkable examples of the fate of persecutors, and vicious persons of all descriptions, and notices of the lives of persons eminent for piety. This was a 12mo volume of 227 pages, published in 1646, which was so successful, and the author so partial to the subject, that in 1655 he republished it in an 8vo of 42 sheets, and in 1657 in a folio of 240 sheets, to which in 1671 he added another volume of equal size. In this enlarged form, we know not any work, except Turner’s “Providences,” or Wanley’s “Wonders,” both of which follow his plan, that contains a greater portion of the marvellous as well as the useful. He must have turned over a prodigious number of volumes to accumulate such a mass of anecdote. 2. “The Marrow of Ecclesiastical History, containing the lives of the Fathers, Schoolmen, Reformers, and eminent modern Divines, &c.” 1649, 4to. Dr. “Berkenhout gives the priority to Fuller’s” Abel Redivivus,“but he does not appear to have heard of Clarke, who unquestionably was the first who published any collection of Biography in English, and who is respectfully noticed by Fuller, as his predecessor. In 1650 he published a second part, and both together, with additions, in a thick quarto of above 1000 pages, in 1654, with many portraits in wood copper; but the best edition is that of 1675, folio. 3.” A General Martyrology,“or abridgement of Fox and of some more recent authors, 1651, fol.; to this, in 1652, he added an” English Martyrology,“reprinted together in 1660, and in 1677, with an additional series of the lives of Divines. The value of most of his lives is, that they are taken from scarce volumes and tracts, which it would now be extremely difficult as well as expensive to procure. 4.” The Lives of sundry eminent persons In this latter age,“1683, fol. with portraits better executed than in his other works, which has imparted a particular value to this volume in the estimation of portrait- collectors. Mr. Clarke’s other works are” The Marrow of Divinity, with sundry cases of Conscience,“1659, fol.: a treatise against the toleration of schismatics and separatists, entitled” Golden Apples, or seasonable and serious Counsel," &c. 1659, 12mo and some lesser historical tracts and sermons.

, son of the preceding, was educated at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he lost his fellowship, in the time of the Rump parliament, for refusing to take the engagement. He had, however, enough of the, non-conformist, to resign, after the restoration, the living of Grendon in Buckinghamshire. He applied himself early to the study of the scriptures; and the books which he published, as helps to others in the same course of study, are proofs of his industry and abilities. His “Annotations on the Bible,” 1690, fol. printed together with the sacred text, was the great work of his life. It is commended in very high terms by Dr. Owen and Mr. Baxter, as a laborious and judicious performance, and has been an excellent fund for some modern commentators, who have republished a great part of it, with very little alteration. He died Feb. 24, 1700-1, in his seventy-fifth year. The great grandson of the Martyrologist was Dr. Samuel Clarke, or Clark (for his posterity dropped the e), pastor of a congregation of dissenters at St. Alban’s, and author of “Scripture Promises,” a popular work, often reprinted. This Dr. Samuel Clark was father to the late rev. Samuel Clark of Birmingham, who was assistant to Dr. Doddridge in his academy, and died by a fall from his horse in 1769; and also to Mrs. Rose, wife of Dr. Rose of Chiswick, a gentleman well known in the literary world.

Afterwards, in order to fit himself for the sacred function, he studied the Old Testament in the Hebrew, the New in the Greek, and the primitive Christian writers. Having taken orders, he became chaplain to Moore bishop of Norwich, by the introduction of the celebrated Whiston, then chaplain to the bishop, who in 1698, being collated to the living of Lowestoff in Suffolk, resigned his chaplainship, and was succeeded by Clarke. In this station Clarke lived for near twelve years, with all the freedom of an equal rather than as an inferior to the bishop, who esteemed him highly while he lived, and at his death gave him a striking proof of confidence, by leaving solely in his hands all the concerns of his family: a trust which Clarke executed very faithfully, and to the entire satisfaction of every person concerned. In 1699 he published two treatises: one entitled, “Three practical essays on Baptism, Confirmation, and Repentance;” the other, “Some reflections on that part of a book called Amyntor, or a defence of Milton’s life (written by Toland), which relates to the writings of the primitive fathers, and the canon of the New Testament. In a letter to a friend.” This was published without a name, but was afterwards added to his letter to Dodwell, &c. In 1701 he published a paraphrase upon the gospel of St. Matthew; which was followed in 1702 by the paraphrases upon the gospels of St. Mark and St, Luke, and soon after by a third volume upon St. John; afterwards often printed together in 2 vols. 8vo. He had begun a paraphrase upon the Acts of the Apostles, and was to have extended his labours to the remaining books of the New Testament, but something accidentally interrupted the execution, which he himself used to say, was made Jess necessary by the labours of several worthy and learned persons since the appearance of his work upon the four gospels.

This same year also, bishop Moore procured for him the rectory of St. Bennet’s, Paul’s Wharf, London; and soon after carried him to court, and recommended him to the favour of queen Anne. She appointed him one of her chaplains in ordinary; and, in consideration of his great merit, and at the request of the bishop, presented him to the rectory of St. James’s Westminster, in 1709. From this time he left off preaching without notes, and wrote his sermons at length, with much care and fit for the press, in which state they were found at his death. Upon his advancement to St. James’s rectory, he took the degree of D. D.; when the public exercise which he performed for it at Cambridge was much admired. The questions which he maintained were these: 1. “Nullum fidei Christiana? dogma, in sacris scripturls traditum, est rectse rationi dissentaneum:” that is, No article of the Christian faith, delivered in the holy scriptures, is discordant to right reason. 2. “Sine action am humanarum libertate nulla potest esse religio:” that is, Without the liberty of hunpan actions there can be no religion. His thesis was upon the first of these questions; which being thoroughly sifted by that most acute disputant professor James, he made an extempore reply in a continued discourse for near half an hour, with so little hesitation, that many of the auditors declared, that if they had not been within sight of him, they should have supposed him to have read every word of it from a paper. After this, through the course of the syllogistical disputation, he guarded so well against the arts which the professor was a complete master of; replied so readily to the greatest difficulties such an objector could propose; and pressed him so close and hard with clear and intelligible ausvyers, that perhaps there never was such a flict heard in those schools. The professor, who was a man of humour as well as learning, said to him at the end of the disputation, “Profecto me probe exereuisti,' 7 that is,” On my word, you have worked me sufficiently;“and the members of the university expressed their astonishment that a man even of Clarke’s abilities, after an absence of so many years, should acquit himself as if this sort of academical exercise had been his constant employment; and with such fluency and purity of expression, as if he had been accustomed to no other language in conversation but Latin. The same year, 1709, he revised and corrected Whiston’s translation of the” Apostolical Constitutions" into English, at the author’s particular request.

After this paper had been before the upper house, being apprehensive that, if it should be published separately, as afterwards happened, without any true account of the preceding and following circumstances, it might be misunderstood in some particulars, he caused an explanation, dated July 5, to be presented to the bishop of London, the next time the upper house met: setting forth, “That whereas the paper laid before their lordships the Friday before, was, through haste and want of time, not drawn up with sufficient exactness, he thought himself indispensably obliged in conscience to acquaint their lordships, that he did not mean thereby to retract any thing he had written, but to declare that the opinion set forth at large in his Scripture Doctrine, &c. is, that the Son was eternally begotten by the eternal incomprehensible power and will of the Father, &c. and that, by declaring he did not intend to write any more concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, he did not preclude himself from a liberty of making any inoffensive corrections in his former books, if they should come to another edition, or from vindicating himself against any misrepresentations or aspersions, which might possibly hereafter be cast upon him, on occasion of this controversy.” After the delivery of this explanation, the upper house resolved, July 5,. to proceed no farther upon the extract, laid before them by the lower house and ordered Dr. Clarke’s papers to be entered in the acts of that house. But the lower house, not so satisfied, resolved, July 7, that the paper subscribed by Dr. Clarke, and communicated to them by the bishops, does not contain in it any recantation of the heretical assertions and offensive passages complained of in their representation, and afterwards produced in their extract; nor gives such satisfaction for the great scandal occasioned thereby, as ought to put a stop to any farther examination and censure thereof. Thus ended. this affair; the most authentic account of which we have in a piece entitled, “An Apology for Dr. Clarke, containing an account of the late proceedings in convocation, upon his writings concerning the Trinity, 1714, 8vo,” written, Whiston tells us, by a clergyman in the country, a common friend of his and Dr. Clarke’s, with the knowledge and assistance of the latter. The “Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,” as we have observed, was first published in 1712; afterwards there was a second edition, with many alterations, in 1710; and there has been, since his death, a third edition, with very great additions, left under the doctor’s hand ready prepared for the press. Bishop Hoadly assures us, in opposition to those who have supposed Clarke to have retracted his notions concerning the Trinity, that, “from the time of publishing this book to the day of his death, he found no reason, as far as he was able to judge, to alter the notions which he there professed.” Mr. Whitaker, in his “Origin of Arianism disclosed,” has taken uncommon pains to support the truth of chevalier Ramsay’s assertion, that Dr. Clarke greatly repented of his ever having published his work upon the Trinity. The testimonies on the other side of the question Mr. Whitaker endeavours to reconcile, by supposing that the doctor occasionally avowed his repentance, and yet continued his practices. He avowed fully “to Mr. Ramsay what he was too timid to avow to his son, to a Hoadly, or to an Emlyn; and what he even took pains to conceal from them, in a seeming continuance of opinion, and in an actual perseverance of conduct.” All this, however, has been most confidently denied by Dr. Clarke’s friends.

In 1715 and 1716 he had a dispute with the celebrated Leibnitz, relating to the principles of natural philosophy and religion: and a collection of the papers which passed between them was published in 1717; and remarks upon a book entitled “A philosophical enquiry concerning Human Liberty,” by Anthony Collins, 8vo. The letters from Cambridge, which Clarke answers in this volume, were written by Richard Bulkeley, esq. author of a poem in 12 books,entitled “The Last Day,” who died in 1718, at about twenty-four years of age. All the pieces contained in this volume were translated into French, and published by Des Maizeaux in the first volume of “Recueil de diverses pieces sur la philosophic, la religion naturelle, Phistoire, les mathematiques, &c. par Messrs. Leibnitz, Clarke, Newton, et autres auteurs celebres,” printed at Amsterdam in 1720, 2 vols. 12 mo. This book of the doctor’s is inscribed to her late majesty queen Caroline, then princess of Wales, who was. pleased to have the controversy pass through her hands, and was the witness and judge of every step of it. It related chiefly to the important and difficult subjects of liberty and necessity. Whiston says, “I confess, I look upon these letters of Dr. Clarke as among the most useful of his performances in natural philosophy.” He has also preserved an anecdote relating to this controversy^; which is, that sir Isaac Newton once pleasantly told Clarke, that “he had broke Leibnitz’s heart with his reply to him.”

A considerable number of these “Select Psalms and Hymns” having been dispersed by the Society for promoting Christian knowledge, before the alteration of the doxologies was taken notice of, he was charged with a design of imposing upon the society, whereas it was answered that the edition of them had been prepared by him for the use of his own parish only, before the society had thoughts of purchasing any of the copies: and as the usual forms of doxology were not established by any legal authority, ecclesiastical or civil, in this he had not offended. Robinson, however, bishop of London, so highly disliked this alteration, that he thought proper to publish a letter to the incumbents of all churches and chapels in his diocese, against their using any new forms of doxology. The letter is dated Dec. 26, 1718, and begins thus: “Reverend brethren, there is an instance of your care and duty, which I conceive myself at this time highly obliged to offer, and you to regard, as necessary for the preservation of the very foundations of our faith. Some persons, seduced, I fear, by the strong delusions of pride and self-conceit, have lately published new forms of doxology, entirely agreeable to those of some ancient heretics, who impiously denied a trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead, I do therefore warn and charge it upon your souls, as you hope to obtain mercy from God the Father through the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord, and by the sanctification of the Holy Ghost, three persons and one God blessed for ever, that you employ your best endeavours to prevail with your several flocks, to have a great abhorrence for the abovementioned new forms, and particularly that you do not suffer the same to be used, either in your churches, or in any schools, where you are to prevent that most pernicious abuse, &c.” This letter was animadverted upon by Whiston, in “A Letter of Thanks to the right reverend the lord bishop of London, for his late letter to his clergy against the use of new forms of Doxology, &c.” Jan. 17, 1719; and in a pamphlet entitled “An humble apology for St. Paul and the other apostles; or, a vindication of them and their doxologies from the charge of heresy. By Cornelius Paets,” 1719. Soon after came out an ironical piece entitled “A Defence of the Bishop of London, in answer to Winston’s Letter of Thanks, &c. addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury. To which is added, a Vindication of Dr. Sacheverell’s late endeavour to turn Mr. Winston out of his church.” Winston’s Letter of Thanks occasioned likewise the two following pieces; viz. “The lord bishop of London’s Letter to his Clergy vindicated, <kc. by a Believer, 1719;” and “A seasonable review of Mr. Winston’s account of primitive Doxologies, &c. by a Presbyter, &c. 1719.” This presbyter was supposed to be Dr. William Berriman. To the latter Whiston replied in a second letter to the bishop of London; and the author of “The seasonable Review, &c.” answered him in a second Review, &c. As to Clarke’s conduct in this affair, we are not surprised to find Whiston declaring it to be one of the most Christian attempts towards somewhat of reformation, upon the primitive foot, that he ever ventured upon: but he adds,“that the bishop of London, in the way of modern authority, was quite too hard for Dr. Clarke, in the way of primitive Christianity.”

In 1728 was published, “A Letter from Dr. Clarke to Mr. Benjamin Hoadly, F. R. S. occasioned by the controversy relating to the proportion of velocity and force in bodies in motion,” and printed in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 401; and in 1729, he published the twelve first books of “Homer’s Iliad,” in 4to, and dedicated to the duke of Cumberland. The Latin version is almost entirely new; and annotations are added to the bottom of the pages. Homer, bishop Hoadly tells us, was Clarke’s admired author, even to a degree of something like enthusiasm, hardly natural to his temper; and that in this he went a little beyond the bounds of Horace’s judgment, and was so unwilling to allow the favourite poet ever to nod, that he has taken remarkable pains to find out and give a reason for every passage, word, and tittle, that could create any suspicion. It has however so long and so justly been the popular edition of Homer, that it would be unnecessary to expatiate on its merits in this place. Whiston informs us, that he had begun this work in his younger years; and that “the notes were rather transcribed than made new.” The twelve last books of the Iliad were published in 1732, in 4to, by our author’s son, Samuel Clarke; who informs us in the preface, that his father had finished the annotations to the three first of those books, and as far as the 359th verse of the fourth; and had revised the text and version as far as verse 510th of the same book.

The character of Dr. Clarke has been thus drawn by Dr. Hare, bishop of Chichester, and by bishop Hoadly. Dr. Hare, in his pamphlet entitled “The difficulties and discouragements which attend the study of the Scripture, in the way of private judgement,” says that he is “a man who has all the good qualities that can meet together to recommend him. He is possessed of all the parts of learning that are valuable in a clergyman, in a degree that few possess any single one. He has joined to a good skill in the three learned languages a great compass of the best philosophy and mathematics, as appears by his Latin works; and his English ones are such a proof of his own piety, and of his knowledge in divinity, and have done so much service to religion, as would make any other man, that was not under the suspicion of heresy, secure of the friendship and esteem of all good churchmen, especially of the clergy. And to all this piety and learning, and the good use that has been made of it, is added a temper happy beyond expression: a sweet, easy, modest, inoffensive, obliging behaviour adorns all his actions; and no passion, vanity, insolence, or ostentation, appears either in what he writes or says: and yet these faults are often incident to the best men, in the freedom of conversation, and writing against impertinent and unreasonable adversaries, especially such as strike at the foundation of virtue and religion. This is the learning, this the temper of the man, whose study of the scriptures has betrayed him into a suspicion of some heretical opinions.”

Bishop Hoadly writes thus of Clarke: “He was a person of a natural genius, excellent enough to have placed him in the superior rank of men without the acquirements of learning; and of learning enough to have rendered a much less cdmprehensive genius very considerable in the ways of the world. But in him they were both united to such a degree, that those who were of his intimate acquaintance 'knew not which to admire most. The first strokes of knowledge, in some of its branches, seemed to be little less than natural to him: for they appeared to lie right in his mind, as soon as any thing could appear; and to be the very same, which afterwards grew up with him into perfection, as the strength and cultivation of his mind increased. He had one happiness very rarely known among the greatest men, that his memory was almost equal to his judgment, which is as great a character as can well be given of it.” Then, after observing how great the doctor was in “all branches of knowledge and learning, he goes on thus:” If in any one of these many branches he had excelled only so much as he did in all, this alone would justly have entitled him to the name of a great man. But there is something so very extraordinary, that the same person should excel, not only in those parts of knowledge which require the strongest judgment, but in those which want the help of the strongest memory also; and it is so seldom seen, that one who is a great master in theology, is at the same time skilfully fond of all critical and classical learning, or excellent in the physical and mathematical studies, or well framed for metaphysical and abstract reasonings; that it ought to be remarked, in how particular a manner, and to how high a degree, divinity and mathematics, experimental philosophy and classical learning, metaphysics and critical skill, all of them, various and different as they are amongst themselves, united in Dr. Clarke.“Afterwards the bishop informs us, how earnestly his acquaintance and friendship was sought after by the greatest lovers of virtue and knowledge; what regard was paid to him by the chief persons of the law; and, above all, what pleasure her late majesty queen Caroline took in his conversation and friendship: for” seldom a week passed, says he, “in which she did not receive some proof of the greatness of his genius, and of the force of his superior understanding.”

