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

For the loss which was occasioned by Mr. Locke’s timidity or prudence, he was solicitous to make some degree of reparation. Accordingly, he formed an intention of writing, at large, the history of his noble friend; and if he had accomplished his intention, his work would undoubtedly have been a very valuable present to the public. But there was another biographer, who wrote a life of the earl, soon after his decease. This was Thomas Stringer, esq. of Ivy church, near Salisbury, a gentleman of great integrity and excellent character; who had held, we believe, under his lordship, when high-chancellor of England, the office of clerk of the presentations; and who was much esteemed by some of the principal persons of the age. With Mr. Locke in particular, he maintained an intimate friendship to the time of his death, which happened in 1702. Mr. Stringer’s account has been the ground-work on which the narrative intended for the public eye, by the noble family, has been built. It contained a valuable history of the earl’s life; but was probably much inferior in composition to what Mr. Locke’s would have been; and indeed, in its original form, it was too imperfect for publication. Sometime about the year 1732, this manuscript, together with the rest of the Shaftesbury papers, was put into the hands of Mr. Benjamin Marty n, a gentleman who was then known in the literary world, in consequence of having written a tragedy, entitled “Timoleoh,” which had been acted with success at the theatre royal in Drury-lane. Mr. Martyn made Mr. Stringer’s manuscript the basis of his own work, which he enriched with such speeches of the earl as are yet remaining, and with several particulars drawn from some loose papers left by his lordship. He availed himself, likewise, of other means of information, which more recent publications had afforded; and prefixed to the whole an introduction of considerable length, wherein he passed very high encomiums on our great statesman, and strengthened them by the testimonies of Mr. Locke and Mons. Le Clerc. He added, also, strictures on L' Estrange, sir William Temple, bishop Burnet, and others, who had written to his lordship’s disadvantage. One anecdote, which we well remember, it cannot but be agreeable to the public and to the noble family to see related. It is well known with what severity the earl of Shaftesbury’s character is treated by Dryden, in his Absalom and Achitophel. Nevertheless, soon after that fine satire appeared, his lordship having the nomination of a scholar, as governor of the Charter-house, gave it to one of the poet’s sons, without any solicitation on the part of the father, or of any other person. This act of generosity had such an effect upon IXryden, that, to testify his gratitude, he added, in the second edition of the poem, the four following lines, in celebration of the earl’s conduct as lord chancellor.

Notwithstanding the pains that had been taken by Mr. Marty n, the late earl of Shaftesbury did not think the work sufficiently finished for publication; and, therefore, somewhat more than twenty years ago, he put it into the hands of his friend Dr. Gregory Sharpe, master of the temple. All, however, that Dr. Sharpe performed, was to recommend it to the care of a gentleman, who examined Mr. Martyn’s manuscript with attention, pointed out its errors, made references, and suggested a number of instances in which it might be improved, but did not proceed much farther in the undertaking. At length, the work was consigned to another person, who spent considerable labour upon it, enlarged it by a variety of additions, and had it in contemplation to avail himself of every degree of information which might render it a correct history of the time, as well as a narrative of the life of lord Shaftesbury. The reasons (not unfriendly on either side) which prevented the person now mentioned from completing his design, and occasioned him to return the papers to the noble family, are not of sufficient consequence to be here, related. Whether the work is likely soon to appear, it is not in our power to ascertain.

On this account, written by Dr. Kippis for the last edition of the Biog. Britannica, it is necessary to remark, that Mr. Malone, in his Life of Dryden, has amply refuted the story of the Charter-house. With respect to Mr. Martyn’s work, it is more necessary to remark that the last person, called here another person, to whom the revisal of it was consigned, and who received 500l. for his trouble, was Dr. Kippis himself, but it seems difficult to explain what he means, by adding “Whether the work is likely soon to appear, it is not in our power to ascertain.” The volume of the Biographia in which this article occurs was published in 1789; and six years afterwards, in 1795, Dr. Kippis died. At the sale of his library, a quarto volume of a Life of Lord Shaftesbury, evidently the one alluded to, was purchased by the late duke of Grafton, and must consequently have been printed some time between 1789 and 1795, most probably privately, as no other copy, to the best of our recollection, has since been exposed to sale.

, earl of Shaftesbury, the celebrated author of the Characteristics, was born Feb. 26, 1671, at Exeter-house in London. His father was Anthony earl of Shaftesbury; his mother lady Dorothy Manners, daughter of John earl of Rutland. He was born in the house of his grandfather Anthony first earl of Shaftesbury, and chancellor of England, of whom we have spoken in the preceding article; who was fond of him from his birth, and undertook the care of his education. He pursued almost the same method in teaching him the learned languages, as Montaigne’s father did in teaching his son Latin: that is, he placed a person about him, who was so thoroughly versed in the Greek and Latin tongues, as to speak either of them with the greatest fluency. This person was a female, a Mrs. Birch, the daughter of a schoolmaster in Oxfordshire or Berkshire; and a woman who could execute so extraordinary a task, deserves to have her name recorded with honour among the learned ladies of England. By this means lord Shaftesbury made so great a progress, that he could read both these languages with ease when but eleven years old. At that age he was sent by his grandfather to a private school; and in 1683 was removed to Winchester school, but such was the influence of party-spirit at the time, that he was insulted for his grandfather’s sake, by his companions, which made his situation so disagreeable, that he begged his father to consent to his going abroad. Accordingly he began his travels in 1686, and spent a considerable time in Italy, where he acquired great knowledge in the polite arts. This knowledge is very visible through all his writings; that of the art of painting is more particularly so, from the treatise he composed upon “The Judgement of Hercules.” He made it his endeavour, while he was abroad, to improve himself as much as possible in every accomplishment; for which reason he did not greatly affect the company of other English gentlemen upon their travels; and he was remarkable for speaking French so readily, and with so good an accent, that in France he was often taken for a native.

Upon his return to England in 1689, he was offered a seat in parliament from some of those boroughs where his family had an interest; but he declined it, and pursued that strict course of study, which he had proposed to himself, near five years. He was then elected a burgess for Poole: and, soon after his coming into parliament, had an opportunity of shewing that spirit of liberty, which he maintained to the end of his life, when “The act for granting counsel to prisoners in cases of high treason” was brought into the house. This he looked upon as important, and had prepared a speech in its behalf: but when he stood up to speak it in the house of commons, he was so intimidated, that he lost all memory, and was quite unable to proceed. The house, after giving him a little time to recover his confusion, called loudly for him to go on, when he proceeded to this effect: “If I, sir,” addressing himself to the speaker, “who rise only to give my opinion on the bill now depending, am so confounded, that I am unable to express the least of what I proposed to say; what must the condition of that man be, who, without any assistance, is pleading for his life?” During this and other sessions, in which he continued in the house of commons, he gave a consistent support to every motion for the farther security of liberty: but the business of attending regularly the house of commons, which in those active times generally sat long, in a few years so impaired his health, naturally never robust, that he was obliged to decline coming again into parliament, after its dissolution in 1698.

Being thus at liberty, he went to Holland, where he spent his time in the conversation of Bayle, Le Clerc, and other learned and ingenious men then residing in that country, whose acquaintance induced him to continue there above a twelvemonth, and with whom he probably cultivated that speculative turn which appears in all his writings. When he went to Holland, he concealed his name, as it is said, for the sake of being less interrupted in his studies, pretending only to be a student in physic, and in that character contracted an acquaintance with Bayle. A little before his return to England, being willing to be known to him by his real name, he contrived to have Bayle invited to dinner by a friend, where he was told he was to meet lord Ashley. Bayle accidentally calling upon lord Ashley that morning, was pressed by him to stay; but excused himself, saying, “1 can by no means stay, for I must be punctual to an engagement, where I am to meet my lord Ashley.” The next interview, as may be imagined, occasioned some mirth; and the incident rather increased their intimacy, for they never ceased corresponding till Bayle’s death. During his absence in Holland, an imperfect edition of his “Inquiry into Virtue” was published at London; surreptitiously taken from a rough draught, sketched when he was but twenty years of age. The person who served him thus unhandsomely, was Toland; on whom he is said to have conferred many favours, and who miserably spoiled both his style and sentiments. The treatise, however, acquired some reputation, and was afterwards completed by the noble author, and published in the second volume of the “Characteristics.”

Soon after he returned to England, he became earl of Shaftesbury; but did not attend the house of lords, till his friend lord Somers sent a messenger to acquaint him with the business of the partition treaty, February 1701. On this he immediately went post to London; and though, when lord Somers’s letter was brought to him, he was beyond Briclgwater in Somersetshire, and his constitution was ill calculated for any extraordinary fatigue, he travelled with such speed, that he was in the house of peers on the following day, exhibiting an instance of dispatch, which at that time was less easy to be performed than it is at present. During the remainder of the session, he attended his parliamentary duty as much as his health would permit, being earnest to support the measures of king William, who was then engaged in forming the grand alliance. Nothing, in the earl of Shaftesbury’s judgment, could more effectually assist that glorious undertaking, than the choice of a good parliament. He used, therefore, his utmost efforts to facilitate the design; and such was his success, upon the election of a new house of commons (parties at that crisis being nearly on an equality), that his majesty told him he had turned the scale. So high was the opinion which the king had formed of the earl’s abilities and character, that an offer was made him of being appointed secretary of state. This, however, his declining constitution would not permit him to accept; but, although he was disabled from engaging in the course of official business, he was capable of giving advice to his majesty, who frequently consulted him on affairs of the highest importance. Nay, it is understood that he had a great share in composing that celebrated last speech of king William, which was delivered on the 31st of December, 1701.

Upon the accession of queen Anne to the throne, lord Shaftesbury returned to his retired manner of life, being removed from the vice-admiralty of the county of Dorset, which had been in the family for three successive generations. This slight, though it was a matter of little consequence, was the only one that could have been shewn him, as it was the single thing which he had ever held under the crown. The measure of taking it from him was supposed to have originated in certain statesmen who resented his services to another party in the preceding reign.

In the beginning of the year after, viz. 1703, he made a second journey to Holland, and returned to England in the end of the year following. The French prophets soon after having by their enthusiastic extravagances created much disturbance throughout the nation, among the different opinions as to the methods of suppressing them, some advised a prosecution. But lord Shaftesbury, who abhorred any step which looked like persecution, apprehended that such measures tended rather to inflame than to cure the disease: and this occasioned his “Letter concerning Enthusiasm,” which he published in 1708, and sent it to lord Somers, to whom he addressed it, though without the mention either of his own or lord Somers’s name. Jan. 1709, he published his “Moralists, a philosophical rhapsody:” and, in May following, his “Sensus communis, or an essay upon the freedom of wit and humour.” The same year he married Mrs. Jane Ewer, youngest daughter of Thomas Ewer, esq. of Lee in Hertfordshire; to whom he was related, and by whom he had an only son, Anthony the fourth earl of Shaftesbury. From his correspondence, it does not appear that he had any very extraordinary attachment to this lady, or that the match added much to his happiness, which some have attributed to a disappointment in a previous attachment. In 1710, his “Soliloquy, or advice to an author,” was printed. In 1711, finding his health still declining, he was advised to leave England, and seek assistance from a warmer climate. He set out therefore for Italy in July 1711, and lived above a year after his arrival; dying at Naples, Feb. 4, 1713.

The only pieces which he finished, after he came to Naples, were, “The Judgement of Hercules,” and the “Letter concerning Design;” which last was first published in the edition of the Characteristics, 1732. The rest of his time he employed in arranging his writings for a more elegant edition. The several prints, then first interspersed through the work, were all invented by himself, and designed under his immediate inspection: and he was at the pains of drawing up a most accurate set of instructions for this purpose, which are still extant in manuscript. In the three volumes of the Characteristics, he completed the whole of his writings which he intended should be made public. The first edition was published in 1711; but the more complete and elegant edition, which has been the standard of all editions since, was not published till 1713, immediately after his death. But though lord Shaftesbury intended nothing more for the public, yet, in 1716, some of his letters were printed under the title of “Several Letters written by a noble lord to a young man at the university:” and, in 1721, Toland published “Letters from the late earl of Shaftesbury to Robert Molesworth, esq.” Lord Shaftesbury is said to have had an esteem for such of our divines (though he treated the order very severely in general) as explained Christianity most conformably to his own principles; and it was under his particular inspection, and with a preface of his own writing, that a volume of Whichcot’s sermons was published in 1698, from copies taken in short hand, as they were delivered from the pulpit. This curious fact was some years ago ascertained on the authority of Dr. Huntingford, the present bishop of Gloucester, who had his information from James Harris, esq. of Salisbury, son to a sister of the earl of Shaftesbury. Her brother dictated the preface to this lady, and it is certainly a proof that he had at least a general belief in Christianity, and a high respect for many of the divines of his time, and particularly for Whichcot. Dr. Huntingford’s account was communicated to the last edition of the Biographia Britannica; and in a copy of this volume of sermons now before us, the same is written on the fly leaf, as communicated by Dr. Huntingford to the then owner of the volume, the late Dr. Chelsum.

But lord Shaftesbury’s principal study was the writings of antiquity; and those which he most admired, were the moral works of Xenophon, Horace, the Enchiridion of Epictetus, with Arrian’s Commentaries, and Marcus Antoninus. From these he formed to himself the plan of his philosophy: and the idea which he framed to himself of philosophy in general, may be best comprehended from the following words of his, where addressing himself to a correspondent, he says: “Nor were there indeed any more than two real distinct philosophies; the one derived from Socrates, and passing into the old academic, the peripatetic, and stoic; the other derived in reality from Democritus, and passing into the Cyrenaic, and Epicurean. For as for that mere sceptic or new academic, it had no certain precepts, and so was an exercise of sophistry, rather than of philosophy. The first therefore of these two philosophies recommended action, concernment in civil affairs, religion, &c. the second derided all this, and advised inaction and retreat. And good reason for the first maintained, that society, right, and wrong, were founded in nature, and that nature had a meaning, and was herself; that is to say, in her wits, well governed, and administered by one simple and perfect intelligence. The second again derided this, and made providence and dame nature not so sensible as a doting old woman. So the Epicurean in Cicero treats providence, Anus fatidica stoicomm Kfoma. The first therefore of these philosophies is to be called the civil, social, and theistic: the second the contrary.”

It remains now to notice more particularly the writings of lord Shaftesbury, which by one class of critics, have received the most extravagant applause, and, by another, have been the subjects of indiscriminate condemnation. They have been examined with a critical eye, and in rather an elaborate manner, by Dr. Kippis, to whose article, in the Biographia Britannica, we refer the reader, contenting ourselves with a brief outline. Lord Shaftesbury’s “Letter on Enthusiasm” was written from excellent motives it contains many admirable remarks, delivered in a neat and lively strain but it wants precision conveys but little information and contains some exceptionable passages. The same character may be given, with truth and justice, of “The Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Huphour,” designed to defend the application of ridicule to subjects of speculative inquiry, and among others to religious opinions. His “Soliloquy, or Advice to an Author,” met with more general approbation. It contains a variety of excellent matter; and what the noble lord has advanced in recommendation of self-examination, and in defence of critics and criticism, is particularly valuable: it is evidently the result of the author’s knowledge and refined taste in books, in life, and manners. Lord Shaftesbury’s “Enquiry concerning Virtue” obtained more general applause, although in some points it is liable to objection. It is ably and finely written, and maintains with great force the important truth, that virtue -is the greatest happiness, and vice the greatest misery of men. In this “Enquiry,” the noble author appeared in the close, the logical, and the didactic form. But in the “Moralists,” he is the emulator of Plato, in the boldest poetic manner of that eminent philosopher. Bishop Hurd ranks it among the best compositions of the kind in our language. Its matter is highly valuable and important, and presents us with a truly argumentative and eloquent defence of the doctrines of a Deity and a Providence. The “Miscellaneous Reflections on the preceding treatises, and other critical subjects,” are intended as a sort of defence and explanation of his former works; but, although they contain a variety of just and ingenious remarks, they abound with many exceptionable passages concerning revelation. With respect to the style of lord Shaftesbury, we may quote the opinion of Dr. Blair, which is at once accurate and judicious. “His language has many beauties; it is firm and supported in an uncommon degree; it is rich and musical. No English author has attended so much to the regular construction of his sentences, both with respect to propriety and with respect to cadence. All this gives so much elegance and pomp to his language, that there is no wonder it should sometimes be highly admired. It is greatly hurt, however, by perpetual stiffness and affectation. This is its capital fault. His lordship can express nothing with simplicity. He seems to have considered it as vulgar, and beneath the dignity of a man of quality, to speak like other men. Hence he is ever in buskins, full of circumlocutions and artificial elegance. In every sentence we see the marks of labour and art; nothing of that ease which expresses a sentiment coming natural and warm from the heart. Of figures and ornaments o/ every kind he is exceedingly fond; sometimes happy in them; but his fondness for them is too visible, and having once laid hold of some metaphor or allusion that pleased, he knows not how to part with it. What is most wonderful, he was a professed admirer of simplicity; is always extolling it in the ancients, and censuring the moderns for want of it, though he departs from it himself as far as any one modern whatever. Lord Shaftesbury possessed delicacy and refinement of taste to a degree that we may call excessive and sickly; but he had little warmth of passion; few strong or vigorous feelings; and the coldness of his character led him to that artificial and stately manner which appears in his writings. He is fonder of nothing than of wit and raillery; but he is far from being happy in it. He attempts it often, but always awkwardly: he is stiff even in his pleasantry, and laughs in form like an author, and not like a man.” Lord Shaftesbury sometimes professed himself a Christian; but his writings, in many parts, render his faith in the divine mission of Christ very questionable. The noble lord left one son, Anthony Ashley Cooper, the fourth earl, of whom the learned Bp. Huntingford says, “there never existed a man of more benevolence, moral worth, and true piety.” He was the author of the life of his father, in the great General Dictionary, including Bayle. It may not be improper to add in this place, that the translator of Xenophon’s Cyropedia was the honourable Maurice Ashley Cooper, brother to the third earl.

, 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.

In 1749 he published with his name, “The Life of Socrates, collected from all the ancient authorities.” In this work he received many learned notes from the sturdy antagonist of Warburton, the rev. John Jackson of Leicester, a controversial divine of considerable fame in his day. These notes were principally levelled at Warburton, and in language not very respectful. Warburton, who knew Jackson, but probably little of Cooper, retorted by a note, in his edition of Pope’s Works, on the Essay of Criticism, in which he accused the author of the Life of Socrates of impudent abuse and slander, the offspring of ignorance joined with vanity. Cooper’s vanity, it must be confessed, is amply displayed in this work, and it is impossible to justify his affected contempt for writers of established reputation. Warburton’s rebuke, however, was very coarse, and appears to have alarmed him, for he was not naturally of an abusive turn, but, on the contrary, rather prided himself on a mind superior to personal animosities. In his defence, therefore, he published Remarks on Warburton’s edition of Pope, in which he professes that he had attacked him as an author, and not as a man, and did not, as a fair antagonist, deserve to be called an impudent slanderer. He next examines a few of Warburton’s notes on Pope, and endeavours to prove his incapacity as a commentator. He betrays, however, that the real cause of his introducing Warburton’s name into the Life of Socrates, was his want of veneration for Mr. Cooper’s favourite philosophers, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, &c. The whole is written with much acrimony, but with a very considerable display of learning. In the former, at least, there is reason to think, he was assisted by Jackson; but the Life of Socrates brought very little reputation to its author, and after some years, Warburton’s angry note was omitted from the editions of Pope.

In 1755 he published the “Tomb of Shakspeare,” a vision, and when the “World” was set up by Dodsley and Moore, he contributed two papers. In 1756, he appears to have caught the alarm very general at that time among the enemies of administration, lest the Hessian troops, brought into the country to defend the kingdom from invasion, should be instrumental in subverting its liberties. Mr. Cooper was no politician, but he was a poet, and he determined to contribute his share of warning, in a poem entitled “The Genius of Britain,” addressed to Mr. Pitt. In 1758 he published “Epistles to the Great, from Aristippus in retirement,” and soon after “The Call of Aristippus,” addressed to Dr. Akenside, in a style of adulation pardonable only to the warmest feelings of friendship. Some other of his lesser pieces were republished about this time; and in 1759 his translation of Gresset’s “VerVert,” a mock heroic poem in four cantos. In 1764, all these, with the exception of the “Ver Vert,” and “The Estimate of Life,” were published in one volume by Dodsley, whom he allowed to take that liberty, and who informs us that they were originally written for the author’s amusement, and afterwards published for the bookseller’s profit. At this time, he had probably taken leave of the muses, and was applying himself to the active and useful duties of a magistrate. He resided, however, occasionally in London, and was a constant attendant and frequent speaker at the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce. Of this he had unsuccessfully endeavoured to become a vice-president, and felt his disappointment so keenly as to retire in disgust. He died at his house in May Fair, after a long and excruciating illness, occasioned by the stone, April 14, 1769, in the fortysixth year of his age.

Dr. Kippis, who knew him personally, informs us that he was a gentleman of polite address and accomplishments, and if the general tenour of his works may be credited, he possessed an amiable and affectionate heart. His chief foible was vanity, but this is more discoverable in his writings than it probably was in his life. There are few of the minor poets who have higher claims to originality. The “Epistles to Aristippus/' his songs, and the” Father’s Advice to his Son,“although of unequal merit, contain many passages that are truly poetical. His veneration for some of the French poets, particularly Gresset, induced him to attempt a mode of versification in the Epistles, to which the English ear cannot easily become familiar, and which is not to be justified from any defect in the manliness or copiousness of the English language. Yet this study of the French writers, of no use in other respects, has rendered his translation of the” Ver Vert" almost a perfect copy of the original, and far superior to the coarse version since published by the late Dr. Geddes.

, an eminent English painter, was born in London in 1609, and bred under the care and discipline of Mr. Hoskins, his uncle: but derived the most considerable advantages from his observations on the works of Van Dyck, insomuch that he was commonly styled the Van Dyck in miniature. His pencil was generally confined to ahead only; and indeed below that part he was not always so successful as could be wished. But for a face, and all the dependencies of it, namely the graceful and becoming air, the strength, relievo, and noble spirit, the softness and tender liveliness of flesh and blood, and the looseness and gentle management of the hair, his talent was so extraordinary, that, for the honour of our nation, it may without vanity be affirmed, he was at least equal to the most famous Italians; and that hardly any one of his predecessors has ever been able to shew so much perfection in so narrow a compass. The high prices of his works, and the great esteem in which they were held at Rome, Venice, and in France, were abundant proofs of their great worth, and extended the fame of this master throughout Europe. He so far exceeded his master and uncle Hoskins, that the latter became jealous of him; and finding that the court was better pleased with his nephew’s performances than with his, he took him into partnership with him, but his jealousy increasing, he dissolved it; leaving our artist to set up for himself, and to carry, as he did, most of the business of that time before him. He drew Charles II. and his queen, the duchess of Cleveland, the duke of York, and most of the court: but the two most famous pieces of his were those of Oliver Cromwell, and of one Swingfield. The French king offered Iso/, for the former, but was refused; and Cooper carrying the latter with him to France, it was much admired there, and introduced him into the favour of that court. *He likewise did several large limnings in an unusual size for the court of England; for which his widow received a pension during her life from the crown. This widow was sister to the mother of the celebrated Pope. Answerable to Cooper’s abilities in painting, was his skill in music; and he was reckoned one of the best lutenists, as well as the most excellent limner, of his time. He spent several years of his life abroad, was personally acquainted with the greatest men of France, Holland, and his own country, and by his works was universally known in all parts of Europe. He died at London May 5, 1612, aged 63, and was buried in Pancras church in the fields; where there is a fine marble monument set over him, with a Latin inscription.

He had an elder brother, Alexander Cooper, who was also brought up to limning by Hoskins, their uncle. Alexander performed well in miniature; and going beyond sea, became limner to Christina, queen of Sweden, yet was far exceeded by his brother Samuel. He also painted landscapes in water-colours extremely well, and was accounted an admirable draughtsman.

, a learned English bishop, was born at Oxford about 1517, and educated in the school adjoining to Magdalen college; and, having made great progress in grammar learning, and gained high reputation, he was there elected first demy, then probationer in 1539, and perpetual fellow the year after. He quitted his fellowship in 1546, being then married, as it is supposed; and when queen Mary came to the crown, applied himself to the study of physic, and, faking a bachelor’s degree, practised it at Oxford, because he was secretly inclined to the Protestant religion; but upon the death of that queen, he returned to his former study of divinity. March 156,7, he took the degree of D.D. and about that time was made dean of Christ-church. In 1569 he was made dean of Gloucester, and the year after bishop of Lincoln. July 1572, he preached a sermon at St. Paul’s cross, in vindication of the church of England and its liturgy; to which an answer was sent him by a disaffected person, which answer Strype has printed at length in his “Annals of the Reformation.” In 1577 the queen sent him a letter to put a stop to those public exercises called prophesyings, in his diocese. These prophesyings were grounded upon 1 Cor. xiv. 31. “Ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” They were set on foot in several parts of the kingdom about 1571; and consisted of conferences among the clergy, for the better improving of themselves, and one another, in the knowledge of scripture and divinity; but in 1577 were generally suppressed, on account of their being thought seminaries of puritanism. In 1584 he was translated to the bishopric of Winchester; which diocese abounding greatly with papists, he petitioned the privy-council to suppress them; and among other methods proposed, “that an hundred or two of obstinate recusants, lusty men, well able to labour, might by some convenient commission be taken up, and be sent into Flanders as pioneers and labourers, whereby the country should be disburdened of a company of dangerous people, and the rest that remained be put in some fear.”

This reverend and holy bishop, as Wood calls him, upon the discovery of William Parry’s treason, issued an order of prayer and thanksgiving for the preservation of the queen’s life and safety, to be used in the diocese of Winchester; and, Nov. 17, 1588, preached at St. Paul’s cross, that being a day of public thanksgiving, as well for the queen’s accession, as for the victory obtained over the Spanish armada. He died at Winchester in April 1594, and was buried in the cathedral there. Over his grave, which is on the south side of the choir, was soon after laid a flat marble, with a Latin inscription in prose and verse, which was probably defaced at the new paving of the choir.

The character of this bishop has been represented in an advantageous light by several writers. Bale styles him a very learned man: eloquent, and well acquainted with the English and Latin languages; and Godwin says, that he was a man of great gravity, learning, and holiness of life. “He was,” says Wood, “furnished with all kind of learning, almost beyond all his contemporaries and not only Adorned the pulpit with his sermons, but also the commonwealth of learning with his writings.” “Of him,” says sir John Harrington, “I can say much; and I should do him great wrong, if I should say nothing: for he was indeed a reverend man, very well learned, exceeding industrious; and, which was in those days counted a great praise to him, and a chief cause of his preferment, he wrote that great dictionary that yet bears his name. His life in Oxford was very commendable, and in some sort saint-like; for, if it is saint-like to live unreproveable, to bear a cross patiently, to forgive great injuries freely, this man’s example is sampleless in this age .” He married a wife at Oxford, by whom he had two daughters: but he was not happy with her, she proving unfaithful to his bed. “The whole university,” sir John Harrington tells us, “in reverence to the man, and indignity of the matter, offered to separate her from him by public authority, and so to set him free, being the innocent party: but he would by no means agree thereto, alleging he knew his own infirmity, that he might not live unmarried; and to divorce and marry again, he would not charge his conduct with so great a scandal.” The character of this woman makes us doubt the story that she burnt the notes which her husband had, for eight years, been collecting for his dictionary, lest he should kill himself with study. Such a proof of affection, however perplexing to a student, was not likely from such a wife as Mrs. Cooper.

His writings were: 1. “The epitome of Chronicles from the 17th year after Christ to 1540, and thence to 1560.” The two first parts of this chronicle, and the beginning of the third, as far as the 17th year after Christ, were composed by Thomas Lanquet, a young man of 24 years old: but he dying immaturely, Cooper finished the work, and published it under the title of “Cooper’s Chronicle,” though the running-title of the first and second partis “Lanquet’s Chronicle.” A faulty edition of this work was published surreptitiously in 1559; but that of 1560, in 4to, was revised and corrected by Cooper. 2. “Thesaurus Linguae Romanae & Britannicse,” &c. and, “Dictionarium historicum & poeticum,” 1565, folio. This dictionary was so much esteemed by queen Elizabeth, that she endeavoured, as Wood tells us, to promote the author for it in the church as high as she could. It is an improvement of “Bibliotheca Eliotae,” Eliot’s library or dictionary, printed in 1541; or, as some think, it is taken out of Robert Stephens’s “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, and” Frisii Lexicon Latino-Teutonicum.“3.” A brief exposition of such chapters of the Old Testament as usually are read in the church at common prayer, on the Sundays throughout the year,“1573, 3to. 4.” A sermon at Lincoln,“1575, 8vo. 5. ”Twelve Sermons,“1580, 4to. 6.” An admonition to the people of England, wherein are answered not only the slanderous untruths reproachfully uttered by Martin the libeller, but also many other crimes by some of his brood, objected generally against all bishops and the chief of the clergy, purposely to deface and discredit the present state of the church,“1589, 4to, This was an answer to John ap Henry’s books against the established church, published under the name of Martin Mar-Prelate. Ap Henry, or his accomplices, replied to the bishop’s book, in two ludicrous pamphlets, entitled,” Ha' ye any work for a Cooper?“and” More work for a Cooper."

, a distinguished military officer in the 17th century, was the eldest son of Sir Charles Coote, who was created baronet in April 1621. He was a gentleman of great consideration in Ireland. Upon the breaking out of the rebellion, in 1641, he had a commission for a regiment of foot, and was made governor of Dublin. From this period to the year 1652, he was engaged in a great number of important services for his country. In almost all the contests of which he took a part, he was successful. After Ireland was reduced to the obedience of the parliament, sir Charles was one of the court of justice in the province of Connaught, of which he was made president by act of parliament. Being in England at the time of the deposing of Richard Cromwell, he went post to Ireland, to carry the news to his brother Henry Cromwell, that they might secure themselves; but when he perceived that king Charles the Second’s interest was likely to prevail, he sent to the king sir Arthur Forbes, “to assure his Majesty of sir Charles’s affection and duty, and that if his Majesty would vouchsafe to come to Ireland, he was confident the whole kingdom would declare for him; that though the present power in England had removed all the sober men from the government of the state in Ireland, under the character of presbyterians, and had put Ludlow, Corbet, and others of the king’s judges in their places, yet they were generally so odious to the army as well as to the people, that they could seize on their persons and the castle of Dublin when they should judge it convenient.” The king did not think it prudent to accept the invitation. In a short time after, sir Charles Coote, and some others, so influenced the whole council of officers, that they prevailed upon them to vote not to receive colonel Ludlow as commander in chief, and made themselves masters of Athlone, Drogheda, Limerick, Dublin, and other important places, for the service of the king. He immediately caused colonel Monk to be made acquainted with the progress of the king’s interest in Ireland, who urged them by every means not to restore the suspended commissioners to the exercise of their authority. Soon after, sir Charles Coote and others sent to the parliament a charge of high treason against colonel Ludlow, Corbet, Jones, and Thomlinson. He likewise made himself master of Dublin castle; and apprehended John Coke, chief justice of Ireland, who had been solicitor-general at the trial of king Charles I. Notwithstanding this, parliament thought themselves so sure of him in their interest, that he received their vote of thanks on the 5th of Jan. 1659-60. On the 19th of the same month he was appointed one of the commissioners for the management of the affairs of Ireland. Before those commissioners declared for king Charles, they insisted upon certain things relating to their interest as members of that nation. On the 6th of September 1660, sir Charles Coote, on account of his many and very valuable services for the royal cause, was created baron and viscount Coote, and earl of Montrath in the Queen’s county. He was also appointed one of the lords justices of Ireland, but he did not long enjoy these marks of his sovereign’s favour, for he died in December 1661, and was succeeded in his estate and titles by his son Charles, the second earl. Dr. Leland asserts that Coote and his father had engaged in the parliamentary service not from principle, but interest. Dr. Kippis, however, doubts the assertion, upon the ground that the Cootes were zealous presbyterians; and therefore he thinks it highly probable that they were influenced, at least in part, by their real sentiments, civil and religious, and especially by their aversion from popery.

