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

It does not appear that any of his poems were published during his life-time, except such as were set to music. The first collection was printed in 1640, 12mo, the second in 1642, the third (not in 1654 as Cibber asserts, but) in 1651, and a fourth in 1670. In 1772 Mr. Thomas Davies published an edition, with a few notes, and a short character, in which the writer has taken for granted some particulars for which no authority can be found. Carew’s Ccelum Britannicum, at one time erroneously attributed to Davenant, was printed with the first editions of his poems, and afterwards separately in 1651. Langbaine, and Cibber after him, say that our author placed the Lathi motto on the front, when printed, but no edition printed in his life-time is now known. The distich, however, might have been prefixed to the music of the masque. Oldys, in his ms notes on Langbaine, informs us, that “Garew’s sonnets were more in request than any poet’s of his time that is, between 1630 and 1640. They were many of them set to music by the two famous composers, Henry and William Lawes, and' other eminent masters, and sunoat. court in their masques.” It may be added, that Carew was one of the old poets whom Pope studied, and from, whom he borrowed. Dr. Percy honours him with the compliment of being an “elegant, and almost forgotten writer, whose poems deserve to be revived.” But no modern critic appears to have estimated his merit with more liberality than Mr. Head ley: his opinion, however, is here copied, not without suspicion that. his enthusiasm may be thought to have carried him too far.

, earl of Monmouth, was the eldest son of Robert, the first earl of Monmouth, who died in 1639, and whose “Memoirs,” written by himself, and containing some curious particulars of secret history of the Elizabethan period, were published from a manuscript in the possession of the late earl of Corke and Orrery, in 1759, 8vo. Henry, his son, was born in 1596, admitted a fellow commoner of Exeter college, Oxford, at the age of fifteen, and took the degree of B. A. in 1613, after which he was sent to travel into foreign countries. In 1616 he was made a knight of the bath at the creation of Charles prince of Wales. In 1625 he was known by the name of lord Lepington, his father’s title before he was created earl of Monmouth, and was noted, Wood says, as “a person well skilled in modern languages, and a general scholar.” This taste for study was his consolation when the depression of the nobility after the death of Charles I. threw many of them into retirement. He died June 13, 1661. In Chauncey’s Hertfordshire is the inscription on his monument in the church at Rickmansworth, which mentions his living forty-one years in marriage, with his countess, Martha, daughter of the lord treasurer Middlesex. He was a most laborious writer, but chiefly of translations, and, as lord Orford observes, seems to have distrusted his abilities, and to have made the fruits of his studies his amusement rather than his method of fame. Of his lordship’s publications we have, 1. “Romulus and Tarquin; or De Principe et Tyranno,” Lond. 1637, 12mo, a translation from Malvezzi, in praise of which sir John Suckling has some verses in his “Fragmenta Aurea,” and others were prefixed by Stapylton, Davenant, Carew, &c. It came to a third edition in 1648. 2. “Speech in the house of peers, Jan. 30, 1641, upon occasion of the present distractions, and of his Majesty’s removal from Whitehall,” London, 1641. 3. “Historical relations of the United Provinces, and of Flanders,” London, 1652, fol. translated from Bentivoglio. 4. “History of the Wars in Flanders,” ibid. 1654, fol. from the same author, with a portrait of the translator. 5. Cf Advertisement from Parnassus, in two Centuries: with the politic touchstone,“ibid. 1656, fol. from Boccalini. 6.” Politic Discourses, in six books,“ibid. 1657, fol. 7.” History of Venice,“ibid. 1658, fol. both from Paul Paruta, a noble Venetian. 8.” The use of Passions,“ibid. 1649 and 1671, 8vo, from the French of J. F. Senault. 9.” Man become guilty or the corruption of his nature by sin,“ibid, from the same author. 10.” The History of the late Wair of Christendom,“1641, fol. which lord Orford thinks is the same work with his translation of” Sir Francis Biondi’s History of the Civil Wars of England, between the houses of York and Lancaster.“11.” Capriata’s “History of Italy,” 1663, fol. His lordship began also to translate from the Italian “Priorato’s History of France,” but died before he could finish it. It was completed by William Brent, esq. and printed at London, 1677.

, a musical composer and poet, once of great popular reputation, was an illegitimate son of George Savile, marquis of Halifax, who had the honour of presenting the crown to William III. Carey is said to have received an annuity from a branch of that family till the day of his death, and he annexed the name of Savile to the Christian names of all the male part of his own family. At what period he was born is not known. His first lessons in music he had from one Lennert, a German, and had somje instructions also from Roseingrave and Gecniniani, but he never attained much depth in the science. The extent of Jlis abilities seerns to have been the composition of a ballad air, or at most a little cantata, to which he was just able to set a bass yet if mere popularity be the test of genius, Carey was one of the first in his time. His chief employment was teaching the boarding-schools, and among people of middling rank in private families, before tradesmen’s daughters, destined to be tradesmen’s wives, were put under the tuition of the first professors.

Though Carey had but little skill in music, he had a prolific invention, and very early in his life distinguished himself by the composition of songs, being the author both of the words and music. One of these, beginning “Of all the girls that are so smart,” and since its late revival, known by the name of “Sally in our alley,” he set to an air so very pleasant and original, as still to retain its popular character. Addison praised it for the poetry, and Genii niani for the tune. In 1715 he produced two farces, one of which, “The Contrivances,” had considerable success. In 1720 he published a small collection of “Poems;” and in 1722, a farce called “Hanging and Marriage.” In 1732 he published six “Cantatas,” written and composed by himself; and about the same time composed several songs for the “Provoked Husband” and other modern comedies. In 1729, he published, by subscription, his poems much enlarged, with the addition of one entitled “Namby Pamby,” in ridicule of Ambrose Phillips’s lines on the infant daughter of lord Carteret. Carey’s talent lay in broad, burlesque humour; and in ridicule of the bombast of modern tragedies, he produced his “Chrononhotonthologos,*' in 1734, which will always be in season, as long as extravagance and bombast are encouraged on the stage. He also wrote a farce called the” Honest Yorkshireman,“which was very successful: two interludes,” Nancy,“and 46 Thomas and Sally,” and two serious operas, “Amelia,” set to music by John Frederic Lampe, and “Teraminta,” by John Christopher Smith, Handel’s disciple, friend, and successor, in superintending the performance of oratorios. The year 1737 was rendered memorable at Coventgarden theatre by the success of the burlesque opera of the “Dragon of Wantley,” written by Carey, and set by Lampe, “after the Italian manner.” This excellent piece of humour had run twenty-two nights, when it was stopped, with all other public amusements, by the death of her majesty queen Caroline, November 20, but was resumed again on the opening of the theatres in January following, and supported as many representations as the Beggar’s Opera had done, ten years before. And if Gay’s original intention in writing his musicaldrama was to ridicule the opera, the execution of his plan was not so happy as that of Carey; in which the mock heroic, tuneful monster, recitative, splendid habits, and style of music, all conspired toremind the audience of what they had seen and heard at the lyric theatre, more effectually than the most vulgar street tunes could do; and much more innocently than the tricks and transactions of abandoned thieves and prostitutes. Lampe’s music to this farcical drama, was not only excellent fifty years ago, but is still modern and in good taste. In 1738, “Margery, or the Dragoness,” a sequel to the “Dragon of Wantley,” written with equal humour, and as well set by Lampe, came out; but had the fate of all sequels. When the novelty of a subject is faded away, and the characters have been developed, it is difficult to revive the curiosity of the public about persons and things of which opinions are already formed. The “Dragoness” appeared but few nights, and was never revived.

In 1799, he was appointed chaplain of lord Elgin’s embassy to Constantinople, an office which afforded him an opportunity of inspecting the libraries of that city, and afterwards of travelling through Asia Minor, and through countries generally unknown to Europeans; and before his return he made a tour through the principal parts of Italy, and through Tyrol and part of Germany, and landed in England in Sept. 1801. After his return he was presented by the bishop of Carlisle to the living of Newcastleupon-Tyne, which he did not long enjoy. His health had probably been injured by the fatigues of his travels, and he laboured for a considerable time under a painful and distressing malady, which proved fatal April 12, 1804. He was known to the learned world by, 1. “Maured Allatafet Jemaleddini Filii Togri-^ardii, seu rerum Ægyptiacarum Annales, ab anno Christi 971 usque ad annum 1453. E codice ms Bibliothecae Acad. Cantab.” Arab, et Lat. 4to, 1792, a work which unquestionably evinced a laudable desire in Mr. Carlyle to revive the study of Arabic literature, but in itself contains little information, and throws very little light on a period darkened by ignorance and superstition. 2. “Specimens of Arabic poetry, from the earliest time to the extinction of the Khalifs; with some account of the authors,” 4to. In this too the commendable industry of the author is perhaps more apparent than his success, in persuading his readers to an equal admiration of Arabic poetry. The work, however, is amusing, the accounts of the authors constitute a very useful part, and the translator’s skill in selection has been allowed by those who are acquainted with the original. Since his death has been published, “Poems, suggested chiefly by scenes in Asia-Minor, Syria, and Greece; with prefaces extracted from the author’s journal, embellished with two views of the source of the Scamander, and the aqueduct over the Simois,” 1805, 4to. This elegant volume will form a lasting monument of the author’s learning and taste. The poems with which the collection opens are particularly attractive. They relate to striking scenes in the East, and are prefaced by extracts from his journal, which, it has been justly remarked, if further improved by the author’s hand, might have formed such a volume of travels as is rarely seen. The premature death of the author is indeed to be regretted on many accounts. He was, among other important undertakings, engaged in a correct edition of the Arabic Bible, at the request of a society of eminent persons, among whom the present bishop of Durham is one of the most active; and he had likewise projected a complete edition of the New Testament in Greek, which was to contain the various readings collected by Mill, Bengelius, Wetstein, Griesbach, &c. and also those of more than thirty Greek manuscripts, which he had collected during his travels, together with a new and accurate collation of the Syriac and other ancient versions. The loss of such a man at any age will be felt; but in the prime of life is deeply to be regretted.

, an eminent civilian of the sixteenth century, was of a Glamorganshire family, and educated at Oxford. Here he chiefly studied the civil law, of which he took the degree of doctor in June 1524, being about that time principal of Greek-hall in St. Edward’s parish. He was admitted at Doctors’ Commons Nov. 13, 1625, and his talents being known at court, he was sent abroad on public affairs, and received the honour of knighthood from the emperor Charles V. In 1530 he was joined in a commission with archbishop Cranmer and others, the purpose of which was to argue the matter of king Henry VIII.'s memorable divorce at the courts of France, Italy, and Germany. Sir Edward Carne afterwards remained at Rome as “a sort of standing agent for Henry, and appears likewise to have continued there during the reign of Edward VI. and had no concern in the reformation. During queen Mary’s reign, he was her agent in the same situation; but on the accession of Elizabeth, the pope ordered him to relinquish that employment. When he was recalled by the queen, with offers of preferment, he thought proper to remain at Rome, and was employed by the pope as director of the English hospital in that city. He was so far a patriot as to inform Elizabeth of the machinations of the catholic powers against her, but he continued inflexible in his attachment to popery, and died in that communion Jan. 18, 1561. Several of his letters relating to the divorce are in Burnet’s” History of the Reformation." Wood remarks that sir Edward Carne was accounted the last ambassador of the kings of England to the pope, until Roger earl of Castlemain was sent to him by king James II.

It was the doctrine of the new academy, that the senses, the understanding, and the imagination, frequently deceive us, and therefore cannot be infallible judges of truth; but that, from the impressions which we perceive to be produced on the mind, by means of the senses, we infer appearances of truth, or probabilities. These impressions Carneades called phantasies, or images. He maintained, that they do not always correspond to the real nature of things, and that there is no infallible method of determining when they are true or false, and consequently that they afford no certain criterion of truth. Nevertheless, with respect to the conduct of life, and the pursuit of happiness, Carneades held, that probable appearances are a sufficient guide, because it is unreasonable not to allow some degree of credit to those witnesses who commonly give a true report. Probabilities he divided into three classes; simple, uncontradicted, and confirmed by accurate examination. The lowest degree of probability takes place, where the mind, in -the casual occurrence of any single image, perceives in it nothing contrary to truth and nature; the second degree of probability arises, when contemplating any object in connection with all the circumstances associated with it, we discover no appearance of inconsistency, or incongruity, to lead us to suspect that our senses have given a false report; as, when we conclude, from comparing the image of any individual man with our remembrance of that man, that he is the person we supposed him to be. The highest degree of probability is produced, when, after an accurate examination of every circumstance which might be supposed to create uncertainty, we are able to discover no fallacy in the report of our senses. The judgments arising from this operation of the mind are, according to the doctrine of the new academy, not science, but opinion, which is all the knowledge that the human mind is capable of attaining. Carneades, as Cicero has related at large, strenuously opposed the doctrine of the Stoics concerning the gods, and was likewise desirous of refuting their doctrine concerning fate. On this subject, he assumed on the ground of experience, the existence of a self-determining power in man, and hence inferred that all things did not happen, as the stoics maintained, in a necessary series of causes and effects, and consequently, that it is impossible for the gods to predict events dependent on the will of man. As" the foundation of morals, he taught, that the ultimate end of life is the enjoyment of those things, towards which we are directed by the principles of nature. Such, according to Brucker, is the general idea which the ancients have left us concerning the doctrine of Carneades: but after all, it must be owned, that his real tenets are not certainly known. Even his immediate successor, Clitomachus, confessed that he was never able to discover them.

, LL. D. many years an eminent schoolmaster at Hertford, and known to the literary world as the translator of Lucian, was born at Muggleswick, in the county of Durham, in 1722. His father was a fanner, and had a small estate of his own, which the doctor possessed at his death. He was first educated at the village school, and privately by the rev. Daniel Watson, who was then a young man, and curate of that place. Afterwards he was sent to St. Paul’s school, where he continued longer than boys usually do, as his father could not afford to send him to either of the universities. He is supposed to have been once a candidate for the mastership of St. Paul’s, but the want of a degree was fatal to his application. When still young, however, he became usher to Dr. Hurst, who was master of the grammar-school at Hertford, and succeeded him in that situation, which he held for many years with the highest credit. He was honoured with the degree o/ LL. D. from the Marischal college, Aberdeen, by the influence of Dr. Beattie. He died June 6, 1807, after experiencing a gradual decay for nearly a year before, but on the day of his death was, as he supposed, in much better health than usual. He was buried in St. John’s church, Hertford, with an epitaph in Latin, written by himself, in which he seems to reflect a little on time lost, “studits inanibus.-” This may probably allude to his “Translation of Lucian,” on which he employed many of his leisure hours, and which was published in 5 vols. 8vo. from 1773 to 1798. It procured him considerable fame, which, however, lias been diminished, in the opinion of many, since the appearance of Dr. Francklin’s more classical translation. Dr. Carr’s other publications were trifles, on which himself perhaps set no very high value “Vol. III. of Tristram Shandy,” in imitation of Sterne, but soon detected, 1760 “Filial Piety,” a mock heroic, 1763, fol ts Extract of a Private Letter to a Critic,“1764, fol. and” Eponi-na, a Dramatic Essay, addressed to the ladies," 1765.

, a political character of considerable fame in Scotland, was the descendant of an ancient family, and born in 1649 at Cathcart in Glasgow. He was educated in divinity and philosophy at Edinburgh and Utrecht, to which his father sent him that he might avoid the political contests which disturbed the reign of Charles II. but he had a zeal which prompted him to interfere in what regarded his country, although removed from it, and he must have given some proofs of a talent for political affairs at a very early period. When England was alarmed about the popish succession, Carstares was introduced to the pensionary Fagel, and afterwards to the prince of Orange, and entrusted with his designs relating to British affairs. During his residence in Holland, his principles both in religion and politics, were strongly confirmed; and upon his return to his native country he entered with zeal into the counsels and schemes of those noblemen and gentlemen who opposed the tyrannical measures of government; and although about this time he took orders in the Scotch church, his mind seemed to have acquired such a decided bias towards towards politics, that he determined to revisit Holland. On his way thither he passed through London, and was employed by Argyle, and the other Scots patriots, in treating with the English, who were for excluding the duke of York from succession to the crown. Towards the close of 1682, he held various conferences with the heads of that party, which terminated in his being privy to what has been called the “Rye-house plot.” Accordingly, he was committed to close custody in the Gate-house, Westminster. After several examinations before the privy council, he was sent for trial to Scotland; and as he refused to give any information respecting the authors of the exclusion scheme, he was put to the torture, which he endured with invincible firmness, but yielded to milder methods of a more insidious nature, and when a pardon was proposed, with an assurance that no advantage should be taken of his answers as evidence against any person, he consented to answer their interrogatories. The privy-council immediately caused to be printed a paper, entitled, “Mr. Carstares’s Confession,” which contained, as he said, a false and mutilated account of the whole transaction; and in direct violation of their promise, they produced this evidence in open court against one of his most intimate friends. This treachery and its conquences very deeply affected him; but as soon as he was cleared, he obtained permission to retire to Holland, towards the close of 1684, or the beginning of 1685, where he was kindly received by the prince of Orange, who appointed him one of his chaplains, caused him to be elected minister of the English protestant congregation at Leyden; and when the prince determined to transport an army to England, Carstares accompanied him as his chaplain, and continued about his person till the settlement of the crown. During the whole of this reign he was the chief agent between the church of Scotland and the court, and contributed by his influence with the king to the establishment of presbytery in Scotland, to which his majesty was disinclined, and to a degree of coalescence or accommodation on the part of the presbyterian clergy with the episcopalians. When an act was passed in 1693, by the Scots parliament, obliging all officers, civil and ecclesiastical, to take an oath of allegiance, and also to sign an assurance (as it was called) declaring William to be king dejure, as well as de facto, the ministers refused to sign the declaration, and appealed to the privy council, who recommended to the king to enforce the obligation. Accordingly, measures were adopted for this purpose; and the body of the clergy applied to Carstares, requesting his interference in their favour. The king persisted in his resolution; orders were renewed in peremptory terms, and dispatches were actually delivered to the messenger to be forwarded next morning. In these critical circumstances Carstares hastened to the messenger at night, demanded the dispatches, which had been delivered to him in the king’s name, and instantly repaired to Kensington, where he found his majesty gone to bed. Having obtained admission into his chamber, he gently waked him, fell on his knees, and asked pardon for the intrusion, and the daring act of disobedience of which he had been guilty. The king at first expressed his displeasure; but when Carstares further stated the case, his majesty caused the dispatches to be thrown into the fire, and directed him to send such instructions to the royal commissioners of the general assembly as he thought most conducive to the public good. In consequence of this seasonable interposition, the oath and assurance were dispensed with on the part of the clergy. By this timely service Carstares acquired the confidence of the presbyterian party to such a degree, and so successfully cultivated the friendship of the earl of Portland, and other men of influence about the court, that he was regarded in the management of Scotch affairs, as a kind of viceroy for Scotland, though he possessed no public character. All applications passed through his hands, all employments, honours, and offices of state, were left to his disposal; and without public responsibility, he engrossed the secret direction of public affairs. Few Scotchmen obtained access to the king, unless through his intervention; and in his correspondence with every department, says a late historian, it is curious to remark how the haughty nobility condescended to stoop and truckle to a presbyterianx clergyman, whom their predecessors in office had tortured and deceived. His moderation, secrecy, and a prudence apparently disinterested, recommended him to king William, who once said of him, in the presence of several of his courtiers, “that he had long known Mr. Carstares; that he knew him well, and knew him to be an honest man” He is represented on the other hand, as a cunning, subtle, insinuating priest, whose dissimulation was impenetrable; an useful friend when sincere; but, from an air of smiling sincerity, a dangerous enemy.

In 1712 be made the tour of Europe with a nobleman, and on his return entered into orders, and was appointed render of the Abbey-church at Bath; where he preached a sermon on Jan. 30, 171 J-, in which he took occasion to vindicate Charles I. from aspersions cast upon his memory with regard to the Irish rebellion. This drew Mr. Carte into a controversy with Mr. (afterwards the celebrated Dr.) Chandler, and gave rise to our historian’s first publication, entitled “The Irish Massacre sot in a clear light,” &c. which is inserted in lord Sotners’s Tracts. ‘ Upon the accession of George I. Mr. Carte’s principles not permitting him to take the oaths to the new government, he assumed a lay-habit, and at one time assisted the celebrated Jeremiah Collier, who preached to a non’} tiring congregation in a house in Broad-street, London, and on a Sunday he used to put on his gown and cassock, and perform divine service in his own family. What particular concern he had in the rebellion of 1715 does not appear; but that he had some degree of guilt in this respect, or, at least, that he was strongly suspected of it by administration, is evident, from the king’s troops having orders to discover and apprehend him. He had the good fortune to elude their search, by concealing himself at Coleshili, Warwickshire, in the house of Mr. Badger, then curate of that town. Mr. Carte himself officiated for a time as curate of the same place; after which, he was some time secretary to bishop Atterbury. This connexion threw him into fresh difficulties: so deeply was he thought to he engaged in the conspiracy ascribed to that eminent prelate, that a charge of high treason was brought against him; and a proclamation was issued, Aug. 13, 1722, offering a reward of 1000l. for seizing his person. He was again successful in making his escape, and fled into France, where he resided several years, under the borrowed name of Philips. Whilst Mr. Carte continued in that country, he was introduced to the principal men of learning and family, and gained access to the most eminent libraries, public and private, by which means he was enabled to collect large materials for illustrating an English edition of Thuanus. The collection was in such forwardness in 1724, that he consulted Dr. Mead r at that time the great patron of literary undertakings, on the mode of publication. The doctor, who perceived that the plan might he rendered more extensively useful, obtained Mr. Carte’s materials at a very considerable price, and engaged Mr. Buckley in the noble edition completed in 17^3, in 7 vols. fol. Mr. Carte would probably himself have been the principal editor, if he had not been an exile at the time the undertaking commenced, but we find that the Latin address to Dr. Mead, prefixed to that work, and dated from the Inner-temple, Jan. 1733, is signed Thomas Carte. Whilst this grand work was carrying on, queen Caroline, whose regard to men of letters is well known, received such favourable impressions of Mr. Carte, that she obtained permission for his returning to England in security; which he did some time between the years 1728 and 1730. He had not long been restored to his own country before he engaged in one of the most important of his works, “The history of the life of James duke of Ormonde, from his birth, in 1610, to his death, in 1688,” 3 vols. fol. The third volume, which was published first, came out in 1735, and the first and second volumes in 1736. From a letter of Mr. Carte’s to Dr. Swift, dated Aug. 11, 1736, it appears, that in writing the life of the duke of Ormonde, he had availed himself of some instructions which he had derived from the dean . In the same letter he mentions his design of composing a general history of England and finds great fault, not only with Rapin, but with Ilymer’s Fcedera; but his accusations of that noble collection are in several respects erroneous and groundless.

, an English lady of profound learning and genius, was the eldest daughter of the rev. Dr. Nicholas Carter, a clergyman in Kent, who, with other preferment, held the cure of the chapel of Deal, where this daughter was born, Dec. 16, 1717, and educated by her father. At first she discovered such a slowness of faculties, as to make him despair of her progress ia intellectual attainment, even with the aid of the greatest industry, and the most ardent desire, which characterized her efforts. She herself, however, though mortified and sorrowful at her own difficulties, resolved to persevere, and her perseverance was crowned with unexampled success. She early became mistress of Latin, Greek, French, German, and afterwards understood Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Hebrew, and last of all acquired something of Arabic. Before she was seventeen years of age, many of her poetical attempts had appeared, particularly in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1734, with the signature of Eliza. This extraordinary display of genius and acquirements procured her immediate celebrity, and the learned flocked about her with admiration. In 1738, when she was about twenty, Cave, the proprietor of the Gentleman’s Magazine, published some of her poems in a quarto pamphlet, now little known, as it was published without her name. It is probable she did not think many of these worthy of her; as in 1762, when she published a small collection with her name, she admitted only two from the former publication, the “Lines on her birth-day,” and the “Ode of Anacreon.”

In 1739, she translated “The Critique of Crousaz on Pope’s Essay on Man;” and in the same year gave a translation of “Algarotti’s Explanation of Newton’s Philosophy for the use of the Ladies.” These publications extended her acquaintance among the literati of her own country and her fame reached the continent, where Baratier bestowed high praises on her talents and genius. In 1741 she formed an intimacy with Miss Catherine Talbot, niece to the lord chancellor Talbot, and a young lady of considerable genius and most amiable disposition. This was an important event of Miss Carter’s life on many accounts. The intimacy of their friendship, the importance of their correspondence, and the exalted piety of both, made it the main ingredient of their mutual happiness: and in addition to this, it procured a friendship with Dr. Seeker, then bishop of Oxford, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, with whom Miss Talbot resided, which extended her knowledge of the world, cherished her profound learning, and exercised the piety of her thoughts. To this event is to be traced her undertaking and completing the work by which her fame has been most known abroad, and will longest be remembered by scholars at home, her “Translation of Epictetus.” It was not, however, till the beginning of 1749, that this translation was commenced. It was then sent up in sheets, as finished, to Miss Talbot, who earnestly pressed its continuance, which was further urged by bishop Seeker, to whom her friend shewed it. Her biographer has given a minute account of its progress till its conclusion in December 1752. She then by the bishop’s desire, added notes and an introduction, both admirably executed; and the work was sent to press in June 1757, and finished in April 1758, in an elegant quarto volume. At the entreaty of her friends, she permitted it to published by subscription (at the price of \l. 1s.) and by their liberality, it produced her a clear 1000l.

, another unfortunate author in our own country, was a native of America. His grandfather, William Joseph Carver, of Wigan in Lancashire, a captain in king William’s army, was rewarded for his services in Ireland with the government of Connecticut in New England, in which province our author was born in. 1732, and where his father, a justice of the peace, died in 1747. Soon after, being designed for the study of physic, he was placed with a practitioner at Elizabeth-town; but this not suiting his enterprising spirit, he purchased, in. 1750, an ensigncy in the Connecticut regiment, and behaved so well as to obtain the command of a company. Nothing more is known of him till 1757, when being in general Webb’s army, he fortunately escaped the dreadful massacre at Fort William Henry, an instance of Indian ferocity and French perfidy which he has pathetically described in his “Travels.” In the five succeeding campaigns he served also, first as lieutenant and afterwards as captain of provincials, with a high reputation, not only for bravery, but also for piety and morals. On the conclusion of the peace in 1763, captain Carver, with a view to make that vast acquisition of territory gained by Great Britain advantageous to her, determined to explore the most unknown parts of North America, particularly the vast continent which extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. His failure in this is now less to be regretted, as captain Cook has since shewn the impracticability of a north-west passage in those parts. Captain Carver, however, penetrated farther north-westward than any other European, except father Hennepin in 1680, viz. to the river St. Francis. The utmost extent of his travels to the west was towards the head of the river St. Pierre, in the country of the Naudowessies of the plains, whose language he learned, and among whom he wintered in 1766, and resided seven months. In 1769 he came over to England, in hopes of a reimbursement from government for the sums he had expended in their service; but in this he was disappointed, and reduced to great difficulties. In 1778, he published “Travels through the interior parts of North America in the years 1766, 1767, and 1768,” 8vo, a work considered as peculiarly interesting. In the following year, he published also “A Treatise on the Culture of the Tobacco Plant.” Both these ought unquestionably to have procured him employment as a man of talents, but unfortunately no notice was taken of him. About this time he was induced to lend his name to a compilation entitled “The New Universal Traveller,” published in weekly numbers, but this afforded a scanty supply. Through the winter of 1779, he preserved his existence by acting as a clerk in a lottery office until Jan. 31, 1780, a putrid fever supervening a long-continued dysentery, brought on by mere want, put an end to the life of a man whose public services and character deserved a better fate. We know not, however, that he perished in vain. His case attracted the notice of Dr. Lettsom, who, in some excellent letters in the Gentleman’s Magazine, recommended it to the public attention with such effect, that while a temporary provision was made for captain Carver’s widow and children, by the publication. of a new edition of his “Travels,” a salutary impression was made on the public mind, to which, strengthened by other instances, we now owe that excellent institution, “The Literary Fund.”

, eldest son of the preceding, was born, as is supposed, at Burford in Oxfordshire, about 1610. He received his academical learning at Trinity college in Dublin, and St. John’s college in Cambridge* Before he came to be twenty years of age, he was muster of an ample fortune, which descended to him by the gift of a grandfather, without passing through his father and mother, who were then alive. Shortly after that, and before he was of age, he went into the Low Countries, with a resolution of procuring a command; but was diverted from it by the complete inactivity of that summer. On his return to England, he entered upon a very strict course of study. We are informed by lord Clarendon, that his house being within a little more than ten miles of Oxford, he contracted familiarity and friendship with the most polite and accurate men of that university, who found such an immenseness of wit, and such a solidity of judgment in him, so infinite a fancy, bound in by most exact reasoning, such a vast knowledge, that he was not ignorant in any thing, yet. such an excessive humility, as if he had known nothing, that they frequently resorted, and dwelt with him, as in a college situated in a purer air; so that his house was a university in a less volume, whither they came, not so much for repose, as study; and to examine and refute those grosser propositions which laziness and consent made current in vulgar conversation. Before he was twenty-three years of age, he had read over all the Greek and Latin fathers, and was indefatigable in looking over all books, which with great expence he caused to be transmitted to him from all parts. About the time of his father’s death, in 1633, he was made one of the gentlemen of the privy-chamber to Charles I. In 1639 he was in the expedition against the Scots, and afterwards went a volunteer with the earl of Essex. He was chosen, in 1640, a member of the house of commons for Newport in the isle of Wight, in the parliament which began at Westminster April 13, the same year. The debates being there managed with all imaginable gravity and sobriety, he contracted such a reverence for parliaments, that he thought it really impossible they could ever procjiice mischief or inconvenience to the kingdom, or that the kingdom could be tolerably happy in the intermission of them. From the unhappy and unseasonable dissolution of that parliament, he probably harboured some jealousy and prejudice to the court, towards which he was not before immoderately inclined. He was chosen again for the same place in that parliament which began the 3d of November following;, and in the beginning of it declared himself very sharply and severely against those exorbitances of the court, which Vo*. Viij, Z had been most grievous to the state. He was so rigid an observer of established laws and rules, that he could not endure a breach or deviation from them; and thought no mischief so intolerable, as the presumption of ministers of state to break positive rules for reasons of state, or judges to transgress known laws upon the plea of conveniency or necessity. This made him so severe against the earl of Strafford and the lord Finch, contrary to his natural gentleness and temper. He likewise concurred in the first bill to take away the votes of bishops in the house of lords. This gave occasion to some to believe that he was no friend to the church, and the established government of it; it also caused many in the house of commons to imagine and hope that he might be brought to a further compliance with their designs. Indeed the great opinion he had of the uprightness and integrity of those persons who appeared most active against the court, kept him longer from suspecting any design against the peace of the kingdom; and though he differed from them commonly in conclusions, he believed their purposes were honest. When better informed what was law, and discerning in them a desire to controul that law by a vote of one or both houses, no man more opposed those attempts, and gave the adverse party more trouble, by reason and argumentation. About six months after passing the above-mentioned bill for taking away the bishops’ votes, when the same argument came again into debate, he changed his opinion, and gave the house all the opposition he could, insomuch that he was by degrees looked upon as an advocate for the court; to which he contributed so little, that he declined those addresses, and even those invitations which he was obliged almost by civility to entertain. He was so jealous of the least imagination of his inclining to preferment, that he affected even a moroseness to the court and to the courtiers, and left nothing undone which might prevent and divert the king’s or queen’s favour towards him, but the deserving it. When the king sent for him once or twice to speak to him, and to give him thanks for his excellent comportment in those councils which his majesty termed doing him service, his answers were more negligent, and Jess satisfactory, than might be expected; as if he cared only that his actions should be just, not that they should be acceptable: and he took more pains, and more forced his nature to actions unagreeable and unpleasant to it, that he might not be thought to incline to the court, than most men have done to procure an office there: not that he was in truth averse from receiving public employment, for he had a great devotion to the king’s person* and had before used some small endeavour to be recommended to him for a foreign negotiation, and had once a desire to be sent ambassador into France; but he abhorred an imagination or doubt should sink into the thoughts of any man, that in the discharge of his trust and duty in parliament he had any bias to the court; or that the king himself should apprehend that he looked for a reward for being honest. For this reason, when he heard it first whispered, that the king had a purpose to make him a privy-counsellor, for which there was in the beginning no other ground but because he was known to be well qualified, he resolved to decline it, and at last suffered himself to be over-ruled by the advice and persuasion of his friends to submit to it. Afterwards, when he found that the king intended to make him secretary of state, he was positive to refuse it, declaring to his friends that he was most unfit for it, and that he must either do that which would be great disquiet to his own nature, or leave that undone which was most necessary to be done by one that was honoured with that place; for the most just and honest men did, every day, that which he could not give himself leave to do. He was so exact and strict an observer of justice and truth, that he believed those necessary condescensions and applications to the weakness of other men, and those arts and insinuations which are necessary for discoveries and prevention of ill, would be in him a declension from his own rules of life, though he acknowledged them fit, and absolutely necessary to be practised in those employments. However, he was at last prevailed upon to submit to the king’s command, and became his secretary: but two things he could never bring himself to whilst he continued in that office (which was to his death), for which he was contented to be reproached, as for omissions in a most necessary part of his place. The one, employing of spies, or giving any countenance or entertainment to them; not such emissaries, as with danger would venture to view the enemy’s camp, and bring intelligence of their number* or quartering, or any particulars that such an observation can comprehend; but those who, by communication of guilt, or dissimulation of manners, wind themselves into such trusts and secrets, as enable them to make discoveries. The other, the liberty of opening letters, upon a suspicion that they might contain matter of dangerous consequence. For the first, he would say such instruments must be void of all ingenuity and common honesty, before they could be of use and afterwards they could never be fit to be credited and that no single preservation could be worth so general a wound and corruption of human society, as the cherishing such persons would carry with it. The last he thought such a violation of the law of nature, that no qualification by office could justify him in the trespass; and though he was convinced by the necessity and iniquity of the time, that those advantages of information were not to be declined, and were necessarily to be practised, he found means to put it off from himself, whilst he confessed he needed excuse and pardon for the omission. In all other particulars he filled his place with great sufficiency, being well versed in languages, and with the utmost integrity, being above corruption of any kind.

Lord Orford, in his “Royal and Noble Authors,” is the only writer of any credit that has ventured to attack the character of lord Falkland, and that with as much confidence as if he had not only witnessed his actions, but had known his motives. The opinion of lord Orford, however, cannot be expected to weigh much against that of Clarendon, and almost every writer who lived in those times. Lord Falkland’s failing appears to have been timidity and irresolution; he loved both his country and his king he probably saw the errors of both, and hovered between fluctuating principles in an age when no principle was settled, and when his honesty made him unserviceable to his friends, and the dupe of his enemies.

, probably a native of Sussex, was of the Roman catholic persuasion, being secretary to queen Mary, the wife of James II. and one who followed the fortunes of his abdicating master; who rewarded him first with knighthood, and then with the honorary titles of earl Caryl and baron Dartford. How long he continued in that service is not known: but he was in England in the reign of queen Anne, and was the intimate friend of Pope, to whom he recommended the subject of the “Rape of the Lock,” and who at its publication addressed it to him. From some of his letters in the last edition of Pope’s Works, he appears to have been living in 1717; but he was not the intimate friend of Pope’s unfortunate lady, as asserted in the last edition of this Dictionary. It is plain from one of his letters, dated July 1717, that he had no knowledge of her, and asks Pope “who was the unfortunate lady you address a copy of verses to?” to which Pope does not appear to have returned any answer.

, author of the well-known “Commentary on Job,” and an eminent nonconformist divine, was born in London in 1602; He was a moderate independent, and Wood mentions him as a noted disputant. He was some time a commoner at Exeter college in Oxford, and preached several years with applause before the hon. society of Lincoln’s-inn. In 1653 he was appointed one of the triers for the approbation of ministers, and was sent by the parliament to attend Charles I. at Holmbyhouse: he was also one of the commissioners in the treaty of the Isle of Wight. He and Dr. Owen were by order of parliament sent in 1650, to attend on Cromwell in Scotland, and to officiate as ministers. Soon after his ejectment in 1662, he gathered a congregation in the neighbourhood of St. Magnus, by London-bridge, to which he preached as the times would permit, until his death, Feb. 7, 1673. He was a man of parts, learning, and of indefatigable industry. He has left behind him a considerable number of sermons and pious tracts, but his principal work is his “Commentary on Job,” first printed in 12 vols. 4to, and afterwards in two largp folios. Of late years it has risen very considerably in price, which we can remember to have been once that of waste-paper. The late Dr. Lyndford Caryl, master of Jesus college, Cambridge, was great grand-nephew to this Mr. Caryl.

Casaubon is to be ranked amongst those learned men who, in the beginning of the last century, were very solicitous to have an union formed between the popish and protestant religions. This is expressly asserted by Burigny, in his life of Grotius. According to that biographer, Casaubon, who wished to see all Christians united in one faith, ardently desired a re-union of the protestants with the Roman catholics, and would have set about it, had he lived longer in France. He greatly respected the opinions of the ancient church, and was persuaded that its sentiments were more sound than those of the ministers of, Charentou. Grotius and he had imparted their sentiments to each other before the voyage to England, which we are to mention, and Arminius had a project of the same kind, which he communicated to Casaubon, by whom it was approved. In the year 1610 two things happened that afflicted Casaubou extremely; one was the murder of king Henry IV. which deprived him of all hopes of keeping his place; the other, his eldest son’s embracing popery. This made him resolve to come over into England, where he had often been invited by king James I.; and having obtained leave of absence from the queen-regent of France, he arrived in England October 1610,along with sir Henry Wotton, ambassador-extraordinary from king James I. and was received with the utmost civility, by most persons of learning and distinction, although he complains of being ill used by the rabble in the streets. He waited upon the king, who took great pleasure in discoursing with him, and even did him the honour of admitting him several times to eat at his own table. His majesty likewise made him a present of a hundred and fifty pounds, to enable him to visit the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. On the Christmas day after he arrived in England, he received the communion in the king’s chapel, though he did not understand the language. In his diary he says, that he had carefully considered the office for the sacrament the day before, and preferred it and the manner of receiving to that of other churches. The 3d ofJanuary, 1611, he was naturalized, and the 19th of the same month, the king granted him a pension of three hundred pounds; as also two prebends, one at Canterbury, and the other at Westminster. He likewise wrote to the queen regent of Franc*-, to desire Casaubon might stay longer in England than she had at first allowed him. But Casaubon did not long enjoy these great advantages, as a painful distemper in the bladder proved fatal July 1, 1614, in the 55th year of his age. He was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory, with a Latin epitaph in a high style of panegyric. Of his twenty children, John, the eldest, turned Roman catholic, as has been mentioned above. Another, named Augustin, became a capuchin, at Calais, where he was poisoned, with eleven oihers of the same order. Mr. Dupin relates, upon the authority of Mr. Cotelier, that before he took the vow of capuchiu, /he went to ask his father’s blessing, which the father readily granted him; adding, “My son, I do not condemn thee; nor do thou condemn me; we shall both appear before the tribunal of Jesus Christ.” What became of the rest of his children (except Meric, mentioned in the next article), is not known. In 1612, he had a son born in England, to which the king and the archbishop of Canterbury were godfathers, and sir George Gary’s lady, godmother. This great man received the highest encomiums from persons of learning in his time, which he amply deserved by his extensive knowledge, modesty, sincerity, and probity.