“If any one should ask,” continues the bishop, “as it is natural to do, how it came to pass that this great man was never raised higher in the church? I must answer, that it was neither for want of merit, nor interest, nor the favour of some in whose power it was to have raised him. But he had reasons within his own breast, which hindered him from either seeking after, or accepting any such promotion. Of these he was the proper, and indeed the only judge: and therefore I say no more of them.” The truth is, his scruples about subscription were very great; as we are informed by Sykes, who observes, in his eulogium of Clarke, printed at the end of Whiston’s Historical Memoirs, that "the doctor would often wish, that those things which were suspected by many, and judged unlawful by some, might be seriously considered, and not made terms of communion. He thought it would be the greatest happiness to see the occasions of good and learned men’s scruples removed out of the public forms of divine service, and the doctrines of Christianity reduced to the New Testament only; and that it would be right to have nothing required from the preachers of the gospel, but what was

Vol. IX, purely primitive. This he thought to be the only means of making the minds of sincere Christians easy and quiet. This he believed would make men much more charitable to one another: and make the governors of the church and state transact their important affairs with greater ease and freedom from disturbances.“Upon the whole, bishop Hoadly makes no scruple to declare, that” by Dr. Clarke’s death, the world was deprived of as bright a light, and masterly a teacher of truth and virtue, as ever yet appeared amongst us and,“says he in the conclusion of his account,” as his works must last as long as any language remains to convey them to future times, perhaps I may flatter myself that this faint and imperfect account of him may be transmitted down with them. And I hope it will be thought a pardonable piece of ambition and self-interestedness, if, being fearful lest every thing else should prove too weak to keep the remembrance of myself in being, I lay hold on his fame to prop and support my own. I am sure, as I have little reason to expect that any thing of mine, without such an assistance, can live, I shall think myself greatly recompensed for the want of any other memorial, if my name may go down to posterity thus closely joined with his; and I myself be thought of, and spoke of, in ages to come, under the character of The Friend of Dr. Clarke.“' On the other hand, Whiston, who wrote his Life, and held him in as high estimation as either Dr. Hare or Dr. Hoadly, candidly mentions those failings, some of which, perhaps, may occur to the reader in perusing the preceding pages, and considerably lessen our opinion of his consistency. In the lirst place, he blames Clarke for subscribing the articles, at a time when he could not, with perfect truth and sincerity, assent to the Athanasian parts of them; namely, at his taking the degree of doctor in divinity. Mr. Whiston, then professor of mathematics at Cambridge, endeavoured to dissuade him from it; and, when he could not prevail on that head, he earnestly pressed him to declare openly, and in writing, in what sense he subscribed the suspected articles: but he could not prevail on this head neither. Upon this occasion, professor James, who suspected Dr. Clarke of an inclination to heretical pravity, said to him, upon his subscribing the articles,” he hoped he would not go from his subscription.“The doctor replied,” He could promise nothing as to futurity, and eould only answer as to his present sentiments*“However, Mr.Whiston acknowledges, that Dr. Clarke, for many years before he died, perpetually refused all, even the greatest preferments, which required subscription, and never encouraged those who consulted him to subscribe. In the next place, he objects to Dr. Clarke his not acting sincerely, boldly, and openly, in the declaration of his true opinions, and his over-cautious and over-timorous way of speaking, writing, and acting, in points of the highest consequence. When Mr. Whiston gave him frequent and vehement admonitions upon this head, his general answer, he tells us, was, who are those that act better than I do” Very few of which,“says he,” I could ever name to him though I did not think that a sufficient excuse.“Lastly, Mr. Whiston is greatly displeased with Dr. Clarke’s conduct in relation to the affair of the convocation, and concludes the account of that affair with these words” Thus ended this unhappy affair unhappy to Dr. Clarke’s own conscience unhappy to his best friends and above all unhappy as to its consequences, in relation to the opinion unbelievers were hereupon willing to entertain of him, as if he had prevaricated all along in his former writings for Christianity."

When sir John Germaine lay upon his death-bed, and was in great confusion and trouble of mind, he sent for Dr. Clarke, and requested to know of him whether he should receive the Sacrament, and what he should do in his sad condition. The doctor, who was well acquainted with sir John’s pursuits and course of life, sedately replied, that he could not advise him to receive the Sacrament, and that he did not think it likely to be of any avail to him with respect to his final welfare. Having said this, he departed, without administering the communion, having first recommended the dying man to the mercy of God. Mr. Pope has a kind of reflection upon Dr. Clarke’s frequenting the court; to which the poet was stimulated by resentment against the doctor, because he refused to use his interest for obtaining the recall of lord Bolingbroke from France, with a general pardon.

, a learned divine and antiquary, was horn at Haghmon abbey, in Shropshire, in the year 1696, and was educated at Shrewsbury school, under the care of Mr. Lloyd, for whom he always entertained the greatest regard. From Shrewsbury he was removed to St. John’s college, in the university of Cambridge, where he became a fellow, Jan. 22, 1716-17. His election at so early a period of life was owing to a number of vacancies, occasioned by the removal of several non-juring fellows, in consequence of an act of parliament. He commenced B. A. 1715; in 1719 became M. A.; and the reputation which he acquired when young was such, that he was chosen to be chaplain to Dr. Adam Ottley, bishop of St. David’s: but this prelate dying in 1723, he does not appear to have received any advantage from the appointment. He was afterwards domestic chaplain to Thomas Holies, duke of Newcastle; in which situation he did not continue long, as in 1724, he was presented by archbishop Wake to the rectory of Buxted, in Sussex, without any solicitation of his own, partly on account of his extraordinary merit, and partly from a regard to the special recommendation of the learned Dr. William Wotton, whose daughter he married. In 1738, he was made prebendary and residentiary of the prebend of Hova Villa in the cathedral church of Chichester, Some years before this he had given to the public a specimen of his literary abilities, in a preface to his father-in-law Dr. Wotton’s “Leges Walliae Ecclesiastical,” 1730; and it is thought that an excellent “Discourse on the Commerce of the Romans,” which was highly extolled by Dr. Taylor, in his “Elements of the Civil Law,” came either from his hand or from that of his friend Mr, Bowyer. It is reprinted in that gentleman’s “Miscellaneous Tracts,” and in “The Progress of Maritime Discovery,” by Mr. Clarke’s grandson. But Mr. Clarke’s chief work was “The Connexion of the Roman, Saxon, and English Coins; deducing the antiquities, customs, and manners of each people to modern times; particularly the origin of feudal tenures, and of parliaments: illustrated throughout with critical and historical remarks on various authors, both sacred and profane,” 1767, 4to, dedicated to the duke of Newcastle. It had been perused in manuscript by Arthur Onslow, esq. speaker of the house of commons, who honoured him with some useful hints and observations: but he was chiefly indebted to Mr. Bowyer, who superintended the publication, drew up several of the notes, wrote part of the dissertation on the Roman sesterce, and formed an admirable index to the whole. By this work our author acquired great reputation. Mr. Pinkerton, in his Essay on Medals, says that a student cannot begin with a better book in this science.

In 1768 Mr. Clarke obtained from archbishop Cornwallis permission to resign the rectory of Buxted (after having held it more than thirty-four years), to his son Edward, through the unsolicited interest of the late marquis Cornwallis, who recollected on this occasion the intimacy that had subsisted between himself and the rev. Edward Clarke in the island of Minorca. In June 1770, he was installed chancellor of the church of Chichester, to which office the rectories of Chittingley and Pevensey are annexed; and in August that year was presented to the vicarage of Amport. These preferments he did not long enjoy, as he died Oct. 21, 1771. In the “Anecdotes of Bowyer” are many letters and extracts of letters, written to that learned printer and other persons, by Mr. Clarke, which exhibit him to great advantage as a man of piety, a friend, and a scholar. Besides the writings already mentioned, Mr. Clarke joined with Mr. Bowyer in the translation of Trapp’s Lectures on poetry, and in annotations on the Greek Testament; and was the author of several of the notes subjoined to the English version of Bleterie’s Life of the Emperor Julian. He left behind him a considerable number of manuscripts, among which are some volumes of excellent sermons, the best of which were given to the late Ashburnham, bishop of Chichester, and at his death were inadvertently burnt with some other papers. Bishop Bagot had strongly recommended the publication of a selection of Mr. Clarke’s sermons.

By his only wife, Anne, daughter of Dr. Wotton, Mr. Clarke had three children, two of whom survived him; Edward, of whom in the next article, and a daughter, who inherited not only the virtues of her parents, but their taste for literature. She died at Chichester, and was buried in a cemetery adjoining the cathedral. His widow died July 11, 1783.

, a nonconformist divine of considerable celebrity, and one of the tutors of archbishop Tiilotson, was the son of Robert Clarkson of Bradford in Yorkshire, where he was born February 1622, and educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge^and was some time fellow of that college. He was then tutor to Tiilotson, who succeeded him in his fellowship in 1651. He was, according to Baxter, a divine of extraordinary worth for solid judgment, healing moderate principles, acquaintance with the fathers, great ministerial abilities, and a godly upright life. He held for some time the living of Mortlake in Surrey, from which he was ejected for nonconformity in August 1662. After this he shifted about, according to Neal, from one place of obscurity to another, until, in 1682, he was chosen co-pastor with Dr. Owen, whom he succeeded the year following. He died June 14, 1686. Of his works, which principally consist of occasional Sermons, and a volume of “Sermons” in folio, the most remarkable were, one entitled “No evidence of Diocesan Episcopacy in the primitive times,” 1681, 4to, in answer to Dr. Stillingfleet; and another on the same subject, printed after his death, under the title of “Primitive Fpiscopacy,” 1688; this was answered by Dr. Henry Maurice in 1691, in his “Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy.” Tiilotson, notwithstanding Clarkson’s nonconformity, always preserved a very high respect for him.

, properly Claude Gele'I;, an inimitable landscape painter, was born at Lorraine in 1600, and served an apprenticeship to the trade of a pastry-cook. In the early part of his life he shewed no symptoms of- that astonishing genius, which in his more advanced years attracted the admiration of the world. He was very little indebted to any master for instruction, except Agostino Tassi, who had been a disciple of Paul Bril, and with great labour taught Claude some of the rules of perspective, and the method of preparing his colours. But although at first be could with difficulty comprehend the rudiments y of the art, yet in the progress of his instructions his rnind seemed to expand; his ideas improved; his imagination became more lively; and with wonderful eagerness he applied himself to his studies. During these he explored the true principles of painting, by an incessant examination of nature, usually studying in the open fields, where he very frequently continued frofn sun-rise till the dusk of the evening. There he sketched whatever he thought beautiful or striking; and every curious tinge of light, on all kinds of objects, he marked in his sketches with a similar colour; from which he gave his landscapes such an appearance of nature and truth, as has rarely been discovered in any artist that ever painted in that style. Sandrart relates, that Claude used to explain to him, as they walked through the fields, the causes of the different appearances of the same prospect at different hours of the day, from the reflections or refractions of light, from dews or vapours, in the evening or morning, with all the precision of a philosopher.

He worked on his pictures with great care, endeavouring to bring them to perfection, by touching them frequently over again; and if any performance did not answer his idea, it was customary with him to alter, to deface, and repaint it again several times over, till it corresponded with that image pictured in his mind. But, whatever struck his imagination, while he observed nature abroad, was so strongly impressed on his memory, that, on his return to work, he never failed to make the happiest use of it. His skies are warm, and full of lustre, and every object is properly illumined. His distances are admirable, and in every part a delightful union and harmony never fail to excite our applause and admiration. His invention is pleasing, his colouring delicate, and his tints have such an agreeable sweetness and variety, as to have been but imperfectly imitated by the best subsequent artists, but were never equalled. He frequently gave an uncommon tenderness to his finished trees, by glazing; and in his large compositions which he painted in fresco, he was so exact, that the distinct species of every tree might readily be distinguished. Among several of his performances in that manner of painting, one was on the four walls of a magnificent saloon at Rome, belonging to a nobleman named Mutius, the height of the walls being very considerable. On the first side he represented the vestiges of an ancient palace, bounded by a deep grove of trees, incomparably expressed as to the forms, stems, barks, branchings, and foliage; the proportional grandeur of those trees, as well as the length of the grove, were perspectively and beautifully set off by the shrubs and plants with which his ground was diversified; and the eye was pleasingly conducted to the second wall, which seemed, by an artful contrivance and disposition, to be only a continuation of the same scene, the same elevation of the horizontal line being observed through the whole work. On the second side, he shewed an extensive plain interspersed with mountains and falls of water, as also with a variety of trees, plants, travellers, and animals; and this part of the composition was likewise connected with the third wall. In that, the lengthened prospect shewed a sea-port at the foot of some high hills, with a view of the ocean, and vessels labouring amongst the waves, which appeared in violent agitation; and on the fourth wall were represented caverns amongrude rocks, ruins of buildings, and fragments of antique statues; the composition, though divided into so many parts, constituting in the whole but one entire connected prospect, the beauty, truth, and variety of which, the power of language cannot sufficiently represent. As to his figures, if he painted them himself, they are very indifferent; though Sandrart assures us, that he spent a great deal of time and labour in practising to design them; that he drew for some years in the academy at Rome, after living models, as well as after statues; and that he took much more pains in endeavouring to form his hand to draw figures correctly, than to perfect himself in landscape, in which he was confessedly superior to all. And he was so conscious of his deficiency in figures, that he usually engaged other artists who were eminent to paint them for him; of which number were Courtois, and Philippo Laura. His pictures are very rare, especially such as are undamaged; and those are at this time so valued, that no price, however great, is thought to be superior to their merit. There are some of uncommon excellence in this country; and a few years ago the vast price of 6000 guineas was given for two of them. In order to avoid a repetition of the same subject, and also to detect such copies of his works as might be injurious to his fame by being sold for originals, it was his custom to draw (in a paper book prepared for his purpose) the designs of all those pictures which were transmitted to different countries; and on the back of the drawings he wrote the name of the person who had been the purchaser. That book, which he titled “Libro di Verita,” is now in the possession of the duke of Devonshire. For his amusement Claude etched a set of twenty-eight middling-sized landscapes, lengthways, from his own compositions. They are very slight, but very spirited, and abundantly testify the hand of the master. De Piles says he died in 1678, but all other writers place his death in 1682.

During this journey, he wrote a little book, which gave rise to the most famous dispute that ever was carried on in. France between the protestants and Roman catholics. Mess, de Port-Royal in their endeavours to make a convert of Mr. de Turenne to the Romish religion, presented hin with a work in which they pretended to shew that the protestant churches had always believed what is taught in that of the Romanists concerning the real presence, and that a change of belief, such as the protestants suppose, is impossible. Mr. de Turenne’s lady, who always dreaded, what happened after her decease, namely, that her husband would turn Roman catholic, was very anxious to confirm him in the protestant faith, and employed Claude to write an answer to the piece of Mess, de Port-Royal, which he executed with so much ability, that several copies were taken and circulated as extensively, both in Paris and in the provinces, as if it had been printed. Mess, de PortRoyal, hearing of this, thought themselves absolutely obliged to answer it, by publishing in 1664, the famous work entitled “The perpetuity of the catholic church in regard to its doctrine of the Eucharist.” It contains the first piece, and a reply to Claude’s answer, who was then at Montauban; and published in 1666, with his first answer, a work entitled “An answer to two treatises, entitled The perpetuity, &c.” There is no doubt but the intrinsic merit of Claude’s book contributed greatly to its fame; but he had also the Jansenists on his side, who hoped that it would vex the gentlemen of the Port-Royal; and therefore, for their own sake, they spread in all places his name and merit. Arnauld undertook to refute Claude’s book, and published a large volume in 1669. Father Nonet also, a famous Jesuit, engaged in the controversy, and published a book against Claude, who wrote an answer to it, which was printed in 1668, and which some prefer to his other pieces; and we are told it was his own favourite piece. The author of the “Journal des S^avans” opposed Claude, by inserting an extract of that Jesuit’s book, which induced Claude to publish an anonymous letter, entitled “A Letter from a provincial to a friend, occasioned by the journal of the 28th of June, 1667” and this obtained a reply from the journalist some time after, which terminated this contest; but as Arnauld had added two more volumes to the former, Claude was forced to engage in a very laborious study, in order to examine the tenets of the Greek church, and those of the eastern schismatics, and shewed great learning and abilities in the answer he made to him. The Jansenists only made a general reply to Claude’s book. They published their “Just prejudices against Calvinism:” which Claude refuted by one of the ablest vindications of protestantism, entitled -“' Defense de la Reformation,” Roan, 1673, and Hague, 1682.

Claude, as we have observed, was elected minister of the church of Montauban, about 1662; but four years after he was forbid by the court to exercise his functions there, which obliged him to go a second time to Paris, where he continued near nine months, without being able to remove the obstacles of his return to Montauban. During this interval, he was invited to the church of Bourdeaux; but the congregation of Charenton, being unwilling to lose a person of Claude’s abilities, gave him also an invitation in 1666. From that time to the revocation of the edict of Nantz, he did very great service to the cause of the French protestants by his excellent works, and by the minute attention he paid to the affairs which the deputies of provinces communicated to him. No man was ever better qualified to head either a consistory or a synod, or to manage a personal dispute. He discovered this latter talent in the last conference, which Mad. de Duras desired to hear. This lady would not forsake her religion till she had heard Claude and the bishop of Meaux dispute in her presence; and they accordingly disputed at the countess de Roie’s, her sister’s, the 1st of March, 1678. Each disputa'nt wrote the relation of his conference, and ascribed the victory to himself. These relations were at first only handed about in ms. but at last the bishop of Meaux published his in 1682, and that of Claude followed soon after. Claude was distinguished from the rest of the ministers, by the manner in which the court ordered him to leave the kingdom. He, like them, had a fortnight allowed him to leave it: but the Romish clergy found means to shorten even that time. For, Oct. 22, 1685, the day on which the revocation of the edict of Nantz was registered at Paris, Claude at ten in the morning was ordered to leave France in twenty-four hours. He obeyed with the utmost submission; and set out, attended by one of the king’s footmen, who was ordered to conduct him to the frontiers of France; and who, though he executed his orders faithfully, yet treated him with civility. He travelled in the Brussels coach; and his fame flying before him, procured him much kind and hospitable attention during his journey. He passed through Cambray, where he lay; and was there presented with some refreshments by the Jesuits. Even their rector paid him a visit, which Claude returned; and the difference of religion did not interrupt this interchange of civilities.

Having arrived at Holland, he met with a very kind reception, and was honoured with a considerable pension by the prince of Orange. He used to preach occasionally at the Hague; and his last sermon was on Christmas-day, 1686, so eloquent and impressive, that the princess of Orange was greatly affected. Claude had not a pleasing voice; which gave pccasion to the witticism of Morus, “that all the voices will be for him except his own” but this did not lessen the effect of his sermons, nor the popularity of the preacher. At the conclusion of the last-mentioned sermon, he was seized with an illness, of which he died Jan. 13, 1687; and his death was just matter of grief to his whole party, who lost a man of great abilities, and one likely to have healed the- animosities which afterwards took place in some of the protestant churches.