, a descendant of the preceding family, was the son of Chidley Coote, esq. by Jane, sister of George lord Carbery. He was born in 1726, and, having at an early period devoted himself to arms, if we are not misinformed, served in his majesty’s troops during the rebellion in 1745. In the beginning of the year 1754 the regiment under colonel Aldercon, to which sir Eyre Coote belonged, embarked from Ireland to the East Indies. In January 1757, sir Eyre, then a captain, was ordered by admiral Watson to take possession of Calcutta, surrendered by the nabob, of which he was appointed governor, but of which he was almost immediately dispossessed by colonel Clive, who claimed to be the superior officer. He was afterwards employed in the reduction of Houghley and of Chandenagore. At the battle of Plassey, in June, he signalized himself so much, as to be entitled to a considerable share of the honour of that important victory. In July, being then a major, he was detached with a party in pursuit of monsieur Law, who had collected together the dispersed French; which expedition, though it did not sue-, ceed as to its principal object, the capture of Mr. Law, was yet attended with advantages both to the company and the country at large. In the same year, general Lally threatening the siege of Trichinopoly, major Coote, then become a colonel, drew together what forces he could, and invested Wandewash, which he took the 30th of November, in three days. Knowing the advantage of this place, general Lally attempted to retake it, which brought on an engagement the 22d of July 1760, in which the French troops were entirely routed, and, with their general, fled in despair to Pondicherry.

The siege of this place commenced on the 26th of November, and was carried on with unremitted diligence until the middle of January 1761, when the English forces took possession of this important town; the garrison, consisting of 1400 European soldiers, became prisoners of war; and a. vast quantity of military forces, and great riches, were given up at discretion to the victors. This was the final blow to the French power in India. On the colonel’s return to England, the next year, he was presented by the court of directors with a diamond-hilted sword, which cost 700l. as a testimony of gratitude for the important services he had done. At the close of 1769, or very early in 1770, he was appointed commander in chief of the East India Company’s forces in India. He reached Madras in 1770, but left that place again in October to proceed to Bussorah, from whence he prosecuted his journey to Europe overland. The reason of his quitting Fort St. George was supposed to have been owing to a dispute with the governor there. On the 31st of August 1771 he was invested witH the order of the Bath; and in March 1773 he became colonel of the 37th regiment of foot, which being stationed in Scotland, he resided at Fort George there as governor. On the death of general Clavering in the East Indies, sir Eyre Coote was appointed a member of the supreme council at Bengal, and commander of the British troops. In 1780, Hyder Ally having invaded the Carnatic, general Coote was sent with money and a reinforcement of troops from Bengal to the coast of Coromandel, where he assumed the command of the army.

About July 1781 he with 10,000 men, Europeans and natives, defeated Hyder’s army, consisting of more than 150,000, near Porto Novo. This was the first check of moment given to his career; and, during the succeeding progress of the war, Hyd.er was repeatedly defeated by sir Eyre Coote. In 1783, the public service again requiring his presence in the Carnatic, he, though in a dying state, again left Calcutta for Madras, in order to re-assume the command of the army upon that coast. He arrived at Madras the 24th April 1783, and died two days after. His corpse was sent to England, and landed at the Jetty head 2d September 1784, and deposited in the chapel at Plymouth until the 7th, when it proceeded to West Park, the family-seat in Hampshire, and was from thence removed on the 14th for interment in the parish-church of Rockwood.

, an eminent astronomer, was born at Thorn in Prussia, January 19, 1473. His father was a stranger, but from what part of Europe is unknown. He settled here as a merchant, and the archives of the city prove that he obtained the freedom of Thorn in 1462. It seems clear that he must have been in opulent circumstances, and of consideration, not only from the liberal education which he bestowed upon his son, but from the rank of his wife, the sister of Luca Watzelrode, bishop of Ermeland, a prelate descended from one of the most illustrious families of Polish Prussia. Nicholas was instructed in the Latin and Greek languages at home; and afterward sent to Cracow, where he studied philosophy, mathematics, and medicine: though his genius was naturally turned to mathematics, which he chiefly studied, and pursued through all its various branches. He set out for Italy at twenty-three years of age; stopping at Bologna, that he might converse with the celebrated astronomer of that place, Dominic Maria, whom he assisted for some time in making his observations. From hence he passed to Rome, where he was presently considered as not inferior to the famous Regiomontanus. Here he soon acquired so great a reputation, that he was chosen professor of mathematics, which he taught there for a long time with the greatest applause and here also he made some astronomical observations about the year 1500.

This system he began to consider, and to write upon, when he was about thirty- five years of age. He carefully contemplated the phenomena made mathematical calculations examined the observations of the ancients, and made new ones of his own till, after more than twenty years chiefly spent in this manner, he brought his scheme to perfection, establishing that system of the world which goes by his name, and is now universally received by all philosophers. It had, indeed, been maintained by many of the ancients; particularly Ecphantus, Seleucus, Aristarchus, Philolaus, Cleanthes Samius, Nicetas, Heraclides Ponticus, Plato, and Pythagoras; from the last of whom it was anciently called the Pythagoric, or Pythagorean system. It was also held by Archimedes, in his book of the number of the grains of sand; but after him it became neglected, and even forgotten, for many ages, till Copernicus revived it; from whom it took the new name of the Copernican system.

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.

The above work of Copernicus, first printed at Norimberg in folio, 1543, and of which there have been other editions since, is entitled “De revolutionibus orbium coe lestium,” being a large body of astronomy, in six books. When Rheticus, the disciple of our author, returned out of Prussia, he brought with him a tract of Copernicus on plane and spherical trigonometry, which he had printed at Norimberg, and which contained a table of sines. It was afterward printed at the end of the first book of the Revolutions. An edition of our author’s great work was also published in 4to, at Amsterdam, in 1617, under the title of “Astronomia instaurata,” illustrated with notes by Nicolas Muler of Groningen.

It has not yet been noticed that Copernicus was in the church, and is said to have performed the duties of his function with care, but does not appear to have concerned himself with the disputes occasioned by the reformation. He was indebted to the patronage of his maternal uncle for his ecclesiastical promotions; being made a prebendary of the church of St. John at Thorn, and a canon of the church of Frawenberg in the diocese of Ermeland.

A late traveller observes, as not a little remarkable, that so sublime a discovery as Copernicus produced, should have originated in a part of Europe the most obscure, and hardly civilized, while it escaped the finer genius of Italy and of France. He also informs us, that at Thorn, though a part of the building has been destroyed by fire, the chamber is still religiously preserved in which Copernicus was born. His remains are buried under a flat stone, in one of the side ailes of the most ancient church of Thorn. Above is erected a small monument, on which is painted a half-length portrait of him. The face is that of a man declined in years, pale and thin; but there is, in the expression of the countenance, something which pleases, and conveys the idea of intelligence. His hair and eyes are black, his hands joined in prayer, and he is habited in the dress of a priest: before him is a crucifix, at his foot a skull, and behind appear a globe and compass. When expiring he is said to have confessed himself, as long and uniform tradition reports, in the following Latin verses, which are inscribed on the monument

, an esteemed painter of portraits and conversations, was born at Antwerp in 1618, and was a disciple of the old David Ryckaert, under whose direction he applied himself diligently to cultivate those promising talents which he possessed, not only by practising the best rules administered to him by his instructor, but also by studying nature with singular attention. He was a great admirer of Vandyck; and fixing on the manner of that great artist as his model, had the happiness of so far succeeding, that next to him he was esteemed equal to any other painter of his time. In the school of Ryckaert, he had been accustomed to paint conversations, and he frequently composed subjects of fancy, like Teniers, Ostade, and his master; and by that habit he introduced a very agreeable style of portrait-painting in a kind of historical conversations, which seemed much more acceptable to persons of taste than the general manner of painting portraits, and procured him great reputation and riches. In that way he composed several fine pictures for Charles I. and likewise several for the archduke Leopold and the prince of Orange; which latter prince, as a mark of respect, presented Coques with a rich gold chain, and a gold medal, on which the bust of that prince was impressed. He died in 1634. He had an excellent pencil; his portraits were well designed, with easy natural attitudes; he disposed the figures in his composition so as to avoid confusion and embarrassment; he gave an extraordinary clearness of colour to his heads and hands; and his touch was free, firm, and broad a circumstance very uncommon in works of a small size.

, an eminent philanthropist, was born about 1668, bred to the sea, and spent the first part of his life as master of a vessel trading to our colonies. While he resided in that part of the metropolis which is the common residence of sea-faring people, business often obliged him to come early into the city and return late; when he had frequent occasions of seeing young children exposed, through the indigence or cruelty of their parents. This excited his compassion so far, that he projected the Foundling Hospital; in which humane design he laboured seventeen years, and at last, by his sole application, obtained the royal charter for it. He was highly instrumental in promoting another good design, viz. the procuring a bounty upon naval stores imported from the colonies; and was eminently concerned in setting on foot the colonies of Georgia and Nova Scotia. His last charitable design, in which he lived to make some progress, but not to complete, was a scheme for uniting the Indians in North America more closely to the British interest, by an establishment for the education of Indian girls. Indeed he spent a great part of his life in serving the public, and with so total a disregard to his private interest, that towards the latter part of it he was himself supported by the voluntary subscriptions of public-spirited persons; at the head of whom was that truly amiable and benevolent prince Frederic, late prince of Wales. When Dr. Brocklesby applied to the good old man, to know whether his setting on foot a subscription for his benefit would not offend him, he received this noble answer: “I have not wasted the little wealth, of which I was formerly possessed, in self-indulgence or vain expences, and am not ashamed to confess that, in this my old age, I am poor.”

This singular and memorable man died at his lodgings near Leicester-square, March 29, 1751, in his 84th year; and was interred, pursuant to his desire, in the vault under the chapel of the Foundling-hospital, where an ample inscription perpetuates his memory, as Hogarth’s portrait has preserved his honest countenance.

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 1758, he introduced some observations concerning the Foundling Hospital, shewing the ill consequences of its receiving public support. Afterwards, in 1759, he made a second attack upon the Hospital, in a tract written solely for that purpose. In this tract, the good man’s zeal upon the subject led him to several extravagancies and absurdities: but his general principles, concerning the evil that might arise from bringing up large multitudes of people who were not bound to society by the common ties of private and domestic affection, had a powerful influence on the public mind. The indiscriminate admission of infants into the Hospital was put a stop to; parliamentary support was withdrawn; and the institution was left to be maintained, as it now is very handsomely, by the generosity of individuals.

, in Latin Corasitjs, was born at Toulouse, or rather at Realmont, 1513. He taught law at Anger, Orleans, Paris, Padua, Ferrara, and Toulouse, with universal applause, and was afterwards counsellor to the parliament of Toulouse, and chancellor of Navarre; but, turning protestant, was driven from Toulouse, 1562, and, with difficulty, restored by the patronage of chancellor de l'Hospital, his friend. This return, however, proved unfortunate; for he was murdered in that city, 1573, after the massacre of St. Bartholomew was known there. He left only a daughter. Coras wrote some excellent works in Latin and French, the principal of which were printed, 1556 and 1558, 2 vols. fol. His “Miscellaneorum Juris Civilis libri tres,” is particularly valued. His life was written by a descendant, James Coras, also a protestant, and published in 1673, 4to.

, a nonconformist divine of considerable note, the son of a mechanic at Gloucester, was born in that city in 1620, and after being educated at a grammar school there, became a batler of Magdalen hall, Oxford, in 1636, and in 1639 was admitted bachelor of arts. After taking orders, he preached at Gloucester, where he resided during the siege, of which he published an account. He then removed to Chichester, and afterwards became rector of Bramshot, in Hampshire, from which he was ejected in 1662. He lived privately in London and its neighbourhood until king Charles II.'s indulgence, when a part of his congregation invited him to Chichester, where he preached among them, and had a conference with bishop Gunning on the topics which occasioned his non-conformity; but Corbet was. too closely attached to the principles which prevailed during the usurpation to yield in any point to the discipline of the church. He died Dec. 26, 1680. Baxter, who preached his funeral sermon, gives a very high opinion of his learning, piety, and humility. He wrote many practical tracts, one of which, entitled “Self-employment in secret,” was some years ago reprinted by the Rev. William Unwin, rector of Stock cum Ramsden, in Essex. Corbet’s most curious work is his “Historical relation of the Military Government of Gloucester, from the beginning of the Civil War to the removal of col. Massie to the command of the western forces,” 1645, 4.to. The state of religious parties is well illustrated in another work entitled “The Interest of England in the matter of Religion,” 1661, 8vo. Corbet had also a considerable share in conipiling the first volume of Rushworth’s “Historical Collections.”

, an English prelate, but better known and perhaps more respected as a poet, was the son of Vincent Corbet, and was born at Ewell in Surrey, in 1582. His father, who attained the age of eighty, appears to have been a man of excellent character, and is celebrated in one of his son’s poems with filial ardour. For some reason he assumed the name of Pointer, or, perhaps, relinquished that for Corbet, which seems more probable: his usual residence was at Whitton in the county of Middlesex, where he was noted for his skill in horticulture, and amassed considerable property in houses and land, which he bequeathed to his son at his death in 1619. Our poet was educated at Westminster school, and in Lenu term, 1597-8, entered in Broadgate hall (afterwards Pembroke college), and the year following was admitted a student of Christ Church, Oxford, where he soon became noted among men of wit and vivacity. In 1605 he took his master’s degree, and entered into holy orders. In 3612 he pronounced a funeral oration in St. Mary’s church, Oxford, on the death of Henry, prince of Wales; and the following year, another on the interment of that eminent benefactor to learning, sir Thomas Bodley. In 1618 he took a journey to France, from which he wrote the epistle to sir Thomas Aylesbury. His “Journey to Fiance,” one of his most humorous poems, is remarkable for giving some traits of the French character that are visible in the present day. King James, who showed no weakness in the choice of his literary favourites, made him one of his chaplains in ordinary, and in 1627 advanced him to the dignity of dean, of Christ Church. At this time he was doctor in divinity, vicar of Cassington near Woodstock, in Oxfordshire, and prebendary of Bedminster Secunda in the church of Sarum.

On the 30th of July, 1629, he was promoted to the see of Oxford, and on the 7th. of April 1632 was translated to that of Norwich. He married, probably, before this time, Alice, the daughter of Dr. Leonard Hutton, vicar of Flower, or Flore, in Northamptonshire, who had been his contemporary at the university, and with whom he appears to have renewed his acquaintance during his Iter Boreale. By this wife he had a son, named after his grandfather, Vincent, to whom he addresses some lines of parental advice and good wishes. Of the rest of his life little can be now recovered. He died July 28, 1635, and was buried at the upper end of the choir of the cathedral church of Norwich. Besides his son Vincent, he had a daughter named Alice. They were both living in 1642, when their grandmother, Anne Hutton, made her will, and the son administered to it in 1648, but no memorial can be found of their future history. It would appear that his wife died before him, as in his will he committed his children to the care of their grandmother.

His most accurate biographer, Mr. Gilchrist, to whom, this sketch is greatly indebted, has collected many particulars illustrative of his character, which are, upon the whole, favourable. Living in turbulent times, when the church was assailed from every quarter, he conducted himself with great moderation towards the recusants, or puritans; and although he could not disobey, yet contrived to soften by a gracious pleasantry of manner, the harsher orders received from the metropolitan Laud. In his principles he inclined to the Arminianism of Laud, in opposition to the Calvinism of his predecessor, archbishop Abbot; and it is evident from his poems, entertained a hearty contempt for the puritans, who, however, could not reproach him for persecution. As he published no theological works we are unable to judge of his talents in his proper profession, but his munificence in matters which regarded the church has been justly extolled. When St. Paul’s cathedral stood in need of repairs, he not only contributed four hundred pounds from his own purse, but dispersed an epistle to the clergy of his diocese, soliciting their assistance. This epistle, which Mr. Gilchrist has published, is highly characteristic of his propensity to humour, as well as of the quaint and quibbling style of his age.

Wood has insinuated that he was unworthy to be made a bishop, and it must be owned he often betrayed a carelessness and indifference to the dignity of his public character. Of this we have abundant proof, if credit be due to Aubrey’s Mss. in the Ashmolean museum, from which Mr. Headley has made a curious extract.

Fuller says of him that he was “of a courteous courage, and no destructive nature to any who offended him, counting himself plentifully repaired with a jest upon him.”

His poems, after passing through three editions, were lately very carefully revised and published by Mr. Gilchrist, with the addition of an excellent life, notes, and illustrations. As a poet, it will npt be found that Corbet stands eminently distinguished. His thoughts, however, are often striking and original, although delivered in the uncouth language of his times, and seldom indebted to correctness of versification. His faults are in general those of the age in which he wrote, and if he fills no conspicuous place in poetical history, it ought not to be forgot that he wrote for the amusement of the moment, and made no pretensions to the veneration of posterity. His principal objects were gaiety and merriment at the expence of the more glaring follies of his day; of his serious efforts it may be justly said that his feeling was without affectation, and his panegyric without servility.

, a man of wit and learning of the sixteenth century, was born of an illustrious family at Florence. He went into France in the reign of Catherine de Medicis; and that queen, to whom he had the honour of being allied, placed him with her son, the duke of Anjou, as a man of learning, and a good counsellor. Corbinelli paid his court without servility, and was compared to those ancient Romans who were full of integrity, and incapable of baseness. Chancellor de l'Hospital had a high esteem for him. He was a professed friend and patron of the learned, and frequently printed their works at his own expence, adding notes to them, as he did to Fra. Paolo del Rosso’s poem, entitled “La Fisica,” Paris, 1578, 8vo; and to Dante, “De Vulgari Eloquentia,” 1577, 8vo. Corbinelli was also a man of great courage and resolution, address and intrigue. He wrote down every thing which he heard, while Henry IV. was at the gates of Paris, and carried the paper to him openly, as if it had contained only common affairs, or causes. His easy and confident appearance deceived the guard^ who were placed at the gates; and, as he seemed to trust every body, no body mistrusted him. Raphael Corbinelli, his son, was secretary to queen Mary de Medicis, and father of M. Corbinelli, who died at Paris, June 19, 1716. This last was one of the most distinguished beaux esprits of France; and a man of strict honour and integrity, who was a welcome guest in the best companies. A report prevailing that at one of those social suppers which were given by the princes and princesses, who were Mad. de Maintenon’s enemies, all the other party had been lampooned, it was thought that some particulars might be known from Corbinelli, who was present. M. d'Argenson, lieutenant of the police, accordingly visited the gouty epicurean, and asked him “where he supped such a day” “I think I do not remember,” replied Corbinelli, yawning. “Are you not acquainted with such and such princes” “I forget.” “Have you not supped with them” “I remember nothing of it.” “But I think such a man as you ought to remember things of this kind.” “Yes, sir; but in the presence of such a man as you, I am not such a man as myself.” He left “Les anciens Historiens Latins reduits en Maximes,” with a preface, which was attributed to P. Bouhours, printed 1694, 12mb; “Hist, genealogique de la Maison de Gondi,” Paris, 1705, 2 vols. 4to, and other works.

, a learned Italian Jesuit, was born in Alexandria de la Paglia in 17u4. He was the second son of the count of Calamandrana, descended from an ancient and noble family, originally from Nice. He was educated in the Jesuits’ college at Rome, and in 1718 entered the society, where his progress in learning was so rapid that in the twentieth year of his age he was employed as a teacher in the college of Viterbo, and then gradually preferred to those of Fermo and Ancona, and lastly to that of Rome. Although regularly instituted in universal literature, he evinced a peculiar predilection for oratory, poetry, and history. At the age of twenty-three he firs appeared before the public in an elegant discourse on the political and literary merit of the founder of the Roman college, pope Gregory XIII. which was soon followed by an equally elegant Latin satire, “In fatuos numerorum divinatores, vulgo Caballistas.” This procured him admission into the academy of the Arcadia, by the name of Panemo Cisseo, under which he afterwards published several of his poetical works.

His talents for dramatic poetry became known when he was thirty years of age, by an allegoric drama, entitled “The death of Nice,” in honour of the princess Clementina, queen of the titular James III. who died in 1735. By this he highly ingratiated himself with the abdicated royal family established at Rome, and his production was also much admired by the public, and went through several editions. In his riper years, however, he distinguished himself by performances of higher importance, particularly in 1737, by his excellent satires on the literary spirit of the age published under the name of L. Sectanus, “L. Sectani Q. Fil. de tota Graculorum hujus aetatis litteratura.” The object of this was to satirize a class of halflearned men in Italy and in other countries, who, with an insolent and dogmatic spirit, and with the most assuming and disgusting manners, thought themselves authorized to ppndenm the existing literary institutions, the classification of sciences, the methods of teaching, and even the principles of taste. This work went rapidly through seven editions.

In 1742, the place being vacant, the abbé Gordara was appointed historiographer of his order and in 1750 published, in elegant Latin, 2 vols. fol. “Historia Societatis Jesu, Pars VI. complectens res gestas sub Mutio Vitellesco.” Two years after, this was followed by another work of less bulk, but perhaps more curious, entitled “Caroli Odoardi Stuartii, Walliae principis, expeditio in Scotiam, Libris IV. comprehensa.” This was thought by Ins friends to be his master-piece, but as it has not been, as far as we know, imported into England, we can give no opinion as to its merits. In 1770 Cordara published “The History of the Germanic and Hungarian College at Rome,” a work which, though local, may contribute to the geneijal mass of literary history. On the dissolution of the order of the Jesuits, some of whom were imprisoned and otherwise harshly treated, he retired in 1772 from Rome to Turin, and notwithstanding his advanced age and change of life, resumed his juvenile pursuits in poetry and belles lettres. He composed a drama*, “The Deliverance of Betulia” a burlesque poem, “The Foundation of Nice,” accounted one the best of the kind his “Essay on Military Eclogues,” and in 1783, an eulogy on Metastasio, none of which betrayed any decay in his powers. Towards the close of his life he resided at Alexandria, his native place, in a secular college, where he died in 1790. His eloge was written by his countryman, the marquis Charles Guasco.

, 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,” 1685, 2 vols. fol. a work which the French critics- do not appreciate so justly as it deserves. 2. Divers tracts in metaphysics, history, politics, and moral philosophy, reprinted in 1704, 4to, under the title of “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.

, orCORDERUS (Balthasar), a learned editor, was born at Antwerp in 1592, belonged to the society of Jesuits in the Low Countries, and was doctor of theology at Vienna, where he attained a considerable share of celebrity, as professor of that faculty. He was a man of great learning, particularly in Greek literature. He died at Rome June 24, 1650. His principal works, as editor and author, were “S. Dionysii Areopagitae Opera omnia, Gr. et Lat. cum Scholiis, &c.” 1634, in 2 torn. fol. “Expositiones Patrum Graecorum in Psalmos,” 1643, in 3 torn, fol. “S. Cyrilli Homilise in Jeremiam,” 1648, 8vo, &c. &c.

, Was born at Limoges in 1570, and at an early age discovered a considerable turn for literary pursuits, but the death of his father restricted him to trade until he was about thirty years of age, when a change of circumstances enabled him to indulge his original propensity. He entered into the society of Jesuits at Avignon; but a series of ill health obliged him to quit their seminary, and to pursue his studies privately. He afterwards became a canon, of his native place, and a collector of rare and valuable books. He was himself an author and editor of considerable reputation and after his death, which happened in 1642, his library was purchased by cardinal Mazarine. He was editor of the works of Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims; and of the works of George Cassander. He translated father Paul’s “History of the Differences between Pope Paul V. and the republic of Venice;” and likewise Camillo Portio’s “History of the Troubles in the kingdom of Naples, under Ferdinand I.”

, in Latin Corderius, lived in the sixteenth century, and was an eminent teacher. He understood the Latin tongue critically, was a man of virtue, and performed his functions with the utmost diligence, mixing moral with literary instruction. He spent his long life in teaching children at Paris, Nevers, Bordeaux, Geneva, Neufchastel, Lausanne, and lastly again at Geneva, where he died September the 8th, 1564, at the age of eighty-five, having continued his labours until three or four days before his death. He studied divinity for some time at Paris in the college of Navarre, about the year 1528, after he had taught a form in the same college but he left off that study in order to apply himself to his former functions of a grammarian. He had taught at Nevers in 1534, 1535, and 1536. Calvin, who had been his scholar at Paris in the college de la Marche, dedicated his Commentary on the 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians to him. It is not exactly known of what province Mathurin Cordier was; some say he was born in Normandy; others pretend he was born in the earldom of Perche. He published several books for the use of schools, among which were, 1. “Epistres Chrestiennes,” Lyons, 1557, 16to. 2. “Sentences extraictes de la Saincte Escriture pour Tinstruction des Enfans,” Latin and French, 1551. 3. “Cantiques spirituels en nombre 26,” 1560. 4. “Le Miroir de la Jeunesse, pour la former a bonnes mceurs, et civilite de la vie,” Paris, 16to. 5. “L‘ Interpretation et construction en Francois des distiques Latins, qu’on attribue a Caton,” Lyons, 8vo, and since, perhaps, above an hundred times. His “Colloquia” have long been used in schools, and have been printed, says Bayle, a thousand times.

, called by Melchior Adam, Henry Urban, a physician and poet, was a native of Simmershuys in Hesse. To assist himself in the prosecution of his studies, he undertook the business of private tutor, and while thus employed, had the good fortune to attract the notice of Erasmus, but his openness of character is said to have procured him enemies among men of less liberal minds. In 1521 he went to Italy, where he attached himself in a particular manner to the study of botany collecting and examining a number of rare plants, and diligently comparing them with the descriptions of them left by Dioscorides. At Ferrara he took the degree of doctor in medicine, which he afterwards taught at Erfurt and Marpurg. In 1535 he went to Bremen, where he remained until his death, in 1533. He was author of several, and some very valuable, works. His “Treatise on the English Sweating Sickness” was published at Fribourg, in 1529, 4to; and in 1532, he gave a Latin version of the Tberiaca, and Alexipharmica of Nicander. His “Botanologicon, sive Colloquium de Herbis,” was printed at Colonna, in 1534, and is commended by Haller, and was several times reprinted; and his “De Abusu Uroscopirc,” in 1546, at Francfort. His Latin poems were published in the “Deliciae Poet. Germ.”

, son of the preceding, and worthy of his father, was born in Hesse-Cassel in 1515, and applied himself with equal success to the study of languages and of plants. He traversed all the mountains of Germany, for the purpose of gathering simples. He then went into various parts of Italy; but died of a wound in the leg by a kick from a horse, in 1544, at the age of 29. The following distich was inscribed on his tomb:

, a famous musician of Italy, was born at Fusignano, a town of Bologna, in 1653. His first instructor in music was Simonelli, a singer in the pope’s chapel; but his genius leading him to prefer secular to ecclesiastical music, he afterwards became a disciple of Bassani, who excelled in that species of composition, in which Corelli always delighted, and made it the business of his life, to cultivate. It is presumed that he was taught the organ: but his chief propensity was for the violin, on which he made so great proficiency, that some did not scruple to pronounce him the first performer on that instrument in the world. About 1672 his curiosity led him to visit Parisand it is said that the jealous temper of Lully not brooking so formidable a rival, he soon returned to Rome; but this Dr. Burney thinks is without foundation. In 1680 he visited Germany, was received by the princes there suitably to his merit; and, after about five years stay abroad, returned and settled at Rome.

While thus intent upon musical pursuits at Kome, he fell under the patronage of cardinal Ottoboni; and is said to have regulated the musical academy held at the cardinal’s palace every Monday afternoon. Here it was that Handel became acquainted with him; and in this academy a serenata of Handel, entitled “II trionfo del tempo,” was performed: the overture to which was in a style so new and singular, that Corelli was much perplexed in his first attempt to play it. This serenata, translated into IJnglish, and called “The Triumph of Time and Truth,” Was performed at London in 1751. The merits of Corelli as a performer were sufficient to attract the patronage of the great, and to silence, as they did, all competition; but the remembrance of these was soon absorbed in the contemplation of his excellencies as a general musician, as the author of new and original harmonies, and the father of a style not less noble and grand than elegant and pathetic. He died at Rome Jan. 18, 1713, aged almost 60; and was buried in the church of the Rotunda, otherwise called the Pantheon; where, for many years after his decease, he was commemorated by a solemn musical performance on the anniversary of that event. He died possessed of about 6000l. which, with a large and valuable collection of pictures, of which he was passionately fond, he bequeathed to his friend and patron cardinal Ottoboni; who, however, while he reserved die pictures to himself, distributed the money among the relations of the testator, an act of justice, in which it may, without breach of charity, be thought that Corelli ought to have anticipated him.

Corelli is said to have been remarkable for the mildness of his temper, and the modesty of his deportment; yet to have had a quick sense of the respect due to his skill and exquisite performance. Gibber relates, that, once when Corelli was playing a solo at cardinal Ottoboni’s, he discovered the cardinal and another person engaged in discourse, upon which he laid down his instrument; and, being asked the reason, gave for answer, that he feared the music might interrupt conversation.

The concluding remarks of the same learned critic are too ingenious to be omitted. There was, he observes, little or no melody in instrumental music before Corelli' s time. And though he has much more grace and elegance in his cantilena than his predecessors, and slow and solemn movements abound in his works; yet true pathetic and impassioned melody and modulation seem wanting in them all. He appears to have been gifted with no uncommon powers of execution; yet, with all his purity and simplicity, he condescended to aim at difficulty, and manifestly did all he could in rapidity of finger and bow, in the long unmeaning allegros of his first, third, and sixth solos; where, for two whole pages together, common chords are broken into common divisions, all of one kind and colour, which nothing but the playing with great velocity and neatness could ever render tolerable. But like some characters and indecorous scenes in our best old plays, these have been long omitted in performance. Indeed his knowledge of the power of the bow, in varying the expression of the same notes, was very much limited. Veracini and Tartini greatly extended these powers; and we well remember our pleasure and astonishment in hearing Giardini, in a solo that he performed at the oratorio, 1769, play an air at the end of it with variations, in which, by repeating each strain with different bowing, without changing a single note in the melody, he gave it all the effect and novelty of a new variation of the passages.

However, if we recollect that some of Corelli’s works are now more than a hundred years old, we shall wonder at their grace and elegance; which can only be accounted for on the principle of ease and simplicity. Purcell, who composed for ignorant and clumsy performers, was obliged to write down all the fashionable graces and embellishments of the times, on which account his music soon became obsolete and old-fashioned; whereas the plainness and simplicity of Corelli have given longevity to his works, which can always be modernised by a judicious performer, with very few changes or embellishments. And, indeed, Corelli’s productions continued longer in unfading favour in England than in his own country, or in any other part of Europe; and have since only given way to the more fanciful compositions of the two Martini’s, Zanesti, Campioni, Giardini, Bach, Abel, Schwindl, Boccherini, Stamitz, Haydn, Mozart, and Pleyel.

