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

It has been observed of Congreve, that no man ever passed through life with more ease and less envy than he. No change of ministries affected him in the least, nor was he ever removed from any post that was given him, except to a better. His place in the Custom House, and his office of secretary in Jamaica, are said to have brought him in upwards of 1200l. per annum; and though he lived suitably to such a fortune, yet by his economy he raised from thence a competent estate. He was always upon ^ood terms with the wits of his time, and never involved ii/ any of their quarrels, nor did he receive from any of them the least mark of distaste or dissatisfaction. On the contrary, they were solicitous for his approbation, and received it as the highest sanction of merit. Addison testified his personal regard for him, and his high esteem of his writings, in many instances. Steele considered him as his patron upon one occasion, in dedicating his Miscellanies to him, and was desirous of submitting to him as an umpire on another, in the address prefixed to Addison s “Drummer.” Even Pope, though jealous, it is said, of his poetical character, has honoured him with the highest testimony of deference and esteem in the postscript to his translation of Homer’s Iliad, and he preserved a high respect for him. About two years after his death, in a conversation with Tonson the bookseller, who happened to mention Congreve, Pope said with a sigh, “Ay, Mr. Tonson, Congreve was ultimus Romanorum * /”

“Congreve,” says Dr. Johnson, " has merit of the highest kind he is an original writer, who borrowed neither the models orf his plot, nor the manner of his dialogue. Of his plays I cannot speak distinctly, for since I inspected them many years have passed; but what remains upon my memory is, that his characters are commonly fictitious and artificial, with very little of nature, and not much of life. He formed a peculiar idea of comic excellence, which he supposed to consist in gay remarks and unexpected answers; but that which he endeavoured, he seldom failed of performing. His scenes exhibit not much of humour, imagery, or passion his personages are a kind of intellectual gladiators every sentence is to ward or strike; the contest of smartness is never intermitted his wit is a meteor playing to and fro with alternate corruscations. His comedies have therefore, in some degree, the operation of tragedies; they surprise rather than divert, and raise admiration oftener than merriment. But they are the works of a mind replete with images, and quick in combination. Of his miscellaneous poetry I cannot say any thing very favourable. The powers of Congreve seem to desert him when he leaves the stage, as Antaeus was no longer strong than he could touch the ground. It cannot be observed without wonder, that a mind so vigorous and fertile in dramatic compositions, should on any other occasion discover nothing but impotence and poverty. He has in these little pieces neither elevation of fancy, selection of language, nor skill in versification; yet if I were required to select from the whole mass of English poetry the most poetical paragraph, I know not what 1 could prefer, to an exclamation in ‘ The Mourning Bride:’

Alm. No, all is hush'd, and still as death. Tib dreadful!

To bear aloft its arch‘d and pond’rous roof,

By its own weight made steadfast and immoveable,

And terror on my aching sight the tombs

And monumental caves of death look cold,

And shoot a dullness to my trembling heart.

Give me thy hand, and let me hear thy voice 5

Nay, quickly speak to me, and let me hear

"He who reads those lines enjoys for a moment the powers of a, poet he feels what he remembers to have felt before, but he feels it with great increase of sensibility he recognizes a familiar image, but meets it again amplified and expanded, embellished with beauty, and enlarged with majesty.

"The ‘ Birth of the Muse’ is a miserable fiction. One good line it has, which was borrowed from Dryden of his irregular poems, that to Mrs. Arabella Hunt seems to be the best: his * Ode for Cecilia’s Day,‘ however, has some lines which Pope had in his mind when he wrote his own. His Imitations of Horace are feebly paraphrastical, and the additions which he makes are of little value. He sometimes retains what were more properly omitted, as when he talks of vervain and gums to propitiate Venus. Of his translations, the ’ Satire of Juvenal 1 was written very early, and may therefore be forgiven, though it have not the massiness and vigour of the original. In all his versions strength and sprightliness are wanting: his Hymn to Venus, from Homer, is perhaps the best. His lines are weakened with expletives, and his rhymes are frequently imperfect.

“His petty poems are seldom worth the cost of criticism sometimes the thoughts are false, and sometimes common. In his * Verses on Lady Gethin,‘ the latter part is an imitation of Dryden’s ’ Ode on Mrs. Killigrew;‘ and * Doris,’ that has been so lavishly flattered by Steele, has indeed some lively stanzas, but the expression might be mended; and the most striking part of the character had been already shewn in * Love for Love.‘ His ’ Art of Pleasing‘ is founded on a vulgar but perhaps impracticable principle, and the stateness of the sense is not concealed by any novelty of illustration or elegance of diction. This tissue of poetry, from which he seems to have hoped a lasting name, is totally neglected, and known only as it is appended to his plays. While comedy or while tragedy is regarded, his plays are likely to be read; but, except what relates to the stage, I know not that he has ever written a stanza that is sung, or a couplet that is quoted. The general character of his ’ Miscellanies’ is, that they shew little wit and little virtue. Yet to him it must be confessed that we are indebted for the correction of a national error, and the cure of our Pindaric madness. He first taught the English writers that PinJar’s odes were regular; and though certainly he had not the fire requisite for the higher species of lyric poetry, he has shewn us that enthusiasm has its rules, and that in mere confusion there is neither grace nor greatness.” We will conclude our account of Congreve, with the character given of him by Voltaire; who has not failed to do justice to high merit, at the same time that he has freely animadverted on him, for a foolish piece of affectation. “He raised the glory of comedy,” says Voltaire, “to a greater height than any English writer before or since his time. He wrote only a few plays, but they are excellent in their kind. The laws of the drama are strictly observed in them. They abound with characters, all which are shadowed with the utmost delicacy; and we meet with not so much as one low or coarse jest. The language is every where that of men of fashion, but their actions are those of knaves; a proof, that he was perfectly well acquainted with human nature, and frequented what we call polite company. He was infirm, and come to the verge of life when I knew him. Mr. Congreve had one defect, which was his entertaining too mean an idea of his first profession, that of a writer; though it was to this he owed his fame and fortune. He spoke of his works as of trifles that were beneath him; and hinted to me, in our first conversation, that I should visit him upon no other foot than that of a gentleman, who led a life of plainness and simplicity. I answered, that had he been so unfortunate as to be a mere gentleman, I should never have come to see him; and I was very much disgusted at so unseasonable a piece of vanity.”

, a physician and learned writer, was descended of an ancient family in Ireland, and born in the county of Kerry about 1666. His family being of the popish religion, he was not educated regularly in the grammar-schools or university, but was assisted by private tutors, and when he grew up, applied himself to the study of physic. About 1686 he went to France, and resided for some time in the university of Montpelier; and from thence to Paris, where he distinguished himself in his profession, particularly in the branches of anatomy and chemistry. He professed himself desirous of travelling; and as there were two sons of the high chancellor of Poland then on the point of returning to their own country, it was thought expedient that they should take that long journey under the care and inspection of Connor. He accordingly conducted them very safely to Venice, where, having an opportunity of curing the honourable William Legge, afterwards earl of Dartmouth, of a fever, he accompanied him to Padua; whence he went through Tyrol, Bavaria, and Austria, down the Danube, to Vienna; and after having made some stay at the court of the emperor Leopold, passed through Moravia and Silesia to Cracow, and thence in eight days to Warsaw. He was well received at the court of king John Sobieski, and was afterwards made his physician, a, very extraordinary preferment for a young man of only twenty-eight. But his reputation in the court of Poland was raised by the judgment he made of the duchess of Radzevil’s distemper, which the physicians of the court pronounced to be an ague, from which she might easily be recovered by the bark; and Connor insisted, that she had an abscess in her liver, and that her case was desperate. As this lady was the king’s only sister, his prediction made a great noise, more especially when it was justified by the event; for she not only died within a month, but, upon the opening of her body, the doctor’s opinion of her malady was fully verified. Great as Connor’s fame was in Poland, he did not propose to remain longer there than was requisite to finish his inquiries into the natural history, and other curiosities of that kingdom; and foreseeing the king’s decease, and that he had no prospects of advantage afterwards, he resolved to quit that country, and to return to England, for which a very advantageous opportunity occurred. The king had an only daughter, the princess Teresa Cunigunda, who hud espoused the Elector of Bavaria by proxy in August 1694. As she was to make a journey from Warsaw to Brussels, of near 1000 miles, and in the midst of winter, it was thought necessary that she should be attended by a physician. Connor procured himself to be nominated to that employment; and, after reaching Brussels, took leave of the princess, set out for Holland^ and thence to England, where he arrived in Feb. 1695.

He staid some short time at London, and then went to Oxford, where he read public lectures upon the animal ceconomy. In his travels through Italy, he had conversed with Malpighi, Bellini, Redi, and other celebrated persons, of whose abilities he availed himself; and he now explained the new discoveries in anatomy, chemistry, and physic, in, so clear and judicious a manner, that his reputation was soon raised to a considerable height. It was increased by printing, during his residence at Oxford, some learned and accurate dissertations in Latin, under the following general title, “Dissertationes medico-physicee.” Many curious questions are discussed, and curious facts related, in these dissertations, which discover their author to have been a man of much thought and observation, as well as of great reading and general knowledge. He returned in the summer of 1695 to London, where he read lectures as he had done at Oxford; and became soon after a member of the Royal Society, and also of the college of physicians. In. 1696 he went to Cambridge, and read lectures there; and upon his return to London was honoured with a letter from the bishop of Pleskof, in which was contained the case of his old master the king of Poland. His advice was desired upon it; but before he could send it, the news came of that monarch’s death.

In 1697 he published his “Evangelium medici: sen medicina mystica de suspensis naturae legions, sive de miraculis, reliquisque Ev tut j2i?uoi memoratis, quse medicae indagini subjici possunt.” This little treatise, containing 16 sections only, was reprinted within the year, and procured the author a mixed reputation. Some admired his ingenuity, but his orthodoxy and religion were called in question by others, as he attempts in this work to account for the miracles of the Bible upon natural principles.

The Polish election, upon the death of Sobieski, having a strong influence upon the general system of affairs in Europe, and being a common topic of discourse at that time, induced many considerable persons to seek the acquaintance of Connor, that they might learn from him the state of that kingdom: which being little known, he was desired to publish what he knew of the Polish nation and country. In compliance with this request, he wrote “The History of Poland, in several letters,” &c. The two volumes, of which this work consists, were published separately: and the last evidently bears many marks of precipitation, but the information was new and interesting. Connor would probably have become eminent in his profession; but in the flower of his age, and just as he began to reap the fruits of his learning, study, and travels, he was attacked by a fever, which after a short illness carried him off, Oct. 1698, when he was little more than 32 years of age. He had, us we observed hefore, been bred in the Romish religion; but had embraced that of the church of England upon his first coming over from Holland. It has nevertheless been a matter of doubt, in what communion he died; but from his funeral sermon preached by Dr. Hayley, rector of St. Giles’s in the Fields, where he was interred, it has been inferred that, according to every appearance, he died in the protestant profession.

, was a mathematician and philosopher of Samos, who flourished about the 130th olympiad, being a contemporary and friend of Archimedes, to whom Conon communicated his writings, and sent him some problems, which Archimedes received with approbation, saying they ought to be published while Conon was living, for he comprehended them with ease, and could give a proper demonstration of them. At another time he laments the loss of Conon, thus admiring his genius: “How many theorems in geometry,” says he, “which at first seemed impossible, would in time have been brought to perfection! Alas 1 Conon, though he invented many, with which he enriched geometry, had not time to perfect them, but left many in the dark, being prevented by death.” He had an uncommon skill in mathematics, joined to an extraordinary patience and application. This is farther confirmed by a letter sent to Archimedes by a friend of Conon’s. “Having heard of Conon’s death, with whose friendship I was honoured, and with whom you kept an intimate correspondence; as he was thoroughly versed in geometry, I greatly lament the loss of a sincere friend, and a person of surprising knowledge in mathematics. I then determined to send to you, as I had before done to him, a theorem in geometry, hitherto observed by no one.”

Conon had some disputes with Nicoteles, who wrote against him, and treated him with too much contempt. Apollonius confesses it; though he acknowledges that Colion was not fortunate in his demonstrations. Conon invented a kind of volute, or spiral, different from that of Dynostratus; but because Archimedes explained the properties of it more clearly, the name of the inventor was forgotten, and it was hence called Archimedes’s volute or spiral. As to Conon’s astrological or astronomical knowledge, it may in some measure be gathered from the poem of Catullus, who describes it in the beginning of his. verses on the hair of Berenice, the sister and wife of Ptolomy Euergetes, upon the occasion of Conou having given out that it was changed into a constellation among the stars, to console the queen for the loss, when it was stolen out of the temple, where she had consecrated it to the gods.

, secretary of the French king’s council, was born at Paris 1603. The French Academy, to which he was perpetual secretary, considers him as its father and founder. It was in his house that this illustrious society took its birth in 1629, and continued to assemble till 1634; and he contributed much to render these meetings agreeable by his taste, his affability, and politeness. He therefore deservedly still enjoys a degree of celebrity in the republic of letters, though he does not rank among eminent scholars, being unacquainted with Greek, and knowing but little of Latin. He published some pieces cf no great merit; as, 1. “Letters to Felibien,” Paris, 1681, 12mo. 2. “A treatise on oratorical action,” Paris, 1657, 12mo, reprinted in 1686, under the name of Michel le Faucheur. 3. “Extracts from Martial,” 2 vols. 12mo, and a few other trifles. He died Sept. 23, 1675, at the age of 72. Conrart managed his estate without avarice and without prodigality. He was generous, obliging, and constant in his friendships. He was in habits of intimacy with the principal people in the several departments of the government, who consulted him in the most important afiairs; and, as he had a complete knowledge of the world, they found great resources in his judgment. He kept inviolably the secret of others, as well as his own. Being brought up a protestant, he continued firm to his profession. It is said that he revised the writings of the famous Claude, before they went to press. Conrart was related to Godeau, afterwards bishop of Vence, who, whenever he came to town, lodged at his house: several men of letters came there also, for the sake of conversing with the abbe: and this was the first origin of the academy.