Claude married in 1648 Elizabeth de Malcare, by whom he had a son, Isaac Claude, born March 5, 1653, of whom he was very fond, and bred him to the ministry. He studied in the universities of France; after which he returned to his father, who completed his education for the pulpit. He was examined at Sedan in 1678, and approved; he was invited by the congregation of the church of Clermont in Beauvoisis; and his father had the satisfaction to impose his hands on him in 1678, and to see him minister of the Walloon church at the Hague, when he retired to Holland in 1685. He died at the Hague, July 29, 1695, after having published many excellent works of his deceased father, particularly 5 vols. 12mo of posthumous theological and controversial treatises, Amst. 1689.Lavocat, a Roman catholic writer, allows that his works are written in a manly, exact, elegant and close style, discover great genius and learning, and an uncommon talent for employing all the subtleties of logic. So candid a critic may be forgiven for adding, “happy had he not talents by writing against the catholic church.” These volumes just mentioned contain “An answer to a treatise on the Sacrament,” supposed to be written by cardinal le Camus, bishop of Grenoble; Four Letters on the same subject; an “Essay on the composition of a Serinon;” a “Body of Christian Divinity;” expositions of parts of Scripture, Letters, &c. His Life, written by M. de la Devaize, was translated into English by G. P. and published Lond. 1688, 4to. His “Historical Defence of the Reformation” was published in English by T. B. Lond. 1683, 4to, and his “Essay on the Composition of a Sermon,” which he wrote about the year 1676, for the use of his son, was translated and published in English, in 1778, by the late rev. Rob. Robinson, of Cambridge, 2 vols. 8vo, with a Life of the author, and notes, all which, as displaying an implacable and unprovoked hostility to the established church, have been very properly omitted in a new edition of the translation published in 1796, by the rev. Charles Simeon, of King’s college, Cambridge.

, son of Isaac Claude, pastor at the Hague, and grandson of the celebrated minister of that name, was born January 16, 1684, in that city, and from his infancy displayed a taste for reading and literary research. At fifteen he wrote a curious Latin dissertation on the manner of saluting among the ancients, and published it at eighteen, with another dissertation, in the same language, on nurses and paedagogues, under the title “J. J. Claudii Dissertatio de Salutationibus Veterum, cui addita est Diatribe de Nutricibus et Paedagogis,” Utrecht, 1702, 12mo. He then studied at Utrecht, under Burman, and devoted himself entirely to the belles lettres; but M. Martin, his relation and tutor, who was minister there, falling dangerously ill, and seeing M. Claude one day by his- bed-side, said to him, among other things, “Behold, my dear child, of what use the belles lettres are, when a man is reduced to my situation.' 7 These words made so deep an impression on the young scholar, that he determined from that time to make divinity his chief study. He afterwards came over to England, and became pastor of the Drench church in London, 1710, where he died of the small-pox, March 7, 1712, lamented by the friends of learning and piety. A volume of his” Sermons" was published by his brother in 1713. They are only ten in number, but were highly praised in the literary journals of the time, and occasioned redoubled regret that the world had been so soon deprived of his talents

, a Latin poet, who flourished in the fourth century, under the emperor Theodosius and his sons Arcadius and Honorius, was born in the year 365. Many learned men imagine him to have been born at Alexandria, in Egypt; others, however, have made a Spaniard of him, others a Frenchman, and Plutarch and Politian suppose Florence to have been the place of his nativity. It is certain that he came to Rome in the year 395, and insinuated himself into Stilico’s favour, who, being a person of great abilities, both for civil and military affairs, though a Goth by birth, was now become so considerable under Honorius, that he may be said for many years to have governed the western empire. Stilico afterwards fell into disgrace, and was put to death; and it is more than probable, that the poet was involved in the misfortunes of his patron, whom he had egregiously flattered, and severely persecuted by Hadrian, who was captain of the guards to Honorius, and seems to have succeeded Stilico. There is a reason, however, to think that he rose afterwards to great favour, and obtained several honours both civil and military. Arcadius and Honorius are said to have granted him an honour, which seems to exceed any that had ever been bestowed upon a poet before, having at the senate’s request ordered a statue to be erected for him in Trajan’s forum, with a very honourable inscription; and this is said to be confirmed by the late discovery of a marble, supposed to be the pedestal of Claudiau’s statue in brass. The inscription runs thus: “To Claudius Claudianus, tribune and notary, and among other noble accomplishments, the most excellent of poets: though his own poems are sufficient to render his name immortal, yet [as] a testimony of their approbation, the most learned and [h]appy emperors Arcadius and Honorius have, at the request of the senate, ordered this statue to be erected and placed in the forum of Trajan.” Under the inscription was placed an epigram in Greek, signifying that he had united the perfections of Homer and Virgil. The princess Serena had a great esteem for Claudian, and recommended and married him to a lady of great quality and fortune in Libya, as he acknowledges very gratefully in an epistle which he addresses to Serena from thence, a little before his wedding day.

There are a few little poems on sacred subjects, which, through mistake, have been ascribed by some critics to daudian, and have made him be thought a Christian, But St. Austin, who was contemporary with him, expressly says that he was a heathen; and this is confirmed by Paulus Orosius, another contemporary. They are with more propriety ascribed to Claudianus Mamertus, the subject of the following article. The time of Claudian’s death is uncertain, nor do we know any farther particulars of his life than what are to be collected from his works.

In consequence of Orosius pronouncing him a heathen, “an obstinate pagan,” Cave thinks it may be reasonably inferred that he had written against the Christian religion. This Fabricius opposes, but Lardner says it may be reckoned somewhat remarkable, that a learned man, a devout worshipper of all the gods, a wit and a poet, and author of many works, should never say any thing disrespectful of Christianity. He allows, however, that it is somewhat more extraordinary that Claudian should so excel in Latin verse, as to approach the best writers of the Augustan age in purity and elegance. Gibbon’s character of Claudian, corresponding with this, is written with more than usual care and discrimination. If, says this historian, we fairly balance Claudian’s merits and defects, we shall acknowledge that he does not either satisfy, or silence our reason. It would not be easy to produce a passage that deserves the epithet of sublime or pathetic; to select a verse that melts the heart, or enlarges the imagination. We should vainly seek in the poems of Claudian, the happy invention and artificial conduct of an interesting fable, or the just and lively representation of the characters and situations of real life. For the service of his patron, he published occasional panegyrics and invectives; and the design of these slavish compositions encouraged his propensity to exceed the limits of truth and nature. These imperfections, however, are compensated in some degree by the poetical virtues of Claudian. He was endowed with the rare and precious talent of raising the meanest, of adorning tjie most barren, and of diversifying the most similar topics; tys colouring, mere specially in descriptive poetry, is soft and splendid; and he seldom fails to display, and even to abuse, the advantages of a cultivated understanding, a copious fancy, an easy, and sometimes forcible expression; and a perpetual flow of harmonious versification. To these commendations, independent of any accidents of time and place, we must add the peculiar merit which Claudian derived from the unfavourable circumstances of his birth. In the decline of arts, and of empire, a native of Egypt, who had received the education of a Greek, assumed in a mature age the familiar use and absolute command of the Latin language, soared above the heads of his feeble contemporaries, and placed himself, after an interval of three hundred years, among the poets of ancient Rome. Strada, in his Prolusions, allows him to contend with the five heroic poets, Lucretius, Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, and Statius. His patron is the accomplished courtier, Balthazar Castiglione. His admirers are numerous and passionate. Yet the rigid critics reproach the exotic weeds, or flowers, which spring too luxuriantly in his Latian soil, and for which Dr. Warton, one probably ranked by Gibbon among these “rigid critics,” places Claudian with Statius and Seneca the tragedian, as authors into which no youth of genius ought to be suffered to look.

, or, as some add, Claudius Clemens, bishop of Turin in the ninth century, and one of the earliest reformers of popish superstitions, was a native of Spain, and in his youth a disciple of Felix bishop of Urgel, whom he accompanied into France, Italy, and Germany, but whose errors he afterwards renounced, and obtained access to the court of Lewis le Debonnaire, emperor and king of France. Lewis admitted him among his almoners and chaplains, and having preached before the court, a thing very rare in those days, he was much admired as an expounder of the Scriptures, of which Fleury assures us he had great knowledge. On this account Lewis, who perceived the ignorance of a great part of Italy, and was willing to provide the churches of Piedmont with one who might stem the growing torrent of image worship, promoted Claudius to the see of Turin, about the year 817, in which he fully answered his expectations, and both in his preaching and writings successfully combated the prevailing superstitions. His commentaries on several parts of the Old and New Testaments are still extant in manuscript, in various French libraries; but his “Commentary on the Galatians,” Paris, 1542, is the only part of his works which has been printed, except his “prefaces” to the book of Leviticus and to the Epistle to the Ephesians, which father Mabillon published; an abridged “Chronicle” which father Labbe attributes to him; and a letter addressed to the emperor Charlemagne on the two eclipses of the year 8 10, which is in the tenth vol. of D'Acheri’s collection. In his commentary on the Galatians, he every where asserts the equality of all the apostles with St. Peter, and owns Jesus Christ as the proper head of the church. He inveighs against the doctrine of human merits, and against raising traditions to a height of credibility equal to that of the divine word. He maintains salvation by faith alone, admits the fallibility of the church, exposes the futility of praying for the dead, and of the idolatrous practices then supported by the Roman see. These tenets involved him in a controversy with a recluse named Dungal, and with Jonas, bishop of Orleans; and created many more dangerous enemies, from whom, however, he appears to have been protected by the French court, and died in peace in the year 339.

, a German Jesuit, was born at Bamberg, in Germany, in 1537. He became a very studious mathematician, and elaborate writer, his works making five large folio volumes; and containing a complete body or course of the mathematics. They are mostly elementary, and commentaries on Euclid and others; having very little of invention of his own. His talents and writings have been variously spoken of, and it must be acknowledged that he exhibits more of industry than genius. He was sent for to Rome, to assist, with other learned men, in the reformation of the calendar, by pope Gregory; which he afterwards undertook a defence of, against Scaliger, Vieta, and others, who attacked it. He died at Rome, the 6th of February, 1612, after more than fifty years close application to the mathematical sciences.

, one of the presidents of Magdalen college, Oxford, and nr>t president of Corpus Christ! college, in that university, was born at Frampton, in Lincolnshire, of parents who, although not opulent, were enabled to afford him a liberal education. He was first sent to a grammar-school in Oxford, and then entered of Magdalen college, where he became fellow, D, D. about 1507, and held several valuable benefices. In 1516-17, bishop Fox, the founder of Corpus Christi college, requested him to become president of that new foundation, and, as it was inferior in value to that of Magdalen, bestowed on him the rectory of Cleeve, in Gloucestershire, Claymond presided above twenty years, and died in 1537, and was buried in the chapel of Corpus. He left a considerable part of his property, in scholarships and other benefactions, to Brazen-nose, Magdalen, and Corpus Christi colleges He appears from his manuscripts, some of which are in the library of Corpus, to have been a classical scholar, and acquainted with natural history, his works consisting of commentaries on Aulua Gellius and Plautus, and notes and observations on Pliny. From these, likewise, we learn that he was the correspondent of Grynaeus, Erasmus, and other learned men of his time. With Erasmui he became personally acquainted at Oxford, and Erasmus afterwards dedicated to him some tracts of Chrysostom.

Soon after Dr. Clayton’s marriage, he went with his lady to England, and while at London, a person in distressed circumstances applied to him for assistance, with the testimony of Dr. Samuel Clarke for a recommendation, upon which, instead of the usual donation on such occasions, he gave to the necessitous man the sum of three hundred pounds, which was the whole that he wanted to make him easy in the world. This circumstance introduced him to Dr. Clarke, and the result of their acquaintance was, Dr. Clayton’s embracing the Arian principles, to which he adhered during the remainder of his life. Dr. Clarke having carried to queen Caroline an account of Dr. Clayton’s remarkable beneficence, it made a powerful impression on her majesty’s mind in favour of his character; which impression was strongly enforced by her bed-chamber woman, Mrs. Clayton, afterwards lady Sundon. Such a powerful interest procured an immediate recommendation to lord Carteret, then chief governor of Ireland, for the very first bishopric tbat should become vacant, and accordingly, he was advanced to that of Killala, January 1729-30. In this situation he continued till November 1735, when he was translated to the see of Cork, and in 1745 to that of Clogher. Excepting a letter written to the royal society upon a subject of no great consequence, his first publication was an “Introduction to the History of the Jews,” which was afterwards translated into French, and printed at Leyden. His next work was “The Chronology of the Hebrew Bible vindicated: the facts compared with other ancient histories, and the difficulties explained, from the flood to the death of Moses; together with some conjectures in relation to Egypt during that period of time; also two maps, in which are attempted to be settled the journeyings of the children of Israel,” 1747, 4to, and containing a variety of observations which deserve the attention of the learned reader. In 1749 he published a “Dissertation on Prophecy,” in which he endeavoured to shew, from a joint comparison of the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Revelation of St. John, that the final end of the dispersion of the Jews will be coincident with the ruin of the popedom, and take place about 2000. This was followed by an “Impartial Enquiry into the time of the coming of the Messiah,” in two letters to an eminent Jew, printed first separately, and then together, in 1751. In the same year (1751), appeared the “Essay on Spirit,” a performance which excited very general attention, and was productive of a fruitful controversy. Its object was to recommend the Arian doctrine of the inferiority of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and to prepare the way for suitable alterations in the Liturgy. His biographer, who is at the same time his warm panegyrist, allows that in this performance he has indulged too freely in imagination and conjecture; and that he might have confined the question with greater advantage to the direct and simple standard of Scripture. The work, after all, was not Dr. Clayton’s, but one of his adoption, the real authoi being a young clergyman in his diocese, who shewed the manuscript to his lordship, but had not the courage to print it in his own name. The bishop, with what is called a romantic generosity, conveyed it to the press, and managed the affair in such a manner, that the treatise was universally ascribed to him in all the attacks to which it was exposed, and the sentiments certainly were his. One effect of this conduct was, his being prevented from rising higher in the church. In 1752, he was recommended by the duke of Dorset, then viceroy of Ireland, to the vacant archbishopric of Tuam, but this was refused, solely on account of his being regarded as the writer of the Essay.

The next appearance of Dr. Clayton from the press, was in a work undoubtedly his own, “A Vindication of the Histories of the Old and New Testament; in answer to the Objections of the late Lord Bolingbroke; in two letters to a young nobleman,” 1752, 8vo; a work of great ability, in which some of lord Bolingbroke’s objections to several parts of scripture are well exposed and confuted. In 1753, he published “A Journal from Grand Cairo to Mount Sinai, and back again. Translated from a manuscript written by the Prefetto of Egypt, in company with the Missionaries de propaganda Fids at Grand Cairo. To which are added, some remarks on the origin of hieroglyphics, and the mythology of the ancient heathens.” Dedicated to the Society of Antiquaries, London, 4to and 8vo. The bishop, having become possessed of the original Journal from Grand Cairo to Mount Sinai, and which had been mentioned by Dr. Pococke in his Travels through the East, communicated this translation of it to the Society of Antiquaries, with a view of exciting them to make some inquiry into certain ancient characters, which, as appears from the Journal, are discovered in great numbers in the Wilderness of Sinai, at a place well known by the name of Gebel el Mokatah, or the Written Mountains. It does not appear that any measures were taken by the Society of Antiquaries; but the celebrated Mr. Edward Wortley Montagu, who went from Cairo to the Desert of Sinai, with, the express purpose of seeing and describing the objects proposed by the bishop, was greatly disappointed, and convinced that the characters were not written by the Israelites; and we believe the researches of more recent travellers have been equally unsuccessful.

Our prelate left behind him several works in manuscript in the possession of his executor, Dr. Barnard, dean of Derry, but these have not been thought worthy of publication. Dr. Clayton was a member of the royal society, and of the society of antiquaries. He maintained a regular correspondence with several gentlemen of eminent literature in this country; and, among the rest, with the learned printer, Mr. Bowyer, to whom he made a present of the copy-right of all his works published in England. His Lancashire estate he bequeathed to his nearest male heir, Richard Clayton, esq. chief justice of the common pleas in Ireland; but the greatest share of his fortune fell to Dr. Barnard, who married his niece. Some interesting' anecdotes of the bishop are given in Burdy’s Lite of the rev. Philip Skelton, to whom he was neither a liberal nor impartial patron.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher, of the stoical sect, son of Phanias, and disciple of Zeno, was born at. Assus in Lydia, 33<J B. C. He subsisted by drawing water during the night, that he might pursue his studies by day. Being cited before the areopagus to declare how he gained his livelihood, he brought with him a gardener and a country-woman, saying that he drew water for the one, and kneaded dough for the other. The judges were ordering him a present; but Cleanthes refused to accept of it. This philosopher was for many years so poor, that he was obliged to write the heads of his master’s lectures upon shells and bones, for want of money to buy paper. But, notwithstanding all his poverty, he persevered in the study of philosophy, and remained a pupil of Zeno nineteen years. His natural faculties were slow; but resolution and perseverance enabled him to overcome every difficulty; and he at last became so complete a master of the stoic system, that he was perfectly qualified to succeed Zeno in his school. His fellow disciples often ridiculed him for his dulness, by calling him an ass; but he took no other notice of the sarcasm, than by saying in his defence, that if he was an ass, he was the better able to bear the burthen of Zeno’s doctrine. Being reproved for his timidity, he replied, “It is to this quality that I am indebted for my innocence.” Though he was not of the school of Arcesilaus, when he heard him condemned for undermining by his doctrine the foundations of virtue, he candidly apologized for him, by remarking, that though he might seem an enemy to virtue in his discourses, he showed himself her friend in his conduct. Arcesilaus being informed of the handsome apology which Cleanthes had made for him, said to him, “You know how much I dislike flattery; why will you flatter me?” “Is it then flattery,” replied Cleanthes, “to say of you, that you speak one thing, and do another?” Cleanthes frequently advised his pupils to conceive of pleasure, as a deity sitting on her throne, attended by the virtues, who are ready on every occasion to whisper in her ear, “Do nothing which will occasion pain or grief 'to yourself or others.” A friend observing him silent in company, said, “One would think, Cleanthes, from your silence, that you took no pleasure in conversing with your friends” Cleanthes replied, “It is because I know the value of this pleasure, that I am silent for I wish my friends to enjoy it as well as myself.” The reason which he assigned for the superiority of former philosophers above the present was, that formerly philosophers studied things, whereas now they study only words. When he was old, he still retained the entire use of his faculties, and often said, that he should always think life worth preserving as long as he should be able to write and "study. Long after his death; which happened in his ninetieth year, the Roman senate paid respect to his memory, by ordering a statue to be erected in honour of him at Assus.

