al expectation. In 1664 the second part appeared; the curiosity of the nation was rekindled, and the writer was again praised and elated. But praise was his whole reward.
, a poet of a very singular cast, was
born at Strensham in Worcestershire, and baptized Feb.
8, 1612. His father’s condition is variously represented.
Wood mentions him as competently wealthy; but the
author of the short account of Butler, prefixed to Hudibras,
who, Dr. Johnson erroneously says, was Mr. Longueville,
asserts he was an honest farmer with some small estates
who made a shift to educate his son at the grammar-school
of Worcester, under Mr. Henry Bright, from whose care
he removed for a short time to Cambridge; but, for want
of money, was never made a member of any college. Wood
leaves us rather doubtful whether he went to Cambridge of
Oxford; but at last makes him pass six or seven years at
Cambridge, without knowing in what hall or college: yet
it can hardly be imagined that he lived so long in either
university, but as belonging to one house or another; and
it is still less likely that he could have so long inhabited a
place of learning with so little distinction as to leave his
residence uncertain. Dr. Nash has discovered that his
father was owner of a house and a little land, worth about
eight pounds, a year, still called Butler’s tenement. Wood
had his information from his brother, whose narrative placed
him at Cambridge, in opposition to that of his neighbours,
which sent him to Oxford. The brother’s seems the best
authority, till, by confessing his inability to tell his hall
or college, he gives reason to suspect that he was resolved
to bestow on him an academical education, but durst not
name a college, for fear of detection. Having, however,
discovered an early inclination for learning, his father
placed him at the free-school of Worcester; whence he
was sent, according to the above report, for some time to
Cambridge. He afterwards returned to his native country,
and became clerk to one Mr. Jefferys of Earl’s Croomb, an
eminent justice of the peace for that county, with whom
he lived some years in an easy and reputable station. Here
he found sufficient leisure to apply himself to whatsoever
learning his inclinations led him; which was chiefly history and poetry; adding to these, for his diversion, music
and painting. He was afterwards recommended to that
great encourager of learning, Elizabeth countess of Kent;
in whose house he had not only the opportunity of consulting all kinds of books, but of conversing with Mr. Seldeo,
who often employed him to write letters beyond sea, and
translate for him. He lived some time also with sir Samuel
Luke, a gentleman of an ancient family in Bedfordshire,
and a famous commander under Oliver Cromwell. Whilst
he resided in this gentleman’s family, it is generally supposed that he planned, if he did not write, the celebrated
Hudibras; under which character it is thought he intended
to ridicule that knight. After the restoration of Charles II.
he was made secretary to Richard earl of Carbury, lord
president of the principality of Wales, who appointed him.
steward of Ludlow-castle, when the Court was revived there.
In this part of his life, he married Mrs. Herbert, a gentlewoman of a good family; and lived, says Wbod^ upon her
fortune, having studied the common law, but never practised it. A fortune she had, says his biographer, but it
was lost by bad securities. In 1663 was published the first
part, containing three cantos, of the poem of “Hudibras,
”
which, as Prior relates, was made known at court by the
taste and influence of the earl of Dorset, and when known,
it was necessarily admired: the king quoted, the courtiers
studied, and the whole party of the royalists applauded it.
Every eye watched for the golden shower which was to fall
upon the author, who certainly was not without his share
in the general expectation. In 1664 the second part appeared; the curiosity of the nation was rekindled, and the
writer was again praised and elated. But praise was his
whole reward. Clarendon, says Wood, gave him reason
to hope for “places and employments of value and credit;”
but no such advantages did he ever obtain. It is reported,
that the king once gave him 300 guineas; but of this temporary bounty we find no proof. Wood relates that he was
secretary to Villiers duke of Buckingham, when he was
chancellor of Cambridge: this is doubted by the other
writer, who yet allows the duke to have been his frequent
benefactor. That both these accounts are false there is
reason to suspect, from a story told by Pack, in his account
of the life ef Wycherley, and from some verses which Mr.
Thyer has published in the author’s Remains. “Mr. Wycherley,” says Pack, “had always laid hold of any opportunity which offered of representing to the duke of Buckingham how well Mr. Butler had deserved of the royal
family, by writing his inimitable Hudibras; and that it
was a reproach to the court, that a person of his loyalty
and wit should suffer in obscurity, and under the wants he
did. The duke always seemed to hearken to him with
attention enough; and, after some time, undertook to recommend his pretensions to his majesty. Mr. Wycherley,
in Jiopes to keep him steady to his word, obtained of his
grace to name a day, when he might introduce that modest and unfortunate poet to his new patron. At last an
appointment was made, and the place of meeting was
agreed to be the Roebuck. Mr. Butler and his friend attended accordingly: the duke joined them; but, as the
devil would have it, the door of the room where they sat
was open, and his grace, who had seated himself near it,
observing a pimp of his acquaintance (the creature too was a knight) trip by with a brace of ladies, immediately quitted his engagement, to follow another kind of business, at
which he was more ready than in doing good offices to
men of desert; though no one was better qualified than
he, both in regard to his fortune and understanding, to
protect them; and, from that time to the day of his death,
poor Butler never found the least effect of his promise!”
Such is the story. The verses are written with a degree
of acrimony, such as neglect and disappointment might
naturally excite; and such as it would be hard to imagine
Butler capable of expressing against a man who had any
claim to his gratitude. Notwithstanding this discouragement and neglect, he still prosecuted his design; and in.
1678 published the third part, which still leaves the poem
imperfect and abrupt. How much more he originally intended, or with what events the action was to be concluded,
it is vain to conjecture. Nor can it be thought strange
that he should stop here, however unexpectedly. To write
without reward is sufficiently unpleasing. He had now arrived at an age when he might think it proper to be in
jest no longer, and perhaps his health might now begin to
fail. He died Sept. 25, 1680; and Mr. Longueville, having unsuccessfully solicited a subscription for his internment in Westminster abbey, buried him at his own cost
in the chureb-yard of Covent Garden. Dr. Simon Patrick
read the service. About sixty years afterwards, Mr. Barber, a printer, lord mayor of London, bestowed on him a
monument in Westminster abbey.
, an ingenious English writer, the younger son of Edward Byrom, a linen-draper of Manchester,
, an ingenious English writer, the younger son of Edward Byrom, a linen-draper of Manchester, was born at Kersall in the neighbourhood of that town, in 1691; and after receiving such education as his native place afforded, was removed to Merchant-Taylors school in London, where he made very extraordinary progress in classical learning, and was soon deemed fit for the university. At the age of sixteen, he was admitted a pensioner of Trinity college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Baker. During his residence here the proficiency he had made in classical knowledge, was probably neither remitted, nor overlooked; but he is said to have paid no greater share of attention to logic and philosophy, than was necessary to enable him to pass his examinations with credit. In 1711, he was admitted to his degree of bachelor of arts.
ert and Kilialoe, in Ireland, and was the mother of Richard Cumberland, esq. the well-known dramatic writer. It has been asserted, but without any foundation, that Byrom
His inclination to poetry appeared very early, but was
imparted principally to his friends and fellow-students.
The first production which brought him into general notice,
was probably written in his twenty-third year. At this
time the beautiful pastoral of “Colin and Phebe
” appeared
in the eighth volume of the Spectator; and was, as it continues to be, universally admired. The Phebe of this pastoral was Joanna, daughter of the celebrated Dr. Bentley,
master of Trinity college: this young and very amiable
lady was afterwards married to Dr. Dennison Cumberland,
bishop of Clonfert and Kilialoe, in Ireland, and was the mother of Richard Cumberland, esq. the well-known dramatic
writer. It has been asserted, but without any foundation,
that Byrom paid his addresses to Miss Bentley. His object
was rather to recommend himself to the attention of her
father, who was an admirer of the Spectators, and liLely to
notice a poem of so much merit, coming, as he would soon
be told, from one of his college. Byrom had before this
sent two ingenious papers on the subject of dreaming to
the Spectator; and these specimens of promising talent
introduced him to the particular notice of Dr. Bentley,
by whose interest he was chosen fellow of his college, and
soon after admitted to the degree of master of arts.
Amidst this honourable progress, he does not appear to
have thought of any profession, and as he declined going
into the church, the statutes of the college required that
he should vacate his fellowship. Perhaps the state of his
health created this irresolution, for we find that in 1716
it became necessary for him to visit Montpelier upon that
account; and his fellowship being lost, he returned no
more to the university.
ends. At what time he began to lean towards the mysticism of Jacob Behmen is uncertain. An anonymous writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine (vol. LI.) says, that in 1744 he
He first taught short-hand at Manchester, but afterwards
came to London during the winter months, and not only
had great success as a teacher, but became distinguished
as a man of general learning. In 1723-4, he was elected
a fellow of the royal society, and communicated to that
learned body, two letters, one containing some remarks on
the elements of short-hand, by Samuel Jeake, esq. which
was printed in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 488,
and another letter, printed in the same volume, containing remarks on Mr. Lodwick’s alphabet. The summer
months he was enabled to pass with his family at Manchester. By the death of his elder brother, Edward Byrom, without issue, the family estate at Kersall devolved
to him. At what time this happened, his biographer has
not informed us, but in consequence of this independence,
he began to relax from teaching, and passed the remainder
of his days in the enjoyment of the quiet comforts of domestic life, for which he had the highest relish, and which
were heightened by the affectionate temper of his wife. It
is said by Dr. Nichols, that he employed the latter part of
his life in writing his poems, but an inspection of their
dates and subjects will shew that a very considerable part
must have been written much sooner. Some he is said to
have committed to the flames a little before his death;
these were probably his juvenile effusions. What remain
were transcribed from his own copies. He died at Manchester, Sept. 28, 1763, in the 72d year of his age. His
character is given briefly in these words: “As the general
tenor of his life was innocent and inoffensive, so he bore
his last illness with resignation and cheerfulness. The
great truths of Christianity had made from his earliest years
a deep impression on his mind, and hence it was that he
had a peculiar pleasure in employing his pen upon serious
subjects.
” Of his family we are told only that he had
several children, and that his eldest son was taken early
into the shop of his grandfather, where he acquired a handsome fortune. His opinions and much of his character are
discoverable in his poems. At first he appears to have
been a disciple of Mr. Law, zealously attached to the
church of England, but with pretty strong prejudices
against the Hanoverian succession. He afterwards held
some of the opinions which are usually termed methodistical, but he rejected Mr. Hervey’s doctrine of imputed
righteousness, and entertained an abhorrence of predestination. His reading on subjects of divinity was extensive,
and he watched the opinions that came from the press with
the keenness of a polemic: whenever any thing appeared
adverse to his peculiar sentiments, he immediately opposed
it in a poem, but as scarcely any of his writings were published in his life-time, he appears to have employed his pen
chiefly for his own amusement, or that of his friends. At
what time he began to lean towards the mysticism of Jacob
Behmen is uncertain. An anonymous writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine (vol. LI.) says, that in 1744 he learned
High Dutch of a Russian at Manchester, in order to read
Jacob’s works in the original; and being asked whether
Jacob was more intelligible in that than in the English
translation, he affirmed that “he was equally so in both;
that he himself perfectly understood him, and that the reason others do not, was the blindness and naughtiness of
their hearts.
” If this account be true, Byrom was farther
gone in Behmenism than we should conjecture from his
works. It certainly does not appear by them that he really
thought he understood Jacob perfectly, for he adopts,
concerning him, the reply of Socrates concerning Heraclitus’s
writings:
, a learned Polander, and a very voluminous writer, was descended from a good family, and born in 1567. His parents
, a learned Polander, and a very
voluminous writer, was descended from a good family, and
born in 1567. His parents dying when he was a child, he
was educated by his grandmother on the mother’s side, in
the city of Prosovitz; and made so good use of the instructions of one of his uncles, that at ten years of age he could
write Latin, compose music, and make verses. After this,
he went to continue his studies at Cracow, and there took
the habit of a Pominican. Being sent into Italy, he read
lectures of philosophy at Milan, and of divinity at Bologna.
After he returned into his own country, he preached in
Posnania, and in Cracow, with the applause of all his
hearers; and taught philosophy and divinity. He was principal of a college of his own order; and did several considerable services to that and to his country. Afterwards
he went to Rome; where he was received with open arms
by the pope, and lodged in the Vatican. From his holiness he certainly deserved that reception, for he imitated
Baronius closely in his ambition to favour the power, and
raise the glory, of the papal see. His inconsiderate and
violent zeal, however, led him to representations in his
history of which he had reason to repent. He had very
much reviled the emperor Lewis of Bavaria, and razed him
ignominiously out of the catalogue of emperors. The
duke of Bavaria was so incensed at this audaciousness, that,
not satisfied with causing an apology to be wrote for that
emperor, he brought an action in form against the annalist,
and got him condemned to make a public retractation, and
he was also severely treated in the “Apology of Lewis of
Bavaria,
” published by George Herwart; who affirms, that
Bzovius had not acted in his annals like a man of honesty,
or wit, or judgment, or memory, or any other good quality of a writer. Bzovius would probably have continued
in the Vatican till his deat^h, if the murder of one of his
servants, and the loss of a great sum of money, which was
carried off by the murderer, had not struck him with such
a terror, as obliged him to retire into the convent of Minerva, where he died in 1637, aged seventy. The letter
which the king of Poland writ to the pope in 1633, does
our Dominican much honour; for in it the king supplicates
Urban VIII. most humbly to suffer the good old man to
return into Poland, that he might employ him in composing a history of the late transactions there. He declares, that he shall esteem himself much indebted to his
holiness, if he will be pleased to grant him that favour,
which he so earnestly requests of him.
, a famous divine of the church of Scotland, and a distinguished writer in behalf of the presbyterians, was descended of a good family
, a famous divine of the
church of Scotland, and a distinguished writer in behalf
of the presbyterians, was descended of a good family in
that kingdom, and born in 1575. Being early designed
for the ministry, he applied with great diligence to the
study of the scriptures in their original tongues, the works
of the fathers, the councils, and the best writers of church
history. He was settled, about 1604, at Crailing, not far
from Jedburgh, in the south of Scotland. James VI. of
that country, and the first of Great Britain, being desirous
of bringing the church of Scotland to a near conformity
with that of England, laboured earnestly to restore the
episcopal authority, and enlarge the powers of the bishops
in that kingdom; but this design was very warmly opposed
by many of the ministers, and particularly by David Calderwood, who, when James Law, bishop of Orkney, came
to visit the presbyteries of the Merse and Teviotdale, declined his jurisdiction, by a paper under his hand, dated
May 5, 1603. The king, however, having its success
much at heart, sent the earl of Dunbar, then high-treasurer of Scotland, Dr. Abbot, afterwards archbishop of
Canterbury, and two other divines, into that kingdom,
with instructions to employ every method to persuade both
the clergy and the laity, of his majesty’s sincere desire to
promote the good of the church, and of his zeal for the
Protestant religion, in which they succeeded. Calderwood, however, did not assist at the general assembly held at
Glasgow, June 8, 1610, in which lord Dunbar presided as
commissioner; and it appears from his writings, that he
looked upon every thing transacted in it as null and void.
Exceptions were also taken by him and his party, against
a great part of the proceedings of another general assembly >
held with much solemnity at Aberdeen, Aug. 13, 1616.
In May following, king James went to Scotland, and in
June held a parliament at Edinburgh; at the same time
the clergy met in one of the churches, to hear and advise with the bishops; which kind of assembly, it seems,
was contrived in imitation of the English convocation. Mr.
Calderwood was present at it, but declared publicly that
he did not take any such meetings to resemble a convocation; and being opposed by Dr. Whitford and Dr. Hamilton, who were friends to the bishops, he took his leave
of them in these words: “It is absurd to see men sitting
in silks and satins, and to cry poverty in the kirk, when
purity is departing.
” The parliament proceeded mean
while in the dispatch of business; and Calderwood, with
several other ministers, being informed that a bill was depending to empower the king, with advice of the archbishops, bishops, and such a number of the ministry as his
majesty should think proper, to consider and conclude, as
to matters decent for the external policy of the church,
not repugnant to the word of God; and that such conclusions should have the strength and power of ecclesiastical
laws: against this they protested for four reasons: 1. Because their church was so perfect, that, instead of needing
reformation, it might be a pattern to others. 2. General
assemblies, as now established by law, and which ought
always to continue, might by this means be overthrown.
3. Because it might be a means of creating schism, and
disturb the tranquillity of the church. 4. Because they
had received assurances, that no attempts should be made
to bring them to a conformity with the church of England.
They desired, therefore, that for these and other reasons,
all thoughts of passing any such law may be laid aside; but
in case this be not done, they protest, for themselves and
their brethren who shall adhere to them, that they can
yield no obedience to this law when it shall be enacted,
because it is destructive of the liberty of the church; and
therefore shall submit to such penalties, and think
themselves obliged to undergo such punishments, as may be
inflicted for disobeying that law. This protest was signed
by Archibald Simpson, on behalf of the members, who subscribed another separate roll, which he kept for his justification. It was delivered to Peter Hewet, who had a seat
in parliament, in order to be presented; and another copy
remained in Simpson’s hands, to be presented in case of
any accident happening to the other. The affair making
a great noise, Dr. Spotswood, archbishop of St. Andrew’s,
asked a sight of the protest from Hewet, one day at court
and, upon some dispute between them, it was torn. The
other copy was actually presented by Simpson to the
clerk register, who refused to read it before the states in
parliament. However, the protest, though not read, had
its effect; for although the bill before-mentioned, or, as
the Scottish phrase is, the article, had the consent of parliament, yet the king thought fit to cause it to be laid
aside; and not long after called a general assembly at St.
Andrew’s. Soon after, the parliament was dissolved, and
Simpson was summoned before the high commission court,
where the roll of names which he had kept for his justification, was demanded from him; and upon his declaring
that he had given it to Harrison, who had since delivered
it to Calderwood, he was sent prisoner to the castle of
Edinburgh; and Calderwood was summoned to appear before the high commission court at St. Andrew’s, on the 8th
of July following, to exhibit the said protest, and to answer for his mutinous and seditious behaviour.
politia, ecclesiae Scoticanae obtrusa a formalista quodam delineata, illustrata, et examinata,” The writer of the preface prefixed to Calderwood’s “True history of the
July 12, the king came to that city in person, and soon
after Hewet and Simpson were deprived and imprisoned.
After this, Calderwood was called upon, and refusing to
comply with what the king in person required of him,
James, after haranguing at some length on his disobedience, committed him to prison; and afterwards the/
privy-council, according to the power exercised by them
at that time, directed him to banish himself out of the
king’s dominions before Michaelmas following, and not to
return without licence; and upon giving security for this
purpose, he was discharged out of prison, and suffered to
return to his parish, but forbid to preach. Having applied
to the king for a prorogation of his sentence without success, because he would neither acknowledge his offence,
nor promise conformity for the future, he retired to Holland in 1619, where his publications were securely
multiplied, and diffused through Scotland, particularly one
entitled “The Perth Assembly,
” which was condemned
by the council. In Altare Damascenum, seu ecclesiae Anolicanse politia, ecclesiae Scoticanae obtrusa a formalista quodam delineata, illustrata, et examinata,
” The writer of
the preface prefixed to Calderwood’s “True history of
the church of Scotland
” telis us, that “the author of this
very learned and celebrate 1 treatise (which is an answer to Lin wood’s ‘ Description of the Policy of the church of England’) doth irrefragably and unanswerably demonstrate
the iniquity of designing and endeavouring to model and
conform the divinely simple worship, discipline, and government of the church of Scotland to the pattern of the
pompously prelatic and ceremonious church of England;
under some conviction whereof it seems king James himself
was, though implacably displeased with it, when, being
after the reading of it somewhat pensive, and being asked
the reason by an English prelate standing by and observing
it, he told him he had seen and read such a book; whereupon the prelate telling his majesty not to suffer that to
trouble him, for they would answer it he replied, not
without some passion, < What would you answer, man
There is nothing here but scripture, reason, and the fathers’.
” This work was in fact an enlargement, in Latin, of
one which he wrote in English, and published in 1621,
under the title of “The Altar of Damascus,
” and which is
uncommonly rare. It concludes with noticing a rumour
spread by bishop Spotswood, that Mr. Calderwood had
turned Brownist, which rumour it denies in strong language,
and with the following intemperate and unbecoming threat:
“If either Spotswood, or his supposed author, persist in
their calumny after this declaration, 1 shall try if there be
any blood in their foreheads.
” Calderwood having in Altare Damascenum,
” with a design, as Calderwood believed, to have
dispatched him: but Calderwood had privately returned
into his own country, where he remained for several years.
Scot gave out that the king furnished him with the matter
for the pretended recantation, and that he only put it in
order.
government, constitution, history, and jurisprudence of France, and established his reputation as a writer of no less perspicuity and judgment, than elegance and energy
, an eminent but unfortunate French minister, was born at Douay in 1734. His father was president of the parliament of Flanders, and descended from a noble family, originally of Tournay, and well known in the history of that city, which makes honourable mention of his ancestors in the remotest times. Having finished his studies at the university of Paris with extraordinary success, young Calonne was appointed, in histwenty-third year, advocate or solicitor- general of the superior council of Artois and before he had attained the age of twenty -five, was promoted to the office of procurator-general of the parliament of Flanders, the duties of which he performed with distinguished ability for six years. He was then called as rapporteur to the king’s council, to report to his majesty the most momentous affairs of administration, of which arduous and laborious task he acquitted himself in a manner that evinced his profound knowledge of the government, constitution, history, and jurisprudence of France, and established his reputation as a writer of no less perspicuity and judgment, than elegance and energy of diction.
, a French dramatic and romance writer, was born in the chateau of Toulgon in Perigord, in the diocese
, a French dramatic and romance writer, was born in the chateau of
Toulgon in Perigord, in the diocese of Cahors, about the
year 1612, and became gentleman in ordinary to the king.
He is said to have conciliated the good opinion of the court
by his happy talent for telling agreeable stories. When a
very young man he wrote several tragedies and comedies
which procured him some reputation, particularly his
“Mithridates
” and the “Earl of Essex,
” but he was most
celebrated for his romances, particularly “Cassandra,
”
“Cleopatra,
” and “Pharamond,
” which gave place, however, to a better taste in the course of some years, and are
now thought intolerable by their insipidity and tediousness.
Calprenede had an excellent opinion of himself, and when
the cardinal Richelieu said of some of his verses, that they
were dull, he replied that “nothing dull belonged to the
family of Calprenede.
” He died in 1663.
even his warmest admirers, and had a considerable hand in the death of Michael Servetus, a Socinian writer, and in the lesser punishments inflicted on Bolsec, Castalio,
churches of the canton of Berne, who Calvin refused to submit, as far as excommunication inclusively. This step was exclaimed against by many, as a revival of Romish tyranny; but it was carried into execution, the new canon beinopassed into a law, in an assembly of the whole people, held on Nov. 20, 1541; and the clergy and laity solemnly promised to conform to it for ever. Agreeably to the spirit of this consistorial chamber, which some considered as a kind of inquisition, Calvin proceeded to some of those lengths which have cast a stain upon his memory in the opinion of even his warmest admirers, and had a considerable hand in the death of Michael Servetus, a Socinian writer, and in the lesser punishments inflicted on Bolsec, Castalio, and others whose opinions were at variance with his new establishment.
, an ingenious English writer, was born in London, Feb. 14, 1717, of ancestors belonging to
, an ingenious English writer, was born in London, Feb. 14, 1717, of ancestors belonging to the county of Gloucester. His father, who was a younger brother, had been bred to business as a Turkey merchant, and died in London not long after the birth of his son, the care of whom then devolved on his mother and his maternal uncle Thomas Owen, esq. who adopted him as his future representative. He was sent to Eton, school, where quickness of parts supplied the place of diligence; yet although he was averse to the routine of stated tasks, he stored his mind with classical knowledge, and amuseid it by an eager perusal of works addressed to the imagination. He became early attached to the best English poets, and to those miscellaneous writers who delineate human life and character. A taste likewise for the beauties of rural nature began to display itself at this period, which he afterwards exemplified at his seat in Gloucestershire, and that at Twickenham. In 1734, he entered as a gentleman commoner of St. John’s college, Oxford, and, without wishing to be thought a laborious scholar, omitted no opportunity of improving his mind in such studies as were suitable to his age and future prospects. His first, or one of his first, poetical effusions was on the marriage of the prince of Wales, which was published with the other verses composed at Oxford on the same occasion. In 1737, he became a member of Lincoln’s-inn, where he found many men of wit and congenial habits, but as he had declined taking a degree at Oxford, he had now as little inclination to pursue the steps that lead to the bar; and in 1741, in his twenty-fourth year, he married Miss Trenchard, the second daughter of George Trenchard, esq. of Woolverton in Dorsetshire, a lady who contributed to his happiness for upwards of half a century, and by whom he had a family equally amiable and affectionate. She died Sept. 5, 1806, Laving survived her husband four years.
t,” in 1752 the “Intruder,” in 1754; and “The Fakeer,” in 1755. About the same time he appeared as a writer in “The World,” to which he contributed twenty-one papers, which
The same year in which he commenced his establishment
at Twickenham, he became known to the public as the
'author of “The Seribleriad,
” which was published in The Dialogue between a member of parliament and his servant,
” in Intruder,
” in The Fakeer,
” in The
World,
” to which he contributed twenty-one papers,
which are unquestionably among the best in that collection.
Lord Chesterfield, who knew and respected him, drew the
following character in one of his own excellent papers
“Cantabrigitis drinks nothing but water, and rides more
miles in a year than the keenest sportsman the former
keeps his head clear, the latter his body in health it is
not from himself that he runs, but to his acquaintance, a
synonimous term for his friends. Internally safe, he seeks
po sanctuary from himself, no intoxication for his mind.
His penetration makes him discover and divert himself with
the follies of mankind, which his wit enables him to expose
with the truest ridicule, though always without personal
offence. Cheerful abroad because happy at home, and
thus happy because virtuous.
”
g insensible to the value of fame, had yet none of the worst perils of authorship to encounter. As a writer 1 he was better known to the world, but he could not have been
Of his literary character his Son has formed a just estimate, when he says that he is to be regarded rather as an elegant than a profound scholar. Yet, where he chose to apply, his knowledge was far from being superficial, and if he had not at an early period of life indulged the prospect of filling the station of a retired country gentleman, it is probable that he might have made a distinguished figure in any of the learned professions. It is certain that the ablest works on every subject have been produced, with very few exceptions, by men who have been scholars by profession, to whom reputation was necessary as well as ornamental, and who could not expect to rise but in proportion to the abilities they discovered. Mr. Cambridge, without being insensible to the value of fame, had yet none of the worst perils of authorship to encounter. As a writer 1 he was better known to the world, but he could not have been more highly respected by his friends.
thout a rival, for what subject can the wit of man devise so happily adapted to the intention of the writer? Its great excellence too appears from its continuing to please
The Scribleriad is one of those poems, that, with great merits, yet make their way very slowly in the world. It was received so coolly on the publication of the first two parts, that he found it necessary to write a preface to the second and complete edition, explaining his design. He had some reason to apprehend that it had been mistaken, and that the poem was in danger of being neglected. In this preface he lays down certain rules for the mock heroic, by which, if his own production be tried, it must-be confessed he has executed all that he intended, with spirit and taste. As an imitator of the true heroic he is in general faithful, and his parodies on the ancients show that he had studied their writings with somewhat different from the ardour of an admirer of poetry, or the acutencss of a critical linguist. But it may be doubted whether the rales he wishes to establish are sufficiently comprehensive, whether he has not been too faithful to his models, and whether a greater and more original portion of the burlesque would not have conferred more popularity on his performance. His preference of Don Quixote, as a true mock heroic, is less a matter of dispute. In all the attributes of that species of composition, it is unquestionably superior to any attempt ever made, and probably will ever remain without a rival, for what subject can the wit of man devise so happily adapted to the intention of the writer? Its great excellence too appears from its continuing to please every class of readers, although the folly ridiculed no longer exists, and can with some difficulty be supposed to have ever existed. But Cervantes is in nothing so superior, as in the delineation of his hero, who throughout the whole narrative creates a powerful interest in his favour, and who excites ridicule and compassion in such nice proportions as never to be undeserving of sympathy, or overpowered by contempt.
perhaps, rationally ascribe his extended life. The point of view in which we are to set him, is as a writer; and here he stands foremost among British antiquaries. Varro,
Carnden’s personal character is drawn by bishop Gibson
in few words: that he was “easy and innocent in his conversation, and in his whole life even and exemplary.
” We
have seen him unruffled by the attacks of envy, which his merit and good fortune drew upon him. He seems to have studied that tranquillity of temper which the love of letters generally superinduces, and to which one may, perhaps, rationally ascribe his extended life. The point of view in
which we are to set him, is as a writer; and here he stands
foremost among British antiquaries. Varro, Strabo, and
Pausanias, among the ancients, fall short in the comparison; and however we may be obliged to the two latter for
their descriptions of the world, or a small portion of it, Camden’s description of Britain must be allowed the pre-eminence, even though we should admit that Leland marked
out the plan, of which he filled up the outlines. A crowd
of contemporaries, all admirable judges of literary merit,
and his correspondents, bear testimony to his merit. Among
these may be reckoned Ortelius, Lipsius, Scaliger, Casaubon, Merula, De Thou, Du Chesne, Peiresc, Bignon,
Jaque Godefre, Gruter, Hottoman, Du Laet, Chytraeus,
Gevartius, Lindenbrogius, Mercator, Pontanus, Du Puy,
Rutgersius, Schottus, Sweertius, Liinier, with many others
of inferior note. Among his countrymen, dean Goodman
and his brother, lord Burleigh, sir Robert Cotton, Dr.
(afterwards archbishop) Usher, sir Philip Sidney, and archbishop Parker, were the patrons of his literary pursuits, as
the first two had befriended him in earliest life: and if
to these we add the names of Allen, Carleton, Saville,
Stradling, Carew, Johnston, Lambarde, Mathews, Spelroan, Twyne, Wheare, Owen, Spenser, Stowe, Thomas
James, Henry Parry, afterwards bishop of Worcester,
Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, Richard
Hackluyt, Henry Cuff, Albericus Gentilis, John Hanmer,
sir William Beecher, Dr. Budden, Dr. Case, sir Christopher Hey don, bishop Godwin, Richard Parker, Thomas
Ryves, besides others whose assistance he acknowledges
in the course of his Britannia, we shall find no inconsiderable bede-roll of associates, every one of them more or
less eminent in the very study in which they assisted Mr.
Camden, or were assisted by him.
ally intended to follow the profession of the law, and for thatpurpose served an apprenticeship to a writer of the signet in Edinburgh. By what inducements he was made
, a very learned divine of the church of Scotland, and principal and professor of divinity of the Marischal college, Aberdeen, was born in that city Dec. 25, 1719. His father, the rev. Colin Campbell, who was one of the ministers of Aberdeen, and a man of primitive piety and worth, died in 1728. George, the subject of this article, who was his youngest son, was educated in the grammar-school of his native city, and afterwards in Marischal college, but appears to have originally intended to follow the profession of the law, and for thatpurpose served an apprenticeship to a writer of the signet in Edinburgh. By what inducements he was made to alter his purpose we are not told; but in 1741 he began to study divinity at the university of Edinburgh, and continued the same pursuit both in King’s college and Marischal college, Aberdeen and here he delivered, with great approbation, those discourses, which are usually prescribed to students of divinity in the Scotch universities. After studying the usual number of years at the divinity hall, he was, according to the practice of the Scotch church, proposed to the Synod; and having undergone the ordinary trials before the presbytery of Aberdeen, was licensed as a probationer, or preacher of the gospel, on the llth of June, 1746. In this rank he remained two years, before he obtained a settlement in the church of Scotland, but at the end of that period was presented to the church of Banchory Ternan, about seventeen miles west from Aberdeen, and was ordained June 2, 1748.
on Miracles,” which deservedly raised his character as an acute metaphysician and an able polemical writer. This “Dissertation” was originally drawn up in the form of
After remaining nine years in this country parish, he
was chosen one of the ministers of Aberdeen in June, 1757,
where his various and extensive talents were appreciated
by those who knew best their worth, and where his fame
was most likely to be rewarded. Accordingly in 1759, he
was presented by his majesty to the office of principal of
Marischal college, and soon made it appear that he was
worthy of this dignity. Hume had recently published his
“Essay on Miracles,
” and despised his opponents until
principal Campbell published his celebrated “Dissertation on Miracles,
” which deservedly raised his character as
an acute metaphysician and an able polemical writer. This
“Dissertation
” was originally drawn up in the form of a
sermon, which he preached before the provincial synod of
Aberdeen, Oct. 9, 1760, and which, on their requesting
him to publish it, he afterwards enlarged into its present
form. Some circumstances attended the publication which
are rather singular, and which we shall relate in the words
of his biographer. “Before it was published, he sent a
copy of his manuscript to Dr. Blair of Edinburgh, with a
request that, after perusing it, he would communicate the
performance to Mr. Hume. The learned aud judicious
Blair read the dissertation both as a friend, and as a critic,
then showed it to his opponent, and afterwards wrote to
Mr. Campbell both what had occurred to himself, and
what Mr. Hume chose at first to write on the subject. It
soon appeared, that this sceptical philosopher, with all his
affected equanimity, felt very sensibly, on reading so
acute, so learned, and so complete an answer to his essay
on miracles. He complained of some harsh expressions,
and stated a few objections to what Mr. Campbell had advanced, shewing, in some cases, where his meaning had
been misunderstood. Instead of being displeased, his generous adversary instantly expunged, or softened, every
expression that either was severe, or was only supposed to
be offensive, removed every objection that had been made
to his arguments, and availed himself of the remarks both
of his friend, and of his opponent, in rendering his dissertation a complete and unanswerable performance. Thus
corrected and improved, it was put to the press, and a
copy of it sent to Mr. Hume. That philosopher was
charmed with the gentlemanly conduct of Mr. Campbell,
confessed that he felt a great desire to answer the dissertation, and declared that he would have attempted to do
something in this way, if he had not laid it down as a rule,
in early life, never to return an answer to any of his opponents. Thus principal Campbell, from a rnanly and
well-bred treatment of his adversary, rendered his own
work more correct, gained the esteem of his opponent,
and left an example worthy to be imitated by all polemical
writers.
” How far such an example is worthy to be imitated, may surely be questioned; in Mr. Campbell’s conduct we see somewhat of timidity and irresolution, nor
does he seem to have been aware of the impropriety of
gratifying Hume by personal respect; and after all no
good was produced, for Hume reprinted his essay again
and again without any notice of Campbell or any other of
his opponents, a decisive proof that in this respect he had
no title to the character of philosopher.
The “Dissertation on Miracles
” was published in
, an eminent historical, biographical, and political writer, was born at Edinburgh, March 8, 1708. His father was Robert
, an eminent historical, biographical, and political writer, was born at Edinburgh, March 8, 1708. His father was Robert Campbell, of Glenlyon, esq. and captain of horse in a regiment commanded by the then, earl of Hyndford; and his mother, Elizabeth, the daughter
ere been translated and published, without any acknowledgement of the obligation due to the original writer. But it is rather singular that his biographers have not told
When the late Mr. Dodsley formed the design of “The
Preceptor,
” which appeared in Present
state of Europe;
” a work which had been originally begun
in Museum,
” a very valuable periodical performance, printed for Dodsley. There is no production
of our author’s that has met with a better reception. It
has gone through six editions, and fully deserved this encouragement. The next great undertaking which called
for the exertion of our author’s abilities and learning, was
“The modern Universal History.
” This extensive work
was published irom time to time in detached parts, till it
amounted to 16 vols. tol. and a 2d edition of it in 8vo,
began to make its appearance in 1759. The parts of it
written by Campbell, were the histories of the Portuguese,
Dutch, Spanish, French, Swedish, Danish, and Ostend
settlements in the East Indies; and the histories of the
kingdoms of Spain, Portugal, Algarve, Navarre, and that
of France, foin Clovis to 1656. As our author had thus
distinguished himself in the literary world, the degree of
LL. D. was very properly and honourably conferred upon
him, June 18, 1754, by the university of Glasgow. With
regard to his smaller publications, there are several, Dr.
Kippis apprehends, that have eluded his most diligent inquiry; but the following account, we believe, is tolerably
accurate: In early life, he wrote: 1. “A Discourse on
Providence,
” 8vo, the third edition of which was printed
in The Case of the Opposition impartially stated,
” 8vo. Mr. Reed had a copy
of this pamphlet, with various corrections and additions in
Dr. Campbell’s own hand, evidently written with a view to
a second impression. He published in 1746, 3. “The
Sentiments of a Dutch patriot; being the speech of Mr.
V. H***n, in an august assembly, on the present state
of affairs, and the resolution necessary at this juncture to
be taken for the safety of the republic,
” 8vo. The history
of this little tract, the design of which was to expose the
temporising policy of the states of Holland, is somewhat
amusing. His amanuensis, when he was going to write
the pamphlet, having disappointed him, he requested, after
tea in the afternoon, that Mrs. Campbell, when she had
ordered a good fire to be made, would retire to bed as
soon as possible, with the servants; and, at the same time,
leave him four ounces of coffee. This was done, and he
wrote till 12 o‘clock at night, when, finding his spirits flag,
he took two ounces. With this assistance he went on till
six in the morning, when again beginning to grow weary,
he drauk the remainder of the coffee. Hence he was enabled to proceed with fresh vigour till nine or ten o’clock
in the morning, when he finished the pamphlet, which had
a great run, and was productive of considerable profit.
Mr. Campbell having succeeded so well in a performance
hastily written, expected much greater success from
another work, about which he had taken extraordinary pains,
and which had cost him a long time in composing. But
when it came to be published, it scarcely paid the expence
of advertising. Some years afterwards, a book in French
was brought to him that had been translated from the German; and he was asked whether a translation of it into
English would not be likely to be acceptable. Upon examining it, he found that it was his own neglected work,
which had made its way into Germany, and had there been
translated and published, without any acknowledgement
of the obligation due to the original writer. But it is rather singular that his biographers have not told us what
work this was.
, an ingenious Roman catholic writer, was born in London in 1540, and educated at Christ’s hospital.
, an ingenious Roman catholic
writer, was born in London in 1540, and educated at
Christ’s hospital. Being a boy of great parts, he was selected while at school, to make an oration before queen
Mary at her accession to the crown; and from thence
elected scholar of St. John’s college in Oxford by Thomas
White, the founder of it, in 1553. He took his degrees
of B. and M. A. regularly, and afterwards went into orders.
In 1566, when queen Elizabeth was entertained at Oxford, he made an oration before her, and also kept an act
in St. Mary’s church, with very great applause from that
learned queen. In 1568, he went into Ireland, where he
wrote a history of that country in two books; but being
then discovered to have embraced the popish religion, and
to labour for proselytes, he was seized and detained for
some time. He escaped soon after into England; but in
1571 transported himself into the Low Countries, and settled in the English college of Jesuits at Doway, where he
openly renounced the protestant religion, and had the degree of B. D. conferred upon him. From thence he went
to Rome, where he was admitted into the society of Jesuits in 1573; and afterwards sent by the general of his
order into Germany. He lived for some time in Brune,
and then at Vienna where he composed a tragedy, called
“Nectar and Ambrosia,
” which was acted before the emperor with great applause. Soon after he settled at Prague
in Bohemia, and taught rhetoric and philosophy for about
six years in a college of Jesuits, which had been newly
erected there. At length being called to Rome, he was
sent by the command of pope Gregory XIII. into England,
where he arrived in June 1580. Here he performed all
the offices of a zealous provincial, and was diligent in propagating his religion by all the arts of conversation and
Writing. He seems to have challenged the English clergy
to a disputation, by a piece entitled “Rationes decem oblati certaminis in causa fidei, redditse academicis Angliae,
”
which was printed at a private press in Edmund Campian, a most pernicious Jesuit.
” Afterwards, having been
found guilty of high treason in adhering to the bishop of
Rome, the queen’s enemy, and in coming to England todisturb the peace and quiet of the realm, he was hanged
and quartered, with other Romish priests, at Tyburn, December 1, 1581.
ristianity, but writes a general defence of it against the Koran. He calls himself Christodulus as a writer. This apology was printed in Greek and Latin at Basil, 1543,
Besides this history, he wrote also some theological
works, particularly an apology for the Christian religion
against that of Mahomet, in four books: this he did at the
request of a monk and friend of his, who had been solicited by a mussulman of Persia to desert Christianity, and
embrace Muimmetanism. In this he does not content himself with replying to the particular objection of the musulman to Christianity, but writes a general defence of it
against the Koran. He calls himself Christodulus as a
writer. This apology was printed in Greek and Latin at
Basil, 1543, by Bibliander and Gualtharus, from Greek Mss.
Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
”
says, that the name and situation of the emperor John Cantacuzenus might inspire the most lively curiosity. His memorials of forty years extend from the revolt of the younger
Andronicus to his own abdication of the empire and it is
observed, that, like Moses and Cresar, he was the principal
actor in the scenes which he describes. But in this eloquent work, “we should vainly seek the sincerity of an
hero or a penitent. Retired in a cloister from the vices
and passions of the world, he presents not a confession,
but an apology, of the life of an ambitious statesman. Instead of unfolding the true counsels and characters of men,
he displays the smooth and specious surface of events,
highly varnished with his -own praises and those of his
friends. Their motives are always pure their ends always
legitimate they conspire and rebel without any views of
interest and the violence which they inflict or suffer is
celebrated as the spontaneous effect of reason and virtue.
”
which reflects great credit upon his sagacity and attention as an ambassador, and his abilities as a writer. In this piece are considered, 1. The name of France. 2. Its
When sir George Carew returned in 1G09 from his
French embassy, he drew up, and addressed to king James
the First, “A Relation of the state of France, with the
characters of Henry the Fourth, and the principal persons
of that court;
” which reflects great credit upon his sagacity and attention as an ambassador, and his abilities as
a writer. In this piece are considered, 1. The name of
France. 2. Its ancient and modern limits. 3. Its quality,
strength, and situation. 4. Its riches. 5. Its political ordeis.
6. Its disorders and dangers. 7. The persons governing,
with those who are likely to succeed. 8. In what terms the
French live with their bordering neighbours. And lastly,
the state of matters between the king of England’s dominions and theirs. These heads are divided, as occasion
requires, into other subordinate ones. The characters are
drawn from personal knowledge and close observation, and
might be of service to a general historian of that period.
The composition is perspicuous and manly, and entirely
free from the pedantry which prevailed in the reign of king
James I. his taste having been formed in a better aera, that
of Queen Elizabeth. The valuable tract we are speaking
of lay for a long time in manuscript, till happily falling
into the hands of the late earl of Hardwicke, it was communicated by him to Dr. Birch, who published it in 1749,
at the end of his “Historical view of the Negotiations
between the Courts of England, France and Brussels, from
the year 1592 to 1617.
” That intelligent and industrious
writer justly observes, that it is a model, upon which ambassadors may form and digest their notions and representations and the late celebrated poet, Gray, spoke of it as
an excellent performance.
n 1772 Mr. Thomas Davies published an edition, with a few notes, and a short character, in which the writer has taken for granted some particulars for which no authority
It does not appear that any of his poems were published
during his life-time, except such as were set to music.
The first collection was printed in 1640, 12mo, the second
in 1642, the third (not in 1654 as Cibber asserts, but) in
1651, and a fourth in 1670. In 1772 Mr. Thomas Davies
published an edition, with a few notes, and a short character, in which the writer has taken for granted some
particulars for which no authority can be found. Carew’s
Ccelum Britannicum, at one time erroneously attributed
to Davenant, was printed with the first editions of his
poems, and afterwards separately in 1651. Langbaine,
and Cibber after him, say that our author placed the Lathi motto on the front, when printed, but no edition printed
in his life-time is now known. The distich, however, might
have been prefixed to the music of the masque. Oldys, in
his ms notes on Langbaine, informs us, that “Garew’s
sonnets were more in request than any poet’s of his time
that is, between 1630 and 1640. They were many of
them set to music by the two famous composers, Henry
and William Lawes, and' other eminent masters, and sunoat. court in their masques.
” It may be added, that Carew
was one of the old poets whom Pope studied, and from,
whom he borrowed. Dr. Percy honours him with the compliment of being an “elegant, and almost forgotten writer,
whose poems deserve to be revived.
” But no modern
critic appears to have estimated his merit with more liberality than Mr. Head ley: his opinion, however, is here
copied, not without suspicion that. his enthusiasm may be
thought to have carried him too far.
rriage, with his countess, Martha, daughter of the lord treasurer Middlesex. He was a most laborious writer, but chiefly of translations, and, as lord Orford observes,
, earl of Monmouth, was the eldest
son of Robert, the first earl of Monmouth, who died in
1639, and whose “Memoirs,
” written by himself, and
containing some curious particulars of secret history of the
Elizabethan period, were published from a manuscript in
the possession of the late earl of Corke and Orrery, in
1759, 8vo. Henry, his son, was born in 1596, admitted
a fellow commoner of Exeter college, Oxford, at the age
of fifteen, and took the degree of B. A. in 1613, after
which he was sent to travel into foreign countries. In 1616
he was made a knight of the bath at the creation of Charles
prince of Wales. In 1625 he was known by the name of
lord Lepington, his father’s title before he was created earl
of Monmouth, and was noted, Wood says, as “a person
well skilled in modern languages, and a general scholar.
