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

In the mean time, our author continued to publish some other medical works; particularly “An essay of the truk nature and due method of treating the Gout, together with an account of the nature and quality of Bath Waters, the manner of using them, and the diseases in which they are proper: jas also of the nature and cure of most Chronical distempers.” This passed through at least five editions; and was followed by “An essay on Health and Long Life;” which was well received by the public, but occasioned sundry reflections to be thrown out against him by some persons of the medical profession. In 1726, he published the same work in Latin, enlarged', under the following title: “GeorgiL Cheynsei Tractatus de Infirmorum Sanitate tuenda, Vitaque producenda, libro ejusdern argument! Anglice edito longe auctior et limatior; huic accessit de natura fibrse ej usque laxae sive resolutae morbis tractatus mine primum editus.” In 1733, he published a piece in 8vo, under the title “The English Malady: or, a treatise of Nervous diseases of all kinds; as Spleen, Vapours, Lowness of Spirits, Hypochondriacal and Hysterical distempers, &c.” His next publication, which was printed in 1740, was entitled “An essay on Regimen; together with five discourses, medical, moral, and philosophical: serving to illustrate the principles and theory of philosophical Medicine, and point out some of its moral consequences.” The last work of our author, which he dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield, was entitled “The natural method of curing the Diseases of the Body, and the Disorders of the Mind depending on the $ody; in three parts. Part I. General reflections on the œconomy of nature in animal Life. Part II. The means and methods for preserving life and faculties; and also concerning the nature* and cure of acute, contagious, and cephalic disorders. Part III. Heflections on the nature and cure of particular chronical distempers.”

, professor of philosophy, and rector of the Scotch college at Doway in Flanders, was of the ancient family of Arnage, or Arnagie in Aberdeenshire, where he was born in the early part of the sixteenth century. After studying classical and philosophical learning in the university of Aberdeen, he applied to divinity under Mr. John Henderson, a celebrated divine of that time; but on the establishment of the reformation, Cheyne (as well as his master) went over to France, and taught philosophy for fcome time in the college of St. Barbe at Paris. From thence he went to Doway, where he taught philosophy for several years, and was made rector of the Scotch college, and canon and great penitentiary of the cathedral ofTournay. He died in 1602, and was buried in that church under a marble monument, with an inscription. The authors quoted by Machenzie give him the character of one of the first mathematicians and philosophers and most learned men of his time. He wrote, 1. “Analysis in Philosophiam Aristot.” Duac. (Doway), 1573, 1595, 8vo. 2. “De sphaera sen globi ccelestis fabrica,” ibid. 1575. 3. “De Geographia, Kb. duo,” ibid. 1576, 8vo. 4. “Orationes duo, de perfecto Philosopho, &c.” ibid. 1577, 8vo. 5. “Analysis et scholia in Aristot. lib. XIV.” ibid. 1578, 8vo.

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

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

Cheynell’s death happened in 1665, at an obscure village called Preston, in Sussex, where he had purchased an estate, to which he retired upon his being turned out of the living of Petworth. The warmth of his zeal, increased bv the turbulence of the times in which he lived, and by the opposition to which the unpopular nature of some of his employments exposed him, was at last heightened to distraction, and he was for some years disordered in his understanding. Wood thinks that a tendency to madness was discoverable in a great part of his life; Calamy, that it was only transient and accidental, though he pleads it as an extenuation of that fury with which his kindest friends confess him to have acted on some occasions, particularly, we may add, at Oxford, when one of the parliamentary visitors, where his behaviour was savage enough to justify more than the retaliation inflicted on his party. Wood declares that he died little better than distracted; but Calamy, that he was perfectly recovered before the restoration. He had many good qualities, particularly a hospitable disposition, and a contempt for money; but his extravagant zeal marred his usefulness, and reflected no honour on his general character, or on his party. With regard, however, to his charging Chillingworth with Socinianism, that is now universally allowed.

, an Italian poet, was born at Savone, in 1552. He went to study at Rome, where Aldus Manutius and Muretus gave him their friendship and advice, and pope Urban VIII. and the princes of Italy honoured him with many public marks of their esteem. In 1624 Urban, himself a poet, as well as a protector of poets, invited him to Rome for the holy year; but Chiabrera excused himself on account of old age and infirmities. He died at Savone in 1638, aged eighty-six. His Lyric Poems, Rome, 1718, 3 vols. 8vo, and “Amadeida,” Napoli, 1635, 12mo, are particularly admired. All his works were collected at Venice, 1731, 4 vols. 8vo.

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

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

On our founder’s return, he passed some months in discharging the functions of his diocese. In May 1410, he was again sent to France, with other negociators, to obtain a renewal of the truce between the two kingdoms; but this was not accomplished until the year following, nor without considerable difficulties. For nearly two years after this, we find him residing on his diocese, or paying occasional visits to the metropolis, which his high character as a statesman rendered no less necessary than grateful to his royal master.

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

In the spring of 1414, Chichele succeeded Arundel as archbishop of Canterbury, which he at first refused in- deference to the pope but on the pontiff’s acceding to the election made by the prior and monks, he was put in complete possession, and soon had occasion to exert the whole of his talents and influence to preserve the revenues of the church, which the parliament had more than once advised the king to take into his own hands. The time was critical; the king bad made demands on the court of France, wlrch promised to end in hostilities, and large supplies were wanted. The clergy, alarmed for the whole, agreed to give up a part of their possessions, and Chichele undertook to lay their offer before parliament, and as far as eloquence could go, to render it satisfactory to that assembly. It is here that historians have taken occasion to censure his conduct, and to represent him as precipitating the king into a war with France, in order to divert his attention from the church. But while it is certain that he strongly recommended the recovery of Henry’s hereditary dominions in France, and the vindication of his title to that crown, it is equally certain that this was a disposition which he rather found than created; and in what manner he could have thwarted it, if such is to be supposed the wiser and better course, cannot be determined without a more intimate knowledge of the state of parties than is now practicable. The war, however, was eminently successful, and the battle of Azincourt gratified the utmost hopes of the nation, and has ever since been a proud memento of its valour. During this period, besides taking the lead in political and ecclesiastical measures at home, Chichele twice accompanied the king’s camp in France.

After the death of Henry V. in 1422, and the appointment of Humphrey duke of Gloucester to be regent during the minority of Henry VI., Chichele retired to his province, and began to visit the several dioceses included in it, carefully inquiring into the state of morals and religion. The principles of Wickliffe had made considerable progress, and it was to them chiefly that the indifference of the public towards the established clergy, and the efforts which had been made to alienate their revenues, were attributed. Officially, therefore, we are not to wonder that Chichele, educated in all the prejudices of the times, endeavoured to check the growing heresy, as it was called; but from the silence of Fox on the subject, there is reason to hope that his personal interference was far more gentle than that of his predecessor Arundel. On the other hand, history has done ample justice to the spirit with which he resisted the assumed power of the pope in the disposition of ecclesiastical preferments, and asserted the privileges of the English church. In all this he was supported by the nation at large, by a majority of the bishops, and by the university of Oxford, nor at this time was more zeal shown against the Lollards, or first protestants, than against the capricious and degrading encroachments of the court of Home. Among the vindications of Chichele’s character from the imputations thrown upon it by the agents of the pope, that of the university of Oxford must not be omitted. They told the pope, that “Chichele stood in the sanctuary of God as a firm wall that heresy could not shake, nor simony undermine, and that he was the darling of the people, and the foster parent of the clergy.” These remonstrances, however, were unsatisfactory to the proud and restless spirit of Martin V. but after he had for some time kept the terrors of an interdict hanging over the nation, the dispute was dropped without concessions on either side, and the death of this pope, soon after, relieved the archbishop from farther vexation.

He was now advancing in years, and while he employed his time in promoting the interests of his province, he conceived the plan of founding a college in Oxford, which he lived to accomplish on a very magnificent scale. One benefit he conferred, about the same time, of a more general importance to both universities. During the sitting of one of the convocations in 1438, the universities presented a remonstrance, stating the grievances they laboured under from wars, want of revenues, and the neglect of their members in the disposal of church livings. Chichele immediately procured a decree that all ecclesiastical patrons should, for ten years to come, confer the benefices in their gift on members of either university exclusively; and that vicars general, commissaries and officials, should be chosen out of the graduates in civil and common law.

He had now held eighteen synods, in all of which he distinguished himself as the guardian of the church, and was eminently successful in conciliating the parliament and nation, by such grants on the part of the clergy as showed a readiness, proportioned to their ability, to support the interests of the crown and people. The most noted of his constitutions were those which enjoined the celebration of festivals; regulated the probates of wills; provided against false weights; and augmented the stipends of vicars. That which is most to be regretted was, his instituting a kind of inquisition against Lollardism.

In 1442, he applied to pope Eugenius for an indulgence to resign his office into more able hands, being now nearly eighty years old, and, as he pathetically urges, “heavy laden, aged, infirm, and weak beyond measure.” He intreats that he may be released from a burthen which he was no longer able to support either with ease to himself, or advantage to others. He died, however, before the issue of this application could be known, on the 12th of April 1443, and was interred with great solemnity in the cathedral of Canterbury, under a monument of exquisite workmanship built by himself. As a farther mark of respect, the prior and monks decreed that no person should be buried in that part of the church where his remains were deposited.

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

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

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

Sixteen of the fellows were to study the civil and canon laws, and the rest, philosophy and the arts, and theology. But the most remarkable clause in this charter, when compared to former foundations, is that which gives the society leave to purchase lands to the yearly value of 300l. a sum very far exceeding what we read of in any previous foundation, and which has more recently been increased to 1050l. by charters from Charles I. and George II. Another charter of very extensive privileges was granted soon after the foundation by Henry VI.; and this, and the charter of foundation, were confirmed by an act of parliament 14 Henry VII. 1499.

