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

The same year in which he commenced his establishment at Twickenham, he became known to the public as the 'author of “The Seribleriad,” which was published in 1751. Some of his lesser poems succeeded “The Dialogue between a member of parliament and his servant,” in 1752 the “Intruder,” in 1754; and “The Fakeer,” in 1755. About the same time he appeared as a writer in “The World,” to which he contributed twenty-one papers, which are unquestionably among the best in that collection. Lord Chesterfield, who knew and respected him, drew the following character in one of his own excellent papers “Cantabrigitis drinks nothing but water, and rides more miles in a year than the keenest sportsman the former keeps his head clear, the latter his body in health it is not from himself that he runs, but to his acquaintance, a synonimous term for his friends. Internally safe, he seeks po sanctuary from himself, no intoxication for his mind. His penetration makes him discover and divert himself with the follies of mankind, which his wit enables him to expose with the truest ridicule, though always without personal offence. Cheerful abroad because happy at home, and thus happy because virtuous.”

On the commencement of the war with France in 1756, in the events of which he appears to have taken a more lively interest than could have been expected from a man of his retired disposition, he was induced to undertake a history of the rise and progress of the British power in India, in order to enlighten the public mind in the nature and importance of that acquisition. At first he intended that this work should be on a very large scale, but as recent events demanded such information as could be immediately procured, and promised to be useful, he produced his “History of the War upon the Coast of Coromandel,” which was published in 1761. He then resumed his original design, and obtained permission from the East India Company to inspect such of their papers as might "be requisite. He had also a promise of Mr. Orme’s papers, but that gentleman happening to return from India at this juncture, with an intention to publish himself the history which afterwards appeared, Mr. Cambridge considered that his own work would now be in a great measure superfluous, and therefore relinquished the further prosecution of his plan. What he had published, however, was considered as an important memoir of the period it embraced, and as a fair and correct statement of the French proceed' ings in India; and it served to introduce him more into the study of India affairs, in which he ever afterwards delighted. It led him also to an intimate acquaintance with lord Clive, general Carnac, Mr. Scrafton, major Pearson, Mr. Varelst, general Calliaud, Mr. Hastings, and others, who had gained distinguished reputation by their services in the East.

Mr. Cambridge survived the publication of this work above forty years, but appeared no more before the public as an author. Many of the smaller pieces in his works were written as amusements for his friends, and circulated only in private. The long remainder of his life passed in the enjoy nient of all that elegant and polished society could yield. Most of the friendships of his youth were those of his advanced age, and they were contracted with such men as are not often found within the reach of a’stationary individual. At Eton he became acquainted with Bryant, Gray, West, Walpole, Dr. Barnard, and Dr. Cooke; at Lincoln’s Inn he found Mr. Henry Bathurst, afterwards lord chancellor, the lion. Charles Yorke, Mr. Wray, and Mr. Edwards. To these he afterwards added lord Anson, Dr. Atwell, bishop Benson, sir Charles Williams, Mr. Henry Fox, Mr. William Whitehead, Villiers lord Clarendon, lord Granville, lord Lyttelton, Mr. Grenville, lord Chesterfield, Mr. Pitt, lord Bath, lord Egremont, Soame Jenyns, lord Hardwicke, admiral Boscawen, lord Barrington, James Harris, Andrew Stone, bishop Egerton, lord Camelford, Welbore Ellis, lord North, Garrick, Dr. Johnson, Dr. Porteus, late bishop of London, and the illustrious navigators Byron, Wallis, Carteret, Phipps, Cook, and Vancouver. In the company of these, some of whom were long his neighbours at Twickenham, he delighted to increase his knowledge by an interchange of sentiment on topics of literature and common life. His conversation was enriched by various reading, and embellished by wit of the most delicate and unobtrusive kind. His temper made him universally beloved. It was uniformly cheerful, mild, and benevolent.

The conclusion of his life is thus related by his biographer: " He was considerably advanced in his eighty-third year before he was sensible, to any considerable degree of the infirmities of age; but a difficulty of hearing, which had for some time gradually increased, now rendered conversation troublesome, and frequently disappointing to him. Against this evil his books, for which his relish was not abated, had hitherto furnished an easy and acceptable resource; but, unfortunately, his sight also became so imperfect, that there were few books he could read with comfort to himself. His general health, however, remained the same, apd his natural good spirits and cheerfulness of temper experienced no alteration. Having still the free use of his limbs, he continued to take his usual exercise, and to follow his customary habits of life, accepting of such amusement as conversation would afford, from those friends who had the kindness to adapt their voices to his prevailing infirmity; and that he still retained a lively concern m all those great and interesting events, which were then taking place in Europe, may be seen in some of his latest productions. But as his deafness increased, he felt himself grow daily more unfit for the society of any but his own family, into whose care and protection he resigned himself with the most affectionate and endearing confidence, rereiving those attentions, which it was the first pleasure of his children to pay him, not as a debt due to a fond and indulgent parent, but as a free and voluntary tribute of their affection. In the contemplation of these tokens of esteem and love, he seemed to experience a constant and unabating pleasure, which supplied, in no small degree, the want of other interesting ideas.

"It is well known, that among the many painful and humiliating effects that attend the decline of life, and follow from a partial decay of the mental powers, we have often to lament the change it produces in the heart and affections; but from every consequence of this sort my father was most happily exempt. This I allow myself to say upon the authority of the medical gentleman * of considerable eminence, by whose skill and friendly attentions he was assisted, through the 'progressive stages of his slow decline; and who has repeatedly assured me, that, in the whole course of his extensive practice, he had never seen a similar instance of equanimity and undeviating sweetness of temper.

It appears from the whole of his Son’s very interesting narrative, that few men have enjoyed a life of the same duration so little interrupted by vexation or calamity. His fortune, if not relatively great, was rendered ample by judicious management, and as he had been highly favoured by Providence in his person and in his family, he felt the importance v of these blessings with the gratitude of a Christian. Such information as the following, so honourable to the subject of it, and to him who relates it, ought not to be suppressed.

"At an early age he attentively examined the evidences of Christianity, and was fully satisfied of its truth. His was, in the truest sense, the religion of the heart, and he always felt that a constant conformity to its precepts was the strongest and best proof he could give of the sincerity of his faith. Of its prescribed forms and exterior duties he was no less a strict observer: whatever were his engagements, he constantly passed his Sundays at home with his family, at the head of whom he never failed to attend the public service of the day, until prevented by a bodily infirmity, for some years before his death: but he still continued his practice of reading prayers to them every evennig; a usage of more than sixty years; these were taken from our Liturgy, of which he was a great admirer.

“This principle. of piety led him also to bear afflictions in the most exemplary manner. Whatever trials or deprivations he experienced through life, he always met with fortitude, and his demeanour under the losses which hft was ordained to suffer in his own family, was such, that those only who saw him near, and knew how sacred he held the duty of submission to the divine will, and the selfcommand this produced, could form any idea how poignantly they were felt.”

Of his literary character his Son has formed a just estimate, when he says that he is to be regarded rather as an elegant than a profound scholar. Yet, where he chose to apply, his knowledge was far from being superficial, and if he had not at an early period of life indulged the prospect of filling the station of a retired country gentleman, it is probable that he might have made a distinguished figure in any of the learned professions. It is certain that the ablest works on every subject have been produced, with very few exceptions, by men who have been scholars by profession, to whom reputation was necessary as well as ornamental, and who could not expect to rise but in proportion to the abilities they discovered. Mr. Cambridge, without being insensible to the value of fame, had yet none of the worst perils of authorship to encounter. As a writer 1 he was better known to the world, but he could not have been more highly respected by his friends.

The Scribleriad is one of those poems, that, with great merits, yet make their way very slowly in the world. It was received so coolly on the publication of the first two parts, that he found it necessary to write a preface to the second and complete edition, explaining his design. He had some reason to apprehend that it had been mistaken, and that the poem was in danger of being neglected. In this preface he lays down certain rules for the mock heroic, by which, if his own production be tried, it must-be confessed he has executed all that he intended, with spirit and taste. As an imitator of the true heroic he is in general faithful, and his parodies on the ancients show that he had studied their writings with somewhat different from the ardour of an admirer of poetry, or the acutencss of a critical linguist. But it may be doubted whether the rales he wishes to establish are sufficiently comprehensive, whether he has not been too faithful to his models, and whether a greater and more original portion of the burlesque would not have conferred more popularity on his performance. His preference of Don Quixote, as a true mock heroic, is less a matter of dispute. In all the attributes of that species of composition, it is unquestionably superior to any attempt ever made, and probably will ever remain without a rival, for what subject can the wit of man devise so happily adapted to the intention of the writer? Its great excellence too appears from its continuing to please every class of readers, although the folly ridiculed no longer exists, and can with some difficulty be supposed to have ever existed. But Cervantes is in nothing so superior, as in the delineation of his hero, who throughout the whole narrative creates a powerful interest in his favour, and who excites ridicule and compassion in such nice proportions as never to be undeserving of sympathy, or overpowered by contempt.

Mr. Cambridge was not so fortunate in a hero. He was content to take up Scriblerus where Pope and Swift, or rather Arbuthnot, left him, a motley, ideal being, without an exemplar, combining in one individual, all that is found ridiculous in forgotten volumes, or among the pretenders to science and the believers of absurdities. Mr. Cambridge’s hero, therefore, without any qualities to se< cure our esteem, is an antiquary, a pedant, an alchymist, and what seldom is found among such characters, a poet. In conducting him through a series of adventures, upon the plan sketched by the triumvirate above mentioned, it is with great difficulty that he is able to avoid the error they fell into, either of inventing nonsense for the sake of laughing at it, or of glancing their ridicule at the enthusiasm of useful research, and the ardour of real science and justifiable curiosity. The composition of the Scribleriad is in general so regular, spirited, and poetical, that we cannot but wish the author had chosen a subject of more permanent interest. The versification is elegant, and the epithets chosen with singular propriety. The events, although without much connection, all add something to the character of the hero, and the conversations, most gravely ironical, while they remind us of the serious epics, are never unnecessarily protracted.

, one of the most eminent English antiquaries, was born in the Old Bailey, London, May 2, 1551. His father, Samson Camden, was a native of Lichfield, whence he was sent very young to London, where he practised painting, and settling in London, became a member of the company of Puinter-stainers. The inscription on the cup left by his son to the company calls him Pictor Londinensis, which may refer either to his profession or to his company. His mother was of the ancient family of the Curwens of Workington in Cumberland. Their son received his first education at Christ’s hospital, which was founded the year after his birth by king Edward VI.; but the records of that house being destroyed in the fire of London, the date of his admission is lost. Bishop Gibson treats his admission at Christ’s hospital as a fiction, because not mentioned by himself; but as it is by Wheare, who pronounced his funeral oration very soon after his death, it seems to have some foundation, especially if we consider the lowness of his circumstances, and his dependence on Dr. Thornton at Oxford. Dr. Smith (his biographer) says, some infer from hence, that he had lost his father, and was admitted as an orphan; but it is certain Wheare does not give it that turn. Being seized with the plague in 1563, he was removed to Islington, or perhaps was seized with it there, “peste correptus Islingtonue” but on his recovery, he completed his education at St. Paul’s school; where under Mr. Cook or Mr. Malin, he made such progress in learning as laid the foundation of his future fame.

From this school he was removed when about fifteen, years old, in 1566, to Oxford, and entered as a servitor at Magdalen college; and in the school belonging to that college perfected himself in grammar learning under Dr. Thomas Cooper, afterwards bishop of Lincoln and Winchester; but being disappointed of a demi’s place, he removed to Broadgate-hall, now Pembroke college, by the invitation of Dr. Thomas Thornton, canon of Christ church, his patron and tutor, and who had the honour to be tutor both to Camden and to sir Philip Sidney. Camden left behind him in Broadgate-hall a signal mark of the respect paid him by his contemporaries in the short Latin graces composed by him, which were used many years after by the scholars of this society. Three years after he removed from hence to Christ church, on the promotion of Dr. Thornton to a canon ry there. This kind patron provided for him during the rest of his continuance at the university, and he lived in his patron’s lodgings. At this time his acquaintance commenced with the two Carews, Richard and George; the latter of whom was by James I. created baron Clopton, and by Charles I. earl of Totness; and it has been supposed, as they were both antiquaries, their conversation might give Mr. Camden a turn to that study, which he himself informs us he had strongly imbibed before he left school, and improved at Oxford. He was also acquainted with John Packington, Stephen Powel, and Edward Lucy, knights.

About this time by the encouragement of his friends, he stood for a fellowship at All Souls, but met with a repulse, through the interest of the Popish party, on account of his zeal for the church of England. He met with a second disappointment in his supplication to be admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts in 1570, and upon this he quitted Oxford, and came up to London the next year, being now about twenty. He pursued his studies under the patronage of Dr. Gabriel Goodman and Dr. Godfrey Goodman his brother, who supplied him both with money and books. In 1573, he applied again for the same degree, and seems to have taken it, but never completed it by determinations. In June 1588, we find him supplicating the convocation by the name of William Camden, B. A. of Christ church, “that vvhereas from the time he had taken the degree of bachelor, he had spent sixteen years in the study of philosophy and the liberal arts, he might be dispensed with for reading three solemn lectures, and be allowed to proceed.” His supplication was granted on condition that he stood in the following act, which it seems his other engagements would not permit; for Wood says, his name is not in the registers. When he attended the funeral of sir Thomas Bodley in 1613, his fame was so. great, that the university voluntarily offered him the degree of master of arts, but whether he accepted it does not appear.

Upon leaving the university, he seems to have made the tour of great part of England; and in 1575, by the interest of his friend Dr. Gabriel Goodman, dean of Westnii nster, he obtained the place of second master of Westminster school. The little leisure he could spare from this important charge he devoted to his favourite study. He was not content with pursuing it in his closet, but made excursions over the kingdom every vacation. In 1582, for example, he took a journey through Suffolk into Yorkshire, and returned by Lancaster. When at home he searched into the manuscript collections of our own writers, and the published writings of foreigners respecting us. At this time too, he meditated his great work, the “Britannia;” and as his reputation engaged him in an extensive correspondence both at home and abroad, Ortelius, whom he terms the great restorer of geography, happening to come over into England, applied himself to Mr. Camden for information respecting this country. His solicitations, and the regard our author had for his native country, prevailed on him to improve and digest the collections, which he seems to have made at first only for private satisfaction and curiosity. He entered upon this task with every difficulty and disadvantage. It was a new science, which was to amuse and inform an age which had just began to recover itself from the heat and perplexity of philosophy and school divinity. The study of geography had been first attended to in Italy for the facilitating the reading of Roman history. The names of places there, and even in the rest of Europe, where the Romans had so long kept possession, were not greatly altered; but in Britain, which they subdued so late, and held so precariously, a great degree of obscurity prevailed. The Roman orthography and terminations had obscured in some instances the British names; but the Saxons, who succeeded the Romans here, as they gained a firmer possession, made an almost total change in these as in every thing else. Upon their expulsion by the Normans, their language ceased to be a living one, while that of the Britons was preserved in a corner of the island. Very soon after the coiiquesj there were few who could read the Saxon characters. In tracing the Roman geography of Britain, Mr. Camden might he assisted by Ptolemy, Antoninus’s Itinerary, and the Notitia; but before he could become acquainted with the Saxon geography, it was necessary for him to make himself master of a language which had ceased for above 400 years. The few written remains of it were almost divided between three collections; that of archbishop Parker, now at Bene't college, Cambridge; that of archbishop Laud, now at Oxford; and that of sir Robert Cotton, now in the British Museum.

After ten years’ labour Mr. Camden published his “Britannia” in 1586, dedicated to William Cecil lord Burleigh, lord treasurer to queen Elizabeth. What a favourable reception it met with appears from the number of editions it passed through; for in the compass of four years there were three at London, one at Frankfort, 1590, one in Germany, and a fourth at London in 1594. The title which he retained in all editions was “Britannia, sive florentissimorum regnorum Angliie, Scotiee, Hiberniae, et insularum adjacentium, ex intima antiquitate, chorographica descriptio.” The dedication is dated May 2, 1586, so that he finished this great work precisely at the age of thirty-five; and yet, as he informs us himself, he devoted to it only his spare hours and holidays, the duties of his office ingrossing all the rest of his time.

As each new edition received large corrections and improvements from its author, he took a journey into Devon in 1589, and in June that year was, as he tells us in his diary, at Ilfracomb, which is a prebend of the church of Salisbury, and had been bestowed on him that year by Dr. John Piers, then bishop of that see and his intimate friend; and he had been installed into it by proxy Feb. 6. This preferment he held till his death; and when bishop Abbot held his general visitation at Whitsuntide in 1617, he excused himself from attending on account of his age, being then seventy, and was allowed to appear by proxy. The expence of this and other journies was defrayed by his friend Mr. Godfrey Goodman. In 1590 he visited Wales in company with the famous Dr. Godwin, afterwards bishop of Landatf‘and Hereford. On Oct. 23, 1592, he was attacked with a quartan ague, which, for a long while, baffled the help of physic, and brought him very low. During this illness, Dr. Edward Grant, who had been head master of Westminster school upwards of twenty years with great reputation, worn out with fatigue, resigned that place Feb. 1592-3; and in March following was succeeded by Camden. Mr. Wheare, Dr. Smith, and bishop Gibson, all assign this vacancy to the death of Dr. Grant; and Wood, though in two articles he expresses himself doubtfully, in another affirms that he resigned about February 1592, and was succeeded by William Camden. He adds, that Dr. Grant died in 1601, and was buried in Westminster abbey, where his epitaph, now defaced, but preserved in Mr. Camden’ s account of this abbey-church, dates his death Aug. 3, 1601.

It was not till next year that Mr. Camuen perfectly recovered from his ague; and soon after published the fourth edition of his Britannia,' with great enlargements and improvements by his own care, and tliat of his friends. But all his attention could not defend him from the violent and indecent attack from Ralph Brooke (more properly Brookesmouth), York Herald, exposing certain mistakes which he pretended to have discovered in the pedigrees of the earls of each county, and which he fancied might be attended with circumstances dishonourable to many of the most ancient and noble families in this kingdom. Brooke’s book did not appear till many years after the fourth edition of the Britannia; but he had framed his materials soon after. Bishop Gibson ascribes this attack to envy of Mr. Camden’s promotion to the place of Clarencieux king at arms, in 1597, which place Brooke expected for himself. But though the piece is undated, it appears by the address to Maister Camden prefixed to it, that Camden was not then king at arms, and he was created Richmond herald but the day before. The truth is, that Mr. Camden in his first editions touched but lightly on pedigrees, and mentioned but few families whereas in the fourth he enlarged so much upon them, that he has given a particular index of Barones et illustriores famili<e, and recited near 250 noble houses. This Brooke, with the mean jealousy of a man whose livelihood was connected with his place, considered as an invasion on the rights of the college. This put him on examining these pedigrees, and on wishing to have them corrected, as Mr. Camden appears to have been ever ready to have his mistakes set right. Brooke tells us, indeed, that what he offered him for the fifth edition did not meet with that favourable reception he expected even before Camden professed himself an herald officially, and that foreigners, misled by his former editions, had blundered egregiously. He complains too, that he had been disturbed in writing, and much more in printing it, by Mr. Camden’s friends. That this was rather owing to a jealousy of his profession than of his promotion, appears further from hence, that though Mr. Camden himself in his answer to Brooke does not indeed take notice of his promotion, and the disgust it might have given him, yet this was after he had published his “Discoverie,” and he shews throughout that disdain of his adversary’s abilities, which Brooke complains of, never once admitting him to be right, or his corrections worth regarding, though in the fifth edition he wisely made use of them; and whoever peruses Brooke’s book carefully will find, that'what stung him most was, that a schoolmaster should meddle with descents and families, and at the same time treat heralds with so little respect.

At this time he probably entertained no thoughts of quitting a post in which he was universally esteemed and respected. He refused the place of master of requests, offered him probably by lord treasurer Burleigh. But before the end of the year he quitted it for one in the Heralds’ college. Richard Leigh, Clarencieux king at arms, dying Sept. 23, sir Fulk Greville, Camden’s intimate friend, solicited that office for him, which was immediately granted. But, because it was not usual for a person to rise to that dignity without having first been a herald, he was Oct. 22, created Richmond herald, and the next day Clarencieux. Bishop Gibson remarks, that lord Burleigh was offended with Camden for obtaining this preferment by any other interest than his; but, on Mr. Camden’s representing it to be the free thought of sir Fulk Greville, he was reconciled to him, and continued his patronage during the remainder of his life.

Being now more at liberty, he travelled in 1600 as far as Carlisle, with his intimate friend Mr. (afterwards sir) Robert Cotton, and having surveyed the northern counties, returned to London in December. This year he published his account of the monuments in Westminster abbey, “Reges, Regina?, Nobiles, et alii in ecclesia collegiata B. Petri Westmonasterii sepulti, usque ad annum reparatae salutis 1600,” 4to; which, though no more than a collection of epitaphs, has preserved many that have been since destroyed or effaced. He reprinted it with enlargements in 1603, and 1606. This year also, came out a fifth edition of his Britannia, to which he added “An apology to the reader,” in answer to what Ralph Brooke had published to the prejudice of his work. The original difference related only to some mistakes which Brooke imagined he had discovered. But when he fancied himself under the necessity of appealing to the world and to the earl of Essex, then earl marshal, and his patron, he brought in other matter, foreign to his purpose, cljarging Camden with errors in the pedigrees of noble families, with not acknowledging the assistance he derived from Glover’s papers in lord Burleigh’s library, and from Leland, whom he pretends he had pillaged largely. Camden, in answer, acknowledges himself to have been misled by one of his predecessors, Robert Cook, clarencieux; that he had indeed borrowed from Leland, but not without citing him, and that where he says the same things on his own knowledge, that Leland had mentioned on his, he did not think himself obliged to him; and that whereas Leland had spent five years in this pursuit, he had spent thirty in consulting authors both foreign and domestic, living and dead. He concludes with rallying his antagonist, as utterly ignorant of his own profession, incapable of translating or understanding the Britannia, and offers to submit the disputed points to the earl marshal, the college of heralds, the society of antiquaries, or four persons learned in these studies. This did not prevent Brooke from writing “A Second Discoverie of Errors,” in which he sets down the passages from Camden, with his objections to it in his first book; then Camden’s reply, and last of all, his own answer: and in the appendix in two columns, the objectionable passages in the edition of 1594, and the same as they stood in that of 1600. This was not printed till about 100 years after the death.of its author, by Mr. Anstis, in 1723, 4to. The story which Mr. Camden, in his Annals, and Dr. Smith tell of Brooke’s dirty treatment of sir William Segar, another officer in the college, whom he had a pique against, in 1616, will justify us in believing him capable of any thing.

In 1602, Mr. Camden was again visited by a fever, from which he was recovered by the care of his friend Mr. Heather, afterwards the founder of the music lecture at Oxford. He escaped the plague in 1603, by returning to his friend Cotton’s seat at Connington; and this year a collection of our historians, Asser, Walsingham, De la More, Gul. Gemeticensis, Gir. Cambrensis, &c. made by him, part of which had been incorrectly published before, was printed at Frankfort, in folio. In the dedication to sir Fulk Greville, he apologizes for this publication, as having laid aside the design he had once formed, of writing an history of England. Mr. Gough here remarks that great stress has been laid on a supposed insertion by Camden, of a passage in Asser, ascribing the foundation of the university of Oxford to Alfred, and Mr. Gough seems inclined to acquit Camden of the crime of inserting what was not in the original. We are of the same opinion, yet, after perusing what Mr. Whitaker has advanced on this subject, in his life of St. Neot, it seems utterly impossible to deny that the passage is a forgery.

Camden’s next publication is entitled “Remaines of a greater work concerning Britain, the inhabitants thereof, their language, names, surnames, empresses, wise speeches, poesies, and epitaphs,” London, 1605, 4to. In his dedication to sir Robert Cotton, dated 1603, and signed only by his initials, he calls it “the outcast rubbish of a greater and more serious work;” so that Dr. Smith mistakes when he dates its publication 1604, contrary to the express note of its author in his Diary. The number of the editions it has run through (not less than seven), and the additions made to it in 1636, or earlier, by sir John Philipot, Somerset herald, and W. D. gent, are proofs of its value, notwithstanding the slight put upon it by bishop Nicolson. It is a kind of common place from his Britannia, and has preserved a number of curious things. Many other of his lesser essays have been printed by Hearne in his “Collection of curious discourses,” and more were added to the second edition of that work in 177 1; which may be considered as the earliest transactions of the Society of Antiquaries, of which Mr. Camden was a distinguished member.

In 1606, Mr. Camden began a correspondence with the celebrated president De Thou, which was continued till the death of the latter. Five of the president’s letters, ending 1615, are printed by Dr. Smith among Camden’s Epistles, 54, 59, 71, 99, 111, acknowledging the information he received from him relative to the affairs of this island.

Upon the discovery of the powder-plot, the king thinking it proper to put the reformed churches abroad on their guard against the enemies of their religion, as well as to satisfy foreign princes of all religions of the justice of his proceedings, made choice of Mr. Camden to translate the whole account of the trial of the conspirators into Latin, which he performed with great accuracy, elegance, and spirit. It was published in 1607, 4to, by John Norton the king’s printer, under the title of “Actio in Henricum Garnetum societatis Jesuiticoe in Anglia superiorem et caeteros qui proditione longe immanissima sereniss. Brit. Mag. regem et regni Anglias ordines e medio tollere conabantur,” &c. and presently was put into the list of books prohibited by the inquisition.

Mr. Camden being confined many months in consequence of a hurt in his leg by a fall from his horse, Sept. 7, 1607, employed himself in putting the last hand to the complete edition of his Britannia in folio, considerably augmented, adorned with maps, and applauded by a variety of poetical compliments from his friends both at home and abroad. He did not to the last give up thoughts of revising and enlarging it, for in 1621, we find him at Sandhurst in Kent, searching without success for a camp of Alexander Severus, who was, without any foundation, supposed to have been killed there instead of at Sisila or Sicila in Gaul. Dr. Smith gave Mr. Hearne, who left it to the Bodleian library, a copy of the last edition of the Britannia, with notes and emendations by Mr. Camden himself, in the margin and on little pieces of paper fixed in their proper places; and from this copy Hearne once had thoughts of publishing a new edition of the Britannia in the original language. Before Camden undertook this elaborate and finished work, he had formed a design for writing a general history of this nation in Latin, of which the account of the conquest inserted in the Britannia, article Normans, is a part: but foreseeing that the bare collecting materials would take up a man’s life, he contented himself with publishing the volume of original historians before mentioned.

Not, however, to neglect the leisure he now enjoyed, he began in 1608 to digest the matter which he had been years collecting towards a history of the reign of queen Elizabeth, to which he had been first incited by his old patron the lord treasurer in 1597, ten years before, and solicited by other great personages. But the death of Burleigh next year, the queen’s decease soon after, and the difficulty of the task, obliged him to defer it. While he was meditating this great work, he was seized on his birthday, 1609, with a dangerous illness, and the plague breaking out in his neighbourhood, he was removed to his friend Heather’s house, and by the care of his physician Dr. Giffard, he, though slowly, recovered his health, retired to Chiselhurst Aug. 15 of that year, and returned Oct. 23. This year upon the passing of the act to erect a college at Chelsea, for a certain number of learned men, who were to be employed in writing against popery, on a plan proposed by Dr. Sutcliffe, dean of Westminster, consisting of a dean or provost, seventeen fellows and two historians, Mr. Camden was appointed one of the latter. But this design failing, as we have more than once had occasion to notice, he received from it only the honour of being thought qualified to fill such a department. From this time his history of Elizabeth employed his whole attention, and when the first part was ready, which reached to the year 1589, he obtained the king’s warrant to sir Robert Cotton and himself to print and publish it. It was accordingly published in 1615, folio, under the title of “Annales rerum Anglicarum et Hibernicarum regnante Elizabetha ad ann. salutis 1589,” Lond.

