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

After his return from France, he was admitted of Lincoln’s Inn, with the view of studying the law, and continued there till the memorable year 1665, when the plague raged in London. In 1666, his father committed to him the care of a considerable estate in Ireland, which occasioned him, for a time, to reside in that kingdom. At Cork he was informed, by one of the people called Quakers, that Thomas Loe, whose preaching had affected him so early in life, was shortly to be at a meeting in that city. To this meeting he went. It is said that Loe, who preached in the meeting, began his declaration with these words: “There is a faith that overcomes the world, and there is a faith that is overcome by the world.” The manner in which Loe enlarged upon this exordium is not known; but the effect was the conviction of young Penn, who afterwards constantly attended the meetings of the Quakers, notwithstanding all obstacles. The year after his arrival in Ireland he was, with many others, taken from a meeting at Cork, and carried before the mayor, by whom he was committed to prison; but was soon released, on application to the earl of Orrery. This was his first imprisonment, at which time he was about twenty-three years of age; and it tended to strengthen the ties of his union with a people whom he believed to suffer innocently. His father, understanding his attachment to the Quakers, remanded him home; and though there was yet no great alteration in his dress, yet his serious deportment evincing the religious state of his mind, confirmed the fears of his father, and gave occasion to a species of conflict between them not easily described. The father felt great affection for an accomplished and dutiful son, and ardently desired the promotion of his temporal interests, which he feared would be obstructed by the way of life he had embraced. The son was sensible of the duty he owed to his parent, and afflicted in believing that he could not obey him but at the risk of his eternal welfare. At length the father would have compounded with the son, and suffered him to retain the simplicity of his manners to all others, if he would consent to be uncovered before the king, the duke (afterwards James II.), and himself. Penn desired time to consider of this requisition; and having employed it in fasting and supplication, in order, as he conceived, to know the divine will, he humbly signified to his father that he could not comply with it. After this, the father being utterly disappointed in his expectations, could no longer endure the sight of his son, and a second time drove him from his family. In this seclusion he comforted himself with the promise of Christ, to those who leave house or parents for his sake. His support, outwardly, was the charity of his friends, and some supplies privately sent him by his mother; but, by degrees, his father, becoming convinced of his integrity by his perseverance, permitted him to return to the family; and, though he did not give him open countenance, he privately used his interest to get him released, when imprisoned for his attendance at the Quakers’ meetings.

In 1681, king Charles, in consideration of the services of his father, the admiral, and of a debt due to him from the crown at his death, which that extravagant monarch had no other means of paying, granted to Penn a province in North America, lying on the West side of the Delaware, called the New Netherlands; but, on this occasion, denominated by the king, in respect to the grantee, Pennsylvania. Penn soon after published an account of the province, with the king’s patent, describing the country and its produce, and proposing easy terms of settlement to such as might be inclined to go thither. He also sent a letter to the native Indians, informing them of his desire to hold his possession, not only by the king’s grant, but with their consent and love, acknowledging the injustice which had been done them by Europeans, and assuring them of his peaceable intentions. He then drew up, in twenty-four articles, “The Fundamental Constitution of Pennsylvania;” and the following year he published the “Frame of Government of Pennsylvania.” This having all the attractions of a popular form, and promising unlimited freedom to all religious sects, and, what was most of all agreeable to them, an emancipation from the expences of an established religion, many single persons, and some families, went to the new province. They soon began to clear and improve their lands, and to build a city, which Penn, keeping in view the principle of brotherly love, which is the strength of civil society, named Philadelphia. Commissioners were also appointed to treat with the Indians; and, in: 1682, he visited his newly-acquired territory. At this time he passed about two years in the province, adjusting its interior concerns, and establishing a friendly correspondence with his neighbours; but found it, at the same time, necessary to vindicate himself, in a spirited letter, from the accusation of ambition and the desire of wealth. The following year, 1683, he gave a more full description of Pennsylvania, in “A Letter addressed to the Committee of the Free Society of Traders to that province, residing in London.” He mentions, that two general assemblies had been held, and with such concord and dispatch, that they sat but three weeks, and at least seventy laws were passed, without one dissent in any material point. He also informs the traders, that the assembly had presented him with an impost on certain goods imported and exported; which impost, after his acknowledgments of their affection, he had freely remitted. He also says, after mentioning the establishment of courts of justice, that to prevent law-suits, three peace-makers had been chosen by every county-court, in the nature of common arbitrators. Before he left the province, he addressed an epistle of caution to his friends of the same religious persuasion settled in it; reminding them of the conspicuous station in which they were then placed; being transplanted from oppression, not only to liberty, but to power; and beseeching them to improve the opportunity which God had now put into their hands. Having thus settled his infant colony, he returned to his wife and family in England in 1684. Not many months after the return of Penn from his colony, Charles II. died, and the respect which James II. bore to the late admiral, who had recommended his son to his care, together with that monarch’s personal acquaintance with Penn himself, procured for him a free access at court. He therefore made use of the opportunity, thus afforded him, of soliciting relief for his persecuted friends, the Quakers, fifteen hundred of whom remained prisoners at the decease of Charles II. All this was meritorious; but the rest of Penn’s conduct seems not quite consistent. The nation, at this time, was justly alarmed, as well knowing the king’s inclination to popery; but Penn’s biographers tell us, that he had no such fears. He had long been intimate with the king, and had given credit to the protestations which James had repeatedly made, of his intention to establish liberty of conscience. On his accession, therefore, Penn took lodgings at Kensington; and his ready and frequent reception at court, drew on him the suspicion of being himself a Papist. Burnet, as was hinted before, so far leaned to this opinion, as to mention it in his history, and to declare that Penn was intimate with Petre the Jesuit, and employed by James II. in Holland, in 1686. Burnet also adds the following description of Penn’s character: “He was a talking vain man, who had long been in the king’s favour. He had such an opinion of his own faculty of persuading, that he thought none could stand before it, though he was singular in that opinion; for he had a tedious luscious way, that was not apt to overcome a man’s reason, though it might tire his patience.” Burnet, therefore, was evidently no friend to Penn. But much of this tediousness and egotism may be proved from Penn’s works. Tiilotson had the same suspicions as Burnet; and having mentioned them publicly, Penn, by letter, inquired of him, if he had really spread the report of his being a Papist? In this letter Penn has these words, among others: “I abhor two principles in religion, and pity them that own them: obedience upon authority, without conviction; and, destroying them that differ from me for God’s sake.” Tiilotson, in reply, mentions the ground of his suspicion; namely, that he had heard of Penn’s corresponding with some persons at Rome, and particularly with Jesuits; but professes his particular esteem of Penn’s parts and temper, and says not a word of his intimacy with Petre, who was in England which, had it subsisted, as both were public men at court, Tiilotson must have known In reply, Penn. declared that he held no correspondence with any Jesuit, priest, or regular, in the world, of the Romish communion, and even that he knew not one any where; declaring himself to be a Christian whose creed was the Scripture. In conclusion, Tiilotson declared himself fully satisfied, and, as in that case he had promised, he heartily begs pardon of Penn. The correspondence may be seen at length in Penn’s Works*. In this year, 1686, he published “A Persuasive to Moderation to Dissenting Christians, &c. humbly submitted to the king and his great council;” soon

been that he was the dupe, either of the been the boast of him and his secy king, or of his own vanity and interest. after which came out the king’s proclamation for a general pardon; which was followed, the next year, by his suspension of the penal laws. Penn presented an address of the Quakers on this occasion. He also wrote a book ort occasion of the objections raised against the repeal of penal laws and test; and, the clamour against him continuing, he was urged to vindicate himself from it, by one of his friends, Mr. Popple, secretary to the Plantation -office, which he did in a long reply, dated 1688. But he had now to cope with more powerful opponents than rumour. The revolution took place, and an intimate of James was of course a suspected person. As he was walking in Whitehail, he was summoned before the council then sitting; and, though nothing was proved against him, he was bound to appear the first day of the following term; but, being continued to the next on the same bail, he was then discharged in open court: nothing being laid to his charge. In the beginning of 1690, he was again brought before the council, and accused of corresponding with James. They required bail of him as before; but he appealed to the king himself, who, after a long conference, inclined to acquit him; nevertheless, at the instance of some of the council, he was a second time held a while to bail, but at length discharged. Soon after this, in the same year, he was charged with adhering to the enemies of the kingdom, but proof failing, he was again cleared by the court of King’s-bench. Being now, as he thought, at liberty, he prepared to go again to Pennsylvania, and published proposals for another settlement there; but his voyage was prevented by another accusation, supported by the oath of one William Fuller (a man whom the parliament afterwards declared to be a cheat and impostor); upon which a warrant was granted, for arresting him, and he narrowly escaped it, at his return from the burial of George Fox. Hitherto he had successfully defended himself; but now, not choosing to expose his character to the oaths of a profligate man, he withdrew from public notice, till the latter part of 1693; when, through the mediation of his friends at court, he was once more admitted to plead his own cause before the king and council; and he so evinced his innocence, that he uas a fourth time acquitted. He employed himself in his retirements in writing. The most generally known production of his seclusion, bears the title of '“Fruits of Solitude, in Reflections and Maxims relating to the conduct of human life;” and another not less valued by his sect is his “Key, &c. to discern the difference between the religion professed by the people called Quakers, and the perversions, &c. of their adversaries, c.” which has gone through twelve editions at least. Not long after his restoration to society, he lost his wife, which affected him so much, that he said all his other troubles were nothing in comparison of this; and he published a short account of her character, dyr?g expressions, and pious end. The following year, he appeared as the eulogist of Geor.ge Fox, in a long preface to Fox’s Journal, then published. The preface, giving a summary account of the people whom Fox had been so much the means of uniting, has been several times printed separately, under the title of “A brief Account of the rise and progress of the people called Quakers.” It has passed through many editions in English, two in French, and has been translated into German by A. F. Wenderborn. The same year he travelled as a minister in some of the western counties; and in the next, we find him the public advocate of the Quakers to parliament, before whom a bill was then depending /for their ease in the case of oaths. In the early part of 1696, he married a second Wife, and soon after lost his eldest son, Springett Penn, who appears, from the character given to him by his father, to have been a hopeful and pious young man, just coming of age. The same year he added one more to his short tracts descriptive of Quakerism, under the title of “Primitive Christianity revived,” &c. and now began his paper cpntroversy with the noted George Keith, who from a champion of Quakerism, and the intimate of Barclay, had become one of its violent opponents. Keith’s severest tract accuses Penn and his brethren of deism. In 1697, a bill depending in parliament against blasphemy, he presented to the House of Peers, “A Caution requisite in the consideration of that Bill” wherein he advised that the term might be so defined, as to prevent malicious prosecutions under that pretence. But the bill was dropped. In 1698, he travelled as a preacher in Ireland, and the following winter resided at Bristol. In 1699, he again sailed for his province, with his wife and family, intending to make it his future residence; but, during his absence, an attempt was made to undermine proprietary governments, under colour of advancing the king’s prerogative. A bill for the purpose was brought into parliament, but the measure was postponed until his return, at the intercession of* his frienrls; who also gave him early information of the hostile preparations, and he arrived in England the latter part of 1701. After his arrival, the measure was laid aside, and Penn once more became welcome at court, by the death of king William, and the consequent acce>sion of queen Anne. On this occasion, he resided once more at Kensington, and afterwards at Knightsbridge, till, in 1706, he removed to a convenient house about a mile from Brentford. Next year he was involved in a law-suit with the executors of a person who had been his steward; and, though many thought him aggrieved, his cause was attended with such circumstances, as prevented his obtaining relief, and he was driven to change his abode to the rules of the Fleet, until the business was accommodated; which did not happen until the ensuing year. It was probably at this time, that he raised 6,600l. by the mortgage of his province.

In 1769, he added a third volume, in octavo, on the reptiles and fishes of Great Britain. In the fifty-eighth volume of the Philosophical Transactions, was published his account of a new species of Pinguin, brought by captain Macbride, from the Falklantl islands. In the same year, in conjunction with sir Joseph Banks, and Mr. Loten, who had been a governor in one of the Dutch islands in the Indian ocean, he published twelve plates of Indian Zoology, but that work was afterwards discontinued. In the spring of this year, he acquired one whom he calls a treasure, Moses Griffith, to whom the public are indebted for numberless scenes and antiquities, and who accompanied Mr. Pennant in all his journeys except that of the present year, which was his first tour into Scotland. “I had,” says he, “the hardiness to venture on a journey to the remotest part of North Britain, a country almost as little known to its southern brethren as Kamtschatka. I brought home a favourable account of the land. Whether it will thank me or no I cannot say, but from the report I have made, and shewing that it might be visited with safety, it has ever since been inondZe with southern visitants.” This year, also, he was elected fellow of the Royal Academy at Drontheim.

Returning to England, with ample testimonials of his gallantry and good behaviour, he finished at Hertford-college, Oxford, his course of studies; and having taken orders, accepted the curacy of Newbury, the income of which, by the voluntary subscriptions of the inhabitants, was considerable augmented. After he had continued in that station about nine years, it seemed as if the clouds of disappointment, which had hitherto overshadowed his prospects, and tinctured his poetical essays with gloom, were clearing away; for he was then presented by a friend, who knew his worth, and honoured his abilities, to the rectory of Beckington and Standerwick, in Somersetshire, worth near 5001. per annum. This came, however, too late; for the state of Mr. Penrose’s healtfi was now such as left little hope, except in the assistance of the waters of Bristol. Thither he went, and there he died in 1779, aged thirtysix. In 1768 he married miss Mary Slocock of Newbury, by whom he had one child, Thomas, who inherits his father’s genius, taste, and personal worth. He was educated at Winchester and New-college, Oxford, of which he is now B. C. Jl. Mr. Penrose was respected for his extensive erudition, admired for his eloquence, and equally beloved and esteemed for his social qualities. By the poor, towards whom he was liberal to his utmost ability, he was venerated in the highest degree. In oratory and composition his talents were great. His pencil was as ready as his pen, and on subjects of humour had uncommon merit. In 1781 a collection of his “Poems” was published by his friend and relation James Peter Andrews, esq. who prefixed the above account of Mr. Penrose. They are distinguished by 'exquisite feeling and taste. His thoughts are pathetic and natural, and he seems possessed of a great portion of the fire and feeling of Collins. Such poems as “The Carousal of Odin,” “Madness,” and “The Field of Battle,” are among the rare productions of modern genius. That these poems are so little known is unaccountable. Mr. Penrose published two occasional sermons of considerable merit.

, or Ap Henry, commonly known by his assumed name of Martin Mar-prelate, or Alar-priest, was born in 1559 in Wales, and studied first at Peterhouse, Cambridge, of which he was A. B. in 1584, and afterwards at Oxford, in which latter university he took the degree of master of arts, and was ordained a priest. Afterwards, meeting with some dissatisfaction, as it is said, and being very warm in his temper, he changed his religion, and became an Anabaptist, or rather a Brownist. He was henceforward a virulent enemy to the church of England, and the hierarchy of that communion, as appears sufficiently by his coarse libels, in which he has shewn his spleen to a great degree. At length, after he had concealed himself for some years, he was apprehended at Stepney, and tried at the King’s-Bench, before sir John Pophain, chief-justice, and the rest of the judges, where he was indicted and condemned for felony, for papers found in his pocket, purporting to be a petition to the queen; and was executed, according to Fuller, at St. Thomas Waterings, in 1593. It appears, that some violence was put upon the laws, even as they then stood, to form a capital accusation against him. For his libels be could not be accused, the legal time for such an accusation having elapsed before he was taken: the papers upon which he was convicted, contained only an implied denial of the queen’s absolute authority to make, enact, decree, and ordain laws; and implied, merely by avoiding to use those terms, according to the very words of the lordkeeper Puckering. His execution was therefore in a high degree unjust. His chief publications are, 1. “Martin Mar-prelate,” the tract that gave so much offence. 12. “Theses Martinianae,” 8vo. 3. “A view of publicke Wants and Disorders in the service of God, in a Petition to the high court of Parliament,” 1588, 8vo. 4. “An Exhortation to the Governors and People of Wales, to labour earnestly to have the preaching of the Gospel planted among them,” 1588, 8vo. 5. “Reformation no Enemy to her Majesty and the State,” 1590, 4to. 6. “Sir Simon Synod’s Hue and Cry for the Apprehension of young Martin Mar-priest, with Martin’s Echo,” 4to. Most of these, and some others, were full of low scurrility and petulant satire. Several tracts, equally scurrilous, were published against him; as, “Pappe with a Hatchet, or a Country Cuffe for the Idiot Martin to hold his Peace;” “X A Whip for an Ape, or Martin displaied;” and others of the same kind. In the composition of these pamphlets, he is said to have had the assistance of John Udall, John Field, and Job Throckmorton, who published their joint effusions at a private printing press. Penry was a man of some learning and zeal for religion, but in his notions of government, both of church and state, appears to have adopted more wild theories than ever his successors, when in power, attempted to carry into practice. His sentence, however, was unjust, and the enemies of the hierarchy have therefore found it no difficult matter to place John Penry at the head of their list of martyrs.

, a French author, whose character was not less esteemed for its candour and modesty, than his writings for their neatness of style and exactness of research, is most known for his continuation of the “Lives of illustrious men of France,” begun by D'Auvigne, but carried on by him, from the thirteenth volume to the twenty-third. He also wrote notes and prefaces to several works. His edition of the works of Bossuet was the best, till they were published by the Benedictines of St. Maur; and he was author of an esteemed life of Jerome Bignon, in 12mo, 1757. He died in March 1767, at the age of sixty-seven .

, second son to the preceding, by his second lady, was born in Audley Square, Nov. 1, 1762. His infancy was spent at Charlton, the seat of his family, in Kent, where he went through the first rudidiments of learning, and also contracted an early attachment for the youngest daughter of the late Sir Thorn; Spencer Wilson, hart, who afterwards became his wife From Charlton he removed to Harrow, where he successfully prepared himself for the university. At the pro] age he entered of Trinity College, Cambridge, where th< present bishop of Bristol, Dr. William-Lort Mansell, his tutor. There unwearied application and splendid abilities led him to the highest academical honours. In 1782 he obtained the degree of master of arts, and on the 16th of December of the following year was admitted of Lincoln’s Inn; where, after performing the necessary studies, he was called to the bar in Hilary Term 1786. He commenced his professional career in the Court of King’s Bench, and accompanied the Judges through the Midland circuit. His chief opponents were then Mr. (now Sir S.) Romilly, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. serjeant Vaughan; and, notwithstanding a degree of modesty, which at that period almost amounted to timidity, he displayed encouraging promises of forensic excellence, on some of the first trials on which he was retained, particularly that of George Thomas, of Brackiey, Northamptonshire, for forgery. In this case he was retained for the prosecution; and had the honour of contending with Mr. Law, since Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough. This trial excited much public attention; and the ability evinced by Mr. Perceval increased the number of his clients. His advancement was now both regular and rapid. In Hilary term 1796, he obtained a silk gown, and became the leading counsel on the Midland circuit, not only in point of rank, but also, in quantity of business. He was soon after appointed counsel to the Admiralty; and the university of Cambridge acknowledged its sense of his merits by nominating him one of its two counsel. About this time, he had attracted the notice of an attentive observer and acute judge of men and talents, the late Mr. Pitt, by a pamphlet which he had written, to prove “that an impeachment of the House of Commons did not abate by a dissolution of parliament.” This work became the foundation of his intimacy with the premier, and his subsequent connexion with the government, and caused a sudden alteration in his prospects. His object now was to obtain a seat in parliament, where he might support those measures for which the situation of the country seemed to call, and a most favourable opportunity presented itself. His first cousin, lord Compton, succeeded to the earldom of Northampton in April 1796, on the demise of his maternal uncle, and consequently vacated his seat for the borough of that name. Mr. Perceval immediately offered himself to represent the vacant borough, and was too well known, and too universally esteemed, to meet with any opposition. He had been previously appointed deputy recorder; and so highly did his constituents approve of his political conduct and private worth, that they returned him to serve in three parliaments.

Extensive as Dr. PercivaPs practice was, he found leisure to continue those publications on which his fame is founded, and by which he was soon known throughout Europe. Among these we may mention “Observations and Experiments on the Poison of Lead,” 1774; “A Father’s Instructions, consisting of tales, fables, and reflections, designed to promote the love of virtue, a taste for knowledge, and an early acquaintance with the works of nature,” 1775. Two years after he added another volume, completing the work, which is executed in a manner excellently adapted to its object. “On the Use of Flowers of Zinc in epileptic cases” (Medical Commentaries, vol. II.) “Miscellaneous practical Observations,” (ibid. V.) “Account of the Earthquake at Manchester,' (ibid.)” The Disadvantages of early Inoculation.“” Experiments and Observations on Water.“” Moral and literary Dissertations,“1784, 8vo.” On the Roman Colonies and Stations in Cheshire and Lancashire,“(Phil. Trans. XLVII. 216.)” Account of a double Child,“(ibid. 360.)” Experiments on the Peruvian Bark, (ibid. LVII. 2^1.) “Experiment! and Observations on the Waters of Buxton and Manche*­ter,” (ibid. LXII. 455.) On the Population of Manchester and other adjacent places,“(ibid. LXIV. 54; LXV. 322, and Supplement, LXVI. 160.)” New and cheap way of preparing Potash," (ibid. LXX. 545.)

, one of the most excellent of the Italian composers, was born at Casoria in the kingdom of Naples, in 1701; and was educated at Naples under Gaetuno Greco, a very famous musician of that time. The prince of San-Agliano, or Stigiiano, becoming acquainted with the talents of yonng Pergolesi, took him under his protection, and, from 1730 to 1734, procured him employment in the new theatre at Naples, where his operas had prodigious success. He then visited Rome, for which place his “Olympiade” was composed, and there performed, but was by no means applauded as it deserved; after which he returned to Naples, and falling into a consumptive disorder, died in 1737, at the premature age of thirty-three. It is not true, as some authors have asserted, that he was poisoned by some of his rivals, nor indeed was thesuccess of his productions sufficiently great to render him an object of envy. His fame was posthumous. From the style of his composition, the Italians have called him the Domenichino of music. Ease, united with deep knowledge of harmony, and great richness of melody, forms the characteristic of his music. It expresses the passions with the very voice of nature, and speaks to the soul by the natural force of its effects. It has been thought, by some, of too melancholy a cast, which might arise, perhaps, from the depression produced by infirmity of constitution. His principal works are, 1. The “Stabat Mater,” usually considered as his most perfect work, and much better known than any other, in this country. 2. Another famous mass, beginning, “Dixit et laudate,” first heard with rapture at Naples, soon after his return from Rome. 3. The mass called “Salve Regina,” the last of his productions, composed at Torre del Greco, a very short time before his death, but as much admired as any of his compositions. 4. His opera of “Olympiade,” set to the words of Metastasio. 5. “La serva Padrona,” a comic opera. 6. His famous cantata of “Orfeo e Euridice.” The greater part of his other compositions were formed for pieces written in the Neapolitan dialect, and unintelligible to the rest of Italy. Pergolesi’s first and principal instrument was the violin. Dr. Burney says, that “he had, perhaps, more energy of genius, and a finer tact, than any of his predecessors; for though no labour appears in his productions, even for the church, where the parts are thin, and frequently in unison, yet greater and more beautiful effects are often produced in the performance than are promised in the score.” “The church-music of Pergolesi has been censured by his countryman, Padre Martini, as well as by some English musical critics, for too much levity of movement, aud a dramatic cast, even in some of his slow airs; while, on the contrary, Eximeno says, that he never heard, and perhaps never shall hear, sacred music accompanied with instruments, so learned and so divine, as the Stabat Mater.” Dr. Burney thinks it very doubtful whether the sonatas ascribed to this author are genuine; but observes, that the progress since made in instrumental music, ought not, at all events, to diminish the reputation of Pergolesi, “which,” he adds, “was not built on productions of that kind, but on vocal compositions, in which the clearness, simplicity, truth, and sweetness of expression, justly entitle him to supremacy over all his predecessors, and contemporary rivals; and to a niche in the temple of fame, among the great improvers of the art; as, if not the founder, the principal polisher of a style of composition both for the church and stage, which has been constantly cultivated by his successors; and which, at the distance of half a century from the short period in which he flourished, still reigns throughout Europe.” The learned historian, for this reason, justly considers the works of Pergolesi as forming a great sera in modern music.

, an old French satirist, was born at Arnay-le-Duc, a small town of Burgundy, about the end of the fifteenth century. He went through his early studies with credit, and was advanced to the place of valet-de-chambre to the queen of Navarre, sister of Francis I. About this time a, considerable freedom of opinion prevailed at court, and the disputes of certain theologians had occasionally furnished subjects for ridicule. Des Periers, who was young and lively, wrote his celebrated work entitled “Cymbalum mundi,” in which the divines of the time found nothing but atheism and impiety, while others considered the satire as general and legitimate. A modern reader will perhaps discover more folly and extravagance than either impiety or wit. The work, however, was prohibited by an order of council soon after it appeared; and, according to De Bure and Brunet, but one copy is known to exist of the original edition. Des Periers did not lose his situation at court, but continued in the same favour with the queen of Navarre, and is supposed to have written some part of the tales which were published under the name of that princess. Des Periers is said to have indulged in excesses which ruined his health, and in the paroxysm of a fever he committed suicide in 1544. His works are, I. The “Andria” of Terence, translated into French rhyme, Lyons, 1537, 8vo. 2. “Cymbalum mundi, en Fran9ais, contenant quatres dialogues poetiques, fort antiques, joyeux, et facetieux,” Paris, 1537, 8vo. This, which was the first edition, he published under the name of Thomas du Clevier. It was reprinted at Lyons in 1538, 8vo, also a rare edition. In 1711, Prosper Marchand pubJished an edition in 12mo, with a long letter on the history of the work. Of this an English translation was published in 1712, 8vo. The last edition is that with notes by Falconet and Lancelot, which appeared in 1732, 12mo. 3. “Recueil desCEuvres de B. Desperiers,” Lyons, 1544, 8vo. This is the only edition of his works which contains his poetry. 4. “Nouvelles recreations et joyeux devis,” Lyons, 1558, 8vo, a collection of tales attributed to Des Periers, but which some think were the production of Nicolas Denisot, and James Peletier; and it is certain that there are some facts mentioned in them which did not occur until after the death of Des Periers. The reader may derive more information on this subject, if he think it interesting, from La Monnoye’s preliminary dissertation to the edition of these tales published at Amsterdam (Paris) in 1735, 3 vols. 12mo.

, a learned and pious divine, was born at Marton in Warwickshire, in 1558, and educated in Christ’s college, Cambridge. His conduct here was at iirst *o dissolute that he was pointed at as an object of contempt, which recalled him to his senses, and in a short time, by sobriety and diligent application, he regained his character both as a scholar and a man, and took his degrees at the statutable periods with approbation. In 1582 he was chosen fellow of his college, and entered into holy orders. His first ministrations were confined to the prisoners in Cambridge jail. Recollecting what he had been himself, with all the advantages of education, and good advice, he compassionated these more ignorant objects, and prevailed upon the keeper of the prison to assemble them in a spacious room, where he preached to them every sabbath. This was no sooner known than others came to hear him; and so much was he admired, that he was immediately chosen preacher at St. Andrew’s church, the first and only preferment he ever attained.

, an able but unfortunate navigator, was born at Albi in 1741. He entered into the French navy when he was only in his fifteenth year, and acquired such professional skill, that he was regarded as fit for the most arduous enterprises. The triumphs of the French marine were few in his time; yet he commanded in the successful attempt to destroy the English settlement in Hudson’s Bay in 1782. On the restoration of peace, it was resolved by the French ministry that a voyage of discovery should be undertaken to supply what had been left defective in the voyages of our illustrious navigator captain James Cook, and his associates. Louis XVI. drew up the plan of the intended expedition with great judgment and intelligence, and La Perouse was the person fixtd upon to conduct it. With two frigates, la Boussole, et PAstrolabe, the first under his own command, the second under that of M. de Langle, but subject to his orders, they sailed from Brest in August 1785; touched at Madeira and Teneriffe, and in November anchored on the coast of Brazil. Thence they proceeded round Cape Horn into the South Sea, and in February 1786 cast anchor in the bay of Conception, on the coast of Chili. At this time, so well had the means of preserving health been employed, that they had not a man sick. The ships reached Easter island in the month of April, and thence sailed, without touching at any land, to the Sandwich islands. On June 23d they anchored on the American coast, in lat. 58 37‘, and landed on an island to explore the country and make observations. At this place M. Perouse had the misfortune of having two boats wrecked, with the loss of all their crew. Thence he ran down to California, and in September anchored in the bay of Monterey, whence they took their departure across the Pacific ocean, and in January 1787 arrived in the Macao roads. In February they reached Manilla, which they quitted in April, shaping their course for the islands of Japan. Passing the coasts of Corea and Japan, they fell in with Chinese Tartary, in lat. 42|, and ran to the northward. They anchored in a bay of the island of Sagalien, and thence proceeded up the shallow channel between that island and the continent as far as 51 29’. Returning thence they reached the southern extremity of Sagalien in August, and passed a strait between it and Jesso, since named Perouse strait, into the North Pacific. On the sixth of September they anchored in the harbour of St. Peter and Paul in Kamtschatka. The ships having refitted, they set sail, and arrived at the Navigators Islands in December. In the bay of Maouna they met with a friendly reception from numerous natives, and began to take in refreshments. A party of sixty, under the command of M. de Langle, went ashore to procure fresh water, when a most unfortunate occurrence took place, in which they were attacked by the natives, and M. de Langle and eleven of his men lost their lives. Quitting this place without any attempts at vengeance, Perouse proceeded to New Holland, and arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788, and here terminates all that is known of the voyage of this navigator, from the journal which he transmitted to France. He had many and very important objects of research remaining, but was never more heard of. The vessels were probably wrecked, and all the crews perished, since all efforts made to obtain information of them have been fruitless. In 1798 was published, at the expence of the French nation, and for the benefit of the widow of Perouse, “Voyage autour du Monde par J. F. G. cle la Perouse,” in three vols. 4to. It was translated into the English. The discoveries of this navigator are chiefly in the seas between Japan and China, and China and Tartary.

During his retreat, Perrault employed his leisure io the composition of several works, among which were his “Poem on the age of Lewis the Great,” and his “Parallel between the Ancients and Moderns.” The long and bitter war these pieces excited between Boileau and the author, is well known. The chief fault of Perrauit was his censuring the ancients in bad verses, which gave Boileau the advantage. Had the two adversaries combated in prose, the match would have been more equal. In the collection of Boileau’s works, may be seen a letter addressed to him by Perrault, in the height of this warfare, against which this great poet’s prose, somewhat inclined to harshness and ponderosity, is scarcely able to sustain itself, notwithstanding all the author’s talents for sarcasm and irony. Perrault’s letter, though filled with reproaches, for the worst part well merited by his antagonist, is a model of decorum and delicacy. With respect to the ground of the dispute, the two adversaries, as usual in these quarrels, are aitrrhafely right and wrong. Perrault, too little conversant m the Greek language, too exclusively sensible of the defects of Homer, shows too little feeliirg of the superior beau ties of this great bard, and is not enough indulgent to his errors in favour of his genius. Boileau, perpetually on his knees before his idol, defends him sometimes unhapplx, and always with a rudeness almost equal to that with which the heroes of the Iliad abuse each other. It is, indeed, asserted that the enmity of Boileau against the author of the “Poem on^Louis le Grand,” had a secret cause, more potent than his devotion for the ancients; which was, that the writer, when justly celebrating the great Corneille, had affected to avoid all mention of the author of “Phaedra” and“” Iphigenia." There is some reason to believe that Boileau was- not better satisfied with the silence observed with respect to himself in this poem, which had not disdained to notice Godeaux and Tristan. But the satirist’s self-love in the displeasure he professed, prudently concealed itself behind his friendship for Racine, and perhaps was thus concealed even from himself. If on this occasion he displayed an excess of feeling, his adversary had been guilty of great injustice. To deprive the age of Lewis the Fourteenth of Boileau and Racine, is to deprive the age of Augustus, of Horace and Virgil.

We shall at present pass over some works of Perrault, less considerable than the two, which made him most talked of, and most clisturbed his repose. We shall only mention his “History of Illustrious Men of the Age of Lewis XIV.” Freed from his controversy with Boileau, but still a zealous partizan for his age, Perrault celebrated its glory in this work, which did equal honour to his understanding and his impartiality. Somewhat more life and colouring might be desired in it, but not more sincerity and justice. The author even confesses that he has denied himself ornament, for the purpose of giving more truth to his narration, by limiting encomium to the si,.iple recital of facts. “I was not ignorant,” says he, “that if I had made these eulogies more eloquent, I should have derived more glory from them; but 1 thought only of the glory of those whom I commemorate. It is well known, that funeral orations in general are more the eulogy of the preacher than of the deceased; and that if the reputation of the composer i$ often augmented by them, that of the subject almost always remains what it was before.”

, better known by the name of cardinal de Granvelle, was born 1517, at Besançon, and was son of Nicholas Perrenot, seigneur de Granvelle, chancellor to the emperor Charles V. Born with an ambitious, intriguing, and firm temper, joined to great abilities, he speedily raised himself, was made canon and archdeacon of Besançon, then bishop of Arras, in which character he spoke very forcibly at the council of Trent when but twenty-four years of age, and afterwards served the emperor Charles V. in several embassies to France, England, and elsewhere. This prince had so particular an esteem for Granvelle, and such confidence in him, that on abdicating the empire, he recommended him to his son Philip II. who scarce ever took any step relative either to private or public affairs, without his advice and assistance. Granvelle was afterwards appointed the first archbishop of Malines, was made cardinal in 1561, by Pius IV. and at length counsellor to Margaret of Parma, governess of the Netherlands, where, according to Strada’s account, his ambition and cruelty occasioned part of the outrages which were committed. Philip II. recalled him a second time to court, and entrusted him with all the affairs of the Spanish monarchy. Cardinal de Granvelle died at Madrid September 21, 1586, aged seventy, after having been nominated to the archbishopric of Besançon. His Life, written by D. Prosper Levêque, a Benedictine, was printed at Paris, 1753, 2 vols. 12mo. It is interesting, but the author is unpardonably partial, and conceals the cruelty, ambition, and other faults of this celebrated cardinal.

, perhaps better known by his classical appellation of Dionysius Petavius, was born at Orleans Aug. 21, 1583. His father, Jerome Petau, although a merchant, was a man of considerable literature, and rather more attentive to matters of taste than of commerce: the consequence of which was, that he left very little property to his children, six sons and two daughters. He gave them all, however, a learned education; the daughters as well as the sons being taught Latin and Greek, and able to write verses in both languages. But we find, that with all his learning, Jerome was a superstitious bigot to his religion; which his biographer, father Oudin, as warm a zealot as himself, says was at one time in danger of being shaken by some of his Protestant friends, who were very numerous in Orleans. Nay, he was, according to Oudin, about to renounce Popery altogether, and retire with his family, when an extraordinary accident prevented his design. A part of his house tell down, and so frightened him, that, while he lay buried under the ruins, he made a vow, that if ever he escaped, he would break off all acquaintance with the Protestants; and being dug out alive and unhurt, he kt-pt his vow, and endeavoured to give his children the *ame dislike to the Protestant faith as he had formerly determined to give them to the Roman Catholic.

The catalogue of the works of Petau affords an uncommon proof of diligence; for we are assured, that besides the labour of composing, compiling, &c. he transcribed every thing with his own hand for the press, and employed no amanuensis or reader to assist him. Among his works are: 1. “Synesii Dio, vel de ipsius vitae institute,” mentioned already as published in Morel’s edition of St. Chrysostom. 2. “Panegyricus Ludovico XIII. Francix et Navarrx regi, &c. in natalem diem,” &c. 1610, 12mo. 3. “De laudibus Henrici magni carmen,” &c. 1&10, 4. “Oratio de laudibus Henrici magni,” Rheims, 1611, 4to. 5. “Synesii Opera,” Paris, 1612 1633, 3 vols. folio. 6. “Julian! imperatoris orationes tres panrgyricaD,” Flexise (La Fieche), 1613, 8vo. 7. “Themistii Orationes septemdecim. Gr. Lat.” ibid. 1613, 8vo. 8. “Tragce iia, Carthaginienses,” ibid. 1614, 8vo, a tragedy in the manner of Seneca, which it was then the fashion to imitate. 9. “Pompa regia Ludovici XIII” &c. a collection of the complimentary verses on the royal visit to La Fieche, mentioned before, 1614, 4to. 10 “Nicephori Breviariuin Historicum,” Gr. et Lat.“Paris, 1616, 8vo. 11.” Themistii, cognomento Suadae, orationes novemdecim, Gr et Lat.“ibid. 1618, 4to. 12.” Soteria ad S. Genov-fam,“ibid. 1619, 4to, his votive poem to St. Genevieve. 13. Another, in praise of the same saint,” Panegyricus in S Genevefam,“ibid. 1619, 4to. 14.” D. Petavii Orationes,“ibid. 1620, 1622, 1624, 8vo. 15.” D. Petavii Opera Poetica,“ibid. 1621, 8vo, reprinted at least three times. 16.” Office de S. Genevieve,“ibid. 1621, 16mo. 17. Epiphanii Opera omnia,” ibid. 1622, 2 vols. folio, reprinted at Cologn 1682. In April following the publication of this work, Salmasius took occasion to attack Petau, in his edition of the “Pallio” of Tertullian, and certainly not in very respectful language. Petau’s biographer says he ought to have taken no notice of such an attack, as in that case his silence would have completely disconcerted Salmasius, a man who could not exist without a quarrel with some contemporary; or, at all events, Petau should have been content with a short answer to such an opponent. Perhaps Petau might have been pf this opinion, if he had not considered that Salmasius was a Protestant, and regarded by Protestants as the man who would one day supply the loss of Joseph Scaliger; and he was not therefore sorry to have this opportunity, not only to defend himself against Salmasius, but to attack him in his turn. He published, accordingly, 18. “Animadversionum liber,” under the fictitious name of Antonius Kerkoetius Aremoricus, and die fictitious place of “Rhedonis apud Yvonem Halecium,” i.e. “Parisiis, apud Sebast. Cramoisy,” 1622, 8vo. This brought on an angry controversy, in which Salmasius certainly had some advantages, from his superior knowledge of the manner of handling the weapons of controversy; and perhaps we may be permitted to say, from his having the, better cause to support. Petau’s pamphlets, on this casion, were entitled “Mastigophores,” and consisted of three, and a supplement, published in 162:5 and 1624. But we hasten to his more important chronological works, uhich, of all others, preserve his memory in our times: 19. “Opus de doctrina Temporum,” Paris, 1627, 2 vols. folio, reprinted, with additions from his own copy, Amst. 170:3, folio. 20. “Uranologion, sive systema variorum authorum, qui de sphaera ac sideribus, eorumque motibus Grasce commentati sunt,” ibid. 163O, folio,“intended as a supplement to his” Doctrina temporum“to which an additional volume was published, with dissertations from the Mss. of Petau and Sirmond, in 1703, folio. 21.” Tabulue Chronologicae Regum, Dynastarum, Urbium, &c. a mundo coridito, &c. &c.“ibid. 1628, on large sheets, and often reprinted: the best edition is that of Vesel, 1702. 22.” Rationarium Temporum,“ibid. 1633, 12mo. the best known and most useful of all his works, and long the standard book in all seminaries and private libraries, for chronology and history. It was consequently often reprinted, improved, and enlarged, not only by the author, but by various other editors. There are two editions, printed at Leyden in 1724 and 1745, 2 vols. 8vo, which are said to be the best. Besides these, and many other works of inferior importance enumerated by his biographer, Petau published a considerable number of theological pieces, which have sunk into oblivion, except perhaps his” Theologica dogmata,“Paris, 1G44, 5 vols. folio; reprinted more correctly at Antwerp, 1700, 3 vols. folio. Of this work, Bayle has observed, that Petavius did the Socinians great service, though unawares, and against his intentions and quotes the following passage from the” Lettres Choisies“of Mr. Simon” If there be any thing to censure in Petavius’s works, it is chiefly in the second tome of his “Dogmata Theologica,” in which he seems to favour the Arians. It is true, that he softened those passages in his preface; but as the body of the work continues entire, and the preface, which is an excellent piece, came afterwards, it has not entirely prevented the harm which that book is like to do at this time, when the new Unitarians boast, that father Petavius declared for them.“Baylo thinks he has resolved this, by informing us that Petavius’s original design, in the second volume of his” Dogmata Theologica,“was, to represent ingenuously the doctrine of the three first centuries. Having no particular system to defend, he did not disguise the opinions of the fathers; but acknowledged that some of them entertained false and absurd notions concerning the Trinity. All this, however, either from fear, or upon better consideration, he retracted, and published a” Preface,“in which he laboured solely to asseYt the orthodoxy of the fathers. The” Dogmata Theologica of Petavius,“says Gibbon,” is a work of incredible labour and compass: the volumes which relate solely to the incarnation (two folios of 837 pages) are divided into sixteen books: the first of history, the remainder of controversy and doctrine.“” The Jesuit’s learning,“adds our infidel historian,” is copious and correct: his Latinity is pure, his method clear, his argument profound and well connected: but he is the slave of the fathers, the scourge of heretics, and the enemy of truth and candour, as often as they are inimical to the Catholic cause."

At the same time, he had another project in view, of vast importance, and most difficult execution. The sight of a small Dutch vessel, which he had met with on a lake, where it lay useless and neglected, made a wonderful impression on his mind, and he conceived thoughts of forming a navy; a design, which probably then seemed next to impossible, even to himself. His first care was to get Hollanders to build some small vessels at Moscow, and afterwards four frigates, of four guns each, on the lake of Pereslave. He had already taught them to combat one another; and in order to instruct himself in naval affairs, he passed two summers successively on board English or Dutch ships, which set out from Archangel. In I6i)6, the czar John died, and Peter became sole master of the empire. He began his reign with the siege of Asoph, then in the hands of the Turks, but did not take it till 1697. He had already sent for Venetians, to build gallies on the river Don, which might shut up the mouth of that river, and prevent the Turks from relieving the place. This gave him a stronger idea than ever, of the importance and necessity of a naval force; yet he could have none but foreign ships, none at least but what he was obliged to employ foreigners in building. He was desirous of surmounting these disadvantages, but the affairs he projected were of too new and singular a nature to be so much as considered in his council, nor were they proper to he communicated. He resolved therefore singly to manage this bold undertaking; with which view, in 1698, he sent an embassy to Holland, and went himself incognito in the retinue. He entered himself in the India admiralty-office at Amsterdam, caused himself to he inrolled in the list of ship-carpenters; and worked in the yard with greater assiduity than any body there. His quality was known to all; and he was pointed at with a sort of veneration. King William, who was then in Holland, paid him all the respect that was due to his uncommon qualities; and the czar’s disguise freed him from that which was merely ceremonious and troublesome. The czar worked with such success, as in a little time to pass for a good carpenter; and afterwards studied the proportions of a ship. He then went into England; where, in four months, he made himself a complete master in the art of ship-building, by studying the principles of it mathematically, which he had no opportunity of learning in Holland. In England he met with a second reception from king William; who, to make him a present agreeable to his taste, and which might serve as a model of the art he was so very desirous to learn, gave him a magnificent yacht. He carried with him from England several English ship-builders and artificers, among whom was one whose name was Noy; but the C2ar took also upon himself the title of a master-builder, and was pleased to submit to the conditions of that character. Thus he and Noy received orders from the lord high admiral of Russia, to build each of them a man of war; and, in compliance with that order, the czar gave the first proof of his art. He never ceased to pursue it, but had always a ship upon the stocks; and, at his death, left one of the largest ships in Europe half-built.