, an artist, was born about 1558 in Greece, and after studying five years under Tintoretto, about 1590, fixed himself at Naples. He had received from nature a fertility of ideas and a celerity of hand, which made him perhaps equal to his master in the dispatch of works as numerous as complicated; he alone performed the task of four industrious painters. When he chose to bridle his enthusiasm, he may be compared with Tintoretlo; he is inferior to few in design, and has inventions, motions, airs of heads, which the Venetians themselves, though they were perpetually before their eyes, could never equal. His powers of imitation he proved by the large picture of the “Crowd miraculously fed,” painted in forty days for the refectory of the Benedictines. In general his method resembles that of Cesare d'Arpino, and when he conforms to the Venetian manner, he still preserves a character of his own, especially in his glories, which he hems in with showery clouds and darkness. He painted little in oil, though possessed of great energy and union of colour. The rage of gain carried him to large works in fresco, which he arranged with much felicity of the whole; copious, various, resolute, and even finished in the parts, and correct, if roused by the concurrence of some able rival, Such he was at the Certosa in the chapel of St. Gennaro, when he had Caracciolo for his competitor. For other churches he sometimes painted sdfcred subjects in small proportions, much commended by Dominici. This artist died in 1643.

, a late celebrated improvisatrice, was born at Pistoia in 1740, and gave, in her infancy, the most unequivocal marks of uncommon genius; and her acquirements in natural and moral philosophy, and ancient and modern history, were at the age of seventeen very remarkable. At the age of twenty she began to display that talent for extempore composition which is so common in Italy, and so uncommon elsewhere as to be questioned. Of this lady’s abilities, however, we are not permitted to doubt, if we give any credit to the popularity she gained among all classes, and especially among persons of the highest rank. The empress Maria Theresa offered her the place of female poet laureat at court, which she accepted, And went to Vienna in 1765. Previously to this she had married signer Morelli, a gentleman of Leghorn; but her conduct after marriage became grossly licentious, a circumstance which does not appear to have diminished the respect paid to her by all ranks. At Vienna, she wrote an epic poem and a volume of lyric poetry, both which she dedicated to the empress. She attracted the enthusiastic admiration of Metastasio himself, and rendered the taste for Italian poetry more predominant than it had ever been in Vienna. Soon after 1771, she settled in Rome, was admitted a member of the academy of the Arcadi, under the name of Gorilla Olympica, and for some years continued to charm the inhabitants of Rome by her talents in improvisation. At length when Pius VI. became pope, he determined that she should be solemnly crowned, an honour which had been granted to Petrarch only. An account of this singular transaction, beautifully printed at Parma, by Bodoni, in 1779, contains her diploma and all the discourses, poems, sonnets, &c. written on the occasion, with the examination which she underwent, concerning her knowledge of the most important subjects upon which she was required to Improvisare, or treat extemporaneously, in verse publicly at the Campidoglio in Rome. The Italian title of this narrative is, “Atti della solenne coronazione fatta in Campidoglio della insigne poetesia D-na. Maria Maddalena Morelli Fernandez Pistoiese, Tragli Arcadi Gorilla Olimpica.” Twelve members of the Arcadian academy were selected out of thirty, publicly to examine this new edition of a Tenth Muse which has been so often dedicated to ladies of poetical and literary talents. Three several days were allotted for this public exhibition of poetical powers on the following subjects: sacred history, revealed religion, moral philosophy, natural history, metaphysics, epic poetry, legislation, eloquence, mythology, fine arts, and pastoral poetry.

In the list of examiners there appear a prince, an archbishop, three monsigneurs, the pope’s physician, abati, avocati, all of high rank in literature and criticism. These, severally, gave her subjects, which, besides a readiness at versification in all the measures of Italian poetry, required science, reading, and knowledge of every kind. In all these severe trials, she acquitted herself to the satisfaction and astonishment of all the principal personages, clergy, literati, and foreigners then resident at Rome; among the latter was our sovereign’s brother, the duke of Gloucester. Near fifty sonnets by different poets, with odes, canzoni, terse rime, ottave, canzonette, &c. produced on the subject of this event, are inserted at the end of this narrative and description of the order and ceremonials of this splendid, honourable, and enthusiastic homage, paid to poetry, classical taste, talents, literature, and the fine arts.

This renowned lady merits some notice as a musician, as well as poetess; as she sung her own verses to simple tunes with a sweet voice, and in good taste. She likewise played on the violin; hut at Florence, in 1770, she was accompanied on the violin by the celebrated and worthy pupil of Tartini, Nardini.

, a Grecian lady, celebrated for her beauty and poetic talents, was born at Thessu a city in Boeotia, and was the disciple of Myrtis, another Grecian lady. Her verses were so esteemed by the Greeks that they gave her the name of the Lyric Muse. She lived in the time of Pindar, about 495 years before Christ, and is said to have gained the prize of lyric poetry five times from that poet: but Pausanias observes that her beauty made the judges partial. Corinna wrote a great deal of poetry, but no more have come down to us than some fragments whicli may be seen in Fabricius’s “Bibliotheca Graeca.”

, born in 1460, of an illustrious family of Milan, was selected by duke Lewis Sforza, surnamed Maurus, for composing the history of his country; but the French having got possession of the Milanese, and the duke his patron being taken prisoner, he died of grief in 1500. The best edition of his history, “Storia di Milano,” is that of Milan in 1503, in folio. It is finely printed, scarce, and much more valued than those since published, which have been disfigured by mutilations. Some estimation, however, is attached to those of Venice, 1554, 1565, 4to and that of Paris, 1646, 4to. Although he writes in a harsh and incorrect style, he is accurate in ascertaining dates, and minute in relating those circumstances that interest the attention. His nephew Charles Corio employed himself on the same object, and wrote in Italian, a “Portrait of the city of Milan,” in which are collected the monuments, ancient and modern, of that unfortunate city.

, orHAGUENBOT (John), a celebrated German physician, was born at Zwickaw in Saxony in 1500. His preceptor made him change his name of Haguenbot, or Haubut, to that of Cornarius, but such changes were frequently voluntary. In his twentieth year, he taught grammar and explained the Greek and Latin poets and orators to his scholars, and two years after was admitted licentiate in medicine. He found fault with most of the remedies provided by the apothecaries; and observing, that the greatest part of the physicians taught their pupils only what is to be found in Avicenna, Rasis, and the other Arabian physicians, he carefully sought for the writings of the best physicians of Greece, and employed about fifteen years in translating them into Latin, especially the works of Hippocrates, Aetius, Eginetes, and a part of those of Galen. Meanwhile he practised physic with reputation at Zwickaw, Francfort, Marpurg, Nordhausen, and Jena, where he died of an apoplexy, March 16, 1558. He also wrote some medical treatises; published editions of some poems of the ancients on medicine and botany; and translated some of the works of the fathers, particularly those of Basil, and a part of those of Epiphanius. His translations are now little consulted, but they undoubtedly contributed to lessen the difficulties of his successors in the same branch of useful labour.

, a Venetian of noble extraction, is memorable for having lived to an extreme age: for he was ninety-eight years old at the time of his death, which happened at Padua April 26, 1566, his birth being fixed at 1467. Amongst other little performances, he left behind him a pieae, entitled “De vitae sobrise commodis,” i. e. “Of the advantages of a temperate life:” of which an account was given in the preceding editions of this Dictionary, and which, as amusirrg and instructive, we shall not disturb, although it belongs rather to the medical than, biographical department.

He was moved, it sefems, to compose this little piece, at the request and for the benefit of some ingenious young men, for whom he had a regard; who, having long since lost their parents, and seeing him then eighty-one years old, in a florid state of health, were desirous to know by what means he contrived thus to preserve a sound mind in a sound body, to so extreme an age. In answer, he tells them, that, when he was young, he was very intemperate; that this intemperance had brought upon him many and grievous disorders; that from the thirty-fifth to the fortieth year of his age, he spent his nights and days in the utmost anxiety and pain; and that, in short, his life was grown a burthen to him. The physicians, however, as he relates, notwithstanding all the vain and fruitless efforts which they had made to restore him, told him, that there was one medicine still remaining, which had never been tried, but which, if he could but prevail with himself to use with perseverance, might free him in time from all his complaints; namely, a regular and temperate way of living, but that unless he resolved to apply instantly to it, his case would soon become desperate. Upon this he immediately prepared himself for his new regimen, and now began to eat and drink nothing but what was proper for one in his weak habit of body. But this at first was very disagreeable to him: he wanted to live again in his old manner; and he did indulge himself in a freedom of diet sometimes, without the knowledge of his physicians indeed, although much to his own uneasiness and detriment. Driven in the mean time by necessity, and exerting resolutely all the powers of his understanding, he grew at last confirmed in a settled and uninterrupted course of temperance: by virtue of which, all his disorders had left him in less than a year, and he had been a firm and healthy man from that time to his giving this account.

To shew what a security a life of temperance is against the ill effects of hurts and disasters, he relates an accident which betel him, when he was very old. One day being overturned in his chariot, he was dragged by the horses a considerable way upon the ground. His head, his arms, his whole body were very much bruised; and one of his. ancles was put out of joint. He was carried home; and the physicians seeing how much he was injured, concluded it impossible that he should live three days, but by bleeding and evacuating medicines, be presently recovered his health and strength.

Some sensualists, as it appears, had objected to his manner of living; and in order to evince the reasonableness of their own, had urged, that it was not worth while to mortify one’s appetites at such a rate, for the sake of being old since all that was life, after the age of sixty-five, could not properly be called vita viva, sed vita mortua not a living life, but a dead life. “Now,” says he, “to shew these gentlemen how much they are mistaken, I will briefly run over the satisfactions and pleasures which I myself now enjoy in this eighty-third year of my age. In the first place I am always well; and so active withal, that I can with ease mount a horse upon a flat, and walk to the tops of very high mountains. In the next place I am always cheerful, pleasant, perfectly contented, and free from all perturbation, and every uneasy thought. I have none of that fastidium vita?, that satiety of life, so often to be met with in persons of my age. I frequently converse with men of parts and learning, and spend much of my time in reading and writing. These things I do, just as opportunity serves, or my humour invites me; and all in my own house here at Padua, which, I may say, is as commodious and elegant a seat, as any perhaps that this age can shew; built by me according to the exact proportions of architecture, and so contrived as to be an equal shelter against heat and cold. I enjoy at proper intervals my gardens, of which I have many, whose borders are refreshed with streams of running water. I spend some months in the year at those Eugancan hills, where I have another commodious house with gardens and fountains: and I visit also a seat I have in the valley, which abounds in beauties, from the many structures, woods, and rivulets that encompass it. I frequently make excursions to some of the neighbouring cities, for the sake of seeing my friends, and conversing with the adepts in all arts and sciences: architects, painters, statuaries, musicians, and even husbandmen. I contemplate their works, compare them with the ancients, and am always learning something, which it is agreeable to know. I take a view of palaces, gardens, antiquities, public buildings, temples, fortifications: and nothing escapes me, which can afford the least amusement to a rational mind. Nor are these pleasures at all blunted by the usual imperfections of great age: for I enjoy all my senses in perfect vigour; my taste so very much, that I have a better relish for the plainest food now, than I had for the choicest delicacies, when formerly immersed in a life oi luxury. Nay, to let you see what a portion of fire and spirit I have still left within me, know, that I have this very year written a comedy, full of innocent mirth and pleasantry; and, if a Greek poet was thought so very healthy and happy, for writing a tragedy at the age of 73, why should not I be thought as healthy and as happy, who have written a comedy, when I am ten years older? In short, that no pleasure whatever may be wanting to my old age, I please myself daily with contemplating that immortality, which I think I see in the succession of my posterity. For every time I return home, I meet eleven grandchildren, all the offspring of one father and mother; all in fine health; all, as far as I can discern, apt to learn, and of good behaviour. I am often amused by their singing; nay, I often sing with them, because my voice is louder and clearer now, than ever it was in my life before. These are the delights and comforts of my old age; from which, I presume, it appears, that the life I spend is not a dead, morose, and melancholy life, but a living, active, pleasant life, which I would not change with the robustest of those youths who indulge and riot in all the luxury of the senses, because I know them to be exposed to a thousand diseases, and a thousand kinds of deaths. I, on the contrary, am free from all such apprehensions: from the apprehension of disease, because I have nothing for disease to feed upon; from the apprehension of death, because I have spent a life of reason. Besides, death, I am persuaded, is not yet near me. I know that (barring accidents) no violent disease can touch me. I must be dissolved by a gentle and gradual decay, when the radical humour is consumed like oil in a lamp, which affords no longer life to the dying taper. But such a death as this cannot happen of a sudden. To become unable to walk and reason, to become blind, deaf, and bent to the earth, from all which evils I am far enough at present, must take a considerable portion of time: andI verily believe, that this immortal soul, which still inhabits my body with so much harmony and complacency, will not easily depart from it yet. I verily believe that I have many years to live, many years to enjoy the world and all the good that is in it; by virtue of that strict sobriety and temperan-ce, which I have so loug and so religiously observed; friend as I am to reason, but a foe to sense.” His wife, who survived him, lived also to nearly the same age. Sir John Sinclair, in his “Code of Health and Longevity,” mentions the edition of 1779 as the best English translation of Cornaro’s works. There are four discourses on one subject, penned at different times; the first, already mentioned, which he wrote at the age of eighty-three, in which he declares war against every kind of intemperance. The second was composed three years after, and contains directions for repairing a bad constitution. The third he wrote when he was ninety-one, entitled “An earnest exhortation to a sober life;” and the last is a letter to Barbaro, patriarch of Aquileia, written when he was ninety-five, which contains a lively description of the htalth, vigour, and perfect use of all his faculties, which he had the happiness of enjoying at that advanced period of life.

, a learned Venetian lady, born in 1646, was the daughter of Gio Baptista Cornaro, and educated in a very different manner from the generality of her sex, being taught languages and sciences, and all the philosophy of the schools. After having studied many years, she took her degrees at Padua, and was perhaps the first lady that ever was made a doctor. She was also admitted of the university of Rome, wherei she had the title of Humble given her, as she had at Padua that of Unalterable, titles which she is said to have deserved, because her learning had not inspired her with vanity, nor was any thing capable of disturbing her train of thought. With all this, however, she was not free from the weaknesses of her religion, and the age in which she lived. She early made a vow of perpetual virginity; and though all means were used to persuade her to marry, and even a dispensation with her vow obtained from the pope, yet she remained immoveable. It is affirmed, that not believing the perpetual study to which she devoted herself, and which shortened her days, sufficient to mortify the flesh, she addicted herself to other superstitious restraints, fasted often, and spent her whole time either in study or devotion, except those few hours when she was obliged to receive visits. All people of quality and fashion, who passed through Venice, were more solicitous to see her, than any of the curiosities of that superb city. The cardinals de Bouillon and D'Etrees, in passing through Italy, were commanded by the king of France, to examine whether what some said of her was true and their report was that her parts and learning were equal to her high reputation. At length her incessant study of books, particularly such as were in Greek and Hebrew, impaired her constU tution so much, that she fell into an illness, of which she died in 1685. We are told that she had notice of her death a year before it happened, and that, talking one day to her father of an old cypress-tree in his garden, she advised him to cut it down, since it would do well to make her a coffin.

As soon as the news of her death reached Rome, the academicians called Infecondi, who had formerly admitted her of their society, composed odes and epitaphs to her memory without number, and celebrated a funeral solemnity in honour of her, in the college of the Barnabite ftithers, where the academy of the Infecondi usually assembled. This solemnity was conducted with such magnificence, that a description of it was published at Padua in 1686, and dedicated to the republic of Venice. Part of the ceremony was a funeral oration, in which one of the academicians with all the pomp of Italian eloquence, expatiated upon the great and valuable qualities of the deceased; saying, that Helena Lucretia Cornaro had triumphed over three monsters, who were at perpetual war with her sex, viz. luxury, pride, and ignorance; and that in this she was superior to all the conquerors of antiquity, even to Pompey himself, though he triumphed at the same time over the three kings, Mithridates, Tigranes, and Aristobulus, because it was easier to conquer three kingdoms, than three such imperfections and vices, &e. In 1688 her works were published at Parma, 8vo, edited by Benedict Bacchini, with an ample life, but the praises he bestows on her are but feebly supported by these writings.

, an Italian poet, was born at Placentia, and flourished in the fifteenth century, but we have no dates of his birth or death. He passed some part of his life at Milan, and afterwards travelled into France; and on his return he went to Ferrara, where he remained until his death, patronized by the duke Hercules I. who had a high regard for him. Some of his biographers inform us that he served under the celebrated Venetian general, Bartholomew Coglioni, of whom he has left a life, in Latin, published by Burman. He left also a great many other works, the most considerable of which is an Italian poem, in nine books, on the military art, with the Latin title of “De Re Militari,” Venice, 1493, fol.; Pesaro, 1507, 8vo, &c. He has likewise given Latin titles to his three small poems, on the art of governing, the vicissitudes of fortune, and on the ablest generals: these were published at Venice, 1517, 8vo, but are rather dull and uninviting. His “Lyric poems,” sonnets, canzoni, &c. were published at Venice, 1502, 8vo, and Milan, 1519. In these we find a little more spirit and vivacity, but they partake of the poetical character of his time. Quadrio, however, ranks them among the best in the Italian language.

, born at Paris in 1642, was one of those eminent painters who adorned the age of Louis XIV. His father, who was himself a painter of merit, instructed him with much care. Having gained a prize at the academy, young Corneille was honoured with the king’s pension, and sent to Rome; where the princely generosity of Louis had founded a school for young artists of genius. Here he studied some time; but thinking himself under restraint to the routine of study there established, he gave up his pension, and pursued a plan more suitable to his own inclination. He applied himself to the antique particularly with great care; and in drawing is said to have equalled Carache. In colouring he was deficient; but his advocates say, his deficiency in that respect was solely owing to his having been unacquainted with the nature of colours; for he used many of a changeable nature, which in time lost their effect. Upon his return from Rome, he was chosen a professor in the academy or' Paris; and was employed by the king in all the great works he was carrying on at Versailles and Trianon, where some noble efforts of his genius are to be seen. He died at Paris in 1708.

, one of the most celebrated French poets, and called by his countrymen the Shakspeare of France, was born at Roan, June 6, 1606, of considerable parents, his father having been ennobled for his services by Louis XIII. He was brought up to the bar, which he attended some little time; but having no turn for business, he soon deserted it. At this time he had given the public no specimen of his talents for poetry, nor appears to have been conscious of possessing any such: and they tell us, that it was purely a trifling affair of gallantry, which gave occasion to his first comedy, called “Melite.” The drama was then extremely low among the French; their tragedy fiat and languid, their comedy more barbarous than the lowest of the vulgar would now tolerate. Corneille was astonished to find himself the author of a piece entirely new, and at the prodigious success with which his “Melite” was acted. The French theatre seemed to be raised, and to flourish at once; and though deserted in a manner before, was now filled on a sudden with a new company of actors. After so happy an essay, he continued to produce several other pieces of the same kind; all of them, indeed, inferior to what he afterwards wrote, but much superior to any thing which the French had hitherto seen. His “Medea” came forth next, a tragedy, borrowed in part from Seneca, which succeeded, as indeed it deserved, bul indifferently; but in 1637 he presented the “Cid,” another tragedy, in which he shewed the world how high his genius was capable of rising, and seems to confirm Du Bos’s assertion, that the age of thirty, or a few years more or less, is that at which poets and painters arrive at as high a pitch of perfection as their geniuses will permit. All Europe has seen the Cid: it has been translated into almost all languages: but the reputation which he acquired by this play, drew all the wits of his time into a confederacy against it. Some treated it contemptuously, others wrote against it. Cardinal de Richelieu himself is said to have been one of this cabal; for, not content with passing for a great minister of state, he affected to pass for a wit and a critic; and, therefore, though he had settled a pension upon the poet, could not abstain from secret attempts against his play . It was supposed to be under his influence that the French Academy drew up that critique upon it, entitled, “Sentiments of the French academy upon the tragi-comedy of Cid:” in which, however, while they censured some parts, they did not scruple to praise it very highly in others. Corneille now endeavoured to support the vast reputation he had gained, by many admirable performances in succession, which, as Bayle observes, “carried the French theatre to its highest pitch of glory, and assuredly much higher than the ancient one at Athens;” yet still, at this time, he had to contend with the bad taste of the most fashionable wits. When he read his “Polyeucte,” one of his best tragedies, before a company of these, where Voiture presided, it was very coldly received; and Voiture afterwards told him, it was the opinion of his friends that the piece would not succeed. In 1647 he was chosen a member of the French academy; and was what they call dean of that society at the time of his death, which happened in 1684, in his 79th year.

He was, it is said, a man of a devout and melancholy cast; and upon a disgust he had conceived to the theatre, from the cold reception of his “Pertharite,” betook himself to the translation of “The Imitation of Jesus Christ,” by Kempis; which he performed very elegantly. He returned, however, to the drama, although not with his wonted vigour. He spoke little in company, even upon subjects which he perfectly understood. He was a very worthy and honest man; not very dexterous in making his court to the great, which was perhaps the chief reason why he never drew any considerable advantage from his productions, besides the reputation which always attended them. Racine, in a speech made to the French academy in the beginning- of 1685, does great justice to our author’s talents. After representing the miserable state in which the French theatre then was, that it was without order, decency, sense, taste, he passes to the sudden reformation effected by Corneille: “a man who possessed at once all those extraordinary talents which form a great poet; art, force, judgment, and wit. Nor can any one sufficiently admire the greatness of his sentiments, the skill he shews in the economy of his subjects, his masterly way of moving the passions, the dignity, and at the same time the vast variety of his characters.” This encomium must have the more weight, as it comes from the only man in the world who has been considered as his great rival. Yet we are told, that when Racine read his tragedy of “Alexander” to Corneille, the latter gave him many commendations, but advised him to apply his genius, as not being adapted to the drama, to some other speuies of poetry. Corneille, says Dr. Warton, one would hope, was incapable of a mean jealousy; and if he gave this advice, thought it really proper to be given. The French have ever been fond of opposing Corneille to Shakspeare ' 9 but the want of comic powers in Corneille, for his comedies are truly contemptible, must ever obstruct the comparison. His genius was unquestionably very rich, but seems more turned towards the epic than the tragic muse; and in. general he is magnificent and splendid, rather than tender and touching. He is, says Blair, an opinion in which all English critics agree, the most declamatory of all the French tragedians. He united the copiousness of Dryden with the fire of Lucan; and he resembles them also in their faults: in their extravagance and impetuosity. As to the opinions of the best modern French critics, on the merits of Corneille, we may refer to an admirable “Eloge,” published by Da Ponte, in London, 1808, and to Suard’s “Melange de Litterature,” 1808. But Fontenelle’s comparison between Corneille and Racine, as less accessible to many readers, may be added here with advantage. Corneille, says Fontenelle, had no excellent author before his eyes, whom he could follow; Racine had Corneille. Corneille found the French stage in a barbarous state, and advanced it to great perfection: Racine has not supported it in the perfection in which he found it. The characters of Corneille are true, though they are not common: the characters of Racine are not true, but only in proportion as they are common. Sometimes the characters of Corneille are, in some respects, false and unnatural, because they are noble and singular; those of Racine are often, in some respects, low, on account of their being natural and ordinary. He that has a noble heart, would chuse to resemble the heroes of Corneille; he that has a little heart, is pleased to find his own resemblance in the heroes of Racine. We carry, from hearing the pieces of the one, a desire to be virtuous; and we carry the pleasure of finding men like ourselves, in foibles and weaknesses, from the pieces of the other. The tender and graceful of Racine is sometimes to be found in Corneille: the grand and sublime of Corneille is never to be found in Racine. Racine has painted only the French and the present age, even when he designed to paint another age and other nations: we see in Corneille all those ages, and all those nations, that he intended to paint. The number of the pieces of Corneille is much greater than that of Racine: CorneiHe, notwithstanding, has made fewer tautologies and repetitions than Racine has made. ID the passages where the versification of CorneiHe is good, it is more bold, more noble, and, at the same time, as pure and as finished as that of Racine: but it is not preserved in this degree of beauty: and that of Racine is always equally supported. Authors, inferior to Racine, have written successfully after him, in his own way: no author, not even Racine himself, dared to attempt, after CorneiHe, that kind of writing which was peculiar to him. Voltaire, the best editor of Corneille’s works, seems in some measure to coincide with Fontenelle. “CorneiHe,” says he, “alone formed himself; but Louis XIV. Colbert, Sophocles, and Euripides, all of them contributed to form Racine.” When we arrive, however, at Racine, it will be necessary to estimate his merit, without the bias which comparative criticism generally produces.

, brother to the preceding, a French poet also, but inferior to Peter CorneiHe, was born in 1625. He was a member of the French academy, and of the academy of inscriptions. He discovered, when he was young, a strong inclination and genius for poetry; and afterwards was the author of many dramatic pieces, some of which were well received by the public, and acted with great success. He died at Andeli, 1709, aged 84. His dramatic works, with those of his brother, were published at Paris, 1.738, in 11 vols. 12mo. Besides dramatic, Thomas Corneille was the author of some other works: as, 1. A translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses and some of his Epistles. 2. Remarks upon Vaugelas. 3. fe A dictionary of arts,“in 2 vols. folio. 4.” An universal geographical and historical dictionary," in 3 vols. folio. In the last work, that part of the geography which concerns Normandy is said to be excellent. As to his dramatic talents, they were far from being contemptible, and a few of his pieces still keep their place on the stage; but it was his misfortune to be a Corneille, and brother of one emphatically called the Great Corneille.

, the eldest son of Charles fifth lord and first earl Cornwailis, by Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Charles, second viscount Townsend, was born Dec. 31, 1738, and educated at Eton, and at St. John’s college, Cambridge. Preferring a military life, he was, in August 1765, appointed aid-de-camp to the king, with the rank of colonel of foot. In Sept. 1775 y he became major-general; in August, 1777, lieutenantgeneral; and in October, 1793, general. He represented, in, two parliaments, the borough of Eye, in Suffolk, until he succeeded his father in the peerage, June 23, 1762. In parliament, he was not a frequent or distinguished speaker. In the house of peers he appears to have been rather favourable to the claims of the American colonies, which, however, when they came to an open rupture with the mother country, did not prevent him from accepting a command in America, where he distinguished himself at the battle of Brandywine, in 1777, and afterwards at the siege of Charlestown, and was left in the command of South Carolina, where his administration was commended for its wisdom. He was soon obliged to take the field, and obtained the decisive victory of Camden, and was next victorious at Guildford, but not without a considerable loss of men. His plan of invading Virginia, in 1781, was of more doubtful prudence, and ended in his capture, with his whole army of four thousand men. Thus defeated, he laid the blame on the failure of expected succour from sir Henry Clinton, who in return equally blamed both the scheme and its conduct, and several pamphlets were published by both these commanders, into the merits of which we cannot pretend to enter. It is sufficient for our purpose to be able to add, that lord Cornwailis lost no reputation by this misfortune, either for skill or courage.

Soon after his return from America, on the change of administration which took place in 1782, he was removed from his place of governor of the Tower of London, which he had held since 1770, but was re-appointed in 1784j and retained it during his life. In 1786, his lordship was sent out to India with the double appointment of governor-general and commander in chief; and arriving at Calcutta in September of that year, found the different presidencies in rising prosperity. Not long after, the government of Bengal found it necessary to declare war against the sultan of the Mysore, for his attack on the rajah of Travancore, the ally of the English. The campaign of 1790 was indecisive; but in March 1791, lord Cornwallis invaded the Mysore, and came in sight of Seringapatam, which he was prevented from investing by the floods of the Cavery. In 1792, however, he besieged that metropolis; and on the approach of the attack, the sultan Tippoo Saib sued for peace, and was obliged to accept such terms as the English commander dictated. He consented to cede a part of his dominions, paid a large sum of money, undertook to furnish a still more considerable portion of treasure, within a limited period, &c. and entrusted two of his sons to. the care of lord Cornwallis, with whom they were to remain as hostages for the due performance of the treaty. By this successful conclusion of the war, the most formidable enemy was so reduced, as to render our possessions in India both profitable and secure. Madras was protected from invasion by possession of the passes, and covered by a territory defended by strong forts; and the value of Bombay was greatly enhanced, by possessions gained on the Malabar coast. The details of this war belong to history; but it is necessary to add, that in the whole conduct of it, lord Cornwallis evinced qualities of the head and heart which greatly increased his reputation as a commander. On marching days, it was his constant custom to be in his tent from the time the army came to the ground of encampment; and on halting-days, after visiting the outposts in the morning, he was there constantly employed till the evening, attending to the affairs depending on his station. The business which pressed upon him from the several armies, and from every part of India, were so complicated and various, as to require every exertion of diligence and arrangement. He gave his instructions, in person, to all officers who went on detachments of importance, and saw them on their return. Officers at the heads of departments applied to himself on all material business, and there was no branch of the service with which he was not intimately acquainted. His lordship’s tents, and the line of headquarters, appeared more like the various departments of a great office of state, than the splendid equipagethat might be supposed to attend the leader of the greatest armies that, under a British general, were ever assembled in the east. To this unremitting attention to business, is not only to be ascribed the general success of the administration of lord Cornwallis in India, and in particular that of the operations of this war, but also the unexampled economy with which it was conducted.

This important war being now ended, so highly to the honour of the British arms, lord Cornwallis returned to England, to receive the rewards justly due to his merit. He had before been invested with the insignia of the garter; and he was, in August 1792, advanced to the dignity of marquis Cornwailis, admitted a member of the privy-council, and, in addition to his other appointments, was nominated to the office of master-general of the ordnance. In 1798, the rebellion in Ireland appearing both to the viceroy, lord Camden, and to his majesty, to require a lordlieutenant who could act in a military as well as a civil capacity, the king appointed lord Cornwallis to that important service, which he executed with skill, promptitude, and humanity; and after quelling the open insurrection, he adopted a plan of mingled firmness and conciliation, which, executed with discriminating judgment, tended to quiet that distracted country, and prepare matters for a permanent plan, that should both prevent the recurrence of such an evil, and promote industry and prosperity. He retained this high appointment till May 1801, when he was succeeded by the earl of Hardwicke. The same year he was appointed plenipotentiary to France, and signed the peace of Amiens.

In 1804, his lordship had the honour of being appointed, a second time, governor-general in the East Indies, on the recall of marquis Wellesley; and in that station he died at Ghazepore, in the province of Benares, October 5, 1805, worn out with an active life spent in the service of his country, and covered with glory and honours. His amiable character and unassuming disposition made him as universally beloved as he was respected. His talents were not brilliant: but they proved what a good heart, inflamed by an honourable ambition, may, by the aid of perseverance, effect. His lordship married, July 14, 1768, Jemima, daughter of James Jones, esq. by whom he had an only son, Charles, the present marquis.

, a Spanish ecclesiastic, was born at Segovia, and became eminent for his critical knowledge of oriental languages, and especially the original languages of the Holy Scriptures. He was one of the professors of the university of Salamanca, when cardinal Ximenes employed him, among other learned men, on his celebrated edition of the Polyglot Bible. He also was the author of an addition to the work of Nicholas de Lira, “De translationuni differentiis.” He died Sept. 30, 1534.

