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

, a famous Sorbonnic doctor, flourished in the 12th century. This author, who is well known as a monkish writer, and a voluminous author of biography, was born in Scotland, and educated in the monastery of Lindisferne, now called Holy Island, a few miles south of Berwick on Tweed, at that time one of the most famous seminaries of learning in the north of England. He went afterwards to Paris, where he settled several years, and taught school divinity, in the Sorbonne. In his latter years he returned to his native country, and became a monk in the abbey of Melrose, and afterwards in that of Durham, where he wrote the life of St. Columbanus, and the lives of 'some other monks of the 6th century. He likewise wrote the life of David I. king of Scotland, who died 1153. He died in 1195. His works were printed at Antwerp in fol. 1659.

, successively bishop of Rochester, Worcester, and Ely, in the latter end of the fifteenth century, was born at Beverley in Yorkshire, and educated at the University of Cambridge, where he took the degree of doctor of laws. In 146 1, he was collated to the church of St. Margaret’s, New Fish-street, London, by Thomas Kemp, bishop of that diocese, and in the same year was advanced to the deanry of St. Stephen’s college, Westminster. In 1462 he was appointed master of the rolls. Six years after, he obtained two prebends; one in the church of Sarum, and the other in that of St. Paul’s, London. In 1470, he was made a privy counsellor, and one of the ambassadors to the king of Castille; and next year, he was, together with others, a commissioner to treat with the commissioners of the king of Scotland. About the same time, he was appointed by Edward IV. to be of the privy council to his son Edward, prince of Wales, He was also in 1471 promoted to the bishopric of Rocheser; and in 1472, constituted lord high chancellor of England, in which office he does not appear to have continued longer than ten months. In 1476,. he was translated to jhe see of Worcester, and appointed lord president of Wales. During his being bishop of Worcester, he very elegantly enlarged the church of Westbury. He was in disgrace with the Protector Richard duke of York, and was removed from his office of preceptor to Edward V. on account of his attachment to that young prince. Soon after the accession of Henry VII. he had again, for a short time, the custody of the great seal. At length, in 1486, he was raised to the bishopric of Ely, and according to A. Wood, he was made president of the council of king Edward IV. in the same year, which is a palpable mistake, as Henry VII. came to the crown in 1485. Bishop Alcock, in 1488, preached a sermon at St. Mary’s church at Cambridge, which lasted from one o'clock in the afternoon till past three.

When he came to England, September 1100, he was received with extraordinary respect by the king and people, but it being required that he should be re-invested by the king, and do the customary homage of his predecessors, he refused to comply, alledging the canons of the late synod at Rome about investitures. This synod excommunicated all lay persons, who should give investitures for abbies or cathedrals, and all ecclesiastics receiving investitures from lay hands, or who came under the tenure of homage for any ecclesiastical promotion, were put under the same censure. Displeased as the king was with Anselm’s adherence to this law, he was not sufficiently established on the throne to hazard an open rupture, and it was therefore agreed that the dispute should rest until Easter following, and in the mean time both parties were to send their agents to Rome, to try if they could persuade the pope to dispense with the canons of the late synod in relation to investitures. About this time, Anselm summoned a synod to meet at Lambeth, on occasion of the king’s intended marriage with Maud or Matilda, eldest daughter of Malcolm king of Scotland, and in this synod, it was determined, that the king might lawfully marry that princess, notwithstanding she was generally reported to be a nun, having worn the veil, and had her education in a religious house. Soon after the marriage, which Anselm celebrated, he was of signal service to king Henry against his brother the duke of Normandy, who had invaded England, and landed with a formidable army at Portsmouth, as he not only furnished the king with a large body of men, but was very active, likewise, in preventing a revolt of the great men from him. To engage the primate to perform these services, we are assured by Eadmer, his fr.end, secretary, and biographer, that the king solemnly promised io govern the kingdom by his advice, and submit in all tilings to the will of the pope, a promise which he seems to have kept no longer than danger was in view.

, commonly known by the name of Richard de Bury, was born at St. Edmundsbury, in Suffolk, in 1281. His father, sir Richard Aungervyle, knt. dying when he was young, his uncle John de Willowby, a priest, took particular care of his education and when he was fit sent him to Oxford, where he studied philosophy and divinity, and distinguished himself by his learning, and regular and exemplary life. When he had finished his studies there, he became a Benedictine monk at Durham. Soon after he was made tutor to prince Edward, afterwards king Edward III. Being treasurer of Guienne in 1325, he supplied queen Isobel, when she was plotting against her husband king Edward II. with a large sum of money out of that exchequer, for which being questioned by the king’s party, be narrowly escaped to Paris, where he was forced to hide himself seven days in the tower of a church. When king Edward III. came to the crown, he loaded his tutor Aungervyle with honours and preferments, making him, first, his cofferer, then treasurer of the wardrobe, archdeacon of Northampton, prebendary of Lincoln, Sarum, and Lichfield, and afterwards keeper of the privy seal. This last place he enjoyed five years, and was in that time sent twice ambassador to the pope. In 1333 he was promoted to the deanery of Wells, and before the end of the same year, being chosen bishop of Durham, he was consecrated about the end of December, in the abbey of the black canons of Chertsey in Surrey. He was soon afterwards enthroned at Durham, on which occasion he made a grand festival, and entertained in the hall of his palace at Durham, the king and queen of England, the queen-dowager of England, the king of Scotland, the two archbishops, and five bishops, seven earls with their ladies, all the nobility north of Trent, with a Tast concourse of knights, esquires, and other persons of distinction. The next year he was appointed high-chancellor, and in 1336, treasurer of England. In 1338 he was twice sent with other commissioners to treat -of a peace with the king of France, though to no purpose.

, founder of Balliol college in Oxford, was the son of Hugh de Balliol of Bernard’s castle in the diocese of Durham. He was a person very eminent for power and riches, being possessed of thirty knights’ fees, about 12,000l. a considerable estate in those times. But he received a great addition thereto, by his marriage with Dervorgille, one of the three daughters and coheiresses of Alan of Galloway (a great baron in Scotland), by Margaret the eldest sister of John Scott, the last earl of Chester, and one of the heirs to David, some time earl of Huntingdon. From 1248 to 1254 he was sheriff of the county of Cumberland and in 1248 was constituted governor of the castle of Carlisle. Upon the marriage of Margaret daughter of king Henry 111. to Alexander III. king of Scotland, the guardianship of them both, and of that kingdom, was committed to our sir John de Balliol, and to another lord but, about three years after, they were accused of abusing their trust, and the king inarched towards Scotland with an army, to chastise them. However, in consideration of the many important services performed, in the most difficult times, to K. John the king’s father, by Hugh, our John BallioPs father and especially by a sum of money, he soon made his peace. In the year 1258, he had orders to attend the king at Chester, with horse and arms, to oppose the incursions of Lhewelyn prince of Wales. And two years after, in recompence of his service to king Henry, as well in France as in England, he had a grant of two hundred marks for discharging which, the king gave him the wardship of William de Wassingle. In part of the years 1260, 1261> 1262, 1263, and 1264, he was sheriff for the counties of Nottingham and Derby; and in 1261, was appointed keeper of the honour of Peverell. In 1263, he began the foundation and endowment of Balliol college in Oxford > which was perfected afterwards by his widow. Duririg the contests and war between ^king Henry III. and his barons > he firmly adhered to the king on which account his lands were seized and detained by the barons, but restored again through one of his sons’ interposition. In 1264, he attended the king at the battle of Northampton, wherein the barons were defeated but, the year following, he was taken prisoner, with many others, after the king’s fatal overthrow at Lewes. It appears that he soon after made his escape^ and endeavoured to keep the northern parts of England in king Henry’s -obedience, and having obtained authority from prince Edward, he joined with other of the northern barons, and raised all the force he could to rescue the king from his confinement. He died a little before Whitsuntide, in the year 1269, or as Savage, the historian of Balliol college, thinks, in 1266; leaving, three sons behind him, Hugh, and Alexander, who both died without issue and John, afterwards chosen king of Scotland.

, an ancient Scotch poet, was born about 1316, but of his personal history few memorials have been recovered. He was brought up to the church, and in 1357, is styled archdeacon of Aberdeen. Quring the same year, the bishop of his diocese appointed him one of the commissioners to deliberate concerning the ransom of the captive king o f Scotland, David II. In 1365, he appears to have visited St. Denis, near Paris, in company with six knights, the object of which visit was probably of a religious kind, as the king of England granted them permission to pass through his dominions on their way to St. Denis and other sacred places. About ten years afterwards he was engaged in composing the work upon which his lame now principally rests, “The Bruce.” As a reward of his poetical merit, he is said to have received a pension, but this is doubtful. From some passages in Winton’s Chronicle, it would appear, that Barbour also composed a genealogical history of the kings of Scotland, but no part of this is known to be extant. He died in 1396, of an advanced age, if the date of his birth which we have given be correct, but that is not agreed upon. His celebrated poem, “The Bruce, or the history of Robert I. king of Scotland,” was first published in 1616, 12mo, again in 1648, both at Edinburgh, at Glasgow in 1665, 8vo, and at Edinburgh in 1670, 12mo, and often afterwards in meaner forms but a valuable, and the only genuine edition, as to purity of text, was edited by Mr. Pinkerton, in 1790, 3 vols. 12 mo, from a ms. in the advocate’s library, dated 1489. The learned editor says that “taking the total merits of this work together, he prefers it to the early exertions of even the Italian muse, to the melancholy sublimity of Dante, and the amorous quaintness of Petrarca.” Barbour is not only the first poet, but the earliest historian of Scotland, who has entered into any detail, and from whom any view of the real state and manners of the country can be learned. The obscure and capricious spelling may perhaps, deter some readers from a perusal of “The Bruce,” but it is very remarkable that Barbour, who was contemporary with Gower and Chaucer, is more intelligible to a modern reader than either of these English. Some assert that he was educated at Oxford, but there is no proof of this, and if there were, it would not account for this circumstance.

, bishop of Durham in the reigns of Edward I. and II. was advanced, with the king’s consent, from the archdeaconry of Durham and other preferments to the bishopric. Of his extraction and education we have no account. He was elected by the monks on the 9th of July 1283, and consecrated, in the presence of the king and several of the nobles, by William Wicwane, archbishop of York, on the 9th of January following. At the time of his consecration, the archbishop, having had a dispute, during the vacancy of the see, with the chapter of Durham, obliged the prior to go out of the church; and the next day enjoined the new bishop, upon his canonical obedience, to excommunicate the superior and several of the monks: but Bek refused to obey the archbishop, saying, “I was yesterday consecrated their bishop, and shall 1 excommunicate them to-day? 110 obedience shall force me to this.” He was enthroned on Christmas eve, 1285; on which occasion a dispute arising between the prior and the official of York about the right of performing that ceremony, Bek was installed by his brother Thomas Bt k bishop of St. David’s. This prelate had a long dispute with the monks of Durham; which proved very detrimental to the revenues and privileges of the see. He is said to have been the richest bishop (if we except Wolsey) that had ever held the see of Durham: for, besides the revenues of his bishopric, he had a temporal estate of five thousand marks per annum; part of which, we are told, he gained by unjustly converting to his own use an estate, which he held in trust for the natural son of the baron of Vescey. He procured the translation of the body of St. William, formerly archbishop of York, and bore the whole expence of the ceremony, which was performed in the church of York. He assisted king Edward I. in his war against John Baliol, king of Scotland, and brought into the field a large body of forces. In 1294, he was sent ambassador from king Edward to the emperor of Germany, to conclude a treaty with that prince, against the increasing power of France. In 1295, the pope having sent two cardinals on an embassy to the English court, this prelate was appointed to answer them in the king’s name. He had the title of patriarch of Jerusalem conferred on him by the pope in 1305; and about the same time received from the king a grant of the principality of the island of Man. An act passed in his time, in the parliament of Carlisle, 1307, to prevent the bishop of Durham or his officers, from cutting -down the woods belonging to the bishopric. This prelate expended large sums in building. He fortified the bishop’s seat at Aukland, and turned it into a castle; and he built, or enlarged, the castles of Bernard in the bishopric of Durham; of Alnwick in Northumberland; of Gainford in the bishopric of Durham; of Somerton in Lincolnshire, which he gave to king Edward I.; and of Eltham in Kent, which he gave to queen Eleanor. He founded the priory of Alvingham in Lincolnshire, the revenue of which, at the dissolution, was valued at 141l. 15s. per annum. He founded, likewise, a collegiate church, with a dean and seven prebendaries, at Chesterupon-the-street, and at Lanchester, in the bishopric of Durham. He also gave to the church of Durham two pictures, containing the history of our Saviour’s nativity, to be hung as an ornament over the great altar on the festival of Christmas. He died at Eltham, March 3, 1310, having sat twenty-eight years, and was buried in the church of Durham near the east front, contrary to the custom of his predecessors, who, out of respect to the body of St. Cuthbert, were never laid within the church. Bek was a man of uncommon pride, which more or less entered into the whole of his conduct. He was fond of military parade, and the attendance of a retinue of soldiers, although he took little pains to attach them to him. His magnificent taste appeared not only in the lasting monuments already noticed, but in his more domestic expences. He is said on one occasion to have paid forty shillings (a sum now equivalent to 80l.) for forty fresh herrings in London, when they had been refused by the most opulent persons of the realm, then assembled in parliament. He was so impatient of rest, that he never took more than one sleep, saying it was unbecoming a man to turn from one side to the other in bed. He was perpetually either riding from one manor to another, or hunting or hawking. Though his expences were great, he was provident enough never to want money. He always rose from his meals with an appetite: and his continence was so singular that he never looked a woman full in the face. We are even gravely told, that in the translation of the body of St. William of York, when the other bishops declined touching that saint’s remains, conscious of their failings in point of chastity, he alone boldly handled them, and assisted the ceremony. His taste in architecture, however, and his munificence in contributing to so many once noble edifices, are the only favourable circumstances in his character, nor should we have thought him worthy of much notice, had he not been admitted by the original editors of our national biography.