, one of the eminent publicists of Germany, and one of the most illustrious ornaments of the German schools, was born at Embden Nov. 3, 1606, and was educated at Leyden, where he made himself acquainted with the whole circle of sciences, but chiefly applied to theology and medicine; and during his residence here, is said to have been supported by Matthias Overbek, a Dutch merchant, and by G. Calixtus, one of the professors. His eminent attainments soon procured him distinction; and he was appointed professor, first of natural philosophy, and afterwards of medicine, in the university of Brunswick. Turning his attention to the study of history and policy, he became so famous in these branches of knowledge, as to attract the attention of princes. Christina, queen of Sweden, who professed to be a general patroness of learned men, invited Conringius to her court, and upon his arrival received him with the highest marks of respect. The offer of a liberal appointment could not, however, induce him to relinquish the academic life, and after a short time he returned to Juliers. But his uncommon talents for deciding intricate questions on policy were not long suffered to lie dormant. The elector Palatine, the elector of Mentz, the duke of Brunswick, the emperor of Germany, and Louis XIV. of France, all consulted and conferred upon him honours and rewards. And, if universal learning, sound judgment, and indefatigable application, can entitle a man to respect, Conringius merited all the distinction he obtained. The great extent of his abilities and learning appears from the number and variety of his literary productions. His polemic writings prove him to have been deeply read in theology. His medical knowledge appears from his “Introduction to the medical art,” and his “Comparison of the medical practice of the ancient Egyptians, and the modern Paracelsians.” The numerous treatises which he has left on the Germanic institution, and other subjects of policy and law, evince the depth and accuracy of his juridical learning. His book, “De hermerica Medicina,” and his “Antiquitates academicae,” discover a correct acquaintance with the history of philosophy. It is to be regretted, that this great man was never able wholly to disengage himself from the prepossession in favour of the Aristotelian philosophy, which he imbibed in his youth. Although he had the good sense to correct the more barren parts of his philosophy, and was not ignorant that his system was in some particulars defective, he still looked up to the Stagyrite as the best guide in the pursuit of truth. It was owing to his partiality for ancient philosophy, particularly for that of Aristotle, that Conringius was a violent opponent of the Cartesian system. He died Dec. 12, 1681. His works were published entire in six volumes folio, Brunswick, 1730, which renders it unnecessary to specify his separate publications. Bibliographers place a considerable value on his “Bibliotheca Augusta,” Helmstadt, 1661, 4to, an account of the library of the duke of Brunswick, in the castle of Wolfenbuttle, which then contained 2000 Mss. and 116,000 printed volumes. The history of literature is yet more illustrated by his “De antiquitatibus academicis dissertationes septem,” the best edition of which is that of Gottingen, 1739, 4to, edited by Heuman, in all respects a most valuable work. Of Conringius’s enthusiasm in the cause of learning, and his love of eminent literary characters, we have a singular instance, quoted by Dr, Douglas, from Pechlinus’s “Observationes Physico-mediciK.” It is there said, on the authority of his son-in-law, that Conringius, when labouring under an ague, was cured, without the help of medicines, merely by the joy he felt from a conversation with the learned Meibomius.

, an English poet of the 16th century, is said to have been born, or at least descended from a family of that name, in Yorkshire, and was for some time educated at Oxford, but took his bachelor’s degree at St. John’s college, Cambridge, in 1579. Edmund Bolton, in his “Hypercritica,” says, “Noble Henry Constable was a great master of the English tongue; nor had any gentleman of our nation a more pure, quick, or higher delivery of conceit: witness, among all other, that sonnet of his before his Majesty’s Lepanto.” He was the author of “Diana, or the excellent conceitful sonnets of H. C. augmented with divers quatorzains of honorable and learned personages, divided into eight decads,” 1594, 8vo. Of these sonnets Mr. Ellis has given three specimens, but which he thinks can hardly entitle him to be denominated “the first sonneteer of his time.” The most striking of his productions is that entitled “The Shepheard’s song of Venus and Adonis,” which is elegantly and harmoniously expressed. Mr. Malone, who reprinted it in the notes to the 10th volume of his Shakspeare, p. 74, thinks it preceded Shakspeare’s poem on the same subject, which it far excels, at least in taste and natural touches. Of his life, no memorials have been discovered. Dr. Birch, in his Memoirs of queen Elizabeth, thought him to be the same Henry Constable, who was a zealous Roman Catholic, and whose religion seems to have obliged him to live in a state of banishment from England. Sir E. Brydges is inclined to the same opinion. Constable afterwards came privately to London, but was soon discovered, and imprisoned in the Tower of London, whence he was released in the latter end of the year 1604. There was another of the name in the early part of the 16th century, a John Constable, the son of Roger Constable, who was born in London, and educated under the celebrated William Lilye. From thence he was sent to Byham Hall, opposite Merlon college, Oxford, where, in 1515, he took the degree of M.A. and was accounted at that time an excellent poet and rhetorician. He obtained some preferment, but of that, or of his subsequent history, we have no account. He published, in Latin, “Querela veritatis,”and “Epigrammata,” 1520, 4to. Like Henry Constable, he was of the Roman Catholic persuasion.

, usually called the Great, is memorable for having been the first emperor of the Romans who established Christianity by the civil power, and was born at Naissus, a town of Dardania, 272. The emperor Constantius Chlorus was his father; and was the only one of those who shared the empire at that time, that did not persecute the Christians. His mother Helena was a woman of low extraction, and the mistress of Constantius, as some say; as others, the wife, but never acknowledged publicly: and it is certain, that she never possessed the title of empress, till it was bestowed on her by her son, after the decease of his father. Constantine was a very promising youth, and gave many proofs of his conduct and courage which however began to display themselves more openly a little before the death of his father; for, being detained at the court of Galerius as an hostage, and discerning that Galerius and his colleagues intended to seize upon that part of the empire which belonged to his father, now near his end, he made his escape, and went to England, where Constantius then was. When he arrived there, he found Constantius upon his death-bed, who nevertheless was glad to see him, and named him for his successor. Constantius died at York in 306, and Constantine was immediately proclaimed emperor by the soldiers. Galerius at first would not allow him to take any other title than that of Csesar, which did not hinder him from reigning in England, Gaul, and Spain: but having gained several victories over the Germans and Barbarians, he took the title of Augustus in 308, with the consent of Galerius himself. Some time after, he marched into Italy, with an army of 40,000 men, against the emperor Muxentius, who had almost made desolate the city of Rome by his cruelties; and after several successful engagements, finally subdued him. Eusebius relates, that Constantine had protested to him, that he had seen in that expedition a luminous body in the heavens, in the shape of a cross, with this inscription, Tola vixat, “By this thou shall conquer:” and that Jesus Christ himself appeared to him afterwards in a dream, and ordered him to erect a standard cross-like; which, after his victory, he did in the midst of the city of Rome, and caused the following words to be inscribed on it: “By this salutary sign, which is the emblem of real power, I have delivered your city from the dominion of tyrants, and have restored the senate and people of Rome to their ancient dignity and splendour.” This, which is one of the most striking events in ecclesiastical history, has also been one of the most contested. Gibbon endeavours to explain it thus: While (says this historian) his anxiety for the approaching day, which must decide the fate of the empire, was suspended by a short and interrupted slumber, the venerable form of Christ, and the well-known symbol of his religion, might forcibly offer themselves to the active fancy of a prince who reverenced the name, and had perhaps secretly implored the power of the God of the Christians; and with regard to the credit due to Eusebius, be thinks Eusebius sensible, that the recent discovery of this marvellous anecdote would excite some surprize and distrust amongst the most pious of his readers. Much has certainly been said against the credibility of this story by authors less prejudiced against the Christian religion than Gibbon. By some the whole is regarded as a fiction, a stratagem and political device of Constantine, yet it is related by Eusebius, a grave historian, who declares that he had it from the emperor, who confirmed the narration by an oath. By Fabricius, we are told, that the appearance in the heavens was generally looked upon as a reality, and a miracle: but for his own part, he is inclined to consider it as the result of a natural phenomenon in a solar halo; he accordingly admits of the reality of the phenomenon, but does not suppose it to be properly miraculous. Upon a full and candid review of the evidence, Dr. Lardner seems inclined to doubt the relation given by the emperor, upon whose sole credit the story is recorded, though it was twenty years after the event, when Eusebius wrote his account, during which period he must have heard it frequently from eye-witnesses, if the emperor’s relation were accurate that the appearance was visible to his whole army as well as to himself. The oath of Constantine, on the occasion, with Dr. Lardner, brings the fact into suspicion, and another striking circumstance is that Eusebius does not mention the place where this wonderful sight appeared. Without, however, entering, at present, farther into the discussion, we may observe, that Eusebius has led us to the period, when the sign of the cross began to be made use of by Constantine, among his armies, and at his battles; this was probably the day before the last battle with Maxentius, fought on the 27th of October, 312. About this period, it is admitted, that Constantine became a Christian, and continued so the remainder of his life, taking care also to have his children educated in the same principles. His conversion seems to have been partly owing to his own reflections on the state of things, partly to conversation and discourse with Christians, with whom, the son of Constantius, their friend and favourer, must have been some time acquainted, but perhaps, chiefly to the serious impressions of nis early years, which being once made can never be wholly obliterated. Constantine was however a politician as well as a Christian, and he probably hit upon this method to reconcile the minds of his army to the important change in their religious profession and habits, as well as making use of it as a mean of success in his designs against his enemies, for which purpose he rightly judged, that the standard of the cross, and the mark of it as a device on his soldier’s shields, would be of no small service.

Such appear to be the general sentiments of modern historians on this subject. Others, however, find it more difficult to dispute the fact. “He,” says Mr. Milner, who is determined not to believe Christianity to be divine, will doubtless disbelieve this miracle, from the same spirit which has induced him to harden his heart against much more striking evidence. With such a one 1 would not converse on the subject. But to those who admit the divine origin of Christianity, if any such doubt the truth of the miracle, I would say, that it seems to me more reasonable to admit a divine interposition in a case like this, especially considering the important consequences, than to deny the veracity of Eusebius or of Constantine. On the former view, God acts like himself, condescending to hear prayer, leading the mind by temporal kindness to look to him for spiritual blessings, and confirming the truth of his own religion; on the latter, two men not of the best, but surely by no means of the worst character, are unreasonably suspected of deliberate perjury or falsehood." Much of this passage must be supposed to allude personally to Gibbon; but on the other hand, there are certainly many who believe Christianity to be divine, and yet cannot acquiesce in this miracle; not from a doubt that such might have taken place in the order of providence, but from a want of ample testimony that it really did take place.

After Constantine had settled the affairs of Rome, he went to Milan, where he celebrated the marriage of his sister with the emperor of the East, Licinius. In this town it was that these two emperors issued out the first edict in favour of the Christian religion, by which they granted liberty of conscience to all their subjects: and a second soon after, by which they permitted the Christians to hold religious assemblies in public, and ordered all the places, where they had been accustomed to assemble, to be given up to them. A war broke out in 314, between Constantine and Licinius, which subjected the Christians to a persecution from the latter; but after a battle or two, in which neither had any reason to triumph, a peace ensued, and things returned to their usual course. Constantine now applied himself entirely to regulate and adjust the affairs of the church. He called councils, heard disputes and settled them, and made laws in favour of the Christians. In 324, another war broke out between these two emperors; the result of which was, that Constantine at length overcame Licinius, and put him to death. He was now sole master of the empire, without any controul, so that the Christians had every thing to hope, and apparently nothing to fear: nor were they disappointed. But the misfortune was, that the Christians were no sooner secure against the assaults of enemies from without, but they fell to quarrelling among themselves. The dispute between Arius and Alexander was agitated at this time; and so very fiercely, that Constantino was forced to call the council of Nice to put an end to it. He assisted at it himself, exhorted the bishops to peace, and would not hear the accusations they had to offer against each other. He banished Arius and the bishops of his party, ordering at the same time his books to be burnt; and made the rest submit to the decision of the council. He had founded innumerable churches throughout the empire, and ordered them to be furnished and adorned with every thing that was necessary. He went afterwards to Jerusalem, to try if he could discover the sepulchre of Jesus Christ; and caused a most magnificent church to be built at Bethlehem. About this time he gave the name of Constantinople to the town of Byzantium, and endowed it with- all the privileges of ancient Rome. After this he laboured more abundantly than ever he had done yet, in aggrandizing the church, and publishing laws against heretics. He wrote to the king of Persia in favour of the Christians, destroyed the heathen temples, built a great many churches, and caused innumerable copies of the Bible to be made. In short, he did so much for religion, that he might be called the head of the church, in things which concerned its exterior policy. The orthodox Christians have nevertheless complained of him a little for listening to the adversaries of Atbanasius, and consenting, as he did, to banish him: yet he would not suffer Arius or his doctrines to be re-established, but religiously and constantly adhered to the decision of the council of Nice.

It must needs, however, seem extraordinary, that this emperor, who took such a part in the affairs of the Christians, who appeared to be convinced of the truth and divinity of their religion, and was not ignorant of any of its doctrines, should so long defer being initiated into it by the sacrament of baptism. “Whether,” says Dupin, “he thought better not to be baptized till the time of his death, with a view of washing away, and atoning for all his sins at once, with the water of baptism, and being presented pure and unspotted before God, or whatever his reasons were, he never talked of baptism till his last illness.” When that began, he ordered himself to be baptized; and Eusebius of Csesarea relates, that the ceremony was performed upon him by Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia.

He died in 337, aged 66; and divided the empire among his three sons, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans. Eusebius has written the life and acts of this emperor, in which he makes him every thing that is great and good: it is rather a panegyric than a life. Whatever great and good qualities Constantine possessed, he certainly possessed some which were neither great nor good; and it is allowed that he was guilty of many private acts of a very atrocious nature.

Several epistles relating to ecclesiastical matters, written either by him, or in his name, are still extant as are his several edicts, as well concerning the doctrines as discipline of the church. Among these edicts is still to be seen, the noted one by which he bequeaths to Sylvester bishop of Rome, and to his successors for ever, the sovereignty of Rome and all the provinces of the Western empire. But this, though it carries the name of Constantine, is manifestly spurious; and though it might be of some use in supporting the authority of the Roman pontiff in dark and ignorant ages, yet since the revival of letters it has been given up even by the papists as a forgery too barefaced to be defended.