, son of the preceding, was born at Geneva, August 14, 1599, and had the name of Meric from Meric de Vicq, a great friend and benefactor to his father. His first education he received at Sedan, but coming to England with his father, in the year 1610, he was instructed by a private master till 1614, when he was sent to Christ Church, Oxford; and being put there under a most careful tutor, Dr. Edward Meetkirk (afterwards Regius Hebrew professor), was soon after elected a student of that house. He took the degree of bachelor of arts, May 8, 1618, and that of master, June 14, 1621, being even then eminent for his extensive learning; and the same year, though he was but two and twenty, he published a book in defence of his father, against the calumnies of certain Roman catholics, entitled “Pietas contra maledicos, &c.” Loud. 1621, 8vo. This book made him known to king James I. who ever after entertained a good opinion of him; and also brought him into reputation abroad, especially in France, whither he was invited with offers of promotion, when his godfather, Meric de Vicq, was keeper of the great seal of that kingdom. Three years after, he published another vindication of his father, written by the command of king James I. and entitled, “Vindicatio Patris, &c.” 1624, 4to. About that time he was collated by Dr. Lancelot Andrews, bishop of Winchester, to the rectory of Bledon in Somersetshire; and June 1628, took the degree of bachelor of divinity. He had now formed the design of continuing his father’s “Exercitations against Baronius’s Annals,” but was diverted by some accident. At length, when he came to maturity of years for such a work, and had acquainted archbishop Laud, his great friend and patron, with his design, who was very ready to place him conveniently in Oxford or London, according to his desire, that he might be furnished with books necessary for such a purpose, the rebellion broke out in England. Having now no fixed habitation, he was forced to sell a good part of his books; and, after about twenty years’ sufferings, became so infirm, that he could not expect to live many years, and was obliged to relinquish his design. Before this, however, in June 1628, he was made prebendary of Canterbury, through the interest of bishop Laud; and when that prelate was promoted to the archbishopric of Canterbury, he collated him, in Oct. 1634, to the vicarage of Minster, in the Isle of Thanet; and in the same month, he was inducted into the vicarage of Monckton, in that island. In August 1636, he was created doctor in divinity, by order of king Charles I. who was entertained at the same time, with his queen, by the university of Oxford. About the year 1644, during the heat of the civil wars, he was deprived of his preferments, abused, fined, and imprisoned. In 1649, one Mr. Greaves, of Gray’s inn, an intimate acquaintance of his, brought him a message from Oliver Cromwell, then lieutenant-general of the parliament forces, desiring him to come to Whitehall, on purpose to confer with him about matters of moment; but his wife being lately dead, and not, as he said, buried, he desired to be excused. Greaves came again afterwards, and Dr. Casaubon being somewhat alarmed, desired him to tell him the meaning of the matter; but Greaves refusing, went away the second time. At length he returned again, and told him, that the lieutenant-general intended his good and advancement; and his particular errand was, that he would make use of his pen to write the history of the late war; desiring withal, that nothing but matters of fact should be impartially set down. The doctor answered, that he desired his humble service and hearty thanks should be returned for the great honour done unto him; but that he was uncapable in several respects for such an employment, and could not so impartially engage in it, as to avoid such reflections as would be ungrateful, if not injurious, to his lordship. Notwithstanding this answer, Cromwell seemed so sensible of his worth, that he acknowledged a great respect for him; and, as a testimony of it, ordered, that upon the first demand there should be delivered to him three or four hundred pounds, by a bookseller in London, whose name was Cromwell, whenever his occasions should require, without acknowledging, at the receipt of it, who was his benefactor. But this ofter he rejected, although almost in want. At the same time, it was proposed by Mr. Greaves, who belonged to the library at St. James’s, that if our author would gratify him in the foregoing request, Cromwell would restore to him all his father’s books, which were then in the royal library, having been purchased by king James; and withal give him a patent for three hundred pounds a year, to be paid to the family as long as the youngest sou of Dr. Casaubon should live, but this also was refused. Not long after, it was intimated to him, by the ambassador of Christiana, queen of Sweden, that the queen wished him to come over, and take upon him the government of one, or inspection of all her universities; and, as an encouragement, she proposed not only an honourable salary for himself, but offered to settle three hundred pounds a year upon his eldest son during life: but this also he waved, being fully determined to spend the remainder of his days in England. At the restoration of king Charles II. he recovered his preferments; namely, his prebend of Canterbury in July 1660, and his vicarages of Monckton and Minster the same year: but, two years after, he exchanged this last for the rectory of Ickham, near Canterbury, to which he was admitted Oct. 4, 1662. He had a design, in the latter part of his days, of writing his own life; and would often confess, that he thought himself obliged to do it, out of gratitude to the Divine Providence, which had preserved and delivered him from more hazardous occurrences than ever any man (as he thought) besides himself had encountered with; particularly in his escape from a fire in the night-time, which happened in the house where he lived, at Geneva, while he was a boy: in his recovery from a sickness at Christ Church, in Oxford, when he was given over for dead, by a chemical preparation administered to him by a young physician: in his wonderful preservation from drowning, when overset in a boat on the Thames near London, the two watermen being drowned, and himself buoyed up by his priest’s coat: and in his bearing several abuses, fines, imprisonments, &c. laid upon him by the republicans in the time of his sequestration: but this he did not execute. He died July 14, 1671, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was buried in the south part of the first south cross aile of Canterbury cathedral. Over his grave was soon after erected a handsome monument with an inscription. He left by will a great number of manuscripts to the university of Oxford. His character is thus represented. He was a general scholar, but not of particular excellence, unless in criticism, in which probably he was assisted by his father’s notes and papers. According to the custom of the times he lived in, he displays his extensive reading by an extraordinary mixture of Greek and Latin quotations and phrases. He was wont to ascribe to Descartes’s philosophy, the little inclination people had in his time for polite learning. Sir William Temple very highly praises his work, hereafter mentioned, on “Enthusiasm;” and unquestionably it contains in any curious and learned remarks; buthisbeingamaintainer of the reality of witches and apparitions, shews that he was not more free from one species of enthusiasm than most of his contemporaries. In his private character he was eminent for his piety, charity to the poor, and his courteous and affable disposition towards scholars. He had several children, but none made any figure in the learned world; one, named John, was a surgeon at Canterbury .

Castalio’s learning has been highly extolled. He was undoubtedly an able Latin, Greek, and Hebrew scholar, but aiming at classical taste, he betrayed the greatest want of judgment in the two works for which he is now principally known, his translation of the Bible into Latin, and his Dialogues. The quaintness of his Latin style in the former, evinces a deplorable inattention to the simple majesty of the original. In the song of Solomon he is particularly injudicious. This book he wished expunged from the canon, which was one of the causes of his differences with Calvin and Beza; when that could not be done, he contrived to debase the magnificence of the language and the subject by diminutives, which, though expressive of familiar endearment, are destitute of dignity, and therefore improper on solemn occasions . This incongruous mixture of sublime ideas and words comparatively mean, degrades the noblest poetry almost to the level of burlesque. In his “Sacred Dialogues,” says an author, who cannot be supposed prejudiced against him on account of his ancient controversies, Castalio is so imprudent in the verbosity of his paraphrases, that if his character as a man of learning and piety were not thoroughly established, we should be tempted to think he had meant to burlesque some passages of the Old Testament. Indeed these dialogues are so frequently farcical, not to say indecent, that the reading of them seems to be very improperly continued in some schools.

, an eminent artist, the companion of Luca Cambiaso, is commonly called il Bergamasco, in contradistinction of Gio. Bat. Castelli a Genoese, scholar of Cambiaso, and -the most celebrated miniature-painter of his time. This, born at Bergamo in 1500, and conducted to Genoa by Aurelio Buso of Crema, a scholar of Polidoro, was at his sudden departure left by him in that city. In this forlorn state, he found a Maecenas in the Pallavicini family, who assisted him, sent him to Rome, and received in him at his return an architect, sculptor, and painter not inferior to Cambiaso. At Rome, Palomino numbers him with the scholars of Michael Angelo. Whatever master he may have had, his technic principles were those of Luca; which is evident on comparison in the church of S. Matteo, where they painted together. We discover the style of Raffaello verging already to practice, but not so mannered as that which prevailed at Rome under Gregory and Sixtus. We recognize in Cambiaso a greater genius and more elegance of design, in Castello more diligence, deeper knowledge, a better colour, a colour nearer allied to the Venetian than the Roman school. It may however be supposed^ that in such fraternal harmony each assisted the other, even in those places where they acted as competitors, where each claimed his work, and distinguished it by his name. Thus at the Nunziata di Portoria, Luca on the panneis represented the final doom of the blessed and the rejected in the last judgment; whilst G. Batista on the ceiling, expressed the judge in an angelic circle, receiving the elect. His attitude and semblance speak the celestial welcome with greater energy than the adjoined capitals of the words, “Venite Benedicti.” It is a picture studied in all its parts, of a vivacity, a composition, and expression, which give to the pannels of Luca, the air of a work done by a man half asleep. Frequently he painted alone; such are the S. Jerome surrounded by monks frightened at a lion, in S. Francesco di Castello, and the crowning of St, Sebastian after martyrdom, in his own church, a picture as rich in composition as studied in execution, and superior to all praise. That a man of such powers should have been so little known in Italy, rouses equal indignation and pity, unless we suppose that his numerous works in fresco at Genoa prevented him from painting for galleries.

, an eminent French physician and surgeon, was born at Blerancourt, between Noyon and Coucy, Sept. 6, 1700. If chirurgical skill be hereditary, his claims were considerable, as he was descended both by the father’s and mother’s side from eminent practitioners. His parents, however, first intended him for the church; but after completing his philosophy course, he applied himself to the study of medicine, not altogether with his inclination. From his infancy he had amused himself with making geometrical figures, and without the aid of a master, used to make drawings of military architecture with considerable accuracy, and at one time seems to have had an inclination for the bar, but at last he had no alternative but the church, or the profession of his ancestors, and having determined in favour of the latter, he went to Paris for education in the different branches of the healing art. The first publication by which he was known, was a curious dissertation, which he printed in his twenty-fourth year, on the mechanism of the buttresses of the church of St. Nicaise at Rheuns: these buttresses have always been an object of curiosity, as a motion is perceptible in them, which has never affected their solidity. la 1729, he was appointed surgeon and physician to M. de Tressan, archbishop of Rouen. He did not take his degree, however, until 1732, when he took it at Rheims, to avoid the heavy expence of 6000 livres, which it would have cost at Paris. In 1733, he settled at Rouen, and began to give a course of anatomical lectures, and there first he established a high reputation for his dextrous method of operation for the stone. In 1731 he obtained the reversion of the place of surgeon-major to the hospital at Rouen; and when the royal academy of surgery was established, he gained the first prize, and continued to gain all the prizes of that academy to the year 17:58 inclusive, when they paid him the high compliment of requesting that he would no longer become a candidate, but leave to others a chance of obtaining these rewards. Flattering as this seemed, M. Le Cat was aware that the academicians had it in their power to prevent his contending for prizes in a more effectual way, by electing him one of their body, and accordingly stood for the prize of 1739 with his usual success: about the end of the year, however, he was elected into the academy, and pursued his career of fame by those numerous publications on which it was so justly founded.

, queen of England, and fifth wife of Henry VIII. was daughter of lord Edmund Howard (third son of Thomas duke of Norfolk, and grandson of John first duke of Norfolk), by Joyce, daughter of sir Richard Culpepper, of Holingbourne in Kent, knight. Her mother dying while she was young, she was educated under the care of her grandmother, the duchess dowager of Norfolk; and when she grew up, the charms of her person soon captivated the affections of Henry VIII, who, upon his divorce from Anne of Cleves, married her, and shewed her publicly as queen, Aug. 8, 1540, But this marriage proved of the utmost prejudice to the cause of the reformation, which had begun to spread itself in the kingdom. ' The queen being absolutely guided by the counsels of the duke of Norfolk, her uncle, and Gardiner bishop of Winchester, used all the power she had over the king to support the credit of the enemies of the protestants, In the summer of 1541, she attended his majesty to York, to meet his nephew the king of Scotland, who had promised to give him an interview in that city, but was diverted by his clergy, and a message from the court of France, from that resolution; and during that progress she gained so entire an ascendant over the king’s heart, that at his return to London, on All-Saints day, when he received the sacrament, he gave public thanks to God for the happiness which he enjoyed by her means and desired his confessor, the bishop of Lincoln, to join with him in the like thanksgiving. But this proved a very short-lived satisfaction, for the jiext clay, archbishop Cranmer came to him with information that the queen had been unfaithful to his bed. By the advice of the lord chancellor and other privy counsellors, the archbishop wrote the particulars on a paper, which he delivered to the king, being at a loss how to open so delicate a matter in conversation. When the king read it, he was much confounded, and his attachment to the queen made him at first consider the story as a forgery, but having full proof, the persons with whom the queen Jiad been guilty, Dierham and Mannoch, two of the duchess dowager of Norfolk’s domestics, were apprehended, and not only confessed what was laid to their charge, but revealed some other circumstances, which placed the guilt of the queen in a most heinous light. The report of this struck the king so forcibly, that he lamented his misfortune with a flood of tears. The archbishop and some other counsellors were sent to examine the queen, who at first denied every thing, but finding that her crime was known, confessed all, and subscribed the paper. It appeared likewise, that she had intended to continue in that scandalous course of life; for as she had brought Dierham into her service, she had also retained one of the women, who had formerly been privy to their familiarities, to attend upon her in her bed-chamber; and while the king was at Lincoln, by the lady Rochford’s means, one Culpepper was brought to her at eleven at night, and stayed with her till four next morning; and at his departure received from her a gold chain. Culpepper being examined, confessed the crime: for which he, with Dierham, suffered death on the 1 Oth of December.

Catherine had two passions which never left her but with her last breath; the love of the other sex, which degenerated into licentiousness; and the love of glory, which sunk into vanity. By the former of these passions she was never so far governed as to become a Messalina; but she often disgraced both her rank and sex; and by the second, she was led to undertake many laudable projects, which were seldom completed: and to engage in unjust wars, from which she derived that kind of fame which is the usual result of success. Her crimes, it is said, were the crimes of her station, not of her heart: this is a nice distinction, and perhaps incomprehensible; but it is certain that the butcheries of her armies at Ismail and Praga appeared, to her court, to be humanity itself. If she had known misfortune, she might probably have possessed the purest virtues; but she was spoiled by the unvaried prosperity of her arms. Yet, in whatever light she is considered, she will ever be placed in the first rank among those who by their genius, their talents, and especially by their success, have attracted the admiration of mankind; and her sex, giving a bolder relief to the great qualities displayed by her on the throne, will place her above all comparison in history, nor can we find a woman who ha executed or undertaken such daring projects.

For some time he became rich by his school, but experienced, it is not known from what cause, a reverse of fortune, and lived afterwards in poverty, which, however, he supported with philosophy. He died in the year 20 B. C. The only part of his works that has reached us, is his poem, entitled “Dirae,” in which he laments his banishment from his country and his dear Lydia. This was published by Christopher Arnold, Ley den, 1652, 12 mo, and has been reprinted by Maittaire in his “Corpus Poetarum,” but it is doubted, after all, whether this poem be the genuine production of Cato Valerius.

By this constancy of diligence and diversification of employment, he in time collected a sum sufficient for the purchase of a small printing-office, and began the “Gentleman’s Magazine,” a periodical pamphlet, of which the scheme is known wherever the English language is spoken. To this undertaking he owed the affluence in which he passed the last twenty years of his life; and the fortune which he left behind him, though large, had been yet larger, had he not rashly and wantonly impaired it by innumerable projects, of which none succeeded.

Sir William Cavendish xvrote the life of his old master cardinal Wolsey, and therein gives him a very high character; affirming that, in his judgment, he never saw the kingdom in better obedience and quiet than during the time of his authority, or justice better administered. Indeed, impartial inquirers into the history of Wolsey will be ready to conclude that he was not the worst man in the court of Henry VIII. No work, however, has experienced a more singular fate than sir William Cavendish’s “Life of' Wolsey.” It was long known only by manuscripts, and by the large extracts from it, inserted by Stowe in his “Annals,” and in this state it remained from the reign of queen Mary in which it was composed, until 1641, when it was first printed under the title of “The Negociations of Thomas Wolsey,” &c. 4to; and as the chief object of the publication was to institute a parallel between the cardinal and archbishop Laud, in order to reconcile the public to the murder of that prelate, the manuscript was mutilated and interpolated without shame or scruple, and no pains having been taken to compare the printed edition with the original, the former passed for genuine above a century, and was reprinted, with a slight variation in the title, in 1667 and 1706, besides being inserted in the Harleian Miscellany. At length Dr. Wordsworth printed a correct transcript in his valuable “Ecclesiastical Biography,” 1810, 6 yols. 8vo, collated with four Mss. two in the Lambeth, one in the York cathedral library, and one in the British Museum.

Mr. Jonathan Richardson, on the authority of a Mr. Fellows, relates that the duke of Newcastle being once complimented by a friend on the great wisdom of his wife, answered, “Sir, a very wise woman is a very foolish thing.” The known attachment of his grace to the duchess, the high compliments he paid her, and the assistance he gave her in her works, detract from the credit of this story. If there be any truth in it, the duke’s reply might be uttered in a fit of ill-humour, or in one of those capricious starts of temper to which most characters are occasionally subject. In general, it is certain, that no couple could live more happily, or diverted their hours more harmlessly, while their serious employment was to recover the wreck of their fortunes. Lord Orford’s character of this lady, part of which is given above, is more tolerable than that of her husband. It is certain, as his ingenious continuator remarks, that “her grace’s literary labours have drawn down less applause than her domestic virtues.” And when she says in one of her letters, “You will find my works like infinite nature, that hath neither beginning nor end, and as confused as the chaos wherein is neither method nor order, but all mixed together without separation, like evening-light and darkness,” we must allow that she has characterised them with great justice.

None of his works did him more honour in his day, than that which he entitled “La cour sainte,” or “The holy court,” a moral work, illustrated by stories well known once to the readers of old folios in this country. It has been often reprinted and translated into Latin, Italian, Spanish, Portugueze, German, and English. He published several other books, both in Latin and French particularly, 1. “De Kloquentia sacra et humana,” 1619, 4to, which* was several times reprinted. It exhibits numerous examples of different styles in writing. 2. “Klectorum Symbolorum et Parabolarum historicarum Syntagmata,” 1618, 4to. 3. “Disputes sur les quatre livres des Hois, touchant l'Education des Princes,” fol. 4. “Tragedise Sacra,” 1620. 5. “Apologie pour les Religieux de la Compagnie de Jesus,” 1644, 8vo. 6. “La Vie neutre des Filles devotes,” &c. 1G44-. 7. “Symbolica ^gyptiorum Sapientia,” 1647, 4to; and some other works of devotion and controversy, of which his “Christian Diary” was printed in English, 1648, 12mo. There is a strange singularity related of father Caussin by one of his eulogists, which was, that he had a very extraordinary sympathy with the heavens, especially with the sun, which he called his star; and which had very remarkable effects both upon his body and mind, according as it was more or less distant, or as it shined bright or was covered with clouds. The effects of the sun upon him were not transient, but appeared constantly by the sparkling of his eyes, and the lively colour of his face, in which there was something that made a very strong impression upon Henry IV. of France. Caussin, when very young, attended father Gonteri, a famous preacher of his time, to court, and there that king observed him very attentively. He had never seen him before, nor heard of him; but as soon as he perceived him, he went to him, took him by the hand, and treated him with so much kindness, that Caussin was as much ashamed as the by-standers were astonished. But the king said, that he had distinguished this youth among the crowd, and expected that he would serve him and his family very faithfully. Then, turning to father Gonteri, he spoke with a loud voice, “Father, you have here an attendant, who, if I am not mistaken, will become in time one of the greatest ornaments in your society.”

His acquired knowledge must have been very considerable, as his allusions to various branches of the sciences and of polite literature are frequent, and bespeak a familiarity with the subject; yet his literary talents, it is said, bore a small proportion to his moral excellence. In all the relative duties his conduct was virtuous, humane, and affectionate. We are more in the dark as to his behaviour as a school master. Mr. Goodwin intimates that he supported his character by that happy mixture of dignity and kindness which is supposed to render severity unnecessary; but in the short sketch of his life in the edition of the English poets, 1790, we are told, that although generous and friendly in the common intercourse of life, he was singularly harsh and severe in the conduct of his school. From the same authority, we learn that he had some extraordinary foibles. With little skill in horsemanship, he was fond of riding; and with no acquaintance with music, he was an admirer of concerts and operas. He has been known to ride to London from Tunbridge, in order to be present at a musical performance, though he was under the necessity of being back by seven o'clock the next morning. His horsemanship may be given up; but his knowledge of the fine arts was so general, that it is difficult to believe that he was ignorant of the principles of music. To the school, he was in one respect an useful benefactor. In conjunction with his patrons, he founded the library now annexed to it.

, to whom this country owes the introduction of printing, was born in Kent in the Weald, probably about the year 1412, but nothing is known with certainty of the date of his birth. His father, William Caxton, who resided with him at Westminster when he was in the height of his business there, must have lived to a good old age, as his death is placed in 1480. By his parents he was sent to school at a period when general ignorance prevailed among the lower orders of the people, and having received some part of his education in Kent, it was probably completed in London, as far as schools then taught It is supposed that between his fifteenth and eighteenth year, he was put apprentice to one Robert Large, a mercer or merchant of considerable eminence, who afterwards served the offices of sheriff and lord mayor of London. It is very probable that mercers in those days were general merchants, trading in all sorts of rich goods, and that even books formed a part of their traffic. Hence it has been conjectured that Caxton’s residence with Large may be considered as the particular and fortunate cause of his future passion for books and learning, a passion which never seems to have deserted him. But whatever were the leading traits of Caxton’s juvenile character, or the particular objects of his pursuit, it appears that he conducted himself entirely to his master’s satisfaction, for on the decease of the latter in 1441, Caxton was remembered in his will by a legacy of twenty marks, a considerable sum in those days.

Of his pursuits and travels abroad nothing further is known with certainty, except that in his peregrinations, he declares that he confined himself “for the most part to the countries of Brabant, Flanders, Holland, and Zealand and in France was never.” It is, however, reasonable to suppose that he preserved the same respectable character in foreign countries which he had acquired in his own; and that, whilst he was indulging his favourite literary passion in the perusal of histories and romances, to which he seems to have been excited by his friend Bolomyer, canon of Lausanne, he was placed by his sovereign, or his sister, the lady Margaret, on the household establishment of the Jatter, when she came with a splendid retinue to Bruges to offer her hand to Charles, duke of Burgundy; and Caxton was, without doubt, privy to all the splendid spectacles and festivities of this marriage. In what rank or Duality he served the duchess is not known; but the freedom with which she used Mr. Caxton, in finding fault with his English, and ordering him to correct it, &c. seems to shew that the place he had in her grace’s family was no mean or ordinary one. Lewis and Oldys, in Mr. Dibdiu'.s opinion, are incorrect in saying that he was employed by the duchess to translate into English Kaoul Le Fevre’s French History of Troy t the fact was, that Caxton had commenced the translation voluntarily, without her knowledge, and had proceeded as far as five or six quires when he for some reason gave it up. About this time, having mentioned to Jady Margaret the progress he had made, she desired to see his manuscript, and it was on this occasion that she found fault with his English, but commanded him at the same time to finish the translation, and amply rewarded him on the completion of it. From the prologues and epilogues of this work we learn several particulars of the author, as that, at the time of finishing the performance, iiis eyes “were dimmed with over-much looking on the white paper; that his courage was not so prone and ready to labour as it had been; and that age was creeping on him daily, and enfeebling all his body: that he had practised and learnt, at his great charge and expense, to ordain this said book in print, after the manner and form as v.e there see it: and that it was not written with pen and ink as other books be.” Hence we discover that he was now adyanced in years, and that he had learnt to exercise the art of printing, but by what steps he had acquired this knowledge his biographers have not been able to discover. It appears, as already noticed, that the original of Ilaonl’s Trojan History was the first book Caxton printed: “The Oration of John llussel on Charles duke of Burgundy being created a Knight of the Garter,” was the second, and Caxton’s translation of Raoul, the third; and this third was most probably printed in 1471. That he was particularly curious to know, and inquisitive after, the invention of printing, can scarcely be doubted, but his inquiries as well as his experience seem to have been con lined to such specimens as the presses of the Low Countries produced, and he does not appear to have seen any of the beautiful productions of the Roman, Venetian, and Parisian presses before he caused his own fount of letters to be cut. The types used by Caxion in the French and English editions of Raoul Le Fevre’s history, as well as those in the “Game of Chess,” resemble, in character and form, rather than in size, the types of Ulric Zel and other printers in the Low Countries. Nor is it at all improbable that Caxton consulted Zel and Olpe, the earliest typographical artists in the city of Cologne, about the formation of his own letters, as those able men are supposed to have learnt the art of printing in the office of Gutenberg and Fust. Colard Mansion, a printer at Bruges, might also have assisted him in the necessary materials for his office.

There is no account whatever of the typographical labours of Caxton from the year 1471 to 1474; although it is extremely probable that a curious and active mind like his, just engaged in the exercise of a newly-discovered and important art, would have turned its attention to a variety of objects for publication. Of the exact period of his return to his native country no information has yet been obtained, and what Oldys and Lewis have advanced on this subject amounts to mere conjecture: still less credit is to be given to the fabricated story of Henry VI. paving sent a person to Holland who brought si way Frederick Corsellis, a vorkxnan, and that Caxton had a hand in this seduction. All that is certainly known is, that previously to the year 1477, Caxton, after printing there the three works nentioncd, had quitted the Low Countries, and taken up his residence in the vicinity of Westminster-abbey, vhen Thomas Milling, bishop of Hereford, held the abbctship of St. Peter’s in commendam; and he had no doubt brought over with him all the necessary implements and materials of his trade. The particular spot where Caxton first sxercised his business, if we may credit Stowe, was an old chapel about the entrance of the abbey, and Oldys, somewhat whimsically, concludes that the name of chapel, which is sometimes given to a printing room, is derived from this circumstance; but what is called a chapel, in a printing-office, is not a building, but a convocation of journeymenprinters, to inquire into and punish certain faults in each other. Where the place occurs in any of Caxton’s publications, Westminster is mentioned generally, but the greater number of the productions of his press specify only the. date of their execution. According to Bagford, Caxton’s ofHce was afterwards removed into King-street, but whereabouts is not known; and we have yet to regret, as of more importance, that the precise period of his first essay in the art of printing is a matter of conjecture. Mr, Dibdin has summed up the evidence with precision and judgment; and to his valuahle work we must refer the reader, as well as for a chronological detail of the works which issued from the Caxton press. Exclusive of the labours attached to the working of Caxton’s press, as a new art, he contrived, though “well stricken in years,” to translate no fewer than 5000 closely printed folio pages; and, as Oldys expivsses it, “kept preparing copy for the press to the very last.” From the evidence of Wynkyn de Worde, in the colophon of his edition of the “Vitas Patrum,” 1495, it appears that these lives of the fathers were “translated out of French into English by William Caxton, of Westminster, late dead,” and that he finished it “at the last day of his life.” He might have chosen this work as his final literary effort, from a consideration, according to Oldys, that “from the examples of quiet and solemn retirement therein set forth, it might farther serve to wean his mind from all worldly attachments, exalt it above the solicitudes of this life, and inure him to that repose and tranquillity with which he seems to have designed it.”

Caxton, Mr. Warton observes, by translating, or procuring to be translated, a great number of books from the French, greatly contributed to promote the state of literature in England. It was only in this way that he could introduce his countrymen to the knowledge of many valuable publications, at a time when an acquaintance with the learned languages was confined to a few ecclesiastics. Ancient learning had as yet made too little progress among us, to encoumge him to publish the Roman authors in their original tongue. Indeud, had not the French furnished Caxton with materials, it is not probable, that Virgil, Ovid, Cicero, and many other good writers, vtoukl by the means of his press have been circulated in the English language, so early as the close of the fifteenth century. It is remarkable, that from the time in which Caxton began ta print, down to the year 1540, during which period the English press flourished greatly under the conduct of many indnstrious, ingenious, and even learned artists, only a few classics, some of which scarcely deserve that name, were printed in England. The university of Oxford, during this period, produced only the first book of “Tully’s Epistles,” at the expence of cardinal Wolsey, without date or printer’s name. The university of Cainbridge cannot boast, during the term specified, the honour Of having printed a single classic. No Greek book, of any kind, had hitherto appeared from an English press. It is believed, that the first Greek characters used in any work printed in England, are in Linacet’s translation of “Galen de Temperamentis,” printed at Cambridge in 15LM. In. this book a few Greek words, and abbreviatures, are here and there introduced. In the same author’s treatise, “De emendata Structura Latini Sermonis,” printed by Pinson in 1522, many Greek characters are intermixed; and in the sixth book there are seven lines together in that language. But the printer apologises for his imperfections and unskilfulness in the Greek types. These, he says, were but recently cast, and not in a sufficient quantity for such a work. The same embarrassments appear to have happened with regard to Hebrew types, as might still ipore be expected, from that language’s being much less known. Doctor Robert Wakefield, chaplain to Henry the Eighth, published in 1522, his “Oratio de Laudibus & Utilitate trium Linguarum Arabicae, Chaldaicse, & Hebraicae;” but he was obliged to omit his whole third part, because the printer, who was Wynkyn de Worde, had no Hebrew types. There are, however, some few Hebrew and Arabic characters introduced; but they are extremely rude, and evidently cut in wood. They are the first of the sort used in England. It was a circumstance favourable at least to English literature, that the illiteracy of the times obliged our first printers to employ themselves so little on books written in the learned languages. Most of the works printed by Caxton and his immediate successors were English. The multiplication of English copies multiplied English readers, and these again produced new vernacular writers; the existence of a press inducing many persons to turn authors, who were only qualified to write in their native tongue.

His curiosity, though excessive, he was always careful to proportion to his income. He had too much pride to be burthensome to his friends. His name, which was known in every country where letters are respected, procured him a great number of correspondents. All the antiquaries, those who thought themselves such, and those who were desirous of being thought such, were ambitious of corresponding with him. They flattered themselves they were entitled to the character of learned men when they could show a letter from count Calus; “c'etoit pour eux,” says the author of his eloge, “un brevet d'antiquaire.” His literary talents were embellished with an inexhaustible fund of natural goodness, an inviolable zeal for the honour of his prince and the welfare of his country, an unaffected and genuine politeness, rigorous probity, a generous disdain of flatterers, the warmest compassion for the wretched and the indigent, the greatest simplicity of character, and the utmost sensibility of friendship.

, the author of a well-known and beautiful allegory in Greek, entitled “A Picture of Human Life,” is supposed to have flourished about 400 B. C. The piece is mentioned by some of the ancient writers, by Lucian, Diogenes Laertius, Tertullian, and Suidas; but of Cebes himself we have no account, unless that he is once mentioned by Plato, and once by Xenophon. The former says of him, in his “Phaedo,” that he was a sagacious investigator of truth, and never assented without the most convincing reasons; the latter, in his “Memorabilia,” ranks him among the few intimates of Socrates, who excelled the rest in the innocency of their lives; but the abbe* Sevin and professor Meiners have endeavoured to prove that the “Picture” is the work of a more modern author. Brucker seems to be of a different opinion. It is evidently Socratic in its moral spirit and character, althongh not without some sentiments which appear to have been borrowed from the Pythagorean school. It was translated by the rev. Joseph Spence for Dodsley’s “Museum,” and was afterwards inserted in his “Preceptor,” and in other moral collections. There are many separate editions of the original, but for above a century, it has usually been printed with Epictetus’s “Enchiridium,” for the use of schools.

About 1541, his father placed him in Gray’s-inn, with a view to the profession of the law, where he pursued the same indefatigable application, until by an accidental display of his knowledge, he became known at court. One O'Neil, an Irish chief, brought to court two of his chaplains, who falling in with Mr. Cecil, engaged in a dispute with him on the power of the Roman pontiff, in which he had so much the superiority, that the matter was mentioned to Henry VIII. who expressed a desire to see him, admired his abilities, and gave him the reversion of the place of custos brevium.

Sir William Cecil acted \yith such caution and prudence in the various intrigues for the crown on the death of king Edward, that on queen Mary’s accession, although known to be a zealous protestaut, he remained unmolested in person, property, or reputation. Rapin has given a very unfair colouring to sir William’s conduct at this critical period. After stating that he waited upon the queen, was graciously received, and might have kept his employment, if he would have complied so far as to have declared himself of her majesty’s religion, he closes with the following remark: “He was nevertheless exposed to no persecution on account of his religion, whether his artful behaviour gave no advantages against him, or his particular merit procured him a distinction above all other protestants.” As to the artfulness of his behaviour, it will best appear from the answer he gave to those honourable persons, who by command of the queen communed with him on this subject, to whom he declared, “That he thought himself bound to serve God first, and next the queen; but if her service should put him out of God’s service, he hoped her majesty would give him leave to chuse an everlasting, rather than a momentary service; and as for the queen, she had been his so gracious lady, that he would ever serve and pray for her in his heart, and with his body and goods be as ready to serve in her defence as any of her loyal subjects, so she would please to grant him leave to use his conscience to himself, and serve her at large as a private man, which he chose rather than to be her greatest counsellor,” The queen took him at his word, and this was all the art that sir William used to procure liberty of conscience for himself; unless we should call it art, that he behaved himself with much prudence and circumspection afterwards. Nor is it true, as insinuated by Rapin, that he was the only protestant unmolested in this reign. Among others, the names of sir Thomas Smith, and the celebrated Roger Ascham, may be quoted; but as Mary’s bigotry increased with her years, it may be doubtful whether those would have been long spared. Almost the last act of her life was an attempt to kindle the flames of persecution in Ireland.

He was considered as the best parent of his time, for he had all his children, and their descendants, constantly at his table; and in their conversation lay the greatest pleasure of his life, especially while his mother lived, who was able to see the fifth descent from herself, there being no degree of relation, or consanguinity, which at festival times were not to be found at lord Burleigh’s table. It was there that, laying aside all thoughts of business, he was so affable, easy, and merry, that he seemed never to have thought of any, and yet this was the only part of his life which was entirely free therefrom; and his frankness and familiarity brought so many persons of high rank to his house, as did him great credit and service. In respect to his friends, he was always easy, cheerful, and kind; and whatever their condition was, he talked to them, as if they had been his equals in every respect; yet it is said, that he was held a better enemy than friend; and that this was so well known, that some opposed him from a view of interest. It is certain, that those who were most intimate with him, had no sort of influence over him, and did not care to ask him for any thing; because he did not readily grant, and was little pleased with such sort of suits. One reason of this was, that most of those whom he preferred became his enemies, because he would not gratify them in farther pretensions. His secrets he trusted with none, indulged a general conversation, and would not suffer affairs of state to be canvassed in mixed company, or when friends were met to divert themselves. With respect to his enemies, he never said any thing harsh of them, farthered on every occasion their reasonable requests, and was so far from seeking, that he neglected all opportunities of revenge; always professing, that he never went to bed out of charity with any man; and frequently saying, that patience, and a calm bearing of aspersions and injuries, had wrought him more good than his own abilities. He was far, however, from being an ungrateful man, for without intreaty he would serve his friends as far as it was just; and for his servants, and those about him, he was very careful of their welfare, mostly at his own expence. He never raised his own rents, or displaced his tenants; and as the rent was when he bought land, so it stood; insomuch, that some enjoyed, for twenty pounds a year, during his whole life, what might have been let for two hundred: yet in his public character he was very severe; and as he never meddled with the queen’s treasure himself, so he would see that it was not embezzled by others; for it was his saying, that whoever cheated the crown oppressed the people. In the midst of all his grandeur he was ever easy of access, free from pride, and alike complaisant to all degrees of people: for as he was grave in council, exact in courts of justice, familiar towards his friends, outwardly and inwardly fond of his children, so when he went into the country he would converse with all his servants as kindly as if he had been their equal; talk to country people in their own style and manner, and would even condescend to sooth little children in their sports and plays so gentle was his temper, and so abundant his good-nature. At Theobalds he had fine gardens, which cost him a great deal of money, and which were laid out according to his own directions. He had a little mule, upon which he rode up and down the walks; sometimes he would look on those who were shooting with arrows, or playing with bowls; but as for himself, he never took any diversion, taking that word in its usual sense. He had two or three friends, who were constantly at his table, because he liked their company; but in all his life he never had one favourite, or suffered any body to get an ascendant over him. His equipage, his great house-keeping, his numerous dependents, were the effects of his sense, and not at all of his passions, for he delighted little iri any of them; and whenever he had any time to spare, he fled, as his expression was, to Theobalds, and buried himself in privacy.