His impartiality has been attacked on several parts of this work. He has been charged with being influenced in his account of the queen of Scots by complaisance for her son, and with contradictions in the information given by him to M. deThou, and his own account of the same particulars. It is not to be wondered if James made his own corrections on the ms. which his warrant sets forth he had perused before he permitted it to be published. It was no easy matter to speak the truth in that reign of flattery in points where filial piety and mean ambition divided the mind of the reigning monarch. An English historian in such a reign could not indulge the same freedom as Thuanus. The calumnies cast upon him for his detail of Irish affairs were thought by him beneath the notice his friends wanted to take of them. But though he declined adding his own justification to that which the government of Ireland thought proper to publish of their own conduct, we have the letters he wrote on the subject to archbishop Usher and others and it had this effect on him, that he declined publishing in his life-time the second part of his history, which he completed in 1617. He kept the original by him, which was preserved in the Cottonian library, and sent an exact copy of it to his friend Mr. Dupuy, who had given him the strongest assurances that he would punctually perform the duty of this important trust, and faithfully kept his word. It was first printed at Leyden, 1625, 8vo, again London, 1627, folio, Leyden, 1639, 8vo, &c. But the most correct edition of the whole is that by Hearne from Dr. Smith’s copy corrected by Mr. Camden’s own hand, collated with another ms. in Mr. Rawlinson’s library. Both parts were translated into French by M. Paul de Belligent, advocate in the parliament of Paris; and from thence into English with many errors, by one Abraham D'Arcy, who did not understand English. The materials whence Camden compiled this history are most of them to be found in the Cottonian library. We learn from a ms letter of Dr. Goodman’s, that he desired them as a legacy, but received for answer, that they had been promised to archbishop Bancroft, upon whose death he transferred them to his successor Abbot, and archbishop Laud said they were deposited in the palace at Lambeth, but whereever they were archbishop Sancroft could not find one of them.

On Feb. 10, 1619, he was seized with a vomiting of blood, which brought on a deliquium, and continued at intervals till August following. In June this year, he had a dispute with his brother kings Garter and Norroy, about the appointment of his deputies to visit for him, which, though founded partly on a mistake, did not prevent their complaining to the commissioners for executing the office of earl marshal. He vindicated himself in his answer to the earl of Arundel, and the matter seems to have ended here. In the beginning of 1621, he was consulted by lord chancellor Bacon on the ceremonies requisite for creating him viscount St. Alban’s, which was performed Jan. 27 following. In June that year, he assisted in Westminster- hall, at the execution of a very extraordinary sentence of degradation passed in parliament on sir Francis Mitchell, knt. for the monopolies which had oppressed the inn-holders: his spurs were broken in pieces, and thrown away by the servants of the earl marshal, his sword broken over his head, and himself declared an arrant knave, as sir Andrew Harcla had formerly been treated. The king at arms sat at the feet of the lord- commissioners during the whole proceeding.

On the last day of August the same year, he was seized with a return of his old disorder, but happily recovered. This, added to his advanced age, determined him to put in execution his intention of founding an history lecture at Oxford. Accordingly in May 1622, he sent down his deed of gift by the hands of his friend Mr. William Heather, dated March 5, 1621-2. On May 17, Dr. Piers, dean of Peterborough, and vice-chancellor of the university, declared the foundation in full convocation, and its endowment with the manor of Bexley in Kent, which he had bought of sir Henry Spihnan, jeweller to James I.; the rents and profits of which, valued at about 400l. per annum, were to be enjoyed by Mr. Heather, his heirs and executors, for ninety-nine years from the death of Mr. Camden, the said Mr. Heather paying the professor of this new foundation 140l. per annum; and at the expiration of the said term the whole to be vested in the university. They expressed their acknowledgments in a letter of thanks, and conferred the degree of doctor of music on Mr. Heather, organist of the chapel royal, and on Mr. Orlando Gibbons, another of Mr. Camden’s intimate acquaintance. In return for this compliment, Mr. Heather founded a music lecture at Oxford, and endowed it with the annual revenue of 16l. 6s. Sd. Mr. Camden himself, at the recommendation of his friend Thomas Allen, appointed his first professor Degory Wheare, A. M. fellow of Exeter college, assigned him 20l. for the first year, 40l. for the second, and after the third he was to enjoy the full stipend. Thus Camden fulfilled the vow with which he closes his Britannia, to dedicate some votive tablet to God and antiquity.

On August 18, 1623, as Mr. Camden was sitting thoughtfully in his chair, he suddenly lost the use of his hands and feet, and fell down on the floor, but presently recovered his strength, and got up again without receiving any hurt. This accident was followed by a severe fit of illness, which ended in his death, Nov. 9, 1623, at his house at Chiselhurst, in the seventy- third year of his age.

In his last testament, after a devout introduction, and bequeathing eight pounds to the poor of the parish in which he should happen to die, he bequeaths to sir Fulke Grevile, lord Brooke, who preferred him gratis to his office, a piece of plate of ten pounds; to the company of painter stainers of London, he gave sixteen pounds to buy them a piece of plate, upon which he directed this inscription, “Gul. Camdenus Clarenceux filius Sampsonjs, Pictoris Londinensis, dono dedit;” he bestowed the sum of twelve pounds on the company of cordwainers, or shoemakers of London, to purchase them a piece of plate, on which the same inscription was to be engraved. Then follow the legacies to his private friends. As to his books and papers, he directs that sir Robert Cotton of Conington, should take out such as he had borrowed of him, and then he bequeaths to him all his printed books and manuscripts, excepting such as concern arms and heraldry, which, with his ancient seals, he bequeaths to his successor in the office of Clarenceux, provided, because they cost him a considerable sum of money, he gave to his cousin John Wyat, what the kings at arms Garter and Norroy for the time being should think fit, and agreed also to leave them to his successor. But notwithstanding this disposition of his books and papers, Dr. John Williams, then dean of Westminster, and bishop of Lincoln, afterwards archbishop of York, procured all the printed books for the new library erected in the church of Westminster. It is understood, that his collections in support of his History, with respect to civil affairs, were before this time deposited in the Cotton library; for as to those that related to ecclesiastical matters, when asked for them by Dr. Goodman, son to his great benefactor, he declared he stood engaged to Dr. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury. They came afterwards to archbishop Laud, and are supposed to have been destroyed when his papers fell into the hands of Mr. Prynne, Mr. Scot, and Hugh Peters; for upon a diligent search made by Dr. Sancroft, soon after his promotion to that see, there was not a line of them to be found, as we have already mentioned. His body was removed to his house in London, and on the 19th of November, carried in great pomp to Westminster abbey, and after a sermon preached by Dr. Christopher Sutton, was deposited in the south aile, near the learned Casaubon, and over against Chaucer. Near the spot was erected a handsome monument of white marble, with an inscription, erroneous as to his age, which is stated to be seventy-four, whereas he wanted almost six months of seventy-three. At Oxford, Zouch Townley, of Christ Church, who was esteemed a perfect master of the Latin tongue in all its purity and elegance, was appointed to pronounce his funeral oration in public, which is printed by Dr. Smith. The verses written on his death were collected and printed in a thin quarto, entitled “Insignia Camdeni,” Ox. 1624, and his name was enrolled in the list of public benefactors.

Carnden’s personal character is drawn by bishop Gibson in few words: that he was “easy and innocent in his conversation, and in his whole life even and exemplary.” We have seen him unruffled by the attacks of envy, which his merit and good fortune drew upon him. He seems to have studied that tranquillity of temper which the love of letters generally superinduces, and to which one may, perhaps, rationally ascribe his extended life. The point of view in which we are to set him, is as a writer; and here he stands foremost among British antiquaries. Varro, Strabo, and Pausanias, among the ancients, fall short in the comparison; and however we may be obliged to the two latter for their descriptions of the world, or a small portion of it, Camden’s description of Britain must be allowed the pre-eminence, even though we should admit that Leland marked out the plan, of which he filled up the outlines. A crowd of contemporaries, all admirable judges of literary merit, and his correspondents, bear testimony to his merit. Among these may be reckoned Ortelius, Lipsius, Scaliger, Casaubon, Merula, De Thou, Du Chesne, Peiresc, Bignon, Jaque Godefre, Gruter, Hottoman, Du Laet, Chytraeus, Gevartius, Lindenbrogius, Mercator, Pontanus, Du Puy, Rutgersius, Schottus, Sweertius, Liinier, with many others of inferior note. Among his countrymen, dean Goodman and his brother, lord Burleigh, sir Robert Cotton, Dr. (afterwards archbishop) Usher, sir Philip Sidney, and archbishop Parker, were the patrons of his literary pursuits, as the first two had befriended him in earliest life: and if to these we add the names of Allen, Carleton, Saville, Stradling, Carew, Johnston, Lambarde, Mathews, Spelroan, Twyne, Wheare, Owen, Spenser, Stowe, Thomas James, Henry Parry, afterwards bishop of Worcester, Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, Richard Hackluyt, Henry Cuff, Albericus Gentilis, John Hanmer, sir William Beecher, Dr. Budden, Dr. Case, sir Christopher Hey don, bishop Godwin, Richard Parker, Thomas Ryves, besides others whose assistance he acknowledges in the course of his Britannia, we shall find no inconsiderable bede-roll of associates, every one of them more or less eminent in the very study in which they assisted Mr. Camden, or were assisted by him.

The first edition of his Britannia was in 1586, 8vo, and not 4to, as Mr. Gough, probably by a slip t)f the pen, has noted; and the sixth and last was in 1607, fol. This was the first with maps. There were also several editions printed abroad. The first translation of it was in 1610, by Philemon Holland, who was thought to have consulted Mr. Camden himself, and therefore great regard has been paid by subsequent editors to his additions and explanations. Mr. Camden’s ms supplement to this edition of 1610, in the Bodleian library, expressly cautions the reader to hold only his “Latin copy for autentiq,” but this bishop Gibson denies; but in a later edition of his translation, 1637, fol. Holland has taken unwarrantable liberties. Mr. Wanley supposes this second edition was published after Holland’s death in 1636, the title being like a bookseller’s; and that he made the translation without consulting Camden.

The Britannia was translated in 1694 by bishop Gibson, and published in folio, with large additions at the end of each county; others are inserted in the body of the book, distinguished from the original, and Holland’s most material notes placed at the bottom of each page. As this was grown scarce, and many improvements were communicated to the editor, he published a new edition 1722, 2 vols. fol. and additions, greatly enlarged, incorporated with the text, distinguished by hooks. This edition was reprinted 1753, 2 vols. fol. and again in 1772, with a few corrections and improvements from his lordship’s ms. in his own copy, by his son-in-law, George Scot, esq. of Wolstonhall, near Chigwell, Essex, who died 1780. A first volume of a translation, by W. O. (William Oldys), esq. was printed in 4to, but, as Mr. Gough thinks, was never finished or dated. A manuscript most erroneous translation of it, without acknowledgment, by Richard Butcher, author of the “Antiquities of Stamford,” is in St. John’s college library, Cambridge, with a few immaterial additions. The last and most complete translation of the Britannia, by such an antiquary as Camden would have chosen, the late learned and excellent Richard Gough, esq. was published in 1789, 3 vols. fol. of which we shall speak more at large in his article. Some years afterwards he had made preparations for a new edition, of which he superintended only the first volume, and announced that fact in a public advertisement, which did not, however, prevent an attempt to pass off the whole of a recent edition as his. Of Mr. Cough’s Life of Camden we have here availed ourselves, as far preferable to the ill-digested compilation in the Biog. Britannica.

, one of the most learned writers of his age, was born at Bamberg April 12, 1500. The ancient family name was Leibhard, but it was afterwards changed into that of Cammermeister, in Latin Camerarius, or Chamberlain, from one of his ancestors having held that office at court. He was sent to a school at Leipsic when he was 13 years of age, and soon distinguished himself by his application to Greek and Latin authors, which he read without ceasing. When Leipsic, on one occasion, was in a tumult, Camerarius shewed no concern about any thing but an Aldus’s Herodotus, which he carried under his arm; and which indeed to a scholar at that time was of some consequence, when printing was in its infancy, and Greek books not easily procured. It is yet more to his praise that his Greek professor, when obliged to be absent, entrusted him to read his lectures, although at that time he was but sixteen years old. In 1517 he studied philosophy under Moseilanus; and this was the year, when the indulgences were preached, which gave occasion to the reformation. Camerarius was at St. Paul’s church in Leipsic with Heltus, who was his master in Greek and Latin literature, when these indulgences were exposed from the pulpit; but Heltus was so offended with the impudence of the Dominican who obtruded them, that he went out of the church in the middle of the sermon, and ordered Camerarius to follow him. When he had staid at Leipsic five years, he went to Erford; and three years after to Wittemberg, where Luther and Melancthon were maintaining and propagating the reformation. He knew Melancthon before lived afterwards in the utmost intimacy with him and, after Melancthon' s death, wrote a very copious and accurate life of him. He was also soon after introduced to Erasnrus, and his uncommon abilities and industry made him known to all the eminent men of his time.

In 1525, when there was an insurrection among the common people through all Germany, commonly called the war of the peasants, Camerarius went into Prussia, but he returned very soon, and was made professor of the belies lettres in an university which the senate of Nuremberg had just founded under the direction and superintendency of Melancthon. In 1526, when the diet of Spires was held, Albert earl of Mansfelt was appointed ambassador to Charles V. of Spain, and Camerarius to attend him as his Latin interpreter; but this embassy being suspended, Camerarius went no farther than Sslirigen, whence he returned home, and was married the year after to Anne Truchses, a lady of an ancient and noble family, with whom he lived forty-six years very happily, and had four daughters and five sons by her, who all did honour to their family. In 1530, the Senate of Nuremberg sent him with some other persons to the diet of Augsburgh, and four years after offered him the place of secretary; but, preferring the ease and freedom of a studious life to all advantages of a pecuniary nature, he refused it. In 1538, Ulric prince of Wittemberg sent him to Tubingen, to restore the discipline and credit of that university and in 1541, Henry, duke of Saxony, and afterwards Maurice his son, invited him to Leipsic, to direct and assist in founding an university there.

When Luther was dead, and Germany at war, Camerarius experienced very great hardships, Leipsic being besieged by the elector of Saxony, on which account he removed all his effects with his family to Nuremberg, not however without considerable loss, and did not return till the war was at an end. In 1556 he went with Melancthon to the diet of Nuremberg; and attended him the year after to that of Ratisbon. After spending a life of literary labour and fame, be died at Leipsic, April 17, 1575, surviving his wife not quite a year; and Melchior Adam relates, that he never recovered this shock. Among his friends were Jerome Baumgartner, Carlovitch, Melancthon, Petrus Victorius, Turnebus, Hieronymus Wolfius, and in short, almost all the great men of his time. He is said to have been to Melancthon, what Atticus was to Cicero, an adviser, counsellor, assistant, and friend upon all occasions; and that, when Melancthon' s wife died during his absence at the diet of Worms, Camerarius quitted all his concerns at home, however necessary and requiring his presence, and immediately set off on purpose to comfort him.

His labours in the literary republic were prodigious. He wrote a vast number of books, among which are the lives of Melancthon and Hessius, and “Commentaries on the NewTestament, grammatical and critical,” printed with Beza’s Greek Testament, Cambridge, 1642, fol. He likewise published a catalogue of the bishops of the principal sees; Greek epistles; itineraries in Latin verse; epigrams of the ancient Greek poets; a commentary on Plautus, &c. But he was perhaps a greater benefactor to the students of his time by the translations he made from many of the ancient authors. Greek was but little understood, and to facilitate the learning of that language, he translated Herodotus, Demosthenes, Xenophon, Euclid, Homer, Theocritus, Sophocles; Lucian, Theodoret, Nicephorus, &c. Melchior Adam says, that “he studied incessantly, within doors and without, up and in bed, on a journey, and in hours even of recreation; that he learned French and Italian when he was old; that he had but a smattering of Hebrew; that he understood Greek well; and that in Latin he was inferior to none.” Turnebus, Henry Stephens, Lipsius, Beza, Scaliger, Thuanus, and Vossius, all speak of him in the highest terms. Erasmus only said he owed more to industry than to nature, which might, however, apply to the uncommon care he took in remedying her defects; but this opinion does not correspond with that of any of his contemporaries. In private character he was a man of great goodness of disposition, great humanity, candour, and. sincerity in his searches after truth.

, son of the preceding, was born at Nuremberg, in 1534, and there first educated. As his mind was early turned to the study of botany and medicine, with the view of improving himself he visited the principal seminaries in Germany, and thence went to Padua, and afterwards to Bologna, where he took the degree of doctor in 1562. Two years after he returned to Nuremberg, and by his superior skill and ability, seemed the legitimate inheritor of his father’s fame. In 1592, he founded a medical college, of which he was appointed dean or president, and continued to direct its affairs for the remainder of his life. He formed an extensive garden, stored with the choicest plants, the cultivation of which he superintended with great assiduity, and assisted the landgrave of Hesse in forming a botanical garden; and with a view of disseminating the knowledge of plants, he purchased the collections of Gesner and Wolfe, which he methodised, and corrected, and with considerable additions from his own stores, together with the works of Matthiolus, he published them in 1586, under the title of “De Plantis Epitome utilissima Petri Andrew Matthioli novis Iconibus et Descriptionibus plurimis diligenter aucta,” 4to. “Hortus Medicus et Philosophicus, in quo piurimarum Stirpium breves Descriptiones, novae Icones non paucae, continentur,” 1588, 4to. “Opercula de Re Rustica, quibus, praeter alia, Catalogus Rei Botanicac et Rusticae Scriptorum veterum et recentiorum insertus est,” 1577, 4to. Also “De recta et necessaria Ratione preservandi a Pestis Contagione,” 1583, with other small tracts on the same subject, and three centuries of emblems. On his death, which happened October 11, 1598, he was succeeded by his son Joachim in his practice, and in the honour of being dean of the college. Elias Rodolphus Camerarius, and his son of the same names, appear likewise to have been of the same family, and were physicians of considerable fame, although their works are now in little request.

, one of the most famous divines of the seventeenth century, among the French Protestants, was born at Glasgow, in Scotland, about the year 1580, and educated at the university of his native city. After reading lectures on the Greek language for a year, he began his travels in 1600, and at Bourdeaux evinced so much ability and erudition, that the ministers of that city appointed him master of a college which they had established at Bergerac, for teaching Greek and Latin; and from this the duke de Bouillon removed him to the philosophical professorship at Sedan, where he remained for two years. He then went to Paris, and from Paris to Bourdeaux, where he arrived in 1604, and began his divinity studies, and in 1608 was appointed one of the ministers of Bourdeaux, and officiated there with such increasing reputation, that the university of Saumur judged him worthy to succeed Gomarus in the divinity chair. Having accepted this offer, he gave his lectures until 1620, when the university was almost dispersed by the civil war. He now came over to England with his family, and was recommended to king James, who appointed him professor of divinity at Glasgow, in the room of Robert Boyd, of Trochrig, (whom Bayle and his translators call Trochoregius), because he was supposed to be more attached to the episcopal form of church government. This situation, however, not suiting his taste, he returned to Saumur in less than a year; but even there he met with opposition, and the court having prohibited his public teaching, he was obliged to read lectures in private. After a year passed in this precarious state of toleration, he went in 1624 to Montauban, where he was chosen professor of divinity, but having declared himself too openly against the party which preached up the civil war, he created many enemies, and among the rest an unknown miscreant who assaulted him in the street, and wounded him so desperately as to occasion his death, which took place, after he had languished a considerable time, in 1625. Bayle says, he was a man of a great deal of wit and judgment, had a happy memory, was very learned, a good philosopher, of a chcarful temper, and ready to communicate not only his knowledge, but even his money: he was a great talker, a long preacher, little acquainted with the works of the fathers, obstinate in his opinions, and somewhat troublesome. He frankly owned to his friends, that he found several things still to reform in the reformed churches. He took a delight in publishing particular opinions, and in going out of the beaten road; and he gave instances of this when he was a youth, in his theses “De Tribus Frederibus,” which he published and maintained at Heidelberg, although yet but a proposant, or candidate for the ministry. He also mixed some novelties in all the theological questions which he examined; and when in explaining some passages of the holy scripture, he met with great difficulties, he took all opportunities to contradict the other divines, and especially Beza; for he pretended that they had not penetrated into the very marrow of that science. It was from him that monsieur Amyraut adopted the doctrine of universal grace, which occasioned so many disputes in France, and will always be found, at least upon Amyraut’s principles, to be too inconsistent for general belief. Cameron’s works are his “Theological Lectures,” Saumur, 1626 1628, 3 vols. 4to, published by Lewis Capellus, with a life of the author, and afterwards at Geneva in one vol. folio, with additions, by Frederick Spanheim. Capellus also published, in 1632, Cameron’s “Myrothecium Evangelicum.”

, a very celebrated Portuguese poet, and from his much-admired poem the “Lusiadas,” called the Virgil of Portugal, was descended from an illustrious, and originally, Spanish family, and was born at Lisbon about the year 1524. His father Simon Vaz de Camoens is said to have perished by shipwreck in the year which gave being to his son, although this is somewhat doubtful. It appears, however, that our poet was sent to the university of Coimbra, and maintained there by his surviving parent. On his arrival in Lisbon, he became enamoured of Donna Catarina de Ataide, whom he addressed with all the romantic ardour of youth and poetry, but according to the prescribed reserve, or prudery of the age, obtained no higher mark of her favour, after many months of adoration, than one of the silken fillets which, encircled her head. His impatience, however, hurried him into some breaches of decorum, while pursuing his coy mistress, who was one of the queen’s ladies, and her parents took this opportunity to terminate an intercourse which worldly considerations rendered, on her part, of the highest imprudence. This interference produced its usual effect. Camoens was banished the court, and on the morning of his departure, Catarina confessed to him the secret of her long-concealed affection. Thus comforted, he removed to Santarem, the place of his banishment, but is said to have speedily returned to Lisbon, where he was again detected, and again sent into exile.

He now sought and obtained permission to accompany king John III. in an expedition concerted against the Moors in Africa. His conduct in this campaign was so heroic, that he obtained permission to return home, where he found that his mistress was dead. To aggravate his sorrows, he obtained no reward for his services, after much application; and stung with the ingratitude of his country, he determined to leave it. Mr. Mickle, but without quoting his authority, attributes this event to the discovery of an intrigue which he carried on with the wife of a Portuguese nobleman, a circumstance not very improbable, as all his biographers allow that he was not very correct in his morals. He sailed, however, for India, and contributed, in no small measure, to the success of an expedition against the Pimenta Isles, carried on by the king of Cochin and his allies the Portuguese. In the following year (1555), Manuel de Vasconcelos conducted an armament to the Red Sea. Our poet accompanied him, and with the intrepid curiosity of genius, explored the wild regions of Africa by which Mount Felix is surrounded. Here his mind was stored with sketches of scenery, which afterwards formed some of the most finished pictures in his Lusiad, and in his other compositions.

The mal-administration of affairs in India was at this time notorious; and Camoens, with more justice than prudence, took an opportunity of expressing his disgust in a satirical account of some amusements -exhibited before the governor of Goa, in consequence of which he was banished to China. His adventures, while in China, are amply detailed by Mr. Mickle. After an absence of sixteen years, he returned to Portugal, poor and friendless as when he departed. His Lusiad, after being delayed for some time by the raging of the plague in Lisbon, was published in the summer of 1572. From this display of uncommon genius, the author derived much honour, but little emolument. King Sebastian, it is said, rewarded him with a pension of 375 reis, a sum so small (for 20 reis make only one penny), that we know not how to reconcile it with the lowest computation of maintenance, yet even this he lost on Sebas-, dan’s death, and his latter years present a mournful picture, not merely of individual calamity, but of national ingratitude. “He,” says lord Strangford, " whose best years had been devoted to the service of his country, he, who had taught her literary fame to rival the proudest efforts of Italy itself, and who seemed born to revive the remembrance of ancient gentility and Lusian heroism, was compelled in age to wander through the streets, a wretched dependent on casual contribution. One friend alone remained to smooth his downward path, and guide his steps to the grave with gentleness and consolation. It was Antonio, his slave, a native of Java, who had accompanied Camoens to Europe, after having rescued him from the waves, when shipwrecked at the mouth of the Mecon. This faithful attendant was wont to seek alms throughout Lisbon, and at night shared the produce of the day with his poor and broken-hearted master. But his friendship was employed in vain: Camoens sunk beneath the pressure of penury and disease, and died in an almshouse early in 1579, and was buried in the church of St. Anne of the Franciscans. Over his grave, Gonçalo Coutinho placed the following inscription, which, for comprehensive simplicity, the translator ventures to prefer to almost every production of a similar kind;

Camoens wrote a variety of poetical compositions, some of which have been lately very elegantly translated into English by lord viscount Strangford, who has also prefixed a life of the author, from which we have extracted some remarks. According to the researches his lordship has made into the character of Camoens, he appears to have possessed a lofty and independent spirit, with a disposition to gallantry which may probably have involved him in difficulties. His genius, however, appears principally io the “Lusiad,” the subject of which is the first discovery of the East Indies by Vasco de Gama the poem is conducted according to the epic plan: both the subject and the in r cidents are magnificent, but the machinery is perfectly extravagant. Not only, says Blair, is it formed of a singular mixture of Christian ideas and pagan mythology, tout it is so conducted, that the pagan gods appear to be the true deities, and Christ and the blessed Virgin, to be subordinate agents. One great scope of the Portuguese expedition, our author informs us, is to propagate the Christian faith, and to extirpate Mahometanism. In this religious undertaking, the great protector of the Portuguese is Venus, and their great adversary is Bacchus, whose displeasure is excited by Vasco’s attempting to rival his tame in the Indies. Councils of the gods are held, in which Jupiter is introduced, as foretelling the downfall of Mahometanism, and the propagation of the gospel Vasco, in a great distress from a storm, prays most seriously to God; implores the aid of Christ and the Virgin; and begs for such assistance as was given to the Israelites, when they were passing through the Red Sea; and to the apostle Paul, when he was in hazard of shipwreck. In return to this prayer, Venus appears, who, discerning the storm to be the work of Bacchus, complains to Jupiter, and procures the winds to be calmed. Such strange and preposterous machinery, shews how much authors have been misled by the absurd opinion, that there could be no epic poetry without the gods of Homer. Towards the end of the work, indeed, the author gives us an awkward salvo for his whole mythology: making the goddess Thetis inform Vasco, that she, and the rest of the heathen deities, are no more than names to describe the operations of Providence. There is, however, says the same judicious critic, some fine machinery of a different kind in the Lusiad. The genius of the river Ganges, appearing to Emanuel king of Portugal, in a dream, inviting that prince to discover his secret springs, and acquainting him that he was the destined monarch for whom the treasures of the East were reserved, is a happy idea. But the noblest conception of this sort is in the fifth canto, where Vasco is recounting to the king of Melinda all the wonders which he met with in his navigation. He tells him, that when the fleet arrived at the Cape of Good Hope, which never before had been doubled by any navigator, there appeared to them on a sudden, a huge and monstrous phantom rising out of the sea, in the midst of tempests and thunders, with a head that reached the clouds, and a countenance that filled them with terror. This was the genius, or guardian, of that hitherto unknown ocean. It spoke to them with a voice like thunder: menaced them for invading those seas which he had so long possessed undisturbed, and for daring to explore those secrets of the deep, which never had been revealed to the eye of mortals; required them to proceed no farther: if they should proceed, foretold all the successive calamities that were to befall them: and then, with a mighty noise, disappeared. This is one of the most solemn and striking pieces of machinery that ever was employed, and is sufficient to show that Camoens is a poet, though of an irregular, yet of a bold and lofty imagination. The critical student will find a more severe censure of Canioens in Rapin, Dryden, and Voltaire. But the Lusiad lias generally been considered as a poem of very superior merit, and has been often reprinted and translated into several languages, once into French, twice into Italian, four times into Spanish; and lately, with uncommon excellence, into English, by Mr. Mickle; but it had beea translated in the 17th century by sir Richard Fanshaw. Mickle’s translation will be considered in his life. It was translated into Latin by Thomas de Faria, bishop of Targa in Africa; who, concealing his name, and saying nothing of its being a translation, made some believe that the Lusiadas was originally in Latin. Large commentaries have been written upon the Lusiadas; the most considerable of which are those of Emanuel Faria de Sousa, in 2 vols. folio, Madrid, 1639. These commentaries were followed the year after with the publication of another volume in folio, written to defend them; besides eight volumes of observations upon the miscellaneous poems of Camoens, which this commentator left behind him in manuscript.