”
This taste for study was his consolation when the depression of the nobility after the death of Charles I. threw many
of them into retirement. He died June 13, 1661. In
Chauncey’s Hertfordshire is the inscription on his monument
in the church at Rickmansworth, which mentions his living
forty-one years in marriage, with his countess, Martha,
daughter of the lord treasurer Middlesex. He was a
most laborious writer, but chiefly of translations, and, as
lord Orford observes, seems to have distrusted his abilities,
and to have made the fruits of his studies his amusement
rather than his method of fame. Of his lordship’s publications we have, 1. “Romulus and Tarquin; or De Principe
et Tyranno,
” Lond. Fragmenta Aurea,
” and others were prefixed by
Stapylton, Davenant, Carew, &c. It came to a third edition in 1648. 2. “Speech in the house of peers, Jan.
30, 1641, upon occasion of the present distractions, and
of his Majesty’s removal from Whitehall,
” London, Historical relations of the United Provinces, and of
Flanders,
” London, History of the Wars in Flanders,
” ibid. ibid. 1656, fol. from Boccalini. 6.
” Politic Discourses, in six books,“ibid. 1657, fol. 7.
” History of Venice,“ibid. 1658, fol. both from Paul Paruta, a noble Venetian. 8.
” The use of Passions,“ibid.
1649 and 1671, 8vo, from the French of J. F. Senault. 9.
” Man become guilty or the corruption of his nature by
sin,“ibid, from the same author. 10.
” The History of
the late Wair of Christendom,“1641, fol. which lord Orford thinks is the same work with his translation of
” Sir
Francis Biondi’s History of the Civil Wars of England,
between the houses of York and Lancaster.“11.
” Capriata’s “History of Italy,
” Priorato’s History of
France,
” but died before he could finish it. It was completed by William Brent, esq. and printed at London,
1677.
theatre, and Dr. Burney for Covent-garden, the original author of the melody was wholly unknown. The writer of a “Succinct Account” of Carey, says that he was the principal
As Carey was an entertaining companion, he shared the
fate of those who mistake the roar of the table for friendship. At first, however, he was not altogether disappointed.
The publication of his songs in 1740 in a collection entitled “The Musical Century,
” and of his dramatic works in
God save the
King,
” which his son, the subject of the next article, frequently brought forward, Dr. Burney is of opinion that it
was of prior date, written for James II. while the prince
of Orange was hovering over the coast; and when the latter became king, was forgot. It is certain that in 1745,
when Dr. Arne harmonized it for Drury-lane theatre, and
Dr. Burney for Covent-garden, the original author of the
melody was wholly unknown. The writer of a “Succinct
Account
” of Carey, says that he was the principal projector of the fund for decayed musicians, which was held,
when first established, at the Turk’s head in Gerrard- street,
Soho.
25, 1541, or 1543. He was a man of considerable learning, hut his usefulness both as a reformer and writer was perpetually obstructed by the turbulence of his temper,
Carolostadt now wandered from place to place through the higher Germany, and at length made a pause at Rotenburgh, where, as usual, he soon raised tumults, and incited the people to pull down the statues and paintings. When the seditious faction of the peasants, with Munzer their ringleader, was effectually suppressed, he became in the greatest difficulties, and even in danger of his life from his supposed connection with these enthusiastic rebels, and he narrowly escaped, through being let down by the wall of the town in a basket. Thus reduced to the last extremities, he and his wife incessantly intreatedboth the elector and Luther that they might be allowed to return into their own country. He said, he could clear himself of having had any concern in the rebellion; and if not, he would cheerfully undergo any punishment that could be inflicted upon him. With this view he wrote a little tract, in which he takes much pains to justify himself from the charge of sedition: and he sent a letter likewise to Luther, in which he earnestly begs his assistance in the publishing of the tract, as well as in the more general design of establishing his innocence. Luther immediately published Carolostadt’s letter, and called on the magistrates and on the people to give him a fair hearing. In this he succeeded; and Carolostadt was recalled about -the autumn of 1525, and then made a public recantation of what he had advanced on the sacrament, a condescension which did not procure a complete reconciliation between him and the other reformers, and indeed affords but a sorry proof of his consistency. We find Carolostadt, after this, at Zurich and at Basil, where he was appointed pastor and professor of divinity, and where he died with the warmest effusions of piety and resignation, ijec. 25, 1541, or 1543. He was a man of considerable learning, hut his usefulness both as a reformer and writer was perpetually obstructed by the turbulence of his temper, and his misguided zeal in endeavouring to promote that by violence which the other reformers projected only through the medium of reason and argument. That he should be censured by Moreri, Bossuet, and other Roman catholic writers, is not surprising, for he afforded too much ground of accusation; but it is more inexcusable in Mosheim, Beausobre, and some other ecclesiastical historians, to throw the blame of his banishment and restless life on Luther, and highly absurd to insinuate that the latter was jealous of his fame. The comparative merits of the conduct of Luther and Carolostadt throughout their whole connection, have been examined with great candour and perspicuity by Milner. One singularity in Carolostadt’s character still remains to be noticed, namely, that he was the first protestant divine who took a wife. His works were numerous, but are now fallen into oblivion. His followers, who for some time retained the name of Carolostadtians, were also denominated Sacramentarians and agree in most things with the Zuinglians.
was a Caivinist), the book was castrated by archbishop Laud in various places. “The scene,” says the writer in a dedication to archbishop Usher, “wherein I have bounded
1 Gen. Diet. Biog. Brit. Richardsoniana, p. 259. See also an account of
his conduct in Scotland in “A true relation of the Pursuit of the Rebels in the
North, and of their Surrender at Preston to lieutenant-general Carpenter, commanding in chief his majesty’s forces there,
” joined to a plan published under
this title, “An exact Plan of the Town of Preston, with the barricades of the
Rebels, and the disposition of the king’s forces, under the command of lieutenant-general Carpenter and major-general Wills.
” See likewise “The
Poltarchbishop Usher, then at Oxford, who admired his talents
and piety, took him with him to Ireland, and made him
one of his chaplains, and tutor to the king’s wards in
Dublin. These king’s wards were the sons of Roman catholics who had fled for their religion, leaving them in
their minority; and Mr. Carpenter’s charge was to bring
them up in the protestant religion. Soon after he came
to Ireland he was advanced to a deanery, but what deanery
is not mentioned. He died at Dublin in 1635, according
to Fuller, or in 1628, according to Wood. Dr. Robert
Usher, afterwards bishop of Kildare, and brother to the
archbishop, preached his funeral sermon, and gave a high
character of him, which seems to be confirmed by all his
contemporaries. He published, 1.
” Philosophia libera,
triplici exercitationum decade proposita,“Francfort, 1621,
under the name of Cosmopolitanus London, 1622, 8vo,
with additions, Oxford, 1636, 1675. This was considered
as a very ingenious work, and one of the earliest attacks
on the Aristotelian philosophy. Brucker, who has given
our author a place among the
” modern attempters to
improve natural philosophy/* adds, that he has advanced
many paradoxical notions, sufficiently remote from the received doctrines of the schools. 2. “Geography,
” in
two books, Oxford, Achitophel or the picture of a wicked Politician, in three parts,
”
Dublin, The scene,
” says the
writer in a dedication to archbishop Usher, “wherein I
have bounded my discourse, presents unto your grace a
sacred tragedy, consisting of four chief actors, viz. David,
an anointed king; Absalom, an ambitious prince Achitophel, a wicked politician and Cushay, a loyal subject
a passage of history, for variety pleasant, for instruction
useful* for event admirable.
” He inveighs in general
against the inordinate ambition and subtle practices of
courts and courtiers. Mr. Malone takes more pains than
necessary to prove that Dry den adopted no hint from it
for his “Absalom and Achitophel.
” 4. “Chorazin and
Bethsaida’s woe and warning,
” Oxford, Treatise of Optics,
” of which there were some
imperfect copies in Mss. but the original was by some
means lost.
him as a martyr to liberty, but his countrymen now seem disposed to revive his real character. As a writer, they tell us, he first acquired notice by some bad articles
, one of those French philosophers and statesmen to whom the revolution gave a shortlived importance, was born at Pont-de-Vesle in Dombes,
of poor parents. He early discovered an impetuous and
ungovernable temper, and even his youth is said to have
been stained with crimes. He travelled into Moldavia and
Walachia, and wrote an account of those countries, which
is the most unexceptionable of his works. On the commencement of the revolution he came to Paris, with all
the talents requisite to give him consequence, a violent
hatred of the royal family, and confused and ill-digested
notions of political freedom. Mirabeau, during his short
life, appears to have discerned and despised his character;
but in 1792 he acted without controul, and was one of the
chiefs of the revolt on the 10th of August, and gloried in
having laid the plan of that fatal day. When the unhappy
king was brought to trial, he was among the most active in
preventing any change in the sentence, or any access to
the voice of clemency. His triumph, however, was very
short. Having fallen out with Robespierre and his colleagues, he joined the party of the Gironde, was implicated in their fate, and guillotined Nov. 1, 1793. The
convention afterwards honoured him as a martyr to liberty,
but his countrymen now seem disposed to revive his real
character. As a writer, they tell us, he first acquired
notice by some bad articles in the Encyclopaedia. His
separate publications were, 1. “Systeme de la Raison,
” a
declamation against royalty; said to have been printed at
London in 1773. 2. “Esprit de la Morale et de la Philosophic,
” Histoire de la
Moldavie et de la Valachie,
” Nouveaux
principes de Physique,
” Essai sur la nautique
aerienneV' 1784, in which he assumes the merit of a plan.
to guide air-balloons with safety and speed which in point
of utility may be classed with the following 6.
” Examen
physique du magnetisme animal,“1785, 8vo. 7.
” Dissertation elementaire sur la nature de la lumiere, de la
chaleur, du feu, et de Pelectricite,“1787, 8vo. 8.
” Un
mot de reponse a M. de Calonne, sur s;i Kcquete au roi.“9.
” L'Orateur des Etats-Generawx,“1781;, 8vo. 10.
” Annales politiques,“a sort of newspaper, if we mistake
not, at the time when every party had its newspaper.
1.
” Mernoires historiques sur la Bastille," 1790, 3 vols.
8vo; and many anonymous pamphlets.
Lord Orford, in his “Royal and Noble Authors,” is the only writer of any credit that has ventured to attack the character of lord
Lord Orford, in his “Royal and Noble Authors,
” is the
only writer of any credit that has ventured to attack the
character of lord Falkland, and that with as much confidence as if he had not only witnessed his actions, but had
known his motives. The opinion of lord Orford, however,
cannot be expected to weigh much against that of Clarendon, and almost every writer who lived in those times.
Lord Falkland’s failing appears to have been timidity and
irresolution; he loved both his country and his king he
probably saw the errors of both, and hovered between fluctuating principles in an age when no principle was settled,
and when his honesty made him unserviceable to his friends,
and the dupe of his enemies.
, an eminent Italian writer, was born at Florence in 1503, and educated at Bologna, and
, an eminent Italian writer, was
born at Florence in 1503, and educated at Bologna, and at
Florence under Ubaldino Bandinelli. In 153S he became
clerk of the apostolic chamber, and was in his youth distinguished for the elegance of his writings, and the licentiousness of his morals. In 1544 he was promoted to the
archbishopric of Benevento, and sent as pope’s nuncio to
Venice, and it is thought would have been made a cardinal,
but for some indecent writings which he had published in
his youth: but there must have been some other reason
than this for his not obtaining that honour, as these writings had been no obstruction to his advancement to the
archbishopric. He was engaged, however, in several political negociations, until he became involved in the disgrace of the cardinal Alexander Farnese, and retired to
Venice. Upon the accession of pope Paul IV. who had an
esteem for him, he returned to Rome, where he amused
himself with literary pursuits, and where he died in 1556
or 1557. He was considered as one of the most elegant
writers of his time, both in Latin and Italian; of the former we have sufficient proof in his “Latina Monimenta,
”
Florence, Galateo,
” or art of living in the world, which is a system
of politeness, and has been translated into most European
languages. In 1774, it was published in an English translation, 12mo. There are complete editions of Casa’s works,
Venice, 1752, 3 vols. and 5 vols. and Naples, 6 vols. 4to.
Some of his Italian poems are sufficiently licentious, but
the authenticity of other works of that description attributed to him has been questioned, particularly by Marchand,
and by other authorities specified by Saxius.
as it hath reference to Christianity: as also the business of witches and witchcraft, against a late writer, fully argued and disputed.” The late writer, attacked only
1660, 4to. 21. “The Question to whom it belonged anciently to preach? And whether all priests might or did?
Discussed out of antiquity. Occasioned by the late directions concerning preachers,
” Lond. Notse & emendationes in Diogenem Laertium de
Vitis, &c. Philosophorum
” added to those of his father,
in the editions of Laertius printed at London 1664, fol.
and Amsterdam in 1692, 4to. 23. “Of the necessity of
Reformation in and before Luther’s time, and what visibly
hath most hindered the progress of it Occasioned by some
late virulent books written by papists, but especially by
that, entitled, Labyrinthus Cantuariensis,
” Lond. 1664, 4to.
This is chiefly an answer to “Labyrinthus Cantuariensis,
”
printed at Paris in Archbishop Laud’s relation of a conference with Fisher
the Jesuit.
” 24. “An answer concerning the new way of
Infallibility lately devised to uphold the Roman cause; the
ancient fathers and councils laid aside, against J. S. (the author of Sure-footing) his Letter lately published,
” Lond.
Of the necessity of Reformation,
” &c. and was printed at the end of Sarjeant’s Surefooting in Christianity. 25. “A Letter of Meric Casaubon, D.D. &c. to Peter du Moulin, I). D. &c. concerning
natural experimental philosophy, and some books lately
set out about it,
” Cambridge, Of Credulity and Incredulity in things natural, civil, and divine;
wherein, among other things, the sadducism of these
times in denying spirits, witches, and supernatural operations, by pregnant instances and evidences is fully
confuted; Epicurus his cause discussed, and the juggling and false dealing lately used to bring him and
atheism into credit, clearly discovered; the use and necessity of ancient learning against the innovating humour
all along proved and asserted^
” Lond. Of Credulity and Incredulity in things divine
and spiritual: wherein (among other things) a true and
faithful account is given of the Platonic philosophy, as it
hath reference to Christianity: as also the business of
witches and witchcraft, against a late writer, fully argued
and disputed.
” The late writer, attacked only in the two
last sheets of this book, was Mr. John Wag-staff, who published “The question of Witchcraft debated; or a discourse
against their opinion, that affirm witches,
” Lond. A treatise proving Spirits, Witches, and supernatural
operations by pregnant instances and evidences, &c.
”
London, Notse in Polybium,
” printed for the
first time in Gronovius’s edition, Amsterdam, 1670, 8vo.
28. “Epistolae, Dedicationes, Prsefationes, Prolegomena,
& Tractatus quidam rariores. Curante Theodore Janson
ab Almeloveen;
” printed at the end of Isaac Casaubon’s
Letters, Roterodami, 1709. 29. “De Jure concionandi
apud antiques.
” This seems to be the same as the treatise
mentioned above No. 22, or perhaps it was a Latin translation of it.
n. 1588, 8vo. Wood mentions B book entitled “The Praise of Music, &c.” 1586, 8vo, which an ingenious writer in the Bibliographer (vol.11.) is inclined to attribute to Dr.
He wrote, 1. “Summa veterum interpretum in universam dialecticam Aristotelis,
” London, Speculum moralium questionum in
universam ethicam Aristotelis,
” Oxon. Sphaera civitatis, sive de politica,
” Oxon.
Apologia musices, tarn vocalis, quam instrumentalis, et mixtae,
” Oxon. The Praise of Music, &c.
” Thesaurus ceconomiae, seu commentarius in ceconomia Aristotelis,
” Oxon. Appendix Theium ceconomicarum,
” ibid. 7. “lleflexus speculi moralis, seu comment, in magna moralia Arist.
” Oxon. 1596.
8. “Lapis Philosophicus, seu comment, in octo libros phisicorum Arist.
” Oxon. Ancilla philosophise, seu Epit. in 8 lib. Arist.
” Oxon.
ohn Case who published in 1694, “Compendium Anatomicum, nova methodo instructum,” 12mo, in which the writer strenuously defends the opinion of De Graaf, that quadrupeds,
By which distich the author of the Tatler says, he probably
got more than Dryden did by all his works. Haller also
mentions a doctor John Case who published in 1694,
“Compendium Anatomicum, nova methodo instructum,
”
12mo, in which the writer strenuously defends the opinion of De Graaf, that quadrupeds, and all other animals, as
well as birds, proceed ab ovo. But we doubt whether our
astrologer had learning enough for a work of this description, or ever published more than a hand-bill Those who
have the curiosity to peruse some of these effusions may
indulge it in our authorities.
, a learned and industrious writer, was born at Paris Dec. 28, 1659. After studying classics and
, a learned and industrious writer,
was born at Paris Dec. 28, 1659. After studying classics
and philosophy, he relinquished the bright prospects of
promotion held out to him by his maternal uncle M. de
Lubert, who was treasurer-general of the marine; entered
the society of the Jesuits in 1677, and completed his
vows in 1694 at the college of Bourges, where he then
resided. After teaching for a certain number of years,
agreeably to the custom of his society, his superiors ordained him to the pulpit, and he became a very celebrated
preacher for some years, at the end of which the “Journal
de Trevoux
” was committed to his care: he appears to
have been editor of it from 1701, and notwithstanding his
almost constant attention to this journal, which for about
twelve years he enriched with many valuable dissertations
and extracts, he found leisure for various separate publications. In 1705, he published his “Histoire generate de
Tempire du Mogul,
” Paris, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo, and often
reprinted. It is taken from the Portuguese memoirs of
M. Manouchi, a Venetian. In 1706 appeared his “Histoire duFanatisme des religions protestantes,
” Paris, 12mo,
containing only the history of the anabaptists; but he reprinted it in 1733, 2 vols. 12mo, with the history of
Davidism, and added the same year in a third volume, the
history of the Quakers. This work is in more estimation
abroad than it probably would be in this country. He employed himself for some time on a translation of Virgil into
prose, which was completed in 1716, Paris, 6 vols. 12mo,
and was reprinted in 1729, 4 vols. The notes and life of
Virgil are the most valuable part of the book, although his
admirers affected to consider him as excelling equally as
commentator, critic, and translator. That, however, on
which his fame chiefly rests, is his “Roman History,
” to
which his friend Rouilie contributed the notes. This
valuable work was completed in 20 vols. 4to, and was soon
translated into Italian and English, the latter in 1728, by
Dr. Richard Bundy, 6 volg. folio. Rouilie, who undertook
to continue the history, 'after the death of his colleague,
published only one volume in 1739, 4to, and died himself
the following year. Father Routh then undertook the
continuation, but the dispersion of the Jesuits prevented
his making much progress. As a collection of facts, this
history is the most complete we have, and the notes are
valuable, but the style is not that of the purest historians.
Catrou preserved his health and spirits to an advanced age,
dying Oct. 18, 1737, in his seventy-eighth year
nder and elegant genius of Catullus, that he is inclined to think it a translation from some Grecian writer. Catullus’s writings got him the name of “the learned” amongst
And in this he has been followed by Paul Jovius and Barthius among the moderns. Dr. Warton maintains that the
Romans can boast but of eight poets who are unexceptionably excellent, and places Catullus as the third on this list,
in which he is preceded by Terence and Lucretius, and
followed by Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, and Phaedrus. The same critic seems to doubt whether the story of
Atys in Catullus’s works be genuine. It is so much above
the tender and elegant genius of Catullus, that he is inclined to think it a translation from some Grecian writer.
Catullus’s writings got him the name of “the learned
”
amongst the ancients, for which we have the authority of
Aulus Gellius, Apuleius, and both the Plinys; but we have
no compositions of his remaining, nor any lights from antiquity, which enable us to explain the reason of it. Among
others that Catullus inveighed against and lashed in his
iambics, none suffered more severely than Julius Cæsar,
under the name of Mamurra which, however, only furnished Cæsar with an opportunity of shewing his moderation and humanity. For after Catullus, by repeated invectives, had given sufficient occasion to Cæsar to resent such
usage, especially from one whose father had been his familiar friend Cæsar, instead of expressing any uneasiness,
generously invited the poet to supper with him, and there
treated him with so much affability and good-nature, that
Catullus was ashamed at what he had done, and resolved
to make him amends for the future.
, an Italian writer of considerable fame, was born at Florence in 1503. After being
, an Italian writer of
considerable fame, was born at Florence in 1503. After
being educated in polite literature, he left his country
when very young, and went to Rome, where he got into employment under pope Paul III. and his grandson Octavius
Farnese. He also served under Henry II. in the war of the
Siennese, as long as that republic was able to maintain the
conflict with assistance from France. He appears also
to have been entrusted with the management of several
political affairs, and when peace was concluded between
the French and Spaniards, he retired to Padua, and passed
the rest of his days in literary pursuits. He died there
Dec. 9, 1562. His principal works were his Rhetoric,
“liettorica,
” Venice, 1559, and often reprinted, and his
essay on the best forms of republics, “Trattati sopra gli
ottirni reggimenti dellaRepubliche antiche e moderne,
” Venice, Castrametation
” of Polybius, which was published
with some other military treatises, at Florence, 1552, 8vo.
th some opposition, which produced a public controversy, and procured young Cave the reputation of a writer.
He was first placed with a collector of the excise. He used to recount with some pleasure a journey or two which he rode with him as his clerk, and relate the victories that he gained over the exciseman in grammatical disputations. But the insolence of his mistress, who employed him in servile drudgery, quickly disgusted him; and he went up to London in quest of more suitable employment. Here he was recommended to a timber-merchant at the Bankside, and while he was on liking, is said to have given hopes of great mercantile abilities; but this place he soon left, for whatever reason, and was bound apprentice to Mr. Collins, a printer of some reputation, and deputy alderman. This was a trade for which men were formerly qualified by a literary education; and which was pleasing to Cave, because it furnished some employment for his scholastic attainments. Here, therefore, he resolved to settle, though his master and mistress lived in perpetual discord, ana their house was therefore no comfortable habitation. From the inconveniences of these domestic tumults he was soon released, having in only two years attained so much skill in his art, and gained so much the confidence of his master, that he was sent, without any superintendant, to conduct a printing-house at Norwich, and publish a weekly paper. In this undertaking he met with some opposition, which produced a public controversy, and procured young Cave the reputation of a writer.
tories, whose principles had at that time so much prevalence with Cave, that he was for some years a writer in Mist’s Journal; which, though he afterwards obtained by his
His master died before his apprenticeship was expired,
and he was not able to bear the perverseness of his mistress.
He therefore quitted her house, upon a stipulated allowance, and married a young widow, with whom he lived at
Bow. When his apprenticeship was over, he worked as a
journeyman at the printing-house of Mr. Barber, a man
much distinguished and employed by the tories, whose
principles had at that time so much prevalence with Cave,
that he was for some years a writer in Mist’s Journal;
which, though he afterwards obtained by his wife’s interest a small place in the post-office, he for some time
continued. But as interest is powerful, and conversation,
however mean, in time persuasive, he by degrees inclined
to another party; in which, however, he was always moderate, though steady and determined. When he was
admitted into the post-office, he still continued, at his intervals of attendance, to exercise his trade, or to employ
himself with some typographical business. He corrected
the “Gradus ad Parnassum
” and was liberally rewarded
by the Company of Stationers. He wrote an “Account of
the Criminals,
” which had for some time a considerable
sale and published many little pamphlets that accident
brought into his hands, of which it would be very difficult
to recover the memory. By the correspondence which his
place in the post-office facilitated, he procured country
news-papers, and sold their intelligence to a journalist in
London, for a guinea a week. He was afterwards raised
to the office of clerk of the franks, in which he acted with
great spirit and firmness; and often slopped franks which
were given by members of parliament to their friends, because he thought such extension of a peculiar right illegal.
This raised many complaints; and having stopped among
others a frank given to the old duchess of Marlborough by
Mr. Walter Plummer, he was cited before the house, as
for breach of privilege, and accused, perhaps very unjustly,
of opening letters to detect them. He was treated with
great harshness and severity, but declining their questions
by pleading his oath of secrecy, was at last dismissed.
And it must be recorded to his honour, that, when he was
ejected from his office, he did not think himself discharged from his trust, but continued to refuse to his
nearest friends any informationabout the management of
the office.
monument was erected to his memory. He was an excellent pud universal scholar, an elegant and polite writer, and a florid and very eloquent preacher. He was thoroughly
, a very learned divine, was born at
Pickwell, in Leicestershire, of which parish his father was
rector, Dec. 30, 1637. On the 9th of May, 1653, he was
admitted into St. JohnVcollege, in Cambridge, where he
took the degree of B. A. in 1656, and that of M. A. in 1660.
In August 1662, he was admitted to the vicarage of Islington, in Middlesex-, and some time after became chaplain
in ordinary to king Charles 11. He took the degree of
D. D. in 1672, and on the 16th of September, 1679, was
collated by the archbishop of Canterbury to the rectory of
Allhallows the Great, in Thames-street, London. In July
1681, he was incorporated D. D. at Oxford, and in
November 1684, he was installed canon of Windsor, upon
the death of Mr. John Rosewell; about which time, as
Mr. Wood tells us r he became rector of Hasely, in Oxfordshire; but that seems to be a mistake, as the rectory
of Hasely is annexed to the deanery of Windsor. He
resigned his rectory of Allhallows in 1689, and the vicarage of Islington in 1691; but on the 19th of November
before, namely, in 1690, he was admitted to the vicarage
of Isleworth, in Middlesex, which being a quiet and retired place, probably suited best his most studious temper.
He published: 1. “Primitive Christianity; or the Religion of the ancient Christians in the first ages of the Gospel,
” London, Tabulae Ecclesiastics,
” tables of the ecclesiastical
writers, Lond. Antiquitates Apostolicae:
or the history of the lives, acts, and martyrdoms of the
holy apostles of our Saviour, and the two evangelists, St.
Mark and St. Luke. To which is added an introductory
Discourse concerning the three great dispensations of the
church, Patriarchal, Mosaical, and Evangelical. Being a
continuation of `Antiquitates Christianas,' or the Life and
Death of Holy Jesus,
” written by Jeremy Taylor, afterward bishop of Down and Connor, Lond. 1676, fol. 4.
“Apostolici, or the History of the lives, acts, deaths, and
martyrdomsof those who were contemporaries with or
immediately succeeded the Apostles as also of the
most eminent of the primitive fathers for the first three
hundred years. To which is added, a Chronology of the
three first ages of the Church,
” Lond. A
Sermon preached before the right honourable the lordmayor, aldermen, and citizens of London, at St. Mary-leBuw, on the fifth of November, M.DC.LXXX.
” London,
1680, 4to. 6. “A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church, by bishops, metropolitans,
and patriarchs. More particularly concerning the ancient
power and jurisdiction of the bishops of Rome, and the
encroachments of that upon other sees, especially the see
of Constantinople;
” Lond. Ecclesiastic!,
or the History of the lives, acts, deaths, and writings of
the most eminent Fathers of the Church that flourished in
the fourth century. Wherein, among other things, an
account is given of the rise, growth, and progress of
Arianism, and all other sects of that age descending from
it. Together with an Introduction, containing an historical account of the state of Paganism under the first
Christian emperor,
” Lond. 1682, fol. 8. “A Sermon
preached before the king at Whitehall, on Sunday, January 18, 1684-5, on Psalm iv. 7. Publisheo 1 by his majesties special command,
” Lond. Chartopbylax Ecclesiasticus,
” Lond. Tabulae Ecclesiastics,
” above-mentioned, and a kind of abridgment of the “Historia Literaria,
” and contams a short account of most of the ecclesiastical writers from the birth of Christ to 1517. 1O.
“Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria i. e. A
Literary History of Ecclesiastical Writers, in two parts,
”
fol. the first printed at Lond. A Serious Exhortation, with some important advices
relating to the late cases about Conformity, recommended
to the present dissenters from the Church of England.
” It
is the twenty-second in the “London Cases.
” This very
learned person died at Windsor, on the 4th of August,
1713, and was buried in Islington church, where a monument was erected to his memory. He was an excellent
pud universal scholar, an elegant and polite writer, and a
florid and very eloquent preacher. He was thoroughly
acquainted with the history and constitution of the Christian church. His works, particularly his Lives of the
apostles, Lives of the fathers, and Primitive Christianity,
evince his great knowledge of antiquity, and are justly esteemed the best books written upon those important subjects. Yet the “Historia Literaria
” is perhaps the work
on which his fume will now be thought principally to depend. This very useful work was reprinted at Geneva, in
1705 and 1720, but the best edition is that printed at the
Clarendon press, by subscription, in 2 vols. fol, 1740—
1743, which contains the author’s last corrections and additions, and additions by other hands. What share Mr.
Henry Wharton had in this work will be noticed in our life
of that writer. From a manuscript letter of Cave’s in our
possession, it appears that he had much reason to complain
of Wharton. During the last twelve years of his life Cave
had repeatedly revised this history, and made alterations
and additions equal to one third part of the work, all which
were carefully incorporated in the new edition. The copy
thus improved, he left in the hands of his executors, the
lord chief justice Reeve, and the rev. Dr. Jones, canon of
Windsor, but they both dying soon after the work went
to press, Dr. Daniel Waterland undertook the care of it.
The venerable Dr. Watson, bishop of Llandaff, observes,
that “Casimiri Oudini Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesix, &c.
” Leipsic, Historia Literaria,
” and other works of
the same kind.
ed by correctness of taste, she might probably have risen to considerable excellence. A very elegant writer in the Connoisseur has paid a much higher compliment to her
But though the duchess’s literary character and works are now treated with general disregard, this was by no means the case during her own life. The most extravagant compliments were paid her not only by persons whose applauses might be deemed of little estimation, but by learned bodies, and by men of great eminence in literature. They were probably dazzled, and almost blinded by the high rank and solemn pomp of the duke and duchess of Newcastle. Absurd, however, as were her grace’s pretensions to philosophical knowledge, and extravagant as are her other compositions, it cannot, we apprehend, be denied that she had considerable powers of imagination and invention; and if her fancy had been enriched by information, restrained by judgment, and regulated by correctness of taste, she might probably have risen to considerable excellence. A very elegant writer in the Connoisseur has paid a much higher compliment to her genius and poetical merit than has been customary with modern authors, insinuating that even Milton might have borrowed from her. The duchess of Newcastle departed this life at London, in the close of 1673, and was buried in Westminster-abbey, on the 7th of January, 1673-4. Her person is reported to have been very graceful. With regard to her character, her temper was naturally reserved; so tha$ she seldom said much in company, and especially among strangers. In her studies, contemplations, and writings, she was most indefatigable. She was truly pious, charitable, and generous very kind to her servants an excellent Œconomist and a complete pattern of conjugal affection and duty. It hath been thought surprising, that she who devoted her time so greatly to writing, cuuld acquit herself with so much propriety in the several duties and relations of life.
time, whoever reads his criticism upon Chaucer, must not only allow that he was a better judge, than writer, of poetry; but that it will be difficult to find a criticism
The erudition of Caxton appears to be deserving of better treatment than Bale and others have bestowed upon it.
That he had a far greater claim to intellectual reputation than
that of possessing the mere negative excellence of “not
being downright stupid or slothful,
” (Bale’s words,) must
be allowed by the most fastidious reader of his numerous
prologues and translations. That he was not a poet, however, must be conceded, for nothing can be more barbarous than the couplets for which he has been admitted, by
Ritson, into the list of English poets. At the same time,
whoever reads his criticism upon Chaucer, must not only allow that he was a better judge, than writer, of poetry; but
that it will be difficult to find a criticism upon our venerable bard, in the whole compass of our language, which is
more sober and just; more clearly and forcibly expressed.
As to Caxton’s knowledge of languages, that seems to
have been extremely creditable to him; for he was, in all
probability, a complete master of the Dutch, German, and
French, and considering his long absence from England
(in the prime of his life), he wrote his own language with
fluency, simplicity, and occasional melody and force.
of the Negociations,” &c. and his researches being carried farther than perhaps those of any modern writer, what he advances seems more entitled to credit.
His indefatigable application to business having ruined
his constitution, he died at Marlborough in his return from
Bath, May 24, 1612, and was buried at Hatfield. He was
undoubtedly a very able minister, but not very popular
while living, nor characterised with much praise since his
death. Dr. Birch, however, appears his ablest advocate,
in his “Historical View of the Negociations,
” &c. and his
researches being carried farther than perhaps those of any
modern writer, what he advances seems more entitled to
credit.
scandalous chroniclers of the last age. He was evidently a man of quicker parts, and a more spirited writer and speaker than his father, to whose experience he was at the
It will be but justice, says Dr. Birch, to the character of
so eminent a person as the earl of Salisbury, to consider
him as he now appears to us from fuller and more impartial lights than the ignorance or envy of his own time
would admit of; and which may be opposed to the general
invectives and unsupported libels of Weldon and Wilson,
the scandalous chroniclers of the last age. He was evidently a man of quicker parts, and a more spirited writer
and speaker than his father, to whose experience he was
at the same time obliged for his education and introduction
into public business, in the management of which he was
accounted, and perhaps justly, more subtle, and less open.
And this opinion of his biass to artifice and dissimulation
was greatly owing to the singular address which he shewed
in penetrating into the secrets and reserved powers of the
foreign ministers with whom he treated; and in evading,
with uncommon dexterity, such points as they pressed, when
it was not convenient to give them too explicit an answer.
His correspondence with king James, during the life of
queen Elizabeth, was so closely and artfully managed,
that he escaped a discovery, which would have ruined his
interest with his royal mistress, though he afterwards justified that correspondence from a regard to her service.
“For what,
” says he, “could more quiet the expectation
of a successor, so many ways invited to jealousy, than
when he saw her ministry, that were most inward with her,
wholly bent to accommodate the present actions of state
for his future safety, when God should see his time!
”
He was properly a sole minister, though not under the
denomination of a favourite, his master having a much
greater awe of than love for him; and he drew all business,
both foreign and domestic, into his own hands, and suffered no ministers to be employed abroad but who were
his dependents, and with whom he kept a most constant
and exact correspondence: but the men whom he preferred to such employments, justified his choice, and did
credit to the use he made of his power. He appears to
have been invariably attached to the true interest of his
country, being above corruption from, or dependence
upon, any foreign courts; which renders it not at all surprising, that he should be abused by them all in their
turns; as his attention to all the motions of the popish
faction made him equally odious to them. He fully understood the English constitution, and the just limits of
the prerogative; and prevented the fatal consequences
which might have arisen from the frequent disputes between
king James I. and his parliaments. In short, he was as
good a minister as that prince would suffer him to be, and
as was consistent with his own security in a factious and
corrupt court; and he was even negligent of his personal
safety, whenever the interest of the public was at stake.
His post of lord treasurer, at a time when the exchequer
was exhausted by the king’s boundless profusion, was attended with infinite trouble to him, in concerting schemes
for raising the supplies; and the manner in which he was
obliged to raise them, with the great fortune which he accumulated to himself, in a measure beyond perhaps the
visible profits of his places, exposed him to much detraction and popular clamour, which followed hi ui to his grave;
though experience shewed 1 that the nation sustained an
important loss by his death since he was the only minister
of state of real abilities during the whole course of that
reign. He has been thought too severe and vindictive in
the treatment of his rivals and enemies: but the part
which he acted towards the earl of Essex, seems entirely
the result of his duty to his mistress and the nation. It
must, however, be confessed, that his behaviour towards
the great but unfortunate sir Walter Raleigh is an imputation upon him, which still remains to be cleared up; and
it probably may be done from the ample memorials of his
administration in the Hatfield library.
ks, it would shew an astonishing example of literary industry. But although he was a very voluminous writer, he published nothing in haste, and nothing but what was in
He published good editions of above twenty Latin and
Greek authors; and should we give a complete catalogue
of his own works, it would shew an astonishing example
of literary industry. But although he was a very voluminous writer, he published nothing in haste, and nothing
but what was in general correct and useful. His works
relate chiefly to grammar, to geography, to history, and
to the Oriental languages. As they are so very numerous,
we shall only mention some of the most considerable: 1.
“A Latin Grammar,
” in German, Antibarbarus Latinus, sive de Latinitate mediae et infimae aetatisl,
”
Cogitationes de variis linguae Latinos aetatibus, &c.
”
which Celiarius having not’seen, and reading afterwards,
was the occasion of his making an addition to his own, under the title of, 3. “Curie posteriores de barbarismis et
idiotismis sermonis Latini,
” Orthographia Latina ex vetustis monumentis, hoc est nummis, marmoribus, &c. excerpta, digesta, novisque observationibtis
illustrata,
” Historia universalis brev-iter
ac perspicue exposita, in antiquam et medii aevi ac novam
divisa, cum notis perpetuis,
” Collectanea Historic Samaritanae, quotquot inveniri potuerunt,
” Historia gentis & religionis Samaritanae ex nova
Sichemitarum epistola aucta,
” Grammatica Hebrasa in tabulis synopticis una cum consilio 24 herisdiscendi linguam sanctam.
” To which he added, “Rabbinismus, sive institutio grammatica pro legendis Rabbinorum scriptis,
” Canones de linguae sanctce
idiotismis,
” Sciagraphia philoiogiae sacrae, cum etymologico radicum deperditarum ex aliis linguis, Arabica praesertim, restitutarum,
” Chaldaismus, sive grammatica nova linguae Chaldaica?,
”
&c. Porta Syriae, sive grammatica Syriaca,
” Horae Samaritans,
” &c. Isagoge in linguam Arabicam,
”
, an ancient and elegant writer on the subject of physic, flourished in the first century, under
, an ancient and elegant writer on the subject of physic, flourished in the first
century, under the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius; but
of his personal history, his family, or even his profession,
we know little. It has been doubted whether he practised
physic, but without the experience arising from practice,
it is difficult to conceive how he could have so accurately
described diseases and given the remedies. Dr. Freind,
who studied his works with great attention, decides in favour of his having practised, and agrees with Le Clerc
that he was a Roman by birth, and probably of the Cornelian family. He is said to have written on rhetoric and
other subjects; but his “De iVlediciua iibri octo,
” on
which his fame rests, is the only work now remaining, and
has gone through a great number of editions. The surgical part is most esteemed as corresponding nearest to the
present practice; but the whole is written in a style so
pure and elegant, as to entitle him to a place among the
Latin classics. Dr. Clarke has enumerated nearly forty
editions, the best of which are thought to be AUneloveen’s,
Padua, 1722, 8vo, reprinted in 1750, and one by Krause,
Leipsic, 1766, 8vo, with the notes of Scaliger, Casaubon,
Almeloveen, Morgagni, &c. to which we may add a very
recent edition published at Edinburgh and London in
1809, 8vo. In 1756, an English translation, with notes,
was published by Dr. Grieve, the historian of Kamshatka.
A short abridgement of rhetoric, “De arte dicendi,
” attributed to Celsus, was first published at Cologne in 1569,
8vo, and is inserted in the Bibl. Lat. of Fabricius, but it is
generally thought to have been the production of Julius
Severianus.
, an ingenious dramatic writer, was daughter of Mr. Freeman, a gentleman of Halbeach in Lincolnshire,
, an ingenious dramatic writer, was daughter of Mr. Freeman, a gentleman of Halbeach in Lincolnshire, and was born about the year 1667. Her father had been possessedof an estate of no inconsiderable value but being a dissenter, and having discovered a zealous attachment to the cause of the parliament, was at the restoration under a necessity of flying into Ireland, and his estate was confiscated. Our poetess’s mother was daughter of Mr. Markham, a gentleman of fortune at Lynn Regis in Norfolk, who is represented as having encountered similar misfortunes with those of Mr. Freeman, in consequence of his political principles, which were the same with those of that gentleman, and he also was obliged to take refuge in Ireland. The subject of this article is asserted to have been born in Lincolnshire; but some have conjectured that she was born in, Ireland, which May, not improbably, have been the case, if her birth was so late as 1667. The editor, however, of sir James Ware’s Works does not claim her as an Irish writer. She had the unhappiness to lose her father before she was three years old, and her mother before she had completed her twelfth year. At an early period she discovered a propensity to poetry, and is said to have written a song before she was seven years old.
Her attachment to the theatre was so great, that she not only distinguished herself as a writer for it, but also became a performer on it; though she probably
Her attachment to the theatre was so great, that she not only distinguished herself as a writer for it, but also became a performer on it; though she probably did not attain to any great merit as an actress, as she seems never to have played at the theatres of the metropolis. But in 1706, we are told, she performed the part of Alexander the Great, in Lee’s Rival Queens, at Windsor, where the court then was; and in this heroic character, she made so powerful an impression upon the heart of Mr. Joseph Centlivre, yeoman of the mouth, or principal cook to queen Anne, that he soon after married her, and with him she lived happily till her death.
giers. The several hardships he underwent in his five years’ captivity are noticed by a contemporary writer: and though the events mentioned in the story of “The Captive,”
, the author
of Don Quixote, was born at Alcala de Henares in 1547.
He was the son of Rodrigo de Cervantes and Donna Leonora de Cortinas, and baptised Sunday, Oct. 9 of that
year, as appears from the parish register of Santa Maria la
Mayor in Alcala. Several concurring testimonies furnished
the clue for this discovery, although six other places, Seville, Madrid, Esquivias, Toledo, Lucena, and Alcazar
de San Juan, called him their son, and each had their advocates to support their claims, in which respect his fame
resembles that of Homer’s. His parents designed him for
the profession of letters, and although he had at home the
opportunity of instruction in the university, he studied
Latin in Madrid. He afterwards resided there in 1568,
but two years afterwards we find him at Rome in the service of cardinal Aquaviva in the capacity of chamberlain.
Some time after this, pope Pius V. Philip IL of Spain, and
the republic of Venice, united in a league, which was concluded May 29, 1571, against Selim the grand Turk.
Cervantes, not satisfied with an idle court life, desirous of
military renown, determined to commence soldier. Marco
Antonio Colonna being appointed general of the pope’s
galleys, Cervantes went with him, and was present in the
famous battle of Lepanto, where he was so wounded in his
left hand by a gun-shot as totally to lose the use of it; but
he thought this such an honour, that he afterwards declared
he would rather have been present in this glorious enterprise, than to be whole in his limbs, and not to have
there at all.
Colonna returned to Rome in the end of 1572, and it is
probable that Cervantes was with him,; as he tells us that
for some years he followed his conquering banners. He
was ordered to join his regiment at Naples, notwithstanding
his being maimed. In his “Viage del Parnaso,
” he tells
us that he walked its streets more than a year: and in the
copy of his ransom, it appears that he was there a long
time. Don J. A. Pellicer supposes that in this city he employed his leisure hours in cultivating his knowledge of the
Italian tongue, and in reading of its good writers, with
whom he appears conversant in his works. As he was going from Naples to Spain on board the galley of the Sun,
Sept. 26, 1575, he had the misfortune to fall into the hands
of the Moors, who carried him captive to Algiers. The
several hardships he underwent in his five years’ captivity
are noticed by a contemporary writer: and though the
events mentioned in the story of “The Captive,
” in the
first part of Don Quixote, cannot strictly be applied to
himself, yet they could hardly have been so feelingly described but by one who had been a spectator of such treatment as he relates. Several extraordinary and dangerous
attempts were made by him and his companions to obtain
their liberty, which was effected at last by the regular way
of ransom, which took place Sept. 19, 1580. The price
was 500 escudos; towards which his mother, a widow, contributed 250 ducats, and his sister 50.
sed with man as his equal, and as a polite and chearful companion. Not that every subsequent romance- writer adopted the plan, or the manner of Cervantes; but it was from
Of all Cervantes’s writings his “Don Quixote
” is that
only which now is entitled to much attention, although
some of his “Novels
” are elegant and interesting. But
on his “Don Quixote
” his fame will probably rest as long
as a taste for genuine humour can be found. It ought
also, says an elegant modern critic, to be considered as a
most useful performance, that brought about a great revolution in the manners and literature of Europe, by banishing the wild dreams of chivalry, and reviving a tasta
for the simplicity of nature. In this view, the publication
of Don Quixote forms an important era in the history of
mankind. Don Quixote is represented as a man, whom it
is impossible not to esteem for his cultivated understanding,
and the goodness of his heart; but who, by poring night
and day upon old romances, had impaired his reason to
such a degree, as to mistake them for history, and form
the design of traversing the world, in the character, and
with the accoutrements, of a knight-errant. His distempered fancy takes the most common occurrences for adventures similar to those he had read in his books of chivalry. And thus, the extravagance of these books being
placed, as it were, in the same groupe with the appearances of nature and the real business of life, the hideous
disproportion of the former becomes so glaring by the
contrast, that the most inattentive reader cannot fail to be
struck with it. The person, the pretensions, and the exploits, of the errant-knight, are held up to view in a
thousand ridiculous attitudes. In a word, the humour and satire are irresistible; and their effects were instantaneous.
