« PředchozíPokračovat »
lofs of the King, his patron and protector, made him refolve to come over into England, where he had often been invited by King James I. So, having obtained leave of the Queen-Regent of France to be abfent for a while out of that kingdom, he came to England in October 1610, along with Sir Henry Wotton, ambaffador-extraordinary from King James I. He was received in England with the utmoft civility by moft perfons of learning and diftinc tion. He waited upon the King, who took great pleasure in difcourfing with him, and even did him the honour of admitting him feveral times to eat at his own table. His Majefty likewife made him a prefent of a hundred and fifty pounds, to enable him to vifit the univerfities of Oxford and Cambridge.
The 3d of January, 1611, he was made a denizon; and the 19th of the fame month, the King granted him a penfion of three hundred pounds: as alfo two prebends, one at Canterbury, and the other at Weftminster. He likewife wrote to the Queen-Regent of France, to defire Cafaubon might stay longer in England than fhe had at firít allowed him. But Cafaubon did not long enjoy these great advantages. For a painful diftemper, occafioned by his having a double bladder, foon laid him in his grave. He died July 1, 1614, in the 55th year of his age; and was buried in Weftminster-abbey +. He had, as is already hinted above, twenty children. We fhall give an account of his writings, and of the books he published, in the note§.
report was fpread, that he himself had charged George Strauchan, a Scotchman, who taught his fon the mathematics, to inftruct him at the fame time in the Popish religion.
*But it seems he did not meet with the like treatment from the inferior fort of people. For he complains in one of his letters, that he was more infulted at London than he had ever been at Paris, in the midst of the Papifts; that ftones were thrown at his windows night and day; that he received a great wound as he went to court; that his 'children were affronted in the streets; and he and his family were fometimes pelted with ftones.- He doth not mention what were the grounds of thofe many incivilit'es to himself and family.
Where there is a monument erected to his memory, with the following inscription:
(0 Doctiorum quicquid eft, affurgite
Quem Gallia Reip. literariæ bono peperit, Henricus W. Francorum rex invictiffimus Lutetiam literis Juis evocavit, Bibliothecæ fuæ præfecit, charumque deinceps dum vixit habuit; eoque terris erepto Jacobus Mag. Brit. monarcha, Regum doctiffimus, doctis indulgentiff. in Angliam accivit, munifice fovit, pofteriiafque ob doctrinam æternum mirabitur, H. S. E. invidia major. Obiit ætern. in "Chrifto vitam anhelans, Kal. Julii, 1614. Ætat. 55.
Viro opi. immortalitate digniff. Thomas Mortonus Epifc. Dunelm. jucundissimæ quoad fruî licuit confuetudinis memor. Pr. S. P. Cu. 163.
Qui noffe vult Cafaubonum,
Et profuturas pofteris.
John, the eldeft, turned Roman Catholic, as hath been mentioned above. Another, named Auguftin, did the like, and became a Capuchin at Calais, where he was poisoned, with eleven others of the fame order. Mr. Du Pin relates of him the following particular, upon the authority of Mr. Cotelier: before he took the vow of Capuchin, he went to ask his father's bleffing, which the father readily granted him; adding, "My fon, I do not condemn thee; nor do thou condemn me; we fhall both appear before the tribunal of Jefus Chrift." What became of the rest of his children (except Meric) is not known. In 1612, he had a fon born in England, to which the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury were godfathers, and Sir George Cary's lady godmother.
They are as follow: I. In Diogenem Laertium Note Ifaaci Hortiboni. Morgiis 1583. 8vo. He was but twenty-five years old when he made these notes, and intended to have enlarged them afterwards, but was hindered. He dedicated them to his father, who commended him, but told him at the fame time, "He fhould like better one note of his upon the Holy Scriptures, than all the pains he could bestow upon profane authors." Thefe notes of Cafaubon were inferted in the editions of Diogenes Laertius, printed by H. Stephens in 1594 and 1598 in 8vo. and have been put in all other editions published fince. The name of Hortibonus, which Cafaubon took, is of the fame import as Cafaubonus, i. e. a good garden; Cafau, in the language of Dauphine, fignifying a garden, and bon, good. II. Ifaaci Hortiboni Lectiones Theocritica; in Crifpinus's edition of Theocritus, Genev. 1584, 12mo. reprinted feveral times fince. III. Strabonis Geographiæ Libri xvii. Grace Latine, ex. Guil. Xylandri Interpretatione, edente, cum Commentariis Ifaaco Cafaubono. Geneva, 1587. fol. Cafaubon's notes were reprinted, with additions, in the Paris edition of
This great man received the higheft in his time; and he really deserved encomiums from perfons of learning them, not only on account of his exLOND. MAG. Feb. 1785.