, a celebrated Italian philosopher, was born at Stilo, a small village in Calabria, Sept. 5, 1568. At thirteen he understood the ancient orators and poets, and wrote discourses and verses on various subjects; and the year after, his father purposed to send him to Naples to study law: but young Campanella, having other views, entered himself into the order of the Dominicans. Whilst he was studying philosophy at San Giorgio, his professor was invited to dispute upon some theses which were to be maintained by the Franciscans; but finding himself indisposed, he sent Campanella in his room, who argued with so much subtilty and force, as to charm his auditory. When his course of philosophy was finished, he was sent to Cosenza to study divinity: but his inclination led him to philosophy. Having conceived a notion that the truth was not to be found in the peripatetic philosophy, he anxiously examined all the Greek, Latin, and Arabian commentators upon Aristotle, and began to hesitate more and more with regard to the doctrines of that sect. His doubts still remaining, he determined to peruse the writings of Plato, Pliny, Galen, the Stoics, the followers of Democritus, and especially those of Telesius; and he found the doctrine of his masters to be false in so many points, that he began to doubt even of uncontroverted matters of fact. At the age of twenty- two he began to commit his new system to writing, and in 1500 he went to Naples to get it printed. Some time after he was present at a disputation in divinity, and took occasion to commend what was spoken by an ancient professor of his order, as very judicious;but the old man, jealous, perhaps, of the glory which Campanella had gained, bade him, in a very contemptuous manner, be silent, since it did not belong to a young man, as he was, to interpose in questions of divinity. Campanella 'fired at this, and said, that, young as he was, he was able to teach him; and immediately confuted what the professor had advanced, tothe satisfaction of the audience. The professor conceived a mortal hatred to him on this account, and accused him to the inquisition, as if he had gained by magic that vast extent of learning which he had acquired without a master. His writings now made a great noise in the world, and the novelty of his opinions stirring up many enemies agaiast him at Naples, he removed to Rome; but not meeting with a better reception in that city, he proceeded to Florence, and presented some of his works to the grand duke, Ferdinand I. the patron of learned men. After a short stay there, as he was passing through Bologna, in his way to Padua, his writings were seized, and carried to the inquisition at Rome, which, however, gave him little disturbance, and he continued his journey. At Padua, he was employed in instructing some young Venetians in his doctrines, and composing some pieces. Returning afterwards to Rome, he met with a hetter reception than before, and was honoured with the friendship of several cardinals. In 1598 he went to Naples, where he staid but a short time, then visited his own country. Some expressions which he dropped, with regard to the government of the Spaniards, and the project of an insurrection, being reported to the Spaniards, he was seized and carried to Naples in 1599, as a criminal against the state, and put seven times to the rack, and afterwards condemned to perpetual imprisonment. At first he was not permitted to see any person, and denied the use of pen, ink, and paper; but, being afterwards indulged with these implements, he wrote several of his pieces in prison; some of which Tobias Adamus of Saxony procured from him, and published in Germany. Pope Urban VIII. who knew him from his writings, having obtained his liberty from Philip IV. of Spain in May 1626, Campanella went immediately to Rome, where he continued some years in the prisons of the inquisition, but was a prisoner only in name. In 1629 he was discharged, but the resentment of the Spaniards was not abated. The friendship shewn him by the pope, who settled a considerable pension, and conferred many other favours on him, excited their jealousy; and his correspondence with some of the French nation, gave them new suspicions of him. Being informed of their designs against him, he went out of Rome, disguised like a minim, in the French ambassador’s coach, and, embarking for France, landed at Marseilles in 1634. Mr. Peiresc, being informed of his arrival, sent a letter to bring him to Aix, where he entertained him some months. The year following he went to Paris, and was graciously received by Lewis XIII. and cardinal Richelieu; the latter procured him a pension of 2000 livres, and often consulted him on the affairs of Italy. He passed the remainder of his days in a monastery of the Dominicans at Paris, and died March 21, 1639.

Campanella, says Brucker, was confessedly a man of genius, but his imagination predominated over his judgment. Innumerable proofs of this may be found in his astrological writings, in“his book” De sensu rerum,“and in many other parts of his works. There seems indeed much reason to think that his mind was not sound, although he had his lucid intervals, in which he could reason soberly. He is chiefly worthy of praise for the freedom with which he exposed the futility of the Aristotelian philosophy, and for the pains which he took to deduce natural science from observation and experience. Of the numerous writings which his fertile imagination produced, the most celebrated are, 1.” Prodornus Philosophise Instaurandae,“Francfort, 1617, 4to. 2.” Atheismus triumphatus.“3.” De Gentilismo non retinendo,“Paris, 1636, 4to. 4.” Astrologica,“Leyden, 1629, 4to. 5.” Philosophia rationalist 6. “Civitas solis,” Utrecht, 1643, 12mo. 7. “Universalis Philosophia.” 8. “De libris propriis,” et “De recta ratione studendi,” Paris, 1642, 8vo. 9. “Apologia pro Galileo,” Franc. 1622, 4to. 10. “De sensu rerum et magia,” ibid. 1620, 4to. 11. “De reformatione scientiarum,” Venice, 1633, 4to. 12. “De Monarchia Hispanica,” Harderv. translated into English, Lond. 1654, 4to. 13. “Poetica idea Keipublicaj Philosophies,” Utrecht, 1643, 12mo. Brucker has given, we doubt not, a very accurate, but not perhaps, in our times, a very interesting sketch of Campanella’s opinions; and concludes with remarking that as far as any idea can be formed from the confused mass of opinions, so diffusely, but obscurely expressed in his voluminous writings, we must conclude that notwithstanding the censures which have often been passed upon him for impiety, he is rather to be ranked among enthusiasts than atheists and that, as in his other undertakings, so also in his attempts to reform philosophy, he was unsuccessful.

, an Italian poet and prelate, was born in 1427 at Cavelli, a village of Campania, of parents so obscure that he bore no name but that of his country, and was employed in his early years as a shepherd, in which situation an ecclesiastic discovering some promise of talents in him, sent him to Naples, where he studied under Laurentius Valla. He went afterwards to Perugia, where he rose to be professor of eloquence, and filled that chair with so much reputation, that when, in 1459, pope Pius II. happened to pass through Perugia in his way to the council of Mantua, he bestowed his patronage on him, and made him bishop of Crotona, and secondly of Teramo. Enjoying the same favour under pope Paul II. this pontiff sent him to the congress of Ratisbon, which assembled for the purpose of consulting on a league of the Christian princes against the Turks. Sixtus IV. who had been one of his scholars at Perugia, made him successively governor of Todi, of Foligno, and of Citta di Castello; but the pope having thought proper to besiege this last named city, because the inhabitants made some scruple about receiving his troops, Campano, touched with the hardships they were likely to suffer, wrote to the pope with so much freedom and spirit as to enrage his holiness, and provoke him to deprive him of his government, and banish him from the ecclesiastical states. Campano on this went to Naples, but not rinding the reception he expected, he retired to his bishopric at Teramo, where he died July 15, 1477, of chagrin and disappointment. His works, which were first printed at Rome in 1495, fol. consist of several treatises on moral philosophy, discourses, and funeral orations, and nine books of letters, in which there is some curious information with respect both to the political and literary history of his times. This volume contains likewise, the life of pope Pius II. and of Braccio of Perugia, a famous military character, and lastly, of eight book of elegies and epigrams, some of which are rather of too licentious a nature to accord with the gravity of his profession. These, or part of them, were reprinted at Leipsic in 1707, and in 1734. Campano was at one time a corrector of the press to Udalric, called Gallus, the first printer of Rome, and wrote prefaces to Livy, Justin, Plutarch, and some other of the works which issued from that press.

, a very learned divine of the church of Scotland, and principal and professor of divinity of the Marischal college, Aberdeen, was born in that city Dec. 25, 1719. His father, the rev. Colin Campbell, who was one of the ministers of Aberdeen, and a man of primitive piety and worth, died in 1728. George, the subject of this article, who was his youngest son, was educated in the grammar-school of his native city, and afterwards in Marischal college, but appears to have originally intended to follow the profession of the law, and for thatpurpose served an apprenticeship to a writer of the signet in Edinburgh. By what inducements he was made to alter his purpose we are not told; but in 1741 he began to study divinity at the university of Edinburgh, and continued the same pursuit both in King’s college and Marischal college, Aberdeen and here he delivered, with great approbation, those discourses, which are usually prescribed to students of divinity in the Scotch universities. After studying the usual number of years at the divinity hall, he was, according to the practice of the Scotch church, proposed to the Synod; and having undergone the ordinary trials before the presbytery of Aberdeen, was licensed as a probationer, or preacher of the gospel, on the llth of June, 1746. In this rank he remained two years, before he obtained a settlement in the church of Scotland, but at the end of that period was presented to the church of Banchory Ternan, about seventeen miles west from Aberdeen, and was ordained June 2, 1748.

While he held this charge, the powers of his mind began more fully to unfold themselves, and his character rose in the opinion of men of learning. Here he prosecuted the study of the holy scriptures, and instructed others with great success. In the church of Scotland, it is the practice to explain a chapter, or large portion of scripture, every Lord’s day, or at least every other Sunday. Mr. Campbell paid so much attention to this, and was so much master of it, that his character as a scripture critic, and lecturer of holy writ, was deservedly very high. It was while explaining the New Testament to his parishioners, that he first formed a plan of translating that part of it, viz. the four gospels, which he afterwards published. And it was in this country parish, long before any attention was paid, in the north of Scotland, to the niceties of grammar, that he composed a part of the philosophy of rhetoric.

After remaining nine years in this country parish, he was chosen one of the ministers of Aberdeen in June, 1757, where his various and extensive talents were appreciated by those who knew best their worth, and where his fame was most likely to be rewarded. Accordingly in 1759, he was presented by his majesty to the office of principal of Marischal college, and soon made it appear that he was worthy of this dignity. Hume had recently published his “Essay on Miracles,” and despised his opponents until principal Campbell published his celebrated “Dissertation on Miracles,” which deservedly raised his character as an acute metaphysician and an able polemical writer. This “Dissertation” was originally drawn up in the form of a sermon, which he preached before the provincial synod of Aberdeen, Oct. 9, 1760, and which, on their requesting him to publish it, he afterwards enlarged into its present form. Some circumstances attended the publication which are rather singular, and which we shall relate in the words of his biographer. “Before it was published, he sent a copy of his manuscript to Dr. Blair of Edinburgh, with a request that, after perusing it, he would communicate the performance to Mr. Hume. The learned aud judicious Blair read the dissertation both as a friend, and as a critic, then showed it to his opponent, and afterwards wrote to Mr. Campbell both what had occurred to himself, and what Mr. Hume chose at first to write on the subject. It soon appeared, that this sceptical philosopher, with all his affected equanimity, felt very sensibly, on reading so acute, so learned, and so complete an answer to his essay on miracles. He complained of some harsh expressions, and stated a few objections to what Mr. Campbell had advanced, shewing, in some cases, where his meaning had been misunderstood. Instead of being displeased, his generous adversary instantly expunged, or softened, every expression that either was severe, or was only supposed to be offensive, removed every objection that had been made to his arguments, and availed himself of the remarks both of his friend, and of his opponent, in rendering his dissertation a complete and unanswerable performance. Thus corrected and improved, it was put to the press, and a copy of it sent to Mr. Hume. That philosopher was charmed with the gentlemanly conduct of Mr. Campbell, confessed that he felt a great desire to answer the dissertation, and declared that he would have attempted to do something in this way, if he had not laid it down as a rule, in early life, never to return an answer to any of his opponents. Thus principal Campbell, from a rnanly and well-bred treatment of his adversary, rendered his own work more correct, gained the esteem of his opponent, and left an example worthy to be imitated by all polemical writers.” How far such an example is worthy to be imitated, may surely be questioned; in Mr. Campbell’s conduct we see somewhat of timidity and irresolution, nor does he seem to have been aware of the impropriety of gratifying Hume by personal respect; and after all no good was produced, for Hume reprinted his essay again and again without any notice of Campbell or any other of his opponents, a decisive proof that in this respect he had no title to the character of philosopher. The “Dissertation on Miracles” was published in 1763, previously to which the author received the degree of D.D. from King’s college, Old Aberdeen. The sale of the work was in proportion to its merit, most extensive in Great Britain, and being translated into the French, Dutch, and nan languages, the name of Dr. Campbell was from this time always mentioned with the highest respect among the learned men of Europe.

Dr. Campbell continued for twelve years to discharge the offices of principal of Marischal college-, and of one of the ministers of Aberdeen. In the former capacity he was equally esteemed by the professors and students; as he united great learning to a conduct strictly virtuous, and to manners equally gentle and pleasant. lit the latter office he lived in the greatest harmony with his colleagues, over whom he affected no superiority; and by all his hearers was esteemed as a worthy man, a good preacher, and one of the best lecturers they had ever heard. In lecturing, indeed, he excelled, while he rarely composed sermons, but preached from a few, and sometimes without any notes. Yet his discourses on particular occasions, were such as maintained his reputation. In June 1771, he was, on a vacancy by resignation, elected professor of divinity in Marischal college. This appointment was attended with the resignation of his pastoral charge, as one of the ministers of Aberdeen; but as minister of Gray Friars, an office conjoined to the professorship, he had to preach once every Sunday in one of the churches, and besides this, had the offices both of principal and professor of divinity to discharge. In the latter office he increased the times of instructing his pupils, so thak they heard nearly double the number of lectures which were usual with his predecessors, and he so arranged his subjects, that every student who chose to attend regularly during the shortest period prescribed by the laws of the church, might hear a complete course of lectures on thelgy embracing, under the theoretical part, every thing that the student of divinity should know; and under the practical branch, every thing that he should do, as a reader of sacred or church history, a biblical critic, a polemic divine, a pulpit orator, a minister of a parish, and a member of the church courts on the Scotch establishment. Some idea may be formed of the value of his labours, by the canons of scripture criticism, and a few other prelections on the same subject, which are included in preliminary dissertations/printed along with his “Translation of the Gospels,” and by the “Lectures” published after his death. In 1776 Dr. Campbell published his “Philosophy of Rhetoric,” which established his reputation as an excellent grammarian, an accurate and judicious critic, a scholar of delicate imagination and taste, and a philosopher of great acuteness and deep penetration. Our author also published a few occasional sermons, which were much admired, but not equally. That “On the Spirit of the Gospel,” 1771, placed him at variance with many members of his own church, who adhered more closely to the Caivinistic creed than the doctor. That in 1776, a Fast Sermon on account of the American war, inculcating the duty of allegiance, was circulated in an edition of six thousand, in America, but it had no effect, at that period of irritation among the colonies, in persuading the Americans that they had no right to throw off their allegiance. In 1779, when a considerable alarm, followed by riots in Scotland, took place in consequence of a bill introduced into parliament; for the relief of the Roman catholics, Dr. Campbell published an address well calculated to quiet the public mind, at the same time that he took occasion to express his abhorrence of the tenets of Popery. The same year he published a sermon on the happy influences of religion on civil society. It has already been noticed that he did not often, write sermons, but the few which he did compose, were in general highly finished.

The last work which he lived to publish, was his “Translation of the Gospels,” with preliminary dissertations and explanatory notes, 2 vols. 4to. It is, we believe, universally acknowledged that this work places him very high in the rank of biblical critics, and is that which will probably hand down his name to a late posterity.

In his seventy-second year, he was seized with a severe illness, from which he unexpectedly recovered, and though his bodily strength was impaired, resumed his former occupations. Some years before his death, he made. a dis^ interested and unsolicited offer of resigning his professorship of divinity, provided that any one of three gentlemen whom he named, and to whom he applied for their consent, should succeed him; but this offer not being accepted by the patrons of the professorship, he continued to hold his office, lest an improper person should in his life-time be chosen as his successor. But afterwards application was made to him, and also to the patrons of the professorship, in Lehalf of Dr. William Laurence Brown, late minister of the English church, and professor of moral philosophy, &c. in the university of Utrecht. This gentleman had been driven from these offices by the French invasion of Holland, on account of his attachment to the house of Orange, and his native country; and because, in some of his writings, he had opposed the progress of French principles, and maintained the cause of religion. Dr. Campbell, knowing the excellence of his character, instantly resigned the offices of professor of divinity, and minister of Gray Friars church, which were worth 160l. a year, and soon after his resignation, government, desirous of testifying in a public manner, the high respect so justly entertained of his abilities and services, offered him, on condition of resigning the principalship of Marischal college, a pension of 300l. a year. Dr. Campbell accepted this token of his majesty’s munificence, and was succeeded in the office of principal also by Dr. Brown. This pension, however, he did not long live to enjoy, though he continued writing till within a week of his death; an event which he expected with great tranquillity and composure. On the 31st of March, 1796, after some previous symptoms of uneasiness, he was struck with the palsy, which deprived him of speech, and under which he languished for a few days till he died. He had long accustomed himself to prepare for death; and in a former illness he had given the testimony of a dying man in favour of religion. A funeral sermon was preached on occasion of his death, by Dr. Brown, in which he has given a sketch of his character as a public teacher, as the head of a public seminary of learning, and as a private Christian. His character is thus summed up in a few sentences by his biographer, Dr. Keith: “His imagination was lively and fertile his understanding equally acute and vigorous and his erudition was at once very deep and wonderfully diversified. His piety was unfeigned his morals unimpeached his temper chearful and his manners gentle and unassuming. His love of truth was even more remarkable than the uncommon success with which he sought after it. Where intuitive faculties could be of service to any man, he saw at once if he saw at all. But his deep perspicacity was not satisfied with a superficial view of any thing; his piercing eye darted to the bottom of every sul/ic < i to which discernment could be applied. Where study aud reflection were necessary, he could bestow as much time on patient thinking, as if he had been possessed of no genius at all, and had acquired only a small share of erudition. And when once he began to examine any subject, he was never satisfied till he had viewed it in every light in which it could be seen. He always sought for truth in the love of truth, but he could not bear to be suspected of deviating from it for he neither courted those who might support, nor feared those who did oppose him. The tone of his mind was high, and he would not let it down from the elevation of truth and of virtue. Whether engaged in conversation, or employed in study, he could pass easily from the lightest subject to the most serious one. And the reach of his mind was so great, as to comprehend a great variety of subjects. He could explore the causes of that pleasure which arises in the mind from dramatic entertainments, and lay down the rules of Scripture criticism. He could illustrate the whole theory of evidence, or detect the false reasonings of Mr. Hume. He could explain the spirit of the Gospel, marking the extremes of superstition and enthusiasm; and both as a philosopher and a divine, declare the nature, extent, and importance of the duty of allegiance. While he zealously contended for the faith, he could warn the Christian against imbibing a persecuting spirit, and yet shew the influence of religion upon civil society, warning his countrymen against infidelity, before they had seen its dreadful effects. He could with manly eloquence describe the success of the fishermen of Galilee, while preaching the doctrine of the cross to prejudiced Jews, learned Greeks, and ambitious Romans; and at the same time, with well -applied erudition, he could delineate the characters of the pretended successors of the apostles, and trace the progress of the hierarchy through all the dark and middle ages, until the reformation of religion. As the principal of a college, a professor of divinity, or a minister of the Gospel, as a true patriot, a good man, and a sincere Christian, qwndo ullum invenies 'par tin”

This character may be seen enlarged, with many interesting and instructive particulars of the private and public life of Dr. Campbell, in an excellent account of him written by the rev. Dr. George Skene Keith, and prefixed to Dr. Campbell’s “Lectures on Ecclesiastical History,” published in 1800, 2 vols. 8vo. These lectures have since been the subject of much ingenious criticism, particularly in the British Critic, vol. XX. As their object is to give a preference to the church government of Scotland, it was thought necessary by the advocates for the church of England to bestow particular notice on an attack on the latter coining from a man of so high talents and literary fame. In Scotland Dr. Campbell’s opinions were opposed by Dr. Skinner, a prelate of the Scotch episcopal church, in a volume entitled “Primitive Truth and Order vindicated,' 1 and in England, by archdeacon Daubeny, in his” Eight Discourses,“&c. Dr. Campbell’s” Lectures on Systematic Theology,' 1 and on “The Pastoral character,” have also been recently published, which, if inferior in popularity, are yet worthy of the pen which produced the “Essay on Miracles,' 1 the” Philosophy of Rhetoric, 11 and the “Translation of the Gospels.”

, second duke of Argyle, and duke of Greenwich and baron of Chatham, grandson to the unfortunate earl of Argyle, was born on the 10th of October, 1678. He was son to Archibald, duke of Argyle, by Elizabeth, daughter of sir Lionel Talmash, of Helmingham, in the county of Suffolk. He very early -gave signs of spirit and capacity, and at the age of fifteen, made considerable progress in classical learning, and in some branches of philosophy, under the tuition of Mr. Walter Campbell, afterwards minister of Dunoon, in Argyleshire. It soon, however, appeared, that his disposition was towards a military life; and being introduced at the court of king William, under the title of Lord Lorn, he was preferred by that prince to the command of a regiment of foot in 1694, when he was not quite seventeen years of age; and in that station he gave signal proofs of courage and military capacity during the remainder of king William’s reign, and till the death of his father, the first duke of Argyle, 28th of September, 1703, whom he succeeded in his honours and estate and was soon after sworn of queen Anne’s privy council, appointed captain of the Scotch horseguards, and one of the extraordinary lords of session. He was likewise made one of the knights of the order of the thistle the following year, on the restoration of that order.

In 1705, he was nominated her majesty’s lord high commissioner to the Scottish parliament, though he was then only twenty-three years of age, an appointment which gave much satisfaction to that nation, where, on his arrival, he was received with unusual ceremony. On the 28th of June, his grace opened the parliament by a speech, and was so well convinced of the advantages which would result to both kingdoms from an union between England and Scotland, that he employed his whole interest in the promotion of that measure; for which, on his arrival in England, her majesty created him a peer of England, by the title of Baron of Chatham, and Earl of Greenwich. In 1706, he made a campaign under the duke of Marlborough; and greatly distinguished himself by his courage and conduct in the battle of Ramillies, in which he acted as a brigadier-general; and also at the siege of Ostend, and in the attack of Menin, of which his grace took possession on the 25th of August. After that event, he returned to Scotland, in order to be present in the parliament of that kingdom, when the treaty for the union was agitated; and was, as before, very active in the promotion of it, though he declined being one of the commissioners. When a riotous multitude came to the parliament-close, demanding, with loud clamours, “That the treaty of union should be rejected,” his grace went out of the house, and appeased the people who were assembled, by the calmness and strength of reason with which he addressed them; but his zeal in this affair diminished his popularity, though even his enemies did justice to the rectitude of his intentions. In 1708, he commanded twenty battalions at the battle of Oudenarde; and the troops under his command were the first of the infantry that engaged the enemy, a*nd they maintained their post against unequal numbers. He likewise assisted at the siege of Lisle and commanded as major-general at the siege of Ghent, taking possession of the town and citadel on the 3d or' January, 1703-9. He was afterwards raised to the rank of lieutenant-general, and commanded in chief under general Schuyiemberg, at the attack of Tournay. He had also a considerable share, on the llth of September, 1709, in the victory a Malplaquet, where he was much exposed, and gained great honour. On the 20th of December, 1710, he was installed a knight of the garter; and about this time took some part in the debates in parliament, relative to the inquiry which was set on foot concerning the management of affairs in Spain, when he spoke and voted with the tofies, and joined in the censure that was passed on the conduct of the late whig ministry.

On the 18th of January, 1710-11, he was appointed ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Charles the Third, king of Spain, and commander in chief of her majesty’s forces in that kingdom. Dr. Smollett observes, that his grace “had long been at variance with the duke of Marlborough, a circumstance which recommended him the more strongly to the ministry.” But it is intimated, that some of his friends were averse to his acceptance of these employments, being sensible, from the state of our affairs in Spain, how extremely difficult it would be for him to gain any ground in that kingdom. However, he set out for Barcelona, and in his way thither arrived at the Hague ou the 4th of April. He made a visit to the grand pensionary, and another to lord Townshend, the British plenipotentiary at the Hague: but though the duke of Marlborough was there at that time, he did not visit him. When he arrived at Barcelona, on the 29th of May, he found the troops in so wretched a condition, and the affairs of the allies at so low an ebb, by the losses sustained the preceding year at the battle of Almanza, and in other actions, that he was not able to undertake any thing of consequence. The British troops were in the utmost distress for want of subsistence, though the ministry had promised to supply him liberally, and the parliament had granted 1,500,000l. for that service. The duke of Argyle wrote pressing letters to the ministry, and loudly complained that he was altogether unsupported: but no remittances arrived, and he was obliged to raise money on his own credit, to defray part of the subsistence of the troops. He had the misfortune also to be seized with a violent fever, which rendered it necessary for him to quit the camp, and retire to the town of Barcelona; but his health being reestablished, he quitted Spain, without having been able to attempt any enterprise of importance. Before his return to England, he went to Minorca, of which he had been appointed governor; but made no long stay there.

In June 1712, the queen appointed him general and commander in chief of all the land forces in Scotland, and captain of the company of foot in Edinburgh castle. But he did not long continue upon good terms with the ministry; and spoke against a bill which was brought in by the administration, appointing commissioners to examine the value of all the grants of crown lands made since the revolution, by which a general resumption was intended to have been made. In 1714, when it was debated in the house of peers, whether it should be resolved, that the protestarit succession was in danger under the then administration, the duke of Argyle maintained the affirmative; and also declared his disapprobation of the proceedings of the ministry, relative to the peace of Utrecht. His grace likewise zealously opposed the extension of the malt- tax to Scotland and was appointed with the earl of Mar, and two Scotch members of the house of commons, to attend the queen, and make a remonstrance to her majesty on this subject. He also supported the motion that was made by the earl of Seafield, for leave to bring in a bill for dissolving the union. In his speech in parliament upon this subject, he admitted, “that he had a great hand in making the union, and that the chief reason that moved him to it was the securing the protestant succession; but that he was satisfied that might be done as well now, if the union were dissolved.” He added, “that he believed in his conscience, it was as much for the interest of England, as of Scotland, to have it dissolved: and if it were not, he did not expect long to have either property left in Scotland, or liberty in England.” This conduct, which was certainly not very consistent, having given great offence to the ministry, he was about this time deprived of all the employments he held under the crown; and continued to oppose the administration to the end of this reign. But when queen Anne’s life was despaired of, he attended the council-chamber at Kensington, without being summoned; and his attendance on this occasion, was considered as highly serviceable to the interests of the house of Hanover. On the demise of the queen, the duke of Argyle was appointed one of the lords justices for the government of the kingdom, till George I. should arrive in England, and on the 27th of September, 1714, he was again. constituted general and commander in chief of the forces in Scotland; and, on the 1st of October following, he was sworn a member of the new privy council. On the 5th of the same month, he was appointed governor of Minorca; and on the 15th of June, 1715, made colonel of the royal regiment of horse-guards in England. He was also one of the commissioners for establishing the household of the prince and princess of Wales, and was made groom of the stole to the prince.

When the rebellion of 1715 was raised in Scotland in favour of the pretender, the duke of Argyle was sent to take the command of the forces there, and on the 13th of November he engaged the rebel army, commanded by the earl of Mar, at Dumblain. The duke’s troops did not consist of more than three thousand five hundred, while those of the earl of Mar amounted to nine thousand. Notwithstanding this inequality of numbers, the rebels were worsted, though the victory was not complete, and was, indeed, claimed by both sides. His grace behaved in the action with great gallantry; and was congratulated, on account of the advantage that he had obtained, in a letter from the town -council of Edinburgh. Soon after, the duke was joined by some dragoons from England, and by six thousand Dutch troops under general Cadogan; and being thus reinforced, he compelled the rebels to abandon Perth, on the 30th of January, 1716; and the pretender was soon afterwards obliged to retire to France with the utmost precipitation. The duke of Argyle now repaired to Edinburgh, where he arrived on the 'J7th of February, and after being magnificently entertained by the magistrates of Edinburgh, in gratitude for the signal services he had rendered to that city and kingdom in the suppression of the rebellion, set out for England, and arrived on the 6th of March in London, where he was very graciously received by his majesty.

On the 10th and 16th of April he spoke in the house of peers in defence of the bill for repealing the triennial act, and rendering parliaments septennial. But soon after this his grace seems to have conceived some disgust against the court, or some dislike was taken at his conduct there, for in June following he resigned all his places. The particular grounds of his dissatisfaction, or of his being removed from his offices, are not mentioned; but we now find him in several instances voting against the ministry. In February 1717-18, he spoke against the mutiny-bill, and endeavoured to shew, by several instances drawn from the history of Great Britain, that “a standing army, in the time of peace, was ever fatal, either to the prince or the nation.” But on the 6th of February 1718-19, he was made lord-steward of the household; and, after that event, we again find his lordship voting with administration; which he generally continued to do for many years afterwards. On the 30th of April, 1718, he was advanced to the dignity of a duke of Great Britain, by the title of duke of Greenwich. His grace opposed, in 1722, the bill “for securing the Freedom of election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament:” and promoted the resolution of the house for expunging the reasons that were urged by some of the lords in their protest against the rejection of the bill. He also supported a motion made by the earl of Sunderland, for limiting the time for entering protests: and he spoke in favour of the bill for suspending the habeas corpus act for a year, on occasion of the discovery of Layer’s plot; as he did likewise, with great zeal and warmth, for the bill of pains and penalties against bishop Atterbury. In 1724, he defended the mutiny-bill; and, it appears, that his grace had not the same fears of a standing army now, as when he was out of place a few years before.