, son of Leo the Wise, was born at Constantinople in 905, and ascended the throne at the age of seven years, under the tutelage of his mother Zoe, the 11th of June 911. No sooner had he taken the reins of government in his hand, than he chastised the tyrants of Italy, took Benevento from the Lombards, and drove off, by means of money, the Turks who were pillaging the frontiers of* Epire; but he afterwards allowed himself to be entirely governed by Helena his wife, daughter of Romanus Lecapenes, grand-admiral of the empire. She sold the dignities of the church and the state, burdened the people with taxes, and exercised towards them every species of oppression, while her husband was employing his time in reading, and became as able an architect and as great a painter as he was a bad emperor. Romanus, the son of this indolent prince by his wife Helena, impatient to govern, caused poison to be mingled with some medicine prescribed to him; but Constantine, having rejected the greater part of it, survived till a year afterwards, and died Nov. 9, 959, at the age of 54, after a reign of 48 years. This prince, the patron of learning, and the friend of the learned, left behind him several works which would have done honour to a private person. The principal of them are 1 The Life of the emperor Basil ins the Macedonian, his grandfather, inserted in the collection of Allatius. It is sometimes deficient in point of truth, and savours too much of the panegyrical. 2. Two books of “Themata,” or positions of the provinces and the towns of the empire, published by father Banduri in the “Imperium Orientale,” Leipsic, 1754, folio. We have few works preferable to this for the geography of the middle ages, particularly as to the state and condition of places as they were in his time. 3. A Treatise on the Affairs of the Empire; in the above-mentioned work of Banduri, containing the origin of divers nations, their forces, their progress, their alliances, their revolutions, and the succession of their sovereigns, with other interesting particulars. 4. “De re llustica,” Cambridge, 1704, 8vo. 5. “Excerpta ex Polybio, Diodoro Siculo,” &c. Paris, 1634, 4to. 6. “Excerpta de legatis, Graec. & Lat.” 1648, fol. making a part of the Byzantine historians. 7. “De caeremoniis aulae Byzantines,” Leipsic, 1751, folio. 8. “A Body of Tactics”, 8vo.

, and surnamed the African, was born at Carthage in the eleventh century, and travelled into the east, where he lived thirty years, chiefly at Babylon and Bagdad, studied the medical art, and made himself master of the Arabic and the other oriental languages, and then returned to Carthage; from whence he went into Apulia, and lived at Reggio, and at last became a monk of Monte Casino. He is said to have been the first that brought the Greek and Arabian physic into Italy again. He compiled several books; and has given us a translation of Isaac Israelitus on fevers, out of Arabic into Latin; and another book, which he calls “Loci Communes,” contains the theory and practice of physic, and is chiefly copied from Hali Abbas. After a residence of thirty-nine years at Babylon, he returned to Carthage, but soon fell into such disgrace with his countrymen, whom he suspected of intending to destroy him, that he went to Salernum. Though he was there introduced to duke Rdbert, who wished to retain him about his person, preferring a life of ease and retirement, he entered into a monastery of the Benedictines, St. Agatha, in A versa, where he died in 1087.

, doctor of physic, and professor of the belles lettres in the university of Caen, was born in 1502, and acquired great reputation by his skill in the Greek, Latin, and oriental languages. He lived to 103 years of age, and, it is said, without any failure of powers in either body or mind, died of a pleurisy in 1605, but others have reduced his age to 75. He has left, “A Lexicon, Greek and Latin,” better digested, as some think, than that of Henry Stephens: Stephens ranging the Greek words according to their roots, Constantin in alphabetical order. The first edition, of little value, appeared in 1562, but the best is the secon4, Geneva, 1592, 2 vols. folio. Those of Geneva, 1607, and Leyden, 1637, are only the preceding with new title-pages. His editions, with annotations, of the works of Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Celsus, and Quintus Serenus, gained him much credit. They were published between the years 1554 and 1566, as was also his “Nomenclator insignium Scriptorum, quorum libri extant, vel manuscripti vel impressi,” 8vo.

, an eminent French architect, was born March 11, 1698, at Ivri sur Seine. He studied drawing under the celebrated Watteau, and having occasion afterwards to go into the office of M. Dulin, an architect, he made so great a progress in that art, as to be admitted a member of the academy at the age of twenty-eight. M. Contant had more business than any other architect of his time, if we may judge from the great number of buildings in which he was employed. Among these we may enumerate, the houses of M. Crozat de Tugny, and of M. Crozat de Thiers; the stables of Bissey, where he first tried those brick arches, which even to connoisseurs appear so bold and astonishing the church of Panthemont the royal palace the amphitheatre at St. Cloud; the church of Conde in Flanders La Gouvernance at Lisle the church de la Madelene, which he could not finish. He had a paralytic stroke on the right side, three years before his death; but during his illness, and unable to move his hand, he planned the church of St. Waast at Arras. This beautiful edifice has been as much admired as the church of St. Madelene. This celebrated artist died at Paris, October 1, 1777, aged 79. He left a folio volume of his system of architecture engraved.

, a learned cardinal in the sixteenth century, was one of the illustrious family of that name at Venice, which has produced so many great men. He was ambassador from the republic to the emperor Charles V, and employed in several important negotiations. Paul III. created him cardinal 1535, sent him as legate into Germany, and afterwards to Bologna. Contareni was eminent for his learning, and skill in public affairs. He died 1.542, at Bologna, aged 59. He left several theological works, written in good Latin, and a treatise on the Immortality of the Soul, against Pomponatius, collected in one volume fol. 1571. His most esteemed works are, “De Optimi Antistitis officio,” and his notes on the obscure passages in St. Paul’s epistles.

, a professor of eloquence at Padua, who died at Venice, his native place, in 1617, at the age of 40, cultivated the belles lettres,. like his friend JVluretus, with great application and success. Of the several works he left behind him, the most esteemed are, his tract “De re frumentaria,” and that “De militari Komanorum stipendio,” Venice, 1609, in 4to, both of them against Justus Lipsius; and his “Varies Lectiones,” 1606, 4to, which contain very learned remarks.

, a noble Venetian, was born in 1678, and after a suitable education, travelled into most of the countries of Europe, and conciliated the esteem of; all men of letters by the extent of his knowledge and the atniableness of his manners. He wrote some tragedies, printed at Lucca, 1765, which, however, were found more, agreeable in the closet, than interesting on the stage; and his poems are rather unfinished sketches of the metaphysical kind, than genuine productions of the muse. On u visit he made to London, he formed a great intimacy with sir Isaac Newton, who, though very reserved in general, used freely to discourse with him on his discoveries in the several branches of science to which he was so happily devoted. He carried back with him into Italy a heart and a mind entirely English. His works in prose and verse were collected at Venice, 1739, 2 vols. 4to, and his posthumous performances in 1756, 4to. Though the opuscula of the abbe Conti are no more than embryos, as one of the Italian journalists said of them, yet they give a very advantageous idea of their father. They consist of thoughts, reflections, and dialogues on several important subjects. The abbe* died in 1749.

, prince of, the second son of Henry II. prince of Conde, first prince of the blood royal of France, was born in 1629, and appears to have devoted himself to serious studies from his infancy, being at the age of sixteen able to dispute with learned divines on theological topics. It was probably this disposition which inclined his father to devote him to the church, and to procure for him the abbeys of St. Dennis, Cluni, &c. a mode of preferment common in those days. But having the misfortune to lose his father and mother in his infancy, he abandoned his pious pursuits, and engaged in the civil wars on the side which opposed the king; and became above all things attached to theatrical amusements, and even to the company of the players. In his twentyfourth year he married a niece of the cardinal Mazarine, who appears to have in some measure recalled him to his former way of thinking. After the troubles of the kingdom had been composed, and he received into favour, he was made governor of the province of Languedoc, and sent into Catalonia, to co.nmand the royal army as viceroy, where he distinguished himself for bravery and prudence. On his return from his last campaign, he had some conferences with the bishop of Alet, a man of great piety, who effectually revived in him the sentiments of his youth, and from this time the prince lived an example of regularity in religious matters, such as was rare in his family, or in the court. With respect to those of the reformed religion, however, he extended his liberality no farther than the strict letter of the law, and when any of them built churches in his government, contrary to the king’s edicts, he caused them to be demolished, at the same time endeavouring, what was at that time a favourite object, to bring about an union between the catholics and protestants. His wealth he employed in acts of benevolence, and his time in the instruction of his children and dependents in piety and virtue. He died at Pezenas in 1666, in the thirty-seventh year of his age. His “Life and Works” were translated, and published in English, in 1711, 8vo. The latter congist of treatises on the duties of the great; on the obligations of a governor of a province; instructions for various officers under government; and two treatises against plays and shews, with an appendix of the sentiments of the fathers, &c. on the same subject.

, an Italian poet, of an ancient family, was born about the end of the fourteenth, and died at Rimini about the middle of the fifteenth century. We have few particulars of his life. He appears to have been a lawyer by profession, and being at Bologna in 1409, he fell in love with the beauty whom he has celebrated in his verses. There is a collection of his poems, much esteemed, under the title of “La bella Mano,” Paris, 1595, 12mo, with some pieces of poetry by several of the old poets of Tuscany. This collection had been published for the first time at Venice, in 1492, 4to, and the abbe Salvini gave a new edition of it at Florence in 1715, accompanied with prefaces and annotations; but this is not so complete as either the edition of Paris, or that of Verona, 1753, in 4to. He was a professed imitator of Petrarch, but, although not destitute of merit, is greatly inferior to his model.

, an English officer and statesman, the second son of Francis, first lord Conway, was born in 1720, and appeared first in public life in 1741 as one of the knights for the county of Antrim, in the parliament of Ireland; and in the same year was elected for Higham Ferrers, to sit in the ninth parliament of Great Britain. He was afterwards chosen for various other places from 1754 to 1780, when he represented St. Edmund’s Bury. In 1741 he was constituted captain-lieutenant in the “first regiment of foot-guards, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel; and in April 1746, being then aid-de-camp to the duke of Cumberland, he got the command of the xorty-eighth regiment of foot, and the twenty-ninth in July 1749. He was constituted colonel of the thirteenth regiment of dragoons in December 1751, which he resigned upon being appointed colonel of the first, or royal regiment of dragoons, Septembers, 1759. In January 1756 he was advanced to the rank of major-general; in March 1759, to that of lieutenant-general; in May 1772, to that of general; and in October 12, 1793, to that of field marshal. He served with reputation in his several military capacities, and commanded the British forces in Germany, under prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, in 1761, during the absence of the marquis of Granby. He was one of the grooms of the bed-chamber to George II. and likewise to his present majesty till April 1764, when, at the end of the session of parliament, he resigned that office and his military commands, or, more properly speaking, was dismissed for voting against the ministry in the question of general warrants. His name, however, was continued in the list of the privy counsellors in Ireland; and William, the fourth duke of Devonshire, to whom he had been secretary when the duke was viceroy in Ireland, bequeathed him at his death, in 1764, a legacy of 5000l. on account of his conduct in parliament. On the accession of the Rockingham administration in 1765, he was sworn of the privy council, and appointed joint- secretary of state with the duke of Grafton, which office he resigned in January 1768. In February following, he was appointed colonel of the fourth regiment of dragoons; in October 1774, colonel of the royal regiment of horse-guards; and in October 1772, governor of the island of Jersey. On March 30, 1782, he was appointed commander in chief of his majesty’s forces, which he resigned in December 1783. He died at his seat at Park-place, near Henley upon Thames, July 9, 1795. General Conway was an ingenious man, of considerable abilities, but better calculated to be admired in the private and social circle, than to shine as a great public character. In politics, although we believe conscientious, he was timid and wavering. He had a turn for literature, and some talent for poetry, and, if we mistake not, published, but without his name, one or two political pamphlets. In his old age he aspired to the character of a dramatic writer, producing in 1789, a play, partly from the French, entitled” False Appearances," which was not, however, very successful. His most intimate friend appears to have been the late lord Orford, better known as Horace Walpole, who was his cousin, and addressed to him a considerable part of those letters which form the fifth volume of his lordship’s works. This correspondence commenced in 1 7-1-0, when Walpole was twenty-three years old, and Mr. Couway twenty. They had gone abroad together with the celebrated poet Gray in 1739, had spent three months together at Rheims, and afterwards separated at Geneva. Lord Orford’s letters, although evidently prepared for the press, evince at least a cordial and inviolable friendship for his correspondent, of which also he gave another proof in 3 letter published in defence of general Couway when dismissed from his offices; and a testimony of affection yet more decided, in bequeathing his fine villa of Strawberry Hill to Mrs. Darner, general Con way’s daughter, for her life.