, a celebrated geographer of the Minime order, and a most laborious and voluminous compiler, was born at Venice, and admitted doctor at the age of 24. Becoming known to cardinal d'Estrees by his skill in mathematics, he was employed by his eminence to make globes for Louis XIV. He staid some time at Paris for that purpose, and left many globes there, which were at that time much esteemed. Coronelli was appointed cosmographer to the republic of Venice in 1685, and public professor of geography in 1689. He afterwards became definitor-general of his order, and general May 14, 1702. After founding a cosmographical academy at Venice, he died in that city, December 1718, leaving above four hundred maps. His publications were so numerous as to fill about thirty volumes, most of them in folio. Among these are, 1. “Atlante Veneto,” 4 vols. folio, Venice, 1691. 2. “Ritratti de celebri personaggi dell 1 academia cosmografica, &.c.” Venice, 1697, folio. 3. “Specchio del mare Mediterraneo,” ibid, 1698, folio. 4. “Bibliotheca universalis,” or an universal Dictionary, an immense undertaking, to be extended to forty-five folio volumes. All the accounts we have of Coronelli differing, we know not how far he had proceeded in this work. Moreri says he had published seven volumes; but an extract from some foreign journal, in the “Memoirs of Literature,” states that, in 1709, eighteen volumes had appeared, which went no farther than the word Cavalieri, in letter C. We doubt, therefore, if the author could have compressed his materials in 45. That he should entertain a favourable opinion of his labours, and predict that all other dictionaries must sink before his, and that he should exult in the idea of leaving behind him the largest compilation ever made, is not surprizing: we are more disposed to wonder at the spirit of literary enterprize among the printers and booksellers in those clays, which encouraged such undertakings.

, a learned antiquary, born in 1660, was first a lawyer, and in that profession so distinguished, as to attract the notice of pope Clement XI. who appointed him to honourable and confidential offices. Disgusted, however, by the intrigues of the court, he gave himself up to retirement, for the purpose of applying to literary pursuits. Here he remained till he was created cardinal by pope Innocent XIII. which dignity he enjoyed more than twenty years, and died at Rome in 1743. He wrote a learned and curious work, entitled “VetusLatium,profanum et sacrum,” Rome, 1704 and 1707, 2 vols. fol. reprinted in 1727, 4 vols. 4to likewise a history of his native place, entitled “De civitate et ecclesia Settina;” Rome, 1702, 4to. He is said to have written a dissertation concerning certain contested rights between the emperor and the pope, “De jure precum primariarum,” 1707, under the assumed name of Conradus Oligenius.

, the son of Ant. Corranus, LL.D. was born at Seville, in Spain, in 1527, and educated for the Roman Catholic church; but being afterwards desirous of embracing the reformed religion, became to England in 1570, and being admitted into the English church, became a frequent preacher. In 1571 he was made reader of divinity in the Temple, by the interest of Dr. Edwin Sandys, bishop of London, and continued in that office about three years. In the beginning of March 1575, he was recommended to the university of Oxford for a doctor’s degree, by their chancellor, the earl of Leicester; but doubts being raised as to the soundness of his principles on certain contested points, his degree was refused until he should give full satisfaction, which he probably did, although the matter is not upon record. At Oxford he became reader of divinity to the students in Gloucester, St. Mary’s, and Hart-hail, and resided as a student of Christchurch, holding at the same time the prebend of Harleston in St. Paul’s. He died at London in March 1591, and was buried either at St. Andrew’s, Hoiborn, or St. Andrew Wardrobe. His works are, 1. “An Epistle to the pastors of the Flemish church at Antwerp,” originally written in Latin, Lond. 1570, 8vo. 2. “Tabulae Divinorum operum, de humani generis creatione,” 1574, 8vo; and afterwards published in English. 3. “Dialogus Theologicus,” an explanation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, collected from his lectures, 1574, 8vo; also translated, 1579. 4. “Supplication to the king of Spain,” respecting the protestants in the Low Countries, 1577, 8vo, published in Latin, French, and English. 5. “Notsc in concionem Solomonis” i. e. Ecclesiastes, 1579 and 1581, 8vo and again, by Scultetus, in 1618. 6. “Sermons on Ecclesiastes,” abridged by Thomas Pitt, Oxon. 1585, 8vo, probably an abridgement of the preceding. 7. “A Spanish grammar, with certain rules for teaching both the Spanish and French tongues,” translated into English by Thorius. Lond. 1590, 4to.

, sometimes called Laeti, an eminent historical painter, was born in 1490* or 1494. Being descended of poor parents, and educated in an obscure village, he enjoyed none of those advantages which contributed to form the other great painters of that illustrious age. He saw none of the statues of ancient Greece or Rome; nor any of the works of the established schools of Rome and Venice. But nature was his guide; and Corregio was one of her favourite pupils. To express the facility with which he painted, he used to say that he always had his thoughts ready at the end of his pencil.

ther he was horn in 1490, or 1494, is vol. II. of his works, published by Ninot ascertainedthe time of his death, cole d'Azara. in 1534, is more certain. The best temporaries and successors. Annibal Caracci, who flourished fifty years after him, studied and adopted his manner in preference to that of any other master. In a letter to his cousin Louis, he expresses with great warmth the impression which was made on him by the first sight of Corregio’s paintings tf Every thing which I see here,“says he,” astonishes me particularly the colouring and the beauty of the children. They live they breathe They smile with so much grace and so much reality, that it is impossible to refrain from smiling and partaking of their enjoyment. My heart is ready to break with grief when I think on the unhappy fate of poor Corregio-^-that so wonderful a man (if he ought not rather to be called an angel) should finish his days so miserably in a country where his talents were never known!"

From want of curiosity or of resolution, or from want of patronage, Corregio never visited Rome, but remained his whole life at Parma, where the art of painting was little esteemed, and of consequence poorly rewarded. This concurrence of unfavourable circumstances occasioned at last his premature death, at the age of forty. He was employed to paint the cupola of the cathedral at Parma, the subject of which is an “Assumption of the Virgin;” and having executed it in a manner that has long been the admiration of every person of good taste, for the grandeur of design, and especially for the boldness of the fore-shortenings (an art which he first and at once brought to the utmost perfection), he went to receive his payment. The canons of the church, either through ignorance or baseness, found fault with his work; and although the price originally agreed upon had been very moderate, they aU ledged that it was far above the merit of the artist, and forced him to accept of the paltry sum of 200 livres; which, to add to the indignity, they paid him in copper money. To carry home this unworthy load to his indigent wife and children, poor Corregio had to travel six or eight miles from Parma. The weight of his burden, the heat of the weather, and his chagrin at this treatment, threw him into a pleurisy, which in three days put an end to his life and his misfortunes in 1534.

For the preservation of this magnificent work the world is indebted to Titian. As he passed through Parma in the suite of Charles V. he ran instantly to see the chef-d'oeuvre of Corregio. While he was attentively viewing it, one of the principal canons of the church told him that such a grotesque performance did not merit his notice, and that they intended soon to have the whole defaced. “Have a care of what you do,” replied the other: “if I were not Titian, I would certainly wish to be Corregio.”

Dufresnoy says of this artist, that he “struck out certain natural and unaffected graces for his Madonnas, his saints, and little children, which were peculiar to himself. His manner, design, and execution, are all very great, but yet without correctness. He had a most free and delightful pencil; and it is to be acknowledged, that he painted with a strength, relief, sweetness, and vivacity of colouring, which nothing ever exceeded. He understood how to distribute his lights in such a manner, as was wholly peculiar to himself, which gave a great force and great roundness to his figures. This manner consists in extending a large light, and then making it lose itself insensibly in the dark shadowings, which he placed out of the masses: and those give them this relief, without our being able to perceive from whence proceeds so much effect, and so vast a pleasure to the sight. It appears that in this part the rest of the Lombard school copied him. He had no great choice of graceful attitudes, or distribution of beautiful groupes. His design often appears lame, and his positions not well chosen: the look of his figures is often unpleasing; but his manner of designing heads, hands, feet, and other parts, is very great, and well deserves our imitation. In the conduct and finishing of a picture he has done wonders; for he painted with so much union, that his greatest works seem to have been finished in the compass of one day, and appear as if we saw them in a looking-glass. His landscape is equally beautiful with his figures.”

Mr. Fuseli’s opinion of Corregio may with great propriety close these criticisms. “Another charm,” says the professor, “was yet wanting to complete the round of art harmony. It appeared with Antonio Laeti, called Corregio, whose works it attended like an enchanted spirit. The harmony and the grace of Corregio are proverbial: the medium which by breadth of gradation unites two opposite principles, the coalition of light and darkness, by imperceptible transition, are the element of his style. This inspires his figures with grace, to this their grace is subordinate: the most appropriate, the most elegant attitudes were adopted, rejected, perhaps sacrificed to the most aukvvard ones, in compliance with this imperious principle: parts vanished, were absorbed, or emerged in obedience to it. This unison of a whole, predominates over all that remains of him, from the vastness of his cupolas to the smallest of his oil-pictures. The harmony of Corregio, though assisted by exquisite hues, was entirely independent of colour: his great organ was chiaroscuro in its most extensive sense: compared with the expanse in which he floats, the effects of Lionarda da Vinci are little more than the dying ray of evening, and the concentrated flash of Giorgione discordant abruptness. The bland central light of a globe, imperceptibly gliding through lucid demitints into rich reflected shades, composes the spell of Corregio, and affects us with the soft emotions of a delicious dream.”

, a monk of the Ecoles-Pies, and a mathematician and antiquary, was born at Fanano in 1702, and died in 1765, at Pisa, where the grand duke had given him a chair in philosophy. This science occupied his first studies, and his success soon appeared from the “Philosophical and Mathematical Institutions,” 1723 and 1724, 6 vols. 8vo. For the doctrines of Aristotle, which then were generally adopted in a part of Italy, he substituted a species of philosophy at once more useful and more true. Encouraged by the favourable reception his work had met with, he published in 1735 a new “Course of Geometrical Elements,” written with precision and perspicuity. On being appointed professor at Pisa, he revised and retouched his two performances. The former appeared, with considerable corrections, at Bologna in 1742; and the second, augmented with f< Elements of Practical Geometry,“was published at Venice in 1748, 2 vols. 8vo. He was well versed in hydrostatics and history. After having sedulously applied for several years to the classical authors, and particularly those of Greece, he proposed to write the” Fasti of the Archons of Athens,“the first volume of which appeared in 1734, in 4to, and the fourth and last, ten years after. Being called in 1746 to the chair of moral philosophy and metaphysics, he composed a” Course of Metaphysics,“which appeared afterwards at Venice in 1758. His learned friends Muratori, Gorio, Maffei, Quirini, Passionei, now persuaded him to abandon philosophy; and, at their solicitations, he returned to criticism and erudition. In 1747 he published four dissertations in 4to, on the sacred games of Greece, in which he gave an exact list of the athletic victors. Two years afterwards he brought out, in folio, an excellent work on the abbreviations used in Greek inscriptions, under this title,” De notis Graecorum.“This accurate and sagacious performance was followed by several dissertations relative to objects of learning. But the high esteem in which he was held by his acquaintance on account of his virtues and industry, was an interruption to his labours, he being appointed general of his order in 1754; yet the leisure left him by the arduous duties of his station he devoted to his former studies, and when the term of his generalship expired, he hastened back to Pisa, to resume the functions of professor. He now published several new dissertations, and especially an excellent work, one of the best of his performances, entitled” De praefectis urbis.“At length he confined the whole of hi:; application on the” History of the University of Pisa," of which he had been appointed historiographer, and was about to produce the first volume when a stroke of apoplexy carried him off, in spite of all the resources of the medical art, in December 1765.

, a celebrated engraver, was born at Hoorn in Holland in 1536. After having learned the-first principles of drawing and engraving, he went to Italy to complete his studies, and visited all the places famous for the works of the great masters. At Venice he was courteously received by Titian; and engraved several plates from the pictures of that admirable painter. He at last settled at Rome, where he died, 1578, aged forty -two. According to Basan, he was the best engraver with the burin or graver only that Holland ever produced. “We find in his prints,” adds he, “correctness of drawing, and an exquisite taste.” He praises also the taste and lightness of touch with which he engraved landscapes, and that without the assistance of the point. It is no small honour to this artist, that Agostino Carracci was his scholar, and imitated his style of engraving rather than that of any other master. His engravings are very numerous (151 according to abbe Marolles), and by no means uncommon.

, professor of law at Leipsic, was born at Bescow, in Lower Lusatia, February 28, 1698. He was eminent for his learning, and assisted in the Journals of Leipsic, at which place he died April 7, 1731, aged thirty-three. Corte published an edition of Sallust, printed at Leipsic, 1724, 4to, with notes, which is much esteemed, “Tres Satyrae Mennipeae,” Leipsic, 1720, 8vo, and other works.

, 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.

, called Borgognone, was a Jesuit, born in Franche Comte, 1621, who carried the art of battle-painting to a degree unknown before or after him. M. A. Cerquozzi himself did justice to his power, and dissuading him from the pursuit of other branches of painting, fixed him to that in which he could not but perceive that Cortesi would be his superior rather than his rival. The great model on which he formed himself was the “Battle of Constantine” in the Vatican. He had been a soldier, and neither the silence of Rome, nor the repose of the convent, could lay his military ardour, He has personified courage in attack or defence, and it has been said that his pictures sound with the shouts of war, the neighing of horses, the cries of the wounded His manner pf painting was rapid, in strokes, and full of colour; hence its effect is improved by distance. His style was his own, though it may have been invigorated by his attention to the works of Paolo at Venice, and his intercourse with Gnido at Bologna. He died in 1676, leaving a brother William Cortesi, like him called Borgognone, who was the scholar of Pietro da Cortona, though not his imitator. He adhered to Maratta in the choice and variety of his heads, and a certain modesty of composition, but differed from him in his style of drapery and colour, which has something of Flemish transparence his brother, whom he often assisted, likewise contributed to form his manner. A Crucifixion in the church of St. Andrea on Monte Cavallo, and the Battle of Joshua in the palace of the Q.uirinal, by his hand, deserve to be seen.* He died in 1679, aged 51. The brothers are both mentioned by Strutt as having etched some pieces.

, a learned cardinal, was born of a noble and ancient family at Modena, and was auditor of the causes under Leo X. and afterwards entered the Benedictine order, in which his merit raised him to the highest offices. Paul III. created him cardinal in 1542. He died at Rome in 1548, leaving “Epistolarum familiavium Liber,” 1575, 4to, and other works, chiefly ou subjects of divinity, which are now forgot, but his letters contain a considerable portion of literary history and anecdote.

, 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.

, a Latin poet of some note in his day, was born in the parish of St. Thomas, in Salisbury. He received his education at Winchester-school, and in the year 1562 was admitted perpetual fellow of New college, Oxford. In the year 1566, on queen Elizabeth’s visiting the university, he, together with W. Reynolds, bachelor of arts, received her majesty and her train at New college; on which occasion he pronounced an oration, for which he received great praises and a handsome purse of gold. He afterwards took his degree in arts, and, in June 1570, became rector of Odcombe on the death of Thomas Reade, and some time after, bachelor of divinity. In the year 1594, he was appointed prebendary of Warthill, in the cathedral church of York, and also held some other dignity, but what we are not informed. He died at the parsonage-house at Odcombe, on the 4th of March, 1606. It is asserted that his son, the celebrated traveller, agreeably to his whimsical character, entertained a design of preserving his body from stench and putrefaction, and with that view caused it to be kept above ground until the 14th of April following, when it was buried in the chancel of the church of Odcombe. George Cory ate was much commended in his time for his fine fancy in Latin poetry; and for certain pieces which he had written was honourably quoted by several eminent writers. The only pieces Mr. Wood had seen of his composition were, 1. “Poemata varia Latina,” London, 1611, 4to, published by his son after his death, and by him entitled “Posthuxna fragmenta Poematum Georgii Coryate.” 2. “Descriptio Anglise, Scotiæ, et Hiberniæ,” written in Latin verse, and dedicated to queen Elizabeth, but it does not appear that this piece was ever printed. In 1763, James Liunley Kingston, esq. of Dorchester, published, from a ms. found amongst the papers belonging to a considerable family in one of the western counties, a Latin poem, which appears to have been written in the reign of queen Elizabeth, entitled “Descriptio Angli.se et Descriptio Londini,” being two poems in Latin verse, supposed to be written in the fifteenth century. This pamphlet Mr. Gough thinks may be part of the poem noticed by Mr. Wood. The mention of only fifteen colleges at Oxford, fixes the date of the verses before the year 1571. Mr. Coryate’s wife, Gertrude, outlived her husband and son many years, and resided at Odcombe or near it until her death. Dr. Humphry Hody, a native of that place, informed Mr. Wood, that she was buried near the remains of her husband on the 3d of April, 1645. It appears that after her husband’s death she married a second time.

, the eccentric son of the preceding, was born at Odcombe, in 1577. He was first educated at Westminster-school, and became a commoner of Gloucester-hall, Oxford, in 1596; where continuing about three years, he attained, by mere dint of memory, some skill in logic, and more in the Greek and Latin languages. After he had been taken home for a time, he went to London, and was received into the family of Henry prince of Wales, either as a domestic, or, according to some, as a fool, an office which in former days was filled by a person hired for the purpose. In this situation he was exposed to the wits of the court, who, finding in him a strange mixture of sense and folly, made him their whetstone; and so, says Wood, he became too much known to all the world. In 1608, he took a journey to France, Italy, Germany, &c. which lasted five months, during which he had travelled 1975 miles, more than half upon one pair of shoes, which were once only mended, and on his return were hung up in the church of Odcombe. He published his travels under this title; “Crudities hastily gobbled up in five months travels in France, Savoy, Italy, Rhetia, Helvetia, some parts of High Germany, and the Netherlands, 1611,” 4to, reprinted in 1776, 3 vols. 8vo. This work was ushered into the world by an Odcombian banquet, consisting of near 60 copies of verses, made by the best poets of that time, which, if they did not make Cory ate pass with the world for a man of great parts and learning, contributed not a little to the sale of his book. Among these poets were Ben Jonson, sir John Harrington, Inigo Jones the architect, Chapman, Donne, Drayton, &c. In the same year he published “Coryate’s Crambe, or his Colwort twice sodden, and now served in with other Macaronic dishes, as the second course of his Crudities,” 4to. In 1612, after he had taken leave of his countrymen, by an oration spoken at the cross in Odcombe, he took a long and large journey, with intention not to return till he had spent ten years in travelling. The first place he went to was Constantinople, where he made his usual desultory observations; and took from thence opportunities of viewing divers parts of Greece. In the Hellespont he took notice of the two castles Sestos and Abydos, which Mu­saeus has made famous in his poem of Hero and Leander, He saw Smyrna, from whence he found a passage to Alexandria in Egypt; and there he observed the pyramids near Grand Cairo. From thence he went to Jerusalem; and so on to the Dead Sea, to Aleppo in Syria, to Babylon in Chaldea, to the kingdom of Persia, and to Ispahan, where the king usually resided; to Seras, anciently called Shushan; to Candahor, the first province north-east under the subjection of the great mogul, and so to Lahore, the chief city but one belonging to that empire. From Lahore he went to Agra; where, being well received by the English factory, he made a halt. He staid here till he had learned the Turkish and Morisco, or Arabian languages, in which study he was always very apt, and some knowledge in the Persian and*Indostan tongues, all which were of great use to him in travelling up and down the great mogul’s dominions. In the Persian tongue he afterwards made an oration to the great mogul; and in the Indostan he had so great a command, that we are gravely told he actually silenced a laundry-woman, belonging to the English ambassador in that country, who used to scold all the day long. After he had visited several places in that part of the world, he went to Surat in East-India, where he was seized with a diarrhoea, of which he died in 1617.

This strange man, it is evident, had an insatiable desire to view distant and unknown parts of the world, which has never been reckoned a symptom of folly: nor indeed would Coryate have been so much despised if he had not unluckily fallen into the hands of wits, who, by way of diverting themselves, imposed on his weakness and extreme vanity, and nothing vexed him more than to have this vanity checked. Thus when one Steel, a merchant, and servant to the East-India company, came to sir Thomas Roe, the English ambassador at Mandoa, where the mogul then resided, he told Coryate, that he had been in England since he saw him, and that king James had inquired about him; and that upon telling his majesty, that he had met him in his travels, the king replied, “Is that fool living r” Our traveller was equally hurt at another time, when, upon his departure from Mandoa, sir Thomas Roe gave him a letter, and in that a bill to receive 10l. at Aleppo. The letter was directed to Mr. Chapman, consul there at that time and the passage which concerned Coryate was this “Mr. Chapman, when you shall hand these letters, I desire you to receive the bearer of them, Mr. Thomas Coryate, with courtesie, for you shall find him a very honest poor wretch,” &c. This expression troubled Coryate extremely, and therefore it was altered to his mind. He was very jealous of his reputation abroad; for he gave out, that there were great expectances in England of the large accounts he should give of his travels after his return home.

What became of the notes and observations he made in his long peregrinations, is unknown. The following only, which he sent to his friends in England, were printed in his absence: 1. “Letters from Asmere, the court of the great mogul, to several persons of quality in England, concerning the emperor and his country of East-India,” 1616, 4to, in the title of which is our author’s picture, riding on an elephant. 2. “A Letter to his mother Gertrude, dated from Agra in East India, containing the speech that he spoke to the great mogul in the Persian lauguage.” 3. “Certain Observations from the mogul’s court and East India.” 4. “Travels to, and observations in, Constantinople and other places in the way thither, and in his journey thence to Aleppo, Damascus, and Jerusalem.” 5. “His oration, Purus, Putus Coryatus; quintessence of Coryate; spoken extempore, when Mr. llugg dubbed him a knight on the ruins of Troy, by the name of Thomas Coryate the first English knight of Troy.” 6. “Observations of Constantinople abridged.” All these are to be found in the “Pilgrimages” of Sam Purchas. 7. “Diverse Latin and Greek epistles to learned men beyond the seas;” some of which are in his “Crudities.” Among his persecutors was Taylor the Water-poet, who frequently endeavours to raise a laugh at his expence. To Coryate’s works may be added a copy of verses, in the Somersetshire dialect, printed in Guidott’s “Collection of Treatises on the Bath Waters,” 1725, 8vo.

, an English prelate, was the son of Giles Cosin, a rich citizen of Norwich, and born in that city Nov. 30, 1594. He was educated in the free-school there, till 14 years of age; and then removed to Caius college in Cambridge, of which he was successively scholar and fellow. Being at length distinguished for his ingenuity and learning, he had, in 1616, an offer of a librarian’s place from Overall bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and Andrews bishop of Ely, and accepted the invitation of the former; who dying in 1619, he became domestic chaplain to Neil bishop of Durham. He was made a prebendary of Durham in 1624; and the year following collated to the archdeaconry of the east riding in the church of York, vacant by the resignation of Marmaduke Blakestone, whose daughter he had married that year. July 1626, Neil presented him to the rich rectory of Branspeth, in the diocese of Durham; the parochial church of which he beautified in an extraordinary manner. About that time, having frequent meetings at the bishop of Durham’s house in London, with Laud and other divines of that party, he began to be obnoxious to the puritans, who suspected him to be popishly affected; grounding their suspicion on his “Collection of Private Devotions,” published in 1627. This collection, according to one of his biographers, was drawn up at the command of Charles I. for the use of those protestants who attended upon the queen; and, by way of preserving them from the taint of certain popish books of devotion, supposed to be thrown, on purpose, about the royal apartments. Collier, however, says that it was written at the request of the countess of Denbigh, the duke of Buckingham’s sister. This lady being then somewhat unsettled in her religion, and inclining towards popery, these devotions were drawn up to recommend the Church of England farther to her esteem, and preserve her in that communion. This book, though furnished with a great deal of good matter, was not altogether acceptable in the contexture; although the title-page sets forth, that it was formed npon the model of a book of private Prayers, authorized by queen Elizabeth, in 1560. The top of the frontispiece had the name of Jesus in three capital letters, I. H. 8. Upon these there was a cross, encircled with the sun supported by two angels, with two devout women praying towards it. Burton, Prynne, and other celebrated puritans, attacked it very severely; and there is no doubt but it greatly contributed to draw upon him all that persecution which he afterwards underwent.

About 1628 he took the degree of D. D. and the same year was concerned, with his brethren of the church of Durham, in a prosecution against Peter Smart, a prebeiidary there, for a seditious sermon preached in that cathedral, npon Psalm xxxi. 7. “I hate them that hold of superstitious vanities.” Smart was degraded, and dispossessed of his preferments; but, as we shall perceive, afterwards amply revenged of Cosin for his share in the prosecution. In 163 4 Cosin was elected master of Peterhouse in Cambridge; and in 1640 made dean of Peterborough by Charles I, whose chaplain he then was; but on Nov. 10, three days after his installation into that deanry, a petition from Peter Smart against him was read in the house of commons; wherein complaint was made of his superstition, innovations in the church of Durham, and severe prosecution of himself in the high commission-court. This ended in his being, Jan. 22, 1642, sequestered by a vote of the whole house from his ecclesiastical benefices; and he is remarkable for having been the first clergyman in those times who was treated in that manner. March 15th ensuing, the commons sent twenty -one articles of impeachment against him to the house of lords, tending to prove him popishly affected; and about the same time he was put under restraint, upon a surmise that he had enticed a young scholar to popery: of all which charges he fully cleared himself, and was indeed acquitted; but in those days of tyrannical oppression, this availed him little, nor was any recompense made him for his expences. In 1642, being concerned with others in sending the plate of the university of Cambridge to the king, who was then at York, he was ejected from his mastership of Peter-house; so that, as he was the first who was sequestered from his ecclesiastical benefices, he was also the first that was displaced in the university. Thus deprived of all his preferments, and not without fears of something worse, he resolved to leave the kingdom, and retire to Paris; which accordingly he did in 1643.

Here, by the king’s order, he officiated as chaplain to such of the queen’s household as were protestants; and with them, and other exiles daily resorting thither, he formed a congregation, which was held first in a private house, and afterwards at the English ambassador’s chapel. Not long after, he had lodgings assigned him in the Louvre, with a small pension, on account of his relation to queen Henrietta. During his residence in this place, he continued firm in the protestant religion; reclaimed some who had gone over to popery, and confirmed others who were wavering about going; had disputes and controversies with Jesuits and Romish priests, and about the same time employed himself in writing several learned pieces against them. One accident befel him abroad, which he often spoke of as the most sensible affliction in his whole life; and that was, his only son’s turning papist. This son was educated in grammar learning in a Jesuit’s school, as were! many others of our youths during the civil war; and occasion was thence taken of inveigling him into popery. He was prevailed upon, not only to embrace popery, but also to take religious orders in the church of Rome: and though his father used all the ways imaginable, and even the authority of the French king, which by interest he had procured, to regain him out of their power, and from their persuasion, yet all proved ineffectual. Upon this he disinherited him, allowing him only an annuity of 100l. He pretended indeed to turn protestant again, but relapsed before his father’s decease.

At the restoration of Charles II. Cosin returned to England, and took possession of all his preferments, and before the year was out, was raised to the see of Durham. As soon as he could get down to his diocese, he set about reforming abuses there during the late anarchy; and distinguished himself by his charity and public spirit. He laid out a great share of his large revenues in repairing or rebuilding the several edifices belonging to the bishopric of Durham, which had either been demolished, or neglected, during the civil wars. He repaired the castle at Bishop’s Aukland, the chief country-seat of the bishops of Durham; that at Durham, which he greatly enlarged; and the bishop’s house at Darlington, then very ruinous. He also enriched his new chapel at Aukland, and that at Durham, with several pieces of gilt plate, books, and other costly ornaments; the charge of all which buildings, repairs, and ornaments, amounted, according to Dr. Smith, to near 16,000l. but, as others say, to no less than 26,000l. He likewise built and endowed two hospitals; the one at Durham for eight poor people, the other at Aukland for four. The annual revenue of the former was TOl. that of the latter 30l.; and near his hospital at Durham, he rebuilt the school-houses, which cost about 300l. He also built a library near the castle of Durham, the charge whereof, with the pictures with which he adorned it, amounted to 800l. and gave books thereto to the value of 2000l. as also an annual pension of 20 marks for ever to a librarian. But his generosity in this way was not confined within the precincts of his diocese. He rebuilt the east end of the chapel at Peter-house in Cambridge, which cost 320l. and gave books to the library of that college to the value of 1000l. He founded eight scholarships in the same university: namely, five in Peter-house* of 101. a year each and three in Caius college, of 20 nobles apiece per-annum: both which, together with a provision of 8l. yearly, to the common chest of those two colleges respectively, amounted to 2500l. Without mentioning the whole of his benefactions, we shall only notice farther that he gave, in ornaments to the cathedral at Durham, 45l.; upon the new building of the bishop’s court, exchequer, and chancery, and towards erecting two sessions houses in Durham, \000l.; towards the redemption of Christian captives at Algiers, 500l.; towards the relief of the distressed loyal party in England, 800l.; for repairing the banks in Howdenshire, 100 marks; towards repairing St. Paul’s cathedral in London, 50l. In a word, this generous bishop, during the eleven years he sat in the see of Durham, is said to have spent above 2000l. yearly in pious and charitable uses.

He died, Jan. 15, 1672, of a pectoral dropsy, in his 78th year, after having been much afflicted with the stone for some time before; and his body was conveyed from his house in Westminster to Bishop’s Aukland, where it was buried in the chapel belonging to the palace, under a tomb of black marble, with a plain inscription prepared by the bishop in his life-time. Besides the son already mentioned, he had four daughters. By his will he bequeathed considerable sums of money to charitable purposes: to be distributed among the poor in several places, a sum amounting to near 400l.; towards rebuilding St. Paul’s cathedral, when it should be raised five yards from the ground, 1001.; to the cathedral at Norwich, whereof the one half to be bestowed on a marble tablet, with an inscription in memory of Dr. John Overall, some time bishop there, whose chaplain he had been, the rest for providing some useful ornaments for the altar, 40l.; towards repairing the south and north side of Peter-house chapel in Cambridge, suitable to the east and west sides, already by him perfected, 200l.; towards the new building of a chapel at Emanuel college in Cambridge, 50l.; to the children of r. John Hayward, late prebendary of Lichfield, as a stimony of his gratitude to their deceased father, who in his younger years placed him with his uncle bishop Overall, 20l. each; to some of his domestic servants 100 marks, to some 50l. and to the rest half a year’s wages, over and above their last quarter’s pay. In his will also, he made a large and open declaration of his faith, and was particularly explicit and emphatical in vindicating himself from the imputation of popery: “I do profess,” says he, “with holy observation, and from my very heart, that I am now, and ever have been from my youth, altogether free and averse from the corruptions, and impertinent, new-fangled, or papistical superstitions and doctrines, long since introduced, contrary to the holy scripture, and the rules and customs of the ancient fathers.” In the third volume of the Clarendon State Papers, lately published, we find a letter, written, in 1658, to the lord chancellor Hyde, by Dr. Cosin, which affords a farther proof that, notwithstanding his superstition and his fondness for the pomp of external worship, he was steadily attached to the protestant religion. In this letter, speaking of the queen dowager Henrietta and lord Jermyn, he says, “They hold it for a mortal sin to give one penny towards the maintenance of such heretics as Dr. Cosin is.” The accusation of popery, however, answered the purposes of his persecutors, and his minute attention to the decorations and repairs of churches and cathedrals afforded some ground of suspicion even with those of more honest and candid minds.