This work no sooner appeared than chivalry vanished.
Mankind awoke as from a dream. They laughed at themselves for having been so long imposed on by absurdity;
and wondered they had not made the discovery sooner.
They were astonished to find, that nature and good sense
could yield a more exquisite entertainment than they had
ever derived from the most sublime phrenzies of chivalry.
This, however, was the case; and that Don Quixote was
more read, and more relished, than any other romance
had ever been, we may infer from the sudden and powerful
effects it produced on the sentiments of mankind, as well
as from the declaration of the author himself; who tells
us, that upwards of 12,000 copies of the first part (printed at Madrid in 1605) were circulated before the second could
be ready for the press; an amazing rapidity of sale, at a
time when the readers and purchasers of books were but an
inconsiderable number compared to what they are in our
days. “The very children (says he) handle it, boys read
it, men understand, and old people applaud the performance. It is no sooner laid down by one than another
takes it up; some struggling, and some intreating, for a
sight of it. In fine (continues he) this history is the most
delightful, and the least prejudicial entertainment, that
ever was seen; for, in the whole book, there is not the
least shadow of a dishonourable word, nor one thought
unworthy of a good catholic.
” Don Quixote occasioned
the death of the old romance, and gave birth to the new.
Fiction from this time divested herself of her gigantic size>
tremendous aspect, and frantic demeanour: and, descending to the level of common life, conversed with man as his
equal, and as a polite and chearful companion. Not that
every subsequent romance-writer adopted the plan, or the
manner of Cervantes; but it was from him they learned to
avoid extravagance and to imitate nature. And now probability was as much studied, as it had been formerly
neglected.
ppeared in the last edition of this Dictionary, and illustrates in some respect the character of the writer, we shall conclude this sketch with it.
The last act of Cervantes’ s life was to write a dedication
of his novel of “Persilas and Sigismunda
” to his patron,
the count of Lemos. As this appeared in the last edition
of this Dictionary, and illustrates in some respect the character of the writer, we shall conclude this sketch with it.
, a French poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Turin in 1738, and after being educated among the
, a French poet
and miscellaneous writer, was born at Turin in 1738, and
after being educated among the Jesuits, joined their order,
and became professor of their college at Lyons. In 1761
he gained two academical prizes at Toulouse and Dijon;
the subject of the one was “Duelling,
” and the other an
answer to the question “Why modern republics have acquired less splendour than the ancient.
” This last, before Cerutti was known as its author, was attributed to
Rousseau. It was printed at the Hague in 1761, 8vo,
and reprinted at Paris in 1791. When the order of the
Jesuits was about to be abolished, Cerutti wrote in their
defence “L'Apologie de Pinstitut des Jesuites,
” Yes, the Alcoran.
” His “Apology,
” however, was much admired, and recommended
him to the Dauphin, who welcomed him to court. Here
he contracted an unhappy and violent passion for a lady
of the first rank, which brought on a tedious illness, from
which the friendship of the duchess of Brancas recovered
him, and in her house at Fleville he found an honourable
asylum for fifteen years. This lady, who appears to have
been somewhat of the romantic kind, as soon as she received him into her house, put a ring on his finger, telling
him that friendship had espoused merit. When the revolution broke out, he came to Paris, and became a zealous
partizan, and was much employed by Mirabeau in drawing
up reports. His Memoir on patriotic contributions procured him a place in the legislative body, but he died in
1792, after which the municipality of Paris honoured him
by giving his name to one of the new streets. Besides
the works already mentioned, he published 1. “L'Aigle
et le hibou,
” an apologue in verse, Glasgow and Paris,
1783, 2. <c Recueil de quelques pieces de literature en
prose et en vers,“ibid. 1784. The best of these is a dissertation on antique monuments, occasioned by some
Greek verses discovered on a tomb at Naples, in 1756.
3.
” Les Jardins de Betz,“a descriptive poem, 1792, 8vo.
4.
” Lettre sur les avantages et l'origine de la gaiete“Francaise,
” Lyons, Combien un esprit trop subtil
ressemble a un esprit faux,
” Les vrais
plaisirs ne sont faits que pour la vertu,
” Pourquoi les arts utiles ne sont-ils pas
cultives preferablement aux arts agreables,
” Sur l'origine et les effets du desir de transmettre son
nom a la posterite,
” Hague, Traduction libre de trois odes d'Horace,
” De Tinteret d'un ouvrage dans le sujet, le plan, et le
style,
” Paris, Feuille. villageoise,
” a paper calculated to spread the
revolutionary delusions among the country people, but his
style was not sufficiently simple and popular. In 1793, a
collection of his works was published in an 8vo volume.
Those which are on subjects of literature are ingenious
and interesting, but as a poet he cannot be allowed to rank
high.
, a French writer of eminence in polite literature, is said to have been born
, a French writer of eminence
in polite literature, is said to have been born in America,
of French parents, in 1730, and died in Paris July 12,
1792, but our only authority does not give his Christian
name, nor have we been able to discover it in any of the
French catalogues. He was a member of the French
academy, and of that of the belles-lettres, a dramatic author, an indifferent poet, but much esteemed for his
writings respecting criticism and elegant literature. His
principal works are: 1. “Eponine,
” a tragedy, Eloge de Rameau,
” Sur le sort de la poesie, en ce siecle philosophe, avec un dissertation sur Homere,
” Euxodie,
” a tragedy, Discours sur
Pindar,
” with a translation of some of his odes, Les Odes Pithiques de Pindare,
” translated, with
notes, Vie de Dante,
” Sabinus,
” a lyric tragedy, but unsuccessful, Epitre sur la manie des jardins Anglois,
” Idylles de Theocrite,
” a new translation, Vers sur Voltaire,
” De la Musique considereé en elle meme, et
dans ses rapports avec la parole, les langues, la poesie, et la
theatre,
” Discours
” he pronounced on his admission into the academy
Jan. 20, 1780, 4to. In 1795 was published from his manuscript, “Tableau de quelques circonstances de ma vie,
”
8vo, containing a faithful but not very pleasing disclosure
of his conduct and sentiments. It appears that in his
youth he was a devot, as serious as madame Guyon, but
that afterwards he went into the other extreme, no uncommon transition with his countrymen.
ault’s History of France, which was published at the Hague in 1747, 8vo. He was besides engaged as a writer in the “Bibliotheque Historique,” which was begun at the Hague
His works were: 1. “La Sainte Bible, avec un commentaire literal & des notes choisies, tirees de divers auteurs Anglois,
” printed at the Hague. The publication
of this work was begun in 1742, and continued till 1777,
forming 6 vols. in 4to. The 7th volume was left by the
author in ms. and published in 1790, by Dr. Maclaine,
who wrote also the preliminary dissertations. This volume
completes the historical books of the Old Testament. 2. “Le
sens literal de Tecriture sainte traduit de PAnglois de Stackhouse,
” ibid. Lettres historiques
et dogmatiques sur les Jubilés,
” ibid, Theologie de Tecriture S. ou la Science da
Salut, comprise dans une ample collection de passages
du V. & N. Testament,
” ibid. Essai apologetique sur F Inoculation,
” ibid. Sermons.
” Besides these works, he superintended the publication of Hainault’s History of France,
which was published at the Hague in 1747, 8vo. He was
besides engaged as a writer in the “Bibliotheque Historique,
” which was begun at the Hague in Bibliotheque des sciences et beaux arts.
”
, a gallant soldier, an able statesman, and a very learned writer in the sixteenth century, was descended from a good family in
, a gallant soldier, an able
statesman, and a very learned writer in the sixteenth century, was descended from a good family in Wales, and
born at London about 1515. His quick parts discovered
themselves even in his infancy; so that his family, to promote that passionate desire of knowledge for whidh he was
so early distinguished, sent him to the university of Cambridge, where he remained some years, and obtained great
credit, as well by the pregnancy of his wit as his constant
and diligent application, but especially by his happy turn
for Latin poetry, in which he exceeded most of his contemporaries. Upon his removing from college he came
up to court, and being there recommended to the esteem
and friendship of the greatest men about it, he was soon
sent abroad into Germany with sir Henry Knevet, as the
custom was in the reign of Henry VIII. when young men
of great hopes were frequently employed in the service of
ambassadors, that they might at once improve and polish
themselves by travel, and gain some experience in business. He was so well received at the court of the emperor
Charles V. and so highly pleased with the noble and generous spirit of that great monarch, that he attended him in
his journies, and in his wars, particularly in that fatal expedition against Algiers, which cost the lives of so many
brave men, and was very near cutting short the thread of
Mr. Chaloner’s; for in the great tempest by which the
emperor’s fleet was shattered on the coast of Barbary in
1541, the vessel, on board of which he was, suffered shipwreck, and Mr. Chaloner having quite wearied and exhausted himself by swimming in the dark, at length beat
his head against a cable, of which laying hold with his
teeth, he was providentially drawn up into the ship to which
it belonged. He returned soon after into England, and as
a reward of his learning and services, was promoted to the
office of first clerk of the council, which he held during
the remainder of that reign. In the beginning of the next
he came into great favour with the duke of Somerset,
whom he attended into Scotland, and was in the battle of
Mussleburgh, where he distinguished himself so remarkably in the presence of the duke, that he conferred upon
him the honour of knighthood Sept. 28, 1547, and after
his return to court, the duchess of Somerset presented
him with a rich jewel. The first cloud that darkened his
patron’s fortune, proved fatal to sir Thomas Chaloner’s
pretensions; for being a man of a warm and open temper,
and conceiving the obligation he was under to the duke as
a tie that hindered his making court to his adversary, a
stop was put to his preferment, and a vigilant eye kept
upon his actions. But his loyalty to his prince, and his
exact discharge of his duty, secured him from any farther
danger, so that he had leisure to apply himself to his
studies, and to cultivate his acquaintance with the worthiest
men of that court, particularly sir John Cheke, sir Anthony Coke, sir Thomas Smith, and especially sir William
Cecil, with whom he always lived in the strictest intimacy.
Under the reign of queen Mary he passed his time, though
safely, yet very unpleasantly; for being a zealous protestant, he could not practise any part of that complaisance
which procured some of his friends an easier life. He
interested himself deeply in the affair of sir John Cheke,
and did him all the service he was able, both before and
after his confinement. This had like to have brought sir
Thomas himself into trouble, if the civilities he had shewn
in king Edward’s reign, to some of those who had the
greatest power under queen Mary, had not moved them,
from a principle of gratitude, to protect him. Indeed, it
appears from his writings, that as he was not only sincere,
but happy in his friendships, and as he was never wanting
to his friends when he had power, he never felt the want
of them when he had it not, and, which he esteemed the
greatest blessing of his life, he lived to return those kindnesses to some who had been useful to him in that dangerous season. Upon the accession of Elizabeth, he appeared at court with his former lustre; and it must afford
us a very high opinion of his character as well as his capacity, that he was the first ambassador named by that wise
princess, and that also to the first prince in Europe, Ferdinand I. emperor of Germany. In this negociation, which
was of equal importance and delicacy, he acquitted himself with great reputation, securing the confidence of the
emperor and his ministers, and preventing the popish
powers from associating against Elizabeth, before she
was well settled on the throne, all which she very
gratefully acknowledged. After his return from this embassy, he was very soon thought of for another, which was
that of Spain; and though it is certain the queen could
not give a stronger proof than this of her confidence in
his abilities, yet he was very far from thinking that it was
any mark of her kindness, more especially considering the
terms upon which she then stood with king Philip, and
the usage his predecessor, Chamberlain, had met with at
that court. But he knew the queen would be obeyed,
and therefore undertook the business with the best grace
he could, and embarked for Spain in 1561. On his first
arrival he met with some of the treatment which he dreaded.
This was the searching of all his trunks and cabinets, of
which he complained loudly, as equally injurious to himself as a gentleman, and to his character as a public minister. His complaints, however, were fruitless; for at that
time there is great probability that his Catholic majesty
was not over desirous of having an English minister, and
more especially one of sir Thomas’s disposition, at his
court, and therefore gave him no satisfaction. Upon this
sir Thomas Chaloner wrote home, set out the affront that
he had received in the strongest terms possible, and was
very earnest to be re-called; but the queen his mistress
contented herself with letting him know, that it was the
duty of every person who bore a public character, to bear
with patience what happened to them, provided no personal indignity was offered to the prince from whom they
came. Yet, notwithstanding this seeming indifference on
her part, the searching sir Thomas Chaloner’s trunks was,
many years afterwards, put into that public charge which
the queen exhibited against his Catholic majesty, of injuries done to her before she intermeddled with the affairs of
the Low Countries. Sir Thomas, however, kept up his
spirit, and shewed the Spanish ministers, and even that
haughty monarch himself, that the queen could not have
entrusted her affairs in better hands than his. There were
some persons of very good families in England, who, for
the sake of their religion, and no doubt out of regard to
the interest to which they had devoted themselves, desired
to have leave from queen Elizabeth to reside in the Low
Countries or elsewhere, and king Philip and his ministers
made it a point to support their suit. Upon this, when a
conference was held with sir Thomas Chaloner, he answered very roundly, that the thing in itself was of very
little importance, since it was no great matter where the
persons who made this request spent the remainder of their
days; but that considering the rank and condition of the
princes interested in this business, it was neither fit for the
one to ask, nor for the other to grant; and it appeared
that he spoke the sense of his court, for queen Elizabeth
would never listen to the proposal. In other respects he
was not unacceptable to the principal persons of the
Spanish court, who could not help admiring his talents as
a minister, his bravery as a soldier, with which in former
times they were well acquainted, his general learning and
admirable skill in Latin poetry, of which he gave them
many proofs during his stay in their country. It was here,
at a time when, as himself says in the preface, he spent
the winter in a stove, and the summer in a barn, that he
composed his great work of “The right ordering of the
English republic.
” But though this employment might in
some measure alleviate his chagrin, yet he fell into a very
grievous fit of sickness, which brought him so low that his
physicians despaired of his life. In this condition he
addressed his sovereign in an elegy after the manner of
Ovid, setting forth his earnest desire to quit Spain and
return to his native country, before care and sickness
forced him upon a longer journey. The queen granted
his petition, and having named Dr. Man his successor in
his negociation, at length gave him leave to return home
from an embassy, in which he had so long sacrificed his
private quiet to the public conveniency. He accordingly
returned to London in the latter end of 1564, and published
the first five books of his large work before-mentioned,
which he dedicated to his good friend sir William Cecil;
but the remaining five books were probably not published.
in his life-time. He resided in a fair large house of his
own building in Clerkenwell-close, over-against the decayed nunnery; and Weever has preserved from oblivion
an elegant fancy of his, which was penciled on the frontispiece of his dwelling. He died Oct. 7, 1565, and was
buried in the cathedral church of St. Paul with great funeral
solemnity, sir William Cecil, then principal secretary of
state, assisting as chief mourner, who also honoured his
memory with some Latin verses, in which he observes,
that the most lively imagination, the most solid judgment,
the quickest parts, and the most unblemished probity,
which are commonly the lot of different men, and when so
dispersed frequently create great characters, were, which
very rarely happens, all united in sir Thomas Chaloner,
justly therefore reputed one of the greatest men of his
time. He also encouraged Dr. William Malim, formerly
fellow of King’s college in Cambridge, and then master of
St. Paul’s school, to collect and publish a correct edition
of our author’s poetical works; which he accordingly did,
and addressed it in an epistle from St. Paul’s school, dated
August 1, 1579, to lord Burleigh. Sir Thomas Chaloner
married Ethelreda, daughter of Edward Frodsham of EJton,
in the county palatine of Chester, esq. by whom he had
issue his only son Thomas, the subject of the next article.
This lady, not long after sir Thomas’s decease, married
sir * * * Brockett, notwithstanding which the lord Burleigh continued his kindness to her, out of respect to that
friendship which he had for her first husband. Sir Thomas’s epitaph was written by one of the best Latin poets of
that age, Dr. Walter Haddon, master of requests to queen
Elizabeth.
, an ingenious French writer, and one of the victims of the revolution, was born in 1741,
, an ingenious French writer, and one of the victims of the revolution, was born in 1741, in a bailiwick near Clermont, in
Auvergne. In supporting a revolution which levelled all
family distinctions, he had no prejudices to overcome,
being the natural son of a man whom he never knew. This
circumstance, however, did not diminish his affection for
his mother, who was a peasant girl, to supply whose wants
he often denied himself the necessaries of life. He was
taken at a very early age into the college des Prassins at
Paris, as a bursar, or exhibitioner, and was there known
by his Christian name of Nicolas. During the first two
years he indicated no extraordinary talents, but in the
third, out of the five prizes which were distributed annually, he gained four, failing only in Latin verses. The
next year he gained the whole, and used to say, “I lost
the prize last year, because 'I imitated Virgil; and this
year I obtained it, because I took Buchanan, Sarbievius,
and other moderns for my guides.
” In Greek he made a
rapid progress, but his petulance and waggish tricks threw
the class into so much disorder, that he was expelled, and
not long after left the college altogether. Thrown now on
the world, without friends or money, he became clerk to
a procurator, and afterwards was taken into the family of
a rich gentleman of Liege, as tutor. After this he was
employed on the “Journal Encyclopedique,
” and having
published his Eloges on Moliere and La Fontaine, they
were so much admired as to be honoured with the prizes
of the French academy, and that of Marseilles. About
this time he had little other maintenance than what he derived from the patronage of the duke de Choiseul and
madame Helvetius, and therefore was glad to take such
employment as the booksellers offered. For them he compiled a “French Vocabulary,
” and a “Dictionary of the
Theatres.
” While employed on this last, he fancied his
talents might succeed on the stage, and was not disappointed. His tragedy of “Mustapha,
” acted in Epistle from a father to a son, on the birth of a
grandson,
” gained him the prize of the French academy,
although it appears inferior to his “L'Homme de Lettres,
discours philosop.hic|iic en vers.
” At length he gained a
seat in the academy, on the death of St. Palaye, on whom
he wrote an elegant eloge. His tragedy of “Mustapha
”
procured him the situation of principal secretary to the
prince of Conde, but his love of liberty and independence
prevented him from long discharging its duties. After resigning it, he devoted himself wholly to the pleasures of
society, where he was considered as a most captivating
companion. He also held some considerable pensions,
which, however, he lost at the revolution.
, a most voluminous medical and historical writer, was born in 1472. After studying medicine he took his degree
, a most
voluminous medical and historical writer, was born in 1472.
After studying medicine he took his degree of doctor at
Pavia in 1515, and in 1520 was made consul at Lyons, an
honour which he again enjoyed in 1533, on returning
from Italy, whither he had accompanied Anthony duke of
Lorrain as his army physician, and by whom he was
knighted for his bravery as well as skill. He died in 1539
or 1540, after having founded the college of physicians at
Lyons. His works amount to twenty-four volumes, mostly
quarto, of which a list may be seen in our authorities, but
there is not one of them that can be noticed for excellence
either of matter or style. Perhaps the best of his historic
cal compilations is, “Les Grandes Chroniques des dues
jde Savoie,
” Paris,
, a miscellaneous writer, was the son of Peter Champion, a gentleman of an ancient and
, a miscellaneous writer, was
the son of Peter Champion, a gentleman of an ancient and
respectable family, seated at St. Columb in Cornwall, who
Acquired a considerable fortune as a merchant at Leghorn
he was born February 5, 1724-5, at Croydon, in Surrey,
and received his first instruction in the Greek and Latin
languages at Cheani school in that county; from whence,
in 173y, he was removed to Eton, and in February 1742,
became a member of the university of Oxford having
been placed at St. Mary-hall, under the care of the rev.
Walter Harte, a celebrated tutor, who was selected at a
later period by the earl of Chesterfield to finish his son
Mr. Stanhope’s education in classical literature. After
having passed two years at Oxford, he was entered as a
student of law at the Middle Temple, where he continued
to reside to the day of his decease; and was a bencher of
that society, to which he bequeathed one thousand pounds.
He served in two parliaments, having been elected in
1754 for the borough of St. Germain’s, and in 1761 for
Liskard in Cornwall; but the same great modesty and reserve restrained him from displaying the powers of his very
discerning and enlightened mind in that illustrious assembly, which prevented him also from communicating to the
world his poetical effusions, a collection of which was
published in an elegant volume in 1801, by William Henry
lord Lyttelton, who prefixed a biographical article, from
which the above account is taken. He died Feb. 22, 1801,
beloved and lamented, as his noble friend says, by all
who were acquainted with the brightness of his genius, his
taste for the finer arts, his various and extensive learning,
and the still more valuable qualities of his warm and benevolent heart. From his “Miscellanies in prose and verse,
English and Latin,
” it is discernible that he was a polite
scholar, and had many qualities of a poet, but not unmixed
with a love for those disgusting images in which Swift
delighted.
regarded by his own congregation, and acquiring a distinguished reputation, both as a preacher and a writer.
While Mr. Chandler was minister of the congregation at
Peckham, some gentlemen of the several denominations
of dissenters in the city, came to a resolution to set up and
support a weekly evening lecture at the Old Jewry, for the
winter half year. The subjects to be treated in this lecture were the evidences of natural and revealed religion,
and answers to the principal objections against them. Two
of the most eminent young ministers among the dissenters
were appointed for the execution of this design, of which
Mr. Chandler was one, and Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Lardner,
who is so justly celebrated for his learned writings, was
another. But after some time this lecture was dropped,
and another of the same kind set up, to be preached by
one person only, it being judged that it might then be
conducted with more consistency of reason and uniformity
of design; and Mr. Chandler was appointed for this service. In the course of this lecture he preached some
sermons on the confirmation which miracles gave to the
divine mission of Christ, and the truth of his religion; and
vindicated the argument against the objections of Collins,
in his “Discourse of the grounds and reasons of the
Christian religion.
” These sermons, by the advice of a
friend, he enlarged, and threw into the form of a continued treatise, and published in 1725, 8vo, under the
following title: “A Vindication of the Christian Religion,
in two parts, I. A discourse on the nature and use of Miracles II. An answer to a late book,entitled a Discourse
on the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion.
”
Having presented a copy of this book to archbishop Wake,
his grace expressed his sense of the value of the favour,
in a letter, which is an honourable testimony to Mr.
Chandler’s merit. It appears from the letter, that the
archbishop did not then know that the author was any other
than a bookseller; for he says: “I cannot but own myself
to be surprised to see so much good learning and just reasoning in a person of your profession; and do think it a
pity you should not rather spend your time in writing books
than in selling them. But I am glad, since your circumstances oblige you to the latter, that you do not wholly
omit the former.
” Besides gaining the archbishop’s
approbation, Mr. Chandler’s performance considerably advanced his reputation in general, and contributed to his
receiving an invitation, about 1726, to settle as a minister
with the congregation in the Old Jewry, which was one of
the most respectable in London. Here he continued, first
as assistant, and afterwards as pastor, for the space of forty
years, and discharged the duties of the ministerial office
with great assiduity and ability, being much esteemed and
regarded by his own congregation, and acquiring a distinguished reputation, both as a preacher and a writer.
imagination he was a very instructive and animated preacher; and his talents in the pulpit, and as a writer, procured him very great and general esteem, not only among
Dr. Chandler was a man of very extensive learning and eminent abilities; his apprehension was quick and his judgment penetrating; he had a warm and vigorous imagination he was a very instructive and animated preacher; and his talents in the pulpit, and as a writer, procured him very great and general esteem, not only among the dissenters, but among large numbers of the established church. He was well known and much respected by many persons of the highest rank, and was offered considerable preferment in the church but he steadily rejected every proposition of that kind. He was principally instrumental in the establishment of the fund for relieving the widows and orphans of poor protestant dissenting ministers: the plan of it was first formed by him; and it was by his interest and application to his friends that many of the subscriptions for its support were procured.
, an ingenious French writer, the son of an advocate, was born at Paris in 1741, and became
, an ingenious French
writer, the son of an advocate, was born at Paris in 1741,
and became teacher of the French language in a military
school in Spain, where he published a French grammar,
entitled “Arte de Hablar bien Frances,
” Madrid, 4ta,
which went through six editions. On his return to France
he was appointed professor of history in the central school
of Gers, and afterwards in the imperial school at Fountainbleau. He died at Auch, Oct. 15, 1808. His works were,
3. “Dictionnaire des mots et usages introduits par la resolution,
” 8vo, a curious medley of cant phrases, which he
published under the name of M. L'Epithete of Politicopolis.
2. “Voyage dans les trois royaumes d‘Angleterre, d’Ecosse,
et d'Irlande:
” this journey he took in Lettres
ecrites de Barcelonne a un zelateur de la liberte
” qui voyage
en Allemande,“1792, 8vo. 4.
” Voyage philosophique,
politique, et litteraire, fait en Russie pendant les annees
1788 and 1789, &c.“2 vols. 8vo, replete with curious and
original information. 5.
” Essai didactique sur la forme
que doivent avoir les livres elementaires faits pour les
ecoles nationales,“1795, 8vo. 6.
” Tables chronologiques,“a translation of Blair’s Chronology, 1797, 4to.
7. The Index to Beau marc hais’s edition of Voltaire’s works,
which forms the 71st and 72d volume of that edition. 8.
” Rudimens de i'histoire,“a work of very considerable
merit. 9.
” La Science de I'histoire,“1803, et seqq. 4 vols.
4to. This work is peculiarly happy in the plan, and judicious and accurate in its execution. 10.
” Histoire de
France abregee ct chronologique depuis les Gaulois et les
Francs jusqu'en 1808," 2 vols. 8vo.
enated two lines together, undoubtedly favoured his usual propensity to periphrasis. — As a dramatic writer, he had considerable reputation among his contemporaries, and
He died in 1634, at the age of seventy-seven, and was
buried on the south side of St. Giles’s church in the Fields.
His friend Inigo Jones planned and erected a monument
to his memory, which was unfortunately destroyed with
the old church. He appears to have been much respected
in his own time; and, indeed, the man who communicated
Homer to his countrymen, even in such language as that
of Chapman, might justly be considered as their benefactor; and in estimating the merit of his version, candid
allowance ought to be made for the age in which he lived,
and the then unimproved state of our language. Of this
translation Mr. Warton says, Chapman “is sometimes
paraphrastic and redundant, but more frequently retrenches
or impoverishes what he could not feel and express. In
the mean time he labours with the inconvenience of an
aukward, inharmonious, and unheroic measure, imposed
by custom, but disgustful to modern ears. Yet he is not
always without strength or spirit. He has enriched our
language with many compound epithets, much in the
manner of Homer, such as the silver-footed Thetis, the
silver-thorned Juno, the triple-feathered helme, the highwalled Thebes, the fair-haired boy, the silver-flowing floods,
the hugely-peopled towns, the Grecians navy-bound, the
strong-winged lance, and many more which might be collected. Dryden reports, that Waller never could read
Chapman’s Homer without a degree of transport. Pope is
of opinion that Chapman covers his defects by a daring
fiery spirit, that animates his translation, which is something like what one might imagine Homer himself to have
written before he arrived to years of discretion.' But his
fire is too frequently darkened by that sort of fustian which
now disfigured the face of our tragedy.
” Mr. Warton’s
copy once belonged to Pope in which he has noted many
of Chapman’s absolute interpolations, extending sometimes
to the length of a paragraph of twelve lines. A diligent
observer will easily discern that Pope was no careless
reader of his rude predecessor. Pope complains that
Chapman took advantage of an unmeasureable length of
line but in reality, Pope’s lines are longer than Chapman’s. If Chapman affected the reputation of rendering
line for line, the specious expedient of chusing a protracted measure which concatenated two lines together,
undoubtedly favoured his usual propensity to periphrasis.
— As a dramatic writer, he had considerable reputation
among his contemporaries, and was justly esteemed for the
excellence of his moral character. Wood says that he was
a person of most reverend aspect, religious and temperate,
qualities rarely meeting in a poet."
le distinction in literature. His first publication was entitled “The Objections of a late anonymous writer (Collins) against the book of Daniel, considered/' Cambridge,
, D. D. was the son of the rev. William Chapman, rector of Stratfield-say in Hampshire,
where he was probably born in 1704. He was educated at
King’s college, Cambridge, A. B. 1727, and A. M. 1731.
His first promotion was the rectory of Mersham in Kent,
and of Alderton, with the chapel of Smeeth; to which he
was appointed in 1739 and 1744, being then domestic
chaplain to archbishop Potter. He was also archdeacon
of Sudbury, and treasurer of Chichester, two options.
Being educated at Eton, he was a candidate for the provostship of that college, and lost it by a small majority,
and after a most severe contest with Dr. George. Among
his pupils he had the honour to class the first lord Camden, Dr. Ashton, Horace Walpole, Jacob Bryant, sir W.
Draper, sir George Baker, and others who afterwards attained to considerable distinction in literature. His first
publication was entitled “The Objections of a late anonymous writer (Collins) against the book of Daniel, considered/' Cambridge, 1728, 8vo. This was followed by his
” Remarks on Dr. Middleton’s celebrated Letter to Dr.
Waterland,“published in 1731, and which has passed
through three editions. In his
” Eusebius,“2 vols. 8vo,
he defended Christianity against the objections of Mor-gan, and against those of Tindal in his
” Primitive Antiquity explained and vindicated.“The first volume of
Eusebius, published in 1739, was dedicated to archbishop
Potter; and when the second appeared, in 1741, Mr.
Chapman styled himself chaplain to his grace. In the
same year he was made archdeacon of Sudbury, and was
honoured with the diploma of D. D. by the university of
Oxford. He is at this time said to have published the
” History of the ancient Hebrews vindicated, by Theophanes Cantabrigiensis,“8vo but this was the production
of Dr. Squire. He published two tracts relating to
” Phlegon,“in answer to Dr. Sykes, who had maintained
that the eclipse mentioned by that writer had no relation to
the wonderful darkness that happened at our Saviour’s crucifixion. In 1738 Dr. Chapman published a sermon
preached at the consecration of bishop Mavvson, and four
other single sermons, 1739, 1743, 1748, and 1752. In a
dissertation written in elegant Latin, and addressed to
Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Tunstall, then public orator of the
university of Cambridge, and published with his Latin
epistle to Dr. Middleton concerning the genuineness of
some of Cicero’s epistles, 1741, Dr. Chapman proved that
Cicero published two editions of his Academics; an original thought that had escaped all former commentators,
and which has been applauded by Dr. Ross, bishop of Exeter, in his edition of Cicero’s
” Epistolse ad familiares,“1749. In 1744 Mr. Tunstall published
” Observations on
the present Collection of Epistles between Cicero and M.
Brutus, representing several evident marks of forgery in
those epistles,“&c. to which was added a
” Letter from
Dr. Chapman, on the ancient numeral characters of the
Roman legions.“Dr. Middleton had asserted, that the
Roman generals, when they had occasion to raise new
legions in distant parts of the empire, used to name them
according to the order in which they themselves had raised
them, without regard to any other legions whatever. This
notion Dr. Chapman controverts and confutes. According
to Dr. Middleton there might have been two thirtieth legions in the empire. This Dr. Chapman denies to have
been customary from the foundation of the city to the time
when Brutus was acting against Anthony, but affirms nothing of the practice after the death of Brutus. To this
Dr. Middleton made no reply. In 1745 Dr. Chapman was
employed in assisting Dr. Pearce, afterwards bishop of
Rochester, in his edition of
” Cicero de Officiis.“About
this time Dr. Chapman introduced Mr. Tunstall and Mr.
Hall to archbishop Potter, the one as his librarian, the
other as his chaplain, and therefore had some reason to
resent their taking an active part against him in the option
cause, though they both afterwards dropped it. Dr. Chapman’s above-mentioned attack on Dr. Middleton, which he
could not parry, and his interposition in defence of his
much-esteemed friend Dr. Waterland, provoked Dr. Middleton to retaliate in 1746, by assailing him in what he
thought a much more vulnerable part, in his Charge to the
archdeaconry of Sudbury, entitled <e Popery the true bane
of letters.
” In would wash him as white
as snow.
” Thinking his case partially stated by Dr. Burn,
in his “Ecclesiastical Law,' 1 vol. I. (article Bishops), as
it was taken from the briefs of his adversaries, he expostulated with him on the subject by letter, to which the doctor
candidly replied,
” that he by no means thought him criminal, and in the next edition of his work would certainly
add his own representation." On this affair, however, Dr.
Hurd passes a very severe sentence in his correspondence
with Warburton lately published. Dr. Chapman died the
34th of October, 1784, in the 80th year of his age.
, a protestant writer, born at Geneva, whose family were originally of Poitiers, was
, a protestant writer, born at
Geneva, whose family were originally of Poitiers, was
preceptor to William III. king of England; afterwards governor of the pages to George duke of Brunswick Lunen
burg, which post he held till his death, August 31, 1701,
at Zell. Three days before his death he wrote a sonnet, in
which he complains of being old, blind, and poor. He
collected and printed “Tavernier’s Voyages,
” L'Esprit de M. Arnauld,
”
Chapuzeau answered him in Defense du Sieur Samuel Chapuzeau contre l'Esprit de M.
Arnauld.
” He wrote, besides, “Eloge de la Ville de
Lyons,
” 4to. Une Relation de Savoye; l‘Europe vivante, ou relation nouveile, historique, politique, et de tous
les Etats, tels qu’ils etoient en 1666,“Paris, 1667, 4to.
He also published
” Traite de la maniere de Pre'cher, suivi
de quatre Sermons prononcées a Cassel.“Chapuzeau
tried every kind of writing, even comedies, the greatest part
of which have been collected under the title of
” La Muse
enjouee, ou le Theatre Comique.“In 1694 he published
the plan of an
” Historical, Geographical, and Philological
Dictionary," on which he employed many years, but it
was not finished at his death. He complains, however,
of Moreri having availed himself of his manuscripts, but
does not inform us where he found them.
, a very learned physician, and voluminous writer, the son of the rev. Walter Charleton, M. A. some time vicar
, a very learned physician,
and voluminous writer, the son of the rev. Walter Charleton, M. A. some time vicar of Ilminster, and afterwards
rector of Shepton Mallet, in the county of Somerset,
was born at Shepton Mallet, February 2, 1619, and was
first educated by his father, a man of extensive capacity,
though but indifferently furnished with the goods of fortune. He was afterwards sent to Oxford, and entered of
Magdalen Hall in Lent term 1635, where he became the
pupil of the famous Dr. John Wilkins, afterwards bishop
of Chester, under whom he made great progress in logic
and philosophy, and was noted for assiduous application
and extensive capacity, which encouraged him to aim at
the accomplishments of an universal scholar. But as his
circumstances confined him to some particular profession,
he made choice of physic, and in a short time made as
great a progress in that as he had done in his former studies.
On the breaking out of the civil war, which brought the
king to Oxford, Mr. Charleton, by the favour of the king,
had the degree of doctor of physic conferred upon him in
February 1642, and was soon after made one of the physicians in ordinary to his majesty. These honours made
him be considered as a rising character, and exposed him
to that envy and resentment which he could never entirely
conquer. Upon the declension of the royal cause, he came
up to London, was admitted of the college of physicians,
acquired considerable practice, and lived in much esteem
with the ablest and most learned men of the profession;
such as sir Francis Prujean, sir George Ent, Dr. William
Harvey, and others. In the space of ten years before the
Restoration, he wrote and published several very ingenious
and learned treatises, as well on physical as other subjects,
by which he gained great reputation abroad as well as at
home; and though they are now less regarded than perhaps they deserve, yet they were then received with almost universal approbation. He became, as Wood tells
us, physician in ordinary to king Charles II. while in exile,
which honour he retained after the king’s return; and,
upon the founding of the royal society, was chosen one of
the first members. Among other patrons and friends were
William Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, whose life Dr.
Cliarleton translated into Latin in a very clear and elegant
style, and the celebrated Hobbes, but this intimacy, with:
his avowed respect for the Epicurean philosophy, drew
some suspicions upon him in regard to his religion, notwithstanding the pains he had taken to distinguish between
the religious and philosophical opinions of Epicurus in his
own writings against infidelity. Few circumstances seem
to have drawn more censure on him than his venturing to
differ in opinion from the celebrated Inigo Jones respecting
Stonehenge, which Jones attributed to the Romans, and
asserted to be a temple dedicated by them to the god Coelus, or Coelum; Dr. Charleton referred this antiquity to
later and more barbarous times, and transmitted Jones’s
book, which was not published till after its author’s death,
to Olaus Wormius, who wrote him several letters, tending
to fortify him in his own sentiment, by proving that this
work ought rather to be attributed to his countrymen the
Danes. With this assistance Dr. Charleton drew up a
treatise, offering many strong arguments to shew, that this
could not be a Roman temple, and several plausible reasons why it ought rather to be considered as a Danish monument; but his book, though learned, and enriched with
a great variety of curious observations, was but indifferently
received, and but coldly defended by his friends. Jones’s
son-in-law answered it with intemperate warmth, and many
liberties were taken by others with Dr. Charleton’s character, although sir William Dugdale and some other eminent antiquaries owned themselves to be of our author’s
opinion; but it is now supposed that both are wrong.
Notwithstanding this clamour, Dr. Charleton’s fame was
advanced by his anatomical prelections in the college
theatre, in the spring of 1683, and his satisfactory defence
of the immortal Harvey’s claim to the discovery of the
circulation of the blood, against the pretence that was set
up in favour of father Paul. In 1689 he was chosen president of the college of physicians, in which office he continued to the year 1691. A little after this, his circumstances becoming narrow, he found it necessary to seek a
retreat in the island of Jersey; but the causes of this are not
explained, nor have we been able to discover how long he
continued in Jersey, or whether he returned afterwards to
London. All that is known with certainty is, that he died
in the latter end of 1707, and in the eighty-eighth year
of his age. He appears from his writings to have been a
man of extensive learning, a lover of the constitution in
church and state, and so much a lover of his country as to
refuse a professor’s chair in the university of Padua. In
his junior years he dedicated much of his time to the study
of philosophy and polite literature, was as well read in
the Greek and Roman authors as any man of his time, and
he was taught very early by his excellent tutor, bishop
Wilkins, to digest his knowledge so as to command it readily
when occasion required. In every branch of his own
profession he has left testimonies of his diligence and his
capacity; and whoever considers the plainness and perspicuity of his language, the pains he has taken to collect
and produce the opinions of the old physicians, in order
to compare them with the moderns, the just remarks with
which these collections and comparisons are attended, the
succinctness with which all this is dispatched, and the
great accuracy of that method in which his books are
written, will readily agree that he was equal to most of his
contemporaries. As an antiquary, he had taken much pains
in perusing our ancient historians, and in observing their
excellencies as well as their defects. But, above all, he
was studious of connecting the sciences with each other,
and thereby rendering them severally more perfect; in
which, if he did not absolutely succeed himself, he had at
least the satisfaction of opening the way to others, of showing the true road to perfection, and pointing out the
means of applying and making those discoveries useful,
which have followed in succeeding times. There is also
good reason to believe, that though we have few or none
of his writings extant that were composed during the last
twenty years of his life, yet he was not idle during that
space, but committed many things to paper, as materials
at least for other works that he designed. There is now a
large collection of his ms papers and letters on subjects of
philosophy and natural history in the British Museum.
(Ayscough’s Catalogue.) His printed works are, 1 . “Spiritus
Gorgonicus vi sua saxipara exutus, sive de causis, signis,
et sanatione Lithiaseos,
” Leyden, The darkness
of Atheism discovered by the light of nature, a physicotheological treatise,
” London, The Ephesian and Cimmerian Matrons, two remarkable examples of
the power of Love and Wit/ 7 London, 1653 and 1658, 8vo.
4.
” Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charletoniana: or a
fabric of natural science erected upon the most ancient
hypothesis of atoms,“London, 1654, in fol. 5.
” The Immortality of the human Soul demonstrated by reasons natural,“London, 1657, 4to. 6.
” Oeconomia Animalis novis Anatomicorum inventis, indeque desumptis modernorum Medicorum Hypothesibus Physicis superstructa et
mechanice explicata,“London, 1658, 12mo; Amsterdam,
1659, 12mo; Leyden, 1678, 12mO; Hague, 1681, 12mo.
It is likewise added to the last edition of
” Gulielmi Cole
de secretione animali cogitata.“7.
” Natural history of
nutrition, life, and voluntary motion, containing all the
new discoveries of anatomists,“&c. London, 1658, 4to.
8.
” Exercitationes Physico-Anatomicse de Oeconomia Animali,“London, 1659, 8vo printed afterwards several
times abroad. 9.
” Exercitationes Pathologicæ, in quibus
morborum pene omnium natura, generatio, et causae ex
novis Anatomicorum inventis sedulo inquiruntur,“London,
160, and 1661, 4to. 10.
” Character of his most sacred
Majesty Charles II. King of Great Britain, France, and
Ireland,“London, 1660, one sheet, 4to. 11.
” Disquisitiones duae Anatomico-Physica? altera Anatome pueri de
ccelo tacti, altera de Proprietatibus Cerebri humani,“London, 1664, 8vo. 12.
” Chorea Gigantum, or the most
famous antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called Stonehenge, standing on Salisbury Plain, restored to the Danes,“London, 1663, 4to. 13.
” Onomasticon Zoicon, plerorumque animalium differentias et nomina propria pluribus
linguis exponens. Cui accedunt Mantissa Anatomice, et
quiedam de variis Fossilium generibus,“London, 1668 and
1671, 4to; Oxon. 1677, fol. 14.
” Two Philosophical
Discourses the first concerning the different wits of men
the second concerning the mystery of Vintners, or a discourse of the various sicknesses of wines, and their respective remedies at this day commonly used, &c. London, 1663, 1675, 1692, 8vo. 15. “De Scorbuto Liber
singularis. Cui accessit Epiphonema in Medicastros,
”
London, Natural
History of the Passions,
” London, Enquiries into Humane Nature, in six Anatomy-prelections in
the new theatre of the royal college of physicians in London,
” London, Oratio Anniversaria habita in Theatro inclyti Collegii Medicorum Londinensis 5to
Augusti 1680, in commemorationem Beneficiorum a
Doctore Harvey aliisque præstitorum,
” London, 1680, 4to.
19. “The harmony of natural and positive Divine Laws,
”
London, Three Anatomic Lectures concerning, l.The motion of the blood through the veins and
arteries. 2. The organic structure of the heart. 3. The
efficient cause of the heart’s pulsation. Read in the 19th,
20th, and 21st day of March 1682, in the anatomic theatre
of his majesty’s royal college of Physicians in London,
”
London, Inquisitio Physlca de causis
Catameniorum, et Uteri Rheumatismo, in quo probatur
sanguinem in animali fermentescere nunquam,
” London,
Gulielmi Ducis Novicastrensis vita,
”
London, A Ternary of Paradoxes, of the
magnetic cure of wounds, nativity of tartar in wine, and
image of God in man,
” London, The
errors of physicians concerning Defluxions called Deliramenta Catarrhi,
” London, Epicurus his Morals,
” London, The Life
of Marcellus,
” translated from Plutarch, and printed in the
second volume of “Plutarch’s Lives translated from the
Greek by several hands,
” London,
, esq. F. S. A. an ingenious but unfortunate writer, was born Nov. 28, 1756, the only son of John Charnock, esq.
, esq. F. S. A. an ingenious but unfortunate writer, was born Nov. 28, 1756, the only son of John Charnock, esq. a native of the island of Barbadoes, and formerly an advocate of eminence at the English bar, by Frances, daughter of Thomas Boothby, of Chingford in Essex, esq. About 1767 he was placed at the rev. Reynell Cotton’s school at Winchester, and went from thence to the college, where, in the station of a commoner, he was under the immediate care of the celebrated Dr. Joseph Warton, the head master, in whose house he boarded, and became the peculiar favourite of that eminent tutor. Having attained to the seniority of the school, and gained the prize medal annually given for elocution, he removed from Winchester to Oxford, and was, in 1774, entered a gentleman-commoner of Merton college. Here he soon discovered his passion for literary composition, in a multiplicity of fugitive pieces on various subjects, which appeared in the periodical papers; many of them, however, were not of a kind likely to confer permanent reputation, being invectives against the American war, written in a vehement spirit of opposition, under the signatures of Casca, Squib, or Justice.
untrymen. Brissot de Warville wrote an “Examen Critique' 7 of the travels, in which he convicted the writer of great partiality, as well as of unjust representations of
We have already noticed that the marquis served in
America, under Rochatnbeau, during the war with Great
Britain. This produced his “Voyage dans l'Amerique,
”
which was immediately translated into English, under the
title “Travels in North- America, in the years 1780, 1781,
1782,
” Examen Critique' 7 of the
travels, in which he convicted the writer of great partiality,
as well as of unjust representations of events; and the
same charges were brought against him by an anonymous
writer in our own country, who, after the appearance of
the translation, published
” Remarks on the Travels, &c.“1787, 8vo. The only other publication of the marquis’s
pen, was
” Notice sur la vie et les ecrits d'Helvetius,“printed with his poem
” Du Bonheur." We give this on
the authority of the Dict. Hist, but it has been attributed
to Duclos, to Saurin, and to the baron Holbach. The
marquis de Chastellux died suddenly at Paris, Oct. 24,
1788.
capacity required. One of his masters, Phillips, whom he has celebrated in an elegy, was a frequent writer of verses in the magazines, and was the means of exciting a
His next removal was to Colston’s charity school, at the
age of eight years, where he was taught reading, writing,
and arithmetic, at the daily rate of nine hours in summer,
and seven in winter. Such at least was the prescribed
discipline of the school, although it was far more than a
boy of his capacity required. One of his masters, Phillips,
whom he has celebrated in an elegy, was a frequent writer
of verses in the magazines, and was the means of exciting
a degree of poetical emulation among his scholars, but to
this Chatterton appeared for some time quite indifferent.
