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

Such is the apology of Mr. Chambers; and it must be acknowledged, perhaps, that these gardens are laid out as well as the nature of the place would permit; but, witty regard to the ornaments and buildings, it cannot be-suf-i ficiently regretted, that a fondness for the unmeaning faU balas of Turkish and Chinese chequer- work should prevail over a taste for the beautiful models of Grecian and Roman architecture. It is yet more to be regretted that our architect proved in a subsequent publication that he was not so much constrained by the situation of the place, as impelled by an irresistible predilection for the Chinese mode of gardening.

In 1771, Mr. Chambers was announced in the catalogue of the royal academy as a knight of the Swedish order of the Polar Star; and the following year he published the work just alluded to, and entitled “A Dissertation on Oriental Gardening,” 4to. The design of this work is to demonstrate, that notwithstanding the boasted improvement of our national taste in ornamental gardening, we are yet in a state of ignorance and barbarism with respect to this pleasing art, of which the Chinese alone are masters. In. the preface he says, that his account of the Chinese manner of gardening was collected from his own observations in China, from conversations with their artists, and remarks transmitted to him at different times by travellers. Besides sir William’s failure in proving his main point, this publication was very unlucky in another respect. A sketch of it had been published some years before; but the performance itself appearing immediately after the publication of Mr. Mason’s “English Garden,” it was suggested, very invidiously perhaps, that our author’s intention was to depreciate the designs of our English gardeners, in order to divert his sovereign from his plan of improving Richmond gardens into the beautiful state in which they now appear. The strange and horrible devices described in this “Dissertation” have been much ridiculed, but are no more than what had been before published by father Attirer, in his account of the emperor of China’s gardens, near Pekin, translated by Mr. Spence (under the assumed literary name of sir Harry Beaumont) in 1753, and since republished in Dodsley’s “Fugitive Pieces.” In whatever light, however, the “Dissertation” might be considered, it was certainly productive of amusement, and the cause of gardeners and gardening was amply revenged by a publication which appeared next year, and was generally attributed to Mr. Mason, entitled “An Heroic Epistle to sir William Chambers, knt. comptroller- general of his majesty’s works, and author of a late Dissertation on Oriental Gardening; enriched with explanatory notes, chiefly extracted from that elaborate performance.” A vein of solemn irony, and delicate yet keen satire, runs through this poetical commentary; and sir William’s principles of design in gardening, or rather the Oriental principles, which he had so fondly adopted, are treated with very little respect. It was followed in 1774, by “.An Heroic Postscript.”

In 1775, sir W. Chambers was appointed to conduct the building of that great national work, Somerset-place. This appointment was worth 2000l. a year to him, nor was he too liberally rewarded. The terrace behind this magnificent building is a bold effort of conception. His designs for interior arrangements were excellent, but his staircases were his master-pieces, particularly those belonging to the royal and antiquary societies. He did not live, however, to see the whole finished according to the original plan, and all intention of completing what would be truly a national honour, and a great ornament to the metropolis, seems now to be given up. Sir William, however, continued for many years in the highest rank of his profession, and besides being architect to the king, he was surveyor-general of his majesty’s board of works, treasurer of the royal academy, F. It. S. and F. S. A. and member of the royal academy of arts at Florence, and of the royal academy of architecture at Paris.

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

, an ingenious doctor of the Sorbonne, was born Jan. 2, 1698, at Paris. He lived a sedentary life, was appointed canon of St. Benoit, and died of a malignant fever at Paris, August 16, 1753, aged fifty-six. His genius was extremely accurate, with great clearness and precision of ideas; his temper mild, easy, and sociable. The principal works of this author which have been printed are a “Treatise on the Truth of Religion,” 5 vols. 12mo a “Treatise on the Formulary,” 4 vols. 12mo another on the “Bulls against Baius,” 2 vols. 12mo another on the “Constitution Unigenitus,” 2 vols. 12mo; and a volume in 12mo entitled “La Realite du Jansenisme.” It appears from all these treatises, that a good Thomist may accept the bulls against Baius and Jansenius, and the Constitution Unigenitus. The dogma is unfolded with much clearness and solidity; the theological opinions treated in a very methodical manner, and with great precision. His other works are, “Introduction a la Theologie,” 1 vol. 12mo. “Exposition claire et precise des differens points de doctrine qui ont raport aux matieres de religion,” Paris, 1745, 12mo. This contains the substance of twenty-two theological treatises; “Tr. de PEglise,” 6 vols. 12mo; “Tr. de la Grace,” 4 vols. 12mo; “La Logique, la Morale, et la Metaphysique,” Paris, 1754, 2 vols. 12mo, &C.

, a native of Mans, and king’s physician in ordinary. He was received into the French academy 1635, afterwards into that of sciences. Chancellor Sequier and cardinal Richelieu gave him public testimonies of their esteem; and he acquired great reputation by his knowledge in physic, philosophy, and the belles-lettres. He died November 29, 1669, at Paris, aged seventy-five, and left many works, the principal oif which are: “Les Characteres des Passions,” 4 vols. 4to; or Amsterdam, 1658, 5 vols. 12mo. “L'Art de connoitre les Hommes.” “De la Connoissance des Betes.” “Conjectures sur la Digestion.” “De l'Iris.” “De la Lumiere.” “Le Systeme de l'Ame.” “Le Debordement du Nil,” each 1 vol. 4to. Peter de la Chambre, his second son, was curate of St. Bartholomew, and one of the forty members of the French academy, and died 1693, leaving several panegyrics, printed separately in 4to.

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

When this great event took place, his intimacy with Mirabeau led him to join the revolutionists, and he assisted Mirabeau in many of his works. He even obtained admission into the Jacobin-club, and in 1791 was appointed secretary, but soon saw through their hypocrisy, detested their sanguinary principles, and left them. After the 10th of August, Roland procured him to be appointed national librarian, in conjunction with Carra. He saw with horror the excesses of all parties, and when the words “Fraternity or Death” appeared on all the walls of Paris, he exclaimed “The fraternity of these fellows is that of Cain and Abel.” These, and other sarcasms, made him obnoxious to Robespierre, and he was apprehended, and endeavoured to commit suicide. He only, however, mangled himself shockingly on this occasion, and lived till April 1794. He was unquestionably a man of talents, but in his political conduct inconsistent and frivolous, attaching himself to no party, yet maintaining the pernicious principles from which each party had arisen. In 1795, his friend Ginguene published his works in 4 vols. 8vo, with a Life. They are entirely of the miscellaneous kind, and the fourth volume consists of Maxims and Opinions, which have since been published separately under the title of “Chamfortiana.” Many of them are founded on an accurate observation of human nature, and of the manners of his age and country.

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

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

, was born at Paris in 1717, and destined to supply his father’s place in the parliament of that city as a judge, as well as that of his uncle in the same situation. He made choice of the one of them that would give him the least trouble, and afford him the most leisure for his benevolent projects. Medicine was his favourite study. This he practised on the poor only, with such an ardour and activity of mind, that the hours which many persons give to sleep, he bestowed upon the assistance of the sick. To make himself more useful to them, he had learned to bleed, which operation he performed with all the dexterity of the most experienced surgeon. His disposition to do good appeared so early that when he was a boy, he used to give to the poor the money which other boys spent in general in an idle and unprofitable manner. He was once very much in love with a young lady of great beauty and accomplishment; but imagining that she would not make him a suitable assistant in his attendance upon the poor, he gave over all thoughts of marriage; not very wisely, perhaps, sacrificing to the extreme delicacy of one woman only his attachment to that sex, in whose tenderness of disposition, and in whose instinctive quickness of feeling, he would have found tluufc reciprocation of benevolence he was anxious to procure. He was so forcibly struck with the wretched situation of the great hospital of Paris (the Hotel Dieu, as it is called), where the dead, the dying, and the living, are very often crowded together in the same bed (five persons at a time occasionally occupying the same bed), that he wrote a plan of reform for that hospital, which he shewed in manuscript to the famous John James Rousseau, requesting him to correct it for him. “What correction,” replied Rousseau, “can a work want, that one cannot read without shuddering at the horrid pictures it represents? What is the end of writing if it be not to touch and interest the passions?” M. de Chamousset was occasionally the author of many benevolent and useful schemes; such as the establishment of the penny post at Paris; the bringing good water to that city; a plan for a house of association, by which any man, for a small sum of money deposited, may be taken care of when he is sick; and many others; not forgetting one for the abolition of begging, which is to be found in “Lesvues d'uncitoyen.” M. de Chamousset was now so well known as a man of active and useful benevolence, that M. de Choiseul (when he was in the war department) made him, in 1761, intendant-general of the military hospitals of France, the king, Louis XV. telling him, “that he had never, since he came to the throne, made out an appointment so agreeable to himself;” and added, “I am sure I can never make any one that will be of such service to my troops.” The pains he took in this employment were incredible. His attention to his situation was so great, and conducted with such good sense and understanding, that the marshal de Soubise, on visiting one of the great military hospitals at Dusseldorf, under the care of M. de Chamousset, said, “This is the first time I have been so happy as to go round an hospital without hearing any complaints.” Another marshal of France told his wife: “Were I sick,” said he, “I would be taken to the hospital of which M. de Chamousset has the management.” M. de Chamousset was one day saying to the minister, that he would bring into a court of justice the peculation and rapine of a particular person. “God forbid you should!” answered the minister, “you run a risk of not dying in your bed.” “I had rather,” replied he, “die in any manner you please, than live to see my country devoured by scoundrels.”

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

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

Champagne died in 1674, having been much beloved by all that knew him, both as a good painter and a good man. He had a son and two daughters by his wife, du Chesne’s daughter, whom he married after her father’s death: but two of these children dying before him, and the third retiring to a nunnery (for she was a daughter), he left his substance to John Baptiste de Champagne, his nephew. John Baptiste was also born at Brussels, and bred up in the profession of painting under his uncle; whose manner and gusto he always followed, though he spent fifteen months in Italy. He lived in the most friendly and affectionate manner with his uncle, and died professor of the academy of painting- at Paris, in 1688, aged 42 years.

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

, a most voluminous medical and historical writer, was born in 1472. After studying medicine he took his degree of doctor at Pavia in 1515, and in 1520 was made consul at Lyons, an honour which he again enjoyed in 1533, on returning from Italy, whither he had accompanied Anthony duke of Lorrain as his army physician, and by whom he was knighted for his bravery as well as skill. He died in 1539 or 1540, after having founded the college of physicians at Lyons. His works amount to twenty-four volumes, mostly quarto, of which a list may be seen in our authorities, but there is not one of them that can be noticed for excellence either of matter or style. Perhaps the best of his historic cal compilations is, “Les Grandes Chroniques des dues jde Savoie,” Paris, 1516, fol.

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

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

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

, a learned English prelate, was the son of Samuel Chandler, esq. of the city of Dublin, by his wife Elizabeth, whose maiden name was Calvert. Our prelate was probably born in that city, but received his academical education at Emanuel college, Cambridge, where at the age of twenty-five, he commenced M. A. was ordained priest, and made chaplain to Lloyd, bishop of Winchester, in 1693. He was prebendary of Pipa Minor, April 27, 1697, and afterwards canon of Lichfield and Worcester. He was nominated to the bishopric of Lichfield, Sept. 5, 1717, and consecrated at Lambeth, Nov. 17. From that see he was translated to Durham, Nov. 5, 1730; and it was then publicly said that he gave 9000l. for that opulent see, which is scarcely credible. He was, it is universally acknowledged, a prelate of great erudition, having rendered himself justly valued and esteemed as a worthy father of the church of England, and patron of the truth, by his learning and convincing writings, particularly “A Defence of Christianity from the prophecies of the Old Testament, wherein are considered all the objections against this kind of proof advanced in a late Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion,” London, 1725, 8vo. This was reckoned a very learned and elaborate work, and compelled Collins to produce in 1727 a second book, particularly in answer to the bishop of Lichfield, which rank our author then held: this was entitled “The Scheme of Literal Prophecy considered,” and this occasioned a second answer from the learned bishop, entitled “A Vindication of the Defence of Christianity, from the prophecies of the Old Testament,” published in 1728: in this he largely and very solidly vindicates the antiquity and authority of the book of Daniel, and the application of the prophecies there contained to the Messiah, against Collins’s objections; and also fully obviates what he had farther advanced against the antiquity and universality of the tradition and expectation among the Jews concerning the Messiah. His other publications were eight occasional Sermons, the “Chronological Dissertation” prefixed to Arnald’s Ecclesiasticus, and a preface to a posthumous work of Dr. Ralph Cudworth’s, entitled “A Treatise concerning eternal and immutable MotaKty.” He died at his house in Grosvenor-square July 20, 1750, of the stone, several large ones being found in his body, when opened, and was buried at Farnham Royal, in the county of Bucks. Whilst he was bishop of Durham, he gave 50l. towards augmenting Monkwearmouth living, also 200l. to purchase a house for the minister of Stockton, and 2000l. to be laid out in a purchase for the benefit of clergymen’s widows in the diocese of Durham; and it is recorded, much to his honour, that he never sold any of his patent offices.