Besides these lesser failings of this great man, he has been accused of illiberality to the poet Spenser, which perhaps may be attributed to his dislike of Leicester, under whose patronage Spenser had come forward, but perhaps more to his want of relish for poetry. On the other hand, our historians are generally agreed in their praises of his high character. Smollett only has endeavoured to lessen it, but as this is coupled with a disregard for historical truth, the attempt is entitled to little regard, and the advocates for Mary queen of Scots cannot be supposed to forgive the share he had in her fate. Lord Orford has given lord Burleigh a place among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” but at the same time justly observes, that he is one of those great names, better known in the annals of his country than in those of the republic of letters. Besides lord Burleigh’s answer to a Latin libel published abroad, which he entitled “Slanders and Lies,” and “A Meditation of the State of England, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth,” lord Orford mentions “La Complainte de PAme pecheresse,” in French verse, extant in the king’s library; “Car mina duo Latina in Obitum Margaretae Nevillee, Reginoe Catherine a Cubiculis;” “Carmen Latinum in Memoriain Tho. Challoneri Equitis aurati, prsefixum ejusdem Libro de restaurata Republica;” “A Preface to Queen Catherine Parr’s Lamentation of a Sinner.” When sir William Cecil accompanied the duke of Somerset on his expedition to Scotland, he furnished materials for an account of that war, which was published by William Patten, under the title of “Diarium Expeditions Scoticae,” London, 1541, 12mo. This is supposed to be the reason why lord Burleigh is reckoned by Holinshed among the English historians. “The first paper or memorial of sir William Cecil \ anno primo Eliz.” This, which is only a paper of memorandums, is printed in Somers’s tracts, from a manuscript in the Cotton library. “A Speech in Parliament, 1592.” This was first published by Strype in his Annals, and has since been inserted in the Parliamentary History. “Lord Burleigh’s Precepts, or directions for the well-ordering and carriage of a man’s life,” 1637. “A Meditation on the Death of his Lady.” Mr. Ballard, in his Memoirs of British Ladies, has printed this Meditation from an original formerly in the possession of James West, esq. but now in the British Museum. Lord Burleigh was supposed to be the author of a thin pamphlet, in defence of the punishments inflicted on the Roman catholics in the reign of queen Elizabeth: it is called “The Execution of Justice in England, for maintenance of public and Christian peace, against certain stirrers of sedition, and adherents to the traitors and enemies of the realm, without any persecution of them for questions of religion, as it is falsely reported, &c.” London, 1583, second edition. Other political pieces were ascribed to him, and even the celebrated libel, entitled “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” It was asserted, that the hints, at least, were furnished by him for that composition. But no proof has been given of this assertion, and it was not founded on any degree of probability. His lordship drew up also a number of pedigrees, some of which are preserved in the archbishop of Canterbury’s library at Lambeth. These contain the genealogies of the kings of England, from William the Conqueror to Edward the Fourth; of queen Anne Boleyn; and of several princely houses in Germany.

He shewed himself upon all occasions a zealous servant to his prince, without neglecting at the same time, the real advantage of his country, and never heartily espousing the Spanish interest, though it was the only one countenanced by king James; and some of the courtiers, by encouraging it, acquired great riches. The court of Spain was so sensible of his disinclination to them, that they endeavoured to alienate the king’s favour from him by means of the queen; and it was moved there in council, to send complaints to England of his malignant humour, or envy to the Spanish nation; upon which, if he did not alter his conduct, then a shorter course should be taken with him, by destroying him. Afterwards they entertained great hopes of him, and resolved to omit no means to gain him over to their side. But when all the popish designs were defeated by the discovery of the gunpowder plot, which has since been represented by some of that party as a political contrivance of his, his activity in the detection of it, and zeal for the punishment of those concerned in it, enraged them to such a degree, that several of the papists formed a combination against him. This, however, taking no effect, they again attempted to ruin him in the king’s favour, by reporting that he had a pension of forty thousand crowns from the States of the United Provinces, for being their special favourer and patron. They branded him likewise with the appellation of a puritan, a name peculiarly odious to king James. At last they conspired to murder him by a musquet-shot out of the Savoy, or some house near, as he was going by water to court. But these nefarious designs proved abortive, though it appears they had not desisted from them in 1609. Upon the death of sir Thomas Sackville, earl of Dorset, lord-high-treasurer, in April 1605, he succeeded him in that post and his advancement to it was universally applauded, a great reformation being expected from him in the exchequer, which he accordingly effected. Finding it almost totally exhausted, he devised several means for replenishing it with money, particularly by causing the royal manors to be surveyed, which before were but imperfectly known: by reviving the custody of crown lands by commissions of assets; by taking care to have the king’s woods and timber viewed, numbered, marked, and valued; by having an exact survey made of the copyholds held of the crown, which he ordered to be printed; by compounding with the copyholders of the inheritance, and the possessors of wastes and commons, originally appertaining to the king; by appointing commissioners to gather in the fines arising from penal laws, and such as accrued from the king’s manors; by improving the customs from 86,000/, to 120,000l. and afterwards to 135,000l. per ann. and by surrendering up his patent of master of the wards to the king, for his benefit and advantage.

His works in geography are well known, as excellent helps to the understanding of ancient authors. His “Notitia Orbis Antiqui,” was published at Cambridge in 1703, 2 vols. 4to, and Leipsic, 1731. And a sixth edition of the abridgement, by Patrick, was published at London, in 1731; but for a more particular account of the author and his works, the reader may be referred to J. G. Walchius’s discourse of his life and writings, prefixed to his <c Dissertationes Academicae,“published at Leipsic, 1712, 8vo This volume alone would have been sufficient to have procured him a considerable name in the learned world. The principal classics, &c. edited by him are,” Ciceronis Epist. act Familiares“” Plinii Epist.“” Corn. Nepos;“” Quintus Curtius;“” Eutropius“” Sextus Jlufus;“”Velleius Paterculus;“Duod. Panegyr. Antiq.;” “Lactantius;” “Minutius Felix;” “St. Cyprian, de Vanit. Idol.” Sedulius“” Prudentius“” Silius Italicus;“” Pici Mirandul. Epist.“” Zosimus;“” Paeanius“the” Thesaurus of Faber, M with large additions.

, a celebrated philosopher of the Epicurean sect, flourished in the second century under Adrian and Antoninus Pius, and is the person to whom Lucian has dedicated his “Pseudamantis.” He wrote a bitter invective against the Christian religion, under the title of “The true Word,” which was answered by Origen with great ability in a work consisting of eight books. His “True Word” is lost; but his objections against Christianity may be known from the extracts which are preserved of it in Origen’s answer. It is agreed on all hands, that he was a most subtle adversary, perfectly versed in all the arts of controversy, and as learned as he was ingenious: so that it is no wonder if the primitive Christians thought nothing less than such a champion as Origen a match for him. Although he sometimes recurs to Platonic and Stoic modes of reasoning, he is expressly ranked by Lucian, as well as Origen, among the Epicureans; and this supposition best accounts for the violence with which he opposed the Christian religion; for an Epicurean would of course reject, without examination, all pretensions to divine communications or powers. Yet his hostility, or the great pains he took to display it, affords some strong testimonies in favour of the Christian religion, as may be seen in Lardner, and other writers.

Being harshly treated by those to whose care she was committed after the death of her mother, she resolved, whilst very young, to quit the country, and to go up to London to seek her fortune. The circumstances of her life at this period are involved in much obscurity, and the particulars which are related seem somewhat romantic. It is said that she attempted her journey to the capital alone, and on foot, and on her way thither was met by Anthony Hammond, esq. father of the author of the “Love Elegies.” This gentleman, who was then a member of the university of Cambridge, was struck with her youth and beauty, and offered to take her under his protection. Her distress and inexperience inducing her to comply with his proposal, she accompanied him to Cambridge, where, having equipped her in boy’s clothes, he introduced her to his intimates at college, as a relation who was come down to see the university, and to pass some time with him. Under this disguise an amorous intercourse was carried on between them for some months; but at length, being probably apprehensive that the affair would become known in the university, he persuaded her to go to London. He provided her, however, with a considerable sum of money, and recommended her by letter to a lady in town with whom he was acquainted. He assured her at the same time, that he would speedily follow her, and renew their connection. This promise appears not to have been performed: but notwithstanding her unfavourable introduction into life, she was married in her sixteenth year to a nephew of sir Stephen Fox, who did not live more than a twelvemonth after their marriage; but her wit and personal attractions soon procured her another husband, whose name was Carrol, who was an officer in the army, but who was killed in a duel about a year and a half after their marriage, when she became a second time a widow She is represented as having a sincere attachment to Mr. Carrol, and consequently as having felt his loss as a severe affliction.

Upon his return to Spain in the spring of the year following, he fixed his residence in Madrid, where his mother and sister then lived. Following his own inclination to letters, he gave himself up anew to the reading of every kind of books, Latin, Spanish, and Italian, acquiring hence a great stock of various erudition. The first product of his genius was his “Galatea,” which he published in 1584, and on Dec. 12 of the same year he married at Esquivias, Donna Catalina de Salazar y Palacios. Madrid was still his place of residence in the years 1585 6 and 7. He turned his studies to the theatres, for which he wrote several pieces, which have never yet been published.- In the year 1596, he lived in Seville, and wrote an ironical sonnet upon the duke of Medina’s triumphal entry into Cadiz, after the earl of Essex had plundered and left the place. Probably Cervantes had a respect for the English from this event. In the fourth of his novels which takes its rise hence, he introduces La Espan'ola Inglesa to our queen Elizabeth, who gives her a very cordial reception, and bids her speak to her in Spanish. In 1598 he was still in Seville, where he wrote a sonnet upon a majestic tomb of enormous height, to celebrate the exequies of Philip II. which he then spoke of as the honour of his writings. It is probable that he had relations in this city, as the illustrious family of the Cervantes y Saavedras was established here. From this year, however, there is a void in his history, and nothing more is known of him till 1604. Some have been willing to supply this defect, and suppose him sent upon a commission to Toboso; that the natives brought a charge against him, threw him into prison, and that he in resentment made Don Quixote and Dulcinea Manchegans. Certain it is that he describes with such accuracy the chorography of that province, and paints with such marks of propriety the manners, dresses, and customs of its natives, that it may be suspected that he had been an eye-witness of the whole. This probably is the whole foundation of the conjecture, for there is no document in proof of this, or any other appointment of Cervantes iq La Mancha. What is certainly known is, that at the beginning of the seventeenth century he was in prison, but for an offence (as don Gregorio Mayans observes) which could not be ignominious, as he himself makes express mention of it. And from the same testimony it is kno.vn, that when in this prison, he wrote his history of “Don Quixote,” of which he published the first part at Madrid in 1605. There was a second edition of this in 1608, at the same place and by the same printer, much corrected and improved, no notice of which is taken by Pellicer, who speaks of that of Valentia of 1605. supposing such to exist, but which he had not seen. There is another of Lisbon in 1605, curious only on the score of its great loppings and amputations.

Of all the accounts hitherto published relative to Cervantes, we have given the preference to the preceding, for which we are indebted to the late rev. John Bowie, whose enthusiasm for “Don Quixote” is well known. It was translated by him from a work published in 1778 at Madrid by don Juan Antonio Pellicer y Safo^ada, one of the royal librarians, in a work entitled “Ensayo de una Bibliotheca de Traductores Espan'oles. Preceden varias Noticias Litterarias,” 4to. The particulars being the result of research in the only quarters where information could be procured, seem more worthy of confidence than the conjectures of some of Cervantes’s earlier biographers, whose chief object seems to have been to represent him as a man depressed and degraded by poverty or imprudence, and whose fate was a disgrace to his nation. It is necessary however to add that the above account was prefixed to the splendid edition of Don Quixote published by the Spanish academy about thirty years ago. from this M. Florian wrote a life prefixed to his translation of Cervantes’s “Galatea,” and added not a little of the marvellous when detailing Cervantes’s adventures in captivity at Algiers. Florian’s account was translated into English by a Mr. William Walbeck, and published at Leeds in 1785, 12mo. Dr. Smollett has made a very interesting story in his life of Cervantes, but wanting th accurate information which has lately been recovered, he too hastily adopts the common opinions, and presents an almost unvaried detail of miseries and poverty. Cervantes’s own account of his person is the following: “His visage was sharp and aquiline, his hair of a chesnut colour, his forehead smooth and high, his nose bookish or hawkish, his eye brisk and chearful, his mouth little, his beard originally of a golden hue, his upper lip furnished with large mustachios, his complexion fair, his stature of the middling size;” and he adds, “that he was thick in the shoulders, and not very light of foot.”

, a French poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Turin in 1738, and after being educated among the Jesuits, joined their order, and became professor of their college at Lyons. In 1761 he gained two academical prizes at Toulouse and Dijon; the subject of the one was “Duelling,” and the other an answer to the question “Why modern republics have acquired less splendour than the ancient.” This last, before Cerutti was known as its author, was attributed to Rousseau. It was printed at the Hague in 1761, 8vo, and reprinted at Paris in 1791. When the order of the Jesuits was about to be abolished, Cerutti wrote in their defence “L'Apologie de Pinstitut des Jesuites,” 1762, two parts, 8vo, the materials being furnished by the two Jesuits Menoux and Griffet. Some time after, he was obliged to appear before the procurator-general of the parliament of Paris, to abjure the order which he had defended. It is said that after he had taken the prescribed oath, he asked if there was any thing to subscribe, to which the magistrate answered, “Yes, the Alcoran.” His “Apology,” however, was much admired, and recommended him to the Dauphin, who welcomed him to court. Here he contracted an unhappy and violent passion for a lady of the first rank, which brought on a tedious illness, from which the friendship of the duchess of Brancas recovered him, and in her house at Fleville he found an honourable asylum for fifteen years. This lady, who appears to have been somewhat of the romantic kind, as soon as she received him into her house, put a ring on his finger, telling him that friendship had espoused merit. When the revolution broke out, he came to Paris, and became a zealous partizan, and was much employed by Mirabeau in drawing up reports. His Memoir on patriotic contributions procured him a place in the legislative body, but he died in 1792, after which the municipality of Paris honoured him by giving his name to one of the new streets. Besides the works already mentioned, he published 1. “L'Aigle et le hibou,” an apologue in verse, Glasgow and Paris, 1783, 2. <c Recueil de quelques pieces de literature en prose et en vers,“ibid. 1784. The best of these is a dissertation on antique monuments, occasioned by some Greek verses discovered on a tomb at Naples, in 1756. 3.” Les Jardins de Betz,“a descriptive poem, 1792, 8vo. 4.” Lettre sur les avantages et l'origine de la gaiete“Francaise,” Lyons, 1761, 12mo; Paris, 1792, 8vo. 5. An essay on the question “Combien un esprit trop subtil ressemble a un esprit faux,” 1750, 8vo. 6. “Les vrais plaisirs ne sont faits que pour la vertu,” 1761, 4to. These two last were honoured with the academical prizes of Montauban. 7. “Pourquoi les arts utiles ne sont-ils pas cultives preferablement aux arts agreables,” 1761, 4to. 8. “Sur l'origine et les effets du desir de transmettre son nom a la posterite,” Hague, 1761, 8vo Paris, 1792, 8vo. 9. “Traduction libre de trois odes d'Horace,” 1789. 10. “De Tinteret d'un ouvrage dans le sujet, le plan, et le style,” Paris, 1763, 8vo. Besides these, he published some tracts on the subjects which arose out of the revolution, and was joint editor with Rabaut de St. Etienne, of the “Feuille. villageoise,” a paper calculated to spread the revolutionary delusions among the country people, but his style was not sufficiently simple and popular. In 1793, a collection of his works was published in an 8vo volume. Those which are on subjects of literature are ingenious and interesting, but as a poet he cannot be allowed to rank high.

, an able antiquary, was of a good family of Riom, in Auvergnjg, where he was born, in 1564, and was educated at Bourges for five years, under the celebrated Cujas. On his return to Riom, he was in 1594 made a counsellor of the presidial, and discharged the duties of that office with great ability and integrity for the space of forty-four years. During this time he found leisure to improve his knowledge of antiquities, and accumulated a large library, and many series of medals. In order to gratify his curiosity more completely, he took a journey to Italy, and visited at Rome all the valuable remains of antiquity, receiving great kindness from the literati of that place, and particularly from cardinal Bellarmin. From this tour he brought home many curious Mss. scarce books, medals, antique marbles, and above two thousand gems, which rendered his collection one of the most valuable then in France. After his return he caused all these gems to be engraven on copper-plate, ranging them under fifteen classes, of which he made as many chapters of explanation, but the bad state of his health during his latter years prevented his publishing this curious work. He also wrote a treatise “De Annulis,” which he modestly withheld from the press on hearing that Kirchman, a German antiquary, had published on the same subject. Notwithstanding his not appearing in print, he was well known to the learned of his time, and held a correspondence with most of them. Savaro, in his Commentary upon Sidonius Apollinaris, and Tristan, in his “Historical Commentaries,” speak highly of him, nor was he less esteemed by Bignon, Petau, and Sirmond. He died at Riom, Sept. 19, 1638, of a sickness which lasted two years, almost without any interruption. His heirs sent all his curiosities to Paris, where they were purchased by the president de Mesmes, who gave them to the duke of Orleans, and from him they passed to the royal cabinet.

, a Jesuit of uncommon abilities, and confessor to Lewis XIV. was born in the chateau of Aix, in 1624, of an ancient but reduced family. He gave early indications of talents when at school, and performed his philosophical exercises under father de Vaux, who was afterwards advanced to the highest employments in his order. When he was arrived at a proper age, he was ordained priest; and became afterwards professor of divinity in the province of Lyons, and rector and provincial of a college there. He spent at several seasons a good deal of time in Paris, where his great address, his wit, and love of letters, made him almost universally known: and in 1663, the bishop of Bayeux introduced him to cardinal Mazarine, who shewed him many marks of favour, and offered him his patronage. In 1665, he presented la Chaise to the king, as a person of whose great abilities and merit he was well convinced, and afterwards got him admitted into the council of conscience, which indeed was no less than to make him coadjutor to the confessor, and when the cardinal died, he was made, in 1675, confessor to the king; and about ten years after, was the principal adviser and director of his marriage with madame de Maintenon. The king was then arrived at an age when confessors have more than an ordinary influence: and la Chaise found himself a minister of state, without expecting, and almost before he perceived it. He did business regularly with the king, and immediately saw all the lords and all the prelates at his feet. He had made himself a master in the affairs of the church; which, by the disputes that often arose between the courts of France and Rome, were become affairs of state. Yet, in spite of all his address and the influence which he had gained over the king, he was sometimes out of favour with his master, and in danger of being disgraced. Provoked at the ill success of the affair concerning the electorate of Cologn in 1689, the king shewed his displeasure to the confessor, by whose counsels he had been influenced. La Chaise excused himself, by laying the blame upon the marquis de Louvois; but the king told him with some indignation, “that an enterprise suggested by Jesuits had never succeeded; and that it would be better if they would confine themselves to teaching their scholars, and never presume to meddle in affairs of state.” La Chaise was very solicitous to establish an interest with madam e de Maintenon; but does not appear to have done it effectually, till that favourite found herself unable, by all her intrigues and contrivances, to remove him from the place of confessor. The Jesuit, it has been said, had not religion enough for this devout lady. He loved pleasures, had a taste for magnificence, and was thought too lukewarm in the care of his master’s conscience. The jealousy and dislike with which she regarded him were expressed in her letters; but her unfavourable representations of his temper and character were counteracted by those of the duke of St. Simon, who describes him as mild and moderate, humane and modest, possessed of honour and probity, and though much attached to his family, perfectly disinterested. La Chaise died Jan. 1709, and possessed to the very last so great a share of favour and esteem with the king, that his majesty consulted him upon his death-­bed about the choice of his successor.

, was also a native of Athens, who flourished in the latter part of the fifteenth century, but nothing farther is known of his history, and his name is perpetuated only by his work “De Origine et' rebus gestis Turcoman,” Paris, 1650, fol. containing, in ten books, a history of the Turks from 1298 to 1462. He describes the ruin of the empire of Constantinople, and at the end are the “Annales Sultanorum,” translated into Latin by Leunclavius. There is a French translation of it by Blaise de Vignere, 1660, 2 vols. fol. continued by Mezerai and others. It is esteemed a work of considerable authority.

the younger, the son of the former by his wife Ethelreda, daughter of Mr. Frodsham of Elton in Cheshire, was born in 1559, and being very young at the time of his father’s decease, and his mother soon after marrying a second husband, he owed his education chiefly to the care and protection of the lordtreasurer Burleigh, by whom he was first put under the care of Dr. Malim, master of St. Paul’s school, and afterwards removed to Magdalen college in Oxford, where he closely pursued his studies at the time when his father’s poetical works were published; and as a proof of his veneration for his father’s friend, and gratitude for the many kindnesses himself had received, he prefixed a dedication to this work to his patron the lord Burleigh, He left the college before he took any degree, but not before he had acquired a great reputation for parts and learning. He had, like his father, a great talent- for poetry, which he wrote with much facility both in English and in Latin, but it does not appear that he published any thing before he left England, which was probably about the year 1580. He visited several parts of Europe, but made the longest stay in Italy, fprmed an acquaintance with the gravest and wisest men in that country, who very readily imparted to him their most important discoveries in natural philosophy, which he had studied with much diligence and attention., At his return home, which was some time before 1584, he appeared very much at court, and was esteemed by the greatest men there, on account of his great learning and manners. About this time he married his first wife, the daughter of his father’s old friend sir William Fleetwood, recorder of London, by whom he had several children. In the year 1591 he had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, as well in regard to his own personal merit“as the great services of his father; and some years after, the first alum mines that were ever known to be in this kingdom, were discovered, by his great sagacity, not far from Gisborough in Yorkshire, where he had an estate. In the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign, sir Thomas Chaloner made a journey into Scotland, whether out of curiosity, with a view to preferment, or by the direction of sir Robert Cecil, afterwards earl of Salisbury, who was his great friend, is uncertain; but he soon grew into such credit with king James, that the most considerable persons in England addressed themselves to him for his favour and recommendation. Amongst the rest, sir Francis Bacon, afterwards chancellor, wrote him a very warm letter, which is still extant, which he sent him by his friend Mr. Matthews, who was also charged with another to the king; a copy of which was sent to sir Thomas Chaloner, and Mr. Matthews was directed to deliver him the original, if he would undertake to present it. He accomparried the king in his journey to England, and by his learning, conversation, and address, fixed himself so effectually in that monarch’s good graces, that, as one of the highest marks he could give him of his kindness and confidence, he thought fit to intrust him with the care of prince Henry’s education, August 17, 1603, not as his tutor, but rather governor or superintendant of his household and education. He enjoyed this honour, under several denominations, during the life-time of that excellent prince, whom he attended in 1605 to Oxford, and upon that occasion was honoured with the degree of master of arts, with many other persons of distinction. It does not appear that he had any grants of lands, or gifts in money, from the crown, in consideration of his services, though sir Adam Newton, who was preceptor to prince Henry, appears to have received at several times the sum of four thousand pounds by way of free gift. Sir Thomas Chaloner had likewise very great interest with queen Anne, and appears to have been employed by her in her private affairs, and in the settlement of that small estate which she enjoyed. What relation he had to the court after the death of his gracious master prince Henry, does no where appear; but it is not at all likely that he was laid aside. He married some years before his death his second wife Judith, daughter to Mr. William Biount of London, and by this lady also he had children, to whom he is said to have left a considerable estate, which he had at SteepleClaydon in the county of Buckingham. He died November 17, 1615, and was buried in the parish church of Chiswick in the county of Middlesex. His eldest son William. Chaloner, esq. was by letters patents dated July 20, in the 18th of James I. in 1620, created a baronet, by the title of William Chaloner of Gisborough in the county of York, esq. which title was extinct in 1681. Few or none, either of our historians or biographers, Anthony Wood excepted, have taken any notice of him, though he was so considerable a benefactor to this nation, by discovering the alum mines, which have produced vast sums of money, and still continue to be wrought with very great profit. Dr. Birch, indeed, in his” Life of Henry Prince of Wales,“has given a short account of sir Thomas, and has printed two letters of his, both of which shew him to have been a man of sagacity and reflection. In the Lambeth library are also some letters of sir Thomas Chaloner’s, of which there are transcripts by Dr. Birch in the British Museum. The only publication by sir Thomas Chalouer is entitled” The virtue of Nitre, wherein is declared the sundry cures by the same effected," Lond. 1584, 4to. In this he discovers very considerable knowledge of chemistry and mineralogy.

Although the “Cyclopædia” was the grand business of Mr. Chambers’s life, and may be regarded as almost the sole foundation of his fame, his attention was not wholly confined to this undertaking. He was concerned in a periodical publication entitled “The Literary Magazine,” which was begun in 1735, and continued for a few years, containing a review of books on the analytical plan. In this work he wrote a variety of articles, and particularly a review of Morgan’s “Moral Philosopher.” He was engaged likewise, in conjunction with Mr. John Marty n, F. R. S. and professor of botany at Cambridge, in preparing for the press a translation and abridgment of the “Philosophical history and memoirs of the royal academy of sciences at Paris or an abridgment of all the papers relating to natural philosophy which have been published by the members of that illustrious society.” This undertaking, when completed, was comprised in five volumes, 8vo, which did not appear till 1742, some time after our author’s decease, when they were published in the joint names of Mr. Martyn and Mr. Chambers. Mr. Marty n, in a subsequent publication, passed a severe censure upon the share which his fellow-labourer had in the abridgment of the Parisian papers; which, indeed, he appears to have executed in a very slovenly manner, and to have been unacquainted with the French terms in natural history. The only work besides, that we find ascribed to Mr. Chambers, is a translation of the “Jesuit’s Perspective,” from the French; which was printed in 4to, and has gone through several editions. How indefatigable he was in his literary and scientific collections, is manifest from a circumstance which used to be related by Mr. Airey, who was so well known to many persons by the vivacity of his temper and conversation, and his bold avowal of the principles of infidelity. This gentleman, in the very early part of his life, was five years (from 1728 to 1733) amanuensis to Mr. Chambers; and, during that time, copied nearly 20 folio volumes, so large as to comprehend materials, if they had been published, for printing 30 volumes in the same size. Mr. Chambers however acknowledged, that if they were printed, they would neither be sold nor read. His close and unremitting attention to his studies at length impaired his health, and obliged him occasionally to take a lodging at Canonbury-house, Islington. This not having greatly contributed to his recovery, he made an excursion to the south of France, of which he left an account in ms. but did not reap that benefit from the journey which he had himself hoped and his friends wished. Returning to England in the autumn of 1739, he died at Canonbury-house, and was buried at Westminster; where the following inscription, written by himself, is placed on the north side of the cloisters of the abbey:

We have already mentioned that the “Cyclopædia” came to a fifth edition in 1746. After this, whilst a sixth edition was in agitation, the proprietors thought that the work might admit of a supplement, in two additional folio volumes: this supplement, which was published in the joint names of Mr. Scott and Dr. Hill, though containing a number of valuable articles, was far from being uniformly conspicuous for its exact judgment and due selection; a small part only of it being executed by Mr. Scott, and Dr. Hill’s task having been discharged with his usual rapidity. Thus the matter rested for some years, when the proprietors determined to combine the whole into one work; and after several ineffectual efforts for accomplishing their plan, the business devolved on the rev. Dr. Abraham Rees, F. R. S. who derived from the favour of the public, and the singularly rapid and extensive sale of the work, a recompense, which, independently of every other consideration, he reckoned amply adequate to his labour. This edition began to be published in weekly numbers in 1778, and the publication was continued without a single interruption, till it was completed in the year 1785. The work was dedicated and presented to his majesty. The popularity of the “Cyclopædia” gave rise to a variety of similar publications; of many of which it may be truly said, that most of the articles which compose them, are extracted verbatim, or at least with very few alterations and additions, from this dictionary; and that they manifest very little labour of research, or of compilation. One defect seems to have been common to them all, with hardly any exception; and that is, that they do not furnish the reader witli references to the sources from which their materials are derived, and the authorities upon which they depend. This charge was alleged by the editors of the French Encyclopedic, with some justice, but at the same time with unwarrantable acrimony, against Mr. Chambers. The editors of that work, while they pass high encomiums on Mr. Chambers’s Cyclopædia, blend with them censures that are unfounded. They say, e. g. that the “merited honours it has received would, perhaps, never have been produced at all, if, before it appeared in English, we had not had in our own tongue those works, from which Chambers has drawn without measure, and without selection, the greatest part* of the articles of which his dictionary is composed. This being the case, what must Frenchmen think of a mere translation of that work? It must excite the indignation of the learned, and give just offence to the public, to whom, under a new and pompous title, nothing is presented but riches of which they have a long time been in possession?” They add, however, after appropriate and justly deserved commendation; “We agree with him, that the plan and the design of his dictionary are excellent, and that, if it were executed to a certain degree of perfection, it would alone contribute more to the progress of true science, than one half of the books that are known.” However, what their vanity has led them to assert, viz. that the greatest part of Chambers’s Cyclopædia is compiled from French authors, is not true. When Mr. Chambers engaged in his great undertaking, he extended his researches for materials to a variety of publications, foreign and domestic, and in the mathematical articles he was peculiarly indebted to Wolfius: and it cannot be questioned, that he availed himself no less of the excellent writers of his native land than those of France. As to the imperfections of which they complain, they were in a great measure removed, as science advanced, by subsequent improvements; nor could the work, in its last state, be considered as the production of a single person. Nevertheless it cannot be conceived, that any scientific dictionary, comprised in four volumes, should attain to the full standard of human wishes and human imagination. The proprietors, duly sensible of this circumstance, and of the rapid progress of literature and science in the period that has elapsed since the publication of Chambers’ s “Cyclopædia,” have undertaken a work on a much larger scale, which, with the encouragement already received and further reasonably expected, will, it is hoped, preclude most of the objections urged against the former dictionary. Of this a very considerable proportion has already been published, and the editor bids fair to accomplish what was once thought impossible. The learned Mr. Bowyer once conceived an extensive idea of improving Chambers’s Cyclopædia, on which his correspondent Mr. Clarke observes, “Your project of improving and correcting Chambers is a very good one; but alas! who can execute it? You should have as many undertakers as professions; nay, perhaps as many antiquaries as there are different branches of ancient learning.” This, in fact, which appeared to Mr. Clarke so impracticable, has been accomplished under Dr. Rees’s management, by combining the talents of, gentlemen who have made the various sciences, arts, &c. their peculiar study. Of the contemporary Cyclopædias, or Encyclopaedias, it may be sufficient to notice in this place, that printed at Edinburgh under the title of “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” the plan of which is different from that of Dr. Rees, but which has been uncommonly successful, a third edition (in twenty vols. 4to) being now in the press; and one begun by Dr. Brewster on a lesser scale, seems to be edited with care and accuracy.

, an eminent architect, was a native of Sweden, but originally descended from the family of Chalmers in Scotland, barons of Tartas, in France. His grandfather was an opulent merchant, who supplied the armies of Charles XII. with money and military stores, and suffered considerably in his fortune by being obliged to receive the base coin issued by that monarch. This circumstance occasioned his son to reside many years in, Sweden, in order the more effectually to prosecute his pecuniary claims. The subject of this article was born in that country, and for what reason is not known, was brought over from Sweden in 1723, at the age of two years, and placed at a school at Rippon, in Yorkshire. His first entrance into life was as a supercargo to the Swedish East India company. In this capacity he made one voyage to China; and, it appears, lost no opportunity of observing what was curious in that country. At the age of eighteen, however, he quitted this profession, and with it all commercial views, to follow the bent of his inclination, which led him to design and architecture.

, an ingenious French writer, and one of the victims of the revolution, was born in 1741, in a bailiwick near Clermont, in Auvergne. In supporting a revolution which levelled all family distinctions, he had no prejudices to overcome, being the natural son of a man whom he never knew. This circumstance, however, did not diminish his affection for his mother, who was a peasant girl, to supply whose wants he often denied himself the necessaries of life. He was taken at a very early age into the college des Prassins at Paris, as a bursar, or exhibitioner, and was there known by his Christian name of Nicolas. During the first two years he indicated no extraordinary talents, but in the third, out of the five prizes which were distributed annually, he gained four, failing only in Latin verses. The next year he gained the whole, and used to say, “I lost the prize last year, because 'I imitated Virgil; and this year I obtained it, because I took Buchanan, Sarbievius, and other moderns for my guides.” In Greek he made a rapid progress, but his petulance and waggish tricks threw the class into so much disorder, that he was expelled, and not long after left the college altogether. Thrown now on the world, without friends or money, he became clerk to a procurator, and afterwards was taken into the family of a rich gentleman of Liege, as tutor. After this he was employed on the “Journal Encyclopedique,” and having published his Eloges on Moliere and La Fontaine, they were so much admired as to be honoured with the prizes of the French academy, and that of Marseilles. About this time he had little other maintenance than what he derived from the patronage of the duke de Choiseul and madame Helvetius, and therefore was glad to take such employment as the booksellers offered. For them he compiled a “French Vocabulary,” and a “Dictionary of the Theatres.” While employed on this last, he fancied his talents might succeed on the stage, and was not disappointed. His tragedy of “Mustapha,” acted in 1778, was acknowledged to have great beauties; and Voltaire, who witnessed the performance, said with an exclamation, that he Was reminded of Racine. This was followed by two comedies, fugitive pieces of poetry, letters, epigrams, translations of the Anthology, and of Martial, all which contributed very considerably to his reputation. His poetical “Epistle from a father to a son, on the birth of a grandson,” gained him the prize of the French academy, although it appears inferior to his “L'Homme de Lettres, discours philosop.hic|iic en vers.” At length he gained a seat in the academy, on the death of St. Palaye, on whom he wrote an elegant eloge. His tragedy of “Mustapha” procured him the situation of principal secretary to the prince of Conde, but his love of liberty and independence prevented him from long discharging its duties. After resigning it, he devoted himself wholly to the pleasures of society, where he was considered as a most captivating companion. He also held some considerable pensions, which, however, he lost at the revolution.

, was born at Paris in 1717, and destined to supply his father’s place in the parliament of that city as a judge, as well as that of his uncle in the same situation. He made choice of the one of them that would give him the least trouble, and afford him the most leisure for his benevolent projects. Medicine was his favourite study. This he practised on the poor only, with such an ardour and activity of mind, that the hours which many persons give to sleep, he bestowed upon the assistance of the sick. To make himself more useful to them, he had learned to bleed, which operation he performed with all the dexterity of the most experienced surgeon. His disposition to do good appeared so early that when he was a boy, he used to give to the poor the money which other boys spent in general in an idle and unprofitable manner. He was once very much in love with a young lady of great beauty and accomplishment; but imagining that she would not make him a suitable assistant in his attendance upon the poor, he gave over all thoughts of marriage; not very wisely, perhaps, sacrificing to the extreme delicacy of one woman only his attachment to that sex, in whose tenderness of disposition, and in whose instinctive quickness of feeling, he would have found tluufc reciprocation of benevolence he was anxious to procure. He was so forcibly struck with the wretched situation of the great hospital of Paris (the Hotel Dieu, as it is called), where the dead, the dying, and the living, are very often crowded together in the same bed (five persons at a time occasionally occupying the same bed), that he wrote a plan of reform for that hospital, which he shewed in manuscript to the famous John James Rousseau, requesting him to correct it for him. “What correction,” replied Rousseau, “can a work want, that one cannot read without shuddering at the horrid pictures it represents? What is the end of writing if it be not to touch and interest the passions?” M. de Chamousset was occasionally the author of many benevolent and useful schemes; such as the establishment of the penny post at Paris; the bringing good water to that city; a plan for a house of association, by which any man, for a small sum of money deposited, may be taken care of when he is sick; and many others; not forgetting one for the abolition of begging, which is to be found in “Lesvues d'uncitoyen.” M. de Chamousset was now so well known as a man of active and useful benevolence, that M. de Choiseul (when he was in the war department) made him, in 1761, intendant-general of the military hospitals of France, the king, Louis XV. telling him, “that he had never, since he came to the throne, made out an appointment so agreeable to himself;” and added, “I am sure I can never make any one that will be of such service to my troops.” The pains he took in this employment were incredible. His attention to his situation was so great, and conducted with such good sense and understanding, that the marshal de Soubise, on visiting one of the great military hospitals at Dusseldorf, under the care of M. de Chamousset, said, “This is the first time I have been so happy as to go round an hospital without hearing any complaints.” Another marshal of France told his wife: “Were I sick,” said he, “I would be taken to the hospital of which M. de Chamousset has the management.” M. de Chamousset was one day saying to the minister, that he would bring into a court of justice the peculation and rapine of a particular person. “God forbid you should!” answered the minister, “you run a risk of not dying in your bed.” “I had rather,” replied he, “die in any manner you please, than live to see my country devoured by scoundrels.”

Dr. Chandler was a man of very extensive learning and eminent abilities; his apprehension was quick and his judgment penetrating; he had a warm and vigorous imagination he was a very instructive and animated preacher; and his talents in the pulpit, and as a writer, procured him very great and general esteem, not only among the dissenters, but among large numbers of the established church. He was well known and much respected by many persons of the highest rank, and was offered considerable preferment in the church but he steadily rejected every proposition of that kind. He was principally instrumental in the establishment of the fund for relieving the widows and orphans of poor protestant dissenting ministers: the plan of it was first formed by him; and it was by his interest and application to his friends that many of the subscriptions for its support were procured.

, D. D. the son of John Chapman, of Billingham, in the county of Durham, was born at that place in 1717, and educated at Richmond school in Yorkshire. He afterwards entered of Christ college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A. B. 1737, A.M. 174-J, and obtained a fellowship. In 1746 he was chosen master of Magdalen college, and had the degree of LL. D. conferred on him in 1748, and that of D. D. in 1749. In 1748 he served the office of vice-chancellor, and was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains. In 1749, he was rector of Kirby-over-blower in Yorkshire. In 1750 he was presented by the king to a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Durham; and in 1758, was appointed official to the dean and chapter. He died at Cambridge, June 9, 1760, in his forty-third year, and was interred in the chapel of Magdalen college. “He died,” says bishop Hurd, “in the flower of his life and fortune; I knew him formerly very well. He was in his nature a vain and busy man.” Dr. Chapman is now known only by his “Essay on the Roman Senate,” 1750, in which he coincides with Dr. Middleton’s opinion on the same subject. They were both animadverted on by Mr. Hooke, the Roman historian, in his “Observations, &c.” published in 1758, 4to.

