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

attacked, but gave him friends, or rather readers, among that very numerous class of the public, who, through an inconstancy cruelly rooted in the human heart, love to see those humbled whom even they esteem the most. But whatever favour and encouragement so general a disposition might promise Boileau, he could not avoid meeting with censurers among men of worth. Of this number was the duke de Montausier, who valued himself upon an inflexible and rigorous virtue, and disliked satire. But, as it was of the greatest importance to Boileau to gain over to his interest one of the first persons about court, whose credit was the more formidable, as it was supported by that personal consideration which is not always joined to it, he introduced into one of his pieces a panegyrical notice of the duke de Montausier, which was neither flat nor exaggerated, and it produced the desired effect. Encouraged by this first success, Boileau lost no time in giving the final blow to the tottering austerity of his censurer, by confessing to him, with an air of contrition, how humiliated he felt himself at missing the friendship of “the worthiest man at court.” From that moment, the worthiest man at court became the protector and apologist of the most caustic of all writers. Though we attach less value to the satires of Boileau than to his other works, and think not very highly of his conduct to his patron, yet it must be allowed that he never attacks bad taste and bad writers, but with the weapons of pleasantry; and never speaks of vice and wicked men but with indignation. Boileau, however, soon became sensible that in order to reach posterity it is not sufficient to supply some ephemeral food to the malignity of contemporaries, but to be the writer of all times and all places. This led him to produce those works which will render his fame perpetual. He wrote his “Epistles,” in which, with delicate praises, he has intermixed precepts of literature and morality, delivered with the most striking truth and the happiest precision; and in 1674 his celebrated mock-heroic, the “Lutrin,” which, with so small a ground of matter, contains so much variety, action, and grace; and his “Art of Poetry,” which is in French what that of Horace is in Latin, the code of good taste. In these he expresses in harmonious verse, full of strength and elegance, the principles of reason and good taste; and was the first who discovered and developed, by the union of example to precept, the highly difficult art of French versification. Before Boileau, indeed, Malherbe had begun to detect the secret, but he had guessed it only in part, and had kept his knowledge for his own use; and Corneille, though he had written “Cinna” and “Polieucte,” had no other secret than his instinct, and when this abandoned him, was no longer Corneille. Boileau had the rare merit, which can belong only to a superior genius, of forming by his lessons and productions the first school of poetry in France; and it may be added, that of all the poets who have preceded or followed him, none was better calculated than himself to be the head of such a school. In fact, the severe and decided correctness which characterizes his works, renders them singularly fit to serve as a study for scholars in poetry. In Racine he had a disciple who would have secured him immortality, even if he had not so well earned it by his own writings. Good judges have even asserted, that the pupil surpassed the master; but Boileau, whether inferior or equal to his scholar, always preserved that ascendancy over him, which a blunt and downright self-love will ever assume over a timid and delipate self-love, such as that of Racine. The author of “Phaedra” and of “Athaliah” had always, either from deference or address, the complaisance to yield the first place to one who hoasted of having been his master. Boileau, it is true, had a merit with respect to his disciple, which in the eyes of the latter must have been of inestimable value, that of having early been sensible of Racine’s excellence, or rather of what he promised to become; for it was not easy, in the author of the “Freres Ennemis,” to discover that of “Andromache” and “Britannicus,” and doubtless perceiving in Racine’s first essays the germ of what he was one day to become, he felt how much care and culture it required to give it full expansion.

Boileau knew how to procure a still more powerful protection at court than the duke de Montausier’s, that of Lewis XIV. himself. He lavished upon this monarch praises the more flattering, as they appeared dictated by the public voice, and merely the sincere and warm expression of the nation’s intoxication with respect to its king. To add value to his homage, the artful satirist had the address to make his advantage of the reputation of frankness he had acquired, which served as a passport to those applauses which the poet seemed to bestow in spite of his nature; and he was particularly attentive, while bestowing praises on all those whose interest might either support or injure him, to reserve the first place, beyond comparison, for the monarch. Among other instances, he valued himself, as upon a great stroke of policy, for having contrived to place Monsieur, the king’s brother, by the side of the king himself, in his verses, without hazard of wounding the jealousy of majesty; and for having celebrated the conqueror of Cassel more feebly than the subduer of Flanders. He had however the art, or more properly the merit, along with his inundation of praises, to convey some useful lessons to the sovereign. Lewis XIV. as yet young and greedy of renown, which he mistook for real glory, was making preparations for war with Holland. Colbert, who knew how fatal to the people is the most glorious war, wished to divert the king from his design. He engaged Boileau to second his persuasions, by addressing to Lewis his first epistle, in which te proves that a king’s true greatness consists in rendering his subjects happy, by securing them the blessings of peace. But although this epistle did not answer the intentions of the minister or the poet, yet so much attention to please the monarch, joined to such excellence, did not remain unrecompensed. Boileau was loaded with the king’s favour, admitted at court, and named, in conjunction with Racine, royal historiographer. The two poets seemed closely occupied in writing the history of their patron; they even read several passages of it to the king; but they abstained from giving any of it to the public, in the persuasion that the history of sovereigns, even the most worthy of eulogy, cannot be written during their lives, without running the risk either of losing reputation by flattery, or incurring hazard by truth. It was with repugnance that Boileau had undertaken an office so little suited to his talents and his taste. “When I exercised,” said he, “the trade of a satirist, which I understood pretty well, I was overwhelmed with insults and menaces, and I am now dearly paid for exercising that of historiographer, which I do not understand at all/' Indeed,” far from being dazzled by the favour he enjoyed, he rather felt it as an incumbrance. He often said, that the first sensation his fortune at court inspired in him, was a feeling of melancholy. He thought the bounty of his sovereign purchased too dearly by the Joss of liberty a blessing so intrinsically valuable, which all the empty and fugitive enjoyments of vanity are unable to compensate in the eyes of a philosopher. Boileau endeavoured by degrees to recover this darling liberty, in proportion as age seemed to permit the attempt; and for the last ten or twelve years of his life he entirely dropped his visits to court. “What should I do there?” said he, “I can praise no longer.” He might, however, have found as much matter for his applauses as when he lavished them without the least reserve. While he attended at court^ he maintained a freedom and frankness of speech, especially on topics of literature, which are not common among courtiers. When Lewis asked his opinion of some verses which he had written, he replied, “Nothing, sire, is impossible to your majesty; you wished to make bad verses, and you have succeeded.” He also took part with the persecuted members of the Port-royal; and when one of the courtiers declared that the king was making diligent search after the celebrated Arnauld, in order to put him in the Bastile, Boileau observed, “His majesty is too fortunate; he will not find him:” and when the king asked him, what was the reason why the whole world was running after a preacher named le Tourneux, a disciple of Arnauld, “Your majesty,” he replied, “knows how fond people are of novelty: this is a minister who preaches the gospel.” Boileau appears from various circumstances, to have been no great friend to the Jesuits, whom he offended by his “Epistle on the Love of God,” and by many free speeches. By royal favour, he was admitted unanimously, in 1684, into the French academy, with which he had made very free in his epigrams; and he was also associated to the new academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, of which he appeared to be a fit rnember, by his “Translation of Longinus on the Sublime.” To science, with which he had little acquaintance, he rendered, however, important service by his burlesque “Arret in favour of the university, against an unknown personage called Reason,” which was the means of preventing the establishment of a plan of intolerance in matters of philosophy. His attachment to the ancients, as the true models of literary taste and excellence, occasioned a controversy between him and Perrault concerning the comparative merit of the ancients and moderns, which was prosecuted for some time by epigrams and mutual reproaches, till at length the public began to be tired with their disputes, and a reconciliation was effected by the good offices of their common friends. This controversy laid the foundation of a lasting enmity between Boileau and Fontenelle, who inclined to the party of Perrault. Boileau, however, did not maintain his opinion with the pedantic extravagance of the Daciers; but he happily exercised his wit on the misrepresentations of the noted characters of antiquity, by the fashionable romances of the time, in his dialogue entitled “The Heroes of Romance,” composed in the manner of Lucian. In opposition to the absurd opinions of father Hardouin, that most of the classical productions of ancient Rome had been written by the monks of the thirteenth century, Boileau pleasantly remarks, “I know nothing of all that; but though I am not very partial to the monks, I should not have been sorry to have lived with friar Tibullus, friar Juvenal, Dom Virgil, Dom Cicero, and such kind of folk.” After the death of Racine, Boileau very much retired from court; induced partly by his love of liberty and independence, and partly by his dislike of that adulation which was expected, and for which the dose of Lewis’s reign afforded more scanty materials than its commencement. Separated in a great degree from society, he indulged that austere and misanthropical disposition, from which he was never wholly exempt. His conversation, however, was more mild and gentle than his writings; and, as he used to say of himself, without “nails or claws,” it was enlivened by occasional sallies of pleasantry, and rendered instructive by judicious opinions of authors and their works. He was religious without bigotry; and he abhorred fanaticism and hypocrisy. His circumstances were easy; and his prudent economy has been charged by some with degenerating into avarice. Instances, however, occur of his liberality and beneficence. At the death of Colbert, the pension which he had given to the poet Corneille was suppressed, though he was poor, old, infirm, and dying. Boileau interceded with the king for the restoration of it, and offered to transfer his own to Corneille, telling the monarch that he should be ashamed to receive his bounty while such a man was in want of it. He also bought, at an advanced price, the library of Patru, reduced in his circumstances, and left him in the possession of it till his death. He gave to the poor all the revenues he had received for eight years from a benefice he had enjoyed without performing the duties of it. To indigent men of letters his purse was always open; and at his death he bequeathed almost all his possessions to the poor. Upon the whole, his temper, though naturally austere, was on many occasions kind and benevolent, so that it has been said of him, that he was “cruel only in verse;” and his general character was distinguished by worth and integrity, with some alloys of literary jealousy and injustice. Boileau died of a dropsy in the breast, March 11, 1711, and by his will left almost all his property to the poor. His funeral was attended by a very numerous company, which gave a woman of the lower class occasion to say, “He had many friends then I yet they say that he spoke ill of every body.”

Boileau 1 s character as a poet is now generally allowed to be that of taste, judgment, and good sense, which predominate in the best of his works as they do in the most popular of Pope’s writings. The resemblance between these two poets is in many respects very striking, and in one respect continues to be so; they are, in France and England, more read and oftener quoted than any other poets. Both were accused of stealing from the ancients; but says an elegant critic of our nation, those who flattered themselves that they should diminish the reputation of Boileau, by printing, in the manner of a commentary at the bottom of each page of his works, the many lines he has borrowed from Horace and Juvenal, were grossly deceived. The verses of the ancients which he has turned into French with so much address, and which he has happily made so homogeneous, and of a piece with the rest of the work, that every thing seems to have been conceived in a continued train of thought by the very same person, confer as much honour on him, as the verses which are purely his own. The original turn which he gives to his translations, the boldness of his expressions, so little forced and unnatural, that they seem to be born, as it were, with his thoughts, display almost as much invention as the first production of a thought entirely new. The same critic, Dr. Warton, is of opinion that Boileau’s “Art of Poetry” is the best composition of that kind extant. “The brevity of his precepts,” says this writer, “enlivened by proper imagery, the justness of his metaphors, the harmony of his numbers, as far as alexandrine lines will admit, the exactness of his method, the perspicuity of his remarks, and the energy of his style, all duly considered, may render this opinion not unreasonable. It is to this work he owes his immortality, which was of the highest utility to his nation, in diffusing a just way of thinking and writing, banishing every species of false wit, and introducing a general taste for the manly simplicity of the ancients, on whose writings this poet had formed his taste.”

He is well known by a number of works in a peculiar style, some of which were not remarkable for decency; but these he wrote in Latin, “lest the bishops,” he said, “should condemn them.” He was not more a friend to the Jesuits than his brother; and he described them as “men who lengthened the creed, and shortened the commandments.” As dean of the chapter of Sens, he was appointed to harangue the celebrated prince of Conde, when he 'passed through the city. This great commander took particular pleasure on these occasions in disconcerting his panegyrists; but the doctor, perceiving his intention, counterfeited great confusion, and addressed him in the following manner: “Your highness will not be surprised, I trust, at seeing me tremble in your presence at the head of a company of peaceful priests; I should tremble still more, if I was at the head of 30,000 soldiers.” He manifested a contempt of fanaticism, as well as of decorum, by his “Historia Flagellantium, &c.” or, an account of the extravagant, and often indecent, practice of discipline by flagellation, in the popish church. It was translated into French; and not many years ago (viz. 1777, 4to. and again in 1782, 8vo.) by M. de Lolme, into English. In his treatise “De antiquo jure presbyterorum in regimine ecclesiastico,” he endeavours to shew, that in the primitive times the priests participated with the bishops in the government of the church. He was also the author of several other publications, displaying much curious learning and a satirical turn, which are now consigned to oblivion.

, born at Paris in 1676, the son of an attorney in the office of the finances, entered into the regiment of musqueteers in 1696. The weakness of his constitution, unable to resist the fatigues of the service, obliged him to lay down his arms and take to his studies. He was received in 1706 into the academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, and would have been of the French academy, if the public profession he made of atheism had not determined his exclusion. He was afflicted towards the latter end of his days with a fistula, which carried him off the 30th of Nov. 1751, at the age of 75. He was denied the honours of sepulture; being inhumed the day following without ceremony at three o clock in the morning. M. Parfait the elder, who inherited the works of Boindin, gave them to the public in 1753, in 2 vols. 12mo. In the first we have four comedies in prose: and a memoir on his life and writings, composed by himself. This man, who plumed himself on being a philosopher, here gives himself, without scruple, all the praises that a dull panegyrist would have found some difficulty in affording him. There is also by him a memoir, very circumstantial and very slanderous, in which he accuses, after a lapse of forty years, la Motte, Saurin, and Malaffaire a merchant, of having plotted the stratagem that caused the celebrated and unhappy Rousseau to be condemned. Boindin, though an atheist, escaped the punishment due to his arrogance, because, in the disputes between the Jesuits and their adversaries, he used frequently to declaim in the coffeehouses against the latter. M. de la Place relates, that he said to a man who thought like him, and who was threatened for his opinions, “They plague you, because you are a Jansenistic atheist; but they let me alone, because I am a Molinistic atheist.” Not that he inclined more to Molina than to Jansenius; but he fouiul that he should get more by speaking in behalf of those that were then in favour.

, of the French academy, to the establishment whereof he contributed greatly, abbot of Chatilly-sur-Seine, was born at Caen in 1592, and died in 1662. He was remarkably brilliant in conversation, but with his natural and borrowed powers, often repeating scraps from many of the tales of Boccace, of Beroald, and especially the “Moyen de parvenir” of the Jatter. His imagination, fostered early by the writings of all the facetious authors, furnished him with the means of amusing and of exciting laughter. Citois, first physician to the cardinal de Richelieu, used to say to that minister, when he was indisposed, “Monseigneur, all our drugs are of no avail, unless you mix with them a dram of Boisrobert.” The cardinal for a long time was never happy without his company and jokes, and employed him as his buffoon. When Boisrobert fell into disgrace with the cardinal, he had recourse to Citois, who put at the bottom of his paper to the cardinal, as if it had been a prescription, Recipe Boisrobert. This jest had its effect, by causing him to be recalled. Boisrobert published, 1. Divers poems; the first part 1647, 4to, and the second 1659, 8vo. 2. Letters in the collection of Faret; 8vo. 3. Tragedies, comedies, and tales, which bear the name of his brother Antoine le Metel, sieur d'Ouville. 4. “Histoire Indienne d‘Anaxandre et d’Orasie;” 1629, 8vo. 5. “Nouvelles heroiques,” 1627, 8vo. His theatrical pieces, applauded by cardinal Richelieu and by some of his flatterers, are now totally forgot. All his friends, indeed, were not flatterers, if the following anecdote may be relied on. Boisrobert, among his other follies, was a gamester, and on one occasion lost ten thousand crowns to the duke de Roquelaure, who loved money, and insisted upon being paid. Boisrobert sold all he had, which amounted to four thousand crowns, which one of his friends carried to the duke, telling him, he must forgive the rest, and that Boisrobert, in return, would compose a panegyrical ode upon him, which would certainly be a bad one. “Now,” added this friend, “when it is known that your grace has rewarded a paltry piece with six thousand crowns, every one will applaud your generosity, and will be anxious to know what you would have given for a good poem.” It is most to his honour, however, that he contributed to the establishment of the French academy, and always employed his interest with cardinal Richelieu in behalf of men of merit.

, a celebrated French comic writer of native wit and genuine humour, was born at Vic in Auvergne in 1694. He came early to Paris, and began to write for the stage. The rest of his life is a moral. As has often been the fate of extraordinary favourites of the muses, though he laboured incessantly for the public, his works procured him only a competency of fame he wanted bread, and while the theatres and coffee-houses of Paris were ringing with plaudits on his uncommon talents to promote their mirth, he was languishing, with a wife and child, under the pressures of the extremest poverty. Yet, melancholy as his situation was, he lost nothing of that pride, which forbid him to creep and fawn at the feet of a patron. Boissi had friends, who would readily have relieved him; but they were never made acquainted with his real condition, or had not that friendly impetuosity which forces assistance on the modest sufferer. He at length became the prey of distress, and sunk into despondency. The shortest way to rid himself at once of his load of misery seemed to him to be death, on which he speculated with the despair of a man who has none of the consolations of religion. His wife, who was no less weary of life, listened with participation as often as he declaimed, in all the warmth of poetic rapture, on the topic of deliverance from this earthly prison, and the smiling prospects of futurity; till at length she took up the resolution to accompany him in death. But she could not bear to think of leaving her beloved son, of five years old, in a world of misery and sorrow; it was therefore agreed to take the child along with them, on their passage into another and a better, and they made choice of starving. To this end, they shut themselves up in their solitary and deserted apartment, waiting their dissolution with immovable fortitude. When any one came and knocked, they fled trembling into a corner, for fear of being discovered. Tneir little boy, who had not yet learned to silence the calls of hunger by artificial reasons, whimpering and crying, asked for bread; but they always found means to quiet him.

It occurred to one of Boissi’s friends, that it was very extraordinary he should never find him at home. At first he thought the family had changed their lodgings; but, on assuring himself of the contrary, he began to be alarmed. He called several times in one day, and at last burst open the door, when he saw his friend, with his wife and son, extended on the bed, pale and emaciated, scarcely able to utter a sound! The boy lay in the middle, and the husband and wife had their arms thrown over him. The child stretched out his little hands towards his deliverer, and his first word was Bread! It was now the third day that not a morsel of food had entered his lips. The parents lay still in a perfect stupor; they had never heard the bursting open of the door, and felt nothing of the embraces of their agitated friend. Their wasted eyes were directed towards the boy; and the tenderest expressions of pity were in the look with which they had last beheld him, and still saw him dying. Their friend hastened to take measures for their recovery; but could not succeed without difficulty. They thought themselves already far from the troubles of life, and were terrified at being suddenly brought back to them. Void of sense and reflection, they submitted to the attempts that were made to recall them to life. At length a thought occurred to their friend, which happily succeeded. He took the child from their arms, and thus roused the last spark of paternal and maternal tenderness. He gave the child to eat; who, with one hand held his bread, and with the other alternately shook his father and mother. It seemed at once to rekindle the love of life in their hearts, on perceiving that the child had left the bed and their embraces. Nature did her office. Their friend procured them strengthening broths, which he put to their lips with the utmost caution, and did not leave them till every symptom of restored life was fully visible.

The last six years of his life he was unable to officiate publicly; and was obliged to obtain assistance from the Rev. Charles Cooper, a clergyman who resided in the parish on a small patrimonial property, with whom he divided his salary, making up the deficiency from his savings. Mr. Bold’s previous saving of 5l. annually, for the preceding four or five and forty years (and that always put out to interest) enabled him to procure this assistance, and to continue his little charities, as well as to support himself, though the price of boarding was just doubled upon him from his first entrance on the cure, from 8l. to 16l. a year. But, from the annual saving even of so small a sum as 5l. with accumulating interest during that term, he not only procured assistance for the last years of his life, but actually left by his will securities for the payment of bequests to the amount of between two and three hundred pounds: of which 100l. was bequeathed to some of his nearest relations; 100l. to the farmer’s family in which he died, to requite their attendance in his latter end, and with which a son of the family was enabled to set up in a little farm; and 40l. more he directed to be placed out at interest, of which interest one half is paid at Christmas to the poorer inhabitants who attend at church; and the other, for a sermon once a year, in Lent, “on the duty of the people to attend to the instructions of the minister whom the bishop of the diocese should set over them.”

, second wife of king Henry VIII. was born in 1507. She was daughter of sir Thomas Bolen, afterwards earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde, by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk. When she was but seven years of age, she was carried over to France with the king’s sister Mary, who was married to Lewis XII. And though, upon the B'rench king’s death, the queen dowager returned to England, yet Anne Bolen was so highly esteemed at the court of France, that Claude, the wife of Francis I. retained her in her service for some years; and after her death in 1524, the duchess of Alenzon, the king’s sister, kept her in her court during her stay in that kingdom. It is probable, that she returned from thence with her father, from his embassy in 1527; and was soon preferred to the place of maid of honour to the queen. She continued without the least imputation upon her character, till her unfortunate fall gave occasion to some malicious writers to defame her in all the parts of it. Upon her coming to the English court, the lord Percy, eldest son of the earl of Northumberland, being then a domestic of cardinal Wolsey, made his addressee to her, and proceeded so far, as to engage himself to marry her; and her consent shews, that she had then no aspirings to the crown. But the cardinal, upon some private reasons, using threats and other methods, with great difficulty put an end to that nobleman’s design. It was prohably about 1528, that the king began to shew some favour to her, which caused many to believe, that the whole process with regard to his divorce from queen Catherine was moved by the unseen springs of that secret passion. But it is not reasonable to imagine, that the engagement of the king’s affec tion to any other person gave the rise to that affair; for so sagacious a courtier as Wolsey would have infallibly discovered it, and not have projected a marriage with the French king’s sister, as he did not long before, if he had seen his master prepossessed. The supposition is much more reasonable, that his majesty, conceiving himself in a manner discharged of his former marriage, gave a full liberty to his affections, which began to settle upon Mrs. Bolen; who, in September 1532, was created marchioness of Pembroke, in order that she might be raised by degrees to the height for which she was designed; and on the 25th of January following was married to the king, the office being performed by; Rowland Lee, afterwards bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, with great privacy, though in the presence of her uncle the duke of Norfolk, her father, mother, and brother. On the 1st of June, 1533, she was crowned queen of England with such pomp and solemnity, as was answerable to the magnificence of his majesty’s temper; and every one admired her conduct, who had so long managed the spirit of a king so violent, as neither to surfeit him with too much fondness, nor to provoke with too much reserve. Her being so soon with child gave hopes of a numerous issue; and those, who loved the reformation, entertained the greatest hopes from her protection, as they knew she favoured them. On the 13th or 14th of September following, she brought forth a daughter, christened Elizabeth, afterwards the renowned queen of England, Cranmer, archbishop of Canterb ry, being her god-father. But the year 1536 proved fatal to her majesty; and her ruin was in all probability occasioned by those who began to be distinguished by the name of the Romish party. For the king now proceeding both at home and abroad in the point of reformation, they found that the interest which the queen had in him was the grand support of that cause. She had risen, not only in his esteem, but likewise in that of the nation in general; for in the last nine months of her life, she gave above fourteen thousand pounds to the poor, and was engaged in several noble and public designs. But these virtues could not secure her against the artifices of a bigoted party, which received an additional force from several other circumstances, that contributed to her destruction. Soon after queen Catharine’s death in Jan. 1535-6, she was brought to bed of a dead son, which was believed to have made a bad impression on the king’s mind; and as he had concluded from the death of his sons by his former queen, that the marriage was displeasing to God, so he might upon this misfortune begin to have the same opinion of his marriage with queen Anne. It was also considered by some courtiers, that now queen Catharine was dead, his majesty might marry another wife, and be fully reconciled with the pope and the emperor, and the issue by any other marriage would never be questioned; whereas, while queen Anne lived, the ground of the controversy still remained, and her marriage being accounted null from the beginning, would never be allowed by the court of Rome, or any of that party. With these reasons of state the king’s own passions too much concurred; for he now entertained a secret love for the lady Jane Seymour, who had all the charms of youth and beauty, and an humour tempered between the gravity of queen Catharine, and the gaiety of queen Anne. Her majesty therefore perceiving the alienation of the king’s heart, used all possible arts to recover that affection, the decay of which she was sensible of; but the success was quite contrary to what she designed. For he saw her no more with those eyes which she had formerly captivated; but gave way to jealousy, and ascribed her caresses to some other criminal passion, of which he began to suspect her. Her chearful temper indeed was not always limited within the bounds of exact decency and discretion; and her brother the lord Rochford’s wife, a woman of no virtue, being jealous of her husband and her, possessed the king with her own apprehensions. Henry Norris, groom of the stole, William Brereton, and sir Francis W'eston, who were of the king’s privy chamber, and Mark Smeton, a musician, were by the queen’s enemies thought too officious about her; and something was pretended to have been sworn by the lady Wingfield at her death, which determined the king; but the particulars are not known. It is reported likewise, that when the king held a tournament at Greenwich on the 1st of May, 1536, he was displeased at the queen for letting her handkerchief fall to one, who was supposed a favourite, and who wiped his face with it. Whatever the case was, the king returned suddenly from Greenwich to Whitehall, and immediately ordered her to be confined to her chamber, and her brother, with the four persons abovementioned, to be committed to the Tower, and herself to be sent after them the day following. On the river some privy counsellors came to examine her, but she made deep protestations of her innocence; and as she landed at the Tower, she fell down on her knees, and prayed Heaven so to assist her, as she was free from the crimes laid to her charge.“The confusion she was in soon raised a storm of vapours within her; sometimes she laughejj, and at other times wept excessively. She was also devout and light by turns; one while she stood upon her vindication, and at other times confessed some indiscretions, which upon recollection she denied. All about her took advantage from any word, that fell from her, and sent it immediately to court. The duke of Norfolk and others, who came to examine her, the better to make discoveries, told her, that Morris and Smeton had accused her; which, though false, had this effect on her, that it induced her to own some slight acts of indiscretion, which, though no ways essential, totally alienated the king from her. Yet whether even these small acknowledgments were real truths, or the effects of imagination and hysterical emotions, is very uncertain. On the 12th of May, Morris, Brereton, Weston, and Smeton, were tried in Westminster-hall. Smeton is said by Dr. Burnet to have confessed the fact; but the lord Herbert’s silence in this matter imports him to have been of a different opinion; to which may be added, that Cromwell’s letter to the king takes notice, that only some circumstances were confessed by Smeton. However, they were all four found guilty, and executed on the 17th of May. On the 15th of which month, the queen, and her brother the lord Rochford, were tried by their peers in the Tower, and condemned to die. Yet all this did not satisfy the enraged king, who resolved likewise to illegitimate his daughter Elizabeth; and, in order to that, to annul his marriage with the queen, upon pretence of a precontract between her and the lord Percy, now earl of Northumberland, who solemnly denied it; though the queen was prevailed upon to acknowledge, that there were some just and lawful impediments against her marriage with the king; and upon this a sentence of divorce was pronounced by the archbishop, and afterwards confirmed in the convocation and parliament. On the 19th of May, she was brought to a scaffold within the Tower, where she was prevailed upon, out of regard to her daughter, to make no reflections on the hardships she had sustained, nor to say any thing touching the grounds on which sentence passed against her; only she desired, that” all would judge the best." Her head being severed from her body, they were both put into an ordinary chest, and buried in the chapel in the Tower.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Tillemont, in the Netherlands, Aug. 13, 1596, and at sixteen, a very usual age, entered the society of the Jesuits, and soon became distinguished as a teacher, both in the Netherlands, and in other countries. What entitles him to notice here, is the share he had in that voluminous work, the “Lives of the Saints,” or “Acta Sanctorum.” The history of this work is not uninteresting, although the work itself, otherwise than for occasional consultation, defies time and patience. The design of this vast collection was first projected by father Hesibert Koseweide, a Jesuit of the age of sixty, and consequently too far advanced to execute much of his plan, winch was to extend no farther than eighteen volumes folio, a trifle in those days, had he begun earlier. In 1607, however, he began by printing the manuscript lives of some saints, which he happened to find in the Netherlands; but death put an end to his labours in 1629. It was then entrusted to Bollandus, who was about this time thirty-four years of age, and who removed to Antwerp for the purpose. After examining Roseweide’s collections, he established a general correspondence over all Europe, instructing his friends to search every library, register, or repository of any kind, where information might be found; but becoming soon sensible of the weight of his undertaking, he called in the assistance of another Jesuit, Henschemus of Gueiderland, younger than himself, more healthy, and equally qualified in other respects. With this aid he was enabled in 1641 to publish the tirst two volumes, folio, which contain the lives of the saints of the month of January, the order of the Kalendar having been preferred. Jn 1658 he published those of February; and two years after, his labours still entreasmg, he had another associate, father Daniel Paperbroch, at that time about thirty-two years old, whom he sent with Henschenius to Italy and France to collect manuscripts, but he died before the publication of another volume, Sept. 12, 1665. After his death the work was continued by various hands, called Bollandists, until it amounted to forty-two folio volumes, the last published 1753, which, after all, bring down the lives only to the fourteenth of September. In such an undertaking, much legendary matter must be expected, and many absurdities and fictions. Dupiri allows that Bollandus was more partial to popular traditions than Henschemus and Paperbroch, yet it would appear that they found it difficult to please the taste of the different orders of monks, &c. who were to be edified by the work. Bollandus published separately: 1. “Vita S. Liborii Episcopi,” Antwerp, 1648, 8vo. 2. “Brevis Notitia Italiae,” ibid. 1648. 3. “Breves Notitice triplici status, Ecclesiastici, Monastici et Saecularis,” ibid. 1648.

, a writer, whose whole merit was inventing abominable lies and absurdities against the first reformers in the sixteenth century; and, by this means supplying popish missionaries with matter of invective against them, he was often quoted, and became respected. He was a Carmelite of Paris, who, having preached somewhat freely in St. Bartholomew’s church, forsook hiaonier, and fled into Italy, where he set up for a physician, and married; but soon after committed some crime, for which he was driven away. He set up afterwards in Geneva as a physician; but not succeeding in that protession, he studied divinity. At first he dogmatized privately on the mystery of predestination, according to the principles of Pelagius; and afterwards had the boldness to make a public discourse against the received opinion. Upon this, Calvin went to see him, and censured him mildly. Then he sent for him to his house, and endeavoured to reclaim him from his error; but this did not hinder Bolsec from delivering in public an insulting discourse against the decree of eternal predestination. Calvin was among his auditors; but, hiding himself in the crowd, was not seen by Bolsec, which made him the bolder. As soon as Bolsec had ended his sermon, Calvin stood up, and confuted all he had been saying. “He answered, overset, and confounded him,” says Beza, “with so many testimonies from the word of God, with so many passages, chiefly from St. Augustine in short, with so many solid arguments, that every body was miserably ashamed for him, except the brazen-faced monk himself.” On this, a magistrate who was present in that assembly, sent him to prison. The cause was discussed very fully, and at last, with the advice of the Swiss churches, the senate of Geneva declared Bolsec convicted of sedition and Pelagian ism; and as such, in 1551, banished him from the territory of the republic, on pain of being whipped if he should return thither. He retired into a neighbouring place, which depended on the canton of Bern, and raised a great deal of disturbance there, by accusing Calvin of making God the author of sin. Calvin, to prevent the impressions which such complaints might make upon the gentlemen of Bern, caused himself to be deputed to them, and pleaded his cause before them. He was so fortunate, that though he could not get a determination upon his doctrine, whether it was true or false, yet Bolsec was ordered to quit the country.

was an engraver, of Antwerp, who flourished about 1620; but by what master he was instructed in the art of engraving, does not appear. He imitated the free open style of the Bloemarts with great success; and perhaps perfected himself in their school. When he worked from Rubens, he altered that style; and his plates are neater, fuller of colour, and more highly finished. The two following from this master may be here mentioned: 1. The Resurrection of Lazarus, a large upright plate. 2. The Last Supper, its companion. Basan, speaking of this print, says, that it proves by its beauty, and the knowledge with which it is engraved, that Boetius could sometimes equal his brother Scheltius.

, an admirable engraver, was the brother of the preceding. The time of his birth and of his death, and the name of the master he studied under, are equally unknown. Bolswert, like his brother, worked entirely with the graver. His general character as an an artist is well drawn by Basan, who says: “We have a large number of prints, which are held in great esteem, by this artist, from various masters; but especially from Rubens, whose pictures he has copied with all possible knowledge, taste, and great effect. The freedom with which this excellent artist handled the graver, the picturesque roughness of etching, which he could imitate without any other assisting instrument, and the ability he possessed of distinguishing the different masses of colours, have always been admired by the connoisseurs, and give him a place in the number of those celebrated engravers whose prints ought to be considered as models by all historical engravers, who are desirous of rendering their works as useful as they are agreeable, and of acquiring a reputation as lasting as it is justly merited.” He drew excellently, and without any manner of his own; for his prints are the exact transcripts of the pictures he engraved from. His best works, though not always equally neat or finished, are always beautiful, and manifest the hand of the master. Sometimes we find his engravings are in a bold, free, open style; as the Brazen Serpent; the Marriage of the Virgin, &c. from Rubens. At other times they are very neat, and sweetly finished; as, the Crowning with Thorns, and the Crucifixion, &c. from Vandyck. Mr. Strutt observes, that his boldest engravings are from Rubens, and his neatest from Vandyck and Jordan. How greatly Bolswert varied his manner of engraving appears from some prints, which, like the greater part of those of his brother Boetius, bear great resemblance to the free engravings of the Bloemarts, and to those of Frederic Bloemart especially; and form a part of the plates for a large folio volume entitled “Academic de l'Espée,” by Girard Thibault of Antwerp, where it was published A.D. 1628; and to these he signs his name “Scheltius,” and sometimes “Schelderic Bolswert,” adding the word Bruxelle. His works are pretty numerous, and his name is usually affixed to his plates in this manner: “S. A. Bolswert.”

, an ingenious writer and antiquary, in the beginning of the seventeenth century, was a retainer to the great George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, under whom he probably enjoyed some office. He was a Roman catholic; and distinguished Himself by the following curious writings; l.“The Life of king Henry II.” intended to be inserted in Speed’s Chronicle; but the author being too partial to Thomas Becket, another life was written by Dr. Barcham. 2. “The Elements of Armories,” Lond. 1610, 4to. 3. A poem upon the translation of the body of Mary queen of Scots, from Peterburgh to Westminster-abbey, in 1612, entitled “Prosopopoeia Basilica,” a ms. in the Cottonian library. 4. An English translation of Lucius Florus’s Roman History. 5. “Nero Cæsar, or Monarchic depraved. An historicall worke, dedicated with leave to the duke of Buckingham, lord-admiral,” Lond. 1624, fol. This book, which contains the life of the emperor Nero, is printed in a neat and elegant manner, and illustrated with several curious medals. In recapitulating the affairs of Britain, from the time of Julius Cæsar to the revolt under Nero, he relates the history of Boadicea, and endeavours to prove that Stonehenge is a monument erected to her memory. How much he differs from the conjectures of the other antiquaries who have endeavoured to trace the history of Stonehenge, it would be unnecessary to specify. He wrote also, 6. “Vindiciae Britannicae, or London righted by rescues and recoveries of antiquities of Britain in general, and of London in particular, against unwarrantable prejudices, and historical antiquations amongst the learned; for the more honour, and perpetual just uses of the noble island and the city.” It consists of seven chapters. In the first, he treats “of London before the Britann rebells sackt and fired it in hatred and defiance of Nero.” In the second he shows, that “London was more great and famous in Nero’s days, than that it should be within the description, which Julius Cæsar makes of a barbarous Britann town in his days.” In the third, he proves, “that the credit of Julius Cæsar’s writings may subsist, and yet London retain the opinion of utmost antiquity.” In the fourth, “the same fundamental assertion is upholden with other, and with all sorts of arguments or reasons.” The fifth bears this title, “The natural face of the seat of London (exactly described in this section) most sufficiently proved, that it was most antiently inhabited, always presupposing reasonable men in Britain.” The sixth contains “a copious and serious disquisition about the old book of Brute, and of the authority thereof, especially so far forth as concerns the present cause of the honour and antiquity of London, fundamentally necessary in general to our national history.” The last chapter is entitled, <; Special, as well historical, as other illustrations, for the use of the coins in my Nero Cæsar, concerning London in and before that time.“This ms. (for it never was printed) was in the possession of Hugh Howard, esq and afterwards sold among Thomas Rawiinson’s to Endymion Porter. Mr. Bolton was also author of” Hypercritica, or a rule of judgement for writing or reading our histories. Delivered in four supercensorian addresses by occasion of a censorian epistle, prefixed by sir Henry Savile, knt. to his edition of some of our oldest historians in Latin, dedicated to the late queen Elizabeth. That according thereunto, a complete body of our affairs, a Corpus Rerum Anglicarum may at last, and from among our ourselves, come happily forth in either of the tongues. A felicity wanting to our nation, now when even the name thereof is as it were at an end.“It was published by Dr. Hall, at the end of” Triveti Annales,“Oxford, 1722, 8vo. Bolton likewise intended to compose a” General History of England, or an entire and complete body of English affairs;“and there is in the Cottonian collection, the outline of a book entitled” Agon Heroicus, or concerning Arms and Armories," a copy of which is in the Biog. Britannica. The time and place of his death are unknown.

, an eminent puritan divine, and one of the best scholars of his time, was born at Blackburn in Lancashire, in 1572, and educated in queen Elizabeth’s free-school in that place, where he made such proficiency as to be accounted a young man of extraordinary talents and industry. In his eighteenth year he went to Oxford, and entered of Lincoln college, under the tuition of Mr. John Randal, where he went through a course of logic and philosophy with distinguished approbation, and particularly took pains to acquire a critical knowledge of Greek, transcribing the whole of Homer with his own hand. By this diligence he attained a greater facility than was then usual, writing, and even disputing, in Greek with great correctness and fluency. From Lincoln he removed to Brazen-nose, in hopes of a fellowship, as that society consisted most of Lincolnshire and Cheshire men. In 1596 he took his bachelor’s degree in this college, and was kindly supported by Dr. Brett of Lincoln, himself a good Grecian, and who admired the proficiency Bolton had made in that language, until 1602, when he obtained a fellowship, and proceeded M. A. the same year. His reputation advancing rapidly, he was successively chosen reader of the lectures on logic, and on moral and natural philosophy in his college. In 1605, vrhen king James came to Oxford, the vice-chancellor (Abbot, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) appointed him to read in natural philosophy in the public schools, and to be one of the disputants before his majesty. Afterwards he increased his stock of learning by metaphysics, mathematics, and scholastic divinity. About this time, one Anderton, a countryman and schoolfellow, and a zealous Roman catholic, endeavoured to seduce him to that religion, and a place of private conference was fixed, but Anderton not keeping his appointment, the affair dropped. Mr. Bolton, with all his learning, had been almost equally noted for immorality, but about his thirty-fourth year, reformed his life and manners, and became distinguished for regularity and piety. In 1609, about two years after he entered into holy orders, which he did very late in life, he was presented to the living of Broughton in Northamptonshire, by Mr. afterwards sir Augustine Nicolls, serjeant at law, who sent for him to his chamber* in Serjeant’s Inn and gave him the presentation. Dr. King, bishop of London, being by accident there at the same time, thanked the serjeant for what he had done for Broughton, but told him that he had deprived the university of a singular ornament. He then went to his living and remained on it until his death, Dec. 17, 1631. He was, says Wood, a painful and constant preacher, a person of great zeal in his duty, charitable and bountiful, and particularly skilled in resolving the doubts of timid Christians. Of his works, the most popular in his time, was “A Discourse on Happiness.” Lond. 1611, 4to, which was eagerly bought up, and went through six editions at least in his life-time. He published also various single and volumes of sermons, a list of which may be seen in Wood. After his death Edward Bagshaw, esq. published “Mr. Bolton’s last and learned work of the Four last Things, Death, Judgment, Hell, and Heaven, with an Assize Sermon, and Funeral Sermon for his patron Judge Nichols,” Loncl. 1633. Prefixed to this is the life of Mr. Bolton, to which all his subsequent biographers have been indebted.

, dean of Carlisle, was born in London in April 1697, and was the only surviving child of Mr. John Bolton, a merchant in that city, whom he lost when he was but three years old. He was first educated in a school at Kensington, and was admitted a commoner at Wadham college, Oxford, April 12, 1712. He was afterwards elected a scholar of that house, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1715, and of M. A. June 13, 1718, expecting to be elected fellow in his turn; but in this he was disappointed, and appealed, without success, to the bishop of Bath and Wells, the visitor. In July 1719 he removed to Hart Hall; and on the 20th December following, was ordained a deacon, in the cathedral church of St. Paul, by Dr. John Robinson, bishop of London. He then went to reside at Fulham, and seems to have passed two years there: for he was ordained priest by the same bishop in the chapel of Fulham palace, April 11, 1721. While at Fulham he became acquainted with Mrs. Grace Butler of Rowdell in Sussex, on whose daughter Elizabeth he wrote an epitaph, which is placed in Twickenham church-yard, where she was buried. This epitaph gave occasion to some verses by Pope, which appear in Uuff'head’s life of that poet, and were communicated to the author by the hon. Mr. Yorke, who probably did not know that they first appeared in the Prompter, a periodical paper, No. VIII. and afterwards in the works of Aaron Hill, who by mistake ascribes the character of Mrs. Butler to Pope.

Being chosen senior fellow of Dulwich college, he went to reside there, March 10, 1722, where he remained three years, and resigned his fellowship May 1, 1725. About this time he removed to Kensington, living upon a small fortune he possessed; and here he appears to have become acquainted with the celebrated Whiston; and partly, as it is said, by his recommendation, became known to sir Joseph Jekyll, master of the rolls, by whom he was appointed his domestic chaplain, and, in 1729, preacher at the Rolls, on the resignation of Dr. Butler, afterwards bishop of Durham. This connection introduced him to the patronage of lord Hardwicke, by whose means, in 1734, he was promoted to the deanery of Carlisle, and, in 1738, to the vicarage of St. Mary’s Reading. He had his degree of doctor of civil law from the archbishop of Canterbury, Jan. 13, 1734, and went to reside at Carlisle in 1736. Both these preferments, the only ones he ever received, he held until the time of his death. He was an excellent parishpriest, and a good preacher, charitable to the poor, and having from his own valetudinary state acquired some knowledge of physic, he kindly assisted them by advice and medicine. He was greatly beloved by his parishioners, and deservedly; for he performed every part of his duty in a truly exemplary manner. On Easter Tuesday in 173y he preached one of the spital sermons at St. Bride’s, Fleet' street, which was afterwards printed in 4to, but we do not find that he aspired to the character of an author, though so well qualified for it, until late in life. His first performance was entitled “A Letter to a lady on Cardplaying on the Lord’s day, 8vo, 1748; setting forth in a lively and forcible manner the many evils attending the practice of gaming on Sundays, and of an immoderate attachment to that fatal pursuit at any time. In 1750 appeared” The Employment of Time, three essays,“8vo, dedicated to lord Hardwicke; the most popular of our author’s performances, and, on its original publication, generally ascribed to Gilbert West. In this work two distinguished and exemplary female characters are supposed to be those of lady Anson and lady Heathcote, lord Hardwicke' s daughters. The next year, 1751, produced” The Deity’s delay in punishing the guilty considered on the principles of reason,“8vo; and in 1755,” An answer to the question, Where are your arguments against what you call lewdness, if you can make no use of the Bible?“8vo. Continuing to combat the prevailing vices of the times, he published in 1757,” A Letter to an officer of the army on Travelling on Sundays,“8vo; and, in the same year,” The Ghost of Ernest, great grandfather of her royal highness the princess dowager of Wales, with some account of his life,“8vo. Each of the above performances contains good sense, learning, philanthropy, and religion, and each of them is calculated for the advantage of society. The last work which Dr. Bolton gave the public was not the least valuable. It was entitled” Letters and Tracts on the Choice of Company, and other subjects,“1761, 8vo. This he dedicated to his early patron, lord Hardwicke, to whom he had inscribed The Employment of Time, and who at this period was no longer chancellor. In his address to this nobleman he says,” An address to your lordship on this occasion in the usual style would as ill suit your inclinations as it doth my age and profession. We are both of us on the confines of eternity, and should therefore alike make truth our care, that truth which, duly influencing our practice, will be the security of our eternal happiness. Distinguished by my obligations to your lordship, I would be so by my acknowledgments of them: I would not be thought to have only then owned them when they might have been augmented. Whatever testimony I gave of respect to you when in the highest civil office under your prince, I would express the same when you have resigned it; and shew as strong an attachment to lord Hardwicke as I ever did to the lord chancellor. Receive, therefore, a tribute of thanks, the last which I am ever likely in this manner to pay. But I am hastening to my grave, with a prospect which must be highly pleasing to me, unless divested of all just regard to those who survive me."

, one of the revivers of letters in the fifteenth century, was born in 1440, and is said by his nephew Pietro Valeriano to have been the earliest instructor of Leo X. in the knowledge of the Greek tongue. Although an ecclesiastic of the order of St. Francis, he quitted the walls of his monastery with the laudable curiosity of visiting foreign parts; and, having had an opportunity of accompanying Andrea Gritti, afterwards doge of Venice, on an embassy to Constantinople, he thence made an excursion through Greece, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and other countries; always travelling on foot, and diligently noting whatever appeared deserving of observation. His nephew adds, that he travelled also into Sicily, where he twice ascended the mountain of yEtna, and looked down its crater. The disinterestedness of Urbano is also strongly insisted on by his nephew, who informs us that he rather chose to suffer the inconveniencies of poverty, than to receive a reward for those instructions which he was at all times ready to give, and that he always persevered in refusing those honours and dignities which Leo X. would gladly have conferred upon him. His activity, temperance, and placid disposition, secured to him a healthful old age; nor did he omit to make frequently excursions through Italy, until he was disqualified from these occupations by a fall in his garden whilst he was pruning his trees. His principal residence was at Venice, where he not only assisted Aldus in correcting the editions which he published of the ancient authors, but gave in-' structions in the Greek language to a great number of scholars; and there was scarcely a person in Italy distinguished by his proficiency in that language who had not at some time been his pupil. His grammar, “Urbani Grammatica Græca,” Venice, 1497, 4to, was the first attempt to explain in Latin the rules of the Greek tongue, and was received with such avidity, that Erasmus, on inquiring for it in 1499, found that not a copy of the impression remained unsold. He died in the convent of St. Niccolo, at Venice, in 1524, and bequeathed to that convent his valuable library. His funeral oration, by Alberto da Castelfranco, was printed at Venice in the same year, 4to.

, a celebrated printer of the sixteenth century, was a native of Antwerp, but settled at Venice, where he commenced business by printing a Hebrew Bible, which was published in 2 vols. fol. 1518, and reprinted by him in 4to and 8vo. He learned Hebrew from Felix Pratenois, an Italian, who engaged him to print a Rabbinical Bible, which appeared in 1517, fol. dedicated by Bomberg to Leo X. The Jews, however, not approving of this edition, the rabbi Jacob Haum suggested another, which Bomberg published in 4 vols. fol. in 1525. He also, in 1520, began an edition of the Talmud, which he finished, after some years, in 11 vols. fol. This he reprinted twice, and each edition is said to have cost him an hundred thousand crowns. These two last editions are more complete and beautifully printed than the first, and are in more estimation than the subsequent editions of Bragadin and Burtorf. Bomberg appears to have been a man highly zealous for the honour of his art, spared no cost in embellishments, and is said to have retained about an hundred Jews as correctors, the most learned he could find. In printing only, in the course of his life, he is thought to have expended four millions in gold (Scaliger says, three millions of crowns), and Vossius seems to hint that he injured his fortune by his liberality. He died at Venice in 1549.