, a nobleman of Scotland, of whose early years we have no account, began to make a figure in public life towards the end of the reign of James II. of Scotland. Being a man of great penetration and sound judgment, courteous and affable, he acquired the esteem and confidence of all ranks of people, as well as of his prince, who created him a baron by the title of lord Boyd, of Kilmarnock. In 1459, he was, with several other noblemen, sent to Newcastle, with the character of plenipotentiary, to prolong the truce with England, which had just fhen expired. On the death of James II. who was killed at the siege of Roxburgh, lord Boyd was made justiciary, and one of the lords of the regency, in whose hands the administration was lodged during the minority of the young king. His lordship had a younger brother who had received the honour of knighthood, sir Alexander Boyd of Duncow, a man in great credit with the king, whom he was appointed to teach the rudiments of military discipline; and between them, the two brothers found means to engross most of the places and preferments about the court. Sir Alexander began to instil into the young king, then twelve years old, that he was now capable of governing without the help of guardians and tutors, and that he might free himself from their restraint. This advice was readily listened to, and the king resolved to take upon himself the government, which, however, was no other than transferring the whole power, from the other regents, to the Boyds. The king was at this time at Linlithgow, and it was necessary to remove him to Edinburgh, to take upon him the regal government, which the Boyds effected, partly by force, and partly by stratagem. Haying got the king- to Edinburgh, lord Boyd began to provide for his own safety, and to avert the danger which, threatened him and his friends, for what they had done in the face of an act of parliament; and accordingly prevailed upon the king to call a parliament at Edinburgh, in October 1466; in which lord Boyd fell down upon his knees before the throne, where the king sat, and in an elaborate harangue, complained of the hard construction put upon the king’s removal from Linlithgow, and how ill this was interpreted by his enemies, who threatened that the advisers of that affair should one day suffer punishment; humbly beseeching his majesty to declare his own sense and pleasure thereupon, and that if he conceived any illwill or disgust against him for that journey, that he would openly declare it. The king, after advising a little with the lords, made answer, that the lord Boyd was not his adviser, but rather his companion in that journey; and therefore that he was more worthy of a reward for his courtesy, than of punishment for his obsequiousness or compliance therein; and this he was willing to declare in a public decree of the estates, and in the same decree provision should be made, that this matter should never be prejudicial to the lord Boyd or his companions. His lordship then desired, that this decree might be registered in the acts of the assembly, and confirmed by letters patent under the great seal, which was also complied with. At the same time also the king, by advice of his council, gave him letters patent, whereby he was constituted sole regent, and had the safety of the king, his brothers, sisters, towns, castles, and all the jurisdiction over his subjects, committed to him, till the king himself arrived to the age of twenty-one years. And the nobles then present solemnly promised to be assistant to the lord Boyd, and also to his brother, in all their public actions, and that they would be liable to punishment, if they did not carefully, and with faithfulness, perform what they then promised, to which stipulation the king also subscribed. Lord Boyd next contrived to be made Jord great chamberlain, and after this had the boldness to procure the lady Mary Stewart, the late king’s eldest daughter, in marriage for his son sir Thomas Boyd, notwithstanding the care and precaution of the parliament. The lord Boyd’s son was a most accomplished gentleman, and this match and near alliance to the crown, added to his own distinguished merit, raised him to a nearer place in the affection as well as confidence of his sovereign, by whom he was soon after created earl of Arran, and was now himself considered as the fountain from whence all honours and preferments must flow. The lord chamberlain, by this great accession of honour to his family, seemed to have arrived at the highest pinnacle of power and grandeur; but what seemed to establish his power, proved the very means of its overthrow. About this time, a marriage having been concluded, by ambassadors sent into Denmark for that purpose, between the young king of Scotland, and Margaret, a daughter of the king of Denmark, the earl of Arran was selected to go over to Denmark, to espouse the Danish princess in the king his brother-in-law’s name, and to conduct her to Scotland. The earl of Arran, judging all things safe at home, willingly accepted this honour; and, in the beginning of the autumn of 1469, set sail for Denmark with a proper convoy, and a noble train of friends and followers. This was, however, a fatal step, for the lord chamberlain, the earl’s father, being now much absent from the court in the necessary discharge of his office, as well as through age and infirmities, which was the case also of his brother sir Alexander Boyd; the earl of Arran had no sooner set out on his embassy, than every endeavour was tried to alienate the king’s affection from the Boyds. Every public miscarriage was laid at their door; and the Kennedies, their ancient enemies, industriously spread abroad reports, to inflame the people likewise against them. They represented to the king, that the lord Boyd had abused his power during his majesty’s minority; that his matching his son, the earl of Arran, with the princess Mary, was staining the royal blood of Scotland, was an indignity to the crown, and the prelude to the execution of a plot they had contrived of usurping even the sovereignty itself; for they represented the lord chamberlain as an ambitious, aspiring man, guilty of the highest offences, and capable of contriving and executing the worst of villanies: with what justice, history does not inform us. Buchanan only says the Boyds were the occasion of the king’s degeneracy into all manner of licentiousness, by their indulgence of his pleasures. The king, however, young, weak, credulous, and wavering, and naturally prone to jealousy, began to be alarmed, and was prevailed on to sacrifice, not only the earl of Arran, but all his family, to the resentment of their enemies, notwithstanding their ancestors’ great services to the crown, and in spite of the ties of blood which united them so closely. At the request of the adverse faction, the king summoned a parliament to meet at Edinburgh, the 20th of November, 1469, before which lord Boyd, the earl of Arran, though in Denmark, and sir Alexander Boyd of Duncow, were summoned to appear, to give an account of their administration, and answer such charges as should be exhibited against them. Lord Boyd, astonished at this sudden blow, betook himself to arms; but, finding it im-r possible to stem the torrent, made his escape into England; but his brother, sir Alexander, being then sick, and trusting to his own integrity, was brought before the parliament, where he, the lord Boyd, and his son the earl of Arran, were indicted of high-treason, for having laid hands on the king, and carried him, against an act of parliament, and contrary to the king’s own will, from Linlithgow to Edinburgh, in 1466. Sir Alexander alleged in his defence, that they had not only obtained the king’s pardon for that'offence in a public convention, but it was even declared a good service by a subsequent act of parliament; but no regard was had to this, because it was obtained by the Boyds when in power, and masters of the king’s person: and the crime being proved against them, they were found guilty by a jury of lords and barons; and sir Alexander Boyd, being present, was condemned to lose his head on the Castle-hill of Edinburgh, which sentence was executed accordingly. The lord Boyd would have undergone the same fate, if he had not inade his escape into England, where, however, he did not long survive his great reverse of fortune, dying at Alnwick in 1470. The earl of Arran, though absent upon public business, was declared a public enemy, without being granted a hearing, or allowed the privilege of defending himself, and his estates confiscated. Things were in this situation, when he arrived from Denmark, with the espoused queen, in the Frith of Forth. Before he landed he received intelligence of the wreck and ruin of his family, and resolved to retire into Denmark; and without staying to attend the ceremonial of the queen’s landing, he took the opportunity of one of those Danish ships which convoyed the queen, and were under his command, and embarking his lady, set sail for Denmark, where he met with a reception suitable to his high birth. From thence he travelled through Germany into France, and went to pay a visit to Charles duke of Burgundy, who received him most graciously, and being then at war with his rebellious subjects, the unfortunate lord offered him his service, which the duke readily accepted, and finding him to be a brave and wise man, he honoured and supported him and his lady, in a manner becoming their rank. But the king their brother, not yet satisfied with the miseries of their family, wrote over to Flanders to recal his sister home; and fearing she would not be induced to leave him, he caused others to write to her, and give her hopes that his anger towards her husband might be appeased, and that if she would come over and plead for him in person, there was no doubt but she might prevail with her brother to restore him again to his favour. The countess of Arran, flattered with these hopes, returned, and was no sooner arrived in Scotland, than the king urged her to a divorce from her husband, cruelly detained her from going back to him, and caused public citations, attested by witnesses, to be fixed up at Kilmarnock, the seat of the Boyds, wherein Thomas earl of Arran was commanded to appear in sixty days, which he not doing, his marriage with the king’s sister was declared null and void, and a divorce made (according to Buchanan), the earl still absent and unheard; and the lady Mary was compelled, by the king, to marry James lord Hamilton, a man much inferior to her former husband both in point of birth and fortune. This transaction was in 1474; and the earl of Arran, now in the last stage of his miseries, and borne down with the heavy load of his misfortunes, soon al'ter, died at Antwerp, and was honourably interred there. The character of him and of his father is variously represented. That they were ambitious, and regardless of the means of gratifying that ambition, cannot well be denied, nor are we permitted to censure with great asperity their enemies who effected their ruin by similar measures and with similar motives. Their fall undoubtedly holds out an useful lesson, but the experience of others, especially of examples in history, seldom checks the progress of that ambition that has once commenced in success.

In this retreat Tycho Brahe passed twenty years, and greatly improved the science of astronomy by the diligence and exactness of his observations. He maintained several scholars in his house for the purpose of instructing them in geometry and astronomy, some of whom were sent and their expences defrayed by the king; others, who voluntarily offered themselves, he received and supported at his own expence. He lived at the same time in a most sumptuous manner, kept an open house with unbounded hospitality, and was always happy to entertain and receive all persons, who flocked in crowds to pay their respects to a person of his renown. During his residence in the island of Huen, he received numerous visits from persons of the highest rank. Among these must be particularly mentioned Ulric duke of Mecklenburgh, in company with his daughter Sophia, queen of Denmark; William, landgrave of Hesse Cassel, whose correspondence with Brahe on astronomical subjects has been given to the public, and who had shewn himself a constant patron to the Danish astronomer. In 1590 Tycho was honoured with a visit from James the First, then king of Scotland, when that monarch repaired to the court of Copenhagen, to conclude his marriage with the princess Anne, and was so delighted with Brahe’s apparatus and conversation, that he remained eight days at Uranienburgh. On retiring he presented Tycho with a magnificent present, and afterwards accompanied his royal licence for the publication of Tycho Brahe’s works with the following flattering testimony of his abilities and learning: “Nor am I acquainted with these things from the relation of others, or from a mere perusal of your works; but I have seen them with my own eyes, and heard them with my own ears, in your residence at Uranienburgh, during the various learned and agreeable conversations which I there held with you, which even now affect my mind to such a degree, that it is difficult to decide, whether I recollect them with greater pleasure or admiration; which I now willingly testify by this licence to present and future generations, &c.” His majesty also, at his particular request, composed, in honour of the Danish astronomer, some Latin verses, more expressive indeed of his esteem and admiration than remarkable for classic elegance.

