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

, 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.

On the 2d of August 1716, he married the countess dowager of Warwick, whom he had solicited by a very long and anxious courtship. 'He is said to have first known her by becoming tutor to her son. The marriage, if uncontradieted report can be credited, made no addition to his happiness; it neither found them nor made them equal. She always remembered her own rank, and thought herself intitled to treat with very little ceremony the tutor of her son. It is certain that Addison has left behind him no encouragement for ambitious love. The year after, 1717, he rose to his highest elevation being made secretary of state but it is universally confessed that he was unequal to the duties of his place. In the House of Commons he could not speak, and therefore was useless to the defence of the government. In the office he could not issue an orjler without losing his time in quest of fine expressions. What he gained in rank he lost in credit; and finding, by experience, his own inability, was forced to solicit his dismission, with a pension of 1500l. a year. His friends palliated this relinquishment, of which both friends and enemies knew the true reason, with an account of declining health, and the necessity of recess and quiet. He now returned to his vocation, and began to plan literary occupations for his future life. He proposed a tragedy on the death of Socrates; a story of which, as Tickell remarks, the basis is narrow, and to which love perhaps could not easily have been appended. He engaged in a noble work, a defence of the Christian religion, of which part was published after his death; and he designed to have made a new poetical version of the Psalms. It is related that he had once a design to make an English dictionary, and that he considered Dr. Tillotson as the writer of highest authority. Addison, however, did not conclude his life in peaceful studies; but relapsed, when he was near his end, to a political question. It happened that, in 1719, a controversy was agitated, with great vehemence, between, those friends of long continuance, Addison and Steele. The subject of their dispute was the earl of Sunderland’s memorable act, called “The Peerage bill,” by which the number of peers should be fixed, and the king restrained from any new creation of nobility, unless when an old family should be extinct. Steele endeavoured to alarm the ration by a pamphlet called “The Plebeian:” to this an Answer was published by Addison under the title of “The Old Whig.” Steele was respectful to his old friend, though he was Mow his political adversary; but Addison could not avoid discovering a contempt of his opponent, to whom he gave the appellation of “Little Dicky.” The bill was laid aside during that session, and Addison died before the next, in which its commitment was rejected. Every reader surely must regret that these two illustrious friends, after so many years passed in confidence and endearment, in unity of interest, conformity of opinion, and fellowship of study, should finally part in acrimonious opposition. The end of this useful life was now approaching. Addison had for some time been oppressed by shortness of breath, which was now aggravated by a dropsy; and finding his danger pressing, he prepared to die conformably to his own precepts and professions. During this lingering decay, he sent, as Pope relates, a message by the earl of Warwick to Mr. Gay, desiring to see him. Gay, who had not visited him for some time before, obeyed the summons, and found himself received with great kindness. The purpose for which the interview had been solicited was theti discovered: Addison told him, that he had injured him; but that, if he recovered, he would recompense him. What the injury was he did not explain, nor did Gay ever know; but supposed that some preferment designed for him had by Addison' s intervention been withheld. Lord Warwick was a young man of very irregular life, and perhaps of loose opinions. Addison, for whom he did not want respect, had very diligently endeavoured to reclaim him; but his arguments and expostulations had no effect; one experiment, however, remained to be tried. When he found his life near its end, he directed the young lord to be called; and, when he desired, with great tenderness, to hear his last injunctions, told him, “I have sent for you that you may see how a Christian can die.” What effect this awful scene had on the earl’s behaviour is not known: he died himself in a short time. Having given directions to Mr. Tickell for the publication of his works, and dedicated them on his death-bed to his friend Mr. Craggs, he died June 17, 1719, at Holland-house, leaving no child but a daughter, who died in 1797, at Bilton, near Rugby, in Warwickshire.

, a lawyer, was born at Antwerp in 1486. He was educated under the care of the celebrated Erasmus, with whom he lived afterwards in close friendship, as he did with the illustrious sir Thomas More, and other eminent scholars of that age. More introduces him in the prologue to his Utopi with high praise, as “a man there in his country of honest reputation, and also preferred to high promotions, worthy truly of the highest. For it is hard to say whether the young man be in learning or in honesty more excellent. For he is both of wonderful virtuous conditions, and also singularly well learned, and towards all sorts of people exceeding gentle.” Sir Thomas adds, that “the charms of his conversation abated the fervent desire he had to see his native country, from which sir Thomas had been absent more than four months.” He occurs also with high praise in the life and writings of Erasmus. In 1510, on the death of Adrian Blict, first notary at Antwerp, he was unanimously elected into his place. He died Nov. 29, 1533. His works are, 1. “Threnodiain funus Maximiliani Caesaris, cum Epitaphiis aliquot et Epigrammatum libello,” Antwerp, 1519, 4to. 2. “Hypotheses, sive Spectacula Carolo V. Caesari ab S. P. Q. Antver.” ib. 4to. 3. “Enchiridion Principis ac Magistratus Christiani,” Colon. 1541. He edited also “Titulos Legum ex Codice Theodosiario,” Louvain, 1517, folio.

, the fabulist. Of this man, the reputed author of many fables, it is very doubtful whether we are in possession of any authentic biography. The life by Planudes, a monk of the fourteenth century, is universally considered as a series of fictions; and the notices of him in writers of better authority, are not sufficiently consistent to form a narrative. The particulars usually given, however, are as follow. He was born at Amorium, a small town in Phrygia, in the beginning of the sixth century before the Christian aera, and was a slave to two philosophers, Xanthus and Idmon, the latter of whom gave him his liberty, on account of his good behaviour and pleasantry. The philosophers of Greece gained a name by their lofty sentences, clothed in lofty words; Æop assumed a more simple and familiar style, and became not less celeb rated. He taught virtue and ridiculed vice, by giving a language to animals and inanimate things; and composed those fables, which under the mask of allegory, and with all the interest of fable, convey the most useful lessons in morality. The fame of his wisdom spreading over Greece and the adjoining countries, Croesus, the king of Lydia, sent for him, and was his generous benefactor. There he found Solon, whom he soon equalled in favour, however different his mode of conducting himself. Solon preserved his austerity in the midst of a corrupt court, was a philosopher among courtiers, and often offended Croesus by obtruding his advice, who at last dismissed him. “Solon,” said Æsop, “let us not address kings, or let us say what is agreeable.” “By no means,” replied the philosopher, “let us either say nothing, or tell them what is profitable.” Æsop made frequent excursions from the court of Lydia into Greece. When Pisistratus assumed the chief power at Athens, Æsop, who witnessed the dissatisfaction of the people, repeated to them his fable of the frogs petitioning Jupiter for a king. He afterwards travelled through Persia and Egypt, everywhere inculcating morality by his fables. The kings of Babylon and Memphis received him with distinguished honour; and on his return to Lydia, Croesus sent him with a sum of money to Delphi, where he was to offer a magnificent sacrifice to the god of the place, and distribute a certain sum of money to each of the inhabitants. But being offended by the people, he offered his sacrifice, and sent the rest of the money to Sardis, representing the Delphians as unworthy of his master’s bounty. In revenge, they threw him from the top of a rock. All Greece was interested in his fate, and at Athens a statue was erected to his memory. Lurcher, in his notes on Herodotus, fixes his death in the 560th year before the Christian aera, under the reign of Pisistratus. Planudes, who, as already observed, wrote his life, represents him as exceedingly deformed in person, and defective in his speech, for which there seems no authority. It is to this monk, however, that we owe the first collection of Æsop’s Fables, such as we now have them, mixed with many by other writers, some older, and some more modern than the time of Æsop. He wrote in prose; and Socrates, when in prison, is said to have amused himself by turning some of them into verse. Plato, who banished Homer and the other poets from his republic, as the corruptors of mankind, retained Æsop as being their preceptor. Some are of opinion, that Lockman, so famous among the orientals, and Pilpay among the Indians, were one and the same with Æsop. Whatever may be in this, or in the many other conjectures and reports, to be found in the authorities cited below, the fables of Æsop may surely be considered as the best models of a species of instructive composition, that has been since attempted by certain men of learning and fancy in all nations, and particularly our own; nor will it be easy to invent a mode of arresting and engaging the attention of the young to moral truths, more pleasant or more successful. The best editions of Æsop are those of Plantin, Antwerp, 1565, 16mo; of Aldus, with other fabulists, Venice, 1505, fol. and Franckfort, 1610; that called Barlow’s, or “Æsopi Fabularum, cum Vita,” London, 1666, fol. in Latin, French, and English; the French and Latin by Rob. Codrington, with plates by Barlow, now very rare, as a great part of the edition was burnt in the fire of London; Hudson’s, published under the name of Marianus (a member of St. Mary Hall), Oxford, 1718, 8vo. They have been translated into all modern languages; and CroxalPs and Dodsley’s editions deserve praise, on account of the life of Æsop prefixed to each.

, a French statesman of great worth and talents, was born at Limoges, Nov. 7, 1668, the son of Henry d'Aguesseau, then intendant of the Limoisin, and afterwards counsellor of state. The family was distinguished for having produced many able magistrates, among whom was Anthony, the grandfather of the chancellor, who was first president of the parliament of Bourdeaux. Henry-Francis, the subject of the present article, was educated under his father in every species of knowledge which promised to qualify him for the office of magistrate. After being admitted, in 1690, an advocate, he became, a few months after, advocate-general of the parliament of Paris, at the age of only twenty-two years. The king, in appointing one so young to an office of very great consequence, was guided solely by the recommendation of his father. “I know him,” said his majesty, “to be incapable of deceiving me, even in the case of his own son;” and the young advocate completely justified the confidence reposed in him. The celebrated Denis Talon, who had obtained great reputation in the same office, declared that he should have been willing to conclude his career as that young man had begun his. After having performed the functions of his office with reputation equal to his commencement, he became procurator-general; and the nature of his new office furnished him with occasion to display new talents in the public service. In particular, he introduced a complete system of reformation in the management of the hospitals, by which abuses were prevented or corrected; and he restored order and discipline in the tribunals, by which the criminal code was greatly improved. In questions respecting estates, he discovered much acuteness and knowledge of antiquities.

, or Alainde L'Isle or de Lille, is the name under which two persons, who were contemporaries, have been confounded by most biographers. The subject of the present article, usually termed Alanus senior, or major, was born at Lille in Flanders, about the beginning of the twelfth century; and his parents having demoted him from his birth to the service of religion, he received a suitable education. When the fame of St. Bernard began to spread abroad, Alanus was sent, in 1128, to study at Clairvaux, under that celebrated ecclesiastic, and very soon acquired a distinction above his companions. St. Bernard afterwards placed him at the head of the abbey of Rivour, in the diocese of Troyes in Champagne; and in 1151, procured him the bishopric of Auxerre, over which he presided until 1167, when he resigned it, and returned to Clairvaux, where he remained until his death in October 1181. His works, still in existence, are, 1. “Vita sancti Bernard!,” printed in the second volume of St. Bernard’s works, 1690, fol. 2. “Testamentum suum,” or his Testament, made in 1181, printed in Nicholas Camusat’s collection. 3. “Explanationes in Prophetias Merlini Angli,” in seven books, Francfort, 1608, 8vo. Alanus composed this treatise under the reign of Louis-the-Young, about 1171, on account of the noise which these pretended prophecies made. The subject is curiously illustrated by quotations from the English, Norman, and French historians, and even from the Latin poets. In the chapter-house of Auxerre is a manuscript life of Alanus, compiled in 1182 by one of the canons.

, 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.

At fifteen years of age, Alexander was delivered to the tuition of Aristotle. He discovered very early a mighty spirit, and symptoms of that vast and immoderate ambition which was afterwards to make him the scourge of mankind and the pest of the world. One day, when it was told him that Philip had gained a battle, instead of rejoicing, he looked much chagrined, and said, that “if his father went on at this rate, there would be nothing left for him to do.” Upon Philip’s shewing some wonder, that Alexander did not engage in the Olympic games, “Give me,” said the youth, “kings for my antagonists, and I will present myself at once.” The taming and managing of the famous Bucephalus is always mentioned among the exploits of his early age. This remarkable horse was brought from Thessaly, and purchased at a very great price; but upon trial he was found so wild and vicious, that neither Philip nor any of his courtiers could mount or manage him; and he was upon the point of being sent back as useless, when Alexander, expressing his grief that so noble a creature should be rejected, merely because nobody had the dexterity to manage him, was at length permitted to try what he could do. Alexander, we are told, had perceived, that the frolicksome spirit and wildness of Bucephalus proceeded solely from the fright which the animal had taken at his own shadow: turning his head, therefore, directly to the sun, and gently approaching him with address and skill, he threw himself upon him; and though Philip at first was extremely distressed and alarmed for his son, yet when he saw him safe, and perfectly master of his steed, he received him with tears of joy, saying, “O, my son thou must seek elsewhere a kingdom, for Macedonia cannot contain thee.” One more instance of this very high spirit may suffice. When Philip had repudiated Olympias for infidelity to his bed, the young prince felt a most lively resentment on the occasion; yet, being invited by his father to the nuptials with his new uife, he did not refuse to go. In the midst of the entertainment, Attalus, a favourite of Philip, had the imprudence to say, that the Macedonians must implore the gods to grant the king a lawful successor. “What, you scoundrel do you then take me for a bastard r” says Alexander; and threw a cup that instant at his head. Philip, intoxicated with wine, and believing his son to be the author of the quarrel, rushed violently towards him with his sword; but, slipping with his foot, fell prostrate upon the floor; upon which Alexander said insultingly, “See, Macedonians, wnat a general you have for the conquest of Asia, who cannot take a single step without falling;” for Philip had just before been named for this expedition in a common assembly of the Greeks, and was preparing for it, when he was murdered by Pausanius at a feast.

, 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.

In this station, he manifested his equity and good administration of justice, improved the discipline of the mamalukes, and laid the foundation of his future greatness. Here he gained the favour of the pasha Rahiph, who, discovering his merit, became his protector. He remained several years in this station, until his patron Ibrahim was elected emir al hagi, or prince of the caravan, who took him with him to escort the pilgrims: in their march they were attacked by the Arabs; Ali fell upon them at the head of the mamalukes, repulsed the enemy, and killed a great number on the spot. On his return, several tribes being collected were determined to avenge their defeat: the young cachef gave them battle, and obtained a signal victory. Ibrahim did justice to the services of his lieutenant in full council, and proposed to create him a sangiak, which, after some opposition, was accomplished.

Supreme chief of the republic, he adopted every measure to render his power durable: not content with increasing his mamalukes to 6000, he took into pay 10,000 mograbi: he also caused his troops to observe the most rigid discipline, and, by continual exercise, made them good soldiers. He attached the young men of his household to him, by the paternal attention he paid to their education; and above all by bestowing favours and rewards on those who were the most worthy. His party became so powerful, that such of his colleagues as were not his friends dreaded his power, nor dared to thwart his projects. Believing his authority established on a solid basis, he turned his attention to the welfare of his people: the Arabs, dispersed over the deserts, and on the frontiers of Egypt, committed ravages not to be suppressed by a fluctuating government: he declared war, and sent against them bodies of cavalry, which beat them everywhere, and drove them back into the depth of their solitudes. Egypt began to respire, and agriculture, encouraged, flourished once more in that rich country. Having rendered the chief of each village responsible for the crimes of the inhabitants, he punished them until the authors of the offence were delivered into the hands of justice. In this manner, the principal citizens looked after the public safety; and, for the first time since the commencement of the Turkish empire, the traveller and merchant could pass through the whole extent of the kingdom without the apprehension of art insult.

, 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.

His steady adherence to the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, in opposition particularly to the Arians, induced him to take very active measures, and involved him in much trouble. About the year 381, he condemned, in a council held at Aquileia, Palladius and Secundianus, two Arian bishops, and the chief supporters of that heresy in the west, and they were formally deposed. Justina, the empress, was a decided patroness of Arianism, and after the death of her husband, she endeavoured to instil those principles into her son Valentinian, and to induce him to threaten Ambrose, who exhorted him to support the doctrine received from the Apostles. In a rage the young emperor ordered his guards to surround the church, and commanded Ambrose to come out of it; but when the latter told him, that although his life was in his hands, he could not obey such an order, Valentinian desisted, and Justina was obliged to have recourse to more secret hostilities, dreading, probably, the people, who were generally inclined to support their bishop.

The news of Maximus’s intention to invade Italy arriving at this time (387), Justina condescended to employ Ambrose again on an embassy to the usurper, which he cheerfully undertook, and executed with great fortitude, but it was not in his power to stop the progress of the enemy. Theodosius, who reigned in the east, coming at length to the assistance of Valentinian, put an end to the usurpation, and the life of Maximus, and by his means the young emperor was induced to forsake his mother’s principles, and to embrace those of Ambrose. After his death, in the year 392, Ambrose composed a funeral oration to his praise, in which he seems to believe the real conversion of his royal pupil. The oration is not worthy of Ambrose, and perhaps the best excuse that can be made for him, is that he praised one when dead, whom he never flattered when living.

, a Greek poet of great celebrity, was born at Teos, a sea-port of Ionia. Madam Dacier endeavours to prove from Plato, that he was a kinsman of Solon’s, and consequently allied to the Codridae, the noblest family in Athens; but this is not sufficiently supported. The time when he flourished is uncertain; Eusebius placing it in the 62d, Suidas in the 52d, and Mr. le Fevre in the 72d olympiad. He is said to have been about eighteen years of age, when Harpagus, the general of Cyrus, came with an army against the confederate cities of the lonians and Æolians. The Milesians immediately submitted themselves; but the Phocseans, when they found themselves unable to withstand the enemy, chose rather to abandon their country than their liberty; and getting a fleet together, transported themselves and families to the coast of France, where, being hospitably received by Nannus the king of the country, they built Marseilles. The Teians soon followed their example; for, Harpagus having made himself master of their walls, they unanimously went on board their ships, and, sailing to Thrace, fixed themselves in the city Abdera. They had not been there long, when the Thracians, jealous of their new neighbours, endeavoured to give them disturbance; and in these conflicts it seems to be, that Anacreon lost those friends whom he celebrates in his epigrams. This poet had much wit, but was certainly too fond of pleasures, for love and wine had the disposal of all his hours. In the edition of Anacreon and Sappho published in 1789 by Fred. G. Born, of Leipsiclc, this editor endeavours to defend Anacreou against the charges of inebriety and unnatural lust, and with considerable success. These imputations, however, have been cast on his memory by the majority of writers, except, perhaps, Ælian. How long Anacreon continued at Samos is uncertain, but it is probable he remained there during the greatest part of the reign of Polycrates; for Herodotus assures us, that Anacreon was with that prince in his chamber, when he received a message from Oraetes governor of Sardis, by whose treachery Polycrates was soon after betrayed and inhumanly crucified. It seems to have been a little before this, that Anacreon left Samos and removed to Athens; having been invited thither by Hipparchus the eldest son of Pisistratus, one of the uiost virtuous and learned princes of his time; who, as Plato assures us, sent an obliging letter, with a vessel of fifty oars to convey him over the Ægean sea. After Hipparchus was slain by the conspiracy of Harmodius and Aristogiton, Anacreon returned to Teos, where he remained till the revolt of Hisfciseus, when he was obliged once more to remove to Abdera, where he died. The manner of his death is said to have been very extraordinary; for they tell us he was choaked with a grape-stone, which he swallowed as he was drinking some new wine. A small part only of Anacreon’s works remain. Besides odes and epigrams, he composed elegies, hymns, and iambics: the poems which are extant consist chiefly of bacchanalian songs and lovesonnets; and with respect to such subjects, they have been long regarded as standards of excellence. They are distinguished by their native elegance and grace from every other kind of poetical composition: and the voluptuous gaiety of all his songs is so characteristic, that his style and manner have produced innumerable imitations, called Anacreontics, Little can be said, however, of the moral purity of his sentiments, and it is to be feared that the fascinations of the Anacreontic school have been most destructive to the morals and prudence of the young and gay.

, an eminent divine, of the reformed church at Metz, was born March 17, 1617. He studied from the ninth or tenth year of his age in the Jesuits’ college, then the only one at Metz where there was an opportunity of being instructed in polite literature. In this college he gave such proofs of genius, that the heads of the society left nothing unattempted in order to draw him over to their religion and party, but he continued firm against their attacks, and that he might be the more enabled to withstand them, took the resolution of studying divinity, in which he was so indefatigable, that his father was often obliged to interpose his authority to interrupt his continual application, lest it suould injure his health. He went to Geneva in the year 1633, and performed his course of philosophy there under Mr. du Pattr, and his divinity studies under Spanheim, Diodati, and Tronchin, who had a great esteem for him. He left Geneva in April 1641, and offered himself to the synod of Charenton, in order to take upon him the office of a minister. His abilities were greatly admired by the examiners, and his modesty by the ministers of Paris; and the whole assembly was so highly satisfied with him, that they gave him one of the most considerable churches, which was unprovided for, that of Meaux, where he exercised his ministry till the year 1653, and became extremely popular, raising an extensive reputation by his learning, eloquence, and virtue, and was even highly respected by those of the Roman catholic communion. He displayed his talents with still greater reputation and success in his own country, where he was minister from the year 1653, till the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685. He retired to Francfort after that fatal blow; and having preached in the French church at Hanau, the whole assembly was so edified by it, that they immediately called together the heads of the families, in order to propose that he might be desired to accept of the office of minister among them. The proposition was agreed to; and they sent deputies who prevailed on him, and he began the exercise of his ministry in that church about the end of the year 1685. It was now that several persons who had quitted the French church, for some disgust, returned to it again. The professors of divinity, and the German and Dutch ministers, attended frequently upon his sermons. The count of Hanau himself, who had never before been seen in that church, came thither to hear Mr. Ancillon. His auditors came from the neighbouring parts, and even from Francfort, and people, who understood nothing of French, flocked together with great eagerness, and said, that they loved to see him speak; a degree of popularity which excited the jealousy of two other ministers, who at length rendered his situation so uneasy that he was induced to abandon voluntarily a place from which they could not force him. If he had chosen to rely upon the voice of the people, he might have still retained his situation, but it was his opinion that a faithful pastor ought not to establish his own interests upon any division between a congregation and its ministers, and as through his whole life he had been averse to parties, and had remonstrated often against cabals and factions, he would not take advantage of the disposition which the people were in towards him, nor permit them to act. Having therefore attempted every method which charity suggested without success, he resolved to quit Hanau, where he had to wrangle without intermission, and where his patience, which had supported several great trials, might possibly he at last overcome; and for these reasons he left it privately. He would now have returned to Francfort to settle, but in consideration of his numerous family, he preferred Berlin, where he received a kind reception from the elector of Brandenbourg. He was also made minister of Berlin, and had the pleasure of seeing his eldest son made judge and director of the French who were in that city, and his other son rewarded with a pension, and entertained at the university of Francfort upon the Oder, and at last minister in ordinary of the capital. He had likewise the satisfaction of seeing his brother made judge of all the French in the states of Brandenbourg, and Mr. Cayart, his son-in-law, engineer to his electoral highness. He enjoyed these circumstances undisturbed, till his death at Berlin, September 3, 1692, aged seventy-five years. His marriage was contracted in a very singular way: The principal heads of families of the church of Meaux seeing how much their minister distinguished himself, and hearing him sometimes saying, that he would go to Metz to see his father and relations, whom he had not seen for several years, were apprehensive lest they should lose him. They thought of a thousand expedients in order to fix him with them for a long time; and the surest way in their opinion was to marry him to some rich lady of merit, who had an estate in that country or near it. One of them recollected he had heard, that Mr. Ancillon having preached one Sunday in the morning at Charenton, he was universally applauded; and that Mr. Macaire especially, a venerable old gentleman, of very exemplary virtue and piety, and possessed of a considerable estate at Paris and about Meaux, had given him a thousand blessings and commendations, and said aloud to those who sat near him in the church, that he had but one daughter, who was an only child, and very dear to him; but if that gentleman, speaking of Mr. Ancillon, should come and ask her in marriage, he would give her with all his heart. Upon this, they went to ask him, whether he still continued in that favourable opinion of him; he replied, that he did; and accompanied that answer with new expressions of his esteem and affection for Mr. Ancillon; so that the marriage was concluded in the year 1649, and proved a very happy one, although there was a great disparity of years, the young lady being only fourteen.

, a young man of extraordinary talents, was born at Weston, a village near Aylesbury, in Buckinghamshire, in Nov. 1760. His father was a peasant of the lower order, who died when his son was young, leaving him to the care of providence: from his mother and an elder brother he received some little instruction, and particularly by the latter he was taught the rudiments of arithmetic. His chief occupation, however, was in the field, where his family were obliged to procure a subsistence, and here, like his predecessor in early fortune, James Ferguson, he became enamoured of mathematical science, and devoted what hours he could spare to this study, although with disadvantages which in most men would have prevented the attempt, or interrupted the progress. Yet such was his application, that in 1777, he transmitted to the London Magazine the solution of some problems which had appeared in that work, and he had the satisfaction to see his letter admitted. As he had signed this letter with his name, and dated it from Weston, it happened to fall under the inspection of Mr. Bonnycastle, the well-known author of various mathematical and astronomical works, and now mathematical master to the Royal Academy, Woolwich, who was not less pleased than surprised at this attempt of a young man from the sama county with himself, of whom he had never heard. Mr. Bonnycastle, accordingly, on his next visit in Buckinghamshire, procured an interview with the young genius, whom he found threshing in a barn, the walls of which were covered with triangles and parallelograms. Such was young Anderson’s bashfulness, however, that Mr. Bonnycastle could not draw him into conversation, until he won hfs heart by the loan of Simpson’s Fluxions, and two or threeother books.

, a learned Greek of the seventeenth century, author of several learned and curious works, was born at Peloponnesus in Greece, and obliged by the Turks to abandon his country on account of his religion, for which he suffered a variety of torments. He came afterwards to England, where he was supported by the bishop of Norwich and several of the clergy. By this prelate’s recommendation, he went to Cambridge, and studied about three years in Trinity college. In Whitsuntide 1610, he removed to Oxford, and studied at Baliol college, where he did great service to the young scholars of the university, by instructing them in the Greek language; in which manner he employed himself till his death, which happened on the 1st of February 1638. He was buried in St. Ebbe’s church of church-yard, Oxford.

, an Italian scholar, was born in 1455, at Arona, on the Lake Major. His family, one of the most illustrious in Milan, took the name of Anghiera, from the same lake, which is partly in the county of Anghiera. In 1477, he went to Rome, and entered into the service of the cardinal Ascanio Sforza Visconti, and afterwards into that of the archbishop of Milan. During a residence there of ten years, he formed an acquaintance with the most eminent literary men of his time, and among others, with Pomponio Leto. In 1487, he went into Spain in the suite of the ambassador of that court, who was returning home. By him he was presented to Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen, and served in two campaigns, but quitted the army for the church, and was appointed by the queen to teach the belles lettres to the young men of the court, in which employment he continued for some time. Having on various occasions shown a capacity for political business, Ferdinand, in 1501, employed him on an errand of considerable delicacy, to the sultan of Egypt, in which he acquitted himself greatly to his majesty’s satisfaction. While engaged in this business, he took the opportunity of visiting some part of Egypt, particularly the pyramids, and returned to Spain in the month of August 1502. From this time he became attached to the court, and was appointed a member of the council for the affairs of India. The pope, at the king’s request, made him apostolical prothonotary, and in 1505, prior of the church of Grenada, with a valuable benefice. After the death of Ferdinand, Anghiera remained as much in favour with the new king, and he also was presented by Charles V. to a rich abbey. He died at Grenada in 1526, leaving several historical works, which are often quoted by the name of Peter Martyr, as if that were his family name; and in the Diet. Hist, he is recorded under Martyr. His principal works are, 1. “Opus Epistolarum Petri Martyris Anglerii, Mediolanensis,” 1530, fol. reprinted more correctly in Holland by Elzevir, 1670, fol. with the letters and other works, Latin and Spanish, of Ferdinand de Pulgar. This work, which is much esteemed, is divided into thirty-eight books, comprehending the whole of his political life from 1488 to 1525, and contains many curious historical particulars not to be found elsewhere. 2. “De rebus Oceanicis etorbe novo Decades,” a history of the discovery of the New World, compiled from the manuscripts of Columbus, and the accounts he sent to Spain to the India council, of which our author was a member. These Decades were at first printed separately; the first edition of the whole is that of Paris, 1536, fol. which has been often reprinted. 3. “De insulis nuper in vends et incolarum moribus,” Basil, 1521, 4to, 1533, fol. 4. “De legation e Baby lonica, libri tres,” printed with the Decades, which contains an account of his embassy to the sultan of Egypt. Some other works, but rather on doubtful authority, have been attributed to him.

, who was born at Vicenza, composed in Italian and the Turkish language the “History of Mahomet II.” which he dedicated to him. It was very kindly received by that haughty sultan, who, besides the civilities which he shewed to Angiolello, bestowed on him very considerable proofs of his liberality. The author had been an eye-witness of what he related; for, being one of the slaves of the young sultan Mustapha, he followed him in the expedition to Persia in 1473, which Mahomet carried on in person with almost 200,000 soldiers into the dominions of Ussun-Caesan. It is somewhat surprising that Angiolello, who knew without doubt the haughty disposition of this emperor of the Turks, should venture to repeat the abusive terms, which Ussun-Cassan used in reproaching him with his illegitimate birth, when he viewed the army of the enemies from a hill upon the bank of the Euphrates. It is certain, however, that Angiolello’s book was not the less kindly received, or the less amply rewarded. There was printed at Venice in 1553 a piece of Giov. Mario Angiolello, “Delia vita et fatti di Re di Persia;” and he wrote also “Relatione della vita e de' fatti del signer Ussun-Cassan,” inserted in the second volume of Ramusio’s Voyage, 1559, fol. By this it appears that he was living in 1524, and probably old, as this was fifty-one years after the battle on the Euphrates, at which he was present.

, 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.

, an eminent English musician, was the son of Thomas Arne, upholsterer, of Kingstreet, Covent-garden, at whose house the Indian kings lodged in the reign of queen Anne, as mentioned in the Spectator, No. 50, and who had been before pleasantly depicted by Addison, in the Tatler, Nos. 155 and 160, as a crazy politician. He sent this son, who was born May 28, 1710, to Eton school, and intended him for the profession of the law; but even at Eton his love for music interrupted his studies and after he left that school, such was his passion for his favourite pursuit, that he used to avail himself of the privilege of a servant, by borrowing a livery, and going into the upper gallei'y of the opera, which was then appropriated to domestics. At home he had contrived to secrete a spinet in his room, upon which, after muffling the strings with a handkerchief, he used to practise in the night while the rest of the family were asleep, His father, who knew nothing of this, bound him to a three years’ clerkship, during which this young votary of Apollo dedicated every moment he could obtain fairly, or otherwise, to the study of music. Besides practising on the spinet, and studying composition, by himself, he contrived to acquire some instructions on the violin, of Festing, a performer of much fame at that time; and upon this instrument he had made so considerable a progress, that soon after he quitted his legal master, his father accidentally calling at a gentleman’s house in the neighbourhood, was astonished to find a large party, and a concert, at which his son played the first fiddle. His father was at first much irritated at this disappointment of his hopes, but was soon prevailed upon to let his son follow the bent of his inclinations; and the young man was no sooner at liberty to play aloud in his father’s house, than he bewitched the whole family. In particular, he cultivated the voice of one of his sisters, who was fond of music, by giving her such instruct tions as enabled her to become a favourite public performer. For her and for a younger brother, who performed the character of the page, he set to music Addison’s opera of Rosamond, which was performed at Lincoln’s Inn Fields, ten nights successively, and with great applause.

, bishop of Lisieux, in the twelfth century, was treasurer of the church of Bayeux, archdeacon of Seez, and in 1141, succeeded John, his uncle, io the bishopric of Lisieux. In 1147 he travelled beyond seas with Louis the Young, king of France, and returned in 1149. In 1,154, he was present at the coronation of Henry II. king of England, whom he endeavoured to keep steadfast to the orthodox faith, as appears by the letters of pope Alexander III. He espoused the cause of Thomasa Becket, and travelled to England, on purpose to effect a reconciliation between Becket and the king, but finding that his interference was useless, and likely to involve himself with Henry, he resolved to retire to a monastery. Many years after he was made canon regular of the abbey of St. Victor at Paris, where he died August 31, 1182. He wrote several works, and among others, a volume of letters, two speeches, one delivered in the council held at Tours, 1163, and the other on occasion of ordaining a bishop, and some pieces of poetry, all printed by Odo Turnebus, the son of Adrian, Paris, 1585, under the title “Epistolae, conciones, et epigrammata,” and afterwards inserted in theBibliotheca Patrum. D'Acheri, in the second volume of his Spicilegium, has a treatise by Arnoul, “De Schismate orco post Honoriill. discessum, contra Girardum episcopum Engolismensem,” the legate of Peter of Leon, the antipope: and in the thirteenth volume, a sermon and five letters. ArnoiFs letters are chiefly valuable for the particulars they contain of the history and discipline of his times, and his poetry is favourably spoken of, as to correctness of verse.

, the son of Sandon, was another celebrated Stoic philosopher. He was born at Tarsus, or perhaps at Cana, a village near it, whence he was surnamed Cananita. He lived at Rome and on account of his learning, wisdom, and moderation, was highly esteemed by Augustus. His opinion and advice bad great weight with the emperor, and are said to have led him into a milder plan of government than he had at first adopted. He obtained, for his fellow-citizens, the inhabitants of Tarsus, relief from a part of the burthen of taxes which had been imposed upon them, and was on this account honoured with an annual festival. Athenodorus was intrusted by Augustus with the education of the young prince Claudius and that he might the more successfully execute his charge, his illustrious pupil became for a while resident in his house. This philosopher retired in his old age to Tarsus, where he died in his eighty-second year. Other particulars of him are given in the General Dictionary, and in the authorities cited by Brucker, but there appear to have been two of the name (besides the one of whom we have before given an account), or there is much confusion in all the writers we have had an opportunity of consulting respecting this one.

Avicenna pretended to obey, but, instead of repairing to Gazna, he took the road to Giorgian. Mahmoud, who had gloried in the thought of keeping him at his palace, was greatly irritated at his flight, and dispatched portraits of this philosopher to all the princes of Asia, with orders to have him conducted to Gazna, if he appeared in their courts. But Avicenna eluded the most diligent search, and arrived in the capital of Giorgian, where, under a disguised name, he performed many admirable cures. Cabous then reigned in that country, and a favourite nephew having fallen sick, he consulted the most able physicians, none of whom were able to discover his disorder, or to give him any relief. Avicenna was at last consulted, who discovered, as soon as he felt the young prince’s pulse, that his disorder was concealed love, and he commanded the person, who had the care of the different apartments in the palace, to name them all in their respective order. A more lively motion in the prince’s pulse, at hearing mentioned one of those apartments, betrayed a part of his secret. The keeper then had orders to name all the slaves that inhabited that apartment. At the name of one of those beauties, the young prince, by the extraordinary beating of his pulse, completed the discovery of what he in vain desired to keep concealed. Avicenna, now fully assured that this slave was the cause of his illness, declared that she alone had the power to cure him. The Sultan’s consent being necessary, he expressed a desire to see his nephew’s physician, and had scarcely looked at him when he knew in his features those of the portrait sent to him by Mahmoud but Cabous, far from forcing Avicenna to repair to Gazna, retained him for some time with him, and heaped honours and presents on him.

, an eminent French musician and composer, was born at Clermont in Auvergne, Oct. 4, 1713. Instead of giving any extraordinary proofs of voluntary application, or early pregnancy of genius, he merely complied with the desire of his father, who was a musician, in turning his thoughts, or rather employing his time, in that pursuit. About his eighteenth year, however, an entire change appeared to have taken place in his mind, which became suddenly seized with the most violent enthusiasm, and such was his application night and day, that he soon became a capital performer on the violin, and was in 1739 thought worthy of the honour of being admitted into his majesty’s chamber band. With no other help in composition than the works of Rameau, he composed a trio for two violins and a bass, which he presented to that celebrated author, who, flattered by such a mark of respect, offered the young composer his advice and friendship. Auvergne began to compose a number of works for the court and the opera, which were much admired. In 1766, having the direction of the spiritual concert entrusted to him, and being unable to treat with Mondonville, who asked an exorbitant price for his Motets, Auvergne, undismayed by the vast reputation which the Orpheus of Languedoc (as Mondonville was called) had acquired in that species of composition, turned his own talents to it, and with such success, that his “Te Deum,” “De Profundis,” and his “Miserere,” were considered as first-rate works. In 1753, he composed the music of the first comic opera that was exhibited in France, and thus prepared the way for that style in which Monsigny, Gretry, and Daleyrac have since so ably distinguished themselves. Auvergne was director of the opera from 1767 to 1775, and from 1785 to 1790. Although in this time he had not Studied to accumulate a fortune, he lived in very easy circumstances until the revolution, when he lost all his places, and was thrown into a state approaching to indigence. Jn 1796, he went to Lyons, and was consoled in liis age and poverty by his sisters and his second wife, and here he died Feb. 12, 1797, justly regretted hy all who knew him. Besides the music already mentioned, he composed the following operas, “Canente,” “Enee et Lavinie,” and “Hercule mourant,” all in his younger days, but the dates not specified “Les Amours de Tempe,” 1752 “Les Fetes d'Euterpe,” 1758; “Polyxene,” 1763; “La Venitienne.” He also retouched some former operas, and composed the music of several ballets performed at Versailles and.Fontainbieau. It seems remarkable that so popular a composer, and one who had contributed so much to “gladden life” in the gay metropolis of France, should have been left to end his days in obscurity and poverty.

, in Latin Ærodius, lieutenant-criminal in the presidial of Angers, was born there in 1536. He studied Latin and philosophy at Paris, and law at Toulouse from thence he went to Bourges for the advantage of the public lectures of Duarenus, Cujas, and Doneau, three of the most excellent civilians of that age. Having taken the degree of bachelor at Bourges, he returned to his own country, where he read public lectures upon the civil law, and pleaded several causes. He returned to Paris some time after, and became one of the most famous advocates in the parliament. He published there, in 1563, “The Declamations of Quintilian,” which he corrected in a variety of places, and illustrated with notes. The year following he published, in the same city, a treatise “ coneerning the power of Redemption,” written by Francis Grimaudet, the king’s advocate at Angers, and wrote a preface to it concerning “the nature, variety, and change of Laws.” In 1567 he published “Decretorum Rerumve apud diversos populos et omni antiquitate judicatarum libri duo accedit tractatus de origine et auctoritate rerum judicatarum,” which he much enlarged in the subsequent editions. He left Paris the year following, in order to take upon him the office of lieutenant-criminal in his own country, and performed it in such a manner as to acquire the name of “the rock of the accused.” Some other writings came from his pen, political or controversial, but that which acquired most fame among foreigners was his treatise “De Patrio Jure,” on the power of fathers, written in French and Latin, and occasioned by his son having been seduced by the Jesuits. His father, for the purposes of education, had put him under their tuition, but perceiving that he had a lively genius, a strong memory, and other excellent qualifications, he very earnestly desired both the provincial of that order, and the rector of the college, not to solicit him to enter into their society, which they readily promised, but soon broke their word and, though he made the greatest interest, and even prevailed on the king of France and the pope to take his part, he could never recover him from their snares. The young man answered his father’s book, but his superiors were ashamed to publish it, and employed Richeome, the provincial of the Jesuits at Paris, to answer it, but even this they did not venture to publish. Peter Ayrault died July 21, 1601. His son not until 1644.

, a learned English monk of the Franciscan order, who flourished in the thirteenth century, was born near Ilchester in Somersetshire, in 1214, and was descended of a very ancient and honourable family. He received the first tincture of letters at Oxford, where having gone through grammar and logic, the dawnings of his genius gained him the favour and patronage of the greatest lovers of learning, and such as were equally distinguished by their high rank, and the excellence of their knowledge. It is not very clear, says the Biographia Britannica, whether he was of Merton college, or of Brazen-nose hall, and perhaps he studied at neither, but spent his time at the public schools. The latter is indeed more probable than that he studied at Merton college, which did not then exist. It appears, however, that he went early over to Paris, where he made still greater progress in all parts of learning, and was looked upon as the glory of that university, and an honour to his country. In those days such as desired to distinguish themselves by an early and effectual application to their studies, resorted to Paris, where not only many of the greatest men in Europe resided and taught, but many of the English nation, by whom Bacon was encouraged and caressed. At Paris he did not confine his studies to any particular branch of literature, but endeavoured to comprehend the sciences in general, fully and perfectly, by a right method and constant application. When he had attained the degree of doctor, he returned again, to his own country, and, as some say, took the habit of the Franciscan order in 1240, when he was about twenty-six years of age but others assert that he became a monk before he left France. After his return to Oxford, he was considered, by the greatest men of that university, as one of the ablest and most indefati^ gable inquirers after knowledge that the world had ever produced and therefore they not only shewed him all due respect, but likewise conceiving the greatest hopes from his improvements in the method of study, they generously contributed to his expences, so that he was enabled to lay out, within the compass of twenty years, no less than two thousand pounds in collecting curious authors, making trials of various kinds, and in the construction of different instruments, for the improvement of useful knowledge. But if this assiduous application to his studies, and the stupendous progress he made in them, raised his credit with the better part of mankind, it excited the envy of some, and afforded plausible pretences for the malicious designs of others. It is very easy to conceive, that the experiments he made in all parts of natural philosophy and the mathematics, must have made a great noise in an ignorant age, when scarcely two or three men in a whole nation were tolerably acquainted with those studies, and when all the pretenders to knowledge affected to cover their own ignorance, by throwing the most scandalous aspersions on those branches of science, which they either wanted genius to understand, or which demanded greater application to acquire, than they were willing to bestow. They gave out, therefore, that mathematical studies were in some measure allied to those magical arts which the church had condemned,and thereby brought suspicions upon men of superior learning. It was owing to this suspicion that Bacon was restrained from reading lectures to the young students in the university, and at length closely confined and almost starved, the monks being afraid lest his writings should extend beyond the limits of his convent, and be seen by any besides themselves and the pope. But there is great reason to believe, that though his application to the occult; sciences was their pretence, the true cause of his ill-usage was, the freedom with which he had treated the clergy in, his writings, in which he spared neither their ignorance nor their want of morals. But notwithstanding this harsh feature in the character of the times, his reputation continued to spread over the whole Christian world, and even pope Clement IV. wrote him a letter, desiring that he would send him all his works. This was in 1266, when our author was in the flower of his 4 age, and to gratify his holiness, collected together, greatly enlarged and ranged in some order, the several pieces he had written before that time, and sent them the next year by his favourite disciple John of London, or rather of Paris, to the pope. This collection, which is the same that himself entitled Opus Majus, or his great work, is yet extant, and was published by Dr. Jebb, in 1773. Dr. Jebb had proposed to have published all his works about three years before his edition of the Opus Majus, but while he was engaged in that design, he was informed by letters from his brother at Dublin, that there was a“manuscript in the college library there, which contained a great many treatises generally ascribed to Bacon, and disposed in such order, that they seemed to form one complete work, but the title was wanting, which l,iad been carelessly torn off from the rest of the manuscript. The doctor soon found that it was a collection of those tracts which Bacon had written for the use of pope Clement IV. and to which he had given the title of Opus Majus, since it appeared, that what he said of that work in his Opus Tertium, addressed to the same pope, exactly suited with this; which contained an account of almost all the new discoveries and improvements that he had made in the sciences,. Upon this account Dr. Jebb laid aside his former design, and resolved to publish only an edition of this Opus Majus. The manuscripts which he made use of to complete this edition, are, 1. ms. in the Cotton library, inscribed^” Jul. D. V.“which contains the first part of the Opus Majus, under the title of a treatise” Jl)e utijitate Scientiarnii). “2. Another ms. in the same library, marked” Tib. C. V." containing the fourth part of the Opus Majus, in which is shewn the use of the mathematics in the sciences and affairs of the world in the ms. it is erroneously called the fifth part. 3. A ms. in the library belonging to Corpus Christi in Cambridge, containing that portion of the fourth part which treats of geography. 4. A ms. of the fifth part, containing a treatise upon perspective, in the earl of Oxford’s library. 5. A ms. in the library of Magdalen college, Cambridge, comprehending the same treatise of perspective. 6. Two Mss. in the king’s library, communicated to the editor by Dr. Richard Bentley, one of which contains the fourth part of Opus Majus, and the other the fifth part. It is said that this learned book of his procured him the favour of Clement IV. and also some encouragement in the prosecution of his studies but this could not have lasted long, as that pope died soon after, and then we find our author under fresh embarrassments from the same causes as before; but he became in more danger, as the general of his order, Jerom de Ascoli, having heard his cause, ordered him to be imprisoned. This is said to have happened in 1278, and to prevent his appealing to pope Nicholas III. the general procured a confirmation of his sentence from Rome immediately, but it is not very easy to say upon what pretences. Yet we are told by others, that he was imprisoned by Reymundus Galfredus, who was general of his order, on account of some alchemistical treatise which he had written, and that Galfredus afterwards set him at liberty, and became his scholar. However obscure these circumstances may be, it is certain that his sufferings for many years must have brought him low, since he was sixty-four years of age when he was first put in prison, and deprived of the opportunity of prosecuting his studies, at least in the way of experiment. That he was still indulged in the use of his books, appears very clearly from the great use he made of them in the learned works he composed.

One of his shameful amours having rendered it necessary for him to leave Leipsic, his friends, with some difficulty, obtained for him a professorship at Erlangen, afterwards at Erfurth, and in 1771 at Giessen. But the boldness of his doctrines, and the malignity of his satirical compositions, of which he was very fond, would soon have expelled him from Giessen, if, just as he was about to be dismissed from his professorship, he had not received an invitation to Marschlins in Switzerland, to superintend an academy. To this place he went about 1776, and began his new career by forming the seminary after the model of an academy which had before been projected by Basedow, in the principality of Anhalt Dessau, under the name of P hilanthropinum. The plan of this was professedly to form the young mind to the love of mankind and of virtue, without any aid from religion, except what he was pleased to call philosophical religion. But the Swiss were not yet prepared torso great a change of system, and after disgusting them with doctrines, the immoral tendency of some of which could no longer be mistaken, he removed to Durkheim, a town in the Palatinate, and formed an association for a Philanthropinum of his own. A large fund was collected, and he was enabled to travel into Holland and England to engage pupils. England is said to have furnished four.

, 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 Portuguese historian, was born at Viseu in 1496, and brought up at the court of king Emanuel, with the younger branches of the royal family. He made a rapid progress in Greek and Latin learning. The infant Juan, to whom he was attached, in quality of preceptor, having succeeded the king his father in 1521, de Barros had a place in the household of that prince. In 1522 he became governor of St. George de la Mine, on the coast of Guinea in Africa. Three years afterwards, the king having recalled him to court, appointed him treasurer of the Indies: this post inspired him with the thought of writing the history of those countries, and in order to finish it, he retired to Pombal, where he died in 1570, with the reputation of an excellent scholar and a good citizen. De Barros has divided his History of Asia and the Indies into four decads. He published the first under the title “Decadas d'Asia,” in 1552, the second in 1553, and the third in 1563. The fourth did not appear till 1615, by command of king Philip III. who purchased the manuscript of the heirs ofde Barros. This history is in the Portugueze language. Possevin and the president de Thou speak more favourably of it than la Boulaye-le Goux, who considers it as a very confused mass; but certainly Barros has collected a great many facts that are not to be found elsewhere, and with less love of the hyperbole, and a stricter attachment to truth, he would have deserved a place among the best historians. Several authors have continued his work, and brought it down to the xiiith decad. There is an edition of it, Lisbon, 1736, 3 vols. folio. Alfonso Ulloa translated it into Spanish. Barros also wrote “Chronica do imperador Clarimando,” a species of romance in the style of Amadis, and some treatises on subjects of morality, religion, and education, for the use of the young princes.

, usually called Giraldus Cambren­sis, or Girald of Wales, was born at the castle of Mainaper, near Pembroke, in 1146. By his mother he was descended from the princes of South Wales and his father, William Barry, was one of the chief men of that principality. Being a younger brother, and intended for the cburch, he was sent to St. David’s, and educated in the family of the bishop of that see, who was his uncle. He acknowledges in his history of his own life and actions, that in his early youth he was too negligent and playful; but his uncle and his masters remonstrated with him so sharply, that he became diligent, and soon excelled his school-fellows. When about twenty years of age, he was sent to the university of Paris, where he continued for three years, acquiring great fame by his skill in rhetoric, and on his return he entered into holy orders, and obtained several benefices in England and Wales. Finding that the Welch were very reluctant in paying tidies of wool and cheese, he applied to Richard, archbishop of Canterburv, and was appointed his legate in Wales for rectifying that disorder, and for other purposes. He executed this commission with great spirit, excommunicating all without distinction, who neglected to pay. He also informed against the old archdeacon of Brechin for being married, and procured him to be deprived of his archdeaconry, which was bestowed on this officious legate. In otherwise discharging the duties of this new office, he acted with great vigour, which involved him in many quarXels; but, according to his own account, he was always in the right, and always victorious. On his uncle’s death, he was elected by the chapter of St. David’s, bishop of that see, but he declined accepting it, owing to the informality of not applying to the king for his licence, although in reality he knew that the king, Henry II. would never have confirmed such an election, and did in fact express his displeasure at it, in consequence of which another person was chosen. Girald, however, was not reconciled to the disappointment, and determined to get rid of his chagrin by travelling, and studying for some time longer at Paris. Here he pursued the civil and canon law, and with his usual vanity he boasts what a prodigious fame he acquired, especially in the knowledge of papal constitutions, or decretals, as they are called. In 1179, he was elected professor of the canon law in the university of Paris; but rejected the honour, expecting more solid advantages in his own country. In 1180, he returned home through Flanders and England, and in his way stopped at Canterbury, where he emphatically describes (what may be well allowed him) the great luxury of the monks of that place. At length he got home, where he found the whole country in a flame, the canons and archdeacons of Menevia having joined with the inhabitants in driving out the bishop of that see, the administration of which was committed to our author, by the archbishop of Canterbury. Under this authority he governed the see of St. David’s for three or four years, and made wonderful reformations in it. The abdicated bishop, whose name was Peter, did not acquiesce in the conduct of his clergy, but by letters suspended and excommunicated the canons and archdeacons, uncited and unheard: and at length, Girald, not having power to redress them, resigned his charge to the archbishop, who absolved the excommunicated. Bishop Peter imputed his disgrace, or at least the continuance of it, to Girald; great contests arose, and appeals were made to Rome: but at length they were reconciled, and the bishop restored. About the year 1184, king Henry II. invited Girald to court, and made him his chaplain, and at times he attended the king for several years, and was very useful to him in keeping matters quiet in Wales’. Yet though the king approved of his services, and in private often coinmended his prudence and fidelity, he never could be prevailed on to promote him to any ecclesiastical benefices, on account of the relation he bore to prince Rhees, and other grandees of Wales. In 1185, the king sent him to Ireland with his son John, in quality of secretary and privy-counsellor to the young prince: but the expedition did not meet with success, because earl John made use only of youthful counsels, and shewed no favour to the old adventurers, who were men experienced in the affairs of Ireland. While Girald thus employed himself in Ireland, the two bishoprics of Ferns and Leighlin fell vacant, which earl John offered to unite, and confer on him; but he rejected the promotion, and employed himself in collecting materials for writing his Topography and history of the conquest of Ireland, which he compiled and published a few years after. In the spring of the year 1186, John Comyn, archbishop of Dublin, convened a synod of his clergy, in Christ-church of that city, at which Girald was one of the preachers, but by the account of it in his life, it appears to have been a turbulent assembly. Having obtained great fame in Ireland, as he tells us himself, between Easter and Whitsuntide 1187, he returned to Wales, and employed all his time in writing and revising his Topography, to which, when he had put, the last hand, he took a journey to Oxford, and repeated it in a public audience of the university; and as it consisted of three distinctions, he repeated one every day of three successively; and in order to captivate the people, and secure their applause, the first day he entertained all the poor of the town, the next day the doctors and scholars of fame and reputation, and the third day the scholars of the lower rank, the soldiers, townsmen, and burgesses. In the year 1188, he accompanied Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, in a journey through the rough and mountainous parts of Wales, in order to preach up to the people the necessity of taking the cross, and engaging in an expedition in defence of the Holy Land. Here our author shews the vast success his eloquence met with, in persuading the greatest part of the country to engage in this adventure, when the archbishop was able to do nothing. Girald himself took the cross at this time, and it afforded him the opportunity of writing his “Itinerarium Cambriae.” The same year he went over into France, in the retinue of king Henry If, which he did by the advice of the archbishop of Canterbury, and Ranulph de Glanville, chief-justice of England; but the king dying the year after, he was sent back by Richard I. to preserve the peace of Wales, and was even joined with the bishop of Ely, as one of the regents of the kingdom. After refusing one or two bishoprics, in hopes to succeed to St. David’s, which was his favourite object, this latter became vacant in 1198, and he was unanimously elected by the chapter. Yet here again he was disappointed, owing to the opposition of Hubert archbishop of Canterbury, and was involved in a contest, which lasted five years, during which he took three journies to Rome, and was at last defeated. Soon after this, he retired from the world, and spent the last seventeen years of his life in study, composing many of his writings. He was unquestionably a man of genius and learning, but as a historian, full of credulity and fable; and as a man, one of the most vain upon record. Ware, and the editor of the Biog. Britannica, have given a long list of his manuscript works, which are in the Cotton and Harleian libraries in the British museum, the archbishop’s library at Lambeth, the Bodleian, Oxford, and the public library and Bene't college library, Cambridge. Those printed are: 1. “Topographia Hibernioe,” Francfort, 1602, and in Holinshed, 2. “Historia Vaticinalis, de expugnatione Hiberniae,” Francfort, 1602, both published by Camden. 3. “Itinerarium Cambriae,” published with annotations by David Powel, 1585, 8vo. 4. “De laudibus Carnbrorum,” also published by Powel. 5. “Gemma Ecclesiastica,” Mentz, 1549, under the title of “Gemma animoe,” without the author’s name. 6. “Liber secundus de descriptione Wallise,” published by Wharton, in Anglia Sacra, part II. p, 447. Camden every where quotes Giraldus as an author of undoubted credit and reputation.