On resigning his place of lord-steward of his majesty’s household, he was constituted master- general of the ordnance and by king George II. he was appointed colonel of her majesty’s own regiment of horse, and governor and captain of the town and isle of Portsmouth, and of SouthSea castle. He spoke against the bill for disabling pensioners from sitting in the house of commons; and on the first of May, 1731, against lord Bathurst’s motion for an address to the king to discharge the Hessian troops in the pay of Great Britain. In 1733 he made a long and elaborate speech against any reduction of the army; and endeavoured to prove, in direct contradiction to the sentiments he had formerly advanced, “that a standing army never had in any country the chief hand in destroying the liberties of their country;” and that it could not be supposed they ever would. He also opposed the efforts that were made by some* of the minority lords to prevent tha influence of the crown in the election of the sixteen peers for Scotland. And on the 14th of January, 1735-6, he was constituted field-marshal of all his majesty’s forces.'

When the case of the city of Edinburgh, relative to the affair of Porteus, came to be agitated in parliament in 1737, the duke of Argyle exerted himself vigorously in favour of that city; and in 1739, from whatever cause it proceeded, he repeatedly voted against administration. He spoke against the Spanish convention with great spirit, and against the motion made by the duke of Newcastle, for an unlimited vote of credit. About this time he was removed from all his places, and engaged vigorously in the opposition against sir Robert Walpole. After the removal of that minister in 1741, he was again made master-general of the ordnance, colonel of his majesty’s royal regiment of horse-guards, and field marshal and commander in chief of all the forces in England. But in less than a month he resigned his employments for the last time, being, probably, dissatisfied with some of the political arrangements that took place after the removal of Walpole. About this time he is said fo have received a letter from the pretender, which some of his enemies are supposed to have procured to be written to him, with a view of injuring him; but he prevented any ill effects from it, by immediately communicating it to his majesty’s ministers. He had been for some years afflicted with a paralytic disorder, which now began to increase: and towards the close of his life he was somewhat melancholy and reserved. He died on the 3d of September, 1743, and was interred in Westminster-abbey, where one of the finest monuments in that place, by Roubiliiac, was afterwards erected to his memory. The titles of duke and earl of Greenwich, and baron of Chatham, became extinct at his death; but in his other titles he was succeeded by his brother Archibald earl of Ila.

His biographer, Dr. Campbell, says of him, that he was a nobleman of great political abilities, an eloquent and distinguished senator, of high spirit, undaunted courage, and eminent military talents. But he has been accused of being much actuated by motives of avarice and ambition; and, indeed, the uniformity with which he supported alt the measures of government at one period, and opposed them at another, cannot be reconciled to principles of real patriotism. He had, however, the honour to be celebrated in very high terms both by Pope and Thomson. In private life his conduct is said to have been very respectable. He was an affectionate husband, and an indulgent master. He seldom parted with his servants till age had rendered them incapable of their employments; and then he made provision for their subsistence. He was liberal to the poor, and particularly to persons of merit in distress: but though he was ready to patronize deserving persons, he was extremely cautious not to deceive any by lavish promises, or leading them to form vain expectations. He was a strict œconomist, and paid his tradesmen punctually every month; and though he maintained the dignity of his rank, he took care that no part of his income should be wasted in empty pomp, or unnecessary t-xpences." Mr. Macpherson’s character of him, as a public character, is less favourable, but the reader may consult, with more confidence, the judicious and impartial sketches in Coxe’s Life of Walpole.

, an eminent historical, biographical, and political writer, was born at Edinburgh, March 8, 1708. His father was Robert Campbell, of Glenlyon, esq. and captain of horse in a regiment commanded by the then, earl of Hyndford; and his mother, Elizabeth, the daughter

honour of claiming a descent from the poet Waller. Our anthor was their fourth son; and at the age of five years, was brought to Windsor from Scotland, which country he never saw afterwards. At a proper age he was placed out as clerk to an attorney, being intended for the law; but whether it was that his genius could not be confined to that dry study, or to whatever causes besides it might be owing, it is certain that he did not pursue his original designation: neither did he engage in any other profession, unless that of an author, in which he did not spend his time in idleness and dissipation, but in such a close application to the acquisition of knowledge of various kinds, as soon enabled him to appear with great advantage in the literary world. What smaller pieces might be written by Mr. Campbell in the early part of his life, we are not capable of ascertaining, but, in 1736, before he had completed his thirtieth year, he gave to the publick, in 2 vols. folio, “The military history of prince Eugene, and the duke of Marlborough; comprehending the history of both those illustrious persons to the time of their decease.” This performance was enriched with maps, plans, and cuts, by the best hands, and particularly by the ingenious Claude de Bosc. The reputation hence acquired by our author, occasioned him soon after to be solicited to take a part in the “Ancient Universal History.” In this work Dr. Kippis says he wrote on the Cosmogony; but Dr. Johnson assigns him the history of the Persians, and of the Constantinopolitan empire. Whilst employed in this capital work, Mr. Campbell found leisure to entertain the world with other productions. In 1739 he published the “Travels and adventures of Edward Brown, esq.” 8vo. In the same year appeared his “Memoirs of the bashaw duke de Rippercla,” 8vo, reprinted, with improvements, in 1740. These memoirs were followed, in 1741, by the “Concise history of Spanish America,” 8vo. In 1742 he was the author of “A letter to a friend in the country, on the publication of Thurloe’s State papers;” giving an account of their discovery, importance, and utility. The same year was distinguished by the appearance of the 1st and 2d volumes of his “Lives of the English Admirals, and other ^eminent Britisii ^eamen.” The two remaining volumes were completed in 1744; and the whole, not long after, was translated into German. This, we believe, was the first of Mr. Campbell’s works to which he prefixed his name; and it is a performance of great and acknowledged merit. The good reception it met with was evidenced in its passing through three editions in his own life-time; and a fourth was afterwards given to the public, under the inspection of Dr. Berkenhout. In 1743 he published “Hermippus Revived” a second edition of which, much improved and enlarged, came out in 1749, under the following title “Hermippus Redivivus or, the sage’s triumph over old age and the grave. Wherein a method is laid down for prolonging the life and vigour of man. Including a commentary upon an ancient inscription, in which this great secret is revealed; supported by numerous authorities. The whole interspersed with a great variety of remarkable and well-attested relations.” This extraordinary tract had its origin in a foreign publication, under the title of “Hermippus Redivivus,” Coblentz, 1743, but it was much improved by our author, and is a singular mixture of gravity and irony. The “great secret” is no other than inhaling the breath of young females, by which, we learn from an inscription in Reinesius’s Supplement to Gruter, one Hermippus prolonged his life to the age of 115. Mr. Campbell, in 1744, gave to the public in 2 vols. fol. his “Voyages and Travels,” on Dr. Harris’s plan, being a very distinguished improvement of that collection, which had appeared in 1705. The work contains all the circumnavigators from the time of Columbus to lord Anson; a complete history of the East Indies; historical details of the several attempts made for the discovery of the northeast and north-west passages; the commercial history of Corea and Japan; the Russian discoveries by land and, sea; a distnct account of the Spanish, Portuguese, British, French, Dutch, and Danish settlements in America; with other pieces not to be found in any former collection. The whole was conducted wijh eminent skill and judgment, and the preface is acknowledged to be a master-piece of composition and information. The time and care employed by Mr. Campbell in this important undertaking did not prevent his engaging in another great work, the Biographia Britannica, which began to be published in weekly numbers in 1745, and the first volume of which was completed in 1746, as was the second in 1748.

When the late Mr. Dodsley formed the design of “The Preceptor,” which appeared in 1748, Mr. Campbell was requested to assist in the undertaking, and the parts written by him were, the Introduction to chronology, and the Discourse on trade and commerce, both of which displayed an extensive fund of knowledge upon these subjects. In 1750 he published the first separate edition of his “Present state of Europe;” a work which had been originally begun in 1746, in the “Museum,” a very valuable periodical performance, printed for Dodsley. There is no production of our author’s that has met with a better reception. It has gone through six editions, and fully deserved this encouragement. The next great undertaking which called for the exertion of our author’s abilities and learning, was “The modern Universal History.” This extensive work was published irom time to time in detached parts, till it amounted to 16 vols. tol. and a 2d edition of it in 8vo, began to make its appearance in 1759. The parts of it written by Campbell, were the histories of the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, French, Swedish, Danish, and Ostend settlements in the East Indies; and the histories of the kingdoms of Spain, Portugal, Algarve, Navarre, and that of France, foin Clovis to 1656. As our author had thus distinguished himself in the literary world, the degree of LL. D. was very properly and honourably conferred upon him, June 18, 1754, by the university of Glasgow. With regard to his smaller publications, there are several, Dr. Kippis apprehends, that have eluded his most diligent inquiry; but the following account, we believe, is tolerably accurate: In early life, he wrote: 1. “A Discourse on Providence,” 8vo, the third edition of which was printed in 1748. In 1742 he published 2. “The Case of the Opposition impartially stated,” 8vo. Mr. Reed had a copy of this pamphlet, with various corrections and additions in Dr. Campbell’s own hand, evidently written with a view to a second impression. He published in 1746, 3. “The Sentiments of a Dutch patriot; being the speech of Mr. V. H***n, in an august assembly, on the present state of affairs, and the resolution necessary at this juncture to be taken for the safety of the republic,” 8vo. The history of this little tract, the design of which was to expose the temporising policy of the states of Holland, is somewhat amusing. His amanuensis, when he was going to write the pamphlet, having disappointed him, he requested, after tea in the afternoon, that Mrs. Campbell, when she had ordered a good fire to be made, would retire to bed as soon as possible, with the servants; and, at the same time, leave him four ounces of coffee. This was done, and he wrote till 12 o‘clock at night, when, finding his spirits flag, he took two ounces. With this assistance he went on till six in the morning, when again beginning to grow weary, he drauk the remainder of the coffee. Hence he was enabled to proceed with fresh vigour till nine or ten o’clock in the morning, when he finished the pamphlet, which had a great run, and was productive of considerable profit. Mr. Campbell having succeeded so well in a performance hastily written, expected much greater success from another work, about which he had taken extraordinary pains, and which had cost him a long time in composing. But when it came to be published, it scarcely paid the expence of advertising. Some years afterwards, a book in French was brought to him that had been translated from the German; and he was asked whether a translation of it into English would not be likely to be acceptable. Upon examining it, he found that it was his own neglected work, which had made its way into Germany, and had there been translated and published, without any acknowledgement of the obligation due to the original writer. But it is rather singular that his biographers have not told us what work this was.

In 1749, he printed, 4. “Occasional thoughts on moral, serious, and religious subjects,” 8vo. In 1754, he was the author of a work, entitled, 5. “The Rational Amusement, comprehending a collection of letters on a great variety of subjects, interspersed with essays, and some little pieces of humour,” 8vo. 6. “An exact and authentic account of the greatest white-herring-fishery in Scotland, carried on yearly in the island of Zetland, by the Dutch only,” 1750, 8vo. 7. “The Highland Gentleman’s Magazine, for Jan. 1751,” 8vo. 8. “A Letter from the Prince of the infernal legions, to a spiritual lord on this side the great gulph, in answer to a late invective epistle levelled at his highness,” 1751, 8vo. 9. “The naturalization bill confuted, as most pernicious to these united kingdoms,” 1751, 8vo. 10. “His royal highness Frederick late prince of Wales deciphered: or a full and particular description of his character, from his juvenile years until his death,” 1751, 8vo. 11. “A Vade Mecum: or companion for the unmarried ladies: wherein are laid down some examples whereby to direct them in the choice of husbands,” 1752, 8vo. 12. “A particular but melancholy account of the great hardships, difficulties, and miseries, that those unhappy and much to be pitied creatures, the common women of the town, are plunged into at this juncture,” 1752, 8vo. 13. “A full and particular description of the Highlands of Scotland,” 1752, 8vo. 14. “The case of the publicans, both in town and country, laid open,” 1752, 8vo. 15. “The Shepherd of Banbury’s rules,” a favourite pamphlet with the common people; and “The history of the war in the East-Indies,” which appeared in 1758 or 1759, under the name of Mr. Watts, are supposed to have been of Mr. Campbell’s composition. Upon the conclusion of the peace of Paris, our author was requested by lord Bute to take some share in the vindication of that peace. Accordingly, he wrote “A description and history of the new Sugar Islands in the West-Indies,” 8vo, the design of which was to shew the value and importance of the neutral islands that had been ceded to us by the French. The only remaining publication of Dr. Campbell’s, that has hitherto come to our knowledge, is, “A Treatise upon the Trade of Great-Britain to America,” 1772, 4to. His last grand work was “A political survey of Britain being a series of reflections on the situation, lands, inhabitants, revenues, colonies, and commerce of this island. Intended to shew that they have not as yet approached near the summit of improvement, but that it will afford employment to many generations, before they push to their utmost extent the natural advantages of Great Britain.” This work, which was published in 1774, in 2 vols. royal 4to, cost Dr. Campbell many years of attention, study, and labour. As it was his last, so it seems to have been his favourite production, upon which he intended to erect a durable monument of his sincere and ardent love to his country, but in the success of it, he is said to have been greatly disappointed; yet a more truly patriotic publication never appeared in the English language. The variety of information it contains is prodigious and there is no book that better deserves the close and constant study of the politician, the senator, the gentleman, the merchant, the manufacturer; in short, of every one who has it in any degree in his power to promote the interest and welfare of Great-Britain; and this praise it may be allowed to deserve, although the accuracy of many of his facts may be disputed, and much of his reasoning appear ill-founded. Among other encomiums produced by Dr. Kippis on the literary merit of his predecessor, that of Mr. Burke, the author of the “Account of the European settlements in America,” is perhaps the most honourable . Dr. Campbell’s reputation was not confined to his own country, but extended to the remotest parts of Europe. As a striking instance of this, we may mention, that in the spring of 1774, the empress of Russia was pleased to honour him with the present of her picture, drawn in the robes rom in that country in the days of Ivan Vassiilievitch, grand duke of Russia, who was contemporary with queen Elizabeth. To manifest the doctor’s sense of her imperial majesty’s goodness, a set of the “Political survey of Britain,” bound in Morocco, highly ornamented, and accompanied with a letter descriptive of the triumphs and felicities of her reign, was forwarded to St. Petersburg, and conveyed into the hands of that great princess, by prince Gregory Orloff, who had resided some months in this kingdom. The empress’s picture, since the death of our author, has been presented by his widow to lord Macartney.

Let us now advert a little to Dr. Campbell’s personal history. May 23, 1736, he married Elizabeth, daughter of Benjamin Vobe, of Leominster, in the county of Hereford, gentleman, with which lady he lived nearly forty years in the greatest conjugal harmony and happiness. So wholly did he dedicate his time to books, that he seldom went abroad: but to relieve himself, as much as possible, from the inconveniencies incident to a sedentary life, it was his custom, when the weather would admit, to walk in his garden; or, otherwise, in some room of his house, by way of exercise. By this method, united with the strictest temperance in eating, and an equal abstemiousness in drinking, he enjoyed a good state of health, though his constitution was delicate. His domestic manner of living did not preclude him from a very extensive and honourable acquaintance. His house, especially on a Sunday evening, was the resort of the most distinguished persons of all ranks, and particularly of such as had rendered themselves eminent hy their knowledge, or love of literature. He received foreigners, who were fond of learning, with an affability and kindness, which excited in them the highest respect and veneration; and his instructive and cheerful, conversation made him the delight of his friends in general. On March 5, 1765, Dr. Campbell was appointed his majesty’s agent for the province of Georgia, in North America, which employment he held till his decease. His last illness was a decline, the consequence of a life devoted to severe study, and which resisted every attempt for his relief that the most skilful in the medical science could devise. By this illness he was carried off, at his house in Queen-square, Ormond-street, on Dec. 28, 1775, when he had nearly completed the 68th year of his age. His end was tranquil and easy, and he preserved the full use of all his faculties to the latest moment of his life. On Jan. 4th following his decease, he was interred in the new burying- ground, behind the Foundling-hospital, belonging to St. George the Martyr, where a monument, with a plain and modest inscription, has been erected to his memory. Dr. Campbell had by his lady seven children, one of whom only survived him, but is since dead. Dr. Campbell’s literary knowledge was by no means confined to the subjects on which he more particularly treated as an author. He was well acquainted with the mathematics, and had read much in medicine. It has been with great reason believed, that, if he had dedicated his studies to the last science, he would have made a very conspicuous figure in the physical profession. He was eminently versed in the different parts of sacred literature; and his acquaintance with the languages extended not only to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin among the ancient, and to the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch, among the modern; but, likewise, to the oriental tongues. He was particularly fond of the Greek language. His attainment of such a variety of knowledge was exceedingly assisted by a memory surprisingly retentive, and which, indeed, astonished every person with whom he was conversant. A striking instance of this has been given by the honourable Mr. Daines Barrington, in his tract, entitled, “The probability of reaching the north pole discussed .” In communicating his ideas, our author had an uncommon readiness and facility; and the style of his works, which had been formed upon the model of that of the celebrated bishop Sprat, was perspicuous, easy, flowing, and harmonious. Should it be thought that it is sometimes rather too diffusive, it will, notwithstanding, indubitably be allowed, that it is, in general, elegant.

To all these accomplishments of the understanding, Dr. Campbell joined the more important virtues of a moral and pious character. His disposition was gentle and humane, and his manners kind and obliging. He was the tenderest of husbands, a most indulgent parent, a kind master,a firm and sincere friend. To his great Creator he paid the constant and ardent tribute of devotion, duty, and reverence; and in his correspondences he shewed, that a sense of piety was always nearest his heart. It was our author’s custom every day, to read one or more portions of scripture, in the original, with the ancient versions, and the best commentators before him; and in this way, as appears from his own occasional notes and remarks, he went through the sacred writings a number of times, with great thankfulness and advantage.

, an eminent cardinal of the Romish church, and an English bishop, was a native of Bologna, the son of John Campegio, a learned lawyer, and was himself professor of law at Padua. After the death of his wife, he went into the church, and in 1510 became auditor of the Rota, and in 1512 bishop of Feltria. Being afterwards, in 1517, created cardinal, he was sent as pope’s legate into England in the following year. His chief business at the English court was to persuade Henry VIII. to join the confederation of Christian princes against the Turks. He was very favourably received on this occasion, and had several spiritualities bestowed upon him, among which was the bishoprick of Salisbury, but not having been able to accomplish the business of his mission, he returned to Rome. When the controversy respecting Henry’s divorce began, in 1527, -cardinal Campegio was sent a second time into England, to call a legantine court, where he and his colleague cardinal Wolsey were to sit as judges. Having arrived in London Oct. 1528, the first session began at Blackfriars, May 31, 1529, and the trial lasted until July 23, when the queen Catherine appealing to the pope, the court was adjourned until Sept. 28, and was then dissolved. Afterwards Campegio was recalled to Rome, the king making him considerable presents upon his departure; but a rumour being spread, that he carried along with him a treasure belonging to cardinal Wolsey, whose downfall was at this time contrived, and who, it was suspected, intended to follow him to Rome, he was pursued by the king’s orders, and overtaken at Calais. His baggage was searched, but nothing being found of the kind suspected, he complained louilly of this violation of his sacred character. In this, however, he obtained no redress, and when king Henry understood that the see of Rome was not disposed to favour him with a divorce from his queen, he deprived Campegio of his see of Salisbury. He died at Rome in August 1539, leaving the character of a man of learning, and a patron of learned men, and much esteemed by Erasmus, Sadolet, and other eminent men of that time. His letters only remain, which contain many historical particulars, and were published in “Epistolarum miscellanearum, libri decem,” Basil, 1550, fol. Hume represents his conduct, in the matter of the divorce, as prudent and temperate, although somewhat ambiguous.

, an eminent physician and surgeon, the son of Florence Camper, a minister of the reformed church, was born at Leyden May 11, 1722, and was first taught design and painting, which enabled him in his future studies to draw his anatomical preparations. He afterwards studied medicine under Boerhaave, and the other eminent professors of Leyden, and in 1746 took his degree of M. D. In 1748, he attended the hospitals and anatomical lectures in London, and afterwards at Paris. In 1749, he was appointed professor of philosophy, medicine, and surgery at Franeker; and in 1755 taught these sciences at Amsterdam, which he quitted in 1761. After two years’ residence at his country-house in Friesland, he was appointed professor of medicine, surgery, anatomy, and botany at Groningen, where he resided until June 1773, when he settled at Franeker, in order to superintend the education of his sons* In 1762, he had been appointed a representative in the assembly of the province of Friesland; but in 1787, he was nominated one of the council of state, and was therefore obliged to reside at the Hague, where he died in April 1789, in the sixty- seventh year of his age. The immediate cause of his death was a pleurisy, but his eulogist seems to attribute it remotely to his patriotic exertions, and the grief which oppressed him when he saw the independence of his country attacked. Whichever account be true, he was lamented as a learned and ingenious promoter of science, and an ornament to his country. He was at the time of his death a member of the royal society of London, and of the academies of Petersburg!), Berlin, Edinburgh (the college of physicians), Gottingen, Manchester, Haerlem, Rotterdam, &c. and other learned societies in various parts of Europe.

His works, if not numerous, are highly valuable, and contain many important facts, and successful experiments and improvements. He published, l. “Demonstrationum Anatomico-Pathologicarum liber primus, continens brachii humani fabricam et morbos, in folio maximo, cum quatuor figuris,” Amst. 1760. 2. “Liber secundus, continens pelvis human se fabricam et morbos,” 1762. 2. “An account of a method of performing the operation of Lithotomy at two different times,” published in a Dutch journal. The operation is performed at twice, that is, on the first day the surgeon makes the incision into the bladder; the patient is then to be put to bed, and the extraction of the stone deferred until the second, third, or fourth day; but this method has not been attended with the advantages expected from it. Camper’s other works were published by his son: 3. “A Dissertation on the fracture of the patella and olecranon,” 1789, 4to, 4. “A Treatise on the natural difference of features, &c.” which was translated by Dr. Cogan, and published at London in 1794, under the title “The Works of the late professor Camper, on the connection between the science of anatomy and the arts of drawing, painting, statuary, &c. &c. in 2 books containing a treatise on the natural difference of features in persons of different countries and periods of life; and on beauty, as exhibited in ancient sculpture, &c.” This is unquestionably a work of great curiosity and importance to artists, and is one of the best translated scientific books in our language. In 1803, a collection of Camper’s works was published at Paris, in 3 vols. 8vo. with a folio atlas of plates, containing his various dissertations on natural history, physiology, and comparative anatomy. To these is prefixed an account of his life by his son. Camper was! not less amiable in private life, than celebrated in his public character.

, an ingenious Roman catholic writer, was born in London in 1540, and educated at Christ’s hospital. Being a boy of great parts, he was selected while at school, to make an oration before queen Mary at her accession to the crown; and from thence elected scholar of St. John’s college in Oxford by Thomas White, the founder of it, in 1553. He took his degrees of B. and M. A. regularly, and afterwards went into orders. In 1566, when queen Elizabeth was entertained at Oxford, he made an oration before her, and also kept an act in St. Mary’s church, with very great applause from that learned queen. In 1568, he went into Ireland, where he wrote a history of that country in two books; but being then discovered to have embraced the popish religion, and to labour for proselytes, he was seized and detained for some time. He escaped soon after into England; but in 1571 transported himself into the Low Countries, and settled in the English college of Jesuits at Doway, where he openly renounced the protestant religion, and had the degree of B. D. conferred upon him. From thence he went to Rome, where he was admitted into the society of Jesuits in 1573; and afterwards sent by the general of his order into Germany. He lived for some time in Brune, and then at Vienna where he composed a tragedy, called “Nectar and Ambrosia,” which was acted before the emperor with great applause. Soon after he settled at Prague in Bohemia, and taught rhetoric and philosophy for about six years in a college of Jesuits, which had been newly erected there. At length being called to Rome, he was sent by the command of pope Gregory XIII. into England, where he arrived in June 1580. Here he performed all the offices of a zealous provincial, and was diligent in propagating his religion by all the arts of conversation and Writing. He seems to have challenged the English clergy to a disputation, by a piece entitled “Rationes decem oblati certaminis in causa fidei, redditse academicis Angliae,” which was printed at a private press in 1581; and many copies of which, as Wood tells us, were dispersed that year in St. Mary’s church at Oxford, during the time of an act. It was afterwards printed in English, and ably refuted by the English divines. In short, Campian, though nobody knew where he was, was yet so active as to fall under the cognizance of Walsingham, secretary of state; and Walsingham employed a person to find him out. He was at last discovered in disguise at the house of a private gentleman in Berks, from whence he was conveyed iiv great procession to the Tower of London, with a paper fastened to his hat, on which was written “Edmund Campian, a most pernicious Jesuit.” Afterwards, having been found guilty of high treason in adhering to the bishop of Rome, the queen’s enemy, and in coming to England todisturb the peace and quiet of the realm, he was hanged and quartered, with other Romish priests, at Tyburn, December 1, 1581.

, was born at Toulouse in 1656, and shewed an early taste for poetry, whichwas improved by a good education, and when he came to Paris, he took Racine for his guide in the dramatic career. But, though it may be allowed that Campistron approached his merit in the conduct of his pieces, yet he could never equal him in the beauties of composition, nor in his enchanting versification. Too feeble to avoid the defects of Racine, and unable like him to atone for them by beautiful strokes of the sublime, he copied him in his soft manner of delineating the love of his heroes, of whom, it must be confessed, he sometimes made inamoratos fitter for the most comic scenes than for tragedy, in which passion ought always to assume an elevated style. Racine, while he was forming Campistron for the drama, was not inattentive to promote the fortune of the young* poet. Having proposed him to the duke de Vendome for the composition of the heroic pastoral of “Acis and Galatea,” which he designed should be represented at his chateau of Anet, that prince, well satisfied both with his character and his talents, first made him secretary of his orders, and then secretary general of the gallies. He afterwards got him made knight of the military order of St. James in Spain, commandant of Chimene, and marquis of Penange in Italy. The poet, now become necessary to the prince, by the cheerfulness of his temper and the vivacity of his imagination, attended him on his travels into various countries. Campistron, some time after his return, retired to his own country; where he married mademoiselle de Maniban, sister of the first president of Toulouse, and of the bishop of Mirepoix, afterwards archbishop of Bourdeaux; and there he died May 11, 1723, of an apoplexy, at the age of 67. This stroke was brought on by a fit of passion excited by two chairmen who refused to carry him on account of his great weight. Campistron kept good company, loved good cheer, and had all the indolence of a man of pleasure. While secretary to the duke de Vendome, he found it a more expeditious way to burn the letters that were written to that prince than to answer them. Accordingly, the duke, seeing him one day before a large fire, in which he was casting a heap of papers: “There its Campistron,” said he, “employed in answering my correspondents.” He followed the duke even to the field of battle. At the battle of Steinkerque, the duke seeing him always beside him, said, “What do you do here, Campistron?” “Mon seigneur,” answered he, “I am waiting to go back with you.” This sedateness of mind in a moment of so much danger was highly pleasing to the bero. His plays, 1750, 3 vols. 12mo. have been nearly as often printed as those of Corneille, Racine, Crebillon, and Voltaire. The most popular of them are his “Andronicus,” “Alcibiades,” “Acis and Galatea,” “Phocion,” “Adrian,” “Tiridates,” “Phraates,” and “Jaloux Desabuseé.”

, was born at Amiens Jan. 31, 1643, of very poor parents. Serroni, bishop of Mende, took him from the Dominican convent of the fauxbourg St. Germain, in Paris, provided for his education, and made him his secretary. This prelate also gave him the priory at Flore, obtained for him the abbey of St. Marcel, the coadjutorship of Glandeves, and lastly the bishopric of Pamiers. But not able to obtain his bulls from Rome, on account of his bad conduct, he had by way of compensation the abbey of Signy. He is the author of several dissertations on medals, on the history of France, on the title of Most Christian given to the kings of France, on the guard of these monarchs, on the daughters of the house of France given in marriage to heretical or pagan princes, on the nobility of the royal race, on the heredity of the grand fiefs, on the origin of ensigns armorial, on the hereditary dignities attached to titled estates, &c. all which were published in the Paris Mercuries for 1719, 1720, 1722, and 1723. His cabinet was rich in medals; the celebrated Vaillant published the most curious of them accompanied with explications. Abbe de Camps died at Paris in 1723, aged 81. He was learned and laborious, and his investigations have been of great use to the historians that have come after him.

