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

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

The remainder of Catherine’s life was employed in designs against Persia, and in endeavouring to effect her original project of driving the Turks from Constantinople; but in the midst of her ambitious hopes, she died suddenly of an apoplectic stroke, Nov. 7, 1796, and was succeeded by her son Paul I.

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

As to the character of Catherine, it may be sufficiently estimated by the history of her actions. Her reign, for herself and her court, had been brilliant and happy; but the last years of it were particularly disastrous for the people and the empire. She governed too much by her favourites; and these, with their dependents and subordinate officers, became petty despots. The two most celebrated of these favourites were count Gregory Orlof and prince Potemkin; the former was a coarse vulgar man, of surprising muscular strength and brutal manners; the other shone with some splendour, and his memory still enjoys in Russia that sort of fame which is attached to conquests and military exploits. They and her other favourites are supposed to have received from her, in the course of her reign, nearly an hundred millions of roubles, with vast estates.

With respect to the government of Catherine, it was as mild and moderate, within the immediate circle of her influence, as it was arbitrary and terrible at a distance. Whoever, directly or indirectly, enjoyed the protection of the favourite, exercised, wherever he was situated, the most undisguised tyranny. He insulted his superiors, trampled on his inferiors, and violated justice, order, and the “ukases,” with impunity. The empress having usurped a throne, which she was desirous of retaining, was under the necessity of treating her accomplices with kindness. -Being a foreigner in the empire over which she reigned, she endeavoured to identify herself by adopting and flattering its tastes and prejudices. But her reign was more particularly distinguished by the toleration which she afforded to all religions.

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

Misled by an extravagant confidence in her own abilities, she was desirous of emulating the literary talents of Frederic of Prussia, at one time the first royal author in Europe. With this view she wrote her celebrated “Instructions for a Code of Laws,” which she translated herself from the German, and printed at Petersburg, 1769, but not for sale. It was afterwards reprinted in French, Latin, German, and Husse, at Petersburg!), 1770, 4to. She wrote also several moral tales and allegories, for the education of her grandchildren; and a number of dramatic pieces and proverbs, which were acted and admired at the Hermitage, and published under the title of “The Theatre of the Hermitage,” 2 vols. 8vo. She likewise had a -design of collecting a number of words from 300 different languages, and forming them into a dictionary, but this was never executed. <>t all her writings, her letters to Voltaire are certainly the best. Catherine was neither fond of poetry nor of music; and she often confessed it. She could not even endure the noise of the orchestra between the acts of a play, and therefore commonly silenced it. At her Tauridan palace she constantly dined with the two pictures of the sacking of Otchakof and Ismail before her eyes, in which Cazanova has represented, with hideous accuracy, the blood flowing in streams, the limbs torn from the bodies, and still palpitating, the demoniac fury of the slaughterers, and the convulsive agonies of the slaughtered. It was upon these scenes of horror that her attention and imagination were fixed, while Gasparini and Mandini were displaying their vocal powers, or Sarti was conducting a concert in her presence.

Previous to the death of Catherine the monuments of her reign resembled already so many wrecks and dilapidations: colleges, colonies, education, establishments, manufactories, hospitals, canals, towns, fortresses, every thing had been begun, and every thing given up before it was finished. As soon as a project entered her head, all preceding ones gave place, and her thoughts were fixed on that alone, till some new idea was started and drew off her attention. She abandoned her new code of laws, to drive the Turks out of Europe. After the glorious peace of Ka'inardgi, she seemed for a time to attend to the interior administration of her affairs; but the whole was presently forgotten, that she might be queen of Tauris. Her next project was the re-establishment of the throne of Constantino; to which succeeded that of humbling and punishing the king of Sweden. Afterwards the invasion of Poland became her ruling passion; and then a second Pugatshef might have arrived at the gates of Petersburgh without forcing her to relinquish her hold. She died, again meditating the destruction of Sweden, the ruin of Prussia, and mortified at the successes of France and republicanism. Thus was she incessantly led away by some new passion still stronger in its influence than the preceding, so as to neglect her government, both in its whole and in its parts. This mania of Catherine, of planning every thing and completing nothing, drew from Joseph II. a very shrewd and satirical remark. During his travels in Taurida, he was invited by the empress to place the second stone of the town of Ekatarinoslaf, of which she had herself, with great parade^ laid the first. On his return, he said, " I have finished in a single day a very important business with the empress of Russia; she has laid the first stone of a city, and I have laid the last.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a Latin poet, was born in Narbonensian Gaul, the son of a free man; but when young and an orphan, he was obliged to fly his country during the civil war in the time of Sylla, with the loss of all his property. He then went to Rome and opened a public school, and had many scholars, especially the youth of families of rank. Suetonius says “docuit multos et nobiles.” Bibaculus characterises his method of education in these words:

For some time he became rich by his school, but experienced, it is not known from what cause, a reverse of fortune, and lived afterwards in poverty, which, however, he supported with philosophy. He died in the year 20 B. C. The only part of his works that has reached us, is his poem, entitled “Dirae,” in which he laments his banishment from his country and his dear Lydia. This was published by Christopher Arnold, Ley den, 1652, 12 mo, and has been reprinted by Maittaire in his “Corpus Poetarum,” but it is doubted, after all, whether this poem be the genuine production of Cato Valerius.

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

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

Though the great talent of this poet lay in epigram, yet some have pretended that he equally excelled in all other kinds of poetry. Martial’s veneration for him was such, that he has not scrupled to put him on a level with Virgil:

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

The best editions of this author are, that of Vulpius, Padua, 1757, 4to, and that of Barbou, Paris, 12mo, but his works are most generally printed with those of Tibullus and Propertius. The celebrated John Wilkes printed a very correct edition of Catullus some years ago, but not for sale. In 1795, an English translation of his poems was printed with the Latin text and notes, but the author having translated the licentious passages, we are prevented from recommending what is otherwise executed with taste and spirit.

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

, an Italian writer of considerable fame, was born at Florence in 1503. After being educated in polite literature, he left his country when very young, and went to Rome, where he got into employment under pope Paul III. and his grandson Octavius Farnese. He also served under Henry II. in the war of the Siennese, as long as that republic was able to maintain the conflict with assistance from France. He appears also to have been entrusted with the management of several political affairs, and when peace was concluded between the French and Spaniards, he retired to Padua, and passed the rest of his days in literary pursuits. He died there Dec. 9, 1562. His principal works were his Rhetoric, “liettorica,” Venice, 1559, and often reprinted, and his essay on the best forms of republics, “Trattati sopra gli ottirni reggimenti dellaRepubliche antiche e moderne,” Venice, 1555, 4to, and 1571, 4to. He also translated into Italian the “Castrametation” of Polybius, which was published with some other military treatises, at Florence, 1552, 8vo.

, an Italian scholar of the thirteenth century, was born of one of the most illustrious and powerful families in Florence. He was a zealous Ghibelin, and became more so by marrying the daughter of Farinara Uherti, then at the head of that faction. Curso Donati, chief of the Guelphs, a man in much credit then at Florence, and the bitter personal enemy of Guido, formed a plan to assassinate him, and although Guido got notice of this, and made preparations for defence, he saved his life only by flight. The state of Florence, tired with such disgraceful dissentions, banished the chiefs of both parties. Guido was sent to Sarzana, or Serezano, where the bad air affecting his health, he obtained leave to return to Florence, and died there in 1300, of the disorder he had contracted in his exile. His father, Cavalcante de' Cavalcanti, passed for an Epicurean philosopher, and an atheist, and was therefore placed by Dante, in his Inferno, among that class of the condemned. The son, however, although likewise a philosopher, appears not to have belonged to the same sect. On one occasion, when the attempt was made to assassinate him, he made a pilgrimage to St. James of Galicia: but of this, whatever might be the motive, love was the consequence, for at Toulouse he met with his Mandetta, a lady whom he has made the subject of his love verses. His poems, elegant, correct, and occasionally tinged with a tender melancholy, consist of sonnets and canzones, and compose the sixth book of the collection of ancient Italian poets, printed by the Giuuti, 1527, 8vo, a rare book. His “Canzone d'Amore” was often printed with the comments of his countrymen, particularly at Florence, 1568, 8vo; Venice, 1585, 4to; and Sienna, 1602, 8vo.

, an eminent Italian mathematician, was born at Milan in 1593, and entered at an early age into the order of Jesuates or Hieronymites. In the course of his studies he manifested such talents, that his superiors, after he had taken orders, thought proper to send him to the university of Pisa, a circumstance to which, though at first against his will, he owed the celebrity which he afterwards acquired. Here, with the advice of Benedict Castelli, the disciple and friend of Galileo, he applied to the study of geometry, in order to relieve the pains of the gout to which he was subject; and in this science he made such progress, and acquired such an accurate acquaintance with the ancient geometers, that Castelli and Galileo concurred in predicting the eminence at which he afterwards arrived. Soon after this period he invented his method of indivisibles. In 1629 he communicated to some ingenious persons and to the magistrates of Bologna, his treatise of indivisibles, and another on the conic sections; and obtained the honour of succeeding Maginus as professor in the university, in 1629. His celebrated work on indivisibles, entitled, “Geometria Indivisibilibus continuorum nova quadam ratione prornota,” and published at Bologna in 1635, 4to? and again in 1653, is a curious original work, in which the author conceives the geometrical figures as resolved into their very small elements, or as made up of an infinite number of infinitely small parts, and on account of which he passes in Italy for the inventor of the infinitesimal calculus. He also published a treatise of conic sections, under the title of “La Spechio Ustorio overo Trattato delle Settioni Coniche,” or “De Speculo Ustorio, &c.” Bologn. 1632, 4to; a system of trigonometry under the title of “Directorium generale Uranometricum,” 1632, 4to, including an account of logarithms, together with tables of the logarithms of common numbers and trigonometrical tables of natural sines, and logarithmic sines, tangents, fluents, and versed sines; of which a new and enlarged edition was published at Bologna in 1643, 4to, entitled “Trigonometria Plana. ac Sphaerica, Linearis ac Logarithmica, &c.” a “Compendium Regularum de Triangulis; and a” Centuria Problematum Astronomicorum.“He was also the author of a treatise of astrology, entitled” Rota Planetaria,“and published under the appellation of Sylvius Philomantius; and this publication was the more surprising, as he was an enemy of judicial astrology. The last of his works was entitled” Fxercitationes Geometricae sex," Bonon. 1647, 4to, and contains exercises on the method of indivisibles; answers to the objections ofGuldinus; the use of indivisibles in cossic powers, or algebra, and in considerations about gravity: with a miscellaneous collection of problems. Towards the close of this year, 1647, he died a martyr to the gout, which had deprived him of the use of his fingers.

, an Italian painter, was born at Rome in 1279, and became the disciple of Giotto. He rendered himself very considerable by a multitude of paintings which he finished, to the number (as some writers assert) of 1300; and he was also as remarkable for his piety, having on that account been esteemed as a saint. His principal works are at Rome, where he assisted Giotto in that celebrated picture in Mosaic, which is over the grand entrance into the church of St. Peter; and in St. Paul’s there is a crucifix, said to be by his hand, which the superstitious affirm to have miraculously talked to St. Bridget. But his best performance in fresco was in the church of Ara Cceli at Rome; in which he represented the Virgin and Child above, surrounded with glory, and below was the figure of the emperor Octavian, and also that of the sybil, directing the eye and the attention of the emperor to the figures in the air.

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

, an ingenious philosopher, was the son of an eminent physician of Naples, where he was born in 1749. His original destination was to be initiated at London in mercantile pursuits, and he came to England with that view, in 1771, but the study of nature displaying superior attractions, he was seduced from the accompting-house, to embrace the leisure of a philosophical retreat; and acquired a well -merited reputation as a digester and elucidator of philosophical discoveries. In 1779, he was admitted a member of the Neapolitan academy of sciences, as well as of the royal society of London. To the latter he contributed many ingenious papers and was the author of the following separate publications 1. “A complete Treatise of Electricity in theory and practice, with original experiments,” 1777, 8vo enlarged to 3 vols. in 1795. 2. “An Essay on the theory and practice of Medical Electricity,” 1780, 8vo. 3. “A Treatise on the nature and properties of Air, and other permanently elastic fluids, with an Introduction to Chemistry,” 1781, 4to. 4. “The History and Practice of Aerostation,” 1785, 8vo. 5. “Mineralogical Tables,” folio, accompanied with an 8vo explanatory pamphlet, 1785. 6. “A Treatise on Magnetism, in theory and practice, with original experiments,” 1787, 8vo. 7 “Description and use of the Telescopical Mother-of-Pearl Micrometer, invented by T. C.” a pamphlet, 1793, 8vo. 8. “An Essay on the Medicinal properties of Factitious Airs, with an Appendix on the nature of Blood,” 1798, 8vo. All these possess every requisite for popular or elementary treatises; perspicuity of style, proper selection of materials, and clear arrangement. The merit of Mr. Cavallo is not, however, the merit of a merely judicious compiler, as he generally improves in some degree the stock of valuable facts, by his own occasional experiments. More than thirty years have elapsed since the Treatise of Electricity, whicn is thought his best work, was first presented to the public. During the interval, it has passed through repeated impressions, and the recent discoveries in electricity affording large additions of curious and useful matter, the work was successively augmented from one volume to three. It is unquestionably the neatest, the clearest, and the most sensible elementary treatise to be found on this popular science; and it is excellently adapted to furnigh the mind with those brilliant images and facts which provoke inquisitive genius to closer and more profound researches. Mr. Cavallo died at his house in Wellsstreet, Oxford-road, Dec. 26, 1809, and was interred in St. Pancras church-yard, in a vault constructed for the purpose, close to the monument of his intimate friend general Paoli.