, an author of some merit on the subject of education, was born at Hamburgh in 1723. His father appears to have been a person of a rigid temper, and so frequent in correcting his son with severity, as to drive him from home for a time, during which the boy served as a domestic in the house of a land-surveyor at Holstein. Being, however, persuaded to return, he was placed at the public school at Hamburgh, where he made himself respected by his talents, and the aid he was enabled to give to his indolent schoolfellows. When advanced to the higher class, he attended the lectures of professors Richey and Reimarus, from whose instructions, particularly those of Reimarus, he derived great improvement: but he afterwards allowed that he did not pay a regular attention to the sciences, and passed much of his time with indolent and dissolute companions. He had little disposition for study, and remained for some time undetermined in the choice of a profession. His father was ambitious that he should be a clergyman, and the means being provided, he went to Leipsic in 1744, to prosecute his studies particularly in theology. Here he continued for two years, attending the lectures of professor Crusius, who had begun to philosophize on religion; and these lectures, with the writings of Wolf, to which he also applied, induced a sceptical disposition, which more or less prevailed in all his writings and opinions during his life. In 1749, he was appointed private tutor to the son of a gentleman at Hoistein, and this situation gave him an opportunity of bringing to the test of experience, the plan of an improved method of education, which he had, for some time, in contemplation. The attempt succeeded to his wishes, and his pupil, who was only seven years old, when put under him, and could merely read the German language, became able in the space of three years, not only to read Latin authors, but to translate from the German into that language, and also to speak and write it with a degree of fluency. The young gentleman had also made considerable progress in the principles of religion and morals, in history, geography, and arithmetic.

These last linos allude to a fact and by successfully mimicking that low character, Dr. Battie is said to have once saved a young patient’s life. He was sent for to a gentleman who was alive in 1782, but at that time only fourteen or fifteen years old, who was in extreme misery from a swelling in his throat; when the doctor understood what the complaint was, he opened the curtains, turned his wig, and acted Punch with so much humour and success, that the young man, thrown almost into convulsions from laughing, was so agitated, as to occasion the tumour to break, and a complete cure was the immediate consequence.

, an English musician and composer, was born in London, 1738. Discovering at a very early age an uncommon genius for music, and having an excellent voice, he was, in 1747, placed in the choir of St. Paul’s, under the tuition of Mr. Savage, then master of the young gentlemen of that cathedral. He was soon qualified to sing at sight, and before he had been in the choir two years, his performances discovered uncommon taste and judgment. On his voice changing at the usual period of life, he became an articled pupil of Mr. Savage, and at the expiration of his engagement, came forth one of the first extempore performers in this country. He had now just arrived at manhood, and having a pleasing, though not powerful voice, a tasteful and masterly style of execution on the harpsichord, a fund of entertaining information acquired by extensive reading, a pleasing manner, and a gay and lively disposition, he possessed, in an eminent degree, the power of rendering himself agreeable in every company; and his society and instruction were courted by persons of the highest ranks. Every encouragement was offered to excite his future efforts, and promote his professional success; and no prospects could be fairer or more nattering than those which he had now before him.

, rector of the parish of Kirkandrews upon Esk, in Cumberland, was born in the parish of Arthuret, and received his academical education in the university of Glasgow, where he was admitted to the degree of A. M. in 1725. He afterwards became curate of Kirkandrews and in this situation, his exemplary conduct, and faithful discharge of the ministerial duties, recommended him so effectually to lord viscount Preston, that on a vacancy, he presented him to the rectory in 1732. As there was no parsonage-house, nor glebe appropriated to the living, on its separation from Arthuret, he built the house contiguous to the old tower at Kirkandrews, with barns, stables, &c. entirely at his own expencd, having first obtained a lease of the situation and farm there during his incumbency. The parish is divided by the river Esk; and as there is no bridge on this part of it, he established a ferry for the use of those coming to church. He likewise promoted the building of the school-house near Meadhope (endowed by lady Widrington and her sister), and for the information of those of maturer years, he printed, at Newcastle, 1750, a “Sermon on the Sacrament;” with prayers for the use of persons in private, and of families, which he distributed liberally among them. With the same views he published, in 1751, a small volume entitled “Seasonable advice to a careless world,” in essays, &c. and lastly, in 1756, “The young Clergyman’s Companion in visiting the Sick;” all these without his name. He was also skilful, and much consulted, as an oculist, but his advice and applications were always gratuitous. His temper and manners were mild and conciliating, his company much in request, and his house presented a scene of hospitality to the utmost of his abilities. He died in 1758.

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.

, a learned English lady, the only daughter of Dr. Edward Baynard, a gentleman of an ancient family, and an eminent physician in London, was born at Preston, in Lancashire, in 1672. Her father, who discovered her early capacity, bestowed great care on her education, and was rewarded by the extraordinary proficiency she made in various branches of learning not usual with her sex^ She? was well acquainted with philosophy, mathematics, and physics. She was also familiar with the writings of the ancients in their original languages. At the age of twentythree she had the knowledge of a profound philosopher, and in metaphysical learning was a nervous and subtle disputant. She took great pains with the Greek language, that she might read in their native purity the works of St. Chrysostom. Her Latin compositions, which were various, were written in a pure and elegant style. She possessed an acute and comprehensive mind, an ardent thirst of knowledge, and a retentive memory. She was accustomed to declare, “that it was a sin to be content with a little knowledge.” To theendowments of the mind she added the virtues of the heart she was modest, humble, and benevolent, exemplary in her whole conduct, and in every relative duty. She was pious and constant in her devotions, both public and private; beneficent to the poor; simple in her manners; retired, and rigid in her notions and habits. It was her custom to lay aside a certain portion of her income, which was not large, for charitable uses; to this she added an ardent desire and strenuous efforts for the mental and moral improvement of those within her circle and influence. About two years previous to her death, she seems to have been impressed with an idea of her early dissolution which first suggested itself to her mind while walking alone among the tombs, in a church-yard and which she indulged with much complacency. On her death-bed she earnestly entreated the minister who attended her, that he would exhort all the young people of his congregation to the study of wisdom and knowledge, as the means of moral improvement and real happiness. “I could wish,” says she, “that all young persons might be exhorted to the practice of virtue, and to increase their knowledge by the study of philosophy; and especially to read the great book of nature, therein they may see the wisdom and power of the Creator, in the order of the universe, and in the production and preservation of all things.” “That vr omen are capably of such improvements, which will better their judgments and understandings, in past all doubt, would they but set sjbout it in earnest, and spend but half of that time in study thinking) which they do in visits, vanity, and folly. It would introduce a composure of mind, and lay a solid basis for wisdom and knowledge, by which they would be better enabled to serve God, and to help their neighbours.” These particulars are taken from her funeral sermon, preached at Barnes, where she died in her 25th year, June 12, 1697, by the rev. John Prade, and reprinted in that useful collection of such documents, “Wilford’s Memorials.” She was interred at the East end of the churchyard of Barnes, with a monument and inscription, of which no traces are now to be found, but the inscription is preserved in Aubrey.

When the king died, there being none so near him as the cardinal, it was suggested by his enemies that he forged his will; and it was set aside, notwithstanding he had it proclaimed at the cross of Edinburgh, in order to establish the regency in the earls of Argyle, Huntley, Arran, and himself. He was expressly excluded from the government, and the earl of Arran was declared sole regent during the minority of queen Mary. This was chiefly effected by the noblemen in the English interest, who, after having-sent the cardinal prisoner to Blackness-castle, managed the public affairs as they pleased. Things did not remain long, however, in this situation for the ambitious enterprising“cardinal, though confined, raised so strong a party, that the regent, not knowing how to proceed, began to dislike his former system, and having at length resolved to abandon it, released the cardinal, and became reconciled to him. Upon the young” queen’s coronation, the cardinal was again admitted of the council, and had the high office of chancellor conferred upon him; and such was now his influence with the regent, that he got him to solicit the court of Rome to appoint him legate a latere from the pope, which was accordingly done.

, 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."

In the promotion of learning, he shewed a real concern, by founding the New-college in the university of St. Andrew’s, which he did not live to finish, and to which, though he left the best part of his estate, yet after his death it was misapplied, and did not come, as he intended, to that foundation. One of the last acts of his life was the being present at the baptism of the young prince, born at St. Andrew’s the very year in which he died. His nephew Dieted for several years as his co-adjutor, and had the whole management of affairs in his hands; but the king retained to the last so great an affection for the archbishop, that he allowed him to dispose of all his preferments, by which means, his relation, George Drury, obtained the rich abbey of Dumferline, and one Mr. Hamilton, of the house of Roplock, became Abbot of Killwinning. Our archbishop deceased in 1539, and was interred in the cathedral church of St. Andrew’s before the high altar. He enjoyed the primacy of Scotland sixteen years, and his character is very differently represented, according to the dispositions of those who have mentioned him in their writings; but upon the whole more favourably than that of his nephew, the cardinal.

, another nephew of the preceding, and archbishop of Glasgow, was educated chiefly at Paris, and was early employed in political affairs but we have no account of the various steps by which he arrived at the archbishopric of Glasgow, to which he was consecrated in 1552, as some writers report, at Rome, whither he was very probably sent, to lay before the pope an acco.unt of the ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland after the murder of his uncle. He was, however, no sooner advanced to this dignity than he began to be considered as one of the ablest as well as most powerful persons in the kingdom. In 1557, he was one of the commissioners appointed to witness the marriage of the young queen Mary to the dauphin of France, a commission to which the historians of the ti-ue affix great importance. After his return, he acted as a privy-counsellor to the queen dowager, who was appointed by her daughter regent of Scotland, and laboured, although in vain, to preserve internal peace. When the reformers became powerful enough to make a successful stand against the court, our archbishop retired to France, carrying with him the treasures and records or' the archiepiscopal see, and carefully deposited them in the Scots college in Paris. On his arrival in France, he was extremely well received by queen Mary, then sovereign of that country, and by the court of France. Immediately after his departure, the reformers in Scotland appointed a preacher at Glasgow, seized all the revenues of the archbishopric, and would no doubt have proceeded against his person had he appeared.

, 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.

, born at Paris in 1645, was the son of a player, and was considered as a poet when no more than eight years old. The queen, mother of Louis XIV. cardinal Mazarin, the chancellor Seguier, and the first personages of the court, took pleasure in conversing with this child, and in exercising his talents. He was only twelve years old when he published a collection of his poetical pieces, in 4to, under the title of “La Lyre de jeune Apollon,” or, “La Muse naissant du petit de Beauchateau,” with copper-plate portraits of the persons he celebrates. About two years afterwards he went over to England with an ecclesiastic. Cromwell and the most considerable persons of the then government admired the young poet. It is thought that he travelled afterwards into Persia, where perhaps he died, as no farther tidings were ever heard of him. He had a brother, Hypolite Chastelet de Beauchateau, an impostor, who pretended to abjure the Roman Catholic religion, and came over to England under the disguised name of Lusancy. Moreri and Anth. Wood in Ath. Ox. vol. II. give an account of this adventurer.

, bishop of Winchester, and cardinal priest of the church of Rome, was the son of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, by his third wife, Catherine S win ford. He studied for some years both at Cambridge and at Oxford, in the latter in Queen’s college, and was afterwards a benefactor to University and Lincoln colleges, but he received the principal part of his education at Aix la Chapelle, where he was instructed in civil and common law. Being of royal extraction, he was very young when advanced to the prelacy, and was made bishop of Lincoln in 1397, by an arbitrary act of Boniface IX. John Beckingham, bishop of that see, being, contrary to his wishes, translated to Lichfield, to make room for Beaufort, but Beckingham, with becoming spirit, refused the proffered diocese, and chose to become a private monk of Canterbury. In 1399 Beaufort was chancellor of the university of Oxford, and at the same time dean of Wells. He was lord high chancellor of England in 1404, and in some years afterwards. The following year, upon the death of the celebrated Wykeham, he was, at the recommendation of the king, translated to the see of Winchester. In 1414, the second of his nephew Henry V. he went to France, as one of the royal ambassadors, to demand in marriage Catherine, daughter of Charles VI. In 1417 he lent the king twenty thousand pounds (a prodigious sum in those days), towards carrying on his expedition against France, but had the crown in pawn as a security for the money. This year also he took a journey to the Holy Land and in his way, being arrived at Constance, where a general council was held, he exhorted the prelates to union and agreement in the election of a pope; and his remonstrances contributed not a little to hasten the preparations for the conclave, in which Martin III. was elected. We have no farther account of what happened to our prelate in this expedition. In 1421, he had the honour to be godfather, jointly with John duke of Bedford, and Jacqueline, countess of Holland, to prince Henry, eldest son of his nephew Henry V. and Catherine of France, afterwards Henry VI. M. Aubery pretends, that James, king of Scots, who had been several years a prisoner in England, owed his deliverance to the bishop of Winchester, who prevailed with the government to set him free, on condition of his marrying his niece, the granddaughter of Thomas Beaufort, earl of Somerset. This prelate was one of king Henry Vlth’s guardians during his minority; and in 1424, the third of the young king’s reign, he was a fourth time lord-chancellor of England. There were perpetual jealousies and quarrels, the cause of which is not very clearly explained, between the bishop of Winchester, and the protector, Humphrey duke of Gloucester, which ended in the ruin and death of the latter. Their dissensions began to appear publicly in 1425, and to such a height, that Beaufort thought it necessary to write a letter to his nephew the duke of Bedford, regent of France, which is extant in Holinshed, desiring his presence in England, to accommodate matters between them. The regent accordingly arriving in England the 20th of December, was met by the bishop of Winchester with a numerous train, and soon after convoked an assembly of the nobility at St. Alban’s, to hear and determine the affair. But the animosity on this occasion was so great on both sides, that it was thought proper to refer the decision to the parliament, which was to be held at Leicester, March 25, following. The parliament being met, the duke of Gloucester produced six articles of accusation against the bishop, who answered them severally, and a committee appointed for the purpose, having examined the allegations, he was acquitted. The duke of Bedford, however, to give some satisfaction to the protector, took away the great seal from his uncle. Two years after, the duke of Bedford, returning into France, was accompanied to Calais by the bishop of Winchester, who, on the 25th of March, received there with great solemnity, in the church of Our Lady, the cardinal’s hat, with the title of St. Eusebius, sent him by pope Martin V. In September 1428, the new cardinal returned into England, with the character of the pope’s legate lately conferred on him; and in his way to London, he was met by the lord-mayor, aldermen, and the principal citizens on horseback, who conducted him with great honour and respect to his lodgings in Southwark; but he was forced, for the present, to wave his legatine power, being forbidden the exercise of it by a proclamation published in the king’s name. Cardinal Beaufort was appointed, by the pope’s bull, bearing date March 25, 1427-8, his holiness’s legate in Germany, and general of the crusade against the Hussites, or Heretics of Bohemia. Having communicated the pope’s intentions to the parliament, he obtained a grant of money, and a considerable body of forces, under certain restrictions; but just as he was preparing to embark, the duke of Bedford having sent to demand a supply of men for the French war, it was resolved in council, that cardinal Beaufort should serve under the regent, with the troops of the crusade, to the end of the month of December, on condition that they should not be employed in any siege. The cardinal complied, though not without reluctance, and accordingly joined the duke of Bedford at Paris. After a stay of forty-five days in France, he marched into Bohemia, where he conducted the crusade till he was recalled by the pope, and cardinal Julian sent in his place with a larger army. The next year, 1430, the cardinal accompanied king Henry into France, being invested with the title of the king’s principal counsellor, and bad the honour to perform the ceremony of crowning the young monarch irt the church of Notre Dame at Paris; where he had some dispute with James du Chastellier, the archbishop, who claimed the right of officiating on that occasion. During his stay in France he was present at the congress of Arras for concluding a peace between the kings of England and France, and had a conference for that purpose with the dutchess of Burgundy, between Calais and Gravelines, which had no effect, and was remarkable only for the cardinal’s magnificence, who came thither with a most splendid train. In the mean time the duke of Gloucester took advantage in England of the cardinal’s absence to give him fresh mortification. For, first, having represented to the council, that the bishop of Winchester intended to leave the king, and come back into England to resume his seat in council, in order to excite new troubles in the kingdom, and that his intentions were the more criminal, as he made use of the pope’s authority to free himself from the obligations of assisting the king in France; he procured an order of council forbidding all the king’s subjects, of what condition soever, to accompany the cardinal, if he should leave the king, without express permission. The next step the protector took against him, was an attempt to deprive him of his bishopric, as inconsistent with the dignity of cardinal; but the affair having been a long time debated in council, it was resolved that the cardinal should be heard, and the judges consulted, before any decision. Being returned into England, he thought it necessary to take some precaution against these repeated attacks, and prevailed with the king, through the' intercession of the commons, to grant him letters of pardon for all offences by him committed contrary to the statute of provisors, and other acts of prsemunire. This pardon is dated at Westminster, July 19, 1432. Five years after, he procured another pardon under the great-seal for all sorts of crimes whatever, from the creation of the world to the 26th of July 1437. Notwithstanding these precautions, the duke of Gloucester, in 1442, drew up articles of impeachment against the cardinal, and presented them with his own hands to the king, but the council appointed to examine them deferred their report so long that rhe protector discontinued the prosecution. The cardinal died June 14, 1447, having survived the duke of Gloucester not above a mouth, of whose murder he was suspected to have been one of the contrivers, and it is said that he expressed great uneasiness at the approach of death, and died in despair; but for this there does not appear much foundation, and we suspect the commonlyreceived character of Beaufort is mostly credited by those who have considered Shakspeare as an authentic historian. We rather agree with the historian of Winchester, that there is no solid ground for representing him as that ambitious, covetous, and reprobate character which Shakspeare has represented, and who has robbed his memory, in order to enrich that of his adversary, popularly termed the “good duke Humphrey” of Gloucester. Being involved in the vortex of worldly politics, it is true, that he gave too much scope to the passions of the great, and did not allow himself sufficient leisure to attend to the spiritual concerns of his diocese. He possessed, however, that munificent spirit, which has cast a lustre on the characters of many persons of past times, whom it would be difficult otherwise to present as objects of admiration. It he was rich, it must be admitted that he did not squander away his money upon unworthy pursuits, but chiefly employed it in the public service, to the great relief of the subjects, with whom, and with the commons’ house of parliament, he was popular. He employed his wealth also in finishing the magnificent cathedral of Winchester, which was left incomplete by his predecessor, in repairing Hyde-abbey, relieving prisoners, and other works of charity. But what, Dr. Milner says, has chiefly redeemed the injured character of cardinal Beaufort, in Winchester and its neighbourhood, is the new foundation which he made of the celebrated hospital of St. Cross. Far the greater part of the present building was raised by him, and he added to the establishment of his predecessor, Henry de Blois, funds for the support of thirty-five more brethren, two chaplains, and three women, who appear to have been hospital nuns. It appears also, says the same writer, that he prepared himself with resignation and contrition for his last end; and the collected, judicious, and pious dispositions made in his testament, the codicil of which was signed but two days before his dissolution, may justly bring into discredit the opinion that he died in despair. He was buried at Winchester in the most eleg-ant and finished chantry in the kingdom.

In 1160, he was sent by the king to Paris, to treat of a marriage between prince Henry and the king of France’s eldest daughter, in which he succeeded, and returned with the young princess to England. He had not enjoyed the chancellorship above four years, when archbishop Theobald died; and the king, who was then in Normandy, immediately sent over some trusty persons to England, who managed matters so well with the monks and clergy, that Becket was almost unanimously elected archbishop.

This year, however, an accommodation was at length concluded betwixt Henry and Becket, upon the confines of Normandy,where the king held the bridle of Becket’s horse, while he mounted and dismounted twice. Soon after the archbishop embarked for England; and upon his arrival, received an order from the young king to absolve the suspended and excommunicated bishops; but refusing to comply, the archbishop of York, and the bishops of London and Salisbury, carried their complaint to the king in Normandy, who was highly provoked at this fresh instance of obstinacy in Becket, and said on the occasion, “That he was an unhappy prince, who maintained a great number of lazy, insignificant persons about him, none of whom had gratitude or spirit enough to revenge him on a single, insolent prelate, who gave him so much disturbance,' 7 or as some report his words,” Shall this fellow, who came to court on a lame horse, with all his estate in a wallet behind him, trample upon his king, the royal family, and the whole kingdom? Will none of all these lazycowardly knights whom I maintain, deliver me from this turbulent priest?" This passionate exclamation made too deep an impression on some of those who heard it, particularly on the four following barons, Reginald Fitz-Urse, William de Tracy, Hugh de Morville, and Richard Breto, who formed a resolution, either to terrify the archbishop into submission, or to put him to death.

Having laid their plan, they left the court at different times, and took different routes, to prevent suspicion; but being conducted by the devil, as some monkish historians tell us, they all arrived at the castle of Ranulph de Broc, about six miles from Canterbury, on the same day, Dec. 28, 1170, and almost at the same hour. Here they settled the whole scheme of their proceedings, and next morning early set out for Canterbury, accompanied by a body of resolute men, with arms concealed under their clothes. These men they placed in different parts of the city, to prevent any interruption from the citizens. The four barons above-named then went unarmed with twelve of their company, to the archiepiscopal palace, about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and were admitted into the apartment where the arehbishop sat conversing with some of his clergy. After their admission a long silence ensued, which was at length broken by Reginald Fitz-Urse, who told the archbishop that they were sent by the king to command him to absolve the prelates, and others, whom he had excommunicated; and then to go to Winchester, and make satisfaction to the young king, whom he had endeavoured to dethrone. On this a very long and violent altercation followed, in the course of which they gave several hints, that his life was in danger if he did not comply. Bat he remained undaunted in his refusal. At their departure they charged his servants not to allow him to flee; on which he cried out with great vehemence, “Flee! I will never flee from any man living; I am not come to flee, but to defy the rage of impious assassins.” When they were gone, his friends blamed him for the roughness of his answers, which had inflamed the fury of his enemies, and earnestly pressed him to make his escape but he only answered, “I have no need of your advice I know what I ought to do.” The barons, with their accomplices, finding their threats were ineffectual, put on their coats of mail; and taking each a sword in his right hand, and an axe in his left, returned to the palace, but found the gate shut. When they were preparing to break it open, Robert de Broc conducted them up a back stair-case, and let them in at a window. A cry then arose, “they are armed! they are armed!” on which the clergy hurried the archbishop almost by force into the church, hoping that the sacredness of the place would protect him from violence. They would also have shut the door, but he cried out, “Begone, ye cowards! I charge you on your obedience, do not shut the door. What! will you make a castle of a church?” The conspirators having searched the palace, came to the church, and one of them crying, “Where is the traitor? where is the archbishop?” Becket advanced boldly and said, “Here I am, an archbishop, but no traitor.” “Flee,” cried the conspirator, “or you are a dead man.” “I will never flee,” replied Becket. William de Tracy then took hold of his robe, and said, “You are my prisoner; come along with me.” But Becket seizing him by the collar, shook him with so much force, that he almost threw him down. De Tracy, enraged at this resistance, aimed a blow with his sword, which almost cut off the arm of one Edward Grim, a priest, and slightly wounded the archbishop on the head. By three other blows given by the other conspirators, his skull was cloven almost in two, and his brains scattered about the pavement of the church.

It appears from this epistle that he was very much indisposed when he wrote it, and probably he began now to fall into that declining state of health, from which he never recovered. The last stage of his distemper was an asthma, which he supported with great firmness of mind, although in much weakness and pain for six weeks, during which he continued his usual pious labours among the youth in the monastery, and occasionally prosecuted some of his writings, that he might be able to leave them complete. In all the nights of his sickness, in which, from the nature of the disease, he had little sleep, he sung hymns and praises. His last days were partly employed on his translation of the Gospel of St. John into the Saxon language, and some passages he was extracting from the works of St. Isidore. The day before his death, he passed the night as usual, and continued dictating to the person who wrote for him, who observing his weakness, said, “There remains now only one chapter, but it seems very irksome for you to speak,” to which he answered, “It is easy, take another pen, dip it in the ink, and write as fast as you can.” About nine o'clock he sent for some of his brethren, to divide among them some incense, and other things of little Value, which were in his chest. While he was speaking to them, the young man, Wilberch, who wrote for him, said, “There is now, master, but one sentence wanting,” upon, which he bid him write quick, and soon after the young man said, “It is now done,” to which he replied, “Well! thou hast said the truth, it is now done. Take up my head between your hands, and lift me, because it pleases me much to sit over against the place where I was wont to pray, and where now sitting I may yet invoke my Father.” Being thus seated according to his desire, upon the floor of his cell, he said, “Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” and as he pronounced the last word, expired. This, according to the best opinion, for the date is contested, happened May 26, 735. His body was interred in the church of his own monastery at Jarrow, but, long afterwards, was removed to Durham, and placed in the same coffin or chest with that of St. Cuthbert, as appears by a very ancient Saxon poem on the relics preserved in the cathedral of Durham, printed at the end of the “Decem Scriptores.”

On the 4th of July, 1.689, being already M.A. in the university of Cambridge, he was incorporated as such in the university of Oxford, in Wadham college, and is mentioned by Anthony Wood (though then but a young man, a good deal under thirty) as a genius that was promising, and to whom the world was likely to be obliged, for his future studies and productions. In 1691 he published a Latin epistle to John Mill, D.D. containing some critical observations relating to Johannes Malala, Greek historiographer, published at the end of that author, at Oxon, in 1691, in a large 8vo. This was the first piece that our author published. Nor was religion less indebted to him than learning, for in 1691-2, he had the honour to be selected as the first person to preach at Boyle’s lectures (founded by that honourable gentleman, to assert and vindicate the great fundamentals of natural and revealed religion), upon which occasion he successfully applied sir Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica,” to demonstrate the being of God, and altogether silenced the Atheists, who, in this country, have since that time, for the most part, sheltered themselves under Deism. The subject of his discourses was the folly of atheism, even with respect to the present life, and that matter and motion cannot think; or a confutation of atheism from the faculties of the soul, from the structure and origin of human bodies, and the origin and trame of the world itself; and though he was bnt young, and even only in deacon’s orders, he laid the basis and foundation upon which all the successors to that worthy office have since built. Though this was a task of great extent, and no small difficulty, yet Mr. Bentley acquitted himself with so much reputation, that the trustees not only publicly thanked him for them, but did moreover, by especial command and desire, prevail upon him to make the said discourses public, upon which he gave the world a volume, 1693, 4to, containing eight sermons, which have not only undergone a number of editions, but have been translated abroad into several languages. On the 2d of October, 1692, he was installed a prebendary of Worcester by bishop Stillingfleet. Upon the death of Mr. Justel, Mr. Bentley was immediately thought upon to succeed him, as keeper of the royal library at St. James’s; and accordingly, a few months after his decease, he had a warrant made out for that place, from the secretary’s office, December 23, 1693, and had his patent for the same in April following. Soon after he was nominated to that office, before his patent was signed, by his care and diligence he procured no less than a thousand volumes of one sort or other, which had been neglected to be brought to the library, according to the act of parliament then subsisting, which prescribed that one copy of every book printed in England, should be brought and lodged in this library, and one in each university library. It was about this time and upon this occasion of his being made library-keeper, that the famous dispute between him and the honourable Mr. Boyle, whether the epistles of Phalaris were genuine or riot, in some measure, at first took rise, which gave occasion to so maiw books and pamphlets, and has made so much noise in the world. This controversy upon a point of learning, in itself not very entertaining, was managed with a wit and humour which rendered it interesting to the public. The world was at that time a little biassed in favour of the production of the young nobleman, at least as to the genteel raillery of his pieces; for as to the dispute itself, viz. the genuineness of the Epistles of Phalaris, the best judge^s almost universally now give the preference to Dr. Bentley; nor does he much, if at all, fall short of Mr. Boyle, in throwing a deal of life and spirit into the controversy, particularly in his answer to Mr. Boyle, which is interspersed, as well as Mr. Boyle’s piece, with abundance of wit and humour, and is, upon the whole, reckoned much the best book. When, in 1696, he was admitted to his degree of D. D. he preached, on the day of the public commencement, from 1 Peter iii. 15. “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” About this time the university entered upon a design of publishing some editions, in 4to, of some classic authors, for the use of the duke of Gloucester. Dr. Bentley, who was consulted upon the occasion, advised Laughton, to whose care the edition of Virgil was committed, to follow Heinsius very close, but his advice was not complied with. Terence was published by Leng, Horace byTalbot, and Catullus, Tibnllus, and Propertius, by Mr. Annesley, afterwards earl of Anglesey. Dr. Bentley procurecUfrom Holland the types with which these books were printed. At the express desire of his friend Mr. Graevius, he published his “Animadversions and remarks on the poet Callimachus,” making, at the same time, a collection of some scattered pieces or fragments of that author. These he finished and sent over to Mr. Grarmus, towards the latter end of his dispute with Mr. Boyle, and Mr. Graevius published them abroad in 1697. in 1700, upon the death of Dr. Montague, he was by the crown presented to the mastership of Trinity-college, Cambridge, which is reckoned worth near 1000l. per annum, upon obtaining which preferment he resigned his prebend of Worcester; but June 12, 1701, on Dr. Say well’s death, he was collated archdeacon of Ely. What next employed his critical genius were the two first comedies of Aristophanes. Upon these he made some curious annotations, which were published at Amsterdam in 1710; as was much about the same time, at Rheims, his emendations, &c. on the fragments of Menancler and Philemon, in the feigned name of “Philcleutherus Lipsiensis.” Under this character he appeared again, in 1713, in remarks upon Collins’s discourse of free-thinking, a book which had made no small noise in the world at that time. This he handles and confutes in a critical, learned, and yet familiar manner. Before his Remarks on Freethinking, in 1711, came forth his so long-expected and celebrated edition of Horace. What he intended, was not properly to explain his author, but only to correct what he judged remained still corrupted in the text, as he himself tells us in his preface; and this by the help and assistance, either of ancient manuscripts, old editions, or by conjecture. This, it must be confessed, was a nice and dangerous undertaking, but he succeeded at least in correcting a much greater number of passages than any, or all his former interpreters, ever had done; furnishing us, in this his new edition of our elegant Roman poet, with a great number of very plausible, and probable, and unquestionably, some genuine emendations. Le Clerc abroad was Bentley’s chief opponent in this edition. At home, in the year following the doctor’s edition, viz. 1712, came out, by various hands, the odes and epodes of Horace, in sixpenny numbers, making in the whole two volumes in 8vo; the titles of which are “The odes and epodes of Horace in Latin and English, with a translation of Dr. Bentley’s notes. To which are added notes upon notes, done in the Bentleian style and manner.” In the preface they “humbly hope that the reader will encourage the following essays, upon several accounts. First, as they are designed to shew him the best author of Augustus’s age in his native purity. Secondly, to give him a further proof how far all attempts to render him into English, even after the best version now extant has succeeded no better, must fall short of the original. Thirdly, to convince him how ridiculous it is to presume to correct Horace without authority, upon the pretended strength of superior judgment in poetry. And lastly, how easily such a presumption may be turned upon the authors, and sufficiently expose them in their own way.” This last paragraph seems indeed to express the greatest part of the design of this work, which is executed with a great deal of spirit and humour. On the 5th of November, 1715, the doctor preached a sermon before the university against popery, on which somebody soon after published remarks, which occasioned Dr, Bentley’s answer, entitled “Reflections on the scandalous aspersions cast on the Clergy, by the author of the Remarks on Dr. Bentley’s Sermon on Popery, &c.” This was printed in 1717, in 8vo. In 1716, at which time he succeeded to the chair of Regius professor of divinity, the doctor had two printed letters inscribed to him, dated Jan. 1, to which also was added his answer, concerning his intended edition of the Greek Testament, giving some account of what was to be expected in that edition; and in them we are informed, that he intended to make no use of any manuscript in this edition that was not a thousand years old or above; of which sort he had got at that time twenty together in his study, which made up, one with another, 20,000 years. After having had this affair in agitation for about four years, he at last published proposals for it, which met with great encouragement. But soon after came out Remarks, paragraph by paragraph, on these proposals, by Dr. Conyers Middleton, as it afterwards appeared, who sets out by assuring his reader, that it was neither personal spleen, nor envy to the author of the Proposals, that drew the following remarks from him, but a serious conviction that Dr. Bentley had neither talents nor materials proper for the work, and that religion was much more likely to receive detriment than service from it. “The time, manner, and other circumstances of these proposals,” says he, “make it but too evident, that they were hastened out to serve quite different ends than those of common Christianity; and I think it my duty to obviate, as far as I am able, the influence they might have on some, whom big words, and bold attempts, are apt to lead implicitly into an high opinion and admiration of the merit and abilities of the undertaker.” Dr. Middleton then proceeds to criticise, paragraph by paragraph, Dr. Bentley’s proposals. Soon after these Remarks, paragraph by paragraph, the Proposals appeared, with a pamphlet entitled “A full answer to all the Remarks of a late pamphleteer, by a member of Trinity college, Cambridge,” 1721, signed J. E. This Dr. Middleton, and all, imagined could be none but the doctor himself, as well from the style, as the letters J. E. the two first vowels of Richard Bentley: and, upon this supposition, Dr. Middleton and others, in their future remarks, make that one great handle for abusing him. It is, however, somewhat uncertain, whether Dr. Middleton might not be as much mistaken as to the author of those Remarks, as the very author of those Remarks was with respect to the author of the Remarks paragraph by paragraph, who supposed them to be made by Dr. Colbatch. Soon after this came out a pamphlet, with some further “Remarks, &c. containing a full answer to the editor’s late defence -of his Proposals, as well as all his objections there made against my former remarks, by Conyers Middleton, D. D.” As also, an anonymous letter to the reverend master of Trinity college, Cambridge, editor of a new Greek Testament. We also find, under the Catalogue of the doctor’s works in the Bibliotheca Bodleiana,-much about this time, another publication, somewhat analogous, and relating to this affair, viz. “An enquiry into the authority of the primitive Complutensian edition of the New Testament, in a letter to archdeacon Bentley,” 1722, 8vo. As to these proposals, Dr. Middleton takes upon him to say, that they were only published with a view “that some noise should be made in the world in his favour, to support his declining character by something great and popular, to recover esteem and applause to himself, and throw an odium and contempt upon his prosecutors, &c.” In 1725, at a public commencement on the 6th of July, the doctor made an elegant Latin speech, on creating seven doctors of divinity, in which, at the several periods, by little notes below, is set forth the whole form of the creation of a doctor of divinity. This piece is usually joined to his edition of Terence and Phsedrus: at least it is added to the Amsterdam edition of them in 1727, a very neat edition, corrected for the press by the doctor. To these notes on Terence, he has also added those of the learned Gabriel Faernius, and taken great pains in amending and correcting the author, not only from those ancient manuscripts which Gabriel Faernius had procured, but also from whatever manuscripts the royal library, those of Cambridge, or any of his friends, could afford; some of which, he assures us, were of great antiquity, and at least next, and very little inferior, to those of Faernius, the orthography of which, as the most ancient manuscript, he altogether follows. He has likewise altered the text in abundance of places, and assigns in the notes the reason for such alteration. Then follows the Schediasma of the metre and accents of Terence, by which the doctor proves that Terence is written all in Verse. This, however', was a matter of some controversy betw-een the learned bishop Hare and our author; and during the warmth of the debate. Will. Whiston remarked how intolerable it was, that while Grotius, Newton, and Locke, all laymen, were employing their talents on sacred studies, such clergymen as Dr. Bentley and bishop Hare were fighting about a play-book. About 1732, the doctor published his Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” when he was, as he says in his preface, about seventy years old. This is a very elegant and beautiful edition of that poem, but cannot be said to have contributed much to the editor’s deputation. Dr. Bentley tells us, that he had prepared a new edition of the poet Manillas for the press, which he would have published, had not the clearness of paper, and the want of good types, and some other occasions, hindered him. He had also some design of publishing an edition of Hesychius, as we find by Mr. Graevius’s letter to him, and assured Dr. Mill, he could, if he pleased, correct five thousand faults in that author. His emendations on the Tusculan Questions of Cicero are adjoined to Mr. Davis’s edition of that author. From this produce of his studious, we must now pass to that of his more active, life, in the memorable complaints of rrial -administration urged against him by the college, which were the occasion of a long suit, whether the Crown‘ or the bishop of Ely was general visitor. A party in the college, displeased at some of his regulations, began to talk of the fortieth statute, de Magistri (si res exigat) Amotionc, and meditated a complaint to the bishop of Ely. The master hearing this, went to bishop Patrick, then at Ely, who told him, he had never heard before, that, as bishop of Ely, he had any thing to do in the royal college of Trinity; called his secretary to him, and bid him seek if there was any precedent for it in the bishop’s archives; but not one was found, nor so much as a copy of Trinity college statutes. Upon that, the doctor lent him one; and during that bishop’s time the matter was dropped. But in his successor Dr. Moore’s time, the party were encouraged to apply to the bishop, in 1709, and avast number of articles about dilapidations, but not one of immorality, bribery, or fraud, were exhibited against the master. These were, however, the subject of many pamphlets on both sides. His lordship received the charge, intending to proceed upon it, which he conceived himself sufficiently authorised to do, and required Dr. Bentley’ s answer, which he declined for some time to give, pleading want of form in the charge; because other members of the college, besides the seniors, had joined in the accusation, and the seniors themselves, as he alleged, had never yet admonished him; from whence he inferred, that all proceedings on such a charge, and whatsoever should follow on the same foot, would be ipso facto null and void. The bishop, however, did not, it seems, think this plea to be material; for he insisted upon Dr. Bentley’s answer to the charge; who, upon that, began to question what authority his lordship had over him; and, by a petition presented to queen Anne, prayed “that her majesty would take him and the college into her protection, against the bishop’s pretensions, and maintain her sole power and jurisdiction over her royal foundation, and the masters thereof.” This petition was referred to the then attorney and solicitor-general, and they were ordered fully to consider the matter, and report their opinions. Notice was given at the same time to the bishop, that her majesty having taken this affair into her cognizance, his lordship was to stay proceedings till the queen’s pleasure was farther known. Mr. attorney and solicitor-general took some time to consider; and were of opinion, the bishop had power over the master. But this report not proving satisfactory to some persons then in administration, a letter was brought to the bishop from Mr. secretary St. John, dated 18th June, 1711, acquainting him, “that the matter of the petition of Dr. Richard Bentley, master of Trinity-college in Cambridge, together with the report of Mr. attorney and Mr. solicitorgeneral, being then before the queen, and ordered to be taken into consideration by my lord keeper, assisted by her majesty’s counsel learned in the law, her majesty thought it to be a business of such weight and consequence, that she had commanded him (the secretary) to signify her pleasure to his lordship, that he should stop all further proceedings, according to her majesty’s direction.” But the master seeing that all discipline and studies would be lost in the college, if that controversy were not one way or other decided, requested of the ministry that he might be permitted to take his trial under any visitor the queen should appoint; or if none could be so appointed, that he might have leave, salvo jure regio, to be voluntarily tried under the bishop. Upon this the inhibition was taken off by Mr. secretary St. John, by order of the queen, signifying, “that his lordship was at liberty to proceed, so far as by the law he might.” But his lordship did not think fit to proceed, till he was served uith a rule of court from the king’s-bench, in Easter-term 1714, to shew cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue out against him. The bishop, being then at Ely, was applied to by joint messengers on both sides, to go to the college, where he might have ended the matter in two days. But this was not thought so proper, and Ely-house at London was pitched on, where, instead of two days, the trial lasted at least six weeks, and the college paid a thousand pounds for it; three learned lawyers, who could know but very little of the matter, being admitted on each side, to make eloquent harangues, answers, and replies, upon questions arisingfrom above fifty articles, in which there was scarcely any thing material that might not easily be determined upon a bare inspection of the college statutes, registers, and books of accounts. The trial being ended, and the cause ripe for sentence, the bishop’s death prevented his giving judgment. Thus the matter dropped for the present; but was afterwards revived in 1728, when new articles of complaint against Dr. Bentley, charging him with having in many instances made great waste of the college revenue, and violated the statutes, all founded on the 40th of Elizabeth, were again exhibited to the bishop of Ely, as specially authorised and appointed to receive the same, and to proceed thereupon; though the matter had been long before decided in favour of the crown, as having the general visitatorial power. Upon this, a petition was subscribed by the college, and presented to his majesty under the common-seal, the 10th of August 1728, and the cause carried before the king in council for the college itself now engaged as party in the cause against the bishop, and above fifteen hundred pounds out of the revenues of the college, were spent in carrying it on. This being referred to a committee of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council, Dr. Fleetwood, the lord bishop of Ely, on the 2nd of November, 1728, also presented a petition to his majesty, to be heard touching his right, which was likewise referred to the said committee. The lords committee, just before the clay appointed for a hearing, viz. March 13, 1728, had a printed pamphlet put into their hands, entitled, “The Case of Trinity-college; whether the Crown or the Bishop of Ely be General Visitor;” at the end of which, as well as in their petition, the college applied to the king, to take the visitatorial power (as by the opinion of council he might with their consent) into his own hands, that they might b0 only visited by the crown, but not with a view or intent of avoiding a visitation or inquiry into the state of the society, for which they were very pressing, both in their petition, and at the end of this pamphlet. On the fifteenth the cause came on before the lords of the committee of privy-council, but was from thence referred to the king’s bench, where the May following it was tried by way of prohibition, and after a long pleading, the judges unanimously determined it in favour of the bishop, as to his visitatorial power over the doctor; and the June following, the fellows exhibited their articles of complaint against him before the bishop of Ely, his lordship having two assistants, viz. sir Henry Penrice, and Dr. Bettesworth. But it being urged, that the bishop was going to exercise a general visitatorial power, another petition was preferred to his majesty and council, by the master and fellows, and a farther hearing appointed in the cause, in the court of king’s bench, in November, 1729, &c. and in November, 1731, we find the cause had gone against the bishop of Ely, by his taking out a writ of error, for carrying the' cause by appeal into the house of lords. The crown, however, at last, to put an end to the dispute and disturbance, (as fully impowered to do) took both college and master, according to their petition, into its own jurisdiction and visitation, and here the matter ended.

, an adventurer of very dubious, but not uninteresting character, one of the Magnates of the kingdoms of Hungary and Poland, was born in the year 1741, at Verbowa, the hereditary lordship of his family, situated in Nittria, in Hungary. After receiving the education which the court of Vienna affords to the youth of illustrious families, at the age of fourteen years, he fixed on the profession of arms. He was accordingly received into the regiment of Siebenschien, in quality of lieutenant; and joining the Imperial army, then in the field against the king of Prussia, was present at the battles of Lowositz, Prague, Schweidnitz, and Darmstadt. In 17,38, he quitted the Imperial service and hastened into Lithuania, at the instance of his uncle the starost of Benyowsky, and succeeded as his heir to the possession of his estates. The tranquillity, however, which he now enjoyed was interrupted by intelligence of the sudden death of his father, and that his brothers-in-law had taken possession of his inheritance. These circumstances demanding his immediate presence in Hungary, he quitted Lithuania with the sole view of obtaining possession of the property of his family; but his brothers-in-law by force opposed his entrance into his own castle. He then repaired to Krussava, a lordship dependant on the castle of Verbowa, where, after having caused himself to be acknowledged by his vassals, and being assured of their fidelity, he armed them, and by their assistance gained possession of all his effects; but his brothers, having represented him at the court of Vienna as a rebel and disturber of the public peace, the empress queen issued a decree in chancery against him, by which he was deprived of his property, and compelled to withdraw into Poland. He now determined to travel; but after taking several voyages to Hamburgh, Amsterdam, and Plymouth, with intention to apply himself to navigation, he received letters from the magnates and senators of Poland, which induced him to repair to Warsaw, where he joined the con?­federation then forming, and entered into an obligation, upon oath, not to acknowledge the king, until the confederation, as the only lawful tribunal of the republic, should have declared him lawfully elected to oppose the Russians by force of arms and not to forsake the colours of the confederation so long as the Russians should remain in Poland. Leaving Warsaw, in the month of December, he attempted to make his rights known at the court of Vienna; but disappointed in this endeavour, and deprived of all hope of justice, he resolved to quit for ever the dominions of the house of Austria. On his return to Poland, he was attacked, during his passage through the county of Zips, with a violent fever and being received into the house of Mr. Hensky, a gentleman of distinction, he paid his addresses and was married to one of his three daughters, but did not continue long in possession of happiness or repose. The confederate states of Poland, a party of whom had declared themselves at Cracow, observing that the count was one of the first who had signed their union at Warsaw, wrote to him to join them and, compelled by the strong tie of the oath he had taken, he departed without informing his wife, and arrived at Cracow on the very day count Panin made the assault. He was received with open arms by martial -Czarnesky, and immediately appointed colonel general, commander of cavalry, and quarter-master-general. On the 6th of July 1768, he was detached to Navitaig to conduct a Polish regiment to Cracow, and he not only brought the whole regiment, composed of six hundred men, through the camp of the enemy before the town, but soon afterwards defeated a body of Russians at Kremenka rechiced Landscroen, which prince Lubomirsky, who had joined the confederacy with two thousandregular troops, had attempted in vain and, by his great gallantry and address, contrived the means of introducing supplies into Cracow when besieged by the Russians but the count, having lost above sixteen hundred men in affording this assistance to the town, was obliged to make a precipitate retreat the moment he had effected his purpose; and being pursued by the Russian cavalry, composed of cossacks and hussars, he had the misfortune to have his horse killed under him, and fell at last, after receiving two wounds, into the hands of the enemy. Apraxin, the Russian general, being informed of the successful manoeuvre of the count, was impressed with a very high opinion of him, and proposed to him to enter into the Russian service but rejecting the overture with disdain, he was only saved from being sent to Kiovia with the other prisoners by the interposition of his friends, who paid 962 1. sterling for his ransom. Thus set at liberty, he considered himself as released from the parole which he had given t the Russians; and again entering the town of Cracow, he was received with the most perfect satisfaction by the whole confederacy. The town being no longer tenable, it became an object of the utmost consequence to secure another place of retreat and the count, upon his own proposal and request, was appointed to seize the castle of Lublau, situated on the frontier of Hungary; but after visiting the commanding officer of the castle, who was not apprehensive of the least danger, and engaging more than one half of the garrison by oath in the interests of the confederation, an inferior officer, who was dispatched to assist him, indiscreetly divulged the design, and the count was seized and carried into the fortress of Georgenburgh, and sent from thence to general Apraxin. On his way to that general, however, he was rescued by a party of confederates, and returned to Lublin, a town where the rest of the confederation of Cracow had appointed to meet, in order to join those of Bar, from which time he performed a variety of gallant actions, and underwent great vicissitudes of fortune. On the 19th of May, the Russian colonel judging that the count was marching towards Stry, to join the confederate parties at Sauok, likewise hastened his march, and arrived thither half a day before the count, whose forces were weakened by fatigue and hunger. In this state he was attacked about noon by colonel Brincken, at the head of four thousand men. The count was at first compelled^ to give way but, on the arrival of his cannon, he, in his turn, forced the colonel to retire, who at last quitted the field, and retreated towards Stry. The advantage of the victory served only to augment the misery of the count, who iivthis single action had threahundred wounded and two hundred and sixty-eight slain, and who had no other prospect before him than either to perish by hunger with his troops in the forest, or to expose himself to be cut to pieces by the enemy. On the morning of the 20th, however, by the advice of his officers and troops, he resumed his march, and arrived about ten o‘clock at the village of Szuka, where, being obliged to halt for refreshment, he was surprised by a party of cossacks, and had only time to quit the village and form his troops in order of battle on the plain, before he was attacked by the enemy’s cavalry, and soon, after by their infantry, supported by several pieces of cannon, which caused the greatest destruction among his forces. At length, after being dangerously wounded, the Russians took him prisoner. The count was sent to the commander in chief of the Russian armies, then encamped at Tam’pool, who not only forbade the surgeons to dress his wounds, but, after reducing him to bread and water, loaded him with chains, and transported him to Kiow. On his arrival at Polene, his neglected wound had so far endangered his life, that his conductor'was induced to apply to colonel Sirkow. the commanding officer at that place, and he was sent to the hospital, cured of his wounds, and afterwards lodged in the town, with an advance of fifty roubles for his subsistence. Upon the arrival, however, of brigadier Bannia, who relieved colonel Sirkow in his command, and who had a strong prejudice against the count, he was ac^ain loaded with chains, and conducted to the dungeon with the rest of the prisoners, who were allowed no other subsistence than bread and water. Upon his entrance he recognized several officers and soldiers who had served under him and their friendship was the only consolation he received in his distressed situation. Twentytwo days were thus consumed in a subterraneous prison, together with eighty of his companions, without light, and even without air, except what was admitted through an aperture which communicated with the casements. These unhappy wretches were not permitted to go out even on their natural occasions, which produced such an infection, that thirty-five of them died in eighteen or twenty days; and such were the inhumanity and barbarity of the commander, that he suffered the dead to remain and putrefy among the Ining. On the 16th of July the prison was opened, and one hundred and forty- eight prisoners, who had survived out of seven hundred and eighty-two, were driven, under every species of cruelty, from Polene to Kiow, where the strength of the count’s constitution, which had hitherto enabled him to resist such an accumulation of hardships and fatigue, at length gave way, and he was attacked with a malignant fever, and delirium. The governor, count Voicikow, being informed of his quality, ordered that i-.e should be separately lodged in a house, and that two roubles a day should he paid him for subsistence but when he was in a fair way of recovery, an order arrived from Petersburgh to send all the prisoners to Cazan, and this severity bringing on a relapse, the officer was obliged co leave the count at Nizym, a town dependant on the government of Kiow. At this place, a Mr. Lewner, a German merchant, procured him comfortable accommodation, superintended the restoration of his health, and on his departure made him a present of two hundred roubles, which he placed for safety in the hands of the officer until his arrival at Cazan, but who had afterwards the effrontery to deny that he had ever received the mont.y, accused the count of attempting to raise a revolt among the ^riauners, and caused him. to be loaded with chains and committed to the prison of Cazan, from which he was delivered at the pressing instances of marshal Czarnesky Potockzy, and the young Palanzky. He was then lodged at a private house, and being invited to dine with a man of quality in the place, he was solicited, and consented to join in a confederacy against the government. But on the 6th of November 1769, on a quarrel happening between two Russian lords, one of them informed the governor that the prisoners, in concert with the Tartars, meditated a design against his person and the garrison. This apostate lord accused the count, in order to save his friends and countrymen, and on the 7th, at eleven at night, the count not suspecting any such event, heard a knocking at his door. He came down, entirely undressed, with a candle in his hand, to inquire the cause; and, upon opening his door, was surprised to see an officer with twenty soldiers, who demanded if the prisoner was at home. On his replying in the affirmative, the officer snatched the candle out of his hand, and ordering his men to follow him, went hastily up to the count’s apartment. The count immediately took advantage of his mistake, quitted his house, and, after apprising some of the confederates that their plot was discovered, he made his escape, and arrived at Petersburgh on the 19th of November, where he engaged with a Dutch captain to take him to Holland. The captain, however, instead of taking him on-board tho ensuing morning, pursuant to his promise, appointed him to meet on the bridge over the Neva at midnight, and there betrayed him to twenty Russian soldiers collected for the purpose, who carried him to count Csecserin, lieutenantgeneral of the police. The count was conveyed to the fort of St. Peter and St. Paul, confined in a subterraneous dungeon, and after three days fast, presented with a morsel of bread and a pitcher of water; but, on the 22d of November 1769, he at length, in hopes of procuring his discharge, was induced to sign a paper promising for ever to quit the dominions of her imperial majesty, under pain of death.