, an eminent cardinal of the church of Rome, and author of several derotional pieces, was born the 19th of October, 1609, at Mondovi, a little city in Piedmont, of a noble family. Having finished his first studies with great success, he entered himself in a monastery of the order of St. Bernard near Pignerol in July 1625, when he was but fifteen years of age, and was professed there the 2d of August the year following, according to Bertolot, who wrote his Life; though Moroti, in “Cistercii reflorescentis Historia,” places this. in 1627. He was sent that year to Monte Grosso near Asti to study philosophy, and having passed through a course of it, he returned to Pignerol, where he applied himself to divinity without the assistance of any master for two years, and afterwards went to Rome to perfect himself in that science under a professor. Being ordained priest at the proper age, the sentiments of piety which had influenced him in his youth, and which appear through all his writings, were heightened and improved. He had been scarce three years in his course of divinity, when he was sent to Mondovi to teach it there. He had some reluctance against accepting of that post on account of his aversion to disputes; but obedience, which was the rule of all his actions, obliged him to submit to it. He was afterwards made prior of Asti; and eight months after he was nominated abbot of the monastery of St. Mark at Mondovi; but he was so importunate in his solicitations to the general of the congregation to be discharged from that office, that his request was granted. He was sent, therefore, to Turin, where he spent five years in collecting the materials for his book of Psalmody. He was afterwards appointed again prior of Asti, abbot of Mondovi, and general of his order in 1651. While he held the last post, he had occasion to speak with cardinal Fubio Chigf, who entertained a very great esteem for him, of which he afterwards gave him signal proofs. When the time of his being general of the order was expired, he left Rome, and returning to Mondovi in order to profess divinity, cardinal Chigi, who was chosen pope under the name of Alexander VII. appointed our author general of the order again of his own accord, the plague, which then raged in many parts of Italy, preventing any assembly of the general chapter. He made him afterwards consultor of the congregation of the index, and then qualificator of the sacred office; which place he resigned for that of consultor in the same court. The pope, who had a particular friendship for him, and made him his confident in all his secrets, would have raised him to the dignity of a cardinal, if the humility of Bona had not prevented him from accepting it, and he had not made use of his interest with the pope in order to avoid it. But pope Clement IX. his successor, thought himself under an obligation to reward his virtues by making him a cardinal the 29th of November, according to Moroti, or of December, according to Bertolot, in 1669. Upon the death of this pope, cardinal Bona was proposed to be elected his successor; which gave occasion to this pasquinade, Papa Bona sarebbe solecismo, upon which father Daugieres, the Jesuit, wrote an ingenious epigram, which our Latin readers are aware will not bear a translation:

, a learned Jesuit, who died at Rome in 1725, at the age of eighty-seven, after having honourably filled different posts in his order, left several works of various kinds, principally relating to natural history, which was his favourite pursuit. He was engaged in 1698 to put in order the celebrated cabinet of father Kircher; and he continued to employ himself in that business and the augmentation of it till his death. The chief of his works are, 1. “Recreatio mentis et oculi in observatione Animalium Testaceorum,” Rome, 1684, 4to, with near 500 figures. He first composed this book in Italian, and it was printed in that language in 1681 in 4to; and translated by the author into Latin for the benefit of foreigners. 2. “History of the Church of the Vatican; with the plans both antient and modern,” Rome, 1696, folio, in Latin. 3. “Collection of the Medals of the popes, from Martin V. to Innocent XII.” Rome, 1699, 2 vols. fol. in Latin. 4. “Catalogue of the Orders, Religious, Military, and Equestrian, with plates representing their several habiliments,” in Latin and in Italian, Korne, 1706, 1707, 1710, and 1711, 4 vols. 4to. The plates in particular render this last work highly interesting and much in request. 5. “Observationes circa viventia in non viventibus,” Rome, 1691, 4to. 6. “Musaeum collegii Romani Kircherianum,” Rome, 1709, fol. 7. “A Treatise on Varnishes,” in Italian, Paris, 1713, 12mo. 8. “Gabinetto armonico,” 1723, 4to.

, was born December 25, 1563, at Urbino, of one of the most ancient and noble families in the city of Ancona, and was sent into France at the age of fifteen, to be educated suitably to his birth and the customs of that time. Bonarelli was but nineteen when he was offered a philosophical professorship of the Sorbonne, in the college of Calvi; but, his father having sent for him home, he was satisfied with having merited that honour, and declined accepting it. He attached himself, for some time, to cardinal Frederick Borromeo (nephew of St. Charles Borromeo) who had a regard for men of letters, and who founded the famous Ambrosian library at Milan. He went afterwards to Modena, to which place his father had removed. After his death, the duke Alphonso, knowing the merit of Bonarelli, employed him in several important embassies, and the success of these negociations proved how well they had been carried on. Bonarelli went to Rome with the hope of recovering the marquisate of Orciano, of which his father had been deprived; but an attack of the gout obliged him to stop at Fano, where he died January 8, 1608, aged forty-five, with the character of an able politician, a distinguished bel esprit, and a good philosopher for the age he lived in. The pastoral poem for which he is best known is entitled “Filli di Sciro,” and was printed first at Ferrara, 1607, 4to, with plates; there have been many editions since, the best of which are that of the Elzevirs, 1678, 4to, those of London, 1725, or 1728, and of Glasgow, 1763, 8vo; but with all its merit it is full of unnatural characters and distorted conceits. His shepherds are courtiers, and his shepherdesses are frequently prudes, whose conversation savours of the toilette. The author was censured for having made Celia, who has so great a share in the piece, nothing more than an episodical personage, but still more for giving her an equally ardent love for two shepherds at once. He attempted to excuse this defect in a tract written on purpose; “Discorsi in difesa del doppio amore della sua Celia,” but this was rather ingenious than conclusive. We have likewise some academical discourses of his.

, called sometimes Bolognese, from the place of his birth, flourished in the sixteenth century, and is better known as an engraver than as a painter. He is supposed, but without sufficient authority, to have been a scholar of Sabbatini. Some remaining oil-pictures of his, on canvas, which are, in general, weak, and of different styles, make it probable, says Lanzi, that he resolved to be a painter when he had passed youth. There is, however, in the church of St. Stephano, in Bologna, a Purgatory of his, which has great beauties, and is suspected to have been done with the assistance of Sabbatini. As an engraver, he worked from the pictures of Raphael, Julio Romano, and other great masters; and occasionally from his own designs. Mr. Strutt’s opinion is, that excepting one or two subjects, in which he called in the assistance of the point (the use of which, however, he never well understood), his plates are executed chiefly with the graver, in a manner though much varied from that of his tutor, Marc Antonio Raimondi, yet evidently founded upon it, although neither so firm, clear, or masterly. His drawing is often heavy, and the extremities of his figures frequently neglected; the folds of his draperies are seldom well expressed, and the back grounds to his prints, especially his landscapes, are extremely flat and stiff. However, with all these faults (which are not always equally conspicuous), his best prints possess an uncommon share of merit; and though not equal to those of his master, are deservedly held in no small degree of estimation by the greatest collectors. Bonasone has lately found an ingenious and able advocate in George Cumberland, esq. who, in 1793, published “Some Anecdotes” of his life, with a catalogue of his engravings, &c.

, a celebrated doctor, cardinal, and saint of the church of Rome, was born at Bagnarea in Tuscany, 1221. He was admitted into the order of St. Francis, about 1243; and studied divinity at the university of Paris under the celebrated Alexander de Hales, with so much success, that at the end of seven years he was thought worthy to read public lectures upon the Sentences. He was created doctor in 1255 along with St. Thomas Aquinas, and the year after appointed general of his order, in which office he governed with so much zeal and prudence, that he perfectly restored the discipline of it, which had been greatly neglected. Pope Clement IV. nominated him to the archbishopric of York in England; but Bonaventure disinterestedly refused it. After the death of Clement the see of Rome lay vacant almost three years, and the cardinals not being able to agree among themselves who should be pope, came at length to a most solemn engagement, to leave the choice to Bonaventure; and to elect whoever he should name, though it should be even himself, which, from his modest character, was not very probable. Accordingly, he named Theobald, archdeacon of Liege, who was at that time in the Holy land, and who took the title of Gregory X. By this pope he was made a cardinal and bishop of Albano; and appointed to assist at a general council, which was held at Lyons soon after. He died there in 1274, and was magnificently and honourably conducted to his grave; the pope and whole council attending, and the cardinal Peter of Tarantais, afterwards pope Innocent V. making his funeral oration. Sixtus IV. canonized him in 1482. He. has had the good fortune to be almost equally praised by popish and protestant writers, Bellarmine has pronounced Bonaventure a person dear to God and men; and Luther calls him “vir prtestantissimus,” a most excellent man. His works were printed at Rome in 1588, in 8 vols. folio. Excepting his commentary upon the master of the Sentences, they are chiefly on pious and mystical subjects, and have gained him the name of the Seraphic doctor. Brucker gives us the following account of his method of philosophizing, from his treatise “De reductione Artium ad Theologiam;” on the “application of Learning to Theology:” Human knowledge he divides into three branches, logical, physical and moral. Each of these he considers as the effect of supernatural illumination, and as communicated to men through the medium of the holy scriptures. The whole doctrine of scripture he reduces to three heads; that which respects the eternal generation and incarnation of Christ, the study of which is the peculiar province of the doctors of the church; that which concerns the conduct of life, which is the subject of preaching; and that which relates to the union of the soul with God, which is peculiar to the monastic and contemplative life. Physical knowledge he applies to the doctrine of scripture emblematically. For example, the production of the idea of any sensible object from its archetype, is a type of the generation of the Logos; the right exercise of the senses typifies the virtuous conduct of life; and the pleasure derived from the senses represents the union of the soul with God. In like manner, logical philosophy furnishes an emblem of the eternal generation and the incarnation of Christ: a word conceived in the mind resembling the eternal generation; its expression in vocal sounds, the incarnation. Thus the multiform wisdom of God, according to this mystical writer, lies concealed through all nature; and all human knowledge may, by the help of allegory and analogy, be spiritualised and transferred to theology. How wide a door this method of philosophising opens to the absurdities of mysticism the reader will easily perceive from this specimen.

, a distinguished Latin scholar and poet, was born at Perugia in 1555, became a disciple of the celebrated Muretus, and afterwards principal teacher of the schools of Perugia. He appears next to have been professor of eloquence at Bononia, keeper of the Ambrosian library, and professor of rhetoric at Pisa, where he had the misfortune to lose his sight. During his career of teaching, his father, who was a poor shoemaker, having lost his wife, had an inclination to join the society of the Jesuits, and lest he should be rejected for his ignorance of Latin, became one of his son’s scholars, and made very considerable proficiency. Bonciarius died Jan. 9, 1616, leaving many works, which are very scarce, except his Latin Grammar, which, being adopted in the schools, was frequently reprinted. His “Epistolse” were first printed in 1603, 8vo, and reprinted 1604, at Marpurg, of which last edition Freytag gives an analytical account. They are written in an elegant style. His Latin poems are among the “Carmina Poetarum Italorum,” Florence, 1719, vol. II.

Mr. Bond has left “Annotationes in poemata Quiuti Horatii,” Lond. 1606, 8vo. Han. 1621, 8vo, and Ley den, 1653, 8vo. The best edition is that of Amst. 1636, 12mo. His Persius was not printed till two years after his death, in 8vo, under the following. title, “Auli Persii Flacci Satyrae sex, cum posthumis commentariis Johannis Bond,” 1614, 8vo. It was published by Roger Prowse, who had married his daughter Elizabeth, and who, in the dedication to Dr. Montague, bishop of Bath and Wells, informs us, that his father-in-law had not put the last hand to these Commentaries; which may be the reason of those considerable defects in some points of history and philosophy which are to be found in them. Mr. Wood is of opinion that, besides these, he wrote several other pieces, which were never published.

, LL. D. was the son of Dennis Bond, esq. of Dorchester, a violent adherent of the republican party in the seventeenth century, and at whose death, a little before that of the protector, the wits said Oliver Cromwell had given the devil Bond for his appearance. Our author was educated under John White, commonly called the patriarch of Dorchester, and was afterwards entered, not of St. John’s college, Cambridge, as Wood reports, but of Catherine-hall, of which he was afterwards chosen fellow, and took the degree of B. A. in 163 1, commenced M. A. in 1635, was nominated LL. D. in 1645, and completed the year following, while he was yet a member of that society. But, although he took his doctor’s degree in law, he was by profession a divine, and had before this preached for some years, first as a lecturer in Exeter, and frequently afterwards before the long parliament at Westminster. In 1643, both he and his tutor, Mr. White, were chosen of the assembly of divines; and when Mr. White took the rectory of Lambeth, Dr. Bond succeeded him as minister of the Savoy, and on Dec. 11, 1645, hfc was made master of the Savoy hospital under the great seal. On the decease of Dr. Eden, master of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, the fellows made choice of the celebrated Selden, and the choice was confirmed by parliament, but he declining the office, Dr. Bond was chosen, chiefly by the authority or interference of parliament, March, 1646. In 1649 he was chosen law professor of Gresham college, and in 1654 was made assistant to the commissioners of Middlesex and Wesminster, for the ejection of scandalous and ignorant ministers; and in 1658 served as vice-chancellor of Cambridge. He held his mastership and law professorship until the restoration, when he was ejected from both for his adherence to the politics by which he had obtained them. He then retired into Dorsetshire, and died at Sandwich in the isle of Purbeck, July 1676. Wood, who has committed several mistakes in his life, corrected by Dr. Ward, gives a list of his works, which are few: 1. “A Door of Hope,” Lond. 1641, 4to. 2. “Holy and Loyal Activity,” Lond. 1641, 4to, and some sermons preached before the long parliament, to whose measures he adhered with great zeal. He appears, however, to have been a man of real learning. Calamy, we know not why, has mentioned his name, without one word of life.

, an elegant Italian scholar of the sixteenth century, was born at Gorzano in the Brescian territory, but in what year is not known. He was three years secretary to cardinal Bari at Rome; but lost the fruits of his services by the death of his master. He then served cardinal Glinucci in the same capacity; but long sickness made him incapable of that employment. When he was recovered, he found himself so disgusted with the court, that he resolved to seek his fortune by other means. He continued a good while in the kingdom of Naples, then went to Padua, and to Genoa; where he read public lectures on Aristotle’s politics. He was ordered to read some likewise upon his rhetoric, which he did with great success to a numerous auditory. His reputation increasing daily, the republic of Genoa made him their historiographer, and assigned him a handsome pension for that office. He now applied himself laboriously to compose the annals of that state, and published the five first books; but by speaking too freely and satirically of some families, he created himself enemies who resolved to ruin him, by a prosecution for an unnatural crime, and being convicted, he was condemned to be first beheaded, and then burnt, or as some say, sentence of burning was changed into that of beheading. Some have attributed this prosecution to the freedom of his pen; but the generality of writers have agreed that Bonfadio was guilty, yet are of opinion, that he had never been accused, if he had not given offence by something else. He was executed in 1560. Upon the day of his execution he wrote a note to John Baptist Grimaldi, to testify his gratitude to the persons who had endeavoured to serve him, and recommended to them his nephew Bonfadio, who is perhaps the Peter Bonfadio, author of some verses extant in the “Gareggiamento poetico del confuso accademico ordito,” a collection of verses, divided into eight parts, and printed at Venice in 1611. The first five books of Bonfadio’s history of Genoa were printed at Padua, 1586, 4to, under the title “I. Bonfadii annales Genuensium ab anno 1528, ubi desinit Folieta, ad annum 1550,” and was in 1597 published in Italian. He also published an Italian and very elegant translation of Cicero’s oration for Milo, an edition of which was published at Bologna in 1744, with his letters and miscellaneous works, “Lettere famigliari, &c.” 8vo, dedicated to pope Benedict XIV. with a life of the unfortunate author, and a curious Latin poem by Paul Manutius, in honour of those persons who used their interest to save Bonfadio from punishment.

, a learned Jesuit and commentator, was born at Dinau in Liege, 1573. He was admitted into the society of Jesuits in 1592, and taught at Doway, philosophy, divinity, and the Hebrew tongue, which, as well as Greek, he understood critically. He died at Tournay, May 9, 1643. Dupin says that of all the Jesuits who have been commentators on the scriptures, there is no one superior in learning, and clearness of method, to Bonfrerius. His “Commentary on the Pentateuch” was published at Antwerp in 1625, and his “Onomasticon” of the places and cities mentioned in the Bible, composed by Eusebius, and translated by Jerome, with learned notes, was published along with his “Commentaries on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth,” at Paris in 1631, but the most complete edition of his works appeared in 1736.

, an able classical scholar and negociator, was born at Orleans of a protestant family in 1554; and studied at Strasburg in 1571, but in 1516, he studied the civil law under the celebrated Cujacius. During this time he applied much to critical learning; and though, says Bayle, he went not so far as the Lipsiuses and Casaubons, yet he acquired great reputation, and perhaps would have equalled them if he had not been engaged in political affairs. He was employed near thirty years in the most important negociations of Henry IV. for whom he was several times resident with the princes of Germany, and afterwards ambassador, but however published his edition of Justin at Paris, 1581, in 8vo. He had a critical and extensive knowledge of books, both manuscript and printed; and made a very great collection of them, some of which came afterwards to the library of Berne in Swisserland, and some, with his manuscripts, to the Vatican. Besides an edition of Justin, he was the author of other works; which, if they did not shew his learning so much, have spread his fame a great deal more. Thuanus highly commends an answer, which he published in Germany, to a piece wherein the bad success of the expedition of 1587 was imputed to the French, who accompanied the Germans; and the world is indebted to him for the publication of several authors, who wrote the history of the expeditions into Palestine. That work is entitled “Gesta Dei per Francos;” and was printed at Hanau in 1611, in two volumes, folio. He published also in 1600, at Francfort, “Rerum Hungaricarum Scriptores,” fol. There are letters of Bongars, written during his employments, which are much esteemed; and upon which Mr. Bayle remarks, that though he did not, like Bembo and Manucius, reject all terms that are not in the best Roman authors, yet his style is elegant. His letters were translated, when the dauphin began to learn the Latin language; and it appears by the epistle dedicatory to that young prince, and by the translator’s preface, that nothing was then thought more proper for a scholar of quality, than to read this work of Bongars. Bongars died at Paris in 1612, when he was 58 years of age: and the learned Casaubon, whose letters shew that he esteemed him much, laments in one of them, that “the funeral honours, which were due to his great merit, and which he would infallibly have received from the learned in Germany, were not yet paid him at Paris.” Mr. Bayle thinks that Bongars was never married: yet tells us, that he was engaged in 1597, to a French lady, who had the misfortune to die upon the very day appointed for the wedding, after a courtship of near six years. This Bongars speaks of in his letters, and appears to have been exceedingly afflicted at it. His Latin letters were published at Leyden in 1647, and the French translation above mentioned in 1668, along with the originals, 2 vols. 12mo, but that of the Hague in 1695 is the most correct. His edition of Justin is rare and valuable. It was printed from eight manuscripts, accompanied with learned notes, various readings, and chronological tables; but the Bipont editors seem to think he sometimes took unwarranted liberties with the text.

, a celebrated saint of the eighth century, and usually styled the Apostle of Germany, was an Englishman, named Wilfrid, and born at C red ton or Kirton in Devonshire, about the year 680. He was educated from the age of thirteen in the monastery of Escancester or Exeter, and about three years after removed to Nutcell, in the diocese of Winchester, a monastery which was afterwards destroyed by the Danes, and was never rebuilt. Here he was instructed in the sacred and secular learning of the times; and at the age of thirty, was ordained priest, and became a zealous preacher. The same zeal prompted him to undertake the functions of a missionary among the pagans and with that view he went with two monks into Friezeland, about the year 716; but a war which broke out between Charles Martel, mayor of the French palace, and Radbod, king of Friezeland, rendering it impracticable to preach the gospel at that time, he returned to England with his companions. Still, however, zealously intent on the conversion of the pagans, he refused being elected abbot of Nutcell, on a vacancy which happened on his return; and having received recommendatory letters from the bishop of Winchester, went to Rome, and presented himself to the pope Gregory II. who encouraged his design, and gave him a commission for the conversion of the infidels, in the year 719. With this he went into Bavaria and Thuringia, and had considerable success: and Radbod, king of Friezeland, being now dead, he had an opportunity of visiting that country, where he co-Operated with Willibrod, another famous missionary, who would have appointed him his successor, which Wilfrid rt fused, because the pope had particularly enjoined him to preach in the eastern parts of Germany. Through Hesse, or a considerable part of it, even to the confines of Saxony, he extended his pious labours, and had considerable success, although he suffered many hardships, and was often exposed to danger from the rage of the infidels.

After some time he returned to Rome, where Gregory II. consecrated him bishop of the new German churches, by the name of Boniface, a Roman name, which Gregory probably thought might procure from the German converts more respect to the pope, than an English one. Solicitous also to preserve his dignity, Gregory exacted from Boniface an oath of subjection to the papal authority, drawn up in very strong terms. Boniface then returned to the scenes of his mission, and had great success in Hesse, encouraged now by Charles Martel, the dominion of the French extending at this time a considerable way into Germany. We do not, however, find that he derived any other assistance from the civil authority, than personal protection, which doubtless was of great importance. If he complied with the instructions sent from England, he employed no means but what became a true missionary. These, instructions, or rather advice sent to him by Daniel, bishop of Winchester, about the year 723, afford too striking an instance of good sense and liberality in that dark age, to be omitted. Daniel’s method of dealing with idolaters was conceived in these words, “Do not contradict in a direct manner their accounts of the genealogy of their gods; allow that they were born from one another in the same way that mankind are: this concession will give you the advantage of proving, that there was a time when they had no existence. Ask them who governed the world before the birth of their gods, and if these gods have ceased to propagate? If they have not, shew them the consequence; namely, that the gods must be infinite in number, and that no man can rationally be at ease in worshipping any of them, lest he should, by that means, offend one, who is more powerful. Argue thus with them, not in the way of insult, but with temper and moderation: and take opportunities to contrast these absurdities with the Christian doctrine: let the pagans be rather ashamed than incensed by your oblique mode of stating these subjects. Shew them the insufficiency of their plea of antiquity; inform them that idolatry did anciently prevail over the world, but that Jesus Christ was manifested, in order to reconcile men to God by his grace.” From this same prelate he received other instructions respecting reforming the church, and exercising discipline 'with the refractory and scandalous priests, who occasioned much obstruction to his mission. In the mean time, the report of his success induced many of his countrymen to join him, who dispersed themselves and preached in the villages of Hesse and Thuringia.

In the year 732, he received the title of archbishop from Gregory II f. who supported his mission with the same spirit as his predecessor Gregory II.; and under this encouragement he proceeded to erect new churches, and extend Christianity. At this time, he found the Bavarian churches disturbed by one Eremvolf, who would have seduced the people into idolatry, but whom he condemned, according to the canons, and restored the discipline of the church. In the year 738, he again visited Rome; and after some stay, he induced several Englishmen who resided there, to join with him in his German mission. Returning into Bavaria, he established three new bishoprics, at Salczburgh, Frisinghen, and Ratisbon. At length he was fixed at Mentz, in the year 745, and although afterwards many other churches in Germany have been raised to the dignity of archbishoprics, Mentz has always retained the primacy, in honour of St. Boniface. He also founded a monastery at Fridislar, another at Hamenburgh, and one at Ordorfe, in all which the monks gained their livelihood by the labour of their hands. In the year 746, he laid the foundation of the great abbey of Fulda, which continued long the most renowned seminary of religion and learning in all that part of the world. The abbot is now a prince of the empire. In the mean time his connection with England was constantly preserved; and it is in the epistolary correspondence with his own country, that the most striking evidence of his pious views appears. Still intent on his original design, although now advanced in years, he determined to return into Friezeland, and before his departure, acted as if he had a strong presentiment of what was to happen. He appointed Lullus, an Englishman, his successor as archbishop of Mentz, a privilege which the pope had granted him, and ordained him with the consent of king Pepin. He went by the Rhine to Friezeland, where, assisted by Eoban, whom he had ordained bishop of Utrecht, he brought great numbers of pagans into the pale of the church. He had appointed a day to confirm those whom he had baptized; and in waiting for them, encamped with his followers on the banks of the Bordue, a river which then divided East and West Friezeland. His intention was to confirm, by imposition of hands, the converts in the plains of Dockum. On the appointed day, he beheld, in the morning, not the new converts whom he expected, but a troop of enraged pagans, armed with shields and lances. The servants went out to resist; but Boniface, with calm intrepidity, said to his followers, “Children, forbear to fight; the scripture forbids us to render evil for evil. The day which I have long waited for is come; hope in God, and he will save your souls.” The pagans immediately attacked them furiously, and killed the whole company, fifty-two in number, besides Boniface himself. This happened on June 5, 755, in the fortieth year after his arrival in Germany. His body was interred in the abbey of Fulda, and was long regarded as the greatest treasure of that monastery. Boniface’s character has been strangely misrepresented by Mosheim, and by his transcribers, but ably vindicated by Milner, who has examined the evidence on both sides with great precision. His works, principally sermons and correspondence, were published under the title “S. Bonifacii Opera, a Nicolao Serrario,” Mogunt. 1605, 4to.

, or Bonnefonius, a Latin poet, was born in 1554, at Clermont in Auvergne, and rilled the post of lieutenant-general of Bar-sur-Seine. His “Paricharis,” in the style of Catullus, is of all modern performances, the nearest to the graces, the easy pencil, the delicacy and softness of that ancient poet. La Bergerie has translated the Pancharis into French verse, very inferior to the Latin. The poems of Bonnefons are at the end of those of Beza, in the edition of that author given at Paris by Barbou, 1757, 12mo. There is also one of London, 1720 and 1727, 12mo. Bonnefons died in 1614, leaving a son, who likewise cultivated Latin poetry, but his performances, enumerated by Moreri, are in less request.

, a man celebrated for piety and virtue, was born at Genoa, Nov. 14, 1653, being the son of Samuel Bonnell, merchant, who resided some time at Genoa, and of Rebecca, daughter of Thomas Sayer, near Norwich, esq. His grandfather was Daniel Bonnell of London, merchant, and his great-grandfather, Thomas Bonnell, a gentleman of good family near Ipres in Flanders, who, to avoid the duke of Alva’s persecution, removed with his family into England, and settled at Norwich, of which, before his death, he was chosen mayor. Samuel Bonnell, father of James Bonnell, being bred up under that eminent merchant, sir William Courteen, knt. applied himself to the Italian trade, at Leghorn and Genoa, with such success, that about 1649, he was worth at least 10,000l. and his credit much greater than his fortune. But both were soon impaired by several accidents, by great losses at sea, and particularly by his zeal for kingCharles II. during his exile, and the rest of the royal family, whom he privately supplied with large sums of money. About 1655, he removed with his family into England; and, at the restoration, on account of the services he had done the royal family, and as a compensation for the large sums he had advanced them (which, it seems, were never repaid otherwise) there was granted him a patent to be accomptant-general of the revenue of Ireland, a place worth about 800l. a year, his son’s life being included in the patent with his own. But this he was not long possessed of, for he died in 1664, leaving his son and one daughter.

After this son, the object of the present article, had been instructed in the first rudiments of learning at Dublin, he was sent to Trim school, where he was eminent for sweetness of temper, and for a most innocent, gentle, and religious behaviour. At fourteen years of age he left that place, and was sent to a private philosophy school at Nettlebed in Oxfordshire, kept by Mr. William Cole, who had formerly been principal of St. Mary Hall in Oxford, and remained there two years and a half. But finding his master was too remiss in matters of morality and religion , a thing quite unsuitable with his strict temper; and observing there were in that place all the dangers and vices of the university, without the advantages, he removed to Catherine-hall in Cambridge, where he prosecuted his studies with indefatigable diligence, and performed all his exercises with general approbation. After taking the degrees of A.B. in 1672, and A. M. 1676, he removed into the family of Ralph Freeman of Aspenden-hall in Hertfordshire, esq. as tutor to his eldest son, and there continued till 1678, when, going with his pupil into Holland, he stayed about a year in sir Leoline Jenkyns’s family at Nimeguen. From Nimeguen he went, in the ambassador’s company, through Flanders and Holland: and returning to England, continued with his pupil till 16S5, when Mr. Freeman was sent into France and Italy. In 1684, Mr. Bonnell went into France, and met Mr. Freeman at Lyons, and in his company visited several parts of that country. From thence, however, he went directly to Ireland, and took his employment of accountant-general into his own hands, which had, since his father’s death, been managed by others for his use. In the discharge of it he behaved with so much diligence and fidelity, that he soon acquired the esteem of the government, and the love of all who were concerned with him. During the troublesome reign of king James II. he neither deserted his employment, as others did, nor countenanced the arbitrary and illegal measures of the court, and yet was continued in his office, which proved a great advantage to the protestant interest in Ireland, for whatever he received out of his office, he liberally distributed among the poor oppressed protestants. He also took every opportunity to relieve the injured, and boldly to plead their cause with those who were in power. But though his place was very advantageous, and furnished him with ample means of doing good, yet either the weight of the employment, or his ill state of health, or perhaps his desire of entering into holy orders, which he had long designed, but never effected, made him resolve to quit it; and he accordingly parted with it to another person in 1693. In the whole course of his life he behaved in so upright and worthy a manner, that he was courted by his superiors and reverenced by his equals. In piety, justice, charity, sobriety, and temperance, few have excelled him. His devotion was confined within the strictest bounds of sobriety and reason, and free from the least appearance of affectation. He commonly gave away the eighth part of his yearly income to the poor, and his charity was not only extensive but impartial. His learning was very considerable; he thoroughly digested the Greek and Roman authors, understood French perfectly, and had made great progress in the Hebrew language. In philosophy and oratory he exceeded most of his contemporaries in the university, and applied himself with success to mathematics and music. In the course of his studies he read several of the fathers, and translated some parts of Synesius into English. There is nothing, however, of his published, but some Meditations and Prayers inserted in his Life, and a “Harmony of the Gospels,” written by another hand, but “improved by James Bonnell, esq. for his own use,” Lond. 1705, 8vo. This excellent man died of a malignant fever, April 23, 1699, and was buried in St. John’s church in Dublin. In 1693 he married Jane, daughter of sir Albert Conyngham, by whom he had three children, of whom only one daughter survived him a very short time. A neat monument was erected to his memory by his relict. “Such a character,” says Mr. Granger, “may, perhaps, be overlooked by some, because there is nothing remarkably striking in it. But the man who is uniformly good, and that to such a degree as Mr. Bonnell was, ought to stand high in our opinion, and to be esteemed what he certainly was, a great man.”

, bishop of London, proverbial for his cruelty, was the son of an honest poor man, and born, at Hanley in Worcestershire, although some have very eagerly reported that he was the natural son of one George Savage, a priest, as if the circumstance of his birth could have had any effect on his future disposition. He was maintained at school by an ancestor of Nicholas Lechmere, esq. a baron of the exchequer in the reign of king William; and in 1512, he was entered at Broadgate-hall in Oxford, now Pembroke college. On June 12, 1519, he was admitted bachelor of the canon, and the day following bachelor of the civil law. He entered into orders about the same time, and had some employment in the diocese of Worcester; and on the 12th of July 1525, was created doctor of the canon law. He was a man of some, though not great learning, but distinguished himself chiefly by his skill and dexterity in the management of affairs, which made him be taken notice of by cardinal Wolsey, who appointed him his commissary for the faculties; and he was with this prelate at Cawood, when he was arrested for high treason. He enjoyed at once the livings of Blaydon and Cherry Burton in Yorkshire, Ripple in Worcestershire, East Dereham in Norfolk, and the prebend of Chiswick in the cathedral church of St. Paul: but the last he resigned in 1539, an of East Dereham in 1540. He was installed archdeacon of Leicester, October 17, 1535.

After the cardinal’s death, he got into the good graces of king Henry VIII. who appointed him one of his chaplains. On this he began his career in a manner not very consistent with his after-conduct. He was not only a favourer of the Lutherans, but a promoter of the king’s divorce from queen Catherine of Spain, and of great use to his majesty in abrogating the pope’s supremacy. He was also in high favour with lord Cromwell, secretary of state, by whose recommendation he was employed as ambassador at several courts. In 1532, he was sent to Rome, along with sir Edward Karne, to excuse king Henry’s personal appearance upon the pope’s citation. In 1533, he was again sent to Rome to pope Clement VII. then at Marseilles, upon the excommunication decreed against king Henry VIII. on account of his divorce; to deliver that king’s appeal from the pope to the next general council. But in this he betrayed so much of that passionate temper which appeared afterwards more conspicuously, and executed the order of his master in this affair with so much vehemence and fury, that the pope talked of throwing him into a caldron of melted lead, on which he thought proper to make his escape. He was employed likewise in other embassies to the kings of Denmark and France, and the emperor of Germany. In 1538, being then ambassador in France, he was nominated to the bishopric of Hereford, Nov. 27; but before consecration he was translated to London, of which he was elected bishop Oct. 20, 1539, and consecrated April 4, 1540.

On the accession of queen Mary, Bonner had an opportunity of shewing himself in his proper character, which indeed had been hitherto but faintly-concealed. He was restored to his bishopric by a commission read in St. Paul’s cathedral the 5th of September 1553; and in 1554, he was made vicegerent, and president of the convocation, in the room of archbishop Cranmer, who was committed to the Tower. The same year he visited his diocese, in order to root up all the seeds of the Reformation, and behaved in the most furious and extravagant manner; at Hadham, he was excessively angry because the bells did not ring at his coming, nor was the rood-loft decked, or the sacrament hung up. He swore and raged in the church at Dr. Bricket, the rector, and, calling him knave and heretic, went to strike at him; but the blow fell upon sir Thomas Joscelyn’s ear, and almost stunned him. On his return he set up the mass again at St. Paul’s, before the act for restoring it was passed. The same year, he was in commission to turn out some of the reformed bishops. In 1555, and the three following years, he was the occasion of above two hundred of innocent persons being put to death in the most cruel manner, that of burning, for their firm adherence to the Protestant religion. On the 14th of February 1555-6, he came to Oxford (with Thirlby bishop of Ely), to degrade archbishop Cranmer, whom he used with great insolence. The 29th of December following he was put into a commission to search and raze all registers and records containing professions against the pope, scrutinies taken in religious houses, &c. And the 8th of February 1556-7, he was also put in another commission, or kind of inquisition, for searching after and punishing all heretics.

Upon queen Elizabeth’s accession, Bonner went to meet her at Highgate, with the rest of the bishops; but she looked on him as a man stained with blood, and therefore would shew him no mark of her favour. For some months, however, he remained unmolested; but being called before the privy council on the 30th of May 1359, he refused to take the oath of allegiance and supremacy: for which reason only, as it appears, he was deprived a second time of his bishopric the 29th of June following, and committed to the Marshalsea. After having lived in confinement some years, he died September 5, 1569, and three days after he was buried at midnight, in St. George’s churchyard, Southwark, to prevent any disturbances that might have been made by the citizens, who hated him extremely. He had stood excommunicated several years, and might have been denied Christian burial; but of this no advantage was taken. As to his character, he was a violent, furious, and passionate man, and extremely cruel in his nature; in his person he was very fat and corpulent, the consequence of excessive gluttony, to which he was much addicted. He was a great master of the canon law, being excelled in that faculty by very few of his time, and well skilled in politics, but understood little of divinity. Several pieces were published under his name, of which the following is a list 1. Preface to the Oration of Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, concerning true Obedience. Printed at London, in Latin, 1534, 1535, and at Hamburgh in 1536, 8vo. Translated into English by Mi-, chael Wood, a zealous Protestant, with a bitter preface to the reader, and a postscript, Roan, 1553, 8vo. It is also inserted in J. Fox’s book of Martyrs. In the preface Bonner speaks much in favour of king Henry the VHIth’s marriage with Ann Boleyn, and against the tyranny exercised by the bishop of Rome in this kingdom. 2. Several letters to the lord Cromwell. 3. A declaration to lord Cromwell, describing to him the evil behaviour of Stephen (bishop of Winchester), with special causes therein contained, wherefore and why he misliked of him. 4. Letter of his about the proceedings at Rome concerning the king’s divorce from Catherine of Arragon. 5. An admonition and advertisement given by the bishop of London to all readers of the Bible in the English tongue. 6. Injunctions given by Bonner, bishop of London, to his clergy (about preaching, with the names of books prohibited). 7. Letter to Mr. Lechmere. 8. Responsum & exhortatio, Lond. 1553, 8vo. Answer and exhortation to the clergy in praise of priesthood: spoken by the author in St. Paul’s cathedral, the 16th October, 1553, after a sermon preached before the clergy, by John Harpesfield. 9. A letter to Mr. Lechmere, 6th September, 1553. 10. Articles to be enquired of in the general visitation of Edmund bishop of London, exercised by him in 1554, in the city and diocese of London, &c. To ridicule them, John Bale, bishop of Ossory, wrote a book, entitled, A declaration of Edmund Bonner’s articles, concerning the clergy of London diocese, whereby that execrable anti-christ is in his right colours revealed, 1554, and 1561, 8vo. 11. A profitable and necessary doctrine, containing an exposition on the Creed, seven Sacraments, ten Commandments, the Pater Noster, Ave Maria, with certain homilies adjoining thereto, for the instruction and information of the diocese of London, Lond. 1554-5, 4to. This book was drawn up by his chaplains John Harpesfield and Henry Pendleton; the former part of it, which is catechism, is mostly taken out of the Institution of a Christian man, set out by king Henry VIII. only varied in some points. 12. Several letters, declarations, arguings, disputes, &c. of his are extant in John Fox’s book of Martyrs, vol. last. 13. His objections against the process of Robert Horn, bishop of Winchester, who had tendered the oath of supremacy to him a second time, are preserved by Mr. Strype in his Annals of the Reformation. The character of bishop Bonner is so familiar to our readers as to require little illustration, or any addition to the preceding account from the former edition of this Dictionary; yet some notice may be taken of the defence set up by the Roman Catholic historians. Dodd, alluding to his cruelties, says, that “Seeing he proceeded according to the statutes then in force, and by the direction of the legislative power, he stands in need of no apology on that score.” But the history of the times proves that Bonner’s character cannot be protected by a reference to the statutes, unless his vindicator can likewise prove that he had no hand in enacting those statutes; and even if this were conceded, his conduct will not appear less atrocious, because, not content with the sentence of the law carried into execution by the accustomed officers, Bonner took frequent opportunities to manifest the cruelty of his disposition by anticipating, or aggravating, the legal punishments. He sometimes whipped the prisoners with his own hands, till he was tired with the violence of the exercise; and on one occasion he tore out the beard of a weaver who refused to relinquish his religion; and that he might give him a specimen of burning, he held his hand to a candle, till the sinews and veins shrunk and burst . The fact is, that Bonner was constitutionally cruel, and delighted in the sufferings he inflicted. Granger very justly says, that “Nature seems to have designed him for an executioner,” and as, wherever he could, he performed the character, how can he be defended by an appeal to the statutes? The most remarkable circumstance in his history is the lenity shown to him after all this bloody career. There seems no reason to think that he would have even been deprived of his bishopric, had he consented to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, a circumstance which is surely very extraordinary. His compliance, had he taken, that step, could have been only hypocritical, and what an object it would have been to have seen the duties and power of a protestant prelate intrusted to such a monster, and in that diocese, where so many families preserved the bitter remembrance of his cruelty.

, an eminent natural philosopher, was born at Geneva, on the 13th of March, 1720. His ancestors, who were compelled to emigrate from France, in 1572, after the dreadful slaughter of St. Bartholomew’s day, established themselves at Geneva, where his grandfather was advanced to the magistracy. His father, who preferred the station of a private citizen, paid unremitted attention to the education of his son, which the latter recompensed, at a very early period, by the amiableness of his disposition, and the rapid progress he made in general literature. When about sixteen years of age, he applied himself, with great eagerness, to the perusal of “Le Spectacle de la Nature,” and this work made such a deep impression on his mind, that it may be said to have directed the taste and the studies of his future life. What that publication had commenced, was confirmed by the work of La Pluche; but having accidentally seen the treatise of Reaumur upon insects, he was in a transport of joy. He was very impatient to procure the book, but, as the only copy in Geneva belonged to a public library, and as the librarian was reluctant to entrust it in the hands of a youth, it was with the utmost difficulty that he could obtain his end. By the possession of this treasure, our assiduous youth was enabled to make several new and curious experiments, which he communicated to Reaumur himself; and the high applause he gained, from so great a naturalist, added fresh vigour to his assiduity.

Animated by such distinguished marks of approbation, he diligently employed every moment he could steal from the study of jurisprudence to the completion of his natural history of the tree-louse; to experiments on the respiration of caterpillars and butterflies, which he discovered to be effected by stigmata, or lateral pores; to an examination of the construction of the tinea, or tapeworm; in frequent correspondence with Reaumur; and in assisting Trembley in his discoveries and publication concerning millepedes, &c. Having, in 1743, obtained the degree of doctor of laws, he relinquished a pursuit which he had commenced with so much reluctance. In the same year he was admitted a member of the royal society of London, to which he had communicated a treatise on insects. Bonnet being now liberated from his other pursuits, applied himself, without intermission, to collecting together his experiments and observations concerning the tree-louse and the worm, which he published in 1744, under the title of “Insectology.” This work acquired deserved approbation from the public, and was honoured by the commendation of the celebrated B. de Jussieu. He was reproached, however, as some other naturalists have deserved, with having paid too little attention to the delicacy of his reader, though his patience and accuracy were acknowledged to be deserving of praise. Such unremitted application and labour could not fail of becoming injurious to his health. Inflammations, nervous fever, sore eyes, &c. compelled him to relinquish the use of the microscope and the study of insects. This prevention was so extremely mortifying to a man of his taste and activity of mind, that he was thrown into a deep melancholy, which could only be subdued by the resolution inspired by philosophy, and the consolations of religion; these gradually roused him from a dejected state of mind. About the end of 1746, he was chosen member of the literary institution at Bologna, which introduced him to a correspondence with the celebrated Zanotti, who may be deemed the Fontenelle of Italy.

In 1783, he was elected honorary member of the academy of sciences at Paris, and of the academy of sciences and the belles lettres at Berlin. Much of his time was employed in a very extensive correspondence with some of the most celebrated natural philosophers and others. Of this number were Reaumur; De Geer, the Reaumur of Sweden; Du Hamel; the learned Haller; the experimental philosopher Spallanzani; Van Swieten; Merian; and that ornament of Switzerland, the great Lambert. He entertained, however, the utmost aversion to controversy. He thought that no advantage to be obtained by it could compensate for the lo ss of that repose which he valued, with Newton, as the rem prarsus substantiakm. He never answered remarks that were made to the prejudice of his writings, but left the decision with the public: yet, ever ready to acknowledge his errors, he was sincerely thankful to every one who contributed to the perfection of his works. He was used to say, that one confession, “I was in the wrong,” is of more value than a thousand ingenious confutations. His literary occupations, and the care he was obliged to take of his health, prevented him from travelling. He delighted in retirement, and every hour was occupied in the improvement of his mind. The last twenty-five years of his life were spent in the same rural situation where he had passed the greater part of his early days; yet, notwithstanding the pursuit of literature was his supreme delight, he never refused to suspend his studies, when the good of his country seemed to demand his services.

, count, known in the latter part of his life by the name of Osman Bashaw, descended from a family related to the blood royal of France, was born in 1672, and entered himself at the age of sixteen, in the service of that crown, and married the daughter of marshal de Biron. He made the campaign in Flanders in 1690, but soon after left the French army, and entered into the Imperial service under prince Eugene, who honoured him with an intimate friendship. The intrigues of the marquis de Prie, his inveterate enemy, ruined his credit however at the court of Vienna, and caused him to be banished the empire. He then offered his service to the republic of Venice, and to Russia; which being de^ clined, his next tender was to the grand Signior, who gladly received him: it was stipulated that he should have a body of 30,000 men at his disposal; that a government should be conferred on him, with the rank of bashaw of three tails; a salary of 10,000 aspers a day, equal to 45,000 livres a year; and that in case of a war, he should be commander in chief. The first expedition he engaged in after his arrival at Constantinople, was to quell an insurrection in Arabia Petraea, which he happily effected; and at his return, had large offers made him by Kouli Khan, which he did not choose to accept. Some time after, he commanded the Turkish army against the emperor, over whose forces he gained a victory on the banks of the Danube. But success does not always protect a person against disgrace; for Bonneval, notwithstanding his service, was first imprisoned, and then banished to the island of Chio. The sultan, however, continued his friend; and the evening before his departure made him bashaw general of the Archipelago, which, with his former appointment of beglerbeg of Arabia, rendered him one of the most powerful persons in the Ottoman empire. In this island, he found a retirement agreeable to his wishes, but did not long enjoy it, being sent for back, and made topigi or master of the ordnance, a post of great honour and profit. He died in this employment, aged 75, in 1747; and wrote the memoirs of his own life, which were published in London in 1755, 2 vols. 12 mo, and give but an indifferent idea of his personal character.

, an ancient prelate of the fourth century, is known in church history as the heretical bishop of Naissus in Dacia, though some authors say of Sardica, the metropolis of that province. In the year 391 he was accused of crimes against the canons of the chnrch and the law of God, and was reported for heresy at the council of Capua, which met the latter end of that year. The particulars of his crimes cannot now be known, but his heresy may be gathered from St. Augustin and St. Ambrose. He had, before, been condemned by Damasus, bishop of Rome, who died A. D. 384. The council of Capua committed the hearing of his cause to the bishops of Mecodon, his neighhours, under their metropolitan Anysius, bishop of Thessalonica. The bishops assembled, agreeably to the order of the council, and Bonosus appeared before them; after examination, they were so well convinced of the truth of the charge, that they immediately suspended him from all episcopal functions; at the same time writing a letter to Syricius bishop of Rome, declaring their abhorrence of the detestable error, that the virgin Mary should have other children than Christ. Bonosus died A. D. 410; but his doctrine did not die with him, being maintained by some 200 years after his death. Pope Gregory makes mention of the Bonosians in the latter end of the sixth century.

, a native of Perugia, and author of the first history of music in the Italian language with which we are acquainted, was an able professor, of considerable learning, who flourished about the middle of the seventeenth century. His work, which has for title “Historia Musica di Gio. And. Angelini Bontempi,” was published at Perugia, in small folio, 1695. It is become somewhat scarce, which enhances its value with collectors of books; but Dr. Burney’s opinion is unfavourable. He says that with great parade of his learning, science, and acquaintance with the Greek theorists, that are come down to us, he leaves us in as utter darkness concerning the practice of ancient music as ever, and has furnished us with but little information concerning the modern of his own time, with which, however, as a contrapuntist, he seems to have been perfectly well acquainted. Indeed, by the frequent use he makes of scientific terms, his book, when casually opened, has more the appearance of a dry mathematical treatise, than the history of an elegant art. The most curious and interesting part of his work is, the account which he gives of the discipline of the college of singers in the service of the pontifical chapel, and of the great masters who then flourished at Rome, who had distinguished themselves in writing “Alia Palestrina” for the church: secular music was then but little cultivated, and less respected there, till operas and oratorios had made some progress in polishing melody, and in the just accentuation and expression of words.