, a printer to whom the literary world owes great obligations, was born at Newton, in Warwickshire, Feb. 29, 1691. His father (Joseph) was the younger son of Mr. Edward Cave, of Cave’s in the Hole, a lone house on the street-road in the same county, which took its name from the occupier; but having concurred with his elder brother in cutting off the entail of a small hereditary estate, by which act it was lost from the family, he was reduced to follow in Rugby the trade of a shoemaker. He was a man of good reputation in his narrow circle, and remarkable for strength and rustic intrepidity. He lived to a great age, and was in his latter years supported by his son.

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

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

His master died before his apprenticeship was expired, and he was not able to bear the perverseness of his mistress. He therefore quitted her house, upon a stipulated allowance, and married a young widow, with whom he lived at Bow. When his apprenticeship was over, he worked as a journeyman at the printing-house of Mr. Barber, a man much distinguished and employed by the tories, whose principles had at that time so much prevalence with Cave, that he was for some years a writer in Mist’s Journal; which, though he afterwards obtained by his wife’s interest a small place in the post-office, he for some time continued. But as interest is powerful, and conversation, however mean, in time persuasive, he by degrees inclined to another party; in which, however, he was always moderate, though steady and determined. When he was admitted into the post-office, he still continued, at his intervals of attendance, to exercise his trade, or to employ himself with some typographical business. He corrected the “Gradus ad Parnassum” and was liberally rewarded by the Company of Stationers. He wrote an “Account of the Criminals,” which had for some time a considerable sale and published many little pamphlets that accident brought into his hands, of which it would be very difficult to recover the memory. By the correspondence which his place in the post-office facilitated, he procured country news-papers, and sold their intelligence to a journalist in London, for a guinea a week. He was afterwards raised to the office of clerk of the franks, in which he acted with great spirit and firmness; and often slopped franks which were given by members of parliament to their friends, because he thought such extension of a peculiar right illegal. This raised many complaints; and having stopped among others a frank given to the old duchess of Marlborough by Mr. Walter Plummer, he was cited before the house, as for breach of privilege, and accused, perhaps very unjustly, of opening letters to detect them. He was treated with great harshness and severity, but declining their questions by pleading his oath of secrecy, was at last dismissed. And it must be recorded to his honour, that, when he was ejected from his office, he did not think himself discharged from his trust, but continued to refuse to his nearest friends any informationabout the management of the office.

Mr. Cave, when he formed the project of the Magazine, was far from expecting the success which he found; and others had so little prospect of its consequence, that though he had for several years talked of his plan among printers and booksellers, none of them thought it worth the trial. That they were not restrained by their virtue from the execution of another man’s design, was sufficiently apparent, as soon as that design began to be gainful; for in a few years a multitude of magazines arose, and perished; only the London Magazine, supported by a powerful -association of booksellers, and circulated with all the art and all the cunning of trade, exempted itself from the general fate of Cave’s invaders, and obtained for some years, though not an equal, yet a considerable sale.

Cave now began to aspire to popularity; and being a greater lover of poetry than any other art, he sometimes offered subjects for poems, and proposed prizes for the best performers. The first prize was 50l. for which, being but newly-acquainted with wealth, and thinking the influence of 50l. extremely great, he expected the first authors of the kingdom to appear as competitors; and offered the allotment of the prize to the universities. But when the time came, no name was seen among the writers that had been ever seen before; the universities, and several private men, rejected the province of assigning the prize. At all this, Mr. Cave wondered for a while; but his natural judgment, and a wider acquaintance with the world, soon cured him of his astonishment, as of many other prejudices and errors. Nor have many men been seen raised by accident or industry to sudden riches, that retained lees of the meanness of their former state.

He continued to improve his Magazine, and had the satisfaction of seeing its success proportionate to his diligence, till in 1751, his wife died of an asthma. He seemed not at first much affected by her death, but in a few days lost his sleep and his appetite, which be never recovered; but after having lingered about two years, with many vicissitudes of amendment and relapse, fell by drinking acid liquors into a diarrhoea, and afterwards into a kind of lethargic insensibility, in which one of the last acts of reason which he exerted, says Dr. Johnson, was "fondly to press the hand that is now writing this little narrative. 91 He died Jan. 10, 1754, having just concluded the 23d annual collection He was a man of a large stature, not only tall but bulky, and was, when young, of remarkable strength and activity. He was generally healthful, and capable of much labour and long application; but in the latter years of his life was afflicted with the gout, which he endeavoured to cure or alleviate by a total abstinence both from strong liquors and animal food. From animal food he abstained about four years, and from strong liquors much longer; but the gout continued unconquered, perhaps unabated.

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

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

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

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

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

Sir William Cavendish xvrote the life of his old master cardinal Wolsey, and therein gives him a very high character; affirming that, in his judgment, he never saw the kingdom in better obedience and quiet than during the time of his authority, or justice better administered. Indeed, impartial inquirers into the history of Wolsey will be ready to conclude that he was not the worst man in the court of Henry VIII. No work, however, has experienced a more singular fate than sir William Cavendish’s “Life of' Wolsey.” It was long known only by manuscripts, and by the large extracts from it, inserted by Stowe in his “Annals,” and in this state it remained from the reign of queen Mary in which it was composed, until 1641, when it was first printed under the title of “The Negociations of Thomas Wolsey,” &c. 4to; and as the chief object of the publication was to institute a parallel between the cardinal and archbishop Laud, in order to reconcile the public to the murder of that prelate, the manuscript was mutilated and interpolated without shame or scruple, and no pains having been taken to compare the printed edition with the original, the former passed for genuine above a century, and was reprinted, with a slight variation in the title, in 1667 and 1706, besides being inserted in the Harleian Miscellany. At length Dr. Wordsworth printed a correct transcript in his valuable “Ecclesiastical Biography,” 1810, 6 yols. 8vo, collated with four Mss. two in the Lambeth, one in the York cathedral library, and one in the British Museum.

, of Frimly in Suffolk, esq. was descended from a noble family in Devonshire, and possessed of a plentiful estate; which he, being a man of more wit than prudence, contrived to impoverish, and determined to repair his shattered fortunes at the expence of the Spaniards. With this view he built two ships from the stocks, one of 120, the other of 60 tons; and with these and a bark of 40 tons he sailed from Plymouth July 21, 1586. He first made the coast of Barbary, then steered for Brazil, and entered the streights of Magellan Jan. 5, 1585, and passed them very happily. Then coasting along Chili and Peru, he took abundance of rich prizes; and continuing his course as high as California, there took the St. Anne, which Cavendish, in a letter to lord Hunsdon, rightly calls an Acapulco ship, though in most relations of his voyage she is styled the admiral of the south seas. Her cargo was of immense value, which, his ships being too small to carry, he was forced to burn; taking out of her, however, as much gold as was worth 60,000l. He then, steered for the Philippine islands, where he safely arrived, and proceeded from them to Java Major, which he reached March 1, 1588. He doubled the cape of Good Hope the 1st of June, and without any remarkable incident returned safe to Plymouth Sept. 9; having sailed completely round the globe, and brought home an immense fortune. This however he quickly wasted, and in 1591 was compelled to think of another voyage; which was far from being so successful as the former. He left Plymouth Aug. 26, 1591, with three stout ships and two barks. April 8, 1592, he fell in with the streights of Magellan, and continued in them to May 15 when, on account of the badness of the weather, he determined to return which accordingly he did, to the coast of Brazil and there, it is said, died of grief.

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

He was one of the earliest in inviting over the prince of Orange; and James II. upon the first alarm from Holland, being jealous of him above any other peer, endeavoured to draw him to court, which the earl evaded. Upon the prince’s landing, he appeared in arms for him, and was afterwards received by him with the highest marks of affection and esteem. In the debates of the house of lords concerning the throne, he was very zealous for declaring the prince and princess of Orange king and queen of England. Feb. 14, 1689, he was admitted one of the privy-council, and not long after, named lord steward of their majesties’ houshold; and, April 3, 1689, chosen a knight of the garter. At their majesties’ coronation he acted as lord high steward of England; and, in the first session of parliament afterwards, procured a resolution of the house of lofds, as to the illegality of the judgment given against him in the former reign, and a vote, that no peer ought to be committed for non-payment of a fine to the crown. Jan. 1691 he attended king William to the congress at the Hague, where he lived in the utmost state and magnificence; and had the honour to entertain several sovereign princes at his table, the king himself being also present incognito. May 12, 1694, he was created marquis of Harrington, and duke of Devonshire; which, with his garter and white staff, the place of lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Derby, and justiceship in Eyre, was perhaps as much honour as an English subject could enjoy. After the queen’s death, when the king’s absence made the appointment of regents necessary, he was one of the lords justices for seven successive years; an honour which no other temporal peer enjoyed.

In the case of sir John Fenwick, though he had a conviction of his guilt, yet he was so averse to any extraordinary judicial proceedings, that he opposed the bill, as he did likewise another bill for the resumption of the forfeited estates in Ireland. At the accession of queen Anne, he was confirmed in all his offices. April 1705 he attended her majesty to Cambridge, and was there created LL. D. In 1706, himself and his son the marquis of Harrington were in the number of English peers appointed commissioners for concluding an union with Scotland; this was the last of his public employments. He died August 18, 1707. His mien and aspect were engaging and commanding: his address and conversation civil and courteous in the highest degree. He judged right in the supreme court; and on any important affair his speeches were smooth and weighty. As a statesman, his whole deportment came up to his noble birth and his eminent stations: nor did he want any of what the world call accomplishments. He had a great skill in languages; and read the Roman authors with great attention: Tacitus was his favourite. He was a true judge of history, a critic in poetry, and had a fine hand in music. He had an elegant taste in painting, and all politer arts; and in architecture in particular, a genius, skill, and experience beyond any one person of his age; his house at Chatsworth being a monument of beauty and magnificence that perhaps is not exceeded by any palace in Europe. His grace’s genius for poetry shewed itself particularly in two pieces that are published, and are allowed by the critics to be written with equal spirit, dignity, and delicacy. 1. “An Ode on the Death of queen Mary.” 2. “An allusion to the bishop of Cambray’s supplement to Homer.” He married the lady Mary, daughter of James duke of Ormond, by whom he had three sons and a daughter.

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

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

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

His grace’s works are, 1. “La methode nouvelle de dresser les Chevaux,” &c. Antwerp, 1658, fol. It was first written in English, and translated into French by a Walloon. 2 “A new method and extraordinary invention, to dress Horses, and work them according to nature; as also to perfect nature by the subtlety of art,” Lond. 1667, fol. This, the author informs the reader, is “neither a translation of the first, nor an absolute necessary addition to it; and may be of use without the other, as the other hath been hitherto, and still is, without this: but both together will, questionless, do best.” His other works are plays, 1. “The Exile.” 2. “The Country Captain,” Antwerp, 1649. 3. “Variety,” 1649, 12mo. 4. “The Humourous Lovers,” 1677, 4to. 5. “The Triumphant Widow,” 1677, 4to. These are all comedies, but in the Biog. Dramatica it is doubted whether the first exists. His poems are scattered among those of his duchess, in whose plays too he wrote many scenes; and a few prose articles are noticed by Mr. Park, in his excellent edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors.”

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

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

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

Mr. Jonathan Richardson, on the authority of a Mr. Fellows, relates that the duke of Newcastle being once complimented by a friend on the great wisdom of his wife, answered, “Sir, a very wise woman is a very foolish thing.” The known attachment of his grace to the duchess, the high compliments he paid her, and the assistance he gave her in her works, detract from the credit of this story. If there be any truth in it, the duke’s reply might be uttered in a fit of ill-humour, or in one of those capricious starts of temper to which most characters are occasionally subject. In general, it is certain, that no couple could live more happily, or diverted their hours more harmlessly, while their serious employment was to recover the wreck of their fortunes. Lord Orford’s character of this lady, part of which is given above, is more tolerable than that of her husband. It is certain, as his ingenious continuator remarks, that “her grace’s literary labours have drawn down less applause than her domestic virtues.” And when she says in one of her letters, “You will find my works like infinite nature, that hath neither beginning nor end, and as confused as the chaos wherein is neither method nor order, but all mixed together without separation, like evening-light and darkness,” we must allow that she has characterised them with great justice.