, a Scottish historian, and Latin poet, of great eminence, and uncommon abilities and learning, was descended from an ancient family, and was born at Killairn, in the shire of Lenox, in Scotland, in the month of February 1506. His father died of the stone in the prime of life, whilst his grandfather was yet living; by whose extravagance the family, which before was but in low circumstances, was now nearly reduced to the extremity of want. He had, however, the happiness of a very prudent mother, Agnes, the daughter of James Heriot of Trabrown, who, though she, was left a widow with five sons and three daughters, brought them all up in a decent manner, by judicious management. She had a brother, Mr. James Heriot, who, observing the marks of genius which young George Buchanan discovered when at school, sent him to Paris in 1520 for his education. There he closely applied himself to his studies, and particularly cultivated his poetical talents but before he had been there quite two years, the death of his uncle, and his own ill state of health, and want of money, obliged him to return home. Having arrived in his native country, he spent almost a year in endeavouring to re-escablish his health; and in 1523, in order to acquire some knowledge of military affairs, he made a campaign with the French auxiliaries, who came over into Scotland with John duke of Albany. But in this new course of life he encountered so many hardships, that he was confined to his bed by sickness all the ensuing winter. He had probably much more propensity to his books, than to the sword; for early in the following spring he went to St. Andrews, and attended the lectures on logic, or rather, as he says, on sophistry, which were read in that university by John Major, or Mair, a professor in St. Saviour’s college, and assessor to the dean, of Arts, whom he soon after accompanied to Paris. After struggling for about two years with indigence and ill fortune, he was admitted, in 1526, being then not more than twenty years of age, in the college of St. Barbe, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1527, and M. A. in 1528, and in 1529 was chosen procurator nationis, and began then to teach grammar, which he continued for about three years. But Gilbert Kennedy, earl of Cassils, a young Scottish nobleman, being then in France, and happening to fall into the company of Buchanan, was so delighted with his wit, and the agreeableness of his manners, that he prevailed upon him to continue with him five years. According to Mackenzie, he acted as a kind of tutor to this young nobleman; and, during his stay with him, translated Linacre’s Rudiments of grammar out of English into Latin; which was printed at Paris, by Robert Stephens, in 1533, and dedicated to the earl of Cassils. He returned to Scotland with that nobleman, whose death happened about two years after; and Buchanan had then an inclination to return to France: but James V. king of Scotland prevented him, by appointing him preceptor to his natural son, James, afterwards the abbot of Kelso, who died in 1548, and not, as some say, the earl of Murray, regent of that kingdom. About this time, he wrote a satirical poem against the Franciscan friars, entitled, “Somnium;” which irritated them to exclaim against him as a heretic. Their clamours, however, only increased the dislike which he hud conceived against them on account of their disorderly and licentious lives; and inclined him the more towards Lutheranism, to which he seems to have had before no inconsiderable propensity. About the year 1538, the king having discovered a conspiracy against himself, in which he suspected that some of the Franciscans were concerned, commanded Buchanan to write a poem against that order. But he had probably already experienced the inconveniency of exasperating so formidable a body; for he only wrote a few verses which were susceptible of a double interpretation, and he pleased neither party. The king was dissatisfied, that the satire was not more poignant; and the friars considered it as a heinous offence, to mention them in any way that was not honourable. But the king gave Buchanan a second command, to write against them with more seventy; which he accordingly did in the poem, entitled, “Franciscanus;” by which he pleased the king, and rendered the friars his irreconcileable enemies. He soon found, that the animosity of these ecclesiastics was of a more durable nature than royal favour: for the king had the meanness to suffer him to feel the weight of their resentment, though it had been chiefly excited by obedience to his commands. It was not the Franciscans only, but the clergy in general, who were incensed against Buchanan: they appear to have made a common cause of it, and they left no stone unturned till they had prevailed with the king that he should be tried for heresy. He was accordingly imprisoned at the beginning of 1539, but found means to make his escape, as he says himself, out of his chamber-window, while his guards were asleep. He fled into England, where he found king Henry the Eighth persecuting both protestants and papists. Not thinking that kingdom, therefore, a place of safety, he again went over into France, to which he was the more inclined because he had there some literary friends, and was pleased with the politeness of French manners. But when he came to Paris, he had the mortification to find there cardinal Beaton, who was his great enemy, and who appeared there as ambassador from Scotland. Expecting, therefore, to receive some ill offices from him, if he continued at Paris, he withdrew himself privately to Bourdeaux, at the invitation of Andrew Govea, a learned Portuguese, who was principal of a new college in that city. Buchanan taught in the public schools there three years; in which time he composed two tragedies, the one entitled, “Baptistes, sive Calurania,” and the other “Jephthes, Votum;” and also translated the Medea and Alcestig of Euripides. These were all afterwards published;-but they were originally written in compliance with the rules of the school, which every year required some new dramatic exhibition; and his view in choosing these subjects was, to draw off the youth of France as much as possible from the allegories, which were then greatly in vogue, to a just imitation of the ancients; in which he succeeded beyond his hopes. During his residence at Bourdeaux, the emperor Charles V. passed through that city; upon which Buchanan presented his imperial majesty with an elegant Latin poem, in which the emperor was highly complimented, and at which he expressed great satisfaction. But the animosity of cardinal Beaton still pursued our poet: for that haughty prelate wrote letters to the archbishop of Bourdeaux, in which he informed him, that Buchanan had fled his country for heresy; that he had lampooned the church in most virulent satires; and that if he would put him to the trial, he would find him a most pestilentious heretic. Fortunately for Buchanan, these letters fell into the hands of some of his friends, who found means to prevent their effects: and the state of public affairs in Scotland, in consequence of the death of king James V. gave the cardinal so much employment, as to prevent any farther prosecution of his rancour against Buchanan.

Very severe measures had now been adopted for several years against the puritans; on whose behalf a piece was published, intituled, “An admonition to the parliament;” to which were annexed, A letter from Beza to the earl of Leicester, and another from Gualter to bishop Parkhurst, recommending a reformation of church discipline. This work contained what was called the “platform of a church;” the manner of electing ministers; their several duties; and arguments to prove their equality in government. It also attacked the hierarchy, and the proceedings of the bishops, with much severity of language. The admonition was concluded with a petition to the two houses, that a discipline more consonant to the word of God, and agreeing with the foreign reformed churches, might be established by law. Mr. Field and Mr. Wilcox, authors of the admonition, and who attempted to present it to parliament, were committed to Newgate on the second of October 1572. Notwithstanding which, Mr. Cartwright, after his return to England,“wrote” a second admonition to the parliament,“with an humble petition to the two houses, for relief against the subscription required by the ecclesiastical commissioners. The same year Dr. Whitgift published an answer to the admonition: to which Mr. Cartwright published a reply in 1573; and aboat this time a proclamation was issued for apprehending him. In 1574 Dr. Whitgift published, in folio,” A defence of the answer to the admonition, against the reply of T. C.“In 1575 Mr. Cartwright published a second reply to Dr. Whitgift; and in 1577 appeared,” the rest of the second reply of Thomas Cartwright, against master Doctor Whitgift’s answer, touching the church discipline.“This seems to have been printed in Scotland; and it is certain, that before its publication Mr. Cartwright had found it necessary to leave the kingdom, whilst his opponent was raised to the bishopric of Worcester. Mr. Cartwright continued abroad about five years, during which time he officiated as a minister to some of the English factories. About the year 1580 James VI. king of Scotland, having a high opinion of his learning and abilities, sent to him, and offered him a professorship in the university of St. Andrew’s; but this he 'thought proper to decline. Upon his return to England, officers w.e re sent to apprehend him, as a promoter of sedition, and he was thrown into prison. He probably obtained his li­* berty through the interest of the lord treasurer Burleigh, and the earl of Leicester, by both of whom he was favoured: and the latter conferred upon him the mastership of the hospital which he had founded in Warwick. In 1583 he was earnestly persuaded, by several learned protestant divines, to write against the Rhemish translation of the New Testament. He was likewise encouraged in this design by the earl of Leicester and sir Francis Walsingham: and the latter sent him a hundred pounds towards the expences of the work. He accordingly engaged in it; but after some time received a mandate from archbishop Whitgift, prohibiting him from prosecuting the work any farther. Though he was much discouraged by this, he nearly completed the performance; but it was not published till many years after his death in 1618, fol. under the title” A Confutation of the Rhemish Translation, Glosses, and Annotations on the New Testament.“It is said, that queen Elizabeth sent to Beza, requesting him to undertake a work of this kind; but he declined it, declaring that Cartwright was much more capable of the task than himself. Notwithstanding the high estimation in which he was held, and his many admirers, in the year 1585 he was again committed to prison by Dr. Aylmer, bfshop of London; and that prelate gave some offence to the queen by making use of her majesty’s name on the occasion. When he obtained his liberty is not mentioned: but we find that in 1590, when he was at Warwick, he received a citation to appear in the starchamber, together with Edmund Snape, and some other puritan ministers, being charged with setting up a new discipline, and a new form of worship, and subscribing their names to stand to it. This was interpreted an opposition and disobedience to the established laws. Mr. Cartwright was also called upon to take the oath ex officio; but this he refused, and was committed to the Fleet. In May 1591 ije was sent for by bishop Ay liner to appear before him, and some others of the ecclesiastical commissioners, at that prelate’s house. He had no previous notice given him, to prevent any concourse of his adherents upon the occasion. The bishop threw out some reproaches against him, and again required him to take the oath ex officio. The attorney general did the same, and represented to him” how dangerous a thing it was that men should, upon the conceits of their own heads, and yet under colour of conscience, refuse the things that had been received for laws for a long time.“Mr. Cartwright assigned sundry reasons for refusing to take the oath; and afterwards desired to be permitted to vindicate himself from some reflections that had been thrown out against him by the bishop and the attorney general. But to this bishop Aylmer would not consent, alleging,” that he had no leisure to hear his answer,“but that he might defend himself from the public charges that he had brought against him, by a private letter to his lordship. With this Mr. Cartwright was obliged to be contented, and was immediately after again committed to the Fleet. In August 1591 he wrote a letter to lady Russel, stating some of the grievances under which he laboured, and soliciting her interest with lord Burleigh to procure him better treatment. The same year king James wrote a letter to queen Elizabeth, requesting her majesty to shew favour to Mr. Cartwright and his brethren, on account of their great learning and faithful labours in the gospel. But he did not obtain his liberty till about the middle of the year 1592, when he was restored to his hospital at Warwick, and was again permitted to preach: but his health appears to have been much impaired by his long confinement and close application to study. He died on the 27th of December 1603, in the 68th year of his age, having preached a sermon ou mortality but two days before. He was buried in the hospital at Warwick. He was pious, learned, and laborious; an acute disputant, and an admired preacher; of a disinterested disposition, generous and charitable, and particularly liberal to poor scholars. It is much to be regretted that such a man should have incurred the censure of the superiors either in church or state; but inuovations like those he proposed, and adhered to with obstinacy, could not be tolerated in the case of a church establishment so recently formed, and which required every effort bf its supporters to maintain it. How far, therefore, the reflections which have been cast on a the prelates who prosecuted him are just, may be safely left to the consideration of the reader. There is reason also to think, that before his death Cartwright himself thought differently of his past conduct. Sir Henry Yelverton, in his epistle to the reader, prefixed to bishop Moreton’s” Episcopacy justified,“says that the last words of Thomas Cartwright, on his death-bed, were, that he sorely lamented the unnecessary troubles he had caused in the church, by the schism, of which he had been the great fomenter; and that be wished he was to begin his life again, that he might testify to the world the dislike he had of his former ways In tnis opinion, says sir Henry, he died; and it appears certain, that he abated something of the warmth of his spirit towards the close of his days. When he had obtained his pardon, of the queen, which, as sir George Paule asserts, was at the instance of aichbishop Whitgilt, Cartwright, in his letters of acknowledgment to that prelate, vouchsafed to stile him a” Right Reverend Fatner in God, and his Lord the Archbishop’s Grace of Canterbury.“This title of Grace he often yielded to Whitgift in the course of their correspondence. Nay, the archbishop was heard to say, that if Mr. Cartwright had not so far engaged himself as he did in the beginning, he verily thought tnat he would, in his letter time, have been drawn to conformity: for when he was freed from his troubles, he often repaired to the archbishop, who used him kindly, and was contented to tolerate his preaching at Warwick for several years, upon his promise that he would not impugn the laws, orders, and government of the church of England, but persuade and procure, as much as he could, both publicly and privately, the estimation and peace of the same. With these terms he complied; notwithstanding which, when queen Elizabeth understood that he preached again, though in the temperate manner which had been prescribed, she would not permit him to do it any longer without subscription; and was not a little displeased with the archbishop, for his having connived at his so doing. Sir George Paule farther adds, that, by the benevolence and bounty of his followers, Mr Cartwright was said to have died rich. Besides the pieces already mentioned, Mr. Cartwright was author of the following works: 1.” Commentaria practica in totam historiam evangelicam, ex quatuor evangelistis harmonice concinnatam,“1630, 4to. An elegant edition of this was printed at Amsterdam, by Lewis Elzevir, in 1647, under the following title:” Harmonia evangelica commentario analytico, metaphrastico, practice, illustrata,“&c. 2.” Commentarii succincti & dilucidi in proverbia Salomonis,“Amst. 1638, 4to. 3.” Metaphrasis & homiliae in librum Salomonis qui inscribitur Ecclesiastes,“Amst. 1647, 4to. 4.” A Directory of Church Government,“1644, 4to. 5.” A Body of Divinity," Lond. 1616, 4to.