Strabo in 1620, and have been inferted in all other editions fince. IV. Novum Teftamentum Græcum, cum Notis Ifaaci Cafauboni in quatuor Evangelia & Actus Apoftolorum. Genevæ, 1587, 16to. These notes were reprinted afterwards at the end of Whitaker's edition of the New Teitament, Lond. and inferted in the Critici Sacri. V. Animadverfiones in Dionyfium Halicarnaffenfem, in the edition of Dionyfius Halicarnaffenfis, published by our author with Æmilius Portus's Latin verfion. Genev. 1588, fol., Thefe were written in hafte, and are of no great value. VI. Polyani Strategematum, Libri viii. Græce && Latine, edente cum Notis Ifaaco Cafaubono. Lugduni, 1589, 161o. Cafaubon was the first who publifhed the Greek text of this author. The Latin verfion, joined to it, was done by juftus Vulteius, and firft published in 1550. VII. Dicæarchi Geographica quædam, five de Statu Græciæ; Ejufdem defcriptio Græciæ verfibus Græcis jambicis, ad Theophraffum; cum Ifaaci Cafauboni & Henrici Steppani notis. Genevæ, 1589, 8vo. Ariftotelis Opera Græce, cum variorum Interpretatione Latina, & variis Lectionibus & Caftigationibus Ifaaci Cafauboni. Lugduni, 1590, tol. Geneva, 1605, fol. Thefe notes are only marginal, and were compofed at leiture hours. IX. C. Plinii Cæc. Sec. Epift. Lib. ix. Ejufdem & Trajani imp. Epift. amoebææ. Ejufdem Pl. & Pacati, Mamertini, Nazarii Panegyrici. Item Claudiani Panegyrici. Adjunctæ funt Ifaaci Cafauboni Note in Epift. Geneva, 1591, 12mo. 1599, 1605, 1610, and 1611, 12mo. These notes are but very thort. X. Theophrafti Characteres Ethici Grace & Latine, ex verfione & cum commentario Ifaaci Cafauboni. Lugduni, 1592, 12mo. and 1612, 12mo. This latter edition is the moft exact of the two, being revifed by the author. Cafaubon's edition of Theophraftus is ftill highly esteemed, and was one of thofe works which procured him moft reputation. Jofeph Scaliger highly extols it. XI. L. Apuleii Apologia, cum Ifaaci Cafauboni Caftigationibus. Typis Commelini, 1593, 4to. In this edition he thewed himself as able a critic in the Latin, as he had done before in the Greek tongue. It is dedicated. to Jofeph Scaliger. XII. C. Suetonii Tranquilli Opera cum Ifaaci Cafauboni Animadverfionibus. Geneva, 1595, 4to. Item editio altera emendata & aucia. Paris, 1610. This fecond edition is enlarged. XIII. Publii Syri Mimi, five fententiæ felectæ, Latine, Græce verfæ, & Notis illuftrata per fof. Scaligerum; cum præfatione Ifaaci_Cafauboni. Lugd. Batav. 1598, 8vo. XIV. Athenai Deipnofophiftarum, Libri xv. Grace & Latine, Interprete Jacobo Dalechampio, cum Ifaaci Cafauboni Animadverfionum, Libris xv. Lugduni, 1600, 2 vol. fol. Ibid, 1612, 2 vol. fol. Cafaubon's notes take up the fecond volume, and are very large, and full of great learning. XV. Hiftoria Augufta Scriptores, cum commentarib Ifaaci Cafauboni. Paris, 1603, 4to. reprinted at Paris in 1620, with Salmafius's Commentaries on the fame authors, fol. and at Leiden, in 1670, 2 vol. 8vo. XVI. Diatriba ad Dionis Chryfofiemi Orationes, published in the edition of that author by Frederick