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Chandler was a man of very extensive learning and eminent abilities; his apprehension was quick and his judgment penetrating; he had a warm and vigorous imagination he was a very instructive and animated preacher; and his talents in the pulpit, and as a writer, procured him very great and general esteem, not only among the dissenters, but among large numbers of the established church. He was well known and much respected by many persons of the highest rank, and was offered considerable preferment in the church but he steadily rejected every proposition of that kind. He was principally instrumental in the establishment of the fund for relieving the widows and orphans of poor protestant dissenting ministers: the plan of it was first formed by him; and it was by his interest and application to his friends that many of the subscriptions for its support were procured.

Dr. Chandler’s other works were: 1. “Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists, in their late writings against Christianity,” 1727. 2. “A Vindication of the Antiquity and Authority of Daniel’s Prophecies,” 1728, 3. A translation of Limborch’s “History of the Inquisition,” 1731, 2 vols. 4to. To this he prefixed “A large introduction, concerning the rise and progress of persecution, and the real and pretended causes of it.” This was attacked by Dr. Berriman, in a pamphlet entitled “Brief Remarks on Mr. Chandler’s Introduction to the History of the Inquisition.” Our author published, in the form of a letter, an answer to these “Remarks,” which engaged Dr. Berriman to write “A Review of his Remarks,” to which Mr. Chandler replied in “A second Letter to William Berriman, D. D. &c. in which his Review of his Hemarks on the Introduction to the History of the Inquisition is considered, and the Characters of St. Athanasius, and Martyr Laud, are farther stated and supported.” This publication was soon followed by another, entitled “A Vindication of a passage of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London, in his second Pastoral Letter, against the misrepresentations of William Berriman, D. D. in a Letter to his Lordship;” and here the controversy ended. 4. “The Dispute better adjusted about the proper time of applying for a repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts,” &c.“1732, 8vo. 5.” A Paraphrase and critical Commentary on the prophecy of Joel,“1735, 4to. This was part of a commentary on the whole of the prophets, which he did not live to finish. 6.” The History of Persecution,“1736, 8vo. 7.” A Vindication of the History of the Old Testament,“in answer to Morgan’s” Moral Philosopher,“1741, 8vo. 8.” A Defence of the Prime Ministry and Character of Joseph,“1742, 8vo. 9.” The Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ re-examined, and their Testimony proved consistent,“1744, 8vo. 10.” The Case of Subscription to explanatory articles of faith, &c. calmly considered,“1748, 8vo. 11.” A Letter to the rev. Mr. John Guyse, occasioned by his two sermojis on Acts ix. 20. in which the scripture notion of preaching Christ is stated and defended, and Mr. Guyse’s charges against his brethren are considered and proved groundless,“1729, 8vo. 12.” A second Letter to the rev. Mr. John Guyse, in which Mr. Guyse’s latitude and restrictive ways of preaching Christ are proved to be entirely the same; the notion of preaching Christ is farther cleared and defended; the charge alledged against 'him of defaming his brethren is maintained and supported; and his solemn arts in controversy are considered and exposed,“1730, 8vo. 13.” A Letter to the right hon. the Lord Mayor; occasioned by his lordship’s nomination of five persons, disqualified by act of parliament, as fit and proper persons to serve the office^ of Sheriffs, in which the nature and design of the corporation act is impartially considered and stated,“1738, 8vo. 14.” An Account of the Conferences held in Nicholas-lane, Feb. 13, 1734, between two Romish priests and some protestant divines; with some remarks on a pamphlet entitled The Conferences, c. truly stated/ 7 1735, 8vo. 15. “Cassiodori Senatoris Complexiones in Epistolas, Acta Apostolorum, & Apocalypsin, e vetustissimis Canonicorum Veronensium membranis nuper erutee. Editio altera ad Florentinam fideliter expressa, opera & cura Samuelis Chandleri,” 1722, 12mo. 16. “A short and plain Catechism, being an explanation of the Creed, Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer, by way of question and answer,” 1742, 12mo. 17. “Great Britain’s Memorial against the Pretender and Popery; to which is annexed, the method of dragooning the French protestants after the revocation of the edict of Nantes,” 1715, 12mo. This piece was thought so seasonable at the time of the rebellion, that it passed through ten editions. 18. “Many occasional sermons.” Dr. Chandler also wrote about fifty papers in the weekly publication called “The Old Whig, or Consistent Protestant.” In 1768, 4 vols. of his sermons were published by Dr. Amory, according to his own directions in his last will; to which was prefixed a neat engraving of him, from an excellent portrait by Mr. Chamberlin. He also expressed a desire to have some of his principal pieces, reprinted in 4 vols. 8vo; proposals were accordingly published for that purpose, but did not meet with sufficient encouragement. But in 1777, another work of our author was published, in 1 vol. 4to, “A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, with doctrinal and practical Observations; together with a critical and practical Commentary on the two Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians.” In this there are some valuable criticisms, but all are not entitled to that praise. Dr. Chandler also left in his interleaved Bible, a large number of critical notes, chiefly in Latin, and which were intended to be published; but the design has not yet been executed, and the four gentlemen to whom they were intrusted, Dr. Kippis, Mr. Farmer, Dr. Price, and Dr. Savage, are all dead, nor have we heard in what manner they disposed of the copy.

, D. D.an eminent scholar and antiquary, was born in 1738, and educated at Magdalencollege, Oxford, of which he was some time fellow. He took his degree of M. A. Oct. 15, 1761, that of B. D. April 23, 1773, and in December of the same year that of D.D. Having entered into holy orders, he had the college living of Worldlyham, in Hampshire, and was afterwards rector of Tilehurst, in Berkshire. His first appearance in the republic of letters was as editor of the “Oxford Marbles,” in which capacity he was employed by the university. The “Marmora Oxoniensia” were accordingly printed at the Clarendon press, in a magnificent folio, in 1763, with an elegant Latin preface by the editor, and a very copious index by his friend Mr. Loveday. Mr. Chandler also corrected the mistakes of the former editors, and in some of the inscriptions, particularly that of the Parian Chronicle, supplied the lacuna by many ingenious conjectures.

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

These gentlemen embarked June 9, 1764, on board a ship bound for Constantinople; and were landed at the Dardanelles on the 25th of August. Having visited the Sigean promontory, the ruins of Troas, with the islands of Tenedos and Scio they arrived at Smyrna on the 11th of September, and from that city, as their head-quarters, they made several excursions. In August 1765, they arrived at Athens where they staid till June 1766“; visiting Marathon, Eleasis, Salamis, Megara, and other places in the neighbourhood. Leaving Athens, they proceeded by the little island of Calauna, to Traszene, Epidaurus,Argos, and Corinth. Thence they visited Delphi, Patrae, Elis, and Zante and on the 31st of August they set sail for Bristol, and arrived in England November 2, following. The result of this tour was published in 1769, under the title of” Ionian Antiquities, published with permission of the society of Dilletanti. By R. Chandler, M. A. F. S. A. N. Revett, architect, and W. Pars, painter.' 7 Imp. fol. a volume which while it did honour to the society, amply justified the expectations formed of the talents employed.

In 1774, Mr. (now Dr.) Chandler, published what maybe considered as a valuable supplement to the collections of ancient inscriptions by Gruter, Muratori, &c. under the title of “Inscriptiones antiques, pleraeque nondum editac, in Asia Minore et Graecia, praeseriim Athenis coilectse,” fol. Clarendon press. The year following he gratified a much larger proportion of the public by his “Travels in Asia Minor; or an Account of a Tour made at the expence of the Society of Dilletanti,” 4to, a work of considerable learning, and replete with curious information. This was immediately followed by his '< Travels in Greece," 1776, 4to: the principal part of this volume consists of a description of Attica and its celebrated capital Athens, which is highly interesting, although, both in this and the preceding volume of travels, there are marks of carelessness and haste which frequently obscure the author’s meaning.

After his return from his travels, Dr. Chandler, if we are not mistaken, resided chiefly on his living at Tilehurst, where he undertook, at the instance of the late Mr. Loveday of Caversham, to collect materials for a life of William Waynflete, founder of Magdalen college. These he had put together in a state fit for the press as early as 1791, but why he did not then publish them does not appear. Before his death he gave the ms. to the late Charles Lambert, esq. F. S. A. of the Inner Temple, with a request that he would arrange the notes and prepare the whole for publication in the best and speediest manner possible. The notes, however, were found in a very confused state, and we suspect that, if the learned author had himself revised the work, he would have discovered other imperfections. It was, however, published in an elegant volume in 1811, 8vo, and may be considered as a very valuable addition to collegiate history. Dr. Chandler died at Tilehurst-house, Feb. 9, 1810, leaving by his wife Miss Dorrien, whom he married in 1785, a son and daughter.

, a learned French antiquary, was born at Paris, Sept. 12, 1538, and became highly distinguished for general erudition, and especially for his knowledge of civil and canon law, history, politics, and the belles lettres. Nor was he less admired for the excellence of his private character. Louis XIII. made him intendant of the fortifications of the gabelles, or excise on salt, &c. in the principality of Sedan, and lastly intendant of the finances of the duchies of Bar and Lorrain. He compiled, from original records, “Historical Memoirs of the Houses of Lorrain and Bar;” the first part of which only was published at Paris, 1642, folio. He also published other works on detached parts of French history; and after his death, his son published his “Treatise on Fiefs,” 1662, folio, in which he maintains an opinion, which has been thought to be erroneous, viz. that hereditary fiefs commenced only after the time of Hugh Capet. He died at Paris in 1658.

, an ingenious French writer, the son of an advocate, was born at Paris in 1741, and became teacher of the French language in a military school in Spain, where he published a French grammar, entitled “Arte de Hablar bien Frances,” Madrid, 4ta, which went through six editions. On his return to France he was appointed professor of history in the central school of Gers, and afterwards in the imperial school at Fountainbleau. He died at Auch, Oct. 15, 1808. His works were, 3. “Dictionnaire des mots et usages introduits par la resolution,” 8vo, a curious medley of cant phrases, which he published under the name of M. L'Epithete of Politicopolis. 2. “Voyage dans les trois royaumes d‘Angleterre, d’Ecosse, et d'Irlande:” this journey he took in 1788 and 1789, and the work appeared in 1792, 3 vols. 8vo. 3. “Lettres ecrites de Barcelonne a un zelateur de la liberte” qui voyage en Allemande,“1792, 8vo. 4.” Voyage philosophique, politique, et litteraire, fait en Russie pendant les annees 1788 and 1789, &c.“2 vols. 8vo, replete with curious and original information. 5.” Essai didactique sur la forme que doivent avoir les livres elementaires faits pour les ecoles nationales,“1795, 8vo. 6.” Tables chronologiques,“a translation of Blair’s Chronology, 1797, 4to. 7. The Index to Beau marc hais’s edition of Voltaire’s works, which forms the 71st and 72d volume of that edition. 8.” Rudimens de i'histoire,“a work of very considerable merit. 9.” La Science de I'histoire,“1803, et seqq. 4 vols. 4to. This work is peculiarly happy in the plan, and judicious and accurate in its execution. 10.” Histoire de France abregee ct chronologique depuis les Gaulois et les Francs jusqu'en 1808," 2 vols. 8vo.

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

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

, minister of the Walloon church at the Hague, died in that city in 1746. He was reputed a man of great piety and learning, and deserves notice here as the editor of the “Bibliotheque Anglaise,” a species of Review, which he carried on from 1716 to 1727, making 15 vols. 12mo, and of the “Bibliotheque raisonnee des Ouvrages des Savans,” from July 1728 to June 1735, 14 vols. In these he had the occasional assistance of other literary men, and they contain many valuable pieces of criticism. He also translated Ditton on the “Resurrection,” and a treatise on the “Necessity of public Worship,” the latter in favour of the protestants of Languedoc.