, a very learned critic, was born at Geneva, February 18, 1559, being the son of Arnold Casaubon, a minister of the reformed church, who had taken refuge in Geneva, by his wife Jane Rosseau. He was educated at first by his father, and made so quick a progress in his studies, that at the age of nine he could speak and write Latin with great ease and correctness. But his father being obliged, for three years together, to be absent from home, on account of business, his education was neglected, and at twelve years of age he was forced to begin his studies again by himself, but as he could not by this method make any considerable progress, he was sent in 1578 to Geneva, to complete his studies under the professors there, and by indefatigable application, quickly recovered the time he had lost. He learned the Greek tongue of Francis Portus, the Cretan, and soon became so great a master of that language, that this famous man thought him worthy to be his successor in the professor’s chair in 1582, when he was but three and twenty years of age. In 1586, Feb. 1, he had the misfortune to lose his father, who died at Dil, aged sixty- three. The 28th of April following he married Florence, daughter of Henry Stephens the celebrated printer, by whom he had twenty children. For fourteen years he continued professor of the Greek tongue at Geneva; and in that time studied philosophy and the civil law under Julius Pacius. He also learned Hebrew, and some other of the Oriental languages, but not enough to be able to make use of them afterwards. In the mean time he began to be weary of Geneva; either because he could not agree with his father-in-law, Henry Stephens, who is said to have been morose and peevish; or that his salary was not sufficient for his maintenance; or because he was of a rambling and unsettled disposition. He resolved therefore, after a great deal of uncertainty, to accept the place of professor of the Greek tongue and polite literature, which was offered him at Montpelier, with a more considerable salary than he had at Geneva. To Montpelier he removed about the end of 1596, and began, his lectures in the February following. About the same time, the city of Nismes invited him to come and restore their university, but he excused himself, and some say he had an invitation from the university of Franeker. At his first coming to Montpelier, he was much esteemed and followed, and seemed to be pleased with his station. But this pleasure did not last long; for what had been promised him was not performed; abatements were made in his salary, which also was not regularly paid, and upon the whole, he met there with so much uneasiness that he was upon the point of returning to Geneva, when a journey he took to Lyons in 1598, gave him an opportunity of taking another, that proved extremely advantageous to him. Having been recommended by some gentlemen of Montpelier to M. de Vicq, a considerable man at Lyons, this gentleman took him into his house, and carried him along with him to Paris, where he caused him to be introduced to the first- president de Harlay, the president de Thou, Mr. Gillot, and Nicolas le Fevre, by whom he was very civilly received . He was also presented to king Henry IV. who being informed of his merit, requested him to leave Montpelier for a professor’s place at Paris. Casaubon having remained for some time in suspense which course to take, went back to Montpelier, and resumed his lectures. Not long after, he received a letter from the king, dated January 3, 1599, by which he was invited to Paris in order to be professor of polite literature, and he set out the 26th of February following. When he came to Lyons, M. de Vicq advised him to stay there till the king’s coming, who was expected in that place. In the mean while, some domestic affairs obliged him to go to Geneva, where he complains that justice was not done him with regard to the estate of his father-in-law. Upon his return to Lyons, having waited a long while in vain for the king’s arrival, he took a second journey to Geneva, and then went to Paris; though he foresaw, as M. de Vicq and Scaliger had told him, he should not meet there with all the satisfaction he at first imagined. The king gave him, indeed, a gracious reception; but the jealousy of some of the other professors, and his being a protestant, procured him a great deal of trouble and vexation, and were the cause of his losing the professorship, of which he had the promise. Some time after, he was appointed one of the judges on the protestants’ side, at the conference between James Davy du Perron, bishop of Evreux, afterwards cardinal, and Philip du Plessis-Mornay f. As Casaubon was not favourable to the latter, who, some think, did not acquit himself well in that conference, it was reported that he would soon change his religion; but the event showed that this report was groundless. When Casaubon came back to Paris, he found it very difficult to get his pension paid, and the charges of removing from Lyons to Paris, because M. de Rosny was not his friend; and it was only by an express order from the king that he obtained the payment even of three hundred crowns. The 30th of May 1600, he returned to Lyons, to hasten the impression of his “Athenseus,” which was printing there; but he had the misfortune of incurring the displeasure of his great friend M. de Vicq, who had all along entertained him and his whole family in his own house when they were in that city, because he refused to accompany him into Switzerland. The reason of this refusal was, his being afraid of losing in the mean time the place of library-keeper to the king, of which he had a promise, and that was likely soon to become vacant, on account of the librarian’s illness. He returned to Paris with his wife and family the September following, and was well received by the king, and by many persons of distinction. There he read private lectures, published several works of the ancients, and learned Arabic; in which he made so great a progress, that he undertook to compile a dictionary, and translated some books of that language into Latin. In 1601 he was obliged, as he tells us himself, to write against his will to James VI. king of Scotland, afterwards king of England, but does not mention the occasion of it. That prince answered him with great civility, which obliged our author to write to him a second time. In the mean time, the many affronts and uneasinesses he received from time to time at Paris, made him think of leaving that city, and retiring to some quieter place, but king Henry IV. in order to fix him, made an augmentation of two hundred crowns to his pension: and granted him the reversion of the place of his library-keeper. He took a journey to Dauphine in May 1603, and from thence to Geneva about his private affairs; returning to Paris on the 12th of July. Towards the end of the same year he came into possession of the place of king’s library-keeper, vacant by the death of Gosselin. His friends of the Roman catholic persuasion made now frequent attempts to induce him to forsake the protestant religion. Cardinal du Perron, in particular, had several disputes with him, after one of which a report was spread that he had then promised the cardinal he would turn Roman catholic: so that, in order to stifle that rumour, the ministers of Charenton, who were alarmed at it, obliged him to write a letter to the cardinal to contradict what was so confidently reported, and took care to have it printed. About this time the magistrates of Nismes gave him a second invitation to their city, offering him a house, and a salary of six hundred crowns of gold a year, but he durst not accept of it for fear of offending the king. In 1609 he had, by that prince’s order, who was desirous of gaining him over to the catholic religion, a conference with cardinal du Perron, but it had no effect upon him.

, 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.

, an eminent Scotch poet, was born about the year 1465, and, as it is generally supposed, although without much foundation, at Salton, a village on the delightful coast of the Forth in East Lothian. This is collected from what Kennedy, a contemporary poet, says in one of his satires; who mentions likewise his own wealth, and Dunbar’s poverty. If we are to credit the same author, Dunbar was related to the earls of March; but of this there is no satisfactory evidence. In his youth he seems to have been a travelling noviciate of the Franciscan order; but this mode of life not being agreeable to his inclination, he resigned it, and returned to Scotland, as is supposed, about 1490, when he might be 25 years of age. In his “Thistle and Rose,” which was certainly written in 1503, he speaks of himself as a poet that had already made many songs: and that poem is the composition rather of an experienced writer, than of a novice in the art. It is indeed probable that his tales, “The twa marrit wemen and the wedo;” and, “The freirs of Bervvik,” (if the last be his) were written before his “Thistle and Rose.” However tin’s may have been, Dunbar, after being the author of “The gold in Terge,” a poem rich in description, and of many small pieces of the highest merit, died in old age about 1530. In his younger years, our poet seems to have had great expectations that his abilities would have recommended him to an ecclesiastical benetice; and in his smaller poems he frequently addresses the king lor that purpose: but there is no reason to believe that he was successful, although it may be thought that the “Thistle and Rose,” which was occasioned by the marriage of James IV. king of Scotland, with Margaret Tudor, eldest daughter of Henry VII. king of England, deserved better treatment at the hands of the young royal pair. Mr. Pinkerton, in his list of Scottish poets, tells us, he has looked in vain over many calendars of the characters, &c. of this period, to find Dunbar’s name; but suspects that it was never written by a lawyer. Mr. Warton, in characterising the Scottish poets of this time, observes that the writers of that nation have adorned the period with a degree of sentiment and spirit, a command of phraseology, and a fertility of imagination, not to be found in any English poet since Chaucer and Lydgate. “He might safely have added,” says Mr. Pinkerton, “not even in Chaucer or Lydgate.” Concerning Dunbar, Mr. Warton says, that the natural complexion of his genius is of the moral and didactic cast. This remark, however, Mr. Pinkerton thinks, must not be taken too strictly. “The goldin Terge,” he adds, “is moral; and so are many of his small pieces: but humour, description, allegory, great poetical genius, and a vast wealth of words, all unite to form the complexion of Dunbar’s poetry. He unites, in himself, and generally surpasses the qualities of the chief old English poets; the morals and satire of Langland; Chaucer’s humour, poetry, and knowledge of life; the allegory of Gower; the description of Lydgate.” This is a very high character, but surely the morality of his poems may be questioned. Several of his compositions contain expressions which appear to us grossly profane and indecent; and one of his addresses to the queen would not now be addressed to a modern courtezan. Even the most sacred observances of the church are converted into topics of ridicule; and its litanies are burlesqued in a parody, the profaneness of which is almost unparalleled. The notes added to the collection published by sir David Daly rm pie in 1770 are peculiarly valuable; for they not only explain and illustrate the particular expressions and phrases of the pieces in question, but contain several curious anecdotes, and throw considerable light on the manners of the times.