Morel, at Paris, 1604, fol. XVII. Perfii Satyræ ex recenfione & cum Commentar. Ifaac Cafauboni. Paris, 1605, 8vo. Lond. 1647, 8vo. Thefe notes upon Perfius are lectures he had formerly read at Geneva. They were enlarged in the edition of 1647. Scaliger used to say of them, "That the fauce was better than the fish." i. e. The commentary better than the text. XVIII. De Satyrica Græcorum Poefi, & Romanorum Satyra Libri duo. Paris, 1605, 8vo. In this work Cafaubon affirms, That the Satyr of the Latins was very different from that of the Greeks. Wherein he is contradicted by Daniel Heinfius, in his two books, De Satyra Horatiana. Lugd. Batava. 1629, 12mo. But the learned Ezekiel Spanheim, after having examined the arguments of these two learned men, hath declared for Cafaubon. Crenius hath inferted this tract of Cafaubon, in his Musæum Philologicum & Hiftoricum. Lugd. Batav. 1699, 8vo. and alfo the following piece, which was published by our author, at the end of his two books, De Satyrica poefi, &c. XIX. Cyclops Euripidis Latinitate donata a 2. Septimio Florente. XX. Gregorii Nyeni Epiftola ad Euftathiam, Ambrofiam, & Bafiliffam, Grace, & Latine, cum notis I. Cafauboni. Paris, 1601, 8vo. Hanovia, 1607, 8vo. This letter was firft published by Cafaubon. XXI. De Libertate Ecclefiaftica Liber, 1607, 8vo. pages 264. This book was compofed by the author during the dif putes between Pope Paul V. and the republic of Venice; and contained a vindication of the rights of fovereigns against the incroachments of the court of Rome. But thofe differences being adjuited while the book was printing, King Henry IV. caufed it to be fuppreffed. However, Cafaubon having fent the sheets, as they came out of the prefs, to fome of his friends, by that means fome of the copies came to be preferved. Melchior Goldaft inferted that fragment in his Collectanea de Monarchia S. Imperi, Tom. I. pag. 674, and Almeloveen reprinted it in his edition of our author's letters. XXII. Infcriptio vetus dedicationem fundi continens, ab Herode Rege facta, cum Notis Ifaaci Cafauboni. This fmall piece, published in 1607, hath been inferted by T. Crenius in his Mufæum Philologicum. Cafaubon's notes are fhort, but learned: however, he appears to have been mistaken, in afcribing the infcription on which they were made to Herod, King of Judæa, instead of Herodes the Athenian. XXIII. Polybii Opera, Græce, & Latine ex verfione Ifaaci CaJauboni. Accedit Aneas Tracticus de toleranda obfidione, Græce & Latine. Paris, 1609, fol. & Hanoviæ, 1609, fol. The Latin, verfion of these two authors was done by Cafaubon; who intended to write a commentary upon them, but went no farther than the first book of Polybius, being hindered by death. What he did of that was published after his decease. The great Thua, nus, and Fronto Ducæus, the Jefuit, were fo pleafed with the Latin verfion, that they believed it was not eafy to determine, whether Cafaubon had tranflated Polybius, or Polybius Cafaubonut non facile dici poffe crederent, Polybiumne Cafaubonus, an Cafaubonum Polybius convertiffet.
