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

In the following year he was preferred to the see of Canterbury, and confirmed April 9, and on the 23d of June he was sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privycouncil. At this time he was in the highest favour both with prince and people, and appears to have taken an active part in all the great transactions in church and state. Although not thought excessively fond of power, or desirous of carrying his prerogative, as primate of England, to an extraordinary height, yet he was resolute in maintaining the rights of the high commission court, and would not submit to lord Coke’s prohibitions. In the case of Vorstius, his conduct was more singular. Vorstius had been appointed to a professorship hi the university of Leyden, and was a noted Arminian. King James, by our archbishop’s advice, remonstrated with the States on this appointment; and the consequence was that Vorstius was banished by the synod of Dort, as will appear more at length in his life. This condact on the part of the archbishop alarmed those who were favourers of Arminianism, and who dreaded Calvinism from its supposed influence on the security of the church; but their fears as far as he was concerned appear to have been groundless, his attachment to the church of England remaining firm and uniform. He had soon, however, another opportunity of testifying his dislike of the Arminian doctrines. The zeal which the king had shewn for removing, first Arminius, and then Vorstius, had given their favourers in Holland so much uneasiness, that the celebrated Grotius, the great champion of their cause, was sent over to England to endeavour to mitigate the King’s displeasure, and, if possible, to give him a better opinion of the Remonstrants, as they then began to be called. On this occasion the archbishop wrote an account of Grotius and his negociation in a letter to sir Ralph Winwood, in which he treats Grotius with very little ceremony. For this he has met with an advocate in archdeacon Blackburn, who, in his Confessional, observes in his behalf, that “his disaffection to Grotius was owing to the endeavours and proposals of the latter, towards a coalition of the Protestants and Papists, which every wise and consistent Protestant, in every period lince the Reformation, as well as Abbot, has considered as a snare, and treated accordingly.” Another affair which occurred in 1613, created no little perplexity to our archbishop, while it afforded him an opportunity of evincing a decidedness of character not common at that period. This was the case of divorce between lady Frances Howard, daughter to the earl of Suffolk, and Robert, earl of Essex, her husband, which has always been considered as one of the greatest blemishes of king James’s reign. The part Abbot took in this matter displayed his unshaken and incorruptible integrity; and he afterwards published his reasons for opposing the divorce, as a measure tending to encourage public licentiousness. If this conduct displeased the king, he does not appear to have withdrawn his favour from the archbishop, as in 1615 he promoted his brother, Robert, to the see of Salisbury. The archbishop was less prudent in recommending -to the king, George Villiers, afterwards the celebrated duke of Buckingham; but of this he lived to repent, and to leave a satisfactory vindication.

In 1619 he executed a design which he had long formed, of founding an hospital at Guildford, where, on the 5th of April, he was present when sir Nicholas Kempe laid the first stone. The archbishop endowed it with lands to the value of three hundred pounds per annum: one hundred of which was to be employed in setting the poor to work, and the remainder for the maintenance of a master, twelve brothers, and eight sisters, who were to have blue clothes, and gowns of the same colour, and half-a-crown a week each. Oct. 29, being the anniversary of the archbishop’s birth, is commemorated at Guildford; and the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being is visitor of the hospital. Towards the end of this year, the Elector Palatine accepted of the crown of Bohemia, which occasioned great disputes in king James’s councils. Some were desirous that his majesty should not interfere in this matter, foreseeing that it would produce a war in Germany; others were of opinion, that natural affection to his son and daughter, and a just concern for the Protestant interest, ought to engage him to support the new election. The latter was the archbishop’s sentiment; and not being able at that time to attend the privy council, he wrote his mind with great boldness and freedom to the secretary of state. The archbishop, now in a declining state of health, used in the summer to go to Hampshire for the sake of recreation; and, being invited by lord Zouch to hunt in his park at Branzill, he met there with the greatest misfortune that ever befel him; for he accidentally killed that nobleman’s keeper, by an arrow from a cross-bow, which he shot afc one of the deer. This accidentthrew him into a deep melancholy; and he ever afterwards kept a monthly fast on Tuesday, the day on which this fatal mischance happened. He also settled an annuity of 20l. on the widow. There were several persons who took advantage of this misfortune, to lessen him in the king’s favour; but his majesty said, “An angel might have miscarried in this sort.” But his enemies representing, that, having incurred an irregularity, he was thereby incapacitated for performing the offices of a primate, the king directed a commission to ten persons, to inquire into this matter. The points referred to their decision were, 1. Whether the archbishop was irregular by the fact of involuntary homiciue 2. Whether that act might tend to scandal in a churchman 3. How his grace should be restored, in case the commissioners should find him irregular All agreed, that it could not be otherwise done, than by restitution from the king; but they varied in the manner. The bishop of Winchester, the lord chief justice, and Dr. Steward, thought it should be done by the king, and by him alone. The lord keeper, and the bishops of London/ Rochester, Exeter, and St. David’s, were for a commission from the king directed to some bishops. Judge Doddridge and sir Henry Martin were desirous it should be done both ways, by way of caution. The king accordingly passed a pardon and dispensation; by which he acquitted the atchbishop of all irregularity, scandal, or infamation, and declared him capable of all the authority of a primate. From that time an increase of infirmities prevented his assistance at the council. But when, in the last illness of James I. his attendance was required, he was attentive to the charge till the 27th of March 1625, the day on which the king expired. Though very infirm, and afflicted with the gout, he assisted at the ceremony of the coronation of Charles I. whose favour, however, he did not long enjoy. His avowed enemy, the duke of Buckingham, soon found an opportunity to make him feel the weight of his displeasure. Dr. Sibthorp had in the Lent assizes 1627 preached before the judges a sermon at Northampton, to justify a loan which the king had demanded. This sermon, calculated to reconcile the people to an obnoxious measure, was transmitted to the archbishop with the king’s direction to license it; which he refused, and gave his reasons for it : and it was not licensed by the bishop of London, until after the passages deemed exceptionable had been erased. On July 5, lord Conway, who was then secretary of state, made him a visit; and intimated to him, that the king expected he should withdraw to Canterbury. The archbishop declined this proposal, because he had then a law-suit with that city; and desired that he might rather have leave to retire to his house at Ford, five miles beyond Canterbury. His request was granted; and, on Oct. 9 following, the king gave a commission to the bishops of London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford, and Bath and Wells, to execute the archiepiscopal authority; the cause assigned being, that the archbishop could not at that time in his own person attend those services which were otherwise proper for his cognizance and direction. The archbishop did not remain long in this situation; for, a parliament being absolutely necessary, he was recalled about Ciuistmas, and restored to his authority and jurisdiction. On his arrival at court he was received by the archbishop of York and the earl of Dorset, who conducted him to the king, and his regular attendance was from that time required. He sat in the succeeding parliament, and continued afterwards in the full exercise of his office. On the 24th of August 1628, the archbishop consecrated to the see of Chichester Dr. Richard Montague, who had before been active in supporting the pretence of irregularity which had been alleged against him. Laud, bishop of London, one of his former enemies, also assisted at the consecration. When the petition of right was discussed in parhament, the archbishop dehvercd the opinion of the House of Lords at a conference with the House of Commons, offering some propositions from the former, and received the thanks of sir Dudley Digges. Dr. Manwaring, having preached before the House of Commons two sermons, which he afterwards published, and in which he maintained the king’s authority in raising subsidies without the consent of parliament, was brought before the bar of the House of Lords, by impeachment of the Commons. Upon this occasion the archbishop, with the king’s consent, gave the doctor a severe admonition, in which he avowed his abhorrence of the principles maintained in the two discourses. The interest of bishop Laud being now very considerable at court, he drew up instructions, which, having the king’s name, were transmitted to the archbishop, under the title of “His majesty’s instructions to the most reverend father in God, George, lord archbishop of Canterbury, containing certain orders to be observed and put in execution by the several bishops in his province.” His grace communicated them to his suffragan bishops; but, to prove that he still intended to exercise his authority in his own diocese, he restored Mr. Palmer and Mr. Unday to their lectureships, after the dean and archdeacon of Canterbury had suspended them. In other respects he endeavoured to soften their rigour, as they were contrived to enforce the particular notions of a prevailing party in the church, which the archbishop thought too hard for those who made the fundamentals of religion their study, and were not so zealous for forms. His conduct in this and other respects made his presence unwelcome at court; so that, upon the birth of the prince of Wales, afterwards Charles H. Laud had the honour to baptize him, as dean of the chapel. It appears, ho.vever, from almost the last public act of his life, that Abbot was not so regardless of the ceremonial parts of religious duty in the church of England as his enemies have represented him; for he issued an order, dated the 3d of July 1633, requiring the parishioners of Crayford in Kent to receive the sacrament on their knees, at the steps ascending to the communion table. On the 5th of August, in the same year, he died at Croydon, worn out with cares and infirmities, at the age of 71, and was according to his own direction buried in the chapel of Our Lady, within the church dedicated to the Holy Trinity at Guildford. A stately monument was erected over the grave, with the effigies of the archbishop in his robes. He shewed himself, in most circumstances of his life, a man of great moderation to all parties; and was desirous that the clergy should attract the esteem of the laity by the sanctity of their manners, rather than claim it as due to their function. His notions and principles, however, not suiting the humour of some writers, have drawn upon him many severe reflections. Heylin asserts, “That marks of his benefactions we find none in places of his breeding and preferment;” an aspersion which is totally groundless. Dr. Wellwood has done more justice to the merit and abilities of our prelate: “Archbishop Abbot,” says he, “was a person of wonderful temper and moderation; and in all his conduct shewed an unwillingness to stretch the act of uniformity beyond what was absolutely necessary for the peace of the church, or the prerogative of the crown, any farther than conduced to the good of the state. Being not well turned for a court, though otherwise of considerable learning and genteel education, he either could not, or would not, stoop to the humour of the times; and now and then, by an unseasonable stiffness, gave occasion to his enemies to represent him as not well inclined to the prerogative, or too much addicted to a popular interest; and therefore not fit to be employed in matters of government.”

Others of the contemporary historians, besides Heylin, have given unfavourable characters of the archbishop; but their accounts disagree. Lord Clarendon likewise bears hard on his religious principles and general character. “He had,” says his lordship, “been master of one of the poorest colleges in Oxford, and had learning sufficient for that province.” The Editor of the Biog. Britannica has here supplied the name (Balliol), a blunder which lord Clarendon was not likely to have made, as our archbishop was master of University College, and his brother Robert, master of Balliol. It is rather singular, however, that his lordship should undervalue the “learning sufficient for that province.” He also notices, as extraordinary, that he was promoted to the bishoprick of Lichfield and Coventry “before he had been parson, vicar, or curate of any parish church in England, or dean or prebendary of any cathedral church in England; and was in truth totally ignorant of the true constitution of the church of England, and the state and interest of the clergy.” Here again his lordship seems to have forgot, that he was dean of Winchester before he was bishop of Lichfield, and that the chief cause of uis promotion was the service he rendered to his majesty by procuring the establishment of episcopacy in Scotland. Upon the whole of his character as drawn by lord Clarendon, the late right hon. Arthur Onslow, speaker of the House of Commons, offers the following remarks: “That worthy prelate did surely deserve a better representation to posterity. He was a very wise and prudent man, knew well the temper and disposition of the kingdom with respect to the ceremonies and power of the church, and did therefore use a moderation in the point of ecclesiastical discipline, which if it had been followed by his successor, the ruin that soon after fell on the church might very likely have been prevented. His being without any credit at court from the latter end of king James’s reign will bring no dishonour on his memory, if it be considered that his disgrace arose from his dislike of, and opposition to, the imprudent and corrupt measures of the court at that time, and from an honest zeal for the laws and liberties of his country, which seemed then to be in no small danger, and it was a part truly becoming the high station he then bore. His advice upon the affair of the Palatinate and the Spanish match shewed his knowledge of the true interest of England, and how much it was at his heart; and his behaviour and sufferings in the next reign, about the loan and Sibthorp’s sermon, as thoy were the reasons of his disgrace at that time, so ought they to render his memory valuable to all who wish not to see the fatal counsels and oppression of those times revived in this nation. The duke of Buckingham was his enemy, because the archbishop would not be his creature; and the church perhaps might have been thought to have been better governed, if he had stooped to the duke, and given in to the wantonnesses of his power: but he knew the dignity of his character, and loved his country too well to submit to such a meanness, though very few of his brethren had the courage or honesty to join with him in this, and, if the archbishop himseif is to be credited, his successor’s rise was by the practice of those arts this good man could not bend to. As to his learning, we need no better testimony of it than his promotion by king James, who had too much affectation that way to prefer any one to such a station who had not borne the reputation of a scholar; but there are other proofs of his sufficiency in this, even for the high place he held in the church. If he had some narrow notions in divinity, they were rather the faults of the age he had his education in, than his; and the same imputation may be laid on the best and most learned of the Reformers. His warmth against Popery became the office of a Protestant bishop; though even towards Papists there is a remarkable instance of his mildness and charity, which shewed that his zeal against their persons went no farther than the safety of the state required. His parts seem to have been strong and masterly, his preaching grave and eloquent, and his style equal to any of that time. He was eminent for piety and a care for the poor; and his hospitality fully answered the injunction king James laid on him, which was, to carry his house nobly, and live like an archbishop. He had no thoughts of heaping up riches; what he did save was laid out by him in the erecting and endowing of an handsome Hospital for decayed tradesmen and the widows of such, in the town of Guildford, in the county of Surrey, where he was born and had his first education; and here I cannot omit taking notice that the body of statutes drawn by himself for the government of that house, is one of the most judicious works of that kind I ever saw, and under which for near one hundred years that hospital has maintained the best credit of any that I know in England. He was void of all pomp and ostentation, and thought the nearer the church and churchmen came to the simplicity of the first Christians, the better would the true ends of religion be served; and that the purity of the heart was to be preferred to, and ought rather to be the care of a spiritual governor, than the devotion of the hands only. If under this notion some niceties in discipline were given up to goodness of life, and when the peace of the church as well as of the kingdom was preserved by it, 'twas surely no ill piece of prudence, nor is his memory therefore deserving of those slanders it has undergone upon that account. It is easy to see that much of this treatment has been owing to a belief in the admirers and followers of archbishop Laud, that the reputation of the latter was increased by depreciating that of the former. They were indeed men of very different frames, and the parts they took in the affairs both of church and state as disagreeing. In the church, moderation and the ways of peace guided the behaviour of the first, rigour and severity that of the last. In the state they severally carried the like principles and temper. The one made the liberty of the people and the laws of the land the measure of his actions; when the other, to speak softly of it, had the power of the prince and the exalting the prerogative only, for the foundation of his. They were indeed both of them men of courage and resolution; but it was sedate and temperate in Abbot, passionate and unruly in Laud. It is not however to be denied that many rare and excellent virtues were possessed by the latter; but it must be owned too, he seems rather made for the hierarchy of another church and to be the minister of an arbitrary prince, and the other to have had the qualifications of a Protestant bishop and the guardian of a free state .”

was born at Riez in Provence, in 1648. He removed to Paris early in life, where he was much admired for the brilliancy of his wit. The marechai de Luxembourg took notice of him, and gave him the title of his secretary; and the poet followed the hero in his campaigns. The marshal gave him his confidence during his life, and at his death recommended him to his heirs as an estimable man. The prince of Conti and the duke de Vendome vouchsafed him their familiarity, and found great pleasure in his lively and animated conversation. The witticisms which would have been common in the mouth of any other man, were rendered striking in him by the turn he gave them, and by the grimaces with which he accompanied them. A countenance remarkably ugly and full of wrinkles, which he managed at pleasure, stood him instead of a variety of masks. Whenever he read a tale or a comedy, he made a ludicrous use of this moveable physiognomy for distinguishing the personages of the piece he was reciting. The abbe Abeille enjoyed a priory, and a place in the French academy. We have of him some odes, some epistles, several tragedies, one comedy, and two operas. A certain prince observed of his tragedy of Cato, that, if Cato of Utica should return from the grave, he would be only the Cato of the abbe Abeille. He understood well enough what was necessary to the formation of a good poet: but he was not one himself. His style is feeble, low, and languid. In his versification he discovers none of that dignity he had in his character. He died at Paris, the 21st of May, 1718. A French critic, speaking of the two tragedies, Solyman and Hercules, written by Jean Juvenon de la Thuillerie, says, the reader will be able to judge of their merit, when he is informed that they were attributed to the Abbé Abeille .

The spot which he chose was a vale in the forest of Champagne, near Nogent upon the Seine, where, accompanied by only one ecclesiastic, he erected a small oratory, which he dedicated to the Trinity, but afterwards enlarged, and consecrated it to the Third Person, the Comforter, or Paraclete. In this asylum he was soon discovered, and followed by a train of scholars. A rustic college arose in the forest, and the number of his pupils soon increased to six hundred. But his enemies St. Norbert and St. Bernard, who enjoyed great popularity in this neighbourhood, conspired to bring him into discredit, and he was meditating his escape, when, through the interest of the Duke of Bretagne, and with the consent of the abbot of St. Denys, he was elected superior of the monastery of St. Gildas, in the diocese of Vannes, where he remained several years.

, a horticultural writer of considerable note, and to whose taste and writings the English garden is considerably indebted, was the son of a respectable gardener near Edinburgh, and descended of a good family. The father, having early discovered a predilection in the son for that profession in which he was himself allowed to excel, afforded him every encouragement; and, as his mind was solely bent on this delightful pursuit, his proficiency in horticulture, &c. soon outstripped his years. To increase his knowledge in the different branches of gardening, he came to London at the age of eighteen, and worked in Hampton court, St. James’s, Kensington, Leicester, &c. gardens. His taste in laying out grounds, and his progress in botany, were so highly appreciated, that he was advised to publish something on those subjects; but his extreme diffidence for a long time counteracted the wishes of his friends. At length he was induced to commence author: having submitted his manuscript to Mr. Griffin, bookseller, of Catherine-street, in the Strand, Mr. Griffin candidly told him he was not a judge of the subject, but, with permission, he would consult a friend of his who was allowed to be so, Mr. Mawe, gardener to the duke of Leeds. Mr. Abercrombie consented. Mr. Mawe bore testimony to the merit of the production, and prefixed his name to the publication, in order to give it that celebrity to which it was so justly entitled, for which he received a gratuity of 20 guineas. The work was published under the title of “Mawe’s Gardener’s Calendar;” the flattering reception which it experienced induced the real writer to publish another work under his own name; “The Universal Dictionary of Gardening and Botany,” in 4to. This was followed by “The Gardener’s Dictionary,” “The Gardener’s Daily Assistant,” “The Gardener’s Vade Mecum,” “The Kitchen Gardener and Hot-Bed Forcer,” “The HotHouse Gardener,” &c. &c. Some of these are hasty compilations, without much display of botanical knowledge; but they were in general popular, and most of them were translated into French, German, &c. Mr. Abercrombie’s industry enabled him to bring up a large family, and to give them a good education; but he survived them all, except one son, who has more than once distinguished himself at sea in the service of his country. He died at his apartments, Chalton-street, Somers Town, in the 80th year of his age, 1806.

When the great, and, in its plan, highly judicious enterprize against Holland was undertaken, sir Ralph Abercromby held a principal command under his royal highness the duke of York; and it was confessed, even by the enemy, that no victory could have conferred more honour than the great talents, activity, and bravery he displayed in forwarding the purposes of that expedition, which failed, partly from the want of a judicious co-operation on the part of our allies, the Russians, but perhaps chiefly from the conduct of the Dutch themselves, who still were deluded by the professions and pretended amity of the French.

, an Italian writer, was born at Macerata, in La Marca de Ancona, and devoted himself early to the study of polite literature, in which he made great progress. He taught the belles lettres at Urbino, where he was librarian to duke Guido Ubaldo; to whom he dedicated a small piece entitled “Annotationes varioe,” explaining some dark passages in the ancient authors. 14e published it under the pontificate of Alexander VI. and another treatise also, entitled “Hecatomythium,” Venice, 1499, 4to, from its containing a hundred fables, which he inscribed to Octavian Ubaldini, count de Mercatelli. His fables have been often printed with those of Æsop, Phaedrus, Gabrias, Avienus, &c. He has these ancient mythologists generally in view, but does not always strictly follow their manner; sometimes intermixing his fable with ludicrous stories, and satires on the clergy, which, as usual in such cases, abound in indecent allusions to the Holy Scriptures. Some of his conjectures on particular passages in the ancients are inserted in the first volume of Gruterus’s Thesaurus criticus, under the title of Annotationes variae; but they are few in number. He wrote also a preface to the editio princeps of Aurelius Victor published at Venice, 1505, and a work entitled “Libri duo de quibusdam locis obscuris in libro Ovidii in Ibin, hactenus male interpretatis,” Venice, 4to, without date. The date of his birth and death are not known, but his works appeared at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth century.

, an eminent Italian civilian, born in Ancona, studied at Sienna, where Bargalio and Benvolente taught the law with considerable reputation. Bargalio very much promoted his studies, and appears to have entertained a high opinion of his talents. The first public employment Accarisi obtained, was that of explaining Justinian’s institutes in Sienna, which he continued for six years. He was afterwards desired to explain the Pandects: and as several foreigners resorted to Sienna, for the purpose of pursuing their studies, the great duke Ferdinand the first ordered that a professor should be appointed to explain the civil law, in the same manner as Cujacius had done. Accarisi was chosen for this purpose, and acquitted himself very honourably; after which he was raised to the chair of law-professor in ordinary, vacant by the death of Bargalio, and filled it with great reputation for '20 years. His fame spread so far that every university in Italy wished to have him, and made him very liberal offers, which he Jong resisted. At length his patron duke Ferdinand nominated him law-professor in the university of Pisa, which he occupied until his death, Oct. 4, 1622.

, of Bologna, was professor of rhetoric at Mantua in the academy founded by the duke Ferdinand in 1627, and died bishop of Vesta in 1654. A volume has been published of his discourses, or orations on various subjects of divinity. When lecturing at Rome in 1636, from Aristotle’s book on the heavens, he maintained that the sun moved round the earth, and published his opinion 1637, 4to. Many of his other works yet remain in manuscript, among which are: 1. “De natalibus Virgilii.” 2. “De conscribenda Tragoedia.” 3. “Histoha rerum gestarum a sacra congregatione de fide propaganda, &c. duobus annis 1630 et 1631.” 4. “Epistolae Latinae.” 5. “Bentivoglio’s History of the Wars in Flanders, translated into Latin.”

, the brother of Benedetto, and usually called Francis D'Arezzo, or Aretin, from the place of his birth, was born in 1418. The celebrated Francis Philelphus was his preceptor in polite learning; after which he studied law under the ablest professors, and became himself one of their number, teaching that faculty at Bologna, Ferrara, and Sienna. He was for five years secretary to the duke of Milan, and died of the stone at the baths of Sienna, in 1483. He has been accused, but without proof, of the grossest avarice. If he left vast wealth, it was owing to the profits of his profession, of which he was acknowledged to be the ablest and most successful practitioner. A journey which he made to Rome, when Sixtus IV. was Pope, has given rise to another story, equally without proof, that he solicited to be made Cardinal, which the Pope refused, on pretence of the injury that would accrue to learning from such a promotion. Another story is recorded, more to his honour. While professor of law at Ferrara, he had occasion to lecture to his scholars on the advantages of a character known for probity and honour; and, in order to exemplify his doctrine, he went in the night, accompanied by only one servant, broke open the butchers’ stalls, and took away some pieces. The law-students were immediately suspected of the robbery, and two of them, of indifferent character, were imprisoned. The Professor then went before the Duke, demanded their release, and accused himself: having proved the fact, which was with difficulty believed, he took the opportunity to show the advantage of a good character, and the dangers of a bad one.

Mr. Adair was not distinguished for luminous talents, but was esteemed an able constitutional lawyer; his eloquence was vigorous and impressive, but his voice was harsh, and manner uncourteous. He is said to have been the author of “Thoughts on the dismission of Officers, civil and military, for their conduct in Parliament,” 1764, 8vo; which we much doubt, as at that time he had but just taken his bachelor’s degree, and was probably too young to interest himself much in the contests of the times. On better authority, we find attributed to him, “Observations on the power of alienation in the Crown before the first of queen Anne, supported by precedents, and the opinions of many learned judges; together with some remarks on the conduct of administration respecting the case of the duke of Portland,” 1768, 8vo.

was consecrated bishop of Leon in the year 977. He was an ambitious prelate and a servile courtier; he had the baseness to deliver up to Hugh Capet, Arnoul, archbishop of Rheims, and Charles duke of Lorrain, competitor of Hugh, to whom he had given an asylum in his episcopal city. He died in 1030. He is the author of a satirical poem in 430 hexameter verses, dedicated to king Robert. Adrian Valois gave an edition of it in 1663, in 8vo, at the end of the Panegyric on the emperor Berenger. But it is more correctly given in the I Oth vol. of “the Historians of France.” Although the style is obscure and in a bad taste, it contains many curious facts and anecdotes of the manners of the age. In the library of the abbey of Laubes is a ms poem by Adalberon, on the Holy Trinity, which is likewise dedicated to king Robert.

, a French grammarian, born at Paris, in 1716, was the pupil of Louis Le Beau, and many years professor of rhetoric in the college of Lisieux. The duke de Choiseul, who had a friendship for him, sent him to Venice as charge d'affaires to that republic, where he resided twelve years. On his return to France, he published his various elementary treatises, which have been much approved by teachers. 1. “La vraie maniere d'apprendre une Langue quelconque, vivante ou morte, par le moyen de la langue Française,” 1787, 5 vols. 8vo, and often reprinted. This work includes a French, Latin, Italian, English, and German grammar. 2. “Les quatre chapitres, de la Raison, de l‘Amour de soi, de l’Amour du prochain, de la Vertu,” 1780. Besides these, he published literal translations of Horace, 1787, 2 vols. 8vo. Phoedrus, and Dr. Johnson’s Rassclas. He died in Paris, 1792, leaving behind him the character of a man of talents, an able linguist, and of amiable manners.

, an eminent architect, was born in 1728, at the town of Kirkaldy, in Fifeshire, Scotland. He was the second son of William Adam, esq. of Maryburgh, an architect of distinguished merit. He received his education at the university of Edinburgh. The friendships which he formed in that seat of learning were with men of high literary fame, among whom were Mr. Hume, Dr. Robertson, Dr. Adam Smith, and Dr. Ferguson. As he advanced in life, he had the happiness to enjoy the friendship and intimacy of Archibald duke of Argyle, Mr. Charles Townsend, and the celebrated earl of Mansfield. To perfect his taste in the science to which he had devoted himself, he went to Italy, and there studied, for some time, the magnificent remains of antiquity which still adorn that country. He was of opinion, that the buildings of the ancients are, in architecture, what the works of nature are with respect to the other arts; serving as models for our imitation, and standards of our judgment. Scarce any monuments, however, of Grecian or Roman architecture now remain, except public buildings, The private edifices, however splendid and elegant, in which the citizens of Athens and Rome resided, have all perished: few vestiges remaining, even of those innumerable villas with which Italy was crowded, although, in erecting them, the Romans lavished the spoils and riches of the world. Mr. Adam, therefore, considered the destruction of these buildings with particular regret; some incidental allusions in the ancient poets, and occasional descriptions in their historians, conveying ideas of their magnificence, which astonish the artists of the present age. He conceived his knowledge of architecture to be imperfect, unless he should be able to add the observation of a private edifice of the ancients fo his study of their public works. He therefore formed the scheme of visiting the ruins of the emperor Dioclesian’s palace, at Spalatro, in Venetian Dalmatia. To that end, having prevailed on M. Clerisseau, a French artist, to accompany him, and engaged two draughtsmen to assist him in the execution of his design, he sailed from Venice, in June 1757, on his intended expedition, and, in five weeks, he accomplished his object with much satisfaction.

, a Scottish prelate, archbishop of St. Andrew’s. He was born 1543, in the town of Perth, where he received the rudiments of his education, and afterwards studied philosophy, and took his degree of M. A. at the university of St. Andrew’s. In the year 1566 he set out for Paris, as tutor to a young gentleman. In the month of June in the same year, Mary queen of Scots being delivered of a son, afterwards James VI. of Scotland, and first of England, Mr. Adamson wrote a Latin poem on the occasion, in which he styled him king of England and France. This proof of his loyalty involved him in some difficulties, causing him to be arrested in France, and confined for six months; but he escaped by the intercession, of queen Mary, and some of the principal nobility. As soon as he recovered his liberty, he retired with his pupil to Bourges. He was in this city during the massacre at Paris; and, the same bloody persecuting spirit prevailing amongst the Catholics at Bourges as at the metropolis, he lived concealed for seven months at a public-house, the master of which, upwards of 70 years of age, was thrown from the top of the building, and had his brains dashed out, for his charity to heretics. Whilst Mr. Adamson lay thus in his sepulchre, as he called it, he wrote his Latin poetical version of the book of Job, and his tragedy of Herod, in the same language. In 1573, he returned to Scotland; and, having entered into holy orders, became minister of Paisley. In 1575, he was appointed one of the commissioners, by the general assembly, to settle the jurisdiction and policy of the church; and the following year he was named, with Mr. David Lindsay, to report their proceedings to the earl of Moreton, then regent. About this time, the earl made him one of his chaplains, and, on the death of bishop Douglas, promoted him to the archiepiscopal see of St. Andrew’s, a dignity which brought upon him great trouble and uneasiness; for he was extremely obnoxious to the Presbyterian party, and many inconsistent absurd stories were propagated about him. Soon after his promotion, he published his Catechism in Latin verse, a work highly approved, even by his enemies; who, nevertheless, continued to persecute him with great violence. In 1578, he submitted himself to the general assembly, which procured him peace but for a very little time; for, the year following, they brought fresh accusations against him. In the year 1582, being attacked with a grievous disease, in which the physicians could give him no relief, he happened to take a simple medicine from an old woman, which did him service. The woman, whose name was Alison Pearsone, was immediately charged with witchcraft, and committed to prison, but escaped out of her confinement: however, about four years afterwards, she was again found, and burnt for a witch. In 1583, king James came to St. Andrew’s; and the archbishop, being much recovered, preached before him, and disputed with Mr. Andrew Melvil, in presence of his Majesty, with great reputation, which drew upon him fresh calumny and persecution. The king, however, was so well pleased with him, that he sent him ambassador to queen Elizabeth, at whose court he resided for some years. His conduct, during his embassy, has been variously reported by different authofsV Two things he principally laboured, viz. the recommending the king, his master, to the nobility and gentry of England, and the procuring some support for the episcopal party in Scotland. By his eloquent preaching he drew after him such crowds of people, and raised in their minds Such a high idea of the young king, his master, that queen Elizabeth forbade him to enter the pulpit during his stay in her dominions. In 1584 he was recalled, and sat in the parliament held in August at Edinburgh. The Presbyterian party were still very violent against the archbishop. A provincial synod was held at St. Andrew’s in April 1586; where the archbishop was accused and excommunicated: he appealed to the king and the states, but this availed him but little; for the mob being excited against him, it became dangerous to appear in public in the city of St. Andrew’s. At the next general assembly, a paper being produced, containing the archbishop’s submission, he was absolved from the excommunication. In 1588, fresh accusations were brought against him. The year following, he published the Lamentations of the prophet Jeremiah, in Latin verse, which he dedicated to the king, complaining of his hard usage. In the latter end of the same year, he published a translation of the Apocalypse in Latin verse, and a copy of Latin verses, addressed also to his Majesty, when he was in great distress. The king, however, was so far from giving him assistance, that he granted the revenue of his see to the duke of Lenox so that the remaining part of this prelate’s life was very wretched — he having hardly subsistence for his family, notwithstanding his necessities compelled him to deliver to the assembly a formal recantation of all his opinions concerning church government. He died in 1591. His works were printed in a 4to volume in London in 1619, with his Life by Thomas Volusenus, or Wilson. Besides the contents of this volume, our author wrote many things which were never published: such as, six books on the Hebrew republick, various translations of the prophets into Latin verse, Praelections on St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy, various apologetical and funeral orations; and, what deserves most to be regretted, a very candid history of his own times. His character has. been variously represented, as may be seen in Calderwood and Spotiswood’s Histories, Mackenzie’s Lives of Scottish Authors, and the last edition of the Biographia Britannica. He appears to have been one of those men of whom no just estimate can be formed, without taking into the account the distraction of the times in which he lived.

, a writer of romance in the 13th, century, and probably so called from often wearing the laurel crown, was minstrel to Henry III. duke of Brabant and Flanders. In La Valliere’s collection of Mss. are several metrical romances by this author: 1. “The romance of William of Orange,” surnamed Short-nose, constable of France. There are some extracts from this in Catel’s history of Languedoc. 2. “The romance of the Infancy of Ogier the Dane,” written in rhyme by order of Guy earl of Flanders. Of this are several translations published in the 16th century. 3. “The romance of Cleomades,” written by order of Maria of Brabant, daughter of his patron. This, translated into prose by Philip Camus, has been several times printed; at first, without date, at Paris and Troyes; and at Lyons, 1488, 4to. 4. “The romance of Aymeri of Narbonne.” 5. “The romance of Pepin and Bertha his wife;” the facts taken from the chronicles in the abbey of St. Denis. A sequel to this was written by Girardin of Amiens, as the “Romance of Charlemagne, son of Bertha.” 6. “The romance of Buenon of Commarchis,” the least esteemed of all his productions, perhaps from the insignificance of his hero. The time of the death of Adenez is not known.

, a satirical poet of the same family with the preceding, was born at Naples, Sept. 3, 1644, and educated at the university of Pisa, where the celebrated Luca Terenzi was his tutor. He visited, when young, the different courts of Italy, and was beloved for his talents and accomplishments. He received from the duke Ferdinand Charles of Mantua, the title of marquis, and gentleman of his chamber. He was also member of the academy of Florence, of De la Crnsca, and many other learned societies. He succeeded the famous Redi as professor of the Tuscan language in the academy of Florence, and was likewise professor of chivalry in that of the nobles, in which science his lectures, which he illustrated with apposite passages from ancient and modern history, were highly esteemed. These were never printed, but manuscript copies are preserved in several of the libraries of Florence. His only prose work, a collection of religious pieces, was published at Florence, 1706, small 4to, under the title “Prose sacre.” His poetry consists of: 1. “Sonnets and other lyric pieces,” and among them, a collection of Odes or Canzoni, dedicated to Louis XIV, and magnificently printed at Florence, 1693. 2. Some “Dramas,” one of which “Le Gare dell' Amore etdelP Amicitia,” Florence, 1679, 12mo, is so rare as to be unnoticed by any historian of Italian literature. 3. “Five Satires,” on which his fame chiefly rests; very prolix, but written in an elegant style; and as to satire, just and temperate, except where he treats of the fair sex. He died at Florence, after a tedious illness, June 22, 1708.

, of an ancient family in Dauphiny, and a bold and enterprising spirit, was born in 1513. After having served in the army with great distinction, he espoused the cause of the Huguenots from resentment to the duke of Guise in 1562. He took Valence, Vienne, Grenoble, and Lyons, but signalized himself less by his prowess and his activity than by his atrocious acts of vengeance. The Catholic writers say, that in regard to persons of their communion he was what Nero had been of old to the primitive Christians. He put his invention to the rack to find out the most fantastic punishments, and enjoyed the barbarous satisfaction of inflicting them on all that fell into his hands. At Montbrison and at Mornas, the soldiers that were made prisoners were obliged to throw themselves from the battlements upon the pikes of his people. Having reproached one of these wretches with having retreated twice from the leap without daring to take it: “Mons. le baron,” said the soldier, “with all your bravery, I defy you to take it in three.” The composed humour of the man saved his life. His conduct was far from being approved even by the most violent of Ins party; admiral Coligny and the prince of Conde were so shocked at his cruelties, that the government of Lyons was taken from him; and piqued at this, Des Adrets was upon the point of turning Catholic; but he was seized at Romans, and would have been brought to the scaffold, if the peace, just then concluded, had not saved him. He afterwards put his design in execution, and died despised and detested by both parties, Feb. 2, 1587. He left two sons and a daughter, who had no issue, gome time before his death, Des Adrets, being at Grenoble, where the duke de Mayenne then was, he wanted to revenge the affronts and threats that Pardaillan had given him on account of the murder of his father. He repeated several times, that he had quitted his solitude to convince all such as might complain of him, that his sword was not grown so rusty but that it could always right him. Pardaillan did not think himself obliged to take any notice of this bravado of a swordsman then in his 74th year: and Des Adrets went back again content with his rhodomontade. The ambassador of Savoy once meeting him on the high road alone, with only a stick in his hand, was surprised at seeing an old man, notorious for his barbarous executions, walking without a companion and quite defenceless, and asked him of his welfare. “I have nothing to say to you,” answered Des Adrets coldly, “unless it be to desire you to acquaint your master, that you met the baron des Adrets, his very humble servant, on the high road, with a white stick in his hand and without a sword, and that nobody said any thing to him.” One of the sons of the baron des Adrets was engaged in the massacre of St. Bartholomew. He had been page to the king, who ordered him one day to go and call his chancellor. The magistrate, who was then at table, having answered him, that as soon as he had dined he would go and receive the commands of his majesty “What!” said the page, “dare you delay a moment when the king commands Rise, and instantly be gone” Whereupon he took hold of the table-cloth by one corner, and drew the whole of the dinner down upon the floor. M. de la Place relates this anecdote (rather improbable it must be confessed) in his “Pieces interessantes,” torn. IV; and adds, that the story being told to Charles IX. by the chancellor, the monarch only laughed, and said “that the son would be as violent as the father.” To this day the name of Adrets is never pronounced in Dauphiny without horror. Such the story usually reported of this extraordinary character; but it is said that Maimbourg, Brantome, Moreri, and Daniel have given some exaggerated accounts of his cruelties. Thnanus has justified him from some of the accusations, and particularly in affair of Mornas, where he was not present.

, pope, who deserves some notice on account of his personal merit, was born in Utrecht, 1459, of parents reputed mean, who procured him a place among the poor scholars in the college of Louvain, where his application was such as to induce Margaret of England, the sister of Edward IV. and widow of Charles duke of Burgundy, to bear the expences of his advancement to the degree of doctor. He became successively a canon of St. Peter, professor of divinity, dean of the church of Louvain, and fastly, vice-chancellor of the university. Recollecting his own condition, he generously founded a college at Louvain, which bears his name, for the education of poor students. Afterwards Maximilian I. appointed him preceptor to his grandson Charles V. and sent him as ambassador to Ferdinand king of Spain, who gave him the bishoprick of Tortosa. In 1517 he was made cardinal, and during the infancy of Charles V. became regent; but the duties of the office were engrossed by cardinal Ximenes. On the death of Leo X. Charles V. had so much influence with the cardinals as to procure him to be chosen to the papal chair, in 1522. He was not, however, very acceptable to the college, as he had an aversion to pomp, expence, and pleasure. He refused to resent, by fire and sword, the complaints urged by Luther; but endeavoured to reform such abuses in the church as could neither be concealed or denied. To this conduct he owed the many satires written against him during his life, and the unfavourable representations made by the most learned of the Roman Catholic historians. Perhaps his partiality to the emperor Charles might increase their dislike, and occasion the suspicion that his death, which took place Sept. 24, 1523, was a violent one. For this, however, we know no other foundation, than a pasquinade stuck upon the house of his physician “To the deliverer of his country.” He is said to have composed an epitaph for himself, expressing, that the greatest misfortune of his life was his being called to govern. He has left some writings, as, 1. “Questiones et Expositiones in IV. Sententiarum,” Paris, 1512 and 1516, fol.; 1527, 8vo. In this he advanced some bold sentiments against papal infallibility. Although he wrote the work before he was pope, he reprinted it without any alteration. 2. “Questiones Quodlibeticae,” Louvain, 1515, 8vo; Paris, 1516, fol. Foppen gives a large list of his other writings. His life was written by Paulus Jovius, Onuphrius Panviuius, Gerard Moringus, a divine of Louvain, and lastly by Caspar Burman, under the title “Analecta Historica de Adriano VI. Trajectino, Papa Romano,” Utrecht, 1727, 4to.

In the pontificate of Julius II. who succeeded Alexander, Adrian retired from Rome, having taken some disgust, or perhaps distrusting this pope, who was a declared enemy of his predecessor: nor did he return till there was a conclave held for the election of a new pope, where he probably gave his voice for Leo X. Soon after he was unfortunately privy to a conspiracy against Leo. His embarking in the plot is said to have been chiefly owing to his crediting and applying to himself the prediction of a fortune-teller, who had assured him, “that Leo would be cut off by an unnatural death, and be succeeded by an elderly man named Adrian, of obscure birth, but fa-­mous for his learning, and whose virtue and merit alone had raised him to the highest honours of the church.” Th conspiracy being discovered, Adrian was condemned to pay 12,500 ducats, and to give a solemn promise that he would not stir out of Rome. But being either unable to pay this fine, or apprehending still farther severities, he privately withdrew from Rome; and in a consistory held the 6th of July 1518, he was declared excommunicated, and deprived of all his benefices, as well as his ecclesiastical orders. About four years before, he had been removed from his office of the pope’s collector in England, at the request of king Henry VIII, and through the instigation of cardinal Wolsey. The heads of his accusation, drawn up at Rome, were, “That he had absented himself from that city in the time of Julius II. without the pope’s leave; that he had never resided, as he ought to have done^ at the church of St. Chrysogonus, from which he had his title; that he had again withdrawn himself from Rome, and had not appeared to a legal citation; and that he had engaged in the conspiracy of cardinal Petrucci, and had signed the league of Francis Maria, duke of Urbino, against the pope.” He was at Venice when he received the news of his condemnation: what becarme of him afterwards is uncertain. Aubery says, he took refuge among the Turks in Asia; but the most common opinion is, that he was murdered by one of his servants for the sake of his wealth. Polydore Vergil tells us, there is to be seen at Riva, a village in the diocese of Trent, a Latin inscription on one Polydorus Casamicus, the pope’s janitor, written by cardinal Adrian; in which he laments his own wretched condition, extolling the happiness of his friend, whose death had put an end to his miseries. Polydore Vergil gives Adrian a high character for his uncommon learning, his exquisite^ judgment in the choice of the properest words, and the truly classical style of his writings; in which he was the first, says that author, since the age of Cicero, who revived the purity of the Latin language, and taught men to draw their knowlege from the sources of the best and most learned authors. The only works of his that are published are, 1. “De Vera Philosophia;” 2. “De Sermone Latino et de Modis Latine loquendi,” 1515, Rome, fol.

, the son of the preceding, was born in 1513, or, as some say, 1511, and died at Florence in 1579. In his youth, he carried arms in defence of the liberties of his country, and afterwards devoted his time to study. For thirty years he taught rhetoric in the university of Florence, and enjoyed the friendship of the most celebrated of his contemporaries, Annibal Caro, Varchi, Flaminio, and the cardinals Bembo and Contarini. His chief work, which forms a continuation of Guicciardini, is the history of his own time, entitled “Deir Istoria de' suoi tempi,” from 1536 to 1574. Florence, 1583, fol. This is a most scarce edition, and more valued than that of Venice, 1587, 3 vols. 4to. The abbé Lenglet du Fresnoy, Bayle, and particularly Thuanus, who has derived much assistance from this work, speak highly of his correctness as a historian. He had the best materials, and among others, some memoirs furnished by the grand duke of Tuscany, Cosmo I. who advised him to the undertaking. He is said to have written funeral orations on the grand duke, on Charles V. and the emperor Ferdinand; but we know only of his oration on the grand duchess, Jane of Austria, which was translated from Latin into Italian, and published at Florence in 1579, 4to. In 1567 he published “Lettera a Giorgio Vasari sopra gli antichi Pittori nominati da Plinio,” 4to. This letter, oa the ancient painters mentioned by Pliny, which is rather a treatise on painting, is inserted by Vasari in the second volume of his lives of the painters. Vasari speaks of him as an enlightened amateur of the fine arts, and one whose advice was of much importance to him when he was employed at Florence in the palace of the grand duke.

, was the nephew and disciple of the preceding, born at Delft in 1620, and arrived at a much higher degree of perfection than his instructor. In his youth he went to France, and exercised his art there for four years, and afterwards to Rome, where he resided for seven years; and in both places was encouraged by the patronage of persons of the first distinction. In 1656, he returned to his own country, and settled at Amsterdam, where his pictures were highly valued, and sold at a very great price. Some of them are still in the collections of the amateurs of that city. Van Aelst knew his own merit, and would not submit to disrespect. On one occasion when a burgomaster of Amsterdam gave him a very haughty answer in a matter of some importance to him, he opened his breast and shewed him a gold chain and medal which the grand duke of Tuscany had given him, adding, “You came into the world with a sack of money, that is all your merit as to mine, it is in my talents.” Like his uncle he employed himself chiefly on still life, and his pencil was so light, and his touch so delicate, that the objects he painted seemed real. He died in 1679.

, a German physician, eminent for his knowledge of metallurgy, was born at Glaucha in Misnia, March 24, 1494. The discoveries which he made in the mountains of Bohemia after his return from Italy, whither he went to pursue his studies, gave him such a taste for examining every thing that related to metals, that when engaged in the practice of physic at Joachimstal in Misnia, he employed all the time he could possibly spare in the study of fossils; and at length removed to Chemintz, that he might wholly devote himself to this pursuit. He is said to have applied to it with such disinterested zeal, that he riotonly spent the pension procured for him from Maurice, duke of Saxony, but a considerable part of his own estate; and when duke Maurice and duke Augustus went to join the army of Charles V. in Bohemia, Agricola attended them, in order to demonstrate his attachment, although this obliged him to quit the care of his family and estate. He died at Chemiutz, Nov. 21, 1555. He was a zealous Roman Catholic, but was considered by the Lutherans as in some respects an apostate from the reformed, religion, and they carried their rancour against him so far as to refuse his body the rites of burial. It was therefore obliged to be removed from Chemintz to Zeits, where it was interred in the principal church. Bayle thinks that he must have irritated the Lutherans by some instances of excessive aversion to them, and Peter Albinus represents him as an intolerant bigot. His works are “De ortu et causis Subterraneorum. De natura eorum, quae effluunt ex terra. De natura Fossilium. De Medicatis Fontibus. De Subterraneis Animantibus. De veteribus et novis Metallis. De re Metallica.” This last has been printed at Basil four times, in folio, 1546, 1556, 1558, and 1561, which shews the very high esteem in which it was held. His work “De ortu et causis Subterraneorum” was printed at Basil, 1583, fol. Bayle mentions a political work of his, “De bello Turcis inferendo,” Basil, 1538, and a controversial treatise, “De Traditionibus Apostolicis.” His principal medical work, “De Peste,” was printed at Basil, 1554. He wrote also “De Ponderibus et Mensuris” against Budeus, Leonard Portius, and Alciati, which the latter endeavoured to answer, but without success. His life is written by Melchior Adam.

, one of the most learned men of the fifteenth century, was born in 1442, in the village of Bafflon, or Bafteln, near Groningen, in Friseland. Melchior Adam says, his parents were of one of the most considerable families in Friseland; but Ubo Emmius, in his history of that country, represents him as of mean extraction; and Bayle, who appears to have examined the matter with his usual precision, inclines to the latter opinion. He was, however, sent to school, where he made an uncommon progress, and had scarcely taken his degree of M. A. at Louvain, when he was offered a professorship, which he did not accept, as it would have prevented his travelling for farther improvement, a course usually taken by the learned men of those times. He went from Louvain to Paris, and from thence to Italy, residing two years at Ferrara, where he learned Greek and taught Latin, and disputed in prose and verse with Guarinus and the Strozzas, and where the duke honoured him with particular attention. He read lectures likewise on philosophy in this city, and his auditors were so well pleased as to wish he had been an Italian. At his return to his own country, he had the offer of many considerable employments; and at last accepted of a post at Groningen, and attended the court of Maximilian I. for six months, upon the affairs of that city. After this, which the gratitude of his masters did not render a very profitable employment, he resumed his travels for many years, in the course of which he refused the presidentship of a college at Antwerp, and fixed at length in the Palatinate, influenced by the persuasions of the bishop of Worms, whom he had instructed in the Greek language. He came to reside here in 1482, and passed the rest of his life, sometimes at Heidelberg, and sometimes at Worms. The Elector Palatine was pleased to hear him discourse concerning antiquity, and desired him to compose an “Abridgement of Ancient History,” which he performed with great accuracy. He also read public lectures at Worms; but his auditors being more accustomed to the subleties of logic than to polite literature, he was not so popular as he deserved. About the fortieth year of his age, he began to study divinity; and having no hope to succeed in it without a knowledge of Hebrew, he applied himself to that language, in which he had made considerable pro-­gress, when he was seized with an illness, which put an end. to his life and labours, on the 28th of October, 1485. He died in a very devout manner, and was buried in the church of the minor friars at Heidelberg. He is thought to have inclined a little to the principles of the reformers. He was accomplished in music and poetry, although he used these talents only for his amusement. There are but two works of his extant: “De Inventione Dialectica,” printed at Louvain, 1516; and at Cologne in 1539, along with his “Abridgement of Ancient History,” under the title “R. Agricolffi lucubrationes,” 2 vols. 4to. Erasmus gives a very exalted character of his learning and abilities; and by some of his admirers he was compared to Virgil in verse, and to Politian in prose.

In the year 1515 he read lectures upon Mercurius Trismegistus at Pavia. He left this city the same year, or the year following; but his departure was rather a flight than a retreat. By his second book of letters we find, that his friends endeavoured to procure him some honourable settlement at Grenoble, Geneva, Avignon, or Metz: he chose the last of these places; and in 1518 was employed as syndic, advocate, and counsellor for that city. The persecutions raised against him by the monks, because he had refuted a vulgar notion about St. Anne’s three husbands, and because he protected a countrywoman who was accused of witchcraft, obliged him to leave the city of Metz. The abuse which his friend Jacobus Faber Satulensis, or Jacques Faber d'Estaples, had received from the clergy of Metz, for affirming that St. Anne had but one husband, had raised his indignation, and incited him to maintain the same opinion. Agrippa retired to Cologn in the year 1520, leaving without regret a city, which those turbulent inquisitors had rendered hostile to all polite literature and real merit. He^eft his own country in 1521, and went to Geneva: here his income must have been inconsiderable, for he complains of not having enough to defray his expences to Chamber!, in order to solicit a pension from the duke of Savoy. In this, however, his hopes were disappointed; and in 1523 he removed to Fribourg in Switzerland. The year following he went to Lyons, and obtained a pension from Francis I. He was appointed physician to the king’s mother; but this was not much to his advantage; nor did he attend her at her departure from Lyons, in August 1525, when she went to conduct her daughter to the borders of Spain. He was left behind at Lyons, and was obliged to implore the assistance of his friends in order to obtain his salary; and before he received it, had the mortification of being informed that he was struck off the list. The cause of his disgrace was, that, having received orders from his mistress to examine by the rules of astrology, what success would attend the affairs of France, he too freely expressed his dislike that she should employ him in such idle curiosities, instead of things of consequence: at which she was highly offended; and became yet more irritated against him, when she understood that his astrological calculations promised new successes to the constable of Bourbon. Agrippa finding himself thus abandoned, gave way to the utmost rage and impetuosity of temper: he wrote several menacing letters, and threatened to publish some books, in which he would expose the secret history of those courtiers who had worked his ruin: nay, he proceeded so far as to say, that he would for the future account that princess, to whom he had been counsellor and physician, as a firuel and perfidious Jezebel.

He now resolved to remove to the Low Countries; this he could not do without a passport, which he at length obtained, after many tedious delays, and arrived at Antwerp in July 1528. The duke de Vendome was the principal cause of these delays; for he, instead of signing the passport, tore it in pieces in a passion, protesting he would never sign a passport for a conjuror. In 1529, Agrippa had invitations from Henry VIII. king of England, from the chancellor of the emperor, from an Italian marquis, and from Margaret of Austria, governess of the Low Countries: he preferred the last, and accepted of being historiographer to the emperor, which was offered him by that princess. He published, by way of introduction, the “History of the Coronation of Charles V.” Soon after, Margaret of Austria died, and he spoke her funeral oration. Her death is said in some measure to have been the life of Agrippa, for great prejudices had been infused into that princess against him: “I have nothing to write you (says he in one of his letters) but that I am likely to starve here, bein entirely forsaken by the deities of the court; what the great Jupiter himself (meaning Charles V.) intends, I know not. I now understand what great danger I was in here: the monks so far influenced the princess, who was of a superstitious turn, as women generally are, that, had not her sudden death prevented it, I should undoubtedly have been tried for offences against the majesty of the cowl and the sacred honour of the monks; crimes for which I should have been accounted no less guilty, and no less punished; than if I had blasphemed the Christian religion.” His treatise, “Of the Vanity of the Sciences,” which he published in 1530, greatly enraged his enemies; and that which he soon after printed at Antwerp, “Of the Occult Philosophy,” afforded them fresh pretexts for defaming his reputation. Cardinal Campej us, the pope’s legate, however, and the cardinal de la Mark, bishop of Liege, spoke in his favour; but could not procure him his pension as historiographer, nor prevent him from being thrown into prison at Brussels, in the year 1531. When he regained his liberty, he paid a visit to the archbishop of Cologn, to whom he had dedicated his Occult Philosophy, and from whom he had received a very obliging letter in return. The inquisitors endeavoured to hinder the impression of his Occult Philosophy, when he was about to print a second edition with emendations and additions; however, notwithstanding all their opposition, he finished it in 1533. He staid at Bonne till 1535; and when he returned to Lyons, he was imprisoned for what he had written against the mother of Francis I.; but he was soon released from his confinement, at the desire of several persons, and went to Grenoble, where he died the same year. Some authors say, that he died in the hospital; but Gabriel Naude affirms, it was at the house of the receiver-general of the province of Dauphiny.

Mr. Aikman, having prosecuted his studies for somt time in Britain, found that to complete them it would be necessary to go into Italy, to form his taste on the fine models of antiquity, which there alone can be found in abundance. And as he perceived that the profession he was to follow, could not permit him to manage properly his paternal estate, situated in a remote place near Arbroath in the county of For far in Scotland, he thought proper to sell it, and settle all family claims upon him, that he might be at full liberty to pursue his studies. In the year 1707 he went to Italy, and having resided chiefly at Rome for three years, and taken instructions from, and formed an acquaintance with the principal artists of that period, he chose to gratify his curiosity by travelling into Turkey. He went first to Constantinople, and from thence to Smyrna. There he became acquainted with all the British gentlemen of the factory; who wished him to forsake the pencil, and to join them in the Turkey trade: but, that scheme not tuking place, he went once more to Rome, and pursued his former studies there, till the year 1712, when he returned to his native country: he now followed his profession of painting for some time, applauded by the discerning few; though the public, too poor at that period to be able to purchase valuable pictures, were unable to give adequate encouragement to his superior merit. John duke of Argyll, who equally admired the artist and esteemed the man, regretting that such talents should be lost, at length prevailed on Mr. Aikman to move with all his family to London, in the year 1723, thinking this the only theatre in Britain where his talents could be properly displayed. Under the auspices of this nobleman, he formed habits of intimacy with the first artists, particularly with sir Godfrey Kneller, whose studies and dispositions of mind were very congenial to his own.

In this society he soon became known to and patronized by people of the first rank, and was in habits of intimacy with many of them; particularly the earl of Burlington, so well known for his taste in the fine arts, especially architecture. For him he painted, among others, a large picture of the royal family of England: in the middle compartment are all the younger branches of the family on a very large canvas, and on one hand above the door a half length of her majesty queen Caroline; the picture of the king was intended to fill the niche opposite to it, but Mr. Aikman’s death happening before it was begun, the place for it is left blank. This picture came into the possession of the duke of Devonshire, whose father married lady Mary Boyle, daughter and only child to the earl of Burlington. Towards the close of his life he painted many other piclures of people of the first rank and fashion in England. At Blickling in Norfolk, the seat of Hobart earl of Buckinghamshire, are a great many full length pictures by Mr. Aikman, of noblemen, gentlemen, and ladies, relations and friends of the earl. These, with the royal family above named, were his last works; and but a few of the number he painted in London. He died June 7, 1731.

There are several portraits painted by Mr. Aikman in Scotland in the possession of the duke of Argyll, the duke of Hamilton, and others. There is also a portrait of Aikman in the gallery of the grand duke of Tuscany, painted by himself; and another of the same in the possession of his daughter, Mrs. Forbes, in Edinburgh, whose only son now represents the family of Aikman.