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

* This part of the founder’s statutes puted and disputable claims. In 1776, has occasioned much litigation, as the on an application to Cornwallis, archfarther the time is removed from his bishop of Canterbury, as visitor, he age, the difficulty of ascertaining con- decreed that the number of fellows to sanguinity becomes almost insupera- be admkted on claim of kindred should ble. According- to the “Stemmata be limited to twenty. In 1792, on the Chicheleana,” published in 1765, the claim of kindred by a person, when the collateral descendants of our founder number of twenty happened to be cornwere then to be traced through nearly plete, the matter was re-heard, and the twelve hundred families; but this, former archbishop’s decree ratified and which seems at first to administer faci- confirmed, lity, is in fact the source of many disWapenham, Northamptonshire with the suppressed alien priories of Romney in Kent; the rectory of Upchurch the priory of New Abbey near Abberbury, in Shropshire of St. Clare in Carmarthenshire, and of Llangenith in Glamorganshire. Wood says, that king Edward IV. took into his hands all the revenues of this college and these priories, because the society had sided with Henry VI. against him; but it appears by the college archives, that the king took only these alien priories, and soon restored them, probably because he considered it as an act of justice to restore what had been purchased from, and not given, by the crown. Besides these possessions, the trustees of the founder purchased the manors of Edgware, Kingsbury, and Malories, in Middlesex, &c.; and he bequeathed the sums of 134l. 6s. Sd. and a thousand marks, to be banked for the use of the college .

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

, counsellor of state, and first physician to the French king, was born at Montpellier in 1672. Having obtained his doctor’s degree, though no more than twenty years old, he was sent to stop the progress of the plague then raging at Marseilles, by the duke of Orleans, regent of the kingdom. The boldness and confidence with which he entered that city, where every one seemed only waiting for death, had a striking effect on their fears. He encouraged the inhabitants, and quieted their alarms by his presence; and his success was beyond expectation. His services were rewarded by marks of honour and a pension from the king. In 1731 he was called to court to be physician to the royal children, by the interest of Chirac, whose daughter he had married; and after whose death he was made first physician to the king, counsellor of state, and superintendent of the mineral waters of the kingdom. He died at Versailles in 1752, aged near 80. The most curious of his works is that wherein he maintains that the plague is not contagious, entitled “Observations et reflexions touchant la nature, les evenements, et le traitement de la Peste de Marseilles,” Paris, 1721, 12mo. He published also a valuable collection of facts relative to the plague, under the title of “Traitedes causes, &c. de la Peste,” Paris, 1744, 4to.

, born at Montpellier in 1702, was brought up under his father, the subject of the foregoing article. The famous Chirac afterwards taught him the elements of physic, and he was instructed in anatomy by Du Vernay and Winslow, and botany by Vaillant, under whom he made great progress. The demonstration of the virtues of plants was his first function in the university of Montpellier, which he executed with great success, and the royal garden of that town, the most ancient in the kingdom, the work of Henry IV. was entirely renewed in a very short time. He died in 1740, at the age of 38, professor and chancellor of the university of Montpellier, being the fifth of his family that had enjoyed that dignity.

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

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

, Mus. D, was a native of Bristol, and a disciple of Elway Bevin. In 1631, being then of Christ-church college, Oxford, he took his degree of bachelor in music; and in 1636, was appointed one of the organists of St. George’s chapel at Windsor, in the room of Dr. John Munday, and soon after one of the organists of the royal chapel at White-hall. After the restoration he was appointed chanter of the king’s chapel, and one of the chamber musicians to Charles II. In 1663, the university of Oxford conferred on him the degree of doctor in music, at an act celebrated in St. Mary’s church. Dr. Child, after having been organist of Windsor chapel sixtyfive years, died in that town 1697, at ninety years of age. In the inscription on his grave -stone, in the same chapel, it is recorded that he paved the body of that choir at his own expense; he likewise gave 20l: towards building the town -hall at Windsor, and 50l. to the corporation to be disposed of in charitable uses, at their discretion. His works are “Psalms for Three Voices,” &c. with a continued base either for the organ or theorbo, composed after the Italian way, London, 1639. “Catches, Hounds, and Canons,” published in Hilton’s “Catch that Catch can,” 1652. “Divine Anthems and Compositions to several Pieces of Poetry,” some of which were written by Dr. Thomas Pierce, of Oxford. Some of his secular compositions likewise appeared in a book entitled “Court Ayres,” printed 1655. But his principal productions are his services and full anthems, printed in Dr. Boyce’s collection. His style was so remarkably easy and natural, compared with that to which choirmen had been accustomed, that it was frequently treated by them with derision. Indeed, his modulation, at present, is so nearly modern, as not to produce that solemn and seemingly new effect on our ears, which we now experience from the productions of the sixteenth century. There are several inedited and valuable compositions by Dr. Child preserved in Dr. Tudvvay’s manuscript “Collection of English Church Music,” in the British Museum.

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

, a divine of the church of England, celebrated for his controversial talents, was the son of William Chillingworth, citizen, afterwards mayor of Oxford, and born there October 1602. He was baptized on the last of that month, Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, but then fellow of St. John’s -college, being his godfather. After he had been educated in grammar learning at a private school in that city, he was admitted a scholar of Trinity-college, June 2, 1618, and elected fellow June 10, 1628; after having taken his degrees of B A. and M. A. in the regular way. He did not confine his studies to divinity: he applied himself with great success to mathematics; and, what shews the extent of his genius, he was also accounted a good poet. Accordingly, sir John Suckling has mentioned him in his Session of the Poets"

“There was Selden, and he set hard by the chair;

Wainman not far off, which was very fair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"He did readily believe all war to be unlawful and did not think that the parliament (whose proceedings he perfectly abhorred) did in truth intend to involve the nation in a civil war, till after the battle of Edgehill; and then he thought any expedient, or stratagem that was like to put a speedy end to it, to be the most commendable.

“He was a man of excellent parts, and of a cheerful disposition void of all kind of vice, and endued with many notable virtues of a very public heart, and an indefatigable desire to do good his only un happiness proceeded from his sleeping too little, and thinking too much which sometimes threw him into violent fevers.” With respect to his inclination to Socinian tenets, that point has been so clearly demonstrated by the late Mr. Whitaker, in his “Origin of Arianism disclosed,” p. 482 492, as to admit of no doubt. Dr. Kippis, in the last edition of the Biographia Britannica, acknowledged himself to be convinced by Mr. Whitaker’s testimonies and reasonings, and therefore retracted what he had said on the subject, in a preceding volume.

Besides the works already noticed, there are extant of Mr. Chillingworth’s, “Nine Sermons on occasional subjects,” 1664, 4to; and a tract called “The Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy,” 1644, 4to. It was also added to an edition of a tract on the same subject, by Dr. Morton, bishop of Durham, entitled “Confessions and proofs of protestant divines,” 1644, 4to. A volume of his manuscript tracts, chiefly of the controversial kind, is among the manuscripts in the Lambeth library, which archbishop Tenison purchased of Mr. Henry Wharton. Mr. Chillingworth left his relations residuary legatees to his property, after a few trifling legacies, and the sum of 400l. to the corporation of Oxford for charitable purposes.

, an excellent Greek and Latin scholar and mathematician, was born in 1610 at Slow in the Wold, in Gloucestershire, and became one of the clerks of Magdalen college, Oxford; and in 1632, one of the petty canons or chaplains of Christ church. Being ejected from this by the parliamentary visitors in 1648, he came to London in great necessity, and took lodgings in the house of Thomas Est, a musician and music printer, in Aldersgate street. There being a large room in this house, Chilmead made use of it for a weekly music meeting, from the profits of which he derived a slender subsistence, and probably improved it by being employed as translator. He died in 1653, having for some years received relief from Edward Bysshe, esq. garter king at arms, and sir Henry Hoibrook, the translator of Procopius. He was interred in the church of St. Botolph without Aldersgate. Among his works, our musical historians notice his tract “De musica antiqua Graeca,” printed in 1672, at the end of the Oxford edition of Aratus: he also wrote annotations on three odes of Dionysius, in the same volume, with the ancient Greek musical characters, which Chilmead rendered in the notes of Guide’s scale. His other works are, 1 “Versio Latina et Annotationes in Joan. Malalae Chronographiam,” Oxf. 1691, 8vo. 2. A translation, from the French of Ferrand, of “A Treatise on Love, or Erotic Melancholy,” 1640, 8vo. 3. Gaffarel’s “Unheard-of Curiosities.” 4. Campanella’s “Discourse touching the Spanish monarchy,” which not selling, Prynne prefixed an epistle and a new title, “Thomas Campanella’s advice to the king of Spain, for obtaining the universal monarchy of the world,” Lond. 1659, 4to. 5. Hues’ “Treatise of the Globes,” ibid. 1639 and 1659; and 6. Modena’s “History of the Rites, Customs, &c. of the Jews,” ibid. 1650. He also compiled the “Catalogus Mss. Grsecorum in Bibl. Bodl.” 1636, a manuscript for the use of the Bodleian, and the most complete of its time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, or as he was called Quintus Septimus Florens Christianus, a French poet, was born at Orleans Jan. 26, 1541. He was called Quintus, because he was his father’s fifth child, and Septimus, because he was born in the seventh month of his mother’s pregnancy. He was well skilled in languages and in the belles lettres; and was tutor to Henry IV. whom he educated in the reformed religion; but he himself returned to the Roman catholic church before his death, which happened in 1596. He was author of some satires against Ronsard, under the name of “La Baronnie,” 1564, 8vo; poems, printed separately in 8vo, and some translations; the principal of which is that of Oppian, 4to. He had a part in the Satyrae Menipeae. Notwithstanding his disposition to satire, he preserved the attachment of his friends, and the general esteem of the public. William his father, physician -to Francis I. and Henry II. translated some medical works into French.