About his tenth year he began to read from inclination
sometimes hiring his books from a circulating library, and
sometimes borrowing them from his friends; and before
he was twelve, had gone through about seventy volumes,
principally history and divinity. Before this time also he
had composed some verses, particularly those entitled
“Apostate Will
” which, although they bear no comparison with what he afterwards produced, discover at that
early age a disposition to personal satire, and a consciousness of superior sense. It would be more remarkable, were
it true, that while at this school he is said to have shown
to his master Phillips, one of those mawuscripts which he
pretended had been found in a chest in Redcliffe church,
but as neither Phillips or another person to whom this
treasure was exhibited, could read it, the commencement
of his Rowleian impostures must be postponed to a future
period.
ave afforded him many of those words which the advocates for Rowley thought could be known only to a writer of his pretended age.
In return for these contributions, Barret and Catcot supplied Chatterton occasionally with money, and introduced him into company. At his request, too, Mr. Barret lent our poet some medical authors, and gave him a few instructions in surgery, but still his favourite studies were heraldry and English antiquities, which he pursued with as much success as could be expected from one who knew no language but his own. Camden’s Britannia appears to have been a favourite book; and he copied the glossaries of Chaucer and others with indefatigable perseverance, storing his memory with antiquated words. Even Bailey’s dictionary has been proved to have afforded him many of those words which the advocates for Rowley thought could be known only to a writer of his pretended age.
est he had destroyed. He was with them an illiterate charity-boy, the run-away apprentice or hackney- writer of an attorney, and after he came to London, they appear to
It has been regretted that we know very little of the life of this extraordinary young man, whose writings have since become an object of so much curiosity; and great surprize has been expressed, that from the many with whom he appears to have been acquainted, such scanty information has been obtained. For this, however, various reasons may be assigned, which will lessen the wonder. In the first place, his fame, using that word in its most common application, was confined principally to his native city, and there it appears that his friends undervalued his talents, because they considered him in no better light than that of an unprincipled young man, who had accidentally become possessed of certain ancient manuscripts, some of which he had given up, some he had mutilated, and the rest he had destroyed. He was with them an illiterate charity-boy, the run-away apprentice or hackney-writer of an attorney, and after he came to London, they appear to have made very few inquiries after him, congratulating themselves that they had got rid of a rash, impetuous, headstrong boy, who would do some mischief, and disgrace himself and his relations. Again, in London, notwithstanding his boasting letters to his mother and sister, he rose to no high rank among the reputable writers of the day, his productions being confined to publications of the lower order, all of which are now forgotten. But there cannot be a more decisive proof of the little regard he attracted in London, than the secrecy and silence which accompanied his death. This event, although so extraordinary, for young suicides are surely not common, is not even mentioned in any shape, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, the Annual Register, the St. James’s or London Chronicles, nor in any of the respectable publications of the day. He died, a coroner’s jury sat upon the body, and he was buried among paupers, so long before his acquaintance heard of these circumstances, that it was with some difficulty they could be traced with any degree of authenticity. And lastly, it does not appear that any inquiries were made into his early history for nearly seven years after his death, when the Poems of Rowley were first published, and led the way to a very acute and long protracted discussion on their merits. It may be added, too, that they who contended for the authenticity of the poems, were for sinking every circumstance that could prove the genius of Chatterton, until Mr. Thomas Warton and some others took the opposite side of the question, brought the poems to the test of internal evidence, and discovered that however extraordinary it was for Chatterton to produce them in the eighteenth century, it was impossible that Rowley could have written them in the fifteenth.
an, Dr. Lort, Mr. Astle, Mr. (sir Herbert) Croft, Mr. Hayley, lord Camden, Mr. Gough, Mr. Mason, the writer of the Critical Review, Mr. Badcock (in the Monthly Review),
With regard to the controversy occasioned by the publications attributed to Rowley, it is unnecessary to enter upon it, although it has lately been attempted to be revived, but without exciting much interest. Whether the object of this controversy was not disproportioned to the warmth it excited, and the length of time it consumed, the reader may judge from a perusal of the whole of Chatterton’s productions. The principal advocates for the existence of Rowley, and the authenticity of his poems, were Mr. Bryant, Dean Milles, Dr. Glynn, Mr. (now Dr.) Henley, Dr. Langhorn (in the Monthly Review), and Mr. James Harris. Their opponents were Mr. Tyrwhitt, Horace Walpole, the two Wartons, Dr. Johnson, Mr. Steevens, Dr. Percy (bishop of Dromore), Mr. Gibbon, Mr. Jones, Dr. Farmer, Mr. Colman, Mr. Sheridan, Dr. Lort, Mr. Astle, Mr. (sir Herbert) Croft, Mr. Hayley, lord Camden, Mr. Gough, Mr. Mason, the writer of the Critical Review, Mr. Badcock (in the Monthly Review), the Reviewers in the Gentleman’s Magazine, and various Correspondents in the same Miscellany. To these may be added, Mr. Malone, who lived to detect another forgery by a very young impostor, in the history of which the reader will probably recollect many corresponding circumstances; and will be inclined to prefer the shame of Chatterton, fatal as it was, to the unblushing impudence and unnatural fraud of one who brought disgrace and ruin on a parent.
ge of learning and gallantry. At what period of life he obtained a situation here, is uncertain. The writer of the life prefixed to Urry’s edition supposes he was not more
After leaving the university, we are told that he travelled through France and the Netherlands, but the commencement and conclusion of these travels are not specified. On his return, he is said to have entered himself of the Middle Temple, with a view to study the municipal law, but even this fact depends chiefly on a record, without a date, which, Speght informs us, a Mr. Buckley had seen, where Jeffery Chaucer was fined “two shillings for beating a Franciscane frier in Fleet-street.” Leland speaks of his frequenting the law colleges after his travels in France, and perhaps before. Mr. Tyrwhitt doubts these travels in France, and has indeed satisfactorily proved that Leland’s account of Chaucer is full of inconsistencies—Leland is certainly inconsistent as to dates, but from the evidence Chaucer gave in a case of chivalry, we have full proof of one journey in France, although the precise period cannot be fixed. Whatever time these supposed employments might have occupied, we discover, at length, with tolerable certainty, that Chaucer betook himself to the life of a courtier, and probably with all the accomplishments suited to his advancement in the court of a monarch who was magnificent in his establishment, and munificent in his patronage of learning and gallantry. At what period of life he obtained a situation here, is uncertain. The writer of the life prefixed to Urry’s edition supposes he was not more than thirty, because his first employment was in quality of the king’s page; but the first authentic memorial, respecting Chaucer at court, is the patent in Rymer, 41 Edward III. by which that king grants him an annuity of twenty marks, about 200l. of our money, by the title of Valettus noster, “our yeoman,” and this occurred when Chaucer was in his thirty-ninth year. Several mistakes have arisen respecting these grants, from his biographers not understanding the meaning of the titles given to our poet. Speght mentions a grant from king Edward four years later than the above, in which Chaucer is styled valettus hospitii, which he translates grome of the pallace, sinking our author, Mr. Tyrwhitt observes, as much too low, as his biographer in Urry’s edition had raised him too high, by translating the same words gentleman of the king’s privy chamber. Valet or yeoman was, according to the same acute scholiast, the intermediate rank between squier and grome.
Some think his distresses were temporary, and some that they were artificial. Among the latter, the writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica hazards a supposition
Soon after this, however, Chaucer’s biographers concur in the fact that he experienced a very serious reverse in his affairs, which in the second year of Richard II. were in such disorder, that he was obliged to have recourse to the king’s protection, in order to screen him from the importunities of his creditors. But as to the cause of this embarrassment, we find no agreement among those who have attempted a narrative of his life. Some think his distresses were temporary, and some that they were artificial. Among the latter, the writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica hazards a supposition which is at least ingenious. He is of opinion that Chaucer about this time found out a rich match for his son Thomas, namely, Maud, the second daughter of sir John Burghershe; and in order to obtain this match, he was obliged to bring his son somewhat upon a level with her, by settling all his landed estates upon him: and that this duty might occasion those demands which put him under the necessity of obtaining the king’s protection. The conclusion of the matter, according to this conjecture, must be, that Chaucer entailed his estates upon his son, and found means to put off his creditors, a measure not very honourable. But we are still in the dark as to the nature of those debts, or the existence of his landed property, and it is even doubtful whether this Thomas Chaucer was his son. We know certainly of no son but Lewis, who was born in 1381, twenty-one years after his marriage, if the date of his marriage before given be correct.
t he stood alone, the first poet who improved the art by melody, fancy, and sentiment, and the first writer, whether we consider the quantity, quality, or variety of his
In such an age, it is the highest praise of Chaucer, that he stood alone, the first poet who improved the art by melody, fancy, and sentiment, and the first writer, whether we consider the quantity, quality, or variety of his productions. It is supposed that many of his writings are lost. What remain, however, and have been authenticated with tolerable certainty, must have formed the occupation of a considerable part of his life, and been the result of copious reading and reflection. Even his translations are mixed with so great a portion of original matter as, it may be presumed, required time and study, and those happy hours of inspiration, which are not always within command. The principal obstruction to the pleasure we should otherwise derive from Chaucer’s works, is that profusion of allegory which pervades them, particularly the “Romaunt of the Rose,” the “Court of Love,” “Flower and Leaf,” and the “House of Fame.” Pope, in the first edition of*his Temple of Fame, prefixed a note in defence of allegorical poetry, the propriety of which cannot be questioned, but which is qualified with an exception which applies directly to Chaucer. “The incidents by which allegory is conveyed, should never be spun too long, or too much clogged with trivial circumstances, or little particularities.” But this is exactly the case with Chaucer, whose allegories are spun beyond all bounds, and clogged with many trivial and unappropriate circumstances.
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 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, Journal des Savans,
” begun in
, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, descended from an ancient family in
, 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.
ide. 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
, 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 Des Interets des princes d'Allemagne,
”
Friestad, Les vrais interets de
l'Allemagne,
” Hague, with notes and applications to the
then state of German politics.
, an eminent surgeon and anatomist, and a celebrated writer, was born Oct. 19, 1688, at Burrow-on-the-Hill, near Somerby
, 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
us 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
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 Cæsarei Partus Assertio Historiologica,
”
Paris, 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 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:
entysecond 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
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.
eresy, 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
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.
”
, an ingenious writer, was the son of a merchant of Montrose in Scotland, where he
, 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
, once a noted deistical writer, and the idol of that party, was born at East Harnham, a small
, 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.
ts, 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
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.
tent. 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
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.
or,” 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,
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,
”
ld 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
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
, poet-laureat to George II. and a dramatic writer of considerable genius, was born in Southampton-street, London,
, 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.
o 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
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. 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.
”
e’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
The “Careless Husband,
” which is reckoned his best
play, was acted in Nonjuror,
” which was acted in 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.
As a writer, he has not rendered himself very conspicuous, excepting in
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.
ery 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
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.
happy in his taste of composition, and excellent in the disposition of his figures; but a judicious writer says, that he was censured for bestowing too much labour on
, an eminent artist, was born at Bologna (some say at Rome) in 1628, and was taught his ait by Giovanni Battista Cairo Casalasco; and afterwards became the disciple of Albano, in whose school he appeared with promising and superior talents, but although these, while he studied with Albano, were exceedingly admired, yet, to improve himself still farther in correctness of design, and also in the force and relief of his figures, he studied Raphael, Annibale Caracci, Caravaggio, Correggio, and Guido; and combined something of each in a manner of his own. He is accounted very happy in his taste of composition, and excellent in the disposition of his figures; but a judicious writer says, that he was censured for bestowing too much labour on the finishing of his pictures, which considerably diminished their spirit; and also for affecting too great a strength of colouring, so as to give his figures too much relief, and make them appear as if not united with their grounds. However well or ill-founded these observations may be, yet through all Europe he is deservedly admired for the force and delicacy of his pencil, for the great correctness of his design, for a distinguished elegance in his compositions, and also for the mellowness which he gave to his colours. The draperies of his figures are in general easy and free; his expression of the passions is judicious and natural; and there appears a remarkable grace in every one of his figures.
, a writer of eminence among the Quakers, was born at Farmborough, in
, a writer of eminence among
the Quakers, was born at Farmborough, in Warwickshire,
in 1649, and after school-education, in which he made considerable proficiency, was entered of Balio-college, Oxford, in 1666, but removed to St. Mary-hall, where he
took his bachelor’s degree in 1670. He soon after received
ordination, and in 1673 was presented to the rectory of
Peopleton, in the county of Worcester, although it does
not appear that he took his master’s degree until 1676.
At Peopleton he lived in good esteem, and was accounted
an energetic preacher, but after several years, he entertained
many serious scruples, not only on the subject of personal
religion, which he was afraid he had recommended to
others, while a stranger to it himself, but also respecting
certain doctrines and ceremonies of the church of England;
and these scruples dwelt so strongly on his mind, that after
much deliberation, he voluntarily resigned his benefice in
1691, a step which must have been conscientious, as his
living was of considerable emolument, and after quitting
it, he does not appear to have possessed any certain income. The same year he joined himself in communion
with the Baptists, after submitting to their mode of initiation. An incident on this occasion made a lasting impression on his mind. Immediately after the ceremony of
baptism, while his wet clothes were still upon him, a person
accosted him thus, “You are welcome, sir, out of one
form into another.
” But, although this struck him forcibly at the time, it led to no sudden alteration, and he
continued for some years in connection with the baptists;
till at length his desires after what he conceived to be
greater spirituality in religion, induced him to leave their
communion; and having adopted the principles of the
Quakers, he became one of their society about 1697. With
the Quakers he continued in religious fellowship the remainder of his life, and was a well-approved minister
amongst them. In 1700 he removed from London, where
he had some time resided, to Barking, in Essex. At
Barking, and afterwards at Tottenham, in Middlesex, he
kept a boarding-school for several years, but in the latter
place he met with difficulty from a suit commenced against
him. under the Stat. 1 Jac. 1. for teaching school without
license from the bishop of the diocese. The cause came
to be tried in the court of king’s-bench, before lord chief
justice Holt, who at the same time that he discountenanced
the prosecution, declined determining whether the defendant was within the reach of the Act, and directed the
jury to return a special verdict; upon which the adverse
party thought proper not to proceed any further, and Claridge continued his useful occupation unmolested. In
1713, finding his health decline, and having a competency
for his subsistence, he gave up the employment of schoolkeeping, and returned into London, where he appears to
have passed serenely, but not inactively, the remainder
of his time, and where he died, in 1723, in the seventyfourth year of his age. In his last illness, which was short,
“he expressed,
” says his biographer, “his peace and satisfaction of soul, and an humble resignation to the will
of God.
” He left some descendants, the children of a
daughter who died before him.
the Doctrine of the Trinity; the Doctrine of Satisfaction; Tithes; and, Liberty of Conscience. As a writer, Claridge is said to be methodical and perspicuous, and in his
In private life Mr. Claridge was a man of very estimable
character, and his services to the religious society whose
principles he finally espoused, are considered eminent,
both as a minister and author. Amongst his writings in
explanation and defence of their principles are, “Lux
Evangelica attestata,
” and “Melius inquirendum,
” both,
controversial; the former in answer to Keith, the latter to
Cockson; also a Treatise concerning the Holy Scriptures,
under the title of “Tractatus Hierographicus.
” This last
was not printed until after his decease. Several others of
his Tracts were also not published by himself, but appeared in his “Life and Posthumous Works,
” an 8vo volume, printed in Life
” is from the pen of
his friend Joseph Besse. The “Works
” comprise, besides some less considerable pieces, Essays on the following subjects: Baptism and the Supper; the Doctrine
of the Trinity; the Doctrine of Satisfaction; Tithes;
and, Liberty of Conscience. As a writer, Claridge is said
to be methodical and perspicuous, and in his style to have
apparently made it his aim to adapt himself to readers in
general, by the use of received terms. His works have
been repeatedly quoted by the Quakers of the present day,
when engaged in vindicating their society from the charge
of Socinianism.
, a very industrious and useful writer of the seventeenth century, less known than his services deserved,
, a very industrious and useful
writer of the seventeenth century, less known than his
services deserved, and particularly entitled to notice in a
work of this kind, was born Oct. 10, 1599, at Woolston,
in the county of Warwick, of which place his father had
been minister for upwards of forty years. Under his tuition he remained until he was thirteen years old, when he
was sent to school under one Crauford, an eminent teacher
at that time. Here he informs us that he fell into loose
practices from keeping bud company, but occasionally
felt the reluctance which a pious education usually leaves.
At the end of four years he was sent to Cambridge, and
entered of Emanuel, which was then, according to his account, the Puritan college. After taking his bachelor’s
degree, his father recalled him home, and he was for
some time employed as a family-tutor in Warwickshire,
after which, being now in orders, he was invited into
Cheshire, as assistant to Mr. Byrom, who had the living of
Thornton, and with whom he continued almost two years,
preaching twice every Sunday during that time. Some
scruples respecting the ceremonies occasioned him much
trouble, and. he had an intention of removing to London;
but happening to receive a pressing invitation from the inhabitants of Wirrall, a peninsula beyond West Chester,
he consented to settle among them at Shotwick, where no
regular service had been performed, and became here very
useful as a preacher, and very popular through an extensive district. After, however, five years’ quiet residence
here, a prosecution was instituted against him for the
omission of ceremonies (what they were he does not inform us) in the Chancellor’s court; and while about to leave
Shotwick in consequence of this, the mayor, aldermen, and
many of the inhabitants of Coventry, invited him to preach
a lecture in that city, which he accepted, and carried on
for some time; but here likewise he excited the displeasure of Dr. Buggs, who held the two principal livings in
Coventry, and who prosecuted him before the bishop, Dr.
Morton. After this, by the influence of Robert earl of
Warwick, he was enabled to preach at Warwick, and
although complained of, was not molested in any great
degree. Soon after, lord Brook presented him to the
rectory of Alcester, where he officiated for nine years,
and, as he informs us, “the town, which before was called
* drunken Alcester,' was now exemplary and eminent for
religion.
” When the et c<etcra oath was enjoined, the
clergy of the diocese met and drew up a petition against
it, which Mr. Clarke and Mr. Arthur Salway presented to
his majesty at York, who returned for answer, that they
should not be molested for refusing the oath, until the
consideration of their petition in parliament. This business afterwards requiring Mr. Clarke to go to London, he
was chosen preacher of the parish of St. Bennet Fink, a
curacy which is said to have been then, as it is now, in
the gift of the canons of Windsor. Walker, from having
included this among the livings sequestered by the parliamentary reformers, would seem to intimate that Mr. Clarke
must have succeeded to it at the expence of the incumfyent; but the fact is, there was no incumbent at the time.
We learn from Clarke’s dedication of his “Mirror
” to
Philip Holman, esq. of Warkworth in. Northamptonshire,
a native of St. Bennet Fink, and a great benefactor to it,
that for many years before this time (probably before 1646)
the parish had little maintenance for a minister; theif
tithes, being impropriated, went another way. They had
no stock, no land, no house for the minister, no lecture,
nor any one gift sermon in the year. This Mr. Holman,
however, had furnished a house for the curate and settled
it upon feoffees in trust, and had promised to add something towards his further maintenance. Such was the
situation of the parish when Mr. Clarke was elected, and
he remained their preacher until the restoration. During
the whole of this period, he appears to have disapproved
of the practices of the numerous sectaries which arose, and
retained his attachment to the constitution and doctrines of
the church, although he objected to some of those points
respecting ceremonies and discipline, which ranks him
among the ejected non-conformists. Most of his works appear to have been compiled, as indeed they are generally
dated there, at his house in Threadneedle- street, and it
was the sole business of his future life, to enlarge and republish them. In 1660, when Charles II. published a declaration concerning ecclesiastical affairs, the London clergy
drew up a congratulatory address, with a request for the
removal of re-ordination and surplices in colleges, &,c,
Vol. IX. D D
which Mr. Clarke was appointed to present. In the following year he was appointed one of the commissioners
for revising the book of Common Prayer, but what particular share he took we are not informed; nor are we told
more of his history, while in the church, than that he was
seven or eight years a governor, and two years president
of Sion college. When ejected for non-conformity, such
was his idea of schism and separation, that he quietly submitted to a retired and studious life. From the church,
which he constantly attended as a hearer, he says, he
dared not to separate, or gather a private church out of a
true church, which he judged the church of England to
be. In this retirement he continued twenty years, partly
at Hammersmith, and partly at Isleworth, revising what
he had published, and compiling other works, all of which
appear to have been frequently reprinted, notwithstand*ig their size and price. He died Dec. 25, 1682, universally respected for his piety, and especially for his moderation in the contests which prevailed in his time.
ls. 12mo of posthumous theological and controversial treatises, Amst. 1689.Lavocat, a Roman catholic writer, allows that his works are written in a manly, exact, elegant
Claude married in 1648 Elizabeth de Malcare, by whom
he had a son, Isaac Claude, born March 5, 1653, of whom
he was very fond, and bred him to the ministry. He
studied in the universities of France; after which he returned to his father, who completed his education for the
pulpit. He was examined at Sedan in 1678, and approved;
he was invited by the congregation of the church of Clermont in Beauvoisis; and his father had the satisfaction to
impose his hands on him in 1678, and to see him minister
of the Walloon church at the Hague, when he retired to
Holland in 1685. He died at the Hague, July 29, 1695,
after having published many excellent works of his deceased father, particularly 5 vols. 12mo of posthumous
theological and controversial treatises, Amst. 1689.Lavocat, a Roman catholic writer, allows that his works are
written in a manly, exact, elegant and close style, discover great genius and learning, and an uncommon talent
for employing all the subtleties of logic. So candid a
critic may be forgiven for adding, “happy had he not
talents by writing against the catholic church.
”
These volumes just mentioned contain “An answer to a
treatise on the Sacrament,
” supposed to be written by
cardinal le Camus, bishop of Grenoble; Four Letters on
the same subject; an “Essay on the composition of a Serinon;
” a “Body of Christian Divinity;
” expositions of
parts of Scripture, Letters, &c. His Life, written by
M. de la Devaize, was translated into English by G. P. and
published Lond. 1688, 4to. His “Historical Defence of
the Reformation
” was published in English by T. B. Lond.
Essay on the Composition of a Sermon,
” which he wrote about the year
it, was born at Bamberg, in Germany, in 1537. He became a very studious mathematician, and elaborate writer, his works making five large folio volumes; and containing a
, a German Jesuit, was born at Bamberg, in Germany, in 1537. He became a very studious mathematician, and elaborate writer, his works making five large folio volumes; and containing a complete body or course of the mathematics. They are mostly elementary, and commentaries on Euclid and others; having very little of invention of his own. His talents and writings have been variously spoken of, and it must be acknowledged that he exhibits more of industry than genius. He was sent for to Rome, to assist, with other learned men, in the reformation of the calendar, by pope Gregory; which he afterwards undertook a defence of, against Scaliger, Vieta, and others, who attacked it. He died at Rome, the 6th of February, 1612, after more than fifty years close application to the mathematical sciences.
e vacant archbishopric of Tuam, but this was refused, solely on account of his being regarded as the writer of the Essay.
Soon after Dr. Clayton’s marriage, he went with his
lady to England, and while at London, a person in distressed circumstances applied to him for assistance, with
the testimony of Dr. Samuel Clarke for a recommendation, upon which, instead of the usual donation on such
occasions, he gave to the necessitous man the sum of three
hundred pounds, which was the whole that he wanted to
make him easy in the world. This circumstance introduced him to Dr. Clarke, and the result of their acquaintance was, Dr. Clayton’s embracing the Arian principles,
to which he adhered during the remainder of his life. Dr.
Clarke having carried to queen Caroline an account of Dr.
Clayton’s remarkable beneficence, it made a powerful
impression on her majesty’s mind in favour of his character; which impression was strongly enforced by her
bed-chamber woman, Mrs. Clayton, afterwards lady
Sundon. Such a powerful interest procured an immediate
recommendation to lord Carteret, then chief governor of
Ireland, for the very first bishopric tbat should become
vacant, and accordingly, he was advanced to that of
Killala, January 1729-30. In this situation he continued
till November 1735, when he was translated to the see of
Cork, and in 1745 to that of Clogher. Excepting a letter
written to the royal society upon a subject of no great
consequence, his first publication was an “Introduction
to the History of the Jews,
” which was afterwards translated into French, and printed at Leyden. His next work
was “The Chronology of the Hebrew Bible vindicated: the
facts compared with other ancient histories, and the difficulties explained, from the flood to the death of Moses;
together with some conjectures in relation to Egypt during
that period of time; also two maps, in which are attempted
to be settled the journeyings of the children of Israel,
”
Dissertation on Prophecy,
” in which he endeavoured to shew, from a joint comparison of the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Revelation of St. John, that
the final end of the dispersion of the Jews will be coincident with the ruin of the popedom, and take place about
2000. This was followed by an “Impartial Enquiry into
the time of the coming of the Messiah,
” in two letters to
an eminent Jew, printed first separately, and then together,
in 1751. In the same year (1751), appeared the “Essay
on Spirit,
” a performance which excited very general attention, and was productive of a fruitful controversy. Its
object was to recommend the Arian doctrine of the inferiority of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and to prepare
the way for suitable alterations in the Liturgy. His biographer, who is at the same time his warm panegyrist,
allows that in this performance he has indulged too freely
in imagination and conjecture; and that he might have
confined the question with greater advantage to the direct
and simple standard of Scripture. The work, after all, was
not Dr. Clayton’s, but one of his adoption, the real authoi
being a young clergyman in his diocese, who shewed the manuscript to his lordship, but had not the courage to print it in
his own name. The bishop, with what is called a romantic generosity, conveyed it to the press, and managed the affair in
such a manner, that the treatise was universally ascribed to
him in all the attacks to which it was exposed, and the sentiments certainly were his. One effect of this conduct was,
his being prevented from rising higher in the church. In
1752, he was recommended by the duke of Dorset, then
viceroy of Ireland, to the vacant archbishopric of Tuam,
but this was refused, solely on account of his being regarded as the writer of the Essay.
, brother to the preceding, a celebrated writer, and universal scholar, was born at Geneva, March 19, 1657.
, brother to the preceding, a celebrated writer, and universal scholar, was born at Geneva, March 19, 1657. He was sent to a grammar-school at eight years of age; where he soon discovered an insatiable inclination to books, and such a genius for poetry, that he flattered himself, if he had duly cultivated it, he would probably have gained no small reputation. But the more serious studies, to which he applied himself, made him entirely neglect poetry, and he never wrote verses but on particular occasions. Thus, in 1689, having translated into French two sermons of bishop Burnet, preached before king William, on account, he says, of the friendship which subsisted between himself and that prelate, he subjoined to the one a small poem in heroic, and to the other an epigram in elegiac verse, upon England restored to liberty.
imprisoned for some time, till he sent a petition to the lord-protector, wherein the address of the writer has been much admired, who, while he honestly avows his principles,
, or rather Cleiveland (for so he and his family spelt their name) (John), a noted loyalist
and popular poet in the reign of Charles I. was the eldest
son of the rev. Thomas Cleiveland, M. A. some time vicar
of Hinckley, and rector of Stoke, in the county of Leicester. He was born in 1613, at Loughborough, where his
father was then assistant to the rector; but educated at
Hinckley, under the rev. Richard Vynes, a man of genius
and learning, who was afterwards as much distinguished
among the presbyterian party as his scholar was among the
cavaliers. In his fifteenth year our poet was removed to
Cambridge, and admitted of Christ’s college, Sept. 4,
1627, where he took the degree of B. A. in 163 1 He was
thence transplanted to the sister foundation of St. John’s
college in the same university, of which he was elected
fellow March 27, 1634, and proceeded to the degree of
M. A. in 1635. Of this society he continued many years a
principal ornament, being one of the tutors, and highly
respected by his pupils, some of -whom afterwards attained
to eminence. By the statutes of that college, he should
have taken orders within six years after his being elected
fellow: but he uas admitted on the law line (as the phrase there is) November 2, 1640, and afterwards on that of
physic, January 31, 1642, which excused him from complying with this obligation; though it does not appear that
he made either law or physic his profession: for, remaining at
college, he became the rhetoric reader there, and was usually
employed by the society in composing their speeches and
epistles to eminent persons (of which specimens may be seen in his works), being in high repute at that time for
the purity and terseness of his Latin style. He also became celebrated for his occasional poems in English, and,
at the breaking out of the civil wars, is said to have been
the first champion that appeared in verse for the royal
cause; which he also supported by all his personal influence: particularly by exerting his interest in the town of
Cambridge, to prevent Oliver Cromwell (then an obscure candidate, but strongly supported by the puritan partv)
from being elected one of its members. Cromwell’s
stronger genius in this, as hi every other pursuit, prevailing, Cleveland is said to have shown great discernment,
by predicting at so early a period, the fatal consequences
that long after ensued to the cause of royalty. Cromwell
got his election by a single vote, which Cleveland declared
“had ruined both church and kingdom.
” The parliament
party carrying all before them in the eastern counties,
Cleveland retired to the royal army, and with it to the
king’s head quarters at Oxford, where he was much admired and caressed for his satirical poems on the opposite
faction, especially for his satire on the Scottish covenanters, entitled “The Rebel Scot.
” In his absence he was
deprived of his fellowship, Feb. 13, 1644, by the earl of
Manchester, who, under the authority of an ordinance of
parliament, for regulating and reforming the university of
Cambridge, ejected such fellows of colleges, &c. as refused to take the solemn league and covenant. From Oxford Cleveland was appointed to be judge-advocate in the
garrison at Newark, under sir Richard Willis the governor,
and has been commended for his skilful and upright conduct in this difficult office, where he also distinguished his
pen occasionally, by returning smart answers to the
summons, and other addresses to the garrison. Newark, after
holding out the last of all the royal fortresses, was at
length, in 1646, by the express command of the king
(then a prisoner in the Scots army), surrendered upon
terms, which left Cleveland in possession of his liberty,
but destitute of all means of support, except what he derived from the hospitality and generosity of his brother
loyalists, among whom he lived some years, obscure and
unnoticed by the ruling party, till, in November 1655,
he was seized at Norwich, as “a person of great abilities,
”
adverse and dangerous to the reigning government; and
being sent to Yarmouth, he was there imprisoned for some
time, till he sent a petition to the lord-protector, wherein
the address of the writer has been much admired, who,
while he honestly avows his principles, has recourse to
such moving topics, as might sooth his oppressor, and procure his enlargement: in which he was not disappointed,
for the protector generously set him at liberty, disdaining
to remember on the throne the opposition he had received
in his canvass for parliament as a private burgess. Cleveland thence retired to London, where he is said to have
found a generous Maecenas; and, being much admired
among all persons of his own party, became member of a
club of wits and loyalists, which Butler, the author of Hiir
dibras, also frequented. Cleveland then lived in chambers
at Gray’s-inn (of which Butler is said to have been a member), and, being seized with an epidemic intermitting
fever, died there on Thursday morning, April 29, 1659.
His friends paid the last honours to his remains by a splendid funeral: for his body was removed to Hunsdon -house,
and thence carried for interment, on Saturday May 1, to
the parish church of St. Michael Royal, on College-hill,
London, followed by a numerous attendance of persons
eminent for their loyalty or learning: to whom his funeral
sermon was preached by his intimate friend Dr. John Pearson, afterwards bishop of Chester, author of the Exposition of the Creed.
l Hempstead, in Hertfordshire, with whom he continued till, in 1743, he received an appointment as a writer to the East India company. From the frequency of his removals,
, son of Richard Clive, esq. was born
on the 29th of September 1725, at Styche, the seat of his
ancestors, in the parish of Moreton-Say, near Market Drayton. His father, who possessed but a small estate by inheritance, had, to increase his income, engaged in the
profession of the law. At an early period of his youth,
Robert was sent for his education to a private school at
Lostock in Cheshire. The master, Dr. Eaton, soon discovered in his scholar a superior courage and sagacity which
prognosticated the future hero. “If this lad,
” he would
say, “should live to be a man, and an opportunity be
given for the exertion of his talents, few names wdi be
greater than his.
” At the age of eleven he was removed
from Lostock to a school at Market Drayton, of which the
reverend Mr. Burslem was the master. On the side of a high
hill in that town is an ancient church, with a lofty steeple,
from nearly the top of which is an old stone spout, projecting in the form of a dragon’s head. Young Clive
ascended this steeple, and, to the astonishment of the
spectators below, seated himself on the spout. Having remained a short time at Mr. Burslem’s school, he was placed
in that of Merchant Taylors’ at London, which, however,
did not long retain him as a scholar. His father having
reverted to what seems to have been a predilection for private schools, committed him to the care of Mr. Sterling,
at Hemel Hempstead, in Hertfordshire, with whom he continued till, in 1743, he received an appointment as a
writer to the East India company. From the frequency of
his removals, to which perhaps was added an intractable
disposition, he obtained no applause, but rather the reverse, from the several masters to whom the care of his
education had been entrusted.
Among the suprising labours of Clovio, described by Vasari, that writer particularly dwells upon an “ufficio della madonna,” painted
Among the suprising labours of Clovio, described by
Vasari, that writer particularly dwells upon an “ufficio
della madonna,
” painted for the cardinal Farnese. In this
work many portraits were introduced, and the figures,
though in some cases no longer than so many ants, were
represented with as much distinctness in all their parts, as
if they had been drawn the size of life. A beautiful missal,
illuminated by Clovio, formerly belonging to Alexander
Champernoun, esq. is now in the possession of the Townley
family. Several prints from t;;e works of this master,
are cited by Heinecken. He died aged 80, in the year
1578.
. Congreve on his” Mourning Bride“which gave rise to an acquaintance between her and that celebrated writer. In 1698, her tragedy, entitled” Fatal Friendship,“was performed
In 1693, when she was only fourteen years of age, she
wrote some verses, and sent them to Mr. Bevil Higgons,
tf on his sickness and recovery from the small-pox,“and
was only in her seventeenth year when she produced a tragedy, entitled
” Agnes de Castro,“which was acted with
applause at the Theatre-Royal in 1695, and printed the following year in 4to, without her name. The play is founded
upon a French novel of the same title, printed at Paris in
1688. In 1697, she addressed some verses to Mr. Congreve on his
” Mourning Bride“which gave rise to an
acquaintance between her and that celebrated writer. In
1698, her tragedy, entitled
” Fatal Friendship,“was performed at the new theatre in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, and
printed the same year in 4to, with a dedication to the
princess Anne of Denmark. This play was considered as
the most perfect of her dramatic performances and it was
praised by Hughes and Farquhar. On the death of Mr.
Dry den, in 1701, our poetess joined with several other
ladies, in paying a just tribute to his memory in verse.
Their performances were published together in that year,
under the title of
” The Nine Muses; or, Poems written
l>y so many Ladies, upon the death of the late famous John
Dryden, esq.“The same year she also brought upon the
stage a comedy, called
” Love at a Loss; or, most votes
carry it,“acted at the Theatre-Royal, and published in
quarto; but on account of her absence from London while
it was in the press, it was so incorrectly printed, that she
would gladly have suppressed the edition; and many years
after she revised it, with a view to a second performance,
which never took place. Soon after, before the close of
the year 1701, she produced another tragedy, called
” The Unhappy Penitent,“which was performed at the
Theatre-Royal in Drury-lane, also printed in 4to. In the
midst of this attention to poetry and dramatic writing, she
spent much of her time in metaphysical studies. She was
a great admirer of Mr. Locke’s
” Essay on Human Understanding;" and drew up a defence of that work, against
some remarks written by Dr. Thomas Burnet, master of the
Charter-house. This was published in May 1702, without
a name, lest the public should be prejudiced against a
metaphysical treatise written by a woman. She also professed herself to be desirous of concealing her name, from an
unwillingness tobe known to Mr. Locke, under the character
of his defender. But her name was not long concealed;
and Mr. Locke desired his cousin, Mr. King, afterwards
lord chancellor, to pay her a visit, and make her a present
of books; and upon her owning her performance, he wrote
her a letter of acknowledgment. She also received a
letter of thanks for this piece from Mrs. Burnet, the last
wife of the celebrated prelate of that name. It appears,
that at the latter end of 1701, she was some time at Salisbury, on a visit to her relations in that city.
nd fortitude that were truly exemplary. It is justly observed by Dr. Birch, that “her abilities as a writer, and the merit of her works, will not have full justice done
In her younger years, Mrs. Cockburn was much celebrated for her beauty, as well as for her genius and other
accomplishments. She was small of stature, but was distinguished by the unusual vivacity of her eyes, and the
delicacy of her complexion, which continued to her death.
In her private character she appears to have been benevolent and generous; and remarkable for the uncommon
evenness and chearfulness of her temper. Her conversation was innocent, agreeable, and instructive: she had
not the least affectation of being thought a wit; but was
modest and diffident, and constantly endeavoured to adapt
her discourse to her company. Throughout the whole
course of her life, she seems to have been in very narrow
and straitened circumstances; and after her marriage she
had little leisure for study, and was very ill provided with
books. But she endured the inconveniences of her situation, with a patience and fortitude that were truly exemplary. It is justly observed by Dr. Birch, that “her abilities as a writer, and the merit of her works, will not have
full justice done them, without a due attention to the peculiar circumstances in which they were produced; her
early youth, when she wrote some; her very advanced
age, and ill state of health, when she drew up others; the
uneasy situation of her fortune, during the whole course
of her life; and an interval of nearly twenty years, in the
vigour of it, spent in the cares of a family, without the
least leisure for reading or contemplation. After which,
with a mind so long diverted and encumbered, resuming
her studies, she instantly recovered its entire powers, and
in the hours of relaxation from her domestic employments,
pursued, to their utmost limits, some of the deepest inquiries of which the human mind is capable.
” It was in
1751, that her works were published by Dr. Birch, 2 vols.
8vo, under the following title: “The Works of Mrs. Catherine Cockburn, theological, moral, dramatic, and poetical.
” None of her dramatic pieces were included in this
collection, excepting “The Fatal Friendship,
” it being
found, that all her writings could not be comprised in the
two volumes proposed to be printed for those who had subscribed for her works. Besides the other pieces already
mentioned in the course of this account of her life, Dr.
Birch’s collection contains, a letter of advice to her son;
letters between Dr. Sharp, archdeacon of Northumberland, and prebendary of Durham, and Mrs, Cockburn,
concerning the foundation of moral virtue letters between
Mrs. Cockburn and several of her friends and some short
essays in prose, with several songs, and other poems.
, a miscellaneous writer and translator of the seventeenth century, and probably an ancestor
, a miscellaneous writer and
translator of the seventeenth century, and probably an
ancestor of the preceding, was born of an ancient family
in Gloucestershire, in 1602, and educated at Oxford,
where he was elected demy of Magdalen college, in July
1619, and completed his degree of M. A. in 1626. He
then travelled, and on his return settled as a private gentleman in Norfolk, where he married. Wood says he
was always accounted a puritan. He died of the plague
in London, in 1665. His publications are: 1. “The Life
and Death of Robert earl of Essex,
” Loud. rank
parliamentarian.
” 2. “A Collection of Proverbs.
” 3.
“The Life of Æsop,
” prefixed to Barlow’s edition of the
Fables, On
the Knowledge of God,
” Lond. Heptameron,
or the History of the Fortunate Lovers,
” ibid.
d the Grave.” A vein of humour runs through this, and indeed through most of the productions of this writer, which gave them great popularity when first published, though
, a learned and ingenious
physician, was born at Hildesheim, in Lower Saxony, towards
the end of the seventeenth century. Being educated to the
practice of medicine, after taking the degree of doctor, he
went to M.unster, where he soon distinguished himself by
his superior skill and abilities. His works, which are numerous, bear ample testimony to the vigour of his intellects, and
of his application to letters. His last work, “If ermippus
Redivivus,
” in which he professes to shew the practicability of prolonging the lives of elderly persons to 115 years,
by receiving the breath and transpirations of healthy young
females, was written, or first published, when he was in
his seventy-seventh year. This was translated into English,
and published, with additions and improvements, by the
late Dr. John Campbell, under the title of “Hermippus
liedivivus, or the Sage’s triumph over old Age and the
Grave.
” A vein of humour runs through this, and indeed
through most of the productions of this writer, which gave
them great popularity when first published, though they
are now little noticed, excepting, perhaps, the work ju$t
mentioned, in which the irony is extremely delicate; in
his rhapsody against the prevailing passion of taking snuff,
he affects to consider a passion for taking snuff as a disease of the nostrils, similar to that affecting the stomach
of girls in chlorosis, and therefore calls it the pica nasi.
The title of this production is, “Dissertatio satyrica,
physico-medico-moralis, de Pica Nasi sive Tabaci sternutatorii moderno abusu, et noxa,
” Amstelodami,
yer.” With Granger he corresponded very frequently, and most of his corrections were adopted by that writer. Mr. Cole himself was a collector of portraits at a time when
What he contributed was in general, in itself, original
and accurate, and would have done credit to a separate
publication, if he had thought proper. Among the works
which he assisted, either by entire dissertations, or by minute communications and corrections, we may enumerate
Grose’s “Antiquities
” Bentham’s “Ely
” Dr. Ducarel’s
publications; Philips’s “Life of Cardinal Pole
” Gough’s
“British Topography
” the “Memoirs of the Gentlemen’s
Society at Spalding
” Mr. Nichols’s “Collection of
Poems,
” “Anecdotes of Hogarth,
” “History of Hinckley,
” and “Life of Bowyer.
” With Granger he corresponded very frequently, and most of his corrections were
adopted by that writer. Mr. Cole himself was a collector
of portraits at a time when this trade was in few hands, and
had a very valuable series, in the disposal of which he was
somewhat unfortunate, and somewhat capricious, putting
a different value on them at different times. When in the
hope that lord Montstuart would purchase them, he valued
them at a shilling each, one with another, which he says
would have amounted to 160l. His collection must therefore have amounted to 3200 prints, but among these were
many topographical articles: 130l. was offered on this occasion, which Mr. Cole declined accepting. This was in
1774; but previous to this, in 1772, he met with a curious
accident, which had thinned his collection of portraits.
This was a visit from an eminent collector. “He had,
”
says Mr. Cole, “heard of my collection of prints, and a
proposal to see them was the consequence; accordingly,
he breakfasted here next morning; and on a slight offer
of accommodating him with such heads as he had not, he
absolutely has taken one hundred and eighty-seven of my
most valuable and favourite heads, such as he had not, and
most of which had never seen; and all this with as much
ease and familiarity as if we had known each other ever so
long. However, I must do him the justice to say, that I
really did offer him at Mr. Pemberton’s, that he might take
such in exchange as he had not; but this I thought would
not have exceeded above a dozen, or thereabouts, &c.
”
In answer to this account of the devastation of his collection, his correspondent Horace Walpole writes to him in
the following style, which is not an unfair specimen of the
manner in which, these correspondents treated their contemporaries: “I have had a relapse (of the gout), and
have not been able to use my hand, or I should have lamented with you on the plunder of your prints by that
Algerine hog. I pity you, dear sir, and feel for your awkwardness, that was struck dumb at his rapaciousness. The
beast has no sort of taste neither, and in a twelvemonth
will sell them again. This Muley Moloch used to buy
books, and now sells them. He has hurt his fortune, and
ruined himself to have a collection, without any choice of
what it should be composed. It is the most under-bred
ywine I ever saw, but I did not know it was so ravenous. I
wish you may get paid any how.
” Mr. Cole, however,
after all this epistolary scurrility, acknowledges that he
was“honourably paid
” at the rate of two shillings and
sixpence each head, and one, on which he and Walpole
set an uncommon value, and demanded back, was accordingly returned.
ation of wits were wont to meet together, as men of letters, free and independent. The works of this writer are collected in 3 volumes, 12mo, under the title of " Theatre
, secretary and reader to the duke
of Orleans, was born at Paris in 1709, and died in the same
city Nov. 2, 1783, at the age of 75. In his character were
united a singular disposition to gaiety, and an uncommon
degree of sensibility; the death of a beloved wife accelerated his own. Without affecting the qualities of
beneficence and humanity, he was humane and beneficent.