, a French physician, was born at Paris in 1722, and died in the same city in 1772, at 50 years of age. He practised medicine there with great success, and wrote, 1. “Medicine de l'esprit,” Paris, 1753, 2 vols. 12mo, in which his reasonings are not always just; but his conjectures are in general very ingenious, and may be of great service. 2. “Abdeker,” or the art of preserving beauty, 1756, 4 vols, small twelves; a romance in which the author introduces a variety of receipts and precepts for the benefit of the ladies. The true cosmetics are exercise and temperance. A translation of part of this appeared in English, but before the above date, 1754, in one vol. 12mo. 3. “Memoires sur divers sujets de medicine,” 1760, 8vo. 4. “Memoire sur Tetat actuel de la Pharmacia,” 1765, 12mo. 5. “Projet d'aneaniirla Petiteverole,” 1767, 12mo. 6. “Medicine pratique,” 3 vols. 12mo, and 1 vol. 4to. 7. “Amphitheatrum poeticum,” a poem, 1745, 4to. He also was editor of the “Journal Economique,” from 1753 to 1765, and exhibited in all his works various talents, and considerable powers of fancy as well as of science. One of his brothers, Nicolas Camus de Mezieres, was a skilful architect, and published some works on that subject particularly “Dissertations sur le bois de charpente,” Paris, 1763, 12mo. “Le Genie d'Architecture,” ibid. 1780, 8vo; “Traite de la force de bois,” 1782, 8vo; and “Le guide de reux qui veulent batir,” 2 vols. 8vo. He died July 24, 177.9. Another brother, Armand Gaston Camus, who died in 1804, was a very active agent in all the revolutionary measures of the different French assemblies, and being sent to arrest Dumourier in 1793, was delivered by him to the Austrians, and afterwards exchanged for the daughter of Louis XVI. His political conduct belongs to the history of those turbulent periods. In 1800 he was commissioned to inspect the libraries and collections of the united departments, and particularly examined the library of Brussels, which is rich in Mss. He was a man of some learning, and extensive knowledge of books; and published, 1. “Observations sur la distribution et le classement des livres d'une bibliotheque.” 2. “Memoire sur un livre Allemand,” the famous Tewrdannckhs. 3. “Memoire sur Thistoire et les procédés du Polytypage et de la Stereotype.” 4. “Rapport sur la continuation de la collection des Historiens de la France, et de celle des Chartres et Diplomes.” 5. “Notice d'un livre imprim6 a Bamberg in 1462,” a very curious memoir of a book, first described in the Magasin Hist. Litt. Bibliog. 1792. 6. “Memoire sur la collection des grands et petits voyages,” 1802, 4to. In the “Notices des Mss. de la Bibl. Nationale,” vol. VI. is an interesting memoir by him, relating to two ancient manuscript bibles, in 2 vols. fol. adorned with 5152 pictures, each of them having a Latin and French verse beautifully written and illuminated beneath.

, a celebrated French mathematician, examiner of the royal schools of Artillery and engineers, secretary and professor of the royal academy of architecture, honorary member of that of the marine, and fellow of the royal society of London, was, born at Cressy en Brie, Aqgust 25, 1699. His early ingenuity in mechanics and his own intreaties induced his. parents to send him to study at a college in Paris, at ten, years of age; where in the space of two years his progress was so great, that he was able to give lessons in mathematics, and thus to defray his own expences at the college without any farther charge to his parents. By the assist^ ance of the celebrated Varignon, young Camus soon ran through the course of the higher mathematics, and acquired a name among the learned. He made himself more particularly known to the academy of sciences in 1727 by his memoir upon the subject of the prize which they had proposed for that year, viz. “To determine the most advantageous way of masting ships;” in consequence of which he was named that year adjoint mechanician to the academy; and in 1730 he was appointed professor of architecture. In less than three years after, he was honoured with the secretaryship of the same; and the 18th of April 1733, he obtained the degree of associate in the academy, where he distinguished himself by his memoirs upon living forces, or bodies in motion acted upon by forces, on the figure of the teeth of wheels and pinions, on pump work, and severa^ other ingenious memoirs.

In 1736 he was sent, in company with messieurs Clairaut, Maupertuis, and Monnier, upon the celebrated expedition, to measure a degree at the north polar circle; in which he rendered himself highly useful, not only as a mathema~= tician, but also as a mechanician and an artist, branches, for which he had a remarkable talent. In 1741 Camus had the honour to be appointed pensioner geometrician in the academy; and the same year he invented a gauging-rod and sliding-rule proper at once to gauge all sorts of casks, and to calculate their contents. About the year 1747 he was named examiner of the schools of artillery and engineers; and, in 1756, one of the eight mathematicians appointed to examine by a new measurement, the base which had formerly been measured by Picard, between. Villejuive and Juvisi; an operation in which his ingenuity and exactness were of great utility. In 1765 M. Camus was elected a fellow of the royal society. of London; and died the 4th of May 1768, in the sixty -ninth year o.f his age; being succeeded by the celebrated d'Alembert in his office of geometrician in the French academy; and leaving behind him a great number of manuscript treatises on various branches of the mathematics. The works published by M. Camus are, 1. “Course of Mathematics for the use of -the Engineers,” 4 vols. 8vo. 2. “Elements of Mechanics.” 3. “Elements of Arithmetic.” And his memoirs printed in the volumes of the academy are, 1. “Of accelerated motions by living forces,” vol. for 1728. 2. 4< Solution of a geometrical problem of M. Cramer,“1732. 3.” On the figure of the teeth and pinions in Clocks,“1733. 4.” On the action of a musket-ball, piercing a pretty thick piece of wood, without communicating any considerable velocity to it,“1738. 5.” On the best manner of employing Buckets for raising Water,“1739. 6.” A problem in Statics,“1740. 7.” On an Instrument for gauging of vessels,“1741. 8.” On the Standard of the Ell measure,“1746. 9.” On the Tangents of points common to several branches of the same curve,“1747. 10.” On the operations in measuring the distance between the centres of the pyramids of Villejuive and Juvisi, to discover the best measure of the degree about Paris,“1754. 11.” On the Masting of Ships;“Prize Tom. II. 12.” The Manner of working Oars;“Mach. torn. II. 13.” A Machine for moving many Colters at once;" Mach. torn. II.

, an exemplary French prelate, was born at Paris in 1582, and on account of his excellent character and talents, was nominated to the bishopric of Bellay by Henry IV. in 1609, before he was of age, but having obtained the pope’s dispensation, he was consecrated on Dec. 30th of the same year. From this time he appears to have devoted his time and talents to the edification of his flock, and of the people at large, by frequent preaching, and more frequent publication of numerous works calculated to divert their attention to the concerns of an immortal life. In his time romances began to be the favourite books with all who would be thought readers of taste; and Camus, considering that it would not be easy to persuade them to leave off such books without supplying them with some kind of substitute, published several works of practical piety with a mixture of romantic narrative, by which he hoped to attract and amuse the attention of romancereaders, and draw them on insensibly to matters of religious importance. He contrived, therefore, that the lovers, in these novels, while they encountered the usual perplexities, should be led to see the vanity and perishable nature of all human enjoyments, and to form resolutions of renouncing worldly delights, and embracing a religious life. Among these works we find enumerated, 1. “Dorothee, ou recit de la pitoyable issue d'une volorite violentee,” Paris, 1621. 2. “Alexis,” 1^22, 3 vols. 8vo. 3. L'Hyacinte, histoire Catalane,“ibid. 1627, 8yo. 4.” Alcime, relation funeste, &c.“ibid. 12mo, 1625, &c. But the principal object of his reforming spirit was the conduct of the rnonks, or mendicant friars, against whom he wrote various severe remonstrances, and preached against them with a mixture of religious fervour and satirical humour. Among the works he published against them are, 1.” Le Directeur desinteresse,“Paris, 1632, 12mo. 2.” Desappropriation claustrale,“Besangon, 1634. 3.” Le Rabat-joy e du triomphe monagal.“4.” L'anti-Moine bien prepare,“1632, &c. &c. These monks teazed the cardinal Richelieu to silence him, and the cardinal told him,” I really find no other fault with you but this horrible bitterness against the monks; were it not for that, I would canonize you.“”I wish that may come to pass,“said the bishop,” “for then we should both have our wish; you would be pope, and I a saint.” Many of his bons-mots were long in circulation, and show that he had the courage to reprove vices and absurdities among the highest classes. In 1620 he established in the city of Bellay a convent of capuchins, and in 1622 one for the nuns of the visitation, instituted by St. Francis de Sales. In 1629 he resigned his bishopric that he might pass the remainder of his days in retirement, in the abbey of Cluny in Normandy, but the archbishop of Rouen, unwilling that so active a member of the church should not be employed in public services, associated him in his episcopal cares, by appointing him his grand vicar. At length he finally retired to the hospital of incurables in Paris, where he died April 26, 1652. Moreri has enumerated a large catalogue of his works, the principal of which, besides what we have enumerated, are, “L' Esprit de S. Frangois de Sales,” 6 vols. 8vo, reduced to one by a doctor of the Sorbonne; and “L'Avoisinement des Protestans avec TEglise Romaine,” republished in 1703 by Richard Simon, under the title of “Moyens de reunir les Protestans avec l'Eglise Romaine.” Simon asserted, that Bossuet’s exposition of the catholic faith was no more than this work in a new dress.

, a French historian, was born at Troyes in 1575. In his eighteenth year he was promoted to a canonry in the cathedral of his native city, but appears to have devoted himself chiefly to the study of history and antiquities. He died Jan. 20, 1655, in the eightieth year of his age, after publishing, 1. “Chronologia ab origine orbis, usque adann. 1200, auctore anonymo, sed ccenobii S. Mariani apud Altissiodorum (Auxerre) regulu? Praemonstratensis inonacho,” with an appendix to the year 1223; Trecis (Troyes) 1608, 4to. 2. “Promptuarium sacrarum antiquitatum Tricassinse dicecesis, &c.” 1610, 8vo, a work of great utility to those who have the curiosity to study the history of ecclesiastical discipline. 3. “Historia Albigensiuoi, &c. auclore Petro, coenobii Vallis-Sarnensis ordinis Cisterciensis in dioecesi Parisiensi monacho,” Trccis, 1618, 8vo. This history, which Camusat first published from the original ms. was translated into French by Arnaud Sorbin, Paris, 1615. 4. “Melanges historiques, ou recueii de plusieurs actes, traits, et lettres missives, depuis Pan 1390 jusqu'a Tan 1580,” ibid. 1619, 8vo, Some of his historical communications are in Duchesne’s collection of French historians, and in other collections.

, grand nephew of the preceding, was born at Besanon, where his father was an advocate, in 1697, and died at Amsterdam in 1732. In this city he was employed in the journals, to relieve the distress he brought upon himself by quitting the post of secretary and librarian to marechal d'Estres, and marrying without any fortune. He left “Hist. Critiques des Journaux qui s’imprimenten France,” 2 vols. 12mo; “Bibliotheque des Livres nouveaux,” of which only 2 vols. have appeared. The first four volumes of the “Bibliotheque Fran9oise,” which consists of 34 vols. 4to; “Melanges de Litterature,” taken from manuscript letters of Chapelain, &c. 12mo. He appears to have been of an unsteady temper, never studying but to relieve his necessities, and shifting from one pursuit to another without completing any.

, an eminent painter of Venice, was born in 1697, the son of one Bernardo a scene-painter. He followed the profession of his father, and acquired a wildness of conception and a readiness of hand which afterwards supplied him with ideas and dispatch for his nearly numberless smaller works. Tired of the theatre, he went young to Rome, and with great assiduity applied himself to paint views from nature and the ruins of antiquity. On his return to Venice he continued the same studies from the prospects of that city which the combination of nature and art has rendered one of the most magnificent and the most novel of Europe. Numbers of these are exact copies of the spots they represent, and hence highly interesting to those whose curiosity has not been gratified by residence in the metropolis of the Adriatic. Numbers are the compound of his own invention, graceful mixtures of modern and antique, of fancied and real beauties: such he painted for Algarotti. The most instructive and the most novel of these appears to be that view of the grand canal, in which he adopted the idea of Palladio, by substituting the Rial to for its present bridge, with the basilica of Vicenza rising in the centre, the palace Chericato and other fabrics of that great architect rounding the whole. Canaletto made use of the camera to obtain precision, but corrected its defects in the air-tints; he was the first who shewed to artists its real use and limits. He produced great effects somewhat in the manner of Tiepolo, who sometimes made his figures, and impressed a character of vigour on every object he touched: we see them in their most striking aspect. He takes picturesque liberties without extravagance, and combines his objects so congenially, that the common spectator finds nature, and the man of knowledge the art.

Lord Orford informs us that he came to England in 1746, when he was about the age of fifty, by persuasion of his countryman Amiconi, and encouraged by the multitude of pictures he had sold to, or sent over to the English. He was then in good circumstances, and it was said came over to vest his money in our stocks. Lord Orford thinks he did not stay above two years. At Strawberry hill is a perspective by him of the inside of King’s college chapel, Cambridge; and at Buckingham-house are several large pieces far superior to his common views of Venice. They had belonged to Smyth, the English consul at Venice, who early engaged Canaletto to work for him for a long term of years, at low rates, but retailed the pictures to travelling English at higher prices. Canaletto died in 1768, aged seventyone. Mr. Fuseli adds, that Francesco Guardi, his scholar, has been of late considered as the rival of his fame, and his views of Venice have excited in Italy and on this side of the Alps, the admiration of those whom the brilliancy of his effect and the taste of his method prevented from perceiving how much he wants of the precision and solidity of the master. He died 1793, aged eighty-one.

, one of the restorers and improvers of anatomy, was born at Ferrara, in Italy, in 1515, where he acquired so much reputation for his skill in medicine, that he was invited to Rome by pope Julius III. who made him archiator, and his principal physician. On the death of the pope he returned to Ferrara, and pursued his anatomical researches. He first discovered the valves of the veins, which were afterwards more completely described by Vesalius. The work by which he is known, of which only four complete copies are said to be in existence, is “Musculorum humani corporis picturata dissectio,” 4to, printed, Haller thinks, in 1543, no date or place named. The figures, twenty-seven in number, are neatly engraved on copper, and represent the muscles of the upper extremities. In the preface, he promises a continuation of the work, which he probably did not finish. He died in 1579.

, seigneur du Fresne, counsellor of state, was born 1551 at Paris, and carefully educated by his father James de la Canaye, an eminent advocate. At the age of fifteen, having declared himself a Calvinist, he went into Italy, Germany, and to Constanstinople; and published an account of his travels to that city, under the title of “Ephemerides.” He shone afterwards at the bar, and was counsellor of state under Henry III. Henry IV. sent him ambassador into England, Germany, and to Venice. He assisted at the famous conference of Fontainebleau, 1600, between cardinal du Perron and DuplessisMornay, and afterwards turned catholic. The year following he was sent ambassador to Venice, where he contributed greatly to the termination of the disputes between that republic and pope Paul V. He died at his return to Paris, February 27, 1610. Three vols. fol. of his embassies were published in 1635, with his life prefixed to the first.

, was an artist, whose real name was De Witte (or White), although Sandrart calls him Candido, as also does De Piles, on account of that name being inscribed on some of the prints engraved after the designs of this artist. Some authors affirm that he was born at Munich; but Descamps asserts, that he was born at Bruges, in Flanders, in 1548, although he probably might have resided for several years at Munich, and perhaps have died there. He painted with equal success in fresco and in oil, and had an excellent genius for modelling. He worked in conjunction with Vasari at the pope’s palace in Rome, and was also employed at Florence by the grand duke; ia both places affording competent proofs of his skill, and gaining reputation; till at last he was taken into the service of the elector Maximilian of Bavaria, and spent the remainder of his life in the court of that prince. Several prints are published by Sadeler, after his designs and paintings particularly the Hermits, and the Four Doctors of the Church.

, or Cambiaso, called Luchetto, an eminent Genoese painter, was born at Oneglia, near Genoa, in 1527, and became a most expeditious painter, working with both his hands, by which unusual power he executed more designs, and finished more great works with his own pencil in a much shorter time than most other artists could do with several assistants. It is mentioned as a memorable circumstance in his life, that at the age of seventeen he was employed in painting the front of a house in fresco; but whilst he was commencing his work, some Florentine painters who were actually engaged, conceived him to be a mere grinder of colours, and when he took up his pallet and pencils they wished to have prevented his proceeding with it, lest he should spoil the work, but after a few strokes of his pencil they were convinced of their mistake, and respected his singular abilities. Of Cangiagi, it is remarked, that he practised three different modes of painting at three different periods of his life. His first manner was gigantic and unnatural, which he corrected in consequence of the remonstrances of his friend Alessi, the celebrated architect, for his best style, in forming which he consulted nature with attention, and digested his thoughts in sketches, before he began to paint. His third manner was distinguished by a more rapid execution, to which he recurred in order to make more ample provision for his wife and family, and had a great deal of the mannerist. His works at Genoa are very numerous, and he was employed by the king of Spain to adorn part of the Escurial.

Of his personal history, we are told that in his youth he was volatile, and that when his wife died he became enamoured of her sister, but could not obtain a dispensation from the pope to marry her, although he endeavoured to cain his favour by painting two fine pictures for his holiness. When employed by Philip II. of Spain, he wished to obtain his leave to marry the lady, but was again unsuccessful, and it is supposed the disappointment contributed to his death, which happened at the Escurial in 1585. In the royal collection at Paris there are a “Sleeping Cupid,” as large as life, and likewise “Judith with her Attendant,” which do honour to this master. In the Pembroke collection at Wilton, there is a picture, representing Christ bearing his cross, which is ascribed to Cangiagi.

, a learned scholar of the sixteenth century, was a native of Anghiari in Tuscany, where he acquired great reputation by his knowledge, not only of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, but of the Syriac and other oriental languages, which he taught at Venice, Padua, Bologna, Rome, and Spain. From Spain he came to France in 1550, accompanied by father Simon Guichard, then superior of the* order of the Minims; and at Paris, he had for one of his scholars, the celebrated Andrew Dudith of Buda. At length he attached himself to William du Prat, bishop of Clermont, in whose service he died at Auvergne in 1557. He was the author of some works which have not appeared, but among those published was a very valuable Greek grammar, entitled “Hellenismus,” and a book of instructions in the oriental languages, entitled “Institutiones linguarum Syriacte, Assyriacae, et Thalmudicae, una cum jEthiopicae et Arabics collatione,” Paris, 1554, 4to, which was much esteemed by the learned of his time.

, or De Hondt, the nephew of Peter Canisius, first provincial of the Jesuits in Germany, who died in 1597, was born at Nimeguen, and became not only a celebrated lawyer, but a general scholar of great reputation, particularly in ecclesiastical antiquities. After studying at the university of Louvain, he was appointed professor of canon law in that of Ingolstadt, which situation he retained until his death in 1610. His professional writings were principally, 1. “Summa juris Canonici.” 2. “Commentarium in regulas juris.” 3. “Praelectiones academicae,” &c. all collected and republished by Andrew Bouvet in “Opera Canonica Canisii,” Louvain, 1649, 4to, Cologne, 1662. But the work by which he is best known is his 3. “Antiqute lectiones,” 1601—1603, 7 vols. 4to, reprinted by the care of M. James Basnage, under the title of “Thesaurus monumentorum ecclesiasticorum & historicorum,” &c. Amsterdam, 1725, in 7 parts, usually bound in 4 vols, folio. The learned editor has enriched them with particular prefaces at the head of each work, indicating the subject and the author, accompanied by useful and curious remarks, and some notes of Capperonier. This collection comprises several pieces of great importanee to the history of the middle ages, and to chronology in general. Basnage, as we have noticed in his life, died before this work was entirely printed.

, a German poet and statesman, and privy counsellor of state, was of an ancient and illustrious family in Brandenburg, and born at Berlin in 1654, five months after his father’s death. After his early studies, he travelled to France, Italy, Holland, and England; and upon his return to his country, was charged with important negociations by Frederic II. and Frederic III. Canitz united the statesman with the poet; and was conversant in many languages, dead as well as living. His German poems were published for the tenth time, 1750, in 8vo. He is said to haVe taken Horace for his model, "and to have written purely and delicately; and the French biographers complimented him with the title of the Pope of Germany. He not only cultivated the fine arts himself, but gave all the encouragement he could to them in others. He died at Berlin in 1699, highly praised for the excellence of his private character.

, was a leader of the English Brownists at Amsterdam, whither he fled on the restoration; but little is known of his personal history. His employ in England before his flight seems to have been no other than compiling the weekly news, yet he found time sufficient to collate many passages of Scripture, from whence he drew his notes, which he placed in the margin of his Bible; the first edit, printed in 8vo, at Amsterdam, in 1664, is the rarest, but the best, perhaps, is that of Edinburgh, 1727, 8vo. In the preface he mentions a larger work, to be soon published, but it does not seem to have ever been printed. It was his opinion that the original text of scripture in Hebrew and Greek should be translated, as much as possible, word for word, as Ainsworth did the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and Canticles, which were all printed together in 1639, folio. Canne succeeded Ainsworth as preacher to the congregation of Brownists at Amsterdam.

, a Spanish artist, and styled the Michel Angelo of Spain, because he excelled in painting, sculpture, and architecture, was born in the city of Grenada in 1600, where his father, an eminent architect, educated him in his own profession, and when his instructions in this branch were completed, he applied himself to the study of sculpture, and made an uncommon progress in a very short time. He next went to Seville, and for eight months studied under Pacheco, and afterwards under Juan del Castillo, in whose academy he executed many noble paintings for the public edifices in Seville, and at the same time gave some specimens of his excellence in statuary, which were highly admired, particularly a “Madonna and Child,” in the great church of Nebriga, and two colossal figures of San Pedro and San Pablo. Count Olivarez was the means of his coming to Madrid, where he was made first royal architect, king’s painter, and preceptor to the prince, don Balthazar Carlos of Austria. Here, as architect, he projected several additional works to the palaces, some public gates to the city, and a triumphal arch erected on the entrance of Mariana, second queen to Philip IV. As a painter, he executed many celebrated compositions in the churches and palaces of Madrid. While in the height of his fame an event happened which involved him in much trouhle. Returning home one evening, he discovered his wife murdered, his house robbed, while an Italian journeyman, on whom the suspicion naturally fell, had escaped. The criminal judges held a court of inquiry, and having discovered that Cano had been jealous of this Italian, and also that he was known to be attached to another woman, they acquitted the fugitive gallant, and condemned the husband. On this he fled to Valencia, and being discovered there, took refuge in a Carthusian convent about three leagues from that city, where he seemed for a time determined upon taking the order, but afterwards was so imprudent as to return to Madrid, where he was apprehended, and ordered to be put to the torture, which he suffered without uttering 3r single word. On this the king received him again into favour, and as Cano saw there was no absolute safety but within the pale of the church, he solicited the king with that view, and was named residentiary of Grenada. The chapter objected to his nomination, but were obliged to submit, and their church profited by the appointment, many sculptures and paintings being of his donation. The last years of his life he spent in acts of devotion and charity. When he had no money to bestow in alms, which was frequently the case, he would call for paper, and give a beggar a drawing, directing him where to carry it for sale. To the Jews he bore an implacable antipathy. On his death-bed he would not receive the sacraments from a priest who attended him, because he had administered them to the converted Jews; and from another he would not accept the crucifix presented to him in his last moments, telling him it was so bungling a piece of work that he could not endure the sight of it. In this manner died Alonso Cano, at the age of seventy-six, in 1676; a circumstance, says his biographer, which shows that his ruling passion for the arts accompanied him in the article of death, superseding even religion itself in those moments when the great interests of salvation naturally must be supposed to occupy the mind to the exclusion of every other idea.

In his early days, as he was of a noble family, he disdained to accept pay for his productions, declaring that he worked for fame and practice, and that he considered himself as yet so imperfect in his art, that he could not in conscience admit of any recompence. As he advanced, however, he had no scruple in accepting the just reward of his merit; and the following anecdote, related by Mr. Cumberland, will show his spirit in asserting what was his due. A counsellor of Grenada having refused to pay the sum of one hundred pistoles for an image of St. Antony of Padua, which Cano had made for him, he dashed the saint into pieces on the pavement of his academy, while the counsellor was reckoning up how many pistoles per day Cano had earned whilst the work was in hand. “You have been twenty-five days carving this image of St. Antony,” said the counsellor, “and the purchase-money demanded being one hundred, you have rated your labour at the exorbitant price of four pistoles per day, whilst I, who am a counseller, and your superior, do not make half your profits by my talents.” “Wretch” cried the enraged artist, “to talk to me of your talents I have been fifty years learning to make this statue in twenty-five days” and so saying, flung it with the utmost violence upon the pavement. The affrighted counsellor escaped out of the house in terror. For this profanation, however, of the image of a saint, he was suspended from his function by the chapter of Grenada, and was not restored by the king until he had finished a magnificent crucifix, which the queen had ordered, but which he had long neglected.

In Mr. Fuseli’s opinion, Cano excelled, as a painter, with the single exception of Velasquez, all his contemporaries, and yet seems to have owed his superiority entirely to nature: his design is correct, his arrangements happy, and his colour charming. As a sculptor, he gives evident proofs of having studied the antique by the dignity of his forms, the grandeur of his drapery, and elegance of taste. In architecture he was too loaded, too ornamental, and swayed by the fashion of the day. With such talents he connected a whimsical character, and, as the master of a school, scarcely left a pupil that rose above mediocrity. A catalogue of his nearly endless works may be found in Bermudez.

, by some called Marbres, an English Franciscan monk, and an able Aristotelian of the fourteenth century, studied some time at Oxford, from which he removed to Paris, where he became a pupil of Duns Scotus, whom, says Pits, he long attended, and always imitated. He returned afterwards to Oxford, and there taught theology to the time of his death, which, according to Dupin, happened about the year 1340. Dupin also says that he was a doctor of divinity of Paris. He was particularly learned in the Aristotelian philosophy, and in civil and canon-law. In Lincoln college library, Oxford, is one of his manuscripts, to which are prefixed many verses in honour of him, and in one of them he is styled “Alter Aristoteles.” His published works are, 1. “In Aristotelis Physica, Lib. VIII.' 7 printed at St. Alban’s in 1481, 8vo, and reprinted at Venice 1431, 1492, and 1505. 2.” Lecturae magistrales; Lib. I. Questiones disputatae, Lib. I. Qusestiones dialectices, Lib. I." printed with the former at Venice, 1492 and 1516.

, emp.eror of Constantinople, and a celebrated Byzantine historian, was born at Constantinople about the year 1295, of a very ancient and noble family; his father being governor of Peloponnesus, and his mother a near relation of the emperor’s. He was bred to letters and to arms, and afterwards to the highest offices of statej in which he acquitted himself in such a manner as to gain the favour of both court and city. He was made prelect of the bedchamber to the emperor Andronicus the elder, but lost his favour about 1320, by addicting himself too much to the interest of his grandson Andronicus. In 1328, when the grandson seized the empire, he loaded Cantacuzenus with wealth and honours; made him generalissimo of his forces; did nothing without consulting him; and fain would have joined him with himself in the government, which Cantacuzenus refused. In 1341 Andronicus died, and left to Cantacuzenus the care of the empire, till his son John Paleologus, who was then but nine years of age, should be fit to take it upon himself: which trust he discharged very diligently and faithfully. But the empress dowager, the patriarch of Constantinople, and some of the nobles, soon growing jealous and envious of Cantacuzenus, formed a party against him, and declared him a traitor: upon which a great portion of the nobility and army besought him to take the empire upon himself, and accordingly he was crowned at Hadrianopolis in May 1342. A civil war raged for five years, and Cantacuzenus was conqueror, who, however, came to the following terms of peace with John Paleologus; viz. that himself should be crowned, and that John should he a partner uith him in the empire, though not upon an equal footing, till he should arrive at years sufficient. He gave him also his daughter Helen, to whom he had formerly been engaged, for a wife; and the nuptials were celebrated in May 1347. But suspicions and enmities soon arising between the new emperors, the war broke out again, and lasted till John took Constantinople in 1355. A few days after that city was taken, Cantacuzenus, unwilling to continue a civil war any longer, abdicated his share of the empire, and retired to a monastery, where he took the habit of a monk, with the new name of Joasaphus, and spent the remainder of his life in study and writing. His wife retired also at the same time to a nunnery, where she changed her own name Irene for the new one of Eugenia.

How long he lived in this retirement, and when he died, is not very certain; but it is agreed by all, that he lived a very long time in it, and it is supposed by some, that he did not die till 1411, when he was 100 years of age, or upwards. Others, with considerable probability, place his death on Nov. 20, 1411. In this place, however, he wrote a history of his own times, in four books, or rather of the times in which he was engaged in worldly affairs; since the period it includes is only from 1320 to 1355. He was a very proper person to relate the transactions within this period, because he was not only an eye-witness of what was done, but himself the orderer and doer of a great part: upon which account Vossius has not scrupled to prefer him to all the Byzantine historians. A Latin translation of this history, from the Greek manuscript in the duke of Bavaria’s library, was published by Pontanus at Ingolstadt in 1603; and afterwards at Paris, 1645, a splendid edition in three volumes folio of the Greek from the ms. of M. Scguier, chancellor of France, with Pontanus’s Latin version, and the notes of him and Gretscr.