In 1760 she was married to Mr. Chapone, removed to London, and for some time lived with her husband in lodgings in Carey-street, and afterwards in Arundel-street. She enjoyed every degree of happiness which mutual attachment could confer, but it was of short duration. In less than ten months after they were married, Mr. Chapone was seized with a fever which terminated his life, after about a week’s illness. At first Mrs. Chapone seemed to bear this calamity with fortitude, but it preyed on her health, and for some time her life was despaired of. She recovered, however, gradually, and resigned herself to a state of life in which she yet found many friends and many consolations. Most of her time was passed in London, or in occasional visits to her friends, among whom she had the happiness to number many distinguished characters of both sexes, lord Lyttelton, Mrs. Montague, and the circle who usually visited her house. In 1770 she accompanied Mrs. Montague into Scotland. In 1773 she published her “Letters on the Improvement of the Mind,” originally intended for the use of her niece, but given to the world at the request of Mrs. Montague, and her other literary friends. As this was her first avowed publication, it made her name more generally known, and increased the number of her admirers. This work was followed by a “Volume of Miscellanies,” including some pieces formerly published without her name.

The abbe Chappe, however, made himself known in the astronomical world by a work of much greater importance. This was a translation of the works of Dr. Halley from the English. This translation appeared in 1752; and the additions made by the translator, and the new inferences he drew from the labours of the English astronomer, placed him almost on a level with the author. The abbe Chappe had now given too striking a specimen of his talents not to attract the notice of government. The king having ordered plans of several places in the district at Bitche in Lorraine to be taken, and the forest in the neighbourhood of the town of that name to be surveyed, the abbe Chappe’s merit procured him the superintendance and direction of this business; and the event shewed, that the ministry could not have chosen a person more deserving of their confidence. On his return from this expedition he was elected a member of the royal academy of sciences; and on the 17th of January 1759, he obtained the place of assistant astronomer, vacant by the promotion of M. de la Lande to that of associate.

, an eminent oriental scholar, of whom we regret that our information is so scanty, was born in 1683, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1712, his master’s in 1716, and that of B. D. in 1723. To his other studies he united an uncommon application to oriental languages, in which such was his reputation, that he was chosen to succeed the learned Simon Ockley in 1720, as Arabic professor. He held also a fellowship in his college, until they bestowed on him the livings of Great and Little Hormead, in Hertfordshire. To this fellowship he was chosen in 1717, in the room of a Mr. Tomkinson, one of the nonjuror-fellows ejected at that time by act of parliament. The celebrated Mr. Baker was another, and always afterwards designated himself “Socius ejectus.” In February 1734-5, we find Mr. Chappelow a candidate for the mastership of St. John’s college, but he failed, although after a very severe contest. Mr. Chappelow constantly read lectures during one term on the Oriental languages, for which he had a peculiar enthusiasm, and in which he was critically versed. This inclined him to the publication of the first work by which his name was more extensively known, his edition of Spencer “De Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus.” Spencer, after the first publication of this capital work in 1685, had continued to make improvements in it, and by will left such of his papers and writings as were perfect, to be added in their proper places, if ever there should be occasion to reprint it with the full right and property of them to his executor, bishop (afterwards archbishop) Tenison, who bequeathed them to the university of Cambridge, after having caused them to be prepared for the press, with fifty pounds towards the expences of printing. These the senate, by grace, gave leave to Mr. Chappelow to publish, and as an encouragement, bestowed upon him the archbishop’s benefaction likewise. The work was accordingly executed in 1727, 2 vols. fol. by a subscription of two guineas the small, and three guineas the large paper, begun in 1725. B en e't college, on this occasion, was at the expence of prefixing an elegant engraving of the author, as a small testimony of gratitude to their munificent benefactor. In 1730, he published “Elementa Linguae Arabicae,” chiefly from Erpenius.

, of Aphrodisium, secretary to a rhetorician named Athenagoras, lived at the end of the fourth century, if these are not fictitious names, which there is great reason to think. A Greek romance, in his style, was some years ago found, entitled “The Loves of Chsereas and Callirhoe,” an edition of which was published by M. d‘Orville, professor of history at Amsterdam, 1750, 4to, with a Latin translation and notes. A French translation appeared at Paris, 1763, 2 vols. 8vo, and M. Fallet published a new one, 1775, 8vo. Gesner, Fabricius, and M. Huet, had spoken of this romance as being only known by name. It is a very amusing composition, and the notes of D’Orville contain a treasure of critical learning. They were adopted afterwards by "Reiske in his edition of Leipsic, 1783, 8vo, and the novel was translated into English, 1763, 2 vols. 12mo, with a preface giving all the account that is known of the author.

, a very learned physician, and voluminous writer, the son of the rev. Walter Charleton, M. A. some time vicar of Ilminster, and afterwards rector of Shepton Mallet, in the county of Somerset, was born at Shepton Mallet, February 2, 1619, and was first educated by his father, a man of extensive capacity, though but indifferently furnished with the goods of fortune. He was afterwards sent to Oxford, and entered of Magdalen Hall in Lent term 1635, where he became the pupil of the famous Dr. John Wilkins, afterwards bishop of Chester, under whom he made great progress in logic and philosophy, and was noted for assiduous application and extensive capacity, which encouraged him to aim at the accomplishments of an universal scholar. But as his circumstances confined him to some particular profession, he made choice of physic, and in a short time made as great a progress in that as he had done in his former studies. On the breaking out of the civil war, which brought the king to Oxford, Mr. Charleton, by the favour of the king, had the degree of doctor of physic conferred upon him in February 1642, and was soon after made one of the physicians in ordinary to his majesty. These honours made him be considered as a rising character, and exposed him to that envy and resentment which he could never entirely conquer. Upon the declension of the royal cause, he came up to London, was admitted of the college of physicians, acquired considerable practice, and lived in much esteem with the ablest and most learned men of the profession; such as sir Francis Prujean, sir George Ent, Dr. William Harvey, and others. In the space of ten years before the Restoration, he wrote and published several very ingenious and learned treatises, as well on physical as other subjects, by which he gained great reputation abroad as well as at home; and though they are now less regarded than perhaps they deserve, yet they were then received with almost universal approbation. He became, as Wood tells us, physician in ordinary to king Charles II. while in exile, which honour he retained after the king’s return; and, upon the founding of the royal society, was chosen one of the first members. Among other patrons and friends were William Cavendish, duke of Newcastle, whose life Dr. Cliarleton translated into Latin in a very clear and elegant style, and the celebrated Hobbes, but this intimacy, with: his avowed respect for the Epicurean philosophy, drew some suspicions upon him in regard to his religion, notwithstanding the pains he had taken to distinguish between the religious and philosophical opinions of Epicurus in his own writings against infidelity. Few circumstances seem to have drawn more censure on him than his venturing to differ in opinion from the celebrated Inigo Jones respecting Stonehenge, which Jones attributed to the Romans, and asserted to be a temple dedicated by them to the god Coelus, or Coelum; Dr. Charleton referred this antiquity to later and more barbarous times, and transmitted Jones’s book, which was not published till after its author’s death, to Olaus Wormius, who wrote him several letters, tending to fortify him in his own sentiment, by proving that this work ought rather to be attributed to his countrymen the Danes. With this assistance Dr. Charleton drew up a treatise, offering many strong arguments to shew, that this could not be a Roman temple, and several plausible reasons why it ought rather to be considered as a Danish monument; but his book, though learned, and enriched with a great variety of curious observations, was but indifferently received, and but coldly defended by his friends. Jones’s son-in-law answered it with intemperate warmth, and many liberties were taken by others with Dr. Charleton’s character, although sir William Dugdale and some other eminent antiquaries owned themselves to be of our author’s opinion; but it is now supposed that both are wrong. Notwithstanding this clamour, Dr. Charleton’s fame was advanced by his anatomical prelections in the college theatre, in the spring of 1683, and his satisfactory defence of the immortal Harvey’s claim to the discovery of the circulation of the blood, against the pretence that was set up in favour of father Paul. In 1689 he was chosen president of the college of physicians, in which office he continued to the year 1691. A little after this, his circumstances becoming narrow, he found it necessary to seek a retreat in the island of Jersey; but the causes of this are not explained, nor have we been able to discover how long he continued in Jersey, or whether he returned afterwards to London. All that is known with certainty is, that he died in the latter end of 1707, and in the eighty-eighth year of his age. He appears from his writings to have been a man of extensive learning, a lover of the constitution in church and state, and so much a lover of his country as to refuse a professor’s chair in the university of Padua. In his junior years he dedicated much of his time to the study of philosophy and polite literature, was as well read in the Greek and Roman authors as any man of his time, and he was taught very early by his excellent tutor, bishop Wilkins, to digest his knowledge so as to command it readily when occasion required. In every branch of his own profession he has left testimonies of his diligence and his capacity; and whoever considers the plainness and perspicuity of his language, the pains he has taken to collect and produce the opinions of the old physicians, in order to compare them with the moderns, the just remarks with which these collections and comparisons are attended, the succinctness with which all this is dispatched, and the great accuracy of that method in which his books are written, will readily agree that he was equal to most of his contemporaries. As an antiquary, he had taken much pains in perusing our ancient historians, and in observing their excellencies as well as their defects. But, above all, he was studious of connecting the sciences with each other, and thereby rendering them severally more perfect; in which, if he did not absolutely succeed himself, he had at least the satisfaction of opening the way to others, of showing the true road to perfection, and pointing out the means of applying and making those discoveries useful, which have followed in succeeding times. There is also good reason to believe, that though we have few or none of his writings extant that were composed during the last twenty years of his life, yet he was not idle during that space, but committed many things to paper, as materials at least for other works that he designed. There is now a large collection of his ms papers and letters on subjects of philosophy and natural history in the British Museum. (Ayscough’s Catalogue.) His printed works are, 1 . “Spiritus Gorgonicus vi sua saxipara exutus, sive de causis, signis, et sanatione Lithiaseos,” Leyden, 1650, 8vo. This book is usually called De Lithiasi Diatriba. 2. “The darkness of Atheism discovered by the light of nature, a physicotheological treatise,” London, 1651, 4to. 3. “The Ephesian and Cimmerian Matrons, two remarkable examples of the power of Love and Wit/ 7 London, 1653 and 1658, 8vo. 4.” Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charletoniana: or a fabric of natural science erected upon the most ancient hypothesis of atoms,“London, 1654, in fol. 5.” The Immortality of the human Soul demonstrated by reasons natural,“London, 1657, 4to. 6.” Oeconomia Animalis novis Anatomicorum inventis, indeque desumptis modernorum Medicorum Hypothesibus Physicis superstructa et mechanice explicata,“London, 1658, 12mo; Amsterdam, 1659, 12mo; Leyden, 1678, 12mO; Hague, 1681, 12mo. It is likewise added to the last edition of” Gulielmi Cole de secretione animali cogitata.“7.” Natural history of nutrition, life, and voluntary motion, containing all the new discoveries of anatomists,“&c. London, 1658, 4to. 8.” Exercitationes Physico-Anatomicse de Oeconomia Animali,“London, 1659, 8vo printed afterwards several times abroad. 9.” Exercitationes Pathologicæ, in quibus morborum pene omnium natura, generatio, et causae ex novis Anatomicorum inventis sedulo inquiruntur,“London, 160, and 1661, 4to. 10.” Character of his most sacred Majesty Charles II. King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,“London, 1660, one sheet, 4to. 11.” Disquisitiones duae Anatomico-Physica? altera Anatome pueri de ccelo tacti, altera de Proprietatibus Cerebri humani,“London, 1664, 8vo. 12.” Chorea Gigantum, or the most famous antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called Stonehenge, standing on Salisbury Plain, restored to the Danes,“London, 1663, 4to. 13.” Onomasticon Zoicon, plerorumque animalium differentias et nomina propria pluribus linguis exponens. Cui accedunt Mantissa Anatomice, et quiedam de variis Fossilium generibus,“London, 1668 and 1671, 4to; Oxon. 1677, fol. 14.” Two Philosophical Discourses the first concerning the different wits of men the second concerning the mystery of Vintners, or a discourse of the various sicknesses of wines, and their respective remedies at this day commonly used, &c. London, 1663, 1675, 1692, 8vo. 15. “De Scorbuto Liber singularis. Cui accessit Epiphonema in Medicastros,” London, 1671, 8vo; Leyden, 1672, 12mo. 16. “Natural History of the Passions,” London, 1674, 8vo. 17. “Enquiries into Humane Nature, in six Anatomy-prelections in the new theatre of the royal college of physicians in London,” London, 1680, 4to. 18. “Oratio Anniversaria habita in Theatro inclyti Collegii Medicorum Londinensis 5to Augusti 1680, in commemorationem Beneficiorum a Doctore Harvey aliisque præstitorum,” London, 1680, 4to. 19. “The harmony of natural and positive Divine Laws,” London, 1682, 8vo. 20. “Three Anatomic Lectures concerning, l.The motion of the blood through the veins and arteries. 2. The organic structure of the heart. 3. The efficient cause of the heart’s pulsation. Read in the 19th, 20th, and 21st day of March 1682, in the anatomic theatre of his majesty’s royal college of Physicians in London,” London, 1683, 4to. 21. “Inquisitio Physlca de causis Catameniorum, et Uteri Rheumatismo, in quo probatur sanguinem in animali fermentescere nunquam,” London, 1685, 8vo. 22. “Gulielmi Ducis Novicastrensis vita,” London, 1668, fol. This is a translation from the English original written by Margaret, the second wife of William duke of Newcastle. 23. “A Ternary of Paradoxes, of the magnetic cure of wounds, nativity of tartar in wine, and image of God in man,” London, 1650, 4to. 24. “The errors of physicians concerning Defluxions called Deliramenta Catarrhi,” London, 1650, 4to, both translations from Van Helmont. 25. “Epicurus his Morals,” London, 1655, 4to. This work of his is divided into thirty-one chapters, and in these he fully treats all the principles of the Epicurean philosophy, digested under their proper heads; tending to prove, that, considering the state of the heathen world, the morals of Epicurus were as good as any, as in a former work he had shewn that his philosophic opinions were the best of any, or at least capable of being explained in such a manner as that they might become so in the hands of a modern philosopher. This work was translated into several modern languages. 26. “The Life of Marcellus,” translated from Plutarch, and printed in the second volume of “Plutarch’s Lives translated from the Greek by several hands,” London, 1684, 8vo.

, dean of the French academy, was born at Paris, Feb. 1620. His early discovery of great acuteness made his friends design him for the bar: but his taste led him to prefer the repose and stillness of the closet, and he became more delighted with languages and antiquity, than with the study of the law. He was made a member of the French academy in 1651, and had the advantage of the best conversation for his improvement. When Colbert became minister of state, he projected the setting up a French East-India company; and to recommend the design more effectually, he thought it proper that a discourse should be published upon this subject. Accordingly he ordered Charpentier to draw one up, and was so pleased with his performance, published in 1664, that he kept him in his family, with a design to place him in another academy which was then founding, and which was afterwards known by the name of “Inscriptions and Medals.” The learned languages, in which Charpentier was a considerable master, his great knowledge of antiquity, and his exact and critical judgment, made him very serviceable in carrying on the business of this newacademy; and it is agreed on all hands, that no person of that learned society contributed more than himself towards that noble series of medals, which were struck of the most considerable events that happened in the reign of Lewis XIV. but his adulation of the king exceeded that of all his contemporaries.

, was born at Paris in 1541. Though his parents were in narrow circumstances, yet discovering their son’s capacity, they were particularly attentive to his education. After making a considerable proficiency in grammar-learning, he applied to logic, metaphysics, moral and natural philosophy, and afterwards studied civil and common law at the universities of Orleans and Bourges, and commenced doctor in that faculty. Upon his return to Paris, he was admitted an advocate in the court of parliament. He always declared the bar to be the best and most improving school in the world; and accordingly attended at all the public hearings for five or six years: but foreseeing that preferment in this way, if ever attained at all, was like to come very slow, as he had neither private interest, nor relations among the solicitors and proctors of the court, he gave over that employment, and closely applied to the study of divinity. By his superior pulpit eloquence, he soon came into high reputation with the greatest and most learned men of his time, insomuch that the bishops seemed to strive which of them should get him into his diocese; making him an offer of being theological canon or divinity lecturer in their churches, and of other dignities and benefices, besides giving him noble presents. He was successively theologal of Bazas, Aqcs, Lethoure, Agen, Cahors, and Condom, canon and schoolmaster in the church of Bourdeaux, and chanter in the church of Condom. Queen Margaret, duchess of Bulois, entertained him for her preacher in ordinary; and the king, though at that time a protestant, frequently did him the honour to be one of his audience. He was also retained by the cardinal d'Armagnac, the pope’s legate at Avignon, who had a great value for him; yet amidst all these promotions, he never took any degree or title in divinity, but satisfied himself with deserving and being capable of the highest. After about eighteen years absence from Paris, he resolved to end his days there; and being a lover of retirement, vowed to become a Carthusian. On his arrival at Paris, he communicated his intention to the prior of the order, but was rejected, notwithstanding his most pressing entreaties. They told him that he could not be received on account of his age, then about forty-eight, and that the order required all the vigour of youth to support its austerities. He next addressed himself to the Celestines at Paris, but with the same success, and for the same reasons: in this embarrassment, he was assured by three learned casuists, that as he was no ways accessary to the non -performance of his vow, it was no longer binding; and that he might, with a very safe conscience, continue in the world as a secular. He preached, however, a course of Lent sermons at Angers in 1589. Going afterwards to Bourdeaux, he contracted a very intimate friendship with Michael de Montagne, author of the well known Essays, from whom he received all possible testimonies of regard; for, among other things, Montagne ordered by his last will, that in case he should leave no issue-male of his own, M. Charron should, after his decease, be entitled to bear the coat of arms plain, as they belonged to his noble family, and Charron, in return, made Montagne’s brotherin-law his residuary legatee. He staid at Bourdeaux from 1589 to 1593; and in that interval composed his book, entitled, “Les Trois Verge’s,” which he published in 1594. These three truths are the following 1. That there is a God and a true religion 2. That of all religions the Christian is the only true one 3. That of all the Christian communions the Roman catholic is the only true church. This work procured him the acquaintance of M. de Sulpice, Bishop and count of Cahors, who sent for him and offered him the places of his vicar-general and canon theological in his church, which he accepted. He was deputed to the general assembly of the clergy in 1595, and was chosen first secretary to the assembly. In 1599 he returned to Cahors; and in that and the following year composed eight discourses upon the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; and. others upon the knowledge and providence of God, the redemption of the world, the communion of saints, and likewise his “books of Wisdom.” Whilst he was thus employed, the bishop of Condom, to draw him into his diocese, presented him with the chaptership in his church; and the theologal chair falling vacant about the same time, made him an offer of that too, which -Charron accepted, and resolved to settle there. In 1601 he printed at Bourdeaux his books “of Wisdom,” which gave him a great reputation, and made his character generally known. October 1603, he made a journey to Paris, to thank the Bishop of Boulogne; who, in order to have him near himself, had oifered him the place of theologal canon. This he was disposed to accept of; but the moisture and coldness of the air at Boulogne, and its nearness to the sea, not only made it, he said to a friend, a melancholy and unpleasant place, but very unwholesome too; adding, that the sun was his visible god, as God was his invisible sun. At Paris he began a new edition of his books “of Wisdom,” of which he lived to see but three or four sheets printed, dying Nov. 16, 1603, of an apoplexy. The impression of the new edition of his book “of Wisdom,” with alterations by the author, occasioned by the offence taken at some passages in the former, was completed in 1604, by the care of a friend; but as the Bourdeaux edition contained some things that were either suppressed or softened in the subsequent one, it was much sought after by the curious. Hence the booksellers of several cities reprinted the book after that edition; and this induced a Paris bookseller to print an edition, to which he subjoined all the passages of the first edition which had been struck out or corrected, and all those which the president Jeannin, who was employed by the chancellor to examine the book, judged necessary to be changed. This edition appeared in 1707. There have been two translations of it into English, the last by George Stanhope, D. D. printed in 1697. Dr. Stanhope says, that M. Charron “was a person that feared God, led a pious and good life, was charitably disposed, a person of wisdom and conduct, serious and considerate; a great philosopher, an eloquent orator, a famous and powerful preacher, richly furnished and adorned with the most excellent virtues and graces both moral and divine; such as made him very remarkable and singular, and deservedly gave him the character of a good man and a good Christian; such as preserve a great honour and esteem for his memory among persons of worth and virtue, and will continue to do so as long as the world shall last.” From this high praise considerable deductions may surely be made. Charron’s fame has scarcely outlived his century; his book on “Wisdom” certainly abounds in ingenious and original observations on moral topics, but gives a gloomy picture of human nature and society. Neither is it free from sentiments very hostile to revealed religion, but so artfully disguised as to impose on so orthodox a divine as dean Stanhope.

, a native of Vendome, studied medicine at Paris, where he took his doctor’s degree in 1608, and was afterwards professor of surgery, and physician to the king. He is principally known as the editor of a very splendid edition of the works of Hippocrates and Galen, on which he expended all his fortune. It was printed in 13 vols. fol. usually bound in nine, the dates of which appear to be from 1639 to 1649, and that of the supplementary volumes about 1672. We have no account of his death, but he appears to have died before 1639.

“Over the north porch of St. Mary Redcliffe church, which was founded, or at least rebuilt, by Mr. W. Canynge (an eminent merchant of Bristol, in the fifteenth century, and in the reign of Edward the Fourth), there is a kind of muniment room, in which were deposited six v or seven chests, one of which in particular was called Mr. Canynge’s cofre: this chest, it is said, was secured by six keys,- two of which were entrusted to the minister and procurator of the church, two to the mayor, and one to each of the church-wardens. In process of time, however, the six keys appear to have been lost: and about the year 1727, a notion prevailed that some title deeds, and other vyrjtings of value, wtrje contained in Mr. Ciniynge’s cofre. In consequence of this opinion an order of vestry was made, that the chest should be opened under the inspection of an attorney; and that those writings which appeared of consequence should be removed to the south porch of the church. The locks were therefore forced, and not only the principal chest, but the others, which were also supposed to contain writings, were all broken open. The deeds immediately relating to the church were removed, and the other manuscripts were left exposed as of no value. Considerable depredations had, from time to time, been committed upon them by different persons: but the most insatiate of these plunderers was the father of Chatterton. His uncle being sexton of St. Mary Redcliffe gave him free access to the church. He carried off, from time to time, parcels of the parchments, and one time alone, with the assistance of his boys, is known to have filled a large basket with them. They were deposited in a cupboard in the school and employed for different purposes, such as the covering of copy-books, &c. in particular, Mr. Gibbs, the minister of the parish, having presented the boys with twenty Bibles, Mr. Chatterton, in order to preserve these books from being damaged, covered them with some of the parchments. At his death, the widow being under a necessity of removing, carried the remainder of them to her own habitation. Of the discovery of their value by the younger Chatterton, the account of Mr. Smith, a very intimate acquaintance, which he gave to Dr. Glynn of Cambridge, is too interesting to be omitted. When young Chatterton was first articled to Mr. Lambert, he used frequently to come home to his mother, by way of a short visit. There one day his eye was caught by one of these parchments, which had been converted into a thread-paper. He found not only the writing to be very old, the characters very different from common characters, but that the subject therein treated was different from common subjects. Being naturally of an inquisitive and curious turn, he was very much struck with their appearance, and, as might be expected, began to question his mother what those threadpapers were, how she got them, and whence they came. Upon further inquiry, he was led to a full discovery of all the parchments which remained; the bulk of them consisted of poetical and other compositions, by Mr. Canynge, and a particular friend of his, Thomas Rowley, whom Chatterton at first called a monk, and afterwards a secular priest of the fifteenth century. Such, at least, appears to be the account which. Chatterton thought proper to give, and which he wished to be believed. It is, indeed, confirmed by the testimony of his mother and sister. Mrs. Chatterton informed a friend of the dean of Exeter (Dr. Milles), that on her removal from Pyle-street, she emptied the cupboard of its contents, partly into a large long deal box, where her husband used to keep his clothes, and partly into a square oak box of a smaller size; carrying both with their contents to her lodgings, where, according to her account, they continued neglected and undisturbed till her son first discovered their value; who having examined their contents, told his mother ‘ that he had found a treasure, and was so glad nothing could be like it.’ That he then removed all these parchments out of the large long deal box in which his father used to keep his clothes, into the square oak box: that he was perpetually ransacking every corner of the house for more parchments; and from time to time, carried away those he had already found by pockets full. That one day happening to see Clarke’s History of the Bible covered with one of those parchments, he swore a great oath, and stripping the book, put the cover into his pocket, and carried it away; at the same time stripping a common little Bible, but finding no writing upon the cover, replaced it again very leisurely. Upon being informed of the manner in which his father had procured the parchments, he went himself to the place, and picked up four more.”

In return for these contributions, Barret and Catcot supplied Chatterton occasionally with money, and introduced him into company. At his request, too, Mr. Barret lent our poet some medical authors, and gave him a few instructions in surgery, but still his favourite studies were heraldry and English antiquities, which he pursued with as much success as could be expected from one who knew no language but his own. Camden’s Britannia appears to have been a favourite book; and he copied the glossaries of Chaucer and others with indefatigable perseverance, storing his memory with antiquated words. Even Bailey’s dictionary has been proved to have afforded him many of those words which the advocates for Rowley thought could be known only to a writer of his pretended age.

The only remarkable consequence of this correspondence was the censure Mr. Wai pole incurred from the admirers of Chatterton, who, upon no other authority than the circumstances now related, persisted in accusing him of barbarous neglect of an extraordinary genius who solicited his protection, and finally of being the cause of his shocking end. Mr. Walpole, when he found this calumny transmitted from hand to hand, and probably believed by those who did not take the trouble to inquire into the facts, drew up a candid narrative of the whole correspondence, which was broken off nearly two years before Chatterton died, during which two years the latter had resided, with every encouragement, in London; and, according to his own account, was within the prospect of ease and independence, without the aid of Mr. Walpole' s patronage. Of all this Mr. Walpole’s accusers could not be ignorant, if they knew any thing of Chatterton’s history. They must have known that Chatterton did not apply to Walpole, as a poet, but merely as a young man who was transmitting the property of another, and who had no claims of his own, but that he was tired of a dull profession, and wished for a place in which he might indulge his taste in what was more lively. A patron must have had many places in his gift and few applicants, if he could spare one to a person who professed no other merit than an inclination to exchange labour for ease. Yet Walpole has been held forth to public indignation as the cause of Chatterton’s death.

When public attention was at length called to Chattertori’s history, his admirers took every step to excite compassion in his favour. It became the fashion to repeat that he was starved by an insensible age, or suffered, by the neglect of patrons, to perish in want of the common necessaries of life. But of this there is no satisfactory evidence. On the contrary, he appears to have been fully employed by his literary friends almost up to the day of his death, and from one of them he solicited money a very little before that catastrophe, and received it with an assurance that he should have more if he wanted it. This benefactor was the late Mr. Hamilton senior, the proprietor of the Critical Review, a man of well-known liberality, both of mind and purse. One who knew him well, when in London, and who wrote under the inspection of Mr. Hamilton in the Critical Review, gives it as a probable conjecture, that “he wished to seal his secret with his death. He knew that he and Rowley were suspected to be the same; his London friends spoke of it with little scruple, and he neither confessed nor denied it. He might fear somewhat from himself; might dread the effects of increasing obligations, and be struck with horror at the thought of a public detection. He sometimes seemed wild, abstracted, and incoherent; at others he had a Settled gloominess in his countenance, the sure presage of his fatal resolution. In short, this was the very temperament and constitution from which we should, in similar circumstances, expect the same event. He was one of those irregular meteors which astonish the universe for a moment, and then, disappear for ever.” This is at least plausible; but the immediate cause of his death must perhaps yet remain a mystery. He had written so recently to his Bristol friends (about a month before), without a syllable indicating discontent or despair, that it was wholly unexpected on their part; but suicide, at one time or other, his biographers have proved, was his fixed purpose, and the execution of it was probably to depend on his disappointment in whatever wild or impracticable scheme he might meditate. He got enough in London by his literary labours, to supply the decent necessaries of life, but his dreams of affluence were over, and had probably left that frightful void in his mind at which despair and disappointed pride entered.

For upwards of seventy years after the death of Chaucer, his works remained in manuscript. Mr. Tyrwhitt enumerates twenty-six manuscripts which he had an opportunity of consulting in the various public and private libraries of London, Oxford, Cambridge, &c. but of all these he is inclined to give credit to only five. Caxton, the first English printer, selected Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales,” as one of the earliest productions of his press, but happened to copy a very incorrect manuscript. This first edition is supposed by Mr. Ames to have been printed in 1475 or 1476. There are only two complete copies extant, one in his majesty’s library, and another in that of Merton-college, both without preface or advertisement. About six years after, Caxton printed a second edition, and in his preface apologized for the errors of the former. No perfect copy of this edition is known. Ames mentions an edition “collected by William Caxton, and printed by Wynken de Worde, 1495, folio,” but the existence of this is doubtful. Pynson printed two editions; the first, it is conjectured, in 1491, and the second in 1526, which was the first in which a collection of some other pieces of Chaucer was added to the Canterbury Tales. Ames notices editions in 1520 and 1522, but had not seen them, nor are they now known. In 1532 an edition was printed by Thomas Godfrey, and edited by Mr. Thynne, which Mr. Tyrwhitt informs us, was considered, notwithstanding its many imperfections, as the standard edition, and was copied, not only by the booksellers, in their several editions of 1542, 1546, 1555, and 1561, but also by Mr. Speght, in 1597 and 1602. Speght’s edition was reprinted in 1687, and in 1721 appeared Mr. Urry’s, who, while he professed to compare a great many manuscripts, took such liberties with his author’s text as to render this by far the worst edition ever published.

A selection of Chaufepie’s “Sermons” was published after his death by his nephew and colleague in the church at Amsterdam, Samuel de Chaufepié. But the work which gives him the best title to a place here, is his “Nouveau Dictionaire Historique et Critique pour servir de Supplement, ou de Continuation au Dictionaire de M. Pierre Bayle,” Amsterdam, 1750—1756, 4 vols. fol. The editors of the French Dict. Historique, of 1804, messieurs Chaudon and Delandine, speak of this as an ill-digested work, and say that the author, in continuing Bayle, has imitated him neither in his good nor his bad qualities, and that he does not interest his readers like the philosopher of Rotterdam, his style being inferior and incorrect. They allow, however, that he respects religion, although he declaims sometimes against the Roman Catholics; and they give due praise to his researches respecting the literature of France, England, and Holland. That he declaims against the Roman catholics sometimes, is an objection very natural to the editors of the French dictionary, but frequent recourse to Chaufepie’s work convinces us that he speaks with impartiality, and engages as little as possible with points of controversy. The work was originally intended as a supplement to Bayle, but various circumstances stated by the author in his preface, prevented the booksellers from prosecuting this plan, and it may rather be considered as a new work, founded partly on Bayle, and partly on the English “General Dictionary,” 10 vols. fol. The new articles from the pen of Chaufepié are in general accurate, and this work ought to be better known in this country, because, owing to the author’s religious principles, less use has been made of it abroad than it deserves. The English articles, although this circumstance is not perhaps of much importance here, are more full than in any other work published on the Continent, and the additions the author has made not only to them, but to Bayle’s series, afford a very favourable idea of the labour and research he must have employed. He appears to have been first applied to by the booksellers of Amsterdam in 1739, and to have spent several years in preparing it for the press. With respect to the charge that it is less interesting to readers than Bayle, we can only remark that in proportion as any biographer follows Bayle, he will render his work a tissue of interrupting impertinencies and crude sentiments.

, was born at Fontenay in Normandy, in 1639. His father, counsellor of state at Rouen, placed him in the college de Navarre at Paris, where he acquired a profound knowledge of the ancient authors, and contracted an intimacy with the duke de Rochefoucault and the abbé Marsillac, whose patronage he acquired by his lively conversation and his various talents; and while he was countenanced by them, he formed an acquaintance that had a great influence on his poetical efforts. The duchess of Bouillon, a niece of cardinal Mazarin, was about to lay out a large garden, and for that purpose thought it necessary to obtain a piece of ground belonging to the estate of the family of Chaulieu. The poet, with much address, brought the treaty to effect agreeably to the desires of the duchess, and thus acquired the favour of a lady, who afterwards became the inspirer of his sonnets. Her house was a temple of the muses; she encouraged, rewarded, and inspired all such as shewed marks of poetic genius; and evinced a particular regard for Chaulieu. Through her he became known to the duke de Vendome, a great friend of the muses, who, as grand prior of France, presented him with a priorate on the isle of Oleron, with an annual revenue of 28,000 livres. To this were afterwards added the abbacies of Pouliers, Renes, Aumale, and St. Stephen, the profits of which enabled him to pass his life in ease and affluence. The first thing by which Chaulieu became known as a poet was a rondeau on Benserade’s translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. He soon found opportunities for appearing frequently before the public; and his acquaintance with Chapelle determined him entirely for jovial poetry. Chaulieu was no poet by profession he sung with the flask in his hand, and we are told that in the circle of genial friends he acquired those delicate sentiments which render his poetry at once so natural and so charming. The muses were the best comforts of his age, as they had frequently been in his younger

, an eminent nonconformist, and great uncle to the historian of Hertfordshire, was the fifth and youngest son of George Chauncy, esq. of Yardley-bury and New-place in Hertfordshire, by Agnes, the daughter of Edward Welch, and widow of Edward Humberstone, and was born in 1592. He was educated at Westminster school, from which he went to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he was admitted to his several degrees, till he became bachelor of divinity. His reputation for learning was such as gained him the esteem and friendship of the celebrated Dr. Usher, archbishop of Armagh. In consequence of his distinguished skill in Oriental literature, he was chosen, by the heads of houses, Hebrew professor; but Dr. Williams, the vice-chancellor, preferring a relation of his own, Mr. Chauncy resigned his pretensions, and was appointed to the Greek professorship. He was the author of the sTriKpuris which is prefixed to Leigh’s “Critica Sacra' 7 upon the New Testament. When Mr. Chauncy quitted the university, he became vicar of Ware in Hertfordshire. Being of puritanical principles, he was jnuch offended with the” Book of Sports;“and opposed, although with less reason, the railing in of the Communion table. Besides this, he had the indiscretion to say in a sermon, that idolatry was admitted into the church; that much Atheism, Popery, Arminianism, and Heresy had crept into it; and that the preaching of the gospel would be suppressed. Having by these things excited the indignation of the ruling powers, he was questioned in the high commission; and the cause being referred, by order of that court, to the determination of his ordinary, he was imprisoned, condemned in costs of suit, and obliged to make a recantation; which, as it had been extorted from him through fear, lay heavy on his mind. He continued, indeed, some years in his native country, and officiated at Marston Lawrence, in the diocese of Peterborough; but at length retired to New England, where he made an open acknowledgment of his crime in signing a recantation contrary to the dictates of his conscience. For some considerable time succeeding his arrival at New England in 1637, he assisted Mr. Reyner, the minister of that place; after which he removed to a town at a little distance, called” Scituate," where he continued twelve years in the discharge of his pastoral office. When the republican party became predominant in England, Mr. Chauncy was invited, by his old parishioners at Ware, to return back to his native country, and had thoughts of complying, but was so earnestly pressed by the trustees of Harvard college, in Cambridge, which then wanted a president, to accept of the government of that society, that he could not resist their solicitations. This event took place in 1654; and from that time to his death, which happened on the 19th of February, 1671-2, in the 80th year of his age, Mr. Chauncy continued with great reputation at the head of the college, discharging the duties of his station with distinguished attention, diligence, and ability. So high was the esteem in which he was held, that when he had resided about two years in Cambridge, the church of that town, to whom he was united, and among whom he preached, kept a whole day of thanksgiving to God, for the mercy they enjoyed in their connection with him. Mr. Chauncy, by his wife Catherine, whose life was published, had six sons, all of whom were brought up for the ministry. Isaac the eldest of them, became pastor of a nonconformist society in London, and wrote several treatises . Mr. Charles Chauncy had a number of descendants, who long flourished both in Old and New England. One of them was the late Dr. Chauncy the physician, who died in 1777, well known for his skill and taste in pictures, and for his choice collection of them, afterwards in the possession of his brother, Nathaniel Chauncy, esq. of Castle-street, Leicester-fields, who died in 1790.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishop Hoadly writes thus of Clarke: “He was a person of a natural genius, excellent enough to have placed him in the superior rank of men without the acquirements of learning; and of learning enough to have rendered a much less cdmprehensive genius very considerable in the ways of the world. But in him they were both united to such a degree, that those who were of his intimate acquaintance 'knew not which to admire most. The first strokes of knowledge, in some of its branches, seemed to be little less than natural to him: for they appeared to lie right in his mind, as soon as any thing could appear; and to be the very same, which afterwards grew up with him into perfection, as the strength and cultivation of his mind increased. He had one happiness very rarely known among the greatest men, that his memory was almost equal to his judgment, which is as great a character as can well be given of it.” Then, after observing how great the doctor was in “all branches of knowledge and learning, he goes on thus:” If in any one of these many branches he had excelled only so much as he did in all, this alone would justly have entitled him to the name of a great man. But there is something so very extraordinary, that the same person should excel, not only in those parts of knowledge which require the strongest judgment, but in those which want the help of the strongest memory also; and it is so seldom seen, that one who is a great master in theology, is at the same time skilfully fond of all critical and classical learning, or excellent in the physical and mathematical studies, or well framed for metaphysical and abstract reasonings; that it ought to be remarked, in how particular a manner, and to how high a degree, divinity and mathematics, experimental philosophy and classical learning, metaphysics and critical skill, all of them, various and different as they are amongst themselves, united in Dr. Clarke.“Afterwards the bishop informs us, how earnestly his acquaintance and friendship was sought after by the greatest lovers of virtue and knowledge; what regard was paid to him by the chief persons of the law; and, above all, what pleasure her late majesty queen Caroline took in his conversation and friendship: for” seldom a week passed, says he, “in which she did not receive some proof of the greatness of his genius, and of the force of his superior understanding.”