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

, the descendant of a noble family, was born at Bourges in 1655, and came to Paris in his youth, where he was trained up to business, and obtained the place of receiver-general of the finances at Rochelle. During this employment he found leisure to indulge his taste for polite literature, and the prince of Conti having heard of his merits made him one of his secretaries in 1687. The prince also sent him into Svvisserland on political business, and the king being afterwards informed of his talents, employed him in the same capacity. La Chapelle disclosed his knowledge of the politics of Europe in a work printed at Paris in 1703, under the disguise of Basil, in 8 vols. 12mo, entitled “Lettres d'un Suisse a un Francois,” explaining the relative interest of the powers at war. He wrote also “Memoires historiques sur la Vie d'Armand de Bourbon, prince de Conti,” 16$9, 4to, and, if we are not mistaken, translated and published in English in 1711, 8vo. He also wrote poetry, and some dramas, in which last he was an unsuccessful imitator of Racine. In 1688 he was admitted a member of the French academy. He died at Paris in 1723.

, a dramatic poet, and translator of Homer, was born in 1557, as generally supposed, in Kent, but we have no account at what school he was educated: he was, however, sent to the university when he was about seventeen years of age, and spent about two years at Trinity college, Oxford, where he paid little attention to logic or philosophy, but was eminently distinguished for his knowledge in the Greek and Roman classics. About the year 1576 he quitted the university, and repaired to the metropolis, where he commenced a friendship with Shakspeare, Spenser, Daniel, Marlow, and other celebrated wits. In 1595 he published, in 4to, a poem entitled “Ovid’s Banquet of Sauce, a coronet for his mistress philosophy, and his amorous zodiac:” to which he added, a translation of a poem into English, called “The amorous contention of Phillis and Flora,” written in Latin by a friar in 1400. The following year he published in 4to, “The Shield of Achilles,' 7 from Homer; and soon after, in the same year, a translation of seven books of the Iliad, in 4to. In 1600, fifteen books were printed in a thin folio; and lastly, without date, an entire translation of the Iliad, in folio, under the following title:” The Iliads of Homer, Prince of Poets. Never before in any language truly translated. With a comment upon some of his chief places: done according to the Greek by George Chapman. At London, printed by Nathaniel Butter."

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

In 1605 he published a comedy in 4to, called “All Fools,” the plot of which is founded on Terence’s Heautontiniorumenos, and which was performed at Black Friars. Jacob says that “it was accounted an excellent play in those days, and was acted before king James.” The following year he produced two other comedies one called “The Gentleman Usher,” and the other “Monsieur D'Olive.” They were both printed in quarto it is uncertain whether the first was ever performed but the latter was often acted with success at Black Friars. In 1607 he published in 4to, “Bussy d'Amboise, a Tragedy,” which was often exhibited at St. Paul’s in the reign of James I. ad after the Restoration was revived with success. The same year he published in 4to, “Caesar and Pompey, a lloman Tragedy, declaring their wars, out of whose events is evicted this proposition, Only a just man is a free man.” The following year he produced “The Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, duke of Biron, marshal of France,” 4to, performed at Black Friars, in two parts. In 1611 he published in 4to, “May-day,” which is styled a witty comedy, and which was acted at Black Friars; and in 1612 another comedy, called “The Widow’s Tears;” acted both at Black and White Friars. It has been observed, that “some parts of this play are very fine, and the incidents affecting and interesting:” but the catastrophe is thought exceptionable.

About this time he published an “Epicede, or Funeral Song on prince Henry;” and when the societies of Lincoln’s Inn and the Middle Temple, in 1613, had resolved to exhibit a splendid masque at Whitehall, in honour of the nuptials of the Palsgrave and the princess Elizabeth, Chapman was employed for the poetry, and Inigo Jones for the machinery. The same year he published, in 4to, a tragedy entitled “Bussy d'Amboise his Revenge,” not acted with much applause. In 1714 he published in 4tq, “Andromeda liberata; or, the Nuptials of Perseus and Andromeda,” dedicated, in a poetical epistle, to Robert, earl of Somerset, and Frances, his countess. The same year he printed his version of the “Odyssey,” which he also dedicated to the earl of Somerset. This was soon followed, by the “Batrachomuomachy,” and the “Hymns,” and “Epigrams.” In 1616 he published in 12mo, a translation of “Musceus,” with a dedication to Inigo Jones, in which he is addressed as the most skilful and ingenious architect that England had yet seen. Mr. Warton remarks, that “there was an intimate friendship between our author and this celebrated restorer of Grecian palaces.” Chapman also published a paraphrastic translation, in verse, of Petrarch’s “Seven Penitential Psalms,” with “A xHymn to Christ upon the Cross;” “The Tragedy of Al­>phonsus, emperor of Germany” “Revenge for Honour,” a tragedy and some attribute to him the “Two Wise Men,” a comedy. He is also supposed to have translated “Hesiod,” but it does not appear to have been printed.

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

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

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

, D. D. the son of John Chapman, of Billingham, in the county of Durham, was born at that place in 1717, and educated at Richmond school in Yorkshire. He afterwards entered of Christ college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A. B. 1737, A.M. 174-J, and obtained a fellowship. In 1746 he was chosen master of Magdalen college, and had the degree of LL. D. conferred on him in 1748, and that of D. D. in 1749. In 1748 he served the office of vice-chancellor, and was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains. In 1749, he was rector of Kirby-over-blower in Yorkshire. In 1750 he was presented by the king to a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Durham; and in 1758, was appointed official to the dean and chapter. He died at Cambridge, June 9, 1760, in his forty-third year, and was interred in the chapel of Magdalen college. “He died,” says bishop Hurd, “in the flower of his life and fortune; I knew him formerly very well. He was in his nature a vain and busy man.” Dr. Chapman is now known only by his “Essay on the Roman Senate,” 1750, in which he coincides with Dr. Middleton’s opinion on the same subject. They were both animadverted on by Mr. Hooke, the Roman historian, in his “Observations, &c.” published in 1758, 4to.

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

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

The latter years of her life were embittered by the loss of the greater part of the friends of her youth; and after the death of her brother in 1799, as London had no more charms for her, she determined to settle at Winchester, where her favourite niece was married to the rev. Ben. Jeffreys; but the death of this young lady in child-bed, made her relinquish the design, and remain in her cheerless lodgings in London. So many privations had now begun to affect her mind, and her sympathizing friends persuaded her to remove to Hadley, where she died Dec. 25, 1801, in the seventy- fourth year of her age. In 1807, her whole works were published in 2 vols. 12mo, with a portion of her literary correspondence, and an interesting memoir of her life, to which we are indebted for the above sketch.

, an eminent French astronomer, was born at Mauriac, a town in Upper Auvergne, on the 23d of May, 1728, of John Chappe, lord of the barony of Auteroche, and Magdalen de la Farge, daughter of Peter de la Farge, lord of larPierre. From his birth he enjoyed the valuable advantage of not being under the necessity of struggling, like many men of genius, with adversity and penury. The distinguished rank which his parents held in their province, added to their wealth and opulence, enabled them to bestow upon their son an excellent education, the foundation of which was laid at Mauriac, where he began his studies. Having made considerable progress here, he went afterwards to finish them at the college de Louis le Grand. M. Chappe, from his earliest infancy, shewed a surprising turn for drawing and the mathematics. Descartes was scarcely eight years of age when he was styled a philosopher, and Chappe at that age might have been called a mathematician. An irresistible impulse, and singular disposition, as if innate, led him to draw plans and make calculations; but these pursuits, quite forojgn to the studies in which he was then engaged, occupied no part of that time which was allotted for them. He applied to the former only at those moments which the regulations. of the college suffered him to call his own.

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

The abbe Chappe, however, made himself known in the astronomical world by a work of much greater importance. This was a translation of the works of Dr. Halley from the English. This translation appeared in 1752; and the additions made by the translator, and the new inferences he drew from the labours of the English astronomer, placed him almost on a level with the author. The abbe Chappe had now given too striking a specimen of his talents not to attract the notice of government. The king having ordered plans of several places in the district at Bitche in Lorraine to be taken, and the forest in the neighbourhood of the town of that name to be surveyed, the abbe Chappe’s merit procured him the superintendance and direction of this business; and the event shewed, that the ministry could not have chosen a person more deserving of their confidence. On his return from this expedition he was elected a member of the royal academy of sciences; and on the 17th of January 1759, he obtained the place of assistant astronomer, vacant by the promotion of M. de la Lande to that of associate.

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

The abbe set out for the place of his destination in the month of November 1760. After encountering a variety of almost incredible difficulties, he arrived at Tobolsk, where ignorance and superstition prepared new danger for him. The simple Russians, attentive to all his actions, beheld his preparations with the utmost terror; the observatory which he caused to be erected, and the instruments he transported thither, increased their alarm; and the overflowing of the river Irtish, which inundated part of the city, a natural consequence of the thaw that took place, served still more to confirm them in their suspicions. The governor of Tobolsk, a man of education, to whom the world is indebted for a correct chart of the Caspian, was obliged to give the abb a guard for his protection. The moment so long wished for, and purchased by such fatigue and peril, being at length arrived, the abbe", on the 5th of June, made every necessary preparation for observing the transit; but the pleasure which he anticipated from the success of his expedition was not free from a mixture of pain, for the sky, during the night, became quite overcast. This was a new source of uneasiness to the abbe; but luckily for science, a favourable wind, which sprung up at sun-rise, revived his hopes, by withdrawing the veil that obscured the object of his researches. The observation was made with the necessary precision, in presence of M. Ismailof, count Poushkin, and the archbishop of Tobolsk: and the academy of sciences at Paris, as well as that of Petersburg, received the particulars of this event soon after by a courier whom M. Ismailof immediately dispatched. The glory of this observation had preceded the abbé, and prepared new honours for him at St. Petersburg. The empress, with a view of inducing him to settle there, made him an offer, by means of baron de Breteuil, of the distinguished place which had been occupied by M. Delisle. But choosing rather to pass his days at home, he rejected the offers made him. On his arrival in France hebegan, to prepare an account of his journey, which was published in 1768, in 3 vols. 4to, elegantly printed and adorned with engravings. Besides the account of the particular object of his journey, the philosopher finds in it the history of mankind and of nature; and the statesman the political system and interest of nations. The great labour required to prepare this work for publication did not interrupt the abba’s astronomical pursuits. He enriched the memoirs of the academy with several instructive pieces; and that which he presented in 1767 is the more valuable, as it confirms the experiments made upon electricity at Tobolsk, and demonstrates the identity of the electric fluid with lightning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a protestant writer, born at Geneva, whose family were originally of Poitiers, was preceptor to William III. king of England; afterwards governor of the pages to George duke of Brunswick Lunen burg, which post he held till his death, August 31, 1701, at Zell. Three days before his death he wrote a sonnet, in which he complains of being old, blind, and poor. He collected and printed “Tavernier’s Voyages,” 1675, 4to. Jurieu having written against what is there said of the Dutch, in his book entitled “L'Esprit de M. Arnauld,” Chapuzeau answered him in 1691, by a work called “Defense du Sieur Samuel Chapuzeau contre l'Esprit de M. Arnauld.” He wrote, besides, “Eloge de la Ville de Lyons,” 4to. Une Relation de Savoye; l‘Europe vivante, ou relation nouveile, historique, politique, et de tous les Etats, tels qu’ils etoient en 1666,“Paris, 1667, 4to. He also published” Traite de la maniere de Pre'cher, suivi de quatre Sermons prononcées a Cassel.“Chapuzeau tried every kind of writing, even comedies, the greatest part of which have been collected under the title of” La Muse enjouee, ou le Theatre Comique.“In 1694 he published the plan of an” Historical, Geographical, and Philological Dictionary," on which he employed many years, but it was not finished at his death. He complains, however, of Moreri having availed himself of his manuscripts, but does not inform us where he found them.

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

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

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

In the preface to his Voyages, he promised other works, as “A Geography of Persia;” “A Compendious History of that Empire, taken from Persian Authors;” and “Observations on Passages of the Holy Scripture, explained by the manners and customs of the East,” but the two former never appeared, and the latter was discovered by a public advertisement In 1770, sir John’s descendants advertised a reward of twenty guineas for this manuscript, which they call “A Commentary or Explanation of the Old Testament, from the manners and customs of the East, written in French by sir J. Chardin,” and which, they add, about twenty years before, i. e. 1750, was seen by a gentleman in the possession of Dr. Oldfield. It was describecTto have been a thin quarto volume, in a very small hand. But when Mr. Harmer compiled his “Observations on divers passages of Scripture, &c.” illustrated by books of travels, he recovered this treasure by means of sir William Jlusgrave, bart. in whose possession it was, not a single quarto volume, but six small ms volumes, the principal part of which Mr. Harmer incorporated in his valuable work.