Besides this history, he wrote also some theological works, particularly an apology for the Christian religion against that of Mahomet, in four books: this he did at the request of a monk and friend of his, who had been solicited by a mussulman of Persia to desert Christianity, and embrace Muimmetanism. In this he does not content himself with replying to the particular objection of the musulman to Christianity, but writes a general defence of it against the Koran. He calls himself Christodulus as a writer. This apology was printed in Greek and Latin at Basil, 1543, by Bibliander and Gualtharus, from Greek Mss. Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” says, that the name and situation of the emperor John Cantacuzenus might inspire the most lively curiosity. His memorials of forty years extend from the revolt of the younger Andronicus to his own abdication of the empire and it is observed, that, like Moses and Cresar, he was the principal actor in the scenes which he describes. But in this eloquent work, “we should vainly seek the sincerity of an hero or a penitent. Retired in a cloister from the vices and passions of the world, he presents not a confession, but an apology, of the life of an ambitious statesman. Instead of unfolding the true counsels and characters of men, he displays the smooth and specious surface of events, highly varnished with his -own praises and those of his friends. Their motives are always pure their ends always legitimate they conspire and rebel without any views of interest and the violence which they inflict or suffer is celebrated as the spontaneous effect of reason and virtue.”

, a painter and engraver, called often from his native place Da Pesaro, was born in 1612, and was a pupil of Pandolfi. After proving himself, by the picture of St. Peter at Fano, less an imitator of Guido than his equal, he entered his school at Bologna more as a rival than as a pupil: the humility which he had affected at his entrance, soon dissolved in a proud display of his powers; and the modest student became the supercilious censor of his companions, and of the master himself. From the general disgust, which the insolence of this conduct had excited, Cantarini fled to Rome, and for some time studied Raffaello and the antiques. When he returned to Bologna, where he taught, and from thence to the court of Mantua, his powers seemed to smooth the road to new success; but fear of those whom he had provoked by arrogance or invective, with the mortification of having failed in the portrait of the duke, impaired his health and drove him to Verona, where he died in 1648, in his thirtysixth year, not without suspicion of having being poisoned by a painter of Mantua, whom he had reviled. Cantarini is not equal to Guido, because the most perfect imitator of a style cannot be called equal to its inventor: but the original beauties which he added, of conception and execution, raise him above all the pupils of that school. If his ideas have less dignity, they are, perhaps, more graceful than those of Guido: if he has less compass of knowledge, he has more accuracy, and no rival in the finish of the extremities. The heads of his saints have been called prodigies of beauty and expression. Sir Robert Strange had a picture of Cantarini’s, “Our Saviour standing on the Globe, attended by Cherubims,” which, he says, is nothing inferior to Guido, inimitably coloured; the composition extremely agreeable, and the whole apparently painted with great facility. Cantarini etched with great spirit. Strutt enumerates some of his works in this manner.

, a man of considerable learning in classical criticism, was born Nov. 1, 1645, in the diocese of Rouen, and entered the society of the Jesuits in 1664, completing his vows in 1679. His immoderate and incessant application to study, operating upon a delicate constitution, shortened his days, and he diedin the Jesuits’ college at Paris, Dec. 6, 1684. He was one of the French literati employed in preparing the Delphin classics, and edited Justin in 1677, 4to, and Valerius Maximus in 1679, enriched with six dissertations, on the names, families, inagistrates, &c. of the Romans. He published also, 1. “De Rouiana llepublica, de re militari et civiii Romanorum,” Paris, 1684, 12mo, and thrice reprinted at Utrecht, 1691, 1696, 1707, the last with plates, taken from Justus Lipsius and Onuphrius Panvinius. This has always been considered as an excellent abridgment of the Roman antiquities. 2. “Metropolitanarum urbium historia civilis et ecclesiastica, tomus primus, &c.” Paris, 1684, 8vo.

, of an illustrious family in Tartary, and prince of Moldavia, was born in 1673. His father, who was governor of the three cantons of Moldavia, became prince of this province in 1664. Demetrius, being sent early to Constantinople, flattered himself with the prospect of succeeding him; but was supplanted by a rival at the Porte. Being sent in 1710 by the Ottoman minister to defend Moldavia against the czar Peter, he delivered it up to that monarch and, following his new master through his conquests, indemnified himself for all he had lost; for he obtained the title of prince of the empire, with full power and authority over the Moldavians, who quitted their country to attach themselves to his fortunes. He died, 1723, in his territories of the Ukraine, much lamented. He was studious and learned, and is said to have understood eleven languages. He wrote in Latin a “History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire,” A. D. 1300 1683, which was published in an English translation by Tindal, Lond. 1734, fol. Gibbon says it contains strange blunders in Oriental history, though he acknowledges that the author was conversant with the language, annals, and institutions of the Turks. His “System of the Mahometan Religion” was written and printed in the Russian language, by order of czar Peter; his moral dialogues entitled “The World and the Soul,” were printed in Moldavia in Greek and Moldavian “The present state of Moldavia” was printed in Latin his e< Musical Airs with Turkish Words,“and” An Introduction to Music," in Moldavian. He was also the author of other pieces, which were either lost in his shipwreck, or still remain in ms.

, son of the above, was born in 1710. The most skilled at Petersburg in mathematics, physics, history, morality, and polite literature, were employed to continue those lectures, which his father had begun to give him. The academy of Petersburg opened their gates to him, and the ministry initiated him into affairs of state. Successively ambassador to London and Paris, he was equally admired as a minister and man of letters. On his return to Russia, he conducted himself with most consummate wisdom and prudence, during the different revolutions which agitated that country. This accomplished person died in 1744. The Russians before him had nothing in verse but some barbarous songs: he was the first who introduced any civilized poetry among them. Besides a translation of Anacreon and the epistles of. Horace, he gave them of his own, satires, odes, and fables. He made several foreign works known to them; as, 1. The Plurality of worlds. 2. The Persian letters. 3. The dialogues of Algarotti upon light, &c. aqd he printed “Concordance to the Psalms” in the Russian language. The abbe* de Guasco, who translated his Satires, has written his life.

, an eminent linguist and philologer, was born at Utrecht of an ancient and reputable family in 1542; and educated in the belles lettres under the inspection of his parents, till he was 12 years of age. He was then sent to Cornelius Valerius at Lou vain, with whom he continued four years; and gave surprising proofs of his progress in Greek and Latin literature, by writing letters in those languages, by translations, and by drawing up some dramatic pieces. Having an uncommon taste for the Greek, he removed in 1559 from Lou vain to Paris, for the sake of learning that language more perfectly from John Auratus, under whom he studied till 1562, and then was obliged to leave France on account of the civil wars. He travelled next into Germany and Italy, and visited the several universities of those countries; Bononia particularly, where he became known to the famous Carolus Sigonius, to whom he afterwards dedicated his eight books “Novarum Lectionum.” Venice he had a great desire to see, not only for the beauty and magnificence of the place, but for the opportunity he should have of purchasing manuscripts; which the Greeks brought in great abundance from their own country, and there exposed to sale: and from Venice he purposed to go to Rome. But, not being able to bear the heat of those regions, he dropped the pursuit of his journey, and returned through Germany to l^ouvain, where in about eight years’ time excessive study brought on a lingering consumption, of which he died in 1*75, when he was only in his 33d year. Thuanus says, that he deserved to be reckoned among the most learned men of his age; and that he would certainly have done great things, if he had not died so very immaturely. He understood six languages, besides that of his native country, viz. the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, Italian, and German.

It may justly seem a matter of wonder, how in so short a life a man could go through so many laborious tasks; and no less matter of curiosity to know how he contrived to do it. Melchior Adam has given us some account of this and according to him, Caaterus was, in the first place, very temperate and abstemious in point of diet He always began his studies at seven in the morning, and not sooner, because early rising did not agree with him; and pursued them very intensely till half past eleven. Then he walked out for an hour before dinner; and, after he had dined, walked for another hour. Then, retiring to his study, he slept an hour upon a couch, and after that resumed his studies, which he continued till almost sun-set in winter, and seven in summer. Then he took another hour’s walk; and, after returning again to his studies, continued them till midnight without interruption. These last hours of the day were not however devoted by him to severe study, but to writing letters to his friends, or any other business that required less labour and attention. In. these habits, Canterus was both assiduous and constant; and his studies were conducted with as much form and method, as if he himself had been a machine. He had not only his particular hours for studying, but he divided those by an hour-glass, some of which he set apart for reading, others for writing; and as he tells us himself in a preface to his Latin translation of Stobceus, he never varied from, his established method on any account whatever. During his short life, he collected a most excellent and curious library; not only full of the best authors in all the languages he understood, but abounding with Greek manuscripts, which he had purchased in his travels, and which, if death had spared him, he intended to have published with Latin versions and notes. He could have said with Antoninus, that “nothing was dearer to him than his books:” his inordinate love of which exposed him to a most severe trial, when a sudden inundation at Louvain greatly damaged, and had like to have destroyed his whole library. This happened in the winter of 1573, and was such an affliction to him, that, as Melchior Adam says, it would certainly have killed him, if his friends had not plied him with proper topics of consolation, and assisted him in drying and restoring his books and manuscripts.

His brother Theodore was also a classical Scholar, and editor of many annotations and criticisms, some of which are in Gruter’s Thesaurus. Burman has given a very ample catalogue of the writings of both these learned brothers.

, an ingenious natural philosopher, was born at Stroud, in Gloucestershire, July 31, 1713; and was placed, when young, under the care of a Mr. Davis, of the same place, a very able mathematician, with whom, before he attained the age of nine years, he had gone through both vulgar and decimal arithmetic. He then proceeded to the mathematics, and particularly to algebra and astronomy, wherein he made a considerable progress, when his father took him from school, and put him to learn his own business, that of a broad-cloth weaver, but this circumstance did not damp his zeal for the acquisition of knowledge. All his leisure time was devoted to the assiduous^cultivation of astronomical science; and, by the help of the Caroline tables, annexed to Wing’s astronomy, he computed eclipses of the moon and other phsenomena. His acquaintance with that science he applied, likewise, to the constructing of several kinds of dials. But the studies of our young philosopher being frequently pursued to very late hours, his father, fearing that they would injure his health, forbade him the use of a cmidle in his chamber, any longer than for the purpose of going to bed, and would himself often see that his injunction was obeye<l. The son’s thirst of knowledge was, however, so great, that it made him attempt to evade the prohibition, and to find means of secreting his light till the family had retired to rest; when he rose to prosecute undisturbed his favourite pursuits. It was during this prohibition, and at these hours, that he computed, and cut upon stone, with no better an instrument than a common knife, the lines of a large upright sun-dial; on which, besides the hour of the day, were shewn the rising of the sun, -his place in the ecliptic, and some other particulars. When this was finished, and made known to his father, he permitted it to be placed against the front of his house, where it excited the admiration of several gentlemen in the neighbourhood, and introduced young Mr. Canton to their acquaintance, which was followed by the offer of the use of their libraries. In the library of one of these gentlemen, he found Martin’s Philosophical Grammar, which was the first bodk that gave him a taste for natural philosophy. In the possession of another gentleman, a few miles from Stroud, he first saw a pair of globes; an object that afforded him uncommon pleasure, from the great ease with which he could solve those problems he had hitherto been accustomed to compute. The dial was beautified a few years ago, at the expence of the gentlemen at Stroud; several of whom had been his school-fellows, and who continued still to regard it as a very distinguished performance. Among other persons with whom he became acquainted in early life, was the late reverend and ingenious Dr. Henry Miles of Tooting, a learned member of the royal society, and of approved eminence in natural knowledge. This gentleman, perceiving that Mr. Canton possessed abilities too promising to be confined within ^the narrow limits of a country town, prevailed on his father to permit him to come to London. Accordingly he arrived at the metropolis March 4, 1737, and resided with Dr. Miles, at Tooting (who, it may here be noticed, bequeathed to him all his philosophical instruments), till the 6th of May following; when he articled himself, for the term of five years, as a clerk to Mr. Samuel Watkins, master of the academy in Spitalsquare. In this situation, his ingenuity, diligence, and good conduct were so conspicuous, that, on the expiration of his clerkship, in the month of May 1742, he was taken into partnership with Mr. Watkins for three years; which gentleman he afterwards succeeded in Spital-square, and there continued during his whole life. On December 25, 1744, he married Penelope, the eldest daughter of Mr. Thomas Colbrooke, and niece to James Colbrooke, esq. banker in London.

Towards the end of the year 1745, electricity, which seems early to have engaged Mr. Canton’s notice, received a very capital improvement by the discovery of the famous Leyden phial. This event turned the thoughts of most of the philosophers of Europe to that branch of natural philosophy; and our author, who was one of the first to repeat and to pursue tjie experiment, found his assiduity and attention rewarded by many capital discoveries. Towards the end of 1749 he was concerned with his friend, the late ingenious Benjamin Robins, esq. in making experiments in order to determine to what height rockets may be made to ascend, and at what distance their light may be seen. On January 17, 1750, was read at the royal society, Mr. Canton’s method of making artificial magnets, without the use of, and yet far superior to, any natural ones. This paper procured him, March 22, 1750, the honour of being elected a member of the society; and, on the St. Andrew’s day following, the farther honour of receiving the most distinguished testimony of their approbation, in the present of their gold medal. On April 21, in the same year, he was complimented with the degree of M. A. by the university of Aberdeen; and, on November 30, 1751, was chosen one of the council of the royal society.

On July 20, 1752, our philosopher was so fortunate as to be the first person in England, who, by attracting the electric fire from the clouds during a thunder storm, verified Dr. Franklin’s hypothesis of the similarity of lightning and electricity. Dec. 6, 1753, his paper, entitled, “Electrical experiments,” with an attempt to account for their several phenomena, was read at the Royal Society. In the same paper Mr. Canton mentioned his having discovered, by a great number of experiments, that some clouds were in a positive, and some in a negative state of electricity. Dr. Franklin, much about the same time, made the like discovery in America. This circumstance, together with our author’s constant defence of the doctor’s hypothesis, induced that eminent philosopher, immediately on his arrival in England, to pay Mr. Canton a visit, and gave rise to a friendship which ever after continued without interruption or diminution. On November 14, 1754, was read at the royal society, a letter to the right honourable the earl of Macclesfield, concerning some new electrical experiments. On St. Andrew’s day, 1754, he was a second time elected one of the council of the royal society for the year ensuing. In the Lady’s Diary for 1756, our author answered the prize question that had been proposed in the preceding year. The question was, “How can what we call the shooting of stars be best accounted for; what is the substance of this phenomenon; and in what state of the atmosphere doth it most frequently shew itself?” The solution, though anonymous, was so satisfactory to his friend Mr. Thomas Simpson, who then conducted that work, that he sent Mr. Canton the prize, accompanied with a note, in which he said he was sure that he was not mistaken, in the author of it, as no one besides, that he knew of, could have answered the question. Our philosopher’s next communication to the public was a letter in the Gentleman’s Magazine for September 1759, on the electrical properties of the tourmalin, in which the laws of that wonderful stone are laid down in a very concise and elegant manner. On Dec. 13, in the same year, was read, at the royal society, “An attempt to account for the regular diurnal variation of the horizontal magnetic needle; and also for its irregular variation at the time of an aurora borealis.” A complete year’s observations of the diurnal variations of the needle are annexed to the paper. On Nov. 5, 1761, our author communicated to the royal society an account of the transit of Venus, June 6, 1761, observed in Spitai- square. Mr. Canton’s next communication to the society was a letter addressed to Dr. Benjamin Franklin, and read Feb. 4, 1762, containing some remarks on Mr. Delaval’s electrical experiments. On December 16, in the same year, another curious addition was made by him to philosophical knowledge, in a paper entitled, “Experiments to prove that water is not incompressible.” These experiments are a complete refutation of the famous Florentine experiment, which so many philosophers have mentioned as a proof of the incompressibility of water. On St. Andrew’s day, 1763, our author was the third time elected one of the council of the royal society; and on Nov. 8, in the following year, were read, before that learned body, his farther experiments and observations on the compressibility of water, and some other fluids. The establishment of this fact, in opposition to the received opinion, formed on the hasty decision of the Florentine academy, was thought to be deserving of the society’s gold medal. Tt was accordingly moved for in the council of 1764 and after severalinvidious delays, which terminated much to the honour of Mr. Canton, it was pro sented to him Nov. 30, 1765.

The next communication of our ingenious author to the royal society, which we shall take notice of in this place, was on Dec. 22, 1768, being “An easy method of making a phosphorus, that will imhibe and emit light like the Bolognian stone; with experiments and observations.” When he first shewed to Dr. Franklin the instantaneous light acquired by some of this phosphorus from the near discharge of an electrified bottle, the doctor immediately exclaimed, “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light!” The dean and chapter of St. Paul’s having, in a letter to the president, dated March 6, 1769, requested the opinion of the royal society relative to the best and most effectual method of fixing electrical conductors to preserve that cathedral from damage by lightning, Mr. Canton was one of the committee appointed to take the letter into consideration, and to report their opinion upon it. The gentlemen joined with him in this business were Dr. Watson, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Delaval, and Mr. Wilson. Their report was made on the 8th of June following; and the mode recommended by them has been carried into execution. This will probably contribute, in the most effectual manner, to preserve the noble fabric of St. Paul’s from being injured by lightning. The last paper of our author’s, which was read before the Royal Society, was on Dec. 21, 1769; and contained experiments to prove that the luminousness of the sea arises from the putrefaction of its animal substances. In the account now given of his communications to the public, we have chietiy confined ourselves to such as were the most important, and which threw new and distinguished light on various objects in the philosophical world. Besides these, he wrote a number of papers, both in earlier and in later life, which appeared in several different publications, and particularly in the Gentleman’s Magazine, of which a list is given in the note. We may add, that he was very particular with regard to the neatness and elegance of his apparatus and that his address in conducting his experiments was remarkably conspicuous.

The close and sedentary life of Mr. Canton, arising from an unremitted attention to the duties of his profession, and to the prosecution of his philosophical inquiries and experiments, probably contributed to shorten his days. The disorder into which he fell, and which carried him off, was a dropsy. It was supposed, by his friend Dr. Milner, to be a dropsy in the thorax. His death was on March 22, 1772, in the 54th year of his age, to the great regret of his family, and of his literary and other acquaintance. Nor was his decease a small loss to the interests of knowledge; since from the time of life in which he died, and his happy and successful genius in philosophical pursuits, he might have been expected to have enriched the world of science with new discoveries. Mr. Canton was a man of very amiable character and manners. In conversation he was calm, mild, and rather sparing than redundant: what he did say was remarkably sensible and judicious. He had much pleasure in attending the meetings of the Royal Society, and some voluntary private societies of learned and intelligent persons, to which he belonged. By his wife, who survived him, he left several children. His eldest son, Mr. William Canton, succeeded him in the academy in Spital -square, which he carried on with great reputation; and he also pursued with advantage the same philosophical studies to which his ingenious and worthy father was so eminently devoted.

, a native of Tipperary in Ireland, lived principally in Paris, where he was made doctor in medicine in 1742. The same year he published a translation into French of the account of Mrs. Stephens’s medicine for dissolving the stone in the bladder; and in 1746 an account of sir Hans Sloane’s medicines for diseases of the eyes; also some severe strictures on the practice of propagating the small pox by inoculation; and in the Philosophical Transactions, London, No. 453, an account of a double child, a boy. He died at Paris, July 11, 1764.

, a Spanish divine, was a native of Taranzo, in the diocese of Toledo. He was Francis Victoria’s pupil, and succeeded him in the theological chair at Salamanca, where he taught with reputation. Canus appeared also with great distinction at the council of Trent, under Paul III. and was made bishop of the Canary Islands 1552. He resigned his bishopric afterwards, and was appointed provincial of the province of Castile. He died 1560, at Toledo. His treatise “de locis Theologicis,” published at Padua 1727, 4to, is very elegantly written, and is justly esteemed a master- piece. He is also supposed the author of “Praelectiones de Penitentia.” He appears to have been a man of more liberality than might have been expected from his age and profession. Dr. Jortin quotes some instances of this in his “Remarks on Ecclesiastical History,” vol. II. p. 316. His whole works were printed at Venice in 1759, 4to.

, a historian of the seventeenth century, was born in Campagnia, in the kingdom of Naples, of an obscure family, which was afterwards raised by Capaccio’s merits. He studied at Naples the civil and canon law, and afterwards read over the poets and historians. Being a person of note for his learning and parts, he was made secretary to the town of Naples. He was one of those that had the greatest share in setting up the academy of the Otiosi. Francis de la Rovere, duke of Urbino, employed him in the education of the prince his son; and while he was employed in this business he wrote most of his works. He died in 1631. His works are: “Tratato de'l imprese” “II secretario, prediche quadragecimali” “II principe” “Historia Puteolana” “Historia Napolitana,” &c. the latter are in Grgevius’s Thesaurus, but the separate editions of these, as well as of his “Illustrium mulierum et virorum historia,” Naples, 1609, 4 to, are very scarce.

, in Latin Capycius, a native of Naples, and a Latin poet of the sixteenth century, attempted to imitate Lucretius, in his poem of the “Principles of things,” Frankfort, 1631, 8vo, with considerable success. Cardinal Bembo and Manucius placed this work on a level with his model, to which high praise it is scarcely entitled. An edition, with an Italian translation, was given in 8vo, at Venice, in 1704. He also composed elegies, epigrams, and a poem “De Vate maximo,” i. e. St. John the Baptist, which Gesner, doubtless a great friend of the poet, equalled with the productions of antiquity.

was the only son and heir of sir Henry Capel, who died in the flower of his age. He succeeded to the family estate on the death of his grandfather, sir Arthur, and following the example of his virtuous ancestors, was very eminent for his hospitality to his neighbours, while his great charities to the poor endeared him to the hearts of the people, who chose him to serve in parliament for the county of Hertford, in 1639 and 1640. In the following year he was made a peer by Charles I. with the title of lord Capel, of Hadham. Upon the breaking out of the rebellion, he raised at his own charge some troops of horse, in defence of the royal cause, although he hud at first sided with the parliament; and did not attach himself particularly to the court, until he sawthat the designs of the republicans were no longer conducted with moderation or justice. He fought valiantly in many battles and skirmishes, and continued to adhere loyally to his king, till his majesty’s armies were dispersed, his garrisons lost, and his“person imprisoned, when lord Capel compounded with the parliamentarians, and retired to his manor of Hadham. Perceiving, some time after, the hard treatment his sovereign met with, he resolutely ventured again, with all the force he could raise, to rescue the king from his enemies; and joining his troops with those of lord Goring and sir Charles Lucas, underxvent the severest hardships in the memorable siege of Colchester, which was at length surrendered to general Fairfax upon articles which were immediately broke; for sir Charles Lucas and sir George Lisle were shot, and lord Capel sent prisoner to Windsor-castle. An act of attainder being ordered by the house of commons to be brought in against him, the house voted, Nov. 10, 1648, that he and some others should be banished, but that punishment not being thought severe enough, he was removed to the Tower. Lord Clarendon is of opinion that two or three sharp and bitter speeches which passed between Ireton and lord Capel, cost the latter his life. In the mean time, however, he contrived to escape out of his prison, but being discovered and apprehended at Lambeth, on Feb. 10, 1649, he was brought before a pretended high court of justice in Westminster- hall, to be tried for treason and other high crimes and though he strenuously insisted that he was a prisoner to the lord general Fairfax, that he had conditions given him, and was to have fair quarter for his life; yet his plea was over-ruled. In three days after he was brought again before the court, when the counsel moved that he should be hanged, drawn, and quartered. This, however, was changed for beheading, and the sentence was executed March 9. He trod the fatal stage, says lord Orford, with all the dignity of valour and conscious integrity. In these qualities all historians are agreed, if we except Mrs. Macaulay, whose hostility to the loyalists is rather a compliment. His literary remains were published in 1654, with the title” Daily observations or meditations; divine, moral, written by a person of honour and piety;“to which are added” Certain letters written to several persons,' 7 4to; and the whole were reprinted afterwards in 12mo, with the title of “Excellent Contemplations, &c.” and some account of his life. Some “Stanzas,” by lord Capel, written when he was a prisoner in the Tower, were inserted in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1757. His heart, which he had ordered to be kept, and deposited near the remains of his royal master, was afterwards placed in the family-vault at Hadham, as appears by a letter from the late incumbent of that parish, Dr. Anthony Hamilton, published in the fifteenth volume of the Archaeologia.

, eldest son and heir of the preceding, became his successor, and notwithstanding the sufferings of his father, his estate was under sequestration; but at the restoration, he was, by Charles II. advanced to the title and dignity of viscount Maiden, and earl of Essex, on April 20, 1661. He also was constituted lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Hertford, on July 7, 1660; and lord lieutenant of the county of Wilts, during the minority of the duke of Somerset, on April 2, 1668. In the year 1670, he was sent ambassador to Christian V. king of Denmark, whence he returned with high, favour for having vindicated the honour of the British flag: and upon testimonies of his courage, prudence, and abilities, was sworn of the privy- council in 1672, and made lord-lieutenant of the kingdom of Ireland which high office he exercised in that kingdom to the general satisfaction of the people. After his return, he, in 1678, with Halifax, and the duke of Buckingham, had the chief political influence among the lords; yet, when they moved an address to the king to send the duke of York from court, the majority was against them. In 1679, he was appointed first and chief commissioner of the treasury: and his majesty choosing a new council, he ordered sir William Temple to propose it to the lord chancellor Finch, the earl of Sunderland, and the earl of Essex, but to one after another; on which, when he communicated it to the earl of Essex, he said, “It would leave the parliament and nation in the dispositions to the king, that he found at his coming in.” Accordingly he was sworn of that privycouncil on April 21, 1679, being then first lord commissioner of the treasury; and his majesty valued himself on it so, that the next day he communicated it by a speech to the parliament, which was agreeable to both houses: but not concurring with the duke of York in his measures, his majesty, on November 19 following, declared in council, that he had given leave to the earl of Essex to resign his place of first commissioner of the treasury; yet intended that he should continue of his privy-council. Nevertheless, soon after, being a great opposer of the court measures, and on Jan. 25, 1680-1, delivering a petition against the parliament’s sitting at Oxford, he was accused, with the lord Russel, of the fanatic plot, and sent prisoner to the Tower in the beginning of July, 1683. Bishop Burnet says, that a party of horse was sent to bring him up from his seat in Hertfordshire, where he had been for some time, and seemed so little apprehensive of danger, that his lady did not imagine he had any concern on his mind. He' was offered to be conveyed away, but he would not stir: his tenderness for lord Russel was the cause of this, thinking his disappearing might incline the jury to believe the evidence the more. Soon after his commitment, he was found with his throat cut, on July 13, 1683. The cause of this is variously represented, some imputing it to himself in a fit of despondency, and some to the contrivance of his enemies. From the evidence examined in the Biog. Britannica, a decision seems difficult. See “Bp. Burnet’s late History charged with great partiality,” by Mr. Braddon, 1725, 8vo.

Sir Henry Chauncy, in his Antiquities of Hertfordshire, says, he was a person of an agreeable stature, slender in body, adorned with a comely countenance, mixed with gravity and sweetness, and was easy of access; his mind was sedate, but his discourses were generally free and pleasant, and his demeanour very complaisant; his promises were real and sincere; his reprimands smart and ingenious, having a quick apprehension, good elocution, sound judgment, great courage, and resolution unalterable: he was always wary and circumspect in council, where he endeavoured to obstruct all arbitrary power, and the increase of the Popish interest, having a particular regard for the established religion of his country; he was very temperate in his diet, strict in his justice, tender of his honour, and constant to his friend; he delighted much in his library, which enabled him to speak on all occasions with great applause, and would spend his vacant hours in the viewing of records, and learning of the mathematics. These were his diversions, together with recreating himself in his fine gardens and pleasant groves at Cashiobury, which were of his own plantation.

, son of Christopher Capel, an alderman of Gloucester, was born 1586 in that city, and after being educated there in grammar, became a commoner of Aiban hall, Oxford, in 1601, and soon after was elected demy of Magdalen-college. In 160.9 he was made perpetual fellow, being then M. A. the highest degree which he took at the university. While there, Wood says, “his eminence was great, and he was resorted to by noted men, especially of the Calvinist persuasion,” and was tutor to several young men who afterwards rose to high reputation, particularly Accepted Frewen, archbishop of York, Will. Pemble, &c. He left college on obtaining the rectory of Eastington in Gloucestershire, and became highly popular as a plain and practical preacher, and a man of exemplary life and conversation. In 1633, when the Book of Sports on the Lord’s day was ordered to be read in all churches, he refused, and resigned his rectory. He then obtained licence from the bishop of Gloucester to practise physic, which he did with much success for some years, residing at Pitchcomb, near Stroud, where he had an estate. In the commencement of the rebellion, he was called to be one of the assembly of divines, but did not accept the offer. Wood thinks he was restored to his benefice at this time, or had another conferred upon him, which we believe was Pitchcomb, where he died Sept. 21, 1656, and was buried in the church there. Clarke informs us that for some time he attended the court of James I. until the death of sir Thomas Overbury, who was his particular friend. His principal works are, 1. “Temptations, their nature, danger, and cure, &c.” Lond. 1650, 8vo, and an “Apology” against some exceptions, 1659, 8vo. 2. “Remains, being an useful Appendix to the former,” 1658, 8vo. His son Daniel Capel was also a divine, and, according to Walker, ejected from his living in Gloucestershjre by the Oxford visitors. He then practised physic at Stroud, where he died in 1679. He wrote, “Tentamen medicum de variolis,” and some other tracts.