The following is a list of her works, almost all of which are now very scarce, and in considerable demand by the collectors of literary curiosities: 1. “The World’s Olio,” Lond. 1655, folio. 2. “Nature Picture, drawn by fancy’s pencil to the life. In this volume there are several feigned stories of natural descriptions, as comical, tragical, and tragicomical, poetical, romancical, philosophical, and historical, both in prose and verse, some all verse, some all prose, some mixt, partly prose and partly verse. Also there are some morals, and some dialogues; but they are as the advantage loaf of bread to the baker.'s dozen, and a true story at the latter end, wherein there is no feigning,” London, 1656, folio. To this book was prefixed a curious print of the duke and duchess sitting at a table with their children, to whom the duchess is telling stories; and at the end is a very curious account of her birth, education, and life; the same, if we mistake not, which sir William Musgrave transcribed into his copy of the life of the duke, now in the British Museum, and from which Mr. Park has given an extract. 3. “Orations of divers sorts, accommodated to divers places,” Lond. 1662, fol. 4. “Plays,” Lond. 1662. 5. “Philosophical and Physical Opinions,” Lond. 1663, fol. 6. “Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: to which is added, the Description of a new World,” Lond. 1666, fol. Mr. James Bristow began to translate some of these philosophical discourses into the Latin tongue, but found it impossible to understand them. 7. “Philosophical Letters or Modest Reflections upon some opinions in Natural Philosophy, maintained by several famous and learned authors of this age, expressed by way of letters,” Lond. 1664, fol. 8. “Poems and Phancies,” Lond. 1653, and 1664, fol. 9. “CCXI Sociable Letters,” Lond. 1664, fol. 10. “The Life of the thrice noble, high, and puissant Prince William Cavendishe, duke, marquiss, and earl of Newcastle, &c.” Lond. 1667, fol. This work (which Mr. Langbaine styles the crown of her labours) was translated into Latin, and printed with the following title “De Vita & rebus gestis nobilissimi illustrissimique Principis Gulielmi, Ducis Novo-Castrensis, commentarii: Ab excellentissima principe Margareta, ipsius Uxore sanctissima conscripti, et ex Anglico in Latinum conversi,” Lond. 1668, folio. 11. “Plays, never before printed,” Lond. 1668. To one of these plays are added twenty-nine supernumerary scenes, and in another, entitled “The unnatural Tragedy,” is a whole scene written against Camden’s Britannia! Three more volumes in folio, of her poems, are preserved in manuscript, which Gibber says were once in the possession of Mr. Thomas Richardson and bishop Willis. In 1676, a folio volume was printed containing “letters and poems in honour of the incomparable princess Margaret duchess of Newcastle.” These, says Mr. Park, consist of such inflated eulogies on her grace’s parts, from the rector magnificus of Leyden, and the academical caputof Cambridge, to the puffs of Tom Shadwell, that it must have been enough to turn any brain previously diseased with a cacocthes scribendi.

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

So many and such great discoveries, spread his fame throughout Europe, and he was universally considered as one of the first philosophers of his age. He combined, in the highest degree, a depth and extent of mathematical knowledge, with delicacy and precision in the methods of experimental research. It might be said of him., what perhaps could hardly be said of any other person, that whatever he has done, has been perfect at the moment of its production. His processes were all of a finished nature executed bv the hand of a master, they required no correction and though many of them were performedin the very infancy of chemical philosophy, yet their accuracy and beauty have remained unimpaired amidst the progress of discovery; and their merits have been illustrated by discussion, and exalted by time. His grand stimulus was evidently the love of truth and knowledge. Unambitious, unassuming, it was often with difficulty that he was persuaded to bring forward his important discoveries. He disliked notoriety; he was, as it were, fearful of the voice of fame. His labours are recorded with the greatest simplicity, and in the fewest possible words, without parade or apology; and it seemed as if in publication he was performing not what was a duty to himself, but was a duty to the public. His life was devoted to science, and his social hours were passed amongst a few of his friends, principally members of the royal society. He was reserved to strangers, but where he was familiar, his conversation was lively, and full of varied information. Upon all subjects of science he was luminous and profound, and in discussion wonderfully acute. Even to the last week of his life, when he was nearly seventy-nine, he retained his activity of body, and all his energy and sagacity of intellect. In the course of his last year, he prepared and described improvements in the manner of dividing large astronomical instruments, which promise very great advantages; among his latter labours, also, may be mentioned the nice and difficult experiment by which he determined the mean density of the earth; an element of consequence in delicate calculations f astronomy, as well as in geological inquiries. He died at his house at Clapham Common, Feb. 24, 1810, leaving the greatest sum in funded property which any person perhaps ever possessed, amounting to one million two hundred thousand pounds. This he bequeathed among his noble relations. “Since the death of sir Isaac Newton,” says the eloquent professor to whom we owe a part of this character, “England has sustained no scientific loss so great as that of Cavendish.” His publications on subjects of science, which are very numerous, appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, from J7G6, whence they have been since borrowed to illustrate every scientific work of late years.

, an anatomical author of France, was born in the beginning of the fourteenth century, and studied at Montpellier under Raymond de Moliere. He was physician to the popes Clement VI. and Urban V. In 1363 he published a much esteemed body of surgery, under the title of “Chirurgix tractatus septem cum antidotario,” printed Venet. 1490, and often since; and translated into most of the modern languages, and into English in 1541, fol. It is to this physician we owe the description of the terrible plague which in 1348 destroyed a fourth of the human race. His work displays, besides, a complete knowledge of the practice of surgery from the earliest times, with some judicious improvements of his own invention.

, a French Jesuit, and confessor to Lewis XIII. was born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1580, and entered into the order of Jesuits when he was twentysix years of age. He taught rhetoric in several of their colleges; and afterwards began to preach, by which he gained very great reputation, and increased it not a little by his publications. At length he was preferred to bje confessor to the king; but, although pious and conscientious, did not discharge this office to the satisfaction of cardinal Richelieu, and the cardinal used every effort to get him removed. A little before his death, he is said to have delivered into the hands of a friend some original letters; from short extracts of which, since published, it appears that he "fell into disgrace because he would not reveal some things which he knew by the king’s confession; nor even take advice of his superiors how he was to behave himself in the direction of the king’s conscience, when he could not do it without breaking through the laws of confession. There are also some hints in the same extracts, which shew that he did not approve Lewis the Thirteenth’s conduct towards the queen his mother; and there is a probability that he caballed to get Richelieu removed. If we may believe the abbe Siri in his memoirs, this Jesuit, in his private conversations with the king, insisted upon the cardinal’s removal, for the four following reasons: 1. Because Mary de Meclicis, the queen-mother, was banished. 2. Because he left Lewis only the empty name of king. 3. Because he oppressed the nation. 4. Because he powerfully assisted the Protestants to the prejudice of the Catholic church. According to this author, he even engaged to maintain these four articles against the cardinal in the king’s presence; and he offered the cardinal’s place to the duke of Angouleme. This plot was the occasion of his disgrace, according to the abbe* Siri. Others have asserted, that the queen-mother obliged him to leave Paris, to gratify cardinal Mazarine, whom he had displeased; and that his disgrace was occasioned by his Latin piece concerning the kingdom and bouse of God, published in 1650, in which be had freely spoken of the qualities with which princes ought to be adorned. It is certain, however, that he was deprived of his employment, and banished to a city of Lower Britanny. He got leave to return to Paris aftr the cardinal’s death, and died there in the convent oi the Jesuits, July 1651.

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

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

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

His acquired knowledge must have been very considerable, as his allusions to various branches of the sciences and of polite literature are frequent, and bespeak a familiarity with the subject; yet his literary talents, it is said, bore a small proportion to his moral excellence. In all the relative duties his conduct was virtuous, humane, and affectionate. We are more in the dark as to his behaviour as a school master. Mr. Goodwin intimates that he supported his character by that happy mixture of dignity and kindness which is supposed to render severity unnecessary; but in the short sketch of his life in the edition of the English poets, 1790, we are told, that although generous and friendly in the common intercourse of life, he was singularly harsh and severe in the conduct of his school. From the same authority, we learn that he had some extraordinary foibles. With little skill in horsemanship, he was fond of riding; and with no acquaintance with music, he was an admirer of concerts and operas. He has been known to ride to London from Tunbridge, in order to be present at a musical performance, though he was under the necessity of being back by seven o'clock the next morning. His horsemanship may be given up; but his knowledge of the fine arts was so general, that it is difficult to believe that he was ignorant of the principles of music. To the school, he was in one respect an useful benefactor. In conjunction with his patrons, he founded the library now annexed to it.

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

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

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

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

Caxton at this time had become a freeman of the company of Mercers, but on his master’s death does not appear to have continued on the same spot. His knowledge of business, however, induced him, either upon his own account, or as agent for some merchants, to travel to the Low Countries for a short time. In 14G4 we find him joined in a commission with one Richard Whitehill, “to continue and confirm a treaty of trade and commerce between Edward IV. and Philip duke of Burgundy,” or, if they found it necessary, to make a new one: and the commission gives both or either of them, full power to transact and conclude the same. They are also styled “ambassadors and special deputies.” Of the issue of this we have no account, but the commission itself is a sufficient proof that Caxton had acquired a reputation for knowledge of business. Seven years afterwards, however, he describes himself as leading rather an idle life, “for having no great charge or occupation, and wishing to eschew sloth” and idleness, which is mother and nourisher of vices he set about finishing the translation of Raoul Le Fevre’s “Recueil des Histoires de Troye,” which he commenced two years before, in 1469. The original was the first book he printed, and this translation the third.

Of his pursuits and travels abroad nothing further is known with certainty, except that in his peregrinations, he declares that he confined himself “for the most part to the countries of Brabant, Flanders, Holland, and Zealand and in France was never.” It is, however, reasonable to suppose that he preserved the same respectable character in foreign countries which he had acquired in his own; and that, whilst he was indulging his favourite literary passion in the perusal of histories and romances, to which he seems to have been excited by his friend Bolomyer, canon of Lausanne, he was placed by his sovereign, or his sister, the lady Margaret, on the household establishment of the Jatter, when she came with a splendid retinue to Bruges to offer her hand to Charles, duke of Burgundy; and Caxton was, without doubt, privy to all the splendid spectacles and festivities of this marriage. In what rank or Duality he served the duchess is not known; but the freedom with which she used Mr. Caxton, in finding fault with his English, and ordering him to correct it, &c. seems to shew that the place he had in her grace’s family was no mean or ordinary one. Lewis and Oldys, in Mr. Dibdiu'.s opinion, are incorrect in saying that he was employed by the duchess to translate into English Kaoul Le Fevre’s French History of Troy t the fact was, that Caxton had commenced the translation voluntarily, without her knowledge, and had proceeded as far as five or six quires when he for some reason gave it up. About this time, having mentioned to Jady Margaret the progress he had made, she desired to see his manuscript, and it was on this occasion that she found fault with his English, but commanded him at the same time to finish the translation, and amply rewarded him on the completion of it. From the prologues and epilogues of this work we learn several particulars of the author, as that, at the time of finishing the performance, iiis eyes “were dimmed with over-much looking on the white paper; that his courage was not so prone and ready to labour as it had been; and that age was creeping on him daily, and enfeebling all his body: that he had practised and learnt, at his great charge and expense, to ordain this said book in print, after the manner and form as v.e there see it: and that it was not written with pen and ink as other books be.” Hence we discover that he was now adyanced in years, and that he had learnt to exercise the art of printing, but by what steps he had acquired this knowledge his biographers have not been able to discover. It appears, as already noticed, that the original of Ilaonl’s Trojan History was the first book Caxton printed: “The Oration of John llussel on Charles duke of Burgundy being created a Knight of the Garter,” was the second, and Caxton’s translation of Raoul, the third; and this third was most probably printed in 1471. That he was particularly curious to know, and inquisitive after, the invention of printing, can scarcely be doubted, but his inquiries as well as his experience seem to have been con lined to such specimens as the presses of the Low Countries produced, and he does not appear to have seen any of the beautiful productions of the Roman, Venetian, and Parisian presses before he caused his own fount of letters to be cut. The types used by Caxion in the French and English editions of Raoul Le Fevre’s history, as well as those in the “Game of Chess,” resemble, in character and form, rather than in size, the types of Ulric Zel and other printers in the Low Countries. Nor is it at all improbable that Caxton consulted Zel and Olpe, the earliest typographical artists in the city of Cologne, about the formation of his own letters, as those able men are supposed to have learnt the art of printing in the office of Gutenberg and Fust. Colard Mansion, a printer at Bruges, might also have assisted him in the necessary materials for his office.