tenfive knowledge, but likewife of his modefty, fincerity, and probity. Some
writers, indeed, even of the reformed religion, have undervalued him, and called
At the head of this edition there is a dedication to King Henry IV. which paffes for a masterpiece of the kind. And, indeed, Cafaubon had a talent for fuch pieces, as well as for prefaces. In the former, he praises without low fervility, and in a manner remote from flattery: in the latter, he lays open the defign and excellencies of the books he publishes, without oftentation, and with an air of modefty. So that he may serve as a model for fuch performances. XXIV. He published,. Jofephi Scaligeri Opufcula varia. Paris, 1610, 4to. Et Francofurti, 1612, 8vo. with a preface of his own. XXV. Ad Frontonem Ducæum Epiftola, de. Apologia, Jefuitarum nomine, Parifiis edita. Londini, 1611, 4to. Cafaubon, after his coming to England, was forced to alter the courfe of his ftudies, and to write against the Papiits, in order to please his patron, King James I. who affected to be a great controverfift. He began with this letter, dated July 2, 1611, which is the 730th in Almeloveen's collection, and for which King James made him a confiderable prefent. It is a confutation of la Repanfe Apologetique a l'Anti-coton, par Francois Bonald. Au Pont. 1611, Svo. XXVI. Epiftola ad Georgium Michaelem Lingelfbemium de quodam libello Sciopii, 1612, 4to. This letter is dated Aug. 9, 1612, and is the 828th of Almeloveen's, collection. XXVII. Epiftola ad Cardinalem Perronium. Londini, 1612, 4to. This letter, which is the 838th in Almeloveen's collection, is dated Novemb. 9, 1612. It is not fo much Cafaubon's own compofition,. as an exact account of the fentiments of King James I. whofe, and the Church of England's fecretary, he was, as he tells us, with regard to fome points of religion. Accordingly, it was inferted in the edition of that King's works, publifhed in 1619 by Dr. Montague, Bishop of Winchefter. It is written with moderation. Cardinal du Perron undertook to give an answer to it, which was left unfinished at his death. It has been likewife animadverted upon by Valentine Smalcius, the Socinian, in his Ad Ifaacum Cafaubonum Paramefis. Racoviæ, 1614, 4to. published under the name of Anton. Reuchlin. XXVIII. De Rebus facris & Ecclefiafticis Exerci-tationes xvi. Ad Cardinalis Baronii Prolegomena in Annales, & primam eorum partem, de Domini noftri Jefu Chrifti Nativitate, Vita, Paffione, Affumtione. Londini, 1614, fol. Francofurti, 1615, 4to. Geneva, 1655 & 1663, 4to. What was the occafion of this work we learn from Mr. Bernard: namely, That foon after Cafaubon's arrival in England, Peter de Moulin wrote to Dr. James Mon tague, then Bishop of Bath and Wells, to inform him, that Cafaubon had a great inclination to Popery; that there were only a few articles, which kept him among the Proteftants; and that if he returned to France, he would change his religion, as he had promifed. Therefore, he defired him to endeavour to keep him in England, and to engage him in writing against the Annals of Baronius, fince he knew that he had materials ready for that purpose. Accordingly, King James employed him in that work, which was finished in eighteen months time. Niceron thinks, that Cafaubon was not equal to this work, becaufe he had not fufficiently ftudied divinity, chronology, and history, and was not converfant enough in the Fathers. So that he is charged with having committed more errors than Baronius in a lefs compafs. Befides, as he comes no lower than the year 34 after Christ, he is faid to have pulled down only the pinnacles of Baronius's great building.. It appears from letter 1059th of our author, that Dr. Richard Montague, afterwards Bishop of Norwich, had undertaken to write against Baronius at the fame time with himself; and he threatens to complain of him to the King, who had engaged him in that work. XXIX. Ad Polybii Hiftoriarum Librum primum Commentarius. Paris, 1617, 8vo. See above, No. XXIII. XXX. Isaaci Cafauboni Epiftolæ. Hage Comin. 