, a gentleman well known by his indefatigable attention to the works of Shakspeare, was born at Troston, near Bury, Suffolk, June 11, 1713, and received his education at the school of St. Edmund’s Bury. In the dedication of his edition of Shakspeare, in 1768, to the duke of Grafton, he observes, that “his father and the grandfather of his grace were friends, and to the patronage of the deceased nobleman he owed the leisure which enabled him to bestow the attention of twenty years on that work.” The office which his grace bestowed on Mr. Capell was that of deputy inspector of the plays, to which a salary is annexed of 200l. a year. So early as the year 1745, as Capell himself informs us, shocked at the licentiousness of Hanmer’s plan, he first projected an edition of Shakspeare, of the strictest accuracy, to be collated and published, in due time, “ex fide codicum.” He immediately proceeded to collect and compare the oldest and scarcest copies; noting the original excellencies and defects of the rarest quartos, and distinguishing the improvements or variations of the first, second, and third folios. But while all this mass of profound criticism was tempering in the forge, he appeared at last a self-armed Aristarchus, almost as lawless as any of his predecessors, vindicating his claim to public notice by his established reputation, the authoritative air of his notes, and the shrewd observations, as well as majesty, of his preface. His edition, however, was the effort of a poet, rather than of a critic; and Mr. Capell lay fortified and secure in his strong holds, entrenched in the black letter. Three years after (to use his own language) he “set out his own edition, in ten volumes, small octavo, with an introduction,” 1768, printed at the expence of the principal booksellers of London, who gave him 300l. for his labours. There is not, among the various publications of the present literary aera, a more singular composition than that “Introduction.” In style and manner it is more obsolete, and antique, than the age of which it treats. It is lord Herbert of Cherbury walking the new pavement in all the trappings of romance; but, like lord Herbert, it displays many valuable qualities accompanying this air of extravagance, much sound sense, and appropriate erudition. It has since been added to the prolegomena of Johnson and Steevens’s edition. In the title-page of this work was also announced, “Whereunto will be added, in some other volumes, notes, critical and explanatory, and a body of various readings entire.” The introduction likewise declared, that these “notes and various readings” would be accompanied with another work, disclosing the sources from which Shakspeare “drew the greater part of his knowledge in mythological and classical matters, his fable, his history, and even the seeming peculiarities of his language to which,” says Mr. Capell, “we have given for title, The School of Shakspeare.” Nothing surely could be more properly conceived than such designs, nor have we ever met with any thing better grounded on the subject of “the learning of Shakspeare” than what may be found in the. long note to this part of Mr. Capell’s introduction. It is more solid than even the popular essay on this topic. Such were the meditated achievements of the critical knight-errant, Edward Capell. But, alas! art is long, and life is short. Three-andtvventy years had elapsed, in collection, collation, compilation, and transcription, between the conception and production of his projected edition: and it then came, like human births, naked into the world, without notes or commentary, save the critical matter dispersed through the introduction, and a brief account of the origin of the fables of the several plays, and a table of the different editions. Cenain quaintnesses of style, and peculiarities of printing and punctuation, attended the whole of this publication. The outline, however, was correct. The critic, with unremitting toil, proceeded in his undertaking. But while he was diving into the classics of Caxton, and working his way under ground, like the river Mole, in order to emerge with all his glories; while he was looking forward to his triumphs; certain other active spirits went to work upon his plan, and, digging out the promised treasures, laid them prematurely before the public, defeating the effect of our critic’s discoveries by anticipation. Steevens, Malone, Farmer, Percy, Reed, and a whole host of literary ferrets, burrowed into every hole and corner of the warren of modern antiquity, and overran all the country, whose map had been delineated by Edward Capell. Such a contingency nearly staggered the steady and unshaken perseverance of our critic, at the very eve of the completion of his labours, and, as his editor informs us for, alas! at the end of near forty years, the publication was posthumous, and the critic himself no more! we say then, as his editor relates, he was almost determined to lay the work wholly aside. He persevered, however (as we learn from the rev. editor, Mr. Collins), by the encouragement of some noble and worthy persons: and to such their Cih couragement, and his perseverance, the public was, in 1783, indebted for three large volumes in 4to, under the title of “Notes and various readings of Shakspeare; together with the School of Shakspeare, or extracts from divers English books, that were in print in the author’s time; evidently shewing from whence his several fables were taken, and some parcel of his dialogue. Also farther extracts, which contribute to a due understanding of his writings, or give a light to the history of his life, or to the dramatic history of his time.”

Besides the works already mentioned, Mr. Capell was the editor of a volume <pf ancient poems called “Prolusions;” and the alteration of Anthony and Cleopatra, as acted at Drury-lane in 1758. He died Jan. 24, 1781.

This lively account of Mr. Capell, which appeared in the two last editions of this Dictionary, seems to be principally taken from an ingenious criticism in vol. XLIX. of the Monthly Review; and those who wish to investigate the merits of Mr. Capell, as an editor, at a small expence of time, may be referred to the other volumes of that review in which his works are characterised, and to the Critical Review, vol. XLI. and LVI. In vol. XLIX. of the Crit. Review is a list of his Mss. and printed books, which he gave to Trinity college, Cambridge; and from a note on one of these there is some reason to suspect that he was, in a considerable measure, the author of a defence of himself, entitled “A Letter to George Hardinge, esq. on the subject of a passage in Mr. Steevens’s Preface to his impression of Shakspeare,” 1777, 4to, unless, indeed, the gentleman to whom the letter was attributed, the rev. Mr. Collins, was disposed to flatter him beyond all reasonable bounds, and at the expence of his own sense and taste. Mr. Capell, we are told, spent a whole life on Shakspeare; and if it be true, which we are also told, that he transcribed the works of that illustrious poet ten times with his own hand, it is no breach of charity to add, that much of a life that might have been employed to more valuable purposes, was miserably wasted.

, an eminent French protestant and learned divine, was born at Sedan, a town in Champagne, about 1579. He was professor of divinity and of the Oriental languages in the university of Saumur; and so very deeply skilled in the Hebrew, that our learned bishop Hall calls him “magnum Hebraizantium oraculurn in Gallia,” the great oracle of all that studied Hebrew in France. He was the author of some very learned works; but is now chiefly memorable for the controversy he had with the younger Buxtorf concerning the antiquity of the Hebrew points. Two opinions have prevailed concerning the true date and origin of these points both of which have been very warmly espoused. The first is, that the points are coeval with the language, and were always in use among the Jews: the second, that the points were not known to the Jews before their dispersion from Jerusalem, but invented afterwards by modern rabbis to prevent the language, which was every day decaying, from being utterly lost; viz. that they were invented by the Masoreth Jews of Tiberias, about 600 years after Christ . This opinion of their late invention was taken up by Capellus, who defended it in a very excellent and learned treatise entitled “Arcanum punctuationis revelatum,” &c. which work, after being refused a licence in France and at Geneva, was printed in Holland, and caused a great clamour among the protestants, as if it had a tendency to hurt their cause. It is, however, certain, that Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and others, had espoused the same notion as well as the Scaligers, Casaubons, Erpenius, Salmasius, Grotius, and the Heinsii; and therefore it could not be said, that Capellus introduced any novelty, but only more solidly established an opinion, which had been approved of by the most learned and judicious protestants. The true reason, perhaps, why the German protestants in general so warmly opposed Capellus’s opinion, was, that they had been accustomed to follow that of the two Buxtorfs, whom they considered as oracles in Hebrew learning. Buxtorf the father had written a little treatise in defence of the antiquity of the points; and as Buxtorfs credit was justly great among them, they chose rather to rely upon his authority than to examine his arguments, in so abstruse an inquiry. Buxtorf the son wrote against Capellus, and maintained his father’s opinion. Capellus, however, has been generally supposed to have put the matter beyond any father dispute; on which account his scholars Bochart, Grotius, Spanheim, Vossius, Daille, and almost all the learned in Hebrew since, have very readily acceded to his opinion.

Capellus composed another work, entitled “Critics, Sacra;” fol. which so highly displeased the protestants that they hindered the impression of it; till John Capellus, who was his son, and afterwards turned papist, got leave of the king to print it at Paris in 1650. This work is a collection of various readings and errors, which he thought were crept into the copies of the Bible, through the fault of the transcribers, and must have been a work of prodigious labour, since the author acknowledges, that he had been thirty-six years about it. The younger Buxtorf wrote a learned answer to it, and some English protestants have also appeared against it: but Grotius, on the other side, very much commends it in an epistle to the author; where he tells him to be content with the judicious approbation of a few, rather than the blind applause of many readers. “Contentus esto,” says he, “magnis potius quam multis laudatoribus.” Father Simon quotes a letter which Morinus wrote to cardinal Francis Barbarini on the subject of his “Critrca Sacra,” in which he intimates that they would do Capellus a kindness in condemning his book, because it had procured him the hatred of his own party; but that at the same time it would be prejudicial to the Roman catholic 1 cause, which those “Critica” were thought to support. This letter was printed in England, and added to a collection of letters entitled “Bibliotheca Orientalis.” Capellus died at Saumur, June 16, 1658, aged almost eighty having made an abridgment of his life in his work “De gente Capellorum.”

It has hitherto escaped the notice of Capellus’s biographers, that England had a considerable share in his education. He came to Oxford in 1610, and resided for some time at Exeter college, attracted by the fame of those eminent rectors of that house, Dr. Holland and Dr. Prideaux. Wood says that he wore a gown, and in February of the above year answered in certain disputations in the divinity school, and performed other exercises in order to take the degree of bachelor in divinity; but his name does not appear in the register. In 1612, out of gratitude for the assistance he had enjoyed in his studies, he presented some books to the library; and it was after his return from Oxford that he was appointed Hebrew professor at Saumur. Capellus’s other works are, 1. “Historia Apostolica illustrata,” Genev. 1634, 4to, inserted afterwards in vol. L of the “Critici Sacri,” London, 1660, ful. 2. “Spicilegium post messem;” a collection of criticisms on the New Testament, Gen. 1632, 4to, and added afterwards to Canieroif s “Myrothecium Evangeiicum,” of which we have already mentioned Capellus was the editor. 3. “Diatribae duoe,” also in the Spicilegium. 4. “Templi Hierosolymitani Delineatio triplex,” in vol. I. of the “Critici Sacri.” 5. “Ad novam Davidis lyram animadversiones, &c.” Salmur. 1643, 8vo. 6. “Diatriba de veris et antiquis Ebraeorum literis,” Amst. 1645, 12mo, in answer to Buxtorf. 7. “De critica nuper a se edita, ad rev. virum D. Jacob. Usserium Armacanum in Hibernia Episcopum, Epistola apologetica, in qua Arnoldi Bootii temeraria Criticae censura refellitur,” Salm. 1651, 4to. His correspondence with the learned Usher may be seen in Parr’s valuable collection of letters to and from the archbishop, p. 559, 562, 568, 569, and 587. 8. “Chronologia Sacra,” Paris, 1655, 4 to, reprinted afterwards among the prolegomena to Walton’s Polyglot. In 1775 and 1778, a new edition of his? Critica Sacra" was published at Halle in 2 vols. 8vo, by Vogel and Scharfenberg, with corrections and improvements.

, a native of Mantua, who died in 1548, made himself famous by a work entitled “The Stratagems of Charles IX. against the Huguenots,” which he published in Italian at Rome, 1572, 4to, and a French translation was printed 1574. He describes the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and relates some very remarkable particulars respecting the motives and consequences of that outrage, which very naturally gave offence to the French court.

, of Mantua, brother of the preceding, was a celebrated poet of the sixteenth century, who acquired great n putation by his centos of Virgil, in which he applies the expressions of that great poet to the lives of the monks and the public affairs of his time. His Cento against women, Venice, 1550, 8vo, is thought too satirical. Part of Capilupi’s poems are in the “Delicia) Poetarum Italorum,” torn. I. and they are printed separately, 1600, 4to. He died 1560, aged sixty-two. He should be distinguished from his brothers Hyppolitus and Julius Capilupi, who were also Latin poets. All their poems are collected in one vol. 4to, printed at Rome, 1590, except the “Cento Virgilianus de Monachis,” which is proscribed at Rome, and may be found at the end of the “Regnum Papisticum” of Naogeorgus.

, a Franciscan friar, was born in the village of Capistran in Italy, 1385, and acquired prodigious reputation by his zeal, his eloquence, and the regularity of his manners. He was sent into Bohemia, in order to effect the conversion of the Hussites; and he preached a crusade against the Turks, in Germany, in Hungary, and in Poland. His eloquence seconded so happily the valour of Hunniades, that he contributed greatly to the victories which the Christians gained over Mahomet, and particularly to the famous battle of Belgrade in 1456. These two men divided so evidently the glory of the victories which were gained, that it was thought there was a jealousy between them; for in the account which Capistran gave of the victory of Belgrade, no notice was taken of John Hunniades; and the relations of the latter did not make the least mention of Capistran. Capistran died a little after the victory last mentioned, Oct. 23, 1456, and was buried at Wiilak in Hungary. We are told, that many miracles were wrought at his tomb, and that his prayers put a stop to the miracles of a lay-brother. He was canonized in October 1690 by pope Alexander VIII. but had before been beatified by Gregory XV. Some very surprising effects are related of his eloquence, as that he prevailed on his hearers to make a pile of, and burn, all their implements of gaming, and then take up arms against the Turks. He did not, however, depend upon his eloquence, but employed the secular arm in the work of conversion, and put to death those whom he found refractory. His body, after being buried above a century, was removed to another monastery when the Turks took Sirmisch, and afterwards, when the protestants got possession of that monastery, it was thrown into a well. His principal work was, “Speculum Clericorum,” a treatise on the power of the pope and councils, &c. which he maintained in the genuine spirit of persecution.

, an eminent Lutheran reformer, was born at Hagenau in Alsace, in 1478. His father was of the senatorian rank, and being averse to the lives of the divines of his time, had him brought up to the profession of physic at Basil, where he took his doctor’s degree, and likewise made great proficiency in other studies. After his father’s death, however, in 1504, he studied divinity, and also civil law, under Zasius, an eminent civilian, and took a degree in that faculty. At Heidelberg he became acquainted with Oecolampadius, with whom he ever after preserved the strictest intimacy and friendship. On their first acquaintance they studied Hebrew together under the tuition of one Matthew Adrian, a converted Jew, and Capito then became a preacher, first at Spire and afterwards at Basil, where he continued for some years. From thence he was sent for by the elector Palatine, who made him his counsellor, and sent him on several embassies, and Cliarles V. is said to have conferred upon him the order of knighthood. From Mcntz he followed Bucer to Strasburgh, where he astonished his hearers by preaching the reformed, or rather reforming religion, at 8t. Thomas’s church in that city, beginning his ministry by expounding St. Paul’s epistle to the Colossians. The fame of Capito and Bucer spread so wide, that James Faber and Gerard Rufus were sent privately from France to hear him, by Margaret queen of Navarre, sister to the French king; and by this means the protestant doctrine was introduced into France. Capito was a man of great learning and eloquence, tempered with a prudence which gave weight to his public services as well as to his writings. In all disputes, he insisted on brotherly love and peaceable discussion.

In 1525 he was recalled into his own country where he continued to preach the reformed principles, and administered the ordinances of baptism and of the Lord’s supper without any of the popish ceremonies. He likewise made frequent excursions into the neighbouring parts of Switzerland, preaching and confirming the converts to the new doctrines. He distinguished himself particularly in a solemn disputation held at Bern, in 1528, against the mass, &c. and likewise at the diet at Ratisbon, in 15H, where he was one of the delegates from the protestants. As he was returning home from this last, he died of the plague, about the end of the year 1541, in. the sixty-third year of his age.

Capito was esteemed one of the first men of his age for learning, and had a very extensive correspondence with his learned contemporaries, Among others, he was very importunate with Erasmus, to throw off the disguise, and appear more decidedly for the protestant religion; but Oecolampadius was his principal friend, and after the death of that reformer, he married his widow, by whom he had several children. He had before married another lady of great literary accomplishments, who lived but a short time. Moreri and the editors of the Dictionnaire Historique make this lady to have been his second wife, and tell us that she would sometimes preach when he was indisposed, but both accounts appear improbable. Capito left the following works “Institutionum Hebraicarum libri duo” “Enarrationes in Habacuc et Hoseam prophetas,” Strasburgh, 1526, 8vo; “Vita Johannis Oecolampadii” “De formando puro Theologo” “Explicatio doctissima in Hexhameron opus Dei.” He was also the editor of Oecolampadius’s Commentary on Ezekiel, published at Strasburgh, 1534, 4to. His life of Oecolampadius was translated into English, and published along with those of Luther and Zuinglius, by Henry Bennet Callesian, Lond. 1561, 8vo.

, an Italian poet and governor of Atri in the kingdom of Naples, was born at Perugia in ]530. He wrote a satirical poem on courts and courtiers, which procured him much reputation, while his circle of friends- and admirers was greatly enlarged by. the vivacity and pleasantry of his conversation. Among the number of his patrons was Ascanio, marquis of Coria, at whose house he died in 1601. He wrote also some poems of the romantic class, as his “Life of Maecenas,” left unfinished, and two comedies, viz. “Lo Seiocco,” and “La Ninnetta,” published at Venice in 1605. A collection -of his poems, with the observations of his son Charles, was published at Venice in 1656 and 1662.

, a dissenting minister of the Socinian persuasion, son of the rev. Joseph Cappe, minister of the dissenting congregation at Mill hill in Leeds, was born in that town Feb. 21, 1732-3, and educated for some time under the care of his father, whom he lost in his sixteenth year. Having at this early age discovered a predilection for nonconformity, he was placed at the academy of Dr. Aikin at Kilvvorth in Leicestershire, in 1743, and the next year removed to that of Dr. Doddridge at Northampton. During his residence here he overcame somescruples that arose in his mintl respecting the evidences of revealed religion, by examining them in the best writers with great attention. After passing two years at Northampton, he was deprived of the benefit of Dr. Doddriclge’s instructions, who was obliged to leave England on account of his health, and in 1752 went to the university of Glasgow, where he continued three years, improving his knowledge with great industry and success, and forming an acquaintance with many eminent men of the day, particularly Dr. Leechman, Dr. Cullen, Dr. Adam Smith, Dr. Moore, and the late Dr. Black. Having completed his studies, he returned in 1755 to Leeds, and within a short time after was chosen co-pastor, and the following year sole pastor of the dissenting congregation at St Saviourgate, York. This situation he retained for forty years, during which he engaged the respect and affection of his hearers, and was distinguished as a preacher of uncommon eloquence, and a man of great learning and amiable manners. In 1791 and 1793 he experienced two paralytic shocks, which ever after affected both his walking and his speech, but was enabled to employ much of his time in preparing those works for the press which appeared after his death. Weakened at length by paralytic affections, he died Dec. 24, 1800. He published in his life-time, 1. “A Sermon upon the king of Prussia’s Victory at Rosbach,” Nov. 5, 1757. 2. “Three Fast-day Sermons, published during the American War.” 3. “A Sermon on the Thanksgiving-day, 1784.” 4. “A Fast-clay Sermon, written during the American War, but first published in 1795.” 5 “A Sermon on the Death of the rev. Edw. Sandercock.” 6. “A selection of Psalms for Social Worship.” 7. “Remarks in vindication of Dr. Priestley, in answer to the Monthly Reviewers. 17 8.” Letters published in the York Chronicle, signed `A. doughty Champion in heavy armour,' in reply to the attack of Dr. Cooper (under the signature of Erasmus) upon Mr. Lindsey on his resigning the living of Catterick, and “Discourses on the Providence and Government of God.” ' In 1802 were published 61 Critical Remarks on many important passages of Scripture, together with dissertations upon several subjects tending to illustrate the phraseology and doctrine of the New Testament." To these were prefixed, memoirs of his life, by the editor Catherine Cappe, his second wife, 2 vols, 8vo. The chief object of these remarks is to attack the Trinitarian doctrine, and to give those explanations and meanings to various parts of the New Testament language which are adopted by the modern Unitarian school. How far he has been successful may be seen in our references.

, an eminent classical scholar and Greek professor, was born at Mondidier, a small town in Picardy, May 1, 1671. For some time his father, who was a tanner, employed him in that business, but he early contracted a fondness for reading, and even taught himself, at his leisure hours, the elements of Latin. About the beginning of 1685, Charles de St. Leger, his uncle, a Benedictine of the abbey of Corbie, happening, on a visit to Mondidier, to discover his nephew’s predilection, advised his parents to send him to the college of Mondidier, where the Benedictines of Cluny then taught Latin. There Capperonnier studied for eighteen months, and by an un% common effort of diligence combined the study of Greek with Latin, two languages which he considered as mutually aiding each other, and which he made the subject of all his future researches. In 1686 he continued his education at Amiens among the Jesuits, for two years, under father Longuemare, who observing his application to be far more incessant than that of his fellow-scholars, gave him private lessons in Greek. In 1688 he came to Paris, where at the seminary of the Trente-trois, he entered upon a course of philosophy and theology, during which he never failed to compare the fathers of the church with the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. In 1693 and 1694 he studied the Oriental languages in the college of Ave-Maria, and in the latter year, the bishop of his diocese sent him to the community of St. George d' Abbeville to assist the ecclesiastical students in the Greek language, and in 1695 to that of St. Valois cle Monstreuil to teach humanity and philosophy; but the sea air and his excessive application disagreeing with his health, he returned to Paris in 1696, took the degree of master of arts, and followed the business of education until he found that it interfered too much with his studies. Contenting himself, therefore, with the small profits arising from giving a few lessons, he took up his abode, in May 1697, in one of the colleges, and when he had taken his bachelor’s degree in divinity went to Amiens to take orders. Returning to Paris, he became a licentiate, and obtained the friendship and patronage of cardinal Rohan, the abbe Louvois, and other persons of note. At this time, some lessons which he gave in the Greek, and a chapel ry of very moderate income in the church of St. Andr6 des Arcs, were his only resources, with which he lived a life of study and temperance, defrayed the expences of his licentiate, and even could purchase books. Mr. Colesson, however, a law- professor, and who from being his scholar had become his friend, seeing with what difficulty he could maintain himself, made him an offer of his house and table, which, after many scruples, he consented to accept. He went to his new habitation in 1700, and in the following year resigned his duty in the chapel, the only benefice he had, because it took up that time which he thought completely lost if not employed in study. In 1706, M. Viel, then rector of the university of Paris, and M. Pourchot, t.he syndic, admiring his disinterested spirit, procured him a pension of four hundred livres on the faculty of arts, to which no other condition was annexed than that he should revise the Greek booksused in the classes. M. Capperonnier expressed his gratitude on this occasion in a Greek poem, which was printed with a Latin translation by M. Viel, 4to, a pamphlet of six pages.

During his residence -with M. Colesson, which lasted more than ten years, he read with that professor whatever he could find in the Greek authors respecting the law, and acquired a very profound knowledge of the subject; nor was he less skilled in what the ancients have conveyed to us on the arts and sciences; and the assistance he afforded to many eminent writers has been amply acknowledged, particularly by Montfaucon, Baudelot de Dairvil, Kuster, Tournemine, and many others. In 1702 he engaged with Tournemine and Dupin in an edition of Photius, of which Dupin was to be principal editor, Tournemine was to furnish the notes, and Capperonnier the translations. This work was considerably advanced, and some part printed, when it was interrupted by the banishment of Dupin to Chatelleraut, and was never afterwards completed; a circumstance which the learned world has to regret, as Capperonnier had employed three years in collating the best editions and manuscripts, and Photius still remains without an editor.

Capperonnier was an inmate with M. Colesson when the university of Basil invited him to the chair of the Greek professor, with a liberal salary, and freedom of conscience; but this he did not think proper to accept. About the end of 1710 he was induced to undertake the education of the three sons of M. Crozat, who, on his removing to his house, settled a pension of one hundred pistoles upon him, which, with his usual moderation, Capperonnier made sufficient For all his wants, until in Oct. 1722 he was appointed royal professor of Greek. On this occasion he delivered a Latin discourse on the use and excellence of the Greek language. In 1725 he published at Paris his edition of “Quintilian,” fol. dedicated to the king, who bestowed on him a pension of 800 livres. Burman, who had published an edition of Quintilian. thought it incumbent to attack this of our author, who answered his objections with temperate and sound reasoning. Capperonnier’s is a splendid book, and particularly useful in illustrating the author by references to the Greek orators. In 1719 our author published “Apologie tie Sophocle,” a pamphlet, 8vo, in answer to some objections of Voltaire tothe CEdipus. M. Capperonnier died at Paris, July 24, 1744, leaving a character of amiable simplicity, great piety and probity, and singular benevolence and kindness. He was distinguished by a very retentive memory. Among various works which he left for the press were an edition of the “Antiqui Rhetores Latini,” with notes and illustrations, published at Strasburghin 1756, 4to; and “Philological Observations” on Greek and Latin authors, which would amount to several volumes in 4to. He also completed a “Treatise on the ancient pronunciation of the Greek language,” and made great additions and corrections to Stephens 1 s Latirt Thesaurus.

, nephew of the preceding, was born at Mondidier in 1716, and died at Paris in 1775. He was a member of the academy of inscriptions, professor of Greek in the royal college, to which he succeeded on his uncle’s death, and librarian to the king. He inherited much of his uncle’s taste for classical studies, and was not less esteemed for his private character. He published, 1. an edition of Joinville’s “History of St. Lewis,” Paris, 1761, fol. 2. An edition of “Anacreon,” 1748, 12mo, described in our authority as rare, nor do we find it in Harwood, Dibdin, or Clarke. 3. “Csesaris Opera,” Paris, Barbou, 1754, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Plautus,” with a good glossary, by Valart, 1759, 8 vols. 12mo. 5. “Sophocles,” prepared by our author, but published after his death by Vauvilliers, Paris, 1781, 2 vols. 4to. An ample account of this edition may be seen in Dibdin. Capperonnier also contributed various papers to the academy of inscriptions. His son, a very learned young man, who had also a place in the royal library, was unfortunately drowned a few years ago, while sailing in a pleasure-boat with some friends.

, a Genoese advocate, who lived in the seventeenth century, and acquired much fame as a lawyer, is now only known as a historian. His Italian history comprehends the transactions that occurred in Italy during his own time, which he has related with clearness, and with sagacity traced to their causes; maintaining at the same time, as he says, a perfect impartiality between the powers of France and Spain, that were concerned in them. The two first parts of this history were published by Capriata in his life-time, from 1613 to 1644; and the third part, extending to 1660, was published by his son after his death. The whole was translated into English by Henry earftrfTVloninoutb, and published Lond. 1663, fol.

, were celebrated painters of the Lombard school, all of Bologna, in Italy, and the founders of the Bologna school. Lewis Caracci was born in 1555, and was cousin-german to Augustine and Hannibal, who were brothers. He discovered but a.n indifferent genius for painting under his first master, Prospero Fontana who therefore dissuaded him from pursuing it any farther, and treated him so roughly that Lewis left his school. However, he was determined to supply the defects of nature by art; and henceforward had recourse to no other master but the works of the great painters. He went to Venice, where the famous Tintoret, seeing something of his doing, encouraged him to proceed iii his profession, and foretold, that he would one day be the first in it. This prophetic applause animated him in his resolutions to acquire a mastery an his art; and he travelled about to study the works of those who had excelled in it. He studied Titian’s, Tintoret’s, and Paulo Veronese’s works at Venice; Andrea del Sarto’s at Florence; Correggio’s at Parma; and Julio Romano’s at Mantua: but Correggio’s manner touched him most sensibly, and he followed it ever after.

Augustine Caracci was born in 1557, and Hannibal in 1560. Their father, though a taylor in trade, was yet very careful to give his sons a liberal education. Augustine was intended to be bred a scholar; but his genius leading him to arts, he was afterwards put to a goldsmith. He quitted this profession in a little time, and then gave himself up to every thing that pleased his fancy. He first put himself under the tuition of his cousin Lewis; and became a very good designer and painter. He gained some knowledge likewise of all the parts of the mathematics, natural philosophy, rhetoric, music, and most of the liberal arts and sciences. He was also a tolerable poet, and very accomplished in many other respects. Though painting was the profession he always adhered to, yet it was often interrupted by his pursuits in the art of engraving, which he learnt of Cornelius Cort, and in which he surpassed all the masters of his time.