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

, of Aphrodisium, secretary to a rhetorician named Athenagoras, lived at the end of the fourth century, if these are not fictitious names, which there is great reason to think. A Greek romance, in his style, was some years ago found, entitled “The Loves of Chsereas and Callirhoe,” an edition of which was published by M. d‘Orville, professor of history at Amsterdam, 1750, 4to, with a Latin translation and notes. A French translation appeared at Paris, 1763, 2 vols. 8vo, and M. Fallet published a new one, 1775, 8vo. Gesner, Fabricius, and M. Huet, had spoken of this romance as being only known by name. It is a very amusing composition, and the notes of D’Orville contain a treasure of critical learning. They were adopted afterwards by "Reiske in his edition of Leipsic, 1783, 8vo, and the novel was translated into English, 1763, 2 vols. 12mo, with a preface giving all the account that is known of the author.

was youngest daughter of CoUey Cibber the player, and afterwards poet-laureat. At eight years old she was put to school, but had an education more suitable to a boy than a girl; and as she grew up, followed the same plan, being more frequently in the stable than in the bed-chamber, and mistress of the curry-comb, though ignorant of the needle. Her very amusements all took the same masculine turn shooting, hunting, riding races, and digging in a garden, being ever her favourite exercises. She also relates an act of her prowess when a mere child, in protecting the house when in expectation of an attack from thieves, by the firing of pistols and blunderbusses out at the windows. All her actions seem to have had a boyish mischievousness in them, and she sometimes appears to have run great risque of ending them with the most fatal consequences. This wildness, however, was put some check to, by her marriage, when very young, with Mr. Richard Charke, an eminent performer on the violin; immediately after which she launched into the billows of a stormy world, where she was, through the remainder of her life, buffeted about without ever once reaching a peaceful harbour. Her husband’s insatiable passion for women soon gave her just cause of uneasiness, and in a short time appears to have occasioned a separation.

She then applied to the stage, apparently from inclination as well as necessity; and opened with the little part of Mademoiselle in the “Provoked Wife,” in which she met with all the success she could expect. From this she rose in her second and third attempts to the capital characters of Alicia in “Jane Shore,” and Andromache in the “Distressed Mother;” in which, notwithstanding the remembrance of Mrs. Porter and Mrs. Oldfield, she met with great indulgence from the audience; and being remarkable for reading well, was suffered upon sudden emergencies to read characters of no less importance than those of Cleopatra and queen Elizabeth. She was after this engaged at a good salary and sufficient supply of very considerable parts, at the Haymarket, and after that at Drury-lane. She now seemed well settled, and likely to have made no inglorious figure in theatrical life; but that ungovernable impetuosity of passions, which ran through all her actions, induced her to quarrel with Fleetwood, the then manager; whom she not only left on a sudden without any notice given, but even vented her spleen against him in public, by a little dramatic farce, called “The Art of Management;” and though Fleetwood forgave that injury, and restored her to her former station, yet she acknowledges that she afterwards very ungratefully left him a second time, without any blame on his part.

, was born June 27, 1682 and set off in the style and with the spirit of Alexander the Great. His preceptor asking him, what he thought of that hero? “I think,” says Charles, “that I should choose to be like him.” Ay, but, says the tutor, he only lived 32 years: “Oh, answered the prince, that is long enough, when a man has conquered kingdoms.” Impatient to reign, he caused himself to be declared of age at 15 and at his coronation, he snatched the crown from the archbishop of Upsal, and put it upon his head himself, with an air of grandeur which struck the people. Frederic IV. king of Denmark, Augustus king of Poland, and Peter tzar of Muscovy, taking advantage of his minority, entered into a confederacy against this youth. Charles, aware of it, though scarce 18, attacked them one after another. He hastened first to Denmark, besieged Copenhagen, forced the Danes into their entrenchments, and caused a declaration to be made to king Frederic, that, “if he did not justice to the duke of Holstein, his brotherin-law, against whom he had committed hostilities, he must prepare to see Copenhagen destroyed, and his kingdom laid waste by fire and sword.” These menaces brought on the treaty of Frawendal; in which, without any advantages to himself, but quite content with humbling his enemy, he demanded and obtained all he wished for his ally.

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

This peace was concluded in 1706, and now he might and ought to have been reconciled with the tzar Peter; but he chose to turn his arms against him, apparently with a design to dethrone him, as he had dethroned Augustus. Peter was aware of it, and said, that “his brother Charles affected to be Alexander, but would be greatly disappointed if he expected to find him Darius.” Charles Jeft Saxony in the autumn of 1707, with an army of 43,000 men: the Russians abandoned Grodno at his approach He drove them before him, passed the Boristhenes, treated with the Cossacks, and came to encamp upon the Dezena; and, after several advantages, was marching to Moscow through the deserts of the Ukraine. But fortune abandoned him at Pultowa, July 1709; where he was beaten by Peter, wounded in the leg, had all his army either destroyed or taken prisoners, and forced to save himself by being carried off in a litter. And, thus reduced to seek an asylum among the Turks, he gained Otchakof, and retired to Bender. All which replaced Augustus on the throne of Poland, and immortalized Peter.

The grand seignor gave Charles a handsome reception, and appointed him a guard of 400 Tartars. The king of Sweden’s view, in coming to Turkey, was to excite the Porte against the tzar Peter: but, not succeeding either by menaces or intrigues, he grew in time obstinate and restive, and even braved the grand seignor, although he was his prisoner. The Porte wanted much to get rid of their guest, and at length was compelled to offer a little violence. Charles entrenched himself in his house at Bender, and defended himself against an army with 40 domestics, and would not surrender till his house was on fire. From Bender he was removed to Demotika, where he grew sulky, and was resolved to lie in bed all the time he should be there: and he actually did lie in bed 10 months, feigning to be sick.

Meanwhile his misfortunes increased daily. His enemies, taking advantage of his absence, destroyed his army, and took from him not only his own conquests, but those of his predecessors. At length he left Demotika; travelled post, with two companions only, through Franconia and Mecklenbourg; and arrived on the llth day at Stralsund, Nov. 22, 1714. Beset in this town, he saved himself in Sweden, now reduced to a most deplorable condition. But his misfortunesTTad not cooled his passion for warring: he attacked Norway with an army of 20,000 men: he formed the siege of Frederickshall in Dec. 17 Is, where, as he was visiting the works of his engineers by star-light, he was struck upon the head with a ball, and killed upon the spot. His death happened on December 11.

Thus perished Charles and all his projects: for he was meditating designs which would have changed the face of Europe. The tzar was uniting with him to re-establish Stanislaus, and dethrone Augustus. He was about to furnish ships to drive the house of Hanover from the throne of England, and replace the pretender in it; and land-forces at the same time to attack George I. in his states of Hanover, and especially in Bremen and Verden, which he had taken from Charles. “Charles XII.” says Montesquieu, ic was not Alexander, but he would have been Alexander’s best soldier.“Heriaut observes,” that Charles in his projects had no relish for the probable: to furnish gout to him, success must lie beyond the bounds of probability." Doubtless he might be called the Quixote of the north. He carried, as his historian says, all the virtues of the hero to an excess, which made them as dangerous and pernicious as the opposite vices. His firmness was obstinacy, his liberality profusion, his courage rashness, his severity cruelty: he was in his last years less a king than a tyrant, and more a soldier than an hero. The projects of Alexander, whom he affected to imitate, were not only wise, but wisely executed; whereas Charles, knowing nothing but arms, never regulated any of his movements by policy, according to the exigencies of the conjuncture, but suffered himself to be borne along by a brutal courage, which often led him into difficulties, and at length occasioned his death. He was a singular man, rather than a great man.

As to his person, he was tall and of a noble mien, had a fine open forehead, large blue eyes, flaxen hair, fair complexion, an handsome nose, but little beard, and a laugh not agreeable. His manners were harsh and austere, not to say savage: and, as to religion, he was indifferent towards all, though outwardly a Lutheran. A few anecdotes will illustrate his character. No dangers, however great, made the least impression upon him. When a horse or two were killed under him at the battle of Narva in 1700, he leaped nimbly upon fresh ones, saying, “These people find me exercise.” One day, when he was dictating letters to a secretary, a bomb fell through the roof into the next room of the house, where they were sitting. The secretary, terrified lest the house should come down upon them, let his pen drop out of his hand: “What is the matter,” says the king calmly. The secretary could only reply, “Ah, sir, the bomb.” “The bomb!” says the king; “what has the bomb to do with what I am dictating? Go on.”

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

Though Charles lived hardily himself, a soldier did not fear to remonstrate to him against some bread, which was very black and mouldy, and which yet was the only provision the troops had. Charles called for a piece of it, and calmly ate it up; saying, “that it was indeed not good, but that it might be eaten.” From the danger he was in in Poland, when he beat the Saxon troops in 1702, a comedy was exhibited at Marienburg, where the combat was represented to the disadvantage of the Swedes, “Oh,” says Charles, hearing of it, “J am far from envying them in this pleasure. Let them beat me upon the theatres as long as they will, provided I do but beat them in the field.”

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

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

, a learned and industrious French Jesuit, was born at St. Quintin in 1684, and died in 1761, aged 78. His fame rests chiefly on the histories of his travels, which were extensive, and his accounts, although diffuse, are in general reckoned very godd authority. They consist of: 1. “Histoire et description gene*rale du Japon,” 1738, 2 vols. 4to; and 1754, 6 vols. 12mo. 2. “Histoire de PIsle de St. Dominique,” 1720, 2 vols. 4to. 3. “Histoire generale de la Nouvelle France,” 1744, 3 vols. 4to, and 6 vols. 12mo. 4. “Histoire générale du Paraguay,” 1756, 6 vols. 12mo, and 3 vols. 4to. From these were translated into English, the “Journal of a Voyage to North America,” 1760, 2 vols. 8vo, abridged afterwards under the title of “Letters to the duchess of Lesdiguieres, giving an account of a voyage to Canada,” &c. 1763, 8vo; and “The History of Paraguay,” 1769, 2 vols. 8vo. Charlevoix also published in 1724, “Vie de Mere Marie de l'Incarnation,” 12mo; and he was for twenty-four years employed on the “Journal de Trevoux,” which he enriched with many valuable articles.

, esq. F. S. A. an ingenious but unfortunate writer, was born Nov. 28, 1756, the only son of John Charnock, esq. a native of the island of Barbadoes, and formerly an advocate of eminence at the English bar, by Frances, daughter of Thomas Boothby, of Chingford in Essex, esq. About 1767 he was placed at the rev. Reynell Cotton’s school at Winchester, and went from thence to the college, where, in the station of a commoner, he was under the immediate care of the celebrated Dr. Joseph Warton, the head master, in whose house he boarded, and became the peculiar favourite of that eminent tutor. Having attained to the seniority of the school, and gained the prize medal annually given for elocution, he removed from Winchester to Oxford, and was, in 1774, entered a gentleman-commoner of Merton college. Here he soon discovered his passion for literary composition, in a multiplicity of fugitive pieces on various subjects, which appeared in the periodical papers; many of them, however, were not of a kind likely to confer permanent reputation, being invectives against the American war, written in a vehement spirit of opposition, under the signatures of Casca, Squib, or Justice.

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

His works, besides many smaller pieces, were, 1. “The Rights of a Free People,” 1792, 8vo, an irony on the democracy of that period. 2. “Biographia Navalis,” 1794, &c. 6 vols. 8vo. 3. “A Letter on Finance and on National Defence,' 7 1798. 4.” A History of Marine Architecture,“3 vols. 4to. 5.” A Life of Lord Nelson,“1806. His” Biograpliia Navalis“is a truly valuable work, and supplies those deficiencies in the previous naval biographies of Campbell and Berkenhout, over whom Mr. Charnock had the superior advantage of professional knowledge. After his death was printed,” Loyalty or Invasion defeated," 1810, an historical tragedy.