The czarina, his widow, whom he nominated his successor, was, upon his death, immediately acknowledged empress of Russia by the several estates of the empire. The history of this lady is’rather extraordinary. She was born in Livonia, in 1684; and losing her parents, who were of low condition, she became destitute. The parishclerk, who kept a school, took her into his house, and supported her, till Dr. Gluck, minister of Marienburg, happening to come to that village, eased the clerk of the girl, whom he liked exceedingly, and carried her home with him. Dr. Gluck treated her almost in the same manner as if she had been his own daughter; and not only had her taught spinning and sewing, but instructed her also himself in literature above her sex, and especially in the German language. At length a Livonian serjeant in the Swedish army, fell passionately in love with her, and she agreed to marry him: but the next day the Russians made themselves masters of Marienburg; and the general, casting his eyes accidentally on Catherine, and observing something very striking in her air and manner, took her then under his protection, and afterwards into his service. Some time after, she was advanced to be a housekeeper to prince Menzikoff, who was the general’s patron; and there the czar seeing her, she made such an impression on him that he married her. She was taken at Marienburg in 1702, and married to the czar in 1710: what became of her former husband, the serjeant, is not known. She was a woman of wonderful abilities and address, and a very fit consort for such a man as Peter the Great. It has been already observed in what manner she rescued him from rujn by her management, when he was surrounded by the Turks: and he seems to have made her the partner of his councils and undertakings, as well as of his bed. He shewed the high opinion he had of her by nominating her to succeed him;. but she died in little more than two years after him. She had several daughters by the czar; the youngest of which, Elizabeth, after the heirs of the elder branches were extinct, ascended the throne in 1741.

, an agreeable French writer and learned Orientalist, was born in 1654. After a suitable education he became the king of France’s secretary, and interpreter for Oriental languages, and succeeded his father in those offices, which, his countrymen inform us, he was eminently well qualified to fill. To a very considerable share of general learning, he added an integrity and firmness of mind which enabled him to resist the importunities of corruption in a very remarkable instance. He had great offers made to him if he would insert in the treaty between the Algerines and Lewis XIV. that the six hundred thousand livres, to be received by the latter, should be paid in Tripoli crowns, which would have made a difference of a sixth part. But this he rejected with contempt, although the trick could not have been discovered, or known to any except those who were to profit by it.

, a famous English botanist, was contemporary with Plukenet; but the exact time of his birth is not known, nor is much intelligence concerning him at present to be obtained. His profession was that of an apothecary, to which he was apprenticed under Mr. Feltham, then apothecary to St. Bartholomew’s hospital. When he entered into business for himself, he settled in Aldersgatestreet, and there continued for the remainder of his life. He obtained considerable business, and after a time became apothecary to the Charter-house. After the Tradescants, he appears to have been the only person, except Mr. Courten, and sir Hans Sloane, who made any considerable collection in Natural History, previous to those of the present day. He engaged the captains and surgeons of ships to bring him home specimens, and enabled them to select proper objects by printed directions which he distributed among them. By these means his collection became so valuable, that, some time before his death, sir Hans Sloane offered him four thousand pounds for it. After his death, it was purchased by the same collector, and now makes part of the British Museum, where they are frequently resorted to for the sake of ascertaining obscure synonyms, his plates being so generally cited by Linnæus, and in many instances so insufficient to express the precise object intended. He was elected into the royal society, and becoming acquainted with Ray, assisted him in arranging the second volume of his History of Plants. He died April 20, 1718, and much honour was shewn to him at his funeral, by the attendance of sir Hans Sloane, and other eminent men, as pall-bearers, &c.

The taste for poetry and elegant composition, for which the public mind had been prepared by the writings of Dante, ascended to a pitch of enthusiastic admiration, when these works of Petrarch appeared. Literary fame, in those days, must have depended on the opinion of a very few competent judges; for, as printing was not then known, the circulation of a new work, by manuscript copies, must have been very slow, and extremely limited. While enjoying this reputation, however, he received a letter from the Maecenas of the age, Robert king of Naples. And this honour was followed by one still greater; the revival, in his favour, of the ancient custom of crowning eminent poets at Rome. Petrarch appears to have indulged the hope of attaining this honour, and not on slight grounds; for, in August 1340, he unexpectedly received a letter from the Roman senate, inviting him to come and take the laurel in that city, and on the same day he received a similar invitation from Paris. Having determined to accept the invitation from Rome, he thought it necessary first to repair to the court of king Robert at Naples (in March 1341), and undergo a public examination as to his learning and talents. Having gone through a ceremony, which, as far as voluntary, was ostentatious, he went to Rome where, on Easter-day, in the midst of the plaudits of the Roman people, the ceremony was performed in the capitol by his friend count d'Anguillara. Twelve patrician youths were arrayed in scarlet; six representatives of the most illustrious families, in green robes, with garlands of flowers, accompanied the procession: in the midst of the princes and nobles, Anguillara assumed his throne, and at the voice of a herald Petrarch arose. After discoursing on a text of Virgil, and thrice repeating his vows for the prosperity of Rome, he knelt before the throne, and received from the senator a laurel crown, with the declaration, “This is the reward of merit.” The people shouted “Long life to the capitol and the poet.” A sonnet in praise of Rome was accepted as the effusion of genius and gratitude; and after the whole procession had visited the Vatican, the wreath was suspended before the shrine of St. Peter. In the act of diploma, which was presented to Petrarch, the title and prerogatives of poet-laureat are revived in the capitol, after the lapse of 1300 years; and he received the perpetual privilege of wearing, at his choice, a crown of laurel, ivy, or myrtle, of assuming the poetic habit, and of teaching, disputing, interpreting, and composing, in all places whatsoever, and on all subjects of literature. The grant was ratified by the authority of the senate and people, and the character of citizen was the recompence of his affection for the Roman name.

, a singular instance of an almost universal genius, and of learning, mechanical ingenuity, and ceconomy, applied to useful purposes, was the eldest son of Anthony Petty, a clothier at Rumsey, in Hampshire, and was born May 16, 1623. It does not appear that his father was a man of much property, as he left this son none at his death, in 1641, and contributed very little to his maintenance. When young, the boy took extraordinary pleasure in viewing various mechanics at their work, and so readily conceived the natjure of their employment, and the use of their tools, that he was, at the age of twelve, able to iiandle the latter with dexterity not much inferior to that of the most expert workmen in any trade which he had ever seen. What education he had was first at the grammar-school at Rum?ey, where, according to his own account, he acquired, before the age of fifteen, a competent knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and French languages, and became master of the common rules of arithmetic, geometry, dialling, and the astronomical part of navigation. With this uncommon fund of various knowledge he removed, at the above age of fifteen, to the university of Caen in Normandy. This circumstance is mentioned among those particulars of his early life which he has given in his will, although, by a blunder of the transcriber, Oxford is put for Caen in Collir.s’s Peerage. Wood says that, when he went to Caen, “with a little stock of merchandizing which he then improved, he maintained himself there, learning the French tongue, and at eighteen years of age, the arts and mathematics.” Mr. Aubrey’s account is in these not very perspicuous words: “He has told me, there happened to him the most remarkable accident of life (which he did not tell me), and which was the foundation of all the rest of his greatness and acquiring riches. He informed me that about fifteen, in March, he went over to Caen, in Normandy, in a vessel that went hence, with a little stock, and began to play the merchant, and had so good successe that he maintained himselfe, and also educated himselfe: this I guesse was that most remarkable accident that he meant. Here he learned the French tongue, and perfected himself in Latin, and had Greeke enough to serve his turne. At Caen he studyed the arts. At eighteen, he was (I have heard him say) a better mathematician than he is now; but when occasion is, he knows how to recurre to more mathematical knowledge.” These accounts agree in the main points, and we may learn from both that he had at a very early period begun that money-making system which enabled him to realize a vast fortune. He appears to have been of opinion, that “there are few ways in which a man can be more harmlessly employed than in making money.” On his return to his native country, he speaks of being 1 preferred to^the king’s navy, but in what capacity is not known. This he attributes to the knowledge he had acquired, and his “having been at the university of Caen.” In the navy, however, before he was twenty years of age, he got together about 60l. and the civil war raging at this time, he determined to set out on his travels, for further improvement in his studies. He had now chosen medicine as a profession, and in the year 1643, visited Leyden, Utrecht, Amsterdam, and Paris, at which last city he studied anatomy, and read Vesalixis with the celebrated Hobbes, who was partial to him. Hobbes was then writing on optics, and Mr. Petty, who had a turn that way, drew his diagrams, &c. for him. While at Paris, he informed Aubrey that “at one time he was driven to a great streight for money, and told him, that he lived a week or two on three pennyworths of walnuts.” Aubrey likewise queries whether he was not some time a prisoner there. His ingenuity and industry, however, appear to have extricated him from his difficulties, for we have his own authority that; he returned home in 1646, a richer man by IQl. than he set out, and yet had maintained his brother Anthony as well as himself.

How this 70l. accumulated will appear by his will. It may suffice here to mention, that in the following year March 6, a patent was granted him by parliament for seventeen years, for a copying machine, as it would now be termed, but which he calls an instrument for double writing. In an advertisement prefixed to his “Advice to Mr. Samuel Hartlib,” he calls it, “an instrument of small bulk and price, easily made, and very durable; whereby any man, even at the first sight and handling, may write two resembling copies of the same thing at once, as serviceably and as fast (allowing two lines upon each page for setting the instruments) as by the ordinary way, of what nature, or in what character, or what matter soever, as, paper, parchment, a book, &c. the said writing ought-to be made upon.” Rushworth also, having mentioned the patent for teaching this art, transcribes nearly our author’s words; and says, “It might be learnt in an hour’s practice, and that it was of great advantage to lawyers, scriveners, merchants, scholars, registers, clerks, &c. it saving the labour of examination, discovering or preventing falsification, and performing the whole business of writing, as with ease and speed, so with privacy also.” The additional fatigue occasioned to the hand, by the increase of weight above that of a pen, rendered this project useless as to the chief advantage proposed, that of expedition in writing: but it seems to have been applied with some alterations to the business of drawing; the instrument for which is too well known to need any description here.

Upon his return to Ireland soon after, some further endeavours being used to bring on a prosecution, Petty published the same year, “A Brief of the Proceedings between sir Hierom Sankey and the author, with the state of the controversy between them,” in three sheets; which was followed by “Reflections upon some Persons and Things in Ireland,” &c. He then came again to England and brought a very warm application in his favour from the lord lieutenant, in these terms: “Sir, the bearer, Dr. Petty, hath been my secretary, and clerk of the council here in Ireland, and is one whom I have known to be an honest and ingenious man. He is like to fall into some trouble from some who envy him. I desire you to be acquainted with him, and to assist him, wherein he shall reasonably desire it. Great endeavours have been used to beget prejudice against him; but when you speak with him, he will appear otherwise.” Notwithstanding this, he was removed from his public employments in June.

This singular composition bears date May 2, 1685, and runs thus: “In the name of God, Amen. I, sir William. Petty, knt. born at Rumsey, in Hantshire, do, revoking all other and former wills, make this my last will and testament, premising the ensuing preface to the same, whereby to express my condition, design, intentions, and desires, concerning the persons and things contained in, and relating to, my said will, for the better expounding any thing which may hereafter seem doubtful therein, and also for justifying, on behalf of my children, the manner and means of getting and acquiring the estate, which I hereby bequeath unto them; exhorting them to improve the same by no worse negociations. In the first place I declare and affirm, that at the full age of fifteen years I had obtained the Latin, Greek, and French tongues, the whole body of common Arithmetic, the practical Geometry and Astronomy conducing to Navigation, Dialling, &c. with the knowledge of several mathematical trades, all which, and having been at the university of Caen, preferred me to the king’s navy; where, at the age of twenty years, I had gotten up about threescore pounds, with as much mathematics as any of my age was known to have had. With this provision, anno 1643, when the civil wars between the king and parliament grew hot, I went into the Netherlands and France for three years, and having vigorously followed my studies, especially that of medicine, at Utrecht, Leyden, Amsterdam, and Paris, I returned to Rumsey, where I was born, bringing back with me my brother Anthony, whom I had bred, with about 10l. more than I had carried out of England. With this 70l. and my endeavours, in less than four years more, I obtained my degree of M. D. in Oxford, and forthwith thereupon to be admitted into the College of Physicians, London, and into several clubs of the Virtuous (Virtuosi); after all which expence defrayed, I had left 28l. and in the next two years being made Fellow of Brazen -Nose, and Anatomy Professor in Oxford, and also Reader at Gresham-college, I advanced my said stock to about 400l. and with 100l. more advanced and given me to go for Ireland, unto full 500l. Upon the 10th of September, 1652, I landed, at Waterford in Ireland, Physician to the army who had suppressed the rebellion begun in the year 1641, and to the general of the same, and the head quarters, at the rate of 20^. per diem, at which I continued till June 1659, gaining, by my practice, about 400l. a year above the said salary. About Sept. 1654, I perceiving that the admeasurement of the lands, furfrited by the aforementioned rebellion, and intended to regulate the satisfaction of the soldiers who hadsuppressed the same, was most insufficiently and absurdly managed; I obtained a contract, dated llth December, 1654, for making the said admeasurement, and, by God’s blessing, so performed the same, as that I gained about 9,000l. thereby, which, with the 500l. abovementioned, and my salary of 20s. per diem, the benefit of my practice, together with 600l. given me for directing an after survey of the adventurer’s lands, and 800l. more for two years’ salary as clerk of the council, raised me an estate of about 13,000l. in ready and real money, at a time when, without art, interest, or authority, men bought as much lands for ten shillings in real money, as in this year, 1685, yields 10s. per annum rent, above his majesty’s quit-rents. Now I bestowed part of the said 13,000l. in soldier’s debentures, part in purchasing the earl of Arundel’s house and garden in Lothbury, London, and part I kept in cash to answer emergencies. Hereupon I. purchased lands inIreland, with soldiers’ debentures , bought at the above market-rates, a great part whereof I lost by the Court of Innocents, anno 1663; and built the said garden, called Tokenhouse Yard, in Lothbury, which was for the most part destroyed by the dreadful fire, anno 1666. Afterwards, anno 1667, I married Elizabeth, the relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. I set up iron-works and pilchard-fishing in Kerry, and opened the lead -mines and timber-trade in Kerry: by all which, and some advantageous bargains, and with living under my income, I have, at the making this my will, the real and personal estate following: viz. a large house and four tenements in Rumsey, with four acres of meadow upon the causeway, and four acres of arable in the fields, called Marks and Woollsworths, in all about 30A per ann.; houses in Token-house Yard, near Lothbury, London, with a lease in Piccadilly, and the Seven Stars and Blazing Star in Birching-lane, London, worth about 500l. per annum, besides mortgages upon certain houses in Hoglane, near Shoreditch, in London, and in Erith, in Kent, worth about 20l. per annum. I have three fourth parts of the ship Charles, whereof Derych Paine is master, which I value at 80l. per annum, as also the copper-plates for the maps of Ireland with the king’s privilege, which I rate at lOOl. per annum, in all 730l. per annum. I have in Ireland, without the county of Kerry, in lands, remainders, and reversions, about 3,100l. per annum. I have of neat profits, out of the lands and woods of Kerry, above 1,100l. per annum, besides iron-works, fishing, and leadmines, and marble-quarries, worth 600l. per annum; in all 4,800l. I have, as my wife’s jointure, during her life, about 850l. per annum; and for fourteen years after her death about 2001. per ann. I have, by 3,300l. money at interest, 20l. per annum; in all about 6,700l. per annum. The personal estate is as follows, viz. in chest, 6,600l.; in the hands of Adam Loftus, 1,296l.; of Mr. John Cogs, goldsmith, of London, 1,2 5 1l.; in silver, plate, and jewels, about 3,000l.; in furniture, goods, pictures, coach-horses, books, and watches, 1,1 So/.; per estimate in all 12,000l. I value my three chests of original map and field -books, the copies of the Downe-survey, with the Barony-maps, and chest of distribution-books, with two chests of loose papers relating to the survey, the two great barony-books, and the book of the History of the Survey, altogether at 2,000l. I have due out of Kerry, for arrears of my rent and iron, before 24th June, 1685, the sum of 1,912l. for the next half year’s rent out of my lands in Ireland, my wife’s jointure, and England, on or before 24th June next, 2,000l. Moreover, by arrears due 30th April, 1685, out of all my estate, by estimate, and interest of money, 1,800l. By other good debts, due upon bonds and bills at this time, per estimate, 900l. By debts which I call bad 4000l. worth perhaps 800l. By debts which I call doubtful, 50,0007. worth, perhaps, 25,000l. In all, 34,4 12l. and the total of the whole personal estate, 46,412l.: so as my present income for the year 1685 may be 6,700l. the profits of the personal estate may be 4,64 \l. and the demonstrable improvement of my Irish estate may be 3,659l. per ann. to make in all I5,000l. per ann. in and by all manner of effects, abating for bad debts about 28,000l.; whereupon I say in gross, that my real estate or income may be 6,600l. per ann. my personal estate about 45,000l. my bad and desperate debts 30,000l. and the improvements may be 4,000 /. per ann. in all 15,000l. per ann. ut supra. Now my opinion and desire is (if I could effect it, and if I were clear from the law, custom, and other impediments) to add to my wife’s jointure three fourths of what it now is computed at, viz. 637l. per ann. to make the whole 1,487l. per ann. which addition of 637l. and 850l. being deducted out of the aforementioned 6,600l. leaves 5,113l. for my two sons whereof I would my eldest son should have two-thirds, or 3,408l. and the younger 1,705l. and that, after their mother’s death, the aforesaid addition of 637l. should be added in like proportion, making for the eldest 3,S32l. and for the youngest 1,916l. and I would that the improvement of the estate should be equally divided between my two sons; and that the personal estate (taking out 10,000l. for my only daughter) that the rest should be equally divided between my wife and three children; by which method my wife would have 1,587l. per ann. and 9,000l. in personal effects; my daughter would have 10,000l. of the Crame, and 9,000l. more, with less certainty: my eldest son would have 3,800l. per ann. and half the expected improvement, with 9,000l. in hopeful effects, over and above his wife’s portion: and my youngest son would have the same within 1,900l. per ann. I would advise my wife, in this case, to spend her whole l,587l. per ann. that is to say, on her own entertainment, charity, and munificence, without care of increasing her children’s fortunes: and I would she would give away one-third of the above mentioned 9,000l. at her death, even from her children, upon any worthy object, and dispose of the other two-thirds to such of her children and grand-children as pleased her best, without regard to any other rule or proportion. In case of either of my three children’s death under age, I advise as follows; viz. If my eldest, Charles, die without issue, I would that Henry should have three-fourths of what he leaves; and my daughter Anne the rest. If Henry die, I would that what he leaves may be equally divided between Charles and Anne: and if Anne die, that her share be equally divided between Charles and Henry. Memorandum, That I think fit to rate the 30,000l. desperate debts at 1,1 Ooj. only, and to give it my daughter, to make her abovementioned 10,000l. and 9,000l. to be full 20,000l. which is much short of what I have given her younger brother; and the elder brother may have 3,800 per ann. and 9,000l. in money, worth 900l. more, 2,0001. by improvements, and 1,300l. by marriage, to make up the whole to 8,000l. per ann. which is very well for the eldest son, as 20,000l. for the daughter.” He then leaves his wife executrix and guardian during her widowhood, and, in case of her marriage, her brother James Waller, and Thomas Dame: recommending to them two, and his children, to use the same servants and instruments for management of the estate, as were in his life- time, at certain salaries to continue during their lives, or until his youngest child should be twenty-one years, which would be the 22d of October, 1696, after which his children might put the management of their respective concerns into what hands they pleased. He then proceeds:

“I would not have my funeral charge to exceed 300l. over and above which sum I allow and give 150l. to set up a monument in the church of Rumsey, near where my grandfather, father, and mother, were buried, in memory of them, and of all my brothers and sisters. I give also 5l. for a stone to be set up in Lothbury church, London, in memory of my brother Anthony, there buried about 18th October, 1649. I give also 50l. for a small monument to be set up in St. Bride’s church, Dublin, in memory of my son John, and my near kinsman, John Petty, supposing my wife will add thereunto for her excellent son, Sir William Fenton, bart. who was buried there 18th March, 1670-71; and if I myself be buried in any of the said three places, I would have Joo/. only added to the above-named sums, or that the said 100l. shall be bestowed on a monumentfor me in any other place where I shall die. As for legacies for the poor, I am at a stand as for beggars by trade and election, I give them nothing; as for impotents by the hand of God, the public ought to maintain them; as for those who have been bred to no calling nor estate, they should be put upon their kindred; as for those who can get no work, the magistrate should cause them to be employed, which may be well done in Ireland, where is fifteen acres of improvable land for every head; prisoners for crimes, by the King; for debts, by their prosecutors; as for those who compassionate the sufferings of any object, let them relieve themselves by relieving such sufferers, that is, give them alms pro re nata, and for God’s sake relieve those several species above-mentioned, where the above-mentioned obligors fail in their duties: wherefore I am contented that I have assistc I all my poor relations, and put many into a way of getting their own bread, and have laboured in public works, and by inventions have sought out real objects of charity; and do hereby conjure all who partake of my estate, from time to time to do the same at their peril. Nevertheless, to answer custom, and to take the surer side, 1 give 20l. to the most wanting of the parish wherein I die. As for the education of my children, I would that my daughter might marry in Ireland, desiring that such a sum as I have left her, might not be carried out of Ireland. I wish that my eldest son may get a gentleman’s estate in England, which, by what I have gotten already, intend to purchase, and by what I presume he may have with a wife, may amount to between 2000l. and 3000l. per ann. and buy some office he may get there, together with an ordinary superlucration may reasonably be expected; so as I may design my youngest son’s trade and employment to be the prudent management of our Irish estate for himself and his elder brother, which I suppose his said brother must consider him for. As for myself, I being now about three-score and two years old, I intend to attend the improvement of my lands in Ireland, and to get in the many debts owing unto me; and to promote the trade of iron, lead, marble, fish, and timber, whereof my estate is capable: and as for studies and experiment, I think now to confine the same to the anatomy of the people and political arithmetic as also to the improvements of ships, land- carriages, guns, and pumps, as of most use to mankind, not blaming the studies of other men. As for religion, I die in the profession of that faith, and in the practice of such worship, as I find established by the law of my country, not being able to believe what I myself please, nor to worship God better than by doing as I would be done unto, and observing the laws of my country, and expressing my love and honour to Almighty God by such signs and tokens as are understood to be such by the people with whom I live, God knowing my heart, even without any at all; and thus begging the Divine Majesty to make me what he would have me to be, both as to faith and good works, I willingly resign my soul into his hands, relying only on his infinite mercy, and the merits of my Saviour, for my happiness after this life, where I expect to know and see God more clearly than by the study of the Scriptures and of his works I have been hitherto able to do. Grant me, O Lord, an easy passage to thyself, that, as I have lived in thy fear, I may be known to die in thy favour. Amen.”

but his sonne will have the benefitt of the precedency f. He is a person of an admirable inventive head, and practicall parts. He hath told me that he hath read but little, that is to say, not since 25 <etat. and is of Mr. Hobbes his mind, that had he read much, as some men have, he had not known so much as he does, nor should have made such discoveries and improvements.

, descendant of the preceding, second lord Wycombe, and first marquis of Lansdown, was born in May 1737, and succeeded his father as lord Wycombe, earl of Shelburne, in the month of May 1761. In February 1765 he was married to lady Sophia Carteret, daughter of the late earl Granvitle, by whom he became possessed of large estates, particularly that beautiful spot Lansdown Hill, Bath, from which he took his last title. By this lady, who died in 1771, he had a son, John Henry, who succeeded him in his titles, and who is since dead, leaving no male heir. The marquis married, secondly, lady Louisa Fiizpatrick, by whom, who died in 1789, he had another son, lord Henry, the present marquis of Lansdown. His lordship being intended for the army, he, at a fit a^e, obta tied a commission in the guards, and served wuh the British troops in Germany under prince Ferdinand, and gave signal proofs of great personal courage at the battles of Campen and Minden. In December 1760 he was appointed aid-de-camp to the king, George III. with the rank of colonel. As a political man, he joined the party of the earl of Bute; and in 1762 he eagerly defended the court on the question respecting the preliminaries of peace. In the following year he was sworn of the privy council, and appointed first lord of the board of trade, which he soon quitted, and with it his connexion with the court and ministry, and aiUiched himself in a short time to lords Chatham and Camden. When the Rockingham administration was displaced in 1766, and lord Chatham was called upon to form a new administration, he appointed lord Sheiburne secretary of state of the southern department, to which was annexed the department of the colonies. But this he resigned when lord Chatham withdrew in 1768, and from this; period, continued in strong opposition to all the measures of government during the American war till the termination of lord North’s ministry, in the spring of 1782. He was then appointed secretary of state for the foreign department in the Rockingham administration, and upon the death of that nobleman he succeeded to the office of minister. This measure gave great offence to Mr. Fox and his friends, but his lordship did not quit his post. His first object was to make peace; but when the treaty was brought before the parliament, lord North and Mr. Fox had united in a most disgraceful coalition, which, however, for a time was irresistible, and early in 1783 lord Shelburne resigned. When at the end of that year Mr. Pitt overthrew the coalition administration, it was expected that lord Shelburne would have been at the head of the new government. He formed, however, no part of the arrangement, and appeared to have been satisfied wirh being created marquis of Lansdown. He now retired to a private life; but on the breaking out of the French revolution, came forward again in constant and decisive opposition to the measures of administration, in which he continued to the day of his death, May 7, 1805. His lordship always had the reputation of a man of considerable political knowledge, improved by a most extensive foreign correspondence, and a study of foreign affairs and foreign relations, which was very uncommon, and gave his speeches in parliament, while in opposition, very great weight. Many of his ablest efforts in this way, however, were rather historical than argumentative, excellent matter of information, but seldom ending in those results which shew a capacity for the formation of able and beneficial plans. It was his misfortune, throughout almost the whole of his political career, to have few personal adherents, and to possess little of the confidence of either of the great parties who divided the parliament in the memorable contests respecting the policy of the American war, and the propriety of our interfering in the continental effort to suppress the consequences of the French revolution. His lordship was possessed of perhaps the most valuable and complete library of history and political documents, both primed and manuscript, that ever was accumulated by any individual or family. The printed part was dispersed by auction after his lordship’s death, but the manuscripts were rescued Irom this—shall we say, disgrace by the interference of the trustees of the British Museum, at whose representation the whole was purchased by a parliamentary grant for the sum of 4925l. It is remarkable that this was the average valuation of three parties who had no connection with the other in the inspection of the Mss. They are now deposited in the above great national collection, and besides their importance as a miscellaneous collection of historical, biographical, and literary matter, they must be considered as highly interesting to future politicians and statesmen when we add that they were scarcely, if at all known, to those able antiquaries and inquirers into political history, Collins, Murdin, Jones, or Birch.

, a celebrated scholar, was born at Augsburg in 1465, and studied successfully in the principal cities of Italy. When he returned home he was appointed secretary to the senate of Augsburg, and employed by that body in the diets of the empire, and in the various courts of Europe. In his private character he conferred happiness on an excellent and learned wife; and, in his public, was always rendering essential services to his country. This excellent citizen died at eighty-two, in 1574, having lost his faculties for some time before. He is most known by an ancient itinerary, which from him is called “Tabula Peutingeriana.” It is a curious chart found in a monastery in Germany, and communicated to Peutinger by one Conrad Celtes. It was formed under the reign of Theodosius the Great, and marks the roads by which the Roman armies passed at that time to the greater part of the empire. It is not a geographical work, and seems to have been made by a Roman soldier, who thought of nothing, or perhaps knew nothing, but what respected the roads, and the places for encampment. A magnificent but now very scarce edition of it was published by F. C. Scheib at Vienna in 1753, fol. Peutinger’s own works are, 1. “Sermones convivales,” in the collection of Schardius; Jena, 1683, 8vo. 2. “De inclinatione Romani imperil, et gentium commigrationibus,” subjoined to the former, and to Procopi us. 3. “De rebus Gothorum,” Bale, 1531, fol. 4, “Romanae Vetustatis fragmenta, in Augusta Vindelicorum,” Mayence, 1528, fol.

, a French protestant, horn at Bourdeaux in 1592, entered into the service of the prince of Cond6, whom he pleased by the singularity of his humour. Peyrera believed himself to have discovered from St. Paul, that Adam was not the first man; and to prove this, he published in Holland, 1655, a book in 4to and 8vo with this title: “Praeadamitae; sive exercitatio super versibus 12, 13, 14, capitis xv. Epistoloe Pauli ad Romanes.” This work was condemned to the flames, and the author imprisoned at Brussels; but, getting his liberty through the interest of the prince of Conde“, he went to Rome in 1656, and abjured Calvinism and Praeadamitism before Alexander VII. He was not, however, thought sincere, for, returning to Paris, in spite of all the means this pope used to detain him at Rome, he became librarian to the prince of Conde 1 and some time after retired to the seminary des Vertus, where he died in 1676, aged 84. He submitted to receive the sacraments, yet was not believed to be attached to any religion. Besides the piece above mentioned, he wrote” Une Relation du Greenland,“in 8vo; and” Une Relation d'Islande,“in 8vo; both reckoned curious and interesting: and a very singular tract entitled” Rappel des Juifs," in which his object was to prove that two Messiahs were intended; the first Jesus Christ, who, according to his notion, came only for the Christians; and the second, he whom the Jews have so long expected, and who is to be a great temporal prince and render them lords of the earth. This was printed in 1643, 8vo, a circumstance which the translator of his life in the Gentleman’s Magazine (vol. LXXXII. p. 431.) positively denies, yet we find mention of this edition in every French biography. It probably, however, attracted no great degree of attention, and Brunei places it among rare books; but being known to some of the adherents of Buonaparte it was reprinted, when it became his pleasure to assemble a Jewish Sanhedrim in Paris in 1806. It was then supposed that the Jews might be made to believe that the great temporal prince that was to restore them, was no other than the ruler of the French nation. In the authority just quoted are many curious particulars of Peyreyra, from father Simon.

, a German orientalist, was born at Lawenbourg in 1640. He professed the oriental languages at Wirtemberg, at Leipsic, and in other places, and in 1690 was called to Lubeck to be superintendant of the churches. In that city he died, in January 1698. When only rive years old he was near losing his life by a fall, which fractured his skull. His sister discovered accidentally that he was not quite dead, and he was restored, when actually on the point of being buried. He wrote, 1. “Pansophia Mosaica.” 2. “Critica Sacra,” Dresden, 3680, 8vo. 3 “DeMasora.” 4. “De trihaeresi Judaeorum.” 5. “Sciagraphia Systematica Antiquitatum Hebraearum.” His philosophical works were collected at Utrecht in 4to, but are not now much known or esteemed. His learned works are better, though heavy.

, a celebrated Greek comic poet, contemporary with Plato and Aristophanes, flourished about 420 B.C. He followed the style of the ancient comedy, which, instead of feigned and imaginary persons, introduced living characters on the stage, who were known to the spectators by their names and distinguishing marks, and turned them into ridicule; but Pherecrates is said to have been very moderate in his use of this licence. Twenty one comedies are attributed to this poet, of which we have only some fragments remaining, collected by Hertelius and Grotius. It appears from these fragments, some of which are given by Cumberland, or rather Bentley, in “The Observer,” that Pherecrates wrote very pure Greek, and excelled in that nice and delicate raillery distinguished by the name of Attic urbanity. He invented a kind of verses, called, from his name, Pherecratian; consisting of the three last feet of an hexameter, the first of these three feet being always a spondee. This verse of Horace, for example, “Quamvis Pontica Pinus,” is a Pherecratian verse. M. Burette, in torn. XV. of the academy of inscriptions, has examined a fragment of this poet concerning music, which may be found in Plutarch.

The particulars which remain, of the life of Pherecydes, are few and imperfect. Marvellous circumstances have been related of him, which only deserve to be mentioned, in order to shew that what has been deemed supernatural by ignorant spectators, may be easily conceived to have happened from natural causes. A ship in full sail was at a distance, approaching its harbour: Pherecydes predicted that it would never come into the haven, and it happened accordingly; for a storm arose, which sunk the vessel. After drinking water from a well, he predicted an earthquake, which happened three days afterwards. It is easy to suppose, that these predictions might have been the result of a careful observation of those phenomena which commonly precede storms or earthquakes, in a climate where they frequently happen. This is the more probable, as it is well known to have been a usual practice with the ancients, and particularly with Pythagoras, the pupil of Pherecydes, to impose upon the ignorant multitude, by pretending to powers which they did not possess, and particularly by applying their knowledge of nature to the purposes of imposture. Pherecydes is said to have been the first among the Grecians who wrote concerning the nature of the gods; but this can only mean, that he was the first who ventured to write upon these subjects in prose; for, before his time, Orpheus, Musaeus, and others, had written theogonies in verse. Pherecydes was much esteeiru-d at Lacedsemon, on account of his poetry inculcating the maxims of Lycurgus. He died at the age of eighty-five. It is not easy to ascertain the nature of the doctrines which he taught: he probably believed in an eternal first cause of all things, and in the immortality of the soul. According to Cicero, he was the first philosopher in whose writings this doc-trine appeared. He is said to have taught the bdief of the transjnigration of the soul: this is probably true; it being a tt iei commonly received among the Egyptians, and afttrvvards taught by Pythagoras, who was, as before observed, a pupil of Pherecydes.

, a learned Italian, was born in 1398, at Tolentino, in the march of Ancona. He studied at Padua, where he made such progress, that at eighteen he became professor of eloquence. The fame of his talents having gained him an invitation to Venice, he was honoured with the rank of citizen, and was sent by the republic as secretary to their embassy at Constantinople in 1419, and he took advantage of this employment to make himself master of Greek. He there married Theodora, daughter of the learned Emmanuel Chrysoloras, about 1419. Becoming at length known to the emperor John Palaeologus, he was sept on an embassy to Sigismund emperor of Germany, to implore his aid against the Turks. After this he taught at Venice, Florence, Siena, Bologna, and Milan, with astonishing success. He was not, however, without his defects. He wished to reign alone in the republic of letters, and could not bear contradiction without being extremely irritated. He would dispute on the most trivial points; and once wagered 100 crowns, on some minute question of grammar, against the beard of a Greek philosopher named Timotheus. Having won, no solicitation could prevail upon him to remit the fine, and he most unmercifully shaved his antagonist, in spite of very ample offers. To this presumptuous turn he joined a prodigality and a restlessness, which filled his life with uneasiness. Menage has accused him of destroying a copy of Cicero “De Gloria,” the only one then existing, after having transfused the greater part of it into a treatise of his own; but it does not appear that this accusation was just. Other learned men have been also suspected; but all that is certain is, that the work was extant in the time of Petrarch, who mentions having a copy of it, which has since been utterly lost. Philelphus died at Florence July 31, 1481, being then 83. His works consist of odes, dialogues, orations, &c. of which the following editions are in most request: 1. “Orationes et nonnulla alia opera, Plutarchi apophthegmata, ab eodem e Graeco in Latinum con versa,” 4to. This is a very rare edition, and contains a letter from Philelphus to Maria Sforza, dated from Milan, 1481. There are reprints at Venice in 1482, 1491, 1492, &c. but of little value. 2. “Odae,” Brix. 1497, 4to. 3. “Satyrarum Hecatosticon prima decas (decades decem),” Milan, 1476, small folio, of uncommon rarity. 4. “Satyrarum decades deceni,” Venice, 1502, 4to. 5. “Satyrae centum distinctae decem decadibus Catholicis passim refertoe sententiis: praemissa authoris vita ab Egid. Perrino Campano, &c.” Paris, 1508. De Bure says, that the life announced in the title of this edition is not to be found in such copies as he has seen. 6. “Epistolarum familiarum libri triginta septem,” Venice, 1502, folio. 7. “Fabulae,” Venice, 1480, 4to. In his letters are innumerable proofs of his arrogant and suspicious temper. His works, collected, were published at Basle in 1739.

Steele was also an admirer of Philips’s “Pastorals,” which had then obtained a great number of readers; and was about to form a critical comparison of Pope’s Pastorals with those of Philips, with a view of giving the preference to the latter. Pope, apprized of Steele’s design, and always jealous of his own reputation, contrived the most artful method to defeat it; vvhiqh was, by writing a paper for the Guardian, No. 40, after several others had been employed there on pastoral poetry, upon the merits. of Philips and himself; and so ordering it, as that himself was found the better versifier, while Philips was preferred as the best Arcadian. Upon the publication of this paper, the enemies of Pope exulted to see him placed below Philips in a species of poetry upon which he was supposed to value himself; but were extremely mortified soon after to find that Pope himself was the real author of the paper, and that the whole criticism was an irony. The next work Philips published, according to the common account, was “The Life of John Williams, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Bishop of Lincoln, and Archbishop of York, in the reigns of James and Charles I.” He is supposed to have undertaken this, for the sake of making known his political principles, which were those of the Whigs. But we doubt whether this, which was published in 1700, was not prior to the publication of his pastorals.

, one of the nephews of Milton, Was the son of Edward Phillips, who came from Shrewsbury, and rose to be secondary in the Crown-office, by Anne, sister of the celebrated poet, and was born in the Strand, near Charing-cross, in August 1630, and received his earliest education under his uncle. In 1648 he became a student of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, where he continued till 1651. The time of his death is not ascertained. He published two small works, entitled “Tractatulus de carmine Dramatico Poetarum, praesertim in choris Tragicis, et veteris Comediae,” and “Compendiosa enumeratio Poetarum (saltern quorum fama maxime enituit) qui atempore Dantis Aligerii usque ad hanc aetatem claruerunt; nempe Italorum, Germanorum, Anglorum, &c.” These were added to the seventeenth edition of Job. Buchlerus’s book, entitled “Sacrarum profanarumque phrasium poeticarum Thesaurus,” &c. Lond. 1669, 8vo. But he is better known by his “Theatrum Poetarum, or a compleat collection of the Poets, especially the most eminent of all ages, the Ancients distinguish't from the Moderns in their several alphabets. With some observations- and reflections upon many of them, particularly those of our own nation. Together with a prefatory discourse of the Poets and Poetry in general,” Lond. 1675. Into this work there is, says Warton, good reason to suppose that Milton threw many additions and corrections. It contains criticisms far above the taste of that period, and such as were not common after the national taste had been just corrupted by the false and capricious refinements of the court of Charles II. The preface, however, discovers more manifest traces of Milton’s hand than the book itself.

Dr. Johnson observes, that “Philips has been always praised, without contradiction, as a man modest, blameless, and pious; who bore a narrow fortune without discontent, and tedious and painful maladies without impatience; beloved by those that knew him, but not ambitious to be known. He was probably not formed for a wide circle. His conversation is commended for its innocent gaiety, which seems to have flowed only among his intimates; for I have been told, that he was in company silent and barren, and employed only upon the pleasures of his pipe. His addiction to tobacco is mentioned by one of hjs biographers, who remarks that in all his writings, except ‘ Blenheim,’ he has found an opportunity of celebrating the fragrant fume. In common life, he was probably one of those who please by not offending, and whose person was loved, because his writings were admired. He died honoured and lamented, before any part of his reputation had withered, and before his patron St. John had disgraced him His works are few. The ‘ Splendid Shilling,’ has the uncommon merit of an original design, unless it may be thought precluded by the ancient Centos. To degrade the sounding words and stately construction of Milton, by an application to the lowest and most trivial things, gratifies the mind with a momentary triumph over that granueur which hitherto held its captives in admiration; the words and things are presented with a new appearance, and novelty is always grateful where it gives no pain. But the merit of such performances begins and ends with the 6rst author. He that should again adapt Milton’s phrase to the gross incidents of common life, and even adapt it with more art, which would not be difficult, must yet expect but a small part of the praise which Philips has obtained: he can only hope to be considered as the repeater of a jest.”

There are two others of the name of Philo on record, but little is known of them the one, Philo Biblios, from Biblios, the place of his nativity, flourished from the reign of Nero to that of Adrian, and wrote in Greek, “De Paran d is et Deligendis Libris;” “De Urbibus;” “De claris Viris;” and “De Imperio Adriani:” but he is chiefly known as the translator of Sanchoniatho’s Phoenician history into Greek, of which a few fragments. only remain. The other, Philo of Byzantium, au architect, flourished about 300 years before the Christian sera, and wrote a treatise of machines used in war, which is printed with “Mathematici veteres,” in 1693. There is also a piece attributed to him, entitled “De septem Orbis Spectaculis,” printed at Rome in 1640.

, an ancient Greek author, who wrote the life of Apollonius Tyanensis, and some other works still extant, was either of Athens, or Lemnos, and educated in the schools of the Sophists. He lived in the reign of the emperor Severus, from the years 193 to 212, and becoming known afterwards to Julia Augusta, the consort of Severus, he was one of those learned men whom this philosophic empress had continually about her, and it was by her command, that he wrote the “Life of Apoilonius Tyanensis.” Suidas and Hesychius say, that he taught rhetoric, first at Athens, and then at Rome, from the reign of Severus to that of Philippus, who obtained the empire in the year 244. This “Life of Apollonius” is his most celebrated work, as far as celebrity can depend oh imposture, of which it contains abundant proofs. We have already, in our account of Apollonius, noticed its being refuted by Dupin, as a collection of fables, either invented or embellished by himself; but some of the most judicious strictures on Philostratus with which we are acquainted, may be found in bishop Douglas’s Criterion from p. 50, edit. 1807. The works of Philostratus, however, originally published separately, have been thought not unworthy the attention of critics of the first class. Graevius had a design of giving a correct edition of them, as appears from the preface of Meric Casaubon, to a dissertation upon an intended edition of Homer, printed at London in 1658, 8vo. So had Bentley, who designed to add a new Latin version of his notes: and Fabricius says, that he saw the first sheet of Bentley’s edition printed at Leipsic in 1691. Both these designs being given up, a correct and beautiful edition, was published at Leipsic, in 1709, in folio, by Olearius. At the end of Apollonius’s “Life,” are ninety-five “Letters,” which go under his name, but bear all the marks of forgery. The “Lives of the Sophists,” which make part of Philostratus’ s works, contain many things, which are to be met with no where else; and his “Icones,” or images, are elegant descriptions and illustrations of some ancient paintings, and other particulars relating to the fine arts: to which Olearius has subjoined the description of some statues by Callistratus. The volume concludes with a collection of Philostratus’s “Letters:” but some of these, though it is not easy to determine which, were written by a nephew to the principal Philostratus, of the same name; as were also the last eighteen, in the book of images. This is the reason, why the title of Olearius’s edition runs, not “Philostrati,” but “Philostratorum qua? supersunt omnia.”

