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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shire, and the annual rents of 377. 2*. unus

6rf. ob. and the reversion of customary Omnibus, et patria? flos erat ille suae.

lands of Freshford, and Woodwick, in Gemma Britanna fuit, tarn magnum

cote; and the manor of Northlode, in ferent."

the same county; the manor of More Langbaine and Wood give the first

in Devonshire; and some other things, verse somewhat differently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following particulars concerning Dr. Chetwood are found in one of Baker’s Mss. in the British Museum, (ms. Harl. 7038), “Knightley Chetwode, extraordinarie electus, born at Coventry, came into the place of Tho. Brinley [as fellow of King’s-college] chaplain to the lord Dartmouth, to the princess of Denmark, and to king James II. prebend of Wells rector of Broad Rissington, Gloucestershire archdeacon of York nominated bishop of Bristol by king James, just before his abdication; went afterwards chaplain to all the English forces [sent] into Holland under the earl of Marlborough 1689; commenced D.D. 1691; dean of Gloucester.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: “Georgii Cheynsei Tractatus de Infirmorum Sanitate tuenda, Vitaque producenda, libro ejusdern argumenti Anglice edito longe auctior et limatior; huic accessit de natura fibræ ejusque laxæ 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 Body; 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.”

Dr. Cheyne died at Bath, April 12, 1743, in the seventysecond year of his age. He had great reputation in his own time, both as a practitioner and as a writer; and most of his pieces passed through several editions. He is to be ranked among those physicians who have accounted for the operations of medicine, and the morbid alterations which take place in the human body, upon mechanical principles. A spirit of piety and of benevolence, and an ardent zeal for the interests of virtue, are predominant throughout his writings. An amiable candour and ingenuousness are also discernible, and which led him to retract with readiness whatever appeared to him to be censurable in what he had formerly advanced. Some of the metaphysical notions winch he has introduced into his books may perhaps justly be thought fanciful and illgrounded; but there is an agreeable vivacity in his productions, together with much openness and frankness, and in general great perspicuity. Of his relations, his halfbrother, the rev. William Cheyne, vicar of Weston near Bath, died Sept. 6, 1767, and his son the rev. John Cheyne, vicar of Brigstock, Northamptonshire, died August 11, 1768.

, 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 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 character, when assimilated to that of the age in which he lived, is not without a portion of the dark sentiment, and barbarous spirit of persecution, which obstructed the reformation; but on every occasion where he dared to exert his native talents and superior powers of thinking, we discover the measures of an enlightened statesman, and that liberal and benevolent disposition which would confer celebrity in the brightest periods of our history.

The foundation of All Souls college is not the 6rst instance of his munificent spirit. In 1422, he founded a collegiate church at his native place, Higham-Ferrars, so amply endowed, that on its dissolution by Henry VIII. its revenues were valued at 156 This college consisted of a quadrangular building, of which the church only now remains, and is used as a parish church. To this he attached an hospital for the poor, and both these institutions were long supported by the legacies of his brothers Robert and William, aldermen of London *. He also expended large sums in adorning the cathedral of Canterbury, founding a library there, and in adding to the buildings of Lambeth palace, Croydon church, and Rochester-bridge.

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.

For the more ample endowment of this college, the founder purchased and bestowed on it the manor of Wedon and Weston, or Wedon Pinkeney in Northamptonshire. King’s college, Cambridge, became afterwards possessed of a part of it, but All Souls has, besides the advowsort of the churches belonging to it, the largest estate, and the lordship of the waste. The founder also gave them the manors of Horsham, and Scotney, or Bletching-court in Kent, and certain lands called the Tariffs or Friths in

* 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.

His medical works were, “Singulares ex curationibus et cadaverum sectionibus observationes,” Paris, 1611, 8vo, in which he is weak enough to suppose many diseases to be produced by the influence of the stars, but there are nevertheless some useful and valuable observations in this volume. “Pulvis febrifugtis orbis Americani ventilatus,” Lorain, 1653, 4to. Intermittents that had been stopped by taking the k Peruvian bark, frequently, he says, return, and with increased violence; he therefore dissuades from using it.

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;

Digby and Chillingsworth a little further.”

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.”

, a gentleman of Lyons, of the sixteenth century, bailiff of the mountains of Dauphiny, travelled over Italy to improve himself in the knowledge of antiquity; and is principally known by a scarce and excellent treatise of the “Religion and Castrametation of the ancient Romans,” folio, Lyons, 1556, 1569, 4to, and 1580, 4to. This singular work of antiquities is remarkable, especially for its second part, which treats of the manner of pitching and fortifying the camps used by the Romans, of their discipline and their military exercises. It has been translated into Latin, Italian, and Spanish: the Latin, Amst. 1685, 4to, the Italian, Lyons, 1559, folio; both editions are scarce, but less so than the French original, though not so well executed. He has the honour of being one of the earliest French antiquaries, but his countrymen have preserved no memorials of his personal history. The last edition of the French Dict. Hist, attributes to him two other treatises, “Promptuaire des Medailles,” and “Traite des Bains des Grecs et des Remains,” but we suspect this last is included in the larger work above mentioned.

, 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.

The editions of his works are very numerous. We shall mention only that beautifully printed one by sir Henry Saville, Eton, 1613, 8 vols. folio, the Greek only; and Montfaucon’s in Gr. & Lat. 1718---1738, 13 vols. fdl.

, 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

p. 27, 8vo edit. Cowper had been the his Table Talk. Between Cowper and

associate of Colman and Thornton, and Churchill, in point of moral character,

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.*