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

, dean of the French academy, was born at Paris, Feb. 1620. His early discovery of great acuteness made his friends design him for the bar: but his taste led him to prefer the repose and stillness of the closet, and he became more delighted with languages and antiquity, than with the study of the law. He was made a member of the French academy in 1651, and had the advantage of the best conversation for his improvement. When Colbert became minister of state, he projected the setting up a French East-India company; and to recommend the design more effectually, he thought it proper that a discourse should be published upon this subject. Accordingly he ordered Charpentier to draw one up, and was so pleased with his performance, published in 1664, that he kept him in his family, with a design to place him in another academy which was then founding, and which was afterwards known by the name of “Inscriptions and Medals.” The learned languages, in which Charpentier was a considerable master, his great knowledge of antiquity, and his exact and critical judgment, made him very serviceable in carrying on the business of this newacademy; and it is agreed on all hands, that no person of that learned society contributed more than himself towards that noble series of medals, which were struck of the most considerable events that happened in the reign of Lewis XIV. but his adulation of the king exceeded that of all his contemporaries.

He died April 22, 1702, aged 82. His harangues and discourses, delivered before the academy, or when he was chosen to make a speech to the king, are extant in the collections of the academy. As to the character of his works, it may be said in general, that wit and learning are every where visible but although we meet with some high flights of eloquence, and masterly strokes of composition, his taste has not been thought equal to his learning. His principal works are, “La Vie de Socrate,” 1650, 12mo. A translation of the “Cyropredia,” 1659, 12 mo. “Discours touchant l‘Etablissement d’une Compagnie Frangoise pour le Commerce des Indes Orientales,” 4to. “De Pexcellence de la Langue Francoise,” 1683, 2 vols. 12mo. “Carpentariana,” 12mo, &c. in which there are some amusing anecdotes, but they are not esteemed the best of the Ana.

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

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

, a native of Vendome, studied medicine at Paris, where he took his doctor’s degree in 1608, and was afterwards professor of surgery, and physician to the king. He is principally known as the editor of a very splendid edition of the works of Hippocrates and Galen, on which he expended all his fortune. It was printed in 13 vols. fol. usually bound in nine, the dates of which appear to be from 1639 to 1649, and that of the supplementary volumes about 1672. We have no account of his death, but he appears to have died before 1639.

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

, was born at IssyTEveque, in Burgundy, 1480. He held theoffice of king’s advocate at Autiin till 1522, when Francis I. appointed him counsellor to the parliament of Paris, then president of that of Provence. Chasseneuz was in the latter office when that court gave sentence against the inhabitants of Cabrieres and Merindol. He prevented the execution of it during his life, and died 1542, leaving several works: among the rest, a “Commentary on the Custom of Burgundy,” of which there were five editions in his life-time, and above fifteen since. The last edition is by the president Bouhier, 1717, 4to, new modelled in that which he has since published in 2 vols. fol.

, canon of the cathedral church of Paris, his native place, where he was born in 1639, possessed a very superior degree of knowledge in the liturgies, rites, and ceremonies of the church; and had for that purpose travelled over Italy, France, and Germany; studying every where the particular customs of each separate church. He died 1712, aged seventy-three, leaving a “Universal Martyrology,” Paris, 1709, 4to, and the “Life of St. Chaumont,” 1697, 12mo. He also published the “Hagiographicai Dictionary,” which was inserted by Menage in his etymologies of the French tongue, with great praise of the author, as one whose merit was not duly estimated by the age he lived in.

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

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

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

The next work which the marquis wrote, was his essay “De la felicite publique,” published at Amsterdam, without his name, which was given to the English public in a translation entitled “An Essay on Public Happiness, investigating the state of human nature, under each of its particular appearances, through the several periods of history to the present times,” London, 2 vols. 8vo. While the marquis was engaged on this work he frequently shifted his abode, and was also obliged to attend his regiment (that of Guienne) during four months of the year: at these times he could only have recourse to such books as were at hand, many of which were translations, and but a small number originals; yet, notwithstanding these disadvantages, he has brought together a great variety of historical information, accompanied with many useful, and some fanciful observations. Viewing the then placid state of society in his own and neighbouring countries, he was deceived by his love of peace and happiness, into a kind of prediction that wars would be no more so frequent, or produce such great calamities, as they had in ages past! The translation, we have heard, was by J. Kent, esq. a country gentleman.

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

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

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

Henry II. the successor of Francis, finding that Chatel intended to leave the court, by way of detaining him, bestowed on him the important office of grand almoner, and translated him to the bishopric of Orleans, in which he is said to have introduced some salutary reformation among the ignorant and vicious priests. Here he frequently preached, and very wonderful accounts are given of the effects of his eloquence upon the most hardened impenitents. On one of these occasions he was seized with a fit of the palsy, which proved fatal Feb. 3, 1552, and which some protestant writers considered as a judgment on him for maintaining a conduct contrary to the convictions of his own mind. He was undoubtedly a man inclined to moderation, but appears to have been ambitious, and too much ensnared by a court life. His learning was very extensive; but we have only in print a Latin letter from Francis I. to Charles V. ascribed to him, and his funeral oration on Francis I. both printed in his life by Galland, published by Baluze, Paris, 1674, 8vo. There was, however, an edition of the oration printed in 1547, under the title “Le trepas, obseques, et enterrement de Francois I. avec les deux sermons fu neb res,” &c. 4to.

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

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

His next removal was to Colston’s charity school, at the age of eight years, where he was taught reading, writing, and arithmetic, at the daily rate of nine hours in summer, and seven in winter. Such at least was the prescribed discipline of the school, although it was far more than a boy of his capacity required. One of his masters, Phillips, whom he has celebrated in an elegy, was a frequent writer of verses in the magazines, and was the means of exciting a degree of poetical emulation among his scholars, but to this Chatterton appeared for some time quite indifferent. About his tenth year he began to read from inclination sometimes hiring his books from a circulating library, and sometimes borrowing them from his friends; and before he was twelve, had gone through about seventy volumes, principally history and divinity. Before this time also he had composed some verses, particularly those entitled “Apostate Will” which, although they bear no comparison with what he afterwards produced, discover at that early age a disposition to personal satire, and a consciousness of superior sense. It would be more remarkable, were it true, that while at this school he is said to have shown to his master Phillips, one of those mawuscripts which he pretended had been found in a chest in Redcliffe church, but as neither Phillips or another person to whom this treasure was exhibited, could read it, the commencement of his Rowleian impostures must be postponed to a future period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The person of Chatterton is said to have been like his genius, “premature; he had a manliness and dignity beyond his years; and there was a something about him uncommonly prepossessing. His most remarkable feature was his eyes, which, though grey, were uncommonly piercing; when he warmed in argument, or otherwise, they sparkled* with fire, and one eye, it is said, was still more remarkable than the other.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would be of more consequence to be able to determine what particular merits were rewarded by this royal bounty. Mr. Tyrwhitt can find no proof, and no ground for supposing that it was bestowed on Chaucer for his poetical talents, although it is almost certain that he had distinguished himself, as a poet, before this time. The “Assemblee of Foules,” the “Complaint of the Blacke Knight,” and the translation of the “Roman de la Rose,” were all composed before 1367, the sera which we are now considering. What strengthens Mr. Tyrwhitt' s opinion of the king’s indifference to Chaucer’s poetry, is his appointing him, a few years after, to the office of comptroller of the custom of wool, with an injunction that “the said Geffrey write with his own hand his rolls touching the said office in his own proper person, and not by his substitute.” The inferences, however, which Mr. Tyrwhitt draws from this fact, viz. “that his majesty was either totally insensible of our author’s poetical talents, or at least had no mind to encourage him in the cultivation or exercise of them,” savours rather too much of the conjectural spirit which he professes to avoid. He allows that, notwithstanding what he calls “the petrifying quality, with which these Custom-house accounts might be expected to operate upon Chaucer’s genius,” he probably wrote his “House of Fame” while he was in that office. Still less candid to the memory of Edward will these inferences appear, if we apply modern notions of patronage to the subject; for in tvhat manner could the king more honourably encourage the genius of a poet, than by a civil employment which rendered him easy in his circumstances, and free from the suspicious obligations of a pension or sinecure?

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

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

About a year after this, the king granted to him the wardship of sir Edmund Staplegate’s heir, for which he received 104l. and in the next year some forfeited wool to the value of 71l. 4s. 6d. These, and his other pecuniary advantages, are said to have raised his income to a thousand pounds per annum, a prodigious sum at that time, but quite incredible. Whatever his income was, however, he informs us in the “Testament of Love,” it enabled him to live with dignity and hospitality. In the last year of king Edward III. 1377, he was sent to France, with sir Guichard Dangle, and Richard Stau or Sturry, to treat of a marriage between the prince of Wales, Richard, and a daughter of the French king. Such is Froissart’s account; but the English historians, Hollingshed and Barnes, inform us, that the principal object of this mission was to complain of some infringement of the truce concluded with the French, and that although they were not very successful in that remonstrance, it produced some overtures towards the said marriage, and this ended in a new treaty.

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

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

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

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

The decline of the duke of Lancaster’s interest contributed not a little to aggravate the distresses of our author, and determined him to take leave of the court and its intrigues, and retire in pursuit of that happiness which his years and habits of reflection demanded. With this view it was necessary to dispose of those pensions which had been bestowed upon him in the former reign; and which, notwithstanding his espousing a cause not very acceptable to the sovereign, had been continued to him in the present. Accordingly in May 1388, he obtained his majesty’s licence to surrender his two grants of twenty marks each, in favour of one John Scalby. After this he retired/ to his favourite Woodstock; and, according to Speght, employed a part of his time in revising and correcting his writings, and enjoying the calm pleasures of rural contemplation. It is thought that the composition of his “Canterbury Tales” was begun about this time, 1389, when he was in the sixty-first year of his age, and when, contrary to the usual progress of mind, his powers seem to have been in their fullest vigour.

It was not long after this period that the duke of Lancaster resumed his influence at court; but whether Chaucer was enabled to profit by this reverse, or whether he had seen too much of political revolutions to induce him to quit his retreat, his biographers are doubtful. It appears, however, probable that the duke of Lancaster had it still as much in his will as in his power to befriend him; and it might be owing to his grace’s influence, that in 1389 we find him clerk of the works at Westminster; and in the following year at Windsor and other palaces: but Mr. Tyrwhitt doubts whether these offices were sufficient to indemnify him for the loss of his place in the customs. In the “Testament of Love,” he complains of “being berafte out of dignitie of office, in which he made a gatheringe of worldly godes;” and in another place he speaks of himself as “once glorious in worldly welefulnesse, and having such godes in welthe as maken men riche.” All this implies a very considerable reverse of fortune; although Speght’s tradition of his having been possessed of “lands and revenues to the yearly value almost of a thousand pounds,” remains utterly incredible.

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

The accounts we have of Chaucer’s latter days are extremely inconsistent. His biographers bring him from Woodstock to Dunnington castle, and from that to London to solicit a continuation of his annuities, in which he found such difficulties as probably hastened his end. Wood, in his Annals, informs us that although he did not repent at the last of his reflections on the clergy, “yet of that he wrote of love and baudery, it grieved him much on his death-bed for one that lived shortly after his time, maketh report, that when he saw death approaching, he did often cry out, ‘Woe is me, woe is me, that I cannot recall and annull those things which I have written of the base and filthy love of men towards women: but alas! they are now continued from man to man, and I cannot do what I desire’.” To this may be added, that the affecting lines “Gode Counsaile of Chaucer,” are said to have been made by him when on his death-bed, and in great anguish. It seems generally agreed that he died Oct. 25, 1400, and was buried in Westminster-abbey, in the great south cross-aile. The monument to his memory was erected above a century and a half after his decease, by Nicholas Brigham, a gentleman of Oxford, a poet, and warm admirer of our author. It stands at the north end of a magnificent recess, formed by four obtuse foliaged arches, and is a plain altar, with three quatrefoils, and the same number of shields. The inscription, and figures on the back, are almost obliterated.

Although Chaucer has been generally hailed as the founder of English poetry and literature, the extent of the obligations which English poetry and literature owe to him has not been decidedly ascertained. The improvement he introduced in language and versification has been called in question, not only by modern but by ancient critics. The chief faults attributed to him, are the mixture of French in all his works, and his ignorance of the laws of versification. With respect to the mixture of French words and phrases in Chaucer’s writings, it must be observed that the French language was prevalent in this country several centuries before his time. Even previously to the conquest, the Normans had made it a fashion to speak French in the English court, and from thence it would naturally be adopted by the people; but after the conquest this became the case in a much greater proportion. It was a matter of policy in the conqueror to introduce his own language, and it would soon become a matter of interest in the people to acquire it. We uniformly find that where new settlers appear, even without the superiority of conquerors, the aborigines find it convenient to learn their language. The history of king William’s conquest and policy shows that his language must soon extend over a kingdom which he had parcelled out among his chiefs as the reward of their valour and attachment. One step which he took must above all others have contributed to naturalize the French language. He supplied all vacancies in the ecclesiastical establishment with Norman clergy; and if, with all this influence, the French language did not universally prevail, it must at least have interfered in a very considerable degree with the use of the native tongue. At schools, French and Latin were taught together in the reign of Edward III. and it was usual to make the scholars construe their Latin lessons into French, a practice which must have greatly retarded the progress of the native tongue towards refinement. Some check, indeed, appears to have been given to this in the reign of the same sovereign; but the proceedings in parliament and the statutes continued to be promulgated in French for a far longer period.