, a famous heretic of the fourth century, known in church history as the chief of a sect called Photinians, was a native of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, and bishop of Sirmium, or Sirmich, the chief city of Illyricum. He had been the disciple of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra. He spoke with ease, and his eloquence gained him great power over his people after he was consecrated bishop; but his life was corrupted, and his doctrine soon became so too. He espoused the same opinions with Paul of Samosata, and wrote with great obstinacy against the divinity of Jesus Christ, for which in the year 345 he was condemned by the council of Antioch; in the year 374, by the council of Milan. However, he still maintained his see till he was deposed by the council of Sirmich, A. D. 251, and by the emperor sent into banishment, where he spent the remainder of his life, during which time he composed a piece against all heresies in general, with an intent to establish his own. He wrote in Greek and Latin. The emperor Julian sent him a letter, commending him for denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. Photinus died A. D. 375 (377, Cave), in Galatia, whither he had been banished. This heresy was, amongst many others, anathematized in the council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. It afterwards was revived by Socinus.

, an able mathematician of France, aud one of the most learned astronomers of the seventeenth century, was born at Fleche, and became priest and prior of Rillie in Anjou. Coming afterwards to Paris, his superior talents for mathematics and astronomy soon made him known and respected. In 1666 he was appointed astronomer in the Academy of Sciences. And five years after, he was sent, by order of the king, to the castle of Urani burgh, built by Tycho Brahe in Denmark, to make astronomical observations there; and from thence he brought the original manuscripts written by Tycho Brahe; which are the more valuable, as they differ in many places from the printed copies, and contain a book more than lias yet appeared. These discoveries were followed by many others, particularly in astronomy: he was one of the first who applied the telescope to astronomical quadrants: he first executed the work called “La Connoissance des Temps,” which he calculated from 1679 to 1683 inclusively: he first observed the light in the vacuum of the barometer, or the mercurial phosphorus: he also first of any went through several parts of France, to measure the degrees of the French meridian, and first gave a chart of the country, which the Cassini’s afterwards carried to a great degree of perfection. He died in 1682 or 1683, leaving a name dear to his friends, and respectable to his contemporaries and to posterity. His works are: 1. “A treatise on Levelling.” 2. “Practical Dialling by calculation.” 3. “Fragments of Dioptrics.” 4. “Experiments on Running Water.” 5. “Of Measurements.” 6. “Mensuration of Fluids and Solids.” 7. ' Abridgment of the Measure of the Earth.“8.” Journey to Uraniburgh, or Astronomical Observations made in Denmark.“9.” Astronomical Observations made in divers parts of France.“10” La Connoissance des Temps," from 1679 to 1683.

During this early period he distinguished himself likewise as a poet, by his compositions both in the Latin and Italian languages, almost all which, however, as they were disapproved either by the nicety of his maturer judgment, or by the purity of his religious and moral feelings, at a later period, he was induced to destroy. Many also of his letters, which are still extant, were written whilst he was yet very young; and from them proofs might be selected, tending greatly to support the high juvenile reputation of their author. We have, indeed, few other documents to illustrate his literary career; and the little we know of his progress, during the seven years that he spent in visiting the universities, must be taken from them, as Mr. Gressvvell has done with great judgment. Among the academies where he passed the greater part of the above period, were those of Ferrara, Padua, Florence, and Perugia; and among the eminent scholars, with whom he entered into friendship and correspondence, were Guarinus, Marsilius Ficinus, Politian, and Nic. Leonicenus. When not engaged in any literary excursion, he spent his time at Fratta, a rural retreat in the neighbourhood of Mirandula. In 1482, he informs Leanicenns that he had erected this villa, and had written a poem in its, praise. With the commencement of 1484, the literary career of Picus became more distinct and conspicuous: he was now approaching the age of manhood; and went to Florence to perfect himself in the Greek. Within a few months after his arrival here, he composed his well-known panegyrical criticism on the Italian poems of Lorenzo de Medici. It is drawn up in the form of a letter, and addressed to Lorenzo himself. With many remarks in the true spirit of criticism, there is, perhaps, rather too much of a courtly partiality to the productions of Lorenzo. While at Florence, we find Picus employed in investigating the manuscripts of ancient authors, both in Greek and Latin, of the value of which he was already enabled to form a just estimate. Indeed the mere discovery of them was a service of high importance at that time, when the invention of printing was forming a new oera in literature. He had now added to his correspondents Jerome Donatus, Hermolaus Barbarus, Philip Beroaldus, and Alexander Cortesius, the latter of whom seems to carry his admiration of Picus to the very borders of gross and extravagant flattery; which, however, a little moderated, was a distinguishing feature in the literary correspondence of that age.

At length, however, the labours of this illustrious scholar drew to a close. In 1494, while at Florence, he was seized with a fever which proved fatal on the thirteenth day, Nov. 17, in the thirty-third year of his age. His remains were interred in the church of St. Mark, near those of his friend Politian, whom he did not survive quite two months. The well-known epitaph inscribed on Picus’s tomb,

, one of the most celebrated sculptors that France has produced, was born at Paris in 1714, the son of a joiner, and by his talents became not only sculptor to the king, but chancellor of the academy of painting, and knight of the order of St. Michael. He did not manifest any early disposition for designing; he loved to model, but set about it awkwardly, and finished nothing but by means of indefatigable labour. A visit to Italy gave him that facility which he could not acquire at home. He there studied the works of the great artists, and returned thoroughly inspired with their genius. He died at Paris, Aug. 20, 1785. His most known works are, 1. “A Mercury and a Venus,” which he made by order of Louis XV. and which were presented to the king of Prussia. The king, who was delighted with them, was desirous to see the sculptor; and Pigalle, some time after, went to Berlin, but, being announced as the author of the Mercure de France, could not obtain an audience. When Frederic understood the mistake, he was very anxious to repair it; but Pigalle was already gone in some digust. Pigalle maintained that none of the heads of Frederic did justice to his physiognomy, which, in point of spirit, was the finest he had ever seen; and much regretted that he had not been allowed to model it. 2. The monument of marechal Saxe, in which the beauty of the whole obliterates all objections to the parts. 3. The pedestrian statue of Louis *XV. executed in bronze for the city of Rheims. 4. The statue of Voltaire. 5. A little boy holding a cage. '6. A girl taking a thorn from her foot. 7. Several busts of men of letters who were his friends. If Pigaile cannot be ranked among the men of the first genius in his art, the good sense of his designs, and the soundness of his taste, afford him a place in the very next class.

, an English wit and poetess, of no very eminent rank, was the daughter of Dr. Van Lewen, a gentleman of Dutch extraction, who settled in Dublin, by a lady of good family; and born there in 1712. She had early a strong inclination and taste for letters, especially for poetry; and her performances were considered as extraordinary for her years. This, with a lively manner, drew many admirers; and at length she became the wife of the rev. Matthew Pilkington, a gentleman once known in the poetical world by his volume of Miscellanies, revised by dean Swift, who had reason afterwards to be ashamed of the connection. In a short time Mr. Pilkington grew jealous, as she relates, not of her person, but of her understanding; and her poetry, which when a lover he admired with raptures, was changed now he was become her husband, into an object of envy. During these jealousies, Mr. Pilkington, in 1732, went into England, in order to serve as chaplain to Mr. Barber, lord mayor of London; and absence having brought him into better humour with his wife, he wrote her a very kind letter, in which he informed her that her verses were full of elegance and beauty; that Pope, to whom he had shewn them, longed to see the writer; and that he himself wished her heartily in London. She accepted the invitation, went, and returned with her husband to Ireland, where they were soon after separated, in consequence of a gentleman being found in her bed-chamber at two o'clock in the morning. Her apology is rather curious: “Lovers of learning, I am sure, will pardon me, as I solemnly declare it was the attractive charms of a new book, which the gentleman would not lend me, but consented to stay till I read it through, that was the sole motive of my detaining him.” Of her guilt, however, no doubts were entertained. “Dr. Delany,” says dean Swift, in a letter to alderman Barber, “is a very unlucky recommender, for he forced me to countenance Pilkington; introduced him to me, and praised the wit, virtue, and humour of him and his wife; whereas he proved the falsest rogue, and she the most profligate w e in either kingdom. She was taken in the fact by her own husband; he is now suing for a divorce, and will not compass it; she is suing for a maintenance, and he has none to give her.”

It is not improper to observe, that some prejudices have arisen among the moderns against Pindar, from certain writings known by the name of Pindaric odes: but very few under that title, not excepting even those written by the admired Cowley, whose wit and fire first brought them into reputation, have the least resemblance to the manner of the author whom they pretend to imitate, and from whom they derive their name; or, if any, it is such a resemblance only as is expressed by the Italian word caricatura, a monstrous and distorted likeness. This observation has been already made by Congreve, in his preface to two admirable odes, written professedly in imitation of Pindar: “The character of these late Pindarics,” says he, “is a bundle of rambling incoherent thoughts, expressed in a like parcel of irregular stanzas, which also consist of such another complication of disproportioned, uncertain, and perplexed verses and rhimes. On th|g contrary,” adds he, “there is nothing more regular than the Odes of Pindar, both as to the exact observation of the measures and numbers of his stanzas and verses, and the perpetual coherence of his thoughts. For though his digressions are frequent, and his transitions sudden, yet is there ever some secret connexion, which, though not always appearing to the eye, never fails to communicate itself to the understanding of the reader.” Upon the whole, a poetical imagination, a warm and enthusiastic genius, a bold and figurative expression, and a concise and sententious style, are the characteristical beauties of Pindar; very different from the far-fatched thoughts, the witty extravagances, and puerile conceits of his imitators.

Sebastian continued to exercise his talents, particularly in portraiture, with great industry and success, till he obtained the office of Frate del Piombo, when he ceased to paint for profit, and was henceforward known by the name of Sebastian del Piombo. He lived in great esteem with pope Clement VII. whose portrait he painted with great power and fidelity, as well as that of the infamous satirist Aretine, and those of many persons of rank and renown. He obtained great praise for having discovered a mode of preventing oil-colours, employed on plaster, from becoming dark; which he did, by applying, in the first instance, a mixture of mastic and Grecian pitch. Having passed through a life of great honour and emolument to the age of 62, he died in 1547.

, a very celebrated architect and engraver, was a native of Venice, but resident for the greater part of his life at Rome. The time of his hirth is not known here, but it must have been about1711. He was remarkable for a bold and free style of etching; which, in general, he drew upon the plate at once, without any, or with very little previous sketch. He worked with such rapidity and diligence, that the magnitude and number of his plates almost exceed belief; and they are executed with a spirit and genius which are altogether peculiar to hi Ib. The earliest of his works appear to have been published in 1743, and consist of designs invented by himself, in a very grand style; with views of ruins, chiefly the work of imagination, and strongly characterizing the magnificence of his ideas. These are sometimes found in a volume, collected by Bourchard, in 1750: with views of Roman antiquities, not in Rome, among which are several of Pola, in Istria. The dedication to these views is dated 1748. Considering these as forming his first work, we may enumerate the rest from a catalogue print, published by himself many years after. 2. “Antichita Romane,” or Roman Antiquities, comprised in 218 plates of atlas paper, commencing by a topographical view of ancient Rome, made out from the fragments of a most curious antique plan of that city, found in the pavement of the temple of Romulus, and now preserved in the Museum at the Capitol. These, with the descriptions in Italian, form four volumes in folio. 3. “Fasti consulares triumphalesque Romanorum, ab urbe condita, usque ad Tiherium Csesarem.” 4. “Del Castello dell' acqua Giulia, e della maniera in cui anticamente si concedevano e distribuivano le acque,” 21 folio plates. 5. “Antichita d'Albano, e di Castel Gandolfo,” 55 plates. 6. “Campus Martins Antique urbis,” with descriptions in Italian and Latin, 54 plates. 7. “Arcbi trionfali antichi, Tempi, ed Anfiteatri, esistenti in Roma, ed in altre parti d'ltalia,” 31. plates. 8. “Tro.fei d'Ottaviano Augusto,” &c. 10 plates. 0. “Delia Magnificenza ed Architettura de' Romani,” 44 plates, with above 200 pages of letter- press, in Italian and Latin. This great work appears to have been occasioned, in great measure, by some dialogues published in London in 1755, but now forgotten here, and entitled, “The Investigator.” These, containing many foolish calumnies against the ancient Romans, had been interpreted to Piranesi, and inflamed his ardent spirit to this mode of vindication. 10. “Architetture diverse,” 27 plates. 11.“Carceri d'inventione,” 16 plates, full of the most wild, but picturesque conceptions. 12. About 130 separate views of Rome, in its present state; in the grandest style of design, and the boldest manner of etching. Besides these, there is also extant, in very few hands (as it was not published, but only given to particular friends), a small work of this author, containing letters of justification to lord Charlemont; in which he assigns the reasons why he did not dedicate his Roman antiquities to that nobleman, as had been intended. Piranesi here appears extremely irritated against his lordship, and his agents, for neglect and ill-treatment; but the most curious part of the work is, that he has taken the pains to etch, in a small quarto size, and with the utmost neatness, yet with all his accustomed freedom, exact copies of the four original frontispieces, in which the name of his intended patron was to hare been immortalized: with views of the inscriptions reengraved as they now stand; as if the first inscriptions had been cut out of the stones, and the new ones inserted on small pieces let into them, as the ancients sometimes practised. In this form they still remain in his frontispieces; a peculiarity which would not be understood without this key. There are also head-pieces and tail-pieces, all full of imagination, and alluding to the matters and persons involved in the dispute. This work is dated in 1757. Piranesi was well known to most of the English artists who Studied at Rome; among others, to Mr. Mylne, the architect of Blackfriars-bridge, with whom he corresponded for several years, and for whom he engraved a fine view of that structure, in its unfinished state; representing, with precision, the parts subservient to its construction; such as the centres of the arches, &c. for the sake of preserving a memorial of them. Some of his works are dedicated to another British architect, Robert Adam; and as Piranesi was an honorary member of the Society of Antiquaries in, London, he always carefully subjoined that title to his name. He was also a member of the academy of the Arcadi, by the name of Salcindio Tiseio. as he has given it in one of his frontispieces, according to the fantastic custom of that society, of giving new names to the persons admitted. All who knew him agree that he was of a fiery and impetuous temper, but full of genius. He left a son, who has been employed in a diplomatic line. The exact time of his death we have not been able to learn; but it is supposed to have happened in or near the year 1780. Pijanesi has been accused, and not without reason, of suffering his imagination to embellish even the designs that were given as real views. He was employed, as an architect, to ornament a part of the priory of Malta, in Rome; in which place his son has erected a statue of him. It is thus mentioned by baron Stolberg, in his Travels: “Here is a fine statue of the architect Piranesi, as large as life, placed there by his son. It is the work of the living artist Angolini; and though it certainly cannot be compared with the best antiques, it still possesses real merit.” His portrait, engraved by Polanzani, in 1750, is in the style of a mutilated statue, and is very spirited. It is prefixed to some of his works.

, a French dramatic poet, was born at Dijon in 1689, where he lived till he was past thirty, in all the dissipation of a young man of pleasure. At length, having given great offence to his countrymen by an ode which he produced, he removed to Paris; where, as his relations could not give him much assistance, he supported himself by his talent of writing an admirable hand. He was first secretary to M. Bellisle, and afterwards to a financier, who little suspected that he had such a genius in his house. By degrees he became known, from producing several small pieces, full of originality, at a little theatre in Paris; till the comedy called “Metromanie,” esteemed one of the best produced in the last century, raised his fame to the highest point. His very singular talent for conversation, in which he was always lively, and inexhaustible in wit, contributed to enhance his popularity; and as his company was more courted for a time than that of Voltaire, who had less good humour, he was inclined to fancy himself superior to that writer. Many traits of his wit are related, which convey, at the same time, the notion that he estimated himself very highly. At the first representation of Voltaire’s Semiramis, which was ill received, the author asked him in the theatre what he thought of it “I think,” said he, “that you would be very glad that I had written it.” The actors wishing him to alter one of his pieces, affronted him by using the word “corrections,” instead of alterations. They pleaded that Voltaire always listened to their wishes in that respect. “What then?” replied Piron, “Voltaire works cabinet-work, I cast in bronze.” The satirical turn of Piron kept him from a seat in the academy. “I never could make nine-and thirty people,” said he, “think as I do, still less could 1 ever think with them.” He sought, however, a species of revenge, in the epitaph which he wrote for himself:

His works are, 1. “Fundamenta religionis Christianas in usum Gymnasii Zutphaniensis,” 8vo. 2. “Quintus Curtius cum c'ommentario perpetuo, variisque iconismis aeri affabre incisis,” Utrecht, 1635, the first of the classic authors whom he illustrated by the explanation of ancient customs, represented by engravings. 3. “Suetonius,” ibid. 1690, 2 vols. 8vo, and Leovard. 1715, 2 vols. 4to. This last is the best edition of this elegant and useful work, which is well known to classical scholars. 4. “Aurelius Victor,” with the notes of various commentators and engravings, Utrecht, 1696, 8vo, a rare and valuable edition. 5. “Lexicon Latino-Belgicum,” the best edition of which is that printed at Dort in 1725, 4to. 6. “Lexicon Antiquitatum Romanarum,” Utrecht, 2 vols. folio, a work of great erudition, and the labour of many years. 7. “Solini Polyhistor, cum Salmasii exercitationibus Plinianis,” Utrecht, 2 vols. folio. 8. ' Francisci Pomey Pantheon Mythicum.“9.” Rosini Antiq. Romanarum corpus," Utrecht, 1701, 4to. Of these last three he was only the editor.

During the leisure he enjoyed, while confessor to the duchess of Cleves, he employed himself in that work which alone has made him known to posterity, in compiling “The Lives of the Kings, Bishops, Apostolical Men, and Writers of England.” They were comprised in four large volumes; the first containing the lives of the kings; the second, of the bishops; the third, of the apostolical men; and the fourth, of'the writers. The three first are preserved in the archives of the collegiate church of Verdun: the fourth only was published, and that after his decease, at Paris, 1619, and 1623, in 4to, under the title of “J. Pitsei Angli, &c. Relationum Historicarum de Rebus Anglicis tomus primus;” but the running title, and by which it is oftenest quoted, is, “De Illustribus Angliae. Scriptoribus.” It is divided into four parts; the first of which is preliminary matter, “De laudibus Historiae, de Antiquitate Ecclesise Britannicae, de Academiis tarn antiquis Britonum quam recentioribus Anglorum.” The second part contains the lives and characters of three hundred English writers; the third is an “Appendix of some Writers, in alphabetical order, and divided into four Centuries,”- together with “An Index of English Books, written by unknown Authors.” The last part consists of “Fifteen Alphabetical Indexes,” forming a kind of epitome of the whole work. Pits appears to have acted in a very disingenuous manner, especially in the second part of this work; the greater part of which he has taken without any acknowledgment from Bale’s book “De Scriptoribus majoris Britanniae,” while he takes every opportunity to shew his abhorrence both of Bale and his work. He pretends also to follow, and familiarly quotes, Leland’s “Collectanea de Scriptoribus Anglise;” whereas the truth is, as Wood and others have observed, he never saw them, being but twenty years of age, or little more, when he left the nation: neither was it in his power afterwards, if he had been in England, because they were kept in such private hands, that few protestant antiquaries, and none of those of the church of Rome, could see or peruse them. What therefore he pretends to have from Leland, he takes at second-hand from Bale. His work is also full of partiality: for he entirely leaves out Wickliflfe and his followers, together with the Scots and Irish writers, who are for the most part commemorated by Bale; and in their room gives an account of the Roman catholic writers, such especially as had left the kingdom, after the Reformation in queen Elizabeth’s reign, and sheltered themselves at Rome, Douay, Louvain, &c. This, however, is the best and most valuable part of Pits’s work. Pits was a man of abilities and learning. His style is clear, easy, and elegant; but he wants accuracy, and has fallen into many mistakes in his accounts of the British writers. His work, however, will always be thought of use, if it be only that “Historia quoquo modo scripta delectat.”

, second son of the preceding, and his legitimate successor in political talents and celebrity, was born May 28, 1759. He was educated at home under the immediate eye of his father, who, as he found him very early capable of receiving, imparted to him many of the principles which had guided his own political conduct, and in other respects paid so much attention to his education that at the age of fourteen, he was found fully qualified for the university; and accordingly, was then entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he was distinguished alike for the closeness of his application, and for the success of his efforts, in attaining those branches of knowledge to which his studies were particularly directed; nor have many young men of rank passed through the probation of an university with a higher character for morals, abilities, industry, and regularity. He was intended by his father for the bar and the senate, and his education was regulated so as to embrace both these objects. Soon after he quitted the university, he went to the continent, and passed a short time at Rheims, the capital of Champagne. The death of his illustrious father, while he was in his 19th year, could not fail to cast a cloud over the prospects of a younger son, but the foundation was laid of those qualities which would enable him to clear the path to eminence by his own exertions. He had already entered himself a student of Lincoln’s Inn, and as soon as he was of age, in 1780, he was called to the bar, went the western circuit once, and appeared in a few causes as a junior counsel. His success during this short experiment was thought to be such as was amply sufficient to encourage him to pursue his legal career, and to render him almost certain of obtaining a high rank in his profession. A seat in parliament, however, seems to have given his ambition its proper direction, and at once placed him where he was best qualified to shine and to excel. At the general election in 1780, he had been persuaded to offer himself as a candidate to represent the university of Cambridge, but finding that his interest would not be equal to carry the election, he declined the contest, and in the following year was, through the influence of sir James Lowther, returned for the borough of Appleby. This was during the most violent period of political opposition to the American war, to which Mr. Pitt, it may be supposed, had an hereditary aversion. He was also, as most young men are, captivated by certain theories on the subject of political reform, which were to operate as a remedy for all national disasters. Among others of the more practical kind, Mr. Burke had, at the commencement of the session, brought forward his bill for making great retrenchments in the civil list. On this occasion Mr. Pitt, on the 26th of February, 1781, made his first speech in the British senate. The attention of the house was naturally fixed on the son of the illustrious Chatham, but in a few moments the regards of the whole audience were directed to the youthful orator on his own account. Unembarrassed by the novelty of the situation in which he had been so lately placed, he delivered himself with an ease, a grace, a richness of expression, a soundness of judgment, a closeness of argument, and a classical accuracy of language, which not only answered, but exceeded, all the expectations which had been formed of him, and drew the applauses of both parties. During the same and the subsequent session, he occasionally rose to give his sentiments on public affairs, and particularly on parliamentary reform. This he urged with an enthusiasm which he had afterwards occasion to repent; for when more mature consideration of the subject, had convinced him that the expedient was neither safe nor useful, he was considered as an apostate from his early professions. As a public speaker, however, it was soon evident that he was destined to act a high part on the political stage; yet, although he seemed to go along generally with the party in opposition to lord North, he had not otherwise much associated with them, and therefore when, on the dissolution of lord North’s, a new one was formed, at the head of which was the marquis of Rockingham, Mr. Pitt’s name did not appear on the list. Some say he was not invited to take a share; others, that he was offered the place of a lord of the treasury, which he declined, either from a consciousness that he was destined for a higher station, or that he discerned the insecurity of the new ministers. Their first misfortune was the death of the marquis of Rockingham, which occasioned a fatal breach of union between them, respecting the choice of a new head. Of this the earl of Shelburne availed himself, and in July 1782, having, with a part of the former members, been appointed first lord of the treasury, associated Mr. Pitt, who had just completed his 23d year, as chancellor of the exchequer. A general peace with America, France, Spain, &c. soon followed, which was made a ground of censure by a very powerful opposition; and in April 1783, the famous coalition ministry took the places of those whom they had expelled. Mr. Pitt, during his continuance in office, had found little opportunity to distinguish himself, otherwise than as an able defender of the measures of administration, and a keen animadverter upon the principles and conduct of his antagonists; but a circumstance occurred which constitutes the first great æra in his life. This, indeed, was the eventual cause not only of his return to office, but of his possession of a degree of authority with the king, and of popularity with the nation, which has rarely been the lot of any minister, and which he preserved, without interruption, to the end of his life, although his character was supposed to vary in many respects from the opinion that had been formed of it, and although he was never known to stoop to the common tricks of popularity. The coalition administration, of which some notice has been taken in our accounts of Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox, was, in its formation, most revolting to the opinions of the people. Its composition was such as to afford no hopes of future benefit to the nation, and it was therefore narrowly watched as a combination for self-interest. While the public was indulging such suspicions, Mr. Fox introduced his famous bill for the regulation of the affairs of India, the leading provision of which was to vest the whole management of the affairs of the East India company, in seven commissioners named in the act, and to be appointed by the ministry. It was in vain that this was represented as a measure alike beneficial to the company and to the nation; the public considered it as trenching too much on the prerogative, as creating a mass of ministerial influence which would be irresistible, and as rendering the ministry too strong for the crown. Mr. Pitt, who, in this instance, had rather to follow than to guide the public opinion, unfolded the hidden mystery of the vast mass of patronage which this bill would give, painted in the most glowing colours its danger to the crown and people on one hand, and to the company on the other, whose chartered rights were thus forcibly violated. The alarm thus becoming general, although the bill passed the House of Commons by the influence which the ministers still possessed in that assembly, it was rejected in the House of Lords.

His appearance, at the early age of twenty-four in this high character, was as much applauded on the part of the nation at large, as it was ridiculed and despised by his opponents, as the arrogant assumption of a stripling who owed to accident or intrigue, what a few weeks or months must certainly deprive him of. For some time, indeed, all this seemed not very improbable. The adherents of the coalition-ministry, in the House of Commons, had suffered no great diminution, and formed yet so considerable a majority, that when Mr. Pitt introduced his own bill into the House for the regulation of India affairs, it was rejected by 222 against 214. In this state matters remained for some months, during which meetings were held of the leading men of both parties, with a view to a general accommodation; but as Mr. Pitt’s previous resignation was demanded as a sine qua non, he determined to adhere in the utmost extremity to the sovereign by whom he had been called into office, and the people by whom he found himself supported. After many unavailing efforts, therefore, he determined on a step which, had his cause been less popular, might have been fatal to his sovereign as well as to himself. This was a dissolution of parliament, which took place in the month of March 1784; and although during the general election the country was thrown, by the struggles of the parties, into a greater degree of political heat and irritation than ever was known, and although some of his higher opponents greatly embarrassed their estates and families by the most wasteful expenditure, in order to secure the return of their friends, above thirty of the latter, all men of consideration, were thrown out, and the minister was enabled to meet the new parliament with a decided majority, including almost the whole of that class that had the credit of patriotism and independence, but certainly excluding a mass of talent such as few ministers have had to encounter.

, the conqueror of Peru, celebrated rather for his abilities than for his virtues, his glory being tarnished by the cruelties which he practised towards those whom he had conquered, was the illegitimate son of a gentleman, by a very low woman, and apparently destined by his ungenerous parent not to rise above the condition of his mother, being put to the mean employment of keeping hogs. The genius of young Pizarro disdained this low occupation. He enlisted as a soldier, served some time in Italy, and then embarked for America, which offered at that period a strong allurement to every active adventurer. Distinguished by his utter disdain of every hardship and danger, he was soon regarded, though so illiterate that he was unable to read, as a man formed for command; and being settled in Panama, where the Spanish emigrants had found their sanguine expectations wholly disappointed, he united in 1524 with Diego de Almagro, another military adventurer, and Hernando Lucque, a priest, to prosecute discoveries to the eastward of that settlement. This attempt had frequently been made, but had failed through the inability of the persons concerned in it; it had now fallen into such hands as were calculated to make it successful, and their confederacy was sanctioned by the governor of Panama. The enterprise was begun in a very humble manner. Pizarro set sail with a single vessel, and, from universal ignorance of the climate, at the very worst season of the year, in November, when the periodical winds were precisely against his course. He had no success, nor was his colleague Almagro, who followed, more fortunate. After undergoing extreme hardships, and obtaining only a glimpse of a better country, the utmost they could do was to establish themselves in an island near the coast. Nothing could deter Pizarro from his enterprise; the refusal of further sanction from the governor, the desertion of all his associates, except thirteen, all was in vain. He remained with his small band, till, in spite of all obstacles, they obtained another vessel, with some reinforcements. They set sail again in 1526, and on the twentieth day after their departure, discovered the fertile coast of Peru. They were yet too weak to attempt the invasion of an empire so populous, and Pizarro contented himself with carrying back, by means of an amicable intercourse, such specimens of the wealth and civilization of the country as might invite others to accede to the enterprise. Unable to bring the governor of Panama to adopt his views, he returned to Spain, and explaining to that court the magnitude of the object, obtained every grant of authority he could wish, but no other assistance; and being left to his own resources, could have effected nothing had he not been assisted with money by Cortez, just then returned from Mexico. It was February 1531, before he and his associates were again able to sail from Panama on their great undertaking; and then their whole armament consisted only of three small vessels and 180 soldiers, thirty-six of whom were horsemen. When they landed in Peru, as they had the imprudence to attack the natives, instead of conciliating them, they were at first exposed to famine, and several other calamities. Pizarro, however, had the good fortune to enter Peru when the forces of the empire were divided by an obstinate civil war between Huascar the legitimate monarch, and Atahualpa (commonly called Atabalipa), his half brother. By degrees understanding the state of the country, Pizarro engaged to be the ally of Atahualpa, and under that pretence was permitted to penetrate unmolested to Caxamalca, twelve days’ journey within the country. He was received pacifically and with state, as the ambassador of a great monarch but, perfidiously taking advantage of the unsuspecting good faith of Atahualpa, he made a sudden attack, and took him prisoner. The exaction of an immense ransom, the division of which served to invite new invaders; the disgraceful breach of faith by which the king was kept a prisoner after his ransom was paid; and the detestable murder of him, a short time after, under the infamous mockery of a trial; with the insults superadded by bigotry, to make him die a Christian, without being able to comprehend that faith; all contribute to accumulate disgrace upon the head of the treacherous and unfeeling conqueror, and form such odious additions to the reproachful scenes acted by the Spaniards in America, as nothing can palliate or obliterate. Pizarro, favoured by the distracted state of Peru, which now increased, though Huascar had been put to death by order of his brother, and reinforced by more soldiers from Spain, proceeded in his conquests, and on Jan. 18, 1535, laid the foundation of Lima, called by him and his countrymen Ciudad de los Reyes. In 1537 he found a new enemy in his original associate Almagro, who claiming Cuzco, the ancient capital of Peru, as belonging to his jurisdiction, got possession of it. This, and other advantages gained by him, at once distressed and roused Pizarro. They came to an engagement in 1538, in which Almagro was defeated and taken prisoner; and, after an interval of confinement, was tried and executed. This was the last of the successes of Pizarro; the son and friends of Almagro conspired against him, and on June 26, 1541, he was assassinated by them in his palace, making a most resolute defence, well worthy of his long-tried courage. He was at this time advanced in years, though his exact age is not known. The glory he justly acquired by military talents, courage, and sagacity, would have placed him in the rank of heroes, had not his character been disgraced by the indelible stains of perfidy and cruelty.

, a man of taste in various pursuits, but chiefly known as an engraver, was the son of Mr. Rowland Place, of Dinsdale, in the county of Durham. He was at first intended for the law, and was placed as a clerk to an attorney in London, with whom he resided until 1665, when a house he had taken being shut up on account of the plague, he left London and quitted his profession at the same time. He now turned projector, and expended considerable sums of money in attempting to make porcelaine, which he put in practice at the manor-­house of York. In this it is probable he had not due perseverance; for one Clifton, of Pontefract, took the hint from him, and realized a fortune. Who was his teacher as an artist is not known, and his works are very rare, for he painted, drew, etched, and engraved, merely for his own amusement; and as his productions prove him a man of great abilities, it is to be lamented that he had not equal application, and left many valuable designs unfinished. In the reign of Charles II. it is said he was offered a pension of 500l. to draw the royal navy, but he refused this sum, large as it then was, from a dislike of confinement and dependence. He died in 1728, and his widow, on quitting the manor-house at York, disposed of his paintings; among which was an admired picture of fowls, others of fishes and flowers unfinished, together with his own portrait by himself. He left behind him a daughter, who was married to Wadham Wyndham, esq. This lady was living in 1764.

, a Greek monk of Constantinople, who lived at the end of the thirteenth, and the beginning of the fourteenth century, is the author of a “Life of Æsop,” full of anachronisms, absurdities, and falsehoods and of 149 “Fables;” which, though he published them as Æsop’s, have been suspected to be his own. There is also a collection of Greek epigrams, under the title of “Anthologia,” made by this monk and it is but just to allow him the merit of having preserved many valuable compositions which otherwise would have been lost. His “Anthologia” was published at Florence, 1494, a very rare edition, reprinted in 1600. No particulars are known of Planudes, except that he suffered some persecution on account of his zeal for the Latin church, and, although he wrote a recantation, Bessarion thinks he was not sincere.

, so called, a learned Italian, and author of a “History of the Popes,” was born in 1421 at Piadena, in Latin Platina, a village between Cremona and Mantua; whence he took the name by which he is generally known. He first embraced a military life, which he followed for a considerable time but afterwards devoted himself to literature, and made a considerable progress in it. He went to Rome under Calixtus III. who was made pope in 1455 and procuring an introduction to cardinal Bessarion, he obtained some small benefices of pope Pius II. who succeeded Calixtus in 1458, and afterwards was appointed to an office which Pius II. created, called the college of apostolical abbreviators. But when Paul II. sue-‘ ceeded Pius in 1464, Platina’ s affairs took a very unfavourable turn. Paul hated him because he was the favourite of fris predecessor Pius, and removed all the abbreviators from their employments, by abolishing their places, notwithstanding some had purchased them with great sums of money. On this Platina ventured to complain to the pope, and most humbly besought him to order their cause to be judged by the auditors of the Rota. The pope was offended at the liberty, and gave him a very haughty repulse “Is it thus,” said he, looking at him sternly, “is it thus, that you summon us before your judges, as if you knew riot that all laws were centered in our breast Such is our decree they shall all go hence, whithersoever they please I am pope, and have a right to ratify or cancel the acts of others at pleasure.” These abbreviators, thus divested of their employments, used their utmost endeavours, for some days, to obtain audience of the pope, but were repulsed with contempt. Upon this, Platina wrote to him in bolder language “If you had a right to dispossess us, without a hearing, of the employments we lawfully purchased; we, on the other side, may surely be permitted to complain of the injustice we suffer, and the ignominy with which we are branded. As you have repulsed us so contumeliousjy, we will go to all the courts of princes, and intreat them to call a council; whose principal business shall be, to oblige you to shew cause, why you have divested us of our lawful possessions.” This letter being considered as an act of rebellion, the writer was imprisoned, and endured great hardships. At the end of four months he had his liberty, with orders not to leave Rome, and continued in quiet for some time; but afterwards, being suspected of a plot, was again imprisoned, and, with many others, put to the rack. The plot being found imaginary, the charge was turned to heresy, which also came to nothing; and Platina was set at liberty some time after. The pope then flattered him with a prospect of preferment, but died before he could perform his promises, if ever he meant to do so. On the accession, however, of Sixtus IV. to the pontificate, he recompensed Platina in some measure by appointing him in 1475, keeper of the Vatican library, which was established by this pope. It was a place of moderate income then, but was highly acceptable to Platina, who enjoyed it with great contentment until 1481, when he was snatched away by the plague. He bequeathed to Pomponius Laetus the house which he built on the Mons Quirinalis, with the laurel grove, out of which the poetical crowns were taken. He was the author of several works, the most considerable of which is, “De Vitis ac Gestis Summorum Pontificum” or, History of the Popes from St. Peter to Sixtus IV. to whom he dedicated it. This work is written with an elegance of style, and discovers powers of research and discrimination which were then unknown in biographical works. He seems always desirous of stating the truth, and does this with as much boldness as could be expected in that age. The best proof of this, perhaps, is that all the editions after 1500 were mutilated by the licensers of the press. The Account he gives of his sufferings under Paul II. has been objected to him as a breach of the impartiality to be observed by a historian but it was at the same time no inconsiderable proof of his courage. This work was first printed at Venice in 1479, folio, and reprinted once or twice before 1500. Platina wrote also, 2. “A History of Mantua,” in Latin, which was first published by Lambecius, with notes, at Vienna, 1675, in 4to. 3. “De Naturis rerum.” 4. “Epistolae ad diversos.” 5. “De honesta voluptate et valetutiine.” 6. “De falso et vero bono.” 7. “Contra amores.” 8. “De vera nobilitate.” 9. “De optimo cive.” 10.“Panegyricus in Bessarionem.” 11. “Oratio ad Paulum II.” 12. “De pace Italiae componenda et bello Turcico indicendo.” 13. “De flosculis lingua? Latin.” Sannazarius wrote an humorous epigram on the treatise “de honesta voluptate,” including directions for the kitchen, de Obsoniis, which Mr. Gresswell has. thus translated:

, a comic writer of ancient Rome, was born at Sarsina, a small town in Umbria, a province of Italy; his proper name was Marcus Accius he is supposed to have acquired the surname of Plautus, from having broad and ill-formed feet. His parentage seems to have been mean; and some have thought him the son of a slave. Few circumstances of his life are known; Cicero has told us in general that he was some years younger than Naevius or Ennius, and that he died the first year of the elder Cato’s censorship, when Claudius Pulcher and Lucius Portius Licinius were consuls. This was about the year of Rome 569, when Terence was about nine years old, and 184 years B. C. A. Gellius says, that Plautus was distinguished at the same time for his poetry uptm the theatre, that Cato was for his eloquence in the forum and observes elsewhere, from Varro, that he was so well paid for his plays, as to think of doubling his stock by trading in which, however, he was so unfortunate, that he lost all he had got by the Muses, and for his subsistence was reduced, in the time of a general famine, to work at the mill. How long he continued in this distress, is uncertain; but Varro adds, that the poet’s wit was his best support, and that he composed three plays during this daily drudgery.

, a man distinguished in the musical world, was born in 1613. He was a stationer and a seller of musical instruments, music-books, and musicpaper, and was clerk of the Temple church. What his education had been, is not known; but that he had attained to a considerable proficiency in the practice of music and musical composition, is certain. His skill in music was not so great as to entitle him to the appellation of a master; he knew nothing of the theory of the science, but was very well versed in the practice, and understood the rules of composition well enough to write good harmony. He was also the first and the most intelligent printer of music during the seventeenth century; and he and his son Henry, appear, without a special licence, or authorized monopoly, to have had almost the whole business of furnishing the nation with musical instruments, music books, and music paper, to themselves. In 1655 he published the first edition of his “Introduction to the Skill of Music,” a compendium compiled from Morley, Butler, and other more bulky and abstruse books, which had so rapid a sale, that in 1683 ten editions of it had been circulated through the kingdom. The book, indeed, contained no late discoveries or new doctrines, either in the theory or practice of the art; yet the form, price, and style, were so suited to every kind of musical readers, that it seems to have been more generally purchased and read, than any elementary musical tract that ever appeared in this or in any other country.

He had married on settling at Rome, but losing his wife in the beginning of Nerva’s reign, he soon after took his beloved Calphurnia; of whom we read so much in his Epistles. He had not however any children by either of his wives: and hence we find him thanking Trajan for the jus trium liberorum, which he afterwards obtained of that emperor for his friend Suetonius Tranquillus. He was promoted to the consulate by Trajan in the year 100, when he was thirty-eight years of age: and in this office pronounced that famous panegyric, which has ever since been admired, as well for the copiousness of the topics, as the elegance of address. He was then elected augur, and afterwards made proconsul of Bithynia; whence he wrote to Trajan that curious letter concerning the primitive Christians, which, with Trajan’s rescript, is happily extant among his “Epistles.” “Pliny’s letter,” as Melmoth observes, in a note upon the passage, “is esteemed as almost the only genuine monument of ecclesiastical antiquity, relating to the times immediately succeeding the apostles, it being written at most not above forty years after the death of St. Paul. It was preserved by the Christians themselves, as a clear and unsuspicious evidence of the purity of their doctrines; and is frequently appealed to by the early writers of the church, against the calumnies of their adversaries.” It is not known what became of Pliny, after his return from Bithynia; nor have we any information as to the time of his death; but it is conjectured that he died either a little before, or soon after, his patron the emperor Trajan, that is, about A. D. 116.

, a celebrated Platonic philosopher, was born at Lycopolis, in Egypt, in the year 205, but concerning his family or education, nothing is known. About the age of twenty, he first studied philosophy at the different schools of Alexandria, but attached himself particularly to Ammonius, in whom he found a disposition to superstition and fanaticism like his own. On the death of this preceptor, haying in his school frequently heard the Oriental philosophy commended, and expecting to find in it that kind of doctrine concerning divine natures which he was most desirous of studying, he determined to travel into Persia and India, to learn wisdom of the Magi and Gymnosophists and as the emperor Gordian was at this time undertaking an expedition against the Parthians, Plotinus seized the occasion, and in the year 243 joined the emperor’s army; but the emperor being killed, Plotinus fled to Antioch, and thence came to Rome, where Philip was now emperor.

The work by which Mr. Plowden is best known by the profession, is his “Commentaries or Reports, containing divers cases upon matters of law, argued and determined in the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, Philip and Mary, and Eliz.” These were originally written in French, and the editions of 1571, 1578, 1599, 1613, and 1684, were published in that language. It was not until 1761, that an English translation appeared, improved by many original notes and references to the ancient and modern Common Law books. To this edition were added his “Queries, or Moot-Book for young Students,” and “The Argument,” in the case of William Morgan et al. v. Sir Rice Manxell. Mr. Daines Harrington calls Plowden the most accurate of all reporters; and Mr. Hargrave says that his “Commentaries” deservedly bear as high a character as any book of reports ever published in our law.