, or Edmer, the faithful friend and historian of archbishop Anselm, was an Englishman, who flourished in the twelfth century, but we have no information respecting his parents, or the particular time and place of his nativity. He received a learned education, and very early discovered a taste for history, by recording every remarkable event that came to his knowledge. Being a monk in the cathedral of Canterbury, he had the happiness to become the bosom friend and inseparable companion of the two archbishops of that see, St. Anselm, and his successor Ralph. To the former of these he was appointed spiritual director by the pope; and that prelate would do nothing without his permission. In 1120 he was elected bishop of St. Andrew’s, by the particular desire of Alexander I. king of Scotland; but on the very day after his election, an unhappy dispute arose between the king and him respecting his consecration. Eadmer would be consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he regarded as primate of all Britain, while Alexander contended that the see of Canterbury had no pre-eminence over that of St. Andrew’s. After many conferences, their dispute becoming more warm, Eadmer abandoned his bishopric, and returned to England, where he was kindly received by the archbishop and clergy of Canterbury, who yet thought him too precipitate in leaving his bishopric. Eadmer at last appears to have been of the same opinion, and wrote a long and submissive letter to the king of Scotland, but without producing the desired effect. Whartort fixes his death in 1124, which was not long after this affair, and the very year in which the bishopric of St. Andrew’s was tilled up. Eadmer is now best known for his history of the affairs of England in his own time, from 1066 to 1122, in which he has inserted many original papers, and preserved many important facts that are nowhere else to be found. This work has been highly commended, both by ancient and modern writers, for its authenticity, as well as for regularity of composition and purity of style. It is indeed more free from legendary tales than any other work of this period, and affords many proofs of the learning, good sense, sincerity and candour of its author. The best edition is that by Selden, under the title of “Eadmeri monachi Cantuarensis Historiac Novorum, give sui Saeculi, Libri Sex,” Lond. 1623, fol. His other works are, 1. A Life of St. Auselm, from 1093 to 1109, often printed with the works of that archbishop, and by Wharton in the “Anglia Sacra.” 2. The Lives of St. Wilfrid, St. Oswald, St. Dunstan, &c. &c. and others inserted in the “Anglia Sacra,” or enumerated by his biographers, as in print or manuscript.

As Erasmus had no where more friends and patrons than in England, be made frequent visits to this island. Of these the principal were, Warham, archbishop of Canterbury; Tonstall, bishop of Durham; Fox, bishop of Winchester; Colet, dean of St. Paul’s; lord Montjoy, sir Thomas More, Grocyn, andLinacer; and he often speaks of the favours he had received from them with 'pleasure and gratitude. They were very pressing with him to settle in England; and “it was with the greatest uneasiness that he left it, since,” as he tells Culet, in a letter dated Paris, June 19th, 1506, “there was no country which had furnished him with so many learned and generous benefactors as even the single city of London.” He had left it just before, and was then at Paris in his road to Italy, where he made but a short stay, lest he should be disappointed, as had been the case more than once already. He took a doctor of divinity’s degree at Turin; from whence he pro-, ceeded to Bologna, where he arrived at the very time it was besieged by Julius II. He passed on for the present to Florence, but returned to Bologna upon the surrender of the town, and was time enough to be witness to the triumphant entry of that pope. This entry was made Nov. 10, 1506, and was so very pompous and magnificent, that Erasmus, viewing Julius under his assumed title of Christ’s vicegerent, and comparing his entry into Bologna with Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, could not behold it without the utmost indignation. An adventure, however, befel him in this city which had nearly proved fatal. The town not being quite clear of the plague, the surgeons, who had the care of it, wore something like the scapulars of friars, that people fearful of the infection might know and avoid them. Erasmus, wearing the habit of his order, went out one morning; and, being met by some wild young fellows with his white scapular on, was mistaken for one of the surgeons. They made signs to him to get out of the way; but he, knowing nothing of the custom, and making no haste to obey their signal, would have been stoned, if some citizens, perceiving his ignorance, had not immediately run up to him, and pulled off his scapular. To prevent such an accident for the future, he got a dispensation from. Julius II. which vvas afterwards confirmed by Leo X. to change his regular habit of friar into that of a secular priest. Erasmus now prosecuted his studies at Bologna, and contracted an acquaintance with the learned of the place;, with Paul Bombasius particularly, a celebrated Greek.pro-> fessor, with whom he long held a correspondence by letters. He was strongly invited at Bologna to read lectures; but, considering that the Italian pronunciation of Latin was different from the German, he declined it lest his mode of speaking might appear ridiculous. He drew up, however, some new works here, and revised some old ones. He augmented his “Adagia” considerably; and, desirous of having it printed by the celebrated Aldus Manutius at Venice, proposed it to him. Aldus accepted the offer with pleasure; and Erasmus went immediately to Venice, after having staid at Bologna little more than a year. Besides his “Adagia,” Aldus printed a new edition of his translation of the Hecuba and Iphigenia of Euripides; and also of Terence and Plautus, after Erasmus had revised and corrected them. At Venice he became acquainted with several learned men; among the rest, with Jerome Aleander, who for his skill in the tongues was afterwards promoted to the dignity of a cardinal. He was furnished with all necessary accommodations by Aldus, and also with several Greek manuscripts, which he read over and corrected at his better leisure at Padua, whither he was obliged to hasten, to superintend and direct the studies of Alexander, natural son of James IV. king of Scotland, although Alexander was at that time nominated to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. Erasmus studied Pausanias, Eustathius, Theocritus, and other Greek authors, undor the inspection and with the assistance of Musurus, who was one of those Greeks that had brought learning into the West, and was professor of that science at Padua.

, an eminent prelate, and the munificent founder of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, was the son of Thomas Fox, and born at Ropesley, near Grantham, in Lincolnshire, about the latter end of the reign of Henry VI. His parents are said to have been in mean circumstances, but they must at least have been able to afford him school education, since the only dispute on this subject between his biographers, is, whether he was educated in grammar learning at Boston, or at Winchester. They all agree that at a proper age he was sent to Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he was acquiring distinction for his extraordinary proficiency, when the plague, which happened to break out about that time, obliged him to go to Cambridge, and continue his studies at Pembrokehall. After remaining some time at Cambridge, he repaired to the university at Paris, and studied divinity and the canon law, and here, probably, he received his doctor’s degree. This visit gave a new and important turn to his life, and introduced him to that eminence which he preserved for many years as a statesman. In Paris he became acquainted with Dr. Morton, bishop of Ely, whom Richard III. had compelled to quit his native country, and by this prelate he was recommended to the earl of Richmond, afterwards Henry VII. who was then providing for a descent upon England. Richmond, to whom he devoted himself, conceived such an opinion of his talents and fidelity, that he entrusted to his care a negotiation with France for supplies of men and money, the issue of which he was not able himself to await; and Fox succeeded to the utmost of his wishes. After the defeat of the usurper at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, and the establishment of Henry on the throne, the latter immediately appointed Fox to be one of his privy-council, and about the same time bestowed on him the prebends of Bishopston and South Grantham, in the church of Salisbury. In 1487, he was promoted to the see of Exeter, and appointed keeper of the privy seal, with a pension of twenty shillings a day. He was also made principal secretary of state, and master of St. Cross, near Winchester. His employments in. affairs of state both at home and abroad, were very frequent, as he shared the king’s confidence with his early friend Dr. Morton, who was now advanced to the archbishopric of Canterbury. In 1487, Fox was sent ambassador, with sir Richard Edgecombe, comptroller of the household, to James III. of Scotland, where he negociated a prolongation of the truce between England and Scotland, which was to expire July 3, 1488, to Sept. 1, 1489. About the beginning of 1491, he was employed in an embassy to the king of France, and returned to England in November following. In 1494 he went again as ambassador to James IV. of Scotland, to conclude some differences respecting the fishery of the river Esk, in which he was not successful. Having been translated in 1492 from the see of Exeter to that of Bath and Wells, he was in 1494 removed to that of Durham. Jn 1497, the castle of Norham being threatened by the king of Scotland, the bishop caused it to be fortified and supplied with troops, and bravely defended it in person, until it was relieved by Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, who compelled the Scots to retire. Fox was then, a third time, appointed to negociate with Scotland, and signed a, seven years truce between the two kingdoms, Sept. 30, 1497. He soon after negociated a marriage between James IV. and Margaret, king Henry’s eldest daughter, which was, after many delays, fully concluded Jan. 24, 1501-.

Of all the particulars of Froissart’s life during his residence in England, we only know that he was present at the separation of the king and queen in 1361, with their son the prince of Wales and the princess his lady, who were going to take possession of the government of Acquitaine; and that he was between Eltham and Westminster in 1363, when king John passed on his return to England. There is in his poems a pastoral which seems to allude only to that event. With regard to his travels during the time he was attached to the service of the queen, he' employed six months in Scotland, and penetrated as far as the Highlands. He travelled on horseback with his portmanteau behind him, and followed by a greyhound. The king of Scotland, and many lords whose names he has preserved to us, treated him so handsomely, that he could have wished tq have returned thither. William earl of Douglas lodged him during fifteen days in his castle of Dalkeith, near Edinburgh; but we are ignorant of the date of this journey, and of another which he made into North Wales. It may be inferred, however, that he was at this time no ordinary character, and that he must have possessed talents and accomplishments to entitle him, to so much respect.

What his former behaviour, on which the cardinals grounded their objections, may have been, is uncertain; but it is scarce to be imagined, that a king of Edward’s judgment and constant inclination to promote merit, would have raised him to such a dignity had he been so undeserving; nor would he have employed him in so many affairs of consequence as he appears to have done had he not been capable of executing them. In 1346, David king of Scotland, at the head of 50,000 men, invaded England, and after plundering and destroying the country wherever he came, encamped his army in Bear-park, near Stanhope, 141 the county of Durham, from which he detached parties to ravage the neighbouring country; to repel these invaders, a great number of the northern noblemen armed all their vassals, and came to join the king, who was then at Durham; from thence they marched against the Scots in four separate bodies, the first of which was commanded by lord Percy and bishop Hatfield, who on this occasion assumed the warrior, as well as several other prelates. The Scots were defeated, and their king taken prisoner. In 13 54 the bishop of Durham and lords Percy and Ralph Nevill were appointed commissioners to treat with the Scots for the ransom of their captive monarch. In 1355, when king Edward went into France at the head of a large army, he was attended by our prelate; to whom, however, It is more important to mention, that Trinity college, in Oxford, owed its foundation; it was at first called Durham college, and was originally intended for such monks of Durham as should chuse to study there, more particulars of which may be seen in Warton’s Anglia Sacra. Wood, in his Annals, relates the matter somewhat differently. At the dissolution it was granted, in 1552, to Dr. Owen, who sold it to sir Thomas Pope, by whom it was refounded^ endowed, and called Trinity college. Before Hatfield’s time, the bishops of Durham had no house in London to repair to when summoned to parliament; to remedy this, this munificent prelate built a most elegant palace in the Strand, and called it Durham-house (lately Durham-yard), and by his will bequeathed it for ever to his successors in the bishopric. This palace continued in possession of the bishops till the reformation, when it was, in the fifth of Edward VI. demised to the princess Elizabeth. In the fourth of Mary it was again granted to bishop Tunstall and his successors, and afterwards let out on a building lease, with the reservation of 200l. a year out-rent, which the bishop now receives. On this pfat of ground the Adelphi buildings are erected.

, earl of Surrey, and duke of Norfolk, an eminent commander in the reign of Henry VIII. was born in 1473, and brought up to arms, and soon after the accession of Henry was decorated with the knighthood of the garter. He served with his brother sir Edward, against sir Andrew Barton, a Scotch free-booter, or pirate, who perished in the action. Wuen his brother, sir Edward, was killed in an action near Brest, in 1513, he was appointed to the office in his stead, and in the capacity of high admiral he effectually cleared the channel of French cruisers. The victory of Flodden-field, in which the king of Scotland was slain, was chiefly owing to his valour and good conduct. For this his father was restored to the title of duke of Norfolk, and the title of earl of Surrey was conferred on him. In 1521 he was sent to Ireland as lordlieutenant, chiefly for the purpose, it was thought, of having him out of the way during the proceedings against his father-in-law, the duke of Buckingham. Here he was very instrumental in suppressing the rebellion, and having served there two years he returned, and had the command of the fleet against France. By the death of his father he succeeded to the title and estates as duke of Norfolk. Notwithstanding his great services, Henry, at the close of his tyrannical life and reign, caused the duke to be sent to the Tower on a charge of high treason, and his son to be beheaded in his presence. The death of the king saved the duke’s life. He was, however, detained prisoner during the whole of the reign of Edward VI. but one of the first acts of Mary, after her accession to the throne, was to liberate him. He was, after this, the principal instrument in suppressing the rebellion excited by sir Thomas Wyatt. He died in August 1554, having passed his eightieth year. He was father to the illustrious subject of our next article.