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

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

The materials Mr. Christie had collected for his Thesis, when intending to take a medical degree, were afterwards published in the “London Medical journal” in a letter to Dr. Simmons. But his most valuable publication, although much less known than it deserves, was a first volume of “Miscellanies, philosophical, medical, and moral,” 1789, a thick crown 8vo, containing 1. Observations on the literature of the primitive Christian writers; being an attempt to vindicate them from the imputation of Rousseau and Gibbon, that they were enemies to philosophy and human learning, originally read in the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. At the time he wrote this, his mind was much occupied by theological inquiries. 2. Reflections suggested by the character of Pamphilus of Csesarea, 3. Hints respecting the state and education of the people. 4. Thoughts on the origin of human knowledge, and on the antiquity of the world. 5. Remarks on professor Meiners’s History of ancient opinions respecting the Deity. 6. Account of Dr. Ellis’s work on the origin of sacred knowledge. Most, if not all these were prepared for the press before he had reached his twenty- fifth year, and afford such an instance of extensive reading and thinking as rarely occurs at that age.

, M. A. probably a relation of the preceding, was born near Montrose in 1730, and educated in King’s college, Aberdeen, where he took his degrees, and was licensed to preach as a probationer; but not having interest to procure a living in the church, he accepted of the place of master of the grammar-school of Montrose, where he was greatly celebrated for his easy and expeditious method of teaching the classics. He wrote a “Latin Grammar,” and an “Introduction to the making of Latin,” both of which are well esteemed. He died at Montrose in 1774, aged 44.

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

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

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

Christopherson wrote also, about the year 1546, the tragedy of Jephtha, both in Latin and Greek, dedicated to Henry VIII. which was most probably a Christmas play for Trinity college. It was said that he was buried in Christ Church, London, Dec. 28, 1558, but Tanner thinks he was buried in Trinity college chapel, as in his will, proved Feb. 9, 1562, he leaves his body to be buried on the south side of the altar of that chapel. Strype, however, in the Introduction to his Annals, p. 3 1, describes his pompous funeral at Christ Church. It is more certain that he joined his brethren in queen Mary’s reign in the measures adopted to check the reformation.

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

The stoics complained, as Cicero relates, that Chrysippus had collected so many arguments in favour of the sceptical hypothesis, that he could not afterwards answer them himself; and had thus furnished Carneades their antagonist with weapons against them. This has been imputed to his vanity, which transported him to such a degree, that he made no scruple of sacrificing the doctrines of his sect for the sake of displaying the subtlety of his own conceits. The glory which he expected, if he could but make men say that he had improved upon Arcesilaus himself, and had expressed the objections of the academics in a much stronger manner than he, was his only aim. Thus most of the contradictions and absurd paradoxes which Plutarch imputes to the stoics, and for which he is very severe upon them, are taken from the works of Chrysippus. Plutarch charges him with making God the author of sin, and this probably arises from his definition of God, as it is preserved by Cicero, which shews that he did not distinguish the deity from the universe. He thought the gods mortal, and even asserted that they would really perish in the conflagration of the world: and, though he excepted Jupiter, yet he thought him liable to change. He wrote a book concerning the amours of Jupiter and Juno, which abounded with so many obscene passages that it was loudly exclaimed against, but Brucker seems to be of opinion that what he advanced of this kind was merely in the way of paradoxical assertion, thrown out in the course of disputation, and for the sake of displaying his ingenuity. He is inclined likewise to think that he is not justly chargeable with any other kind of impiety than may be charged upon the sect which he supported. It is, however, easy to guess that the stoics had not much reason to be pleased with his writings for, as he was a considerable man among them, so considerable as to establish it into a proverb, that “if it had not been for Chrysippus, the porch had never been,” it gave people a pretence to charge the whole body with the errors of so illustrious a member. Accordingly we find that the celebrated authors among the stoics, Seneca, Epictetus, Arrian, though they speak very highly of Chrysippus, yet do it in such a manner as to let us see that they did not at the bottom cordially esteem him. There does not appear to have been any objection brought against his morals, and he was sober and temperate.

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

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

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

He was ordained deacon by Meletius, in the year 381, and now began to compose and publish many of his works. Five years after, he was ordained a priest by Flavian, in which office he acquitted himself with so much reputation, that, upon the death of Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, in the year 397, he was unanimously chosen to fill that see. The emperor Arcadius, however, was obliged to employ all his authority, and even to use some stratagem, before he could seduce Chrysostom from his native Antioch, where he was held in so much admiration and esteem. He sent in the mean time, a mandate to Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, to consecrate Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople; which was done in the year 398, notwithstanding the secret and envious attempts of Theophilus to prevent it. But Chrysostom was no sooner at the head of the church of Constantinople, than that zeal and ardour, for which he was afterwards famous, was employed in endeavouring to effect a general reformation of manners. With this disposition, he begun with the clergy, and next attacked the laity, but especially the courtiers, whom he soon made his enemies; and his preaching is said to have been eminently successful among the lower classes. Nor was his zeal confined altogether within the precincts of Constantinople; it extended to foreign parts, as appears from his causing to be demolished some temples and statues in Phoenicia; but all writers are agreed that his temper, even in his best duties, was violent, and afforde'd his enemies many advantages.

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

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

Chrysostom was undoubtedly one of the most distinguished of the Greek fathers, and one of the most eloquent preachers of his time. In his works he appears to have aimed earnestly at reformation of manners, and much of the manners of the times may be gleamed from his various writings. We have seen that the intemperance of his zeal sometimes furnished his enemies with advantages which they wduld have sought without success in the purity of his life. He is said to have been from his youth of a peevish and morose temper" but he was open and sincere, spoke what he thought, and was regardless of consequences. The machinations, however, of his enemies, prevailed at last, and shortened the life of one of the most learned, eloquent, pious, and charitable men of his age. His language, says Dr. Blair, is pure, and his style highly figured. He is copious, smooth, and sometimes pathetic. But he fetains, at the same time, much of that character which has been always attributed to the Asiatic eloquence, which is diffuse and redundant to a great degree, and often over-wrought and tumid. He may be read, however, with advantage, for the eloquence of the pulpit, as being freer from false ornaments than the Latin fathers.

, once a noted deistical writer, and the idol of that party, was born at East Harnham, a small village near Salisbury, Sept. 29, 1679. His father, a maltster, dying when he was young, and the widow having threte more children to maintain by her labour, he received no other education: than being instructed to read and write ati ordinary hand. At fifteen he was put apprentice to a glover in Salisbury; and when his term was expired, continued for a time to serve his master as a journeyman, but this trade being prejudicial to his eyes, he was admitted by a tallow-chandler, an intimate friend of his, as companion and sharer with him in his own business. Being endued with considerable natural parts, and fond of reading, he employed all his leisure to gain such knowledge as could be acquired from English books; for of Latin, Greek, or any of the learned languages, he was totally ignorant by dint of perseverance- he also acquired a smatitering of mathematics, geography, aud many other branches of science.

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

Chubb had no sooner commenced author, than his success in this new capacity introduced him to the personal knowledge of several gentlemen of eminence and letters, from whose generosity he received occasionally presents of money. We are even told that sir Joseph Jekyll, master of the rolls, took him into his family, and used, at his hours of retirement, to refresh himself from the fatigues of business with his conversation; but the value of this patronage is considerably lessened, when it is added that sir Joseph occasionally employed him to wait at table, as a servant out of livery* Chubb, however, as what is called an untaught genius, was generally caressed; for nobody suspected as yet, to what prodigious lengths he would suffer his reasoning faculty to carry him. He did not coptinue many years with sir Joseph Jekyll, though it is said he was tempted to it by the offer of a genteel allowance, but retired to his friend at Salisbury, where he spent his days in reading and writing, and assisting at the trade, which, by the death of his partner, had devolved on a nephew, and was to the last period of his life a coadjutor in it. Yet that this may not appear a degradation, we are gravely told that he only sold candles by weight in the shop, and did not actually make them. In this mixed employment he passed his life, and died suddenly at Salisbury, Feb. 8, 1746-7, in the sixty-eighth year of his age.

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

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

This lady is said to have written other things, as tragedies, operas, masques, &c. which, though not printed, are preserved in her family. She died in 1710, in her fifty-fifth year. She was a woman of a sound understanding, but as a poetess, cannot be allowed to rank very high. It was her merit, however, that although she had an education in which literature seemed but little regarded, being taught no other than her native language, her fondness for books, great application, and uncommon abilities, enabled her to figure among the literati of her time. Amidst the charms of poetry, in which she took great delight, she dedicated some part of her time to the severer studies of philosophy. This appears from her Essays, in which she discovers a great degree of piety and good sense. Several of her letters are in the “Memoirs of -Richard Gwinnett and Mrs. Thomas,” 1731, 2 vols. 8vo, and in Curll’s Collection of Letters, vol. III.

, D. D. was born in 1707, and educated at Brasen Nose college, Oxford, where he took liis degree of M. A. in 1731. In 1740 he was instituted to the vicarage of Battersea, which, with a prebendai stall in St. Paul’s cathedral, was the only preferment he obtained. He distinguished himself much in the field of controversy, in which he engaged with men of very opposite talents and pursuits; with Wesley and Whitfield, for their industry in promoting methodism, and with Middleton for equal zeal in attacking the doctrines of Christianity. Against the latter he published “A Vindication of the Miraculous Powers which subsisted in the three Centuries of the Christian Church, in answer to Dr. Middleton’s Free Inquiry. By which it is shewn, that we have no sufficient reason to believe, from the Doctor’s reasonings and objections, that no such powers were continued to the church after the days of the Apostles. With a preface, containing some observations on Dr. Mead’s account of the Demoniacs, in his Medica Sacra,” 1749. This was followed about a year after, by “An Appeal to the serious and unprejudiced, or a Second Vindication, &c.” These were so highly approved of, that the university of Oxford conferred on him the degree of D. D. by diploma. He was also too zealously attached to religion to let the opinions of lord Bolingbroke pass unnoticed, notwithstanding he had been his patron. His publication upon this subject, however, was anonymous, “An Analysis of the Philosophical Works of the late lord Bolinghroke,” 1755. Dr. Church published eight single sermons between 1748 and 1756, in which last year he died.