, a French writer, born at Rheims, in 1688, was early distinguished by his progress in polite letters, and by his amiable character, qualities which procured him to be appointed classical professor in the university of Rheims. Some time after, he was removed to the professorship of rhetoric, and admitted into holy orders. Clermont, bishop of Laon, being made acquainted with his merit, offered him the place of director of the college of Clermont, and he was advancing the reputation of this seminary, when the peculiar opinions he held respecting some subjects which then interested the public, obliged him to leave his situation. On this, Gasville, the intendant of Rouen, appointed him tutor to his son, upon the recommendation of the celebrated Rollin. After this, he went to Paris, where he first gave lectures upon history and geography, and then acquired a considerable reputation by some works which he published I. His “Spectacle de la Nature” is generally known, having been translated into perhaps all the European languages, and was no where more popular than in England for many years. This work is written with perspicuity and elegance, and is equally instructive and agreeable; its only fault is, that the author uses too many words for his matter, which, however, is perhaps unavoidable in the dialogue form of writing. 2. 61 Histoire du Ciel,“in 2 vols. 12mo, is another work of the abbe” Pluche, a kind of mythological history of the heavens, consisting of two parts, almost independent of one another. The first, which contains some learned inquiries into the origin of the poetic heavens, and an attempt to prove that the pagan deities had not been real men, was animadverted upon by M. Silouette, in “Observations on the Abbe Pluche' s History,” &c. an account of which may be seen in the “History of the Works of the Learned” for April 1743, with notes by Warburton. 3. He wrote a tract also “De artificio linguarum,” 1735, 12mo, which he translated himself, under the title of “La Mechanique des Langues,” in which he proposes a short and easy method of learning languages, by the use of translations instead of themes or exercises. 4. “Concorde de la Geographic des differens ages,” 1764, 12mo, a posthumous work, well conceived, but executed superficially. 5. “Harmonic des Pseaumes et de PEvangile,” 1764, 12mo, a translation of the Psalms, remarkable for its fidelity and elegance, with many learned notes of reference and illustration from other parts of Scripture. Pluche had obtained the abbey of Varenne St Maur, to which he retired in 1749, and gave himself up entirely to devotion and study, which was a happy relief to him, as he lost all the pleasures of literary society, by an incurable deafness. He died of an apoplexy, Nov. 20, 1761. He was a believer in all the mysteries of his church, even to an extreme; and when some free-thinkers used to express their astonishment that a man of abbé Pluche’s force of understanding could think so like the vulgar, he used to say, “I glory in this it is more reasonable to believe the word of God, than to follow the vain and uncertain lights of reason.”

, called Father Plumier, being a religious, of the order of Minims, was born at Marseilles, April 20, 1646, and was a botanist not less famous than his contemporary Plukenet. He entered into his order at sixteen, and studied mathematics and other sciences at Toulouse, under father Maignan, of the same society. He did not only learn the profound sciences, but became an expert mechanic. In the art of turning he became such a proficient as to write a book upon it and learned also to make lenses, mirrors, microscopes, and other mathematical instruments, all which knowledge he gained from Maignan. He was soon after sent by his superiors to Rome, where, by his application to mathematics, optics, and other studies, he nearly destroyed his constitution. As a relaxation from these severer sciences, he applied to botany, under the instruction of father Serjeant, at Romey of Francis de Onuphriis, an Italian physician, and of Sylvius Boccone, a Sicilian. Being recalled by his order into Provence, he obtained leave to search the neighbouring coasts, and the Alps, for plants; and soon became acquainted with Tournefort, then on his botanical tour, and with Garidel, professor of botany at Aix. When he had thus qualified himself, he was chosen as the associate of Surian, to explore the French settlements in the West Indies, as Sloane had lately examined Jamaica. He acquitted himself so well that he was twice afterwards sent at the expence of the king, whose botanist he was appointed, with an increased salary each time. Plumier passed two years in those islands, and on the neighbouring continent, but principally in Domingo; and made designs of many hundred plants, of the natural size, besides numerous figures of birds, fishes, and insects. On his return from his second voyage he had his first work published at the Louvre, at the king’s expence, entitled, 1. “Descriptions des Plantes de PAmerique,” fol. 1695, pp. 94, 108 plates. These figures consist of little more than outlines, but being as large as nature, and well drawn by himself, produce a fine effect. On his return fro/n his third voyage he settled at Paris, and in 1703 published, 2. his “Nova Plantarum Americanarum Genera,” 4to. In the year ensuing he was prevailed upon by M. Fagon to undertake a voyage to Peru, to discover and delineate the Peruvian bark. His great zeal for the science, even at that age, induced him to consent; but while he was waiting for the ship near Cadiz, he was seized with a pleurisy, and died in 1704. Sir J. E. Smith says, that as Rousseau’s Swiss herbalist died of a pleurisy, whilst employed in gathering a sovereign Alpine remedy for that disorder so it is not improbable that Plumier was extolling the Polytrichum (see his preface, p. 2.) as “un antipleuritique des plus assurez,” when he himself fell a victim to the very same distemper; leaving his half-printed book to be his monument. This was, 3. “Traité des Fougeres de l'Amerique,” on the Ferns of America, 1705, folio, 172 plates. He published, as above-mentioned, 4. “L'Art de Tourner,” the Art of Turning, Lyons, 1701, and republished in L740. 5. There are also two dissertations by him, in the Journal des Savant, 1694, and that of Trevoux, to prove, what is now well known, that the cochineal is an insect.

The circumstances of Plutarch’s life are not known, and therefore cannot be related with any exactness. He was married, and his wife’s name was Timoxena, as Rualdus conjectures with probability. He had several children, and among them two sons, one called Plutarch after himself, the other Lamprias, in memory of his grandfather. Lamprias was he, of all his children, who seems to have inherited his father’s philosophy; and to him we owe the table, or catalogue of Plutarch’s writings, and perhaps also his “Apophthegms.” He had a nephew, Sextus Chseroneus, who taught the emperor Marcus Aurelius the Greek language, and was much honoured by him. Some think that the critic Longinus was of his family; and Apuleius, in the first book of his Metamorphoses, affirms himself to be descended from him.

When, and how, he was made known to Trajan, is likewise uncertain: but it is generally supposed, that Trajan, a private man when Plutarch first came to Rome, was, among other nobility, one of his auditors. It is also supposed, that this wise emperor made use of him in his councils; and much of the happiness of his reign has been imputed to Plutarch. The desire of visiting his native country, so natural to all men, and especially when growing old, prevailed with him at length to leave Italy; and, at his return, he was unanimously chosen archon, or chief magistrate, of Chaeronea, and not long after admitted into the number of the Delphic Apollo’s priests. We have no particular account of his death, either as to the manner or the year; but conjecture has fixed it about the year 120. It is evident that he lived, and continued his studies, to an extreme old age.:,i

There have been many editions of Plutarch, but he came later to the press than most other classical authors. There was no edition of any part of the original Greek, before Aldus printed the “Morals,” which was not until 1509. The “Lives” appeared first at Florence, by Junta, in 1517. The first edition of the “Opera Omnia,” was Stephen’s, at Paris, in 1572, Greek and Latin, 13 vols. Dr. Harwood calls it one of the most correct books H. Stephens ever published; but other critics are by no means of this opinion. The next was that of Cruserius, at Francfort, 1599, 2 vols. folio, which has the advantage of Xylander’s excellent Latin version, who himself published two editions, Francfort, 1620, and Paris, 1624, 2 vols. folio; both valuable. Reiske’s, of Leipsic, 1774, &c. 12 vols. 8vo, is a most elaborate edition, which, however, he did not live to finish. But the best of all is that of Wytteubach, published lately at Oxford in quarto and octavo, and too well known to scholars to require any description.

Having now acquired perhaps as much learning as his country at that time afforded, he was desirous of visiting the most celebrated universities abroad, to complete his education, and being provided by the king with a pension, in addition to the profits of his preferments, he fixed his residence for some time at Padua, where he hired a house and kept an establishment suitable to his rank. The professors at Padua were at this time men of high reputation, and were not a little pleased with the opportunity of forming the mind of one who was the kinsman ana favourite of a great king, and might hereafter have it in his power amply to reward their labours and some of them even now partook nobly of his bounty, being maintained by him in his house. Here commenced his acquaintance with Bembo, Sadolet, and Longolius, which lasted the remainder of their lives, and here also his acquaintance took its rise with Erasmus, who had received from his friend Lupset a very favourable representation of Pole. He therefore entered into an epistolary correspondence with him, which he began b\ T recommending to his favour the afterwards well-known John A Lasco. (See Alasco, vol. I. p. 292.) Besides the aid which Pole received in his studies from Longolius and Lupset, who is said to have been entertained by him in his own family, he paid much attention to the lectures of Leonicus, an eminent Greek scholar, who taught Pole to relish the writings of Aristotle and Plato in the original. While Pole continued at Padua, Longinus died in 1522, and such was the regard Pole had for him that he wrote his life, which Dr. Neve thinks was not only the first but the best specimen he gave the public of his abilities. It was the production, however, of a young man who could not have known Longolius above two years, and he has therefore fallen into some mistakes. (See Longueil.)

About this time the pope, having resolved to call a general council for the reformation of the church, summoned several learned men to Rome, for that purpose, and among these he summoned Pole to represent England. As soon as this was known in that country, his mother and other friends requested him not to obey the pope’s summons; and at first he was irresolute, but the importunities of his Italian friends prevailed, and he arrived at Rome in 1536, where he was lodged in the pope’s palace, and treated with the utmost respect, being considered as one who might prove a very powerful agent in any future attempt to reduce his native land to the dominion of the pope. The projected scheme of reformation, in which Pole assisted, came to nothing; but a design was now formed of advancing him to the purple, to enable him the better to promote the interests of the papal see. To this he objected, and his objections certainly do him no discredit, as a zealous adherent to the order and discipline of his church. He was not yet in holy orders, nor had received even the clerical tonsure, notwithstanding the benefices which had been bestowed on him and he represented to the pope, that such a dignity would at this juncture destroy all his influence in England, by subjecting him to the imputation of being too much biassed to the interest of the papal see and would also have a natural tendency to bring ruin on his own family. He, therefore, intreated his holiness to leave him, at least for the present, where he was, adding other persuasives, with which the pope seemed satisfied but the very next day, whether induced by the imperial emissaries, or of his own will, he commanded Pole’s immediate obedience, and he having submitted to the tonsure, was created cardinal- deacon of S. Nereus and Achilleus, on Dec. 22, 1536. Soon after he was also appointed legate, and received orders to depart immediately for the coasts of France and Flanders, to keep up the spirit of the popish party in England and he had at the same time letters from the pope to the English nation, or rather the English catholics, the French king, the king of Scotland, and to the emperor’s sister, who was regent of the Low Countries. Pole undertook this commission with great readiness, and whether from ambition or bigotry, consented to be a traitor to his country. In the beginning of Lent 1537, he set out from Rome, along with his particular friend, the bishop of Verona, and a handsome retinue. His first destination was to France, and there he received his first check, for on the very day of his arrival at Paris, the French king sent him word that he conld neither admic him to treat of the business on which be came, nor allow him 'to make any stay in his dominions. Pole now learnt that Henry VIII. had proclaimed him a traitor, and set a price (50,000 crowns) on his head. Pole then proceeded to Cambray, but there he met with the same opposition, and was not allowed to pursue his journey. The cardinal bishop of Liege, however, invited him, and liberally entertained him in that city, where he remained three months, in hopes of more favourable accounts from the emperor and the king of France but nothing of this kind occurring, he returned to Ro'iki[ after an expedition that had been somewhat disgracefu and totally unsuccessful. In 1538 he again set out on a similar design, with as little effect, and was now impeded by the necessary caution he was obliged to preserve for fear of falling into the hands of some of Henry’s agents. In the mean time, he was not only himself attainted of high treason by the Parliament of England, but his eldest brother Henry Pole, lord Montague, the marquis of Exeter, sir Edward Nevil, and sir Nicholas Carew, were condemned and executed for high treason, which consisted in a conspiracy to raise cardinal Pole to the crown. Sir Geoffrey Pole, another brother of the cardinal’s, was condemned on the same account, but pardoned in cpnsequence of his giving information against the rest. Margaret, also, countess of Salisbury, the cardinal’s mother, was condemned, but not executed until two years after. The cardinal now found how truly he had said to the pope that his being raised to that dignity would be the ruin of his family but he appears to have at this time in a great measure subdued his natural affection, as he received the account of his mother’s death with great composure, consoling himself with the consideration that she died a martyr to the catholic faith. When his secretary Beccatelli informed him of the news, and probably with much concern, the cardinal said, “Be of good courage, we have now one patron more added to those we already had in heaven.”

In 1539, when Pole returned to Rome, the pope thought it necessary to counteract the plots of Henry’s emissaries by appointing him a guard for the security of his person. He likewise conferred on him the dignity of legate of Viterbo, an office in which, while he maintained his character as an example of piety and a patron of learning, he is said to have shown great moderation and lenity towards the protestants. He was here at the head of a literary society, some of the members of which were suspected of a secret attachment to the doctrines of the reformation and Immanuel Tremellius, who was a known protestant, was converted from Judaism to Christianity in Pole’s palace at Viterbo, where he was baptised, the cardinal and Flaminius being his godfathers.

Pole continued at Viterbo till 1542, when the general council for the reformation of the church, which had been long promised and long delayed, was called at Trent, and is known in ecclesiastical history as the famous “Council of Trent.” It did not, however, proceed to business until 1545, when Pole went thither, with the necessary escort of a troop of horse. For the proceedings of this extraordinary assembly, we must refer the reader to father Paul’s history. The principal circumstance worthy of notice respecting the cardinal was his writing a treatise on the nature and end of general councils, just before he left Rome, in which he proves himself the determined advocate for the boundless prerogative of the pope. He Continued at Trent until a rheumatic disorder, which fell into one of his arms, obliged him to go to Padua for medical advice; and afterwards, the council being prorogued, he went to Rome at the request of the pope, who wished to avail himself of his pen in drawing up memorials and vindications of the proceedings of the see of Rome; and Pole, a man of superior talents to most of the Italian prelates, knew how to render these very persuasive, at a time when freedom of discussion was not allowed.

After the dissolution of parliament, the first thing taken into consideration was, in what manner to proceed against the heretics. Pole, as we have before noticed, had been charged by some with favouring the protestants; but he now expressed a great detestation of them, adding probably something of personal resentment to his constitutional bigotry, and would not now converse with any who had been of that party, except sir William Cecil. Since his arrival as legate, his temper appeared to have undergone an unpleasant alteration: he was reserved to all except Priuli and Ormaneto, two Italians whom he brought with him, and in whom he confided. Still for some time he recommended moderate measures with respect to heretics, while Gardiner laboured to hasten the bloody persecution which followed'; but, either out-argued by Gardiner, or influenced by the court, we find that -he granted commissions for the prosecution of heretics, as one of the first acts of his legantine authority. If in this he was persuaded contrary to his opinion and feelings, he must have been the most miserable of all men; for the consequences, it is well known, were such as no man of feeling could contemplate without horror.

is the name of many eminent personages recorded in ancient writers, particularly Julius Polysenus, of whom some Greek epigrams are extant, in the first book of the Anthologia. But the Polyænus who is best known, flourished in the second century, and is the author of the eight books of the “Stratagems of illustrious Commanders in war.” He appears to have been a Macedonian, and probably was a soldier in the younger part of his life; but we are more certain that he was a rhetorician, and a pleader of causes and that he enjoyed a place of trust and dignity under the emperors Antoninus and Veriis, to whom he dedicated his work. The “Strategemata” were published in Greek by Isaac Casaubon, with notes, in 1589, 12mo but no good edition of them appeared, till that of Leyden; 1690, in 8vo. The title-page runs thus: “Polygeni Strategematum libri octo, Justo Vulteio interprete, Pancratius Maasvicius recensuit, Isaaci Casauboni nee non suas notas adjecit.” This was followed, in 1756, by Mursinua’s edition, Berlin, and by that of Coray, at Paris in 1809, 8vo. We have now an excellent English translation by Mr. R. Shepherd, 1793, 4to. It contains various stratagems, of above three hundred commanders and generals of armies, chiefly Greeks and Barbarians, which are at least entertaining, and illustrative of the manners of the times in which those commanders lived but it may be doubted whether a modern soldier would gain much advantage by making himself master of this tricking study. The original has come down to us incomplete, and with the text considerably mutilated and corrupted; but the style is classical, and even elegant.

, an eminent Greek historian, was of Megalopolis, a city of Arcadia, and was the son of Lycortas, general of the Achaeans, who were then the most powerful republic in Greece. He was born in the fourth year of the 143d olympiad, or in the 548th year of the building of Rome, or about 203 years before Christ. When twentyfour years of age, the Achaeans sent him and his father Lycortas ambassadors to the king of Egypt; and the son had afterwards the same honour, when he was deputed to go to the Roman consul, who made war upon Perses, king of Macedon. In the consulships of Æmilius Paetus and Julius Pennus, a thousand Achaeans were ordered to Rome, as hostages, for the good behaviour of their countrymen who were suspected of designs against the Romans; and were there detained seventeen years. Polybius, who was one of them, and was then thirty-eight years of age, had great talents from nature, which were well cultivated by education; and his residence at Rome appears to have been of great advantage to him since he owed to it, not only the best part of his learning, but the important friendship he contracted with Scipio and Lselius and when the time of his detention expired, he accompanied Scipio into Africa. After this he was witness to the sack and destruc* tion of Corinth, and of the reduction of Achaia to tho condition of a Roman provinces Amidst these dreadful scenes, he displayed noble traits of patriotism and disinterestedness, which obtained for him so much credit, that he was entrusted with the care of settling the new form of government in the cities of Greece, which office he performed to the satisfaction both of the Romans and the Greeks. In all his journeys he amassed materials for his history, and took such observations as to render his descriptions very accurate. Although his chief object was the history of the Romans, whose language he had learned with great care, and the establishment of their empire, yet he had in his eye the general history of the times in which he lived and therefore he gave his work the name of “Catholic or Universal” nor was this at all inconsistent with his general purpose, there being scarcely any nations at that time in the known world, which had not some contest with, or dependence upon, the Romans. Of forty books which he composed, there remain but the first five entire; with an epitome of the twelve following, which is supposed to have been made by that great assertor of Roman liberty, Marcus Brutus. Brutus is said to have been so particularly fond of Polybius, that, even in the last and most unfortunate hours of his life, he amused himself not only in reading, but also in abridging his history. The space of time which this history includes, is fifty-three years, beginning, after two of introductory matter, at the third book.

, a Jesuit, most known for his “Pantheum mythicum,” of which his French biographers assert that an “Englishman, named Tooke, gave a translation, prefixing his own name, without that of the author” and this book has gone through a vast number of editions. He died at Lyons, in 1673, at an advanced age. He had been employed as a teacher of youth in that city, and most of his works are formed for the use of students. They consist of, a large dictionary, since superseded by that of Joubert; a small one in 12mo, entitled “Flos Latinitatis;” “Indiculus universalis,” a kind of nomenclator colloquies; a treatise on particles and another on the funerals of the ancients with a work on rhetoric. Pomey was well versed in the Latin authors, but his publications would have been more valuable had he been more attentive to method and exactness.

, an Italian poet and a man of letters, was born of a noble family at Verona in 1731. He became an early proficient in classical literature, particularly the Greek, of which he was enthusiastically fond, and attained an excellent style. At this period the marquis Maffei and other eminent literary characters were resident at Verpna, in whose society the talents of Pompei received the most advantageous cultivation. He was first known as an author by “Canzoni Pastorali,” in two vols. 8vo. Able critics spoke in the highest terms of these pieces, on account of their sweetness and elegance it was thought by some good judges that they were never surpassed by any productions of the kind. He next translated some of the Idylls of Theocritus and Moschus, in which he exhibited a very happy selection of Italian words, corresponding with the Greek. The next object of his attention was dramatic poetry, in the higher departments of which the Italians were at that time very deficient, and he published in 1763 and 1770, his tragedies of “Hypermestra” and “Callirhoe,” which were represented with great success in several cities of the Venetian state. He now employed several years on a translation of “Plutarch’s Lives,” which appeared in 1774 in four vols. 4to. This work gave him considerable reputation as a prose writer and scholar, and it ranks among the very best classical versions in the Italian language. In 1778 he published two volumes of “Nuove Canzoni Pastorali” he also published poetical versions of the “Hero and Leander of Musjeus” of the “Hymns of Callimachus;” “A hundred Greek Epigrams” and the “Epistles of Ovid.” He was a member of some of the academies, and he served his native city in the capacities of secretary to the tribunal of public safety, and to the academy of painting. He died at Verona in 1790, at the age of fifty-nine, and his memory was honoured by various public testimonies, and by the erection of his bust in one of the squares of the city. He was highly respected and esteemed, as well for his morals as for his literary talents, and his fame was not limited to the confines of Italy. An edition of his works was published after his death in six vols. 8vo.

, or P0MPEIUS (CNEius), surnamed Magnus, or the Great, was of a noble Roman family, the son of Pompeius Strabo, and Lucilia. He was born the same year with Cicero, but nine months later, namely, in the consulship of Csepio and Serranus, 105 years before the Christian sera. His father was a general of great abilities, and under him he learned the art of war. When he was only twenty-three he raised three legions, which he led to Sylla. Three years after, he drove the opponents of Sylla from Africa and Sicily. Young as he was, he had already won the soldiers sufficiently, by his mildness and military talents, to excite the jealousy of Sylla, who therefore recalled him to Rome. His soldiers would have detained him in spite of the dictator’s orders, but he obeyed, and was rewarded on his arrival by the name of Magnus, given him by Sylla, and soon after confirmed unanimously by his countrymen. He obtained also the honours of a triumph, which the dictator permitted rather unwillingly, and was the first instance of a Roman knight, who had not risen to any magistracy, being advanced to that elevation. This was in 81 B. C. In a short time, he had obtained as much power by the voluntary favour of the people, as Sylla had before by arms and after the death of that extraordinary man, obliged Lepidus to quit Rome, and then undertook the war against Sertorius in Spain, which he brought to a fortunate conclusion. For this victory he triumphed a second time, B. C. 73, being still only in the rank of a knight. Not long afterwards he was chosen consul. In that office he re-established the power of the tribunes; and, in the course of a few years, exterminated the pirates who infested the Mediterranean, gained great advantages against Tigranes and Mithriclates, and carried his victorious arms into Media, Albania, Iberia, and the most important parts of Asia; and so extended the boundaries of the Roman empire, that Asia Minor, which before formed the extremity of its provinces, now became, in a manner, the centre of them. When he returned to receive a triumph for these victories, he courted popularity by dismissing his troops and entering the city as a private citizen. He triumphed with great splendour but not feeling his influence such as he had hoped, he united with Caesar and Crassus to form the first triumvirate. He strengthened his union with Ccesar by marrying his daughter Julia; he was destined nevertheless to find in Caesar not a friend, but too successful a rival. While Caesar was gaining in his long Gallic wars a fame and a power that were soon to be invincible, Pompey was endeavouring to cultivate his popularity and influence in Rome. Ere long they took directly contrary parties. Pompey became the hope and the support of the patricians and the senate, while Caesar was the idol of the people. On the return of the latter from Gaul, in the year 51 A. C. the civil war broke out, which terminated, as is well known, by the defeat of Pompey in the battle of Pharsalia, A. C. 49, and the base assassination of him by the officers of Ptolemy in Egypt. It appears that Pompey had not less ambition than Caesar, but was either more scrupulous, or less sagacious and fortunate in his choice of means to gratify that passion. He was unwilling to throw off the mask of virtue and moderation, and hoped to gain every thing by intrigue and the appearance of transcendant merit. In this he might have been successful, had he not been opposed to a man whose prompt and decisive measures disconcerted his secret plans, drove things a once to extremities, and forced him to have recourse to the decision of arms, in which victory declared against him. The moderate men, and those who were sincerely attached to the republic of Rome, dreaded, almost equally, the success of Pompey and of Caesar. Cato, who took the mourning habit on the breaking out of the civil war, had resolved upon death if Caesar should be victorious, and exile if sue* cess should declare for Pompey.

, a Spanish divine and martyr, called also de Fuente, was a native of the town of St. Clement, in New Castille, and was educated at the university of Valladolid, where he became an excellent linguist. After taking his doctor’s degree he obtained a canonry in the metropolitan church of Seville, and was made theological professor in that city. His learning and eloquence becoming known, he was appointed preacher to the emperor Charles V. and afterwards to his son Philip Jl, whom he attended into England, where he imbibed the principles of the Reformation. After his return to Spain, he resumed his employment of preacher at Seville, where the change in his sentiments was first suspected, and then discovered by a treacherous seizure of his papers. He did not, however, affect any denial, but boldly avowed his principles, and was therefore thrown into prison, where he was kept for two years, and would have been burnt alive, to which punishment he was condemned, had he not died of a -dysentery, occasioned by the excessive heat of his place of confinement, and the want of proper food. This happened the day before his intended execution, and his enemies not only reported that he had laid violent hands on himself, to escape the disgrace, but burnt his remains and effigy, having first exposed them in a public procession. As an author, his works were “Commentaries 7 ' ou the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and Job; 46 A Summary of the Christian Doctrine” “Sermons,” and other smaller pieces.

, bishop of Bergen, who was born in 1698, at Aarhuus, in Denmark, and died in 1764, wrote several works respecting the history and geography of that kingdom; one of which, his “History of Norway,” was translated into English in 1755. His other publications are less known in this country. He must be distinguished from another Danish writer of both his names, author of a Danish grammar, a collection of epigrams and other articles of Latin poetry. He was born in 1616, and died in 1678.

With much encouragement he had also some difficulties to encounter. When the first volume was ready for the press, an obstruction which appeared very formidable was thrown in his way by Cornelius Bee, a bookseller, who, in a paper or pamphlet called “The case of Cornelius Bee,” accused Mr. Pool of invading his property. To understand this it is necessary to know that this Mr. Bee, unquestionably a man of an enterprizing spirit, equal perhaps to any instance known in our days among the trade, had published a very few years before, i. e. in 1660, the “Critici Sacri,” or a body of criticisms of the most learned men in Europe, amounting to ninety, on the Old and New Testament, given at large from their works, and extending to nine volumes folio. Bee had a patent for this work, and unquestionably deserved every encouragement and protection the law could give, but the language of his patent seems to have given him a narrow notion of literary property. It stated that no person should print the Critics either in whole or in party and therefore he considered Mr. Pool as prohibited from taking any thing from this vast collection of criticisms which separately were in every persons’ hands, or from making any abridgment, or compiling any work that resembled the “Critici Sacri,” however improved in the plan, or augmented, as Pool’s was, from a variety authors not used in it. He also complained that he should sustain a double injury by the “Synopsis:” first, in the loss of the sale of the remaining copies of his own work, for which he did Mr. Pool the honour to think there would be no longer a demand; and secondly, in being prevented from publishing an improved edition of the “Critici Sacri” which he intended.

Having amply established his fame by so many excellent, and by two incomparable, poems, the “Rape of the J-oc]t” and the “Eloisa,” he now meditated what Warton, somewhat incautiously, calls “a higher effort,” his translation of Homer. A higher effort it certainly was not than the poems just mentioned, but we may allow it was “something that might improve and advance his fortune as well as his fame.” A clamour was raised at the time that he had uot sufficient learning for such an undertaking and Dr. Johnson says, that considering his irregular education, and course of life, it is not very likely that he overflowed with Greek but this, it is known, he supplied by the aid of his friends, or by scholars employed, of whom he had no personal knowledge, as the celebrated Dr. Jortin, who, when a soph at Cambridge, made extracts from Eustathius for his notes. This translation Pope proposed to publish by subscription, in six vols. 4to. at the price of six guineas, and his list of subscribers soon amounted to 575, who engaged for 654 copies. The greatness of the design, and popularity of the author, and the attention of the literary world, naturally raised such expectations of the future sale, that the booksellers made their, offers with great eagerness but the hi-ghest bidder was Bernard Lintot, who became proprietor, on condition of supplying, at his own expence, all the copies which were to be delivered to subseribeYs, 4or pre,­sentecl to friends, and paying 200l. for every volume, so ­that Pope obtained, on the whole, the sum of 5S20J. 4s. Thk money he partly laid out in annuities, particularly one of 200l. a year, or as some say 500l. from the Duke of Buckingham, and partly in the purchase of a house at Twickenham, to which he now removed, having persuaded his father to sell his little property at Binfield.

"Curll’s account was, that one evening a man in a clergyman’s gown, but with a lawyer’s band, brought and offered to sale a number of printed volumes, which he found to be Pope’s epistolary correspondence that he asked no name, and was told none, but gave the price demanded, and thought himself authorized to use his purchase to his own advantage. That Curll gave a true account of the transaction it is reasonable to believe, because no' falsehood was ever yet detected; and when, some years afterwards, I mentioned it to Lintot, the son of Bernard, he declared his opinion to be, that Pope knew better than any body else how Curll obtained the copies, because another parcel was at the same time sent to himself, for which no price had ever been demanded, as he made known his resolution not to pay a porter, and consequently not to deal with a nameless agent.

* It has’so*:“and added,” I never in my life knew a man that had so tender a heart for his particular friends, or more general friendship for mankind.“At another time he said,” I have known Pope these thirty years, and value myself more in his friendship than“-his grief then suppressed his voice. Pope expressed undoubting confidence of a future state. Being asked by his friend Mr. Hooke, a papist, whether he would not die like his father and mother, and whether a priest should not be called he answered,” I do not think it is essential, but it will be very right: and I thank you for putting me in mind of it.“In the morning, after the priest had done his office, he said,” There is nothing that is meritorious but virtue and friendship, and indeed friendship itself is only a part of virtue." He died in the evening of May 30, 1744, so placidly, that the attendants did not discern the exact time of his expiration. He was buried at Twickenham, near his father and mother, where a monument was afterwards erected to him by Warburton.

“Qn th circumstance being made known to lord Bolingbroke, who was then a guest in his own house at Battersea with lord Marchmont, to whom he had lent it for two or three years, his lordship was in great indignation; to appease which, lord Marchmont sent Mr. Grevenkop (a German gentleman who had travelled with him, and was afterwards in the household of lord Chesterfield when lord lieutenant of Ireland,) to bring out the whole edition, of which a bonfire was instantly made on the terrace at Battersea.” This plain unvarnished tale, our readers will probably think, tends very much to strengthen the vindication which Warburton offered for his deceased friend, although he was ignorant of the concern Allen had in the matter; but it will be difficult to find an excuse for Bolingbroke, who, forgetting the honourable mention of him in Pope’s will, a thing quite incompatible with any hostile intention towards him, could employ such a man as Mallet to blast the memory of Pope by telling a tale of "breach of faith/ 1 with every malicious aggravation, and artfully concealing what he must have known, since lord Marchmont knew it, the share Allen had in the edition* of the Patriot King.

Dr. Pope was a man of humour and a satirist, and in both characters had published in 1670 the “Memoirs of Mons. Du Vail, with his last speech and epitaph.” Du Vail was a notorious highwayman, who was hanged in 1669 at Tyburn, and having been much admired and bewailed by the ladies, our author by this piece of biography endeavoured to cure them of such weakness or affectation, and to direct their esteem to more worthy objects. In 1693, he published his well-known song called “The Wish,” or “The Old Man’s Wish,” which may be seen in Mr. Nichols’s collection of Miscellany Poems, and perhaps in every collection of English songs. Vincent Bourne wrote a beautiful imitation of it in Latin. This wish seems to have been in some measure accomplished in his own case, for in his life of bishop Ward, published in 1697, he says, “I thank God, I am arriv‘d to a good old age without gout, or stone, with my external senses but little decayed; and my intellectuals, tho’ none of the best, yet as good as ever they were.” In the following year he was involved in a tedious law-suit, which gave him much uneasiness, but what the subject was, his biographer has not discovered. In 1699 he withdrew from the Royal Society, designing Yery probably to retire into the country, and enjoy himself in some respects agreeably to his “Wish.” Accordingly he spent much of his time afterwards at Epsom, but at last settled in Bunhill fields, then a suburb of London, where he died, in a very advanced age, in June 1714, and was buried in the church of St. Giles’s Cripplegate.

, a Neapolitan of the fifteenth century, is said to have been a swineherd in his youth, from which circumstance he had the name of Porcellus. He was born about 1400, and therefore could not have lived in the time of Petrarch, as Vossius and Baillet have asserted. How he emerged from obscurity is not known, but it is certain that he calls himself secretary to the king of Naples, and was much esteemed by Frederic, duke of Urbino, a celebrated general, who died 1482. He was also in the Venetian army in 1452, which gave him occasion to write the history of count James Picinini, who fought for the Venetians at his own expence, and not only honoured Porcellus with his esteem, but lodged him in his house, and admitted him daily to hisiable. Muratori published this fragment of history, 1731, in vol. XX. of his historical collections. He had written a supplement to it which remains in ms. and some Epigrams, in a simple and natural style, which were printed with other Italian poems, Paris, 1539, 8vo. He died some time after 1452.

, known by the former name, from the village of Pordenone, about twentyfive miles from Udino, in which he was born in 1484, had a strong talent for historical painting, which he carried to a high degree of perfection, without any other aid than the careful study of the works of Giorgione. He painted at first in fresco, but afterwards in oil, and was particularly distinguished by his skill in foreshortening his figures. His invention was fertile, his taste good, his colouring not unlike that of Titian, and his designs had the merit of uniting force and ease. A strong emulation subsisted between him and Titian and it is certainly no small merit that he was able to sustain any competition with such a master. It is said, however, that they who endeavoured to support him in this rivalship, were actuated by malignity and envy towards Titian. It is related also, that when he worked in the same town with Titian, he was so afraid of the effects of his jealousy, that he never walked out without arms offensive and defensive. Pordenone painted at Genoa for prince Doria, but did not there give entire satisfaction; he then returned to Venice, and was afterwards invited to Ferrara by the duke of that state, from whom he received many signal marks of favour and esteem. He died in 1540, at the age of fifty-six, and his death has been by some authors attributed to poison given by some painters at Ferrara, jealous of the distinctions he received at court. The most considerable picture which Rome possesses of him, is that with the portraits of his family, in the palace Borghese. But perhaps his most splendid work in oil is the altar-piece at S. Maria dell' Orto, at Venice, which represents a S. Lorenzo Giustiniani, surrounded by other saints, among whom a St. John Baptist surprises no less by correctness of forms, than a St. Augustin by a boldness of foreshortening which makes his arm start from the canvas.

, a zealous and learned Jesuit, was born in 1675, at Vendees, near Caen, and after pursuing his theological studies at Paris, in 1708, he was nominated to the chair of rhetoric in the college of Louis le Grand, which he filled with great diligence, success, and reputation, for thirty-three years, and formed many pupils that did honour to the instructions of their master. He died in 1741, at the age of sixty-six. His writings are numerous, chiefly in the Latin language there are two “Collections of Harangues,” published in 1735 and 1747 also six Latin tragedies and five Latin comedies. He was also author of several fugitive pieces in prose and verse. He had a brother, Charles Gabriel, who died in 1770, at the age of 85, a considerable writer, but known principally for a work entitled “Nouvelles Liieraires de Caen,” in 3 vols. 8vo, being a collection of pieces in prose and verse, written by the academicians of that city, and also for “Forty-four Dissertations on different subjects,” read before the academy of Caen, of which he was a member more than thirty years.

, a philosopher of great name among the ancients, was born A. D. 233, in the reign of Alexander Severus. He was of Tyre, and had the name of Malchus, in common with his father, who was a Syrophcenician. St. Jerome and St. Augustin' have called him Bataneotes whence Fabricius suspects, that the real place of his nativity was Batanea, a town of Syria and that he was carried thence with a colony to Tyre. His father very early introduced him to the study of literature and philosophy under the Christian preceptor Origen, probably while he was teaching at Caesarea in Palestine. He then went to Athens, where he had the famous Longinus for his master in rhetoric, who changed his Syrian name Malchus, as not very pleasing to Grecian ears, into that of Porphyrius, which answers to it in Greek. It is in a great measure owing to this able teacher, that we find so many proofs of erudition, and so much elegance of style, in the writings of PorphyFrom this time, we have little information concerning him until he proceeded to Rome, where, at thirty years of age, he heard Plo'tinus, whose life he has written, and inserted in it many particulars concerning himself*. Five years after, he went to reside at Lilybseum in Sicily, on which account he is sometimes called Siculus and here, as Eusebius and Jerome relate, he composed those famous books against the Christians, which, for the name and authority of the man, and for the acuteness and learning with, which they were written, were afterwards thought so considerable, as to be suppressed by particular edicts, under the reigns of Constantine and Theodosius. Some have surmised, that these books are still extant, and secretly preserved in the Duke of Tuscany’s library; but there is little doubt that they were destroyed by the mistaken zeal of the Christians. The circumstances of Porphyrius’s life, after his arrival in Sicily, are little known except that he died at Rome, towards the end of Dioclesiari’s reign, about the year 304. Some have imagined that he was. in the early part of his life a Christian, but afterwards, through some disgust or other, deserted that profession, and became its decided enemy; while others have hinted, that he embraced Christianity when he was old, and after he had written with great acrimony against it; but for neither of these opinions is there any good authority.

, an eminent Florentine artist, whose surname is not known, was called Baccio dellaPorta, from a study which he kept when a youth, near a gate of the city; and this name was afterwards changed to the more celebrated one of Fra Bartolommeo di S. Marco, when he entered the order of that Dominican convent. Sometimes he is only called “il Frate.” He was born in 1469, and studied under Cosimo Roselli but soon grew enamoured of the grand chiaro-scuro of Lionardo da Vinci, and strove to emulate it. His progress was rapid, and he became the instructor of Raphael in colour, who gave him lessons in perspective, and taught him to unite gracefulness with grandeur of form. The composition of his sacred subjects, and he painted little else, is that which adhered to Raphael himself, and was not dismissed by the Florentine school before the epoch of Pontormo; but he disguised its formality by the introduction of architecture and majestic scenery. To repel the invidious charge of incapacity for large proportions, he produced the sublime figure of St. Marc, which alone fills an ample pannel, and is, or was lately, among the spoils of the Louvre. His St. Sebastian, for skill in the naked, and energy of colour, obtained every suffrage of artists and of critics, but being considered as indecent, the monks thought proper to sell and send it to France. In drapery he may be considered as an inventor; no artist of his school formed it with equal breadth or dignity, or so natural and expressive of the limits; and if he were the instructor, he was certainly not the slave, of the layman. One work of his, of prodigious grandeur and beauty, is unnoticed by Mr. Fuseli, whose account we have nearly followed hitherto, viz. the Assumption of the Virgin, at Lucca. Its situation being retired, this picture is little known to travellers, though it is one of the most sublime productions of the pencil. Mr. West, the president of the Royal Academy, has in his possession a considerable part of the Studies mentioned by Vasari as having been left to his scholar, a nun of St. Catharine at Florence; and among them several drawings for this picture and its various parts. They are accompanied by about two hundred drawings of figures, draperies, and limbs, studied from nature with great care and taste; and exhibit the industry and uncommon zeal with which he laid the basis of his justly-acquired fame. He died in 1517.

, a very ingenious but visionary man, was by birth a Norman, of a small hamlet called Dolerie where he was born in 1510. Never did genius struggle with more vigour against the extremes of indigence. At eight years old, he was deprived of both his parents by the plague when only fourteen, unable to subsist in his native place, he removed to another near Pontoise, and undertook to keep a school. Having thus obtained a little money, he went to Paris, to continue his studies but there was plundered and suffered so much from cold, that he languished for two years in an hospital. When he recovered, he again collected a little money by gleaning irv the country, and returned to Paris, where he subsisted by waiting on some of the students in the college of St. Barbe; but made, at the same time, so rapid a progress in knowledge, that he became almost an universal scholar. His acquirements were so extraordinary, that they became known to the king, Francis I. who, touched with so much merit, under such singular disadvantages, sent him to the East to collect manuscripts. This commission he executed so well, that on his return, he was appointed royal professor of mathematics and languages, with a considerable salary. Thus he might appear to be settled for life; but this was not his destiny. He was, unfortunately for himself, attached to the chancellor Poyet, who fell under the displeasure of the queen of Navarre and Postel, for no other fault, was deprived of his appointments, and obliged to quit France. He now became a wanderer, and a visionary. From Vienna, from Rome, from the order of Jesuits, into which he had entered, he was successively banished for strange and singular opinions; for which also he was imprisoned at Rome and at Venice. Being released, as a madman, he returned 10 Paris, whence the same causes again drove him into Germany. At Vienna he was once more received, and obtained a professorship; but, having made his peace at home, was again recalled to Paris, and re-established in his places. He had previously recanted his errors, but relapsing into them, was banished to a monastery, where he performed acts of penitence, and died Sept. 6, 1581, at the age of seventy-one. Postel pretended to be much older than he was, and maintained that he had died and risen again which farce he supported by many tricks, such as- colouring his beard and hair, and even painting his face. For the same reason, in most of his works, he styles himself, “Postellus restitntus.” Notwithstanding his strange extravagances, he was one of the greatest geniuses of his time; had a surprising quickness and memory, with so extensive a knowledge of languages, that he boasted he could travel round the world without an interpreter. Francis I. regarded him as the wonder of his age Charles IX. called him his philosopher; and when he lectured at Paris, the crowd of auditors was sometimes so great, that they could only assemble in the open court of the college, while he taught them from a window. But by applying himself very earnestly to the study of the Rabbins, and of the stars, he turned his head, and gave way to the most extravagant chimeras. Among these, were the notions that women at a certain period are to have universal dominion over men that all the mysteries of Christianity are demonstrable by reason that the soul of Adam had entered into his body that the angel Raziel had revealed to him the secrets of heaven and that his writings were dictated by Jesus Christ himself. His notion of the universal dominion of women, arose from his attachment to an old maid at Venice, in consequence of which he published a strange and now very rare and high-priced book, entitled “Les tres-marveilieuseS victoires des Femmes du Nouveau Monde, et comme elles doivent par raison a tout le monde commander, et me' me a; eeux qui auront la monarchic du Monde viel,” Paris, 1553, 16mo. At the same time, he maintained, that the extraordinary age to which he pretended ttf have lived, was occasioned hy his total abstinence from all commerce with that sex. His works are as numerous as, they are strange and some of them are very scarce, hut very little deserve to be collected. One of the most important is entitled “De orbis concordia,” Bale, 1544, folio. In this the author endeavours to bring all the world to the Christian faith under two masters, the pope, in spiritual affairs, and the king of France in temporal. It is divided into four books; in the first of which he gives the proofs of Christianity; the second contains a refutation of the Koran; the third treats of the origin of idolatry, and all false religions and the fourth, on the mode of converting Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans, Of his other works, amounting to twenty-six articles, which are enumerated in the “Dictionnaire Historique,” and most of them by Brunet as rarities with the French collectors, many display in their very titles the extravagance of their contents; such as, “Clavis absconditorum a, constitutione ixmndi,” Paris, 1547, 16mo; “De Ultimo judicio;” “Proto-evangelium,” &c. Some are on subjects of more real utility. But the fullest account of the whole may be found in a book published at Liege in 1773, entitled “Nouveaux eclaircissemens sur 3a Vie et les ouvrages de Guillaume Postel,” by father des Billons. The infamous book, “De tribus impostoribus,” has been very unjustly attributed to Postel, for, notwithstanding all his wildness, he was a believer.

son of a counsellor to the presidial of Orleans, was born in that city January 9, 1699, and was appointed counsellor to the same presidial himself at the age of twenty-one. A particular taste induced him to study the Romanlaw and the public are indebted to his labours on that subject for an edition of Justinian’s Pandects, very exactly arranged, which he published 1748, 3 vols. folio. This work made M. Pothier known to the chancellor D'Aguesseau, who appointed him, unsolicited, to the professorship of French law, vacant at Orleans in 1749 after which, he applied particularly to that branch. He died, unmarried, at Orleans, May 2, 1772. Though constantly employed in the service of his fellow citizens, and of all those who consulted him, he found opportunity, by his indefatigable diligence, to publish the following works: 1. “Coutume d'Orleans,” 1740, 1760, 2 vols. 12mo, and 1773, 4to. 2. “Coutumes du Duch, &c. d'Orleans,” 2 vols. 12mo, and 1760 and 1772, 4to: The introductions to this work are reckoned masterly. 3. “Tr. des Obligations,” 1764, 2 vols. 12mo, which has been followed by, 4. “Le Contrat de Vente de Constitution de Louage de Societe et a Cheptels de Bienfaisance de Depot, et Nantissement” these form five volumes, which are sold separately. “Traité des Contrats aleatoires,” 3 vols. “de Manage,” 2 vols. “Traité du Douaire,” 1 vol.; “Tr. du Droit d'Habitation,” “Don mutuel,” &c. 1 vol.; “Traité du Domaine, de Propriete de Possession,” 2 vols. All these works were reprinted, 1774, 4 vols. 4to. A Treatise on Fiefs has since appeared, Orleans, 1776, 2 vols. folio. He left many other manuscript works, which have not been printed

He left a very learned son, Gabriel Powell, who was born at Ruabon, in 1575, and educated at Jesus college, Oxford, after which he became master of the free-school at Ruthen, in his native county. Not however finding his situation here convenient for the studies to which he was addicted, ecclesiastical history, and the writings of the fathers, he returned to Oxford, and took up his abode in St. Mary Hall. Here principally he wrote those works which procured him great reputation, especially among the puritans. Dr. Vaughan, bishop of London, invited him to the metropolis, and made him his domestic chaplain, and would have given him higher preferment had he lived. It was probably Vaughan’s successor who gave him the prebend of Portpoole, in 1609, and the vicarage of Northall, in Middlesex, in 1610. He died in 1611. His works enumerated by Wood are chiefly controversial, against the papists, except one or two in defence of the silenced puritans. Several of them, being adapted to the circumstances of the times, went through numerous editions, but are now little known. Wood says he was esteemed a prodigy of learning, though he died when a little more than thirty years old (thirty-six), and had he lived to a greater maturity of years, it is “thought he would have exceeded the famous Dr. John Rainolds, or any of the learned heroes of the age.” Wood adds that he “was a zealot, and a stiff puritan.” By one of his works, entitled “The unlawfulness and danger of Toleration of divers religions, and connivance to contrary worship in one monarchy or kingdom,” it would appear that he wrote against toleration while he was claiming it for himself and his puritan brethren.