, or Alliacus, an eminent Romish ecclesiastic, and cardinal, was born at Compiegnein 1350, of an obscure family. He eame very young to study at P.aris, and was admitted into the college of Navarre in 1372. From this time he began to distinguish himself by his writings in philosophy, in which he fol lowed the principles of Occham, and the Nominalists; and his reputation made him be chosen to assist at the synod of Amiens, in which he made a, discourse to the priest, although he was then only a subdeacon. He received the doctor’s degree at Paris, April 11, 1380, and next year he made a discourse in the presence of the duke of Anjou, in the name of the university, to show that it was necessary to assemble a general council in order to put an end to schism. That same year he was made canon of Noyon, and continued there to the year 1384, when he was recalled to Paris, to be superior of the college of Navarre. Here he taught divinity, and acquired increased reputation by his lectures and sermons. From his school came Gerson, Clemangis, and Giles D‘Eschamps, the most famous divines of that time. The university of Paris could not find any person more capable of maintaining her cause against Monteson, at pope Clement VIL’s tribunal, than this learned doctor. She accordingly deputed him to Avignon, where he pleaded the cause of the university with so much force, that the pope and cardinals confirmed the judgment passed by that seminary. Having returned from this mission, he was honoured, in 1389, with three considerable dignities, that of chancellor of the church and university, and almoner and confessor to king Charles VI. In 1394 he was appointed treasurer of the holy chapel at Paris, and was sent by the king to Benedict XIII. to treat with him about the peace of the church. He was afterwards successively elected to two bishoprics: that of Puy, in Velay, in 1395, and that of Cam bray next year. He took possession of the latter, and laid down his charge of chancellor of the university in favour of John Gerson. After this he employed his time in extinguishing schism, as it was called, and assisted at the council of Pisa. At length pope John XXIII. made him cardinal of Chrysogonus in 1411. He assisted in that quality at the general council of Constance, and was one of those who took the greatest share in its transactions, and composed several sermons upon subjects handled there. He then returned to Cambray, where he died in 1425. He wrote many works, some of which were published after the invention of printing; as his “Commentaries on the Master of Sentences,” which are inserted in the appendix to the “Fasciculus rertim expetendarum,” 1490; a volume “of Tracts and Sermons,” about the same time. He wrote also on Astrology, in which he was a believer. His principal works, however, confirm the opinion which the Roman Catholic writers give of his learning and talents; and learning so extraordinary is to be venerated in an age of comparative darkness: but it is a great deduction from, his character that, although he possessed superior understanding and liberality to many of his contemporaries, and even is supposed to have leaned a little towards freedom of opinion, he was an implacable persecutor of schism, that is, the first beginnings of the Reformation; and was a principal agent in bringing John Huss to the stake, and in disturbing the ashes of Wickliffe.

On the marriage of Henry duke of Orleans, afterwards Henry II. with Catherine de Medici, Alamanni was appointed her maitre d'hotel; and the reward of his services enabled him to secure to himself great emoluments, and to establish his family in an honourable situation in France, where he died at Amboise, of a dysentery, April 18, 1556, His principal works are, 1. “Opere Toscane,” a collection of poems on different subjects, and “Antigone,” a tragedy, Lyons, 1532 and 1533, 8vo, 2 vols.; Florence, vol. I. 1532; Venice, 2 vols. 1533—1542. Notwithstanding thesa frequent editions, they were prohibited in the pontificate of Clement VII. both at Florence and Rome, in the latter of which places they were publicly burnt. 2. “La Coltiva­?ione,” Paris, 1546, a beautiful edition corrected by the author and dedicated to Francis I. again reprinted the same year at Florence; and frequently reprinted, particularly a correct and fine edition, in large 4to, by Comino, at Padua, 1718, with the Api of Rucellai, and the epigrams of Alamanni; and at Bologne in 1746. This work, which Alamanni completed in six books, and which he appears to have undertaken rather in competition with, than in imitation of, the Georgics, is written not only with great elegance and correctness of style, but with a very extensive knowledge of the subject on which he professes to treat, and contains many passages which may bear a comparison with the most celebrated parts of his immortal predecessor. 3. “Girone il Cortese,” an heroic poem in 24 cantos, Paris, 1548, 4to; Venice, 1549. This work is little more than a transposition into the Italian ottava rima, of a French romance entitled Gyron Courtois, which Alamanni undertook at the request of Francis I. a short time before the death of that monarch, as appears from the information of the author himself in his dedication to Henry II. in which he has described the origin and laws of the British knights errant, or knights of the round table. 4. “La Avarchide,” or the siege of Bourges, the Avaricum of Caesar, an epic, also in 24 cantos, Florence, 1170, 4to. The plan and conduct of it is so closely founded on that of the Iliad, that if we except only the alteration of the names, it appears rather to be a translation than an original work. Neither of these have contributed much to the author’s fame, which rests chiefly on “La Coltivazione.” 5. “Flora,” a comedy in five acts, and in that verse which the Italians call Saruccioli, Florence, 1556 and 1601, 8vo.

, a Spanish writer, born at Medina del Campo, in Castile, about the end of the sixteenth century. After having studied the law at Salamanca, he entered into the service of Anthony Perez, secretary of state under Philip II. He was in high esteem and confidence with his master, upon which account he was imprisoned after the disgrace of this minister, and kept in confinement eleven years, when Philip III. coming to the throne, set him at liberty, according to the orders given by his father in his will. Alamos continued in a private capacity, till the duke of Olivarez, the favourite of Philip IV. called him to public employments. He was appointed advocate-general in the court of criminal causes, and in the council of war. He was afterwards chosen member of the council of the Indies, and then of the council of the king’s patrimony, and a knight of the order of St. James. He was a man of wit as well as judgment, but his writings were superior to his conversation. He died in the 88th year of his age. His Spanish translation of Tacitus, and the aphorisms which he added in the margin, gained him great reputation: the aphorisms, however, have been censured by some authors, particularly by Mr. Amelot, who says, “that instead of being more concise and sententious than the text, the words of the text are always more so than the aphorism.” This work was published at Madrid in 1614, and was to have been followed, as mentioned in the king’s privilege, with a commentary, which, however, has never yet appeared. The author composed the whole during his imprisonment. He left several other works which have never yet been printed.

The care of this pupil, and his constant application to study, having injured his health, his physicians recommended him to try his native air; and with this advice, although it subjected him to personal danger, he complied, and arrived in Lancashire sometime in 1565. He had scarcely reached this place, before he began to exert his powers of persuasion in the making of converts; and in order to promote this object, wrote and circulated little treatises wherever they were likely to be successful. This open hostility to the church alarmed the magistrates, and they were in search of him, when he retired to the neighbourhood of Oxford, and wrote a kind of apology for his party, under the title of “Brief Reasons concerning the Catholic Faith.” Some, however, think that this was written at the duke of Norfolk’s house, in Norfolk, where it is certain he was for some time concealed. It appears likewise, that he returned to the neighbourhood of Oxford, and distributed his pamphlet with much boldness; and was so fearless in his zeal, that he refused a convenient opportunity of a ship going to the Netherlands. He now ventured to establish a correspondence with his old friends in the university, who were considerably numerous, and succeeded in bringing over one who had formerly been a Papist, but was now of the establishment. This so exasperated the relations of this person, that they forced Alan to fly to London, whence in 1568 he made his escape into Flanders. It has been supposed that some friends in power, who knew him formerly, connived at his easy departure. It is even said that sir Christopher Hatton bore a regard for him, in consequence of having received part of his education in St. Mary’s hall, while Alan was principal; and that Alan repaid this kindness with such honourable mention of sir Christopher abroad, as occasioned some very invidious reflections against the latter at home.

At Rome, and every where abroad, he was styled Cardinal of England, and regarded as the protector of the nation. After his death, however, and when all hopes of conquering England had vanished, less notice was taken of English priests, and few of them were made bishops; nor was it until the reign of Charles II. when the popish interest was supposed likely to gain the ascendancy in England, that Philip Thomas Howard, younger brother to the Duke of Norfolk, was created cardinal, and sometimes called the Cardinal of England.

, of a noble family at Brussels, was born about the beginning of the sixteenth century. His father William Alard de Centier, a zealous convert to popery, obliged him to enter the order of Dominican friars, where he was much admired for his talents as a preacher. While thus employed, a Hamburgh merchant, who was pleased with his preaching, procured him privately the works of Luther, which Alard read with conviction, and the same merchant having assisted him in escaping from his convent, he studied divinity at Jena and Wittemberg. But the death of this faithful friend having deprived him of resources, he ventured to return to Brussels and solicit assistance from his father. Before, however, he could obtain a private interview with him, he was discovered in one of the streets of Brussels by his mother, a violent bigot, who, after some reproaches, denounced him to the Inquisition; and when no persuasions could induce him to return into the bosom of the church which he had left, his mother was so irritated, as to call forth the rigour of the law, and even offered to furnish the wood to burn him. Sentence of death being pronounced, he was conducted to prison, but on the night previous to the appointed execution, he is said to have heard a voice saying, “Francis, arise and depart:” how far this and other particulars of his escape are true, we know not; but it is certain he cleared the prison, and after some hardships and difficulties, arrived in safety at Oldenburgh, where he became almoner to the prince. Here he remained until hearing that freedom of religion was granted at Antwerp, his affection for his native country induced him to return, which he did twice, notwithstanding the persecutions of the duke of Alba a.nd the dangers to which he was exposed; and when his father came to see him at Antwerp, in hopes of bringing him back to popery, he argued with so much power, as to make a sincere convert of this bigotted parent. At length, when it was not longer safe for him to remain in the Netherlands, Christian IV. king of Denmark, gave him the curacy of Wilster in Hoistein, at which asylum he died July 10, 1578. His works, which are In Flemish or German, consist of, 1. “The Confession of Antwerp.” 2. “Exhortation of the Ministers of Antwerp.” 3. “Agenda, or Discipline of Antwerp.” 4. “Catechism.” 5. “Treatise on original Sin,” &c.

About the latter end of the year 1542, we find Alasco at Embden, where he took upon him the office of pastor, and preached constantly at a church in that town. In the following year he was engaged by Anne, countess dowager of Oldenburg, in East Friesland, to introduce and establish the reformed religion in that territory. This he was pursuing with great success, when he was invited by Albert, duke of Prussia, to a similar undertaking; but as that prince was a zealous Lutheran in the article of the sacrament, and Alasco had candidly informed him of his strict adherence to the Zuinglian doctrine on the same subject, the engagement did not take place, and Alasco continued for some years, nearly in the same quarter, labouring to promote the reformation by assiduous preaching, lecturing, and exhortation.

When Germany became an unsafe residence for the friends of the reformatiou, and the contest respecting the interim was eagerly pursued, Alasco, whose fame had reached England, was invited thither by archbishop Cranmer. This illustrious founder of the English church had for some time afforded a quiet asylum to such learned foreigners as bad been expatriated on account of their religion; and had at one time residing at Lambeth palace, those celebrated reformers Bucer, Martyr, Fagius, Ochin, and others of inferior note. Alasco arrived accordingly about the year 1548, and was introduced not only to the archbishop, but by his means to sir John Cheke, sir William Cecil, and to the duke of Somerset, the protector. In a conference with the latter, he was encouraged to request that be and his congregation might have leave to come over to London, and be protected in the exercise of their religion; and he urged that such a favour would be a matter of policy as well as charity, as by this step many useful manufactures might be introduced into England. He requested also that they might be incorporated by the king’s jetters patent; and some old dissolved church, or monastery, given them as a place of worship. Having proposed these measures, and obtained the assistance of the archbishop and other friends of rank and power, to assist in forwarding them, he returned again to Embden, where be corresponded with the archbishop and Cecil, As soon as they informed him that his request would be complied with, he again came to England, and brought with him a considerable number of German Protestants, who found an asylum for their persons, and toleration for their principles, under the mild reign of Edward VI. Three hundred and eighty of these refugees were naturalized, and erected into a species of ecclesiastical corporation, which was governed by its own laws, and enjoyed its own form of worship, although not exactly agreeing with that of the church of England. A place of worship in London, part of the once splendid priory of the Augustine friars, in the ward of Broad-street, which is still standing, was granted to them July 24, 1549, with the revenues belonging to it, for the subsistence of their ministers, who were either expressly nominated, or at least approved of by the king. His majesty also fixed the precise number of them, namely, four minisiers and a superintendant. This last office was conferred on Alasco, who, in the letters patent, is called a person of singular probity, and great learning; and it was an office which comprehended many important duties. It appears that as among the refugees from the Continent there were sometimes concealed papists, or dangerous enthusiasts, a power was given to Alasco to examine into their characters, and none were tolerated in the exercise of their religion but such as were protected by him. His office likewise extended not only over this particular congregation of Germans, but over all the other foreign churches in London, of which we find there was a French, a Spanish, and an Italian church or congregation; and over their schools and seminaries, all which were subject to his inspection, and declared to be within his jurisdiction. In 1552, we find him using his influence to procure for a member of the French church the king’s licence to set up a printing-house for printing the liturgy, &c. in French, for the use of the French islands (Jersey and Guernsey) under the English government.

In 1555, Alasco went to Franckfort on the Maine, where he obtained leave of the senate to build a church for reformed strangers, and particularly for those of the Netherlands. While here, he wrote a defence of his conduct to Sigismond, king of Poland, against the aspersions of Joachim Westphale (one of the most violent controversial writers on the side of Luther), Bugenhagen, and others. In the same year, with the consent, if not at the desire of the duke of Wirtemberg, he maintained a disputation against Brentius, then a Lutheran, upon the subject of the eucharist. The unfair representation Brentius published of this controversy, and the garbled account he gave of Alasco’s arguments, obliged the latter to publish an apology for himself and his church, in 1557; in which he proved that their doctrine did not militate with the Augsburgh confession concerning the presence of Christ in the supper; but that, if they had differed from that confession, it did not follow that they were to be condemned, provided they could justify their dissent from the holy scriptures. Westphale was yet more illiberal than Brentius in his censure of Alasco and his flock; and reviled them with a virulence that would have better become their professed persecutors.

, an eminent Spanish statesman, and cardinal, was born May 15, 1664. His birth and early employments afforded no presage of his future ambition and fame. He was the son of a gardener near Parma, and when a boy, officiated as bell-ringer, and attended upon the parish church of his village. The rector, finding him a shrewd youth, taught him Latin. Alberoni afterwards took orders, and had a small living, on which he resided. While here, M. Campistron, a Frenchman^ secretary to the duke of Vendome, who commanded Louis XIV's armies in Italy, was robbed, and stripped of his clothes and money, by some ruffians near Alberon^s village. Alberoni, hearing of his misfortune, took him into his house, furnished him with clothes, and gave him as much money as he could spare, for his travelling expences. Campistron, no less impressed with the strength of his understanding than with the warmth of his benevolence, took him to the head quarters, and presented him to his general, as a man to whom he haxi very great obligations.

M. de Vendome first employed him in discovering where the people in his neighbourhood had concealed their grain; an undertaking which rendered Alberoni’s departure for Spain, with Vendome, as prudent as it turned out to be advantageous. By degrees he obtained the marshal’s confidence, and ventured to propose the daughter of his sovereign, the duke of Parma, to him, as a fit match for the king of Spain. Alberoni’s proposal was attended to, and the princess was demanded in marriage by that monarch, then Philip V. The duke of Parma consented with great readiness to a match that was to procure for his daughter the sovereignty of so great a kingdom as that of Spain, When every thing was settled, and immediately before the princess was to set out for her new dominions, the ministers of Spain had heard that she was a young woman of a haughty imperious temper, and extremely intriguing and ambitious. They therefore prevailed upon the king to write to the duke, requesting another of his daughters in marriage, to whose quiet disposition they could not possibly have any objections,. The king did as he was desired, and sent his letter by a special messenger. Alberoni, who was then at Parma, hearing of this, and afraid that all his projects of ambition would come to nothing, unless the princess whom he recommended, and who of course would think herself highly obliged to him for her exalted situation, became queen of Spain, caused the messenger to be stopped at one day’s journey from Parma, and gave him his choice, either to delay his coming to Parma for a day, or to be assassinated. He of course chose the first, and the princess set out upon her journey to Spain, and became queen.

Alberoni was now prime minister of Spain, a cardipal, and archbishop of Valentia; and exercised his ministry with the most complete despotism. One of his projects was, to dispossess the duke of Orleans of the regency of France, and to bestow it upon his own sovereign, as the oldest representative of the house of Bourbon: to place the pretender on the throne of England, and to add tq Spain the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily. This project, however, was discovered by the regent; and one of the conditions he made with the king of Spain was, the banishjnent of Alberoni from his councils and his kingdom. With this he was obliged to comply, and the cardinal received orders to leave Madrid in twenty-four hours, and the kingdom of Spain in fifteen days. Alberoni, who took with him great wealth, had not proceeded far, when it was discovered that he was carrying out of the kingdom the celebrated will of Charles II. of Spain, which gave that kingdom to its then sovereign. Persons were immediately detached from Madrid, to wrest this serious and important document from him, which it was supposed he intended ta take to the emperor of Germany, to ingratiate himself with him. With some violence they effected their purpose, and the cardinal proceeded on his journey to the frontiers of France, where he had the additional mortification of being received by an officer, sent by the regent to conduct him through that kingdom, as a state prisoner. Unembarrassed, however, by this circumstance, Alberoni wrote to the regent, to offer him his services against Spain, but his highr ness disdained to return any answer.

, grandson of the constable de Luynes, was the ninth child of Louis-Charles, duke de Luynes, grand almoner of France. He was born in 1672, and had in his youth the title of the chevalier d‘Albert. In 1688, he served as a volunteer at the siege of Philipshurgh; in 1690 he was twice wounded in the battle of Fleurus; and in 1693, commanded the Dauphin regiment of dragoons at Steinkirk, where he was again wounded. In 1703, he accompanied marshal Villars into Bavaria, where the elector promoted him to the rank of lieutenant-general. He was then known by the title of count d’ Albert, and was successively chamberlain, master of the horse, minister, and colonel of the Bavarian guards. The elector having arrived at the throne in 1742, by the royal title of Charles VII. appointed count d' Albert field marshal, and sent him to France as ambassador extraordinary. The same year the emperor created him a prince of the holy Roman empire, by the title of prince of Grimberghen, taken from the rich domains he acquired by marrying a princess of Berghes. He died Nov. 10, 1758, aged eighty-seven. Amidst all his campaigns and political engagements, he cultivated a taste for literature. His works are “Le Songe d'AlcU biade,” a supposed translation from the Greek, Paris, 1735, 12mo, reprinted with “Timandre instruit par son genie,” and other pieces, published at Amsterdam, 1759, 12 mo, under the title “Recueil de differentes pieces de litterature.”

, otherwise called Ridolfo Fioraventi, a celebrated mechanic, born at Bologna, lived in the 15th century. Astonishing performances are ascribed to this artist. In 1455 he transported, at Bologna, the campanile of St. Mary del Tempis, with all its bells, to the distance of 35 paces. In the town of Cento he righted that of the church of St. Blaise, which was got five feet and a half out of its perpendicular. Being invited to Hungary, he rebuilt several bridges on the Danube, and constructed many other works, with which the reigning sovereign was so highly satisfied, that he created him a chevalier, and allowed him to coin money with the impress of his own bust. He was likewise employed by Ivan Vassillievitch, grand duke of Russia, in the construction of several churches.

, marquis de Fronsac, seigneur de St. Andre, marechal of France, and one of the greatest captains of the sixteenth century, better known by the name of marechal de St. Andre, descended from an industrious and ancient family in Lyonnois. He gained the esteem of the dauphin, who, when he came to the crown by the name of Henry II. loaded him with riches and honours, made him marechal of France^ 1547, and afterwards first gentleman of his bed-chamber. He had already displayed his courage at the siege of Boulogne, and the battle of Cerisolles. He was then, it is said, chosen to carry the collar of his order to Henry VIII. king of England, who decorated him with that of the garter; but we do not find his name among the knights of that order, and it is more likely that he was the bearer of the insignia of the garter to Henry II. of France, from our Edward VI. In 1552, he had the command of the army of Champagne, and contributed much to the taking of Marienberg in 1554. He destroyed Chateau-Cambresis, and acquired great reputation at the retreat of Quesnoy; was at the battle of Renti; was taken prisoner at that of St. Quintin 1557, and bore an active part in the peace of Cambresis. He afterwards joined the friends of the duke ofGuise, and was killed by Babigny de Mezieres, with a pistol, at the battle of Dreux, 1562. He was handsome, noble, brave, active, insinuating, and much engaged in the important transactions of his time. Brantome asserts, that he had a presentiment of his death, before the battle of Dreux, He had only one daughter by his marriage with Margaret de Lustrac, who died very young in the monastery of LongChamp, at the time when her marriage was agreed upon with Henry of Guise.

, a celebrated and learned lawyer, was the son of a rich merchant of Milan, according to Pancirolus, and born in that city in 1492. After having studied the liberal sciences under Janus Parrhasius at Milan, he attended the law-lectures of Jason at Pavia, and those of Charles Ruinus at Bologna. Then taking a degree in law in his twenty-second year, he followed his profession at the bar, in the city of Milan, till he was called to the law-chair by the university of Avignon. He discharged his office with so much capacity, that Francis I. thought he would be a very proper person to promote the knowledge of the law in the university of Bourges, and accordingly prevailed on him to remove thither in 1529; and the next year he doubled his salary, which before was six hundred crowns. Alciati acquired here great fame and reputation; he interspei’sed much polite learning in his explication of the law, and abolished that barbarous language, which had hitherto prevailed in the lectures and writings of the lawyers. Francis Sforza, duke of Milan, thought himself obliged to bring back to his native country a man who could do it so much honour; and this he compassed at last, by giving him a large salary and the dignity of a senator. Alciati accordingly went to teach the law at Pavia, but soon after removed to the university of Bologna, where he continued four years, and then returned to Pavia; from whence he went to Ferrara, being solicited thither by duke Hercules d'Este, who was desirous to render his university famous. It resumed its reputation under a professor so much followed; but at the end of four years Alciati left it, and returned to Pavia. Paul III. gave him an honourable reception as he passed by Ferrara, and offered him ecclesiastical preferment; but Alciati was contented with that of prothonotary, and would not give up his profession of the law. He seems to rejoice that he had refused Paul’s offers, in a letter to Paulus Jovius, whom the pope had a long time amused with fallacious promises: “I am very glad,” says he, “that I did not suffer myself to be deceived by this pope’s offers, who, under the promise of a great recompense, wanted to draw me to Rome.” The emperor created Alciati a count-palatin and a senator; and Philip, afterwards king of Spain, presented him with a golden chain as he passed by Pavia.

, 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.

Aldhun had a daughter named Ecgfrid, whom he gave in marriage to Ucthred, son of Waltheof earl of Northumberland, and with her, six towns belonging to the episcopal see, upon condition that he should never divorce her. But that young lord afterwards repudiating her, with a view to a nobler alliance, Aldhun received back the church lands he had given with her. This prelate educated king Ethelred’s two sons, Alfred and Edward; and, when their father was driven from his throne by Swane, king of Denmark, he conducted them, together with queen Emma, into Normandy, to duke Richard the queen’s brother. This was in the year 1017, a little before bishop Aldhun’s death; for the next year, the English having received a terrible overthrow in a battle with the Scots, the good bishop was so affected with the news, that he died a few days after, having enjoyed the prelacy twenty-nine years. RaduU phus de Diceto calls this bishop Alfhunus, and bishop Godwin, Aldwinus.

, a Flemish Jesuit, born at Brussels the 22d of January 1592, was trained in polite literature in his own country. He went afterwards to Spain, and entered into the service of the duke of Ossuna, whom he attended to Sicily, when the duke went there as viceroy. Alegambe, being inclined to a religious life, took the habit of a Jesuit at Palermo, the 7th of September 1613, where he went through his probation, and read his course of philosophy. He pursued the study of divinity at Rome, whence he was sent to Austria, to teach philosophy in the university of Gratz. Havhig discharged th duties of this function to the satisfaction of his superiors, he was chosen professor of school-divinity, and promoted in form to the doctorship in 1629. About this time the prince of Eggemberg, who was in high favour with the emperor Ferdinand II. having resolved that his son should travel, and being desirous he should be attended by some learned and prudent Jesuit, Alegambe was judged a proper person; and he accordingly travelled with him five years, visiting Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. In 1638, the young prince with whom he travelled, being appointed by the emperor Ferdinand III. ambassador of obedience to the pope, invited Alegambe to go with him, who accordingly accompanied him to Rome, in quality of his confessor. After he had discharged this office, the general of the Jesuits retained him as secretary of the Latin dispatches for Germany. Alegambe, having spent four years in the discharge of this laborious office, was obliged to resign it, the continual application to writing having considerably weakened his sight. He was now appointed president of spiritual affairs in the professed house, and had the office also of hearing confessions in the church, in which capacity he acquitted himself with reputation. He died of the dropsy, at Rome, the 6th of September 1652. He is now principally known by hi 1. “Bibliotheca scriptorum societatis Jesu,” Antwerpise, 1643, fol. 2. “Vita P. Joannis Cardin. Lusitani, ex societate Jesu,” Romae, 1649, 12mo. 3. “Heroes et victims charitatis societatis Jesu,” Romse, 1658, 4to; continued by Nadasi from 1647 to 1657. These “victims” were such as lost their lives in attending persons who died of the plague. 4. “Mortes illustres et gesta eorum de societate Jesu, qui in odium fidei ab hsreticis vel aliis occisi sunt,” Romse, 1657, fol.

In 1759, he published his Elements of Philosophy; a work extolled as remarkable for its precision and perspicuity; in which, however, are some tenets relative both to metaphysics and moral science, of the most pernicious kind. The resentment that was kindled (and the disputes that followed it) by the article Geneva, inserted in the Encyclopédie, are well known. M. d‘Alembert did not leave this field of controversy with flying colours. Voltaire was an auxiliary in the contest; but as, in point of candour and decency, he had no reputation to lose; and as he weakened the blows of his enemies, by throwing both them and the spectators into fits of laughter, the issue of the war gave him little uneasiness. It fell more heavily on d’Alembert; and exposed him, even at home, to contradiction and opposition, which it required all the wit and talents of his associates to resist with effect. In those days, however, of philosophical infatuation, even kings were blindly led to assist in undermining their thrones. And on this occasion, Frederic, usually stiled the great Frederic, king of Prussia, offered him an honourable asylum at his court, and the place of president of his academy; and was not offended at his refusal of these distinctions, but cultivated an intimate friendship with him during the rest of his life. He had refused, some time before this, a proposal made by the empress of Russia to intrust him with the education of the grand duke; a proposal accompanied with very tiattering offers.

, a celebrated divine of the confession of Augsbourg, was born at Edinburgh, April 23, 1500. He soon made a considerable progress in schooldivinity, and entered the lists very early against Luther; this being then the great controversy in fashion, and the grand field in which all authors, young and old, were accustomed to display their abilities. Soon after he had a share in the dispute which Patrick Hamilton maintained against the ecclesiastics, in favour of the new faith he had imbibed at Marpurgh: he endeavoured to bring him back to the catholic religion; but this he could not effect, and even began himself to doubt about his own religion, being much affected by the discourse of this gentleman, and more still by the constancy he shewed at the stake, where David Beaton, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, caused him to be burnt. The doubts of Ales would perhaps have been carried no further, if he had been left unmolested to enjoy his canonry in the metropolitan church of St. Andrew’s; but he was persecuted with so much violence by the provost of St. Andrew’s, whose intrigues he preached against that he was obliged to retire into Germany, where he became at length a perfect convert to the Protestant religion, and persevered therein till his death. In the different parties which were formed, he sometimes joined with those that were least orthodox; for, in 1560, he maintained the doctrine of George Major, concerning the necessity of good works. The change of religion, which happened in England after the marriage of Henry VI IL with Anna Boleyn, induced Ales to go to London, in U35, where he was highly esteemed by Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, Latimer, and Thomas Cromwel, who were at that time in favour with the king. Upon the fall of these favourites, he was obliged to return to Germany, where the elector of Brandenburg appointed him professor of divinity at Francfort upon the Oder, in 1540. Two years afterwards he had a dispute there, upon the question “Whether the magistrate can and ought to punish fornication” and he maintained the affirmative with Melancthon. He was greatly offended at their not deciding this dispute, and perhaps his discontent was the reason of his quitting Francfort precipitately; and it is certain that the court of Brandenburgh complained of him, and wrote to the university of Wittemberg to have him punished. He retired, however, to Leipsic; and while he was there, he refused a professor’s chair, which Albert duke of Prussia intended to erect at Koningsberg, and which was erected the year following. Soon after, he was chosen professor of divinity at Leipsic, and enjoyed it till his death, which happened on the 17th of March 1565. The following are the titles of his principal works: 1. “De necessitate et merito Bonorum Operum, disputatio proposita, in celebri academia Lipsica ad 29 Nov. 1560.” 2. “Commentarii in evangelium Joannis, et in utramque epistolam ad Timotheum.” 3. “Expositio in Psalmos Davidis.” 4. “De Justificatione, contra Osiandrum.” 5. “De Sancta Trinitate, cum confutatione erroris Valentini.” 6. “Responsio ad triginta et duos articulos theologorum Lovaniensium.”

, grand duke of Russia, and a saint of the Russian church, is so often mentioned on account of the order of knighthood instituted to his honour by Peter the Great, and yet is so little known out of Russia, that an article may well be allowed him here. He was born in 1218, and seems to have been a man of strong character, of personal courage, and bodily strength. The almost incessant wars in which his father Yaroslauf was engaged with Tshingis khan and the neighbouring horcles of Mongoies, inspired him early in life with a passion for conquest. Probably too an unhappy conceit entertained by the princes of those times and those countries, might have contributed somewhat to prepare Alexander for the part of the hero he. afterwards performed. This was the custom of conferring on young princes particular provinces as apanages or viceroyalties. Yaroslauf had in 1227 changed his residence at Novgorod for that of Pereyaslaf, leaving in the former place his two eldest sons, Feodor and Alexander, as his representative, under the guidance of two experienced boyars. However small the share that a boy of ten years old, as Alexander then was, could take in the government; yet it must have been of advantage to him to be thus initiated in a situation preparatory to the exercise of that power he was one day to enjoy in his own right. Five years afterwards Feodor died; and now Alexander was alone viceroy of Novgorod he was not an apanaged prince till 1239, when his father took possession of Vladimir. He now married a princess of the province of Polotzk, and the first care of his government was to secure the country against the attacks of the Tshudes (among whom are particularly to be understood the Esthonians), who were partly turbulent subjects, and partly piratical neighbours of the principality of Novgorod. To this end he built a line of forts along the river Shelonia, which falls into the Ilmenlake. But a more imminent danger soon furnished him with an opportunity of performing far greater service to his nation. Incited by the oppressions exercised by the Tartars on southern Russia, the northern borderers formed a league to subdue Novgorod; and thought it necessary to begin their enterprise the sooner, as, from the accounts they had received by one of their chiefs, who had gained a personal knowledge of Alexander at Novgorod, the young prince would shortly be too powerful for them. The warlike king of Denmark, Valdemar II. at that time possessed a considerable portion of Esthonia, together with Reval, which he had lately built . He had long been in alliance with the Teutonic knights of Livonia, which he renewed in 1233; ift which treaty they agreed upon a combined expedition against the Russians. This was accordingly undertaken in 1239. A very considerable fleet came to land on the banks of the Neva, while the Swedes were coming down from Ladoga to attack them by land. An embassy was sent to Alexander, commanding him immediately to submit, or to stake his fortunes on a decisive battle. He made choice of the latter. Too near the enemy, and too distant from his father, he had no hope of any foreign succour, and his army was extremely weak. In the presence of his people he solemnly implored the assistance of heaven, was certified of it by the formal benediction of the archbishop; and thus raised the efficacy of the only support he had, the courage of his soldiers. Having their strength increased by the persuasion that the hosts of heaven were on theic­'side, they went to battle, and began the attack. This was at six in the morning. The two armies were closely engaged during the whole day, and the slaughter continued till night put an end to the contest. The field was covered with the bodies of the slain. Three ship-loads of them were sunk in the sea, and the rest were thrown together in pits. On the side of the Novgorodians only 20 men were killed, say the chronicles; perhaps by an error of the writers, perhaps in the meaning that only the principal citizens of Novgorod are reckoned. But most likely this statement is one of those poeac extravagancies which are not to be mistaken in perusing the Russian accounts of this battle. In the ancient history of all nations a certain lively colouring is used in describing the decisive transactions of early times; a natural consequence of the intimate concern the chronologer takes in the successes of his conntry, and the enthusiasm with which he wishes to represent it as a nation of heroes. Thus the old historians mention six mighty warriors, who, by some signal act in this battle, have handed down their names to the latest posterity. It is impossible not to imagine we are perusing a fragment of romance, when we read, that Gavriela Alexiri pursued a king’s son on horseback into a ship, fell into the sea, came back unhurt, and slew a general and two bishops. Sbislauf was armed only with an axe, Jacob Polotshanin with nothing but a sword, and both killed a multitude of the ene r my. Sava rushed into the enemy’s camp, destroyed the tent of the general, &c. Alexander, our heroic saint, is also indebted to this poetical colouring (perhaps to a vulgar ballad) for his canonization and his fame. He sprung like a lion upon the leader of the hostile troops, and cleft his face in two with a stroke of his sword. This personage, according to the Russian annalists, was no less a man than the king of the northern regions himself. And this act it was that procured our Alexander the surname of Nevskoi, i.e. the conqueror on the banks of the Neva. Peter the Great took a politic advantage of the enthusiasm of the nation, for this Alexander, in order to procure a religious interest for his new city of Petersburg. On the spat where, according to the common opinion, the holy hero had earned the glorious name of Nevskoi, he caused the foundations of a monastery to be laid in 1712, to which he afterwards, in 1723, caused the bones of the great duke to be brought. Peter gave orders that the relics of the saints of Volodimer should be brought to Petersburg (a distance of 700 miles) attended by great solemnities. Between 300 and 400 priests accompanied the procession. On their arrival, the emperor himself, with all his court, went out to meet them; and the coffin, inclosed in a case of copper strongly gilt, was deposited in the monastery with great ceremony. This monastery of St. Alexander Nevskoi is about five versts from the castle at Petersburg, in an agreeable situation on the bank of the Neva. It has gradually been enlarged by the several sovereigns since the emperor Peter; and the present empress has built a magnificent church within its walls, and a sumptuous mausoleum for herself and her descendants. The shrine of the saint is of massy silver, of great value, but both the workmanship and the inscription in a bad taste. The order of knighthood of St. Alexander Nevskoi was properly instituted by Peter the Great in 1722; but he died before he had appointed the knights. This was done by Catherine I. in June 1725. The number of the knights are at present about 135, among whom are one or more crowned heads.

Algarottihad also studied the fine arts, and produced many excellent specimens of painting and engraving. In particular he designed and engraved several plates of heads in groupes, one of which, containing thirteen in the antique style, is dated Feb. 15, 1744. He travelled likewise over Italy, with a painter and draftsman in his suite; and what he has published on the arts discovers extensive knowledge and taste. Frederick II. who had become acquainted with his talents when prince-royal, no sooner mounted the throne, than he invited him to Berlin. Algarotti was then in London, and, complying with his majesty’s wish, remained at Berlin many years. Frederick conferred on him the title of count of the kingdom of Prussia, with reversion to his brother and descendants. He made him also his chamberlain, and knight of the order of Merit, bestowing on him at the same time many valuable presents, and other marks of his esteem; and after Algarotti left Berlin, the king corresponded with him for twenty-five years. The king of Poland, Augustus III. also had him for some time at his court, and gave him the title of privy-­counselloir of war. Nor was he held in less esteem by the sovereigns of Italy, particularly pope Benedict XIV. the duke of Savoy, and the duke of Parma. The excellence of his character, the purity of his morals, his elegant manners, and the eclat which surrounds a rich amateur of the arts, contributed to his celebrity perhaps as much as the superiority of his talents, and his acknowledged taste. Wherever he travelled he was respected equally by the rich, and the learned, by men of letters, by artists, and by men of the world. The climate of Germany having sensibly injured his health, he returned first to Venice, and afterwards to Bologna, where he had determined to reside, but his disorder, a consumption of the lungs, gained ground rapidly, and put an end to his life, at Pisa, March 3, 1764. He is said to have met death with composure, or, as his biographer terms it, with philosophical resignation. In his latter days he passed his mornings with Maurino (the artist who used to accompany him in his travels), engaged in the study of painting, architecture, and the fine arts. After dinner he had his works read to him, then printing at Leghorn, and revised and corrected the sheets: in the evening he had a musical party. The epitaph he wrote for himself is taken from Horace’s non omnis moriar, and contains only the few words, “Hicjacet Fr. Algarottus non omnis” The king of Prussia was at the expense of a magnificent monument in the Campo Santo of Pisa; on which, in addition to the inscription which Algarotti wrote, he ordered the following, “Algarotto Ovidii emulo, Newtoni discipulo, Fredericus rex,” and Algarotti’s heirs added only “Fredericus Magnus.” The works of Algarotti were published at Leghorn, 1765, 4 vols. 8vo; at Berlin, 1772, 8 vols. 8vo; and at Venice, 17 vols. 8vo, 1791--1794. This last, the most complete and correct edition, is ornamented with vignettes, the greater part of which were taken from the author’s designs. These volumes contain 1. Memoirs of his life and writings, and his poetry. 2. An analysis of the Newtonian system. 3. Pieces on architecture, painting, the opera, essays on vario is languages, on history, philology, on Des Cartes, Horace, &c. 4 and 5. Essays on the military art, and on the writers on that subject. 6. His travels in Russia, preceded by an Essay on the metals of that empire: the congress of Cytherea, the life of Pallavicini, the Italian poet; and a humorous piece against the abuse of learning. 7. Thoughts on different subjects of philosophy and philology. 8. Letters on painting and architecture. 9 and 10. Letters on the sciences. 11 to 16. His correspondence, not before published, with the literati of Italy, England, and France. 17. An unfinished critical essay on the triumvirate of Crassus, Pompey, and Gassar. Among his correspondents we find the names of the Italians, Manfredi and Zanotti, his first masters, Fabri of Bologna, Metastasio, Frugoni, Bettinelli, Frisi the celebrated mathematician and physician, Mazzuchelli, Paradisi, &c.; the Prussians, Frederic II. several princes of the same family, and Form ey, &c.; the English, lords Chesterfield and Hervey, Mr. Hollis, lady Montague, &c.; jand the French, Voltaire, Maupercuis, du Chastellet, mad. du Boccage,; &c. His Essays on painting, on the opera, his Letters to lord Hervey and the marquis Maffei, and his Letters, military and political, have been translated and published in English. His biographers have generally handed down his character without a blemish; aiui Fabroni, on whom ive mostly rely, is equally lavish in his praises. Wiule we take his personal merits from these authorities, we have evident proof from his works that he was an universal scholar, and wrote with facility and originality on every subject he took in hand. They present a greater variety of reading and thought than almost any scholar of the eighteenth century; but they are not without redundancy, and sometimes affectation. His fame is said to be fixed on a more solid basis in his own country, than in those where he has been viewed only througn the medium of translations.

, an architect and geometrician of the sixteenth century, was born at Carpi, in Modena. He was employed as architect by the duke of Ferrara, but applied himself principally to the art of fortification. Hia work on that subject, “Delle Fortificazioni,” divided into three books, was printed at Venice in 1570, in a most splendid form, in folio. Modern engineers have been much, indebted to him.

, so named from the town of Allais in Languedoc, where he received his birth, travelled to England in his youth. In 1665, we find him on board the fleet commanded by the duke of York. He returned to France, where he taught the English and French languages. His works are: 1. “A Methodical French Grammar,” 1681, 12 mo. 2. “An Abridgment of that Grammar,” in English, 1683, 12mo. 3. “The History of the Sevarambians,” a work divided into two general parts; the first printed in 1677, 2 vols. 12mo; the second in 1678 and 79, in 3 vols. 12mo. It was reprinted in 1716, at Amsterdam, in 2 vols. 12mo, small type. It is a political romance, which was thought to be dangerous, and which in many places is only ridiculous. There are other works of Allais, but not held in much estimation. Marchand appears to have a higher opinion of his merit than any other biographer, and has given a very prolix analysis of his history of the Sevarambians.

, an English minor poet of the seventeenth century, was the son of James Allestry, a bookseller of London, who was ruined by the great fire in 1666, and related to provost Allestry, the subject of the next article. Jacob was educated at Westminster school, and entered at Christ-church, Oxford, in the act-term 1671, at the age of eighteen, and was elected student in 1672. He took the degree in arts; was music-reader in 1679, and terrte filius in 1681; both which offices he executed with, great applause, being esteemed a good philologist and poet. He had a chief hand in the verses and pastorals spoken in the theatre at Oxford, May 21, 1681, by Mr. William Savile, second son of the marquis of Halifax, and George Cholmondeley, second son of Robert viscount Kells (both of Christ-church), before James duke of York, his duchess, and the lady Anne; which verses and pastorals were afterwards printed in the “Examen Poeticum.” He died of the consequence of youthful excesses, October 15, 1686, and was buried, in an obscure manner, in St. Thomas’s church-yard, Oxford.

, one of the Latin poets who flourished in Italy in the fifteenth century, was born at Basilicata, in the kingdom of Naples, or as some think, at Mantua. He studied, however, at Naples, which he made his residence, and associated with Pontanus, Sannazarius, and the other literati of that time and place, and acted as preceptor to prince Ferdinand, who came to the throne in 1495, by the resignation of his father Alphonsus II. According to Ughelli in his “Italia sacra,” Altilio was appointed bishop of Policastro in 1471, and died in 1484; but according to Mazzuchelli, whose authority in this instance appears preferable, he was not bishop until 1489, and died about 1501. He has left but few specimens of his poetry, but they are of acknouledged merit. The most celebrated is the epithalamium he wrote on the marriage of Isabella of Arragon, daughter of Alphonsus II. with John Galeas Sforca, duke of Milan. This is published in the Carm. Illust. Poet. Ital. and with a few of his other pieces, at the close of the works of Sannazarius, by Comino, 1731, 4to, where numerous testimonies are collected of the merits of Altilio. Some of these pieces had, however, been before printed with the works of Sannazarius, Daniel Cereti, and the brothers of the Amalthei, illustrated by the notes of Peter Vlamingii, Amst. 1728, 8vo, which may be united with the variorum classics. Notwithstanding the praises generally bestowed on Altilio, there are some critics who have undervalued his talenjts. In particular, Julius Scaliger thinks there is too great a profusion of thought and expression in this performance:“Gabriel Altilius,” says he, “composed an excellent epithalamium, which would have been still better, had he restrained his genius; but, by endeavouring to say every thing upon the subject, he disgusts the reader as much in some places, as he gives him pleasure in others: be says too much, which is a fault peculiar to his nation, for in all that tract of Italy they have a continual desire of talking.” k may appear singular that his Latin poetry 'should hare raised him to the dignity of a prelate; yet it certainly did, in a great measure, to the bishopric of Policastro. Some have also reproached him for neglecting the muses after his preferment, though they had proved so serviceable to him in acquiring it: “When he was made bishop,” says Paulus Jovius, “he soon and impudently left the muses, by whose means he had been promoted: a most heinous ingratitude, unless we excuse him from the consideration of his order, which obliged him to apply to the study of the holy scriptures.”

, an eminent German divine, was born at Embden, Feb. 17, 1583, of a family of considerable note in Friesland. His father, Menso Alting, was one of the first who preached the doctrines of the reformation in the territory of Groningen, about the year 1566, and under the tyrannical government of the duke of Alva. He faithfully served the church of Embden during the space of thirty-eight years, and died Oct. 7th, 1612. His sjn was from a child designed for the ministry, and sent very early to school, and afterwards into Germany in 1602. At Herborn he made such uncommon progress under the celebrated Piscator, Matthias, Martinius, &c. that he was allowed to teach philosophy and divinity. While preparing for his travels into Switzerland and France, he was chosen preceptor to three young counts, who studied at Sedan with the electoral prince Palatine, and took possession of that employment about September 1605; but the storm which the duke of Bomllon was threatened with by Henry IV. obliging the electoral prince to retire from Sedan with the three young noblemen, Alting accompanied them to Heidelberg. Here he continued to instruct his noble pupils, and was admitted to read lectures in geography and history to the electoral prince till 1608, when he was declared his preceptor. In this character he accompanied him to Sedan, and was afterwards one of those who were appointed to attend the young elector on his journey into England in 1612, where he became acquainted with Dr. Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. King, bishop of London, Dr. Hackwell, preceptor to the prince of Wales; and also had the honour of an audience of king James. The marriage between the elector and the princess of England being solemnized at London in Feb. 1613, Alting left England, and arrived at Heidelberg. In the ensuing August he was appointed professor of the common places of divinity, and to qualify himself for presiding in theological contests, he took the degree of D. D. In 1616 he had a troublesome office conferred upyn him, that of director of the collegium supientite of Heidelberg. In 1618 he was offered the second professorship of divinity, vacant by the death of Coppeniiis, which he refused, but procured it for Scultetus.

a French cardinal and statesman of the illustrious house of Amboise in France, so called from their possessing the seignory of that name, was born in 1460. Being destined at a very early age for the church, he was elected bishop of Montauban when only fourteen. He was afterwards made one of the almoners to Lewis XI. to whom he behaved with great prudence. After the death of this prince in 1480, he entered into some of the intrigues of the court with a design to favour the duke of Orleans, with whom he was closely connected; but those intrigues being discovered, d‘Aniboise and his protector were both imprisoned. The duke of Orleans was at last restored to his liberty; and this prince having negotiated the marriage of the king with the princess Anne of Britanny, acquired great reputation and credit at court. Of this his favourite d’Amboise felt the happy effect as, soon after, the archbishopric of Narbonne was bestowed on him; but being at too great a distance from the court, he changed it for that of Rouen, to which the chapter elected him in 1493. As soon as he had taken possession of his new see, the duke of Orleans, who was governor of Normandy, made him lieutenant-general, with the same power as if he had been governor in cbief. This province was at that time in great disorder: the noblesse oppressed the people, the judges were all corrupted or intimidated; the soldiers, who had been licentious since the late wars, infested the high-ways, plundering and assassinating all travellers they met; but in less-than a year, d‘Amboise by his care and prudence established public tranquillity. The king dying in 1498, the duke of Orleans ascended the throne, by the name of Lewis XII. and d’Amboise became his prime minister. By his first operation in that office, he conciliated the affection of the whole nation. It had been a custom when a new monarch ascended the throne, to lay an extraordinary tax on the people, to defray the expences of the coronation, but by the counsel of d‘Amboise this tax was not levied, and the imposts were soon reduced one tenth. His virtues coinciding with his knowledge, he made the French nation happy, and endeavoured to preserve the glory they had acquired. By his advice Lewis XII. undertook the conquest of the Milanese in 1499. Lewis the Moor, uncle and vassal of Maximilian, was then in possession of that province. It revolted soon after the conquest, but d’Amboise brought it back to its duty. Some time after he was received at Paris with great magnificence, in quality of legate from the pope. During his legation, he laboured to reform many of the religious orders, as the jacobins, the cordeliers, and those of St. Germain des Pres. His disinterestedness was equal to his zeal. He never possessed more than one benefice, two thirds of which he employed for the relief of the poor and the support of the churches. Contenting himself with his archbishopric of Rouen and his cardinal’s hat, he was not, like his contemporaries, desirous to add abbeys to it. A gentleman of Normandy having offered to sell him an estate at a very low price, in order to portion his daughter, he made him a present of a sum sufficient for that purpose, and left him the estate. He obtained the purple after the dissolution of the marriage between Lewis XII. and Joan of France, to which he greatly contributed: and, on having procured for Caesar Borgia, son of pope Alexander VI. the duchy of Valentinois, with a considerable pension, his ambition was to be pope, with a view to the reform of abuses, and the correction of manners. After the death of Pius III. he might have succeeded in his wishes, and took measures to procure the tiara, but cardinal Julian de Rovera (afterwards Julius II.) found means to circumvent him; and the Venetians having contributed to his exclusion, he took the first opportunity to excite Lewis XII. to make war on them, a circumstance which seems not a little to detract from his character. This celebrated cardinal died in 15 10, in the convent of the Celestines at Lyons, of the gout in his stomach, aged 50 years. It is reported that he often repeated to the friar who attended him in his illness, “Brother John, why have I not during my whole life been brother John?” This minister has been greatly praised for having laboured for the happiness of France; but he has been equally censured for having advised his master to sign the treaty of Blois in 1504, by which France ran the risk of being dismembered. He governed both the king and the state; laborious, kind, honest, he possessed good sense, firmness, and experience, but he was not a great genius, nor were his views extensive. The desire he had to ease the people in their taxes, procured him during his life, but much more after his death, the title of father of the people. He merited this title still more, by the care he took to reform the administration of justice. Most of the judges were venal, and the poor, and those who had no support, could never obtain justice, when their opposers were either powerful or rich. Another evil not less enormous troubled the kingdom; law-suits were spun out to such a length, were so expensive, and accompanied by so much trick and chicanery, that most people rather chose to abandon their rights than engage in the recovery of them by suits which had no prospect of coming to an end. D‘Amboise resolved to remedy this abuse. He called to his assistance many lawyers and civilians, the most learned and of the greatest integrity; and charged them to form a plan, by which justice might be administered without partiality, the duration of lawsuits abridged and rendered less ruinous, and the corruption of the judges prevented. When these commissioners had made their report, d’Amboise undertook the laborious task of examining into the changes they had proposed in the old laws, and the new regulations they designed to establish; and after having made some changes, these new regulations were published throughout the kingdom. As he was governor of Normandy, he made a progress through that province for the express purpose of seeing his new code properly established.

, was the second son of Jeffery Amherst, of Riverhead, in Kent, esq. and of Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Kerrill, of Hadlow, in Kent, esq. and was born Jan. 29, 1717. He devoted himself very early to the profession of arms, having received an ensign’s commission in the guards, in 1731, when he was only fourteen years of age; but about ten years afterwards he was aide-de-camp to general, afterwards lord Ligonier, and in that capacity was present with the general at the battles of Roucox, Dettingen, and Fontenoy. He was afterwards admitted on the staff of the duke of Cumberland, with whom he was present at the engagements of Laffeld and Hastenbeck. In 1756, he was appointed to the command of the fifteenth regiment of foot, and in two years more obtained the rank of major-general in the army.

In 1732, on the change of the administration usually called that of lord North, the command of the army, and the lieutenant-generalship of ordnance, were put into other hands. In 1787, he received another patent of peerage, as baron Amherst, of Montreal, with remainder to his nephew, William Pitt Amherst. On the staff being reestablished, he was, Jan. 22, 1793, again appointed to the command of the army in Great Britain, although at that time, general Conway, the duke of Gloucester, sir George Howard, the duke of Argyle, the hon. John Fitz-­william, and sir Charles Montagu, were his seniors. On the 10th of February 1795, the command of the army being given to the duke of York, an offer of earldom, and the rank of field marshal, were made to lord Amherst, who then declined accepting them, but on the 30th July 1796, accepted the rank of field-marshal. His increasing age and infirmities, had, however, rendered him unfit for public business nearly two years before this period, and he now retired to his seat at Montreal in Kent, where he August 3, 1797, in the eighty-first year of his age. and was interred in the family vault in Seven Oaks church, on the 10th. Lord Amherst had been twice married; first, to Jane, only daughter of Thomas Dallison, of Manton, in Lincolnshire, esq. who died Jan. 7, 1765; and secondly, to Elizabeth, eldest daughter of general George Gary, brother to viscount Falkland, who survived him; but by neither had he any issue. His two brothers had distinguished themselves in the service of their country; John, an admiral of the blue, died Feb. 12, 1778 and William, already mentioned, a lieutenant-general in the army, died May 13, 1781. His son inherits lord Amherst’s title and estate.

Soon after Mr. Amhurst quitted Oxford, he seems to have settled in London, as a writer by profession. He published a volume of “Miscellanies,” (principally written at the university), on a variety of subjects; partly originals, and partly paraphrases, imitations, and translations; and consisting of tales, epigrams, epistles, love-verses, elegies, and satires. They begin with a beautiful paraphrase on the Mosaic account of the creation, and end with a very humorous tale upon the discovery of that useful instrument a bottle-screw. Mr. Amhurst was -the author, likewise, of an “Epistle to sir John Blount,” bart. one of the directors of the South-Sea Company in 1720; of the “British General,” a poem sacred to the memory of his grace John duke of Marlborough; and of “Strephon’s revenge,” a satire on the Oxford toasts. Our poet, who had a great enmity to the clergy, and who had early, at Oxford, displayed his zeal against what he called priestly power, discovered this particularly in a poem entitled the “Convocation,” in five cantos; a kind of satire against all the writers who had opposed bishop Hoadly, in the famous Bangorian controversy. He translated also, Mr. Addison’s Resurrection, and some other of his Latin poems. But the principal literary undertaking of Mr. Amhurst was, his conducting “The Craftsman,” which was carried on for a number of years with great spirit and success; and was more read and attended to than any production of the kind which had hitherto been published in England. Ten or twelve thousand were sold in a day; and the effect which it had in raising the indignation of the people, and in controlling the power of the Walpole administration, was very considerable. This effect was not, however, entirely, or chiefly, owing to the abilities of Mr. Amhurst, He was assisted by lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Pulteney, and by other leaders of the opposition, whose fame and writings were the grand support of the “Craftsman.” Nevertheless, Mr. Amhurst’s own paper’s are allowed to have been composed with ability and spirit, and he conducted the “Craftsman” in the very zenith of-its prosperity, with no small reputation to himself. July 2, 1737, there appeared in that publication an ironical letter, in the name of Colley Gibber, the design of which was to ridicule the act that had just passed for licensing plays. In this letter, the laureat proposes himself to the lord chamberlain to be made superintendant of the old plays, as standing equally in need of correction with the new ones; and produces several passages from Shakspeare, and other poets, in relation to kings, queens, princes, and ministers of state, which, he says, are not now fit to be brought on the stage. The printer, &c. having been laid hold of by order of government, Mr. Amhurst hearing that a warrant from the duke of Newcastle was issued against him, surrendered himself to a messenger, and was carried before his grace to be examined. The crime imputed to hini was, that “he was suspected to be the author of a paper suspected to be a libel.” As no proofs were alleged against him, nor witnesses produced, an examination of this kind could not last long. As soon as it was over, he was told that the crime being bailable, he should be bailed upon finding sufficient securities to answer for his appearance and trial; but these terms being imposed upon him, be absolutely refused. Upon this refusal, he was remanded back into custody, and the next day brought his habeas corpus, and was then set at liberty, by consent, till the twelve Judges should determine the question, “Whether he was obliged to give bail for his good behaviour, as well as his appearance, before he was entitled to his liberty.” This determination was impatiently expected by the public, and several days were fixed for hearing counsel on both sides, but no proceedings of that kind took place, and the question remained undetermined until the days of Wilkes.

, of Messina, canon of the cathedral of Palermo, and historiographer to Philip IV. king of Spain, acquired much reputation for his knowledge in, the history and antiquities of Sicily. Of his numerous works on this subject, some have been printed, and the manuscripts of the rest were after his death deposited in. the libraries of the duke of Madonia and of Palafox, archbishop of Palermo. Those published are, 1. “Trium orientalium Latinorum ordinum, post captam a duce Gothofredo Hierusalem, &c. notitiae et tabularia,” Palermo, 1636, fol. 2. “Dissertatio historica et chronologica de antique urbis Syracusarum archiepiscopatu,” Naples, 1640, 4to. This relates to the serious disputes between the three churches of Syracuse, Palermo, and Messina, respecting the metropolitan title and rights, and was inserted, with the answers, in the 7th vol. of the “Thesaurus antiquitatutn Sicilian,” Leyden, 1723. 3. “Series ammiratorum insulse Sicilian, ab ann. 842 ad 1640,” Palermo, 1640, 4to. 4. “De Messanensis prioratus sacræ hospilitatis domus militum sancti Joan. Hierosolymitani origine,” Palermo, 1640, 4to. 5. “Chronologia de los Virreyes, &c. de Sicilia,” Palermo, 1640, 4to. Amico died Oct. 22 in the year following the publication of the four last-mentioned works.

Marcellus Marcini being chosen pope in 1555, under the name of Marcellus II. Ammirato, who knew that Nicolao Majorano, bishop of Molfetta, a city near Barri, had been formerly a friend of the pope’s, persuaded him to go to Rome, and congratulate him upon his election, with a view, by attending the bishop in his journey, to procure some place under the nephews of that pope; but, as they were preparing for this journey, the death of Marcellus put a stop to their intended scheme, and destroyed their hopes; upon which Ammirato retired to a country-seat of his father’s, where he applied himself closely to his studies. At last he was determined to return to Naples, in order to engage again in the study of the law, and to take his degrees in it; his relish for this profession was not in the least increased, but he thought the title he might procure would be of advantage to him. He had not, however, been six months at Naples, before he grew weary of it, and entered successively into the service of several noblemen as secretary. Upon his return to Lucca, he was appointed by this city to go and present a petition to pope Pius IV. in their favour, which office he discharged with success. Upon his return to Lucca, he was appointed by the city of Naples to settle there, and write the history of that kingdom; but the cold reception he met with from the governors who had sent for him, disgusted him so much, that he left the city with a resolution to return no more, and although they repented afterwards of their neglect of him, and used all possible means to bring him back, he continued inflexible. He then went to Rome, where he procured a great many friends; and, having travelled over part of Italy, visited Florence, where he resolved to settle, being engaged by the kind reception which the Grand Duke gave to men of letters. He was appointed to write the history of Florence, and received many instances of that prince’s bounty, which he increased after this publication, by presenting him with a canonry in the cathedral of Florence. This easy situation now gave him an opportunity of applying himself more vigorously to his studies, and writing the greatest part of his works. He died at Florence the 30th of January, 1601, in the 69th year of his age. His works are as follow: 1. “Arguments,” in Italian verse, of the cantos of Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso, which were first published in the edition of that poem at Venice, in 1548, in 4to. 2. “II Decalione dialogo del poeta,” Naples, 1560, 8vo. 3. “Istorie Florentine dopo la fondatione di Fierenze insino all' anno 1574,” printed at Florence, 1600, in 2 vols. folio. 4. “Discorsi sopra Cornelio Tacito,” Florence, 1598, 4to. 5. “Delle famiglie nobili Napolitane,” part I. at Florence, 1580, in folio; part II. at Florence, 1651, folio. 6. “Discorsi delle famiglie Paladina et PAntoglietta,” Florence, 1605, in 4to. 7. “Albero et storia della famiglia de conte Guidi, coll' agiunte de Scipione Ammirato Giovane,” Florence, 1640 and 1650. 8. “Delle famiglie Florentine,” Florence, 1615, folio. 9. “Vescovi de Fiesoli di Volterra, e d‘Arezzo, con l’aggiiinta di Scipione Ammirato il Giovane,” Florence, 1637, 4to. 10. “Opuscoli varii,” Florence, 1583, in 8vo. 11. “Rime varie,” printed in a collection of poems by different authors. Venice, 1553, in 8vo. 12. “Poesi Spirituali,” Venice, 1634, in 4to, 13. “Annotazioni sopra la seconde parte de Sonetti di Bernardino Rota fatti in morte di Porzia Capece sua moglia,” Naples, 1560, in 4to. He left a manuscript life of himself, which is said to have been deposited in the library of the hospital of St. Mary. He made his secretary, Dei Bianco, his heir, on condition of taking his name, who accordingly called himself Scipio Ammirato the younger. He was editor of some of his benefactor’s works, particularly of his history of Florence, a performance of great accuracy and credit.