1638, 4to. published by John Frederick Gronovius. A fecond edition-Octoginta duabus Epiftolis auction, & juxta feriem temporum digefta-was published afterwards by John George Grævius; at Magdeburgh, and Helmftadt, 1650, 4to. Thefe editions are eclipted by the following one; intitled, If. Cafauboni Epiftolæ, infertis ad eafdem refponfionibus quotquot hactenus reperiri potuerunt, fecundum feriem temporis accurate digeftæ. Accedunt huic Editioni, præter trecentas ineditas Epificlas, If. Cafauboni vita, ejufdem Dedicationes, Præfationes,. Prolegomena, Poemata, Fragmentum de Libertate Ecclefiaftica. Item Merici Cafauboni Epiftola, Dedicationes, Præfationes, Prolegomena, & Tractatus quidam rariores. Curante Theodoro Fanfon ab Almeloveen. Roterodami, 1709, fol. The letters in this volume are 1059 in number, placed according to the order of time in which they were written; and 51 without date.. A certain writer finds in them neither elegancy of style, nor fineness of thoughts; and cenfures, as very disagreeable, the mixture of Greek words and expreflions that are difperfed throughout; affirming befides,. that they contain no particulars tending to the advancement of learning, or that are of any great importance. Another owns, that there is in them the history of a man of probity and learning but nothing otherwife very remarkable, excepting the purity of the language, and the marks of a frank and fincere mind. One author, on the other hand, affures us, that they are all perfectly beautiful; and makes no fcruple to compare them to thofe of Grotius and Scaliger with regard to learning; and to affert that they exceed them for the eafinefs and purity of the ftyle, which is entirely epiftolary, and not at all affected. XXXI. In 1710 were publifhed, Cafauboniana, five Ifaaci Cafauboni varia de Scriptoribus Librifque judicia, Obfervationes facræ in utriufque Foederis Loca, Philologice item Ecclefiaftica, ut & Animadverfiones in Annales Baronii Ecclefiafticos inedite, ex variis Caufauboni MSS. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana reconditis nunc primum eruta a fo. Chritophero Wolfo, &c. Accedunt dua Cafauboni Epiftola ineditæ, & Præfatis ad Librum de Libertate Ecclefiaftica, cum Notis Editoris in Cafauboniana, ac Prefatio, qua de hujus generis Libris differitur. Hamburgi, 1710, 8vo. There is nothing very material in this collection.
called him a half-divine. But the reafon they did not like him was, because he did not entirely agree with their fentiments in every point. For though he was a Proteftant, he difap
proved of fome of Calvin's notions: and whoever doth fo is fure to be branded, by fome zealot or other, with the odious name of heretic, if not worse.
ADDITIONAL ANECDOTES, by Dr. KIPPIS.]
IN Sir William Mufgrave's collection there is a citation from the Hif tory of Europe, Vol. I. p. 163, which afferts that Ifaac Cafaubon was born at Bourdeaux, in 1555, and died in 1613. This account is erroneous in three refpects; in the place of his birth, in the time of it, and in the year of his death. The fame hiftory, with manifeft inconfiftency, reprefents Cafaubon as dying when fifty-five years old, though that was in fact the cafe: for if he was born in 1555, he muft, in 1613, have, at least, been in the 58th year of his age.
When Ifaac Cafaubon formed, in 1610, the defign of refiding in this country, Dr. Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote the following letter to Sir Thomas Edmondes, the English ambaffador at the court of France:
My very good Lord,
"Monf. Cafaubon purpofeth as I take it) to come over into England with his wife and family. His Majefty hath already beftowed upon him a prebend in Canterbury; and fomewhat elfe will be fhortly thought upon for his better maintenance. I pray your lordship, when he fhall repair unto you for that purpofe, deliver unto him thirty pounds towards his charges of tranfporting, which my Lady Edmohdes, your wife, hath received from me, as by her letter here inclofed may appear. And fo, with my hearty commendations, I commit your lordship to the tuition of Almighty God.
At Lambeth the 26th of June,
On the Christmas day after Cafau bon arrived in England, he received the communion in the King's chapel, though he did not understand the language. This circumftance is mentioned in his diary, in which he declares, that he had carefully confidered the office for the facrament the day before; that he highly approved of it; and that he greatly preferred it to the manner of receiving in other churches. Gratias tibi Domine, quod hodie ad facram menfam fum admiffus, & corporis fanguinifque factus fum particeps in ecclefia Anglicana, cujus formulam heri diligentermeditatus ad modum probavi, & ordinem agendi mire laudavi præ recepta apud alios confuetudine.