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

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

The erudition of Caxton appears to be deserving of better treatment than Bale and others have bestowed upon it. That he had a far greater claim to intellectual reputation than that of possessing the mere negative excellence of “not being downright stupid or slothful,” (Bale’s words,) must be allowed by the most fastidious reader of his numerous prologues and translations. That he was not a poet, however, must be conceded, for nothing can be more barbarous than the couplets for which he has been admitted, by Ritson, into the list of English poets. At the same time, whoever reads his criticism upon Chaucer, must not only allow that he was a better judge, than writer, of poetry; but that it will be difficult to find a criticism upon our venerable bard, in the whole compass of our language, which is more sober and just; more clearly and forcibly expressed. As to Caxton’s knowledge of languages, that seems to have been extremely creditable to him; for he was, in all probability, a complete master of the Dutch, German, and French, and considering his long absence from England (in the prime of his life), he wrote his own language with fluency, simplicity, and occasional melody and force.

It will be difficult, however, to give Caxton praise for the general strength and soundness of his judgment; not so much from the selection of such pieces as he has printed (for these were published in conformity with the prevailing studies of the day), as from the promptitude and prodigality of his praises towards objects not always deserving of commendation. Nor can we admire him for his unqualified belief of all the marvellous stones recorded in Godfrey of Boulogne; although the admiration with which he speaks of, and his uniform attachment to, this kind of composition, may dispose us to forgive him for the plenitude of his faith. In a word, if Caxton does not enjoy the intellectual reputation of an Aldus, a Stephens, a Turnebus, a Plantin, or a Bowyer, it must be remembered with what a slender stock of materials, and in what an uncivilized period, he commenced his career; that our land was then yet moist with the blood that had flowed in the civil wars of the houses of York and Lancaster; and that the education of youth, and the encouragement of what is called the belles lettres, were confined within the narrowest boundaries. The most illustrious patrons of which our printer could boast, were the earl Rivers and the earl of Worcester; but even the rank and accomplishment of these noblemen, especially of the latter, were insufficient to protect them from insult, persecution, and a premature end.

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

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

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

The count was only twelve years of age when his father died at Brussels, in Nov. 1704. After finishing his exercises, he entered into the corps of the Mousquetaires; and in his first campaign in 1709, he distinguished himself by his valour in such a manner, that Louis XIV. commended him in the presence of all the court; and rewarded his merit with an ensigncy in the gendarmerie. In 1711 he commanded a regiment of dragoons, which was called by his own name; and he signalized himself at the head of it in Catalonia. lu 1713, he was at the siege of Fribourg, where he was exposed to imminent danger in the bloody attack of the covered way. Had he been disposed to enter into the views of his family, the favour of madame de Maintenon, and his own personal merit, could not fail to have raised him to the highest honours; but the peace of Rastade left him in a state of inactivity ill-suited to his natural temper.

His inclination soon led him to travel into Italy, although without perhaps any higher object than to pass some part of his time in variety, but his curiosity became powerfully excited by the wonders of that country, where antiquity produces so many objects to improve taste and excite admiration. The eyes of the count were not yet learned, but they were struck with the sight of so many beauties, and soon became acquainted with them. After a year’s absence, he returned to Paris, with so strong a passion for travelling, and for antiquities, as induced him to quit the army. Italy had enlightened his taste and in that country of the arts he perceived that he was born to cultivate them.

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

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

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

Such was his passion for antiquity, that he wished to have had it in his power to bring the whole of it to life again. He saw with regret, that the works of the ancient painters, which have been discovered in our times, are effaced and destroyed almost as soon as they are drawn from the subterraneous mansions where they were buried. A fortunate accident furnished him with the means of showing the composition and colouring of the pictures of ancient Rome. The coloured drawings, which the famous Pietro Santc Bartoli had taken there from antique paintings, happened to fall into his hands. He had them engraved, and, before he enriched the king of France’s cabinet with them, he gave an edition of them at his own expense. It is, perhaps, one of the most extraordinary books of antiquities that have ever appeared. The whole is painted with a precision and a purity that is inimitable. There were only thirty copies published, which, of course, bear a high price.

Count de Caylus was engaged at the same time in another enterprize, still more honourable for the Roman grandeur, and more interesting to the French nation. In, the last age, Des Godetz, under the auspices of Colbert, published the Antiquities of Rome. The work was admired by all Europe, and gave birth to that indefatigable emulation which carried able and ingenious travellers to Spalatra, Balbec, and even to the burning sands of Palmyra, in order to visit the famous ruins of so many magnificent buildings, and to present them to our view. It is this that has made us spectators of the monuments of Athens, that mother of learning, of arts, and sciences; where, in spite of the injuries of time and barbarism, so many illustrious sculptors and architects still live in the ruins of their edifices, in like manner as so many incomparable authors still breathe in the valuable fragments of their writings. The same Colbert had framed the design of engraving the Roman antiquities that are still to be seen in the southern provinces c c France. By his orders, Mignard, the architect, had made drawings of them, which count de Caylus had the good fortune to recover. He resolved to finish the work projected by Colbert, and to dedicate it to that great minister; and so much had he this glorious enterprize at heart, that he was employed in it during his last illness, and recommended it warmly to M. Mariette, by whom it was in part executed.

The confidence which all Europe placed in the knowledge and taste of count de Caylus, has contributed to decorate and embellish it. The powers of the north more than once consulted him, and referred the choice of artists to him for the execution of great undertakings. It is to his protection that Bouchardon, the sculptor, so highly admired in France, was indebted for the noblest opportunities of displaying his talents; and to him Paris was indebted for those master-pieces of art which were once two of its noblest ornaments, the equestrian statue of Louis XV. and the fountain in the Rue de Crenelle.

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

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

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

The strength of his constitution seemed to give him hopes of a long life: but in the month of July, 1764, a humour settled in one of his legs, which entirely destroyed his health. Whilst he was obliged to keep his bed he seemed less affected by what he suffered, than with the restraint upon his natural activity. When the wound was closed he resumed his usual occupations with great eagerness, visited his friends, and animated the labours of the artists, while he himself was dying. Carried in the arms of his domestics, he seemed to leave a portion of his life in every place he went to. He expired Sept. 5, 1765. By his death his family became extinct, and literary France lost one of her greatest benefactors. He was interred in the chapel of St. Germain L'Auxerrois, where his tomb was that of an antiquary. It was a sepulchral antique, of the most beautiful porphyry, with ornaments in the Egyptian taste. From the moment that he had procured it he had destined it to grace the place of his interment. While he awaited the fatal hour, he placed it in his garden, where he used to look upon it with a tranquil, but thoughtful eye, and pointed it out to the inspection of his friends. He has even given a description of it in the 7th volume of his Antiquities, which was published after his death by Le Beau, to whom we owe this interesting account of him. Count Caylus’s character is to be traced in the different occupations which divided his cares and his life. In society he had all the frankness of a soldier, and a politeness which had nothing in it of deceit or circumvention. Born independent, he applied to studies which suited his taste. His disposition was yet better than his abilities; the former made him beloved, the latter entitled him to respect. Many anecdotes are related of his charity and humanity, and particularly of his generous patronage of rising merit; but this article has already extended to its full proportion, and we must refer to our authorities for more minute particulars.

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

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

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

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

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

On his being liberated, he was again introduced to court, where his acknowledged abilities regained him his office, under the duke of Northumberland, the enemy and accomplisher of the ruin of his old patron the duke of Somerset. This re-appointment took place, as we have noticed, in September 1551, and in October following he was knighted, and sworn of the privy-council. He has been much blamed for this transfer of his services, as a sacrifice of his gratitude to his interest; and many excuses, palliations, and even justifications, have been urged for him. The best seems to be that his pretensions to the promotion were founded, not on his servility and dependence on one or the other of these great men, but on his superior fitness for the office. It is universally allowed that he possessed great abilities, and his credit now increased with the young king, for whom he is said to have written many of those papers, &c. which are generally attributed to Edward. The princess Mary affected on one occasion to discover this, for when a letter from his majesty was presented to her on her obstinate adherence to the popish religion, she cried, “Ah! Mr. Cecil’s pen took great pains here.”

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

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

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

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

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

The queen was so sensible of the great importance of Cecil’s service on this occasion, that, however sparing of her honours, she raised him to the peerage by the title of Baron of Burleigh in February 1571, when he had not much to support his rank, for in a confidential letter written about this time, he calls himself “the poorest lord in England.” The queen’s favour did not in other respects add to his comfort, nor protect him from new attempts to destroy him. A conspiracy of the private kind was now formed against his life: and the two assassins, Barney and Matter, charged it, at their execution, on the Spanish ambassador, for which and other offences the ambassador was ordered to quit the kingdom. As a consolation, however, for these dangers, he was honoured with the order of the garter in June 1572; and in September following, on the death of the marquis of Winchester, was appointed lord high treasurer.

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

The last memorable act of his life was the attempt to bring about a peace with Spain, in which he was vehemently opposed by Essex, then in the fire of youth, which might animate him to daring deeds to gratify his own ambition. The young soldier was warm in the debate, which induced the venerable minister to pull out a prayer-book, and point to the words " Men of blood shall not live out

* This lady was wonderfully learn- be bought in the name of the dean of ed, especially in the Greek tongue, as Westminster, and by him assigned to appears from the testimony of the the college. She likewise gave the lord Burleigh himself, and of several Haberdashers’ company in London, a other great men, and of which she left sum to enable them to lend to six poor clear evidence, in a letter penned by men twenty pounds a-piece every tw her in thai language to the university years and a charity of the like kind of Cambridge, upon her sending thi- of twenty marks, to six poor people ther a Hebrew Bible, by way of pre- at Waltham and Cheshunt in Hertfordsent to the library. She had read most shire. Four times every year she reof the Greek fathers with great dili- lieved all the poor prisoners in Longence and criticalaccuracy, and was den, and many other acts of benevoone of the greatest patronesses of her lence she did, with as great secrecy as time, maintaining for many years two generosity so that she seems to have scholars at St. John’s college in Cam- well deserved all the praises that have bridge and before her death rendered ben by different writers bestowed this perpetual, by procuring lands to upon her memory. half their days." At length worn out with age, and more than forty years’ uninterrupted and unexampled labours in the state, on the 4th of August, 1598, about four in the morning, in the presence of twenty children, friends and servants, he yielded up the ghost with wonderful serenity, being upwards of seventy-seven years old.

With regard to his person, though he was not remarkably tall, nor eminently handsome, yet his person was always agreeable, and became more and more so, as he grew in years, age becoming him better than youth. The hair of his head and beard grew perfectly white, and he preserved almost to his dying day a fine and florid complexion. His temper contributed much towards making him generally beloved, for he was always serene and cheerful; so perfect a master of his looks and words, that what passed in his mind was never discoverable from either; patient in hearing, ready in answering, yet without any quickness, and in a style suited to the understanding of him to whom he spoke. Idleness was his aversion; and though from twenty-five years of age, at which he was sworn a privy counsellor, being then the youngest, as at his death the oldest in Europe, he laboured under a great weignt of public business; yet when he had any vacant moments he spent them not in trifles, or in pursuit of sensual pleasures, but in reading, meditating, or writing. He had a perfect knowledge, not only of foreign countries, but of foreign courts; knew the genius of every prince in Europe, his counsellors and favourites. At home he kept exact lists of all the great officers, and particularly of the sages in the law. He was acquainted with the course of every court of judicature in England, knew its rise, jurisdiction, and proper sphere of action; within which he took care that it should act with vigour, and was no less careful that it should not exceed its bounds. He wrote not only elegant Latin in prose, but also very good verses in that, and in the English language. He understood Greek as well as most men in that age; and was so learned in divinity, that divines of all persuasions were desirous of submitting to his judgment. His peculiar diversions were the study of the state of England, and the pedigrees of its nobility and gentry: of these last he drew whole books with his own hand, so that he was better versed in descents and families, than most of the heralds; and would often surprize persons of distinction at his table, by appearing better acquainted with their manors, parks, woods, &c. than tfcey were themselves. To this continual application, and to his genius, naturally comprehensive, was owing that fund of knowledge, which made him never at a loss in any company, or upon any subject. It was also owing to this that he spoke with such wonderful weight on all public occasions, generally at the end of the debate, but without repetition of what was said before, stating the matter clearly, shewing the convenience sought, the inconveniences feared; the means of attaining the former, and the methods by which the latter might be avoided, with a succinctness and accuracy which, perhaps, hardly ever fell to any other man’s share. But what was stiH more surprising, was the great facility with which he did this; for he required no preparation, no time for his most laboured speeches, nor ever turned a book for his most learned writings, but thought, and spoke, digested, and dictated, without any hesitation, with the greatest perspicuity of sentiment, and the utmost fulness of diction.