, a learned divine and prelate of the church of England, was born at Pinhoe, near Exeter, on the 31st of January, 1691-2. His father was the rev. John Conybeare, vicar of Pinhoe; and his mother, Grace Wilcocks, was the daughter of a substantial gentleman farmer of that place. At a proper age, he was sent to the free-school of Exeter for grammatical education, where Hallet and Foster, afterwards two eminent dissenting divines, were his contemporaries. On the 23d of February, 1707-8, Mr. Conybeare was admitted a battler of Exeter college, Oxford, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Kennel, afterwards Dr. Kennel, many years rector of Drew’s Teington, Pevon. Mr. Conybeare, on his coming to the university, was, according to the language of that place, chum with Mr. Richard Harding, who was elected fellow of Exeter college in 1709, and died rector of Marwood in Devonshire, in 1782, in the ninety-fifth year of his age. How early our young student obtained the esteem of the learned society with which he was connected, appears from his having been chosen on the 30th of June, 1710, and admitted on the 8th of July following, a probationary fellow of his college, upon sir William Petre’s foundation, in the room of Mr. Daniel Osborrie. When he was proposed as a candidate, it was only with the design of recommending him to future notice; but such was the sense entertained of his extraordinary merit, that he was made the object of immediate election. Mr. Harding used to say, that Mr. Conybeare had every way the advantage of him, excepting in seniority; and that he should have had no chance in a competition with him, if they had both been eligible at the same time. The patronage of Dr. Ilennel, Mr. Conybeare' s worthy tutor, concurred with his own desert, in bringing him forward thus early to academical advantages. On the 17th of July, 1713, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts; and at the next election of college officers, upon the 30th of June, 1714, he was appointed praelector, or moderator, in philosophy. On the 19th of December following, he received deacon’s orders from the hanclaof Dr. William Talbot, bishop of Oxford; and on the 2rikof May, 1716, he was ordained priest by sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester. On the 16th of April, 1716, he proceeded to the degree of master of arts; soon after which he entered upon the curacy of Fetcham, in Surry, where he continued about a year. He was advised to this change of scene for the benefit of his health, which was always delicate, and had been greatly impaired by the intenseness of his application. Upon his return from Fetcham to Oxford, he became a tutor in his own college, and was much noticed in the university as a preacher. In the beginning of the year 1722, he published a sermon, which he had delivered before the university, on the 24th of December preceding, from Hebrews ii. 4, entitled “The nature, possibility, and certainty of Miracles, &c.” This discourse was so well received, that it went through four editions. Mr. Conybeare was hence encouraged to commit to the press a second sermon, from 1 Corinthians xiii. 12, which he had preached before the university, on the 21st of October, 1724, and the title of which was, “The Mysteries of the Christian Religion credible.” It is probable, that the reputation our author gained by these discourses, recommended him to the notice of the bishop of London (Dr. Gibson), who appointed him one of his majesty’s preachers at Whitehall, upon the first establishment of that institution. The esteem in which his abilities and character were held, procured him, also, the favour of the lord chancellor Macclesfield, who, in May 1724, presented him to the rectory of St. Clement’s in Oxford; a preferment of no great value, but which was convenient to iiim from his constant residence at that place, and from its being compatible with his fellowship. In 1725, he was chosen senior proctor of the university, which office he served in conjunction with Mr. Barnaby Smyth, fellow of Corpus-Christi college, and a scholar of eminence. In the same year, Mr. Conybeare was called upon to preach a visitation sermon before the bishop of Oxford, at whose request it was published, under the title of “The Case of Subscription to Articles of Religion considered,” and obtained no small degree of celebrity, being referred to in the controversy relating to subscription. The position of Mr. Conybeare is, that “every one who subscribes the articles of religion, does thereby engage, not only not to dispute or contradict them; but his subscription amounts to an approbation of, and an assent to, the truth of the doctrines therein contained, in the very sense in which the compilers are supposed to have understood them.” Mr. Conybeare’s next publication was an assize sermon, preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, in 1727, from Ezra vii. 26, and entitled “The Penal sanctions of laws considered.” This discourse was dedicated by him to the honourable Charles Talbot, at that time solicitor-general, afterwards lord high chancellor of Great Britain, who had honoured our author with the care of his two eldest sons, Mr. Charles Talbot, celebrated by the poet Thomson, and the late earl Talbot, steward of his majesty’s household. On the llth of July, 1728, Mr. Conybeare was admitted to the degree of bachelor of divinity; and on the 24th of January following, he took his doctor’s degree. In the year 1729, he again appeared from the press, in a sermon that had been preached before the lord mayor and aldermen at St. Paul’s cathedral, and which was entitled ^The Expediency of a Divine Revelation represented.“It was accompanied with a dedication to bishop Talbot, father of the solicitor-general. From Dr. Conybeare’s introduction to this family, and the reputation he had acquired as a divine, it was expected that he would soon have been promoted to some dignity in the church. But the good bishop was taken off before he had a proper opportunity of carrying his benevolent intentions in our author’s favour into execution. In 1730, the headship of Exeter college becoming vacant, by the death of Dr. Hole, Dr. Conybeare was chosen to succeed him. His competitor, on this occasion, was the rev. Mr. Stephens, vicar of St. Andrew’s, Plymouth, a truly worthy clergyxpan, and the author of several ingenious discourses, Nevertheless, as he had retired early from the society, he could not be supposed to carry such weight with him as Dr. Conybeare, who had resided constantly in the college. In this year Dr. Tindal’s famous deistical book had appeared, entitled” Christianity as old as the Creation, or the Gospel a Republication of the Law of Nature.“This work excited the greatest attention, and drew forth the pens of some of the ablest divines of the kingdom, both in the church of PZngland, and among the protestant dissenters. Bishop Gibson, who had himself engaged in the controversy in his” Pastoral Letters,“encouraged Dr. Conybeare to undertake the task of giving a full and particular answer to Tindal’s production. Accordingly, he published in 1732, his” Defence of Revealed Religion,“Londoq, 8vo, by which he gained great credit to himself, and performed an eminent service to the cause of Christianity. In his dedication to the learned prelate now mentioned, he observes, that if he has not succeeded in his book according to his wishes, he may plead that it was drawn up amidst a variety of interruptions, and under a bad state of health.” This,“says he,” will in some sort excuse the author, though it may detract from the performance.“But Dr. Conybeare’s work did not stand in need of an apology. It is distinguished by the perspicuity of its method, and the strength of its reasoning; and is, indeed, one of the ablest vindications of revelation which England has produced. So well was the work received, that the third edition of it was published in 1733. Dr. Warburton justly styles it one of the best reasoned books in the world. It is likewise recommended by the temper and candour with which it is composed. Dr. Conybeare' s Defence will always maintain its rank, and perhaps be thought to sustain the first place among the four capital answers which Tindal received. The other three were, Foster’s” Usefulness, Truth, and Excellency of the Christian Revelation;“Leland’s” Answer to a late book, entitled Christianity as old as the Creation;“and Mr. Simon Browne’s” Defence of the Religion of Nature and the Christian Revelation."

Though Dr. Conybeare, by his promotion to the headship of Exeter college, had obtained a considerable rank in the university, he did not, by the change of his situation, make any addition to his fortune. Indeed, the emoluments of his new place were so small, that he was much richer as a private fellow and tutor, than as the governor of his college. It may be presumed that this circumstance in part, and still more the reputation he had acquired by his answer to Tindal, induced the bishop of London, who at that time had great influence in the disposal of ecclesiastical preferments, to exert himself more vigorously in our author’s behalf. This the good prelate so effectually did, that on the death of Dr. Bradshaw, bishop of Bristol, and dean Of Christ church, Oxford, in December, 1732, Dr. Conybeare was appointed to succeed him in the latter dignity. Accordingly the doctor was installed dean of that cathedral in the month of January following. On this occasion, he resigned the headship of Exeter college; and not long after, he gave up likewise the rectory of St. Clement’s, in favour of a friend, the rev. Mr. Webber, one of the fellows of Exeter. On the 6th of June, 1733, dean Conybeare married Miss Jemima Juckes, daughter of Mr. William Juckes, of Hoxton-square, near London; and in the same year he published a sermon, which he had preached in the cathedral of St. Peter, Exon, in August 1732, from 2 Peter iii. 16, on the subject of scripturedifficulties. In the beginning of the next year, he had the honour of entertaining the prince of Orange at the deanery of Christ church. The prince, who had come into England to marry the princess royal, being desirous of visiting Oxford, and some of the places adjacent, took up his residence at Dr. Conybeare’s apartments; and how solicitous the dean was to treat his illustrious guest with a proper splendour and dignity, appears from his having received, by the hands of one of her servants, the especial thanks of queen Caroline on the occasion.

When in 1737, Morgan had published his “Moral Philosopher,” the dean had it in contemplation to answer that work, so far as the general scheme of the writer might be thought to deserve it; and he had prepared many materials for this purpose. The design, for what reason we know not, was never carried into execution; and the omission may be regretted, though it must at the same time be acknowledged, that Dr. Morgan was encountered by a number of very able and successful antagonists. It is to the honour of dean Conybeare’s temper, that he expressed his hope, that none of the animadverters on the “Moral Philosopher” would be provoked to imitate his scurrilities. In 1738, the dean was requested to preach the sermon at the annual meeting of the several charity-schools in London, which he did from Galatians vi. 9; and the discourse was published. In 1747, he met with a great domestic affliction, in the loss of his lady, who departed this life on the 29th of Octoher, after their union had subsisted not much longer than fourteen years. When, on the 25th of April, 1749, a day of solemn thanksgiving was held, on account of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which had been signed on the 18th of October in the preceding year, Dr. Conybeare was fixed upon to preach before the honourable house of commons on this occasion. The subject was, “True Patriotism.”

As Dr. Conybeare was raised early in life to so conspicuous a station as that of the deanery of Christ church, it might have been expected, from his eminent merit and learning, that he would sooner have been called to the higher honours of his profession. But it is to be remembered, that not long after his promotion to the deanery, his good friend, the bishop of London, lost his influence at court; and the lord chancellor Talbot dying in the year 1737, our author had no particular patron to recommend him to royal favour. It was not, therefore, till the latter end of 1750, that he attained the mitre; and this was more owing to his acknowledged abilities and character, than to any personal interposition. On the translation of Dr. Joseph Butler to the see of Durham, Dr. Conybeare was appointed to the bishopric of Bristol, and was consecrated at Lambeth chapel, on the 23d of December. The consecration sermon, which was soon afterwards published, was preached by Francis Webber, D. D. rector of Exeter college. The promotion of Dr. Conybeare to the prelacy, whilst it raised him to the highest order of the church, and enlarged his sphere of usefulness, was injurious to his private fortune. The slender revenues of his bishopric were not equal to the expences which accrued from his necessary residence sometimes at Bristol, and sometimes at London *. Four discourses were published by our author after he became a bishop. The first was the Easter Monday sermon, in 1751, from Proverbs xi. 17, before the

Jearn that bishop Couybeare made no Bishop Newton’s account of this bimore than 350l. clear per annum of shopric is, we believe, much the same, this bishopric, during the whole time lord mayor and aldermen of the city of London, in which the virtue of being merciful was stated and enforced. The second was preached before the house of lords, on the llth of June, in the same year, from Psalm Ixxviii. 72, upon occasion of his majesty’s accession to the throne: the subject treated of, was civil government. The third was from Matthew xviii. 10, 11, in favour of the Irish protestant schools; and the fourth, from James i. 27, was before the sons of the clergy, at Bristol. Both these discourses were printed in 1752. It may be observed, with regard to the twelve single sermons published by our prelate, that they were not vague, declamatory essays, calculated only to answer a present purpose, but judicious and solid compositions, in which important topics were discussed with great perspicuity of method and language, and with equal strength of reasoning; so that it is not a little to be regretted, that they have not been collected together in a volume. Dr. Conybeare did not long enjoy a good state of health, after his being raised to the bishopric of Bristol. He was much afflicted with the gout; and, having languished about a year and a half, was carried off by that disorder at Bath, on the 13th of July, 1755. He was interred in the cathedral church of Bristol, where, some time after his death, an inscription was erected to his memory.

Bishop Conybeare had by his lady five children, three of whom died in their infancy. A daughter and a son survived him. The daughter, Jemima, departed this life at Oxford, on the 14th of March 1785. The son, William, is the present Dr. Conybeare. As our worthy prelate died in but indifferent circumstances, and consequently left behind him a very slender provision for his children, it was proposed by some friends of the family, to publish two volumes of sermons by subscription. The scheme succeeded so well that the number of subscribers amounted to nearly four thousand six hundred persons, many of whom took more than one copy. Such an almost unparalleled subscription can only be accounted for from Dr. Conybeare' s numerous connections, in consequence of his having presided over such a society as that of Christ-church, with the greatest reputation, for twenty- two years and a half; from the general estimation in which his abilities and character were held in the world, among men of all denominations; and from the disinterestedness of his temper in making but a small provision for his family. Besides this, his majesty, king George II. was pleased, in consideration of the bishop’s merits, to bestow upon the family, for the life of miss Jemima Conybeare, a pension, the clear produce of which was about one hundred pounds a year.

Dr. Conybeare’s connection with bishop Gibson, and the Talbot family, has already been mentioned. Amongst his most intimate private friends may be reckoned Dr. Hayter, successively bishop of Norwich and London, Dr. Atwell, and the famous Dr. Rundle (afterwards bishop of Derry.) The latter gentleman is understood to have been instrumental in recommending our author to the notice of the Talbots. There subsisted, likewise, a great intimacy between Dr. Conybeare and Dr. Seeker. When Seeker entered himself a gentleman commoner at Exeter college, with a view of taking a degree at the university of Oxford, Mr. Conybeare was appointed his nominal tutor. The present Dr. William Conybeare enjoys the rectory of St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate, as an option of archbishop Seeker’s.

Bishop Conybeare’s character appears to have been, in every view of it, respectable and excellent. Whilst he was a firm and faithful adherent to the doctrine and constitution of that church of which he was so great an orna-. ment, he was candid in his sentiments, and friendly in his conduct xvith regard to the protestant dissenters.

, an eminent navigator, and justly thepride of his country in that character, was born at Marton in Cleveland, a village about four miles from Great Ayton, in the county of York, and was baptised there, as appears from the parish register, Nov. 3, 1728. His father, whose name was likewise James, was a day-labourer to Mr. Mewburn, a very respectable farmer, and lived in a small cottage, the walls chiefly of mud, as was generally the case at that time in the northern parts of the kingdom. In 1730, when our navigator was about two years old, his father removed with his family to Great Ayton, and was employed as a hind to the late Thomas Scottowe, esq. having the charge of a considerable farm in that neighbourhood known by the name of Airyholm.

As the father continued long in that trust, captain Cook was employed in assisting him in various kinds of husbandry suited to his years until the age of thirteen, when he was put under the care of Mr. Pullen, a schoolmaster, who taught at Ayton, where he learned arithmetic, bookkeeping, &c. and is said to have shewn a very early genius for figures. About January 1745, at the age of seventeen, his father bound him apprentice to William Saunderson for four years, to learn the grocery and haberdashery business, at Snaith, a populous fishing- town about ten miles from Whitby but after a year and half’s servitude, having contracted a very strong propensity to the sea (owing, probably, to the maritime situation of the place, and the great number of ships almost constantly passing and repassing within sight between London, Shields, and Sunderland), Mr. Sauuderson was willing to indulge him in following the bent of his inclination, and gave up his indentures. While he continued at Snaith, by Mr. Saunderson’s account, he discovered much solidity of judgment, and was remarkably quick in accounts. In July 1746 he was bound apprentice to Mr. J. Walker, of Whitby, for the term of three years, which time he served to his master’s full satisfaction. He first sailed on board the ship Freelove, burthen about 45O tons, chiefly employed in the coal trade from Newcastle to London. In May 1748, Mr. Walker ordered him home to assist in rigging and fitting for sea a fine new ship, named the Three Brothers, about 600 tons burthen. This was designed as a favour to him, as it would greatly contribute to his knowledge in his business. In this vessel he sailed from Whitby in the latter end of June. After two coal voyages, the ship was taken into the service of government, and sent as a transport to Middleburgh, to carry s.ome troops from thence to Dublin. When these were landed, another corps was taken on board, and brought over to Liverpool. From thence the ship proceeded to Deptford, where she was paid oft* in April 1749. The remaining part of the season the vessel was employed in the Norway trade.