, a learned popish divine, was bora about the latter part of the sixteenth century, and was educated at Oxford. He appears to have been fellow of Oriel college in 1495, and afterwards became D. D. and was accounted one of the ornaments of the university. In November 1501, he was made rector of Bledon, in the diocese of Wells, and in July 1503 was collated to the prebend Centum solidorum, in the church of Lincoln, as well as to the prebend of Carleton. In 1508, by the interest of Edmund Audley, bishop of Salisbury, he was made prebendary of that church, and in 1525 became prebendary of Sutton in Marisco, in the church of Lincoln. In November 1514, Pope Leo gave him a licence to hold three benefices, otherwise incompatible. His reputation for learning induced Henry VIII. to employ him to write against Luther, which he did in a work entitled “Propugnaculum summi sacerdotii evangelici, ac septenarii sacramentorum numeri adversus M. Lutherum, fratrem famosum, et Wickliffistam insignem,” Lond. 1523, 4to. This performance, says Dodd, was commonly allowed to be the best that had hitherto been published. There are two public letters from the university of Oxford, one to the king, the other to bishop Audley, applauding the choice of a person so well qualified to maintain the cause of the church and in these letters, they style him the glory of their university, and recommend him as a person worthy of the highest preferment. But all this could not protect him from the vengeance of Henry VIII. when he came to employ his learning and zeal in defence of queen Catherine, and the supremacy of the see of Rome, on both which articles he was prosecuted, hanged, drawn, and quartered in Smithfield, July 30, 1540, along with Dr. Thomas Abel, and Dr. Richard Fetherstone, who suffered on the same account. He wrote in defence of queen Catherine, “Tractatus de uon dissolvendo Henrici regis cum Catherina matrimonio” but it is doubtful if this was printed. Stow, indeed, says it was printed in 4to, and that he had seen it, but no copy is now known. Mr. Churton, in his “Lives of the Founders of Brazenose college,” mentions Dr. Powell’s preaching a Latin sermon, in a very elegant style, at the visitation of bishop Smyth at Lincoln.

, a gentleman of considerable learning and political knowledge, was born in 1722, and educated at Lincoln. His first appearance in public life was when appointed secretary to the commissioners for trade and plantations in 1745, subjects with which he must have made himself early acquainted, as he had not yet reached his twenty-fourth year. In 1753 he went to America, and in the following year was concerned in a matter which eventually proved of great importance. At the beginning of what has been called the seven years’ war with France, which commenced in America in 1754, two years before it broke out in Europe, a number of persons, styled commissioners, being deputed from each colony, assembled at Albany, to consider of defending themselves against the French, who were making alarming encroachments on their back settlements. This assembly was called the Albany Congress, and became the precedent for that other more remarkable congress established at the revolution in 1773. As soon as the intention of the colonies to hold a congress at Albany was known in England, Mr. Pownall immediately foresaw the danger to the mother country, if such a general union should be permitted, and presented a strong memorial to lord Halifax, the secretary of state, on the subject, in 1754. The plan which the congress had in view was, to form agreat council of deputies from all the colonies, with a governor-general to be appointed by the crown, and empowered to take measures for the common safety, and to raise money for the execution of their designs. The ministers at home did not approve of this plan; but, seeing that they could not prevent the commissioners meeting, they resolved to take advantage of this distress of the colonies, and turn the subject of deliberation to their own account. For this purpose they sent over a proposal, that the congress should be assisted in their considerations by two of the king’s council from each colony, be empowered to erect forts, to levy troops, and to draw on the treasury in London for the money wanted and the treasury to be reimbursed by a tax on the colonies, to be laid by the British parliament; but this proposal was peremptorily rejected, because it gave the British parliament a power to tax the colonies. Although Mr. Pownall did not agtee with the ministry in the whole extent of their proposal, yet they thought him so well acquainted with the affairs of the colonies, that in 1757 they appointed him governor of Massachusetts bay.

Mr. Preston’s part in this singular disputation might have led to favour at court, if he had been desirous of it and sir Futk Greville, afterwards lord Brook, was so pleased with his performance that he settled 50l. per ann. upon him, and was his friend ever after; but he was now seriously intent on the office of a preacher of the gospel, and having studied Calvin, and adopted his religious opinions, he became suspected of puritanism, which was then much discouraged at court. In the mean time his reputation for learning induced many persons of eminence to place their sons under his tuition and Fuller tells us, he was “the greatest pupil- monger ever known in England, having sixteen fellow-commons admitted into Queen’s college in one year,” while he continued himself so assiduous in his studies as considerably to impair his health. When it came to his turn to be dean and catechistof his college, he began such a course of divinity -lectures as might direct the juniors in that study; and these being of the popular kind, were so much frequented, not only by the members of other colleges, but by the townsmen, that a complaint was at length made to the vice-chancellor, and an order given that no townsmen or scholars of other colleges should be permitted to attend. His character for puritanism seems now to have been generally established, and he was brought into trouble by preaching at St. Botolph’s church, although prohibited by Dr. Newcomb, commissary to the chancellor of Ely, who informed the bishop and the king, then at Newmarket, of this irregularity. On the part of Newcomb, this appears to have been the consequence of a private pique; but whatever might be his motive, the matter came to be heard at court, and the issue was, that Mr. Preston was desired to give his sentiments on the 1U turgy at St. Botolph’s church by way of recantation. He accordingly handled the subject in such a manner as cleared himself from any suspicion of disliking the forms of the liturgy, and soon after it came to his turn to preach before the king when at Hinchingbrook. The court that day, a Tuesday, was very thin, the prince and the duke of Buckingham being both absent. After dinner, which Mr. Preston had the honour of partaking at his majesty’s table, he was so much complimented by the king, that when he retired, the marquis of Hamilton recommended him to his majesty to be one of his chaplains, as a man “who had substance and matter in him.” The king assented to this, but remembering his late conduct at Cambridge, declined giving him the appointment.

About the time that Mr. Preston was thus honoured, Dr. Dunn, the preacher of Lincoln’s-inn, died, and the place was offered to our author, and accepted by him, as he could now “have an opportunity of exercising his ministry to a considerable and intelligent congregation, where, he was assured, many parliament men, and others of his best acquaintance, would be his hearers, and where in term-time he should be well accommodated.” His usual popularity followed him here, yet he was not so much reconciled to the situation as he would have been to a similar one at Cambridge. There he would have students for his hearers who would propagate the gospel, which he thought the lawyers were not likely to do; and his Cambridge friends seemed to be of the same opinion, and wished him again among them. To promote this object, some of the fellows of Emanuel college endeavoured to prevail upon their master, Dr. Chaderton, who was old, and “had outlived many of those great relations which he had before,” to resign, in which case they hoped to procure Mr. Preston to succeed him, who was “a good man, and yet a courtier, the prince’s chaplain, and very gracious with the duke of Buckingham.” Two obstacles presented themselves to this design; the one Dr. Chaderton’s unwillingness to be laid aside without some provision for his old age; and the second, their dread lest some person might procure a mandate to succeed who was disagreeable to them, and might be injurious to the interests of the college that had flourished under Dr. Chaderton’s management. This last apprehension they represented to him in such a manner that, after some hesitation, he entered into their views, and desired that Mr. Preston might employ his interest with his court-friends to prevent any mandate being granted, and likewise to secure some provision for himself. Accordingly by a letter from the duke of Buckingham addressed to Dr. Chaderton, dated Sept. 20, 1622, we find that both these objects were attained, and Mr. Preston admitted master of Kmanuel before the news had transpired of his predecessor’s resignation. When his promotion became known, it affected the two parties into which the kingdom was then divided according to their different views. The puritans were glad that “honest men were not abhorred as they had been at court,” and the courtiers thought him now in a fair way of being their own. All considered him as a rising man, and respected him accordingly, and the benchers of Lincoln’sInn, whose preacher he still continued, took some credit to themselves for having been the first who expressed their good opinion of him. Such indeed was his consequence, that even the college statutes, which seemed an insuperable objection to his holding both places, were so interpreted by the fellows as to admit of his repairing to London at the usual periods. He now took his degree of D. D. The object of the courtiers, we have already observed, was to detach Dr. Preston from the puritans, of which he was considered as the head. They were therefore much alarmed on hearing that he had been offered the lectureship of Trinity-church Cambridge, which was in future to be dreaded as the head-quarters of puritanism. So much was it an object to prevent this, that the matter was seriously debated not only by the duke of Buckingham, but by the king himself; but here again their private views clashed. The duke, although he endeavoured to dissuade Dr. Preston from accepting this lectureship, and offered him the bishopric of Gloucester, then vacant, in its stead, would not otherwise exert himself against the doctor. because he would not lose him while the king, having no other object than wholly to detach him from the puritans, sent his secretary to inform him that if he would give up this lectureship, any preferment whatever was at his service. Dr. Preston, however, whose object, as his biographer says, “was to do good, and not to get good,” persisted, and: was appointed lecturer, and the king could not conceal his displeasure that Buckingham still sided with him.

, a learned English bishop, was born at Stowford, in the parish of Harford, near Ivy-bridge in Devonshire, Sept. 17, 1578, and was the fourth of seven sons of his father, who being in mean circumstances, with so large a family, our author, after he had learned to write and read, having a good voice, stood candidate for the place of parish-clerk of the church of Ugborow near Harford. Mr. Price informs us, that “he had a competitor for the office, who had made great interest in the parish for him* self, and was likely to carry the place from him. The parishioners being divided in thematter, did at length agree in this, being unwilling to disoblige either party, that the Lord’s-day following should be the day of trial; the one should tune the Psalm in the forenoon, the other in the afternoon; and he that did best please the people, should have the place. Which accordingly was done, and Prideaux lost it, to his very great grief and trouble. Upon, which, after he became advanced to one of the first dignities of the church, he would frequently make this reflection, saying,” If I could but have been clerk of Ugborow, I had never been bishop of Worcester.“Disappointed in this office, a lady of the parish, mother of sir Edmund Towel, maintained him at school till he had gained some knowledge of the Latin tongue, when he travelled to Oxford, and at first lived in a very mean station in Exetercollege, doing servile offices in the kitchen, and prosecuting his studies at his leisure hours, till at last he was taken notice of in the college, and admitted a member of it in act-term 1596, under the tuition of Mr. William Helme, B. D. On January the 31st, 1599, he took the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and in 1602 was chosen probationer fellow of his college. On May the 11th, 1603, he proceeded Master of Arts, and soon after entered into holy orders. On May the 6th, 1611, he took the degree of Bachelor of Divinity; and the year following was elected rector of his college in the room of Dr. Holland; and June the 10th, the same year, proceeded Doctor of Divinity. In 1615, upon the advancement of Dr. Robert Abbot to the bishopric of Sarum, he was made regius professor of divinity, and consequently became canon of Christ-church, and rector of Ewelme in Oxfordshire; and afterwards discharged the office of vice-chancellor of the university for several years. In the rectorship of his college he behaved himself in such a manner, that it flourished more than any other in the university; more foreigners coming thither for the benefit of his instruction than ever was known; and in his professorship, says Wood,” he behaved himself very plausible to the generality, especially for this reason, that in his lectures, disputes, and moderatings (which were always frequented by many auditors), he shewed himself a stout champion against Socinus and Arminius. Which being disrelished by some who were then rising, and in authority at court, a faction thereupon grew up in the university between those called Puritans, or Calvinists, on the one side, and the Remonstrants, commonly called Arminians, on the other: which, with other matters of the like nature, being not only fomented in the university, but throughout the nation, all things thereupon were brought into confusion.“In 1641, after he had been twenty- six years professor, he was one of those persons of unblemished reputation, whom his majesty made bishops, on the application of the marquis of Hamilton, who had been one of his pupils. Accordingly, in November of that year, he was elected to the bishopric of Worcester, to which he was consecrated December the 19th following; but the rebellion was at that time so far advanced, that he received little or no profit from it, to his great impoverishment. For adhering stedfastly to his majesty’s cause, and pronouncing all those of his diocese, who took up arms against him, excommunicate, he was plundered, and reduced to such straits, that he was obliged to sell his excellent library. Dr. Gauden said of him, that he now became literally a helluo librorum, being obliged to turn his books >nto bread for his children. He seems to have borne this barbarous usage with patience, and even good humour. On -one occasion, when a friend came to see bim, and asked him how he did? he answered,” Never better in my life, only I have too great a stomach, for 1 have eaten the little plate which the sequestrators left me; I have eaten a great library of excellent books; I have eaten a great deal of linen, much of my brass, some of my pewter, and now am come to eat my iron, and what will come next I know not." So great was his poverty about this time that he would have attended the conferences with the king at the Isle of Wight, but could not afford the means of travelling. Such was the treatment of this great and good man, one of the best scholars and ablest promoters of learning in the kingdom, at the hands of men who professed to contend for liberty and toleration.

In the same year in which his History of Electricity appeared, he left Warrington, and settled at Leeds as minister, and instantly resumed his theological studies, which produced a number of publications, in which he announced the opinions he had adopted. From an Arian he was now become a Socinian, and not content with enjoying the changes which he was at perfect liberty to make, he began to contend with great zeal against the authority of the established religion. It was, however, during his residence here, that his attention was more usefully turned to the properties f fixed air. He had commenced experiments on this subject in 1768, and the first of his publications appeared in 1772, in which he announced a method of impregnating water with fixed air. In the paper read to the royal society in 1772, which obtained the Copley medal, he gave an account of his discoveries and at the same time announced the discovery of nitrous air, and its application as a test of the purity or fitness for respiration of airs generally. About this time, also, he shewed the use of the burning lens in pneumatic experiments; he related the discovery and properties of muriatic acid air; added much to what was known of the airs generated by putrefactive processes, and by vegetable fermentation; and he determined many facts relative to the diminution and deterioration of air, by the combustion of charcoal, and the calcination of metal. In 1774, he made a full discovery of dephlogisticated air, which he procured from the oxyds of silver and lead. This hitherto secret source of animal life and animal heat, of which Mayow had a faint glimpse, was unquestionably first exhibited by Dr. Priestley, though it was discovered about the same time by Mr. Scheele, of Sweden. In 1776, his observations on respiration were read before the royal society, in which he discovered that the common air inspired was diminished in quantity, and deteriorated, in quality, by the action of the blood on it, through the blood-vessels of the Jungs; and that the florid red colour of arterial blood was communicated by the contact of air through the containing vessels. In 1778 Dr. Priestley pursued his experiments on the properties of vegetables growing in the light to correct impure air, and the use of vegetation in this part of the (economy of nature and it seems certain that Dr. Priestley made his discoveries on the subject previously to those of Dr. Ingenhouz, then engaged in similar researches. From this period Dr. Priestley seems to have attended to his pneumatic experiments as an occupation, devoting to them a regular portion of his time. To this attention, among a prodigious variety of facts, tending to shew the various substances from which gases may be procured, the methods of producing them, their influence on each other, and their probable composition, we owe the discovery of vitriolic acid air, of ajkaline air, and of dephlogisticated nitrous air or, as it has since been denominated, the gaseous oxyd of azote, the subject of so many curious and interesting experiments by sir Humphrey Davy. To these may be added the production of various kinds of inflammable air, by numerous processes that had escaped the observation of Mr. Cavendish. To Dr. Priestley we are indebted for that fine experiment of reviving metallic calces in inflammable air and he first ascertained the necessity for water to be present in the formation of the gases, and the endless production of gases from water itself. His experiments on this subject, viz. the generation of air from water, opened a new field for reflection, and deserve particular notice. It had been already remarked that water was necessary to the generation of every species of gas but the unceasing product of air from water had been observed by no one before.

“To enumerate,” says Mr. Kirwan, “Dr. Priestley’s discoveries, would in fact be to enter into a detail of most of those that have been made within the last fifteen years. How many invisible fluids, whose existence evaded the sagacity of foregoing ages, has he made known to us The very air we breathe he has taught us to analyse, to examine, to improve a substance so little known, that even the precise effect of respiration was an enigma, until he explained it. He first made known to us the proper food of vegetables, and in what the difference between these and animal substances consisted. To him pharmacy is indebted for the method of making artificial mineral waters, as well as for a shorter method of preparing other medicines metallurgy for more powerful and cheap solvents; and chemistry for such a variety of discoveries as it would be tedious to recite discoveries which have new-modelled that science, and drawn to it, and to this country, the attention of all Europe. It is certain, that, since the year 1773, the eyes and regards of all the learned bodies in Europe have been, directed to this country by his means. In every philosophical treatise his name is to be found, and in almost every page. They all own that most of their discoveries are due either to the repetition of his discoveries, or to the hints scattered through his works.”

, baronet, president of the Royal Society, was born at Stichel-house, in the county of Roxburgh, North Britain, April 10, 1707. His father was sir John Pringle, of Stichel, bart. and his mother, whose name was Magdalen Eliott, was sister to sir Gilbert Eliott of Stobs, bart. Both the families from which he descended were very ancient and honourable in the south of Scotland, and were in great esteem for their attachment to the religion, and liberties of their country, and for their piety and virtue in private life. He was the youngest of several sons, three of whom, besides himself, arrived to years of maturity. His grammatical education be received at home, under a private tutor and after having made such a progress as qualified him for academical studies, he was removed to the university of St. Andrew’s, where he was put under the immediate care of Mr. Francis Pringle, professor of Greek in the college, and a near relation of his father. Having continued there some years, he went to Edinburgh in Oct. 1727, for the purpose of studying physic, that being the profession which he now determined to follow. At Edinburgh, however, he stayed only one year, the reason, of which was, that he was desirous of going to Leyden, at that time the most celebrated school of medicine in Europe. Boerhaave, who had brought that university into reputation, was considerably advanced in years, and Mr. Pringle was unwilling, by delay, to expose himself to the danger of losing the benefit of that great man’s lectures. For Boerhaave he had a high and just respect but it was not his disposition and character to become the implicit and systematic follower of any man, however able aod distinguished. While he studied at Leyden, be contracted an intimate friendship with Van Swieten, who afterwards became so famous at Vienna, both by his practice and writings. Van Swieten was not only Pringle’s acquaintance and fellow-student at the university, but also his physician when he happened to be seized there with a fit of sickness; yet on this occasion he did not owe his recovery to his friend’s advice; for Van Swieten having refused to give him the bark, another person prescribed it, and he was cured. When he had gone through his proper course of studies at Leyden, he was admitted, July 20, 1730, to his doctor of physic’s degree. His inaugural dissertation, “De marcore senili,” was printed. Upon quitting LeyIen, Dr. Pringle settled as a physician at Edinburgh, where he gained the esteem of the magistrates of the city, and of the professors of the college, by his abilities and good conduct and, such was his known acquaintance with ethical subjects, that, March 28, 1734, he was appointed, by the magistrates and council of the city of Edinburgh, to be joint professor of pneumatics and moral philosophy with Mr. Scott, during that gentleman’s life, and sole professor after his decease and, in consequence of this appointment, Dr. Pringle was admitted, on the same day, a member of the university. In discharging the duties of this new employment, his text-book was “Puffendorff de Officio Hominis et Civis,” agreeably to the method he pursued through life, of making fact and experiment the basis of science. Dr. Pringle continued in the practice of physic at Edinburgh, and in performing the obligations of his professorship, till 1742, when he was appointed physician to the earl of Stair, who then commanded the British army. For this appointment he was chiefly indebted to his friend Dr. Stevenson, an eminent physician at Edinburgh, who had an intimate acquaintance with lord Stair. By the interest of this nobleman, Dr. Pringle was constituted, Aug. 24, 1742, physician to the military hospital in Flanders; and it was provided in the commission, that he should receive a salary of twenty shillings a-day, and be entitled to half-pay for life. He did not, on this occasion, resign his professorship of moral philosophy; the university permitted him to retain it, and Messrs. Muirhead and Cleghorn were allowed to teach in his absence, us long as he continued to request it. The exemplary attention which Dr. Pringle paid to his duty as an army physician is apparent from every page of his “Treatise on the Diseases of the Army.” One thing, however, deserves particularly to be mentioned, as it is highly probable that it was owing to his suggestion. It had hitherto been usual, for the security of the sick, when the enemy was near, to remove them a great way from the camp the consequence of which was, that many were lost before they came under the care of the physicians. The earl of Stair, being sensible of this evil, proposed to the duke de Noailles, when the army was encamped at Aschaffenburg, in 1743, that the hospitals on both sides should be considered as sanctuaries for the sick, and mutually protected. The French general, who was distinguished for his humanity, readily agreed to the pro posal, and took the first opportunity of shewing a proper regard to his engagement. At the hattle of Dettingen, Dr. Pringle was in a coach with lord Carteret during the whole time of the engagement, and the situation they were placed in was dangerous. They had been taken unawares, and were kept betwixt the fire of the line in front, a French battery on the left, and a wood full of hussars on the right. The coach was occasionally shifted, to avoid being in the eye of the battery. Soon after this event, Dr. Pringle met with no small affliction in the retirement of his great friend, the earl of Stair, from the army. He offered to resign with his noble patron, but was not permitted. He, therefore, contented himself with testifying his respect and gratitude to his lordship, by accompanying him forty miles on his return to England; after which he took leave of him with the utmost regret.

But though Dr. Pringle was thus deprived of the immediate protection of a nobleman who knew and esteemed his worth, his conduct in the duties of his station procured him effectual support. He attended the army in Flanders, through the campaign of 1744, and so powerfully recommended himself to the duke of Cumberland, that, in the spring following, March 11, he had a commission from his royal highness, appointing him physician general to his majesty’s forces in the Low Countries, and parts beyond the seas; and on the next day he received a second commission from the duke, by which he was constituted physician to the royal hospitals in the same countries. On March 5, he resigned his professorship in consequence of these promotions. In 1745 he was with the army in Flanders, but was recalled from that country in the latter end of the year, to attend the forces which were to be sent against the rebels in Scotland. At this time he had the honour of being chosen F. R. S. Dr. Pringle, at the beginning of 1746, in his official capacity, accompanied the duke of Cumberland in his expedition against the rebels, and remained with the forces, after the battle of Culloden, till their return to England, in the middle of August. We do not find that he was in Flanders during any part of that year. In 1747 and 1748, he again attended the army abroad and in the autumn of 1748 he embarked with the forces for England, upon the conclusion of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. From that time he principally resided in London, where, from his known skill and experience, and the reputation he had acquired, he might reasonably expect to succeed as a physician. In April 1749, Drt Pringle was appointed physician in ordinary to his royal highness the duke of Cumberland. In 1750 he published, in a letter to Dr. Mead, “Observations on the Gaol or Hospital Fever.” This work, which passed through two editions, and was occasioned by the gaol-distemper that broke out at that time in the city of London, was well received by the medical world, though he himself afterwards considered it as having been hastily written. After supplying some things that were omitted, and rectifying a few mistakes that were made in it, he included it in his grand work on the “Diseases of the Army,” where it constitutes the seventh chapter of the third part of that treatise. It was in the same year that Dr. Pringle began to communicate to the Royal Society his famous “Experiments upon Septic and Antiseptic substances, with remarks relating to their use in the theory of Medicine” These experiments, which comprehended several papers, were read at different meetings of the society the first in June, and the two next in the November following three more in the course of 1751 and the last in Feb. 1752. Only the three first numbers were printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” as Dr. Pringle had subjoined the whole, by way of appendix, to his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army.” These experiments upon septic and antiseptic substances, which have accompanied every subsequent edition of the treatise just mentioned, procured for him the honour of sir Godfrey Copley’s gold medal. Besides this, they gained him a high and just reputation, as an experimental philosopher. In February 1753, he presented to the Royal Society “An Account of several Persons seized with the Gaol Fever by working in Newgate and of the manner by which the Infection was communicated to one entire family.” This is a very curious paper and was deemed of such importance by the excellent Dr. Stephen Hales, that he requested the author’s permission to have it published, for the common good of the kingdom, in the “Gentleman’s Magazine;” where it was accordingly printed, previous to its appearance in the Transactions. Dr. Pringle’s next communication was, “A remarkable Case of Fragility, Flexibility, and Dissolution of the Bones.” In the 49th volume of the “Transactions,” we meet with accounts which he had given of an earthquake felt at Brussels; of another at Glasgow and Dunbarton and of the agitation of the waters, Nov. 1, 1756, in Scotland and at Hamburgh. The 50th volume contains, Observations by him on the case of lord Walpole, of Woolterton; and a relation of the virtues of Soap in dissolving the Stone, as experienced by the reverend Mr. Matthew Simson. The next volume is enriched with two of the doctor’s articles, of considerable length, as well as value. In the first, he has collected, digested, and related the different accounts that had been given of a very extraordinary fiery meteor, which appeared on Sunday the 26th of November, 1758, between eight and nine at night; and, in the second, he has made a variety of remarks upon the whole, in which no small degree of philosophical sagacity is displayed. It would be tedious to mention the various papers, which, both before and after he became president of the Royal Society, were transmitted through his hands. Besides his communications in the Philosophical Transactions, he wrote, in the Edinburgh Medical Essays, volume the fifth, an “Account of the success of the Vitrum ceratum Antimonii.”

Sir John Pringle, by long practice, had acquired a handsome fortune, which he disposed of with great prudence and propriety. The bulk of it, as might naturally and reasonably be expected, he bequeathed to his worthy nephew and heir, sir James Pringle, of Stichel, bart. whom he appointed his sole executor. But the whole was not immediately to go to sir James; for a sum equal, we believe, to seven hundred pounds a year, was appropriated to annuities, revertible to that gentleman at the decease of the annuitants. By these means, sir John exhibited an important proof of his regard and affection for several of his valuable relations and friends. Sir John Pringle’s eminent character as a practical physician, as well as a medical author, i sg well known, and so universally acknowledged. that an enlargement upon it cannot be necessary. In the exercise of his profession he was not rapacious being ready, on various occasions, to give his advice without pecuniary views. The turn of sir John Pringle’s mind led him chiefly to the love of science, which he built on the firm basis of fact. With regard to philosophy in general, he was as averse to theory, unsupported by experiments, as he was with respect to medicine in particular. Lord Bacon was his favourite author; and to the method of investigating recommended by that great man he steadily adhered. Such being his intellectual character, it will not be thought surprising that he had a dislike to Plato. To metaphysical disquisitions he lost all regard in the latter part of his life; and, though some of his most valued friends had engaged in discussions of this kind, with very different views of things, he did not choose to revert to the studies of his youth, but contented himself with the opinions he had then formed.

Upon the success of the war with France, after the accession of queen Anne, Prior exerted his poetical talent in honour of his country first, in his “Letter to Boileau, on the victory at Blenheim, in 1704;” and again, in his Ode on the glorious success of her majesty’s arms in 1706, at the battle of Ramilies and Dr. Johnson thinrks this is the only composition produced by that event which is now remembered. About this time Prior published a volume of his poems, with the encomiastic character of his deceased patron, the earl of Dorset. It began with the “College Exercise,” and ended with the “Nut-brown Maid.” Prior now, whatever were his reasons, began to join the party who were for bringing the war to a conclusion, who were to expatiate on past abuses, the waste of, public money, the unreasonable “Conduct of the Allies,” the avarice of generals, and other topics, which might render the war and the conductors of it unpopular. Among other writings, the “Examiner” was published by the wits of this party, particularly Swift. One paper, in ridicule of* Garth’s verses to Godolphin upon the loss of his place, was written by Prior, and answered by Addison, who appears to have known the author either by conjecture or intelligence.

He had now his liberty, but had nothing else. Whatever the profit of his employments might have been, he had always spent it; and at the age of fifty-three was, with all his abilities, in danger of penury, having yet no solid revenue but from the fellowship of his college, which, when in his exaltation he was censured for retaining it, he said “he could live upon it at last.” Being, however, generally known and esteemed, he was encouraged to add other poems to those which he had printed, and to publish them by subscription. The expedient succeeded by the industry of many friends, who circulated the proposals, and the care of some, who, it is said, withheld the money from him lest he should squander it. The price of the volume was two guineas the whole collection was four thousand to which lord Harley, the son of the earl of Oxford, to whom he had invariably adhered, added an equal sum, for the purchase of Down-hall, which Prior was to enjoy during life, and Harley after his decease. He had now, what wits and philosophers have often wished, the power of passing the day in contemplative tranquillity. But it seems, says Johnson, that busy men seldom live long in a state of quiet. It is not unlikely that his health declined. He complains of deafness “for,” says he, “I took little care of my ears while I was not sure if my head was my own.” He had formed a design of writing an “History of his own Time;” but had made very little progress in it, when a lingering fever carried him off, Sept. 18, 1721, in his fifty-eighth year. He died at Wimple, a seat of the earl of Oxford, not far from Cambridge and his corpse was interred in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected at his own charge, 500l. having been set apart by him for that purpose, and an inscription for it was written by Robert Freind, master of Westminster-school. After his death, more of his poems were published; and there appeared, in 1740, “The History of his own Time, compiled from his original manuscripts;” a composition little worthy of him, and undoubtedly, for the most part, if not entirely, spurious. To make his college some amends for retaining his fellowship, he left them books to the value of 2001. to be chosen by them out of his library and also his picture painted by La Belle, in France, which had been a present to him from Lewis XIV.

“Of Prior,” says Johnson, " eminent as he was, both by his abilities and station, very few memorials have been left by his contemporaries; the account therefore must now be destitute of his private character and familiar practices. He lived at a time when the rage of party detected all which it was any man’s interest to hide; and, as little ill is heard of Prior, it is certain that not much was known. He was not afraid of provoking censure; for, when he forsook the whigs, under whose patronage he first entered the world, he became a tory so ardent and determinate, that he did not willingly consort with m'en of different opinions. He was one of the sixteen tories who met weekly, and agreed to address each other by the title of brother; and seems to have adhered, not only by concurrence of political designs, but by peculiar affection, to the earl of Oxford and his family. With how much confidence he was trusted has been already told.

, a heretic of the fourth century, well known in ecclesiastical history for having revived the errors of the Gnostics and Manicheans, was a Spaniard, of high birth, and great fortune, with considerable talents and eloquence. His opinions first became known in the year 379, and were rapidly diffused in Spain. But in the ensuing year a council was held by the bishops of Aquitaine at Saragossa, in which the Prisciliianists were solemnly condemned. He was then but a layman, but soon after he was ordained bishop of Labina, or Lavila, supposed to be Avila, one of the cities of Galicia, by two bishops of his own party. In the year 384, or, as Baronius in his Annals writes, 387, the ringleaders of this sect were put to death by the emperor Maximus, having been convicted before the magistrates of the grossest immoralities. These were, Priscillian himself, Felicissimus, and Armenus, two ecclesiastics, who had but very lately embraced his doctrine; Asarinus and Aurelius, two deacons Latronianus, or, as Jerome calls him, Matronianus, a layman and Eucrocia, the widow of the orator Delphidius, who had professed eloquence in the city of Bourdeaux a few years before. These were all beheaded at Treves. The rest of Priscillian’s followers, whom they could discover or apprehend, were either banished or confined. The bodies of Priscillian, and those who suffered with him, were conveyed by the friends and adherents into Spain, and there interred with great pomp and solemnity; their names were added to those of other saints and martyrs, their firmness extolled, and their doctrine embraced by such numbers of proselytes that it spread in a short time over all the provinces between the Pyrenees and the ocean. The author of the notes upon Sulpitius Severus tells us that he saw the name of Priscillian in some not very ancient martyrologies. In practice they did not much differ from the Manichees the same, or nearly the same, infamous mysteries being ascribed to both: for, in the trial of Priscillian, before the emperor Maximus, it was alledged that he had countenanced all manner of debauchery, that he had held nocturnal assemblies of lewd women, and that he used to pray naked among them. Others, however, are of opinion that these charges had not much foundation, and that the execution of Priscillian and his followers was rather a disgrace than an advantage to the Christian cause.

, a famous ancient painter, was a native of Caunus, a city of Caria subject to the Rhodians. Who was his father, or his mother, is not known but it is probable enough that he had no other master than the public pieces that he saw; and perhaps his parents, being poor, could not be at any such expence for his education in the art, as was customary at that time. It is certain that he was obliged at first to paint ships for his livelihood: but his ambition was not be rich; his aim being solely to be master of his profession. He finished his pictures with such anxious care, that Apelles said of him, he never knew when he had done well. The finest of his pieces was the picture of Jalisus, mentioned by several authors without giving any description of it, or telling us who Jalisus was some suppose him to have been a famous hunter, and the founder of Rhodes. It is said that for seven years, while Protogenes worked on this picture, all his food was lupines mixed with a little water, which served him both for meat and drink *. Apelles was so struck with this piece, that he could find no words to express his admiration. It was this same picture that saved the city of Rhodes, when besieged by king Demetrius; for, not being able to attack it but on that side where Protogenes was at work, he chose rather to abandon his hopes of conquest, than to destroy so fine a piece as that of Jalisus.

The story of the contest between Protogenes and Apelles is well known by the tale which Prior has founded on it. Apelles, hearing of the reputation of Protogenes, went to Rhodes on purpose to see his works. On his arrival there, he found in the house only an old woman who asking his name, he answered, “I am going to write it upon the canvas that lies here;” and, taking his pencil with colour On

At his arrival in London he was introduced to the good bishop, was received with great humanity, and soon found a large circle of friends among the well-disposed, both of clergy and laity. “But,” says he, “I had a much greater number of opposers to combat with; who, though they judged rightly of me in the main, were far from being candid in their account of the discovery they pretended to make to my disadvantage: particularly the doctors Halley, Mead, and Woodward. The too visible eagerness of these gentlemen to expose me at any rate for a cheat, served only to make others think the better of me, and even to look upon me as a kind of confessor; especially as those genjtlemen were thought to be no great admirers of Revelation, to which my patrons thought I had given so ample a testimony.” Before he had been three months in London, he was cried up for a prodigy. He was presently sent to translate the church-catechism into the Formosan language; it was received by the bishop of London with candour, the author rewarded with generosity, and his catechism laid up amongst the most curious manuscripts. It was examined by the learned; they found it regular and grammatical; and gave it as their opinion, that it was a real language, and no counterfeit. After such success, he was soon prevailed upon to write the well-known " History of Formosa/' which soon after appeared. The first edition had not been long published, before a second was called for. In the mean time, he was sent by the good bishop to Oxford, topursue such studies as suited his own inclination most; whilst his opposers and advocates in London were disputing about the merits and demerits of his book.

Mabillon exhibits, in his “German Travels,” an effigy of Ptolemy looking at the stars through an optical tube which effigy, he says, he found in a manuscript of the thirteenth century, made by Conradus a monk. Hence some have fancied, that the use of the telescope was known to Conradus. But this is only matter of mere conjecture, there being no facts or testimonies, nor even probabilities, to support such an opinion. It is rather likely that the tube was nothing more than a plain open one, employed to strengthen and defend the eye-sight, when looking at particular stars, by excluding adventitious rays from other stars and objects; a contrivance which no observer of the heavens can ever be supposed to have been without.

, one of the most famous Italian poets, was born at Florence, Decembers, 1431. He was of a noble family, and was the most poetical of three brothers who all assiduously courted the Muses. His two elder brothers, Bernardo and Luca, appeared as poets earlier than himself. The first production of the family is probably the Elegy of Bernardo addressed to Lorenzo de' Jiedici, on the death of his grandfather Cosmo. He also wrote an elegy on the untimely death of the beautiful Simonetta, mistress of Giuliano de' Medici, the brother of Lorenzo, which was published at Florence in 1494, though written much earlier. He produced the first Italian translation of the Eclogues of Virgil, which appears to have been finished about 1470 and was published in 1481 and a poem on the Passion of Christ. Luca wrote a celebrated poem on a tournament held at Florence in which Lorenzo was victor, in 1468, entitled “Giostra di Lorenzo de' Medici” as Politian celebrated the success of Giuliano, in his “Giostra di. Giuliano de' Medici.” It is confessed, however, that the poem of Luca Pulci derives its merit rather from the minute information it gives respecting the exhibition, than from its poetical excellence. He produced also “II Ciriffo Calvaneo,” an epic romance, probably the first that appeared in Italy, being certainly prior to the Morgante of his brother, and the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo and the “Driadeo d'Amore,” a pastoral romance in ottava rima. There are also eighteen heroic epistles by him in terza rima, the first from LucretiaDonati to Lorenzo de Medici, the rest on Greek and Roman subjects. These were printed in 1481, and do credit to their author. Luigi appeaps, from many circumstances, to have lived on terms of the utmost friendship with Lorenzo de Medici, who, in his poem entitled “La Caccia col Falcone,” mentions him with great freedom and jocularity. His principal work is the “Morgante maggiore,” an epic romance. Whether this or the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo was first written, has been a subject of doubt. Certain it is that the Morgante had the priority in publication, having been printed at Venice in 1488, after a Florentine edition of uncertain date whereas Bojardo' s poem did not appear till 1496, and, from some of the concluding lines, appears not to have been finished in 1494. The Morgante may therefore be justly, as it is generally, regarded as the prototype of the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto. It has been said without foundation that Ficinus and Politian had a share in this composition. It was first written at the particular request of Lucretia, mother of Lorenzo de Medici, but it was not finished till after her death, which happened in 1482. It is said by Crescimbeni that Pulci was accustomed to recite this poem at the table of Lorenzo, in the manner of the ancient rhapsodists. This singular offspring of the wayward genius of Pulci has been as immoderately commended by its admirers, as it has been unreasonably condemned and degraded by its opponents: and while some have not scrupled to prefer it to the productions of Ariosto and Tasso, others have decried it as vulgar, absurd, and profane. From the solemnity and devotion with which every canto is introduced, some have judged that the author meant to give a serious narrative, but the improbability of the relation, and the burlesque nature of the incidents, destroy all ideas of this kind. M. de la Monnoye says that the author, whom he conceives to have been ignorant of rules, has confounded the comic and serious styles, and made the giant, his hero, die a burlesque death, by the bite of a sea-crab in his heel, in the twentieth book, so that in the eight which remain he is not mentioned. The native simplicity of the narration, he adds, covers all faults: and the lovers of the Florentine dialect still read it with delight, especially when they can procure the edition of Venice, in 1546 or 1550, with the explanations of his nephew John Pulci. These, however, are no more than a glossary of a few words subjoined to each canto. There are also sonnets by Luigi Pulci, published with those of Matteo Franco, in which the two authors satirize each other without mercy or delicacy yet it is supposed that they were very good friends, and only took these liberties with each other for the sake of amusing the public. They were published about the fifteenth century, entitled “Sonetti di Misere Mattheo Franco et di Luigi Pulci jocosi et faceti, cioe da ridere.” No other poem of this author is mentioned by Mr. Roscoe, who has given the best account of him, except “La Beca di Dicomano,” written in imitatation and emulation of “La Nencio da Barberino,” by Lorenzo de Medici, ajid published with it. It is a poem in the rustic style and language, but instead of the more chastised and delicate humour of Lorenzo, the poem of Pulci, says Mr. Roscoe, partakes of the character of his Morgante, and wanders into the burlesque and extravagant. It has been supposed that this poet died about 1-487, but it was probably something later. The exact time id not known.

In this manner he continued inflexibly severe, attacking the measures of the minister with a degree of eloquence and sarcasm that worsted every antagonist; and sir Robert was often heard to say, that he dreaded his tongue more than another man’s sword. In 1738, when opposition ran so high, that several members openly left the House, as finding that party, and not reason, carried it in every motion, Pulteney thought proper to vindicate the extraordinary step which they had taken; and, when a motion was made for removing sir Robert Walpole, he warmly supported it. What a single session could not effect, was at length brought about by time; and, in 1741, when sir Robert found his place of prime minister no longer tenable, he wisely resigned all his employments, and was created earl of Orford. His opposers also were assured of being provided for; and, among other promotions, Pulteney himself was sworn of the privy-council, and soon afterwards created earl of Bath. He had long lived in the very focus of popularity, and was respected as the chief bulwark against the encroachments of the crown; but, from, the moment he accepted a title, all his favour with the people was at an end, and the rest of his life was spent in contemning that applause which he no longer could secure. What can be said in his favour has been candidly stated by the biographer of his great antagonist. Dying without issue, June 8, 1764, his title became extinct; and his only son, having died some time before in Portugal, the paternal estate devolved to his brother, the late lieutenantgeneral Pulteney. Besides the great part he bore in “The Craftsman,” he was the author of many political pamphlets; in the drawing up and composing of which no man of his time was supposed to exceed him. Lord Orford, who has introduced him among his Royal and Noble Authors, says, that his writings will be better known bv his name, than his name will be by his writings, though his prose had much effect, and his verses (for he was a poet) were easy and graceful. " Both were occasional, and not dedicated to the love of fame. Good-humour, and the spirit of society, dictated his poetry ambition and acrimony his political writings. The latter made Pope say,

Among the “Letters of Tom Brown from the Dead to the Living,” is one from Dr. Blow to Henry Purcell, in which it is humourously observed, that persons of their profession are subject to an equal attraction from the church and the play-house; and are therefore in a situation resembling that of Mahomet’s tomb, which is said to be suspended between heaven and earth. This remark so truly applies to Purcell, that it is more than probable that his particular situation gave occasion to it; for he was scarcely known to the world, before he became, in the exercise of his calling, so equally divided between both the church and the theatre, that neither could properly call him her own. In a pamphlet entitled “Roscius An^licanus, or an Historical View of the Stage,” written by Downes the prompter, and published in 1708, we have an account of several plays and entertainments, the music of which is by that writer said to have been composed by Purcell.