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

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

The queen’s regard to lord Burleigh, though sincere and permanent, was occasionally intermixed with no small degree of petulance and ill humour. He was severely reproached by her in 1594, on account of the state of affairs in Ireland; and, on another occasion, when he persisted, against her will, in a design of quitting the court for a few days, for the purpose of taking physic, she called him “a froward old fool.” He fell also under her majesty’s displeasure because he disagreed with her in opinion concerning an affair which related to the earl of Essex. Having supported the earl’s claim, in opposition to the queen, her indignation was so much excited against the treasurer, that she treated him as a miscreant and a coward. Lord Burleigh being in the latter part of his life much subject to the gout, sir John Harrington observes, in a letter to his lordship, that he did not invite the stay of such a guest by rich wines, or strong spices. It is probable that the frequent return of this disorder, in conjunction with the weight of business, and the general infirmities of age, contributed to the peevishness into which he was sometimes betrayed. In a conversation which he had with Mons. de Fouquerolles, an agent from Henry the Fourth, king of France, he lost himself so much, as to yeflect in the grossest terms upon that monarch. This was, indeed, an astonishing act of imprudence, in a man of his years and experience; and affords a striking instance of the errors and inadvertencies to which the wisest and best persons are liable. When the lord treasurer died, queen Elizabeth was so much affected with the event, that she took it very grievously, shed tears, and separated herself, for a time, from all company.

Besides these lesser failings of this great man, he has been accused of illiberality to the poet Spenser, which perhaps may be attributed to his dislike of Leicester, under whose patronage Spenser had come forward, but perhaps more to his want of relish for poetry. On the other hand, our historians are generally agreed in their praises of his high character. Smollett only has endeavoured to lessen it, but as this is coupled with a disregard for historical truth, the attempt is entitled to little regard, and the advocates for Mary queen of Scots cannot be supposed to forgive the share he had in her fate. Lord Orford has given lord Burleigh a place among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” but at the same time justly observes, that he is one of those great names, better known in the annals of his country than in those of the republic of letters. Besides lord Burleigh’s answer to a Latin libel published abroad, which he entitled “Slanders and Lies,” and “A Meditation of the State of England, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth,” lord Orford mentions “La Complainte de PAme pecheresse,” in French verse, extant in the king’s library; “Car mina duo Latina in Obitum Margaretae Nevillee, Reginoe Catherine a Cubiculis;” “Carmen Latinum in Memoriain Tho. Challoneri Equitis aurati, prsefixum ejusdem Libro de restaurata Republica;” “A Preface to Queen Catherine Parr’s Lamentation of a Sinner.” When sir William Cecil accompanied the duke of Somerset on his expedition to Scotland, he furnished materials for an account of that war, which was published by William Patten, under the title of “Diarium Expeditions Scoticae,” London, 1541, 12mo. This is supposed to be the reason why lord Burleigh is reckoned by Holinshed among the English historians. “The first paper or memorial of sir William Cecil \ anno primo Eliz.” This, which is only a paper of memorandums, is printed in Somers’s tracts, from a manuscript in the Cotton library. “A Speech in Parliament, 1592.” This was first published by Strype in his Annals, and has since been inserted in the Parliamentary History. “Lord Burleigh’s Precepts, or directions for the well-ordering and carriage of a man’s life,” 1637. “A Meditation on the Death of his Lady.” Mr. Ballard, in his Memoirs of British Ladies, has printed this Meditation from an original formerly in the possession of James West, esq. but now in the British Museum. Lord Burleigh was supposed to be the author of a thin pamphlet, in defence of the punishments inflicted on the Roman catholics in the reign of queen Elizabeth: it is called “The Execution of Justice in England, for maintenance of public and Christian peace, against certain stirrers of sedition, and adherents to the traitors and enemies of the realm, without any persecution of them for questions of religion, as it is falsely reported, &c.” London, 1583, second edition. Other political pieces were ascribed to him, and even the celebrated libel, entitled “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” It was asserted, that the hints, at least, were furnished by him for that composition. But no proof has been given of this assertion, and it was not founded on any degree of probability. His lordship drew up also a number of pedigrees, some of which are preserved in the archbishop of Canterbury’s library at Lambeth. These contain the genealogies of the kings of England, from William the Conqueror to Edward the Fourth; of queen Anne Boleyn; and of several princely houses in Germany.

Out of the large multitude of lord Burleigh’s letters, which are extant in various places, many have found their way to the press. Thirty-three are printed in Peck’s Desiderata Curiosa, and three in Howard’s Collections. Many more may be met with in Dr. Forbes’s, Haynes’s, and Murdin’s State Papers. The two last publications are specifically taken from the original letters, and other authentic memorials left by lord Burleigh, and now remaining at Hatfield -house, in the library of the earl of Salisbury. Haynes’s collection, which was published in 1740, extends from 1542 to 1570. Murdin’s, which appeared in 1759, reaches from 1571 to 1596. Both these publications throw great light on the period to which they relate, and have been of eminent service to our recent historians. The whole course of the proceedings, relative to Mary queen of Scots, is particularly displayed in these collections; on which account much use has lately been made of them by Dr. Gilbert Stuart. In the original papers of Mr. Anthony Bacon, are several letters of lord Burleigh, from which various extracts have been given by Dr. Birch, in his “Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.” There is also in the Nugsc Antiques, a letter of advice, written by his lordship in 1578, to Mr. Harrington (afterwards sir John Harrington), then a student at the university of Cambridge. In the earl of Hardwicke’s miscellaneous State Papers, besides a number of letters addressed to Cecil, there are seven of his own writing, relative to important public concerns. One of them shews in a striking view, the friendly behaviour of lord Burleigh to the earl of Leicester, when that nobleman laboured under the queen’s displeasure, and reflects great honour on the old treasurer’s memory. It is strange, says the earl of Hardwicke, that Camden passes it over in silence: but, indeed, adds his lordship, that historian’s omissions are very unpardonable, considering the lights he had. As to lord Burleigh’s unpublished papers, they are still exceedingly numerous, and are extant in the British Museum, in the libraries of the earls of Salisbury and Hardwicke, and in other places.

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

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

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

He shewed himself upon all occasions a zealous servant to his prince, without neglecting at the same time, the real advantage of his country, and never heartily espousing the Spanish interest, though it was the only one countenanced by king James; and some of the courtiers, by encouraging it, acquired great riches. The court of Spain was so sensible of his disinclination to them, that they endeavoured to alienate the king’s favour from him by means of the queen; and it was moved there in council, to send complaints to England of his malignant humour, or envy to the Spanish nation; upon which, if he did not alter his conduct, then a shorter course should be taken with him, by destroying him. Afterwards they entertained great hopes of him, and resolved to omit no means to gain him over to their side. But when all the popish designs were defeated by the discovery of the gunpowder plot, which has since been represented by some of that party as a political contrivance of his, his activity in the detection of it, and zeal for the punishment of those concerned in it, enraged them to such a degree, that several of the papists formed a combination against him. This, however, taking no effect, they again attempted to ruin him in the king’s favour, by reporting that he had a pension of forty thousand crowns from the States of the United Provinces, for being their special favourer and patron. They branded him likewise with the appellation of a puritan, a name peculiarly odious to king James. At last they conspired to murder him by a musquet-shot out of the Savoy, or some house near, as he was going by water to court. But these nefarious designs proved abortive, though it appears they had not desisted from them in 1609. Upon the death of sir Thomas Sackville, earl of Dorset, lord-high-treasurer, in April 1605, he succeeded him in that post and his advancement to it was universally applauded, a great reformation being expected from him in the exchequer, which he accordingly effected. Finding it almost totally exhausted, he devised several means for replenishing it with money, particularly by causing the royal manors to be surveyed, which before were but imperfectly known: by reviving the custody of crown lands by commissions of assets; by taking care to have the king’s woods and timber viewed, numbered, marked, and valued; by having an exact survey made of the copyholds held of the crown, which he ordered to be printed; by compounding with the copyholders of the inheritance, and the possessors of wastes and commons, originally appertaining to the king; by appointing commissioners to gather in the fines arising from penal laws, and such as accrued from the king’s manors; by improving the customs from 86,000/, to 120,000l. and afterwards to 135,000l. per ann. and by surrendering up his patent of master of the wards to the king, for his benefit and advantage.

His indefatigable application to business having ruined his constitution, he died at Marlborough in his return from Bath, May 24, 1612, and was buried at Hatfield. He was undoubtedly a very able minister, but not very popular while living, nor characterised with much praise since his death. Dr. Birch, however, appears his ablest advocate, in his “Historical View of the Negociations,” &c. and his researches being carried farther than perhaps those of any modern writer, what he advances seems more entitled to credit.

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

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

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

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

Musical and other historians have not been able to assign any better reason for honouring St. Cecilia as the patroness of music, than what may be found in her “Acts,” which still exist in Surius, but are now considered as of no authority. Yet as they were credited in more credulous times, painters fixed upon organs as the appropriate emblem of this saint; musicians chose her for their patroness, and poets have described her as the in ven tress of the organ, and as charming angels to leave their celestial spheres, in order to listen to her harmony. The earliest notice of her as the tutelar saint of music seems to have been in the works of the great painters of the Italian school; some representing her as performing on the harp, and others on the organ. Raphael, in his celebrated portrait of the saint, has placed in her hands a column of organ pipes, or rather the front of a portable instrument called the regals, which in Roman catholic times used to be carried by one person and played by another in processions. But of the celebration of her birth-day by assemblies of musicians, we have been able to discover no instance earlier than the latter end of the seventeenth century, when there was a rage among the votaries of music for celebrating the birth-day of this saint, November 22, not only in London, but in all the considerable cities and provincial towns in the kingdom, where music was cultivated. Dryden’s Ode to St. Cecilia has led Mr. Malone into a prolix and probably very accurate history of this saint, and into a chronological account of all the great Cecilian festivals held in London from 1683 to 1740, with a list of all the odes written expressly for the celebration of St. Cecilia, by whom written, and by whom set to music.

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

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

, an eminent critic and geographer, was born 1638, at Smalcalde, a little town in Franconia, where his father was minister. His mother, Mary Zehners, was daughter of the famous divine, Joachim Zehners. He came of a family in which learning seems to have been hereditary. When three years old, he had the misfortune to lose his father, but his mother took care of his education. He began his studies in the college of Smalcalde, and at eighteen was removed to Jena, to finish his studies in that university. During a residence of three years in this place, he applied to classical learning under Bosius, to philosophy under Bechman, to the Oriental languages under Frischmuth, and to mathematics under Weigelius. In 1659 he quitted Jena to go to Giessen, to study divinity under Peter Haberkorn. He afterwards returned to Jena, and took a doctor’s degree there in 1666. The year following he was made professor of Hebrew and morai philosophy at Weissenfels, in which office he continued for seven years. In 1673 he was called to Weimar, to be rector of the college there, which, at the end of three years, he exchanged for a similar rank at Zeits. After two years stay here, the college of Mersbourg was offered to him, which he accepted. His learning, his abilities, and his diligence, soon rendered this college famous, and drew a great number of students; and the place was so agreeable to him, that he determined to end his days there; but Providence disposed of him otherwise. For the king of Prussia, having founded an university at Halle in 1693, prevailed upon him to be professor of eloquence and history in it, and here he composed a great part of his works. His great application shortened his days, and hastened on the infirmities of old age. He was a long time afflicted with the stone, but never could be persuaded to seek assistance from medicine. He died, 1707, in his sixty-ninth year.

He published good editions of above twenty Latin and Greek authors; and should we give a complete catalogue of his own works, it would shew an astonishing example of literary industry. But although he was a very voluminous writer, he published nothing in haste, and nothing but what was in general correct and useful. His works relate chiefly to grammar, to geography, to history, and to the Oriental languages. As they are so very numerous, we shall only mention some of the most considerable: 1. “A Latin Grammar,” in German, 1689, 8vo. 2. “Antibarbarus Latinus, sive de Latinitate mediae et infimae aetatisl,” 1677, 12mo. Before he published this book, Glaus Borrichius had published, at Copenhagen, a work entitled “Cogitationes de variis linguae Latinos aetatibus, &c.” which Celiarius having not’seen, and reading afterwards, was the occasion of his making an addition to his own, under the title of, 3. “Curie posteriores de barbarismis et idiotismis sermonis Latini,” 1686, 12mo. 4. “Orthographia Latina ex vetustis monumentis, hoc est nummis, marmoribus, &c. excerpta, digesta, novisque observationibtis illustrata,” 1700, 8vo. 5. “Historia universalis brev-iter ac perspicue exposita, in antiquam et medii aevi ac novam divisa, cum notis perpetuis,” 1703, 3 vols. 12mo. 6. “Collectanea Historic Samaritanae, quotquot inveniri potuerunt,” 1688, 4to. He had a design of writing a complete history of the Samaritans; but for want of materials was forced to give it up. He collected, however, in this work, what he could find relating to their manners, religion, &c. 7. “Historia gentis & religionis Samaritanae ex nova Sichemitarum epistola aucta,” 1699, 4to. 8. “Grammatica Hebrasa in tabulis synopticis una cum consilio 24 herisdiscendi linguam sanctam.” To which he added, “Rabbinismus, sive institutio grammatica pro legendis Rabbinorum scriptis,” 1684, 4to. 9. “Canones de linguae sanctce idiotismis,” 1679, 4to. 10. “Sciagraphia philoiogiae sacrae, cum etymologico radicum deperditarum ex aliis linguis, Arabica praesertim, restitutarum,” 1678, 4to. 11. “Chaldaismus, sive grammatica nova linguae Chaldaica?,” &c. 1685, 4to. 12. “Porta Syriae, sive grammatica Syriaca,” 1684, 4to. 13. “Horae Samaritans,” &c. 1682, 4to. 14. “Isagoge in linguam Arabicam,” 1686, 4to.