Having a propensity to the drama from his infancy, he
cultivated it with success. His “Partie-de-Chasse de
Henri IV.
” (from which our “Miller of Mansfield
” is taken) exhibits a very faithful picture of that good king.
His comedy of “Dupuis and Desronais,
” in the manner of
Terence, may perhaps be destitute of the vis cornica; but
the sentiments are just, the characters well supported, and
the situations pathetic. Another comedy, entitled “Truth
in wine, or the Disasters of Gallantry,
” has more of satire and broad humour. There are several more pieces of
his, in which he paints, with no less liveliness than truth,
the manners of his time; but his pencil is frequently as
licentious as those manners. His talent at song-writing
procured him the appellation of the Anacreon of the age,
but here too he was deficient in delicacy. His song on
the capture of Portmahon was the means of procuring him
a pension from the court of 600 livres, perhaps the first
favour of the kind ever bestowed. He was one of the last
survivers of a society of wits who met under the name of
the Caveau, and is in as much honourable remembrance
as the Kit- K at club in London. This assembly, says a journalist, was of as much consequence to literature as an academy. Colle frequently used to regret those good old
times, when this constellation of wits were wont to meet
together, as men of letters, free and independent. The
works of this writer are collected in 3 volumes, 12mo,
under the title of " Theatre de SocieteY' Colle* was a
cousin of the poet Regnard, whom he likewise resembled
in his originality of genius.
, an eminent nonconformist divine, and a voluminous writer, was born at Boxstead, in Essex, in 1623, and educated at Emanuel
, an eminent nonconformist divine,
and a voluminous writer, was born at Boxstead, in Essex,
in 1623, and educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge,
where he took his degrees, probably during the usurpation,
as we find him D. D. at the restoration. He had the living
of St. Stephen’s Norwich, from which he was ejected for
non-conformity in 1662. His epitaph says he discharged
the work of the ministry in that city for forty- four years,
which is impossible, unless he continued to preach as a
dissenter after his ejection. He was one of the commissioners at the Savoy conference in the reign of Charles II.
He particularly excelled as a textuary and critic. He was
a man of various learning, and much esteemed for his
great industry, humanity, and exemplary life. He wrote
many books of controversy and practical divinity, the most
singular of which is his “Weaver’s Pocket-book, or Weaving spiritualized,
” 8vo. This book was particularly adapted
to the place of his residence, which had been long famous
for the manufacture of silks. Granger remarks that Mr.
Boyle, in his “Occasional Reflections on several subjects,
”
published in very popular method of
conveying religious sentiments, although it is apt to degenerate into vulgar familiarity; but we know not if the
practice may not be traced to bishop Hall, who published
his
” Occasional Meditations“in 1633. Calamy has given
a very long list of Dr. Collings’s publications, to which we
refer. In Poole’s
” Annotations on the Bible" he wrote
those on the last six chapters of Isaiah, the whole of Jeremiah, Lamentations, the four Evangelists, the epistles to
the Corinthians, Galatians, Timothy and Philemon, and
the Revelations. He died at Norwich Jan. 17, 1690.
, an eminent writer on the side of infidelity, was the son of Henry Collins, esq.
, an eminent writer on the side
of infidelity, was the son of Henry Collins, esq. a gentleman of considerable fortune; and born at Heston near
Hounslow, in Middlesex, June 21, 1676. He was educated in classical learning at Eton school, and removed
thence to King’s college in Cambridge, where he had for
his tutor Francis Hare, afterwards bishop of Chichester.
Upon leaving college he went to London, and was entered
a student in the Temple; but not relishing the study of
the law, he abandoned it, and applied himself to letters
in general. In 1700 he published a tract entitled “Several of the London Cases considered.
” He cultivated an
acquaintance and maintained a Correspondence with Locke
in 1703 and 1704; and that Locke had a great esteem for
him, appears from some letters to him published by Des
Maizeaux in his collection of “Several pieces of John Locke,
never before printed, or not extant in his works.
” Locke,
who died Oct. 28, 1704, left also a letter dated the 23d,
to be delivered to Collins after his decease, full of confidence and the warmest affection; which letter is to be
found in the collection above mentioned. It is plain from
these memorials, that Collins at that time appeared to
Locke to be an impartial and disinterested inquirer after
truth, and not, as he afterwards proved, disingenuous, artfuJ, and impious.
king, that whatever Mr. Collins’s character in private life, he was, at the same time, a most unfair writer. He seemed, with all his morality, to have very little conscience
His health began to decline several years before his
death: and he was extremely afflicted with the stone, which
at last put an end to his life, Dec. 13, 1729; he was interred in Oxford chapel. It is remarkable that notwithstanding the accusation of being an enemy to religion, he
declared, just before his last minutes, “That as he had
always endeavoured, to the best of his abilities, to serve
God, his king, and his country, so he was persuaded he
was going to that place which God had designed for them
that love him.
” Presently after, he said, that “the catholic religion is to love God, and to love man;
” and he
advised such as were about him to have a constant regard
to those principles. His library, which was very large and
curious, was sold by T. Ballard in 1730-1. The catalogue was drawn up by Dr. Sykes. We are told, that
“the corruption among Christians, and the persecuting
spirit of the clergy, had given him a prejudice against the
Christian religion; and at last induced him to think, that,
upon the foot on which it is at present, it is pernicious to
mankind.
” He has indeed given us himself an unequivocal
intimation, that he had actually renounced Christianity,
Thus, in answer to Rogers, who had supposed that it was
men’s lusts and passions, and not their reason, which
made them depart from the gospel, he acknowledges, that
<c it may be, and is undoubtedly, the case of many, who
reject the gospel, to be influenced therein by their vices
and immoralities. It would be very strange,“says he,
” if
Christianity, which teaches so much good morality, and
so justly condemns divers vices, to which men are prone,
was not rejected by some libertines on that account; as
the several pretended revelations, which are established
throughout the world, are by libertines on that very account also. But this cannot be the case of all who reject the gospel. Some of them who reject the gospel
lead as good lives as those who receive it. And I suppose
there is no difference to the advantage of Christians,
in point of morality, between them and the Jews, Mahometans, heathens, or others, who reject Christianity.“But we ought not to conclude this article without remarking, that whatever Mr. Collins’s character in private life,
he was, at the same time, a most unfair writer. He
seemed, with all his morality, to have very little conscience
in his quotations, adapting them, without scruple, to his
own purposes, however contrary they might be to the genuine meaning of the authors cited, or to the connection
in which the passages referred to stood. So many facts of
this kind were undeniably proved against him by his adversaries, that he must ever be recorded as a flagrant instance of literary disingenuity. Let these facts, which are
clearly proved by Leland, be compared with his dying declarations. In addition to the answerers of Collins, we
may mention dean Swift, in an excellent piece of irony,
entitled
” Mr. Collins’s Discourse of Freethinking, put
into plain English, by way of abstract, for the use of the
poor,“1713, reprinted in Mr. Nichols’s edition of his
Works, vol. X. The twelfth chapter also of the
” Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus," in Pope’s Works, is an
inimitable ridicule on Collins’s arguments against Clarke,
to prove the soul to be only a quality.
and insanity.“Dr. Johnson’s character of him, while it was distinctly impressed upon that excellent writer’s memory, is here at large inserted:” Mr. Collins was a man
About this time Dr. Johnson fell into his company, who
tells us, that “the appearance of Collins was decent and
manly; his knowledge considerable, his views extensive,
his conversation elegant, and his disposition cheerful. By
degrees,
” adds the doctor, “I gained his confidence; and
one day was admitted to him when he was immured by a
bailiff, that was prowling in the street. On this occasion
recourse was had to the booksellers, who, on the credit of
a translation of ‘ Aristotle’s Poetics,’ which
” he engaged to
write with a large commentary, advanced as much money
as enabled him to escape into the country. He shewed
me the guineas safe in his hand. Soon afterwards his uncle,
Mr. Martin, a lieutenant-colonel, left him about 2000l. a
sum which Collins could scarcely think exhaustible, and
which he did not live to exhaust. The guineas were then
repaid; and the translation neglected. But man is not
born for happiness: Collins, who, while he studied to live,
felt no evil but poverty, no sooner lived to study, than his
life was assailed by more dreadful calamities, disease and
insanity.“Dr. Johnson’s character of him, while it was distinctly
impressed upon that excellent writer’s memory, is here at
large inserted:
” Mr. Collins was a man of extensive literature, and of vigorous faculties. He was acquainted,
not only with the learned tongues, but with the Italian,
French, and Spanish languages. He had employed his
mind chiefly upon works of fiction, and subjects of fancy;
and by indulging some peculiar habits of thought, was
eminently delighted with those flights of imagination which
pass the bounds of nature, and to which the mind is reconciled only by a passive acquiescence in popular traditions. He loved fairies, genii, giants, and monsters;
he delighted to rove through the meanders of enchantment, to gaze on the magnificence of golden palaces, to
repose by the water-falls of Elysian gardens. This was,
however, the character rather of his inclination than his
genius; the grandeur of wildness, and the novelty of extravagance, were always desired by him, but were not
always attained. Yet as diligence is never wholly lost; if
his efforts sometimes caused harshness and obscurity, they
likewise produced in happier moments sublimity and splendour. This idea which he had formed of excellence, led
him to Oriental fictions and allegorical imagery; and,
perhaps, while he was intent upon description, he did not
sufficiently cultivate sentiment. His poems are the productions of a mind not deficient in fire, nor unfurnished
with knowledge either of books or life, but somewhat obstructed in its progress by deviation in quest of mistaken
beauties. His morals were pure, and his opinions pious:
in a long continuance of poverty, and long habits of dissipation, it cannot be expected that any character should
be exactly uniform. There is a degree of want by which
the freedom of agency is almost destroyed; and long association with fortuitous companions will at last relax the
strictness of truth, and abate the fervour of sincerity.
That this man, wise and virtuous as he was, passed always
linen tangled through the snares of life, it would be prejudice and temerity to affirm; but it may be said that at
least he preserved the source of action unpolluted, that
his principles were never shaken, that his distinctions of
right and wrong were never confounded, and that his faults
had nothing of malignity or design, but proceeded from
some unexpected pressure, or casual temptation. The
latter part of his life cannot be remembered but with pity
and sadness. He languished some years under that depression of mind which enchains the faculties without destroying them, and leaves reason the knowledge of right
without the power of pursuing it. These clouds which
he perceived gathering on his intellects, he endeavoured
to disperse by travel, and passed into France; but found
himself constrained to yield to his malady, and returned.
He was for some time confined in a house of lunatics, and
afterwards retired to the care of his sister in Chichester ,
where death, in 1756, came to his relief. After his return
from France, the writer of this character paid him a visit
at Islington, where he was waiting for his- sister, whom
he had directed to meet him there was then nothing of
disorder discernible in his mind by any but himself; but
he had withdrawn from study, and travelled with no other
book than an English Testament, such as children carry
to the school: when his friend took it into his hand out
of curiosity, to see what companion a man of letters had
chosen: ‘ I have but one book,’ says Collins, ‘ but that
is the best.’ Such was the fate of Collins, with whom I
once delighted to converse, and whom I yet remember with
tenderness. He was visited at Chichester in his last illness
by his learned friends Dr. Warton and his brother; to whom
he spoke with disapprobation of his t Oriental Eclogues,‘
as not sufficiently expressive of Asiatic manners, and called
them his ’ Irish Eclogues.‘ He shewed them, at the
same time, an ode inscribed to Mr. John Hume, ’ On
the Superstitions of the Highlands;' which they thought
superior to his other works, but which no search has
yet found. His disorder was not alienation of mind, but
general laxity and feebleness, a deficiency rather of his
vital than intellectual powers. What he spoke wanted neither judgment nor spirit; but a few minutes exhausted him,
so that he was forced to rest upon the couch, till a short cessation restored his powers, and he was again able to talk with
his former vigour. The approaches of this dreadful malady
he began to feel soon after his uncle’s death; and with
the usual weakness of men so diseased, eagerly snatched
that temporary relief with which the table and the bottle
flatter and seduce. But his health continually declined,
and he grew more and more burthensome to himself.
“To what I have formerly said of his writings may bft
added, that his diction was often harsh, unskilfully laboured,
and injudiciously selected. He alVected the obsolete when
it was not worthy of revival; and he puts his words out of
the common order, seeming to think, with some later candidates for fame, that not to write prose is certainly to
write poetry. His lines commonly are of slow motion,
clogged and impeded with clusters of consonants. As
men are often esteemed who cannot be loved, so the poetry of Collins may sometimes extort praise when it gives
little pleasure .
”
m, where his claims are powerfully controverted. Don Ferdinand Columbus, the son of Christopher, and writer of his life, entered into the ecclesiastical state; and founded
Justinianus, in his curious edition of the Polyglot Psalter, 1516, of which a beautiful copy is preserved in the
Cracherode collection, in the British Museum, has introduced, by way of commentary on Ps. xix. 4, “their words
are gone forth to the ends of the earth,
” a very curious
sketch of the life of Columbus, an account of his discovery
of America, and also a description of the inhabitants, particularly of the female native Americans. But before the
Header can completely allow the praise of original discovery to Columbus, it will be necessary to peruse with atour article of Martin Behem, where his claims are
powerfully controverted. Don Ferdinand Columbus, the
son of Christopher, and writer of his life, entered into the
ecclesiastical state; and founded a library, which he bequeathed to the church of Seville, to this day called the
Columbine Library. He died in 1560.
, a native of Spain, was a Latin writer, of whom nothing is known, except that he flourished under the
, a native
of Spain, was a Latin writer, of whom nothing is known,
except that he flourished under the Roman Emperor Claudius, about the year of Christ 42; and has left some books
upon agriculture, and a “Treatise upon Trees.
” These
works are curious and valuable, as well for their matter as
style, which latter is thought by some to be not very remote
from the Latin of the Augustan age. They have usually
been published with the “Scriptores de re rustica.
”
partly by a nameless coadjutor, in 1780; and the third, inferior to that of Fawkes, by an anonymous writer, was published in 1786.
, a Greek poet, was a native of Lycopolis,
a city of Thebais, in Upper Egypt, of whose parentage or
education nothing is recorded; but we learn from Suidas
that he lived in the reign of Anastasius, who succeeded
Zeno in the government of the Eastern empire, about the
year 491. He wrote Caledonics, Persies, and Encomia;
but none of his works now remain, except the “Rape of
Helen,
” and that in a mutilated state. It is not, however,
destitute of imagery, and is adorned by a variety of striking
and expressive epithets, although we may infer from it,
that the true poetic spirit had then ceased to flourish. The
first edition of this work is that by Aldus, 8vo, without a
date, along with Quintus Calaber; and the last, if we
mistake not, was by Harles, 1776, 8vo, but the best is
said to be that of Lanness, Gr. & Lat. 1747, 8vo. The
Italians and French have good translations in their respective languages, and there are three in English; the
first by sir Edward Sherborne in 1701, valuable chiefly for
his learned notes; the second partly by Fawkes, and partly
by a nameless coadjutor, in 1780; and the third, inferior
to that of Fawkes, by an anonymous writer, was published
in 1786.
him, for the preachers, 1662, 8 vols. folio, and other works. The chief objection to this laborious writer is the inelegance of his Latin style, which renders some of
, a learned Dominican, was born in 1605 at Marmande, and distinguished for his learning and piety. The clergy of France appointed him a pension of 1000 livres in 1650, as a reward for his merit, and an encouragement to complete those editions of the Greek fathers which have procured him a name. He died at Paris March 23, 1679, aged 74. He published the works of St. Amphilochus, St. Methodius, St. Andrew of Crete, and several opuscula of the Greek fathers, and an addition to the library of the fathers, 3 vols. folio, Gr. and Lat. He also contributed to the edition of the Byzantine history, * e Histories Bizant. Script, post Theophanem," 1685, folio; and there is a library of the fathers by him, for the preachers, 1662, 8 vols. folio, and other works. The chief objection to this laborious writer is the inelegance of his Latin style, which renders some of his translations obscure.
, or Noel Conti, an Italian writer, was born at Venice about the commencement of the sixteenth
, or Noel Conti, an Italian writer,
was born at Venice about the commencement of the sixteenth century, and became greatly distinguished for classical learning. He translated from Greek into Latin the
“Deipnosophistse of Athenaeus,
” the “Rhetoric of Hermogenes,
” and he published original poems in both these
languages. He wrote a history of his own times from 1545
to 1581, fol. 1612, a very scarce edition. The first was
that of 1572, 4to, but his principal work is a system of
mythology entitled “Mythologiae, sive explicationis Fabularum, lib. X.
” Padua,
, a miscellaneous writer of some note in his day, was born in Ireland, and bred to the
, a miscellaneous writer of
some note in his day, was born in Ireland, and bred to the
law, in which we do not find that he ever made any great
figure. From thence he came over to London, in company with a Mr. Stirling, a dramatic poet of little note, to
seek his fortune; and finding nothing so profitable, and
so likely to recommend him to public notice, as political
writing, he soon commenced an advocate for the government. There goes a story of him, however, but we will
hope it is not a true one, that he and his fellow-traveller,
who was embarked in the same adventure, for the sake of
making their trade more profitable, resolved to divide their
interests; the one to oppose, the other to defend the ministry. Upon which they determined the side each was to
espouse by lots, or, according to Mr. Reed’s account, by
tossing up a halfpenny, when it fell to Concanen’s part to
defend the ministry. Stirling afterwards went into orders,
and became a clergyman in Maryland. Concanen was for
some time concerned in the “British
” and “London
Journals,
” and in a paper called “The Specnlatist,
” which
last was published in A
Supplement to the Profound,
” he dealt very unfairly by
Pope, as Pope’s commentator informs us, in not only frequently imputing to him Broome’s verses (for which, says he, he might seem in some degree accountable, having corrected what that gentleman did), but those of the duke
of Buckingham and others. His wit and literary abilities,
however, recommended him to the favour of the duke of
Newcastle, through whose interest he obtained the post of
attorney-general of the island of Jamaica in 1732, which
office he filled with the utmost integrity and honour, and
to the perfect satisfaction of the inhabitants, for near
seventeen years; when, having acquired an ample fortune,
he was desirous of passing the close of his life in his native
country; with which intention he quitted Jamaica and
came to London, proposing to pass some little time there
before he went to settle entirely in Ireland. But the difference of climate between that metropolis and the place
he had so long been accustomed to, had such an effect
on his constitution, that he fell into a consumption, of
which he died Jan. 22, 1749, a few weeks after his arrival
in London. His original poems, though short, have considerable merit; but much cannot be said of his play, entitled “Wexford Wells.
” He was also concerned with Mr.
Roome and other gentlemen in altering Richard Broome’s
“Jovial Crew
” into a ballad opera, in which shape it is
now frequently performed. Concanen has several songs in
“The Musical Miscellany, 1729,
” 6 vols. But a memofable letter addressed to him by Dr. Warburton will perhaps be remembered longer than any writing of his own
pen. This letter^ which Mr. Malone first published (in his Supplement to Shakspeare, vol. I. p. 222), shews that, in
1726, Warbtirton, then an attorney at Newark, was intimate with Concanen, and an associate in the attacks made
on Pope’s fame and talents. In 1724, Concanen published
3, volume of “Miscellaneous Poems, original and translated,
” by himself and others.
editor of his book, is at a loss to decide on his claim to either, though from the qualities of the writer, and the familiarity of M. Angelo, he surmises that Condivi
, of Ripa Transona, the most obscure of modern artists, though a biographer of some celebrity, owes that and a place here to his connexion with
Michael Angelo, whose life he published in 1553. If we
believe Vasari, his imbecility was at least equal to his assiduity in study and desire of excelling, which were extreme. No work of his exists in painting or in sculpture.
Hence Gori, the modern editor of his book, is at a loss to
decide on his claim to either, though from the qualities of
the writer, and the familiarity of M. Angelo, he surmises
that Condivi must have had merit as an artist. From the
last no conclusion can be formed; the attachment of M.
Angelo, seldom founded in congeniality, was the attachment of the strong to the weak, it was protection; it extended to Antonio Mini of Florence, another obscure scholar
of his, to Giuliano Bugiardini, to Jacopo L'Indaco: all
men unable to penetrate the grand motives of his art, and
more astonished at the excrescences of his learning in design, than elevated by his genius. Condivi intended to
publish a system of rules and precepts on design, dictated
by Michael Angelo, a work, if ever he did compose it,
now perhaps irretrievably lost; from that, had destiny
granted it to us, we might probably have formed a better
notion of his powers as an artist, than we can from a biographic account, of which simplicity and truth constitute
the principal merit. Condivi published this life, consisting
of fifty pages, under the title “Vita de Michelagnolo
Buonarroti, raccolta per Ascanio Condivi da la Ilipa Transone. In Roma appresso Antonio Blado Stampatore Canierale nel M. D. LIII. alii XVI. di Luglio.
” According
to Beyero, in his “Memoriae Historico-criticae, lib. rariorum,
” this is one of the scarcest books in Europe. In
t is mortifying to us to confess that this remark is but too much founded on truth. Yet, says a late writer of the life of Condorcet, we doubt not but there are in Great
In 1765 he published his first work “Sur le Calcul Integrel,
” in which he proposed to exhibit a general method
of determining the finite integral of a given differential
equation, either for differences infinitely small, or finite
differences. D'Alembert and Bezout, the commissioners
of the academy, employed to examine the merits of this
performance, bestowed high praises on it as a work of invention, and a presage of talents worthy of encouragement.
In 1767 he published a second work, the problem of three
bodies, “Probleme des Trois corps,
” in which he presented the nine differential equations of the movement of the
bodies of a given system, supposing that each of these bodies should be propelled by a certain force, and that a
mutual attraction subsisted among them. He also treated
of the movement of three bodies of a given figure, the particles of which attracted each other in the inverse ratio of
the square of the distance. In addition to this, he explained a new method of integers, by approximation, with
the assistance of infinite series; and added to the methods
exhibited in his first work, that which M. de la Grange
had convinced him was still wanting. Thus Condorcet,
says his eulogist La Lande, was already numbered with
the foremost mathematicians in Europe. “There was
not,
” he adds, “above ten of that class; one at Petersburgh, one at Berlin, one at Basle, one at Milan, and five
or six at Paris; England, which had set such an illustrious
example, no longer produced a single geometer that could
rank with the former.
” It is mortifying to us to confess
that this remark is but too much founded on truth. Yet,
says a late writer of the life of Condorcet, we doubt not
but there are in Great Britain at present mathematicians
equal in profundity and address to any who have existed
since tho illustrious Newton but these men are not known
to the learned of Europe, because they keep their science
to themselves. They have no encouragement from the
taste of the nation, to publish any thing in those higher
departments of geometry which have so long occupied the
attention of the mathematicians on the continent.
of the celebrated Franklin, were decided testimonies to the abilities of Condorcet as a biographical writer. Turgot had occupied much of his time and attention with moral
He was received into the French academy on the 8th of
March, 1769, and in the course of the same year he published a memoir on the nature of infinite series, on the extent of solutions afforded by this mode, and on a new
method of approximation for the differential equations of
all the orders. In the volumes of 1770, and the following
years, he presented the fruits of his researches on the
equations with partial and finite differences; and in 1772
he published “L‘Essai d’une methode pour distinguer les
Equations differentielles possibles en termes finis de celies
qui ne le sont pas,
” an essay on a method to distinguish
possible differential equations in finite terms, from those
which are not so. The mode of calculation here presented,
although an admirable instrument, is still very far distant
from that degree of perfection to which it may be brought.
In the midst of these studies, he published an anonymous
pamphlet, entitled “A Letter to a Theologian,
” in which
he replied with keen satire to the attacks madfc by the
author of “The Three Centuries of Literature,
” against
the philosophic sect. “But (subjoins the prudent La Lande) he pushed the matter somewhat too far, for, even,
supposing his system demonstrated, it would be advantageous to confine those truths within the circle of the
iniliated, because they are dangerous, in respect to the
greater part of mankind, who are unable to replace, by
means of principles, that which they are bereaved of in
the shape of fear, consolation, and hope.
” Condorcet
was now in fact leagued with the atheists; and La Lande,
who wished well to the same sect, here censures not his
principles, but only regrets his rashness. In 1773 he was
appointed secretary to the academy of sciences, when he
composed eulogies upon several deceased members who
had been neglected by Fontenelle; and in 1782 he was
received into the French academy, on which occasion he
delivered a discourse concerning the influence of philosophy. In the following year he succeeded D'Alembert as
secretary to that academy, and pronounced an able eulogy
to the memory of his deceased friend, whose literary and
scientific merits are set forth with great ability. The death
of Euler afforded Condorcet another opportunity of displaying his own talents by appreciating those of the departed mathematician. The lives of Turgot and Voltaire,
and the eulogy pronounced upon the death of the celebrated Franklin, were decided testimonies to the abilities
of Condorcet as a biographical writer. Turgot had occupied much of his time and attention with moral and political sciences, and was particularly anxious that the certainty of which different species of knowledge are susceptible, might be demonstrated by the assistance of calculation, hoping that the human species would necessarily make
a progress towards happiness and perfection, in the same
manner as it had done towards the attainment of truth.
To second these views of Turgot, Condorcet undertook a
work replete with geometrical knowledge. He examined
the probability of an assembly’s rendering a true decision,
and he explained the limits to which our knowledge of
future events, regulated by the laws of nature, considered
as the most certain and uniform, might extend. If we do
not possess a real, yet he thought, we ha\ 7 e at least a mean
probability, that the law indicated by events, is the same
constant law, and that it will be perpetually observed. He
considered a forty-five thousandth part as the value of the
risk, in the case when the consideration of a new law comes
in question and it appears from his calculation, that an
assembly consisting of 6 1 votes, in which it is required
that there should be a plurality of nine, will fulfil this condition, provided there is a probability of each vote being
equal to four-fifths, that is, that each member voting shall
be deceived only once in five times. He applied these calculations to the creation of tribunals, to the forms of elections, and to the decisions of numerous assemblies; inconveniences attendant on which were exhibited by him. This
work, says his eulogist, furnished a grand, and at the same
time, an agreeable proof of the utility of analysis in important matters to which it had never before been applied,
and to which we may venture to assert it never will be applied while human reason is allowed any share in human
transactions. There are many of these paradoxes in geometry, which, we are told, it is impossible to resolve without being possessed of metaphysical attainments, and a
degree of sagacity not always possessed by the greatest
geometricians; but where such attainments and sagacity
are to be found, even Condorcet himself has not exemplified. In his “Euler’s Letters,
” published in
, an English dramatic writer and poet, the son of William Congreve ofBardsey Grange, about
, an English dramatic writer
and poet, the son of William Congreve ofBardsey Grange,
about eight miles from Leeds, was born in Feb. 1669-70.
He was bred at the school of Kilkenny in Ireland, to which
country he was carried over when a child by his father,
who had a command in the army there. In 1685 he was
admitted in the university of Dublin, and after having
studied there some years, came to England, probably to
his father’s house, who then resided in Staffordshire. On
the 17th of March 1690-1, he became a member of the
society of the Middle Temple; but the law proving too
dry for him, he troubled himself little with it, and continued to pursue his former studies. His first production
as an. author, was a novel, which, under the assumed
name of Cleophil, he dedicated to Mrs. Catherine Leveson.
The title of it was, “Incognita, or Love and Duty reconciled,
” which has been said to have considerable merit as
the production of a youth of seventeen, but it is certain he
was now full twenty-one, and had sense enough to publish
it without his name, and whatever reputation he gained by
it, must have been confined within the circle of a few acquaintance.
the taking of Namiir;” which was very successful. After having established his reputation as a comic writer, he attempted a tragedy; and, in 1697, his “Mourning Bride”
Queen Mary dying at the close of this year, Congreve
wrote a pastoral on that occasion, entitled “The Mourning Muse of Alexis;
” which, for simplicity, elegance, and
correctness, was long admired, and for which the king
gave him a gratuity of 100l. In 1695 he produced his
comedy called “Love for Love,
” which gained him much
applause; and the same year addressed to king William
an ode “Upon the taking of Namiir;
” which was very
successful. After having established his reputation as a
comic writer, he attempted a tragedy; and, in 1697, his
“Mourning Bride
” was acted at the new theatre in Lincoln' s-inn-fields, which completely answered the very high
expectations of the public and of his friends. His attention, however, was now called off from the theatre to another species of composition, which was wholly new, and in
which he was not so successful. His four plays were attacked with great sharpness by that zealous reformer of
the stage, Jeremy Collier; who, having made his general
attack on the immorality of the stage, included Congreve
among the writers who had largely contributed to that
effect. The consequence of the dispute which arose between Collier and the dramatic writers we have related in
Collier’s article. It may be sufficient in this place to add,
that although this controversy is believed to have created
in Congreve some distaste to the stage, yet he afterwards
brought on another comedy, entitled “The Way of the
World;
” of which it gave so just a picture, that the world
seemed resolved not to bear it. This completed the disgust of our author to the theatre; upon which the celebrated critic Dennis, though not very famous for either,
said with equal wit and taste, “That Mr. Congreve quitted
the stage early, and that comedy left it with him.
” This
play, however, recovered its rank, and is still a favourite
with the town. He amused himself afterwards with composing original poems and translations, which he collected
in a volume, and published in 1710, when Swift describes
him as “never free from the gout,
” and “almost blind,
”
yet amusing himself with writing a “Taller.
”
He had a taste for music as well as poetry; as appears
from his “Hymn to Harmony in honour of St. Cecilia’s
day, 1701,
” set by Mr. John Eccles, his great friend, to
whom he was also obliged for composing several of his
songs. His early acquaintance with the great had procured
him an easy and independent station in life, and this freed
him from all obligations of courting the public favour any
longer. He was still under the tie of gratitude to his illustrious patrons; and as he never missed an opportunity of
paying his compliments to them, so on the other hand he
always shewed great regard to persons of a less exalted
station, who had been serviceable to him on his entrance
into public life. He wrote an epilogue for his old friend
Southerne’s tragedy of Oroonoko; and we learn from Dryden himself, how much he was obliged to his assistance in
the translation of Virgil. He contributed also the eleventh
satire to the translation of “Juvenal,
” published by that
great poet, and wrote some excellent verses on the translation of Persius, written by Dryden alone.
“Congreve,” says Dr. Johnson, " has merit of the highest kind he is an original writer, who borrowed neither the models orf his plot, nor the manner
“Congreve,
” says Dr. Johnson, " has merit of the
highest kind he is an original writer, who borrowed neither the models orf his plot, nor the manner of his dialogue.
Of his plays I cannot speak distinctly, for since I inspected
them many years have passed; but what remains upon my
memory is, that his characters are commonly fictitious and
artificial, with very little of nature, and not much of life.
He formed a peculiar idea of comic excellence, which he
supposed to consist in gay remarks and unexpected answers; but that which he endeavoured, he seldom failed
of performing. His scenes exhibit not much of humour,
imagery, or passion his personages are a kind of intellectual gladiators every sentence is to ward or strike; the
contest of smartness is never intermitted his wit is a
meteor playing to and fro with alternate corruscations.
His comedies have therefore, in some degree, the operation of tragedies; they surprise rather than divert, and
raise admiration oftener than merriment. But they are the
works of a mind replete with images, and quick in combination. Of his miscellaneous poetry I cannot say any
thing very favourable. The powers of Congreve seem to
desert him when he leaves the stage, as Antaeus was no
longer strong than he could touch the ground. It cannot
be observed without wonder, that a mind so vigorous and
fertile in dramatic compositions, should on any other occasion discover nothing but impotence and poverty. He has
in these little pieces neither elevation of fancy, selection
of language, nor skill in versification; yet if I were required to select from the whole mass of English poetry the
most poetical paragraph, I know not what 1 could prefer,
to an exclamation in ‘ The Mourning Bride:’
f affectation. “He raised the glory of comedy,” says Voltaire, “to a greater height than any English writer before or since his time. He wrote only a few plays, but they
“His petty poems are seldom worth the cost of criticism sometimes the thoughts are false, and sometimes
common. In his * Verses on Lady Gethin,‘ the latter part
is an imitation of Dryden’s ’ Ode on Mrs. Killigrew;‘ and
* Doris,’ that has been so lavishly flattered by Steele, has
indeed some lively stanzas, but the expression might be
mended; and the most striking part of the character had
been already shewn in * Love for Love.‘ His ’ Art of
Pleasing‘ is founded on a vulgar but perhaps impracticable
principle, and the stateness of the sense is not concealed by
any novelty of illustration or elegance of diction. This
tissue of poetry, from which he seems to have hoped a
lasting name, is totally neglected, and known only as it is
appended to his plays. While comedy or while tragedy is
regarded, his plays are likely to be read; but, except what
relates to the stage, I know not that he has ever written a
stanza that is sung, or a couplet that is quoted. The general character of his ’ Miscellanies’ is, that they shew little wit and little virtue. Yet to him it must be confessed
that we are indebted for the correction of a national error,
and the cure of our Pindaric madness. He first taught the
English writers that PinJar’s odes were regular; and though
certainly he had not the fire requisite for the higher species of lyric poetry, he has shewn us that enthusiasm has its
rules, and that in mere confusion there is neither grace
nor greatness.
”
We will conclude our account of Congreve, with the
character given of him by Voltaire; who has not failed to
do justice to high merit, at the same time that he has freely
animadverted on him, for a foolish piece of affectation.
“He raised the glory of comedy,
” says Voltaire, “to a
greater height than any English writer before or since his
time. He wrote only a few plays, but they are excellent in
their kind. The laws of the drama are strictly observed
in them. They abound with characters, all which are shadowed with the utmost delicacy; and we meet with not so
much as one low or coarse jest. The language is every
where that of men of fashion, but their actions are those of
knaves; a proof, that he was perfectly well acquainted with
human nature, and frequented what we call polite company. He was infirm, and come to the verge of life when I
knew him. Mr. Congreve had one defect, which was his
entertaining too mean an idea of his first profession, that of
a writer; though it was to this he owed his fame and fortune. He spoke of his works as of trifles that were beneath
him; and hinted to me, in our first conversation, that I
should visit him upon no other foot than that of a gentleman, who led a life of plainness and simplicity. I answered, that had he been so unfortunate as to be a mere
gentleman, I should never have come to see him; and I
was very much disgusted at so unseasonable a piece of
vanity.
”
, a physician and learned writer, was descended of an ancient family in Ireland, and born in
, a physician and learned writer, was descended of an ancient family in Ireland, and born in the county of Kerry about 1666. His family being of the popish religion, he was not educated regularly in the grammar-schools or university, but was assisted by private tutors, and when he grew up, applied himself to the study of physic. About 1686 he went to France, and resided for some time in the university of Montpelier; and from thence to Paris, where he distinguished himself in his profession, particularly in the branches of anatomy and chemistry. He professed himself desirous of travelling; and as there were two sons of the high chancellor of Poland then on the point of returning to their own country, it was thought expedient that they should take that long journey under the care and inspection of Connor. He accordingly conducted them very safely to Venice, where, having an opportunity of curing the honourable William Legge, afterwards earl of Dartmouth, of a fever, he accompanied him to Padua; whence he went through Tyrol, Bavaria, and Austria, down the Danube, to Vienna; and after having made some stay at the court of the emperor Leopold, passed through Moravia and Silesia to Cracow, and thence in eight days to Warsaw. He was well received at the court of king John Sobieski, and was afterwards made his physician, a, very extraordinary preferment for a young man of only twenty-eight. But his reputation in the court of Poland was raised by the judgment he made of the duchess of Radzevil’s distemper, which the physicians of the court pronounced to be an ague, from which she might easily be recovered by the bark; and Connor insisted, that she had an abscess in her liver, and that her case was desperate. As this lady was the king’s only sister, his prediction made a great noise, more especially when it was justified by the event; for she not only died within a month, but, upon the opening of her body, the doctor’s opinion of her malady was fully verified. Great as Connor’s fame was in Poland, he did not propose to remain longer there than was requisite to finish his inquiries into the natural history, and other curiosities of that kingdom; and foreseeing the king’s decease, and that he had no prospects of advantage afterwards, he resolved to quit that country, and to return to England, for which a very advantageous opportunity occurred. The king had an only daughter, the princess Teresa Cunigunda, who hud espoused the Elector of Bavaria by proxy in August 1694. As she was to make a journey from Warsaw to Brussels, of near 1000 miles, and in the midst of winter, it was thought necessary that she should be attended by a physician. Connor procured himself to be nominated to that employment; and, after reaching Brussels, took leave of the princess, set out for Holland^ and thence to England, where he arrived in Feb. 1695.
t his name, one or two political pamphlets. In his old age he aspired to the character of a dramatic writer, producing in 1789, a play, partly from the French, entitled”
, an English officer and
statesman, the second son of Francis, first lord Conway,
was born in 1720, and appeared first in public life in 1741
as one of the knights for the county of Antrim, in the parliament of Ireland; and in the same year was elected
for Higham Ferrers, to sit in the ninth parliament of Great
Britain. He was afterwards chosen for various other places
from 1754 to 1780, when he represented St. Edmund’s
Bury. In 1741 he was constituted captain-lieutenant in
the “first regiment of foot-guards, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel; and in April 1746, being then aid-de-camp
to the duke of Cumberland, he got the command of the
xorty-eighth regiment of foot, and the twenty-ninth in July
1749. He was constituted colonel of the thirteenth regiment of dragoons in December 1751, which he resigned
upon being appointed colonel of the first, or royal regiment of dragoons, Septembers, 1759. In January 1756
he was advanced to the rank of major-general; in March
1759, to that of lieutenant-general; in May 1772, to that
of general; and in October 12, 1793, to that of field
marshal. He served with reputation in his several military
capacities, and commanded the British forces in Germany,
under prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, in 1761, during the
absence of the marquis of Granby. He was one of the
grooms of the bed-chamber to George II. and likewise to
his present majesty till April 1764, when, at the end of
the session of parliament, he resigned that office and his
military commands, or, more properly speaking, was dismissed for voting against the ministry in the question of
general warrants. His name, however, was continued in
the list of the privy counsellors in Ireland; and William,
the fourth duke of Devonshire, to whom he had been secretary when the duke was viceroy in Ireland, bequeathed
him at his death, in 1764, a legacy of 5000l. on account of
his conduct in parliament. On the accession of the Rockingham administration in 1765, he was sworn of the privy
council, and appointed joint- secretary of state with the
duke of Grafton, which office he resigned in January 1768.
In February following, he was appointed colonel of the
fourth regiment of dragoons; in October 1774, colonel of
the royal regiment of horse-guards; and in October 1772,
governor of the island of Jersey. On March 30, 1782, he
was appointed commander in chief of his majesty’s forces,
which he resigned in December 1783. He died at his seat
at Park-place, near Henley upon Thames, July 9, 1795.
General Conway was an ingenious man, of considerable
abilities, but better calculated to be admired in the private and social circle, than to shine as a great public character. In politics, although we believe conscientious, he
was timid and wavering. He had a turn for literature, and
some talent for poetry, and, if we mistake not, published,
but without his name, one or two political pamphlets. In
his old age he aspired to the character of a dramatic writer,
producing in 1789, a play, partly from the French, entitled
” False Appearances," which was not, however, very successful. His most intimate friend appears to have been
the late lord Orford, better known as Horace Walpole,
who was his cousin, and addressed to him a considerable
part of those letters which form the fifth volume of his
lordship’s works. This correspondence commenced in
1 7-1-0, when Walpole was twenty-three years old, and Mr.
Couway twenty. They had gone abroad together with the
celebrated poet Gray in 1739, had spent three months
together at Rheims, and afterwards separated at Geneva.
Lord Orford’s letters, although evidently prepared for the
press, evince at least a cordial and inviolable friendship
for his correspondent, of which also he gave another proof
in 3 letter published in defence of general Couway when
dismissed from his offices; and a testimony of affection
yet more decided, in bequeathing his fine villa of Strawberry Hill to Mrs. Darner, general Con way’s daughter, for
her life.
losopher,” the dean had it in contemplation to answer that work, so far as the general scheme of the writer might be thought to deserve it; and he had prepared many materials
When in 1737, Morgan had published his “Moral Philosopher,
” the dean had it in contemplation to answer that
work, so far as the general scheme of the writer might be
thought to deserve it; and he had prepared many materials
for this purpose. The design, for what reason we know
not, was never carried into execution; and the omission
may be regretted, though it must at the same time be acknowledged, that Dr. Morgan was encountered by a number
of very able and successful antagonists. It is to the honour of dean Conybeare’s temper, that he expressed his
hope, that none of the animadverters on the “Moral Philosopher
” would be provoked to imitate his scurrilities. In
1738, the dean was requested to preach the sermon at the
annual meeting of the several charity-schools in London,
which he did from Galatians vi. 9; and the discourse was
published. In 1747, he met with a great domestic affliction, in the loss of his lady, who departed this life on the
29th of Octoher, after their union had subsisted not much
longer than fourteen years. When, on the 25th of April,
1749, a day of solemn thanksgiving was held, on account
of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which had been signed
on the 18th of October in the preceding year, Dr. Conybeare was fixed upon to preach before the honourable house
of commons on this occasion. The subject was, “True
Patriotism.
”
, a poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Braintree in Essex, in 1702 or 1703, where his
, a poet and miscellaneous writer,
was born at Braintree in Essex, in 1702 or 1703, where
his father was an inn-keeper, and as Pope used to say, a
Muggletonian. He was educated at Felsted school, where
he made considerable proficiency, but how long he remained here, or what was his destination in life is not
known. For some time he appears to have been domesticated in the family of lord Pembroke, who died in 1733,
and who probably suggested to him a translation of Hesiod,
to which his lordship contributed some notes. Before this
nobleman’s death, he came to London in 1722, and became a writer by profession, and a strenuous supporter
of revolution-principles, which formed a bond of union
between him and Tickell, Philips, Welsted, Steele, Dennis,
and others, whose political opinions agreed with his own.
He wrote in some of the weekly journals of the time, and
was considered as a man of learning and abilities. He is
supposed to have attacked Pope from political principles,
but it is fully as probable, that, as he was a good Greek
scholar, he wished to derive some reputation from proving
that Pope, in his translation of Homer, was deficient in
that language. In 1725 he published a poem entitled
“The Battle of the Poets,
” in which Pope, Swift, and
some others were treated with much freedom and translated and published in the Daily Journal, 1727, the episode
of Thersites, from the second book of the Iliad, to show
how much Pope had mistaken his author. For this attack
Pope gave him a place in the “Dunciad,
” and notices
him with equal contempt in his Epistle to Dr. Arbutlmot.
In a note likewise he informs us that Cooke “wrote letters
at the same time to him, protesting his innocence;
” but
Cooke’s late biographer, sir Joseph Mawbey, is inclined
to doubt this, and rather to believe that he was regardless
of Pope’s enmity. In a subsequent edition of “The Battle of the Poets
” Cooke notices the Dunciad with becoming spirit, and speaks with little respect of Pope’s
“philosophy or dignity of mind, who could be provoked
by what a boy writ concerning his translation of Homer,
and in verses which gave no long promise of duration.
”
In 1725 or 172G, Cooke published “The Knights of
the Bath,
” and “Philander and Cydippe,
” both poetical
tales; and several other pieces of poetry the former evidently meant to attract the public attention, on the revival,
about that time, of the order of the Bath. He wrote soon
after “The Triumphs of Love and Honour,
” a play; “The
Eunuch,
” a farce; and “The Mournful Nuptials,
” a tragedy; all performed at Drury-lane theatre, but with little
success. In 1726 he published an account of the “Life
and Writings of Andrew Marvell, esq.
” prefixed to an
edition of the poetical works of that celebrated politician,
2 vols. 12mo, and in 1728 his translation of “Hesiod.
”
In A Translation of Cicero on the Nature of the Gods,
” with philosophical, critical, and explanatory notes, to which is added
an examination into the astronomy of the ancients, 8vo.
In 1741 he encreased his classical reputation by an edition
of Virgil, with an interpretation in Latin, and notes in
English. In 1742 he published a volume of his original
“Poems,
” with imitations and translations, and in
, an English poet and miscellaneous writer, was born in 1723. He descended, according to the account of
, an English poet and miscellaneous writer, was born in 1723. He descended, according to the account of his life in the Biographia Britannica, from an ancient family in Nottinghamshire, impoverished on account of its loyalty during the rebellion in
Charles the First’s time. Thurgaton Priory in that county
was granted to one of his ancestors by Henry VIII. and after
some interruption, became the residence of our poet’s
father, and still continues in the family. In Thoroton’s
Nottinghamshire, it is stated that the family name was
Gilbert, and that, in 1736, John Gilbert, esq. obtained
leave to use the surname and arms of Cooper, pursuant to
the will of John Cooper, of Thurgaton, esq. He was educated at Westminster-school under Dr. John Nichols, and
in 1743 became a fellow-commoner of Trinity college,
Cambridge, where he resided two or three years, without
taking a degree, but not without a due attention to his
studies. With some tincture of foppery, he was a young
man of very lively parts, and attached ^to classical learning,
which it is only to be regretted he did not pursue with
judgment* He quitted the university on his marriage with
Susanna, the grand-daughter of sir Nathan Wright, lord
keeper. la. 1745, he published “The Power of Harmony,
” in two books, in which he endeavoured to recommend a constant attention to what is perfect and beautiful
in nature, as the means of harmonizing the soul to a responsive regularity and sympathetic order. This imitation
of the language of the Shaftesbury school was not affectation. He had studied the works of that nobleman with enthusiasm, and seems entirely to have regulated his conduct
by the maxims of the ancient and modern academics.