Counsellor Amory, the grandfather of the doctor, and father of our author, was the youngest brother of Amory, or Darner, the miser, whom Pope calls the wealthy and the wise; from whom came lord Milton, &c. He married the daughter of Fitz Maurice, earl of Kerry; sir William Petty, another daughter; and the grandfather of the duke of Leinster, a third. He died at the age of 97, in 1789.

, a native of the province of Over-yssel, was first a clergyman at Haerlem, but afterwards studied medicine and practised in Lower Saxony, having also been appointed medical professor at Rostock, and physician to the duke of Mecklenburgh. He died at Rostock in 1612, aged eighty-three?., he wrote, 1. “Dissertatio iatromathematica,” Rostock, 1602, 1618, 4to; 1629, 8vo. In this, after preferring medicine and astronomy to all other sciences, he contends for the necessity of their union in the healing art. 2. “De Theriaca, oratio,” 1618, 4to. 3. “De Morborum differentiis,” 1619, and other works, in which his practice appears rather more rational than his theory.

Chief justice Anderson married Magdalen, daughter of Nicholas Smith of Aunables in Hertfordshire, by whom he had three sons, Edward, Francis, William, and six daughters, two of which died young. Of those that survived, Elizabeth married Sir Hatton Farmer, knt. ancestor to the earl of Pontefract; Griselda espoused sir John Shefeld, knt. from whom descended the late duke of Buckinghamshire. Catherine became the wife of sir George Booth, bart. ancestor to the earls of Warrington; and Margaret, by sir Thomas Monson, bart. established the family of the lords Monson. As for the sons, Edward the eldest died without issue. Francis the second son was knighted by queen Elizabeth, and his youngest son by his second wife, sir John Anderson, of St. Ives, in the county of Huntingdon, was created baronet in 1628. William, the chief justice’s youngest son, left one son Edmond, who was created baronet by king Charles H. and his family still flourishes at Kilnwick Piercy, in the east-riding of Yorkshire. Stephen Anderson, esq. eldest son and heir of Stephen Anderson, esq. son and heir of sir Francis Anderson before mentioned, was likewise raised to the dignity of a baronet, in the sixteenth of Charles II. and his honour was lately possessed by his direct descendant, sir Stephen Anderson, of Broughton in Lincolnshire, and Eyworth in Bedfordshire, but the title is now extinct.

, a traveller, was born at Tundern, in the duchy of Sleswick, about the beginning of the seventeenth century. It does not appear that he had enjoyed a regular education, but by strong sense, and powers of memory, he acquired a great stock of knowledge. He travelled in the east from the year 1644 to 1650, through Arabia, Persia, India, China, and Japan, and returned by Tartary, northern Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. When he came home, he entered into the service of the duke of Holstein-Gottorp, who, not being able to obtain from him a written account of his travels, invited him every day to his house, and drew from him in conversation the particulars of it, which were taken down in writing by Adam Olearius, who was concealed for the purpose behind the tapestry. The duke afterwards prevailed on him to revise the manuscript, and it was published at Sleswick, by Olearius, 1669, in German, fol.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine of the sixteenth century, was born at Waibling, a town in the duchy of Wmemberg, March 25, 1528. His father, whose name was James Endris, was a smith. He applied himself to letters with great success for three years; but his parents, being poor, had resolved to bring him up to some mechanical profession, and had agreed with a carpenter for that purpose, when several persons of distinction, who discovered marks of genius in him, contributed to support him in the prosecution of his studies, in which he made a considerable advance. In 1545, he took his master’s degree at Tubingen, and studied divinity and the Hebrew language at the same university. In 1546 he was appointed minister of the church of Stutgard, the metropolis of the duchy of Wirtemberg; and his sermons were so well approved of, that his fame reached the duke, who ordered him to preach before him, which he performed with great applause. The same year he married a wife at Tubingen, by whom he had nine sons and nine daughters, nine of which children survived him. During the war in which Germany was about the same time involved, he met with great civilities even from the emperor’s party, till he was obliged upon the publication of the Interim to retire to Tubingen, where he executed the function of minister. In the year 1553 he took his degree of doctor of divinity, and was appointed pastor of the church of topping, and superintendant of the neighbouring churches. He was afterwards sent for to several parts; and in 1557 he wot to the diet of Ratisbon with Christopher duke of Wirtemberg, and was appointed one of the secretaries at the conference at Worms between the papists and the divines of the Augustan confession. The same year he published his first work on the Lord’s Supper, in which he proposed a method of agreement upon that difficult point of controversy. In June the same year he went with the duke above-mentioned to Francfort upon the Maine, where he preached a sermon, though he was publicly opposed by a Romish priest. In 1558 he replied to Staphylus’s book against Luther, which was entitled “Epitome trimembris Theologise Lutheranse,” and in which he had collected the opinions of several sects, and ascribed them all to that reformer, as the original author of them. In 1559 he was sent to Augsburg, where the diet of the empire was held; and, during the same, preached two sermons before all the princes of the Augustan confession, one on justification, the other on the Lord’s supper; both printed at Tubingen, and very popular. In 1561 he was sent to Paris, in order to be present at the conference of Poissi, which was broken up before he came thither. Some time after his return he was made chancellor and rector of the university of Tubingen. In the beginning of the year 1563 he went to Strasburg, where Jerom Zanchius had propagated several opinions accounted new, and particularly this, that the regenerate and believers could not possibly fall again from grace, or lose the faith, though they had committed sins against the light of their conscience. Our author at last engaged him to sign a form of confession, which he had drawn up. In 1565 he was invited to establish a church at Hagenaw, an imperial city, where he preached a great many sermoni upon the principal points of the Christian religion, which were afterwards printed. In 1568 he assisted Julius, duke of Brunswick, in reforming his churches. In 1569 he took a journey to Heidelberg and Brunswick, and into Denmark. In 1570 he went to Misniaancl Prague, where the emperor Maximilian II. had a conversation with him upon the subject of an agreement in religion. In 1571 he went to visit the churches at Mompelgard; and upon his return had a conference with Flaccius Illyricus at Strasburg, in which he confuted his paradoxical assertion, that sin is a substance. He took several journies after this, and used his utmost efforts to effect an union of the churches of the Augustan confession. In 1583 he lost his first wife, with whom he had lived thirty-seven years; and about an year and half after he married a second wife, who had voluntarily attended her former husband, when he was obliged to leave his country on account of religion. About the same time he wrote a controversial piece, in which he maintained the ubiquity or presence of the whole Christ, in his divine and human nature, in all things. In 1586 he was engaged in a conference at Mompelgard with Theodore Beza concerning the Lord’s supper, the person of Christ, predestination, baptism, the reformation of the popish churches, and Adiaphora or indifferent things; but this had the usual event of all other conferences, which, though designed to put an end to disputes in divinity, are often the occasion of still greater. In 1537 he was sent for to Nordling upon church affairs; and upon his return fell sick, and published his confession of faith, in order to obviate the imputations of his adversaries; but he afterwards recovered, and was sent for again to Ratisbon, and then to Onolsbach by Frederick marquis of Brandenbourg. Upon the publication of the conference at Mompelgard abovementioned, he was accused of having falsely imputed some things to Beza, which the latter had never asserted; he therefore went to Bern to clear himself of the charge. His last public act was a conference at Baden in November 1589 with John Pistorius, who then inclined to Calvinism, and afterwards revolted entirely to the Papists. He had a very early presentiment of his death; and when he found it drawing near, he made a declaration to several of his friends of his constancy in the faith, which he had asserted, and shewed the most undoubted signs of cordial belief, till he expired on the seventh of January 1590, being sixtyone years and nine months old. His funeral sermon was preached by Luke Osiander, and afterwards published. Several false reports were propagated concern ing his death. The Popish priests in the parts adjacent publicly declared from the pulpit, that before his death he had recanted and condemned all the doctrines which he had maintained in word or writing. Besides, there was a letter dispersed, in which they affirmed, with their usual assurance, that he desired very anxiously before his death, that a Jesuit might be sent for immediately, to administer the sacraments to him; which request being denied him, he fell into despair, and expired under all the horrors of it. Of this not a syllable was true, his dying words and actions entirely coinciding with his life and doctrines. His works were extremely numerous, but his biographers have neglected to give a list, or to notice any but his “Treatise on Concord,” 1582, 4to. His life was written by the subject of the next article, 1630.

, grandson, or according to Saxius, nephew, to the preceding, was born at Herrenberg, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in 1586. After studying at Tubingen, and travelling in France and Italy, he was promoted to several ecclesiastical offices in his own country, and at the time of his death in 1654, was abbé of Adelberg, and Lutheran almoner to the duke of Wirtemberg. Being much concerned to see the principles of the Christian religion employed only in idle disputes, and the sciences subservient only to the pride of curiosity, he passed much of his life in contriving the means by which both should be rendered of more practical utility to mankind. In particular, he employed the influence he had with his sovereign and with the duke of Brunswic-Wolfenbuttel, in procuring a reformation of the state of public instruction in their dominions. The propensity to mysticism in all these patriotic efforts, his extensive knowledge, and his more extensive correspondence, and the frequent mysterious allusions, capable of many senses, which occur in his works, have occasioned an opinjon that he was in reality the founder of the famous order of the Rosicrucians. The late M. Herder has discussed this question in the German museum for 1779, and determines against Andreas; but two learned Germans, M. Chr. G. de Murr (in his history of the origin of the Rosicrucians, printed at Sulzbach, 1803, 8vo), and M. J. G. Buhle (in a dissertation read in 1803 before the Royal Society of Gottingen, on the same subject, and published in 1804, in German), are of opinion, that if Andreas was not the founder, he at least gave that new organization to the Rosicrucians which identified them with the free-masons, in whose societies the memory of Andreas is still held in veneration. And if we find no proofs of the fact in the life which he left of himself, and which Seybold published in 1799, in the second volume of his Autobiography, it must on the other hand be confessed, that in the works which he published in his life-time, he is perpetually reasoning on the necessity of forming a society solely devoted to the regeneration of knowledge and manners/ The question, however, is not yet absolutely determined, nor, except in Germany, will it perhaps appear a matter of much consequence. There is nothing in the history of the Rosicrucians to excite much respect for its founder, or for those who fancied they improved upon it by the late more mischievous society of the Illuminati.

In France, whither she made a tour, she met with the most flattering reception from the king, the queen, and the court. She composed several sonnets in praise of her royal patrons, which are inserted in the second volume of her poems. She married Francis Andreini, whom we have just noticed, and died at Lyons, June 10th, 1604, in consequence of a premature delivery during a state of pregnancy, in the forty -second year of her age. Her husband, whom her loss overwhelmed with affliction, had her interred in the city in which she expired, and erected a monument to her memory, on which he caused an epitaph to be inscribed, enumerating her virtues, her piety, and her talents. Her death was lamented in many Latin and Italian elegies and panegyrics, and even a medal was struck to her memory, with the inscription, “JEterna Fama.” The justice of these high praises may still be appreciated by a perusal of her works 1. “Mirtilla, favola pastorale,” Verona, 1588, 8vo, and often reprinted. She is said to have begun this in her infancy, but it does not appear to have been very successful on the stage. 2. “Rime,” Milan, 1601, 4to; Paris, 1603, 12mo, &c. Most of these had appeared in various collections, and there are others of her writing in “Componimenti poetici delle piu illustri rimatrici d'ogni seculo,” Venice, 1726, 12mo. 3. “Lettere,” Venice, 1607, 4to. These letters are mostly on love subjects. It has-been remarked as somewhat singular in bibliography, that the dedication of this work to the duke of Savoy, as well as the title-page, bears date 1607, three years after the author’s death. 4. “Fragmenti d'alcune scritture,” &c. a collection of fragments, dialogues, &c. on love subjects, published by her husband, Venice, 1616, the date of the preface, but in the frontispiece, 1625, 8vo.

, or more properly Andrea Pisano, an eminent sculptor and architect, was born at Pisa in 1270, at a time when Arnolfo di Lapo, John de Pisa, and others, following the designs of Cimabue and Giotto, had renounced the Gothic style, and were introducing those purer models, which promised a revolution in architecture, sculpture, and painting. Andrea, entering into their ideas, had some peculiar circumstances in his favour, as at that time his countrymen, who were powerful at sea, traded with Greece, and brought thence ancient statues, bas-reliefs, and valuable marbles, which they employed in the ornament or construction of their public edifices, particularly the cathedral and the Campo Santo. By studying these, Andrea acquired a portion of that taste which was afterwards so conspicuous in Donatelio, Brunelleschi, and Ghiberti. His first attempts were so favourably received, that he was invited to Florence to execute, from the designs of Giotto, the sculptures on the facade of St. Marie del Fiore, the most magnificent edifice of that time. He began with the statue of Boniface VIII. the protector of the Florentines, which he followed by those of St. Peter, St. Paul, and other saints. In 1586, when it was determined to repair this facade upon a more modern plan, these were all removed, and when that design was not approved of, they were put up in the church and in other places, and some were deposited in the Poggio imperiale, a country-house belonging to the grand dukes of Tuscany. There was also a Madona and two angels in the church of the Misericordia, which are said to have been executed by Andrea at the same time. On the death of Arnolfo di Lapo, the republic of Florence employed Andrea in all the great works constructing in their territories. As an engineer, he built the fortifications round Florence, and the strong castle of Scarperia. During more peaceable times, he employed himself in making figures in bronze; and the Florentines, who were ambitious of rivalling the magnificence of the ancients in their temples, employed him to execute the sculpture of the gates of the baptistery, from designs by Giotto. These gates were accordingly covered with basreliefs, representing the whole history of John the Baptist. The composition is excellent, and the attitudes of the figures natural and expressive, although with some degree of stiffness, but the minute parts are executed with great skill. These gates, which were begun in 1331, were finished, polished, and gilt in eight years, and at first were placed at the principal entrance, but they were afterwards removed to one of the side entrances, where they now are, and the admirable gates of Laurent Ghiberti substituted in their room. Andrea also executed in bronze the tabernacle of San Giovanni, the has reliefs, and statues belonging to the campanile of St. Marie del Fiore, and many others. At Venice, his works are, the sculpture oa the façade of the church of St. Mark; the model of the baptistery of Pistoia, executed in 1337; and the tomb of Cino d'Angibolgi; and he was employed in many fortifications by Gaultier de Brienne, duke of Athens, during his usurpation at Florence; but Andrea did not suffer by the duke’s disgrace in 1343; and the Florentines, who looked only to his merit, admitted him a citizen of Florence, where he died in 1345, and was buried in St. Marie del Fiore. His son Nino, also a sculptor of considerable note, erected a monument to his memory.

He now endeavoured to console himself by cultivating his poetical talent, an employment which had been long interrupted, and resumed his poem on the chase, for which he had collected a great many notes and observations in the East and in France. In 1546, the inhabitants of Reggio chosd‘ him public professor of Greek and Latm, with a handsome allowance, and the rights of citizenship. In this office he continued about three years, after which the grand duke, Cosmo I. invited him to be professor of the belles lettres at Pisa. After filling this chair for seventeen years, he exchanged it for that of moral and political science, and lectured on Aristotle’s two celebrated treatises on these subjects. Such was his attachment to that university, and to the grand duke, that during the war of Sienna, when Cosmo was obliged to suspend payment of the professors’ salaries, Angelio pawned his furniture and books, that he might be enabled to remain at his post, while his brethren fled. And when the Siennese army, commanded by Peter’ Strozzi, approached Pisa, which had no troops for its defence, our professor put arms into the hands of the students of the university, trained and disciplined them, and with their assistance defended the city until the grand dukewas able to send them assistance. in 1575, the cardinal Ferdinand de Medicis, who was afterwards grand duke, took Angelio to Rome with him, settled a large pension on him, and by other princely marks of favour, induced him to reside there, and encouraged him to complete a poem, which he had begun thirty years before, on the conquest of Syria and Palestine by the Christians. Angelio caused all his poems to be reprinted at Rome in 1585, and dedicated to this cardinal, who rewarded him by a present of two thousand florins of gold. When he became grand duke, Angelio followed him to Florence, and there at Jength published his “Syrias.” He was now enriched by other pensions, and was enabled to pass his declining years, mostly at Pisa, in opulence and ease. He died Feb. 29, 1596, in his seventy-ninth year, and was interred in the Campo Santo, with great pomp; and a funeral oration was read in the academy of Florence, and, what was still a higher honour, as he was not a member, in that of Delia Crusca.

Angelio’s published works are, 1. Three “Funeral Orations,” in Latin, one on Henry II. of Frtmce, read at Florence in 1559, the second on the grand duke Cosmo, at Pisa in 1574, and the third on the grand duke Ferdinand, his liberal patron, at Florence, 1587. 2. “De ordine legendi scriptores Historise Romanae,” twice printed separately, and inserted in Grotius “De studiis instituendis.” 3. “Poemata varia, diligenter ab ipso recognita,” Rome, 1585, 4to. This collection, the greater part of which had been printed separately, contains the poem on which his reputation is chiefly founded, the “Cynegeticon,” or the Chase, in six books; and the “Syrias,” in twelve books, on the same subject as Tasso’s “Jerusalem delivered.” 4. “De privatorum publicorumque urbis Romae eversoribus epistola,” Florence, 1589, 4to, printed since in the 4th volume of the “Thesaurus antiquitatum Romanarum.” 5. “Poesie Toscane,” published with a translation of the CEdipus of Sophocles, Florence, 1589, 8vo. 6. Letters in Latin and Italian in various collections. 7. “Memoirs of his life,” written by himself, and published by Salvini in the “Fasti Consolari” of the academy of Florence, and abridged in the present article.

, author of several pieces relating to the history of literature, was born the 14th of October 1675, at Lecce, the capital of Otranto in the kingdom of Naples, of one of the noblest and most considerable families in that city. He began his studies at Lecce, and at seventeen years of age went to finish them at Naples, where he applied very closely to the Greek language and geometry. He went afterwards to Macerata, where he was admitted LL. D. His desire of improvement; induced him also to travel into France and Spain, where he acquired great reputation. Several academies of Italy were ambitious of procuring him as a member, in consequence of which we find his name not only amongst those of the Transformati and Spioni of Lecce, but also in that of the Investiganti of Naples, in the academy of Florence, and in that of the Arcadians at Rome, into the last of which he was admitted the 8th of August 1698. $Ie went into orders very early, and was afterwards canon aftd grand penitentiary of the church of Lecce, vicar general of Viesti, Gallipoli, and Gragnano, first chaplain of the troops of the kingdom of Naples and of the pope, auditor of M. Nicholas Negroni, and afterwards of the cardinal his uncle. Whilst Philip V. of Spain was master of the kingdom of Naples, he was honoured with the title of principal historiographer, which had likewise been given him when he was in France, by Louis XIV.; and he afterwards became secretary to the duke of Gravina. He died at Lecce the 9th of August 1719, and was interred in the cathedral of that city; or, according to another authority, Aug. 7, 1718. His works are, 1. “Dissertazione intorna alia patria di Ennio,” Rome, 1701, Florence in the title, but really at Naples, 1712. In this he endeavours to prove that Ennius was born at Rudia, two miles from Lecce, and not Rudia near Tarento. 2. “Vita di rnonsignor Roberto Caracciolo vescovo d' Aquino e di Lecce, 1703.” 3. “Delia vita di Scipione Ammiralo, patrizio Leccese, libri tre,” Lecce, 1706. 4. “Vita di Antonio Caraccio da Nardo.” 5. “Vita di Andrea Peschiulli da Corigliano.” These two are not printed separately, but in a collection entitled “Vite de' Letterati Salentini.” 6. “Vita di Giacomo Antonio Ferrari,” Lecce, 1715. 7. “Vita di Giorgio Baglivo,” Leccese. 8. “Lettera discorsiva al March. Giovani GioSeffo Orsi, dove si tratto dell' origine e progressi de signori accademici Spioni, e delle varie loro lodevoli applicazioni,” Lecce, 1705, 8vo. 9. “Discorso historico, in cui si tratta dell' origine e delle fondazione della citta di Lecce e d'Alcune migliori e piu principal! notizie di essa,” Lecce, 1705. 10. “Le Vite de letterati Salentini, parte I.” The Lives of the learned men of Terra d'Otranto, part I. Florence in the title, but really Naples, 1710. The second part was published at Naples, 1713, in 4to. 11. “Orazione funebre recitata in occasione della morte dell' imperadore Giuseppe nel vescoval domo di Gallipoli,” Naples, 1716. 12. “Scritto istorico legale sopra le ragioni della suspension! del' interdetto locale generale della chiefa di Lecce e sua diocesi,” Rome, 1716. 13. “Tre lettere legale.” These three letters were written in defence of the right of the church of Lecce. 14. He wrote likewise several poems, particularly seven sonnets, which are published in the second part of the “Rimo scelte del sign. Bartolommeo Lippi,” printed at Lucca, 1719.

, abbot of Centula, or St. Riquier, in the ninth century, was descended from a noble family of Neustria. He was educated at the court of Charlemagne, where he studied the languages with that prince and the other courtiers, under the learned Alcuinus, who afterwards considered him as his son. Charlemagne, having caused his son Ppin to be crowned king of Itaiy, made Angilbert that prince’s first minister: he then went with him into Italy, and returned some years after to France, when Charlemagne gave him his daughter Bertha in marriage; but some historians say that this marriage was rendered necessary by the lady’s being delivered previously of twins. Whatever truth may be in this, Angilbert, being now sonin-law to Charlemagne, was made duke or governor of the coast of France from the Scheldt to the Seine, and the kin? also made him his secretary and prime minister; but Alcuinus, abbot of Corbie, prevailed on him to become a monk in the monastery of Centula, or St. Riquier, with the consent both of his wife and the king. Notwithstanding his love of solitude, he was frequently obliged to leave the monastery, and attend to the affairs of the church and state, and was three times sent to the court of Rome; he also accompanied Charlemagne thither, in the year 800, when that prince was crowned in that city emperor of the West. He died on the 18th of February 814. Angilbert had such a taste for poetry, that Charlemagne called him his Homer. There are but few of his works remaining, except a history of his monastery, which Mabillon has inserted in his “Annales de l'ordre de St. Benoit.” As to the “Histoire de premieres expeditions de Charlemagne pendant sa jeunesse et avant son regne,” 1741, 8vo, with the title of Homer, given him by Charlemagne, either because he delighted in that poet, or because he was himself a poet; it is in fact a romance written by Dufresne de Francheville.

, the natural son of Charles IX. and Maria Touchet, was born April 28, 1575, and distinguished himself by his bravery during the reign of five kings. Being intended from his infancy for the order of Malta, he was, in 1587, presented to the abbey of Chaise-Dieu, and, in 1589, was made grand prior of France. Catherine de Medicis having bequeathed him the estates of Auvergne and Lauraguais, he quitted the order of Malta, with a dispensation to marry; and accordingly in 1591, married Charlotte, daughter of the constable Henry of Montmorenci. In 1606, Margaret de Valois applied to parliament, and set aside the will of Catherine of Medicis, and the estates were given to the dauphin, afterwards Louis XIII. Charles, however, continued to take the title of count d' Auvergne, until 1619, when the king bestowed on him the duchy of Angouleme. He was one of the first to acknowledge Henry IV. at St. Cloud, and obtained great reputation for his services in the battles of Arques, Ivry, &c. In 1602, being implicated in Biron’s conspiracy, he was sent to the Bastille, but obtained his pardon. Being, however, afterwards convicted of a treasonable attempt in concert with the marchioness de Verneuil, his uterine sister, he was arrested a second time in 1604, and next year condemned to lose his head, which Henry IV. commuted for perpetual imprisonment; but in 1616, we find him again at large, and, in 1617, at the siege of Soissons. Being appointed colonel of the light cavalry of France, and created a knight by order of the king, he was, in 1620, sent as the principal of an embassy to the emperor Ferdinand II. the result of which was printed in 1667, under the title of “Ambassade de M. le due d‘Angouleme, &c.” fol. The narrative is somewhat dry, but it contains many particulars of considerable interest in the history of that time. In 1628, the duke opened the famous and cruel siege of Rochelle, where he had the chief command until the arrival of the king. He also bore a part in the war of Languedoc, Germany, and Flanders. He died at Paris, Sept 24, 1650. Francoise de Nargonne, whom he married for his second wife, in 1644, died one hundred and forty-one years after her father-in-law Charles IX. on the 10th of August 1715, aged ninety-two. The duke d’Angouleme wrote, 1. “Memoires tres-particuliers du duc d‘Angouleme, pour servir à l’histoire des regnes de Henri III. et Henri IV.” 1662, 12mo. Bineau, the editor of this work, has added to it a journal of the negoeiations for the peace of Vervins, in 1598. The duke’s memoirs also form the first volume of the “Memoires particuliers pour servir a. l'Histoire de France,” 1756, 4 vols. 12mo, and the third volume of “Pieces fugitives pour servir, &c.” published by the marquis d'Aubais et Menard, 1759, 3 vols. 4to. 2. “Les harangues prononcees en l‘assemblie da M. M. les princes Protestants d’Allemagne,” 1620, 8vo. 3. “Le generale et fidele relation de tout ce qui s’est passé en l'Isle de Re, &c.” 1627, 8vo. 4. A translation of Diego de Torres’ history of the kingdoms of Morocco, Fee, &c. Besides these, Bouthillier, bishop of Troyes in the beginning of the eighteenth century, had a folio volume of manuscript letters, written by the duke d‘Angouleme, from 1633 to 1643, and another collection by his son, Louis Emmanuel de Valois, count d’Alais, and, after his father’s death, duke d'Angouleme, who died in 1653.

, the sons of a mechanic in the town of Eu in Normandy, became very eminent for their skill in sculpture; and after pursuing their studies at Rome, embellished Paris with many of their best works. Of these, Francis executed the^ altar of Val de Grace, the fine marble crucifix of the high altar of the Sorbonne, the mausoleum of cardinal de Berulle in the church of St. Honorius; and especially that of the duke of Montmorenci at Moulins, and the four figures on the tomb of the duke de Longueville at Paris; the figure of Prudence is esteemed a chef-d'ouvre of graceful expression, This artist is said to have exercised his art in England, but we do not find him noticed by Walpole. He died at Paris in 1699, in the 95th year of his age. Michael, who was the younger brother, born in 1612, executed the tomb of the grand prior of Souvre, the ornaments on the gate of St. Dennis, the figures on the front gate of Val-de-grace, Amphitrite, &c. He assisted his brother likewise in some of his works, and died in 1686, aged 74. They were both buried at St. Koch, where they are honoured with an epitaph.

, earl of Anglesey, and lord privy seal in the reign of Charles II. was born July 10, 1614, at Dublin, and continued in Ireland till he was ten years old, when he was sent to England. At sixteen he was entered fellow commoner at Magdalen college, Oxford, where he pursued his studies about three or four years. In 1634 he removed to Lincoln’s Inn, where he studied the law with great assiduity till his father sent him to travel. He made the tour of Europe, and continued some time at Rome, whence he returned to England in 1640, and was elected knight of the shire for the county of Radnor, in the parliament which sat at Westminster in November of the same year but the election being contested, he lost his seat by a vote of the house, that Charles Price, esq. was duly elected. In the beginning of the civil war, Mr. Annesley inclined to the royal cause, and sat in the parliament held at Oxford in 1643; but afterwards reconciled himself so effectually to the parliament, that he was taken into their confidence, and appointed to go as a commissioner to Ulster in 1645. There he managed affairs with so much dexterity and judgment, that the famous Owen Roe O'Neil was disappointed in his designs; and the popish archbishop of Tuam, who was the great support of his party, and whose counsels had been hitherto very successful, was not only taken prisoner, but his papers were seized, and his foreign correspondence discovered, wheieby vast advantages accrued to the protestant interest. The parliament had sent commissioners to the duke of Ormcnd, for the delivery of Dublin, but without success; and the state of affairs making it necessary to renew their correspondence with him, they made choice of a second committee, nd Mr. Annesley was placed at the head of this commission. The commissioners landed at Dublin the 7th of June 1647; and they proved so successful in their negotiations, that in a few days a treaty was concluded with the lord lieutenant, which was signed on the 19th of that inonth, and Dublin was put into the hands of the parliament. When the commissioners had got supreme power, they were guilty of many irregularities: Mr. Annesley disapproved of their conduct, but could not hinder them from doing many things contrary to his judgment: being therefore displeased with his situation, he returned speeuily to England, where he found all things in confusion. After the death of Cromwell, Mr. Annesley, though he doubted whether the parliament was not dissolved by the death of the king, resolved to get into the house if possible; and he behaved in many respects in such a manner as shewed what his real sentiments were, and how much he had the resettling of the constitution at heart. In the confusion which followed he had little or no share, being trusted neither by the parliament nor army. But when things began to take a different turn, by restoring the secluded members to their seats, Feb. 21, 1660, Mr. Annesley was chosen president of the council of state, having at that time opened a correspondence with Charles II. then in exile.

Soon after the restoration, Mr. Annesley was created earl of Anglesey; in the preamble of the patent notice is taken of the signal services rendered by him in the king’s restoration. He had always a considerable share in the king’s favour, and was heard with great attention both at council and in the house of lords. In 1667 he was made treasurer of the navy; and on the 4th of February 1672, his majesty in council was pleased to appoint the duke of Buckingham, the earl of Anglesey, the lord Holies, the lord Ashley Cooper, and Mr. secretary Trevor, to be a committee to peruse and revise all the papers and writings concerning the settlement of Ireland, from the first to the last; and to make an abstract thereof in writing. Accordingly, on the 12th of June 1672, they made their report at large, which was the foundation of a commission, dated the 1st of August 1672, to prince Rupert, the dukes of Buckingham and Lauderdale, earl of Anglesey, lords Ashley and Holies, sir John Trevor, and sir Thomas, Chicheley, to inspect the, settlements of Ireland, and all proceedings thereunto. In 1673, the earl of Anglesey had the office of lord privy seal conferred upon him. In October 1680, his lordship was charged by one Dangerfield in an information delivered upon oath, at the bar of the house of commons, with endeavouring to stifle evidence concerning the popish plot, and to promote the belief of a presbyterian one. The uneasiness he received from tiiis attack, did not hinder him from speaking his opinion freely of those matters in the house of lords, particularly in regard to the Irish plot. In 1680, the earl of Castlehaven wrote Memoirs concerning the affairs of Ireland, wherein he was at some pains to represent the general rebellion in livland in the lightest colours possible, as if it had been at first far from being universal, and at last rendered so by the measures pursued by such as ought to have suppressed the insurrection. The earl of Anglesey having received these memoirs from their author, thought fit to write some animadversions upon them, in a letter to the earl of Castlehaven, wherein he delivered his opinion, freely in respect to the duke of Ormond and his management in Ireland. The duke expostulated with the lord privy seal on the subject, by letter, to which the earl replied. In 1682, the earl drew up a very particular remonstrance, and presented it to king Charles II. It was very warm and loyal, yet it was far from being well received. This memorial was entitled, The account of Arthur earl of Anglesey, lord privy seal to your most excellent majesty, of the true state of your majesty’s government and kingdoms, April 27, 1682. In one part whereof he says, “the fatal cause of all our mischiefs, present or apprehended, and which may raise a fire, which may burn and consume xis to the very foundations, is the unhappy perversion of the duke of York (the next heir to the crown) in one point of religion; which naturally raises jealousy of the power, designs, and practices, of the old enemies of our religion and liberties, and undermines and emasculates the courage and constancy even of those and their posterity, who have been as faithful to, and suffered as much for the crown, as any the most pleased or contented in our impending miseries can pretend to have done.” He concludes with these words: “Though your majesty is in your own person, above the reach of the law, and sovereign of all your people, yet the law is your master and instructor how to govern; and that your subjects assure themselves you will never attempt the enervating that law by which you are king, and which you have not only by frequent declarations, but by a solemn oath upon your throne, been obliged, in a most glorious presence of your people, to the maintenance of; and that therefore you will look upon any that shall propose or advise to the contrary, as unfit persons to be near you; and on those who shall persuade you it is lawful, as sordid flatterers, and the worst and most dangerous enemies you and your kingdoms have. What I set before your majesty, I have written freely, and like a sworn faithful counsellor; perhaps not like a wise man, with regard to myself, as they stand: but I have discharged my duty, and will account it a reward, if your majesty vouchsafe to read what I durst not but write, and which I beseech God to give a blessing to.”

It was not however thought proper to remove him from his high office on this account; but the duke of Ormond was prevailed upon to exhibit a charge against him, on account of his reflections on the earl of Castlehaven’s Memoirs. This produced a sharp contest betwixt these two peers; which ended in the earl of Anglesey’s losing his place of lord privy seal, though his enemies were forced to confess that he was hardly and unjustly treated. After this disgrace, he remained 'pretty much at his country seat at Blechhlgdon in Oxfordshire, where he devoted his time to his studies, and meddled very little with public affairs. However, he got into favour again in the reign of James II. and it is generally believed he would have been appointed lord chancellor of England, if not prevented by his death, which happened April 6, 1686, in the 73d year of his age. He was perfectly versed in the Greek and Roman history, and well acquainted with the spirit and policy of those nations. He had studied the laws of his country with such diligence, as to be esteemed a great lawyer. His writings which are extant, are proofs of his learning and abilities; but the largest and most

His lordship published in his life-time the following pieces: 1. “Truth unveiled, in behalf of the Church of England; being a vindication of Mr. John Standish’s sermon, preached before the king, and published by his majesty’s command,” 1676, 4to. To which is added, “A short treatise on the subject of Transubstantiation.” 2. “A letter from a person of honour in the country, written to the earl of Castlehaven; being observations and reflections on his lordship’s memoirs concerning the Wars of Ireland,” 1681, 8vo. 3. “A true account of the whole proceedings between James duke of Ormond, and Arthur earl of Anglesey, before the king and his council, &c.” 1682, fol. 4. “A letter of remarks upon Jovian,” 1683, 4to. Besides these, he wrote many other things, some of which were published after his decease; as 5. “The Privileges of the House of Lords and Commons, argued and stated in two conferences between both houses, April 19 and 22, 1671. To which is added, A discourse, wherein the Rights of the House of Lords are truly asserted; with learned remarks on the seeming arguments and pretended precedents offered at that time again&t their lordships.” 6. “The King’s right of Indulgence in Spiritual matters, with the equity thereof, asserted,” 1688, 4to. 7. “Memoirs, intermixt with moral, political, and historical Observations, by way of discourse, in a letter to sir Peter Pett,” 1693, 8vo.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of William Rufus and Henry I was an Italian by birth, and born in 1033 at Aost, or Augusta, a town at the foot of the Alps, belonging to the duke of Savoy. He was descended of a considerable family: his father’s name was Gundulphus, and his mother’s Hemeberga. From early life his religious cast of mind was so prevalent, that, at the age of fifteen, he offered himself to a monastery, but was refused, lest his father should have been displeased. After, however, he had gone through a course of study, and travelled for some time in France and Burgundy, he took the monastic habit in the abbey of Bee in Normandy, of which Lanfranc, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was then prior. This was in 1060, when he was twenty-seven years old. Three years after, when Lanfranc was made abbot of Caen, Anselm succeeded him in the priory of Bee, and on the death of the abbot, was raised to that office. About the year 1092, Anselm came over into England, by the inritation of Hugh, earl of Chester, who requested his assistance in his sickness. Soon after his arrival, William Rufus, falling sick at Gloucester, was much pressed to fill up the see of Canterbury. The king, it seems, at that time, was much influenced by one Kanulph, a clergyman, who, though a Norman and of mean extraction, had a great share in the king’s favour, and at last rose to the post of prime minister. This man, having gained the king’s ear by flattering his vices, misled him in the administration, and put him upon several arbitrary and oppressive expedients. Among others, one was, to seize the revenues of a church, upon the death of a bishop or abbot; allowing the dean and chapter, or convent, but a slender pension for maintenance. But the king now falling sick, began to be touched with remorse of conscience, and among other oppressions, was particularly afflicted for the injury he had done the church and kingdom in keeping the see of Canterbury, and some others, vacant. The bishops and other great men therefore took this opportunity to entreat the king to fill up the vacant sees; and Anselm, who then lived in the neighbourhood of Gloucester, being sent for to court, to assist the king in his illness, was considered by the king as a proper person, and accordingly nominated to the see of Canterbury, which had been four years vacant, and was formerly filled by his old friend and preceptor Lanfranc. Anselm was with much difficulty prevailed upon to accept this dignity, and evidently foresaw the difficulties of executing his duties conscientiously under such a sovereign as William Rufus. Before his consecration, however, he gained a promise from the king for the restitution of all the lands which were in the possession of that see in Lanfranc’s time. And thus having secured the temporalities of the archbishopric, and done homage to the king, he was consecrated with great solemnity on the 4th of December, 1093. Soon after his consecration, the king intending to wrest the duchy of Normandy from his brother Robert, and endeavouring to raise what money he could for that purpose, Anselm made him an offer of five hundred pounds; which the king thinking too little, refused to accept, and the archbishop thereby fell under the king’s displeasure. About that time, he had a dispute with the bishop of London, touching the right of consecrating churches in a foreign diocese. The next year, the king being ready to embark for Normandy, Anseim waited upon him, and desired his leave to convene a national synod, in which the disorders of the church and state, and the general dissolution of manners, might be remedied: but the king refused his request, and even treated him so roughly, that the archbishop and his retinue withdrew from the court, the licentious manners of which, Anselm, who was a man of inflexible piety, had censured with great freedom. Another cause of discontent between him and the archbishop, was Anselm’s desiring leave to go to Rome, to receive the pall from pope Urban II. whom the king of England did not acknowledge as pope, being more inclined to favour the party of his competitor Guibert. To put an end to this misunderstanding, a council, or convention, was held at Rockingham castle, March 11, 1095. In this assembly, Anselm, opening his cause, told them with what reluctancy he had accepted the archbishopric; that he had made an express reserve of his obedience to pope Urban; and that he was now brought under difficulties upon that score. He therefore desired their advice how to act in such a manner, as neither to fail in his allegiance to the king, nor in his duty to the holy see. The bishops were of opinion, that he ought to resign himself wholly to the king’s pleasure. They told him, there was a general complaint against him, for intrenching upon the king’s prerogative; and that it would be prudence in him to wave his regard for Urban; that bishop (for they would not call him pope) being in no condition to do him either good or harm. To this Anselm returned, that he was engaged to be no farther the king’s subject than the laws of Christianity would give him leave; that as he was willing “to render unto Cassar the things that were Caesar’s,” so he must likewise take in the other part of the precept, and “give unto God that which was God’s.” Upon this William, bishop of Durham, a court prelate, who had inflamed the difference, and managed the argument for the king, insisted, that the nomination of the pope to the subject was the principal jewel of the crown, and that by this privilege the kings of England were distinguished from the rest of the princes of Christendom. This is sound doctrine, if that had really been the question; but, whatever may be now thought of it, Anselm held an opinion in which succeeding kings and prelates acquiesced, and in the present instance, there is reason to think that William Rufus’s objection was not to the pope, but to a pope. Be this as it may, the result of this council was that the majority of the bishops, under the influence of the court, withdrew their canonical obedience, and renounced Anselm for their archbishop, and the king would have even had them to try and depose him, but this they refused. In consequence of this proceeding, Anselm desired a passport to go to the continent, which the king refused, and would permit only of a suspension of the affair from March to Whitsuntide; but long before the expiration of the term, he broke through the agreement, banished several clergymen who were Anselm’s favourites, and miserably harrassed the tenants of his see. Whitsuntide being at length come, and the bishops having in vain endeavoured to soften Anselm into a compliance, the king consented to receive him into favour upon his own terms; and, because Anselm persisted in refusing to receive the pall from the king’s hands, it was at last agreed that the pope’s nuncio, who had brought the pall into England, should carry it clown to Canterbury, and lay it upon the altar of the cathedral, from whence Anselm was to receive it, as if it had been put into his hands by St. Peter himself.

This may appear trifling; but as we have already said that the king’s objection was to a pope, and not to Me pope, jt is necessary to prove this by a circumstance which occurred during the interval above-mentioned, especially as this part of Anselm’s conduct has been objected to by some late biographers more acquainted with the opinions of their own time, than with the opinions and state of society in that of Anselm. During the above interval, Walter, bishop of Alba, was sent by Urban into England, attended by two clergymen, who officiated in the king’s chapel. These ecclesiastics had been privately dispatched to Rome, to inquire into the late election, and examine which of the two pretenders, Guibert or Urban, was canonically chosen, and finding the right lay in Urban, applied to him, and endeavoured to persuade him to send the king the archbishop of Canterbury’s pall. This was the king’s point; who thought, by getting the pall into his possession, he should be able to manage the archbishop. The pope complied so far, as to send the bishop of Alba to the king with the pall, but with secret orders concerning the disposal of it. This prelate arriving at the English court, discoursed very plausibly to the king, making him believe the pope was entirely in his interest; in consequence of which William ordered Urban to be acknowledged as pope in all his dominions. After he had thus far gratified the see of Rome, he began to treat with the legate about the deprivation of Anselm; but was greatly disappointed, when that prelate assured him the design was impracticable. As therefore it was now too late to go back, he resolved, since he could not have his revenge upon Anselm, to drop the dispute, and pretend himself reconciled. Matters being thus adjusted, the archbishop went to Canterbury, and received the pall with great solemnity the June following. And now it was generally hoped, that all occasion of difference between the king and the archbishop was removed; but it appeared soon after, that the reconciliation on the king’s part was not sincere. For William, having marched his forces into Wales, and brought that country to submission, took that opportunity to quarrel with Anselm, pretending he was not satisfied with the quota the archbishop had furnished for that expedition. Finding therefore his authority too weak to oppose the corruptions of the times, Anselm resolved to go in person to Rome, and consult the pope. But the king, to whom he applied for leave to go out of the kingdom, seemed surprised at the request, and gave him a flat denial. His request being repeated, the king gave his compliance in the form of a sentence of banishment, and at the meeting of the great council, Oct. 1097, commanded him to leave the kingdom within eleven days, without carrying any of his effects with him, and declared at the same time thut he should never be permitted to return. Anselm, nowise affected by this harsh conduct, went to Canterbury, divested himself of his archiepiscopal robes, and set out on his journey, embarking at Dover, after his baggage had been strictly searched by the king’s officers. As soon as the king heard that he had crossed the channel, he seized upon the estates and revenues of the archbishopric, and made every thing void which Anselm had done. The archbishop, however, got safe to Rome, and was honourably received by the pope, and after a short stay in that city, he accompanied the pope to a country seat near Capua, whither his holiness retired on account of the unhealthiness of the town. Here Anselm wrote a book, in which he gave an account of the reason of our Saviour’s incarnation. The pope wrote to the king of England in a strain of authority, enjoining him to reinstate Anselm in all the profits-und privileges of his see, and Anselm wrote into England upon the same subject. The king, on the other hand, endeavoured to get Anselm discountenanced abroad, and wrote to Roger, duke of Apulia, and others, to that purpose. But, notwithstanding his endeavours, Anselm was treated with all imaginable respect wherever he came, and was very serviceable to the pope in the council of Bari, which was held to oppose the errors of the Greek church, with respect to the procession of the Holy Ghost. In this synod Anselm answered the objections of the Greeks, and managed the argument with so much judgment, learning, and penetration, that he silenced his adversaries, and gave general satisfaction to the Western church. This argument was afterwards digested by him into a tract, and is extant among his other works. In the same council Anselm generously interposed, and prevented the pope from pronouncing sentence of excommunication against the king of England, for his frequent outrages on religion. After the synod of Bari was ended, the pope and Anselm returned to Rome, where an ambassador from the king of England was arrived, in order to disprove Anselm’s allegations and complaints against his master. At first the pope was peremptory in rejecting this ambassador; but the latter in a private conference, and through the secret influence of a large sum of money, induced the court of Rome to desert Auselm. Still the pope could not be resolute; for when the archbishop would have returned to Lyons, he could not part with him, but lodged him in a noble palace, and paid him frequent visits. About this time the pope having summoned a council to sit at Rome, Anselm had a very honourable seat assigned to him and his successors, this being the first appearance of an archbishop of Canterbury in a Roman synod. Nor was this all. for the bishop of Lucca, one of the members, alluded to Anselm’s case in a manner so pointed, that the pope was obliged to promise that matters should be rectified. When the council broke up, Anselm returned to Lyons, where he was entertained for some time by Hugo the archbishop, and remained there until the death of king William and pope Urban in 1100. Henry I. who succeeded William, having restored the sees of Canterbury, Winchester, and Salisbury, which had been sei'/ed by his predecessor, Anselm was solicited to return to England, and on his arrival at Clugny, an agent from the king presented him with a letter of invitation to his bishopric, and an excuse for his majesty’s not waiting until Anselm’s return, and receiving the crown from the hands of another prelate.

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.

Mr. Anson, a few days after his return into his own country, was made a rear-admiral of the blue, and in a very short time, he was chosen member of parliament for Heydon in Yorkshire. On the 27th December 1744, when the duke of Bedford was appointed first lord of the admiralty, he was appointed one of the commissioners of the admiralty; and on the 23d of April, in the following year, was made a rear-admiral of the white. On the 14th of July 1746, he was raised to the rank of vice-admiral; and in the latter end of that year, and beginning of 1747, he commanded the squadron in the channel service, and bore the inconveniencies of a long and tempestuous winter navigation, with his usual patience and perseverance. Nothing would have frustrated the success of this expedition, but the accidental intelligence which was given, by the master of a Dutch vessel, to the duke of D'Arville’s fleet, of admiral Anson’s station and intention. However, being employed again early in the ensuing spring, he had an opportunity of rendering a very signal service of his country. Being then on board the Prince George, of 90 guns, with rear-admiral Warren, in the Devonshire, and twelve ships more under his command, he intercepted, on the 3d of May 1747, off Cape Finisterre, a considerable fleet, bound from France to the East and West Indies, and laden with merchandise, treasure, and warlike stores; and took six men of war, and four East Indiamen, not one of the enemy’s vessels of war escaping. By this successful exploit, he defeated the pernicious designs of two hostile expeditions, and made a considerable addition to the force and riches of our own kingdom. M. St. George, captain of the Invincible, in allusion to the names of two of the ships which had been taken, and pointing to them at the same time, said, when he presented his sword to the conqueror, “Monsieur, vous avez vaincu V In-vincible, et la Gloire vous suit.” On the 13th of June following, the king raised him to the honour of an English peerage, by the style and title of lord Anson, baron of Soberton, in the county of Southampton; and his lordship made choice of a motto, very happily suited to his perils and his successes, ML Desperandum. On the 25th of April 1748, he married Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Philip lord Hardwicke, at that time lord high chancellor of Great Britain; but his lady died without issue on the 1st of June 1760.

On the 12th of July 1749, his lordship was made viceadmiral of Great Britain, an appointment that is more of a civil than a military nature; but which, nevertheless, is always given to a military man. On the 12th of June 1751, he was preferred to be first commissioner of the admiralty, in the room of the earl of Sandwich; and in the years 1752 and 1755, he was one of the lords justices of the kingdom, during his majesty’s absence. The affair of Minorca occasioned him to be much blamed by the party writers of the time, in his character of first lord of the admiralty; but when this was inquired into, the resolutions of the House of Commons acquitted him and his colleagues of any neglect of duty. On the 16th of November 1756, upon a change of administration, he resigned his office in the admiralty; but, having been in the interval made an admiral, he was again placed at the head of the board, where he continued during the remainder of his life. He came in with his old friends, the duke of Newcastle and the earl of Hardwicke, and in the most honourable manner; for he resumed his seat with the concurrence of every individual in the ministry, Mr. Pitt resuming the seals as secretary of state, and with the particular approbation of king George II. All the rest of his conduct, as first commissioner of the admiralty, was crowned with success, under the most glorious administration which this country ever saw. The last time that he commanded at sea, was in 1758, to cover the expedition against the coast of France. Being then admiral of the white, and having hoisted his flag on board the Royal George, of 100 guns, he sailed from Spithead, on the first of June, with a formidable fleet, sir Edward Hawke serving under him; and by cruizing continually before Brest, he protected the descents which were made that summer at St. Malo’s, Cherbourg, &c. The French fleet not venturing to come out, he kept his own squadron and seamen in constant exercise; a thing which he thought had been too much disregarded. On the 30th of July 1761, his lordship was raised to the dignity of admiral and commander in chief of the fleet; and in a few days he sailed from Harwich, in the Charlotte yacht, to convoy her present majesty to England, in 1762, he went to Portsmouth, to accompany the queen’s brother, prince Charles of Mecklenburgh, and to show him the arsenal, and the fleet which was then upon the point of sailing, under the command of sir George Pocock, for the Havannah. In attending the prince, however, he caught a violent cold, that was accompanied with a gouty disorder, under which he languished two or three months. This cold, at length, settled upon his lungs, andrwas the immediate occasion of his death. He died, at his seat at Moor Park, in Hertfordshire, on the 6th of June 1762, and was buried in the family vault at Colwich. His character may be justly estimated from the particulars we have given. In his official department, he acted with great judgment, and was a steady friend to merit. Of his private virtues, it is a sufficient test that he was never the object of slander or blame. It has, indeed, been asserted that he was addicted to gaming; but the author of the life we have followed in this account denies the charge, admitting only that he played for amusement. He left his fortune to his brother Thomas Anson, esq. who was member of parliament for Lichfield, a gentleman well known for his liberal patronage of, and his exquisite skill in, the fine arts. On his decease, the united fortunes of the family devolved to his nephew, by his eldest sister, George Adams, esq. who assumed the name of Anson.

, a learned heraldic writer, was of a Cornish family, seated at St. Neot’s, being son of John Anstis of that place, esq. by Mary, daughter and coheir of George Smith. He was born September 28th or 29th, 1669, admitted at Exeter College in Oxford in 1685, and three years afterwards entered of the Middle Temple. As a gentleman of good fortune, he became well known in his county, and the borough of St. Germain returned him one of their members in the first parliament called by queen Anne. Opposing what was called the Whig interest, he distinguished himself by his voting against the bill for occasional conformity: for which his name appeared amongst the “Tackers” in the prints of that time. He was appointed in 1703 deputy-general to the auditors of imprest, but he never executed this office; and in the second year of queen Anne’s reign, one of the principal commissioners of prizes. His love of, and great knowledge in the science of arms so strongly recommended him, that April 2, 1714, the queen gave him a reversionary patent for the place of Garter. Probably this passage in a ms letter to the lord treasurer, dated March 14, 1711-12, relates to his having the grant. He says, “I have a certain information it would be ended forthwith, if the lord treasurer would honour me by speaking to her majesty at this time, which, in behalf of the duke of Norfolk, I most earnestly desire, and humbly beg your lordship’s assistance therein. If it be delayed for some days, I shall then be back as far as the delivery of my petition. I am obliged to attend this morning at the exchequer, about the tin affair, and thereby prevented from waiting upon your lordship.” If it does relate to the reversionary patent, it is evident that he long wished, and with difficulty obtained it. In the last parliament of Anne he was returned a member for Dunheved, or Launceston, and he sat in the first parliament of George I. He fell under the suspicion of government, as favouring a design to restore the Stuarts, was imprisoned, and at this critical time Garter’s place became vacant, by the death of the venerable sir Henry St. George. He immediately claimed the office, but his grant was disregarded; and, October 26,1715, sir John Vanbrugh, Clarenceux, had the appointment. Unawed by power, fearless of danger, and confident in innocence, he first freed himself from all criminality in having conspired against the succession of the illustrious house of Brunswick, and then prosecuted his claim to the office of garter, pleading the right of the late queen to give him the place. It was argued, that in a contest about the right of nomination in the reign of Charles II. the sovereign gave it up, only retaining the confirmation of the earl marshal’s choice: Mr. Anstis urged, that Charles only waved his claim. The matter came to a hearing April 4, 1717, and the competitors claimed under their different grants; but the controversy did not end until April 20, 1718, when the right being acknowledged to be in Mr. Anstis, he was created Garter. He had, for some time previous to this decision in his favour, resided in the college, and by degrees gained the good opinion and favour of the government. He even obtained a patent under the great seal, giving the office of garter to him, and his son John Anstis junior, esq. and to the survivor of them: this passed June 8, 1727, only two days before the death of George I. He died at his seat, at Mortlake in Surrey, on Sunday, March 4, 1744-5, and was buried the 23d of that month, in a vault in the parish church of Dulo in Cornwall. In him, it is said, were joined the learning of Camden and the industry, without the inaccuracy, of sir William Dugdale. He was certainly a most indefatigable and able officer at arms; and though he lived to the age of seventy-six, yet there is room to wonder at the extent of his productions, especially as he was a person of great consequence, and busied with many avocations out of the college. In 1706, he published a “Letter concerning the honour of Earl Marshal,” 8vo. “The form of the Installation of the Garter” 1720, 8vo. “The Register of the most noble Order of the Garter, usually called the Black-Book, with a specimen of the Lives of the Knights Companions,” 1724, 2 vols. folio. “Observations introductory to an historical Essay on the Knighthood of the Bath,” 1725, 4to, intended as an introduction to the history of that order, for which it is there said the Society of Antiquaries had begun to collect materials. His “Aspilogia,” a discourse on seals in England, with beautiful draughts, nearly fit for publication, from which Mr. Drake read an abstract to the Society in 1735-6, and two folip volumes of Sepulchral Monuments, Stone Circles, Crosses, and Castles, in the three kingdoms, from which there are extracts in the Archa?ologia, vol. XIII. were purchased, with many other curious papers, at the sale of Mr. Anstis’s library of Mss. in 1768, by Thomas Astle, esq. F. R. and A. S. Besides these he left five large folio volumes on the “Office, &c. of Garter King at Arms, of Heralds and Pursuivants, in this and other kingdoms, both royal, princely, and such as belonged to our nobility,” now in the pos session of George Nayler, esq. York herald, and genealogist of the Order of the Bath, &c. “Memoirs of the Families of Talbot, Carew, Granvile, and Courtney.” “The Antiquities of Cornwall.” “Collections, relative to the parish of Coliton, in Devonshire,” respecting the tithes, owing to a dispute which his son, the Rev. George Anstis, the vicar, then had with the parishioners, in the court of exchequer in 1742. The late Dr. Ducarel possessed it. “Collections relative, to All Souls’ college, in Oxford.” These were very considerable, and purchased by the colllege. Sixty-four pages of his Latin Answer to “the Case of Founders’ Kinsmen,” were printed in 4to, with many coats of arms. His “Curia Militaris, or treatise on the Court of Chivalry, in three books:” it is supposed that no more than the preface and contents were ever published. Mr. Reed had those parts; the whole, however, was printed in 1702, 8vo; probably only for private friends. Mr. Prior mentions this Garter in an epigram:

, a man of great learning, whq raised himself from a low condition by his merit, his parents being so far from able to support him in his studies, that they themselves stood in need of charity, was born at Rome in 1540. He made a quick and most surprising progress in his studies; for when he was but ten years old, he could make verses upon any subject proposed to him; and these so excellent, though pronounced extempore, that it was commonly thought they exceeded those of the most studied preparation. A proof of this was at the table of the cardinal of Pisa, when he gave an entertainment one day to several other cardinals. Alexander Farnese, taking a nosegay, gave it to this youth, desiring him to present it to him of the company whom he thought most likely to be pope: he presented it to the cardinal of Medicis, and made an eulogium upon him in verse. This cardinal, who was pope some years afterwards, under the name of Pius IV. imagined it all a contrivance, and that the poem had been artfully prepared before-hand, by way of ridicule upon him. He therefore appeared hurt at it, but the company protested that it was an extempore performance, and requested him to make a trial of the boy: he did so, and was convinced of his extraordinary talents. According to Strada, as the cardinal of Medicis was thinking upon a subject for this purpose, the clock in the hall struck; which was the occasion of his proposing a clock for the subject of his verses. The duke de Ferrara coming to Rome, to congratulate Marcellus II. upon his being raised to the pontificate, was so charmed with the genius of Antoniano, that he carried hi:n to Ferrara, where he provided able masters to instruct him in all the sciences. From thence he was sent for by Pius IV. who recollecting the adventure of the nosegay, made inquiry for the young poet; and having found him, invited him to Rome, and gave hinvan honourable post in his palace, and some time after made him professor of the belles lettres in the college at Rome. Antoniano filled this place with so much reputation, that on the day when he began to explain the oration pro Marco Marcello, he had a crowd of auditors, and among these no less than twenty-five cardinals. He was afterwards chosen rector of the college; and after the death of Pius IV. being seized with a spirit of devotion, he joined himself to Philip Neri, and accepted the office of secretary to the sacred college, offered him by Pius V. which he executed for many years with the reputation of an honest and able man. He refused a bishopric which Gregory XIV. wculd have given him, but he accepted the office of secretary to the briefs, offered him by Clement VIII. who made him his chamberlain, and afterwards a cardinal. It is reported, that cardinal Alexander de Montalto, who had behaved a Hitle too haughtily to Antoniano, said, when he saw him promoted to the purple, that for the future he would not despise a man of the cassoc and little band, however low and despicable he might appear; since it might happen that he whom he had despised, might not only become his equal, but even his superior. His intense application is said to have hastened his death, Aug. 15, 1603. His printed works are, 1. “Dele 1 Educazione Cristiana de Figliuoli libri tre,” Verona, 1584, 4to, reprinted at Cremona and Naples. This work on education he wrote at the request of cardinal Borromeo. 2. “Orationes tredecim,” Rome, 1610, 4to, with a life of the author by Joseph Castalio. 3. Various discourses, letters, pieces of poetry, both Latin and Italian, in the collections.

