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

, a biographer, to whom works of this description are highly indebted, was born Nov. 25, 15.88, at Desschel, a small town in Brabant, from which he has been sometimes called Desselius. He studied polite literature, first in his own country, under Valerius Hontius, a very able teacher, and afterwards for three years at Antwerp, under Andreas Schottus, a learned Jesuit, who taught him Greek; and he was taught Hebrew at the same time by John Hay, a native of Scotland, and likewise one of the society of Jesuits. After having attended a course of philosophy at Douay, he was appointed Hebrew professor at Louvain in 1612. In 1621 he was created LL. D. In 1628 he was appointed regius professor of civil law, and, in 1638, keeper of the newly-founded university library. His life appears to have been principally devoted to the composition of his numerous works, and the care of the press in publishing other works of celebrity. He died at Louvain, 1656, leaving behind him the character of a man of amiable manners and extensive learning.

, of Ripa Transona, the most obscure of modern artists, though a biographer of some celebrity, owes that and a place here to his connexion with Michael Angelo, whose life he published in 1553. If we believe Vasari, his imbecility was at least equal to his assiduity in study and desire of excelling, which were extreme. No work of his exists in painting or in sculpture. Hence Gori, the modern editor of his book, is at a loss to decide on his claim to either, though from the qualities of the writer, and the familiarity of M. Angelo, he surmises that Condivi must have had merit as an artist. From the last no conclusion can be formed; the attachment of M. Angelo, seldom founded in congeniality, was the attachment of the strong to the weak, it was protection; it extended to Antonio Mini of Florence, another obscure scholar of his, to Giuliano Bugiardini, to Jacopo L'Indaco: all men unable to penetrate the grand motives of his art, and more astonished at the excrescences of his learning in design, than elevated by his genius. Condivi intended to publish a system of rules and precepts on design, dictated by Michael Angelo, a work, if ever he did compose it, now perhaps irretrievably lost; from that, had destiny granted it to us, we might probably have formed a better notion of his powers as an artist, than we can from a biographic account, of which simplicity and truth constitute the principal merit. Condivi published this life, consisting of fifty pages, under the title “Vita de Michelagnolo Buonarroti, raccolta per Ascanio Condivi da la Ilipa Transone. In Roma appresso Antonio Blado Stampatore Canierale nel M. D. LIII. alii XVI. di Luglio.” According to Beyero, in his “Memoriae Historico-criticae, lib. rariorum,” this is one of the scarcest books in Europe. In 1746, Gori republished it in folio, and as it was originally published ten years before the death of Michael Angelo, continued it to that period. Gori’s work is a small folio, printed at Florence, 1746.

Dr. Currie might now, without danger to his professional character, indulge his inclination for the ornamental parts of literature; and an occasion offered in which he had the happiness of rendering his taste and his benevolence equally conspicuous. On a visit to his native county, in 1792, he had become personally acquainted with that rustic son of genius, Robert Burns. This extraordinary, but unfortunate man, having at his death left his family in great indigence, a subscription was made in Scotland for their immediate relief, and at the same time a design was formed, of publishing an edition of his printed works and remains for their emolument. Mr. Syme, of Ryetlale, an old and intimate friend of Dr. Currie, strongly urged him to undertake the office of editor; and to this request, in which other friends of the poet’s memory concurred, he could not withhold his acquiescence, notwithstanding his multiplied engagements. In 1800 he published in 4 vols. 8vo, “The Works of Robert Burns, with an account of his Life, and a criticism on his Writings: to which are prefixed, some Observations on the Character and Condition of the Scottish Peasantry.” These volumes were a rich treat to the lovers of poetry and elegant literature; and Dr. Currie’s part in them, as a biographer and critic, was greatly admired, as well for beauty of style, as for liberality of sentiment and sagacity of remark. If any objection was made to him as an editor, on account of unnecessary extension of the materials, the kind purpose for which the publication was undertaken, pleaded his excuse with all who were capable of feeling its force. Its success fully equalled the most sanguine expectations.