He wrote many pieces, none of which are come down to us, except his “Hymn to Jupiter,” and a few fragments; the several editions of which have been enumerated, with the various readings, and critical remarks, by the learned reviewer of Butler’s edition of “Marcus Musurus,” &c. containing this hymn, and other fragments. It was first published by Fulvius Ursinus, in 1568; then by Henry Stephens, in his “Poesis Philosophica,” in 1573; afterwards by Cudworth, in his “Intellectual System,” 1678, fol.; again in Mosheim’s Latin translation of Cudworth, in 1733; a fifth time in the third dissertation added to Daniel Secundum Septuagint, Rom. 1773, fol.; a sixth time in the 2d edition of Mosheim’s translation of Cudworth, published after his death, Leyd. Bat. 1773, fol.; again in Brunck’s “Analecta,” in 1776, and afterwards by Brunck, in his edition of the “Gnomici Poetae;” a ninth time in, the “Eclogss Physicse” of John Stoboeus, published at Gottingen, 1792, 8vo, by A. H. Heeren, It has also been translated into German, Latin, and English, the latter by Mr. West, at the desire of a friend, who was pleased to find such just sentiments of the deity in a heathen, and so much poetry in a philosopher.

, a learned physician, was born of reputable parents, at Granton, in the parish of Crammond, near Edinburgh, on the 13th of December 1716. His father died in 1719, and left a widow and five children. George, who was the youngest son, received the rudiments of his education in the grammar-school of Crammond, and in 1728 was sent to Edinburgh to be further instructed in the Latin, Greek, and French; where, to a singular proficiency in these languages, he added a considerable stock of mathematical knowledge. In the beginning of 1731 he resolved to study physic and surgery, and had the happiness of being placed under the tuition of the late Dr. Alexander Monro, and under his roof. In one of his letters his pupil appeared to dwell with peculiar pleasure upon this circumstance; observing, that “his amiable manners and unremitting activity in promoting the public welfare, endeared him to all his acquaintance, but more particularly to those who lived under his roof, and had daily opportunities of admiring the sweetness of his conversation, and the invariable benignity of his disposition.” For five years he continued to profit by the instruction and example of his excellent master, visiting patients in company with him, and assisting at the dissections in the anatomical theatre; at the same time he attended in their turn the lectures in botany, materia medica, chemistry, and the theory and practice of medicine; and by extraordinary diligence he attracted the notice of all his preceptors. On Dr. Fothergill’s arrival from England at this university in 1733, Dr. Cleghorn was introduced to his acquaintance, and soon became his inseparable companion. These twin pupils then studied together the same branches of science under the same masters, with equal ardour and success; they frequently met to compare the notes they had collected from the professors, and to communicate their respective observations. Their moments of relaxation, if that time can be called relaxation which is devoted to social studies, were spent in a select society of fellowstudents, of which Fothergill, Russel, and Cuming, were associates; a society since incorporated under the name of The Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh.

Early in the year 1736, when young Cleghorn had scarcely entered into his twentieth year, so great had been his progress, and so high a character had he acquired, that at the recommendation of Dr. St. Clair he was appointed urgeon in the 22d regiment of foot, then stationed in Minorca, under the command of Gen. St. Clair. During a residence of thirteen years in that island, whatever time could be spared from attending the duties of his station, he employed either in investigating the nature of epidemic diseases, or in gratifying the passion he early imbibed for anatomy, frequently dissecting human bodies, and those of apes, which he procured from Barbary, and comparing structure with the descriptions of Galen and Vesalius. In these pursuits he was much assisted by his correspondent Dr. Fothergill, who he acknowledges was indefatigable in searching the London shops for such books as he wanted, and in forwarding them by the earliest and best opportunities.

In 1751 the doctor settled in Dublin; and, in imitation of Monro and Hunter, began to give annual courses of anatomy. A few years after his coming to Dublin he was admitted into the university as lecturer in anatomy. In 1784 the college of physicians there elected him an honorary member; and since that time, from lecturer in anatomy he was made professor; and had likewise the honour of being one of the original members of the Irish Academy for promoting arts and sciences, which is now established by royal authority. In 1777, when the royal medical society was established at Paris, he was nominated a fellow of it. About 1774, on the death of his only brother in Scotland, he sent for his surviving family, consisting of the widow and nine children, and settled them in Dublin under his own eye, that he might have it more in his power to afford them that protection and assistance which they might stand in need of. His elder nephew William he educated in the medical profession; but after giving him the best education which Europe could afford, and getting him joined with himself in the lectureship, his hopes were unfortunately frustrated by the young gentlesnan’s death, which happened about 1784. He died universally and sincerely regretted by all who knew him, on account of his uncommon abilities and most amiable disposition.

Dr. Cleghorn, with an acquired independence, devoted his moments of leisure from the severer studies of his profession, to farming and horticulture; but his attention to this employment did not lessen his care of his relations, who, from a grateful and affectionate regard, looked up to him as a parent; the duties of which station he so tenderly filled up, as to induce Dr. Lettsom, from whose memoirs this account is taken, to apply to him the words of Horace, “Notus in fratres animi paterni.” Dr. Cleghorn died in December 1789.

, was the son of colonel Cleland, that celebrated fictitious member of the Spectator’s Club whom Steele describes under the name of Will Honeycombe. He was educated at Westminster- school, to which he was admitted in 1722, and was there the contemporary of lord Mansfield, He was early in life sent as consul to Smyrna, where perhaps he first imbibed those loose principles which in the infamous work he afterwards wrote, are so dangerously exemplified. On his return from Smyrna, he went to the East Indies; but, quarrelling with some of the members of the presidency of Bombay, he made a precipitate retreat from the east, with little or no benefit to his fortune. Being without profession, or any settled means of subsistence, he soon fell into difficulties; a prison and its miseries were the consequences. In this situation, about the year 1750, one of those booksellers who disgrace the profession, offered him a temporary relief for writing a work most grossly immoral, and fit only for the brothels, which brought a stigma on his name that time has not obliterated. The sum given for the copy was 20 guineas; the sum received for the sale could not be less than 10,000l. For this publication he was called before the privy council; and the circumstance of his distress being known, as well as his being a man of some parts, John earl Granville, the then president, nobly rescued him from the like temptation, by getting him a pension of 100l. a. year, which he enjoyed to his death, and which had so much the desired effect, that except the “Memoirs of a Coxcomb,” which has some smack of dissipated manners, and the “Man of Honour,” written as an amende honorable for his former exceptionable book, he dedicated the rest of his life to political, dramatic, and philological studies. In 1765 he published “The Way to Things by Words, and to Words by Things,” 8vo, which wast followed in 1768 by “Specimens of an Etymological Vocabulary, or Essay by means of the Analytic method to retrieve the ancient Celtic,” and Proposals for publishing by subscription, in 2 vols. 4to, “The Celtic retrieved by the Analytic method, or reduction to Radicals; illustrated by various and especially British antiquities;” but he does not appear to have received encouragement sufficient to enable him to print this work. In these publications, however, he has displayed a fund of ingenuity and erudition, not unworthy the education he received at Westminster. His political effusions appeared chiefly in the Public Advertiser, under the signatures A Briton, Modestus, &c. but were tedious and dull. His dramatic trifles and occasional poems were more lively, although they had not strength to survive their day. He Jived within the income of his pension, with some addition from his newspaper labours, in a retired situation in Petty France, where he died Jan. 23, 1789, in his eightieth year, having survived his infamous publication long enough to see, we trust with shame and sorrow, the extensive misery it created, and which it never was in his power to check.

is said to have been born at Rome, where he probably became the companion and fellow labourer of St. Paul; and was one of those, as it is generally imagined, whom St. Paul mentions as having their “names written in the book of life.” Origen calls him a disciple of St. Peter; and it is not unlikely that he might aid and assist this apostle in founding the church at Rome. It is certain, that he was afterwards bishop of that see; but when he was made so, cannot be clearly determined. Some follow the authority of Tertullian and Eusebius, that Clemens was consecrated by St. Peter, but admitted at first to preside over that part only of the church which comprised the Jewish converts; and that he did not come into the full possession and administration of his office till the death of Linus, who had been ordained by St. Paul, bishop of the Gentile church, and of Anacletus, who succeeded him: and this has been fixed to the year 93. Others have contended, that Clemens succeeded to the care of the whole church in the year 64 or 65, and that he held it to the year 81, or, as others again will have it, 83; but all this, with the other circumstances of this father’s life, are matters of conjecture.

We have nothing remaining of his works, of whose genuineness we can be certain, excepting one epistle, which Dr. Lardner thinks was written in the year 95 or 96. It was written to the church of Corinth, in the name of the church of Rome, to quiet some disturbances which had been raised by unruly brethren in the former; and to reestablish and confirm them in that faith which had been delivered to them by the apostles, but from which some of them had revolted. This epistle has usually been esteemed one of the most valuable monuments which have come down to us of ecclesiastical antiquity, and affords ample testimony to the antiquity, genuineness, or authority of the books of the New Testament, while it bears itself all the characters of primitive simplicity. References to, and quotations from it, are often to be found among the early writers for Christianity. Here Clemens exhorts the Corinthians to be united, and at peace with one another he enjoins obedience particularly, and submission to their spiritual governors he declares those who had formed cabals against their pastors s and had troubled the church with their seditions, utterly unworthy of the name of Christians: he points out to them the fatal consequences of such divisions: he presses them to return immediately to their duty, by submitting to their rightful pastors, and practising all humility, kindness, and charity one towards another.

After holding the office of catechist, Clemens was raised to the priesthood, probably at the beginning of the emperor Severus’s reign; since Eusebius, in his history of the evert ts of the year 195, gives Clemens the title of priest. About this time he undertook a defence of Christianity against pagans and heretics, in a work entitled “Stromata,” on account of the variety of matter of which it treats— Stromata signifying discourses abounding with miscellaneous matter. In this work he has made so great a collection of heathen learning, for the sake of shewing the conformity there is between some opinions which the Christians and the philosophers held in common, as shews that his reading must have extended to almost everything that had been written. When Severus began a persecution against the Christians, for which he pleaded a rebellion of the Jews (for the pagans had not as yet learned to distinguish Jews and Christians), Clemens left Egypt to escape the violence of it; and upon this occasion drew up a discourse, to prove the lawfulness of flying in times of persecution: for this expedient, though explicitly allowed and even enjoined in the gospel, had been rejected by some early converts, especially Tertullian, as a base desertion of the cause. He then went to Jerusalem, and took up his abode for some time with Alexander, who was soon after bishop of that see. During his stay there he was of great service to the 'church, as appears from a letter of Alexander to the church of Antioch, which Clemens himself carried: in which Alexander says, that “Clemens was a man of great virtue, as the church of Antioch knew already, and would know better when he came among them; and that having been at Jerusalem, he had, by God’s blessing, greatly confirmed and strengthened that church.” From Antioch he returned to Alexandria; but we know not how long he lived. He appears to have survived Pantoenus at least some years, and was not old when he composed his “Stromata;” for he tells us, that he had made that collection with a view of its serving him in his old age, when his faculties should fail him. His memory appears to have been highly reverenced at Alexandria, as we learn from an extract of a letter from Alexander to Origen, preserved by Eusebius. Among several works which Clemens wrote, there are only three considerable ones remaining:

, one of the popes so called, whose proper name was Bertrand de Gouth, or de Goth, was appointed bishop of Comminges, then archbishop of Bourdeaux by Boniface VIII. and afterwards elected pope at Perugia, June 5, 1305. The ceremony of his coronation was performed at Lyons, Sunday, November 10, but interrupted by a wall giving way, from being overloaded with spectators: by which accident John II. duke of Bretany was ^killed, the king wounded, and the tiara thrown from the pope’s head. This accident was considered as a presage of the misfortunes which afflicted Italy and all Christendom during the pontificate of Clement V. He was the first pope who resided at Avignon. In 1311, he held the general council of Vienne, appropriated to himself the first year’s revenue of all the English benefices, which was the origin of first fruits, abolished the order of templars, and made the collection of what are called the “Clementine Constitutions” of which there are some scarce editions; Mentz, 1460, 1467, and 1471, fol. They formed afterwards part of the body of canon law. Clement V. died at Roquemaure on the Rhone, April 20, 1314, as he was going to Bourdeaux for change of air. It is generally allowed that he was a reproach to the church, and the high office he held in it.

, a learned French historian,- and a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maure, was born at Beze in Burgundy, April 7, 1714, After his first studies at the college of Dijon, he embraced the monastic life in the abbey of Vendome, where he studied so hard as to injure his health. Being afterwards ordered to Paris by his superiors, he devoted himself principally to history, to which his attention was drawn by that vast collection of French historical documents, of which we have already spoken so largely in the lives of Bouquet and Andrew du Chesne, and which was continued by Haudiquier, Housseau, Precieux, and Poirier. Clement became now their successor in this great work, and in conjunction with father B rial, published in 1770 the twelfth volume, and in 1786 the thirteenth, enriched by two hundred articles of great value and curiosity. Clement wrote also, 1. “Nouveaux eclaircissemens sur l'origine de Pentateuque des Samaritains,” a work begun by Poncet, and completed with a preface, &c. by Clement. 2. “A Catalogue of the Mss. in the library of the Jesuits at St. Germain-des-Pres. 3.” L'art de verifier les dates,“1780 1792, 3 vols. folio. This work, which is accounted in France a master-piece of learning, was begun by the Benedictins Antine, Clemencet, and Durand, whose labours, however, are far inferior to those of Clement, who employed thirty years of his life upon it, almost without any intermission. The only objection is to the chronological table, or index, which is said to be somewhat inaccurate. Clement was a free associate of the academy of inscriptions, but his studies were interrupted by the revolution, which obliged him to quit one convent after another, and at last seek an asylum with a nephew. The remainder of his days were employed in a work to introduce the former, under the title of” L'art de verifier les dates avant J. C." In this he had made considerable progress, when he was carried oft by a stroke of apoplexy, March 29, 1793.

, was a native of Diest, who, after teaching ethics at Louvaine, travelled into France, Spain, Portugal, and Africa, and died at Granada, 1542. He left some curious and scarce letters in Latin, concerning his travels, 1606, 8vo; a Greek grammar, which has been revised and corrected by several grammarians, and among others by Vossius, who published an edition of it at Amsterdam, 1650, 8vo, a Hebrew grammar, Louvain, 1529, and other works.

, the celebrated queen of Egypt, was the daughter of Ptolemy Auletes, king of that country; who, dying in the year 51 B. C. bequeathed his crown to the eldest of his sons and the eldest of his daughters; ordering them to be joined to each other in marriage, according to the usage of their family, and jointly to govern. They were both of them very young, Cleopatra the eldest being only seventeen; and therefore he committed them to the tuition of the Roman senate. They, however, could not agree, either to be married, or to reign together, and Ptolemy, the brother, having deprived Cleopatra of that share in the government which was left her by Auletes’s will, and driven her out of the kingdom, she raised an army in Syria and Palestine, and commenced a war with him. At this time Julius Caesar, who was in pursuit of Pompey, came to Alexandria, and began to arbitrate between Ptolemy and his sister Cleopatra. But Cleopatra, considering that Cossar was extravagantly addicted to women, laid a plot to attach him first to her person, and next to her cause: and requested that she might be peiv mitted to plead her cause in person before him. This being granted, she came secretly into the port of Alexandria in a small skiff towards the dusk of the evening; and contrived to be carried to Caesar’s apartment, who was too sensible of the charms of beauty not to be touched with those of Cleopatra. She was then in the prime of her youth, about the twentieth year of her age; a perfect beauty, with a commanding address, and a voice harmonious and bewitching. All these charms she prostituted immediately to Caesar, who next morning sent for Ptolemy, and pressed him to receive his sister again upon her own terms: but Ptolemy appealed to the people, and a war commenced, in which Ptolemy lost a battle, and his life, in endeavouring to escape. Caesar then settled the kingdom upon Cleopatra, and the surviving Ptolemy, her younger brother, as king and queen. This Ptolemy, however, was at this time only eleven years old, and Cleopatra, when he was grown up, and capable of sharing the royal authority, causeu him to be poisoned, and thus reigned alone in Egypt. However, she followed Caesar to Rome, and was there when he was killed in the senatehouse; but being terrified by that accident, and the subsequent disorders of the city, she made her escape with great precipitation.

After the battle of Philippi, Cleopatra was accused by Antony of favouring the interest of Cassius. Against this charge, she again depended on her wit and beauty; and approached Antony, who waited for her at Tarsus in Cilicia, in a manner calculated to display her whole charms. At the mouth of the river Cydnus, she embarked in a vessel whose stern was of gold, sails of purple silk, oars of silver, and a concert of several instruments that kept time with the oars. She herself was laid under a canopy of a rich cloth of gold, dressed like Venus rising out of the sea: about her were lovely children like Cupids fanning her: the handsomest of her women, habited like Nereids and Graces, were leaning negligently on the sides and shrouds of the vessel: the sweets that were burning perfumed the banks of the river, which were covered wijh an infinite number of people, who ran thither with such earnestness, that Antony, who was mounted on a throne to make a shew of majesty, was left quite alone; while the multitude at the river shouted for joy, and cried, that “the goddess Venus was come to visit the god Bacchus for the happiness of Asia.” By these arts, and the charms of her person, she drew Antony into those snares which held him enslaved to her as long as he lived, and finally caused his death.