The first four books were badly translated by Joan. Baptista Memmius. But a better translation of these in Latin was made by Commandine, and published at Bononia in 1566. Vossius mentions an edition of the Conies in 1650; the fifth, sixth, and seventh books being recovered by Golius. Claude Richard, professor of mathematics in the imperial college of his order at Madrid, in the year 1632, explained, in his public lectures, the first four books of Apollonius, which were printed at Antwerp in 1655, in folio. And the grand duke Ferdinand the second, and his brother prince Leopold de Medicis, employed a professor of the Oriental languages at Rome to translate the fifth, sixth, and seventh books into Latin. These were published at Florence in 1661, by Borelli, with his own notes, who also maintains that these books are the genuine production of Apollonius, by many strong authorities, against Mydorgius and others, who suspected that these three books were not the real production of Apollonius.

, Duke of Atri in the kingdom of Naples, and son of Julius Aqua viva, count of Converse no, added to the splendour of his birth a great share of learning, which rendered him very illustrious towards the end of the fifteenth, and beginning of the sixteenth century. He was at first addicted to the military art, and distinguished himself by his bravery, although he was unfortunate, and in the last battle in which he fought, was wounded and taken prisoner. When released he appears to have devoted his time to study and the conversation of men of letters, by whom he was highly esteemed. Alexander ab Alexandro dedicated to him his “Dies Geniales” and “Pontanus,” two of his works. He died in 1528, aged seventy-two years. His works were, an “Encylopædia,” left very imperfect; and Bayle says he composed a book “De re Equestri.” His best known work is “Disputationes de Virtute morali,” Helenop. 1609, 4to, which it seems doubtful whether Bayle ever saw. His brother Belisarius also became an author, and published a treatise “De Venatione,” and others “De Aucupio,” “De Principum liberis educandis,” and “De Certamine Singulari.” These were first printed at Naples, 1519, fol. and reprinted at Basil, 1578, 8vo, by Leunclavius, with Manuel Palæologus on the Education of Kings.

, son to John Jerome, duke of Atri, was born at Naples in 1542, and in 1581 was elected general of the Jesuits, in which station he conducted himself with great mildness and prudence, and died Jan. 31, 1615. He left several religious works: among others, “Industrie ad curandos animae morhos,” Paris, 1603, 8vo, and Rome, 1606, 8vo. A French translation of this was published at Paris in 1776, 12mo, under the title of “Manuel des Superieurs.” He wrote also Meditations in Latin, on the forty-fourth and ninety-tnird Psalms. His most celebrated work drawn up for the use of his order, entitled “Ratio Studiorum,” and published at Rome in 1586, 8vo, was suppressed by the Inquisition, and much displeased the Jesuits and Dominicans, by containing more liberal sentiments than were consistent with their interest. It was republished in 1591, but in a mutilated state. Another work of his, less known, was “Epistoiae Prtepositorum Generalium, ad Patres et Frutres societatis Jesu. Instructio ad augendum spiritum in societaie,” Rome, 4 615, 8vo.

, commonly called the lady Arabella, was so often talked of for a queen, that custom seems to have given her a right to an article in this manner under her Christian name, as that by which our historians distinguish her. She was the daughter of Charles Stuart, earl oY Lenox, who was younger brother to Henry lord Darnley, father to king James VI. of Scotland, and First of England, by Elizabeth, daughter of sir William Cavendisu, km. She was born, as near as can be computed, in 1577, and educated at London, under the eye of the eld countess of Lenox, her grand-mother. She was far from being either beautiful in her person, or from being distinguished by any extraordinary qualities of mind; and yet she met with many admirers, on account of her royal descent and near relation to the crown of England. Her father dviug in 1579, and leaving her thereby sole heiress, as some understood, of the house of Lenox, several matches were projected for her at home and abroad. Her cousin, king James, inclined to have married her to lord Esme Stuart, whom he had created duke of Lenox, and whom before his marriage he considered as his heir; but this match was prevented by queen Elizabeth, though it was certainly a very fit one in all respects. As the English succession was at this time very problematical, the great powers on the Continent speculated on many husbands for the lady Arabella, such as the duke of Savoy, a prince of the house of Farnese, and others. In the mean time, this lady had some thoughts of marrying herself at home, as Thuanus relates, to a son of the earl of Northumberland, but it is not credible that this took effect, though he says it did privately. The very attempt procured her queen Elizabeth’s displeasure, who confined her for it. In the mean time her title to the crown, such as it was, became the subject, amongst many others, of father Persons’ s famous book, wherein are all the arguments for and against her, and which served to divulge her name and descent all over Europe; and yet this book was not very favourable to her interest. On the death of the queen, some malcontents framed an odd design of disturbing the public peace, and amongst other branches of their dark scheme, one was to seize the lady Arabella, and to cover their proceedings by the sanction of her title, intending also to have married her to some English nobleman, the more to increase their interest, and the better to please the people. But this conspiracy was fatal to none but its authors, and those who conversed with them; being speedily defeated, many taken, and some executed. As for the lady Arabella, it does not appear that she had any knowledge of this engagement in her behalf, whatever it was; for domestic writers are perplexed, and foreign historians ruu into absurdities, when they endeadeavour to explain it. She continued at liberty, and in apparent favour at court, though her circumstances were narrow till the latter end of the year 1608, when by some means she drew upon her king James’s displeasure. However, at Christmas, when mirth and good-humour prevailed at court, she was again taken into favour, had a service of plate presented to her of the value of two hundred pounds, a thousand marks given her to pay her debts, and some addition made to her annual income. This seems to have been done, in order to have gained her to the interest of the court, and to put the notions of marriage she had entertained out of her head; all which, however, proved ineffectual; for in the beginning of the month of February 1609, she was detected in an intrigue with Mr. William Seymour, son to the lord Beauchamp, and grandson to the earl of Hertford, to whom, notwithstanding, she was. privately married some time afterwards. Upon this discovery, they were both carried before the council, and severely reprimanded, and then dismissed. In the summer of 1610, the marriage broke out, on which the lady was sent into close custody, at the house of sir Thomas Parry, in Lambeth; and Mr. Seymour was committed to the Tower for his contempt, in marrying a lady of the royal family without the king’s leave. It does not appear that this confinement was attended with any great severity to either; for the lady was allowed the use of sir Thomas Parry’s house and gardensj and the like gentleness, in regard to his high quality, was shewn to Mr. Seymour. Some intercourse they had by letters, which after a time was discovered, and a resolution taken thereupon to send the lady to Durham, a resolution which threw her into deep affliction. Upon this, by the interposition of friends, she and her husband concerted a scheme for their escape, which was successfully executed in the beginning, though it ended unluckily. The lady, under the care of sir James Crofts, was at the house of Mr. Conyers, at Highgate, from whence she was to have gone the next day to Durham, on which she put a fair countenance now, notwithstanding the trouble she had before shewn. This made her keepers the more easy, and gave her an opportunity of disguising herself, which she did on Monday the 3d of June, 1611, by drawing over her petticoats a pair of large French-fashioned hose, putting on a man’s doublet, a peruke which covered her hair, a hat, black cloak, russet boots with red tops, and a rapier by her side. Thus equipped, she walked out between three and four with Mr. Markham. They went a mile and half to a little inn, where a person attended with their horses. The lady, by that time she came thither, was so weak and faint, that the hostler, who held the stirrup when she mounted, said that gentleman would hardly hold out to London. Riding, however, so raised her spirits, that by the time she came to Blackwall, she was pretty well recovered. There they found waiting for them two men, a gentlewoman, and a chambermaid, with one boat full of Mr. Seymour’s and her trunks, and another boat for their persons, in which they hasted from thence towards Woolwich. Being come so far, they bade the watermen row on to Gravesend. There the poor fellows were desirous to land, but for a double freight were contented to go on to Lee, yet being almost tired by the way, they were forced to lie still at Tilbury, whilst the rowers went on shore to refresh themselves; then they proceeded to Lee, and by that time the day appeared, and they discovered a ship at anchor a mile beyond them, which was the French bark that waited for them. Here the lady would have lain at anchor, expecting Mr. Seymour, but through the importunity of her followers, they forthwith hoisted sail and put to sea. In the mean time Mr. Seymour, with a peruke and beard of black hair, and in a tawny cloth suit, walked alone without suspicion, from his lodging out at the great west door of the Tower, following a cart that had brought him billets. From thence he walked along by the Towerwharf, by the warders of the south gate, and so to the iron gate, where one Rodney was ready with a pair of oars to receive him. When they came to Lee, and found that the French ship was gone, the billows rising high, they hired a fisherman for twenty shillings, to put them on board a certain ship that they saw under sail. That ship they found not to be it they looked for, so they made forwards to the next under sail, which was a ship from Newcastle. This with much ado they hired for forty pounds, to carry them to Calais, and the master performed his bargain, by which means Mr. Seymour escaped, and continued in Flanders. On Tuesday in the afternoon, my lord treasurer being advertised that the lady Arabella had made an escape, sent immediately to the lieutenant of the Tower to set strict guard over Mr. Seymour, which he promised, after his yxrt manner, “he would thoroughly do, that he would;” but, coming to the prisoner’s lodgings-, he found, to his great amazement, that he was gone from thence one whole day before. A pink being dispatched from the Downs into Calais road, seized the French bark, and brought back the lady and those with her; but, before this was known, the proclamation issued for apprehending them. As soon as she was brought to town, she was, after examination, committed to the Tower, declaring that she was not so sorry for her own restraint, as she should be glad if Mr. Seymour escaped, for whose welfare, she affirmed, she was more concerned than for her own. Her aunt, the countess of Shrewsbury, was likewise committed, on suspicion of having prompted the lady Arabella, not only to her escape, but to other things, it being known that she had amassed upwards of twenty thousand pounds in ready money. The earl of Shrewsbury was confined to his house, and the old earl of Hertford sent for from his seat. By degrees things grew cooler, and though it was known that Mr. Seymour continued in the Netherlands, yet the court made no farther applications to the archduke about him. In the beginning of 1612, a new storm began to break out; for the lady Arabella, either pressed at an examination, or of her own free will, made some extraordinary discoveries, upon which some quick steps would have been taken, had it not shortly after appeared, that her misfortunes had turned her head, and that, consequently, no use could be made of her evidence. However, the countess of Shrewsbury, who before had leave to attend her husband in his sickness, was, very closely shut up, and the court was amused with abundance of strange stories, which wore out by degrees, and the poor lady Arabella languished in her confinement till the 27th of September, 1615, when her life and sorrows ended together. Even in her grave this poor lady was not at peace, a report being spread that she was poisoned, because she happened to die within two years of sir Thomas Overbury. Sir Bull. Whitlocke has put this circumstance in much too strong a light; for it was a suspicion at most, and never had the support of the least colour of proof. As for her husband, sir William Seymour, he soon after her decease, procured leave to return, distinguished himself by loyally adhering to the king during the civil wars, and, surviving to the time of the Restoration, was restored to his great-grandfather’s title of duke of Somerset, by an act of parliament, which entirely cancelled his attainder and on the giving his royal assent to this act, king Charles II. was pleased to say in full parliament, what perhaps was as honourable for the family as the title to which they are restored, flis words were these: “As this is an act of an extraordinary nature, so it is in favour of a person of no ordinary merit: he has deserved of my father, and of myself, as much as any subject possibly could do; and I hope this will stir no man’s envy, because in doing it I do no more than' what a good master should do for such a servant.” By his lady Arabella, this noble person had no issue: but that he still preserved a warm affection for her memory, appears from hence, that he called one of his daughters by his second wife, Frances, daughter and coheiress of Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, Arabella Seymour.

, son of the preceding, was born at Bologna, May 8, 1712. He studied philosophy and law, and took his doctor’s degree in the latter faculty at Padua in 1736, but having afterwards applied himself to mathematics, he was, in 1740, appointed royal engineer, To all this he added a taste for the classics and Italian literature, which he cultivated in his father’s house, where he principally resided, either at Milan or Bologna, at which last he died in 1754. He published, 1. “Practica del fora Veneto,” Venice, 1737, 4to. 2. An Italian translation of Huet, on the situation of Paradise,“1737., 8vo. 3.” Saggio d'una nuova filosofia,“Venice, 1740, 8vo. 4.” Storia della nascita delle scienze e belle lettere,“&c. Florence, 1743, 8vo. This was to have extended to twelve volumes, but one only appeared. 5.” De praeclaris Jurisconsultis Bononiensibus Oratio,“&c. 1749, 4to, to which is added a letter by his father, dated Milan, where probably this work was published. 6,” II Decamerone,“Bologna, 1751, 2 vols. 8vo, an imitation of Boccaccio, the subjects taken from some curious facts in the English Philosophical Transactions, accounts of travellers, &c. and other remarkable events, and adventures, but more pure in point of morality than the work of his predecessor. 7.” Novissima sisteina di filosofia, &c." Modena, 1753, 8vo. He left also in manuscript, a life of John Gaston, grand duke of Tuscany, and of a female saint of the order of St. Francis.

was one of the first of those learned persons who fled into Italy upon the taking of Constantinople by Mahomet II. in 1453, and contributed to the revival of Greek learning in the west. Cosmo de Medicis, duke of Tuscany, made him professor of Greek at Florence, and appointed him preceptor to his son Peter, and to his grandson Lorenzo. He had several illustrious pupils at Florence, to whom he read lectures in the Greek language and philosophy; and amongst the rest Angelas Politianus^ Acciaioli, and Reuchlinus. In 1456, he went into France, to ask the assistance of Charles VII. in behalf of some friends and relations, whom he wanted to redeem from Turkish slavery. He continued many years in his professorship at Florence; but, the plague at length obliging him to quit it, he went to Rome, where he publicly read lectures upon the Greek text of Aristotle. He died of an autumnal fever, which was brought on by an intemperate eating of melons, in the 70th year of his age, and (as is believed) soon after his settlement in Rome; but the time of his death is uncertain, yet it must have been after 1478, because he survived Theodorus Gaza, who died in that year. He was allowed to be very learned, but learning does not seem to have civilized or softened his manners, for he is represented as having been very capricious and very morose. He affirmed, that Cicero understood neither the Greek language nor philosophy, and is supposed to have conceived this peculiar prejudice against Cicero for saying, that the Greek was a language veibonim inops t poor and scanty in words. He was also a notorious epicure, and spent all his salaries, though very considerable, in the luxuries of the table. He was not so serious about his latter end, but that he bequeathed his debts in form to his richer friends, almost in the very act of dying. He translated several pieces of Aristotle into Latin, which language he also understood very well.

, one of the most eminent Italian poets, was born Sept. 8, 1474. His father, while he was in the government of Rheggio, in Lombardy, espoused Daria de Malaguzzi, a lady of wealth and family, descended from one of the first houses in llneggio, and by her had five aons, Ludovico, Gabriele, Carlo, Galasso, and Alessandro; and the same number of daughters. These sons were all well accomplished, and, for their many excellent qualities, patronised by several princes. Gabriele gave himself up to literary pursuits, and is, said to have arrived at great excellence in Latin poetry, but to have been too close an imitator of Statius: he died at Ferrara. Carlo, who was of a disposition more inclined to dissipation and gaiety, led the life of a courtier, and. died at the court of Naples. Galasso embraced the profession of the church, was employed in several important offices, and, at last, ended his days, ambassador from the duke of fc'crrara, at the court of Charles V. Alessandro, who was of an inquisitive and enterprising genius, having spent great part of his time in visiting foreign countries, at last finished his life in Ferrara.

While he was busied in these literary pursuits, Alphonso duke of Ferrara, having occasion to send ambassadors to Rome, in order to appease the anger of pope Julius II. who prepared to make war against him, was, by his brother the cardinal, recommended to Ariosto, as a proper person to be entrusted with such a negotiation, and he acquitted himself so well in his commission, that he returned with an answer much more favourable than was expected. However, the pope, still continuing at enmity with the duke, made a league with the Venetians, and collected a powerful army against Ferrara: but was defeated at the battle of Ravenna. Part of a Meet was sent up the Po, against Ferrara, and met with a repulse from the duke’s party. In this engagement, Ariosto, who was present, behaved with great courage, and took one of the largest of the enemy’s vessels, filled with stores and ammunition. The papal army being dispersed, Alphonso thought it advisable to send an ambassador again to Rome, and dispatched Ludovico a second time, who found his holiness so incensed against the duke, that his indignation was very near showing itself to the ambassador; and it was not without difficulty that Ariosto escaped with life to Ferrara. The duke’s affairs being established, Ariosto returned to his studies; but was employed in various public occupations, that often broke in upon his retirement, and obliged him to defer the completion of his Orlando. However, he found means to bring it to a conclusion; and though it was far from that perfection which he desired, yet, in order to avail himself of the opinion of the public, he caused it to be first printed in 1515.

In the meantime, cardinal Hippolito died; and Ariosto, who for fifteen years lived in a state of uneasy dependence, and had now reached the forty-fourth year of his age, was determined never more to be connected with a coart; but being persuaded by his intimate friend Buonaveritura Pistofolo, secretary to Alphonso, he engaged in the service of that prince, from whom he met with a most gracious and affectionate reception. Not long after, when Adrian II. succeeded to the papal chair, Grafagnana, a province on the Appennine, being torn to pieces by factions, it was necessary to appoint a person, whose prudence and authority might reduce them to a due subjection, and Ariosto was chosen, who, though very averse to the journey, would not again hazard incurring the displeasure of his patron. Here he continued three years, and not only brought the people to a proper sense of their duty to their sovereign, but entirely gained their affections to himself, and was highly applauded by the duke for his good services. An extraordinary instance of the veneration paid to his character by all ranks and degrees of men, is thus given by Baretti.

The term of his government being expired, he returned to court, where, finding the duke took great delight in theatrical representations, he applied himself to the drama; and, besides the “Cassaria” and “Suppositi,” he composed “La Lena,” and “II Negromante,” in prose and verse, and the “Scolastica” in verse; though the last was Jeft imperfect by his death, and the fifth act added by his brother Gabriele. Of these comedies, four were first printed in prose, and afterwards turned into verse. They were performed with universal applause, before many faniilies of rank, the actors being generally persons of condition; insomuch, that when the Lena was first acted, in 1528, signer Don Francisco of Este, afterwards marquis of Massa, spoke the prologue himself.

Ariosto now appeared to lead a life of tranquillity; which was the more agreeable to him, as he was not so deeply engaged by the duke, but that he had sufficient leisure to pursue his studies; the service of Alphonso being far more easy than that of Hippolito. About this time he published his Satires, besides those he had formerly written; in the whole, to the number of seven, till, being again involved in family difficulties, and harassed with law-suits, he was obliged, for some time, to lay aside his compositions. At last, having brought his affairs to a happy crisis, he purchased a piece of ground opposite the church of St. Benedict, where he built a commodious dwelling; which, some say, he was enabled to do by the liberality of the duke. He had a garden adjoining to this house, the usual scene of his poetical meditations. Here he passed the remainder of his life, as much as possible secluded from all public employments. Having attained the 59th year of his age, he was seized, on the last day 'but one of the year 1532, with a lingering illness, though some say his illness first came upon him in October or November, about which time the ducal palace took fire, which accident consumed the superb theatre that had been built for the exhibition of his comedies; in the sameyear he had sent his Furioso to the press with his last improvements, corrected and enlarged as we now have it. Some physicians attributed the cause of his malady to the custom he had of eating fast, and chewing his victuals little, that occasioned an indigestion; the means they made use of to remove this co nplaint brought on a consumption, which, in spite of all the assistance of medicine, at last put a period to his life, at Ferrara, on the 6th of June, or, as others say, on the 8th of July, 1533.

The name of this poet is still held in that kind of veneration by his countrymen with which the English consider their Shakspeare. Antonio Zatta, in his edition of Ariosto' s works of 1772, relates, that a chair and ink-standish, which, according to tradition, belonged to Ariosto, were then in the possession of II signor Dottore Giovanni Andrea Barotti, at Ferrara, and that a specimen of his hand -writing was preserved in the public library of that city. The republic of Venice did him the honour to cause his picture to be painted, and hung up with the senators and other illustrious men in the great council hall, which was afterwards destroyed by fire. It appears, however, that Ariosto did not finally receive from his professed patrons those rewards, or obtain that establishment, to which he thought his merits had entitled him. Probably the government of Grafagnana added more to his reputation than his fortune; and, from what he says in several parts of his Satires, he was by no means satisfied with his patrons of Ferrara. Nothing particular is recorded of the benefactions of the cardinal to him, before he incurred the displeasure of that prelate. The duke, indeed, gave him two assignments on certain gabels or taxes, the first of which ceased with the abolition of the tax; and the second, which produced him only twenty-five crowns every fourth month, collected, as he says himself, with great trouble, was contested and withheld from him during the wars of Lombardy; and some say, that the cardinal, upon withdrawing his patronage, deprived him of this slender advantage^ Such were the great advantages which he derived from those in whose service he had engaged, and whose names he had immortalized by his Muse.

Notwithstanding what has been mentioned of his personal bravery in the engagement between the pope’s vessels and the duke’s, he is reported to have been naturally of a timid disposition: when on horseback he would alight oa the least appearance of danger; he was particularly timorous on the water; and when he went out of a vessel, would always stay till the last, frequently using this expression: “De puppe novissimus exi.” In every other respect his temper was firm and unruffled.

Concerning the person of Ariosto, he was rather above the common size, of a countenance generally grave and contemplative, as appears from the admirable picture painted by Titian: his head was partly bald; his hair black and curling; his forehead high; his eye-brows raised; his eyes black and sparkling; his nose large and aquiline; his lips well formed; his teeth even and white; his cheeks rather thin, and his complexion inclining to the olive; he was well made, except that his shoulders were somewhat large, which made him appear to stoop a little; his walk was slow and deliberate, as indeed were his actions in general. Ariosto left behind him two sons by Alexandra, who were always considered illegitimate; Virginio before named, and J. Baptista; the first of whom being brought up under his father, who took great pains to instruct him, was made a canon of the house of Ferrara, and Ariosto resigned a great part of his benefices to him; the latter went very young into the army, and, having acquired considerable reputation as a soldier, returned to Ferrara a little while before Ariosto’s death, and died himself an officer in the duke’s service.

, a celebrated painter, was born at Geneva, May 18, 1668. He was originally educated for the church, but his inclination soon led him to painting, in which he made a rapid progress. He painted miniature with success, and when he came to Paris in 1688, he obtained the favour of the duke of Orleans, who chose him for an instructor in the art, and gave him an apartment at St. Cloud, that he might be with him more frequently. He was likewise highly favoured by the princess Palatine, the duke’s mother, who presented him with her own picture set with diamonds; and also gave him recommendatory letters to the court of Great Britain, particularly to the princess of Wales, afterwards queen Caroline. Her portrait was universally admired, and celebrated by several of the poets; and, at his return to Paris, he was loaded with presents, among which were many medals of gold. Having copied a Leda, perhaps the famous Leda of Corregio, destroyed by the bigotry of the regent’s son, all Paris was struck with the performance. The due de la Force gave 12,000 livres for it, but being a sufferer, by the Missisippi (probably before the picture was paid for) restored it to the artist with 4,000 livres for the use of it. In 1721, Arlaud brought this masterpiece to London, and sold a copy of it for 600l. sterling, but would not part with the original. While in England he received many medals as presents, which are still in the library of Geneva. But Leda was again condemned to be the victim of devotion.

Dr. Kurd (late bishop of Worcester) patronized his son (Dr. William Arnald), a fellow of St. John’s college, who, by his favour and recommendation, became sub-preceptor to the prince of Wales and duke of York in 1776, and afterwards canon of Windsor, and prsecentor of Lichfield. He died in 1802, after having been for twenty years confined through insanity. He was much respected by his friends before this awful visitation, and they paid him every affectionate attention which his situation could admit.

, eldest son of Anthony Arnauld, and advocate-general to Catherine de Medicis, was born at Paris in 1550, or, according to some, in 1560, and in that city he was educated, and took his degree of M. A. in 1573. Some time after, he was admitted advocate of the parliament of Paris, in which capacity he acquired great reputation by his integrity and extraordinary eloquence. Henry IV. had great esteem for Arnauld; and his majesty once carried the duke of Savoy on purpose to hear him plead in, parliament. He was appointed counsellor and attorneygeneral to queen Catherine of Medicis. Mr. Marion, afterwards advocate-general, was one day so pleased with hearing him, that he took him into his coach, carried him home to dinner, and placed him next his eldest daughter, Catherine, and afterwards gave her to him in marriage. One of the most famous causes which Arnauld pleaded, was that of the university against the Jesuits, in 1594. There was published about this time a little tract in French, entitled “Franc et veritable discours,” &c. or, A frank and true discourse to the king, concerning the re-establishment of the Jesuits, which they had requested of him. Some have ascribed this to Arnauld, but others have positively denied him to be the author. Some have supposed that Arnauld was of the reformed religion; but Mr. Bayle has fully proved this to be a mistake. His other works were, 1. “Anti-Espagnol,” printed in a collection of discourses on the present state of France, 1606, 12mo, and in the “Memoires de la Ligue, vol. IV. p. 230. 2.” La Fleur de Lys,“1593, 8vo. 3.” La Delivrance de la Bretagne.“4.” La Premiere Savoisienne,“8vo. 1601, 1630. 5.” Avis au roi Louis XIII. pour bien regner,“1615, 8vo. 6. The first and second” Philippics" against Philip II. of Spain, 1592, 8vo. He died Dec. 29, 1619, leaving ten children out of twenty-two, whom he had by his wife Catherine.

, doctor of the Sorbonne, and brother of the preceding, was born at Paris the 6th of February 1612. He studied philosophy in the college of Calvi, on the ruins of which the Sorbonne was built, and began to study the law; but, at the persuasion of his mother and the abbot of St. Cyran, he resolved to apply himself to divinity. He accordingly studied in the college of the Sorbonne, under Mr. l‘Escot. This professor gave lectures concerning grace; but Arnauld, not approving of his sentiments upon this subject, read St. Augustin, whose system of grace he greatly preferred to that of Mr. l’Escot: and publicly testified his opinion in his thesis, when he was examined in 1636, for his bachelor’s degree. After he had spent two years more in study, which, according to the laws of the faculty of Paris, must be between the first examination and the license, he began the acts of his license at Easter 1638, and continued them to Lent, 1640. He maintained the act of vespers the 18th of December 1641, and the following day put on the doctor’s cap. He had begun his license without being entered in form at the Sorbonne, and was thereby rendered incapable of being admitted, according to the ordinary rules. The society, however, on account of his extraordinary merit, requested of cardinal Richelieu, their provisor, that he might be admitted, though contrary to form; which was refused by that cardinal, but, the year after his death, he obtained this honour. In 1643, he published his treatise on Frequent Communion, which highly displeased the Jesuits. They refuted it both from the pulpit and the press, representing it as containing a most pernicious doctrine: and the disputes upon grace, which broke out at this time in the university of Paris, helped to increase the animosity between the Jesuits and Mr. Arnauld, who took part with the Jansenists, and supported their tenets with great zeal. But nothing raised so great a clamour against him, as the two letters which he wrote upon absolution having been refused by a priest to the duke of Liancour, a great friend of the Port Royal. This duke educated his grand-daughter at Port Royal, and kept in his house the abbé de Bourzays. It happened in 1655, that the duke offered himself for confession to a priest of St. Sulpice, who refused to give him absolution, unless he would take his daughter from Port Royal, and break off all commerce with that society, and discard the abbé. Mr. Arnauld therefore was prevailed upon to write a letter in defence of Liancour. A great number of pamphlets were written against this letter, and Mr. Arnauld thought himself obliged to confute the falsities and calumnies with which they were filled, by printing a second letter, which contains an answer to nine of those pieces. But in this second letter the faculty of divinity found two propositions which theycondemned, and Mr. Arnauld was excluded from that society. Upon this he retired, and it was during this retreat, which lasted near 25 years, that he composed that variety of works which are extant of his, on grammar, geometry, logic, metaphysics, and theology. He continued in this retired life till the controversy of the Jansenists was eaded; in 1668. Arnauld now came forth from, his retreat, and was presented to the king, kindly received by the pope’s nuncio, and by the public esteemed a father of the church. From this time he resolved to enter the lists only against the Calvinists, and he published his book entitled “La perpetuite de la Foi,” in which he was assisted by M. Nicole: and which gave rise to that grand controversy between them and Claude the minister.

, brother of Robert and Anthony, was born at Paris in 1597. After the death of Gournay, bishop of Toul, the chapter of that city tin; mously elected the abbé Arnauld, then dean of that cathedral, his successor. The kinsr confirmed his nomination, at the entreaty of the famous capuchin, pere Joseph; but a dispute about the right of election prevented him from accepting it. In 1645, he was sent on an extraordinary embassy from France to Rome, for quieting the disputes that had arisen between the Barbarini and Innocent X. On his return to France he was made bishop of Angers in 1649. He never quitted his diocese but once, and that vas to give advice to the prince of Tarento, in order to a reconciliation with the duke de la Tremouille his father. The city of Angers having revolted in 1652, this prelate appeased the queen-mother, who was advancing with an army to take vengeance on it, by saying to her, as he administered the sacrament: “Take, madam, the body of him who forgave his enemies, as he was dying on the cross.” This sentiment was as much in his heart as it was on his lips. He was the father of the poor, and the comforter of the afflicted. His time was divided between prayer, reading, and the duties of his episcopal function. One of his intimates telling him that he ought to take one day in the week for some recreation from fatigue, “Yes,” said he, “that I will do with all my heart, if you will point me out one day in which I am not a bishop.” He died at Angers, June 8, 1692, at the age of 95. His negotiations at the court of Rome, and in various courts of Italy, were published at Paris in 5 vols, 12 mo. a long time after his death (in 1748). They are interspersed with, a great number of curious anecdotes and interesting particulars related in the style peculiar to all the Arnaulds.

, a celebrated Protestant divine of Germany, was born at Ballenstadt, in theduchyof Anhalt, 1555. At first he applied himself to physic; but falling into a dangerous sickness, he made a vow to change that for divinity, if he should be restored to health. He was minister first at Quedlinburg, and then at Brunswick. He met with great opposition in this last city, his success as a preacher having raised the enmity of his brethren, who, in order to ruin his character, ascribed a variety of errors to him, and persecuted him to such a degree that he was obliged to leave Brunswick, and retire to Isleb, where he was minister for three years. In 1611 George duke of Lunenburg gave him the church of Zell, and appointed him superintendant of all the churches in the duchy of Lunenburg, which office he discharged for eleven years, and died in 1621. On returning from preaching on Psal. cxxvi. 5, he said to his wife, “I have been preaching my funeral sermon;” and died a few hours after.

, a Lutheran divine, and ecclesiastical antiquary, was born at Gustro,n, in 1626, and succeeded his brother Christian (the subject of the article before the last) as the logic professor at Rostock in 1633. He was afterwards appointed almoner to Gustavus Adolphus, duke of Mecklenburgh, and died in 1685, after having published a great many writings, philosophical, historical, and controversial. The greater part are enumerated by Niceron, vol. XLIII. Those most celebrated in his time, were: 1. “Lexicon antiquitatum Ecclesiasticarum,” Greifswaki, 1667, 1669, 4to. 2. “Genealogia Scaligerorum,” Copenhagen, 1648. 3. “Trutina statuum Europae Ducis de Rohan,” Gustron, 1665, 8vo, often reprinted. 4. “Laniena Sabaudica,” Rostock, 1655, 4to. 5. “Exercit. de Claudii Salmasii erroribus in theologia,” Wittembero-, 1651, 4to. 6. “Observat. ad Franc. Vavassoris librum de forma Christi,” Rostock, 1666, 8vo. 7. Some Latin poems, and a Latin translation of the History of Wailenstein from the Italian of Gualdi, with notes, ibid. 1669. [For his Son, Charles Arndt, see next entry]

About 1,771 he purchased Marybone gardens, for which he composed some excellent burlettas and other pieces, to which he added some ingenious fire-works. This scheme succeeded; but in 1776, the lease of the gardens expired, and they were let for the purposes of building. We find Dr. Arnold afterwards employed by Mr. Colman, then manager of Covent-garden, as musical composer, and when he purchased the Haymarket theatre, Dr. Arnold was there engaged in the same capacity, and continued in it for life. On the death of Dr. Nares, in 1783, he was appointed his successor as organist and composer to his majesty’s chapel at St. James’s; and at the commemoration of Handel in Westminster Abbey in 1784, was appointed one of the sub-directors. In 1786, he beu,an to publish an uniform edition of Handel’s works, and about the same time published four volumes of cathedral music. In 1789, he was appointed director and manager of the performances held in the academy of ancient music, a post of honour in which he acquitted himself with the highest credit. In private life, he is allowed to have possessed those virtues which engage' and secure social esteem. He died at his house in Duke-street, Westminster, Oct. 22, 1802, in his sixty-third year. His published works amount to, four Oratorios, eight Odes, three Serenatas, forty-seven Operas, three Burlettas, besides Overtures, Concertos, and many smaller pieces.

, a learned Italian physician, was born at Assisi, about the year 1586. His father, who was also a physician of character, spared nothing to give him an education suitable to the profession which he wished him to follow. He began his studies at Perugia, and meant to have completed them at Montpellier, but he was sent to Padua, where he attended the logical, philosophical, and medical classes. Having obtained his doctor’s degree in his eighteenth year, he went to Venice and practised physic there for fifty years, during which he refused very advantageous offers from the duke of Mantua, the king of England, and pope Urban VIII. and died there July 16, 1660. He had collected a copious library, particularly rich in manuscripts, and cultivated general literature as well as the sciences connected with his profession, in which last he published only one tract, to be noticed hereafter. His first publication was “Riposte alle considerazion di Alessandro Tassoni, sopra le rime del Petrarca,” Padua, 1611, 8vo, to which Tassoni replied under the assumed name of Crescenzio Pepe; “Avvertimenti di Cres. Pepe a Guiseppe degli Aromatari, &c.” 1611, 8vo. Aromatari answered this by “Dialoghi di Falcidio Melampodio in riposta agli avvertimenti date sotto nome di Cres. Pepe, &c.” Venice, 1613, 8vo. But the work which has procured him most reputation was a letter on the generation of plants, addressed to Bartholomew Nanti, and printed for the first time, prefixed to his (Aromatari’s) “Disputatio de rabie contagiosa,” Venice, 1625, 4to, Francfort, 1626, 4to, and the Letter was afterwards printed among the “Epistolæ selectæ” of G. Richt, Nuremberg, 1662, 4to. It was also translated into English, and published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. CCXI, and again reprinted with Jungius’s works, in 1747, at Cobourg. His opinions on the generation of plants were admired for their ingenuity, and if his health and leisure had permitted, he intended to have prosecuted the subject more minutely.

, an Italian poet, was born at Mazzareno in Sicily, 1628, and had an early passion for poetry, and a strong inclination for arms. He finished his studies at 15 years of age, about which time he fought a duel, in which he mortally wounded his adversary. He saved himself by taking shelter in a church and it was owing to this accident that he afterwards applied himself to the study of philosophy. His parents being dead, and himself much embarrassed in his circumstances, he resolved to quit his country, and seek his fortune elsewhere. He accordingly went to Candia, at the time when that city was besieged by the Turks, and displayed there so much bravery, that he obtained the honour of knighthood in the military order of St. George. When he was upon his return for Italy, he was often obliged to draw his sword, and was sometimes wounded in these rencounters but his superior skill generally gave him the advantage. He rendered himself so formidable even in Germany, that they used to style him Chevalier de Sang. Ernest duke of Brunswic and Lunenburg appointed him captain of his guards, but no appointment could de tach him from the Muses. He was member of several academies in Italy, and became highly in favour with many princes, especially the emperor Leopold. He died Feb. 11, 1679, at Naples, where he was interred in the church of the Dominicans, with great magnificence the academy DegP Intricati attended his funeral, and Vincent Antonio Capoci made his funeral oration. His works are, 1. “DelP Encyclopedia poetica,” 2 parts, 1658, 1679, 12mo; and a third, Naples, same year. 2. “La Pasife,” a musical drama, Venice, 1661, 12mo. 3. “La Bellezza atterrata, elegia,” Naples, 1646; Venice, 1661, 12mo.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V. was the second son of Robert Fitz-Alan, earl of Arundel and Warren, and brother of Richard earl of Arundel, who was afterwards beheaded. He was but twenty-two years of age when, from being archdeacon of Taunton, he was promoted to the bishopric of Ely, by the pope’s provision, and consecrated April 9, 1374, at Otteford. He was a considerable benefactor to the church and palace of that see. He almost rebuilt the episcopal palace in Holborn, and, among other donations, he presented the cathedral with a very curious table of massy gold, enriched with precious stones which had been given to prince Edward by the king of Spain, and sold by the latter to bishop Arundel for three hundred marks. In the year 1386, the tenth of Richard II. he was made lord high chancellor of England but resigned it in 1389 was again appointed in 1391, and resigned it finally, upon his advancement to the see of Canterbury. After he had sat about fourteen years in the see of Ely, he was translated to the archbishopric of York, April 3, 1388, where he expended a very large sum of money in building a palace for the archbishops, and, besides other rich ornaments, gave to the church several pieces of silver-gilt plate. In 1393, being then chancellor, he removed the courts of justice from London to York and, as a precedent for this unpopular step, he alledged the example of archbishop Corbridge, eighty years before. The see of Canterbury being vacant by the death of Dr. William Courtney, archbishop Arundel was translated thither, January 1396. The crosier was delivered into his hands by Henry Chellenden, prior of Canterbury, in the presence of the king, and a great number of the nobility, and on the 19th of February 1397, he was enthroned with great pomp at Canterbury, the first instance of the translation of an archbishop of York to the see of Canterbury. Soon after he had a contest with the university of Oxford about the right of visitation, which was determined by King Richard, to whom the decision was referred, in favour of the archbishop. At his visitation in London, he revived an old constitution, first set on foot by Simon Niger, bishop of London, by which the inhabitants of the respective parishes were obliged to pay to their rector one halfpenny in the pound out of the rent of their houses. In the second year of his translation, a parliament was held at London, in which the commons, with the king’s leave, impeached the archbishop, together with his brother the earl of Arundel, and the duke of Gloucester, of high-treason, for compelling the king, in the tenth year of his reign, to grant them a commission to govern the kingdom. The archbishop was sentenced to be banished, and had forty days allowed him to prepare for his exile, within which time he was to depart the kingdom on pain of death. Upon this he retired first into France, and then to Rome, where pope Boniface IX. gave him a very friendly reception, and wrote a letter to king Richard, desiring him to receive the archbishop again into favour. But not meeting with success, his holiness resolved to interpose his authority in favour of Arundel. Accordingly he nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrews, and declared his intention of giving him several other preferments in England, by way of provision. The king, upon this, wrote an expostulatory letter to the pope, which induced him not only to withhold the intended favours from Arundel, but likewise, at the king’s request^ to promote Roger Walden dean of York and lord treasurer of England, to the see of Canterbury. That prelate, however, was soon obliged to quit his new dignity for, next year, Arundel returned into England with the duke of Lancaster, afterwards king Henry IV. upon whose accession to the throne, the pope revoked the bull granted to Walden, and restored Arundel and among the articles of mis government brought against king Richard, one was his usage and banishment of this prelate. The throne being vacant by Richard’s resignation, and the duke of Lancaster’s title being allowed in parliament, Arundel had the honour to crown the new king and, at the coronationdinner, sat at his right hand; the archbishop of York being placed at his left. In the first year of king Henry’s reign, Arundel summoned a synod, which sat at St. Paul’s. Harpsfield, and the councils from him, have mistaken this synod for one held during the vacancy of the see. He also by his courage and resolution, preserved several of the bishops, who were in king Henry’s army, from being plundered of their equipages and money. The next year, the commons having moved, that the revenues of the church might be applied to the service of the public, Arundel opposed the motion so vigorously, that the king and lords promised him, the church should never be plundered in their time. After this, he visited the university of Cambridge, where he made several statutes, suppressed several bad customs, and punished the students for their misbehaviour. And, when the visitation was ended, at the request of the university, he reserved all those matters and causes, which had been laid before him, to his own cognizance and jurisdiction. In the year 1408, Arundel began to exert himself with vigour against the Lollards or Wickliffites. To this end, he summoned the bishops and clergy at Oxford, to check the progress of this new sect, and prevent that university’s being farther tinctured with their opinions. But the doctrines of Wickliff still gaining ground, the archbishop resolved to visit the university, attended by the earl of Arundel, his nephew, and a splendid retinue. When he came near the town, he was met by the principal members of the university, who told him, that, if he came only to see the town, he was very welcome, but if he came in the character of a visitor, they refused to acknowledge his jurisdiction. The archbishop, resenting this treatment, left Oxford in a day or two, and wrote to the king on accpunt of his disappointment. After a warm contest between the university and the archbishop, both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the king’s decision who, governing himself by the example of his predecessors, gave sentence in favour of the archbishop. Soon after this controversy was ended, a convocation being held at St. Paul’s in London, the bishops and clergy complained of the growth of Wicklevitism at Oxford, and pressed the archbishop to visit that university. He accordingly wrote to the chancellor and others, giving them notice, that he intended to hold a visitation in St. Mary’s church. His delegates for this purpose were sent down soon after, and admitted by the university, who, to make some satisfaction for their backwardness in censuring Wickliff’s opinions, “wrote to the archbishop, and asked his pardon: after which they appointed a committee of twelve persons, to examine heretical books, particularly those of Wicklitf. These inquisitors into heretical pravity, having censured some conclusions extracted out o'f WicklitPs books, sent an account of their proceedings to the archbishop, who confirmed their censures, and sent an authority in writing to some eminent members of the university, empowering them to inquire into persons suspected of heterodoxy, and oblige them to declare their opinions. These rigorous proceedings made Arundel extremely hated by the Wickliffites, and certainly form the deepest stain on his character. However he went on with the prosecution, and not only solicited the pope to condemn the abovementioned conclusions, but desired likewise a bull for the digging up Wickliff’s bones. The pope granted the first of these requests, but refused the other, not thinking it any useful part of discipline to disturb the ashes of the dead. Arundel’s warm zeal for suppressing the Lollards, or Wickliffites, carried him to several unjustifiable severities against the heads of that sect, particularly against sir John Oldcastle, lord Cobham and induced him to procure a synodical constitution, which forbad the translation of the scriptures into the vulgar tongue. This prelate died at Canterbury, after having sat seventeen years, the 20th of February, 1413. The Lollardsofthose times asserted the immediate hand of heaven in the manner of his death. He died of an inflammation in his throat, and it is said that he was struck with this disease, as he was pronouncing sentence of excommunication and condemnation on the lord Cobham; and from that time, notwithstanding all the assistance of medicine, he could swallow neither meat nor drink, and was starved to death. The Lollards imputed this lamentable end to the just judgment of God upon him, both for his severity towards that sect, and forbidding the scriptures to be translated into English; and bishop Godwin seems to lean to the same opinion. He was buried in the cathedral of Canterbury, near the west end, under a monument erected by himself in his life-time. He was a considerable benefactor to that church, having built the Lanthorn Tower, and great part of the Nave and he gave a ring of five bells, called from him” Arundel’s Ring," several rich vestments, a mitre enchased with jewels, a silver gilt crosier, a golden chalice for the high altar, and another to be used only on St. Thomas Becket’s day. He bestowed also the church of Godmersham, out of the income of which, he ordered six shillings and eight pence to be given annually to every monk of the convent, on the aforesaid festival. Lastly, he gave several valuable books, particularly two Missals, and a collection in one volume of St. Gregory’s works, with anathema to any person who should remove it out of the church. He appears to have possessed a great natural capacity, and was a splendid benefactor to many of our ecclesiastical structures. As a politician, he took a very active share in the principal measures of very turbulent times, and it is perhaps now difficult to appreciate his character in any other particulars than what are most prominent, his zeal for the catholic religion, and his munificence in the various offices he held.

, an eminent philosopher, chemist, and antiquary, of the seventeenth century, and founder of the noble museum at Oxford, which still bears his name, was the only son of Mr. Simon Ashmole, of the city of Litchfield, in Staffordshire, sadler, by Anne, the daughter of Mr. Anthony Boyer, of Coventry, in Warwickshire, woollen-draper. He was born May 23, 1617, and during his early r education in grammar, was taught music, in which he made such proficiency as to become a chorister in the cathedral at Litchfield. When he had attained the age of sixteen he was taken into the family of James Paget, esq. a baron of the exchequer, who had married his mother’s sister, and as his father died in 1634, leaving little provision for him, he continued for some years in the Paget family, during which time he made considerable progress in the law, and spent his leisure hours in perfecting himself in music and other polite accomplishments. In March 1638, he married Eleanor, daughter of Mr. Peter Manwaring, of Smallwood, in the county Palatine of Chester, and in Michaelmas term the same year, became a solicitor in Chancery. On February 11, 1641, he was sworn an attorney of the court of common pleas, and on December 5th, in the same year, his wife died suddenly, of whom he has left us a very natural and affectionate memorial. The rebellion coming on, he retired from London, being always a zealous and steady loyalist, and on May 9, 1645, became one of the gentlemen of the ordnance in the garrison at Oxford, whence he removed to Worcester, where he was commissioner, receiver, and register of the excise, and soon after captain in the lord Ashley’s regiment, and comptroller of the ordnance. In the midst of all this business he entered himself of Brazen-Nose college, in Oxford, and applied himself vigorously to the sciences, but especially natural philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy; and his intimate acquaintance with Mr. (afterwards sir George) Wharton, seduced him into the absurd mysteries of astrology, which was in those days in great credit. In the month of July, 1646, he lost his mother, who had always been a kind parent to him, and for whom he had a very pious regard. On October 16th, the same year, be was elected a brother of the ancient and honourable society of Free and Accepted Masons, which he looked upon as a high honour, and has therefore given us a particular account of the lodge established at Warrington in Lancashire and in some of his manuscripts, there are very valuable collections relating to the history of the free masons. The king’s affairs being now grown desperate, Mr. Ashmole withdrew himself, after the surrender of the garrison of Worcester, into Cheshire, where he continued till the end of October, and then came up to London, where he became acquainted with Mr. (afterwards sir Jonas) Moore, William Lilly, and John Booker, esteemed the greatest astrologers in 'the world, by whom he was caressed, instructed, and received into their fraternity, which then made a very considerable figure, as appeared by the great resort of persons of distinction to their annual feast, of which Mr. Ashmole was afterwards elected steward. Jn 1647 he retired to Englefield, in Berkshire, where he pursued his studies very closely, and having so fair an opportunity, and the advantage of some very able masters, he cultivated the science of botany. Here, as appears from his own remarks, he enjoyed in privacy the sweetest moments of his life, the sensation of which perhaps was quickened, by his just idea of the melancholy state of the times. It was in this retreat that he became acquainted with Mary, sole daughter of sir William Forster, of Aldermarston, in the county of Berks, bart. who was first married to sir Edward Stafford, then to one Mr. Hamlyn, and lastly to sir Thomas Mainwaring, knt recorder of Reading, and one of the masters in chancery and an attachment took place but Mr. Humphrey Stafford, her second son, had such a dislike to the measure, that when Mr. Ashmole happened to be very ill, he broke into his chamber, and if not prevented, would have murdered him. In the latter end of 1648, lady Mainwaring conveyed to him her estate at Bradfield, which was soon after sequestered on account of Mr. Ashmole’s loyalty but the interest he had with William Lilly, and some others of that party, enabled him to get that sequestration taken off. On the sixteenth of November, 1649, he married lady Mainwaring, and settled in London, where his house became the receptacle of the most learned and ingenious persons that flourished at that time. It was by their conversation, that Mr. Ashmole, who hud been more fortunate in worldly affairs than most scholars are, and who had been always a curious collector of manuscripts, was induced to publish a treatise written by Dr. Arthur Dee, relating to the Philosopher’s stone, together with another tract on the same subject, by an unknown author. These accordingly appeared in the year following but Mr. Ashmole was so cautious, or rather modest, as to publish them by a fictitious name. He at the same time addressed himself to a work of greater consequence, a complete collection of the works of such English chemists, as had till then remained in ms. which cost him a great deal of labour, and for the embellishment of which he spared no expence, causing the cuts that were necessary, to be engraved at his own house in Black-Friars, by Mr. Vaughan, who was then the most eminent artist in that department in England. He imbibed this affection for chemistry from his intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Backhouse, of Swallowfield in the county of Berks, who was reputed an adept, and whom, from his free communication of chemical secrets, Mr. Ashmole was wont to call father, agreeably to the custom which had long prevailed among the lovers of that art, improperly, however, called chemistry for it really was the old superstition of alchemy. He likewise employed a part of his time in acquiring the art of engraving seuls, casting in sand, and the mystery of a working goldsmith. But all this time, his great work of publishing the ancient English writers in chemistry went on and finding that a competent knowlege of the Hebrew was absolutely necessary for understanding and explaining such authors as had written on the Hermetic science, he had recourse to rabbi Solomon Frank, by whom he was taught the rudiments of Hebrew, which he found very useful to him in his studies. At length, towards the close of the year 1652, his “Theatrum Chymicum Britannicum” appeared, which gained him great reputation in the learned world, as it shewed him to be a man of a most studious disposition, indefatigable application, and of wonderful accuracy in his compositions. It served also to extend his acquaintance considerably, and among others the celebrated Mr. Seiden took notice of him in the year 1653, encouraged his studies, and lived in great friendship with him to the day of his death. He was likewise very intimate with Mr. Oughtred, the mathematician, and with Dr. Wharton, a physician of great racter and experience. His marriage with lady -Main-waring, however, involved him in abundance of law-suits with other people, and at last produced a dispute between themselves, which came to a hearing on October 8, 1657, in the court of chancery, where serjeant Maynard having observed, that in eight hundred sheets of depositions taken on the part of the lady, there was not so much as a bad word proved against Mr. Ashrnole, her bill was dismissed, and she delivered back to her husband. He had now for some time addicted himself to the study of antiquity and records, which recommended him to the intimate acquaintance of Mr. (afterwards sir William) Dugdale, whom about this time he attended in his survey of the Fens, and was very useful to him in 'that excellent undertaking. Mr. Ashmole himself soon after took the pains to trace the Roman road, which in Antoninus’s Itinerary is called Bennevanna, from Weeden to Litchfield, of which he gave Mr. Dugdale an account, in a letter addressed to him upon that subject. It is very probable, that after his studies had thus taken a new turn, he lost somewhat of his relish for chemistry, since he discontinued the Theatrum Chemicum, which, according to his first design, was to have consisted of several volumes yet he still retained such a remembrance of it, as induced him to part civilly with the sons of art, by publishing a treatise in prose on the philosopher’s stone, to which he prefixed an admirable preface, in which he wishes to apologize for taking leave of these fooleries. In the spring of the year 1658, our author began to collect materials for his history of the order of the garter, which he afterwards lived to finish, and thereby rendered both the order and himself immortal, the just reward of the prodigious pains he took in searching records in the Tower, and elsewhere, comparing them with each other, and obtaining such lights as were requisite to render so perplexed a subject clear, and to reduce all the circumstances of such a vast body of history into their proper order. In September following he made a journey to Oxford, where he was extremely well received, and where he undertook to make a full and distinct description of the coins given to the public library by archbishop Laud, which was of great use to him in the works which he afterwards composed. He had lodged and boarded sometimes at a house in South Lambeth, kept by Mr. John Tradescant, whose father and himself hud been physic-gardeners there for many years, and had collected avast number of curiosities, which, after mature deliberation, Mr. Tradescant and his wife determined to bestow on Mr. Ashmole, and accordingly sealed and delivered a deed of gift for that purpose, on December 16, 1659. On the restoration of king Charles II. Mr. Ashmole was Dearly introduced into the presence and favour of his majesty, and on June 18, 1660, which was the second time he had the honour of discoursing with the king, he graciously bestowed upon him the place of Windsor herald. A few days after, he was appointed by the king to make a description of his medals, and had them delivered into his hands, and king Henry VHIth’s closet assigned for his use, being also allowed his diet at court. On August 21st, in the same year, he presented the three books which he had published, to his majesty, who, as he both loved and understood chemistry, received them very graciously. On September 3, he had a warrant signed for the office of commissioner of the excise, in consequence of a letter written by his majesty’s express command, to the earl of Southampton, then lord high-treasurer, by Mr. Se^ cretary Morris. About this time, a commission was granted to him as incidental to the care of the king’s medals, to examine the famous, or rather infamous, Hugh Peters, about the contents of the royal library which had fallen into his hands, and which was very carefully and punctually executed, but to very little purpose. On November 2d, he was called to the bar in Middle-Temple hall, and January 15, 1661, he was admitted a fellow of the Royal Society. On February 9th following, the king signed a warrant for constituting him secretary of Surinam in the West Indies. In the beginning of the year 1662, he was appointed one of the commissioners for recovering the king’s goods, and about the same time he sent a set of services and anthems to the cathedral church of Litchfield, in memory of his having been once a chorister there, and he gave afterwards twenty pounds towards repairing the cathedral. On June 27, 1664, the White Office was opened, of which he was appointed a commissioner. On Feb. 17, 1665, sir Edward By she sealed his deputation for visiting Berkshire, which visitation he began on the llth of March following, and on June 9, 1668, he was appointed by the lords commissioners of the treasury, accomptant-general, and country accomptant in the excise. His second wife, lady Main waring, dying, April 1, in the same year, he soon after married Mrs. Elizabeth Dugdale, daughter to his good friend sir William Dugdale, kht. garter king at arms, in Lincoln’s-inn chapel, on Novembers. The university of Oxford, in consideration of the many favours they had received from Mr. Ashmole, created him doctor of physic by diploma, July 19, 1669, which was presented to him on the 3d of November following, by Dr. Yates, principal of Brazen-Nose college, in the name of the university. He was now courted and esteemed by the greatest people in the kingdom, both in point of title and merit, who frequently did him the honour to visit him at his chambers in the Temple, and whenever he went his summer progress, he had the same respect paid him in the country, especially at his 'native town of Litchfield, to which when he came, he was splendidly entertained by the corporation. On May 8, 1672, he presented his laborious work on the most noble order of the garter, to his most gracious master king Charles II. who not only received it with great civility and kindness, but soon after granted to our author, as a mark of his approbation of the work, and of his personal esteem for him, a privy seal for 400 pounds out of the custom of paper. This was his greatest undertaking, and had he published nothing else, would have preserved his memory, as it certainly is in its kind one of the most valuable books in our language. On January 29, 1675, he resigned his office of Windsor herald, which by his procurement, was bestowed on his brother Dugdale, It was with great reluctancy that the earl marshal parted with him, and it was not long after, that he bestowed on him the character of being the best officer in his office. On the death of sir Edward Walker, garter king at arms, Feb_ 20, 1677, the king and the duke of Norfolk, as earl marshal, contested the right of disposing of his place, on which Mr. Ashmole was consulted, who declared in favour of the king, but with so much prudence and discretion as not to give any umbrage to the earl marshal. He afterwards himself refused this high office, which was conferred on his father-in-law sir -William Dugdale, for whom he employed his utmost interest. About the close of 1677, a proposal was made to Mr. Ashmole to become a candidate for the city of Litchfield, but finding himself poorly supported by the very persons who would have encouraged him to stand, he withdrew his pretensions. On the 26th of January, 1679, about ten in the morning, a fire began in the Middle Temple, in the next chambers to Mr. Aslimole’s,- by which he lost a library he had been collecting thirty-three years; but his Mss. escaped, by their being at his house in South Lambeth. He likewise lost a collection of 9000 coins, ancient and modern but his more valuable collection of gold medals were likewise preserved by being at Lambeth his vast repository of seals, charters, and other antiquities and curiosities, perished also in the flames. In 1683, the university of Oxford having finished a noble repository near the theatre, Mr. Ashmole sent thither that great collection of rarities which he had received from the Tradescants before-mentioned, together with such additions as he had made to them; and to this valuable benefaction he afterwards added that of his Mss. and library, which still remain a monument of his generous love to learning in general, and to the university of Oxford in particular. In the beginning of the year 1685, he was invited by the magistrates, and by the dean of Litchfield, to represent that corporation in parliament but upon king James’s intimating to him, by the lord Dartmouth, that he would take it kindly if he would resign his interest to Mr. Levvson, he instantly complied.