, a lady who was born at Paris in 1718, and died in the same city April 18, 1768, had received from nature a good understanding and an excellent taste, which were cultivated by a suitable education. She possessed the foreign languages, and was mistress of all the delicate turns of her own. It is to her that the French are indebted for a translation, said to be accurate and elegant, of Thomson’s Seasons, 1759, 12mo. Madame Bontems had a select society that frequented her house, and though she had a great talent for wit, she only made use of it for displaying that of others. She was not less esteemed for the qualities of her heart than those of her mind.

, a nonjuring clergyman of great piety and learning, son of the rev. John Bonwicke, rector of Mickleham in Surrey, was born April 29, 1G52, and educated at Merchant Taylors school. Thence he was elected to St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1668, where he was appointed librarian in 1670; B.A. 1673; M. A. March 18, 1675; was ordained deacon May 21, 1676; priest, June 6 (Trinity Sunday), 1680; proceeded B. D. July 21, 1682; and was elected master of Merchant Taylors school June 9, 1686. In 1689, the college of St. John’s petitioned the Merchant Taylors company, that he might continue master of the school (which is a nursery for their college) for life; but, at Christmas 1691, he was turned out for refusing to take the oath of allegiance, and was afterwards for many years master of a celebrated school at Headley, near Leatherhead in Surrey, where he had at one time the honour of having the poet Fenton for his usher, and Bowyer (who was afterwards the learned printer) for a scholar.

, one of those impostors who amused the public in the seventeenth century, was born at Manchester in 1601, and was bred a haberdasher in Lawrencelane, London, but quitted this employment and followed that of a writing-master at Hadley in Middlesex, and was afterwards for some time clerk to the sitting aldermen at Guildhall. He in a few years rendered himself so eminent, that he was appointed licenser of mathematical books, under which were included all those that related to the celestial sciences. Lilly tells us, that he once thought him the greatest astrologer in the world; but it appears that he afterwards sunk in his esteem, and that he thought himself a much greater man. We are told by the same author, that “he had a curious fancy in judging of thefts, and was as successful in resolving love questions,” which was a capital branch of his trade. George Wharton, who was formerly one of his astrological friends, had a great quarrel with him, which occasioned his publishing “MercurioCrelico Mastix; or an Anti-caveat to all such as have heretofore had the misfortune to be cheated and deluded by that great and treacherous impostor John Booker; in an answer to his frivolous pamphlet, entitled Mercurius Coelicus, or a Caveat to all the people of England;” Oxon. 1644, 4to. The only work of Booker’s worth notice is, his “Bloody Irish Almanac,” which contains some memorable particulars relative to the war in Ireland. He died April 1667, and his books were sold to Elias Ashmole, who, as Lilly informs us, and we may readily believe, gave more for them than they were worth.

, a portrait-painter, was born at Dort, in 1669, and after having been for some time a disciple of Arnold Verbuis, placed himself under Godfrey Schalcken, who recommended to him, after having received his instructions for six years, to study nature. By following this advice, Boonen obtained the reputation of a great master at the age of twenty-five years. His style of colouring was extremely good; the attitudes of his figures were elegantly disposed; his touch neat. The whole possessed such harmony, and his portraits maintained such a striking likeness, that he was ranked among the ablest artists of his time; he had a number of admirers, and a greater demand for works than he was able to execute. He had the honour of painting the portraits of the czar of Muscovy, of Frederick I. king of Prussia, of the victorious duke of Marlborough, as well as of many of the princes of Germany, and most of the noblemen who attended the czar. His health was impaired by his excessive application, and he died rich in 1729.

, a pious and popular dissenting minister of the Baptist persuasion, was born at Blackwell in Derbyshire, May 20, 1734, of poor parents, who were unable to give him any education. He spent a considerable part of his youth in the farming business, and that of the stocking frame, but appears to have during this time read much, and at length began to preach among the sect called the general baptists, throughout the towns and villages in his neighbourhood. In his twenty-third year he married; and this producing a numerous family, he opened a school at Button-Ash field. At this time he held the doctrine of universal redemption, and disliked predestination to such a degree as to ridicule it in a poem (of which he was afterwards ashamed), but he now changed his sentiments and became a zealous Calvinist in that and othei points supposed to constitute the Calvinistic system. The consequence of this change was, an avowal and defence of his new opinions in his first publication, “The Reign of Grace,” in which he was encouraged hy the late rev. Henry Venn, vicar of Huddersfield, who wrote a recommendatory preface to it. It appeared in 1768, and led to a new and important aera in his life, being so much approved by the congregation of particular baptists in Prescot-street, Goodman’s fields, whose pastor was just dead, that they invited Mr. Booth to succeed him. This invitation he accepted, and in Feb. 1769, took possession of his pulpit, after being regularly ordained for the first time. Here he appears for some years to have spent what time he could spare from his public labours in laying in a stock of knowledge; and although he always lamented the want of a regular education, his proficiency, and the extent of his reading were so great as in some measure to redeem his time, and place him on a footing, both as a scholar, preacher, and writer, with the ablest of his brethren. He knew Greek and Latin usefully, if not critically: the Greek Testament he went through nearly fifty times by the simple expedient of reading one chapter every day. General science and literature, history, civil and ecclesiastical, he investigated with acuteness in the ablest writers, English, French, Dutch, and German; and his works show that he particularly excelled in a knowledge of controversial divinity, and of those arguments, pro and con, which were connected with his opinions as a baptist. After exercising his ministry in Prescot-street for nearly thirty-seven years, he died Monday, Jan. 27, 1806, and his memory was honoured by a tablet and inscription in his meeting-house, recording his virtues and the high respect his congregation entertained for him. Besides the work already mentioned, he published, 1. “The Death of Legal Hope, the Life of Evangelical Obedience,” 1770, 12mo. 2. “The Deity of Jesus Christ essential to the Christian Religion,” a translation from Abbadie, and occasioned by the subscription controversy, 1770. 3. “An Apology for the Baptists in refusing communion at the Lord’s Table to Pscdobaptists,” 1778. 4. “Paedobaptism examined, on the principles, concessions, and reasonings of the most learned Psedobaptists,” 1784, and enlarged 1737, 2 vols. a work which his sect consider as unanswerable. He published also some lesser tracts and occasional sermons.

, a celebrated tragic actor, was born in the county palatine of Lancaster, 1681. At the age of nine years he was put to Westminster school, under the tuition of the famous Dr. Busby, where he soon discovered an excellent genius and capacity. He had a peculiar turn for Latin poetry, and had fixed many of the finest passages of the antients so firmly in his memory, that he could repeat them with such propriety of emphasis, and gracefulness of action, as to charm every body who heard him. Thence it was, that when, according to custom, a Latin play was to be acted, one of the first parts was given to young Booth; who performed it in such a manner as gained him universal applause, and particular respect from the doctor. This first gave him an inclination for the stage. His father intended him for the church: but when Barton reached the age of seventeen, and was about to be sent to the university, he stole away from school, and went over to Ireland in 1698, with Mr. Ashbury, master of the company. Here he was soon distinguished greatly by his theatrical abilities, especially in tragedy, for which he seemed to be formed by nature; for he had a grave countenance and a good person, with a fine voice and a manly action. When he had been three seasons in Dublin, in which time he had acquired a great reputation, he resolved to return to England; which he accordingly did in 1701, and was recommended to Mr. Betterton, who behaved to him with great civility, and took him into his company. The first character in which he appeared on the English stage, was that of Maximus, in the tragedy of Valentinian; and it was scarce possible for a young actor to meet with a better reception. The Ambitious Stepmother coming on soon after, he performed the part of Artaban, which added considerably to the reputation he had acquired, and made him esteemed one of the first actors. Nor was his fame less in all the succeeding characters which he attempted; but he shone with greatest lustre in the tragedy of Cato, which was brought on the stage in 1712. “Although Cato (says Mr. Cibber) seems plainly written upon what are called whig principles, yet the tories at that time had sense enough not to take it as the least reflection on their administration; but, on the contrary, seemed to brandish and vaunt their approbation of every sentiment in favour of liberty, which, by a public act of their generosity, was carried so high, that one day while the play was acting, they collected 50 guineas in the boxes, and made a present of them to Booth, with this compliment For his honest opposition to a perpetual dictator, and his dying so bravely in the cause of liberty.” The reputation to which Booth was now arrived seemed to entitle him to a share in the management of the theatre; but this perhaps his merit would never have procured, had it not been through the favour of lord Bolingbroke, who, in 1713, recalling all former licences, procured a new one, in which Booth’s name was added to those of Gibber, Wilks, and Dogget. Dogget, however, was so much offended at this, that he threw up his share, and would not accept of any consideration for it; but Gibber tells us, he only made this a pretence, and that the true reason of his quitting was his dislike to Wilks, whose humour was become insupportable to him. When Booth came to a share in the management of the house, he was in the thirty-third year of his age, and in the highest reputation as an actor: nor did his fame as a player sink by degrees, as sometimes has happened to those who have been most applauded, but increased every day more and more. The health of Booth, however, beginning to decline, he could not act so often as usual; and hence became more evident the public favour towards him, by the crowded audiences his appearance drew, when the intervals of his distemper permitted him to tread the stage: but his constitution broke now very fast, and he was attacked with a complication of distempers, which carried him off, May 10, 1733.

His character as an actor has been celebrated by some of the best judges. Mr. Aaron Hill, a gentleman, who by the share he had in the management of the play-house, could not but have sufficient opportunities of becoming well acquainted with his merit, has given us a very high character of him. “Two advantages (says this gentleman) distinguished him in the strongest light from the rest of his fraternity; he had learning to understand perfectly whatever it was his part to speak, and judgment to know how far it agreed or disagreed with his character. Hence arose a peculiar grace, which was visible to every spectator, though few were at the pains of examining into the cause of their pleasure. He could soften, and slide over with a kind of elegant negligence, the improprieties in a part he acted; while, on the contrary, he would dwell with energy upon the beauties, as if he everted a latent spirit, which had been kept back for such an occasion, that he might alarm, awaken, and transport in those places only where the dignity of his own good sense could be supported by that of his author. A little reflection upon this remarkable quality will teach us to account for that manifest languor, which has sometimes been observed in his action, and which was generally, though I think falsely, imputed to the natural indolence of his temper. For the same reason, though in the customary rounds of his business he would condescend to some parts in comedy, he seldom appeared in any of them with much advantage to his character. The passions which he found in comedy were not strong enough to excite his fire, and what seemed want of qualification, was only absence of impression. He had a talent at discovering the passions, where they lay hid in some celebrated parts, by the injudicious practice of other actors, which when he had discovered, he soon grew able to express: and his secret for attaining this great lesson of the theatre was an adaption of his look to his voice, by which artful imitation of nature, the variations in the sound of his words gave propriety to every change in his countenance. So that it was Mr. Booth’s peculiar felicity to be heard and seen the same whether as the pleased, the grieved, the pitying, the reproachful, or the angry. One would almost be tempted to borrow the aid of a very bold figure, and, to express this excellence the more significantly, beg permission, to affirm, that the blind might have seen him in his voice, and the deaf have heard him in his visage. His gesture, or, as it is commonly called, his action, was but the result and necessary consequence of his dominion over his voice and countenance; for having, by a concurrence of two such causes, impressed his imagination with such a stamp and spirit of passion, he ever obeyed the impulse by a kind of natural dependency, and relaxed or braced successively into all that fine expressiveness, with which he painted what he spoke without restraint or affectation.”

Besides his professional merit, Booth was a man of letters, and an author in more languages than one. He had a taste for poetry, which discovered itself when he was very young, in translations from several Odes of Horace; and in his riper years, he wrote several songs and other original poems, which were very far from injuring his reputation. He was also the author of a mask or dramatic entertainment called “Dido and JEneas,” that was very well received upon the stage; but his best performance was a Latin inscription to the memory of a celebrated actor, Mr. William Smith, one of the greatest men of his profession, and of whom Mr. Booth always spoke in raptures. This short elogy has much strength, beauty, and elegance. In his private life he had many virtues, and few of the failings so common to his profession. He had no envy in his composition, but readily approved, and as readily rewarded, merit, as it was in his power. He was something rough in his manner, and a little hasty in his temper, but very open and free to speak his sentiments, which he always did with an air of sincerity, that procured him as much credit with people at first sight, as he had with those to whom he had been long known. He was kind to all the players whose circumstances were indifferent, and took care not to make them uneasy, either in point of salary or of usage. He was no great speaker in company, but when he did, it was in a grave lofty way, not unlike his pronunciation on the stage. He had a great veneration for his parents while they were living, and was also very useful to his brother and sister after their decease. Booth was twice married; first in 1704, to Miss Frances Barkham, daughter of sir William Barkham, of Norfolk, bart. who died in 1710, without issue; and secondly, to Mrs. Santlowe, an actress, who. survived him forty years, and in 1772, erected a monument to his memory in Westminster abbey. In 1737 she married Mr. Goodyer,a gentleman of fortune in Essex.

, Lord Delamer, the son of William Booth, esq. and grandson of sir George Booth, bart. rendered himself remarkable by heading an insurrection in Cheshire, about a year after the death of Oliver Cromwell. He received a commission from king Charles II. under his signet and sign-manual, bearing date July 22, 1659, by which he was constituted commander in chief of all forces to be raised for his majesty’s service in Cheshire, Lancashire, and North Wales. A duplicate of this was dated at Brussels, Aug. 9, the same year, but sir George did not openly profess to act by the king’s authority, or with a view to his restoration, but only in opposition to the tyranny of the parliament. He assembled about four thousand men, took possession of Chester, and was joined by the earl of Derby, sir Thomas Middleton, and major Brook. Bui the parliamentary forces pursued sir George and his adherents so closely, that they could not avoid coming to an action; and, after a sharp contest, on the 19th of August, 1659, Lambert totally routed sir George Booth’s troops, pursued them a considerable way, and killed and took many of them. Ludlow informs us, that “Sir George Booth, after his defeat, put himself into a woman’s habit, and with two servants hoped to escape to London, riding behind one of them. The single horseman going before, went to an inn on the road; and, as he had been ordered, bespoke a supper for his mistress, who, he said, was coming after. The pretended mistress being arrived, either by alighting from the horse, or some other action, raised a suspicion in the master of the house, that there was some mystery under that dress. And thereupon resolving to make a full inquiry into the matter, he got together some of his neighbours to assist him, and with them entered the room vyhere the pretended lady was. But sir George Booth suspecting their intentions, and being unwilling to put them to the trouble of a farther search, discovered himself. Whereupon they took him into their custody, and sent him up to London, where the parliament committed him prisoner to the Tower.” Sir George made applications to many of the parliament and council, by his friends, for favour; was examined by Haselrig and Vane, who referred his examination to the council of state; and applications were made from the lord Say, and others, to save his life.

He was afterwards set at liberty, upon giving bail; and being member of parliament for Chester, he was the first of the twelve members sent by the house of commons, in May 1660, to carry to king Charles II. the answer of that house to his majesty’s letter, as appears by the journals of the house of commons, May 7, 1660. And on the 13th of July following, the house of commons ordered, that the sum of ten thousand pounds should be conferred on him, as a mark of respect for his eminent services, and great sufferings for the public. In this resolution the lords afterwards concurred. It appears, that the first motion was for twenty thousand pounds, which the house of commons was about to agree to, had not sir George Booth himself, in his place, requested of the house, that it might be no more than ten; declaring, that what he had done was purely with intention of serving his king and country, as became him in duty to do, without view of any reward. After the restoration, his services were also considered as so meritorious, that the king gave him liberty to propose six gentlemen to receive the honour of knighthood, and two others to have the dignity of baronet conferred on them. He was also himself created baron Delamer of Dunham-Massey; and on the 30th of July, 1660, he was appointed custos rotulorum for the county of Cheshire, but on the 30th of May, 1673, he resigned this office to Henry, his son and heir. “After this,” says Collins, “he not being studious to please the court in those measures which were taken in some parts of that reign, both he and his family were soon afterwards disregarded by the king, and ill used by his successor king James the Second.” His lordship died at Dunham-Massey, in the 63d year of his age, on the 8th of August, 1684, and was buried in a very splendid manner at Bowdon, in the burial-vault of the family. He was twice married: his first wife was the lady Catherine Clinton, daughter and co-heir to Theophilus earl of Lincoln, who died in child-bed in 1643, by whom he had issue one daughter, Vere, who Belied unmarried at Canonbury-house, in 1717, in the seventy-fourth year of her age, and was buried in Islington church. His second wife was the lady Elizabeth Grey, eldest daughter of Henry earl of Stamford, by whom he had issue seven sons and five daughters. His eldest son, William, died young, and he was succeeded in his honours and estate by his second son, Henry, who is the subject of the following article.

As he was solicitous for frequent parliaments, so he was also anxious that they should be preserved incorrupt. He was, therefore, desirous of procuring an act for the punishment of those who had received bribes from the court, as members of that parliament which was styled the pensionparliament. He proposed, that a bill should be brought in, by which these prostituted senators should be rendered incapable of serving in parliament for the future, or of enjoying any office, civil or military; and that they should be obliged, as far as they were able, to refund all the money that they had received for secret services to the crown.

Mr. Booth was also extremely zealous against the papists; and this circumstance, together with the vigorous opposition that he made in parliament to the arbitrary measures of the court, occasioned him to be put out of the commission of the peace, and removed from the office of custos rotulorum of the county of Chester. In 1684, by the death of his father, he became lord Delamer; but about this time he was committed close prisoner to the Tower of London. The pretence probably was, that he was suspected of being concerned in some practices against the crown; but we have met with no particular account of the accusation against him: and as no parliament was then, sitting, it may be presumed, that less attention was paid to any illegality in the proceedings respecting him. He was, however, set at liberty, after a few months imprisonment. But soon after the accession of king James II. he was again committed prisoner to the Tower. After being confined for some time, he was admitted to bail; but was, shortly after, a third time committed to the Tower. This was on the 26th of July, 1685; and a parliament being assembled in the November following, on the first day of the session he stated his case in a petition to the house of peers. He represented to their lordships, that the king, by his proclamation, had required him. to appear before him in council within ten days. He had accordingly surrendered himself to lord Sunderland, then principal secretary of state; and being brought before his majesty, then sitting in council, he was neither confronted by any person who accused him, nor otherwise charged with any kind of treason, but only questioned about some inferior matters, and which were of such a nature, that, if he had been really guilty of them, he ought by law to have been admitted to bail: notwithstanding which, he had been committed close prisoner to the Tower, by a warrant from the secretary of state, in which he was charged with high, treason. After some debate, it was resolved, that the lords with white staves should wait upon his majesty, “to know the reason why the lord Delamer, a member of their house, was absent from his attendance there.” The day following, the earl of Rochester, lord treasurer, reported to the house, “That he, with the other lords, having waited on his majesty with their message, his majesty was pleased to answer, That the lord Delamer stood committed for high treason, testified upon oath; and that his majesty had already given directions, that he should be proceeded against according to law.”

After the parliament was broken up, lord Delamer was brought to his trial, before a select number of the peers, on the 14th of January, 1685-6. The peers who tried him were, the dukes of Norfolk, Somerset, Beaufort, and Grafton the earls of Rochester, Sunderland, Mulgrave, Oxford, Shrewsbury, Huntingdon, Pembroke, Bridgwater, Peterborough, Scarsdale, Craven, Feversham, Berkeley, Nottingham, and Plymouth; the viscounts Falconberg and Newport; and the lords Ferrers, Cromwell, Maynard, Dartmouth, Godolphin, and Churchill. Jefferies, then lord chancellor, was appointed lord high steward on the occasion. He was known to be a personal enemy of lord Delamer, who had arraigned in parliament the conduct of Jefferies as chief justice of Chester. Lord Delamer, after the indictment against him was read, objected against the jurisdiction of the court; alleging, that he ought not to be tried by a select number of the peers, but by the whole body of the house of peers in parliament, because the parliament was then only under a prorogation, and not dissolved. But his plea was overruled. In Jefferies’s charge to the peers, previous to the opening of the evidence against lord Delamer, he threw out some hints relative to the share his lordship had in promoting the bill of exclusion, and introduced an eulogium on the conduct of king James the Second. The only positive evidence against lord Delamer was one Thomas Saxon, a man of a very bad character, and who in the course of the trial was proved to be perjured. Jefferies maintained, that there was no necessity, in point of law, that there should be two positive witnesses to convict a man of treason; and that where there was only one positive witness, additional circumstances might supply the place of a second. Lord Delamer made a very able defence; and by the lords who were appointed to try him he was unanimously acquitted.

Though lord Delamer was removed from the administration, it was thought necessary to confer on him some mark of royal favour. Accordingly, by letters-patent, bearing date at Westminster, April 17, 1690, he was created earl of Warrington, in the county of Lancaster, to continue to him and the heirs-male of his body. A pension likewise of two thousand pounds per annum was granted to him, for the better support of that dignity. And it was said, in the preamble of the patent for his earldom, that it was conferred on him, “for his great services in raising and bringing great forces to his majesty, to rescue his country and religion from tyranny and popery.” On the 3d of January, 1692-3, the earl of Warrington signed a protest against the rejection of the bill for incapacitating persons in office under the crown, either civil or military, from sitting in the house of commons. Two other protests were also signed by him on different occasions. But this patriotic peer did not live long to enjoy his new dignity; for he died at London on the 2d of January, 1693-4, having not quite completed the forty-second year of his age. He was interred in the family vault in Bowdon church, in the county of Chester, on the 14th of the same month. Mr. Granger says, that lord Delamer was “a man of a generous and noble nature, which disdained, upon any terms, to submit to servitude; and whose passions seemed to centre in the love of civil and religious liberty.” In every part of his life, indeed, he appears to have been actuated by the same principles; and in his “Advice to his Children,” printed in his works, he says, “There never yet was any good man who had not an ardent zeal for his country.” He was not only illustriously distinguished by his public spirit, and his noble ardour in defence of the liberties of his country; but in his private life he appears to have been a man of strict piety, and of great worth, honour, and humanity. He married Mary, sole daughter and heiress to sir James Langham, of Cottesbrooke, in the county of Northampton, knight and baronet, by whom he had four sons, and two daughters. His first son died an infant, and his second son, George, upon the death of his father, became earl of Warrington. He died on the 2d of August, 1758, and leaving no heirs male, the earldom became extinct, but was revived in his daughter’s husband.

The son of the preceding, who, we have just mentioned, died in 1758, has obtained a place among the royal and noble authors, for having published, but without his name, “Considerations upon the institution of Marriage, with some thoughts concerning the force and obligation of the marriage contract; wherein is considered, how far divorces may or ought to be allowed. By a gentleman. Humbly submitted to the judgment of the impartial,” Lond. printed for John Whiston, 1739. Jt is an argument for divorce on disagreement of temper, which was the aim of Milton in his “Tetrachordon,” and would, if we may conjecture from the effects of the experiment in a neighbouring nation, create more dissoluteness and misery than it was intended to remove. He also wrote a letter to the writer of the “Present state of the Republic of Letters” in, August 1734, vindicating his father from some reflections cast on him in Burnett’s “History of his own times.” His only daughter married Henry earl of Stamford, in whose son, the title of Earl of Warrington was revived in 1796.

, or Boquinus, a French divine, and one of the contributors to the reformation, was born in Aquitaine, and educated in a monastery at Bourges, of which he became prior, and in high estimation with his brethren. Having, however, perused some of the writings of Luther, Bucer, &c. he imbibed their sentiments, and went to Wittemberg, where he became acquainted with Luther and Melancthon, and at Basil he attended the lectures of Myconius, Carlostadt, and Sebastian Muncer. Melancthon afterwards recommended him as a proper person to supply Calvin’s place at Strasburgh, who had gone back to Geneva; and there he gave lectures on the epistle to the Galatians, and soon after had for his coadjutor Peter Martyr. Boquine being at some distance of time invited by his brother, who was a doctor in divinity, and not an enemy to the reformation, removed to Bourges, in. hopes that the French churches were friendly to his doctrine, and there he publicly read and expounded the Hebrew Bible. About this time, Francis, king of France, being dead, the queen of Navarre came to Bourges, when Boquine presented her with a book he had written on the necessity and use of the Holy Scriptures, which she received very graciously, allowed him a yearly stipend out of her treasury, and appointed him to preach a public lecture in the great church of Bourges, with the consent of the archbishop. He remained in like favour with her successor, king Henry’s sister; but the enemies of the reformation threatening his life, he was obliged to desist from his labours, and went back to Strasburgh, where he was appointed pastor to the French church. This office, however, he filled only about four months, and in 1557 went into Heidelberg, at the invitation of Otho Henry, prince elector Palatine, who was carrying on the reformation in his churches. Here he was appointed professor of divinity, and continued in this office about twenty years, under Otho and Frederic III. After the death of the latter in 1576, the popish party again prevailing, drove him and the rest of the reformed clergy from the place, but almost immediately he was invited to Lausanne, where he remained until his death in 1582. He left various works, the dates of which his biographers have not given, except the following “Oratio in obitum Frederici III. Comit. Palatini,” Leyden, 1577, 4to; but their titles are, 1. “Defensio ad calumnias Doctoris cujusdam Avii in Evangelii professores.” 2. “Examen libri quern Heshusius inscripsit.de praesentia corporis Christi in coena Domini.” 3. “Theses in ccena Domini.” 4. “Exegesis divinsc communicationis.” 5. “Adsertio veteris, ac veri Christianismi adversus novum et fictum Jesuitismum.” This appears to have been one of his ablest works, and was translated into English under the title, “A defence of the old and true profession of Christianitie against the new counterfeite sect of Jesuites, by Peter Boquine, translated by T. G.” London, 1581, 8vo, by John Wolf, city printer. 6. “Notatio praecipuarum causarum diuturnitatis controversial de crena Domini,” &c.

a painter, engraver, and antiquary, was born at Brussels in 1583, but when in his third year, the war obliged his parents to remove into Germany. From his earliest years he discovered a taste for painting, which induced his father to place him under Giles Van Valkenberg. He afterwards studied in Italy, and travelling over Germany, settled first at Franhendal, and in 1627 at Francfort on the Maine. His paintings, principally fruit and flowers, were much admired, but he perhaps had more reputation as an antiquary, in which capacity, the earl of Arundel sent him into Italy to Mr. Petty, who was then collecting for his lordship, and retained him in his service as long as he lived. After the death of this patron, Vander Borcht was employed by the prince of Wales (afterwards Charles II.) and lived in esteem at London several years, till he returned to Antwerp, where he died in 1660. As an engraver we have some few etchings by him; among the rest the “Virgin and Child,” a small upright print, from Parmigiano, engraved at London in 1637; a “Dead Christ, supported by Joseph of Arimathea,” from the same master, and “Apollo and Cupid,” a small upright oval from Perin del Vago.

, a celebrated French mathematician and natural philosopher, was born at Dax, in the department of the Landes, May 4, 1733. His mother was Maria Theresa de Lacroix, and his father John Anthony Borda, whose ancestors had acquired considerable distinction in the French army. He began his studies in the college of the Barnabites at Dax, where he gave early indications of his future genius. He was a considerable time after put under the charge of the Jesuits of La Fleche, and by his ardour for study and superior talents, frequently carried off the prizes which were held out as the reward of youthful genius. This induced the Jesuits to endeavour to press him into their order, but his attachment to geometry was too powerful to be weakened by their persuasions. He encountered afterwards a more formidable opposition from his father, who was hostile to the prosecution of what he called unprofitable studies, and endeavoured to please him by proposing to enter into the engineer service of the army, where the objects of his profession would necessarily require a knowledge of geometry and physics. His father, however, having eleven children, and being obliged to support two of his sons who were already in the army, was anxious that Charles should look forward to some situation in the magistracy, which might be obtained without much expence and trouble. To these views Borda reluctantly submitted; but after having thus lost some of the most precious years of his youth, a friar, who was a particular friend of his father, obtained, by earnest solicitation, that he should be allowed to devote himself to his favourite science; and, every restraint being now removed, he was in 1753, when only twenty years of age, introduced to D'Alembert, who advised him to remain in the capital, and look forward to a situation in the academy. Borda accordingly entered the light horse, and continuing his mathematical studies, he became professor to his comrades.

These labours induced M. Prasslin, the minister of the marine, to wish for the aid of his talents in the French navy, and after some opposition from official etiquette, he appointed him sub-lieutenant, in which character he first appeared in 1768; but nothing occurred of consequence until 1771, when the French and English were employed in many inventions for the discovery of the longitude at sea, and the French government having determined to try the accuracy of some improved chronometers, the academy of sciences appointed Borda and Pingre to sail for that purpose in the Flora frigate. The result of their voyage was published at Paris in 1778, entitled, “Voyage fait par ordre du Roy en 1771 et 1772, &c.” 2 vols. 4to. He was afterwards employed to determine the position of the Canary Isles, and being promoted to the rank of lieutenant, sailed in 1776, and in the course of his voyage, performed its immediate object, with others. Being appointed majorgeneral to the naval armament which served under Count D'Estaign in America, his experience led him to discover many defects in the construction of vessels, which he thought might be easily remedied. He considered the want of uniformity in the construction of ships, which were to act together, as a great defect, because a great discordance arose in their movements and in the exeeution of signals. Upon his return to France he communicated this idea to government, who immediately resolved to carry it into effect, and his profound knowledge and patriotic exertions did not fail to be acknowledged not only by France, but by the best-informed men in England. The reputation which he had now acquired enabled him to be further serviceable to his country, by drawing up a plan for the schools of naval architecture, of which he may justly be termed the founder, as he not only suggested the idea, but formed the scheme for regulating these seminaries, and laid down the rules for the instruction of the pupils admitted into them.

To Borda France is indebted for the invention of the mensuration-rod, with which the new station -lines were lately ascertained. He was also a zealous promoter of the reform in weights and measures; and in order to assist in this, he published “Tables of Sines in the decimal sy.stern,” at his own expence. One of his last labours was, the accurate determination of the length of the pendulum vibrating seconds at Paris. Such were the acknowledged reputation and patriotism of Borda, that the highest offices in the state were not deemed too great for merit such as his; and we accordingly find the name of a man who had been decorated with the cross of merit during the monarchy, entered in the list of candidates for the office of Director under the republic. This occurred in 1797, and on the 20th of February 1799, the National Institute lost one of its greatest ornaments and most assiduous supporters, in consequence of his death, which was occasioned by a dropsy, that cut him off Feb. 20, 1799, in the 64th year of his age.

, or as he styles himself in Latin, Andreas Perforatus, was a very singular character, and the reputation he acquired among his contemporaries must be considered in a great measure as a proof of the ignorance and credulity of the times. He was born at Pevensey in Sussex about 1500, and was educated at Oxford; but before he had taken a degree, entered among the Carthusians in or near London. He afterwards left them, and studied physic at Oxford; and then travelled over most parts of Europe and Africa. On his return he settled at Winchester, where he practised physic with considerable reputation, and in this capacity he is said to have served Henry VIII. In 1541 and 1542 he was at Montpellier, where he probably took the degree of doctor, in which he was soon after incorporated at Oxford. He lived then for some time at Pevensey, and afterwards returned to Winchester, still observing all the austerities of the order to which he formerly belonged; though he has been accused of many irregularities. It is certain that his character was very odd and whimsical, as appears from the books he wrote; yet he is said to have been a man of great wit and learning, and an “especial physician.” That he was not of consequence eminent enough to rank with the first of his profession, may be inferred from his dying insolvent in the Fleet, April 1549. Bale intimates that he hastened his end by poison on the discovery of his keeping a brothel for his brother bachelors. His works are very various in their subjects; one of the most considerable is intituled, “A book of the introduction of knowledge,” black letter, imprinted by William Coplande, without date. He there professes to teach all languages, the customs and fashions of all countries, and the value of every species of coin. This is a motley piece, partly in verse and partly in prose; and is divided into thirty-nine chapters, before each of which is a wooden cut, representing a man in the habit of some particular country. His well known satire on the Englishman, who, to express the inconstancy and mutability of his fashions, is drawn naked with a cloth and a pair of sheers in his hand, is borrowed from the Venetians, who characterised the French in that manner. Before the 7th chapter is the effigies of the author, under a canopy, with a gown, a laurel on his head, and a book before him. The title of this chapter shews how the author dwelt in Scotland and other islands, and went through and round about Christendom. An edition of this singular work was printed in London in 1542. His “Breviary of Health,” which is a very trifling, coarse, and weak performance, was published in 1.547, and is supposed by Fuller to be the first medical piece written in English. As a specimen of the style, take what follows, which is the beginning of the Prologue, addressed to physicians: “Egregious doctors and maisters of the eximious and arcane science of physicke, of your urbanity exasperate not yourselves against me for making this little volume.” This work, with a second part called the “Extravagants,” was reprinted in 4to, 1575. He was also author of the following; “Compendyouse Regimente, or Dietary of Healthe made in Mounte Pyllor,” an edition of which was printed several years after his death, in 1562. A famous jest book called the “Merrye tales of the madmen of Gotham;” “The historye of the miller of Abingdon and the Cambridge scholars,” the same with that related by Chaucer in his Canterbury Tales; a book of “Prognostics,” and another of Urines, &c. It is said that the phrase “Merry Andrew” is derived from him.

, regius professor and director of the academy of surgery, veteran associate of the academy of sciences of Paris, and member of the imperial academy of Florence, was born at Paris April 10, 1728. His father, who was also a surgeon, destined him for the same profession, which had long been followed by the branches of his family, but began with giving him the ordinary course of a learned education that he might acquire the languages in which the most celebrated anatomists of former ages wrote, and some of those principles of philosophy which are the foundation of all sciences and arts. Young Bordenave’s proficiency fully answered his father’s expectations, and he soon fdled the distinguished situations already mentioned, and contributed many valuable papers to the Memoirs of the academy of surgery, on extraordinary cases which occurred in his practice: the treatment of gunshot wounds, and anatomical subjects. He also in 1757 made some experiments to illustrate Haller’s opinion on the difference between sensible or irritable parts, and wrote a work in defence of that celebrated anatomist’s opinion on the formation of the bones, against that of Duhamel. He also, in 1768, translated Haller’s Elements of Physiology for the use of his students, but he had previously, in 1756, published a new work on the same subject, admired for precision of method. Bordenave had long wished for a place in the academy of sciences, and in 1774 was elected a veteran associate. This title, it seems, indicates that the party has been chosen contrary to the statutes, and that the academy did not choose him of their own will; but for this he was not to blame, as such an election was totally contrary to his wish. In a short time, however, the academicians were reconciled, and Bordenave enriched their memoirs with some important papers. Bordenave also became echevin, or sheriff, of Paris, an office never before conferred on a surgeon, but. which he filled in a manner highly creditable, and directed his attention, as a magistrate, chiefly to the health of the city. On the birth of Louis XVII. he was honoured with the ribbon of the order of St. Michael, in consideration of his talents and services, but did not long enjoy this honour, being seized with an apoplexy, which after eight days proved fatal, March 12, 1782. Besides the works already noticed, he published, “Dissertations sur les Antiseptiques,” 1769, 8vo; and “Memoires sur le danger des Caustiques pour la cure radicale des Hernies,” 1774.

, son to the preceding, was born Feb. 22, 1722, at Iseste in the valley of Ossan inBearn, and at the age of twenty, for his degree of bachelor in the university of Montpellier, where he was then a student, he held a thesis “De sensu generice considerate,” which contains the ground-work of all the publications he afterwards gave. Such early knowledge determined his professors to dispense with several acts usual before admission to practice. In> 1743, he was created M. D. at Montpellier, and two years after succeeded his father, as inspector of the mineral waters, and professor of anatomy. In 1747, he was made corresponding member of the royal academy of Sciences at Paris, whither he soon after went, and where he acquired great reputation. Having taken out his licence in that city in 1754, he was appointed physician to the hopital de la charite. He died of an apoplexy, Nov. 24, 1776. A deep melancholy, occasioned by the flying gout, was the fore-runner of his end. He was found dead in his bed. One of the faculty, jealous of his fame, and who had tried to ruin him by a prosecution, said on the occasion: “I should never have thought he would have died in a horizontal position.” But a witty lady retorted by observing “that death was so much afraid of him, that he was obliged to catch him napping.” The facility with which he exercised his profession, his reluctance to give medicines, and his great confidence in nature, sometimes drew upon him the reproach that he had not much faith in medicine; but his doubts were so much the less blameable, as he was continually occupied in rendering the resources of his art more certain. He never disputed at all towards the latter end of his life, because probably he had disputed much to no purpose in his youth. Nobody knew better how to doubt, and he had little confidence in his own knowledge, and trusted with difficulty to that of others. Seeing the great number of courses of lectures in all branches of science, advertised every day, he observed once to a friend: “Will no one ever give a course of good sense?” As he expressed himself at times with rather too much acerbity on the merits of others, some of his professional brethren have called his own into question. His works, however, sufficiently attest his abilities. The principal are, 1. “Chylificationis historia,” 1742, reprinted at Paris, 1752, 12mo. with his “Recherches sur les Glandes.” He thought he observed a duct passing from the thyroid gland to the trachaea; an opinion which he repeats in another of his works, but without sufficient ground. 3. “Dissertatio physiologica de sensu generice considerate,” Monspelii, 1743, 8 vo; Paris, 1751, with his “Chylificationis historia.” 4. “Lettres contenant des essais sur l'histoire des Eaux minerales du Beam, &c. 1746, 12mo.” In these he treats of the properties of the waters, and of the geography of Beam. 5. “Recherches anatomiques sur la position des Glandes, et sur leur actions,” Paris, 1751, 8vo. 6. “Recherches sur le pouls par raport aux crises,” Paris, 1756, 12mo; in which he has gone much beyond Solano in his discrimination of pulses, and beyond what can be followed in practice. 7. “Recherches sur le tissu mnqueux, et l'organecellulaire,” Paris, 1766, 12mo. Haller accuses him of disingenuity in attributing to himself the discovery of some properties of the cellular membrane, which had been before described by him and others, but allows the work to have, on the whole, considerable merit.

, a celebrated philosopher and mathematician, was born at Naples the 28th of January, 1608. He was professor of philosophy and mathematics in some of the most celebrated universities of Italy, particularly at Florence and Pisa, where he became highly in favour with the princes of the house of Medici. But having been concerned in the revolt of Messina, he was obliged to retire to Rome, where he spent the remainder of his life under the protection of Christina queen of Sweden, who honoured him with her friendship, and by her liberality towards him softened the rigour of his hard fortune. He continued two years in the convent of the regular clergy of St. Pantaleon, called the Pious Schools, where he instructed the youth in mathematical studies. And thi’s study he prosecuted with great diligence for many years afterward, as appears by his correspondence with several ingenious mathematicians of his time, and the frequent mention that has been made of him by others, who have endeavoured to do justice to his memory. He wrote a letter to Mr. John Collins, in which he discovers his great desire and endeavours to promote the improvement of those sciences: he also speaks of his correspondence with, and great affection for, Mr. Henry Oldenburgh, secretary of the royal society; of Dr. Wallis; of the then late learned Mr. Boyle, and lamented the loss sustained by his death to the commonwealth of learning. Mr. Baxter, in his “Enquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul 3” makes frequent use of our author’s book “De Motu Animalium,” and tells us, that he was the first who discovered that the force exerted within the body prodigiously exceeds the weight to be moved without, or that nature employs an immense power to move a small weight. But he acknowledges that Dr. James Keil had shewn that Borelli was mistaken in his calculation of the force of the muscle of the heart; but that he nevertheless ranks him with the most authentic writers, and says he is seldom mistaken: and, having remarked that it is so far from being true, that great things are brought about by small powers, on the contrary, a stupendous power is manifest in the most ordinary operations of nature, he observes that the ingenious Borelli first remarked this in animal motion; and that Dr. Stephen Hales, by a course of experiments in his “Vegetable Statics,” had shewn the same in the force of the ascending sap in vegetables. After a course of unceasing labours, Borelli died at Pantaleon of a pleurisy, the 31st of December 1679, at 72 years of age, leaving the following works: 1. “Delle cagioni dellefebri maligni,” 1649, 12mo. 2. “Euclides restitutus,” &c. Pisa, 1658, 4to. 3. “Apollonii Pergaei conicorum, libri v. vi. & vii. paraphraste Abalphato Aspahanensi nunc primum editi,” &c. Floren. 1661, fol. 4. “Theoriæ Medicorum Planetarum ex causis physicis deductae,” Flor. 1666, 4to. 5. “De Vi Percussionis,” Bologna, 1667, 4to. This piece was reprinted, with his famous treatise “De Motu Animalium,” and that “De Motionibus Naturalibus,” in 1686. 6. “Osservazione intorno alia virtu ineguali degli occhi.” This piece was inserted in the Journal of Rome for the year 1669. 7. “De motionibus naturalibus e gravitate pemlentibus,” Regio Julio, 1670, 4to. 8. “Meteorologia Ætnea,” &c. Regio Julio, 1670, 4to. 9. “Osservazione dell' ecclissi lunare, fatta in Roma,” 1675. Inserted in the Journal of Rome, 1675, p. 34. 10. “Elementaconica Apollonii Pergoei et Archimedis opera nova et breviori methodo demonstrata,” Rome, 1679, 12mo, at the end of the 3d edition, of his Euclides restitutus. 11. “De Motu Animaiium: pars prima, et pars altera,” Romae, 1681, 4to. This was reprinted at Leyden, revised and corrected; to which was added John Bernouilli’s mathematical meditations concerning the motion of the muscles. “12. At Leyden, 1686, in 4to, a more correct and accurate edition, revised by J. Broen, M. D. of Leyden, of his two pieces” De vi percussionis, et de motionibus de gravitate pendentibus,“&c. 13.” De renum usu judicium:“this had been published with Bellini’s book” De structura renum," at Strasburgh, 1664, 8vo.

, a monster of ambition and cruelty, was a natural son of pope Alexander VI. What year he was born in, we do not find: but he was at his studies in the university of Pisa, when Alexander was elected pope, in August 1492. Upon the news of his father’s advancement, he banished all thoughts of his former private condition of life; and, full of ambition, as if himself was to be made emperor of the world, he hastened directly to Rome, where Alexander received him with formality and coldness, but whether it was real or but affected, is not easy to determine. Cscsar, however, took it to be real; and, greatly disgusted as well as disappointed, went immediately and complained to his mother Vanozza, who bid him not be cast down; and told him, that she knew the pope’s mind better than any body, and for what reasons his holiness had given him that reception. In the mean time the courtflatterers solicited the pope to make Cæsar a cardinal, which he absolutely refused; but, that he might not seem altogether forgetful of him, he created him archbishop of Valenza, a benefice which his holiness had enjoyed in his younger days. This preferment was by no means acceptable to Cæsar, yet he affected to be content, since the pope, he found, Was determined to confer the best of his secular dignities on his eldest son Francis, who at that time was made duke of Gandia by Fertlinand king of Castile and Arragon.

Alexander VI. had five children by his mistress Vanozza; Francis and Cæsar, already mentioned, two other sons, and a daughter named Lucretia. Francis was a gentleman of good disposition and probity, and in every respect opposite to his brother Cæsar; but Cæsar seems to have possessed abilities superior to those of Francis: which made a certain historian say, “that Cæsar was great among the wicked, and Francis good among the great.” Cæsar however was the mother’s favourite, as having a temper and principles more conformable to hers: for which reason, at the time when Alexander was undetermined on which of these brothers he should bestow the cardinal’s cap, Vanozza declared herself in favour of Cæsar, who was accordingly made a cardinal in the second year of Alexander’s pontificate. From this time he acted in concert with his father, and was an useful instrument in executing all the schemes of that wicked pope, as he had no scruples of honour or humanity, nor was there any thing too atrocious for him to perpetrate, to promote his insatiable ambition. This is said to have even incited him to the murder of his elder brother Francis, duke of Gandia. All the secular dignities, which then were much more coveted than the ecclesiastical, were heaped upon Francis, which obstructed Cæsar’s projects so entirely, that he was resolved at all adventures to remove him. TJjfle story is, that in 1497, hiring assassins, he caused him to be murdered, and thrown into the Tiber; where his body was found some days after, full of wounds and extremely mangled. The pope was afflicted to the last degree; for though he made use of Cæsar as the abler, he loved Francis as the better man. He caused therefore strict inquiry to be made after the murderers; upon which Vanozza, who for that and other reasons was justly suspected to be privy to the affair, went privately to the pope, and used all the arguments she could, to dissuade him from searching any further. Some say, that she went so far as to assure his holiness, that if he did not desist, the same person who took away his son’s life would not spare his own. The whole of this story, however, appears doubtful; nor, indeed, is there any positive proof that Borgia was even privy to his brother’s death. Gordon, only, has asserted it with accompanying proofs, but the latter -appear to be historic fictions. It cannot be necessary to add to Cesar’s crimes. He now, however, succeeded to his brother’s fortunes and honours, began to be tired of ecclesiastical matters, and grew quite sick of the cardinalate, and therefore determined to throw it off as soon as possible, that he might have the greater scope for practising the excesses, to which his natural ambition and cruelty prompted him: for cruel as well as ambitious he was in the highest degree. Numbers he caused to be taken off by poison or the sword; and it is recorded, that assassins were constantly kept in pay by him at Rome, for the sake of removing all who were either obnoxious or inconvenient to him. Getting rid of the cardinalate, he was soon after made duke of Valentinois by Lewis XII. of France: with whom he entered into a league for the conquest of the Milanese. From this time he experienced various turns of fortune, being sometimes prosperous, sometimes unfortunate. He very narrowly escaped dying of poison in 1503; for, having con-, certed with the pope a design of poisoning nine newly created cardinals at once (or, as some say, only one cardinal), in order to possess their effects, the poisoned wine destined for the purpose was by mistake brought to themselves and drank. The pope died of it; but Cæsar, by the vigour of his youth, and the force of antidotes, after many struggles, recovered. He only recovered, however, to outlive his fortune and grandeur, to see himself depressed, and his enemies exalted; for he was soon after divested of all his acquisitions, and sent a prisoner to Spain, in order to free Italy from an incendiary, and the Italian princes from those dangers which his turbulent and restless spirit made them fear, even though he was unarmed. From Spain he escaped to Navarre to king John his brother-in-law, where he met with a very friendly reception. From hence he designed to go into France; and there, with the assistance of Lewis, to try if he could once more re-establish his fortune, but Lewis refused to receive him, not only because he and Spain had concluded a truce, but because they were also at enmity with the king of Navarre. The French king also, in order to gratify Spain, had confiscated Cæsar’s duchy of Valentinois, and taken away the yearly pension which he had from France. So that this fallen tyrant, in a poor and abandoned condition, without revenue or territory, was forced to be dependent upon his brother-in-law, who was then at war with his subjects. Borgia served as a volunteer in that war; and, while the armies were engaged in battle, and fighting under the walls of Viana, was wounded, and died in consequence, March 12, 1507. On his death-bed he is said to have exclaimed, “I had provided in the course of my life for every thing but death; and now, alas! I am to die, though completely unprepared for it.” Cæsar Borgia took these words for his device, “Aut Cæsar aut nihil;” which gave occasion to the following epigrams:

In 1788 he published his “Vindication of the rights of the Holy See on the kingdom of Naples,” 4to, a work now of little importance, and relating to a dispute which will probably never be revived. On the 30th of March, 1789, he was promoted to the rank of cardinal, and about the same time was appointed prefect of the congregation of the Index; and, what was more analogous to his pursuits, he held the same office in the Propaganda, and in the congregation for the correction of the books of the oriental churches. After these promotions, he continued to be the liberal patron of all who had any connection either with his offices or with his literary pursuits, until Italy was inTaded by the French, when, like the greater part of his colleagues, he was involved in losses and dangers, both with respect to his fortune and to his pursuits. He forfeited all his benefices, and was near witnessing the destruction of all the establishments committed to his care, especially the Propaganda. He was soon, however, extricated from his personal difficulties; and, by his timely measures, the invaluable literary treasures of the Propaganda were also saved. He was allowed a liberal pension from the court of Denmark, and he soon obtained the removal of the establishment of the Propaganda to Padua, a city which, being then under the dominion of the emperor <?f Germany, was thought to be sheltered from robbery. Here he remained till the death of pope Pius VI. after which he repaired, with his colleagues, to Venice, to attend the conclave; and, a new pope being elected, he returned to Rome. When the coronation of the emperor of France was ordered, cardinal Borgia was one of those individuals who were selected by the pope as the companions of his intended journey to Paris, but having caught a, violent cold on his way, he died at Lyons, Nov. 23, 1804. Cardinal Stephen Borgia was not much favoured by nature with respect to person. He was so clumsy, and his motions so much embarrassed, as to have little of the appearance of a person of birth and rank. He was far, also, from being nice in his house or equipage. These little defects, however, were compensated by the superior qualities of his mind. From, the time of Alexander Albani, no Roman cardinal had so many distinguished connections and correspondents in every part of Europe: and a great similarity (elegance of manners excepted) was remarked between the character of that illustrious prelate and his own. The Borgian ms. so called by Michaelis, is a fragment of a Coptic-Greek manuscript, brought by a monk from Egypt, consisting of about twelve leaves, and sent to cardinal Borgia. The whole of it is printed in “Georgii Fragmentum Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum,” Rome, 1789, 4to.