In the spring of 1750, Mr. Cook shipped himself as a seaman on board the Maria, belonging to Mr. John Wilkinson, of Wbitby, under the command of captain Gaskin. In her he continued all that year in the Baltic trade. Mr. Walker is of opinion he left this ship in the winter, and sailed the following summer, viz. 1751, in a vessel belonging to. Stockton; but neither the ship’s name, nor that of the owner, is now remembered by Mr. Walker. Early in February 1752, Mr. Walker sent for him, and made him mate of one of his vessels, called the Friendship, about 400 tons burthen. In this station he continued till Ma,y or June 1753, in the coal trade. At that period Mr. Walker made him an offer to go commander of that ship; but he declined it, soon after left her at London, and entered on board his majesty’s ship Eagle, a frigate of 28 or 30 guns, “having a mind,” as he expressed himself to his master, to “try his fortune that way.” Not long after, he applied to Mr. Walker for a letter of recommendation to the captain of the frigate, which was readily granted. On the receipt of this he got some small preferment, which he gratefully acknowledged, and ever remembered. Some time after, the Eagle sailed with ^another frigate on a cruise, in which they were very successful. After this Mr. Walker heard no more of Mr. Cook until August 1758, when he received from him a letter dated Pembroke, before Louisburgb, July 30, 1758, in which he gave a distinct account of our success in that expedition, but does not say what station he then filled.

He received a commission, as lieutenant, on the first day of April 1760; and soon after gave a specimen of those abilities which recommended him to the commands which he executed so highly to his credit, that his name will go down to posterity as one of the most skilful navigators which this country has produced. In 1765 he was with sir William B.urnaby on the Jamaica station; and that officer; having occasion to send dispatches to the governor of Jucatan, relative to the logwood-cutters in the bay of Honduras, lieutenant Cook was selected for that employment; and he performed it in a manner which entitled him to the approbation of the admiral. A relation of this voyage and journey was published in 1769, under the title of “Hemarks on a passage from tin? river Balise in the bay of Honduras, to Merida, the capital of the province of Jucatan, in the Spanish West.-Indies, by lieutenant Cook,” in an 8vo pamphlet.

To a perfect knowledge of all the duties belonging to a sea-life, Mr. Cook had added a. great skill in astronomy, In 1767 the royal society resolved, that it would be proper to send persons into some part of the South Seas, to observe the transit of the planet Venus over the sun’s disk; and by a memorial delivered to his majesty, they recommended the islands of Marquesas de Mencloza, or those ofRotterdam or Amsterdam, as the properest place then known for making such observation. To this memorial a favourable answer was returned; and the Endeavour, a ship built for the coal-trade, was put in commission, and the command of her given to lieutenant Cook. But before the vessel was ready to sail, captain Wallis returned from his voyage, and pointed out Otaheite as a place more proper for the purpose of the expedition than either of those mentioned by the royal society. This alteration was approved of, and our navigator was appointed by that learned body, with Mr. Charles Green, to observe the transit.

On this occasion lieutenant Cook was promoted to be captain, and his commission bore date the 25th of May 1768. He immediately hoisted the pendant, and took command of the ship, in which he sailed down the river on the 30th of July. In this voyage he was accompanied by Joseph Banks, esq. (since sir Joseph, bart. knight of the bath, and president of the royal society) and Dr. Solander. On the 13th of October he arrived at Rio de Janeiro, and on the 13th of April 1769 came to Otaheite, where the transit of Venus was observed in different parts of the island. He staid there until the 13th of July, after which he went in search of several islands, which he discovered. He then proceeded to New Zealand, and on the 10th of October 1770, arrived at Batavia with a vessel almost worn out, and the crew much fatigued and very sickly. The repairs of the ship obliged him to continue at this unhealthy place until the 27th of December, in which time he lost many of his seamen and passengers, and more in the passage to the Cape of Good Hope, which place he reached on the 15th of March 177-1. On the 14-th of April he left the Cape, and the 1st of May anchored at St. Helena, from whence he sailed on the 4th, and came to anchor in the Downs on the 12th of June, after having been absent almost three years, and in that time had experienced every danger to which a voyage of such a length is incident, and in which he had made discoveries equal to those of all the navigators of his country from the time of CoJumbus to the present. The narrative of this expedition was written by Dr. Hawkesworth, who, although the facts contained in it have not been denied, nor the excellence of the composition disputed, was, on its publication, treated with peculiar severity, owing to some opinions on the nature of providence, which Dr, Hawkesworth incautiously advanced, Soon after captain Cook’s return to England, it was resolved to equip two ships to complete the discovery of the southern hemisphere. It had long been a prevailing idea, that the unexplored part contained another continent; and Alexander Dalrymple, esq. a gentleman of great skill and an enterprising spirit, had been very firmly persuaded of its existence. To ascertain the fact was the principal object of this expedition; and that nothing might be omitted that could tend to facilitate the enterprise, two ships were provided, furnished with every necessary which could promote the success of the undertaking. The first of these ships was called the Resolution, under the command of captain Cook; the other, the Adventure, commanded by captain Furneaux. Both of them sailed from Deptfortl on the 9th of April 1772, and arrived at the Cape of Good Hope on the 30th of October. They departed from thence on the 22d of November, and from that time until the 17th of January 1773, continued endeavouring to discover the continent, when they were obliged to relinquish the design, observing the whole sea covered with ice from the direction of S. E. round by the south to west. They then proceeded into the South Seas, and made many other discoveries, and returned to the Cape of Good Hope on the 2 1 st of March 1774, and from thence to England on the 14th of July; having during three years and eighteen days (in which time the voyage was performed) lost but one man by sickness, in captain Cook’s ship; although he had navigated throughout all the climates from fifty-two degrees north to seventy-one degrees south, with a company of an hundred and eighteen men. The relation of this voyage was given to the public by captain Cook himself, and by Mr. George Forster, son of Dr. Forster, who had been appointed by government to accompany him for the purpose of making observations on such natural productions as might be fouud in the course of the navigation; but the publication was superintended by Dr. Douglas, the late bishop of Salisbury.

The want of success which attended captain Cook’s attempt to discover a southern continent, did not discourage another plan being resolved on, which had been recommended some time before. This was no other than the finding out a north-west passage, which the fancy of some chimerical projectors had conceived to be a practicable scheme. The dangers which our navigator had twice braved and escaped from, would have exempted him from being solicited a third time to venture his person in unknown countries, amongst desert islands, inhospitable climates, and in the midst of savages; but, on his opinion being asked concerning the person who would be most proper to execute this design, he once more relinquished the quiet and comforts of domestic life, to engage in scenes of turbulence and confusion, of difficulty and danger. His intrepid spirit and inquisitive mind induced him again to offer his services; and they were accepted without hesitation. The manner in which he had deported himself on former occasions left no room to suppose a fitter man could be selected. He prepared for his departure with the utmost alacrity, and actually sailed in the month of July 1776.

A few months after his departure from England, notwithstanding he was then absent, the Royal Society voted him sir Godfrey Copley’s gold medal, as a reward for the account which he had transmitted to that body, of the method taken to preserve the health of the crew of his ship: and sir John Pringle, in an oration pronounced on the 30th of November, observed, “How meritorious that person must appear, xvbo had not only made the most extensive, but the most instructive voyages; who had not only discovered, but surveyed vast tracts of new coasts; who had dispelled the illusion of a terra australis incognita, and fixed the bounds of the habitable earth as well as those of the navigable ocean in the southern hemisphere; but that, however ample a field for praise these circumstances would afford, it was a nobler motive that had prompted the society to notice captain Cook in the honourable manner which had occasioned his then address.” After descanting on the means used on the voyage to preserve the lives of the sailors, he concluded his discourse in these terms “Allow me then, gentlemen, to deliver this medal, with his unperishing name engraven upon it, into the hands of one who will be happy to receive that trust, and to hear that this respectable body never more cordially, nor more meritoriously, bestowed that faithful symbol of their esteem^ and affection. For if Rome decreed the civic crown to him who saved the life of a single citizen, what wreaths are due to that man who, having himself saved many, perpetuates in your transactions the means by which Britain may now, on the most distant voyages, save numbers of her intrepid sons, her mariners; who, braving every danger, have so liberally contributed to the iame, to the opulence, and to the maritime empire of their country?”

It will give pain to every sensible mind to reflect, that this honourable testimony to the merit of our gallant commander never came to his knowledge. While his friends were waiting with the most earnest solicitude for tidings concerning him, and the whole nation expressed an anxious impatience to be informed of his success, advice was received from captain Clerke*, in a letter dated at Kamtshatca, the 8th day of June 177.9; from which and from other accounts, we learnt, that captain Cook was killed oil the 14th of February 1779. His death happened in the following manner; which we shall give in the words of Mr. David Samwell, surgeon of the Discovery.

"Some of the Indians of Ou,why,ee in the night took away the Discovery’s large cutter, which lay swamped at the buoy of one of her anchors: they had carried her off so quietly that we did not miss her till the morning, Sunday, February 14. Captain Clerke lost no time in waiting upon captain Cook to acquaint him with the accident: he returned on board, with orders for the launch and small cutter to go, under the command of the second lieutenant, and lie off the east point of the bay, in order to intercept all canoes that might attempt to get out; and, if he found it necessary, to fire upon them. At the same time, the third lieutenant of the Resolution, with the launch and small cutter, was sent on the same service, to the opposite point of the bay; and the master was dispatched in the large cutter, in pursuit of a double canoe, already under sail, making the best of her way out of the harbour. He soon came up with her, and by firing a few musquets drove heron shore, and the Indians left her: this happened to be the canoe of Omea, a man who bore the title of Orono. He was on board himself, and it would have been fortunate if our people had secured him, for his person

shipnaan with captain Cook in his first ship arrived in England. See Hawkesvoyage, and was appointed by him a worth’s Voyage, vol. iii. p. 395. lieutenant on the deaib of Mr. Hicks, was held as sacred as that of the king. During this time captain Cook was preparing to go ashore himself at the town of Kavaroah, in order to secure the person of Kariopoo, before he should have time to withdraw himself to another part of the island out of our reach. This appeared the most effectual step that could be taken on the present occasion, for the recovery of the boat. It was the measure he had invariably pursued, in similar cases, at other islands in these seas, and it had always been attended with the desired success: in fact, it would be difficult to point out any other mode of proceeding on these emergencies, likely to attain the object in view. We had reason to suppose that the king and his attendants had fled wheu the alarm was first given: in that case, it was captain Cook’s intention to secure the large canoes which were hauled up on the beach. He left the ship about seven o'clock, attended by the lieutenant of marines, a serjeant, corporal, and seven private men: the pinnace’s crew were also armed, and under the command of Mr. Roberts. As they rowed towards the shore, captain Cook ordered the launch to leave her station at the west point of the bay, in order to assist his own boat. This is a circumstance worthy of notice; for it clearly shews, that he was not unapprehensive of meeting with resistance from the natives, or unmindful of the necessary preparation for the safety of himself and his people. I will venture to say, that from the appearance of things just at that time, there was not one, beside himself, who judged that such precaution was absolutely requisite: so little did his conduct on the occasion bear the marks of rashness or a precipitate self-confidence! He landed, with the marines, at the upper end of the town of Kavaroah: the Indians immediately flocked round, as usual, and shewed him the customary marks of respect, by prostrating themselves before him. There were no signs of hostilities, or much alarm among them. Captain Cook, however, did not seem willing to trust to appearances; but was particularly attentive to the disposition of the marines, and to have them kept clear of the crowd. He first inquired for the king’s sons, two youths who were much attached to him, and generally his companions on board. Messengers being sent for them, they soon came lo him; and informing him that their father was asleep, at a house not far -from them, he accompanied them thither, and took the marines along with them. As he passed along, the natives every where prostrated themselves before him, and seemed to have lost no part of that respect they had always shewn to his person. He was joined by several chiefs, among whom was Kanynah, and his brother Koohowrooah. They kept the crowd in order, according to their usual custom; and being ignorant of his intention in coining on shore, frequently asked him, if he wanted any hogs, or other provisions: he told them, that he did not, and that his business was to see the king. When he arrived B.L the house, he ordered some of the Indians to go in and inform Kariopoo, that he waited without to speak with him. They came out two or three times, and instead of returning any answer from the king, presented some pieces of red cloth to him, which made captain Cook suspect that he was not in the house; he therefore desired the lieutenant of marines to go in. The lieutenant found the old man just awaked from sleep, and seemingly alarmed at the message; but he came out without hesitation. Captain Cook took him by the hand, and in a friendly manner asked him to go on board, to which he very readily consented. Thus far matters appeared in a favourable train, and the natives did not seem much alarmed or apprehensive of hostility on our side; at which captain Cook expressed himself a little surprisec), saying, that as the inhabitants of that town appeared innocent of stealing the cutter, he should not molest them, but that he must get the king on board. Kariopoo sat down before his door, and was surrounded by a great crowd: Kanynah and his brother were both very active in keeping order among them. In a little time, however, the Indians were observed arming themselves with long spears, clubs, and daggers, and putting on thick mats, which they use as armour. This hostile appearance increased, and became more alarming, on the arrival of two men in a canoe from the opposite side of the bay, with the news of a chief, called Kareemoo, having been killed by one of the Discovery’s boats, in their passage across: they had also delivered this account to each of the ships. Upon that information, the women, who were sitting upon the beach at their breakfast, and conversing familiarly with our people in the boats, retired, and a confused murmur spread through the crowd. An old priest came to captain Cook, with a cocoa nut in his hand, which he held out to him as a present, at the same time singing very loud. He was often desired to be silent, but in vain: he continued importunate and troublesome, and there was no such thing as getting rid of him or his noise: it seemed as if he meant to divert their attention from his countrymen, who were growing more tumultuous, and arming themselves in every quarter. Captain Cook, being at the same time surrounded by a great crowd, thought his situation rather hazardous: he therefore ordered the lieutenant of marines to march his small party to the water-side, where the boats lay within a few yards of the shore: the Indians readily made a lane for them to pass, and did not offer to interrupt them. The distance they had to go might be fifty or sixty yards; captain Cook followed, having hold of Kariopoo’s hand, who accompanied him very willingly: he was attended by his wife, two sons, and several chiefs. The troublesome old priest followed, making the same savage noise. Keowa, the younger son, went directly into the pinnace, expecting his father to follow; but just as he arrived at the water-side, his wife threw her arms about his neck, and, with the assistance of two chiefs, forced him to sit down by the side of a double canoe. Captain Cook expostulated with them, but to nopurpose they would not suffer the king to proceed telling him he would be put to death if he went on board the ship. Kariopoo, whose conduct seemed entirely resigned to the will of others, hung down his head, and appeared much distressed.