The poem brought him into notice with the public, but he
appears not at this time to have courted the fame of authorship. When Dodsley began to publish his “Museum,
”
he invited the aid of Mr. Cooper among others who were
friendly to him, and received a greater portion of assistance from our author’s pen than from that of any other individual. His papers, however, were signed, not Pkilalethes, as mentioned in the Biographia Britannica, but Philaretes.
the fate of Galileo, for adopting and defending them. The system of Copernicus, says a late learned writer, was not received, on its appearance, with any degree of that
This system, however, was at first looked upon as a most dangerous heresy, and his work had long been finished and perfected, before he could be prevailed upon to give it to the world, although strongly urged to it by his friends. At length, yielding to their entreaties, it was printed, and he had but just received a perfect copy, when he died the 24th of May 1543, at 70 years of age; by which it is probable he was happily relieved from the violent fanatical persecutions which were but too likely to follow the publication of his astronomical opinions; and which indeed was afterward the fate of Galileo, for adopting and defending them. The system of Copernicus, says a late learned writer, was not received, on its appearance, with any degree of that approbation which it deserved, and which it now universally obtains. Its cold reception, indeed, fully justified the hesitation and tardiness of the author to communicate it to the world. It gave such a violent contradiction both to the philosophical principles of the age, and the immediate evidence of sense, that all its advantages were undervalued, and proved insufficient to procure to it general credit. The conception of Copernicus which represented the distance of the fixed stars from the sun to be so immense, that in comparison with it the whole diameter of the terrestrial orbit shrunk into an imperceptible point, was too great to be adopted suddenly by men accustomed to refer all magnitudes to the earth, and to consider the earth as the principal object in the universe. Instead of being reckoned an answer to the ol/'-xition against the annual revolution of the earth, that her axis was not found directed to different stars, it was rather considered as the subterfuge of one who had invented, and therefore tried to vindicate an absurdity; and when, in answer to another equally powerful objection, that no varieties of phase were seen in the planets, especially in Venus and Mercury, Copernicus could only express his hopes that such varieties would be discovered in future times, his reply, though it now raises admiration, could not in his own times make the least impression on those who opposed his system.
confusion? Sentiments of this nature were first thrown out to the world by a Mr. Massie, a political writer of that period. In a pamphlet, entitled “A plan for the establishment
The Foundling Hospital, for several years after its institution, was an eminently popular object: numbers of
affluent persons were ardent to encourage it, and the benefactions to the hospital flowed in, in a very great abundance. It was at length taken under the direction of parliament, and, from 1756 to 1759, annual and liberal grants
were made for its support; in consequence of which children were poured in from every part of the kingdom. This
circumstance, after some time, excited a general alarm.
It was suggested, that the children, being cut off from all
intercourse with their fathers and mothers, would, when
they grew up, be aliens in their native land, without any
tisible obligations, and consequently without 'affections,
It was farther suggested, that they might look upon themselves as a kind of independent beings in society; and
that, if they were permitted to increase as they had
lately done, no one could tell what harm might ensue to
the state, when there were such numbers who could scarcely
be said to be connected with the body politic. Nay, it
was asked, whether they might not, in time, rise like the
slaves of Rome, and throw the kingdom into confusion?
Sentiments of this nature were first thrown out to the world
by a Mr. Massie, a political writer of that period. In a
pamphlet, entitled “A plan for the establishment of Charity-houses for exposed or deserted women and girls, and
for penitent prostitutes,
” and which was printed in
successively a licentiate of Sorbonne, and an abbot in the diocese of Clermont. He was a voluminous writer, chiefly on theological subjects; and was considered among the
, a French historian, was
born at Paris, of a noble family, originally of Auvergne,
and having studied law, was admitted to the bar, which he
quitted for the philosophy of Descartes. Bossuet, who
was no less an admirer of that philosopher, procured him
the appointment of reader to the dauphin, which office he
filled with success and zeal, and died the 8th of October
1684, member of the French academy, at an advanced age.
We are indebted to his pen for, 1. “The general History of
France during the two first races of its kings,
” CEuvres de feu M. de Cordemoi.
”
They contain useful investigations, judicious thoughts,
and sensible reflections on the method of writing history.
He had adopted in philosophy, as we before observed, the
sentiments of Descartes, but without servility; he even
sometimes differs from them. In the latter part of his life,
he was assisted in his literary labours by his son Lewis, who
was born in 1651, and who became successively a licentiate
of Sorbonne, and an abbot in the diocese of Clermont.
He was a voluminous writer, chiefly on theological subjects; and was considered among the catholics as an able
advocate of their cause against the attacks of the defenders
of protestantism. He was, however, of considerable service to his father in the latter part-of his “General History
of France;
” and, it is believed, wrote the whole of that
part which extends from about the conclusion of the reign
of Lewis V. to the end of the work. By order of Lewis
XIV. he continued that history from the time of Hugh
Capet until the year 1660, which he did not live to finish.
He died at the age of seventy-one, in the year 1722.
r had the happiness of enjoying part of his fame during mortality; for scarce a contemporary musical writer, historian, or poet, neglected to celebrate his genius and talents;
The performance and compositions of this admirable musician, says Dr. Burney, form an sera in instrumental music, particularly for the violin, and its kindred instruments, the tenor and violoncello, which he made respectable, and fixed their use and reputation, in all probability, as long as the present system of music shall continue to delight the ears of mankind. Indeed, this most excellent master had the happiness of enjoying part of his fame during mortality; for scarce a contemporary musical writer, historian, or poet, neglected to celebrate his genius and talents; and his productions have contributed longer to charm the lovers of music by the mere powers of the bow, without the assistance of the human voice, than tho.se of any composer that has yet existed. Haydn, indeed, with more varied abilities, and a much more creative genius, when instruments of all kinds are better understood, has captivated the musical world in perhaps a still higher degree; but whether the duration of his favour will be equal to that of Corelli, who reigned supreme in all concerts, and excited undiminished rapture full half a century, must be left to the determination of time, and the encreased rage of depraved appetites for novelty.
l in Mexico, to the thirst of gold, covered with the bloody veil of religion, are,” says a judicious writer, “minute, accurate, infernal.” To these works, and to the general
, a Spanish commander, famous
under the emperor Charles V. for the conquest of Mexico,
was born at Medellin in Estremadura, in 1485. His parents intended him for study, but his dissipated habits and
overbearing temper made his father willing to gratify his
inclination by sending him abroad as an adventurer. Accordingly he passed over to the Indies in 1504, continued
some time at St. Domingo, and then went to the isle of
Cuba. He so distinguished himself by his exploits, that
Velasquez, governor of Cuba, made him captain general
of the army which he destined for the discovery of new
countries. Cortes sailed from San-Iago Nov. 13, 1518,
stationed his little army at the Havannah, and arrived the
year after at Tabasco in Mexico. He conquered the Indians, founded Vera-Cruz, reduced the province of TJascala, and marched directly to Mexico, the capital of the
empire. Montezuma, the emperor of the Mexicans, was
constrained to receive him, and thus became a prisoner in
his own capital: and Cortes not only demanded immense
monies of him, but obliged him to submit all his states to
Charles V. Meanwhile Velasquez, growing jealous of
this success, resolved to traverse the operations of Cortes,
and with this view sent a fleet of 12 ships against him:
but Cortes already distrasted him; and, having obtained
new succours from the Spaniards, made himself master of
all Mexico, and detained as prisoner Guatimosin, the successor of Montezuma, and last emperor of the Mexicans.
This was accomplished Aug. 13, 1521. Charles V. rewarded these services with the valley of Guaxaca in Mexico, which Cortes erected into a marquisate. He afterwards returned to Spain, where he was not received with
the gratitude he expected, and where he died in 1554,
aged sixty-three. Many have written the history of this
“Conquest of Mexico,
” and particularly Antonio de Solis,
whose work has been translated into many other languages
besides the English, and Clavigero; and in 1800 a very
interesting work was published entitled “The true History
of the Conquest of Mexico, by captain Bernal Diaz del
Castello, one of the conquerors, written in 1568, and translated from the original Spanish, by Maurice Keatinge,
esq.
” 4to. Dr. Robertson, in his history of America, has
given a long life of Cortes, which, we are sorry to add,
does more honour to his pen than to his judgment or humanity. It is a laboured defence of cruelties that are
indefensible, and is calculated to present to the reader the
idea of a magnanimous and politic hero, instead of an insatiate invader and usurper more barbarous than those he
conquered; a murderer, who appears, like his historians
in modern times, to have been perfectly insensible to the
true character of the victories which accompanied his arms.
From his correspondence with the emperor Charles V.
published at Paris in 1778, by the viscount de Flavigny, it
appears that this insensibility was so great in himself, that
in his account of his exploits he neither altered facts, nor
modified circumstances, to redeem his name from the execration of succeeding ages. “His accounts of murders,
assassinations, and perfidious stratagems, his enumeration
of the victims that fell in Mexico, to the thirst of gold,
covered with the bloody veil of religion, are,
” says a judicious writer, “minute, accurate, infernal.
” To these
works, and to the general history of Mexico, we refer for
that evidence by which the merit of Cortes may be more
justly appreciated than by some of his late biographers.
hat “the work, though superior to his age, was not a premature fruit.” There is still extant by this writer a commentary on the four books of sentences, 1540, folio, in
, an Italian prelate, was born in 1465,
at San Geminiano, in Tuscany. In early life he applied
himself to the forming of his style by reading the best
authors of antiquity, and particularly Cicero. He was not
above twenty -three when he published a dialogue on the
learned men of Italy, “De hominibus tloctis.
” This production, elegantly composed, and useful to the history of
the literature of his time, remained in obscurity till 1734,
when it was given to the public by Manni, from a copy
found by Alexander Politi, Florence, 4to, with notes, and
the life of the author. Angelo Politianus, to whom he
communicated it, wrote to him, that “the work, though
superior to his age, was not a premature fruit.
” There is
still extant by this writer a commentary on the four books
of sentences, 1540, folio, in good Latin, but frequently in
such familiar terms as to throw a ludicrous air over the
lofty mysteries of the papal church, which was not a little
the fashion of his time. He also wrote a tract on the dignity of the cardinals, “De Cardinalatu;
” full of erudition,
variety, and elegance, according to the testimony of some
Italian authors, and destitute of all those qualities, according to that of Du Pin. P. Cortezi died bishop of Urbino
in 1510, in the 45th year of his age. His house, furnished with a copious library, was the asylum of the muses,
and of all that cultivated their favour.
hatter. He had neither the taste, learning, nor merit, of M de Girac, but was not ignorant, as that writer accuses him of being, in his dispute upon Voiture. M. du Rueil,
, a bachelor of the Sorbonne, was
born 1603 at Paris, son of a hatter. He had neither the
taste, learning, nor merit, of M de Girac, but was not
ignorant, as that writer accuses him of being, in his dispute upon Voiture. M. du Rueil, bishop of Bayonne, and
afterwards of Angers, wished to have Costar always about
him as a literary man, and gave him many benefices. He
was eagerly received at the Hotel de Rambouillet, and in
the best companies, notwithstanding his affected airs’; for
which reason it was said, “He was the most beauish pedant, and most pedantic beau, that ever was known.
” He
died May 13, 1660. Besides his works in defence of Voiture, against M. de Girac, there is a collection of his Letters in 2 vols. 4to, containing much literary anecdote and
criticism, the latter rather in a frivolous taste, which is
likewise visible in some other of his pieces.
ces in the truth and propriety of his moral reflections, and will love the poems for the sake of the writer.
If we have few particulars of the life of Dr. Cotton, we
have many testimonies to the excellence of his character.
We find from Mr. Hayley’s Life of Cowper, that he had at
one time among his patients, that amiable and interesting
poet, who speaks of Dr. Cotton’s services in a manner that
forms a noble tribute to his memory: and Mr. Hayley says,
that Dr. Cotton was “a scholar and a poet, who added to
many accomplishments, a peculiar sweetness of manners,
in very advanced life,
” when Mr. Hayley had the pleasure
of a personal acquaintance with him. In a subsequent part
of his Life of Cowper, the latter, alluding to an inquiry
respecting Dr. Cotton’s works, pays the following compliment to his abilities: “I did not know that he had written
any thing newer than his Visions: 1 have no doubt that it
is so far worthy of him as to be pious and sensible, and I
believe no man living is better qualified to write on such
subjects as his title seems to announce. Some years have
passed since I heard from him, and considering his great
age, it is probable that I shall hear from him no more:
but I shall always respect him. He is truly a philosopher,
according to my judgment of the character, every tittle of
his knowledge in natural subjects being connected in his
mind with the firm belief of an omnipotent agent.
” His
writings, indeed, are uniformly in favour of piety and benevolence, and his correspondence, from which many extracts are given in the lute edition of his Works, justifies
the high respect in which he was held by his numerous
friends. His prose pieces consist of reflections on some
parts of scripture, which he has entitled “Sermons;
” and
various essays on health, husbandry, zeal, marriage, and
other miscellaneous topics. One of these, entitled “Mirza
to Selim
” (an imitation of Lyttelton’s Persian Letters) is
said to relate to the death of the Rev. Robert Romney, D, D.
vicar of St. Alban’s, which happened in 1743. When
dying, this gentleman prophesied that his brother and
heir would not long enjoy his inheritance, which proved
true, as he died in June 1746. Some of these essays were
probably written for the periodical journals, and others
for the amusement of private friends. As a poet, he wrote
with ease, and had a happy turn for decorating his reflections in familiar verse: but we find very little that is original, fanciful, or vigorous. He scarcely ever attempts
imagery, or description, and nowhere rises beyond a certain level diction adapted to the class of readers whom he
was most anxious to please. Yet his “Visions
” have been
popular, and deserve to continue so. Every sensible and
virtuous mind acquiesces in the truth and propriety of his
moral reflections, and will love the poems for the sake of
the writer.
d to higher respect, not only as a faithful portrait, but a useful lesson. “He was,” says that noble writer, " a man of wonderful gravity and wisdom and not only understood
He died at Durham-house in the Strand on the 14th
of January, 1639-40, and was interred in the church of
Croome d'Abitot on the 1st of March following, after he
had continued in his post of lord-keeper with an universal
reputation for his exact administration of justice, for the
space of about sixteen years; which was another important
circumstance of his felicity, that great office being of a
tenure so precarious, that no man had died in it before
for near the space of forty years; nor had his successors
for some time after him much better fortune. And he
himself had made use of all his strength to preserve him-self from falling by two attacks; the one hy the earl Portland, lord high treasurer of England; the other by the
marquis of Hamilton, who had the greatest power over the
affections of the king of any man of that time. Whitelocke indeed tells us, that he was of “no transcendant
parts or fame;
” and sir Anthony Weldon, an author,
whose very manner of writing weakens the authority of
whatever he advances, asserts, that if his actions had been
scanned by a parliament, he had been found as foul a man
as ever lived. But our other historians represent him in a
much more advantageous light. Mr. Lloyd observes, that
he had a venerable aspect, but was neither haughty nor
ostentatious; that in the administration of justice, he
escaped even the least reproach or suspicion; that he
served the king most faithfully; and the more faithfully,
because he was a zealous opposer of all counsels which
were prejudicial to his majesty, and highly disliked those
persons who laboured to stretch the prerogative. But
lord Clarendon’s character of him seems entitled to higher
respect, not only as a faithful portrait, but a useful lesson.
“He was,
” says that noble writer, " a man of wonderful
gravity and wisdom and not only understood the whole
science and mystery of the law, at least equally with any
man who had ever sat in his post, but had likewise a clear
conception of the whole policy of the government both of
church and state; which, by the unskilfulness of some
well-meaning men, jostled each other too much. He knew
the temper, disposition, and genius of the kingdom most
exactly; saw their spirits grow every day more sturdy,
inquisitive, and impatient; and therefore naturally abhorred all innovations, which he foresaw would produce
ruinous effects. Yet many, who stood at a distance,
thought he was not active and stout enough in opposing
those innovations. For though by his place he presided in
all public councils, and was most sharp-sighted in the consequence of things, yet he was seldom known to speak in
matters of state, which he well knew were, for the most
part, concluded before they were brought to that public
agitation; never in foreign affairs, which the vigour of his
judgment could well have comprehended; rior indeed
freely in any thing, but what immediately and plainly
concerned the justice of the kingdom; and in that, as
much as he could, he procured references to the judges.
Though in his nature he had not only a firm gravity, but a
severity, and even some moroseness; yet it was so happily tempered, and his courtesy and affability towards all
men so transcendent, and so much without affectation,
that it marvellously recommended him to men of all degrees; and he was looked upon as an excellent courtier,
without receding from the natural simplicity of his own
manners. He had in the plain way of speaking and delivery, without much ornament of elocution, a strange
power of making himself believed (the only justifiable design of eloquence) so that though he used very frankly to
deny, and would never suffer any man to depart from him
with an opinion that he was inclined to gratify, when in
truth he was not; holding that dissimulation to be the worst
of lying: yet the manner of it was so gentle and obliging,
and his condescension such, to inform the persons whom
he could not satisfy, that few departed from him with illwill and ill-wishes.
manuscript by will to Dr. Bell; who published it, as being of opinion, that the last sentiments of a writer of Dr. Courayer’s reputation, and whose situation was so peculiar,
In 1787 was 'published, in octavo, by the rev. William
Bell, D. D. prebendary of Westminster, “Declaration de
mes derniers sentimens sur les differens dogmes de la Religion.
par feu pierre franois le courayer, docteuren theologie,
”
&c. An English translation of this has been since published.
The original manuscript, which was given by father Courayer to the princess Amelia, who had a great esteem for
him, was written in 1767, which was about nine years before his death. The princess Amelia left this manuscript
by will to Dr. Bell; who published it, as being of opinion,
that the last sentiments of a writer of Dr. Courayer’s reputation, and whose situation was so peculiar, were calculated
to excite the attention of the learned, and of those who
were zealously attached to the interests of religion: and,
indeed, it appears to have been the wish of the author
himself that it should be published, though not till after
his death.
, in Latin, Cognatus, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, was born at Nozeret, in Franche-Comte,
, in Latin, Cognatus, a learned
writer of the sixteenth century, was born at Nozeret, in
Franche-Comte, Jan. 21, 1506. Having a turn for the
law, he went to study at Dole in 1526, but not relishing it
after six months application, he entered upon a course of
divinity, and being introduced to Erasmus, was employed
by him as an amanuensis or copyist. Erasmus also instructed him in the learned languages and in polite literature. In 1535 the prince of Orange conferred on him a
canonry of St. Antony at Nozeret, in consequence of which
preferment, he was obliged to leave Erasmus, who expressed a very high regard for him in several of his letters.
When established at Nozeret, he appears to have taught
school. In 1553, he accompanied the archbishop of Besancon on a tour into Italy; but being soon after suspected
of heresy, he was arrested by order of pope Pius V. and
thrown into prison, in which he died in 1567. It is generally agreed that he inclined in some measure to the sentiments of the reformers. His works, of which a collection
was published in 1562, 3 ' vols. folio, at Basle, consist of
translations from various authors, a treatise on grammar,
erroneously ascribed to St. Basil Latin dissertations letters historical and critical treatises, &c. Niceron has an
elaborate article on this author; and in 1775 was published
at Altorf, “Commentatio de vita Gilberti Cognati, et
Commentatio de scriptis,
” by Schwartz, 4to. Cousin’s
notes upon Lucian are in Bourdelot’s edition of that classic,
1615, folio, but had been published before by himself, in
an edition printed at Basil, 1563, and reprinted in 1602,
and 1619, 4 vols. 8vo.
, a medical and metaphysical writer, was the son of Mr. William Coward of Winchester, where he was
, a medical and metaphysical
writer, was the son of Mr. William Coward of Winchester,
where he was born in the year 1656 or 1657. It is not
certain where young Coward received his grammatical
education; but it was probably at Winchester-school. In
his eighteenth year he was removed to Oxford, and in May
1674 became a commoner of Hart-hall; the inducement to
which might probably be, that his uncle was at the head of
that seminary. However, he did not long continue there;
for in the year following he was admitted a scholar of
Wadham college. On the 27th of June, 1677, betook
the degree of B. A. and in January 1680 he was chosen
probationer fellow of Merton college. In the year 1681,
was published Mr. Dvyden’s Absalom and Achitophel, a
production on the celebrity of which we need not expatiate.
At Oxford it could not fail to be greatly admired for its
poetical merit; besjde which, it might be the better received
on account of its containing a severe satire on the duke of
Monmouth and the earl of Sbftftesboryj two men who were
certainly no favourites with tnat loyal university. Accordingly, the admiration of the poem produced two Latin
versions of it, both of which were written and printed at Oxford; one by Mr. Francis Atterbury (afterwards the celebrated bishop of Rochester), who was assisted in it by Mr.
Francis Hickman, a student of Christchurch; and the
other by Mr. Coward. These translations were published
in quarto, in 1682. Whatever proof Mr. Coward’s version
of the Absalom and Achitophel might afford oi“his progress
in classical literature, he was not very fortunate in this first
publication. It was compared with Mr. Atterbury’s production, not a little to its disadvantage. According to
Anthony Wood, he was schooled for it in the college; it
was not well received in the university; and Atterbury’s
poem was extolled as greatly superior. To conceal, in
some degree, Mr. Coward’s mortification, a friend of his,
in a public paper, advertised the translation, as written by
a Walter Curie, of Hertford, gentleman; yet Coward’s
version was generally mistaken for Atterbury’s, and a specimen given of it in Stackhouse’s life of that prelate. On
the 13th of December, 1683, Mr. Coward was admitted to
the degree of M.A. Having determined to apply himself
to the practice of medicine, he prosecuted his studies in
that science, and took the degree of bachelor of physic on
the 23d of June 1685, and of doctor on the 2,d of July 1687.
After his quitting Oxford he exercised his profession at
Northampton, from which place he removed to London in 1693
or 1694, and settled in Lombard-street. In 1695 he published
a tract in 8vo, entitled
” De fermento volatili nutritio conjectura rationis, qua ostenditur spiritum volatilemoleosum, e
sanguine suffusurn, esse verum ac genuinum concoctionis ac
nutritionis instrumentum.“For this work he^iad an honourable approbation from the president and censors of the
college of physicians. But it was not to medical studies
only that Dr. Coward confined his attention. Besides being fond of polite learning, he entered deeply into metaphysical speculations, especially with regard to the nature
of the soul, and the natural immortality of man. The result of his inquiries was his publication, in 1702, under the
fictitious name of Estibius Psycalethes, entitled
” Second
Thoughts concerning Human Soul, demonstrating the notion
of human soul, as believed to be a spiritual immortal substance united to a human body, to be a plain heathenish
invention, and not consonant to the principles of philosophy, reason, or religion; but the ground only of many
absurd and superstitious opinions, abominable to the
reformed church, and derogatory in general to true Christianity.“This work was dedicated by the doctor to the
clergy of the church of England; and he professes at his
setting out,
” that the main stress of arguments, either to
confound or support his opinion, must be drawn from those
only credentials of true and orthodox divinity, the lively
oracles of God, the Holy Scriptures.“In another part, in
answer to the question, Does man die like a brute beast?
he says,
” Yes, in respect to their end in this life; both
their deaths consist in a privation of life.“” But then,“he adds,
” man has this prerogative or pre-eminence above
a brute, that he will be raised to life again, and be made
partaker of eternal happiness in the world to come.“Notwithstanding these professions to the authority of the Christian Scriptures, Dr. Coward has commonly been ranked
with those who have been reputed to be the most rancorous
and determined adversaries of Christianity. Swift has
ranked him with Toland, Tindal, and Gildon; and passages to the like purpose are not unfrequent among controversial writers, especially during the former part of the
last century. His denial of the immateriality and natural
immortality of the soul, and of a separate state of existence
between the time of death and the general resurrection, was
so contrary to universal opinion, that it is not very surprising that he should be considered as an enemy to revelation. It might be expected that he would immediately
meet with opponents; and accordingly he was attacked by
various writers of different complexions and abilities;
among whom were Dr. Nichols, Mr. John Broughton, and.
Mr. John Turner. Dr. Nichols took up the argument in
his
” Conference with a Theist.“Mr. Broughton wrote a
treatise entitled
” Psychologia, or, an Account of the nature of the rational Soul, in two parts;“and Mr. Turner
published a
” Vindication of the separate existence of the
Soul from a late author’s Second Thoughts.“Both these
pieces appeared in 1703. Mr. Turner’s publication was
answered by Dr. Coward, in a pamphlet called
” Farther
Thoughts upon Second Thoughts,“in which he acknowledges, that in Mr. Turner he had a rational and candid
adversary. He had not the same opinion of Mr. Broughton who therefore was treated by him with severity, in
” An Epistolary Reply to Mr. Broughton’s Psychologia;“which reply was not separately printed, but annexed to a
work of the doctor’s, published in the beginning of the
year 1704, and entitled,
” The Grand Essay or, a Vindication of Reason and Religion against the impostures of
Philosophy." In this last production, the idea of the human soul’s being an immaterial substance was again vigorously attacked.
g, printing, and vending of the two books. Sufficient proof having been produced with respect to the writer of them, Dr. Coward was called in. Being examined accordingly,
So obnoxious were Dr. Coward’s positions, that on Friday, March 10, 1704, a complaint was made to the house
of commons of the “Second Thoughts
” and the “Grand
Essay;
” which books were brought up to the table, and
some parts of them read. The consequence of this was,
an order, “that a committee be appointed to examine
the said books, and collect such parts thereof as are offensive; and to examine who is the author, printer, and publisher thereof.
” At the same time the matter was referred
to a committee, who were directed to meet that afternoon,
and had power given them to send for persons, papers, and
records. On the 17th of March, Sir David Cullum, the
chairman, reported from the committee, that they had
examined the books, and had collected out of them several
passages which they conceived to be offensive, and that
they found that Dr. Coward was the author of them; that
Mr. David Edwards was the printer of the one, and Mr.
W. Pierson of the other; and that both the books were
published by Mr. Basset. Sir David Cullum having read
the report in his place, and the same being read again,
after it had been delivered in at the clerks’ table, the
house proceeded to the examination of the evidence with
regard to the writing, printing, and vending of the two
books. Sufficient proof having been produced with respect to the writer of them, Dr. Coward was called in.
Being examined accordingly, he acknowledged that he was
the author of the books, and declared that he never intended any thing against religion; that there was nothing
contained in them contrary either to morality or religion;
and that if there were any thin^ therein contrary to religion or morality, he was heartily sorry, and ready to recant the same. The house then resolved, “that the said
books do contain therein divers doctrines and positions contrary to the doctrine of the church of England, and tending
to the subversion of the Christian religion;
” and ordered
that they should be burnt, next day, by the common hangman, in New Palace-yard, Westminster; which order was
carried into execution. Notwithstanding this proceeding,
in the course of the same year he published a new edition
of his “Second Thoughts;
” which was followed by a treatise, entitled, “The just Scrutiny; or, a serious inquiry
into the modern notions of the Soul.
”
dom he had retired nor, from this period, do we hear more of Dr. Coward as a medical or metaphysical writer. Even when he had been the most engaged in abstruse and scientific
From a letter of our author to Dr. Hans Sloane, dated
May 2ti, 1706, it appears that he was in habits of intimacy
with this eminent physician and naturalist. Dr. Sloane
carried his friendship so far as take upon himself the supervisal of the “Oplulialrniatria.
” As the letter to Dr. Sloane
is dated from the Green Bell, over against the Castle tavern, near Holborn, in Fetter-lane, there is reason to believe that Dr. Coward had quitted London, and was now
only a visitant in town, for the purpose of his publication.
Indeed the fact is ascertained from the list of the college
of physicians for 1706, where Dr. William Coward, who
stands under the head of candidates, is then for the first
time mentioned as residing in the country. The opposition he had met with, and the unpopularity arising from his
works, might be inducements with him for leaving the metropolis. It does not appear, for twelve years, to what
part of the kingdom he had retired nor, from this period,
do we hear more of Dr. Coward as a medical or metaphysical writer. Even when he had been the most engaged
in abstruse and scientific inquiries, he had not omitted the
study of polite literature; for we are told, that in 1705 he
published the “Lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
” an
heroic poem, which was little noticed at first, and soon
sunk in total oblivion. Another poetical performance by
Dr. Coward, and the last of his writings that has come to
our knowledge, was published in 1709, and is entitled,
“Licentia poetica discussed; or, the true Test of Poetry:
without which it is difficult to judge of or compose a correct
English poem. To which are added, critical observations
on the principal ancient and modern poets, viz. Homer,
Horace, Virgil, Milton, Cowley, Dryden, &c. as frequently
liable to just censure.
” This work, which is divided into
two books, is dedicated to the duke of Shrewsbury, and
introduced by a long and learned preface. Prefixed are
three copies of commendatory verses, signed A. Hill, J.
Gay, and Sam. Barklay. The two former, Aaron Hill and
John Gay, were then young poets, who afterwards, as is
well known, rose to a considerable degree of reputation.
Coward is celebrated by them as a great bard, a title to
which he had certainly no claim; though his “Licentia,
”
considered as a didactic poem, and as such poems were
then generally written, is not contemptible. It is not so
correct as lord Roscommon’s essay on translated verse; but
it is little, if at all, inferior to the duke of Buckingham’s
essay on poetry, which was so much extolled in its day.
The rules laid down by Dr. Coward for poetical composition are often minute, but usually, though not universally, founded on good sense and just taste; but he had
not enough of the latter to feel the harmony and variety of
Milton’s numbers. Triplets, double rhymes, and Alexandrines, are condemned by him; the last of which, however, he admits on some great occasion. The notes, which
are large and numerous, display no small extent of reading; and to the whole is added, by way of appendix, a
political essay, from which it appears that our author was
a very zealous whig.
, an ingenious and popular dramatic writer, the daughter of Mr. Philip Parkhouse, of Tiverton, in Devonshire,
, an ingenious and popular dramatic writer, the daughter of Mr. Philip Parkhouse, of
Tiverton, in Devonshire, was born at that place in 1743.
Her father was educated for holy orders, but a family loss
depriving him of a certainty of provision in the church, he
desisted from his first intention, and became a bookseller,
as the nearest approach he could then prudently make to a
life of some degree of literary enjoyment. He afterwards
rose to be a member of the corporation of Tiverton, and
was very highly respected as a man of talents and probity,
and a good scholar. He was not very distantly related to
the poet Gay, who recordshis visit to his relations in Devonshire in his “Journey to Exeter,
” inscribed to the earl
of Burlington. It was Mr. Parkhouse’s favourite aim to
cultivate the promising talents of his daughter, and he
lived to witness the reputation she acquired almost to the
last period of her literary career. In her twenty -fifth year
she was married to Mr. Cowley, a man of very considerable
talents, who died in 1797, a captain in the East India company’s service. It was when he was with his regiment in
India that she dedicated her comedy of “More Ways than
One
” to him, in the affectionate lines prefixed to it; and
it was to this gentleman’s brother, an eminent merchant
of London, now living, that “The Fate of Sparta
” is dedicated with so much feeling.
nally delivered as sermons, and left by him in a fit state for the press They breathe, says a recent writer, a spirit of cordial piety, and if we consider the time and
, bishop of Galloway, was born at Edinburgh in 1566, and at eight years old was sent by his father to the school of Dunbar, where he made great proficiency in grammar-learning, and evinced a pious disposition, which adhered to him throughout life. Five years after he studied at the university of St. Andrew’s, but made less progress in philosophy than in divinity, to which he was particularly attached. On his return home in 1582, his parents recommended various pursuits, hut his inclination still being to that of divinity, he resolved to go to England, in which, as he informs us, lie arrived but scantily provided; yet just as he had spent the little money he brought with him, he was engaged as an assistant teacher with a Mr. Guthrie, who kept a school at Hoddesden, in Hertfordshire. There he remained three quarters of a year, and having occasion to go to London, was hospitably received by the famous Hugh Broughton, who assisted him for the space of a year and a half in his theological studies. At the age of nineteen he returned to Edinburgh, was admitted into the church, and appointed to preach at the parish of Bothkenner in Stirlingshire. When he arrived at this his first charge, he found a church almost in ruins, without roof, doors, pulpit, pews, of windows, yet such was the effect of his labours, that in less than half a year, the parishioners bestowed a complete repair on the church, with suitable ornaments. From this place, in about eight years, he was removed to Perth, where he continued to preach for nineteen years, not only on the Sundays, but every Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday evening. About the close of this period he was appointed by king James, on the recommendation of some prelates whom his majesty consulted, to be bishop of Galloway, in which see he continned until his death, Feb. 15, 1619, at which time he was also dean of the Chapel Royal. His works were afterwards collected and published at London in one volume folio, 1629, consisting of treatises on various parts of scripture, many of which were originally delivered as sermons, and left by him in a fit state for the press They breathe, says a recent writer, a spirit of cordial piety, and if we consider the time and country of the writer, the simplicity and strength of his style maybe thought peculiarly worthy of commendation. He introduces several of his religious treatises with a variety of dedicatory epistles, which shew that his ardent devotion was united to great elegance of manners. He appears to have been familiar with many illustrious persons of his time, and there is a sonnet prefixed to his commentary on the Revelation, by that adjrurable Scotch poet, Drummond of Hawthornden.
his first volume of poems, when he had reached his fiftieth year (1782), he was considered as a new writer. But his general occupations will best appear in an extract
About the period alluded to, he assisted Colman with,
some papers for the Connoisseur, and probably Thornton
and Lloyd, who then carried on various periodical undertakings, but the amount of what he wrote cannot now be
ascertained, and was always so little known, that on the
appearance of his first volume of poems, when he had
reached his fiftieth year (1782), he was considered as a
new writer. But his general occupations will best appear
in an extract from one of his letters to Mr. Park in 1792.
“From the age of twenty to thirty-three (when he left the Temple) I was occupied, or ought to have been, in the
study of the law from thirty-three to sixty, I have spent
my time in the country, where my reading has been only
an apology for idleness, and where, when I had not either
a magazine or a review, I was sometimes a carpenter, at
others a bird-cage maker, or a gardener, or a drawer of
landscapes. At fifty years of age I commenced an author;
it is a whim that has served me longest, and best, and
will probably be my last.
” His first poetical effort was a
translation of an elegy of Tibullus, made at the age of fourteen; at eighteen, he wrote the beautiful verses “On finding the heel of a Shoe;
” but as little more of his juvenile
poetry has been preserved, all the steps of his progress to
that perfection which produced the “Task,
” cannot now
be traced.
s published describe, in the clearest light, the singularly peaceful ajid devout life of the amiable writer, during his residence at Huntingdon, and this melancholy accident,
The period of his residence here was from Dec. 1763 to July 1764, and the mode of his insanity appears to have been that of religious despondency; but this, about the last-mentioned date, gave way to more cheering views, which first presented themselves to his mind during a perusal of the third chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. After his recovery from this awful visitation, he determined to retire from the busy world altogether, finding his mind alienated from the conversation and company^ however select, in which he had hitherto delighted, and looking back with particular horror on some of his former associations: and by the advice of his brother, the Rev. John Cowper, of Bene‘t-college, Cambridge, he removed to a private lodging in Huntingdon. He had not, however, resided long in this place, before he was introduced into a family that had the honour, for many years, of administering to his happiness, and of evincing a warmth of friendship of which there are few examples. This intercourse was begun by Mr. Cawthorn Unwin, a young man, a student of Cambridge, and son to the rev. Mr. Unwin, rector of Grimston, and at this time a resident at Huntingdon. Mr. Unwin the younger was one day so attracted by Cowper’ s uncommon and interesting appearance, that he attempted to solicit his acquaintance; and achieved this purpose with such reciprocity of delight, that Cowper was finally induced to take up his abode with his new friend’s amiable family, which then consisted of the rev. Mr. Unwin, Mrs. Unwin, the son, just mentioned, and a daughter. It appears to have been about the month of September 1765 that he formed this acquaintance, and about February 1766 he became an inmate in the family. In July 1767, Mr. Unwin senior was killed by a fall from his horse. The letters which Mr. Hayley has published describe, in the clearest light, the singularly peaceful ajid devout life of the amiable writer, during his residence at Huntingdon, and this melancholy accident, which occasioned his removal to a distant county.
ere seriously disposed, were often cheered and animated by his prayers.” Of their intimacy, the same writer speaks in these emphatic terms: “For nearly twelve years we
About this time he added to the number of his friends the
late venerable and pious John Newton, rector of St. Mary
Woolnoth, London, but then curate of Olney in Buckinghamshire, who being consulted by Mr. Cowper as to an eligible
residence for Mrs. Unwin, recommended a house at Olney,
to which that lady, her daughter, and our poet, removed on
the 14th of October 1767. At this residence, endeared to
them by the company and public services of a man of congenial sentiments, Cowper for some years continued to
enjoy those blessings of a retired and devotional life, which
had constituted his only happiness since his recovery. His
correspondence at this aera evinces a placid train of sentiment, mixed with an air of innocent gaiety, that must
have afforded the highest satisfaction to his friends. Among
other pleasures, of the purest kind, he delighted in acts
of benevolence; and as he was not rich, he had the additional felicity of being employed as an almoner in the secret benevolences of that most charitable of all human
heings, the late John Thornton, esq. an opulent merchant
of London, whose name he has immortalized in his poem
on charity, and in some verses on his death, which Mr.
Hayley first published. Mr. Thornton statedly allowed
Mr. Newton the sum of 200l. per annum, for the use of
the poor of Olney, and it was the joint concern of Mr.
Newton and Mr. Cowper to distribute this sum in the most
judicious and useful manner. Such a bond of union could
not fail to increase their intimacy. “Cowper,
” says Mr.
Newton, “loved the poor; he often visited them in their
cottages, conversed with them in the most condescending
manner, sympathized with them, counselled and comforted
them in their distresses; and those, who were seriously
disposed, were often cheered and animated by his prayers.
”
Of their intimacy, the same writer speaks in these emphatic terms: “For nearly twelve years we were seldom
separated for seven hours at a time, when we were awake
and at home. The first six I passed in daily admiring, and
aiming to imitate him: during the second six, I walked
pensively with him in the valley of the shadow of death.
”
Among other friendly services about this time, he wrote for
Mr. Newton some beautiful hymns, which the latter introduced in public worship, and published in a collection long
before Cowper was known as a poet.
on, which, when repelled, brought on derangement of more or less duration. It appears to the present writer, from a careful perusal of that instructive piece of biography,
That such a man should have been doomed to endure a life of mental distraction, relieved by few intervals, will probably ever be the subject of wonder; but that wonder will not be removed by curious inquiries into the state of Cowper’s mind, as displaying circumstances that have never occurred before. Awful as his case was, and most deeply as it ever must be deplored, there was nothing singular in the dispensation, unless that it befell one of more than common powers of genius, and consequently excited more general sympathy. Mr. Hayley, who has often endeavoured to reason on the subject, seems to resolve it at last into a bodily disorder, a sort of scorbutic affection, which, when repelled, brought on derangement of more or less duration. It appears to the present writer, from a careful perusal of that instructive piece of biography, that Cowper from his infancy had a tendency to errations of mind; and without admitting this fact in some degree, it must seem extremely improbable that the mere dread of appearing as a reader in the house of lords should have brought on his first settled fit of lunacy. Much, indeed, has been said of his uncommon shyness and diffidence, and more, perhaps, than the history of his early life will justify. Shyness and diffidence are common to all young persons who have not been early introduced into company; and Cowper, who had not, perhaps, that advantage at home, might have continued to be shy when other boys are forward. But had his mind been, even in this early period, in a healthful state, he must have gradually assumed the free manners of an ingenuous youth, conscious of no unusual imperfection that should keep him back. At school, we are told, he was trampled upon by ruder hoys, who took advantage of his weakness, yet we find that he mixed in their amusements, which must in some degree have advanced him on a level with them; and what is yet more extraordinary, we find him for some years associating with men of more gaiety than pure morality admits, and sporting with the utmost vivacity and wildness with Thurlow and others, when it was natural to expect that he would have been glad to court solitude for the purposes of study, as well as for the indulgence of his habitual shyness, if indeed at this period it was so habitual as we are taught to believe.
, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, was the second son of Laurence Cox,
, a learned writer of the
sixteenth century, was the second son of Laurence Cox,
son of John Cox, of the city of Monmouth. His mother’s
name was Elizabeth Willey. He was educated at Cambridge, where he took his bachelors degree in arts, but at
what college is not known. In 1528 he went to Oxford,
and was incorporated in the same degree in February 1529.
He supplicated also for the degree of M. A. but it does not
appear that he was admitted to it. About this time he
became master of Reading school; and was living there, in
great esteem, at the time when Fryth, the martyr, was first
persecuted by being set in the stocks. Cox, who soon,
discovered his merit by his conversation, relieved his wants,
and out of regard to his learning, procured his release.
In 1532 he published “The art or craft of Rhetoryke,
”
inscribed to Hugh Farington, abbot of Reading, in which
he divides his subject into four parts, invention, judgment,
disposition, and eloquence in speaking; but the present
treatise is confined to the first. In 1540 he published
tc Commentaries on William Lilly’s construction of the
eight parts of speech,“which are mentioned in Dr. Ward’s
edition of Lilly’s grammar; and, according to Wood, he
translated from Greek into Latin,
” Marcus Eremita de
lege et spiritu;“and from Latin into English,
” The paraphrase of St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus,“by Erasmus, with
whom he was well acquainted. These, Wood says, were
published in 1540, but by a ms note of Mr. Baker, we
are told, that the paraphrase of Erasmus was published in
1549, at which time, the author says,
” he was then in
hand“with Eremita, who had written
” on the law and
the spirit,“and
” of them that thynke to be justyfyed by
their works."
, an eminent writer among the nonconformists, was born in 1620, but where we do
, an eminent writer among the
nonconformists, was born in 1620, but where we do not
find. He was educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge,
of which he became a fellow, and was presented to the
college living of North Cadbury in Somersetshire, worth
300l. a year. When he kept the bachelor of divinity’s act,
at the public commencement in 1651, his performance was
highly applauded. He was ejected for nonconformity in
1662, but his wants were soon supplied by the death of a
relation, who left him a good estate at Wickham Brook in
Suffolk, on which he resided for twenty-six years, occasionally preached, and kept an academy for teaching young
nonconformists those branches of science usually taught at
the universities. Dr. Calamy, who was one of his pupils,
gives him a high character for learning and piety, and
Granger remarks that he has never seen two different characters of Mr. Cradock. He was so good and inoffensive,
that every body spoke well of him, when it was usual for
men of all religions to speak ill of each other. Nothing
was ever objected to him but his nonconformity. In the
reign of Charles II. he drew up a vindication of himself
and others who kept private academies, notwithstanding
their having taken an oath to the contrary at the university; a copy of it may be seen in Calamy. In his 79th
year he became pastor of a congregation at Bishop Stortford in Hertfordshire, where he died October 7, 1706, in
his 86th year, and was buried at Wickham Brook. His
works, which were recommended by bishop Reynolds and
archbishop Tillotson, are still in high esteem with the
orthodox dissenters. They consist of, 1. “Knowledge and
Practice,
” a system of divinity, folio. 2. “The Harmony
of the Four Evangelists,
” folio, revised by Dr. Tillotson,
who preserved it from the flames in the fire of London.
3. “The Apostolical History, containing the Acts, &c. of
the Apostles,
” folio. 4. “A Catechism on the principles
of the Christian Faith.
” 5. “The Old Testament History
methodized.
” 6. “A plain and brief Exposition on the
Revelation.
” Most of these have been often reprinted.
He was a sensible writer, rather nervous than elegant. His writings were entirely confined
He was a sensible writer, rather nervous than elegant.
His writings were entirely confined to the great controversy
which then subsisted; and contain the whole sum of the
theological learning of those times. His library was filled
with a very noble collection of books; and was open to all
men of letters. “I meet with authors here,
” Roger Ascham
would say, “which the two universities cannot furnish.
”
At the archbishop’s death, the greater part of his original
Mss. were left at his palace of Ford near Canterbury,
where they fell into the hands of his enemies. In the days
of Elizabeth, archbishop Parker, who had an intimation
that many of them were still in being, obtained an order
from lord Burleigh, then secretary of state, in 1563. to
search for them in all suspected places; and recovered a
great number of them. They found their way afterwards
into some of the principal libraries of England; but the
greatest collection of them were deposited in Bene't-college
in Cambridge.
y offer in the day; there he penned these poems,” Steps for happy souls to climb Heaven by.“The same writer informs us that he understood Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian,
In 1641, Wood informs us, he took degrees at Oxford.