The erudition of lord Hailes, says his friend the late lord Woodhousiee, was not of a dry and scholastic nature; he felt the beauties of the composition of the ancients; he entered with taste and discernment into the merits of the Latin poets, and that peculiar vein of delicate and ingenious thought which characterises the Greek epigrammatists; and a few specimens which he has left of his own composition in that style, evince the hand of a master. It would not, adds his lordship, be easy to produce from the works of any modern Latin poet, a more delicate, tender, and pathetic effusion, or an idylliou of greater classical purity, than the iambics he wrote “On the death of his first wife, in child-bed of twins.” Lord Hailes was a man of wit, and possessed a strong feeling of the absurd and ridiculous in human conduct and character, which gave a keen edge of irony both to his conversation and writings. To his praise, however, it must be added, that that irony, if not always untinctured with prejudice, was never prompted by malignity, and was generally exerted in the cause of virtue and good morals. How much he excelled in painting the lighter weaknesses and absurdities of mankind, may be seen from the papers of his composition in the “World” and the “Mirror.” His private character was every thing that is praise-worthy and respectable. In a word, he was an honour to the station which he filled, and to the age in which he lived. That such a man should not yet have found a biographer worthy of his merits, cannot be ascribed either to the obscurity of his character and station, or to the incapacity of his contemporaries. But lord Hailes was a man of piety of the old stamp, and a strenuous advocate for revealed religion, and therefore did not share, as he uould not have been ambitious to share, the celebrity that has been conferred on some of his countrymen of a very opposite character.

De Foe certainly possessed very uncommon merit, both as a man and as a writer, and yet few men have received more injurious treatment from their contemporaries. He has repeatedly been represented as an unprincipled writer, who had no view but to his own advantage, and who would write for any party by which he was employed; charges which appear to be totally destitute of foundation. He was not rich; and he naturally and reasonably endeavoured to make some pecuniary advantage of his writings; but he seems always to have written in conformity to ins own principles; and, though much abuse has been thrown out against him, no evidence to the contrary has ever been, produced. His prose works are much more valuable than his poetical performances. As a political writer ue had great merit; his sentiments appear to have been generally just, and he expressed himself with force and perspicuity. His pieces on the subject of trade and commerce exhibit uncommon penetration, and very various and extensive knowledge. But nis fame must ever rest on those works which were entirely the offspring of invention, and of these, his “Robinson Crusoe” rises superior to every thing of the kind. Alrnotigh we know of no imitations of this which deserve notice, some critics have placed De Foe at the head of a school, and have instanced Richardson as one of his best scholars. Richardson, says Dr. Kippis, seems to have learned from him that mode of delineating characters, and carrying on dialogues, and that minute discrimination of the circumstances of events, in which De Foe so eminently excelled. If, in certain respects, the disciple rose above his master, as he undoubtedly did, in others tie was inferior to him; for his conversations are sometimes more tedious and diffuse; and his works, though beautiful in their kind, are not by any means so various. Both of these writers had a wonderful ability in drawing pictures of human nature anJ human life. A careful perusal of the “Family Instructor,” and the “Religious Courtship,” would particularly tend to shew the resemblance between De Foe and Richardson. If, however, Richardson is to be traced to De Foe, we have sometimes thought that the latter was, with regard to simplicity of style, somewhat indebted to Bunyan, an author whom he must have read in his youth, and whose religious principles are obvious in the second volume of his “Robinson Crusoe.” After remaining in comparative obscurity for many years, De Foe at last found a biographer in George Chalmers, esq. who has done ample justice to his memory, and has presented the literary world with a more elegant, accurate, and satisfactory account of his personal history and writings, than could have been expected so long after his decease. It is unnecessary to add, that this, and every succeeding account of De Foe, must be indebted to Mr. Chalmers’s researches.