The next appearance of Dr. Clayton from the press, was in a work undoubtedly his own, “A Vindication of the Histories of the Old and New Testament; in answer to the Objections of the late Lord Bolingbroke; in two letters to a young nobleman,” 1752, 8vo; a work of great ability, in which some of lord Bolingbroke’s objections to several parts of scripture are well exposed and confuted. In 1753, he published “A Journal from Grand Cairo to Mount Sinai, and back again. Translated from a manuscript written by the Prefetto of Egypt, in company with the Missionaries de propaganda Fids at Grand Cairo. To which are added, some remarks on the origin of hieroglyphics, and the mythology of the ancient heathens.” Dedicated to the Society of Antiquaries, London, 4to and 8vo. The bishop, having become possessed of the original Journal from Grand Cairo to Mount Sinai, and which had been mentioned by Dr. Pococke in his Travels through the East, communicated this translation of it to the Society of Antiquaries, with a view of exciting them to make some inquiry into certain ancient characters, which, as appears from the Journal, are discovered in great numbers in the Wilderness of Sinai, at a place well known by the name of Gebel el Mokatah, or the Written Mountains. It does not appear that any measures were taken by the Society of Antiquaries; but the celebrated Mr. Edward Wortley Montagu, who went from Cairo to the Desert of Sinai, with, the express purpose of seeing and describing the objects proposed by the bishop, was greatly disappointed, and convinced that the characters were not written by the Israelites; and we believe the researches of more recent travellers have been equally unsuccessful.

, was the son of colonel Cleland, that celebrated fictitious member of the Spectator’s Club whom Steele describes under the name of Will Honeycombe. He was educated at Westminster- school, to which he was admitted in 1722, and was there the contemporary of lord Mansfield, He was early in life sent as consul to Smyrna, where perhaps he first imbibed those loose principles which in the infamous work he afterwards wrote, are so dangerously exemplified. On his return from Smyrna, he went to the East Indies; but, quarrelling with some of the members of the presidency of Bombay, he made a precipitate retreat from the east, with little or no benefit to his fortune. Being without profession, or any settled means of subsistence, he soon fell into difficulties; a prison and its miseries were the consequences. In this situation, about the year 1750, one of those booksellers who disgrace the profession, offered him a temporary relief for writing a work most grossly immoral, and fit only for the brothels, which brought a stigma on his name that time has not obliterated. The sum given for the copy was 20 guineas; the sum received for the sale could not be less than 10,000l. For this publication he was called before the privy council; and the circumstance of his distress being known, as well as his being a man of some parts, John earl Granville, the then president, nobly rescued him from the like temptation, by getting him a pension of 100l. a. year, which he enjoyed to his death, and which had so much the desired effect, that except the “Memoirs of a Coxcomb,” which has some smack of dissipated manners, and the “Man of Honour,” written as an amende honorable for his former exceptionable book, he dedicated the rest of his life to political, dramatic, and philological studies. In 1765 he published “The Way to Things by Words, and to Words by Things,” 8vo, which wast followed in 1768 by “Specimens of an Etymological Vocabulary, or Essay by means of the Analytic method to retrieve the ancient Celtic,” and Proposals for publishing by subscription, in 2 vols. 4to, “The Celtic retrieved by the Analytic method, or reduction to Radicals; illustrated by various and especially British antiquities;” but he does not appear to have received encouragement sufficient to enable him to print this work. In these publications, however, he has displayed a fund of ingenuity and erudition, not unworthy the education he received at Westminster. His political effusions appeared chiefly in the Public Advertiser, under the signatures A Briton, Modestus, &c. but were tedious and dull. His dramatic trifles and occasional poems were more lively, although they had not strength to survive their day. He Jived within the income of his pension, with some addition from his newspaper labours, in a retired situation in Petty France, where he died Jan. 23, 1789, in his eightieth year, having survived his infamous publication long enough to see, we trust with shame and sorrow, the extensive misery it created, and which it never was in his power to check.

, an eminent German bibliographer, was a French preacher at Hanover, a man profoundly acquainted with the history of literature, and the author of a well-known collection of bibliography, entitled “Bibliotheque curieuse, historique, et critique, ou Catalogue raisonne de livres difficiles a trouver,” 9 vols. 4to, Gottingen, &c. 1750 1760, at which last date^this useful work was interrupted by his death, and has never been completed. It is in alphabetical order, and extends no farther than the letter H. Its only fault is that the author marks many books as rare, which are very common. He published also “Specimen Bibliothecae Hispano-Maiansianae, sive idea novi catalog! critici operum scriptorum Hispanorum, quse kabet in sua bibliotheca Gregorius Maiansius,” Hanover, 1753, 4to.

It would not be to our purpose to be particular in relating the war between Antony and Caesar; the battle of Actium, as is well known, determined the victory in favour of the latter, and Cleopatra flying first, Antony hastened after. He conceived however great displeasure against her upon this occasion, and continued three days without seeing her; but afterwards recovered his usual humour, and devoted himself to pleasure. Meanwhile, Cleopatra made trial of all sorts of poisons upon criminals, even to the biting of serpents; and finding, after many experiments, that the sting of an asp gave the quickest and the easiest death, it is believed she made choice of that kind of death, if she should be driven to despair. After they were returned to Egypt, and found themselves abandoned by all their allies, they sent to make proposals to Caesar. Cleopatra asked the kingdom of Egypt for her children; and Antony desired he might live as a private man at Athens, if Caesar was not willing he should remain in Egypt. Cuesar absolutely rejected Antony’s proposal, and sent to Cleopatra that he would refuse her nothing that was just and reasonable, if she would rid herself of Antony, or drive him out of her kingdom. She refused to act openly against Antony; but betrayed him in every effort that he made, till she obliged him to put an end to his own life, for fear of falling into Crcsar’s hands. When Antony was dead, Cleopatra could not forbear most passionately bemoaning the loss of him: however, upon Caesar’s approach to Alexandria, she began to consult her own security. Near the temple of Isis she had raised a stately building, which she designed for her sepulchre: into this she now retired; and into this was carried by her order all her treasure, as gold, jewels, pearls, ivory, ebony, cinnamon, and other precious woods. It was filled besides with torches, faggots, tow, and other combustible matter: so that Caesar, who had notice of it, was afraid lest out of despair she should burn herself in it, with all those vast riches and therefore contrived to give her hopes from time to time that she might expect all good usage, from the esteem he had for her. It was his secret wish to expose this queen in his triumph to the Romans; and with this view he sent Proculus to employ all his art and address in seizing her, which he at length accomplished, and Cassar, although extremely glad to have her in his possession, commanded her to be served in all respects like a queen. She became, however, inconsolable for the loss of her liberty, and fell into a fever, which gave her hopes that all her sorrows would soon end with her life. She had besides resolved to abstain from eating; but this being known, her children were threatened with death if she persisted in that. Caesar at length resolved to see her, and by his civilities endeavoured to reconcile her to life. He found her upon a low bed; but as soon as she saw Caesar, she rose up in her shift, and threw herself at his feet. Caesar civily raised her up, and sat down at her bed’s head. She began to justify herself; but the proofs against her being too notorious, she turned her justification into prayers, and put into his hand an inventory of all her treasure and jewels. Having private notice soon after, that she was to be carried to Rome within three days, to grace Caesar’s triumph, she caused herself to be bitten by an asp, which, it is said, was brought to her concealed in a basket of figs; and of this she died. Caesar, deprived as he was of the greatest ornament of his triumph, yet ordered her a very magnificent funeral; and her body, as she desired, was laid by that of Antony.

In 1682, Le Clerc, intending to visit England, travelled through Paris, and arrived at London in May, chiefly with a view to learn the English language; which, with the help of a master, he soon effected. He preached several times in the French churches at London, and visited several bishops and men of learning; but the air of the town not agreeing with his lungs, he returned to Holland, after less than a year’s stay, in company with the celebrated historian Gregorio Leti, who formerly lived at Geneva, and was then retiring to Holland. He visited Limborch at Amsterdam, from whom he learned the condition of the remonstrants in the United Provinces, but did not yet join them, although he discovered his real sentiments to Limborch, with whom he entered into a strict friendship, which lasted till the death of that great man. He had not been long in Holland before his friends and relations entreated him to return to Geneva, but not being able when there to dissemble his opinions, which wexe contrary to those established by law, he thought it prudent to return to Holland at the latter end of 1683. The year after he preached sometimes in French in the church of the remonstrants, but was soon obliged to leave off preaching; for what reason is not known, but his friends have thought proper to impute it to the jealousy of the Walloon ministers, who finding their audiences very thin when Le Clerc preached, prevailed upon the magistrates to forbid his preaching any more. In 1634, when the remonstrants held a synod at Rotterdam, he preached once more before them; and was then admitted professor of philosophy, the Hebrew tongue, and polite literature in their school at Amsterdam. The remainder of his life offers nothing to us but the history of his works, and of the controversies in which he was engaged; which were numerous, and displayed undoubted talents.

, an artist of very considerable talents, of the fifteenth century, who practised in England, was born at Rostock, and retained in the service of Christian IV. king of Denmark; but the excellence of his genius prompted him to the search of better models than he found in that northern climate. He travelled into Italy, and remained there four years, where he probably acquired a taste for the beautiful and ornamental grotesque, in which he afterwards shone. At Venice he became known to sir Henry Wotton, and sir Robert Anstruther recommended him to prince Charles, afterwards Charles I. He arrived in England, while the prince was in Spain, but notwithstanding was graciously received by king James, who mentions that circumstance in a Latin letter (preserved in Fuller’s Worthies) which he wrote to the king of Denmark, desiring leave to detain Cleyn in England, though with a permission to return first to Copenhagen and finish a work he had begun there, and promising to pay the expence of his journey. The request being granted, Cleyn returned to London, and appears to have been first employed in jdesigns for sir Francis Crane’s manufactory of tapestry at Mortlack, by which those works were carried to singular perfection. Five of the celebrated cartoons were also sent thither to be copied by him in tapestry. He had an annuity of 100l. which he held until the rebellion, and enjoyed very high reputation by his paintings at Somerset house, and the houses of several of the nobility. There is still extant a beautiful chamber adorned by him at Holland house, with a ceiling in grotesque, and small compartments on the chimneys, in the style and not unworthy of Parmegiano. Lord Orford mentions other works by his hand, and he also made designs for engravers. This ingenious artist, whom Evelyn records as a man of piety also, died in 1658.

When the season for military operations was over, the troops remained at St. David’s, and before the return of spring they received news of a cessation of hostilities between Great Britain and France. Still, however, the sense of ancient rivalship. the reciprocal aggravation of recent injuries, an opposition of interests, a mutual confidence in strength, seemed to animate both nations to a renewal of the war. The dominions of the rajah of Tanjore had at that time been claimed by his brother, with a declaration that he, though deposed by his subjects, was their rightful sovereign; and that the reigning rajah was an usurper. The English of St. David’s, convinced by these allegations, determined to espouse the cause of the deposed rajah. They resolved to begin their attack upon a fort of the rajah’s, called Devi Cdtah. On their advance, rinding the approaches difficult, and the ramparts covered with innumerable forces, they were at first deterred from their enterprize. Clive, however, insisted that the attempt, though dangerous, was not hazardous. He thought the town might easily b$ taken by storm; recommending only to advance the cannons in the night, as by them the gates might be effectually destroyed. Captain Cope, the commander, refused to listen to the advice, as too desperate; till, after having exhausted his ammunition by a fruitless cannonade, he was compelled to retreat to Fort St. David’s. The disgrace of this discomfiture; its pernicious influence upon their trade 5 and the exultation of their common enemy the French, induced the English once more to attempt the reduction of Devi Cotah. The command of this expedition was entrusted to major Lawrence, an officer at that time but little known, but who was afterwards distinguished for his abilities in the service. As a breach was made in the walls, Clive, who then possessed only the rank of a lieutenant, solicited the command of the forlorn hope. Lawrence, willing to preserve him from so dangerous a station, told him the service did not then fall in his turn. Clive replied, that knowing it did not, he came rather to ask it as a favour, than to demand it as a right; but that on such an occasion he hoped the request of a volunteer would not be rejected. Major Lawrence consented; and Clive, in consequence of his appointment to the command of thirty-four British soldiers and seven hundred Sepoys, was ordered to storm the breach. Accord, ingly they led the way; but in passing a rivulet between the camp and the fort, four of the English fell by the fire of the enemy. The Sepoys were alarmed, and halted as soon as they had passed the stream but the English persevered, and, advancing closely upon the breach, presented their musquets, when a party of horse, which had been concealed in the tower, rushed upon their rear, and killed twenty-six. Clive, by stepping aside, escaped a stroke which had been aimed at him by oqe of the horse as they passed him. He ran towards the rivulet, and, having passed, had the good fortune to join the Sepoys. Of the whole fouj>and- thirty, himself and three others were all that were left alive. Major Lawrence, seeing the disaster, commanded all the Europeans to advance. Clive still marched in the first division. The horse renewed their attack, but were repulsed with such slaughter that the garrison, dismayed at the sight, gave way as the English approached the breach, and, flying through the opposite gate, abandoned the town to the victors. Alarmed at the success of the English, the rajah sent them overtures of peace; to which, on condition that a settlement should be made on his rival, and the fort of Devi Cutah, with the adjoining district, be ceded to the company, the English readily agreed.

, justly celebrated for his astonishing miniatures and illuminations in missals and other religious books, was born in Sclavonia in the year 1498. He was originally educated for the church, and took orders, but was afterwards suffered to relinquish the sacerdotal habit by a dispensation from the pope. Soon after the age of eighteen, his love of painting prompted him to travel to Rome, where he was taken into the service of the cardinal Grimani, by whom he was, for the space of three years, employed in making careful pen-drawings from the finest medals. He afterwards became the scholar of Julio Romano, and made considerable advancement in oil-painting; but his master, perceiving the extraordinary talent which he evinced for miniature, succeeded in persuading him to apply himself entirely to that branch of the art; and' it may with justice be said, that we owe to the sagacity of Julio Romano, and the unexampled assiduity of Clovio, the most exquisite and delicately finished performances of that kind in the known world; since he not only far surpassed all who went before him, but to this day stands unrivalled, by all those who have since attempted to walk in his footsteps. In addition to the instruction which our artist received from the favourite scholar of Raffaele, he derived great benefit from the works of Buonarotti, many of which he copied in a most beautiful and finished manner; and he afterwards reaped great advantage from the friendship and experience of Girolamo da 1 Libri, a miniature painter of great note at Verona: the result of all these studies was a style of drawing, partaking of the purity of the Roman, and the grandeur of the Florentine school; united, not unfrequently, to the rich colouring of Titian or the ambient hue of Correggio.

, an eminent surgeon, of whom little is known, except what can be collected from his works, flourished in the time of queen Elizabeth, and was for some time a navy surgeon, serving on board one of the queen’s ships, called the Aid, when the emperor’s daughter married Philip II. king of Spain, in 1570. He returned home, and resided several years at London, where he acquired great reputation, as may be inferred from his having been several years surgeon of St. Bartholomew’s and Christ’s hospitals, before he was sent for by letters from the earl of Leicester, general of the English forces in the Low Countries, to take upon him the care of the sick and wounded in 1586. He was surgeon to her majesty, and mentions his having served with Banister under the earl of Warwick; and also speaks in another place of having been a retainer to lord Abergavenny. He seems to have been in full practice about 1596, the date of his last publication, a treatise on the venereal disease, reprinted in 1637; and he laments the frequency of this disorder in England; of which he gives this proof, that in the space of five years he had cured upwards of a thousand venereal patients in vSt. Bartholomew’s hospital. His most capital performance is his approved Practice for all young chirurgeons, 1591, re-printed in 1596 and 1637. He is a strong advocate for writing medical chirurgical books in the vernacular language, and his practice was always ingenious, and often successful.

, an ingenious poet, and a man of taste, wit, and learning, was master of the grammar-school of Christ’s hospital, where he was himself educated. He took the degree of B. A. in 1698, and of M. A. in 1702, in Trinity- college, Cambridge. He died at London, in 1713, in the prime of life, and was buried in the cloisters of Christ’s hospital. Jacob says that his “Observations on Virgil” shew that he was well acquainted with that poet. He published in 1707, “A Collection of Poems on several occasions, &c. to which is prefixed a Discourse on Criticism, and the Liberty of Writing, by way of letter to a friend.” He translated the third, and part of the fourth book of Howe’s edition of the “Callipapdia,” and assisted Ozell in the translation of Boileau’s “Lutrin.” His other known productions are, 1. “The Miller’s Tale,” from Chaucer. 2. A translation of the “Muscipula.” 3. “The Oak and the Briar,” a tale. His excellent ode, “The Female Reign,” was printed in Dodsley’s Collection, and afterwards in the Gent. Mag. 1753, with alterations by Dr. Watts, who thought it “the truest and best Pindaric he had ever read,” an opinion in which we find Dr. Warton coinciding, in one of his notes on Pope’s works.

In 1693, when she was only fourteen years of age, she wrote some verses, and sent them to Mr. Bevil Higgons, tf on his sickness and recovery from the small-pox,“and was only in her seventeenth year when she produced a tragedy, entitled” Agnes de Castro,“which was acted with applause at the Theatre-Royal in 1695, and printed the following year in 4to, without her name. The play is founded upon a French novel of the same title, printed at Paris in 1688. In 1697, she addressed some verses to Mr. Congreve on his” Mourning Bride“which gave rise to an acquaintance between her and that celebrated writer. In 1698, her tragedy, entitled” Fatal Friendship,“was performed at the new theatre in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, and printed the same year in 4to, with a dedication to the princess Anne of Denmark. This play was considered as the most perfect of her dramatic performances and it was praised by Hughes and Farquhar. On the death of Mr. Dry den, in 1701, our poetess joined with several other ladies, in paying a just tribute to his memory in verse. Their performances were published together in that year, under the title of” The Nine Muses; or, Poems written l>y so many Ladies, upon the death of the late famous John Dryden, esq.“The same year she also brought upon the stage a comedy, called” Love at a Loss; or, most votes carry it,“acted at the Theatre-Royal, and published in quarto; but on account of her absence from London while it was in the press, it was so incorrectly printed, that she would gladly have suppressed the edition; and many years after she revised it, with a view to a second performance, which never took place. Soon after, before the close of the year 1701, she produced another tragedy, called” The Unhappy Penitent,“which was performed at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-lane, also printed in 4to. In the midst of this attention to poetry and dramatic writing, she spent much of her time in metaphysical studies. She was a great admirer of Mr. Locke’s” Essay on Human Understanding;" and drew up a defence of that work, against some remarks written by Dr. Thomas Burnet, master of the Charter-house. This was published in May 1702, without a name, lest the public should be prejudiced against a metaphysical treatise written by a woman. She also professed herself to be desirous of concealing her name, from an unwillingness tobe known to Mr. Locke, under the character of his defender. But her name was not long concealed; and Mr. Locke desired his cousin, Mr. King, afterwards lord chancellor, to pay her a visit, and make her a present of books; and upon her owning her performance, he wrote her a letter of acknowledgment. She also received a letter of thanks for this piece from Mrs. Burnet, the last wife of the celebrated prelate of that name. It appears, that at the latter end of 1701, she was some time at Salisbury, on a visit to her relations in that city.

, an eminent French merchant, was the richest subject in Europe in the fifteenth century. He enjoyed an office of trust in the court of Charles VII. of France, and his industry was of more service to that country, than the boasted bravery of a Dunois or a Maid of Orleans. He had established the greatest trade that had ever been carried on by any private subject in Europe; and since his time Cosmo de Medicis is the only person that equalled him. He had 300 factors in Italy and the Levant. He lent 200,000 crowns of gold to his master, Charles VII. without which he never could have recovered Normandy; and therefore nothing can be a greater stain to the annals of this reign, than the persecution of so useful a man. After he had represented his prince in foreign states, he was accused of having poisoned the beautiful Agnes Sorel, Charles’s mistress; but this was without foundation, and the real motive of his persecution is not known. He was by the king’s order sent to prison, and the parliament tried him: all that they could prove against him was, that he had caused a Christian slave to be restored to his Turkish master, whom this slave had robbed and betrayed; and that he had sold arms to the sultan of Egypt. For these two facts, one of which was lawful, and the other meritorious, his estate was confiscated, and he was condemned to the amende honorable, and to pay a fine of 100,000 crowns. He found more virtue in his clerks than in the courtiers who ruined him: the former contributed to relieve him under his misfortunes, and one of them particularly, who had married his niece, facilitated his escape out of his confinement and out of France. He went to Rome, where Calixtus III. filled the papal chair, who gave him the command of part of a fleet which he had equipped against the Turks. He died on his arrival at the Isle of Chio, in 1456; therefore Mr. de Voltaire is mistaken in saying, in his “Essay on Universal History,” that “he removed to Cyprus, where he continued to carry on his trade; but never had the courage to return to his ungrateful country, though strongly invited.” Charles VII. afterwards restored some part of Coeur’s property to his children.

In May 1603, he was knighted by king James; and the same year managed the trial of sir W. Raleigh, at Winchester, whither the term was adjourned, on account of the plague being at London; but he lessened himself greatly in the opinion of the world, by his treatment of that unfortunate gentleman; as he employed a coarse and scurrilous language against him hardly to be paralleled. The resentment of the public was so great upon this occasion, that as has been generally believed, Shakspeare, in his comedy of the “Twelfth Night,' 7 hints at this strange behaviour of sir Edward Coke at Raleigh’s trial. He was likewise reproached with this indecent behaviour in a letter which sir Francis Bacon wrote to him after his own fall; wherein we have the following passage:” As your pleadings were wont to insult our misery, and inveigh literally against the person, so are you still careless in this point to praise and disgrace upon slight grounds, and that suddenly; so that your reproofs or commendations are for the most part neglected and contemned, when the censure of a judge, coming slow, but sure, should be a brand to the guilty, and a crown to the virtuous. You will jest at any man in public, without any respect to the person’s dignity, or your own. This disgraces your gravity more than it can advance the opinion of your wit; and so do all your actions, which we see you do directly with a touch of vainglory. You make the laws too much lean to your opinion; whereby you shew yourself to be a legal tyrant, &c.“January 27, 1606, at the trial of the gun-powder conspirators, and March 28 following, at the trial of the Jesuit Garnet, he made two very elaborate speeches, which were soon after published in a book entitled” A true and perfect relation of the whole Proceedings against the late most barbarous traitors, Garnet, a Jesuit, and his confederates, &c.“1606, 4to. Cecil earl of Salisbury, observed in his speech upon the latter trial,” that the evidence had been so well distributed and opened by the attorney-general, that he had never heard such a mass of matter better contracted, nor made more intelligible to the jury.“This appears to have been really true; so true, that many to this day esteem this last speech, especially, his masterpiece. It was probably in reward for this service, that he was appointee! lord chief justice of the common-pleas the same year. The motto he gave upon his rings, when he was called to the degree of serjeant, in order to qualify him for this promotion, was,” Lex est tutissima cassis;“that is,” The law is the safest helmet.“Oct. 25, 1613, he was made lord chief justice of the kingVbench; and in Nov. was sworn of his majesty’s privy-council. In 1615 the king deliberating upon the choice of a lord- chancellor, when that r-ost should become vacant, by the death or resignation of Egerton lord Ellesmere, sir Francis Bacon wrote to his majesty a letter upon that subject, wherein he lias the following passage, relating to the lord chiefjustice:”If you take my lord Coke, this will follow: First, your majesty shall put an over-ruling nature into an overruling place, which may breed an extreme. Next, you shall blunt his industries in matter of finances, which seemeth to aim at another place. And lastly, popular men are no sure mounters for your majesty’s saddle." The disputes and animosities between these two great men are well known. They seem to have been personal; and they lasted to the end of their lives. Coke was jealous of Bacon’s reputation in many parts of knowledge; by whom, again, he was envied for the high reputation he had acquired in one; each aiming to be admired particularly in that in which the other excelled. Coke was the greatest lawyer of his time, but could be nothing more. If Bacon was not so, we can ascribe, it only to his aiming at a more exalted character; not being able, or at least not willing, to confine the universality of his genius within one inferior province of learning.

Roger Coke gives us a different account of the occasion of the chief justice’s being in disgrace; and informs us, that he was one of the first who felt the effects of the power of the rising favourite, Villiers, afterwards duke of Buckingham. The author of the notes on Wilson’s “Life of James,” published in the second volume of Kennet’s “Complete History of England,” tells us “that sir Edward lost the king’s favour, and some time after his place, for letting fall some words upon one of the trials, importing his suspicion that Overbury had been poisoned to prevent the discovery of another crime of -the same nature, committed upon one of the highest rank, whom he termed a sweet prince; which was taken to be meant of prince Henry.” Whatever were the causes of his disgrace, Which it is probable were many, he was brought upon his knees before the council at Whitehall, June J 6 16; and offences were charged upon him by Ylverton, the solicitor-general, implying, amongst other things, speeches of high contempt tittered in the seat of justice, and uncomely and undutiful carriage in the presence of his majesty, “the privy council, and judges.” Soon after, he presented himself again at the council-table upon his knees, when secretary Winwood informed him, that report had been made to his majesty of what had passed there before, together with the answer that he had given, and that too in the most favourable manner; that his majesty was no ways satisfied with respect to any of the heads; but that notwithstanding, as well out of his own clemency, as in regard to the former services of his lordship, the king was pleased not to deal heavily with him: and therefore had decreed, 1. That he be sequestered from the council-table, until his majesty’s pleasure be further known. 2. That he forbear to ride his summer circuit as justice of assize. 3. That during this vacation, while he had time to live privately and dispose himself at home, he take into his consideration and reviewhis books of Reports; wherein, as his majesty is informed, be many extravagant and exorbitant opinions set down and published for positive and good law: and if, in reviewing and reading thereof, he find any thing fit to be altered or amended, the correction is left to his discretion. Among other things, the king was not well pleased with the title of those books, wherein he styled himself “lord chief justice of England,” whereas he could challenge no more but lord chief justice of the King’s-bench. And having corrected what in his discretion he found meet in these Reports, his majesty’s pleasure was, he should bring the same privately to himself, that he might consider thereof, as in his princely judgment should be found expedient. Hereunto Mr. secretary advised him to conform himself in all duty and obedience, as he ought; whereby he might hope that his majesty in time would receive him again to his gracious and princely favour. To this the lord chief justice made answer, that he did in all humility prostrate himself to his majesty’s good pleasure; that he acknowledged that decree to be just, and proceeded rather from his majesty’s exceeding mercy than his justice; gave humble thanks to their lordships for their goodness towards him; and hoped that his behaviour for the future would be such as would deserve their lordships’ favours. From which answer of sir Edward’s we may learn that he was, as such men always are, as dejected and fawning in adversity, as he was insolent and overbearing in prosperity; the same meanness and poorness of spirit influencing his behaviour in both conditions.

In 1614 there was published, “A speech and charge at Norwich assizes,” intended to pass for sir Edward Coke’s; but he clearly disclaims it, in the preface to the seventh part of his Reports. He did indeed make a speech at that time, and in some measure to this purpose; but these notes of it were gathered and published without his knowledge in a very incorrect and miserable manner, and published with a design to prejudice and expose him. In 1614 was published in folio, “A book of entries, containing perfect and approved precedents of courts, declarations, informations, plaints, indictments, bars, duplications, rejoinders, pleadings, processes, continuances, essoigns, issues, defaults, departure in despight of the court, demurrers, trials, judgments, executions, and all other matters and proceedings, in effect, concerningthe practic part of the laws of England, in actions real, personal, mixed, and in appeals: being very necessary to be known, and of excellent use for the modern practice of the law, many of them containing matters in law, and points of great learning; collected and published for the common good and beneh't of all the studious and learned professors of the laws of England, 1” His “Institutes” are divided into four parts. The first is the translation and comment upon the “Tenures of Sir Thomas Littleton,” one of the judges of the common-pleas in the reign of Edward IV. It was published in his lifetime, in 1628 but that edition was very incorrect. There was a second published in 1629, said to be revised by the author, and in which this work is much amended; yet several mistakes remained even in that. The second part of the “Institutes” gives us magna charta, and other select statutes, in the languages in which they were first enacted, and much more correct than they were to be had any where else. He adds to these a commentary full of excellent learning, wherein he shews how the common law stood before those statutes were made, how far they are introductory of new laws, and how far declaratory of the old; what were the causes of making them, to what ends they were made, and in what degree, at the time of his writing, they were either altered or repealed. The third part of the “Institutes” contains the criminal law or pleas of the crown: where, among other things, he shews, in regard to pardons and restitutions, how far the king may proceed by his prerogative, and where the assistance of parliament is necessary. The fourth part of the “Institutes” comprehends the jurisdiction of all the courts in this kingdom, from the high court of parliament down to the court-baron. This part not being published till after his decease, there are many inaccuracies and some greater faults in it, which were animadverted upon and amended in a book written by William Pry nne, esq. and published in 1669. The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth editions of the “Institutes,” 1788, 1789, and 1794, by Hargrave and Butler, are esteemed the best.

What he contributed was in general, in itself, original and accurate, and would have done credit to a separate publication, if he had thought proper. Among the works which he assisted, either by entire dissertations, or by minute communications and corrections, we may enumerate Grose’s “Antiquities” Bentham’s “Ely” Dr. Ducarel’s publications; Philips’s “Life of Cardinal Pole” Gough’s “British Topography” the “Memoirs of the Gentlemen’s Society at Spalding” Mr. Nichols’s “Collection of Poems,” “Anecdotes of Hogarth,” “History of Hinckley,” and “Life of Bowyer.” With Granger he corresponded very frequently, and most of his corrections were adopted by that writer. Mr. Cole himself was a collector of portraits at a time when this trade was in few hands, and had a very valuable series, in the disposal of which he was somewhat unfortunate, and somewhat capricious, putting a different value on them at different times. When in the hope that lord Montstuart would purchase them, he valued them at a shilling each, one with another, which he says would have amounted to 160l. His collection must therefore have amounted to 3200 prints, but among these were many topographical articles: 130l. was offered on this occasion, which Mr. Cole declined accepting. This was in 1774; but previous to this, in 1772, he met with a curious accident, which had thinned his collection of portraits. This was a visit from an eminent collector. “He had,” says Mr. Cole, “heard of my collection of prints, and a proposal to see them was the consequence; accordingly, he breakfasted here next morning; and on a slight offer of accommodating him with such heads as he had not, he absolutely has taken one hundred and eighty-seven of my most valuable and favourite heads, such as he had not, and most of which had never seen; and all this with as much ease and familiarity as if we had known each other ever so long. However, I must do him the justice to say, that I really did offer him at Mr. Pemberton’s, that he might take such in exchange as he had not; but this I thought would not have exceeded above a dozen, or thereabouts, &c.” In answer to this account of the devastation of his collection, his correspondent Horace Walpole writes to him in the following style, which is not an unfair specimen of the manner in which, these correspondents treated their contemporaries: “I have had a relapse (of the gout), and have not been able to use my hand, or I should have lamented with you on the plunder of your prints by that Algerine hog. I pity you, dear sir, and feel for your awkwardness, that was struck dumb at his rapaciousness. The beast has no sort of taste neither, and in a twelvemonth will sell them again. This Muley Moloch used to buy books, and now sells them. He has hurt his fortune, and ruined himself to have a collection, without any choice of what it should be composed. It is the most under-bred ywine I ever saw, but I did not know it was so ravenous. I wish you may get paid any how.” Mr. Cole, however, after all this epistolary scurrility, acknowledges that he was“honourably paid” at the rate of two shillings and sixpence each head, and one, on which he and Walpole set an uncommon value, and demanded back, was accordingly returned.

Throughout the whole of Mr. Cole’s Mss. his attachment to the Roman catholic religion is clearly to be deduced, and is often almost avowed. He never can conceal his hatred to the eminent prelates and martyrs who were the promoters of the Reformation. In this respect at least he resembled Anthony Wood, whose friends had some difficulty in proving that he died in communion with the church of England, and Cole yet more closely resembled him in his hatred of the puritans and dissenters. When in 1767 an order was issued from the bishops for a return of all papists or reputed papists in their dioceses, Cole laments that in some places none were returned, and in other places few, and assigns as a reason for this regret, that “their principles fare much more conducive to a peaceful and quiet subordination in government, and they might be a proper balance, in time of need, not only to the tottering state of Christianity in general, but to this church of England in particular, pecked against by every fanatic sect, whose good allies the infidels are well known to be but hardly safe from its own lukewarm members; and whose safety depends solely on a political balance.” The “lukewarm members,” he elsewhere characterizes as latitudinarians, including Clarke, Hoadly, and their successors, who held preferments in a church whose doctrines they opposed.

, uncle to the preceding, was also a native of Northamptonshire, but became a trader in London, and probably an unsuccessful one, as during the time that Oxford was in possession of the parliamentary forces, we find him promoted to the office of steward to Magdalen college, by Dr. Thomas Goodwin, the famous independent president of that college. On the restoration, he was obliged to quit this situation, but acquired the preferable appointment of clerk to the East India company, which he probably held to his death, at London, in October 1688, upwards of eighty years old. He is known to this day by his “Practical Discourse of God’s Sovereignty,” London, 1673, 4to, and often reprinted in 8vo. The object of it is to refute the Arminians in those points concerning which they differ most from the Calvinists.

, a learned English divine, and the. founder of St. Paul’s school, was born in the parish of St. Antholin, London, in 1466, and was the eldest son of sir Henry Colet, knt. twice lord-mayor, who had besides him twenty-one children. In 1483 he was sent to Magdalen college in Oxford, where he spent seven years in the study of logic and philosophy, and took the degrees in arts. He was perfectly acquainted with Cicero’s works, and no stranger to Plato and Plotinus, whom he read together, that they might illustrate each other. He could, hcfwever, read them only in the Latin translations; for neither at school nor university had he any opportunity of learning the Greek, that language being then thought unnecessary, and even discouraged. Hence the proverb, “Cave a Graecis, ne lias haereticus,” that is, “Beware of Greek, lest you become an heretic;” and it is well known, that when Linacer, Grocyn, and others, afterwards professed to teach it at Oxford, they were opposed by a set of men who called themselves Trojans. Colet, however, was well skilled in mathematics; and having thus laid a good foundation of learning at home, he travelled abroad for farther improvement first to France, and then to Italy; and seems to have continued in those two countries from 1493 to 1497. But before his departure, and indeed when he was of but two years standing in the university, he was instituted to the rectory of Denington in Suffolk, to which he was presented by a relation of his mother, and which he held to the day of his death. This practice of taking livings, while thus under age, generally prevailed in the church of Rome; and Colet, being then an acolythe, which is one of their seven orders, was qualitied for it. He was also presented by his own father, Sept. 30, 1485, to the rectory of Thyrning in Huntingdonshire, but he resigned it about the latter end of 1493, probably before he set out on his travels. Being arrived at Paris, he soon became^ acquainted with the learned there, with the celebrated Budaeus in particular; and was afterwards introduced to Erasmus. In Italy he contracted a friendship with several eminent persons, especially with his own countrymen, Grocyn, Linacer, Lilly, and Latimer; who were learning the Greek tongue, then but little known in England, under those great masters Demetrius, Angel us Politianus, Hermolaus Barbarus, and Pomponius Sabinus. He took this opportunity of improving himself in this language; and having devoted himself to divinity, he read, while abroad, the best of the antient fathers, particularly Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome, but, it is said, very much undervalued St. Augustine. He looked sometimes also into Sco^ tus and Aquinas, studied the civil and canon law, made himself acquainted with the history and constitution of church and state; and with a view to refinement, not very common at that time, did not neglect to read such English poets, and other authors of the belles lettres, as were then extant. During his absence from England he was made a prebendary of York, and installed by proxy upon March 5, 1494, and was also made canon of St. Martin’s Le Grand, London, and prebendary of Good Easter, in the same church. Upon his return in 1497 he was ordained deacon in December, and priest in July following. He had, indeed, before he entered into orders, great temptations from his natural disposition to lay aside study, and give himself up to the gaiety of the court, for he was rather luxuriously inclined; but he curbed his passions by great temperance and circumspection, and after staying a few months with his father and mother at London, retired to Oxford.