, a painter and engraver, was born at Rome, in 1630, and learned design from Giulio Borgianni his brother; but improved himself by studying the capital performances of the ancient and modern artists, which he was enabled to contemplate every day in his native city. Having had an offer from a nobleman, of travelling with him in a tour through Europe, he willingly accepted it, from a desire of being acquainted with the different customs and manners of different nations. But his progress was stopped by his falling in love with a young woman in Spain, to whom he was afterwards married; and finding his circumstances reduced to a narrow compass, he applied himself to his profession with double diligence, to procure a comfortable support. His endeavours were soon successful; and he was happy enough to find many friends, admirers, and employers, and was accounted one of the best painters in Spain. After the death of his wife, having then no attachment to that country, he returned to Rome, and painted some historical subjects larger than life; but the figures being above his accustomed size, shewed a want of correctness in several of the, members, which made his pictures not quite acceptable to the refined taste of the Roman school. He was, however, engaged in some great works for the chapels and convents, and also to paint portraits, by which he acquired honour, and lived in affluence. He died in 1681, of a broken heart, in consequence of the ill treatment he received, through the envy and villainy of one Celio, a painter, who proved a most malicious competitor, and to whom he had been often preferred, by the best judges of painting at Rome; but he died lamented and pitied by every worthy man of his profession. As an engraver, he is probably best known to many of our readers, for his engravings of the Bible histories, which were painted by Raphael in the Vatican, commonly called “Raphael’s Bible,” small plates, length-ways, dated 1615, which are very slight, and seem to be the hasty productions of his point. Mr. Strutt says, that his most finished etching is “a dead Christ,” a small square plate, the figure greatly foreshortened, and behind appear the two Mary’s and St. John, who is kissing one of the hands of our Saviour. His etchings are, in general, in a bold, free manner, and more finished than usual, when considered as the works of a painter, but in some the drawing is not correct.

When Mr. Borlase was fixed at Ludgvan, which was a retired, but delightful situation, he soon recommended himself as a pastor, a gentleman, and a man of learning. The duties of his profession he discharged with the most rigid punctuality and exemplary dignity. He was esteemed and respected by the principal gentry of Cornwall, and lived on the most friendly and social terms with those of his neighbourhood. In the pursuit of general knowledge he was active and vigorous; and his mind being of an inquisitive turn, he could not survey with inattention or indifference the peculiar objects which his situation pointed to his view. There were in the parish of Ludgvan rich copper works, belonging to the late earl of Godolphin. These abounded with mineral and metallic fossils, which Mr. Borlase collected from time to time; and his collection increasing by degrees, he was encouraged to study at large the natural history of his native county. While he was engaged in this design, he could not avoid being struck with the numerous m'onuments of remote antiquity that are to be met with in several parts of Cornwall; and which had hitherto been passed over with far less examination than they deserved. Enlarging, therefore, his plan, he determined to gain as accurate an acquaintance as possible with the Druid learning, and with the religion and customs of the ancient Britons, before their conversion to Christianity. To this undertaking he was encouraged by several gentlemen of his neighbourhood, who were men of literature and lovers of British antiquities; and particularly by sir John St. Aubyn, ancestor of the present baronet of that family, and the late rev. Edward Collins, vicar of St. Earth. In the year 1748, Mr. Borlase, happening to attend the ordination of his eldest son at Exeter, commenced an acquaintance with the Rev. Dr. Charles Lyttelton, late bishop of Carlisle, then come to be installed into the deanry, and the Rev. Dr. Milles, the late dean, two eminent antiquaries, who, in succession, have so ably presided over the society of antiquaries in London. Our author’s correspondence with these gentlemen was a great encouragement to the prosecution of his studies; and he has acknowledged his obligations to them, in several parts of his works. In 1750, being at London, he was admitted a fellow of the royal society, into which he had been chosen the year before, after having communicated an ingenious Essay on the Cornish Crystals. Mr. Borlase having completed, in 1753, his manuscript of the Antiof Cornwall, carried it to Oxford, where he finished the whole impression, in folio, in the February following. A second edition of it, in the same form, was published at London, in 1769. Our author’s next publication was, “Observations on the ancient and present state of the Islands of Scilly, and their importance to the trade of Great Britain, in a letter to the reverend Charles Lyttelton, LL. D. dean of Exeter, and F. R. S.” This work, which was printed likewise at Oxford, and appeared in 1756, in quarto, was an extension of a paper that had been read before the royal society, on the 8th of February 1753, entitled, “An Account of the great Alterations which the Islands of Scilly have undergone, since the time of the ancients, who mention them, as to their number, extent, and position.” It was at the request of Dr. Lyttelton, that this account was enlarged into a distinct treatise. In 1757, Mr. Borlase again employed the Oxford press, in printing his “Natural History of Cornwall,” for which he had been many years making collections, and which was published in April 1758. After this, he sent a variety of fossils, and remains of antiquity, which he 'had described in his works, to be placed in the Ashmolean museum; and to the same repository he continued to send every thing curious which fell into his hands. For these benefactions he received the thanks of the university, in a letter from the vice-chancellor, dated November 18, 1758; and in March, 1766, that learned body conferred on him the degree of doctor of laws, by diploma, the highest academical honour.

Though Dr. Borlase, when he had completed his three principal works, was become more than sixty years of age, he continued to exert his usual diligence and vigour in quiet attention to his pastoral duty, and the study of the Scriptures. In the course of this study, he drew up paraphrases on the books of Job, and the books of Solomon, and wrote some other pieces of a religious kind, rather, however, for his private improvement, than with a view to publication. His amusements abroad were, to superintend the care of his parish, and particularly the forming and reforming of its roads, which were more numerous than in any parish of Cornwall. His amusements at home were the belles lettres, and especially painting; and the correction and enlargement of his “Antiquities of Cornwall,” for a second edition, engaged some part of his time; and when this business was completed, he applied his attention to a minute revision of nis “Natural History.” Alter this, he prepared for the press a treatise he had composed some years before, concerning the Creation and Deluge. But a violent illness, in January 1771, and the apprehensions of entangling himself in so long and close an attention as the correcting of the sheets, solely, and at such a distance from London, would require, induced him to drop his design, and to recal the manuscript from his bookseller, when only a few pages of it had been printed. From the time of his illness, he began sensibly to decline, the infirmities of old age came fast upon him; and it was visible to all his friends that his dissolution was approaching. This expected event happened on the 3 1st of August, 1772, in the 77th year of his age, when he was lamented as a kind father, an affectionate brother, a sincere friend, an instructive pastor, and a man of erudition. He was buried within'the communion rails in Ludgvan church, by the side of Mrs. Borlase, who had been dead above three years.

The Doctor had by his lady six sons, two of whom alone survived him, the rev. Mr. John Borlase, and the rev. Mr. George Borlase, who was Casuistical Professor and Registrar of the university of Cambridge, and died in 1809.

, Baron, an eminent mineralogist, was born of a noble family at Carlsburg, in Transylvania, Dec. 26, 1742. He came early in life to Vienna, and studied under the Jesuits, who, perceiving his abilities, prevailed on him to enter into their society, but he remained a member only about a year and a half. He then went to Prague, where, as it is the custom in Germany, he studied law, and having completed his course, made a tour through a part of Germany, Holland, the Netherlands, and France, and returning to Prague, he engaged in the studies of natural history, mining, and their connected branches, and in, 1770, he was received into the department of the mines and mint at Prague. The same year he visited the principal mines of Hungary and Transylvania, and during this tour kept up a correspondence with the celebrated Ferber, who, in 1774, published his letters. It was in this town, also that he so nearly lost his life, and where he was struck with the disease which embittered the rest of his days. It appears from his eighteenth letter to Mr. Ferber that, when at Felso-Banya, he descended into a mine, where fire was used to detach the ore, to observe the efficacy of this means, but too soon after the fire had been extinguished, and while the mine was full of arsenical vapours raised by the heat. How greatly he suffered in his health by this accident appears from his letter, in which he complained that he could hardly bear the motion of his carriage. After this he was appointed at Prague counsellor of the mines. In 1771, he published a small work of the Jesuit Poda, on the machinery used about mines, and the next year his “Lithophylacium Borneanum,” a catalogue of that collection of fossils, which he afterward disposed of to the lion. Mr. Greville. This work drew on him the attention of mineralogists, and brought him into correspondence with the first men in that study. He was now made a member of the royal societies of Stockholm, Sienna, and Padua; and in 1774, the same honour was conferred on him by the royal society of London.

During his residence in Bohemia, his active disposition induced him to seek for opportunities of extending knowledge, and of being useful to the world. He took a part in the work, entitled “Portraits of the learned men and artists of Bohemia and Moravia.” He was likewise concerned in the “Literary transactions, or Acta Litteraria, of Bohemia and Moravia,” and the editor of the latter pubr licly acknowledges in the preface, how much Bohemian literature is indebted to him. Prague and Vienna were both without a public cabinet for the use of the students: it was at his instigation that government was induced tq form one, which he assisted by his contributions and his labours. In 1775, he laid the foundation of a literary society, which published several volumes under the title of “Memoirs of a private Society in Bohemia.” His fame reaching the empress Mary Theresa, in 1776, she called him to Vienna to arrange and describe the Imperial collection, and about two years after, he published the splendid work containing the Conchology: in the execution of which he had some assistance. The empress defrayed the expences for a certain number of copies. On the death of this patron the work was discontinued, her successor, the femperor Joseph, not favouring the undertaking. He had likewise the honour of instructing the arch-duchess Maria Anna in natural history, who was partial to this entertaining study; and he formed and arranged for her a neat museum. In 1779, he was raised to the office of actual counsellor of the court-chamber, in the department of the tnines and mint. This office detained him constantly in Vienna, and engaged the chief part of his time.

What raised the baron more justly high in the public opinion, was his knowledge of mineralogy, and his successful experiments in metallurgy, and principally in the progress of amalgamation. The use of quick-silver in extracting the noble metals from their ores, was not a discovery of the baron’s, nor of the century in which he lived; yet he extended so far its application in metallurgy as to form a brilliant epoch in this most important art. After he had at great expence made many private experiments, and was convinced of the utility of his method, he laid before the emperor an account of his discovery, who gave orders that a decisive experiment on a large quantity of ore should be made at Schemnitz, in Hungary, in the presence of Charpentier from Saxony, Ferber from Russia, Elhujar from Spain, Poda, and other celebrated chemists, which met with universal approbation, and established the utility of his discovery. In 1786, Born published, at the desire of the emperor, his treatise on Amalgamation; and in the following year, a farther account of it was published by his friend Ferber. As a considerable saving in wood, time, and labour, attended his process, the emperor gave orders that it should be employed in the Hungarian mines; and as a recompence to the inventor, a third of the sum that should be saved by adopting his method was granted to him for ten years, and for ten years more the interest of that sum. Such, however, was the hospitality of Born, and his readiness to admit and entertain all travellers, and to patronize distressed talents of every kind, that his expences exceeded his income, and he was at last reduced to a state of insolvency. Amidst all his bodily infirmities and pecuniary embarrassments, and notwithstanding the variety of his official avocations, he was indefatigable in his literary pursuits; and in 1790, he published in two volumes, a “Catalogue methodique raisonné,” of Miss Raab’s collection of fossils, which is regarded as a classical work on that subject. He employed himself also in bleaching wax by a new chemical process, and in boiling salt with half the wood commonly used for that purpose. Whilst he was engaged in writing the “Fasti Leopoldini,” or a history of the reign of Leopold II. in classical Latin, and a work on Mineralogy, his disease rapidly advanced, and being attended with violent spasms, terminated his life on the 28th of August, 1791. His treatise on Amalgamation was translated into English, and published by R. E. Raspe, Lond. 1791, 4to, and his travels through the Bannat of Temeswar, &c. were published in 1787.

Borri staid some time in the city of Strasburgh, to which he had fled; and where he found some assistance and support, as well because he was persecuted by the inquisition, as because he was reputed a great chemist. But this was not a theatre large enough for Borri: he went therefore to Amsterdam, where he appeared in a stately and splendid equipage, and took upon him the title of Excellency: people flocked to him, as to the physician who could cure all diseases; and proposals were concerted for marrying him to great fortunes, &c. But his reputation began to sink, as his impostures became better understood, and he fled in the night from Amsterdam, with a great many jewels and sums of money, which he had pilfered. He then went to Hamburgh, where queen Christina was, and put himself under her protection: persuading her to venture a great sum of money, in order to find out the philosopher’s stone. Afterwards he went to Copenhagen, and inspired his Danish majesty to search for the same secret; by which means he acquired that prince’s favour so far, as to become very odious to all the great persons of the kingdom. Immediately after the death of the king, whom he had cheated out of large sums of money, he left Denmark for fear of being imprisoned, and resolved to go into Turkey. Being come to the frontiers at a time when the conspiracy of Nadasti, Serini, and Frangipani, was discovered, he was secured, and his name sent to his Imperial majesty, to see if he was one of the conspirators. The pope’s nuncio, who happened to be present, as soon as he heard Borri mentioned, demanded, in the pope’s name, that the prisoner should be delivered to him. The emperor consented to it, and ordered that Borri should be sent to Vienna; and afterwards, having first obtained from the pope a promise that he should not be put to death, he sent him to Rome; where he was tried, and condemned to perpetual confinement in the prison of the inquisition. He made abjuration of his errors in the month of October, 1672. Some years after he obtained leave to attend the duke d‘Estree, whom all the physicians had given over; and the unexpected cure he wrought upon him occasioned it to be said, that an arch-heretic had done a great miracle in Rome. It is said also, that the queen of Sweden sent for him sometimes in a coach; but that, after the death of that princess, he went no more abroad, and that none could speak with him without special leave from the pope. The Utrecht gazette, as Mr. Bayle relates, of the 9th of September, 1695, informed the public, that Borri was lately dead in the castle of St. Arigelo, being 79 years of age. It seems that the duke d’ Estre*e, as a recompence for recovering him, had procured Borri’s prisou to be changed, from that of the inquisition to the castle of St. Angelo.

Some pieces were printed at Geneva in 1681, which are ascribed to him; as, 1. “Letters concerning Chemistry;” and 2. “Political reflections.” The first of these works is entitled, “La chiave del gabinetto;” the second, “Istruzioni politichi.” We learn from the life of Borri, that when he was at Strasburg, he published a letter, which went all over the world. Two other of his letters are said to have been printed at Copenhagen in 1699, and inscribed to Bartholinus; one of them, “De ortu cerebri, et usu medico;” the other, “De artificio oculorum humores restituendi.” The Journal des Savans, of the 2d of September, 1669, speaks fully of these two letters. Konig ascribes also another piece to him, entitled, “Notitia gentis Burrhorum.” Sorbiere saw Borri at Amsterdam, and has left us a description and character of him. He says, that “he was a tall black man, well shaped, who wore good clothes, and spent a good deal of money: that he did not want parts, and had some learning, was without doubt somewhat skilled in chemical preparations, had some knowledge in metals, some methods of imitating pearls or jewels, and some purgative and stomachic remedies: but that he was a quack, an artful impostor, who practised upon the credulity of those whom he stood most in need of; of merchants, as well as princes, whom he deluded out of great sums of money, under a pretence of discovering the philosopher’s stone, and other secrets of equal importance: and that, the better to carry on this scheme of knavery, he had assumed the mask of religion.”

Borrichius died rich, and made a most liberal use of his money. After satisfying his relations (who were all collateral, as he had no family) with bequests to the amount of fifty thousand crowns, he left twenty-six thousand crowns to found a college for poor students, consisting of a house, completely furnished for sixteen students, with library, chemical laboratory, garden, &c. to be called the Medicean college. His principal medical productions consist of observations published in the Acta Haffniensia, and other similar collections, and of the letters sent by him while on his travels, to F. Bartholine, under whom he had been educated. The letters are the most valuable of those published by Bartholine in his “Epistolas Medicse;” but the works by which he acquired his principal celebrity, were “De ortu et progressu Chemise,” published in 1668, 4to; and his “Hermetis Ægyptiorum et Chemicorum sapientia, ab H. Conringio vindicata,” 1674. In this very learned and elaborate work, the author defends the character of the ancient Egyptians against the strictures of Conringius: attributing to them the invention and perfection of chemistry, and even of alchemy; persuading himself that among their secrets they possessed the art of transmuting metals. But either from infatuation, or a desire of victory, he cites several manuscripts, since known to be spurious, as genuine, and some written since the time of our Saviour, as of much higher antiquity. He shews, however, from undoubted authority, that the Egyptians were early acquainted with the medical properties of several of their plants; that they used saline, and even mineral preparations, some of them prepared by chemistry; that incubation, or the method of hatching eggs by artificial beat, was first used by them; in fine, that the art of medicine, invented by them, passed from them to the Grecians. Borrichius was also author of “Conspectus prcestantiorum scriptorum linguæ Latinæ;” 1698, 4to; “Cogitationes de variis linguae Latinas cetatibus,” 1675, 4to; “Analecta philologica, et judicium de lexicis Latinis Graecisque,” 1682, 4to; and various other philological works.

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.

, cousin german to the preceding, and also a cardinal and archbishop of Milan, was first educated under St. Charles, who afterwards placed him in his newly-founded college at Pavia. Jn 1587, pope Pius V. made him a cardinal, and in 1595, Clement VIII. promoted him to the archbishopric of Milan. He died in 1632, leaving various pious works, written in Italian, the principal of which is “Sacri Ragionamenti,” Milan, 1632 1G46, 4 vols. folio, and “Ragionamenti Spiritual!,” ibid. 1673 1676; “De Piacere della mente Christiana,” ibid. 1625. All his works are said to be scarce, but literature was most indebted to him as the founder of the celebrated Ambrosian library at Milan, which was enriched in his time with ten thousand manuscripts collected by Antony Oggiati, whom he made librarian, and by a large collection of books from the Pinelli library.

, an artist of singular taste, was born at Bois-le-Duc. He seemed to have a peculiar pleasure in painting spectres, devils, and enchantments: and although he possessed considerable powers as a painter, both in freedom of touch and strength of colouring, his pictures rather excite a horror mixed with admiration than any degree of real delight. Among the singular objects which he chose, there is one which represents the Saviour delivering the Patriarchs from hell. The fire and flames are painted with great truth. Judas in the attempt of slyly escaping with the Saints, is seized in the neck by the devils, who are going to hang him up in the air. A most remarkable painting of this master’s hand, among several others in the Escurial, is an allegory of the pleasures of the flesh: in which he represents the principal figure in a carriage drawn by monstrous imaginary forms, preceded by demons, and roll owed by death. As to his manner, it was less still than tnat of most of the painters of his time; and his draperies were in a better taste, more simple, and with less sameness, than any of his contemporaries. He painted on a white ground, which he so managed as to give a degree of transparence to his colours, and the appearance of more warmth. He laid on his colours lightly, and so placed them, even at the first touch of his pencil, as to give them their proper effect, without disturbing them: and his touch was full of spirit. Bos was also an engraver, and, as Strutt thinks, the first artist who attempted to engrave in the grotesque style. His engravings have that stiffness which so strongly characterises the works of the early German masters, and prove that he possessed a great fertility of invention, though perhaps but little judgment. He died in 1500.

, a learned philologist, was born at Worcum in Friesland, Nov. 23, 1670. His father who was rector or principal regent of the schools, and accustomed to mark the early appearance of talents, soon discovered his son’s aptitude for learning, and taught him Greek and Latin. His mother, a woman of abilities, and aunt to Vitringa, when she saw the latter, then a very young man, advanced to the professorship of Oriental languages, exclaimed with maternal fondness that she hoped to see her son promoted to a similar rank. In this, however, she was not gratified, as she died before he had finished his studies. When he had gone through the ordinary course of the classes in his father’s school, he continued adding to his knowledge by an attentive perusal of the Greek and Latin authors, and had many opportunities for this while he lived with a man of rank, as private tutor to his children. Cicero, above all, was his favourite Latin, author, whom he read again and again. In 1694 he went to the university of Franeker, where his relation, Vitringa, encouraged him to pursue the Greek and Latin studies, to which he seemed so much attached. In October 1696 he was permitted to teach Greek in the university, and in February of the following year, the curators honoured him with the title of prelector in that language. In 1704, when the Greek professorship became vacant by the death of Blancard, Mr. Bos was appointed his successor, and on taking the chair, read a dissertation on the propagation of Greek learning by their colonies, “de eruditione Graecorum per Colonias eorum propagata.” About the end of 1716 he was attacked with a malignant fever, ending in a consumption, a disorder he inherited from his mother, which terminated his life Jan. 6, 1717. Bos was a man of extensive classical learning, a solid judgment, and strong memory. In his personal character he was candid, amiable, and pious; in his studies so indefatigable that he cegretted every moment that was not employed in them. About five years before his death he married the widow of a clergyman, by whom he left two sons.

He published, 1. “Exercitaciones Philologicæ, in quibus Novi Fœderis nonnulla loca è profants maximè auctoribus Græcis iiiustrantur,” Franeker, 1700, 8vo; and in 1713 much enlarged, particularly with an ingenious etymological dissertation, on which, as well as on the work itself, Le Clerc bestows high praise in his “Bibliotheque Choisie,” vol. XV. and his “Bibl. Anc. et Moderne,” vol. 11. 2. “Mysterii Ellipsios Grcecas expositi Specimen,” ibid. 1702, 12 mo. There have been many editions of this useful work to Greek students. 3. “Observatiunes Misceilanex ad loca quaedam cum Novi Fcederis, turn externorum Scriptorum Græcorum,” ibid. 1707, 8vo. 4. An edition of the “Septuagint,” 1709, 2 vols. 4to, with Prolegomena, &c. which Breitinger, who published another edition in 1730— 1732, has criticised with considerable seventy in the “Journal Litteraire,” vol. XVIII. which the reader may compare with what is said of Breitinger’s edition in vol. XL of the “Bibliotheque Raisonnee.” 5. “Antiquitatum Gritearum, praecipne Atticarurh, brevis Descriptio,” Franeker, 1713, 12mo. Of this there have been several editions, as it became a school book. That of Leisner, at Paris, 1769, was in 1772 translated into English by our countryman, the late rev. Percival Stock'dale, and published in octavo, in hopes that it might supply young scholars with a manual more useful than Potter’s Antiquities, but it did not answer the translator’s expectations in this respect. 6. “Animadversiones ad Scriptores quosdam Graccos. Accedit specimen animadversionum Latinarum,” Franeker, 1715, 8vo. The same year he published a new edition of Weller’s Greek Grammar, adding two chapters on accentuation and syntax, shorter and more methodical than those of Weller. F. H. Schcefer published a variorum edition of his “Ellipses,” in 1809, Leipsic. Saxius only, of all his biographers, notices a work by Bos which appears to have been his first, “Thomre Magistri Dictionum Atticarurh Ecloga,” Franeker, 1698, 8vo.

, a French minister, and the greatest preacher in his time among the protestants, was son of William du Bosc, advocate to the parliament of Roan, and born at Bayeux, February 21, 1623. He made such progress, after having studied divinity eighteen months at Montauban, and three years at Saumur, that although he was but in his three and twentieth year, he was qualified to serve the church of Caen, to which he was presented Nov. 15, 1645, and received the imposition of hands Dec. 17, the same year. The merit of his colleagues, and above all that of Mr. Bochart, did not hinder Mr. du Bosc from acquiring speedily the reputation of one of the first men of his function; and his eloquence became so famous throughout the whole kingdom, that the church of Charenton would have him for their minister, and sent to desire him of his church, in the beginning of 1658. The strongest solicitations were made use of; but neither the eloquence of the deputies of Paris, nor the letters of persons of the greatest eminence in France amongst the protestants, could engage the church of Caen to part with him, nor him to quit his flock. It was impossible that such talents and fame should not give umbrage to the enemies of the protestant religion, which they shewed in 1664, by procuring a lettre de cachet, which banished him from Chalons till a new order, for having spoke disrespectfully of auricular confession. Mr. du Bosc, as he passed through Paris to go to the place of his banishment, explained to Mr. le Tellier his opinion on confession, and in what manner he had spoken of it, with which Le Tellier was satisfied, and told him that he had never doubted of the falseness of the accusation. Mr. du Bosc recovered the liberty of returning to his church October 15, 1664, and the joy which was at Caen among the brethren, when he came there, November 8, was excessive, A great many honourable persons of the other party congratulated him; and there was a catholic gentleman who celebrated the event in a very singular manner, as thus related by Du Bosc’s biographer. “A gentleman of the Roman religion, of distinction in the province, whose life was not very regular, but who made open profes&ion of loving the pastors who had particular talents, and seemed particularly enamoured with the merit of Mr. du Bosc, having a mind to solemnize the feast with a debauch, took two Cordeliers whom he knew to be honest fellows, and made them drink so much, that one of them died on the spot. He went to see Mr. du Bosc the next day, and told him that he thought himself obliged to sacrifice a monk to the public joy; that the sacrifice would have been more reasonable, if it had been a Jesuit; but that his offering ought not to displease him, though it was but of a Cordeiier. This tragical accident, of which he was only the innocent occasion, did not fail to disturb the joy which he had upon seeing himself again in his family and amongst his flock.” During the prosecutions of the protestant churches in 1665, he defended that of Caen, and many others of the province, against the measures of the bishop of Bayeux. The king having published in 1666 a severe proclamation against the protestants, all the chrrches sent deputies to Paris to make humble remonstrances to his majesty. The churches of Normandy deputed Mr. du Bosc, who departed from Caen July 3, 1668. As soon as he was arrived at Paris, the other deputies chose him “to draw up several memoirs. It being reported that the king would suppress some chambers of the edict, all the deputies ran to Mr. de Ruvigni, the deputy general, to speak with him about so important an affair, in hopes of procuring leave to throw themselves at his majesty’s feet; but Mr. du Bosc only was admitted to the audience. He harangued the king, who was alone in his closet, November 27, 1668; and after having ended his discourse, he had the courage to represent several things, and succeeded so well as to make all the court speak of his eloquence and prudence. After several conferences with Mr. le Tellier, and many evasions and delays, in April 1669, he obtained some relaxation of the declaration of 1666. After that time Mr. du Bosc went several journies about the churches’ affairs, and supported them, before the ministers of state and the intendants, with great force and ability, until he was commanded himself, by an act of the parliament of Normandy June 6, 1685, not to exercise his ministry any more in the kingdom. It was, however, universally acknowledged, t.iat if it had been possible to preserve the reformed church of France by the means of negotiation, he was more likely to succeed than any one that could be employed. He retired into Holland after his interdiction, and was minister of the church of Rotterdam, until his death, which happened January 2, 1692. He published some volumes of sermons; and after his death, P. Le Gendre, his son-in-law, published his” Life, Letters, Poems, Orations, Dissertations," and other curious documents respecting the history of the reformed churches in his time, Rotterdam, 1694, 8vo, dedicated to lord viscount Galloway.

, a brave English admiral, the second son of Hugh, lord viscount Falmouth, was born in 1711, and having early embraced the naval service, arose, through the usual gradations, to be captain of the Shoreham of 20 guns, in 1740, and distinguished himself as a volunteer under admiral Vernon, in November, at the taking and destroying the fortifications of Porto Bello. At the siege of Carthagena in March 1741, he had the command of a party of seamen, who resolutely attacked and took a fascine battery of fifteen twenty-four pounders, though exposed to the fire of another fort of five guns, which they knew nothing of. Lord Aubrey Beauclerk being killed March 24, at the attack of Bocachica, capt. Boscawen succeeded him in the command of the Prince Frederic of 70 guns; and on the surrender of that castle, was entrusted with the care of its demolition.

In some French memoirs, admiral Boscawen is represented as having, at the siege of Louisburgh, wholly given himself up to the direction of a particular captain in that arduous and enterprising business. This, however, was not the case. Whoever knew Mr. Boscawen’s knowledge in his profession, with his powers of resource upon every occasion, his intrepidity of mind, his manliness and independence of conduct and of character, can never give the least degree of credit to such an assertion. The admiral, however, upon other occasions, and in other circumstances, deferred to the opinions of those with whom he was professionally connected. When once sent to intercept a St. Domingo fleet of merchantmen, and while waiting near the track which it was supposed they would take, one of his seamen came to tell him that the fleet was now in sight. The admiral took his glass, and from his superior power of eye, or perhaps from previous information, said, that the sailor was mistaken, and that what he saw was the grand French fleet. The seaman, however, persisted. The admiral desired some others of his crew to look through the glass; who all, with their brains heated with the prospect of a prize, declared, that what they saw was the St. Domingo fleet. He nobly replied, “Gentlemen, you shall never say that I have stood in the way of your enriching yourselves: I submit to you; but, remember, when you find your mistake, you must stand by me.” The mistake was soon discovered; and the admiral, by such an exertion of manffiuvres as the service has not often seen, saved his ship.

, an English miscellaneous writer, and poet of considerable merit, was nephew to the preced ng, being the younger son of general George Boscawen, third son of lord Falmouth. He was born August 28, 1752, and was sent to Eton school before he was seven years old, where he obtained the particular notice and favour of the celebrated Dr. Barnard. From school he was removed to Oxford, where he became a gentleman commoner of Exeter college, but left it, as is not unusual with gentlemen intended for the law, without taking a degree. He then studied the law, as a member of the Middle Temple, and the practice of special pleading under Mr. (afterwards judge) Buller: was called to the bar, and for a time went the Western circuit. Nor were his legal studies unfruitful, as he published an excellent work under the title of “A Treatise of Convictions on Penal Statutes; with approved precedents of convictions before justices of the peace, in a variety of cases; particularly under the Game Laws, the Revenue Laws, and the Statutes respecting Manufactures, &c.” 1792, 8vo. He was also appointed one of the commissioners of bankrupts, which situation he held till his death. On Dec. 19, 1785, he was appointed by patent to the situation of a commissioner of the victualling office, in consequence of which, and of his marriage in, April 1786, he soon after quitted the bar. He married Charlotte, second daughter of James Ibbetson, D. D. archdeacon of St. A 1 ban’s, and rector of Bushey. By Mrs. Boscawt'n, who died about seven years before him, he had a numerous family, five of whom, daughters, survived both parents.

, an historical painter, was born at Florence, in 1553, and educated under Santi di Titi. He was the first person who had a just notion of the chiaro scuro, and used it successfully in the Florentine school; where, though it had been happily practised by Giorgione, at Venice, and also by Titian, it was not well understood before his time. He possessed great freedom of hand, and gave a surprising force of colour; and both in design and composition the grandeur of his style resembled that of his master. He studied after nature; and in his travels he drew sketches of any particular objects that struck him; but pursuing this practice at Loretto, with regard to the fortifications of the city, he was seized by the officers of justice, and condemned to be hanged; but he happily escaped, within a few hours of execution, by the interposition of signior Bandini, who explained to the chief magistrate his innocent intention. He was also an engraver; but the subjects of his plates are not specified either by Marolles or Florent le Comte. He died in 1606.

Father Noceti, another Jesuit, and one of his early preceptors, had composed two excellent poems on the" rainbow and the aurora borealis, which were published in 1747, with learned annotations by Boscovich. His countryman, Benedict Stay, after having published the philosophy of Descartes in Latin verse t attempted the same with regard to the more modern and more true philosophy, and has executed it with wonderful success. The first two volumes of this elegant and accurate work were published in 1755, and 1760, with annotations and supplements by Boscovich. These supplements are short dissertations on the most important parts of physics and mathematics. In these he affords a solution of the problem of the centre of oscillation, to which Huygens had come by a wrong method; confutes Euler, who had imagined that the vis inertiæ was necessary in matter; and refutes the ingenious efforts of Riccati on, the Leibnitzian opinion of the forces called living.

Benedict XIV. who was a great encourager of learning, and a beneficent patron of learned men, gave Boscovich many proofs of the esteem he had for him; and both he and his enlightened minister, cardinal Valenti, consulted Boscovich on various important objects of public economy, the clearing of harbours, and the constructing of roads and canals. On one occasion, he was joined in a commission with other mathematicians and architects, invited from different parts of Italy, to inspect the cupola of St. Peter’s, in which a crack had been discovered. They were divided in opinion; but the sentiments of Boscovich, and of the marquis Poleni, prevailed. In stating, however, the result of the consultation, which was to apply a circle of iron round the building, Poleni forgot to refer the idea to its real author, and this omission grievously offended Boscovich, who was tenacious of fame, and somewhat irritable“in temper. About the same time other incidents had concurred to mortify his pride; and he became at last disgusted with his situation, and only looked for a convenient opportunity of quitting Rome. While in this temper of mind, an application was made by the court of Portugal to the general of the Jesuits, for ten mathematicians of the society to go out to Brazil, for the purpose of surveying that settlement, and ascertaining the boundaries which divide it from the Spanish dominions in America. Wishing to combine with that object the mensuration of a degree of latitude, Boscovich offered to embark in the expedition, and his proposition was readily accepted. But cardinal Valenti, unwilling to lose his services, commanded him, in the name of the pope, to dismiss the project, and persuaded him to undertake the same service at home in the Papal territory. In this fatiguing, and often perilous operation, he was assisted by the English Jesuit, Mayer, an excellent mathematician, and was amply provided with the requisite instruments and attendants. They began the work about the close of the year 1750, in the neighbourhood of Rome, and extended the meridian line northwards, across the chain of the Appennines as far as Rimini. Two whole years were spent in completing the various measurements, which were performed with the most scrupulous accuracy. The whole is elaborately described by Boscovich in a quarto volume, full of illustration and minute details’, and with several opuscules, or detached essays, which display great ingenuity, conjoined with the finest geometric taste. We may instance, in particular, the discourse on the rectification of instruments, the elegant synthetical investigation of the figure of the earth, deduce^ both from the law of attraction, and from the actual measurement of degrees, and the nice remarks concerning the curve and the conditions of permanent stability. This last tract gave occasion, however, to some strictures from D'Alembert, to which Boscovich replied, in a note annexed to the French edition of his works. The arduous service which Boscovich had now performed was but poorly rewarded. From the pope he received only a hundred sequins, or about forty-five pounds sterling, a gold box, and” abundance of praise." He now resumed the charge of the mathematical school, and besides discharged faithfully the public duties of religion, which are enjoined by his order. A trifling circumstance will mark the warmth of his temper, and his love of precedence. He had recourse to the authority of cardinal Valenti, to obtain admission into the oratory of Caravita, from which his absence excluded him, and which yet afforded only the bent-fit of a free, but frugal supper. In presiding at that social repast, the philosopher relaxed from the severity of his studies, and shone by his varied, his lively, and fluent conversation.

After a successful suit of eleven months at Vienna, Boscovich returned to Rome, and received from the senate of Lucca, for his zealous services, the handsome present of a thousand sequins, or abut 450l. Thus provided with the means of' gratifying his curiosity, he desired and obtained leave to travel. At Paris he spent six months, in the society of the eminent men who then adorned the French capital; and, during his stay in London, he was elected, in 1760, a fellow of the Royal Society, and he dedicated to that learned body his poem on eclipses, which contains a neat compendium of astronomy , and was published at London the same year. The expectation of the scientific world was then turned to the transit of Venus, calculated to happen in the following year. Boscovich, eager to observe it, returned through Holland and Flanders to Italy, and joined his illustrious friend, Correr, at Venice, from whence they sailed to Constantinople, having on their way, visited the famous plain of Troy. In Turkey, he scarcely enjoyed one day of good health, and his life was repeatedly despaired of by the physicians. After spending half a year in this miserable state, he returned in the train of sir James Porter, our ambassador at the Porte; and having traversed Bulgaria, Moldavia, and part of Poland, his intention was to penetrate into Russia, if the agitation which there prevailed, on the death of the emperor Peter, had not deterred him from executing the project. The diary of his journey, which he published in Italian and French, is inferior to any of his works, and contains many trifling and insipid remarks. The truth was, Boscovich began his travels at too late a period of life to profit much by them.

At Rome his arrival was welcomed, and he was again consulted on various plans of public improvement. But in the spring of 1764, he was called by the Austrian governor of Milan, to fill the mathematical chair in the university of Pavia. The honours which he received provoked the jealousy of the other professors, who intrigued to undermine his fame. He took tlfe most effectual mode, however, to silence them, by publishing his Dissertations on optics, which exhibit an elegant synthesis and well-devised set of experiments. These essays excited the more attention, as, at this time, the ingenuity of men of science was particularly attracted to the subject, by Dollond’s valuable discovery of achromatic glasses.

The expulsion of the Jesuits from the dominions of Spain prevented Boscovich from going to California, to observe the second transit of Venus, in 1769, and which expedition the royal society of London had strongly solicited him to undertake. And as his rivals began now to stir themselves again, he sought to dispel the chagrin, by a second journey into France and the Netherlands. At Brussels he met with a peasant, famous for curing the gout, and from whose singular skill he received most essential benefit. On his return to Italy in 1770, he was transferred from the university of Pavia to the Palatine schools at Milan, and resided with those of his order, at the college of Brera, where he furnished, mostly at his own expence, an observatory, of which he got the direction. But he was still doomed to experience mortification. Some young Jesuits, who acted as his assistants, formed a conspiracy, and, by their artful representations, prevailed with the government to exclude his favourite pupil and friend from holding a charge of trust. This intelligence was communicated to him at the baths of Albano, and filled him with grief and indignation. He complained to prince Kaunitz, but implored his protection in vain. To the governor of Milan he wrote, that he would not return, unless things were restored to their former footing. He retired to Venice, where, having staid ten months in fruitless expectation of obtaining redress, he meditated spending the remainder of his days in honourable retirement at his native city of Ragnsa. But while he waited for the opportunity of a vessel to convey him thither, he received the afflicting news of the suppression of his order in Italy. He now renounced his scheme, and seemed quite uncertain what step he should take. Having come into the Tuscan territory, he listened to the counsels and solicitation of Fabroni, who held forth the prospect of a handsome appointment in the Lyceum of Pisa. In the mean time he accepted the invitation of La Bord, chamberlain to Louis XV. accompanied him to Paris in 1773, and through his influence obtained the most liberal patronage from the French monarch; he was naturalized, received two pensions, amounting to 8000 livres, or 333l. and had an office expressly created for him, with the title of “Director of optics for the marine.” “Boscovich might now appear to have attained the pinnacle of fortune and glory; but Paris was no longer for him the theatre of applause, and his ardent temper became soured by the malign breath of jealousy and neglect. Such extraordinary favour bestowed on a foreigner could not fail to excite the envy of the sgavans, who considered him as rewarded greatly beyond his true merit The freedom of his language gave offence, his perpetual egotism became disgusting, and his repetition of barbarous Latin epigrams was most grating to Parisian ears. Besides, the name of a priest and a Jesuit did not now command respect; and the sentiments of austere devotion, which he publicly professed, had grown unfashionable, and were regarded as scarcely befitting the character of a philosopher”.

, and the inheritor of his property, was educated by him, studied law, and by his uncle’s interest was appointed agent to the order of Malta. He was a very little man, of a dark countenance, resembling that of his mother, who had been an African slave, whom his father married. In his youth he was very wild, but reformed, lest his uncle should disinherit him, and addicted himself to the study of antiquities, producing the “Roma Sottefanea,” Rome, 1632, fol. a description of the tombs and the epitaphs of the early Christians which are found in the catacombs at Rome. For this purpose he investigated them with great care, often remaining five or six days together under ground, but he did not live to put the finishing hand to the work, which was published by John Severani, a priest of the oratory. Father Aringhi, another of the oratory, translated and published it in Latin, 1651, 2 vols. fol. an edition in more request than the original, and more full and correct.

, bishop of Lodeve, and afterwards of Montpellier, was one of the most learned French prelates in the seventeenth century. He was born at Narbonne, May 28, 1605, and studied atThoulouse. He was afterwards appointed judge royal of Narbonne, intendant of Guienne and Languedoc, solicitor general to the parliament of Normandy, and counsellor of state in ordinary. For his services in this last office he was promoted to the bishopric of Lodeve, Jan. 1650. When the affair of the five propositions was agitated at Rome, Bosquet was appointed deputy on the part of the king and clergy of France, and while there, the cardinal Este appointed him bishop of Montpellier. He was exemplary for piety, disinterestedness, and charity, and, like the best of his brethren at that time, practised rigorous austerities. He assisted at the general assembly of the clergy held at Paris in 1670, and was distinguished for his learning and eloquence. An apoplexy carried him off July 24, 1676, and he was interred in the cathedral, with an epitaph celebrating his many virtues. The first work he published was “Pselli Synopsis Legum,” 1632, apiece never before printed, and written in Greek verse by Pselius for the use of his pupil Michael Ducas,in the eleventh century. Bosquet translated it into Latin, and added notes to it. He then published, 2. “Ecclesiye Gallicanae Historiarum liber primus,” 1656, 4to. 3. “Pontificum Romanorum qui e Gallia oriundi in ea seclerunt, historia, ab anno 1315 ad ann. 1394 ex Mss. edita,” Paris, 1632, The second edition of his history of the Gallican Church, the one above mentioned "in 1636, was much enlarged, but some passages were omitted that had appeared in the first octavo edition, which archbishop Usher has transcribed. By these it appears that Bosquet was of opinion that the mistaken zeal of the monks was the chief cause of those fabulous traditions which have destroyed all confidence in the early history of the Gallican church, and while he makes some apology for the credulous believers of those stories, he makes none for those who originally invented them, a concession of great liberality from a prelate of the Romish church.

, an Italian scholar and writer of considerable eminence, was born at Verona in 1427, and in 1451 entered the congregation of the regular canons of St. John of Lateran, where he bore several employments, as visitor of the order, procurator-general, and abbot of Fiesole in Tuscany. Cosmo de Medici, who had a high respect for him, spent seventy thousand crowns in the repairs of that monastery, and it was in the church belonging to it that Bosso delivered the ensigns of the cardinalship to John de Medici, afterwards pope Leo X. Sixtus VI. also employed him in many important affairs, particularly in reforming the religious houses of Genoa, and other neighbouring districts, and he thrice offered him a valuable bishopric, which he refused. He vigorously opposed the decree of pope Innocent VIII. which ordered all sorts of monks to pay part of their yearly revenues to the clerks of the apostolic chamber. Hermolaus Barbarus was his pupil and guest at Fiesole, and Picus of Mirandula, his friend. He died at Padua in 1502. Mr. Roscoe says he was a profound scholar, a close reasoner, and a convincing orator; and to these united a candid mind, an inflexible integrity, and an interesting simplicity of life and manners. His literary productions were, l.“De Instituendo Sapientia animo,” Bologna, 1495. 2. “De veris et salutaribus animi gaudiis,” Florence, 1491. 3, “Epistolar. Lib. tres,” or rather three volumes, printed 1493, 1498, 1502. Some orations of his are in the collection entitled “Recuperationes Fsesulanse,” a rare and beautiful book, said to have been printed in 1483. His whole works were published by P. Ambrosini, at Bologna, 1627, with the exception of the third book, or volume, of letterS| which, on account of its extreme rarity, was at that time unknown to the editor. His moral writings were very highly esteemed; and one of his pieces on female dress, “de vanis mulierum ornamentis,” excited a considerable interest. The editor of Fabricius throws some doubts on the date of the “Recuperationes,” and if there be letters in it dated 1492 and 1493, it is more probable that it is a typographical error for 1493.

The writings of Bossuet gained him no less fame than his sermons. From the year 1655 he had entered the lists against the protestants; and the most famous piece he wrote against them was his “Refutation du catechisme de Paul Ferri.” In 1671 he wrote another, intituled “L‘exposition de la doctrine de l’église catholique sur les matieres de controverse.” This had the approbation of the bishops of France, as well as of the prelates and cardinals of Rome. Innocent XI. wrote him two letters on the subject, and the work was translated into most of the European languages: M. l'abbé Montague, a relation of the Sandwich family, was the author of the English translation. He is said to have brought back several to the Romish church who had embraced the protestant religion; and it was for the benefit of such that in 1682 he published his “Traite de la communion sous les deux espèces,” and his “Lettre pastorale aux nonveaux catholiques.” In 1686 he published his “Histoire des églises protestantes,” for which, as well as several other of his writings, he was successfully attacked by Mess. Jurieu, Burnet, Basnage, and several other protestant ministers. He always distinguished himself as a zealous advocate for the catholic religion; and so great was his desire to bring about a re-union of the protestants with the church of Rome, that for this purpose he voluntarily offered to travel into foreign countries. He formed several schemes for this purpose, which were approved of by the church of Rome, but the succeeding wars prevented his putting them in execution. His writings in controversy with the protestants, and against quietism, the religion of Madame Guion, Fenelon, and many of the pious French, make several volumes.

In estimating the character of this celebrated prelate, we must not be guided by d'Alembert’s desultory and artful Eloge, who, however, struggles in vain to conceal the truth, that Bossuet was, with all his taste and talents, a furious bigot in favour of the Catholic religion, and while he affected to dislike persecution, either submitted to the exercise of it, or promoted it by the asperity of his writings. We shall come nearer the truth by adopting Bossuet’s character as contrasted with that of Fenelon by the writer of the “Letters concerning Mythology,” who represents him as a prelate of vast parts, learned, eloquent, artful, and aspiring. By these qualities he rose to the first dignities in the Gallican church: while another of finer fancy and better heart (Fenelon), humble, holy, and sincere, was censured at Rome, and disgraced at the French court. Both were intrusted with the education of princes, and acquitted themselves of those duties in a very different manner. The one endeavoured to make his royal pupil noble, virtuous, and just, a father to his people, ana a friend to mankind, by the maxims of his inimitable Telemaque. The other in his discourses upon universal history, is perpetually turning his prince’s eyes from mankind to the church, as the sacred object of his care, from whose everlasting stem whoever separates is lost: and for whose interests, in the extirpation of heresy, and aggrandizement of her ministers, he is, like his father Lewis XIV. to exert all the power he has received from God.