Dr. Cosin wrote a great number of books, from all which he has sufficiently confuted the calumny of his being a papist, or popishly affected. Besides his “Collection of Private Devotions,” mentioned above, he published “A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture; or, the certain and indubitable books thereof, as they are received in the Church of England,” Condon, 1657, 4to, reprinted in 1672. This history, which is still in esteem, is deduced from the time of the Jewish church, to the year 1546, that is, the time when the council of Trent corrupted, and made unwarrantable additions to, the ancient Canon of the Holy Scriptures, and was written by the author during his exile at Paris. He dedicated it to Dr. M. Wren, bishop of Ely, then a prisoner in the Tower. Dr. P. Gunning had the care of the edition. Since the bishop’s decease the following books and tracts of his have been published: 1. “A Letter to Dr. Collins, concerning the Sabbath,” dated from Peterhouse, Jan. 24, 1635, printed in the “Bibliotheca Literaria,” 1723, 4to; in which he proves, that the keeping of our Sunday is immutable, as being grounded upon divine institution and apostolical tradition, which he confirms by several instances. 2. “A Letter from our author to Mr. Cordel, dated Paris, Feb. 7, 165O,” printed at the end of a pamphlet entitled “The Judgment of the Church of England, in the case of Laybaptism, and of Dissenters baptism,' 1 a second edition of which was published in 1712, 8vo. 3.” Regni Anglise Religio Catholica, prisca, casta, defoecata: omnibus Christianis monarchis, principibus, ordinibus, ostensa, anno MDCLII.“i. e. A short scheme of the ancient and pure doctrine and discipline of the Church of England. Written at the request of sir Edward Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon, and printed at the end of Smith’s Life of bishop Cosin. 4.” The History of Popish Transubstantiation,“&c. written in Latin by the author at Paris, for the use of some of his countrymen, who were frequently attacked upon that point by the papists. It was published by Dr. Durrell, at London, 1675, 8vo, and translated into English in 1676, by Luke de Beaulieu, 8vo. There is a second part still in manuscript. 5.” The differences in the chief points of religion between the Roman Catholics and us of the Church of England; together with the agreements which we, for our parts, profess, and are ready to embrace, if they, for theirs, were as ready to accord with us in the same. Written to the countess of Peterborough, “printed at the end of bishop Bull’s” Corruptions of the Church of Rome.“6.” Notes on the Book of CommonPrayer.“Published by Dr. William Nicholls, at the end of his Comment on the Book of Common-Prayer, Lond. 171O, fol. 7.” Account of a Conference in Paris, between Cyril, archbishop of Trapezond, and Dr. John Cosin;“printed in the same book. 8.” A Letter from Dr. Cosin to bishop Moreton his predecessor, giving an account of his studies and employment when an exile abroad;“and,” A Memorial of his, against what the Romanists call the Great General Council of Lateran under Innocent III. in 1215,“both published by Des Maizeaux in vol. VI. of” The Present State of the Republic of Letters,“1730. 9.” An Apology of Dr. John Cosin,“in answer to Fuller’s misrepresentations of him in that author’s Church History, printed at the end of the first part of Heylin’s” Examen Historicum.“The following pieces were also written by bishop Cosin, but never primed: I.” An Answer to a Popish pamphlet pretending that St. Cyprian was a Papist.“2.” An Answer to four queries of a Roman Catholic, about the Protestant Religion.“3. ti An Answer to a paper delivered by a Popish BifUop to the lord Inchiquin. ' 4.” Annales Ecclesiastic!,“imperfect. 5.” An Answer to Father Robinson’s Papers concerning the validity of the Ordinations of the Church of England.“6.” Historia Conciliorum,“imperfect. 7.” Against the foraakers of the Church of England, and their seducers in this time of her tryal.“8.” Chronologia Sacra,“imperfect. 9.” A Treatise concerning the abuse of auricular confession in the Church of Rome." Some few of Dr. Cosin’s letters are extant among Dr. Birch’s collections in the British Museum.

, of Alexandria in Egypt, called Indopleustj-:S or Indicopleustes, on account of a voyage which he made to the Indies, was at first a merchant, afterwards a monk, and author, and is supposed to have flourished about the year 547. He wrote several things, particularly the “Christian Topography, or the opinion of Christians concerning the World, in 12 books still extant, and published by Montfaucon in 1707, in the” Nova collectio Patrum,“vol. II. Cosmas performed his voyage in 522, and pub^ lished his book at Alexandria in 547: it contains some very curious information, but contrary to the sentiments of all astronomers, he denies the earth to be spherical, and endeavours to prove his opinion from reason, scripture, and Christian writers, who lived before him. As his testimony to the authenticity of the scriptures, however, is very considerable, Lardner has selected many passages from” The Christian Topography,“in his” Credibility."

, whose family name was Baseillac, was a monk of the order of the Fetiillans, in Paris, and born in 1703. He was educated to the practice of surgery; but at his father’s death, which happened when he was young, he retired from the world, and became a monk, yet went on improving himself in the art to which he had been bred, and gave his assistance to all who applied without any reward. He had bestowed his principal attention on lithotomy, and the instrument with which he performed the operation he called lithotome cachc^ a hollow tube, in which was concealed a knife, with which he cut through the prostate gland, into the bladder. His care was to make the wound sufficiently large, to enable him to extract the stone easily, and without bruising the parts. To this, it is probable, his success, which was far superior to any of his rivals, must be attributed. The fame he acquired drew upon him the envy of the surgeons of Paris so far, that they applied to the king to interdict his practising. Not succeeding in this attempt, Mons. Le Cat published “Lettre au sujet du Lithotome Cache*, &c. contre F. Cosme Dissert.” 1749. Cosme’s dissertation, describing, the operation, had been published the preceding year, in the “Journal des Savans.” This produced an answer from De Cosme, under the title of “Recueil des pieces imporiantes sur ['operation da la Taille,” Paris, 1751; in which he acknowledges some failures, and that he had lost one patient by haemorrhage; but challenges his adversaries to produce lists of successful cases equal to his. In 1779, he published “Nouvelle methode d'extraire la Pierre,” Paris, 12mo. After having for some time been director of the hospital of Bayeux, he established an hospital in the Feuillans, where he practised gratis. It is thought that in the course of his life he had performed the operation for the stone above a thousand times. He diedJuly 28, 1781, most particularly lamented by the poor, towards whom he was equally compassionate and charitable. When any father of a family offered him money, he used to say, “Keep it;. I must not injure your children” and often, instead of accepting a fee from the opulent, he would recommend some poor object to be relieved by them.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Pontoise in 1615, and after being educated among the Jesuits, taught rhetoric at Paris with much reputation for seven years. He then joined with father Labbe, who had commenced his vast collection of the “Councils;” and Labbe dying when the eleventh volume was printing, Cossart completed the whole in 1672, in eighteen volumes. Cossart also wrote some orations and poems, a collection of which was published in 1675, and reprinted at Paris in 1723, 12mo. He was thought one of the best orators and poets which the society of Jesuits had produced. He died at Paris, Sept. 18, 1674.

, lord of Cantalupo, was born in 1507, at Naples. In his youth he was solicited by Sannazario and Poderico to undertake the task of writing the history of Naples, “Istoria del Regno di Napoli,” &c. published in a folio, printed at Aquila in 1531. On this he bestowed 53 years of persevering investigation. This first edition, scarce even in Italy, reaches from the year 1250 to 1489; that is, from the death of Frederic II. to the war of Milan, under Ferdinand I. Costanzo enlivened by the culture of Latin poetry the dryness of history, and succeeded both in one and the other. He is said to have improved the art of writing sonnets by graces of his own invention. His Italian poetry was published in 1709, 1723, 1728, &c. He died about 1590, at a very advanced age. A second edition of his history appeared at Venice, 1710, 4to and a third also in 4to, at Naples, 1735, with a life of Constanzo by Bernardino Tafuri.

, 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.

, a learned clergyman of the church of England, was born at Shrewsbury about the year 1710. He was educated at Wadham-college, Oxford, of which he was admitted a member in 1726, if not earlier; and on^ the 28th of June 1733, took the degree of master of arts. He also became a tutor, and fellow of his college; and, indeed, seems to have spent a great part of his life there, though the fellows of Wadham-college hold their fellowships only for a limited number of years. The same year in which he took the degree of M.A. he published, in 8vo, “Critical observations on some Psalms.” The first ecclesiastical situation in which he was placed, was that of curate of Islip in Oxfordshire. He afterwards became vicar of Whitchurch, in Dorsetshire, where he served two churches for some years. Part of a letter written by him to Mr. John Catlain, containing an account of a fiery meteor seen by him in the air, on the 14th of July 1745, was read at the Royal Society on the 7th of November in that year, and published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 477. The following year he published at London, in 8vo, “A Letter to Martin Folkes, esq. president of the Royal Society, concerning the rise and progress of Astronomy amongst the Ancients,” in which he endeavoured to prove, that the Greeks derived but a very small portion of their astronomical knowledge from the Egyptians or Babylonians; and that though the Egyptians and Babylonians may be allowed, by their observations of the heavens, to have laid the foundation of astronomy; yet, as long as it continued amongst them, it consisted of observations only, and nothing more; till Geometry being improved by the Greeks, and them alone, into Sl science, and applied to the heavens, they became the true and proper authors of every thing deserving the name of astronomy.

In 1747, Mr. Costard published, in 8vo, “Some observations tending to illustrate the book of Job; and in particular the words, I know that my Redeemer liveth, &c.” To which was annexed, “The third chapter of Habakkuk, paraphrastically translated into English verse.” The same year a curious letter written by him to the Rev. Dr. Shaw, principal of St. Edmund hall, relative to the Chinese chronology and astronomy, was read at the Royal Society, and published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 483. In this letter he took notice, that it had been the affectation of some nations, and particularly of the Babylonians and Egyptians, to carry up their histories to so immoderate a height, as plainly to shew those accounts to be fictitious. This also was die case with the Chinese; and Mr. Costard urged a variety of arguments to prove, that the mathematical and astronomical knowledge of the Chinese was inconsiderable, and that little dependance was to be placed on the pretended antiquity of their history. The following year he published, at Oxford, in 8vo, “A farther account of the rise and progress of Astronomy among the Ancients, in three letters to Martin Folkes, esq.” Of these, the first treats of the astronomy of the Chaldeans; the second is an elaborate inquiry concerning the constellations spoken of in the book of Job; and the fourth is on the mythological astronomy of the ancients; and in all he has displayed a considerable extent both of oriental and of Grecian literature.

His next publication, which appeared in 1750, in 8vo, was “Two dissertations: I. Containing an inquiry into the meaning of the word Kesitah, mentioned in Job, ch. xlii. ver. 11.” attempting to prove, that though it most probably there stands for the name of a coin, yet that there is no reason for supposing it stamped with any figure at all; and, therefore, not with that of a lamb in particular. II. “On the signification of the word Hermes; in which is explained the origin of the custom, among the Greeks, of erecting stones called Hermae; together with some other particulars, relating to the mythology of that people.” At the conclusion, Mr. Costard observes, that the study of the oriental languages seems to be gaining ground in Europe every day; and provided the Greek and Latin are equally cultivated, we may arrive in a few years at a greater knowledge of the ancient world, than may be expected, or can be imagined; and he adds, that for such researches few places, if any, in Europe are so well adapted as the university of Oxford.

In 1752, he published, in 8vo, at Oxford, “Dissertationes II. Critico^Sacrae, qnarum prima explicatur Ezek. xiii. 18. Altera vero, 2 Reg. x. 22.” The same year a translation was published of the latter of these dissertations, under the following title “A Dissertation on 2 Kings x. 22, translated from the Latin of Rabbi C———d (i. e. Costard), with a dedication, preface, and postscript, critical and explanatory, by the translator.” In the preface and dedication to this publication, the satirical author has placed Mr. Costard in a very ludicrous light. On the 25th of January, in the year following, a letter written by Mr. Costard to Dr. JBevis, concerning the year of the eclipse foretold by Thales, was read at the Royal Society, and was afterwards published in the Philosophical Transactions, as was also another letter written by him to the-same gentleman, concerning an eclipse mentioned by Xenophon. At the close of the same year, another letter written by Mr. Costard, and addressed to the earl of Macclesfield, concerning the age of Homer and Hesiod, was likewise read at the Royal Society, and afterwards published in the Philosophical Transactions for the year 1754, in which he fixes the ages of Homer and Hesiod much lower than the ordinary computations. He endeavours to make it appear, from astronomical arguments, that Homer and Hesiod both probably lived about the year before Christ 589; which is three centuries later than the computation of sir Isaac Newton, and more than four later than that of Petavius. In 1755, he wrote a letter to Dr. Birch, which is preserved in the British Museum, respecting the meaning of the phrase Sphacra Barbarica. Some time after this, he undertook to publish a second edition of Dr. Hyde’s “Historia religionis veterutn Persarum eorumque Magorum;” and which was accordingly printed, under his inspection, and with his corrections, at the Clarendon press at Oxford, in 4to, in 1760. Mr. Costard’s extensive learning having now recommended him to the notice of lord Chancellor Northington, he obtained, by the favour of that nobleman, in June 1764, the vicarage of Twickenham, in Middlesex, in which situation he continued till his death. The same year he published, in 4to, “The use of Astronomy in history and chronology, exemplified in an inquiry into the fall of the stone into the Ægospotamos, said to be foretold by Anaxagoras in which is attempted to be shewn, that Anaxagoras did not foretell the fall of that stone, but the solar eclipse in the first year of the Peloponnesian war. That what he saw was a comet, at the time of the battle of Salamis: and that this battle was probably fought the year before Christ 478; or two years later than it is commonly fixed by chronologers.”

In 1767, he published, in one volume 4to, “The History of Astronomy, with its application to geography, history, and chronology; occasionally exemplified by the globes,” chiefly intended for the use of students, and containing a distinct view of the several improvements made in geography and astronomy, at what time, and by whom, the principal discoveries have been made in geography and astronomy, how each discovery has paved the wav to what followed, and by what easy steps, through the revolution of so many ages, these very useful sciences have advanced towards their present state of perfection. The following year he published, in 4 to, “Astronomical and philological conjectures on a passage in Homer:” but these conjectures appear to be fanciful and ill grounded. About this time a correspondence took place between the learned Jacob Bryant, esq. and Mr. Costard, concerning the. land of Goshen, which was afterwards published by Mr. Nichols, in his “Miscellaneous Tracts by Mr. Bowyer.” We do not find that from this period our author printed any work for some years; but in 1778, he published, in 8vo, “A Letter to Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, esq. containing some remarks on his Preface to the code of Gentoo laws.” This appears to have been the last of his publications; and its object was, to invalidate Mr. Halhed' s opinion concerning the great antiquity of the Gentoo laws, and to refute the notion which had been adopted by several writers, drawn from the observation of natural phenomena, that the world is far more ancient than it is represented to be by the Hebrew chronology. Mr. Costard died on the 10th of January 1782, and was buried on the South side of Twickenham church-yard, but without any monument or inscription, agreeably to his own desire *. He was a man of uncommon learning, and eminently skilled in Grecian and oriental literature; but upon the whole dealt too much in conjectures, and appears to have been possessed of more erudition than judgment. His private character was amiable, and he was much respected in the neighbourhood in which he lived for his humanity and benevolence. From some passages in his writings, he appears to have been strongly attached to the interests of public freedom. He had a great veneration for the ancient Greeks; of whom he says, that “'Tis to the happy genius of that once glorious people, and that people alone, that we owe all that can properly be styled astronomy.” And in another place, he says of the Greeks, that “their public spirit and love of liberty claim both our admiration and imitation. How far the sciences suffer where oppression, superstition, and arbitrary power prevail, that once glorious nation affords at this day too melancholy a proof.” Mr. Costard’s library, oriental manuscripts, and philosophical instruments, were sold by auction by Mr. Samuel Paterson, in March, 1782.

, a Minime friar, eminent for his writings and his piety, was born September 6, 1595, at Paris, of a noble family, originally of Dauphiny. He died at

, was a native of Uzez, who fled to England on account of religion in the time of queen Anne, and after residing many years in London, where he was employed in literary pursuits, returned to Paris some time before his death, which happened in 1746. His principal works were: l. Translations into French of Locke’s Essay on human understanding, Amsterdam, 1736, 4to, and Trevoux, 4 vols. 12mo; of Newton’s Optics, 4to, and of the Reasonableness of Christianity, by Locke, 2 vols. 8vo. 2. An edition of Montaigne’s Essays, 3 vols. 4to, and 10 vols. 12mo, with remarks and annotations. 3. An edition of Fontaine’s Fables, 12mo, with cursory notes at the bottom of the pages. He ventured to add a fable of his own, which served to prove that it was far more easy to comment on Fontaine than to imitate him. 4. The defence of la Bruyere, against the Carthusian d'Argonne, who assumed the name of Vigneul Marville: which is prefixed to OzelPs English translation of Bruyere’s works, 1713, 2 vols. 8vo, 5. The life of the Grand Conde, 4to and 12mo. Coste, as an editor, was often tediously minute, and, as an original author, not above mediocrity; but he bestowed great attention on whatever he did. He was an excellent corrector of the press, thoroughly versed in his own language, well acquainted with the foreign tongues, and had a general knowledge of the sciences. In this country he must have been highly respected, as, although he died in France, a monument was erected to his memory in the old church of Paddington, in which parish he probably resided. This monument is now in a light vault under the present church

, or Laurensz Jansz Koster, an inhabitant of Haerlem, who died about 1440, has acquired a name in the annals of printing, as the Dutch affirm him to be the inventor of that art about the year 1430, but this claim has been obstinately disputed. It is objected that it was not till 130 years after the first exercise of this art at Mentz, that the town of Haerlem formed any pretence to the honour of this invention; and that, to the known and certain facts, to the striking and incontestable proofs of its belonging to Mentz, the men of Haerlem oppose nothing but obscure traditions and conjectures, and not one typographical production that can in any way shew the merit of it to belong to Coster. All that such objectors allow to Haerlem, is the circumstance of being one of the first towns that practised the art of cutting in wood, which led by degrees to the idea of printing a book, first in wooden blocks engraved, then in moveable characters of wood, and lastly in fusile types. But it still remains to be proved, that this idea was conceived and executed at Haerlem; whereas it is demonstrated that Gutemberg printed, first at Strasburg, and afterwards at Mentz, in moveable characters of wood, and that the fusile types were invented at Mentz by Schojffert. The learned Meerman, counsellor and pensionary of Rotterdam, zealous for the honour of his country, supported the cause of Haerlem with all the sagacity and all the erudition that could be exerted, in a work entitled “Oru gines Typographies:,” printed at the Hague in 1765, 2 vols. 4to, and of which an abridgment may be seen in Bowyer and Nichols’s “Origin of Printing.” The question is too complicated for discussion in this place: we shall therefore only add the tradition respecting Coster’s invention. It is said that walking in a wood near Haerlem, he amused himself by cutting letters upon the bark of a tree, which he impressed upon paper. Improving this incident, he proceeded to cut single letters upon wood, and uniting them by means of thread, he printed a line or two for his children. It is added, that he afterwards printed a book, entitled, “Speculum salvationis.” Baron Heinecken, who has minutely investigated the whole story, considers it as not entitled to the least credit; and pronounces the prints, attributed to Coster, to be the works of a later date.

, B. D. of Sorbonne, and king’s Greek professor, was born at Nismes, in Languedoc, in 1627. He made an extraordinary proficiency in the languages under his father, when very young: for being, at twelve years only, brought into the hall of the general assembly of the French clergy held at Mante in 1641, he construed the New Testament in Greek, and the Old in Hebrew, at the first opening of the book. He unfolded, at the same time, several difficulties proposed in regard to the peculiar construction of the Hebrew language; and explained also the text from the customs practised among the Jews. After this, he demonstrated certain mathematical propositions, in explaining Euclid’s definitions. This made him looked upon as a prodigy of genius; and his reputation rose as he advanced in life. In 1643 he took the degree of M. A.; B. D. in 1647; and was elected a fellow of the Sorbonne in 1.649. In 1651 he lost his father, who died at Paris, whither he had come to reside with his children in 1638; and he lamented him much, as a parent who had taken the greatest pains in his education. This appears from a letter of Cotelerius to his father, in which he says, “I must necessarily be obedient in every respect to you, to whom, besides innumerable benefits and favours, I owe not only my life, but also the means of living well and happily, those seeds of virtue and learning which you have been careful to plant in me from my infancy. Now, if Alexander of Macedon could own himself so much indebted to his father Philip for begetting him, and so much more to Aristotle for forming and educating him, what ought not I to acknowledge myself indebted to you, who have been both a Philip and an Aristotle to me?”

In 1654, when the archbishop of Embrun retired into his diocese, he took Cotelerius along with him, as one who would be an agreeable companion in his solitude, and with him he remained four years; but afterwards, when he returned to Paris, complained heavily of the want of books and conversation with learned men in that retreat. He do dined going into orders, and spent his time wholly in ecclesiastical antiquity. The Greek fathers were his chief study, whose works he read, both in print and manuscript, with great exactness; made notes upon them, and translated some of them into Latin. In 1660 he published “Four homilies of St. Chrysostom upon the Psalms,” and his “Commentary upon Daniel,” with a Latin translation and notes. He then commenced his “Collection of those Fathers who lived in the apostolic age;” which he published in two vois. folio, at Paris, 1672, reviewed and corrected from several manuscripts, with a Latin translation and notes. The editor’s notes, which are learned and curious, explain the difficulties in the Greek terms, clear up several historical passages, and set matters of doctrine and discipline in a perspicuous light. He would have published this work some years sooner, but was interrupted by being appointed, with Du Cange, to review the Mss. in the king’s library. This task he entered upon by Colbert’s order in 1667, and it occupied his time for five years.

In 1676 he was made Greek professor in the royal academy at Paris, which post he maintained during his life with the highest reputation. He had the year before produced the first volume of a work entitled “Monumenta Ecclesia? Graccce,” a collection of Greek tracts out of the king’s and Colbert’s libraries, never published before. He added a Latin translation and notes; which, though not so large as those upon the “Patres Apostolici,” are said to be very curious. The first volume was printed in 1675, the second in 1681, and the third in 1686; and he intended to have added others, if he had lived. His age was not great, but his constitution was broken with intense study: for he took vast pains in his learned performances, writing all the Greek text and the version on the side with his own hand, and using the greatest care and exactness in all his quotations, Aug. 3, 1686, he was seized with an inflammatory disorder in his breast, which required him to be let blood: but he had such a dislike to this operation, that, sooner than undergo it, he dissembled his illness. At last, however, he consented; but it was too late; for he died the 10th of the same month, when he was not 60 years of age, leaving nine folio volumes of Mss. now in the Imperial library, consisting of extracts from the fathers, &c. with notes. Besides his great skill in the languages, and in ecclesiastical antiquity, he was remarkable for his probity and candour. He was modest and unpretending, without the least tincture of stiffness and pride. He lived particularly retired, made and received few visits; and thus, having but little acquaintance, he appeared somewhat melancholy and reserved, but was in reality of a frank, conversable, and friendly temper.

, an English artist, was one of the founders of the Royal Academy, he and three others (Moser, West, and Chambers) being the only persons who signed the petition presented to his Majesty, to solicit that establishment. He was the son of an apothecary, who resided in Cork-street, Burlington-gardens, and was born in 1726. He was the pupil of Knapton, but in the sequel much excelled his master. He was particularly eminent for his portraits in crayons, in which branch of the art he surpassed all his predecessors; though it must be confessed that he owed something of his excellence to the study of the portraits of Rosalba. He also painted with considerable ability in oil colours; and at one time Hogarth declared him to be superior to sir Joshua Reynolds; an opinion, however, which must have arisen from some prejudice, for sir Joshua had then produced some of his best portraits. But though those of Cotes deserve not this high character, they were very pleasing, well finished, coloured with great spirit, and, by the aid of Mr. Toms’s draperies (who generally supplied him with these), were justly ranked with the best portraits of the time. Yet his greatest excellence was in crayons, which were much improved under his hands, both in their preparation and application. Lord Orford says, that his pictures of the queen holding the princess royal, then an infant, in her lap; of his own wife; of Polly Jones, a woman of pleasure; of Mr. Obryen, the comedian; of Mrs. Child, of Osterley-park; and of Miss Wilton, afterwards lady Chambers; are portraits which, if they yield to Rosalba’s in softness, excel hers in vivacity and invention.

Mr. Cotes was, very early in life, afflicted with the stone; and before he attained the age of forty-five, fell a victim to that disease. He died at his house in Cavendishsquare, July 20, 1770, and was buried at Richmond, Surrey. His younger brother, Samuel Cotes, painted miniatures, both in enamel and water-colours, and was in great practice during the life of the elder, but quitted the art some years ago.

, a celebrated mathematician, philosopher, and astronomer, was born July 10, 1682, at Burbach in Leicestershire, where his father Robert was rector. He was first placed at Leicester school; where, at only twelve years of age, he discovered a strong inclination to the mathematics. This being observed by his uncle, the rev. Mr. John Smith, he gave him all imaginable encouragement; and prevailed with his father to send him for some time to his house in Lincolnshire, that he might assist him in those studies. Here he laid the foundation of that deep and extensive knowledge, for which he was afterwards so deservedly famous. He removed from thence to London, and was sent to St. Paul’s school; where also he made a great progress in classical learning; yet found so much leisure as to keep a constant correspondence with his uncle, not only in mathematics, but also in metaphysics, philosophy, and divinity. This fact is said to have been often mentioned by professor Saunderson. His next remove was to Cambridge; where, April 6, 1699, he was admitted of Trinity college; and at Michaelmas 1705, after taking his first degree in arts, chosen fellow of it. He was at the same time tutor to Anthony earl of Harold, and the lord Henry de Grey, sons of the then marquis (afterwards duke of) Kent, to which noble family Mr. Cotes was related.

January 1706, he was appointed professor of astronomy and experimental philosophy, upon the foundation of Dr. Thomas Plume, archdeacon of Rochester; being the first that enjoyed that office, to which he was unanimously chosen, on account of his high reputation and merits. He took the degree of M. A. in 1706 and went into orders in 1713. The same year, at the desire of Dr. Bentley, he published at Cambridge the second edition of sir Isaac Newton’s “Mathematica Principia, &c.” and inserted all the improvements which the author had made to that time. To this edition he prefixed a most admirable preface, in which he expressed the true method of philosophising, shewed the foundation on which the Newtonian philosophy was built, and refuted the objections of the Cartesians and all other philosophers against it. It may not be amiss to transcribe a paragraph from this preface, in which the editor has given an answer to those who supposed that gravity or attraction, in sir Isaac Newton’s system, was in no wise a clearer principle, and more adapted to explain the phaenomena of nature, than the occult qualities of the peripatetics; because there are still philosophers who persist in the same supposition. Gravity, say the objectors, is an occult cause; and occult causes have nothing to do with true philosophy. To this Mr. Cotes replies, that “occult causes are, not those whose existence is most clearly demonstrated by observation and experiment, but those only whose existence is occult, fictitious, and supported by no proofs. Gravity therefore can never be called an occult cause of the planetary motions; since it has been demonstrated from the phenomena, that this quality really exists. Those rather have recourse to occult causes, who make vortices to govern the heavenly motions; vortices, composed of a matter entirely fictitious, and unknown to the senses. But shall gravity, therefore, be called an occult cause, and on that account be banished from philosophy, because the cause of gravity is occult, and as yet undiscovered? Let those, who affirm this, beware of laying down a principle, which will serve to undermine the foundation of every system of philosophy that can be established. For causes always proceed, by an uninterrupted connexion, from those that are compound, to those that are more simple; and when you shall have arrived at the most simple, it will be impossible to proceed farther. Of the most simple cause therefore no mechanical solution can be given;. for if there could, it would not be the most simple. Will you then call these most simple causes occult, and banish them from philosophy? You rnay so; but you must banish at the same time the causes that are next to them, and those again that depend upon the causes next to them, till philosophy at length will be so thoroughly purged of causes, that there will not be one left whereon to build it.” The publication of this edition of Newton’s Principia added greatly to his reputation nor; was the high opinion the public now conceived of him in the least diminished, but rather much increased, by several productions of his own, which afterwards appeared. He gave a description of the great fiery meteor, that was seen March 6, 1716, which was published in the Phil. Trans, a little after his death. He left hehind hirn also some admirable and judicious tracts, part of which, after his decease, were published by Dr. Robert Smith, his cousin and successor in his professorship, afterwards master of Trinity college. His “Harmonia Mensurarum,” &c. was published at Cambridge, 1722, 4to, and dedicated to Dr. Mead by the learned editor; who, in an elegant and affectionate preface, gives us a copious account of the performance itself, the pieces annexed to it, and of such other of the author’s works as were unpublished. He tells us how much this work was admired by professor Saunderson, and how dear the author of it was to Dr. Bentley. The first treatise of the miscellaneous works annexed to the “Harmonia Mensurarum” is “Concerning the estimation of errors in mixed mathematics/' The second,” Concerning ^he differential method;“which he handles in a manner somewhat different from sir Isaac Newton’s treatise upon that subject, having written it before he had seen that treatise. The name of the third piece is” Canonotechnia, or concerning the construction of tables by differences.“The book concludes with three small tracts,” Concerning the descent of bodies, the motion of pendulums in the cycloid, and the motion of projectiles;“which tracts, the editor informs us, were all composed by him when very young. He wrote also” A compendium of arithmetic, of the resolutions of equations, of dioptrics, and of the nature of curves.“Besides these pieces, he drew up a course of” Hydrostatical and Pneumatical Lectures" in English, which were published by Dr. Smith in 1737, and again in 1747, 8vo.

This uncommon genius in mathematics died, to the regret of the university, and all lovers of that science, June 5, 1716, in the very prime of his life; for he was advanced no farther than to his 33d year. He was buried in the chapel of Trinity college; and an inscription fixed over him, from which we learn that he had a very beautiful person. The inscription was written by Dr. Bentley, and is very elegant; but the most lasting and decisive tribute to his memory was paid by sir Isaac Newton, who said, <e Had Cotes lived, we should have known something."

When Dr. Plume’s professorship for astronomy and experimental philosophy was contended for, Mr. Whiston was one of the electors. Besides Mr. Cotes, there was another candidate, who had been a scholar of Dr. Harris’s. As Mr. Whiston was the only professor of mathematics who was directly concerned in the choice, the rest of the electors naturally paid a great regard to his judgment. At the time of election, Mr. Whiston said, that he pretended himself to be not much inferior to the other candidate’s master, Dr. Harris; but he confessed “that he was but a child to Mr. Cotes.” The votes were unanimous for Mr. Cotes, who was then onJy in the twenty-fourth year of his age.

, a member of the French academy, so ill-treated by Boileau in his satires, and by Moliere in his comedy of the “Femmes Savantes,” under the name of Trissotiu, was born at Paris, and has at least as good a title to a place in this work, as some of Virgil’s military heroes in the Æneid, who are celebrated purely for being knocked on the head. It is said, that he drew upon him the indignation of Boileau and Moliere: of the former, because he counselled him in a harsh and splenetic manner, to devote his talents to a kind of poetry different from satire; of the latter, because he had endeavoured to hurt him with the duke de Montausier, by insinuating that Moliere designed him in the person of the Misanthrope. Cotin, however, was a man of learning, understood the learned languages, particularly the Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac, was respected in the best companies, where merit only could procure admittance, and preached sixteen Lents, in the principal pulpits of Paris. He died in that city in 1682, leaving several works tolerably well written the principal are, K “Theoclee, on la vraie Philosophie des principes du monde.” 2. “Traite de l'Ame immortelle.” 3. “Oraison funeb. pour Abel Servien.” 4. “Reflexions sur la conduite du roi Louis XIV. quand il prit le soin des affaires par lui-meme.” 5. “Salomon, ou la Politique Royale.” 6. “Poesies Chretiennes,” 1668, 12mo. 7. “CEuvres galantes,” 1665, 2 vols. 12uio, &c. The sonnet to Urania in the “Femmes Savantes” of Molitjre, was really written by abbe Cbtin: he composed it for Madame de Nemours, and was reading it to that lady when Menage entered, who disparaging the sonnet, the two scholars abused each other, nearly in the same terms as Trissotin and Vadius in Moliere.