His works in geography are well known, as excellent helps to the understanding of ancient authors. His “Notitia Orbis Antiqui,” was published at Cambridge in 1703, 2 vols. 4to, and Leipsic, 1731. And a sixth edition of the abridgement, by Patrick, was published at London, in 1731; but for a more particular account of the author and his works, the reader may be referred to J. G. Walchius’s discourse of his life and writings, prefixed to his <c Dissertationes Academicae,“published at Leipsic, 1712, 8vo This volume alone would have been sufficient to have procured him a considerable name in the learned world. The principal classics, &c. edited by him are,” Ciceronis Epist. act Familiares“” Plinii Epist.“” Corn. Nepos;“” Quintus Curtius;“” Eutropius“” Sextus Jlufus;“”Velleius Paterculus;“Duod. Panegyr. Antiq.;” “Lactantius;” “Minutius Felix;” “St. Cyprian, de Vanit. Idol.” Sedulius“” Prudentius“” Silius Italicus;“” Pici Mirandul. Epist.“” Zosimus;“” Paeanius“the” Thesaurus of Faber, M with large additions.

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

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

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

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

, a celebrated philosopher of the Epicurean sect, flourished in the second century under Adrian and Antoninus Pius, and is the person to whom Lucian has dedicated his “Pseudamantis.” He wrote a bitter invective against the Christian religion, under the title of “The true Word,” which was answered by Origen with great ability in a work consisting of eight books. His “True Word” is lost; but his objections against Christianity may be known from the extracts which are preserved of it in Origen’s answer. It is agreed on all hands, that he was a most subtle adversary, perfectly versed in all the arts of controversy, and as learned as he was ingenious: so that it is no wonder if the primitive Christians thought nothing less than such a champion as Origen a match for him. Although he sometimes recurs to Platonic and Stoic modes of reasoning, he is expressly ranked by Lucian, as well as Origen, among the Epicureans; and this supposition best accounts for the violence with which he opposed the Christian religion; for an Epicurean would of course reject, without examination, all pretensions to divine communications or powers. Yet his hostility, or the great pains he took to display it, affords some strong testimonies in favour of the Christian religion, as may be seen in Lardner, and other writers.

, a Latin poet, called also Protucius and Meissel, was born at Sweinfurt near Wetrtzburg in 1459, and died at Vienna in 1508, after having gained the poetic laurel. He has left, 1. “Odes,” Strasburg, 1513, 8vo. 2. “Epigrams,” and a poem on the manners of the Germans, 1610, 8vo. 3. “An historical account of the city of Nuremberg,” Strasburg, 1513, 4to; and various other works, enumerated by Moreri, all in Latin. He was not deficient in the sallies of imagination, though not exempt from the defects of the age in which he wrote. He is censurable for negligence in point of style, and with preferring sentiments more for their brilliancy than their solidity. His four books in elegiac verse, on the same number of mistresses he boasts to have had, were published at Nuremberg in 1502, 4to. This volume is scarce. The emperor Maximilian made him his librarian, and granted him the privilege of conferring the poetic crown on whomsoever he judged worthy of it.

, a celebrated critic, chronologer, antiquary, and grammarian, for such Priscian calls him, flourished at Rome in the time of Alexander Severus, and is supposed to have been of the Martian family. His talents as a grammarian appear only in his book “concerning Accents,” frequently cited by Sidonius Apollinaris, and other things, which are lost; and not in his “De die jiatali,” which is the only piece remaining of him. This treatise was written about the year 238, and dedicated to Quintus Cerellius, a Roman of the equestrian order, of whom he speaks very highly in his 15th chapter. Vossius, in one place, calls this “a little book of gold;” and, in another, declares it to be “a most learned work, and of the highest use and importance to chronologers, since it connects and determines with great exactness some principal aeras in history.” It is however a work of a miscellaneous nature, and treats of antiquities as well as chronology. It was printed at Hamburgh in 1614, with a commentary by Lindenbrog, whose notes were adopted afterwards in an edition printed at Cambridge, in 1695; and there is an edition by Havercamp, 1743, reprinted at Leyden, 1767, 8vo. Sir John Hawkins has translated Censorinus’s remarks on music, which are curious.

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

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

It was at this period of her life that she commenced dramatic author; to which she was probably in some degree induced by the narrowness of her circumstances. Some of her earlier pieces were published under the name of Carrol. Her first attempt was in tragedy, in a play called “The Perjured Husband,” which was performed at Drurylane Theatre in 1700, and published in 4to the same year. In 1703, she produced “The Beau’s Duel, or a Soldier for the Ladies, a comedy;” and “Love’s Contrivances,” which is chiefly a translation from Moliere; and the following year another comedy, entitled “The Stolen Heiress, or the Salamanca Doctor outwitted.” In 1705, her comedy of “The Gamester” was acted at Lincoln’sinn-fields, which met with considerable success, and has since been revived at Drury-lane. The plot of this piece “was chiefly borrowed from a French comedy, called” Le Dissipateur." The Prologue was written by Mr. Rowe.

Her attachment to the theatre was so great, that she not only distinguished herself as a writer for it, but also became a performer on it; though she probably did not attain to any great merit as an actress, as she seems never to have played at the theatres of the metropolis. But in 1706, we are told, she performed the part of Alexander the Great, in Lee’s Rival Queens, at Windsor, where the court then was; and in this heroic character, she made so powerful an impression upon the heart of Mr. Joseph Centlivre, yeoman of the mouth, or principal cook to queen Anne, that he soon after married her, and with him she lived happily till her death.

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

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

, of an illustrious family of Milan, but originally of Rome, bore arms in the sixteenth century, in which he was as much the philosopher as the soldier. He took advantage of the leisure afforded him by the peace, to reduce to order the military and historical memoirs he had collected during the tumult of war. They are very much esteemed in Italy, not less for, their excellence than their rarity. They appeared at Venice in 1565 and 1569, in 2 vols. 4to, commonly bound in one. The former, in six books, treats of the wars of Transilvania, and the other of those of his time in eight books. He wrote also some poems, and treatises on the military art, in Italian and Latin.

, whose family name was Teyng, which he exchanged for Ceratinus, from xsfag, horn, an allusion to Horn or Hoorn in Holland, was born there in the beginning of the sixteenth century. It appears from Erasmus’s letters, that he thought Ceratinus one of the most profound scholars in Greek and Latin which the age afforded; yet, when he came to be ordained priest at Utrecht, he was rejected for ignorance of the rules of grammar; but when the examiners understood that he had given superior proofs of learning, they re-called him, pleaded that they were obliged to certain forms in their examination, and granted him letters of ordination. On the recommendation of Erasmus, George, elector of Saxony, appointed him to succeed Mosellanus in his professorship at Leipsic; and on this occasion Erasmus declared that he was worth, in point of learning, ten such as Mosellanus. He was also offered the Greek professorship in the college of three languages at Louvain. At Leipsic he did not meet with the reception he deserved, owing to its being suspected that he had imbibed Lutheran principles. He died at Louvain April 10, 1530, in the flower of his age. His works were, A very elegant translation of Chrysostom’s “Treatise concerning the Priesthood” an improved edition of the “Graeco- Latin Lexicon,” printed by Froben, in 1524, with a preface by Erasmus; and a treatise “De Sono Graecarum Literarum,” printed in 1529, 8vo, with a dialogue from the pen of Erasmus on pronunciation. These were reprinted ' by Havercamp in his “Sylloge Scriptorum,” or collection of commentators on the pronunciation of the Greek, Leyden, 1736.

, a French Jesuit, was born at Paris in 1670, and was early distinguished by spirit, vivacity, and a turn for poetry, which, while he wrote in Latin, procured him considerable reputation. This, however, he forfeited by his French verses, in imitation of Marot, in which he mistook burlesque and trifling, for the familiar and simple. He wrote also some theatrical pieces of an inferior order but was more successful in his “Defense de la Poesie Francoise,” and other dissertations on the same subject. He wrote also, 1. “L'Histoire de Thamas Kouli-Kan, sophi de Perse,” Amsterdam, 1741, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Histoire de la Conjuration de Rienzi,” 12mo, which was completed by father Brumoy. 3. A criticism on the abbé Boileau’s “History of the Flagellants.” He contributed also a great many papers to the Journal de Trevoux, and was long engaged in a controversy with one of the authors of the Journal des Savans, occasioned by two dissertations printed at the end of the second volume of Sannadon’s Horace, relative to a passage in Horace concerning the music of the ancients. This produced from Cerceau some valuable essays on the subject. His Latin poetry was published in 1696, 12mo, under the title “Varia de variis argumentis Carmina a multis e societate Jesu.” The other authors in this volume are Vaniere and Tarillon. In 1807, his dramatic pieces were reprinted at Paris, in 3 vols. 18mo, under the title “Theatre à l'usage des colleges,” He died suddenly in 1730, at Veret, near Tours.

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

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

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

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

, a lawyer and Latin poet, was born of the noble family of Alba in Lombardy, in 1485, and died in 1541. He composed a heroic poem in three books, entitled “De Virginitate,” Paris, 1629; and a long “Epithalamium” of 555 verses on the marriage of William IX. marquis of Montferrat with Anne of Alen9011 in 1508, of which there have been several editions. Scaliger and Baillet speak highly of him as a Latin poet, but according to their account his style was too lofty and pompous, as he was apt to describe a fly in as solemn terms as he would a hero. His works are in the “Delicise Poetarum Ital.” but were more recently published separately by Vernazza in 1778, with a life of the author.

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

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

In 1606, Cervantes returned from Valladolid to Madrid, where he passed the last ten years of his life. In 1610, his second patron, don Pedro Fernandez de Castro, count of Lemos, was named viceroy of Naples, and from thence continued to him his protection and liberality: and the cardinal don Bernardo de Sandoval y Rojas, archbishop of Toledo, after the example of his cousin the count of Lemos, assigned him a pension, that he might bear with less inconvenience the troubles of old age. Although Madrid was now Cerva:es’s home, he passed certain seasons in Esquivias, either to take care of some effects of his wife, or to avoid the noise of the court, and to enjoy the quiet of the village, which afforded him opportunity to write more at his ease. Availing himself of this convenience, he hastened, as he was advanced in years, to publish the greater part of his works. He printed his “Novels” in 1613; his “Journey tq Parnassus” in 16 14-; his “Comedies and Interludes” in 1615; and in the same year the second part of his “Don Quixote.” He finished also his “Persilas and Sigismunda,” which was not published till after his death. In the mean time an incurable dropsy seized him, and gave him notice of his approaching dissolution, which he saw with Christian constancy and with a cheerful countenance. He has minutely described this in the prologue to his posthumous work. One of his late biographers says, that good-nature and candour, charity, humanity, and compassion for the infirmities of man in his abject state, and consequently an abhorrence of cruelty, persecution, and violence, the principal moral he seems to inculcate in his great work, were the glorious virtues and predominant good qualities of his soul, and must transmit his name to the latest ages with every eulogium due to so exalted a character. At length, on the same nominal day with his equally great and amiable contemporary Shakspeare, on the 23d of April, 16 16, died Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, and was buried in the church of the Trinitarian nuns in Madrid.