In 1691, the opera of “Dioclesian” was published by Purcell, with a dedication to Charles duke of Somerset, in which he observes, that “music is yet but in its nonage, a forward child, which gives hopes of what he may be hereafter in England, when the masters of it shall find more encouragement; and that it is now learning Italian, which is its best master, and studying a little of the French air to give it somewhat more of gaiety and fashion.” The unlimited powers, says Dr. Burney, of this musician’s genius embraced every species of composition that was then known, with equal felicity. In writing for the church, whether he adhered to the elaborate and learned style of his great predecessors Tallis, Bird, and Gibbons, in which no instrument is employed but the organ, and the several parts are constantly moving in fugue, imitation, or plain counterpoint; or, giving way to feeling and imagination, adopted the new and more expressive style of which he was himself one of the principal inventors, accompanying the voice-parts with instruments, to enrich the harmony, and enforce the melody and meaning of the words, he manifested equal abilities and resources. In compositions for the theatre, though the colouring and effects of an orchestra were then but little known, yet as he employed them more than his predecessors, and gave to the voice a melody more interesting and impassioned than, during the seventeenth century, had been heard in this country, or perhaps in Italy itself, he soon became the darling and delight of the nation. And in the several pieces of chamber music which he attempted, whether sonatas for instruments, or odes, cantatas, songs, ballads, and catches, for -the voice, he so far surpassed whatever our country had produced or imported before, that all other musical productions seem to have been instantly consigned to contempt or oblivion.

He was apprenticed to a shoemaker, who, like the master of George Fox, mentioned in this work, employed his apprentice in keeping sheep. This gave our young student leisure for reading; and he occupied it in the indis-. criminate perusal of such books as came into his hands but the Scriptures had the preference in his mind. Among other books which came'in his way, was one written by Samuel Fisher, a Quaker, entitled “Rusticus ad Academicos,” in which some inaccuracies in the translation of the Bible being pointed out, Purver determined to examine for himself; and, with the assistance of a Jew, soon acquired a knowledge of the Hebrew language. About the 20th year of his age he kept a school in his native country; but afterwards, for the sake of more easily acquiring the means of prosecuting his studies, he came to London, where he probably resided when he published, in 1727, a book called “The Youth’s Delight.” The same year he returned to his native place, and a second time opened a school there; but previous to this, in London, he had embraced the principles, and adopted the profession of the Quakers. He is said to have been convinced of the truth of their tenets at a meeting held at the Bull and Mouth in Aldersgate-street; whether by means of the preaching of any of their ministers, we are not informed; but on the day month ensuing, he himself appeared as a minister among them, at the same meeting*house. On his second settling at Husborn, he began to translate the books of the Old Testament and applied himself also to the study of medicine and botany but, believing it his duty to travel in his ministerial function, he again quitted his school and his native place; not, however, probably, until after he had resided there some years; for his course was to London, Essex, and through several counties to Bristol; near which city, at Hambrook, he was in the latter part of 1738. At this place he took up his abode, at the house of one Josiah Butcher, a maltster, whose son he instructed in the classics, and there he translated some of the minor prophets, having before completed the book of Esther, and Solomon’s Song. Here he became acquainted with Rachael Cotterel, who, with a sister, kept a boardingschool for girls, at Frenchay, Gloucestershire; and whom, in 1738, he married, and soon after himself opened a boarding-school for boys at Frenchay. During his residence in Gloucestershire, (which was not at Frenchay all the time) he attempted to publish his translation of the Old Testament in numbers at Bristol; but he did not meet with sufficient encouragement; and only two or three numbers were published. In 1758, he removed to Andover, in Hampshire; and here, in 1764, he completed his translation of all the books of the Old and New Testament, a work which has not often been accomplished before by -the labour of a single individual. It consists of two volumes, folio, published in 1764, at the price of four guineas. It appears, that this work was originally intended to be printed in occasional numbers; for, in 1746, the late Dr. Fothergill wrote a letter to the Gentleman’s Magazine, in which he strongly recommended the author of a work then under publication, which was to be continued in numbers if it should meet with encouragement. This was a translation of the Scriptures, under the title of “Opus in sacra Biblia elaboratum.” Purver is not named, but that he was intended is known by private testimony. After speaking in high terms of his learning, Dr. Fothergill says, “As to his personal character, he is a man of great simplicity of manners, regular conduct, and a modest reserve; he is steadily attentive to truth, hates falsehood, and has an unconquerable aversion to vice; and to crown the portrait, he is not only greatly benevolent to mankind, but has a lively sense of the divine attributes, and a profound reverence of, and submission to the Supreme Being.” The mode of publication in numbers was probably unsuccessful, and soon dropped; yet he went on with his translation, which he completed, after the labour of thirty years. He was still unable to publish it, nor could he find a bookseller who would run the hazard of assisting him. At length his friend Dr. Fothergill generously interfered gave him a thousand pounds for the copy, and published it at his own expence. Purver afterwards revised the whole, and made considerable alterations and corrections for a second edition, which has not yet appeared but the ms. remains in the hands of his grandson. Purver appears, in this great work, a strenuous advocate for the antiquity, and even the divine authority, of the Hebrew vowel points. He is also a warm assertor of the purity and integrity of the Hebrew text, and treats those who hold the contrary opinion with great contempt; particularly Dr. Kennicott, of whom, and his publication on the state of the Hebrew text, he never speaks but with the greatest asperity. He has taken very considerable pains with the scriptural chronology, and furnishes his reader with a variety of chronological tables. He prefers the Hebrew chronology in all cases, to the Samaritan and Greek, and has throughout endeavoured to connect sacred and profane history. His version is very literal, but does not always prove the judgment or good taste of the author. Thus, he says, that “The Spirit of God hovered a top of the waters” and instead of the majestic simplicity and unaffected grandeur of “Let there be light, and there was light,” he gives us, “Let there be light, which, there was accordingly” Thus his translation, though a prodigious work for an individual, will rather be used for occasional consultation than regular perusal; and though it may afford many useful hints, will not supply the place of the established translation.

, an English poet and poetical critic, flourished in the reign of queen Elizabeth. Very little is known of his life, and for that little- we are indebted to Mr. Haslewood, whose researches, equally accurate and judicious, have so frequently contributed to illustrate the history of old English poetry. By Ames, Puttenham was called Webster, but his late editor has brought sufficient proof that his name was George. He appears to have been born some time between 1529 and 1535. As his education was liberal, it may be presumed that his parents were not of the lowest class. He was educated at Oxford, but in what college, how long he resided, or whether he took a degree, remain unascertained. Wood had made none of these discoveries when he wrote his “Athense.” His career at court might commence at the age of eighteen, when he sought to gain the attention of the youthful king Edward VI. by an P^clogue, entitled “Elpine.” He made one or two tours on the continent, and proved himself neither an idle nor inattentive observer. He visited successively the courts of France, Spain, and Italy, and was at the Spa nearly about the year 1570. It is not improbable that he had a diplomatic appointment under Henry earl of Arundel, an old courtier, who, with the queen’s licence, visited Italy as he describes himself a beholder of the feast given by the duchess of Parma, to this nobleman, at the court of Brussels. His return was probably early after the above period, but nothing can be stated with certainty. It may however be inferred from his numerous adulatory verses addressed to queen Elizabeth, before the time of publishing his “Art of Poesie,” that he must have been a courtier of long standing, and was then one of her gentlemen pensioners.

Of all his numerous pieces, the “Art of Poesie,” and the n Partheniades,“are the only ones known to exist, and it seems unaccountable that not a single poem by this author found a place in those miscellaneous and fashionable repositories, the” Paradise of Dainty Devices,“or” England’s Helicon.“His own volume however proves the neglect of the age, for of many poems noticed as the avowed productions of some of our best writers, we have no other knowledge than the scraps there incidentally preserved. His” Partheniades,“lately reprinted, were presented to queen Elizabeth, as a new year’s gift? probably on Jan. 1, 1579 his” Art of English Poesie“was published in 1589. From this last work it appears that he was a candid but sententious critic. What his observations want in argument is compensated by the soundness of his judgment; and his conclusions, notwithstanding their brevity, are just and pertinent. He did not hastily scan his author to indulge in an untimely sneer and his opinions were adopted by contemporary writers, and have not been dissented from by moderns. Mr. Gilchrist, in the” Censura Lit.“has drawn an able and comprehensive character of this work, as” on many accounts one of the most curious and entertaining, and intrinsically one of the most valuable books of the age of Elizabeth." In 1811, Mr. Haslewood reprinted this valuable work with his usual accuracy, and in a very elegant form, prefixing some account of the author, of which we have availed ourselves in the present sketch.

From his earliest days Mr. Pye was devoted to reading. When he was about ten years old, his father put Pope’s Homer into his hand: the rapture which he received from this exquisite paraphrase of the Grecian bard was never to be forgotten, and it completely fixed him a rhymer for' life, as he pleasantly expressed it. To this early love of reading Mr. Pye was indebted for the various learning he possessed. His first literary production, probably, was an “Ode on the birth of the Prince of Wales,” published in the Oxford Collection and the following distinct publications have successively appeared from his prolific pen 1.“Beauty > a poetical essay,” 1766. 2. “'Elegies on different occasions,” 1768, 4to. 3. “The Triumph of Fashion, a vision,” 1771, 4to. 4. “Faringdon Hill, a poem in two books,” 1774, 4to. 5. “Six Olympic Odes of Pindar, being those omitted by Mr. West, translated into English verse, with notes,” 1775, 12mo. 6. “The Art of War, a poem, translated from the French of the king of Prussia,” written and published in 1778, at his leisure hours during the encampment at Coxheath. 7. “The Progress of Refinement, a poem, in three parts,” 1783, 4to; forming a history of the procedure of the human mind, in manners, learning, and taste, from the first dawnings of cultivated life to the present day. The poem displays the great knowledge of the author, the elegance of his genius, and the soundness of his judgment. His descriptions are just and beautiful, and his versification correct, polished, and harmonious. 8. “Shooting, a poem,” 1784, 4to. 9. “Poems on various Subjects,” in two vols. 8vo, in which several of the beforementioned pieces were collected, and a few new ones added, 1787. 10. “An elegant and very faithful English Translation of the Song of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, is to be found, among other excellent pieces, in this collection. 11.” A Translation of the Poetics of Aristotle, first published in an octavo volume in 1788, and afterwards prefixed to a Commentary on that Work, published in a quarto volume. 12. “Amusement, a poetical essay,” 1790. 13. “The Siege of Meaux, a tragedy, in three acts,” acted at Covent-Garden theatre, 1794, 8vo. 14. “The War Elegies of Tyrtseus imitated, and addressed to the people of Great Britain with some Observations on the Life and Poems of TyrtEeus,” 1795. 15. “The Democrat; interspersed with Anecdotes of well-known Characters,” 1795, 2 vols. 12mo. 16. “Lenore, a tale, translated from the German of Gottfried Augustus Burger,” 1796, 4to. Of the several translations of this tale which have appeared, Mr. Pye’s is esteemed the best but nei r ther English morals nor English taste are likely to be benefited by the translation of such poems as “Lenore.” 17. “Naucratia, or Naval dominion, a poem,” 2d edit. 1798. 18. “The Inquisitor, a tragedy in five acts, altered from the German by the late James Petit Andrews and Henry James Pye,” 1798, 8vo. 19. “The Aristocrat, by the author of the Democrat,” 1799, 2 vols. 12mo. 2O. “Carmen Seculare for the year 1800.” 21. “Adelaide, a tragedy,” acted at Drury-lane theatre, 1800, 8vo, but calculated rather for the closet than the stage. 22. “Alfred, an epic poem in six books,” 1802, 4to. 23. “Verses on several subjects, written in the vicinity of Stoke Park, in the summer and autumn of 1801,” 1802. sm. 8vo. 24. “A second Collection of his Poems, in two octavo volumes, comprising, besides several of those already mentioned, a volume of sketches on various subjects and a translation of Xenophon’s Defence of the Athenian Democracy, with, notes.” 25. “A Prior Claim, a comedy,” acted at Drurylane Theatre, 1805, 8vo, in which he was assisted by Mr. Samuel James Arnold, his son-in-law. 26. “Comments on the Commentators on Shakspeare with preliminary observations on his genius and writings, and on the labours of those who have endeavoured to elucidate them,” 1807, 8vo. 27. “A Translation of the Hymns and Epigrams of Homer,” 1810. He published also many occasional poems, besides his odes for the new year, for his majesty’s birthday, and for the anniversary of the Literary Fund, which are preserved in the magazines. Mr. Pye died Aug. 11, 1813, in the sixty-ninth year of his age.

The sect of Pythagoras subsisted till towards the end of the reign of Alexander the Great. About that time the Academy and the Lyceum united to obscure and swallow up the Italic sect, which till then had held up its head with so much glory, that Isocrates writes: “We more admire, at this day, a Pythagorean when he is silent, than others, even the most eloquent, when they speak.” However, in after-ages, there were here and there some disciples of Pythagoras hut they were only particular persons, who never made any society nor had the Pythagoreans any more a public school. Notwithstanding the high encomiums bestowed upon this philosopher, Brucker, who has a very elaborate article on the subject, is of opinion that Pythagoras owed much of his celebrity and authority to imposture. Why did he so studiously court the society of Egyptian priests, so famous in antient times for their arts of deception; why did he take so much pains to be initiated in religious mysteries; why did he retire into a subterraneous cavern in Crete; why did he assume the character of Apollo, at the Olympic games why did he boast that his soul had lived in former bodies, and that he had been first Æthalides the son of Mercury, then Euphorbus, then Pyrrhus of Delos, and at last Pythagoras, but that he might the more easily impose upon the credulity of an ignorant and superstitious people His whole manner of life, as far as it is known, confirms this opinion. Clothed in a long white robe, with a flowing beard, and, as some relate, with a golden crown on his head, he preserved among the people, and in the presence of his disciples, a commanding gravity and majesty of aspect. He made use of music to promote the tranquillity of his mind frequently singing, for this purpose, hymns of Thales, Hesiod, and Homer. He had such an entire command of himself, that he was never seen to express, in his countenance, grief, or joy, or anger. He refrained from animal food, and confined himself to a frugal vegetable diet, excluding from his simple bill of fare, for sundry mystical reasons, pulse or beans. By this artificial demeanour, Pythagoras passed himself upon the vulgar as a being of an order superior to the common condition of humanity, and persuaded them that he had received his doctrine from heaven. We find still extant a letter of Pythagoras to Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse; but this letter is certainly supposititious, Pythagoras having been dead before Hiero was born. “The Golden Verses of Pythagoras,” the real author of which is unknown, have been frequently published, with the f< Commentary of Hierocles,“and a Latin version and notes. Mr. Dacier translated them into French, with notes, and- added the” Lives of Pythagoras and Hierocles“and this work was published in English, the” Golden Verses" being translated from the Greek by N. Rowe, esq. in 1707, 8vo.

, an Italian poet, was born at Monopolis in the kingdom of Naples; and acquired in his early years a great facility in extempore verses. He went to Rome about 1514, with a poem of twenty thousand lines, called Alexias. Some young gentlemen of that city professed great friendship to him they treated him in the country, and at a feast crowned him arch-poet so that he was not known afterwards by any other name. Leo X. who, upon certain occasions, was not averse to buffoonery, delighted in his company, and caused him to be served with meat from his own table and Querno, being an excellent parasite, humoured him very exactly. He was obliged to make a distich extempore, upon whatever subject was given him even though he was at the time ill of the gout, with which he was extremely troubled. Once, when the fit was on him, he made this verse, “Archipoeta facit versus pro mille poetis,” and, as he hesitated in composing the second, the pope readily and wittily added, “Et pro mille aliis Archipoeta bibit.” Querno, hastening to repair his fault, cried, “Porrige, quod faciat mihi carmina docta, Falernum,” to which the pope instantly replied, “Hoc vinum enervat, debilitatque pedes,” alluding either to the gout in his feet, or to the feet of his verses. After the taking of Rome, he retired to Naples, where he suffered much during the wars in 1528, and died there in the hospital. He used to say, “He had found a thousand wolves, after he had lost one lion.”

, an eminent nonconformist, was born at Plymouth, in Devonshire, in 1636, and in 1650 entered of Exeter college, Oxford, where he became servitor in 1653, under the rectorship of Dr. Conant. After taking his first degreein arts in 1657, he returned to his native county, and was ordained according to the forms then in use. He first officiated at Ermington, in Devonshire, whence he was invited to be minister of Kingsbridge and Churchstow, in the same county, but afterwards removed to Brixton, whence he was ejected in 1662. He had some valuable preferments offered to him, if he would conform, but his opinions were fixed; for besides having been educated altogether among nonconformists, he had this additional difficulty, that he was one of those whom the law required to be re-ordained before admission into the church, their previous ordination being accounted invalid; but to this few, if any, of his brethren submitted. He continued for some time after his ejection to preach to his people but, incurring a prosecution, and being frequently imprisoned, he accepted an offer made in 1679, to be pastor of the English church at Middleburgh in Zealand. Here however were some dissensions which rendered his situation uncomfortable, and induced him to return to England in 1681, where he preached privately during the remainder of king Charles II.'s reign, and afterwards, taking advantage of king James’s indulgence, formed a congregation in Bartholomew Close. He died April 29, 1706, in the seventieth year of his age. His character for piety, learning, and usefulness in his ministry, was amply praised in two funeral sermons preached on occasion of his death, the one by Dr. Daniel Williams, the other by Mr. Freke. Besides three funeral Sermons, he published two tracts, the one, “The young man’s claim to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” 1691; the other, “An answer to that case of conscience, Whether it be lawful for a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister?” But his most valuable work is his “Synodicon iiS Gallia Reformata, or the Acts, Decisions, Decrees, and Laws of the famous national councils of the reformed Churches in France, &c.” London, 1692, a large folio, composed of very interesting and authentic memorials, collected, probably, while he was in Zealand. It comprises a history of the rise and progress of the reformation in France down to the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685, and well merits the attention of the students of ecclesiastical history at the present time. Mr. Quick left also three folio volumes of ms lives of eminent protestant divines, principally French, which he intended to publish, had he met with encouragement. The duke of Bedford is said to have been so pleased with this ms. that he meant to publish it at his own expence, but was prevented by death. What has become of it since, is not known.

Arriving at Rome, he paid his respects frequently to the marshal D'Etre*es, the French ambassador and was soon after received into his service, as secretary of the embassy. He seems to have returned with the marshal to France, after the death of cardinal Richelieu. While he was at Rome, he began his poem called “Callipsedia” the first edition of which was printed at Leyden, 1655, with this title, “Calvidii Leti Callipsedia, seu de pulchrae prolis habendae ratione.” Calvidius Letus is almost an anagram of his name. It is not known, what cause of offence he had with cardinal Mazarine; but it is certain, that he reflected very severely upon his eminence in this poem. The cardinal, however, sent for him and, after some kind expostulations, assured him of his esteem, and dismissed him with a promise of the next good abbey that should fall; which he accordingly conferred upon him a few months after this effectually removed all Quillet’s dislike, and he dedicated the second edition of his book to the cardinal, after having expunged the passages which had given him offence. The second edition of “Callipoedia” was printed at Paris, 1656, with many additions, and Quillet’s proper name to it: and the author subjoined two other pieces of Latin poetry, one “Ad Eudoxum,” which is n. fictitious name for some courtier; another, “In obitum Petri Gassendi, insignis Philosophi & Astronomi.” These are all the productions of Quillet which ever came from the press; although he wrote a long Latin poem in twelve books, entitled “Henriados,” in honour of Henry IV. of France, and translated all the satires of Juvenal into French.

and Mr. Ryan is well known, and it is abused Mr. Ryan, drew his sword on

companies by drawing his sword on verdict, self-defence, persons whom, he did not know, came far from deserving censure. In the season of 1718-19, Mr. Quin performed in Buckingham’s “Scipio Africanus,” and in 1719-2O, “Sir Walter Raleigh,” in Dr. Sewell’s play of that name and in the year had, as it appears, two benefits, “The Provok'd Wife,” 31st of January, before any other performer, and again, “The Squire of Alsatia,” on the 17th of April. The succeeding season he performed in Buckingham’s “Henry the Fourth of France,” in “Richard II.” as altered by Theobald, and in “The Imperial Captives,” of Mottley. The season of 1720-21 was very favourable to his reputation as an actor. On the 22d of October, “The Merry Wives of Windsor” was revived, in which he first played Falstaff, with great increase of fame. This play, which was well supported by Ryan, in Ford; Spiller, in Dr. Cains; Boheme, in Justice Shallow; and Griffin, in Sir Hugh Evans; was acted nineteen times during the season, a proof that it had made a very favourable impression on the public. In the season of 1721-22, he performed in Mitchell’s* or rather Hill’s “Fatal Extravagance,” Sturmy’s “Love and Duty,” Philips’s “Hibernia freed.” The season of 1722-3 produced Fenton’s “Mariamne,” the most successful play that theatre had known, in which Mr. Quin performed Sohemus. In the next year, 1723-24, he acted in Jefferys’ “Edwin,” and in Philips’s “Belisarius.” The season of 1725 produced no new play in which Mr. Quin had any part but on the revival of “Every Man in his Humour,” he represented Old Knowell and it is not unworthy of observation, that Kitely, afterwards so admirably performed by Mr. Garrick, was assigned to Mr. Hippesley, the Shuter or Edwin of his day. In 1726, he performed in Southern’s “Money’s the Mistress” and, in 1727, in Welsted’s “Dissembled Wanton,” and Frowde’s “Fall of Saguntum.”

Quin had the honour to enjoy the intimacy and esteem of Pope and other emiment men of his time. The friendship between Thomson and him is yet within the recollection of many persons living. “The commencement of it,” says Dr. Johnson, “is very honourable to Quin, who is reported to have delivered Thomson (then known to him only for his genius) from an arrest, by a very considerable present; and its continuance is honourable to both, for friendship is not always the sequel of obligation.”

He left Dublin in Feb. 1741-2, and on the 25th of March assisted the widow and four children of Milward the actor (who died the 6th of February preceding), and performed Cato for their benefit. On his arrival in London he found the attention of the theatrical public entirely occupied by the merits of Mr. Garrick, who in October preceding had begun his theatrical career, and was then performing with prodigious success at Goodman’s-fields. The fame of the new performer afforded no pleasure to Quin, who sarcastically observed that “Garrick was a new religion, and that Whitefield was followed for a time; but 'they would all come to church again.” This observation produced a well-known epigram by Mr. Garrick. In the season of 1742-3, Quin returned to his former master, Rich, at Covent-garden theatre, where he opposed Garrick at Drurylane it must be added, with very little success. But though the applause the latter obtained from the public was not agreeable to Quin, yet we find that a scheme was proposed and agreed to, though not carried into execution, in the summer of 1743, for them to perform together for their mutual benefit a few nights at Lincoln’s-inn-fields theatre. On the failure of this plan, Quin went to Dublin, where he had the mortification to find the fame of Mr. Sheridan, then new to the stage, more adverse to him than even Garrick’s had been 'in London. Instead of making a profitable bargain in Dublin, as he hoped, he found the managers of the theatres there entirely indisposed to admit him. After staying there a short time, he returned to Londorj, without effecting the purpose of his journey, and in no good humour with the new performers.

, or rather Quintus Smyrneus, was a Greek poet, who wrote a supplement to Homer’s Iliad, in 14 books, in which a relation is given of the Trojan war from the death of Hector to the destruction of Troy. He is supposed, from the style of his work, to have lived in the fifth century, but nothing certain can be collected concerning his person and country; but some say he was a native of Smyrna, and hence the name of Smyrneus. His poem was first made known by cardinal Bessarion, who discovered it in St. Nicholas’ church, near Otranto in Calabria, from which circumstance the author was named Quintus Calaber. It was published at Venice, by Aldus, but there is no date attached to the title-page; it is supposed to be 1521. The other editions are those of Freigius, Basil, 1569; of Rhodomannus, Hanover, 1604; of De Pauw, Leyden, 1734; and of Bandinius, Gr. Lat. et Ital. Florence, 1765.

, a Venetian cardinal, celebrated as an historian, a philologer, and an antiquary, was born in 1684, or, according to some authors, in 1680. He entered very early into an abbey of Benedictines at Florence, and there studied with so much ardour as to lay in a vast store of literature of every kind, under Salvini, Bellini, and other eminent instructors. The famous Magliabecchi introduced to him all foreigners illustrious for their talents, and it was thus that he became acquainted with sir Isaac Newton and Montfaucon. Not contented with this confined intercourse with the learned, he began to travel in 1710, and went through Germany to Holland, where he conversed with Basnage, Le Clerc, Kuster, Gronovius, and Perizonius. He then crossed into England, where he was honourably received by Bentley, Newton, the two Burnets, Cave, Potter, and others. Passing afterwards into France, he formed an intimate friendship with the amiable and illustrious Fenelon and became known to all the principal literati of that country. - The exact account of the travels of Quirini would contain, in fact, the literary history of Europe at that period. Being raised to the, dignity of cardinal, he waited on Benedict XIII. to thank him for that distinction. “It is not for you,” said that pope, “to thank me for raising you to this elevation, it is rather my part to thank you, for having by your merit reduced me to the necessity of making you a cardinal.” Quirini spread in every part the fame of his learning, and of his liberality. He was admitted into almost all the learned societies of Europe, and in various parts built churches, and contributed largely to other public works. To the library of the Vatican he presented his own collection of. books, which was so extensive as to require the addition of a large room to contain it. What is most extraordinary is, that though a Dominican and a cardinal, he was of a most tolerant disposition, and was every where beloved by the Protestants. He died in the 'beginning of January 1755.

Having prospered in the course of trade, he began early to look round for objects of benevolence, and first found them in the prisons. To relieve such, he employed his pen, his influence, and his property, and discovering that ignorance was the principal cause of those offences which render imprisonment necessary, he formed a plan of giving these unfortunate men moral and religious instruction, and regular employment, which proved highly beneficial and consolatory. But that for which he has been most highly and deservedly praised js the institution of the Sunday schools, which he planned in 1781, and which are now so common as to require no description. He comjnenced this benevolent undertaking in concert with the rev. Mr. Stock, a clergyman of Gloucester, and although some improper disputes have arisen as to whom the right of founder belongs, it is well known that these two gentlemen never thought it worth while to contest the point, or to exchange a word on the subject, but continued during their lives to act in perfect concert and harmony and if there was any difference, it was not in zeal, but in the more extensive range of Mr. Raikes’s acquaintance, and the influence he possessed to induce persons of rank and opulence to assist in the plan.

Mr. Raikes was for some years a member of the court of assistants of the stationers’ company and died at Gloucester April 5, 1811, aged seventy-five. His brothers and nephews are well known to rank among the most eminent merchants in London.

After the death of Raphael, Marc Antonio was employed by Julio Romano. This connection was unfortunate, for he disgraced himself and his profession by engraving that painter’s abominable designs to accompany Aretine’s infamous verses. For this pope Clement VII. sent him to prison, from which he was released with great difficulty by the interest of the cardinal Julius de Medici and Baccio Bandinelli, the sculptor. The exquisite merit of his “martyrdom of St. Laurence,” at length reconciled the pope to him, who pardoned his offence entirely, and took him under his protection. He had now attained his highest reputation, and had accumulated wealth, but lost the latter entirely in 1527, when Rome was taken by the Spanish army. After this misfortune he retired to Bologna, where perhaps he died, but when is not known. The last print we have of his is dated 1539, after which he cannot be traced with certainty. Strutt considers him as one of the most extraordinary engravers that ever lived. The purity of his outlines, the correctness with which the extremities of his figures are marked, and the beauty and character which appear in the heads, prove him to have been a man of great taste and solid judgment, as well as a perfect master of drawing. These beauties, without doubt, appear most striking in his works from Raphael, a circumstance which seemsr greatly to confirm the report of his being much assisted by that great master. Strutt has given a list of the best of Marc Antonio’s prints, which however are rarely to be met with in their original state.

In April 1589, he accompanied don Antonio, the expelled king of Portugal, then in London, to his dominions, when an armament was sent to restore him and for his conduct on this occasion, was honoured by the queen with a gold chain. On his return to England, the same year, he touched upon Ireland, where he visited Spenser the poet, whom he brought to England, introduced into the queen’s favour, and encouraged by his own patronage, himself being no inconsiderable poet. Spenser has described the circumstances of sir Walter’s visit to him in a pastoral, which about two years after he dedicated to him, and entitled <: Colin Clout’s come home again.“In 1592 he was appointed general of an expedition against the Spaniards at Panama. Soon after this we find him again in the House of Commons, where he made a distinguished figure, as appears from several of his printed speeches. In the mean time, he was no great favourite with the people, and somewhat obnoxious to the clergy, not only on account of his principles, which were not thought very orthodox, but because he possessed some lands which had been taken from the church. His enemies, knowing this, ventured to attack him; and, in 1593, he was aspersed with atheism, in a libel agairfst several ministers of state, printed at Lyons with this title:” Elizabeths Reginse Angliae Edictum, promulgatum Londini, Nov. 29, 1591; et Andr. Philopatris ad idem responsio.“In this piece the writer, who was the Jesuit Parsons, inveighs against sir Walter Ralegh’s” School of Atheism“insinuating, that he was not content with being a disciple, but had set up for a doctor in his faculty. Osborn accounts for this aspersion thus:” Ralegh,“says he,” was the first, as I have heard, who ventured to tack about, and sail aloof from the beaten track of the schools; and who, upon the discovery of so apparent an error as a: torrid zone, intended to proceed in an inquisition after more solid truths till the mediation of some, whose livelihood lay in hammering shrines for this superannuated study, possessed queen Elizabeth, that such a doctrine was against God no less than her father’s honour, whose faith, if he owned any, was grounded upon school-divinity. Whereupon she chid him, who was, by his own confession, ever after branded with the title of Atheist, though a known asserter of God and providence." That he was such an assert er, has been universally allowed yet Wood not only adopts the unfavourable opinion of his principles, but pretends to tell us from whom he imbibed them.

Some have fancied, that the merit of this work procured his releasement from the Tower; but there seems little foundation for that opinion, since king James is known to have expressed some dislike to it. It is more likely that the king’s hopes from the mine-adventure to Guiana produced this effect; and accordingly we find sir Walter at large, after twelve years confinement, in March 1616. In August he received a commission from the king to go and explore the golden mines at Guiana. It is said that he was offered a formal pardon for Too/, but this he declined, by the sdvice of sir Francis Bacon, who said, “Sir, the knee-timber of your voyage is money. Spare your purse in this particular; for upon my life you have a sufficient pardon for all that is past already the king having, under his broad seal, made you admiral of your fleet, and given you power of martial law over your officers and soldiers.” Sir Walter set off from Plymouth July 1617 but his design, being by some secret means betrayed to the Spaniards, was defeated and, his eldest son Walter being killed by the Spaniards at St. /Thome, the town was burnt by captain Keymis, who, being reproached by Sir Walter for his ill conduct in this affair, committed suicide. On this, the Spanish ambassador Gundomar making heavy complaints to the king, as if the peace had been broken between Britain and Spain, a proclamation was published immediately against Ralegh and his proceedings, threatening punishment in an exemplary manner. Notwithstanding this, Ralegh, who landed at Plymouth in July 1618, and heard that the court was exasperated by the Spanish ambassador, firmly resolved to go to London. In this, however, he was anticipated by being arrested on his journey thither and finding, as he approached, that no apology could save him, repented of not having made his escape while he had it in his power. He attempted it indeed after ie was confined in the Tower, but was seized in a boat upon the Thames. It was found, however, that his life could not be touched for any thing which had been done at Guiana: therefore a privy seal was sent to the judges, forthwith to order execution, in consequence of his former attainder.

His works may be divided into classes, according to Oldys’s arrangement, 1. “Poetical: including his poems on Gascoigne’s Steel-Glass; The Excuse; The silent Lover; the Answer to Marloe’s Pastoral; with his poems of Cynthia, and two more on Spenser’s Fairy-Queen; The Lover’s Maze; a Farewei to Court; The Advice; which last three are printed in an old” Collection of several ingenious Poems and Songs by the wits of the age,“1660, in 8vo; another little poem, printed in the London Magazine for August 1734; several in the Ashmolean library at Oxford, namely,” Erroris Responsio,“and his” Answer, to the Lie,“&c. three pieces written just before his death, viz. his Pilgrim; his” Epigram in allusion to the Snuff' of a Candle,“and his Epitaph, printed in his” Remains.“There is likewise ascribed to him a satirical Elegy upon the death of the lord treasurer Cecil, earl of Salisbury, printed by Osborne in his Memoirs of king James, and said to be our author’s by Shirley in his Life of Ralegh, p. 179. Of his poems, a beautiful and correct, but limited edition, has lately been published by sir E. JBrydges, with a memoir of his life, written with the taste and feeling which distinguish all the productions of that gentleman’s pen. 2. Epistolary: viz. Letters, eight-and-twenty of which Mr. Oldys tells us he has seen in print and manuscript. 3. Military: these discourses relate either to the defence of England in particular, or contain general arguments and examples of the causes of war among mankind. On the former subject he seems to have drawn up several remonstrances, which have but sparingly and slowly come to light. However, as he had a principal hand in the determinations of the council of war for arming the nation when it was under immediate apprehensions of the Spanish invasion, there is reason to believe that he was the author of a treatise concerning” Notes of Direction“for such” Defence of the Kingdom,“written three years before that invasion. To this treatise was also joined a cc Direction for the best and most orderly retreat of an army, whether in campaign or straits.” And these were then presented in manuscript to the privy-council. One advice is, that since frontier forces are unlikely to prevent an enemy from landing, if they should land through the deficiency or absence of our shipping (for this is the force which Ralegh was ever for having first used against such foreign invasions) it were better by driving or clearing the country of provisions, and temporizing, to endeavour at growing stronger, and rendering the enemy weaker, than to hazard all by a confused and disorderly descent of the populace to oppose the first landing, as their custom was formerly. But this was one of the chief points, which a little before the approach of the Spanish armada was opposed by Thomas Digges, esq. muster-master-general of the queen’s forces in the Low Countries, in a “Discourse of the best order for repulsing a foreign Force,” &c. which he then published. This occasioned an Answer, which having been found in an old manuscript copy among others of sir Walter Ralegh’s discourses, and several circumstances agreeing with the orders in the council of war, as well as some passages in his “History of the World,” and his other writings, it was published by Nathaniel Booth, of Gray’s Inn, esq. at London, 1734, in 8vo, under this title: “A Military Discourse, whether it be better for England to give an invader present battle, or to temporize and defer the same,” &c. But Ralegh’s opinion upon this subject is more fully given in his Discourses of the original and fundamental cause of natural and necessary, arbitrary and customary, holy and civil wars; which, though published several years after his death, have sufficient marks of authenticity. 4. Maritimal: viz. his “Discourse of the invention of shipping,” &c. printed among his essays in 1650, in 8vo; his “Observations and Notes concerning the Royal Navy and Sea-service,” dedicated to prince Henry, printed likewise among his essays; his Letter to that prince concerning the model of a ship, printed among his Remains; his “Report of the truth of the Fight about the isles of Azores,” printed in 1591, in 4to, and reprinted by Hakluyt, vol. It.; his Relation of the Action at Cadiz, already mentioned; and his “Memorial touching Dover Port,” printed in a pamphlet, entitled “An Essay on ways and means to maintain the Honour and Safety of England,” published by sir Henry Sheers in 1701, in 4to. Sir Walter, in the introduction to his “Observations and Notes concerningthe Royal Navy and Sea-service,” men* tions a “Discourse of a maritimal voyage, with the passages and incidents therein,” which he bad formerly written to prince Henry; and in his “History of the World” he takes notice of another treatise, written to the same prince, “Of the art of War by Sea;” “a subject to my knowledge,” says he, “never handled by any man, ancient or modern; but God has spared me the labour of finishing it, by the loss of that brave prince; of which, like an eclipse of the sun, we shall find the effects hereafter.” 5. Geographical; viz. several discourses and papers of his concerning the discovery, planting, and settlement of Virginia, which were formerly in the hands of sir Francis Walsingham “A treatise of the West Indies;” “Considerations on the Voyage for Guiana,” a manuscript containing leaves in 4to, in the library of sir Hans Sloane, bart. and now in the British Museum “Discovery of the large, rich, and beautiful empire of Guiana,” pqblished by himself, and mentioned above. His “Journal of his second Voyage to Guiana,” which remains still in manuscript; and his “Apology” for the said voyage. 6. Political viz. “The Seat of Government,” shewing it to be upheld by the two great pillars of civil justice and martial policy; “Observations concerning the causes of the magnificency and o'pulency;” “The Prince; or Maxims of State,” printed at London, 1642, in 4to. Wood says that it is the same with “Aphorisms of State,” published by John Milton at London, in 1661, in 8vo. “The Cabinet-Council, containing the chief arts of Empire, and mysteries of State discabineted,” &c. published by John Milton, esq. London, 1658, 8vo. In the second edition at London, 1692, 8vo, it is entitled “The Arts of Empire and mysteries of State discabineted,” &c. “The Spaniard’s Cruelties to the English in Havanria” his “Consultation about the Peace with Spain” and our protecting the Netherlands, in manuscript. “The present state of Spain, with a most accurate account of his catholic majesty’s power and rights also the names and worth of the most considerable persons in that kingdom,” in manuscript; which seems to be a different piece from “The present state of Things, as they now stand between the three kingdoms, France, England, and Spain,” also in manuscript; “A Discourse on the Match propounded by the Savoyan between the lady Elizabeth and the prince of Piedmont,” and another on that “between, prince Henry of England and a daughter of Savoy,” both in manuscript “A Dialogue between a Jesuit and a i\ecusarit shewing how claugv rous their principles are to Christian Princes,” published by Philip Ralegh, esq. among jour author’s genuine Remains, at the end of an Abridgment of his History of the World, London, 1700, in 8vo; “A Dialogue between a counsellor of state and a justice of peace,” better known in the printed copies by the title of the “Prerogative of Parliaments,” dedicated to king James, and printed at Midelburge, 1628, in 4to, and reprinted in 1643 in 4to A “Discourse of the words Law and Right,” jn manuscript in the, Ashmolean library “Observations touching Trade and Commerce with the Hollander and other nations, as it was presented to king James; wherein is prqve.d, that our sea and land commodities serve to enrich and strengthen other countries against our own” printed in 1653, in 12mo. But it is doubtful whether this tract was written by our author. 7. Philosophical viz. “A treatise of the Soul” in manuscript in the Ashmolean library, His “Sceptic,” or Speculations printed among his Remains. “Instructions to his Son and Posterity,” 1632, in J2mo; and to this is subjoined “The dutiful Advice of a Joving Son to his aged Father:”. a treatise of “Mines, and the trial of Minerals;” and a “Collection of chymical and medicinal Receipts;” both which are in manuscript, 8. Jiistorical: viz. his “History of the World,” the best edition of which is that by Oldys, 1736, fol. with a life. Dr. Birch published a collection of his “Miscellaneous Works,” including most of the above, 1748, in 2 vols. 8vo. Mr. Cayley has lately published a very elaborate life of sir Walter, which includes every information as yet procurable, respecting this very extraordinary and unfortunate man.

Warburton says these lines were inserted after the first edition of the Dunciad, and that he was not known to Pope, until he published a swearing-piece called “Sawney,” very abusive df Pope, Swift, and Gay. He adds that “this low writer attended his own works with panegyrics in the Journals; anfd once, in particular, praised himself highly above Mr. Addison, in wretched remarks upon that author’s account of English poets, printed in a London Journal, Sept. 172$. He was wholly illiterate, and knew no language, not even French. Being advised to read the rules of dramatic poetry before he began a play, he smiled and replied, ‘ Shakspeare writ without rules.’ He ended at last in the common sink of all such writers, a political newspaper, to which he was recommended by his friend Arnall (see Arnall), and received a small pittance for pay and being detected in writing on both sides on one and the same day, he publicly justified the morality of his conduct.”

, a German poet of great celebrity in his own country, but little known here, was born in 1725, at Kolberg, and became professor of belles lettres in a military academy at Berlin. In concert with Leasing, he there edited two ancient poets of the Germans, Logau and Wernike. His Lyrical Antholpgy contributed much to improve the taste of his countrymen, by those changes of diction which almost every poem received from his pen. Sixteen odes of Horace he translated with great felicity, and composed many original imitations of them. His oratorios, which Graun set to music, would have been warmly admired, but in the country of Klopstock. In 1774, he translated the critical works of Batteux, which he accompanied with considerable additions.

The first scene, between Patie and Roger, of this drama, was written early, and published first by itself, and afterwards in his first volume in 1721, as an independent eclogue. In that volume is likewise to be found the dialogue song between Patie and Peggie, afterwards introduced into the second act. After the publication of this first volume, he put forth another eclogue between Jenny and Peggy, as a sequel to Patie and Roger, and which now stands the second scene in the “Gentle Shepherd.” At what particular time between 1721 and 1728 he conceived the idea of forming a complete drama, of which those two were to serve as the opening, is not precisely known; but it was not, probably, till after publishing the last mentioned eclogue; for he had more skill than to weaken the effect of a complete work, by giving it to the public in detached scenes, and at such different periods.

Great part of every summer he passed with his friends in the country, but chiefly with sir John Clerk of Pennycuik, one of the barons of the Exchequer, a gentleman eminent for his learning and taste in the polite arts, and who had known and esteemed Mr. Ramsay from the time of his first appearance. The death of this valuable friend, in 1756, was a great grief to him; which was, however, much alleviated by the continuation of the same friendship in his son and successor, sir James, who, upon Mr. Ram­$ay’s death, which happened Jan, 1, 1758, erected near his seat of Pennycuik, a stately obelisk of hewn stone to his memory, with this inscription:

His works are, 1. “Discours sur le Poeme Epique;” prefixed to the later editions of Telemachus. V 2. “La Vie de Mr. Fenelon,” of which there is an English translation. 3. “Essai sur le Gouvernrnent Civil.” 4. “Le Psychometre, ou Reflexions sur les dirTerens characteres de ressprit, par un Milord Anglois.” These are remarks upon lord Shaftesbury’s Characteristics. 5. “Les Voyages de Cyrus,” in French and English, the only work of his much known in this country. It is a professed imitation of Telemachus, and we can remember was once a very popular book. 6. “L'Histoire de M. de Turenne, in French and English.” 7. “Poems,” somewhat in the mystic and inflated style, printed at Edinburgh, 1728, 4to, seemingly without his knowledge. 8. “Two Letters in French, to M. Racine the son, upon the true sentiments of Mr. Pope, in his Essay on Man.” These were printed after his decease, in “Les Oeuvres de M. Racine le fils,” torn. II. 1747, and form a kind of defence of Pope from the charge of irreiigion in the “Essay.” This is a subject of which the chevalier was perhaps a better judge than of philosophy; for in one of these letters he calls Locke gtnia superfci'el, “a superficial genius.” Two posthumous works of his were also printed at Glasgow: 9. “A plan of education;” and, 10. “Philosophical Principles of natural and revealed Religion, explained and unfolded in a geometrical order,” 1749, 2 vols. 4to, neither of which ever attracted much attention. The last, his French biographers seem to be of opinion, must have been either falsely attributed to him, or much altered by his editors, as he maintains the doctrine of the metempsychosis, and denies the eternity of hell-torments; and not only contends that these were the sentiments of Fenelon, but that they are agreeable to the decisions of the church.