, earl of Northampton, second son of the preceding, but unworthy of such a father, was born at Shottisham in Norfolk about 1539. He was educated at King’s college, and afterwards at Trinity-hall, Cambridge, where he took the degree of A. M. to which he was also admitted at Oxford, in 1568. Bishop Godwin says, his reputation for literature was so great in the unU versity, that he was esteemed“the learnedest among the nobility; and the most noble among the learned.” He was at first, probably, very slenderly provided for, being often obliged, as Lloyd records, “to dine with the chair of duke Humphrey.” He contrived, however, to spend some years in travel; but on his return could obtain no favour at court, at least till the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign, which was probably owing to his connections. In 1597, it seems as if he was in some power (perhaps, however, only through the influence of his friend lord Essex), because Rowland White applied to him concerning sir Robert Sydney’s suits at court. He was the grossest of flatterers, as appears by his letters to his patron and friend lord Essex; but while he professed the most unbounded friendship for Essex, he yet paid his suit to the lord treasurer Burleigh. On the fall of Essex, he insinuated himself so far into the confidence of his mortal enemy, secretary Cecil, as to become the instrument of the secretary’s correspondence with the king of Scotland, which passed through his hands, and has been since published by sit David Dalrymple. It is not wonderful, therefore, that a man of his intriguing spirit, was immediately on king James’s accession, received into favour. In May 1603, he was made a privy-counsellor; in January following, lord warden of the Cinque Ports; in March, baron of Marnhill, and earl of Northampton; in April 1608, lord privy seal; and honoured with the garter. In 1609, he succeeded John lord Lumley, as high steward of Oxford; and in 1612, Robert, earl of Salisbury, as chancellor of Cambridge. Soon after he became the principal instrument in the infamous intrigue of his great niece the countess of Essex with Carr viscount Rochester. The wretch acted as pander to the countess, for the purpose of conciliating die rising favourite and it is impossible to doubt his deep criminality in the murder of Overbury. About nine months afterwards, June 15, 1614, he died, luckily for himself, before this atrocious affair became the subject of public investigation. He was a learned man, but a pedant dark and mysterious, and far from possessing masterly abilities. It causes astonishment, says the elegant writer to whom we are indebted for this article, “when we reflect that this despicable and wicked wretch was the sou of the generous and accomplished earl of Surrey.” One of his biographers remarks, that “his lordship very prudently died a papist; he stood no chance for heaven in any other religion.”

In 1588, the memorable year of the Spanish invasion, the queen, knowing his abilities in naval affairs, and popularity with the seamen, gave him the command of her whole fleet, with which he entirely dispersed and destroyed the Spanish armada; and when, in 1596, another invasion was apprehended from the Spaniards, and a fleet of 150 ships was equipped with a proper number of land forces, he was appointed commander in chief at sea, as the earl of Essex was at land. In this expedition Cadiz was taken, and the Spanish fleet there burnt; and the lord high admiral had so great a share in this success, that on Oct. 22 of the same year he was advanced to the dignity of Earl of Nottingham, and appointed justice itinerant for, life of all the forests south of Trent. In 1599, upon an apprehension of the Spaniards again designing the invasion of England, and on private intelligence, that the earl of Essex, then lord deputy of Ireland, discontented at the power of his adversaries, was meditating to return into England with a select party of men, the queen having raised 6000 foot soldiers to be ready on any emergency, reposed so entire a confidence in the earl of Nottingham, that she committed to him the chief command. But these forces being again disbanded a few days after, he had no opportunity for action until 1601, when he suppressed the carl of Essex’s insurrection. The same year he was appointed one of the commissioners for exercising the office of earl marshal of England; and in the beginning of 1602-3, dnring the queen’s last illness, he was deputed by the council, with the lord keeper Egerton and secretary Cecil, to know her majesty’s pleasure in reference to the succession, which she declared in favour of James king of Scotland.

king of Scotland, of the house of Stuart, was born in 1394. In 1405 his father Robert III. sent him to France, in order that he might escape the dangers to which he was exposed from his uncle the duke of Albany, but being taken by an English squadron, he and his whole suite were carried prisoners to the Tower of London. Here the young prince received an excellent education, to which Henry IV. of England was remarkably attentive, thereby making some atonement for his injustice in detaining him. Sir John Pelham, a man of worth and learning was appointed his governor, under whose tuition he made so rapid a progress, that he soon became a prodigy of talents and accomplishments. Robert died in the following year, and James was proclaimed king, but during the remainder of the reign of Henry IV. and the whole of that of Henry V. he was kept in confinement, with a view of preventing the strength of Scotland from being united to that of France against the English arms. At length, under the regency of the duke of Bedford, James was restored to his kingdom, having been full eighteen years a prisoner in this country. James was now thirty years of age, well furnished with learning, and a proficient in the elegant accomplishments of life, and dextrous in the manly exercises, which at that period were in high estimation. He married Joanna Beaufort, daughter of the duchess of Clarence, a lady of distinguished beauty, descended from the royal family of England; and on his return to Scotland, finding that the dujte of Albany and his son had alienated many of the most valuable possessions of the crown, instantly caused the whole of that family and their adherents to be arrested. The latter were chiefly discharged; but the late regent, his two sons, and his father-in-law, he caused to be convicted, executed, and their estates to be confiscated to the crown. Whatever other objections were made to James’s conduct, he procured the enactment of many good laws in his parliaments, which had a tendency to improve the state of society; but at the same time his desire of improving the revenues of the crown led him to many acts of tyranny, which rendered him odious to his nobility. In 1436 he gave his daughter Margaret in marriage to the dauphin of France, and sent with her a splendid train and a vast body of troops. The English, who had in vain attempted to prevent this union by negociation, now endeavoured to intercept the Scotch fleet in its passage, but they missed their object, and the princess arrived in safety at Rochelle. James, exasperated at this act of hostility, declared war against England, and summoned the whole array of his kingdom to assist in the siege of Roxburgh; which, however, he abandoned upon an intimation of a conspiracy being formed against himself by his own people. He now retired to the Carthusian monastery of Perth, which he had himself founded, where he lived in privacy, but this, instead of preventing, facilitated the suecess of the plot formed against his life. The chief actors in this tragedy were Robert Graham, and Walter earl of Athol, the king’s uncle. The former was actuated by revenge for the sufferings of some of his family, the latter by the hope of obtaining the crown for himself. The assassins obtained by bribery admission into the king’s apartments; the alarm was raised, and the ladies attempted to secure the chamber-door; one of them, Catharine Douglas, thrust her arm through a staple, making therewith a sort of bar, in which state she remained till it was dreadfully broken by the force of the assailants. The instant they got admission, they dragged the king from his concealment, and put him to death with a thousand wounds on Feb. 20, 1437, in the forty-fourth year of his age. He is introduced in this work chiefly on account of his literary reputation, for he was a poet as well as a sovereign, and his works, descriptive of the manners and pastimes of the age, were once extremely popular, and are still read with delight by those who can relish the northern dialect. He is said by all the British historians to have been a skilful musician; and it is asserted, that he not only performed admirably on the lute and harp, but was the inventor of many of the most ancient and favourite Scottish melodies, but this Dr. Burney is inclined to doubt. Where this prince acquired his knowledge in music is not ascertained; but it is probable that it was in France, in his passage home from which country he was taken prisoner by the English. Before the reformation we hear of no music being cultivated in Scotland but plain-song, or chanting in the church; nor afterwards, for a long time, except psalmody.

The genuine and ancient Scots melodies are so truly national, that they resemble no music of any other part of Europe. They seem to have been wholly preserved by tradition till the beginning of the last century, when a collection of Scots songs was published by a Mr. Thomson of Edinburgh, for which there was a very large subscription; and in February 1722, a benefit concert was advertised for the editor, to be terminated at the desire of several persons of quality, with a Scottish song. To this publication and concert may be ascribed the subsequent favour of their national, singular, and often touching melodies, south of the Tweed. Tassoni, indeed, (lib. x. cap. 22.) tells us, that “Jarnes I. king of Scotland, had not only composed sacred music, but invented a new species of plaintive melody different from all others in which he has beenimitated by the prince of Venosa; who,” he adds, “in our times has embellished music with many admirable inventions.” This assertion, says Dr. Burney, greatly increased our desire to examine works in which so many excellencies were concentred; particularly as we had long been extremely desirous of tracing the peculiarities of the national melodies of Scotland, from a higher source than David Rizzio. But in a very attentive perusal of all the several parts of the whole six books of the prince of Venosa’s madrigals, we were utterly unable to discover the least similitude or imitation of Caledonian airs in any one of them; which, so far from Scots melodies, seem to contain no melodies at all; nor, when scored, can we discover the least regularity of design, phraseology, rhythm, or, indeed, any thing remarkable in these madrigals, except unprincipled modulation, and the perpetual embarrassments and inexperience of an amateur, in the arrangement and filling up of the parts. As a poet, however, there is less room to doubt James’s talents. He has found abundance of editors, but no complete and accurate impression of his works has hitherto made its appearance. Mr. Park, in his excellent edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors,” has given a list of them, and more particulars may be found in our principal authorities.

, bishop of St. Andrew’s, Scotland, and founder of the college of St. Salvator there, was the younger son of James Kennedy, of Dunmure, by the lady Mary, countess of Angus, his wife, daughter of Robert III. king of Scotland. He was born in 1405, or 1406, and after some preparatory education at home, was sent abroad for his philosophical and theological studies. Entering into holy orders, he was preferred by James I. to the bishopric of Dunkeld in 1437. In order to be better qualified to reform the abuses which had crept into his diocese, he undertook a journey to pope Eugenius IV. then at Florence, but the schism which then prevailed in the church of Rome prevented his procuring the necessary powers. The pope, however, to show his esteem for him, gave him the abbey of Scoon in commendam. In 1440, while he was at Florence, the see of St. Andrew’s becoming vacant, was conferred upon him: and on his return, after being admitted in due form, he restored order and discipline throughout his diocese. In 1444 he was made lord chancellor, but not finding his power equal to his inclination to do good in this office, he resigned it within a few weeks. The nation being much distracted by party feuds during the minority of James II. and bishop Kennedy finding himself unable to compose these differences, determined to go again abroad, and try what he could do in healing that schism in the papacy which had so long disturbed the quiet of the church. With this view he undertook a journey to Rome, with a retinue of thirty persons; and it being necessary to pass through England, he obtained a safe conduct from Henry VI. dated May 28, 1446.

, professor of mathematics, and of medicine, in the university of Helmstadt, the son of John Liddel, a reputable citizen of Aberdeen, was born there in 1561, and educated in the languages and philosophy at the schools and university of Aberdeen. In 1579, having a great desire to visit foreign countries, he went from Scotland to Dantzic, and thence through Poland to Francfort on the Oder, where John Craig, afterwards first physician to James VI. king of Scotland, then taught logic and mathematics. By his liberal assistance Mr. Liddei was enabled to continue at the university of Francfort for three years, during which he applied himself very diligently to mathematics and philosophy under Craig and the other professors, and also entered upon the study of physic. In 1582, Dr. Craig being about to return to Scotland, sent Liddel to prosecute his studies at Wratislow, or Breslaw, in Silesia, recommending him to the care of that celebrated statesman, Andreas Dudithius; and during his residence at Breslaw, Liddel made uncommon progress in his favourite study of mathematics, under Paul Wittichius, an eminent professor.

, a surgeon of the sixteenth century, was born in Scotland. In a work entitled “A Discourse on the whole Art of Chirurgery,” published at Glasgow in 1612, he acquaints his readers, that he had practised twenty- two years in France and Flanders; that he had been two years surgeon- major to the Spanish regiment at Paris and had then followed his master, the king of France (Henry IV.) six years in his wars. In the titlepage of his book, he calls himself doctor in the faculty of surgery at Paris, and ordinary surgeon to the king of France and Navarre. It does not appear how long he had resided at Glasgow; but he mentions that, fourteen years before the publication of his book, he had complained of the ignorant persons who intruded into the practice of surgery, and that in consequence the king (of Scotland) granted him a privilege, under his privy seal, of examining all practitioners in surgery in the western parts of Scotland. He refers to a former work of his own, entitled “The Poor Man’s Guide,” and speaks of an intended publication concerning the diseases of women. He died in 1612. The “Discourse on Chirurgery” appears to have been in esteem, as it reached a fourth edition in 1654, but it is founded more on authority than observation. Ames mentions another work of his with the title “An easy, certain, and perfect method to cure and prevent the Spanish Sickness; by Peter Lowe, doctor in the Facultie of Chirurgerie at Paris, chirurgeon to Henry IV” London, 1596, 4to.