Of all the accounts hitherto published relative to Cervantes, we have given the preference to the preceding, for which we are indebted to the late rev. John Bowie, whose enthusiasm for “Don Quixote” is well known. It was translated by him from a work published in 1778 at Madrid by don Juan Antonio Pellicer y Safo^ada, one of the royal librarians, in a work entitled “Ensayo de una Bibliotheca de Traductores Espan'oles. Preceden varias Noticias Litterarias,” 4to. The particulars being the result of research in the only quarters where information could be procured, seem more worthy of confidence than the conjectures of some of Cervantes’s earlier biographers, whose chief object seems to have been to represent him as a man depressed and degraded by poverty or imprudence, and whose fate was a disgrace to his nation. It is necessary however to add that the above account was prefixed to the splendid edition of Don Quixote published by the Spanish academy about thirty years ago. from this M. Florian wrote a life prefixed to his translation of Cervantes’s “Galatea,” and added not a little of the marvellous when detailing Cervantes’s adventures in captivity at Algiers. Florian’s account was translated into English by a Mr. William Walbeck, and published at Leeds in 1785, 12mo. Dr. Smollett has made a very interesting story in his life of Cervantes, but wanting th accurate information which has lately been recovered, he too hastily adopts the common opinions, and presents an almost unvaried detail of miseries and poverty. Cervantes’s own account of his person is the following: “His visage was sharp and aquiline, his hair of a chesnut colour, his forehead smooth and high, his nose bookish or hawkish, his eye brisk and chearful, his mouth little, his beard originally of a golden hue, his upper lip furnished with large mustachios, his complexion fair, his stature of the middling size;” and he adds, “that he was thick in the shoulders, and not very light of foot.”

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

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

Mr. D'Israeli, in his“” Curiosities of Literature,“has published an anecdote from the” Segraisiana,“which seems to have escaped the biographers of Cervantes.” M. du Boulay accompanied the French ambassador to Spain when Cervantes was yet alive. He has told me, that the ambassador one day complimented Cervantes on the great reputation he had acquired by his Don Quixote; and that Cervantes whispered in his ear, “Had it not been for the Inquisition, I should have made my book much more entertaining.” In what manner he would have done so it would be useless to conjecture.

The last act of Cervantes’ s life was to write a dedication of his novel of “Persilas and Sigismunda” to his patron, the count of Lemos. As this appeared in the last edition of this Dictionary, and illustrates in some respect the character of the writer, we shall conclude this sketch with it.

"There is an old ballad, which in its day was much in vogue, and it began thus ‘ And now with one foot in the stirrup,’ &c. I could wish this did not fall so pat to my epistle, for I can almost say in the same words,

Yesterday they gave me the extreme unction, and to-day I write this. Time is short, pains increase, hopes diminish and yet, for all this, I would live a little longer, methinks, not for the sake of living, but that I might kiss your excellency’s feet; and it is not impossible but the pleasure of seeing your excellency safe and well in Spain might make me well too. But, if I am decreed to die, heaven’s will be done: your excellency will at least give me leave to inform you of this my desire; and likewise that you had in me so zealous and well-affected a servant as was willing to go even beyond death to serve you, if it had been possible for his abilities to equal his sincerity. However, I prophetically rejoice at your excellency’s arrival again in Spain; my heart leaps within me to fancy you shewn to one another by the people, ` There goes the Condé de Lemos’ and it revives my spirits to see the accomplishment of those hopes which I have so long conceived of your excellency’s perfections. There are still remaining in my soul certain glimmerings of * The Weeks of Garden,‘ and of the famous Bernardo. If by good luck, or rather by a miracle, heaven spares my life, your excellency shall see them both, and with them the ` second part’ of ` Galatea,' which I know your excellency would not be ill-pleased to see. And so I conclude with my ardent wishes, that the Almighty will preserve your excellency.

, a learned philologist, was born at Verona in 1541, and was brought to France in his infancy, by John Fregosa, bishop of Agen: here he was educated, and for some time served in the army, after which his patron sent him to Rome, with a view to the ecclesiastical life. Ceruti, however, being disinclined to this, returned to his native country, and married. He afterwards opened a school at Verona, in which he had great success, and along with Guarinoni was at the head of the academy of the Moderati. In 1585 he published an edition of Horace at Verona, with a paraphrase, 4to, and in 1597 an edition of Juvenal and Persius, 4to. He also wrote commentaries on some parts of Cicero, and on the Georgics of Virgil, but it does not appear that they were printed. His other published works are, two Letters in the “Amphotides Scioppiana;” a “Dialogus de Comcedia,” Verona, 1593, 8vo; another, “De recta adolescentulorum institutione,” and a collection of Latin poems in 1584. He died in 1579.

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

, a very accomplished Italian scholar, was born at Rome in Oct. 1595, the son of Julian Cesarini, duke of Citta Nuova, and of Livia Ursini. Such was his application to study, that at an age when most scholars are but beginning, he was acquainted with languages, philosophy, theology, law, medicine, mathematics, and sacred and profane history. Cardinal Bellarmin compared him in knowledge, personal character, and accomplishments, to Picus de Mirandula, and such was the general esteem in which he was held, that a medal was struck with the heads of Cesarini and Picus crowned with laurel, and on the reverse two phenixes. His modesty and probity were not less conspicuous than his learning. Pope Urban VIII. intended to have made him a cardinal, but he died in the flower of his age, in 1624, then a member of the academy of the Lyncei. His Latin and Italian poems were printed in the collection entitled “Septem illustrium virorum poemata,” Antwerp, 1662, 8vo, and since reprinted. He wrote also a treatise against astrology, and on other subjects, which have not been published. Augustin Favoriti, secretary of the college of cardinals, wrote his life in Latin, which is in the “Memoria philosophorum, &c. curante Henningo Witten, decas prima,” Francfort, 1677, 8vo. Bianchi also, in his account of the academicians of the Lyncei, Milan, 1744, notices Cesarmi.

, an artist born in 1556, was one of the masters whose principles were respected by the school of the Caracci. From him Tiarini learnt the practice of fresco ^ his works contain the germ of Guido’s elegance. Indeed they are not easily distinguished from Guide’s earlier performances. He seldom dares; follows nature, fond of her best forms, and as shy to supply her with ideal ones; his draperies are broad, his attitudes considerate; his tints have more suavity than strength. Such are the altar-pieces at S. Jacopo and at S. Martino, works which Guido is said to have often spent whole hours in contemplating. In fresco he is more vigorous, and treats copious subjects with equal judgment, variety, and power of execution thus he treated the History of Æneas, in the palace Favi, and with still greater felicity the Transactions of Clement VIII. on the arch of Forli, which, though exposed to the air for so many years, retains all the vivacity of its tints. He was esteemed by the Caracci, and generally loved by the professors for his honesty of character and attachment to the art. To his exertions chiefly is ascribed the secession of the painters in 1595, from cutlers, chasers, and sadlers, with whom they had been incorporated for some centuries. And though at the formation of their new society he could not rid them of the cotton-workers’ body (Bambagiai), he established their precedence and superiority of rank. Cesi died in 1627.

, a painter of Cordova, acquired fame in the sixteenth century, both in Spain and Italy. His manner approaches somewhat to that of Correggio; the same exactness in the drawing, the same force in the expression, the same vigour in the colouring. It is impossible to contemplate without emotion his picture of the Last Supper in the cathedral of Cordova; where each of the apostles presents a different character of respect and affection for their master; the Christ displays at once an air of majesty and kindness; and the Judas a false and malignant countenance. The talents of Cespedes were not confined to painting, if we may trust the enthusiasm of the Spanish authors in his behalf; he was at the same time philosopher, antiquary, sculptor, architect; an adept in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Italian languages, a great poet, and a prolific author. He died in 1608, aged upwards of seventy.

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

, a learned philologer, was born at Sainloup in Poitou, in 1516, and studied the Latin tongue at Sainloup, and afterwards went to Poitiers, at twenty-four years of age, to study the Greek there; but he was soon recalled from thence, to teach youth in his native place. He taught there six years, after which he went to Paris, and went through a course of philosophical studies under Omer and Talon, in the college de Prele. Having spent three years and a half in study, he took his degree of M. A. and professed teaching. The children of several persons of distinction were committed to his care and he acquired so much reputation as a preceptor, that chancellor de PHopital resolved to engage him to live at his seat in the country, to teach his grandsons. He got Peter Ramus and John Mercier, the regius professors, to make proposals to him. Chabot accepted them, and lived twelve years in the chancellor’s family, viz. five years before the chancellor died, and seven years after. His chief work was a Commentary on Horace, on which he exhausted all the fruits of his studies. He was a man of great regularity in life and manners, and submitted three times, with great patience, to the plunder of his effects during the civil wars. He died of an advanced age, about 1597. He is said to have been once professor in the university of Paris, which Bayle doubts, but Freher seems to confirm it. His commentary on Horace was printed 1615, fol. according to Bayle. Dr. Clarke mentions an 8vo, Paris, 1582, and says it is a very rare edition, but this appears to be an abridgment of the larger work.

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

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

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

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

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

was a Platonic philosopher, concerning whose history ecclesiastical writers are much divided; Cave, Hody, Beausobre, and Lardner, have examined all the evidence they could find without coming to a conclusion, nor does it appear from his writings whether he was a Christian or a Gentile. It is supposed that he flourished about the year 330. He translated into Latin the former part of the Timæus of Plato, with a commentary, which afforded great scope for the speculations of the philosophers of the middle ages. This was printed in Gr. & Lat. by Meursius at Leyden, 1617, 4to, and reprinted by Fabricius in the second volume of his edition of the works of Hyppolitus, Hamburgh, 1718, fol.

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

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

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

Sir Thomas was the author of several tracts, but all that can now be discovered are, 1. “A little Dictionary for children,” mentioned by Bale. 2. “The Office of Servants,” translated from the Latin of Gilbert Cognatus, 1543. 3. “Moriae Encomium,” translated from Erasmus, and printed in 1549. 4. “In laudem Henrici Octavi, regis Angliae prsestantissimi, carmen panegyricum.” 5. “De Republica Anglorum instauranda, libri decem,” Londini, 1579, 4to. 6. “De illustrium quorundam encomiis miscellanea, cum epigrammatibus ac epitaphiis nonnullis.” This collection of panegyrics, epigrams, and epitaphs, is printed with the book before-mentioned. Besides these there are some of his letters in Haynes’s Collection of State Papers.

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

, second son of the preceding, was born in 1590 at Chiswick in Middlesex, where his father and mother lived and died. He was educated at Oxford, first in Magdalen college, where he completed his degrees in arts in 1610, and next year was chosen fellow of All Souls. Entering into orders, he was made chaplain to James I. and doctor of divinity, and principal of Al ban -hall. He was reputed a very learned man for his time, an able preacher, and good disputant. “His compositions were much valued by the greatest men then in the church; and the sermons which he published in his lifetime, as also those published after his death, in all thirteen, were then looked upon as choice pieces, very serviceable to the church and commonwealth. He died of the plague at Oxford, July 25, 1625, and was buried in St. Mary’s church-yard, where a monument was afterwards erected to his memory. Of his works, six of his” Sermons“were published, Lond. 1623, 8vo; one Lond. 1624, 4to; and six after his death, Oxford, 1629, 4to. He wrote also on” The Authority, Universality, and Visibility of the Church," Lond. 1625, 4to, and 1638, 12mo, and left some Mss. behind him.

, younger brother to the preceding Edward, was also sent to Oxford, and spent some time there at Exeter college, after which he went abroad, and having travelled through France and Italy, returned home a very well- accomplished gentleman, being much distinguished for the vivacity of his wit, and his extensive knowledge in all kind of polite literature: but having contracted a dislike to the royal family, on the score of the alum mines, of which his father had been deprived, he joined the malcontents, and being elected member for Aldborough in the county of York, became an active member of the Long Parliament. He sat as one of the king’s judges, and was elected one of the members of the council of state. Upon a prospect of the king’s return he . printed a paper, entitled “A Speech, containing a Plea for Monarchy,” in which he hinted at some limitations and restrictions. He soon after thought fit to retire to Holland, and was excepted out of the Act of Oblivion, and very soon after died at Middleburg in Zealand.

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

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

, a learned physician in the sixteenth century, noted chiefly for being one of the founders of the college of physicians, London, was educated in Merton college in Oxford, of which he was fellow. He took his degree of master of arts about the year 1502; after which, travelling into Italy, he studied physic at Padua, and there took his degree of doctor in that faculty. After his return, he became physician to Henry VIII.; and with Thomas Linacre and others, founded the college of physicians. Henry VHIth’s charter, for the foundation of this college, bears date at Westminster, September 23, 1518, and is said to have been obtained at the request of Dr. John Chamber, Thomas Linacre, Fernandez de Victoria, his physicians; and of Nicolas Halsewell, John Fraunces, and Robert Yaxley, of the same faculty: but especially through the intercession and interest of cardinal Wolsey. The first college of this society was in Knight Rider-street, being the gift of Dr. Linacre. Afterwards they removed to Amen-corner, where they bought an house and ground but the house being burnt down in 1666, the fellows purchased a large piece of ground in Warwick-lane, upon which they erected the present college. The number of fellows at first was but thirty. Charles II. at their request, augmented the number to forty. And James II. in their new charter, was pleased to increase the number to eighty, and not to exceed. To the college belong, at present, a president, four censors, and twelve electors.