Had the French press, however, remained open, the controversy between the catholics and protestants might have soon been brought to a conclusion: but other measures were to be adopted, more characteristic of the genius of popery. Bossuet has been praised by most French writers for his laudable attempts to promote an union between the catholic and reformed churches of France. The basis of this union was not very promising. The reformed were to give up every thing, the catholics nothing, and the subsequent practice was worse than this principle. In the “Memoirs pour servira I'histoire des Refugies Francois dans les etats du Roi,” or Memoirs of the French refugees in the dominions of the king of Prussia, by Messrs. Erman and Reclam, published at Berlin in 1782, we have a curious developement of the plan of union, as detected by the celebrated Claude. The reformed church of Paris, which was a considerable edifice, was to be surrounded with troops; the archbishop of Paris and the bishop of Meaux (Bosquet) accompanied with a train of priests and the lieutenant of the police, were to march thither in procession, during divine service: one of these prelates was to mount the pulpit and summon the congregation to submit to the mother church and re-unite; a number of Roman Catholics, posted for the purpose in different parts of the church, as if they belonged to it, were to answer the prelate’s summons, by crying out “re-union!” after which the other prelate was to give the congregation a public absolution from the charge of heresy, and to receive the new pretended converts into the bosom of the church; and this scandalous farce was to be imposed upon the world for an actual re-union. This plan affords a tolerable specimen of Bossuet as a prelate, and a man of candour; and it is worthy of notice, that his associate in this expedition, was the libertine Harlai, archbishop of Paris, whose life and death were so scandalous, that not a single curate could be found, among the most unprincipled part of the Romish clergy, who would undertake to preach his funeral sermon.

, a monk of St. Edmund’s bury in the fourteenth century, and who is thought to have died in 1410, was one of the first collectors of the lives of English writers, and the precursor of Leland, Bale, and Pitts. He searched indefatigably all the libraries of the kingdom, and wrote a catalogue of the authors, with short opinions of them. Archbishop Usher had the most curious ms copy of this book, which became afterwards Mr. Thomas Gale’s property. Wood mentions another smaller catalogue of his writing. He wrote also “Speculum ccenobitarum,” in which he gives the origin and progress of monachism; and a history of his own monastery. “De rebus cœnobii sui,” which last is lost, but the former was printed at Oxford 1722, 8vo, by Hall at the end of “Trivet. Annal.”

, a popular and learned Scotch divine, was born in the town of Dunse, March 17, 1676, and educated at the grammar school of that place, where he was taught the elements of Latin, Greek, rhetoric, and arithmetic. In 1692, he went to the university of Edinburgh, where he went through the usual courses for three years, and entered on the study of divinity. In 1695, he returned home with ample testimonials of his diligence and good character. Next year he taught school at Glencairn for a short time, and then was appointed tutor to a young gentleman of family at Edinburgh, where he continued the study of divinity, until he accompanied his pupil into the country. In 1699, after the usual trials before the presbytery, he was licenced to preach the gospel, as a probationer for the ministry, agreeably to the forms of the church of Scotland, and in September of that year was ordained to the Jiving of Simprin, one of the smallest in Scotland. In the following year he married Katherine Brown, whom he describes as a woman possessed of many valuable qualifications. In May 1707, he exchanged the living of Simprin for that of Etterick, on which he remained until his death. About this time he began to improve his knowledge in the Hebrew, having before only read the Psalter, but 1771 was, according to his own account, “the happy year wherein he was first master (possessor) of a Hebrew Bible, and began the study of it;” and some day, which he forgot, in Oct 1712, was the Happiest day in his life, for he then borrowed “Cross’s Taghmical Art.” More than half his cares and anxieties alter this related to the Hebrew accents. About this time, he was one of the clergy of Scotland, who refused taking the oath of abjuration, and in dread of the penalty, made over his little property to one of his sons, and another person, but it does not appear that the penalty was ever levied. Returning in 1715 to the study of the “Taghmical Art,” after incredible pains, he found that he could make nothing of it; but still persevering, he became persuaded that the accents are the key to the true version of the Hebrew text, and the intrinsic light which illuminates it. Compared to this, as to him, the digging in the mines of Peru was but a trifle. From this time he began to write, as leisure permitted, a work on the accents, accompanying his labours with constant prayer, particularly that he might be instructed in the secrets of double accentuation, which he had not been able to comprehend. All this zeal and industry at length produced an “Essay on the Hebrew accentuation,” which he exhibited in manuscript to some learned friends, who gave him various degrees of encouragement, but he often met with delays and evasions which occasioned great uneasiness to the good man. It being supposed that there were few persons in Great Britain very much interested in the Hebrew accents, he was advised to translate it into Latin that it might circulate among the learned on the continent. Accordingly he began his translation, and as a help to his style, he mentions the following expedient, which perhaps others have made use of on similar occasions. “As I went on, I read something of Cicero, in my leisure hours, for the language, and noted in a book some terms and phraser, taken from him and others: particularly out of Calepin’s dictionary, which Providence had in the year 1724 laid to my hand, when 1 knew not for what use it was designed, and to this collection 1 had frequent recourse, while I wrote that book: and found it to be of good use to me. I had formerly, upon occasion of appearing in print, done the same as to the English tongue: by which means my style, that I had been careless of before, was now somewhat refined.” This work, which he pursued with uncommon enthusiasm, and which was to prove the antiquity and divine authority of the Hebrew accents, was occasionally interrupted by his public services, and the publication of some of his practical works, particularly “The Fourfold State,” in 1720. That on the Hebrew accents did not appear until 1738, when it was published at Amsterdam under the care of the learned David Mill, professor of Oriental languages in the university of Utrecht, in a quarto volume entitled “Thomæ Boston ecclesiæ Atricensis apud Scotos pastoris, Tractatus Stigmologicus Hebraeo-Biblicus,” dedicated to sir Richard Ellys, who had been very friendly to Boston in the prosecution of his studies on this subject. Mr. Boston died May 20, 1732. His works in practical divinity, which are still well known and popular in Scotland, were collected in a large fol. volume in 1768, and since that time others, particularly his “Body of Divinity,” 3 vols. 8vo. 1773, have been published from his Mss. but this last mentioned work is eked out by extracts from other authors witnout acknowledgment, a disingenuous artifice of which the author never would have been guilty. The most remarkable of his posthumous pieces is the “Memoirs of his Lite, Time, and Writings,” written by himself, a closely printed octavo volume, 1776. This is in the form of a diary, tedious and minute beyond all precedent, but evincing a wonderful simplicity of heart, ignorance of the world, and a mind continually harrassed by conscientious scruples about the merest trifles; much of it, however, may be interesting to curious inquirers, as exhibiting characteristics of the manners and sentiments of the Scotch clergy of the seventeenth and part of the eighteenth century.

, the friend and biographer of Dr. Johnson, was the eldest son of Alexander Boswell, lord Auchinleck, one of the judges in the supreme courts of session and justiciary in Scotland. He was born at Edinburgh, Oct. 29, 1740, and received the first rudiments of education in that city. He afterwards studied civil law in the universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. During his residence in these cities, he acquired by the society of the English gentlemen who were students in the Scotch colleges, that remarkable predilection for their manners, which neither the force of education, or national prejudice, could ever eradicate. But his most intimate acquaintance at this period was the rev. Mr. Temple, a worthy, learned, and pious divine, whose well-written character of Gray has been adopted both by Dr. Johnson and Mason in the life of that poet. Mr. Boswell imbibed early the ambition of distinguishing himself by his literary talents, and had the good fortune to obtain the patronage of the late lord Somerville. This pobleman treated him with the most flattering kindness; and Mr. Bosvvell ever remembered with gratitude the friendship he so long enjoyed with this worthy peer. Having always entertained an exalted idea of the felicity of London, in the year 1760 he visited that capital; in the manners and amusements of which he found so much that was congenial to his own taste and feelings, that it hecanie ever after his favourite residence, whither he always returned from his estate in Scotland, and from his various rambles in different parts of Europe, with increasing eagerness and delight; and we find him, nearly twenty years afterwards, condemning Scotland as too narrow a sphere, and wishing to make his chief residence in London, which he calls the great scene of ambition and instruction. He was, doubtless, confirmed in this attachment to the metropolis by the strong predilection entertained towards it by his friend Dr. Johnson, whose sentiments on this subject Mr. Boswell details in various parts of his life of that great man, and which are corroborated by every one in pursuit of literary and intellectual attainments.

The politeness, affability, and insinuating urbanity of manners, which distinguished Mr. Boswell, introduced him into the company of many eminent and learned men, whose acquaintance and friendship he cultivated with the greatest assiduity. In truth, the esteem and approbation of learned men seem to have been one chief object of his literary ambition; and we find him so successful in pursuing his end, that he enumerated some of the greatest men in Scotland among his friends even before he left it for the first time. Notwithstanding Mr. Boswell by his education was intended for the bar, yet he was himself earnestly bent at this period upon obtaining a commission in the guards, and solicited lord Auchinleck’s acquiescence; but returned, however, by his desire, into Scotland, where he received a regular course of instruction in the law, and passed his trials as a civilian at Edinburgh. Still, however, ambitious of displaying himself as one of the “manly hearts who guard the fair,” he visited London a second time in 1762; and, various occurrences delating the purchase of a commission, he was at length persuaded by lord Auchinleck to relinquish his pursuit, and become an advocate at the Scotch bar. In compliance, therefore, with his father’s wishes, he consented to go to Utrecht the ensuing winter, to hear the lectures of an excellent civilian in that university; after which he had permission to make his grand tour of Europe. The year 1763 may be considered the most important epocha in Mr. Boswell’s life, as he had, what he thought a singular felicity, an introduction to Dr. Johnson. This event, so auspicious for Mr. Boswel!, and eventually so fortunate for the public, happened on May 16, 1763. Having continued one winter at Utrecht, during which time he visited several parts of the Netherlands, he commenced his projected travels. Passing from Utrecht into Germany, he pursued his route through Switzerland to Geneva; whence he crossed the Alps into Italy, having visited on his journey Voltaire at Ferney, and Rousseau in the wilds of Neufchatel. Mr. Bosweli continued some time in Italy, where he met and associated with lord Mountstuart, to whom he afterwards dedicated his Theses Juridicae. Having visited the most remarkable cities in Italy, Mr. Bosweli sailed to Corsica, travelled over every part of that island, and obtained the friendship of the illustrious Pasquale de Paoli, in whose palace he resided during his stay at Corsica. He afterwards went to Paris, whence he returned to Scotland in 1766, and soon after became an advocate at the Scotch bar. The celebrated Douglas cause was at that time a subject of general discussion. Mr. Boswell published the “Essence of the Douglas cause;” a pamphlet which contributed to procure Mr. Douglas the popularity which he at that time possessed. In 1768 Mr. Bosweli published his “Account of Corsica, with memoirs of General Paoli.” Of this printed performance Dr. Johnson thus expresses himself: “Your journal is curious and delightful. I know not whether I could name any narrative by which curiosity is better excited or better gratified.” This book has been translated into the German, Dutch, Italian, and French languages; and was received with extraordinary approbation. In the following winter, the theatre-royal at Edinburgh, hitherto restrained by party -spirit, was opened. On this occasion Mr. Bosweli was solicited by David Ross, esq. to write a prologue.‘ The effect of this prologue upon the audience was highly flattering to the author, and beneficial to the manager; as it secured to the latter, by the annihilation of the opposition which had been till that time too successfully’exerted against him, the uninterrupted possession of his patent, which he enjoyed till his death, which happened in September 1790. Mr. Bosweli attended his funeral as chief mourner, and paid the last honours to a man with whom he had spent many a pleasant hour. In 1769, was celebrated at Stratford on Avon the jubilee in honour of Shakspeare. Mr. Boswell. an enthusiastic admirer of the writings of our immortal bard, a. id ever ready to join the festive throng, repaired thither, and appeared at the masquerade ay an armed Corsican chief; a character he was eminently qualified to support. This year he married miss Margaret Montgomery, a lady who, to the advantages of a polite education, united admirable good sense and a brilliant understanding. She was daughter of David Montgomery, esq. related to the illustrious family of Eglintoune, and representative of the antient peerage of Lyle. The death of this amiable woman happened in June 1790. Mr. Boswell has honoured her memory with an affectionate tribute. She left him two sons and three daughters; who, to use Mr. Boswell' s own words, “if they inherit her good qualities, will have no reason to complain of their lot. Dos magna parentum virtus.” In 1782 lord Auchinleck died. In 1783, Mr. Boswell published his celebrated Letter to the People of Scotland; which is thus praised by Johnson in a letter to the author; “I am very much of your opinion your paper contains very considerable knowledge of history and the constitution, very properly produced and applied.” Mr. Boswell communicated the pamphlet to Mr. Pitt, who naturally gave it his approbation. This first letter was followed by a second, in which I.Ii. Bosweil displayed his usual energy and political abilities. In 1785, Mr. Boswell published “A journal of a tour to the Hebrides” with Dr. Johnson; which met a success similar to his entertaining account of Corsica, and to which we owe his life of that illustrious character. This year Mr. Boswell removed to London, and was soon after called to the English bar, but his professional business was interrupted by preparing his most celebrated work, “The life of Samuel Johnson, LL. D.” which was published in 1790, and was received by the world with extraordinary avidity. It is a faithful history of Johnson’s life; and exhibits a most interesting picture of the character of that illustrious mom list, delineated with a masterly hand. The preparation of a second edition of this work was the last literary performance of Mr. Boswell. Mr. Boswell undoubtedly possessed considerable intellectual powers; as he could never have displayed his collection of the witticisms of his friend in so lively a manner as he has done, without having a picturesque imagination, and a turn for poetry as well as humour. He had a considerable share of melancholy in his temperament; and, though the general tenor of his life was gay and active, he frequently experienced an unaccountable depression of spirits. In one of these gloomy moods he wrote a series of essays under the title of “The Hypochondriac,” which appeared in the London Magazine, and end with No. 63 in 1732. These he had thoughts of collecting into a volume, but they would have added little to his reputation, being in general very trifling. Soon after his return from a visit to Auchinleck, he was seized with a disorder which put an end to his life, at his house in Portland-street, on the 19th of June 1795, in the 55th year of his age. Of his own character he gives the following account in his journal of the tour to the Hebrides: “I have given a sketch of Dr. Johnson. His readers may wish to know a little of his fellow-traveller. Think, then, of a gentleman of ancient blood; the pride of which was his predominant passion. He was then in his 33d year, and had been about four years happily married: his inclination was to be a soldier; but his father, a respectable judge, had pressed him into the profession of the law. He had travelled a good deal, and seen many varieties of human life. He had thought more than any body supposed, and had a pretty good stock of general learning and knowledge. He had all Dr. Johnson’s principles, with some degree of relaxation. He had rather too little than too much prudence; and, his imagination being lively, he often said things of which the effect was very different from the intention. He resembled sometimes * The best good maH, with the worstnatured muse.‘ He cannot deny himself the vanity of finishing with the encomium of Dr. Johnson, whose friendly partiality to the companion of this tour represents him as one ’ whose acuteness would help my enquiry, and whose gaiety of conversation, and civility of manners, are sufficient to counteract the inconveniencies of travel, in countries less hospitable than we have passed'.”

, an eminent physician of Piedmont, who flourished about the middle of the 16th century, was a disciple of Fallopius, and took his degree of doctor in medicine at Padua. It appears by his writings, that he was a diligent observer, and enjoyed a considerable share of practice. He was in succession physician and aulic counsellor to Charles IX. Henry II. of France, and to William prince of Orange. He was also skilled in the practice of surgery, and published, “De curandis vulneribus sclopetorum,” Venet. 1560, 8vo. This has been frequently reprinted, and continued, for a long time, to be esteemed the most useful manual that had been published on the subject. He wrote also “Commentarioli duo, alter de medici, alter de aegvoti, munere,” Lion. 1565, 8vo; containing rules for the conduct of the physician, the surgeon, and the apothecary, in their attendance upon the sick. But the work by which he is most known, and which produced an important revolution in the practice of medicine, is his “De curatione per sanguinis missione, de incidendae venae, cutis scarificandae, et hirudinum arrigendarum modo,” Antw. 1583, 8vo. Though bleeding had always been occasionally used in the cure of diseases, yet in his time it was nearly constantly superseded by purging medicines, or it was too sparingly used, and seldom repeated. Our author made frequent recourse to it, with complete success, he says, in diarrhoea, dysentery, in fever, the plague, and during pregnancy; and flattered with success, he became, as he advanced in life, more and more bold and free in the use of the lancet, and bleeding became a general remedy all over Europe; but in no country was it carried to such excess as in France, where the professors of medicine, for their too frequent recurrence to it, were held up to ridicule by Le Sage, in his inimitable novel of Gil Bias. The works of Botallus were collected, and published under the title of “Opera Omnia,” in 1660, at Leyden, by I. V. Home.

, were two eminent Dutch painters and engravers; John was born at Utrecht, in 1610, and was the disciple of Abraham Bloemart, who at the same time instructed Andrew; but to perfect themselves in a good taste of design, they went together to Rome, and resided there for a great many years. The genius of John directed him to the study of landscape, in which he rose almost to the highest perfection, making the style of Claude Lorraine his model; and by many his works are mentioned in competition even with those of Claude. The warmth of his skies, the judicious and regular receding of the objects, and the sweetness of his distances, afford the eye a degree of pleasure, superior to what we feel on viewing the works of almost any other artist. John and Andrew had very different talents, and each of them were admirable in their different way. The former excelled in landscape, the latter inserted the figures, which he designed in the manner of Bamboccio; and those figures are always so well adapted, that every picture seemed only the work of one master. The works of these associate brothers are justly admired through all Europe; they are universally sought for, and purchased at very large prices. Most of his pictures are, for size, between two and five feet long; but in those that are smaller, there is exquisite neatness. They generally express the sunny light of the morning, breaking out from behind woods, hills, or mountains, and diffusing a warm glow over the skies, trees, and the whole face of nature; or else a sun-set, with a lovely tinge in the clouds, every object beautifully partaking of a proper degree of natural illumination. And it is to be observed, that even the different hours of the day are perceptible in his landscapes, from the propriety of the tints which he uses. By some connoisseurs he is censured for having too much of the tawny in his colouring, and that the leafings of his trees are too yellow, approaching to saffron; but this is not a general fault in his pictures, though some of them, accidentally, may justly be liable to that criticism, for he corrected that fault; and many of his pictures are no more tinged with those colours, than truth and beautiful nature will justify; and his colouring obtained for him the distinction which he still possesses, of being called Both of Italy.

Descamps, in the life of Both, after having said that John painted landscapes, and Andrew figures, in the manner of Bamboccio, asserts that Andrew was drowned in a canal at Venice, and John returned to Utrecht; in which account he appears to follow Sandrart; though other writers agree, that it was the landscape-painter who was drowned, and Andrew, returning to his own country, painted conversations and portraits as long as he lived, of which the other was incapable. The two brothers mutually assisted each other till the death of John in 1650; and then Andrew retired from Italy, settled at Utrecht, and continued to paint sometimes portraits, sometimes landscapes, in the manner of his brother, and also conversations, and players at cards, in the manner of Bamboccio. Both of those masters had extraordinary readiness of hand, and a free, light, sweet pencil; and that they were expeditious, may be evident from the great number of pictures which they finished. Andrew, during the remainder of his life, had as much employment as he could possibly execute; but was so affected by the melancholy death of his brother, that he survived him only a few years, dying in 1656. Strutt mentions a few engravings by both these artists, but neither arrived at any great perfection in the art.

, or William Worcester, an ancient English writer, acquainted with history, antiquities, heraldry, physic, and astronomy, was born at Bristol about 1415; his father’s name was Worcester, and his mother’s Botoner, hence he often names himself William Wyrcester, alias Botoner; and hence the error in Pits, and others, of making two distinct persons of the two names. He studied at Hart-hall, Oxford, 1434. He had been exercised in wars above 44 years; and had so faithfully served sir John Fastolff that he left him one of his executors. He wrote many books, the first of which, that was printed, was his translation from the French, of “Cicero de Senectute,” which he addressed to William Wainfleet, bishop of Winchester. He tells us that he presented it to the bishop at Asher [JSsher] August 10, 1475, but received no reward (nullum regardum recepide episcopo). He wrote also “Antiquities of England;” “Abbreviations of the Learned;” “Medicinal collections;” a book of Astrology; another of Astronomy; besides a particular treatise, gratefully preserving the life and deeds of his master, under the title of “Acta Domini Johannis Fastolff;” “the Acts of John duke of Bedford;” “Polyandrium Oxoniensium, or memoirs of Oxford Students;” and other lesser pieces; of which see Tanner Bibl. Brit. p. 115. His “Annals of England” were printed by Hearne at the end of his “Liber Niger Scaccarii,” p. 424 451. His “Itinerary” was published from a ms. not improbably the original, in the library at Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, by Mr. James Nasmith, fellow of the said college, Cantab. 1778, 8vo. Fuller cites a book of Botoner’s, containing all the ancient gentry of the county of Norfolk, long preserved in the county, but not now extant. He also wrote something in poetry, as that htimoroirs ballad in Nasmith’s edition of his Itinerary, called " Comedia a<i Monasterium Hulme/' &c. and a long chronographical epitaph in verse, on the lady Milicent Fastoif; in the possession of Richard Poley, esq. late prothonotary of the common pleas. He is supposed to have died about 1490. The son of this Worcester, among other things, also made a collection of several authentic instruments relating to the English wars and government in France; which he dedicated to king Edward IV. containing a catalogue of the princes, dukes, earls, barons, bannerets, knights, and other persons of eminence, who were of the regent’s court. A copy of this collection, in quarto, was some time in the custody of the late Brian Fairfax, esq. one of the commissioners of the customs.

, an architect, who was born in France in 1670, of protestant parents, quitted his country early in life, and went into the service of William of Orange, afterwards king of Great Britain. After the death of that prince, he attached himself to the elector of Brandenbourg, who gave him a post of captain of the guards, which did not slacken his industry in architecture. His first edifice was the arsenal at Berlin, and he afterwards signalized himself by various monuments of his art. Frederic I. being dead, Bott conciliated the favour of Frederic William, who raised him to the rank of major-general. The fortifications of Wesel, of which place he was commandant, were constructed under his direction. In 1728 he went into the service of the king of Poland, elector of Saxony, in quality of lieutenant-general and chief of the engineers. In Dresden are several edifices of his erection, where he died in 1745, with great reputation for probity, intelligence, and valour.

, an English clergyman of ingenuity and learning, was descended from an ancient family in Staffordshire, and born at Derby in 1688. His grandfather had been a major on the parliament side in the civil wars; his father had diminished a considerable paternal estate by gaming; but his mother, a woman of great prudence, contrived to give a good education to six children. Thomas the youngest acquired his grammatical learning at Derby; had his education among the dissenters; and was appointed to preach to a presbyterian congregation at Spalding in Lincolnshire. Not liking this mode of life, he removed to London at the end of queen Anne’s reign, with a view of preparing himself for physic; but changing his measures again, he took orders in the church of England, soon after the accession of George I. and was presented to the rectory of Winburg in Norfolk. About 1725 he was presented to the benefice of Reymerston; in 1734, to the rectory of Spixworth; and, in 1747, to the rectory of Edgefield; all in Norfolk. About 1750, his mental powers began to decline; and, at Christmas 1752, he ceased to appear in the pulpit. He died at Norwich, whither he had removed, in 1753, with his family, Sept. 23, 1754, leaving a wife, whom he mafried in 1739; and also a son, Edmund Bott, esq. of Christ church in Hampshire, a fellow of the Antiquarian society, who published, in 1771, A collection of cases relating to the Poor laws. Dr. Kippis, who was his nephew by marriage, has given a prolix article on him, and a minute character, in which, however, there appears to have been little of the amiable, and in his religious opinions he was capricious and unsteady. His works were, 1. “The peace and happiness of this world, the immediate design of Christianity, on Luke ix. 56,” a pamphlet in 8vo, 1724. 2. A second tract in defence of this, 1730, 8vo. 3. “The principal and peculiar notion of a late book, entitled, The religion of nature delineated, considered, and refuted,” 1725. This was against Wollaston’s notion of moral obligation. 4. A visitation sermon, preached at Norwich, April 30th, 1730. 5. A 30th of January sermon, preached at Norwich, and printed at the request of the mayor, &c. 6. “Remarks upon Butler’s 6th chapter of the Analogy of Religion, &c. concerning Necessity,” 1730. 7. Answer to the first volume of Warburton’s Divine Legation of Moses.

, a very learned prelate of the court of Rome, was born at Florence, Jan. 15, 1689, and became early distinguished for the purity of his style, and his intimate knowledge of the Tuscan dialect. He studied rhetoric and Latin uiuier Antonio-Maria Biscioni, who was afterwards dictator of the Mediceo-Lorenzian library. (See Biscioni). He then studied philosophy, divinity, mathematics, and Greek, the latter under the learned Salvini. His proficiency in these branches of knowledge soon made him noticed, and he was appointed by the academy della Crusca, to superintend the new edition of their dictionary, in which labour he was assisted by Andrea Alamaorni and Rosso Martini. He had afterwards the direction of the printing-ofBce belonging to the Grand Duke, from which several of his works issued. Clement XII. made him librarian of the Vatican, in which he arranged a cabinet of medals, which that pope wished to be considered as a part of the library. On his death, Bottari entered the conclave Feb. 6, 1740, with the cardinal Neri Corsini. Next year was published by P. Marmoreus, the edition of Virgil^ Rome, 1741, fol. a fac-simile of the famous Codex Vaticanus, to which Bottari prefixed a learned preface. He was the first who had the curiosity to examine this valuable manuscript, which belonged formerly to Pontanus, afterwards to Bembus, and lastly to Fulvius Ursinus, who deposited it in the Vatican, when he became librarian there. Benedict XIV. being elected pope, who had long been the friend of Bottari, he conferred on him the canonry of St. Maria-Transteverini, and that he might reside in his palace, appointed him his private almoner. He was also a member of all the principal academies of Italy; and Fontanini, Apostolo Zeno, Gori, and others, have written his eloges, having all profited, in the publication of their works, by his valuable communications. His long and studious life terminated June 3, 1775, in his eighty-sixth year. Among his works, of which Mazzuchelli has given a long list, are, 1. Vita di Francesco Sacchetti,“Vicenza (Naples) 1725, with Sacchetti’s” Novelle,“8vo. 2.” L'Ercolano, dialogodi Benedetto Varchi,“Florence, 1730, 4to. 3.” Lezione tre sopra il tremuoto,“Rome, 1733 and 1748, 4to. 4.” Sculture, e Pitture sacre estratte dai cimeteri di Roma, &c.“Rome, 1737, 1747, 1753, 3 vols. fol. 5.” Vocabularia della Crusca,“Florence, 1738, 6 vols. 6. The Virgil already noticed. 7.” De Museo Capitolino,“1750, 3 vols fol. 8.” Raccolta di lettere sulla Pittura, Sculrura, ed Architettura,“Rome, 1754, 1757, and 1759, 3 vols. 4to; and again, an enlarged edition at Naples, 1772. 9.” Dialog hi sopra tre arti del Disegno," Lucca, 1754, 4to. He also contributed to a new edition oi Vasari and Passori’s Lives of the Painters.

, the son of Nicholas Bottom, a celebrated philosopher and physician of Leontini, in Sicily, was born the 6th of October 1641, and received his education under Peter Castello. In 1658, he was admitted to the degree of doctor, and was soon after made physician to the marquis De Villa Franca, viceroy of Sicily, physician to the royal hospital of Messina, and superintendant of the physicians there, with a pension of 50 crowns per month. He afterwards enjoyed a similar situation under the viceroy of Naples. In 1697, he was made corresponding jor honorary member of the royal society of London, to which he had previously sent his “Idea historico-physica tie magno trinacrisc terras motu,” which is published in their transactions. He was the first Sicilian physician who had received that honour. He wrote also “Pyrologia topograpuica, id est, de igne dissertatio, juxta loca, cum eorun. doscriptione,” Neapoli, 1692, 4to. “Febris rheumaticse malignae, historia medica,” Messina, 1712, 8vo. “Preserve salutari contro il contagioso malore,” Messina, 1621, 4to. He died about the year 1731.

, a French sculptor, was the son of a sculptor and architect, and born at Chaumont in Bassigni in 1698. He was drawn by an irresistible passion for these two arts, but confined himself at length to the former. After having passed some time at Paris under the younger Coustou, and obtained the prize at the academy in 1722, he was carried to Rome at the king’s expence. Upon his return from Italy, where his talents had been greatly improved, he adorned Paris with his works: a list of them may be seen in a life of him, published in 1762, 12mo, by the count de Caylus, but some of them no longer exist, particularly his fine equestrian statue of Louis XV. formerly in the square named after that monarch. In 1744 he obtained a place in the academy; and, two years after, a professorship. He died July 17, 1762, a loss to the arts, and much lamented; for he is described as a man of great talent, disinterested spirit, and of most amiable manners. Music was his object in the hours of recreation, and his talents in this way were very considerable. Count Caylus, in his “Tableaux tires de l‘Iliade et de l’Odysse d'Homere,” mentions Bouchardon, with honour, among the tew artists who borrowed their subjects from Homer, and relates the following anecdote: “This great artist having lately read Homer in an old and detestable French translation, came one day to me, his eyes sparkling with fire, and said, * Since I have read this book, men seem to be fifteen feet high, and all nature is enlarged in my sight'.” This anecdote, however, does not give a very high idea of the education of a French artist, and a professor of the art.

, a law-writer of great reputation in France, was born at Paris, April 16, 1719, of an honourable family. His father, who was also a lawyer, spared no expence in his education. From the age of sixteen he studied jurisprudence with such perseverance and success as to be admitted to a doctor’s degree in 1747. Being employed to prepare the articles on jurisprudence and canon law for the Encyclopaedia, he wrote those on council, decretals, &c. but, for what reason we are not told, they gave offence to the encyclopedists, who became on that account his enemies, and prevented him for some time from attaining the rank of professor, which wag the object of his ambition. Bouchaud, however, consoied himself by cultivating a taste for modem poetry. He translated several of the dramas of Apostolo Zeno into French, and published them in 1758, 2 vols. 12mo, and in 1764 he translated the English novel of “Lady Julia Mandeville.” In the interval between these two, he published “Essai sur la poesie rhythmique,” 1763, which was thought a work of great merit. This was followed by the first of his more professional labours, “Traité de Timpot du vingtieme sur les successions, et de l'impot sur les marchandises chez les Romains,” a very curious history of the taxes which the ancient emperors imposed. In 1766, on the death of M. Hardron, he was elected into the French academy, notwithstanding the opposition of the encyclopedists, whose dislike seems not ill calculated to give us a favourable idea of the soundness of his principles. This was followed by a law professorship, and some years after he was advanced to the professorship of the law of nature and nations in the royal college of France. He was nominated to this by the king in 1774, and was the first professor, it being then founded. On this he wrote in the memoirs of the academy, a curious paper concerning the societies that were formed hy the Roman publicans for the receipt of the taxes. The body of the publicans was taken from the order of knights, and had great influence and credit. They were called by Cicero “the ornament of the capital,” and the “pillars of the state.” Th“knights, though rich, entered into associations, when the taxes of a whole province were farmed out by the senate, because no individual was opulent enough to be responsible for such extensive engagements; and the nature of these societies or associations, and the various conventions, commercial a>id pecuniary engagements, occupations, and offices, to which they gave rise, form the subject of this interesting paper, which was followed by various others on topics of the same nature. In 1777 he published his” Theorie des traits de commerce entre les nations,“the principles of which seem to be founded on justice and reciprocal benefits. In 1784 appeared another curious work on the ancient Roman laws and policy, entitled,” Recherches historiques surla Police des Romains, concernant les grands chemins, les rues, et les marches.“His” Commentaire sur les lois des clouze tables," first published in 1767, was reprinted in 1803, with improvements and additions, at the expense of the French government, and he was employed in some treatises intended for the national institute, when he died, Feb. 1, 1804, regretted as aprofound and enlightened law-writer. It is remarkable that in his essay on commercial treaties abovementioned, he contends for our Selden’s Mare Clausum, as the opinion of every man who is not misled by an immoderate zeal for his own country.

In 1784, long after his return to England, he was presented by the rev. John Parkhurst, editor of the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, to the vicarage of Epsom in Surrey; but the same year he had the misfortune to lose his first wife, who was a native of Maryland, of genteel connections, and of the same name and family as the celebrated Joseph Addison, whom in many of the great points of his character she resembled. Through life Mr. Boucher enjoyed the society and friendship of men of erudition and science; and on various occasions employed his pen, not only in defence of those political principles on which the British monarchy is founded, but in critical inquiries, and in theological duties. Of his discourses from the pulpit in Great Britain, two Assize Sermons, preached in 1798, have been printed, and fully justify the request of the Grand Juries to whom we are indebted for their publication. He vas also an ample contributor to Mr. Hutchinson’s History of Cumberland. The account of the parish of Bromfield, and the very interesting biographical sketches of eminent Cumberland men, published in the same work, and marked “Biographia Cumbriensis,” were written by him. Mr. Boucher was a patriot in the best sense of the word: he was ever anxious to promote the happiness of his fellow countrymen; and in many instances personally contributed, either by pecuniary or literary exertions, to meliorate the condition pf society. In 1792, he published an anonymous pamphlet, ^ubscribed “A Cumberland Man,” which was reprinted in the Appendix to sir Frederick Morton Eden’s “State of the Poor,” published in 1797. This pamphlet is addressed to the inhabitants of Cumberland, and has for its object the improvement of that county in every point which can render a country opulent and happy.

, a lady, who merits some notice as a specimen of French female piety in former days, was born Jan. 8, 1618. Her parents, who were of noble rank, and distinguished for their piety, gave her a suitable education, and from the age of five she was brought up with one of her aunts in the abbey royal of the Holy Trinity at Caen. When eleven, at her own earnest request, she was admitted to take the habit, and such was her wise conduct, that only four years after, she was appointed mistress of the novices. She was soon after chosen prioress, and then commenced her great work, the “Annee Benedictine,” or lives of the saints, the application to which, however, did not make her relax from the duties of her office. One of the consequences of her biographical labours, was a more enlarged sense of what, in her opinion, she ought to do, and to be, after the example of the Saints whose lives she was writing. She blushed, we are told, to praise and to record what she did not practise (not a common feeling among biographers), and although she knew that the kingdom of heaven was not to be gained by abstinence from certain meats, yet she firmly believed that in order to be the exact imitator of St. Benedict, she must join that privation to her other rules: and had an occasion to bring her principles to the test, when the duchess of Mecklenburgh formed the design of a new establishment at Chatillon of the female Benedictines of the Holy Sacrament, and requested her to be one of the number. Madame Bouette assented, although then sixty years old, and from the rank of prioress in the abbey of St. Trinity, condescended to the humble state of a novice in this new establishment, and afterwards preferred the lowest place in it to the rank of abbess which was afterwards offered to her. In her last days, her strength, bodily and mental, decayed: she became blind, and lame, and lost the use of speech, in which state she died March 24, 1696, leaving the following momuments of her industry: 1. “L‘ Annie Benedictine, ou, Les Vies des Saints de l’ordre de St. Benoit,” Paris, 1667, 7 vols. 4to. 2. “Eloges de plusieurs personnes illustres en piete de l'ordre de St. Benoit,” 2 vols. 4to. 3. “Vie de Fourrier de Matin court.” 4. “Exercices de la Mort.” 5. “Vies des Saintes,” 2 vols. fol. 6. “Monologue historique de la Mere de Dieu,” Paris, 1682, 4to. These works are written with some degree of elegance of style, but her lives are replete with those pious fables which amused the religious houses, and those superstitious austerities which regulated their conduct in former times.

, peer and maréchal, distinguished in the French history, was born Jan. 10, 1644. His dispositions for the art of war having displayed themselves at a very early period, he was chosen in 1669 to be colonel of a regiment of dragoons, at the head of which he demonstrated his bravery under the marechal de Crequi, and under Turenne. He received a dangerous wound at the battle of Voerden; and another in the affair of Entsheim, to the capture whereof he contributed much, by the confession of Turenne. After several signal exploits, he gained immortal renown by the defence of Lille in 1708. The siege lasted near four months. Bouflers said to his officers, “Gentlemen, I trust to you; but I answer for myself.” Prince Eugene carried on the siege with so much vigour that it was obliged to submit. “I am very vain,” said he to Bouflers, “on having taken Lille; but I had rather still have the glory of having defended it like you.” The king rewarded him for this service as if he had gained a battle. He was created a peer of France; had the honours of first gentleman to the king, and the reversion of the government of Flanders for his eldest son. When he entered the parliament for his first reception in it, turning to a crowd of officers who had defended Lille with him, he said, “It is to you that I am indebted for all the favours that are heaped upon me, and on you I reflect them I have nothing to glory in but the honour of having been at the head of so many brave men.” During the siege, one of his party having proved tojiim that he could easily kill prince Eugene, “Your fortune is made,” returned Bouflers, “if you can take him prisoner: but you shall be punished with the utmost severity if you make an attempt on his life; and if I but suspected that you had any such intention, I would have you shut up for the rest of your life.” This generosity, which formed a part of his character, induced him to ask permission to serve under the orders of marechal de Villars, though he was his senior. At the battle of Malplaquet in 1709, he made the retreat in such good order, that he left behind him neither cannon nor prisoners. The marquis de Bouflers united the virtues of a good citizen with the activity of a general; serving his prince as the ancient Romans served their republic; accounting his life as nothing when the safety of his country was in question. The king having ordered him to go and succour Lille, and having left to himself the choice of his lieutenants; he set out that instant, without settling his affairs, or taking leave of his family, and chose for his officers a man that had been disgraced, and a prisoner of the Bastille. His magnificence was equal to his love for his country and his sovereign. When Louis XIV. formed the camp of Compiegne, to serve as a lesson to his grandson the duke of Burgundy, and as a spectacle to the court, Bouflers lived there in such a splendid style, that the king said to Livri, his maitre-d'hotel, “The duke of Burgundy must not keep a table; we cannot outdo the marechal; the duke of Burgundy shall dine with him when he goes to the camp.” This patriot general died at Fontainbleau, Aug. 22, 1711, aged 68. “In him (writes madame de Maintenon) the heart died last.” We read in the continuation of the history of England by Rapin, an anecdote too honourable to the memory of this great man to be passed over here in silence. King William having taken Namur, in 169, made Bouflers prisoner, in violation of the articles that had been agreed on. Surprised at so unjust a proceeding, the marechal, fresh from the glorious defence he had made, demanded the reason of this perfidious treatment. He was answered that it was by way of reprisals for the garrison of Dixmude and of Deinse, which the French had detained contrary to capitulation. “If that be the case (said Bouflers), then my garrison ought to be arrested, and not I.” “Sir (he was answered), you are valued at more than ten thousand men.”

, a French biographer, descended from an honourable family in Provence, was a priest of the oratory, and born at Aix in 1680, where he was also educated. The love of a retired life induced him to become a member of the congregation of the oratory, where he taught the belles lettres with fame and success, and filled the several posts of his profession with great credit. Happening to be at Marseilles during the plague in 1719 and 1720, he risked his life in administering relief to the diseased. He appears to have been in that city also in 1726, but some time after came to Paris, where he passed his life in the house belonging to his order, in high esteem with all who knew him. He died of a stroke of apoplexy, March 19, 1753. Just before his death he had prepared for the press his lives of the illustrious men of Provence, which was to have formed four volume?, 4to, and was to be published by subscription, but we do not find that the scheme was carried into execution by his friends. During his life he published in the literary journals, various memoirs of eminent men, and, in separate publications, the Life of Gassendi, Paris, 1737, of John Peter Gibert, ibid. 1737, 12mo; and apart of his great work, under the title of “Memoires pour servir a l'histoire des homines illustres de Provence,” ibid. 1752, 12mo, containing fourteen lives.

In his earlier years, Mr. Bouguer had lived in a state of seclusion from general intercourse with the world, and he had thus acquired a cast of temper, which marked his character in more advanced life. Although he was universally acknowledged to possess superior talents, and to be distinguished by an assiduity and zeal, no less successful than indefatigable, in various departments of useful science, he indulged a degree of suspicion and jealousy, with regard to his reputation, which disgusted some of those with whom he was under a necessity of associating, and which disquieted his own mind. Fully sensible of the importance and utility of his own performances, he was apt to consider others, who were engaged in similar pursuits, as competitors with himself, and to grudge them the reputation which they justly acquired, from an apprehension that his own credit would be thus diminished. Hence arose his disputes with La Condamine, one of the companions of his voyage, and associate in his labours in America; and the mortification he experienced from the public suffrage that seemed to have been bestowed on that academician. His character in other respects was distinguished for modesty and simplicity. The truths of religion were instilled into him along with the first principles of geometry, and had made such an impression upon his mind, r r to regulate and adorn his moral conduct. On his death-bed he cherished the same views which had thus guided him through life, and he closed his career with philosophical fortitude, and with a piety and resignation truly Christian. In the year 1784, a very singular book was published at Paris, entitled “Relation de la conversion et de mort de Bouguer,” by P. La Berthonie. His piety naturally offended Lalande, who, in noticing this book, ascribes his piety to fear; this was a common opinion with the French deists, and had very pernicious influence on the minds of their disciples. Laiande, however, if our information be not incorrect, lived to experience the fear he once ridiculed.

, president a mortier of the parliament of Dijon, and a member of the French academy, was born March 16, 1673. He began his studies under the direction of his father (who was also president a mortier of the same parliament) at the Jesuits’ college of Dijon, and finished them in 1638 with great approbation. Being as yet too young for the law schools, he studied the elements of that science in private, and perfected himself at the same time in the Greek language. He also learned Italian, Spanish, and acquired some knowledge of the Hebrew. After two years thus usefully employed, he went through a course of law at Paris and Orleans; and in 1692 he became counsellor of the parliament of Dijon. In 1704 he was appointed president, the duties of which office he executed until 1727, and with an assiduity and ability not very common. In this latter year he was elected into the academy, on the condition that he would quit Dijon and settle at Paris, to which condition he acceded, but was unable to perform his promise, for want of health. Though remote, however, from the capital, he could not remain in obscurity; but from the variety and extent of his learning‘, he was courted and consulted by the literati throughout Europe: and many learned men, who had availed themselves of his advice, dedicated their works to him. At length, his constitution being worn out with repeated attacks of the gout, he died March 17, 1746. A friend approaching his bed, within an hour of his death, found him in a seemingly profound meditation. He made a sign that he wished not to be disturbed, and with difficulty pronounced the words J’epie la mort “I am watching death.” Notwithstanding his business and high reputation as a lawyer, he contrived to employ much of his time in the cultivation of polite literature, and wrote many papers on Critical and classical subjects in the literary journals. Separately he published, 1. A poetical translation, not inelegant, but somewhat careless, of Petronius on the Civil War between Coesar and Pompey, with two epistles of Ovid, &c. Amst. 1737, 4to. Alluding to the negligence which sometimes appears in his poetry, his wife, a very ingenious lady, used to say, “Confine yourself to thinking, and let me write.” 2. “Remarques sur les Tusculanes de Ciceron, avec une dissertation sur Sardanapale, dernier roi d'Asyrie,” Paris, 1737, 12mo. 3. “Des Lettres sur les Therapeutes,” 1712. 4. “Dissertations sur Herodote,” with memoirs of the life of Bouhier, 1746, Dijon, 4to. 5. “Dissertation sur le grand pontifical des empereurs Remains,” 1742, 4to. 6. “Explications de quelques marbres antiques,” in the collection of M. Le Bret, 1733, 4to. 7. “Observations sur la Coutume de Bourgogne,” Dijon, 2 vols. fol. A complete edition of his law works was published in 1787, fol. by M. de Bevy. He wrote a very learned dissertation on the origin of the Greek and Latin letters, which is printed in Montfaucon’s Palaeography, Paris, 1708, p. 553 and his “Remarques sur Ciceron” were reprinted at Paris in 1746.

, a celebrated French critic, was born at Paris in 1628; and has by some been considered as a proper person to succeed Malherbe, who died about that time. He entered into the society of Jesuits at sixteen, and was appointed to read lectures upon polite literature in the college of Clermont at Paris, where he had studied; but he was so incessantly attacked with the head-ach, that he could not pursue the destined task. He afterwards undertook the education of two sons of the duke of Longueville, which he discharged to the entire satisfaction of the duke, who had such a regard for him, that he would needs die in his arms; and the “Account of the pious and Christian death” of this great personage was the first work which Bouhours gave the public. He was sent to Dunkirk to the popish refugees from England; and, in, the midst of his missionary occupations, found time to compose and publish many works of reputation. Among these were “Entretiens d‘Ariste & d’Eugene,” a work of a critical nature, which was printed no less than five times at Paris, twice at Grenoble, at Lyons, at Brussels, at Amsterdam, at Leyden, &c. and embroiled him with a great number of critics, and with Menage in particular; who, however, lived in friendship with our author before and after. There is a passage in this work which gave great oifence in Germany, where he makes it a question, “Whether it be possible that a German could be a wit” The fame of it, however, and the pleasure he took in reading it, recommended Bouhours so effectually to the celebrated minister Colbert, that he trusted him with the education of his son, the marquis of Segnelai. The Remarks and Doubts upon the French language has been reckoned one of the most considerable of our author’s works; and may be read with great advantage by those who would perfect themselves in that tongue. Menage, in his Observations upon the French language, has given his approbation of jt in the following passage: “The book of Doubts,” says he, “is written with great elegance, and contains many fine observations. And, as Aristotle has said, that reasonable doubt is the beginning of all real knowledge; so we may say also, that the man who doubts so reasonably as the author of this book, is himself very capable of deciding. For this reason perhaps it is, that, forgetting the tide of his work, he decides oftener than at first he proposed.” Bouhours was the author of another work, “The art of pleasing in conversation,” of which M. de la Grose, who wrote the eleventh volume of the Bibliotheque Universelle, has given an account, which he begins with this elogium upon the author “A very little skill,” says he, “in style and manner, will enable a reader to discover the author of this work. He will see at once the nice, the ingenious, and delicate turn, the elegance and politeness of father Bouhours. Add to this, the manner of writing in dialogue, the custom of quoting himself, the collecting strokes of wit, the little agreeable relations interspersed, and a certain mixture of gallantry and morality which is altogether peculiar to this Jesuit. This work is inferior to nothing we have seen of father Bouhours. He treats in twenty dialogues, with an air of gaiety, of every thing which can find a way into conversation; and, though he avoids being systematical, yet he gives his reader to understand, that there is no subject whatever, either of divinity, philosophy, law, or physic, &c. but may be introduced into conversation, provided it be done with ease, politeness, and in a manner free from pedantry and affectation.” He died at Paris, in the college of Clermont, upon the 27th of May 1702; after a life spent, says Moreri, under such constant and violent fits of the head-ach, that he had but few intervals of perfect ease. The following is a list of his works with their dates: 1. “Les Entretiens d‘Ariste et d’Eugene,” 1671, 12ro. 2. “Remarques et Doutes sur la langue Franchise,” 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “La Manier de bien penser sur les ouvrages d' esprit,” Paris, 1692, 12mo. 4. “Pensees ingenieuses des anciens et des modernes,” Paris, 1691, 12mo. In this work he mentions Boileau, whom he had omitted in the preceding; but when he expected Boileau would acknowledge the favour, he coolly replied, “You have, it is true, introduced me in your new work, but in very bad company,” alluding to the frequent mention of some Italian and French versifiers whom Boileau despised. 5. “Pensees ingenieuses des Peres de l'Eglise,” Paris, 1700. This he is said to have written as an answer to the objection that he employed “too much of his time Oh profane literature. 6.” Histoire du grandmaitre d'Aubusson,“1676, 4to, 1679, and lately in 1780. 7. The lives of St. Ignatius, Paris, 1756, 12mo, and of St. Francis Xavier, 1682, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo. Both these are written with rather more judgment than the same lives by Ribadeneira, but are yet replete with the miraculous and the fabulous. The life of Xavier was translated by Dryden, and published at London in 1688, with a dedication to king James II. 's queen. Dryden, says Mr. Malone, doubtless undertook this task, in consequence of the queen, when she solicited a son, having recommended herself to Xavier as her patron saint. 8.” Le Nouveau Testament," translated into French from the Vulgate, 2 vols. 1697 1703, 12mo.