Douglas describes him as a man of singular endowments, great learning, well versed in the laws and antiquities of his country, and an able statesman. Macky, or rather Davis, adds, that “he had a great deal of wit, and was the pleasantest companion in the world; had been very handsome in his person; was tall and fair complexioned; much esteemed by the royal society, a great master in philosophy, and well received as a writer by men of letters.” Bishop Nicolson notices a copy of the continuation of Fordun’s “Scotichronicon” in the hand-writing of this nobleman, whom he terms “a judicious preserver of the antiquities of his country.” He wrote, 1. “A Vindication of Robert, the third king of Scotland, from the imputation of bastardy, &c.” Edin. 1695, 4to. 2. “Synopsis Apocalyptica; or a short and plain Explication and Application of Daniel’s Prophecy, and St. John’s Revelation, in consent with it, and consequential to it; by G. E. of C. tracing in the steps of the admirable lord Napier of Merchiston,” Edin. 1708. 3. “An historical Account of the Conspiracies, by the earls of Gourie, and Robert Logan of Restalrig, against king James VI. of glorious memory, &c.” Edin. 1713, 8vo. Mr. Gough has pointed out three papers on natural curiosities, by lord Cromerty, in the “Philosophical Transactions” and “A Vindication,” by him, of the reformation of the church of Scotland, with some account of the Records, was printed in the Scots’ Magazine, for August 1802, from a ms. in the possession of Mr. Constable, bookseller, of Edinburgh.

In Feb. 1567, the new king of Scotland was murdered in a very barbarous manner, by the contrivance of the earl of Murray, who was the queen’s illegitimate brother; and, in May following she was married to John Hepburn, earl of Bothwell, a man of an ambitious temper and dissolute manners, and who in reality had been lord Darnly’s murderer. From this time a series of infelicities attended her to the end of her life. The different views and interests of the nobility, clergy, and gentry, in regard to religious and political affairs, had so broken the peace of the kingdom, that all things appeared in the greatest disorder and confusion. The earl of Bothwell was forced to fly into Denmark to save his life; the queen was seized, carried prisoner to Lochleven, and was treated on the road with such scorn and contempt, as her own personal dignity might, one would think, have prevented. She was conveyed to the provost’s lodgiogs, and committed to the care of Murray’s mother; who, “having been James the Fifth’s concubine, insulted much,” says Camden, “over the unfortunate and afflicted =queen, boasting that she was the lawful wife of James the Fifth, and that her son Murray was his lawful issue.” What aggravated Mary’s misfortunes was, that she was believed to have been the cause of lord Darnly’s death, in order to revenge the loss of David Rizzio, an Italian musician, supposed her gallant, and whom lord Darnly had killed on that account. Be this as it will, when queen Elizabeth heard of this treatment of the queen of Scots, she seemed fired with indignation at it; and sent sir Nicholas Throgmorton into Scotland, to expostulate with the conspirators, and to consult by what means she might be restored to her liberty. But Elizabeth, as we have noticed in her article, was by no means in. earnest: she was not the friend to the queen of Scots which she pretended to be; and, if not in some measure the contriver of these troubles, there is great reason to think that she secretly rejoiced at them. When queen Elizabeth was crowned, the queen of Scots had assumed the arms and title of the kingdom of England, 'an indignity Elizabeth could never forget, as not thinking herself quite safe while Mary harboured such pretensions.

About this time the pope, having resolved to call a general council for the reformation of the church, summoned several learned men to Rome, for that purpose, and among these he summoned Pole to represent England. As soon as this was known in that country, his mother and other friends requested him not to obey the pope’s summons; and at first he was irresolute, but the importunities of his Italian friends prevailed, and he arrived at Rome in 1536, where he was lodged in the pope’s palace, and treated with the utmost respect, being considered as one who might prove a very powerful agent in any future attempt to reduce his native land to the dominion of the pope. The projected scheme of reformation, in which Pole assisted, came to nothing; but a design was now formed of advancing him to the purple, to enable him the better to promote the interests of the papal see. To this he objected, and his objections certainly do him no discredit, as a zealous adherent to the order and discipline of his church. He was not yet in holy orders, nor had received even the clerical tonsure, notwithstanding the benefices which had been bestowed on him and he represented to the pope, that such a dignity would at this juncture destroy all his influence in England, by subjecting him to the imputation of being too much biassed to the interest of the papal see and would also have a natural tendency to bring ruin on his own family. He, therefore, intreated his holiness to leave him, at least for the present, where he was, adding other persuasives, with which the pope seemed satisfied but the very next day, whether induced by the imperial emissaries, or of his own will, he commanded Pole’s immediate obedience, and he having submitted to the tonsure, was created cardinal- deacon of S. Nereus and Achilleus, on Dec. 22, 1536. Soon after he was also appointed legate, and received orders to depart immediately for the coasts of France and Flanders, to keep up the spirit of the popish party in England and he had at the same time letters from the pope to the English nation, or rather the English catholics, the French king, the king of Scotland, and to the emperor’s sister, who was regent of the Low Countries. Pole undertook this commission with great readiness, and whether from ambition or bigotry, consented to be a traitor to his country. In the beginning of Lent 1537, he set out from Rome, along with his particular friend, the bishop of Verona, and a handsome retinue. His first destination was to France, and there he received his first check, for on the very day of his arrival at Paris, the French king sent him word that he conld neither admic him to treat of the business on which be came, nor allow him 'to make any stay in his dominions. Pole now learnt that Henry VIII. had proclaimed him a traitor, and set a price (50,000 crowns) on his head. Pole then proceeded to Cambray, but there he met with the same opposition, and was not allowed to pursue his journey. The cardinal bishop of Liege, however, invited him, and liberally entertained him in that city, where he remained three months, in hopes of more favourable accounts from the emperor and the king of France but nothing of this kind occurring, he returned to Ro'iki[ after an expedition that had been somewhat disgracefu and totally unsuccessful. In 1538 he again set out on a similar design, with as little effect, and was now impeded by the necessary caution he was obliged to preserve for fear of falling into the hands of some of Henry’s agents. In the mean time, he was not only himself attainted of high treason by the Parliament of England, but his eldest brother Henry Pole, lord Montague, the marquis of Exeter, sir Edward Nevil, and sir Nicholas Carew, were condemned and executed for high treason, which consisted in a conspiracy to raise cardinal Pole to the crown. Sir Geoffrey Pole, another brother of the cardinal’s, was condemned on the same account, but pardoned in cpnsequence of his giving information against the rest. Margaret, also, countess of Salisbury, the cardinal’s mother, was condemned, but not executed until two years after. The cardinal now found how truly he had said to the pope that his being raised to that dignity would be the ruin of his family but he appears to have at this time in a great measure subdued his natural affection, as he received the account of his mother’s death with great composure, consoling himself with the consideration that she died a martyr to the catholic faith. When his secretary Beccatelli informed him of the news, and probably with much concern, the cardinal said, “Be of good courage, we have now one patron more added to those we already had in heaven.”

, a French poet, of a noble family, was born in Vendomois, the same year that Francis I. was taken prisoner before Pavia that is, in 1524. This circumstance is what he himself affixes to the time of his birth; though from other passages in his works it might be concluded that he was not born till 1526. He was brought up at Paris, in the college of Navarre; but, taking some disgust to his studies, became a page of the duke of Orleans. This duke resigned him to the king of Scotland, James V. whom he attended from Paris into Scotland in 1537, and continued there two years, after which he resided about half a year in England. But the duke of Orleans took him again, and employed him in several negotiations. Ronsard accompanied Lazarus de Baif to the diet of Spire; and, in his conversations with that learned man, conceived a passion for letters. He learned Greek under Dorat with Antony de Baif, the son of Lazarus; and afterwards devoted himself entirely to poetry, in which he acquired great reputation. The kings Henry II. Francis

, an eminent English statesman, was born in 1507, at Hackney, in Middlesex. He was the son of Henry Sadler, who, though a gentleman by birth, and possessed of a fair inheritance, seems to have been steward or surveyor to the proprietor of the manor of Gillney, near Great Hadham, in Essex. Ralph in early life gained a situation in the family of Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, and by him was introduced to the notice of Henry VIII. who took him into his service, but at what time is not very clear. He was employed in the great work of dissolving the religious houses, and had his full share of the spoil. In 1537, he commenced a long course of diplomatic services, byan embassy to Scotland, whose monarch was then absent in France. The objects of his mission were to greet the queen dowager, to strengthen the English interests in the councils of regency which then governed Scotland, and to discover the probable consequences of the intimate union of Scotland with France. Having collected such information as he could procure on these topics, he returned in the beginning of the following year, but went again to Scotland soon after, ostensibly to maintain a good correspondence between the two crowns, but really, as appears from his state-papers, to detach the king of Scotland from the councils of cardinal Beaton, who was at the head of the party most in the interest of France. He was instructed also to direct the king’s attention to the overgrown possessions of the church as a source of revenue, and to persuade him to imitate his uncle Henry VHIth’s conduct to the see of Rome, and to make common cause with England against France. In all this, however, he appears to have failed, or at least to have left Scotland without having materially succeeded in any part of his. mission.

In the same year, 1540, he lost his patron Cromwell, who was beheaded; but he retained his favour with Henry, and in 1541 was again sent to Scotland, to detach the king from the pope and the. popish clergy, and to press upon him the propriety of a personal meeting with Henry. This however the king of Scotland appears to have evaded with considerable address, and died the following year of a broken heart, in consequence of hearing of the fatal battle of Solway. The crown was now left to James V.'s infant daughter Mary; and sir Ralph Sadler’s next employment was to lend his aid to the match, projected by Henry VIII. between his son Edward and the young queen. But this ended so unsuccessfully, that Sadler was obliged to return to England in Dee 1543, and Henry declared war against Scotland. In the mean time he was so satisfied with Sadler’s services, even in this last negociation, that he included him, by the title of sir Ralph Sad ley r, knight, among the twelve persons whom he named as a privy-council to the sixteen nobles to whom, in his will, he bequeathed the care of his son, and of the kingdom. When this will was set aside by the protector duke of Somerset, and it became necessary to reconcile the king’s executors and privy-counsellors, by wealth and honours, sir Ralph Sadler received a confirmation of all the church-lands formerly assigned to him by Henry, with splendid additions.