, the late bishop of London, was the younger son of the preceding, and was born July 6, 1749. He became a student of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and took his degrees at the usual periods that of M. A. in 1774; B. D. in 1782 D. D. by diploma, in 1783. In 1776 he was appointed prselector of poetry, and in 1782 regius professor of Greek. In the same year he was presented to a prebend of Salisbury; and in 1783 became canon of Christ church, regius professor of divinity, and rector of Ewelnoe. In the year 1799 he was elevated to the bishopric of Oxford; translated to that of Bangor in 1807; and thence to London in 1809. He was elected F. R. S. in 1811. He passed a great part of his life in the university of Oxford, and it was generally believed that when he was raised to the see of Oxford, the university was complimented with the nomination by the crown. His lordship was author of many single sermons, and charges delivered on different occasions: also of “De Grsecae Linguae Studio Prselectio habita in Schola Linguarum,” 1783, and “Concio ad Clerum in Synodo Provinciali Cantuariensis Provincial ad D. Pauli,” 1790. One of his last works was a report of the progress made by the National School Society, to which the general committee referred in terms of gratitude, at their first meeting after his lordship’s decease. They notice his lordship as one “whose latest employment had been to state, for the information qf the public, the progress of a work to which he had contributed his time, his labour, and his counsels. The committee therefore could not fail to entertain a common sentiment of profound regret for the loss which they have sustained, and to cherish in their minds the liveliest recollection of the service which has been so successfully fulfilled by him in this second report. They wish, therefore, to add to this document, designed for general circulation, their sense of what is due from the public, and themselves, to the. memory of one who was a constant and assiduous promoter of this salutary institution, from its first establishment to the last hour of his life. The committee trust, that this testimony, though limited to a single object in the large field of pastoral duty in which he was incessantly engaged, may serve to denote the benefits which have resulted from his prompt, unwearied, and effectual exertions.” The following is the character drawn of him by Mr. archdeacon Jefferson, and which alludes to his zeal for the church, of which he was an active member: “Fearless now of being censured for mercenary adulation, or reproved by unconscious merit, a just tribute may be paid to the character of that departed and exalted prelate, who is, and will be, most lamented where he was best and most entirely known. This opportunity, therefore, is willingly embraced of offering a heartfelt condolence to the ministry of the diocese on the affecting and important loss, which, in these perilous times of contending sects and unsettled opinion, has arisen to them, and to the church: To them, in the premature privation of a diocesan, firm in his support of ecclesiastical authority, but considerate in its application; eminently versed in the letter of ecclesiastical law, but liberal in its practical construction, reluctant in interference, but determined in duty, slow in the profes-. sion of service, but prompt in its execution; disinterested, in patronage, unwavering in measures, correct in judgment, attentive in council, and kind and compassionate to distress: To the church, in the premature privation of a father, diligent in her rites and services, but unostentatious in piety and devotion; sound and unrelaxing in her doctrines and faith, but discreet in zeal, and comprehensive in charity; ever vigilant in defending her interests, ever forward in asserting her privileges, and ever able in the assertion and the defence.” This high character, how-, ever, has been thought capable of abatement. It was perhaps unfortunate that he succeeded a prelate of the mild and conciliating temper of Dr. Porteus, and that he undertook the government of a diocese, which, above all others, requires such a temper. It was, perhaps, not less unfortunate that in his first charge to the clergy of this diocese, he betrayed no little ignorance of the state of religious opinions, and the creeds of those sectaries against whom he wished to warn his clergy.

Raphael was not only eminent as a painter and an architect, but he was desirous to emulate the reputation of his great contemporary, Michael Angelo, in being a sculptor also. We are informed that, with his own hand he executed some statues, but one only is referred to by the anonymous author of the Milan ms. which was the statue of a child, then in the possession of Julio Romano; and of this statue there can be no doubt, as it is also recognized by count Castiglione, in a letter of the year 1523; but what became of it is not known. There is, however, in the Ghigi chapel in the church of S. Maria del Popolo, a statue of Jonah from his own model, and executed in marble, under his immediate direction, by Lorenzetto, which remains an extraordinary instance of the versatility of his powers, as this specimen of sculpture may fairly rank with the best productions of modern Rome.

, one of our early printers, is said by Bale to have been a citizen of London, and by Pits a native of that city. Wood says he was educated in grammar and philosophy at Oxford, and that returning to London he set up the trade of printing, which was then, as Wood adds, “esteemed a profession fit for any scholar or ingenious man.” By whom he was taught the art, or whether he was at first employed only as a corrector, does not appear. His residence was at the sign of the Mermaid “at Fowl’s gate,” next Cheapside. He married Elizabeth, sister to sir Thomas More, with whom he became intimate, according to Wood, by his piety and learning. Bale and Pits assign different causes for this intimacy; the one, because he was a bold champion for popery, which the other terms his great zeal for the glory of God. Herbert thinks it was most likely that he was at first introduced to his acquaintance by means of printing sir Thomas’s “Dialogues,” and that his acquaintance was afterwards cemented into friendship, as was natural, by their mutual principles and opinions. The date, therefore, of this acquaintance may be 1528 or 1529. Wood says that Rastall, by frequent conferences with sir Thomas, improved his knowledge in various sorts of learning, which is probable; but he omits to notice what is more important, that Rastall became a convert to the reformed religion by means of a controversy with John Frith. Rastall published “Three Dialogues,” the last of which treats on purgatory, and was answered by Frith. On this Rastall wrote his “Apology against John Frith,” which the latter answered with such strength of argument as to make a convert of his opponent. Rastall also wrote a book called “The Church of John Rastall,” which being in the list of prohibited books published by bishop Bonner, annexed to his injunctions in 1542, is supposed to have contained some retraction of his former opinions, at least of what he had written concerning purgatory. Herbert questions whether this book be not the same which Bale mentions by the title of “Abrasio Papismi.” Both Bale and Pits attribute other works to Rastall, not now known, except his “Anglorum regnum Chronicon, or Pastime of the People,” printed by him in 1529. This having lately been reprinted (1B11) among the rest of the English Chronicles, by a select number of the booksellers of London, it is not necessary to describe its contents. The original edition is so scarce that one perfect copy only is known, which formerly belonged to lord Orford, who gave it to James West, esq. and is now in the king’s library; and of imperfect copies, bibliographers mention only three or four.

, Ratram, or Bertramn, a celebrated monk, and priest of the abbey of Corby, flourished in the 9th century, in the reign of Charles the Bald. He appears to have been well acquainted with the Greek and Latin classics, and with the Holy Scriptures. Of all Ratramn’s works, his treatise “On the Body and Blood of Christ” made the most noise. This treatise was written in answer to Paschasius Radbert, and so much appeared to favour the protestant opinion respecting the real presence in the Eucharist, that many learned catholics considered it either as heretical or spurious; but its authenticity was clearly proved afterwards by Mabillon, M. Boileau, and a doctor of the Sorbonne, who published an excellent edition in Latin and French, 1686, 12mo, reprinted with a defence in Latin only, 1712, 12mo, and according to catholic writers, has also shewn the work to be orthodox. But this is ably controverted in the English translation published in Dublin in 1753. His other works, which are less interesting, are mostly inserted in D'Acheri’s Spicilegium. The time of his death is not known.

, a learned orientalist, was born at Berlin, in 1613, and alter studying for eight years at Rostock and other foreign schools, he came to Oxford in 1638, about which time he addressed a letter to archbishop Usher, who, conceiving a high opinion of him, gave him an invitation to Dublin, with offers of preferment. In the mean time becoming likewise known to Grotius, the latter, unknown to archbishop Usher, introduced him to cardinal Richelieu, who offered to employ him as his agent in the east. Ravins, however, pleaded his pre-engagement to the English nation, and especially to Usher; and the cardinal, with great liberality, admitted his motive, and dismissed him with a handsome present. He then, under the patronage of Usher, began his travels in the East, but fortunately for himself, arrived at Constantinople with a strong recommendation from archbishop Laud; for, according to Dr. Pocock’s account, who was then in that city, Ravius “came thither, without either cloaths befitting him (of which he said he had been robbed in France) or money, or letters of credit to any merchant. He had letters of recommendation from some of the states to the Dutch ambassador, who was departed before his arrival. Sir Sackville Crow, the English ambassador, finding that he brought the archbishop’s recommendation, generously took him into his house and protection, and gave him all due furtherance; requiring of him that, if occasion so present itself, England may enjoy the benefit of what time he shall here employ in the study of the eastern tongues. His desire,” Dr. Pocock adds, “seems to be, to be employed in setting forth books in the Arabic language, and to be overseer of the press in that kind, for which he would be very fitting.”

, knt eldest surviving son of Daniel Rawlinson, citizen and wine-merchant of London, descended from the ancient family of that name at Graisdale, in the county of Lancaster, was born in the parish of St. Dionis Backchurch, in Fenchurch-street, London, March 1647 appointed sheriffof London by James II. 1687, colonel of the white regiment of trainee! bands, and govt rnor of Bridewell and Bethlem hospitals, 1705; and, in 1706, lord mayor of London, when he beautified and repaired Guildhall, as appears by an inscription in the great porch. He married Mary, eldest daughter of Richard Taylor, esq. of Turnham-green, with whom he lived 27 years, and by whom he had 15 children. She died at Chelsea, Feb. 21, 1724-5, aged sixty-three. He died in his own parish, November 2, 1705, and was buried with his father, who died in 1679, aged sixty-six, Of his children, four daughters, Anne- Maria, Mary, Margaret, Susan; and two sons, both named Daniel, died before him. William died in 1732, and was buried at Antwerp. John, of Little Leigh in Cheshire, esq. died January 9, 1753. Tempest, the youngest son, by profession a dry-salter, died January 1, 1737. Sir Thomas Rawlinson, it maybe added, had been foreman of the grand jury at the trial of alderman Cornish; and was elected sheriff by royal mandate. His eldest son, Thomas, for whom Mr. Addison is said to have intended his character of Tom Folio, in the Taller, No. 158, but with infinitely too satirical a vein, was a great collector of books; and himself a man of learning, as well as patron of learned men. Mattairehas dedicated to him his edition of Juvenal; and Hearne’s publication, entitled “Aluredi Beverlacensis Annales, &c.” was printed from the original ms. in this gentleman’s possession. Very numerous indeed were the communications that editor received from Mr. Thomas Rawlinson, for all which he takes every opportunity of expressing his gratitude. While Mr. Rawlinson lived in Gray’s inn, he had four chambers so completely filled with books, that his bed was removed out into the passage. He afterwards removed to London-house, the ancient palace of the bishops of London, in Aldersgate-­street, where he died August 6, 1725, aged forty-four, and was buried in the church of St. Botolph Aldersgate. In London-house his library was sold after his decease; and there also lived and died his brother Richard, who left a portrait of his brother Thomas in crayons, another of himself, and another of Nicolas Salmon, LL. D. the antiquary, to the Society of Antiquaries, all afterwards revoked. His Mss. took sixteen days to sell, from March 4, 1733-4. The catalogue of his library consists of nine parts. The amount of the fiva first parts was 2409l. Mr. Charles Marsh, late bookseller at Charing-cross, used to say, that the sale of Mr. Thomas Rawlinson’s library was one of the first events he remembered upon engaging in business; and that it was the largest collection at that time known to have been offered to the public.

In the spring of 1669, Mr. Ray and Mr. Willoughby entered upon those experiments about the tappings of trees, and the ascent and the descent of their sap, which are published in the Philosophical Transactions. About this time, Mr. Ray began to draw up his observations for public use; and one of' the first things he undertook was, his “Collection of English Proverbs.” This book, though sent to Cambridge to be printed in 3669, yet was not published till 1672. It was afterwards much enlarged, and is perhaps better known to the generality of his countrymen, than any other of his literary labours. He also prepared his “Catalogue of English Plants” for the press, which came out in 1670: his humble thoughts of this and his other book (for he was a man of uncommon modesty) may be seen in a Latin letter of his to Dr. Lister, August 22, 1670. In the same letter, he also takes notice of the altering his name, by leaving out the W in the beginning of it; for, till 1670, he had always written his name Wraij; but this being, he says, contrary to the custom of his forefathers, he therefore re-assumed the name of Ray. In the same letter, he mentions his having had an offer of 200l. per annum to travel with three young noblemen into foreign parts; but this proposal not being consistent with his infirm state of body, he thought it prudent to decline it.

, a French writer of considerable, but temporary celebrity, was born at St. Genies in the Rovergue, in 1713. He was educated among the Jesuits, and became one of their order. The learning of that society is universally known, as well as the happy talents which its superiors possessed, of assigning to each member his proper employment. Raynal, after having acquired among them a taste for literature and science, and being ordained a priest, displayed such talents in the pulpit, that his preaching attracted numerous audiences. Hi* love of independence, however, induced him, in 1748, to dissolve his connexion with the Jesuits, and to take up his’ residence at Paris. Such is the account given by our principal authority; but, according to the abbe Barruel, he was expelled the society for his impiety. With this circumstance Barruel may be much better acquainted than we can be: but it seems probable that his impieties had not then reached much farther than to call in question the supreme authority of the church; for Raynal himself assures us, that he did not utter his atrocious declarations against Christianity till he had ceased to be a member of the order of Jesuits. He then associated himself with Voltaire, D'Alembert, and Diderot, and was by them employed to furnish the theological articles for the “Encyclopedic.” But though his religious opinions were certainly lax, he could not even then be what, in a Protestant country, would be deemed a man remarkable for impiety; for he employed the abbe Yvon, whom Barruel calls an old metaphysician, but an inoffensive and upright man, to write the articles which he was engaged to furnish. In this transaction, indeed, he shewed that he possessed not a proper sense of honour, for he paid poor Yvon with twentyrive louis d'ors for writing theological articles, for which he received himself six times that sum; and the trick being discovered, Raynal was disgraced, and compelled to pay up the balance to the abbe Yvon; but though he had thus shewn himself to be without honour, it is difficult to believe he had yet proceeded so far as blasphemy, of which he has been accused, since he had employed a Christian divine to supply his place in the “Encyclopedic.”

After his settling at Paris, he appears to have become an author by profession, as we do not find that he had any place or preferment. His first piece, published the same year in which he quitted the society of the Jesuits, was entitled “Histoire du Stadhouderat.” He next published “Histoire du Parlement d'Angleterre,” which gained him much reputation, though it had little claim to the title of history, and was tinged with many prejudices, religious and political. He also composed “Anecdotes Literaires,” in three volumes, 12mo; and “Memoires de Ninon de PEnclos;” and was much employed in the “Mercure de France.” But the work upon which his fame is chiefly built, is his “Political and Philosophical History of the European Settlements in the East and West Indies.” That this history is written in an animated style, and that it contains many just reflections, both political and philosophical, is known to all Europe for it has been translated into every European language. Its beauties, however, are deformed by many sentiments that are irreligious, and by some that are impure. It was followed, about 1780, by a small tract, entitled “The Revolution of America,” in which the author pleads the cause of the revolted colonists with a degree of zeal, censures the conduct of the British government with a keenness of asperity, and displays a knowledge of the principles and intrigues of the 'different factions which at that period divided the English nation, that surely was not natural to the impartial pen of a philosophic foreigner. Hence he has been supposed to have been incited to the undertaking, and to have been furnished with part of his materials, hy some persons who opposed the measures of the English government, and secretly fomented the American cause. Be this as it may, he propagated, both in this tract and in his history, a number of licentious opinions respecting government and religion, of which he lived to regret the consequences.

“I am sorry to add,” says this gentleman, f ' that the reputation of the abbe Raynal in Paris, where he is personally known, is very different from what he enjoys in London, where he is only known as an author. That Philosophical history which you ascribe to him, is really, in no proper sense, his work; but was produced by a combination of the labours of several ingenious men, among whom I am inclined to think, he contributed the smallest part. We might indeed give him some credit for lending his name to a book, which contained so many bold truths, which it was then dangerous to publish; but even here, there is need of caution; for under the ancient system, deceit and fraud were carried to such a pitch of refinement, that it was not uncommon for men of letters to concert stratagems with ministers, to get themselves put into the Bastile, to raise their reputation, and to make their fortune in the world. Whatever be in this, you may ascribe the history of the European settlements to Perrijeat la Roque, Dubreuil, Diderot, Nargion, or Holbach, who were all concerned, as well as the abbe Raynal."

A History of the Divorce of Catherine by Henry VIII. and a History of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantz, and some other works, are attributed to Raynal, but are little known. He escaped the general danger, during the reign of Robespierre, but was stripped of his property, and died in poverty, March 6, 1796, at the advanced age of eighty, four. Such was his distress at this time, that there was only found in his possession an assignment of fifty livres, which was worth no more than about five sous. When he had money he was liberal to profuseness, and delighted in those expences that would add to his fame. He raised in the island of Ardstatt, near Lucerne, a monument to the founders of Helvetian liberty. He gave annuities of 1200 livres each to five principal learned societies in France, to be bestowed in prizes.

, an English divine, was a native of Buckinghamshire, where he was born in 1588. He was admitted a student of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, in 1604. He took his degree of M. A. in 1610, and then entered himself a commoner of Alban-hall. In 1612 he was ordained deacon, and in 1614 priest, by the bishop of Oxford. About this time he became chaplain to Edward lord Zouch of Haringworth, warden of the cinque ports, and governor of Dover-castle. Having accompanied this nobleman to Dover, his preaching was so much admired, that at the request of the parishioners he was made minister of St. Mary’s, in December 1616. He was afterwards appointed chaplain in ordinary to Charles I. He was one of those doctrinal puritans, who opposed, as much as any churchman of opposite religious sentiments, the violent proceedings of the authors of the rebellion, and had exposed them so frequently in his sermons, that he was soon marked out for vengeance. In April 1612, his library at Dover was plundered, and in November following he was dragged from his house by the soldiers, and imprisoned for a year and seven months. In January of the above mentioned year, archbishop Laud, then a prisoner in the Tower, had, at his majesty’s request, bestowed on him the living of Chartham in Kent; but from that the usurping party took care he should receive no advantage. He was also with as little effect made a prebendary of Canterbury. In 1644, however, sir William Brockman gave him the living of Cheriton in Kent, which he was not only allowed to keep, but was likewise appointed by the assembly of divines, to be one of the nine divines who were to write annotations on the New Testament for the work afterwards published, and known by the title of the “Assembly’s Annotations.”

These are the only geometrical performances that he produced. In the year 1710 he read his observations upon the formation of shells, in which he proved that they grow not like the other parts of the animal body, by expansion, but by the external addition of new parts; he also assigned the cause of the variety of colour, figure, and magnitude which distinguishes one shell from another. During the experiments which this inquiry led him to make upon the snails, he discovered a very singular insect which lives not only upon these animals, but burrows in their bodies, a situation which he never leaves unless he is forced out of it by the snail. This inquiry also gave occasion to M. Reaumur to account for the progressive motion of testaceous animals of different kinds, and to describe and explain an almost endless variety of organs which the author of nature has adapted to that purpose. He produced also the same year the natural history of cobwebs. M. Bon, the first president of the chamber of accounts at Montpellier, had shewn that cobwebs might be spun into a kind of silk, which might be applied to useful purposes; but it was stiil necessary to determine whether spiders could be bred in sufficient numbers, without an expence too great for the undertaking to bear; and Reaumur soon found that M. Bon’s discovery was a mere matter of curiosity, and that the commercial world could derive no advantage from cobwebs. It had been long known, that marine animals adhere to solid bodies of various kinds, either by an attachment which continues during their existence, or which they can determine at pleasure; but how this attachment was formed, remained a secret, till it was discovered by Reaumur, to whose inquiries we are indebted for our knowledge of many organs and materials adapted to that purpose,before unknown. In the course of this inquiry, M. Reaumur discovered a fish different from that which furnished the ancients with their Tyrian dye, but which has the same property in a yet greater degree: upon the sides of this fish there are small grains, like those of a hard roe, which being broken, yield first a fine full yellow colour, that upon being exposed for a few minutes to the air, becomes a beautiful purple.

In 1722, he published a work under the title of “The art of converting Iron into Steel, and of rendering cast Iron ductile.” The use of iron is well known under the three forms of cast iron, forged or bar iron, and steel: iron in the first state is susceptible of fusion, but it is brittle and hard, and can neither be forged by the hammer, nor cut by the chissel: in the second state it is malleable, and may be both filed and cut, but it is no longer fusible without the addition of a foreign substance: in the third it acquires a very singular property of becoming hard and brittle, if after it has been made red hot it is dipped into cold water: the extreme brittleness of cast iron makes it unfit for the construction of any thing that is required to be either supple or elastic, and still more for any thing upon which it will be necessary to employ a tool of any kind after it comes out of the font, for no tool can touch it. On the other hand, the manner of converting forged, or bar-iron into steel, was then wholly unknown in France. But Reaumur having, in the course of other inquiries, found that steel differed from iron only in having more sulphur and more salt in its composition, undertook to discover the method of giving to iron what was wanting to make it steel, and at length perfectly succeeded, so as to make steel of what quality he pleased.

Reaumur also invented the art of preserving eggs, and of hatching them; this art had been long known and practised in Egypt, but to the rest of the world was an impenetrable secret: he found out and described many ways of producing an artificial warmth in which chickens might be hatched, and some by the application of fires used for other purposes; he shewed how chickens might be hatched in a dunghill, he invented long cages in which the callow brood were preserved in their first state, with fur cases to creep iinder instead of the hen, and he prescribed proper food for them of things every where to be procured in great plenty. He found also that eggs might be kept fresh and fit for incubation many years, by washing them with a varnish of oil, grease, or any other substance, that would effectaally stop the pores of the shell, and prevent the contents from evaporating; by this contrivance eggs may not only be preserved for eating or hatching in the hotest climates, but the eggs of birds of every kind may be transported from one climate to another, and the breed of those that could not survive a long voyage, propagated in the most distant part of the world.

The actual and useful life of Dr. Reid was now drawing to a conclusion. A violent disorder attacked him about the end of September 1796; but does not seem to have occasioned much alarm to those about him, till he was visited by Dr. Cleghorn, who soon communicated his apprehensions in a letter to Dr. Gregory. Among other symptoms, he mentioned particularly “that alteration of voice and features, which, though not easily described, is so well known to all who have opportunities of seeing life close.” Dr. Reid’s own opinion of his case was probably the same with that of his physician; as he expressed to him on his first visit, his hope that he was “soon to get his dismission.” After a severe struggle, attended with repeated strokes of palsy, he died on the 7th of October following.

All that is valuable in this sketch has been taken from Mr. Dugald Stewart’s life of Dr. Reid, the most elaborate part of which is the view of the spirit and scope of Dr. Reid’s philosophy. We have long regretted, says another able critic, that the writings of this philosopher, the first who in the science of Mind deserves the title of interpreter of nature, should be so little known, especially in the southern part of this kingdom; and we fondly hope that the illustration afforded by Mr. Stewart of their high merits, and the exposure of the prejudices which have been raised against them by bold censurers, who never took the pains to understand them, will pave the way to a more general diffusion among our countrymen of the advantages which a careful study of them cannot fail to produce.

After some stay at his native place Zorbig, where he could find no opportunity of settling advantageously, he was obliged to return to Leipsic. In 1747, he tells us he was made professor for the publication of a tract, entitled “De principibus Mahummedanis literarum laude claris.” From this time he lived, during many years, in want and obscurity, frequently not knowing where to get bread to eat. What he did get, he says, was hardly earned, by private instruction, writing books, correcting for the press, translations, and working for reviews; and thus he went on from 1746 to 1758. In the mean time, in 1748, he wrote his “Prograrmna de epocha Arabum, &c.” for which he was made Arabic professor, but in tins office he complains of being rewarded by an ill-paid salary of one hundred dollars a year. In the autumn of that year a bookseller at Leyden agreed with him for a publication of Abulfeda’s History in Latin and Arabic: the first sheet was accordingly printed, and made him known in France and England; and the whole, he says, would have followed, if it had not been for his quarrel with Schultens. Reiske appears to have had an extraordinary propensity to quarrelling, and being a reviewer, vva& not sparing of the means, by reviewing in an arrogant and petulant style the works of those persons with whom he was living in apparent friendship. He even unblushingly avows that a sort of revenge led him to speak ill of the works of some of his friends. He speaks at the same time of the bitter remorse with which he reflected on his treatment of Schultens, who “had been a father to him,” acknowledges the acid of youthful pride which mixed with his criticisms, and yet talks of being influenced by the “conscience and duty” of a reviewer

Among the works which he performed for bread, and invita Minerva, were a translation of the life of Christina from the French, and an index to the translation of the History of the academy of inscriptions. Those which he wrote con amore were his criticisms in the Leipsic Acts, which were very numerous, his “Greek Anthology,” and in 1754 the first part of his tc Annales Moslemici,“dedicated to the curators of the university of Leyden, who, as he says, did not thank him, and he sold only thirty copies. After a little Arabic effusion, called” Risalet Abit Walicit,“he began his” Animadversiones ad autores Gra3cos,“and printed five volumes of them, which cost him 1000 thalers, of which he never saw more than 100 again.” I have, however,“he says,” enough for five volumes more, and should go quietly out of the world, if I could once see them printed, for they weflo? ingenii mei (that is supposing it to be allowed that my genius has any flowers); and sure I am, that little as their worth is now known, and much as they have been despised, the time will come when party and jealousy shall be no more, and justice will be done them. Should they come oat in my life-time, it will pay me for all my trouble if they should not, an ever-waking God will take care, that no impious hand seizes on my work, and makes it his own* Possibly there may arise some honourable Godfearing man, who may hereafter publish them unadulterated to my posthumous fame, and for the good of literature: such is my wish, such are my prayers to God, and he will hear those prayers."

Mrs. Reiske informs us that his unexampled love of letters produced not only all the works he has published, and all the Mss. he left behind him; but every man who had any thing to publish, might depend upon his countenance and protection. He gave books, advice, subscription, even all that he had. Nay, he made up to several people that had treated him ill, only in order that he might make their works better. He was also a man of great charity. As a scholar his character is too well known to require a prolix detail of his various knowledge. He had read all the Greek and Latin authors, and all the Arabic ones, more than once, and was likewise acquainted with the best Italian, French, English, and German writers. He read Tillotson’s and Barrow’s sermons constantly, and used to translate them for his wife into French. His memory was so wonderful that he remembered all he had heard, and could repeat a sermon he had heard almost verbatim. In the last days of his life he called all his learned works trifles. “All these troublesome labours,” said he, “cannot preserve me from the judgment seat, at which I must soon appear my only confidence proceeds from the thoughts of having lived uprightly before God.”

There is perhaps no branch of collectorship that exhibits more caprice than that of prints in general, or of Rembrandt’s prints in particular, which appears by the different estimation in which the same subject is held, merely on account of a slight alteration in some unimportant part. Mr. Daulby instances this in the Juno without the crown, the Coppenol with the white back-ground, the Joseph with the face unshaded, and the good Samaritan with the horse’s tail white, which are regarded as inestimable; whilst the same subjects, without these distinctions, are considered as of little comparative value. Strutt mentions that, in consequence of a commission from an eminent coin lector, he gave forty-six guineas for the Coppenol with the white back-ground, i. e. before it was finished; when, the same evening, at the same sale, he bought a most beautiful impression of the same print finished, distinguished by having a black back-ground, &c. which had an address to Rembrandt at the bottom, written by Coppenol himself (for he was a writing-master of Amsterdam, and this print is his portrait), for fourteen guineas and a half. In the second instance, he adds, that he exceeded his commission by the half guinea; but in the first did not reach it by nearly twenty guineas. Mr. Daulby seems to be of opinion that Rembrandt, who loved money, availed himself of this humour in collectors. The facility with which he could change the effect of his etchings, by altering, obliterating, or working on them again, enabled him to provide sufficient amusement for his admirers; and hence varieties frequently occur which are not easily explicable. He is even said to have frequently suffered himself to be solicited before he would consent to dispose of them; and it is a well-attested fact, that the print of “Christ healing the sick,” usually denominated the “Hundred Guelder,” was so called because he refused to sell an impression of it under that price. Of this print we may remark that it is generally esteemed the chef d'aeuvre of Rembrandt, being highly finished, the characters full of expression, and the effect of the chiaroscuro very fine. Gilpin mentions twenty guineas, as the price of a good impression of this print; Mr. Daulby thirty, to which twenty more, we are assured, must now be added. Captain Baillie purchased the plate in Holland, and retouched it for publication, in 1776, at four guineas to subscribers, and five to non-subscribers. It has since been cut up, but there are impressions of the two groups from the left extremity, one above the other. Rembrandt’s rarest and most expensive portraits are those of Wtenbogardus, called in Holland, “the Goldweigher,” and in France “the Banker;” Van Tol, the advocate, sold as high as fifty-guineas; and the burgomaster Six, of equal value. This burgomaster was Rembrandt’s particular friend and patron, and had the largest collection of his prints that ever was formed in his life-time. Strutt gives 340 as the number of Rembrandt’s prints; but the largest collection known, that of M. De Burgy, at the Hague, collected between the years 1728 and 1755, consisted in the whole, including the varieties, of 655 prints. This great artist died at Amsterdam in 1688, or, according to some, in 1674. The little known of his personal character is not favourable. He was extremely fond of money, and not very scrupulous in his mode of procuring it. He is also represented as being fond of low company; a degrading taste, which seldom fails to affect a man’s profession, whatever it may be.

, a learned Spanish Jesuit, was born in Grenada about 1730. After a liberal education, in which he made great proficiency in philosophy and mathematics, and discovered much taste for the fine arts, he retired to Italy on the expulsion of his order. In 1782 he sent to the society opened in Madrid for the fine arts, a memoir which gained the first prize; and in 1788 he carried off the prize proposed by the academy of Seville. These two memoirs, which were printed in 1789, at Seville, met with the approbation of all the foreign literary journals. He had already obtained considerable fame on the continent from his elaborate work, printed at Seville in 1766, on the “Roman Antiquities in Spain,” and had contributed very much to Masdeu’s critical and literary history of Spain, printed in 1781, &c. But perhaps he is best known to artists and men of taste, by his “Saggi sul ristabilimento clelP antica arte de‘ Greci, e de’ Romani Pittori,” vol. I. Venice, 1784. The second edition of this elegant work was published in 2 vols. 8vo, at Parma, by Mr. Joseph Molini in 1787. The author’s object was, as the title indicates, to investigate and restore the ancient art of Grecian and Roman painting, and therefore in his first volume he gives a circumstantial account of encaustic painting as practised by the ancients, by which the lustre of their works is preserved to this day. He proves that they not only used the encaustic art in painting, but employed it in varnishing their statues, and even their utensils, ships, houses, &c. After descanting on the disadvantages that arise from painting in oil, he discloses the method of preparing the materials employed in encaustic painting, with the manner of using them; and substantiates this system by the opinions of many members of the Clementine academy of Bologne, and of several professors of the academies of Venice, Verona, Padua, &c. also of others who, beside himself, have tried them; particularly at Mantua, where under the patronage of the marquis Bianchi, many pictures were painted, of which Requeno gives an account. Artists, however, have not in general been very forward to adopt this plan, which, as the author explains it, differs very much from what has been proposed by Count de Caylus, Cochin, Bachelier, Muntz, and others. The abbe Requeno died at Venice in 1799.

, a German statesman, but more known as an accomplished scholar and bibliographer, was born in Hungary Nov. 4, 1737. Among his other diplomatic appointments he resided for some years in London as envoy from the Imperial court, and afterwards in a private capacity. He died at Vienna in August 1793.

With great judgment, and at a considerable expence, he collected a library most rich in scarce, valuable, and beautiful books, and obtained such fame in this department of literature, as to be ranked with the Vallieres, Pinellis, and Lomenies of the day. Of this excellent library, he printed a descriptive catalogue under the title of “Bibliotheca Grseca et Latina, complectens auctores fere omnes Grteciae et Latii veteris, &c. cum delectu editionum turn primariarum, principum, et rarissimarum, quum etiam optima rum, splendidissimarum, atque nitidissimarum, quas usui mei paravi Periergus Deltophilus,” Berlin, 1784, 1794, 8vo. To some of these catalogues were prefixed a letter to M. L. A. D. i. e. Denina, and a preface. Three supplements to this catalogue were afterwards published by him, which are not easily procurable. Although the superlatives in the title smack a little of the dealer, rather than the private gentleman, the count has not exceeded the bounds of truth, and perhaps few men were better qualified to form a collection deserving of such praise. With the boundless zeal, he had also the extensive knowledge of a collector, and understood and spoke readily the principal ancient and modern languages. His frequent removes made him acquainted with every public and private library on the continent; and he never missed an opportunity to add to his collection whatever was most curious and valuable at sales, or booksellers’ shops. This library is now in England, and in the possession of a nobleman who knows its value, and whose own library at present exceeds that of any subject in Europe. When count Revickzky came to London, he made an offer to earl Spenser to dispose of the whole collection to his lordship. What the terms were is variously reported. It seems agreed, however, that it was for a sum of money to be paid immediately, and an annuity, which last the count did not live long to enjoy. The count was himself an author, and published the “Odes of Hafez,” known here by Richardson’s translation; a treatise on Turkish tactics; and an edition of Petronius, Berlin, 1785, 8vo, formed on the editions of Burman and Antonius.

an excellent scholar, marshal of the camp, chamberlain to his royal highness the infant duke of Parma, and governor of that citadel, was born atComo in 1709. He acquired distinction in the army and at court, but must have devoted much of his life to literary pursuits. His first publication was a folio volume, printed at Como in 1742, entitled “De suppositis militaribus stipendiis Benedicti Odeschalci, qui pontifex maxiinus anno 1676, Innocentii prsenomine fuit renunciatus.” His next was a volume of poetry, “Musarum Epinicia,” addressed to Louis XV. Parma, 1757; but that which most entitles him to notice was his “Disquisitiones Plinianae, sive de utriusque Flinii patria, scriptis, codicibus, editionibus, atque interpretibus,” Parma, 1763, 2 vols. fol. Of this Ernesti speaks very highly in his edition of.Fabricius’s Bibl. Latina. Brunet mentions some “Academical Discourses” in Italian, published by count Rezzonico in 1772, 8vo. He died March 16, 1785. His son, the Count Gastone Della Torre Rezzonico, was born in Parma about 1740. He was early initiated into science and polite literature; and so considerable were his attainments, that in his earliest youth he was chosen fellow of the poetical academy in Rome, known under the name of Arcadia. The reigning duke of Parma havingerected in his metropolis an academy of fine arts, count Rezzonico was appointed its president; but, by some vicissitudes, was utterly disgraced at court, and deprived, not only of the place of president of the academy, but even of that of hereditary chamberlain. He was therefore obliged to leave Parma. He first undertook long tours through Europe, especially in France and England, during which he became completely master of both languages; and at his return to Italy he fixed his residence in Rome, though he often made long excursions to Naples and Florence. Availing himself of his ample leisure, he wrote several works in prose and poetry, the former of no great merit, but from his poetical works he deserves to be placed among the best Italian poets of his age. He was distinguished by liveliness of imagery, propriety of diction, exactness of epithet, and by a nobleness of expression acquired by deep study of the Greek and Latin classics. His versification, however, was something harsh, and the meaning of some phrases obscure. He died in 1795, fifty-five years of age. He was highly esteemed by the Italian nobility, and men of letters, for the elegance of his manners and the eloquence of his conversation. These qualities were, however, in the opinion of some, obscured by an immoderate self-love, and an irrational predilection for his own works. A complete collection of his poetical works in two volumes was printed at Parma by the celebrated Bodoni.

After the death of Copernicus, Rheticus returned to Wittemberg, viz. in 1541 or 1542, and was again admitted to his office of professor of mathematics. The same year, by the recommendation of Melancthon, he went to Norimberg, where he found certain manuscripts of Werner and Regiomontanus. He afterwards taught mathematics at Leipsic. From Saxony he departed a second time, for what reason is not known, and went to Poland; and from thence to Cassovia in Hungary, where he died December 4, 1576, near sixty-three years of age.

, by Scaliger named the Varro of the age, was a learned Italian, whose proper name was Ludovico Celio Richeri. He was born at Rovigo' about 1450, and studied at Ferrara and Padua, and France. On his return to Italy, he filled the office of public professor at Rovigo for some years, but in 1503 opened a school at Vicenza, where he continued till 1508, when he was in* vited to Ferrara by duke Alfonzo I. In the year 1515, Francis I. nominated him to the chair of Greek and Latin eloquence in Milan, as successor to Demetrius Chalcondylas. In 1521 he returned to Padua, and in 1523 he was deputed from his native place to Venice, to congratulate the new doge. In 1525 he died of grief, on account of the defeat and capture of Francis at the battle of Pavia. His principal work is entitled “Antiques Lectiones,” of which he published sixteen books at Venice, in 1516, fol. and fourteen more were added after his death in the editions of Basil, 1566, and Francforr, 1666. Vossius expresses his wonder, and even indignation, that so learned a miscellany was so little known.

, a celebrated Spanish Jesuit, was born at Toledo, in 1527, and was enrolled by St. Ignatius among his favourite disciples in 1540, before the society of the Jesuits had received the papal sanction. In 1542 he studied at Paris, and afterwards at Padua, where he was sent to Palermo to teach rhetoric. After many,' and long travels for the propagation of the interests of the society in various parts of Europe, he died at Madrid, Oct. 1, 1611. One of his visits was with the duke of Feria to England, in 1558, and his inquiries here, or what he made subsequently, encouraged him to publish a treatise “On the English schism,” 1594, 8vo, in which, it is said, there is less rancour and acrimony than might have been expected, and some curious anecdotes respecting the personal character of queen Mary. He is, however, chiefly known for his Lives of various Saints and Jesuits, and as the founder of that biography of the Jesuits which Alegambe and others afterwards improved into a work of some importance. One of his principal lives, published separately, is that of the founder, St. Ignatius de Loyola. Of this work there have been several editions, the first in 1572, and the second with additions in 1587, in neither of which he ascribes any miracles to his master, and is so far from supposing any, that he enters into an inquiry, whence it could happen that so holy a man had not the gift of miracles bestowed upon him, and really assigns very sensible reasons. But notwithstanding all this, in an abridged edition of his life of Ignatius, published at Ipres in 1612, miracles are ascribed to Ignatius, and Ribadeneira is made to assign, as his reason for not inserting such accounts before, that though he heard of them in 1572, they were not sufficiently authenticated. Bishop Douglas, who is inclined to blame Ribadeneira for this insufficient apology, has omitted to notice that this Ipres edition of the life was published a year after Ribadeneira’s death, and therefore it is barely possible that the miracles, and all that is said about them, might have been supplied by some zealous brother of the order. His “Lives of the Saints” were translated into English, and published in 2 vols. 8vo.

, a man of letters, was originally of Hexham in Northumberland; and was entered of St. John’s college, Cambridge, in 1774. Dr. Ferris, the present dean of Battle, and Dr. Pearce, now dean of Ely, were his tutors at the university. Under the superintendance of those two excellent scholars, he acquired sound learning and a correct taste. He possessed, indeed, an excellent understanding, and a sort of intuitive knowledge of mankind. He distinguished himself at college by the elegance, beauty, and vigour, of his prose and poetical compositions; a love of the Muses very early in life took possession of his mind, and often interfered with the laborious duties of his studies. He entered himself a student of the Middle Temple in 1779, and was called to the bar in 1784. But literary pursuits and political connections took up too much of his time to admit of his pursuing, with sufficient diligence, the study of the law; otherwise, it is highly probable that he would have become a distinguished ornament of the bar. The chief works in which he was publicly known to have taken a part were in those celebrated political satires, “The Rolliad,” and the “Probationary Odes,” in the composition of which his talents were conspicuous. He wrote also the comedy of “The Fugi* live,” which was honoured by a considerable share of applause, both on the stage and in the closet. In private life so happily was the suavity of his temper blended with the vigour of his understanding, that he was esteemed by his adversaries in political principles, as well as by a very large circle of private friends. He was brought into parliament by the duke of Northumberland, in whose friendship he held a distinguished place, and by whose loan of 2000l. (which the duke has given up to his family) he was enabled to become proprietor of a fourth part of Drury-Iane theatre. He was suddenly taken ill on June 8, 1803, and died next day, leaving a widow and four daughters, to lament the loss of their affectionate protector. He was interred in Egham churchyard.

No. 97, vol. II. of the “Rambler,” it is well known, was written by Mr. Richardson in the preamble to which Dr. Johnson styles him “an author from whom the age has received greater favours, who has enlarged the knowledge of human nature, and taught the passions to move at the command of virtue.” In 1804, was published “The Correspondence of Samuel Richardson,” in six volumes octavo. The best consequence of the design of publishing this collection of letters, is the excellent life and criticism on his works by Mrs. Barbauld. As to the letters, every real admirer of Richardson must peruse them with regret. Such a display of human weakness has seldom been permitted to sully the reputation of any man.