, a French poet, was the son of a sculptor at Grenoble in Dauphine, and born in 1710. Being sent to the college of Jesuits at Lyons, he made rapid progress under able masters, who were desirous of attaching him to their body but the young scholar, too fond of liberty and pleasure, would not consent to that Confinement. Being drawn to Paris by the wish to make a figure in the poetical world, he was obliged to employ himself for two years as clerk to a notary. The light pieces of poetry he sent abroad at intervals, of which the best are the epistle to Claudine, and the song of the Rose, procured him a patron in the marquis de Pezay, who took him with him to the campaign of Italy. Bernard was at the battles of Parma and Guastalla and behaved with considerable bravery. Being presented to the marechal de Coigni, who commanded there, he was lucky enough to please him by his wit and agreeable manners. The marechal took him to be his secretary, admitted him to his intimacy, and some time afterwards procured him the place of secretarygeneral of the dragoons. From gratitude he attached himself constantly to this Maecenas, till 1756, when he was deprived of him by death. He was in great request in all the select companies of the court and of Paris; whom he delighted by the brilliant wit, and warmth of his verses and airs, of which some are worthy of Anacreon. In 1771 the sudden loss of his memory put an end to his happiness, and he fell into a state of mental imbecillity. In this condition he went to a revival of his opera of Castor, and was incessantly asking, “Is the king come Is the king pleased with it Is madame de Pompadour pleased with it” thinking he was all the while at Versailles and rioting in the delirium of a courtly poet. He died in this unhappy state, Nov. 1, 1775. Besides his lighter pieces of poetry, which got him the appellation of le gentil Bernard, several operas added much to his reputation. In 1803 an edition of his works was published in 2 vols. 8vo, and 4 vols. 18mo, comprehending several pieces not before published; but upon the whole, according to the opinion of his countrymen, his talents were not of the first order, and his popularity appears to have been owing more to his gratifying the passions than the taste of his companions and readers.

Berni was at Rome in 1527, when it was plundered by the army of the constable of Bourbon, and lost all he possessed. He then travelled with his patron Giberti to Verona, Venice, and Padua, but being tired of the service, and having no longer any hopes of adding to a canonry in the church of Florence, which he had possessed some years, he retired to that city with a view to a life of independence and moderation. Here an acquaintance which he unhappily formed with two great men proved fatal to him, Alexander de Medici, duke of Florence, and the young cardinal Hippolito de Medici, each of whom is supposed to have contended with the other, which should first destroy his rival by poison. One of them is said to have been desirous of employing Berni in this detestable project, and he having refused his assistance, fell a victim to the revenge of his patron, by a death of similar treachery. The cardinal certainly died in 1535, and, according to all historians, by poison. The death of Berni is fixed on July 26, 1536, from which long interval it has been thought improbable that the duke Alexander would have caused him to be poisoned, for not having concurred in the destruction of a rival who had been dead probably a year; but there is nothing in the character of Alexander to make us think he would scruple at this additional crime, and that for a very good reason, to get rid of one who was privy to his desiga upon the cardinal.

, called the Cavalier Ber­NiN, and by some styled the modern Michael Angelo, because he united the knowledge and practice of painting, statuary, and architecture, owes his extensive reputation prinqipally to his excellence in the latter, branch. His father Peter Bernini, left Tuscany when young, and went to Rome to study painting and sculpture. Having acquired considerable skill in both, he removed to Naples, and practised with great success. There in, 15.98, his son, the subject of this memoir, was born, and from his earliest years discovered a surprising capacity for the fine arts, having at the age of eight executed a head in marble, which was considered as a prodigy. His father, desirous of cultivating so promising a genius, brought him to Rome, and imparted to him a taste for the great masters, which he never altogether lost, although in the sequel he did not follow their track. The pope expressed a desire to see this extraordinary child who had astonished the artists, and when introduced, asked him if he knew how to sketch a head, “Whose head” said Bernini. “You know then how to draw any let it be that of St. Paul,” replied the pope.' The boy performed the task before him in about half an hour, and the pope, enchanted with the specimen, recommended him warmly to cardinal Barberini, that celebrated patron of the arts. “Direct his studies,” added his holiness, “and he will become the Michael Angelo of the age.” About the same time, happening to be in St. Peter’s church, with Annibal Carrache, and some other celebrated artists, Carrache, looking to the cupola, said it would be very desirable to find a man of genius great enough to form and erect two objects in the middle, and at the end of that temple, which should correspond to its dimensions.“The young Bernini instantly exclaimed with enthusiasm,” Would I were that man," little thinking that one day he was to fulfil Carrache’s wish.

, count of Lyons, and a cardinal and statesman of France, was born at MarceJ de l'Ardeche, May 22, 1715, of a noble and ancient family, but not very rich which circumstance induced his friends to bring him up to the church, as the most likely profession in which he might rise. In this they were not disappointed, as he gradually attained the highest ecclesiastical dignities. When young he was placed at the seminary of St. Sulpice in Paris, and after remaining there some years, he appeared in the world with every personal accomplishment that could introduce him into notice; but his morals appear to have been for some time an obstruction to promotion. The cardinal de Fleury, then prime-minister, who had the patronage of all favours, and who had promised him his countenance, thinking him of a spirit too worldly for the church, sent for him and gave him a lecture on his dissipated conduct, concluding with these words “You can have no expectations of promotion, while I live,” to which the young abbé“Bernis, making a profound bow, replied,” Sir, I can wait" Some think this bon mot, which became very current, was not original but it is certain that Bernis remained for a long while in a state not far removed from poverty, and yet contrived, by means of strict parsimony, to make a decent figure at the houses to which he was invited. Being a writer of verses, and consequently a dealer in compliments, he was always acceptable, and at length by madame Pompadour’s interest, was introduced to Louis XV. The good effects of this, at first, were only an apartment in the Tuileries, to which his patroness added the furniture, and a pension of fifteen hundred livres yet it soon led to greater matters. Having been appointed ambassador to Venice, he was remarked to have acquired the good opinion and confidence of a state rather difficult to please in appointments of this description, and of this they gave him a strong proof, in a contest they had with pope Benedict XIV. who appointed Bernis as his negociator. On this occasion the state of Venice approved the choice, the consequence of which was, that Bernis effected a reconciliation to the entire satisfaction of both parties. On his return, he became a great favourite at court, acquired considerable influence, and at length, being admitted into the council, was appointed foreign minister. But in this situation he was either unskilful or unfortunate the disasters of the seven years war, and the peace of 1763, were laid to his charge but according to Duclos, he was less to blame than his colleagues, and it is certain that in some instances he has been unjustly censured. It was said, in particular, that he argued for a declaration of war against Prussia, because Frederick the Great had ridiculed his poetry in the following line,

The impulse of genius, however, got so far the better of prudential considerations, that he executed, during the course of his life, ten or twelve heads, any one of which would have been sufficient to insure him immortal fame among judges of excellence in this department. Among these were the heads of Thomson the poet, Mary queen of Scots, Oliver Cromwell, Julius Caesar, a young Hercules, and Mr. Hamilton of Bangour, the poet. Of these onlytwo copies were from the antique, and they were executed in the finest style of those celebrated entaglios. The young Hercules in particular, which, if we mistake not, belongs to the earl of Findlater, possessed that unaffected plain simplicity, and natural concurrence in the same expression of youthful innocence through all the features, conjoined with strength and dignity, which is, perhaps, the most difficult of all expressions to be hit off by the most faithful imitator of nature.

Mr. Bezout lived thus several years beloved of his family and friends, and respected by all, enjoying the fruits and the credit of his labours. But the trouble and fatigues of his offices, with some personal chagrins, had reduced his strength and constitution; he was attacked by a malignant fever, of which he died Sept. 27, 1783, in the 54th year of his age, regretted by his family, his friends, the young students, and by all his acquaintance in general. The books published by him were, 1. “Course of Mathematics for the use of the Marine, with a treatise on Navigation,” Paris, 1764, 6 vols. 8vo, reprinted 1781—2. 2. “Course of Mathematics for the Corps of Artillery,” 1770—1772, 4 vols. 8vo. 3. “General Theory of Algebraic Equations,” 1779, 4to. His papers printed in the volumes of the Memoirs of the academy of sciences are, 1. On Curves whose rectification depends on a given quantity, in the vol. for 1758. 2. On several classes of Equations that admit of an algebraic solution, 1762. 3. First vol. of a course of Mathematics, 1764. 4. On certain Equations, &c. 1764. 5. General resolution of all Equations, 1765. 6. Second vol. of a course of Mathematics, 1765. 7. Third vol. of the same, 1766. 8. Fourth vol. of the same, 1767. 9. Integration of Differentials, &c. vol. 3, Sav. Etr. 10. Experiments on Cold, 1777.

With respect to his personal character, his biographer, and indeed all who knew him, have expatiated on the gentleness of his manners, the benignity of his disposition, and that warm interest in. the happiness of others which led him so constantly to promote it in the young people who were committed to his charge. In their society he appeared entirely to forget the loss of sight, and the melancholy which, at other times, it might produce. “He entered,” says his biographer, " with the cheerful playfulness of a young man, into all the sprightly narrative, the sportive fancy, the humorous jest that rose around him. It was a sight highly gratifying to philanthropy, to see how much a mind endowed with knowledge, kindled by genius, and above all, lighted up with innocence and piety, like Blacklock’s, could overcome the weight of its own calamity, and enjoy the content, the happiness, and the gaiety of others. Several of those inmates of Dr. Blacklock’s house retained, in future life, all the warmth of that impression which his friendship at this early period had made upon them and in various quarters of the world he had friends and correspondents from whom no length of time or distance of place had ever estranged him.

Mr. Blackwall, in his seminaries at Derby and Bosworth, had the felicity of bringing up a number of excellent scholars besides Mr. Dawes. Among these was sir Henry Atkins, bart. who, being patron of the church of Clapharn. in Surrey, as a mark of his gratitude and esteem, presented our author, on the 12th of October, 1726, to that rectory, which was then supposed to be worth three hundred pounds a year. The grammar which Mr. Blackwall made use of, for the purpose of initiating the young people under his care into the knowledge of the Latin tongue, was of his own composition; and it was considered as so well adapted to that end, that he was prevailed upon to publish it in 1728. Such, however, was his modesty, that it would not permit him to fix his name to it, because he would not be thought to prescribe to other instructors of youth. The title of it is, “A 'New Latin Grammar; being a short, clear, and easy introduction of young scholars to the knowlege of the Latin tongue containing an exact account of the two first parts of grammar.” It is probable, that Mr. Blackwall’s situation at Clapham did not altogether suit his disposition; for, early in 1729, he resigned the rectory of that place, and retired to Market- Bosworth, where his abilities and convivial turn of mind rendered him generally respected. At the school-house of this town he died, ou the 8th of April, 1730. He left behind him two children, a son and a daughter. The son was an attorney at StokeGolding, in the neighbourhood of Bosworth, where he died July 5, 1763; and the daughter was married to a Mr. Pickering.

Although the popularity of Dr. Blair’s “Sermons” exceeds all that we read of in the history of literature, yet it does not appear to us to be of that species arising from judgment as well as taste, which leads to permanent reputation. They happened to hit the taste of the age, to whom compositions so highly polished, were somewhat new and they were introduced by that fashionable patronage which common readers find irresistible. They differ from all other compositions under the same title, in being equally adapted to readers of every class; and they were recommended to the perusal of the young of every religious persuasion, as containing nothing that could interfere with their opinions. Their character is that of moral discourses, but as such they never could have attained their popularity without that high polish of style which was the author’s peculiar object. Under this are concealed all the defects which attach to them as sermons, a name which they can never deserve when compared with the works of the most eminent English and Scotch divines. It may be doubted, therefore, whether his “Lectures” will not prolong his fame to a much later period. Although he possessed a sound judgment rather than a vigorous mind, and had more taste than genius, yet, perhaps, on the former account his lectures may always be recommended as an useful introduction to polite literature. “They contain,” says an excellent critic, “an accurate analysis of the principles of literary composition, in all the various species of writing a happy illustration of those principles by the most beautiful and apposite examples, drawn from the best authors both ancient and modern; and an admirable digest of the rules of eiocution, as applicable to the oratory of the pulpit, the bar, and the popular assembly. They do not aim at the character of a work purely original for this, as the author justly considered, would have been to circumscribe their utility; neither in point of style are they polished with the same degree of care that the author has bestowed on some of his other works, as for example, his” Sermons.“Yet, so useful is the object of these lectures, so comprehensive their plan, and such the excellence of the matter they contain, that, if not the most splendid, they will, perhaps, prove the most durable monument of their author’s reputation.”

, father to the preceding, and a considerable writer in the last century, was descended from a very ancient and honourable family, and born December 15, 1602, at his father, sir Thomas Pope Blount’s, seat at Tittenhanger, in Hertfordshire. He received the first tincture of letters in the free-school of St. Alban’s, where he manifested an unusual quickness of parts, and having qualified himself for the university, was removed to Trinity-college, in Oxford, and entered a gentleman commoner there in 1616, before he was full fourteen years of age. Some years he spent in that learned society, with great reputation and universal respect, not so much on account of his family, by which he was nearly related to the founder, sir Thomas Pope, as from his personal merit. For in his youth he was of a cheerful disposition, a sprightly wit, an easy address, and frank and entertaining in conversation, charmed all who were of his acquaintance, and was justly esteemed as promising a genius as any in the university. In the year 1618 he took the degree of B.A. and soon after left Oxford for Gray’s-inn, where for some time he applied himself to the study of the law, and set out on his travels in the spring of the year 1634, being then lately become of age. He made first the tour of France, part of Spain and Italy, and then passing to Venice, he there contracted an acquaintance with a Janizary, with whom he resolved to pass into the Turkish dominions. With this view he embarked on the 7th of May, 1634, on board a Venetian galley, in which he sailed to Spalatro, and thence continued his journey by land to Constantinople. There he was very kindly received by sir Peter Wich, then our ambassador at the Port. His stay at Constantinople was short, because, having an earnest desire to see Grand Cairo, and meeting with a sudden opportunity, he readily embraced it, and after a peregrination of near two years, returned safely into England, where, in 1636, he printed an account of his travels, London, 1636, 4to, which soon after came to a second edition, and in 1638 to a third, in the same size. It was then printed in 12mo, and reached many editions the title of the eighth runs thus “A Voyage into the Levant, being a brief relation of a Journey lately performed from England by the way of Venice, into Dalmatia, Sclavonia, Bosnia, Hungary, Macedonia, Thessaly, Thrace, Rhodes, and Egypt, unto Grand Cairo; with particular observations concerning the modern condition of the Turks, and other people under that empire. By sir Henry Blount, knight.” This book made him known to the world, and so much noticed, that shortly after, king Charles I. who desired to fill his court with men of parts, appointed him one of the band of pensioners, then composed of gentlemen of the first families in the kingdom. In 1638, his father, sir Thomas Pope Blount, died, and left him the ancient seat of Blount’s hall, in Staffordshire, and a very considerable fortune. On the 21st of March in the succeeding year, the king conferred on him the honour of knighthood. At the first breaking out of the civil war, he, following the example of the elder branches of his illustrious family, who were eminently loyal, attended the king at York, at Oxford, and other places, was present at the battle of Edgehill, and had there (according to a tradition in the family) the honour of taking care of the young princes. Afterwards he quitted his majesty’s service, and returned to London, where he was questioned for his adhering to the king but he being now grown a very wary and dexterous speaker, so well excused himself, by alleging his duty on account of his post, that he escaped all censure, and was thenceforward well received. It appears, however, that he had not the courage to be faithful, or that Ije had seriously repented his loyalty to the king, for he complied with the usurping government so implicitly, that in 1651 he was named on a committee of twenty persons, for inspecting the practice of the law, and remedying its abuses. He declared himself very warmly against tithes, and would willingly have reduced the income of parish ministers to one hundred pounds a year. A man of this opinion must have been very acceptable at that time. His next appearance, however, was more to his credit. He sat with Dr. Hichard Zouch, Dr. William Clarke, Dr. William Turner, civilians, and with several other eminent persons in the court of king’s (then called the upper) bench, in Westminster hall, on the 5th of July, 1654, by virtue of a commission from Oliver Cromwell, for trying Don Pantalion Saa, brother to the Portuguese ambassador, for murder, of which, being found guilty, he was, much to the honour of the justice of this nation, by sentence of that court, adjudged to suffer death, and was executed accordingly, Jn, the same year, by the death of his elder brother Thomas Pope Blount, esq. the estate of Tittenhanger descended to him. His great reputation for general knowledge and uncommon sagacity was the reason that his name was inserted in the list of twenty-one commissioners appointed, November 1, 1655, to consider of the trade and navigation of the commonwealth, and how it might be best encouraged and promoted, in which station he did his country eminent service. But whatever his compliances with the forms of government set up between 1650 and 1660, he was received into favour and confidence on the ling’s restoration, and appointed high sheriff of the county of Hertford, in 1661. He lived after that as an English gentleman, satisfied with the honours he had acquired, and the large estate he possessed, and having passed upwards uf twenty years in this independent state, be died on the 9th of October, 1682, when he wanted but four months of four-score, and was two days afterwards interred in the vault of his family, at Ridge in Hertfordshire. As to what appears from his writings, he seems to have had strong parts, a lively imagination, and, in consequence of these, some very singular opinions. His style was manly, flowing, and less affected than could be expected, considering the times in, and the subjects on, which he wrote. A Latin fragment, published by his son, in his “Oracles of Reason,” better explains his sentiments than all the rest of his works, and demonstrates that he was a man of an irregular way of thinking.

“Linnæus, when at Ley den, had particularly wished to see and converse with Boerhaave, but in vain. No minister could be more overwhelmed with intreaties and invitations, nor more difficult in granting an au[ >nce, than Boerhaave. His menial servants reaped ad ant a ^es from this circumstance for them an audience was always a profitable money-job by the weignt of gold it could alone be accomplished. Without a douceur it was hard for anystranger or foreigner to gain admittance. Linnæus was quite unacquainted with this method, and had it not in his power to make presents. Owing to Boerhaave’s infinite occupations, and the strict regularity which he observed, ambassadors, princes, and Peter the Great himself, were obliged to wait several hours in his anti-chamber, to obtain an interview. How much more difficult must it have been for the young northern doctor, allowing him his usual spirit of liberality, to aspire at the honour of admittance. Notwithstanding all these obstacles, he obtained it at last. He sent Boerhaave a copy of his newpublished system. Eager to know the author of this work, who had likewise recommended himself by a letter, he appointed Linnæus to meet him on the day before his intended departure, at his villa, at the distance of a quarter of a league from Leyden, and charged Gronovius to give him notice of his intention. This villa contained a botanical garden, and one of the finest collections of exotics. Linnæus punctually attended to the invitation. Boerhaave, who was then sixty-seven years old, received him with gladness, and took him into his garden, for the purpose of judging of his knowledge. He shewed him, as a rarity, the Crategus Aria, and asked him if he had ever seen that tree before, as it had never been described by any botanist. Linnæus answered that he had frequently met with it in Sweden, and that it had been already described by Vaillant. Struck with the young man’s reply, Boerhaave denied the latter part of his assertion, with so much more confidence, as he had himself published Vaillant’s work, with notes of his own, and firmly believed that tree had not been described in it. To remove all doubts, and to give all possible sanction to what he advanced, Boerhaave immediately produced the work itself from his library, and to his extreme surprise, found the tree fully described in it, with all its distinctive marks. Admiring the exact and enlarged knowledge of Linnæus in botany, in which he seemed even to excel himself, the venerable old man advised him to remain in Holland, to make a fortune, which could not escape his talents. Linnoeus answered that he would fain follow this advice, but his indigence prevented him from staying any longer, and obliged him to set out next day for Amsterdam, on his return to Sweden; but nevertheless this visit to Boerhaave unexpectedly became the source of his fortune and of his eminence.”

, an historian of the fifteenth century, was born at Ascoli in Italy. Mathias Corvinus, king of Hungary, having heard of his abilities and learning, sent for him to his court, and Bonfinius paid his respects to him at Rees, a few days before that prince made his public entry into Vienna. At his first audience, as he himself tells us, he presented him with his translations of Hermogenes and Herodian, and his genealogy of the Corvini, which he dedicated to his majesty; and two other works addressed to the queen, one of which treated of virginity and conjugal chastity, and the other was a history of Ascoli. He had dedicated also a small collection of epigrams to the young prince John Corvinus, to which there is added a preface. The king read his pieces with great pleasure, distributed them among his courtiers in high terms of approbation, and would not allow him to return to Italy, but granting him a good pension, was desirous that he should follow him in his army. He employed him to write the history of the Huns, and Bonfinius accordingly set about it before the death of this prince; but it was by order of king Uladislaus that he wrote the general history of Hungary, and carried it down to 1495. The original of this work was deposited in the library of Buda. In 1543 Martin Brenner published thirty books from an imperfect copy, which Sambucus republished in 1568, in a more correct state, and with the addition of fifteen more books, a seventh edition of which was printed at Leipsic, in 1771, fol. Sambucus also published in 1572 Bonfinius’s “Symposion Beatricis, seu dialog, de fide conjugali et virginitate, lib. III.” Bonfinius wrote a history of the taking of Belgrade by Mahomet II. in 1456, which is printed in the “Syndromus rerum Turcico-Pannonicarum,” Francfort, 1627, 4to; and, as already noticed, translated the works of Philostratus, Hermogenes, and Herodian. His Latin style was much admired, as a successful imitation of the ancients. The time of his death has not been ascertained.

, the son of a lawyer of the same name, was born at Crema, in the Venetian state about 1584. In his thirtieth year he went to study at Padua, and made such proficiency as to be created doctor of laws at the age of eighteen. About two years after he was appointed law professor in the college of Rovigo, where he first lectured on the institutes of Justinian. He afterwards accompanied the pope’s nuncio Jerome Portia, as secretary, and was himself employed in some affairs of importance. On his return to Venice, he had several preferments, and among others that of archpriest of Rovigo. In Oct. 1619, he was elected Greek and Latin professor at Padua, but declined accepting the office. In 1620, he assisted at Venice, in the establishment of an academy for the education of the young nobility, and gave lectures on the civil law. Pope Urban VIII. bestowed on him the archdeaconry of Trevisa, which he held, with the office of grand vicar of that diocese, under four successive bishops. He assisted also very essentially in founding a new academy at Padua for the Venetian nobility, in 1636, and was the first director or president of it, and founded a similar establishment at Trevisa. In 1653 he was appointed bishop of Capo d'Istria, which he held until his death in 165i). He was a man of various learning, as appears by his “Historia Trevigiena,” 4to, his “Historia Ludicra,” 1656, 4to, a collection of singular narratives from authors of every description. He published also some “Latin poems” in 1619, 12mo. “De Romanae Historian Scriptoribus excerpta ex Bodino, Vossio et aliis,” Venice, 1627, 4to.

In the mean while, however, the young cardinal, in the midst of a brilliant court, went along with the torrent, fitted up grand apartments, furnished them magnificently, and kept splt-ntiid equipages. His table was sumptuously served; his house was never empty of nobles and scholars. His uncle, delighted with this magnificence, gave him ample revenues to support it. In a very short time he was at once grand penitentiary of Rome, archpriest of St. Mary Major; protector of several crowns, and of various orders, religious and military; legate of Bologna, of Romania, and of the marche of Ancona. It was at that time that the famous council of Trent was held. Much was said about the reformation of the clergy, and Charles, after having advised it to others, gave an example of it in his own conduct. He suddenly discharged no less than eighty livery servants, left off wearing silk, and imposed on himself a weekly fast on bread and water. From this beginning he soon proceeded greater lengths. He held councils for confirming the decrees of that of Trent, terminated partly by his means. He made his house into a seminary of bishops; he established schools, colleges, communities; re-modelled his clergy and the monasteries; made institutions for the poor and orphans, and for girls exposed to ruin, who were desirous to return to a regular life. His zeal was the admiration of good men, but was far from acceptable to the corrupt clergy. The order of the Humiliati, which he attempted to reform, excited against him a friar, Farina, a shocking member of that society, who fired a gun at the good man while he was at evening prayer with his domestics. The bail having only grazed his skin, Charles petitioned for the pardon of his assassin, who was punished with death, notwithstanding his solicitations, and his order was suppressed. These contradictions did not abate the ardour of the good archbishop. He visited the desolate extremities of his province, abolished the excesses of the carnival, preached to his people, and shewed himself every where as their pastor and father. During the ravages of a cruel pestilence, he assisted the poor in their spiritual concerns by his ecclesiastics and his personal attentions, sold the furniture of his house to relieve the sick, put up prayers and made processions, in which he walked barefoot, and with a rope round his neck. His heroic charity was repaid with ingratitude. The governor of Milan prevailed on the magistrates of that city to prefer complaints against Charles, whom they painted in the blackest colours. “They accused him (says Baillet) of having exceeded the limits of his authority during the time of the plague; of having introduced dangerous innovations; of having abolished the public games, the stage-plays, and dances; of having revived the abstinence on the first Sunday in Lent, in violation of the privilege granted to that town of including that day in the carnival.” They published an injurious and insulting manifesto against him: but, contented with the testimony of his own conscience, he resigned the care of his justification to the Almighty. At length, worn out by the labours of an active piety, he finished his course the 3d of November 1594, being only in his 47th year. He was canonized in 1610. He wrote a very great number of works on doctrinal and moral subjects, which were printed 1747 at Milan, in 5 vols. folio, and the library of St. Sepulchre in that city is in possession of thirty-one vols. of his manuscript letters. The clergy of France reprinted at their expence the Institutions he composed for the use of confessors. Among his works are many homilies and sermons, as he thought it incumbent on him to preach the word of God himself to his people, notwithstanding the various business and government of so large a diocese. The edition of “Ada Ecclesiae Mediolanensis,” Milan, 1599, fol. is much valued.

* Dr. Welsted, a physician, was also The primate maintained a son of the of this golden election, and when he doctor’s, as a commoner, at Hart-halt became poor in the latter part of his in Oxford; and would effectually have life, the archbishop, though he was no provided for him, if the young gentlerelation, gave him, at the least, two man had not died before he had taken hundred pounds a year, till his death, a degree. Dr. Welsted was one of the Nor did his grace’s kindness to the editors of the Oxford Pindar, and doctor’s family end with his decease-, esteemed an excellent Greek scholar. and some time after he was preferred to the same honour by Dr. Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury. In these stations he was under a necessity of appearing often at court, where his merit obtained him the patronage of Charles Spencer, earl of Sunderland, principal secretary of state, by whose interest he was advanced to the rectory of St. Olave in Southwark, and to the archdeaconry of Surrey. The parish of St. Olave was very populous, and for the most part poor, and required such a liberal and vigilant pastor as Dr. Boulter, who relieved their wants, and gave them instruction, correction, and reproof. When king George I. passed over to Hanover in 1719, Dr. Boulter was recommended to attend him in quality of his chaplain, and also was appointed tutor to prince Frederic, to instruct him in the English tongue; and for that purpose drew up for his use “A set of Instructions.” This so recommended him to the king, that during his abode at Hanover, the bishopric of Bristol, and deanery of Christchurch, Oxford, becoming vacant, the king granted to him that see and deanery, and he was consecrated bishop of Bristol, on the fifteenth of November, 1719. In this last station he was more than ordinarily assiduous in the visitation of his diocese, and the discharge of his pastoral duty; and during one of these visitations, he received a letter by a messenger from the secretary of state, acquainting him, that his majesty had nominated him to the archbishopric of Armagh, and primacy of Ireland, then vacant by the death of Dr. Thomas Lindsay, on the 13th of July, 1724-, and desiring him to repair to London as soon as possible, to kiss the king’s hand for his promotion. After some, consultation on this affair, to which he felt great repugnance, he sent an answer by the messenger, refusing the honour the king intended him, and requesting the secretary to use his good offices with his majesty, in making his excuse, but the messenger was dispatched back to him. by the secretary, with the king’s absolute commands that he should accept of the post, to which he submitted, though not without some reluctance, and soon after addressed himself to his journey to court. Ireland was at that juncture not a little inflamed, by the copper-coin project of one Wood, and it was thought by the king and ministry, that the judgment, moderation, and wisdom of the bishop of Bristol would tend much to allay the ferment. He arrived in Ireland on the third of November, 1724, had no sooner passed patent for the primacy, than he appeared at all the public boards, and gave a weight and vigour to them; and, in every respect, was indefatigable in promoting the real happiness of the people. Among his other wise measures, in seasons of great scarcity in, Ireland, he was more than once instrumental in averting a pestilence and famine, which threatened the nation. When the scheme was set on foot for making a navigation, by a canal to be drawn from Lough -Neagh to Newry, not only for bringing coal to Dublin, but to carry on more effectually an inland trade in the several counties of the north of Ireland, he greatlv encouraged and promoted the design, not only with his counsel but his purse. Drogheda is a large and populous town within the diocese of Armagh, and his grace finding that the ecclesiastical appointments were not sufficient to support two clergymen there, and the cure over-burthensome for one effectually to discharge, he allotted out of his own pocket a maintenance for a second curate, whom he obliged to give public service every Sunday in the afternoon, and prayers twice every day. He had great compassion for the poor clergy of his diocese, who were disabled from giving their children a proper education, and maintained several of the sons of such in the university, in order to qualify them for future preferment, He erected four houses at Drogheda for the reception of clergymen’s widows, and purchased an estate for the endowment of them, after the model of primate Marsh’s charity; which he enlarged in one particular: for as the estate he purchased for the maintenance of the widows, amounted to twenty-four pounds a year more than he had set apart for that use, he appointed that the surplus should be a fund for setting out the children of such, widows apprentices, or otherwise to be disposed of for the benefit of such children, as his trustees should think proper. He also by his will directed, which has since been performed, that four houses should be built for clergymen’s widows at Armagh, and endowed with fifty pounds a year. During his life, he contracted for the building of a stately market-house at Armagh, which was finished by his executors, at upwards of eight hundred pounds expence. He was a benefactor also to Dr. Stevens’s hospital in the city of Dublin, erected for the maintenance and cure of the poor. His charities for augmenting small livings, and buying of glebes, amounted to upwards of thirty thousand pourids, besides what he devised by his will for the like purposes in England. Though the plan of the incorporated society for promoting English protestant working schools, cannot be imputed to primate Boulter, yet he was the chief instrument in forwarding the undertaking, which he lived to see carried into execution with consider, able success. His private charities were not less munificent, but so secretly conducted, that it is impossible to give any particular account of them: it is affirmed by those who were in trust about him, that he never suffered an object to leave his house unsupplied, and he often sent them away with considerable sums, according to the judgment he made of their merits and necessities. With respect to his political virtues, and the arts of government, when his health would permit him he was constant in his attendance at the council-table, and it is well known what weight and dignity he gave to the debates of that board. As he always studied the true interest of Ireland, so he judged, that the diminishing the value of the gold coin would be a means of increasing silver in the country, a thing very much wanted in order to effect which, he supported a scheme at the council- table, which raised the clamours of unthinking people, although experience soon demonstrated its wisdom. He was thirteen times one of the lords justices, or chief governors of Ireland; which office he administered oftener than any other chief governor on record. He embarked for England June 2, 1742, and after two days illness died at his house in St. James’s place, Sept. 27, and was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a stately monument has been erected to his memory. His deportment was grave, his aspect venerable, and his temper meek and humble. He was always open and easy of access both to rich and poor. He was steady to the principles of liberty, both in religion and politics. His learning was universal, yet more in substance than shew; nor would his modesty permit him to make any ostentation of it. He always preserved such an equal temper of mind that hardly any thing could ruffle, and amidst obloquy and opposition, steadily maintained a resolution of serving his country, embraced every thing proposed for the good of it, though by persons remarkable for their opposition to him: and when the most public-spirited schemes were introduced by him, and did not meet with the reception they deserved, he never took offence, but was glad when any part of his advice for the public good was pursued, and was always willing to drop some points, that he might not lose all; often saying, “he would do all the good to Ireland he could, though they did not suffer him to do all he would.” His life was mostly spent in action, and therefore it is not to be expected that he should have left many remains of his learning behind him nor do we know of any thing he bath written, excepting a few Charges to his clergy at his visitations, which are grave, solid, and instructive, and eleven Occasional Sermons, printed separately. In 1769, however, were published, at Oxford, in two volumes 8vo, “Letters written by his excellency Hugh Boulter, D. D. lord primate of all Ireland, &c. to several ministers of state in England, and some others. Containing an account of the most interesting transactions which passed in Ireland from 1724 to 1738.” The originals, which are deposited in the library of Christ church, in Oxford, were collected by Ambrose Philips, esq. who was secretary to his grace, and lived in his house during that space of time in which they bear date. They are entirely letters of business, and are all of them in Dr. Boulter’s hand-writing, excepting some few, which are fair copies by his secretary. The editor justly remarks, that these letters, which could not be intended for publication, have been fortunately preserved, as they contain the most authentic history of Ireland, for the period in which they were written: “a period,” he adds, “which will ever do honour to his grace’s memory, and to those most excellent princes George the first and second, who had the wisdom to place confidence in so worthy, so able, and so successful a minister; a minister who had the rare and peculiar felicity of growing still more and more into the favour both of the king and of the people, until the very last day of his life,” It is much to be regretted that in some of his measures, he was opposed by dean Swift, particularly in that of diminishing the gold coin, as it is probable that they both were actuated by an earnest desire of serving the country. In one affair, that of Wood’s halfpence, they appear to have coincided, and in that they both happened to encourage a public clamour which had little solid foundation. The writer of archbishop' Boulter’s Life in the Biog. Brit, seems to doubt whether he assisted Ambrose Philips in the paper called the “Freethinker;” but of this we apprehend there can be no doubt. It was published while he held the living of St. Olave’s.

Her father, however, to whom all this appeared unnatural, considered her as a mere woman and, having found an agreeable match, promised her in marriage to a Frenchman. Easter-day, 1636, was fixed for the nuptials; but, to avoid the execution, the young lady fled, under the disguise of a hermit, hut was stopped at Blacon, a village of Hainault, on suspicion of her sex. It was an officer of horse quartered in the village who seized her; he had observed something extraordinary in her, and mentioning her to the archbishop of Cambray, that prelate came to examine her, and sent her home. But being pressed again with proposals of matrimony, she ran away once more: and, going to the archbishop, obtained his licence to set up a small society in the country, with some other maidens of her taste and temper. That licence, however, was soon retracted, and Antoinette obliged to withdraw into the country of Liege, whence she returned to Lisle, and passed many years there privately in devotion and great simplicity. When her patrimonial estate fell to her, she resolved at first to renounce it; but, changing her mind, she took possession of it; and as she was satisfied with a few conveniences, she lived at little expence: and bestowing no charities, her fortune increased apace. For thus taking possession of her estate, she gave three reasons: first, that it might not come into the hands of those who had no right to it; or secondly, of those who would have made an ill use of it; thirdly, God shewed her that she should have occasion for it to his glory. And as to charity, she says, the deserving poor are not to be met with in this world. This patrimony must have been something considerable, since she speaks of several maid servants in her house. What she reserved, however, for this purpose, became a temptation to one John de Saulieu, the son of a peasant, who resolved to make his court to her; and, getting admittance under the character of a prophet, insinuated himself into the lady’s favour by devout acts and discourses of the most refined spirituality. At length he declared his passion, modestly enough at first, and was easily checked; but finding her intractable, he grew so insolent as to threaten to murder her if she would not comply. Upon this she had recourse to the provost, who sent two men to guard her house; and in revenge Saulieu gave out, that she had promised him marriage, and even bedded with him. But, in conclusion, they were reconciled; he retracted his slanders, and addressed himself to a young devotee at Ghent, whom he found more tractable. This, however, did not free her from other applications of a similar nature. The parson’s nephew of St. Andrew’s parish near Lisle fell in love with her; and as her house stood in the neighbourhood, he frequency environed it, in order to force an entrance. Our recluse threatened to quit her post, if she was not delivered f*om this troublesome suitor, and the uncle drove himrom his house upon which he grew desperate, and someimes discharged & musquet through the nun’s chamber, giung out that she was his espoused wife. This made a nose in the city; the devotees were offended, and threatined to affront Bourignon, if they met her in the streets. At length she was relieved by the preachers, who publisied from their pulpits, that the report of the marriage wis a scandalous falsehood.

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

When the earl of Orrery was committed prisoner to the Tower on account of Layer’s plot, such was the filial piety of his son, that he earnestly entreated to be shut up with his noble father; but this indulgence was thought too considerable to be granted. Not long after he had completed the twenty-first year of his age, he married, on the 9th of May 1728, lady Harriet Hamilton, the third and youngest daughter of George earl of Orkney. Though this marriage had the entire approbation of lord Orrery, it unfortunately happened that a dissension arose between the two earls, which placed the young couple in a very delicate and difficult situation; but lord Boyle maintained at the same time the tenderest affection for his wife, and the highest attachment to his father. The earl of Orrery, however, was too much irritated by the family quarrel, to see at first his son’s conduct in a proper point of light, although his excellent understanding could not fail in the end to get the better of his prejudices, when a reconciliation took place, and the little coldness which had subsisted between them served but the more to endear them to each other. The earl of Orrery was now so much pleased with lord Boyle, that he could scarcely be easy without him; and when in town, they were seldom asunder. It is to be lamented, that this happiness was rendered very transient by the unexpected death of lord Orrery and that the stroke was embittered by circumstance peculiarly painful and affecting to his noble son and successor. The father, whilst under the impression of his dissension with the earl of Orkney, had made a will, by which he had bequeathed to Christ-church, Oxford, his valuable library, consisting of above ten thousand volumes, together with a very fine collection of mathematical instruments. The only exceptions in favour of lord Boyle were the Journals of the House of Peers, and such books as related to the English history and constitution. The earl of Orrery left, besides, though he was greatly in debt, several considerable legacies to persons nowise related to him. Upon his reconciliation with his son, he determined to alter his will, and had even sent for his lawyer with that view, when the suddenness of his decease prevented the execution of his just and reasonable design. The young lord Orrery, with a true filial piety and generosity, instead of suffering his father’s effects to be sold, took his debts upon himself, and fulfilled the bequests, by paying the legacies, and sending the books and mathematical instruments within the limited time to Christ-church. The loss, however, of a parent, thus aggravated and embittered, left a deep impression upon his mind, and was succeeded by a fit of illness which endangered his life, and obliged him to repair to Bath. Whilst he was in that city, he received a letter from a friend, with a copy of verses inclosed, exhorting him to dispel his grief by poetry r and to shew that Bath could inspire, as well as Tunbridge;. from which place he had written some humorous verses the year before. To this letter his lordship returned the following answer:

In October 1733, lord Orrery returned to England, and having now no attachment to London, he disposed of his house in Downing-street, Westminster, as likewise of his seat at Britwell, near Windsor, and retired to his seat at Marston, in Somersetshire. As this place had been much neglected by his ancestors, and was little more than a shell of a large old house, he amused himself in building offices, in fitting out and furnishing apartments, and laying out gardens and other plantations. Study and retirement being his principal pleasures, he took care to supply the loss he had sustained from his father’s will, by furnishing his library anew with the best authors. In the summer of 1734, probably in his way to France, where he sometimes went, he visited the tomb of his ancestors, Roger Boyle, esq, and Joan his wife, in Preston church, near Feversham. This monument, when the title of earl of Cork devolved upon him, he intended to have repaired, if his life had been prolonged. In the middle of the year 1735, we find him again in Ireland. On the 31st of October, in the same year, an amiable relation, and a most promising youth, Edmund duke of Buckingham, died at Rome, upon which melancholy event, lord Orrery paid a just tribute to the memory of the young nobleman, in an elegiac poem. It was printed in 1736, and is one of the most pleasing specimens which our author has afforded of his poetical abilities. In the winter of 1735-6, the duke of Dorset being then lord lieutenant of Ireland, the eail of Orrery neglected no opportunity of endeavouring to render his administration easy. If Dr. Swift is to be credited, Ireland was about that time in a wretched condition. As a proof of it, the dean asserted in a letter to Mr. Pope, that lord Orrery had 3000l. a year in the neighbourhood of Cork, and that more than three years rent was unpaid. In April 1737, his lordship, who was then at Cork, earnestly pressed Dr. Swift to accompany him to England; but the doctor, who never saw Marston, did not accept the invitation. Lord Orrery took over with him to Mr. Pope all the letters of that great poet to Swift, which the dean had preserved or could find, which were not more in number than twenty-five. About this time, our noble author, that his sons might be educated under his own eye, and also have the benefit of attending Westminster-school, took a small house in Duke-street, Westminster. On the 30th of June, 1738, the earl of Orrery, after having been six years a widower, married, in Ireland, Mrs. Margaret Hamilton, only daughter and heiress of John Hamilton, esq. of Caledon, in the county of Tyrone, grand-daughter of Dr. Dopping, bishop of Meath, and niece of Dr. Dopping, bishop of Ossory. Swift, in a letter to Miss Hamilton, on her intended nuptials, after pretending a prior claim, as she had made so many advances to him, and confessed “herself to be nobody’s goddess but his,” archly waves it, and politely “permits lord Orrery to make himself the happiest man in the world; as I know not,” he adds, “any lady in this kingdom of so good sense or so many accomplishments.” He gives a great character of her, likewise, in his last printed letter to Mr. Pope. In this lady, the earl of Orrery, with gratitude to Heaven, acknowledged that the loss of his former countess was repaired. In 1739 he published a new edition, 2 vols. 8vo, of the dramatic works of his great-grandfather. Though these volumes cannot be particularly valuable, they are now become exceedingly scarce. In 1741 he published separately, in folio, “The first Ode of the first book of Horace imitated, and inscribed to the earl of Chesterfield;” and “Pyrrha, an imitation of the fifth Ode of the first book of Horace.” In the preface to the last, lord Orrery characterises Dacier’s and Sanadon’s translations, and makes some observations on Horace, which shew that he entered with taste and spirit into the peculiar excellencies of that poet. In 1742 he published in one volume, folio, the “State Letters” of his great-grandfather, the first earl; to which were prefixed Morrice’s memoirs of that eminent statesman. On the 25th of August, 1743, his lordship was presented by the university of Oxford to the honorary degree of D. C. L.; and he was, likewise, F.R. S. Lord Boyle, in 1746, being settled at Oxford, and Mr. Boyle in the college at Westminster, their father quitted London, and fixed his residence at Caledon, in Ireland. During one of his occasional visits to England, after the publication of the second volume of the Biographia Britannica, he thanked Dr. Campbell, “in the name of all the Boyles, for the honour he had done to them, and to his own judgment, by placing the family in such a light as to give a spirit of emulation to those who were hereafter to inherit the title.” Lord Orrery resided in Ireland, with very little intermission, from 1746 to 1750; happy in that domestic tranquillity, that studious retirement and inactivity, from which, as he himself expressed it, he was scarcely ever drawn, but with the utmost reluctance. “Whenever,” as he observed in a private letter, “we step out of domestic life in search of felicity, we come back again disappointed, tired, and chagrined. One day passed under our own roof, with our friends and our family, is worth a thousand in any other place. The noise and bustle, or, as they are foolishly called, the diversions of life, are despicable and tasteless, when once we have experienced the real delight of a fire-side.” These sentiments, which do so much honour to the rectitude of his lordship’s understanding, and the goodness of his heart, reflect, at the same time, a just reproach on the absurd and criminal dissipation that prevails for the most part among persons of rank and fortune. During the earl of Orrery’s residence in Ireland, he employed his leisure in laying out gardens and plantations at Caledon, and in improving and adorning its fine situation. On his return to Marston, he continued his alterations and improvements in the house and gardens at that place, many of the plans for which were designed by lord Boyle, who had a taste for architecture. In the mean while, the amusement of our noble author’s winter evenings was his translation of “The Letters of Pliny the Younger, with observations on each letter, and an Essay on Pliny’s life, addressed to Charles lord Boyle.” The essay is dated Leicester-fields, January 27, 1750-1; and, together with the translation, was published at London, in the following April, in 2 vols. 4to. This work met with so good a reception from the public, that three editions of it in octavo have since been printed. In the summer of the same year, lord Orrery addressed to his second son Hamilton a series of letters, containing “Remarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. Swift, dean of St. Patrick’s, Dublin.” This work gave rise to many strictures and censures on his lordship for having professed himself Swift’s friend while he was exposing his weaknesses. Subsequent inquiries into Swift’s character have proved that the portrait he drew was not unfaithful. To this, however, we shall have occasion to recur in our account of Swift.

In 1592 he was honoured with a visit from his own sovereign, Christian the Fourth, then in the fifteenth year of his age, who continued some days at Uranienburgh. That promising young prince shewed great curiosity in examining the astronomical and chemical apparatus,- expressed the highest satisfaction in receiving explanations and instructions, proposed various questions on several points of mathematics and mechanics, to which his majesty was attached, and particularly on the principles of fortification, and the construction of ships. He was also highly delighted with a gilt tin globe, which represented the face of the heavens, and so contrived, that, being turned on its own axis, it shewed the rising and setting of the sun, the motions of ths planets and heavenly bodies; a wooclerful contrivance for that age. Tycbo, observing the delight which the young king shewed in observing these phenomena, presented it to him, who in return gave him a gold chain, and assured him of his unalterable protection, and attachment.

, considered in the Helvetic school as an artist of the first rank, was born at Basil, in 1661. He acquired the knowledge of design by studying and copying some good punis which were in the possession of his father; and from the appearapce of his having a strong natural talent, he was placed as a disciple with Caspar Meyer. When he quitted Basil, he went to Paris, and had the good fortune to be received into the school of Le Brun and the variety of works in which that eminent master was employed, proved an excellent means of instruction to the young artist. He so pleased Le Brun by the progress he made, that he was intrusted with several designs, under the immediate inspection of that great painter; but the particular respect and preference shewn by the master to the disciple, excited the envy and jealousy of others to such a degree, as might have been attended with unhappy consequences, if Brandmulier had not retired to his own country; though not before he had obtained the prize in the royal academy at Paris. He excelled in history and portrait, and his genius resembled that of Le Brun; his subjects being full of fire, and treated with elevation and grandeur. His design is correct, and his expression animated and just. He had a good method of colouring, laying on each mass in so proper a manner as to avoid breaking or torturing his tints; which made his colours retain their original beauty and strength without fading. He was fond of painting portraits in an historical style, and was generally commended for the resemblance of the persons who were his mpdels, and the agreeable taste in his compositions. He died in 1691, aged only thirty.

, whom Meister calls the greatest reformer of the Swiss schools which the last century produced, was born at Zurich March 1, 1701, and after going through a course of academical instruction, was admitted into orders in 1720. The space which usually intervenes between the ordination of young ministers and their establishment in a church, he employed principally in the study of the ancient authors, familiarizing himself with their language and sentiments, an employment which, like Zuinglius, he did not think unworthy of the attention of an ecclesiastic. Persius was his favourite poet, whom, he studied so critically as to furnish the president Bouhier with some happy elucidations, which the latter adopted, Breitinguer, however, was not merely a verbal critic, and considered such criticism as useful only in administering to higher pursuits in philosophy and the belles-lettres. The “Bibliotheque Helvetique” which he and Bodmer wrote, shews how criticism and philosophy may mutually assist each other. He formed an intimacy with Bodmer in early life, (see Bodmer), and both began their career as reformers of the language and taste of their country. Breitinguer found a liberal patron in the burgomaster Escher, who himself proved that the study of the Greek language is a powerful counterpoise to a bad taste, and was the person who encouraged Breitinguer principally to produce a new edition of the Septuagint translation. In 1731 he was chosen professor of Hebrew, and in ordeir to facilitate the study of that language to his pupils, he wrote his treatise on the Hebrew idioms. Some time after he was appointed vice-professor of logic and rhetoric, and from that time began the reformation which he thought much wanted in the schools, with a treatise “De eo quod nimium est in studio grammatico,” and a system of logic in Latin and German, which soon took the place of that ofWendelin. He contributed also various papers to the “Tempe Helvetica,” and the “Musaeum Helveticum,” and at the request of the cardinal Quirini drew up an account of a ms. of the Greek psalms which was found in the canons’ library. He published also the “Critical art of Poetry.” His biographer bestows great praise on all those works, and different as the subjects are, assures us that he treated each as if it had been the exclusive object of his attention. His literary acquaintance was also very extensive, and he numbered among his correspondents the cardinals Passionei and Quirini, the president Bouhier, the abbe“Gerbert de St. Blaise, with Iselin, Burmann, Crusius, le Maitre, Vernet, Semler, Ernesti, &c. But he chiefly excelled as a teacher of youth, and especially of those intended for the church, having introduced two regulations, the benefit of which his country amply acknowledges. The one was that young divines should preach, in turn, twice a week, on which occasion the sermon was criticised by the whole body of students, aided also by Breitinguer’s remarks. The other respects an institution or society of Ascetics, as they were called. This was composed of the clergy, who assembled at stated hours, to discuss subjects relative to their profession, and compose sermons, prayers, hymns, &c. Some of them also were employed in visiting the hospitals, others qualified for schoolmasters, and all were to assist the poor with advice or pecuniary aid. Breitinguer also prepared a catechism for the young, on an improved plan, and a little before his death, published” Orationes Carolina? d'Hottinguer,“dedicated to Semlin. He continued his active exertions almost to the last hour of his life, being present at an ecclesiastical council, on Dec. 13, 1776, but on his return was seized with an apoplexy, of which he died the following day. Breitinguer had as much learning as Bodmer, though not as much natural fire; and was an excellent critic. To the works already noticed, we may add his” Diatribe historico-Jiteraria in versus obscurissimos a Persio Satir. I citatos," 1740, 8vo. His edition of the Septuagint, in 4 vols. 4to, wa.t published at Zurich, (TigUnim,) 1730. The text is accurately compiled from the Oxford edition of Grabe: to which are added at the bottom of each page the various readings of the Codex Vaticanus. Nothing is altered except a few typographical errors, and some emendations of Grabe, which did not coincide with the editor’s opinion. The clearness of the type and beauty of the paper recommend it to the reader’s attention; and the care, accuracy, and erudition displayed throughout the work, may entitle it to bear, away the palm even from Grabe’s edition. Such at least is the opinion of Masch.

"Since the Buchanites adopted their principles, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, nor consider themselves bound to any conjugal duties, or mind to indulge themselves in any carnal enjoyments; but having one common purse for their cash, they are all sisters and brothers, living a holy life as the angels of God; and beginning and continuing in the same holy life, they shall live under the Lord Jesus Christ, their king, after his second coming. The Buchanites follow no industry, being commanded to take no thought of to-morrow; but, observing how the young ravens are fed, and how the lilies grow, they assure themselves God will much more feed and clothe them. They, indeed, sometimes work at mason -wright and husbandry work to people in their neighbourhood; but then they refuse all wages, or any consideration wliatever, but declare their whole object in working at air is to mix with the world, and inculcate those important truths of which they themselves are so much persuaded.