When the war with Scotland was renewed, sir Ralph so distinguished himself at the battle of Pinkie, that he was on the field raised to the degree of knight banneret; but we hear nothing more of him during the reign of Edward VI. except that in a grant, dated the 4th of that king’s reign, he is termed master of the great wardrobe. In Mary’s reigo, although he appears to have been in her favour, he retired to his estate at Hackney, and resigned the office of knight of the hamper,;-.nich had been conferred on him by Henry VIII. On the accession of Elizab^th, he again appeared at court, was called to the privy council, and retained to his death a great portion of the esteem of that princess. He was a member of her first parliament, as one of the knights of the shire for the county of Hertford, and continued to be a representative of the people during the greater part, if not the whole, of her reign. When queen Elizabeth thought proper to favour the cause of the reformation in Scotland, and to support the nobility who were for it against Mary, sir Ralph Sadler was her principal agent, and so negotiated as to prepare the way for Elizabeth’s great influence in the affairs of Scotland. He was also concerned in the subsequent measures which led to the death of queen Mary, and was appointed her keeper in the castle of Tutbury; but such was Elizabeth’s jealousy of this unfortunate princess, that even Sadler’s watchfulness became liable to her suspicions, and on one occasion, a very heavy complaint was made against him, that he had permitted Mary to accompany him to some distance from the castle of Tutbury, to enjoy the sport of hawking. Sir Ralph had been hitherto so subservient to his royal mistress, in all her measures, and perhaps in some which he could not altogether approve, that this complaint gave him great uneasiness, and he answered it rather by an expostulation than an apology. He admitted that he had sent for his hawks and falconers to divert " the miserable life'- which he passed at Tutbury, and that he had been unable to resist the solicitation of the prisoner, to permit her to see a sport in which she greatly delighted. But he adds; that this was under the strictest precautions for security of her person; and he declares to the secretary Cecil, that rather than continue a charge which subjected him to such misconstruction, were it not more for fear of offending the queen than dread of the punishment, he would abandon his present charge on coitdition of surrendering himself prisoner to the Tower for all the days of his life, and concludes that he is so weary of this life, that death itself would make him more happy. Elizabeth so far complied with his intimation as to commit Mary to a new keeper, but she did not withdraw her confidence from sir Ralph in other matters, and after the execution of Mary, employed him to go to the court of James VI. to dissuade him from entertaining thoughts of a war with England on his mother’s account, to which there was reason to think he might have been excited. In this sir Ralph had little difficulty in succeeding, partly from James’s love of ease, and partly from the prospect he had of succeeding peaceably to the throne of England. This was the last time sir Ralph Sadler was employed in the public service, for soon after his return from Scotland, he died at his lordship of Standon, March 30, 1587, in the eightieth year of his age, and was buried in the church of Standon, where his monument was decorated with the king of Scotland’s standard, which he took in the battle of Musselburgh. He left behind him twenty-two manors, several parsonages, and other great portions of land, in the several counties of Hertford, Gloucester, Warwick, Buckingham, and Worcester. He married Margaret Mitchell, a laundress in the family of his first patron, Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, in the life-time, though in the absence, of her husband, Matthew Barre, a tradesman in London, presumed to be dead at that time, and he afterwards procured an act of parliament, 37 Henry VIII. for the legitimation of the children by her, who were three sons, and four daughters; Anne, married to sir George Horsey of Digswell, knight; Mary, to Thomas Bollys aliter Bowles Wallington, esq. Jane, toEdward Baesh, of Stanstead, esq. (which three gentlemen appear to have been sheriffs of the county of Hertford, 14, 18, and 13 Eliz.); and Dorothy, to Edward EIryngton of Berstall, in the county of Bucks, esq. The sons were, Thomas, Edward, and Henry. Thomas succeeded to Standon, was sheriff of the county 29 and 37 Eliz. was knighted, and entertained king James there two nights on his way to Scotland. He had issue, Ralph and Gertrude married to Walter the first lord Aston of the kingdom of Scotland; Ralph, his son, dying without issue, was succeeded in his lordship of Standon and other estates in the county of Hertford, by Walter, the second lord Aston, eldest surviving son of his sister Gertrude lady Aston. The burying-place of the family is in tire chancel of the church at Standon. Against the south wall is a monument for sir Ralph Sadler, with the effigies of himself in armour, and of his three sons and four daughters,' and three inscriptions, in Latin verse, in English verse, and in English prose against the north wall i& another for sir Thomas, with the effigies of himself in armour, his lady, son and daughter, and an epitaph in Ertglish prose. There are also several inscriptions for various persons of the Aston family.

Some of his principal performances are, the “Madre Dolorosa,” after Vandyke the Portrait of that Master in the character of Paris Michael Angelo’s celebrated Cartoon of the Surprize of the Soldiers on the Banks of the Arno a series of Etchings, from designs by Blake, illustrative of Blair’s Grave: the Portrait of Mr. Blake, after Phillips, for the same work: the Landing of the British Troops in Egypt, from Loutherbourg; and the Etching of the Pilgrimage, from Stotbard’s esteemed picture. There is no circumstance which more forcibly shews Mr. Schiavonetti’s power of delineation, than his print from the Cartoon, considering the disadvantages under which he produced it. He had neither the benefit of an original, or an authentic copy, but engraved after a copy painted by H. Howard, II. A. from Sangallo’s copy of his own study of Michael Angelo’s Cartoon. The work of the “Canterbury Pilgrims” being no farther advanced than the etched state, is another and still more striking example of his powers as a draughtsman; every line is expressive of the object it aims to represent. This is the last great work of Mr, Schiavonetti’s hand. From his own avowal in conversation at various times since he undertook it, and even during his last illness, it was a performance on which he meant to concentrate all his powers, and to build his reputation. He had, however, others in view, particularly a portrait of the president of the Royal Society, from a picture by Mr. Phillips, and the splendid representation of the Stag Hunt, by Mr. West, in which Alexander III. king of Scotland was rescued from the fury of a stag by Colin Fitzgerald. Schiavonetti, in the opinion of his biographer, classes with Gerard Audran, with Edelinck, Strange, and Woollett. He not only possessed the powers of delineation, the harmony of lines, the union in tones and in a general effect, which severally distinguish these eminent men; but he added a brilliancy and playful movement to his productions, approaching more nearly to the free pencilling of the painter, than any thing that can be found in the performances of those artists.

, an ancient historian, of the eleventh century, was an Anglo-Saxon, of a good family in Lincolnshire. When a young man, he was delivered by the people of Lindsay, as one of their hostages, to William the Conqueror, and confined in the castle of Lincoln. From thence he made his escape to Norway, and resided several years in the court of king Olave, by whom he was much caressed and enriched. Returning to his native country, he was shipwrecked on the coast of Northumberland, by which he lost all his money and effects, escaping death with great difficulty. He then travelled to Durham; and applying to Walter, bishop of that see, declared his resolution to forsake the world, and become a monk; in which he was encouraged by that pious prelate, who committed him to the care of Aldwine, the first prior of Durham, then at Jarrow. From that monastery he went to Melross; from thence to Wearmouth, where he assumed the monastic habit; and lastly returned to Durham, where he recommended himself so much to the whole society, by his learning, piety, prudence, and other virtues, that, on the death of Aidwine, in 1087, he was unanimously chosen prior, and not long after was appointed by the bishop archdeacon of his diocese. The monastery profited greatly by his prudent government; the privileges were enlarged, and revenues considerably increased by his influence; and he promoted many improvements in the sacred edifices. In this office he spent the succeeding twenty years of his life, sometimes residing in the priory, and at other times visiting the diocese, and preaching in different places. At the end of these twenty years, he was, in 1107, elected bishop of St. Andrew’s and primate of Scotland, and consecrated by archbishop Thomas, at York, Aug. 1, 1109. Dissentions arising between our archbishop and the king of Scotland, the prelate’s anxiety and distress of mind brought on a decline of health, under which he obtained permission to return to England; and came back to Durham in 1115, where he resided little more than two months before his death. Stevens, in the “Monasticon,” says that he returned to Durham after the death of king Malcolm and his queen; and Spotiswood, in his “Church History,” that he died in Scotland, and was thence conveyed to and buried at Durham, in the Chapter-house, between bishops Walcher and William.

Some of his leisure hours he employed in collecting and writing the history of the church of Durham from the year 635 to 1096, in four books. But not having published this work, or made many transcripts of it, according to the custom of those times, it fell into the hands of Simeon, precentor of the church of Durham, who published it under his own name, expunging only a few passages that would have discovered its real author. This curious fact, of which we were not aware when we drew up our brief account of Simeon, is demonstrated by Selden, in his preface to sir Roger Twysden’s “Decem Scriptores,” and shews that literary fame was even then an object of ambition. Turgot composed several other works, particularly the lives of Malcolm Canmore, king of Scotland, and of his pious consort queen Margaret, which is often quoted by Fordun and others, but is not supposed to exist. Turgot had been confessor to queen Margaret, and as Papebroch has published in the “Acts of the Saints,” a life of her, under the name of Theodoric, also said to have been a confessor to the queen, it seems not improbable, according to lord Hailes and others, that Theodoric is another name for Turgot, or that the name of Theodoric has been prefixed to the saint’s life, instead of that of Turgot, by the mistake of some copier: but Papebroch certainly thinks they were two distinct persons.

, a most illustrious prelate, and as he has been justly styled by Dr. Johnson, the great luminary of the Irish church, was descended from a very antient family, and born at Dublin, Jan. 4, 1580. His father, Arnold Usher, was one of the six clerks in chancery, a gentleman of good estate and reputation, and descended of a very ancient family, which in England bore the name of Nevil, till the reign of Henry II. when it was fchanged by one of his ancestors, who about 1185, passing with prince (afterwards king) John in quality of usher into Ireland, settled there by the name of his office, a practice very common in those early ages, and probably occasioned by the ambition of founding a family; and his descendants, spreading into several branches, filled the most considerable posts in and about Dublin for many ages, to the time of our author, who gave fresh lustre to the family. His mother was the daughter of James Stanyhurst (father of Richard the poet. See Stanyhurst) thrice speaker of the House of Commons, recorder of the city of Dublin, and one of the masters in chancery. This gentleman, of whom we took some notice in our account of his son, is yet more memorable for having first moved queen Elizabeth to found and endow a college and university at Dublin; in which he was vigorously seconded by Henry Usher , archbishop of Armagh, who was James Usher’s uncle. James discovered great parts and a strong passion for books from his infancy; and this remarkable circumstance attended the beginning of his literary pursuits, that he was taught to read by two aunts, who had been blind from their cradle, but had amazing memories, and could repeat most part of the Bible with readiness and accuracy; C<ecorum mens oculatissima. At eight years of age he was sent to a school, which was opened by Mr. James Fullerton and Mr. James Hamilton, two young Scots gentlemen, who were placed at Dublin by king James I. then only king of Scotland, to keep a correspondence with the protestant nobility and gentry there, in order to secure an interest in that kingdom, in the event of queen Elizabeth’s death: but her majesty being very sore upon this point, and unwilling to think of a successor, this was a service of some danger, and therefore it was thought expedient for them to assume the disguise of school-masters, a class of men which was very much wanted in Ireland at that time. Mr. Fullerton was afterwards knighted, and of the bed-chamber to king James; and Mr. Hamilton was created viscount Clandebois.

, an eminent lawyer, and speaker of the House of Commons, during the usurpation, was of an ancient family in Northumberland, and was educated partly at Oxford and partly at Cambridge. He afterwards entered pf Qray’s-inn, to study the law, in which he advanced with considerable rapidity, and was chosen recorder, first of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and secondly of York. He was knighted by Charles I. in 1639 at York, and, as recorder, congratulated his majesty both at York and Berwick, when he was on his way to be crowned king of Scotland. Both his addresses on this occasion are said to have been perfectly courtly and even fulsome, but he was soon to change his style as well as his opinions. Being returned member of parliament for Berwick, he became a warm advocate for the liberty then contested; avowed himself in religion, one of the independent sect, and took the covenant. In June 1647, he was so much a favourite with the parliament that they appointed him one of the commissioners of the great seal, which office he was to retain for one year, but held it till the king’s death. The parliament also named him, in Oct. 1648, one in their call of Serjeants, and soon after declared him king’s s’erjeant. But far as he had gone with the usurping powers, he was by no means pleased with the commonwealth form of government, and immediately after the king’s death, surrendered his office of keeper of the great seal, first upon the plea of bad health, and when that was not allowed, he set up some scruples of conscience. The parliament, however, as he continued to allow their authority, in requital of his former services, ordered that he should practice within the bar, and gave him a quarter’s salary more than was due. His merit also recommended him to Cromwell, who heaped honours and great employments upon him. In April 1654, he was appointed a commissioner of the great seal and a commissioner of the treasury, for which he received a saJary of 100Q/.; and all his conscientious scruples seemed now at an end. In August of the same year, he was elected member of parliament for the city of York; and in the following year, became a committee-man for ejecting scandalous ministers in the north riding of that county.

, an ancient Scottish chronicler, was most probably born during the reign of David II. king of Scotland, which commenced in 1309, and terminated in 1370. He was a canon regular of St. Andrew’s, and prior of the monastery of St. Serf, situated in the inch or island of Lochleven in the county of Kinross. In the chartulary of the priory of St. Andrew’s, there are several public instruments of Andrevr Wynton as prior of Lochleven, dated between the years 1395 and 1413. He was therefore contemporary with Barboiir; to whose merit he has on various occasions paid a due tribute of applause. His “Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland”' was undertaken at the request of sir John Wemyss, the ancestor of the present noble family of that name. Wynton’s life must have been prolonged at least till 1420, for he mentions the death of Robert, duke of Albany, which happened in the course of that year.