These circumstances have been advanced to prove that Chaucer ought not to be blamed for introducing words and phrases with which his countrymen were familiar long before his time, and which they probably considered as elegancies. If Chaucer was taught at school, as other youths were, it is plain that he must have learned French while he was learning his mother tongue, and was taught to give a preference to the former by making it the vehicle of translation.

The language, therefore, in use in Chaucer’s days, among the upper classes, and by all that would be thought learned, was a Norman-Saxon dialect, introduced by the influx and influence of a court of foreigners, and spread wherever that influence extended. Journeys to France were also common, for the purposes of improvement in such accomplishments as were then fashionable, and this kind of intercourse, which is always in favour of the country visited, would perhaps tend to introduce a still greater proportion of French phraseology. But still the foundation was laid at home, in the prevailing modes of education. With respect to the progress of this mixture, and the effects of the accessions which in the course of nearly three centuries, the English language received from Normandy, the reader is referred to Mr. Tyrwhitt’s very elaborate “Essay on the Language and Versification of Chaucer,” prefixed to his edition of the” Canterbury Tales.” It appears, upon the whole, that the language of our ancestors was complete in all its parts, and had served them for the purposes of discourse, and even of composition in various kinds, long before they had any intimate acquaintance with their French neighbours.” They had therefore “no call from necessity, and consequently no sufficient inducement, to alter its original and radical constitutions, or even its customary forms.” And accordingly, notwithstanding the prevalence of the French from the causes already assigned, it is proved by Mr. Tyrwhitt that “in all the essential parts of speech, the characteristical features of the Saxon idiom were always preserved; and the crowds of French words which from time to time were imported, were themselves made subject, either immediately, or by degrees, to the laws of that same idiom.”

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

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

These authors, whatever their merit, were the only English poets, if the name may be used, when Chaucer appeared, and the only circumstances under which he found the poetry of his native tongue, were, that rhime was established very generally; that the metres in use were principally the long Iambic, consisting of not more than fifteen, nor less than fourteen syllables, and broken by a cæsura at the eighth syllable; the Alexandrine metre, consisting of not more than thirteen syllables, nor less than twelve, with a cæsura at the sixth; the octosyllable metre; and the stanza of six verses, of which the first, second, fourth and fifth were in complete octosyllable metre, and the third and last catalectic, i.e. wanting a syllable, or even two.

But the most considerable part of his works entitle him to the honour of an inventor. They are written in the heroic metre, and there is no evidence of any English poet having used it before him. He is not indeed to be considered as the inventor in the most extensive sense, as the heroic metre had been cultivated by Dante, Petrarch, and Boccace, but he was the first to introduce it into his native language, in which it has been employed by every poet of eminence, to the present day.

The age of Chaucer had little of what we now understand by refinement. The public shows and amusements were splendid and sumptuous. They had all somewhat of a dramatic air; at their tournaments and carousals the principal personages acted parts, with some connection of story, borrowed from the events, and conducted according to the events and manners of chivalry. But the national manners and habits were barbarous, unless where the restraints of religion repressed public licentiousness; and, with respect to taste, the spectacles in which the higher orders indulged, were such as would not now be tolerated perhaps even at a fair. What influence they had on public decency, it is difficult to ascertain. In Chaucer’s time there was indeed no public, because there was little or nothing of that communication of sentiment and feeling which we owe to the invention of printing.

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

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

, author of a very useful Biographical Dictionary, was descended from the ancient and noble family of the Calfopedi of Florence, which removed into France under Francis I. At the revocation of the edict of Nantz, Samuel de Chaufepié, the representative of the family, and pfotestant minister at Couhé in Poitou, was obliged to take refuge in Friesland, where he died pastor of the church of Leuwarden in 1704. He had ten children by his wife Maria Marbœuf de la Rimbaudiere, of whom the subject of the present article was the youngest, and born at Leuwarden, Nov. 9, 1702. He was educated partly at Franeker, under professor Andala, as appears by his maintaining an academical thesis before that professor, in 1718, on “Innate Ideas,” and probably about the same time, a second on “The punishment of the Cross,” which was afterwards published in a collection by Gerdes, in 1734. After being admitted into the ministry, he preached for some time at Flushing, then at Delft, and lastly at Amsterdam, where he was pastor of the Walloon church, and where he died, highly respected for piety and learning, and much lamented, July 3, 1786. He was not more diligent in the discharge of his professional functions, than attached to studious researches, which he pursued throughout the whole of his long life. In 1736 he published, “Lettres sur divers sujets importans de la Religion,” 12mo, and in 1746 prefixed a life or historical eulogium to the sermons of John Brutel de la Riviere. In 1756 he published three sermons, intended to prove the truth of the Christian religion from the present state of the Jews; and wrote an account of the life and writings of our celebrated poet Pope, which was prefixed to a French translation of his works, printed at Amsterdam in 1758. He also translated from the Dutch an abridgement, in question and answer, of the history of his country; and from the English, part of Shuckford’s works, with additions, and several volumes of the “Universal History,” which he improved very considerably, particularly in the history of Venice. This labour, however, he discontinued in 1771, and does not appear after that to have published any thing of consequence, confining himself to his pastoral duties, if we except his “Life of Servetus,” which in 1771 was translated into English, by James Yair, minister of the Scots church at Campvere, and published at London, 8vo. The chief object of it seems to be to vindicate Calvin from the reproaches usually thrown upon him for the share he had in the prosecution of Servetus; but some will probably think that he has at least been equally successful in throwing new and not very favourable light on the conduct and principles of Servetus.

A selection of Chaufepie’s “Sermons” was published after his death by his nephew and colleague in the church at Amsterdam, Samuel de Chaufepié. But the work which gives him the best title to a place here, is his “Nouveau Dictionaire Historique et Critique pour servir de Supplement, ou de Continuation au Dictionaire de M. Pierre Bayle,” Amsterdam, 1750—1756, 4 vols. fol. The editors of the French Dict. Historique, of 1804, messieurs Chaudon and Delandine, speak of this as an ill-digested work, and say that the author, in continuing Bayle, has imitated him neither in his good nor his bad qualities, and that he does not interest his readers like the philosopher of Rotterdam, his style being inferior and incorrect. They allow, however, that he respects religion, although he declaims sometimes against the Roman Catholics; and they give due praise to his researches respecting the literature of France, England, and Holland. That he declaims against the Roman catholics sometimes, is an objection very natural to the editors of the French dictionary, but frequent recourse to Chaufepie’s work convinces us that he speaks with impartiality, and engages as little as possible with points of controversy. The work was originally intended as a supplement to Bayle, but various circumstances stated by the author in his preface, prevented the booksellers from prosecuting this plan, and it may rather be considered as a new work, founded partly on Bayle, and partly on the English “General Dictionary,” 10 vols. fol. The new articles from the pen of Chaufepié are in general accurate, and this work ought to be better known in this country, because, owing to the author’s religious principles, less use has been made of it abroad than it deserves. The English articles, although this circumstance is not perhaps of much importance here, are more full than in any other work published on the Continent, and the additions the author has made not only to them, but to Bayle’s series, afford a very favourable idea of the labour and research he must have employed. He appears to have been first applied to by the booksellers of Amsterdam in 1739, and to have spent several years in preparing it for the press. With respect to the charge that it is less interesting to readers than Bayle, we can only remark that in proportion as any biographer follows Bayle, he will render his work a tissue of interrupting impertinencies and crude sentiments.

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

years, when he was visited by the gout, the pains of which he contrived to alleviate, by conversations with his friends and the muses, and prolonged his life to a very advanced age, dying in 1726, in his 81st year. He was extremely desirous of becoming a member of -the academy of fine arts; and, on seeing another preferred to him, he took his revenge by satirical attacks on the management of the institution. It was the perfect consonance of his life with his poems, that gave them the natural air for which they have ever been so greatly admired. The philosophy of the graces, that animates his works, was also the rule of his life. But few of his poems were published during his lifetime, and those occasionally and detached; the trouble of collecting them he left to his friends after his death. The first editions were very imperfect, till Camusac and St. Marc took the pains to publish them in a completer collection, 1750, 2 vols. 12mo. They consist of epistles in verse, and letters in prose intermingled with verses. Both are characterised by an easy gaiety, agreeable pictures, lively strokes, genuine wit, pleasing fictions, Epicurean morality, or “sagesse commode,” as Saint Marc used to call it, and a style varied as the subject requires. They are not, however, without flat, incorrect, and puerile passages. His versification is flowing and harmonious, but frequently faulty and contrary to the rules of speech, and sometimes designedly negligent, in imitation of the simple style of Marot. Some find great harmony in the continual recurrence of the same rhymes, in which he followed Chapelle, and is praised by Dubos; and Camusac thinks that such verses are eminently adapted to music. Saint Marc, on the other hand, and the younger Racine, complain of their monotony, and conceive that the beauty of them consists solely in the conquest of greater difficulties, and that the French language is not so poor in sonorous phraseology as to stand in need of such a practice. Though the letters of Chaulieu were all actually written, and mostly directed to Bouillon, yet they are frequently interspersed with ingenious fictions. Excepting that to the chevalier Bouillon, the most remarkable letter is that addressed to M. la Fare, as the poet, with great frankness, gives us in it his own portrait. Chaulieu’s odes are not of the higher species.

, a peer of France, but more remarkable as an astronomer and mathematician, was born at Paris Dec. 30, 1714. He soon discovered a singular taste and genius for the sciences; and in the tumults of armies and camps, he cultivated mathematics, astronomy, mechanics, &c. He was named honorary academician the 27th of February 1743, and few members were more punctual in attending the meetings of that body, where he often brought different constructions and corrections of instruments of astronomy, of dioptrics, and achromatic telescopes. These researches were followed with a new parallactic machine, more solid and convenient than those that were in use; as also with many reflections on the manner of applying the micrometer to those telescopes, and of measuring exactly the value of the parts of that instrument. The duke of Chaulnes proposed many other works of the same kind, which were interrupted by his death Sept. 23, 1769.

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

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

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

, a learned antiquary of Paris in the last century, went early in life to Rome for the sake of studying antiquities and the same taste that had led him to that famous city induced him to remain there. His “Musaeum Romanum,” Rome, 1690, fol. and augmented to 2 vols. fol. in 1746, evinced the success of his application. This valuable collection comprises a numerous succession of antique gems, which had never before been given by impression to the public, engraved on two hundred and eighteen plates. It has gone through several editions. Graevius inserted part of it in his “Thesaurus Antiq. Romanorum.” The same author published at Rome a collection of engraved gems, entitled “Gemme antiche figurate,” Rome, 1700, 4to; and “Auxeus Constantini nummus, &c. explicatus,” Rome, 1703, 4to. His last publication was “Le Pitture antiche delle Grotte di Roma e del Sepolcro di Nasoni, &c.” the plates by Pietro Santo and Bartoli, Rome, 1706, foi. These different works present a great stock of erudition and sagacity, and are much consulted by the curious we have no account of the author’s death.

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

, son of the foregoing, was born in 1663, and followed the footsteps of his father. Like him, he had an admirable facility in inventing subjects and in embellishing them, and a variety and ingenious turn in the disposition of his figures; but he particularly distinguished himself as a sculptor. He worked for Louis XIV. and for several foreign princes. The marquis de Torci was the last that employed him, at his chateau de Sable. This nobleman having asked him what wages he would have by the day? Chauveau, provoked at the question, which he thought degrading, abruptly quitted both his work and employer, and came to Paris, where he died in 1722, at the age of fifty-nine, from the fatigue of the journey, in addition to the vexation he suffered from having changed his money into bank notes.