In the year 1561, he returned to Scotland, and finding the reformation in a manner established there, he openly renounced the Romish religion, and declared himself a Protestant, but attended the court of queen Mary, and even superintended her studies. In 1563 the parliament appointed him, with others, to inspect the revenues of the universities, and to report a model of instruction. He was also appointed by the assembly of the church, to revise the “Book of Discipline.” In 1564 the queen gave him a pension of five hundred pounds Scotch, which has been, not very reasonably, made the foundation of a charge of ingratitude against him, because he afterwards could not defend the queen’s conduct with respect to the murder of her husband, and her subsequent marriage with Bothwell. About 1566 he was made principal of St. Leonard’s college, in the university of St. Andrew’s, where he taught philosophy for some time; and he employed his leisure hours in collecting all his poems, such of them excepted as were in the hands of his friends, and of which he had no copies. In 1567, on account of his uncommon abilities and learning, he was appointed moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland. He joined himself to the party that acted against queen Mary, and appears to have been particularly connected with the earl of Murray, who had been educated by him, and for whom he had a great regard. He attended that nobleman to the conference at York, and afterwards at Hampton -court, being nominated one of the assistants to the commissioners who were sent to England against queen Mary. He had been previously appointed, in an assembly of the Scottish nobility, preceptor to the young king James VI.

The father, upon seing this monument, burst into tears, and said to the young man, “Son, this will do you honour.” Buffon was a member of the French academy, and perpetual treasurer of the academy of sciences. With a view to the preservation of his tranquillity, he wisely avoided the intrigues and parties that disgracefully occupied most of the French literati in his time; nor did he ever reply to the attacks that were made upon his works. In 1771 his estate was erected into a comte; and thus the decoration of rank, to which he was by no means indifferent, was annexed to the superior dignity he had acquired as one of the most distinguished members of the republic of letters.

It is certain, however, that about 1753 he came to London, and entered himself, as already noticed, as a student of the Middle Temple, where he is said to have studied, as in every other situation, with unremitting diligence. Many of his habits and conversations were long remembered at the Grecian coffee-house (then the great rendezvous of the students of the Middle Temple), and they were such as were highly creditable to his morals and his talents. With the former, indeed, we should not know jhow to reconcile a connection imputed to him at this time with Mrs. Woffington, the actress, if we gave credit to the report; but it is not very likely, that one in Mr. Burke’s narrow circumstances would have been admitted to more than a slight acquaintance with a lady of that description. Though by the death of his elder brother, he was to have succeeded to a very comfortable patrimony, yet as his. father was living, and had other children, it could not be supposed that his allowance was very ample. This urged him to draw upon his genius for the deficiency of fortune, and we are told that he became a frequent contributor to the periodical publications. His first publication is said to have been a poem, which did not succeed. There is no certain information, however, concerning these early productions, unless that he found it necessary to apply with so much assiduity as to injure his health. A dangerous illness ensued, and he resorted for medical advice to Dr. Nugent, a physician whose skill in his profession was equalled only by the benevolence of his heart. He was, if we are not mistaken, a countryman of Burke’s, a Roman catholic, and at one time an author by profession. This benevolent friend, considering that the noise and various disturbances incidental to chambers, must retard the recovery of his patient, furnished him with apartments in his own house, where the attention of every member of the family contributed more than medicine to the recovery of his health. It was during this period that the amiable manners of miss Nugent, the doctor’s daughter, made a deep impression on the heart of Burke; and as she could not be insensible to such merit as his, they felt for each, other a mutual attachment, and were married soon after his recovery. With this lady he appears to have enjoyed uninterrupted felicity. He often declared to his intimate friends, “That, in all the anxious moments of his public life, every care vanished when he entered his own house.” Mr. Burke' s first known publication, although not immediately known, was his very happy imitation of Bolingbroke, entitled “A Vindication of Natural Society,” 1756, 8vo. To assume the style and character of such a writer, who had passed through all the high gradations of official knowledge for near half a century, a fine scholar, a most ready and eloquent speaker, and one of the best writers of his time, was, perhaps, one of the boldest attempts ever undertaken, especially by a young man, a stranger to the manners, habits, and connections of the literati of this country, who could have no near view of the great character he imitated, and whose time of life would not permit of those long and gradual experiments by which excellence of any kind is to be obtained. Burke, however, was not without success in his great object, which was to expose the dangerous tendency of lord Bolingbroke’s philosophy. When this publication first appeared, we are told that almost every body received it as the posthumous work of lord Bolingbroke, and it was praised up to the standard of his best writings. “The critics knew the turn of his periods; his style; his phrases; and above all, the matchless dexterity of his nietaphysical pen: and amongst these, nobody distinguished himself more than the lately departed veteran of the stage, Charles Macklin; who, with the pamphlet in his hand, used frequently to exclaim at the Grecian coffee-house (where he gave a kind of literary law to the young Templars at that time),” Oh! sir, this must be Harry Bolingbroke: I know him by his cloven foot." But much of this account is mere assumption. Macklin, and such readers as Macklin, might be deceived; but no man was deceived whose opinion deserved attention. The public critics certainly immediately discovered the imitation, and one at least of them was not very well pleased with it. We are told, indeed, that lord Chesterfield and bishop Warburton were at first deceived; but this proves only the exactness of the imitation; a more attentive perusal discovered the writer’s real intention.

, a most ingenious and learned writer, was born at Croft, in Yorkshire, about the year 1635. His first education was at the free-school of North-­Alverton, in that county, from whence he was removed in June 1651, to Clare-hall in Cambridge, where he had Dr. Tillotson for his tutor. Dr. Cud worth was at that time master of Clare-hall, but removed from it to the mastership of Christ’s college, in 1654; and thither our author followed him. Under his patronage he was chosen fellow in 1657, commenced M. A. in 1658, and became senior proctor of the university in 1661; but it is uncertain how long after ward she continued his residence there. He was afterwards governor to the young earl of Wiltshire, son of the marquis of Winchester, with whom he travelled abroad ^ and gave such satisfaction, that, soon after his return to England, he was invited and prevailed on by the first duke of Ormond, to travel in the same capacity with the young earl of Ossory, his grace’s grandson and heir-apparent. These honourable connections introduced him into what may properly be called the world: in which he afterwards confirmed the reputation he already had for talents ad learning, by the publication of his “Telluris theoria sacra, orbis nostri originem & mutationes generales, quas olim subiit et subiturus est, complectens.” This Sacred Theory of the Earth was originally published in Latin, in 2 vols. 4to, the two first books concerning the deluge, and paradise, 1681; the two last, concerning the burning of the world, and the new heavens and new earth, in 1689. The uncommon approbation this work met with, and the particular encouragement of Charles II. who relished its beauties, induced the author to translate it into English. Of this translation he published the two first books in 1684, folio, with an elegant dedication to the king; and the two last in 1689, with a no less elegant dedication to queen Mary. “The English edition,” he tells us, “is the same in substance with the Latin, though, he confesses, not so properly a translation, as a new composition upon the same ground, there being several additional chapters in it, and several new moulded.”

It has already been noticed, that Burns very fondly cherished those notions of independence, and those feelings of an independent spirit that are dear to the young and ingenuous, and were, perhaps, not less so to him, because so often sung by the greatest of our poets. But he had not matured these notions by reflection; and he was now to learn, that a little knowledge of the world will overturn many such airy fabrics. If we may form any judgment, however, from his correspondence, his expectations were not very extravagant, since he expected only that some of his illustrious patrons would have placed him, on whom they had bestowed the honours of genius, in a situation where his exertions might have been uninterrupted by the fatigues of labour, and the calls of want. Disappointed in this, be now formed a design of applying for the office of exciseman, as a kind of resource in case his expectations from the farm should be baffled. By the interest of one of his friends, this object was accomplished; and after the usual forms were gone through, he was appointed exciseman, or, as it is vulgarly called, ganger, of the district in which he lived. It soon appeared, as might naturally have been expected, that the duties of this office were incompatible with his previous employment. “His farm,” says Dr. Currie, “was, in a great measure, abandoned to his servants, while he betook himself to the duties of his new appointment. He might still, indeed, be seen in the spring, directing his plough, a labour in which he excelled, or with a white sheet, containing his seed-corn, slung across his shoulders, striding with measured steps along his turned-up furrows, and scattering the grain in the earth. But his farm no longer occupied the principal part of his care or his thoughts. It was not at Ellisland that he was now in general to be found: Mounted on horse-back, this high: minded poet was pursuing the defaulters of the revenue among the hills and vales of Nithsdale, his roving eye wandering over the charms of nature, and muttering his wayward fancies as he moved along.”

, a learned divine, was born in 1696 at Wemb worth in Devonshire, of which parish his father wag rector. The first part of his grammatical education he received at Okehampton, and the remainder at Ely, under the rev. Sam. Bentham, his first cousin by the mother’s side. Such were the proofs which young Burton afforded at school of his capacity, diligence, and worthy dispositions, that the learned Dr. Ashton, master of Jesuscollege, Cambridge, designed to have him admitted into his own college. But in the mean time, Dr. Turner, president of Corpus-Christi college, Oxford, having made an accidental trial of Mr. Burton’s literary improvements, procured him a scholarship in that college in 1713, when he was 17 years of age. Here he made so distinguished a progress, that Dr. Mather, the president, appointed him to the important office of tutor, when he was only B. A. Soon after, the college conferred upon him the honour of reading the Greek lecture. During the whole course of his studies, he recommended himself both to the affection of his equals and the esteem of his superiors. Dr. Potter, in particular, at that time bishop of Oxford, conceived a great regard for him. March 24, 1720, Mr. Burton was admitted to the degree of M. A. In the exercise of his duty as a tutor, no one could exceed him in attention, diligence, and a zealous concern for the improvement of his pupils. As he was himself unacquainted with mathematics, and ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, he took effectual care that the young men under his tuition should be well instructed in these points. With regard to those of his pupils who were upon charitable foundations, he was solicitous that the acquisition of knowledge should be rendered as cheap to them as possible; and was so disinterested and beneficent in the whole of his conduct, that, after having discharged the office of a tutor almost fifteen years, he was scarcely possessed of 50l. when he quitted the university. In revising, correcting, and improving the exercises of the students, Mr. Burton displayed surprising patience and indefatigable diligence; and there are still extant his themes, declamations, orations, and poems of every kind, which he composed for the use of his own pupils, and even of others. His attention was also laudably and liberally directed to the restoration of the credit of the university press, and to enable editors to carry on their literary undertakings with diminished expence. With this view, he often prevailed upon Dr. Mather, Dr. Holmes, and other vice-chancellors, to order new types; and, by the assistance of some noble friends, he was so strenuous in behalf of the learned Hutchinson, the editor of Xenophon, that no editors since that time have had any delay or difficulty in obtaining the exemption from the duty on paper, which has been granted by parliament to books printed at the Clarendon press. It was also by Mr. Burton’s persuasion, that Mr. (afterwards lord) Rolle gave WOl. to the university, for the purpose of lending it to editors; and that Dr. Hodges, provost of Orielcollege, bequeathed 200l. to the same use. In 1725, when our learned tutor was pro-proctor and master of the schools, he spoke, before the determining bachelors, a Latin oration, entitled “Heli,” which was both written and published with a design of enforcing the salutary exercise of academical discipline. The same subject was still more fully considered by him in four Latin sermons, preached before the university; which, likewise, with appendices, were afterwards given to the public. Indeed, the labour that Mr. Burton, during two years, cheerfully went through, as master of the schools, was immense. July 19, 1729, Mr. Burton was admitted to the degree of B. D.; and in 1732, when the settlement of the colony of Georgia was in agitation, being solicitous to give his assistance in promoting that undertaking, he preached a sermon in its recommendation; and his discourse was afterwards published, with an appendix concerning the state of the colony. He was likewise, through his whole life, an ardent promoter of Dr. Bray’s admirable scheme of parochial libraries.

Among other youths who were committed to the tuition of Mr. Burton, there were several from Eton school, who excelled in genius and learning. This circumstance introduced him to an epistolary correspondence, and a social intercourse, with the masters of the school and the provost and fellows of the college; the consequence of which was, that they formed so good an opinion of his disposition and character, as to elect him, in 1733, into a fellowship of their society. About the same time, upon the death of Dr. Edward Littleton, he was presented to the vicarage of Maple-derham in Oxfordshire; which may be considered as a grand sera in Mr. Burton’s life. Upon going to take possession of his new preferment, he found the widow of his predecessor, and three infant daughters, without a home and without a fortune. A sight so affecting inspired him with compassion: compassion was followed by love, and love by marriage . Mr. Burton shewed the same contempt for money, and perhaps carried it to an excess, after he was settled in his living. His situation being remarkably pleasant, nothing gave him a greater delight than repairing, enlarging, and adorning his house, embellishing his gardens, planting trees, clearing fields, making roads, and introducing such other improvements as he believed would be of advantage to his Successors . Works of a similar kind were undertaken by him, when in 1766 he was instituted to the rectory of Worplesdon in Surry. In 1748, the death of his wife affected him in the tenderest manner, as is evident from the several parts of his “Opuscula metrico-prosaica;” but did not lessen his regard for her three orphan daughters, towards whom he continued to exert the greatest affection and liberality. After this event, he spent the principal part of the year at Eton-college; where he gave himself entirely up to the study of literature, and the assistance of his friends; but punctually attended any public meetings on literary or ecclesiastic affairs, whether at Oxford, London, or Cambridge. July 1, 1752, he took the degree of D. D. and afterwards published his lectures on that occasion. He was intimately connected with many of the bishops; and whilst caressed by the governors of the church, was equally dear to the lowest of the clergy. Nothing was more agreeable to him, than to see all around him easy, cheerful, and happy. To such of the young scholars at Eton as appeared so be of promising abilities and dispositions, he shewed a particular attention, made them the companions of his leisure hours, and afforded them every encouragement which lay in his power.

During his residence in France, he met with Malebranche’s “Search after Truth,” and some of the works of Mademoiselle Bourignon, the consequence of which, Dr. Nichols informs us, was, that he came home strongly possessed with the visionary philosophy of the former, and the enthusiastic extravagances of the latter. From the order of his poems, however, which was probably that of their respective dates, he appears to have been at first rather a disciple of the celebrated Mr. Law, and a warm opponent of those divines who were termed latitudinarian. His admiration of Malebranche, and of Bourignon, afterwards increased, but he never followed either so far as to despise human learning, in which his acquirements were great; and the delight which he took in various studies, ended only with his life. By what means he was maintained abroad, or after his return, are matters of conjecture. His biographer tells nothing of his father’s inclination or abilities to forward his pursuits. It is said that he studied medicine in London for some time; and thence acquired, among his familiar friends, the title of Doctor Byrom. But this pursuit was interrupted by his falling In love with his cousin, Elizabeth, daughter of Joseph Bylom, a mercer at Manchester, then on a visit in London. To this young lady he disclosed his passion, and followed her to Manchester, where the ardour of his addresses soon procured a favourable return. Her father, however, was extremely averse to the match, and when it took place without his consent, refused the young couple any means of support. Dr. Nichols assigns two reasons for this conduct, which are not very consistent: the one, that the father was in opulent circumstances; the other, that he thought our poet out of his senses, and therefore would not permit him to superintend the education of his children, but took that care upon himself. If so, however wrong his reasons might be, he could not be said to withdraw his support; and he was probably soon convinced that he had formed an erroneous estimate of Viis son-in-law’s understanding and general character.

, a learned Benedictine of the college of St. Vanncs, was born at Mesnil-la-Horgue, near Commercy, Feb. 26, 1672, and was first educated in the priory of Breuii. In 1687 he went to study at the university of Pont-a-Mousson, where he was taught a course of rhetoric. On leaving this class, he entered among the Benedictines in the abbey of St. Mansuy, in the fauxbourg of Toul, Oct. 17, 1688, and mad,e profession in the same place Oct. 23, 1689. He began his philosophical course in the abbey of fcfe. Evre, and completed that and his theological studies in the abbey of St. Munster. At his leisure hours he studied the Hebrew language with great attention and success, and likewise improved his knowledge of the Greek. In 1696 he was sent with some of his companions to the abbey of Moyenmoutier, where they studied the Holy Scriptures under P. D. Hyacinthe Alliot. Two years aftef, in 1698, Calmet was appointed to teach philosophy and theology to the young religious of that monastery, an employment which he filled until 1704, when he was sent, with the rank of sub-prior, to the abbey of Munster. There he was at the head of an academy of eight or ten religious, with whom he pursued his biblical studies, and having, while at Moyenmoutier written commentaries and dissertations, on various parts of the Bible, he here retouched and improved these, although without any other design, at this time, than his own instruction. During a visit, however, at Paris, in 1706, he was advised by the abbe Duguet, to whom he had been recommended by Mabillon, to publish his commentaries in French, and the first volume accordingly appeared in 1707. In 1715 he became prior of Lay, and in 1718 the chapter-general appointed bim abb 6 of St. Leopold, of Nancy, and the year following he was made visitor of the congregation. In 1728 he was chosen abbe* of Senones, on which occasion he resigned his priory of Lay. When pope Benedict XIII. confirmed his election, the cardinals proposed to his holiness that Calmet should also have the title of bishop in partibus infiddium, with power to exercise the episcopal functions in those parts of the province which are exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary; but this Calmet refused, and wrote on the subject to Rome. The pope in Sept. 1729, addressed a brief to him, accepting of his excuses, and some time after sent him a present of his works, in 3 vols. fol. Calmet took possession of the abbey of Senones, January 3, 1729, and continued his studies, and increased the library and museum belonging to the abbey with several valuable purchases, particularly of the medals of the deceased M. de Corberon, secretary of slate, and of the natural curiosities of M, Voile. Here be died Oct. 25, 1757, respected by all ranks, Roman catholics and Protestants, for his learning and candour, and by his more particular friends and those of his own order, for his amiable temper and personal virtues. His learning, indeed, was most extensive, as the greater part of his long life was devoted to study, but amidst such vast accumulation of materials, we are not surprized that he was sometimes deficient in selection, and appears rather as a collector of facts, than as an original thinker. His principal works are, 1. “Commentaire litteral sur tous les livres de l'Aneten et da Nouyeau Testament,” 1707 1716, 23 vols. 4to; reprinted in 26 vols. 4to, and fol. and abridged in 14 vols. 4to. Rondet published a new edition of this abridgment in 17 vols. 4to, Avignon, 1767 1773. M. Fourmont, Arabic professor in the royal college, had begun an attack on this commentary, because Calmet had not, as he thought, paid sufficient respect to the rabbins, but the king (Louis XIV.) and the cardinal de Noailles obliged him to desist. The celebrated father Simon wrote some letters against Calmet, which were communicated to him by Pinsonnat, the Hebrew professor, who did not approve of them, nor did Anquetille, the librarian of Tellier, archbishop of Rheims, nor were they published until eighteen or twenty years afterwards, and even then the censors expunged many illiberal passages respecting Calmet. 2. The “Dissertations and Prefaces” belonging to his commentary, published separately with nineteen new Dissertations, Paris, 1720, 2 vols. 4to. 3. “Histoire de PAncien et du Nouveau Testament,” intended as an introduction to Fleury’s “Ecclesiastical History,” 2 and 4 vols. 4to; and 5 and 7 vols. 12mo. 4. “Dictionnaire historique, critique, et chronologique de la Bible.” Paris, 1730, 4 vols. fol. This work, which is a valuable treasure of sacred history and criticism, was soon made known to the English public by a translation, in 3 vols. fol. London, 1732, by Sam.D'Oyly, M. A. vicar of St. Nicholas, Rochester, and John Colson, F. R. S. vicar of Chalk, in Kent, a work elegantly printed and embellished with a profusion of fine engravings. A new edition appeared in 17^5, 4to, with valuable additions from subsequent critics, travellers, and philosophers. 5. “Histoire ecclesiasiique et civile de la Lorraine,” 3 vols. fol. reprinted 1745, in 5 vols. fol. 6. “Bibliotheque des Ecrivains de Lorraine,” fol, 1751. 7. “Histoire universelle sacrée et profane,” 15 vols. 4to. This Calmet did not live to finish, and in other respects it is not his best work. 7. “Dissertations sur les apparitions des Anges, des Demons, et des Esprits, et sur les Revenans et Vampires de Hongrie,” Paris, 1746, 12mo, and Einfidlen, 1749, 12mo, a work, say the French critics, in which there are many symptoms of old age, and its credulous weaknesses. It was however translated and published in English in 1759, 8vo. The author admits the reality of apparitions, on the authority of the scriptures, but discredits many of the miraculous stories concerning them to which his own church has given currency. 9. f Commentaire litteral, historique, et moral, sur la Regie de St. Benoit,“1754, 2 vols. 4to. 10.” De la Poesie et Musique des anciens Hebreux," Amst. 1723, 8vo. His conjectures on this subject, Dr. Burney thinks, are perhaps as probable as those of any one of the numerous authors who have exercised their skill in expounding and defining what some have long since thought involved in Cimmerian darkness. Calmet also left a vast number of manuscripts, or rather manuscript collections, as it had long been his practice to copy, or employ others to copy, whatever he found curious in books. In 1733, he deposited in the royal library, a correct transcript of the Vedam, a work which the natives of Hiudostan attribute to their legislator Brama, who received it, according to their tradition, from God himself. This copy came into Calmet' s possession by means of a bramin who had been converted by the Jesuit missionaries. Calmet’s life was written by Dom Fange, his nephew and successor in the abbey of Senones, and published in 8vo. It was afterwards translated into Italian by Benedetto Passionei, and published at Rome in 1770.

, was born at Toulouse in 1656, and shewed an early taste for poetry, whichwas improved by a good education, and when he came to Paris, he took Racine for his guide in the dramatic career. But, though it may be allowed that Campistron approached his merit in the conduct of his pieces, yet he could never equal him in the beauties of composition, nor in his enchanting versification. Too feeble to avoid the defects of Racine, and unable like him to atone for them by beautiful strokes of the sublime, he copied him in his soft manner of delineating the love of his heroes, of whom, it must be confessed, he sometimes made inamoratos fitter for the most comic scenes than for tragedy, in which passion ought always to assume an elevated style. Racine, while he was forming Campistron for the drama, was not inattentive to promote the fortune of the young* poet. Having proposed him to the duke de Vendome for the composition of the heroic pastoral of “Acis and Galatea,” which he designed should be represented at his chateau of Anet, that prince, well satisfied both with his character and his talents, first made him secretary of his orders, and then secretary general of the gallies. He afterwards got him made knight of the military order of St. James in Spain, commandant of Chimene, and marquis of Penange in Italy. The poet, now become necessary to the prince, by the cheerfulness of his temper and the vivacity of his imagination, attended him on his travels into various countries. Campistron, some time after his return, retired to his own country; where he married mademoiselle de Maniban, sister of the first president of Toulouse, and of the bishop of Mirepoix, afterwards archbishop of Bourdeaux; and there he died May 11, 1723, of an apoplexy, at the age of 67. This stroke was brought on by a fit of passion excited by two chairmen who refused to carry him on account of his great weight. Campistron kept good company, loved good cheer, and had all the indolence of a man of pleasure. While secretary to the duke de Vendome, he found it a more expeditious way to burn the letters that were written to that prince than to answer them. Accordingly, the duke, seeing him one day before a large fire, in which he was casting a heap of papers: “There its Campistron,” said he, “employed in answering my correspondents.” He followed the duke even to the field of battle. At the battle of Steinkerque, the duke seeing him always beside him, said, “What do you do here, Campistron?” “Mon seigneur,” answered he, “I am waiting to go back with you.” This sedateness of mind in a moment of so much danger was highly pleasing to the bero. His plays, 1750, 3 vols. 12mo. have been nearly as often printed as those of Corneille, Racine, Crebillon, and Voltaire. The most popular of them are his “Andronicus,” “Alcibiades,” “Acis and Galatea,” “Phocion,” “Adrian,” “Tiridates,” “Phraates,” and “Jaloux Desabuseé.”

At length these three painters, having made all the advantages they could by observation and practice, formed a plan of association, and continued henceforward almost always together. Lewis communicated his discoveries freely to his cousins; and proposed to them that they should unite their sentiments and their manner, and act as it were in confederacy. The proposal was accepted: they painted various pictures in several places; and finding their credit to increase, they laid the foundation of that celebrated school, which ever since has gone by the name of the Caracci’s academy. Hither all the young students, who had a view of becoming masters, resorted to be instructed in the rudiments of painting; and here the Caracci taught freely and without reserve to all that came. Lewis’s charge was to make a collection of antique statues and bas-reliefs. They had designs of the best masters, and a collection of curious books on all subjects relating to their art: and they had a skilful anatomist always ready to teach what belonged to the knitting and motion of the muscles, &c. There were often disputations in the academy; and not only painters but men of learning proposed questions, which were always decided by Lewis. Every body was well received; and though stated hours were allotted to treat of different matters, yet improvements might be made at all hours by the antiquities and the designs which were to be seen.

In 1547, an offer was made to him of the honourable post of physician to the king of Denmark, with an annual salary of eight hundred crowns, and a free table, which he refused on account of the climate and the religion of the country. This offer, which was made by the advice of Vesalius, is a proof that his medical reputation was considerably high; and we find that it was likewise very extensive, for in 1552, he was invited into Scotland by Hamilton, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, who had consulted the most eminent physicians in Europe without effect. Of his disease, which was of the asthmatic kind, he began to recover from the time that Cardan prescribed for him; and in less than two months Cardan left him with fair prospects of recovery, and gave him some prescriptions, which in two years effected a complete cure. For this he was amply rewarded by his patient, and great offers were made to persuade him to reside in Scotland. These, however, he rejected, and took an opportunity to visit France and Germany, from which he passed into England, and' at London he exercised his astrological knowledge in calculating the nativity of Edward VI. The most remarkable part of it was, that the young monarch should die a violent death; for which reason, he says, he left the kingdom for fear of further danger which might follow on it. He drew a very favourable character of Edward, which was probably just and sincere, because it was afterwards published in one of his works, in Italy, where Edward was detested as a heretic, and where Cardan could have no motive for flattering his memory. While at the English court Edward was solicitous to retain him in England, and appears to have honoured him with frequent conferences; but Cardan refused sril his offers, and returned to Milan, after an absence, in all, of only ten months, and resided there until 1559, practising physic and teaching the mathematics. He then went to Pavia, where he filled the chair of professor of medicine until 1562, when he removed to Bologna, and there likewise became professor of medicine until 1570. About this time he was, for some reason with which we are unacquainted, thrown into prison, which was exchanged soon after for a milder confinement in his own house. On his release, he was invited to Rome, and admitted into the college of physicians there, with a pension from the pope. Here he died Sept. 21, 1576, “more,” says Brucker, “like a maniac than a philosopher.” Thuanus and Scaliger both are of opinion that he starved himself, in order to verify his own prediction of his death.

Thus far Carolostadt appears in a light which was acceptable at least to the friends of the reformation; but about 1521, when Luther was in retirement, he betrayed a violence of temper which has been equally censured by catholics and protestants. Not content with promoting in a legal and quiet way the auspicious beginnings of reformation which had already appeared at Wittemberg, in the gradual omission and rejection of the private mass and other popish superstitions, he headed a multitude of unthinking impetuous youths, inflamed their minds by popular harangues, and led them on to actions the most extravagant and indefensible. They entered the great church of All Saints, broke in pieces the crucifixes and other images, and threw down the altars. He also went so far as to assert that human learning was useless, if not injurious to a student of the scriptures; frequented the shops of the lowest mechanics, and consulted them about the meaning of the scriptures. He would be called no longer by the appellation of Doctor, or any other honourable title, but employed himself in rustic occupations, and maintained that thinking persons stood in no need of learning, and had better labour with their hands. In consequence of such example and conversation, the young academics of Wittemberg left the university, and ceased to pursue their studies, and even the schools of the boys were deserted. Such was his pride at the same time, that he avowed to Melancthon that he wished to be as great and as much thought of as Luther.

, a Spanish painter, was born at Cordova, in 1603, and after the death of his father, Augustine Castillo, whose disciple he was, repaired to Seville for the purpose of improving himself in the school of Francis Zurbaran. Being returned to his native country, he acquired great reputation by his works; which was so well established, that even at this day no one is considered as a man of taste who does not possess some piece by this great artist. He treated history, landscape, and portrait, with equal success. His drawing is excellent; but his colouring is deficient in graces and taste. It is said, that, on his return to Seville, he was seized with such a fit of jealousy at seeing the pictures of the young Murello of a freshness and colouring much superior to his, that he died of vexation shortly after his return to Cordova, in 1667. He once marked one of his pictures with the whimsical inscription: “Non pinxit Alfaro,” to ridicule the vanity of that pupil, noted as the most conceited artist of his day, who nerer suffered a picture to escape his hand without stamping it with the words “Alfaro pinxit.” The best works of Castillo are at Cordova.

late empress of Russia, whose original name was Sophia Augusta Fredeiuca, the daughter of Christian Augustus, prince of Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg, and of the princess of Holstein, was born at Stettin, in Prussian Pomerania, May 2, 1729. In early life she was distinguished by her good humour, intelligence, and spirit, and was fond of reading, reflection, learning, and employment. About the beginning of the year 1744, she was introduced at the court of Petersburg!], where the empress Elizabeth received her very graciously, and formed the scheme of a matrimonial union between her nephew, the grand-duke, afterwards Peter III. and Sophia; who, though instructed under the tuition of her mother in the Lutheran doctrines, embraced the religion of the Greek church, and on this occasion changed her name to that of Catherine Alcxievna. Before the nuptials were celebrated, the grand duke was seized with the small-pox, which so much deformed his face, as to render it for a time almost hideous. This metamorphosis produced a horror in the mind of the young princess at the first Interview, which, however, she had sufficient art to disguise, and which proved no impediment to their marriage, which took place in 1745. At first their attachment appeared to be mutual, but their dispositions and accomplishments were soon discovered to be different. Catherine displayed a superior understanding, which in time Peter felt, and thus the seeds of mutual dislike were very early sown. Their consolations were now also different. Peter had recourse to drinking and gaming, while Catherine entered into all the arcana of political measures, and began to form a party. She also now formed the first of those personal attachments for which she has been so remarkable, with Soltikof, the prince’s chamberlain; and although, when accused, she defended her character with some address and spirit, her intercourse with Soltikof was renewed, and became less secret. At length, the grand chancellor Bestuchef prevailed with the empress to appoint Soltikof minister plenipotentiary from the court of Russia to Hamburgh. For some time Catherine corresponded with him, but in 1755 formed a new connection of the same kind with Stanislaus Poniatowsky, the late king of Poland, and he being appointed plenipotentiary from Poland at the court of Russia, their intimacy was long visible to all, except the grand duke Peter. His jealousy being at length roused, he forbade the grand duchess to be seen with Poniatowsky, and prevailed on the empress to banish Bestuchef, who had been the means of Poniatowski’s mission to the court of Russia, and incensed her majesty against Catherine to such a degree, that it required her utmost cunning to effect a reconciliation, which was however at length brought about, and on the death of the empress Elizabeth, Dec. 25, 1761, Peter III. ascended the throne.

Peter’s conduct, on the other hand, was mere infatuation. He permitted his mistress the countess Woronzoff to have the most complete ascendancy over him, and this woman had the hardihood to claim the performance of a promise which he had made when grand duke, to marry her, place her, in the room of Catherine, on the throne, and bastardize his son Paul, whose place he was to supply by adopting prince Ivan, who had been dethroned by the empress Elizabeth. Whatever ground he might have for expecting success to this wild project, he had not the sense to conceal it; and his mistress openly made her boast of it. Such indiscretion was, no doubt, in favour of Catherine^ but still the part she had to play required all her skill. It was no less than a plot to counteract that of her husband, and dethrone him. The minute details of this would extend too far in a sketch like the present; her conspirators were numerous, secret, and well prepared, and by their means she, who had been confined at Peterhof by her husband, was enabled to enter Petersburgh July 9, 1762, where she was received as empress, and where, while the enthusiasm was fresh in the minds of her troops and subjects, she was crowned in the church of Kazan, by the archbishop of Novogorod, who proclaimed her with a loud voice, sovereign of all the Russias, by the title of Catherine II. and declared at the same time the young grand duke, Paul Petrovitch, her successor. But of all this Peter III. had yet no suspicion. Such was his security, that he set out, after having received some intimations of the conspiracy, from Oranienbaum in a calash with his mistress, his favourites, and the women of his court, for Peterhof; but in the way, Gudovitch, the general aidede-camp, met one of the chamberlains of the empress, by whom he was informed of her escape from Peterhof; and upon his communicating the intelligence to Peter, he turned pale, and appeared much agitated. On his arrival at Peterhof, his agitation and confusion increased, when he found that the empress had actually left the palace, and he soon received the certain tidings of the revolution that had been accomplished; and the chancellor Worouzof offered his services to hasten to Petersburgh, engaging to bring the empress back. The chancellor, on entering the palace, found Catherine surrounded by a multitude of people in the act of doing homage; and forgetting his duty, he took the oath with the rest. He was permitted, however, at his earnest request, to return to his house, under the guard of some trusty officers; and thus secured himself from the vindictive spirit of the partisans of Catherine, and from the suspicions of the czar. After the departure of the chancellor, Peter became a prey to the most distressing anxieties, and he every instant received some fresh intelligence of the progress of the revolution, but knew not what steps to pursue. Although his Holstein guards were firmly attached to him, and the veteran marshal Munich offered to risk every thing for his service, he remained hesitating and undetermined; and after some fruitless attempts, he found it absolutely necessary to submit unconditionally to her will, in consequence of which he was compelled to sign a most humiliating act of abdication, in which he declared his conviction of his inability to govern the empire, either as a sovereign, or in any other capacity, and his sense of the distress in which his continuance at the head of affairs would inevitably involve it, and in the evening an officer with a strong escort came and conveyed him prisoner to Ropscha, a small imperial palace, at the distance of about 20 versts from Peterhof. He now sent a message to Catherine, requesting, that he might retain in his service the negro who had been attached to him, and who amused him with his singularities, together with a dog, of which he was fond, his violin, a Bible, and a few romances; assuring her, that, disgusted at the wickedness of mankind, he would henceforward devote himself to a philosophical life. Not one of these requests was granted. After he had been at Ropscha six days without the knowledge of any persons besides the chiefs of the conspirators, and the soldiers by whom he was guarded, Alexius Orlof, accompanied by Teplof, came to him with the news of his speedy deliverance, and asked permission to dine with him. While the officer amused the czar with some trifling discourse, his chief rilled the wine-glasses, which are usually brought in the northern countries before dinner, and poured a poisonous mixture into that which he intended for the prince. The czar, without distrust, swallowed the potion; on which he was seized with the most excruciating pains; and on his being offered a second glass, on pretence of its giving him relief, he refused it with reproaches on him that offered it. Being pressed to take another glass, when he called for milk, a French valet-de-chamhre, who was greatly attached to him, ran in; and throwing himself into his arms, he said in a faint tone of \oice, “It was not enough, then, to prevent me from reigning in Sweden, and to deprive me of the crown of Russia! I must also be put to death.” The valet-dechamhre interceded in his behalf; but the two miscreant forced him out of the room, and continued their ill treatment of him. In the midst of the tumult, the younger of the princes Baratinsky, who commanded the guard, entered; Orlof, who in a struggle had thrown down the emperor, was pressing upon his breast with both his knees, and firmly griping his throat with his hand. In this situation the two other assassins threw a napkin with a running knot round his neck, and put an end to his life by suffocation, July 17th, just one week after the revolution; and it was announced to the nation, that Peter had died of an haemorrhoidal colic. When Catherine received the news of Peter’s death, she appeared at court, whither she was going, with a tranquil air; and afterwards shut herself up with Orlof, Panin, Rasumofsky, and others who had been concerned in her counterplot, and resolved to inform the senate and people next day of the death of the emperor. On this occasion she did not forget her part, but rose from her seat with her eyes full of tears, and for some days exhibited all the marks of profound grief. The best part of her conduct was, that she showed no resentment to the adherents of Peter, and even pardoned the countess Woronzoff.

After he left Cambridge, he came to the metropolis, and was for some time assistant to Mr. Clare, master of an academy in Soho-sqnare, whose daughter Mary he married. By her he had several chijdren, who all died in their iniiuicy. -He appears about this period to have taken orders, and in 1743 was elected master of Tunbridge school. In this situation he wrote the poetical exercises which were spoken by the young gentlemen on the annual visitations of the company of Skinners, who are the patrons of the school. These exercises form a considerable, and perhaps the best part of his printed works. On April 15, 1761, he was killed by a fall from his horse, and was buried in Tunbridge church.

On his being liberated, he was again introduced to court, where his acknowledged abilities regained him his office, under the duke of Northumberland, the enemy and accomplisher of the ruin of his old patron the duke of Somerset. This re-appointment took place, as we have noticed, in September 1551, and in October following he was knighted, and sworn of the privy-council. He has been much blamed for this transfer of his services, as a sacrifice of his gratitude to his interest; and many excuses, palliations, and even justifications, have been urged for him. The best seems to be that his pretensions to the promotion were founded, not on his servility and dependence on one or the other of these great men, but on his superior fitness for the office. It is universally allowed that he possessed great abilities, and his credit now increased with the young king, for whom he is said to have written many of those papers, &c. which are generally attributed to Edward. The princess Mary affected on one occasion to discover this, for when a letter from his majesty was presented to her on her obstinate adherence to the popish religion, she cried, “Ah! Mr. Cecil’s pen took great pains here.”

The last memorable act of his life was the attempt to bring about a peace with Spain, in which he was vehemently opposed by Essex, then in the fire of youth, which might animate him to daring deeds to gratify his own ambition. The young soldier was warm in the debate, which induced the venerable minister to pull out a prayer-book, and point to the words " Men of blood shall not live out

His lordship was buried at Stamford, where an elegant monument is erected to his memory. By his first wife he had his son and heir Thomas earl of Exeter, and by his second a numerous issue, who all died before him except the subject of the following article, to whom he addressed those valuable “precepts” so often reprinted. Few men knew better than lord Burleigh how to advise the young. Peacham, in his “Gentleman,” informs us that when any one came to the lords of the council for a licence to travel, he would first examine him of England, and if he found him ignorant, he would bid him stay at home, and know his own country first.

, earl of Salisbury, son to the preceding, was born, probably, about the year 1550, and being of a weakly constitution, was tenderly brought up by his mother, and educated under a careful and excellent tutor till he was sent to St. John’s college, Cambridge. Here he had conferred upon him the degree of M. A. and was afterwards incorporated in the same degree at Oxford. In the parliaments of 1585 and 1586 he served for the city of Westminster; as he did afterwards, in 1588, 1592, 1597, and 1600, for the county of Hertford. In 1588 he was one of the young nobility who went volunteers on board the English fleet sent against the Spanish armada. He was a courtier from his cradle, having the advantage of the instructions and experience of his illustrious father, and living in those times when queen Elizabeth had most need of the ablest persons, was employed by her in affairs of the highest importance, and received the honour of knighthood in the beginning of June 1591, and in August following was sworn of the privy-council. In 1596 he was appointed secretary of state, to the great disgust of the earl of Essex, who was then absent in the expedition against Cadiz, and had been zealous for the promotion of sir Thomas Bodley. Whilst he was in that post he shewed an indefatigable address in procuring foreign intelligence from all parts of the world, holding, at his own charge, a correspondence with all ambassadors and neighbouring states. By this means he discovered queen Elizabeth’s enemies abroad, and private conspiracies at home* and was on this account as highly valued by die queen as he was hated by the popish party, who vented their malice against him in several libels, both printed and manuscript, and threatened to murder him; to some of which he returned an answer, both in Latin and English, declaring that he despised all their threats for the service of so good a cause as he was engaged in, that of religion and his country.

, a celebrated English penman, was born at Chatham in 1709, and received his education chiefly under Snell, who kept sir John Johnson’s free writing-school in Foster-lane, Cheapside, and with whom he served a regular clerkship, he kept a boarding-school in St. Paul’s church-yard, and taught many of the nobility and gentry privately. He was several years settled in the New academy, in Bed ford -street, where he had a good number of scholars, whom he instructed with great success; and he has not hitherto been excelled in his art. The year of his death we cannot precisely ascertain. His first performance appears to have been his “Practical Arithmetic,” 1733, 8vo; and in 1747 he published his “Tutor’s assistant in teaching arithmetic,” in 40 plates, 4to. But his most elaborate and curious performance is his “Comparative Penmanship,” 24 oblong folio plates, 1750. It is engraved by Thorowgood, and is an honour to British penmanship in general. His “New and complete alphabets,” with the Hebrew, Greek, and German characters, in 21 plates oblong folio, engraved by Bickham, came out in 1754, and in 1758 he began to publish his “Livinghands,” or several copy-books of the different hands in common use, upwards of 40 plates, 4to. He contributed 47 folio pieces for Bickham’s “Universal Penman,” in which he displays a beautiful variety of writing, both for use and ornament. His principal pieces besides are “Engrossing hands for young clerks,” 1757. “The young Penman’s practice,” 1760. “The Penman’s employment,” folio, 1759—1762. In 1754 he addressed and presented to the Royal Society a large body of penmanship, in 20 leaves, folio, which remains in ms.

Whichever of these accounts is the true one, it appears that this was the last political employment which Chaucer filled, although he did not cease to take an interest in the measures of his patron, the duke of Lancaster. On the accession of Richard II. in 1377, his annuity of twenty marks was confirmed, and another annuity of twenty marks granted to him in lieu of the daily pitcher of wine. He was also confirmed in his office of comptroller. When Richard II. succeeded his grandfather, he was but eleven years of age, and his uncle the duke of Lancaster was consequently entrusted with the chief share in the administration of public affairs. One of his first measures was to solemnize the young king’s coronation with great pomp, previously to which a court of claims was established to settle the demands of those who pretended to have a right to assist at the ceremony. Among these, Chaucer claimed in right of his ward, who was possessed of the manor of Billington in Kent; and this was held of the crown, by the service of presenting to the king three maple cups on the day of his coronation; but this claim was contested, and if it had not, is remote enough from the kind of information which it would be desirable to obtain respecting Chaucer. All we know certainly of this period, is, that the duke of Lancaster still preserved his friendship for our poet, and probably was the means of the grants just noticed having been renewed on the accession of the young king.

In 1723 he published in 8vo, his “Treatise on the high operation for the Stone.” This work was soon attacked in an anonymous pamphlet, called “Lithotomus castratus, or an Examination of the Treatise of Mr. Cheselden,” and in which he was charged with plagiarism. How unjust this accusation was, appears from his preface, in which he had acknowledged his obligations to Dr. James Douglas and Mr. John Douglas, from one of whom the attack is supposed to have come. Mr. Cheselden’s solicitude to do justice to other eminent practitioners is farther manifest, from his having annexed to his book a translation of what had been written on the subject by Franco, who published “Traite des Hernies,” &c. at Lyons, in 1561, and by Rosset, in his “Cæsarei Partus Assertio Historiologica,” Paris, 1590. The whole affair was more candidly explained in 1724, by a writer who had no other object than the public goodj in a little work entitled “Methode de la Tailie au haut appareile recuillie des ouvrages du fameux Triumvirat.” This triumvirate consisted of Rosset, to whom the honour of the invention was due; Douglas, who had revived it after long disuse; and Cheselden, who had practised the operation with the most eminent skill and success. Indeed Mr. Cheselden was so celebrated on this account, that, as a lithotomist, he monopolized the principal business of the kingdom. The author of his eloge, in the “Memoires de L' Academic Royale de Chirurgerie.,” who was present at many of his operations, testifies, that one of them was performed in so small a time as fifty-four seconds. In 1728, Mr. Cheselden added greatly to his reputation in another view, by couching a lad of nearly fourteen years of age, who was either born blind, or had lost his sight so early, that he had no remembrance of his having ever seen. The observations made by the young gentleman, after obtaining the blessing of sight, are singularly curious, and have been much attended to, and reasoned upon by several writers on vision. They may be found in the later editions of the “Anatomy.” In 1729, our author was elected a corresponding member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris; and in 1732, soon after the institution of the royal academy of surgery in that city, he had the honour of being the first foreigner associated with their learned body. Mr. Cheselden’s “Osteography, or Anatomy of the Bones,” inscribed to queen Caroline, and published by subscription, came out in 1733, a splendid folio, in the figures of which all the bones are represented in their natural size. Our author lost a great sum of money by this publication, which in 1735 was attacked with much severity by Dr. Douglas, whose criticism appeared under the title of “Remarks on that pompous book, the Osteography of Mr. Cheselden.” The work received a more judicious censure from the celebrated Haller, who, whilst he candidly pointed out its errors, paid the writer that tribute of applause which he so justly de­“served. Heister, likewise, in his” Compendium of Anatomy,“did justice to his merit. Mr. Cheselden having long laboured for the benefit of the public, and accomplished his desires with respect to fame and fortune, began at length to wish for a life of greater tranquillity and retirement; and in 1737 he obtained an honourable situation of this kind, by being appointed head surgeon to Chelsea hospital; which place he held, with the highest reputation, till his death. He did not, however, wholly remit his endeavours to advance the knowledge of his profession; for, upon the publication of Mr. Gataker’s translation of Mons. le Dran’s” Operations of Surgery," he contributed twenty-one useful plates towards it, and a variety of valuable remarks, some of which he had made so early as while he was a pupil to Mr. Feme. This was the last literary work in which he engaged. In 1751, Mr. Cheselden, as a governor of the Foundling hospital, sent a benefaction of fifty pounds to that charity, enclosed in a paper with the following lines, from Pope:

The conversation and study of the university scholars, in his time, turned chiefly upon the controversies between the church of England and the church of Rome, occasioned by the uncommon liberty allowed the Romish priests by James I. and Charles I. Several of them lived at or near Oxford, and made frequent attempts upon the young scholars; some of whom they deluded to the Romish religion, and afterwards conveyed to the English seminaries beyond sea. Among these there was the famous Jesuit, John Fisher, alias John Perse, for that was his true name, who was then much at Oxford and Chillingworth being accounted a very ingenious man, Fisher used all possible means of being acquainted with him. Their conversation, soon turned upon the points controverted between the two churches, but particularly on the necessity of an infallible living judge in matters of faith. Chillingworth found himself unable to answer the arguments of the Jesuit on this head; and being convinced of the necessity of such a judge, he was easily brought to believe that this judge was to be found in the church of Rome; that therefore the church of Rome must be the true church, and the only church in which men could be saved. Upon this he forsook the communion of the church of England, and cordially embraced the Romish religion.

, an ingenious writer, was the son of a merchant of Montrose in Scotland, where he was born in October 1761; and after a good school education, was placed in the counting-house by his father, whose opinion was, that whatever course of life the young man might adopt, a system of mercantile arrangement would greatly facilitate his pursuits. It is probable that he went through the routine of counting-house business with due attention, especially under the guidance of his father; but his leisure hours were devoted to the cultivation of general literature with such assiduity, that at a very early age he was qualified to embrace any of the learned professions with every promise of arriving at distinction. His inclination appears to have led him at first to the study of medicine, and this brought him to London in 1787, where he entered himself at the Westminster Dispensary, as a pupil to Dr. Simmons, for whom he ever after expressed the highest esteem. At this time Mr. Christie possessed an uncommon fund of general knowledge, evidently accumulated in a long course of reading, and knew literary history as well as most veterans. While he never neglected his medical pursuits, and to all appearance had nothing else in view, his mind constantly ran on topics of classical, theological, and philosophical literature. He had carefully perused the best of the foreign literary journals, and could refer with ease to their contents; and he loved the society in which subjects of literary history and criticism were discussed. The writer of this article, somewhat his senior in years, and not wholly inattentive to such pursuits, had often occasion to be surprized at the extent of his acquirements. It was this accumulation of knowledge which suggested to Mr. Christie the first outline of a review of books upon the analytical plan; and finding in the late Mr. Johnson of St. Paul’s Church-yard, a corresponding spirit of liberality and enterprise, the “Analytical Review” was begun in May 1788; and, if we mistake not, the preface was from Mr. Christie’s pen, who, at the same time, and long afterwards contributed many ingenious letters to the Gentleman’s Magazine, with the editor of which (Mr. Nichols) he long lived in habits of friendship.

The reason of his abandoning the university may have been an attachment which he formed while at Westminsterschool, and which ended in a clandestine marriage at the Fleet. This was a severe disappointment to his father’s hopes, but he wisely became reconciled to what was unavoidable, and entertained the young couple in his house about a year, during which his son’s conduct was irreproachable. In 1751 he retired to Sunderland, in the north of England, where he applied himself to such studies as might qualify himfor the church, and at the customary age he received deacon’s orders from Dr. Willes, bishop of Bath and Wells, and in 1756 was ordained priest by Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London. He then exercised his clerical functions at Cadbury in Somersetshire, and at Rainham, his father’s living, but in what manner, or with what display of abilities, is not remembered. A story was current some time after his death that he received a curacy of 30l. a year in Wales, and kept a public house to supply his deficiencies, but for this there appears to have been no other foundation than what the irregularities of his more advanced life supplied. So regardless was he of character, that his enemies found ready credit for any fiction at his expence. While at Rainham, he endeavoured to provide for his family by teaching the youth of the neighbourhood, an occupation which necessity rendered eligible, and habit might have made pleasing; but in 1758 his father’s death opened a more flattering prospect to him in the metropolis, where he was chosen his successor in the curacy and leetureship of St. John’s. For some time he performed the duties of these offices with external decency at least, and employed his leisure hours in the instruction of some pupils in the learned languages, and was also engaged as a teacher at a ladies’ boarding-school.

, wife of the preceding, and for several years the best actress in England, was the daughter of an eminent upholsterer in Covent-garden, and sister to Dr. Thomas Augustin Arne, the musician. Her first appearance on the stage was as a singer, in which the sweetness of her voice rendered her very conspicuous, although she had not much judgment, nor a good ear. It was in this situation, that, in April 1734, she married Theoph. Cibber, then a widower for the second time. The first year of their nuptials was attended with as much felicity as could be expected, but the match was by no means agreeable to his father, who had entertained hopes of settling his son in a higher rank in life than the stage; but the amiable deportment of his daughter-in-law, and the seeming reformation of his son, induced him to take the young couple into favour. As he was a manager of Drury-lane play-house at that time, and his son having hinted somewhat respecting Mrs. Cibber’s talents as an actress, he desired to hear a specimen. Upon this her first attempt to declaim in tragedy, he was happy to discover that her speaking voice was perfectly musical, her expression both in voice and feature, strong and pathetic at pleasure, and her figure at that time perfectly in proportion. He therefore assiduously undertook to cultivate those talents, and produced her in 1736, in the character of Zara, in Aaron Hill’s tragedy, being its first representation. The audience were both delighted and astonished. The piece, which was at best an indifferent translation, made its way upon the stage; and Mrs. Cibber’s, reputation as an actress was fully established, with its agreeable concomitants, a rise of salary, &c. The character, however, which she acquired in public, was lost in private life. She was married to a man who was luxurious and prodigal, and rapacious after money to gratify his passions or vanity, and at length he resolved to make a profit of the honour of his wife. With this view, therefore, he cemented the closest friendship with a gentleman, whom he introduced to his wife, recommended to her, gave them frequent interviews, and even saw them put, as if by accident, in the same bed, and had then the impudence to commence a trial for criminal correspondence, which brought to light his nefarious conduct. He laid his damages at 5000l. but the jury discerning the baseness of his conduct, gave only 10l. costs; a sum not sufficient to reimburse him a fortieth part of his expences. From that time Mrs. Cibber discontinued living with her husband, and resided entirely with the gentleman who was the defendant in this abominable trial.

He was educated at Rome with his cousins, the young Aculeos, by a method approved and directed by L. Crassus, and placed there in a public school under an eminent Greek master. His father, indeed, discerning the promising genius of his son, spared no expence in procuring the ablest masters among whom was the poetA re hi as, who came to Rome with a high reputation, when Cicero was about five years old; and who was afterwards defended by Cicero in a most elegant oration, still extant.