It would not be to our purpose to be particular in relating the war between Antony and Caesar; the battle of Actium, as is well known, determined the victory in favour of the latter, and Cleopatra flying first, Antony hastened after. He conceived however great displeasure against her upon this occasion, and continued three days without seeing her; but afterwards recovered his usual humour, and devoted himself to pleasure. Meanwhile, Cleopatra made trial of all sorts of poisons upon criminals, even to the biting of serpents; and finding, after many experiments, that the sting of an asp gave the quickest and the easiest death, it is believed she made choice of that kind of death, if she should be driven to despair. After they were returned to Egypt, and found themselves abandoned by all their allies, they sent to make proposals to Caesar. Cleopatra asked the kingdom of Egypt for her children; and Antony desired he might live as a private man at Athens, if Caesar was not willing he should remain in Egypt. Cuesar absolutely rejected Antony’s proposal, and sent to Cleopatra that he would refuse her nothing that was just and reasonable, if she would rid herself of Antony, or drive him out of her kingdom. She refused to act openly against Antony; but betrayed him in every effort that he made, till she obliged him to put an end to his own life, for fear of falling into Crcsar’s hands. When Antony was dead, Cleopatra could not forbear most passionately bemoaning the loss of him: however, upon Caesar’s approach to Alexandria, she began to consult her own security. Near the temple of Isis she had raised a stately building, which she designed for her sepulchre: into this she now retired; and into this was carried by her order all her treasure, as gold, jewels, pearls, ivory, ebony, cinnamon, and other precious woods. It was filled besides with torches, faggots, tow, and other combustible matter: so that Caesar, who had notice of it, was afraid lest out of despair she should burn herself in it, with all those vast riches and therefore contrived to give her hopes from time to time that she might expect all good usage, from the esteem he had for her. It was his secret wish to expose this queen in his triumph to the Romans; and with this view he sent Proculus to employ all his art and address in seizing her, which he at length accomplished, and Cassar, although extremely glad to have her in his possession, commanded her to be served in all respects like a queen. She became, however, inconsolable for the loss of her liberty, and fell into a fever, which gave her hopes that all her sorrows would soon end with her life. She had besides resolved to abstain from eating; but this being known, her children were threatened with death if she persisted in that. Caesar at length resolved to see her, and by his civilities endeavoured to reconcile her to life. He found her upon a low bed; but as soon as she saw Caesar, she rose up in her shift, and threw herself at his feet. Caesar civily raised her up, and sat down at her bed’s head. She began to justify herself; but the proofs against her being too notorious, she turned her justification into prayers, and put into his hand an inventory of all her treasure and jewels. Having private notice soon after, that she was to be carried to Rome within three days, to grace Caesar’s triumph, she caused herself to be bitten by an asp, which, it is said, was brought to her concealed in a basket of figs; and of this she died. Caesar, deprived as he was of the greatest ornament of his triumph, yet ordered her a very magnificent funeral; and her body, as she desired, was laid by that of Antony.

After he had passed through the usual forms of study at Geneva, and had lost his father in 1676, he resolved to go for some time into France; and thither he went in 1678, but returned the year after to Geneva, and was ordained with the general applause of his examiners. Soon after, he met with the works of Curcellseus, his great uncle by his father’s side, which had been published by Limborch in 1674, but were not easily to be got at Geneva among the Calvinists, who had no intercourse with the Arminians; and by reading these he became so convinced that the remonstrants had the better of the argument against all other protestants, that he resolved to leave both his own country and France, where the contrary principles were professed. In 1680 he went to Sauraur, a protestant university, where he first read the works of Episcopius, with whose learning and eloquence he was much pleased. He also began to make notes and observations upon the Old Testament, which he read in the Polyglott, which notes he afterwards used in his commentaries. While he was at Saumur, there came out a book with this title, “Liberii de sancto amore, epistolae theoJogicae, in quibus varii scholasticorum errores castigantur.” 8vo, consisting of “eleven theological epistles, in which several errors of the schoolmen are corrected.” It was ascribed by some to le Clerc, while others thought it too learned to be written by a young man of twenty-four. It is certain that though he never owned it, yet he speaks of it in such a manner as must almost convince us that he was really the author of it, and it contains many of those free opinions respecting the Trinity, &c. which could not fail to give offence, and induce him for a time to conceal his name.

In 1682, Le Clerc, intending to visit England, travelled through Paris, and arrived at London in May, chiefly with a view to learn the English language; which, with the help of a master, he soon effected. He preached several times in the French churches at London, and visited several bishops and men of learning; but the air of the town not agreeing with his lungs, he returned to Holland, after less than a year’s stay, in company with the celebrated historian Gregorio Leti, who formerly lived at Geneva, and was then retiring to Holland. He visited Limborch at Amsterdam, from whom he learned the condition of the remonstrants in the United Provinces, but did not yet join them, although he discovered his real sentiments to Limborch, with whom he entered into a strict friendship, which lasted till the death of that great man. He had not been long in Holland before his friends and relations entreated him to return to Geneva, but not being able when there to dissemble his opinions, which wexe contrary to those established by law, he thought it prudent to return to Holland at the latter end of 1683. The year after he preached sometimes in French in the church of the remonstrants, but was soon obliged to leave off preaching; for what reason is not known, but his friends have thought proper to impute it to the jealousy of the Walloon ministers, who finding their audiences very thin when Le Clerc preached, prevailed upon the magistrates to forbid his preaching any more. In 1634, when the remonstrants held a synod at Rotterdam, he preached once more before them; and was then admitted professor of philosophy, the Hebrew tongue, and polite literature in their school at Amsterdam. The remainder of his life offers nothing to us but the history of his works, and of the controversies in which he was engaged; which were numerous, and displayed undoubted talents.

The first thing he published, after he was settled at Amsterdam, was a work of his uncle David Le Clerc, late professor of the oriental languages at Geneva, entiled “Theological Dissertations,” Amst. 1685, 8vo; to which are subjoined dissertations on the same subject by Stephen. Le Clerc, his father, with the lives of both, and notes, in which he frequently differs from them in opinion. In 1687 he published another volume by them, consisting of a “Computus Ecclesiasticus” by David, and some philosophical dissertations by Stephen. About the same time he was editor of his friend Charles Le Cene’s “Dialogues upon several theological subjects,” to which he added five of his own, pointing out the mischiefs that metaphysics have occasioned to religion. Between the first and second publication of his father’s and uncle’s pieces, commenced his celebrated controversy with the learned father Simon, who had just published his “Critical History of the Old Testament.” Le Clerc, in 1685, published a criticism, upon it, entitled “Sentimens de quelques theologiens de Hollande,” &c. In this he vented several bold opinions, which he afterwards retracted or explained into a more harmless sense, such as that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, that the writers of the Old and New Testament were not inspired, &c. Even Bayle, although not scrupulous to make bold assertions, disapproved Le Clerc’s sentiments, as tending to confirm the Calvinists in their dislike of the Arminians, as a sect, which he strongly says, they considered as the common sink of all the Atheists, Deists, and Socinians in Europe.

In 1694, he published his “Life of Cardinal Richelieu,” 2 vols. 8vo, of which a second edition appeared in 1696, and a third in 1714. In 1696 he also published two tracts on “Lotteries,” and on “Incredulity.” In 1697, his “Compendium of Universal History” appeared, and although merely an abridgment of Petavius, has been found so useful as to pass through several editions. In 1698, he published his Latin translation of Hammond’s “Paraphrase and Notes on the New Testament,” 2 vols. fol. but took many liberties, as already noticed, with Hammond’s sentiments. This was again reprinted in 1714. In 1699, he published, with a dedication to Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York, his “Harmonia Evangelica,” Gr. and Lat. and in the same year the first of his “Parrhasiana” or thoughts upon various subjects, moral and literary. This does not appear to have given universal satisfaction, and involved him in a long dispute with Bayle on the principles of the Manicheans, and in another with the same gentleman, on the system of plastic natures advanced by Cudworth and Dr. Grew. We are not of opinion that a longer account of these disputes would now be very interesting, yet those who have patience to peruse the several attacks and replies of the combatants, will be frequently struck with their talents, ingenuity, and perseverance.

In 1701, another controversy produced his “Questiones Hieronymianae,” an attack on the character of that father, as to his skill in the Greek and Hebrew languages, and on Martinay, who some time before had published an edition of Jerom’s works. In 1701 he published a very indifferent edition of Hesiod, and the following year, under the name of Theodore Gorallus, he edited “P. Cornelii Severi Etna,” which involved him in a philosophical dispute with Burman, who had no respect for his verbal accuracy. In 1703, under another assumed name, Johannes Phereponus, he added to the Amsterdam edition of St. Augustine’s works, some animadversions on that father, which were answered by Dr. Jenkin, master of St. John’s college, Cambridge, in a work printed in 1707. In 1703, his French translation of the “New Testament” occasioned him to be ranked among Socinians, and some steps were taken, although in vain, to have it suppressed. The same year, he returned to his more useful employment, by beginning his “Bibliotheque choisee,” as a supplement to his “Bibliotheque Universelle.” This was continued to the year 1714, and consists of 28 vols. 12mo. It was immediately followed by his “Bibliotheque ancienne et moderne,” which extended to 29 vols. These 83 little volumes contain a great mass of very valuable materials, of critical disquisitions and bibliographical notices and memoirs, and well deserve a place in the library of every literary man. The public are indebted to them for the documents from which Dr. Jortin principally composed his life of Erasmus.

In 1709 he published an elegant edition, with notes of his own, of “Sulpicius Severus,” and also of * 4 Grotius de veritate,“&c. to which, besides notes, he added a treatise” De eligenda inter Christianos dissentientes sententia.“The same year he published and dedicated to lord Shaftesbury, the celebrated author of the Characteristics, &c.” A Collection of the remains of Menander and Philemon,“a completer collection than had been made by Grotius and others, to which he added a new Latin version, and notes. As it is allowed by Le Clerc’s friends, that he committed several errors in this work, which proceeded from his not having carefully enough attended to the metre, it is not surprising that it should have exposed him to the censure of the critics and philologers. The attack was begun by our learned Bentley, under the name of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis; whose censure, it is said, we know not how truly, vexed Le Clerc to such a degree, that it threw him into a fit of sickness, which lasted several days. Bentley’s” Emendatioues," as they are called, of Le Clerc’s edition, were published at Utrecht in 1710, with a preface written by Burman; in which there is a very large proportion of critical rancour, to which Le Clerc did net think proper to make any reply, as he was conscious that he had given some reason for the exceptions that were made, although they might not justify the language employed. He was defended, however, by an unknown person, who assumed the name of Philargyrius Cantabrigiensis; and published it in 1711, with a preface written by himself. This Philargyrius Cantabrigiensis is said to have been Cornelius de Pauw, a gentleman who distinguished himself by philosophical and critical publications.

Our predecessors affect to wonder that Le Clerc, who always expressed an high regard for the English nation, dedicated several of his principal works to the prelates and great men of it, and was so instrumental, by means of his “Bibliotheques,” in spreading the abilities, learning, and merits of its ablest writers throughout Europe, should yet be so frequently attacked by some or other of its scholars and divines, and this they explain by adding that Le Clerc’s Arminian principles were directly opposite to the nonjuring and high church principles, which then prevailed much in England; that though he expressed a zeal for Christianity, yet he abhorred any thing which looked like an hierarchy; and that hence he was often led to speak favourably, and perhaps with some degree of approbation, of books published here, which were in the mean time, together with their authors, anathematised by our own divines. Tindal’s “Rights of the Christian Church,” which came out in 1706, affords a memorable instance, which Le Clerc, in his “Bibliotheque Choisie” of the same year, not only approved, but even epitomised, and recommended it in the strongest terms imaginable. It may be remembered also, that about the same time, or perhaps a little before, there was a scheme formed among some great personages, to bring Le Clerc over -to England, and to make a better provision for him than he enjoyed at Anasterdam; for this some affirm to have been one cause of the jealousy and ill-will conceived against him; but after what we have said of Le Clerc’s religious principles, it will not perhaps be thought that any other reason is necessary to explain the zeal of his opponents, or their opinion that such a determined enemy to the establishment and its doctrines would have proved no great acquisition to the church of England.

He always enjoyed a very good state of health till 1728, when he was seized with a palsy and fever, which deprived him of speech and almost of memory. The malady increased daily; and after spending the last six years of his life with little or no understanding, he died Jan. 8, 1736, in his seventy-ninth year. He had been married in 1691, when he was abuut thirty-four years old; and his wife, who was the daughter of Gregorio Leti, brought him four children, who all died young. Le Clerc was not ambitious of either honours or riches. He was satisfied with a competency of fortune, if indeed he could be said to have it; and though it may be supposed that he was driven to write so much for the sake of the profits attending it, yet he tells us in that life which he wrote of himself to 1711, that he had received for all his labours little else from the booksellers than books. Whatever projects might be on foot for his coming into England, they do not seem to have been begun on his side: for he always appeared happy in the studious and philosophic ease which he enjoyed at Amsterdam, dividing his time between his pupils and his books.

, an eminent designer and engraver, was born at Metz, in 1637, of a family in such an humble condition, that he entered while very young into the abbey of St. Arnould, in that city, in quality of helper in the kitchen. He had such a natural talent for drawing, that all the moments of leisure he could get from his employment he Hlled up in making little portraits with a pen on such scraps of paper as he found about the kitchen. The prior of the house caught him one day occupied in this manner; and, on examining his performance, perceived in it such marks of genius as allowed him not to doubt that young Le Clerc would attain to excellence if assisted by art. He immediately took the resolution to cultivate his natural talents, put the crayon into his hand, and gave him to the care of one of the monks, with orders to get him instructed. At ten years old he could handle the graver. At the same time he applied himself to the study of geometry, perspective, fortification, and architecture, in which he made as rapid a progress as in drawing and engraving. Marshal de la Ferte made choice of him for his geographical engineer; Louis XIV. for his engraver in ordinary, at the solicitation of Colbert; and pope Clement XI. honoured him with the title of a Roman knight. In addition to this superior merit, and this strong capacity for the arts, Le Clerc had kind affections and an insinuating address. He died at Paris the 25th of October, 1714, at the age of seventy-seven. This master treated every subject with equal excellence; as landscapes, architecture, ornaments, discovering a lively and glowing imagination kept under due restraint, a correctness of design, a wonderful fertility, and elegant expression and execution. The productions of his graver, amounting to upwards of 3000, would have been sufficient of themselves to have gained him great reputation, independently of those of his pen. The principal of the latter kind are: 1. “A Treatise of Theoretic and Practical Geometry,” reprinted in 174-5, 8vo, with the life of the author. Colbert, informed of the success of this work, ordered Le Clerc a pension of 600 crowns, and apartments in the Gobelins. But he presently after gave up this pension, which confined him to the king’s service, in order to work more freely, and on subjects of his own choice. 2. “A Treatise on Architecture,” 12 vols. 4to. 3. “A Discourse on Perspective,” in which the author shews a profound knowledge of his subject. After Callot, he is the engraver who has most distinctly shewn five or six leagues extent of country in a small space.

He had a son of both his names, who was born in 1677, studied historical painting under Bon Boulogne, and became a painter of some note, if we can judge from the number of prints engraved from his works. There is an altar picture by him at the abbey church at Paris, representing the death of Ananias. He was made a member of the royal academy of Paris in 1704, and died, aged eighty-six, in 1763. Another of his sons, Laurent Josse le Clerc, was a man of considerable learning, and published three volumes of remarks on Moreri’s Dictionary, which contributed to improve that work, and compiled the “Bibliotheque des Auteurs cites dans le Dictionnaire cle llichelet,” which was printed with it in the Lyons edition, 1729, 3 vols. fol. but omitted in the 4to Amsterdam edition. He wrote several essays in the literary journals of the time, and died May 6, 1736, in the fifty-ninth year of his age.

, or rather Cleiveland (for so he and his family spelt their name) (John), a noted loyalist and popular poet in the reign of Charles I. was the eldest son of the rev. Thomas Cleiveland, M. A. some time vicar of Hinckley, and rector of Stoke, in the county of Leicester. He was born in 1613, at Loughborough, where his father was then assistant to the rector; but educated at Hinckley, under the rev. Richard Vynes, a man of genius and learning, who was afterwards as much distinguished among the presbyterian party as his scholar was among the cavaliers. In his fifteenth year our poet was removed to Cambridge, and admitted of Christ’s college, Sept. 4, 1627, where he took the degree of B. A. in 163 1 He was thence transplanted to the sister foundation of St. John’s college in the same university, of which he was elected fellow March 27, 1634, and proceeded to the degree of M. A. in 1635. Of this society he continued many years a principal ornament, being one of the tutors, and highly respected by his pupils, some of -whom afterwards attained to eminence. By the statutes of that college, he should have taken orders within six years after his being elected fellow: but he uas admitted on the law line (as the phrase there is) November 2, 1640, and afterwards on that of physic, January 31, 1642, which excused him from complying with this obligation; though it does not appear that he made either law or physic his profession: for, remaining at college, he became the rhetoric reader there, and was usually employed by the society in composing their speeches and epistles to eminent persons (of which specimens may be seen in his works), being in high repute at that time for the purity and terseness of his Latin style. He also became celebrated for his occasional poems in English, and, at the breaking out of the civil wars, is said to have been the first champion that appeared in verse for the royal cause; which he also supported by all his personal influence: particularly by exerting his interest in the town of Cambridge, to prevent Oliver Cromwell (then an obscure candidate, but strongly supported by the puritan partv) from being elected one of its members. Cromwell’s stronger genius in this, as hi every other pursuit, prevailing, Cleveland is said to have shown great discernment, by predicting at so early a period, the fatal consequences that long after ensued to the cause of royalty. Cromwell got his election by a single vote, which Cleveland declared “had ruined both church and kingdom.” The parliament party carrying all before them in the eastern counties, Cleveland retired to the royal army, and with it to the king’s head quarters at Oxford, where he was much admired and caressed for his satirical poems on the opposite faction, especially for his satire on the Scottish covenanters, entitled “The Rebel Scot.” In his absence he was deprived of his fellowship, Feb. 13, 1644, by the earl of Manchester, who, under the authority of an ordinance of parliament, for regulating and reforming the university of Cambridge, ejected such fellows of colleges, &c. as refused to take the solemn league and covenant. From Oxford Cleveland was appointed to be judge-advocate in the garrison at Newark, under sir Richard Willis the governor, and has been commended for his skilful and upright conduct in this difficult office, where he also distinguished his pen occasionally, by returning smart answers to the summons, and other addresses to the garrison. Newark, after holding out the last of all the royal fortresses, was at length, in 1646, by the express command of the king (then a prisoner in the Scots army), surrendered upon terms, which left Cleveland in possession of his liberty, but destitute of all means of support, except what he derived from the hospitality and generosity of his brother loyalists, among whom he lived some years, obscure and unnoticed by the ruling party, till, in November 1655, he was seized at Norwich, as “a person of great abilities,” adverse and dangerous to the reigning government; and being sent to Yarmouth, he was there imprisoned for some time, till he sent a petition to the lord-protector, wherein the address of the writer has been much admired, who, while he honestly avows his principles, has recourse to such moving topics, as might sooth his oppressor, and procure his enlargement: in which he was not disappointed, for the protector generously set him at liberty, disdaining to remember on the throne the opposition he had received in his canvass for parliament as a private burgess. Cleveland thence retired to London, where he is said to have found a generous Maecenas; and, being much admired among all persons of his own party, became member of a club of wits and loyalists, which Butler, the author of Hiir dibras, also frequented. Cleveland then lived in chambers at Gray’s-inn (of which Butler is said to have been a member), and, being seized with an epidemic intermitting fever, died there on Thursday morning, April 29, 1659. His friends paid the last honours to his remains by a splendid funeral: for his body was removed to Hunsdon -house, and thence carried for interment, on Saturday May 1, to the parish church of St. Michael Royal, on College-hill, London, followed by a numerous attendance of persons eminent for their loyalty or learning: to whom his funeral sermon was preached by his intimate friend Dr. John Pearson, afterwards bishop of Chester, author of the Exposition of the Creed.