, an elegant modern Latin poet, was born in a village near Verona in 1483, and gained considerable reputation by his talents. -He followed to the army Bartholomew d'Alviano, a Venetian general who had a regard for him; but he was taken by the French at the battle of Ghiara d'Adda, in the year 1509, lost some of his manuscripts, and did not regain his liberty for some time. His patron sent him to pope Julius II. at Viterbo, where he died in 1511, of a pestilential fever. Several of his epigrams and orations are printed in the collection entitled “Carmina quinque poetarum,” Venice, 1548, 8vo.

, was the son of sir Clement Cotterel of Wylsford in Lincolnshire, groom porter to James I. He was in the interregnum steward to the queen of Bohemia; and in 1670, when he was created LL. D. in the university of Oxford, it appears that he was master of the requests to Charles II. He possessed in an extraordinary degree the various accomplishments of a gentleman, and particularly excelled in the knowledge of modern languages. During the exile of his royal master, he translated from the French “Cassandra the famed romance,” which has been several times printed; and had a principal hand in translating “Davila’s History of the civil wars of France” from the Italian, and several pieces of less note from the Spanish. In 1686 he resigned his place of master of the ceremonies, and was succeeded by his son Charles Lodowick Cotterel, esq. He is celebrated by Mrs. Catherine Phillips under the name of Poliarchus, and to one of his descendants, colonel Cotterel of Rousham near Oxford, Pope addressed his second epistle in imitation of Horace. It is unnecessary to add that the office of master of the ceremonies has long been in this family.

, a French lady of considerable talents, whose maiden name was Ristau, was born in 1772, the daughter of a merchant at Bourdeaux, according to whose wish she was married, at eighteen, to M. Cottin, a rich banker at Paris, who was also a relation. Her husband left her a beautiful widow at the age of twenty-two. She resided for some time with a lady to whom she was warmly attached, who was also a widow, and she devoted much of her attention to the education of that lady’s two daughters; but it does not appear that madame de Cottin herself ever was a mother. Much of her time seems likewise to have been occupied in writing those novels which have established her fame in that branch in her own country. She died at Paris, August 25, 1807. Her principal novels are, 1. “Claire d'Albe,” 1798. 2. “Malvina,” 1800, 4 vols. 12mo. 3. “Amelia Mansfield,” 1802, 4 vols. 12mo. 4. “Mathilcle,” 6 vols. 12mo. 5. “Elizabeth, ou les Exiles cle Siberia,” 1806, 2 vols. 12mo. Some of these have been translated into English, and published here. Madame Cottin is of the high sentimental cast, with all that warmth of imagination which distinguishes the more elegant French novelists; but the moral tendency of her writings seems rather doubtful.

, an English poet, was the son of Charles Cotton, esq. of Beresford in Staffordshire, a man of considerable fortune and high accomplishments. His son, who inherited many of these characteristics, was born on the 28th of April, 1630, and educated at the university of Cambridge, where he had for his tutor Mr. Ralph Rawson, whom he celebrates in the translation of an ode of Joannes Secundus. At the university, he is said to have studied the Greek and Roman classics with distinguished success, and to have become a perfect master of the French and Italian languages. It does not appear, however, that he took any degree, or studied with a view to any learned profession; but after his residence at Cambridge, travelled into France and other parts of the continent. On his return, he resided during the greater part of his life at the family seat at Beresford. In 1656, when he was in his twenty-sixth year, he married Isabella, daughter of sir Thomas Hutchinson, knt. of Owthorp in the county of Nottingham, a distant relation, and took her home to his father’s house, as he had no other establishment. In 1658 he succeeded to the family estate encumbered by some imprudencies of his deceased father, from which it does not appear that he was ever able to relieve it.

From this time, almost all we have of his life is comprized in a list of his various publications, which were chiefly translations from the French, or imitations of the writers of that nation. In 1664, he published Mons. de Vaix’s “Moral Philosophy of the Stoics,” in compliance, sir John Hawkins thinks, with the will of his father, who was accustomed to give him themes and authors for the exercise of his judgment and learning. In 1665, he translated the Horace of Corneille for the amusement of his sister, who, in 1670, consented that it should be printed. In this attempt he suffered little by being preceded by sir William Lower, and followed by Mrs. Catherine Phillips. In 1670 he published a translation of the Life of the duke D'Espernon and about the same time, his affairs being much embarrassed, he obtained a captain’s commission in the army, and went over to Ireland. Some adventures he met with on this occasion gave rise to his first burlesque poem, entitled “A Voyage to Ireland,” in three cantos. Of his more serious progress in the army, or when, or why he left it, we have no account.

In 1674, he published the translation of the “Fair One of Tunis,” a French novel; and of the “Commentaries of Blaise de Montluc,” marshal of France; and in 1675, “The Planter’s Manual,” being instructions for cultivating all sorts of fruit-trees. In 1678 appeared his most celebrated burlesque performance, entitled “Scarronides, or Virgil Travestie a mock poem, on the First and Fourth Books of Virgil’s Æneis, in English burlesque.” To this was afterwards added, “Burlesque upon Burlesque, or the Scoffer scoffed; being some of Lucian’s Dialogues newly put into English fustian.” In 1681, he published “The Wonders of the Peak,” an original poem, which, however, proved that he had not much talent for the descriptive branch of poetry. His next employment was a translation of Montaigne’s Essays, which was highly praised by the marquis of Halifax, and has often been reprinted, as conveying the spirit and sense of the original with great felicity. His style at least approaches very closely to the antiquated gossip of that “old prater.” Besides these he wrote “An elegie upon the Lord Hastings,” signed with his name, in the “Lachrymae Musarum,” published on that nobleman’s death, London, 1649, 8vo; and in 1660, he published a folio of about forty leaves, entitled “A Panegyrick to the King’s most excellent majesty.'” This last is in the British Museum. His father has also a copy of verses in the “Lachrymae Musarum,” on the death of lord Hastings, published by Richard Brome.

The only remaining production of our author is connected with his private history. One of his favourite recreations was angling, which led to an intimacy between him and honest Izaac Walton, whom he called his father. His house was situated on the banks of the Dove, a fine trout stream, which divides the counties of Derby and Stafford. Here he built a little fishing-house dedicated to anglers, piscatoribus sacrum, over the door of which the initials of the names of Cotton and Walton were united in a cypher. The interior of this house was a cube of about fifteen feet, paved with black and white marble, the walls wainscotted, with painted pannels representing scenes of fishing; and on the doors of the beaufet were the portraits of Cotton and Walton. His partnership with Walton in this a Cement induced him to write “Instructions how to angle for a Trout or Grayling, in a clear stream,” which have since been published as a second part, or supplement to Walton’s “Complete Angler.”

At what time his first wife died, is not recorded. His second was Mary, countess dowager of Ardglass, widow of Wingfield lord Cromwell, second earl of Ardglass, who died in 1649. She must therefore have been considerably older than our poet, but she had a jointure of 1500l. a year, which, although it probably afforded him many comforts, was secured from his imprudent management. He died in the parish of St. James’s, Westminster, in 1687, and, it would appear, in a state of insolvency, as Elizabeth Bludworth, his principal creditor, administered to his effects, his widow and children having previously renounced the administration. These children were by the first wife, One of them, Mr. Beresford Cotton, published in 1694- the “Memoirs of the Sieur de Pontis,” translated by his father; and perhaps assisted in the collection of his poems which appeared in 1689. This gentleman had a company given him in a regiment of foot raised by the earl of Derby, for the service of king William; and one of his sisters was married to the celebrated Dr. George Stanhope, dean of Canterbury,

The leading features of Mr. Cotton’s character may be gathered from the few circumstances we have of his life, and from the general tendency of his works. Like his father, he was regardless of pecuniary concerns, a lively and agreeable companion, a man of wit and pleasure, and frequently involved in difficulties from which he did not always escape without some loss of character.

, an English physician, poet, and amiable man, was born in 1707, but in what county, or of what family, is not known. He studied physic under the celebrated Boerhaave, at Leyden, and is supposed to have taken his degree at that university, which was then the first medical school in Europe, and the resort of all who wished to derive honour from the place of their education. On his return he endeavoured to establish himself as a general practitioner, but circumstances leading him more particularly to the study of the various species of lunacy, he was induced to become the successor of a Dr. Crawley, who kept a house for the reception of lunatics at Dunstable, in Bedfordshire: and having engaged the housekeeper, and prevailed on the patients’ friends to consent to their removal, he opened a house for their reception at St. Alban’s. Here he continued for some years, adding to his knowledge of the nature of mental disorders, and acquiring considerable fame by the success and humanity of his mode of treatment. When his patients began to increase, he found it necessary to hire a larger house, where he formed a more regular establishment, and dignified it by the name of The College. His private residence was in St. Peter’s street in the town of St. Alban’s, and was long known as the only house in that town defended from the effects of lightning by a conductor.

The cares of his college, and the education of his numerous family, occupied near the whole of his long life. His poems and prose pieces were probably the amusement of such hours as he could snatch from the duties of his profession. He carried on also an extensive correspondence with some of the literary characters of the day, by whom, as well as by all who knew him, he was beloved for his amiable and engaging manners. Among others, he corresponded with Dr. Dodd ridge, and appears to have read much and thought much on subjects which are usually considered as belonging to the province of divines. He is not known to have produced any thing of the medical kind, except a quarto pamphlet, entitled “Observations on a particular kind of Scarlet Fever that lately prevailed in and about St. Alban’s,” 1749. The dates of some of his poetical pieces show that he was an early suitor to the muses. His “Visions in Verse” were first published in 1751, again in 1764, and frequently since. He contributed likewise a few pieces to Dodsley’s collection. A complete collection of his productions, both in prose and verse, was published in 1791, 2 vols. 12mo, by one of his sons, but without any memoir of the author.

Dr. Cotton was twice married: first, about the year 1738, to Miss Anne Pembroke, sister to George Pembroke, esq. formerly of St. Alban’s, receiver- general for the county of Hertford, and to Joseph Pembroke, town-clerk of St. Alban’s. By this lady, who died in 1749, he had issue, 1. Mary, who became the second wife of John Osborn, esq. of St. Alban’s, and died without issue, Nov. 2, 1790; 2. Anne, who became the second wife of major Brooke of Bath, and died July 13, 1800, leaving a son and daughter, since dead; S.Nathaniel, who was entered of Jesus college, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. 1766, and M. A. 1769, and is now vicar of Welford, in Northamptonshire; 4. Joseph, now a director of the honourable East India company; 5. Phebe, married to George Bradshaw, esq. since dead; 6. Katherine, who died unmarried, Dec. 2, 1780, and is buried under an altar tomb in the churchyard of St. Peter’s, St. Alban’s. He had also bv his first wife, a son and daughter, who died in infancy. He married, secondly, in 1750, or 1751, Miss Hannah Everett, who died May 1772, leaving a son, now living, and two daughters, since dead.

From his letters it appears that about the year 1780 his health was greatly impaired. He was much emaciated, and his limbs so weak as to be insufficient to support his weight. The languors, likewise, which he suffered, were so frequent and severe, as to threaten an entire stop to the circulation, and were sometimes accompanied with that most distressing of all sensations, an anxiety circa priecordia. His memory too began to fail, and any subject which required a little thought was a burthen hardly supportable. He died August 2, 1788, and we are told his age was so far unknown, that the person who entered his burial in the parish register, wrote after his name, “eighty-eight at least.” In a letter, however, written on the death of his daughter Katherine, in 1780, he says, “he had passed almost three winters beyond the usual boundary appropriated to human life, and had thus transcended the longevity of a septuagenarian” This, therefore, will fix his age at eighty-one, or eighty-two. He was interred with his two wives in St. Peter’s church-yard, under an altartomb between those of his two daughters, Mary and Katherine, on which nothing more is inscribed than “Here are deposited the remains of Anne, Hannah, and Nathaniel Cotton.”

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.

, a Jesuit, born in 1564, at Neronde near the Loire, of which place his father was governor, distinguished himself early in life by his zeal for the conversion of protestants, and by his success in the pulpit. He was called to the court of Henry IV. at the instance of the famous Lesdiguieres, whom he had converted, and the king pleased with his wit, manners, and conversation, appointed him his confessor. M. Mercier censures the king, for “having too peculiar a deference for this Jesuit, a man of very moderate talents, solely attached to the narrow views of his order;” and it was commonly said, “Our prince is good, but he has cotton in his ears.” Henry was desirous of making him archbishop of Aries, and procuring him a cardinal’s hat; but Cotton persisted in refusing his offers. His brotherhood, after their recall, unable easily to settle themselves in certain towns, that of Poitiers especially, started great difficulties, and Cotton wished to persuade the king that this opposition was the work of Sulli, governor of Poitou; but Henry having refused to listen to this calumny, and blaming Cotton for having adopted it with too much credulity: “God forbid,” said Cotton, “that I should say any harm of those whom your majesty honours with his confidence! But, however, I am able to justify what I advance. I will prove it by the letters of Sulli. I have seen them, and I will shew them to your majesty.” Next day, however, he was under the necessity of telling the king that the letters had been burnt by carelessness. This circumstance is related in the “Cours d'histoire de Condillac,” tom. XIII. p. 505. After the much lamented death of Henry, Cotton was confessor to his son Louis XIII, but the court being a solitude to him, he asked permission to quit it, and obtained it in 1617, so much the more easily as the duke de Luynes was not very partial to him. Mezerai and other historians relate, that when Ravaillac had committed his parricide, Cotton went to him and said: “Take care that you do not accuse honest men!” There is room to suppose that his zeal for the honour of his society prompted him to utter these indiscreet words, and his notions on the subject appear to be rather singular. We are told that Henry IV. having one day asked him, “Would you reveal the confession of a man resolved to assassinate me?” he answered “No; but I would put my body between you and him.” The Jesuit Santarelli having published a work, in which he set up the power of the popes over that of kings, Cotton, then provincial of Paris, was called to the parliament the 13th of March 1626, to give an account of the opinions of his brethren. He was asked whether he thought that the pope can excommunicate and dispossess a king of France “Ah” returned he, “the king is eldest son of the church and he will never do any thing to oblige tae pope to proceed to that extremity” “But,” said the first president. “are you not of the same opinion with your general, who attributes that power to the pope?” —“Our general follows the opinions of Rome where he is and we, those of France where we are.” The many disagreeable things experienced by Cotton on this occasion, gave him so much uneasiness, that he fell sick, and died a few days afterwards, March 19, 1626. He was then preaching the Lent-discourses at Paris in the church of St. Paul. This Jesuit wrote, “Traite du Sacrifice de la Messe;” “Geneve Plagiaire,” Lyons, 1600, 4to; “L'Institution Catholique,” 1610, 2 torn, fol; “Sermons,” 1617, 8vo; “La Rechute de Geneve Plagiaire;” and other things, among which is a letter declaratory of the doctrine of the Jesuits, conformable to the doctrine of the council of Trent, which gave occasion to the “Anti Cotton,” 1610, 8vo, and is found at the end of the history of D. Inigo, 2 vols. 12mo. This satire, which betrays more malignity than wit, was attributed to Dumoulin and to Peter du Coignet, but is now given to Caesar de Plaix, an advocate of Paris. Fathers Orleans and Rouvier wrote Cotton’s Life, 12mo, and as well as Gramont, give him a high character, which from the society of the Jesuits, at least, he highly deserved.

, an eminent English antiquary, “whose name,” says Dr. Johnson, “must always be mentioned with honour, and whose memory cannot fail of exciting the warmest sentiments of gratitude, whilst the smallest regard for learning subsists among us,” was son of Thomas Cotton, esq. descended from a very ancient family, and born at Denton in Huntingdonshire, Jan. 22, 1570; admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. 1585; and went to London, where he soon made himself known, and was admitted into a society of antiquaries, who met at stated seasons for their own amusement. Here he indulged his taste in the prosecution of that study for which he afterwards became so famous; and in his 18th year began to collect ancient records, charters, and other Mss. In 1600 he accompanied Camden to Carlisle, who acknowledges himself not a little obliged to him for the assistance he received from him in carrying on and completing his “Britannia;” and the same year he wrote “A brief abstract of the question of Precedency between England and Spain.” This was occasioned by queen Elizabeth’s desiring the thoughts of the society of antiquaries upon that point, and is still extant in the Cotton library. Upon the accession of James I. he was created a knight; and during this reign was very much courted and esteemed by the great men of the nation, and consulted as an oracle by the privy counsellors and ministers of state, upon very difficult points relating to the constitution. In 1608 he was appointed one of the commissioners to inquire into the state of the navy, which had lain neglected ever since the death of queen Elizabeth; and drew up a memorial of their proceedings, to be presented to the king, which memorial is still in his library. In 1609 he wrote “A discourse of the lawfulness of Combats to be performed in the presence of the king, or the constable and marshal of England,” which was printed in 1651 and in 1672. He drew up also, the same year, “An answer to such motives as were offered by certain military men to prince Henry, to incite him to affect arms more than peace.” This was composed by order of that prince, and the original ms. remains in the Cotton library. New projects being contrived to repair the royal revenue, which had been prodigally squandered, none pleased the king so much as the creating a new. order of knights, called baronets; and sir Robert Cotton, who had been the principal suggester of this scheme, was in 1611 chosen to be one, being the thirty-sixth on the list. His principal residence was then at Great Connington, in Huntingdonshire; which he soon exchanged for Hatley St. George, in the county of Cambridge.

He was afterwards employed by king James to vindicate the conduct of Mary queen of Scots, from the supposed misrepresentations of Buchanan and Thuanus; and what he wrote upon this subject is thought to be interwoven in Camden’s “Annals of queen Elizabeth,”“or else printed at the end of Camden’s” Epistles.“In 1616 the king ordered him to examine, whether the papists, whose numbers then made the nation uneasy, ought by the laws of the land to be put to death, or to be imprisoned? This task he performed with great learning, and produced upon that occasion twenty- four arguments, which were published afterwards in 1672, among” Cotton! Posthuina.“It was probably then that he composed a piece, still preserved in ms. in the royal library, entitled,” Considerations for the repressinge of the encrease of preests, Jesuits, and recrusants, without drawinge of blood.“He was also employed by the house of commons, when the match between prince Charles and the infanta of Spain was in agitation, to shew, by a short examination of the treaties between England and the house of Austria, the unfaithfulness and insincerity of the latter; and to prove that in all their transactions they aimed at nothing but universal monarchy. This piece is printed among” Cottoni Posthuma,“under the title of” A remonstrance of the treaties of amity,“&c. He wrote likewise a vindication of our ecclesiastical constitution against the innovations attempted to be brought in by the puritans, entitled,” An answer to certain arguments raised from supposed antiquity, and urged by some members of the lower house of parliament, to prove that ecclesiastical laws ought to be enacted by temporal men.“In 1621 he compiled” A relation to prove, that the kings of England have been pleased to consult with their peeres, in the great councel and commons of parliament, of marriadge, peace, and war;“printed first in 1651, then in 1672 among” Cottoni Posthuma,“and then in 1679 under the title of” The antiquity and dignity of Parliaments." Being a member of the first parliament of Charles I. he joined in complaii: -g of the grievances which the nation was said in 1628 to groan under'; but was always for mild remedies, zealous for the honour and safety of the king, and had no views but the nation’s advantage.

The same, to the same, dated Nov. 9. "Yesterday his majesty was pleased to sit in council with all the board, and commanded that devilish project found upon sir Robert Cotton to be read over unto us. For my own part, I never heard a more pernicious diabolical device, to breed suspicious, seditious humours amongst the people. His majesty was pleased to declare his royal pleasure touching the lords and others restrained for communicating that project; which was, to proceed in a fair, moderate, mild, legal course with them, by a bill of information preferred into the star-chamber, whereunto they might make their answer by the help of the most learned counsel they could procure. And though his majesty had it in his power most justly and truly to restrain them till the cause was adjudged, yet, out of his princely clemency, he commanded the board to call them, and to signify unto them to attend their cause in the star-chamber. They were personally called in before the lords (the king being gone) and acquainted by the keeper with his majesty’s gracious favour. Two never spoke a word expressing thankfulness for his majesty’s so princely goodness; two expressed much thankfulness, which were my lord of Bedford and sir Robert Cotton. St. John and James are still in prison; and farther than unto these the paper reachetb not in direct travel, save to Selden, who is also contained in the bill of information. I tear the nature of that contagion did spread farther; but as yet no more appeareth. I am of opinion it will fall heavy on the parties delinquent.

“Amongst other books,” says he, “which Mr. Richard James lent out, one Mr. St. John, of Lincoln’s-inn, a young studious gentleman, borrowed of him, for money, a dangerous pamphlet that was in a written hand, by which a course was laid down, how the kings of England might oppress the liberties of their subjects, and for ever enslave them and their posterities. Mr. St. John shewed the book to the earl of Bedford, o.r a copy of it; and so it passed from hand to hand, in the year 1629, till at last it was lent to sir Robert Cotton himself, who set a young fellow he then kept in his house to transcribe it; which plainly proves, that sir Robert knew not himself that the written tract itself had originally come out of his own library. This untrusty fellow, imitating, it seems, the said James, took one copy secretly for himself, when he wrote another for sir Robert; and out of his own transcript sold away several copies, till at last one of them came into Wentworth’s hands, of the North, now lord deputy, of Ireland. He acquainted the lords and others of the privy-council with it. They sent for the said young fellow, and examining him where he had the written book, he confessed sir Robert Cotton delivered it to him. Whereupon in the beginning of November, in the same year 1629, sir Robert was examined, and so were divers others, one after the other as it had been delivered from hand to hand, till at last Mr. St. John himself was apprehended, and, being conceived to be the author of the book, was committed close prisoner to the Tower. Being in danger to have been questioned for his life about it, upon examination upon oath, he made a clear, full, and punctual declaration that he had received the same manuscript pamphlet of that wretched mercenary fellow James*, who by this means proveed the wretched instrument of shortening the life of sir Robert Cotton; for he was presently thereupon sued in the star-chamber, his library locked up from his use, and two or more of the guards set to watch his house continually. When I went several times to visit and comfort him in the year 1630, he would tell me, ‘ they had broken his heart, that had locked up his library from him.’ I easily guessed the reason, because his honour and esteem were much impaired by this fatal accident; and his house, that was formerly frequented by great and honourable personages, as by learned men of all sorts, remained now upon the matter desolate and empty. I understood from himself and others, that Dr. Neile and Dr. Laud, two prelates that had been stigmatized in the first session of parliament in 1628, were his sore enemies. He was so outworn, within a few months, with anguish and grief, as his face, which had been formerly ruddy and well coloured, (such as the picture I have of him shews), was wholly changed into a grim blackish paleness, near to the resemblance and hue of a dead visage. I, at one time, advised him to look into himself, and seriously consider, why God had sent this chastisement upon him; which, it is possible, he did; for I heard from Mr. Richard Holdesworth, a great and learned divine, that was with him in his last sickness, a little before he died, that he was exceedingly penitent, and was much confirmed in the faithful expectation of a better life.”

It may be necessary, in order to elucidate this matter still farther, to take notice, that one of the articles in the attorney-general’s information against sir Robert Cotton was, “that the discourse or project was framed and con­* This was Richard James, fellow of three years before hi* death, he beCorpus Christ! college, in Oxford, born stowed the custody of his whole library at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, and on him and he being a needy sharkauthor of several sermons, both in La- ing companion, and very expensive, tin and English. H-- died at the house like old sir Ralph Starkie when he of sir Thomas Cotton, bart. in the be- lived, let out, or lent out, sir Robert ginning of Dec. 1636. Sir Symcmds Cotton’s most precious manuscripts for D'Ewes gives a very severe character money, to any that would be his cusof him; an atheistical profane scholar, tomers; which,” says sir Symonds, “I but otherwise witty and moderately once made known to sir Robert Cotton, learned; and he adds, that he had so before the said James’s face.” But this screwed himself info the good opinion appears to be in some essential points of srt- Robert Cotton, “that whereas incorrect, as will be shewn when we at first he had only permitted him the come to the article of Richard James, use of his books, at last, some two or trived within five or six months past here in England;” but sir David Foulis testified upon oath, being thereunto required, that it was contrived at Florence seventeen years before, by sir Robert Dudley; upon which most of the parties were released, and sir Robert Cotton had his library restored to him soon after.

The other works of.sir Robert Cotton, not already mentioned, are, 1. “A relation of the proceedings against Ambassadors, who have miscarried themselves, and exceeded their commission.” “2. That the sovereign’s person is required in the great councils or~ assemblies of the states, as well at the consultations as at the conclusions.” 3. “The argument made by the command of the house of commons, out of the acts of parliament and authority of law expounding the same, at a conference of the lords, concerning the liberty of the person of every freeman.” 4. “A brief discourse concerning the power of the peers and commons of parliament in point of judicature.” These lour are printed in “Cottoni Posthuma.” 5. “A short view of the long life and reign of Henry III. king of England,” written in 1614, and presented to king James I. printed in 1627, 4to, and reprinted in “Cottoni Posthuma.” 6. “Money raised by the king without parliament, from the conquest until this day, either by imposition or free gift, taken out of records or ancient registers,” printed in the “Royal treasury of England, or general history of taxes, by captain J. Stevens,” 8vo. 7. “A narrative of count Gondomar’s transactions during his embassy in England,” London, 1659, 4to. 8. “Of antiquity, etymology, and privileges of castles.” 9. “Of towns.” 10. “Of the measures of Land.” 11. “Of the antiquity of Coats of Arms.” All printed in Hearne’s Discourses, p. 166, 174, 178, 182. He wrote books upon several other subjects, that remain still in ms. namely, Of scutage; of enclosures, and converting arable land into pasture; of the antiquity, authority, and office of the high steward and marshal of England; of curious collections; of military affairs; of trade; collections out of the rolls of parliament, different from those that were printed under his name, in 1657, by William Pry nne, esq. He likewise made collections for the history and antiquities of Huntingdonshire; and had formed a design of writing an account of the state of Christianity in these islands, from the first reception of it here to the reformation. The first part of this design was executed by abp. Usher, in his book “De Britannic-arum ecclesiarum primordiis,” composed probably at the request of sir Robert Cotton, who left eight volumes of collections for the continuation of that work. Two of sir Robert’s speeches are printed in the Parliamentary History. A “Treatise of the Court of Chancery,” in ms. by sir Robert Cotton, is often cited in disputes concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and the authority of the Master of the Rolls, as a ms. in lord Sorners’s library. A copy of it, however, is in Mr. Hargrave’s Collection of Law Mss. The “Cottoni Posthuma,” so often mentioned above, was published by James Howell, fol. 1651, 1672, and 1679. The first of these editions contains a life of Henry III. omitted in the subsequent editions. Mr. Petyt, however, terms this a fictitious work (Petyt’s ms. vol. II. p. 281.), yet it contains several valuable and curious particulars.

But, without intending to derogate from the just merits of this learned and knowing man as an author, it may reasonably be questioned, whether he has not done more service to learning by securing, as he did, his valuable library for the use of posterity, than by all his writings. This library consists wholly of Mss. many of which being in loose skins, small tracts, or very thin volumes, when they were purchased, sir Robert caused several of them to be bound up in one cover. They relate chiefly to the history and antiquities of Great Britain and Ireland, though the ingenious collector refused nothing that was curious or valuable in any point of learning. He lived indeed at a time when he had great opportunities of making such a fine collection: when there were many valuable books yet remaining in private hands, which had been taken from the monasteries at their dissolution, and from our universities and colleges, at their visitations when several learned antiquaries, such as Joceline, Noel, Allen, Lambarde, Bowyer, Elsinge, Camden, and others, died, who had made it their chief business to scrape up the ^scattered remains of our monastical libraries: and, either by legacy or purchase, he became possessed of all he thought valuable in their studies. This library was placed in his own house at Westminster, near the house of commons; and very much augmented by his son sir Thomas Cotton, and his grandson sir John (who died in 1702, aged 71). In 1700 an act of parliament was made for the better securing and preserving that library in the name and family of th\ Cottons, for the benefit of the public; that it might not be sold, or otherwise disposed of and embezzled Sir John, great grandson of sir Robert, having sold Cotton -house to queen Anne, about 1706, to be a repository for the royal as well as the Cottonian library, an act was ma le for the better securing of her Majesty’s purchase of that house; and botli house and library were settled and vested in trustees. The books were then removed into a more convenient room, the former being very damp; and Cotton-house was set apart for the use of the king’s library-keeper, who had there the royal and Cottonian libraries under his care. In 1712 the Cottonian library was removed to Essex house, in Essexstreet; and in 1730 to a house in Little DeanVyard, Westminster, purchased by the crown of the lord Ashburnham; where a fire happening, Oct. 23, 1731, 111 books were lost, burnt, or entirely defaced, and 99 rendered imperfect. It was thereupon removed to the Old Dormitory belonging to Westminster-school; and finally, in 1753, to the British Museum, where they still remain.

It is almost incredible how much we are indebted to this library for what we know of our own country: witness the works of sir H. Spelman, sir W. Dugdale, the “Decem Scriptores,” dean Gale, Burnet’s History of the Reformation, Strype’s works, Rymer’s F cetera, several pieces published by Hearne, and almost every book that has appeared since, relating to the history and antiquities of Great Britain and Ireland. Nor was sir Robert Cotton less communicative of his library and other collections in his lifetime. Speed’s History of England is said to owe most of its value and ornaments to it; and Camden acknowledges, that he received the coins in the Britannia from this collection. To Knolles, author of the “Turkish History,” he communicated authentic letters of the masters of the knights of Rhodes, and the dispatches of Edward Barton, ambassador from queen Elizabeth to the Porte; to sir Walter Raleigh, books and materials for the second volume of his history, never published; and the same to sir K. Bacon, lord Vernlam, for his History of Henry VII. Selden was highly indebted to the books and instructions of sir Robert Cotton, as he thankfully acknowledges in more places than one. In a word, this great and worthy man was the generous patron of all lovers of antiquities, and his house and library were always open to ingenious and inquisitive persons.

Such a man, we may imagine, must have had many friends and acquaintance: and indeed he was not only acquainted with all the virtuosi and learned in his own country, but with many also of high reputation abroad; as Gruterns, Sweertius, Duchesne, Bourdelot, Puteanus, Peiresk, &c.

He died of a fever, at his house in Westminster, May 6, 1631, aged 60 years, three months, and 15 days. He married Elizabeth, one of the daughters and coheirs of William Brocas, of Thedingworth in the county of Leicester, esq, by whom he left one only son, sir Thomas the second baronet, who died 1662, and was succeeded by sir John the third, and he, 1702, by his son John, who died in the life-time of his father, 1681, leaving two sons, of whom the elder, John, succeeded his grandfather, and died without issue 1731. The title and part of the estate went to his uncle Robert, by whose death, at the age of 80, July 12, 1749, the tide became extinct. He had one son, John, who died before his father; and one grandson, John, who died of the small-pox, on his return from his travels, in 1739.

, a very learned English divine, was born at Horningsheath in Suffolk, in 1638, and educated in classical learning in the school of St. Edmund’s Bury. March 31, 1654, he was admitted of Christ’s college, in Cambridge; of which, after taking his degrees in arts, he was elected fellow. Some time after he went into orders, and in 1670 went as chaplain to sir Daniel Harvey, ambassador from Charles II. to the Porte; where he served, in that quality, both him and his successor, sir John Finch, for the space of seven years. Upon his return to England in 1679, he was created D. D. and the same year chosen lady Margaret’s preacher in the university of Cambridge. March 15, 1680, he had institution to the sinecure rectory of Littlebury in Essex', to which he was presented by Gunning, bishop of Ely. In 1681 he got the college living of Kegworth in Leicestershire, and was also made one of the chaplains to the Princess of Orange, afterwards queen Mary, and oil that account resided at that court, till, for some cause or other, which he never would mention to his most intimate friends, he was dismissed his attendance at three hours warning, and came over to England. On Nov. 9, 1687, he was installed into the chancellorship of York, conferred upon him by the king during the vacancy of that see. July 7, 1688, he was elected master of Christ’s college, in Cambridge, and the same year he was made vice-chancellor of the university. In October, 1689, king William being at Newmarket, came to Cambridge; and it being commonly known that Dr. Covel was in disgrace with his Majesty, it was asked his Majesty whether he would be pleased to see the vice-chancellor; to which he replied, that he knew how to distinguish Dr. Covel from the vice-chancellor of Cambridge; and it was remarked, that the royal visitor was more than usually gracious and affable with him. In 1708 he again served the office of vice-chancellor; and in 1722, just before his death, published his account of the Greek church.