But though the conspiracy had succeeded against Csesar, it drew after it a train of consequences, which, in little more than a year, ended in the destruction not only of the commonwealth, but of even Cicero himself. The detail of all this belongs to history: it may be sufficient here to notice, that when Antony had driven Brutus and Cassuis from Rome, Cicero also left it, not a little mortified to see things take so wrong a turn by the indolence of his friends. In his retreat he had frequent meetings and conferences with his old friends of the opposite party, the late ministers of Caesar’s power; among whom were Hirtius, and Pansa, who, if they must have a new master, were disposed, for the sake of Caesar, to prefer his heir and nephew, Octavius, and presented Wim to Cicero immediately upon his arrival, with the strongest professions on the part of the young man, that he would be governed entirely by his direction. Cicero, however, could not be persuaded to enter heartily into his affairs, and when he did consent at last to unite himself to Octavius’s interests, it was with no other view than to arm him with a power sufficient to oppress Antony, and so limited, that he should not be able to oppress the republic.

, son of Isaac Claude, pastor at the Hague, and grandson of the celebrated minister of that name, was born January 16, 1684, in that city, and from his infancy displayed a taste for reading and literary research. At fifteen he wrote a curious Latin dissertation on the manner of saluting among the ancients, and published it at eighteen, with another dissertation, in the same language, on nurses and paedagogues, under the title “J. J. Claudii Dissertatio de Salutationibus Veterum, cui addita est Diatribe de Nutricibus et Paedagogis,” Utrecht, 1702, 12mo. He then studied at Utrecht, under Burman, and devoted himself entirely to the belles lettres; but M. Martin, his relation and tutor, who was minister there, falling dangerously ill, and seeing M. Claude one day by his- bed-side, said to him, among other things, “Behold, my dear child, of what use the belles lettres are, when a man is reduced to my situation.' 7 These words made so deep an impression on the young scholar, that he determined from that time to make divinity his chief study. He afterwards came over to England, and became pastor of the Drench church in London, 1710, where he died of the small-pox, March 7, 1712, lamented by the friends of learning and piety. A volume of his” Sermons" was published by his brother in 1713. They are only ten in number, but were highly praised in the literary journals of the time, and occasioned redoubled regret that the world had been so soon deprived of his talents

In 1751 the doctor settled in Dublin; and, in imitation of Monro and Hunter, began to give annual courses of anatomy. A few years after his coming to Dublin he was admitted into the university as lecturer in anatomy. In 1784 the college of physicians there elected him an honorary member; and since that time, from lecturer in anatomy he was made professor; and had likewise the honour of being one of the original members of the Irish Academy for promoting arts and sciences, which is now established by royal authority. In 1777, when the royal medical society was established at Paris, he was nominated a fellow of it. About 1774, on the death of his only brother in Scotland, he sent for his surviving family, consisting of the widow and nine children, and settled them in Dublin under his own eye, that he might have it more in his power to afford them that protection and assistance which they might stand in need of. His elder nephew William he educated in the medical profession; but after giving him the best education which Europe could afford, and getting him joined with himself in the lectureship, his hopes were unfortunately frustrated by the young gentlesnan’s death, which happened about 1784. He died universally and sincerely regretted by all who knew him, on account of his uncommon abilities and most amiable disposition.

He had not been long arrived at St. David’s before he lost some money in a party at cards with two ensigns, who were detected in the act of cheating. They had won considerable sums; but as the fraud was evident, the losers at first refused payment, but at length were intimidated by the threats of the successful gamesters. Clive alone persisted in his refusal, and accepted a challenge from the boldest of his antagonists. They met, each with a single pistol. Clive fired without success. His antagonist, quitting the ground, presented a pistol to his head, and commanded him to ask his life, with which demand, after some hesitation, he complied; but, being required to recant his expressions, he peremptorily refused. The officer told him, if he persisted in his refusal, he would fire. “Fire, and be d——d!” replied Clive. “I said you cheated; I say so still; nor will I ever pay you.” The ensign, finding every expedient to obtain the money ineffectual, threw away the pistol, and declared that his adversary was a madman. Clive replied to the compliments of some of his friends on his conduct in this affair; “The man has given me my life, and I have no right in future to mention his behaviour at the card table; although I will never pay him, nor ever keep him company.” In 1747 Mr. Clive was promoted to the commission of an ensign in the military service; but had no opportunity of displaying his talents till the following year, when the siege of Pondicherry afforded an ample scope for their exertion. At this memorable attack the young ensign distinguished himself by his courage in defence of the advanced trench. He received a shot in his hat, and another in his coat; some officers in the same detachment having been killed. The early rains, however, and admiral Boscawen’s want of experience in military operations, compelled the English to raise the siege, and to return to Fort St. David’s.

Low as sir Edward was fallen, he was afterwards restored to credit and favour; the first step to which was, his proposing a match between the earl of Buckingham’s elder brother, sir John Villiers, and his younger daughter by the lady Hatton: for he knew no other way of gaining that favourite. This, however, occasioned a violent dispute and quarrel between sir Edward and his wife; who, resenting her husband’s attempt to dispose of her daughter without asking her leave, carried away the young lady, and lodged her at sir Edmund Withipole’s house near Oatlands. Upon this, sir Edward wrote immediately to the earl of Buckingham, to procure a warrant from the privy-council to restore his daughter to him; but before he received an answer, discovering where she was, he went with his sons and took her, by force, which occasioned lady Hatton to complain in her turn to the privy council. Much confusion followed; and this private match became at length an affair of state. The differences were at length made up, in appearance at least, Sept. 1617; sir Edward was restored to favour, and reinstated in his place as privy-councillor; and sir John Villiers was married to Mrs. Frances Coke at Hampton-court, with all the splendour imaginable. This wedding, however, cost sir Edward dear. For besides 10,000l. paid in money at two payments, he and his son sir Robert did, pursuant to articles and directions of the lords of the council, assure to sir John Villiers a rent-charge of 2000 marks per annum during sir Edward’s life, and of 900l. a year during the lady Hatton’s life, if she survived her husband; and after both their deaths, the manor of Stoke in Buckinghamshire, of the value of 900l. per annum, to sir John Villiers and his lady, and to the heirs of her body. The same were settled by good conveyances carefully drawn the January following, and certified to his majesty under the hands of two Serjeants and the attorneygeneral. All this time the quarrel subsisted between him and his wife: and many letters are still extant, which shew a great deal of heat and resentment in both parties. At the time of the marriage lady Hatton was confined at the complaint of her husband: for, since her marriage, she had purchased the island and castle of Purbeck, and several other estates in different counties; which made her greatly independent of her husband. However, their reconciliation was afterwards effected, but not till July 1621, and then by no less a mediator than the king.

, author of a Dictionary once in much reputation, was born in Northamptonshire about 1640. Towards the end of 1658, he was entered of Magdalencollege, in Oxford, but left it without taking a degree; and retiring to London, taught Latin there to youths, and English to foreigners, about 1663, with good success in Russel-street, near Covent-garden, and at length became one of the ushers in merchant-taylors’ school. But being there guilty of some offence, he was forced to withdraw into Ireland, from whence he never returned. He was, says Wood, a curious and critical person in the English and Latin tongues, did much good in his profession, and wrote several useful and necessary books for the instruction of beginners. The titles of them are as follows: 1. “The Complete English Schoolmaster or, the most natural and easy method of spelling and reading English, according to the present proper pronunciation of the language in Oxford and London, &c.” Lond. 1674, 8vo. 3. “The newest, plainest, and shortest Short-hand; containing, first, a brief account of the short-hand already extant, with their alphabets and fundamental rules. Secondly, a plain and easy method for beginners, less burdensome to the memory than any other. Thirdly, a v new invention for contracting words, with special rules for contracting sentences, and other ingenious fancies, &c.” Lond. 1674, 8vo. 3. “Nolens Volens or, you shall make Latin, whether you will or no; containing the plainest directions that have been yet given upon that subject,” Lond. 1675, 8vo. With it is printed: 4. “The Youth’s visible Bible, being an alphabetical collection (from the whole Bible) of such general heads as were judged most capable of Hieroglyphics; illustrated with twenty-four copper-plates, &c.” 5. “An English Dictionary, explaining the difficult terms that are used in divinity, husbandry, physic, philosophy, law, navigation, mathematics, and other arts and sciences,” Lond. 1676, 8vo, reprinted several times since. 6. “A Dictionary, English-Latin, and Latin-English; containing all things necessary for the translating of either language into the other,” Lond. 1677, 4to, reprinted several times in 8vo; the 12th edition was in 1730. 7. “The most natural and easy Method of learning Latin, by comparing it with English: Together with the Holy History of Scripture-War, or the sacred art military, c.” Lond. 1677, 8vo. 8. “The Harmony of the Four Evangelists, in a metrical paraphrase on the history of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” Lond. 1679, 8vo, reprinted afterwards. 9. “The Young Scholar’s best Companion: or an exact guide or directory for children and youth, from the A B C, to the Latin Grammar, comprehending the whole body of the English learning, &c.” Lond. 12mo. Cole’s Dictionary continued to be a schoolbook in very general use, for some time after the publication of Ainswdrth’s Thesaurus. But it has fallen almost into total neglect, since other abridgments of Ainsworth have appeared, by Young, Thomas, and other persons. The men, however, who have been benefactors to the cause of learning, ought to be remembered with graiitude, though their writings may happen to be superseded by more perfeet productions. It is no small point of honour to be the means of paving the way for superior works.

, only son of William, first earl of Northampton, by Elizabeth, sole daughter and heiress of sir John Spencer, alderman of London, was born in 1601. He was made knight of the bath in 1616, when Charles, duke of York (afterwards Charles I.) was created prince of Wales; with whom he became a great favourite. In 1622 he accompanied him into Spain, in quality of master of his robes and wardrobe; and had the honour to deliver all his presents, which amounted, according to computation, to 64,000l. At the coronation of that prince he attended as master of the robes; and in 1639, waited on his majesty in his expedition against the Scots. He was likewise one of those noblemen, who, in May 1641, resolved to defend the protestant religion, expressed in the doctrine of the church of England, and his majesty’s royal person, honour, and estate as also the power and privilege of parliaments, and the lawful rights and liberties of the subject. In 1642 he waited upon his majesty at York, and after the king set up his standard at Nottingham, was one of the first who appeared in arms for him. He did him signal services, supporting his cause with great zeal in the counties of Warwick, Stafford, and Northamptom. He was killed, March 19, 1643, in a battle fought on Hopton-heath, near Stafford; in which, though the enemy was routed, and much of their artillery taken, yet his lordship’s horse being unfortunately shot under him, he was somehow left en­“compassed by them. When he was on his feet, he killed with his own hand the colonel of foot, who first came up to him; notwithstanding which, after his head-piece was struck off with the butt-end of a musquet, they offered him quarter, which he refused, saying,” that he scorned to accept quarter from such base rogues and rebels as they were:“on this he was killed by a blow with an halbert on the hinder part of his head, receiving at the same time another deep wound in his face. The enemy refused to deliver up his body to the young earl of Northampton, unless he would return, in exchange for it, all the ammunition, prisoners, and cannon he had taken in the late battle: but at last it was delivered, and buried in Allhallows church in Derby, in the same vault with his relation the old countess of Shrewsbury. His lordship married Mary, daughter of sir Francis Beaumont, knt. by whom he had six sons and two daughters. The sons are all said to have inherited their father’s courage, loyalty, and virtue particularly sir William, the third son, who had the command of a regiment, and performed considerable service at the taking of Banbury, leading his men on to three attacks, during which he had two horses shot under him. Upon the surrender of the town and castle, he was made lieutenantgovernor under his father; and on the 19th of July, 1644, when the parliament’s forces came before the town, he returned answer to their summons;” That he kept the castle for his majesty, and as long as one man was left alive in it, willed them not to expect to have it delivered:“also on the 16th of September, they sending him another summons, he made answer,” That he had formerly answered them, and wondered they should send again." He was so vigilant in his station, that he countermined the enemy eleven times, and during the siege, which held thirteen weeks, never went into bed, but by his example so animated the garrison, that though they had but two horses left uneaten, they would never suffer a summons to be sent to them, after the preceding answer was delivered. At length, his brother the earl of Northampton raised the siege on the 26th of October, the very day of the month, on which both town and castle had been surrendered to the king two years before. Sir William continued governor of Banbury, and performed many signal services for the king, till his majesty left Oxford, and the whole kingdom was submitting to the parliament; and then, on the 8th of May, 1646, surrendered upon honourable terms. In 1648, he was major-general of the king’s forces at Colchester, where he was so ni'ich taken notice of for his admirable behaviour, that Oliver Cromwell called him the sober young man, and the godly cavalier. At the restoration of king Charles II. he was made one of the privy-council, and master-general of the ordnance; and died October 19, 16h3, in the 39th year of his age. There is an epitaph to his memory in the church of Compton- Winyate. Henry, the sixth and youngest, who was afterwards bishop of London, is the subject of the next article.

, the son of a tailor at Menin, was one of many who experienced the oppression of Olivarez duke of Alva, who, being appointed by Philip II. governor of the seventeen provinces, endeavoured, with execrable policy, to establish over all the Netherlands an irreligious and horrible court of judicature, on the model of the Spanish inquisition. By consequence, in 1567, great numbers of industrious, thriving, and worthy people were imprisoned by the rigorous orders of this petty tyrant, and treated with great injustice and cruelty. Courten had the good fortune to escape from prison; and in the year following, 1568, arrived safe in London, with his wife Margaret Casiere, a daughter named Margaret, her husband, son of a mercantile broker at Antwerp of the name of Boudean, and as much property as they could hastily collect under such disadvantages. Soon after their arrival, they took a house in Abchurch-lane, where they lived together, following for some time the business of making what were commonly called French hoods, much worn in those days and long after, which they vended in wholesale to the shopkeepers who sold them in retail. Encouraged by great success in this employment, they soon removed to a larger house in Pudding-lane or Love-lane, in the parish of St. Mary Hill, where they entered on a partnership trade, in silks, fine linens, and such articles as they had dealt in before when in Flanders. Michael Boudean, the daughter Margaret’s husband, died first, leaving behind him, unfortunately for the family, a son and only child, named Peter, after an uncle certainly not much older than himself. The widow married John Money, a merchant in London, who instantly became an inmate with the family, which was moreover increased by the parents themselves, with two sons, William, born in 1572, and Peter, born in 1581. The young men, being instructed in reading, writing, and arithmetic, were early initiated in business, and soon after sent abroad as factors for the family: William to Haerlem, Peter to Cologne, and Peter Boudean the grandchild to Middleburg. At what time William Courten and Margaret Casiere died is at present uncertain most probably their deaths happened about the end of queen Elizabeth’s, or in the beginning of king James’s reign; but it seems certain, that they left their descendants not only in easy, but even in affluent circumstances. At the following aera of this little history it does not appear clearly, whether the old people were actually dead, or had only declined all farther active, responsible concern in business: but, in 1606, William and Peter Courtens entered into partnership with John Money, their sister Margaret’s second husband, to trade in silks and fine linen. Two parts, or the moiety of the joint stock, belonged to William Courten, and to each of the others, Peter Courten and John Money, a fourth share. As for Peter Boudean, the son of Margaret Courten by her first husband, he seems to have been employed to negotiate for the partnership at Middleburg on some stipulated or discretionary salary; for it does not appear that he had any certain or determinate share in the trade, which was carried on prosperously till 1631, with a return, it is said, one year with another, of 150,000l. During the course of this copartnership, there is nothing upon record unfavourable to the character of John Money. The characters too of William and Peter Courtens appear unexceptionable, fair, and illustrious. They prospered, it seems, remarkably in all their undertakings, for twenty years and more; in the course of which time they were both dignified with the honours of knighthood.

, a learned English bishop, was born at Whaddon in Buckinghamshire, of mean parentage, in the year 1499. He had probably his first education in the small priory of Snelshall, in the parish of Whaddon; but being afterwards sent to Eton-school, he was elected into a scholarship at King’s college in Cambridge, of which he became fellow in the year 1519. Having the same year taken his bachelor of arts degree, and being eminent for his piety and learning, he was invited to Oxford by cardinal Wolsey, to fill up his new foundation. He was accordingly preferred to be one of the junior canons of Cardinal college; and on the 7th of December, 1525, was incorporated bachelor of arts at Oxford, as he stood at Cambridge. Soon after, having performed his exercises, he took the degree of M. A. July 2, 1526, and at this time was reputed one of the greatest scholars of his age; and even his poetical compositions were in great esteem. His piety and virtue were not inferior to his learning, and commanded the respect of all impartial persons. But shewing himself averse to many of the popish superstitions, and declaring freely for some of Luther’s opinions, he incurred the displeasure of his superiors, who stripped him of his preferment, and threw him into prison on suspicion of heresy. When he was released from his confinement, he left Oxford; and, some time after, was chosen master of Eton-school, which flourished under his care. In 1537, he commenced doctor in divinity at Cambridge, and December 4, 1540, was made archdeacon of Ely; as he was also appointed in 1541, the first prebendary in the first stall of the same cathedral, upon its being new founded by king Henry VIII. September 10, 1541. He was likewise, June 3, 1542, presented by the same king to the prebend of Sutton with Buckingham in the church of Lincoln, and installed the llth of that month, but this he surrendered up in 1547. In the year 1543, he supplicated the university of Oxford, that he might take place among the doctors of divinity there, which was unusual, because he was not then incorporated in that degree, but this took place in June 1545. When a design was formed, of converting the collegiate church of Southwell into a bishopric, Dr. Cox was nominated bishop of it. On the 8th of January, 1543-4, he was made the second dean of the new-erected cathedral of Osney near Oxford; and in 1546, when that see was translated to Christ church, he was also made dean there. These promotions he obtained by the interest of archbishop Cranmer and bishop Goodrich, to the last of whom he had been chaplain; and, by their recommendation, he was chosen tutor to the young prince Edward, whom he instructed with great care in the true principles of religion, and formed his tender mind to an early sense of his duty, both as a Christian and a king. On that prince’s accession to the throne, he became a great favourite at court, and was made a privy-counsellor, and the king’s almoner. The 2 1st of May, 1547, he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford; installed July 16, 1548, canon of Windsor; and the next year made dean of Westminster. About the same time he was appointed one of the commissioners to visit the university of Oxford, in which he and his brother commissioners destroyed some of the most valuable treasures in the libraries, from a notion that they encouraged popery and conjuration *. In 1550, he was ordered to go down into Sussex, and endeavour by his learned and affecting sermons, to quiet the minds of the people, who had been disturbed by the factious preaching of Day bishop of Chichester, a violent papist: and when the noble design of reforming the canon law was in agitation, he was appointed one of the commissioners. Both in this and the former reign, when an act passed for giving all chantries, colleges, &c. to the king, through Dr. Cox’s powerful intercession, the colleges in both universities were excepted out of that act. In November 1552, be resigned the office of chancellor of Oxford and soon after queen Mary’s accession to the crown, he was stripped of his preferments and on the 15th of August, 1553, committed to the Marshalsea. He was indeed soon discharged from this confinement; but foreseeing the inhuman persecution likely to ensue, he resolved to quit the realm, and withdraw to some place where he might enjoy the free exercise of his religion, according to the form established in the reign of king Edward. With this view he went first to Strasburgh in Germany, where he heard with great concern of some English exiles at Francfort having thrown aside the English Liturgy, and set up a form of their own, framed after the French and Geneva models. On the 13th of March 1555, he came to Francfort in order to oppose this innovation, and to have the Common- Prayer-Book settled among the English congregation there, which he had the satisfaction to accomplish. Then he returned to Strasburgh for the sake of conversing with Peter Martyr, with whom he had contracted an intimate friendship at Oxford, and whom he loved and honoured for his great learning and moderation. After the death of queen Mary he returned to England; and was one of those divines who were appointed to revise the Liturgy. When a disputation was to be held at Westminster between eight papists and eight of the reformed clergy, he was the chief champion on the protestants’ side. He preached often before queen Elizabeth in Lent; and, in his sermon at the opening of her first parliament, exhorted them in most affecting terms to restore religion to its primitive purity, and banish all the popish innovations and corruptions. These excellent discourses, and the great zeal he had shewn in support of the English liturgy at Francfort, so effectually recommended him to the queen’s esteem, that in June 1559, she nominated him to the bishopric of Norwich; but altering her mind, preferred him to the see of Ely in July 1559, in the room of Dr. Thirlby, who was deprived. Before his consecration (Dec. 19) he joined with Dr. Parker, elect archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops elect of London, Chichester, and Hereford, in a petition to the queen, against an act lately passed for the alienating and exchanging the lands and revenues of the bishops; and sent her several arguments from scripture and reason against the lawfulness of it; observing withal, the many evils and inconveniencies both to church and state that would thence arise. In 1559 we find him again appointed one of the visitors of the university of Oxford, but this visitation was conducted so moderately as to obtain a letter of thanks to queen Elizabeth for the services of the commissioners. He enjoyed the episcopal dignity about twenty-one years and seven months, and was justly considered one of the chief pillars and ornaments of the church of England, having powerfully co-operated with archbishop Parker, and his successor Grindal, in restoring our church in the same beauty and good order it had enjoyed in king Edward’s reign. He indeed gave some offence to the queen by his zealous opposition to her retaining the crucifix and lights on the altar of the Chapel Royal, and his strenuous defence of the lawfulness of the marriage of the clergy, to which the queen was always an enemy. He was a liberal patron to all learned men whom he found well affected to the church; and shewed a singular esteem for Dr. Whitgift, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, made him his chaplain, and gave him the rectory of Teversham in Cambridgeshire, and a prebend of Ely. He did his utmost to get a body of ecclesiastical laws established by authority of parliament; but through the opposition of some of the chief courtiers, this design miscarried a third time. As he had, in his exile at Francfort, been the chief champion against the innovations of the puritans, he still continued, with some vigour and resolution, to oppose their attempts against the discipline and ceremonies of the established church. At first he tried to reclaim them by gentle means; but finding that they grew more audacious, and reviled both church and bishops in scurrilous libels, he wrote to archbishop Parker, to go on vigorously in reclaiming or punishing them, and not be disheartened at the frowns of those court-favourites who protected them; assuring him that he might expect the blessing of God on his pious labours to free the church from their dangerous attempts, and to establish uniformity. When the privycouncil interposed in favour of the puritans, and endeavoured to screen them from punishment, he wrote a bold letter to the lord- treasurer Burieigh in which he warmly expostulated with the council for meddling with the affairs of the church, which, as he said, ought to be left to the determination of the bishops; admonished them to keep within their own sphere; and told them he would appeal to the queen if they continued to interpose in matters not belonging to them. He is blamed by some for giving up several manors and other estates belonging to his see, while others thought he deserved commendation for his firmness in resolving to part with no more, and for being proof against the strongest solicitations and most violent attacks which he had to encounter, even from those who were most in favour at court, and who were backed by royal command and authority. In the years 1574- and 1575, sir Christopher Hatton, a noted favourite of the queen, endeavoured to wrest Ely-house in Holborn from him; and in order to preserve it to his see he was forced to have a long and chargeable suit in chancery, which was not determined in 1579. The lord North also attempted, in 1575, to oblige him to part with the manor of Somersham, in Huntingdonshire, one of the best belonging to his bishopric; and with Downham park; which he refusing to yield, that lord endeavoured to irritate the queen against him, and to have him deprived. For that purpose, North, and some others of the courtiers, examined and ransacked his whole conduct since his first coming to his see, and drew tip a large body of articles against him addressed to the privy-council. But the bishop, in his replies, so fully vindicated himself, that the queen was forced to acknowledge his innocence, though the lord North boasted he had found five prsemunires against him. Vexed, however, with the implacable malice of the lord North, and other his adversaries, he desired, in 1577, leave to resign his bishopric, which the queen refused. North, though disappointed in his former attempt, yet not discouraged, brought three actions against the poor old bishop for selling of wood, on which the bishop offered again, in 1579, to resign, provided he had a yearly pension of two hundred pounds out of his see, and Donnington (the least of five country houses belonging to Ely bishopric) for his residence during life. The lord- treasurer Burieigh, at the bishop’s earnest desire, obtained leave of the queen for him to resign; and in February 1579-80, upon the bishop’s repeated desires, forms of resignation were actually drawn up. But the court could not find any divine of note who would take that bishopric on their terms, of surrendering* up the best manors belonging to it. The first offer of it was made to Freak, bisbop of Norwich; and, on his refusal, it was proffered to several others; but the conditions still appeared so ignominious that they all rejected it; by which means bishop Cox enjoyed it till his death, which happened on the 22d of July 1581, in the eighty-second year of his arge. By his will he left several legacies, amounting in all to the sum of 945l.; and died worth, in good debts, 2,322l. He had several children. His body was interred in Ely cathedral, near bishop Goodrich’s monument, under a marble stone, with an inscription, now nearly effaced. His character is said to have been that of a man of a sound judgment and clear apprehension, and skilled in all polite and useful learning. He wanted no advantages of education, and improved them with such diligence and industry, that he soon became an excellent proficient both in divine and human literature. The holy scriptures were his chief study; and he was perfectly well versed in the original language of the New Testament. He was extremely zealous for the true interest of the reformed church, and a constant and vigorous defender of it against alj, the open, assaults of all its enemies. He is accused by some of having been a worldly and covetou’s person; and is said to have made a great havock and spoil of his woods and parks, feeding his family with powdered venison to save expences. Several complaints and long accusations were exhibited against him and his wife, in 1579, to queen Elizabeth upon these accounts, but the bishop fully vindicated himself, and shewed that all these complaints were malicious calumnies. It is likewise said, that he appears to have been of a vindictive spirit, by reason of his prosecution of, and severity to, the deprived catholics in his custody; and especially by his complaints against Dr. Feckenham, the last abbot of Westminster. But the bishop alleges in his own excuse, that these complaints were well founded; and that his endeavours to convert him were by order of the court. It must be remembered of this bishop, that he was the first who brought a wife to live in a college; and that he procured a new body of statutes for St, John’s college in Cambridge, of which, as bishop of Ely, he was, visitor.

the third, he submitted to the king and qii'vn, and to all their laws, as well concerning the pope’s supremacy, as others: and promised, that he would stir and move all others to live in quietness and obedience to their majesties. As for his book, he was content to submit to the judgment of the Catholic church, and the next general council. Tiiis was followed by a fourth, wherein be- professed firmly, stedfastly, and assnndly to believe in all articles and points of the Christian religion and Catholic faith, as the Catholic church doih believe. Moreover, as concerning the sacraments, he declared he believed uiiiVig-iiediy in all poinis as the said Catholic church did. In the fifth paper, which is that in Fox, and has been thought to be his only recantation, they required of him, to renounce and anathematize all Lutheran and Zumglian heresies and errors; to acknowledge the one only Catholic church, to be that whereof the pope is the head; and to declare him Christ’s vicar. Then followed an express acknowledgment of transubstantiation, the seven sacraments, and of all the doctrines of the church of Rome in general. A sixth was still required of him, which was drawn up in so strong terms, that nothing was capable of being added to it. For it contained a large acknowledgment of all the popish errors and corruptions, and a most grievous accusation of himself as a blasphemer, enemy of Christ, and murderer of souls, on account of his being the author of king Henry’s divorce, and of all the calamities, schisms, and heresies of which that was the fountain. This was subscribed on the 18lh of March. These six papers were, soon after his death, sent to the press by Bonner, and published with the addition of another, which they had prepared for him to speak at St. Mary’s, before his execution: and though he then spoke to a quite contrary effect, and revoked his former recantations, Bonner had the confidence to publish this to the world, as if it had been approved and made use of by the archbishop. In 1736, William Whiston, M. A. published a little book, entitled “An Enquiry into the Evidence of Archbishop Cranmer’s Recantation: or reasons for a suspicion that the pretended copy of it is not genuine.” In this he supposes, that what Cranmer signed, was only the first part of the Recantation printed in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments,” as far as the words -“without which there is no Salvation,” that the rest was added by the papists, but that Cranmer never set his hand to it. the king and queen; to love each other; and to be charitable. After this he made a confession of his faith, beg nning with the Creed, and concluding with these words, “And I believe every word and sentence taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, his apostles and prophets, in the Old and New Testament. And now,” added he, “I come to the great thing, that so much troubleth my conscience more than any thing I ever did or said in my whole life-; and that is the setting abroad a writing contrary to the truth, which 1 here now renounce as things written with my hand contrary to the truth which 1 thought in my heart, and written for fear of death, and to save my life if it might be; that is, all such bills and papers which I have written or signed with my hand since my degradation, wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished; for, may I come to the fire, it shall be first burned. As for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine. And as for the Sacrament, I believe as I have taught in my book against the bishop of Winchester.” Thunderstruck as it were with this unexpected declaration, the enraged popish crowd admonished him not to dissemble: “Ah,” replied he with tears, “since I lived hitherto, I have been a hater of falsehood, and a lover of simplicity, and never before this time have I dissembled.” On this, they pulled him off the stage with the utmost fury, and hurried him to the place of his martyrdom, over against Baliol-college; where he put off his clothes in haste, and standing in his shirt, and without shoes, was fastened with a chain to the stake. Some pressing him to agree to his former recantation, he answered, showing his hand, “This is the hand that wrote it, and therefore it shall first suffer punishment.” Fire being applied to him, he stretched out his right hand into the flame, and held it there unmoved (except that once with it he wiped his face) till it was consumed, crying with a loud voice, “This hand hath offended;” and often repeating, “This unworthy right hand.” At last, the fire getting up, he soon expired, never stirring or crying out all the while, only keeping his eyes fixed to heaven, and repeating more than once, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Such was the end of the renowned Thomas Cranmer, in the 67th year of his age, a man who deservedly ranks high among the most illustrious characters in ecclesiastical history, although his conduct was not in all respects free from blame. Of the two instances in which Cranmer has been accused of retaining the spirit of persecution, after he had got rid of every other attribute of popery, Mr. Gilpin gives the following account: “Joan Bocher and George Paris were accused, though at different times, one for denying the humanity of Christ the other for denying his divinity. They were both tried, and condemned to the stake: and the archbishop not only consented to these acts of blood; but even persuaded the aversion of the young king into a compliance.” Your majesty must distinguish (said he, informing his royal pupil’s conscience) between common opinions, and such as are the essential articles of faith. These latter we must on no account suffer to be opposed.“Mr. Gilpin justly observes, that” nothing even plausible can be suggested in defence of the archbishop on this occasion; except only that the spirit of popery was not yet wholly repressed." That he was not, however, a man of blood, and that in every case of personal injury he was the most placable of human beings, is amply confirmed by all authorities. The last act of Henry’s reign, says the same biographer, was an act of blood; and gave the archbishop a noble opportunity of shewing, how well he had learned that great Christian lesson of forgiving an enemy. Almost without the shadow of justice, Henry had given directions to have the duke of Norfolk attainted by an act of parliament. The king’s mandate stood in lieu of guilt; and the bill passed the house with great ease. No man, except the bishop of Winchester, had been so great an enemy to the archbishop as the duke of Norfolk. He had always thwarted the primate’s measures; and oftener than once had practised against his life. How many would have seen with secret pleasure the workings of Providence against so rancorous an enemy; satisfied in having themselves no hand in his unjust fate! But the archbishop saw the affair in another light; he saw it with horror: and although the king had in a particular manner interested himself in this business, the primate opposed the bill with all his might; and when his opposition was vain, he left the house with indignation, and retired to Croydon.

, of an illustrious family of Italy, established in the comtat Venaissin, knight of Malta, and one of the greatest generals of his age, was born in 1541, and entered into the service in 1557. At the age of fifteen he was at the siege of Calais, and contributed greatly to the taking of that place, by a brilliant action that brought him to the notice of Henry II. He afterwards signalized himself against the Huguenots, or protestants, at the battles of Dreux, of Jarnac, and of Moncontour, in 1562, 1568, and 1569. The youthful hero so greatly distinguished himself in his caravans, especially at the battle of Lepanto in 1571, that he was made choice of, though wounded, to carry the news of the victory to the pope and to the king of France. We find him two years afterwards, in 1573, at the siege of la Rochelle, and in almost all the other considerable rencontres of that period. He every where shewed himself worthy of the name usually given him hy Henry IV. of the Brave Crillon. Henrv Hi. who was well acquainted with his valour, made him knight of his orders in 1585. The specious pretences of the league, the mask of religion which it put on, could never shake the fidelity of the brave Crillon, however great his antipathy to the Huguenots. He rendered important services to his prince in the affair of the Barricades, at Tours, and elsewhere. Henry III. ventured to propose to Crillon to assassinate the duke de Guise, a rebellious subject whom he was afraid to put to death by the sword of the law. Crillon offered to fiorht him; but disdained to hear of assassination. When Henry IV. had made the conquest of his kingdom, Crillon was as faithful to him as he had been to his predecessor. He repulsed the leaguers before Boulogne. The army of Villars having invested Villebceuf in 1592, he vigorously defended that place, replying to the besiegers, on their summoning the besieged to surrender, “Crillon is within, and the enemy without.” Henry, however, did but little for him; “because,” said he, “I was sure of the brave Crillon and I had to gain over my persecutors.” The peace of Vervins having put an end to the wars that had troubled Europe, Crillon retired to Avignon, and there died, in the exercises of piety and penance, the 2d of December 1615, at the age of seventy-four. Francis Bening, a Jesuit, pronounced the discourse at his funeral: a piece of burlesque eloquence, printed in 1616, under the title of “Boucher d'Honnenr,” the “Buckler of Honour,” and reprinted not many years since, as a specimen of ridiculous jargon. Mademoiselle de Lusson published in 2 vols. 12mo, 1757, the life of this hero, called by his contemporaries I'homme sans peur (the man without fear), le brave des braves (the bravest of the brave). This was translated into English by Miss Lomax, of Hertfordshire, and after being revised by Richardson, the author of Clarissa, was published at London, 1760, 2 vols. 12mo. Crillon appears to have been a second chevalier Bayard, not on account of his fantastic and sullen humour, but from the excellence of his heart and his attachment to religion. It is well known that being present one day at a sermon on the sufferings of Christ, when the preacher was come to the description of the flagellation, Crillon, seized with a sudden fit of enthusiasm, put his band to his sword, crying out, “Where wert thou, Crillon?” These sallies of courage, the effect of an exuberant vivacity of temper, engaged him too frequently in duels, in which he always came off with honour. Two instances are recorded of an intrepidity highly characteristic of Crillon. At the battle of Moncontour in 1569, a Huguenot soldier thought to serve his party by dispatching the bravest and most formidable of the catholic generals. In this view he repaired to a place where Crillon, in his return from pursuing the fugitives, must necessarily pass. The soldier no sooner perceived him than he drew the trigger of his piece. Crillon, though severely wounded in the arm, ran up to the assassin, laid hold on him, and was instantly going to thrust him through with his sword, when the soldier threw himself at his feet and begged his life. “I grant it thee,” said Crillou; “and if any faith could be put in a man that is at once a rebel to his king, and an apostate to his religion, I would put thee on thy parole never to bear arms but in the service of thy sovereign.” The soldier, confounded at this act of magnanimity, swore that he would for ever shake off all correspondence with the rebels, and return to the catholic religion. — The young duke of Guise, to whom Henry IV. had sent him at Marseilles, was desirous of trying how far the fortitude of Crillon would go. In this design he caused the alarm to be sounded before the quarters of his brave commander, and two horses to be led to his door. Then, running up to his apartments, pretended that the enemy was master of the port and town, and proposed to him to make his escape, that he might not swell the triumph of the conquerors. Though Crillon was hardly well awake when he heard these tidings, he snatched up his arms without the least trepidation, maintaining that it was better to die sword in hand, than survive the loss of the place. Guise, finding it impossible, by all the arguments he could use, to alter his resolution, accompanied him out of the chamber; but, when they were about the middle of the stairs, he burst out into a violent laughter, which plainly discovered the trick to Crillon. He then put on a graver countenance than when he thought he was going to fight; and griping the duke of Guise by the hand, he said, with an oath, according to his custom, “Young man, never again amuse thyself with putting to the test the heart of an honest man. Par la mort! if thou hadst found me weak, I would have poignarded thee!” After these words he retired without saying any thing more. We will conclude with the laconic billet written to him from the field of battle by Henry IV. after the victory of Arques, where Crillon was unable to be present: “Hang thyself, Crillon! We have been fighting at Arques, and thou wert not there. Adieu, brave Crillon! I love thee whether right or wrong.”

Having obtained, through the patronage of lord Halifax, a small establishment as crown agent for Nova Scotia, Mr. Cumberland tendered his addresses to Elizabeth, the only daughter of George Ridge, esq. of Kilmiston, Hants, to whom he was married, Feb. 19, 1759. On the king’s accession to the throne, Mr. Cumberland composed and published without his name, a poem in blank verse addressed to the young sovereign; and on the appointment of lord Halifax to be lord lieutenant of Ireland, he accompanied that nobleman as Ulster secretary, and his father was made one of the chaplains. William Gerard Hamilton was at this time chief secretary, but not by the choice of lord Halifax, to whom he was little known, and in the first instance not altogether acceptable, and Cumberland’s situation appears to have been unpleasant. However, towards the close of the session his lordship expressed his satisfaction in Cumberland’s services, and offered him a baronetcy, an honour which after due consideration he declined, though he says he had afterwards reason to think that it contributed to weaken his interest with lord Halifax. Why such an honour should have been offered to a youngman totally unprovided for, we know not. Even when his patron was made secretary of state, he applied, in vain, for the situation of under-secretary, and afterwards obtained only the clerkship of reports in the office of trade and plantations under the earl of Hillsborough.

Sir James Dalrymple died in 1750; and the hon. general St. Clair having married sir James’s sister, a very sensible and accomplished woman (the relict of sir John Baird, bart.), in 1752, from his intimacy with alderman Baker, then chairman of the East India company, general St. Clair got Mr. Baker’s promise to appoint his nephew, Mr. Dalrymple, a writer in the company’s service; the young man having conceived a strong desire of going to the East Indies, by reading Nieuhoff’s Voyages, and a novel of that time, called Joe Thomson. He accordingly left Scotland in the spring of 1752, with his brother sir David, who affectionately accompanied him to London. He was put to Mr. Kinross’s academy, at Forty-hill, near Enfield, for some months antecedent to his appointment in the company’s service. He tells us he was obliged to Mr. Kinross for his great kindness and attention to him, and received much good instruction for his conduct through life; by which he greatly profited: but was too short a time at that academy to learn much of what was the object of sending him there, viz. writing and merchants’ accounts; which are, at least were at that time, the only qualifications the East India company thought requisite in their servants: and the absurdity of supposing a boy of sixteen from an academy competent to keep a set of merchants’ books not being considered, some demur was made to Mr. Kinross’s certificate of this part of Mr. Dalrymple’s education not being expressed in terms sufficiently direct; however, this was not insisted on.

In 1753, the author published the first volume of“Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life,” 4to. The second volume, which completed the author’s plan, was printed in 1796. As the eccentric genius of the author was known, great expectations were formed of this work, the labour, we were told, of more than twenty years. It was to reform, or entirely new model, the whole system of medicine, professing no less than to account for the manner in which man, animals, and vegetables are formed. They all, it seems, take their origin from living filaments, susceptible of irritation, which is the agent that sets them in motion. Archimedes was wont to say, “give me a place to stand on, and I will move the earth:” such was his confidence in his know edge of the power of the lever. Our author said, “give me a fibre susceptible of irritation, and I will make a tree, a dog, a horse, a man.” “I conceive,” he says, Zoonomia, vol. I. p. 492, “the primordium, or rudiment of the embryon, as secreted from the blood of the parent, to consist in a single living filament, as a muscular fibre, which I suppose to be the extremity of a nerve of loco-motion, as a fibre of the retina is the extremity of a nerve of sensation; as, for instance, one of the fibrils which compose the mouth of an absorbent vessel; I suppose this living filament, of whatever form it may be, whether sphere, cube, or cylinder, to be endued with the capacity of being exciied into action by certain kinds of stimulus. By the stimulus of the surrounding fluid in which it is received from the mah-, it may bend into a ring, and thus form the lieg'nninj of a tube. This living ring may now embrace, or absorb a nutritive particle of the fluid in which it swims, and by drawing it into its pores, or joining it by compression to its extremities, may increase its own length or crassitude, and, by degrees, the living-ring may become a living tube. With this new organization, or accretion of parts, new kinds of irritability may commence,” &c.; whence, sensibility, which may be only an extension of irritability, and sensibility further extended, beget perception, memory, reason, and, in short, all those faculties which have been, it seems, erroneously attributed to mind, for which, it appears, there is not the smallest necessity; ajid as the Deity does nothing in vain, of course such a being does not exist. It would be useless to enter into a further examination of theZoonomia, which has long ceased to be popular; those who wish to see a complete refutation of the sophisms contained in it will read with satisfaction, “Observations on the Zoonomia of Dr. Darwin, by Thomas Brown, esq.” published at Edinburgh in 8vo, in 1798. In ISOi, the author published “Phytologia, or the Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening;” but the public, tired with the reveries of the writer, let this large book of 600 pages in 4to pass almost unnoticed. As little attention was paid to a small tract on Female Education, which had little indeed to attract notice. “It is,” Miss Seward observes, “a meagre work, of little general interest, those rules excepted, which are laid down for the preservation of health.” It is, however, harmless, a character that can by no means be accorded to the Zoonomia, as may he gathered from the strictures which the author of his life in the Cyclopædia has justly passed on that work, and to which nothing could have given even a temporary popularity but the activity of a small sect to whom the author’s political and religious, or rather irreligious principles, were endeared. His son, Charles Darwin, who died at Edinburgh the 15th of May, 1778, while prosecuting his studies in medicine, deserves to be noticed for having discovered a. test distinguishing pus from mucus, for which a gold medal was adjudged him by the university. “As the result of numerous experiments,” he says, “when any one wishes to examine the matter expectorated by his patient, let him dissolve a portion of it in vitriolic acid, and another portion of it in caustic alkaline lixivium, and then add pure water to both solutions; if there is a precipitation in each solution, it is clear the expectorated matter is pus; if there is no precipitation, the matter is simply mucus.” Mr. Darwin left an unfinished essay on the retrograde motion of the absorbent vessels of animal bodies in some diseases. This was, some time after the death of the young man, published by his father, together with the dissertation for which he had obtained the prize medal.

Soon after this he took holy orders, but had little zeal for the profession, and produced his sermons as matters of ordinary duty his muse was the mistress which engaged his principal attention and, as the muses generally love “the gay and busy haunts of men,” this pursuit was of no service to his promotion or clerical character. He unfortunately, too, loved his bottle as well as his muse; and by such indulgences sunk in the esteem of his fellow citizens, who said poetry affected his head; and in a little time they gave him the title of “the mad parson,” under which general character, the graver kind of people grew cautious of his acquaintance, whilst the young ones solicited his company to enjoy his eccentricities. In time he fell so much into this last seduction, that he was the volunteer of any party who would engage him for the night. This conslant dissipation at last enfeebled his understanding; and the charge which malice and ignorance at first fastened on him, was now realized his intellect; were at times evidently deranged and he fancied himself, after the example of Socrates, to be nightly visited by a demon, who enabled him to prophesy all manner of future events.

, a clergymnn of Ireland, of considerable celebrity in his day, was born in that kingdom about 1686. His fatiior lived as a servant in the family of sir John fennel, an [rish judge, and afterwards rented a small farm, in which situation he is supposed to have continued to his decease; for, when our author came to be in prosperous circumstances, he was advised by Dr. Swift not to take his parents out of the line of life they were fixed in, but to render them comfortable in it. At what place, and under whom, young Delany received his grammatical education, we are not able to ascertain; but at a proper age he became a sizer in Trinity college, Dublin; went through his academical course; took the customary degree*; and was cnosen, first a junior, and afterwards a senior fellow of the college. During this time he formed an intimacy with Dr. Swift; and it appears from several circumstances, that he was one of the dean of St. Patrick’s chief favourites. It is not unreasonable to conjecture, that, besides his considerable merit, it might be some general recommendation to him, that he readily entered into the dean’s playful disposition. He joined with Swift and Dr. Sheridan in writing or answering riddles, and in composing other slight copies of verses, the only design of which was to pass away the hours in a pleasant manner; and several of Mr. Delany’s exertions on these occasions may be seen in Swift’s works. These temporary amusements did not, however, interfere with our author’s more serious concerns. He applied vigorously to his studies, distinguished himself as a popular preacher, and was so celebrated as a tutor, that by the benefit of his pupils, and ijis senior fellowship, with all its perquisites, he received every year between nine hundred and a thousand pounds. In 1724 an affair happened in the college of Dublin, with regard to which Dr. Delany is represented as having been guilty of an improper interference. Two under-graduates having behaved very insolently to the provost, and afterwards refusing to make a submission for their fault, wefe both of them expelled. On this occasion Dr. Delany took the part of the young men, and (as it is said) went so far as to abuse the provost to his face, in a sermon at the college-chapel. Whatever may have been his motives, the result of the matter was, that the doctor was obliged to give satisfaction to the provost, by an acknowledgement of the otfence. Our author’s conduct in this affair, which had been displeasing to the lord primate Boulter, might probably contribute to invigorate the opposition which the archbishop made to him on a particular occasion. In 1725 he was presented by the chapter of Christ-church, to the parish of St. John’s, in the city of Dublin, but without a royal dispensation he could not keep his fellowship with his new living. Archbishop Boulter, therefore, applied to the duke of Newcastle, to prevent the dispensation from being granted. In 1727 Dr. Delany was presented by the university of Dublin to a small northern living, of somewhat better than one hundred pounds a year; and about the same time, lord Carteret promoted him to the chancellorship of Christ-church, which was of equal value. Afterwards, 1730, his excellency gave him a prebend in St. Patrick’s cathedral, the produce of which did not exceed either of the other preferments. In 1729 Dr. Delany began a periodical paper, called “The Tribune,” which was continued through about twenty numbers. Soon after, our author engaged in a more serious and important work, of a theological nature, the intention of publishing which brought him to London in 1731; it had for title, “Revelation examined with candour,” the first volume whereof was published in 1732. This year appears to have been of importance to our author in a domestic as well as in a literary view; for on the 17th of July he married in England, Mrs. Margaret Tenison, a widow lady of Ireland, with a large fortune. On his return to Dublin, he manifested his regard to the university in which he was educated, and of which he had long been a distinguished member, by giving twenty pounds a year to be distributed among the students. In 1734 appeared the second volume of “Revelation examined with candour,” and so favourable a reception did the whole work meet with, that a third edition was called for in 1735. In 1738 Dr. Delany published a 30th of January sermon, which he had preached at Dublin before the lord-lieutenant, William duke of Devonshire. It was afterwards inserted in the doctor’s volume upon social duties. In the same year appeared one of the most curious of Dr. Delany’s productions, which was a pamphlet entitled, “Reflections upon Polygamy, and the encouragement given to that practice in the scriptures of the Old Testament.” This subject, however, has since been more ably handled by the late ingenious Mr. Badcock, in the two fine articles of the Monthly Review relative to Marian’s “Thelyphthora.” Dr. Deiany was led by his subject to consider in a particular manner the case of David; and it is probable, that he was hence induced to engage in examining whatever farther related to that great Jewish monarch. The result of his inquiries he published in “An historical account of the life and rei^n of David king of Israel.” The first volume of this work appeared in 1740, the second in 1712, and the third in the ame year. It would be denying Dr. Delany his just praise, were we not to say, that it is an ingenious and & learned performance. It is written witli spirit; there are some curious and valuable criticisms in it, and many of the remarks in answer to Bayle are well founded; but it has not been thought, on the whole, a very judicious production. It is not necessary to the honour of the sacred writings, or to the cause of revelation, to defend, or to palliate the conduct of David, in whatsoever respects he acted wrong. It is peculiar to the Scriptures, in the biographical parts, to exhibit warnings as well as examples.

, a modern philosopher of high distinction, was born at La Haye in Tourain, France, April 1, 1596, of an ancient and noble family. Whilst yet a child, he discovered an eager curiosity to inquire into the nature and causes of things, which procured him the appellation of the young philosopher. At eight years of age he was committed to the care of Dinet, a learned Jesuit, under whom he made uncommon proficiency in learning. But an habit of close and deep reflection soon enabled him to discover defects in the books which he read, and in the instructions which he received, which led him to form the ambitious hope that he should, in some future time, carry science to greater perfection than it had ever yet reached. After spending five years in the diligent study of languages, and in reading the ancient poets, orators, and historians, he made himself well acquainted with the elements of mathematics, logic, and morals, as they had been hitherto taught. His earnest desire of attaining an accurate knowledge of every thing which became a subject of contemplation to his inquisitive mind, did not, however, in any of these branches of science meet with full satisfaction. Concerning logic, particularly, he complained, that after the most diligent examination he found the syllogistic forms, and almost every other precept of the art, more useful in enabling a man to communicate to others truths already known, or in qualifying him to discourse copiously upon subjects which he does not understand, than assisting him in the investigation of truths, of which he is ignorant. Hence he was led to frame for himself a brief system of rules or canons of reasoning, in which he followed the strict method of the geometricians, and he pursued the same plan with respect to morals. But after all his speculations, he was not able to attain the entire satisfaction which he so earnestly desired; and, at the close of eight years’ assiduous application in the Jesuits’ college at La Fleche, he returned to his parents, lamenting that he had derived no other benefit from his studies, than a fuller conviction that he, as yet, knew nothing with perfect clearness and certainty. Despairing of being able to discover truth in the paths of learning, he now bade adieu to books, and resolved henceforth to pursue no other knowledge than that which he could find ti'ithin himself, and in the great volume of nature.

, an ingenious French painter, was born at Rouen in Normandy, in 1729. He received the first elements of design from his father, and afterwards practised at Paris, under M. Vermont; but learned from Restout those excellent principles which he afterwards cultivated with so much success, and soon obtained many of the medals which the academy gave as prizes for design. In a journey he took to Rouen (his native place), he obtained several commissions for historical pieces, several of which he executed while under M, Restout. His picture of Potiphar’s wife, which he painted as a candidate for the academy’s prize, procured him the friendship of M. Boucher, at that time principal painter to the king, and Restout consented to yield the young Dehais, as an eleve of that artist. In 1751 he carried the first prize of the academy; and in consequence became a disciple of the king’s school, under the direction of M. Carlo Vanloo; and during three years he profited much by the instructions he received from that great master, extcuting many pieces of great merit. After this, hu vesided some time at Rome; and in spite of very bad health, prosecuted his profession with unremitting diligence, and great success. On his return to Paris, he married the daughter of M. Boucher, and was received into the academy with universal approbation the pictures which he presented on that occasion were of such merit as to give very sanguine hopes that he would one day become one of the greatest of the French artists. Every successive exhibition at the Louvre proved in the clearest manner, that his reputation was fixed on the surest foundation: but he died in the midst of his career, in the beginning of 1765. The principal of his works are, the History of St. Andrew, in four large pictures, at Rouen; the Adventures of Helen, in nine pieces, for the manufactory of Beauvais; the Death of St. Benet, at Orleans; the Deliverance of St. Peter, at Versailles. The Marriage of the Virgin is a subject simple in itself, but is nobly elevated by the painter. The grand priest is standing up, and turned towards the sacred spouse; his arms are extended, and his countenance directed towards the illuminated glory. Scarce any thing can be more expressive than the air of this head. The grandeur and the majestic simplicity of the virgin’s head are also finely conceived; and her whole figure admirable. The picturesque composition of the groupe is very well managed the draperies are in a bold and elegant taste the lights and shades finely imagined, melting into all the happy effects of the clear obscure. — His Resurrection of Lazarus is full of expression: the different emotions of surprise, terror, and admiration are most ingeniously varied, and finely characterised in the three apostles. The two women who behold the miracle, display the invention of the painter; one of them is full of astonishment, mixed with terror, at the idea of the sight before her the other falls prostrate to the ground, adoring the divine worker of the miracle: the whole piece is full of character and expression. His picture of Joseph’s Chastity is one of the finest that ever issued from his happy pencil: Potiphar’s wife is represented darting herself from the bed, and catching Joseph by his garment. The crime, hope, and fear of her passion, are expressed in the most lively manner in her eyes and countenance. The figure of Joseph is well designed; but it was on the woman that the painter, with great justness, bent all the efforts of his imagination, and his art. Among his other works are the Combat of Achilles against the Xanthus and Simo'is; Jupiter and Antiope, in which the figure of the woman is wonderfully delicate and pleasing. A small piece representing Study, very fine. Artemisia at the tomb of her husband, &c.