While the king was in this situation, a chief, well known to us, of the name of Coho, was observed near, with au iron dagger, partly concealed under his cloke, seemingly with an intention of stabbing captain Cook, or the lieutenant of marines. The latter proposed to fire at him, but captain Cook would notpermit it. Coho closing upon them, obliged the officer to strike him with his piece, which made him retire. Another Indian laid hold of the Serjeant’s musket, and endeavoured to wrench it from him, but was prevented by the lieutenant’s making a blow at him. Captain Cook, seeing the tumult increase, and the Indians growing more daring and resolute, observed, that if he were to take the king off by force, he could not do it without sacrificing the lives of many of his people. He then paused a little, and was on the point of giving his orders to reimbark, when a man threw a stone at him, which he returned with a discharge of small shot, with which one barrel of his double piece was loaded. The man, having a thick mat before him, received little or no hurt: he brandished his spear, and threatened to dart it at captain Cook, who being still unwilling to take away his life, instead of firing with ball, knocked him down with his musket. He expostulated strongly with the most forward of the crowd, upon their turbulent behaviour. He had given up all thoughts of getting the king on board, as it appeared impracticable; and his care was then only to act on the defensive, and to secure a safe embarkation for his small party, which was closely pressed by a body of several thousand people. Keowa, the king’s son, who was in the pinnace, being alarmed on hearing the first firing, was, at his own entreaty, put on shore again; for even at that time Mr. Roberts, who commanded her, did not apprehend that captain Cook’s person was in any danger, otherwise he would have detained the prince, which no doubt would have been a great check on the Indians. One man was observed, behind a double canoe, in the action of darting his spear at captain Cook; who was forced to fire at him in his own defence, but happened to kill another close to him, equally forward in the tumult: the serjeant, observing that he had missed the man he aimed at, received orders to fire at him, which he did, and killed him. By this time the impetuosity of the Indians was somewhat repressed: they fell back in a body, and seemed staggered; but being pushed on by those behind, they returned to the charge, and poured a volley of stones among the marines, who, without waiting for orders, returned it with a general discharge of musketry, which was instantly followed by a fire from the boats. At this captain Cook was heard to express his astonishment: he waved his hand to the boats, called to them to cease firing, and to come nearer in to receive the marines. Mr. Roberts immediate^ brought the pinnace as close to the shore as he could without grounding, notwithstanding the showers of stones that fell among the people: but Mr. John Williamson, the lieutenant, who commanded in the launch, instead of pulling in to the assistance of captain Cook, withdrew his boat further off, at the moment that every thing seems to have depended upon the timely exertions of those in the boats. By his own account, he mistook the signal: but be that as it may, this circumstance appears to me to have decided the fatal turn of the affair, and to have removed every chance which remained with captain Cook, of escaping with his life. The business of saving the marines out of the water, in consequence of that, fell altogether upon the pinnace; which thereby became so much crowded, that the crew were in a great measure prevented from using their fire-arms, or giving what assistance they otherwise might have done to captain Cook; so that he seems, at the most critical point of time, to have wanted the assistance of both boats, owing to the removal of the launch. For notwithstanding that they kept up a fire on the crowd from the situation to which they removed in that boat, the fatal confusion which ensued on her being withdrawn, to say the least of it, must have prevented the full effect, that the prompt co-operation of the two boats, according to captain Cook’s orders, must have had towards the preservation of himself and his people. At that time it was to the boats alone that captain Cook had to look for his safety; for when the marines had fired, the Indians rushed among them, and forced them into the water, where four of them were killed: their lieutenant was wounded, but fortunately escaped, and was taken up by the pinnace. Captain Cook was then the only one remaining on the rock: he was observed making for the pinnace, holding his left hand against the back of his head, to guard it from the stones, and carrying his musquet under the other arm. An Indian was seen following him, but with caution and timidity: for he stopped once or twice, as if undetermined to proceed. At last he advanced upon him unawares, and with a large club, or common stake, gave him a blow on the back of the head, and then precipitately retreated. The stroke seemed to have stunned captain Cook: he staggered a few paces, then fell on his hand and one knee, and dropped his musquet. As he was rising, and before he could recover his feet, another Indian stabbed him in the back of the neck with an iron dagger. He then fell into a bite of water about knee deep, where others crowded upon him, and endeavoured to keep him under; but struggling very strongly with them, he got his head up, and casting his look towards the pinnace, seemed to solicit assistance. Though the boat was not above five or six yards distant from him, yet from the crowded and confused state of the crew, it seems it was not in their power to save him. The Indians got him under again, but in deeper water: he was, however, able to get his head up once more; and being almost spent in the struggle, he naturally turned to the rock, and was endeavouring to support himself by it, when a savage gave him a blow with a club, and he was seen alive no more. They hauled him up lifeless on the rocks, where they seemed to take a savage pleasure in using every barbarity to his dead body; snatching the daggers out of each other’s hands, to have the horrid satisfaction of piercing the fallen victim of their barbarous rage."

Captain Cook was a married man, and left several children behind him. On each of these his majesty settled a pension of 251. per ann. and 200l. per ann. on his widow. It is remarkable, if true, as reported, that captain Cook was god-father to his wife; and at the very time she was christened, declared that he had determined on the uniou which afterwards took place between them.

To what we have already said of this circumnavigator, we shall add some extracts from the account given of his life and public services by captain King: " He was engaged in most of the busy and active scenes in North America; yet he found time to read Euclid, and supply the deficiencies of an early education. Sir Charles Saunders, at the seige of Quebec, committed to his care services of the first importance. Lord Colville and sir Charles both patronized him; and by their recommendation he was appointed to survey the gulph of St. Laurence and the coasts of Newfoundland. The constitution of his body was robust, inured to labour, and capable of undergoing the severest hardships. His stomach bore, without difficulty, the coarsest and most ungrateful food. Indeed, temperance in him was scarcely a virtue; so great was the indifference with which he submitted to every kind of selfdenial. The qualities of his mind were of the same hardy, vigorous kind with those of his body. His courage was cool and determined, and accompanied with an admirable presence of mind in the moment of danger. His manners were plain and unaffected. His temper might perhaps have been justly blameable, as subject to hastiness and passion, had not these been disarmed by a disposition the most benevolent and humane.

“Such were the outlines of captain Cook’s character; but its most distinguishing feature was that unremitting perseverance in the pursuit of his object, which was not only superior to the opposition of dangers, and the pressure of hardships, but even exempt from the want of ordinary relaxation. Perhaps no science ever received greater accessions frbm the labours of a single man, than geography has done from those of captain Cook. In his first voyage to the South seas he discovered the Society islands; determined the insularity of New Zealand; discovered the straits which separate the two islands, and are called after his name; and made a complete survey of both. He afterwards explored the eastern coast of New Holland, hitherto unknown; an extent of upwards of two thousand miles. In his second expedition he resolved the great problem of a southern continent, having traversed that hemisphere in such a manner as not to leave a possibility of its existence, unless near the pole, and out of the reach of navigation. During this voyage he discovered New Caledonia, the largest island in the Southern Pacific, except New Zealand: the island of Georgia; and an unknown coast, which he named Sandwich land, the Thule of the southern hemisphere: and having twice visited the tropical seas, he settled the situations of the old, and made several new discoveries. But the last voyage is distinguished above all the rest by the extent and importance of its discoveries. Besides several smaller islands in the southern Pacific, he discovered, to the north of the equinoctial line, the groupe called the Sandwich islands; which, from their situation and productions, bid fairer for becoming an object of consequence in the system of European navigation, than any other discovery in the South sea. He afterwards explored what had hitherto remained-unknown of the western coast of America, containing an extent of three thousand five hundred miles; ascertained the proximity of the two great continents of Asia and America; passed the straits between them, and surveyed the coast on each side, to such a height of northern latitude, as to demonstrate the impracticability of a passage, in that hemisphere, from the Atlantic into the Pacific ocean, either by an eastern or a western course. In short, if we except the sea of Amur, and the Japanese archipelago, which still remain imperfectly known to Europeans, he has completed the hydrography of the habitable globe.” Captain King concludes his account of this extraordinary man, whose death cannot be sufficiently lamented, in the following words: “Having given the most faithful account I have been able to collect, both from my own observation and the relations of others, of the death of my ever-honoured friend, and also of his character and services, I shall now leave his memory to the gratitude and admiration of posterity; accepting with a melancholy satisfaction the honour, which the loss of his has procured me, of seeing my name joined with his; and of testifying that affection and respect for his memory, which, whilst ' he lived, it was no less my inclination than my constant study to shew him.”

We cannot close this article without giving a short sketch of the characters of the different writers by whom the last voyage was given to the world. Among these we ought to reckon the rev. Dr. Douglas, the editor, who, in a grave and dignified style, suitable to the sublimity of a journey or voyage round the globe, has arranged the matter; chastised, no doubt, in some instances, the language of our circumnavigators; and pointed out to the curious and philosophic eye, the benefits that have resulted, and may yet result, from the late discoveries in the great Pacific ocean; and the attempt, though unsuccessful, to explore a northern passage from thence into the Atlantic. Although this gentleman has levelled down the more striking peculiarities of the different writers of these voyages into some appearance of equality, yet a critic can discern in each his proper features. Captain Cook, accurate, minute, and severe, surveys every object with a mathematical eye, ever intent to fix or to discover some truth in astronomy, geography, and navigation. His observations on men and manners, and the produce of countries, are not very subtle or refined, but always sensible and judicious. He speculates in order to establish facts, but does not inquire into facts for the airy purposes of speculation. Captain King has perhaps a greater versatility of genius than captain Cook, as well as a more lively fancy, and a greater variety and extent of knowledge. Agreeably to this character of him, he paints the scenes that fall under his eye, in glowing and various colours. He has less perhaps of the mathematician and navigator in his composition than captain Cook, and more of the author. He himself seems conscious that this is his forte, and wields the pen with alacrity, with ease and satisfaction. The gleanings that were left to his industry by captain Cook, he seems too eager to pick up, to dwell upon, and to amplify. Mr. Anderson is superior to both these writers in variety of knowledge, and subtlety and sublimity of genius. He is versant in languages ancient and modern, in mathematics, in natural history, in natural philosophy, in civil history, in the metaphysics of both morality and theology; yet, as a counterbalance to these brilliant qualities and endowments, he launches forth too much into theory, and is, in some instances, too little constrained by the limits of fact and nature in his speculations. He has found the doctrines of the immortality and the immateriality of the soul among nations, who, in all probability, have not terms to express these, and very few to signify abstracted ideas of any kind. A quick imagination and a subtle intellect can see any thing in any subject, and extend the ideas most familiar to themselves over the boundless variety of the universe.

, Mus.D. an eminent organist and contra-puntist, in the style of our best ecclesiastical composers, whom he had studied, from Tailis to Crofts, Weidon, and Green, a very correct harmonist and good organ player, but with limited powers of invention, was organist of Westminster abbey, and on the dealh of Kelway elected organist of St. Martin’s in the Fields. He long presided at the Crown and Anchor concert, which was originally established for the preservation of the best works of the most eminent masters of old times. It is a curious circumstance, that at this concert of ancient music Handel was regarded as an innovator, and Geminiani thought it an honour to be allowed to dedicate his last concertos to this society. Dr. Pepusch, who established and directed this concert to the time of his death, never allowed Handel any other merit than that of a good practical musician, The irreconcileable enmity between the lovers of old and new music became, from the time of this institution, as violent as the rage between the champions of ancient and modern learning. Dr, Cook, a steady votary of the old masters, died September 1793. He was the son of Benjamin Cook, who kept a music shop in New-street, Covent-garden, and who published by patent, among other things, six concertos for violins, tenor and bass, by Alexander Scarlatti; the chamber symphonies of Porpora, for three instruments; and the two books of lessons by Domenico Scarlatti, in long 4to, of which Rosingrave was the editor. After the decease of Cook, Johnson reprinted Scarlatti’s lessons, with the same title-page and the same errors as had escaped correction in the former edition.

an English artist, was born in 1642. Having a taste for historical painting, he travelled to Italy for the purpose of improving himself in this branch of the art, and studied under Sulvator Rosa; but, on his return to England, met with so little encouragement, that for many years he remained in want and obscurity, and at last was obliged to fly for a murder which he committed on a person who courted one of his mistresses. On his return, when this affair was forgot, his talents gained him notice, and he was employed by king William to repair his cartoons; he likewise finished the equestrian portrait of Charles II. at Chelsea college, painted the choir of New College chapel, Oxford, as it stood before the late repairs, and the staircase at Ranelagh house, besides many other works mentioned by lord Orford. He is also said to have tried portrait painting, but to have given it up, disgusted with the caprices of those who sat to him. He died 18th Nov. 1700.

, preceptor to Edward VI. was born at Giddy, or Gidding-hall, in Essex, about 1506, and descended from sir Thomas Cooke, mayor of London. He was educated probably at Cambridge, as Wood makes no mention of him. However, he was such an eminent master of the whole circle of arts, of such singular piety and goodness, of such uncommon prudence in the management of his own family, that those noble persons who had the charge of king Edward appointed him to instruct that prince in learning, and to form his manners. He lived in exile during the persecution of Mary, but after Elizabeth’s accession returned home, and spent the remainder of his days in peace and honour, at Giddy-hall, where he died in 1576. He was, if Lloyd may be credited, naturally of a reserved temper, and took more pleasure to breed up statesmen than to be one. “Contemplation was his soul, privacy his life, and discourse his element: business was his purgatory, and publicness his torment.” To which may be added what king Edward VI. used to say of his tutors, that Rodolph, the German, spake honestly, Sir John Cheke talked merrily, Dr. Cox solidly, and sir Anthony Cooke weighingly.

Several ingenious sayings of his are recorded; particularly the following: “That there were three objects, before whom he could not do amiss; his prince, his conscience, and his children.” This facetious story is likewise related of him: “A Sussex knight, having spent a great estate at court, and reduced himself to one park and a fine house in it, was yet ambitious to entertain the king (Edward VI.) For that purpose he new painted his gates, with a coat of arms and this motto over them, in large golden letters, Oia Vanitas. Sir Anthony offering to read it, desired to know of the gentleman what he meant by Oia, who told him it stood for omnia.” I wonder,“replied he,” that, having made your omnia so little as you have, you should yet make your vanitas so large."