At what time he was admitted into holy orders is uncertain,
but he soon became a popular preacher, full of energy and
enthusiasm. In 1644, when the parliamentary army expelled those members of the university who refused to take
the covenant, Crashaw was among the number; and being
unable to contemplate with resignation or indifference, the
ruins of the church-establishment, went over to France,
where his sufferings and their peculiar influence on his
mind prepared him to embrace the Roman catholic religion. Before he left England, he appears to have practised many of the austerities of a mistaken piety, and the
poems entitled “Steps to the Temple,
” were so called in
allusion to his passing his time almost constantly in St.
Mary’s church, Cambridge. “There,
” says the author
of the preface to his poems, “he lodged under Tertullian’s
roof of angels; there he made his nest more gladly than
David’s swallow near the house of God; where like a primitive saint he offered more prayers in the night, than
others usually offer in the day; there he penned these
poems,
” Steps for happy souls to climb Heaven by.“The same writer informs us that he understood Hebrew,
Greek, Latin, Italian, and Spanish, and was skilled in
poetry, music, drawing, painting, and engraving, which
last he represents as
” recreations for vacant hours, not the
grand business of his soul."
able, and not unacknowledged by himself, but that it should be his intention to injure the fame of a writer whose writings were unknown, unless to poetical antiquaries,
In 1785, the late Mr. Peregrine Phillips published a
selection from Crashaw’s poems, with an address in which
he attacks Pope, for having availed himself of the beauties
of Crashaw, while he endeavoured to injure his fame.
Against this accusation, Mr. Hayley has amply vindicated
Pope. That he has horrowed from him is undeniable,
and not unacknowledged by himself, but that it should be
his intention to injure the fame of a writer whose writings
were unknown, unless to poetical antiquaries, and that in
a confidential letter to a friend whom he advised to read
the poems as well as his opinion of them, is an absurdity
scarcely worthy of refutation. Pope enumerates among
Crashaw’s best pieces, the paraphrase on Psalm xxiii. the
verses on Lessius, Epitaph on Mr. Ashton, Wishes to his
supposed Mistress, and the Dies Irae. Dr. Warton recommends the translation from Moschus, and another from Catullus, and amply acknowledges the obligations of Pope
and Roscommon to Crashaw. Mr. Hayley, after specifying some of Pope’s imitations of our author, conjectures
that the elegies on St. Alexis suggested to him the idea of
his Eloisa; but, adds he, “if Pope borrowed any thing
from Crashaw in this article, it was only as the sun borrows
from the earth, when drawing from thence a mere vapour,
he makes it the delight of every eye, by giving it all the
tender and gorgeous colouring of heaven.
” Some of
Crashaw’s translations are esteemed superior to his original
poetry, and that of the “Sospetto d' Herod e,
” from Marino, is executed with Milton ic grace and spirit. It has
been regretted that he translated only the first book of a
poem by which Milton condescended to profit in his immortal Epic. The whole was, however, afterwards translated and published in 1675, by a writer whose initials only
are known, T. R. Of modern critics, Mr. Headley and
Mr. Ellis have selected recommendatory specimens from
Crashaw. In Mr. Headley’s opinion, “he has originality
in many parts, and as a translator is entitled to the highest
applause.
” Mr. Ellis, with his accustomed judgment and
moderation, pronounces that “his translations have considerable merit, but that his original poetry is full of conceit. His Latin poems were first printed in 1634, and
have been much admired, though liable to the same objections as his English.
”
, a physician and voluminous writer, was born at Breslaw in 15iy. He received his first instruction
, a physician and voluminous writer, was born at Breslaw in 15iy. He received his first instruction under Philip Melancthon, and being intended for the church, he afterwards studied for six years under Martin Luther at Wittenburgh, but being more inclined to the practice of medicine, he was sent to Padua, and placed under professor Monti. He here took the degree of doctor, and returned and settled at Breslaw, whence, at the end of a few years, he was called to Vienna, and made physician and aulic counsellor to the emperor, Ferdinand I. He tilled the same post under the two succeeding emperors, Maximilian and Rodolph, which he notices in an epigram he composed a short time before his death:
His father was already greatly irritated against him for having preferred the glory of a celebrated writer to the consequence of a subaltern magiatrate. But he thought
About the time when Crebillon first devoted himself to the theatre, he fell in love, and married without the consent of his parents. His father was already greatly irritated against him for having preferred the glory of a celebrated writer to the consequence of a subaltern magiatrate. But he thought his son entirely dishonoured by alliance with a family neither opulent nor noble; and he disinherited him for his ingratitude and rebellion. Some years afterward, however, when the brilliant 'reputation Crebillon began to enjoy, came to the ears of his hitherto inexorable father, the old man’s vanity was flattered, and he began to think that his son had acted his part in life very prudently. In consequence he restored him to his rights. Crebillon, after his father’s death, went to receive the very moderate inheritance he had left him; but the fees of justice devoured a part, and the Mississippi bubble finished the rest. For some time he found a resource in the bounty of some opulent persons; but they were soon wearied with heaping favours upon one who would neither be their humble servant nor their dependent. Crebillon again became free and poor; and though, during the season of his transitory opulence, he had carried the love of expence to a taste for fancies and superfluities, he had no difficulty in accommodating himself to the kind of life his new situation required.
ten by a Carthusian friar, who was his friend. His father had gained his fame as a manly and nervous writer; the son was remarkable for the ease, elegance, and caustic
, son of
the preceding, was born at Paris February 12, 1707, and
died there April 12, 1777, at the age of 70. It is said that
his father being one day asked, in a large company, which
of his works he thought the best? “I don't know,
” answered he, “which is my best production; but this
(pointing to his son, who was present) is certainly my
worst.
” “It is,
” replied the son, with vivacity, “because
no Carthusian had a hand in it:
” alluding to the report,
that the best passages in his father’s tragedies had been
written by a Carthusian friar, who was his friend. His
father had gained his fame as a manly and nervous writer;
the son was remarkable for the ease, elegance, and caustic
malignity of his conversation and writings, and might be
surnamed the Petronius of France, as his father had been
characterised by that of the Æschylus. The abbe Boudot,
who lived on familiar terms with him, said to him one day
in reply to some of his jokes: “Hold thy tongue! Thy
father was a great man; but as for thee, thou art only a
great boy.
” “Crebiilon the father,
” says M. d'Alembert,
“paints in the blackest colours the crimes and wickedness
of man. The son draws, with a delicate and just pencil,
the refinements, the shades, and even the graces of our
vices; that seducing levity which renders the French what
is called amiable, but which does not signify worthy of being beloved; that restless activity, which makes them feel
ennui even in the midst of pleasure; that perversity of
principles, disguised, and as it were softened, by the mask
of received forms; in short, our manners, at once frivolous and corrupt, wherein the excess of depravity combines
with the excess of ridiculousness.
” This parallel is more
just than the opinion of L'Advocat, who says that the romances of Crebiilon are extremely interesting, because all
the sentiments are drawn from a sensible heart, but it is
plain that this “sensible heart
” is full of affectation, and
that the author describes more than he feels. However
this may be, Crebiilon never had any other post than that
of censor-royal. He is said to have lived with his father
as with a friend and a brother; and his marriage with an
English woman, whom Crebiilon the father did not approve, only produced a transient misunderstanding. The
principal works of the son are: 1. Letters from the marchioness to the count of ***, 1732, 2 vols. 12rno. 2. Tanzai and Neadarne“, 1734, 2 vols. 12mo. This romance,
abounding in satirical allusions and often unintelligible,
and which caused the author to be put into the bastille,
was more applauded than it deserved. 3.
” Les egarements du coeur & de Tesprit,“1736, three parts, 12mo.
4.
” The Sopha,“a moral tale, 1745, 1749, 2 vols. 12mo,
grossly immoral, as most of his works are. For this he Was
banished from Paris for some time. 5.
” Lettres
Atheniennes,“177I,4vols. 12mo. 6.
” Ah! que?i conte“1764,
8 parts, 12mo. 7.
” Les Heureux Orphelins,“1754, 2
vols. 12mo. 8.
” La Nuit & le Moment,“1755, 12mo.
9.
” Le hasard du coin du feu,“1763, 12mo. 10.
” Lettres de la duchesse de ***,' &c. 1768, 2 vols. 12mo.
11. “Lettres de la marquise de Pompadour,
” 12mo, an
epistolary romance, written in an easy and bold style; but
relates few particulars of the lady whose name it bears.
The whole of his works have been collected in 7 vols.
12mo, 1779.
a much better translator than he is usually supposed and allowed to be. He is a nervous and vigorous writer: and many parts, not only of his Lucretius, but of his Theocritus
The following is a list of his translations; for we do not
find him to have been the author of any original works.
1. A translation of “Lucretius,
” printed in 8vo, at Oxford, Miscellany
Poems,
” which were published by him, speaks of this
translation in the highest terms of approbation, calling
Creech “the ingenious and learned translator of Lucretius
” and every body else entertained the same opinion of
it.' In the edition of 1714, in 2 vols. 8vo, all the verses of
the text, which Creech had left untranslated, particularly
those in the fourth book about the nature of love, are supplied; and many new notes added and intermixed by another hand, by way of forming a complete system of the
Epicurean philosophy. Creech had published in 1695 an
edition of Lucretius in Latin, with notes, which were
afterwards printed at the end of the English translation.
Another edition of this, much enlarged, but very incorrect,
was published in 1717 in 8vo. The best is that of Glasow, 1759, 12 mo. He will perhaps be far longer rememred as the editor than the translator of Lucretius. 2. In
1684 he published a translation of “Horace
” in which,
however, he has omitted some few odes. As to the satires,
he was advised, as he tells us in the preface, “to turn them
to our own time; since Rome was now rivalled in her vices;
and parallels for hypocrisy, profaneness, avarice, and the
like, were easy to be found.
” But those crimes,“he declares,
” were out of his acquaintance; and since the character is the same whoever the person is, he was not so
fond of being hated, as to make any disobliging application.
Such pains,“says he,
” would look like an impertinent
labour to find a dunghill.“3. The
” Idylliums“of Theocritus, with Rapin’s discourse of pastorals, 1684,- 8vo. 4.
The second elegy of Ovid’s first book of elegies the sixth,
seventh, eighth, and twelfth of the second book; the story
of Lucretia, out of the Fasti; and the second and third of
Virgil’s eclogues; printed in a collection of miscellany
poems, 1684. 5. The thirteenth satire of Juvenal, with
notes. Printed in the English translation of the satires,
1693, in folio. 6. A translation into English of the verses
prefixed to Quintinie’s Complete Gardener. 7. The Lives
of Solon, Pelopidas, and Cleomenes, from Plutarch. 8.
The Life of Pelopidas, from Cornelius Nepos. 9. Laconic apophthegms, or remarkable sayings of the Spartans, from Plutarch. 10. A discourse concerning Socrates’s da3mon, and the two first books of the Symposiacs,
from Plutarch. These translations from Plutarch were
published in the English translations of his
” Lives“and
” Morals.“11. A translation of Manilius’s Astronomicon,
dated from All-Souls, Oct. 10, 1696. On his father’s
monument he is called
” the learned, much admired, and
much envied Mr. Creech.“By whom he could have been
envied, we know not, yet there is a ridiculous story that
Dryden became so jealous of him, as to incite him to
translate Horace that he might lose as much reputation by
that poet, as he had gained by Lucretius. His poetry will
scarcely at present be deemed an object which calls for
much criticism, as he is rather a good scholar than a
good poet; and in the instance of Lucretius, a most judicious editor. Dr. Warton, however, who will be allowed
Jto be an admirable judge, has spoken of him in terms of
applause.
” Creech,“says the doctor,
” in truth, is a
much better translator than he is usually supposed and
allowed to be. He is a nervous and vigorous writer: and
many parts, not only of his Lucretius, but of his
Theocritus and Horace (though now decried) have not been
excelled by other translators. One of his pieces may be
pronounced excellent; his translation of the thirteenth
satire of Juvenal; equal to any that Dryden has given us
of that author.“Pope certainly paid him no small compliment by beginning his epistle to Mr. Murray (afterwards lord Mansfield) with two lines from Creech’s Horace. Pope
used to say that
” he hurt his translation of Lucretius very
much by imitating Cowley, and bringing in turns even
into some of the most grand parts. He has done more
justice to Manilius."
, a once celebrated writer of the Sociriian persuasion, was born in Franconia in 1590,
, a once celebrated writer of the
Sociriian persuasion, was born in Franconia in 1590, and
after some early education received from his father, studied
at Nuremberg, and other German schools or universities.
He was brought up in the Lutheran church, but in the
course of his reading, having formed to himself a set of
opinions nearly coinciding with those of Socinus, he declined the offers of promotion in the Lutheran church,
where he probably would not have been favourably received, and determined to go to Poland, where such opinions as his were no bar to advancement. In 1612 he
went to Racow, and besides becoming a preacher, was appointed Greek professor and afterwards rector of the university. His theological works form a considerable part of
the works’ of the “Fratres Poloni,
” and he engaged in a
controversy with Grotius, who had written against Socinus,
and a correspondence, of great politeness, took place between them, which made Grotius be suspected of inclining
too much to the opinions of his antagonist. He certainly
carried his politeness very far, when he told Crellius that
“he was, grieved to see so much enmity between those,
who call themselves Christians, for such trifling matters,
”
these matters being no less than the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ.
Crellius, we are told, like many of his descendants, would
not be called a Socinian, but an Artemonite, after Artemon, who lived in the reign of the emperor Severus, and
denied the pre-existence and divinity of Christ. Crellius’
opinions on other subjects will not probably procure him
much respect, at least from one sex. In his “Ethics,
”
he is said to maintain that it is lawful for men upon certain
occasions to beat their wives! Crellius died at Racow, of
an epidemic fever, 1633. Father Simon’s opinion of him
may be quoted as generic. “Crellius is a grammarian, a
philosopher, and a divine throughout. He has a wonderful address in adapting St. Paul’s words to his own prejudices. He supports the doctrines of his sect with so much
subtlety, that he does not seem to say any thing of himself, but to make the scriptures speak for him, even where
they are most against him.
”
, a celebrated popish writer, descended from an ancient and honourable family, seated formerly
,
a celebrated popish writer, descended from an ancient and
honourable family, seated formerly in Nottinghamshire,
but before his time it had removed into Yorkshire, in which
county he was born, at Wakefield, in 1605. His father
was Hugh Cressey, esq. barrister of Lincoln’s-inn; his
mother’s name was Margery, the daughter of Dr. Thomas
Doylie, an eminent physician in London. He was educated at a grammar-school at Wakefield, and about the
age of fourteen, in Lent term 1619, he was removed to
Oxford, where he studied with great vigour and diligence,
and in the year 1626 was admitted fellow of Merton college, in that university. After taking the degrees of B. A.
and M. A. he entered into holy orders, and became chaplain
to Thomas lord Wentworth, then lord president of the north,
with whom he lived some years. About 1638, he went over
to Ireland with Lucius Carey, lord viscount Falkland, to
whom he was likewise chaplain; and by him, when he was
secretary of state, Cressey was, in 1642, promoted to a canonry in the collegiate church of Windsor, and to the dignity of dean of Laughlin, in the kingdom of Ireland, but
through the disturbances of the times, he never attained the
possession of either of these preferments. After the unfortunate death of his patron, who was killed in the battle of
Newbury, he found himself destitute of subsistence, and
therefore readily accepted a proposal that was made him, of
travelling with Charles Bertie, esq. afterwards created earl
of Falmouth, a great favourite of king Charles II. who was
unhappily killed in a battle at sea in the first Dutch war
after the restoration. Cressey quitted England in 1644,
and making the tour of Italy with his pupil, moved by the
declining state of the church of England, he began to
listen to the persuasion of the Romish divines, and in
1646 made a public profession at Rome of his being reconciled to that church. He went from thence to Paris,
where he thought fit to publish what he was pleased to
style the motives of his conversion, which work of his, as
might reasonably be expected, was highly applauded by
the Romanists, and was long considered by them as a very
extraordinary performance. It is entitled, “Exomologesis,
or a faithfal narration of the occasions and motives of his
conversion to Catholic Unity,
” Paris, 1647, and 1653, 8vo.
To the last edition is an appendix, “In which are cleared
certain misconstructions of his Exomologesis, published by
J. P. author of the preface to the lord Falkland’s discourse
of Infallibility.
” As soon as this was finished, he sent it
over to his friend Dr. Henry Hammond, as to one whose
sincerity he had experienced, and for whose judgment he
had a high esteem. That learned person wrote him a
kind letter of thanks for his book, but at the same time
told him there was a vein of fallacy ran through the whole
contexture of it; adding, “we are friends, and I do not
propose to be your antagonist.
” At the close of this
epistle, he invited him into England, assuring him that he
should be provided with a convenient place to dwell in,
and a sufficient subsistence to live comfortably, without
being molested by any about his religion and conscience.
This offer, though our author did not accept, yet he returned, as became him, an answer full of respect and gratitude to the kind friend who had made it.
f their ablest advocates, and the protestants allowing that he was a grave, a sensible, and a candid writer. Among the works he published after his return to England, were:
After the restoration, and the marriage of king Charles II.
queen Catharine appointed our author, who was then become one of the mission in England, her chaplain, and
from that time he resided in Somerset-house, in the Strand.
The great regularity of his life, his sincere and unaffected
piety, his modest and mild behaviour, his respectful deportment to persons of distinction, with whom he was formerly acquainted when a protestant, and the care he took
to avoid all concern in political affairs or intrigues of state,
preserved him in quiet and safety, even in the most troublesome times- He was, however, a very zealous champion in the cause of the church of Rome, and was continually writing in defence of her doctrines, or in answer
to the books of controversy written by protestants of distinguished learning or figure; and as this engaged him in
a variety of disputes, he had the good fortune to acquire
great reputation with both parties, the papists looking
upon him to be one of their ablest advocates, and the protestants allowing that he was a grave, a sensible, and a
candid writer. Among the works he published after his
return to England, were: 1. “A non est inventus returned to Mr. Edward Bagshaw’s enquiry and vainly boasted
discovery of weakness in the Grounds of the Church’s Infallibility,
” A Letter to an English gentleman, dated July 6th, 1662, wherein bishop Morley is
concerned, printed amongst some of the treatises of that
reverend prelate,
” 3. “Roman Catholic Doctrines no Novelties; or, an answer to Dr. Pierce’s court-sermon, miscalled The primitive rule of Reformation,
” The Church History of
Britanny,
” Roan, upon account of some nice controversies between the
see of Rome, and some of our English kings, which might
give offence.
” While engaged on this work, he found leisure to interfere in all the controversies of the times, as
will presently be noticed. His last dispute was in reference
to a book written by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet, afterwards bishop of Worcester, to which, though several answers were given by the ablest of the popish writers, there
was none that seemed to merit reply, excepting that
penned by father Cressey, and this procured him the honour of a very illustrious antagonist, his old friend and
acquaintance at Oxford, Edward earl of Clarendon. Being
now grown far in years, and having no very promising scene
before his eyes, from the warm spirit that appeared against
popery amongst all ranks of people, and the many excellent books written to confute it by the most learned of the
clergy, he was the more willing to seek for peace in the
silence of a country retirement; and accordingly withdrew
for some time to the house of Richard Caryll, esq. a gentleman of an ancient family and affluent fortune, at East
Grinstead, co. Sussex, and dying upon the 10th of August 1674, being then near the seventieth year of his age,
was buried in the parish church there. His loss was much
regretted by those of his communion, as being one of their
ablest champions, ready to draw his pen in their defence
on every occasion, and sure of having his pieces read with
singular favour and attention. His memory also was revered by the protestants, as well on account of the purity
of his manners, and his mild and humble deportment, as
for the plainness, candour, and decency with which he
had managed all the controversies that he had been engaged in, and which had procured him, in return, much
more of kindness and respect, than almost any other of
his party had met with, or indeed deserved. It is very remarkable, however, that he thought it necessary to apologize to his popish readers for the respectful mention he
made of the prelates of our church. Why this should require an apology, we shall not Inquire, but that his candour and politeness deserve the highest commendation will
appear from what he says of archbishop Usher: “As for
B. Usher, his admirable abilities in ‘chronological and historical erudition,’ as also his faithfulness and ingenuous
sincerity in delivering without any provoking reflection*,
what with great labour he has observed, ought certainly at
least to exempt him from being treated by any one rudely
and contemptuously, especially by me, who am moreover
always obliged to preserve a just remembrance of very
many kind effects of friendship, which I received from,
him.
”
We have already taken notice of his inclination to the
mystic divinity, which led him to take so much pains about
the works of father Baker, and from the same disposition
he also published “Sixteen revelations of divine love,
shewed to a devout servant of our Lord, called mother Juliana, an anchorete of Norwich, who lived in the days of
king Edward Hi.
” He left also in ms. “An Abridgment
of the book called The cloud of unknowing, and of the
counsel referring to the same.
” His next performance,
was in answer to a famous treatise, written by Dr. Stillingfleet, against the church of Rome, which made a very
great noise in those days, and put for some time a stop to
the encroachments their missionaries were daily making,
which highly provoked those of the Roman communion.
This was entitled “Answer to part of Dr. Stillingfleet’s
book, entitled Idolatry practised in the church of Rome,
”
Fanaticism fanatically
imputed to the Catholic Church by Dr. Stillingfleet, and
the imputation refuted and retorted,
” &c. Question, Why are you a Catholic? Question, Why
are you a Protestant?
” Animadversions
” upon our author’s answer; in which he very plainly
tells him and the world, that it was not devotion, but necessity and want of a subsistence, which drove him first
out of the church of England, and then into a monastery.
As this noble peer knew him well at Oxford, it may be
very easily imagined that what he said made a very strong
impression, and it was to efface this, that our author thought
tit to send abroad an answer under the title of “Epistle
apologetical to a person of honour, touching his vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet,' 1 1674, 8vo. In this work he
gives a large relation of the state and condition of his affairs, at the time of what he styles his conversion, in order
to remove the imputation of quitting his faith to obtain
bread. The last work that he published was entitled
” Remarks upon the Oath of Supremacy."
ill preserved; but are certainly not the productions either of an extraordinary genius, or a correct writer. At length he was introduced to the doge and senate; in whose
The chief design of Crichton in this poem was to obtain a favourable reception at Venice, and particularly from Aldus JMamitius, whose praises he celebrates in very high strains. When he presented his verses to Manutins, that critic was struck with a very agreeable surprise; and judged, from the performance, that the author of it must be a person of extraordinary genius. Upon discoursing with the stranger, he was filled with admiration; and, finding him to be skilled in every subject, he introduced him to the acquaintance of the principal men of learning and note in Venice. Here he contracted an intimate friendship not only with Aldus Manutius, but with Laurentius Massa, Spero Speronius, Johannes Donatus, and various other learned persons, to whom he presented several poems in commendation of the city and university. Three of CrichtoH's odes, one addressed to Aldus Manutius, and another to Laurentius Massa, and a third to Johannes Donatus, are still preserved; but are certainly not the productions either of an extraordinary genius, or a correct writer. At length he was introduced to the doge and senate; in whose presence he made a speech, which was accompanied with such beauty of eloquence, and such grace of person and manner, that he received the thanks of that illustrious body; and nothing was talked of through the whole city but this rara in tcrris avis, this prodigy of nature. He held likewise disputations on the subjects of theology, philosophy, and mathematics, before the most eminent professors, and large multitudes of people. His reputation was so great, that the desire of seeing and hearing him brought together a vast concourse of persons from different quarters to Venice. It may be collected from Manutius, that the time in which Crichton exhibited these demonstrations of his abilities, was in the year 1580. During his residence at Venice, he fell into a bad state of health, which continued for the space of four months, and before he was perfectly recovered, he went, by the advice of his friends, to Padua, the university of which city was at that time in great reputation. The day after his arrival, there was a meeting of all the learned men of the place, at the house of Jacobus Aloysius Cornelius; when Crichton opened the assembly with an extemporary poem in praise of the city, the university, and the company who had honoured him with their presence. After this, he disputed for six hours with the most celebrated professors, on various subjects of learning; and he exposed, in particular, the errors of Aristotle, and his commentators, with so much solidity and acuteness, and, at the same time, with so much modesty, that he excited universal admiration. In conclusion, he delivered, extempore, an oration in praise of ignorance, which was conducted with such ingenuity and elegance, that his hearers were astonished. This display of Crichton’s talents was on the 14th of March, 1581. Soon after, he appointed another day for disputation at the palace of the bishop of Padua; not for the purpose of affording higher proofs of his abilities, for that could not possibly be done, but in compliance with the earnest solicitations of some persons, who were not present at the former assemhly. However, several circumstances occurred, which prevented this meeting from taking place. Such is the account of Manutius; but Imperialis relates, that he was informed by his father, who was present upon the occasion, that Crichton was opposed by Archangel us Mercenarius, a famous philosopher, and that he acquitted himself so well as to obtain the approbation of a very honourable company, and even of his antagonist himself. Amidst the discourses which were occasioned by our young Scotchman’s exploits, and the high applauses that were bestowed on his genius and attainments, there were some persons who endeavoured to detract from his merit. For ever, therefore, to confound these invidious impugners of his talents, he caused a paper to be fixed on the gates of St. John and St. Paul’s churches, in which he offered to prove before the university, that the errors of Aristotle, and of all his followers, were almost innumerable; and that the latter had failed, both in explaining their master’s meaning, and in treating on theological subjects. He promised likewise to refute the dreams of certain mathematical professors; to dispute in all the sciences and to answer to whatever should be proposed to him, or objected against him. All this he engaged to do, either in the common logical way, or by numbers and mathematical figures, or in an hundred sorts of verses, at the option of his opponents. According to Manutius, Crichton sustained this contest without fatigue, for three days; during which time he supported his credit, and maintained his propositions, with such spirit and energy, that, from an unusual concourse of people, he obtained acclamations and praises, than which none more magnificent were ever heard by men.
, a puritan writer of considerable eminence, the third son of Ellis Crisp, esq.
, a puritan writer of considerable eminence, the third son of Ellis Crisp, esq. an alderman, and
probably related to the family of the subject of the preceding article, was born in Bread-street, London, in 1600,
and educated at Eton-school. He afterwards went to Cambridge, where he studied until he took his degree of B. A,
and was, on his removal to Oxford, “for the accomplishment,
” says Wood, “. of certain parts of learning,
” incorporated in the same degree as a member of Baliol-college,
in the end of Feb. 1626, and the degree was completed
by him in the act following, July 1627. In this year he
was presented to the rectory of Newington Butts, near
Southwark, but enjoyed the living only a few months,
being removed on account of a simoniacal contract. In
the same year, however, he became rector of Brinkwortb,
in Wiltshire, and a few years after proceeded D. D. At
Brinkworth he was much followed for his edifying manner
of preaching, and for his great hospitality. But on the
breaking out of the rebellion, being noted among those
who were inclined to favour the republicans, he met witk.
such harsh treatment from the king’s soldiers, as obliged
him to repair to London, where his preaching, although
at first acceptable, was soon accused of leaning to
Antinomianism, and involved him with many of his brethren in
a controversy. He was baited, says Wood, by fifty-two
opponents, in a grand dispute concerning the freeness of
the grace of God in Jesus Christ; and by this encounter,
which was eagerly managed on his part, he contracted a
disease that brought him to his grave. This disease, communicated by infection, and probably nowise connected
with the eagerness of his dispute, was the small-pox, of
which he died Feb. 27, 1642, and was buried in the family
vault in St. Mildred’s, Bread-street. In his last sickness,
he avowed his firm adherence in the doctrines he had
preached. The dispute mentioned by Wood, was probably carried on in person, or in the pulpit, for we do not
find that he published any thing in his life-time; but, after
his death, three 4to volumes of his sermons were printed
by his son, under the title of “Christ alone exalted,
” containing in all forty-two sermons. When they appeared,
we are told, that the Westminster assembly proposed to
have them burnt; and although we do not find that this was
done, Flavel, and other non-conformists, endeavoured to
expose the danger of some of his sentiments. Here, probably, the controversy might have rested, had not his
works been again published about the revolution, by one
of his sons, with additions. This excited a new controversy, confined almost entirely to the dissenters, but in
which some of the most eminent of that body took a part,
and carried it on with an asperity which produced considerable disunion. In particular it disturbed the harmony
of the weekly lecture established at Pinners’ -hall, and the
congregation mostly inclining to Dr. Crisp’s sentiments,
the minority seceded, and began a weekly lecture at Salters’-hall. The principal writers in this controversy were
Williams, Edwards, Lorimer, &c. against Crisp; and
Chauncey, Mather, Lobb, &c. for him; and after a contest of seven-years, they rather agreed to a suspension of
hostilities than came to a decision. The truth appears to
have been, that Crisp was extremely unguarded in many
of his expressions, but was as far as the fiercest of his antagonists from intending to support any doctrine that
tended to licentiousness. A very full account of the whole
controversy may be seen in the last of our authorities.
, a learned French writer, was born at Nantes, Dec. 4, 1661. His father, who was a merchant,
, a learned French writer, was born at Nantes, Dec. 4, 1661. His father, who was a merchant, was also a man of letters, and bestowed much pains on the education of his son, who answered his expectations by the proficiency he made in classical studies. He had, however, provided him with a private tutor, who happened to disgust him by the severity of his manners, and upon this account partly, at the age of fourteen, he desired to take a voyage to some of the West India islands, to which his father traded; but his principal inducement was what he had read in books of voyages, and the conversation of persons who had been in America, all which raised his curiosity to visit the new world. He embarked on board a French ship, with no other books than Erasmus’s Colloquies, and the Gradus ad Parnassum. His passage was not unpleasant, and during his residence at Guadeloupe he borrowed all the Latin books he could discover, and read them with avidity; but the chief advantage he seems to have derived here was an opportunity to learn the English, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese San^uasres. To these he afterwards added an acquaintance with the German, Sclavonic, and AngloSaxon; and studied with much attention the ancient and modern Greek, the Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Hebrew, Arabic, and even the Chinese. On his return to Nantes in 1677, he found his father’s affairs somewhat deranged, and was obliged to take a part in the business. Medicine appears to have been first suggested to him as a profession, but he found little inclination for that study; and some conferences he happened to have with the Benedictines of the congregation of St. Maur determined him to enter their society. He accordingly made his noviciate in 1673, and applied himself to the study of theology. In 1682 he formally became a member of the congregation. His residence at Paris, in the abbey of St. Germain des Pres, the vast number of books within his reach, and particularly of manuscripts, increased his knowledge and his thirst for knowledge, and some of his earliest labours were bestowed in preparing materials, collecting Mss. &c. for new editions of the works of St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. But these were interrupted by certain differences which occurred in the abbey to which he belonged, and of which we have various accounts. The prior of St. Germain, father Loo, had a great aversion to the study of classical and polite literature, and was for confining the members to the strict religious duties of the house. This could not fail to be disgusting to a man of La Croze’s taste: but, according to other accounts, which seem more prohable, he began to entertain religious scruples about this time (lr.96), which induced him to withdraw himself. It is said that his superiors found among his papers a treatise against transubstantiation in his hand-writing, and which they believed to be his composition; but they discovered afterwards that it uas a translation from the English of Stillingfleet. Some other manuscripts, however, sufficiently proved that he had changed his opinion on religious matters; and the dread of persecution obliged him to make his escape to Basil, which he successfully accomplished in May 1696. Here he renounced the Roman catholic religion, and as his intention was to take up his residence, he was matriculated as a student of the college of Basil. He remained in this place, however, only till September, when he departed, provided with the most honourable testimonies of his learning and character from Buxtorf, the Hebrew professor, and Werenfels, dean of the faculty of theology. He then went to Berlin, where his object was to secure a iixed residence, devote himself to study, and endeavour to forget France. In order to introduce himself, he began with offering to educate young men, the sons of protestant parents, which appears to have answered his purpose, as in 1697 we find him appointed librarian to the king of Prussia; but his biographers are not agreed upon the terms. To this place a pension was attached, but not sufficient to enable him to live without continuing his school; and some assert that he was very poor at this time. The probability is, that his circumstances were improved as he became better known, and his reputation among the learned was already extensive. In June of 1697 he went to Francfort to visit the literati of that place, and their fine library, and visited also Brandenburgh for the same purpose. In November 1697 (or, as Chaufepie says, in 1702), he married Elizabeth Rose, a lady originally of Dauphiny, and thus, adds one of his Roman catholic biographers, completed the abjuration of the true religion. In 1698 he first commenced author, and from time to time published those works on which his fame rests. Soon after he became acquainted with the celebrated Leibnitz, with whom he carried on an intimate correspondence. In 17 13 he went to Hamburgh, where he paid many visits to the learned Fabricius, and in his letters speaks with great warmth of the pleasure this journey afforded; but this year, 17 J 3, was not in other respects a vei'y fortunate one to La Croze, and he formed the design of quitting Germany. He had been appointed tutor to the margrave of Schwel, and this employment terminating in 1714, he lost the pension annexed to it, and was reduced to considerable difficulties, of which he wrote to Leibnitz, as to a friend in whom he could confide. Leibnitz, by way of answer, sent him a copy of a letter which he had written to M. BernsdorfT, prime minister to the elector of Hanover, in his behalf. The object likely to be attained by this interest was a professorship at Helmstadt; but as it required subscription to the articles of the Lutheran church, M. la Croze, notwithstanding the persuasions Leibnitz employed, declined accepting it. His affairs, however, soon after wore a more promising aspect, partly in consequence of a prize he gained in the Dutch lottery. In 1717 he had the honour to be engaged as private tutor to the princess royal of Prussia, afterwards margravine of Bareoth. In 1724, for several months his studies were interrupted by a violent fit of the gravel; and on his recovery, the queen of Prussia, who always patronized La Croze, obtained for him the professorship of philosophy in the French college at Berlin, vacant by the death of M. Chauvin. This imposed on him the necessity of drawing up a course of philosophy, but as he never intended to print it, it is said not to have been executed with the care he bestowed on his other works. In 1713 father Bernard Pez, the Benedictine, made him liberal offers if he would return to the church he had forsaken, but this he declined with politeness, offering the arguments which influenced his mind to remain in the protestant church. In 1739 an inflammation appeared on his leg, which inApril put on appearances of mortification, hut did not prove fatal until May 21. About a quarter of an bour before his death he desired his servant to read the 51st and 77th psalms, during which he expired, in the seventy -first year of his age. He was reckoned one of the most learned men of his time, and was frequently called a living library. So extensive was his reading, and so vast iiis memory, that no one ever consulted him without obtaining prompt information. In dates, facts, and references he was correct and ready. We have already noticed how many languages he had learned, but it appears that he made the least progress in the Chinese, to which Leihnitz, in his letters, is perpetuiiy iirging him. The greater part of his life was employed in study, and he had no other pleasures. There was scarcely a book in his library whicli he had not perused, and he wrote ms notes on most of them. His conversation could not fail to be acceptable to men of literary research, as his memory was stored with anecdotes, which he told in a very agreeable manner. He was conscientiously attached to the principles of the reformed religion. He had always on his table the Hebrew Psalter, the Greek Testament, and Thomas a Kempis in Latin: the latter he almost had by heart, as well as Buchanan’s Psalms. His consistent piety and charity are noticed by all his biographers.
ompiled by Pbotius. Although the most judicious among the ancients looked upon Ctesias as a fabulous writer, several of the ancient historians and modern Christian writers
, an ancient historian, was a native of Cnidos,
who accompanied Cyrus the son of Darius in his expedition against his brother Artaxerxes; by whom he was
taken prisoner about 400 B. C. But curing Artaxerxes
of a wound he received in the battle, he became a great
favourite at the court of Persia, where he continued practising physic for seventeen years, and was employed in
several negotiations. He wrote the “History of Persia,
”
in 23 books; and a “History of the Indies;
” but these
works are now lost, and all we have remaining of them is
an abridgment compiled by Pbotius. Although the most
judicious among the ancients looked upon Ctesias as a fabulous writer, several of the ancient historians and modern
Christian writers have adopted in part his chronology of
the Assyrian kings; but Dr. Vincent, a writer of the first
authority, after a careful examination of his character and
writings, decides that he must still be classed among the
fabulous historians. In Gale’s Herodotus, Lond. 1679, fol.
we have “Excerpta e Ctesise Persicis et Indicis,
” and
Henry Stephens published “Ex Ctesia, Agatharcide, et
Memnone excerpta,
”
pupils, who were numerous, was Mr. William Temple, afterwards the celebrated baronet, statesman, and writer. About 1641 he was presented to the rectory of North Cadbury,
, a learned English divine and
philosopher, was son of Dr. Ralph Cudworth, and born
at Alley, in Somersetshire, of which place his father
was rector. His mother was of the family of Machell, and
had been nurse to prince Henry, eldest son of James I.
His father dying when he was only seven yeaVs of age,
and his mother marrying again, his education was superintended by his father-in-law, Dr. Stoughton, who was
very attentive to the promising genius of his scholar. In
1630, he was admitted pensioner of Emanuel college,
Cambridge; of which, after taking the degrees of B. A.
and M. A. he was chosen fellow, and became an eminent
tutor. Among his pupils, who were numerous, was Mr.
William Temple, afterwards the celebrated baronet, statesman, and writer. About 1641 he was presented to the
rectory of North Cadbury, in Somersetshire. In 1642 he
published “A discourse concerning the true notion of the
Lord’s Supper,
” printed at London, in 4to, with only the
initial letters of his name. In this he contends that the
Lord’s supper is not a sacrifice, but a feast upon a sacrifice; and endeavours to demonstrate, that “the Lord’s
supper in the Christian church, in reference to the true
sacrifice of Christ, is a parallel to the feasts upon sacrifices, both in the Jewish religion and heathenish superstition.
” Bochart, Spencer, Selden, and other eminent
writers, quote this discourse with great commendations,
but his opinions have been controverted by the majority
of divines. The same year likewise appeared his treatise
entitled “The Union of Christ and the Church, in a
shadow, by R. C.
” printed at London, in 4to.
, a late dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was the great grandson of the preceding. His father, Denison,
, a late dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was the great grandson of the preceding. His father, Denison, so named from his mother, was educated at Westminster school, and from that admitted fellow-commoner of Trinity college, Cambridge. He married, at the age of twenty-two, Joanna, the younger daughter of Dr. Richard Bentley (the Phoebe of Byron’s Pastoral); by whom he had a daughter, Joanna, and Richard, the subject of this article. Though in possession of an independent fortune, he was readily prevailed upon by his father-in-law to take the rectory of Stanwick, in. Northamptonshire, given to him by lord chancellor King, as soon as he was of age to hold it. From this period he fixed his constant residence in that retired spot, and sedulously devoted himself to the duties of his function, never holding any other preferment for thirty years, except a small prebend in the church of Lincoln, given him by his uncle bishop Reynolds, He was in the commission of the peace, and a very active magistrate in the reconcilement of parties rather than in the conviction of persons. When the rebels were on the march, and had advanced to Derby, he raised among the neighbouring parishes two companies of 100 men each for the regiment then enrolling under the command of the earl of Halifax, and marched them in person to Northampton. The earl, as a mark of his consideration, insisted upon bestowing one of the companies upon his son, who being too young to take the command, an officer was named to act in his place. Some time after, on the approach of the general election for the county of Northampton, a contest took place with the rival parties of Knightly and Hanbury, or, in other words, between the tories and the whigs. His politics accorded with the latter, and he gave a very active and effectual support to his party. His exertions, though unsuccessful, were not overlooked by the earl of Halifax, who was then high in office, and lord lieutenant of the county. Offers were pressed upon him; yet, though he was resolute in declining all personal favours, he was persuaded to lend an ear to flattering situations pointed out for his son, who was shortly afterwards employed by lord Halifax as his confidential secretary. In 1757 he exchanged the living of Stanwick for Fulham, in order to be nearer his son, whose attendance on the earl of Halifax required his residence in town. On the earl being appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland, he was made one of his chaplains; and in 1763, at the close of his lordship’s administration, was promoted to the bishopric of Clonfert. In this situation he much ingratiated himself with all classes of people by his benevolence and generosity. He introduced many improvements and comforts among the Irish peasantry. He encouraged the English mode of agriculture by judicious rewards; and, as one of the members of the linen trade, introduced a number of spinning-wheels, and much good linen was made in consequence. This improving manufacture formed an interesting occupation also to his lady, and flourished under her care. The city of Dublin presented him with his freedom in a gold box, an honour never before (except in the remarkable instance of dean Swift) conferred on any person below the rank of a chief governor; and the deed which accompanied it assigned as the motive, the great respectability of his character, and his disinterested protection of the Irish clergy. In 1772 he was translated to the see of Kilmore. Some alarming symptoms soon after indicated the breaking up of his constitution, which was increased by the anxiety he experienced, through the debility and loss of health of his, amiable lady. When his son took leave of him at the end of his summer visit, the bishop expressed an intention of attempting a journey to England; but died in the winter of the same year; and this sad event was speedily succeeded by the death of his lady, whose weak and exhausted frame sunk under the blow, May 27, 1775.
” the chief object of which was directed to a tract entitled “An Essay on the Theatre,” in which the writer professes to draw a comparison between laughing and sentimental
About this time he became a member of a pleasant literary society, who used to dine together upon stated days
at the British coffee-house; and at one of these meetings
it was suggested to him to delineate the character of a
North Briton, as he had already those of an Irishman and
a West Indian. He adopted the suggestion, and began to
frame the character of Colin Macleod, in his comedy of
“The Fashionable Lover,
” upon the model of a Highland
servant who, with scrupulous integrity and a great deal of
nationality about him, managed all the domestic affairs of
sir Thomas Mills’s household, and being a great favourite
of every body who resorted there, became in time, as it
were, one of the company. This comedy, in point of
composition, he thought superior to the West Indian; but it
did not obtain equal success with that drama. When this
play came out, he made serious appeals against cavillers
and slanderers below his notice, which induced Garrick to
call him “the man without a skin,
” and this soreness to
criticism became afterwards one of the most distinguishing
features of his character. His fourth comedy of “The
Choleric Man,
” was performed with approbation; but its
author was charged in the public prints with venting
contemptuous and illiberal speeches against his contemporaries. This induced him to prefix to his comedy, when he
published it, a “Dedication to Detraction,
” the chief object
of which was directed to a tract entitled “An Essay on
the Theatre,
” in which the writer professes to draw a comparison between laughing and sentimental comedy, and
under the latter description particularly points his observations to “The Fashionable Lover.
”
As a writer, the number of his works is perhaps the most striking circumstance;
As a writer, the number of his works is perhaps the most
striking circumstance; but many of them, it may be remembered, were hastily written, and produced to better
his income at a time when a succession of statesmen had
agreed to forget that such a man ever held a public station.
Whatever else he wrote, the drama was his favourite pursuit, from which he could seldom endure a long interruption; and this seems to have created in his mind a ready
play of imagination which unfitted him for the serious concerns of real life and business. As a poet, he cannot rank
very high; elegant versification and sentiment, however,
throw a charm over some of his poetical works which has
ensured them a considerable share of popularity. His
“Observer,
” now that he has acknowledged how much he
took from Bentley’s Mss. no longer supports his character
as a Greek critic. First or last, the drama was his peculiar province: it was in that he endeavoured to excel, and
in that, we think, he has attained the excellence that will
he most permanent.
ich was sold in that country.” That these remarks are just has been since placed beyond a doubt by a writer, under the signature of Crito, in the Scots Magazine for October
The compilers of the Encyclopaedia Britanriica thus conclude their article on this subject: “Alexander Cunningham, the author of the History of Great Britain, has been
supposed to be the same person with Alexander Cunningham who published an edition of Horace at the Hague, in
2 vols. 8vo. 1721, which is highly esteemed. But, from
the best information we have been able to collect, they
were certainly different persons; though they were both
of the same name, lived at the same time, had both been
travelling tutors, were both said to have been eminent for
their skill at the game of chess, and both lived to a very
advanced age. The editor of Horace is generally said to
have died in Holland, where he taught both the civil and
canon laws, and where he had collected a very large library,
which was sold in that country.
” That these remarks are
just has been since placed beyond a doubt by a writer,
under the signature of Crito, in the Scots Magazine for
October 1804, who proves that the editor of Horace died
at the Hague in 1730, and the historian at London in
1737.
. This is indeed the worst of all his productions, and was censured with much force of ridicule by a writer in the Monthly Review. It abounds with glittering and absurd
In 1762 he published “The Contemplatist,
” but with
less success than his Elegy. This is indeed the worst of
all his productions, and was censured with much force of
ridicule by a writer in the Monthly Review. It abounds
with glittering and absurd conceits, and had it been published now, might have been mistaken for a satire on the
maukish, namby-pasnby stuff which the author of the
Baviad and Macviad has chastised with equal justice and
humour. It may here be mentioned that in 1765 he published “Fortune, an Apologue,
” in which there are some
poetical beauties, particularly the description of avarice,
but not much consistency of plan; and in the following
year collected his poems into a volume, which was honoured by a numerous list of subscribers.
ns of their day, to give that tone of urbanity and liberality to the science, which every subsequent writer of good character has observed. Wherever their author swerved
The celebrity which these publications procured for their
author, was soon altogether eclipsed by what arose from
his botanical labours, which have placed him in the very
first rank of English writers in that department of science.