Hannibal Caracci in the mean time was a disciple of Lewis, as well as his brother Augustine; but never deviated from his art, though he wandered through all those places which afforded any means of cultivating and perfecting it. Among his many admirable qualities, he had so prodigious a memory, that whatever he had once seen, he never failed to retain and make his own. Thus at Parma, he acquired the sweetness and purity of Correggio; at Venice, the strength and distribution of colours of Titian; at Rome, the correctness of design and beautiful forms of the antique: and by his wonderful performances in the Farnese palace, he soon made it appear, that all the several perfections of the most eminent masters, his predecessors, were united in himself alone.

At length these three painters, having made all the advantages they could by observation and practice, formed a plan of association, and continued henceforward almost always together. Lewis communicated his discoveries freely to his cousins; and proposed to them that they should unite their sentiments and their manner, and act as it were in confederacy. The proposal was accepted: they painted various pictures in several places; and finding their credit to increase, they laid the foundation of that celebrated school, which ever since has gone by the name of the Caracci’s academy. Hither all the young students, who had a view of becoming masters, resorted to be instructed in the rudiments of painting; and here the Caracci taught freely and without reserve to all that came. Lewis’s charge was to make a collection of antique statues and bas-reliefs. They had designs of the best masters, and a collection of curious books on all subjects relating to their art: and they had a skilful anatomist always ready to teach what belonged to the knitting and motion of the muscles, &c. There were often disputations in the academy; and not only painters but men of learning proposed questions, which were always decided by Lewis. Every body was well received; and though stated hours were allotted to treat of different matters, yet improvements might be made at all hours by the antiquities and the designs which were to be seen.

The fame of the Caracci reaching Rome, the cardinal Farnese sent for Hannibal thither, to paint the gallery of his palace. Hannibal was the more willing to go, because he had a great desire to see Raphael’s works, with the antique statues and bas-reliefs. The gusto which he took there from the ancient sculpture, made him change his Bolognian manner for one more learned, but less natural in the design and in the colouring. Augustine followed Hannibal, to assist him in his undertaking of the Farnese gallery; but the brothers not rightly agreeing, the cardinal sent Augustine to the court of the duke of Parma, in whose service he died in 1602, being only forty-five years of age. His most celebrated piece of painting is that of the Communion of St. Jerom, in Bologna: “a piece,” says a connoisseur, “so complete in all its parts, that it was much to be lamented the excellent author should withdraw himself from the practice of an art, in which his abilities were so very extraordinary, to follow the inferior profession of a graver.” Augustine had a natural son, called Antonio, who was brought up a painter under his uncle Hannibal; and who applied himself with so much success to the study of all the capital pieces in Home, that it is thought he would have surpassed even Hannibal himself, if he had lived hut he died at the age of thirty- five, in 1618.

Meanwhile Hannibal continued working in the Farnese gallery at Rome; and, after inconceivable pains and care, finished the paintings in the perfection they are in at present. He hoped that the cardinal would have rewarded him in some proportion to the excellence of his work, and to the time it took him up, which was eight years; but he was disappointed. The cardinal, influenced by an ignorant Spaniard his domestic, gave him but a little above 200 pounds. When the money was brought him, he was so surprised at the injustice done him, that he could not speak a word to the person who brought it. This confirmed him in a melancholy which his temper naturally inclined to, and made him resolve never more to touch his pencil; and this resolution he had undoubtedly kept, if his necessities had not compelled him to break it. It is said that his melancholy gained so much upon him that at certain times it deprived him of the right use of his senses. It did not, however, put a stop to his amours; and his debauches at Naples, whither he had retired for the recovery of his health, brought a distemper upon him, of which he died at forty-nine years of age. As in his life he had imitated Raphael in his works, so he seems to have copied that great master in the cause and manner of his death. His veneration for Raphael was indeed so great, that it was his death- bed request to be buried in the same tomb with him which was accordingly done in the pantheon or rotunda at Rome. There are extant several prints of the blessed Virgin, and of other subjects, etched by the hand of this incomparable artist. He is said to have been a friendly, plain, honest, and open-hearted man; very com^ municative to his scholars, and so extremely kind to them, that he generally kept his money in the same box with his colours, where they might have recourse to either as they had occasion.

While Hannibal Caracci worked at Home, Lewis was courted from all parts of Lombardy, especially by the clergy, to make pictures in their churches; and we may judge of his capacity and facility, by the great number of pictures he made, and by the preference that was given him to other painters. In the midst of these employments, Hannibal solicited him to come and assist him in the Farnese gallery; and so earnestly that he could not avoid complying with his request. He w r ent to Rome; corrected several things in that gallery; painted a figure or two himself, and then returned to Bologna, where he died, 1619, aged 63.

Lodovico Caracci, far from subscribing to a master’s dictates, or implicit imitation of former styles, was the sworn pnipil of nature. To a modest but dignified design, to a simplicity eminently fitted for those subjects of religious gravity which his taste preferred, he joined that solemnity of hue, that sober twjlight, that air of cloistered meditation, which has been so often recommended as the proper tone of historic colour. Too often content to rear the humbler graces of his subject, he seldom courted elegance, but always, when he did, with enviable success. Even now, though they are nearly -n a state of evanescence, the three nymphs in the garden scene of S. Michele in Bosco, seem moulded by the hand, inspired by the breath, of love; this genial glow he communicates even to the open silvery tone of fresco: his master-piece in oil is the altar-piece of St. John the Baptist, formerly in the Certosa of Bologna, now in the Louvre, a work allsainted by this solemn hue, whose lights seem embrowned by a golden veil. But Lodovico sometimes indulged and succeeded in tones austere, unmixed and hardy: such is the Flagellation, of Christ in the same church, of which the tremendous depth of the flesh tints contrasts with therstern blue of the wide-expanded sky; and less conveys, than dashes its terrors on the astonished sense.

Annibale Caracci, superior to his cousin and brother in power of execution and academic prowess, was inferior to either in taste and sensibility and judgment: of this the best proof that can be adduced is his master-work, that on which he rests his fame, the Farnese gallery; a work whose ^uniform vigour of execution nothing can equal but its imbecility and incongruity of conception: if impropriety of ornament were to be fixed by definition, the subjects of that gallery might be quoted as the most decisive instances: the artist may admire the splendor, the exuberance, the concentration of powers, displayed by Annibale Caracci, but the man of sense must lament their misapplication in the Farnese gallery.

, baron of Corano, was a native of Nardo in the kingdom of Naples, and in the seventeenth century acquired much fame by his Italian poems. Among his tragedies that of “II Corradino” is distinguished above the rest, printed at Rome in 1694. He employed himself in a work of far greater importance, his “Imperio vindicate,” an epic poem in forty cantos, printed at Rome in 1690, 4to. The Italians place it immediately after Ariosto and Tasso; but persons of taste, while they admire the facility and abundance of the author, rank his poem far beneath the Orlando Furioso and the Gierusalemme Liberata. The author died at Rome in 1702.

, often called Hobertus de Licio, from Leze“or Lecce”, where he was born in 1425, descended probably from the illustriou; family of Caraccioli, and became one of the most celebrated preachers of his time. Having an early inclination to the church, he entered the order of the Franciscans, but finding their discipline too rigid, he removed to the Conventuals, and according to Erasmus, lived with more iVi-eJoin. He was. however, distinguished for talents, and occupied some honourable offices, and was appointed professor oi divinity. His particular bias was to preaching, which he cultivated with such success, as to incline all his brethren to imitate one who, throughout all Italy, was bailed as a second St. Paul. He displayed his pulpit eloquence not only in the principal cities of Italy, Assisa, Florence, Venice, Ferrara, Naples, &c. but before the popes, and is said to have censured the vices and luxury of the Roman court with great boldness and some quaint humour. This, however, appears not to have given serious offence, as he was employed by the popes, as well as by the king of Naples, in several negotiations of importance, and was made successively bishop of Aquino, of Lecce*, and of Aquila. After more than fifty years’ exercise of his talent as a preacher, he died at his native place May 6, 14-y 5. Of his sermons eight volumes have been often printed. 1. “Sermones de adventu,” Venice, 1496, 8vo. 2. “De Quadragesima,” Cologne, 1475, fol. 3. “De Quadragesima, seu Quadragesimale perutilissimum de Pcenitentia,” Venice, 1472, 4to. There are Italian translations of some of these. 4. “De Tempore, &c. Sanctorum,” Naples, 1489, 4to. 5. “De Solemnitatibus totius anni,” Venice, 1471. 6. “De Christo,” &c. Venice, 1489, 4to. 7. “De timorejudiciorum Dei,” Naples, 1473, fol. 8. “De amore divinorum officiorum,” ibid. 1473. There is another volume under the title “Roberti de Licio Sermones,” Leyden, 1500, 4to. He wrote also some theological works, of which a catalogue may be seen in our authority. Domenico de Angelis wrote his life, which was published at Naples in 1703, 4to.

, Marquis, was a native of Paris, where he was born in 1723, and having embraced the military life, became a colonel in the Polish service. Having quitted that, he travelled in Italy, and afterwards returned to his own country, where he passed a considerable part of his time in writing and publishing, and where he died May 29, 1803. His works, which are rather numerous than valuable, are of the moral or historic kind. Of the first, we have, 1. “Charactere de l'Amitié,” 2. “Conversation avec Soi- meme.” 3. “Jouissance de Soi-meme.” 4. “Le Veritable Mentor,” &c. &c. and of the historic or biographical kind, are the lives of cardinal de Berulle, Benedict XIV. Clement XIV. madame de Maintenon, &c. these are each comprized in a duodecimo volume, a quantity and form for which he appears to have had a predilection. Above twenty other works are enumerated in the Diet. Hist, of which the only one worthy of notice is “Ganganelli’s Letters,” which were translated into English some years ago, and had considerable success in raising the opinions of the public in favour of that pontiff; but it is now generally acknowledged that they were the composition of Caraccioli. His life of Ganganeili, which was translated into English in 1770, is esteemed more authentic. There was another Caraccioli in this country some years ago, who called himself Charles Caraccioli, gent, and published a confused jumble under the title of a Life of Lord Clive, and, if we mistake not, some novels.

, a Cistercian monk, born at Madrid in 1606, was at first abbot of Melrose, in the Low Countries, then titulary bishop of Missi; afterwards, by a singular turn, engineer apd intendant of the fortifications in Bohemia, from having served as a soldier. The same capricious and inconstant humour which made him lay down the crozier to take up the halberd, now led him from being engineer to, become bishop again. He had successively the bishoprics of Konigsgratz, of Campano, and of Vigevano, in which lastmentioned town he died in 1682, aged 76. He was a man of the most unbounded mind, and of whom it was said, that he was endowed with genius to the eighth degree, with eloquence to the fifth, and with judgment to the second. He wrote several works of controversial theology and a system of divinity in Latin, 7 vols. folio.

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

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

All the walls of the work-room of Caravagio were blackened, in order that the shades of objects might have no reflections, and all day long only one light entered it through the uppermost window. Thus he succeeded in giving his pictures that dimness and strength, which, at first sight, excelled and eclipsed all others. Even Rubens himself acknowledged Caravagio to be his master in the clar-obscure. Caravagio gave all his objects so striking and extraordinary a truth as could not be exceeded, and it was not possible to carry the natural any farther. But all these beauties disappeared in large compositions: his style was then hard and insupportable. He placed his figures all on the same plan, without gradation, without perspective; and his light to every object is uniformly thesame.

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

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

His vindictive temper allowed him to gain but few friends, excepting Civoli and Pomeranci. He lived in continual strife with Caracci, and particularly with Josehino. On the latter’s refusing to fight with him, as he was not a knight, he took the resolution to go to Malta, and cause himself to be admitted cavaliero serviente, in order to compel Josehino to give up all farther evasion. He killed a young man at Home, with whom he quarrelled at tennis, and fled, though sorely wounded, to Zagaroles, to the duke Maria Colonna, from thence to Naples, and afterwards to Malta. As his reputation had now made its way into all parts, he was never permitted to be idle, especially at Malta, where he finished several pieces for the church of St. John and the grand master. The grand master made him a cavaliero serviente, presented him with a golden chain, and gave him two slaves for his attendants.

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

Caravagio’s life was one continued series of misfortunes: he did not dare to go home to his country; on all hands he saw himself proscribed; he had scarcely a friend in the world, and died, quite destitute, on the common road. He usually went very ill clothed; he lived, without the ordinary accommodations, in any alehouse that would harbour him; and, once, when ho had not wherewith to pay his reckoning, he painted the sign for the alehouse, which, some time afterwards, was sold for a considerable sum. For many years the canvas of a portrait served him for a table-cloth at his dinner. Mr. Fuseli observes of this great artist, that he established a style of his own, in which energy and truth were to recover the rights supplanted by variety and manner. Of this style, the model, or what the Italians call “il vero,” dictated the forms, from which to deviate, or which to improve, was equally high treason against the art, or matter of derision in the eye of Caravagio. But to forms thus indiscriminately picked from the dregs of the street, he contrived to give energy and interest, by ideal light and shade. So novel a combination, substantiated by powers so decisive, could not fail to draw after it a number of followers. The great excellence of Caravagio consisted in truth of colour: he penetrated the substance of the thing before him, whether still life, fruit, flowers or flesh. His tints are few, but true, with little help from cinnabar or azure. Hence Hannibal Caracci declared, that he did not paint, but grind flesh. (Che costui macinava carne.)

Rome possesses few pictures of this great master. There yet remains at the Spada palace, in half figures, a St. Anna with the Virgin by her side, busied in female work: vulgarity discriminates their features; both are dressed in the vulgar Roman dress. Another picture, an altar-piece of entire figures, is our Lady of Loretto, with two Pilgrims, in the church of St. Augustine. What Shakspeare would have called “a dying ray,” imbrowns rather than illuminates the silent scenery, and consecrates the whole. In the palace of the Borghesi there was the Supper at Emaus; a S. Sebastian in theCampidoglio; and in the Pamphili collection, Hagar with Ishmael dying, and a Fruit-girl. But the master-piece of all his works, the Intombing of Christ, formerly in the Chiesa Nuova, before which the rival altarpieces of Baroccio, Guido, and Rubens, with all their bloom, their suavity, and colour, remained unobserved; this work, the knot of Caravagio’s powers, is now transported to the Louvre.

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

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

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

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

His life was a series of adventures, which he has committed to writing in his work “De vita propria” with great freedom, and probably great truth, but with a thorough contempt for fame or decency. It would ap^ pear as if he had written this history of his life for no other purpose than to give the public a proof that he was a most uncommon compound of wisdom and folly, and it is certainly not often that a character is to be met with so capricious and unequal. He congratulates himself that he had not a friend in the world; but that to make up for the loss, he was attended by an aerial spirit, an emanation from Saturn and Mercury, which was the constant guide of his actions, and teacher of every duty to which he was bound. When nature did not visit him with any bodily pain, he would procure to himself that disagreeable sensation, by biting his lips so strongly, or pulling his fingers to such a degree, as sometimes to force the tears from his eyes; and the reason he assigned was, in order to moderate certain impetuous sallies of his mind, whose violence was far more insupportable than bodily pain; and that the sure consequence of such a severe practice was his better enjoying the pleasure of health.

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

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

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

Innumerable other singular metaphysical and physical notions are to be found in the works of Cardan and they are accompanied with many experiments and observations on natural phenomena. But the whole is thrown together in such a confused mass, as plainly proves that, though the author’s head was replete with ideas, he wanted that sound understanding and cool judgment, without which the mosfe ingenious and original conceptions must prove abortive. He was too fond of mysticism, too credulous, too superstitious, and, in a word, too much of an astrologer, to be a true philosopher. Cardan, therefore, notwithstanding all the variety and apparent originality of his writings, must be ranked among the unsuccessful adventurers in philosophy.

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

Besides the many pictures which the grand duke and the Pecori family possess of this master, a few are dispersed through private collections at Florence. Excellent are his “Trinity” in the church of St. Croce, his “St. Albert” in that of S. Maria Maggiore, and the “Martyrdom of Stephen” at the Sisters of Monte Domini, which Pietro da Cortona ranked with the principal pictures of Florence. *' St. Anthony converting a Heretic,“at Cortona, is considered as superior to any other pencil at Cortona. His” St. Peter healing the Cripple,“in the Vatican at Rome, Andrea Sacchi placed next the” Transfiguration“of Raphael, and the” St. Jerom“of Domenichino; but this master-piece, by the humidity of the place, the bad priming, and the brutality of the cleaner, is entirely destroyed. Its merit procured him the-” title of Cavaliere. Another work of his, the fresco of the dome in S. Maria Maggiore, still remains: in this, by some error in perspective, he appeared inferior to himself; it displeased, and he was not suffered to correct it, notwithstanding his eager supplications; but had this perished, and the picture in the Vatican survived, the fame of Cigoli would rest on a firmer basis, and the assertions of Baldinucci deserve more credit. It is supposed that chagrin at not succeeding in painting the dome, hastened his death, which happened in 1613. He also engraved a few plates in a slight, neat stylej which, however, evinces the hand of the master. Strutt mentions his engraving of “Mary Magdalen washing the feet of Christ,” as containing heads of great beauty.

, bishop of Tortosa, in Catalonia, was a native of Valencia, in Spain, of which cathedral he was made a canon. He went to Rome, with great fame for learning, during the pontificate of Gregory XIII. and was promoted to the bishopric of Elne, a town of Roussillon, the seat of which see was afterwards removed to Perpignan. He was then translated to the bishopric of Vich; and lastly to that of Tortosa where he died, in 1590. In 1587 he published at Tarracona a quarto volume, containing, 1. “De regia Sancti Laurentii Bibliotheca.” 2. “De Bibliothecis (ex Fulvio Ursino) et De Bibliotheca Vaticana (ex Onuphrii Scedis.”) 3. “De expurgandis haereticorum propriis nominibus.” 4. “De Dyptichis.” Of these, the first, in which he treats of collecting all manner of useful books, and having able librarians, and in which he strongly exhorts Philip II. to put the Escurial library into good order, is of considerable value to bibliographers. His treatise “De Dyptichis,” those ancient public registers, is also very curious. Copies, if we may so speak, of these registers, are still -to be seen in France, at Sens, Dijon, and Besangon, the latter of which has been well described by M. Coste, the librarian of that city.

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

He wrote, or rather caused to be written under his direction, a book entitled “Pacata Hibernia,” of the history of the wars in Ireland, especially within the province of Munster, in the years 1599, 1600, 1601, and 1602; which, after his death, was printed at London' in 1633, fol. with seventeen maps; being published by his natural son, Thomas Stafford. Harris, in his edition of Ware’s Ireland, appeals to the preface, to p. 367, and other parts of this work, as proofs that Carew was not the author of it. Sir George Carew collected also, in four large volumes, several chronologies, charters, letters, monuments, maps, &c, relating to Ireland; which are preserved in the Bodleian

* In a biographical account of the Carew, which was without his knowfamily placed on the back of a picture ledge and consent, and intended to of lord Totness, in the possession of disinherit her but, upon an accidental his descendant, the late Boothby Clop- conversation with captain Carew, found ton, esq. this lady’s name is Anne, and him a gentleman of superior genius not Joyce: and it is added, that Mr. and fine address, *nd settled his estate, Clopton was extremely displeased with which was very considerable, upon him his daughter’s marriage with captain and his dmjghter. library: and made collections, notes, and extracts for writing The History of the reign of king Henry V. which were inserted in J. Speed’s Chronicle. Sir James Ware says, that the earl of Totness translated into English “A History of the affairs of Ireland,” written by Maurice Regan, servant and interpreter to Dermot, son of Murchard king of Leinster, in 1171, and which had been turned into French verse by a friend of Regan. Bishop Nicolson describes this history as extant in the duke of Chandos’s library, under the title of “Mauritii Regani, servi et interpretis Dermitii, filii Murchardi, &c. Historian de Hibernia fragmentum Anglice redditum a D. Georgio Carew, Memoniae preside sub Elizabetha;” and Mr. Harris mentions another ms copy among the bishop of Clogher’s Mss. in the college library, Dublin. Nicolson also informs us that this learned nobleman wrote forty-two volumes relating to the affairs of Ireland, which are in the Lambeth library, and four more of collections from the originals in the Cotton library.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does not appear that any of his poems were published during his life-time, except such as were set to music. The first collection was printed in 1640, 12mo, the second in 1642, the third (not in 1654 as Cibber asserts, but) in 1651, and a fourth in 1670. In 1772 Mr. Thomas Davies published an edition, with a few notes, and a short character, in which the writer has taken for granted some particulars for which no authority can be found. Carew’s Ccelum Britannicum, at one time erroneously attributed to Davenant, was printed with the first editions of his poems, and afterwards separately in 1651. Langbaine, and Cibber after him, say that our author placed the Lathi motto on the front, when printed, but no edition printed in his life-time is now known. The distich, however, might have been prefixed to the music of the masque. Oldys, in his ms notes on Langbaine, informs us, that “Garew’s sonnets were more in request than any poet’s of his time that is, between 1630 and 1640. They were many of them set to music by the two famous composers, Henry and William Lawes, and' other eminent masters, and sunoat. court in their masques.” It may be added, that Carew was one of the old poets whom Pope studied, and from, whom he borrowed. Dr. Percy honours him with the compliment of being an “elegant, and almost forgotten writer, whose poems deserve to be revived.” But no modern critic appears to have estimated his merit with more liberality than Mr. Head ley: his opinion, however, is here copied, not without suspicion that. his enthusiasm may be thought to have carried him too far.

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

Was seldome brought forth but with labour and pain"

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

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

Though Carey had but little skill in music, he had a prolific invention, and very early in his life distinguished himself by the composition of songs, being the author both of the words and music. One of these, beginning “Of all the girls that are so smart,” and since its late revival, known by the name of “Sally in our alley,” he set to an air so very pleasant and original, as still to retain its popular character. Addison praised it for the poetry, and Genii niani for the tune. In 1715 he produced two farces, one of which, “The Contrivances,” had considerable success. In 1720 he published a small collection of “Poems;” and in 1722, a farce called “Hanging and Marriage.” In 1732 he published six “Cantatas,” written and composed by himself; and about the same time composed several songs for the “Provoked Husband” and other modern comedies. In 1729, he published, by subscription, his poems much enlarged, with the addition of one entitled “Namby Pamby,” in ridicule of Ambrose Phillips’s lines on the infant daughter of lord Carteret. Carey’s talent lay in broad, burlesque humour; and in ridicule of the bombast of modern tragedies, he produced his “Chrononhotonthologos,*' in 1734, which will always be in season, as long as extravagance and bombast are encouraged on the stage. He also wrote a farce called the” Honest Yorkshireman,“which was very successful: two interludes,” Nancy,“and 46 Thomas and Sally,” and two serious operas, “Amelia,” set to music by John Frederic Lampe, and “Teraminta,” by John Christopher Smith, Handel’s disciple, friend, and successor, in superintending the performance of oratorios. The year 1737 was rendered memorable at Coventgarden theatre by the success of the burlesque opera of the “Dragon of Wantley,” written by Carey, and set by Lampe, “after the Italian manner.” This excellent piece of humour had run twenty-two nights, when it was stopped, with all other public amusements, by the death of her majesty queen Caroline, November 20, but was resumed again on the opening of the theatres in January following, and supported as many representations as the Beggar’s Opera had done, ten years before. And if Gay’s original intention in writing his musicaldrama was to ridicule the opera, the execution of his plan was not so happy as that of Carey; in which the mock heroic, tuneful monster, recitative, splendid habits, and style of music, all conspired toremind the audience of what they had seen and heard at the lyric theatre, more effectually than the most vulgar street tunes could do; and much more innocently than the tricks and transactions of abandoned thieves and prostitutes. Lampe’s music to this farcical drama, was not only excellent fifty years ago, but is still modern and in good taste. In 1738, “Margery, or the Dragoness,” a sequel to the “Dragon of Wantley,” written with equal humour, and as well set by Lampe, came out; but had the fate of all sequels. When the novelty of a subject is faded away, and the characters have been developed, it is difficult to revive the curiosity of the public about persons and things of which opinions are already formed. The “Dragoness” appeared but few nights, and was never revived.

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

, son of the above, inherited a considerable portion of his father’s taste and spirit, and much of his misfortunes. He was intended for a printer, but his “stage-struck mind' 7 led him to the theatres, in which he had little success, yet enough to give him a wandering unsettled disposition. For forty years, he employed himself in composing and singing a vast number of popular songs, chiefly of the patriotic kind, in which there was not much genuine poetry, or cultivated music. These he performed from town to town, in what he called 4t Lectures.” He wrote also from 1766 to 1792, several farces, a list of which may be seen in the Biographia Dramatica, and by the performance of which he earned temporary supplies. Like his father, he excluded every thing indecent or immoral from his compositions. Besides these dramatic pieces, he wrote, 1. “Analects in prose and verse,” 1771, 2 vols. 2. “A Lecture on Mimickry,” a talent in which he excelled, 1776. 3. “A Rural Ramble,” 1777 and 4. '< Balnea, or sketches of the different Watering-places in England," 1799. He died July 14, 1807, aged sixty-four, being born the year his father died, and was buried by a subscription among his friends, having never realized any property, or indeed having been ever anxious but for the passing hour.

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

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

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

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

On his arrival in Holland, he was soon involved in the disputes which then raged between the Arminians and Galvinists; and as the French supported the pensionary Banievelt, sir Dudley took the part of prince Maurice. His situation here, owing to the politics of the duke of Buckingham and other events, which belong to the history of the times, was one of peculiar delicacy and difficulty; yet he appears to have conducted himself as ambassador from England, with great wisdom, firmness, and prudence. Thinking that such services merited some reward, and as every thing of that kind depended on the duke of Buckingham, sir Dudley addressed his grace on the subject in a strain of servility and adulation, which might diminish our respect for his character, if we were to forget the relative state of the parties. We do not find, however, that his application was at this time successful.

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

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

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

Lord Dorchester did not live to see an end of the perplexed negociations on the affairs of Germany, and the restitution of the Palatinate; for, having long struggled with the disorders occasioned by frequent returns of the stone and gravel, he died Feb. 15, 1631-32, in the fifty ­ninth year of his age, and was interred in Westminsterabbey. Having no heirs, his title became extinct, but was revived in 1786, in the person of general sir Guy Carleton, of another family.

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

, a learned bishop in the seventeenth century, son of Guy, second son of Thomas Carleton, of Carleton-hall, in Cumberland, was born at Norham, in Northumberland, of whose important castle his father was then governor. By the care of the eminent Bernard Giipin, he was educated in grammar-learning and when tit for the university, sent by the same generous person to Edmund-hall in Oxford, in the beginning of the year 1576, and was by him chiefly maintained in his studies. On the 12th of February 1579-80, he took his degree of B. A. at the completing of which, he exceeded all that performed their exercises at that time. The same year he was elected probationer fellow of Merton-college, and remained in that society above five years before he proceeded in his faculty, not taking the degree of M. A. till June the 14th, 1585. While he remained in college, he was esteemed a great orator and poet, and in process of time became a better disputant in divinity, than he had before been in philosophy. What preferments he had, is not mentioned, nor does it appear that he was possessed of anv dignity in the church till he became a bishop. After having continued many years in the university, and taken, the degree of B. D. May 16, 1594, and that of Doctor, December 1, 1613, he was advanced to the bishopric of Landaff, to which he was confirmed July 11, 1613, and consecrated at Lambeth the next day. The same year he was sent by king James T. with three other English divine*, Dr. Hail, afterwards bishop of Exeter, Dr. Davenant, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, and Dr. Ward, master of Sidney-college, Cambridge, and one from Scotland, Dr. W T alter Balcanqual, afterwards dean of Durham, to the synod of Dort; where he stood up in favour of episcopacy, and behaved so well in every respect to the credit of our nation, that after his return he was, upon the translation, of Dr. Harsnet to Norwich, elected to succeed him in the see of Chichester, September 8, 16 19, and confirmed the 20th of the same month. He departed this life in May 1628, and was buried the 27th of that month in the choir of his cathedral church at Chichester, near the altar. He was a person uf solid judgment, and of various reading; well versed in the fathers and schoolmen; wanting nothing that could render him a complete divine; a bitter enemy to the Papists, and in the point of Predestination a rigid Calvinist. “I have loved him,” says Mr. Camden, “for his excellent proficiency in divinity, and other polite parts of learning.” Echard and Fuller also characterize him in very high terms.