, the second of the name, of an ancient family, admiral of France, was born the 16th of February 1516, at Chatillon-sur-Loing. He bore arms from his very infancy. He signalized himself under Francis I. at the battle of Cerisoles, and under Henry II. who made him colonel-general of the French infantry, and afterwards admiral of France, in 1552; favours which he obtained by the brilliant actions he performed at the battle of Renti, by his zeal for military discipline, by his victories over the Spaniards, and especially by the defence of St. Quintin. The admiral threw himself into that place, and exhibited prodigies of valour; but the town being forced, he was made prisoner of war. After the death of Henry II. he put himself at the head of the protestants against the Guises, and formed so powerful a party as to threaten ruin to the Romish religion in France. We are told by a contemporary historian, that the court had not a more formidable enemy, next to Conde, who had joined with him. The latter was more ambitious, more enterprising, more active. Coligni was of a sedater temper, more cautious, and fitter to be the leader of a party; as unfortunate, indeed, in war as Conde, but often repairing by his ability what had seemed irreparable; more dangerous after a defeat, than his enemies after a victory; and moreover adorned with as many virtues as such tempestuous times and the spirit of party would allow. He seemed to set no value on his life. Being wounded, and his friends lamenting around him, he said to them with incredible constancy, “The business we follow should make us as familiar with death as with life.” The first pitcht battle that happened between the protestants and the catholics, was that of Dreux, in 1562. The admiral fought bravely, lost it, but saved the army. The duke of Guise having been murdered by treachery, a short time afterwards, at the siege of Orleans, he was accused of having connived at this base assassination; but he cleared himself of the charge by oath. The civil wars ceased for some time, but only to recommence with greater fury in 1567. Coligni and Conde fought the battle of St. Denys against the constable of Montmorenci. This indecisive day was followed by that of Jarnac, in 1569, fatal to the protestants. Concle having been killed in a shocking manner, Coligni had to sustain the whole weight of the party, and alone supported that unhappy cause, and was again defeated at the affair of Men Icon tour, in Poitou, without suffering his courage to be shaken for a moment. An advantageous peace seemed shortly after to terminate these bloody conflicts, in 1571. Coligni appeared at court, where he was loaded with caresses, in common with all the rest of his party. Charles IX. ordered him to be paid a hundred thousand francs as a reparation of the losses he had sustained, and restored to him his place in the council. On all hands, however, he was exhorted to distrust these perfidious caresses. A captain of the protestants, who was retiring into the country, came to take leave of him: Coligni asked him the reason of so sudden a retreat: “It is,” said the soldier, “because they shew us too many kindnesses here: I had rather escape with the fools, than perish with such as are over-wise.” A horrid conspiracy soon broke out. One Friday the admiral coming to the Louvre, was fired at by a musquet from a window, and dangerously wounded in the right hand and in the left arm, by Maurevert, who had been employed by the duke de Guise, who had proposed the scheme to Charles IX. The king of Navarre and the prince of Cond6 complained of this villainous act. Charles IX. trained to the arts of dissimulation by his mother, pretended to be extremely afflicted at the event, ordered strict inquiry to be made after the author of it, and called Coligni by the tender name of father. This was at the very time when he was meditating the approaching massacre of the protestants. The carnage began, as is well known, the 24th of August, St. Bartholomew’s day, 1572. The duke de Guise, under a strong escort, marched to the house of the admiral. A crew of assassins, headed by one Besme, a domestic of the house of Guise, entered sword in hand, and found him sitting in an elbow-chair. “Young man,” said he to their leader in a calm and tranquil manner, “thou shouldst have respected my gray hairs but, do what thou wilt thou canst only shorten my life by a few days.” This miscreant, after having stabbed him in several places, threw him out at the window into the court-yard of the house, where the duke of Guise stood waiting. Coligni fell at the feet of his base and implacable enemy, and said, according to some writers, as he was just expiring “If at least I had died by the hand of a gentleman, and not by that of a turnspit!” Besme, having trampled on the corpse, said to his companions: “A good beginning! let us go and continue our work!” His body was exposed for three days to the fury of the populace, and then hung up by the feet on the gallows of Montfaucon. Montmorenci, his cousin, had it taken down, in order to bury it secretly in the chapel of the chateau de Chantilli. An Italian, having cut off the head of the admiral, carried it to Catherine de Medicis; and this princess caused it to be embalmed, and sent it to Rome. Coligni was in the habit of keeping a journal, which, after his death, was put into the hands of Charles IX. In this was remarked a piece of advice which he gave that prince, to take care of what he did in assigning the appanage, lest by so doing he left them too great an authority. Catherine caused this article to be read before the duke of Alei^on, whpm she knew to be afflicted at the death of the admiral: “There is your good friend!” said she, “observe the advice he gives the king!” “I cannot say,” returned the duke, “whether he was very fond of me; but 1 know that such advice could have been given only by a man of strict fidelity to his majesty, and zealous for the good of his country.” Charles IX. thought this journal worth being printed; but the marshal de Retz prevailed on him to throw it into the fire. We shall conclude this article with the parallel drawn by the abbe“de Mably of the admiral de Coligni, and of Francois de Lorraine, due de Guise.” Coligni was the greatest general of his time; as courageous as the duke of Guise, but less impetuous, because he had always been less successful. He was fitter for forming grand projects, and more prudent in the particulars of their executioj. Guise, by a more brilliant courage, which astonished his enemies, reduced conjunctures to the province of his genius, and thus rendered himself in some sort master of them. Coligni obeyed them, but like a commander superior to them. In the same circumstances ordinary men would have observed only courage in the conduct of the one, and only prudence in that of the other, though both of them had these two qualities, but variously subordinated. Guise, more successful, had fewer opportunities for displaying the resources of his genius: his dexterous ambition, and, like that of Pompey, apparently founded on the very interests of the princes it was endeavouring to ruin, while it pretended to serve them, was supported on the authority of his name till it had acquired strength enough to stand by itself. Coligni, less criminal, though he appeared to be more so, openly, like Caesar, declared war upon his prince and the whole kingdom of France. Guise had the art of conquering, and of profiting by the victory. Coligni lost four battles, and was always the terror of his victors, whom he seemed to have vanquished. It is not easy to say what the former would have been in the disasters that befell Coligni; but we may boldly conjecture that the latter would have appeared still greater, if fortune had favoured him as much. He was seen carried in a litter, and we may add in the very jaws of death, to order and conduct the longest and most difficult marches, traversing France in the midst of his enemies, rendering by his counsels the youthful courage of the prince of Navarre more formidable, and training him to those great qualities which were to make him a good king, generous, popular, and capable of managing the affairs of Europe, after having made him a hero, sagacious, terrible, and clement in the conduct of war. The good understanding he kept up between the French and the Germans of his army, whom the interests of religion alone were ineffectual to unite; the prudence with which he contrived to draw succours from England, where all was not quiet; his art in giving a spur to the tardiness of the princes of Germany, who, not having so much genius as himself, were more apt to despair of saving the protestantsof France, and deferred to send auxiliaries, who were no longer hastened in their march by the expectation of plunder in a country already ravaged; are master-pieces of his policy. Coligni was an honest man. Guise wore the mask of a greater number of virtues; but all were infected by his ambition. He had all the qualities that win the heart of the multitude. Coligni, more collected in himself, was more esteemed by his enemies, and respected by his own people. He was a lover of order and of his country. Ambition might bear him up, but it never first set him in motion. Hearty alike in the cause of protestantism and of his country, he was never able, by too great austerity, to make his doctrine tally with the duties of a subject. With the qualities of a hero, he was endowed with a gentle soul. Had he been less of the great man, he would have been a fanatic; he was an apostle and a zealot. His life was first published in 1575, 8vo, and translated and published in English in 1576, by Arthur Golding. There is also a life by Courtilz, 1686, 12mo, and one in the “Hommes Illustres de France.”

On the breaking out of the war with France in 1793, he was called to the command of the Prince, rear-admiral Bowyer’s flag-ship, with whom he served in this ship, and afterwards in the Barfleur, until the engagement of June 1, 1794. In this action he distinguished himself with great bravery, and the ship which he commanded is known to have had its full share in the glory of the day; though it has been the subject of conversation with the public, and was probably the source of some painful feelings at the moment in the captain’s own mind, that no notice was taken of his services upon this occasion, nor his name once mentioned in the official dispatches of lord Howe to the admiralty.

, a Venetian dominican, who died May 17, 1520, in his eightieth year, is chiefly known by a scarce book, entitled “Poliphili Hypnerotomachia,” Venice, 1499, fol. There is an edition of 1545, but none of 1467; the copies which pass for that edition, are of one or the other above mentioned editions; and the mistake has arisen from the last leaf, which contained the elate of the impressions, heing taken out, and the last but one left; on which is the date of the time when the work was written. It is a romance filled with mythological learning, of very little value but for its scarcity and whimsical composition, and has been translated into French by John Martin, Paris, 1561, fol

Besides these known and public benefactions, he gave away every year large sums in private charities, for many years together; and the preacher of his funeral sermon informs us, that these did not fall much short of his public. In all his charities, Colston seems to have possessed no small share of judgment; for, among other instances of it, he never gave any thing to common beggars, but he always ordered, that poor house-keepers, sick and decayed persons, should be sought out as the fittest objects of his charity. We must not forget to observe, that though charity was this gentleman’s shining virtue, yet he possessed other virtues in an eminent degree. He was a person of great temperance, meekness, evenness of temper, patience, and mortification. He always looked cheerful and pleasant, was of a peaceable and quiet disposition, and remarkably circumspect in all his actions. Some years before his decease, he retired from business, and came and Jived at London, and at Mortlake in Surry, where he had a country seat. Here he died Oct. 11, 1721, almost 85; and was buried in the church of All-saints, Bristol, where a monument is erected to his memory, on which are enumerated his public charities, mentioned in this article. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Harcourt, and printed at London the same year.

, a native of Spain, was a Latin writer, of whom nothing is known, except that he flourished under the Roman Emperor Claudius, about the year of Christ 42; and has left some books upon agriculture, and a “Treatise upon Trees.” These works are curious and valuable, as well for their matter as style, which latter is thought by some to be not very remote from the Latin of the Augustan age. They have usually been published with the “Scriptores de re rustica.”

, a Scotch divine and poet, was born near St. Andrew’s in Fifeshire, 1620, and educated in the university of Edinburgh, where he took his degree of D. D. and was settled minister at Dysart. In 1662 he complied with the act of uniformity, and was appointed principal of the university of Edinburgh, in the room of Dr. Leighton, promoted to the see of Dumblane. He wrote several controversial tracts, most of which are now forgotten; but that which particularly recommends him to the notice of the public, is a humorous poem entitled “Scotch Hudibras,” written in the manner of Butler. This book gave great offence to the presbyterians but still, although little known in England, is well esteemed in Scotland. He died at Edinburgh 1676, aged 58.

, a celebrated French printer, native of Douav, settled first at Geneva, afterwards at Heidelberg, where he died in 1598. He was a very learned scholar, as appears by all the editions of the Greek and Latin fathers which he corrected, and to which he added notes that are much esteemed. He printed since 1560, in Switzerland, S. Chrysostomus in Nov. Testarnentum, 1596, 4 vols. fol. This edition, with that of the Old Testament printed at Paris, makes this work complete, and the best edition. He took up his residence at Heidelberg for the convenience of consulting the Mss. in the Palatine library. He printed many other books; those without his name are known by his mark, which represents Truth sitting in a chair. His edition of Apollodorus is well known in classical libraries, but unfortunately he did not live to finish it, which was accomplished in 1599 by his assistant Bonutius.

, doctor of physic, king’s botanist, and member of the faculty of Montpelier, was born at Chatilon les Dombes near Bourgin Bresse, in 1727, He discovered an early propensity to botany and other branches of natural history, which he pursued with unremitting ardour, and, as it is said, with very little delicacy, performing the same tricks in a garden, which coin and print collectors have been known to perform in museums and libraries. When at Montpelier, he made no scruple to pluck the rarest and most precious plants in the king’s botanic garden there, to enrich his herbal; and when on this account the directors of the garden refused him admittance, he scaled the walls by night to continue his depredations. The reputation, however, of a better kind, which he gained during a residence of four years at Montpelier, induced Linnæus to recommend him as a proper person to form the queen of Sweden’s collection of the rarest fishes in the Mediterranean, and to compose accurate descriptions of them; which undertaking he executed with great labour and dexterity, producing a complete Ichthyology, 2 vols. 4to, with a Dictionary and Bibliography, containing accounts of all the authors who had treated that branch of natural history. Among his various productions, is a dissertation entitled “The Martyrology of Botany,” containing accounts of all the authors who lost their lives by the fatigues and accidents incident to the zeal for acquiring natural curiosities; a list, in which his own name was destined to be enrolled. Sometimes he has been found in his closet with a candle burning long after sunrise, with his head bent over his herbal, unconscious of its being day-light; and used frequently to return from his botanical excursions torn with briars, bruised with falls from rocks, and emaciated with hunger and fatigue, after many narrow escapes from precipices and torrents. These ardent occupations did not, however, extinguish sentiments of a more tender nature. M. Commerson married in 1760 a wife who died in childbed two years after, and whose memory he preserved by naming a new kind of plant, whose fruit seemed to contain two united hearts, “Pulcheria Commersonia.” He arrived at Paris in 1764, where he became connected with all the learned botanists, particularly the celebrated Jussieu; and was recommended to the duke de Praslin, minister for the marine department, to accompany M. Bougainville in his voyage round the world. The duke conceived the highest idea of his merit from the skdch he drew of the observations that might be made relative to natural history in such a voyage; and he sailed accordingly, in 1766, making the most industrious use of every opportunity to fulfil his engagements! He died at the Isle of France in 1773, and by his will left to the king’s cabinet all his botanical collections, which, before he engaged in this voyage, amounted to above 200 volumes in folio; those made during the voyage, together with his papers and herbal, were sent home in 32 cases, containing an inestimable treasure of hitherto unknown materials for natural history, and Messrs. Jussieu, D'Aubenton, and Thouin, were commissioned to examine and arrange them.

, a French monk, a native of Paris, is known as the author or editor of different works which met with a favourable reception. Among others he published “The remarkable Travels of Peter della Valle, . Si Roman gentleman, translated from the Italian,” 4 vols. 4to; “A new and interesting History of the kingdoms of Tonquin and Laos,” 4to, translated from the Italian of father Manni, in 1666. In the year preceding this, he published the third volume of father Lewis Coulon’s “History of the Jews.” He died at Paris in 1689.

In 1765 he published his first work “Sur le Calcul Integrel,” in which he proposed to exhibit a general method of determining the finite integral of a given differential equation, either for differences infinitely small, or finite differences. D'Alembert and Bezout, the commissioners of the academy, employed to examine the merits of this performance, bestowed high praises on it as a work of invention, and a presage of talents worthy of encouragement. In 1767 he published a second work, the problem of three bodies, “Probleme des Trois corps,” in which he presented the nine differential equations of the movement of the bodies of a given system, supposing that each of these bodies should be propelled by a certain force, and that a mutual attraction subsisted among them. He also treated of the movement of three bodies of a given figure, the particles of which attracted each other in the inverse ratio of the square of the distance. In addition to this, he explained a new method of integers, by approximation, with the assistance of infinite series; and added to the methods exhibited in his first work, that which M. de la Grange had convinced him was still wanting. Thus Condorcet, says his eulogist La Lande, was already numbered with the foremost mathematicians in Europe. “There was not,” he adds, “above ten of that class; one at Petersburgh, one at Berlin, one at Basle, one at Milan, and five or six at Paris; England, which had set such an illustrious example, no longer produced a single geometer that could rank with the former.” It is mortifying to us to confess that this remark is but too much founded on truth. Yet, says a late writer of the life of Condorcet, we doubt not but there are in Great Britain at present mathematicians equal in profundity and address to any who have existed since tho illustrious Newton but these men are not known to the learned of Europe, because they keep their science to themselves. They have no encouragement from the taste of the nation, to publish any thing in those higher departments of geometry which have so long occupied the attention of the mathematicians on the continent.

Condorcet’s private character is described by La Lande, as easy, quiet, kind, and obliging, but neither his conversation nor his external deportment bespoke the fire of his genius. D'Alembert used to compare him to a volcano covered with snow. His public character may be estimated by what has been related. Nothing was more striking in him than the dislike, approaching to implacable hatred, which he entertained against the Christian religion; his philosophical works, if we do not consider them as the reveries of a sophist, have for their direct tendency a contempt for the order Providence has established in the world. But as a philosopher, it is not very probable that Condorcet will hereafter be known, while his discoveries and improvements in geometrical studies will ever be noticed to his honour. If he was not superior to his contemporaries, he excelled them all in the early display of talent; and it would have been happy for him ancl his country, had he been only a geometrician.

Confucius, wisely persuaded that the people could never be happy under such circumstances, resolved to preach up a severe morality; and, accordingly, he began to enforce temperance, justice, and other virtues, to inspire a contempt of riches and outward pomp, to excite to magnanimity and a greatness of soul, which should make men ipcapable of dissimulation and insincerity; and used all the means he could think of to redeem his countrymen from a life of pleasure to a life of reason. In this pursuit, his extensive knowledge and great wisdom soon made him known, and his integrity and the splendour of his virtues made him beloved. Kings were governed by his counsels, and the people reverenced him as a saint. He was offered several high offices in the magistracy, which he sometimes accepted, but always with a view of reforming a currupt state, and amending mankind; and never failed to resign those offices, as soon as he perceived that he could be no longer useful. On one occasion he was raised to a considerable place of trust in the kingdom of Lou, his own native country: before he had exercised his charge about three months, the court and provinces, through his counsels and management, became quite altered. He corrected many frauds and abuses in traffic, and reduced the weights and measures to their proper standard. He inculcated fidelity and candour amongst the men, and exhorted the women to chastity and a simplicity of manners. By such methods he wrought a general reformation, and established every where such concord and unanimity, that the whole kingdom seemed as if it were but one great family. This, however, instead of exciting the example, provoked the jealousy of the neighbouring princes, who fancied that a king, under the counsels of such a man as Confucius, would quickly render himself too powerful; since nothing can make a state flourish more than good order among the members, and an exact observance of its laws. Alarmed at this, the king of Tsi assembled his ministers to consider of putting a stop to the career of this new government; and, after some deliberations, the following expedient was resolved upon. They got together a great number of young girls of extraordinary beauty, who had been instructed from their infancy in singing and dancing, and were perfectly mistresses of all those charms and accomplishments which might please and captivate the heart. These, under the pretext of an embassy, they presented to the king of Lou, and to the grandees of his court. The present was joyfully received, and had its desired effect. The arts of good government were immediately neglected, and nothing was thought of but inventing new pleasures for the entertainment of the fair strangers. In short, nothing was regarded for some months but feasting, dancing, shows, &c. and the court was entirely dissolved in luxury and pleasure. Confucius had foreseen all this, and endeavoured to prevent it by advising the refusal of the pressnt; and he now laboured to take off the delusion they were fallen into, and to bring them back to reason and their duty. But all his endeavours proved ineffectual, and the severity of the philosopher was obliged to give way to the overbearing fashion of the court. Upon this he immediately quitted his employment, exiling himself at the same time from his native country, to try if he could find in other kingdoms, minds and dispositions more fit to relish and pursue his maxims.

time, neither the time of his birth was now known to be the truth, that he was

known, nor even his country. South- born in Yorkshire. Tt-e patronized him so warmly tVota queathed a legacy of about 10,000l. the accumulation of attentive parsimony, which, though to her superfluous and useless, might have given great assistance to the ancient family from which he descended, at that time, by the imprudence of his relation, reduced to difficulties and distress.

“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.”

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.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.

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.

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."

“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.”

, 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.

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.

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.”

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.

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 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.

, 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.

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!"

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.

, 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.

, a bachelor of the Sorbonne, was born 1603 at Paris, son of a hatter. He had neither the taste, learning, nor merit, of M de Girac, but was not ignorant, as that writer accuses him of being, in his dispute upon Voiture. M. du Rueil, bishop of Bayonne, and afterwards of Angers, wished to have Costar always about him as a literary man, and gave him many benefices. He was eagerly received at the Hotel de Rambouillet, and in the best companies, notwithstanding his affected airs’; for which reason it was said, “He was the most beauish pedant, and most pedantic beau, that ever was known.” He died May 13, 1660. Besides his works in defence of Voiture, against M. de Girac, there is a collection of his Letters in 2 vols. 4to, containing much literary anecdote and criticism, the latter rather in a frivolous taste, which is likewise visible in some other of his pieces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He died at Durham-house in the Strand on the 14th of January, 1639-40, and was interred in the church of Croome d'Abitot on the 1st of March following, after he had continued in his post of lord-keeper with an universal reputation for his exact administration of justice, for the space of about sixteen years; which was another important circumstance of his felicity, that great office being of a tenure so precarious, that no man had died in it before for near the space of forty years; nor had his successors for some time after him much better fortune. And he himself had made use of all his strength to preserve him-­self from falling by two attacks; the one hy the earl Portland, lord high treasurer of England; the other by the marquis of Hamilton, who had the greatest power over the affections of the king of any man of that time. Whitelocke indeed tells us, that he was of “no transcendant parts or fame;” and sir Anthony Weldon, an author, whose very manner of writing weakens the authority of whatever he advances, asserts, that if his actions had been scanned by a parliament, he had been found as foul a man as ever lived. But our other historians represent him in a much more advantageous light. Mr. Lloyd observes, that he had a venerable aspect, but was neither haughty nor ostentatious; that in the administration of justice, he escaped even the least reproach or suspicion; that he served the king most faithfully; and the more faithfully, because he was a zealous opposer of all counsels which were prejudicial to his majesty, and highly disliked those persons who laboured to stretch the prerogative. But lord Clarendon’s character of him seems entitled to higher respect, not only as a faithful portrait, but a useful lesson. “He was,” says that noble writer, " a man of wonderful gravity and wisdom and not only understood the whole science and mystery of the law, at least equally with any man who had ever sat in his post, but had likewise a clear conception of the whole policy of the government both of church and state; which, by the unskilfulness of some well-meaning men, jostled each other too much. He knew the temper, disposition, and genius of the kingdom most exactly; saw their spirits grow every day more sturdy, inquisitive, and impatient; and therefore naturally abhorred all innovations, which he foresaw would produce ruinous effects. Yet many, who stood at a distance, thought he was not active and stout enough in opposing those innovations. For though by his place he presided in all public councils, and was most sharp-sighted in the consequence of things, yet he was seldom known to speak in matters of state, which he well knew were, for the most part, concluded before they were brought to that public agitation; never in foreign affairs, which the vigour of his judgment could well have comprehended; rior indeed freely in any thing, but what immediately and plainly concerned the justice of the kingdom; and in that, as much as he could, he procured references to the judges. Though in his nature he had not only a firm gravity, but a severity, and even some moroseness; yet it was so happily tempered, and his courtesy and affability towards all men so transcendent, and so much without affectation, that it marvellously recommended him to men of all degrees; and he was looked upon as an excellent courtier, without receding from the natural simplicity of his own manners. He had in the plain way of speaking and delivery, without much ornament of elocution, a strange power of making himself believed (the only justifiable design of eloquence) so that though he used very frankly to deny, and would never suffer any man to depart from him with an opinion that he was inclined to gratify, when in truth he was not; holding that dissimulation to be the worst of lying: yet the manner of it was so gentle and obliging, and his condescension such, to inform the persons whom he could not satisfy, that few departed from him with illwill and ill-wishes.

From a letter of our author to Dr. Hans Sloane, dated May 2ti, 1706, it appears that he was in habits of intimacy with this eminent physician and naturalist. Dr. Sloane carried his friendship so far as take upon himself the supervisal of the “Oplulialrniatria.” As the letter to Dr. Sloane is dated from the Green Bell, over against the Castle tavern, near Holborn, in Fetter-lane, there is reason to believe that Dr. Coward had quitted London, and was now only a visitant in town, for the purpose of his publication. Indeed the fact is ascertained from the list of the college of physicians for 1706, where Dr. William Coward, who stands under the head of candidates, is then for the first time mentioned as residing in the country. The opposition he had met with, and the unpopularity arising from his works, might be inducements with him for leaving the metropolis. It does not appear, for twelve years, to what part of the kingdom he had retired nor, from this period, do we hear more of Dr. Coward as a medical or metaphysical writer. Even when he had been the most engaged in abstruse and scientific inquiries, he had not omitted the study of polite literature; for we are told, that in 1705 he published the “Lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” an heroic poem, which was little noticed at first, and soon sunk in total oblivion. Another poetical performance by Dr. Coward, and the last of his writings that has come to our knowledge, was published in 1709, and is entitled, “Licentia poetica discussed; or, the true Test of Poetry: without which it is difficult to judge of or compose a correct English poem. To which are added, critical observations on the principal ancient and modern poets, viz. Homer, Horace, Virgil, Milton, Cowley, Dryden, &c. as frequently liable to just censure.” This work, which is divided into two books, is dedicated to the duke of Shrewsbury, and introduced by a long and learned preface. Prefixed are three copies of commendatory verses, signed A. Hill, J. Gay, and Sam. Barklay. The two former, Aaron Hill and John Gay, were then young poets, who afterwards, as is well known, rose to a considerable degree of reputation. Coward is celebrated by them as a great bard, a title to which he had certainly no claim; though his “Licentia,” considered as a didactic poem, and as such poems were then generally written, is not contemptible. It is not so correct as lord Roscommon’s essay on translated verse; but it is little, if at all, inferior to the duke of Buckingham’s essay on poetry, which was so much extolled in its day. The rules laid down by Dr. Coward for poetical composition are often minute, but usually, though not universally, founded on good sense and just taste; but he had not enough of the latter to feel the harmony and variety of Milton’s numbers. Triplets, double rhymes, and Alexandrines, are condemned by him; the last of which, however, he admits on some great occasion. The notes, which are large and numerous, display no small extent of reading; and to the whole is added, by way of appendix, a political essay, from which it appears that our author was a very zealous whig.

When he had fulfilled the terms of his engagement in Mr. Chapman’s office, he entered the Temple with a view to the further study of the law, a profession that has been more frequently deserted by men of lively genius than any other. Cowper was destined to add another instance to the number of those who, under the appearance of applying to an arduous and important study, have employed their time in the cultivation of wit and poetry. He is known to have assisted some contemporary publications with essays in prose and verse, and what is rather more extraordinary, in a man of his purity of conduct, cultivated the acquaintance of Churchill, Thornton, Lloyd, and Colman, who had been his schoolfellows at Westminster. It is undoubtedly to Churchill and Lloyd, that he alludes in a letter to lady Hesketh, dated Sept. 4, 1765. “Two of my friends have been cut off during my illness, in the midst of such a life as it is frightful to reflect upon; and here am I, in better health and spirits than I can almost remember to have enjoyed before, after having spent months in the apprehension of instant death. How mysterious are the ways of Providence! Why did I receive grace and mercy? Why was I preserved, afflicted for my good, received, as I trust, into favour, and blessed with the greatest happiness I can ever know, or hope for, in this life, while these were overtaken by the great arrest, unawakened, unrepenting, and every way unprepared for it?”

About the period alluded to, he assisted Colman with, some papers for the Connoisseur, and probably Thornton and Lloyd, who then carried on various periodical undertakings, but the amount of what he wrote cannot now be ascertained, and was always so little known, that on the appearance of his first volume of poems, when he had reached his fiftieth year (1782), he was considered as a new writer. But his general occupations will best appear in an extract from one of his letters to Mr. Park in 1792. “From the age of twenty to thirty-three (when he left the Temple) I was occupied, or ought to have been, in the study of the law from thirty-three to sixty, I have spent my time in the country, where my reading has been only an apology for idleness, and where, when I had not either a magazine or a review, I was sometimes a carpenter, at others a bird-cage maker, or a gardener, or a drawer of landscapes. At fifty years of age I commenced an author; it is a whim that has served me longest, and best, and will probably be my last.” His first poetical effort was a translation of an elegy of Tibullus, made at the age of fourteen; at eighteen, he wrote the beautiful verses “On finding the heel of a Shoe;” but as little more of his juvenile poetry has been preserved, all the steps of his progress to that perfection which produced the “Task,” cannot now be traced.

About this time he added to the number of his friends the late venerable and pious John Newton, rector of St. Mary Woolnoth, London, but then curate of Olney in Buckinghamshire, who being consulted by Mr. Cowper as to an eligible residence for Mrs. Unwin, recommended a house at Olney, to which that lady, her daughter, and our poet, removed on the 14th of October 1767. At this residence, endeared to them by the company and public services of a man of congenial sentiments, Cowper for some years continued to enjoy those blessings of a retired and devotional life, which had constituted his only happiness since his recovery. His correspondence at this aera evinces a placid train of sentiment, mixed with an air of innocent gaiety, that must have afforded the highest satisfaction to his friends. Among other pleasures, of the purest kind, he delighted in acts of benevolence; and as he was not rich, he had the additional felicity of being employed as an almoner in the secret benevolences of that most charitable of all human heings, the late John Thornton, esq. an opulent merchant of London, whose name he has immortalized in his poem on charity, and in some verses on his death, which Mr. Hayley first published. Mr. Thornton statedly allowed Mr. Newton the sum of 200l. per annum, for the use of the poor of Olney, and it was the joint concern of Mr. Newton and Mr. Cowper to distribute this sum in the most judicious and useful manner. Such a bond of union could not fail to increase their intimacy. “Cowper,” says Mr. Newton, “loved the poor; he often visited them in their cottages, conversed with them in the most condescending manner, sympathized with them, counselled and comforted them in their distresses; and those, who were seriously disposed, were often cheered and animated by his prayers.” Of their intimacy, the same writer speaks in these emphatic terms: “For nearly twelve years we were seldom separated for seven hours at a time, when we were awake and at home. The first six I passed in daily admiring, and aiming to imitate him: during the second six, I walked pensively with him in the valley of the shadow of death.” Among other friendly services about this time, he wrote for Mr. Newton some beautiful hymns, which the latter introduced in public worship, and published in a collection long before Cowper was known as a poet.

Among other small pieces which he composed at the suggestion of lady Austen, was the celebrated ballad of “John Gilpin,” the origin of which Mr. Hayley thus relates “It happened one afternoon, that lady Austen observed him sinking into increasing dejection it was her custom, on these occasions, to try all the resources of her sprightly powers for his immediate relief. She told him the story of John Gilpin (which had been treasured in her memory from her childhood), to dissipate the gloom of the passing hour. Its effect on the fancy of Cowper had the air of enchantment: he informed her the next morning, that convulsions of laughter, brought on by his recollection of her story, had kept him waking during the greatest part of the night, and that he had turned it into a ballad.” Mrs. Unwin sent it to the Public Advertiser, where the late Mr. Henderson, the player, first saw it, and conceiving it might display his comic powers, read it at Freemasons’ ­hall, in a course of similar entertainments given by himself and Mr. Thomas Sheridan. It became afterwards extremely popular among all classes of readers, but was not generally known to be Cowper 1 s, until it was added to his second volume.

The public was soon laid under a far higher obligation to lady Austen for having suggested our author’s principal poem, “The Task,' 1” a poem,“says Mr. Hayley,” of such infinite variety, that it seems to include every subject, and every style, without any dissonance or disorder; and to have flowed without effort, from inspired philanthropy, eager to impress upon the hearts of all readers, whatever may lead them most happily to the full enjoyment of human life, and to the final attainment of Heaven.“This admirable poem appears to have been written in 1783 and 1784, but underwent many careful revisions. The public had iiot done much for Cowper, but he had too much regard for it and for his own character, to obtrude what was incorrect, or might be made better. It was his opinion, an opinion of great weight from such a critic, that poetry, in order to attain excellence, must be indebted to labour; and it was his correspondent practice to revise his poems with scrupulous care and severity. In a letter to his friend Air. Bull, on this poem, he says,” I find it severe exercise to mould and fashion it to my mind." Much of it was written in the winter, a season generally unfavourable to the author’s health, but there is reason to think that the encouragement and attentions of his amiable and judicious friends animated him to proceed, and that the regularity of his progress was favourable to his health and spirits. Disorders, like his, have been known to give way to some species of mental labour, if voluntarily undertaken, and pursued with steadiness. The Task rilled up many of those leisure hours, for which rural walks and employments would have amply provided at a more favourable season. It may be added, likewise, that no man appears to have had a more keen relish for the snugness of a winter fireside, and that, free from ambition, or the love of grand and tumultuous enjoyments, his heart was elated with gratitude for those humbler comforts which a mind like his would be apt to magnify by reflecting on the misery of those who want them.

In October 1785, he had reached the twentieth book of his translation of Homer, although probably no part was finished as he could have wished. His stated number was forty lines each day, with transcription and revision. His immediate object was to publish the Homer by subscription, in order to add something to his income which appears to have been always scanty, and in this resolution he persisted, notwithstanding offers from his liberal bookseller far more advantageous than a subscription was then likely to have produced. He seems to have felt a certain degree of pleasure, not wholly unmixed, in watching the progress of his subscription, and the gradual accession of names known to the learned world, or dear to himself by past recollections.

At this time, in consequence of a humane and judicious letter from the rev. Mr. Greathead, of Newport-Pagnel, Mr. Hayley paid a visit to this house of mourning, but found his poor friend “too much overwhelmed by his oppressive malady to show even the least glimmering of satisfaction at the appearance of a guest, whom he used to receive with the most lively expressions of affectionate delight.” In this deplorable state he continued during Mr. Hayley’s visit of some weeks, and the only circumstance which contributed in any degree to cheer the hearts of the friends who were now watching over him, was the intelligence that his majesty had been pleased to confer upon him such a pension as would insure an honourable competence for his life. Earl Spencer was the immediate agent in procuring this favour, and it would no doubt have added to its value, had the object of it known that he was indebted to one, who of all his noble friends, stood the highest in his esteem. But he was now, and for the remainder of his unhappy life, beyond the power of knowing or acknowledging the benevolence in which his heart delighted. Mr. Hayley left him for the last time in the spring of 1794, and from that period till the latter end of July 1795, Cowper remained in a state of the deepest melancholy.

If this p'raise be admitted, it will be needless to inquire in what peculiar charms Cowper’s poems consist, or why he, above all poets of recent times, has become the universal favourite of his nation. Yet, as he appears to have been formed not only to be an ornament, but a model to his brethren, it may not be useless to remind them, that in him the virtues of the man, and the genius of the poet, were inseparable; that in every thing he respected the highest interests of human kind, the promotion of religion, morality, and benevolence, and that while he enchants the imagination by the decorations of genuine poetry, and even condescends to trifle with innocent gaiety, his serious purposes are all of the nobler kind. He secures the judgment by depth of reflection on morals and manners; and by a vigour of sentiment, and a knowledge of human nature, such as every man’s taste and every man’s experience must confirm. In description, whether of objects of nature, or of artificial society, he has few equals, and whether he passes from description to reasoning, or illustrates the one by the other, he has found the happy art of administering to the pleasures of the senses and those of the intellect with equal success. But what adds a peculiar charm to Cowper, is, that his language is every where the language of the heart. The pathetic, in which he excels, is exclusively consecrated to subjects worthy of it. He obtrudes none of those assumed feelings by which some have obtained the character of moral, tender, and sympathetic, who in private life are known to be gross, selfish, and unfeeling. In Cowper we have every where the happiness to contemplate not only the most favourite of poets, but the best of men.

, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, was the second son of Laurence Cox, son of John Cox, of the city of Monmouth. His mother’s name was Elizabeth Willey. He was educated at Cambridge, where he took his bachelors degree in arts, but at what college is not known. In 1528 he went to Oxford, and was incorporated in the same degree in February 1529. He supplicated also for the degree of M. A. but it does not appear that he was admitted to it. About this time he became master of Reading school; and was living there, in great esteem, at the time when Fryth, the martyr, was first persecuted by being set in the stocks. Cox, who soon, discovered his merit by his conversation, relieved his wants, and out of regard to his learning, procured his release. In 1532 he published “The art or craft of Rhetoryke,” inscribed to Hugh Farington, abbot of Reading, in which he divides his subject into four parts, invention, judgment, disposition, and eloquence in speaking; but the present treatise is confined to the first. In 1540 he published tc Commentaries on William Lilly’s construction of the eight parts of speech,“which are mentioned in Dr. Ward’s edition of Lilly’s grammar; and, according to Wood, he translated from Greek into Latin,” Marcus Eremita de lege et spiritu;“and from Latin into English,” The paraphrase of St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus,“by Erasmus, with whom he was well acquainted. These, Wood says, were published in 1540, but by a ms note of Mr. Baker, we are told, that the paraphrase of Erasmus was published in 1549, at which time, the author says,” he was then in hand“with Eremita, who had written” on the law and the spirit,“and” of them that thynke to be justyfyed by their works."

In 1541, Henry VIII. granted him, by patent, the office of master of the grammar-school of Reading, with a certain tenement called “a scole-house,” with a stipend of ten pounds, issuing out of the manor of Cholsey, belonging to the late dissolved monastery of Reading. A few years after he had obtained this patent, which he appears, to have had the power of assigning during his life, he quitted Reading, and travelled over great part of the continent, teaching the learned languages. Leland, in some Latin verses, among his “Encomia,” addressed to Cox, speaks of his visiting the universities of Prague, Paris, and Cracow, and that he was known to Melancthon, who was Greek professor at Wittemberg. In the latter part of his life he kept a school at Caer-leon, and is said to have survived until the reign of Edward VI. Bale says that he was instructed in all the liberal arts, that he was a grammarian, a rhetorician, and a poet; a sound divine, and a diligent preacher of God’s word. It is needless after this to add that he was of the reformed religion. In Edward Vlth’s time, he was one of the licensed preachers.

His works, chiefly published after his decease, are, 1. “An Oration at the beginning of the Disputation of Dr. Tresham and others with Peter Martyr.” 2. “An Oration at the conclusion of the same;” both in Latin, and printed in 1549, 4to, and afterwards among Peter Martyr’s works. The second is also printed in the Appendix to Strype’s Life, of Cranmer. 3. He had a great hand in compiling the first Liturgy of the Church of England: and was one of the chief persons employed in the review of it in 1559. 4. He turned into verse the Lord’s Prayer, commonly printed at the end of Sternhold and Hopkins’s Psalms, a composition which will not bear modern criticism. 5. When a new Translation of the Bible was made in the reign of queen Elizabeth, now commonly known by the name of the Bishop’s Bible, the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistle to the Romans, were allotted to him, for his portion. 6. He wrote, “Resolutions of some Questions concerning the Sacraments;” in the collection of records at the end of Dr. Burnet’s History of the Reformation. 7. He had a hand in the “Declaration concerning the functions and divine institution of Bishops and Priests,” and in the “Answers to the Queries concerning some abuses of the Mass.” 8. Several letters, and small pieces of his have been published by the industrious Strype, in his Annals of the Reformation, and Lives of the four Archbishops; and he is said to have had a hand in Lilly’s Grammar. A letter written by him in 1569, directed to the Parson of Downham, and found in the parish chest of that place, was some years ago published in the Gentleman’s Magazine. It relates chiefly to the state and condition of the poor, before the statutes of the 14th and 43d of queen Elizabeth were enacted and shews that the bishop was animated with a very laudable zeal for engaging persons of wealth and substance to contribute liberally, chearfully, and charitably, to their indigent neighbours.

Coypel seems to have exerted himself more for others than for himself; he was a good master, a good relation, a good friend, and a man of veracity. His father disinherited him in favour of his sister by a second marriage, and tJie son did the same in regard to his brother, by depriving him of all benefit from the inheritance of Bidautt. Coypel was author of several theatrical performances, the rehearsals of which were attended by crowds of people, not for the sake of feeding his vanity with an artificial applause, but from friendly participation, and the conviction of their intrinsic noerit. Most of them were performed at the private theatre of madame Marchand, and in the Mazarine college, for which they were expressly composed. The well-known “Don Quixote” is by him. Coypel also wrote several dissertations on the art of painting, and academical lectures, which latter are in print. He even wrote the life of his father, which excels no less by the delicate manner in which he criticises his father, than by the modesty with which he speaks of himself. His acquaintance was very much sought after. One proof of this is in the prodigious heaps of letters that were found after his death. He was particularly the favourite of a small coterie, where talents, knowledge, and good humour were cherished, unmixed with jealousy, pride, and licentiousness. In the number of its membevs were Mess. Caylus, Helvetius, Mirabeau, Mariveaux, inad lle Quinaut, madtime Marchand, and several more. They met alternately at the apartments of each other, and sat down to a supper which, by a law of the society, was not to cost more than fifteen livres. Coypel was remarkable for his liberal spirit. He caused a house that had been thrown clown by an inundation to be rebuilt at his own expence on a far more convenient and handsome plan, without the impoverished owner’s ever knowing to whom he was indebted for the bounty. He annually laid by 2000 livres of his revenue for works of charity, and requested the duke of Orleans to employ the expence of the coach which that prince kept for him in alms to the poor. The duke of Orleans had an uncommon value for him. The duke could not bear a warm room, but when Coypel came to him, he always ordered a rousing fire to be made up, “for,” said he, “he is chilly<” This same prince composed a poem, shewed it to the artist, and asked him, whether he should have it printed? Coypel was honest enough to say, “No:” and the duke tore it, and threw it into the fire.