From the whole article of Cafaubon it may be collected, that he was fomewhat of a reftlefs difpofition; and it appears, that though he met with fuch encouragement in England, he was not fatisfied with his new fituation. This occafioned Sir Dudley Carleton to write feverely concerning him, in a letter to Sir Thomas Edmondes. "I am forry (fays Sir Dudley) Mr. Cafaubon, or rather his wife, doth not know when fhe is well. The conditions he hath in England are fuch, that fome principal fcholars of Germany, who are as well and better at home than he in France, would think themfelves happy to have; and fo I have understood from them fince my coming hither. If ever he turn his religion, we fhall fee him a wretched contemptible fellow, or elfe I am a falfe prophet." It is certain, that Cafaubon was not pleafed with the manners of the English; and, in a letter to Thuanus, he complains, that thofe who were acquainted with him before he came to England now treated him as a perfect ftranger, and took not the leaft notice of him by converfation or otherwife. Ego mores Anglicanos non capio: quofcunque ipfe 02
babui notos priufquam huc venirem, jam ego illis fum ignotus, vere peregrinus, barbarus: nemo illorum me vel verbulo appellat, appellatus filet.
The ingenious writer of the Confeffional owns, that he is one of thofe who do not rate Cafaubon's integrity fo high as his knowledge; whilft Burigny, on the other hand, fays that he joined the most profound erudition with the most perfect probity.
Ifaac Cafaubon is to be ranked amongst thofe learned men who, in the beginning of the laft century, were very follicitous to have an union formed between the Popish and Proteftant religions. This is exprefsly afferted by Burigny, in his life of Grotius. According to that biographer, Cafaubon, who wifhed to fee all Chriftians united in one faith, ardently defired a re-union of the Proteftants with the Roman Catholics, and would have fet about it, had he lived longer in France, He greatly refpected the opinions of the ancient church, and was perfuaded that its fentiments were more found than thofe of the minifters of Charenton. Grotius and he had imparted their fentiments to each other before voyage to England; and Arminius had a project of the fame kind, which he communicated to Cafaubon, by whom it was approved. Several divines, at that period, looked upon a scheme of this nature as practicable, and, among the reft, Huetius did not think it to be abfolutely chimerical, Bayle, with much fuperior fagacity, entertained the oppofite opinion. He believed that the attempt to unite the different religions was as great a chimera as the philofopher's ftone, or the quadrature of the circle. Indeed, from what Burigny obferves, nothing of the kind could ever take place: for that writer treats it as abfolutely ridiculous to fuppofe that the Church of Rome, though the might remit fome point of her difcipline, would extend her indulgence fo far as to give up tranfub
ftantiation, or any other of her doctrines. It is well known how zealoufly Grotius engaged in this idle project; on which account it is not ftrange that he could not find out Popery in the prophefies of fcripture. Though, therefore, he was, in general, fo excellent a commentator, little regard is to be paid to his authority, where the Roman Catholic religion is concerned. The peculiar bias of his mind prevented him from difcerning what, we apprehend, could not have escaped an impartial critic.
It may, at prefent, appear furprizing that feveral learned men fhould formerly have been fo much captivated with the idea of effecting an union between the Proteftants and the Papifts. But we fhall the lefs wonder at this circumftance, when we confider the ftate of men's minds at that time. Numbers, even of the profeffed Prote tants, had not fhaken off all reverence for the apparent dignity and antiquity of the church of Rome. The extravagancies, likewife, and bigotry of fome of the reformed, gave disgust to many perfons of a peaceable temper. A much higher opinion, alfo, was then entertained of the importance and neceffity of an unity in religion than now prevails. It was not, at that period, fufficiently difcerned, that the only defireable, as well as practicable union, is the union of mutual charity amidst difcordant fentiments, and the union of mutual toleration and liberty amidst different forms of worship. On thefe accounts, we ought the lefs to be surprised at the conduct of Cafaubon, Grotius, and other scholars and divines of the laft age. But it may justly be thought ftrange, that any Proteftants of the prefent century fhould have been feduced into the fupport of fo vifionary a fcheme. They ought to have known that it was not only impracticable, but of fuch a nature as fhould never have been attempted.
MR. R. Pope's Effay on Man is certainly a very mafterly perform
ance in point of poetry-but the philofophy contained in it is flimfy.