, an English poet of unquestionable genius, was born in Vine-street, in the parish of St. John the Evangelist, Westminster, some time in February, 1731. His father was for many years curate and lecturer of that parish, and rector of Rainham, near Grays*, in Essex. He placed his son, when ahout eight years of age, at Westminster-school, which was then superintended by Dr. Nichols and Dr. Pierson Lloyd. His proficiency at school, although not inconsiderable, was less remarkable than his irregularities. On entering his nineteenth year he applied for matriculation at the university of Oxford, where it is reported by some, he was rejected on account of his deficiency in the learned languages, and by others, that he was hurt at the trifling and childish questions put to him, and answered the examiner with a contempt which was mistaken for ignorance. It is not easy to reconcile these accounts, and, perhaps, not of great importance. Churchill, however, was afterwards admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, but immediately returned, to London, and never visited the university any more.

The reason of his abandoning the university may have been an attachment which he formed while at Westminsterschool, and which ended in a clandestine marriage at the Fleet. This was a severe disappointment to his father’s hopes, but he wisely became reconciled to what was unavoidable, and entertained the young couple in his house about a year, during which his son’s conduct was irreproachable. In 1751 he retired to Sunderland, in the north of England, where he applied himself to such studies as might qualify himfor the church, and at the customary age he received deacon’s orders from Dr. Willes, bishop of Bath and Wells, and in 1756 was ordained priest by Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London. He then exercised his clerical functions at Cadbury in Somersetshire, and at Rainham, his father’s living, but in what manner, or with what display of abilities, is not remembered. A story was current some time after his death that he received a curacy of 30l. a year in Wales, and kept a public house to supply his deficiencies, but for this there appears to have been no other foundation than what the irregularities of his more advanced life supplied. So regardless was he of character, that his enemies found ready credit for any fiction at his expence. While at Rainham, he endeavoured to provide for his family by teaching the youth of the neighbourhood, an occupation which necessity rendered eligible, and habit might have made pleasing; but in 1758 his father’s death opened a more flattering prospect to him in the metropolis, where he was chosen his successor in the curacy and leetureship of St. John’s. For some time he performed the duties of these offices with external decency at least, and employed his leisure hours in the instruction of some pupils in the learned languages, and was also engaged as a teacher at a ladies’ boarding-school.

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

At what period he made the first experiment of his poetical talents is not known. He had, in conjunction with Lloyd, the care of the poetical department in the “The Library,” a kind of magazine, of which Dr. Kippis was editor, and he probably wrote some small pieces in that work, but they cannot now be distinguished. About the year 1759 or 1760, he wrote a poem of some length, entitled “The Bard,” which was rejected by an eminent bookseller, perhaps justly, as the author did not publish it afterwards, when it might have had the protection of his name. He wrote also “The Conclave,” a satire levelled at the dean and chapter of Westminster, which his friends prevailed upon him to suppress. Thus disappointed in his first two productions, his constant attendance at the theatres suggested a third, levelled at the players. This was his celebrated “Hosciad,” in which the professional characters of the performers of Drury Lane and Co vent Garden theatres were examined with a severity, yet with an acuteness of criticism, and easy flow of humour and sarcasm, which rendered what he probably considered as a temporary trifle, a publication of uncommon popularity; He had, however, so little encouragement in bringing this poem forward, that five guineas were refused as the price he valued it at; and he printed it at his own risk when he had scarcely ready money enough to pay for the necessary advertisements. It was published in March 1761, and its sale exceeded all expectation, but as his name did not appear to the first edition, and Lloyd had not long before published “The Actor,” a poem on the same subject, the Rosciad was generally supposed to be the production of the same writer; while, by others, it was attributed to those confederate wits, Colman and Thornton. Churchill, however, soon avowed a poem which promised so much fame and profit, and as it had been not only severely handled in the Critical Review, but positively attributed to another pen, he published “The Apology: addressed to the Critical Reviewers,” 1761. In this he retaliated with great bitterness of personal satire.

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

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

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

The “Epistle to Hogarth” which followed, was occasioned by that artist’s having taken some liberties in his political engravings, with the characters of the earls Temple and Chatham. The only revenge he now took was a paltry print representing Churchill as a Russian bear, but whether this preceded or followed the “Epistle” is not quite clear. The parties had been once intimate, and Churchill paid due reverence to the talents of Hogarth, but in his present humour he stuck at nothing which could vex and irritate. Hogarth died soon after, and some of Churchill’s friends asserted, with malicious satisfaction, that the poem had accelerated that event. Mr. Nichols, in his copious life of Hogarth, starts some reasonable doubts on this subject.

In 1763 Churchill formed an intimacy with the daughter of a tradesman in Westminster, and prevailed with her to live with him, but within a fortnight his passion was satiated, and she had leisure to repent. Her father received her back, and she might probably have been reformed had she not been insulted by a sister, and her situation rendered so disagreeable that she preferred the company of her seducer. Churchill thought himself bound in honour and gratitude to receive her, and perpetuate her wretchedness by a more lengthened connexion. While this affair was the general subject of public indignation, he wrote “The Conference,” in which he assumes the language of repentance and atonement with such pathetic effect, that every reader must hope he was sincere.

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

The “Farewell,” “The Times,” and “Independence,” were hasty compositions that added little to his fame and, except perhaps “The Times,” announced the decline of his powers. “Independence” appeared in September, 1764, and was the last of his productions published in his life-time. “The Journey,” and “The Fragment of a Dedication to Dr. Warburton,” were brought to light by his friends soon after his death.

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

Of the nature of his life and its enjoyments, enough has been said. He left two sons, Charles and John, the charge of whose education was generously undertaken by sir Richard Jebb; but they soon died, like their father, victims to imprudence and intemperance.

The year after his death, a volume of Sermons was published, which he is said to have prepared for the press, but this seems wholly improbable. They bear no marks of his composition; and it has been conjectured by the editor of the Biographia, that they were some of his father’s, which he had copied for his own use. Churchill was not a hypocrite, and would not have published sermons for a serious purpose; nor could he be tempted by necessity to avail himself of public curiosity. His poetry supplied all his wants; and if we may credit his will, he left behind him a considerable sum of money.

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

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

wrote a few papers in the Connoisseur, the distance is so great, that it is imWhether he was equally intimate with possible to suppose there could ever

Churchill does not appear, but he was have beeo any cordiality. an*>ng the first to revive the memory of from his principal subject. Of this “The Prophecy of Famine,” which, for original creative power, may perhaps be preferred to all his other writings, appears to be a striking example. It consists of a long introduction which might suit any other subject, and detached parts which have no natural connexion, and of which the order might be changed without injury. “The Rosciad” seems to have owed its popularity more to its subject, and the clamour of the players and their friends, than to its poetry. In his other works, there are few of the essential qualities of a poet which he has not frequently exemplified. He has fully proved that he was not incapable of the higher species of poetry; he has given specimens of the sublime and the pathetic, “the two chief nerves of all genuine poesy.” In personification he is peculiarly happy, and sometimes displays the fine fancy of Spenser united with great strength of colouring and force of expression. His bursts of indignation are wonderfully eloquent, and with a love of virtue, he might have been her irresistible advocate, and the first of ethic writers. Where he does put on the character of a moral satirist, he is perhaps inferior to none of the moderns. But unfortunately his genius was biassed by personal animosity, and where he surpasses all other writers, it is in the keenness, not of legitimate satire, but of defamation. His object is not to reform, but to revenge; and that the greatness of his revenge may be justified, he exaggerates the offences of his objects beyond all bounds of truth and decency.

In some cases, the poet may be considered separate from the man, and indeed of many eminent poets we know too little to be able to determine what influence their character had on their writings. But ChurchilPs productions are Sq connected with his turbulent and irregular life, that they must necessarily be brought in contact. He frequently alludes to his character and situation, and takes every opportunity to vindicate what seems to redound most to his discredit, his vices and his associates; and as his works will probably long be read with admiration as works of genius, or from curiosity as specimens of obloquy, it is necessary to be told that he had very little veneration for truth, that he drew his characters in extravagant disproportion, and that he was regardless of any means by which he could bring temporary or lasting disgrace on the persons whom either faction or revenge made him consider as enemies. Mr. Tooke, of Gray’s-inn, lately published an edition of Churchill’s works, illustrated by much contemporary history and we owe some particulars of Churchill’s life to the well-written memoirs prefixed to this work.

, a distinguished English gentleman, son of John Churchill, esq. of Minthorn in Dorsetshire, by Sarah, daughter and coheiress of sir Henry Winston, of Standiston in Gloucestershire, was descended from a very ancient family, and born at Wooton Glanville in Dorsetshire, or, according to Wood, at London, in 1620. He was sent to St. John’s college in Oxford when he was scarce sixteen years of age, where he made an uncommon progress in his studies; but, on account of the civil commotions which arose soon after, was obliged to leave the university before he had taken a degree. He engaged on the side of the king, for which he suffered severely in his fortune; and having married a daughter of sir John Drake of Ashe in Devonshire, was forced to seek refuge in that gentleman’s house, where many of his children were born. At the restoration he represented Weyinouth in the parliament which met in May 8, 1661. In 1663, Charles II. conferred on him the honour of knighthood; and soon after the foundation of the Royal Society, he was, for his Icnown love of letters and conversation with learned men, elected a member of it in Dec. 1664. In the same year he was appointed one of the commissioners of the court of claims in Ireland; and, upon his return, one of the clerks comptrollers of the green cloth. Notwithstanding his engagements in these public offices, he found time to draw up a kind of political essay upon the history of England, which was published in folio, 1675, under the title of “Divi Britannici, being a remark upon the lives of all the kings of this isle, from the year of the world 2855, unto the year of grace 1660.” It was dedicated to Charles II; and in the dedication the author takes notice, that having served his majesty’s father as long as he could with his sword, he spent a great part of those leisure hours, which were forced upon him by his misfortunes, in defending that prince’s cause, and indeed' the cause of monarchy itself, with his pen: and he franklyowns, that he considered his work as the funeral oration of that deceased government, or rather, as his title speaks it, the apotheoses of departed kings. We are told by Wood, that there were some passages in this work about the king’s power of raising money without parliament, which gave such offence to the members then sitting, that the author had them cancelled, and the book reprinted. Nicolsou speaks very slightly of this performance, and represents it as “only giving the reader a diverting view of the arms and exploits of our kings down to the restoration in 1660;” but it is very accurate as to dates and authorities.