Cleveland has had the fate of those poets, who, “paying their court to temporary prejudices, have been at one time too much praised, and at another too much neglected.” Both his subjects, and his manner of writing, made his poems extremely popular among his contemporaries, but entirely forgotten and disregarded since. For his manner, he excelled among that class of writers so much admired in the last century, whom our great critic has aptly termed “metaphysical poets, who abound with witty rather than just thoughts, with far-fetched conceits, and learned allusions, that only amuse for a moment, utterly neglecting that beautiful simplicity and propriety which will interest and please through every age.” For his subjects he generally chose the party disputes of the day, which are now no longer understood or regard-ed. Contemporary with Milton, he was in his time exceedingly preferred before him; and Milton’s own nephew, Phillips, tells us, he was by some esteemed the best of the English poets. But Cleveland is now sunk into oblivion, while Milton’s fame is universally diffused. Yet Milton’s works could, with difficulty, gain admission to the press, at the time when it was pouring forth those of Cleveland in innumerable impressions; and the press now continually teems with re- publications of the Paradise Lost, &c. whereas the last edition of Cleveland’s works was in 1687, 8vo.

One of the poet’s brothers, William, was rector of Oldbury and Quat, near Bridgnorth in Shropshire, and dying 1666, left a son, who was grandfather of the rev. William Cleiveland, M. A. late rector of All-saints parish in Worcester, who died in 1794; and four daughters, whereof the youngest was grandmother of Dr. Percy, the late bishop of Dromore in Ireland, who wrote the poet’s life for the last edition of the Biographia Britannica. A sister of theirs, Elizabeth, married Mr. W r illiam II iff, of Hinckley, from whom are descended a respectable family, to which by marriage is allied the Historian of Leicestershire, in whose collection of Poems are many written by his ancestor, and many curious anecdotes of the author.

, an artist of very considerable talents, of the fifteenth century, who practised in England, was born at Rostock, and retained in the service of Christian IV. king of Denmark; but the excellence of his genius prompted him to the search of better models than he found in that northern climate. He travelled into Italy, and remained there four years, where he probably acquired a taste for the beautiful and ornamental grotesque, in which he afterwards shone. At Venice he became known to sir Henry Wotton, and sir Robert Anstruther recommended him to prince Charles, afterwards Charles I. He arrived in England, while the prince was in Spain, but notwithstanding was graciously received by king James, who mentions that circumstance in a Latin letter (preserved in Fuller’s Worthies) which he wrote to the king of Denmark, desiring leave to detain Cleyn in England, though with a permission to return first to Copenhagen and finish a work he had begun there, and promising to pay the expence of his journey. The request being granted, Cleyn returned to London, and appears to have been first employed in jdesigns for sir Francis Crane’s manufactory of tapestry at Mortlack, by which those works were carried to singular perfection. Five of the celebrated cartoons were also sent thither to be copied by him in tapestry. He had an annuity of 100l. which he held until the rebellion, and enjoyed very high reputation by his paintings at Somerset house, and the houses of several of the nobility. There is still extant a beautiful chamber adorned by him at Holland house, with a ceiling in grotesque, and small compartments on the chimneys, in the style and not unworthy of Parmegiano. Lord Orford mentions other works by his hand, and he also made designs for engravers. This ingenious artist, whom Evelyn records as a man of piety also, died in 1658.

, sole daughter and heir to George earl of Cumberland, was born at Skipton castle in Craven, Jan. 30, 1589, and married first, to Richard lord Buckhurst, afterwards earl of Dorset, by whom she had three sons, who died young, and two daughters, Margaret who married John, earl of Thanet, and Isabel, who married James, earl of Northampton. She married, secondly, to Philip Herbert, earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, by whom she had no issue. This lady, who by the failure of the male line, possessed the great hereditary estates of the Clifford Cumberland family, has lately become celebrated, particularly from a letter of hers published in the “World,” No. 14, by lord Orford, addressed to sir Joseph Williamson, who, when secretary of state to king Charles the second, had written to name a candidate to her for the Borough of Appleby. The brave countess, with all the spirit of her ancestors, and with all the eloquence of independent Greece, returned the following laconic answer:

Few letters have excited a more general admiration; the reason of which is thus explained by Dr. Campbell, in his “Philosophy of Rhetoric.” “We shall find,” says he, “that the very same sentiment expressed diffusely, will be admitted barely to be just expressed concisely, will be admired as spirited. To recur to examples, the famous answer returned by the countess of Dorset, to the letter of sir Joseph Williamson, secretary of state to Charles the Second, nominating to her a member for the borough of Appleby, is an excellent illustration of this doctrine. If we consider the meaning, there is mention made of two facts, which it was impossible that any body of common sense, in this lady’s circumstances, should not have observed, and of a resolution in consequence of these, which it was natural for every person who had a resentment of bad usage to make. Whence then results the vivacity, the fire which is so manifest in the letter? Not from any thing extraordinary in the matter, but purely from the laconism of the manner. An ordinary spirit would have employed as many pages to express the same thing, as there are affirmations in this short letter. The epistle might in that case have been very sensible, and withal very dull; but would never have been thought worthy of being recorded as containing any thing uncommon, or deserving a reader’s notice.”

Mr. Walpole, who, besides introducing her in the “World,” has given a place to this celebrated lady in his “Catalogue of noble Authors,” represents her as having written “Memoirs of her husband Richard earl of Dorset;” and “Sundry memorials of herself and her progenitors.” With regard to the first of these articles, we apprehend there never has appeared in the countess’s manuscripts any account of him, except what is occasionally to be met with in the History of her own life, a curious manuscript in the Harleian collection (6177), the title of which is, “A Summary of the Records, and a true Memorial of the Life of me the lady Anne Clifford, who by birth being sole daughter and heir to my illustrious father George Clifford the third earl of Cumberland, by his virtuous wife Margaret Russel my mother, in right descent from him, and his long continued noble ancestors the Veteriponts, Cliffords, and Veseys, baroness Clifford, Westmoreland, and Vesey, high sheriffess of Westmoreland, and ladye of the honor of Skypton in Craven, was by my lirst marriage countess dowager of Dorset, and by my second marriage countess dowager of Pembroke and Montgomery.” It is written in a manner extremely tedious, abounding with repetitions of matters, for the most part, equally minute and uninteresting, and may perhaps incline some to doubt Mr. Pennant’s character of her, as the most eminent person of her age for intellectual accomplishments. Some circumstances, however, respecting her being brought into the world, are related with an accuracy which biographers will never, perhaps, in any other instance be able to attain. She informs us, that, through the merciful providence of God, she was begotten by her valiant father, and conceived with child by her worthy mother, the first day of May in 1589, in the lord Wharton’s house in Channel-row, in Westminster, hard by the river of Thames, as Psalm 139; yet that she was not born till the 30th day of January following, when her blessed mother brought her forth in one of her father’s chief nouses, called Skypton castle, in Craven.

, third earl of Cumberland, and father to the preceding, was very eminent for his skill in navigation. He was born at Brougham castle, We*stmoreland, Aug. 8, 1558, and educated at Peterhouse, Cajnbridge, where his tutor was the celebrated John Whitgift^ afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In this place he applied himself chiefly to the study of the mathematics, to which his genius led him, and by which he became qualified for the several great expeditions he afterwards undertook. His first public employment, of a melancholy kind indeed, was in 1586, when he was one of the peers who sat in judgment upon Mary queen of Scots. But having a greater inclination to act by sea than by land, and, according to the fashion of the times, being bent on making foreign discoveries, and defeating the ambitious designs of the court of Spain, then preparing the armada that was to conquer England, he fitted out, at his own charge, a little fleet, consisting of three ships and a pinnace, with a view to send them into the South Sea, to annoy the Spanish settlements there. They sailed from Gravesend, June 26, 1586, and from Plymouth Aug. J7; but were forced back hy contrary winds into Dartmouth, from whence putting out again on the 29th, they fell in with the coast of Barbary the 17th September, and the next day sailed into the road of Santa Cruz. On the 25th they came to the river Oro, just under the northern tropic, where they anchored. Searching upwards the next day, they found that river to be as broad all the way for fourteen or fifteen leagues, as at the mouth, which was two leagues over; but met with no town nor house. On the last of September they departed for Sierra Leone; where they arrived the 2 1st of October, and going on shore, they burned a town of the negroes, and brought away to their ships about fifteen tons of rice; and having furnished themselves with wood and water, they sailed the 2 1st of November from Sierra Leone, making the straights of Magellan. The 2d of January 1587 they discovered land; and on the 4th of that month fell in with the American shore, in 30 deg. 40 min. south lat. Continuing their course southward, they took, January 10, not far from the river of Plata, a small Portuguese ship; and the next day another; out of which they furnished themselves with what necessaries they wanted. The 12th of January they came to Seal Island, and two days after to the Green Island, near which they took in water. Returning to Seal Island, a consultation was held on the 7th of February, whether they should continue their course for the South Sea, and winter in the straights of Magellan, or spend three or four months upon the coast of Brazil, and proceed on their voyage in the spring. The majority being for the former, they went as far as 44 degrees of southern latitude. But meeting with storms and contrary winds, they took a final resolution, on the 21st of February, to return to the coast of Brazil. Accordingly they fell in with it the 5th of April, and, after taking in water and provisions in the bay of Camana, came into the port of Baya the llth. Eight Portuguese ships being there, they found means to carry off four of them, the least of which were of a hundred and thirty tons, notwithstanding all the resistance made by the enemy; and also brought a supply of fresh provision from the shore. In this spirited manner, the earl undertook no less than eleven expeditions, fitted out at his own expence, in which he made captures to a prodigious amount 5 and, on his return, was graciously received by his royal mistress, who created him knight of the garter in 1591. In 1601 he was one of the lords that were sent with forces to reduce the earl of Essex to obedience. He departed this life at the Savoy in London, Oct. 30, 1605, and was buried at Skipton, in Yorkshire, the 30th of March following; where a fine toinb was afterwards erected to his memory.

Pennant informs us that at an audience which the earl had after one of his expeditions, queen Elizabeth, perhaps designedly, dropped one of her gloves. His lordship took it up, and presented it to her; upon which she graciously desired him to keep it, as a mark of her esteem. In this manner, Pennant adds, his ambition was gratified with a reward that suited her majesty’s avarice. With the romantic gallantry of the times, he adorned this glove with diamonds, and wore it in the front of his high-crowned hat on days of tournament, as is expressed in the fine print of him, by Robert White. Another instance of the queen’s favour to the earl of Cumberland, was her appointing him her champion in all her tilting matches, from the thirtythird year of her reign. In this office he succeeded the gallant old knight sir Henry Lea, who resigned it with much ceremony in 1590. Mr. Wai pole, in his Miscellaneous Antiquities, has obliged the public with an entertaining account of his lordship’s investiture. He excelled 'all the nobility of his time in the exercises of tiltings, turnings, and courses of the field. His magnificent armour worn on such occasions, adorned with roses and fleurs de lis, is actually preserved at Appleby castle. In Skipton castle is a picture of the earl of Cumberland and his family, which is deemed a curious performance. It is tripartite, in form of a screen. The earl, who occupies the centre, is dressed in armour, spotted with stars of gold; but much of it is concealed by a vest and skirts reaching to his knees: his helmet and gauntlet, lying on the floor, are studded in like manner. His lady stands by him in a purple gown, and white petticoat, -embroidered with gold. She pathetically extends one hand to two beautiful boys, as if in the action of dissuading her lord from the dangerous voyages in which he engaged, when more interesting and tender claims urged the presence of a parent. “How must he have been affected,” says Mr. Pennant, “by his refusal, when he found that he had lost both on his return from two expeditions, if the heart of a hero does not too often divest itself of the tender sensations!” The letters of Margaret, the earl of Cumberland’s lady, are extant in manuscript, and also her Diary; from which it appears that she unfortunately married without liking, and met with the same return. She complains greatly of the coolness of her lord, and of his neglecting their daughter, Anne Clifford. The countess of Cumberland even endured great poverty, of which she writes in a most moving strain to king James I. to several great persons, and to the earl himself. Mr. Pennant observes, that all her letters are humble, suppliant, and pathetic, though the earl was said to have parted with her on account of her high spirit. But although this lady might sometimes be obliged, from peculiar circumstances, to write in a strain of humiliation, it is certain that she was a woman who possessed great fortitude and magnanimity of mind. This is apparent from the account her daughter has given of her; nor do we perceive, in that account, any traces of the poverty which the letters seen by Mr. Pennant represent her to have endured. Her conduct, after the death of her lord, in the contest between her and Francis, earl of Cumberland, her brother-in-law, for the family estate, was truly spirited, as she would never submit to give up her daughter’s right. With regard to her quarrel with her husband, the blame was principally on his side, as he was irregular in his manners, and appears, particularly, to have engaged in an amour with a lady of quality. A reconciliation, however, seems to have been effected between the earl and the countess; for she was present with him at the time of his decease, and he then expressed much affection towards her. We learn, from the inscription on the picture before mentioned, that, during the latter part of his life he felt the good effects of his early education for he died penitently, willingly, and christianly.

, son of Richard Clive, esq. was born on the 29th of September 1725, at Styche, the seat of his ancestors, in the parish of Moreton-Say, near Market Drayton. His father, who possessed but a small estate by inheritance, had, to increase his income, engaged in the profession of the law. At an early period of his youth, Robert was sent for his education to a private school at Lostock in Cheshire. The master, Dr. Eaton, soon discovered in his scholar a superior courage and sagacity which prognosticated the future hero. “If this lad,” he would say, “should live to be a man, and an opportunity be given for the exertion of his talents, few names wdi be greater than his.” At the age of eleven he was removed from Lostock to a school at Market Drayton, of which the reverend Mr. Burslem was the master. On the side of a high hill in that town is an ancient church, with a lofty steeple, from nearly the top of which is an old stone spout, projecting in the form of a dragon’s head. Young Clive ascended this steeple, and, to the astonishment of the spectators below, seated himself on the spout. Having remained a short time at Mr. Burslem’s school, he was placed in that of Merchant Taylors’ at London, which, however, did not long retain him as a scholar. His father having reverted to what seems to have been a predilection for private schools, committed him to the care of Mr. Sterling, at Hemel Hempstead, in Hertfordshire, with whom he continued till, in 1743, he received an appointment as a writer to the East India company. From the frequency of his removals, to which perhaps was added an intractable disposition, he obtained no applause, but rather the reverse, from the several masters to whom the care of his education had been entrusted.

To fulfil his engagement in the service to which he had been appointed, he embarked in one of the ships belonging to the East India company, and arrived at Madras in 1744. In his new employment he however discovered the same dislike to application, and the same aversion to controul, by which his character had hitherto been distinguished. This intractable disposition proved as disagreeable to his superiors as it must have been the occasion of much inconvenience to himself. One instance is related. Having acted or neglected something inconsistently with the discipline of office, his misconduct was reported to the governor, who commanded him to ask pardon of the secretary whom he had offended. He made his submission in terms of contempt, which the secretary mistaking for a compliment, invited him to dinner. “No, sir,” replied Clive, “the governor did not command me to dine with you.”

When in 1746 Madras was surrendered to the French, under. the command of their admiral M. de la Bourdonnais, the officers both civil and military, who had served under the East India company, became prisoners on parole. M. Dupleix, however, who was chief commander of the military forces in India, not having been present at the surrender, refused to ratify the treaty, unless they would take another parole under the new governor. The English, in consequence of this new stipulation, thought themselves released from their engagements with Bourdonnais, and at liberty not only to make their escape, but to take up arms, if they should find an opportunity. Mr. Clive, accordingly, disguised as a Moor, in the dress of the country, escaped with a few others to St. David’s, a fortress which is situated to the south of Madras, at about the distance of 21 miles.

He had not been long arrived at St. David’s before he lost some money in a party at cards with two ensigns, who were detected in the act of cheating. They had won considerable sums; but as the fraud was evident, the losers at first refused payment, but at length were intimidated by the threats of the successful gamesters. Clive alone persisted in his refusal, and accepted a challenge from the boldest of his antagonists. They met, each with a single pistol. Clive fired without success. His antagonist, quitting the ground, presented a pistol to his head, and commanded him to ask his life, with which demand, after some hesitation, he complied; but, being required to recant his expressions, he peremptorily refused. The officer told him, if he persisted in his refusal, he would fire. “Fire, and be d——d!” replied Clive. “I said you cheated; I say so still; nor will I ever pay you.” The ensign, finding every expedient to obtain the money ineffectual, threw away the pistol, and declared that his adversary was a madman. Clive replied to the compliments of some of his friends on his conduct in this affair; “The man has given me my life, and I have no right in future to mention his behaviour at the card table; although I will never pay him, nor ever keep him company.” In 1747 Mr. Clive was promoted to the commission of an ensign in the military service; but had no opportunity of displaying his talents till the following year, when the siege of Pondicherry afforded an ample scope for their exertion. At this memorable attack the young ensign distinguished himself by his courage in defence of the advanced trench. He received a shot in his hat, and another in his coat; some officers in the same detachment having been killed. The early rains, however, and admiral Boscawen’s want of experience in military operations, compelled the English to raise the siege, and to return to Fort St. David’s.