, a French nobleman, and officer of bravery and honour, was a native of Auvergne, and a relative of the marquis La Fayette. After having served in the dragoons, he became colonel of the regiment of Vexin infantry. Having attained the rank of majorgeneral, the king appointed him governor-general of the Windward islands. In 1778 he took possession of Dominica, St. Eustatk, and soon after St. Christopher’s, Nevis, and Montserrat. His conduct while in that command was allowed by the English commanders to be honourable and disinterested. On his return, he was made lieutenantgeneral. On the breaking out of the revolution in 1789, finding that he commanded in the three bishoprics, he brought back to its duty the revolted garrison of Metz, and on that occasion saved the life of M. de Pont, intendant of the province. He afterwards caused Francois de Neufchateau, and two other electors, arrested by order of the king’s attorney, to be set at liberty. On the 5th of September the same year, the national assembly was informed by one of its members, Gregoire, that M. de Bouille had not administered the civic oath individually, and a decree was passed obliging him to do so. In 1790, he was commissioned to bring under subjection the garrison of Nancy, which had risen against its chiefs; accordingly he advanced upon the town with four thousand men, and succeeded in this enterprize, in which he shewed much bravery, and which at first gained him great praises from the national assembly, and afterwards as many reproaches. Being chosen by the unfortunate Louis XVI. to facilitate his escape from Paris in June 1791, he marched at the head of a body of troops to protect the passage of the royal family; but this design failed from reasons now well known, and which he has faithfully detailed in his memoirs: and the marquis himself had some difficulty in making his escape. From Luxembourg he wrote his memorable letter to the assembly, threatening, that if a hair of the king’s head were touched, he would not leave one stone upon another in Paris. This served only to irritate the revolutionists, who decreed that he should be tried for contumacy; but he was fortunately out of their reach. From Vienna whither he had at first gone, he passed to the court of Sweden, where he was favourably received by Gustavus III. but after his death, M. de BoniHe“found it necessary to retire to England, where he passed the remainder of his days in security, and much esteemed for his fidelity to his sovereign. He died in London Nov. 14, 1800. In 1797 he published in English,” Memoirs relating to the French Revolution," 8vo; one of those works of which future historians may avail themselves in appreciating the characters and events connected with that important period of French history.

, a French medical writer, was born at Servian, in the diocese of Beziers, May 14, 1690, and created doctor in medicine, at Montpellier, in 1717. Enjoying, during the course of a long life, a considerable portion of reputation, he was, in succession, made professor in mathematics, and secretary to the academy at Beziers, member of the royal society at Montpeliier, and corresponding member of the academy of sciences at Paris. He was also author of several ingenious dissertations: “On the properties of Rhubarb,” published at Beziers, 1717, 4to, probably his “Inaugural Thesis.” “Sur la cause de la Pesanteur,” 1720, 12mo, which obtained for him a prize from the academy at Bourdeaux; “Avis et remedes, contre la Peste,” Beziers, 1721, 8vo. “On Asthma and on the Gout,” in which complaints he recommends the Venice soap as a powerful auxiliary; “Sur la maniere de traiter la Petite Verole,” Beziers, 1736, 4to; and some years after, “On the best method of preserving the district of Beziers from that disease;” “Recueil des lettres, et autres pieces pour servir a I'histoire de Pacademie de Beziers,” 1736, 4to, with several other publications. He died in 1770, leaving a son, Henry Nicholas Bouillet, who was made doctor in medicine at Montpeliier, and member of the academy of Beziers. He published, in 1759, in 4to, “Observations sur l'anasarque, le hydropesies de poitrine, des pericarde, &c.”

, the historian of the university of Paris, was born at St. Ellier or Helier, and became professor of rhetoric in the college of Navarre, and afterwards register, historiographer, and rector of the university of Paris, where he died Oct. 16, 1678. Of all his works, his history of the university of Paris, “Historia Universitatis Parisiensis,” 6 vols. 1665 1673, fol. contributed most to his fame. The publication of this vast undertaking was at first interrupted by some objections from the theological faculty of Paris, who carried their remonstrances to the king; but the commissioners, whom his majesty employed to inspect the work, having reported that they saw no reason why it should not be continued, he proceeded to its completion, and in 1667 published an answer to their objections, entitled “Notue ad censuram.” Not entirely satisfied with this triumph, he also published a poetical satire against them, with the title of “Ad Zoilosycopuantam, sive Bulaeistarum obtrectatorem,” a work of considerable spirit and elegance of style. His history is an useful repository of facts and lives of learned men connected with the revival of literature, and especially the progress of learning in that eminent university, and is blameable only for the fabulous accounts, in which our own university-historians have not been wanting, respecting the early history of schools of learning. Boulai’s other writings are, 1. “Tresor des antiquues Romanies,” Paris, 1650, fol. 2. “Speculum eloquentia?,” ibid. 1658, 12mo. S. “De Patronis quatuor nationum universitatis Parisiensis,” Paris, 1662, 8vo. 4. “Remarques sur la dignite, rang, preseance, autorite, et jurisdiction du recteur de Tuniversite de Paris,” ibid. 1668, 4to. 5. “Recueil des Privileges de PUniversite de Paris accordes par les rois de France depuis sa fondation., &c.” ibid. 1674, 4to. 6. “Fondation de l'universite, &e,” 1675, 4to. Boulai was frequently involved in disputes with the members of the university respecting the election of officers, &c. which occasioned the publication of many papers on these subjects, which, if we may judge from his extensive labours, he must have understood very accurately; and from these disputes, and the general bent of his researches, he appears to have very closely resembled the celebrated historian of the university of Oxford.

, comte de St. Saire, where he was born October 21, 1658, of a noble and ancient family, was educated at Juilli, by the rithers of the oratory, and gave proofs of genius and abilities from his childhood. His chief study was history, which he afterwards cultivated assiduously. He died January 23, 1722, at Paris, having been twice married, and left only daughters. He was author of a History of the Arabians, and Mahomet, 12mo, “Memoires sur l'ancien Governement de France; ou 14 lettres sur les anciens Parlemens de France,” 3 vols. 12mo; “Histoire de France jusqu'a Charles VIII.” 3 vols. 12mo; and “l'Etatde la Fiance,” 6 vols. 12mo, in the Dutch edition, and eight in the edition of Trevoux, “Memoire presente a M. le due d‘Orleans, sur l’Administration des Finances,” 2 vols. 12mo “Histoire de la Pairie de France,” 12mo “Dissertations sur la Noblesse de France,” 12mo. Ah his writings on the French history have been collected in 3 vols. fol. They Sire riot written (says M. de Montesquieu) with all the free-. dom and simplicity of the ancient nobility, from which he descended. M. Boulainvilliers left some other works in ms. known to the learned, who have, with great reason, been astonished to find, that he expresses in them his doubts of the most incontestable dogmas of religion, while he blindly gives credit to the reveries of juticial astrology an inconsistency common to many other infjdels. Mosheim informs us that Boulainvilliers was such an admirer of the pernicious opinions of Spinosa, that he formed the design of expounding and illustrating it, as is done wth respect to the doctrines of the gospel in books of piety, accommodated to ordinary capacities. This design he attually executed, but in such a manner as to set the atheim and impiety of Spinosa in a clearer light than they hid ever appeared before. The work was published by lenglet du Fresnoy, who, that it might be bought with avdity, and read without suspicion, called it a Refutation of theErrors of Spinosa, artfully adding some separate pieces, to which this title may, in some measure, he thought applicabk. The whole title runs, “Refutation des Erreurs de Beioit de Spinosa, par M. de Fenelon, archeveque de Cambay, par le Pere Lauri Benedictin, et par M. Le Comte de Bulainvilliers, avec la Vie de Spinosa, ecrite par Jean COerus, minister de l‘Eglise Lutherienne de la Haye, augnsntée de beaucoup de particularites tirees d’une vie manucrite de ce philosophe, fait par un de ses amis,” (Luczs, the atheistical physician), Brussels, 1731, 12mo. The account and defence of Spinosa, given by Boulainviliers, under the pretence of a refutation, take up the greatest part of this book, and are placed first, and not last in order, as the title would insinuate and the volume concludes with what is not in the title, a defence of Spinosa by Iredenburg, and a refutation of that defence by Orobio. a Jew of Amsterdam. It remains to be noticed, that his Life of Mahomet, which he did not live to complete, vas published at London and Amsterdam, in 1730, 8vo and about the same time an English translation of it appeared His letters, also, on the French parliaments, were translated and published at London, 1739, 2 vols.-8vo.

, one of the earliest French infidels, who assumed the name of philosophers was born at Paris in 1722, and died therein 1759, aged only thirty -seven. During his education, he is said to have come out of the college of Beauvais almost as ignorant as he went in; hut, struggling hard against his inaptitude to study, he at length overcame it. At seventeen years of age he began to apply himself to mathematics and architecture; and,n three or lour years made such progress as to be usefrl to the baron of Thiers, whom he accompanied to thearmy in quality of engineer. Afterwards he had the supervision of the highways and bridges, and executed severa public works in Champagne, Burgundy, and Lorrain. Ii cutting through mountains, directing and changing tie courses of rivers, and in breaking up and turning ov<r the strata of the earth, he saw a multitude of different substances, which (he thought) evinced the great antiquity of it, and a long series of revolutions which it must hav undergone. From the revolutions in the globe, he passei to the changes that must have happened in the manner?of men, in societies, in governments, in religion and fomed many conjectures upon all these. To be farther saisfied, he wanted to know what, in the history of ages, lad been said upon these particulars; and, that he might be informed from the fountain-head, he learned first latin, and then Greek. Not yet content, he plunged into clebrew, Syriac, Chaldaic, and Arabic and from these studies accumulated a vast mass of singular and paradoxical opinions which he conveyed to the public in the followng works: 1. “Traite du Despotisme Oriental,” 2 vols. 2mo, 2. “L'antiquite devoile, par ses usages,” 3 vols. 12mo. This was posthumous. 3. Another work, entitle! “Le Christianisme demasqu6,” 8vo, is attributed to Hm, but it is not certain that he was the author of it. 4. le furnished to the Encyclopedic the articles Deluge, C-rvde, and Societe. 5. A dissertation on Elisha and Eioch. 6. He left behind him in ms. a dictionary, which my be regarded as a concordance in antient and modern Jjnguages. Voltaire, the baron D'Holbach, and other disgminators of infidelity, made much use of Boulanger’s works, and more of his name, which, it is supposed, they prefixed to some of their own compositions. Barruel gives some reason for thinking that Boulanger retracted his opinions before his death. His name, however, still remained of consequence to the party; and as late as 1791, an edition of his works, entitled the Philosophical Library, was published at the philosophic press in Swisserland.

, an engraver, who flourished about the year 1657, was a native of France. His first manner of engraving was partly copied from that of Francis de Poilly; but he afterwards adopted a manner of his own, which, though not original, he greatly improved; and, accordingly, he finished the faces, hands, and all the naked parts of his figures very neatly with dots, instead of strokes, or strokes and dots. This style of engraving has been of late carried to a high degree of perfection, particularly in England. Notwithstanding several defects in the naked parts of his figures, and in his draperies, his best prints are deservedly much esteemed. Such are “A Holy Family,” from Fran. Corlebet; “Virgin and Child,” from Simon Vouet; “The Pompous Cavalcade,” upon Louis the XlVth coming of age, from Chauveau; “The Virgin with the infant Christ,” holding some pinks, and therefore called “The Virgin of the Pinks,” from Raphael; “The Virgin de Passau,” from Salario;“” Christ carrying his Cross,“from Nicolas Mignard;” A dead Christ, supported by Joseph of Arimathea." He also engraved many portraits, and, among others, that of Charles II. of England. He likewise engraved from Leonardo de Vinci, Guido, Champagne, Stella, Coypel, and other great masters, as well as from his own designs.

There was another John Boulanger, a painter, who was born in 1606, and died in 1660. Mr. Fuseli informs us that he was a pupil of Guido, became painter to the court of Modena, and master of a school of art in that city. What remains of his delicate pencil in the ducal palace, proves the felicity of his invention, the vivid harmony of his colour, and in the attitudes a spirit bordering on enthusiasm. Such is the Sacrifice (if it be his, as fame asserts) of Iphigenia; though the person of Agamemnon is veiled in a manner too whimsical to be admitted in a heroic subject. Of his scholars, Tomaso Costa of Sassuolo, and Sigismondo Caula a Modenese, excelled the rest. Costa, a vigorous colourist, laid his hand indiscriminately ori every subject of art, greatly employed at Reggio, his usual residence, and much at Modena, where he painted the cupola of S. Vicenzo. Caula left his home only to improve himself at Venice, and returned with a copious and welltoned style bat sunk to a more languid one as he advanced in life.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born at Paris in 1649, and acquired the principles of painting from his father, whom he resembled in his talent of imitating the works of the greatest masters. After a residence of five years in Italy, he was admitted into the academy, of which he became a professor, and employed by Louis XIV. at Versailles and Trianon. He excelled in history and portrait; his designs were accurate, and his colouring good. Besides his paintings in fresco, in two of the chapels of the Invalids, he painted several pieces for the churches and public buildings of Paris, several of which have been engraved. We have alsothree etchings done by him, from his own compositions, viz. a species of “Almanack;” “St. John in the Desert” and “St. Bruno in a landscape” its’ companion. He died at Paris in 1717. His brother Louis de Boullongne the younger, was born at Paris in 1654, and educated under his father, by whose instruction he made such improvement, that he obtained the prize of the academy at 18. His studies were completed at Rome, where he particularly studied the works of Raphael, and from his copies which were sent home, the Gobelin tapestries were executed. After his return he was received into the academy in 1680; and his works in the churches of Notre Dame and the Invalids, and particularly his frescos in the chapel of St. Augustin, were so much esteemed, that Louis XIV. honoured him with his special patronage, allowing him a considerable pension; conferring upon him the order of St. Michael; choosing him designer of medals to the academy of inscriptions, after the death of Anthony CoypeJ; appointing him his principal jminter, and ennobling him and all his descendants. The academy of painting also chose him first for its rector, and afterwards director, which place he occupied till his death. He chiefly excelled in historical and allegorical subjects. From his performances it appeared, that he had carefully studied the most eminent masters; his colouring was strong, his composition was in a good style, the airs of his heads had expression and character, and his figures were correctly designed. His regular attendance at the academy, and his advice to the students, commanded respect: and the general mildness and affability of his disposition engaged esteem among those who knew him. He raised a considerable fortune by his profession, and died in 1734. Two sisters of this family, “Genevieve” and “Magdalen,” painted well, and were members of the royal academy in 1669.

, D. D. archbishop of Armagh, primate and metropolitan of all Ireland, was born in or near London, Jan. 4, 1671, of a reputable and opulent family, received his first rudiments] of learning at Merchant-Taylor’s school, and was admitted from thence a commoner of Christ-church, Oxford, some time before the Revolution. His merit became so conspicuous there, that immediately after that great event, he was elected a demi of Magdalencollege, with the celebrated Mr. Addison, and Dr. Joseph Wilcox, afterwards bishop of Rochester and dean of Westminster, from whose merit and learning Dr. Hough, who was then restored to the presidentship of that college (from which he had been unwarrantably ejected in the reign of king James II.) used to call this election by the name of the golden election, and the same respectful appellation was long after made use of in common conversation in the college*, Mr. Boulter was afterwards made fellow of Magdalen-college. He continued in the university till he was called to London, by the invitation of sir Charles Hedges, principal secretary of state in 1700, who made him his chaplain;

* 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.

His widow died March 3, 1754. On the contingency of his having no issue by her, which was the case, he had bequeathed five hundred pounds to Magdalen- college in Oxford, to be applied towards rebuilding the same; and a thousand pounds to Christ-church in the same university, to be applied to the purchase of an estate for founding five exhibitions of equal value, to be distributed among five of the poorest and most deserving of the commoners of that college, to be enjoyed by them for four years from the time of their election; and directed, that no commoner of above three years standing should be elected into the said exhibitions. Fie vested the said election in the dean and canons of that house, and directed that the exhibitioners should be chosen upon a public examination in the hall, and recommended the sons of clergymen to be in the first place, cesteris paribus, considered. He also bequeath* d the further sum of five hundred pounds to the last mentioned college, to buy an estate, to be distributed in equal exhibitions to five servitors of the said college, of whom none were to be capable of election who were of above two years standing, nor to enjoy the exhibition longer than for three years and he vested the right of election in the dean and chapter.

, who justly ought to be classed among public benefactors, the son of Matthew Boulton, by Christian, daughter of Mr. Peers, of Chester, was born at Birmingham Sept. 3, 1728, and was principally educated at a private grammar school, kept by the rev. Mr. Ansted. He learned drawing under Worlidge, and mathematics under Cooper, and laid in a stock of that useful knowledge by which he was enabled so highly to improve the manufactures of his country.' So early as the year 1745, Mr. Boulton invented and brought to great perfection, the inlaid steel, buckles, buttons, watch chains, &c. Great quantities of these were exported to France, from- whence they were re-purchased with avidity by the English, as the offspring of French ingenuity. His manufactory at Birmingham, however, being inadequate to his extensive improvements, and further experiments, he, in 1762, purchased a lease of the Soho, at Handsworth, in the county of Stafford, distant about two. miles; at that time, a barren heath, on the bleak summit of which stood a naked hut, the habitation of a warrener. These extensive tracts of common were converted by Mr. Boulton into the present superb ^manufactory, which was finished in 1765, at the expence of 9000l.; and in the year 1794, he purchased the fee simple of Soho, and much of the other adjoining lands.

About the year 1773, the ingenious art of copying pictures in oil colours, by a mechanical process, was invented at Soho; and was brought to such a degree of perfection that the copies were taken for originals by the most experienced connoisseurs. This art was brought to perfection under the management of the late ingenious Mr. F. Eginton, who was no less celebrated for his paintings on glass.

Since the demise of the late empress Catherine of Russia, Mr. Boulton presented her successor, the late emperor Paul I. with some of the curious articles of his’manufactory, and in return received a polite letter of thanks and Approbation, together with a splendid collection of medals, minerals from Siberia, and specimens of all the modern money of Russia. Among the medals which, for elegance of design and beauty of execution, have never yet been equalled in this or any other country, is a massy one of gold, impressed with a striking likeness, it is said, of that monarch. This unrivalled piece was struck from a die engraved by the present empress dowager, who has, from her youth, taken great delight in the art of engraving on steel.

The first who attempted a collection of the kind was the famous Peter Pithou. It was his intention to have published a complete body of French historians, extracted from printed books and Mss. but he died in 1596, having published only two volumes on the subject, one in 8vo, the other in 4to. These carried the history no lower than the year 1285. Nothing more was done till 1635, when Du Chesne, who is called the Father of French history, took up the subject again, and published a prospectus for a history, to be comprised in fourteen volumes fol. and end with the reign of Henry II. The first two volumes accordingly came out in 1636, but the author died whilst the two next were in the press. These, however, were published in 1641, by his sou, who added a fifth volume, ending with the life of Philippe le Bel, in 1649. The next attempts were vain, though made under the auspices of such men as Colbert, Louvois, and chancellor D'Aguesseau: the plan proposed by the first miscarried through the obstinacy of the famous Ducange (who would have the work done in his own way, or have nothing to do with it) and the modesty of Mabillon. Another was, as we have just mentioned, put a stop to by the death of Le Long, who, having pointed out the materials in his “Bibliotheque Historique de la France,” was the fittest to have made use of them. In this state of things the Benedictine congregation of St. Maur recommended Bouquet, who accordingly went to work under the inspection of a society of teamed men named by the chancellor, in whose presence the plan of the work, and the materials fit to be made use of, were discussed. Bouquet was so assiduous in his labour, that about the end of the year 1729 he was ready with two volumes; but, owing to his removal to the abbey of St. John de Laon, they were not published until 1738, when the chancellor D'Aguesseau called him to Paris, and he then proceeded so rapidly, that the eighth was published in 1752. He had begun the ninth, in which he hoped to have completed what regarded the second race of the French kings; but, in 1754, was seized with a violent disorder, which proved fatal in tour days, April 6. He was a man of extensive learning, connected with all the learned men and learned societies of his time, and beloved for his personal virtues. For many years the work was continued by the congregation of St. Maur, but without the name of any editor. Seven more volumes have appeared since Bouquet’s death, and the sixteenth is now in the press, and almost ready for publication.

, lord Berners, was born about 1467, son and heir of sir Humphrey Bourchier by Elizabeth, daughter and heir of sir Frederick Tilney (widow of sir Thomas Howard), which Humphrey was killed at Barnet-field, on Edward IVth’s part, and buried in Westminster abbey, during the life of his father, who was sir John Bourchier, K. G. fourth son of William earl of Ewe, and baron Berners, by marriage with Margery, daughter and heir of Richard lord Berners. Lord Bourchier succeeded his grandfather, May 16, 1474, being then only seven years old. He was educated in Baliol college, Oxford, and afterwards travelled abroad, and returned a master of seven languages, and a complete gentleman. In 1405 he obtained the notice of Henry VII. by his valour in quelling the fury of the rebels in Cornwall and Devonshire, under the conduct of Michael Joseph, a blacksmith. In 1513 he was captain of the pioneers at the siege of Therouenne. In 1514, being made chancellor of the king’s exchequer for life, he attended the lady Mary, the king’s sister, into France, to her marriage with king Lewis XII. and in 1527 obtained i grant from the king of several manors. Afterwards he vas made lieutenant of Calais and the marches adjoining to France, and spending most of his time there, wrot< several learned works in that situation. There he made his will, March 3, 1532, bequeathing his body to be bur'ud in the chancel of the parish church of our lady, within the town of Calais, and appointing that an honest priest shouldsing mass there for his soul, by the space of three years, ie died March 16th following, leaving by Katherine his wie, daughter of John duke of Norfolk, Joane his daughter nd heir, married to Edmund Knyvet of Ashwelthorpe inNorfolk, esq.

, better known by the name of Brantôme, of which he was abbot, added to that title those of lord and baron of Richemont, chevalier, gentleman of the chamber to the kings Charles IX. and Henry III. and chamberlain to the duke of Alençon. He had the design of being created a knight of Maltha in a voyage he made to that isle during the time of the siege in 1565. He returned to France, where he was fed with vain expectations; but he received no other reward (as he tells us himself) than being welcomed by the kings his masters, great lords, princes, sovereigns, queens, princesses, &c. He died July 5, 1614, at the age of 87. His memoirs were printed in ten volumes, 12mo, viz. four of the French commanders; two of foreign commanders two of women of gallantry one of illustrious ladies; and one of duels. There is another edition of the Hague, 1741, 15 vols. 12mo, on account of the supplement, which makes five, and also a Paris edition 1787, 8 vols. 8vo. These memoirs may be of some use, if read cautiously, by those who would know the private history of Charles IX. of Henry III. and of Henry IV. Here the man is more represented than the prince. The pleasure of seeing these kings in their peculiarities in private life, added to the simplicity of Brantome’s style, renders the reading of his memoirs extremely agreeable. But some of his anecdotes are grossly indecent, and many of them fictions.

“Brantome,” (says M. Anquetil) “is in the hands of every body. All the world pretends to have read him; but he ought particularly to be put into the hands of princes, that they may learn how impossible it is for them to hide themselves they they have an importance in the eyes of their courtiers, which draws attention to all their actions; and that, sooner or later, the most secret of them are revealed to posterity. The reflections that would occur, on seeing that Brantome has got together all the little transactions, all the idle words that have escaped them, all the actions pretended to be indifferent, which were thought to be neglected and lost, and which nevertheless mark the character, would render them more circumspect. In reading Brantome a problem forces itself on the mind, which it is difficult to solve. It is very common to see that author joining together the most discordant ideas in regard to morals. Sometimes he will represent a woman as addicted to the most infamous refinements of libertinism, and then will conclude by saying that she was prudent, and a good Christian. So likewise of a priest, of a monk, or any other ecclesiastic, he will relate anecdotes more than wanton; and will tell us very gravely at the end, that this man lived regularly according to his station. Almost all his memoirs are full of similar contradictions in a sort of epigram. On which 1 have this question to propose: Was Brantome a libertine; who, in order to sport more securely with religion and morals, affects in the expression a respect to which the very matter of the recital gives the lie? or, Was he one of those persons who generally go under the name of amiable fops; who, without principles as without design, confound virtue and vice, making no real difference between one character and another? Whatever judgment we may form of him, we must always blame him for omitting to observe a proper reverence for decorum in his writings, and for frequently putting modesty to the blush. We perceive in Brantome the character of those young men, who, making a part of the court by their birth, pass their lives in it without pretensions and without desires. They amuse themselves with every thing: if an action has a ridiculous side, they seize it; if it has not, they give it one. Brantome only skims along the surface of a subject; he knows nothing of diving into an action, and unfolding the motives that gave it birth. He gives a good picture of what he has seen, relates in simple terms what he has heard; but it is nothing uncommon to see him quit his main object, return to it, quit it a and conclude by thinking no more of it. With all this irregularity he pleases, because he amuses.”

, a learned French critic, who distinguished himself in the republic of letters by writing notes upon Lucian, Petronius, and Heliodorus, lived at the end of the 16th, and in the beginning of the 17th century, was of a good family of Sens, and educated with care. He applied himself to the study of the belles lettres and of the learned languages; and Baillet tells us, that he passed for a great connoisseur in the oriental tongues, and in the knowledge of manuscripts. These pursuits did not hinder him from being consummate in the law. He exercised the office of advocate to the parliament of Paris in 1627, when Mary of Medicis, hearing of his uncommon merit, made him master of the requests. He died suddenly at Paris in 1638. His edition of Heliodorus, which is one of the best, was published in 1619, 8vo That of Lucian at Paris, 1615, fol. with the notes of Micyllus, Guerinus, Marsilius, and Cognatus, and some short and learned ones by himself, at that time a very young man. Among the sources from which Bourdelot professes to have compiled his edition, are two ancient Mss. in the royal library at Paris, the existence of which Faber (ad Luciani Timonem, c. 1.) denies in the most positive terms. His Petronius was first published at Paris, 12mo, in 1618, a very scarce edition, and reprinted in 1645, 1663, and 1677.

, nephew to the above, and educated by him, was a very celebrated physician at Paris, where he died Feb. 9, 1685, aged seventy-six. In 1634, he obtained leave to adopt the name of Bourdelot, pursuant to his uncle’s desire, who on that condition left him his library and fortune. He wrote some treatises on “the Viper,” on “Mount Etna,” “La relation des appartmens de Versailles,” &c. with three volumes of “Conferences,” which were published by M. le Gallois.

, physician in ordinary to Louis XIV. and first physician to the duchess of Burgundy, was sister’s son to the preceding P. Michon Bourdelot, who enjoined him to change his name from Bonnet to Bourdelot, on the same terms that himself adopted that name, viz. his library and fortune. P. Bonnet Bourdelot was a skilful physician, and a man of general literature. He wrote some useful notes on the “Bibliotheque choisie de M. Colomies,” which were added to the Paris edition of 1731, and left a manuscript catalogue of all printed medical works, with lives and criticisms on the authors. He wrote also some papers on the history of music, which were used by his brother Bonnet in his “Histoire de la Musique,” 1715. He died in 1709, aged fifty-four.

, a very celebrated French painter, was born at Montpellier in 1616. His father, who was a glass-painter, gave him the first instructions in his art. When only seven years old, one of his uncles brought him to Paris, and placed him with a very indifferent painter, whose defects, however, were supplied by young Bourdon’s natural genius. Returning to Bourdeaux at the age of fourteen, he painted the cieling of a neighbouring chateau, and then went to Toulouse. Finding here no employment, he went into the army; but his captain, a man of some taste, judging that he would one day excel in his profession as an artist, gave him his discharge. He was eighteen when he went to Italy, and became acquainted with Claude Lorrain, whose manner, as well as that of Saccbi, Caravagio, and Bamboccio, he imitated with great success. After a residence of three years here, he happened to have a difference with a painter, who threatened to inform against him as a Calvinist, and Bourdon immediately set out for Venice, and thence to France. At the age of twenty-seven he painted his famous Crucifixion of St. Peter for the church of Notre Dame at Paris, which could not fail to raise his reputation. Du Guernier, a miniature painter, much employed at court, and whose sister he married, assisted him with his advice, and procured him work. But the civil wars interrupting the progress of the fine arts, in 1652 he went to Sweden, where queen Christina appointed him her first painter. While employed on many works for her, chiefly portraits, she mentioned to him one day some pictures which the king her father had found when he took Prague; these had till now remained unpacked, and she desired Bourdon to examine them. Bourdon reported favourably of them, particularly of some by Corregio, on which the queen requested he would accept them as a present from her. Bourdon, with corresponding liberality and disinterestedness, represented that they were some of the finest paintings in Europe, and that her majesty ought never to part with them, as a fit collection for a crowned head. The queen accordingly kept them, and took them with her to Rome when she abdicated the throne. After her death, the heirs of Don Livio Odeschalchi, who had purchased them, sold them to the regent duke of Orleans; and they afterwards made part of the fine collection known in this country by the name of the Orleans Collection.

Bourdon, however, not finding much exercise for his genius in Sweden, and the queen having become Roman catholic after her abdication, he returned to France, then more favourable to the arts, and soon had abundance of employment. Among his first performances after his return, were a “Dead Christ,” and the “Woman taken in adultery.” Some business occasioning him to go to Montpellier, during his short stay there he painted several portraits of persons of fashion. An anecdote is told, that, when in this place, a taylor who had a great esteem for him, and knew he was not rich, sent to him, by the hand of one Francis, a painter, a complete suit of clothes, cloak, and bonnet. Bourdon, in return, sent him his portrait dressed in this suit; but Francis, thinking it a very fine specimen of the art, presented the taylor with a copy, and kept the original. In 1663 he returned to Paris, where he continued to execute many fine pictures, until his death in 1671.

, knight of the Polish order of Merit, and an artist of distinguished reputation, was the descendant of a considerable family in Switzerland, but was born in London in 1756. His early destination was the army, under the patronage of lord Heathfield, who was his father’s - friend but having been instructedwhi|p a child in the rudiments of painting, by a foreigner of inconsiderable merit as a horse-painter, he became so attached to the study, as soon to relinquish the military profession, and devote himself wholly to the pencil. For this purpose he was placed under the tuition of Loutherbourg, and having, from his connexions and acquaintance, access to many of the most distinguished collections, he soon acquired considerable reputation by his landscapes and sea-pieces. In 1776, he travelled through Italy, France, and Holland, where his correct knowledge of the language of each country, added to the politeness of his address, and the pleasures of his conversation, procured him an introduction to the best society, and most valuable repositories of the arts on the continent. At his return to England, he exhibited several specimens of his studies at the royal academy, which obtained him reputation and patronage. In 1791 he was appointed painter to the king of Poland, whose brother, the prince primate, had been much pleased with his performances during his residence in this country; and at the same time he received the honour of knighthood of the order of Merit, which was afterwards confirmed by his present majesty, who, in 1794, appointed him landscapepainter to the king. Previous to this he had, in 1792, been elected a member of the royal academy. Some time before his death, by the will of the late Noel Desenfans, esq. an eminent picture-dealer, he became possessed of sufficient property to render a laborious application to his profession no longer necessary, and from that time he lived in the circle of his friends, highly respected for his talents and agreeable manners. He died Jan. 8, 1811, at his house in Portland- street, bequeathing his fine collection of pictures, and his fortune, to Dirlwich college. According to the terms of his will, he leaves the whole of these pictures, besides 10,000l. to keep them in due preservation, and 2,000/ for the purpose of repairing the gallery ki the college for their reception. He also bequeathed legacies of lOOOl. each to the master of the college, and to the chaplain and the fellows of the college are to be the residuary legatees, and are to possess, for its advantage, all the rest of his property, of every denomination. Most part of this will, however, does not take effect until after the death of Mrs. Desenfans, the widow of his benefactor; and after that event he directs that the body of the late Noel Desenfans, which is now deposited in a sarcophagus within a mausoleum in a chapel, attached to his late house in Charlotte-street, Portland-place, shall be removed, together with his own body (which has, by his desire, been deposited in the same mausoleum), and entombed in a sarcophagus, to be "placed in the chapel of Dulwich college. So singular a will, with respect at least to the place chosen for this collection, excited much surprise. The following circumstances, however, which have been communicated by an intimate friend of the testator, may in some measure account for it. After sir Francis became possessed of the Desenfans collection, by the owner’s friendly will in his favour, he wished to purchase the fee simple of his fine house in Charlotte-street, enlarge it, and endow it as a perpetual repository for the collection, easily accessible to the public, and particularly to students as a school of art; but unluckily, his landlord, a nobleman lately deceased, refused his consent, although he afterwards expressed an inclination to grant it, when too late. Sir Francis then conceived the design of hequeathing the collection to the British Museum, but did not execute it, from a fear that the pictures might not be kept entire and unmixed, he being told that it was in the power of the trustees to dispose of what might appear superfluous or inferior. Such was his respect for his deceased friend, that his only ambition was to discover a place where the collection might be kept together, and known in perpetuum, not as his, but as the Desenfans Collection. By whom Dulwich college, an hospital for poor men and women, remote from the residence of artists and men of taste, was suggested, we know not. It was a place sir Francis had probably never before seen; but, having once visited it, and been informed that his terms might be complied with there, without risk of alteration, he disposed of his property as we have related.

, was born at the village of Beaumains near Falaise, in the diocese of Seez, in 1724. He was educated at the grammar-school at Caen, whence he was removed to that university, and pursued his studies with great diligence and success till 1745, when he became a Benedictine monk of the abbey of St. Martin de Seez, then en regie, that is, under the direction of a conventual abbot. Some time after this, Dom Bourget was appointed prior claustral of the said abbey, and continued six years in that office, when he was nominated prior of Tiron en Perche; whence being translated to the abbey of St. Stephen at Caen, in the capacity of sub-prior, he managed the temporalities of that religious house during two years, as he did their spiritualities for one year longer; after which, according to the custom of the house, he resigned his office. His superiors, sensible of his merit and learning, removed him thence to the abbey of Bee, where he resided till 1764. He was elected an honorary member of the society of antiquaries of London, Jan. 10, 1765; in which year he returned to the abbey of St. Stephen at Caen, where he continued to the time of his death. These honourable offices, to which he was promoted on account of his great abilities, enabled him not only to pursue his favourite study of the history and antiquities of some of the principal Benedictine abbie.s in Normandy, but likewise gave him access to all their charters, deeds, register-books, &c. &c. These he examined with great care, and left behind him in ms. large and accurate accounts of the abbies of St. Peter de Jumieges, St. Stephen, and the Holy Trinity at Caen (founded by William the Conqueror and his queen Matilda), and a very particular history of the abbey of Bee. These were all written in French. The History of the royal abbey of Bee (which he presented to Dr. Ducarel in 1764) is only an abstract of his larger work. This ancient abbey, (which has produced several archbishops of Canterbury and other illustrious prelates of this kingdom) is frequently mentioned by our old historians. The death of this worthy Benedictine (which happened on new-year’s day, 1776) was occasioned by his unfortunate neglect of a hurt he got in his leg by falling down two or three steps in going from the hall to the cloister of the abbey of St. Stephen at Caen, being deceived by the ambiguous feeble light of a glimmering and dying lamp that was placed in that passage. He lived universally esteemed, and died sincerely regretted by all those who were acquainted with him and was buried in the church of the said abbey, Jan. 3, 1776.

, who was born at Nimes in 1678, became celebrated for his proficiency in natural history. The revocation of the edict of Nantes having forced his family to go and seek an asylum in Switzerland, Zurich was indebted to them for its manufactures of stockings, muslins, and several silk stuffs. Young Bourguet went through a course of study there; afterwards married at Berne, and settled at Neufeh&tel, where he became professor of philosophy and mathematics. He died Dec. 31, 1742, at the age of 64, after publishing, 1. A Letter on the formation of salts and crystals; Amsterdam, 1729, 12mo. 2. “La bibliotheque Italique,” 16 vols. 8vo. This journal, begun at Geneva in 1728, found a welcome reception among the learned, as a solid and useful book deserving to be continued, although deficient in style, and hastily written. He wrote also, “Traite des petrifactions,” Paris, 1742, 4to, and 1778, 8vo. Many of his learned papers on subjects of natural history were inserted in the literary journals, and his eloge is in the Helvetic Journal for 1745.

, a famous female enthusiast, was born Jan. 13, 1616, at Lisle in Flanders. She came into the world so very deformed, that a consultation was held in the family some days about stifling her as a monstrous birth. But if she sunk almost beneath humanity in her exterior, her interior seems to have been raised as much above it. For, at four years of age, she not only took notice that the people of Lisle did not live up to the principles of Christianity which they professed, but earnestly desired to be removed into some more Christian country; and her progress was suitable to this beginning. Her parents lived unhappily together, Mr. Bourignon using his spouse with too much severity, especially in his passion: upon which occasions, Antoinette endeavoured to soften him by her infant embraces, which had some little effect; but 'the mother’s unhappiness gave the daughter an utter aversion to matrimony. This falling upon a temper strongly tinctured with enthusiasm, she grew a perfect devotee to virginity, and became so immaculately chaste, that, if her own word may be taken, she never had, in all her life, not even by temptation or surprise, the least thought unworthy of the purity of the virgin state: nay, she possessed the gift of chastity in so abundant a manner, that her presence and her conversation shed an ardour of continence over all who knew her.

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.

Some time afterwards she quitted her huse, and put herself as governess at the head of an hospitl, where she locked herself up in the cloister in 1658, havng taken the order and habit of St. Austin. But here agai, by a very singular fate, she fell into fresh trouble. Hetnospital was found to be infected with sorcery so much, hat even all the little girls in it had an engagement wit the devil. This gave room to suspect the governess; mo was accordingly taken up by the magistrates of LisU and examined but nothing could be proved against er. However, to avoid further prosecutions, she retire to Ghent in 1662 where she no sooner was, than she prdessed that great secrets were revealed to her. About thistime she acquired a friend at Amsterdam, who proved iithful to her as long as he lived, and left her a good esUe at his death his name was De Cordt he was one of te fathers of the oratory, and their superior at Mechlin, an was director also of an hospital for poor children. Th proselyte was her first spiritual birth, and is said to ha> given her the same kind of bodily pangs and throes as natural labour, which was the case also with her other siritual children and she perceived more or less of thespains, according as the truths which she had declared ojrated more or less strongly on their minds. Whence ancter of her disciples, a certain archdeacon, talking with D<Cordt before their mother on the good and new resolutionvhich they had taken, the latter observed, that her pain were much greater for him than for the former the archdicon, looking upon De Cordt, who was fat and corplent, whereas he was a little man himself, said, smiling, It is no wonder that our mother has had a harder labour fcyou than for me, since you are a great, huge child, wheas I am but a little one;" which discomposed the gravity of all the faces presei t: This has been recorded as a proof that our Antoinette’s disciples sometimes descended from the sublimity of ther devotion to the innocent raillery of people of the world

Her stay at Amsterdam was chiefly owing to the happiness she had in her dear De Cordt: that proselyte had advanced almost all his estate to some relations, in order to drain the island of Noordstrandt in Holstein, by which means he had acquired some part of the island, together with the tithes and government of the whole. He sold also an estate to madame Bourignon, who prepared to retire thither in 1668; but she rejected the proposal of Labadie and his disciples to settle themselves there with her. It seems they had offered De Cordt a large sum of money to purchase the whole island, and thereby obtained his consent to their settlement in it: this was cutting the grass under her feet, an injury which she took effectual care to prevent. Accordingly De Cordt dying on the 12th of Novemer 1669, made her his heir: which inheritance, however, brought her into new troubles. Many law-suits were raised to hinder her from enjoying it: nor were her doctrine and religious principles spared on the occasion. However, she left Holland in 1671, to go into Noordstrandt.

But stopping in her way at several places of Holstein, where she dismissed some disciples (who followed her, she found, for the sake of interest) she plied her pen, which was so prolific that she found it convenient to provide herself with a press, where she printed her books in French, Dutch, and German. Among others she answered all her adversaries, in a piece entitled, “The testimony of truth,” in which she handled the ecclesiastics in a severe manner. In these controversial pieces she" demonstrated her want of the first fundamental of all religion both natural and revealed, humility. Two Lutheran ministers raised the alarm against her by some books, in which they declared, that people had been beheaded and burnt for opinions more supportable than hers. The Labbadists also wrote against her, and her press was prohibited. In this distress she retired to Hensberg in 1673, but was discovered, and treated so ill by the people under the character of a sorceress, that she was very happy in getting secretly away. Afterwards, being driven from city to city, she was at length forced to abandon Holstein, and went to Hamburgh in 1676, as a place of more security; but her arrival was no sooner known, than they endeavoured to seize her. On this she lay hid for some days, and then went to East Friesland, where she got protection from the baron of Latzbourg, and was made governess of an hospital.

It is observable, that all other passions have their holidays, but avarice never suffers its votaries to rest. When our devotee accepted the care of this charity, she declared that she consented to contribute her industry both to the building and to the distribution of the goods, and the inspection of the poor, but without engaging any part of her estate; for which she alleged two reasons, one, that her goods had already been dedicated to God for the use of those who sincerely sought to become true Christians; the other, that men and all human things are very inconstant. On this principle, she resolved never to part with any thing, but refer all donations to her last will and testament; and accordingly, when she had distributed among these poor people certain revenues of the place annexed to this hospital by the founder, being asked if she would not contribute something of her own, she returned an answer in writing, that because these poor lived like beasts, who had no souls to save, she had rather throw her goods, which were consecrated to God, into the sea, than leave the least mite there. It was on this account that she found persecutors in East Friesland, notwithstanding the baron de Latzbourg’s protection; so that she took her way to Holland in 1680, but died at Franeker, on the 30th of October the same year.

We have already mentioned the crookedness of her outward form, which probably was the reason why she would never suffer her picture to be taken: however, her constitution was so tough, that, 'in spite of all the fatigues and troubles of her life, she seemed to be but forty years of age, when she was above sixty: and, though she was almost continually wearing her eyesight, both by reading and writing, yet she never made use of spectacles. She was lucky enough to have the three most remarkable periods of her life, as her birth, her arriving to the rank of an author, and her death, characterised by comets; a circumstance greatly favourable to a prophet and a teacher of a new religion. Her writings were voluminous, but it would be impossible to draw from them an accurate and consistent scheme of religion; for the pretended “Divine light,” that guides people of this class, does not proceed in a methodical way of reasoning and argument; it discovers itself by flashes, which shed nothing but thick darkness in the minds of those who investigate truth with the understanding, and do not trust to the reports of fancy, that is so often governed by sense and passion. Madame Bourignon’s intellect was probably in a disordered state. One of her principal followers was Peter Poiret, a man of bold and penetrating genius, who was a great master of the Cartesian philosophy, and who proves in his own example, that knowledge and ignorance, reason and superstition, are often divided by thin partitions, and that they sometimes not only dwell together in the same person, but also, by an unnatural and unaccountable union, afford mutual assistance, and thus engender monstrous productions.

Antoinette Bourignon had more disciples in Scotland than in any other country perhaps of the world. Not only laymen, but some of their ecclesiastics, embraced Bourignonism: and one of Antoinette’s principal books was published, entitled “The light of the world,” in English, in 1696; to which the translator added a long preface, to prove that this maid ought at least to pass for an extraordinary prophetess. Her tenets at one time gained so much ground in Scotland, as to become an object of great jealousy with the church, and measures were adopted by the General Assembly for checking the growth of this blasphemous heresy. Dr. George Garden, a minister of Aberdeen, was deposed in 1701, for teaching its “damnable errors,” and all candidates for orders are to this day required to abjure and renounce the Bourignian doctrine. Mr. Charles Lesley, in the preface to the second edition of his “Snake in the grass,” observed the errors of this sect and they were refuted at large by Dr. Cockburn, iti a piece entitled, Bourignonism detected, against messieurs Poiret, De Cordt, and the English translator of the “Lux Mundi,” who endeavoured to shew that she was inspired, and had received a commission from God to refoi'm Christianity. This was answered by the Bourignonists in an apology for their leader who has still a remnant left in. some parts of North Britain.

, an elegant Latin poet, and a very amiable man, of whom we regret that our memoirs are so scanty, was admitted a scholar of Westminsterschool in 1710, from whence he was elected to the university of Cambridge in 1714, where, in Trinity college, he took his degree of A. B. 1717, and A.M. 1721, and obtained a fellowship. He was afterwards for several years an usher in Westminster-school, and died of a lingering disorder December 2, 1747. He married; and in a letter which he wrote to his wife a few weeks before his death, gives the following reasons why he did not take orders “Though I think myself in strictness answerable to none but God and my own conscience, yet, for the satisfaction of the person that is dearest to me, I own and declare, that the importance of so great a charge, joined with a mistrust of my own sufficiency, made me fearful of undertaking it; if I have not in that capacity assisted in the salvation of souls, I have not been the means of losing any; if I have not brought reputation to the function by any merit of mine, I have the comfort of this reflection, I have given no scandal to it, by my meanness and unworthiness. It has been my sincere desire, though not my happiness, to be as useful in' my little sphere of life as possible-: my own inclinations would have led me to a more likely way of being serviceable, if I might have pursued them: however, as the method of education I have been brought up in was, I am satisfied, very kindly intended, I have nothing to find fault with, but a wrong choice, and the not knowing those disabilities I have since been truly conscious of: those difficulties I have endeavoured to get over; but found them insuperable. It has been the knowledge of theee discouragements, that has been the chief subject of my sleeping, as well as my waking thoughts, a fear of reproach and contempt.” While we admire the conscientious motives which induced him to contemplate, with reverential awe, the duties of a clergyman, we must regret the concurrence of events which, according to the conclusion of this letter, seems to have led him into a way of life not agreeable to his inclinations. Cowper, however, in one of his excellent letters, throws some light on those peculiar habits, which were not certainly very happily adapted to his situation as a public teacher. “I love,” says Cowper, “the memory of Vinny Bourne. I think him a better Latin poet thaa Tibullus, Propertius, Ausonius, or any of the writers in his way, except Ovid, and not at all inferior to him. I love him too, with a love of partiality, because he was usher of the fifth form at Westminster when I passed through it. He was so good-natured, and so indolent, that I lost more than I got by him; for he made me as idle as himself. He was such a sloven, as if he had trusted to his genius as a cloak for every thing that could disgust you in his person; and indeed in his writings he has almost made amends for all. His humour is entirely original he can speak of a magpie or a cat, in terms so exquisitely appropriated to the character he draws, that one would suppose him animated by the spirit of the creature he describes. And with all his drollery, there is a mixture of rational, and even religious reflection, at times, and always an air of pleasantry, good nature, and humanity, that makes him, in my mind, one of the most amiable writers in the world. It is not common to meet with an author who can make you smile, and yet at nobody’s expence; who is always entertaining, and yet always harmless; and who, though always elegant and classical, to a degree not always found in the classics themselves, charms more by the simplicity and playfulness of his ideas, than by the neatness and purity of his verse: yet such was poor Vinny. I remember seeing the duke of Richmond set fire to his greasy locks, and box his ears to put it out again.”