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

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

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

In June, being then lieutenant-general of his majesty’s forces, he was ordered into the west to suppress Monmouth’s rebellion; which he did in a month’s time, with an inconsiderable body of horse, and took the duke himself prisoner. He was extremely well received by the king at his return from this victory; but soon discerned that it only served to confirm the king in an opinion that, by virtue of a standing army, the religion and government of England might easily be changed. How far lord Churchill concurred with or opposed the king, while he was forming this project, has been disputed by historians. According to bishop Burnet, “he very prudently declined meddling much in business, spoke little except when his advice was asked, and then always recommended moderate measures.” It is said he declared very early to lord Galway, that if his master attempted to overturn the established religion, he would leave him; and that he signed the memorial transmitted to the prince and princess of Orange, by which they were invited to fill the throne. Be this as it will, it is certain that he remained with the king, and was entrusted by him, after the prince of Orange was landed in 1688. He attended king James when he marched with his forces to oppose the prince, and had the command of 5000 men; yet the earl of Feversham, suspecting his inclinations, advised the king to seize him. The king’s affection to him was so great, that he could not be prevailed upon to do it; and this left him at liberty -to go over to the prince, which accordingly he did, but without betraying any post, or carrying off any troops. Whoever considers the great obligations lord Churchill lay under to king James, must naturally conclude, that he could not take the resolution of leaving him, and withdrawing to the prince of Orange, but with infinite concern and regret; and that this was really the case, appears from a letter, which he left for the king, to shew the reasons of his conduct, and to express his grief for the step he was obliged to take.

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

On his return to England, he found the queen’s council already divided; some being for carrying on the war as auxiliaries only, others for declaring against France and Spain immediately, and so becoming principals at once. The earl of Marlborough joined with the latter; and these carrying their point, war was declared May 4, 1702, and approved afterwards by parliament, though the Dutch at that time had not declared. The earl took the command June 20; and discerning that the States were made uneasy by the places which the enemy held on their frontiers, he began with attacking and reducing them. Accordingly, in this single campaign, he made himself master of the castles of Gravenbroeck and Waerts, the towns of Venlo, Ruremond, and Stevenswaert, together with the city and citadel of Liege; which last was taken sword in hand. These advantages were considerable, and acknowledged as such by the States; but they had like to have been of a very short date: for, the army separating in the neighbourhood of Liege, Nov. 3, the earl was taken the next day in his passage by water, by a small party of thirty men from the garrison at Gueldres; but it being towards night, and the earl insisting upon an old pass given to his brother, and now out of date, was suffered to proceed, and arrived at the Hague, when they were in the utmost consternation at the accident which had befallen him. The winter approaching, he embarked for England, and arrived in London Nov. 28. The queen had been complimented some time before by both houses of parliament, on the success of her arms in Flanders; in consequence of which there had been a public thanksgiving Nov. 4, when her majesty went in great state to St. Paul’s. Soon after a committee of the house of commons waited upon him with the thanks of the house; and Dec. 2, her majesty declared her intention in council of creating him a duke: which she soon did, by the title of marquis of Blandford, and duke of Marlborough. She likewise added a pension of 5000l. per annum out of the post-office, during her own life, and sent a message to the house of commons, signifying her desire that it might attend the honour she had lately conferred; but with this the house would not Comply, contenting themselves, in their address to the queen, with applauding fyer manner of rewarding public service, but declaring their inability to make such a precedent for alienating the revenue of the crown.

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

When measures were properly settled at home, April 6, 1704, he embarked for Holland; where, staying about a month to adjust the necessary steps, he began his march towards the heart of Germany; and after a conference held with prince Eugene of Savoy, and Lewis of Baden, he arrived before the strong entrenchments of the enemy at Schellenburg, very unexpectedly, on June 21; whom, after an obstinate and bloody dispute, he entirely routed. It was on this occasion that the emperor wrote the duke a letter with his own hand, acknowledging his great services, and offering him the title of a prince of the empire, which he modestly declined, till the queen afterwards commanded him to accept of it. He prosecuted this success, and the battle of Hochstet was fought by him and prince Eugene, on August 2; when the French and Bavarians were the greatest part of them killed and taken, and their commander, marshal Tallard, made a prisoner. After this glorious action, by which the empire was saved, and the whole electorate of Bavaria conquered, the duke continued his pursuit till he forced the French to repass the Rhine. Then prince Lewis of Baden laid siege to Landau, while the duke and prince Eugene covered it; but it was not taken before the 12th of November. He made a tour also to Berlin; and by a short negotiation, suspended the disputes between the king of Prussia and the Dutch, by which he gained the good will of both parties. When the campaign was over, he returned to Holland, and, Dec. 14, arrived in England. He brought over with him marshal Tallard, and 26 other officers of distinction, 121 standards, and 179 colours, which by her majesty’s order were put up in Westminster-hall. He was received by the queen with the highest marks of esteem, and had the solemn thanks of both houses of parliament. Besides this, the commons addressed her majesty to perpetuate the memory of this victory, which she did, by granting Woodstock, with the hundred of Wotton, to him and his heirs for ever. This was confirmed by an act of parliament, which passed on the 14th of March following, with this remarkable clause, that they should be held by tendering to the queen, her heirs and successors, on August 2, every year for ever, at the castle of Windsor, a standard with three fleurs de lys painted thereon. Jan. 6, the duke was magnificently entertained by the city; and Feb. 8, the commons addressed the queen, to testify their thanks for the wise treaty which the duke had concluded with the court of Berlin, by which a large body of Prussian troops were sent to the assistance of the duke of Savoy.

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

All things being concerted for rendering the next year’s campaign more successful than the former, the duke, in the beginning of April, 1706, embarked for Holland. This year the famous battle of Ramilies was fought, and won upon May 12, being Whitsunday. The duke was twice here in the utmost danger, once by a fall from his horse, and a second time by a cannon-shot, which took off the head of colonel Bingfield, as he was. holding the stirrup for him to remount. The advantages gained by this victory were so far improved by the vigilance and wisdom of the duke, that Louvain, Brussels, Mechlin, and even Ghent and Bruges, submitted to king Charles without a stroke; and Oudenard surrendered upon the first summons. The city of Antwerp followed this example; and thus, in the short space of a fortnight, the duke reduced all Brabant, and the marquisate of the holy empire, to the obedience of king Charles. He afterwards took the towns of Ostend, Menin, Dendermonde, and Aeth. The forces of the allies after this glorious campaign being about to separate, his grace went to the Hague Oct. 16, where the proposals, which France had made for a peace, contained in a letter from the elector of Bavaria to the duke of Marlborough, were communicated to the ministers of the allies, after which he embarked for England, and arrived at London Nov. 18, 1706 and though at this time there was a party formed against him at court, yet the great services he had done the nation, and the personal esteem the queen always had for him, procured him an universal good reception. The house of commons, in their address to the queen, spoke of the success of the campaign in general, and of the duke of Marlborough’s share in particular, in the strongest terms possible; and the day after unanimously voted him their thanks, as did the lords. They went still farther; for, Dec. 17, they addressed the queen for leave to bring in a bill to settle the duke’s honours upon the male and female issue of his daughters. This was granted; and Blenheim-house, with the manor of Woodstock, was, after the decease of the duchess, upon whom they were settled in jointure, entailed in the same manner with the honours. Two days after this, the standards and colours taken at Ramilies being carried in state through the city, in order to be hung up in Guildhall, the duke, by invitation, partook of a grand dinner with the lord-mayor. The last day of the year was appointed for a general thanksgiving, and her majesty went in state to St. Paul’s; in which there was this singularity observed, that it was the second thanksgiving within the year. Jan. 17, the house of commons presented an address to the queen, in which they signified, that as her majesty had built the house of Blenheim to perpetuate the memory of the duke of Marlborough* s services, and as the house of lords had ordered a bill for continuing his honours, so they were desirous to make some provision for the more honourable support of his dignity. In consequence of this, and of the queen’s answer, the pension of 5000l. per ann. from the post-office was settled in the manner the queen had formerly desired of another house of commons, which happened not to be in quite so good a temper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a Spanish author of considerable celebrity, a Dominican, and titular patriarch of Alexandria, was born in 1540 at Baec,a in Andalusia, and died at Rome in February 1599, but some writers say that he was living in 1601. A great number of his works remain; the most considerable among which is entitled “Vitse et gesta Romanorum pontificum et cardinalium;” which, with the continuation, was printed at Rome, 1676, 4 vols. folio; the sequel down to Clement XII. was published by ]\larie Guarnacci, Rome, 1751, 2 vols. folio; “Bibliotheca Scriptorum ad annum 1383,” Paris, 1731, folio, and Amsterdam, 1732, folio. This last consists of the Paris edition, which the Dutch bookseller had bought, with some additions by the editors, and goes no farther than E. Kte wrote also " Historja utriusque Belli Dacici, in columna Trajana expressi, cum figuris;rneis/* Rome, 1616, oblong folio. In this work he betrays no little superstition, by labouring to prove that the soul of Trajan was delivered out of hell at the iutercession of St. Gregory.

, brother to the preceding, and a very learned critic of Spain, was born at Toledo in 1525, and died at Rome in 1581. He was employed with others by pope Gregory XIII. in correcting the calendar, and also in revising an edition of the Bible, and of some other works printed at the Vatican. He wrote learned notes upon Arnobius, Tertullian, Cassian, Caesar, Pliny, Terence, &c. He was the author, likewise, of some separate little treatises, one particularly, “De Triclinio Romano;” which, with those of Fuivius Ursinus and Mercurialis upon the same subject, was published at Amsterdam, 1689, in 12mo, with figures to illustrate the descriptions.