On the attack, when the powder was almost exhausted, Clive, instead of sending a serjeant to procure a fresh supply, ran to the trench, and brought it. In consequence of this action, an officer ventured to insinuate, in his absence, that he had relinquished his post through fear. A friend, having informed him of this aspersion, was accordingly requested to go with him to the person who had thus malignantly defamed him. The charge, though true, was at first denied: Clive, however, insisting upon immediate satisfaction, they withdrew; but while they were retiring, he received a blow from his antagonist, who was following him. Instantly he drew his sword, as did the other, relying on the interposition of the company. Both having been put under an arrest, were obliged to submit to a court of inquiry, which decided that the officer should ask pardon at the head of the battalion, for a causeless aspersion, without notice of the blow, for which offence he might otherwise have been disbanded. Unwilling to injure the service, Mr. Clive declined speaking of this quarrel till the return of the army to St. David’s, when, calling upon the officer, he reminded him of the late transaction. Admitting that he was satisfied with the decision of the court, and the consequent compliance of the officer, he still insisted that he must call him to account for the blow, of which no notice had been taken. The officer, on the contrary, alledged that his compliance with the opinion of the court ought to be admitted as satisfactory, and refused to make any other concession. Mr. Clive accordingly waved his cane over his head, saying, that as he thought him too contemptible a coward for beating, he should content himself with inflicting on him that mark of infamy. On the following day the officer resigned his commission.

When the season for military operations was over, the troops remained at St. David’s, and before the return of spring they received news of a cessation of hostilities between Great Britain and France. Still, however, the sense of ancient rivalship. the reciprocal aggravation of recent injuries, an opposition of interests, a mutual confidence in strength, seemed to animate both nations to a renewal of the war. The dominions of the rajah of Tanjore had at that time been claimed by his brother, with a declaration that he, though deposed by his subjects, was their rightful sovereign; and that the reigning rajah was an usurper. The English of St. David’s, convinced by these allegations, determined to espouse the cause of the deposed rajah. They resolved to begin their attack upon a fort of the rajah’s, called Devi Cdtah. On their advance, rinding the approaches difficult, and the ramparts covered with innumerable forces, they were at first deterred from their enterprize. Clive, however, insisted that the attempt, though dangerous, was not hazardous. He thought the town might easily b$ taken by storm; recommending only to advance the cannons in the night, as by them the gates might be effectually destroyed. Captain Cope, the commander, refused to listen to the advice, as too desperate; till, after having exhausted his ammunition by a fruitless cannonade, he was compelled to retreat to Fort St. David’s. The disgrace of this discomfiture; its pernicious influence upon their trade 5 and the exultation of their common enemy the French, induced the English once more to attempt the reduction of Devi Cotah. The command of this expedition was entrusted to major Lawrence, an officer at that time but little known, but who was afterwards distinguished for his abilities in the service. As a breach was made in the walls, Clive, who then possessed only the rank of a lieutenant, solicited the command of the forlorn hope. Lawrence, willing to preserve him from so dangerous a station, told him the service did not then fall in his turn. Clive replied, that knowing it did not, he came rather to ask it as a favour, than to demand it as a right; but that on such an occasion he hoped the request of a volunteer would not be rejected. Major Lawrence consented; and Clive, in consequence of his appointment to the command of thirty-four British soldiers and seven hundred Sepoys, was ordered to storm the breach. Accord, ingly they led the way; but in passing a rivulet between the camp and the fort, four of the English fell by the fire of the enemy. The Sepoys were alarmed, and halted as soon as they had passed the stream but the English persevered, and, advancing closely upon the breach, presented their musquets, when a party of horse, which had been concealed in the tower, rushed upon their rear, and killed twenty-six. Clive, by stepping aside, escaped a stroke which had been aimed at him by oqe of the horse as they passed him. He ran towards the rivulet, and, having passed, had the good fortune to join the Sepoys. Of the whole fouj>and- thirty, himself and three others were all that were left alive. Major Lawrence, seeing the disaster, commanded all the Europeans to advance. Clive still marched in the first division. The horse renewed their attack, but were repulsed with such slaughter that the garrison, dismayed at the sight, gave way as the English approached the breach, and, flying through the opposite gate, abandoned the town to the victors. Alarmed at the success of the English, the rajah sent them overtures of peace; to which, on condition that a settlement should be made on his rival, and the fort of Devi Cutah, with the adjoining district, be ceded to the company, the English readily agreed.

Whoever contemplates the forlorn situation of the company when lord Clive firstarrived at Calcutta in 1756, and then considers the degree of opulence and power they possessed when he finally left that place in 1767, will be convinced that the history of the world has seldom afforded an instance of so rapid and improbable a change. At the first period they were merely an association of merchants struggling for existence. One of their factories was in ruins; their agents were murdered; and an army of 50,000 men, to which they had nothing to oppose, threatened the immediate destruction of their principal settlement. At the last period, distant from the first but ten years, they were become powerful princes, possessed of vast revenues, and ruling over fifteen millions of people. When the merits of those who contributed to this great revolution shall be weighed in the impartial judgment of future times, it will be found that Watson, Pocock, Adams, and Monro, deserved well of the company; but that Clive was its preserver, and the principal author of its greatness.

, a painter who practised his art in England, was born at Osnaburgh in 1656, and with his countryman, one Tiburen, went to Paris in 1679, where he worked for De Troye. In 1681, they came to England, and Closterman at first painted draperies for Riley and afterwards they painted in conjunction, Riley still executing most of the heads. On his death Closterman finished several of his pictures, which recommended him to the duke of Somerset, who had employed Riley. He painted the duke’s children, but lost his favour on a dispute about a picture of Guercino, which he had bought for liis grace, and which was afterwards purchased by lord Hnlifax. Closterman, however, did nof want business. He drew Gibbons the carver and his wife in one piece, which pleased, and there is a mezzotinto from it. He was even set in competition with sir Godfrey Kneller, and there is a story, not very credible, that sir Godfrey refused to paint a picture with him for a wager. Closterman painted the duke and duchess of Marlborough and all their children in one picture, and the duke on horseback; on which subject, however, he had so many disputes with the duchess, that the duke said, “It has given me more trouble to reconcile my wife and you, than to fight a battle.” Closterman, who sought reputation, went by invitation to Spain in 1696, where he drew the king and queen, and from whence he wrote several letters on the pictures in that country to Mr, Richard Graham. He also went twice to Italy, anil brought over several good pictures. The whole length of queen Anne in Guildhall is by him, and another at Chatsworth of the first duke of Rutland; and in Painters’-hall, ti portrait of Mr. Sannders. Elsum has bestowed an epigram on his portrait of Dryden; yet Closterman was a very moderate performer: his colouring strong, but heavy; and his pictures without any idea of grace. Yet he might have enjoyed very affluent circumstances, had he not shewn a foolish and infatuated fondness (as Houbraken tells us) for a girl that he kept in his house. That insidious young woman, who had persuaded him that she was entirely attached to his person and interest, watched a proper opportunity, and robbed him of all his money, plate, jewels, and every costly moveable, and fled out of the kingdom. So sudden and so unexpected a misfortune, against which he was totally unprepared, affected Closterman so violently, that he pined away his life; not long surviving the loss of his effects, and the infidelity of his mistress, which even impaired his understanding. He died in 1713, and was buried in Cbvent-garden churchyard.

, an ingenious professor of the veterinary art, was born at Norwich, Aug. 12, 1725. His father was a blacksmith, in humble life, and could only afford to allow his son a short time for instruction, in the elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic. He was taken from school before he had made much progress in his education; and when he was seventeen years old, he was obliged, by the death of his father, to carry on the business for the benefit of his mother and her family, which consisted of four children. About the year 1750, he was first noticed by Dr. Kirwan Wright, an eminent physician, and a man of learning, who encouraged him to direct his mind to the investigation and treatment of the diseases of horses. To this pursuit he devoted his attention with great zeal and success. Through the same friend he was induced to acquire a knowledge of the Latin and French languages, in. order to make himself acquainted with the best authors on farriery and medicine, but particularly Vegetius and La Fosse. His Latin teacher was a Mr. Pagan, under whose tuition he made a rapid progress: and in French he instructed himself without the help of any master. He was much assisted in his Latin studies by acting as an amanuensis, and sometimes read in^ Latin books, to Dr. Wright, who had the misfortune to be deprived of his sight. During this time he was a hard worker as well as a hard student. He used to work at the forge, the regular hours, from sixo'clock in the morning until eight at night, and then frequently got ready the nails requisite for his men the next day. To his labours as a blacksmith, a veterinary practitioner, a student of Latin and French, he added others, as a student of mathematics. He became a member of a society established in Norwich, among men of original minds and small incomes, for improvement in mathematics and experimental philosophy, under the direction of Mr. Peter Bilby. Here ho associated with John Fransham, with Mr. Arderon, F. 11. S. a friend and correspondent of Baker, whose inquiries with the microscope excited general interestat that time, and with other working and thinking men. Mr. Clover had a greater quickness of apprehension, and excelled Fransham in mathematics; but the latter had made a greater proficiency in the classics, and was therefore qualified to become his master. After his return from his eccentric excursion to Newcastle, Mr. Clover employed Fransham occasionally to ride the horses home after they were shod, and whilst the iron was heating, they used both to be employed in Latin exer^ses and mathematical problems, worked upon a slate hung against the forge. Thus the tutor assisted in all the labours of his pupil, and, ' after correcting an exercise, or discussing the properties of a circle, he earned his frugal meal by conducting home the horses which his pupil had shod. Natural philosophy, natural history, and botany, engaged much of this little Bilbean society’s attention. Mr. Clover demonstrated at several of their meetings the origin and progress of the bots found in the stomach and intestines of horses, so early as 1753. He discovered the manner in which the larvae of these insects f&strus equij are conveyed from the coat of the horse, where they are deposited by the fly, into the animal’s stomach; and he illustrated, by many experiments, the whole progress of their transformation, which has been since so well described by Mr. B. Clarke, in the Linnean Transactions for 1796. In 1765, Mr. Clover’s reputation had increased so much that he relinquished working at the forge, and devoted himself wholly to the veterinary art. In this he was assisted by the most eminent medical practitioners of those days, particularly Mr. Gooch, who has inserted in the second volume of his surgical cases, a letter from Mr. Clover, giving a description and a drawing of an ingenious machine invented by him for the cure of ruptured tendons and fractured legs in horses. For many years Mr. Clover was severely afflicted with giddiness and pain in his head, which obliged him to decline business in 178!. He continued, however, to interest himself in every improvement that was made, and always took delight in recounting the results of his extensive experience. One of his greatest amusements was to talk with those who studied physic and surgery; and he continued to read the new medical publications, and to deliver short private lectures on the theory and practice of the healing art, with a lively interest, until the very day of his death. It is to be regretted that he never could be prevailed upon to extend the usefulness of his knowledge and experience in the diseases of animals, by any publication of his observations; but he felt a diffidence and fastidiousness in writing that could never be overcome, though his readiness to communicate information was universally acknowledged. The latter end of his life was cheered by the amusement of gardening, in which he excelled. He marked the gradual decay of his bodily organs with perfect tranquillity and composure, and watched his declining pulse when he expired Feb. 19, 1811, in the eighty-sixth year of his age. With an understanding vigorous and acute, and n. power of discrimination and discernment peculiar to himself, Mr. Clover possessed the external advantage of a strong muscular frame of body, which was tall and well proportioned.

, justly celebrated for his astonishing miniatures and illuminations in missals and other religious books, was born in Sclavonia in the year 1498. He was originally educated for the church, and took orders, but was afterwards suffered to relinquish the sacerdotal habit by a dispensation from the pope. Soon after the age of eighteen, his love of painting prompted him to travel to Rome, where he was taken into the service of the cardinal Grimani, by whom he was, for the space of three years, employed in making careful pen-drawings from the finest medals. He afterwards became the scholar of Julio Romano, and made considerable advancement in oil-painting; but his master, perceiving the extraordinary talent which he evinced for miniature, succeeded in persuading him to apply himself entirely to that branch of the art; and' it may with justice be said, that we owe to the sagacity of Julio Romano, and the unexampled assiduity of Clovio, the most exquisite and delicately finished performances of that kind in the known world; since he not only far surpassed all who went before him, but to this day stands unrivalled, by all those who have since attempted to walk in his footsteps. In addition to the instruction which our artist received from the favourite scholar of Raffaele, he derived great benefit from the works of Buonarotti, many of which he copied in a most beautiful and finished manner; and he afterwards reaped great advantage from the friendship and experience of Girolamo da 1 Libri, a miniature painter of great note at Verona: the result of all these studies was a style of drawing, partaking of the purity of the Roman, and the grandeur of the Florentine school; united, not unfrequently, to the rich colouring of Titian or the ambient hue of Correggio.

, rector of Whatfield, and vicar of Debenham, in Suffolk, was the son of the rev. George Clubbe, M. A. of Catherine-hall, Cambridge, and was born in 1703. He was admitted of King’s-college, Cambridge, by an unlucky mistake of an uacle, who did not know until too late, that his not proceeding from Eton school was a bar to his promotion in that college. He left it, therefore, after talcing his bachelor’s degree, in 1725. At what time he was presented to his livings, is not mentioned. He married one of Dr. Jortin’s daughters, by whom he had a large family. He had the misfortune to lose his sight some time before his death, March 2, 1773, but never his placid and agreeable humour. His publications, besides a single “Sermon” before the incorporated Society for the Relief of Clergymen’s Widows and Orphans at Ipswich, 1751, are, 1. “The History and Antiquities of the ancient villa of Wheatfield, in the county of Suffolk,” 1758; an admirable piece of irony at the expence of modern antiquaries, which was reprinted by Dodsley in the second volume of his “Fugitive Pieces.” 2. “Physiognomy; being a. sketch of a larger work upon the same plan, wherein the different tempers, passions, and manners of men, will be particularly considered.” 3. “A Letter of free advice to a young Clergyman,” 1763.

, or Cluvier), a celebrated geographer, was born of an ancient and noble family at Dantzic, in 1580, and educated by his father with a great deal of care, and sent to Leyden to study the civil law. But Cluver had no inclination for law, and his genius inclining him early to the love of geography, Joseph Scaliger is said to have advised him to make that his particular study, and not to do violence to his inclinations any longer. This advice was followed, upon which Cluver presently set out for the Low Countries, in order to take a careful survey of them but passing- through Brabant, for the sake of paying a visit to Justus Lipsius, he had the misfortune to be robbed, which obliged him to return immediately to Leyden. Meanwhile, his father, incensed by his deserting the study of the law, refused to furnish him with money, which drove him to bear arms, as he afterwards did two years in Hungary and Bohemia. It happened at that time, that the baron of Popel, who was his friend, was arrested by an order from the emperor; and thinking himself extremely ill used, he drew up a kind of manifesto by way of apology, which he sent to Cluver to translate into Latin. This Cluver having performed, caused it to be printed at Leyden which so displeased the emperor, that he complained by his ambassador to the States, and had Cluvcr arrested. Ciuver, however, was soon set at liberty, upon which he returned to his geographical studies, and travelled through several countries, particularly England, France, Germany, and Italy. He was also a great linguist, being able to talk with ease and fluency, as we are told, no less than ten languages. He died at Ley den, 1623, only forty -three years old, justly esteemed the first geographer who had put his researches in order, and reduced them to certain principles.

His residence in England has been overlooked by his biographers. It was in 1609 that he became a sojourner at Exeter college, Oxford, for the sake of Drs. Holland and Prideaux, whose fame attracted many foreigners to this college; and here he wrote his first work “De Tribus Rheni alveis et ostiis,” which was published at Leyden, in 1611, 4to. It appears also that after his return from Italy, he again visited Oxford, where Dr. Prideaux, probably, who had a high opinion of him, procured him offers of promotion; but his attachment to Leyden induced him to return thither, and the curators of the university there bestowed an annual stipend on him, to assist him in his pursuits. He left a son, John Sigismund Cluverius, who was born during his father’s residence in England, in St. Saviour’s parish, and was matriculated a member of Exeter college in 1633, as “a Londoner born, and the son of Philip Cluverius, a priest.”

, an ingenious poet, and a man of taste, wit, and learning, was master of the grammar-school of Christ’s hospital, where he was himself educated. He took the degree of B. A. in 1698, and of M. A. in 1702, in Trinity- college, Cambridge. He died at London, in 1713, in the prime of life, and was buried in the cloisters of Christ’s hospital. Jacob says that his “Observations on Virgil” shew that he was well acquainted with that poet. He published in 1707, “A Collection of Poems on several occasions, &c. to which is prefixed a Discourse on Criticism, and the Liberty of Writing, by way of letter to a friend.” He translated the third, and part of the fourth book of Howe’s edition of the “Callipapdia,” and assisted Ozell in the translation of Boileau’s “Lutrin.” His other known productions are, 1. “The Miller’s Tale,” from Chaucer. 2. A translation of the “Muscipula.” 3. “The Oak and the Briar,” a tale. His excellent ode, “The Female Reign,” was printed in Dodsley’s Collection, and afterwards in the Gent. Mag. 1753, with alterations by Dr. Watts, who thought it “the truest and best Pindaric he had ever read,” an opinion in which we find Dr. Warton coinciding, in one of his notes on Pope’s works.

, was a famous Hebrew professor at Bremen, where he was born in 1603. In 1650 he was chosen to teach theology at Leyden, which he did with great reputation, and died there 1669, aged sixty-six, leaving a son. Cocceius wrote long commentaries on the Bible, and other works, which made much noise in Holland, and were printed at Amsterdam, 1701, 10 vols. fol. In 1708 was published his “Opera Anecdota Theologica et Philologica,” 2 vols. fol. His singular method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures raised him opponents in Voetius, Desmarets, and several other protestants; but he had nevertheless, and has still, numerous disciples in Holland, who are called Cocceians, and believe, like him, and like many other divines in other countries, that there will be a visible reign of Christ upon earth, by which that of antichrist shall be abolished; and that during this reign, the Jews and all nations being converted, the church should attain its highest glory. In explaining the Scriptures, he always looked beyond the literal meaning to something that should wear the appearance of mystery. He regarded the Old Testament as a perpetual representation or mirror of the history of Christ, and his church; he maintained that all the Jewish prophecies have a relation to Christ, and that his miracles, actions, and sufferings, and those of his apostles, were types of future events.