Sir Anthony Cooke was peculiarly happy in his four daughters, who made so distinguished a figure among the literary ladies of the period in which they lived, and were otherwise so eminent in situation and character, as to require some notice in a work of this description.

, the eldest of these daughters, we mentioned in the article of William Cecil, lord Burleigh, remarking that she was long the faithful wife of that great Statesman; that she was learned in the Greek tongue, and wrote a letter to the University of Cambridge in that language; that she was a patroness of literature; and that she was distinguished by her numerous charities. To this we may now add, that her preceptor was Mr. Lawrence, an eminent Grecian; and she fully answered the care and pains that were taken in her education: but her reading was not confined to the classic writers of Greece only, but extended, likewise, to the ancient Christian fathers, particularly Basil, Cyril, Chrysostom, and Gregory Nazianzen. A piece of Saint Chrysostom’s was translated by her, from the original, into the English language. It was on the 21st of December, 1546, and in the 20th year of her age, that she was married to sir William Cecil. Her death, as we have seen in her husband’s article, was on the 4th of April, 1589. She had an admirable understanding, and is said to have been a good politician. Nor is this at all surprising, considering her intellectual powers, and that, for more than forty and two years, she was the wife of such an illustrious statesman as Lord Burleigh. As an evidence of her political talents, Mr. Ballard has produced a letter written by her, on the 26th of October, 1573, to sir William Fitzwilliams, at that time lord deputy of Ireland. The letter contains some excellent advice; and shews, that she was not only a woman of great good sense, but well acquainted with the world. Five days after her decease, lord Burleigh wrote what he calls a meditation on the death of his lady, which contains several farther particulars concerning her, and is a striking testimony of his affection to her memory.

, third daughter of sir Anthony Cooke, was born about the year 1529, and having enjoyed the same liberal education which was bestowed upon her sisters, was equally happy in improving it, and gained the applause of the most eminent scholars of the age. It was observed by sir John Harrington, that if Madam Vittoria, an Italian lady, deserved to have her name celebrated and transmitted to posterity by Ariosto, for writing some verses, in the manner of an epitaph, upon her husband, after his decease; no less commendation was due to the lady before us, who did as much and more, not only for two husbands, but for her son, daughter, brother, sister, and venerable old friend Mr. Noke of Shottesbrooke, in the Greek, Latin, and English tongues. She was married, first, to sir Thomas Hobby, and accompanied him to France, when he went there as ambassador from queen Elizabeth, and died there July 13, 1566. His disconsolate lady having erected a chapel in the chancel of the church at Bisham, in Berkshire, carefully deposited the remains of her husband, and of his brother, air Philip Hobby, in one tomb together, which she adorned with large inscriptions, in Latin and English verse, of her own composition. She had by sir Thomas Hobby four children, Edward, Elizabeth, Anne, and Thomas Posthumus. It does not appear that she had great comfort in either of her sons; and the youngest in particular, as is manifest from a letter written by her to lord treasurer Burleigh, was guilty of such extravagancies and undutifulness, as gave her much uneasiness. It is evident, from the letter, that she was a woman of uncommon spirit and sense, and an excellent economist. Some years after the decease of sir Thomas Hobby, she married John, lord Russel, son and heir to Francis Russel, earl of Bedford. Her husband dying before his father, in the year 1584, was buried in the abbey church of Westminster, where there is a noble monument erected to his memory, and embellished with inscriptions in Greek, Latin, and English, by this his surviving lady. Her children, by John lord Russel, were one son, who died young in 1580, and two daughters, Anne and Elizabeth. The last of them survived her father but a little time, and is said to have bled to death by the prick of a needle in the forefinger of her left hand. This story has been supported by the figure placed on her monument, which is in the same grate with that of her father; where, on a pedestal of black and white marble made column-wise, in imitation of a Roman altar, may be seen the statue of a young lady seated in a most curiously-wrought osier chair, of the finest polished alabaster, in a very melancholy posture, inclining her head to the right hand, and with the forefinger of her left only extended downwards, to direct us to behold the death’s head underneath her feet, and, as the tradition goes, to signify the disaster that brought her to her end. Mr. Ballard thinks, that if the fact be true, it must be attributed to some gangrene, or other dangerous symptom, occasioned perhaps at first by the pricking of an artery or nerve, which at last brought her to the grave. The matter, however, does not deserve to be reasoned upon; being, in truth, no other than an idle and groundless tale, which very well answers the purpose of amusing the crowd who go to visit the tombs in the Abbey.

Lady Russel translated out of French into English a tract entitled, “A way of reconciliation of a good and learned man, touching the true nature and substance of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament.” This work was printed in 1605, and is dedicated to her only daughter, Anne Herbert, wife to Henry lord Herbert, son and heir to Edward earl of Worcester.

The time of lady Russel' s death has not been ascertained. In a letter written by her ta sir Robert Cecil, without date, she complains of her bad health and infirmities, and mentions her having compleated sixty-eight years. She seems to have been buried at Bisham, in Berks, near the remains of her first husband, and in the chapel which she herself had founded. From Birch’s Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, it appears that lady Russel interested herself in the concerns of her nephew Anthony Bacon, and endeavoured to do him service with the lord treasurer Burleigh. In that work there are some extracts from two of her letters upon this occasion, and a long account of a curious conversation which she had with her nephew, relative to the disputes between him and the treasurer. The fact was, that lord Burleigh was dissatisfied with the connections both of Mr, Anthony and Mr. Francis Bacon, and especially with their attachment to the Earl of Essex, and on these accounts was not favourable to their promotion.

, the fourth daughter of sir Anthony Cooke, was born about the year 1530, and like her sisters became famous for her knowledge in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin tongues, and for her skill in poetry. A short specimen of her talent in. that art has been preserved by sir John Harrington and Dr. Thomas Fuller; but there is some difficulty in determining the occasion upon which the verses were written. Sir John Harrington says, that her design in writing them was to get a kinsman of hers sent to Cornwall, where she inhabited, and to prevent his going beyond sea. Mr. Phillips, in his “Theatrum Poetarum,” asserts that it was her lover. Dr. Fuller, however, with greater appearance of reason, informs us, that her husband being designed by queen Elizabeth ambassador to France in troublesome times, when the employment, always difficult, was then apparently dangerous, his lady wrote these lines to her sister Mildred Cecil, to engage her interest with lord Burleigh for preventing the appointment.

The person to whom Katherine Cooke was married was Henry Killegrevv, esq. a gentleman of good abilities, and who, for the services he performed to his country in the quality of an ambassador, was afterwards knighted. It should seem, therefore, that if Fuller be right in the account he has given of the purpose of the preceding verses, the fair author did not obtain her request. Sir Henry was living in great esteem, in the year 1602; and it appears, from her father’s will, that Lady Killegrevv was alive on the 22d of May, 1576. She was buried in the chancel of the church of St. Thomas the Apostle, in Vintry-yard, London, whiTe is an elegant monument erected to her memory, on which is a pious Latin inscription, composed by herself.

The death of lady Killegrevv was lamented in various epitaphs. Her sister, lady Russel, wrote one, partly in Greek and partly in Latin verse. Three others, in Latin verse, were written by Robert Mason Format), minister of the reformed French church in London, by Andrew Melvin, and by William Chark. Such of our readers as are curious to see these productions, may find them in Ballard. It is generally understood that sir Anthony Cooke had only four daughters; but there is some reason to believe that he had, at least, one more. Camden, Fuller, Lloyd, Bohun, and Strype, concur in mentioning a fifth daughter, whose name, they say, is lost. Nevertheless, they all observe that she was married to sir Ralph Rowlet but this seems doubtful.

, a poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Braintree in Essex, in 1702 or 1703, where his father was an inn-keeper, and as Pope used to say, a Muggletonian. He was educated at Felsted school, where he made considerable proficiency, but how long he remained here, or what was his destination in life is not known. For some time he appears to have been domesticated in the family of lord Pembroke, who died in 1733, and who probably suggested to him a translation of Hesiod, to which his lordship contributed some notes. Before this nobleman’s death, he came to London in 1722, and became a writer by profession, and a strenuous supporter of revolution-principles, which formed a bond of union between him and Tickell, Philips, Welsted, Steele, Dennis, and others, whose political opinions agreed with his own. He wrote in some of the weekly journals of the time, and was considered as a man of learning and abilities. He is supposed to have attacked Pope from political principles, but it is fully as probable, that, as he was a good Greek scholar, he wished to derive some reputation from proving that Pope, in his translation of Homer, was deficient in that language. In 1725 he published a poem entitled “The Battle of the Poets,” in which Pope, Swift, and some others were treated with much freedom and translated and published in the Daily Journal, 1727, the episode of Thersites, from the second book of the Iliad, to show how much Pope had mistaken his author. For this attack Pope gave him a place in the “Dunciad,” and notices him with equal contempt in his Epistle to Dr. Arbutlmot. In a note likewise he informs us that Cooke “wrote letters at the same time to him, protesting his innocence;” but Cooke’s late biographer, sir Joseph Mawbey, is inclined to doubt this, and rather to believe that he was regardless of Pope’s enmity. In a subsequent edition of “The Battle of the Poets” Cooke notices the Dunciad with becoming spirit, and speaks with little respect of Pope’s “philosophy or dignity of mind, who could be provoked by what a boy writ concerning his translation of Homer, and in verses which gave no long promise of duration.” In 1725 or 172G, Cooke published “The Knights of the Bath,” and “Philander and Cydippe,” both poetical tales; and several other pieces of poetry the former evidently meant to attract the public attention, on the revival, about that time, of the order of the Bath. He wrote soon after “The Triumphs of Love and Honour,” a play; “The Eunuch,” a farce; and “The Mournful Nuptials,” a tragedy; all performed at Drury-lane theatre, but with little success. In 1726 he published an account of the “Life and Writings of Andrew Marvell, esq.” prefixed to an edition of the poetical works of that celebrated politician, 2 vols. 12mo, and in 1728 his translation of “Hesiod.” In 1734 he published an edition of Terence, with an English translation, 3 vols. 12mo, and in 1737 “A Translation of Cicero on the Nature of the Gods,” with philosophical, critical, and explanatory notes, to which is added an examination into the astronomy of the ancients, 8vo. In 1741 he encreased his classical reputation by an edition of Virgil, with an interpretation in Latin, and notes in English. In 1742 he published a volume of his original “Poems,” with imitations and translations, and in 1746 undertook a new edition and translation of Plautus, by subscription. Of this he produced in 1754 the first volume, containing a dissertation on the life of Plautus, and a. translation of the comedy of Amphitryon, but although his list of subscribers was very copious, and he went on receiving more, he never completed the work.

He was always, however, employing his pen on temporary subjects, either in poems or pamphlets, and for some time was concerned in the political paper established in opposition to sir Robert Walpole, entitled “The Craftsman;” and at one time, in 1748, was apprehended for some libel against the government, but it does not appear that a prosecution followed. During his latter years he published a variety of single poems, which it would be unnecessary to enumerate, more particularly as they have been long consigned to oblivion; and he also contributed songs and ballads for Vauxhall, long the Parnassus of the minor poets. In 1756 Dr. Leonard Howard, rector of St. George’s, Southwark, published a collection of Ancient Letters, in 2 vols. 4to, but as he had not materials to fill up the second, Cooke, who was his intimate friend, gave him many letters from his correspondents, and some pieces of poetry, with which Howard completed this strange jumble. The letters, however, are in some respects amusing, and show that Cooke was complimented at least, by some persons of eminence, although probably not much respected. Sir Joseph Mawbey had a tragedy of his entitled “Germanicus,” which Garrick refused, and three folio volumes of his Mss. His residence in the latter part of his life was at Lambeth, in a small and insignificant house and garden, of which he used to speak with great pomp, and where he died Dec. 20, 1756, in great poverty. He was buried by a subscription among a few friends, who also contributed to the support of his widow and daughter, neither of whom survived long. His biographer’s account of his morals and religious principles is not very favourable, but it is unnecessary to dwell longer on the merits of an author whose productions it would, perhaps, be impossible to revive.

, earl of Shaftesbury, an eminent statesman of very dubious character, was son of sir John Cooper, of llockborn in the county of Southampton, bart. by Anne, daughter of sir Anthony Ashley of Winborne St. Giles in the county of Dorset, bart. where he was born July 22, 1621. Being a boy of uncommon parts, he was sent to Oxford at the age of fifteen, and admitted a gentleman commoner of Exeter college, under Dr. John Prideaux, the rector of it. He is said to have studied hard there for about two years; and then removed to Lincoln’s inn, where he applied himself with great vigour to the law, and especially that part of it which related to the constitution of the kingdom. He was elected for Tewksbury in Gloucestershire, in the parliament which met at Westminster, April 13, 1640, but was soon dissolved. He seems to have been well affected to the king’s service at the beginning of the civil war: for he repaired to the king at Oxford, offered his assistance, and projected a scheme, not for subduing or conquering his country, but for reducing such as had either deserted or mistaken their duty to his majesty’s obedience. He was afterwards invited to Oxford by a letter from his majesty; but, perceiving that he was not in confidence, that ins behaviour was disliked, and his person in danger, he retired into the parliament quarters, and soon after went up to London, where he was well received by that party “to which,” says Clarendon, “he gave himself up body and soul.” He accepted a commission from the parliament and, raising forces, took Wareham by storm, October 1644, and soon after reduced all the adjacent parts of Dorsetshire. This, and some other actions of the same nature, induced the above-mentioned historian to say that he “became an implacable enemy to the royal family.” The next year he was sheriff of Wiltshire, in 1651 he was of the committee of twenty, appointed to consider of ways and means for reforming the law. He was also one of the members of the convention that met after Cromwell had turned out the long parliament. He was again a member of parliament in 1654, and one of the principal persons who signed that famous protestation, charging the protector with tyranny and arbitrary government; and he always opposed the illegal measures of that usurper to the utmost. When the protector Richard was deposed, and the Rump came again into power, they nominated sir Anthony one of their council of state, and a commissioner for managing the army. He was at that very time engaged in a secret correspondence with the friends of Charles II. and greatiy instrumental in promoting his restoration; which brought him into peril of his life with the powers then in being. He was returned a member for Dorsetshire, in that which was called the healing parliament, which sat in April 1660; and a resolution being taken to restore the constitution, he was named one of the twelve members of the house of commons to carry their invitation to the king. It was in performing this service that he had the misfortune to be overturned in a carriage upon a Dutch road, by which he received a dangerous wound between the ribs, which ulcerated many years after, and was opened when he was chancellor.