His writings, thus characterised, were published in 1772, under the title of “Miscellaneous Poems, consisting of originals and translations,” 4to, and certainly will be a lasting testimony of his talents. He was, perhaps, at the jtirue he wrote, the best Latin poet in Europe. Most of the pieces in this volume had been printed in his life-time, if we mistake not, in a smaller volume. Dr. Beattie, after noticing that Boileau did not know that there were any good poets in England, till Add i son made him a present of the “Musae Anglican*,” remarks that “those foreigners must entertain a high opinion of our pastoral poetry, who have seen the Latin translations of Vincent Bourne, particularly those of the ballads of ‘ Tweedside,’ ‘ William and Margaret,’ and Rowe’s * Despairing beside a clear stream,' of which it is no compliment to say, that in sweetness of numbers, and elegant expression, they are at least equal to the originals, and scarce inferior to any thing in Ovid or Tibullus.”

, a French dramatic writer and satirist, was born in 1638, at Mussi-l'évêque in Burgundy. He was not brought up at school, and could only speak the rude provincial dialect of his country, when he came to Paris in 1651, yet, by the perusal of good books, with his good memory, he was soon able to converse and to write elegantly in French. Having composed, by order of Louis XIV. a book of no great merit, entitled “Of the proper study of sovereigns,” 1671, 12mo, the king was so well pleased with it, that he would have appointed him sub-preceptor to Monseigneur, if Boursault had been master of the Latin language. The duchess of Angouleme, widow of a natural son of Charles IX. having taken him to be her secretary, he was engaged to turn every week the gazette into rhyme, which procured him a pension of 2000 livres. Louis XIV. and his court were much entertained with him; but, having employed his satire against the Franciscans and the Capuchins, he was silenced. The queen’s confessor, a Spanish cordelier, caused both the gazette and the pension to be suppressed; and would have had him imprisoned, had it not been for the interest exerted in his behalf by his patrons. He shortly after obtained a new licence, and published his gazette under the title of the “Merry Muse;” but it was again suppressed. He afterwards got into favour once more, and was made receiver of the excise at Montlugon, where he died of a violent colic, aged 63, Sept. 5, 1701. He wrote several theatrical pieces, and other works. The chief of them are, “Æsop in the city,” and “Æsop at court;” which long remained to the stage. These two pieces and the following are an agreeable satire on the ridiculous manners or the several ages and conditions of life. His verse in general is harmonious, but his style sometimes negligent, yet in general easy and suitable to the subject. 2. The “Mercure galante,” or “La comedie sans titre,” in which he ingeniously ridicules the rage for getting a place in the Mercure galaut. 3. “La satyre des satyres,” in one act. Boiltau’s satirical notice of Boursault, to avenge Moliere, with whom he had had a difference, gave occasion to this piece, which Boileau had interest enough and meanness enough to prevent being played. The satirist being some years afterwards at the baths of Bourbon, Boursault, at that time receiver of the excise at Montluc/>n, repaired thither on purpose to offer him his purse and his services. At this act of generosity Boileau was much affected; and they immediately engaged in a mutual friendship, of which Boursault was highly deserving by the gentleness of his manners, and the cheerfulness of his disposition. He behaved with less tolerance, however, towards his other censors; and was able sometimes to chastise them with effect. A cabal having prevented the success of the first representation of “Æsop in the city,” the author added to it a fable of the dog and the ox, applying the moral of it to the pit; which so effectually silenced the cabal, that the piece had a run of forty-three nights without interruption. Thomas Cornell le had a sincere regard for Boursault, whom he used to call his son, and insisted on his applying to be admitted a member of the academy. Boursault desired to be excused on account of his ignorance, adding with his usual simplicity, “What would the academy do with an ignorant and illiterate (ignare & non Lettre) member, who knows neither Latin nor Greek?” “We are not talking (returned Corneille) of a Greek or Latin academy, but of a French academy; and who understands French better than you?” There are likewise by him, 1. Some romances, “The marquis de Chavigny,” “The prince de Conde” which are written with spirit “Artemisia and Polyanthus and,” We should only believe what we see.“2. A collection of letters on subjects of respect, obligation, and gallantry; known under the name of” Lettres a Babet;“now forgotten. 3.” Lettres nouvelles,“with fables, tales, epigrams, remarks, bon-mots, &c. 3 vols. 12mo, several times reprinted, though mostly written in a loose and inelegant style: a miscellany, which was very popular when ii first came out; but is much less at present, as the tales and bon-mots which Boursault has collected, or put into verse, are found in many other books. His fables have neither the simplicity of those of La Fontaine, nor the elegant precision of Phaedrus. There is an edition of the” Theatre de Boursault," in 3 vols. 1746, 12mo.

, physician and doctor regent of the faculty of Paris, and associate-veteran of the academy of sciences, was born at Chartres Jan. 11, 1717. Many of his ancestors having been physicians, he determined on the same profession, which he practised at Paris with so much success that no physician was more consulted; yet this did not prevent his being jealous of Tronchin, Bordeu, and some others, of whom he spoke very illiberally, but he was a man otherwise of great kindness and benevolence. One anecdote is recorded as characteristic. A banker, who had experienced some heavy losses, was taken ill, and Bouvart, who was called in, suspected that this weighed on his mind, but could not obtain the secret from him. The banker’s wife, however, was more communicative, and told him that her husband had a payment of twenty thousand livres to make very shortly, for which he was unprovided. Bouvart, without making any professions of sorrow or assistance, went immediately home and sent the money to his patient, who recovered surprisingly. Bouvart wrote only two or three small tracts: one a critique on Tronchin’s book, “de colica Pictonum,” 1758, 8vo; a “Consultation sur une naissance tardive,” against the anatomists Petit and Bertin, 1765, 8vo; and a “Memou/e au sujet de l'honoraire des medicines,” 1768, 4to, all written in a keen, controversial style. He was also an opponent of inoculation for the small pox. He introduced the use of the polygala of Virginia in cases of the bite of venomous reptiles, and this was the subject of the only paper he contributed to the academy; but the remedy, although said to be successful in his hands, fell into disrepute. He died Jan. 19, 1787.

"I had passed two whole days without any kind of subsistence whatever, meeting nobody in the by-roads that would supply me with any, and fearing to come near any house, as I was not far from the borders of the dominions of the pope I thought I should be able to hold out till I got into the Modenese, where I believed I should be in less danger than while I remained in the papal dominions; but finding myself about noon of the third day extremely weak, and ready to faint, I came into the high road that leads from Bologna to Florence, at a few miles distance from the former city, and alighted at a post house that stood quite by itself. Having asked the woman of the house whether she had any victuals ready, and being told that she had, I went to open the door of the only room in the house (that being a place where gentlemen only stop to change horses), and saw, to my great surprise, a placard pasted on it with a most minute description of my whole person, and the promise of a reward of 800 crowns, about 200l. English money, for delivering me up alive to the inquisition, being a fugitive from the holy tribunal, and 600 crowns for my head. By the same placard all persons were forbidden, on the pain of the greater excommunication, to receive, harbour, or entertain me, to conceal or to screen me, or to be any way aiding and assisting to me in making my escape. This greatly alarmed me, as the reader may well imagine; but I was still more affrighted when entering the room I saw two fellows drinking there, who, fixing their eyes upon me as soon as I came, continued looking at me very steadfastly. I strove, by wiping my face, by blowing- my nose, by looking out at the window, to prevent their having a full view of me. But one of them saying, ‘ The gentleman seems afraid to be seen,’ I put up my handkerchief, and turning to the fellow said boklly, ‘ What do you mean, you rascal? Look at me; I am not afraid to be seen.’ He said nothing, but, looking again steadfastly at me, and nodding his head, went out, and his companion immediately followed him. I watched them; and seeing them with two or three more in close conference, and, no doubt, consulting whether they should apprehend me or not, I walked that moment into the stable, mounted my horse unobserved by them, and, while they were deliberating in an orchard behind the house, rode off full speed, and in a few hours got into the Modenese, where I refreshed both with food and with rest, as I was there in no immediate danger, my horse and myself. I was indeed surprised to find that those fellows did not pursue me; nor can I any other way account for it but by supposing, what is not improbable, that as they were strangers as well as myself, and had all the appearUnce of banditti or ruffians fly ing out of the dominions of the pope, the woman of the house did not care to trust them with her horses. From the Modenese I continued my journey more leisurely through the Parmesan, the Milanese, and part of the Venetian territory, to Chiavenna, subject, with its district, to the Grisons, who abhor the very name of the inquisition, and are ever ready to receive and protect all who, flying from it, take refuge, as many Italians do, in their dominions. However, as I proposed getting as soon as I could to the city of Bern, the metropolis of that great protestant canton, and was informed that my best way was through the cantons of Ury and Underwald, and part of the canton of Lucern, all three popish cantons, I carefully concealed who I was and from whence I came. For though no inquisition prevails among the Swiss, yet the pope’s nuncio, who resides at Lucern, might have persuaded the magistrates of those popish cantons to stop me as an apostate and deserter from the order.

"Having rested a few days at Chiaveuna, I resumed my journey quite refreshed, continuing it through the country of the Grisons, and the two small cantons of Ury and Underwald to the canton of Lucern, There I missed my way, as I was quite unacquainted with the country, and discovering a city at a distance, was advancing to it, but very slowly, as I knew not where I was; when a countryman whom I met informed me that the city before me was Lucern. Upon that intelligence, I turned out of the road as soon as the countryman was out of sight; and that night I passed with a good r natured shepherd in his cottage, who supplied me with sheep’s milk, and my horse with plenty of grass. I set out very early next morning, making the best of my way westward, as I knew that Bern lay west of Lucern. But after a few miles the country proved very mountainous; and having travelled the whole day over mountains, I was overtaken amongst them by night. As I was looking out for a place where I might shelter myself during the night against the snow and rain, for it both snowed and rained, I perceived a light at a distance; and, making towards it, got into a kind of footpath, but so narrow and rugged that I was obliged to lead my horse and feel my way with one foot, having no light to direct me, before I durst move the other. Thus wita much difficulty I reached the place where the light was, a poor little cottage; and, knocking at the door, was asked by a man within who I was, and what I wanted. I answered that I was a stranger, and had lost my way. ‘Lost your way!’ replied the man; ‘there is no way here to lose.’ I then asked him in what canton I was; and upon his answering that I was in the canton of Bern, ‘I thank God,’ I cried out, transported with joy, ‘that I am.’ The good man answered, ‘And so do I.’ I then told him who I was, and that I was going to Bern, but had quite lost myself by keeping out of all the high roads to avoid falling into the hands of those who sought my destruction. He thereupon opened the door, received and entertained me with all the hospitality his poverty would admit of, regaled me with sour-krout and some new-laid eggs, the only provisions he had, and clean straw with a kind of rug for my bed, he having no other for himself and his wife. The good woman expressed as much satisfaction and good-nature in her countenance as her husband, and said many kind things in the Swiss language, which her husband interpreted for me in the Italian; for that language he well understood, and spoke so as to be understood, having learnt it as he told me in his youth while servant in a public-house on the borders of Italy, where both languages are spoken. I never passed a more comfortable night; and no sooner did I begin to stir in the morning, than the good man and his wife came both to know how I rested, and wishing they had been able to accommodate me better, obliged me to breakfast on two eggs, which Providence, they said, had supplied them with for that purpose. I then took leave of the wife, who, with her eves lifted up to heaven, seemed most sincerely to wish me a good journey. As for the husband, he would by all means attend me to the high road leading to Bern; which road, he said, was but two miles distant from that place. But he insisted on my first going back with him to see the way I had come the night before, the only way, he said, I could have possibly come from the neighbouring canton of Lucern. I saw it, and shuddered at the danger I had escaped; for I found that I had walked and led my horse a good way along a very narrow path on the brink of a dreadful precipice. The man made so many pious and pertinent remarks on the occasion, as both charmed and surprised me. I no less admired his disinterestedness than his piety: for, upon our parting, after he had attended me till I was out of all danger of losing my way, I could by no means prevail upon him to accept of any reward for his trouble. He had the satisfaction, he said, of having relieved me in the greatest distress, which was in itself a sufficient reward, and he cared for no other.

"The recor wrote, as I had desired him, to the general and the genral, taking no notice of my flight in his answer (for he could not disapprove it, and did not think it safe to appove it), ordered me to continue where I was till further-orders. I arrived at Douay early in May, and continued here till the latter end of June or the beginning of July, when the rector received a second letter from the general, acquainting him, that he had been commanded by the congregation of the inquisition to order me, wherever I was, back to Italy; to promise me in their name full pardon and forgiveness, if I obeyed; but if I did not obey, to treat ie as an apostate. He added, that the same order had bee transmitted soon after my flight to the nuncio* at the efferent Roman catholic courts; and he therefore advisedne to consult my own safety without farther delay. It’s to be observed here, that it is deemed apostacy in a prson of any religious order to quit his habit, and withdiw, without the knowledge of his superiors, from the c<lege, convent, or monastery, in which they have placechim; and that all bishops are not only impowered, but bind to apprehend such an apostate within the limits of tlir respective jurisdictions, and deliver him up to his supeors to be punished by them. As I had quitted the habi and withdrawn from the college of Macerata, without‘ave from my superiors who had placed me there, I shold have been treated as an apostate, had I been disco^red in my flight in a Roman catholic country, even wh’e no inquisition prevailed. But my returning voluntay, and resuming the habit, cleared me from the guilt oipostacy at the general’s tribunal, nay, and at that of tl inquisition itself. However, the congregation of the inquisition had it still in their power to oblige the general trecal me to Italy, and to treat me as an apostate if I d not obey; disobedience to an express command of a wful superior being deemed apostacy, and punished as ach with close confinement, and with bread and water for jod till the order is complied with. That order the geneal received; but his friendship forme, of which he had *iven me some remarkable instances, and his being fully convinced of my innocence, the inquisitor himself -having nothing to lay to my charge but my flight, prompted him to warn me of the danger that threatened me. Indeed I thought myself quite sate in the dominions of France; and should accordingly have lived there unmolested by the inquisition, what crime soever I had been guilty of cognizable by that tribunal alone; but as I had belonged to it, and was consequently privy to their hellish proceedings, they were apprehensive I should discover them to the world; and it was to prevent me from ever discovering them, that they obliged the general to order me back to Italy, and promise me, in their name, a free pardon if I complied, but to confine me for life it' I did not comply with the order.

"Upon the receipt of the general’s kind letter, the rector was of opinion, that I should repair by all means, and without loss of time, to England, not only as the safest asylum I could fly to in my present situation, but as a place where I should soon recover my native language, and be usefully employed, as soon as I recovered it, either there or in Scotland. I readily closed with the rector’s opinion, being very uneasy in my mind, as my old doubts in point of religion daily gained ground, and new ones aroseupon my reading, which was my only employment, :the books of controversy I found in the library of the college. The place being thus agreed on, and it being at the same time settled between the rector and me that I should set out the very next morning, I solemnly promised, at his request and desire, to take no notice, after my arrival in England, of his having been any ways privy to my flight, or of the general’s letter to him. This promise I have faithfully and honourably observed; and I should have thought myself guilty of the blackest ingratitude if I had not observed it, being sensible that, had it been known at Rome that either the rector or general had been accessary to my flight, the inquisition would have resented it severely on both. For though a Jesuit in France or in Germany is out of the reach of the inquisition, the general is not; and the high tribunal not only have it in their power to punish the general himself, who resides constantly at Rome, but may oblige hiuri to inflict what punishment they please on any of the order obnoxious to them.

This is the narrative which, after thirty years, Mr. Bower gave the public as a genuine account. Whether owing to the inaccuracy of those who had formerly heard it, to the variations to which a tale frequently repeated is always liable, or to the neglect of veracity in the writer, it certainly differed from accounts which had been orally given by him too much not to furnish some suspicions of the author. On his arrival in England it appears to have been his first object to procure att introduction to some persons of respectability in the country destined for his’ future residence. He had heard of Dr. Aspinwall soon after his arrival; and that divine having formerly belonged to the order of Jesuits, he waited on him, and was kindly received. By this gentleman he was introduced to Dr. Clarke; and to them both he opened, as he says, his mind, without disguise, respecting his doubts relative to his faith. After several conferences with these gentlemen, and some with Berkeley, the bishop of Cloyne, then dean of Londonderry, added to his own reading and reasoning, he obtained, as he says, the fullest conviction that many of the favourite doctrines of Rome were not only evidently repugnant to scripture and reason, but wicked, blasphemous, and utterly inconsistent with the attributes of the supreme and infinite being. He therefore withdrew himself from the communion of the church without further delay, took leave of the provincial, quitted the order, and broke off all connection with those of the communion. This happened in the month of November, 1726.

By Dr. Aspinwall’s means he was introduced to all that gentleman’s friends and acquaintance; and among others to Dr. Goodman (physician to king George the first), who procured him to be recommended to lord Aylmer, who wanted a person to assist him in reading the classics. With this nobleman he continued several years on terms of the greatest intimacy; and was by him made known to all his lordship’s connections, and particularly to the family of lord Lyttelton, who afterwards became his warm, steady, and to the last, when deserted by almost every other person, his unalterable friend.

Being thus disengaged from his literary employment, though he had not then received back his money from the Jesuits, he, on the 25th of March 1747, put forth the proposals for his “History of the Popes;” a work, winch, he says, he undertook some years since at Rome, and then brought it down to the pontificate of Victor, that is, to the close of the second century. In the execution of this work at that period he professes to have received the first unfavourable sentiments of the pope’s supremacy. On the 13th of May 1748, he presented to the king the first volume; and on the death of Mr. Say, keeper of queen Caroline’s library (10th of September), one of his friends (Mr. Lyttelton, afterwards lord Lyttelton) applied to Mr. Pelham for that place for him, and obtained it. The next year, 1749, on the 4th of August, he married a niece of bishop Nicolson, and daughter of a clergyman of the church of England, a younger son of a gentleman’s family in Westmoreland, who had a fortune of 4000l. sterling, and then had a child by a former husband; which child he afterwards deposed on oath was no way injured by his marriage. He had been engaged in a treaty of marriage, which did not take effect, in 1745. In 1751, the second volume of the History of the Popes made its appearance. In the same year, 1751, Mr. Bower published by way of supplement to his second volume, seventeen sheets, which were delivered to his subscribers gratis; and about the latter end of 1753 he produced a third volume, which brought down his history to the death of pope Stephen, in 757. His constant friend Mr. Lyttelton, at this time become a baronet, in April 1754 appointed him clerk of the buck warrants, instead of Henry Read, esq. who held that place under the earl of Lincoln. This office was probably of no great emolument. His appointment to it, however, serves to shew the credit he was in with his patron.

It was in this year the first serious attack was made upon him on account of his “History of the Popes,” in a pamphlet printed at Douay, entitled “Remarks on the two first volumes of the late Lives of the Popes. In letters from a gentleman to a friend in the country,” 8vo; and written, as Mr. Bower asserted, by a popish priest, Butler, one of the most active and dangerous emissaries of Rome in this kingdom. His correspondence with the Jesuits at last came to light; and falling into the hands of a person who possessed both the sagacity to discover, and the industry to pursueand drag to public notice the practices of our historian, the warfare began in 1756, and ended in the total disgrace of Mr. Bower. After a careful perusal of the controversy, a list of which is here added in a note, we are compelled to believe that our author (who, shocking as it may be to observe, made an affidavit, denying the authenticity of letters we think fully proved) was clearly convicted of the material charges alleged against him. He repelled the attack, however, made on him, with great spirit; and continued to assert his innocence, and to charge his enemies with foul practices, long after his <c History of the Popes," as well as his own veracity, had fallen into contempt. We find, in the course of this controversy, he ran some hazard of being brought on the stage by Mr. Garrick, on account of the manner in which he mentioned that incomparable actor and his lady in one of his works.

Whether through the neglect of the work by the public, or his age, declining abilities, or to whatever other cause it is to be ascribed, the remainder of his history did not make its appearance until just before the author’s death, when the sixth and seventh volumes were published together, and these in so hasty and slovenly a manner, that the whole period from 16OO to 1758 was comprehended in twenty-six pages. He died on the 3d September 1766, at the age of eighty years, and was buried in Mary-le-bone church-yard, with an inscription maintaining his purity and innocence. By his will, made on the 1st of August 1749, which does not contain, as might be expected, any declaration of his religious principles , he bequeathed all his property to his wife, who, some time after his death, attested his having died in the protestant faith

, an ingenious scholar, who, from his Attachment to Spanish literature, was usually called by his friends Don Bowle, was a descendant from Dr. John Bowle, bishop of Rochester in the early part of the seventeenth century. He was born in 1725, and educated at Oriel college, Oxford, where he took his master’s degree in 1750, and having entered into holy orders, was presented to the vicarage of Idmiston, Wiltshire. In 1776 he was elected F. S. A. He was a man of great erudition, and muca respected for his various researches in antiquity, and varios other lucubrations in obscure literature. He had the honour or being one of the first detectors of Lauder’s forgeries, and according to Dr. Douglas’s account, had the juste-st claim to be considered as the original detector o! thai unprincipled impostor. In 1765, he was editor of “Miscellaneous pieces of ancient English Poesie,” containing Shakspeare’s “King John,” and some of the satires of Marston. To a very accurate and extensive fund of classical learning, he had added a comprehensive knowledge of most of the modern languages, particularly of the Spanish, Italian, and French; and in the course of his reading contracted a fondness for Cervantes’ admirable romance, which could scarcely be said to be kept within reasonable bounds. Don Quixote himself did not sally forth with more enthusiasm than Mr. Bowie, when in 1777 he published “A Letter to the rev. Dr. Percy, concerning a new and classical edition of Historia del valoroso CavaU lero Don Quixote de la Mancha, to be illustrated by annotations and extracts from the historians, poets, and romances of Spain and Italy, and other writers ancient and modern, with a glossary and indexes, in which are occasionally interspersed some reflections on the learning and genius of the author, with a map of Spain adapted to the history, and to every translation of it,” 4to. He gave also an outline of the life of Cervantes in the Gent. Mag. for 1731, and circulated proposals to print the work hy subscription at three guineas each copy. It appeared accordingly in 1781, in six quarto volumes, the first four consisting of the text, the fifth of the annotations, and the sixth is wholly occupied by the index, but the work did not answer his expectations. The literary journals were either silent or spoke slightingly of his labours; and the public sentiment seemed to be that annotations on Cervantes were not quite so necessary as on Shakspeare. He appears, however, to have taken some pains to introduce them to the public in a favourable light. In 1784 (Gent. Mag. LIV. p. 565) we find him lamenting certain “unfair practices respecting the admission of an account of the work into two periodical publications to which he had some reason to think he was entitled.” He adds, that the perpetrators of these practices were “a false friend, and another, whose encomium he should regard as an affront and real slander the one as fond of the grossest flattery, as the other ready to give it, and both alike wholesale dealers in abuse and detraction.” Nor was this all; in 1785 he published “Remarks on the extraordinary conduct of the Knight of the Ten Stars and his Italian Squire, to the editor of Don Quixote. In a letter to I. S. D. D.” 8vo. This produced an answer from the “Italian Squire,” Baretti, not of the most gentleman-like kind, entitled “Tolondron. Speeches to John Bowie, about his edition of Don Quixote,” 8vo, 1786, and with this the controversy ended. Mr. Bowie contributed many valuable hints and corrections to Granger’s History, and many criticisms and illustrations to Johnson and Steevens’s edition of Shakspeare, and Warton’s History of Poetry. His course of reading well qualified him for literary aid of this description. In the Archaeologia, vol. VI. VII. and VIII. are four papers by him, on the ancient pronunciation of the French language; on some musical instruments mentioned in “Le Roman de la Rose;” on parish registers; and on cards. He was also, under various signatures, a frequent contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine, but as a divine he was not known to the public. He died Oct. 26, 1788.

, the most learned English printer of whom we have any account, was born in Dogwelt-court, White Fryars, London, on the 19th of December, 1699. His father, whose name was also William, was of distinguished eminence in the same profession; and his maternal grandfather (Thomas Dawks) was employed in printing the celebrated Polyglott Bible of bishop Walton. At a proper age, he was placed, for grammatical education, under the care of Mr. Ambrose Bonwicke, a non-juring clergyman of known piety and learning, who then lived at Headley, near Leatherhead in Surrey. Here Mr. Bowyer made such advances in literature as reflected the highest credit both on himself and his preceptor; for whose memory, to his latest years, he entertained the sincerest respect; and to whose family he always remained an useful friend. The attachment, indeed, was mutual; and the following instance of the good school-master’s benevolence made an indelible impression on the mind of his pupil. On the 30th of January, 1712-13, the whole property of the elder Mr. Bowyer was destroyed by a dreadful fire; on which occasion, Mr. Bonwicke, with great generosity, and no less delicacy (endeavouring to conceal its being his own act of kindness), took upon him, for one year, the expences of his scholar’s board and education. In June 1716, young Mr. Bowyer was admitted as a sizar at St. John’s college, Cambridge, of which Dr. Robert Jenkin was at that time master. The doctor had been a benefactor to the elder Mr. Bowyer in the season of his calamity; and the son, at the distance of sixty years, had the happiness of returning the favour to a relation of the worthy master, in a manner by which the person obliged was totally ignorant to whom he was indebted for the present he received, Mr. Bowyer continued at Cambridge under the tuition, first, of Dr. Anstey, and afterwards of the rev. Dr. John Nevvcome, till June 1722, during which time he obtained Roper’s exhibition, and wrote, in 1719, what he called “Epistola pro Sodalitio a rev. viro F. Roper mihi legato;” but it does not appear that he took his degree of bachelor of arts. Notwithstanding an habitual shyness of disposition, which was unfavourable to him at his first appearance, the regularity of his conduct, and his application to study, procured him the esteem of many very respectable members of the university. Here it was that he formed an intimacy with Mr. Markland and Mr. Clarke, two learned friends with whom he maintained a regular correspondence through life and their letters contain a treasure of polite literature and sound criticism. On the death of Mr. Bonwicke, his grateful scholar had an opportunity of requiting, in some measure, the obligations he had received, by officiating, for a time, in the capacity of a schoolmaster, for the benefit of the family; but before this, he had entered into the printing business, together with his father, in June 1722; and one of the first bucks which received the benefit of his correction, was the complete edition of Selden by Dr. David Wilkins, in three volumes, folio. This edition was begun in 1722, and finished in 1726; and Mr. Bowyer’s great attention to it appeared in his drawing up an epitome of Selden “de Synedriis,” as he read the proof-sheets, and tue several memoranda from “The privileges of the Baronage” and “Judicature in Parliament,” &c. which are now printed in his “Miscellaneous Tracts.” In 1727, the learned world was indebted to him for nn admirable sketch of William Baxter’s Glossary of the Roman Antiquities. The sketch was called “A View of a Book, entitled, * Reliquiae Baxtevianae.' In a Letter to a Friend;” a single sheet, 8vo. Very few copies were printed; and, having never been published, it is seldom found with the Glossary; but it was reprinted in the “Miscellaneous Tracts.” Dr. Wotton and Mr. Clarke were highly pleased with this first public proof given by Mr. Bowyer of his literary abilities. On the 20th of December, 1727, he lost an affectionate mother, upon which occasion he received a letter of pious consolation, from Mr. Chishull, the learned editor of the “Antiquitates Asiaticae.”

Though it is not our intention to notice the works printed by Mr. Bowyer, excepting when he himself contributed to them by prefaces, notes, or other additions, yet we shall mention his having been the printer, in 1742, of the additional book of the Dunciad; as he received, on this occasion, testimonies of regard both from the great poet and his learned commentator. Among other friendly expressions of Dr. Warburton, he says, “I have never more pleasure when there (in London), than when I loll and talk with you at my ease, de qualibet ente, in your diningroom:” And again, “The Greek I know will be well printed in your edition, notwithstanding the absence of Senblerus” The same celebrated writer had long before told Mr. Bowyer, “No one’s thoughts will have greater weight with me than your own, in whom I have experienced so much candour, goodness, and learning.” It is not, however, to be concealed, that a difference afterwards arose between them, in which, as is commonly the case, each party was confident that he was right. Mr. Bowyer, who thought himself slighted, used often to remark, that, “after the death of the English Homer, the letters of his learned friend wore a different complexion.” “But, perhaps,” as Mr, Nichols candidly and judiciously observes, “this may be one of the many instances, which occur through, life, of the impropriety of judging for ourselves in cases which affect our interest or our feelings.” Mr. Bowyer, indeed, had a great sensibility of temper with regard to any neglects which were shewed him by his literary friends, in the way of his business. This did not proceed from a principle of avarice, but from a consciousness of the respect which was due to him from his acquaintance, as the first of his profession: for he expressed his resentment as strongly in cases where profit could be no material object, as he did in more important instances. Dr. Squire, then, dean of Bristol, not having appointed him to print a sermon which had been preached before the house of commons, on the general fast day, Feb. 13, 1761, Mr. Bowyer wrote to the doctor, upon the occasion, an expostulatory letter. Nor was this the only evidence he gave how much he was offended, when he thought that a slight had been put upon him from a quarter where he imagined he had a natural claim to favour.

In 1744, Mr. Bowyer is supposed to have written a small pamphlet on the present state of Europe, taken principally from Pufendorff. In 1746, he projected, what during his whole life he had in view, a regular edition of Cicero’s Letters, in a chronological order, on a plan which it is to be lamented that he did not complete; as an uniform series thus properly arranged would have formed a real history of Tully’s life, and those which cannot be dated might be thrown to the end without any inconvenience. In the same year he published “The Life of the Emperor Julian,” translated from the French of M. Bleterie, and improve^ with twelve pages of curious notes, and a genealogical table. The notes were not entirely Mr. Bowyer’s, but were drawn up, in part, by Mr. Clarke and other learned men. The translation, by Miss Anne Williams (Dr. Johnson’s inmate), and the two sisters of the name of Wilkinson, was made under Mr. Bowyr’s immediate inspection. In this year also, he printed, and is supposed to have assisted in thp composition of, “A Dissertation, in which the objections of a late pampinet (by bishop Ross) to the writings of the anci nits, after the mariner of Mr. Maryland, are clearly answered: those passages in Tuily corrected, on which some of the objections are founded; with Amendments of a few pieces of criticism in Mr. Maryland’s Epistola Critica,” 8vo. On the 2d of August, 1747, Mr. Bowyer entered a second time into the matrimonial state, with a most benevolent and worthy woman, Mrs. Elizabeth Bill, by whom he had no children. In 1750, he had the honour of sharing, with Dr. Burton, in the invectives most liberally bestowed by Dr. King, in his “Elogium Famse inserviens Jacci Etouensis, sive Gigantis: or, the Praises of Jack of Eaton, commonly called Jack the Giant.” Dr. King’s abuse was probably owing to his having heard that our learned printer had hinted, in conversation, his doubts concerning the doctor’s Latiriity. Mr. Bowyer drew up strictures in his own defence, which he intended to insert at the conclusion of a preface to Montesquieu’s Reflections, &c.; but, in consequence ol Mr. Clarke’s advice, they were omitted. In the same year, a prefatory critical dissertation, and some valuable notes, were annexed, by our author, to Kuster’s Treatise “De vero usu Verborum Mediorum;” a new edition of which work, with further improvements, appeared in 1773. He wrote, likewise, about the same time, a Latin preface to Leedes’s “Veteres Poeta? citati, &c.” Being soon after employed to print an edition of colonel Bladen’s translation of Cæsar’s Commentaries, that work received considerable improvements from. Mr. Bowyer’s hands, and the addition of such notes in it as are signed Typogr. In the subsequent editions of this work, though printed by another person, and in our author’s life-time, the same signature, contrary to decorum, and even justice, was still retained. In 1751, he wrote a long preface to Montesquieu’s “Reflections on the Rise and Fall of the Rouian Empire;” translated the Dialogue between Sylla and Socrates; made several corrections to the work from the Baron’s “Spirit of Laws,” and improved it with his own notes. A new edition, with many; new notes, was printed in 1759. He gave likewise to the public, in 1751, with a preface, the first translation that was made of Rousseau’s paradoxical oration on the effects of the arts and sciences, which gained the prize at the academy of Dijon, in 1750; and which first announced that singular genius to the attention and admiration of Europe. On the publication of the third edition of lord Orrery’s “Remarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. Swift,” in 1752, Mr. Bowyer wrote and printed, but never published, “Two Letters from Dr. Bentley in the shades below, to lord Orrery in a land of thick darkness.” The notes signed B, in the ninth quarto volume of Swift’s works, are extracted from these Letters, which are reprinted at large in his “Tracts.” In 1752, when Bp. Clayton published his “Vindication of the Histories of the Old and New Testament, in answer to the Objections of Lord Bolingbroke,” Mr. Bowyer drew up an analysis of the same, with an intention of sending it to the Gentleman’s Magazine: it is now printed in Mr. Nichols’s “Anecdotes.” In 1753, to allay the ferment occasioned by the Jew bill, he published, in quarto, “Remarks on a Speech made in Common Council, on the Bill for permitting persons professing the Jewish Religion to be naturalized, so far as Prophecies are supposed to be affected by it.” The design of this sensible little tract, which was written with spirit, and well received by those who were superior to narrow prejudices, was to shew, that whatever political reasons might be alleged against the Bill, Christianity would in no degree be prejudiced by the indulgence proposed to be gVanted to the Jews. In the same year, some of Mr. Bowyer’s notes were annexed to bishop Clayton’s translation of “A Journal from Grand Cairo to Mount Sinai, and back again.” In 1754, with a view of lessening his fatigue, he entered into partnership with a relation; but some disagreements arising, the connection was dissolved in 1757, and he resumed the active part of business. In 1760 he superintended a second edition of Arnald’s “Commentary on the Book of Wisdom,” and enriched it with the remarks of Mr. Markland. Upon the death of Mr. Richardson, in 1761, Mr. Bowyer, through the patronage of the late earl of Macclesfield, was appointed printer to the Royal Society; and, under the friendship of five successive presidents, had the satisfaction of continuing in that employment till his death. In the same year (1761), appeared “Verses on the Coronation of their late majesties, king George the Second and queen Caroline, October 4, 1727, spoken by the Scholars of Westminster school (some of them now the ornaments of the Nation) on January 15th following, being the Day of the Inauguration of Queen Elizabeth, their foundress with a Translation of all the Latin copies The whole placed in order of the transactions of that important day. Adorned with the Coronation Medals pf the Royal Pair, and a bust of our present king. To which is subjoined the Ceremonial of the august Procession, very proper to be compared with the approaching one; and a Catalogue of the Coronation Medals of the Kings and Queens of England.” The original part of this pamphlet, in which a great deal of humour is displayed, was entirely Mr. Bowyer' s: the Latin verses were translated partly by him, but principally by Mr. Nichols. Our learned printer’s next publication was of a more serious and weighty nature, an excellent edition of the Greek Testament, in two volumes, 1763, 12mo, under the following title: “Novum Testamentum Greecum, ad Fidem GrascorUm solum Codicum Mss. nunc primum expressum, adstipulante Joanne Jacobo Wetstenio, juxta Sectiones Jo. Albert! Bengelii divisum; et nova Interpunctione saepius illustratum. Accessere in altero Volumine Emendationes conjecturales virorum doctorum undecunque collectse.” This sold with great rapidity; though Mr. Bowyer, in his advertisements of it in the public papers, was pleased to add, that it boasted neither elegance of type nor paper, but trusted to other merits. The conjectural emendations are a very valuable addition to the Greek Testament, and were extremely well received by the learned. In a letter of thanks, from the president and fellows of Harvard college, in Cambridge, New-England, to Mr. Bowyer, in 1767, for several benefactions of his to that college, they express themselves as follows: “It is a particular pleasure to us to mention your very curious edition of the Greek Testament, in two volumes, with critical notes, and many happy conjectures, especially as to the punctuation, an affair of the utmost importance as to ascertaining the sense. This work, though small in bulk, we esteem as a rich treasure of sacred learning, and of more intrinsic value than many large volumes of the commentators.” A second edition of the Conjectures on the New Testament, with very considerable enlargements, was separately published, in one volume, 8vo, in 1772, a third in 4to, 1782, and a fourth from the interleaved -copy of Dr. Owen, which he bequeathed to the honourable and right reverend Dr. Shute Barrington, bishop of Durham, is just published (1812). Bishop Wavbnrton having censured apassage in the first edition, Mr. Bowyer sent him a copy of the second, with a conciliatory letter. In 1765, at the request of Thomas Hollis, esq. our learned printer wrote a short Latin preface to Dr. Wallis’s “Grammatica Linguae Anglicanse.” A larger English preface, which was written by him, and intended for that work, is printed in his “Tracts.” Some copies of this book were sent by him to the rev. Edward Clarke, when, chaplain to the earl of Bristol at Madrid, to be given to the Spanish literati. Towards the latter end of the same year, in consequence of overtures from a few respectable friends at Cambridge, Mr. Bowyer had some inclination to have undertaken the management of the University press, by purchasing a lease of its exclusive privileges. He went, accordingly, to Cambridge for this purpose; but the treaty proved fruitless, and he did not much regret the disappointment. In the beginning of 1766, by engaging in a partnership with Mr. Nichols, he was again enabled to withdraw, in some degree, from that close application, which had begun to be prejudicial to his health. His new associate had been trained by him to the profession, and had assisted him several years in the management of business. He was very happy in this connection; and it is unnecessary to add how successfully Mr. Nichols has trod in the steps of his worthy and learned friend and partner. In, that year (1766) Mr. Bowyer wrote an excellent Latin preface to “Joannis Harduini, Jesuitae, ad Censuram Scriptorum veterum Prolegomena; juxta Autographum.” In this preface he gives an account of the nature of the work, and of the manner in which it had been preserved. Mr. De Missy’s remarks on the celebrated Jesuit’s extraordinary production were published about the same time, in a letter to Mr. Bowyer, written in Latin. In 1767, he was appointed to print the Journals of the House of Lords, and the Rolls of Parliament. The noble peer to whom he was indebted for this appointment, and his gratitude to whom is testified in the inscription which he left behind him, to be placed in Stationers Hall, was the earl of Marchmont. Mr. Bowyer was now compelled, from the want of sufficient room, to exchange White Fryars for Red Lion-passage; and it was not without reluctance that he quitted a residence to which he had been accustomed from his infancy. His new printing-house was opened with the sign of his favourite Cicero’s Head: under which was inscribed, “M, T, Cicero, A Quo Primordia Preli,” in allusion to the well-known early editions of Tally’s Offices. Having printed this year Mr. Clarke’s excellent and learned work on “The Connexion of the Roman, Saxon, and English Coins,” he wrote some notes upon it, which are interspersed throughout the volume with those of the author. Part of the dissertation on the Roman Sesterce was, likewise, Mr. Bowyer’s production; and the index, which is an uncommonly good one, and on which he did not a little pride himself, was drawn up entirely by him. On the 14th of January, 177 J, he lost his second wife, who died at the age of seventy. His old friend, Mr. Clarke, who had administered consolation to him, on a similar occasion, nearly forty years before, again addressed him with tenderness on this event. In the Philosophical Transactions for 1771, was printed a very ingenious “Enquiry intothe value of the antient Greek and Roman Money,” by the late Matthew Raper, esq. The opinions advanced by this respectable gentleman, on these subjects, not coinciding with those of Mr. Bowyer, he printed a small pamphlet, entitled, “Remarks, occasioned by a late Dissertation on the Greek and Roman Money.” The pamphlet was intended as an appendix to Mr. Clarke’s Treatise on Coins. The opinions of many excellent writers in Germany and France having been ably controverted in that elaborate work, Mr. Bowyer transmitted a copy of it to the French king’s library, and inscribed his little appendix,

Mr. Bowyer had always been subject to a bilious colic; and during the last ten years of his life, he was afflicted with the palsy and the stone. But, notwithstanding these infirmities, he preserved, in general, a remarkable cheerfulness of disposition; and received great satisfaction from the conversation of a few literary friends, by whom he continued to be visited. The faculties of his mind, though somewhat impaired, were strong enough to support the labour of almost incessant reading, which had ever been his principal amusement; and he regularly corrected the learned works, and especially the Greek books, which came from his press. This he did till within a very few weeks of his death; which happened on the 18th of November, 1777, when he had nearly completed his 78th year. The publications of Mr. Bowyer are an incontrovertible evidence of his abilities and learning; to which may be added that he was honoured with the friendship and patronage of many of the most distinguished ornaments of his age. We already have had occasion to mention the earls of Macclesfield and Marchmont, Dr. Wotton, Mr. Pope, Mr. Chishull, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Markland, bishop Warburton, the right honourable Arthur Onslow, Mr. Hollis, Dr. Salter, Mr, De Missy, Dr. Owen, and Dr. Heberden. To these, among other respectable names, might be added those of archbishop Seeker, bishop Kennett, bishop Tanner, bishop Sherlock, bishop Hoadly, bishop Lyttelton, bishop Pearce, bishop Lowth, bishop Barrington, bishop Hurd, bishop Percy, lord Lyttelton, lord Sandys, dean Prideaux, doctors Robert and John Freind, dean Freind, dean Milles, the very learned Dr. Taylor, chancellor of Lincoln, Dr. Barnard, Dr. Powell, Dr. Wilkins, Mr. Maittaire, Messrs. R. and S. Gale, Mr. Browne Willis, Mr. Spelman, Mr. Morant, Dr. Ducarel, Dr. Pegge, Mr. Garrick, and most of the distinguished scholars and antiquaries of his time. His connec^ tion with the late eminent and excellent Richard Gough, esq. so well known by his acquaintance with British topography and antiquities, is apparent from his last will; where his obligations to Dr. Jenkin, dean Stanhope, and Mr. Nelson, are acknowledged. The late excellent Dr. Robert Clayton, bishop of Clogher, so highly esteemed his friendship, that he not only honoured him by a regular epistolary intercourse, but presented him with the copy-right of all his valuable writings. Mr. Bowyer stood unrivalled, for more than half a century, as a learned printer; and some of the most masterly productions of this kingdom have undoubtedly appeared from his press. To his literary and professional abilities, he added an excellent moral character. His regard to religion was displayed in his publications, and in the course of his life and studies; and he was particularly distinguished by his inflexible probity, and an uncommon alacrity in assisting the necessitous. His liberality in relieving every species of distress, and his endeavours to conceal his benefactions, reflect great honour on his memory. Though he was naturally fond of retirement, and seldom entered into company, excepting with men of letters, he was, perhaps, excelled by few in the talent of justly discriminating the real characters of mankind. He judged of the persons he saw by a sort of intuition; and his judgments were generally right. From a consciousness of literary superiority, he did not always pay that particular attention tQ the booksellers which was expedient in the way of his business. Too proud to solicit the favours in that way which he believed to be his due, he was often disappointed in his expectations. On the other hand, he' frequently experienced friendships in cases where he had much less reason to have hoped for them so that, agreeably to his own expression, “in what he had received, and what he had fyeen denied, he thankfully acknowledged the will of Heaven.” The two great objects of Mr. Bowyer’s view, in the decline of his life, were to repay the benefactions his father had met with, and to be himself a benefactor to the meritorious of his own profession. These purposes are fully displayed in his last will: for which reason, and because it illustrates the turn of his mind in other respects, we shall insert it at large. After a liberal provision for his son, among other legacies are these “I likewise give to my son all my plate; except the small silver cup which was given to my father (after his loss by fire) by Mrs. James, and which I give to the Company of Stationers in London, hoping they will preserve it as a memorial. Having committed my body to the earth, I would testify my duty and gratitude to my few relations and numerous benefactors after my father’s loss by fire. I give and bequeath to my cousin Scott, lately of Westminster, brewer, and to his sister, fifty pounds each. I give and bequeath to my relations Mr. Thomas Linley and his wife one thousand pounds four per cent, consolidated annuities, to be transferred to them, or to the survivor of them; and which I hope they will take care to settle, at their deaths, for the benefit of their son and daughter. I give to the two sons and one daughter of the late reverend Mr. Maurice of Gothenburgh iuSweden, who married the only daughter of Mr. Richard Williamson, bookseller (in return for her father’s friendship to mine), one thousand pounds four per cent, consolidated annuities, to be divided equally between them. Among my father’s numerous benefactors, there is not, that I can hear of, one alive: to several of them I made an acknowledgement. But one respectable body I am still indebted to, the University of Cambridge; to whom I give, or rather restore, the sum of fifty pounds, in return for the donation of forty pounds made to my father at the motion of the learned and pious master of Saint John’s college, doctor Robert Jenkin: to a nephew of his I have already given another fifty pounds, as appears by his receipt of the thirty-first of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy. The benefactions which my father received from Oxford I can only repay with gratiiude; as he received them, not from the university as a body, but from particular members. I give thirty pounds to the dean and chapter of Canterbury, in gratitude for the kindness of the worthy doctor Stanhope (sometime dean of Canterbury) to my father; the remembrance of which amongst the proprietors of his works I have long out-lived, as I have experienced by not being employed to print them: the like I might say of the works of Mr. Nelson, another respectable friend and patron of my father’s, and of many others. I give to doctor William Heberden my little cabinet of coins, with H ickes’s Thesau rus, Tristan, and the odd volume, Spanheim’s Numismata, Harduin’s Opera Selecta, in folio, Nummi Populorum et Urbium, in quarto, and any other of my books he chooses to accept: to the reverend doctor Henry Owen, such of my Hebrew books and critical books on the New Testament, as he pleases to take: to Richard Gough, esq. in like manner, my books on topographical subjects: to Mr. John Nichols, all books that relate to Cicero, Livy, and the Roman history, particularly the * Cenotaphia' of Noris and Pighius, my grammars and dictionaries, with Swift’s and Pope’s works: to my son, whatever books (not described above) he thinks proper to take. And now I hope I may be allowed to leave somewhat for the benefit of printing. To this end, I give to the master and keepers or wardens and commonalty of the mystery or art of a stationer of the city of London, such a sum of money as will purchase two thousand pounds three per cent, reduced Bank annuities, upon trust, to pay the dividends and yearly produce thereof, to be divided for ever equally amongst three printers, compositors or pressmen, to be elected from time to time by the master, wardens, and assistants, of the said company, and who at the time of such election shall be sixty-three years old or upwards, for their respective lives, to be paid half-yearly; hoping that such as sha.ll be most deserving will be preferred. And whereas I have herein before given to my son the sum of three thousand pounds four per cent, consolidated annuities, in case he marries with the consent of my executors: Now, I do hereby give and bequeath the dividends and interest of that sum, till such marriage take place, to the said company of stationers to be divided equally between six other printers, compositors or pressmen, as aforesaid, in manner as aforesaid; and, if my said son shall die unmarried, or married without such consent as aforesaid, then I give and bequeath the said capital sum of three thousand pounds to the company of stationers, the dividends and yearly produce thereof to be divided for ever equally amongst six other such old printers, compositors or pressmen, for their respective lives, to be qualified, chosen, and paid in manner as aforesaid. It has long been to me matter of concern, that such numbers are put apprentices as compositors without any share of school-learning, who ought to have the greatest: in hopes of remedying this, I give and bequeath to the said company of stationers such a sum of money as will purchase one thousand pounds three per cent, reduced bank annuities, for the use of one journeyman compositor, such as shall hereafter be described; with this special trust, that the master, wardens, and assistants, shall pay the dividends and produce thereof half-yearly to such compositor: the said master, wardens, and assistants of the said company, shall nominate for this purpose a compositor who is a man of good life and conversation, who shall usually frequent some place of public worship every Sunday unless prevented by sickness, and shall not have worked on a newspaper or magazine for four years at least before such nomination, nor shall ever afterwards whilst he holds this annuity, which may be for life, if he continues a journeyman; he shall be able to read and construe Latin, and at least to read Greek fluently with accents; f which he shall bring a testimonial from the rector of St. Martin’s Ludgate for the time being: I could wish that he shall have been brought up piously and virtuously, if it be possible, at Merchant Taylors, or some other public school, from seven years of age till he is full seventeen, and then to serve seven years faithfully as a compositor, and work seven years more as a journeyman, as I would not have this annuity bestowed on any one under thirty -one years of age: if after he is chosen he should behave ill, let him be turned out, and another be chosen in his stead. And whereas it may be many years before a compositor may be found that shall exactly answer the above description, and it may at some times happen that such a one cannot be found; I would have the dividends in the mean time applied to such person as the master, wardens, and assistants, shall think approaches nearest to what I have described. And whereas the above trusts will occasion some trouble: I give to the said company, in case they think proper to accept the trusts, two hundred and fifty pounds.” It is almost superfluous to add, that the trust was accepted, and is properly executed.