At length, after having led a kind of itinerant life, as he himself informs us, at York, in Holland, and elsewhere, he arrived at his long journey’s end Dec. 19, 1722, in his 85th year, and was buried in the chapel of Christ’s college, where there is an epitaph to his memory. He gave a benefaction of 3l. a year to the poor of the parish of Littlebury above mentioned. Mr. Thomas Baker, who was well acquainted with him, says that he was a person noted for polite and curious learning, singular humanity, and knowledge of the world.

As the famous dispute between M. Arnauld, of the Sorbonne, and M. Claude, minister at Charenton, concerning the faith of the Greek church in the article of the real presence, was then in its full height, which much interested learned men of all denominations in Europe, and particularly the English clergy, Dr. Cove! was desired, by some of the principal persons of the university of Cambridge, particularly the doctors (afterwards bishops) Gunning, Pearson, and Sancroft, to inquire into this matter at Constantinople. When he arrived there, the controversy was handled with great warmth by the Roman Catholic party, at the head of which was the marquis de Nointel, ambassador from the king of France at the Porte, a man of great learning; but Dr. Covel’s disputes with him were conducted rather in an amicable manner, Nointel being a man of a liberal mind. Dr. Covel remained here, as we have already noticed, for the space of seven years, daring which he had an opportunity of informing himself well of the ancient and present state of the Greek church; and having collected several observations and notices relating thereto, digested them afterwards into a curious and useful book, entitled “Some account of the present Greek church, with reflections on their present doctrine and discipline, particularly in the Eucharist,” &c. Cambridge, 1722, folio. In the preface he informs us, that Arnauld, not content to say that the church in all ages believed transubstantiation, did also positively affirm, that all the eastern churches do at this very day believe it, in the same sense as it was defined by the council of Trent. Claude, in answer to him, brought most authentic proofs of the contrary; upon which Arnauld set all the missionaries of the East at work to procure testimonies for him: these, by bribes and other indirect means, they obtained in such numbers, that there was soon after a large quarto in French, printed at Paris, full of the names of patriarchs, bishops, and doctors of those churches, who all approved the Roman doctrine. But Claude, having had most certain information, by means of a French gentleman at Colchis, that some of those testimonies were mere fictions, and others quite different from what they were represented, sent some queries into the East, and desired the English clergymen residing there to inquire of the Greeks, and other eastern Christians of the best note, who had no connections with the Romanists, “Whether transubstantiation, or the real and natural change of the whole substance of the bread into the same numerical substance as the body of Christ, which is in heaven, be an article of faith amongst them, and the contrary be accounted heretical and impious?” Dr. Covel, having instituted this inquiry, published the result in the volume above mentioned.

It has been objected that he ought to have published his report on his return, when public curiosity was eager for information; but he delayed it, for whatever reason, until the decline of life, and when public curiosity had much abated. It is thought also that he put many things into it, transcribed from his memoranda on the spot, which he would have suppressed had he undertaken to write his work sooner. Of his general accuracy, however, there can be no doubt; and as he had made use of several curious, and before unknown, Mss. he took care, for the reader’s satisfaction, to deposit them in the late earl of Oxford’s library at Wimple, near Cambridge; and some are now in the Harleian collection, in the British Museum, particularly five Mss. of different parts of the New Testament, which were collated by Mill. The 1st contains the four Gospels; the second is a manuscript of the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation, written in i-he year 1087: from several of its very extraordinary readings, it appears to be of no great value: the 3d has the Acts of the Apostles, beginning with chap. i. 11. with all the Epistles, and was supposed by Mill to be 500 years old the 4th contains the Acts and Epistles, written in a modern hand the 5th, called likewise Sinaiticus, because Covel brought it from mount Sinai, contains the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation; but it has been injured, and rendered illegible in many places, by the damp, which has had access to it. It begins with Acts i. 20. and the last lines of the book of Revelation are wanting. The first, second, and fourth, have been examined by Griesbach.

With respect to his election to the mastership of Christ’s college, we are told that the society elected him immediately on the death of Dr. Cudworth, in order to prevent a mandate taking place, which they heard had been obtained of king James; and when the king was told whom they had chosen, he assented to their choice. But it is thought, that if the election had been more free, Dr. Covel would not have been successful.

, the eldest son of Thomas Coventry, esq. by Anna Maria Brown, was born in Cambridgeshire, and educated at Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1748, and his master’s in 1752. He was a young man of very considerable talents, and would probably have been more distinguished for polite literature, had he not been cut off in the prime of life by the small pox, in 1759, soon after he bad been presented by his relation, the earl of Coventry, to the donative or perpetual curacy of Edgware. He published “Penshurst,” an elegant poem, 1750, reprinted in Dodsley’s collection, with a poetical epistle to “The hon. Wilmot Vaughari in Wales.” He was also the author of a paper in the “World,” on the absurdities of modern gardening and of the well-known satirical romance of “Pompey the Little,” 1751. Mr. Gray told Mr. Waipole, in a letter of that date, “Pompey is the hasty production of Mr. Coventry (cousin to him you know), a young clergyman. I found it out by three characters, which made part of a comedy that he shewed me, of his own writing.” This cousin was Henry Coventry, author of the “Letters of Philemon to Hydaspes,” and who was one of the writers of the “Athenian Letters.” He was a fellow of Magdalen college; once, we are told, a religious enthusiast, and afterwards an infidel. He died Dec. 29, 1752.

, lord keeper of the great seal of England in the reign of king Charles I. was son of Thomas Coventry, one of the justices of the court of common pleas. He was born at Croome d'Abitot in Worcestershire in 1573; and at fourteen years of age became a gentleman commoner in Baliol college in the university of Oxford; where, having continued about three years, he was removed to the Inner Temple in order to pursue his father’s steps in the study of the common law. In 1616 he was chosen autumn reader of that society; on the 17th of November the same year appointed recorder of the city of London; and on the 14th of March following, solicitorgeneral, and received the honour of knighthood two days after at Theobalds. January 14th, 1620-1, he was made attorney-general; and thence advanced to the office of lord keeper of tue great seal of England by king Charles I. on the 1st of November, 1625; and on the 10th of April, 1628, dignified with the degree of a baron of this realm, by the title of lord Coventry, of Aylesborough in the county of Worcester.

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.

“But then this happy temper, and those good faculties, rather preserved him from having many enemies, and supplied him with some well-wishers, than furnished him with any fast and unshaken friends, who are always procured in courts by more ardour and more vehement professions and applications than he would suffer himself to be entangled with: so that h,e was a man rather exceedingly liked, than passionately loved; insomuch that it never appeared that he had any one friend in the court of quality enough to prevent or divert any disadvantage he might be exposed to. And therefore it is no wonder, nor to be imputed to him, that he retired within himself as much as he could; and stood upon his defence, without making desperate sallies against growing mischiefs; which, he knew well, he had no power to hinder, and which might probably begin in his own ruin. To conclude, his security consisted very much in his having but little credit with the king; and he died in a season the most opportune in which a wise man would have prayed to have finished his course, and which, in truth, crowned his other signal prosperity in the world.”

, youngest son of the preceding, was born in 1626, and in 1642 became a gentlemancommoner of Queen’s college in Oxford; and after he had continued there some time, he travelled on the continent, and at his return, adhering to Charles II. was made secretary to the duke of York, also secretary to the admiralty; and elected a burgess for the town of Great Yarmouth in Norfolk, in the parliament which met at Westminster, May 8, 1661; and also to that which was summoned in 1678. In 1663 he was created doctor of the civil law at the university of Oxford. He was sworn of the privy-council, and received the honour of knighthood June 26, 1665, and was made one of the commissioners of the treasury on May 24, 1667 being, as bishop Burnet relates, “a man of great notions and eminent virtues the best speaker in the house of commons, and capable of bearing the chief ministry, as it was once thought he was very near it, and deserved it more than all the rest did.” Yet, as he was too honest to engage in the designs of that reign, and quarrellt d with the duke of Buckingham, a challenge passed between them upon which he was forbid the court, and retired to Minster- Lovel, near Whitney, in Oxfordshire, where he gave himself up to a religious and private course of life, without accepting of any employment, though he was afterwards offered more than once the best posts in the court. He died June 23, 1686, unmarried, at Somerhill, near Tunbridge-wells, in Kent (where he had went for the benefit of the waters, being afflicted with the gout in the stomach) and was buried at Penshurst, in the same county, under a monument erected to his memory. By his last will he gave 2000l. for the relief of the French protestants then lately come into England, and banished their country for the sake of their religion; and 3000l. for the redemption of captives from Algiers.

, the pious and learned bishop of Exeter in the reign of Edward VI. was born in Yorkshire in 1487, as appears by his age on his epitaph. He was educated at Cambridge, in the house of the Augustine friars, of which Dr. Barnes, afterwards one of the protestant martyrs, was then prior. One of his name took the degree of bachelor of law in 1530, but Lewis thinks this must have been too late for the subject of the present article; yet it is not improbable it was the same, as he appears to have been in Cambridge at that time. He afterwards, according to Godwin, who does not furnish the date, received the degree of D. D. from the university of Tubingen, and was, though late in life, admitted ad eundem at Cambridge. Being in his early years attached to the religion in which he was brought up, he became an Augustine monk. In 1514 he entered into holy orders, being ordained at Norwich; but afterwards changing his religious opinions, Bale says he was one of the first, who, together with Dr. Robert Barnes, his quondam prior, taught the purity of the gospel, and dedicated himself wholly to the service of the reformation. About this time, probably 1530, or 1531, the reformed religion began to dawn at Cambridge. Various eminent men, not only in the colleges, but monasteries, began to assemble for conference on those points which had been discussed by the reformers abroad, and their usual place of meeting was a house called the White Horse, which their enemies nicknamed Germany, in allusion to what was passing in that country; and this house being contiguous to King’s, Queen’s, and St. John’s colleges, many members of each could have access unobserved. Among the names on record of these early converts to protestantism, we find that of Coverdale. In 1532 he appears to have been abroad, and assisted Tyndale in his translation of the Bible, and in 1535 his own translation of the Bible appeared, with a dedication by him to king Henry VIII. It formed a folio volume, printed, as Humphrey Wanley thought, from the appearance of the types, at Zurich, by Christopher Froschover. If so, Coverdale must have resided there while it passed through the press, as his attention to it was unremitting. He thus had the honour of editing the first English Bible allowed by royal authority, and the first translation of the whole Bible printed in our language. It was called a special translation, because it was different from the former English translations, as Lewis shews by comparing itwithTyndale’s; and the psalms in it are those now used in the Book of Common Prayer. In 1538 a quarto New Testament, in the Vulgate Latin, and in Coverdale’s English, though it bore the name of Hollybushe, was printed with the king’s licence, and has a dedication by Coverdale, in which he says, “he does not doubt but such ignorant bodies as, having cure of souls, are very unlearned in the Latin tongue, shall, through this small labour, be occasioned to attain unto more knowledge, or at least be constrained to say well of the thing which heretofore they have blasphemed.”

About the end of this year we find Coverdale again abroad on the business of a new edition of the Bible, on which occasion an event happened which shewed the vigilance and jealousy of the Romanists with respect to vernacular translations. Grafton, the celebrated pri liter, had permission from Francis I. king of France, at the request of king Henry himself, to print a Bible at Paris, on account of the superior skill of the workmen, and the comparative goodness and cheapness of the paper. But, notwithstanding the royal licence, the inquisition interposed by an instrument dated Dec. 17, 1538. The Frenchprinters, their English employers, and our Coverdale, who was the corrector of the press, were summoned by the inquisitors; and the impression, consisting of 2500 copies, was seized and condemned-to the flames. But the avarice of the officer who superintended the burning of these “heretical books,” as they were called, induced him to sell some chests of them to a haberdasher for the purpose of wrapping his wares, and thus some copies were preserved. The English proprietors, who fled at the alarm, returned to Paris when it-subsided; and not only recovered some of those copies which had escaped the fire, but brought with them to London the presses, types, and printers. This valuable importation enabled Grafton and Whitchurch to print in 1539, what is called Cranmer’s, or the “Great Bible,” in which Coverdale compared the translation with the Hebrew, corrected it in many places, and was the chief overseer of the work. Dr. Fulk, who was one of Coverdale’s hearers when he preached at St. Paul’s Cross, informs us that he took an opportunity in his sermon to defend his translation against some slanderous reports then raised against it, confessing-, “that he himself now saw some faults, which, if he might review the book once again, as he had twice before, he doubted not he should amend: but for any heresy, he was sure that there was none maintained in his translation.” In all these labours Coverdale found a liberal patron in Thomas lord Cromwell.

It is highly probable also that Coverdale was held in estimation for piety or talents at court, for he was almoner to queen Catherine Parr, the last wife of Henry VIII. a lady who was a favourer of the reformed religion, and as such he officiated at her funeral in Sept. 1548, in the chapel at Sudeley castle in Gloucestershire, the seat of her third husband, Thomas, lord Seymour of Sudley; and took that opportunity of declaring his sentiments on religion in the sermon he preached, which, says our manuscript authority, “was very good and godlie, and in one place thereof he toke occasion to declare unto the people howe that there shulde none there thinke, seye nor spread abrode, that the offeringe which was there don, was don anye thing to proffytt the deade, but for the poore onlye; and also the lights which were caried and stode abowte the corps, were for the honnour of the parson, and for none other entente nor purpose; and so wente thorowghe with his Sermon de, and made a godly e Prayer, &c.”

In 1547 we find him preaching at St. Paul’s with such effect against certain anabaptists, that they are said to have recanted their opinions. On the 14th of August, 1551, he succeeded Dr. John Harman, or Voysey, in the see of Exeter, his collocation, with licence of entry, bearing date July of that year, and it was expressly stated that king Edward VI. had promoted him “on account of his extraordinary knowledge in divinity, and his unblemished character.” When lord Russel was sent down to quell the rebellion in the West of England in 1549, he was attended by Coverdale to preach among them, and it was probably the influence of his preaching in composing the religious differences in that quarter, which pointed him out as a fit person to succeed Hartnan, a bigotted papist, who seldom resided, and took little care of his diocese, and to whom, some time before, Coverdale had been appointed coadjutor, an office not uncommon in those days. On his appointment to this bishopric, Coverdale was so poor as to be unable to pay the first fruits, which, therefore, the king, at the solicitation of archbishop Cranmer, excused. In the same year he was nominated one of the commissioners for compiling a new body of ecclesiastical laws, a favourite object with Cranmer, which, however, did not then take effect.

In his diocese he exerted himself to promote the reformed religion, and as he was not technically versed in civil and ecclesiastical law, which he wished to be executed with justice and equity, he applied to the university of Oxford for a competent person to be chancellor of his diocese; and Dr. Robert Weston, afterwards lord chancellor in Ireland*, being recommended, he invested him ivith full ecclesiastical jurisdiction, allowing him not only all the fees of office, but a house for him and his family, with proper attendants, and a salary of 40l. per annum. Yet, notwithstanding the integrity of his chancellor’s conduct, and his own endeavours to promote religion, by preaching constantly every Sunday and holy day, and by a divinity lecture twice a week in one or other of the churches of Exeter, and notwithstanding his hospitality, charity, and humility, the enemies of the new religion, as it was called, took every opportunity to thwart his endeavours, and to misrepresent his conduct, all which, however, during the reign of Edward VI. gave him but little disturbance.

On the accession of queen Mary, and the consequent re-establishment of popery, he was ejected from the see and thrown into prison, out of which he was released after two years confinement, at the earnest request of the king of Denmark. Coverdale and Dr. John Machabseus, chap­* Dr. Weston does not occur in Le Neve’s List of Chancellors, bu.1 there can be no doubt of the fact. lain to that monarch, had married sisters, and it was at his chaplain’s request that the king interposed, but was obliged to send two or three letters be Core he could accomplish his purpose. By one of these, dated April 25, 1554, it would appear that Coverdale was imprisoned in consequence of being concerned in an insurrection against the queen, but this is not laid to his charge in the queen’s answer, who only pretended that he was indebted to her concerning his bishopric. As the first fruits had been forgiven by Edward VI. this must be supposed to allude to his tenths; and Coverdale’s plea, as appears by the king of Denmark’s second letter, was, that he had not enjoyed the bishopric long enough to be enabled to pay the queen. This second letter bears date Sept. 24, 1554, and, according to Strype, the queen’s grant of his request was not given till Feb. 18, 1555. Strype, therefore, from his own evidence, is erroneous in his assertion that in 1554 Coverdale was preacher to a congregation of exiled protestants at Wesel, until he was called by the duke of Deux Fonts, to be preacher at Bergzabern . On his release, which was on the condition of banishing himself, he repaired to the court of Denmark, where the king would fain have detained him, but as he was not so well acquainted with the language as to preach in Danish, he preferred going to the places above mentioned, where he could preach with facility in Dutch; and there and at Geneva he passed his time, partly in teaching and partly in preaching. He also, while here, joined some other English exiles, Goodman, Gilby, Whittingham, Sampson, Cole, &c. in that translation of the Bible usually called the “Geneva translation;” part of which, the New Testament, was printed at Geneva, by Conrad Badius, in 1557, and again in 1560, in which last year the whole Bible was printed in the same place by Rowland Harte. Of this translation, which had explanatory notes, and therefore was much used in private families, there were above thirty editions in folio, quarto, and octavo, mostly printed in England by the king’s and queen’s printers, from the year 1560 to 1616. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he returned from his exile, but, unfortunately for the church, had imbibed the principles of the Geneva reformers, as far as respected the ecclesiastical habits and ceremonies. In 1559, however, we find him taking his turn as preacher at St. Paul’s Cross, and he assisted also at the consecration of archbishop Parker, in which ceremony, although he performed the functions of a bishop, he wore only a long black cloth gown. This avowed non-compliance with the habits and ceremonies prevented his resuming his bishopric, or any preferment being for some time offered to him. In 1563 bishop Grindal recommended him to the bishopric of Llandaff; and in 1564, Coverdale had the honour to admit that prelate to his doctor’s degree, by a mandate from the vicechancellor of Cambridge, a proof that he was still in high estimation. Grindal, particularly, had a great regard for him, and was very uneasy at his want of preferment. On one occasion he exclaimed, “I cannot excuse us bishops.” He also applied to the secretary of state, “telling him, that surely it was not well that father Coverdale,” as he styled him, “qui ante nos omnes fuit in Christo,” “who was in Christ before us all,” should be now in his age without stay of living.“It was on this occasion that Grindal recommended him to the bishopric of Llandaff, as already noticed, but it is supposed Coverdale’s age and infirmities, and the remains of the plague, from which he had just recovered, made him decline so great a charge. In lieu of it, however, the bishop collated him to the rectory of St. Magnus, London Bridge; and here again the good man’s poverty presented an obstruction, as appears from some affecting letters he wrote to be excused from the first fruits, amounting to 60l. which he was utterly incapable of paying: one of these letters, in which he mentions his age, and the probability of not enjoying the preferment long, he concludes with these words:” If poor old Miles might be thus provided for, he should think this enough to be as good as a feast." His request being granted, he entered upon his charge, and preached about two years; but resigned it in 1566, a little before his death. He was very much admired by the puritans, who flocked to him in great numbers while he officiated at St. Magnus’s church, which he did without the habits, and when he had resigned it, for it does not appear that he was deprived of it, as Neal asserts, his followers were obliged to send to his house on Saturdays, to know where they might hear him the next day, which he declined answering lest he should give offence to government. Yet, according to Strype, he had little to fear; for, Fox, Humphrey, Sampson, and others of the same way of thinking, were not only connived at, but allowed to hold preferments. He died, according to Richardson in his edition of Godwin, May 20, 1565 and according to Neal in his History of the Puritans, May 20, 1567 but both are wrong. The parish register proves that he was buried Feb. 19, 1568, in the chancel of the church of St. Bartholomew, Exchange, with the following inscription on his tombstone, which was destroyed at the great fire along with the church.

Coverdale was the author of several tracts calculated to promote the doctrines of the reformation, and of several translations from the writings of the foreign reformers. All these are now of such rare occurrence, that it is very difficult to make out a correct list. That in Bale, and in the meagre account of him in the Biographia Britannica, is both defective and indistinct. The following, which probably is also imperfect, may, in some measure, assist the collectors of curiosities, and has been taken principally from Ames and Herbert: 1. “A faithful and true Prognostication upon the Year 1548, &c.” translated from the German, 8vo, 1536, 1548, and often reprinted. 2. Translation of “Luther’s Exposition of the 23d Psalm,” 1537, 16mo. 3. “How and whither a Chryten man ought to fly the horryble Plague and Pestilence,” a sermon, from the German, to which is added, “A comfort concerning them that be dead, and howe wyfe, chyldren, and other frendes shal be comforted, the husband being dead,” 1537, 8vo. 4. “The Olde Faithe,” 1541 and 1547, 16mo. 5. A translation of Bullinger’s “Christen State of Matrimony,” 1541, 8vo, and 1543, one of the books prohibited by proclamation of Henry VIII. but reprinted twice in 1552. 6. “A Confutacion of that Treatise, which one John Standish made against the Protestacion of D. Barnes, in the year 1540,” 1541, 8vo. 7. Translation of “The Actes of the Disputation in the cowncell of the empyre, holden at Regenspurg 1” 8vo, about 1542. 8. Translation from the German of “The Defence of a certayne poore Christen Man who als shuld have beene condemned by the Popes Lawe,” Nuremberg, 1545, 16mo. 9. “An Abridgment of Erasmus’s Enchiridion militis Christiani,” 1545, 12mo. 10. A translation of the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, in “The second volume of the Paraphrase ef Erasmus on the New Testament,” 1549, fol. 11. Translation of “A godly Treatise, wherein is proved the true Justification of a Christian Man to come freely to the Mercie of God,” 1579, 16mo. 12. Translation of “The Hope of the Faithfull, &c.” 1579, 16mo, and of 13. “The Booke of Death, or how a Christian Man ought to behave himself in the danger of Death, &c.” 1579, 16mo. 14. Translation of “A spiritual and most precious pearle, teaching all men to love and embrace the Cross,” from the German of Otho Wermylierus, or Wermulerus, no date, but printed by Singleton about 1588. 15. ,“Fruitful Lessons upon the passion, buriall, resurrection, ascension, and of the sending of the Holy Ghost,” 1593, 4to. 16. Translation of “The Supplication of the nobles and commons of Ostericke made unto king Ferdinandus, in the cause of Christian Religion, &c.” 8vo, no date. 17. “Declaration of the Order that the churches in Denmark, and many other places in Germany, do use, not only at the Holy Supper, but also at Baptisme,” printed beyond sea; no date, 16mo. No manuscripts of bishop Coverdale exist in any of our public libraries, except a short letter in the Harleian collection, lately printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine.

, a French Jesuit, who died at Paris Aug. 4, 1774, at an advanced age, connected himself with the Jansenists, and particularly with the learned abbé Boursier. His sentiments on the bull Unifrenitus occasioned his being imprisoned for some weeks at Vincennes in 1755, and for more than a year in the Bastille in 1758-9. He wrote some works in defence of his opinions, and some political tracts; but his most celebrated publication was his “History of the Jesuits,” 1761, 4 vols, 12mo, to which he added 2 vols. of a supplement in 1764. This work cost him so much literary research, as to have injured his sight; but it is more remarkable, that, notwithstanding he owed his advancement to the Jesuits, and was the friend of many members of that society, he was a decided enemy to the society itself; and when their dissolution was concerted, in 1762, this work is said to have furnished many arguments in favour of the measure. His character was that of a laborious, active, useful, and disinterested ecclesiastic.

, a French historian, was born at Poitou in 1605, entered the society of the Jesuits in 1620, and quitted them in 1640, after having taught classical learning in their schools for some time. He afterwards devoted his time to historical and geographical pursuits, and published: 1. “Traite historique des rivieres de France,” Paris, 1644, 2 vols. 8vo. 2. An enlarged edition of “Tresor de l'Histoire de France de Gilles Corrozet,” 1645, 8vo. 3. “Histoire universelle du royatime de la Chine,” translated from the Italian of Alvares Semedo, 1645, 4to. 4. An enlarged edition of “Introducteur en la Cosmographie,” supposed to have been written by M. de Renti, 1645. 5. A translation of Turselin’s “Universal History,” continued to 1647, 1647, 2 vol. 8vo. 6. An enlarged edition of “Voyages de Vincent de Blanc,” 1648 and 1658, 4to. 7. A translation of Platina’s “Lives of the Popes,” with a continuation to Innocent X. 1651, 4to. 8. An original “Histoire des Vies des Papes,” 1656, 12mo, often reprinted, with additions and alterations by other hands. 9. “Harmonic des Evangelistes stir la Passion de notre Seigneur, avec des eclaircissemens,” 1645, 12mo. 10. “Lexicon Homericum,” 1643, 8vo. 11. “Histoire de Juifs,” 3 vojs. 12mo, two only of which were Coulon’s, the third being completed by his friend father Comte. Coulon died in 1664, and this history of the Jews was published the year after.

, a learned divine of the church of Rome, who was long resident in England, was born at Vernon in “Normandy, in the year 1681, and being educated for the church, became canon regular and librarian of the abbey of St. Genevieve, a situation extremely favourable to the prosecution of his studies, as the library of which he had the care is a very considerable one. Among other theological inquiries, he engaged in one, which was productive of very important consequences respecting his future life. Having been employed in reading abbe Reuaudot’s” Memoire sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois,“inserted in abbe Gould’s” La veritable croyance de T'eglise Catholique,“he was induced to enter into a farther examination of that subject. Accordingly he drew up a memoir upon it, for his own satisfaction only, but which grew insensibly into a treatise; and at the instance of some friends to whom it was communicated, he was at length prevailed with to consent to its publication. He therefore made the usual application for permission to print it; and obtained the approbation of Mons. Arnaudin, the royal licenser of the press. Some persons, however, afterwards found means to prevail on the chancellor to refuse to affix the seal to the approbation of the licenser. Terms were proposed to father Courayer, to which he could not accede, and he gave up all thoughts of publishing. Some of his friends, however, being in possession of a copy, resolved to print it; and this obliged him to acquiesce in the publication. When he first wrote his treatise, all his materials were taken from printed authorities, and he had no acquaintance or correspondence in England. But sundry difficulties, which occurred to him in the course of his inquiries, suggested to him the propriety of writing to England, in order to obtain clearer information on some points; and knowing that a correspondence had been carried on between Dr. Wake, then archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Dupin, on the project of re-uniting the churches of England and France, he took the liberty, in 1721, although entirely unknown to that prelate, to desire his information respecting some particulars. The archbishop answered his inquiries with great readiness, candour, and politeness, and many letters passed between them on this occasion. Father Courayer’s book was at length published in 1723, in two volumes small 8vo, entitled,” Dissertation sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois, et sur la Succession des Evesques de l'Eglise Anglicane: avec les preuves justificatives des faits avancez dans cet ouvrage.“It was printed at Nancy, though Brussels is placed in the title. It was afterwards translated into English, by the rev. Mr. Daniel Williams, and published at London in one volume 8vo, under the title” A Defence of the validity of the English Ordinations, and of the Succession of the Bishops in the Church of England: together with proofs justifying the facts advanced in this treatise.“Father Courayer’s work was immediately attacked by several popish writers, particularly by father le Quien and father Hardouin. But in 1726 he published, in four volumes 12mo,” Defense de la Dissertation sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois, coutre les differentes reponsesqui y out 6te faites. Avec les preuves justiticatives des faits avancez dans cet ouvrage. Par l'Auteur de la Dissertation.“An English translation of this also was afterwards published at London, in two volumes 8 vo, under the following title:” A Defence of the Dissertation on the validity of the English Ordinations," &c.

But father Courayer was not only attacked by those writers who published books against him: he was likewise censured both by the mandates and by the assemblies of several bishops, and particularly by cardinal de Noaiiles, archbishop of Paris, and the bishop of Marseilles. During this time he retired from Paris into the country, but was recalled by his superior to reside at the priory of Hennemonte, four leagues from Paris. Here he received a diploma for the degree of doctor in divinity from the university of Oxford, dated Aug. 28, 1727: and from hence he returned his thanks to the University in an elegant Latin letter, dated Dec. 1, the same year, both of which he afterwards printed. But though his book had procured this honourable testimonial of his merit from an English university, his enemies in France were not satisfied with publishing censures and issuing episcopal mandates against him, but proceeded to measures for compelling him to recant what he had written, and to sign such submissions as were inconsistent with the dictates of his conscience. In this critical state of things, he resolved to quit his native country, and to seek an asylum in England. He was the more inclined to embrace this resolution in consequence of the warm and friendly invitations which he had received from archbishop Wake, who had conceived a great regard for him. After having spent four months very disagreeably at Hennemonte, he obtained leave to remove to Senlis; but, instead of going thither, he took the road to Calais in the common stage-coach, from thence got safely over to Dover, and arrived in London on the 24tlr of January, 1728.

He was well received in England: the marquis of Blandford made him a present of fifty pounds, and he obtained a pension of one hundred pounds a year from the court. In 1729 he published, at Amsterdam, in two vols. 12mo, “Relation Historique et Apologetique des sentimens et de la conduite du P. le Courayer, chanoine regulier de Ste. Genevieve: avec les preuves justificatives des faits avancez dans l'ouvrage.” In this work he entered into a farther justification of his sentiments and of his conduct, and shewed the necessity that he was under of quitting France, from the virulence and power of his enemies. In 1733 he was at Oxford, and was present in the theatre at the public act that year, and made a speech there upon the occasion, which was afterwards printed both in Latin and English. In 1726 he published at London, in two vols. folio, a translation, in French, of “Father Paul’s History of the Council of Trent;” with notes critical, historical, and theological. He dedicated this work to queen Caroline, and speaks of it as having been undertaken by her command; and he expresses, in the strongest terms, his gratitude to her majesty for her patronage, and for the liberality which she liad manifested towards him. A list of subscribers is prefixed, in which are found the names of the prince of Wales, the duke of Cumberland, the prince and princess of Orange, the princesses Amelia and Caroline, the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord Chancellor, lord Hardwicke, then chief Justice of the King’s Bench, sir Robert Walpole, and many of the nobility, andother persons of distinction. By the sale of this work he is said to have gained fifteen hundred pounds, and the queen also raised his pension to two hundred pounds per annum. He gave sixteen hundred pounds to lord Feversham, for an annuity of one hundred pounds per annum, which he enjoyed forty years. By these means he came into very easy circumstances, which were rendered still more so by the reception which his agreeable and instructive conversation procured him, among persons of rank and fortune, with many of whom it was his custom to live for several months at a time. He wrote some other works in French, besides those that have been mentioned; and, in particular, he translated into that language Sleidan’s “History of the Reformation.” His exile from his own country was probably no diminution of his happiness upon the whole; for he appears to have passed his time in England very agreeably, and he lived to an uncommon age. Even in his latter years, he was distinguished for the cheerfulness of his temper and the sprightliness of his conversation. He died in Downingstreet, Westminster, after two days illness, on the 17th of October, 1776, at the age of ninety-five. Agreeably to his own desire, he was buried m the cloister of Westminsterabbey, by Dr. Bell, chaplain to the princess Amelia. In his will, which was dated Feb. 3, 1774,* he declared, “That he died a member of the Catholic church, but without approving of many of the opinions and superstitions which have been introduced into the Romish church, and taught in their schools and seminaries, and which they have insisted on as articles of faith, though to him they appeared to be not only not founded in truth, but also to be highly improbable.” It is said, that soon after he came to England, he went to a priest of the Romish church for confession, and acquainted him who he was. The priest would not venture to take his confession, because he was excommunicated, but advised him to consult his superior of Genevieve. Whether he made any such application, or what was the result, we are not informed bat it is certain that, when in London, he made it his practice to go to mass; and when in the country, at Ealing, he constantly attended the service of the parish-church, declaring, at all times, that he had great satisfaction in the prayers of the church of England. In discoursing on religious subjects he was reserved and cautious, avoiding controversy as much as possible. He left 500l. to the parish of St. Martin; and gave, in his life-time, his books to the library there, founded by archbishop Tenison. He bequeathed 200l. to the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, and a handsome sum of money to the poor of Vernon, in Normandy; and, after many legacies to his friends in England, the remainder to two nephews of his name at Vernon. During his lifetime, he was occasionally generous to some of his relations in France, and in England was very liberal to the poor. He had two sisters, who were nuns; and a brother at Paris, in the profession of the law, to whom he gave a handsome gold snuff-box, which had been presented to him by queen Caroline.

