ition and orderly
arrangement. His style has all the simplicity and grandeur of the masters
of historical writing, and the purity of his diction is incontestable.
Though, on the whole, impartial, Barros is the narrator and apologist of
the great deeds of his countrymen, and lacks the critical spirit and
intellectual acumen of Damiao de Goes. Diogo do Couto continued the
Decades, adding nine more, and a modern edition of the whole appeared in
Lisbon in 14 vols. in 1778-1788. The title of Barros's work is _Da Asia de
Joao de Barros, dos feitos que os Portuguezes fizeram no descubrimento e
conquista dos mares e terras do Oriente_, and the edition is accompanied by
a volume containing a life of Barros by the historian Manoel Severim de
Faria and a copious index of all the Decades. An Italian version in 2 vols.
appeared in Venice in 1561-1562 and a German in 5 vols. in 1821.
_Clarimundo_ has gone through the following editions: 1522, 1555, 1601,
1742, 1791 and 1843, all published in Lisbon. It influenced Francisco de
Moraes (_q.v._); cf. Purser, _Palmerin of England_, Dublin, 1904, pp. 440
et seq.

The minor works of Barros are described by Innocencio da Silva:
_Diccionario Bibliographico Portuguez_, vol. iii. pp. 320-323 and vol. x.
pp. 187-189, and in Severim de Faria's _Life_, cited above. A compilation
of Barros's _Varia_ was published by the visconde de Azevedo (Porto, 1869).

(E. PR.)

BARROT, CAMILLE HYACINTHE ODILON (1791-1873), French politician, was born
at Villefort (Lozere) on the 19th of September 1791. He belonged to a legal
family, his father, an advocate of Toulouse, having been a member of the
Convention who had voted against the death of Louis XVI. Odilon Barrot's
earliest recollections were of the October insurrection of 1795. He was
sent to the military school of Saint-Cyr, but presently removed to the
Lycee Napoleon to study law and was called to the Parisian bar in 1811. He
was placed in the office of the _conventionel_ Jean Mailhe, who was
advocate before the council of state and the court of cassation and was
proscribed at the second restoration. Barrot eventually succeeded him in
both positions. His dissatisfaction with the government of the restoration
was shown in his conduct of some political trials. For his opposition in
1820 to a law by which any person might be arrested and detained on a
warrant signed by three ministers, he was summoned before a court of
assize, but acquitted. Although intim