Dr. Chamber, being in holy orders, became in 1510 canon of Windsor, and in 1524 archdeacon of Bedford, and was likewise prebendary of Comb and Harnham in the cathedral church of Sarum. In 1525 he was elected warden of Merton college; and about the same time was made dean of the royal chapel and college adjoining to Westminster- hall, dedicated to the Virgin Mary and St. Stephen. He built to it a very curious cloister, at the expence of 11,000 marks, and gave the canons of that chapel some lands, which he saw, upon the dissolution of the monasteries, taken into the king’s hands. Afterwards he was made treasurer of Wells cathedral, beneficed in Somersetshire and Yorkshire, and probably had other dignities and preferments. October 29, 1531, he was incorporated doctor of physic at Oxford. In May 1543, he resigned his treasurership of Wells; and his wardenship of Merton college in 1545. He died in 1549. He never published any thing.

, esq. was born about the middle of January 1552, and was educated at Cambridge. To the knowledge of the learned languages, which he cultivated there, he added that of the French and Italian. He enjoyed great intimacy with the most considerable men in England, with sir Henry Savile, bishop Andrews, sir Thomas Boclley, sir Thomas Edmondes, sir Dudley Carleton, and sir Ralph Win wood. In the confidence of the last of these he had a very great share, while that honest and able minister was secretary of state, and the character of the latter appears in a very advantageous light in the letters of Mr. Chamberlain. Having a fortune sufficient to satisfy a quiet and unambitious temper, he enjoyed the satisfactions of private life in the society of his friends till a good old age, dying after the year 1626, and before April 1631, for his name does not appear among those of the commissioners for the repairing of St. Paul’s, in the second commission dated the 10th of that month, though he had been appointed a commissioner in the first. His correspondence is in the British Museum.

was descended from an ancient family, and born at Odington in Gloucestershire, 1616. He was educated at Gloucester; became a commoner of St. Edmund-hall in Oxford in 1634; took both his degrees in arts; and was afterwards appointed rhetoric reader. During the civil war in England, he made the tour of Europe. In 1658 he married the only daughter of Richard Clifford, esq. by whom he had nine children. In 1668 he was chosen F. R. S. and in 1669 attended Charles earl of Carlisle, sent to Stockholm with the order of the garter to the king of Sweden, as his secretary. In 1670 the degree of LL. D. was conferred on him at Cambridge, and two years after he was incorporated in the same at Oxford. He was appointed to be tutor to Henry duke of Grafton, one of the natural sons of Charles II. about 1679; and was afterwards appointed to instruct prince George of Denmark in the English tongue. He died at Chelsea in 1703, and was buried in a vault in the church-yard of that parish; where a monument was soon after erected to his memory, by Walter Harris, M. D. with a Latin inscription, which informs us, among other things, that Dr. Chamberlayne was so desirous of doing service to all, and even to posterity, that he ordered some of the books he had written to be covered with wax, and buried with him; which have been since destroyed by the damp. The six books vanity or dotage thus consigned to the grave, are, 1. “The present war paralleled; or a brief relation of the five years’ civil wars of Henry III. king of England, with the event and issue of that unnatural war, and by what course the kingdom was then settled again; extracted out of the most authentic historians and records,” 1647. It was reprinted in 1660, under this title, “The late war paralleled, or a brief relation,” &c. 2. “England’s wants; or several proposals probably beneficial for England, offered to the consideration of both houses of parliament,” 1667. 3. “The Converted Presbyterian; or the church of England justified in some practices,” &c. 1668. 4. “Anglix Notitia or the Present State of England with divers reflections upon the ancient state thereof,” 1668. The second part was published in 1671, &c. This work has gone through many editions; the first twenty of wkich were published by Dr. Edward Chamberlain, and the rest by his son. 5. “An academy or college, wherein young ladies or gentlewomen may, at a very moderate expence, be educated in the true protestant religion, and in all virtuous qualities that may adorn that sex, &c.” 1671. 6. “A Dialogue between an Englishman and a Dutchman, concerning the last Dutch war,‘ ’ 1672. He translated out of Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, into English, 1.” The rise and fall of count Olivarez the favourite of Spain.“2.” The unparalleled imposture of Mich, de Molina, executed at Madrid,“1641. 3.” The right and title of the present king of Portugal, don John the IVth." These three translations were printed at London, 1653.

, son to the preceding, was admitted into Trinity college, Oxford, 1685; but it does not appear that he took any degree. He continued his father’s “Angliae Notitia,” or “Present State,” as long as he lived, and it was continued after his death until 1755, which, we believe, is the last edition. He translated, 1. from French and Spanish, “The manner of making Tea, Coffee, and Chocolate, London,” 1685, 8vo. 2. From Italian into English, “A Treasure of Health,” London, 1686, 8vo, written by Castor Durant de Gualdo, physician and citizen of Rome. 3. “The Arguments of the books and chapters of the Old and New Testament, with practical observations written originally in French, by the rev. Mr. Ostervald, professor of divinity, and one of the ministers of the church at Neufchatel in Swisserland, and by him presented to the society for promoting Christian knowledge,” Lond. 1716, &c. 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Chamberlay ne was a member of that society. 4. “The Lives of the French Philosophers, translated from the French of M. de Fontenelle, republished since in 1721, under the title of” Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, epitomized, with t[ie lives of the late members of that society,“8vo. 5.” The Religious Philosopher; or, the right use of contemplating the works of the Creator, &c. translated from the original Dutch of Dr. Nieuwentyt,“Lond. 1713, &c. 3 vols. 8vo, reprinted several times since in 8vo, and once in 4to. 6.” The History of the Reformation in and about the Low Countries, translated from the Dutch of Gerrard Brandt,“Lond. 1721, &c. 4 vols. fol. 7.” The Lord’s Prayer in 100 languages, 8vo, which is erroneously attributed by Mr. Whiston the bookseller, in a ms note in his copy of this Dictionary, to a Thomas Chamberlayne. 8. “Dissertations historical, critical, theological, and moral, on the most memorable events of the Old and New Testaments; wherein the spirit of the sacred writings is shewn, their authority confirmed, and the sentiments of the primitive fathers, as well as the modern, critics, with regard to the difficult passages therein, considered and compared; vol. I. comprising the events related in the Books of Moses to which are added, chronological tables, fixing the date of each event, and connecting the several dissertations together,” 1723, folio. He likewise was elected F. R. S. in 1702, and communicated three pieces, inserted in the Philosophical Transactions one, concerning the effects of thunder and lightning at Sampford Courtney in Devonshire, Oct. 7, 1711. 2. An account of the sunk Islands in the Humber, recovered from the sea. 3. Remarks on the Plague at Copenhagen in 1711. It was said of him, that he understood ten languages but it is certain that he was master of the Greek, Latin, French, Dutch, German, Portuguese, and Italian. Though he was well qualified for employment, he had none but that of gentleman usher to George prince of Denmark. After a useful and well-spent life, he died in Oct. 1723. He was then in the commission of the peace for Middlesex and Westminster. He was a very pious and good man, and earnest in promoting the advancement of religion and the interest of true Christianity: for which purpose he kept a large correspondence abroad, in his capacity as secretary to the society for promoting Christian knowledge. By one of bishop Atterbury’s letters it appears that he once endeavoured to obtain the state- paper office, but did not succeed. At this time, in 1702, the bishop, somewhat superciliously, calls him “one Chamberlayne, secretary to the reformers, and to the committee for propagating religion in the Indies.” There are some of tylr. Chamberlayne’s letters in bishop Nicolson’s “Epistolary Correspondence” lately published. The bishop wrote a preface to Mr. Chamberlayne’s “Lord’s Prayer in 100 Languages.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has been said in former accounts of Mr. Chambers, that he was not treated in the most liberal manner by the booksellers with whom he was concerned; but this was far from being the case, as he experienced the most generous behaviour from them. It is true that the price of literary labour was not then so high as it has since risen, but he was paid up to the standard of his time. Among his employers Mr. Longman in particular (grand uncle of the present Mr. Longman) used him with great liberality and tenderness; his house was ever open to receive him, and when he was there, every attention was paid to his peculiarities; and during his illness, jellies and other proper refreshments were industriously left for him at those places where it was least likely he should avoid seeing them. When we consider that he was a single man, with few wants and fewer wishes, and that by the assistance of his friends he was enabled to live happily, and die at last possessed of considerable property, he can scarcely be deemed unsuccessful. Every deficiency he supplied by œconomy; and in pecuniary matters he was remarkably exact. In his last will, made not long before his death, and which it has been erroneously said was never proved, he declared that he owed no debts, excepting to his tailor for his rocquelaure.

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

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

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

The unfortunate loss of the Grosvenor East Indiaman, in 1782, was a calamity in which the private share of sir Robert Chambers was disproportionately heavy. He lost his eldest son, a promising youth, then going to England for education and the uncertain circumstances of the case left to imagination the most dreadful materials for conjecture. In this, as in every other situation, in proportion to the exigence, the firm and truly Christian piety of sir Robert Chambers afforded a great example; and he appeared a worthy son of that excellent national church which, on some occasions, he had strenuously defended while he was an advocate. On the resignation of sir Elijah Impey, in 1791, sir Robert Chambers was advanced to the office of chief justice: and in 1797 he became president of the Asiatic society. At length, after having remained in India twenty-five years, he also obtained permission to resign, and was succeeded by sir John Anstruther.

He returned to England in 1799, but in a state of health which forbade the expectation of enjoying his friends and his well-earned leisure. In the autumn of 1802 his lungs were so much affected that he was advised to winter in the milder air of France, and was to have proceeded to the southern provinces: but the season was then too far advanced, and he remained at Paris, where, after a partial recovery, he had an attack of a paralytic nature, and died May 9, 1803. The body was brought to England, and interred on the 23d of the same month in the Temple church. He had been a bencher of the Middle Temple, and his funeral was attended by a considerable number of that society, and many private friends.

Sir Robert Chambers had that love for books which naturally arises from a sound education and early habits of study. His collection, therefore, was considerable, and his knowledge proportionally extensive. Even at the close of his life, of which so large a part had been engaged in the practice or administration of the laws, he had not lost his academical accomplishments: and a Latin epitaph on his friend sir William Jones, inscribed by Flaxman on a monument erected at Oxford in 1803, may testify that the cares of the judge had not obliterated the studies of the professor. His collection of Oriental books was particularly valuable. That his fortune, after so long continuance in office, was extremely moderate, must be considered as an important topic of his praise, since it was occasioned by his strict integrity and extensive bounty. He received no presents, and he gave abundant charities. On his resignation, therefore, he could not attempt to decline the pension which parliament has now assigned to the judges of India, after a much less period of service.

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

His first residence in London was in Poland- street, but not, as has been asserted, in the business of a carpenter. At a very early period of his life he was considered as one of the best architects and draughtsmen in Europe; and his abilities introduced him to the patronage of the late John eari of Bute, by whose interest he was appointed to be drawing master to his present majesty, then prince of Wales. The first work of consequence in which he was engaged was the villa of the late earl of Besborougb, at Roehampton, in Surry. He delivered to his lordship his plan as architect, and his estimate as surveyor, and, on being applied to afterward to know whether he would undertake to complete the building himself for the money mentioned in the estimate, he readily consented, and, in the execution of his contract, gave and received that satisfaction which seldom fails to result from the happy concurrence of professional taste and skill with the most distinguished character for punctuality and probity. His conduct on this occasion became the most honourable introduction to considerable employment among the nobility and gentry.

As an author, Mr. Chambers very soon distinguished himself. In 1759 he published “Designs for Chinese Buildings,” and a “Treatise on Civil Architecture.” Soon after his present majesty’s accession to the throne, he was employed to lay out and improve the royal gardens at Kevv. The result of his labours appeared in 1765, in a splendid publication in large folio, entitled “Plans, elevations, sections, and perspective views of the Gardens and Buildings at Kew in Surry, the seat of her royal highness the princess of Wales.” In the execution of this magnificent work, the talents of several of our ablest designers and engravers are eminently displayed: the architectural designs being drawn by Mr. Chambers, the figures by Cipriani, and the views by Kirby, Thomas Sandby, and Marlow. The engravings were executed by Paul Sandby, Woollett, Major, Grignion, Rooker, and others. The plates were, consequently, universally admired, but with respect to the designs, the greater part were considered rather as objects of curiosity than of taste; and Mr. Chambers himself, as if apprehensive that the style of decoration he had adopted would be censured, anticipates the objections by an apology for the disadvantages of situation under which he laboured.' “The gardens at Kew,” he observes, “are not very large: nor is their situation by any means advantageous, as it is low, and commands no prospects. Originally, the ground was one continued dead flat: the soil was, in general, barren, and without either wood or water. With so many disadvantages, it was not easy to produce any thing even tolerable in gardening; but princely munificence, and an able director, have overcome all difficulties, and converted what was once a desert into an Eden.”