On the death of his father-in-law, sir William Dugdale, Jan. 10, 1686, Mr. Ashmole declined a second time the office of garter king at arms, and recommended his brother Dugdale, in which, though he did not fully succeed, yet he procured him the place of Norroy. This was one of the last public acts of his life, the remainder of which was spent in an honourable retirement to the day of his demise, which happened on May 18, 1692, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. He was undoubtedly a great benefactor to, and patron of, learning. His love of chemistry led him to preserve many valuable Mss. relating to that science, besides those that he caused to be printed and published. He was deeply skilled in history and antiquities, as sufficiently appears by his learned and laborious works, both printed and manuscripts. He was likewise a generous encourager and protector of such ingenious and learned men as were less fortunate in the world than himself, as appears by his kindness to sir'George Wharton in the worst of times, his respect to the memory of his friend Mr. John Booker, and the care he took in the education of the late eminent Dr. George Smalridge. His corpse was interred in the church of Lambeth in Surrey, May 26 1692, and a black marble stone laid over his grave, with a Latin inscription, in which, though there is much to his honour, there is nothing which exceeds the truth. He may be considered as one of the first and most useful collectors of documents respecting English antiquities, but the frequent application of the epithet genius to him, in the Biographia Britannica, is surely gratuitous. His attachment to- the absurdities of astrology and alchemy, and his association with Lilly, Booker, and other quacks and impostors of his age, must ever prevent his being ranked among the learned wise, although he never appears to have been a confederate in the tricks of Lilly and his friends, and certainly accumulated a considerable portion of learning and information on various useful topics. His benefaction to the university of Oxford will ever secure respect for his memory. It was towards the latter end of October 1677, that he made an offer to that university, of bestowing on it all that valuable collection of the Tradescants, which was so well known to the learned world, and which had been exceedingly improved since it came into his possession, together with all the coins, medals, and manuscripts of his own collecting, provided they would erect a building fit to receive them to which proposition the university willingly assented. Accordingly, on Thursday the 15th of May 1679, the first stone of that stately fabric, afterwards called Ashmole’s Museum, was laid on the west side of the theatre, and being finished by the beginning of March 1682, the collection was deposited and the articles arranged by Robert Plott, LL.D. who before had been intrusted with their custody. This museum was first publicly viewed, on the 2 1st of May following, by his royal highness James duke of York, his royal consort Josepha Maria, princess Anne, and their attendants, and on the 24th of the same month, by the doctors and masters of the university. In a convocation held on the 4th of June following (1683) a Latin letter of thanks, penned by him who was then deputy orator, being publicly read, was sent to Mr. Ashmole at South Lambeth, In July 1690, he visited the university with his wife, and was received with all imaginable honour, and entertained at a noble dinner in his museum; on which occasion Mr. Edward Hannes, A. M. the chemical professor, afterwards an eminent physician, made an elegant oration to him. His benefaction to the university was very considerably enlarged at his death, by the addition of his library, which consisted of one thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight books, of which six hundred and twenty were manuscripts, and of them three hundred and eleven folios, relating chiefly to English History, Heraldry, Astronomy, and Chemiftry, with a great variety of pamphlets, part of which had been sorted by himself, and the rest are methodized since, and a double catalogue made one classical, according to their various subjects, and another alphabetical. He bequeathed also to the same place, two gold chains and a medal, the one a filigreen chain of ninety links, weighing twenty-two ounces, with a medal of the elector of Brandenburg, upon which is the effigies of that elector, and on the reverse, a iHew of Straelsund, struck upon the surrender of that important city; a collar of S. S. with a medal of the king of Denmark; and a gold medal of the elector Palatine; and a George of the duke of Norfolk, worn by his grandfather when he was ambassador in Germany. All these he had received as acknowledgments of the honour which he had done the garter, by his labours on that subject. This museum has been since enriched by the Mss. of Anthony Wood, Aubrey, and others. It has been remarked as something extraordinary, that Mr. Ashmole was never knighted for his services as a herald. It is perhaps as extraordinary that the university of Oxford bestowed on him the degree of doctor of physic, who never regularly studied or practised in that faculty, unless we conceive it as a compliment to his chemical studies.

2. “Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, containing several poetical pieces of our famous English philosophers, who have written the Hermetique mysteries, in their own ancient language. Faithfully collected into one volume, with annotations thereon, by Elias Ashmole, esq. qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1652, 4to. The authors published in this collection are, Thomas Norton’s ordinal of Alchemic~ George Rrpley’s compound of Alchemic; Pater Sapientice, i.e. the father of wisdom, by an anonymous writer; Hermes’ s Bird, written originally in Latin, by Raymund Lully, and done into English verse by Abbot Cremer, of Westminster; Sir Geoffrey Chaucer’s Chanons Yeoman’s tale Dastin’s Dream, which seems to be a version of the Latin poem of John Dastm, entitled his Vision Pearce, the black monk, on the Elixir Richard Carpenter’s work, which some think, and not without reason, ought rather to be ascribed to John Carpenter, bishop of Worcester, who was one of the best chemists of his time Hunting of the Green Lion, by Abraham Andrews but there is also a spurious piece with the same title Breviary of Natural Philosophy, by Thomas* Charnock Ænigmas, by the same person Bloomfield' s Blossoms, which is likewise entitled the Camp of Philosophy, by William Bloomfield Sir Edward Kelle’s work his letter to G. S. Gent. (It is somewhat strange that this gentleman’s name, even by Mr. Ashmole, is written Keiley, though sir Edward himself wrote it Kelle.) Dr. John Dee’s Testament, which appears to be an epistle to one John Gwin, written A. D. 1568, and a third letter, the first two being wanting; Thomas Robinson, of the Philosopher’s Stone Experience and Philosophy, by an anonymous author the Magistery, by W. B. i. e. William Bloomfield John Gower, on the Philosopher’s Stone George Ripley’s Vision verses belonging to Ripley’s Scrowle Mystery of Alchymists preface to the Medulla of George Ripley; Secreta Secretorum, by John Lydgate Hermit’s Tale, anonymous description of the Stone the Standing of the Glass, for the time of the putrefaction and congelation of the medicine Ænigma Philosophicum, by William Bedman Fragments by various authors. 3. “The Way to Bliss, in three books, made public by Elias Ashmole, esq; qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1658, 4to. This was the work in which he took his leave of the astrologers and aichymists, and bestowed his attention on the studies which produced, 4. “The Institution, Laws, and Ceremonies of the most noble Order of the Garter. Collected and digested into one body by Elias Ashmole, of the Middle Temple, esq. Windesore herald at arms. A work furnished with variety of matter relating to honour and noblesse” London, 1672, folio. He was not only so happy as to receive those extraordinary marks of the sovereign’s favour, mentioned above, but was complimented in an obliging manner by his royal highness the duke of York; who, though then at sea against the Dutch, sent for his book by the earl of Peterborough, and afterwards told our author he was extremely pleased with it. The rest of the knights-companions of the most noble order received him and his book with much respect and civility, and the regard shown him abroad was more singular. It was reposited, by the then pope, in the library of the Vatican. King Christie of Denmark, sent him, in 1674, a gold chain and- medal, which, with the king’s leave, he wore on certain high festivals. FredericWilliam, elector of Brandenburg!), sent him the like present, and ordered his boot to be translated into High Dutch. He was afterwards visited by the elector Palatine’s, the grand duke of Tuscany’s, and other foreign princes’ ministers, to return him thanks for this book, which he took care should be presented them, and thereby spread the fame of the garter, the nation, and himself, all over Europe. Yet it does not appear that this laborious and exquisite performance advanced at all the design he had formed some years before, of being appointed historiographer to the order, to which proposal some objections were made, and by our author fully answered, although we find no mention of this circumstance in any memoirs of Mr. Ashmole hitherto extant. 5, “The Arms, Epitaphs,. Feuestral Inscriptions, with the draughts of the Tombs, &c. in all the churches in Berkshire.” It was penned in 1666, and the original visitation taken in the two preceding years, in virtue of his deputatien from sir Edward Byshe, elariencieux king at arms, and published under the title of “The Antiquities of Berkshire,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1717, 1723, and at Reading in 1736, fol. 6. “Familiarum iilustrium Imperatorumque Romanorum Numismata Oxonire in Bodleianae Bibliotbecoe Archivis descripta et explanata.” This work was finished by the author in 1659, and given by him to the public library in Oxford, in 1666, in 3 vols, folio, as it was fitted for the press. 7. “A description and explanation of the Coins and Medals belonging to king Charles II.” a folio ms. in the king’s cabinet. 8. “A brief ceremonial of the Feast of St. George, held at Whitehall 1661, with other papers relating to the Order.” 9. “Remarkable Passages in the year 1660, set down by Mr. Elias Ashmole.” 10. “An account of the Coronation of our Kings, transcribed from a ms. in the king’s private closet.” 11 “The proceedings on the day of the Coronation of king Charles II.” mentioned by Anthony Wood, as printed in 1672, but he owns he never saw it. 12. “The Arms, Epitaphs, &c. in some churches and houses in Staffordshire,” taken when he accompanied sir William Dugdale in his visitation. 13. “The Arms, Epitaphs, Inscriptions, &c. in Cheshire, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, &c.” taken at the same time. Bishop Nicolson mentions his intention to write the history and antiquities of his native town of Litchfield. 14. “Answers to the objections urged.against Mr. Ashmole’s being made historiographer to the order of the Garter,” A. D. 1662. 15. “A Translation of John Francis Spina’s book of th Catastrophe of the World; to which was subjoined, Ambrose Merlin’s Prophecy.” It is doubtful whether this was ever published. What, indeed, he printed, was but a very small part of what he wrote, there being scarcely any branch of our English history and antiquities, on which he has not left us something valuable, of his own composing, in that vast repository of papers, which make several folios in his collection of Mss. under the title of, 16. CoU lections, Remarks, Notes on Books, and Mss. a wonderful proof of industry and application. 17. “The Diary of his Life,” written by himself, which was published at London, 1717, in 12mo, with the following title “Memoirs of the life of that learned antiquary, Elias Ashmole, esq. drawn up by himself by way of diary, with an appendix of original letters. Published by Charles Burman, esquire.” The copy from whence these papers were published, was in the hand-writing of Dr. Robert Plott, chief keeper of the Ashmolean museum at Oxford, and secretary of the Royal Society, and was transcribed by him for the use of a near relation of Mr. Ashmole’s, a private gentleman in Staffordshire. They had been collated a few years before, by David Perry, M. A. of Jesus’ college in Oxford. The appendix* contains a letter of thanks, dated January 26, 1666, from the corporation at Litchfield, upon the receipt of a silver bowl presented to them by Mr. Ashmole a preface to the catalogue of archbishop Laud’s medals, drawn up by Mr. Ashmole, and preserved in the public library at Oxford a letter from Dr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, to Mr. Ashmole, dated December 23, 1668, on the present of his books, describing archbishop Laud’s cabinet of medals a letter from John Evelyn, esq. to recommend Dr. Plott to him for reader in natural philosophy, and another from Mr. Joshua Barnes, dated from Emanuel college, Cambridge, October 15, 1688, wherein he desires Mr. Ashmole’s pardon, for having reflected upon his Order of the Garter, in his own history of king Edward III. with Mr. Ashmole’s answer to that letter, dated October 23 following. It is from this diary, which abounds in whimsical and absurd memoranda, that the dates and facts in his life have been principally taken.

, count de Camerano, a nobleman ef Asti in Piedmont, flourished about 1550. In his youth he followed the profession of arms, and was sent by the duke of Savoy, with four hundred men, to assist Maximilian II. when he held a diet to oppose the army of Soliman, an event which is said to have been commemorated by a medal, with the inscription, “Fredericus Asinarius co. Camerani.” Asinari amused his leisure hours with poetry, and submitted his compositions to the celebrated Annibal Caro and they were afterwards published in various collections. 1 “Two Sonnets,” in the second part of the “Scelta di Rime di diversi excellenti Poeti,” by Zabata, 1579, 12mo. 2. “Four Canzoni, and a Sonnet,” in the “Muse Toscane” of Gherard Borgogni, 1594, 8vo. 3. “Eighty-two pieces, sonnets, canzoni, madrigals,” &c. in Borgogni’s “Rime di diversi illustri Poeti,” Venice, 1599, 12mo. Among his other works, which remain in manuscript, there are, in the library of Turin, “Vari Sonetti e Canzoni” “II Tancredi,” a tragedy “Tre libri delle transformazioni” and “Tre libri dell‘ via d’Orlando.” Copies of these are also in the library of St. Mark at Venice. The tragedy of Tancred was printed at Paris, 1587, 8vo, under the title of “Gismonda,” one of the dramatis persons, and attributed to Torquato Tasso. Next year an edition was printed at Bergamo, 4to, in which this error was corrected, but another substituted by stating, that it was the performance of Ottavio Asinari, the father of our author and the editor, Gherard Borgogni, either was; or affected to be ignorant of the edition previously printed at Paris.

, son of Mr. Assheton, rector of Middleton in Lancashire, was born in 1641 and being instructed in grammar-learning at a private country-school, was removed to Brazen-Nose college at Oxford, in 1658 and elected a fellow in 1663. After taking both his degrees in arts, he went into orders, became chaplain to the duke of Ormond, chancellor of that university, and was admitted doctor of divinity in January 1673. In the following month he was nominated to the prebend of Knaresburgh, in the church of York and whilst he attended his patron at London, obtained the living of St. Antholin. In 1670, by the duke’s interest with the family of the St. Johns, he was presented to the rectory of Beckenbam, in Kent and was often unanimously chosen proctor for Rochester in convocation.

, born about the year 1631. He was the son of Francis Atterbury, rector of Middleton Malser, or Milton, in Northamptonshire, who among other ministers subscribed the solemn league and covenant in 1648. He was entered a student of Christ-church, Oxford, 1647, toofc the degree of B. A. Feb. 23, 1649, and was created M. A. by dispensation from Oliver Cromwell the chancellor, March I, 1651. He was one of those who had submitted to the authority of the visitors appointed by the parliament. In 1654 he became rector of Great or Broad Rissington, in Gloucestershire and after the restoration, took a presentation for that benefice under the great seal, and was instituted again to confirm his title to it. Sept. 11, 1657, he was admitted rector of Milton, or MiddletonKeynes, in Bucks; and at the return of Charles II. took the same prudent method to corroborate his title to this living. July 25, 1660, he was made chaplain extraordinary to Henry duke of Gloucester; and D. D. Dec. 1, the same year. Returning from Condon, whither the law-suits he was frequently involved in had brought him, he had the jnisfortune to be drowned near his own house, Dec. 7,1693. He published three occasional Sermons, entitled “The good old Subject or the right Test of Religion and Loyalty,” London, 1684, 4to. “The Ground of Christian Feasts,” 1686, 4to, and “Babylon’s Downfall,” 1691, 4to, ibid.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born at Caldecot, in the parish of Newport Pagnel, in Bucks, on May 2, 1656. He was educated at Westminsterschool under Dr. Busby, and sent to Christ-church, Oxford, at the age of eighteen. He was ordained deacon in Sept. 1679, being then B. A. and priest the year following, when also he commenced M. A. In 1683, he served the office of chaplain to sir William Pritchard, lord mayor of London. In Feb. 1684 he was instituted rector of Symel in Northamptonshire, which living he afterwards resigned upon his accepting of other preferments. July 8, 1687, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor aud doctor of civil law. In 1691 we find him lecturer of St. Mary Hill in London. Soon after his marriage he settled at Highgate, where he supplied the pulpit of the reverend Mr. Daniel Lathom, who was very old and infirm, and had lost his sight and, upon the death of this gentleman, was in June 1695 elected by the trustees of Highgate chapel to be their preacher. He had a little before been appointed one of the six preaching chaplains to the princess Anne of Denmark at Whitehall and St. James’s, which place he continued to supply after she came to the crown, and likewise during part of the reign of George I. When he first resided at Highgate, observing what difficulties the poor in the neighbourhood underwent for want of a good physician or apothecary, he studied physic and acquiring considerable skill, practised it gratis among his poor neighbours. In 1707, the queen presented him to the rectory of Shepperton in Middlesex and in March 1719, the bishop of London collated him to the rectory of Hornsey, which was the more agreeable to him, because the chapel of Highgate being situate in that parish, many of his constant hearers became now his parishioners. In 1720, on a report of the death of Dr. Sprat, archdeacon of Rochester, he applied to his brother, the celebrated bishop, in whose gift this preferment was, to be appointed to succeed him. The bishop giving his brother some reasons why he thought it improper to make him his archdeacon the doctor replied, “Your lordship very well knows that Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, had a brother for his archdeacon and that sir Thomas More’s father was a puisne judge when he was lord chancellor. And thus, in the sacred history, did God himself appoint that the safety and advancement of the patriarchs should be procured by their younger brother, and that they with their father should live under the protection and government of Joseph.” In answer to this, which was not very conclusive reasoning, the bishop informs his brother, that the archdeacon was not dead, but well, and likely to continue so. He died, however, soon after; and, on the 20tli of May 1720, the bishop collated Dr. Brydges, the duke of Chandos’s brother, to the archdeaconry, after writing thus in the morning to the doctor “I hope you are convinced by what I have said and written, that nothing could have been more improper than the placing you in that post immediately under myself. Could I have been easy under that thought, you may be sure no man living should have had the preference to you.” To this the doctor answered: “There is some shew of reason, I think, for the non-acceptance, but none for the not giving it. And since your lordship was pleased to signify to me that I should overrule you in this matter, I confess it was some disappointment to me. I hope I shall be content with that meaner post in which I am my time at longest being but short in this world, and my health not suffering me to make those necessary applications others do nor do I understand the language of the present times for, I find, I begin to grow an old-fashioned gentleman, and am ignorant of the weight and value of words, which in our times rise and fall like stock.” In this affecting correspondence there is evidently a portion of irritation on the part of Dr. Lewis, which is not softened by his brother’s letters but there must have been some reasons not stated by the latter for his refusal, and it is certain that they lived afterwards in the strictest bonds of affection.

The time of his entering into the church is not exactly known but may be very nearly ascertained by his “Epistolary Correspondence;” where a letter to his father in 1690 is highly expressive of a superior genius, impatient of the shackles of an humble college life whilst the father’s answer displays the anxiety, together with a mixture of the severity, of the paternal character, offended by the quemlousness of the son, and his dissatisfaction. He had taken the degree of B. A. June 13, 1684 (when he was little more than twenty-two years old) ayd that of M.A. April 20, 1687; and it has been ingeniously conjectured, that he had applied to the college for permission to take pupils whilst he xv.is B. A. only (winch is unusual), and that he was refused. After passing two or three years more in the college, he then seems to have thought too highly of himself (when now become M. A.) to take any at all, and to be “pinned down, as,” he says, “it is his hard luck to be, to this scene.” This restlessness appears to have broken out in October 1690, when he was moderator of the college, and had had Mr. Boyle four months under his tuition, who a took up half his time,“and whom he never had a thought of parting with till he should leave Oxford; but wished he” could part with him to-morrow on that score.“The father tells him in November,” You used to say, when you had your degrees, you should be able to swim without bladders. You used to rejoice at your being moderator, and of the quantum and sub-lecturer but neither of these pleased you; nor was you willing to take those pupils the house afforded you when master nor doth your lecturer’s place, or nobleman satisfy you.“In the same letter the father advises his marrying into some family of interest,” either bishop’s or archbishop’s, or some courtier’s, which may be done, with accomplishments, and a portion too.“And to part of this counsel young Atterbury attended for he soon after married Miss Osborn, a relation (some say a niece) of the duke of Leeds, a great beauty, who lived at or in the neighbourhood of Oxford, and by whom he had a fortune ofTOOO/. In February 1690-1, we find him resolved” to bestir himself in his office in the house,“that of censor probably, an officer (peculiar to Christ Church) who presides over the classical exercises he then also held the catechetical lecture founded by Dr. Busby. About this period he probably took orders, and entered into” another scene, and another sort of conversation;“for in 1691 he was elected lecturer of St. Bride’s church in London, and in October 1693, minister and preacher at Bridewell chapel. An academic life, indeed, must have been irksome and insipid to a person of his active and aspiring temper. It was hardly possible that a clergyman of his fine genius, improved by study, with a spirit to exert his talents, should remain long unnoticed and we find that he was soon appointed chaplain to king William and queen Mary. The earliest of his sermons in print was preached before the queen at Whitehall, May 29, 1692. In August 1694 he preached his celebrated sermon before the governors of Bridewell and Bethlem,” On the power of charity to cover sins“to which Mr. Hoadly (afterwards bishop) published sorne^” Exceptions“in the postscript to his” Second Letter to Dr. Atterbury,“mentioned hereafter. In this he accuses Atterbury, and not without reason, of endeavouring to maintain the proposition that” God will accept one duty (charity) in lieu of many others.“In” October that year he preached before the queen p “The scorncr incapable of true wisdom” which was also warmly attacked by a friend of sir Robert Howard, author of “The History of Religion,” supposed to be alluded to in this sermon. The pamphlet was entitled “A two-fold Vindication of the late archbishop of Canterbury, and the Author of the History of Religion, &c.” 1696, 8vo.

How far the bishop was attached in his inclinations to the Stuart family, to which he might be led by early prejudices of education, and the divided opinions of the times, is now too obvious to admit of controversy. But that he should have been weak enough to engage in a plot so inconsistent with his station, and so clumsily devised (to say the least of it, and without entering into his solemn asseverations of innocence), is utterly inconsistent with that cunning which his enemies allowed him. The duke of Wharton, it is well known, was violent against him, till convinced by his unanswerable reasoning.

, descended of an ancient and honourable family, of the county of Essex, was born in 1488. He was by nature endowed with great abilities, from his ancestors inherited an ample fortune, and was happy in a regular education, but whether at Oxford or Cambridge is not certain. At what time he was entered of the Inner-Temple, does not appear, but in 1526 he was autumn reader of that house, and is thought to have read on the statute of privileges, which he handled with so much learniag and eloquence, as to acquire great reputation. This, with the duke of Suffolk’s recommendation, to whom he was chancellor, brought him to the' knowledge of his sovereign, who at that time wanted men of learning and some pliability he was, accordingly, by the king’s influence, chosen speaker of that parliament, which sat first on the third of November, 1529, and is by some styled the Black Parliament, and by others, on account of its duration, the Long Parliament. Great complaints were made in the house of commons against the clergy, and the proceedings in ecclesiastical courts, and several bills were ordered to be brought in, which alarmed some of the prelates. Fisher, bishop of Rochester, inveighed boldly against these transactions, in the house of lords, with which the house of commons were so much offended, that they thought proper to complain of it, by their speaker, to the king, and Fisher had some difficulty in excusing himself. The best historians agree, that great care was taken by the king, or at least by his ministry, to have such persons chosen into this house of commons as would proceed therein readily and effectually, and with this view Audley was chosen to supply the place of sir Thomas More, now speaker of the lords’ house, and chancellor of England. The new house and its speaker justified his majesty’s expectations, by the whole tenor of their behaviour, but especially by the passing of a law, not nowfound among our statutes. The king, having borrowed very large sums of money of particular subjects, and entered into obligations for the repayment of the said sums, the house brought in, and passed a bill, in the preamble of which they declared, that inasmuch as those sums had been applied by his majesty to public uses, therefore they cancelled and discharged the said obligations, &c. and the king, finding the convenience of such a parliament, it sat again in the month of January, 1530-1. In this session also many extraordinary things were done amongst the rest, there was a law introduced in the house of lords, by which the clergy were exempted from the penalties they had incurred, by submitting to the legatine power of Wolsey. On this occasion the commons moved a clause in favour of the laity, many of themselves having also incurred the penalties of the statute. But the king insisted that acts of grace ought to flow spontaneously, and that this was not the method of obtaining what they wanted; and the house, notwithstanding the intercession of its speaker, and several of its members, who were the king’s servants, was obliged to pass the bill without the clause, and immediately the king granted them likewise a pardon, which reconciled all parties. In the recess, the king thought it necessary to have a letter written to the pope by the lords and commons, or rather by the three estates in parliament, which letter was drawn up and signed by cardinal Wolsey, the archbishop of Canterbury, four bishops, two dukes, two marquisses, thirteen earls, two viscounts, twenty-three barons, twenty-two abbots, and eleven members of the house of commons. Thepurport of this letter, dated July 13, above three weeks after the parliament rose, was to iMigage the pope to grant the king’s desire in the divorce business, for the sake of preventing a civil war, on account of the succession, and to threaten him if he did not, to take some other way. To gratify the speaker for the great pains he had already taken, and to encourage him to proceed in the same way, the king made him this year attorney for the duchy of Lancaster, advanced him in Michaelmas term to the state and degree of a serjeant at law, and on the 14th of November following, to that of his own serjeant. In January, 1531-2, the parliament had its third session, wherein the grievances occasioned by the excessive power of the ecclesiastics and their courts, were regularly digested into a book, which was presented by the speaker, Audley, to the king. The king’s answer was, He would take advice, hear the parties accused speak, and then proceed to reformation. Jn this session, a bill was brought into the house of lords, for the better securing the rights of his majesty, and other persons interested in the eare of wards, which rights, it was alleged, were injured by fraudulent wills and contracts. This bill, when it came into the house of commons, was violently opposed, and the members expressed a desire of being dissolved, which the king would not permit but after they had done some business, they had a recess to the month of April. When they next met, the king sent for the speaker, and delivered to him the answer which had been made to the roll of grievances, presented at their last sitting, which afforded very little satisfaction, and they seemed now less subset viciit. Towards the close of the month, one Mr. Themse moved, That the house would intercede with the king, to take back his queen again. The king, extremely alarmed at this, on the 30th of April, 1532, sent for the speaker, to whom he repeated the plea of conscience, which had induced him to repudiate the queen, and urged that the opinion of the learned doctors, &c. was on his side. On the 11th of May the king sent for the speaker again, and told him, that he had found that the clergy of his realm were but half his subjects, or scarcely so much, every bishop and abbot at the entering into his dignity, taking an oath to the pope, derogatory to that of their fidelity to the king, which contradiction he desired his parliament to take away. Upon this motion of the king’s, the two oaths he mentioned were read in the house of commons and they would probably have complied, if the plague bad not put an end to the session abruptly, on the 14th of May; and two days after, sir Thomas More, knt. then lord chancellor of England, went suddenly, without acquainting any body with his intention, to court, his majesty being then at York Place, and surrendered up the seals to the king. The king going out of town to EastGreenwich, carried the seals with him, and on Monday, May 20, delivered them to Thomas Audley, esq, with the title of lord keeper, and at the same time conferred on him the honour of knighthood. September 6, sir Thomas delivered the old seal, which was much worn, and received a new one in its stead, yet with no -higher title: but on January 26, 1533, he again delivered the seal to the king, who kept it a quarter of an hour, and then returned it with the title of lord chancellor. A little after, the king granted to him the site of the priory of Christ Church, Aldgate, together with all the church plate, and lands belonging to that house. When chancellor he complied with the king’s pleasure as effectually as when speaker of the house of commons. For in July 1535, he sat in judgment on sir Thomas More, his predecessor, (as he had before on bishop Fisher,) who was now indicted of high-treason upon which indictment the jury found him gnilty, and the lord chancellor, Audley, pronounced judgment of death upon him. This done, we are told, that sir Thomas More said, that he had for seven years bent his mind and study upon this cause, but as yet he found it no where writ by any approved doctor of the church, that a layman could be head of the ecclesiastical state. To this Audley returned, “Sir, will you be reckoned wiser, or of a better conscience, than all the bishops, the nobility, and the whole kingdom” Sir Thomas rejoined, “My lord chancellor, for one bishop that you have of your opinion, I have a hundred of mine, and that among those that have been saints and for your one council, which, what it is, God knows, I have on my side all the general councils for a thousand years past; and for one kingdom, I have France and all the ether kingdoms of the Christian world.” As our chancellor was very active in the business of the divorce, he was no less so in the business of abbies, and had particularly a large hand in the dissolution of such religions houses as had not two hundred pounds by the year. This was in the twenty-seventh of Henry VIII, and the bill being delayed long in the house of commons, his majesty sent for the members of that house to attend him in his gallery, where he passed through them with a stern countenance, without speaking a word the members not having received the king’s command to depart to their house, durst not return till they knew the king’s pleasure so they stood waiting in the gallery. In the mean time the king went a hunting, and his ministers, who seem to have had better manners than their master, went to confer with the members to some they spoke of the king’s steadiness and severity to others, of his magnificence and generosity. At last the king came back, and passing through them again, said, with an air of fierceness peculiar to himself, That if his bill did not pass, it should cost many of them their heads. Between the ministers’ persuasions and the king’s threats, the matter was brought to an issue the king’s bill, as he called it, passed and by it, he had not only the lands of the small monasteries given him, but also their jewels, plate, and rich moveables. This being accomplished, methods were used to prevail with the abbots of larger foundations to surrender. To this end, the chancellor sent a special agent to treat with the abbot of Athelny, to offer him an hundred marks per annum pension which he refused, insisting on a greater sum. The chancellor was more successful with the abbot of St. Osithes in Essex, with whom he dealt personally and, as he expresses it in a letter to Cromwell, the visitor-general, by great solicitation prevailed with him but then he insinuates, that his place of lord chancellor being very chargeable, he desired the king might be moved for addition of some more profitable offices unto him. In suing for the great abbey of Walden, in the same county, which he obtained, besides extenuating its worth, he alleged under his hand, that he had in this world sustained great damage and infamy in serving the king, which the grant of that should recompense. But if the year 1536 was agreeable to him in one respect, it was far from being so in another; since, notwithstanding the obligations he was under to queen Anne Bullen, he was obliged, by the king’s command, to be present at her apprehension and commitment to the Tower. He sat afterwards with Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, when he gave sentence of divorce on the pre-contract between the queen and the lordPiercy and on the 15th of May, in the same year, he sat in judgment on the said queen, notwithstanding we are told by Lloyd, that with great address he avoided it. The lengths he had gone in serving the king, and his known dislike to popery, induced the northern, rebels in the same year, to name him as one of the evil counsellors, whom they desired to see removed from about the king’s person which charge, however, his majesty, as far as in him lay, wiped off, by his well- penned answer to the complaints of those rebels, wherein an excellent character is given of the chancellor. When the authors of this rebellion came to be tried, the chancellor declined sitting as lord high steward, which high office was executed by the marquis of Exeter, on whom shortly after, viz. in 1538, Audley sat as high-steward, and condemned him, his brother, and several t other persons, to suffer death as traitors. In the latter end of the same year, viz. on the 29th of November, 30 Hen. VIII. the chancellor was created a baron, by the style of lord Audley of Walden in the county of Essex, and was likewise installed knight of the garter. In the session of parliament in 1539, there were many severe acts made, and the prerogative carried to an excessive height, particularly by the six bloody articles, and the giving the king’s proclamation the force of a law. It does not very clearly appear who were the king’s principal counsellors in these matters but it is admitted by the best historians, that the rigorous execution of these laws, which the king first designed, was prevented by the interposition of the lord Audley, in conjunction with Cromwell, who was then prime minister, and the duke of Suffolk, the king’s favourite throughout his whole reign. In the beginning of 1540, the court was excessively embarrassed. What share Audley had in the fall of Cromwell afterwards is not clear, but immediately after a new question was stirred in parliament, viz. How far the king’s marriage with Anne of Cleves, was lawful This was referred to the judgment of a spiritual court and there are yet extant the depositions of Thomas lord Audley, lord chancellor, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, Charles, duke of Suffolk, and Cuthbert, lord bishop of Durham, wherein they jointly swear, that the papers produced to prove the retraction of the lady Anne’s contract with the duke of Lorrain, were inconclusive and unsatisfactory. Other lords and ladies deposed to other points, and the issue of the business was, that the marriage was declared void by this court, which sentence was supported by an act of parliament, affirming the same thing, and enacting, That it should be high-treason to judge or believe otherwise. This obstacle removed, the king married the lady Catherine Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, and cousin -german to Anne Bullen. Nothing is clearer from history, than that the chancellor was closely attached to the house of Norfolk and yet in the latter end of the year 1541, he was constrained to be an instrument in the ruin of the unfortunate queen information of her bad life before her marriage, being laid first before the archbishop of Canterbury, and by him communicated to the chancellor. The king then appointed lord Audley one of the commissioners to examine her, which they did, and there is yet extant a letter subscribed by him and the other lords, containing an exact detail of this affair, and of the evidence on which, in the next session of parliament, the queen and others were attainted. The whole of this business was managed in parliament by the chancellor, and there is reason to believe, that he had some hand in another business transacted in that session which was the opening a door for the dissolution of hospitals, the king having now wasted all that had accrued to him by the suppression of abbies. Some other things of the like nature were the last testimonies of the chancellor’s concern for his master’s interest but next year a more remarkable case occurred. Jn the 34th of Henry VIII. George Ferrers, esq. burgess for Plymouth, was arrested, and carried to the compter, by virtue of a writ from the court of king’s bench. The house, on notice thereof, sent their serjeant to demand their member in doing which, a fray ensued at the compter, his mace was broke, his servant knocked down, and himself obliged to make his escape as well as he could. The house, upon notice of this, resolved they would sit no longer without their member, and desired a conference with the lords where, after hearing the mutter, the lord chancellor Audley declared the contempt was most flagrant, and referred “the punishment thereof to the house of commons whereupon Thomas Moyle, esq. who was then speaker, issued his warrant, and the sheriff of London, and several other persons, were brought to the bar of the house, and committed, some to the Tower, and some to Newgate. This precedent was gained by the king’s want of an aid, who at that time expected the commons would offer him a subsidy the ministry, and the house of lords, knowing the king’s will gave the commons the complimerit of punishing those who had imprisoned one of their members. Dyer, mentioning this case, sap,” The sages of the law held the commitment of Ferrers legal, and though the privilege was allowed him, yet was it held unjust.“As the chancellor had led a very active life, he grew now infirm, though he was not much above fifty years old, and therefore began to think of settling his family and affairs. But, previous to this, he obtained from the king a licence to change the name of Buckingham college in Cambridge, into that of Magdalen, or Maudlin some will have it, because in the latter word his own name is included. To this college he was a great benefactor, bestowed on it his own arms, and is generally 'reputed its founder, or restorer. His capital seat was at Christ-Christ in town, and at Walden in Essex and to preserve some remembrance of himself and fortunes, he caused a magnificent tomb to be erected in his new chapel at Walden. About the beginning of April, 1544, he was attacked by his last illness, which induced him to resign the seals but he was too weak to do it in person, and therefore sent them to the king, who delivered them to sir Thomas Wriothesley, with the title of keeper, during the indisposition of the chancellor a circumstance not remarked by any of our historians. On the 19th of April, lord Audi ey made hU will, and, amongst other things, directed that his executors should, upon the next New-year’s day after his decease, deliver to the king a legacy of one hundred pounds, from whom, as he expresses it,” he had received all his reputations and benefits." He died on the last of April, 1544, when he had held the seals upwards of twelve years, and in the fifty-sixth of his life, as appears by the inscription on his tomb. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas iGrey, marquis of Dorset, by whom he had two daughters, Margaret and Mary; Mary died unmarried, and Margaret became his sole heir. She married first lord Henry Dudley, a younger son of John duke of Northumberland, and he being slain at the battle of St. Quintin’s, in Picardy, in 1557, she married a second time, Thomas duke of Norfolk, to whom she was also a second wife, and had by him a son Thomas, who, by act of parliament, in the 27th of Elizabeth, was restored in blood; and in the 39th of the same reign, summoned to parliament by his grandfather’s title, as baron of Walden, In the 1st of James I. he was created earl of Suffolk, and being afterwards lord hightreasurer of England, he built on the ruins of the abbey of Walden, that nee noble palace, which, in honour of our chancellor, he called Audley-End.

, author of the Annals ofBavaria, was born of mean parentage, in 1466, at Abensperg in the country just named. He studied first at Ingolstadt, and afterwards in the university of Paris. In 1503, he privately taught eloquence and poetry at Vienna; and in 1507, publicly taught Greek at Cracow in Poland. In 1509, he read lectures on some of Cicero’s pieces at Ingolstadt and in 1512, was appointed to be preceptor to prince Lewis and prince Ernest, sons of Albert the Wise, duke of Bavaria. He also travelled with the latter of those two princes. After this he undertook to write the “Annals of Bavaria,” being encouraged by the dukes of that name; who settled a pension upon him, and gave him hopes that they would defray the charges of the book. This work, which gained its author great reputation, was first published in 1554, by Jerome Zieglerus, professor of poetry in the university of Ingolstadt but, as he acknowledges in the preface, he retrenched the invectives against the clergy, and several stories which had no relation to the history of Bavaria. The Protestants, however, after long search, found an uncastrated manuscript of Aventin’s Annals, which was published at Basil in 1580, by Nicholas Cisner.

In 1529, he was forcibly taken out of his sister’s house at Abensperg, and hurried to a gaol the true cause of which violence was never known but it would probably have been carried to a much greater length, had not the duke of Bavaria interposed, and taken this learned man into his protection. In his 64th year he made an imprudent marriage, which disturbed his latter days. He died in 1534, aged 68, leaving one daughter, who was then but two months old. Jt was supposed, from the inquiries made by the Jesuits, that he was a Lutheran in sentiment and the adherents to the church of Rome make use of this argument to weaken the force of his testimony against the conduct of the popes, and the vicious lives of the priests for the Annals of Aventin have been often quoted by Protestants, to prove the disorders of the Romish church.

, duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg, was a man of learning, and a patron of men of learning. He published several works, among which his “Evangelical Harmony,” written in German, is much esteemed by Protestants. He published also, in 1636, a “Treatise on the Cultivation of Orchards, which is still consulted in Germany. The” Steganographia," under the name of Gustavus Selenus, which was published in Latin, at Lunenburg, in 1624, folio, was also the work of this prince, who died in 1666, in the eighty-seventh year of his age.

, of Verceil in Italy, lived under the government of Cosmo de Medicis, grand duke of Florence, whose piety and magnificence he celebrated in a poem in elegiac verse, consisting of two books. It was printed in the 12th volume of Lami’s “Delicice Eruditorum.” The late edition of the Dictioiinaire Historiqtie gives the following brief notices of others of this name: Jerome Avogadro, a patron of learning and learned men, who first edited the works of Vitruvius. Nestor-Denis Avogadro, a native of Novaro, who published a Lexicon, of which an edition was printed at Venice in 1488^ fol. To the subsequent editions were added some treatises by the same author, on the eight parts of speech, on prosody, &c. —Peter Avogadro, who lived at Verona about 1490, He wrote Literary Memoirs of the illustrious mqii of his country tin Essay on the origin of Mont-de-Piete in Italy, and another “De Origine gentis Rizzonae.” The marquis Maffei speaks in high praise of this author in his “Verona Illustrata.”

, a patron of learning, was the second son of William Aylesbury by his wife Anne, daughter of John Poole, esq. and was born in London in 1576. He was educated at Westminster school, and, in 1598, became a student of Christ church, Oxford where he distinguished himself by his assiduous application to his studies, especially the mathematics. In June 1605, he took his degree of M. A. After he quitted the university, he was employed as secretary to Charles earl of Nottingham, then lord high admiral of England, in which post he had an opportunity of improving his mathematical knowledge, as well as of giving many proofs of it. On this account when George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, succeeded the earl of Nottingham as high admiral, Mr. Aylesbury not onlv kept his employment, but was also, by the favour of that‘powerful duke, created a baronet, April 19, 1627, having been before made master of requests, and master of the mint. These lucrative employments furnished him with the means of expressing his regard for learned men. He not only made all men of science welcome at his table, and afforded them all the countenance he could but likewise gave to such of them as were in narrow circumstances, regular pensions out of his own fortune, and entertained them at his house in Windsor-park, where he usually spent the summer. Walter Warner, who, at his request, wrote a treatise on coins and coinage, and the famous Mr. Thomas Harriot, were among the persons to whom he extended his patronage, and Harriot left him (in conjunction with Robert Sidney and viscount Lisle) all his writings and all the Mss. he had collected. Mr. Thomas Allen of Oxford, likewise, whom he had recommended to the duke of Buckingham, confided his manuscripts to sir Thomas, who is said to have been one of the most acute and candid critics ef his time. By this means he accumulated a valuable library of scarce books and Mss. which were either lost at home during the civil wars, or sold abroad to relieve his distresses; for in 1642 his adherence to the king, occasioned his being turned out of his places, and plundered of his estates. This he bore with some fortitude, but the murder of his sovereign gave him a distaste of his country, and retiring with his family to Flanders, he lived for some time at Brussels, and afterwards at Breda, where in 1657 he died. He left a son William, who, at the request of Charles I. undertook to translate D’Avila’s History of the Civil Wars of France, which appeared in 1647 but in the second edition, published in 1678, the merit of the whole translation is given to sir Charles Cotterel, except a few passages in the first four books. The calamities of his country affected this gentleman too, and in 1657, when Cromwell fitted out a fleet to go on an expedition to the West Indies, and to carry a supply to the island of Jamaica, Mr. Aylesbury, from pure necessity, engaged himself as secretary to the governor, and died on the island soon after. His surviving sister, the countess of Clarendon, became heiress of what could be recovered of the family estate.

, an eminent English prelate, descended from a very ancient and honourable family, seated at Aylmer-hall, in Norfolk, was born in 1521, and being a younger brother, was either recommended by his relations, or recommended himself by his pregnant parts, to the marquis of Dorset (Henry Grey), afterwards duke of Suffolk, who honoured him with the title of his Scholar, and gave him an exhibition at the university of Cambridge. When he had there attained competent learning, the marquis took him home, where he became tutor to his children, amongst whom was the lady Jane, who for some days was styled queen, and who, under Aylmer’s tuition, acquired the Latin and Greek tongues, reading and writing in the latter with ease and elegance, By his care also, she received right principles of religion, as he imbibed the opinions of the primitive reformers and having for his patrons the duke of Suffolk and the carl of Huntingdon, in the reign of Edward VI., was for some time the only preacherin Leicestershire; where he had great success in inculcating the, Protestant religion. When the celebrated Ascliam, in a visit to lady Jane in 1550, asked her how so young a lady (not then ahove fourteen) could have arrived at such perfection both in philosophy and the Greek language, she bore the following testimony to the merit of her tutor “1 will tell you,” said she, “and tell you truth, which, perchance, you will marvel at. One of the greatest benefits which ever God gave me, is that he sent so sharp and severe parents, and so gentle a schoolmaster. For when I am in presence either of father or mother, whether I speak, keep silence, sit, stand, or go eat, drink, be merry or sad be sewing, placing, dancing, or doing any thing else, I must do it, as it were, in such weight, measure, and number, and even so perfectly, as God made the world, or else, I am so sharply taunted, so cruelly threatened, yea, presently sometimes with pinches, nips, and bobs (or other ways, which I will not name, for the honour I bear them), so without measure misordereo”, that I think myself in hell, till time come that I must go to Mr. Elmer, who teachfeth me so gently, so pleasantly, with fair allurements to learning, that I think all the time nothing while I am with him and when I am called from him, 1 fall a weeping, because whatsoever I do else but learning, is full of grief, trouble, fear, and wholly misliking unto me and this my book hath been so much my pleasure, and bringeth daily to me more pleasure, and more yet, in respect to it, all other pleasures, in very deed, be but trifles and troubles unto me." Mr. Ascharn was so affected with this interview, that in a letter to lady Jane, dated the eighteenth of January, 1551, he speaks of it in rapture, and by a beautiful apostrophe, addressing himself to Mr. Ay liner, felicitates him on his having so ingenious a scholar, in a strain of compliment, which he says the great Sturmius made use of to him, speaking of his happiness, in having the lady Elizabeth for his pupil. In this letter it is, that he desires Mr. Aylmer, to whom be foresaw it would be shewn, to engage the lady Jane, to write a letter in Greek to himself, and another to Sturmius, and also desires they might continue to live in the same learned friendship and intercourse, which they had hitherto done.

The first preferment bestowed upon Aylmer, was the archdeaconry of Stow, in the diocese of Lincoln, which giving him a seat in the convocation, held in the first year of queen Mary, he boldly opposed that return to Popery, which he saw approaching. He was one of six$ who, in the midst of all the violence of that assembly, offered to dispute all the controverted points in religion, against the most learned champions, of the Papists. But when the supreme power began to employ force, archdeacon Aylmer withdrew^ and escaped abroad in almost a miraculous manner*. He resided first at Strasbourg, afterwards at Zurick in Switzerland, and there in peace followed his studies, employing all his time in acquiring knowledge, or in assist^ ing other men of study. His thoughts, though in a distant country, were continually employed in the service of England, and of Englishmen. He published (as Strype supposes) lady Jane Grey’s letter to Harding, who had been her father’s chaplain, and who apostatized. He assisted Fox in translating the History of English Martyrs into Latin, and also in the version of archbishop Cranmer’s Vindication of the book on the Sacrament, against Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, which, however, was never printed. During these employments he found leisure to visit most of the universities of Italy and Germany, and had an offer from the duke of Saxony, of the Hebrew professorship of Jena, which he refused, on the prospect of speedily returning home* It was during his exile likewise that he wrote the only work of consequence which he ever published, in answer to the famous Scotch reformer, John Knox. In 1556, John Knox printed, at Geneva, a treatise under this title “The first Blast against the monstrous regiment and empire of Women,” to shew that, by the laws of God, women could not exercise sovereign authority. The objects of this attack were the two queens, Mary of Lorrain, then regent of Scotland, and Mary queen of England. It was violent, but not unargumentative, and he could appeal with effect to the laws of France, and to the recent proposal of Edward VI. to adopt the same laWi He intended a second, and a third part; but finding it gave offence to many of his brethren, and being desirous to strengthen rather than invalidate the authority of Elizabeth, he relinquished his design. Still as this first tended to injure the Protestant religion in the minds of Princes, and those in authority, Mr. Aylmer resolved to employ his

, an eminent English admiral in the last century, descended from a very good family in Lincolnshire, and entered early into the sea-service, where he obtained the character of an able and experienced officer, and the honour of knighthood from king Charles I. This, however, did not hinder him from adhering to the parliament, when by a very singular intrigue he got possession of the fleet, and so zealous he was in the service of his masters, that when in 1648, the greatest part of the navy went over to the prince of Wales, he, who then commanded the Lion, secured that ship for the parliament, which was by them esteemed an action of great importance. As this was a sufficient proof of his fidelity, he had the command given him in a squadron, that was employed to watch the motions of the prince of Wales and accordingly sailed to the coast of Ireland, where he prevented his highness from landing, and drew many of the seamen to that service from which they had deserted. The parliament next year sent him with a considerable number of ships, and the title of admiral, to the coast of Ireland, which commission he discharged with such vigour, that the parliament continued him in his command for another year, and ordered an immediate provision to be made for the payment of his arrears, and presented him with one hundred pounds. After the war was finished in Ireland, sir George Ayscue had orders to sail with a small squadron, to reduce the island of Barbadoes but his orders were countermanded, as the parliament received information, that the Dutch were treating with sir John Grenville, in order to have the isles of Scilly put into their hands, and therefore it was thought necessary to reduce these islands first. Blake and Ayscue were employed in this expedition, in the spring of 1651, and performed it with honour and success, sir John Grenville entering into a treaty with them, who used him very honourably, and gave him fair conditions, after which Blake returned to England, and Ayscue proceeded on his voyage to Barbadoes. The parliament were at first pleased, but when the conditions were known, Blake and Ayscue were accused of being too liberal. Blake resented this, and threatened to lay down his commission, which he said he was sure Ayscue would also do. Upon this, the articles were honourably complied with, and sir George received orders to sail immediately to the West Indies. Sir George continued his voyage, and arrived at Barbadoes October 26, 1651. He then found his enterprize would be attended with great difficulties, and such as had not been foreseen at home. The lord Willoughby, of Parham, commanded there for the king, and had assembled a body of 5,Ooo men for the defence of the island. He was a nobleman of great parts and greater probity, one who had been extremely reverenced by the parliament, before he quitted their party, and was Dow extremely popular on the island. Sir George, however, shewed no signs of concern, but boldly forced his passage into the harbour, and made himself master of twelve sail of Dutch merchantmen that lay there, and next morning he sent a summons to the lord Willoughby, requiring him to submit to the authority of the parliament of England, to which his lordship answered, that he knew no such authority, that he had a commission from king Charles II. to be governor of that island, and that he would keep it for his majesty’s service at the hazard of his life. On this, sir George thought it not prudent to land the few troops he had, and thereby discover his weakness to so cautious an enemy. In the mean time, he receivect a letter by an advice-boat from England, with the news of the king’s being defeated at Worcester, and one intercepted from lady Willoughby, containing a very particular account of that unhappy affair. He now summoned lord Willoughby a second time, and accompanied his summons with lady Willoughby’s letter, but his lordship continued firm in his resolution. All this time, sir George anchored in Speights bay, and stayed there till December, when the Virginia merchant fleet arriving, he made as if they were a reinforcement that had been sent him, but in fact, he had not above 2000 men, and the sight of the little army on shore made him cautious of venturing his men, till he thought the inhabitants had conceived a great idea of his strength. The Virginia ships were welcomed at their coming in, as a supply of men of war, and he presently ordered his men on shore: 159 Scotch servants aboard that fleet, were added to a regiment of 700 men, and some seamen, to make their number look more formidable. One colonel Allen landed with them on the 17th of December, and found lord Willoughby’s forces well entrenched, near a fort they had upon the sea- coast. They attacked him, however, and, in a sharp dispute, wherein about sixty men were killed on both sides, had so much the advantage, that they drove them to the fort, notwithstanding that colonel Allen, their commander, was killed by a musket shot, as he attempted to land. After other attempts, sir George procured colonel Moddiford, who was one of the most leading men on the place, to enter into a treaty with him, and this negociation succeeded so well, that Moddiford declared publicly for a peace, and joined with sir George to bring lord Willoughby, the. governor, to reason, as they phrased it but lord Willoughby never would have consented if an accident had not happened, which put most of the gentlemen about him into such confusion, that he could no longer depend upon their advice or assistance. He had called together his officers, and while they were sitting in council, a cannon-ball beat open the door of the room, and took off the head of the centinel posted before it, which so frighted all the gentlemen of the island, that they not only compelled their governor to lay aside his former design, but to retire to a. place two miles farther from the harbour. Sir George Ayscue, taking advantage of this unexpected good fortune, immediately ordered all his forces on shore, as if he intended to have attacked them in their entrenchments, which struck such a terror into some of the principal persons about the governor, that, after rhature deliberation on his own circumstances, and their disposition, he began to alter his mind, and thereupon, to avoid the effusion of blood, both parties appointed commissaries to treat. Sir George named captain Peck, Mr. Searl, colonel Thomas Moddiforcl, and James Colliton, esq. the lord Willoughby, sir Richard Peers, Charles Pirn, esq. colonel Ellice, and major Byham, who on the 17th of January agreed on articles of rendition, which were alike comprehensive and honourable. The lord Willoughby had what he most desired, indemnity, and freedom of estate and person, upon which, soon after, he returned to England. The islands of Nevis, Antigua, and St. Christopher, were, by the same capitulation, surrendered to the parliament. After this, sir George, considering that he had fully executed his commission, returned with the squadron under his command to England, and arriving at Plymouth on the 25th of May, 1652, was received with all imaginable testimonies of joy and satisfaction by the people there, to whom he was well known before, as his late success also served not a little to raise and heighten his reputation. It was not long after his arrival, before he found himself again obliged to enter upon action for the Dutch war which broke out in his absence, was then become extremely warm, and he was forced to take a share in it, though his ships were so extremely foul, that they were much fitter to be laid up, than to be employed in any farther service. On the 21st of June, 1652, he came to Dover, with his squadron of eleven sail, and there joined his old friend admiral Blake, but Blake having received orders to sail northward, and destroy the Dutch herring fishery, sir George Ayscue was left to command the fleet in the Downs. Within a few days after Blake’s departure he took five sail of Dutch merchantmen, and had scarcely brought them in before he received advice that a fleet of forty sail had been seen not far from the coast, upon which he gave chace, fell in amongst them, took seven, sunk four, and ran twenty-four upon the French shore, all the rest being separated from their convoy. The Dutch admiral, Van Tromp, who was at sea- with a great fleet, having information of sir George Ayscue’s situation, resolved to take advantage of him, and with no“less than one hundred sail, clapped iji between him and the river, and resolved to surprize such ships as should attempt to go out or, if that design failed, to go in and sink sir George and his squadron. The English admiral soon discovered their intention, and causing a signal to be made from Dover castle, for all ships to keep to sea, he thereby defeated the first part of their project. However, Van Tromp attempted the second part of his scheme, in hopes of better success, and on the 8th of July, when it was ebb, be began to sail towards the English fleet but, the wind dying away, he was obliged to come to an anchor about a league off, in order to expect the next ebb. Sir George, in the mean time, caused a strong platform to be raised between Deal and Sandown castles, well furnished with artillery, so pointed, as to bear directly upon the Dutch as they came in the militia of the county of Kent were also ordered down to the sea-shore notwithstanding which preparation, the Dutch admiral did not recede from his point, but at the next ebb weighed anchor, and would have stood intothe port but the wind coming about south-west, and blowing directly in his teeth, constrained him to keep out, and being straightened for time, he was obliged to sail away, and leave sir George safe in the harbour, with the small squadron he commanded. He was soon after ordered to Plymouth, to bring in under his convoy five East- India ships, which he did in the latter end of July and in the first week of August, brought in four French and Dutch prizes, for which activity and vigilance in his command he was universally commended. In a few days after this, intelligence was received, that Van Tromp’s fleet was seen off the back of the isle of Wight, and it was thereupon resolved, that sir George with his fleet of forty men of war, most of them hired merchantmen, except flag ships, should stretch over to the coast of France to meet them. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, between one and two o'clock at noon, they got sight of the enemy, who quitted their merchantmen, being fifty in number. About four the fight began, the English Admiral with nine others charging through their fleet; his ships received most damage in the shrouds, masts, sails, and rigging, which was repaid the Dutch in their hulls. Sir George having thus passed through them, got the weather-gage, and charged them again, but all his fleet not coming up, and the night already entered, they parted with a drawn battle. Captain Peck, the rear-admiral, lost his leg, of which, soon after, he died. Several captains were wounded, but no ship lost. Of the Dutch, not one was said to be lost, though many were shot through and through, but so that they were able to proceed on their voyage, and anchored the next day after, being followed by the English to the isle of Bassa; but no farther attempt was made by our fleet, on account, as it was pretended, of the danger of the French coasts, from whence they returned to Plymouth- Sound to repair. The truth of the matter was, some of sir George’s captains were a little bashful in this affair, and the fleet was in so indifferent a condition, that it was absolutely necessary to refit before they proceeded again to action. He proceeded next to join Blake in the northern seas, where he continued during the best part of the month of September, and took several prizes and towards the latter end of that month he returned with general Blake into the Downs, with one hundred and twenty sail of men of war. On the 27th of that mojith a great Dutch fleet appeared, after which, Blake with his fleet sailed, and sir George Ayscue, pursuant to the orders he had received, returned to Chatham with his own ship, and sent the rest of his squadron into several ports to be careened. Towards the end of November, 1652, general Blake lying at the mouth of our river, began to think that the season of the year left no room to expect farther action, for which reason he detached twenty of his ships to bring up a fleet of colliers from Newcastle, twelve more he had sent to Plymouth, and our admiral, as before observed, with fifteen sail, had proceeded up the river in order to their being careened. Such was the situation of things, when Van Tromp appeared with a fleet of eighty- five sail. Upon this Blake sent for the most experienced officers on board his own ship, where, after a long consultation, it was agreed, that he should wait for, and fight the enemy, though he had but thirtyseven sail of men of war, and a few small ships. Accordingly, on the 29th of November, a general engagement ensued, which lasted with great fury from one in the afternoon till it was dark. Blake in the Triumph, with his seconds the Victory and the Vanguard, engaged for a considerable time near twenty sail of Dutch men of war, and they were in the utmost danger of being oppressed and destrdyed by so unequal a force. This, however, did not hinder Blake from forcing his way into a throng of enemies, to relieve the Garland and Bonadventure, in doing which he was attacked by many of their stoutest ships, which likewise boarded him, but after several times beating them off, he at last found an opportunity to rejoin his fleet. The loss sustained by the English consisted in five ships, either taken or sunk, and several others disabled. The Dutch confess, that one of their men of war was burnt towards the end of the fight, and the captain and most of his men drowned, and also that the ships of Tromp and Evertson were much disabled. At last, night having parted the two fleets, Blake supposing he had sufficiently secured the nation’s honour and his own, by waiting the attack of an enemy, so much superior, and seeing no prospect of advantage by renewing the fight, retired up the river but sir George Ayscue, who inclined to the bolder but less prudent counsel, was so disgusted at this retreat, that he laid down his commission. The services this great man had rendered his country, were none of them more acceptable to the parliament, than this act of laying down his command. They had long wished and waited for an opportunity of dismissing him from their service, and were therefore extremely pleased that he had saved them this trouble however, to shew their gratitude for past services, and to prevent his falling into absolute discontent, they voted him a present of three hundred pounds in money, and likewise bestowed upon him three hundred pounds per annum in Ireland. There is good reason to believe, that Cromwell and his faction were as well pleased with this gentleman’s quitting the sea-service for as they were then meditating, what they soon afterwards put in execution, the turning the parliament out of doors, it could not but be agreeable to them, to see an officer who had so great credit in the navy, and who was so generally esteemed by the nation, laid aside in such a manner, both as it gave them an opportunity of insinuating the ingratitude of that assembly to so worthy a person, and as it freed them from the apprehension of his disturbing their measures, in case he had continued in the fleet; which it is highly probable might have come to pass, considering that Blake was far enough from being of their party, and only submitted to serve the protector, because he saw no other way left to serve his country, and did not think he had interest enough to preserve the fleet, after the defection of the army, which perhaps might not have been the case, if sir George Ayscue had continued in his command. This is so much the more probable, as it is very certain that he never entered into the protector’s service, or shewed himself at all willing to concur in his measures though there is no doubt that Cromwell would have been extremely glad of so experienced an officer in his Spanish war. He retired after this to his country-seat in the county of Surrey, and lived there in great honour and splendor, visiting, and being visited by persons of the greatest distinction, both natives and foreigners, and passing in the general opinion of both, for one of the ablest sea-captains of that age. Yet there is some reason to believe that he had a particular correspondence with the protector’s second son, Henry; since there is still a letter in being from him to secretary Thurloe, which shews that he had very just notions of the worth of this gentleman, and of the expediency of consulting him in all such matters as had a relation to maritime power. The protector, towards the latter end of his life, began to grow dissatisfied with the Dutch, and resolved to destroy their system without entering immediately into a war with them. It was with this view, that he encouraged the Swedes to cultivate, with the utmost diligence, a maritime force, promising in due time to assist them with a sufficient number of able and experienced officers, and with an admiral to command them, who, in point of reputation, was not inferior to any then living. For this reason, he prevailed on sir George, by the intervention of the Swedish ambassador and of Whitelock, and sir George from that time began to entertain favourable thoughts of the design, and brought himself by degrees to think of accepting the offer made him, and of going over for that purpose to Sweden and although he had not absolutely complied during the life of the protector, he closed at last with the proposals made him from Sweden, and putting every thing in order for his journey, towards the latter end of the year 1658, and as soon as he had seen the officers embarked, and had dispatched some private business of his own, he prosecuted his voyage, though in the very depth of winter. This exposed him to great hardships, but on his arrival in Sweden, he was received with all imaginable demonstrations of civility and respect by the king, who might very probably have made good his promise, of promoting him to the rank of high-admiral of Sweden, if he had not been taken off by an unexpected death. This put an end to his hopes in that country, and disposed sir George Ayscue to return home, where a great change had been working in his absence, which was that of restoring king CharJes It. It does not at all appear, that sir George had any concern in this great affair but the contrary may be rather presumed, from his former attachment to the parliament, and his making it his choice to have remained in Sweden, if the death of the monarch, who invited him thither, had not prevented him. On his return, however, he not only submitted to the government then established, but gave the strongest assurances to the administration, that he should be at all times ready to serve the public, if ever there should be occasion, which was very kindly taken, and he had the honour to be” introduced to his majesty, and to kiss his hand. It was not long before he was called to the performance of his promise for the Dutch war breaking out in 1664, he was immediately put into commission by the direction of the duke of York, who then commanded the English fleet. In the spring of the year 1665, he hoisted his flag as rear-admiral of the blue, under the earl of Sandwich, and in the great battle that was fought the third of June in the same year, that squadron had the honour to break through the centre of the Dutch fleet, and thereby made way for one of the most glorious victories ever obtained by this nation at sea. For in this battle, the Dutch had ten of their largest ships sunk or burned, besides their admiral Opdam’s, that blew up in the midst of the engagement, by which the admiral himself, and upwards of five hundred men perished. Eighteen men of war were taken, four fire-ships destroyed, thirteen captains, and two thousand and fifty private men made prisoners and this with so inconsiderable loss, as that of one ship only, nnd three hundred private men. The fleet being again in a condition to put to sea, was ordered to rendezvous in Southwold-bay, from whence, to the number of sixty sail, they weighed on the fifth of July, and stood over for the coast of Holland. The standard was borne by the gallant earl of Sandwich, to whom was viceadmiral sir George Ayscue, and sir Thomas Tyddiman rear-admiral, sir William Perm was admiral of the white, sir William Berkley vice-admiral, and sir Joseph Jordan rear-admiral. The blue flag was carried by sir Thomas ^Vllen, whose vice and rear, were sir Christopher Minims, and sir John Harman. The design was, to intercept de Ruyter in his return, or, at least, to take and burn the Turkey and East-India fleets, of which they had certain intelligence, but they succeeded in neither of these schemes; de Ruyter arrived safely in Holland, and the Turkey and India fleets took shelter in the port of Bergen in Norway. The earl of Sandwich having detached sir Thomas Tyddiman to attack them there, returned home, and in his passage took eight Dutch men of war, which served as convoys to their East and West India fleets, and several merchantmen richly laden, which finished the triumphs of that year. ^The plain superiority of the English over the Dutch at sea, engaged the French, in order to keep up the war between the maritime powers, and make them do their business by destroying each other, to declare on the side of theweakest, as did the king of Denmark also, which, nevertheless, had no effect upon the English, who determined to carry on the war against the allies, with the same spirit they had done against the Dutch alone. In the spring, therefore, of the year 1666, the fleet was very early at sea, under the command of the joint admirals for a resolution having been taken at Court, not to expose the person of the duke of York any more, and the earl of Sandwich being then in Spain, with the character of ambassador-extraordinary, prince Rupert, and old general Monk, now duke of Albemarle, were appointed to command the fleet; having under them as gallant and prudent officers as ever distinguished themselves in the English navy, and, amongst these, sir William Berkley commanded the blue, and sir George Ayscue the white squadron. Prince Rupert, and the duke of Albemarle, went on board the fleet, the twenty-third of April, 1666, and sailed in the beginning of May. Towards the latter end of that month, the court was informed, that the French fleet, under the command of the duke of Beaufort, were coming out to the assistance of the Dutch, and upon receiving this news, the court sent orders to prince Rupert to sail with the white squadron, the admirals excepted, to look out and fight the French, which command that brave prince obeyed, but found it a mere bravado, intended to raise the courage of their new allies, and thereby bring them into the greater danger. At the same time prince Rupert sailed from the Downs, fthe Dutch put out to sea, the wind at north-east, and a fresh gale. This brought the Dutch fleet on the coast of Dunkirk, and carried his highness towards the Isle of Wight but the wind suddenly shifting to the south-west, and blowing hard, brought both the Dutch and the duke to an anchor. Captain Bacon, in the Bristol, first discovered the enemy, and by firing his guns, gave notice of it to the English fleet. Upon this a council of war was called, wherein it was resolved to fight the enemy, notwithstanding their great superiority. After the departure of prince Rupert, the duke had with him only the red and blue squadrons, making about sixty sail, whereas the Dutch fleet consisted of ninety-one men of war, carrying 4716 guns, and 22,460 men. It was the first of June when they were discerned, and the duke was so warm for engaging, that he attacked the enemy before they had time to weigh anchor, and, as de Ruyter himself says in his letter, they were obliged to cut their cables and in the same letter he owns, that to the last the English were the aggressors, notwithstanding their inferiority and other disadvantages. This day’s fight was very fierce and bloody for the Dutch, confiding in their numbers, pressed furiously upon the English fleet, while the English officers, being men of determined resolution, fought with such courage and constancy, that they not only repulsed the Dutch, but renewed the attack, and forced the enemy to maintain the fight longer than they were inclined to do, so that it was ten in the evening before their cannon were silent. The following night was spent in repairing the damages suffered on both sides, and next morning the fight was renewed by the English with fresh vigour. Admiral Van Tromp, with vice-admiral Vander Hulst, being on board one ship, rashly engaged among the English, and were in the utmost danger, either of being taken or burnt. The Dutch affairs, according to their own account, were now in a desperate condition but admiral de Ruyter at last disengaged them, though not till his ship was disabled, and vice-admiral Vander Hulst killed. This only changed the scene for de Ruyter was now as hard pushed as Tromp had been before; but a reinforcement arriving, preserved him also, and so the second day’s fight ended earlier than the first. The duke finding that the Dutch had received a reinforcement, and that his small fleet, on the contrary, was much weakened, through the damages sustained by some, and the Joss and absence of others of his ships, took, towards the evening, the resolution to retire, and endeavour to join prince Rupert, who was coming to his assistance. The retreat was performed in good order, twenty- six or twentyeight men of war that had suffered least, brought up the rear, interposing between the enemy and the disabled ships, three of which, being very much shattered, were burnt by the English themselves, and the men taken on board the other ships. The Dutch fleet followed, but at a distance. As they thus sailed on, it happened on the third day that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, who commanded the Royal Prince (being the largest and heaviest ship of the whole fleet) unfortunately struck upon the sand called the Galloper, where being threatened by the enemy’s fire-ships, and hopeless of assistance from his friends (whose timely return, the near approach of the enemy, and the contrary tide, had absolutely rendered impossible), he was forced to surrender. The Dutch admiral de Ruyter, in his letter to the States-general, says, in few words, that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, having run upon a sand -bank, fell into their hands, and that after taking out the commanders, and the men that were left, they set the s’mp on fire. But the large relation, collected by order of the States out of all the letters written to them upon that occasion, informs us, that sir George Ayscue, in the Royal Prince, ran upon the Galloper, an unhappy accident, says that relation, for an officer who had behaved very gallantly during the whole engagement, and who only retired in obedience to his admiral’s orders. The unfortunate admiral made signals for assistance but the English fleet continued their route so that he was left quite alone, and without hope of succour in which situation he was attacked by two Dutch fire-ships, by which, without doubt, he had been burnt, if lieutenant-admiral Tromp, who was on board the ship of rear-admiral Sweers, had not made a signal to call off the fire-ships, perceiving that his flag was already struck, and a signal made for quarter, upon which rear-admiral Sweers, by order of Tromp, went on board the English ship, and brought off sir George Ayscue, his officers, and some of his men, on board his own vessel, and the next morning sir George was sent to the Dutch coast, in order to go to the Hague in a galliot, by order of general de Ruyter. The English ship was afterwards got off the sands, notwithstanding which, general de Ruyter ordered the rest of the crew to be taken out, and the vessel set on fire, that his fleet might he the less embarrassed, which was accordingly done. But in the French relation, published by order of that court, we have another circumstance, which the Dutch have thought fit to omit, and it is this, that the crew gave np the ship against the admiral’s will, who had given orders /or setting her on fire. There were some circumstances which made the loss of this ship, in this manner, very disagreeable to the English court, and perhaps this may be the reason that so little is said of it in our own relations. In all probability general de Ruyter took the opportunity of sending sir George Ayscue to the Dutch coast the next morning, from an apprehension that he might be retaken in. the next day’s fight. On his arrival at the Hague he was very civilly treated but to raise the spirits of their people, and to make the most of this dubious kind of victory, the states ordered sir George to be carried as it were in triumph, through the several towns of Holland, and then confined him in the castle of Louvestein, so famous in the Dutch histories for having been the prison of some of their most eminent patriots, and from whence the party which opposed the prince of Orange were styled the Louvestein faction. As soon as sir George Ayscue came to this castle, he wrote a letter to king Charles II. to acquaint him with the condition he was in, which letter is still preserved in the life of the Dutch admiral, de Ruyter. How long he remained there, or whether he continued a prisoner to the end of the war, is uncertain, but it is said that he afterwards returned to England, and spent the remainder of his days in peace. Granger observes very justly, that it is scarcely possible to give a higher character of the courage of this brave admiral, than to say that he was a match for Van Tromp or de Ruyter.