Early in 1778, Mr. Nichols printed twenty copies of some short “Biographical Memoirs of Mr. Bowyer,” an octavo pamphlet of fifty-two pages, which were given in presents to his friends, and reprinted in the Gent. Mag. vol. XLVIII. These memoirs, although interesting in themselves, were not sufficient to grat:fy the friends and contemporaries of Mr. Bowyer, who foresaw that, with continued industry and research, Mr. Nichols might erect a more sumptuous monument to the memory of his learned predecessor. Accordingly from many valuable materials in his possession, and the aid of some literary friends, he produced in 1782, in a handsome quarto volume, closely printed, “Biographical and Literary Anecdotes of William Bowyer, Printer, F. S. A. and of many of his learned friends, containing au incidental view of the progress and advancement of literature in this kingdom from the beginning of the present century to the end of the year 1777.” The importance of this work was soon acknowledged by men of learning and curiosity. It contained memoirs of several hundreds of eminent scholars who had been unnoticed or imperfectly notice;! in biographical compilations, and opened so many new and rich sources of information and inquiry, that the author was further urged to extend his labours, and improve upon his own plan so as to include a larger portion of literary history. With this view, during the intervals he could spare from an extensive business, and the publication of many useful works, among which his elaborate ‘ History of Leicestershire’ stands prominent, amidst too his indefatigable attention to the affairs of the corporation of London, of which he was for many years a distinguished member, he was enabled in the present year to publish a new edition of his Memoirs of Bowyer, under the title of “Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century; comprizing Biographical Memoirs of William Bowyer,” &c. extended to six copious and closely printed volumes in octavo, illustrated by a series of engraved portraits. Of this work the editor of this Dictionary, or of any compilation of the kind, cannot speak without gratitude. It will appear, indeed, by our references, that our obligations are numerous and important, nor should we be content with this brief acknowledgment, but from a motive of delicacy, it being known to our readers that the author to whom we are so much indebted is at the same time the medium of conveying our praises to the public. We cannot help adding, however, that where we refer to Mr. Nichols’s “Anecdotes,” we wish it to be understood that it is for the purpose of more ample information than we have usually extracted, and that no book has perhaps ever been published in this or any country by which literary curiosity is so much excited, or so pleasingly gratified.

, an eminent philologer, historian, and antiquary, born Sept. 12, 1612, was the son of James Zuerius, minister at Bergen-op-Zoom, by Anne Boxhorn, the daughter of Henry Boxhorn, a minister of Breda, originally a Roman Catholic, but who embracing the reformed religion, became minister first in the duchy of Cleves, then at Woorden in Holland, and lastly at Breda, which place he left in 1625 when the Spaniards took it, and retired to Leyden: here he superintended the education of his grandson, the subject of the present article, who lost his father when only six years old, and as he had no male children, gave young Zuerius his name of Boxhorn. Under his tuition, the youth made great progress in his studies, and in 1629 published some good poetry on the taking of Boisleduc, and some other victories which the Dutch had gained. This was when he was only seventeen years old, and he was but twenty when he published some more considerable works, as will appear in our list, which induced the curators of the university of Leyden in the same year, 1632, to promote him to the professorship of eloquence. His reputation extending, chancellor Oxenstiern, the Swedish ambassador, made him great offers in queen Christina’s name, but preferring a residence in his own country, he was afterwards appointed professor of politics and history in the room of Daniel Heinsius, now disabled by age. For some time he carried on a controversy with Salmasius, but they were afterwards apparently reconciled. Besides his numerous works, he contributed frequently to the labours of his learned friends: his career, however, was short, as he died, after a tedious illness, at Leyden, Oct. 3, 1653, at the age of only forty -one. How industriously this time was employed will appear from the following list of his publications. 1. “Poemata,” 1629, 12mo. 2. “Granatarum encomium,” Amsterdam, 1631, 4to. 3. “Historian Augustas Scriptores,” a new edition with his notes, Leyden, 1631, 4 vols. 12mo, which Harwood calls beautiful but incorrect. 4. “Theatrum, sive Descriptio Comitatus et Urbium Hollandiae,” ibid. 1632, 4to. and translated into German the!-ame year by Peter Montanus. 5. An edition of “Plinii Panegyricus,” Leyden, 1632 and 1648, Amsterdam, 1649, 12mo. 6. A nimadversiones ad Suetonium Tranquillum,“Leyden, 1632 and 1645, 12mo. 7.” Poetae Satiric! minores, cum Commentariis,“ibid. 1632, 8vo. 8.” Respublica Leodiensium,“ibid. 1633, 24mo. 9.” Apologia pro Navigationibus Hollandorum, adversus Pontum Heuterum,“ibid. 1633, 24mo, and reprinted at London, 1636, 8vo. 10.” Emblemata Politica, et Dissertationes Politicae,“Amsterdam, 1634 and 1651, 12mo. 11.” Julii Csesaris Opera, cum commentariis variorum,“ibid. 16:34, fol. 12.” Grammatica regia, &c. pro Christina Succor um regina,“Holm. 1635, 12nio, Leyden, 1650. 13.” Catonis Disticha, Gr. Lat. cum Notis,“Leyden, 1635, 8vo. 14.” Orationes duae de vera Nobilitate et ineptiis sseculi,“ibid. 1635, fol. 15.” Oratio inauguralis de maj estate eioqueuti Romanae,“ibid. 1636, 4to. 16. 44 Orationes Tres, de theologia paganorum, fabulis poetarum, et animarum immortalitate,” ibid. 1636, 4to. 17. “Oratio funebris in obitum Dominici Molini,” ibid. 1636, fol. 18. “Character causarum Patroni,” ibid. 1637, 4to. 19. ' Character Amoris,“ibid. 1637, 4to. 20.” Panegyricus Principi Fred. Henrico, post Bred am oppugnatam dictus,“Leyden, 1637, fol. 21.” Quaestiones Roman se, cum Plutarchi qucetionibus Romanis, commentario uberrimo explicatis,“ibid. 1637, 4to, and reprinted in Graevius, vol. V. 22.” Monumenta illustrium virorum seri incisa et elogia,“ibid. 1633, fol. 23.” JuStinus, cum notis,“Amsterdam, 1638. 24.” Panegyricus in classem Hispanorum profligatam,“Leyden, 1639, fol. 25.” Oratio de Somniis,“ibid. 1639, 4to. 26.” Historia obsidionis Bredanae, &c.“ibid. 1640, fol. 27.” De Typographies artis inventione et inventoribus, Dissertatio,“ibid. 1640, 4to. In this he is inclined to think that the art of printing was first discovered at Haerlem, and not at Mentz, as he first supposed. 28. “Dissertatio de Trapezitis, vulgo Longobardis,” ibid. 1640, 8vo, and Groningen, 1658, 4to. 29. “Panegyricus in Nuptias principis Arausionensium Gulielmi, et Mariae, Britanniae regis filiae,” Leyden, 1641, fol. 30.” Oratio in excessum Cornelii Vander Myle,“ibid. 1642, fol. 31.” Oratio qua Ser. Henricae Mariae, magnae Britannise reginae urbem Leydensem subeuntis adventum veneratur,“ibid. 1642, fol. This compliment to our exiled queen, and a subsequent publication, Bayle informs us, was disliked by some republicans. 32.” Oratio in excessum principis Const. Alexandri,“ibid. 1642, fol. 33.” Commentarius in vitam Agricolae Corn. Taciti,“ibid. 1642, 12mo, and an Apology for this edition,” adversus Dialogistam,“Amsterdam, 1643, 12mo. 34.” Animadversiones in Corn. Taciturn, Amsterdam,“1643, and often reprinted. 35. The Belgic History to the time of Charles V. in Dutch, Leyden, 1644, 1649, 4to. 36.” Chronicon Zelandiae,“Middleburgh, 1644, 4to. 37. On the worship of the goddess Nehalennia, in Dutch, Leyden, 1647, 4to. 38.” Plinii Epistolae cum ejus Panegyrico,“ibid. 1648, and Amsterdam, 1659, 12mo. 39.” Dissertatio de Amnestia,“ibid. 1648, 12mo. 40.” Dissertatio de successione etjure primogenitorum, in adeundo principatu, ad Carolum II. Magnse Britanniae regem,“ibid. 1649, 4to. 41.” De Majestate Regum, Principumque liber singularis,“a defence of the former, ibid. 1649, 4to. 42.”Com.mentariolusde Statu Fcederatarum Provinciarum Belgii, Hague, 1649. Somi offence taken by the States of Holland obliged the author to alter part of this work in the edition 1650. 43. “Oratio funebris in excessum Adriani Falkoburgii Med. Doct.” Leyden, 1650, 4to. 44. “Hayraonis Hist, ecclesiastics Breviarium,” ibid. 1650, 12mo. 45. “Disquisitiones Politicae, ex omni historia selectae,” Hague, 1654, Erfurt, 1664, 12mo. 46. “Dissertatio de Groecse, Romanae, et Germanics? Linguarum harmonia,” Leyden, 1650. 47. “Historia Universalis Sacra et Profana a nato Christo ad annum 1650,” ibid. 1651, 1652, 4to, and Leipsic, 1675, 4to. Mencke, the continuator, speaks of this as an excellent account of theorigin and rights of nations. 48. “Orationes varii argumenti,” Amst. 1651, 12mo. 49. “Oratio in excessum Gul. principis Arausiee, comitis Nassovii, Leyd. 1651, fol. 50.” Metamorphosis Anglorurn,“Hague, 1653, 12mo. 51.” Originum Gallicaruna liber,“Amst. 1654, 4to. This critical history of ancient Gaul procured him much reputation. He was employed on it in his latter days, but did not live to publish it. The following are also posthumous 52.” Ideae orationum e selection materia modern! status politici desumptae,“Leyden, 1657, ]2mo, and Leipsic, 1661, 12mo. 53.” Institutionum seu disquisitionum Politicarum Libri Duo,“Leipsic, 1659, Amst. 1663. 54.” Chronologia sacra et prophana,“edited by Bosius, Francf. 1660, fol. 55.” Epistolae et Poemata,“Amst. 1662, 12mo, with his life written by James Baselius, a Calvinist minister, and reprinted at Leipsic in 1679, with a preface by Thomasius. 56.” Dissertatio de Imperio Romano," Jena, 1664, 12mo.

, an eminent English musician, chapel-master and organist to George II. and III. was the son of William Boyce, a joiner and cabinet-maker, and housekeeper of Joiners’-hall, where our musician was born, B'eb. 7, 1710. He was at first a singing-boy at St. Paul’s, and afterwards apprenticed to the celebrated Dr. Greene, who bequeathed to him his manuscripts. In 1734 he was a candidate for the place of organist of St. Michael’s church, Cornhill, with Froud, Young, James Worgan, and Kelway; but though unsuccessful in this application, Kelway being elected, he was appointee! the same year to the place of organist of Oxford chapel and in 1736, upon the death of Weltlon, when Kelway being elected organist of St. Martin' sin the Fields, resigned his place at St. Michael’s Cornhill, Boyce was not only elected organist of that church, but organist and composer in the chapel royal. The same year he set David’s “Lamentation over Saul and Jonathan,” which was performed at the Apollo Society. About the year 1743, he produced his serenata of “Solomon,” which was not only long and justly admired as a pleasing and elegant composition, but still affords great delight to the friends of English music whenever it is performed. His next publication was “Twelve Sonatas or Trios for two violins and a base,” which were longer and more generally purchased, performed, and admired, than any productions of the kind in this kingdom, except those of CorelH. They were not only in constant use, as chamber music, in private concerts, for which they were originally designed, but in our theatres, as act-tunes, and public gardens, as favourite pieces, during many years.

In 1749, he set the ode written by the rev. Mr. Mason, for the installation of the late duke of Newcastle, as chancellor of the university of Cambridge, at which time he was honoured with the degree of doctor in music by that university. Soon after this event, he set the “Chaplet,” a musical drama, written by the late Mr. Mendez, for Drury-lane theatre, which had a very favourable reception, and long run, and continued many years in use. Not long after the first performance of this drama, his friend Mr. Beard brought on the same stage the secular ode, written by Dryden, and originally set by Dr. Boyce for Hickford’s room, or the Castle concert, where it was first performed, in still life. This piece, though less successful than the Chaplet, by the animated performance and friendly zeal of Mr. Beard, was many times exhibited before it was wholly laid aside. These compositions, with occasional single songs for Vauxhall and Ranelagh, disseminated the fame of Dr. Boyce throughout the kingdom, as a dramatic and miscellaneous composer, while his choral compositions for the king’s chapel, for the feast of the sons of the clergy at St. Paul’s, and for the triennial meetings at the three cathedrals of Worcester, Hereford, and Gloucester, at the performances in all which places he constantly presided till the time of his death, established his’ reputation as an ecclesiastical composer, and able master of harmony. Dr. Boyce was one of the few of our church composers, who neither pillaged or servilely imitated Handel. There is an original and sterling merit in his productions, founded as much on the study of our own old masters, as on the best models of other countries, that gives to all his works a peculiar stamp and character of his own, for strength, clearness, and facility, without any mixture of styles, or extraneous and heterogeneous ornaments. On the decease of Dr Greene, in 1757, he was appointed by the duke of Devonshire, master of the king’s band; and, in 1758, on the death of Travers, organist of the chapel-royal. He published, at a great expence to himself, three volumes of cathedral music, being a collection in score of the most valuable compositions for that service by the several English masters of the preceding two centuries, which was designed to have been published by Dr. Greene: and in this Dr. Boyce was assisted by the first Dr. Hayes, of Oxford, and by Dr. Howard. Dr. Boyce died, of repeated attacks of the gout, Feb. 7, 1779, and was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral. An anonymous biographer records a very singular circumstance in Dr. Boyce’s history, namely, that he was from his youth incurably deaf.

, a writer who would scarcely have deserved notice, if he had not been obtruded on the public as the author of Junius’s Letters, was the second son of Alexander Macauley, esq. of the county of Antrim, in Ireland. He was born in 1746; was educated at Trinity college, Dublin; and was designed for the bar; but, instead of prosecuting his original views, came over to London, where, under the patronage of Mr. Richard Burke, he soon became known both in the literary and fashionable world. A propensity to extravagance had already reduced him to considerable embarrassments, when, in 1777, he married a lady of good fortune; but this relief was only temporary; for the same expensive habits still continued, and at length obliged him to accompany lord Macartney to Madras, in the capacity of a second secretary. He remained there after his lordship’s return, and died in 1791, having for some years previously to his death, held the lucrative office of master attendant, with little advantage to his circumstances. He wrote in Ireland, a political periodical paper, called “The Freeholder,” in 1772; an Introduction to lord Chatham’s speeches on the American war, reported and published by him; and the “Whig,” published in Almon’s newspaper, the London Courant, in 1780. In I?y4, he also wrote a few periodical essays called “The Indian Observer,” published at Madras. These were reprinted in an 8vo volume, in 1798, by thejate Mr. Laurence Dundas Campbell, with a view to establish an assertion which Almon first made, if we mistake not, purporting that Mr. Boyd was the author of Junius; but unfortunately the reader has “the bane and antidote” both before htm in this volume, and few attempts of the kind can be conceived more injudicious than a comparison between the styles of Boyd and Junius. Boyd wrote after Junius, and, like most political writers, aims at his style; and the only conclusion which his friends have arrived at amounts tu this absurdity, that an imitator must be an original writer; and even this in the case of Mr. Boyd is peculiarly unfortunate, for his imitations are among the most feeble that have been ever attempted. Mr. Campbell returned to the charge, however, in 1800, with a publication of “The miscellaneous works of Hugh Boyd, the author of the Letters of Junius: with an account of his Life and Writings,” 2 vols. 8vo.

, a Scotch writer of considerable reputation in the sixteenth century, the son of Robert Boyd, of Pinkill in Ayrshire, was born Jan. 13, 1562. Having lost his father early, he was educated under the inspection of his uncle, Mr. James Boyd, of Trochrig, who, with the then unpopular title of “Archbishop of Glasgow,” performed the offices of minister of the Barony parish in that city. Young Boyd, in his nature lively and headstrong, soon grew weary of academical discipline, quarreled with his preceptors, renounced his studies, and, eager to become a man of the world, presented himself at court. It is not unlikely that in this scheme ae relied chit fly on the patronage of liobert, fourth lord Boyd, who was probably the cousin-gernran of Boyd’s father. All, however, that we learn of his proficiency at cm:;c is, that he fought one duel, and was engaged in numberless broils. His relations advised him to follow the profession of arms in the Low Countries, for they could not tolerate his impetuous and unruly temper, and perhaps they were little inclined or little able to support him in a manner of life which had no determined object or aim. Boyd readily consented to become a soldier; but he chose France rather than the Low Countries, for the theatre of his future achievements. He went therefore to Paris, furnished with a small stock of money, all of which he soon lost at dice. This the author of his life ascribes to some secret fate, “occulto veluti fato” but says his more recent biographer, lord Hailes, we may absolve fate, for when the raw and self-sufficient go amongst sharpers, they ought to ascribe their ruin to folly.

Boyd, observing that young persons of quality, and even military men, were wont to attend academical lectures at Paris, resumed his studies. The teachers to whom he attached himself were, J. Marius d'Amboise, professor of philosophy; J. Passerat, professor of eloquence, not only a scholar, but a wit also, and a poet; and Gilb. Franc. Genebrand, professor of the Hebrew language, who afterwards by his zeal for the French league, tarnished the reputation that he had gained by his literary abilities. Guillonius also is mentioned amongst the professors under whom Boyd studied. He next resolved to apply himself to the civil law, and went to the university of Orleans, where that science was taught by J. Robertas, a man principally known for having dared to become the rival of Cujacius. But he soon quitted Orleans, and went to the university of Bourges. Cujacius, who taught the civil law there, received him with kindness, and possibly, not with the less kindness because his new scholar had quitted Orleans and professor Robertus. It was said that Boyd obtained the friendship of Cujacius, by writing some verses in the obsolete Latin language. Perhaps that learned man liked those verses best which approached nearest to the standard of the Twelve Tables.

In 1587, a numerous army, composed of mercenary Germans and Swiss, invaded France, in support of the king of Navarre. Boyd joined the troops that marched from Auvergne to reinforce the army of Henry III. His commander was a Greek by birth, an officer of cavalry. Boyd mentions not his name; but describes him as one who, with the specious advantages of elocution, and a noble figure, was volatile, forward, easily provoked, and of ungovernable passion. The'temerity of this commander exposed his soldiers to more hazards in skirmishes with the peasants, than they would have found in storming of towns. Boyd received a shot in the ancle, and this is all we know, with certainty, of his military services.

In 1588, Boyd fixed his residence at Toulouse, and again applied himself to the study of the civil law under Fr. Rouldes, a celebrated professor. It appears that, about this time, he wrote some tracts on that science, and projected others; and that he even had it in view to compose a system of the law of nations. Toulouse having, about this time, by means of a popular insurrection, fallen into the hands of the faction of the league, Boyd, who had assisted the royal cause, was thrown into prison and, from the hatred of the Jesuits, was in great danger of his life. When he had obtained his liberty, which was granted him at the solicitations of the learned men of Toulouse, he went first to Bourdeaux, and thence to Rochelle. In this last journey he was attacked by robbers, and with difficulty escaped being assassinated by them, after having lost all the property he had with him. Disliking the air of Rochelle, he retreated to the borders of Poictou, where he enjoyed an agreeable rural retirement; devoting his time partly to polite literature, and partly to the aid of his friends, when they were occasionally exposed to the incursions of their enemies. He so equally applied himself te the study of learning and war, that it was not easy to say which he most preferred; but his character appears now to have been more decided than when in youth. Among men of the sword he appeared to be the accomplished soldier, and as eminently the scholar among those of the gown. In his person he was tall, compact, and well proportioned; his countenance was beautiful, sprightly, and engaging; and there was a singularly noble air in his discourse, aspect, voice, aud gesture. He was polite, pleasant, acute, courteous, a ready speaker, and entirely free from envy and avarice. He could easily bear with the boasting of the ignorant, but extremely disliked the abusive manner of writing which prevailed so much among the learned of his time. He thought it unworthy of a Christian, in a literary controversy, to throw out any thing, either in speech or writing, which should hurt the reputation of an adversary. In injuries of an atrocious nature, he chose to do himself justice by having recourse to the laws of arms. Among the ancients, Xenophon was his favourite as a philosopher, Cæsar as an historian, and Virgil as a poet. So admirably was he skilled in the Greek language, that he could write, dictate, and converse in it, with copiousness and elegance. He despised the centos, which were then not a little in fashion; and said, that however learned the authors of them might be, they were dull and ignorant men. Besides his epistles after the manner of Ovid, and his hymns, he wrote a variety of Latin poems, which have not been printed. He was the author of notes upon Pliny, and published an excellent little book, addressed to Lipsius, in defence of cardinal Bembo and the ancient eloquence. He translated, likewise, Cæsar’s Commentaries into Greek, in the style of Herodotus; but would not permit his translation to appear in public. He afterwards applied himself to the cultivation of poetry in his native Ianguage, and arrived at considerable excellence in it. In all his compositions, genius was more apparent than labour.

, 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.

, a descendant of the preceding, and fourth and last earl of Kilmarnock, was born in 1704, and was but thirteen years old when his father died: he discovered early a genius not unequal to his birth, but found the family estate pretty much encumbered, and great part of the patrimony alienated, which was by no means answerable to his lordship’s generous and noble disposition. It was also his misfortune to be too soon let loose among the gaieties and pleasures of life. As he grew up, instead of applying himself to study, he launched out into the world in pursuit of pleasures which were more expensive than his fortune could support, and by this means considerably reduced his estate, which, from the most probable conjecture, was the true reason of his taking up arms against the king. Indeed, his lordship himself owns in his confession to Mr. Foster (while under sentence), that his rebellion was a kind of desperate scheme, proceeding originally from his vices, to extricate himself from the distress of his circumstances; for he says, “the true root of all was his careJess and dissolute life, by which he had reduced himself to great and perplexing difficulties; that the exigency of his affairs was in particular very pressing at the time of the rebellion; and that, besides the general hope he had of mending his fortune by the success of it, he was also tempted by another prospect of retrieving his circumstances, by following the Pretender’s standard.” It does not appear that his lordship was in the original design of the rebellion: on the contrary, he declared both in his speech at the bar of the house of lords, and in his petition to the king after his sentence, that it was not tilt after the battle of Preston Pans that he became a party in it, having, till then, neither influenced his tenants or followers to assist or abet the rebellion; but, on the contrary, influenced the inhabitants of the town of Kilmarnock, and the neighbouring boroughs, to rise in arms for his majesty’s service, which had so good an effect, that two hundred men from Kilmarnock very soon appeared in arms, and remained so all the winter at Glasgow and other places. It is said, that when the earl joined the Pretender’s standard, he was received by him with great marks of esteem and distinction; was declared of his privy-council, made colonel of the guards, and promoted to the degree of a general (though his lordship himself says, he was far from being a person of any consequence among them). How he behaved in these stations (quite new to him, and foreign from his former manner of life), we cannot determine; but common fame says, he displayed considerable courage till the fatal battle of Culloden, when he was taken, or rather surrendered himself, prisoner, to the king’s troops, though involuntarily, and with a design to have facilitated his escape: for he acknowledged to Mr. Foster, whilst under sentence, that when he saw the king’s dragoons, and made towards them, he thought they had been Fitz-James’s horse; and that if he could have reached them by mounting behind one of the dragoons, his escape would have been more certain, than when he was on foot. Yet, in his speech to the house of lords, he made a merit of having surrendered himself, at a time when he said he could easily have made his escape, and in this he owned, when in a state of repentance, that he had not spoken truth. His lordship was brought to the Tower, and on Monday the 28th of July, 174-6, was, together with the earl of Cromartie, and lord Balmerino, conducted to Westminster-hall, and at the bar of the lord high-steward’s court, arraigned, and pleaded guilty to his indictment, submitting himself to his majesty’s mercy and clemency. On the Wednesday following, the three lords were again brought from the Tower to receive sentence, when the lord Kilmarnock being asked by the lord high-steward, if he had any thing to offer why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, his lordship, addressing himself to his grace and the whole august assembly, then consisting of an hundred and thirty-six peers, delivered an eloquent speech, after which, sentence of death was pronounced upon him, and he returned to the Tower. After this, he presented petitions to the king, the prince of Wales, and duke of Cumberland, wherein he set forth his family’s constant attachment to the revolution interest, and that of the illustrious house of Hanover; his father’s zeal and activity in support of both in the rebellion in 1715, and his own appearing in arms (though then but young) under his father, and the whole tenour of his conduct ever since that time. But the services of his forefathers could not satisfy the public demand for justice, nor avail him so far as to procure him pardon. He was beheaded on Towerhill, August 18, 1746, and was interred in the Tower church, with this inscription upon his coffin, viz. “Gulielmus Comes de Kilmarnock, decollat. 18 Augusti, 1746, aetat. suae 42.” His lordship’s whole deportment, from the time he was condemned till his execution, was suitable to one in his unhappy circumstances. He gave the most lively marks of a sincere humiliation and repentance for all his miscarriages, and his behaviour in the hour of death was resigned, but strictly decent and awful. He had himself observed, with great truth, that for a man who had led a dissolute life, and yet believed the consequences of death, to put on an air of daringness and absolute intrepidity, must argue him either to be very stupid or very impious. He was a nobleman of fine address and polite behaviour; his person was tall and graceful; his countenance mild, but his complexion pale; and he had abilities, which, if they had been properly applied, might have rendered him capable of bringing an increase of honour to his family, instead of ruin and disgrace. His lordship lived and died in the public profession of the church of Scotland, and left behind him a widow (who was the lady Anne Livingston, daughter of James earl of Linlithgow and Callander (attainted in 1715), with whom he had a considerable fortune), and three sons, the eldest of whom his lordship had educated in the principles of duty and loyalty to his majesty, and in whose service he fought against the rebels. He succeeded, upon the death of Mary, countess of Errol, in 1758, to her estate and honours, his mother having been undoubted heir of line of that noble family, and he was the sixteenth earl of Errol. He died June 3, 1778, leaving issue.

, a liberal patron of the arts, and an honour to his country, was born at Stanton in Shropshire, Jan. 19, 1719. His grandfather was the rev. John Boydell, D. D. vicar of Ashbourne, and rector of Mapleton in Derbyshire, whose son Josiah married Mary Milnes, eldest daughter of Samuel Milnes, esq. of Ash-house near Turnditch, Derbyshire, Jan. 22, 1718. Dr. Boydell was an excellent scholar, and for some time superintended the education of his grandson, intending him for the church, but dying in 1731, the youth was brought up by hisfatlver, a land-surveyor, who very naturally intended him for his own profession, and as a taste for drawing generally discovers itself very early, he might probably foresee great advantages from his son’s possessing this talent. Fortunately, however, for young Boydell, and for the arts, a trifling accident gave a more decided direction to his mind, and led him to aim at higher efforts in the art than the mere mechanism of ground-plans and outlines. This was no other than the sight of a print by Toms, a very indifferent artist, of sir John Glynne’s seat and the old castle attached to it, in “Baddeley’s Views of different Country Seats.” An exact delineation of a building that he had so often contemplated, afforded him pleasure, and excited some reflections which gave a new turn to his ambition. Considering it as an engraving, and from the copper of which might be taken an almost indefinite number of impressions, he determined to quit the pen, and take up the graver, as an instrument which would enable him to disseminate whatever work he could produce, in so much wider a circle. This resolution was no sooner made, than it was put in execution; for, with that spirit and perseverance which he manifested in every succeeding scene of life, he, at twenty-one years of age, walked up to the metropolis, and bound himself apprentice for seven years to Mr. Toms, the engraver of the print which had so forcibly attracted his attention. These, and accidents equally trifling, sometimes attract men of strong minds into the path that leads direct to fame, and have been generally considered as proving that they were born with some peculiar genius for some peculiar study. Sir J. Reynolds had the first fondness for his art excited by the perusal of “Richardson’s Treatise on Painting” and Mr. Boydell was induced to learn the art of engraving, by a coarse print of a coarse artist, representing a mis-shapen gothic castle.

This step, however, gave his father no little uneasiness, and every argument and remonstrance of himself and his friends were employed to divert him from a pursuit which they considered as likely to be very unprofitable. But this producing no effect, his father took into business with him a younger son, Thomas, who succeeded him, and who died a few years before the subject of the present article, at Trevallyn Hall, Denbighshire, where his father had lived before him, but did not live long enough to witness the success of his son John, in the pursuit he so much disapproved.

His conduct during his apprenticeship was eminently assiduous. Eager to attain all possible knowledge of an art on which his mind was bent, and of every thing that could be useful to him, and^impelled by an industry that seemed inherent in his nature, he, whenever he could, attended the academy in St. Martin’s-lane to perfect himself in drawing; his leisure hours in the evening were devoted to the study of perspective, and to the learning of French without the aid of a master. After very steadily pursuing his business for six years, and finding himself a better artist than his teacher, he bought from Mr. Toms the last year of his apprenticeship, and became his own master. In 1745 or 1746 he published six small landscapes, designed and engraved by himself. This publication, from his having in most of the views chosen a situation in which a bridge formed part of the scenery, was entitled “The Bridge book,” and sold for a shilling. Small as this sum was, he sometimes spoke with apparent pleasure of a silversmith in Duke’s-court, St. Martin’s lane, having sold so many, that when he settled his annual account, he thought it would be civil to take a silver pint mug in part of payment, and this mug he retained until his dying day. He afterwards designed and engraved many other views, generally of places in and about London, and published the greater part of them at the low price of one shilling each. But even at this early period he was so much alive to fame, that after having passed several months in copying an historical sketch of Coriolanus by Sebastian Concha, he so much disliked his own engraving, that he cut the plate to pieces. Besides these, he engraved many prints from Brocking, Berchem, Salvator ilosa, &c. The manner in which many of them are executed, is highly respectable; and, being done at a time when the artist had much other business to attend to, displays an industry rarely to be paralleled, and proves that had he devoted all his time to engraving, he wcmld have ranked high in the profession. His facility of execution, and unconquerable perseverance, having thus enabled him to complete one hundred and fifty-two prints, tie collected the whole in one port-folio, and published it at fi,ve guineas. He modestly allowed that he himself had not at that time arrived at any eminence in the art of engraving, and that those prints are now chiefly valuable from a comparison of them with the improved state of the art within the last fifty years. In fact, there were at that time no eminent engravers in England, and Mr. Boydell saw the necessity of forcing the art by stimulating men of genius with suitable rewards. With the profits of the folio volume of prints above-mentioned, he' was enabled to pay very liberally the best artists of his time, and thus presented the world with English engravings from the works of the greatest masters. The encouragement that he experienced from the public was equal to the spirit and patriotism of his undertaking, and soon laid the foundation of an ample fortune. He used to observe, that he believed the book we have alluded to was the first that had ever made a lord mayor of London; and that when the smallness of the work was compared with what had followed, it would impress all young men with the truth of what he had often held out to them, “that industry, patience, and perseverance, if united to moderate talents, are certain to surmount all difficulties.” Mr. Boydell, though he never himself made any great progress as an engraver, was certainly the greatest encourager of the art that this country ever knew. The arts were at the time he began, at a very low ebb in this country. Wotton’s portraits of hounds ^nd horses, grooms and squires, with a distant view of the dog-kennel and stable; and Hudson’s portraits of gentlemen in great coats and jockey caps, were in high repute. Inferior prints from poor originals were almost the only works our English artists were thought capable of performing; and, mortifying as it must be to acknowledge it, yet it must be admitted, that (with the exception of the inimitable Hogarth, and two or three others) the generality of them were not qualified for much better things. The powers of the artists were, however, equal to the taste of a great majority of their customers; and the few people of the higher order who had a relish for better productions, indulged it in the purchase of Italian and Flemish pictures and French prints; for which, even at th?t time, the empire was drained of immense sums of money. To check this destructive fashion, Mr. Boydell sought for an English engraver who could equal, it not excel them; and jn Woollett he found one. The Temple of Apollo, from Claude, and two premium pictures from the Smiths of Chichester, were amongst the first large works which this excellent artist engraved; but the Niobe and the Phaeton, from Wilson, established his fame. For the first of them the alderman agreed to give the engraver fifty guineas, and when it was completed paid him a hundred. The second, the artist agreed to engrave for fifty guineas, and the alderman paid him one hundred and twenty. The two prints were published by subscription, at five shillings each. Proof prints were not at that time considered as having any particular value; the few that were taken off to examine the progress of the plate were delivered to such subscribers as chose to have them, at the subscription price. Several of these have since that time been sold at public auctions, at ten and eleven guineas each. By these and similar publications he had the satisfaction to see in his own time the beneficial effects of his exertions. We have before observed, that previous to his establishing a continental correspondence for the exportation of prints, immense sums were annually sent out of the country for the purchase of those that were engraved abroad; but he changed the course of the current, and for many of the later years of his life, the balance of the print-trade with the continent was very much in favour of Great Britain.

Having been so successful in promoting the art of engraving in this country, he resolved to direct his next efforts to the establishing an English school of historical painting; and justly conceiving that no subject could be more appropriate for such a national attempt than England’s inspired poet, and great painter of nature, Shakspeare, he projected, and just lived to see completed, a most splendid edition of the works of that author, illustrated by engravings from paintings of the first artists that the country could furnish, and of which the expence was prodigious. These paintings afterwards formed what was termed “The Shakspeare gallery,” in Pall Mall; and we believe there are few individuals possessed of the least taste, or even curiosity, who have not inspected and been delighted by them.

"In this state of things I throw myself with confidence upon that public who have always been but too partial to my poor endeavours, for the disposal of that, which, in happier days, I flattered myself to have presented to them.

, a lexicographer and miscellaneous writer, was born June 13, 1667, at the city of Castres in Upper Languedoc. His great-grandfather and grandfather were masters of the riding-school at Nismes; his father was president of the supreme court at Castres, and his mother was Catherine, daughter of Campdomerius, a celebrated physician, circumstances which have been recorded to prove that he was of a good family. He was certainly of a conscientious one, his relations being exiles for their adherence to the protestant religion. He was first educated by his mother’s brother, Campdomerius, a noted divine and preacher of the reformed church, and then was sent to the protestant school at Puy Laurent, where he applied assiduously, and excelled all his schoolfellows in Greek and Latin. In 1685, when the persecution prevailed against the protestants in France, he followed his uncle to Holland, and pressed by want, was obliged to enter into the military service in 1687; but soon, by the advice of his relations, returned to his studies, and went to the university of Franeker, where he went through a regular course of education, and added to philosophy, divinity, history, &c. the study of the mathematics. In 1689 he came over to England, and the hopes of being able to return to France, which the protestants in general entertained, being disappointed, he was obliged to have recourse to his pen for a livelihood. His first employment appears to have been to transcribe and prepare for the press Camden’s letters from the Cotton ian library, for Dr. Smith, who afterwards published them. In 1692, he became French and Latin tutor to Allen Bathurst, esq. eldest son of sir Benjamin Bathurst, who, being much in favour with the princess Anne of Denmark, afterwards queen of Great Britain, he had hopes of some preferment at court. With this view he paid great attention to his pupil’s education (who was afterwards lord Bathurst), and for his use composed two compendious grammars, the one Latin, the other French; but the latter only was printed, and to this da,y is a standard book. His hopes of preferment, however, Appear to have been fallacious, which his biographer attributes to his siding with a different party from the Bathurst family in the political divisions which prevailed at that time in the nation, Boyer, like the rest of his countrymen who had fled hither for religion, being a zealous whig. After this, having made himself master of the English tongue, he became an author by profession, and engaged sometimes alone, and sometimes in conjunction with the booksellers, in various compilations, and periodical works of the political kind, particularly a newspaper called the “Post-Boy;” the “Political State of Great Britain,” published in volumes from 1710 to 1729 a “History of William III.” 3 vols. 8vo “Annals of the reign of Queen Anne,” 11 vols. 8vo, and a “Life of Queen Anne,” fol. all publications now more useful than when published, as they contain many state papers, memorials, &c. which it would be difficult to find elsewhere; but his name is chiefly preserved by his French Dictionary, 1699, 4to, and a French Grammar, of both which he lived to see several editions, and which still continue to be printed. His political principles involved him with Swift, who often speaks contemptuously of him, and with Pope, who has given him a place in the Dunciad. He died Nov. 16, 1729, at a house he had built in Five Fields, Chelsea, and was buried in Chelsea church-yard.

, of the French academy, was born at Alby in 1618. He came young to Paris, where he cultivated his talent for eloquence; but, having preached with little success, he quitted the pulpit for the stage, which he had been declaiming against, and now devoted himself to it for life, always satisfied with himself, but seldom with the public. Born with an imagination which submitted to no restraint, he made choice of subjects strangely complicated, and equivocal heroes who had no character whatever. Aiming always at the sublime, where the simplicity of nature was required, he fell into a strain of bombast, unintelligible perhaps to himself. He is the author of two-and-twenty dramatic pieces, full of fustian, and conducted without any knowledge of the drama. His Judith had a transient success. The epigram it produced from Racine is generally known. “Je pleure, helas! pour ce pauvre Holopherne, si mechamment mis a mort par Judith.” This piece, applauded during a whole Lent, was hissed off the stage in the Easter holidays. Champmeslee, asking the reason of the fickleness of the pit, was answered, that the hissers had been at Versailles at the sermons of the abbe Boileau, who had ridiculed him. Boyer, at length disheartened by this constant run of ill-success, brought out his tragedy of Agamemnon under a borrowed name, andRacine, his grand tormentor, applauded the piece. Boyer could not refrain from crying out in the pit, “It is however Boyer’s, in spite of Mons. de Racine;” but this transport cost him dear, for his tragedy was hissed at the next performance. He died at Paris, July 22, 1698, aged eighty.

, a learned French physician, was born at Marseilles, August 5, 1693. His father, intending to bring him up to business, gave him a suitable education, and afterwards sent him to Constantinople, to his uncle, who was consul there; but rinding him inclined to literature, and to the study of medicine, he sent him, on his return from the Levant, to the university at Montpellier. In 1717, he took the degree of doctor, and gave for jiis inaugural thesis, “A dissertation on Inoculation of the Small Pox,” which he had seen practised at Constantinople. On the plague breaking out at Marseilles, in 1720, he was sent there with five other physicians; and his conduct on that occasion having been approved, he was rewarded by the king with a pension, and was made physician to a regiment of guards. He was some years after invited to Hunspruche, a town in the bishopric of Treves, where an infectious fever was making great ravages, and, in 1742, to Paris, on a similar occasion. His success at these places occasioned him to be sent for to Beauvais, in. 1750, where by his judicious management he prevented -the spreading of an infections fever, infesting that country. For these services he was honoured' by the king with letters of nobility, and invested with the order of St. Michael. He died at Paris, April 2, 1768. His works are, “Methode indiquee contre la maladie epidemique convient de regner a Beauvais,” Paris, 1750, a quarto pamphlet, of only ten pages. “Methode a suivre dans le traitement de differentes maladies epidemiques qui regnent le plus ordinairernent dans la generality de Paris,” 1761, 12mo. He wrote, in 1745, a “Memoir” on the disease infesting the cattle at that time, which was sent to the royal society in London, and procured him a place in the list of their foreign members. He also gave a nevr edition of the “Codex medicamentarius,” seu “Pharmacopoeia Parisiensis,” 4to, a very useful and well digested work.

, a celebrated statesman, descended from an ancient and honourable family, and distinguished by the title of the great earl of Cork, was the youngest son of Mr. Roger Boyle of Herefordshire, by Joan, daughter of Robert Naylor of Canterbury, and born in the city of Canterbury, Oct. 3, 1566. He was instructed in grammar learning by a clergyman of Kent; and after having been a scholar in Ben'et college, Cambridge, where he was remarkable for early rising, indefatigable study, and great temperance, became student in the Middle Temple. He lost his father when he was but ten years old, and his mother at the expiration of other ten years; and being unable to support himself in the prosecution of his studies, he entered into the service of sir Richard Manwood, chief baron of the exchequer, as one of his clerks: but perceiving few advantages from this employment, he resolved to travel, and landed at Dublin in June 1588, with a very scanty stock, his whole property amounting, as he himself informs us, to 271. 3s. in money, two trinkets which his mother gave him as tokens, and his wearing apparel. He was then about two-and-twenty, had a graceful person, and all the accomplishments for a young man to succeed in a country which was a scene of so much action. Accordingly he made himself very useful to some of the principal persons employed in the government, by penning for them memorials, cases, and answers; and thereby acquired a perfect knowledge of the kingdom and the state of publia affairs, of which he knew well how to avail himself. In 1595 he married at Limeric, Joan, the daughter and coheiress of William Ansley of Pulborough, in Sussex, <esq. who had fallen in love with him. This lady died 1599, in labour of her first child (born dead) leaving her husband an estate of 500l. a year in lands, which was the beginning of his fortune. Some time after, sir Henry Wallop, of Wares, sir Robert Gardiner, chief justice of the king’s bench, sir Robert Dillam, chief justice of the common pleas, and sir Richard Binghim, chief commissioner of Connaught, envious at certain purchases he had made in the province, represented to queen Elizabeth that he was in the pay of the king of Spain (who had at that time some thoughts of invading Ireland), by whom he had been furnished with money to buy several large estates; and that he was strongly suspected to be a Roman catholic in his heart, with many other malicious suggestions equally groundless. Mr. Boyle, having private notice of this, determined to come over to England to justify himself: but, before he could take shipping, the general rebellion in Minister broke out, all his lands were wasted, and he had not one penny of certain revenue left. In this distress he betook himself to his former chamber in the Middle Temple, intending to renew his studies in the law till the rebellion should be suppressed. When the earl of Essex was nominated lord-deputy of Ireland, Mr. Boyle, being recommended to him by Mr. Anthony Bacon, was received by his lordship very graciously; and sir Henry Wallop, treasurer of Ireland, knowing that Mr. Boyle had in his custody several papers which could detect his roguish manner of passing his accounts, resolved utterly to depress him, and for that end renewed his former complaints against him to the queen. By her majesty’s special directions, Mr. Boyle was suddenly taken up, and committed close prisoner to the Gatehouse: all his papers were seized and searched; and although nothing appeared to his prejudice, yet his confinement lasted till two months after his new patron the earl of Essex was gone to Ireland, At length, with much difficulty, he obtained the favour of the queen to be present at his examination; and having fully answered whatever was alledged against him, he gave a short account of his behaviour since he first settled in Ireland, and concluded with laying open to the queen and her council the conduct of his chief enemy sir Henry Wallop. Upon which her majesty exclaimed with, her usual intemperance of speech, “By God’s death, these are but inventions against this young man, and all his sufferings are for being able to do us service, and these complaints urged to forestal him therein. But we find him to be a man fit to be employed by ourselves; and we will employ him in our service: and Wallop and his adherents shall know that it shall not be in the power of any of them, to wrong him. Neither -shall Wallop be our treasurer any longer.” Accordingly, she gave orders not only for Mr. Boyle’s present enlargement, but also for paying all the charges and fees his confinement had brought upon him, and gave him her hand to kiss before the whole assembly. A few days after, the queen constituted him clerk of the council of Munster, and recommended him to sir George Carew, afterwards earl of Totness, then lord president of Munster, who became his constant friend; and very soon, after he was made justice of the peace and of the quorum, throughout all the province. He attended in that capacity the lord president in all his employments, and was sent by his lordship to the queen with the news of the victory gained in December 1601, near Kinsate, over the Irish, and their Spanish auxiliaries, who were totally routed, 1200 being slain in the field, and 800 wounded. “I made,” says he, “a speedy expedition to the court, for I left my lord president at Shannon -castle, near Cork, on the Monday morning about two of the clock; and the next day, being Tuesday, I delivered my packet, and supped with sir Robert Cecil, being then principal secretary of state, at his house in the Strand; who, after supper, held me in discourse till two of the clock in the morning; and by seven that morning called upon me to attend him to the court, where he presented me to her majesty in her bedchamber.” A journey so rapid as this would be thought, even in the present more improved modes of travelling, requires all his lordship’s authority to render it credible.

On the departure of lord-deputy Falkland, the earl of Cork, in conjunction with lord Lortus, was appointed one of the lords justices of Ireland, Oct. 26, 1629, and held that office several years. Feb. 16th following, the earl lost his countess, by whom he had fifteen children. Nov. 9 1631, he was constituted lord high treasurer of Ireland, and had interest enough to get that high office made hereditary in his family. Nevertheless, he suffered many mortifications during the administration of sir Thomas Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford, who, before he went to Ireland, had conceived a jealousy of his authority and interest in that kingdom, and now conceived that if he could humble the great earl of Cork, nobody in that country could give him much trouble. On the breaking out of the rebellion in Ireland in 1641, the earl of Cork, as soon as he returned from England (where he was at the time of the earl of Strafford’s trial), immediately raised two troops of horse, which he put under the command of his sons the lord viscount Kinalmeaky and the lord Brogbill, maintaining them and 400 foot for some months at his own charge. In the battle which the English gained at Liscarrol, Sept. 3, Io42, four of his sons were engaged, and the eldest was slain in the field. The earl himself died about a year after, on the 15th of September, in the 78th year of his age; having spent the last, as he did the first year of his life, in the support of the crown of England against Irish rebels, and in the service of his country. Though he was no peer of England, he was, on account of his eminent abilities and knowledge of the world, admitted to sit in the house of lords upon the woolpacks, ut consiliarius. When Cromwell saw the prodigious improvements he had made, which he little expected to find in Ireland, he declared, that if there had been an earl of Cork in every province, it would have been impossible for the Irish to have raised a rebellion.

He affected not places and titles of honour until he was well able to maintain them, for he was in the 37th year of his age when knighted, and in his 50th when made A baron. He made large purchases, but not till he was able to improve them; and he grew rich on estates which had ruined their former possessors. He increased his wealth, not by hoarding, but by spending; for he built and walled several towns at his own cost, but in places so well situated, that they were soon filled with inhabitants, and quickly repaid the money he had laid out, with interest, which he as readily laid out again. Hence, in the space of forty years, he acquired to himself what in some countries would have been esteemed a noble principality; and as they came to years of discretion, he bestowed estates upon his sons, and married his daughters into the best families of that country. He outlived most of those who had known the meanness of his beginning; but he delighted to remember it himself, and even took pains to preserve the memory of it to posterity in the motto which he always used, and which he caused to be placed upon his tomb, viz. “God’s providence is my inheritance.”