, an eminent French dramatic writer, was born at Tours, in 1680, of a reputable family, which he left early in life, apparently from being thwarted in his youthful pursuits. This, however, has been contradicted; and it is said that after having passed through the rudiments of a literary education at Tours, he went, with the full concurrence of his father, to Paris, in order to complete his studies; that being lodged with a bookseller in the capital, he fell in love at sixteen with a young person, the relation of his landlord, the consequences of which amour were such, that young Destouches, afraid to face them, enlisted as a common soldier in a regiment under orders for Spain; that he was present at the siege of Barcelona, where he narrowly escaped the fate of almost the whole company to which he belonged, who were buried under a mine sprung by the besieged. What became of him afterwards, to the time of his being noticed by the marquis de Puysieulx, is not certainly known, but the common opinion was, that he had appeared as a player on the stage; and having for a long time dragged his wretchedness from town to town, was at length manager of a company of comedians at Soleure, when the marquis de Puysieulx, ambassador from France to Switzerland, obtained some knowledge of him by means of an harangue which the young actor made him at the head of his comrades. The marquis, habituated by his diplomatic function to discern and appreciate characters, judged that one who could speak so well, was destined by nature to something better than the representation of French comedies in the centre of Switzerland. He requested a conference with Destouches, sounded him on various topics, and attached him to his person. It was in Switzerland that his talent for theatrical productions first displayed itself; and his “Curieux Impertinent” was exhibited there with applause. His dramatic productions made him known to the regent, who sent him to London in 1717, to assist, in his political capacity, at the negotiations then on foot, and while resident here, he had a singular negociation to manage for cardinal Dubois, to whom, indeed, he was indebted for his post. That minister directed him to engage king George I. to ask for him the archbishopric of Cambray, from the regent duke of Orleans. The king, who was treating with the regent on affairs of great consequence, and whom it was the interest of the latter to oblige, could not help viewing this request in a ridiculous light. “How!” said he to Destouches, “would you have a protestant prince interfere in making a French archbishop? The regent will only laugh at it, and certainly will pay no regard to such an application.” “Pardon me, sire,” replied Destouches, “he will laugh, indeed, but he will do what you desire.” He then presented to the king a very pressing letter, ready for signature. “With all my heart, then,” said the king, and signed the letter; and Dubois became archbishop of Cambray. He spent seven years in London, married there, and returned to his country; where the dramatist and negociator were well received. The regent had a just sense of his services, and promised him great things; but dying soon after, left Destouches the meagre comfort of reflecting how well he should have been provided for if the regent had lived. Having lost his patron, he retired to Fortoiseau, near Melun, as the properest situation to make him forget the caprices of fortune. He purchased the place; and cultivating agriculture, philosophy, and the muses, abode there as long as he lived. Cardinal Fleury would fain have sent him ambassador to Petersburg; but Destouches chose rather to attend his lands and his woods, to correct with his pen the manners of his own countrymen; and to write, which he did with considerable effect, against the infidels of France. He died in 1754, leaving a daughter and a son; the latter, by order of Lewis XV. published at the Louvre an edition of his father’s works, in 4 vols. 4to. Destouch.es had not the gaiety of Regnard, nor the strong warm colouring of Moliere; but he is always polite, tender, and natural, and has been thought worthy of ranking next to these authors. He deserves more praise by surpassing them in the morality and decorum of his pieces, and he had also the art of attaining the pathetic without losing the vis comica, which is the essential character of this species of composition. In the various connections of domestic life, he maintained a truly respectable character, and in early life he gave evidence of his filial duty, by sending 40,000 livres out of his savings to his father, who was burthened with a large family.

, of the academy of Berlin, an eminent French writer, was the son of a cutler, and was bora at Langres, in 1713. The Jesuits, with whom he went through a course of study, were desirous of having him in their order, and one of his uncles designing him for a canonry which he had in his gift, made him take the tonsure. But his father, seeing that he was not inclined to be either a Jesuit or a canon, sent him to Paris to prosegute his studies. He then placed him with a lawyer, to whose instructions young Diderot paid little attention, but employed himself in general literature, which not coinciding with the views of his father, he stopped the remittance of his pecuniary allowance, and seemed for some time to have abandoned him. The talents of the young man, however, supplied him with a maintenance, and gradually made him known. He had employed his mind on physics, geometry, metaphysics, ethics, belles-lettres, from the time he began to read with reflection, and although a bold and elevated imagination seemed to give him a turn for poetry, he neglected it for the more serious sciences. He settled at an early period at Paris, where the natural eloquence which animated his conversation procured him friends and patrons. What first gave him reputation among a certain class of readers, unfortunately for France, too numerous in that country, was a little collection of “Pensees philosophiques,” reprinted afterwards under the title of “Etrennes aux esprits-forts.” This book appeared in 1746, 12mo. The adepts of the new philosophy compared it, for perspicuity, elegance, and force of diction, to the “Pensees de Pascal.” But the aim of the two authors was widely different. Pascal employed his talents, and erudition, which was profound and various, in support of the truths of religion, which Diderot attacked by all the arts of an unprincipled sophist. The “Pensées philosophiques,” however, became a toiletbook. The author was thought to be always in the right, because he always dealt in assertions. Diderot was more usefully employed in 1746, in publishing a “Dictionnaire universelle de Medecine,” with Messrs. Eidous and Toussaint, in G vols. folio. Not that this compilation, says his biographer, is without its defects in many points of view, or that it contains no superficial and inaccurate articles; but it is not without examples of deep investigation; and the work was well received. A more recent account, however, informs us that this was merely a translation of Dr. James’s Medical Dictionary, published in this country in 1743; and that Diderot was next advised to translate Chambers’ s Dictionary; but instead of acting so inferior a part, he conceived the project of a more extensive undertaking, the “Dictionnaire Encyclopedique.” So great a monument not being to be raised by a single architect, D'Alembert, the friend of Diderot, shared with him the honours and the dangers of the enterprise, in which they were promised the assistance of several literati, and a variety of artists. Diderot took upon himself alone the description of arts and trades, one of the most important parts, and most acceptable to the public. To the particulars of the several processes of the workmen, he sometimes added reflections, speculations, and principles adapted to their elucidation. Independently of the part of arts and trades, this chief of the encyclopedists furnished in the different sciences a considerable number of articles that were wanting; but even his countrymen are inclined to wish that in a work of such a vast extent, and of such general use, he had learned to compress his matter, and had been less verbose, less of the dissertator, and less inclined to digressions. He has also been censured for employing needlessly a scientific language, and for having recourse to metaphysical doctrines, frequently unintelligible, which occasioned him to be called the Lycophron. of philosophy; for having introduced a number of definitions incapable of enlightening the ignorant, and which he seems to have invented for no other purpose than to have it thought that he had great ideas, while in fact, he had not the art of expressing perspicuously and simply the ideas of others. As to the body of the work, Diderot himself agreed that the edifice wanted an entire reparation; and when two booksellers intended to give a new edition of the Encyclopedic, he thus addressed them on the subject of the faults with which it abounds: “The imperfection of this work originated in a great variety of causes. We had not time to be very scrupulous in the choice of the coadjutors. Among some excellent persons, there were others weak, indifferent, and altogether bad. Hence that motley appearance of the work, where we see the rude attempt of a school-boy by the side of a piece from the hand of a master; and a piece of nonsense next neighbour to a sublime performance. Some working for no pay, soon lost their first fervour; others badly recompensed, served us accordingly. The Encyclopedic was a gulf into which all kinds of scribblers promiscuously threw their contributions: their pieces were ill-conceived, and worse digested; good, bad, contemptible, true, false, uncertain, and always incoherent and unequal; the references that belonged to the very parts assigned to a person, were never filled up by him. A refutation is often found where we should naturally expect a proof; and there was no exact correspondence between the letter-press and the plates. To remedy this defect, recourse was had to long explications. But how many unintelligible machines, for want of letters to denote the parts!” To this sincere confession Diderot added particular details on various parts; such as proved that there were in the Encyclopedic subjects to be not only re-touched, but to be composed afresh; and this was what a new company of literati and artists undertook, but have not yet completed. The first edition, however, which had been delivering to the public from 1751 to 1767, was soon sold off, because its defects were compensated in part by many well-executed articles, and because uncommon pains were taken to recommend it to the public.

, protestant minister of Leyden, and professor in the Walloon college of that city, a man of great abilities, and uncommonly versed in the oriental languages, was born April 7, 1590, at Flushing, where his father Daniel de Dieu was minister. Daniel was a man of great merit, and a native of Brussels, where he had been a minister twenty: two years. He removed from thence in 1585, to serve the church at Flushing, after the duke of Parma had taken Brussels. He understood Greek and the oriental languages, and could preach with the applause of his auditors in German, Italian, French, and English. The churches of the Netherlands sent him, in 1588, over to queen Elizabeth, to inform her of the designs of the duke of Parma, who secretly made her proposals of peace, while the king of Spain was equipping a formidable fleet against England. Lewis, his son, studied under Daniel Colonius, his uncle by his mother’s side, who was professor at Leyden in the Walloon college. He was two years minister of the French church at Flushing; and might have been court-minister at the Hague, if his natural aversion to the manners of a court had not restrained him from accepting that place. There are some circumstances relating to that affair which deserve to be remembered. Prince Maurice, being in Zealand, heard Lewis de Dieu preach, who was yet but a student; and some time after sent for him to court. The young man modestly excused himself, declaring, that he designed to satisfy his conscience in the exercise of his ministry, and to censure freely what he should find deserved censure; a liberty, he said, which courts did not care to allow. Besides, he thought the post which was offered him more proper for a man in years than a student. The prince, conscious that he was in the right, commended his modesty and prudence. He was called to Leyden in 1619 to teach, with his uncle Colonius, in the Walloon college; and he discharged the duty of that employment with great diligence till his death, which happened in 1642. He refused the post, which was offered him, of divinity-professor in the new university of Utrecht; but, if he had lived long enough, he would have been advanced to the same post in that of Leyden. He married the daughter of a counsellor of Flushing, by whom he had eleven children.

, a diligent schoolmaster, was many years settled in Wapping, and is known by an useful “Spelling Book,” where, in imitation of his predecessors, he has favoured the public with a print of himself. He wrote besides, “The young Book-keeper’s Assistant,” 8vo. “The Schoolmaster’s Assistant,” 12mo; and 3. “Miscellaneous Arithmetic,” 12mo, all of them manytimes printed. He died Jan. 17, 1780. To this brief notice, from the last edition of this Dictionary, perhaps of little importance, we may add, that there was, about fifty or sixty years ago, a W. H. Dilworth, M. A. the author of many abridged Lives and Histories, price one shilling each, “adorned with cuts,” such as “The Life of Alexander Pope, esq. with the Secret History of Himself and the Noble Lords his patrons;” “The Life of Dean Swift, with a thousand agreeable incidents,” &c. &c. He appears to have been the legitimate successor of Robert Burton, and probably, like him, may one day be elevated from the hawker’s stall to the collector’s library.

Ttieir imprisonment appears to have been an act of arbitrary power, for we hear of no trial being instituted, or punishment inflicted on the parties. Mr. Donne was first released*, and soon procured the enlargement of his companions; and, probably at no great distance of time, sir George Moor began to relent. The excellent character of his son-in-law was so often represented to him that he could no longer resist the intended consequences of such applications. He condescended, therefore, to permit the young couple to live together, and solicited the lord chancellor to restore Mr. Donne to his former situation. This, however, the chancellor refused, and in such a manner as to show the opinion he entertained of sir George’s conduct. His lordship owned that “he was unfeignedly sorry for what he had done, yet it was inconsistent with his plac^ and credit to discharge and re-admit servants at the request of passionate petitioners.” Lady Ellesmere also probably felt the severity of this remark, as her unwearied solicitations had induced the chancellor to adopt a measure which he supposed the world would regard as capricious, and inconsistent with his character.

, an eminent nonconformist, was born at Kidderminster in Worcestershire, in 1730. Having discovered an early inclination to learning, he was sent to Cambridge, and admitted of Pembroke-hall, where he studied with a view to the church, or rather to the meeting, as the church was then under the controul of the republican party. His first destination, however, was to the law, and he wont for some time to receive instructions in an attorney’s office; but his master having employed him to copy some writings on a Sunday, he relinquished the business. It appears to have been after this that he went to the university, and having taken his degrees in arts, became a preacher. His first settlement was at St. Alphage, London-wall. This living being then vacant, Mr. Doolittle appeared as a candidate, with several others, and the parishioners preferring him, he became their pastor in 1654, and remained a very popular preacher, until 1662, when he was ejected for nonconformity. From this he removed to Moorfields, and opened a kind of boarding-school, in which he was so successful as to be obliged to hire a larger house in Bunhillfields, where he continued until the great plague, and then he removed to Woodford. After the plague abated, he returned to London, and saw it laid in ashes by the great fire. On this occasion he and some other nonconformists resumed their preaching, and were for some time unmolested. Mr. Doolittle has the credit of projecting the first meeting-house, which was a hired place in Bunhillfields, but that proving toe small, when the city began to be rebuilt, he erected a more commodious place of worship in Mugwell, or Monkwell-street, Cripplegate, which remains until this day. Here, however, he was occasionally interrupted by the magistrates, who put the laws in execution; but in 1672 he obtained a licence from Charles II. which is still suspended in the vestry-room of the meeting, and for some time continued to preach, and likewise kept an academy at Islington for the education of young men intended for the ministry among the nonconformists. On the corporation-act being passed, when his licence became useless, he was again obliged to leave London, and resided partly at Wimbledon, and partly at Battersea, where, although his house was rifled, he escaped imprisonment. At the revolution he was enabled to resume his ministry in Monkwell-street, and here he closed the public labours of fifty-three years, on May 24, 1707^ the seventyseventh year of his age. Much of this time was spent in writing his various works, many of which attained a high degree of popularity; as, 1. “A Treatise concerning the Lord’s Supper,” 1665, 12mo, which has perhaps been oftener prii ted than almost any book on that subject. 2. “Directions how to live after a wasting plague” (that of London), 1666, 8vo. 3. “A Rebuke for Sin, by God’s burning anger” (alluding to the great Fire). 4. “The Young Man’s Instructor, and the Old Man’s Remembrancer,” 1673, 8vo. 5. “A Call to delaying Sinners,” 1683, 12mo, of which there have been many editions. 6. “A Complete Body of Practical Divinity,” fol. 1723, &c. &c. His son, Samuel, was settled as a dissenting minister at Reading, where-he died in 1717.

After the death of Henry, which happened January 31, 1547, the earl of Hertford, afterwards duke of Somerset, who was the young king’s uncle, without having any regard to Henry’s will, procured himself to be declared protector of the kingdom, and set on foot many projects. Among the first, one was to get his brother, sir Thomas Seymour, made high-admiral, in whose favour the lord viscount L'Isle was obliged to resign; but in lieu thereof, was created earl of Warwick, and made great chamberlain of England; favours which he undoubtedly did not think a recompense for the loss he sustained; and his aversion to the protector probably may be dated from this period. Afterwards troubles came on, and insurrections broke out in several parts of the kingdom. In Devonshire the insurgents were so strong that they besieged the city of Exeter; and before they could be reduced by the lord Russel, a new rebellion broke out in Norfolk, under the command of one Robert Ket, a tanner, who was very soon at the head of ten thousand men. The earl of Warwick, whose reputation was very high in military matters, was ordered to march against the latter. He defeated them, and killed about a thousand of them: but they, collecting their scattered parties, offered him battle a second time. The earl marched directly towards them; but when he was on the point of engaging, he sent them a message, that “he was sorry to see so much courage expressed in so bad a cause; but that, notwithstanding what was past, they might depend on the king-'s pardon, on delivering up their leaders.” To which they answered, that “he was a nobleman of so much worth and generosity, that if they might have this assurance from his own mouth, they were willing to submit.” The earl accordingly went among them; upon which they threw down their arms, delivered up Robert Ket, and his brother William, with the rest of their chiefs, who were hanged, and the other rebels were dispersed.

This great politician had now raised himself as high as it was possible in point of dignity and power: the ascendancy he had gained over the young king was so great, that he directed him entirely at his pleasure; and he had with such dexterity wrought most of the great nobility into his interests, and had so humbled and depressed all who shewed any dislike to him, that he seemed to have every thing to hope, and little to fear. And such indeed was the case, while that king lived; but when he discerned his majesty’s health to decline apace, it was very natural for him to consider how he might secure himself and his family. This appears plainly from the hurry with which the marriage was concluded with the lady Jane Grey, eldest daughter nf the duke of Suffolk, and his fourth son, lord Guildford Dudley; which was celebrated in May, 1553, not above two months before the kin^ died. He had been some time contriving that plan for the disposal of the kingdom, which. he carried afterwards into execution, in the parliament held a little before the king’s death, he procured a considerable supply to be granted; and, in the preamble of that act, caused to be inserted a direct censure of the duke of Somerset’s administration. Then, dissolving thai parliament, he applied himself to the king, and shewed him the necessity of setting the lady Mary aside, from the danger the protestant religion would be in, if she should succeed him; in which, from the piety of that young prince, he found no great difficulty. Burnet says, he did not well understand how the king was prevailed on to pass by his sister Elizabeth, who had been always much in his favour; yet, when this was done, there was another difficulty in the way. The duchess of Suffolk was next heir, who might have sons; and therefore, to bar these in favour of lady Jane Dudley seemed to be unnatural, as well as illegal. But the duchess herself contributed, as far as in her lay, to remove this obstacle, by devolving her right upon her daughter, even if she had male issue; and this satisfied the king. The king’s consent being obtained, the next point was to procure a proper instrument to be drawn by the judges; in doing which, the duke of Northumberland made use of threats as well as promises; and, when done at last, it was in such a manner as plainly shewed it to be illegal in their own opinions.

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

pains to conquer his native pronunciation, which, as it frequently provoked a smile from his hearers, would have proved of the greatest disadvantage in the heat and acrimony of debate, had he not evinced by the fluency and acuteness of his arguments that he was deserving of serious attention, and was an opponent not to be despised. For declamatory speaking, and addresses to the passions, he had neither taste nor talent; his mind was intent on the practical part of every measure, and in every debate that concerned what maybe termed business, he had few equals, and his speeches were perhaps the more attended to, as he made it a point to reserve them for such occasions. During lord North’s administration he was introduced to no ostensible station; but when that nobleman and his colleagues were obliged to retire in 1782, and a few months after, by the death of the marquis of Rockingham, their successors were obliged to resign, Mr. Dundas joined the young minister, Mr. Pitt, and was sworn into the privy council, and appointed treasurer of the navy. During Mr. Pitt’s first administration the general peace was concluded, which, however necessary, did not add much popularity to the ministry, and lord North and Mr. Fox, with their respective friends, or the greater part of them, having formed what was termed the coalition, Mr. Pitt’s administration was obliged to give way to a host of opponents, which was considered as invincible. On this occasion, in 1783, Mr. Dundas was deprived of his offices as treasurer of the navy, and lord advocate for Scotland.

, a celebrated French cardinal, sprung of a noble family of Issoire, in Auvergne, appeared first at the bar of Paris. he was afterwards made lieutenant-general of the bailiwic of JMontferrant, then attoiv ney-general at the parliament of Toulouse. Rising from one post to another, he came to be first president of the parliament of Paris in 1507, and chancellor of France in 1515. He set out, it is said, by being solicitor at Cognac for the countess of Angouleme, mother of Francis I. This princess entrusted to him the education of her son, whose confidence he happily gained. Some historians pretend that Duprat owed his fortune and his fame to a bold and singular stroke. Perceiving that the count d'Angouleme, his pupil, was smitten with the charms of Mary, sister of Henry VIII. king of England, the young and beautiful wife of Louis XII. an infirm husband, who was childless; and finding that the queen had made an appointment with the young prince, who stole to her apartment during the night, by a back staircase; just as he was entering the chamber of Mary, he was seized all at once by a stout man, who carried him off confounded and dumb. The man immediately made himself known it was Duprat. “What!” said he sharply to the count, “you want to give yourself a master! and you are going to sacrifice a throne to the pleasure of a moment!” The count d'Angouleme, far from taking this lesson amiss, presently recollected himself; and, on coming to the crown, gave him marks of his gratitude. To settle himself in the good graces of this prince, who was continually in quest of money, and did not always find it, he suggested to him many illegal and tyrannical expedients, such as selling the offices of the judicature, and of creating a new chamber to the parliament of Paris, which, composed of twenty counsellors, formed what was called la Tournelle. By his influence also the taxes were augmented, and new imposts established, contrary to the ancient constitution of the kingdom, all which measures he pursued without fear or restraint Having attended Francis I. into Italy, he persuaded that prince to abolish the Pragmatic Sanction, and to make the Concordat, by which the pope bestowed on the king the right of nominating to the benefices of France, and the king granted to the pope the annates of the grand benefices on the footing of current revenue. While this concordat, which was signed Dec. 16, 1515, rendered him odious to the magistrates and ecclesiastics, he soon reaped the fruits of his devotion to the court of Rome; for, having embraced the ecclesiastical profession, he was successively raised to the bishoprics of Meaux, of Albi, of Valence, of Die, of Gap, to the archbishopric of Sens, and at last to the purple, in 1527. Being appointed legate a latere in France, he performed the coronation of queen Eleonora of Austria. He is said to have aspired to the papacy in 1534, upon the death of Clement VII.; but his biographers are inclined to doubt this fact, as he was now in years and very infirm. He retired, as the end of his days approached, to the chateau de Nantouillet, where he died July 9, 1535, corroded by remorse, and consumed by diseases. His own interests were almost always his only law. He sacrificed every thing to them; he separated the interests of the king from the good of the public, and sowed discord between the council and the parliament; while he did nothing for the dioceses committed to his charge. He was a long time archbishop of Sens, without ever appearing there once. Accordingly his death excited no regret, not even among his servile dependents. However, he built, at the HotelDieu of Paris, the hall still called the legate’s-hall. “It would have been much larger,” said the king, “if it could contain all the poor he has made.”

Seated one day at the foot of a tree, absorbed in his reflections, and surrounded by maps of geography, which he examined with the most eager attention, a gentleman suddenly approached him, and asked with an air of surprise what he was doing. “Studying geography,” said he. “And do you understand any thing of the subject r” “Most assuredly I never trouble myself about things I do not understand.” “And what place are you now seeking for?” “I am trying to find the most direct way to Quebec.” “For what purpose?” “That I might go there, and continue my studies in the university of that town.” < But why need you go for this purpose to the end of the world? There are universities nearer home, superior to that of Quebec; and if it will afTord you any pleasure, I will point them out to you." At this moment they were joined by a large retinue belonging to the young princes of Lorraine, who were hunting in the forest with count Vidampiere and baron Pfutschner, their governors. A variety of questions were put to Duval, which he answered with equal precision and good sense, and without being out of countenance. In consequence of this interview, Leopold, duke of Lorraine, took him under his protection, and when he was brought to the court at Luneville, the duke received him in the midst of a numerous assembly, whom this singular event had collected. He answered every question that was put to him, without being confused, notwithstanding the novelty of the scene to him, and the important part he had to act; and the duke committed the care of his establishment at the college of Pont-a-Mousson to baron Pfutschner. Here his natural taste for study, added to his desire of answering the expectations of his illustrious patron, made him redouble his zeal. History, geography, and antiquities, were the studies he preferred, and in which his new guides were peculiarly qualified to assist him. He lived two years in this house; and the improvement he made was so great, that duke Leopold, as a recompense, and to give him an opportunity of still further progress, permitted him in 1718 to make a journey to Paris in his suite. On his return the next year the duke appointed him his librarian, and conferred on him the office of professor of history in the academy of Luneville.

Duval, occupied by his studies, and the inspection of the hermitage of St. Anne, had spent many years in perfect content, when an unexpected accident interrupted his felicity. Dnke Leopold died in 1738, and his son Francis exchanged the duchy of Lorraine for the grand duchy of Tuscany. King Stanislaus, the new possessor of Lorraine, used indeed the most urgent entreaties to prevail on Duval to continue in the office of professor in the academy of Luneville, but his attachment to his old patron would not permit him to listen to the proposal. He went to Florence, where he was placed at the head of the ducai library, which was transferred thither. Notwithstanding the charming climate of Italy, Lorraine, to which he had so many reasons to be attached, did not cease to be the object of his regret. His regret was considerably increased by his separation from the young duke Francis, who, on his marriage with the heiress of the house of Austria, was obliged of course to reside at Vienna. The science of medals, upon which Duval had already read lectures in Lorraine, became now his favourite amusement, and he was desirous of making a collection of ancient and modern coins. He was deeply engaged in this pursuit, when the emperor Francis, who had formed a similar design, sent for him, that he might have the care and management of the collection. In 1751 he was appointed sub-preceptor to the archduke Joseph, the late emperor; but he refused this office, and gave the reasons of his refusal in writing. He preserved, nevertheless, the friendship of their majesties, and continued to receive new proofs of it. He was, indeed, beloved by all the Imperial family; but, from his extreme modesty, he was scarcely acquainted with the personsof many individuals of it. The eldest archduchesses passing him one day without his appearing to know them, the king of the Romans, who was a little behind them, and who perceived his absence, asked him if he knew those ladies “No, sir,” said he ingenuously. “I do not at all wonder at it,” replied the prince; “it is because my sisters are not antiques.” His health being impaired by his close application to study, he was advised to take a journey to re-establish it. He returned into France, and arrived at Paris in 1752, where he found a number of persons who were desirous of shewing him civilities, and rendering his abode agreeable, particularly the abbé Lenglet du Fresnoy, M. du Fresne d'Aubigny, the abbe Barthelemi, M. de Bose, M. Duclos, and Madame de Graffigny. On his return he passed by Artonay, his native village, and purchased his paternal cottage, which one of his sisters had sold from indigence; and having caused, it to be pulled down, he built on the spot a solid and commodious house, which he made a present of to the community, for the abode of the schoolmaster of the village. His beneficence distinguished itself also in a hamlet situated near Artonay, where, finding that there were no wells, he had some dug at his own expence.

, knt. memorable for his embassies at several courts, was born at Plymouth, in Devonshire, about 1563. He was the fifth and youngest son of Thomas Edmondes, head customer of that port, and of Fowey, in Cornwall, by Joan his wife, daughter of Antony Delabare, of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, csq. who was third son of Henry Edmondes, of New Sarum, gent by Juliana his wife, daughter of William Brandon, of the same place. Where he had his education is nut known. But we are informed that he was introduced to court by his name-sake, sir Thomas Edmonds, comptroller of the queen’s household; and, being initiated into public business under that most accomplished statesman, sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state, he was, undoubtedly through his recommendation, employed by queen Klizabcth in several embassies. In 1592, she appointed him her resident at the court of France, or rather agent for her affairs in relation to king Henry IV. with a salary of twenty shillings a day, a sum so ill paid, and so insufficient, that we find him complaining to the lord treasurer, in a letter dated 1593, of the greatest pecuniary distress. The queen, however, in May 1596, made him a grant of the office of secretary to her majesty for the French tongne, “in consideration of his faithful and acceptable service heretofore done.” Towards the end of that year he returned to England, when sir Anthony Mild may was sent ambassador to king Henry; but he went back again to France in the beginning of May following, and in less than a month returned to London. In October, 1597, he was dispatched again M agent for her majesty to the king of France and returned to EngJand about the beginning of May 1598, where his stay Was extremely short, for he was at Paris in the July following. But, upon sir Henry Neville being appointed ambassador to the French court, he was recalled, to his great satisfaction, and arrived at London in June 1597. Sir Henry Neville gave him a very great character, and recommended him to the queen in the strongest terms. About December the 26th of that year, he was sent to archduke Albert, governor of the Netherlands, with a letter of credence, and instructions to treat of a peace. The archduke received him with great respect; but not being willing to send commissioners to England, as the queen desired, Mr. Edmondes went to Paris, and, having obtained of king Henry IV. Boulogne for the place of treaty, he returned to England, and arrived at court on Sunday morning, February 17. The llth of March following, he embarked again for Brussels and, on the 22d, had an audience of the archduke, whom having prevailed upon to treat with the queen, he returned home, April 9, 1600, and was received by her majesty with great favour, and highly commended for his sufficiency in his negotiation. Soon after he was appointed one of the commissioners for the treaty of Boulogne, together with sir Henry Neville, the queen’s ambassador in France, John Herbert, esq. her majesty’s second secretary, and Robert Beale, esq. secretary to the council in the North; their commission being dated the 10th of May, 1600. The two last, with Mr. Edmondes, left London the 12th of that month, and arrived at Boulogne the 16th, as sir Henry Neville did the same day from Paris. But, after the commissioners had been above three months upon the place, they parted, July 28th, without ever assembling, owing to a dispute about precedency between England and Spain. Mr. Edmondes, not long after his return, was appointed one of the clerks of the privy-council; and, in the end of June 1601, was sent to the French king to complain of the many acts of injustice committed by his subjects against the English merchants. He soon after returned to England but, towards the end of August, went again, and waited upon king Henry IV. then at Calais to whom he proposed some measures, both for the relief of Ostend, then besieged by the Spaniards, and for an offensive alliance against Spain. After his return to England he was appointed one of the commissioners for settling, with the two French ambassadors, the depredations between England and France, and preventing them for the future. The 20th of May, 1603, he was knighted by king James I; and, upon the conclusion of the peace with Spain, on the 18th of August, 1604, was appointed ambassador to the archduke at Brussels. He set out for that place the 19th of April, 1605; having first obtained a reversionary grant of the office of clerk of the crown and, though absent, was chosen one of the representatives for the Burgh of Wilton, in the parliament which was to have met at Westminster, Nov. 5, 1605, but was prevented by the discovery of the gunpowder-plot. During his embassy he promoted, to the utmost of his power, an accommodation between the king of Spain and the States-General of the United Provinces . He was recalled in 1609, and came back to England about the end of August, or the beginning of September. In April 1610, he was employed as one of the assistant-commissioners, to conclude a defensive league with the crown of France; and, having been designed, ever since 1608, to be sent ambassador into that kingdom , he was dispatctyed thither in all haste, in May 1610, upon the new of the execrable murder of king Henry IV. in order to learn the state of affairs there. He arrived at Paris, May 24th, where he was very civilly received; and on the 27th of June, had his audience of Mary de Medicis, queen regent; the young king (Lewis XIII.) being present. In November following he caused an Italian to be apprehended at Paris for harbouring a treasonable design against his master, king James I. There being, in 1613, a competition between him and the Spanish ambassador about precedency, we are told that he went to Home privately, and brought a certificate out of the pope’s ceremonial, shewing that the king of England is to precede the king of Castile. He was employed the same year in treating of a marriage between Henrv prince of Wales and the princess Christine, sister of Lewis XIII. king of France; but the death of that prince, on the 6th of November 1612, put an end to this negotiation. And yet, on the 9th of the same month, orders were sent him to propose a marriage between the said princess and our prince Charles, but he very wisely declined opening such an affair so soon after the brother’s death. About the end of December 1613, sir Thomas desired leave to return to England, but was denied till he should have received the final resolution of the court of France about the treaty of marriage; which being accomplished, he came tp England towards the end or' January 1613-14. Though- the privy-council strenuously opposed this match because they had not sooner been made acquainted with so important an affair, yet, so zealous was the king for it, that he sent sir Thomas again to Paris with instructions, dated July 20, 1614, for bringing it ta a conclusion. But, after all, it appeared that the court of France were not sincere in this affair, and only proposed it to amuse the protestants in general. In 1616 sir Thomasassisted at the conference at Loudun, between the protestants and the opposite party; and, by his journey to liochelle, disposed the protestants to accept of the terms offered them, and was of great use in settling the pacification. About the end of October, in the same year, he was ordered to England; not to quit his charge, but, after he should have kissed the king’s hand, and received such honour as his majesty was resolved to confer upon him, in acknowledgment of his long, painful, and faithful services, then to go and resume his charge; and continue in France, till the affairs of that kingdom, which then were in an uncertain state, should be better established. Accordingly he came over to England in December; and, on the 21st of that month, was made comptroller of the king’s household; and, the next day, sworn a privy-counsellor. He returned to the court of France in April 1617; but took his leave of it towards the latter end of the same year. And, on the 19th of January, 1617-18, was advanced to the place of treasurer of the household; and in 1620 was appointed clerk of the crown in the court of king’s bench, and might have well deserved the post of secretary of state that he had been recommended for, which none was better qualified to discharge. He was elected one of the burgesses for the university of Oxford, in the first parliament of king Charles I. which met June 18, 1623, and was also returned for the same in the next parliament, which assembled at Westminster the 26th of February following; but his election being declared void, he was chosen for another place. Some of the speeches which he made in parliament are primed. On the 11th of June 1629, he was commissioned to go ambassador to the French court, on purpose to carry king Charles’s ratification, and to receive Lewis the XIIIth’s oath, for the performance of the treaty of peace, then newly concluded between England and France: which he did in September following, and with this honourable commission concluded all his foreign employments. Having, after this, enjoyed a creditable and peaceful retreat for about ten years, he departed this life, September 20, 1639. His lady was Magdalen, one of the daughters and co-heirs of sir John Wood, knight, clerk of the signet, by whom he had one son, and three daughters. She died at Paris, December 31, 1614, with a character amiable and exemplary in all respects. Sir Thomas had with her the manor of Albins, in the parishes of Stapleford-Abbot, and Navestoke in Essex, where Inigo Jones built for him a mansion ­house, delightfully situated in a park, now the seat of the Abdy family. Sir Thomas was small of stature, but great in understanding. He was a man of uncommon sagacity, and indefatigable industry in his employments abroad; always attentive to the motions of the courts where he resided, and punctual and exact in reporting them to his own; of a firm and unshaken resolution in the discharge of his duty, and beyond the influence of terror, flattery, or corruption. The French court, in particular, dreaded his experience and abilities; and the popish and Spanish party there could scarcely disguise their hatred of so zealous a supporter of the protestant interest in that kingdom. His letters and papers, in twelve volumes in folio, were once in the possession of secretary Thurloe, and afterwards of the lord chancellor Somers. The style of them is clear, strong, and masculine, and entirely free from the pedantry and puerilities which infected the most applauded writers of that age. Several of them, together with abstracts from the rest, were published by Dr. Birch in a work entitled “An historical view of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France, and Brussels, from the year 1592 to 1617. Extracted chiefly from the ms State-papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, kt. ambassador in France, &c. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon,” London, 1749, 8vo. Several extracts of letters, written by him in the early part of his political life, occur in Birch’s “Memoirs of queen Elizabeth,” and other letters are in Lodge’s “Illustrations of British History.”

king of England, deserves notice here as a young prince of great promise and high accomplishments, rather than as a sovereign, although in the latter character he afforded every presage of excellence, had his life been spared. He was the only son of Henry VIII. by queen Jane Seymour, and was born in 1538. From his maternal uncle, the duke of Somerset, he imbibed a zeal for the progress of the reformation. The ambitious policy of his courtiers, however, rendered his reign upon the whole turbulent, although his own disposition was peculiarly mild and benevolent, and amidst all these confusions, the reformation of religion made very great progress. He was at last, when in his sixteenth year, seized with the measles, and afterwards. with the small-pox, the effects of which he probably never quite recovered; and as he was making a progress through some parts of the kingdom, he was afflicted with a cough, which proved obstinate, and which gave way neither to regimen nor mexlicines. Several fatal symptoms of a consumption appeared, and though it was hoped, that as the season advanced, his youth and temperance might get the better of the malady, his subjects saw, with great concern, his bloom and vigour sensibly decay. After the settlement of the crown, which had been effected with the greatest difficulty, his health rapidly declined, and scarcely a hope was entertained of his recovery. His physicians were dismissed by the earl of Northumberland’s advice, and the young king was entrusted to the hands of an ignorant woman, who undertook to restore him to health in a very short time but the medicines prescribed were found useless violent symptoms were greatly aggravated and on the 6th of July, 1553, he expired at Greenwich, in the sixteenth year of his age, and the seventh of his reign. The excellent disposition of this young prince, and his piety and zeal in the prolestant cause, have rendered his memory dear to the nation. He possessed mildness of disposition, application to study and business, a capacity to learn and judge, and an attachment to equity and justice. He is to this day commemorated as the founder of some of the most splendid charities in the metropolis.

Bishop Burnet adds to this high character the following pleasing anecdote. King Edward VI. gave very early indications of a good disposition to learning, and of a most wonderful probity of mind, and above all, of great respect to religion, and every thing relating to it; so that when he was once in one of his childish diversions, somewhat beingto be reached at, that he and his companions were too low for, one of them laid on the floor a great Bible that was in the room, to step on, which he beholding with great indignation, took up the Bible himself, and gave over his play for that time. The same historian has printed a new service, which was translated by the young monarch from English into Latin, with a view to abolish certain superstitious ceremonies used at the installation of the knights of the garter. Burnet has also published, what does Edward most credit of all, his “Diary or Journal.” In this we have a clear proof of his sense, knowledge, and goodness, far beyond what could have been expected at his years. It gives, says lord Orford, hopes of his proving a good king, as in so green an age he seemed resolved to be acquainted with his subjects and his kingdom. The original of this is in the Cottonian library, with the paper already mentioned, in the king’s hand-writing, which contains hints and directions delivered to the privy council, Jan. 19, 1551. Mr. Park has reprinted this curious paper in his edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors,” to which this article is considerably indebted.

, an ingenious botanical painter, the son of the prince of Baden Durlach’s gardener, was born in 1710, and very early shewed a taste for drawing, and painting the flowers of the garden. Although he received no instructions, yet such was his proficiency, that, whilst a very young man, he had painted 500 plants with a skill and accuracy that was almost unexampled, under the disadvantages of so total a want of instruction as this young artist had experienced. His merit, however, remained long unknown, or at least ineffectually noticed, until it was discovered by a gentleman of curiosity and judgment, who visited the garden of which his father was the superintendant. Fortunately for young Ehret, this stranger was a physician and a friend of the celebrated Dr. Trew, of Norimberg, to whom he justly supposed these paintings would be acceptable. Ehret by this means was introduced to Trew, who immediately purchased the whole 500 paintings, and generously gave him double the price at which the young artist had modestly valued them.

Sir Gilbert Eliott, of Stobbs, had nine sons, of whotn our general was the youngest; and two daughters. His eldest brother, sir John Eliott, left the title and estate to his son sir Francis Eliott, nephew to the general. The general was born about the year 1718, and received thefirst rudiments of his education under a private tutor retained at the family seat. At an early age he was sent to the university of Leydcn, where he made a rapid progress in classical learning, and spoke with elegance and fluency the German and French languages. Being designed for a military life, he was sent from thence to the celebrated military school at La Fere in Picardy. This school was rendered the most famous in Europe by the great Vauban, under whom it was conducted. It was afterwards committed to the management and care of the comte d'Houroville. Here it was that the foundation was laid of that knowledge of tactics in all its branches, and particularly in the arts of engineering and fortification, which afterwards so greatly distinguished this officer. He completed his military course on the continent by a tour for the purpose of seeing in practice what he had been studying in thetsry, Prussia was the model for discipline, and he continued for some time as a volunteer in this service. Such were the steps taken by the young men of fashion in that day to accomplish themselves for the service of their country. Many of his contemporaries were then similarly engaged, nobly abandoning the enjoyments of ease and luxury at home, for the opportunity of seeing actual service.

, daughter of Peter the great, by the revolution of 1741, renewed in her person the line of that monarch on the throne of Russia. Elizabeth was born in 1709, and when arrived at years of maturity, was extremely admired for her great personal attractions. Her beauty, as well as her exalted rank, and large dowry, occasioned her several offers, none of which, however, took effect; and she died in celibacy. During the life of her father Peter I. a negotiation had commenced for her marriage with Lewis XV. but although not seriously adopted by the court of France, it was never relinquished until the daughter of Stanislaus, titular king of Poland, was publicly affianced to the young monarch. By the will of Catharine, Elizabeth was betrothed to Charles Augustus, bishop of Lubec, duke of Sleswick and Holstein, and brother to the king of Sweden; but he died before the completion of the ceremony. In the reign of Peter II. she was demanded by Charles margrave of Anspach in 1741, by the Persian tyrant Kouli Kan; and at the time of the revolution, the regent Ann endeavoured to force her to espouse prince Louis of Brunswick, for whom she entertained a settled aversion. From the period of her accession she renounced all' thoughts of the connubial state, and adopted her nephew Peter. Her dislike to marriage, however, certainly did not proceed from any rooted aversion to the other sex; for she would freely and frequently own to her confidants, that she was never happy but when she was in love; if we may dignify by that name a capricious passion ever changing its object. The same characteristic warmth of temper hurried her no less to the extremes of devotion: she was scrupulously exact in her annual confessions at Easter of the wanderings of her heart; in expressing the utmost contrition for her frequent transgressions; and in punctually adhering both in public and private to the minutest ceremonies and ordinances of the church. With respect to her disposition and turn of mind, she is generally styled the humane Elizabeth, as she made a vow upon her accession to inflict no capital punishments during her reign; and is reported to have shed tears upon the news of every victory gained by her troops, from the reflection that it could not have been obtained without great bloodshed. But although no criminal was formally executed in public, yet the state prisons were filled with wretched sufferers, many of whom, unheard of and unknown, perished in clamp and unwholesome dungeons: the state inquisition, or secret committee appointed to judge persons suspected of high treason, had constant occupation during her reign many upon the slightest surmises were tortured in secret many underwent the knoot, and expired under the infliction. But the transaction which reflects the deepest disgrace upon her reign, was the public punishment of two ladies of fashion; the countesses Bestuchef and Lapookin: each received fifty strokes of the knoot in the open square of Petersburg: their tongues were cut out; and they were banished into Siberia. One of these ladies, Madame Lapookin, esteemed the handsomest woman in Russia, was accused of carrying on a secret correspondence with the French ambassador; but her real crime was, her having commented too freely on the amours of the empress. Even the bare recital of such an affecting scene, as that of a woman of great beauty and high rank publicly exposed and scourged by the common executioner, must excite the strongest emotions of horror; and forbid us to venerate the memory of a princess, who, with such little regard to her own sex, could issue those barbarous commands. But let us at the same time lament the inconsistency of human nature; and, in considering the character of Elizabeth, let us not deny that her heart, perhaps naturally benevolent, was eventually corrupted by power, and steeled with suspicion; and that although mercy might predominate whenever it did not interfere with her passions and prejudices; yet she by no means deserves the appellation of humane, the most noble attribute of a sovereign when it interposes to temper and mitigate the severity of justice. Elizabeth died in 1761, in the twenty-first year of her reign, and in the fifty-third year of her age; she expired in December (the 25th), the same month in which she was born, and in which she acceded to the throne. It is asserted on unquestionable authority, that it was impossible to obtain this tzarina’s consent for the execution of a felon who had even committed the most horrid species of premeditated murder, and that the master of the police used secretly to order the executioner to knoot to death those delinquents who were found guilty of the most atrocious crimes. It is a pity that she did not reserve her humanity, which in this instance was cruelty to her people, for more respectable objects. By way of conclusion to the present article, it will not be unapt to add the following anecdote, especially as it must at the same time give pleasure to the reader. Although the sovereign of this empire is absolute in the most unlimited sense of the word; yet the prejudice of the Russians in regard to the necessity of torture (and a wise legislator will always respect popular prejudices, be they ever so absurd and unreasonable) was so deeply rooted by immemorial usage, that it required great circumspection in the present tzarina not to raise discontents by an immediate abolition of that inhuman practice. Accordingly, the cautious manner in which it was gradually suppressed, discovered no less judgment than benevolence. In 17C2, Catherine II. soon after her accession, took away the power of inflicting torture from the vayvodes, or inferior justices, by whom it had been shamefully abused. In 1767, a secret order was issued to the judges in the several provinces, that whenever they should think torture requisite to force a criminal to confession, they should draw up the general articles of the charge, and lay the case before the governor of the province for his consideration: and all the governors had received previous directions to determine the case according to the principles laid down in the third question of the tenth chapter of her majesty’s instructions for a code of laws; wherein torture is proved to be no less useless than cruel. This, therefore, was a tacit abolition of torture, which has been since formally and publicly annulled. The prohibition of this horrid species of judicature, throughout the vast dominions of the Russian empire, forms a memorable aera in the annals of humanity.

, the son of the preceding, was born at Hamburgh, Feb. 16, 1666. He learned of his father the first elements of painting; from whom he went to Amsterdam, and studied under Michael Van Musscher. Struck with the beauty of the works of Lairessc, he was fortunate enough to gain admission to his school in 1686, None conld be more assiduous than this disciple in follow^ ing the lessons of his master, whether in copying his works and those of others, or in painting from nature. The genius of the young painter was encouraged by Lairesse: one year of his instructions qualified him for composing freely, without following any other model than nature, and without having in view the manner of any one; his own is grand and noble, and his back grounds are of a fine architecture: among them are to be found the most valuable remains of the Ægyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans. If the scene of his composition was to be laid in one of these countries, he likewise introduced bas-reliefs relative to the time: he was a man of genius, and had a mind well stored with literature, and his pictures are therefore interesting both to painters and scholars. At Amsterdam he painted several cielings and large subjects for ornaments to the public halls and grand apartments. The elector of Mcntz took so much pleasure in contemplating his works, that he ordered of him two very large pictures, owe representing the Death of Alexander, the other the nuptials of Thetis and Peleus; which are both highly celebrated. The elector was so satisfied with them, that be amply paid the artist, and made him a rich present besides: he also appointed him his principal painter, but which title Elliger refused, as well as the pension that was attached to it, preferring his liberty, as he said, to an honourable bondage; and soon after retired to his own country. Typography was embellished with the ingenious compositions of his hand but this took up so much of his time, that he had but little for applying to grand works he made pictures in small sixes, not unworthy of being placed in the first cabinets. This good artist may justly boast also of the “Banquet of the Gods,” a large picture, sufficient, of itself to immortalize his name. But this man, to amiable, and so much esteemed, soon fell into intemperance and contempt, and his works no longer resembled those of his former years, scarcely any of them rising above mediocrity. He died Nov. 24, 1732, in the sixtysixth year of his age. In the cabinet of M. Half-Wassenaer, at the Hague, was lately his very fine picture representing Alexander dying.

Sir Thomas Elyot’s “Governor,” says Strype, waa designed to instruct men, especially great men, in good morals, and to reprove theirvices. It consisted of several chapters, treating concerning affability, benevolence, beneficence, the diversity of flatterers, and other similar subjects. In these chapters were some sharp and quick sentences, which offended many of the young men of fashion at that time. They complained of sir Thomas’s strange terms, as they called them; and said that it was no little presumption in him to meddle with persons of the higher and nobler ranks. The complaints of these gentlemen, who were always kicking at such examples as did bite them, our author compared to a galled horse, abiding no plasters. King Henry read and much liked sir Thomas Elyot’s treatise; and was particularly pleased with his endeavours to improve and enrich the English language. It was observed by his majesty, that throughout the book there was no new term made by him of a Latin or French word, and that no sentence was hereby rendered dark or hard to be understood.

, an ancient Christian writer, was born, about the year 320, at Besanduce, a village of Palestine, His parents are said by Cave to have been Jews; but others. are of opinion that there is no ground for this suspicion, since Sozomen affirms, that “from his earliest youth he was educated under the most excellent monks, upon which, account he continued a very considerable time in Ægypt.” It is certain, that, while he was a youth, he went into Ægypt, where he fell into the conversation of the Gnostics, who had almost engaged him in their party; but he soon withdrew himself from them, and, returning to his country, put himself for some time under the discipline of Hilarion, the father of the monks of Palestine. He afterwards founded a monastery near the village where he was born, and presided over it. About the year 367 he was elected bishop of Salamis, afterwards called Constantia, the metropolis of the isle of Cyprus, where he acquired great reputation by his writings and his piety. In the year 382, he was sent lor to Rome by the imperial letters, in order to determine the cause of Paulinus concerning the see of Antioch. In the year 3yi a contest arose between him and John, bishop of Jerusalem. Epipbanius accused John of holding the errors of Origen; and, going to Palestine, ordained Paulinian, brother of St. Jerom, deacon and priest, ill a monastery which did not belong to his jurisdiction. John immediately complained of this action of Epiphanius, as contrary to the canons and discipline of the church, and Epiphanius defended what he had done, in a letter to John. This dispute irritated their minds still more, which were already incensed upon the subject of Origen; and both of them endeavoured to engage Theophilus of Alexandria in their party. That prelate, who seemed at first to favour the bishop of Jerusalem, declared at last against Origen condemned his books in a council held in the year 399 and persecuted all the monks who were suspected of regarding his memory. These monks, retiring to Constantinople, were kindly received there by John Chrysostom; which highly exasperated Theophilus, who, from that time, conceived a violent hatred to Chrysostom. In the mean time Theophilus informed Epiphanius of what he had done against Origen, and exhorted him to do the same; upon which Epiphanius, in the year 401, called a council in the isle of Cyprus, procured the reading of Origen’s writings to be prohibited, and wrote to Chrysostom to do the same. Chrysostom, not approving this proposal, Epiphanius went to Constantinople, at the persuasion of Theophilus, in order to get the decree of the council of Cyprus executed. When he arrived there, he would not have any conversation with Cbrysostom, but used his utmost efforts to engage the bishops, who were then in that city, to approve of the judgment of the council of Cyprus against Origen. Not succeeding in this, he resolved to go the next day to the church of the apostles, and there condemn publicly all the books of Origen, and those who defended them; but as he was in the church, Cbrysostom informed him, by his deacon Serapion, that he was going to do a thing contrary to the laws of the church, and which might expose him to danger, as it would probably raise some sedition. This consideration stopped Epiphanius, who yet was so inflamed against Origen, that when the empress Eudoxia recommended to his prayers the young Theodosius, who was dangerously ill, he answered, that “the prince her son should not die, if she would but avoid the conversation of Dioscorides, and other defenders of Origen.” The empress, surprised at this presumptuous answer, sent him word, that “if God should think proper to take away her son, she would submit to his will that he might take him away as he had given him but that it was not in the power of Epiphanius to raise him from the dead, since he had lately suffered his own archdeacon to die.” Epiphanius’s heat was a little abated, when he had discoursed with Ammourns and his companions, whomTheophilus had banished for adhering to Origen’s opinions; for these monks gave him to understand that they did hot maintain an heretical doctrine, and that he had condemned them in too precipitate a manner. At last he resolved to return to Cyprus, and in his farewell to Chrysostom, he said, “I hope you will not die a bishop;” to which the latter replied, “I hope you will never return to your own country,” and both their hopes were realized, as Chrysostom was deposed from his bishopric, and Epiphanius died at sea about the year 403. His works were printed in Greek at Basil, 1544, in folio, and had afterwards a Latin translation made to them, which has frequently been reprinted. At last Petavius undertook an edition of them, together with a new Latin translation, which he published at Paris, 1622, with the Greek text revised and corrected by two manuscripts. This, which is the best edition, is in two volumes folio, at the end of which are the animadversions of Petavius, which however, are rather dissertations upon points of criticism and chronology, than notes to explain the text of his author. This edition was reprinted at Cologne, 1682, in 2 vols. folio.