, of Florence, professor of physic at Pisa, afterwards of surgery and anatomy at Florence, was born there in 1693, and died in 1758, at the age of sixty-two. In the course of his travels he became the intimate friend of Newton, Boerhaave, and Dr. Mead. The emperor made him his antiquary. He was esteemed both for his theoretical and practical knowledge. He wrote: 1. “Grsecorum Chirurgici Libri; Sorani unus de Fracturarum signis, Oribasii duo de Fractis, et Luxatis, ex Collectione Nicetse, Florent.” 1754, fol. 2. “O ratio de Usu Artis Anatomicse, Florent.” 1736, 4to. 3. “Medicinae laudatio in Gymnasio Pisis habita,” 1727, 4to, spoken on opening a course of lectures at Pisa, where he had been appointed professor, prior to his returning to Florence. 4. “Del vitto Pythagorico,” Flor. 1743, and 1750, 8vo. It has been several times reprinted, and in 1762 translated into English. He wrote also “On the Baths at Pisa, and Sopra Asclepiadea.” This was published by his son, Raymond Cocchi, who succeeded his father as professor of anatomy, and physician to the public hospital at Florence.

, an eminent French lawyer, was born at Paris June 10, 1687, and admitted a counsellor in 1706, in the grand council, where he acquired such reputation, that at the age of thirty, he was looked upon as one of the ablest canonists, and he now determined, with the advice of his friends and clients, to plead in the parliament. He was heard there with universal applause, and, from that time till his death, there was scarce any affair of importance at the palace but the public crowded to hear him, and returned convinced that M. Cochin possessed all the extraordinary talents which characterise a great orator. He was consulted from every part of the kingdom, and never ceased to serve the public by his assiduous and unremitted labours. He died at Paris, after several attacks of an apoplexy, February 24, 1747, aged 60. His works were published at Paris, 1751, and the following year, 6 vols. 4to, with his life. These, however, have not preserved his reputation undiminished; and M. la Cretelle, in along article on them in the French Mercure for April 1782, concludes with asserting that Cochin was an advocate of great merit, but a genius of the second order. This sen*­tence, however, seems in some measure to proceed from an opinion that no man can be a genius who does not introduce novelties in his profession. France has unfortunately abounded of late years in such geniuses.

, a Scotch artist, was born Dec. 12, 1738, at Strathaven in Clydesdale, Having early shewn a genius in design, he was put as a scholar to the academy ofpainting in the college of Glasgow in 1754 then chiefly under the inspection of those eminent printers Messrs. Robert and Andrew Fonlis. After some time spent there, he went to Italy about the end of 1764, where he studied for five years, mostly at Rome, under the celebrated Mr. Gavin Hamilton; since which time he followed his profession in Glasgow, with honour and advantage to himself, and satisfaction to his friends. In portrait painting of a large size he excelled, and in miniature and other sizes he had great merit; his drawing was correct, and he seldom failed of producing a most striking likeness. In history, some pieces done by him are now in Glasgow, particularly “Daedalus and Icarus,” “Diana and Endymion,” both essay pieces executed at Rome, that would do credit to any pencil; yet, from an unusual modesty and diffidence, he never could be prevailed upon to put his name to his works. A dutiful attachment to an aged mother and other relations fixed him in Glasgow: ambition with him was no ruling passion, nor was he eager after riches; but a natural philanthropic disposition, and an assiduity to please, were conspicuous traits of his character. By permission 1 of the lord provost and magistrates, he was buried in the choir of the cathedral church, where a neat marble is erected to his memory, with this inscription “In memory of Mr. William Cochran, portrait painter in Glasgow, who died October 23, 1785, aged 47 years. The works of his pencil and this marble bear record of an eminent artist, and a virtuous man.”

, a lady much distinguished by her literary accomplishments, was born in London, August 16, 1679, the daughter of captain David Trotter, who was a native of Scotland, and a commander in the royal navy, in the reign of king Charles the Second. Her mother was Mrs. Sarah Ballenden, nearly related to the noble lord of that name, and to the illustrious families of Maitland, duke of Lauderdale, and Drumrnond, earl of Perth. She had the misfortune to lose her father when very young; an event which also reduced her mother to narrow circumstances. In her childhood, she surprised a company of her relations and friends with some extemporary verses, on an incident which had happened in the street, and which excited her attention. By her own application and diligence, without any instructor, she learned to write, and also made herself mistress of the French language; but had some assistance in the study of the Latin grammar and logic; and of the latter she drew up an abstract for her own use. She was educated in the protestant religion, but having an early intimacy with several Roman catholic families of distinction, she was led, when very young, to embrace the Romish communion, and continued in it for some years.

Her friend Mr. Burnet continued to keep up a correspondence with her during his travels; and upon his arrival at the court of Berlin, where he was received with great marks of respect by Sophia Charlotte, queen of Prussia, daughter to the princess Sophia, he took an opportunity of writing to that princess in such advantageous terms of Mrs. Trotter, that her royal highness, in her answer to him from Hanover, on the 29th of July, 1704, declared herself “charmed with the agreeable picture which he had drawn of the new Scots Sappho, who seemed to deserve all the great things which he had said of her.” Jn 1704, Mrs. Trotter addressed some verses to the duke of Marlborough, upon his return from Germany, after the battle of Blenheim; and in 1706, after the battle of Ramillies, she also addressed a second poem to the duke of Marlborough. The same year, her tragedy called “The Revolution of Sweden,” was acted at the queen’s theatre in the Haymarket, and printed at London in 4to. It is founded upon the revolution in Sweden under Gustavus Erickson.

Mrs. Cockburn, after her marriage, was almost entirely prevented from any application to her studies, for many years, in consequence of her close attention to the duties of a wife and of a mother. To the ordinary cares of an increasing family, were added those resulting from the straitened circumstances of her husband; so that she had little time for reading. But in 1726, when she had been married about eighteen years, she published, “A Letter to Dr. Holdsworth,” in vindication of Mr. Locke. Dr. Holdsvvorth, who was a fellow of St. John’s college in Oxford, had preached a sermon before the university, on John v. 28, 29, concerning the resurrection of tfee same body. This sermon he afterwards printed in 8vo, professing, in his title page, to examine and answer “the cavils, false reasonings, and false interpretations of scripture, of Mr. Locke, and others, against the resurrection of the same body.” Mrs. Cockburn remonstrated, in her publication, against the manner in which Dr. Holdsworth had treated Mr. Locke: and urged, that it could be of no service to the church, nor was it in any respect prudent, to take so much pains to rank Mr. Locke amongst heretics, and the worst enemies of Christianity. Dr. Holdsworth, however, renewed the charge in his “Defence of the doctrine of the Resurrection of the same Body,” 8vo, 1727. To this Mrs. Cockburn wrote a reply, which she entitled, “A Vindication of Mr. Locke’s Christian Principles, from the injurious imputations of Dr. Holdsworth.” But as she could meet with no bookseller who would undertake to print it at his own hazard, it continued in manuscript, until printed in the edition of her works, by Dr. Birch.

In 1732, she wrote a poem on occasion of “the Busts set up in the Queen’s Hermitage,” which was afterwards printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine, for May 1737, with some alterations, which she thought to its disadvantage. About two years after, she wrote “Remarks upon some writers in the controversy concerning the foundation of Moral Duty and Moral Obligation; particularly the translator of archbishop King’s Origin of Moral Evil, and the author of the Divine Legation of Moses: to which are prefixed, some cursory thoughts on the controversies concerning necessary existence, the reality and infinity of space, the extension and place of spirits, and on Dr. Watts’s notion of substance.” These remarks continued in manuscript till the year 1743, when they were printed in “The History of the Works of the Learned.” She had the misfortune this year to lose a daughter; and it appears also, that she had at this time a son in Germany, in some office connected with the army, and who was afterwards clerk of the cheque at Chatham.

When Dr. Rutherforth’s “Essay on the Nature and Obligations of Virtue” appeared, it soon engaged the attention of Mrs. Cockburn, who undertook to write a confutation of that elaborate discourse, and transmitted her manuscript to Mr. Warburton, afterwards the celebrated bishop of Gloucester, who published it in 1747, under the title of “Remarks upon the Principles and Reasonings of Dr. Rutherforth’s Essay on the Nature and Obligations of Virtue, in vindication of the contrary principles and reasonings, enforced in the writings of the late Dr. Samuel Clarke.” In the preface to this confutation of Dr. Rutherforth, Mr. Warburton says, that “it contains all the clearness of expression, the strength of reason, the precision of logic, and attachment to truth, which makes books of this nature really useful to the common cause of virtue and religion.” The merit of this performance, and the general reputation of her writings, at length induced her friends to propose to her an edition of them by subscription, but she did not live to discharge the office of editor; which, in consequence of her death, was afterwards undertaken by Dr. Birch. She lost her husband on the 4th of Jan. 1748-9, in“the seventy-first year of his age; and did not long survive the shock. She died on the llth of May, 1749, in her seventy-first year, after having long supported a painful disorder, with the utmost patience and resignation. Her memory and understanding continued unimpaired, till within a few days of her death. She was interred, near her husband and youngest daughter, at Long-Horseley, with this short sentence on their tomb:” Let their works praise them in the gates," Prov. xxxi. 31.

In her younger years, Mrs. Cockburn was much celebrated for her beauty, as well as for her genius and other accomplishments. She was small of stature, but was distinguished by the unusual vivacity of her eyes, and the delicacy of her complexion, which continued to her death. In her private character she appears to have been benevolent and generous; and remarkable for the uncommon evenness and chearfulness of her temper. Her conversation was innocent, agreeable, and instructive: she had not the least affectation of being thought a wit; but was modest and diffident, and constantly endeavoured to adapt her discourse to her company. Throughout the whole course of her life, she seems to have been in very narrow and straitened circumstances; and after her marriage she had little leisure for study, and was very ill provided with books. But she endured the inconveniences of her situation, with a patience and fortitude that were truly exemplary. It is justly observed by Dr. Birch, that “her abilities as a writer, and the merit of her works, will not have full justice done them, without a due attention to the peculiar circumstances in which they were produced; her early youth, when she wrote some; her very advanced age, and ill state of health, when she drew up others; the uneasy situation of her fortune, during the whole course of her life; and an interval of nearly twenty years, in the vigour of it, spent in the cares of a family, without the least leisure for reading or contemplation. After which, with a mind so long diverted and encumbered, resuming her studies, she instantly recovered its entire powers, and in the hours of relaxation from her domestic employments, pursued, to their utmost limits, some of the deepest inquiries of which the human mind is capable.” It was in 1751, that her works were published by Dr. Birch, 2 vols. 8vo, under the following title: “The Works of Mrs. Catherine Cockburn, theological, moral, dramatic, and poetical.” None of her dramatic pieces were included in this collection, excepting “The Fatal Friendship,” it being found, that all her writings could not be comprised in the two volumes proposed to be printed for those who had subscribed for her works. Besides the other pieces already mentioned in the course of this account of her life, Dr. Birch’s collection contains, a letter of advice to her son; letters between Dr. Sharp, archdeacon of Northumberland, and prebendary of Durham, and Mrs, Cockburn, concerning the foundation of moral virtue letters between Mrs. Cockburn and several of her friends and some short essays in prose, with several songs, and other poems.

, one of the curopalates, or officers who had the care of the imperial palace of Constantinople, appears to have flourished in the latter part of the fifteenth century, and wrote a treatise concerning the origin of that city in the Greek language, and another concerning the officers of the palace, and those of the great church in that city. These works were translated into the Latin by George Douza and Francis Junius, and printed in Greek and Latin at Paris, in 1615. His Antiquities of Constantinople were published by Goar, at the royal press, in 1648, fol.

, called likewise P. Van Aelst, from the place of his nativity, a town in Flanders, was, if we may judge from the writers who have spoken of him, or from the admirable prints remaining from his designs, one of the greatest painters which either Germany or Flanders produced in his age. After he had been some time instructed in the school of Bernard of Brussels, he went to Rome to complete his studies, and soon proved himself an excellent designer, and a bold and spirited painter, as well in fresco as in oil. At his return to his own country he married, but his wife soon dying, he once more travelled, and at the solicitations of a merchant, a friend of his, accompanied him to Constantinople in 1531. Having stayed some time with the Turks, and drawn some most animated representations of their customs and ceremonies, which he afterwards cut in wood, he once more arrived in the place of his nativity, and took a second wife. Towards the latter part of his life he wrote some excellent treatises upon geometry, architecture, and perspective. His pictures of history, as well as his portraits, were much esteemed. He was made painter to the emperor Charles V. and died at Antwerp in 1550. After his death, the prints which he had made of Turkish costume were published by his widow. This admirable work consists of seven large pieces, which, when joined together, form a frieze, divided into compartments by Cariatides on a tablet in the first block is written in old French “Les moeurs et fachom de faire de Turcz, avecq les regions y appertenantes, ont est au vif contrefaicetze par Pierre Cceck d‘Alost, luy estant en Turque, Tan de Jesu Christ MDXXXIII. lequel aussy de sa main propre a pourtraict ces figures duysantes a Pimpression dy’celles;” and on the last is this inscription: “Marie ver hulst, vefue du diet Pierre d'Alost, tres passe en Tan MDL. a faict imprimer les diet figures, soubz grace et privilege dTimperialle majeste en Tan MCCCCCLIII.” These prints are very rare.

, an eminent French merchant, was the richest subject in Europe in the fifteenth century. He enjoyed an office of trust in the court of Charles VII. of France, and his industry was of more service to that country, than the boasted bravery of a Dunois or a Maid of Orleans. He had established the greatest trade that had ever been carried on by any private subject in Europe; and since his time Cosmo de Medicis is the only person that equalled him. He had 300 factors in Italy and the Levant. He lent 200,000 crowns of gold to his master, Charles VII. without which he never could have recovered Normandy; and therefore nothing can be a greater stain to the annals of this reign, than the persecution of so useful a man. After he had represented his prince in foreign states, he was accused of having poisoned the beautiful Agnes Sorel, Charles’s mistress; but this was without foundation, and the real motive of his persecution is not known. He was by the king’s order sent to prison, and the parliament tried him: all that they could prove against him was, that he had caused a Christian slave to be restored to his Turkish master, whom this slave had robbed and betrayed; and that he had sold arms to the sultan of Egypt. For these two facts, one of which was lawful, and the other meritorious, his estate was confiscated, and he was condemned to the amende honorable, and to pay a fine of 100,000 crowns. He found more virtue in his clerks than in the courtiers who ruined him: the former contributed to relieve him under his misfortunes, and one of them particularly, who had married his niece, facilitated his escape out of his confinement and out of France. He went to Rome, where Calixtus III. filled the papal chair, who gave him the command of part of a fleet which he had equipped against the Turks. He died on his arrival at the Isle of Chio, in 1456; therefore Mr. de Voltaire is mistaken in saying, in his “Essay on Universal History,” that “he removed to Cyprus, where he continued to carry on his trade; but never had the courage to return to his ungrateful country, though strongly invited.” Charles VII. afterwards restored some part of Coeur’s property to his children.

Our countryman, Benjamin Robins, F. R. S. in his “New Principles of Gunnery,” acknowledges the superior merit of Cohorn, who was undoubtedly, he says, the ablest fortifier that the world had ever seen, and yet had much trouble in introducing his system, and was vexatiously opposed by the old engineers, who affected to consider him as a self-conceited pretender.

, a French historian, was born at Troyes, the 4th of November, 1611, and entered very early into the congregation of the oratory, where he was received by the cardinal de Berulle. Father Bourgoin, one of the cardinal’s successors in the generalship, considered him for a long time as a useless being, because he applied himself to the study of history. The prejudice of Bourgoin was so strong in that respect, that when he wanted, according to Richard Simon, to denote a blockhead, he said, he is an historian. Notwithstanding this, when Servien, plenipotentiary at Munster, asked him for a father of the oratory as chaplain to the embassy, he gave him Le Cointe, who attended him, assisted him in making preliminaries of peace, and furnished the memorials necessary to the treaty. Colbert obtained for him the grant of a pension of 1000 livres in 1659; and three years after, another of 500. It was then that he began to publish at Paris his grand work, entitled “Annales ecclesiastici Francorum,” in 8 volumes, folio, from the year 235 to 835. It is a compilation without the graces of style, but of immense labour, and full of curious particulars. His chronology frequently differs from that of other historians; but whenever he departs from them, he usually gives his reasons for it. The first volume appeared in 1665, and the last in 1679. Father Le Cointe died at Paris, the 18th of January, 1681, at the age of seventy.

After this marriage, by which he became allied to some of the noblest houses in the kingdom, preferments flowed in upon him apace. The cities of Coventry and Norwich chose him their recorder; the county of Norfolk, one of their knights in parliament; and the house of commons, their speaker, in the thirty-fifth year of queen Elizabeth. The queen likewise appointed him solicitor-general, in 1592, and attorney-general the year following. Some time after, he lost his wife, by whom he had ten children; and in 1598 he married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Jord.Burleigh, afterwards earl of Exeter, and relipt of sir William Hatto.n. As this marriage was the source of many troubles to both parties, so the very celebration of it occasioned no small noise and disquiet, by an unfortunate circumstance that attended it. There had been the same year so much notice taken of irregular marriages, that archbishop Whitgift had signified to the bishops of his province to prosecute strictly all that should either offend in point of time, place, or form. Whether Coke looked upon his own or the lady’s quality, and their being married with the consent of the family, as placing them above such restrictions, or whether he did not advert to them, it is certain that they were married in a private house, without either banns or license; upon which he and his new married lady, the minister who officiated, Thomas lord Burleigh, and several other persons, were prosecuted in the archbishop’s court; but upon their submission by their proxies, were absolved from excommunication, and the penalties consequent upon it, because, says the record, they had offended, not out of contumacy, but through ignorance of the law in that point. The affair of greatest moment, in which, as attorney-general, he had a share in this reign, was the prosecution of the earls of Essex and Southampton, who were brought to the bar in Westminster-hall, before the lords commissioned for their trial, Feb. 19, 1600. After he had laid open the nature of the treason, and the many obligations the earl of Essex was under to the queen, he is said to have closed with these words, that, “by the just judgment of God, he of his earldom should be Robert the last, that of a kingdom thought to be Robert the first.”