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

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

, in Latin, a Capite Fontium, a learned divine, fifty-fifth general of the cordeliers, was a native of Bretany, descended from a noble and ancient family, and born in 1632. He was titular archbishop of Csesarea, to exercise the episcopal office in the diocese of Sens, in the absence of cardinal de Peleve. He died May 26, 1595, at Rome, leaving several theological works; among them, “De necessaria Theologian Scholasticse correctione,” Paris, 1586, 8vOj of which bibliographers desire us to be careful that the leaf marked E be not wanting, or is not from another book, it being frequently wanting. He wrote also a volume against duels, entitled “Confutation du Point d'Honneur,” 1579, 8vo, and “De Virgiuitate Marias et Josephi,” 1578, 8vo, &c. Dupin has a very long article on Chefforitaines. He appears to have been a man of great learning, and understood six languages besides his native Bas Breton.

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

Mr. Cheke being at Cambridge at the commencement in 1552, disputed there against Jesus Christ’s local descent into hell. On the 25th of August, the same year, he was made chamberlain of the exchequer for life; and in 1553 constituted clerk of the council; and, soon after, one of the secretaries of state, and a privy-counsellor. In May the same year, the king granted to him, and hb heirs male, the honour of Clare in 'Suffolk, with divers other lands, to the yearly value of one hundred pounds. His zeal for the protestant religion induced him to approve of the settlement of the crown upon the lady Jane Grey; and he acted, but for a very short time, as secretary to her and hercouncil after king Edward’s decease, for which, upon queen Mary’s accession to the throne, he was committed to the Tower, and an indictment drawn up against him, the 12th or 13th of August. The year following, after he was almost stripped of his whole substance, he obtained the queen’s pardon, and was set at liberty September 3, 1554. But not being able to reconcile himself to popery, and foreseeing the days of persecution, having obtained a licence from the queen to travel for some time into foreign parts, he went first to Basil, where he staid some time; and thence passed into Italy. At Padua he met with some of his countrymen, whom he directed in their studies, and read and explained to them some Greek orations of Demosthenes. Upon his return from Italy he settled at Strasburgh, where the English service was kept up, and many of his pious and learned friends resided. But this having offended the popish zealots in England, his whole estate was confiscated to the queen’s use, under pretence that he did notcome home at the expiration of his travel. Being now reduced in circumstances, he was forced to read a Greek lecture at Strasburgh for his subsistence.

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

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

As to his character, he was justly accounted one of the best and most learned men of his age, and a singular ornament to his country. He was one of the revivers of polite literature in England, and a great lover and.encourager of the Greek language in particular. The authors he chiefly admired and recommended were Demosthenes, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, and Cicero. He was very happy in imitating the ancient and best writers, and discovered great judgment in translating them. In the orthography and pronunciation of the Latin and Greek languages, he was very critical and exact; and also took great pains to correct, regulate, and improve the English tongue; but his notions on this subject were rather capricious, and never have been adopted. He was a steady adherent to the reformed religion, and extremely beneficent, charitable, and communicative. His unhappy fall is indeed a great blemish to his memory, and a memorable example of human frailty. With regard to his person, he had a full comely countenance, somewhat red, witfi a yellow large beard; and, as far as can be judged by his picture, he was tall and well made.

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

, D. D. a learned divine of the church of England, was born about 1740 in Westminster, and educated at Westminster school, on bishop Williams’ s foundation. From that school he went to St. John’s college, Cambridge, but did not continue long there; as Dr. Freind, one of the canons of Christ church, gave him a studentship in that celebrated college. Here he resided for many years, taking his master’s degree in 1762, that of bachelor of divinity in 1772, and that of D. D. in 1773. It has been said he was for some time usher at Westminster school; but this is doubtful. At Oxford he entered into orders in. 1.762, and was presented to the college curacy of Lathbury near Newport Pagnel, and to the benefice of Badger in Shropshire, by Isaac Hawkins Browne, esq, His other and chief preferment, was the rectory of Droxford in Hampshire, given him by Dr. North, bishop of Winchester, whose chaplain he was. His learning was extensive; and his manners, though somewhat austere, were yet amiable. Bad health, however, created an unequal flow of spirits, which injured the powers of his mind towards the close of his life. He died in 1801, and was buried at Droxford. Besides some fugitive pieces without his name, and a tew occasional sermons, he wrote one of the ablest series of “Remarks on Gibbon’s Roman History,” 1772, 8vo, which Gibbon having noticed in a contemptuous manner, Dr. Chelsum answered him in a “Reply to Mr. Gibbon’s Vindication,” 1735, 8vo. The best edition of his “Remarks” was the second, published in 1773, much enlarged. Dr. Chelsum is also supposed to have had a share in the collection of papers published at Oxford under the title of “Olla Podrida,” and to have published an “Essay on the History of Mezzotinto.” As an amateur of the fine arts, he made a valuable collection of prints and gems, especially Tassie’s imitations, to whom he was an early and zealous patron.

, a celebrated French preacher, was born at Paris Jan. 3, 1652, and entered the society of Jesuits in 1667, where he made a considerable figure, and afterwards taught classical literature and rhetoric at Orleans but his talents being peculiarly calculated for the pulpit, he became one of the most popular preachers of his time in the churches of Paris. It became the fashion to say that Bourdaioue was the Corneille, and Cheminais the Racine of preachers; but his fame was eclipsed by the superior merit of Massillon. When on account of his health he was obliged to desist from his public services, he went every Sunday, as long as he was able, to the country to instruct and exhort the poor. He died in the flower of his age Sept. 15, 1689. Bretonneau, another preacher of note, published his “Sermons” in 1690, 2 vols. 12mo, which were often reprinted, and Bretonneau added a third volume, but the fourth and fifth, which appeared in 1729, were neither written by Cheminais, nor edited by Bretonneau. The only other production of Cheminais was his “Sentimens de Piete,” 1691, 12mo, but it is said he had a turn for poetry, and wrote some verses of the lighter kind.

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

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

, grandson of the preceding Chemnitz, the reformer, was bora at Stettin May 9, 1605, and after completing his education, served in the army, first in Holland, and afterwards in Sweden, where his merit raised him from the rank of captain to that of counsellor of state, and historiographer of Sweden. Queen Christina also granted him letters of nobility, with the estate of Holstaedt in that country, where he died in 1678. He wrote, in six books, an account of the war carried on by the Swedes in Germany, which was published in 2 vols. folio, the first at Stettin in 1648, and the second at Holme in 1653; the whole in the German language: the second volume is most highly esteemed, owing to the assistance the author received from count Oxenstiern. The abbe Lenglet mentions a Latin edition, at least of the first volume, entitled “Beilum Germanicum ab ejus ortu anno 1612, ad mortem Gustavi Adolphi anno 1632.” Chemnitz is also said to be the author of “De ratione Status Imperii Romano- Germanici,” which was published at Stettin in 1640, under the assumed name of Hyppolitus a Lapide. Its object is to impugn the claims of the house of Austria, and it was answered by an anonymous writer, Franefort, 1657, by Bruggeman, at Jena, 1667, and by Henry Boeder, at Strasbtirgh, in 1674. It was afterwards translated into French by Bourgeois de Chastelet, under the title of “Des Interets des princes d'Allemagne,” Friestad, 1712, 2 vols. 12mo, and by Samuel Formey, as late as 1762, under the title of “Les vrais interets de l'Allemagne,” Hague, with notes and applications to the then state of German politics.

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

, the brother of Elizabeth Cheron, was born at Paris in 1660; and having been taught the rudiments of the art in his own country, he travelled to Italy, where his sister supplied him with a competency, to enable him to prosecute his studies for eighteen years. During his continuance in Italy, he made the works of Raphael and Julio Romano the principal object of his studies, by which his future compositions had always a certain air of the antique, though he had no great portion of grace, and his figures were frequently too muscular. Two of his pictures are in the church of Notre Dame, at Paris; the one, of Herodias holding the charger with the head of St. John the Baptist; the other, of Agabus foretelling the persecution of St. Paul. On account of his religion, being a Calvinist, he was compelled to quit his native country, and settled in London, the happy retreat of all distressed artists; and there he found many patrons among the nobility and gentry, particularly the duke of Montague, for whom he painted the Council of the Gods, the Judgment of Paris, and he was also employed at Burleigh and Chatsworth; but finding himself eclipsed by Baptist, Rousseau, and La Fosse, he commenced painting small historical pieces. His most profitable employment, however, was designing for painters and engraver ^ and his drawings were by some preferred to his paintings. He etched several of his own designs, and in particular, a series of twenty-two small prints for the life of David, with which Giffart, a bookseller at Pans, ornamented a French edition of the Psalms published in 1713. Strutt notices also two engravings which he executed from his own designs, of great taste, “The Death of Ananias and Sapphira,' and” St. Paul baptising the Eunuch." His private character was excellent. He died in 1713, of an apoplexy, at his lodgings in the Piazza, CovenNgarden, and was buried in the porch of St. Paul’s church in that parish. He had some time before sold his drawings from Raphael, and his academy figures, to the earl of Derby, for a large sum of money.

, an eminent surgeon and anatomist, and a celebrated writer, was born Oct. 19, 1688, at Burrow-on-the-Hill, near Somerby in Leicestershire. After having received a classical education, and been instructed in the rudiments of his profession at Leicester, he was placed about 1703, under the immediate tuition of the celebrated anatomist Cowper, and resided in his house, and at the same time studied surgery under Mr. Feme, the head surgeon of St. Thomas’s hospital. Such was the proficiency he made under these able masters, that he himself began, at the age of twenty-two, to read lectures in anatomy, a syllabus of which, in 4to, was first printed in 1711. Lectures of this kind were then, somewhat new in this country, having been introduced, not many years before, by M. Bussiere, a French refugee, and a surgeon of high note in the reign of queen Anne. Till then, the popular prejudices had run so high against the practice of dissection, that the civil power found it difficult to accommodate the lecturers with proper subjects; and pupils were obliged to attend the universities, or other public seminaries, where, likewise, the procuring of bodies was no easy task. It is an extraordinary proof of Mr. Cheselden’s early reputation, that he had the honour of being chosen a member of the royal society in 1711, when he could be little more than twenty- three years of age but he soon justified their choice, by a variety of curious and useful communications. Nor were his contributions limited to the royal society, but are to be found in the memoirs of the royal academy of surgeons at Paris, and in other valuable repositories. In 1713 Mr. Cheselden published in 8vo, his “Anatomy of the Human Body,” reprinted in 1722, 1726, 1732; in folio in 1734, and in 8vo, 1740, and an eleventh edition aslate as 1778. During the course of twenty years, in which Mr. Cheselden carried on his anatomical lectures, he was continually rising in reputation and practice, and upon Mr. Feme’s retiring from business, he was elected head surgeon of St. Thomas’s hospital. At two other hospitals, St. George’s, and the Westminster Infirmary, he was chosen consulting surgeon; and at length had the honour of being appointed principal surgeon to queen Caroline, by whom he was highly esteemed; and was indeed generally regarded as the first man in his profession.

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

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

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

, an eminent historian, and justly considered as the father of French history, was bornin the Isle of Bouchard; in Torrairie, May 1584. He was the youngest of the four sons of Tanneguy Du Chesne, lord of Sausoniere. His name has been Latinized in different forms. He has at different times called himself Quema3us, Quercetanus, Duchenius; and by others he has been called Querceus, a Quercu, Chesneus, and Chesnius. In his historical works he assumed no other title than that of geographer to the king, except in his history of the house of Bethune, printed in 1639, where he calls himself historiographer to the king. His family produced many men of talents in the army and at the bar. He was first educated at Loudun, and after a course of grammar and rhetoric, came to Parisj where he studied philosophy, in the college of Boncours, under Julius Caesar Boulanger, an eminent philosopher, and one of the best historians of that period.

Du Chesne’s first attempt as an author, was a duodecimo volume, printed in 1602, and dedicated to Boulanger, entitled “Egregiarum seu Electarum Lectionum et Antiquitatum liber.” The same year he dedicated another to M. de Cerisy, archbishop of Tours, entitled “Januariae Kalendae, seu de solemnitate anni tain Ethnica quam Christiana brevis tractatus,” with a Latin poem “Gryphus de Ternario numero.” In 1605 he composed for a young lady whom he married in 1608, “Les figures mystiques du riche et precieux Cabinet des Dames,” apparently a moral work. In his twenty-third year he began a translation of Juvenal, which he published with notes, in 1607. This is a work of very rare occurrence. In 16-09 he published “Antiquitez et Recherches de la grandeur et majeste des Rois de France,” dedicated to Louis XIII. then dauphin. In 1610 he wrote a poem, “Chandelier de Justice,” and also a panegyrical discourse on the ceremonies of the coronation of queen Mary of Medicis, with a treatise on the ampulla and fleur-de-lys, &c. but owing to the assassination of the king, which happened after this ceremony, these productions were lost. The same year he published a funeral discourse on king Henry IV. and the first edition of his “Antiquitez et Recherches des Villes et Chateaux de France,” which has been often reprinted. In 1611, appeared his translation and abridgement of the controversies and magical researches of Delrio, the Jesuit, 8vo. In 1612 and 1613, he was employed on his “Histoire d'Angleterre,” the first edition of which was published in 1614; and the same year, in conjunction with father Marrier, he published in folio, a collection of the works of the religious of Cluny, under the title “Bibliotheca Cluniacensis.” This was followed in 1615, by his “Histoire des Papes,” fol. reprinted in 1645, but as this last edition was very incorrect, his son Francis Du Chesne published a new one in 1653, enlarged and illustrated with portraits. In 1616 he published the “Works of Abelard,” with a preface and notes/ which are rarely found together.