The parliament, which met Dec. 14, 1537, appointed him by the title of “John Erskine of Dun, knight and provost of Montrose,” to go to the court of France, as one of the commissioners from Scotland, to witness the young queen’s (Mary) marriage with the dauphin, and to settle the terms of the marriage contract; and on his return he was surprised to find that the reformation was likely to be forwarded by the very means taken to suppress it. An aged priest named Mill, had suffered martyrdom at St. Andrew’s, and in the opinion of archbishop Spottiswood, “the death of this martyr was the death of popery in this realm.” The protestants were now increasing in numbers, and were not a little encouraged by the death of queen Mary of England, and the accession of Elizabeth, whom they knew to be favourable to their cause. The queen regent of Scotland was therefore addressed more boldly than before by the protestant lords, in behalf of the free exercise of their religion, and by Erskine among the rest; but, although his demands and language are said to have been more moderate than the rest, this produced no effect, and a proclamation was issued, requiring the protestant ministers to appear at Stirling, May 10, 1559, and there to be tried for reputed heresy. The protestant lords and other laity determined upon this to accompany and defend their ministers, and much confusion would have immediately ensued, if Mr. Erskine had not obtained a promise from the queen regent, that the ministers should not be tried; and the people were ordered to disperse. No sooner had this been done, than the queen broke her promise, and a civil war followed, for the particulars of which we must refer to the page of history. It may suffice to notice here, that Mr. Erskine occasionally assisted as a temporal baron, but before the war was concluded, he relinquished his armour, and became a preacher, for which by his learning and study of the controversies between the church of Rome and the reformers, he was well qualified. The civil war ended in favour of the prntestant party, by the death of the queen regent in 1560 and a parliament, or convention of the estates was immediately held, who began their proceedings by appointing a committee of lords, barons, and burgesses, to distribute the few protestant ministers whom they then had, to the places where their services were most required. The committee nominated some of them to the chief cities, and as “The first book of Discipline” was now produced, they, agreeably to the plan proposed in that book, nominated five ministers who should act in the capacity of ecclesiastical Supkrintendants. Mr. Erskine was one of these five, and had the superintendency of all ecclesiastical matters in the counties of Angus and Mearus, and from this period Ins usual designation was, “John Erskine of Dun, knight, superintendant of Angus and Mearus.” This was in fact a kind of episcopal authority, conferred for life; but for their conduct the superintendants were accountable to the general assembly of the clergy. Their office was sufficiently laborious, as well as invidious; and we find Mr. Erskine several times applying to be dismissed. In 1569, by virtue of his office, he had to suspend from their offices for their adherence to popery, the principal, sub-principal, and three professors of King’s-college, Aberdeen. In 1577, he had a hand in compiling the “Second Book of Discipline,” or model for the government of a presbyterian church, which still exists; and in other respects he was an active promoter of the reformation as then established, until his death, March 21, 1591, in the eightysecond year of his age. Buchanan, Knox, and Spottiswood, agree in a high character of him; and even queen Mary preferred him as a preacher, because, she said, he “was a mild and sweet natured man, and of true honesty and uprightness.”

, a celebrated orator of the fourth century, was a Greek by family, as his name imports, but was born at Autun, as he himself informs us in the fine panegyrie which he spoke at Treves in the year 309, in the presence of Constantine the Great. In the year 311 he again delivered an oration before that prince at Treves, as spokesman for the inhabitants of Autun, whom Constantine had honoured with a visit, and on whose city he had bestowed marks of liberality and favour. Eumenius long taught rhetoric in that city, and was highly esteemed by Constantine, as he had before been by Constantius Chlorus, the emperor’s father, who died in the year 306. Eumenius appeared to most advantage in the oration which he delivered before Rictiovarus, or Riccius Varus, the prefect of Lyons, in favour of the public schools for the young Gauls, of which he himself had the care. They had been destroyed by the incursions of some rebels, and Eumenius, in order to their re-establishment, offered the whole of his salary, which is said to have amounted to 600,000 sesterces, or more than 3000l. of our money; but this appears to have included his salary as imperial secretary, an office which he also held. All that remain of his works are printed in the “Panegyrici veteres.” His style indicates the declension of pure Latinity.

This warm censure might be safely trusted by our author, without any answer, in those days, when none pretended to decide without hearing both parties with attention. It is, however, but doing common justice to his memory, to set these points in a clear light, which may be done in a very narrow compass. In the first place, Mr. Evelyn lays down facts that are indisputable; for he mentions no improvement in his book without clear authority. On the contrary, Mr. Houghton’s is a supposition, and a supposition that is entirely groundless. He values the young ashplant at a shilling; he might have read in Mr. Evelyn, that an hundred saplings, of three years growth, are worth but eighteen pence. Instead of fourscore and four years, he ought to have set down a third, or at most half, of that time; and then, at his own rate of compound interest, the value of the plant would not have exceeded a single penny. His objections to the second instance are not less frivolous. Barren ground, in the common acceptation of the word, is ground worth nothing, and for that reason unlet and unemployed: our critic will have it worth three shillings an acre, and, having thus created a rent of nine shillings a year, he converts it next imo a rent-charge, and supposes a sixty years lease of this barren land to be worth two-and-thirty years purchase; and this money, put out at compound interest, is run up to twice as much as the wood is worth. We will not push things to extremity, but suppose with him the land worth nine shillings a year, and to be sold for twenty years purchase, which would produce nine pounds. That nine pounds placed out at compound interest, at the rate of six per cent would amount, in sixty years, to two hundred eighty-eight pounds; so that there is twelve pounds, and all the intermediate profits by lopping, to pay for the original plantation and cultivation of the trees. Upon the whole it is manifest, even from this author’s manner of arguing, that planting wood is not only more honest and virtuous, but at the same time a safer and speedier way of raising a great fortune than the most exorbitant usury.

, a learned Italian orator and grammarian, was born Jan. 4, 1682, at Toreglia, and studied principally at Padua, where he took his degree of doctor in divinity in 1704, and taught for some time, and afterwards was professor of philosophy for three years. He was then appointed regent of the schools. As the Greek and Latin languages were now his particular department, he bestowed much pains in providing his scholars with suitable assistance, and with that view, reviewed and published new and improved editions of the Lexicons of Calepinus, Nizolius, and Schrevelius. Some years after he was promoted to be logic professor, and in that as well as the former situation, endeavoured to introduce a more correct and useful mode of teaching, and published a work on the subject for the use of his students. In 1739, when the business of teaching metaphysics was united to that of logic, Facciolati was desirous of resigning, that he might return to his original employment; but the magistrates of Padua would by no means allow that their university should be deprived of his name, and therefore, allowing him to retain his title and salary, only wished him to take in hand the history of the university of Padua, which Papadopoli had written, and continue it down to the present time. This appears, from a deficiency of proper records, a very arduous task, yet by dint of perseverance he accomplished it in a manner, which although not perfectly satisfactory, as far as regards the “Fasti Gymnastici,” yet was entirely so in the “Syntagmata.” He wrote also some works in theology and morals, and had the ambition to be thought a poet, but his biographer Fabroni thinks that in this he was not successful. His principal excellence was as a classical scholar and critic, especially in the Latin, and his high fame procured him an invitation from the king of Portugal to superintend a college for the young nobility at Lisbon, but he excused himself on account of his advanced age. Fabroni mentions a set of china sent to him by this sovereign, which he says was a very acceptable present, and corresponded to the elegant furniture of Facciolati’s house. He had a garden in which he admitted no plants or fruittrees but what were of the most choice and rare kind, and four or five apples from Facciolati’s garden was thought no mean present. In every thing he was liberal to his friends, and most benevolent to the poor. He died in advanced age of the iliac passion, Aug. 27, 1769.

Faerno died in the prime of life, at Rome, Nov. 17,1561. Plow much might have been expected from his talents and habits of study, had he lived longer, ntay appear from, what he left: 1. “Terentii Comcediae,” Florence, 15.65, 2 vols. 8vo, a valuable and rare edition. There is no ancient editor to whom Terence is more indebted than to Faerno; who, by a judicious collation of ancient manuscripts and editions, especially the one belonging to Bembus (examined by Politian, and unknown to all preceding editors), has restored the true reading of his author 4n many important passages. Faerno’s edition became the basis of almost every subsequent one, and Dr. Bentley bad such an opinion of his notes that he reprinted them entire in his edition. 2. “Ciceronis Orationes Philippicae,” Rome, 1563, 8vo, very highly praised by Graevius. 3. “Centum Fabulae ex antiquis Autoribus delectae, et carminibus explicate,” Rome, 1564, 4to, with prints, from which it is said that the subjects for the fountains at Versailles were taken. There is another edition of London, 1743, 4to, very beautiful, but not so much valued as the former. It is said that this work was occasioned by a wish expressed by the pope that he would make a collection of the best of Esop’s fables, and those of other ancient authors, and put them into Latin verse for the instruction of the young. 4. “Censura emendationum Livianarum Sigonii.” Among the collections of Latin poetry written by Italian scholars are some attributed to Faerno, as “In Lutheranos, sectam Germanicam” “Ad Homobonum Hoffredum” a Physician of Cremona; “In Maledicum,” &c.

, a learned grammarian, was born in London about 1575. His father was a carpenter in that city his grandfather had been mayor of Truro in Cornwall and his great-grandfather was an Italian musician, who had settled in England. After having received a proper grammatical education, he was admitted of Merton-college, Oxford, in the beginning of 1590, where he became servitor to Mr. Thomas French, fellow of that college, and soon distinguished himself as a youth of lively parts and great hopes. Being, however, of an unsettled disposition, he abruptly quitted the university, and, abandoning both his religion and his country, passed over to Spain, and was for some time educated there in a college belonging to the Jesuits. At length, growing weary of the severe discipline of the institution, he found a way to leave it, and went with sir Francis Drake and sir John Hawkins in their last voyage, in 15^5. By the former of these great naval commanders he is said to have been held in some esteem. Mr. Farnabie is afterwards reported to have served as a soldier in the Low Countries. No advantage was gained by him in these expeditions; for, having been reduced to much distress, he landed in Cornwall, and from the urgency of his necessities was obliged to descend to the humble employment of teaching children their horn-book. Whilst he was in this low situation he did not cbuse to go by his own name, but changed it to Thomas Baimafe, the anagram of Farnabie. By degrees he rose to those higher occupations of a school-master for which he was so well qualified, and after some lime, he fixed at Martock in Somersetshire, where he taught a grammarschool with great success. In 1646, when Mr. Charles Darby was called to teach the same school, he found in that town, and the neighbourhood, many persons who had been Mr. Farnahie’s scholars, and who, in their grey hairs, were ingenious men and good grammarians. From Martock Mr. Farnabie removed to London, and opened a school in Goldsmiths’-rents, behind Red-Cross-street, near Cripplegate, where were large gardens and handsome houses, together with all the accommodations proper for the young noblemen and gentlemen committed to his care. So established was his reputation, that at one time the number of his scholars amounted to more than three hundred. Whilst he was at the head of this school, he was created master of arts in the university of Cambridge, and on the 24th of April, 1616, was incorporated to the same degree at Oxford.

In the course of these studies, he contrived mathematical instruments, and was at great expence in having them made. His wife, however, was alarmed at those expences, by which even a part of her fortune was wasted. She murmured, cried, and complained to her father, who was a counsellor at Paris. Fernet submitted at last, sent all his instrument-makers away s and applied himself seriously to the practice of physic. But, as visiting patients did not employ his whole time, he resumed the same office in which he had been engaged already, of reading public lectures upon Hippocrates and Galen. This soon gained him a great reputation through France, and in foreign countries. His business increasing, he left off reading lectures; but as nothing could make him cease to study in private, he spent all the hours he could spare in composing a work of physic, entitled “Physiologia,” which was soon after published. He was prevailed upon to read lectures on thii new work, which he did for three years; and undertaking another work, which he published, “De vensesectione,” he laid himself under a necessity of reading lectures some years longer; for it was passionately desired that he would also explain this new book to the young students.

His wife was Mary, daughter of Laurence Wodenoth, esq. of an ancient family in Cheshire. By her he had a numerous family, to whom he gave a pious education. Their daily practice was to read, and to speak by memory, some portion of the Scriptures, and parts of the Book of Martyrs; they were also made acquainted with such passages of history as were suited to their tender years. They were all instructed in music in performing on the organ, viol, and lute, and in the theory and practice; of singing in the learned and modern languages in curious needleworks, and all the accomplishments of thai time. The young men, when arrived at years of discretion, had permission each to choose his profession, and then no expence was spared to bring him to a distinguished excellence in it. For, this was an invariable maxim with the parents, that, having laid a firm foundation in religion and virtue, they would rather give them a good education without wealth, than wealth without a good education.

As they came into the church, every person made a low obeisance, and all took their appointed places. The masters and gentlemen in the chancel; the youths knelt on the upper step of the half-pace; Mrs. Ferrar, her daughters, and all her grand-daughters, in a fair island seat. Mr. Nicholas Ferrar at coming in made a low obeisance a few paces farther, a lower and at the half-pace a lower still then went into the reading-desk, and read the morning service according to the book of Common Prayer. This service over, they returned in the same order, and with the same solemnity. This ceremonial was regularly observed every Sunday, and that on every common day was nearly the same. They rose at four at five went to the oratory to prayers; at six, said the Psalms of the hour for every hour had its appointed Psalms, with some portion of the Gospel, till Mr. Ferrar had finished his Concordance, when a chapter of that work was substituted in place of the portion of the Gospel. Then they sang a short hymn, repeated some passages of scripture, and at half past six went to church to mattins. At seven said the Psalms of the hour, sang the short hymn, and went to breakfast. Then the young people repaired to their respective places of instruction. At ten, to church to the Litany. At eleven to dinner. At which season were regular readings in rotation from scripture, from the Book of Martyrs, and from short histories drawn up by Mr. Ferrar, and adapted to the purpose of moral instruction. Recreation was permitted till one; instruction was continued till three church at four, for evensong supper at five, or sometimes six diversions till eight. Then prayers in the oratory and afterwards all retired to their respective apartments." To preserve regularity in point of time, Mr. Ferrar invented dials in painted glass in every room: he had also sun-dials, elegantly painted with proper mottos, on every side of the church; and he provided an excellent clock to a sonorous bell.

Four of Mr. Collet’s eldest daughters being grown up to woman’s estate, to perfect them in the practice of good housewifery, Mr. Ferrar appointed them, in rotation, to take the whole charge of the domestic ceconomy. Each had this care for a month, when her accounts were regularly passed, allowed, and delivered over to the next in succession. There was also the same care and regularity required with respect to the surgeon’s chest, and the due provision of medicines, and all things necessary for those who were sick, or hurt by any misfortune. A convenient apartment was provided for those of the family who chanced to be indisposed, called the infirmary, where they might be attended, and properly taken care of, without disturbance from any part of the numerous family. A large room was also set apart for the reception of the medicines, and of those who were brought in sick or hurt, and wanted immediate assistance. The young ladies were required to dress the wounds of those who were hurt, in order to give them readiness and skill in this employment, and to habituate them to the virtues of humility and tenderness of heart. The office relative to pharmacy, the weekly inspection, the prescription, and administration of medicines, Mr. Ferrar reserved to himself, being an excellent physician; as he had for many years attentively studied the theory and practice of medicine, both when physic fellow at Clare Hall, and under the celebrated professors at Padua. In this way was a considerable part of their income disposed of.

In the beginning of 1643 he was forced to change his place, and retire for safety into a moorish and boggy ground, where, sheltering himself under a shepherd’s cot, no better than a hovel, which did not keep out the wind and rain, he lived there in a very sorry condition, and had for his bedding a pad of straw, which would be often wet by the rising and coming in of the water. Notwithstanding all this misery he seemed to be very chearful, and was ready to instruct the young ones about him, and comfort others. But being in a manner spent, and his age not able to bear such misery long, he was with great difficulty taken away, and being conveyed by some of the brethren into a better place, he expired among them, February 1, 1643-4. By his death the Roman catholics lost a pillar of their church, being esteemed, in the better part of his lile, a great ornament among them, and the greatest defender of their religion in his time. Besides the pieces already mentioned, he wrote, 1. “A Justification and Exposition of the sacrifice of the Mass,” in two books, or more, printed in 1611, 4to. 2. “Britannomachia ministrorum in plerisque et fidei fundamentis et fidei articulis dissidentium,” Duac. 1614, 4to. 3. “A Catalogue of the Irish Saints,” Antwerp, 1621, 8vo. Ware says he also wrote a treatise to prove that Ireland was called Scotia, but he doubts whether this was ever published.

About this time the Ritterschule having been established at Kremsmunster, Placid us was appointed professor of canon-law; a department in which he had acquired great reputation at the university. This office he held for forty years, and resigned it only a short time before his death. Almost about the same period he was appointed dean of the higher school, and soon after principal regent over the young nobility; which places he retained also till his death. He possessed great knowledge of the canonlaws, and on that account was often employed in processes and other affairs relating to the convent. He was likewise inscribed Apostolical notary in the Roman court.

, an English bishop, was descended from the family of Fleetwood just mentioned, and born in the Tower of London, in which his father, JefFery Fleetwood had resided, Jan. 21, 1656. He was educated at Eton, whence he was elected to king’s college in Cambridge. About the time of the revolution he entered into holy orders; and from the first was a celebrated preacher. He was soon after made chaplain to king William and queen Mary; and by the interest of Dr. Godolphin, at that time vice-provost of Eton, and residentiary of St. Paul’s, he was made fellow of that college, and rector of St. Austin’s, London, which is in the gift of the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s. Soon after he obtained also the lecture of St. Dunstan’s in the West, probably by his great reputation and merit as a preacher. In 1691 he published, 1. “Inscriptionum Antiquarum Sylloge,” &c. 8vo. This collection of ancient inscriptions consists of two parts: the first, containing remarkable pagan inscriptions collected from Gruter, Keinesius, Spon, and other writers the second, the ancient Christian monuments the whole illustrated with very short notes for the use of the young antiquary. In 1692 he translated into English, revised, and prefixed a preface to, 2. “Jurieu’s plain method of Christian Devotion, laid down in discourses, meditations, and prayers, fitted to the various occasions of a religious life;” the 27th edition of which was printed in 1750. In the mean time he was highly distinguished by his talents for the pulpit, which rendered him so generally admired, that he was frequently called to preach upon the most solemn occasions; as, before the king, queen, lordmayor, &c. In 1701 he published, 3. “An Essay upon Miracles,” 8vo, written in the manner of dialogue, and divided into two discourses. Some singularities in it occasioned it to be animadverted upon by several writers, particularly by Hoadly, in “A Letter to Mr. FleetvVood, 1702;” which letter is reprinted in Hoadly’s tracts, 1715, in 8vo. The author of Fleetwood’s life assures us that the bishop did not give up his opinions, though he disliked, and avoided controversy. This essay is said to contain the substance of what he would have preached at Mr. Boyle’s lectures, in case his health would have permitted him to undertake that task when it was offered him.

His principal works are, I. “Tales,” Amsterdam, 1G85, 2 vols. 8vo, with plates by Remain de Hooge. To distinguish the original of this edition from the counterfeits, it is necessary to observe that the word Kalverstraat on the title pagre is put with a little s; in the other the S is a capital; but this edition has been eclipsed by one with engravings from Eisen’s designs, and vignettes by Choffort, 1762, 2 vols. 8vo. This also has been counterfeited in Holland, in. 1764, but the plates are so much inferior, that the genuine edition may be easily distinguished. In the copies which have the best proofs of the plates, the criterion is, there should be no drapery on the woman’s thigh who is speaking to the devil of Papefiguiere; nor any branch of a tree on the young man in the “Cas de Conscienca.” 2. “Fables,” of which a very elegant edition was published, 1757, with short notes by M. Coste there are editions with plates in 5 and in 2 vols. 12mo; but nothing equals the magnificent one of 1755, 4 vols. fol. It is 'a masterpiece of typography, and the borders are in a new style of engraving in wood. A moderate edition has since appeared, the whole of it engraved, the subject and the figures, 6 vols. 8vo. 3. “CEuvres diverses,” reprinted at Paris, 1758, 4 vols. 12mo. All La Fontaine’s works were collected, 1726, 3 vols. 4to; an elegant edition, bordered. The principal of them, besides the Fables and Tales, are, “Les Amours de Pysche et de Cupidon,” in verse and in prose; “L'Eunuque,” a comedy; the poem “Du Quinquina,” and other poetical pieces.

, a voluminous French writer, the son of a scrivener at Paris, was born in 1625, and received at the age of twenty into the: society of the celebrated solitaries of Port Royal, in a subordinate office, but in the course of time obtained the^ chief superintendance of the young men who were sent there for education; He employed his leisure hours in severe literary labours, such as transcribing the works of several of these solitaries. He followed Nicole and Arnauld, to whom he had been a kind of secretary, into their different places of retreat; in 1664 he was shut up in the Bastille with Sacy, and came out of it with him in 16f>8. After the death of Sacy, in 1684, he frequently changed his retreat, but established himself finally at Mel un, where he died in 1709, at the age of eighty-four. His works are principally, 1. “Lives of the Saints of the Old Testament,” 4 torn. 8vo. 2. “Lives of the Saints” in general, the same number of volumes, or 1 in folio. 3. “Les figures de Bible,” or a history of tha Bible, in short chapters, which has often been printed under the title of “Bible de Royaumont,” and there is an English edition in 4to, with above 300 prints. 4. “Memoirs of the Solitaries of Port Royal,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “Translation of St.' ChrysostonVs Homilies on St. Paul’s Epistles,” 7 vols. 8vo. His versions are written with fidelity, but not always with vigour. He was far inferior to Arnauld and Nicole, whom he admired; but his piety was worthy of Port Royal. He was distinguished for innocence of manners, laborious, edifying simplicity of life, sincere modesty, unparalleled disinterestedness, and a steadiness of faith superior to all trials. A man of so many virtues deserves to be recorded, though not among the first class of authors. It remains to be added that his translation of Chrysostom involved him in trouble. Father Daniel, a Jesuit, accused him of Nestorianism, and denounced, him in a letter to the Sorbonne. Fontaine made a very humble and respectful retraction, and substituted several new pages in those parts which had been found reprehensible; but, as this did not prevent M. de Harlai from condemning his translation, he undertook its defence in a work where he asserts, that he has faithfully translated St. Chrysostom, and not fallen into heresies.

, nephew of the former, and also the son of a goldsmith, was born at Paris in 1658. He became lord of Aubigny by purchasing the lands to which that title was attached. He was successively secretary to the marquis de Crequi, and the duke d'Aumont. When the former of these noblemen was slain at the battle of Luzara, La Fosse was employed to carry his heart to Paris, and celebrated the death of the young hero in verses which are still extant. He was so much a master of Italian as to write skilfully in that language both in prose and verse, but his chief fame as a poet was atchieved in his own language, in which he wrote several tragedies, and many other poems. His ft Polixene, Manlius, and Theseus,“published in his” Theatre,“2 vols. 12mo, maintained their station in the French theatre till the revolution; and all his dramas are said to abound with passages which would not disgrace the finest tragic writers of France. His versification was highly finished, and he said that the expression cost him more than the thoughts. His” Manlius," the best of his pieces, has been pronounced in many respects worthy of Corneille; yet even in France, we are told, he is less known than he deserves. He was intimate with the poet J. Baptiste Rousseau, and lived the life of a philosopher, preferring letters to fortune, and friendship to every thing. He died Nov. 2, 1708, at the age of fifty. His modesty was equal to his genius; and when any of his pieces were less successful than others, he professed constantly that he never appealed from the judgment of the public.

Almost immediately after this event Froissart found another patron in Guy count de 3lojis, who made him clerk oJ' his chapel; and he testified his gratitude by a pastoral, and epithalamium on a marriage in the family. He passed the years 1385, 1386, and 1387, sometimes in the Blaisois, sometimes in Touraine; but the count de Blois having engaged him to continue his history, which he left unfinished, he determined in 1388 to take advantage of the peace which was just concluded, to visit the court of Gaston Phoebus count de Foix, in order to gain full information in whatever related to foreign countries, and the more distant provinces of the kingdom-. His health and age still allowed him to bear great fatigue; his memory was suifrciently strong to retain whatever he should hear; and his judgment clear enough, to point out to him the use he should make of it. In his journey to the count de Foix, he met on the road with sir Espaing du Lyon, a gallant knight who had served in the wars, and was able to give him much information. At length they arrived at Ortez in Beam, the ordinary residence of the count de Foix, where Froissart met with a society suited to. his views, composed of brave captains who had distinguished themselves in combats or tournaments. Here Froissart used to entertain Gaston, after supper, by reading to him the romance of “Meliador,” which he had brought with him. After a considerable residence at this court, he left it in the suite of the young duchess of Berry, whom he accorupanied to Avignon. His stay here, however, was unfortunate, as he was robbed; which incident he made the subject of a long poem, representing his loss, and his expensive turn. Among other things he says that the composition of his works had cost him 700 francs, but he regretted, not this expence, for he adds, “I have composed many a history which will be spoken of by posterity.”

, a Romish saint, is usually called the Apostle of Ethiopia, on account of his having first propagated Christianity in that country, in the fourth century. He was the nephew of one Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre, who being induced to travel to Ethiopia, carried with him his two nephews, Frumentius and Edesius, with whose education he had been entrusted. In the course of their voyage homewards, the vessel touched at a certain port to take in provisions and fresh water, and the whole of the passengers were murdered by the barbarians of the country, except the two children, whom they presented to the king, who resided at Axuma, formerly one of the greatest cities of the East. The king, being charmed with the wit and sprightliness of the two boys, had them carefully educated, and when grown up, made Edesius his cup-bearer, and Frumentius, who was the elder, his treasurer and secretary of state, entrusting him with all the public writings and accounts. Nor were they less highly honoured after the king’s death by the queen, who was regent during her son’s minority. Frumentius had the principal management of affairs, and soon turned his attention to higher objects than the politics of the country. He met with some Roman merchants who traded there, and having by their means discovered some Christians who were in the kingdom, he encouraged them to associate for the purposes of religious worship; and at length erected a church for their use; and certain natives, instructed in the gospel, were converted. On the young king’s accession to the government, Frumentius, though with much reluctance on the part of the king and his mother, obtained leave to return to his own country. Edesius accordingly returned to Tyre; but Frumentius, on his arrival at Alexandria, communicated his adventures to Athanasius the bishop, and informed him of the probability of converting the country to Christianity, if missionaries were sent thither. On mature consideration, Athanasius told him, that none was so fit for the office as himself. He consecrated him therefore first bishop of the Indians, and Frumentius returning to a people who had been acquainted with his integrity and capacity, preached the gospel with much success, and erected many churches, although the emperor Constantius endeavoured to introduce Arianism, and actually ordered that Frumentius should be deposed, and an Arian bishop appointed; but the country was happily out of his reach. Frumentius is supposed to have died about the year 360. The Abyssinians honour him as the apostle of the country of the Axumites, which is the most considerable part of their empire.

, son and successor to his father, the subject of the preceding article, was born in London, in 1597, and entered of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1612, on an exhibition from the Mercers’ company. When he had taken his master’s degree, he became usher under his father in St. Paul’s school, and under Thomas Farnaby, in his private school, but succeeded his father in 1635, and next year took the degree of D. D. He held the school only five years, being dismissed, as Knight thinks, for excessive severity. An allowance, however, was made to him of 25l. yearly, with which he set up a private school in Aldersgate-street, where he died in 1642, and was buried in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate. Wood speaks of his “unsettled and inconstant temper,” and of his “many changes, rambles, and some imprisonments,” but upon what account he does not inform us. Some light, however, is thrown upon the circumstance of imprisonments at least, in a late publication of Aubrey’s Lives. In his account of Chillingworth he says, “Dr. Gill, films doctorisGill, schoolmaster of Paules school, and Chillingworth, held weekely intelligence one with another for some years, wherein they used to nibble at state-matters. Dr. Gill, in one of his letters, calls king James and his sonne, the old foole and the young one, which letter Chillingworth communicated to W. Laud, A. B. Cant. The poore young Dr. Gill was seised, and a terrible storme pointed towards him, which by the eloquent intercession and advocation of Edward earle of Dorset, together with the teares of the poore old doctor, his father, and supplication on his knees to his majestic, was blowne over.” Most of his Latin poetry, in which he excelled, is published in a volume entitled “Poetici Conatus,” 1632, 12mo, but he has other pieces extant both in Latin and English, some of which are enumerated by Wood, who had seen others in manuscript. When usher of St. Paul’s school, he had the honour of having Milton under him, who was his favourite scholar. Three of Milton’s familiar Latin letters to him are extant, replete with the strongest testimonies of esteem and friendship. Milton also pays him high compliments on the excellence of his Latin poetry. He gave to the library of Trinity college the old folio edition of Spenser’s “Faerie Queene,” Brayton’s “Polyolbion,” by Selden; and Bourdelotius’s “Lucian,” all having poetical mottos from the classics in his own hand-writing, which shew his taste and track of reading; and in the “Lucian” are the arms of the Gills elegantly tricked with a pen, and coloured by him. He had two brothers, George and Nathaniel, who were both of the same college.

, a learned French Dominican, was born at Paris, of a reputable family, in 1601, and after a classical education, took the habit of his order in 1619. He then employed six years in the study of philosophy and theology, after which he was sent to Toul to instruct the young men of his order in these sciences. In the mean time his extreme partiality to the Greek, and his extensive reading in Greek literature, inspired him with a great desire to visit the country of the modern Greeks, and inquire into their sentiments and customs; and having obtained leave of his superiors, he set out in 1631, as an apostolic missionary, and was for the sake of local convenience, made prior of the convent of St. Sebastian, in the island of Chios. Here he resided eight years, conversing with the ablest of the natives, and inquiring into their history, religion, and manners. Before returning to France he went to Rome in 1640, where he was appointed prior of the convent of St. Sixtus, and being arrived at Paris, was made master of the novices, and began to employ his time in preparing his works for the press. This was an object so much at heart, that when elected in 1652 vicar-general of his order, he accepted it with great reluctance, as likely ta interrupt his labours. It is supposed, indeed, that his intense application, and the various duties of this office, impaired his health, and brought on a slow fever, which proved fatal Sept. 23, 1653. His principal work was his collection of Greek liturgies, published under the title of “Euchologion, sive rituale Grcecorum,” Paris, 1647, fol. a very curious and rare work. There is, however, a second edition printed at Venice in 1730. Goar also translated some of the Byzantine historians for the collection printed at the Louvre.

, an eminent and learned bookseller, was born Dec. 11, 1635, at Middleburg. Losing Jhis father early in life, he was so unfortunate as to have a harsh father-in-law, who, being no scholar himself, would not permit the young man to devote his time to study, but forced him to choose some business. Goere'e fixed on that of a bookseller, as one which would not wholly exclude him from the conversation of the learned, nor from the pursuit of his studies; and he accordingly found time enough, notwithstanding his necessary occupations, to cultivate his genius, and even to write several valuable books, in Flemish, on architecture, sculpture, painting, engraving, botany, physic, and antiquities. He died May 3, 1711, at Amsterdam. His principal works are, “Jewish Antiquities,” 2 vols. fol. “History of the Jewish Church, taken from the Writings of Moses,” 4 vols. fol. “Sacred and Prophane History,” 4to “Introduction to the practice of universal Painting,” 8yo “Of the Knowledge of Man with respect to his Nature, and Painting,” 8vo “Universal Architecture,” &c.

, an eminent modern Italian dramatist, was born at Venice in 1707. In his infancy the drama was his darling amusement, and all his time was devoted to the perusing comic writers, among whom was Cicognini, a Florentine, little known in the dramatic commonwealth. After having well studied these, he ventured to sketch out the plan of a comedy, even before he went to school. When he had finished his grammatical studies at Venice, and his rhetorical studies at the Jesuits’ college in Perugia, he was sent to a boarding-school at Rimini, to study philosophy, but he paid far more attention to the theatres, entered into a familiar acquaintance with the actors, and when they were to remove to Chiozza, made his escape in their company. This was the first fault he committed, which, according to his own confession, drew a great many others after it. His father had intended him to be a physician, like himself: the young man, however, was wholly averse to the study. He proposed afterwards to make him an advocate, and sent him to be a practitioner in Modena; but a horrid ceremony of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, at which he was present, inspired him with a melancholy turn, and he determined to become a Capuchin. Of this, however, he was cured by a visit to Venice, where he indulged in all the fashionable dissipation of the place. He was afterwards prevailed upon by his mother, after the death of his father, to exercise the profession of a lawyer in Venice, but by a sudden reverse of fortune he was compelled to quit at once both the bar and Venice. He then went to Milan, where he was employed by the resident of Venice in the capacity of secretary, and becoming acquainted with the manager of the theatre, he wrote a farce entitled “II Gondoliere Veneziano,” the Venetian Gondolier; which was the first comic production of his that was performed and printed. Some time after, Goldoni quitted the Venetian resident, and removed to Verona, where he got introduced to the manager of the theatre, for which he composed several pieces. Having removed along with the players to Genoa, he was for the first time seized with an ardent passion for a lady, who soon afterwards became his wife. He then returned with the company to Venice, where he displayed, for the first time, the powers of his genius, and executed his plan of reforming the Italian stage. He wrote the “Momolo,” “Courtisan,” the “Squanderer,” and other pieces, which obtained universal admiration. Feeling a strong inclination to reside some time in Tuscany, he repaired to Florence and Pisa, where he wrote “The Footman of two Masters,” and “The Son of Harlequin lost and found again.” He returned to Venice, and set about executing more and more his favourite scheme of reform. He was now attached to the theatre of S. Angelo, and employed himself in writing both for the company, and for his own purposes. The constant toils he underwent in these engagements impaired his health. He wrote, in the course of twelve months, sixteen new comedies, besides forty-two pieces for the theatre; among these many are considered as the best of his productions. The first edition of his works was published in 1753, in 10 vols. 8vo. As he wrote afterwards a great number of new pieces for the theatre of S. Luca, a separate edition of these was published, under the title of “The New Comic Theatre:” among these was the “Terence,” called by the author his favourite, and judged to be the master-piece of his works. He made another journey to Parma, on the invitation of duke Philip, and from thence he passed t Rome. He had composed 59 other pieces so late as 1761, five of which were designed for the particular use of Marque Albergati Capacelli, and consequently adapted to the theatre of a private company. Here ends the literary life of Goldoni in Italy, after which he accepted of an engagement of two years in Paris, where he found a select and numerous company of excellent performers in the Italian theatre. They were, however, chargeable with the same faults which he had corrected in Italy; and the French supported, and even applauded in the Italians, what they would have reprobated on their own stage. Goldoni wished to extend, even to that country, his plan of reformation, without considering the extreme difficulty of the undertaking. His first attempt was the piece called “The Father for Love;” and its bad success was a sufficient warning to him to desist from his undertaking. He continued, during the remainder of his engagement, to produce pieces agreeable to the general taste, and published twenty-four comedies; among which “The Love of Zelinda and Lindor” is reputed the best. The term of two years being expired, Goldoni was preparing to return to Italy, when a lady, reader to the dauphiness, mother to the late king, introduced him at court, in the capacity of Italian master to the princesses, aunts to the king. He did not live in the court, but resorted there, at each summons, in a post-chaise, sent to him for the purpose. These journeys were the cause of a disorder in the eyes, which afflicted him the rest of his life; for being accustomed to read while in the chaise, he lost his sight on a sudden, and in spite of the most potent remedies, could never afterwards recover it entirely. For about six months lodgings were provided him in the chateau of Versailles. The death, however, of the dauphin, changed the face of affairs. Goldoni lost his lodgings, and only, at the end of three years, received a bounty of 100 Louis in a gold box, and the grant of a pension of four thousand livres a year. This settlement would not have been sufficient for him, if he had not gained, by other means, farther sums. He wrote now and then comedies for the theatres of Italy and Portugal; and, during these occupations, was desirous to shew to the French that he merited a high rank among their dramatic writers. For this purpose, he neglected nothing which could be of use to render himself master of the French language. He heard, spoke, and conversed so much in it, that, in his 62d year, he ventured to write a comedy in French, and to have it. represented in the court theatre, on the occasion of the marriage of the king. This piece was the “Bourru Bienfaisant;” and it met with so great success, that the author received a bounty 'of 150 Louis from the king, another gratification from the performers, and considerable sums from the booksellers who published it. He published soon after, another comedy in French, called “L'Avare Fastueux.” After the death of Lewis XV. Goldoni was appointed Italian teacher to the princess Clotilde, and after her marriage, he attended the late unfortunate princess Elizabeth in the same capacity. His last work was the “Volponi,” written after he had retired from court. It was nis misfortune to live to see his pension taken away by the revolution, and, like thousands in a similar situation, he was obliged to pass his old age in poverty and distress. He died in the beginning of 1793. As a comic poet, Goldoni is reckoned among the best of the age in which he flourished. His works were printed at Leghorn in 1788—91, in 31 vols. 8vo. He has been reckoned the Moliere of Italy, and he is styled by Voltaire “The Painter of Nature.” Dr. Burney says that he is, perhaps, the only author of comic operas in Italy who has given them a little common sense, by a natural plot, and natural characters; and his celebrated comic opera of the “Buona Figliuola,” set by Piccini, and first performed in London Dec. 9th, 1766, rendered both the poet and composer, whose names had scarcely penetrated into this country before, dear to every lover of the Italian language and music, in the nation.

, son of the preceding, was born at Bow, Sept. 19, 1605, and was educated at Eton school, whence he was chosen to King’s college, Cambridge, in 1626. Here, after taking his degrees, he was chosen fellow of his college, and afterwards presented with a living at Colsden near Croydon, in Surrey, where he continued about three years. In 1638, he was removed to the living of St. Sepulchre’s, London, and the year after married one of the daughters of sir Robert Darcy. During a period of twenty-four years he discharged the duties of his profession with the most exemplary zeal. Besides preaching twice every Sunday, and often on week-days, he visited his flock, catechised their children, inquired into and relieved the wants of the poor, and devised plans for their employment. Such of the poor as were able to work, he employed in spinning flax and hemp, which he bought for the purpose, and paying them for their work, got it worked into cloth, which he sold, as well as he could, chiefly among his friends, bearing himself whatever loss was sustained. By this wise and humane scheme he diverted many from begging, and demonstrated to them, that by industry they might soon become independent of charity; and he thus is said to have given the hint which produced the humane and benevolent institutions of Mr. Firmin, which have been referred to in the memoir of that excellent citizen. When the act of uniformity took place, he quitted his living of St. Sepulchre’s, being dissatisfied respecting the terms of conformity; but after this he forbore preaching, saying there was no need of him in London, where there were so many worthy ministers, and that he thought he might do as much or more good another way, which could give no offence. Accordingly his time was now zealously devoted to acts of beneficence and charity. He employed his own fortune, which was considerable, in relieving the wants of his poorer brethren, who, on account of their nonconformity, were deprived of their means of subsistence; and he was a successful applicant to the rich, from whom he received large sums, which were applied to that humane purpose. In 1671, he set about a plan for introducing knowledge and religion mto the different parts of Wales, which at that period were in the most deplorable darkness. He established schools in different towns where the poor were willing that their children should be taught the elements of learning, and he undertook to pay all the expences which were incurred in the outset of the business. By degrees these schools amounted to between three and four hundred, and they were all annually visited by Mr. Gouge, when he carefully inquired into the progress made by the young people, before whom he occasionally preached in a style adapted to their age and circumstances in life, for, being in his latter days better satisfied with the terms of conformity, he had a licence from some of the bishops to preach in Wales. With the assistance of his friends, whose purses were ever open at his command, he printed eight thousand copies of the Bible in the Welsh language; a thousand of these were distributed freely among those who could not afford to purchase them, and the rest were sent to the cities and chief towns in the principality, to be sold at reasonable rates. He procured likewise the English liturgy, the “Practice of Piety,” the “Whole Duty of Man,” the Church Catechism, and other practical pieces, to be printed in the Welsh language, and distributed among the poor. During the exercise of this benevolent disposition, he meddled nothing with the controversies of the times, and partook in no shape of the rancour of many of his ejected brethren against the church of England, with which he maintained communion to the last, and, as he told archbishop Tillotson, “thought himself obliged in conscience so to do.” He was accustomed to say with pleasure, “that he had two livings which he would not exchange for two of the greatest in England.” These were Wales, where he travelled every year to diffuse the principles of knowledge, piety, and charity: and Christ’s Hospital, where he catechised and instructed the children in the fundamental principles of religion. He died suddenly Oct. 29, 1681, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. His death was regarded as a public loss. A funeral sermon was preached on the occasion by Dr. Tillotson, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury; who, at the conclusion of an animated eulogium on his piety and virtue, observes, that “all things considered, there have not, since the primitive times of Christianity, been many among the sons of men, to whom that glorious character of the Son of God might be better applied, that” he went about doing good.“And Mr. Baxter, in his Narrative of his own Life and Times, says of Mr. Gouge,” I never heard any one person, of whatever rank, sort, or sect soever, speak one word to his dishonour, or name any fault that they charged on his life or doctrine; no, not the prelatists themselves, save only that he conformed not to their impositions; and that he did so much good with so much industry.“This eminent divine published a few practical pieces, of which the following may be mentioned” The Principles of Religion explained“” A Word to Sinners“” Christian Directions to walk with God“” The surest and safest Way of Thriving, viz. by Charity to the Poor;“”The Young Man’s Guide through the Wilderness of this World." These were collected in an 8vo volume in 1706, and published at London, with a fine portrait by Van der Gucht, and archbishop Tillotson’s Funeral Sermon and Life of him prefixed.

In the year 599, he wrote a letter to Serenus bishop of Marseilles, commending his zeal in breaking some images which the people had been observed to worship, and throwing them out of the church; and the same year a circular letter to the principal bishops of Gaul, condemning simoniacal ordinations, and the promotions of laymen to bishoprics he likewise forbad clerks in holy orders to live with women, except such as are allowed by the canons and recommended the frequent holding assemblies to regulate the affairs of the church. The same year he re-r fused, on account of some foreseen opposition, to take cognizance of a crime alleged against the primate of Byzacena, a province in Africa. About the same time he wrote an important letter to the bishop of Syracuse, concerning ceremonies, in which he says, “That the church of Rome followed that of Constantinople, in the use of ceremonies; and declares that see to be undoubtedly subject to Rome, as was constantly testified by the emperor and the bishop of that city.” He had already this year reformed the office of the church, which is one of the most remarkable actions of his pontificate. In this reform, as it is called, he introduced several new customs and superstitions; amongst the rest, purgatory. He ordered pagan temples to be consecrated by sprinkling holy water, and an annual feast to be kept, since called wakes in England, on that day; with the view of gaining the pagans in England to the church-service. Besides other less important ceremonies, added to the public forms of prayer, he made it his chief care to reform the psalmody, of which he was excessively fond. Of this kind he composed the “Ainiphone ,” andnch tiines as hest suited the psalms, the hymns, the prayers, the verses, the canticles, the lessons, the epistles and gospels, the prefaces, and the Lor-i’s prayer. He likewise instituted an academy of chanters for all the clerks, as far as the deacons exclusively: he gave them lessons himself, and the bed, in which he continued to chant amidst his last illness, was preserved with great Generation in the palace of St. John Lateran for a long time, together with the whip with which he used to threaten the young clerks and singing hoys, when they sang out of tune. He was so rigid in regard to the chastity of ecclesiastics, that he was unwilling to admit a man into the priesthood who was not strictly free from defilement by any commerce with women. The candidates for orders were according to his commands questioned particularly on that subject. Widowers were excepted, if they had observed a state of continency for some considerable tiifie.

But while he was thus intent in correcting the mischiefs of the late war, he saw it break out again in Italy, and still to the disadvantage of the empire, the affairs of which were in a critical situation, not only in the provinces of the west, but every where else. Gregory was much afflicted with the calamities of this last war, and at the same time his illness increased. The Lombards made a truce in November 603, which was to continue in -force till April 605. Some time after, the pope received letters from queen Theodilinda, with the news of the birth and baptism of her son Adoaldus. She sent him also some writings of the abbot Secundinus upon the fifth council, and desired him to answer them. Gregory “congratulates her on having caused the young prince, destined to reign over the Lombards, to be baptised in the catholic church.” And as to Secundinus, he excuses himself on account of his illness: I am afflicted with the gout,“says he,” to such a degree, that I am not able even to speak, as your envoys know; they found me ill when they arrived here, and left me in great danger when they departed. If God restores my health, I will return an exact answer to all that the abbot Secundinus has written to me. In the mean time, I send you the council held under the emperor Justinian, that by reading it he may see the falsity of all that he has heard against the holy see and the catholic church. God forbid that we should receive the opinions of any heretic, or depart in any respect from the letter of St. Leo, and the four councils:“he adds,” I send to the prince Adoaldus, your son, a cross, and a book of the gospel in a Persian box; and to your daughter three rings, desiring you to give them these things with your own hand, to enhance the value of the present. I likewise beg of you, to return my thanks to the king, your consort, for the peace he made for us, and engage him to maintain it, as you have already tlone."

, a Flemish geometrician, was born at Bruges in 1584, and became a Jesuit at Rome at twenty years of age. He studied mathematics under the learned Jesuit Clavius. He afterward became a reputable professor of those sciences himself, and his instructions were solicited by several princes he was called to Prague by the emperor Ferdinand II. and Philip IV. king of Spain was desirous of having him to teach the mathematics to his ion, the young prince John of Austria. He was not less estimable for his virtues than his skill in the sciences. His well-meant endeavours were very commendable, when his holy zeal, though for a false religion, led him to follow the army in Flanders one compaign, to confess the wounded and dying soldiers, in which he received several wounds himself. He died of an apoplexy at Ghent, in 1667, at eighty-three years of age.

In the performance of these services, Gresham often stretched his own credit, and kept up the exchange at his own risk, by which he frequently lost several hundred pounds at a time; and on one particular time he took up 50,000l. for the king’s service. In the course of these transactions, he had frequently occasion to meddle with political affairs, as well as those immediately committed to his charge, through the application of the emperor’s sister, then regent in the Netherlands, as well as that of the Icing his master; so that he made at least forty journeys from England to Antwerp during the remainder of the short reign of Edward VI. These services were so acceptable to the young monarch, that about three weeks before his death, he granted to Mr. Gresham, as a mark of his favour, Iool a year to him and his heirs for ever. Mr. Gresham also obtained, in the course of that reign grants of estates and reversions to the value of about 300l. a year. He was but a young man when first employed by king Edward; and the skill and prudence displayed in the various matters in which he was employed, discovered an uncommon knowledge of mercantile affairs. But notwithstanding his abilities, and the considerable services he had rendered to the crown, he was, upon the accession of queen Mary, removed from his agency. This induced him to draw up a memorial of his services to the late king, which he sent to a minister of state to be laid before her majesty; and the services lepresented as done, not only to the king, but to the nation in general, by the increase both of money and trade, and the advancement of the public credit, being observed to be fact, he was taken soon after into the queen’s service, and reinstated in his former employment, as appears by the commissions given him at different times during that reign. After the decease of queen Mary, in 1558, he was taken immediately into the service of queen Elizabeth, who employed him on her accession to provide and buy up arms; and in 1559 she conferred on him the honour of knighthood, and appointed him her agent in foreign parts. In this state of credit and reputation, he thought proper to provide himself with a mansion-house in the city, suitable to his station and dignity; and with this spirit built a large and sumptuous house for his own dwelling, on the west-side of Bishopsgate-street, London, afterwards called Gresham-college, where he maintained an establishment becoming his character and station. But this flow of prosperity received a heavy check by the loss of his only son, aged 16 years, who died in 1564, and was buried in St. Helen’s church, opposite to his mansion house.

But the pomp and splendor attending their nuptials was the last gleam of joy that shone in the palace of Edward, who grew so weak in a few days after, that Northumberland thought it high time to carry his project into execution. Accordingly, in the beginning of June, he broke the matter to the young monarch; and, having first made all such colourable objections as the affair would admit against his majesty’s two sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, as well as Mary queen of Scots, he observed, that, “the lady Jane, who stood next upon the royal line, was a person of extraordinary qualities that her zeal for the reformation was unquestioned that nothing could be more acceptable to the nation than the prospect of such a princess that in. this case he was bound to set aside all partialities of blood and nearness of relation, which were inferior considerations, and ought to be over-ruled by the public good.” To corroborate this discourse, care was taken to place about the king those who should make it their business to touch frequently upon this subject, enlarge upon the accomplishments of lady Jane, and describe her with all imaginable advantages: so that at last, the king’s affections inclining to this disposition of the crown, he consented to overlook his sisters, and set aside his father’s will. Agreeably to which, a deed of settlement being drawn up In form of law' by the judges, was signed by his majesty^ and all the lords of the council.

, a landscape painter, born at Amsterdam in 1645, was a pupil of Roland Roghman, whose manner he relinquished after he became acquainted with the more perfect one of A. Vandervelde and Lingelbach. He settled in England, and made views of many of the principal places, which are highly wrought, but with rather an artificial tone of colouring. His execution was minute and laboured, but his pictures are very well completed in that style. He likewise employed his talents in imitations of Rembrandt, Rysdael, Polemburg, and Teniers; and so successfully, that his productions are often taken for originals. He died in the seventy-third year of his age, in 1718. He was known by the appellation of the old Griffier.-^-His son, Robert Griffier, or the young Griffier, practised the same profession as his father, and in the same style. He resided chierly upon the continent, and produced a great number of elaborate pictures of views on the Rhine, &c. with many figures in them. He was alive in 1713.

, or more commonly Guarini (Battista), an eminent pastoral poet, descended in the fourth degree from Guarino Veronese, was born at Ferrara in 1537. We know but little of his early years and studies; but it is said that in the course of his education he spent some time at Pisa, and at Padua, where he was much esteemed by the rector of the university; but at an early age he went to Rome, and was still young when, on his return to Ferrara, he lectured for about a year with great reputation, on Aristotle’s Morals, in the same university in which the memory of his ancestors continued to be highly venerated. He was professor of belles lettres there in 1563, when he sent one of his sonnets to Annibal Caro, who in his answer complimented him as a young man of the greatest hopes. In his twenty-eighth year he was admitted into the academy of the Eterei of Padua, founded by the young prince Scipio of Gonzaga, afterwards cardinal. Tasso was at the same time admitted, and between him and Guarino a friendship commenced, which was afterwards disturbed by rivalship.

, an eminent dissenting divine, of the independent persuasion, was a native of Hertford, where he was born in 1680, and having shewn a pious disposition from his youth, was admitted a member of the dissenting congregation of that place. He afterwards pursued his studies, with a view to the ministry, under Mr. Payne of Saffron Walden, and being admitted to preach at the age of twenty, became assistant to the rev. Mr. Haworth of Hertford, whom he afterwards succeeded in that congregation. Here he continued some years, and was very successful in opposing the Arian doctrines which had crept in among his Hock; and to strengthen his efforts he published in 1719, a small volume on the divinity of Christ, and in 1721, another on the divinity of the Holy Ghost. In 1727 he was invited to London, and became minister to a congregation in New Broad-street. In 1732 he received the degree of D. D. from one of the universities of Scotland. Besides his regular duty at New Broad-street, he was for niany years a preacher of the Tuesday’s lecture at Pinners* Hall, and of that at St. Helen’s on a Friday. In his avowal of his religious principles (those called Calvinistic) he was open, steady, and consistent, and his character and conduct were, in every point of view, uniform, and amiable. The goodness of his natural disposition, heightened by a spirit of real religion, exerted him to an activity which rendered his life very important. He was a kind and useful friend to the young, and extremely liberal to the poor, always devoting a tenth part of his annual income to charitable uses. After enjoying a considerable share of health for many years, he became lame and blind, but was enabled to continue his public services almost to the time of his death, which took place Nov. 22, 1761. Jle published a great variety of occasional sermons, and of pious tracts, and had a short controversy with Dr. Chandler, in which the latter is said to have appeared to very little advantage. But his great work was his “Paraphrase on the New Testament,” 1739 1752, 3 vols. 4to, and reprinted in 6 vols. 8vo, which is said to display a sound judgment, intimate acquaintance with the original, and considerable critical powers.

