In the reign we are treating of, we meet with the firft examples that have occurred to us of memoir writing. A beginning was made by a famous captain of the age, fir Roger Williams, who published the." Actions of the Low Countries," being the fcene of his military employments. He wrote, likewife." a brief Difcourfe of War." His narrative has been well fpoken of by competent judges. Another memoir writer was fir Francis Vere, who was one of the greatest heroes of an heroic age. Like Cæfar, hé recorded his own exploits, and gave to his work the title of Commentaries, "being diverfe pieces of service wherein he had command," We need not fay that he did not at tain to the glory of Cæfar as an author.-Sir Walter Raleigh drew up, in queen Elizabeth's time, a report of the truth of the fight about the ifles of Azores, and a relation of the action at Cadiz; but the completion of his hiftorical character was yet to come; and Camden's merit, in the fame view, belongs to the next reign.

. Hitherto (David Chambers excepted) we have confined our attention to thofe who wrote hiftory in English; but there were feveral authors who ftill gave the preference to the Latin language as the vehicles of their narrations. It was in that language that Humphrey Lluyd compofed his Breviary of Britain, and his Chronicle of Wales. It was in the fame language that Stanyhurst digefted his four books concerning the Tranfactions of Ireland. Twyne acted in a fimilar manner with regard to his commentaries on the affairs of Albion, Britain, and England, as did Nevyle in his narrative, dedicated to archbishop Parker, of the Norfolk infurrection under Kett.-John Lefly, bishop of Rofs, and the great and able advocate of Mary queen of Scots, deferves to be mentioned with particular refpect as a Latin hiftorian. His hiftory of his country, from the beginning of the nation to his own times, is a teftimony both of his learning and judgment. This prelate has lately been brought into notice, and juftice has been done to his character. But of all the hiftorians who, during this period, wrote in Latin, the first rank is due to George Buchanan.

We

We enter not into the particular circumstances of his perfonal conduct. We do not deny that he has fallen into what was then the common error, of paying too much. credit to early traditions. We do not mean to fay that he was free from the influence of political prejudices and connections. Thefe things we leave to be difcuffed by the angry controverfialifts of the prefent day. He has doubtlefs his faults: but as a beautiful writer of hiftory in Latin, none of his contemporaries can be placed in competition with him. He may even be mentioned as a rival of the famed Roman hiftorians. This praife will be granted him, whatever may be detracted from him in other refpects, and this praife will be tranfmitted to the lateft pofterity.

Among the ecclefiaftical hiftorians of the reign, a just tribute of applaufe is due to John Fox, commonly called the martyrologift. In his acts and monuments of the church, he has left a proof of literary diligence, united with a confiderable portion of literary ability. That there fhould be fome errors in fo large a work will not be efteemed furprifing, and his zeal for proteftantifm has occafionally carried him too far, But in general, he is a very faithful writer; and his authorities have flood the teft of a rigid examination. The fimplicity of the ftyle, and the interefting narratives of thofe who fuffered for their integrity, have preferved a popularity to the book, efpecially among the lower clafs of religious readers, which ftill continues.→→→ Another ecclefiaftical hiftorian of this period was on the different fide of the queftion, being attached to the Roman hierarchy. We mean Nicholas Harpsfeld, whofe works, which are written in Latin, are now nearly forgotten, though the author is understood to have been a man of ability. His chief, performance, which is a church history of England, is reported to be learned and laborious.

The biographical productions of the age do not make a diftinguished figure. John Pit's collections are not totally ufelefs, though the errors of them are almoft innumerable. He is difgraced, likewife, by his extreme partiality in favour of Romish writers. Nevertheless, he has the merit of giving fome defirable information concerning feveral popish

b 4

authors

authors of this country, who lived

the reformation. A life lived abroad at the time of of St. Patrick of Ireland was publifhed by Stanyhürft, which we of Irelan we may conjecture not to have

wanted a fufficient portion of credulity.-A far more valu able performance was the life of the excellent bishop Jewel 538 ટો by Lawrence Humphrey. Thefe works were in Latin. There was no English biography at this time, or at leaft very little, excepting the materials of that nature which might be collected from Fox's book of Martyrs, and our general hiftorians.