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

In 1619, he published his “Histoire des Rois, Dues, et Comtes de Burgogne,” a new edition of the “Letters of Stephen Pasqnier,” and his “Historic Normannorum Scriptores antiqui,” which forms the first volume of his collection of French historians. The following year appeared his “Histoire genealogique de la Maison de Chastillou-sur-Marue, &c.” As his intended publication of the geographical history of France was interrupted in Holland, he published an abridgment of it at Paris, under the title of “Antiqnitez et Recherches desvilles, chateaux, et places remarkables de la France selon Pordre et les ressorfc ties parlemens,” which passed through several editions, as already noticed; that of 1647 was edited and improved by his son. In 1621 was printed his “Histoire genealogique de la Maison de Montmorency,” folio, which Le Long thinks a capital work of the kind; it was followed in 1626 by a similar history of the house of De Vergy. In 1629 he published a second volume of the history of Burgundy, under the title of “Histoire genealogique des Dues de Bonrgogne,” and in 1631, two other genealogical histories of the houses of Guines, Ardres, Dreux, &c. The accuracy of these family histories has been very generally acknowledged, but it is unnecessary to specify the dates of each publication.

With respect to his collection of French historians, he published the first two volumes in 1636, fol. after having two years before issued a prospectus of the whole, and the third and fourth volumes were in the press, when on May 30, 1640, he was crushed to death by a cart, as he was going to his country-house at Verrieres. He was at this time in full health, and bade fair for long life and usefulness. The two volumes, then in the press, were completed by his son, and published in 1641, to which he added a fifth volume in 1649, without any assistance from government, as the pension granted to his father, and continued to hirn on his death, was taken from him about three years after that event. Some particulars of the continuation of the work to the present time may be seen in our life of Bouquet. In Du Chesne’s “Historic Norluannorum,” is the “Emmae Anglorum reginse encomium,” of which an edition, with William of Poictier’s history of William the Conqueror, and other historical documents, was published, or rather printed for private distribution, in 1783, 4to, by the learned Francis Maseres, esq. F. 11. S. cursitor-baron of the court of exchequer.

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

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

, D. D. was born in 1652. He was educated at Eton, and thence removed to Cambridge, where he was fellow of King’s-college in 1683, when he contributed the life of Lycurgus to the translation of Plutarch’s Lives, published in that year. He was intimately connected with Wentworth, earl of Roscommon, whose life, written by him, is preserved in the public library of Cambridge, among Baker’s ms Collections, (vol. XXXVI.) and furnished Fenton with some of the anecdotes concerning that nobleman, which are found among his notes on Waller’s poems. The life of Virgil, and the preface to the Pastorals, prefixed to Dry den’s Virgil, were written by Dr. Chetwood, for whom Dryden had a great regard, a circumstance very necessary to be mentioned, as that life has always been ascribed to Dryden himself.

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

, was once a bookseller in Covent-garden, and many years after prompter at Drurylane Theatre, and an instructor of young actors. After passing through the miserable vicissitudes of inferior dramatic rank, he died poor, March 1766. He wrote some pieces, long since forgotten, for the stages, and in 1749, published “A General History of the Stage,” which although undervalued by the editors of the Biographia Dramatica, is amusing, and contains much of the information transferred since into compilations of that kind.

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

, aprotestant divine, was born at Montchamps near Vire in Normandy, in 1507. He learned Hebrew under Vatablus at Paris, and having gone to England, became of the household of the princess, afterwards queen Elizabeth, whom he taught French. He then went to Germany, where he married the daughter of Tremellius, and this alliance procured him the assistance of Tremellius in his Hebrew studies, in which he made very distinguished progress, and became one of the first Hebrew scholars and critics of his age. In 1559 he was invited to Strasburgh, and thence went to Geneva, where he taught Hebrew, and published an improved edition of Pagninus’s Dictionary of that language. His love, however, for his native country induced him to return to Caen, which the civil wars soon obliged him to leave, and take refuge in England: he again returned on the peace, but the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day obliged him to escape to the island of Guernsey, where he died in 1572. He translated from the Syriac into Latin the “Targum Hierosolymitanum;” and two years after his death, his “Rudimenta Hebraicse linguae,” a very accurate work, was published at Wittemberg, 4to. He had designed to publish an edition of the Bible in four languages, but did not live, to accomplish it.

, a doctor and librarian of the Sorbonne, was born at Pontoise in the isle of France in 1636, of poor parents. One of his uncles, a clergyman of Veaux in the diocese of Rouen, undertook his education, and afterwards sent him to Paris, where he took his degrees in divinity, and he was received into the house and society of the Sorbonne in 1658, where he was equally admired for learning, piety, and charity, often stripping himself to clothe the poor, and even selling his books to relieve them, which, all book-collectors will agree, was no small stretch of benevolence. Having been appointed librarian to the Sorbonne, his studies in that collection produced a valuable work, well known to bibliographers, entitled “Origine de I'lmprimerie de Paris, dissertation historique et critique,” Paris, 1694, 4to. Maittaire frequently quotes from this dissertation. 2. A translation, or rather paraphrase of the “Grand Canon de l'Eglise Grecque,” written by Andrew of Jerusalem, archbishop of Candy, Paris, 1699, 12mo. He also published in 1664, a Latin dissertation on the council of Chalcedon, on formularies of faith, and had some hand in the catalogue of prohibited books which appeared in 1685. Chevillier died Sept. 8, 1700.

, was born at Loudun, a town of Poitou in France, May 12, 1613. His inclination led him to the study of the belles lettres, in which he made so considerable progress, that he obtained a distinguished rank among the learned. His application to letters, however, did not unqualify him for business; for he was a man of great address and knowledge of the world, and on that account advanced to be secretary to Christina queen of Sweden. The king of Denmark engaged him also at his court. Several German princes entertained him, and among the rest the elector palatine Charles Lewis, father to the duchess of Orleans. He continued for some time at this court, sat at the council-board, and helped to bring over the princess just mentioned to the Romish communion. At his return to Paris, he was made preceptor and afterwards secretary to the duke of Maine. Then he retired to Loudun, where he had built an elegant habitation for the repose of his old age; and, after spending there the last twenty years of his life in study and retirement, he died Feb. 15, 1701, almost 88 years of age. He left a very noble library behind him, and was himself the author of some works 1. “Le Tableau de la Fortune,” 1651, 8vo, in which he relates all the considerable revolutions that have happened in the world. It was reprinted, with alterations, under the title of “Effets de la Fortune,” a romance, 1656, 8vo. 2. “L'Histoire du Monde,” 1686, frequently reprinted; the best edition is that of Paris, 1717, 8 vols. 12mo, with additions by Bourgeois de Chastenet: but although the author had recourse to original information, his quotations are not always to be depended on. He often mistakes in matters of fact, and the style is harsh and unpolished. Jn 1697 were printed at the Hague, 2 volumes of his “Oeuvres melees,” consisting of miscellaneous letters and pieces in prose and verse. He wrote also notes on Petronius and Malherbe, and was esteemed a good critic. Much of his turn of mind and sentiments may be seen in the “Chevraeana,” Paris, 1697 and 1700, 2 vols.

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

But before his health was in this unfavourable state, he had published a medical treatise, in 8vo, under the following title: “A new Theory of acute and slow-continued Fevers: wherein, besides the appearances of such, and the manner of their cure, occasionally the structure of the Glands, and the manner and laws of Secretion, the operation of purgative, vomitive, and mercurial medicines are mechanically explained.” To this he prefixed “An essay concerning the Improvements of the Theory of Medicine.” This treatise on fevers was drawn up by Dr. Cheyne, at the desire of Dr. Pitcairne; but it was a hasty performance; and therefore, though it seems to have been favourably received, our author never chose to prefix his name to it. His next publication was a piece on abstracted geometry and algebra, entitled “Fluxionum Methodus inversa; sive quantitatum fluentium leges generaliores.” He afterwards published a defence of this performance, although he never had a very good opinion of it, against Mr. De Moivre, under the following title: “Rudimentorum Methodi Fiuxionurn inversae Specimina, adversus Abr. De Moivre.” In 1705, when he was about thirty-four years of age, at which time he was a fellow of the royal society, he published, in 8vo, “Philosophical Principles of Natural Religion containing the Elements of Natural Philosophy, and the proofs for Natural Religion arising from them.” This piece he dedicated to the earl of Roxburgh, at whose desire, and for whose instruction, it appears to have been originally written.

In consequence of the free mode of living in which our author had for some time indulged himself, besides the ill consequences that have been already mentioned, he at length brought on himself, as he informs us, an autumnal intermittent fever; but this he removed in a few weeks by taking the bark. He afterwards went on tolerably well for about a year, though neither so clear in his faculties, nor so gay in his temper, as he had formerly been. But the following autumn, he was suddenly seized with a vertiginous paroxysm, so alarming in its nature, as to approach nearly to a fit of an apoplexy. By degrees, his disorder turned to a constant violent head-ach, giddiness, and lowness of spirits upon which he entirely left off suppers, which he never resumed, and also confined himself at dinner to a small quantity of animal food, drinking but very little fermented liquors." The decline of his health and spirits occasioned him to be deserted by many of his more airy and jovial companions; and this circumstance contributed to the increase of his melancholy. He soon after retired into the country, into a fine air, and lived very low; and at this time he employed himself in the perusal of some of the most valuable theological writers. He bad never, even in his freer moments, deserted the great principles of natural religion and morality; but in his present retirement he made divine revelation the more immediate object of his attention. The books that he read were recommended to him by a worthy and learned clergyman of the church of England, whom he does not name, but whom he represents to be the man, that of all his numerous acquaintance, he the most wished to resemble.

Dr. Cheyne’s retirement into the country, and low regimen, having not entirely removed his complaints, he was persuaded by his medical and other friends, to try the Bath waters. He accordingly went to Bath, and for some time found considerable relief from drinking the waters. But he afterwards returned to London for the winter season, and had recourse to a milk diet, from which he derived the most salutary consequences. He now followed the business of his profession, with great diligence and attention, in summer at Bath, and in the winter at London, applying himself more particularly to chronical, and especially to low and nervous cases: and at this period of his life, he generally rode on horseback ten or fifteen miles every day, both summer and winter: in summer on the Downs at Bath, and in winter on the Oxford road from London.

After our author had found his health to be thoroughly established, he again made a change in his regimen, gradually lessening the quantity of his milk and vegetables, and by slow degress, and in moderate quantities, living on the lightest and tenderest animal food. This he did for some time, and at last gradually went into the common mode of living, and drinking wine, though within the bounds of temperance; and appears to have enjoyed good health for several years. But his mode of living, though he indulged in no great irregularities, was still more free than his constitution would admit-, and at length produced very ill effects. In the course of ten or twelve years he continued to increase in size, and at length weighed more than thirty-two stone. His breath became so short, that upon stepping into his chariot quickly, and with some effort, he was ready to faint away, and his face would turn black. He was not able to walk up above one pair of stairs at a time, without extreme difficulty; he was forced to ride from door to door in a chariot even at Bath; and if he had but a hundred paces to walk, he was obliged, as he informs us himself, to have a servant following him with a stool to rest upon. He had also some other complaints, and grew extremely lethargic; and at Midsummer in 1723, he was seized with a severe symptomatic fever, which terminated in a most violent erisipelas. He continued to be in a very bad state of health for about a year and a half, having now resided for a considerable time almost entirely at Bath. But in December 1725, he went to London, where he had the advice of his friend Dr. Arbuthnot, Dr. Mead, Dr. Freind, and some other physicians. From nothing, however, did he find so much, relief as from a milk and vegetable diet; by a strict adherence to which, in. somewhat more than two years, his health was at length thoroughly established; and he almost entirely confined himself to this regimen during the remainder of his life.