After paying a visit to his mother, who was now extremely old and blind, and to his old master Zackau, he set out for Dusseldorp. The elector was highly pleased with him, and at parting made him a present of a fine set of wrought plate for a dessert. From Dusseldorp he made the best of his way through Holland; and embarking for England, he arrived at London in the winter of 1710, where he was soon introduced at court, and honoured with marks of the queen’s favour. Many of the nobility were impatient for an opera from him on which he composed “Rinaldo,” which succeeded so wonderfully, that his engagements at Hanover became the subject of much concern. He returned however thither in about a twelvemonth; for besides his pension, Steffani had resigned to him the mastership of the chapel; but in 17 12 he obtained leave of the elector to visit England again, on condition that he returned within a reasonable time. The poor state of music here, and the wretched proceedings at the Haymarket, made the nobility desirous that he might be employed in composing for the theatre. To their applications the queen added her own authority; and as an encouragement, settled on him for life a pension of 20O/, per annum. All this induced Handel to forget his obligations to Hanover; so that when George I. came over at the death of the queen, in 1714, conscious how ill he had deserved at his hands, he durst not appear at court. It happened, however, that his noble friend baron Kilmansegge was here; and he, with others of the nobility, contrived the following scheme for reinstating him in his majesty’s favour. The king was persuaded to form a party on the water; and Handel was desired to prepare some music for that occasion. This, which has since been so justly celebrated under the title of the “Water Music,” was performed and conducted by himself, unknown to his majesty, whose pleasure on hearing it was equal to hig surprize. Upon his inquiring whose it was, the baron produced the delinquent, and presented him to his majesty, as one that was too conscious of his fault to attempt an excuse for it. Thus Handel was restored to favour, and his music honoured with the highest approbation; and as a token of it, the king was pleased* to add a pension foe life of 200l. a year to that which queen Anne had before given him. Some years after, when he was employed to teach the young princesses, another pension was added to the former by her late majesty.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Goud?, in Holland, March 26, 1656. His father intended him for the ministry, but the young man had an early disposition for contemplating the heavenly bodies, which engrossed his whole attention, and finding, at the age of thirteen or fourteen, that without some knowledge of the mathematics he could make no satisfactory progress in this study, he saved his boyish allowance and presents in money, and applied to a teacher of the mathematics, who promised to be very expeditious, and kept his word. Under him he first learned to grind optic glasses, and at length, partly by accident, was enabled to improve single microscopes by using small globules of glass, melted in the flame of a candle. By these he discovered the animalculse in semine humano, which laid the foundation of a new system of generation.

, an eminent painter, was born in the parish of St. James, Garlickhithe, London, June 13, 1692, being the third son of Mr. Edward Hightnore , a coal-merchant in Thames-street. Having such an early and strong inclination to painting, that he could think of nothing else with pleasure', his father endeavoured to gratify him in a proposal to his uncle, who was serjeant-painter to king William, and with whom Mr. (afterward Sir James) Thorn hi 11 f had served his apprenticeship. But this was afterwards for good reasons declined, and he was articled as clerk to an attorney, July 18, 1707; but so much against his own declared inclination, that in about three years he began to form resolutions of indulging his natural disposition to his favourite art, having continually employed his leisure hours in designing, and in the study of geometry, perspective, architecture, and anatomy, but without any instructors except books. He had afterwards an opportunity of improving himself in anatomy, by attending the lectures of Mr. Cheselden, besides entering himself at the Painters’ Academy in Great Queen -street, where he drew ten years, and had the honour to be particularly noticed by sir Godfrey Kneller, who distinguished him by the name of “the Young Lawyer.” On June 13, 1714, his clerkship expired; and on March 26, 1715, he began painting as a profession, and settled in the city. In the same year Dr. Brook Taylor published his “Linear Perspective: or anew method of representing justly all manner of objects as they appear to the eye, in all situations.” On this complete and universal theory our artist grounded his subsequent practice; and it has been generally allowed, that few, if any, of the profession at that time, were so thoroughly masters of that excellent, but intricate system. In 1716, he married miss Susanna Killer, daughter and heiress of Mr. Anthony Hiller, of Em'ngliam, in Surrey; a young lady in every respect worthy of his choice. For Mr. Cheselden’s “Anatomy of the Human. Body,” published in 1722, he made drawings from the real subjects at the time of dissection, two of which were engraved for that work, and appear, but without his name, in tables xii. and xiii. In the same year, on the exhibition of “The Conscious Lovers,” written by sir Richard Stecle, Mr. Highmore addressed a letter to the author, (puhlished in 1760 in the Gentleman’s Magazine), on the limits of filial obedience, pointing out a material defect in the character of Bevil, with that clearness and precision for which, in conversation and writing, he was always remarkable, as the pencil by no means engrossed his whole attention. His reputation and business increasing, he took a more conspicuous station, by removing to a house in Lincoln’s-innfields, in March 1723-4; and an opportunity soon offered of introducing him advantageously to the nobility, &c. from his being desired, by Mr. Pine the engraver, to make the drawings for his prints of the Knights of the Bath, on the revival of that order in 1725. In consequence of this, several of the knights had their portraits also by the same hand, some of them whole lengths; and the duke of Kichmond, in particular, was attended by l.is three esquiies, with a perspective view of king Henry the Vilth’s chapel. This capital picture is now at Goodwood. The artist was also sent for to St. James’s, by George I. to paint the portrait of William duke of Cumberland, from which Smith scraped a mezzotinto.

, an English poet and dramatic writer of some celebrity in his day, was born in Beaufort-buildings in the Strand, February 10, 1685. He was the eldest son Of George Hill, esq. of Malmsbury-abbey in Wiltshire and, in consequence of this descent, the legal heir to an, entailed estate of about 2000l. per annum; but the misconduct of his father having, by a sale of the property, which he had no right to execute, rendered it of no advanl tage to the family, our author was left, together with Mr. Hill’s other children, to the care of, and a dependence on, his mother and grandmother; the latter of whom (Mrs. Anne Gregory) was more particularly anxious for his education and improvement. The first rudiments of learning he received from Mr. Reyner, of Barnstaple in Devonshire^ to whom he was sent at nine years old, and, on his removal from thence, was placed at Westminster-school, under the care of the celebrated Dr. Knipe. After remaining here until he was fourteen years of age, he formed a resolution singular enough in one so young, of paying a visit to his relation lord Paget, then ambassador at Constantinople; and accordingly embarked for that place, March 2, 1700. When he arrived, lord Paget received him with much surprise, as well as pleasure; wondering, that a person so young should run the hazard of iuch a voyage, to visit a relation whom he only knew by character. The ambassador immediately provided for him a very learned ecclesiastic in his own house; and, under his tuition, sent him to travel, so that he had an opportunity of seeing Egypt, Palestine, and a great part of the East. With lord Paget he returned home about 1703, and in his journey saw most of the courts in Europe, and it is probable that his lordship might have provided genteelly for him at his death, had he not been dissuaded by the misrepresentations of a female about him, which in a great measure prevented his good intentions. The young man’s well known merit, however, soon recommended him to sir William Wentworth, a Yorkshire baronet, who being inclined to make the tour of Europe, his relations engaged Mr. Hill to accompany him as a travelling tutor, which office he performed, for two or three years, to their entire satisfaction. In 1709, he commenced author, by the publication of an “History of the Ottoman Empire,” compiled from tinmaterials 'which he had collected in the course of his di rent travels, and during his residence at the Turkish conr:. This work, though it met with success, Mr. Hill frequently afterwards repented the having printed, and would himself, at times, very severely criticize it; and indeed, to say the truth, there are in it a great number of puerilities, which render it far inferior to the merit of his subsequent writings; in which correctness has ever been so strong a characteristic, that his critics have even attributed it to him as a fault; whereas, in this work, there at best appears the labour of a juvenile genius, rather choosing to give the full reign to fancy, and indulge the imagination of the poet, than to aim at the plainness and perspicuity of the historian. About the same year he published his first poetical piece, entitled “Camillus,” in vindication and honour of the earl of Peterborough, who had been general in. Spain. This poem was printed without any author’s name; but lord Peterborough, having made it his business to find out to whom he was indebted, appointed Mr. JHill his secretary; which post, however, he quitted the year following, on occasion of his marriage.

, usually called the father of physic, was born in the island of Cos, about 460 B. C. He is said to have descended from Æsculapius, through a line of physicians who had all promoted the fame of the Coan school, and by his mother’s side he was the eighteenth lineal descendant from Hercules. He appears to have devoted himself to the medical art that he might perpetuate the honours of his family, and he has eclipsed them. Besides the empirical practice which was hereditary among them, he studied under Herodicus, who had invented the gymnastic medicine, and was instructed in philosophy and eloquence by Gorgias, a celebrated sophist and brother of Herodicus. He is also said to have been a pupil of Democritus, which appears improbable, and a follower of the doctrines of Heraclitus. In whatever study, however, he engaged, he appears to have pursued a rational plan, upon actual expedience, discarding the theories of those who never had practised the art, and hence is said to have been the first who separated the science of medicine from philosophy, or rather from mere speculation, which then assumed that name. Of the events of his life little is known with cer T tainty. He spent a great part of his time in travelling: during which he resided for a considerable period, at varipus places, in which he was occupied in the practise of his art. His chief abode was in the provinces of Thessaly and Thrace, especially at Larissa, the capital of Thessaly, where he composed several books. According to Soranus, he spent some time at the court of Macedon, where he signalized himself, in consultation with Kuryphon, a senior physician, by detecting the origin of the malady of the young Perdiccas. His observation of the emotion of the prince on the appearance of Phila, a mistress of his father, led him to pronounce that love alone was capable of curing the disease which it had occasioned. His fame caused him to receive invitations from diiFerent cities of Greece. He is said to have been requested by the inhabitants of Abciera to go and cure their celebrated fellowcitizen, Democritus, of the madness under which they supposed him to labour, whom he pronounced not mad; but, the wisest man in their city. In a speech ascribed to his son Thessalus, still extant, we are told that Illyria and Paeonia being ravaged by the plague, the inhabitants of those countries offered large sums of money to induce Hippocrates to come to their relief; but forseeing that the pestilence was likely to penetrate into Greece, he refused to quit his own country, but sent his two sons, and his sonin-law, through the diiFerent provinces, to convey the proper instructions for avoiding the infection; he himself went to Thessaly, and thence to Athens, where he conferred such eminent services on the citizens, that they issued a decree honouring him with a crown of gold, and initiating him and his family in the sacred mysteries of Ceres and Proserpine. Hippocrates is likewise reported to have refused an invitation from Artaxerxes, king of Persia, accompanied by a promise of every reward and honour which he might desire, to repair to his dominions during a season of pestilence, which he refused; and that when the enraged king ordered the inhabitants of Cos to deliver up Hippocrates, they declared their resolution to defend the life and liberty of their valued countryman at all hazards, and nothing was attempted by the Persian. Most of these stories, however, are deemed fictitious by the most intelligent critics. The cure of the young Perdiccas probably originated from the report of a similar cure ascribed to Erasistratus; and the interview with Deraocntus is not supported by any satisfactory evidence. The relation of the services of Hippocrates, during the plague at Atbeps, is altogether irreconcileable with the accounts of Galen and of Thucydides: besides, that plague commenced during the Peioponnesiin war, in the second year of the 87th olympiad, at which time Hippocrates was about thirty" years old, and therefore could not have had two sons or a son-in-law in a condition to practise. Dr. Ackerman justly conjectures, that these fables were all invented after the death of Hippocrates, and ascribed to him by the followers of the dogmatic sect, of which he was regarded as the founder. The letters and other pieces, which are preserved with the works of Hippocrates, and on the authority of which these anecdotes are related, are generally deemed spurious.

In London the young painter looked around in vain for the encouragement which he had hoped to find in the historical department of his profession; and the impoverished state of his family not allowing him any alternative, he immediately resorted to portrait-painting, in which, from his superior talents, he was sure to find an unfailing resource. In this situation of his circumstances he formed a matrimonial engagement with a young lady of the name of Barker, between whose relations and his own there had long subsisted the most cordial intimacy, arising from mutual respect. Among the connexions of Miss Barker’s family were some who were established at Bath, and Mr. Hoare soon received an invitation to settle at that city, where, as there was no person of any eminence in his profession, he might reasonably look to the highest prospects of success. He accordingly accepted the invitation, and fully realized the expectations of his friends in every point. His painting-room was the resort of all that could boast the attractions either of beauty or fashion; and the number of his sitters was for a long time so great, as scarcely to allow him a momentary interval of relaxation, much less sufficient leisure for such an attention to the higher performances of his art as formed the constant object of his wishes.

In 1631, the countess dowager of Devonshire was desirous of placing the young earl under his care, who was then about the age of thirteen; a trust very suitable to his inclinations, and which he discharged with great fidelity and diligence. In 1634 he republished his translation of Thucydides, and prefixed to it a dedication to that young nobleman, in which he gives a nigh character of his father, and represents in the strongest terms his obligations to that illustrious family. The same year he accompanied his noble pupil to Paris, where he applied his vacant hours to natural philosophy, especially mechanism, and the causes of animal motion. He had frequent conversations upon these subjects with father Mersenne, a man deservedly famous, who kept up a correspondence with almost all the learned in Europe. From Paris he attended his pupil into Italy, and at Pisa became known to Galileo, who communicated to him his notions very freely. After having seen all that was remarkable in that country, he returned in 1637 with the earl of Devonshire into England. The troubles in Scotland now grew high, and began to spread themselves southward, and to threaten disturbance.throughout the kingdom. Hobbes, seeing this, thought he might do good service by composing something by way of antidote to the pestilential opinions which then prevailed. This engaged him to commit to paper certain principles, observations, and remarks, out of which he composed his book “De Give,” and which grew up afterwards into that system which he called his “Leviathan.”

In 1730, Hogarth married the only daughter of sir James Thornhill, by whom he had no child. This union, indeed, was a stolen one, and consequently without the approbation of sir James, who, considering the youth of his daughter, then barely eighteen, and the slender finances of her husband, as yet an obscure artist, was not easily reconciled to the match. Soon after this period, however, he began his “Harlot’s Progress,” and was advised by lady Thornhill to have some of the scenes in it placed in the way of his father-in-law. Accordingly, one morning early, Mrs. Hogarth undertook to convey several of them into his diningroom. When he arose, he inquired whence they came; and being told by whom they were introduced, he cried out, “Very well; the man who can furnish representations like these, can also maintain a wife without a portion.” He designed this remark as an excuse for keeping his pursestrings close; but, soon after, became both reconciled and generous to the young people. An allegorical cieling by sir James Thornhill is at the house of the late Mr. Huggins, at Headly-park, Hants. The subject of it is the story of Zepbyrus and Flora; and the figure of a satyr and sortie others were painted by Hogarth.

Hogarth had projected a “Happy Marriage,” by way of counterpart to his “Marriage a la Mode.” A design for the first of his intended six plates he had sketched out in colours; and the following is as accurate an account of it as could be furnished by a gentleman who long ago enjoyed only a few minutes sight of so great a curiosity. The time supposed was immediately after the return of the parties from church. The scene lay in the hall of an antiquated country mansion. On one side the married couple were represented sitting. Behind them was a group of their young friends of both sexes, in the act of breaking bridecake over their heads. In front appeared the father of the young lady, grasping a bumper, and drinking, with a seeming roar of exultation, to the future happiness of her and her husband. By his side was a table covered with refreshments. Jollity rather than politeness was the designation of his character. Under the screen of the hall, several rustic musicians in grotesque attitudes, together with servants, tenants, &c. were arranged. Through the arch by which the room was entered, the eye was led along a passage into the kitchen, which afforded a glimpse of sacerdotal luxury. Before the dripping-pan stood a wellfed divine, in his gown and cassock, with his watch in his baud, giving directions to a cook, dressed all in white, who was employed in basting a haunch of venison. Among the faces of the principal figures, none but that of the young lady was completely finished. Hogarth had been often reproached for his inability to impart grace and dignity to his heroines. The bride was therefore meant to vindicate his pencil from so degrading an imputation. The effort, however, was unsuccessful. The girl was certainly pretty; but her features, if we may use the term, were uneducated. She might have attracted notice as a chambermaid, but would have fa-iled to extort applause as a woman of fashion. The clergyman and his culinary associate were more laboured than any other parts of the picture. It is natural for us to dwell longest on that division of a subject which is most congenial to our private feelings. The painter sat down with a resolution to delineate beauty improved by art, but seems, as usual, to have deviated into meanness, or could not help neglecting his original purpose, to luxuriate in such ideas as his situation in early life had fitted him to express. He found himself, in short, out of his element in the parlour, and therefore hastened in quest of ease and amusement, to the kitchen fire. Churchill, with more force than delicacy, once observed of him, that he only painted the backside of nature. It must be allowed, that such an artist, however excellent ia his walk, was better qualified to represent the low-born parent than the royal preserver of a foundling.

His works are, 1. An edition of “Vigerus de Idiotismis Linguae Graecae,” published at Leyden in 1743, and several times republished. His improvements to this work are of the highest value. 2. “An Inaugural Speech at Culembourg,” in 1738. 3. “An Alcaic Ode to the people of Culembourg,” De Inundatione feliciter averruncata.“4.” An Elegiac Poem,“in defence of poets, against Plato; and several other occasional pieces, few of which are published. 5.” Doctrina particularurn Linguae Graecae," 1769, 2 vols. 4to. This great work, the foundation of his well-earned fame, is executed with a prodigious abundance of learning, and has been approved and received throughout Europe. He followed Devarius professedly to a certain point, but went far beyond him in copiousness and sagacity. A very useful abridgment of this work, the only fault of which is too great prolixity, was published at Dessau, in 1782, by Schutz. This edition will be found more useful to the young student than the vast work on which it is faunded, as more easily purchased, and more easily read.

The contributions of Mr. Hunter to the Transactions of the Royal Society cannot easily be enumerated: his other works appeared in the following order. 1. A treatise on “the Natural History of the Human Teeth,” 1771, 4to; a second part to which was added in 1778. 2. “A treatise on the Venereal Disease,” 1786, 4io. 3. “Observations on certain Parts of the Animal QEconomy,” 1786, 4to, 4. “A treatise on the Blood, Inflammation, and Gunshot Wounds,” 4to. This was a posthumous work, not appearing till the year 1794; but it had been sent to tho press in the preceding year, before his death. There are also some papers by Mr. Hunter in the “Transactions of the Society for the Improvement of Medical and Chirurgical Knowledge,” which were published in 1793. The collection of comparative anatomy which Mr. Hunter left behind him, must be considered as a proof of talents, assiduity, and labour, which cannot be contemplated without surprize and admiration. His attempt in this collection has been to exhibit the gradations of nature, from the most simple state in which life is found to exist, up to the most perfect and complex of the animal creation, to mau himself. By his art and care, he has been able so to expose and preserve in a dried state, or in spirits, the corresponding parts of animal bodies, that the various links in the chain of peifectness may be readily followed and clearly understood. They are classed in the following order: first, the parts constructed for motion; secondly, the parts essential to animals as respecting their own internal economy; thirdly, parts superadded for purposes concerned with external objects; fourthly, parts designed for the propagation of the species, and the maintenance and preservation of the young. To go further into these particulars, would lead us to a detail inconsistent with the nature of this work; but they are of the most curious kind, and may be found described in a manner at once clear and instructive, in the “Life of John Hunter,” from which we have taken this account. By his will, Mr. Hunter directed that this museum should be offered to the purchase of government; and, after some negociation, it was bought for the public use for the sum of 15,000l. and given to the College of Surgeons, on condition of exposing it to public view on certain days in the week, and giving a set of annual lectures explanatory of its contents. A large building for its reception has been completed in Portugalstreet, connected with the College of Surgeons, in Lincoln’s-inn fields; and in the spring of the year 1810 the first course of lectures was delivered by Mr. Home and sir William Blizard.

In August 1667, he was removed from his post of chancellor, and in November following was impeached by the house of commons of high treason, and other crimes and misdemeanors; upon which, in the beginning of December, he retired to France, and on the 19th, an act of banishment was passed against him. Echard observes, how often “it has been admired, that the king should not only consent to discard, but soon after banish a friend, who had been as honest and faithful to him a* the best, and perhaps more useful and serviceable than any he had ever employed; which surely could never have been brought to bear without innumerable enviers and enemies.” But to conceive how these were raised, we need only remember, that during the height of his grandeur, which continued two years after the Restoration without any rivalship, as well as the rest of his ministry, he manifested an inflexible steadiness to the constitution of the church of England, in equal opposition to the Papists on one side, and the Dissenters on the other; so that none of these could ever be reconciled to him or his proceedings. Yet at first he seemed so forward to effect a coalition of all parties, that the cavaliers and strict churchmen thought themselves much neglected; and many of them upon that account, though unjustly, entertained insuperable prejudices against him, and joined with the greatest of his enemies. But the circumstances which were supposed to weaken his interest with, and at length make him disagreeable to the king, were rather of a personal nature, and such as concerned the king and him only. It is allowed on all hands, that the chancellor was not without the pride of conscious virtue; so that his personal behaviour was accompanied with a sort of gravity and haughtiness, which struck a very unpleasing awe into a court filled with licentious persons of both sexes. He often took the liberty to give reproofs to these persons of mirth and gallantry; and sometimes thought it his duty to advise the king himself in such a manner that they took advantage of him, and as he passed in court, would often say to his majesty, “There goes your schoolmaster.” The chief of these was the duke of Buckingham, who had a surprising talent of ridicule and buffoonery; and that he might make way for lord Clarendon’s ruin, by bringing him first into contempt, he often acted and mimicked him in the presence of the king, walking in a stately manner with a pair of bellows before him for the purse, and colonel Titus carrying a fire-shovel on his shoulder for the mace; with which sort of farce and banter, the king, says Echard, was too much delighted and captivated. These, with some more serious of the Popish party, assisted by the solicitations of the ladies of pleasure, made such impressions upon the king, that he at last gave way, and became willing, and even pleased, to part both from his person and services. It was also believed, that the king had some private resentments against him, for checking of those who were too forward in loading the crown with prerogative and revenue; and particularly we are told, that he had counteracted the king in a grand design which he had, to be divorced from the queen, under pretence “that she had been pre-engaged to another person, or that she was incapable of bearing children.” The person designed to supply her place was Mrs. Stuart, a beautiful young lady, who was related to the king, and had some office under the queen. The chancellor, to prevent this, sent for the duke of Richmond, who was of the same name; and seeming to be sorry that a person of his worth and relation to his majesty should receive no marks of his favour, advised him to marry this lady, as the most likely means to advance himself. The young nobleman, liking the person, followed his advice, made immediate application to the lady, who was ignorant of the king’s intentions, and in a few days married her. The king, thus disappointed, and soon after informed how the match was brought about, banished the duke and his new duchess from court, reserving his resentment against the chancellor to a more convenient opportunity. Be this as it will, the private reasons that induced the king to abandon the chancellor were expressed in a letter to the duke of Ormond, then in Ireland; which the king wrote to that nobleman for his satisfaction, knowing him to be the chancellor’s friend. Echard observes, that this letter was never published, nor would a copy of it be granted; but that he had been told the substance of it more than once by those who had read it; and the principal reason there given by the king was, “The chancellor’s intolerable temper.”

In 1742, he had an epistolary debate with his friend William Whiston, concerning the order and times of the high priests. In 1744, he published “An Address to the Deists, &c.” in answer to Morgan’s “Resurrection of Jesus considered by a Moral Philosopher;” and, in 1745, entered the lists against Warburtori, in “The Belief of a Future State proved to be a fundamental article of the religion of the Hebrews, and held by the philosophers, &c.” and two or three polemic pieces with Warburton were the consequence of this. His next work was, “Remarks upon Middleton’s Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers, &c.” and, after this, he does not appear to have published any thing till 1752, except that, in 1751, he communicated to Mr. John Gilbert Cooper, for the use of his “Life of Socrates,” some learned notes; in which he contrived to avenge himself upon his old antagonist Warburton. At the same time he exposed the young and incautious writer to the resentment of that veteran, who did not fail to shew it in one of his notes upon Pope. In 1752, came out his last and best work, “Chronological Antiquities,” in 3 vols. 4to. He afterwards made many collections and preparations for an edition of the New Testament in Greek, with Scholia in the same language; and would have inserted all the various readings, had not the growing infirmities of age prevented him. An account of the materials of this intended edition, with notes containing alterations, corrections, additions to his “Chronology,” are inserted in an appendix to “Memoirs” of him printed in 1764, by Dr. Sutton of Leicester.

, an ingenious letter-founder, whose history affords one of those edifying examples which cannot be too often placed before the eyes of the young artisan, was born in Old-street, London, Sept. 4, 1733, and was educated at Fuller’s school in that neighbourhood. At the usual age he was put apprentice to Mr. Caslon, letterfounder, son to the first of that family. Having acquired a knowledge of the common operations, he had an ambition to learn the method of cutting punches; which was so much a secret, that both his master and his master’s father always locked themselves into a private apartment, when employed in that important branch of the business. Mr. Jackson, however, surmounted this difficulty, by boring a hole through the wainscot, and prying into their operations with such success, that he was soon enabled to finish a punch, and brought it in triumph to his master, probably expecting some reward. His surprise and chagrin must have therefore been great, when his master gave him a hard blow, and threatened him with Bridewell, if ever he made such another felonious attempt. Mr. Jackson, however, whose conscience was more easily reconciled to his crime, than his temper was to his punishment, was, by the assistance of his mother, provided with the necessary tools, and took every opportunity of improving himself in the art at her house. He continued also to work for his master for some time after the expiration of his apprenticeship, until a dispute respecting wages occasioned his being discharged, along with a Mr. Cottrell, with whom he united in partnership; but, on the death of his mother, in 1759, went on board the Minerva frigate, as armourer. He appears to have returned to London after the peace of 1762-3, and worked for some time under Mr. Cottrell, until, determining to adventure in business for himself, he was encouraged in the scheme, by two life-guardsmen, his felJow workmen, who engaged to allow him a small pittance for his subsistence, and to supply money to carry on the trade, for two years. Taking a small house in Cock-lane, he soon satisfied his partners that the business would be productive, before the time promised. When he had pursued his labours about six months, Mr. Bowyer, the cele.­brated printer, accidentally calling to inspect some of his punches (for he had no specimen), approved them so much, that he promised to employ him. Business increasing rapidly, Mr. Jackson removed to larger premises in Dorsetstreet; and about 1771 was applied to by the late duke of Norfolk, to make a mould to cast a hollow square. His grace informed him, that he had applied to allthe skilful mechanics in London, Mr. Caslon not excepted, who declared it impossible. Mr. Jackson howeve'r undertook, and in the course of three months produced it. He proceeded then in raising the reputation of his foundery; and among other articles of superior difficulty, we may mention the fac-simile types for the Domesday-book, and for the Alexandrian New Testament, and the types for Macklin’s Bible. Mr. Jackson died at his house in Dorset-street, Salisburysquare, Jan. 14, 1722.

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

king of England, and VI. of Scotland, was the son of the unfortunate Mary queen of Scotland, by her cousin Henry, lord Darnley, and was born at Edinburgh-castle in June 1566, at the time when his mother had fixed her affections on the earl of Bothwell; the young prince, however, was committed to the charge of the earl of Mar, and in the following year, his mother being forced to resign the crown, he was solemnly crowned at Stirling, and all public acts from that time ran in his name. He was educated by the celebrated Buchanan while he was at Stirling castle; his progress in school-learning was rapid, and he manifested talents which presaged the future great man: but he became the prey of flatterers, who urged him to unpopular measures, which in 1582 produced a conspiracy of the nobles against him, who took possession of his person at Ruthven castle. From thence he was conveyed to the palace of Holyrood-house, and treated with much external respect, while in reality he was held in the utmost restraint. A new confederacy of other nobles produced his liberation, and he put himself under the sway of his favourite the earl of Arran, who was violent and unprincipled, and who carried on measures of severity againsf the nobles of the former conspiracy, and against the clergy who favoured them. He contrived to engage the mind of the young king with a constant round of amusement, and he himself exercised with unlimited sway all the regal authority, and by his insolence and rapacity rendered himself universally odious. Queen Elizabeth of England had long employed her arts to maintain a party in the country, which policy was become more necessary on account of her conduct to its queen. Though James had hitherto been induced to treat his mother very irreverently, yet when her life appeared to be in imminent danger, from the sentence pronounced against her by an English court of judicature, he felt himself bound to interfere, and wrote a menacing letter to Elizabeth on the occasion. He also applied to other courts for their assistance, and assembled his own nobles, who promised to stand by him in preventing or avenging such an injustice. When he learned the fatal catastrophe, he rejected with a proper spirit of indignation the hypocritical excuses of Elizabeth, and set about preparations for hostilities; but reflecting on his own resources, which were inadequate to the purposes of carrying on a serious war, he resolved to resume a friendly correspondence with the English court. It is to the honour of James that one of the' first acts of his full iriajority, in 1587, was an attempt to put an end to all family feuds among the nobility, and personally to reconcile them with each other at a solemn festival in Holyrood-house. When the invasion of England was resolved upon by Philip, king of Spain, he put his kingdom into a state of defence, resolving to support the queen against her enemies. His people also were zealous for the preservation of Protestantism, and entered into a national bond for the maintenance of true religion, which was the origin and pattern of all future engagements of the kind, under the name of solemn leagues and covenants. In 1589 he married Anne, daughter of Frederic king of Denmark, and as contrary winds prevented her coming to Scotland, he went to fetch her, and passed the winter in a series of feasting and amusements at Copenhagen. On his return he was frequently in danger from conspiracies against his life, particularly from those excited by the earl of Bothwell. In 1600, while the country was in a state of unusual tranquillity, a very extraordinary event took place, the nature and causes of which were never discovered. While the king was upon a hunting excursion, he was accosted by the brother of Ruthven earl of Gowrie, who, by a feigned tale, induced him and a small train to ride to the earl’s house at Perth. Here he was led to a remote chamber on pretence of having a secret communicated td him, where he found a man in complete armour, and a dagger was put to his breast by lluthven, with threats of immediate death. His attendants were alarmed, and came to his relief; in the end Gowrie and his brother were slain, and the king escaped unhurt. In 1603, on the death of queen Elizabeth, James was proclaimed her successor, and proceeded, amidst the acclamations of his new subjects, to London. One of his first acts was to bestow a profusion of honours and titles upon the great men, as well of his own country as those of England. A conference held at Hampton-court in 1604, between the divines of the established church and the Puritans, afforded James a good opportunity of exhibiting his skill in theological controversy, and the ill-will he bore to popular schemes of church-government. Although the king had distinguished himself in his own country by lenity to the Roman Catholics, yet those of that religion in England were so much disappointed in their expectations of his favour, that a most atrocious plot was formed by the zealots of that party to bloxv up the House of Lords at the first meeting of parliament, and with it the king, queen, and prince of Wales, and all the principal nobility and gentry of the kingdom, and then to set upon the throne the young princess Elizabeth, and establish the Catholic religion. This plot was fortunately discovered on the eve of the designed execution, and the principal persons in it suffered the punishment dae to their crimes. His next object was to reduce Ireland to a settled form of law and government. fc

, an excellent artist, was born at Antwerp in 1569, with a wonderful genius for painting, and in his youth executed some pieces which set him above all the young painters of his time; but becoming enamoured of a young woman at Antwerp, whom he obtained in marriage, he gave himself up to a dissipated course of life, which soon impoverished him, and affected his temper. He grew jealous of Rubens, and sent a challege to that painter, with a list of the names of such persons as were to decide the matter, so soon as their respective works should be finished; but Rubens, instead of accepting the challenge, answered that he willingly yielded him the preference, leaving the public to do them justice. There are some of Janssens’ works in the churches at Antwerp. He painted a descent from the cross for the great church of Boisleduc, which has been taken for a piece of Rubens; and is thought no ways inferior to any of the works of that great painter; but his chief work is his resurrection of Lazarus, in the Dussldorf gallery.

, baron Wem, commonly known by the name of Judge Jeffreys, was the sixth son of John Jeffreys, esq. of Acton in Denbighshire, by Margaret daughter to sir Thomas Ireland of Beausey, near Warrington. He was educated first at the free-school at Shrewsbury, from which he was removed to that of Westminster, where he became a good proficient in the learned languages; and was thence removed to the Inner-Temple, where he applied himself very assiduously to the law. His father’s family was large, and his temper parsimonious, consequently the young man’s allowance was very scanty, and hardly sufficient to support him decently: but his own ingenuity supplied all deficiencies, till he came to the bar; to which, however, he never had any regular call. In 1666, he was at the assize at Kingston, where very few counsellors attended, on account of the plague then raging. Here necessity gave him permission to put on a gown; and to plead; and he continued the practice unrestrained, till he reached the highest employments in the law.

, an eminent dissenter, the son of an ejected nonconformist, was born at Kibworth, in Leicestershire, in 1691. He obtained a good stock of grammar learning at the free-school of his native place, and about 1709 he was sent to pursue a course of academical studies in London, under the care of Dr. Chauncey. Having finished his studies he was appointed one of the preachers at an evening lecture at Rotherhithe, and in 1716 chosen assistant preacher at the meeting near Haberdashers’ hall. Two years afterwards he was elected pastor to the congregational church in Old Gravel-lane, Wapping, in which office he continued during forty-four years. Within a year after he entered upon it, he refused to comply with the requisition brought forwards by many of his brethren at Salters’-hall, to sign certain articles relating to the Trinity. Mr. Jennings, about 1730, published a small volume of sermons addressed to the young, entitled “The Beauty and Benefit of early Piety,” which was followed by other publications of a practical nature. In 1740- he entered the lists against Dr. John Taylor, concerning original sin, which doctrine he strenuously justified; but notwithstanding their difference in doctrinal points, they continued in habits of intimacy and friendship. In 1743 Mr. Jennings was elected trustee of Mr. Coward’s charities, and one of the lecturers at St. Helen’s; and in the following year he became divinity tutor, in the room of Mr, Eames, at the academy, at that time chiefly supported by Mr. Coward’s funds. In this work he was earnestly intent: nothing ever diverted him from a daily attendance in the lecture room; and he was indefatigable in the discharge of the duties belonging to his office. The habits of early rising, of order in the arrangement of business, and of punctuality in his engagements, enabled him to perform more than most men would have been able to get through. As a relief to the studies of the mind he employed himself in the common mechanical arts of life. His method of communicating instruction was easy and familiar, and his general deportment towards his pupils affable and friendly. He, however, determined to maintain in his academy the reputation for orthodoxy which it had acquired, and would not suffer young men to deviate from his standard of faith; and in some cases he had recourse to expulsion. In 1747 Mr. Jennings published “An introduction to the Use of the Globes,” &e. which maintained a considerable degree of popularity for more than half a century. In 1749 the university of St. Andrew’s in Scotland conferred on the author the degree of D.D. After this he published “An appeal to reason and common sense for the Truth of the Holy Scriptures.” He died in September 1762, when he was seventy-one years of age. He was highly valued by his acquaintance, and he had the honour to educate many pupils who proved ornaments to the dissenting interest, and have rendered eminent service to science and the world. After his death was printed, from a ms copy, “An introduction to the knowledge of Medals.” Of this science Dr. Jennings seems to have known very little, and the editor of his work less. The blunders in this work are numerous, and gross. In 1766 a more elaborate work was published by Dr. Furneaux from the Mss. of Dr. Jennings, entitled “Jewish Antiquities; or a course of lectures on the Three First Books of Godwin’s Moses and Aaron: to which is annexed a dissertation on the Hebrew language,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This is a work of great merit, and deserves the perusal of all who would obtain an intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures, particularly of the Old Testament. A new edition of the “Jewish Antiquities” was published about three years since, it having been long out of print, and very much called for.

, an eminent and learned tutor of the university of Cambridge, was born at Beriew in Montgomeryshire, June 23, 1756. His education, till he entered on his twelfth year, was confined to the instruction of a common country school, first at Beriew, and afterwards in the neighbouring parish of Kerry. During the time that he frequented the latter school, the vicar of the parish, discovering in him those talents which he afterwards so eminently displayed, advised his mother (for he lost his father at an early age) to send him to the grammar-school at Shrewsbury, where he continued nearly seven years, and was inferior to none of his schoolfellows, either in attention to study or in regularity of conduct. In May 1774, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and came to reside there in October following. From that time the excellence of his genius became more particularly conspicuous. He had acquired, indeed, at school, a competent share of classical learning; but his mind was less adapted to Greek and Latin composition than to the investigation of philosophical truths. At the public examinations of St. John’s college he not only was always in the first class, but was without comparison the best mathematician of his year. His first summer vacation was devoted entirely to his favourite pursuit; and at that early period he became acquainted with mathematical works, which are seldom attempted before the third year of academical study. He remained at St. John’s college till after the public examination in June 1776, when, having no prospect of obtaining a fellowship, there being already a fellow of the diocese of St. Asaph in that college, and the statutes limiting the fellowships to one from each diocese, he removed to Trinity college. Here he took his bachelor’s degree in 1779, and his superiority was so decided, that no one ventured to contend with him. The honour of senior wrangler, as it is called in academical phrase, was conceded before the examination began, and the second place became the highest object of competition. If any thing was wanting to shew his superiority, it would be rendered sufficiently conspicuous by the circumstance, that he was tutor to the second wrangler, now the learned Dr. Herbert Marsh, professor of divinity at Cambridge, who acknowledged that for the honour which he then obtained, he was indebted to the instruction of his friend. In the same year in which Mr. Jones took his bachelor’s degree he was appointed assistant tutor at Trinity college. In Oct. 1781 he was elected fellow, and in Oct. 1787, on the resignation of Mr. Cranke, he was appointed to the office of head tutor, which he held to the day of his death. In 1786 and 1787 he presided as moderator in the philosophical schools, where his acuteness and impartiality were equally conspicuous. It was about this time that he introduced a grace, by which fellow-commoners, who used to obtain the degree of bachelor of arts with little or no examination, were subjected to the same academical exercises as other under-graduates. During many years he continued to take an active part in the senate-house examinations; but for some years before his death confined himself to the duties of college- tutor. These, indeed, were sufficiently numerous to engage his whole attention and he displayed in them an ability which was rarely equalled, with an integrity which never was surpassed. Being perfect master of his subjects, he always placed them in the clearest point of view; and by his manner of treating them he made them interesting even to those who had otherwise no relish for mathematical inquiries. His lectures on astronomy attracted more than usual attention, since that branch of philosophy afforded the most ample scope for inculcating (what, indeed, he never neglected in other branches) his favourite doctrine of final causes; for arguing from the contrivance to the contriver, from the structure of the universe to the being and attributes of God. And this doctrine he enforced, not merely by explaining the harmony which results from the established Jaws of nature, but by shewing the confusion which would have arisen from the adoption of other laws. His lectures on the principles of fluxions were delivered with unusual clearness; and there was so much originality in them, that his pupils often expressed a wish that they might be printed. But such was his modesty, that though frequently urged, he never would consent; and when he signed his will a short time before his death, he made the most earnest request to Dr. Marsh, that none of his manuscripts should be printed. But it is a consolation to know, that his lectures in philosophy will not be buried in oblivion: all his writings on those subjects were delivered to his successor in the tuition, and, though less amply than by publication, will continue to benefit mankind. The only things he ever published were “A Sermon on Duelling,” and “An Address to the Volunteers of Montgomeryshire.” The former was published as a warning to the young men of the university, soon after a fatal duel had taken place there. The latter, which he wrote with great animation (for he was a zealous advocate of the volunteer system) was calculated to rouse the volunteers to a vigorous defence of their country.

Although he did not yet cease to be the boy, he frequently gave indications of the man, and perhaps in nothing more than the useful turn of his amusements, which generally had some reference to his studies, and proved that learning was uppermost in his mind. Of this disposition, the following anecdote, related by lord Teignmouth, is pleasingly characteristic. " He invented a political play, in which Dr. William Bennet, bishop of Cloyne, and the celebrated Dr. Parr, were his principal associates. They divided the fields in the neighbourhood of Harrow, according to a map of Greece, into states and kingdoms; each fixed upon one as his dominions, and assumed an ancient name. Some of their schoolfellows consented to be styled barbarians, who were to invade their territories, and attack their hillocks, which were denominated fortresses. The chiefs vigorously defended their respective domains against the incursions of the enemy; and in these imitative wars, the young statesmen held councils, made vehement harangues, and composed memorials; all doubtless very boyish, but calculated to fill their minds with ideas of legislation and civil government. In these unusual amusements, Jones was ever the leader; and he might justly have appropriated to himself the words of Catullus: ‘ Ego gymnasii flos, ego decus oleiY’

, an English writer, and bishop of Peterborough, was the son of the rev. Basil Kennet, rector of Dunchurch, and vicar of Postling, near Hythe, in Kent, and was born at Dover, Aug. 10, 1660. He was called White, from his mother’s father, one Mr. Thomas White, a wealthy magistrate at Dover, who had formerly been a master shipwright there. When he was a little grown up, he was sent to Westminster-school, with a view of getting upon the foundation; but, being seized with the srnall-pox at the time of the election, it was thought advisable to take him away. In June 1678 he was entered of St. Edmund-hall in Oxford, where he was pupil to Mr. Allam, a very celebrated tutor, who took a particular pleasure in imposing exercises on him, which he would often read in the common room with great approbation. It was by Mr. Allam’s advice that he translated Erasmus on Folly, and some other pieces for the Oxford booksellers. Under this tutor he applied hard to study, and commenced an author in politics, even while he was an under-graduate; for, in 1680, he published “A Letter from a student at Oxford to a friend in the country, concerning the approaching parliament, in vindication of his majesty, the church of England, and tfye university:” with which the whig party, as it then began to be called, in the House of Commons, were so much offended, that inquiries were made after the author, in order to have him punished. In March 1681 he published, in the same spirit of party, “a Poem,” that is, “a Ballad,” addressed “to Mr. E. L. on his majesty’s dissolving the late parliament at Oxford,” which was printed on one side of a sheet of paper, and began, “An atheist now must a monster be,” &c. He took his bachelor’s degree in May 1683; and published, in 1684, a translation of Erasmus’s “Morise encomium,” which he entitled “Wit against Wisdom, or a Panegyric upon Folly,” which, as we have already noticed, his tutor had advised him to undertake. He proceeded M. A. Jan. 22, 1684; and, the same year, was presented by sir William Glynne, bart. to the vicarage of Amersden, or Ambroseden, in Oxfordshire; which favour was procured him by his patron’s eldest son, who was his contemporary in the halh To this patron he dedicated “Pliny’s Panegyric,” which he translated in 1686, and published with this title, “An address of thanks to a good prince, presented in the Panegyric of Pliny upon Trajan, the best of the Roman emperors.” It was reprinted in 1717; before which time several reflections having been made on him for this performance, he gave the following account of it in a “Postscript” to the translation of his “Convocation Sermon,” in 1710. “The remarker says, the doctor dedicated Pliny’s Panegyric to the late king James: and, what if he did? Only it appears he did not. This is an idle tale among the party, who, perhaps, have told it till they believe it: when the truth is, there was no such dedication, and the translation itself of Pliny was not designed for any court address. The young translator’s tutor, Mr. Allam, directed his pupil, by way of exercise, to turn some Latin tracts into English. The first was a little book of Erasmus, entitled,” Moriae Encomiumu;“which the tutor was pleased to give to a bookseller in Oxford, who put it in the press while the translator was but an under-graduate. Another sort of task required by his tutor was this ‘ Panegyric of Pliny upon Trajan,’ which he likewise gave to a bookseller in Oxford, before the translator was M. A. designing to have it published in the reign, of king Charles; and a small cut of that prince at full length was prepared, and afterwards put before several of the books, though the impression happened to be retarded till the death of king Charles; and then the same tutor, not long before his own death, advised a new preface, adapted to the then received opinion of king James’s being a just and good prince. However, there was no dedication to king James, but to a private patron, a worthy baronet, who came in heartily to the beginning of the late happy revolution. This is the whole truth of that story, that hath been so often cast at the doctor not that he thinks himself obliged to defend every thought and expression of his juvenile studies, when he had possibly been trained up to some notions, which he afterwards found reason to put away as childish things.”

Before the appearance of this work he wrote a pamphlet in vindication of the fame of Dr. Brook Taylor, which was indirectly struck at in the translation of a treatise on perspective by a foreigner. This pamphlet (which has no date) was entitled “Dr. Brook Taylor’s Method of Perspective, compared with the examples lately published on the subject, as Sirigatti'i,” 4to. In 1766, in conjunction with his brother William, then of Witnesham, in the county of Suffolk, attorney at law (who died Sept. 25, 1791, aged seventy-two) he published an improved edition of their father’s map of Suffolk, on a larger scale, with engravings of the arms of the principal families in the county. In 1768 he published a third edition of his treatise on perspective, with a dedication to the earl of Bute. He was a member both of the royal aud antiquary societies; and when the chartered society of artists was disturbed by the illiberal conduct of some of the members, Mr. Kirby was elected president in the place of Hay man, but he soon resigned the chair. He died June 20, 1774, and his widow the following year, and were both buried in Kew churchyard. By his wife he had only two children, William, a promising artist, who died in 1771, and Sarah, afterwards the wife of Mr. James Trimmer, of Brentford, a lady justly celebrated for her numerous works for the religious instruction of the young.

, a very celebrated French astronomer, was born at Bourg, in the department of l'Ain, July 11, 1732. His father, who was possessed of property, intended him for the bar, and sent him to Paris to study the law, to which, for some time, he applied with so much assiduity, as to answer the most sanguine expectations of his friends, when the sight of an observatory awakened in him a propensity, which deranged the projects of his parents, and became the ruling passion of his life. He put himself under the instructions of Le Monnier, one of the then most celebrated astronomers of France, and profited so much by the lessons of his able instructor, as to afford him the highest degree of satisfaction, who, on his part, conceived for the young man a truly paternal affection, and was determined to promote his interests. An opportunity soon offered; the great astronomer Lecaille was preparing to set out for the Cape of Good Hope, in order to determine the parallax of the moon, and its distance from the earth. To accomplish this purpose, it was necessary he should be seconded by an observer placed under the same meridian, and at the greatest distance that could be conveniently chosen on the globe. Berlin was fixed on, and Le Monnier signified his intention of undertaking the business himself, but the mo.­ment when he appeared ready to depart, he had the credit to get his pupil appointed in his stead. Frederic, to whom Maupertuis had explained the delicacy and difficulty of the enterprize, could not forbear shewing some astonishment when the youthful astronomer was presented to him; “However,” said he, “the Academy of Sciences has appointed you, and you will justify their choice.” From that moment his age, being only eighteen, was an additional recommendation; he was admitted at court, welcomed by the academy, and became intimate with the most distinguished persons at Berlin. On his return, the account which he gave of his mission procured him free access to the Academy of Sciences, and its transactions were enriched every year by important communications from the young astronomer. The active part which he took in the labours of the academy, was not confined to the astronomical science: we have from his pen, a description of seven arts, as different from each other, as they are remote from the objects of his habitual meditations. He published the French edition of Dr. Halley’s tables, and the history of the comet of 1759, and he furnished Clairault with immense calculations for the theory of that famous comet. Being charged in 1760 with the compilation of the “Connoissance des Temps,” he entirely changed the form of that work, and of this collection he published thirty-two volumes, viz. from 1775 to 1807.

, an eminent mathematician and astronomer, was born at Muhlhausen, in the Sundgaw, a town in alliance with the Swiss cantons, Aug. 29th, 1728. His father was a poor tradesman, who, intending to bring him up to his own business, sent him to a public school, where he was taught the rudiments of learning, at the expence of the corporation, till he was twelve years old. Here he distinguished himself among his school-fellows, and some attempts were made to provide him with the means of studying theology as a profession, but for want of encouragement, he was under the necessity of learning his father’s trade. In this laborious occupation, however, he continued to devote a considerable part of the night to the prosecution of his studies; and to furnish himself with candles, he sold for half-pence or farthings small drawings which he delineated while employed in rocking his infant sister in a cradle. He met with an old book on the mathematics which gave him inexpressible pleasure, and which proved that he had a genius for scientific pursuits. Seeing the turn which the young man had for knowledge, several learned men afforded him assistance and advice; and they had the pleasure of finding him improve, under their patronage, with a rapidity beyond their most sanguine expectations. He was now taken from the drudgery of the shop-board, and M. Iselin, of Basil, engaged him as his amanuensis, a situation which afforded him an opportunity of making further progress in the belles-lettres, as well as philosophy and mathematics. In 1748, his patron recommended him to baron Salis, president of the Swiss confederacy, to become tutor to his children, in which office he gladly engaged. His talents as a philosopher and mechanician began to display themselves in his inventions and compositions. After living eight years at Coire, he repaired, in 1756, with his pupils, to the university of Gottingen, where he was nominated a corresponding member of the scientific society in that place, and from thence he removed, in the following year, to Utrecht, where he continued twelve months. In 1758, he went with his pupils to Paris, where he acquired the esteem and friendship of D' Alembert and Messier; and from thence he travelled to Marseilles, and formed the plan of his work “On Perspective,” which he published in the following year at Zurich. In 1760 he published his “Photometry,” a master-piece of sagacity, which contains a vast quantity of information of the most curious and important nature. In the same year he was elected a member of the Electoral Bavarian Scientific Society. Lambert was author of many other pieces besides those which have been already mentioned: among these were his “Letters on the Construction of the Universe,” which were afterwards digested, translated, and published under the title of “The System of the World.” In 1764 he made an excursion to Berlin, and was introduced to Frederic II., who, sensible of his great services to science, gave directions to have him admitted a regular member of the academy; this appointment enabled him to devote himself wholly to the pursuit of his favourite studies. He enriched the transactions of several learned societies with his papers and treatises, some of which he published separately. He died Sept. 25th, 1777, when he was in the 50th year of his age. Most of his mathematical pieces were published in a collective form by himself in three volumes, in which almost every branch of mathematical science has been enriched with additions and improvements.

, a celebrated physician, was born at Rome in October 1654. His parents were rather low in rank, but cherished the disposition for learning which he early displayed; and having finished his classical studies, he went through the course of philosophy in the Roman college, and then commenced the study of divinity. He had always evinced a great taste for natural history, which at length induced him to abandon the study of divinity, and apply himself entirely to that of medicine, and after a regular course he was created doctor in philosophy and medicine in 1672. In 1675, he was appointed physician to the hospital of the Holy Ghost, in Sassia, where he pursued his clinical inquiries with great accuracy and acuteness: but he quitted this situation in 1678, and was received a member of the college of St. Saviour; and his talents and acquirements being soon acknowledged, he was appointed professor of anatomy in the college de la Sapienza, in 1684, and continued his duties as a teacher for thirteen years with great reputation. In 1688, pope Innocent XI. chose Lancisi for his physician and private chamberlain and some time afterwards gave him a canon’s stall in the church of St. Lawrence but on the death of the pope, in 1689, he resigned it. He was now in high public estimation, attended Innocent XII. during his whole illness, was elected physician to the conclave, and was immediately appointed first physician and private chancellor to the succeeding pope Clement XI. He was indefatigable in the discharge of all his duties, as well as in the pursuit of his studies, reading and writing at every interval of leisure, and in his attendance on the learned societies of the time. He died in January, 1720, at the age of 65. He was a man of small stature, with a lively countenance, and cheerful disposition his manners were extremely engaging and he was possessed of much knowledge of mankind. His ardour for the advancement of his art was extreme and unceasing. He collected a library of more than twenty thousand volumes, which he presented in his life -time to the hospital of the Holy Ghost, for the use of the public, particularly the young physicians and surgeons who attended the patients in that hospital. This noble benefaction was opened in 1716. He published an edition of his works, entitled, “Mar. Lancisi archiatri pontificii Opera, qua; hactenus prodierunt omnia, &c. Genevae, 1718,” 2 vols. 4to. The first volume contains the following pieces: “De subitaneis mortibus; Dissertatio de nati vis deque ad ventitiisRomani cceli qualitatibus; Denoxiis Paludum effluviis.” The contents of the second volume are, “Dissertatio historica de Bovilla Peste ex Campaniae finibus, an. 1713;” “Latio iraportata, &c. 1715” “Dissertatio de recta medicorum studiorum instituenda” “Humani corporis anatomica synopsis” “Kpistola ad J. Baptist. Bianchi de humorum secretionibus et genere ac praecipue bilis in hepate separatione” “An acidum ex sanguine extrahi queat” (the negative had been maintained by Boyle) “Epistolae duse de triplici intestinorum polypo; de physiognomia,” and many small pieces, in Italian as well as Latin.