His attainments were various and considerable. He wrote elegantly in Latin verse, as may be seen in three specimens in the “Carmina Quadragesimal ia,” for the year 1748, the only things he was ever known to have published. The only likeness existing of Mr. Cracherode is a blacklead drawing made by order, and in the possession of lady Spencer, but by himself expressly forbidden to be engraved.

, said to be brother to the preceding, was born in 1633, and was educated at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he gained such esteem by his learning and piety, that Dr. Cudworth, in 1656, wrote in the strongest terms to secretary Thurloe, to recommend him to Oliver Cromwell, as a proper person for the chaplainship of the English factory at Lisbon. Some years after the restoration, he was made canon-residentiary of Chichester, and was elected fellow of Eton college in 1672. In 1680 he was chosen by the fellows provost of Eton in opposition to Waller the poet, who was twice disappointed of the same preferment, once in 1665, when the lord chancellor Clarendon refused to put the seal to the grant, because it could be held only by a clergyman, and now when the privy-council came to the same determination. Dr. Cradock, who was admired in his own time for his uncommon talents, great copiousness and vivacity in preaching, is scarce known to the present day, except by the high character given of him by his contemporaries, and two excellent sermons: one on Providence, preached before Charles II. by whose command it was printed: it has since passed through several editions: the other “On the great end and design of Christianity,” was printed some years after his death, which happened Oct. 16, 1695, when he was interred in the college chapel.

, a learned mathematician, was a native of Scotland, in the seventeenth century, and well known for many papers recorded in the Philosophical Transactions, and in the Acta Eruditorum. He had a controversy with Bernouilli, in which Leibnitz took the part of Craig. He made his name, however, famous chiefly by a pamphlet of 36 pages, 4to, entitled “Theologise Christianae prinfcipia mathematica,” printed at London in 1699, and reprinted at Leipsic in 1755, with a preface upon the life and works of Craig. The author calculates the force and diminution of the probability of things. He establishes, as his fundamental proposition, that whatever we believe upon the testimony of men, inspired or uninspired, is nothing more thau probable. He then proceeds to suppose, that this probability diminishes in proportion as the distance of time from this testimony increases: and, by means of algebraical calculations, he finds at length, that the probability of the Christian religion will last only 1454 years from the date of his book; but will be nothing afterwards, unless Jesus Christ should prevent the annihilation of it by his second coming, as he prevented the annihilation of the Jewish religion by his first coming. Some in Germany and France have seriously refuted these learned reveries. The time of his death is not known.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Geneva, in 1704, and became a pupil of John Bernouilli, and a professor of mathematics at the age of nineteen. He was known all over Europe, and was of the academies of London, Berlin, Montpellier, Lyons, and Bologna. He died in 1752, worn out with study, at the baths of Languedoc, whither he had repaired for the recovery of his health. He made a most important and interesting collection of the works of James and John Bernouilli, which was published 1743, under his inspection, in 6 vols. 4to, and he had before bestowed no less pains on an edition of Christopher Wolf’s “Elementa universae matheseos,” Genev. 1732 1741, 5 vols. 4to. The only work he published of his own was an excellent “Introduction to the Theory of Curve lines,” 1750, 4to. L'Avocat says he was an universal genius, a living Encyclopedia, and a man of pious and exemplary conduct. His family appears to have been numerous and literary. There wap another Gabriel Cramer, probably his father, who was born at Geneva, 1641, rose to be senior of the faculty of medicine, died in 1724, and left a son, John Isaac, who took the degree of doctor in 1696, succeeded to his practice, and published an “Epitome of Anatomy,” and a “Dissertation on Diseases of the Liver,” left by his father. Also, “Thesaurus secretorum curiosorum, in quo curiosa, ad omnes corporis humani, turn internes turn externos, morbos curandos, &c. continentur,” 1709, 4to, He again was succeeded by his son, John Andrew Cramer, who rendered himself famed by his skill in mineralogy and chemistry; and published at Leyden, in 1739, 2 vols. 8vo, “Elementa Artis Docirnasticae.” It was reprinted in 1744, and again translated into French, in 1755. He wrote also a treatise on the management of forests and timber, and gave public lectures on Assaying, both in Holland and England. He died Dec. 6, 1777. Tn his person he was excessiyely slovenly, in his temper irritable, and when disputes occurred, not very delicate in his language.

Bishop Burnet takes notice of some malevolent accusations that had been privately brought to the king against Cranmer, with a view to ruin him, including a charge of heresy, and on which subject his majesty conversed with him; and the bishop adds: “His candour and simplicity wrought so on the king, that he discovered to him the whole plot that was laid against him; and said, that instead of bringing him to any trial about it, he would have him try it out, and proceed against those his accusers. But he excused himself, and said it would not be decent for him to sit judge in his own cause. But the king said to him, he was resolved none other should judge it, but those he should name. So he named his chancellor and his register; to whom the king added another: and a commission being given them, they went into Kent, and sat three weeks to find out the first contrivers of this accusation. And now every one disowned it, since they saw he was still firmly rooted in the king’s esteem and favour. But it being observed, that the commissioners proceeded faintly, Cranmer’s friends moved, that some man of courage and authority might be sent thither, to canvass this accusation more carefully. So Dr. Lee, dean of York, was brought up about Allhallow-tide, and sent into Kent.And he, who had been well acquainted with the arts of discovering secrets, when he was one of the visitors of the abbies, managed it more vigorously. He ordered a search to be made of all suspected persons; among whose papers letters were found, both from the bishop of Winchester, and Dr. London, and some of those whom Cranmer had treated with the greatest freedom and kindness, in which the whole plot against him was discovered. But it was now near the session of parliament: and the king was satisfied with the discovery, but thought it not fit to make much noise of it. And he received no addresses from the archbishop to prosecute it further: who was so noted for his clemency, and following our Saviour’s rule of doing good for evil, that it was commonly said, the way to get his favour was to do him an injury. These were the only instances in which he expressed his resentments. Two of the conspirators against him had been persons signally obliged by him. The one was the bishop suffragan of Dover; the other was a civilian, whom he had employed much in his business. But all the notice he took of it was to shew them their letters, and to admonish them to be more faithful and honest for the future. Upon which he freely forgave them, and carried it so to them afterwards, as if he had absolutely forgotten what they had contrived against him. And a person of quality coming to him about that time, to obtain his favour and assistance in a suit, in which he was to move the king, he went about it, and had almost procured it: but the king calling to mind that he had been one of his secret accusers, asked him whether he took him for his friend. He answered that he did so. Then the king said, the other was a knave, and his mortal enemy; and bad him, when he should see him next, call him knave to his face. Cranmer answered, that such language did not become a bishop. But the king sullenly commanded him to do it; yet his modesty was such, that he could not obey so harsh a command. And so he passed the matter over. When these things came to be known, all persons, that were not unjustly prejudiced against him, acknowledged, that his behaviour was suitable to the example and doctrine of the meek and lowly Saviour of the world: and very well became so great a bishop, and such a reformer of the Christian religion; who in those sublime and extraordinary instances practised that which he taught others to do.”

Our poet was born in London, but in what year is uncertain. In his infancy, sir Henry Yelverton and sir Randolph Crew undertook the charge of his education, and afterwards procured him to be placed in the Charter- house on the foundation, where he improved in an extraordinary degree under Brooks, a very celebrated master. He was thence admitted of Pembroke-hall, March 1632, and took his bachelor’s degree in the same college, in 1634. He then removed to Peterhouse, of which he was a fellow in 1637, and was admitted to his master’s degree in 1633. In 1634, he published a volume of Latin poem?, mostly of the devotional kind, dedicated to Benjamin Lang, master of Pembroke- hall. This contained the well-known line, which has sometimes been ascribed to Dryden and others, on the miracle of turning water into wine:

Crashaw’s poems were first published in 1646, under the title of, 1. Steps to the Temple. 2. The Delights of the Muses. 3. Sacred Poems presented to the Countess of Denbigh. But Mr. Hayley is of opinion that this third class only was published at that time, and that the two others were added to the subsequent editions. So many republications within a short period, and that period not very favourable to poetry, sufficiently mark the estimation in which this devotional enthusiast was held, notwithstanding his having relinquished the church in which he had been educated. His poems prove him to have been of the school which produced Herbert and Quarles. Herbert was his model, and Granger attributes the anonymous poems, at the end of Herbert’s volume, to Crashaw; but however partial Crashaw might be to Herbert, it is impossible he could have been the author of these anonymoVis poems, which did not appear until after his death, and were written by a clergyman of the church of England known to Walton, who subjoins some commendatory lines dated 1654.

In 1785, the late Mr. Peregrine Phillips published a selection from Crashaw’s poems, with an address in which he attacks Pope, for having availed himself of the beauties of Crashaw, while he endeavoured to injure his fame. Against this accusation, Mr. Hayley has amply vindicated Pope. That he has horrowed from him is undeniable, and not unacknowledged by himself, but that it should be his intention to injure the fame of a writer whose writings were unknown, unless to poetical antiquaries, and that in a confidential letter to a friend whom he advised to read the poems as well as his opinion of them, is an absurdity scarcely worthy of refutation. Pope enumerates among Crashaw’s best pieces, the paraphrase on Psalm xxiii. the verses on Lessius, Epitaph on Mr. Ashton, Wishes to his supposed Mistress, and the Dies Irae. Dr. Warton recommends the translation from Moschus, and another from Catullus, and amply acknowledges the obligations of Pope and Roscommon to Crashaw. Mr. Hayley, after specifying some of Pope’s imitations of our author, conjectures that the elegies on St. Alexis suggested to him the idea of his Eloisa; but, adds he, “if Pope borrowed any thing from Crashaw in this article, it was only as the sun borrows from the earth, when drawing from thence a mere vapour, he makes it the delight of every eye, by giving it all the tender and gorgeous colouring of heaven.” Some of Crashaw’s translations are esteemed superior to his original poetry, and that of the “Sospetto d' Herod e,” from Marino, is executed with Milton ic grace and spirit. It has been regretted that he translated only the first book of a poem by which Milton condescended to profit in his immortal Epic. The whole was, however, afterwards translated and published in 1675, by a writer whose initials only are known, T. R. Of modern critics, Mr. Headley and Mr. Ellis have selected recommendatory specimens from Crashaw. In Mr. Headley’s opinion, “he has originality in many parts, and as a translator is entitled to the highest applause.” Mr. Ellis, with his accustomed judgment and moderation, pronounces that “his translations have considerable merit, but that his original poetry is full of conceit. His Latin poems were first printed in 1634, and have been much admired, though liable to the same objections as his English.”

, an English poet, chiefly noted for his translatious of ancient authors, was son of Thomas Creech, and born near Sherbourne in Dorsetshire, 1659. He was educated in grammar learning under Mr. Gurganven of Sherbourne, to whom he afterwards dedicated a translation of one of Theocritus’s Idylliums; and entered a commoner of Wadham college in Oxford, 1675. Wood tells us, that his father was a gentleman; but Jacob says, in his “Lives and Characters of English Poets,” that his parents were not in circumstances sufficient to support him through a liberal education, but that his disposition and capacity for learning raised him up a patron in colonel Strangeways, whose generosity supplied that defect. Creech certainly distinguished himself much; and was accounted a good philosopher and poet, and a severe student. June 13, 1683, he took the degree of M. A. and not long after was elected probationer fellow of All-souls college; to which, Jacob observes, the great reputation acquired by his translation of Lucretius recommended him. Wood tells us, that upon this occasion he gave singular proofs of his classical learning and philosophy before his examiners. In 1696 he took his degree of bachelor of divinity, and began to be well known by the works he published; but they were of no great advantage to his fortune, since his circumstances were always indifferent. In 1699, having taken orders, he was presented by his college to the living of Welwyn in Hertfordshire; but while at Oxford, on another occasion, in June 1700, he put an end to his life. The motives of this fatal catastrophe have been variously represented. M. Bernard informs us, in the “ Republic of Letters,” that in 1700, Creech fell in love with a, woman, who treated him contemptuously, though she was complaisant enough to others; that not being able to digest this usage, he was resolved not to survive it; and that he hanged himself in his study, in which situation he was found three days after. Jacob says nothing of the particular manner of his death, but only that he unfortunately made away with himself: which he ascribes to a naturally morose and splenetic temper, too apt to despise the understandings and performances of others. “This,” says Jacob, “made him less esteemed than his great merit deserved; and his resentments on this account frequently engaged him in those heats and disputes which in the end proved fatal to him.” But from an original letter of Arthur Charlett, preserved in the Bodleian library, it has lately been discovered, that this unhappy event was owing to a very different cause. There was a fellow collegian of whom Creech frequently borrowed money; but repeating his applications too often, he met one day with such a cold reception, that he retired in a fit of gloomy disgust, and in three days was found hanging in his room: and Mr. Malone has more recently published a letter from Dr. Tanner, by which it appears that Creech had before exhibited marks of insanity.

, an artist, better known by the name of Cerano, where he was born in 1557, descended from a family of painters, studied at Rome and Venice, and with painting united a knowledge of modelling, architecture, and literature. With such talents he occupied the first rank at the court of Milan, in the direction of the academy, and the vast plans of cardinal Federigo: he painted a number of pictures, whose beauties are not seldom balanced by blemishes of equal magnitude, free, spirited, harmonious, but often mannered from affectation of grace or grandeur. The singular talent he possessed of painting birds and quadrupeds in cabinet pictures, is mentioned by Soprani. One of his best pictures is the “Madonna del Rosario,” in the church of St. Lazzaro at Milan. He died in 1633.

, sometimes called La Spagnuolo, from the style in which he affected to dress, was born at Bologna, in 1665, and received his earliest instruction in design from Angelo Toni, a very moderate artist; but in a short time he quitted that school, and successively studied under Domenico Cainuti, Carlo Cignani, and Giovanni Antonio Burrini. From them he applied himself to study the works of Baroccio, and afterwards the principles of colouring at Venice, from the paintings of Titian, Tintoretto, and Paul Veronese. Thus qualified to appear with credit in his profession, his merit was made known to the grand duke Ferdinand, who immediately engaged him in several noble compositions, which he executed with success. In portrait he was particularly excellent; and to those subjects he gave elegant attitudes, with a strong and graceful resemblance.

After this, he was much inclined to become a monk of the Carthusian order, and had thoughts of entering into the monastery of English Carthusians at Newport, in Flanders, but from this he was dissuaded by some of his zealous countrymen, who were desirous that he should continue to employ his pen in defence of their religion, for which the severe discipline of that order would have allowed him but little time; and therefore by their advice he laid aside that design, and being recommended to Henrietta-Maria, queen-dowager of England, he was taken under her protection, and being invited by the Benedictine college of English monks at Douay, in Flanders, he at length resolved to retire thither, and for the expence of his journey received one hundred crowns as a bounty from that princess, who could but ill spare even so small a sura at that time. Some time after his arrival at Douay he entered into the Benedictine order, and upon that occasion changed the name he received at his baptism, of Hugh Paulin, for that of Serenus de Cressey, by which he was afterwards known to the learned world. He remained about seven years or more in that college, and during his residence tnere published a large work, of the mystical kind, entitled “Sancta Sophia, or directions for the prayers of contemplation, &c. extracted out of more than XL treatises, written by the late reverend father Aug. Baker, a monk of the English congregation of the holy order of St. Benedict,” Douay, 1657, 2 vols. 8vo. To which are added, “Certain patterns of devout exercises of immediate acts and affections of the will.” This father Augustine Baker, whose true name was David Baker, who had studied the law in the Middle temple, and who from being little better than an atheist, became a convert to popery, and a very zealous devotionist, had once, it seems, some intention of writing the Ecclesiastical History of England, for which he had made very copious collections, that were of great service to Cressey, when he entered upon the execution of the same project.

After the restoration, and the marriage of king Charles II. queen Catharine appointed our author, who was then become one of the mission in England, her chaplain, and from that time he resided in Somerset-house, in the Strand. The great regularity of his life, his sincere and unaffected piety, his modest and mild behaviour, his respectful deportment to persons of distinction, with whom he was formerly acquainted when a protestant, and the care he took to avoid all concern in political affairs or intrigues of state, preserved him in quiet and safety, even in the most troublesome times- He was, however, a very zealous champion in the cause of the church of Rome, and was continually writing in defence of her doctrines, or in answer to the books of controversy written by protestants of distinguished learning or figure; and as this engaged him in a variety of disputes, he had the good fortune to acquire great reputation with both parties, the papists looking upon him to be one of their ablest advocates, and the protestants allowing that he was a grave, a sensible, and a candid writer. Among the works he published after his return to England, were: 1. “A non est inventus returned to Mr. Edward Bagshaw’s enquiry and vainly boasted discovery of weakness in the Grounds of the Church’s Infallibility,” 1662, 8vo. 2. “A Letter to an English gentleman, dated July 6th, 1662, wherein bishop Morley is concerned, printed amongst some of the treatises of that reverend prelate,” 3. “Roman Catholic Doctrines no Novelties; or, an answer to Dr. Pierce’s court-sermon, miscalled The primitive rule of Reformation,” 1663, 8vo; answered by Dr. Daniel Whitby. But that which contributed to make him most known, was his large and copious ecclesiastical history, entitled “The Church History of Britanny,” Roan, 1668, fol. which was indeed a work of great pains and labour, and executed with much accuracy and diligence. He had observed that nothing made a greater impression upon the people in general of his communion, than the reputation of the great antiquity of their church, and the fame of the old saints of both sexes, that had flourished in this island; and therefore he judged that nothing could be more serviceable in promoting what he styled the catholic interest, than to write such a history as might set these points in the fairest and fullest light possible. He had before him the example of a famous Jesuit, Michael Alford, alias Griffith, who had adjusted the same history under the years in which the principal events happened, in four large volumes, collected from our ancient historians; but, as this was written in Latin, he judged that it was less suited to the wants of common readers, and therefore he translated what suited his purpose into English, with such helps and improvements as he thought necessary. His history was very much approved by the most learned of his countrymen of the same religion, as appears by the testimonies prefixed to it. Much indeed may be said in favour of the order, regularity, and coherence of the facts, and the care and punctuality shewn in citing his authorities. On the other hand, he has too frequently adopted the superstitious notions of many of our old writers; transcribing from them such fabulous passages as have been long ago exploded by the inquisitive and impartial critics of his own faith. The book, however, long maintained its credit among the Romanists, as a most authentic ecclesiastical chronicle, and is frequently cited by their most considerable authors. He proposed to have published another volume of this history, which was to have carried it as low as the dissolution of monasteries by king Henry VIII. but he died before he had proceeded full three hundred years lower than the Norman conquest. Dodd, however, informs us that a considerable part of the second volume was preserved in ms. in the Benedictine monastery at Douay, and that it was never published “upon account of some nice controversies between the see of Rome, and some of our English kings, which might give offence.” While engaged on this work, he found leisure to interfere in all the controversies of the times, as will presently be noticed. His last dispute was in reference to a book written by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet, afterwards bishop of Worcester, to which, though several answers were given by the ablest of the popish writers, there was none that seemed to merit reply, excepting that penned by father Cressey, and this procured him the honour of a very illustrious antagonist, his old friend and acquaintance at Oxford, Edward earl of Clarendon. Being now grown far in years, and having no very promising scene before his eyes, from the warm spirit that appeared against popery amongst all ranks of people, and the many excellent books written to confute it by the most learned of the clergy, he was the more willing to seek for peace in the silence of a country retirement; and accordingly withdrew for some time to the house of Richard Caryll, esq. a gentleman of an ancient family and affluent fortune, at East Grinstead, co. Sussex, and dying upon the 10th of August 1674, being then near the seventieth year of his age, was buried in the parish church there. His loss was much regretted by those of his communion, as being one of their ablest champions, ready to draw his pen in their defence on every occasion, and sure of having his pieces read with singular favour and attention. His memory also was revered by the protestants, as well on account of the purity of his manners, and his mild and humble deportment, as for the plainness, candour, and decency with which he had managed all the controversies that he had been engaged in, and which had procured him, in return, much more of kindness and respect, than almost any other of his party had met with, or indeed deserved. It is very remarkable, however, that he thought it necessary to apologize to his popish readers for the respectful mention he made of the prelates of our church. Why this should require an apology, we shall not Inquire, but that his candour and politeness deserve the highest commendation will appear from what he says of archbishop Usher: “As for B. Usher, his admirable abilities in ‘chronological and historical erudition,’ as also his faithfulness and ingenuous sincerity in delivering without any provoking reflection*, what with great labour he has observed, ought certainly at least to exempt him from being treated by any one rudely and contemptuously, especially by me, who am moreover always obliged to preserve a just remembrance of very many kind effects of friendship, which I received from, him.” We have already taken notice of his inclination to the mystic divinity, which led him to take so much pains about the works of father Baker, and from the same disposition he also published “Sixteen revelations of divine love, shewed to a devout servant of our Lord, called mother Juliana, an anchorete of Norwich, who lived in the days of king Edward Hi.” He left also in ms. “An Abridgment of the book called The cloud of unknowing, and of the counsel referring to the same.” His next performance, was in answer to a famous treatise, written by Dr. Stillingfleet, against the church of Rome, which made a very great noise in those days, and put for some time a stop to the encroachments their missionaries were daily making, which highly provoked those of the Roman communion. This was entitled “Answer to part of Dr. Stillingfleet’s book, entitled Idolatry practised in the church of Rome,” 1672, 8vo, and was followed by “Fanaticism fanatically imputed to the Catholic Church by Dr. Stillingfleet, and the imputation refuted and retorted,” &c. 1672, 8vo, and “Question, Why are you a Catholic? Question, Why are you a Protestant?” 1673, 8vo. In support of Dr. Stillingfleet, the earl of Clarendon wrote “Animadversions” upon our author’s answer; in which he very plainly tells him and the world, that it was not devotion, but necessity and want of a subsistence, which drove him first out of the church of England, and then into a monastery. As this noble peer knew him well at Oxford, it may be very easily imagined that what he said made a very strong impression, and it was to efface this, that our author thought tit to send abroad an answer under the title of “Epistle apologetical to a person of honour, touching his vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet,' 1 1674, 8vo. In this work he gives a large relation of the state and condition of his affairs, at the time of what he styles his conversion, in order to remove the imputation of quitting his faith to obtain bread. The last work that he published was entitled” Remarks upon the Oath of Supremacy."

, of an illustrious family of Italy, established in the comtat Venaissin, knight of Malta, and one of the greatest generals of his age, was born in 1541, and entered into the service in 1557. At the age of fifteen he was at the siege of Calais, and contributed greatly to the taking of that place, by a brilliant action that brought him to the notice of Henry II. He afterwards signalized himself against the Huguenots, or protestants, at the battles of Dreux, of Jarnac, and of Moncontour, in 1562, 1568, and 1569. The youthful hero so greatly distinguished himself in his caravans, especially at the battle of Lepanto in 1571, that he was made choice of, though wounded, to carry the news of the victory to the pope and to the king of France. We find him two years afterwards, in 1573, at the siege of la Rochelle, and in almost all the other considerable rencontres of that period. He every where shewed himself worthy of the name usually given him hy Henry IV. of the Brave Crillon. Henrv Hi. who was well acquainted with his valour, made him knight of his orders in 1585. The specious pretences of the league, the mask of religion which it put on, could never shake the fidelity of the brave Crillon, however great his antipathy to the Huguenots. He rendered important services to his prince in the affair of the Barricades, at Tours, and elsewhere. Henry III. ventured to propose to Crillon to assassinate the duke de Guise, a rebellious subject whom he was afraid to put to death by the sword of the law. Crillon offered to fiorht him; but disdained to hear of assassination. When Henry IV. had made the conquest of his kingdom, Crillon was as faithful to him as he had been to his predecessor. He repulsed the leaguers before Boulogne. The army of Villars having invested Villebceuf in 1592, he vigorously defended that place, replying to the besiegers, on their summoning the besieged to surrender, “Crillon is within, and the enemy without.” Henry, however, did but little for him; “because,” said he, “I was sure of the brave Crillon and I had to gain over my persecutors.” The peace of Vervins having put an end to the wars that had troubled Europe, Crillon retired to Avignon, and there died, in the exercises of piety and penance, the 2d of December 1615, at the age of seventy-four. Francis Bening, a Jesuit, pronounced the discourse at his funeral: a piece of burlesque eloquence, printed in 1616, under the title of “Boucher d'Honnenr,” the “Buckler of Honour,” and reprinted not many years since, as a specimen of ridiculous jargon. Mademoiselle de Lusson published in 2 vols. 12mo, 1757, the life of this hero, called by his contemporaries I'homme sans peur (the man without fear), le brave des braves (the bravest of the brave). This was translated into English by Miss Lomax, of Hertfordshire, and after being revised by Richardson, the author of Clarissa, was published at London, 1760, 2 vols. 12mo. Crillon appears to have been a second chevalier Bayard, not on account of his fantastic and sullen humour, but from the excellence of his heart and his attachment to religion. It is well known that being present one day at a sermon on the sufferings of Christ, when the preacher was come to the description of the flagellation, Crillon, seized with a sudden fit of enthusiasm, put his band to his sword, crying out, “Where wert thou, Crillon?” These sallies of courage, the effect of an exuberant vivacity of temper, engaged him too frequently in duels, in which he always came off with honour. Two instances are recorded of an intrepidity highly characteristic of Crillon. At the battle of Moncontour in 1569, a Huguenot soldier thought to serve his party by dispatching the bravest and most formidable of the catholic generals. In this view he repaired to a place where Crillon, in his return from pursuing the fugitives, must necessarily pass. The soldier no sooner perceived him than he drew the trigger of his piece. Crillon, though severely wounded in the arm, ran up to the assassin, laid hold on him, and was instantly going to thrust him through with his sword, when the soldier threw himself at his feet and begged his life. “I grant it thee,” said Crillou; “and if any faith could be put in a man that is at once a rebel to his king, and an apostate to his religion, I would put thee on thy parole never to bear arms but in the service of thy sovereign.” The soldier, confounded at this act of magnanimity, swore that he would for ever shake off all correspondence with the rebels, and return to the catholic religion. — The young duke of Guise, to whom Henry IV. had sent him at Marseilles, was desirous of trying how far the fortitude of Crillon would go. In this design he caused the alarm to be sounded before the quarters of his brave commander, and two horses to be led to his door. Then, running up to his apartments, pretended that the enemy was master of the port and town, and proposed to him to make his escape, that he might not swell the triumph of the conquerors. Though Crillon was hardly well awake when he heard these tidings, he snatched up his arms without the least trepidation, maintaining that it was better to die sword in hand, than survive the loss of the place. Guise, finding it impossible, by all the arguments he could use, to alter his resolution, accompanied him out of the chamber; but, when they were about the middle of the stairs, he burst out into a violent laughter, which plainly discovered the trick to Crillon. He then put on a graver countenance than when he thought he was going to fight; and griping the duke of Guise by the hand, he said, with an oath, according to his custom, “Young man, never again amuse thyself with putting to the test the heart of an honest man. Par la mort! if thou hadst found me weak, I would have poignarded thee!” After these words he retired without saying any thing more. We will conclude with the laconic billet written to him from the field of battle by Henry IV. after the victory of Arques, where Crillon was unable to be present: “Hang thyself, Crillon! We have been fighting at Arques, and thou wert not there. Adieu, brave Crillon! I love thee whether right or wrong.”

, an eminent and loyal citizen in the reigns of king Charles the First, and king Charles the Second, the son of a very eminent merchant of London, was born in 1598, and bred, according to the custom of those times, in a thorough knowledge of business, though heir to a great estate. He made a considerable addition to this by marriage; and being a man of an enterprizing genius, ever active and solicitous about new inventions and discoveries, was soon taken notice of at court, was knighted, and became one of the farmers of the king’s customs. When the trade to Guinea was under great difficulties and discouragements, he framed a project for retrieving it, which required a large capital, but his reputation was so great, that many rich merchants willingly engaged with him in the prosecution of the design; and to give a good example, as well as to shew that he meant to adhere to the work that he had once taken in hand, he caused the castle of Cormantyn upon the Gold Coast, to be erected at his own expence. By this judicious precaution, and by his wise and wary management afterwards, himself and his associates carried their trade so successfully, as to divide amongst them fifty thousand pounds a year. When the rebellion began, and the king was in want of money, sir Nicholas Crispe, and his partners in the farming of the customs, upon very short warning, and when their refusing it would have been esteemed a merit with the parliament, raised him one hundred thousand pounds at once. After the war broke out, and in the midst of all the distractions with which it was attended, he continued to carry on a trade to Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Norwaj', Moscovy, and Turkey, which produced to the king nearly one hundred thousand pounds a year, besides keeping most of the ports open and ships in them constantly ready for his service. All the correspondence and supplies of arms which were procured by the queen in Holland, and by the king’s agents in Denmark, were consigned to his care, and by his prudence and vigilance safely landed in the north, and put into the hands of those for whom they were intended. In the management of so many nice and difficult affairs, he was obliged to keep up a very extensive correspondence, for which he hardly ever made use of cypher, but penned his letters in such a peculiar style, as removed entirely his intentions from the apprehension of his enemies, and yet left them very intelligible unto those with whom he transacted. He had also great address in bringing any thing to bear that he had once contrived, to which it contributed not a little, that in matters of secrecy and danger he seldom trusted to any hands but his own, and made use of all kinds of disguises. Sometimes, when he was believed to be in one place, he was actually at another; letters of consequence he carried in the disguise of a porter; when he wanted intelligence he would be at the water side, with a basket of flounders upon his head, and often passed between London and Oxford in the dress of a butter-woman on horseback, between a pair of panniers. He was the principal author of a well-laid design for publishing the king’s commission of array at London, in which there was nothing dishonourable, so far as sir Nicholas Crispe was concerned, which, however, Clarendon inadvertently confounds with another design, superinduced by Mr. Waller, of surprizing the parliament, in bringing which to bear he proceeded very vigorously at first, till, finding that he had engaged in a matter too big for his management, he suddenly lost his spirits, and some of the chief men in the house of commons gaining intelligence that something was in agitation to their prejudice, May 31st, 1643, they presently seized Mr. Waller, and drew from him a complete discovery, which, from the account they published, plainly distinguished these two projects. By the discovery of this business, sir Nicholas Crispe found himself obliged to declare openly the course he meant to take; and having at his own expence raised a regiment of horse for the king’s service, he distinguished himself at the head of it as remarkably in his military, as he had ever done in his civil capacity. When the siege of Gloucester was resolved on, sir Nicholas Crispe was charged with his regiment of horse to escort the king’s train of artillery from Oxford, which important service he very gallantly performed; but in the month of September following, a very unlucky accident occurred, and though the circumstances attending it clearly justified his conduct to the world, yet the concern it gave him was such as he could not shake off so long as he lived. He happened to be quartered at Rouslidge, in Gloucestershire, where one sir James Ennyon, bart. of Northamptonshire, and some friends of his took up a great part of the house, though none of them had any commands in the army, which, however, sir Nicholas bore with the utmost patience, notwithstanding he was much incommoded by it. Some time after, certain horses belonging to those gentlemen were missing, and sir James Ennyon, though he had lost none himself, insinuating that some of sir Nicholas’s troopers must have taken them, insisted that he should immediately draw out his regiment, that search might be made for them. Sir Nicholas answered him with mildness, and offered him as full satisfaction as it was in his power to give, but excused himself from drawing out his regiment, as a thing improper and inconvenient at that juncture, for reasons which he assigned. Not content, however, sir James left him abruptly, and presently after sent him a challenge, accompanied with a message to this effect, that if he did not comply with it, he would pistol him against the wall. Upon this, sir Nicholas Crispe taking a friend of his with him, went to the place appointed, and finding sir James Ennyon and the person who brought him the challenge, sir Nicholas used his utmost endeavours to pacify him; but he being determined to receive no satisfaction, unless by the sword, they engaged, and sir James received a wound in the rim of the belly, of which he died in two days. Before this, however, he sent for sir Nicholas Crispe, and was sincerely reconciled to him. Upon the 2d of October following, sir Nicholas was brought to a court-martial for this unfortunate affair, and upon a full examination of every thing relating to it, was most honourably acquitted. He continued to serve with the same zeal and fidelity during 1644, and in the spring following; but when the treaty of Uxbridge commenced, the parliament thought fit to mark him, as they afterwards did in the Isle of Wight treaty, by insisting that he should be removed from his majesty’s presence; and a few months after, on April 16th, 1645, they ordered his large house in Breadstreet to be sold, which for many years belonged to his family. Neither was this stroke of their vengeance judged a sufficient punishment for his offences, since having resolved to grant the elector palatine a pension of eight thousand pounds a year, they directed that two thousand should be applied out of the king’s revenue, and the remainder made up out of the estates of lord Culpeper and sir Nicholas Crispe, Sir Nicholas finding himself no lon^ev in a capacity to render his majesty any service, thought it expedient to preserve himself; and in April 1646 embarked with lord Culpeper and colonel Monk for France, but as he had many rich relations who had interest with those in power, they interposed in his favour; and as sir Nicholas perceived that he could be of no service to the royal cause abroad, h did not look upon it as any deviation from his duty, to return and live quietly at home. Accordingly, having submitted to a composition, he came back to London, to retrieve his shattered fortunes, and very soon engaged again in business, with the same spirit and success as before. In this season of prosperity he was not unmindful of the wants of Charles II. but contributed cheerfully to his relief, when his affairs seemed to be in the most desperate condition. After the death of Oliver Cromwell, he was instrumental in reconciling many to their duty, and so well were his principles known, and so much his influence apprehended, that when it was proposed that the royalists in and about London should sign an instrument signifying their inclination to preserve the public tranquillity, he was called upon, and very readily subscribed it. He was also principally concerned in bringing the city of London, in her corporate capacity, to give the encouragement that was requisite to leave general Monk without any difficulties or suspicion as to the sincerity and unanimity of their inclinations. It was therefore very natural, after reading the king’s letter and declaration in common-council, May 3d, 1660, to think of sending some members of their own body to preSent their duty to his majesty; and having appointed nine aldermen and their recorder, they added sir Nicholas Crispe, with several other worthy persons, to the committee, that the king might receive the more satisfaction from their sentiments being delivered by several of those who had suffered deeply in his own and in his father’s cause. His majesty accordingly received these gentlemen very graciously, as a committee, and afterwards testified to them separately the sense he had of their past services, and upon his return, sir Nicholas Crispe and sir John Wolstenholme, were re-instated as farmers of the customs. Sir Nicholas was now in years, and somewhat infirm, spent a great part of his time at his noble country seat near Hammersmith, where he was in some measure the founder of the chapel, and having an opportunity of returning the tbligation he had received from some of his relations, he procured for them that indemnity from the king, gratis, for which he had so dearly paid during the rebellion. The last testimony he received of his royal master’s favour, was his being created a baronet, April 16th, 1665, which he did not long survive, dying February 26th, the next year, in the sixty-seventh year of his age, leaving a very large estate to his grandson, sir Nicholas Crispe. His corpse was interred with his ancestors, in the parish church of St. Mildred, in Bread-street, and his funeral sermon was preached by his reverend and learned kinsman Mr. Crispe, of Christ-church, Oxford. But his heart was sent to the chapel at Hammersmith, where there is a short and plain inscription upon a cenotaph erected to his memory; or rather upon that monument which himself erected in grateful commemoration of king Charles I. as the inscription placed there in sir Nicholas’s life-time tells us, under which, after his decease, was placed a small white marble urn, upon a black pedestal, containing his heart.

As bishop Croft lived, so he died, without the least tincture of that popery which he had contracted in his youth, as appears clearly enough from the preamble to his will: “I do,” says he, “in all humble manner most heartily thank God, that he hath been most graciously pleased, by the light of his most holy gospel, to recall me from the darkness of gross errors and popish superstitions, into which I was seduced in my younger days, and to settle me again in the true ancient catholic and apostolic faith, professed by our church of England, in which I was born and baptized, and in which I joyfully die,” &c. He had one only son, Herbert, who was educated in Magdalen college, Oxford, was created baronet by Charles II. Nov. 167 1, and was twice knight of the shire in the reign of king William. He died 1720, and was succeeded by his son Archer, and he by his son and namesake in 1761, who dying in 1792, without male issue, the title descended to the rev. Herbert Croft, a gentleman well known in the literary world.

, was born in the province of Maine in 1552. He was sieur or lord of the manor of Croix du Maine, and of Vieille Cour, four leagues from Mans. From his youth he. had a passionate inclination for learning and books, and collected so large a library at the university in Greek and Latin authors, and most European languages, that, as he says himself, the catalogue of them would make a volume. He began to make this collection in his seventeenth year; and in his thirty-second, viz. in 1584, he published his “French Library,” being a general account of all authdfs that wrote in that language, fol. Of this we shall take particular notice under the article Verdier. In 1519 he addressed a discourse to viscount de Pauliny, and speaks of a great many works which he had written, none of which, however, are known, except a small 4to, *' Dessems ou projets, &c. pour dresser une bibliotheque parfaite," Paris, 1583, and a long Latin epitaph on the poet Monin, who was assassinated at Paris in 1586, a fate which befell himself at Tours in 1592.