, a learned Italian, was born at Rome April 11, 1633. He quitted the study of the civil law for the practice of the apostolical chancery, and at the same time found leisure to cultivate the sciences and polite literature. It was by his care and activity that the academy of ecclesiastical history was instituted at Rome in 1671, and in 1677 he established under the auspices of the famous queen Christina, an academy of mathematics and natural history, which, by the merit of its members, soon became known throughout Europe. Ciampini died July 12, 1698, aged sixty-five. His writings are: I. “Conjecturae de perpetuo azymorum usu in ecclcsia Latina,” 1688, 4to. 2. “Vetera monumenta, in quibus praecipua Musiva opera, sacrarum profanarumque aedium structura, dissertationibus iconibusque illustrantur,” Rome, 1690, 1699, 2 vols. fol. This is an investigation of the origin of the most curious remains of the buildings belonging to ancient Rome, with explanations and plates of those monuments, 3. “Synopsis historica de sacris aedificiis a. Constantino Magno constructs,” 1693, fol. 4. An examination of the “Lives of the Popes” said to be written by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, calculated to prove that Anastasius wrote only the lives of Gregory IV. Sergius II. Leo IV. Benedict III. and Nicholas I. and that the others were written by different authors, as we have already noticed in our account of Anastasius. Ciampini published many other dissertations, both in Italian and Latin, and left a great many manuscripts, of both which Fabroni has the most complete catalogue.

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

All this applause, however, did not advance him in the manner he had reason to expect and therefore, that his ambition might have another trial, he resolved to shew himself as a writer. With this view he wrote his first play, called “Love’s last Shift,” acted Jan. 1695, in which he performed the part of sir Novelty Fashion. This comedy met with great success, and the character of the fop was so well executed, that from that time Cibber was considered as having no equal in parts of the same cast. He now turned his attention principally to writing, and it is observable, says he, “that my muse and my spouse (for he was married at this time) were equally prolific; the one was seldom the mother of a child, but in the same year the other made me the father of a play. I think we had a dozen of each sort between us; of both which kinds some died in their infancy, and near an equal number of each were alive when I quitted the theatre.”

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

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

, son of the above, was born in 1703, and about 1716 sent to Winchester school; from which, like his father, he passed almost directly to the stage, on which the power his father possessed as a manager, enabled him to come forward with considerable advantages, and, by his merit, he soon attained a share of the public favour. His manner of acting was in the same walk of characters which his father had supported, although, owing to some natural defects, he did not attain equal excellence. His person was far from pleasing, and the features of his face rather disgusting. His voice had the shrill treble, but not the musical harmony of his father’s. Yet still an apparent good understanding and quickness of parts, a perfect knowledge of what he ought to express, together with a confident vivacity in his manner, well adapted to the characters he was to represent, would have ensured his success, had his 'private conduct been less imprudent or immoral. But a total want of œconomy led him into errors, the consequences of which it was almost impossible he should ever be able to retrieve. A fondness for indulgences, which a moderate income could not afford, induced him to submit to obligations, which it had the appearance of meanness to accept; and his life was one continued series of distress, extravagance, and perplexity, till the winter, 1757, when he was engaged by Sheridan to go over to Dublin. On this expedition Cibber embarked at Park Gate, on board the Dublin Trader, some time in October; but the high winds, which are frequent tjien in St. George’s Channel, and which are fatal to many vessels in their passage from this kingdom to Ireland, proved particularly so to this. The vessel was driven on the coast of Scotland, where it was cast away; and Cibber lost his life. A few of the passengers escaped in a boat, but the ship was so entirely lost, that scarcely any vestiges of it remained, excepting a box of books and papers, which were known to be Cibber’s, and which were cast up on the western coast of Scotland.

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

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

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

As an actress, she was thought most excellent in tender parts, till, during the rebellion, she appeared in the character of Constance, in Shakspeare’s King John, in which she manifested not only the maternal tenderness of a Merope, but such dignity, spirit, and passion, as perhaps have never been exceeded, if equalled, on any stage. Handel himself was exceedingly partial to her, and took the trouble of teaching her the parts expressly composed for her limited compass of voice, which was a mezzo soprano, almost, indeed, a contralto, of only six or seven notes, with all the drudgery of repetition necessary to undergo in teaching persons more by the ear than the eye. He and Quin usually spent their Sunday evenings at Mrs. Cibber’s, where wit and humour were more frequently of the party, than Melpomene, Euterpe, or Orpheus. Besides her excellence as an actress, she has some claims as a translator, the “Oracle of St.,Foix” being rendered by her into English in 1752, and played for her benefit, not entirely without success. The disorder of which she died was supposed to be a rupture of one of the coats of the stomach, which formed a sack at the bottom of it, into which the food passed, and thus prevented digestion. She died Jan. 30, 1766, and was buried in one of the cloisters of Westminster-abbey leaving one child by the gentleman with whom she cohabited.

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

The family seat, about three miles from the town, in a situation extremely pleasant, and well adapted to the nature of the climate, was surrounded with groves and shady walks, leading from the -house to a river, called Fibrenus; which was divided into two equal streams by a little island, covered with trees and a portico, contrived both for study and exercise, whither Cicero used to retire, when he had any particular work upon his hands. The clearness and rapidity of the stream, murmuring through a rocky channel the shade and verdure of its banks, planted with tall poplars the remarkable coldness of the water; and, above all, its falling by a cascade into the noble river Liris, a little below the island, form the parts of a scene which Cicero himself has, in several parts of his works, depicted. But there cannot be a better proof of its delightfulness, than that it was afterwards and in very modern times possessed by a convent of monks, and called the Villa of St. Dominic.

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

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

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

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

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

progress the sooner. The Sicilians received him every where with all the honours due to the pains he was taking in their service; and all the cities concurred in the impeachment, excepting Syracuse and Messana, with which Verres had kept up a fair correspondence, and which last continued throughout firm in its engagements to him. Cicero came back to Rome, to the surprise of his adversaries, much sooner than he was expected, with most ample proofs of Verres’s guilt, but found, what he suspected, a strong cabal formed to prolong the affair by all the arts of delay which interest or money could procure. This suggested to him to shorten the method of the proceeding, so as to bring it to an issue before the present praetor M. Glabrio, and his assessors, whom he considered as impartial judges. Instead, therefore, of spending any time in employing his eloquence, as usual, on the several articles of the charge, he only produced his witnesses to be interrogated-: whose evidence so confounded Hortensius, though the reigning orator at the bar, and usually styled the King of the forum, that he had nothing to say for his client. Verres, despairing of all defence, submitted immediately, without waiting for the sentence, to a voluntary exile; where he lived many years, forgotten and deserted by all his friends. He is said to have been relieved in this miserable situation by the generosity of Cicero; yet was proscribed and murdered after all by Marc Antony, for the sake of those fine statues and Corinthian vessels of which he had plundered the Sicilians: “happy only,” as Lactantius spys, “before his death, to have seen the more deplorable end of his old enemy and accuser Cicero.”

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

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

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

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

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

This was the state of the conspiracy, when Cicero delivered the first of those four speeches which were spoken upon the occasion of it, and are still extant. The meeting of the conspirators was on November 6, in the evening; and on the 8th he summoned the senate to the temple of Jupiter in the capitol, where it was not usually held but in times of public alarm. Catiline himself, though his schemes were not only suspected, but actually discovered, had the confidence to come to this very meeting, which so shocked the whole assembly, that none of his acquaintance durst venture to salute him; and the consular senators quitted that part of the house in which he sat, and left the whole clear to him. Cicero was so provoked by his impudence, that instead of entering upon any business, as he designed, he addressed himself directly to Catiline, and laid open the whole course of his villanies, and the notoriety of his treasons. Catiline, astonished by the thunder of his speech, had little to say for himself in answer to it: but as soon as he was got home, and began to reflect on what had passed, perceiving it in vain to dissemble any longer, he resolved to enter into action immediately, before the troops of the republic were increased, or any new levies made: so that after a short conference with Lentulus, Cethegus, and the rest, about what had been doncerted at the last meeting, and promising a speedy return at the head of a strong army, he left Rome that very night with a small retinue, and made the best of his way to Manlius’s camp in Etruria; upon which he and Manlius were both declared public enemies by the senate.

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

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

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

About this time Cicero bought a house of M. Crassus on the Palatine hill, adjoining to that in which he had always lived with his father, and which he is now supposed to have given up to his brother Quintus. The house cost him near 30,000l. and seems to have been one of the noblest in Rome. The purchase of so expensive a house occasioned some censure of Cicero, especially as it was made with borrowed money. This circumstance he himself does not dissemble, but says facetiously upon it, that “he was now so plunged in debt, as to be ready for a plot, only tbat the conspirators would not trust him.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the hurry of these politics, he was still prosecuting his studies, and besides some philosophical pieces, now finished his book of Offices, for the use of his son; a work admired by all succeeding ages, as a perfect system of heathen morality. At the same time, he missed no opportunities to attempt the recovery of the republic, as appears from those memorable Philippics, which he published against Antony; but notwithstanding this struggle in support of expiring liberty, Brutus was disposed at last to throw all the blame upon him, charging him chiefly, that by a profusion of honours on young Caesar, he had inspired him with an ambition incompatible with the safety of the republic, and armed him with that power which he was now employing to oppress it; whereas the truth is, that by these honours Cicero did not intend to give Caesar any new power, but to apply that which he had acquired by his own vigour to the public service, and the ruin of Antony; in which he succeeded even beyond expectation; and would certainly have gained his end, had he not bee'tt prevented by accidents which could not be foreseen.