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.

To what has been already said respecting Dr. Courayer’s works, it may not be improper here to add, that he wrote “Traite de Poem Epique” that his French translation of father Paul’s “History of the Council of Trent,” was printed at London in 1736, in 2 vols. folio; and at Amsterdam, the same year, in 2 vols. 4to; and that his translation of Sleidan’s History of the Reformation, to which he added copious notes, was printed in 3 vols. 4to, in 1767.

By his “Last Sentiments,” published by Dr. Bell, it appears that although he professed to die a member of the Roman Catholic church, he could not well be accounted a member of that or of any other established church. In rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, he became nearly, if pot quite, a Socinian, or modern Unitarian; he denied also the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, as to matters of fact; and as to baptism, seems to wish to confine it to adults. In 1811, however, a more full exposure of his sentiments was published by Dr. Bell, entitled “Trait ou Ton expose ce qui I'ecriture nous apprend de la Divinite* de Jesus Christ,” 8vo, a publication which we have little hesitation in saying ought never to have appeared. At the distance of almost thirty years from the publication of his “Last Sentiments,” it could not be wanted to illustrate the wavering, unsettled character of the author, and it was surely not necessary to increase the number of writings of the same description, already too numerous. The apology of the editor, we observe with regret, is far from being conclusive.

One other circumstance respecting Courayer’s history remains to be noticed. From the fourth volume of bishop Atterbury’s Epistolary Correspondence, we learn that the bishop was exposed to some trouble on account of Courayer' s escape from France, which he was supposed to have facilitated. The French king and cardinal Fleury sent him a message on the subject by the lieutenant de police. “I did not mince the matter to the magistrate,” says the bishop, “nor am I at all ashamed of what has happened, or concerned for it. I owned my friendship for Pere Courayer told them frankly a great deal more than they knew of that matter, as <far as I was concerned and thought there was no reason to wonder at, or blame my conduct. I convinced them of that point, and I believe there is an end of it. I shewed the lieutenant the picture of Pere Courayer hanging up in my room; told him I had visited him in his retreat at Hanment, while he was in disgrace there; and that he came to take his leave of me the night before he left Paris; and that in all this I thought I had done nothing that misbecame me.” The lieutenant, who behaved with great politeness, was perfectly satisfied with our prelate’s explanation but this was not the case with the cardinal, who was persuaded that father Courayer’s escape was entirely owing to Atterbury, and displayed much resentment on that account. The picture of Courayer, in the bishop’s possession, was left by him to the university of Oxford.

, descended from a family in Picardy, was born at Geneva in 1586. He officiated many years among the reformed in France, till he became a follower of Arminius, when he was obliged to retire into Holland, where he succeeded the celebrated Episcopius as professor of theology at Amsterdam, and published his works with a life of the author. He was also the author of many theological and controversial pieces, which were afterwards collected by Elzevir in 1675, fol. He was a capital Greek scholar, and paid great attention to different Greek copies of the New Testament, of which he gave a new edition, with various readings; and a preface, to shew that those various readings, though numerous, do not tend in the least to affect the credit and authenticity of the work itself.

, the son of a tailor at Menin, was one of many who experienced the oppression of Olivarez duke of Alva, who, being appointed by Philip II. governor of the seventeen provinces, endeavoured, with execrable policy, to establish over all the Netherlands an irreligious and horrible court of judicature, on the model of the Spanish inquisition. By consequence, in 1567, great numbers of industrious, thriving, and worthy people were imprisoned by the rigorous orders of this petty tyrant, and treated with great injustice and cruelty. Courten had the good fortune to escape from prison; and in the year following, 1568, arrived safe in London, with his wife Margaret Casiere, a daughter named Margaret, her husband, son of a mercantile broker at Antwerp of the name of Boudean, and as much property as they could hastily collect under such disadvantages. Soon after their arrival, they took a house in Abchurch-lane, where they lived together, following for some time the business of making what were commonly called French hoods, much worn in those days and long after, which they vended in wholesale to the shopkeepers who sold them in retail. Encouraged by great success in this employment, they soon removed to a larger house in Pudding-lane or Love-lane, in the parish of St. Mary Hill, where they entered on a partnership trade, in silks, fine linens, and such articles as they had dealt in before when in Flanders. Michael Boudean, the daughter Margaret’s husband, died first, leaving behind him, unfortunately for the family, a son and only child, named Peter, after an uncle certainly not much older than himself. The widow married John Money, a merchant in London, who instantly became an inmate with the family, which was moreover increased by the parents themselves, with two sons, William, born in 1572, and Peter, born in 1581. The young men, being instructed in reading, writing, and arithmetic, were early initiated in business, and soon after sent abroad as factors for the family: William to Haerlem, Peter to Cologne, and Peter Boudean the grandchild to Middleburg. At what time William Courten and Margaret Casiere died is at present uncertain most probably their deaths happened about the end of queen Elizabeth’s, or in the beginning of king James’s reign; but it seems certain, that they left their descendants not only in easy, but even in affluent circumstances. At the following aera of this little history it does not appear clearly, whether the old people were actually dead, or had only declined all farther active, responsible concern in business: but, in 1606, William and Peter Courtens entered into partnership with John Money, their sister Margaret’s second husband, to trade in silks and fine linen. Two parts, or the moiety of the joint stock, belonged to William Courten, and to each of the others, Peter Courten and John Money, a fourth share. As for Peter Boudean, the son of Margaret Courten by her first husband, he seems to have been employed to negotiate for the partnership at Middleburg on some stipulated or discretionary salary; for it does not appear that he had any certain or determinate share in the trade, which was carried on prosperously till 1631, with a return, it is said, one year with another, of 150,000l. During the course of this copartnership, there is nothing upon record unfavourable to the character of John Money. The characters too of William and Peter Courtens appear unexceptionable, fair, and illustrious. They prospered, it seems, remarkably in all their undertakings, for twenty years and more; in the course of which time they were both dignified with the honours of knighthood.

The elder brother, sir William Courten, besides his capital concern in the original partnership above mentioned, traded very extensively on his own account to Guinea, Portugal, Spain, and the West Indies. He married first a Dutch woman of the name of Cromling, the daughter of Mr. Peter Cromling, an opulent merchant in Haerlem, who, though both deaf and dumb, was book-keeper to her father. By this marriage he got, it is said, 60,000l. of which he was enjoined to lay out 50,000l. in the purchase pf lands in England, to be settled upon his son by this lady, of whom she was delivered in London, and whose name was Peter. This son, who was all the offspring from this marriage, king James I. made one of the first rank of his baronets. He was afterwards married to lord Stanhope’s daughter, but died without issue, leaving the estate in lands to his father sir William, who settled that estate, and 3000l. more per annum, upon his only son and heir, by a second wife, the daughter of Mr. Moses Tryon. Sir Peter, the uncle to Peter just mentioned, and brother to sir William Courten, kept the books of the family partnership, and died unmarried in 1630 at Middleburgh. It is affirmed that he was worth at his death 100,000l. and that he left his nephew Peter Boudean, the son of his sister by her first husband, his sole heir and executor, who seems at this time to have taken the name of Courten, which he annexed to his own. This crafty man took immediate possession, not only of his uncle sir Peter’s property, which could not have been ascertained without balancing the accounts of the copartnership, but seized likewise the shipping and goods that belonged unquestionably to his other uncle sir William, and Mr. Money, amounting, as it is stated, to 100,000l. more; nor could he, to the very end of his life, which lasted above thirty years longer, be brought, by argument or law, to settle the accounts of the company.

Sir William Courten, after the death of his Dutch lady, married a second wife of the name of Tryon, by whom he had one son, named William, and three daughters. Sir William seems to have been possessed of a comprehensive mind, an enterprising spirit, abundance of wealth, and credit sufficient to enable him to launch out into any promising branch of trade and merchandize whatsoever. It is stated, with apparent fairness, that he actually lent to king James I. and his son Charles I. at different times, of his own money, or from the company trade, 27,000l. and in another partnership wherein he was likewise concerned with sir Paul Pyndar, their joint claims on the crown amounted, it seerns, to 200,000l. Sir William employed, one way or other, for many years, between four and five thousand seamen; he built above twenty ships of burthen; was a great insurer, and besides that, a very considerable goldsmith, or banker, for so a banker was then called. It appears likewise, that he was very deeply engaged in a herring fishery, which was carried on at one time with great spirit and at great expence: but shortly after, much to his cost, it came to nothing, in consequence of the supervening dissensions, confusion, and misery, that accompanied the rebellion. Previous to this, however, about the year 1624, two of sir William Courten’s ships, in their return from Fernambuc, happened to discover an uninhabited island, now of considerable importance to Great Britain, to which sir William first gave the name of Barbadoes. On the 25th of February 1627, he obtained the king’s letters patent for the colonization of this island, sheltering himself, for whatever reasons, under the earl of Pembroke. On the faith of this grant, afterwards superseded by the influence of James then earl of Carlisle, though its validity was acknowledged by the first, and indeed by all the lawjers, sir William sent two ships with men, arms, ammunition, &c. which soon stored the island with inhabitants, English, Indians, &c. to the number of one thousand eight hundred and fifty; and one captain Powel received from sir William a commission to remain in the island as governor, in behalf of him and the earl of Pembroke. After sir William had expended 44,000l. on this business, and been in peaceable possession of the island about three years, James earl of Carlisle claiming on grants said to be prior, though dated July 2, 1627, and April 7, 1628; affirming too that he was lord of all the Caribbee islands lying between 10 and 20 degrees of latitude, under the name of Carliola, gave his commission to colonel Royden, Henry Hawley, and others, to act in his behalf. The commissioners of lord Carlisle arrived at Barbadoes with two ships in 1629, and having invited the governor captain Powel on board, they kept him prisoner, and proceeded to invade and plunder the island. They carried off the factors and servants of sir William Courten and the earl of Pembroke, and established the earl of Carlisle’s authority in Barbadoes; which continued there under several governors, till 1646, when the government of it was vested by lease and contract in lord Willoughby of Parham. Sir William Courten, it is said, had likewise sustained a considerable loss several years before this blow in the West Indies, by the seizure of his merchandize, after the cruel massacre of his factors at Amboyna in the East Indies. But after all the losses above mentioned, he was still possessed, in the year 1633, of lands in various parts of this kingdom to the value of 6 500l. per annum, besides personal estates rated at 128,Ogo/. and very extensive credit. Such were his circumstances when he opened a trade to China, and, as if he had grown* young again, embarked still more deeply in mercantile expeditions to the East Indies, where he established sundry new forts and factories. In the course of this new trade he lost unfortunately two of his ships richly laden, the Dragon and the Katharine, which were never heard of more: and he himself did not long survive this loss, which involved him in great debt; for he died in the end of May or beginning of June 1636, in the 64th year of his age, and was buried in the church or church-yard of St. Andrew Hubbard, the ground of both which was after the fire of 1666 disposed of by the city for public uses, and partly laid into the street, the parish being annexed to St. Mary Hill. There is an abstract of sir William Courten’s will in the British Museum.

, the last in the male line of the family that makes the subject of the preceding article, was born in the parish of Fenchurch in London, March 28,

1642. He had probably no knowledge or remembrance of his father, who, the next year after his son was born, in

1643, became insolvent, and quitted this kingdom, to which it does not appear that he ever returned. When he died at Florence, in 1655, the subject of this article was about thirteen years of age; and it is most likely that his mother did not survive her husband above four or five years: for as no mention is made of lady Katharine in 1660, when Mr. Carew obtained letters of administration to the estates of the Courten family, it is probable she was then dead. In a petition to parliament, a rough draught of which is in the British Museum, there is a like ground for the same supposition, no mention being made of his mother; for it is only said there, that he the petitioner, and his only sister, had been left for many years destitute of a livelihood. It is not said at what time this gentleman’s father sold the great bulk of sir William Courten’s lands. Even the wrecks of a fortune, once so ample, must have been very considerable, and more than sufficient for the proper education and decent maintenance of William Courten and his sister. She could very well live in those days on no more income, as appears, than 30l. per annum. That this moderate annual sum was her principal support, we are led to believe from a slight attention to two papers still in being. If he and his sister had even been more reduced in point of income than we can well suppose, they still had infallible resources in the number, rank, and riches of their relations. Their grandfather the earl of Bridgewater, two uncles, with eleven aunts on the side of their mother, and three aunts on their father’s side, were people of fortune and distinction; many of them married into honourable and wealthy families, and all of them apparently in affluent or easy circumstances. It may therefore be reasonably concluded that William Courten was well educated, though the fact were not ascertained by other testimony. Having previously received a good education in this country, forwarded probably with peculiar care, and earlier certainly than is now usual, William Courten began his travels; or was sent, while yet a minor, to prosecute his studies abroad. The genius of a naturalist, which he discovered, it seems, from his infancy, led him to cultivate it at Montpellier, distinguished then, as Upsal since, for its botanical garden, its peculiar attention to natural history, and the abilities and celebrity of masters in various branches of this science. Here he met, as might be probably expected, with students of a congenial taste, and persons then and afterwards eminent in various walks of literature, with several of whom he appears to have lived in great familiarity, and to have cultivated long correspondence. Tournefort, the celebrated French botanist, was of this number. William Courten, who was the senior by several years, had no doubt made a very considerable proficiency in botany before his acquaintance with this illustrious foreigner commenced; but it must have been much improved by the intimacy that appears to have subsisted between them. It was at Montpellier probably, but many years after his primary settlement there, that William Courten contracted his first acquaintance with sir Hans Sloane, a zealous naturalist, who spared no pains or expence in the acquisition and promotion of knowledge in natural history, and who was yet more honourably distinguished by his skill in his own profession, his general patronage of scholars, his public spirit, and extensive phiJanthropy. Sir Hans Sloane unquestionably spent a considerable time at Montpellier, probably to improve his knowledge and to establish his health; and here too it is said he got his degree of M. D. But at what place and at what time soever their acquaintance began, being forwarded'by a similarity of studies, in which William Courten had undoubtedly the pre-eminence, it ripened into a friendship that continued without interruption to the end of his life.

Immediately on the expiration of his minority, William Courten left Montpellier for some time, being obliged to repair to London, by the exigency of his own and his sister’s affairs, in order to procure their final settlement, and to secure to himself and her the best provision for the future that could be collected from the wide-spread ruins of their family. Yet with a turn of mind that biassed him strongly to a contemplative life, unexperienced in the ways of the world, torn from darling studies, and under the influence of the indolent habits of a mere scholar, this youth was ill qualified to be a principal agent for himself and his sister in a business so perplexed, so laborious, and so unpromising.

Soon after his arrival in England, in concert with his friends, William Courten began his litigations in behalf of himself and his sister. The first object he aimed at was to set aside the letters that, in his absence and minority, Carew had surreptitiously obtained, and to get himself legally invested with the administration of the estate and effects of his ancestors. He contended that George Carew was an officious intruder, under false pretexts of being a sufferer, and an agent for other sufferers by the losses of his father and grandfather; and urged that this man’s intermeddling with the wrecks of their fortunes, had been equally t > the prejudice of the rightful heirs, and to the detriment of the legal creditors of the family. He claimed therefore for himself, as his natural right, the administration of the Courten estates and his aunt, lady Knightly, who seems to have been then the only surviving child of sir William, from whom the estates descended, concurred with her nephew in this claim. George Carew, who was both a courtier and a lawyer, seems to have exerted his utmost address and professional skill to stop or frustrate these proceedings. He expressly owns in one of his papers that he had indeed paid indefinite sums of money to William Courten, esq. after he came of age, though he says at the same time that he did not pay the monies because William Courten had a right to them, but solely to prevent and terminate debates. The causes here assigned for the payments to William Courten, esq. after he came of age, are very questionable; for Carew does not appear a man likely to have parted with money on such principles merely to prevent or terminate debates.

Mr. Courten still persisted in his favourite study of natural history; but he persevered notwithstanding in the various processes instituted in behalf of himself and his sister. About 1663, it seems that some compromise took place between Mr. Courten and Mr. Carew; when, by a bond, it appears that the former abandoned all claim to the administration, for valuable considerations not specified; adding, that whatever he had received from the wrecks of the fortune of his father was ex dono & gratia, and not ex jure. He even relinquished his family name of Courten, assumed that of William Charleton, and publicly announced his intention of quitting England, and living in a strange land.

Of the course or duration of his travels no particular information can now be given. It may be reasonably judged, that, after a peregrination of three or four years at most, he settled in his former place of abode, at Montpellier, where he certainly resided for the greatest part of the time that he lived abroad. Sir Hans Sioane says expressly that he was absent from England, at different times, no doubt, twenty-five years in all; and though the particular years are not stated, it would not be very difficult, if it was of any importance, to ascertain them. Mr. Courten seems all along to have paid great and general attention to polite literature. His papers and place-books, many of which are preserved in the British Museum, discover various, judicious, and extensive reading, and his own frequent rejnarks shew that he thought as well as read. About this time he seems to have been engaged in the study of coins, both ancient and modern. On this entertaining and useful, but expensive branch of knowledge, he certainly made great proficiency, and attained at last extraordinary skill. It appears from one of his pocket-books, that in 1669 he began to collect coins, in both kinds, and in all metals, at considerable expence.

It was most probably abroad, and about the year 1675, that Mr. Courten’s acquaintance and friendship with the celebrated Mr. John Locke began; for in the summer of that year the bad state of Locke’s health, and an apprehended consumption, induced him to repair to Montpellier, then famous for the cure of diseases in the lungs. For many years past people have discontinued to resort to Montpellier, when afflicted with pulmonary and consumptive complaints, its air having been long judged peculiarly improper for them; though it is now said to be much mended, by draining a morass, or planting, or destroying a wood. Bishop Atterbury, who was there in the summer 1729, represents it as so uncomfortable, that he was forced to take shelter from the sultry heats, at Vigan in the Cevennes, ten leagues distant.

It appears that Mr. Courten was one of the select friends among whom Locke practised physic, of which he had taken a bachelor’s degree at Oxford. That Mr. Courten attended particularly to Locke’s prescription, and derived benefit from it, is evident from his answer, and from the following entries in a Saunders’s almanac for 1698, in which there is a ms diary, not by Dr. Walter Charleton, as it is entitled in the Museum, and the catalogue of Mss. but relative solely to Mr. William Courten, being his own hand-writing, which is sufficiently distinguishable, and moreover vouched as his by the information itself. “July 27, 1698, being distressed with my headach and giddiness, I left off entirely taking tobacco in snuff, having only taken it but four times a day, for several days before, and never after seven at night.” “Aug. 20, 1698, must shew my things [meaning his Museum] but seldom, never two days consecutively for the future.” Certainly Mr. Courten cultivated medallic science with pleasure, avidity, and considerable success, as is evident in the British Museum, both in the coins he collected, and in the accounts he has given of them. It appears likewise from many of his papers in the same repository, that as a general scholar he was far from being contemptible, and that he was not unskilled in making experiments. Mr. Courten’s intimacies, correspondences and friendships, with doctor, afterwards sir Hans Sloane, with doctor, afterwards sir Tancred Robinson, physician in ordinary to George I. with doctor Martin Lister, with Mr. L. Plukenet, with Mr. Edward Llwyd, &c. were certainly founded on congenial taste, and argue no inferior degrees of proficiency in the various branches of natural history. Mr. Courten' s own museum remains to this day, though improved, as may well be supposed, and now arranged for the most part to greater advantage, according to the Linnaean system. Of his curious collection it is now impossible to ascertain the exact catalogues or precise value. Swelled with short histories and accounts of their contents, they amount, it is said, in all, to thirty-eight volumes in folio, and eight volumes in quarto. It remained for about half a century after the death of Mr. Courten, in the possession of his executor and residuary legatee, who certainly added very much to it, and was then purchased in 1753, for the use of the public, without so much as the mention of the name of its first and most scientific collector and proprietor, so far as appears in the whole course of the transaction, for 20,000l. though the coins and precious stones alone were said to be of that value. It is now preserved in the British Museum. Mr. Courten passed the last fourteen or fifteen years of his life in chambers at the Temple, promoting the knowledge of natural history, and exhibiting his collection gratis in an instructive way. Latterly the declining state of his health obliged him to practise more abstemiousness than was agreeable to his convivial turn; and for several years he was^ under the necessity of abstaining almost entirely from wine and all spirituous liquors, in which, from a companionable disposition, and in compliance with a fashion then much more prevalent than at present, it seems that he indulged at times rather too freely. He died at Kensington gravel-pits, on the 26th of March 1702, aged 63, and was buried in the church-yard of that parish.

, sieur de Sandras, was born at Paris in 1644. After having been captain in the regiment of Champagne, he went over to Holland in 1683, ivhere he wrote several works, published under different names, and with opposite views. Among these are, I. “The conduct of France since the peace of Nimeguen,” 1683, i'2mo, a work in which he censures the conduct of his countrymen. 2. “An answer to the foregoing,” in which he produces the arguments on the other side of the question. 3. “The new interests of the Princes.” 4. “The Life of Coligni,” 1686, 12mo, in which he affects to speak as belonging to the reformed religion, although he was always a Roman catholic. 5. “Memoirs of Rochfort,” 12mo. 6. “History of the Dutch War from the year 1672 to 1677; a work which obliged him for some time to quit the territories of the republic. 7.” Political Testament of Colbert,“12mo. The French clergy were highly incensed against him, for relating in it an expression of Colbert, that” the bishops of France were so much devoted to the will of the king, that if he should think fit to substitute the koran instead of the gospel, they would readily subscribe to it.“8.” Le grand Alcandre frustre,“or the last efforts of love and virtue. 9.” The Memoirs“of John Baptist cle la Fontaine; those of Artagnan, 3 vols. 12mo; those of Montbrun, 12mo; those of the marchioness Dufresne, 12mo; those of Bordeaux, 4 vols. 12mo; those of Saint- Hilaire, 4 vols. 12mo. 10.” Annals of Paris and of the Court, for the years 1697 and 1698.“11.” The Life of the Vicomte Turenne,“12mo, published under the name of Dubuisson. On his return to France in 1702, he was shut up in the Bastille, where he was kept in a dungeon for nine years, or, as Moreri says, only three years. Having obtained his liberty, he married a bookseller’s widow, and died at Paris the 6th of May, 1712, at the age of 68. He is also the author of, 12. Memoirs of Tyrconnel, composed from the verbal accounts of that nobleman, a close prisoner, like him, in the bastille. 13.” Historical and political Mercury,“&c. He, besides, left manuscripts sufficient in quantity to make 40 volumes in 12 mo.” The Memoirs of Vortlac," 2 vols. I 2mo, are unjustly attributed to him but enough was avowed to give us but an unfavourable opinion of his judgment or consistency.

, chevalier de Saint-Louis, and veteran pensionary of the academy of sciences, born at Dijon in 1715, died the 4th of October, 1785, at the age of 70. He signalized himself both as a military and a literary man. Being wounded in the campaign of Bavaria, in the act of saving marshal Saxe from the most imminent danger, he devoted himself to the cultivation of mathematics and natural philosophy, and communicated to the French academy several valuable memoirs on those sciences. His separate publications were, 1. “A treatise of Optics,” 1752, 4to. The author here gives the theory of light on the Newtonian system, with new solutions of the principal problems in dioptrics and catoptrics. This book is of use as a commentary on Newton’s Optics. 2. “Memoirs of an Epizootia which raged in Burgundy.” 3. “The Art of Forges and Furnaces;” this he wrote in partnership with M. Bouchu, which was afterwards incorporated in the Cyclopaedia. The marquis de Courtivron, says his eulogist, was a true philosopher. As he had properly appreciated life, he resigned it without disquietude, and perhaps without regret. The only sentiment to be perceived through the serenity and silence of his last moments, was that of gratitude for the tenderness that was shewn him, and a constant attention to spare the sensibility of his family and friends.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of king Richard II. was the fourth son of Hugh Courtney, earl of Devonshire, by Margaret, daughter of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of king Edward I. and was born in the year 1341. He had his education at Oxford, where he applied himself to the study of the civil and canon law. Afterwards, entering into holy orders, he obtained three prebends in three cathedral churches, viz. those of Bath, Exeter, and York. The nobility of his birth, and his eminent learning, recommending him to public notice, in the reign of Edward III. he was promoted in 1369 to the see of Hereford, and thence translated to the see of London, September 12, 1375, being then in the 34th year of his age. In a synod, held at London in 1376, bishop Courtney distinguished himself by his opposition to the king’s demand of a subsidy; and presently after he fell under the displeasure of the high court of chancery, for publishing a bull of pope Gregory II. without the king’s consent, which he was compelled to recall. The next year, in obedience to the pope’s mandate, he cited Wickliff to appear befofe his tribunal in St. Paul’s church: but that reformer being accompanied by John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and other nobles, who favoured his opinions, and appeared openly in the bishop’s court for him, and treated the bishop with very little ceremony, the populace took his part, went to the duke of Lancaster’s house in the Savoy, plundered it, and would have burnt it to the ground, had not the bishop hastened to the place, and drawn them off by his persuasions. The consequences of this difference with so powerful a nobleman as John of Gaunt, were probably dreaded even by Courtney; for, with respect to Wickliff, he at this time proceeded no farther than to enjoin him and his followers silence. In 1378, it is said by Godwin, but without proper authority, that Courtney was made a cardinal. In 1381, he was appointed lord high chancellor of England. The same year, he was translated to the see of Canterbury, in the room of Simon Sudbury; and on the 6th of May, 1382, he received the pall from the hands of the bishop of London in the archiepiscopal palace at Croydon. This year also he performed the ceremony of crowning queen Anne, consort of king Richard II. at Westminster. Soon after his inauguration, he restrained, by ecclesiastical censures, the bailiffs, and other officers, of the see of Canterbury, from taking cognizance of adultery and the like crimes, which then belonged to the ecclesiastical court. About the same time, he held a synod at London, in which several of Wickliff’s tenets were condemned as heretical and erroneous. In 1383, he held a synod at Oxford, in which a subsidy was granted to the king, some of WicklifT's followers obliged to recant, and the students of the university to swear renunciation of his tenets. The same year, in pursuance of the pope’s bull directed to him for that purpose, he issued his mandate to the bishop of London for celebrating the festival of St. Anne, mother of the blessed virgin. In 1386, the king, by the advice of his parliament, put the administration of the government into the hands of eleven commissioners, of whom archbishop Courtney was the first; but this lasted only one year. In 1387, he held a synod at London, in which a tenth was granted to the king. The same year, it being moved in a parliament held at London on occasion of the dissension between the king and his nobles, to inflict capital punishment on some of the ringleaders, and it being prohibited by the canons for bishops to be present and vote in cases of blood, the archbishop and his suffragans withdrew from the house of lords, having first entered a protest in relation to their peerage and privilege to sit upon all other matters. In 1399, he held a synod in St. Mary’s church in Cambridge, in which a tenth was granted to the king, on condition that he should pass over into France with an army before the 1st of October following. This year, archbishop Courtney set out upon his metropolitical visitation, in which he was at first strongly opposed by the bishops of Exeter and Salisbury; but those prelates being at last reduced to terms of submission, he proceeded in his visitation without farther opposition: only, at the intercession of the abbot of St. Alban’s, he refrained from visiting certain monasteries at Oxford. The same year, the king directed his royal mandate to the archbishop, not to countenance or contribute any thing towards a subsidy for the pope. In a parliament held at Winchester in 1392, archbishop Courtney, being probably suspected of abetting the papal encroachments upon the church and state, delivered in an answer to certain articles exhibited by the commons in relation to those encroachments, which is thought to have led the way to the statute of pr&munire. The same year, he visited the diocese of Lincoln, in which he endeavoured to check the growth of Wickliff’s doctrines. In 1395, he obtained from the pope a grant of four-pence in the pound on all ecclesiastical benefices; in which he was opposed by the bishop of Lincoln, who would not suffer it to be collected in his diocese, and appealed to the pope. But before the matter could be decided, archbishop Courtney died, July 31, 1396, at Maidstone in Kent, where he was buried, but has a monument in the cathedral church of Canterbury, on the south side, near the tomb of Thomas Becket, and at the feet of the Black Prince. His remains at Maidstone, only a few bones, were seen some years ago. This prelate founded a college of secular priests at Maidstone. He left a thousand marks for the repair of the cathedral church of Canterbury also to the same church a silver- gilt image of the Trinity, with six apostles standing round it weighing 160 pounds some books, and some ecclesiastical vestments. He obtained from king Richard a grant of four fairs to be kept at Canterbury yearly within the site of the priory. The character of archbishop Courtney, weighed in the balance of modern opinions, is that of a persecuting adherent to the church of Rome, to which, however, he was not so much attached as to forget what was due to his king and country. He appears to have exhibited in critical emergencies, a bold and resolute spirit, and occasionally a happy presence of mind. One circumstance, which displays the strength and firmness of Courtney’s mind in the exercise of his religious bigotry, deserves to be noticed. When the archbishop, on a certain day, with a number of bishops and divines, had assembled to condemn the tenets of Wickliff, just as they were going to enter upon business, a violent earthquake shook the monastery. Upon this, the terrified bishops threw down their papers, and crying out, that the business was displeasing to God, came to a hasty resolution to proceed no farther. “The archbishop alone,” says Mr. Gil pin in his Life of Wickliff, “remained unmoved. With equal spirit and address he chid their superstitious fears, and told them, that if the earthquake portended any thing, it portended the downfall of heresy; that as noxious vapours are lodged in the bowels of the earth, and are expelled by these violent concussions, so by their strenuous endeavours, the kingdom should be purified from the pestilential taint of heresy, which had infected it in every part. This speech, together with the news that the earthquake was general through the city, &s it was afterwards indeed found to have been through the island, dispelled their fears Wickliff would often merrily speak of this accident; and would call this assembly the council of the herydene; herydene being the old English word for earthquake.”

In the Parliamentary History, some notice is taken of the speech which, as chancellor of England, Courtney made at the opening of the parliament in 1382. The words which he took for his theme were rex convenire fecit cojisitium, and it is said that he made a notable oration upon it in English. He applied his text to the good and virtuous government of the kingdom during his reign. No reign, the archbishop affirmed, could long endure, if vice ruled in it, to remedy which evil the parliament was called, the laws then in being not having been found effectual to that purpose.

, 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.