His last separate publication of the poetical kind was a “Secular Ode in Commemoration of the Glorious Revolution,” 1688, and appeared when men of all parties joined in festal meetings to celebrate the restoration and establishment of English liberty. In the same year he condescended to be the biographer and editor of the poems of his friend William Whitehead, esq. Of his life of Whitehead some notice will be taken hereafter. Neither his subject nor his materials could furnish such memoirs as he has given of Gray, but it is interesting in an inferior degree, and would not have detracted much from his fame as a biographer, had he suppressed his splenetic notice of Dr. Johnson, and shewn that he had preserved that simplicity of character, and those generous feelings, which Gray once attributed to him. He appears to have been equally mistaken in a pamphlet which he published about this time, animadverting on the government of the York Lunatic Asylum; but the mistake was rather of the head than the heart, for he was a cordial and liberal supporter of that institution, and was betrayed into a degree of intemperance of remark by excess of zeal for its prosperity. Of his general humanity, or what he has termed *' moral patriotism," he afforded during this year an eloquent proof in a discourse delivered in York cathedral on the subject of the African slave trade. He was one of the first who contributed to expose the infamy of that trade, and to invigorate those remonstrances which have at length been heard with effect.

In 1711, came out his great work, 17. “The History of the Life of M. Tullius Cicero,” in 2 vols. 4to. This is injdeed a valuable work, both as to matter and manner, written generally, although not unexceptionably, in a correct and elegant style, and abounds in instruction and entertainment. Yet his partiality to Cicero forms a considerable objection to his veracity as a biographer. He has laboured every where to cast a shade over his failings, to give the strongest colouring to his virtues, and out of a good character to draw a perfect one; which, though Cicero was undoubtedly a great man, could not be applicable even to him. Perhaps, however, as a history of the times, it is yet more valuable than considered only as a life of Cicero. It was published by subscription, and dedicated to lord Hervey, who was much the author’s friend, and promised him a great number of subscribers. “His subscription,” he tells us, “was like to be of the charitable kind, and Tully to be the portion of two young nieces” (for he had no child living by any of his wives) “who were then in the house with him, left by an unfortunate brother, who had nothing else to leave.” The subscription must have been very great, which not only enabled him to portion these two nieces, but, as his biographers inform us, to purchase a small estate at Hildersham, about six miles from Cambridge, where he had an opportunity of gratifying his taste, by converting a rude farm into an elegant habitation, and where, from that time, he commonly passed the summer season. While engaged on his “Cicero,” he was called to London to receive the mastership of the Charter-house, having the interest of sir Robert Walpole, and some other great persons; but he found that the duke of Newcastle had been more successful, in procuring it for Mr. Mann. Why the duke opposed Dr. Middleton we know not; as in 1737 we find him strenuously recommending his proposals for the Life of Cicero, and soliciting subscriptions.

His works have been divided, and they admit of a tolerably equal division, into “Lives” and “Morals:” the former of which, in his own estimation, were to be preferred, as more noble than the latter. As a biographer he has great merit, and to him we stand indebted for much of the knowledge we possess, concerning several of the most eminent personages of antiquity. His style perhaps may be justly censured for harshness and obscurity, and he has also been criticized for some mistakes in Roman antiquities, and for a. little partiality to the Greeks. On the other hand, he has been justly praised, for sense, learning, integrity, and a certain air of goodness, which appears in all he wrote. Some have affirmed his works to be a kind of library, and collection of all that was wisely said and done among the ancient Greeks and Romans: and if so, the saying of Theodorus Gaza was not extravagant. This learned man, and great preceptor of the Greek tongue at the revival of literature, being asked by a friend “If learning must suffer a general shipwreck, and he have only his choice of one author to be preserved, who that author should be?” answered, “Plutarch.” But although it is unquestionable that in extent and variety of learning Plutarch had few equals, he does not appear to have excelled as much in depth and solidity of judgment. Where he expresses his own conceptions and opinions, he often supports them by feeble and slender arguments: where he reports, and attempts to elucidate, the opinions of others, he frequently falls into mistakes, or is chargeable with misrepresentations. In proof of this assertion, Brucker mentions what he has advanced concerning Plato’s notion of the soul of the world, and concerning the Epicurean philosophy. Brucker adds, that Plutarch is often inaccurate in method, and sometimes betrays a degree of credulity unworthy of a philosopher.