Upon the king’s coming over he was sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. He was also one of the commissioners for the trial of the regicides; and though the Oxford historian is very severe on him on this occasion, yet his advocates are very desirous of proving that he was not any way concerned in betraying or shedding the blood of his sovereign. By letters patent, dated April 20, 1661, he was created barou Ashley of Winborne St. Giles; soon after made chancellor and nnder-treasurer of the exchequer, and then one of the lords commissioners for executing the office of high-treasurer. He was afterwards made lord lieutenant of the county of Dorset; and, April 23, 1672, created baron Cooper of Pawlet in the county of Somerset, and earl of Shaftesbury. November 4 following, he was raised to the post of lord high chancellor of England. He shone particularly in his speeches in parliament; and, if we judge only from those which he made upon swearing in the treasurer Clifford, his successor sir Thomas Osborne, and baron Thurland, we must conclude him to have been a very accomplished orator. The short time he was at the helm was a season of storms and tempests; and it is but doing him justice to say that they could not either affright or distract him. November 9, 1673, he resigned the great seal under very singular circumstances. Soon after the breaking up of the parliament, as Echard relates, the earl was sent for on Sunday morning to court; as was also sir Heneage Finch, attorney-general, to whom the seals were promised. As soon as the earl came he retired with the king into the closet, while the prevailing party waited in triumph to see him return without the purse. His lordship being alone with the king, said, “Sir, I know you intend to give the seals to the attorney-general, but 1 am sure your majesty never intended to dismiss me with contempt.” The king, who could not do an ill-natured thing, replied, “Gods fish, my lord, I will not do it with any circumstance that may look like an affront.” “Then, sir,” said the earl, “I desire your majesty will permit me to carry the seals before you to chapel, and send for them afterwards from my house.” To this his majesty readily consented; and the earl entertained the king with news and diverting stories till the very minute he was to go to chapel, purposely to amuse the courtiers and his successor, who he believed was upon the rack for fear he should prevail upon the king to change his mind. The king and the earl came out of the closet talking together and smiling, and went together to chapel, which greatly surprised, them all: and some ran immediately to tell the duke of York, that all his measures were broken. After sermon the earl went home with the seals, and that evening the king gave them to the attorneygeneral.

After he had thus quitted the court, he continued to make a great figure in parliament: his abilities enabled him to shine, and he was not of a nature to rest. In 1675, the treasurer, Danby, introduced the test-bill into the house of lords, which was vigorously opposed by the earl of Shaftesbury; who, if we may believe Burnet, distinguished himself more in this session than ever he had done before. This dispute occasioned a prorogation; and there ensued a recess of fifteen months. When the parliament met again, Feb. 16, 1677, the duke of Buckingham argued, that it ought to be considered as dissolved: the earl of Shaftesbury was of the same opinion, and maintained it with so much warmth, that, together with the duke before mentioned, the earl of Salisbury, and the lord Wharton, he was sent to the Tower, where he continued thirteen, mouths, though the other lords, upon their submission, were immediately discharged. When he was set at liberty he conducted the opposition to the earl of Danby' s administration with such vigour and dexterity, that it was found impossible to do any thing effectually in parliament, without changing the system which then prevailed. The king, who desired nothing so much as to be easy, resolved to make a change; dismissed all the privy-council at once, and formed a new one. This was declared April 21, 1679; and at the same time the earl of Shaftesbury was appointed lord president. He did not hold this employment longer than October the fifth following. He had drawn upon himself the implacable hatred of the duke of York, by steadily promoting, if not originally inventing, the project of an exclusion bill: and therefore the duke’s party was constantly at work against him. Upon the king’s summoning a parliament to meet at Oxford, March 21, 1681, he joined with several lords in a petition to prevent its meeting there, which, however, failed of success. He was present at that parliament, and strenuously supported the exclusion bill: but the duke soon contrived to make him feel the weight of his resentment. For his lordship was apprehended for high treason, July 2, 1681; and, after being examined by his majesty in council, was committed to the Tower, where he remained upwards of four months. He was at length tried, acquitted, and discharged; yet did not think himself safe, as his enemies were now in the zenith of their power. He thought it high time therefore to seek for some place of retirement, where, being out of their reach, he might wear out the small remainder of his life in peace. It was with this view, November 1682, he embarked for Holland; and arriving safely at Amsterdam, after a dangerous voyage, he took a house there, proposing to live in a manner suitable to his quality. He was visited by persons of the first distinction, and treated with all the deference and respect he could desire. But being soon seized by his old distemper, the gout, it immediately flew into his stomach, and became mortal, so that he expired Jan. 22, 1683, in his 62d year. His body was transported to England, and interred with his ancestors at Winbprne; and in 1732, a noble monument, with a large inscription, was erected by Anthony earl of Shaftesbury, his great grandson.

It was perhaps lord Shaftesbury’s misfortune, that those who were angry with him, have transmitted to posterity the history of the times in which he lived, and of that government in which he had so large a share. Marchmont Needham published a severe pamphlet against him, entitled “A packet of advices and animadversions, sent from London to the men of Shaftesbury, which is of use for all his majesty’s subjects in the three kingdoms,” Lond. 1676; and much of it is transferred verbatim into the account given of him by the Oxford historian. He was also represented as having had the vanity to expect to be chosen king of Poland; and this made way for calling him count Tapsky, alluding to the tap, which had been applied upon the breaking out of the ulcer between his ribs, when he was chancellor. It was also a standing jest with the lower form of wits, to style him Shiftsbury instead of Shaftesbury, The author who relates this, tells us also, that when he was chancellor, one sir Paul Neal watered his mares with rhenish and sugar: that is, entertained his mistresses. In his female connections he was very licentious; and it is recorded, that Charles II. who would both take liberties and bear them, once said to the earl at court, in a vein of raillery and good humour, and in reference only to his amours, “I believe, Shaftesbury, thou art the wickedest fellow in my dominions:” to which, with a low bow and very grave face, the earl replied, “May it please your majesty, of a subject I believe I am;” at which the merry monarch laughed heartily.

His character in the Biog. Britannica is one continued panegyric, from which more recent and impartial writers have made many and heavy deductions, particularly Macpherson and Dalrymple. Referring to these authorities for a character which, involved as it is in the history of the times, might form a volume, we shall conclude this article with some information respecting the various attempts to produce a life of him. The earl himself had written a history of his own times, which, when he was obliged to flee to Holland, he entrusted to the care of Mr. Locke. Unfortunately for the public, when Algernon Sidney was put to death, on a charge of' treason grounded upon papers found in his closet, Mr. Locke, intimidated with the apprehension of a like prosecution, committed lord Shaftesbury’s manuscript to the flames. The professed design of the work was to display to the world the principles and motives by which his enemies had been actuated, and to give a true and impartial account of his own conduct. It began with the reformation, and traced the course of events down to the civil war, with a view of pointing out the defects of the constitution, and of stating what ought farther to be done, in order to strengthen and confirm the liberties of the people. It is understood that the earl was particularly excellent in his characters, some of which, in loose papers, are still in the possession of the family. The largest fragment now remaining is in the early part of the work, where the author has drawn the characters of the principal gentlemen who flourished in the county of Dorset, at the time in which he arrived to man’s estate. From this fragment, a curious extract, giving an account of the hon. William Hastings, of Woodlands in Dorsetshire, was published in the Connoisseur. It affords a striking example of lord Shaftesbury’s talent in characteristic composition; and Mr. Walpole, who in no other respect has spoken favourably of his lordship, has observed, that it is a curious and well-drawn portrait of our ancient English gentry.

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.

“In Israel’s court ne‘er sat an Abethdin With more discerning eyes, or hands more clean, Unbrib’cl, unsought, the wretched to redress, Swift of dispatch, and easy of access.”

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.

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 exhibited a curious specimen of sentimental grief in a long Latin epitaph on his first son, who died the day after his birth. It is now added to the late edition of his works, with a translation which appeared some years ago in the Gentleman’s Magazine, and is precisely such a translation as so ridiculous an original deserves. He afterwards, although it does not appear at what period, gave another instance of that romantic feeling which is apart from truth and nature. Mr. Fitzherbert, the father of the late lord St. Helen’s, found Cooper one morning, apparently in such violent agitation, on account of the indisposition of his second son, as to seem beyond the power of comfort. At length, however, he exclaimed “I'll write an Elegy.” Mr. Fitzherbert being satisfied, by this, of the sincerity of his emotions, slyly said, “Had you not better take a post-chaise and go and see him?”

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 1754 he appeared to more advantage as the author of “Letters on Taste,” a small volume which soon passed through three or four editions. Taste had not at this time been treated in a philosophical manner, and as the author set out with liberal professions, his readers were induced to take for granted that he had thrown much new light on the subject. He is, however, original only in the manner in which he has contrived to throw a charm over a few acknowledged truths and common-place opinions. Instead of beginning by definition, and proceeding gradually to analyze the pleasure resulting from what are generally considered as the objects of true taste, he lets loose his imagination, invites his reader into fairy-land, and delights him by excursive remarks and allegorical details, but in a style which even Johnson, who had no great opinion of Cooper, allowed to be splendid and spirited.

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.

Afterward, returning to his own country, he began to apply his fund of observations and mathematical knowledge, to correcting the system of astronomy which then prevailed. He set about collecting all the books that had been written by philosophers and astronomers, and to examine all the various hypotheses they had invented for the solution of the celestial phenomena; to try if a more symmetrical order and constitution of the parts of the world could not be discovered, and a more just and exquisite harmony in its motions established, than what the astronomers of those times so easily admitted. But of all their hypotheses, none pleased him so well as the Pythagorean, which made the sun to be the centre of the system, and supposed the earth to move both round the sun, and also round its own axis. He thought he discerned much beautiful order and proportion in this; and that all the embarrassment and perplexity, from epicycles and excentrics, which attended the Ptolemaic hypotheses, would here be entirely removed.

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:

The works with which he enriched the knowledge of botany, are: 1. “Remarks on Dioscorides,” Zurich, 1561, folio. 2. “Historia stirpium, libri v.” Strasburg, 1561 and 1563, 2 vols. folio, a posthumous work. 3. “Dispensatorium pharmacorum omnium,” Lcyden, 1627, 12mo, The purity of his morals, the politeness of his manners, and the extent of his knowledge, conciliated the esteem and the praises of all lovers of real merit.

, 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 performance and compositions of this admirable musician, says Dr. Burney, form an sera in instrumental music, particularly for the violin, and its kindred instruments, the tenor and violoncello, which he made respectable, and fixed their use and reputation, in all probability, as long as the present system of music shall continue to delight the ears of mankind. Indeed, this most excellent master had the happiness of enjoying part of his fame during mortality; for scarce a contemporary musical writer, historian, or poet, neglected to celebrate his genius and talents; and his productions have contributed longer to charm the lovers of music by the mere powers of the bow, without the assistance of the human voice, than tho.se of any composer that has yet existed. Haydn, indeed, with more varied abilities, and a much more creative genius, when instruments of all kinds are better understood, has captivated the musical world in perhaps a still higher degree; but whether the duration of his favour will be equal to that of Corelli, who reigned supreme in all concerts, and excited undiminished rapture full half a century, must be left to the determination of time, and the encreased rage of depraved appetites for novelty.

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.

Towards the close of 1780 she left Rome, with the intention of passing thfe remainder of her life at Florence, nor did she practise her art much longer, aware that youth and beauty had added charms to her performance which she no longer possessed. She died at Florence Nov. 8, 1800.

, 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.

Of the editions of the theatre of CorneiHe, consisting of nine comedies and twenty-two tragedies, the best are, that of Joly, published in 1758, lO^ols. 12mo. and that of Voltaire, 1764, 12 vols. 8vo, and, lastly, the magnificent one of Didot, 1796, in 10 vols. 4to, of which 250 copies only were printed.

, 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.

The agreeable smile, and the profusion of graces which he gave to his Madonnas, saints, and children, have been taxed with being sometimes unnatural; but still they are amiable and seducing: an easy and flowing pencil, an union and harmony of colours, and a perfect intelligence of light and shade, give an astonishing relief to all his pictures, and have been the admiration both of his con­* The birth and life, says Mr. Fu- account of him has undoubtedly been

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.”

Corregio’s exclamation upon viewing a picture by Raphael is well known. Having long been accustomed to hear the most unbounded applause bestowed on the works of that divine painter, he by degrees became less desirous than afraid of seeing any of them. One, however, heat last had occasion to see. He examined it attentively for some minutes in profound silence; and then with an air of satisfaction exclaimed, “I too am a painter.” Julio Romano, on seeing some of Corregio’s pictures at Parma, declared they were superior to any thing in painting he had yet beheld. One of these no doubt would be the famous Virgin and Child, with Mary Magdalene and St. Jerom.

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.”

“The excellency of Corregio’s manner,” says sir Joshua Reynolds, “has justly been admired by all succeeding painters. This manner is in direct opposition to what is called the dry and hard manner which preceded him. His colour, and his mode of finishing, approach nearer to perfection than those of any other painter; the gliding motion of his outline, and the sweetness with which it melts into the ground; the cleanness and transparency of his colouring, which stop at that exact medium in which the purity and perfection of taste lies, leave nothing to be wished for.”

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.”

Of Corregio’s best oil-pictures, Italy has been deprived by purchase or by spoil. Dresden possesses the celebrated “Night,” or rather “Dawn” the “Magdalen reading” and a few more of less excellence, or less authentic character. The two allegoric pictures, called “Leda and Danae,” once in the possession of queen Christina, migrated to France, and with the picture of lo, were mangled or destroyed by bigotry. A duplicate of the lo, and a “Rape of Ganymede” are at Vienna. Spain possesses “Christ praying in the Garden,” and “Mercury teaching Cupid to. read in the presence of Venus.” To the “Sposalizio of St. Catharine,” which France possessed before, the spoils of the revolution have added the “St. Jerome with the Magdalen,” the “Madonna della Scudella,” the “Descent from the Cross,” and the “Martyrdom of St. Placido,” from Parma.

, 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.