On his return to England, the university of Oxford invited him to settle there, with which he complied in 1532, and taught Greek in Peckwater school (on the site of which Peckwater quadrangle is built), and soon after he was made a canon of Cardinal Wolsey’s college, which he held until 1545, when he removed to Exeter college on a pension of 26l. 135. 6d. per annum, from the smallness of which it has been inferred that he had not now the same interest at court as formerly but long before this, in 1532 f when, upon the death of dean Higden, the canons supplicated his majesty, through lord Cromwell, that he might be appointed to that office, the request was denied, nor was he afterwards made a canon of the college upon the new foundation by Henry VIII. when it had the name of the King’s college. It appears by his will that he had only the living of Long Buckby, in Northamptonshire, which Dodd supposes was conferred upon him in queen Mary’s time. The same historian thinks that in king Edward’s reign he did not go all the lengths of the reformers, and gives as a proof some reflections against Leland on account of his inconstancy in religion. There can be no doubt, however, of Dr. Croke’s remaining Jinn in the popish religion, for we find him enumerated among the witnesses appointed to discover heresy in archbishop Cranmer’s writings. Dr. Croke died at London in 1558, but where buried is not known. His writings are, 1. “Oratio de Groecarum disciplinarum laudibus,” dated July 1519, and probably printed about that time, 4to. It is dedicated to his fellow collegian, Nicholas West, bishop of Ely; and the date shows the error of those biographers who inform us that he was not chosen Greek professor at Cambridge until 1522. With this is printed “Oratio qua Cantabrigienses est hortatus, ne Grascarum literarum desertores essent.” Before, and at the end of these orations, Gilbert Ducher wrote an epistle in praise of Croke’s learning. 2. “Introductiones ad Grascam linguam,” Cologn, 1520, 4to. 3. “In Ausonium annotationes.” 4. “Elementa Gr. Gram.” 5. “De Verborum constructione.” His Letters from Italy to Henry VIII. on the subject of the divorce may be seen in Burnet’s History of the Reformation, with a full account of his proceedings there, which gives us no very favourable notion of the liberality of his royal employer, and proves that Collier’s accusation of bribery has not much foundation. Croke is also said to have made some translations from the Greek of Theodore Gaza and Elysius Calentinus. Hody says that he and Erasmus translated Gaza’s Greek Grammar in 1518, which may be the same mentioned above; and we suspect that the work “De Verborum constructione” is also from Gaza. Bale and Pits are seldom to be depended on in the titles of books. The fame of Croke has been recently revived on the continent by John Gott. Boehmius, in his “Specimen Literature Lipsicae Saeculo XVI.” 1761, 4to, in which he notices Croke as the reviver of Greek literature in that university. The same author, in his “Opuscula Academica de Litteratura Lipsiensi,” has published Croke’s “Encomium Academic Lipsiensis.”

, earl of Essex, an eminent statesman in the sixteenth century, was the son of Walter Cromwell, a blacksmith, at Putney, near London, and in his latter days a brewer; after whose decease, his mother was married to a sheerman in London. What education he had, was In a private school: and all the learning he attained to, was (according to the standard of those times), only reading and writing, and a little Latin. When he grew up, having a very great inclination for travelling, he went into foreign countries, though at whose expence is not known; and by that means he had an opportunity of seeing the world, of gaining experience, and of learning several languages, which proved of great service to him afterwards. Coming to Antwerp, where was then a very considerable English factory, he was by them retained to be their clerk, or secretary. But that office being too great a confinement, he embraced an opportunity that offered in 1510, of taking a journey to Rome. Whilst he remained in Italy he served for some time as a soldier under the duke of Bourbon, and was at the sacking of Rome: and at Bologna he assisted John Russel, esq. afterwards earl of Bedford, in making his escape, when he had like to be betrayed into the hands of the French, being secretly in those parts about our king’s affairs. It is also much to his credit, as an early convert to the reformation, that, in his journey to and from Rome, he learned by heart Erasmus’s translation of the New Testament. After his return from his travels he was taken into the family and service of cardinal Wolsey, who is said to have first discovered him in France, and who made him his solicitor, and often employed him in business of great importance. Among other things, he had the chief hand in the foundation of the two colleges begun at Oxford and Ipswich by that magnificent prelate; and upon the cardinal’s disgrace in 1529, he used his utmost endeavours and interest to have him restored to the king’s favour: even when articles of high-treason against him were sent down to the house of commons, of which Cromwell was then a member, he defended his master with so much wit and eloquence, that no treason cauld be laid to his charge: which honest beginning procured Cromwell great reputation, and made his parts and abilities to be much taken notice of. After the cardinal’s household was dissolved, Cromwell was taken into the king’s service (upon the recommendation of sir Christopher Hales, afterwards master of the rolls, and sir John Russel, knt. above-mentioned) as the fittest person to manage the disputes the king then had with the pope; though some endeavoured to hinder his promotion, and to prejudice his majesty against him, on account of his defacing the small monasteries that were dissolved for endowing Wolsey’s colleges. But he discovering to the king some particulars that were very acceptable to him respecting the submission of the clergy to the pope, in derogation of his majesty’s authority, he took him into the highest degree of favour, and soon after he was sent to the convocation, then sitting, to acquaint the clergy, that they were all fallen into a praemunire on the above account, and the provinces of Canterbury and York were glad to compromise by a present to the king of above 100,000l. In 1531 he was knighted; made master of the king’s jewel-house, with a salary of 50l. per annum; and constituted a privy-counsellor. The next year he was made clerk of the Hanaper, an office of profit and repute in chancery; and, before the end of the same year, chancellor of the exchequer, and in 1534, principal secretary of state, and master of the rolls. About the same time he was chosen chancellor of the university of Cambridge; soon after which followed a general visitation of that university, when the several colleges delivered up their charters, and other instruments, to sir Thomas Cromwell. The year before, he assessed the fines laid upon those who having 40l. per annum estate, refused to take the order of knighthood. In 1535 he was appointed visitor-general of the monasteries throughout England, in order for their suppression; and in that office is accused of having acted with much violence, although in other cases promises and pensions were employed to obtain the compliance of the monks and nuns. But the mode, whatever it might be, gave satisfaction to the king and his courtiers, and Cromwell was, on July 2, 1536, constituted lord keeper of the privy seal, when he resigned his mastership of the rolls . On the 9th of the same month he was advanced to the dignity of a baron of this realm, by the title of lord Cromwell of Okeham in Rutlandshire; and, six days after, took his place in the house of lords. The pope’s supremacy being now abolished in England, lord Cromwell was made, on the 18th of July, vicar-general, and vicegerent, over all the spirituality, under the king, who was declared supreme head of the church. In that quality his lordship satin the convocation holden this year, above the archbishops, as the king’s representative. Being-invested with such extensive power, he employed it in discouraging popery, and promoting the reformation. For that purpose he caused certain articles to be enjoined by the king’s authority, differing in many essential points from the established system of the Roman-catholic religion; and in September, this same year, he published some injunctions to the clergy, in which they were ordered to preach up the king’s supremacy; not to lay out their rhetoric in extolling images, relics, miracle*, or pilgrimages, but rather to exhort their people to serve God, and make provision for their families: to put parents and other directors of youth in mind to teach their children the Lord’s-prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments in their mother-tongue, and to provide a Bible in Latin and English, to be laid in the churches for every one to read at their pleasure. He likewise encouraged the translation of the Bible into English; and, when finished, enjoined that one of the largest volume should be provided for every parish church, at the joint charge of the parson and parishioners. These alterations, with the dissolution of the monasteries, and (notwithstanding the immense riches gotten from thence) his demanding at the same time for the king subsidies both from the clergy and laity, occasioned very great murmurs against him, and indeed with some reason. All this, however, rather served to establish him in the king’s esteem, who was as prodigal of money as he was rapacious and in 1537 his majesty constituted him chief justice itinerant of all the forests beyond Trent and on the 26th of August, the same year, he was elected knight of the garter, and dean of the cathedral church of Weils. The year following he obtained a grant of the castle and lordship of Okeham in the county of Rutland; and was also made constable of Carisbrook-castle in the Isle of Wight. In September he published new injunctions, directed to all bishops and curates, in which he ordered that a Bible, in English, should be set up in some convenient place in every church, where the parishioners might most commodiously resort to read the same: that the clergy should, every Sunday and holiday, openly and plainly recite to their parishioners, twice or thrice together, one article of the Lord’s Prayer, or Creed, in English, that they might learn the same by heart: that they should make, or cause to be made, in their churches, one sermon every quarter of a year at least, in which they should purely and sincerely declare the very gospel of Christ, and exhort their hearers to the works of charity, mercy, and faith not to pilgrimages, images, &c. that they should forthwith take clown all images to which pilgrimages or offerings were wont to be made: that in all such benefices upon which they were not themselves resident, they should appoint able curates: that they, and every parson, vicar, or curate, should for every church keep one book of register, wherein they should write the day and year of every wedding, christening, and burying, within their parish; and therein set every person’s name that shall be so wedded, christened, or buried, &c. Having been thus highly instrumental in promoting the reformation, and in dissolving the monasteries, he was amply rewarded by the king in 1539, with many noble manors and large estates that had belonged to those dissolved houses. On the 17th of April, the same year, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Essex; and soon after constituted lord high chamberlain of England. The same day he was created earl of Essex he procured Gregory his son to be made baron Cromwell of Okeham. On the 12th of March 1540, he was put in commission, with others, to sell the abbey-lands, at twenty years’ purchase: which was a thing he had advised the king to do, in order to stop the clamours of the people, to attach them to his interest, and to reconcile them to the dissolution of the monasteries. But as, like his old master Wolsey, he had risen rapidly, he was now doomed, like him, to exhibit as striking an example of the instability of human grandeur; and au unhappy precaution to secure (as he imagined) his greatness, proved his ruin. Observing that some of his most inveterate enemies, particularly Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, began to be more in favour at court than himself, he used his utmost endeavours to procure a marriage between king Henry and Anne of Cleves, expecting great support from a queen of his own making; and as her friends were Lutherans, he imagined it would bring down the popish party at court, and again recover the ground he and Cranmer had now lost. But this led immodiaieiy to his destruction; for the king, not liking the queen, began to hate Cromwell, the great promoter of the marriage, and soon found an opportunity to sacrifice him; nor was this difficult. Cromwell was odious to all the nobility by reason of his low binh: hated particularly by Gardiner, and the Roman catholics, for having been so busy in the dissolution of the abbies: the reformers themselves found he could not protect them from persecution; and the nation in general was highly incensed against him for his having lately obtained a subsidy of four shillings in the pound from the clergy, and one tenth and one fifteenth from the laity; notwithstanding the immense sums that had flowed into the treasury out of the monasteries. Henry, with his usual caprice, and without ever considering that Cromwell’s faults were his own, and committed, if we may use the expression, for his own gratification, caused him to be arrested at the council table, by the duke of Norfolk, on the 10th of June, when he least suspected it. Being committed to the Tower, he wrote a letter to the king, to vindicate himself from the guilt of treason; and another concerning his majesty’s marriage with Anne of Cleves; but we do not find that any notice was taken of these: yet, as his enemies knew if he were brought to the bar he would justify himself by producing the king’s orders and warrants for what he had done, they resolved to prosecute him by attainder; and the bill being brought into the house of lords the 17th of June, and read the first time, on the 19th was read the second and third times, and sent down to the commons. Here, however, it stuck ten days, and at last a new bill of attainder was sent up to the lords, framed in the house of commons: and they sent back at the same time the bill the lords had sent to them. The grounds of his condemnation were chieHy treason and heresy; the former very confusedly expressed. Like other falling favourites, he was deserted by most of his friends, except archbishop Cranmer, who wrote to the king in his behalf with great boldness and spirit. But the duke of Norfolk, and the rest of the popish party, prevailed; and, accordingly, in pursuance of his attainder, the lord Cromwell was brought to a scaffold erected on Tower-hill, where, after having made a speech, and prayed, he was beheaded, July 28, 1540. His death is solely to be attributed to the ingratitude and caprice of Henry, whom he had served with great faithfulness, courage, and resolution, in the most hazardous, difficult, and important undertakings. As for the lord Cromwell’s character, he is represented by popish historians as a crafty, cruel, ambitious, and covetous man, and a heretic; but their opponents, on better grounds, assert that he was a person of great wit, and excellent parts, joined to extraordinary diligence and industry; that his apprehension was quick and clear; his judgment methodical and solid; his memory strong and rational; his tongue fluent and pertinent; his presence stately and obliging; his heart large and noble; his temper patient and cautious; his correspondence well laid and constant; his conversation insinuating and close: none more dextrous in finding out the designs of men and courts; and none more reserved in keeping a secret. Though he was raised from the meanest condition to a high pitch of honour, he carried his greatness with wonderful temper; being noted in the exercise of his places of judicature, to have used much moderation, and in his greatest pomp to have taken notice of, and been thankful to mean persons of his old acquaintance. In his whole behaviour he was courteous and affable to all; a favourer in particular of the poor in their suits; and ready to relieve such as were in danger of being oppressed by powerful adversaries; and so very hospitable and bountiful, that about two hundred persons were served at the gate of his house in Throgmorton-strcet, London, twice every day, with bread, meat, and drink sufficient. He must be regarded as one of the chief instruments in the reformation; and though he could not prevent the promulgation, he stopped the execution, as far as he could, of the bloody act of the six articles. But when the king’s command pressed him close, he was not firm enough to refuse his concurrence to the condemnation and burning of John Lambert. In his domestic concerns he was very regular; calling upon his servants yearly, to give him an account of what they had got under him, and what they desired of him; warning them to improve their opportunities, because, he said, he was too great to stand long; providing for them as carefully, as for his own son, by his purse and credit, that they might live as handsomely when he was dead, as they did when he was alive. In a word, we are assured, that for piety towards God, fidelity to his king, prudence in the management of affairs, gratitude to his benefactors, dutifulness, charity, and benevolence, there was not any one then superior to him in England.

In these circumstances one might wonder, how he should form a design, at a time when elections were considered as things of the utmost consequence, of getting himself chosen, more especially for the town of Cambridge, where he was so far from having any interest, that he was not so much as known; and, if he had been known, would never have been elected. But the whole of that affair was owinor to an accidental intrigue, in which himself had at first no hand. One reason why he quitted Huntingdon was, a dispute he had with Mr. Bernard, upon his becoming recorder, about precedency; a point in which he was very nice. After he came to Ely, he resorted entirely to nonconformist meetings, where he quickly distinguished himself by his gifts, as they were styled in those days, of preaching, praying, and expounding. At one of these meetings he met with Richard Tims, a tradesman of Cambridge, who rode every Sunday to Ely for the sake of pure doctrine; and captivated his heart entirely. This man, hearing that a parliament was to be called, and being himself one of the common-council, took it into his head, that there could not be a fitter man to be their burgess than Mr. Cromwell; and with this notion he went to Wildbore, a draper in the town, and a relation of Cromwell’s, who agreed with him exactly as to the fitness of the person, but told him the thing was impossible, as he was not a freeman. Tims, not satisfied with that, addressed himself next to Evett, a tallow-chandler, who was also a puritan. He relished the thought; but, for the same reason, pronounced the design impracticable. However, Tims had hardly left his house, before Evett sent for him back, and whispered, that the mayor had a freedom to bestow, and that one Kitchingman, an attorney, who had married his wife’s sister, and was of their party, had a great influence over him. He advised him therefore to move Kitchingman in it, who was to use his interest with the mayor, stating that Mr. Cromwell was a gentleman of fortune, and had a mind to come and live in the town, which was then in a poor condition; but with a strict charge to hide the true design, alderman French, who was then the mayor, being a declared royalist. When they came to make this application to him, French said he was sorry, but that in reality they came too late, for he had promised his freedom to the king’s fisherman. Kitchingman easily removed this objection, by undertaking that the town should confer a freedom upon the person he mentioned; and accordingly at the next court-day, the mayor declared his intention to bestow his freedom on a very worthy gentleman of the isle of Ely, one Mr. Cromwell; who, being apprized of his friend’s industry, came to town over night, and took up his lodgings at Almond’s, a grocer. Thither the mace was sent for him, and he came into court dressed in scarlet, richly laced with gold; where, having provided plenty of claret and sweetmeats, they were so well circulated among the corporation, that they unanimously declared Mr. Mayor’s freeman to be a civil worthy gentleman. When the election came on, the mayor discovered his mistake; but it was then too late, for the party among the burgesses was strong enough to choose him, which they accordingly did at the next election the ensuing year.

Very little of Cromwell’s private life is known; he being near forty years of age when he first distinguished himself in opposing the project for draining of the fens. Yet there were some who knew and understood him thoroughly, before his extraordinary talents were made known to the world; and in particular his cousin Hampden, of which the following was a remarkable instance. When the debates ran high in the house of commons, and Hampden and lord Digby were going down the parliament stairs, with Cromwell just before them, who was known to the latter only by sight: “Pray,” said his lordship to Hampden, “who is that man, for I see that he is on our side, by his speaking so warmly to-day?” “That sloven,” replied Hampden, “whom you see before us, who has no ornament in his speech; that sloven, I say, if we should ever come to a breach with the king, which God forbid! in such a case, I say, that sloven will be the greatest man in England.” This prophecy, which was so fully accomplished, rose chiefly from the sense Hampden had of Cromwell’s indefatigable diligence in pursuing whatever he undertook. He had another quality, which was equally useful to him; that of discerning the temper of those with whom he had to deal, and dealing with them accordingly. Before he became commander in chief, he kept up a very high intimacy with the private men: taking great pains to learn their names, by which he was sure to call them; shaking them by the hand, clapping them on the shoulder; or, which was peculiar to him, giving them a slight box on the ear; which condescending familiarities, with the warm concern he expressed for their interests, gave him a power easier conceived than described. He tried to inveigle the earl of Manchester; but finding that impracticable, he fell upon him in the house of commons, and procured his removal. He carried himself with so much respect to Fairfax, that he knew not how to break with him, though he knew that he had betrayed him. He not only deceived Harrison, Bradshaw, and Ludlow, but outwitted Oliver St. John, who had more parts than them all; and he foiled sir Henry Vane with his own weapons. In short, he knew men perfectly, worked them to his purposes as if they had been cattle, and, which is still more wonderful, did that often while they conceived that they were making a tool of him. He had a reach of head, which enabled him to impose even upon the greatest bodies of men. He fed the resentment of the house of commons agai.ibi the army, till the latter were in a flame, and very angry with him; yet, when he came tothe army, it was upon a flea-bitten nag, all in a foam, as if he had made his escape from that house; in which trim he signed the engagement of Triploe heath, throwing himself from his horse upon the grass, and writing his name as he lay upon his belly. He had yet another faculty beyond these; and that was, the art of concealing his arts. He dictated a paper once to Ireton, which was imposed upon the agitators as if founded upon their instructions; who sent it express by two of their number to Cromwell, then lieutenant-general, at his quarters at Colchester. He was in bed when they came; but they demanded and obtained admittance. When they told him their commission, he asked them, with the greatest rage and resentment in his look, how they durst bring him papers from the army? They said, that paper contained the sense of the army, and they were directed to do it. “Are you sure of that?” said he, with the same stern countenance, “Let me see it.” He spent a long time in reading it; and, as it seemed to them, in reflecting upon it: then, with a mild and devout look, he told them it was a most just thing, and he hoped that God would prosper it; adding, “I will stand by the army in these desires with and fortune.”

He had many children, of whom six, Richard, Henry, Bridget, Elizabeth, Mary, and Frances, survived to advanced age. Richard, his eldest son, was born Oct. 4, 1626. His father has been censured for keeping him at a distance from business, and giving him no employment but for this perhaps there was not any just ground. He married him to a daughter and coheir of Richard Major, of Hunley, in Hampshire, esq. who brought him a good fortune. He suffered him to pursue the bent of his inclinations, and to lead the life of a plain, honest, country gentleman; which for a time was highly suitable to his own interest, as it seemed to correspond with the terms of the Instrument of Government; and with the dislike which the protector, when first so called, had expressed of hereditary right. When he had afterwards brought about a change in affairs, he altered his conduct towards his son; named him the first lord in his other house; resigned to him the chancellorship of Oxford; and conferred upon him all the honours he could. His weak and harmless reign is well known. On his dismission from the protectorate, he resided some time at Pezenas, in Languedoc, and afterwards went to Geneva. Sometime in 1680, he returned to England, and for some time took the name of Richard Clark, and resided at Cheshunt, in Hertfordshire, where he died July 13, 1712. In 1705 he lost his only son, and became in right of him possessed of the manor of Horsley, which had belonged to his mother. Richard, then in an advanced age, sent or.c of his daughters to take possession of the estate for him. She kept it for herself and her sisters, allowing her father only a small annuity out of it, till she was dispossessed of it by a sentence of one of the courts of Westminster-hall. It was requisite for this purpose, that Richard should appear in person; and tradition says, that the judge who presided, lord Cowper, ordered a chair for him in court, and desired him to keep on his hat: this last circumstance appears wholly incredible. As Richard was returning from this trial, curiosity led him to see the house of peers, when, being asked by a person to whom he was a stranger, if he had ever seen any thing like it before, he replied, pointing to the throne, “Never since I sat in that chair.”

, a Swedish mineralogist, and one of the first who improved that science by applying chemistry in the decomposition of mineral substances, was born in Sudermania in 1722, and educated at the university of Upsal, where he joined to his other studies, an uncommon predilection for natural history, and especially mineralogy, which was the cause of his being much employed in the royal college of mines, and being frequently sent to inspect those of Sweden and Norway. In 1753 he was elected a member of the academy of Stockholm, and contributed several papers on mineralogical subjects, particularly on nickel, which, by some experiments made in 1751 and 1754, he showed to contain a new semi-metal, or at least that a regulus different from all others was obtainable from its ore. Cronstedt died Aug. 19, 1765. His principal work, which is well known in this country by translations, was “An Essay towards a System of Mineralogy,” originally published in 1758, translated from the Swedish by Engestrom, and from that into English by Emanuel da Costa, 1770, 8vo. Of this a second edition, greatly improved by the addition of the modern discoveries, and by a new arrangement of the articles, was published at London in 1788, by John Hyacinth de Magellan, 2 vols. 8vo.

, an eminent philosopher and mathematician, descended from a noble family, was born at Lausanne, April 13, 1663. His father was Abraham de Crousaz, colonel of a regiment of fusileers: in his youth being of a very delicate habit, he was not too closely confined to his studies, yet left school at the age of thirteen with the reputation of a good scholar. His father, who intended him for the army, had him educated in the branches of knowledge necessary for that profession; but finding him averse to any pursuit unless that of literature, he allowed him to follow his inclination. In his fifteenth year he completed his course of philosophy, and distinguished himself by his theses, but being dissatisfied with the philosophy then taught, he had recourse to the writings of Des Cartes, which he studied with avidity, and applied at the same time to mathematics, but scholastic theology had no more charms for him than the philosophy he had been taught. In his sixteenth year, however, he entered as a student of divinity, attended the best professors, both at Geneva and Lausanne, and read the opinions of other eminent divines on the subjects most involved in controversy. In March 1682 he went to Lcyden, made himself acquainted with the theological disputes, and endeavoured to investigate how far they could be determined by the sacred scriptures. Leaving Holland, he entered France, became acquainted with those celebrated protestant divines Claude and Menard, at Charenton, and fathers Malebranche and le Vassor at Paris, who in vain endeavoured to bring him over to the Roman catholic church, which Vassor himself forsook some years after. On his return to his native country, in J 684, Crousaz married the daughter of John Lewis Loys, comptroller-general, and soon after was ordained, and made honorary professor. He officiated as pastor in the church of Lausanne for fourteen years. During this time, in 1691, he was appointed to dispute for the professorship of Hebrew at Berne, which he performed with great credit. In 1699 he was made professor of Greek and philosophy, and although also nominated to the chair of divinity in 1700, he preferred that of philosophy. In 1706 he was appointed rector of the college, which office he held three years, and was again appointed in 1722, but held it then only two years, as it interfered too much with his literary engagements. It was during this second rectorate, that contests arose at Lausanne respecting the obligation of signing the Consensus, a formulary of faith and doctrine maintained in the protestant churches of Swisserland, an account of which may be seen in “Memoires pour servir a l‘histoire des troubles arrives en Suisse a I’occasion du Consensus,” Amst. 1726; and more briefly in Mosheim’s History. In 1705, from his own theses, and those published at the expence of the lords of Berne, he compiled a system of logic, in twenty ­two theses, 4to, and in the same and two following years published an abridgment of this. In 1712 he published in French, a system of logic, entitled “Systeme de reflexions qui peuvent coutribuer a la netteté et a Petude de nos connoissances,” Amst. 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted there in 1720, 3 vols. 12mo; in 1725, in 4 vols. and in 1741, in 6 vols. In 1724 he published an abridgment of it in Latin, at Geneva, “Systema Logicæ, juxta principia ab autore in Gallico opere posita.” Some conversations on the subject of beauty in art, led him to an investigation of the subject, and produced in 1715, his “Traité du Beau, ou Ton montre en quoi consiste ce que l'on nomnie ainsi, par des examples tirés de la plupart des arts et des sciences,” reprinted at Amst. 2 vols. 12mo. In 1718, he published an ironical work, “Nouvelles maximes sur l'Education des enfans,” Amst. 8vo; but in 1722, his more serious and better known work on Education, Hague, 1722, 2 vols. 12mo. In 1718 he answered the deistical Collins’s discourse of Freethinking, in “Examen du traite de la Hberté de penser,” Amst. 8vo. In the same year he published his first mathematical work, “Geometric des lignes et des surfaces rectilignes et circulaires,” Arnst. 2 vols. 8vo.

, a divine and poet, was born either in Gloucestershire, or, according to Bale, in Northamptonshire, and entered a student of Magdalen college, Oxford, about the year 1534; and after taking the degree of B. A. was elected probationer fellow in 1542. In the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. he settled in London, took a house in Ely-rents, Holborn, and there exercised the trade of printer and bookseller, and being, we suppose, in orders, occasionally preached but being at the same time a zealous friend to the reformation, on the accession of queen Mary he went with the other exiles to Francfort, where he remained until the queen’s death. After his return to England he had several benefices bestowed on him, among which were the archdeaconry, and a prebend in Hereford, both which he resigned in 1567; a prebend of St. Paul’s, the rectory of St. Peter le Poor, and the vicarage of St. Giles’s Cripplegate; but he was deprived of the latter, the only promotion which he appears to have held at that time (1566), for a riot in the church, because the choristers wore surplices. In 1576, however, it appears that he was collated to the living of St. Lawrence Jewry, and probably was now more reconciled to the ceremonies and habits of the church. In 1578 he was presented with the freedom of the Stationers’ company, and soon after is found with the wardens, licensing copies. He died June 18, 1588, and was buried in his former church of St. Giles’s. He was, according to Tanner, a person of a happy genius, an eminent preacher, and a zealous advocate for reformation. His works, both in prose and verse, enumerated by Wood and Tanner, are now merely objects of curiosity. In 1550 he printed the first edition of “Pierce Plowman’s Vision,” with the view of helping forward the reformation by the revival of a book which exposed the absurdities of popery. He translated into popular rhyme, not only the Psalter, but the Litany, with hymns, all which he printed together in 1549. In the same year, and in the same measure, he published “The Voice of the Last Trumpet blown by the seventh angel,” a piece containing twelve several lessons for the instruction of all classes. He also attacked the abuses of his age in thirty-one “Epigrams,” 1550, and twice reprinted. In the same year he published a kind of metrical sermon on “Pleasure and Pain, Heaven and Hell Remember these four, and all shall be well.” In his “Dialogue between Lent and Liberty,” written to prove that Lent is a superstitious institution, Mr. Warton thinks that the personification of Lent is a bold and a perfectly new prosopopeia. Crowley likewise wrote and printed in 1588, a rhyming manual, “The School of Virtue and Book of Good Nature,” a translation, into metre, of many of the less exceptionable Latin hymns anciently used by the catholics. Among his prose works are “An Apology of those English preachers and writers which Cerberus, the three-headed dog of hell, chargeth with false doctrine under the name of Predestination,” 1566, 4to, and “Brief Discourse concerning those four usual notes whereby Christ’s Catholic Church is known,” 1581, 4 to, &c. In controversy he was usually warm, and not nice in his language; and in his poetry he consulted usefulness rather than taste.

, an American, was the son of an independent minister in Nova Scotia. Being a man of some genius, and impatient of the strict education he received in that country, he resolved upon coming to England to try if he could not make his fortune by his wits. When he first arrived here, his necessities were extremely urgent; and he was obliged to become gentleman usher to an old independent lady; but he soon grew as weary of that office as he was of the discipline of Nova Scotia. He set himself therefore to writing; and presently made himself so known to the court and the town, that he was nominated by Charles II. to write “The Masque of Calisto.” This nomination was procured him by the earl of Rochester, who designed by that preference to mortify Dryden. Upon the breaking out of the two parties, after the pretended discovery of the popish plot, the favour Crowne was in at court induced him to embrace the tory party; about which time he wrote a comedy called the “City Politics,” in order to expose the whigs. The lord chamberlain, Bennet earl of Arlington, though secretly a papist, was unaccountably a friend to the whigs, from his hatred to the treasurer lord Darnley. Upon various pretences the play was withheld from the stage; at last Crowne had recourse to the king himself, and by his majesty’s absolute command the play was acted. Though Crowne ever retained a most sincere affection to his royal master, he was honest enough to despise the servilities of a court. He solicited the payment of money promised him, which as soon as he obtained he became remiss in his attendance at St. James’s. The duchess of Portsmouth observed this conduct, and acquainted the king with it. The gay monarch only laughed at the accusation, and perhaps in his mind justified Crowne’s sincerity.

, was the son of Samuel Croxall, rector of Hanworth in Middlesex, and Walton upon Thames in Surrey, in the last of which places his son was born. He received his early education at Eton school, and thence was sent to St. John’s college, in Cambridge. It is said, that while he was at the university he became enamoured of Mrs. Anna Maria Mordaunt, who first inspired his breast with love; and to whom he dedicates “The Fair Circassian,” in a bombastic style, bordering on prophaneness. Croxall was designed for orders, and had probably entered them when he published this poem, which made him cautious of being known to be the author of a piece so ludicrously written, and yet taken from a book which makes a part of the canon of scripture. The first specimen of this poem, under the title of “Solomon’s Song, chap, iv.” appeared in Steele’s Miscellany, 1713. The first edition of the whole poem appeared in 1720, when it might have been expected he had acquired more reverence for the scriptures, or respect for his profession.

, a learned French writer, was born at Nantes, Dec. 4, 1661. His father, who was a merchant, was also a man of letters, and bestowed much pains on the education of his son, who answered his expectations by the proficiency he made in classical studies. He had, however, provided him with a private tutor, who happened to disgust him by the severity of his manners, and upon this account partly, at the age of fourteen, he desired to take a voyage to some of the West India islands, to which his father traded; but his principal inducement was what he had read in books of voyages, and the conversation of persons who had been in America, all which raised his curiosity to visit the new world. He embarked on board a French ship, with no other books than Erasmus’s Colloquies, and the Gradus ad Parnassum. His passage was not unpleasant, and during his residence at Guadeloupe he borrowed all the Latin books he could discover, and read them with avidity; but the chief advantage he seems to have derived here was an opportunity to learn the English, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese San^uasres. To these he afterwards added an acquaintance with the German, Sclavonic, and AngloSaxon; and studied with much attention the ancient and modern Greek, the Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Hebrew, Arabic, and even the Chinese. On his return to Nantes in 1677, he found his father’s affairs somewhat deranged, and was obliged to take a part in the business. Medicine appears to have been first suggested to him as a profession, but he found little inclination for that study; and some conferences he happened to have with the Benedictines of the congregation of St. Maur determined him to enter their society. He accordingly made his noviciate in 1673, and applied himself to the study of theology. In 1682 he formally became a member of the congregation. His residence at Paris, in the abbey of St. Germain des Pres, the vast number of books within his reach, and particularly of manuscripts, increased his knowledge and his thirst for knowledge, and some of his earliest labours were bestowed in preparing materials, collecting Mss. &c. for new editions of the works of St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. But these were interrupted by certain differences which occurred in the abbey to which he belonged, and of which we have various accounts. The prior of St. Germain, father Loo, had a great aversion to the study of classical and polite literature, and was for confining the members to the strict religious duties of the house. This could not fail to be disgusting to a man of La Croze’s taste: but, according to other accounts, which seem more prohable, he began to entertain religious scruples about this time (lr.96), which induced him to withdraw himself. It is said that his superiors found among his papers a treatise against transubstantiation in his hand-writing, and which they believed to be his composition; but they discovered afterwards that it uas a translation from the English of Stillingfleet. Some other manuscripts, however, sufficiently proved that he had changed his opinion on religious matters; and the dread of persecution obliged him to make his escape to Basil, which he successfully accomplished in May 1696. Here he renounced the Roman catholic religion, and as his intention was to take up his residence, he was matriculated as a student of the college of Basil. He remained in this place, however, only till September, when he departed, provided with the most honourable testimonies of his learning and character from Buxtorf, the Hebrew professor, and Werenfels, dean of the faculty of theology. He then went to Berlin, where his object was to secure a iixed residence, devote himself to study, and endeavour to forget France. In order to introduce himself, he began with offering to educate young men, the sons of protestant parents, which appears to have answered his purpose, as in 1697 we find him appointed librarian to the king of Prussia; but his biographers are not agreed upon the terms. To this place a pension was attached, but not sufficient to enable him to live without continuing his school; and some assert that he was very poor at this time. The probability is, that his circumstances were improved as he became better known, and his reputation among the learned was already extensive. In June of 1697 he went to Francfort to visit the literati of that place, and their fine library, and visited also Brandenburgh for the same purpose. In November 1697 (or, as Chaufepie says, in 1702), he married Elizabeth Rose, a lady originally of Dauphiny, and thus, adds one of his Roman catholic biographers, completed the abjuration of the true religion. In 1698 he first commenced author, and from time to time published those works on which his fame rests. Soon after he became acquainted with the celebrated Leibnitz, with whom he carried on an intimate correspondence. In 17 13 he went to Hamburgh, where he paid many visits to the learned Fabricius, and in his letters speaks with great warmth of the pleasure this journey afforded; but this year, 17 J 3, was not in other respects a vei'y fortunate one to La Croze, and he formed the design of quitting Germany. He had been appointed tutor to the margrave of Schwel, and this employment terminating in 1714, he lost the pension annexed to it, and was reduced to considerable difficulties, of which he wrote to Leibnitz, as to a friend in whom he could confide. Leibnitz, by way of answer, sent him a copy of a letter which he had written to M. BernsdorfT, prime minister to the elector of Hanover, in his behalf. The object likely to be attained by this interest was a professorship at Helmstadt; but as it required subscription to the articles of the Lutheran church, M. la Croze, notwithstanding the persuasions Leibnitz employed, declined accepting it. His affairs, however, soon after wore a more promising aspect, partly in consequence of a prize he gained in the Dutch lottery. In 1717 he had the honour to be engaged as private tutor to the princess royal of Prussia, afterwards margravine of Bareoth. In 1724, for several months his studies were interrupted by a violent fit of the gravel; and on his recovery, the queen of Prussia, who always patronized La Croze, obtained for him the professorship of philosophy in the French college at Berlin, vacant by the death of M. Chauvin. This imposed on him the necessity of drawing up a course of philosophy, but as he never intended to print it, it is said not to have been executed with the care he bestowed on his other works. In 1713 father Bernard Pez, the Benedictine, made him liberal offers if he would return to the church he had forsaken, but this he declined with politeness, offering the arguments which influenced his mind to remain in the protestant church. In 1739 an inflammation appeared on his leg, which inApril put on appearances of mortification, hut did not prove fatal until May 21. About a quarter of an bour before his death he desired his servant to read the 51st and 77th psalms, during which he expired, in the seventy -first year of his age. He was reckoned one of the most learned men of his time, and was frequently called a living library. So extensive was his reading, and so vast iiis memory, that no one ever consulted him without obtaining prompt information. In dates, facts, and references he was correct and ready. We have already noticed how many languages he had learned, but it appears that he made the least progress in the Chinese, to which Leihnitz, in his letters, is perpetuiiy iirging him. The greater part of his life was employed in study, and he had no other pleasures. There was scarcely a book in his library whicli he had not perused, and he wrote ms notes on most of them. His conversation could not fail to be acceptable to men of literary research, as his memory was stored with anecdotes, which he told in a very agreeable manner. He was conscientiously attached to the principles of the reformed religion. He had always on his table the Hebrew Psalter, the Greek Testament, and Thomas a Kempis in Latin: the latter he almost had by heart, as well as Buchanan’s Psalms. His consistent piety and charity are noticed by all his biographers.

, an eminent surgeon and anatomist, was born in 1745 at Edinburgh, where his father was examiner in the Excise-office, and had him christened William Cumberland in compliment to the hero of Culloden, but the latter name our anatomist seldom used. The earlier part of his life was spent in Scotland, and at the age of fourteen he went to the university of Edinburgh, with a view of studying divinity. Feeling, however, a strong propensity for anatomy and physic, he studied those sciences, with great assiduity, for eight years at the university of Glasgow. In 1771 he came to London, and by the recommendation of Dr. D. Pitcairn he became librarian to the late Dr. Hunter, who had applied to the professors of Glasgow for a young man of talents to succeed Mr. Hewson; and this connection was the principal means of raising Mr. Cruikshank to that conspicuous situation which he afterwards so well merited. During the life of Dr. Hunter, Mr. Cruikshank became successively his pupil, anatomical assistant, and partner in anatomy; and on the death of that celebrated man, Mr. Cruikshank and Dr. Baillie received an address from a large proportion of Dr. Hunter’s students, full of affection and esteem; which induced them to continue in Windmill-street the superintendance of that anatomical school which has produced so many excellent scholars. Mr. Cruikshank, besides supporting with great reputation his share in this undertaking, made himself known to the world by some excellent publications, which have insured to him a high character as a perfect anatomist, and a very acute and ingenious physiologist. In 1780 he published his principal work, the “Anatomy of the Absorbent Vessels in the Human Body,” in which he not only demonstrated, in the clearest manner, the structure and situation of these vessels, but collected, under one point of view, and enriched with many valuable observations, all that was known concerning this important system in the human body. Besides this work, the merit of which has been fully acknowledged by translations into foreign languages, he wrote a paper, which was presented to the royal society several years ago, entitled, “Experiments on the Nerves of Living Animals,” in which is shewn the important fact of the regeneration of nerves, after portions of them have been cut out; illustrated by actual experiments on animals. This paper was read before the society, but not then printed, owing, as was said, to the interference of the late sir John Pringle, who conceived that it controverted some of the opinions of Haller, his intimate friend. It appeared, however, in the Society’s Transactions for 1794. In 1779 he made several experiments on the subject of “Insensible Perspiration,” which were added to the first editions of his work on the “Absorbent Vessels;” and were collected and published in a separate pamphlet in 1795. In 1797, the year in which he was elected F. R. S. he published an account of appearances in the ovaria of rabbits, in different stages of pregnancy; but his fame rests upon, and is best supported by, his “Anatomy of the Absorbents,” which continues to be considered as the most correct and valuable work on the subject now extant.