, an eminent Dutch painter, was born at Haerlem, Feb. 20, 1633, and at a very early age placed under the care of his uncle Piemans, who painted in the manner of Velvet Bruegfcel, and soon inspired his nephew with a taste for the art. Baan afterwards studied under Bakker at Amsterdam, with whom he practised assiduously every particular from which he could receive improvement, spending the whole day at the pencil, and the evenings in designing. At that time the works of Vandyck and Rembrandt were in great vogue, and after much consideration he appears td have leaned towards an imitation of Vandyck, whom, some thought, he equalled. Houbraken says he xvas invited by Charles II. to come to England, where he made portraits of the king, queen,- and principal nobility at court, and was much admired for the elegance of his attitudes, and for his clear, natural, and lively tone of colouring. After continuing some time in England, he went to the Hague, and there painted a noble portrait of the duke of Zell, for which he received a thousand Hungarian ducats, amounting to near 500l. He then painted for the, duke of Tuscany, who placed his portrait among those of other famous painters in the Florence gallery. When Louis XIV. was at Utrecht, he sent for him, but Baan declined the invitation for political reasons. This did not lessen him, however, in the opinion of that monarch, who frequently consulted him on the purchase of pictures. These, marks of distinction, and his fame as a painter, created him. many enemies, one of whom, an artist of Friesland, formed the execrable design of assassinating him, and came to Amsterdam for that purpose. After being long disappointed in an opportunity in the streets, he asked permission to see Baan’s paintings, and while the latter was showing them, drew a poignard to stab him, but a friend of Baan’s, who happened to enter the room at the instant, laid hold of his arm the villain, however, escaped, and could not afterwards be found. Baan was of an amiable disposition, Son­cial and obliging. He died at Amsterdam in 1702.

, son of the above, was born at the Hague in 1673, learned the art of painting from his father, and became very early an artist of distinction. In 1693 he came to England, and painted several excellent portraits for the nobility, particularly one of the duke of Gloucester. He was much solicited to remain in England, but had predetermined to visit Rome, where, and at Florence, his talents procured him great fame, and much money, the latter of which he had not the prudence to keep. His pictures are excellently handled, and he approached near to the merit of his father in portraits, and in other branches of the art he probably would have far surpassed him, if he had appropriated more of his time to his studies, and had not died at so early a period of life. He only reached his twenty- seventh year.

, a very learned Italian scholar of the seventeenth century, was born Aug. 31, 1651, at Borgo-san-Donino, in the duchy of Parma. In 1653 his father went to reside at Parma, where he spared no expence in the education of this son, although his fortune was considerably reduced by family imprudence. For five years he studied the classics, under the tuition of the Jesuits, and in his sixteenth year entered the order of St. Benedict, on which occasion he adopted the name of that saint, in lieu of Bernardine, his baptismal name. Soon after, his father died, leaving his widow and three children with very little provision. Bacchini, however, pursued his studies, and took lesson in scholastic philosophy from Maurice Zapata; but by the advice of Chrysogonus Fabius, master of the novices of his convent, he studied mathematics, as the foundation of a more useful species of knowledge than the physics and metaphysics of the ancients. He afterwards applied to divinity with equal judgment, confining his researches to the fathers, councils, and ecclesiastical history. When he had completed his course, his abbé wished him to teach philosophy, but he had no inclination to teach that scholastic philosophy which he did not think worth learning and having obtained leave, on account of his health, to retire to a monastery in the country, he remained there two years, during which he studied the science of music, and on his recovery began to preach, agreeably to the desire of his superiors. In 1677, Arcioni, abbe of St. Benedict at Ferrara, having appointed him. his secretary, he was obliged to follow him to Arezzo, Venice, Placentia, Padua, and Parma. While at Piacentia, in 1679, he pronounced a funeral oration on Margaret de Medicis, mother of the duke of Parma, which was printed there. In 1681 he formed an acquaintance with Magliabecchi, the cardinal Noris, and many other eminent men of the age. In 1683, on account of his health, he solicited permission to resign his office as secretary to the abbe“, and as public preacher, which was granted; and having his time again in his own hands, he began to arrange the library belonging to his monastery, and to consult the fathers and sacred critics, and studied with assiduity and success the Greek and Hebrew languages. In 1635 he was appointed counsellor of the inquisition at Parma, and ne^t year had a visit of three days from father Mabillon and father Germain, and about the same time began to conduct the” Giornale de Letterati." In this he was encouraged and assisted by Gaudentio Roberti, who was eminent in polite literature. Bacchini accordingly began the Parma journal, in imitation of that published at Rome, and continued it monthly, but without his name, until 1690. But afterwards, when at Modena, he resumed it for 1692 and 1693, after which, the death of Roberti, who defrayed all the expence, obliged him again to discontinue it. In 1695, however, Capponi engaged to furnish the books and all necessary expences, and he edited itfor 1696 and 1697, when it was concluded. The whole make nine small volumes 4to, the first five printed at Parma, and the rest at Modena.

In the mean time, in 1688, the duke of Parma appointed him his theologian, at the request of Roberti; and the same year, at the solicitation of Leo Strozza, he wrote his dissertation on the ancient sistrum, a musical instrument, which was published under the title, “De Sistrorum figuris ac differentia ad illustriss. D. D. Leonem Strozza, ob Sistri Romani effigiem communicatum, ctissertatio,” Bononia, 1691, 4to. The death of the abbe Arcioni, and some disputes with his brethren at Parma, rendering it necessary for him to leave that city, the duke of Modena invited him thither in 1690, and soon after he was appointed first examiner, and then one of the counsellors of the inquisition. He had also the appointment of professor of sacred literature at Bologna, but on account of the distance he gave but few lectures, although he retained the title of professor. On the death of the duke of Modena, Sept. 1694, his uncle the cardinal d'Est succeeded him, and became a yet more liberal patron to Bacchini.

In 1696 he published his monastic history, under the title of “DelP Istoria del Monasterio di S. Benedetto di Polirone nella Stato di Mantoua Libri cinque,” Modena, 1696, 4to. This was to have been succeeded by a second volume, but some unwelcome truths in the first having given offence, what he had prepared remained in manuscript The same year he travelled over various parts of Italy, visiting chiefly the libraries and the learned, who received him with the respect due to his talents. At Florence he passed some days with his friend Magliabecchi at Mount Cassin, and at St. Severin, the libraries were laid open, with permission to copy what he pleased and the cardinal d'Aguirre wished much to have procured him a place in the Vatican library, but being unsuccessful, Bacchini returned to Modena, where the duke made him his librarian. While putting the books in order here, he found the lives of the bishops of Ravenna by Agnelli (see Agnelli), which he committed to the press, with chronological dissertations and remarks, and the whole was ready for publication in 1702, but the censors at Rome hesitated so long in granting their permission, that it was not published before 1708. In the course of preparing this work, he wrote a dissertation on ecclesiastical hierarchy, entitled “De Ecclesiasticae Hierarchise origine dissertatio,” Mutina (i.e. Modena), 1703, 4to. In 1704 he was elected prior of the monastery of Modena, and in 1705 he published, under the name of the abbe and monks of the monastery of Parma, “Isidori Clarii ex Monacho Episcopi Fulginatis Epistolse ad amicos, hactenus ineditac,” Modena, 1705. Two years after, he was made chancellor of his order, and in 1708 was elected, in the general chapter, abbé of the monastery of St. Mary at Ragusa. In 1711 and 1719, other promotions of a similar kind were conferred upon him, but he was obliged to remove from place to place on account of his health, injured by a complication of disorders, which at last proved fatal, at Bologna, Sept. 1, 1721. Bacchini, according to the report of all his biographers, was one of the most learned men of his time few equalled and none surpassed him in Italy. His learning was universal, and his taste exquisite. "When young he was much admired for his pulpit eloquence, and it was thought would have proved one of the first preachers of his time, if his delicate temperament could have permitted that exertion. He was critically skilled in Greek and Hebrew, ancient and modern philosophy, and mathematics, but was perhaps most deeply conversant in sacred and profane history and chronology, and he was remarkably expert in decyphering ancient manuscripts. Few men, it may be added, were more admired in their time, or could enumerate among their friends so many men of high rank and learning; of the latter, Bacchini lived in habits of intimacy with Ciampini, Magliabecchi, Muratori, Gimma, Fontanini, Mabillon, Montfaucon, and the marquis Scipio Maffei, and in all his intercourse with the great or the learned, he preserves the character of a modest and humble man.

, an eminent German musician, was born at Eisenach in 1685, and made such proficiency in his art that at the age of eighteen, he was appointed organist of the new church of Arnstadt. In 1708, he settled at Weimar, where he was appointed court musician and director of the duke’s concert, and in a trial of skill, he obtained a victory over the celebrated French organist, who had previously challenged and conquered all the organists of France and Italy. This happened at Dresden, to which Bach went on purpose to contend with this musical Goliath. He afterwards became master of the chapel to the prince of Anhalt Cotben, and to the duke of Weissenfels. As a performer on the organ, as well as a composer for that instrument, he long stood unrivalled. He died at Leipsic in 1754, and left four sons all eminent musicians, of whom some account is given by Dr. Burney in his History of Music, vol. IV. and in his Musical Tour in Germany.

In the mean time, Somerset was falling in the king’s estimation, and his place was supplied by Mr. George Villiers, afterwards the duke of Buckingham. The rise of this favourite was rapid and surprizing and sir Francis Bacon is said to have conceived a good opinion of him, became his friend, and certainly gave him very salutary advice. His promotion was followed % by the trial of the earl and countess of Somerset, for being accessary to the murder of sir Thomas Overbury. In this affair, sir Francis appears to have acted an impartial part in the discharge of his duty as attorney-general. The king who appeared deeply interested in bringing these offenders to justice, was as eager afterwards to grant them a pardon but sir Francis interfered in neither case farther than the duties of his office required.

In 1773, he presented to the Society forthe encouragement of arts, two statues in plaster, which by a vote of that society, were directed to be placed in their great room, and he received on the same occasion their gold medal. His first work in sculpture is in Christ Church college, already mentioned the first figures he executed in marble, are at the duke of Richmond’s at Goodwood and his first monument was that of Mrs. Withers, in St. Mary’s, Worcester. In 1777, he was employed to prepare a model of a monument to be erected in Guy’s hospital, South wark, to the memory of the founder. It was this work that chiefly recommended him to the execution of lord Chatham’s monument in Guildhall. His other works, about this period, were the monument of Mrs. Draper; a marble statue of Mars, for lord Yarborough two groupes for the top of Somerset-house the monument of lord Halifax in Westminster abbey the statue of judge Blackstone for All Souls college, Oxford, and that of Henry VI. for the Anti-chapel at Eton. It is not our intention, however, nor would our limits permit, to enumerate all the works executed by this artist, within twenty years after he attained his just and high fame. There are few of our cathedrals or puhlic edifices without some specimen of his skill, but it would be unpardonable to omit one of his grandest efforts, the monument of lord Chatham, in Westminster abbey, which was begun in 1778, and finished in 1783. It is alone a proof of the excellence he had attained, without the aid of foreign travel and observation and how various that excellence was, may be further proved from the bronze gfoupe in the square in Somersetplace the monuments of lady Miller at Bath of lord Rodney at Jamaica of lord Heathfield at Buckland of the earl and countess of Effingham at Jamaica of Howard and Johnson in St. Paul’s, &c. c.

, lord keeper of the great seal in the reign of queen Elizabeth, descended from an ancient and honourable family in Suffolk. His rather was Robert Bacon of Drinkstxm in that county, esq. and his mother was Isabel, the daughter of John Gage of Pakenhain in the said county, esq. Nicholas, their second son, was born in 1510, at Chislehurst in Kent. After having received the first rudiments of learning, probably at home, or in the neighbourhood, he was sent when very young to Corpus Christi college in Cambridge, where having improved in all branches of useful knowledge, he went to France, in order to give the last polish to his education. On his return he settled in Gray VInn, and applied himself with such assiduity to the study of the law, that on the dissolution of the monastery of St. Edmund’s-Bury in Suffolk, he had a grant from king Henry VIII. in the thirty-­sixth year of his reign, of the manors of Redgrave, Botesdale, and Gillingham, with the park of Redgrave, and six acres of land in Worthanf, as also the tithes of Redgrave to hold in capite by knight’s service, a proof of the estimation in which he was held by his majesty. In the thirtyeighth of the same king, he was promoted to the office of attorney in the court of wards, a place both of honour and profit, and his patent was renewed in the first year of Edward VI. and in 1552, which was the last year of his reign, Mr. Bacon was elected treasurer of Gray’s-Inn. His great moderation and consummate prudence, preserved him through the dangerous reign of queen Mary. In the very dawn of that of Elizabeth he was knighted, and the great seal of England being taken from Nicholas Heath, archbishop of York, was delivered to sir Nicholas Bacon, on the 22d of December 1558, with the title of lord keeper. He was also of the privy council to her majesty, who had much regard to his advice. The parliament met Jan. 23, but was prorogued on account of the queen’s indisposition to the 25th, when the lord keeper opened the session with a most eloquent and solid speech. Some of the queen’s counsellors thought it necessary that the attainder of the queen’s mother should be taken off; but the lord keeper thought the crown purged all defects, and in compliance with his advice, two laws were made, one for recognizing the queen’s title, the other for restoring her in blood as heir to her mother. The principal business of this session was the settlement of religion, in which no man had a greater share than the keeper, and he acted with such prudence as never to incur the hatred of any party. On this account he was, together with the archbishop of York, appointed moderator in a dispute between eight Protestant divines, and eight Popish bishops and the latter behaving very unfairly in the opinion of both the moderators, and desiring, to avoid a fair disputation, to go away, the lord keeper put that question to each of them, and when all except one insisted on going, his lordship dismissed them with this memorandum, “For that ye would not that we should hear you, perhaps you may shortly hear of us” and accordingly for this contempt, the bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were committed to the tower, and the rest were bound to appear before the council, and not to quit the cities of London and Westminster without leave. The whole business of the session, than which there was none of greater importance during that reign, was chiefly managed by his lordship, according to his wise maxim, “Let us stay a little, that we may have done the sooner.” From this time he stood as high in the favour of the queen as any of her ministers, and maintained a cordial interest with other great men, particularly with those eminent persons, who had married into the same family with himself, viz. Cecil, Hobby, Rowlet, and Killigrew. By their assistance he preserved his credit at court, though he sometimes differed in opinion from the mighty favourite Leicester, who yet once bad fair his ruin, when certain intrigues were carried on respecting the succession. Some statesmen, and particularly the earl of Leicester, pretended to favour the title of the queen of Scots, but others were more inclined to the house of Suffolk. The queen sometimes affected a neutrality, and sometimes shewed a tenderness for the title of the Scottish queen. In 1564, when these disputes were at the height, Mr. John Hales, clerk of the Hanaper, published a treatise which seems to have been written a considerable time before, in favour of the Suffolk line, and against the title of the queen of Scots. This book was complained of by the bishop of Ross, ambassador from the queen of Scots, and Ross being warmly supported by the earl of Leicester, Hales was committed to prison, and so strict an inquiry made after all who had expressed any favour for this piece, that at last the lord-keeper came to be suspected, which drew upon him the queen’s displeasure, and he was forbidden the court, removed from his seat at council, and prohibited from meddling with any affairs but those of the chancery nay, Camden says he was confined . At last, however, Cecil, who is suspected to have had some share in the above treatise, with much difficulty restored him to the queen’s good opinion, as appears by her setting him at the head of that commission, granted in the year 1568, for hearing the difference between the queen of Scots, and her rebellious subjects; and in 1571, we find him again acting in the like capacity, though very little was done before the commissioners at either time, which was what queen Elizabeth chiefly desired, and the covering her inclination with a decent appearance of justice, was perhaps not a little owing to the address of the lord-keeper. Afterwards he continued at the head of her majesty’s councils, and had a great hand in preventing, by his moderation, some violent measures afterwards proposed. The share, however, that he had in the business of the duke of Norfolk, and his great care for promoting the Protestant religion, created him many bitter enemies among the Papists both at home and abroad, who though they were able to do him no great hurt, yet published some libels, particularly “A Detection of certain practices, &c.” printed in Scotland, about 1570, and “A treatise of Treason,” both which gave him considerable uneasiness, although the queen expressed her opinion, by a proclamation, ordering them to be burnt. As a statesman, he was remarkable for a clear head, and acute understanding; and while it was thought of some other great men that they seemed wiser than they were, yet the common voice of the nation pronounced, that sir Nicholas Bacon was wiser than he seemed. His great skill lay in balancing factions, and it is thought he taught the queen that secret, the more necessary to her because the last of her family, and consequently without many of the usual supports of princes. In the chancery he distinguished himself by a very moderate use of power, and the respect he shewed to the common law. At his own request, an act of parliament was made, to settle and establish the power of a lord -keeper, though he might probably have taken away all need of this, by procuring the title of lord chancellor: but according to his motto, which was Mediocra firma, he he was content to be safe, and did not desire to be great*. In that court, and in the star-chamber, he made use, on proper occasions, of set speeches, in which he was peculiarly happy, and gained the reputation of a witty and a weighty speaker. His great parts and great preferment were far from raising him in his own opinion, as appears from the modest answer he gave* queen Elizabeth, when she told him his house at Redgrave was too little for him, “Not so, madam,” returned he, “but your majesty has made me too great for my house.” Yet to shew his respect for her majesty’s judgment, he afterwards added wings to this house. His modesty in this respect was so much the greater, since he had a great passion for building, and a very fine taste, as appeared by his house and gardens at Gorhambury near St. Alban’s, now the seat of lord viscount Grimston. Towards the latter end of his life, he became very corpulent, which made queen Elizabeth say merrily, that “sir Nicholas’s soul lodged well. To himself, however, his bulk was very inconvenient after walking from Westminster-hall to the star-chamber, which was but a very little way, he was usually so much out of breath, that the lawyers forbore speaking at the bar till he recocovered himself, and gave them notice by knocking” with his staff. After having held the great seal more than twenty years, this able statesman and faithful counsellor was suddenly removed from this life, as Mallett informs us, by the following accident “He was under the hands of his barber, and the weather being sultry, had ordered a window before him to be thrown open. As he was become very corpulent, he presently fell asleep, in the cur­* After he had been some monthsact of parliament, which declares, in office, as keeper of the great seal,” That the common law always was, he began to doubt to what degree his that the keeper of the great seal always authority extended, which seems to had, as of right belonging to his office, have been owing to the general terms the same authority, jurisdiction, excused upon the delivery of the great cution of laws, and all other customs, Heal, of which we have various in- as the lord chancellor of England lawstances in Rymer’s Foedera. Upon fully used.“What the true reason this, he first applied himself to the was that made his lordship so uneasy, queen, from whom he procured a pa- is not perhaps known to posterity. tent, bearing date at Westminster, the But sir Henry Spelman has observed, 14th of April, in the first year of her that for the benefit of that wise counreign, whereby she declares him te seller sir Nicholas Bacon, the authobare as full powers as if he were rity of the keeper of the great seal hancellor of England, and ratifies all was by this law declared to be in all that he had already done. This, how- respects the same with that of th ever, did not fully satisfy him but chancellor, four years afterwards he procured an rent of fresh air that was blowing in upon him, and awaked after some time distempered all over. c Why,‘ said he to the servant, < did you suffer me to sleep thus exposed’ The fellow replied, ‘ That he durst not presume to disturb him.’ * Then,‘ said the lord keeper, * by your civility I lose my life,’ and so removed into his bed-chamber, where he died a few days after.” But this story seems doubtful, for all writers agree, that sir Nicholas Bacon died Feb. 20, 1579, when the weather could not be very sultry. On the 9th of March following he was buried with great solemnity, under a sumptuous monument erected by himself in St. Paul’s church, with an inscription written by the celebrated Buchanan. Camden’s character of him is just and plain “Vir praepinguis, ingenio acerrimo, singulari prudentia, summa eloquentia, tenaci memoria, et sacris conciliis alterum columen” i. e. A man of a gross body, but most quick wit, singular prudence, supreme eloquence, happy memory, and for judgment the other pillar of the state. His son’s pharacter of him is more striking. He was “a plain man, direct and constant, without all finesse and doubleness and one that was of a mind that a man, in his private proceedings and estate, and in the proceedings of state, should rest upon the soundness and strength of his own courses, and not upon practice to circumvent others, according to the sentence of Solomon, * Vir prudens advertit ad gressus suos stultus autem divertit ad dolos’ insomuch that the bishop of Ross, a subtle and observing man, said of him, that he could fasten no words upon him, and that it was impossible to come within him, because he offered no play; and the queen mother of France, a very politic princess, said of him, that he should have been of the council of Spain, because he despised the occurrents, and rested upon the first plot.” Nor is Puttenham’s short account to be overlooked “I have come to the lord keeper, and found him sitting in his gallery alone, with the works of Quintilian before him. Indeed he was a most eloquent man, of rare wisdom and learning, as ever I knew England to breed, and one that joyed as much in learned men and 0'.;d wits, from whose lippes Ihave seen to proceed more i;rave and natural eloquence than from all the orators of Oxford and Cambridge.”

, the only Protestant who went back to popery that was made bishop in the reign of Louis XIV. was born at Castelgeloux, in Gascony. After having quitted his religion, he entered himself of the Franciscan order, was then made bishop of Glandeve, and afterwards of Pamiers, where he died in 1694, at the age of ninety-four. His Latin poem on the Education of a Prince, 1671, 4to, procured him the episcopal dignity, by the interest of the duke of Montausier. This poem was reprinted in 8vo, in 1685, with notes, and the addition of some odes by the same author. He published also " Carmen pancgyricum/' Toulouse, 1667, 4to, dedicated to pope Clement IX.

On April the 26th, 1789, the electors of Paris as*. sembled for the nomination of deputies for the statesgeneral, appointed Bailly for their secretary. There were assembled, on this important occasion, many academicians, but none, except Bailly, was a member of all the academies. His talent for writing was well known the interesting reports that he had made on the subject of the hospitals and animal magnetism, had powerfully excited the attention of the public his character stood equally high for calmness of temper and strictness of morals, so that no one possessed so many claims as himself to that important office. The choice of the public was too flattering to be resisted and from that time he was lost for ever to astronomy. The motives that occasioned his first appointment soon advanced him to the dignity of deputy and president of the tiers etat, which assembled on the 5th of May at Versailles. The several deputies from the communes having constituted themselves on the 17th of June, a national assembly, Bailly was still continued president, and distinguished himself considerably. He it was, who on the 20th, of the same month, conducted the asse-nbly to the tennis-court, and he still continued to preside, when, on the 27th, the two other orders united themselves to the tiers-etat. He resigned his office on July 22d, and the duke of Orleans was appointed his Sik> cessor.

Mr. Baker was a constant and useful attendant at the meetings of the royal and antiquary societies, and in both was frequently chosen one of the council. He was peculiarly attentive to all the new improvements which were made in natural science, and very solicitous for the prosecution of them. Several of his communications are printed in the Philosophical Transactions and, besides the papers written by himself, he was the means, by his extensive correspondence, of conveying to the society the intelligence and observations of other inquisitive and philosophical men. His correspondence was not confined to his own country. To him we are obliged for a true history of the coccus polonicus, transmitted by Dr. Wolfe. It is to Mr. Baker’s communications that we owe the larger alpine strawberry, of late so much cultivated and approved of in England. The seeds of it were sent in a letter from professor Bruns of Turin to our philosopher, who gave them to several of his friends^ by whose care they furnished an abundant increase. The seeds likewise of the true rhubarb, or rheum palmatum, now to be met with in almost every garden in this country, were first transmitted to Mr. Baker by Dr. Mounsey, physician to the empress of Russia. These, like the former, were distributed to his various acquaintance, and some of the seeds vegetated very kindly. It is apprehended that all the plants of the rhubarb now in Great Britain were propagated from this source. Two or three of Mr. Baker’s papers, which relate to antiquities, may be found in the Philosophical Transactions. The society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, and commerce, is under singular obligations to our worthy naturalist. As he was one of the earliest members of it, so he contributed in no small degree to its rise and establishment. At its first institution, he officiated for some time gratis, as secretary. He was many years chairman ^of the committee of accounts and he took an active part in the general deliberations of the society. In his attendance he was almost unfailing, and there were few questions of any moment upon which he did not deliver his opinion. Though, fronl the lowness of his voice, his manner of speaking was not powerful, it was clear, sensible, and convincing; what he said, being usually much to the purpose, and always proceeding from the best intentions, had often the good effect of contributing to bring the society to rational determinations, when many of the members seemed to have lost themselves in the intricacies of debate. He drew up a short account of the original of this society, and of the concern he himself had in forming it; which was read before the society of antiquaries, and would be a pleasing present to the public. Mr*. Baker was a poetical writer in the early part of his life. His “Invocation of Health” got abroad without his knowledge; but was reprinted by himself in his “Original Poems, serious and humourous,” Part the first, 8vo, 1725. The second part came out iri 1726. He was the author, likewise, of “The Universe^ a poem, intended to restrain the pride of man,” which has been several times reprinted. His account of the water polype, which was originally published in the Philosophical Transactions, was afterwards enlarged into a separate treatise, and hath gone through several editions. In 1728 he began, and for five years conducted the “Universal Spectator,” a periodical paper, under the assumed name of Henry Stonecastle a selection of these papers was afterwards printed in 4 vols. 12mo. In 1737 he published “Medulla Poetarum Romanorum,” 2 vols. 8vo, a selection from the Roman poets, with translations. But his principal publications are, “The Microscope made easy,” and “Employment for the Microscope.” The first of these, which was originally published in 1742, or 1743, has gone through six editions. The second edition of the other, which, to say the least of it, is equally pleasing and instructive, appearedin 1764. These treatises, and especially the latter, contain the most curious and important of the observations and experiments which Mr. Baker either laid before the royal society, or published separately. It has been said of Mr. Baker, “that he was a philosopher in little things.” If it was intended by this language to lessen his reputation, there is no propriety in the stricture. He was an intelligent, upright and benevolent man, much respected by those who knew him best. His friends were the friends of science and virtue and it will always be remembered by his contemporaries, that no one was more ready than himself to assist those with whom he was conversant in their various researches and endeavours for the advancement of knowledge and the benefit of society. His eldest son, David Erskine Baker, was a young man of genius and learning, and, like his father, a philosopher, an antiquary, and a poet. Being very partial to mathematical and geometrical studies, the duke of Montague, then master of the ordnance, placed him in the drawing-room in the Tower, to qualify him for the royal engineers. In a letter to Dr. Doddridge, dated 1747, his father speaks of him in these terms: “He has been somewhat forwarder than boys usually are, from a constant conversation with men. At twelve years old he had translated the whole twenty-four books of Telemachus from the French before he was fifteen, he translated from the Italian, and published, a treatise on physic, of Dr. Cocchi, of Florence, concerning the diet and doctrines of Pythagoras and last year, before he was seventeen, he likewise published a treatise of sir Isaac Newton’s Metaphysics, compared with those of Dr. Leibnitz, from the French of M. Voltaire. He is a pretty good master of the Latin, understands some Greek, is reckoned no bad mathematician for his years, and knows a great deal of natural history, both from reading and observation, so that, by the grace of God, I hope he will become a virtuous and useful man.” In another letter he mentions a singular commission given to his son, that of making drawings of all the machines, designs, and operations employed in the grand fire- works to be exhibited on occasion of the peace of 1748. It is to be regretted, however, that his father’s expectations were disappointed by a reverse of conduct in this son, occasioned by his turn for dramatic performances, and his marrying the daughter of a Mr. Clendon, a clerical empiric, who had, like himself, a similar turn. In consequence of this unhappy taste, he repeatedly engaged with the lowest strolling companies, in spite of every effort of his father to reclaim him. The public was, however, indebted to him for “The Companion to the Playhouse,” 1764, 2 vols. 12mo; a work which, though imperfect, had considerable merit, and shewed that he possessed a very extensive knowledge of our dramatic authors and which has since (under the title of “Biographia Dramatica”) been considerably improved, first in 1782, by the late Mr. Isaac Reed, 2 vols. 8vo, and more recently, in 1812, enlarged and improved by Mr. Stephen Jones, so as to form 4 vols. 8vo. He died Feb. 16, 1767. Mr. Baker’s other son, Henry, followed the profession of a lawyer, and occasionally appeared as a poet and miscellaneous writer. In 1756 he published te Essays Pastoral and Elegiac,“2 vols. 8vo, and left ready for the press an arranged collection of all the statutes relating to bankruptcy, with cases, precedents, &c. entitled” The Clerk to the Commission," a work which is supposed to have been published under another title in 1768.

, a celebrated lawyer of the fourteenth century, was a native of Perugia, and the son of Francis Ubaldi, a learned physician, who had him educated with great care. After studying philosophy and belles lettres, he became the pupil of Bartolus in law studies, and afterwards was his powerful rival. He taught law himself at Perugia, where he had for his scholar cardinal Peter Beaufort, afterwards pope Gregory XI. He next became professor at Padua, from which the duke of Milan invited him to the same office at Pavia. He died April 28, 1400, aged 76, of the consequences of the bite of a favourite cat, a circumstance thus expressed on his epitaph:

, an Italian count, and a man of learning, was a native of Placentia, where he was born July 3, 1654. After studying philosophy and the classics in the college of St. Francis Xavier at Bologna, he went to Rome, and passed through a course of theology, law, and mathematics. He was so pleased with Rome as to determine to take up his abode there and when the pope offered him the‘ place of nuncio at Brussels, and in Poland, he preferred a life of literary employment. Some time after, however, he accompanied cardinal d’Estrees to Paris, and the marchioness of Montecuculi to St. Germain and afterwards went to Poland, to be present at the election of a successor to king John Sobieski, then deceased. In 1698, duke Francis, of Parma, sent him to Madrid, as his deputy; and in 1710 Sophia Dorothy duchess of Placentia employed him in the same honourable office at Vienna, and at several courts in Germany, England, and Utrecht. On his return, he passed the rest of his life in a retired manner, and died Feb. 23, 1725. When in England he was elected a member of the royal society, with M. Bianchini. His rich cabinet of natural history, and his extensive library, were always open to men of learning, many of whom he assisted in their pursuits with great liberality. We know of none of his writings, except a discourse on the maps in the Atlas Historique, published at Amsterdam in 1719.

, an Italian poet, was born at Florence, in 1654. His first studies were devoted to the law, which his father wished him to pursue as a profession but, after the death of his parents, he gave himself wholly up to the enchantments of poetry and music. On visiting Rome, he obtained, through the interest of his uncle cardinal Flavio Chigi, the place of secretary to cardinal Jacopo Filippo, and in that city, at the age of forty, he entered into holy orders. In 1676, he obtained the living of St. Leonardo d'Artimino and in 1694, Cosmo III. grand duke of Tuscany, conferred on him the priorship of Orbatello; which, in 1699, he changed for that of Santa Felicita. In the discharge of his new functions, he gave equal satisfaction to the court, the religious orders, and his parishioners, by his exemplary piety, and his rigid attention to the duties of his station to which the amiableness of his manners, his knowledge of the world, and his proficiency in learning, rendered him perfectly adequate. He died in 1716. His chief work is a poem of the pastoral kind, entitled “II Lamento de Cecco da Varlungo,” written in the provincial dialect of Tuscany, and in his youth; and published in 1694, by Bartolommei, to whom the author had given the manuscript. It was reprinted in 1755, with the author’s life by Manni, and curious notes by Marini. In 1800, it was introduced into our language by John Hunter, esq. under the title of “Cecco’s Complaint,” 8vo, from the preface to which this sketch is taken.

, according to Wood, was born in the west of England, and spent several years at Oxford in the study of logic and philosophy there he supposes him to have been the same William Baldwin, who supplicated the congregation of regents for a master’s degree in 1532, but it does not appear by the register that it was granted. He afterwards became a schoolmaster and a minister, and was one of those scholars who followed printing, in order to promote the reformation. In this character, we find him employed by Edward Whitchurch, probably as the corrector of the press, though he modestly styles himself “seruaunt with Edwarde Whitchurche.” This, however, seems to have been his employment at first, and chiefly: yet he afterwards appears to have qualified himself for a compositor. As an author, Bale and Pits ascribe some comedies to him, which were probably mysteries or moralities now unknown, but he compiled “A treatise of moral Philosophy,” which was printed by Edw. Whitchurch, in 1547, and in 1550, and without date. This was afterwards enlarged by Thomas Paifryman, and went through several editions. His next performance was “The Canticles or Balades of Solomon, phraselyke declared in English metres,” printed by himself, 1549, 4to. He wrote also “The Funeralles of king Edward VI.” in verse, printed in 1560, 4to. But he is perhaps best known now by the share he had in the publication of “The Mirror of Magistrates,” originally projected by Thomas Sackville, first lord Buckhurst, and afterwards earl, of Dorset, who wrote the poetical preface, and the legend of Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, and recommended the completion of the whole to our William Baldwin and George Ferrers. The time of his death is not specified, but he appears to have lived some years after the accession of queen Elizabeth.

Bishop Bale’s fame now principally rests on his valuable collection of British biography, which was first published, under the title of “lllustrium Majoris Britanniae scriptorum, hoc est, Anglic, Cambriae et Scotia?, Summarium,” Ipswich, 1549, 4to, containing only five centuries of writers. To these he added afterwards four more centuries, with many additions and improvements on the first edition, the whole printed in a large folio, at Basil, by Oporinus, 1559. The title is greatly enlarged, and informs us, that the writers, whose lives are there treated of, are those of the Greater Britain, namely, England and Scotland that the work commences from Japhet, one of the sons of Noah, and is carried down through a series of 3618 years, to the year of our Lord 1557, at which time the author was an exile for religion in Germany that it is collected from a great variety of authors, as Berosus, Gennadius, Bede, Honorius, Boston of Bury, Fruaientarius, Capgrave, Bostius, BureU lus, Trithemius, Gesner, and our great antiquary John Leland that it consists of nine centuries, comprises the antiquity, origin, annals, places, successes, the more remarkable actions, sayings, and writings of each author; in all which a due regard is had to chronology the whole with this particular view, that the actions of the reprobate as well as the elect ministers of the church may historically and aptly correspond with the mysteries described in the Revelation, the stars, angels, horses, trumpets, thunder ­ings, heads, horns, mountains, vials, and plagues, through every age of the same church. There are appendixes to many of the articles, and an account of such actions of the contemporary popes as are omitted by their flatterers, Cargulanus, Platina, &c. together with the actions of the monks, particularly those of the mendicant order, who (he says) are meant by the locusts in the Revelation, ch. ix. ver. 3 and 7. To these Appendixes is added a perpetual succession both of the holy fathers and the antichrists of the church, with curious instances from the histories of various nations and countries in order to expose their adulteries, debaucheries, strifes, seditions, sects, deceits, poisonings, murders, treasons, and innumerable impostures. The book is dedicated to Otho Henry, prince palatine of the Rhine, duke of both the Bavarias, and elector of the Roman empire and the epistle dedicatory is dated from Basil in September, 1557. Afterwards^ in 1559, appeared a continuation of the workj with the addition of five more centuries (which the editors of the Biog. Brit, call a new edition). His other works are divided by Fuller into two parts, those he wrote when a papist, and those when a protestant: but Fuller’s list containing only the subjects of his works, and not the titles or dates, we shall prefer the following list from Ames and Herbert; premising, that, according to Fox, in his Acts and Monuments, Bale wrote some books under the name of John “Harrison. He was the sou of Henry Bale, and on that account, perhaps, took the name of Harrison l.” The Actes of Englysh Votaries, comprehending their unchast practyses and examples by all ages > from the world’s beginning to this present year, collected out of their own legendes and chronicles, 8vo, 1546> 1548, 1551, and 1560. 2. “Yet a course at the Homy she Fox,” by John Harrison, i. e. Bale, Zurich, 1543. From this was published the “Declaration of William Tolwyn,” London, date uncertain, Ames says 1542, which must be a mistake. 3. “The Apology of JohanBale agaynste a ranke Papyst, answering both hym and hys doctours, that neyther their vowes nor yet their pricsthotic are of the gospel, but of Antichrist;” with this, “A brefe exposycion upon, the xxx chapter of Numeri,” London, 15,50, 8vo. 4. “An Expostulation or Coinplaynt, agaynste the blasphemy es of a frantic Papyst of Hamshyrc,” with metrical versions ef the 23d and 130th Psalms,“London, 1552, and 1584, 8vo. 5.” The Image of both Churches, after the most wonderiul and heavenly Revelation of Sainct John the Evangelist, contayning a very fruitefull exposicion or paraphrase upon the same,“first, second, and third parts, London, 1550, and 1584, 8vo. 6. A brefe Chronicle concerning the examination and death of the blessed Martir of Christ, Sir Johan Oldecastle, Lord Cobham,” 1544 and 1576, 8vo, reprinted also in 1729. 7. “The vocacyon of Johan Bale to the Bishoprick of Ossorie in Ireland, his persecucions in the same, and final deliveraunce,” London, 1553, 8vo. Herbert mentions two editions in the same year. 8. “A Declaration of Edmonde Bonner’s Articles, concerning the Cleargye of London Dyocese, whereby that execrable amychriste is in his righte colours reueled in the year of our Lord 1554. Newlye set fourth and allowed,” London, 1561, 8vo. 9, “The Pageant of Popes, containing the lyves of all the bishops of Rome from the beginninge of them to the yeare of grace 1555, London, 4to, 1574. This is a translation from Bale’s Latin edition, by J. S. i. e. John Stu'dley. 10.” A new Comedy or Interlude, concerning the Laws of Nature, Moises, and Christ,“London, 1562, 4to. This was written in 1532, and first printed in the time of Edward VI. 11.” A Tragedie or Enterlucle, manifesting the chief promises of God unto man, by all ages in the olde lawe, from the fall of Adam to the incarnation,“London, 1577, 4to. 12.” A Mystereye of Inyquyte contayned within the heretycall genealogye of Ponce Pantolabus, is here both dysclosed and confuted,“Geneva, 1545, 16mo. 13.” The First Examination of the worthy servaunt of God Mastres Anne Askew,“Marpurg, 1546, 16mo, and the” Lattre Examinacion“of the same, ibid. 1547. 14.” A brife and fay th full declaration of the true Faith in Christ,“1547, IGmo. Mr. Herbert conjectures this to be Bale’s. The initials only of the author are given. 15.” The laboryouse journey and serche of Johan Leylande, for En glandes Antiquitees, &c.“London, 1549, 16mo, reprinted in the Life of Leland (with those of Wood and Hearne) 1772, and followed there by a memoir of Bale. 16.” The confession -of the synner after the sacred scriptures, 1549, 8vo. 17. “A Dialogue or Communycacyon to be had at a table between two chyldren gathered out of the Holy Scriptures, by John Bale for his two yonge sonnes, Johan acid Paule,” London, 1549. He also translated, l.“Bapt. Mantuanus’s treatise on Death,” London, 1584, 8vo. 2. “The true hystorie of the Christen departynge of the reverend man D. Martyne Luther, &c.” 1546, 8vo. 3. “A godly Medytacyon of the Christen Soule, from the French of Margaret queen of Navarre,” London, probably, 1548, 5vo. Tanner has given a list of his Mss. and where preserved. These printed works are now rarely to be met with, and many of them, particularly his dramatic pieces, may be consigned to oblivion without much regret. The “Acts of. the English Votaries,” and other pieces written against the Papists, are best known, although censured for their intemperance and partiality. The character, indeed, of few writers has been more variously represented., Gesner, in his Bibliotheca, calls him a writer of the greatest diligence, and bishop Godwin gives him the character of a laborious inquirer into British antiquities. Similar praise is bestowed on him by Humphrey in his “Vaticinium de Koma,” and by Vogler in his “Introduct. Universal, in notit. Scriptor.” who also excuses his asperity against the Papists, from what England had suffered from them, and adds, that even the popish writers cannot help praising his great biographical work. On the other hand, bishop Montague, Andreas Valerius, and Vossius, while they allow his merit as a writer, object to his warmth and partiality. Pitts, his successor in British biography, and a bigotted Papist, rails against him without mercy, or decency, but may be forgiven on account of the pains he took to give us a more correct book, or at least, what could be alleged on the other side of the question. Even Fuller imputes intemperance of mind to him, and calls him “Biliosus Balseus,” imputing his not being made a bishop, on his return, by queen Elizabeth, to this cause but it is equally probable, that he had conceived some prejudices against the hierarchy, while residing with the Geneva reformers abroad. We know this was the case with Coverdale, a man of less equivocal character. Wharton, in his “Anglia Sacra,” and Nicolson, in his “Historical Library,” censure those errors which in Bale were either unavoidable, or wilful, in dates, titles of books,- and needlessly multiplying the latter. After all these objections, it will not appear surprising that Bale’s work was speedily inserted among the prohibited books, in the Index Expurgatorius. Such a writer was naturally to be forbidden, as an enemy to the see of Rome. From one accusation, the late Dr. Pegge has amply defended him in his “Anonymiana” It was said that after he had transcribed the titles of the volumes of English writers which fell into his hands, he either burnt them or tore them to pieces. This calumny was first pub^ lished by Struvius in his “Acta Literaria,” upon the authority of Barthius. Upon the whole, with every deduction that can be made from his great work, it must ever be considered as the foundation of English biography, and as such, men of all parties have been glad to consult it, although with the caution necessary in all works written in times of great animosity of sentiment, and political and religious controversy.

, a French antiquary, was born at Marnay, in 1700, and entered the order of the barefooted Carmelites. He was afterwards promoted to be bishop of Babylon, and French consul, and during his residence in the east, acquired the esteem and confidence of the native powers, as well as of the French merchants. He published “Relation faite a Rome, 1754, a le pape Benoit XIV. du commencement, du progres, et de l'etat present de la mission de Babylone,” Fr. and Lat. Rome, 1754, 12mo, which, although often reprinted, is nowscarce. He had also a taste for the fine, arts, and formed a noble collection of medals, amounting to six thousand three hundred pieces, of which one of his nephews printed a catalogue. Having travelled over the Christian establishments of Asia, he had an opportunity of examining the accounts of former travellers, and his observations, in the form of a journal, were deposited in the library of the duke of Orleans. From these D'Anville extracted the description of an ancient piece of sculpture, which he inserted in vol. XVII. of the Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions. Ballyet died of the plague, at Bagdad, in 1773.

, one of the promoters of the reformation in Scotland, was born at Kircaldy, in the county of Fife, in the reign of James V. and educated at the university of St. Andrew’s. He afterwards went to France, in order to complete his studies and, returning to Scotland, was admitted into the family of the earl of Arran, who at that time governed the kingdom; but in the year 1542 the earl dismissed him, for having embraced the Protestant religion. In 1546 he joined the murderers of cardinal Beaton, although without having been concerned in that act, yet for this he was declared a traitor, and excommunicated. Whilst that party were besieged in the castle of St. Andrew’s, they sent Balnaves lo England, who returned with a considerable supply of provisions and money but, being at last obliged to surrender to the French, he was sent, with the rest of the garrison, to France. He returned to Scotland about the year 1559, and having joined the congregation, he was appointed one of the commissioners to treat with the duke of Norfolk on the part of queen Elizabeth. In 1563 he was made one of the lords of session, and appointed by the general assembly, with other learned men, to revise the book of discipline. The celebrated reformer Knox, his contemporary, gives him the character of a very learned and pious divine, and we learn from Calderwood’s ms history, and from Sadler’s State Papers, that he raised himself by his talents and probity, from an obscure station to the first honours of the state, and was justly regarded as one of the principal supporters of the reformed cause in Scotland. It is added, that when a boy, he travelled to the continent, and hearing of a free school at Cologne, procured admission to it, and received a liberal education. He died at Edinburgh in 1579. It was during his confinement at Rouen in France that he wrote a treatise on justification, and the works and conversation of a justified man, which was revised hy Knox, who added a recommendatory dedication, and desired it might he printed. The ms. however, was not discovered until after Knox’s death, when it was published in 1584, 8vo, with the title of “Confession of Faith, &c. by Henry Balnaves, of Halhill, one of the lords of council, and lords of session.” According to Irvine, it was printed at Edinburgh, but M'Rie speaks of a London edition of the same date. Mackenzie erroneously divides it into two works, one “A treatise concerning Justification,” Edin. 1550, and the other, “A Catechism or Confession of Faith,” ib. 1584, From a poem subscribed Balnaves, having appeared in Ramsay’s collection, he has been ranked among the minor poets of Scotland.

, a French writer, Lorn in 1594 at Angouleme. When about seventeen years of age he went to Holland, where he composed a discourse on the state of the United Provinces. He accompanied also the duke d'Epernon to several places. In 1621 he was taken into the service of the cardinal de la Valette, with whom he spent eighteen months at Rome. Upon his return he retired to his estate at Balzac, where he remained for several years, till he was drawn thence by the hopes he had conceived of raising his fortune under cardinal llichelieu, who had formerly courted his friendship but being in a few years tired of the dependent state of a court- life, he went again to his country retirement all he obtained from the court was a pension of two thousand livres, with the addition of the titles of counsellor of state and historiographer of France, which he used to call magnificent trifles, He was much esteemed as a writer, especially for his letters, which went through several editions, but there were in his own time some critics who started up against him the chief of these was a young Feuillant, named Andre de St. Denis, who wrote a piece entitled, “The conformity of M. de Balzac’s eloquence, with that of the greatest men in the past and present times.” Although this piece was not printed, yet it was circulated very extensively, which made Balzac wish to have it publicly refuted, which was accordingly done by prior Ogier in 1627, with the assistance of Balzac himself. Father Goulu, general of the Feuillants, undertook the cause of brother Andre, and, under the title of Phyllarchus, wrote two volumes of letters against Balzac. Several other pieces were also written against him, but he did not think proper then to answer his adversaries he did, indeed, write an apology for himself, but this was never made public till it appeared witli some other pieces of his in 1645. The death of his chief adversary father Goulu having happened in 1629, put an end to all his disputes, and restored him to a state of tranquillity for father Andre de St. Denis, who had been the first aggressor, became heartily reconciled, and went to pay him a visit at Balzac.

, a native of Florence, and a Dominican of Fiesoli, and doctor of divinity, gained the esteem and friendship of Ferdinand I. grand duke of Tuscany, and was sent by him into France during the troubles, that he might give an account of them. Being at Lyons 1593, Peter Barnere, a young man of twentyseven, consulted him upon the horrid design of assassinating Henry IV. Banchi, zealous for France and the royal family, directly mentioned it to a lord of the court, pointed out the young man to him, and entreated him to ride off, with all possible speed, to acquaint the king with the danger which threatened him. The nobleman, going to Melun for that purpose, met Barriere, who had just entered the palace to perpetrate his crime. He was arrested, and being put to the torture, confessed all. The king, to reward Banchi, appointed him bishop of Angouleme, but he either resigned it 1608, in favour of Anthony de la Rochefoucauld, or declined it with the reserve of a moderate pension. He appears to have passed the rest of his life at Paris, in the convent of St. James; he was living in 1622, and was a great benefactor to that convent, among other things, by finishing the beautiful Salle des Artes at his own expence he was also very liberal to the convent at Fiesoli. His works are, “Histoire prodigieuse du Parricide de Barriere,” 1594, 8vo. “Apologie contre les Jug-emeus temeraires de ceux, qui out pense conserver la Religion Catholiqtie en faisant assassiuer les tres Chretiens Rois de France,” Paris, 1596, 8vo. “Le Rosaire spirituel de la sacree Vierge Marie,” &c. Paris, 1610, 12mo. Pere Banchi justifies himself in this work againsl some historians who had accused him of abusing Peter Barriere’s confession. He never confessed that young man, and the detestable project was only discovered to him by way of consultation.