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

After this long account, which, however, we have abridged from our last edition, little need he added of Cicero’s character. It will appear that though he cherished ambition, he wanted firmness to pursue it. His lot was cast in times unfavourable to his natural temper, which was averse to contention, and he knew not how to regulate his conduct with steadiness in political commotions and civil war. His chief delight was in the society and conversation of learned men, and his works afford a decisive proof that his excellence lay in the accumulation of learning, and the display of eloquence, in which he can be compared only with Demosthenes. Their respective characters have been considered as the two great models on which all eloquence ought to be formed. In all his orations, says a modern critic, his art is conspicuous; he begins commonly with a regular exordium; and with much address prepossesses the hearers, and studies to gain their affections’. His method is clear, and his arguments are arranged with exact propriety. In a superior clearness of method, he has an advantage over Demosthenes. Every thing appears in its proper place. He never tries to move till he has attempted to convince; and in moving, particularly the softer passions, he is highly successful. No one ever knew the force of words better than Cicero. He rolls them along with the greatest beauty and magnificence; and in the structure of his sentences is eminently curious and exact. He amplifies every tiling; yet though his manner is generally diffuse, it is often happily varied and accommodated to the subject. When an important public object rouses his mind, and demands indignation and force, he departs considerably from that loose and declamatory manner to which he at other times is addicted, and becomes very forcible and vehement. This great orator, however, is not without hi? defects. In most of his orations there is too much art, even carried to a degree of ostentation. He seems often desirous of obtaining admiration rather than of operating by conviction. He is sometimes, therefore, showy rather than solid, and diffuse where he ought to have been. urgent. His sentences are always round and sonorous. They cannot be accused of monotony, since they possess variety of cadence; but from too great a fondness for magnificence, he is on some occasions deficient in strength. Though the services which he had performed to his country were very considerable, yet he is too much his own panegyrist. Ancient manners, which imposed fewer restraints on the side of decorum, may in some degree excuse, but cannot entirely justify his vanity.

As a philosopher, he rather related the opinions of others than advanced any new doctrines of his own conceptions. He attached himself chiefly to the Academic sect, but did not neglect to inform himself of the doctrines of other sects, and discovered much learning and ingenuity in refuting their dogmas. He was an admirer of the doctrine of the stoics concerning natural equity and civil law, and adopted their ideas concerning morals, although not with servility. The sect to which he was most averse was the Epicurean, but upon the whole, from the general cast of his writings, the Academic sect was best suited to his natural disposition. Through all his philosophical works, he paints in lively colours, and with all the graces of fine writing, the opinions of philosophers; and relates, in the diffuse manner of an orator, the arguments on each side of the question in dispute; but we seldom find him diligently examining the exact weight of evidence in the scale of reason, carefully deducing accurate conclusions from certain principles, or exhibiting a series of arguments in a close and systematic arrangement. On the contrary, we frequently hear him declaiming eloquently, instead of reasoning conclusively, and meet with unequivocal proofs, that he was better qualified to dispute on either side with the Academics, than to decide upon the question with the Dogmatists, and therefore appears rather to have been a warm admirer and an elegant memorialist of philosophy, than himself to have merited a place in the first order of philosophers. The editions of Cicero’s works, in whole, or in parts, are far too numerous to be specified in this place. We may, however, notice among the most curious or valuable: 1. his whole works, first edition, by Minutianus, Milan, 1498—1499, 4 vols. fol. of great rarity and price 2. By Paul Manutius, Venice, 1540 4to 10 vols. 8vo; 3. By R, Stephens, Paris, 1543, 8 vols. 8vo 4. By Lambinus, Paris, 1566, 2 vols. fol.; 5. Elzivir, Leyden, 1642, 10 vols. 8vo; 6. Gronovius, 11 vols. 12mo, and 4 vols. 4to; 7. Verburgius, Amst. 1724, 2 voLs. fol.; 4 vols. 4to; 8. Ernest, Leipsic, 1774, 8 vols. 8vo 9. Olivet, Paris, 1740, 9 vols. 4to; Geneva, 1758, 9 vols. and Oxford, 1783, 10 vols. 4to; 10. Foulis, Glasgow, 1749, 20 vols. 12mo; 11. Lallemande, Paris, 1768, 12 vols. 12mo. For his separate pieces we must refer to Dibdin and Clarke. Most of his productions have been translated into various languages, and several into English, by Melmoth, Guthrie, Jones, and others. Melmoth, as well as Middleton, has written a life of Cicero, both with some degree of partiality, but with great ability.

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

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

, an eminent artist, was born at Bologna (some say at Rome) in 1628, and was taught his ait by Giovanni Battista Cairo Casalasco; and afterwards became the disciple of Albano, in whose school he appeared with promising and superior talents, but although these, while he studied with Albano, were exceedingly admired, yet, to improve himself still farther in correctness of design, and also in the force and relief of his figures, he studied Raphael, Annibale Caracci, Caravaggio, Correggio, and Guido; and combined something of each in a manner of his own. He is accounted very happy in his taste of composition, and excellent in the disposition of his figures; but a judicious writer says, that he was censured for bestowing too much labour on the finishing of his pictures, which considerably diminished their spirit; and also for affecting too great a strength of colouring, so as to give his figures too much relief, and make them appear as if not united with their grounds. However well or ill-founded these observations may be, yet through all Europe he is deservedly admired for the force and delicacy of his pencil, for the great correctness of his design, for a distinguished elegance in his compositions, and also for the mellowness which he gave to his colours. The draperies of his figures are in general easy and free; his expression of the passions is judicious and natural; and there appears a remarkable grace in every one of his figures.

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

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

Cirnabue painted, according to the custom of those times, in fresco and in distemper; the art of painting in oii being not then discovered. He painted a great many pieces at Florence, some of which are yet remaining: but, as his fame began to spread, he was sent for to many remote places, and among the rest to Asceci, a city of Umbria, and the birth-place of St. Francis. There in the lower church, in company with those Greek painters, he painted some of the cieling and the sides of the church, with the stories of the lives of our Saviour and St. Francis; in all which he so far outdid his coadjutors that he resolved to paint by himself, and undertook the upper church in fresco. Being returned to Florence, he painted for the church of Sancta Maria Novella, where he first went to school, a jpiece of our Lady, which was the largest picture that had been seen in those days, and is still to be seen in good preservation. It then excited so much wonder, that it was carried from Ciinabue’s house to the church with trumpets before it, and in solemn processibn and he was highly rewarded and honoured by the city for it. There is a tradition, that while Cimabue was employed on this piece in a garden he had near the gate of St. Peter, Charles of Anjou, king of Naples, came through Florence, where, being received with all possible demonstrations of respect, the magistrates, among other entertainments, carried him to see this piece. And because nobody had yet seen it, all the gentry of Florence waited upon him thither, and with such extraordinary rejoicings, that the name of the place was changed to Borgo Allegri, that is, the Merry Suburb which name it long retained.

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

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

Cimarosa, unfortunately for his fame and fortune, manifested a partiality for the French during their possession of Naples, which occasioned his disgrace at the court of his patron and natural sovereign, and he narrowly escaped the fate of convicted rebels and traitors. He was, however, allowed to die in his bed in 1801, in the fiftieth year of his age, extremely regretted by the lovers "of music, as an original and exquisite composer, and an amiable man.

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

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

, surnamed the Grammarian, was secretary to the emperor Manuel Comnenus in the twelfth century, and served under him in the army. Little else is known of his personal history, unless that he was living when Andronicus Comnenus usurped the throne. He wrote a history of the reigns of the two emperors John and Manuel Comnenus, from 1118 to 1176. Leo Allatius in general praises his style, but blames his frequent use of foreign terms and metaphors. His history was published by Du Cange in Greek and Latin, Paris, 1670, folio.

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

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

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

Among other avocations, he was employed to clean and repair the pictures of Rubens, in the ceiling of Whitehall chapel, which he completed with great success in 1778. He had before repaired the paintings of Verrio at Windsor, assisted by Mr. Ricnards; and there is a ceiling at Buckingham house, in the antique style, the compartments of which he painted. We may also notice a room, decorated with poetical subjects, in the house of the late sir William Young at Standlynch in Wiltshire. Some of the few pictures he left are at the seat of Mr. Coke, at Holkham, and four are in the ceiling in the library of the Royal Academy. But his greatest excellence was in his drawings, where Mr. Fuseli says, the fertility of his invention, the graces of his composition, and the seductive elegance of his forms, were only surpassed by the probity of his character, the simplicity of his manners, and the benevolence of his heart. These designs were disseminated over all Europe by the graver of Francis Bartolozzi and his pupils, and bought up with avidity. He died Dec. 14, 1785, and was buried in the cemetery at Chelsea, adjoining the King’s road. He left two sons.

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

, whom we have just mentioned as the editor of Cino da Pistoia’s works, was a learned Lutheran, born at Mosbach in the Palatinate, March 24, 1529. He studied at Heidelberg, and took his master’s degree in 1547, and afterwards taught the Aristotelian philosophy and mathematics. To improve himself farther he went to Strasburgh, where Bucer, the celebrated reformer, and his relation, instructed him in the principles of the reformation, and where he was confirmed in them by studying divinity under Lutheran professors. The fame of Melancthon induced him next to visit him at Wittemberg, whence he returned in 1552 to Heidelberg, and was appointed by the elector Frederic to the chair of professor of moral philosophy. He also lectured on Aristotle’s Ethics and Cicero “De Finibus, until in 1553, the plague breaking out, he went to France- and Italy and was m>ade doctor of laws at Pisa in 1559. The same year he returned to Heidelberg, where he was appointed professor of the Pandects, and counsellor to the elector Palatine Frederic III. Some time after he succeeded Baudoin as professor of civil law; and in 1563 he filled the office of rector of the university of Heidelberg, and several other honourable situations under the elector Lewis. He died at Heidelberg March G, 1583. The principal of his original works were published in a thick octavo of 1031 pages, with a life by the editor Reuter, under the title of” N. Cisneri, &c. opuscula historica et politico-philologica, distributa in libros quatuor,“Francfort, 1611. This contains twentythree treatises, on subjects of history, philology, biography, &c. besides poems and letters. He published also some works on law, and was editor, as we have noticed, of the works of Cino da Pistoia, of Aventinus’s annals, Albert Krantz’s” Saxonia,“Duarenus’s works, 1578, 2 vols. folio, and of” Simonis Chardii Scriptores rerum Germanicarum," Basil, 1574, 4 vols. folio.