In 1777 appeared the first number of his “Flora Londinensis,
” containing six folio plates, with a page or more
of letter-press, consisting of a description in Latin and
English, with synonyms of each plant, and copious remarks
on its history, uses, qualities, and the insects it nourishes.
Each number was sold at half a crown plain, five shillings
coloured; and some copie?, finished with extraordinary
care, were sold at seven shillings and six-pence. The
first artist employed in making the drawings for this work,
was Mr. Kilburn, who used a camera obscura for the purpose; his sketches were shaded with Indian ink, before
the colours were laid on. The performances of this artist
have not been excelled in any similar work. When from
other engagements, Mr. Kilburn was obliged to relinquish
his task, Mr. Sowerby was employed, and maintained uridiminished the perfection of the figures. After him, Mr.
Sydenham Edwards was engaged by Mr. Curtis, with no
less credit, both in this publication and the “Botanical Magazine
” hereafter mentioned. Of the plates of the “Flora
Londineosis
” too much cannot be said; their beauty and
botanical accuracy are alike eminent, and it is only to be
regretted that the manufactory of paper, as well as the typographical art, were in so degraded a state when this
book first appeared. For this its author cannot be responsible, nor are these defects of any moment in the eyes of
learned or scientific readers, to whom the work in question, independent of its excellent figures, ranks next to
Ray’s Synopsis, in original merit and authority upon
English plants. It may be added, that the works of Curtis
have tended, more than any other publications of their day,
to give that tone of urbanity and liberality to the science,
which every subsequent writer of good character has observed. Wherever their author swerved in any degree
from this candour, which was very seldom, and not perhaps without provocation, it was always to his own loss;
and he was thus led into some of the very few mistakes
that he has committed.
at history, or romance as it has been called, about three hundred years ago; yet why so good a Latin writer, who might have gained the reputation of the first Latin scholar
, is the name, or assumed name,
of a Latin historian, who has written the actions of Alexander the Great, in ten books; the two first of which are
indeed not extant, but yet are so well supplied by Freinshemius, as to be thought equal to the others. Where
this author was born, and when he lived, are disputed
points among the learned, and never likely to be settled.
Some have fancied, from the elegant style of his history,
that he must have lived in or near the Augustan age; but
there are no explicit testimonies to confirm this opinion;
'and a judgment formed upon the single circumstance of
style will always be found precarious. Others place him
in the reign of Vespasian, and others have brought him
down so low as to Trajan’s: Gibbon is inclined to place
him in the time of Gordian, in the middle of the third
century; and some have imagined that the name of Quintus
Curtius was forged by an Italian, who composed that history, or romance as it has been called, about three hundred
years ago; yet why so good a Latin writer, who might have
gained the reputation of the first Latin scholar of his time,
should have been willing to sacrifice his glory to that of an
imaginary Quintus Curtius, is a question yet to be resolved. On the other hand it is certain that Quintus Curtius was an admired historian of the romantic ages. He is
quoted in the “Policraticon
” of John of Salisbury, who
died in the year he profited much by frequently looking into this author.
” All
this is decidedly against the opinion that Quintus Curtiuis a forgery of only three hundred years old.
e pains, or had the opportunity, to criticise them severely. He has nevertheless many qualities as a writer, which will always make him admired and applauded; and notwithstanding
Cardinal du Perron was so great an admirer of this historian, that he declared one page of him to be worth thirty of Tacitus. This extravagant admiration, however, may be somewhat abated by a view of what Le Clerc has written about this author, at the end of his book upon the art of of criticism; in which are manifestly shewn several great faults in him, ignorance of astronomy and geography, contradictions, erroneous descriptions, bad taste in the choice of matter, carelessness in dating the events, &c. though perhaps, as Bayle rightly observes, the greatest part of those faults might be found in most ancient historians, if one would take the pains, or had the opportunity, to criticise them severely. He has nevertheless many qualities as a writer, which will always make him admired and applauded; and notwithstanding the censures of some critics, this historian deserves to be commended for his sincerity, for he speaks the good and the bad of his hero, without the least prepossession of his merit. If any fault is to be found with his history, it is for being too highly polished.
to his amanuensis, “Da magistrum,” Give me my master. Cyprian, however, far excelled Tertullian as a writer.
, a principal father of
the Christian church, was born at Carthage in Africa,
about the beginning of the third century. We know nothing more of his parents, than that they were heathens;
and he himself continued such till the last twelve years of
his life. He applied himself early to the study of oratory;
and some of the ancients, Lactantius in particular, informs
us, that he taught rhetoric at Carthage with the highest
applause. Tertullian was his master; and Cyprian was so
fond of reading him, that, as St. Jerome tells us, seldom a
clay passed without his saying to his amanuensis, “Da magistrum,
” Give me my master. Cyprian, however, far
excelled Tertullian as a writer.
al duty. It is no wonder, therefore, to find Cyprian himself, as well as his apologist, Pontius, the writer of his life, so solicitous to excuse it; which they both endeavour
In the year 249, the emperor Decius began to issue out
very severe edicts against the Christians, which particularly affected those living upon the coasts of Africa; and
in the beginning of the year 250, the heathens, in the
circus and amphitheatre at Carthage, loudly insisted upon
Cyprian’s being thrown to the lions: a common method,
as is well known, of destroying the primitive Christians.
Cyprian upon this withdrew from his church at Carthage,
and fled into retirement, to avoid the fury of the persecution; which step, how justifiable soever in itself, gave
great scandal, and seems to have been considered by the
clergy of Rome, in a public letter written upon the subject of it to the clergy of Carthage, as a desertion of his
post and pastoral duty. It is no wonder, therefore, to find
Cyprian himself, as well as his apologist, Pontius, the
writer of his life, so solicitous to excuse it; which they
both endeavour to do by affirming, in the true spirit of the
times, “that he was commanded to retire by a special
revelation from heaven; and that his flight was not the
effect of any other fear but that of offending God.
” It is
remarkable, that this father was a great pretender to visions.
For instance, in a letter to Caecilius, he declares, “that
he had received a divine admonition, to mix water with
wine in the sacrament of the eucharist, in order to render
it effectual.
” In another to the clergy, concerning certain priests, who had restored some lapsed Christians too
hastily to the communion of the church, he threatens them
to execute “what he was ordered to do against them, in a
vision, if they did not desist.
” He makes the same threat
to one Pupianus, who had spoken ill of him, and withdrawn
himself from his communion. In a letter likewise to the
clergy and the people, he tells them, “how he had been
admonished and directed by God to ordain one Numidicus
a priest.
” Dodwell, in his “Dissertationes Cyprianicae,
”
has made a large collection of these visions of Cyprian,
which he treats with more reverence than they seem to
deserve.
of it, which were afterwards printed with it in the Latin edition. That Daille was a very voluminous writer, will not seem strange, when it is considered that he lived
In 1633 he published another work of general concern,
entitled “L'Apologie de nos Eglises,
” or, “An Apology
for the reformed Churches;
” in which he vindicates, with
much learning and argument, their separation from the
church of Rome, from the imputation of schism, which
was usually brought against them. This work was also
translated into English by Mr. Smith, in 1658; as it was
into Latin the same year by Daille himself, and printed at
Amsterdam in 8vo. It was much censured by the clergy
of France, as soon as it was published, and some were
employed to write against it. Daille“wrote two or three
little pieces in defence of it, which were afterwards printed with it in the Latin edition. That Daille was a very
voluminous writer, will not seem strange, when it is considered that he lived long, was very laborious, and enjoyed
a good state of health. He was endued with the qualifications of a writer in a most eminent degree; and had this
singular advantage, that his understanding was not impaired with age: for it is observable, that there is no less
strength and fire in his two volumes
” De objecto cultds
religiosi," the first of which was published when he was 70
years old, than in any of his earlier works.
ft a high reputation behind him; and the protestants used to say in France, that “they had no better writer since Calvin than M. Daille.” In 1720, M. Engelschall, a Roman
He assisted at the national synod, which was held at
Alengon in 1637: and his authority and advice contributed
much to quiet the disputes, which were then warmly agitated among the protestants concerning universal grace.
He declared strenuously for universal grace; and afterwards published at Amsterdam, in 1655, a Latin work
against Frederic Spanheim, the divinity professor at Leyden, entitled “An apology for the synods of Alengon and
Cbarenton.
” This work rekindled the war among the protestant divines; yet Daille endeavoured to clear himself.
by saying, that his book had been published without his
knowledge. Nevertheless, he answered the celebrated
Samuel des Marets, professor of Groning-en, which produced a short, but very warm contest between them, in
which Daille’s spirit of controversy has not been approved
even by his friends. He died at Paris, April 15, 1670,
having never experienced throughout his life any illness,
except that in 1650 he was suddenly seized with a lethargic
or apopletic disorder, in which he lay 10 or 11 days, apparently without a possibility of recovering. He left a
high reputation behind him; and the protestants used to
say in France, that “they had no better writer since Calvin
than M. Daille.
” In De Usu Patrum,
” Geneva, Apologia ecclesiarum veformatarum,
” Amst. 3. “Fides
ex S. Scripturis demonstrate,
” Gen. Examen
Sententiae Theoph. Bracheti Milleterii super conciliatione
Controversiarum religionis,
” Paris, De Patrum,
fide circa imagines,
” Leyden, De pcenis et
satisfactionibus humanis,
” Amst. Pseudepigrapha Apostolica de octo libris constitutionum Apostolicarum,
” Harderw. De jejuniis et quadragesima,
” Daventer, 1G54. 9. “Pro duabus Synodis, Alenson et Carenton. Apologia,
” Amst. De coniirmatione et extrema unctione,
” Genev. De
confessione auriculari,
” Genev. Adversus
Latinorurn traditionem de cultus religiosi objecto, disputatio,
” Gen. De Scriptis, quae sub Dionysii
Areopagii et Ignatii nominibus circumferuntur,
” Gen. De cultibus Latinorum religiosis Libri Novem,
”
Gen. Exposition of the Epistle to the Colossians;
” but he answered the charge.
ast India company, general St. Clair got Mr. Baker’s promise to appoint his nephew, Mr. Dalrymple, a writer in the company’s service; the young man having conceived a strong
Sir James Dalrymple died in 1750; and the hon. general St. Clair having married sir James’s sister, a very sensible and accomplished woman (the relict of sir John Baird, bart.), in 1752, from his intimacy with alderman Baker, then chairman of the East India company, general St. Clair got Mr. Baker’s promise to appoint his nephew, Mr. Dalrymple, a writer in the company’s service; the young man having conceived a strong desire of going to the East Indies, by reading Nieuhoff’s Voyages, and a novel of that time, called Joe Thomson. He accordingly left Scotland in the spring of 1752, with his brother sir David, who affectionately accompanied him to London. He was put to Mr. Kinross’s academy, at Forty-hill, near Enfield, for some months antecedent to his appointment in the company’s service. He tells us he was obliged to Mr. Kinross for his great kindness and attention to him, and received much good instruction for his conduct through life; by which he greatly profited: but was too short a time at that academy to learn much of what was the object of sending him there, viz. writing and merchants’ accounts; which are, at least were at that time, the only qualifications the East India company thought requisite in their servants: and the absurdity of supposing a boy of sixteen from an academy competent to keep a set of merchants’ books not being considered, some demur was made to Mr. Kinross’s certificate of this part of Mr. Dalrymple’s education not being expressed in terms sufficiently direct; however, this was not insisted on.
On the 1st of November, 1752, he was appointed a writer in the East India company’s service, and on the 8th of November,
On the 1st of November, 1752, he was appointed a
writer in the East India company’s service, and on the
8th of November, stationed on the Madras establishment.
Alderman Baker disqualified early the next year; so that
it was by a very accidental coritingence that Mr. Dairy m pie
went to India, his family having no India connexions; more
particularly as he wanted a few months of sixteen years of
age, which was the age required for a writer to be: and
his mother lady Christian strongly objected to his father’s
son even tacitly assenting to countenance what was untrue;
and she was not quite satisfied with being assured that it
was with alderman Baker’s concurrence and approbation;“it being urged, that the spirit of the regulation was to prevent infants being introduced into the service as writers,
and not to preclude a person for the difference of a few
months in age.
” This,“says our author,
” is the only
instance in which Alexander Dalrymple is conscious of having been accessary to cheating the company, if it can be
so termed."
death of David II. Aiul happy it was that the affairs of Scotland attracted the talents of so able a writer, who to the learning and skill of a lawyer, joined the industry
In 1771 he composed a very learned and ingenious paper,
or law-case, on the disputed peerage of Sutherland. He
was one of the trustees of the lady Elizabeth, the daughter
of the last earl, and being then a judge, the names of two
eminent lawyers were annexed to it. In that case, he displayed the greatest accuracy of research, and the most
profound knowledge of the antiquities and rules of descent,
in that country; which he managed with such dexterity of
argument, as clearly established the right of his pupil, and
formed a precedent, at the same time, for the decision of
all such questions in future. In 1773 he published a small
volume, entitled “Remarks on the History of Scotland.
”
Tnese appeared to be the gleanings of the historical research which he was making at that time, and discovered
his lordship’s turn for minute and accurate inquiry into
doubtful points of history, and at the same time displayed
the candour and liberality of his judgment. This publication prepared the public for the favourable reception of
the Annals of Scotland, in 2 vols. 4to, the first of which
appeared in 1776, and the second in 1779, and fully answered the expectations which he had raised. The difficulties attending the subject, the want of candour, and
the spirit of party, had hitherto prevented the Scotch from
having a genuine history of their country, in times previous to those of queen Mary. Lord Hailes carried his attention to this history, as far back as to the accession of
Malcolm Canmore, in 1057, and his work contains the
annals of 14 princes, from Malcolm III. to the death of David II. Aiul happy it was that the affairs of Scotland attracted the talents of so able a writer, who to the learning
and skill of a lawyer, joined the industry and curiosity of
an antiquary; to whom no object appears frivolous or unimportant that serves to elucidate his subject.
ath of David II. and a very important period of the history still remains to be filled up by an able writer. Lord Hailes’s Annals of Scotland, it is believed, stand unrivalled
Lord Hailes has so well authenticated his work by references to historians of good credit, or deeds and writings of undoubted authority, and has so happily cleared it from fable, uncertainty, and conjecture, that every Scotchman, since its appearance, has been able to trace back with confidence, in genuine memoirs, the history of his country for 736 years, and may revere the memory of the respectable judge, who with indefatigable industry, and painful labour, has removed the rubbish under which the precious remains were concealed. Lord Hailes at first intended, as appears by an advertisement prefixed to his work, to carry down his annals to the accession of James I. but, to the great disappointment of the public, he stopped short at the death of David II. and a very important period of the history still remains to be filled up by an able writer. Lord Hailes’s Annals of Scotland, it is believed, stand unrivalled in the English language, for a p irity and simplicity of style, an elegance, perspicuity, and conciseness of narration, that peculiarly suited the form of his work; and is entirely void of that false ornament, and stately gait, which makes the works of some other writers appear in gigantic but fictitious majesty.
, a celebrated heathen philosopher and writer, of the stoic school as some say, of the peripatetic according
, a celebrated heathen philosopher and writer, of the stoic school as some say, of the peripatetic according to others, was born at Damascus, and flourished about 540, when the Goths reigned in Italy. If great masters can make a great scholar or philosopher, Damascius had every advantage of this kind. Theon, we are told, was his preceptor in rhetoric; Isidorus in logic; Mavinus, the successor of Proclus in the school of Athens, in geometry and arithmetic; Zenodotus, the successor of Marinus, in philosophy ', and Ammonias in astronomy, and the doctrines of Plato. He wrote the life of his master Isidorus, and dedicated it to Theodora, a very learned and philosophic lady, who had been a pupil of Isidorus. In this Life, which was copiously written, Damascius frequently attacked the Christian religion; yet obliquely, it is said, and with some reserve and timidity: for Christianity was then too firmly established, and protected by its numbers, to endure any open attacks with impunity, especially in a work so remarkable for obscurity, fanaticism, and imposture. Of this Life, however, we have nothing remaining, but some extracts which Photius has preserved; who also acquaints us with another work of Damascius, of the philosophic or the theologic kind. This was divided into four books; 1. De admirandis operibus; 2. Admirandae narrationes de daemonibus; 3. De animarum apparitionibus post obitum admirandae narrationes. The title of the fourth has not been preserved. Damascius succeeded Theon in the rhetorical school, over which he presided nine years: and afterwards Isidorus in that of philosophy at Athens, in which situation it is supposed that he spent the latter part of his life.
sons in painting from Vanloo and De Troy, and soon distinguished himself botli as a painter and as a writer. He succeeded more particularly in historical pictures, and
, one of the
professors of the academy of painting, &,c. was born May
22, 1700, at Aix in Provence, and was first intended for
the study of the law, but dishknig it at the outset, he took
lessons in painting from Vanloo and De Troy, and soon
distinguished himself botli as a painter and as a writer. He
succeeded more particularly in historical pictures, and undoubtedly had an affection for all the arts, was a man of
considerable learning, and in society was sensible, upright,
and friendly. He died at Marseilles, where he was director of the academy, April 14, 1783. Some of his
writings gained him much reputation. The principal of them
are, l. “De l'utilite
” d‘un Cours d’Histoire pour les artistes,“1751. 2.
” Principesdu Dessin,“1754, 12mo. 3.
” Anecdotes sur la Mort de Bouchardon,“1764. 4.
” Vie de
Carle Vanloo,“1765, 12mo. 5.
” Monumens de la ville
de Reims,“1765, 12mo. 6.
” Traite de Peinture,“1765,
2 vols. 12mo. 7.
” Histoire universelle relative aux arts,“1769, 3 vols. 12mo. 8.
” Costumes des anciens peuples,"
1776, 4to. This curious collection was republishecl in a
very enlarged form by Cochin, in 4 vols. 1786 and 1792,
4to. Dandre-Bardon wrote also some poetry, but that his
countrymen seem inclined to forget.
et the old Italian critics assign him the first place. Dante in particular speaks of him as the best writer of tender verses in the Provencal language, and seems equally
, so in Moreri, but in other French
biographical works placed under Arnaud, one of the troubadours of the twelfth century, was born of noble parents,
in the castle of Ribeyrac, in Perigord. If we may judge
of his merit by his works which have descended to us, it
would be difficult to give him the preference to his brethren in that century, yet the old Italian critics assign him
the first place. Dante in particular speaks of him as the
best writer of tender verses in the Provencal language, and
seems equally partial to the prose part of his romances;
Petrarch also, who places him at the head of the Provencal
poets, calls him the great master of love, and has honoured
him so far as to conclude one of his own stanzas with a
verse from Arnaud. It has, however, been doubted whether this verse be the production of Arnaud, and Crescinjbeni has employed a long digression in discussing the question. The best, however, of Arnaud’s productions must
have been lost, for what remain by no means support the
character which Dante and Petrarch have given of him.
He has the credit of inventing that species of composition
called the sestine, and attached great importance to rhyme.
Besides his poetical talents, he had musical skill, and composed some of his own songs. Milloi speaks of having
seen seventeen pieces by Arnaud, and there are eight in
the imperial library at Paris, with a life of him. One of
his works is entitled “Fantaumasias del Paganisme.
” He
is supposed to have died about
one who had the taste or genius to anticipate the improvements of a more refined age. As a dramatic writer, he has been praised for his adherence to the models of antiquity,
The justice of these remarks cannot be disproved, although some of them are rather too figurative for sober criticism. Daniel’s fatal error was in causing history instead of fiction; yet in his lesser pieces, and particularly in his sonnets, are many striking poetical beauties; and his language is every where so much more harmonious than that of his contemporaries, that he deserves a place in every collection of English poetry, as one who had the taste or genius to anticipate the improvements of a more refined age. As a dramatic writer, he has been praised for his adherence to the models of antiquity, but whoever attempts this, attempts what has ever been found repugnant to the constitution of the English Theatre.
a piece of grand Gothic architecture at the side of a beautiful Roman temple,” on which an anonymous writer remarks that this Gothic grandeur miserably degenerates in the
The “Commedia
” of Dante is a species of satiric epic,
in which the reader is conducted through the three stages,
“the Inferno,
” the “Purgatorio,
” and “Paradiso,
” the
whole consisting of a monstrous assemblage of characters,
pagan heroes and philosophers, Christian fathers, kings,
popes, monks, ladies, apostles, saints, and hierarchies; yet
frequently embellished with passages of great sublimity and
pathos (of the latter, what is comparable to the tale of Ugolino?) and imagery and sentiments truly Homeric.
The highest praise, however, must be given to his “Inferno,
” a subject which seems to have suited the gloomy
vvildness of his imagination, which appears tamed and
softened even in the most interesting pictures in the
“Purgatorio
” and “Paradiso.
” Whether, says an excellent living critic, Dante was stimulated to his singular
work by the success of his immediate predecessors, the
Provenal poets, or by the example of the ancient Roman
authors, has been doubted. The latter opinion, Mr. Roscoe thinks the more probable. In his “Inferno
” he had
apparently the descent of ^neas in view, but in the rest
of his poem there is little resemblance to any antecedent
production. Compared with the ^neid, adds Mr. Roscoe, “it is a piece of grand Gothic architecture at the side
of a beautiful Roman temple,
” on which an anonymous
writer remarks that this Gothic grandeur miserably degenerates in the adjoining edifices, the “Purgatorio
” and
“Paradiso.
”
gia, or the Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening;” but the public, tired with the reveries of the writer, let this large book of 600 pages in 4to pass almost unnoticed.
In 1753, the author published the first volume of“Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life,
” 4to. The second
volume, which completed the author’s plan, was printed in
1796. As the eccentric genius of the author was known,
great expectations were formed of this work, the labour,
we were told, of more than twenty years. It was to reform,
or entirely new model, the whole system of medicine, professing no less than to account for the manner in which
man, animals, and vegetables are formed. They all, it
seems, take their origin from living filaments, susceptible
of irritation, which is the agent that sets them in motion.
Archimedes was wont to say, “give me a place to stand on,
and I will move the earth:
” such was his confidence in
his know edge of the power of the lever. Our author
said, “give me a fibre susceptible of irritation, and I will
make a tree, a dog, a horse, a man.
” “I conceive,
” he
says, Zoonomia, vol. I. p. the primordium, or rudiment of the embryon, as secreted from the blood of the
parent, to consist in a single living filament, as a muscular fibre, which I suppose to be the extremity of a nerve of
loco-motion, as a fibre of the retina is the extremity of a
nerve of sensation; as, for instance, one of the fibrils
which compose the mouth of an absorbent vessel; I suppose this living filament, of whatever form it may be,
whether sphere, cube, or cylinder, to be endued with the
capacity of being exciied into action by certain kinds of
stimulus. By the stimulus of the surrounding fluid in which
it is received from the mah-, it may bend into a ring, and
thus form the lieg'nninj of a tube. This living ring may
now embrace, or absorb a nutritive particle of the fluid in
which it swims, and by drawing it into its pores, or joining
it by compression to its extremities, may increase its own
length or crassitude, and, by degrees, the living-ring may
become a living tube. With this new organization, or accretion of parts, new kinds of irritability may commence,
”
&c.; whence, sensibility, which may be only an extension
of irritability, and sensibility further extended, beget perception, memory, reason, and, in short, all those faculties
which have been, it seems, erroneously attributed to mind,
for which, it appears, there is not the smallest necessity;
ajid as the Deity does nothing in vain, of course such a
being does not exist. It would be useless to enter into a
further examination of theZoonomia, which has long ceased
to be popular; those who wish to see a complete refutation of the sophisms contained in it will read with satisfaction, “Observations on the Zoonomia of Dr. Darwin, by
Thomas Brown, esq.
” published at Edinburgh in 8vo, in
Phytologia, or the
Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening;
” but the public, tired with the reveries of the writer, let this large book
of 600 pages in 4to pass almost unnoticed. As little attention was paid to a small tract on Female Education, which
had little indeed to attract notice. “It is,
” Miss Seward
observes, “a meagre work, of little general interest, those
rules excepted, which are laid down for the preservation
of health.
” It is, however, harmless, a character that can
by no means be accorded to the Zoonomia, as may he
gathered from the strictures which the author of his life in
the Cyclopædia has justly passed on that work, and to which
nothing could have given even a temporary popularity
but the activity of a small sect to whom the author’s political and religious, or rather irreligious principles, were
endeared. His son, Charles Darwin, who died at Edinburgh the 15th of May, 1778, while prosecuting his studies
in medicine, deserves to be noticed for having discovered
a. test distinguishing pus from mucus, for which a gold
medal was adjudged him by the university. “As the result of numerous experiments,
” he says, “when any one
wishes to examine the matter expectorated by his patient,
let him dissolve a portion of it in vitriolic acid, and another
portion of it in caustic alkaline lixivium, and then add
pure water to both solutions; if there is a precipitation in
each solution, it is clear the expectorated matter is pus;
if there is no precipitation, the matter is simply mucus.
”
Mr. Darwin left an unfinished essay on the retrograde motion of the absorbent vessels of animal bodies in some
diseases. This was, some time after the death of the
young man, published by his father, together with the
dissertation for which he had obtained the prize medal.
, a learned Italian writer, the son of a lawyer at Sienna, was born at that place in 1420,
, a learned Italian writer, the son of
a lawyer at Sienna, was born at that place in 1420, and
after acquiring some knowledge of the Latin language,
was put under the care of Francis Philelphus, an eminent
teacher at Sienna, who at the end of two years declared
he was his best scholar. Dati, however, at this time suffered not a little from the ridicule of his schoolfellows,
owing to a hesitation in his speech, which he is said to
have cured by the means which Demosthenes adopted, that
of speaking with small pebbles in his mouth. After
finishing his classical studies, he learned Hebrew of some
Jews, and then entered on a course of philosophy, jurisprudence, and theology. During his application to these
branches, Odo Anthony, duke of Urbino, from the very
favourable account he had of him, invited him to Urbino
to teach the belles lettres. Dati accordingly set out for
that city in April 1442, where he was received with every
mark of honour and friendship by the duke, but this prosperity was not of long duration. He had not enjoyed it
above a year and a half, when the duke, whose excesses
and tyranny had rendered him odious, was assassinated in
a public tumult, with two of his favourites; and Dati, who
was hated by the populace merely because he was respected
by the duke, was obliged to take refuge for his life in a
church, while the mob pillaged his house. The successor
of Odo, prince Frederick, endeavoured to console Dati for
this misfortune, and offered him a pension, besides recompense for all he had lost; but Dati could not be reconciled
to a residence so liable to interruption, and in 1444 returned to Sienna. Here, after refusing the place of secretary of the briefs, offered to him by pope Nicholas V. he
opened a school for rhetoric and the classics, and acquired
so much reputation, that the cardinal of Sienna, Francis
Piccolomini, formally granted him permission to lecture on
the Holy Scriptures, although he was a married man; and
at the same time gave him a similar licence to teach and
lecture on any subject, not only in his college, but in all
public places, and even in the church, where, his son informs us, he once preached during Lent. He was also
much employed in pronouncing harangues on public
occasions in Latin, many of which are among his works.
Nor were his talents confined to literature, but were the
means of advancing him to the first offices of the magistracy, and the republic of Sienna entrusted him with the
negociation of various affairs of importance at Rome and
elsewhere. In 1 J-57 he was appointed secretary to the republic, which he held for two years. Towards the close
of his life he laid aside the study of profane authors for
that of the Scriptures and ecclesiastical historians. He
died of the plague at Sienna, April 6, 1478. His son
Nicolas collected his works for publication, “Augustini
Dathi, Senensis, opera,
” of which there are two editions,
that printed at Sienna, 1503, fol. and an inferior in correctness, printed at Venice, 1516. They consist of treatises on the immortality of the soul letters; three books
on the history of Sienna; a history of Piombinoj on grammar, &c. &c.
, a poet and dramatic writer of considerable note, was the son of John Davenant, who kept
, a poet and dramatic writer of considerable note, was the son of John Davenant, who kept the Crown tavern or inn at Oxford, but owing to an obscure ins nuation in Wood’s accountof his birth, ithas been supposed that he was the natural son of Shakspeare; and to render this story probable, Mrs. Davenant is represented as a woman of beauty and gaiety, and a particular favourite of Shakspeare, who was accustomed to lodge at the Crown, on his journies between Warwickshire and London. Modern inquirers, particularly Mr. Steevens, are inclined to discredit this story, which indeed seems to rest upon no very sound foundation. Young Davenant, who was born Feb. 1605, very early betrayed a poetical bias, and one of Iris first attempts, when he was only ten years old, was an ode in remembrance of master William Shakspeare: this is a remarkable production for one so young, and one who lived, not only to see Shakspeare forgotten, but to contribute, with some degree of activity, to that instance of depraved taste. Davenant was educated at the grammarschool of All Saints, in his native city, under Mr. Edward Sylvester, a teacher of high reputation. In 1621, the year in which his father served the office of mayor, he entered of Lincoln-college, but being encouraged to try his success at court, he appeared there as page to Frances duchess of Richmond, a lady of great influence and fashion. He afterwards resided in the family of the celebrated sir Ftilke Greville, lord Brooke, who was himself a poet and a patron of poets. The murder of this nobleman in! 628 depriving him of what assistance he might expect from his friendship, Davenant had recourse to the stage, on which he produced his first dramatic piece, the tragedy of Albovine, king of the Lombards.
tic, enabled him to enter deeply into the management of affairs, and procured him great success as a writer in politics; and it is remarkable, that though he was advanced
, the eldest son of sir William
Davenant, was born in 1656, and was initiated in grammar-learning at Cheame in Surrey. Though he had the
misfortune to lose his father when scarce twelve years of
age, yet care was taken to send him to Oxford to finish
his education, where he became a commoner of Baliol college in 1671. He took no degree, but went to London,
where, at the age of nineteen, he distinguished himself
by a dramatic performance, the only one he published,
entitled, “Circe, a tragedy, acted at his royal highness
the duke of York’s theatre with great applause.
” This
play was not printed till two years after it was acted; upon
which occasion Dryden wrote a prologue, and the earl of
Rochester an epilogue. In the former, there was an apology for the author’s youth and inexperience. He had a
considerable share in the theatre in right of his father,
which probably induced him to turn his thoughts so early
to the stage; however, he was not long detained there
either by that, or the success of his play, but applied himself to the civil law, in which, it is said, he had the degree
of doctor conferred upon him by the university of Cambridge. He was elected to represent the borough of St.
Ives in Cornwall, in the first parliament of James II. which
was summoned to meet in May 1685; and, about the same
time, jointly empowered, with the master of the revels, to
inspect all plays, and to preserve the decorum of the stage.
He was also appointed a commissioner of the excise, and
continued in that employment for near six years, that is,
from 1683 to 1689: however, he does not seem to have
been advanced to this rank before he had gone through
some lesser employments. In 1698 he was elected for the
borough of Great Bedwin, as he was again in 1700. He
was afterwards appointed inspector-general of the exports
and imports; and this employment he held to the time of
his death, which happened Nov. 6, 1714. Dr. Davenant’s
thorough acquaintance with the laws and constitution of
the kingdom, joined to his great skill in figures, and his
happiness in applying that skill according to the principles
advanced by sir William Petty in his Political Arithmetic,
enabled him to enter deeply into the management of affairs, and procured him great success as a writer in politics; and it is remarkable, that though he was advanced
and preferred under the reigns of Charles II. and James II.
yet in all his pieces he reasons entirely upon revolution
principles, and compliments in the highest manner the virtues and abilities of the prince then upon the throne.
aper circulation, and on skill in finance, was then in a manner in its infancy, he undoubtedly was a writer whose progress was more advanced than could hare been expected
“Davenant,
” says sir John Sinclair, “is certainly a most
valuable political author; and considering that the modern
system of politics, founded on a spirit of commerce, on
public credit, on paper circulation, and on skill in finance,
was then in a manner in its infancy, he undoubtedly was a
writer whose progress was more advanced than could hare
been expected at that time. It appears from his works,
that he had access to official information, from which he
derived many advantages. He seems, however, to have
depended too much upon political arithmetic, or the
strength of figures, which ought only to be resorted to
when the fact itself cannot be ascertained, being only a
succedaneum when better evidence cannot be procured.
He was unfortunately, also, a party writer, and saw every
thing in the manner the best calculated to promote the
views and purposes of his political friends at the time.
Every thing they did was right, whilst every action of their
enemies was ill-intended and ruinous. He possessed a
very considerable command of language, and is sometimes
too prolix; but on the whole there are certainly very few
that can rival him as a political author.
”
, D. D. an eminent writer and antiquary, was born in the latter part of the sixteenth
, D. D. an eminent writer and antiquary, was born in the latter part of the sixteenth century
in Denbighshire, and educated by William Morgan, afterwards bishop of St. Asaph. He was admitted a student of
Jesus-college, Oxford, in 1589, where he took one degree
in arts, and afterwards became a member of Lincoln-college in the same university. He was rector ol Malloyd, or
Maynlloyd in Merionethshire, and afterwards a canon of
St. Asaph, to which dignity he was promoted by Dr. Parry,
then bishop, whose chaplain he was. He commenced
doctor in 1616, and was highly esteemed by the university,
says Wood, as well versed in the history and antiquities of
his own nation, and in the Greek and Hebrew languages;
a most exact critic, and indefatigable searcher into ancient
writings, and well acquainted with curious and rare authors. The time of his death is not known. His works
are, 1. “Antiques Linguae Britannicse nunc communiter
dictae Cambro-Britannicoe, a suis Cymrascae vel Cambricee,
ab aliis Wallicoe rudimenta,
” &c. Dietionarium Latino-Britannicum,
” Dictionarium Latino-Britannicum,
” which was
begun and greatly advanced by Thomas Williams, physician, before 1600. It was afterwards completed and
published by Dr. Davies. 3. “Aclagia Britannica, authorum
Britannicorum nomina, & quando floruerunt,
” Adagiorum Britannicorum specimen,
” ms. Bibl. Bodl. He
also assisted W. Morgan, bishop of Landaff, and Richard
Parry, bishop of St. Asaph, in translating the Bible into
Welsh, in that correct edition which came out in 1620.
He also translated into the same language (which he had studied at vacant hours for 30 years) the book of “Resolution,
” written by Robert Parsons, a Jesuit.
gain in 1712, 8vo, with the notes greatly enlarged and corrected, and the addition of Commodianus, a writer of the Cyprianic age. 4. He then projected new and beautiful
This learned man was not, as far as we can find, the author
of any original works, but only employed himself in publishing some correct editions of Greek and Latin authors of antiquity. In 1703 he published in octavo, 1. “Maximi Tyrii
dissertationes, Gr. & Lat. ex interpretatione Heinsii,
” &c.
2. “C. Julii Caesaris, et A. Hirtii quas extant omnia,
” Cant.
M. Minucii Felicis Octavius,
” Cant. Tusculanarum
disputationum, libri quinque,
” 8vo. This edition, and
that of De Natura Deorum,
” De divinauone & de
fato,
” Academica,
” 17-5. “De legibus,
” De finibus bonorum & malorum,
” 17-8. These several
pieces of Tully were printed in 8vo, in a handsome manner, were very favourably received, and have passed, most
of them, through several editions. He had also gone as
far as the middle of the third book of Cicero’s Offices;
but being prevented by death from finishing it, he recommended it in his will to the care of Dr. MeaJ, who put it
into the hands of Dr. Thomas Bentley, that he might fit
and prepare it for the press. But the house where Dr.
Bentley lodged, which was in the Strand, London, being
set on fire through his carelessness, as it is said, by reading after he was in bed, Davies’s notes and emendations
perished in the flames. 5. Another undertaking published
by our learned author, which we have not already mentioned, was, “Lactantii Firmiani epitome divinarum institutionum,
” Cantab.
acters of both. It is very convincing in itself; is even drawn up with the air and address of a fine writer, and is peculiarly valuable to the critical investigators of
“Thus fell Davison, a memorable evidence of the cunning, the perfidiousness, and the barbarity of Elizabeth
and her Cecil! But he was fully revenged of them both
in his fall. He wrote the present apology, which serves
so greatly to expose the characters of both. It is very
convincing in itself; is even drawn up with the air and
address of a fine writer, and is peculiarly valuable to the
critical investigators of Elizabeth’s conduct. It differs
very usefully from that in Dr. Robertson’s Appendix, in
being written within the very month of all the main transactions recorded in it, and being therefore very full, circumstantial, and accurate; while that was written many
years afterward, is only general and short, and is often inaccurate. It was not, however, a? Camden says, a ‘ private’ apology sent to ‘ Walsingham,’ (Orig. i. 465. Trans. 392). It was evidently calculated, as I have shown
before, for the inspection of Elizabeth herself. And, as
it would naturally be sent to his brother-secretary for her
inspection, so was it a bold challenge to her for the truth
and exactness of all his averments, and would serve only
to increase the load already descending to crush him. The
other was written, not only when the little particulars had
faded off from the mind, when memory had confounded
some circumstances that were distinct in themselves, and
a regular narrative, if it could have been given, was no
longer of consequence but, what is very surprizing, when
Davison had lost all copy, and even all minutes of this
very apology. It was drawn up, too, when he was no
longer afraid of showing his forbearance in the cause of
Mary, and indeed had reason for displaying it all at large.
He therefore goes back much farther in the second apology
than in the first, to the return of Mary’s judges from Fotheringay, to the moment of her trial, to the examination
of Babington, &c. and to the times preceding all. In this
whole period he shows us his secret attachment to Mary,
by such a train of incidents as seems peculiarly calculated
for the eye of Mary’s son on his accession to the throne of
England. Yet Elizabeth must have been alive at the
writing of it, since she is spoken of as still queen; and I
therefore suppose it to be written at the latter end of Elizabeth’s reign, when all the nation began to turn their
eyes towards Scotland for a successor to her; and when
Davison would naturally endeavour to make that attachment to Mary, for which he had suffered so severely from
Elizabeth, promote his interest with James.
”
, a poetical and miscellaneous writer, of an eccentric character, was born in Wellclose-square, London,
, a poetical and miscellaneous writer, of an eccentric character, was born in Wellclose-square, London, June 22, 1748. His father was an officer in the custom-house, and had been twice married. This son was the issue of his second marriage to Miss Jane Bonham, the only daughter of Samuel Bonham, esq. a merchant in the city. His father died when he was little more than a year old, leaving him a fortune of 1200l. a year, including 300l. as a jointure to his mother, who in a few years married Thomas Phillips, esq. another officer in the customhouse. To this gentleman, who died in 1782, young Day behaved with decent respect, but felt no great attachment. His mother, however, chiefly superintended his education, and accustomed him early, we are told, to bodily exertions, on which he afterwards set so high a value. He was first put to a child’s school at Stoke Newington, and when admissible, was sent to the Charter-house, where he resided in the house and under the instructions of Dr. Crusius, until his sixteenth year. He now entered as a gentleman commoner of Corpus college, Oxford, where he remained three years, but left it without taking a degree.
, a dramatic writer of very little value, flourished in the reign of James I. The
, a dramatic writer of very little
value, flourished in the reign of James I. The exact periods of his birth and decease are not ascertained; but he
could not have died young, as his earliest play bears date
1600, and his latest 1637. Mr. Oldys thinks that he was
living in 1638, and that he was in the King’s-bench prison
from 1613 to 1616, or longer. It is supposed he had acquired reputation even in the time of queen Elizabeth,
whose decease and funeral he commemorates in his “Wonderful Year,
” Jonson, who certainly
could never ‘bear a rival near the throne,’ has, in his
‘ Poetaster,’ the Dnnciad of that author, among many
Other poets whom he has satirised, been peculiarly severe
on Decker, whom he has characterised under the name of
Crispinus. This compliment Decker has amply repaid in his
‘ Satyromastix, or the untrussing a humourous Poet,’ in
which, under the title of young Horace, he has made
Ben the hero of his piece.
” The provocation, however,
on the part of Jonson is completely overthrown by Mr.
Gilchrist, whose accurate research has established the fact
that the Crispinus of Jonson was not Decker, but Marston.
In the Biog. Dramatics, is a long list of forgotten plays by
Decker; and his “Gull’s Hornbook,
” a scarce little tract
by him, was elegantly and curiously reprinted in 1813.
olish lord, one Albert Laski, palatine of Siradia, a man of great parts and learning; and, as a late writer observes, of large fortune too, or he would not have answered
We come now to that period of his life, by which he has been most known, though for reasons which have justly rendered him least regarded. He was certainly a man of uncommon parts, learning, and application; and might have distinguished himself in the scientific world if he had been possessed of solid judgment; but he was very credulous, superstitious, extremely vain, and, we suspect, a little roguish; but we are told that it was his ambition to surpass all men in knowledge, which carried him at length to a desire of knowing beyond the bounds of human faculties. In short, he suffered himself to be deluded into an opinion, that by certain invocations an intercourse or communication with spirits might be obtained; from whence he promised himself an insight into the occult sciences. He found a young man, one Edward Kelly, a native of Worcestershire, who was already either rogue or fool enough for his purpose, and readily undertook to assist him, for which he was to pay him 50l. per annum. Dec. 2, 1581, they began their incantations; in consequence of which, Kelly was, by the inspection of a certain table, consecrated for that purpose with many superstitious ceremonies, enabled to acquaint Dee with what the spirits thought fit to shew and discover. These conferences were continued for about two years, and the subjects of them were committed to writing, but never published, though still preserved in Ashmole’s museum. In the mean time, there came over hither a Polish lord, one Albert Laski, palatine of Siradia, a man of great parts and learning; and, as a late writer observes, of large fortune too, or he would not have answered their purpose. This nobleman was introduced by the earl of Leicester to Dee, and became his constant visitant. Having: himself a bias to those superstitious arts, he was, after much intreaty, received by Dee into their company, and into a participation of their secrets. Within a short time, the palatine of Siradia, returning to his own country, prevailed with Dee and Kelly to accompany him, upon the assurance of an ample provision there; and accordingly they went all privately from Mortlake, in order to embark for Holland; from whence they travelled by land through Germany into Poland, where, Feb. 3, 1584, they arrived at the principal castle belonging to Albert Laski. When Laski had been sufficiently amused with their fanatical pretences to a conversation with spirits, and was probably satisfied that they were impostors, he contrived to send them to the emperor Rodolph II. who, being quickly disgusted with their impertinence, declined all farther interviews. Upon this Dee applied himself to Laski, to introduce him to Stephen king of Poland; which accordingly he did at Cracow, April 1585. But that prince soon detecting his delusions, and treating him with contempt, he returned to the emperor’s court at Prague; from whose dominions he was soon banished at the instigation of the pope’s nuncio, who gave the emperor to understand, how scandalous it appeared to the Christian world, that he should entertain two such magicians as Dee and Kelly. At this time, and while these confederates were reduced to the greatest distress, a young nobleman of great power and fortune in Bohemia, and one of their pupils, gave them shelter in the castle of Trebona; where they not only remained in safety, but lived in splendour, Kelly having in his possession, as is reported, that philosophical powder of projection, by which they were furnished with money very profusely. Some jealousies and heart-burnings afterwards happened between Dee and Kelly, that brought on at length an absolute rupture. Kelly, however, who was a younger man than Dee, seems to have acted a much wiser part; since it appears, from an entry in Dee’s diary, that he was so far intimidated as to deliver up to Kelly, Jan. 1589, the powder, about which it is said he had learned from the German chemists many secrets which he had not communicated to Dee.
, a voluminous and very ingenious political and miscellaneous writer, was born in London about 1663. He was the son of James Foe,
, a voluminous and very ingenious political and miscellaneous writer, was born in London about 1663. He was the son of James Foe, citizen and butcher, of the parish of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate: and his grandfather was Daniel Foe, of Elton, in Northamptonshire, yeoman. How he came by the name of De Foe we are not informed; but his enemies have asserted, that he assumed the De to avoid being thought an Englishman. It certainly appeared, from the books of the chamberlain of London (which were some time ago destroyed by a fire at Guildhall) that our author was admitted, by the name of Daniel Foe, to the freedom of the ciiy by birth, Jan. 26, 1687-8. The family of De Foe were protestant dissenters, and Daniel, who had received his education at a dissenting academy at Newington Green, near London, was a dissenter upon principle and reflection. From his various writings, says his biographer, it is plain that he was a zealous defender of the principles of the dissenters, and a strenuous supporter of their politics, before the liberality of our rulers had freed this conduct from danger. He merits the praise which is due to sincerity in manner of thinking, and to uniformity in habits of acting, whatever obloquy may have been cast on his name, by attributing writings to him, which, as they belonged to others, he was studious to disavow.