, a celebrated antiquary, was born at Ragusa, a small republic situated in Dalmatia, on the coast of the Adriatic, and entered when young into the Benedictine order, in Meleda or Melita, an island not far from Ragusa. After taking the vows at Naples, he travelled over part of Italy, and intended to have settled at Florence, a place favourable for literary pursuits. During this journey his musical Skill, particularly on the organ, procured him a favourable reception at the different convents in his way, and enabled him to travel agreeably and without expense. On his arrival at Florence, although still ft very young man, he was found so able a linguist, that he was appointed to teach the learned languages in various religious houses of his order. The celebrated Montfaucon happening to visit Florence in 1700, he employed Banduri to examine the manuscripts which he wished to consult for a new edition of the works of St. Chrysostom, and conceived such an opinion of him as to recommend him to Cosmo II. grand duke of Tuscany, who then had a design of restoring the fame of the university of Pisa. But representing, at the same time, that it would be advantageous for so young a man to pass some years at Paris, in the abbey of St. Germain, for farther improvement, the grand duke consented, and Banduri arrived at Paris about the end of 1702, and was lodged in the abbey, where his patron Cosmo supplied him with every thing necessary and useful. His first studies here, agreeably to his original design, were turned to divinity, and ecclesiastial history, and in May 1705, he published the prospectus of an edition of the works of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, with prefaces, dissertations, and notes. This he intended to be followed by an edition of Thfodoriis of IVIopsuesta’s commentary on the minor prophets, and other ancient commentators. Happcning, however, in the course of his researches, to meet with several documents relative to the antiquities of Constantinople, he was advised to publish them, along with ethers already published and this gave rise to his most celebrated work, “Imperium Orientale, sive Antiquitatis Constantinopolitanae,” &c. Paris, 1711, 2 vols. folio. This work, which forms a valuable, and indeed necessary, supplement to Du Gauge’s works on the same subject, is divided into four parts, and illustrated with commentaries, geographical and topographical tables, medals, &c. Casiniir Oudin made a feeble attack on the merit of this work, but without acquiring any credit. In preparing this work Banduri discovered Du Gangers defects in the medallic history, and therefore began to collect all the medals of the Roman emperors to the last Palaeologus, or the taking of Constantinople, which he published at Paris, under the title “Numismata Imperatorum Romanorum, cum Bibliotheca nummaria, sive auctorum qui de re nummaria scripserunt,” 2 vols. folio, 1718, reprinted by John Albert Fabricius at Hamburgh in 1719, 4to. In both these works Banduri was assisted by the abbe Lama, of Naples, and yet more by M. de la Barre, who was his associate in the academy of the belles lettres. In 1715 he was elected an honorary academician, and was very assiduous in his attendance on that learned body. In 1723 he announced his new edition of Nicephorus and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, as being ready for publication in 4 vols. folio, but they never appeared. In 1724 he was appointed librarian to the duke of Orleans, with apartments in the palace, and there he died of an attack of the gout, Jan. 14, 1743, aged about seventy-two or seventy-three years. His eloge, by M.Freret, is inserted in the Memoirs of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, vol. XVI.

, an eminent English sculptor, born in 1735, was the son of Mr. William Banks, land-steward to the then duke of Beaufort, a situation which he occupied with honour and credit to himself, and from which he derived very handsome emolument. His eldest son Thomas, evincing a strong partiality for the arts, was placed with Mr. Kent, whose name is well known in the architectural annals of that period but, shewing afterwards a preference for sculpture, he studied that art with greater success in the royal academy, then lately instituted, and obtained the geld medal and other prizes for his productions he was also elected to be sent for three years to pursue his studies on the continent, at the expence of that establishment which was one of its regulations previous to the French revolution, when the disturbances in Italy rendered it difficult, if not impossible, for Englishmen to travel in that country. The residence of Mr. Banks was prolonged beyond the limits allowed by the academy for his enthusiastic admiration of the antique, which could then be seen only in perfection in that now despoiled country, and his eager endeavours to imitate the simplicity and elegance of its best specimens, made him unwilling to quit a spot where he could contemplate its beauties with unremitting delight. He met with some patronage from his countrymen who visited Rome and among others of his productions which were sent to this country, was a basso-relievo in marble, representing Caractacus with his family broughtprisoners before Claudius which now ornaments the entrance-hall at Stowe, the seat of the marquis of Buckingham a beautiful little figure of Pysche stealing the golden fleece, in marble also, which was intended as a portrait of the princess Sophia of Gloucester, and is still in her family and an exquisite figure of Cupid catching a butterfly, an emblem of loye tormenting the soul, the size of life, which perhaps for grace, symmetry of form, and accuracy of contour, has scarcely been equalled by a modern hand, and might almost vie with those productions of the ancients, to which his admiration, as well as emulation, had been so constantly directed.

, who was also surnamed Monnoyer, a painter of some note, who resided many years in England, was born at Lisle, in Flanders, in 1635. He was brought up at Antwerp, where his business was 'history painting but finding that his genius more strongly inclined him to the painting of flowers, he applied his talents, and in that branch became one of the greatest masters. When Le Brim had undertaken to paint the palace of Versailles, he employed Baptist to do the flower part, in which he displayed great excellence. The duke of Montague being then ambassador in France, and observing the merit of Baptist’s performances, invited him over into England, and employed him, in conjunction with La Fosse and Rousseau, to embellish Montague house, which is now the British museum and contains many of the finest productions of Baptist. “His pictures (says Mr. Pilkington in his Dictionary of Painters) are not so exquisitely finished as those of Van Huysum, but his composition and colouring are in a bolder style. His flowers have generally a remarkable freedom and looseness, as well in the disposition, as in pencilling together with a tone of colouring, that is lively, admirable, and nature itself. The disposition of his objects is surp'risingly elegant and beautiful and in that respect his compositions are easily known, and as easily distinguished from the performances of others.” A celebrated performance of this artist is a looking-glass preserved in Kensington palace, which he decorated with a garland of flowers, for queen Mary and it is mentioned as a remarkable circumstance, that her majesty sat by him during the greatest part of the time that he was employed ia painting it. He painted, for the duke of Ormond, six pictures of East India birds, after nature, which were in that nobleman’s collection at Kilkenny in Ireland, and afterwards came into the possession “of Mr. Pilkington. He died in Pall Mall, in the year 1699. There is a print of Baptist, from a painting of sir Godfrey Kneller, in Mr. Walpole’s” Anecdotes." He had a son, named Anthony Baptist, who also painted flowers and, in the style and manner of his father, had great merit. There was also another painter known by the name of John Baptist, whose surname was Caspars, and who was commonly called Lely’s Baptist. He was born at Antwerp, and was a disciple of Thomas Willebores Boschaert. During the civil war he came to England, and entered into the service of general Lambert; but after the restoration he was employed by sir Peter Lely, to paint the attitudes and draperies of his portraits. He was engaged in the same business under Riley and sir Godfrey Kneller. The portrait of Charles II. in Painters’ Hall, and another of the same prince, with mathematical instruments, in the hall of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, were painted by this Baptist, who died in 1691, and was buried at St. James’s.

, a celebrated lawyer of the fifteenth century, was a native of Placentia, and professor of feudal law at Pavia and Ferrara. He made a new arrangement of the law of Lombardy, and sent it to the duke of Mila,n, who placed it in the library of Pavia, and ordered that the professors of Pavia should use it as a textbook. This manuscript, as well as the library in which it was deposited, was removed to France under the reign of Louis XII. Nicolas Rigault printed it at Paris in 1612, under the title “De Feudis liber singularis,” and John Schilter reprinted it in 1695, 4to, under its proper title of “Libeilus feudorum reformatus.”

, the son of Candiano Barbaro, was an accomplished soldier and a man of letters. He was a scholar of the celebrated Chrysoloras, under whom he studied Greek and Latin. His character raised him to the highest offices in the republic of Venice, and he acquired great reputation on account of the bravery with which he defended the city of Brescia, when governor, against the forces of the duke of Milan. It was riot less to his credit that he was able to reconcile the two opposite factions of the Avogadri and the Martinenghi, and prevailed on them to support the common cause. He died procurator of St. Mark, in 1454. Rewrote a Latin treatise on marriage, which was published by Badius Ascensius, in Paris, 1513, 4to, entitled “F. Barbari patricii Veneti oratorisque clarissimi de Re Uxoria libelli duo.” It is a work of pure morality, and contains excellent advice, in a very perspicuous style, and has been often reprinted, and translated into French. Barbaro also translated the lives of Aristides and Cato from Plutarch, and his letters were printed at Brescia, 1743, 4to. Bayle has a long note, by which it appears somewhat doubtful, whether the defender of Brescia and the writer of the “De Re Uxoria,” were the same person.

In June 1484, having again retired to Padua, to avoid the plague then raging at Venice, he undertook, at the earnest request of several of the students, to expound some of the Grecian poets and orators, particularly Theocritus and Demosthenes. He had already borne two important offices in the republic, and was exulted to the dignity of senator in 1484, in the thirtieth year of his age. In the same year he opened, at his own house at Venice, a private school of philosophy, delivering his lectures at an early hour in the morning, and although he meant to admit only a few friends, his audience speedily increased, and he continued this employment until June 1485, when he was appointed on an embassy to congratulate the archduke Maximilian, who had recently been elected king of the Romans. On this occasion, Maximilian, whom he addressed in a complimentary oration, conferred on him order of knighthood. In 1488, the senate again interrupted his favourite studies, by appointing him ambassador to Ludovico Sforza, duke of Milan, an office which his grandfather and father had both formerly filled. At Milan, his house became the general resort of the learned, and he contrived, amidst his public labours, to resume his criticisms on Aristotle and Dioscorides. In 1490, he returned to his native city, and about a year after, was appointed ambassador in ordinary to pope Innocent VIII. who conferred the patriarchate upon Hermolaus, and he accepted it, notwithstanding he knew that the republic of Venice had made an express law forbidding all the ministers they sent to Rome to accept of any benefice. Hermolaus excused himself by saying the pope forced him to accept of the prelacy but this availed nothing with the council of ten, who signified to him that he must renounce the patriarchate, and if he refused to comply, that Zachary Barbarus his father should be degraded from all his dignities^ and his estate confiscated. Zachary was a man much advanced in years, and filled one of the chief posts in the commonwealth. He employed all the interest in his power to gain the consent of the republic to his son’s being patriarch but his endeavours proved ineffectual, and Hernaolaus was condemned by the Venetians to perpetual exile.

, a learned and eminent Civilian, was born in Aberdeenshire, in 1541, and descended from one of the best families in Scotland. He was in favour with Mary queen of Scots but, after that princess was dethroned, and detained in captivity in England, finding that he had no prospect of making his fortune in the court of her son James, he resolved to retire into France, which. he did about 1573. He was then more than thirty years of age, and went to Bourges, in order to study law. He there took his doctor’s degree in that faculty, and had applied himself so closely to his books, that he was qualified to fill a chair. Edmund Hay, the Jesuit, who was his countryman, and is said to have been related to him, procured him accordingly a professorship in civil law in the university of Pontamousson, by his interest with the duke of Lorrain, who had lately founded that seminary. And the duke not only conferred upon Barclay the first professorship, but also appointed him counsellor of state, and master of requests. In 1581, Barclay married Anne de Malleville, a young lady of Lorrain, by whom he had his son John, who afterwards became a writer of considerable note, and whom the Jesuits endeavoured to prevail on to enter into their society. But Barclay opposing their scheme, the Jesuits resented it so highly, and did him so many ill offices with the duke, that he was obliged to leave Lorrain. He then went to London, where king James I. is said to have offered him a place in his council, with a considerable pension but he declined these offers, because it was made a necessary condition of his accepting them, that he should embrace the protestant religion. In 1604, he returned into France, and accepted the professorship of the civil law, which was offered him by the university of Angers. He taught there with reputation, and is said to have been fond of making a splendid appearance in his character of professor. But he did not hold this office long, dying in 1606. He was buried in the church of the Franciscans. He appears to have been much prejudiced against the Protestants and was a zealous advocate for passive obedience, and the divine right of kings, as appears from his writings, of which the following are “the principal, 1.” De Reguo et llegali Potestate ad versus Buchananum, Brutum, Boucherium, et reliquos Monarchoniachos,“Paris, 1600, dedicated to Henry IV. 2.” De Potestate Papse, quatenus in Reges et Principes seculares Jus et Imperium habeat,“Franco!'. 1609, 1613, 1621, Hannovias, 1612, in 8vo, and Lond. in English, 1611, in 4to, Mussiponti, 1610, 8vo, and Parisiis, 1600, 4to. In this he proves that the pope has no power, direct or indirect, over sovereigns in temporals, and that they who allow him, any such power, whatever they may intend, do very great prejudice to the Roman catholic religion. 3.” A commentary upon the Title of the Pandects de Rebus creditis et de Jure] urando,“Paris, 1605, 8vo. 4.” Prcemetia in vitam Agricolse," Paris, 1599, 2 vols. 8vo. This last is said to be an excellent commentary on Tacitus. There are two letters from him to Lipsius in Burman’s Sylloges Epistolarum, and four from Lipsius to him.

, son of the preceding, was born at Pontamousson, Jan. 28, 1582. He was educated at the college of the Jesuits in his native place, and when only nineteen years old, published notes on the Thebais of Statins. The Jesuits, as already noticed in his father’s life, remarked his genius for literature, and attempted to win. him to their order, but his father looked on that attempt as a breach of trust. Hence there arose a quarrel between him and the Jesuits, who at that time were in high credit with the duke of Lorraine. He therefore quitted Lorraine in disgust, and conducted his son to London. This was in 1603, just after the accession of his native sovereign to the English throne. In 1604 young Barclay presented to the king a poetical panegyric, as a new year’s gift, and soon after dedicated to him the first part of the Latin satire entitled “Euphormion.” “I had no sooner left school,” says Barclay in his Apology prefixed, “than the juvenile desire of fame incited me to attack the whole world, rather with a view of promoting my own reputation, than of dishonouring individuals,” a candid and singular confession, but which, in the opinion of his biographer, he ought to have made before he had learnt that his satires disgusted the public. In the dedication to Euphormion he intimated his wish to enter into the service of king James, and professed himself alike ready in that service, “to convert his sword into a pen, or his pen into a sword.” To excel was his ruling passion and youthful self-sufficiency led him to hope that he might, excel in every department but his flatteries, and even his confidence, availed not. His father was conscientiously attached to the church of Rome, and his son professed the same.

Barclay’s Latin style, in his Argenis, has been much praised, and much censured but upon the whole it is elegant. It is said, that cardinal Richelieu was extremely fond of reading this work, and that from thence he derived many of his political maxims. It is observed in the preface to the last English translation, that “Barclay’s Argenis affords such variety of entertainment, that every kind of reader may find in it something suitable to his own taste and disposition the statesman, the philosopher, the soldier, the lover, the citizen, the friend of mankind, each may gratify his favourite propensity while the reader, who comes for his amusement only, will not go away disappointed.” It is also remarked of this work in the same preface, that “it is a romance, an allegory, and a system of politics. In it the various forms of government are investigated, the causes of faction detected, and the remedies pointed out for most of the evils that can arise in a state.” Cowper, the celebrated poet, pronounced it the most amusing romance ever written. “It is,” he adds in a letter to Sam. Rose, esq. “interesting in a high degree; richer'trt incident than can be imagined, full of surprizes, which the reader never forestalls, and yet free from all entanglement and confusion. The style too appears to me to be such as would not dishonour Tacitus himself.” In this political allegory, “by the kingdom of Sicily, France is described during the time of the civil wars under Henry the Third. and until the fixing the crown upon the head of Henry the Fourth. By the country over-against Sicily, and frequently her competitor, England is signified. By the country, formerly united under one head, but now divided into several principalities, the author means Germany; i. e. Mergania. Several names are disguised in the same manner, by transposing the letters.” As to the principal persons designed, “by Aquilius is meant the emperor of Germany, Calvin is Usinulca, and the Hugenots are called Hyperephanii, Under the person and character of Poliarchus, Barclay undoubtedly intended to describe that real hero, Henry of Navarre, as he has preserved the likeness even to his features and complexion. By his rivals are meant the leaders of the different factions’; by Lycogenes and his friends, the Lorrain party, with the duke of Guise at their head. Some features of Hyanisbe’s character are supposed to resemble queen Elizabeth of England Radirobanes is the king of Spain, and his fruitless expedition against Mauritania is pointed at the ambitious designs of Philip the Second, and his invincible armada. Under Meleander, the character of Henry the Third of France seems intended though the resemblance is very flattering to him.”

, a very learned divine and bishop in the seventeenth century, was born at Langhill, in the parish of Orton, in Westmorland, in 1607; being the son <*f Mr. Richard Barlow, descended from the ancient family of Barlow-moore in Lancashire. He had his first education at the free-school at Appleby, in his own country. From thence being removed, in the sixteenth year of his age, to Queen’s college in Oxford, he took his degrees in arts, that of master being completed the 27th of June, 1633, and the same year was chosen fellow of his college. In 1635, he was appointed metaphysic-reader in the university; and his lectures being much approved of, were published in 1637 for the use of the scholars. When the garrison of Oxford surrendered to the parliament in 1646, he submitted to the persons then in power and by tb-^ interest of colonel Thomas Kelsey, deputy governor of that garrison, or more likely by that of Selden or Dr. Owen, preserved his fellowship, notwithstanding the parliamentary visitation, of which he gave a ludicrous account, in a pamphlet entitled “Pegasus.” In 1652 he was elected keeper of the Bodleian library and about the same time, was made lecturer of Church-hill, near Burford, in Oxfordshire. July 23, 1657, he took his degree of bachelor in divinity and, in the latter end of the same year, was chosen provost of his college, on the death of the learned Dr. Langbaine. After the restoration of king Charles II. he procured himself to be one of the commissioners, appointed first by the marquis of Hertford, chancellor of the university, and afterwards by the king, for restoring the members which were ejected in 1648. The 2d of August, 1660, he was not only created doctor in divinity among the royalists, but also chosen Margaret professor of divinity, the 1st of September following, upon the ejection of Henry Wilkinson, senior. He wrote, the same year, “The case of a Toleration in matters of religion,' 7 addressed to the famous Rob. Boyle, esq. in which that subject fs handled with great candour. In 1661, he was appointed archdeacon of Oxford, in the room of Dr. Barten Holiday, deceased but he was not installed till June 13, 1664, owing to a contest between him and Dr. Thomas Lamplugh about thut dignity, which, after having lasted some time, was at length decided in favour of Dr. Barlow, at the assizes held at Oxford, March 1, 1663-4. Being eminent for his skill in the civil and canon law, he was often applied to as a casuist, to resolve cases of conscience, about marriage, &c. And on one of these occasions, in 1671, he wrote” Mr. Cottington’s case of Divorce,“in which is discussed the validity of his marriage with a lady whose former husband was living and some years after, another case of marriage, inserted in his” Genuine remains.“Upon the death of Dr. W. Fuller, bishop of Lincoln, which happened April 22, 1675, he obtained, the same day, a grant of that bishopric, at the recommendation of some of the nobility, and chiefly through the interest of the two secretaries of state, Henry Coventry, esq. and sir Joseph Williamson, both some time of his college, and the first formerly his pupil. The 27th of June following, he was consecrated at Ely-house chapel. Archbishop Sheldon opposed his promotion, though the reasons of it are not assigned. After his advancement to this see, bishop Barlow wrote several curious things. They were generally short, and most of them by way of letter. The most considerable are these: In 1676,” The original of Sine Cures >“concerning” Pensions paid out of Churchlivings“and a” Survey of the numbers of Papists within the province of Canterbury” in 1679, “A letter concerning the Canon Law, allowing the whipping of heretics.” But he was most distinguished by his writings against popery the chief of which were, “Popery, or the principles and positions approved by the Church of Rome, &c. are very dangerous to all,” and “A discourse concerning the Laws ecclesiastical and civil, made against heretics by popes, emperors, and kings, provincial and general councils, approved by the Church of Rome,” evidently levelled against the duke of York. He expressed his zeal against the papists, not only in writing, but in action. For when, in 1678, after the discovery of the popish plot, a bill was brought into parliament, requiring all members of either house, and all such as might come into the king’s court, or presence, to take a test against popery our bishop appeared for that bill in the house of lords, and spoke in favour of it. Notwithstanding which we are told, that after king James II.'s accession to the throne, bishop Barlow took all opportunities to express his affection, or submission, to him for he sent up an address of thanks to him, for his first declaration for liberty of conscience, signed by six hundred of his clergy. He wrote reasons for reading that king’s second declaration for liberty of conscience he caused it to be read in his diocese , nay, he was prevailed upon to assert and vindicate the regal power of dispensing with penal laws, in an elaborate tract, with numerous quotations from canonists, civilians, and divines. And yet, after the revolution, he was one of those bishops who readily voted that king James had abdicated his kingdoms. He took the oaths to his successors and no bishop was more ready than he, to fill the places of such clergymen as refused to take the oaths to king William and queen Mary. There was nothing in this, however, inconsistent in one who held his sentiments *in favour of toleration. It is more doubtful that he was entirely addicted to the Aristotelian philosophy, and a declared enemy to the improvements made by the royal society, and to what he called in general the new philoso'phy. He was, however, a rigid Calvinist, and the school divinity was that which he most admired but when his attachment to Calvin’s notions engaged him in a public opposition to some of Mr. Bull’s works, he declined a public disputation on the subject. He has also been blamed for never appearing in his cathedral, nor visiting his diocese in person, but residing constantly at his manor of Bugden but against this he appears to have vindicated himself. His enemies are willing to allow that he was a good casuist, a man of very exten^ sive learning, an universal lover and favourer of learned me if, of what country or denomination soever, and a great master of the whole controversy between the Protestants and Papists. He died at Bugden, October 8, 1691, in the eighty-fifth year of his age; and was buried the llth of the said month, on the north side of the chancel belonging to that church, near the body of Dr. R. Sanderson, some time bishop of Lincoln, and, according to his own desire, in the grave of Dr. William Barlow, formerly bishop of the same see to whose memory, as well as his own, is erected a monument, with an inscription which he composed himself a few days before his death. He bequeathed to the Bodleian library, all such books of his own, as were not in that noble collection at the time of his death and the remainder he gave to Queen’s college in Oxford, on which the society erected, in 1694, a noble pile of buildings, on the west side of their college, to receive them. All his manuscripts, of his own composition, he left to his two domestic chaplains, William Otfley and Henry Brougham, prebendaries of Lincoln, with a particular desire that they would not make any of them public after his decease. Besides the works already mentioned, he wrote against popery, 1.'“Confutation of the infallibility of the church of Rome,” written in 167S. 2. “A letter to J. Evelyn, esq. concerning invocation of Saints, and adoration of the Cross,” London, 1679, 4 to. 3. The same year he reprinted in 8vo, “The Gun-powder Treason, with a discourse of the manner of its discovery, &c.” printed at first in 1606, and placed in the beginning of it, “A preface touching that horrid conspiracy, dated Feb. 1, 1678-9.” 4. “Brutum Fulmen, or the bull of pope Pius Sextus against queen Elizabeth,” 1681, 4tn. 5. “Whether the pope be Antichrist, &c.” 6. “A few plain reasons why a Protestant of the church of England should not turn Roman catholic,” 1688. Some sheets of this, not being licensed, were omitted. Besides these, he is the author of the following 7. “Pietas in Patrem, or a few tears upon the lamented death of his most dear and loving Father Richard Barlow, late of Langhill in Westmorland, who died December 29, 1636,” Oxford, 1637, 4to. 8. “A letter to Mr. John Goodwin, concerning Universal Redemption, by J. Christ,” 1651. 9. “For toleration of the Jews,” 3655. 10. “A letter to Mr. John Tombes in defence of Anabaptism, inserted in one of Tombes’s books.” 11. “A tract to prove that true grace doth not lie so much in the degree, as in the nature.” This also is inserted in a book, entitled Sincerity and Hypocrisy, &c. written by William Sheppard, esq. 12. “The Rights of the Bishops to judge in capital eases in parliament cleared, &c.” Lond. 1680. Dr. Barlow did not set his name to this, and it was by some ascribed to Tho. Turner of Gray’s-inn. 13. “A letter (to his clergy) for the putting in execution the Laws against Dissenters, written in concurrence to that which was drawn up by the justices of the peace of the county of Bedford, at the quarter-sessions held at Ampthill for the said county, Jan. 14, 1684.” After his decease, sir Peter Pett lisbed in 1692, 8vo, “Several miscellaneous and weighty cases of conscience, learnedly and judiciously resolved by the right rev. father in God, Dr. T ho. Barlow, late lord bishop of Lincoln.” Sir Peter published also in 1693, Lond. 8vo, 14. “The genuine Remains of that learned prelate, Dr. Thomas Barlow, late lord bishop of Lincoln, containing divers discourses, theological, philosophical, historical, &c. in letters to several persons of honour and quality.” But these two volumes being published without the knowledge or consent of the bishop’s two chaplains above-mentioned, to whom he had left all his manuscripts, with orders that they should not be published, they severely Reflected upon the publisher, for the unwarrantable liberty he had taken.

, a learned divine and professor of Greek at Cambridge, was the son of a tradesman of London, where he was born Jan. 10, 1654. He was educated in Christ’s hospital, where he distinguished himself by his early knowledge of Greek, and by some poems in Latin and English, written before he went to the University. On Dec. 11, 1671, he was admitted a servitor in Emanuel college, Cambridge. In 1675 he published at London, his “Gerania;” and in June 1678 was elected fellow of his college. The following year, he published his “Poetical paraphrase on the History of Esther.” In 1686 he took the degree of B. D. and in 1688, published his life of Edward III. dedicated to king James II. In 1694, came out his edition of Euripides, dedicated to Charles duke of Somerset; and in 1695, he was chosen Greek professor of the university of Cambridge. In 1705, he published at Cambridge, his edition of Anacreon, dedicated to the duke of Marlborough and in 1710 his Homer, the Iliad dedicated to the earl of Pembroke, and the Odyssey to the earl of Nottingham. He died Aug. 3, 1712, and was buried at Hemingford, where there is a monument erected to him by his widow.

In 1700, he married Mrs. Mason, a widow lady of Hemingford, near St. Ives, in Huntingdonshire, with a jointure of c200 per annum. The common report is, that this lady, who was between forty and fifty, having for some time been a great admirer of Mr. Barnes, came to Cambridge, and desired leave to settle an hundred pounds a year upon him after her death which he politely refused, unless she would condescend to make him happy in her person^ which was none of the most engaging. The lady was too obliging to refuse any thing to “Joshua, for whom,” she said, “the sun stood still” and soon after they were married. This jointure was probably a help to him, but he had no church preferment, and bore a considerable part in the printing of some of his works, particularly his Homer. It appears that he was much involved with the expence of this work, and wrote two supplicating letters on the subject to the earl of Oxford, which are now in the British Museum, and weiae copied some years ago, and printed in the St. James’s Chronicle by George Steevens, esq. What the effect of them was, we know not but it is said that he at one time generously refused c2000 a year which was offered to be settled upon him. Upon the same authority we are told that a copy of verses which he wrote to prove that Solomon was the author of the Iliad, was not so much from the persuasion of his own mind, as to amuse his wife and by that means engage her to supply him with money towards defraying the expences of the edition. On his monument is a Latin inscription, and some Greek anacreontics by Dr. Savage, rather extravagant, but composed by way of pleasantry, and which his widow requested might be inscribed. The English translation, often reprinted, is professedly burlesque but one curious-fact is recorded on this monument, that he “read a small English Bible one hundred and twenty-one times at his leisure,” which, Mr. Cole remarks, is but once more than the learned duke de Montausier had read the Greek Testament. In one of the above-mentioned letters to Harley, he says, “I have lived in the university above thirty years fellow of a college, now above forty years standing, and fifty-eight years of age am bachelor of divinity, and have preached before kings.” How Mr. Barnes was neglected in church preferment cannot now be ascertained, but it seems not improbable that he did not seek it, his whole life being spent in study, and his only wants, those which arose from the expense of his publications. His pursuits were classical, and although from his constant perusal of the Bible, we may infer his piety, we know little of him as a divine. The following is a Jist of Mr. Barnes’s works, published and unpublished; and from the latter, we may at least form a very high opinion of his industry. It is unnecessary, perhaps, to add that his editions of the classics are not now in the highest reputation. Their errors were pointed out in his life-time, and superior critics have in a great measure superseded the use of them. While at Christ-church he published, 1. "Sacred Poems, in five books, viz. I. Κοσμοποὖα, or the Creation of the World. II. The Fall of Adam and the Redemption by Christ. III. An Hymn to the Holy Trinity. IV. A Pastoral Eclogue upon the Restoration of King Charles II. and an Essay upon the Royal Exchange. V. Panegyris, or the Muses, &c.“These pieces are in English, with a Latin dedication, an. 1669. 2.” The Life of Oliver Cromwell, the Tyrant,“an English poem, 1670. 3. Several dramatic pieces, viz. Xerxes, Pythias and Damon, Holofernes, &c. some in English and some in Latin; the former written entirely by himself, the latter in conjunction with others. Also some tragedies of Seneca translated into English. 4.” Upon the Fire of London and the Plague,“a Latin poem in heroic verse. 5.” A Latin Elegy upon the beheading of St. John the Baptist.“He afterwards published, 6.” Gerania, or a new discovery of a little sort of people called Pigmies," 1655, 12mo. 7. Αυλιχοχάτοπτρον, sive Esthers Historia, Poetica Paraphrasi, idque Græco carmine, cui versio Latina opponitur, exornata; una cum Scholiis, seu Annotationibus Græcis; in quibus (ad sacri textus dilucidationem) præter alia non pauca, Gentium Orientalium Antiquitates, Moresque reconditiores proferuntur. Additur Parodia Homerica de eadem hac Historia. Accessit Index rerum ac verborum copiosissimus,“1679, 8vo. 8.” The History of that most victorious monarch Edward III. king of England and France, and lord of Ireland, and first founder of the most noble order of the Garter; being a full and exact account of the Life and Death of the said King; together with that of his most renowned son, Edward Prince of Wales and Acquitain, surnamed the Black Prince; faithfully and carefully collected from the best and most ancient authors domestic and foreign, printed books, manuscripts, and records,“Cambridge, 1688, fol. a very elaborate collection of facts, but strangely intermixed with long speeches from his own imagination, which he thought was imitating Thucydides. Of his judgment as an antiquary, it may be a sufficient specimen that he traced the institution of the order of the garter to the Phenicians, following his predecessor Aylet Sammes, who derives all our customs from the same ancient people. 9. His” Euripides,“1694, fol. 10.” His Anacreon,“1705 and 1721, 8vo, which he dedicated to the duke of Marlborough, who, it has been observed, knew nothing of Anacreon, or of Greek. 11. His Homer,” 2 vols. 1711, 4to. The verses he wrote proving that Solomon wrote the Iliad, are in ms. in the library of Emanuel college.

There is subjoined to the first edition of his Anacreon at Cambridge, 1705, a catalogue of works, which Mr. Barnes had either published, or intended to publish; which is omitted in the second edition of that poet, printed after his death in 1721, though it is mentioned in the contents and the prolegomena. In this catalogue, besides the books already mentioned, we find the following 1. The Warlike Lover, or the Generous Rival; an English dramatic piece upon the war between the English and Dutch, and the death of the earl of Sandwich, an. 1672. 2. ψονθομφανεὰχ, or Joseph the Patriarch a Greek heroic poem in one book. The author designed twelve books, but finished only one. 3. Ὀρειολογία, or our Saviour’s Sermon upon the Mount, the Decalogue, the Apostles Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Magnificat, with other hymns from the Old and New Testament, in Greek verse. 4. Thuribuluna, or the hymns and festivals in Greek verse. 5. Miscellanies and epigrams in Latin and Greek verse. 6. Αγγλα Βελγομαχία, or the death of Edward Montague, earl of Sandwich, in Greek, Latin, and English verse. 7. Ἀγεκτρυομαχία, or a poem upon Cock-fighting, an, 1673. 8. The Song of Songs, containing an hundred Hexastics in English heroic verse, an. 1674. 9. Σῶειδηριάδος; a ludicrous poem, in Greek macaronic verse, upon a battle between a Spider and a Toad, an. 1673. 10. Φληϊάδος, or a supplement to the old ludicrous poem under that title, at Trinity-house in Cambridge, upon a battle between the Fleas and a Welshman. 11. A Poetical Lexicon, Greek and Latin to which is added a Lexicon of proper names, 1675, fol. 12. A treatise on the Greek Accents, in answer to Henry Christian Heninius and others, with a discourse upon the Points now in use. 13. Humorous Poems upon the 9th by ok of the; Iliad, and the ninth of the Odyssey, in English published in 1681. 14. Franciados an heroic poem, in Latin, upon the Black Prince. The whole was to consist of twelve books, eight of which were finished. 15. The Art of War, in four books, in English prose, 1676. 16. Hengist, or the English Valour; an heroic poem in English, in seven books. 17. Landgarth, or the Amazon Queen of Norway and Denmark an English dramatic poem in heroic verse, designed in honour of the marriage between prince George of Denmark and princess Anne. 18. An Ecclesiastical History from the beginning of the world to the ascension of our Saviour, in Latin, to I. 19. Miscellaneous Poems in English. 20. Philosophical and Divine Poems, in Latin, published at different 'times at Cambridge. 21. Poems, and sacred daily Meditations, continued for several years in English. 22. A dissertation upon Pillars, Obelisks, Pyramids, &c. in Latin, 1692. 23. A discourse upon the Sibyls, in three books, in Latin. 24. The Life of Pindar in four lectures, and thirty-two lectures upon his first Olympic Ode. 25. The Life of Theocritus, and lectures upon that poet. 26. The Lives of David, Scanderbeg, and Tamerlane. These lives, he tells us, he never actually begun, but only made considerable collections for them. 27. The Life of Edward the Black Prince. 28. The University- Calendar, or directions for young students of all degrees, with relation to their studies, and general rules of ethics, and a form of prayer, anno 1685. 29. Thirty-two lectures upon the first book of the Odyssey. 30. Above fifty lectures upon. Sophocles. 31. Lectures upon Bereshith, with an oration recommending the study of the Hebrew language. 32. Three Discourses in Jtnglish. I. The Fortunate Island, or the Inauguration of Queen Gloriana. II. The Advantage of England, or a sure way to victory. III. The Cause of the Church of England defended and explained published in 1703. 33. Concio ad Clerum, for his degree of bachelor of divinity, at St. Mary’s in Cambridge, 1686. 3*. Occasional Sermons, preached before the lord-mayor, &c. 35. An Oration, recommending the study of the Greek language, spoken in the public schools at Cambridge before the vice-chancellor, March 28, 1705. 36. A Greek Oration, addressed to the most reverend father Neophytus, archbishop of philippopolis, spoken in the Regent-house at Cambridge, September 13, 1701, 37. A Prevaricator’s Speech, spoken at the commencement at Cambridge, 1680. 38. A Congratulatory Oration in Latin, spoken at St. Mary’s, September 9, 1683, upon the escape of king Charles Ji. and the duke of York from the conspiracy. 39. Sermons, orations, declamations, problems, translations, letters, and other exercises, in English, Latin, and Greek. 40. A Satire in English verse upon the poets and critics. 41. An imitation of Plautus’s Trinummi in English. 42. Interpretations, illustrations, emendations, and corrections of many passages, which have been falsely translated, with explications upon various passages of scripture, from Genesis to Revelations. 43. Common-places in divinity, philology, poetry, and criticism and emendations of various Greek and Latin authors, with fragments of many of the poets.

, a patrician or senator of Venice, distinguished for his knowledge in mathematics, flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century. Some of his translations, as well as original works, were published in his life-time, as 1. “Heronis liber de machinis bellicis, necnon liber de Geodiesia, ex Graeco Latine,” Venice, 1572, 4to. 2. “Procli in primuin elementorum Euclidis libri quatuor,” translated into Latin, Padua, 1560, fol. He was only twenty-two years of age, when he published this work. 3. A commentary on Plato, “de numero geometrico,” Boulogne, 1556; and 4. A system of Cosmography, Venice, 1585, 8vo. We have an account likewise of one of his writings, entitled “Cryptographia,” (or according to the Dict. Hist. “Rytmomachia,”) describing an ancient game attributed to Pythagoras. This was translated by Augustus duke of Brunswick and Lunenburgh, under the name of Gustavus Seienus. On Barocci’s death, his manuscripts were sold by his heirs, and came to the Bodleian library, as part of Langbaine’s collection.

, a learned French historian, antiquary, and biographer, was born at Tournay, March 9, 1688. His father, Paul Joseph de la Barre, an eminent lawyer, sent him early to Paris, where he made great proficiency in classical studies, particularly Greek, which he not only studied critically, but acquired considerable skill in the collation of ancient manuscripts, and the antiquities of the language. When Banduri came to Paris, with some works for the press, young de la Barre was recommended to him as an assistant in transcribing and comparing manuscripts, and it was by his aid that Banduri was enabled to publish his “Imperiwm Orientate,' 12 vols. folio, and his” Medals“(see Banduri) for which services Banduri prevailed on the grand duke of Tuscany to grant him a pension, which was punctually paid to de la Barre, until the death of the last sovereign of the house of Medici. As soon as de la Barre was at leisure from his eugagements with Bandnri, the booksellers employed him on a new edition of D'Acheri’s” Spicilegium,“which he accordingly undertook, and which was published in 1723, 3 vols. folio, in a very much improved state. He next contributed to the edition of Moreri’s dictionary of 1125. In 1727 he was admitted a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, a choice whjch the many learned papers he published in their memoirs fully justified. In the same year he undertook to continue the literary journal of Verdun, which he did during his life, and added much to its character. In 1729 he published a work very interesting to French historians,” Mcmoircs pour servir a l'histoire cie France et de Bourgogne.“In 1732 he published new editions of the” Secretaire du Cabinet,“and the” Secretaire dn Cour,“2 vols. 12mo; improving both very essentially, although we may be allowed to doubt whether” Letter-writing“can be effectually taught by models. In 1733 he revised and corrected an edition of M. cie Larrey’s” L'histoire de France, sous le regne de Louis XIV." 12 mo. In 1735 appeared a new history of Paris, in 5 vols, taken from that of father Lobineau, but la Barre wrote only the fifth volume. A very few months before his death he had projected a dictionary of Greek and Itoman antiquities, which was to form four folio volumes, and had executed some parts of it with great care and accuracy, at the time of his death, May 23, 1738. Hiseloge was pronounced by M. de Boze.

, brother to the preceding, and fifth son of the first lord viscount Harrington, was born in 1729, and entered very young into the service of the British navy, passing through the inferior stations of midshipman and lieutenant with great reputation. He first went to sea in the Lark, under the command of lord George Graham, and in 1744, he was appointed a lieutenant by sir William Rowley, then commanding a squadron in the Mediterranean. In 1746, he had the rank of master and commander in the Weazcl sloop, in which he took a French privateer off Flushing. During the same year, or in 1747, he became post-captain, by being appointed totheBellona frigate (formerly a French privateer) in which he took the Duke de Chartres outward bound East India ship, of 800 tons, and of superior force, after a severe engagement, in which the French lost many killed and wounded. After the peace of 1748, he had the command of the Sea-horse, a twenty-gun ship in the Mediterranean, and while there, was dispatched from Gibraltar to Tetuan, to 'negociate the redemption of some British captives, in which he succeeded. He had afterwards the command of the Crown man of war, on the Jamaica station, and was in commission during the greater part of the peace. When the war broke out again between Great Britain and France, in 1756, he was appointed to the command of the Achilles of 60 guns. In 1759, he signalized his courage in an engagement with the Count de St. Florentin, French man of war, of equal force with the Achilles she fought for two hours, and had 116 men killed or wounded, all her masts shot away, and it was with difficulty she was got into port. The Achilles had twenty-five men killed or wounded. In the Achilles, captain Barrington was after this dispatched to America, from whence she returned about the close of the year 1760. In the Spring of the ensuing year, captain Barrington served under admiral Keppel, at the siege of Belleisle. To secure a landing for the troops, it became necessary to attack a fort and other works, in a sandy bay, intended to be the place of debarkation; three ships, one of which was the Achilles, were destined to this service. Captain Barrington got first to his station, and soon silenced the fire from the fort and from the shore, and cleared the coast for the landing the troops, and although, soon obliged to re-embark, they were well covered by the Achilles, and other ships. Ten days after the troops made good their landing, at a place where the mounting the rock was, as the commanders expressed it, barely possible, and captain Barrington was sent home with this agreeable news. After the peace of 1763, captain Barrington in 1768 commanded the Venus frigate, in which ship the late duke of Cumberland was entered as a midshipman. In her he sailed to the Mediterranean, and as these voyages are always intended both for pleasure and improvement, he visited the most celebrated posts in that sea. Soon after his return, the dispute between Great Britain and Spain, respecting Falkland’s Island, took place, and on the fitting out of the fleet, captain Barrington was appointed to the command of the Albion, of 74 guns, and soon after made colonel of marines. He found some little difficulty, from a scarcity of seamen, in manning his ship, and had recourse to a humourous experiment. He offered a bounty. for all lamp-­lighters, and men of other trades which require alertness, who would enter; and soon procured a crew, but of such a description that they were, for some time, distinguished by the title of Barrington‘ s blackguards. He soon, however, changed their complexion. He had long borne the character of being a thoroughrbred seaman, and a rigid disciplinarian. His officers under him were the same, and they succeeded in making the Albion one of the best disciplined ships in the royal navy. The convention between the two courts putting an end to all prospect of hostilities, the Albion was ordered, as a guardship, to Plymouth; and in this situation captain Barrington commanded her for three years, made himself universally esteemed, and shewed that he possessed those accomplishments which adorn the officer and the man. In the former capacity he had so completely established his character, as to be looked up to as one who, in case of any future war, would be intrusted with some important command. In the latter, the traits of benevolence which are known, exclusive of those which he was careful to keep secret, shew, that with the roughness of a seaman, he possessed the benevolence of a Christian. An economical style of living enabled him to indulge his inclination that way, with a moderate income. On the breaking out of the war with France, captain Barrington, having then been thirty-one years a post-captain in the navy, was promoted to the rank of rear-admiral, and dispatched with a squadron to the West Indies. He found himself, on his arrival, so much inferior to the enemy, that he could riot preserve Dominica from falling into their hands. However, before the French fleet under D’Estaing could reach the West Indies, he was joined at Barbadoes by the troops under general Grant from America. He then immediately steered for St. Lucia, and the British troops had gained possession of a part of the island, when the French fleet, under the command of count D‘Estaing, appeared in sight. ’ Barrington lay in the Grand Cul de Sac, with only three ships-of the line, three of fifty guns, and some-frigates, and with this force, had not only to defend himself against ten sail of the line, many frigates, and American armed ships, but also to protect a large fleet of transports, having on board provisions and stores for the army, and which there had not yet been time to land; so that the fate of the army depended on that of the fleet. During the night the admiral caused the transports to be warped into the bay, and moored the men of war in a line without them. D'Estaing, elated with the hopes of crushing this small naval force under Barrington, attacked him next morning, first with ten sail of the line, but failing, he made a second attack with his whole force, and was equally unsuccessful, being only able to carry off one single transport, which the English had not time to warp within the line. This defence is among the first naval atchievements of the war. In an attack by land, on general Meadows’s intrenchments, the count was equally repulsed, and the island soon after capitulated. Admiral Byron shortly after arriving in the West Indies, Barrington, of course, became second in command only. In the action which took place between the British fleet and the French on the 6th of July, 1775, admiral Barrington, in the Prince of Wales, commanded the van division. The enemy were much superior to the English, but this discovery was not made till it was too late to remedy it. Admiral Barrington, in the Prince of Wales, with the Boyne and Sultan, pressed forward, soon closed with the enemy’s fleet, and bravely sustained their attack until joined by other ships. It was not, however, the intention of the French admiral to risk a general engagement, having the conquest of Grenada in view, and his ships being cleaner than those of the English, enabled him to choose his distance. The consequence was, that several of the British ships were very severely handled, whilst others had no share in the action. Barrington was wounded, and had twenty-six men killed, and forty-six wounded, in his own ship. Soon after this engagement, admiral Barrington, on account of ill-health, returned to England. These two actions established our admiral’s reputation, and he was looked on as one of the first officers in the English navy. The ferment of parties during the close of that war occasioned many unexpected refusals of promotion; and as admiral Barrington was intimately connected with lord Shelburne, col. Barre, and several other leading men in opposition, it was probably owing to this circumstance that he refused the command of the channel fleet, which was offered to him after the resignation of admiral Geary in 1780, and on his declining to accept it, conferred on admiral Darby. In 1782, he served, as second in command, under lord Howe, and distinguished himself at the memorable relief of Gibraltar. The termination of the war put a period to his active services. In February 1786, he was made lieutenant-general of marines; and on Sept. 24, 1787, admiral of the blue. During the last ten years of his life, his ill state of health obliged him to decline all naval command. He died at his lodgings in the Abbey Green, Bath, August 16, 1800.

In 1652, he commenced master of arts, and, on the 12th of June the following year, was incorporated in that degree at Oxford. When Dr. Duport resigned the chair of Greek. professor, he recommended his pupil Mr. Barrow to succeed him; who justified his tutor’s opinion of him by an excellent performance of the probation exercise: but being looked upon as a favourer of Arminianism, the choice fell upon another; and this disappointment, it is thought, helped to determine him in his resolution of travelling abroad. In order to execute this design, he was obliged to sell his books. Accordingly, in the year 1655, he went into France; where, at Paris, he found his father attending the English court, and out of his small means made him a seasonable present. The same year his “Euclid” was printed at Cambridge, which he had left behind him for that purpose. He gave his college an account of his journey to Paris in a poem, and some farther observations in a letter. After a few months, he went into Italy, and stayed sometime at Florence, where he had the advantage of perusing several books in the great duke’s library, and of conversing with Mr. Fitton, an Englishman, his librarian. Here his poverty must have put an end to his travels, had he not been generously supplied with money by Mr. James Stock, a young merchant of London, to whom he afterwards dedicated his edition of Euclid’s Data. He was desirous to have seen Rome; but the plague then raging in that city, he took ship at Leghorn, November the 6th 1656, for Smyrna. In this voyage they were attacked by a corsair of Algiers, who, perceiving the stout defence the ship made, sheered off and left her; and upon this occasion Mr. Barrow gave a remarkable instance of his natural courage and intrepidity. At Smyrna, he made himself welcome to Mr. Bretton the consul (upon whose death he afterwards wrote an elegy), and to the English factory. Front thence he proceeded to Constantinople, where he met with a very friendly reception from sir Thomas Bendish the English ambassador, and sir Jonathan Daws, with whom he afterwards kept up an intimate friendship and correspondence. This voyage, from Leghorn to Constantinople, he has described in a Latin poem. At Constantinople, he read over the works of St. Chrysostom, once bishop of that see, whom he preferred to all the other fathers. Having stayed in Turkey above a year, he returned from thence to Venice, where, soon after they were landed, the ship took fire, and was consumed with all the goods. From thence he came home, in 1659, through Germany and Holland, and has left a description of some parts of those countries in his poems. Soon after his return into England, the time being somewhat elapsed, before which all fellows of Trinity-college are obliged to take orders, or quit the society, Mr. Barrow was episcopally ordained by bishop Brownrig, notwithstanding the unsettled state of the times, and the declining condition of the church of England. Upon the king’s restoration, his friends expected he would have been immediately preferred on account of his having suffered and deserved so much; but it came to nothing, which made him wittily say (which he has not left in his poems),

However, he wrote an ode upon that occasion, in which he introduces Britannia congratulating the king upon his return. In 1660, he was chosen, without a competitor, Greek professor of the university of Cambridge. His oration, spoken upon that occasion, is preserved among his Opuscula. When he entered upon this province, he designed to have read upon the tragedies of Sophocles: but, altering his intention, he made choice of Aristotle’s rhetoric. These lectures, having been lent to a person who never returned them, are irrecoverably lost. The year following, which was 1661, he took the degree of bachelor in divinity. July the 16th, 1662, he was elected professor of geometry in Gresham-college, in the room of Mr. Lawrence Rooke, chiefly through the interest and recommendation of Dr. Wilkins, master of Trinity-college, and afterwards bishop of Chester. In this station, he not only discharged his own duty, but supplied, likewise, the absence of Dr. Pope the astronomy professor. Among his lectures, some were upon the projection of the sphere which being borrowed and never returned, are lost but his Latin oration, previous to his lectures, is in his works. The same year, 1662, he wrote an epithalamium on the marriage of king Charles and queen Catherine, in Greek verse. About this time, Mr. Barrow was offered a valuable living, but the condition annexed of teaching the patron’s son, made him refuse it, as too like a simouiacal contract. Upon the 20th of May 1663, he was elected a fellow of the royal society, in the first choice made by the council after their charter. The same year, Mr. Lucas having founded a mathematical lecture at Cambridge, Mr. Barrow was so powerfully recommended, by Dr. Wilkins, to that gentleman’s executors Mr. Raworth and Mr. Buck, that he was appointed the first professor; and the better to secure the end of so noble and useful a foundation, he took care that himself and his successors should be obliged to leave yearly to the university ten written lectures. We have his prefatory oration, spoken in the public mathematical school, March the 14th, 1664. Though his two professorships were not incompatible, he resigned that of Gresham-college, May the 20th, 1664. He had been invited to take the charge of the Cotton library; but, after ;a short trial, he declined it, and resolved to settle in the university. In 1669, he resigned the mathematical chair to his very worthy friend the celebrated Isaac Newton, being now determined to exchange the study of the mathematics for that of divinity, partly from a strong inclination for the latter, and partly because his mathematical works were less favourably received than he thought they deserved. In 1670, he wrote a Latin poem upon the death of the duchess of Orleans, an epicedium upon the duke of Albemarle, and a Latin ode upon the Trinity. He was only a fellow of Trinity-college, when he was collated by his uncle, the bishop of St. Asaph, to a small sinecure in Wales, and by Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, to a prebend in that cathedral; the profits of both which he applied to charitable uses, and afterwards resigned them, when he became master of his college. In the same year he was created doctor in divinity by mandate. In 1672, Dr. Pearson, master of Trinity-college, being, upon the death of bishop Wilkins, removed to the bishopric of Chester, Dr. Barrow was appointed by the king to succeed him; and his majesty was pleased to say upon that occasion, “he had given it to the best scholar in England.” His patent hears date February the 13th, 1672, with permission to marry, which he caused to be erased, as contrary to the statutes, and he was admitted the 27th of the same month. He gave the highest satisfaction to that society, whose interest he constantly and carefully consulted. In 1675, he was chosen vice-chancellor of the university. This great and learned divine died of a fever, the 4th of May 1677, and was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to him by the contribution of his friends. His epitaph was written by his friend Dr. Mapletoft. He left his manuscripts to Dr. Tillotson and Mr. Abraham Hill, with permission to publish what they should think proper. He left little behind him, except books, which were so well chosen, that they sold for more than the prime cost. Though he could never be prevailed to sit for his picture, some of his friends contrived to have it taken without his knowledge, whilst they diverted him with such discourse as engaged his attention. As to his person, he was low of stature, lean, and of a pale complexion, and negligent of his dress to a fault; of extraordinary strength, a thin skin, and very sensible of cold; his eyes grey, clear, and somewhat short-sighted; his hair a light brown, very fine, and curling. He was of a healthy constitution, very fond of tobacco, which he used to call his panpharmacon, or universal medicine, and imagined it helped to compose and regulate his thoughts. If he was guilty of any intemperance, it seemed to be in the love of fruit, which he thought very salutary. He slept little, generally rising in the winter months before day. His conduct and behaviour were truly amiable; he was always ready to assist others, open and communicative in his conversation, in which he generally spoke to the importance, as well as truth, of any question proposed; facetious in his talk upon fit occasions, and skilful to accommodate his discourse to different capacities; of indefatigable industry in various studies, clear judgment on all arguments, and steady virtue under all difficulties; of a calm temper in factious times, and of large charity in mean estate; he was easy and contented with a scanty fortune, and with the same decency and moderation maintained his character under the temptations of prosperity. In short, he was, perhaps, the greatest scholar of his times and, as an ingenious writer expresses it, “he may be esteemed as having shewn a compass of invention equal, if not superior, to any of the moderns, sir Isaac Newton only excepted.”

The succeeding year Mons. de Stainville, afterwards duke de Choiseul, being appointed ambassador at Rome, invited our author to accompany him to Italy, an offer which his official duty induced him to decline. In 1755, however, he was enabled to take this journey with his friend Mons. de Cotte, and his residence in Italy was rendered particularly agreeable by the continuance of Mons. cle Stainville there, who introduced him to the celebrated pope Benedict XIV. At Naples he became acquainted with Mazocchi, who was employed in the task of unfolding the numerous ancient manuscripts that had been found in Herculaneum. So little success had attended this undertaking at that period, that it would probably have been abandoned, but for the encouragement given to the prosecution of it by our author. It is related as a proof of the extent of his memory, that having applied in vain for liberty to copy one of these manuscripts, in order to send a fac-simile of the ancient hand-writing to France, and being only suffered to examine it, he read it over attentively five or six times, and suddenly leaving the apartment, copied the fragment from memory, and correcting when he came back some slight errors, he sent it the same day to the academy of belles lettres, enjoining secrecy, that no blame might attach to Mazocchi. While at Rome he gave a new and satisfactory explanation of the beautiful mosaic of Palestina, afterwards pri >ted in the Transactions of the Academy of Inscriptions.

Through the means of this patron, then become duke of Choiseul, and principal of the king’s ministers, in the room of cardinal de Bernis, our author, in 1758, was amply provided for, first hy pensions on the archbishopric of the Abbey and the treasure of St. Martin of Tours, and afterwards by the place of secretary-general of the Swiss; besides which he enjoyed a pension of 5000 livres on the Mercure. His attachment to his patron was highly honourable to him. In 1771, on the dismission of the duke de Choiseul, and his banishment to Chanteloup, our author did not hesitate to follow him: and when that minister was compelled to resign the office of general of the Swiss, he would have given up his place of secretary immediately, if his patron had not interfered. He went, however, to Paris, and offered the surrender of his brevet to the count d‘Affry, who refused to accept it, being willing to protect our author if he would give up his friend. This he, positively refused to do: upon which M. d’Affry, much to his honour, accepted the resignation, granting him 10,000 livres out of the annual profits of the place, and Barthelemi set off next day for Chanteloup.