, an English divine, was born in Canterbury about the year 1607, and in 1628 was entered a student of Merton-college, in Oxford, where in October 1631, he took his degree of B. A. Afterwards he remoYed to Magdalen-hall, and took his degree of M. A. in June 1634, being then generally esteemed a very able moderator in philosophy. About 1636 he became vicar of Melbourne, in Dorsetshire; and some years after was elected preacher at St. Mary’s church, in St. Edmundsbury, Suffolk, where he was held in great veneration for his edifying manner of preaching, and for his singular piety. He died Sept. 12, 1663, and was buried in the chancel of St. Mary’s Church, before mentioned. He published, “The Abuses of God’s Grace, discovered in the kinds, causes, &c. proposed as a seasonable check to the wanton libertinism of the present age,” Oxon. 1659, 4to. Though he was a man eminent in himself, he was more so for being the father of the two following divines.

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

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

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

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

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

In private life Mr. Claridge was a man of very estimable character, and his services to the religious society whose principles he finally espoused, are considered eminent, both as a minister and author. Amongst his writings in explanation and defence of their principles are, “Lux Evangelica attestata,” and “Melius inquirendum,” both, controversial; the former in answer to Keith, the latter to Cockson; also a Treatise concerning the Holy Scriptures, under the title of “Tractatus Hierographicus.” This last was not printed until after his decease. Several others of his Tracts were also not published by himself, but appeared in his “Life and Posthumous Works,” an 8vo volume, printed in 1726. The “Life” is from the pen of his friend Joseph Besse. The “Works” comprise, besides some less considerable pieces, Essays on the following subjects: Baptism and the Supper; the Doctrine of the Trinity; the Doctrine of Satisfaction; Tithes; and, Liberty of Conscience. As a writer, Claridge is said to be methodical and perspicuous, and in his style to have apparently made it his aim to adapt himself to readers in general, by the use of received terms. His works have been repeatedly quoted by the Quakers of the present day, when engaged in vindicating their society from the charge of Socinianism.

, one of the most learned divines in the sixteenth century, was born at the castle of Chiaria, near Brescia, 1495. He entered among the religious of Mount Cassino, and appeared with great distinction at the council of Trent. Paul III. gave him the archbishopric of Fuligno, where he died May 28, 1555, aged sixty, in great reputation for sanctity. He left: “Scholia in Biblia,” Venice, 1564, fol. “Scholia in N. Test.” 1544, 8vo, two learned and very useful works, for correcting the text of the Vulgate, and explaining difficult passages in the Scripture; one folio volume of Latin Sermons, and two in 4to. His Letters, with two “Opuscula,” vyere published at Modena, 1705, 4to.

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

His printed works are few, consisting only of four occasional sermons, and an “Essay,” published in 1738, “towards the character of queen Caroline,” whom he highly reverenced, and with whom he had long been a considerable favourite. By some this Essay has been given to lord Hervey, but Mr. Masters was assured it was Dr. Clarke’s.

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

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

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

He was well versed in Greek and Latin, and had also uncommon skill in the oriental languages. His works are; 1. “Varise lectiones et observationes in Chaldaicam paraphrasim:” inserted in the sixth volume of the Polyglott Bible, beginning at page 17th. 2. “Scientia metrica & rhythmics; seu tractatus de prosodia Arabica ex authoribus probatissimis eruta,” Oxon. 1661, 8vo. And 3. “Septinium Bibliorum Polyglottftm volumen cum versionibus antiquissimis, non Chaidaica tantum, sed Syriacis, Æthiopicis, Copticis, Arabicis, Persicis contextum,” a ms. not yet printed. He also translated from the original ms. of the public library at Cambridge, “Paraphrastes Chaldosus in libr. Paralipomenon;” which Dr. Edmund Castell consulted, as he tells us in the preface to his “Lexicon Heptaglotton,” when he composed that elaborate work. Clarke also assisted in correcting the Hebrew text, Chaldee paraphrase, and the Persian gospels in the Polyglott Bible, which last he translated into Latin; and there goes’ also under his name a translation out of Hebrew into Latin of another piece, entitled “Massereth Beracoth. Titulus Talmudicus, in quo agitur de benedictionibus, precibus et gratiarum actionibus, adjecta versione Latina. In usum studiosorum literarum Talmudicarum in aede Christi,” Oxon. 1667, 8vo.

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

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

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

, a very celebrated English divine, the son of Edward Clarke, esq. alderman of Norwich, and M. P., was born there Oct. 11, 1675. He was instructed in classical learning at the free-school of that town; and in 1691 removed thence to Caius college in Cambridge, where his uncommon abilities soon began to display themselves. Though Des Cartes was at that time the established philosopher of the university, yet Clarke easily mastered the new system of Newton; and in order to his first degree of arts, performed a public exercise in the schools upon a question taken from it; and contributed to its establishment, by a translation of “Renault’s Physics,” which he finished bafore he was twenty-two years of age. It was first published 1697, 8vo. The system of natural philosophy then generally taught in the university, was that written by Rohault, founded altogether upon Cartesian principles, and very badly translated into Latin. Clarke gave a new translation, and added to it such notes as might lead students insensibly to more sound notions.

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

Meanwhile bishop Moore, his patron, gave him the rectory of Drayton near Norwich, and procured for him a parish in that city; and these he served himself in that season when the bishop resided at Norwich. His preaching was without notes, until he became rector of St. James’s. In 1704 he was appointed to preach BoyieV lecture; and the subject he chose was, “The Befog and Attributes of God.” He succeeded so well in this, and gave such high satisfaction, that he was appointed to preach the same lecture the next year; when he chose for his subject, “The 1 Evidences of natural and revealed Religion.” These sermons were first printed in two distinct volumes: the former in 1705, the latter in 1706. They have since been printed in one volume, and have passed through several editions. In the fourth or fifth were added several letters to Clarke from Butler, afterwards bishop of Durham, relating to the demonstration of the being and attributes, with the doctor’s answers. In the sixth edition was added, a discourse concerning the connection of the prophecies in the Old Testament, and the application of them to Christ: and an answer to a seventh letter concerning the argument a priori. It may not be amiss to observe, that Clarke’s sermons concerning the being and attributes of God occasioned a controversy, but we dp not find that Clarke himself ever appeared in it *.

* This controversy produced several sidered the najture of Space, Duration, pieces for and against Dr. Clarke’s and necessary Existence: being an an­‘ Demonstration of the Being and At- swer to a late book entitled, ’ A Transtributes of Gorl.“It was animad- lat ion of Dr. King’s Origin of Evil,' and verted upon by Mr. Edmund Law, the some other objections together with a late bishop of Carlisle, in his Notes Compendium of a Demonstration of the upon archbj*hop King’s Essay on the Being and Attributes of God,” London, Origin of Kvil,“translated from the 1732, 8vo. Mr. Law vindicated his Latin. This occasioned a piece enti- Remarks in a” Postscript“to the setled,” A Defence of Dr. Clarke’s De- cond edition of Dr. King’s Essay which inonstrationof the Being and Attributes oecasioned, "A second Defence of Dr. of Cod wherein is particularly con- Clarke’s Demonstration of the About this time, Whiston tells us, he discovered tha'6 Clarke had been looking into the primitive writers, and suspected that the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity was not the doctrine of those early ages. Mr. Whiston adds, that he heard him say, that he never read the Athanasian creed in his parish, at or near Norwich, but once; and that was. only by mistake, at a time when it was not appointed by the rubric. In 1706 he published a letter to Mr. Dodweil, as an answer to all the arguments in his epistolary discourse against the immortality of the soul, and representing the judgment of the fathers, to whom Mr. Dodweli had appealed, concerning that matter. This appears to have given universal satisfaction, but the controversy did not stop here; for the celebrated Collins, as a second to Dodweil, went much farther into the philosophy of the dispute, and indeed seemed to produce all that could possibly be said against the immateriality of the soul, as well as the liberty of human actions. This enlarged the scene of the dispute; into which our author entered, and wrote with such a spirit of clearness and demonstration, as at once shewed him greatly superior to his adversaries in metaphysical and physical knowledge; and made every intelligent reader rejoice, that such an incident had happened to provoke and extort from him that copious and strong reasoning and perspicuity of expression, which were indeed very much wanted upon this intricate and obscure subject. Clarke’s letter to Dodweil was soon followed by four defences of it, in four several Letters to the author of a Letter to the learned Mr. Henry Dodweil; containing some

and Attributes of God: in answer to a Eternity, as also the Self-Existence, Postscript, &c. By the author of the necessary Existence, and Unity of the first Defence,“London, 1732, in 8vo. DivineNature, by Edmund Law,M. A.” The same year was published a pam- the other entitled, “An Examination pbk-t, entitled,” Dr. Clarke’s notion of Dr. Clarke’s notion of Space, by Joof Space examined ia vindication of seph Clarke, M. A.“Mr. John Clarke; the translation of archbishop King’s author of the two Defences of Dr. ' Origin of Evil:V being an answer to Clarke’s Demonstration, having pubtwo late pamphlets entitled, A Defence, lished a third, Mr. Joseph Clarke pub­&c.” Mr. John Jackson published a lished “A farther Examination of Dr. piece, entitled,” The Existence and Clarke’s notions of Space, with some Unity of God, proved from his Nature considerations on the possibility of and Attributes: being a Vindication of Eternal Creation: in reply to Mr. 3)r. Claike’s Demonstration of the John Clarke’s third Defence, &c. To lleing and Attributes of God,“London, which are added, some remarks oa 1734, in 8vo. The same year appeared Mr. Jackson’s exceptions to Dr. Clarke’s two pamphlets, printed at Cambridge notions of Space examined in his Exone entitled,” An Enquiry into the v istence and Unity,“&c, ideas x of Space, Time, Immensity, and remarks on a pretended demonstration of the immateriality and natural immortality of the soul, in Mr. Clarke’s answer to his late epistolary discourse, &c. They were afterwards all printed together; and the answer to Toland’s Amyntor added to them. In the midst of all these labours he found time to shew his regard to mathematical and physical studies, which were not a little improved by the friendship of sir Isaac Newton, at whose request he translated his” Optics" into Latin in 1706. With this version sir Isaac was so highly pleased, that he presented him with the sum of 500l. or 100l. for each child, Clarke having then five children.

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