נייר

Antiquarian learning was diligently cultivated during the reign of Elizabeth. Several of the perfons whom we have fpoken of as hiftorical writers, deferve to be particularly noticed as antiquaries. Boteville has had great applaufes bestowed upon him in this view; and Twyne is entitled to equal praises. As to Humphrey Lluyd, it is well known, that he furftained an eminent rank in the fame department of diterature. His refearches were deep and curious, and his writings are Atill confulted by thofe who devote them, felves to the fudy of antiquities. The chief work of John she Stowe was his "Survey of London," which has paffed through many editions; and, in the prefent century, has been re publifhed, with great advantage, by Strype. On this work have been founded the fubfequent hiftories of London; and, whatever commendations they may claim from their additions and improvements, a large portion of merit will ftill belong to Stow. Archbishop Parker muft not here be forgotten, who was not only a zealous and liberal encou rager of antiquarian pursuits, but an excellent antiquary himself. Of this he exhibited ample proofs in his Treatife Concerning the Antiquity of the English Church, and in his edition of four of our beft old hiftorians, Matthew of Westminster, Matthew Paris, Ayfferius, and Thomas Walfingham. Sir Henry Savile exerted himself in the fame walk, in his publication of feveral of the principal writers of English affairs after Bede,

In 1990, a fociety of antiquaries was formed, which fubfifted to the year 1614, when it was diffolved by the def potid jealousy of King James the Firft. Its peculiar ob

2

ject

T

10

ན་

་

jeet was, to illustrate whatever related to the hiftory, laws, public offices, judicial courts, and cuftoms of our country and the members of it were most of them eminently qualified for the undertaking. Their difcourfes are, in general, learned, judicious, and inftructive; and, at the fame time, they have the quality of being very concife. The writers of them chiefly confined themselves toma fimple reprefentation of facts, and they feem to have known nothing of the art of fpreading a fmall quantity of mate ter into a large fpace. Some of the perfons who were ornaments of this fociety, and particularly fir Robert Cotton, fir John Doddridge, and Selden, properly belong to the next reign. The moft illuftrious names, that fall under our present furvey, are thofe of Agard and Camden, who were antiquaries of the first diftinction. Arthur Agard's Effay's on various curious objects, fhew, that in English antiquities, he had few equals, and fcarcely any fuperiors. It was in the period we are treating of that Camden published the first edition of his Britannia, the merit of which is univerfally known, and has again and again been teftified by fucceffive republications. The po pularity of the work is as great as ever, and learned men have efteemed it an honour to have their names united with that of Camden.

di anoitebarang) vender pus We come now to a very important object; the state of Poetry in the age of Elizabeth. The precife nature of the English poetry of this reign, and the improvements tò which it was carried, will demand a particular confideration: but, before we proceed to that part of the fubject, it will be proper to take a furvey of the degree in which Latin poetry was cultivated in Great Britain, during the period before us. We have already had occasion to observe, that Drant was tolerable in this way, and Thomas Newton elegant. Were it a point of fufficient importance, we could, without much labour, bring forward the names of a number of perfons, who exercifed themselves in Latin verfification. Anthony Wood, in his Athena, frequently fpeaks of his learned men, as having been good poets; but it will be found, upon examination, that they had very flender pre

tenfions

tenfions, to the character. The poems mentioned often appear to be little more than college exertions, or occa fional tributes of relpect to the memory of deceased fcholars. Many of them were never publifhed; and those that were published received only the applaufes of a limited circle, and were quickly forgotten. In general, it may be remarked, that Latin poetry was more fuccessfully purfued in foreign countries, efpecially in Italy, than in our own; and with regard to Great Britain, it flourished lefs in Eng Jand than in Scotland. This may partly be accounted for from the peculiar circumftances of the literary men of the latter kingdom; numbers of whom had their education, and refided much abroad; the confequence of which was, that they contracted a higher relifh for a fpecies of compofition that was peculiarly fafhionable in the places they vifited, and an excellence in which recommended them to protec tion and patronage. Not having the Delicie Poetarum Scotorum" at hand, perhaps we may be obliged to omit a few names that might deferve to be noticed: but we cannot be guilty of any material injuftice, in confining our atten tion only to the four following perfons; Patrick Adamfor, George Buchanan, James Crichton, and Mark Alexander Boyd.

Patrick Adamfon, archbishop of St. Andrews, was a man of diftinguifhed abilities, and left, it is faid, feveral confiderable manufcripts behind him. His publifhed works, confift almoft wholly of Latin poetry. Among thefe, the principal are a verfion of the book of Job, and Herod, a tragedy. As we have never read them, it is not in our power to fay what is their specific poetical merit. od lew

Of Buchanan, we can fpeak with fome degree of Knowledge. His character as a poet has ufually been placed as high as his character as an hiftorian. That in this view, he has uncommon excellence cannot be doubted; but, perhaps the praifes bestowed upon him have fometimes been expreffed in the language of exaggeration. It has been the opinion of the beft judges, that he occafionally fails in the strictness of claffical purity, and that he is often Ovidian rather than Virgilian. His poems were