, a French physician and medical writer, was born Dec. 1734, at Montpellier, and discovered in his earliest years a noble ardour for study, particularly of the languages, both ancient and modern, which laid the foundation for that extensive and various knowledge for which he was afterwards distinguished. Having at length given the preference to medicine as a profession, he applied himself to that art under the ablest masters; and such was his proficiency, that he obtained his doctor’s degree in 1753, when only nineteen years of age. In 1756 he was crowned by the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres at Paris, having been before, in 1754, appointed physician to the military hospital in Normandy. During this service he made many observations and inquiries, which were published in the Memoirs of the academy of sciences. In 1757 he was sent to the army in Westphalia, with the rank of consulting physician, and in 1761 he was appointed professor of medicine at Moutpellier, where he became as celebrated as Boerhaave at Ley den, Stahl at Hall, or Cullen at Edinburgh, giving such a new direction to the medical studies as to create an important epoch in the history of that school. Here he filled the professor’s chair for twenty years, with the highest reputation. In 1775, he was named joint chancellor of the faculty of Montpellier, and in 1786 obtained the full title of chancellor. About six years before, he had been appointed member of the court of accounts and finance, and some time before that, physician to the duke of Orleans. About the time that he visited Paris, and formed an intimacy with the leading men in the learned world, particularly d'Alembert and Malesherbes, he became, a member of the academy of sciences of Paris, Berlin, Gottingen, and Stockholm. At length he was chosen corresponding member of the national institute of France, and professor, honorary and actual, of the new school of medicine at Montpellier, physician to the French government, and consulting physician to the emperor. He died at Paris, Oct. 15, 1806, aged seventy-two. His works, according to the Dict. Historique, are various medical theses and dissertations, memoirs published by various academies, particularly that of Paris, in the years 1799 and 1801; and, 1. “La nouvelle mecanique de l'homme et des animaux,” 1802. 2. “L'Histoire des maladies goutteuses,” Paris, 1802. 3. “Discours sur le genie d'Hippocrate,” pronounced in the school of Montpellier. 4. “Traite sur le Beau,” a posthumous work. In Fourcroy’s catalogue we find another publication attributed to him, under the title of “Elnathan, ou les ages de Phomme, trad, du Chaldeen,” 1802, 3 vols. 8vo. The compiler of this catalogue calls him Barthes-Marmorieres.

de Franquener, son of the preceding, and the most celebrated of his family, was born at Roan in Normandy, Aug. 8, 1653, and received an education suitable to the talents which his father discovered in him. He first studied under the celebrated Tanaquil Faber, who made him his favourite scholar, but endeavoured to dissuade him from engaging in the ministry. At seventeen years of age, after he had made the Greek and Latin authors familiar to him, and learned the English., Italian, and Spanish languages, he went to Geneva, where he passed through a course of philosophy under Mr. Chouet. He began his divinity studies there under Mestrezat, Turretin, and Tronchin, and finished them at Sedan under the professors Juricu and Le Blanc de Beaulieu. But disliking Mr. Jurieu’s less tolerant sentiments, he applied himself more particularfy to the latter, who was a divine of a moderate and pacific temper. He returned afterwards to Roan; and the learned Mr. Le Moine having been called to the professorship of divinity at Leyden, Mr. Basnage succeeded him, as pastor of the church of Roan in 1676, though he was then but twenty three years of age, and here studied ecclesiastical history and the fathers, and went on with the collections which he had begun at Geneva and Sedan. In 1684 he married Susanna du Moulin, daughter of Cyrus du Moulin, first cousin of Charles du Moulin, the Papinian of France, and grand-daughter of the famous Peter du Moulin. The exercise of the protestant religion being suppressed at Roan in 1685, and Mr. Basnage being no longer allowed to perform the functions of his ministry, hedesired leave of the king to retire into Holland, and obtained it for himself, his wife, and a nurse; but upon condition, that the nurse should return into France at the end of two years. He settled at‘Rotterdam, where he was a minister pensionary till 1691, when he was made pastor of the Walloon church of that city. The works which he wrote raised him a great reputation over all Europe and he kept a correspondence with a great many learned men both in the United Provinces, and in foreign countries. His studies employed the greater part of his time, and his only relaxation was a select society of men of learning-, who met once a week at each other’s houses. The principal members of this little society were Messrs. Paatz, Basnage, De Beauval, his brother, Bayle, Lufneu, and Leers. Their contests were sometimes sharp, but friendly, and there was that candid interchange of sentiment from which Basnage confessed that he had derived great advantage. He had frequent disputes with Mr. Jurieu, his brother-in-law, particularly on the subject of the revolt of the Cevennois, which Jurieu approved and Basnage condemned. The author of his life mentions a conference which they had upon that subject, in 1703, in which Jurieu was obliged by the reasons of his antagonist to condemn the cruelties of the Camisars, and he only urged in their justification, that they had been used with rigour, and had lost patience. In 1709 pensionary Heinsius, who had a great regard for him, procured him to be chosen one of the pastors of the Walloon church at the Hague. He was then employed to manage a secret negotiation with mareschal D’Uxelles, plenipotentiary of France at the congress of Utrecht; and he executed it with so much success, that he was afterwards entrusted with several important commissions. Cardinal de Bouillon, dean of the Sacred College, who was then in Holland, imparted to him all his concerns with the States. The abbe Du Bois, who was afterwards cardinal and first minister of France, having arrived at the Hague in 1716, with the character of ambassador plenipotentiary, to negotiate a defensive alliance between France, England, and the States General, was ordered by the duke of Orleans, regent of France, to apply to Mr. Basnage for his advice, the consequence of which was, that they acted in concert, and the alliance was concluded Jan. 14, As a reward for this service, he obtained the restitution of his estate in France. He corresponded with several princes, nohlemen, and statesmen, both catholic and protestant, and with a great many learned men in France, Italy, Germany, and England, upon subjects of a political or literary nature. The catholics appear to have confided as much in his opinion as the protestants, of which we have a remarkable instance in a French archbishop. This prelate, perplexed to know what step to take respecting the bull Unigenitus, the rigours of which put an end to the last hopes of reconciliation between the catholic and protestant churches, consulted Basnage, and requested to know how he would himself act, if in his place. Basnage replied, that it did not perhaps become him to give advice in a case of so much difficulty: but suggested that the archbishop ought to examine himself whether he acknowledged the pope’s authority, or not: that in the first case he was obliged to admit the constitution; that in the second case he might reject it; but he should consider, that if he argued consequentially, this would carry him farther than he would go. Basnage was a man of great sincerity and candour, and had a politeness seldom to be met with among learned men. He was affable and -easy in his behaviour, and always ready to use his interest in favour of the unfortunate. He answered every person who consulted him with the utmost affability and kindness. He was a good friend, a man of great probity, and though he confuted errors with zeal and spirit, yet he treated the persons themselves with peculiar moderation. His constitution, which before had been very firm, began to decline in 1722; and after a lingering illness he died with exemplary piety, Dec. 22, 1723, in the seventy-first year of his age. He left only one daughter, who was married to Mr. de la Sarraz, privy counsellor to the king of Poland.

The favourite studies of his life, and much of his character, may be ascertained from his works, which were very numerous: 1. “Examen des Methodes,” &c. Cologne, 1684, 12mo; or an examination of the methods proposed by the assembly of the clergy of France in 1682. Simon answered some remarks in this work on his “Critical History.” 2. “Consideration sur Tetat de ceux qui sont tombez.” This consists of letters sent to the church of Koan respecting some faliing-off among its members. Rotterdam, 1686, 12mo. 3. “Reponse a M. l'Eveque de Meaux sur sa lottre pastorale,” Cologne, 1686, 12mo; all the preceding without his name. 4. “Divi Chrysostomi Epistola ad Ciesariiun Monachum, &c.” To this epistle are added three dissertations on the heresy of Apollinaris, on the works attributed to Athanasius, and an answer to father Simon. It was printed at Rotterdam, 1687, 8vo, and reprinted there 1694, under the title of “Dissertationes Historico-Theologicae.” 5. “La Communion Sainte,” a treatise on worthily communicating-, Rotterdam, 1688, 8vo, reprinted at least ten times, and even adopted as a pious and useful work, by some of the popish clergy. 6. “Histoire de la Religion des Eglises Reformees, &c.” containing an account of the succession of the reformed churches, the perpetuity of their faith, especially since the eighth century, the establishment of the reformation, the continuation of the same doctrines from the reformation to the present time, with an history of the origin and progress of the chief errors of the Roman church, in answer to the bishop of Meaux.' s “History of the variations of the Protestant churches.” This was first published at Rotterdam, 2 vols. 12mo, reprinted by the author in his church history in 1699, but enlarged and published separately in 1721, 5 vols. 8vo, and after the author’s death, in 1725, 2 vols. 4to; the best and most complete edition. 7. “Traite de la conscience,” Amst. 1696, 2 vols. 8vo; Lyons, 3 vols. 12mo. This is partly an answer to Bayle’s philosophical commentary, 8. “Lett-res Pastorales,” intended to animate the protestants on the renewal of persecution, 1698, 4to. 9. “Histoire de l‘Eglise depuis Jesus Christ jusqu’a present,” Rotterdam, 2 vols. fol. 10. “Traite des prejugez,” in answer to the pastoral charges of the French prelates de Noailles, Colbert, Bossuet, and Nesmond, 1701, 3 vols. 8vo. 11.“Defense clu Tniite' des prejugez, &c.” Delft, 1703, 8vo. 12. “Dissertation historique sur l'usage de la Benediction nuptiale,” inserted in the History -of the Works of the Learned, for 1703, an attack upon some of the popish marriage ceremonies. 13. “Dissertation sur la maniere dont le Canon de PEcriture Sainte s’est forme, &c.” intended as an apology for what he had said in his Church History against Mr. Richardson’s “Defence of the Canon of the New Testament.” 14. “Histoire de l'ancien et du nouveau Testament,” Aoist. fol. 1705, with cuts by de Hoo-e, often reprinted, and in various forms. 15. “Histoire des Juifs,” Rotterdam, 1706, 5 vols. 12mo, Hague, 1716, 15 vols. 12mo, translated into English by Taylor, 1706, fol. and an abridgment of the English by Crull, 1708, 2 vols. 8vo. It appears that Dupin had reprinted this work at Paris, without consulting the author, and with alterations adapted to the sentiments of the church of Rome. This occasioned Basnage to publish a sixth, or supplementary volume, under the title of, 16. “L'Histoire des Juifs reclamee et retabiie par son veritable auteur, &c.” Rott. 1711, 12mo. 17. “Entretiens sur la Religion,” Rotterdam, 1709, 12mo, and frequently reprinted, and in 17 13 enlarged to two vols. 12mo, but without his name. 38. “Sermons sur divers sujets, &c.” Rott. 2 vols. 8vo, on which Niceron makes a curious remark, that there is more morality in them than is generally in those of the Protestants. 19. “Prospectus novae editionis Canisii, Dacherii, &c.” He had undertaken an improved edition of Canisius’s “Lectiones antiquoe,” but his booksellers not being able to support the expence, transferred it to the Wetsteins, who published this great collection under the title of “Thesaurus Monumentorum Eccl. et Hist. &c.” Antwerp, 1725, 7 vols. fol. 20. “Preface sur la tluree de la persecution,” prefixed to Claude’s “Complaints of the Protestants.” 21. “Antiquitez Judaiques, ou Remarques critiques sur la Republique des Hebreux,” Amst. 1713, 2 vols. 8vo, intended as critical remarks on Cunauis “De Republica Hebracorum.” 22. “Reflexions desinterress^es sur la Constitution du pape Clement XI. qui condamne le nouveau Testament du P. Quesnel,” Amst. 1714, 8vo. 23. “L‘unite’, la visibilite”, &c. de l'Eglise,“Amst. 1715, 8vo. 24.” Avis sur la tenue d'un Concile National en France, &c.“1715, 8vo, without his name. 25.” L'etat present de TEglise Gallicane,“chiefly on the conduct of pope Clement XI. Amst. 1719, 12mo. 26.” Instructions pastorales aux Reformez de France,“concerning obedience due to the king, 1720, 12mo. This was written at the desire of the regent duke of Orleans, yet it was attempted to be answered by Catelan, a French bishop. The controversy, however, was carried on between him and Basnage with great liberality. 27.” Annales des Provinces Unies,“vol.1. Hague, fol. 1719. This volume contains the history of the united provinces from 1646 to 1667. The second, published in 1726, proceeds as far as the peace of Nimeguen in 1678. This valuable work was undertaken at the request of the counsellor deputies of Holland and West Friesland, who furnished the author with materials from their archives. 28.” Nouveaux Sermons,“1720, 8vo. 29.” Dissertation historique sur les Duels et les ordres de Chevalerie." This dissertation on duels is said to be a very curious work. Besides these, M. Basnage was an occasional contributor to the literaryjournals, and left many manuscripts. His style, in the greater part of his writings, is inferior to his matter, a remark which belongs generally to voluminous writers.

, an able military commander, originally of Epirus, was born at Rocca near Tarentum. The duke of Parma, under whom he served, was highly satisfied with the success of all the affairs he entrusted him with. In 1596 he threw provisions into Fere, besieged by Henry Tv. an enterprise which was executed with a secrecy and celerity that did him great honour, and the emperor afterwards engaged him hi his service. He signalized himself in Hungary and in Transylvania, where he conquered and reduced the rebels. He died about 1607, leaving two works which have preserved his memory, 1. “Maestro di campo generate,” Venice, 1606. 2. “Governo della Cavalleria leggiera,” Francfort, 1612. Naude, in his treatise on Military Sfcudy, recommends these treatises, as having acquired and deserving universal approbation.

, an English divine of the Hutchinsonian principles, was a younger son of the Rev. Richard Bate, vicar of Chilham and rector of Warehorn, who died in 1736. He was born about 1711, and matriculated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees, of B. A. 1730, and M. A. 1742. He was an intimate friend of the celebrated Hutchinson, as we learn from Mr. Spearman’s life of that remarkable author), by whose recommendation he obtained from Charles duke of Somerset a presentation to the living of Sutton in Sussex, near his seat at Petworth. Mr. Bate attended Hutchinson in his last illness (1737), and was by him in a most striking manner recommended to the protection of an intimate friend, “with a strict charge not to suffer his labours to become useless by neglect.” It having been reported that Hutchinson had recanted the publication of his writings to Dr. Mead a little before his death; that circumstance was flatly contradicted by a letter from Mr. Bate, dated Arundel, January 20, 1759. He died at Arundel, April 7, 1771. His evangelical principles of religion shone with a steady lustre, not only in his writings, but in his life. Disinterested, and disdaining the mean arts of ambition, he was contented with the small preferment he had in the church. As a Christian and a friend, he was humble and pious, tender, affectionate, and faithful; as a writer, warm, strenuous, and undaunted, in asserting the truth.

, bishop of Norwich in the fourteenth century, and founder of Trinity hall in Cambridge, was born at Norwich, the son of a citizen of good repute in that place. He was, from his tenderest years, of a docile and ingenuous disposition, and having made good proficiency in learning, he was sent to the university of Cambridge. There he particularly studied the civil law, in which he took the degree of doctor before he was thirty years of age, a thing then uncommon. On the 8th of December 1328, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Norwich. Soon after this, he went and studied at Rome, for his further improvement; and so distinguished himself by his knowledge and exemplary behaviour, that he was promoted by the pope to the place of auditor of his palace. He was likewise advanced by him to the deanery of Lincoln, and twice sent by him as his nuncio, to endeavour to procure a peace between Edward III. king-of England, and the king of France. Upon the death of Anthony de Beck, bishop of Norwich, the pope conferred that bishopric upon Bateman, on the 23d of January 1343, after which he returned into his native country, and lived in a generous and hospitable manner. Of pope Clement VI. he obtained for himself and successors, the first fruits of all vacant livings within his diocese; which occasioned frequent disputes between hhnsJ.f and his clergy. In 1347, he founded Trinity-hall in Cambridge, for the study of the civil and canon laws, by purchasing certain tenements from the monks of Ely, for which he gave some rectories in exchange, and converted the premises into a hall, dedicated to the holy Trinity. He endowed it with the rectories of Briston, Kymberley, Brimmingham, Woodalling, Cowling, and Stalling, in the diocese of Norwich: and designed that it should consist of a master, twenty fellows, and three scholars; to study the canon and civil law, with an allowance for one divine. But being prevented by death, he left provision only for a master, three fellows, and two scholars. However, by the munificence of subsequent benefactors, it now maintains a master, twelve fellows, and fourteen scholars. Bishop Bateman, from his abilities and address, was often employed by the king and parliament in affairs of the highest importance; and particularly was at the head of several embassies, on purpose to determine the differences between the crowns of England and France. In 1354, he was, by order of parliament, dispatched to the court of Rome, with Henry duke of Lancaster, and others, to treat (in the pope’s presence) of a peace, then in agitation between the two crowns above mentioned. This journey proved fatal to him; for he died at Avignon, where the pope then resided, on the 6th of January 1354-5, and was buried with great solemnity, in the cathedral church of that city. With regard to his person, we are told that he was of an agreeable countenance; and tall, handsome, and well made. He was, likewise, a man of strict justice and piety, punctual in the discharge of his duty, and of a friendly and compassionate disposition. But he was a stout defender of his rights, and would not suffer himself to be injured, or imposed upon, by any one, of which we have the following instance upon record, which perhaps does not more display his resolution than the abject state into which the king and his nobles were reduced by the usurped powers of the church of Rome Robert lord Morley having killed some deer in his parks, and misused his servants, he made him do public penance for the same, by walking uncovered and barefoot, with a wax taper of six pounds in his hands, through the city of Norwich to the cathedral, and then asking his pardon. And all this was done notwithstanding an express order of the king to the contrary, and though his majesty had seized the bishop’s revenues for his obstinacy. But the king was soon after reconciled to him. It remains to be mentioned that bishop Bateman was executor to Edmund Gonville, the founder of the college so called, which gave rise to the report by Godwin and others that he had founded that college or hall, which is evidently a mistake.

, earl, an English nobleman of distinguished abilities, was son of sir Benjamin Bathurst of Pauler’s Perry, Northamptonshire, and born in St. James’s square, Westminster, Nov. 16, 1684. His mother was Frances, daughter of sir Allen Apsley, in Sussex, knt. After a grammatical education, he was entered, at the age of fifteen, in Trinity college, Oxford; of which his uncle, dean Bathurst, was president. In 1705, when just of age, he was chosen for Cirencester in Gloucestershire, which borough he represented for two parliaments. He acted, in the great opposition to the duke of Maryborough and the Whigs, under Mr. Harley and Mr. St. John; and, in Dec. 1711, at that memorable period, in which the administration, to obtain a majority in the upper house, introduced twelve new lords in one day, was made a peer. On the accession of George I. when his political friends were in disgrace, and some of them exposed to persecution, he continued firm in his attachment to them: he united, particularly, in the protests against the acts of the attainder against lord Bolingbroke and the duke of Ormond. We have no speech of his recorded, till on Feb. 21, 1718 from which period, for the space of twenty-five years, we find that he took an active and distinguished part in every important matter which came before the upper house; and that he was one of the most eminent opposers of the measures of the court, and particularly of sir Robert Waipole’s administration. For an account of these, however, we refer to history, and especially to the history and proceedings of the house of lords.

, a distinguished wit, and Latin poet, was descended of an ancient family, and was born at Howthorpe, a small hamlet in Northamptonshire, in the parish of Thedingworth, near Market-Harborough in Leicestershire, in 1620. He received the first part of his education at the free-school in Coventry, where his father seems to have resided in the latter part of his life. His mother was Elizabeth Villiers, daughter and coheir of Edward Villiers, esq. of the same place. They had issue thirteen sons, and four daughters. Six of the sons lost their lives in the service of king Charles I. during the grand rebellion: the rest, besides one who died young, were Ralph (of whom we now treat), Villiers, Edward, Moses, Henry, and Benjamin, father of the late earl Bathurst, the subject of the preceding article. At Coventry school our author made so quick a progress in the classics, that at the age of fourteen he was sent to Oxford, and entered October 10, 1634, in Gloucester hall, now Worcester college; but was removed in a few days to Trinity college, and probably placed under the immediate tuition of his grandfather Dr. Kettel, then president, in whose lodging he resided (still known by the name of Kettel-hall), and at whose table he had his diet, for two years. He was elected scholar of the house, June 5., 1637, and having taken the degree of A. B. January 27th following, he was appointed fellow June 4, 1640. He commenced A. M.April 17, 1641, and on March 2, 1644, conformably to the statutes of his college, he was ordained priest by Robert Skinner, bishop of Oxford, and read some theological lectures in the college hall in 1649. These, which he called “Diatribae theologicEc, philosophies, et philological,” are said to discover a spirit of theological research, and an extensive knowledge of the writings of the most learned divines. He likewise kept his exercise for the degree of B. D. but did not take it. The confusion of the times promising little support or encouragement to the ministerial function, like his friend, the famous Dr. Willis, he applied himself to the study of physic, and accumulated the degrees in that faculty, June 21, 1654. Before this time he had sufficiently recommended himself in his new profession, and had not been long engaged in it, when he was employed as physician to the sick and wounded of the navy, which office he executed with equal diligence and dexterity, to the full satisfaction of the sea-commanders, and the commissioners of the admiralty. We find him soon after settled at Oxford, and practising physic in concert with his friend Dr. Willis, with whom he regularly attended Abingdon market every Monday. He likewise cultivated every branch of philosophical knowledge: he attended the lectures of Peter Sthael, a chymist and rosicrucian, who had been invited to Oxford by Mr. R. Boyle, and was afterwards operator to the royal society about 1662. About the same time he had also a share in the foundation of that society; and when it was established, he was elected fellow, and admitted August 19, 1663. While this society was at Gresham college in London, a branch of it was continued at Oxford, and the original society books of this Oxford department are still preserved there in the Ashmolean Museum, where their assemblies were held. Their latter Oxford meetings were subject to regulations made among themselves; according to which Dr. Bathurst was elected president April 23, 1688, having been before nominated one of the members for drawing up articles, February 29, 1683-4. Nor was he less admired as a classical scholar; at the university a.cts, in the collections of Oxford verses, and on every public occasion, when the ingenious were invited to a rival display of their abilities, he appears to have been one of the principal and most popular performers. Upon the publication of Hobbes’s treatise of “Human Nature,” &c. 1650, Bathurst prefixed a recommendatory copy of Latin iambics, written with so much strength of thought, and elegance of expression, that they fully established his character as a Latin poet; and recommended him to the notice of the duke of Devonshire, by whose interest he afterwards obtained the deanery of Wells. He had thought fit, by a temporary compliance, to retain his fellowship at Oxford, under the conditions of the parliamentary visitation in 1648, and after the death of Cromwell, procured a majority of the fellows of his college, in 1659, to elect Dr. Seth Ward president, who was absolutely disqualified for it by the college-statutes. After the Restoration, he re-assumed the character of a clergyman, and returned to his theological studies, but with little hope or ambition of succeeding in a study, which he had so long neglected: however, he was made king’s chaplain in 1663. He was chosen president of his college September 10, 1664, and ^.he same' year he was married, December 31, to Mary, the widow of Dr. John Palmer, warden of All Souls college, a woman of admirable accomplishments. June 28, 1670, he was installed dean of Wells, procured, as before mentioned, by the interest of the duke of Devonshire. In April 1691, he was nominated by king William and queen Mary, through the interest of lord Somers, to the bishopric of Bristol, with licence to keep his deanery and headship in commendam; but he declined the acceptance of it, lest it should too much detach him from his college, and interrupt the completion of those improvements in its buildings, which he had already begun, and an account of which may be seen in the History of Oxford. Had Dr. Bathurst exerted his activity and interest alone for the service of his society, he might have fairly claimed the title of an ample benefactor; but his private liberality concurred with his public collections. He expended near 3000l. of his own money upon it, and purchased for the use of the fellows, the perpetual advowson of the rectory of Addington upon Otmere, near Oxford, with the sum of 400l. in 1700. Nor was he less serviceable by his judicious discipline and example, his vigilance as a governor, and his eminence as a scholar, which contributed to raise the reputation of the college to an extraordinary height, and filled it with students of the first rank and family. He is said to have constantly frequented early prayers in the chapel, then at five in the morning, till his eighty-second year, and he punctually attended the public exercises of the college, inspected the private studies, relieved the wants, and rewarded the merit of his scholars. In the mean time he was a man of the world, and his lodgings were perpetually crowded with visitants of the first distinction. October 3, 1673, he was appointed vice-chancellor of the university, and continued for the two following years, the duke of Ormond being chancellor. During the execution of this office, he reformed many pernicious abuses, introduced several necessary regulations, defended the privileges of the university with becoming spirit, and to the care of the magistrate added the generosity of the benefactor. He established the present practice of obliging the bachelors of arts to stipulate for their determination: he endeavoured, at the command of the king, to introduce a more graceful manner of delivering the public sermons at St. Mary’s, to which church he was also a benefactor, and introduced several other improvements in the academical ceconomy. As Dr. Bathurst was intimately acquainted with the most eminent literary characters of his age, few remarkable productions in literature were undertaken or published without his encouragement and advice. Among many others, Dr. Sprat, Dr. South, Dr. Busby, Dr. Allestree, Creech the translator, sir George Ent, a celebrated physician and defender of the Harveyan system, were of his common acquaintance. Such were his friends; but he had likewise his enemies, who have hinted that he was unsettled in his religious principles. This insinuation most probably arose from his iambics prefixed to Hobbes’s book, which are a mere sport of genius, written without the least connection with Hobbes, and contain no defence or illustration of his pernicious doctrine, which, however, did not appear at that time to be so pernicious. And the sincere and lasting intimacies he maintained with Skinner, Fell, South, Allestree, Aldrich, and several others, are alone an unanswerable refutation of this unfavourable imputation. He died in his eighty-fourth year, June 14, 1704. He had been blind for some time; and his death was occasioned by n fracture of his thigh, while he was walking in the garden, which, on the failure of his eyes, became his favourite and only amusement. Under this malady he languished for several days in acute agonies. It is said that at first, and for some time, he refused to submit to the operations of the surgeon, declaring in his tortures, that there was no marrow in the bones of an old man. He had lost his memory a year or two before his death, of which Mr. Warton has given an instance which we could have wished he had suppressed. He was interred on the south side of the antichapel of Trinity college without the least appearance of pomp and extravagance, according to his own appointment. He left legacies in his will to his friends, servants, and the college, to the amount of near 1000^. As to his character, it is observed that his temperance in eating and drinking, particularly the latter, was singular and exemplary. Amidst his love of the polite arts, he had a strong aversion to music, and discountenanced and despised the study of all external accomplishments, as incompatible with the academical character. His behaviour in general was inoffensive and obliging. The cast of his conversation was rather satirical, but mixed with mirth and pleasantry. He was remarkably fond of young company, and indefatigable in his encouragement of a rising genius. John Philips was one of his chief favourites, whose “Splendid Shilling” was a piece of solemn ridicule suited to his taste. Among his harmless whims, he delighted to surprize the scholars, when walking in the grove at unseasonable hours; on which occasions he frequently carried a whip in his hand, an instrument of academical correction, then not entirely laid aside. But this he practised, on account of the pleasure he took in giving so odd an alarm, rather than from any principle of reproving, or intention of applying an illiberal punishment. In Latin poetry, Ovid was his favourite classic. One of his pupils having asked him what book among all others he chose to recommend he answered, “Ovid’s Metamorphoses.” The pupil, in consequence of this advice, having carefully perused the Metamorphoses, desired to be informed what other proper book it wouldbe necessary to read after Ovid, and Dr. Bathurst advised him to read “Ovid’s Metamorphoses” a second time. He had so mean an opinion of his performances in divinity, that in his will he enjoins his executors entirely to suppress all his papers relating to that subject, and not to permit them to be perused by any, excepting a very few such friends as were likely to read them with candour. We are told, however, that on Sunday, March 20, 1680, he preached before the house of commons at St. Mary’s, the university church, and gave much satisfaction. His manner was nearly that of Dr. South, but with more elegance and felicity of allusion. His Life, written by Mr. Thomas Warton, is perhaps one of the most correct of that author’s performances, and contains Dr. Bathurst’s miscellaneous works, which, though they have great merit in their particular way, and may be read with much pleasure, are not written in such a taste as entitles them to imitation. This is acknowledged by Mr. Warton. “His Latin orations,” says that ingenious Biographer, “are wonderful specimens of wit and antithesis, which were the delight of his age. They want upon the whole the purity and simplicity of Tully’s eloquence, but even exceed the sententious smartness of Seneca, and the surprising turns of Pliny. They are perpetually spirited, and discover an uncommon quickness of thought. His manner is concise and abrupt, but yet perspicuous and easy. His allusions are delicate, and his observations sensible and animated. His sentiments of congratulation or indignation are equally forcible: his compliments are most elegantly turned, and his satire is most ingeniously severe. These compositions are extremely agreeable to read, but in the present improwriiient of classical taste, not so proper to be imitated. They are moreover entertaining, as a picture of the times, and a history of the state of academical literature. This smartness does not desert our author even on philosophical subjects.” Among Dr. Bathurst’s Oratiuncuhe, his address to the convocation, about forming the barbers of Oxford into a company, is a most admirable specimen of his humour, and of that facetious invention, with which few vice-chancellors would have ventured to enforce and eiiliven such a subject. We doubt, indeed, whether a parallel to this exquisite piece of humour can be found. With regard to the doctor’s Latin poetry, though his hexameters have an admirable facility, an harmonious versification, much terseness and happiness of expression, and a certain original air, they will be thought, nevertheless, too pointed and ingenious by the lovers of Virgil’s simple beauties. The two poems which he hath left in iambics make it to be wished tiiat he had written more in that measure. “That pregnant brevity,” says Mr. Warton, “/which constitutes the dignity and energy of the iambic, seems to have been his talent.” Dr. Bathurst’s English poetry has that roughness of versification which was, in a great degree, the fault of the times.

In the immaculate conception, which has been more than a thousand times a subject for painters, Batoni succeeded so well for the church of the Philippines at Chiari near Brescia, as to excite the attention and admiration of all good judges. His next piece was the story of Simon the magician for the church of St. Peter at Rome; and among his other most admired pictures we may notice the two great altar-pieces which he executed for the city of Brescia, whereof one represents St. Johannes Nepomucenus with Mary; and the other the offering of the latter; two others for the city of Lucca, one of St. Catherine of Siena, and the other of St. Bartholomew; another for Messina, of the apostle James; and for Parma, John preaching in the wilderness; as also the many scriptural pieces, and especially those which are so much admired in the summer-house in the papal gardens of Monte Cavallo; the chaste Susanna, in the possession of his heirs; the Hagar, in the collection of an English gentleman; the Prodigal son, in that of the cardinal duke of York; to which may be added, a multitude of pictures of the Virgin, of the holy family, and saints of both sexes, which he executed for private persons. He likewise acquired great fame by his Choice of Hercules, which he painted at first in the natural size, and afterwards smaller, for the Florentine Marchese Ginosi, as a companion to the Infant Hercules strangling the serpents. Not less animated and expressive is another picture of the same kind, in which, at the request of an English gentleman, he has depicted Bacchus and Ariadne. Another poetical fiction, which he has superiorly expressed, is in a painting that is still with his heirs. His intention was to delineate the cares and solicitudes of a blooming beauty. She lies sleeping on a magnificent couch: but her sleep is not so profound as to break off all correspondence between the mind and the senses; it is soft and benign, as usual when a pleasing dream employs the imagination. The effigies of Peace and War was one of his finest performances, and which he executed towards the latter end of his life. Mars, in complete armour, is rushing to the combat, sword in hand; an exceedingly beautiful virgin, who casts on him a look of sweetness and intreaty, at the same time presenting him with a branch of palm, places herself directly in his way.

As Batoni was accustomed to contemplate nature in all her changes and motions, he had acquired a wonderful facility in tracing out even the most imperceptible features of the human face, which betray the frame of mind and the character of the man. The portraits he drew during the long course of his life are not to be numbered: he had drawn not only the popes Benedict XIV. Clement XIII. and Pius VI. but almost all the great personages who visited Rome in his time, at their own particular request. When the emperor Joseph II. was at Rome in 1770, and was unexpectedly met by his brother the grand duke of Tuscany in that city, he was desirous that this meeting should be eternized on canvas by the ablest painter that could be found in Rome, and the emperor pitched upon Batoni for this purpose. The picture, when finished, so highly satisfied him, that he not only amply rewarded the master, but likewise presented him with a golden chain, to which was suspended a irudal with his portrait, and a snuff-box of gold. The late empress, mother of the two monarchs, augmented these presents by giving him a series of large golden medals, on which their principal achievements were struck, and a ring richly set with brilliants; and honoured him with a letter, in which she demanded that the likeness of her sons, which terminated at the knees, should be completed. Batoni finished the work accordingly, as is seen with universal admiration in the large copper-plates designed by himself, and engraved by Andrea Rossi. As an additional honour, Batoni, with all his male issue, were raised by the emperor to the rank of nobility, and he received from the empress a fresh commission, to paint her deceased husband, the emperor Francis, after a portrait executed at Vienna. He also here fully answered the expectation of her majesty, and, besides a suitable recompense, he received likewise the portrait of the emperor Francis, set round with large brilliants.

Batoni' s habitation was not only the chief residence of the Genius of painting at Rome, but her sister Music dwelt there in equal state. His amiable daughter Rufina, who was at too early an age snatched away by death, was one of the completest judges of vocal music in all Italy; and no person of quality came to Rome, who was not equally desirous of seeing the paintings of Batoni, and of hearing his daughters sing. Among these were also the grand duke of Russia and his duchess. He here saw an unfinished portrait of a nobleman belonging to his suite, which pleased him so much, that he gave him orders to paint his own. But, as the departure of the illustrious travellers was so very near, he set his hand to the work on the spot. In the few moments that were delightfully employed by the imperial guest in hearing the songs of the painter’s daughter, the artist himself was busy in sketching his picture with so striking a likeness, that the grand duchess too spared so much time from her urgent affairs in the last days of her stay, as to have her picture drawn.

, professor of history in the university of Leyden, was born at Lisle, April 8, 1561. He began his studies at Aix la Chapelle, whether his parents, who were Protestants, had retired during the tyranny of the duke of Alva. He went afterwards to Leyden and Geneva, where he studied divinity: after residing here some time, he returned to Ghent, and again to Leyden, where he applied to the civil law, and was admitted elector of law, June 1585. Soon after, he accompanied the ambassadors from the states to England, and during his residence here became acquainted with several persons of distinction, particularly the famous sir Philip Sidney.

At this time, his old friend the marquis de Bergue, and several other lords of the low-countries, engaged Maximilian de Bergue, archbishop of Cambray, to procure Baudouin the professorship of civil law, intending to make use of his advice in affairs of state and religion; for they knevr that he was of opinion, that the laws against sectaries ought to be moderated. In consequence of this we find him next, professor of civil law m the university of Doway. He was very civilly received by the duke of Alva, who was then preparing his cruel proceedings for St. Bartholomew day; but, as he was afraid of being chosen one of the judges of those persons, whom they designed to put to death, he desired leave of absence under pretence of fetching his wife and his library thither; and having obtained it, he returned to Paris, where he read public lectures upon several passages of the Pandects with the applause of a large audience. He accepted the professorship of civrl law, which was offered him by the university of Bezancon; but understanding upon his going thither that the emperor had prohibited that university from erecting this pro-' fessorship, he refused to read any lectures, though he was solicited to it. He then returned to Paris, and agreeably to the advice of Philip de Hurault, which was to teach civil law in the university of Angers, he went thither, where he continued his lectures for four years, till the duke of Anjou, who was proclaimed king of Poland, sent for him to Paris at the time when the embassy from Poland was received there. He was designed for the professorship of civil law in the university of Cracow; and it is thought he would have attended the new king into that country, if death had not prevented him. He died in the college of Arras, at Paris, Oct. 24, 1573. Baudouin appears to have been of unsettled principles in religion. Affecting to be displeased with some things in popery, Calvinism, and Lutheranism, he allowed his mind to dwell on the hopes of forming a new sect out of them all. He was, however, a man of extensive learning and commanding eloquence, and often employed in political negociations, in the conduct of which he gave much satisfaction, yet it is supposed that he did not die rich, and it is certain that he never had any great preferments.

, his eldest son, was born at Basil in 1541, took his doctor’s degree in 1562, and afterwards became principal physician to Frederick duke of Wirtemberg. In 1561 he attached himself to the celebrated Gessner, under whom he studied botany with great perseverance and success. The principal works by which he gained a lasting name in the annals of that and other sciences, were his 1. “Memorabilis historia luporum aliquot rabidorum,” 1591, 8 vo. 2. “De plantis a divis, sanctisque nomen habentibus,” Basil, 1591, 8vo. 3. “Vivitur ingenio, caetera mortis erunt,” the inscription of a work on insects and plants, but which has no other title, 1592, oblong form. 4. “. De plantis absynthii nomen habentibus,” Montbelliard, 1593, 1599, 8vo. 5. Historia novi et admirabilis fontis, balneique Bollensis,“ib. 1598, 4to. 6.” Historian plantarum prodromus,“Ebroduni (Brinn) 1619, 4to. 7.” Historia plantarum universalis,“3 vols. folio, 1650, 1651. This edition is enriched with the notes of Dominic Chabrans, a physician of Geneva, and the remarks of Robert Moryson, which he first published in his” Hortus Blesensis,“and which, it is now allowed, were unreasonably severe. 8.” De Aquis medicatis, nova methodus, quatuor libris comprehensa," Montbeliarcf, 1605, 1607, 1612, 4to. Bauhin, after being physician to the duke of Wirtemberg for forty years, during which he resided at Montbeliard, died there in 1613.

, brother of the preceding, was born at Basil, Jan. 17, 1.560, and at the early age of sixteen began to study medicine. In 1577 he went to Padua, where he was instructed in botany and anatomy, and afterwards visited the university of Montpellier, and the most celebrated schools of Germany. On his return to Basil in 1580, he took his doctor’s degree, and was appointed by the faculty to lecture on anatomy and botany. In 1582 he was elected professor of Greek; and in 1588 professor of anatomy and botany. In 1596, Frederick duke of Wirtemberg gave him the title of his physician, which he had before conferred on his brother. He was also, in 1614, principal city physician, and in the course of his life four times rector of the university, and eight times dean of the faculty of medicine. He died Dec. 5, 1624, after establishing a very high reputation for his knowledge in botany and anatomy, in both which he published some valuable works. The principal were his representations of plants, and especially what he called the exhibition of the botanical theatre “Phytopinax,” Basil, 1596, 4to, and “Pinax Theatri Botanici,” ib. 1623, 4to), a work which was the fruit of fourteen years collections and labours, and served much to facilitate the study of botany, and to promote its knowledge. Bauhin was not the creator of a system, but he reformed many abuses and defects, especially the confusion of names. He collected the synonymous terms of six thousand plants, which various authors had capriciously assigned to them. This prevented the many mistakes which till then had been made by botanists, who took several descript plants for non-descripts, and gave them few names, only because they had been described too much and too variously. Bauhin himself made several mistakes in this new method, which, however, considering the whole extent of his merit, candour would overlook. After his time botany stood still for some years, the learned thinking it sufficient if they knew and called the plants by the names which Bauhin had given them. Manget and other writers have given a large list of Bauhin’s other works, which we suspect is not quite oprrect, some being attributed to Gaspar which belong to John, and vice versa. Other branches of this family were physicians of eminence in their time, but did not arrive to the same fame as authors.

, a learned French Jesuit, was born at Paris, April 15, 1649, and entered the society in 1665. He had taught grammar and the classics in the Jesuits college of Paris, for five years, and had completed his theological studies, when about the end of 1677 he was appointed tutor to the duke of Bourbon, and obliged to return to his studies again for five years, after which he was appointed professor of rhetoric, and filled that office for the same number of years. As soon as he found leisure from these engagements, he began to collect the works of father Sirmond, which he published in 1696, in 5 vols. fol. at Paris, and which were afterwards reprinted at Venice, in 1729. He also intended to have collected the works of the celebrated Petau, but the weakness of his sight began now to interrupt his literary labours, and he was at the same time ordered to Rouen as rector of the college. Three years after he returned to Paris, whence he went to Rome, to be present at the general assembly of the society. The rest of his life he passed partly at Rouen, and partly at Paris, where he died Oct. 21, 1725. Besides the edition of the works of Sirmond, we owe to his labours, 1. “Symbola Heroica,” Paris, 1672, 4to. 2. “Infunere Gabrielis Cossartii carmen,” Paris, 1675, 4to. 3. “Panegyrici veteres, ad usum Delphmi,” ibid. 1676, 4to, which Dr. Clarke says is one of the scarcest of the Delphiu editions; it was reprinted at Amst. 1701, 8vo; Venice, 1725, 4to; and again in 1728, with the notes of Schwartz. There is also a London edit. 1716, 8vo, which contains only the panegyric of Pliny, with the notes of de la Baune, Lipsius, Baudius, &c. 4. “Ludus poeticus in recentem cometam,” Paris, 1681, 4to. “Ludovico duci Borbonio, Oratio,” ibid. 1682, 12mo. 6. “Ferdinando de Furstenberg, pro fundata missione Sinensi, gratiarum actio,” ibid. 1683, 4to. 7. “In obitum ejusdem, carmen,” 1684, 4to. 8. “Ludovico magno liberalium artium parenti et patrono, panegyricus,” ibid. 1684, 12mo. 9. “Augustiss. Galliarum senatui panegyricus,” ibid. 1685, 4to. 10. “Laudatio funebris Ludovici Borbonii principis Condaei,” ibid. 1687, 4to. Many of his Latin poems were inserted in a collection entitled “Coliegii Parisiensis societ. Jesu, festi plausus ad nuptias Ludovici Galliarum Delphini, et Marise-Annre-Christianre-Victoriae Bavarse,” ibid. 1680, fol.

The learning and abilities of Mr. Baxter are sufficiently displayed in his writings, which, however, were of much more note in the literary world during his own time, than now. He was very studious, and sometimes sat up whole nights reading and writing. His temper was cheerful, and in his manners, he appeared the gentleman as well as the scholar, but in conversation he was modest, and not apt to make much shew of the extensive knowledge of which he was possessed. In the discharge of the several social and relative duties of life, his conduct was exemplary. He had the most reverential sentiments of the Deity, of whose presence and immediate support he had always a strong impression upon his mind; and the general tenour of his life appears to have been conformable. Mr. Baxter paid a strict attention to ceconomy, but was not parsimonious in his expences. It is known, also, that there were several occasions, on which he acted with remarkable disinterestedness; and so far was he from courting preferment, that he has repeatedly declined considerable offers of that kind which were made him, if he would have taken orders in the Church of England. His friends and correspondents were numerous and respectable; and among them are particularly mentioned Mr. Pointz, preceptor to the late duke of Cumberland, and-,Dr. Warburton, bishop of Gloucester. His wife, by whom he had one son and three daughters, all of whom were lately living, survived him ten years, and was buried in the church of Linlithgow, in 1760.

Mr. Baxter came to London a little before the depositioa of Richard Cromwell, and preached before the parliament the day preceding that on which they voted the king’s return. He preached likewise before the lord mayor at St. Paul’s a thanksgiving sermon for general Monk’s success. Upon the king’s restoration he was appointed one of his chaplains in ordinary, preached once before him, liad frequent access to his majesty, and was always treated by him with peculiar respect. He assisted at the conference at the Savoy, as one of the commissioners, and drew up a reformed Liturgy, which Dr. Johnson pronounced “one of the finest compositions of the ritual kind he had ever seen.” He was offered the bishopric of Hereford by the lord chancellor Clarendon, which he refused, and gave his lordship his reasons for not accepting of it, in a letter; he required no favour but that of being permitted to continue minister at Kidderminster, but could not obtain it. Being thus disappointed, he preached occasionally about the city of London, having a licence from bishop Sheldon, upon his subscribing a promise not to preach any thing against the doctrine or ceremonies of the church. May 15, 1662, he preached his farewell sermon at Blackfriars, and afterwards retired to Acton in Middlesex. In 1665, during the plague, he went to Richard Hampden’s, esq. in Buckinghamshire; and when it ceased, returned to Acton. He continued here as long as the act against conventicles was in force, and, when that was expired, had so many auditors that he wanted room: but, while thus employed, by a. warrant signed by two justices, he was committed for six months to New Prison gaol; having, however, procured an habeas corpus, he was discharged, and removed to Totteridge near Barnet. In this affair, he experienced the sincerity of many of his best friends. As he was going to prison, he called upon serjcant Fountain for his advice, who, after perusing the mittimus, said, that he might be discharged from his imprisonment by law. The earl of Orrery, fche earl of Manchester, the earl of Arlington, and the duke of Buckingham, mentioned the affair to the king, who was pleased to send sir John Baber to him, to let him know, that though his majesty was not willing to relax the law, yet he would not be offended, if by any application to the courts in Westminster-hall he could procure his liberty; upon this an habeas corpus was demanded at the bar of the common pleas, and granted. The judges were clear in their opinion, that die mittimus was insufficient, and thereupon discharged him. This exasperate;! the justices who committed him; and therefore they made a new mittimus in order to hn.ve sent him to the connty-gnol of Newgi-te, which he avoided by keeping out of the way. After the indulgence in 1672, he returned to London, and preached on week-days at Pinner’s hall, at a meeting in. Fetter-lane, and in St. James’s market house and the times appearing more favourable about two years after, he built a meeting-house in Oxenden-street, where he had preached but once, when a resolution was formed to take him by surprise, and send him to the county gaol, on the Oxford act; which misfortune he escaped, but the person who happened to preach for him was sent to the Gate-house, where he was confined three months. After having been three years kept out of his meeting-house, he took another in Swallow-street, but was likewise prevented from preaching there, a guard having been placed for many Sundays to hinder his entrance. Upon the death of Mr. Wadsworth, he preached to his congregation in South wark.

His father, affected and delighted with this answer, sent next day to the bishop of Grenoble, his brother-in-law, and requested him to present young Bayard to the duke of Savoy, in the quality of his page. His clothes and equipage being prepared in a lew hours, he mounted a horse, which having never before felt a spur, gave three or four springs, which greatly alarmed the company; but the young hero, without being at all disconcerted, fixed himself in the saddle, and repeated the discipline of his heel until his steed submitted to his direction. The parting of the father and the son was affecting, and, his biographer observes, is a lively picture of that noble simplicity of manners, from which his nation has so much degenerated, by the false refinements of an effeminate politeness. His mother recommended three things to him the first was, “to fear, and love, and to serve God” the second, “to be gentle and courteous to the nobility, without pride or haughtiness to any;” and the third was, “to be generous and charitable to the poor and necessitous;” adding, that “to give for the love of God never made any man poor.” Bayard promised to follow these good precepts, and although his deviations were not unfrequent, he preserved a sense of religion which led him to fulfil all its external duties at least with exemplary punctuality and zeal: neither his youth, nor the tumults and hurry of a military life, nor the dissolute company into which he naturally fell, nor even the failings, from which he was not himself exempt, could ever extinguish in his breast a certain veneration for the religion in which he had been brought up.

Bayard continued about six months in the service of the duke of Savoy, by whom he was then presented to Charles VIII. who sent him to the count de Ligny, of the imperial house of Luxembourg, that he might be brought up in his family. At the age of seventeen years he carried away all the honour of a tournament, which the lord of Vaudrey, one of the roughest knights of his time, held in the city of Lyons. In 1494, Charles VIII. resolved to assert his right to the crown of Naples, and therefore passed into Italy at the head of a numerous army, consisting of the prime nobility of his kingdom: so great an expedition, says Berville (from whom this article is taken) was never fitted out with so much speed, splendour, and success. The conquest, however, was almost as soon lost as gained. Charles, as he was returning to France with less than 10,000 men, was attacked near Fornoue by an army of six times the number. Upon this occasion he behaved with the greatest intrepidity, and gained a complete victory, and Bayard distinguished himself in an extraordinary manner. He took a standard from a party of fifty men, and presented it to the king, who rewarded him with a present of 500 crowns.

Bayard, in his progress to military command, passed through all the subordinate stations; and if he^did not arrive at the first military dignity in France, he was universally thought to deserve it. And after all, the title of marshal of France was an honour which he would have possessed in common with many others; bnt to arm his king as a knight was a personal and peculiar honour, which no other could ever boast. The occasion was this: Francis I. who was himself one of the bravest men of his time, determined, after his victory of Marignan, to receive the order of knighthood from the hands of Bayard. Bayard modestly represented to his majesty, that so high an“honour belonged only to princes of the blood; but the kinoreplied in a positive tone,” My friend Bayard, I will this day be made a knight by your hands.“” It is then my duty,“said Bayard,” to obey,“and taking his sword, said,” Siro autant vaiile que si c'etoit Roland ou Olivier,“”May it avail as much as if it was Roland or Olivier," two heroes in the annals of chivalry, of whom many romantic tales are told. When the ceremony was over, Bayard addressed his sword with an ardour which the occasion inspired, and declared it was a weapon hereafter to be laid up as a sacred relic, and never to be drawn, except against Turks, Saracens, and Moors. This sword has been lost; Charles Emmanuel, duke of Savoy, having applied for it to the heirs of Bayard, without being able to procure it.

Jn 1680, an affair of the duke of Luxemburgh made a great noise; he had been accused of impieties, sorcery, and poisonings, but was acquitted, and the process against him suppressed. Mr. Bayle, having been at Paris during the harvest-vacation, had heard many particulars concerning this alfair, and immediately composed an harangue on the subject, wherein the marshal is supposed to vindicate himself before his judges. This speech is a smart satire upon the duke and some o'her persons. He afterwards wrote one more satirical, by way of criticism upon the harangue. He sent these two pieces to Mr. Minutoli, desiring his opinion of them; and, that he might speak his mind more freely, he concealed his being the author. About this time father de Valois, a Jesuit of Caen, published a book, wherein he maintained that the sentiments of M. Des Cartes concerning the essence and properties of body, were repugnant to the doctrine of the church, and agreeable to the errors of Calvin on the subject of the eucharist. Mr. Bayle read this performance, and judged it well done. He was of opinion the author had incontestably proved the point in question; to wit, that the principles of M. Des Cartes were contrary to the faith of the church of Rome, and agreeable to the doctrine of Calvin. He took occasion from thence to write his “Sentimens de M. Dcs Cartes touchant Tessence, &c.” wherein he maintained the principles of Des Cartes, and answered all the arguments by which father de Valois had endeavoured to confute them.

, an Italian physician, of great reputation in his day, charitably attentive to the wants of the poor, and so successful in his practice, as to be often consulted by princes and men of rank, who munificently rewarded his services, was born at Turin, about the year 1478, and became first physician to Charles II. (or according to Dict. Hist. Charles III.) duke of Savoy. He died April 1, 1558. His works are: 1. “De pestilentia ej usque curatione per preservationum et curationum regimen,” Turin, 1507, 4to, Paris, 1513, 8vo. 2. “Lexipyretae perpetuae questionis et annexorum solutio, de nobilitate facultatum per terminos utriusque facultatis,” Turin, 1512, fol. 3. “De medendis humani corporis mahs Enchyridion, quod vulgo Vade-mecum vocant,” Basil," 1563, and often reprinted.

, an English actor and singer, born in 1717, was bred up in the king’s chapel, and was one of the singers in the duke of Chandos’s chapel at Cannons, where he performed in Esther, an oratorio composed by Mr. Handel. He appeared the first time on the stage at Drury-lane, Aug. 30, 1737, in sir John Loverule, in the “Devil to Pay.” He afterwards, on the 8th of Jan. 1739, married lady Henrietta Herbert, daughter of J&mes earl Waldegrave, and widow of lord Edward Herbert, second son of the marquis of Powis. She died 31st of May 1753. On his marriage he quitted the stage for a few years. He afterwards returned to Drury-lane, and in 1744 to Coventgarden, where he remained until 1758. In that year he engaged with Mr. Garrick, and continued with him until 1759, when having married a daughter of Mr. Rich, he was engaged at Covent-garden, where, on the death of that gentleman, he became manager. His first appearance there was on the 10th of Oct. 1759, in the character of Macheath, which, aided by Miss Brent in Polly, ran fifty-two nights. In 1768 he retired from the theatre, and died universally respected at the age of seventy-four, in 1791. His remains were deposited in the vault of the church at Hampton in Middlesex. He was long the deserved favourite of the public; and whoever remembers the variety of his abilities, as actor and singer, in oratorios and operas, both serious and comic, win 1 testify to his having stood unrivalled in fame and excellence. This praise, however, great as it -was, fell short of what his private merits acquired. He had one of the sincerest hearts joined to the most polished manners. He was a most delightful companion, whether as host or guest. His time, his pen, and purse, were devoted to the alleviation of every distress that fell within the compass of his power, and through life he fulfilled the relative duties of son, brother, guardian, friend, and husband, with the most exemplary truth and tenderness.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s in Scotland, and cardinal of the Roman church, was born 1494, and educated in the university of St. Andrew’s. He was afterwards sent over to the university of Paris, where he studied divinity; and when he attained a proper age, entered into orders. In 1519 he was appointed resident at the court of France; about the same time his uncle James Beaton, archbishop of Glasgow, conferred upon him the rectory of Campsay; and in 1523 this uncle, being then archbishop of St. Andrew’s, gave him the abbacy of Aberbrothock, or Arbroath. David returned to Scotland in 1525, and in 1528 was made lord privy seal. In 1533 he was sent again to France, in con-­junction with sir Thomas Erskine, to confirm the leagues subsisting between the two kingdoms, and to bring about a marriage for king James V. with Magdalene, daughter of the king of France; but the princess being in a very bad state of health, the marriage could not then take effect. During his residence, however, at the French court, he received many favours from his Christian majesty. King James having gone over to France, had the princess Magdalene given him in person, whom he espoused on the first of January 1537. Beaton returned to Scotland with their majesties, where they arrived the 29th of May; but the death of the queen happening the July following, he was sent over again to Paris, to negotiate a second marriage for the king with the lady Mary, daughter to the duke of Guise and during his stay at the court of France, he was consecrated bishop of Mirepoix. All things being settled in regard to the marriage, in the month of June, he embarked with the new queen for Scotland, where they arrived in July: the nuptials were celebrated at St. Andrew’s, and the February following the coronation was performed with great splendour and magnificence in the abbey church of Holyrood -house.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s in the reign of James V. was uncle to the preceding. We have no certain account of his birth, or of the manner of his education, except that, being a younger brother, he was from his infancy destined for the church. He had great natural talents, and having improved them by the acquisition of the learning fashionable in those times, he came early into the world, under the title of Provost of Both well; a preferment given him through the interest of his family. He received his first benefice in 1503, and next year was advanced to the rich preferment of abbot of Dumferling. In 1505, upon the death of sir David Beaton, his brother, his majesty honoured him with the staff of high-treasurer, and he was thenceforward considered as one of the principal statesmen. In 1508 he was promoted to the hishopric of Galloway, and before he had sat a full year in that cathedral chair, he was removed to the archiepiscopal see of Glasgow, on which he resigned the treasurer’s staff, in order to be more at leisure to mind the government of his diocese: and indeed it is universally acknowledged, that none mflffe carefully attended the duties of his functions than archbishop Beaton while he continued at Glasgow; and he has left there such marks of concern for that church, as have baffled time, and the rage of a distracted populace: the monuments of his piety and public spirit which he raised at Glasgow, still remaining to justify this part of his character. It does not appear that he had any hand in the counsels which drove king James IV. into a fatal war with England. On the death of this monarch in the battle of Flodden-field, the regent John duke of Albany appointed our prelate to be high-chancellor. In 1523 he became archbishop of St. Andrew’s, not only by the favour of the regent, but with the full consent of the young king, who was then, and all his life, much under the influence of the archbishop’s nephew David, the subject of the preceding article. The power of the regent, “however, being abrogated by parliament, and the earl of Angus haying placed himself at the head of government, our archbishop was dismissed the court, and obliged to resign the office of chancellor; but when the Douglases were driven from court, and the king recovered his freedom, the archbishop came again into power, although he did not recover the office of chancellor. He now resided principally at the palace of St. Andrew’s, and, as some say, at the instigation of his nephew, the cardinal, proceeded with great violence against the protestants, and is particularly accountable for the death of Patrick Hamilton, the protomartyr of Scotland, a young man of piety, talents, and high birth, whom he procured to be burnt to death, although it is but justice to add that the same sentence was subscribed by the other archbishop, three bishops, six abbots and friars, and eight divines. He is even said to have had some degree of aversion to such proceedings. The clergy, however, were for stopping the mouths of such as preached what they disliked, in the same manner as they had done Hamilton’s. The archbishop moved but heavily in these kind of proceedings; and there are two very remarkable stories recorded to have happened about this time, which very plainly shew he was far enough from being naturally inclined to such severities. It happened at one qf their consultations, that some who were most vehement pressed for going on with the proceedings in the Archbishop’s court, when one Mr. John Lind$ey, a man in great credit with the archbishop, delivered himself to this purpose” If you burn any more of them, take my advice, and burn them in cellars, for I dare assure you, that the smoke of Mr. Patrick Hamilton has infected all that it blew upon.“The other was of a more serious nature; one Alexander Seton, a black friar, preached openly in the church of St. Andrew’s, that, according to St. Paul’s description of bishops, there were no bishops in Scotland, which being reported to the archbishop, not in very precise terms, he sent for Mr. Seton, and reproved him sharply for having said, according to his information,” That a bishop who did not preach was but a dumb dog, who feel not the flock, but fed his own belly.“Mr. Seton said, that tho.se vvho had reported this were liars, upon which witnesses were produced, who testified very positively to the fact. Mr. Seton, by way of reply, delivered himself thus:” My lord, you have heard, and may consider, what ears these asses have, who cannot discern between Paul, Isaiah, Zachariah, Malachi, and friar Alexander Seton. In truth, my lord, I did preach that Paul saith, it hehoveth a bishop to be a teacher. Isaiah saith, that they that feed not the flock are dumb dogs; and the prophet Zachariah saith, that they are idle pastors. Of my own head I affirmed nothing, but declared what the Spirit of God before pronounced; at whom, my lord, t if you be not offended, you cannot justly be offended with me.“How much soever the bishop might be incensed, he dismissed friar Seton without hurt, who soon afterwards fled out of the kingdom. It does not appear, that from this time the archbishop acted much in these measures himself, but chose rather to grant commissions to others that were inclined to proceed against such as preached the doctrines of the reformation, a conduct which seems very fully to justify the remark of archbishop Spotswood upon our prelate’s behaviour.” Seventeen years,“says he,” he lived bishop of this see, and was herein most unfortunate, that under the shadow of his authority many good men were put to death for the cause of religion, though he himself was neither violently set, nor much solicitous (as it was thought) how matters went in the church."

, first professor of rhetoric in the college of the Grassins, and afterwards professor in the college-royal, secretary to the duke of Orleans, perpetual secretary and pensionary of the academy of inscriptions, was born at Paris, Oct. 19, 1701 (Saxius says 1709), and died in that city, March 13, 1778. He was married, and left only one daughter. This honest and laborious academician, the rival of Rollin in the art of teaching, idolized by his scholars, as that famous professor was, had perhaps a more extensive fund of learning, and particularly in Greek and Latin literature. His history of the Lower Empire, in 22 vols. 12mo, 1757, forming a continuation of Crevier’s History of the Emperors, is the more esteemed, as in the composition of it he had many difficulties to overcome, in reconciling contradictory writers, rilling up chasms, and forming a regular body out of a heap of mishapen ruins. It is strongly characterized by a judicious series of criticism, couched in a polished and elegant style. The logician sometimes appears too conspicuously; but in general it is read with pleasure and profit. The first volume of an English translation of this work was published in 1770, but, we believe, not continued. The memoirs of the academy of belles lettres are enriched with several learned dissertations by the same author, particularly on medals, on the Roman legion, on the Roman art of war, and thirty-four biographical eloges, distinguished for truth and impartiality. The religious sentiments, the sound principles, the sweetness of manners, and the inviolable integrity of M. le Beau, which inspired his friends and disciples with so much attachment to him when alive, occasioned them to feel a long and lasting regret at his departure. Several little anecdotes might here be related that do honour to his heart. A place in the academy of bt-iles lettres had been designed for him. Bougainville, the translator of the Anti-Lucretius, who applied for it, with fewer pretensions, and a less consummate knowledge, dreaded such a formidable competitor as M. le Beau, to whom, however, from his known character, he was not deterred from making his wishes known. The professor felt for his embarrassment, and hastened to the friends who had promised him their votes, desiring they might be transferred to the young student. “It is one of the smallest sacrifices,” said he, “1 should be ready to make in order to oblige a man of merit.' 1 M. le Beau was received at the election following; and M. Capperonier, surprised at his extensive erudition, and affected by his generosity, exclaimed,” He is our master in all things!“On another occasion, when highly praised for his acquisitions, he said,” I know enough to be ashamed that I knowno more." Thierrat published Le Beau’s Latin works, Paris, 1782, 2 vols. 8vo, consisting of orations, poetry, ancj fables; -the last inferior to his other productions.