, a learned divine, descended collaterally from the preceding bishop Ridley, was born at sea, in 1702, on-board the Gloucester East Indiaman, to which circumstance he was indebted for his Christian name. He received his education at Winchester-school, and thence was elected to a fellowship at New college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. C. L. April 29, 1729. In those two seminaries he cultivated an early acquaintance with the Muses, and laid the foundation of those elegant and solid acquirements for which he was afterwards so eminently distinguished as a poet, an historian, and a divine. During a vacancy in 1728, he joined with four friends, viz. Mr. Thomas Fletcher (afterwards bishop of Kildare), Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Eyre, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Jennens, in writing a tragedy, called “The Fruitless Redress,” each Undertaking an act, on a plan previously concerted. When they delivered in their several proportions, at their meeting in the winter, few readers, it is said, would have known that the whole was not the production of a single hand. This tragedy, which was offered to Mr. Wilks, but never acted, is still in ms. with another called “Jugurtha.” - Dr. Ridley in his youth was much addicted to theatrical performances. Midhurst, in Sussex, was the place where they were exhibited; and the company of gentlemen actors to which he belonged, consisted chiefly of his coadjutors in the tragedy already mentioned. He is said to have performed the characters of Marc Antony, Jaffier, Horatio, and Moneses, with distinguished applause. Young Gibber, being likewise a Wykehamist, called on Dr. Ridley soon after he had been appointed chaplain to the East India Company at Poplar, and would have persuaded him to quit the church for the stage, observing that “it usually paid the larger salaries of the two,” an advice which he had too much sense to follow. For great part of his life, he had no other preferment than the small college living of Weston, in Norfolk, and the donative of Poplar, in Middlesex, where he resided. To these his college added, some years after, the donative of Romfbrd, in Essex. “Between these two places the curricle of his life had,” as he expressed it, “rolled for some time almost perpetually upon post-chaise wheels, and left him not time for even the proper studies of ceconomy, or the necessary ones of his profession.” Yet in this obscure situation he remained in possession of, and content with, domestic happiness; and was honoured with the intimate friendship of some who were not less distinguished for learning than for worth: among these, it maybe sufficient to mention Dr. Lowth, Mr. Christopher Pitt, Mr. Spence, and Dr. Berriman. To the last of these he was curate and executor, and preached his funeral sermon. In 1740 and 1741, he preached “Eight Sermons at Lady Moyer’s lecture,” which were published in 1742, 8vo, and at different times, several occasional sermons. In 1756, he declined an offer of going to Ireland as first chaplain to the duke of Bedford; in return for which he was to have had the choice of promotion, either at Christ-church, Canterbury, Westminster, or Windsor. His modesty inducing him to leave the choice of these to hispatron, the consequence was, that he obtained none of them. In 1761 he published, in 4to, “De Syriacarum novi fcederis versionum indole atque usu, dissertatio,” occasioned by a Syriac version, which, with two others, were sent to him nearly thirty years before, by one Mr. Samuel Palmer from Amida, in Mesopotamia. His age and growing infirmities, the great expence of printing, and the want of a patron, prevented him from availing himself of these Mss.; yet at intervals he employed himself on a transcript, which being put into the hands of professor White, was published a few years ago, with a literal Latin translation, in 2 vols. 4to, at the expence of the delegates of the Clarendon press. In 1763 he published the “Life of bishop Ridley,” in quarto, by subscription, and cleared by it as much as brought him 800l. in the public funds. In this, which is the most useful of all his works, he proved himself worthy of the name he bore, a thorough master of the popish controversy, and an able advocate for the reformation. In 1765 he published his “Review of Philips’ s Life of Cardinal Pole” (see Philips); and in 17 6S, in reward for his labours in this controversy, and in another which “The Confessional” produced, he was presented by archbishop Seeker to a golden prebend in the cathedral church of Salisbury (an option), but it is probably a mistake that Seeker honoured him with the degree of D. D. that honour having been conferred upon him by the university of Oxford in 1767, by diploma, the highest mark of distinction they can confer. At length, worn out with infirmities, he departed this life in Nov. 1774, leaving a widow and four daughters. An elegant epitaph, written by Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, is inscribed upon his monument. Two poems by Dr. Ridley, one styled “Jovi Eleutherio, or an Offering to Liberty,” the other called “Psyche,” are in the third volume of Dodsley’s Collection. The sequel of the latter poem, entitled, “Melampus,” with “Psyche,” its natural introduction, was printed in 1782, by subscription, for the benefit of his widow. Many others are in the 8th volume of Nichols’s “Collection.” The Mss. Codex Heraclensis, Codex Barsalibaei, &c. (of which a particular account may be seen in his Dissertation “De Syriacarum Novi Fcederis versionum indole atque usu, 1761,”) were bequeathed by Dr. Ridley to the library of New college, Oxford. Of these ancient Mss. a fac-simile specimen was published in his Dissertation above mentioned. A copy of “The Confessional,” with ms notes by Dr. Ridley," was in the library of the- late Dr. Winchester.

By this artful falsehood, he so animated his auditors, that they declared they would make no scruple of securing these treasures for whatever end might be most convenient, and that they were devoted to his will. Having obtained so much to secure his adherents from a revolt, he tendered them a paper, superscribed, “an oath to procure the good establishment;” and made them subscribe and swear to it, before he dismissed them. By what means he prevailed on the pope’s vicar to give a tacit sanction to his project is not certainly known; that he did procure that sanction, and that it was looked on as a master-piece of policy, is generally admitted. The 20th of May, being Whitsunday, he fixed upon to sanctify in some sort his enterprize; and pretended, that all he acted was by particular inspiration of the Holy Ghost. About nine, he came out of the church bare-headed, accompanied by the pope’s vicar, surrounded by an hundred armed men. A vast crowd followed him with shouts and acclamations. The gentlemen conspirators carried three standards before him, on which were wrought devices, insinuating, that his design was to re-establish liberty, justice, and peace. In this manner he proceeded directly to the capitol, where he mounted the rostrum; and, with more boldness and energy than ever, expatiated on the miseries to which the Romans were reduced; at the same time telling them, without hesitation, *' that the happy hour of their deliverance was at length come, and that he was to be their deliverer, regardless of the dangers he was exposed to for the service of the holy father and the people’s safety.“After which, he ordered the laws of what he called the good establishment to be read: and assured that the Romans would resolve to observe these laws, he engaged in a short time to re-establish them in their ancient grandeur. The laws of the good establishment promised plenty and security, which were greatly wanted; and the humiliation of the nobility, who were deemed common oppressors. Such laws could not fail of being agreeable to a people who found in them these double advantages; and therefore enraptured with the pleasing ideas of a liberty to which they were at present strangers, and the hope of gain, they adopted most zealously the fanaticism of Rienzi.-^­They resumed the pretended authority of the Romans; they declared him sovereign of Rome, and granted him the power of life and death, of rewards and punishments, of enacting and repealing the laws, of treating with foreign powers; in a word, they gave him the full and supreme authority over all the extensive territories of the Romans. Rienzi, arrived at the summit of his wishes, kept at a great distance his artifice: he pretended to be very unwilling to accept of their offers, but upon two conditions; the first, that they should nominate the pope’s vicar (the bishop of Orvieto) his co-partner the second, that the pope’s consent should be granted him, which (he told them) he flattered himself he should obtain. On the one hand, he hazarded nothing in thus making his court to the holy father, and, on the other, he well knew, that the bishop of Orvieto would carry a title only, and no authority. The people granted his request, but paid all the honours to him: he possessed the authority without restriction; the good bishop appeared a mere shadow and veil to his enterprizes. Rienzi was seated in his triumphal chariot, like an idol, to triumph with the greater splendor. He dismissed the people replete with joy and hope. He ^eized upon the palace, where he continued after he had turned out the senate; and, the same day, he began to dictate his laws in the capitol. This election, though not very pleasing to the pope, was ratified by him; yet Rienzi meditated the obtaining of a title, exclusive of the papal prerogative. Well versed in the Roman history, he was no stranger to the extent of the tribunitial authority; and, as he owed his elevation to the people, he chose to have the title of their magistrate. He asked it, and it was conferred on him and his co- partner, with the addition of deliverers of their country. Our adventurer’s behaviour in his elevation was at first such as commanded esteem and respect, not only from the Romans, but from all the neighbouring states. His contemporary, the celebrated Petrarch, in a letter to Charles, king of the Romans, gives the following account of him:” Not long since a most remarkable man, of the plebeian race, a person whom neither titles nor virtues had distinguished until he presumed to set himself up for a restorer or the Roman liberty, has obtained the highest authority at Rome. So sudden, so great is his success, that this man has already won Tuscany and all Italy. Already Europe and the whole world are in motion; to speak the whole in one word, I protest to you, not as a reader, but as an eye-witness, that he has restored to us the justice, peace, integrity, and every other token of the golden age.“But it is difficult for a person of mean birth, elevated at once, by the caprice of fortune, to the most exalted station, to move rightly in a sphere in which he must breathe an air he has been unaccustomed to. Rienzi ascended by degrees the summit of his fortune. Riches softened, power dazzled, the pomp of his cavalcades animated, and formed in his mind ideas adequate to those of princes born to empire. Hence luxury invaded his table, and tyranny took possession of his heart. The pop conceived his designs contrary to the interests of the holy see, and the nobles, whose power it had been his constant endeavours to depress, conspired against him; and Rienzi was forced to quit an authority he had possessed little more than six months. It was to a precipitate flight that he was indebted, at this juncture, for his life; and to different disguises for his subsequent preservation. Having made an ineffectual effort at Rome, and not knowing where to find a new resource to carry on his designs, he took a most bold step, conformable to that rashness which had so often assisted him in his former exploits. He determined to go to Prague, to Charles, king of the Romans, whom the year before he had summoned to his tribunal, and who he foresaw would deliver him up to a pope highly incensed against him. He was accordingly soon after sent to Avignon, and there thrown into a prison, where he continued three years. The divisions and disturbances in Italy, occa* sioned by the number of petty tyrants that had established themselves in the ecclesiastical territories, and even at Rome, occasioned his enlargement. Innocent VI. who succeeded Clement in the papacy, sensible that the Romans still entertained an affection for our hero, and believing that his chastisement would teach him to act with more moderation than he had formerly done, as well as that gratitude would oblige him, for the remainder of his life, to preserve au inviolable attachment to the holy see (by whose favour he should be re-established), thought him a proper instrument to assist his design of reducing those other tyrants; and therefore, not only gave him his liberty, but also appointed him governor and senator of Rome. He met with many obstacles to the assumption of this newly-granted authority, all which, by cunning and resolution, he at length over> came. But giving way to his passions, which were immoderately warm, and inclined him to cruelty, he excited so general a resentment against him, that he was murdered, Oct. 8, 1354.” Such,“say his biographers,” was the end of Nicolas Rienzi, one of the most renowned men of the age; who, after forming a conspiracy full of extravagance, and executing it in the sight of almost the whole world, with such success that he became sovereign of Rome; after causing plenty, justice, and liberty to flourish among the Romans; after protecting potentates, and terrifying sovereign princes; after being arbiter of crowned heads; after re-establishing the ancient majesty and power of the Roman republic, and filling all Europe with his fame during the seven months of his first reign after having compelled his masters themselves to confirm him in the authority he bad usurped against their interests; fell at length at the end of his second, which lasted not four months, a sacrifice to the nobility whose ruin he had vowed, and to those vast projects which his death prevented him from putting into execution."

, a poetical critic and editor, was born Oct. 2, 1752, at Stockton-upon-Tees, in the county of Durham, and was bred to the profession of the law, which he practised chiefly in the conveyancing branch. In 1785 he purchased the office of high bailiff of the liberties of the Savoy, and retained it until his death. These seem the only particulars of Mr. Ritson’s progress in his profession, which have been recorded by his friends. He became, however, far better known for his researches into the antiquities of English literature, particularly poetry; and these he was enabled to carry on for many years, by dint of memory and extraordinary industry. In recovering dates, assigning anonymous fragments to their authors, and those other minute particulars which are important to poetical antiquaries, Mr. Ritson had perhaps few superiors; but all he performed was disgraced by a harsh, rugged, and barren style, and an affectation of a new orthography, and yet more by the contempt, approaching to malignity, with which hfe treated Mr. Warton, Mr. Malone, and his other contemporaries who had acquired any name in the world. Although not absolutely incapable of civility, his conversation partook much of the harshness of his writings; and giving the lie was not uncommon with him, even when the subject in dispute had nothing in it to excite passion. His wretched temper seems also to have been exasperated by the state of public affairs, his hatred of the reigning family, and his attachment to republicanism. Many instances might be given of his unhappy prejudices, but it appeared at last that the whole might be traced to a diseased mind, which was completely overthrown by insanity. When this became too visible to be neglected, he was removed to a receptacle for insane persons at Hoxton, where he died a few days after, Sept. 3, 1803, leaving many works which will prove useful and interesting to poetical antiquaries long after the peculiarities of his temper are forgotten. His first publication was an anonymous quarto pamphlet of “Observations on the three volumes of Warton’s History of English Poetry;” one of the most illiberal productions that had then appeared. He wrote, also anonymously, three sets of. remarks on the editors of Shakspeare: I. On Mr. Sieevens’s edition, 1773, entitled “Remarks, critical and illustrative, on the Text and Notes of the last edition of Shakspeare,” 8vo; 2. “The Quip modest,” &c. on Mr. Reed’s republication of that edition, particularly illiberal 3. “Cursory Criticisms,” &c. on Mr. Malone’s edition. He published also a select collection of English Songs, in 3 vols. 8vo. Ancient Songs, from the time of Henry III. to the Revolution, 8vo. A volume of pieces of ancient popular poetry, 8vo. “The English Anthology,” a selection of poetry, in 3 small octavo volumes. “Robin Hood; a collection of all the ancient Poems, Songs, affd Ballads, now extant, relative to that celebrated Outlaw. To which are added, Historical Anecdotes of his Life,” 1795, 2 vols. 8vo. A collection of Scotch Songs, with the genuine Music, 2 vols. 12mo. “Biographia Poetica a Catalogue of English Poets of the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries; with a short Account of their Works.” 1801, 12mo. He put his name to “Ancient English Metrical Romances; selected and published by Joseph Ritson,” 1802, 3 vols. 12mo. This last publication is perhaps the least interesting of the list.

, a French writer, chiefly on subjects of bibliography and literary history, was born May 19, 1730, at Apt in Provence, and was bred to the church. He was first professor of philosophy in the seminary of Sh Charles, at Avignon, a situation for which he was not very well qualified. He then became curate of Molleges, in the diocese of Aries, but was not much better satisfied with this than his preceding occupation, as he had more taste for bibliographical researches than for pastoral duties. While here he had the credit of an amour with a married woman, that did not advance him much in the public opinion; and when the husband reproached him, the abbe threw him headlong out of the window, from which, however, he received no great injury. In 1767 he came to Paris, and his turn for books being already known, the duke de Valliere appointed him his librarian, and in allusion to his arrogant manner of deciding on literary points, used to call him his bull-dog. On the revolution breaking out, he became one of the most implacable of the anarchists, and denounced vengeance on the clergy, the nobility, and especially those writers who were his rivals in bibliographical pursuits, particularly William Debure, and the abbe Mercier, to whom he was uncommonly abusive. He afterwards led a life of turbulence and hostility, which at last closed at Marseilles in 1792. Among his numerous publications, the most useful were, 1. “Eclaircissemens sur l'inyention des Cartes a jouer,” Paris, 1780, 8vo. 2. “Prospectus sur Tessai de verifier Page de Miniatures,” such as appear on manuscripts from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century; ibid. 1782, fol. 3. “Notices historiques et critiques sur deux manuscrits de la bibliotheque du due de la Valliere,” ibid. 1779, 4to. 4. “Notices sur le traite manuscrit de Galeotto Martio, intitule De Excelientibus,” ibid. 1785, 8vo. 5. “Histoire critique de la Pyramide de Caius Sestius,” &c. ibid. 1787, foi. 6. La Chasse aux Bibliographes et aux Antiquaires mal avises,“ibid. 1789, 2 vols. a receptacle of almost every kind of abuse and awkward wit against Le Long, Debure, Mercier, &c. 7.”Dictionnaire de critique litteraire," &c. with other works of a similar kind, which are very scarce even in France, as he printed but a small number of each edition.

It was during the same time that he formed his fine collection of coins, which is now in the British museum, having been purchased by the trustees with consent of parliament. This collection was begun to be formed when Barre was very young. He accidentally saw a few Roman coins in his father’s possession, which he presently got transferred to his own. They were hoarded by him with infantine care, and esteemed by him as invaluable property. The occasional presents of friends, and such specimens as a child’s pocket-money could procure, soon increased the store, which he would display and comment upon with the air and importance of a connoisseur. As he advanced in age, however, he perceived that to form a complete and universal collection of coins was an object only in the power of individuals possessed of larger means than he could ever expect to enjoy. He therefore relinquished it in this character, and confined his attention only to those connected with his own country. His father encouraged the pursuit, as he followed it in the light of a science, which illustrated and confirmed him in his historical studies; and his name as a collector soon became known among the dealers, who did not fail to bring him whatever could be discovered most rare and curious in their line of search.

In 1549 he was associated with other divines, ordered by Edward VIth’s council to form the new liturgy or common prayer; and thus far, as Dodd remarks, he complied with the reformers; but it does not appear that he advanced much further. In queen Mary’s reign, 1557, he was made dean of Durham, and refused a bishopric. This dignity he might have retained when Elizabeth came to the throne, or have obtained an equivalent; but he refused to take the oath of supremacy. Nothing more is known with certainty of his history, unless that he died about 1560. Among the records collected at the end of Burnet’s History of the Reformation, are, of Robertson’s, “Resolutions of some questions concerning the Sacraments,” and “Resolutions of Questions relating to Bishops and Priests.” His grammatical tracts, entitled “Annotationes in Lib. Gulielmi Lilii.de Lat. Norn, generibus,” &c. were printed together at Basil, 1542, 4to. His reputation as a correct grammarian and successful teacher was very great. Strype says, that after refusing the oath of supremacy, he began to propagate his opinions against the reformation, and was overlooked; but Willis thinks he was taken into custody.

In consequence of the interruption of Dr. Robertson’s plans, which was produced by the American revolution, he was led to think of some other subject which might, in the mean time, give employment to his studious leisure. Many of his friends suggested the history of Great Britain from the Revolution to the accession of the house of Hanover; and he appears to have entertained some thoughts of acceding to their wishes. Mr. Gibbon, with whom he was in the habit of intimate correspondence, recommended to him to write a history of the Protestants in France. What answer he returned to this is not known; nor have we learned what the circumstances were which induced him to lay aside his plan with respect to the history of England. For some time, however, he seems to have relinquished all thoughts of writing any more for the publick. His circumstances were now independent, he was approaching to the age of sixty, with a constitution considerably impaired by a sedentary life. He retired from the business of the General Assembly about the year 1780; and, for seven or eight years, divided the hours which he could spare from his professional duties between the luxury of reading and the conversation of his friends. To this literary leisure the public is indebted for a valuable performance, of which the materials seem almost insensibly to have swelled to a volume, long after his most intimate friends imagined that he had renounced all tt ughts of the press. The “Historical Disquisition concerning the knowledge which the Ancients had of India, and the Progress of Trade with that country prior to the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope,” 1791, 4to, took its rise, as he himself informs us, from the perusal of major Rennet’s excellent memoir for illustrating his map of Hindostan. This suggested to his mind the idea of examining, more fully than he had done in his History of America, into the knowledge which the ancients had of India: and of considering what is certain, what is obscure, and what is fabulous in their accounts of that remote country. It is divided into four sections. He published this work in his sixty-eighth year; and it appears to have been written in about twelve months. Although less amusing to common readers than his former works, and become less interesting wpon the whole, in consequence of the discoveries since brought to light in Asia, it is not inferior in diligence of research, soundness of judgment, or perspicuity of method.

, an eminent French mathematician, was born in 1602, at Roberval, a parish in the diocese of Beauvais. He was first professor of mathematics at the college of Maitre-Gervais, and afterwards at the college-royal. A similarity of taste connected him with Gassendi andMorin; the latter of whom he succeeded in the mathematical chair at the royal college? without quitting, however, that of Ramus. Roberval made experiments on the Torricellian vacuum: he invented two new kinds of balance, one of which was proper for weighing air; and made many other curious experiments. He was one of the first members of the ancient academy of sciences of 1666; but died in 1675, at seventy-thre years of age. His principal works are, 1. “A treatise on Mechanics.” 2. A work entitled “Aristarchus Samos.” Several memoirs inserted in the volumes ofl the academy of sciences of 1666; viz. 1. Experiments concerning the pressure of the air. 2. Observations on the composition of motion, and on the tangents of curve lines. 3. The recognition of equations. 4. The geometrical resolution of plane and cubic equations. 5. Treatise on indivisibles. 6. On the Trochoicl, or Cycloid. 7. A letter to father Mersenne. 8. Two letters from Torricelli. 9. A new kind of balance. Robervallian Lines were his, for the transformation of figures. They bound spaces that are infinitely extended in length, which are nevertheless equal to other spaces that are terminated on all sides. The abbot Gallois, in the Memoirs of the Royal Academy, anno 1693, observes, that the method of transforming figures, explained at the latter end of RobervaPs treatise of indivisibles, was the same with that afterwards published by James Gregory, in his Geometria Ujiiversalis, and also by Barrow in his LectiotteV Geometric^; and that, by a letter of Torricelli, it appears, that Roberval was the inventor of this manner of transforming figures, by means of certain lines, which Torricelli therefore called Robervaliian Lines. He adds, that it is highly probable, that J. Gregory first learned the method in the journey he made to Padua in 1668, the method itself having been known in Italy from 164-6, though the book was not published till 1692. This account David Gregory has endeavoured to refute, in vindication of his uncle James. His answer is inserted in the Philos. Trans, of 1694, and the abbot rejoined in the French Memoirs of the Academy of 1703.

In 1748, came out lord Anson’s “Voyage round the World;” which, though ifc carries Walter’s name in the title-page, was in reality written by Robins. Of this voyage the public had, for some time, been in expectation of seeing an account, composed under his lordship’s own inspection: for which purpose the rev. Richard Walter was employed, as having been chaplain to the Centurion the greatest part of the expedition. Walter had accordingly almost finished his task, having brought it down to his own departure from Macao for England; when he proposed to print his work by subscription. It was thought proper, however, that?.n able judge should first review and correct it, and Robins was appointed; when, upon examination, it was resolved, that the whole should be written entirely by Robins, and that what Walter iiad done, being almost all taken verbatim from the journals, should serve as materials only. Hence the introduction entire, and many dissertations in the body of the book, were composed by Robins, without receiving the least hint from Walter’s manuscript; and what he had thence transcribed regarded chiefly the wind and the weather, the currents, courses, bearings, distances, offings, soundings, moorings, the qualities of the ground they anchored on, and such particulars as generally fill up a sailor’s account. No production of this kind ever met with a more favourable reception, four large impressions being sold off within a twelvemonth: it has been translated into most of the European languages; and it still supports its reputation, having been repeatedly reprinted in various sizes. The fifth edition at London in 1749 was revised* and corrected by Robins himself. He was next requested to compose an apology for the unfortunate affair at Preston Pans in Scotland. This was prefixed as a preface to “The Report of the Proceedings and Opinion of the Board of General Officers on their examination into the conduct of Lieutenant-general sir John Cope, &c.” printed at London in 1749 and this preface was esteemed a master-piece in its kind. Afterwards, Robins had, by the favour of lord Anson, opportunities of making farther experiments in gunnery; which have been published since his death. He also not a little contributed to the improvements made in the royal observatory at Greenwich, by procuring for it, through the interest of the same noble person, a second mural quadrant and other instruments, by which it became perhaps the completest observatory then known. His reputation being now arrived at its full height, he was offered the choice of two very considerable employments. The first was to go to Paris, as one of the commissaries for adjusting the limits in Acadia; the other, to be engineer-general to the East India Company, whose forts, being in a most ruinous condition, wanted a capable person to put them into a posture of defence. This latter he accepted, as it was suitable to his genius, and as the Company’s terms were both advantageous and honourable. He designed, if he had remained in England, to have written a second part of the “Voyage round the World” as appears by a letter from lord Anson to him, dated “Bath, October 22, 1749”

"At length lord Peterborough made his declaration to her on honourable terms; he found it would be vain to make proposals on any other; and as he omitted no circumstance that could engage her esteem and gratitude, she accepted them, as she was sincerely attached to him. He earnestly requested her keeping it a secret till it was a more convenient time for him to make it known, to which she readily consented, having a perfect confidence in his honour. Among the persons of distinction that professed a friendship for Mrs. A. Robinson, were the earl and countess of Oxford, daughter-in-law to the lord-treasurer Oxford, who not only bore every public testimony of their affection and esteem for Mrs. A. Robinson, but lady Oxford attended her when she was privately married to the earl of Peterborough, and lady Peterborough ever acknowledged her obligations with the warmest gratitude; and after lady Oxford’s death she was particularly distinguished by the duchess of Portland, lady Oxford’s daughter, and was always mentioned by her with the greatest kindness for the many friendly offices she used to do her in her childhood when in lady Oxford’s family, which made a lasting impression upon the duchess of Portland’s noble and generous heart.

In 1773, as his salary was inadequate to provide for his numerous family (he married in 1759), he removed to Chesterton, near Cambridge, and commenced farmer, to which, in time, he added the business of a dealer in corn and coals. These occupations, however, did not interrupt his literary pursuits, nor do they appear to have been very profitable. He was first known as an author by publishing, in 1774, “Arcana,” a pamphlet respecting the petition “to parliament for relief in matters of subscription; and the following year, an appendix to Alleyne’s” Legal Degrees of Marriage.“It consists of a discussion of the question,” Is it lawful and right for a man to marry the sister of his deceased wife?“in which he maintained the affirmative. In the same year he published a volume of” Sermons," translated from the French of Saurin, which was followed, at different periods, by four others. Introductory to these volumes are prefatory dissertations, containing memoirs of the reformation in France, and the life of Saurin, together with reflections on deism, Christian liberty, &c.

Accordingly he was ranked high from the schools, being placed in the first class; so as to be a competitor with those who were far his superiors in depth of reading. He stood seventh in the senate-house examination; which was considered a high degree at that time, for one who had not enjoyed the advantage of a private tutor. Dr. Tomline, the present bishop of Lincoln, the senior wrangler of the year, with whom he was engaged in this honourable competition for academical distinction, is well known to have expressed a high respect for Mr. Robinson’s character, and for his attainments as a scholar. Mr. Robinson at this time used to say that he never expected to cope with his lordship and with his other competitors, who were placed before him, in algebra and fluxions; what he knew was chiefly in philosophy. Locke’s “Essay,” and Butler’s “Analogy,” which he had studied attentively, were also of service to him in the examination. His friends, who could duly estimate hrs talents, were anxious that be should be a candidate for one of the classical medals; hut he declined offering himself, through the determination he had formed of entering as soon as possible into the church. He was elected fellow of Trinity-college, with peculiar circumstances of distinction, Oct. 1, 1772; and in 1773 he obtained the second of the middle bachelor’s prizes for the best Latin essay on some moral subject. On this occasion he had eight competitors. Dr. James, the late head roaster of Rugby-school, who particularly excelled in writing Latin prose, gained the first prize; but Mr. Robinson was allowed to be at this time the best general scholar of his year; and his seniors, who were most competent tq decide upon his literary merits, declared that they had not known his superior. His biographer gives us an anecdote which shows, in a very striking point of view, the character he held among his contemporaries. An attempt was made, during his under-graduateship, to set aside subscription to the Thirty-nine articles. Some young men went about the university, endeavouring to prevail upon the under-graduates to sign a petition for that purpose. In Trinity-college, the first question which the undergraduates put to those persons who applied to them was, “Has Robinson signed the petition?” and they declined signing it, when they found he had not and the argument which the persons applying made use of to prevail upon Mr. Robinson to sign was, “If you will sign, all the under-graduates in Trinity-college will sign.” Mr. Robinson, it is scarcely necessary to add, refused to sign this petition.

, prince of Marsillac, and governor of Poitou, was born in 1613. He was the son of Francis, the first duke of Rocbefoucault, and was distinguished equally by his courage and his wit. At the instigation of the duchess de Longueville, to whom he had been long attached, he engaged in the civil wars, and signalized himself, particularly at the battle of St. Antoine. After his return his house became the rendezvous of all the wits of Paris, Racine, Boileau, &c. who were captivated by the charms of his conversation. He died at Paris in 1680, aged seventy-seven. As a writer he is chiefly known by a small work, which has often been reprinted in this country, in English, entitled “Maxims,” of which Voltaire has not scrupled so say, that it contributed more than any performance to form the taste of the French nation, and give it a true relish of propriety and correctness. “Though there is,” continues he, “but one truth running through this whole piece, namely, that ‘ selflove is the spring of all our actions and determinations;’ yet this thought presents itself under such a variety of forms as never fail to strike with new surprise. It is not so properly a hook itself, as a set of materials to embellish a book. This little collection was much read and admired; it accustomed our authors to think, and to comprise their thoughts in a lively, correct, and delicate turn of phrase; which was a merit utterly unknown to any European writer before him since the revival of letters.” It has, however, been mostly admired by those who entertain an unfavourable opinion of mankind, and who have been soured by disappointment and misfortune, particularly by disappointed ambition. Chesterfield and Swift are on the side of Rochefoucault. We have also of this noble author “Memoires de la Regence de la Reine Anne d'Autriche,” written with great sense and a deep penetration.

With the brilliant victory of the 12th of April sir George closed his professional career; to his title was added a pension of 2000l. to descend to his heirs. He died in London the 24th of May, 1792. For his important services to the West Indian islands in particular, a temple was built to receive his statue at Spanish Town, Jamaica. but few his equals. He possessed a bold and original genius, which always carried him direcily to the object he had in view. As a man, he was benevolent, generous, and friendly. He has been known to be writing his private letters, and dictating to three secretaries at the same time. “In private life he displayed the manners of an accomplished gentleman and he who, when called by his country, could hurl its thunders against the foes, and lead its navies to almost undeviating victory, was, in peace, the ornament of domestic society, and a pattern of that elegant and polished behaviour, which almost always distinguishes the higher orders among us.”

Many other things, that need not be here enumerated, fell to Dr. Roebuck’s share in preparing and providing for the introduction of this new manufacture into Scotland, particularly with respect to the planning and erection of the furnaces and machinery. To insure success in that department, nothing was omitted which ability, industry, and experience could suggest. With this view he called in the assistance of Mr. Smeaton, then by far the first engineer in England, and from him received plans and drawings of the water-wheels and blowing apparatus, which, notwithstanding all the mechanical improvements which have been made since, remain unrivalled in any of the other ironworks erected in Britain. This was the first introduction of Mr. Smeaton into Scotland, and was the occasion of various other displays of the skill and experience of that celebrated engineer ia that part of the island. With the same view, and to the same effect, in a future period of his operations, he employed the celebrated Mr.jJames Watt, then of Glasgow, and had the merit of rendering that inventive genius in the mechanical arts, better known both in Scotland and England. The necessary preparations for the establishment of the iron works at Carron were finished in the end of the year 1759, and on Jan. 1, 1760, the first furnace was blown; and in a short time afterwards a second was erected. The subsequent progress of this great work, the many improvements introduced, and its vast importance to Scotland, are matters of local history and interest, on which we cannot enter in this place; but enough has been said to prove that it is to Dr. Roebuck that country owes these great advantages.

From the time of his admission into the Custom-house, he employed his leisure hours in the cultivation of his mind, and in forming the valuable collection of prints and drawings which he left behind him. In the course of these pursuits, he became acquainted with several persons of similar taste, and among the rest Mr. Pond, a well-known and judicious collector. By him he was introduced to the society of Antiquaries, Feb. 23, 1752, of which he became a very useful member, and was several times chosen of the council. In 1757, he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society. After Mr. Rogers had begun to form his collections, and had made some progress, he conceived the idea of communicating, to the public, specimens of the manners of the several different masters, a work requiring great industry and perseverance, and likely to be attended with great expence. The former he knew he could command, and the latter, as he was a bachelor, gave him little concern. The execution of this undertaking may be considered as the principal object of his life. It appeared in 1777, 2 volumes, folio, under the title of “Description of a Collection of Prints in imitation of drawings, to which are annexed, Lives of their authors, with explanatory and critical notes.” The selection consists of 112 prints, engraved by Bartolozzi, Ryland, Basire, and other artists of reputation, from original drawings in the collections of his majesty, the duke of Marlborough, earls of Bute, Cholmondely, Spencer, lord Frederick Campbell, sir Joshua Reynolds, and his own. The, heads of the different painters, and a variety of fanciful decorations, are also given, in a peculiar style of engraving on wood, by Mr. Simon Watts. The whole performance at once reflects honour on the country, as well as on the liberality of the undertaker, who neither was, nor, it is supposed, ever expected to be reimbursed the great expence he had incurred. Besides this work, Mr. Rogers printed an anonymous <; Translation of Dante’s Inferno,“1782, 4to, in the performance of which he chiefly attended to giving the sense of his author with fidelity, the character of a poet not seeming to have been the object of Ins ambition. He also published in the” Archseologia," vol. III. a paper on the antiquity of horseshoes and in vol. VI. an account of certain masks from the Musquito shore. A curious letter of his, to Mr. Astle, on some ancient blocks used in printing, may be seen in Gent. Mag. vol. LI. p. 169; and another paper, which was read at the Society of Antiquaries, Feb. 18, 1779, is preserved in vol. L1V. p. 265. Mr. Rogers died Jan. 2, 1784, and was buried in the family-vault in St. Lawrence Pountney burying-ground.

After being confined six months in his own house he was removed to Newgate, where his confinement was aggravated by every species of severity and in January 1555, was examined before Gardiner, bishop of Winchester the purport of his examination, as written by himself, isgiven at considerable length by Fox, but is not capable of abridgment. The issue was that Mr. Rogers was condemned to be burnt on Feb. 4, which sentence he bore with the greatest constancy and patience. On the day of his execution he was awakened with some difficulty out of a sound sleep, and only requested of Bonner, who came to perform the office of degrading him from holy orders, that he might see his family; but this was denied him. On his way, however, to Smithfield, his wife and ten children, with one at the breast, contrived to meet him. When he came to the stake, although not permitted to say much, he exhorted the people to remain steady in the faith and doctrine which had been taught them, and for which he was now willingto resign his life. As he was the first who had suffered in this reign, and one well known for his piety and usefulness, his death made no slight impression on the multitude who witnessed it, many of whom were afterwards emboldened by such scenes as this wretched reign presented, either to suffer in the same cause, or to preserve the tenour and spirit of the reformation until the accession of Elizabeth restored them to their riberty.

, a French philosopher, was the son of a rich merchant at Amiens, and born there in 1620. He cultivated the languages and belles lettres in his own country, and then was sent to Paris to study philosophy. He seems to have been a lover of truth, and to have sought it with much impartiality. He read the ancient and modern philosophers; but was most struck with Des Cartes, of whom he became a zealous follower, and drew up an abridgment and explanation of his philosophy with great clearness and method. In the preface to his “Physics,” for so his work is entitled, he makes no scruple to say, that “the abilities and accomplishments of this philosopher must oblige the whole world to confess, that France is at least as capable of producing and raising men versed in all arts and branches of knowledge as ancient Greece.” Clerselier, well known for his translation of many pieces of Des Cartes, conceived such an affection for Rohault, on account of his attachment to this philosopher, that he gave him his daughter in marriage, against all the remonstrances of his family.

, a French writer of very great abilities, was the second son of a master-cutler at Paris and born there Jan. 30, 1661. He was intended, as well as his elder brother, for his father’s profession; when a Benedictine, perceiving in him a peculiar turn for letters, communicated this to his mother, and pressed her to give him a liberal education. The proposal was flattering, but as she had been left a widow, and had nothing to depend upon but the continuation of her late husband’s business, and was incapable of providing for his education, she was reluctant to lose the advantages of her son’s skill. The good Benedictine, however, removed part of her fears, by procuring the youth a pension in the college of Du Plessis, and Roliin was now suffered to pursue the natural bent of his inclination. He distinguished himself immediately by parts and application, and easily obtained the first rank among his felloe-students. Many stories are told to his advantage in this respect, and how he became known and esteemed by the minister Pelletier, whose two eldest sons were of Rollin’s class. He studied rhetoric in the college of Du Plessis under Mr. Hersan, whose custom it was to create emulation among his scholars, by bestowing on them epithets, each according to his merit; and is said to have declared in public, that he knew not sufficiently to distinguish the young Roliin otherwise than by giving hirn. the title of “Divine:” and when Hersan was asked for any piece in verse or prose, he used to refer them to Roliin, “who,” he said, “would do it better than he could.” Hersan intended Roliin for his successor, therefore first took him as an assistant in 1683, and afterwards, in. 1687, gave up the chair to him. The year after, Hersan, with the king’s leave and approbation, declined the professorship of eloquence in the royal college in favour of his beloved disciple Roliin, who was admitted into it. No man ever exercised the functions of it with greater eclat: he often made Latin orations, to celebrate the memorable events of the times; and frequently accompanied them with poems, which wer^ generally read and esteemed. In 1694, he was chosen rector of the university, and continued in that office two years, which was then a great mark of distinction. By virtue of his office, he spoke the annual panegyric upon Louis XIV. He made many useful regulations in the university, and particularly revived the study of the Greek language, which was then growing into neglect. He was a man of indefatigable attention, and trained innumerable persons, who did honour to the church, the state, and the army. The first president Portail was pleased one day to reproach Roilin in a jocular strain, as if he exceeded even himself in doing business: to whom Roilin replied, with that plainness and sincerity which was natural to him, “It becomes you well, Sir, to reproach me with this: it is this habit of labour in me, which has distinguished you in the place of advocate general, which has raised you to that of first president: you owe the greatness of your fortune to me,” Upon the expiration of the rectorship, cardinal Noailles engaged him to superintend the studies of his nephews, who were in the college of Laon; and in this office he was agreeably employed, when, in 1699, he was with great reluctance made coadjutor to the principal of the college of Beauvais. This college was then a kind of a desert, inhabited by very few students, and without any manner of discipline: but Rollings great reputation and industry soon made it a most flourishing society. In this situation he remained till 1712; when, the contests between the Jesuits and the Jansenists drawing towards a crisis, he fell a sacrifice to the prevalence of the former. F. Le Tellier, the king’s confessor, and bigoted agent of the Jesuits, infused into his master prejudices against Rollin, whose connections with cardinal de Noailles would alone have sufficed to have made him a Jansenist; and on this account he lost his share in the principality of Beauvais. No man, however, could have lost less in this than Rollin, who had every thing left him that was necessary to make him happy; retirement, books, and a decent competence. He now began to employ himself upon Quintilian; an author he justly valued, and not without uneasiness saw neglected. He retrenched in him whatever he thought rather curious than useful for the instruction of youth: he placed summaries or contents at the head of each chapter; and he accompanied the text with short select notes. His edition appeared in 1715, in 2 vols. 12mo, with an elegant preface, setting forth his method and views.

These were collected soon after his death, in uniform edition, with some additional pieces and a life, in which a very full account is given of his religious principles and ministerial labours. He appears to have been in some respects an extraordinary character. Although usually reproached with being a methodist, a word which is not always very clearly understood by those who employ it in the service of controversial animosity, he was one of the most zealous advocates for the church of England that has appeared in modern times. His attachment to her doctrines and discipline, indeed, was such as left him but a moderate share of respect for the dissenters, by whom he was often accused of intolerance and bigotry. Towards the close of life, however, it is said, he entertained more candour towards the Calvinist dissenters, although he was to the last a strenuous advocate for the service and forms of the church; and it is certain that many dissenters of the stricter sort contributed to increase his audiences, which were in general the fullest ever known in London. Nor ought it to be forgotten in the catalogue of his virtues that he evinced, in money matters, a great share of independent spirit. He refused large offers from the booksellers for the use of his name to religious compilations, and on one occasion no less than 500l. when his annual income did not amount to half the sum. His funeral, besides being attended by a very numerous concourse of friends, and a long train of carriages of persons of considerable rank, was honoured with the presence of the city marshals and other officers, and funeral sermons were preached on the occasion in various churches, some of which were afterwards published. Mr. Romaine married in 1755, a Miss Price, who survived him about six years, by whom he had a daughter who died young, and two sons, the eldest, Dr. Romaine of Reading, now living, the second, capt. Romaine, who died in 1782, at Trincomale, in the island of Ceylon.

After a long stay at Rome, Salvator was seized with a dropsy; and during his illness he married his mistress, a Florentine, by whom he had had several children. It was with the utmost reluctance he consented to this marriage. He had long known her to be a bad woman of low birth, and she had always behaved rather like a mistress over him, than a servant. He knew that he had shared her favours with several others: and the thoughts of her character made her, at this time, the object of his aversion; because he foresaw the loss of his honour (if he took her for a wife) of which he was extremely tender. He was persuaded, however, by the importunities of his confessor. A tedious illness made no alteration in his characteristic humour. He ended his daysatRome, in 1673, aged fifty-eight.

, a learned barrister, and a very amiable man, was born June 20, 1767, at Chiswick in Middlesex, where his father Dr. William Rose, a native of Scotland, conducted an academy during many years, with considerable emolument and unblemished reputation. Dr. Rose was known in the literary world as one of the earliest writers in the Monthly Review, and as the author of a very elegant translation of Sallust. He had originally been an assistant to Dr. Doddridge at Northampton, and married a daughter of Dr. Samuel Clark, of St. Alban’s, a divine of talents and eminence among the dissenters. She bore him many children; but Samuel was his only surviving son, and after a successful education under his father, was sent in 1784 to the university of Glasgow. There he resided in the house of the late professor Richardson, a philosopher and poet, between whom and his pupil, a friendship and correspondence commenced which terminated only with the life of the latter. Mr. Rose also gained the esteem of several other learned men in Scotland, with whom he afterwards maintained a correspondence. Nor was this wonderful, for his manners were uncommonly amiable and attractive, and his studies amply justified the respect paid to him. He gained every prize, except one, for which he. contended as a student of the university.

, a voluminous author of the seventeenth century, was born in 1590 in Scotland, and became a divine, but left that country in Charles I.'s reign, and was appointed one of his majesty’s chaplainsj and master of the free-school at Southampton. He died in 1654, leaving a handsome bequest to the above school, from which it is said he had retired for some time before his death, and passed the remainder of his days in the family of the Henleys of Hampshire, to whom he left a large library and a considerable sum of money, part of which was concealed among his books. Echard says “he was a busy, various, and voluminous writer, who by his pen and ether ways made a considerable noise and figure in these* times, and who so managed his affairs, that in the midst of these storms, he died very rich, as appears from the several benefactions he made.” We have a list before us of thirty pieces by this author, but whether published separately, each forming a volume, we know not. Most of them occur very seldom. Among them are some whose dates we have recovered, but cannot vouch for the accuracy of the list. 1. “Comment, de Terrae motu refutatum/' Lond. 1634, 4to. 2.” The new Planet no Planet^ or, the earth no wandering star,“ibid. 1640, 4to, reprinted in 1646. 3.” Virgilius Evangelizans;“ibid. 1634, 8vo. This is a cento on the life of Christ, collected entirely from Virgil. Granger says it is ingenious, and was deservedly admired. 4.” Medicus medicatus, or, the physician’s religion cured,“ibid. 1645, 8vo. Th;s was one of the pieces in which he attacked the reputation of sir Thomas Browne in his” ReJigio Medici.“We find him returning to the charge afterwards in a work entitled, 5.” Refutation of Dr. Browne’s Vulgar Errors,“ibid. 1652, 8vo. 6.” Observations upon sir Kenelm Digby’s Discourse on the nature of Bodies,“ibid. 1645, 4to. 7.” The picture of the Conscience,“ibid. 1646, 12mo. 8.” The Muses’ Interpreter,“ibid. 1646, 8vo. 9.” Arcana Microcosmi,“ibid. 1651 and 1652, 12mo and 8vo. 10.” Observations upon Hobbes’s Leviathan,“ibid. 1653, 12mo. 11.” Observations upon sir Walter Raleigh’s History of the World,“ibid. 12mo. After this he published” A Continuation“of that history, which Granger calls his” great work;“but adds, that it is like a piece of bad Gothic tacked to a magnificent pile of Roman architecture, which serves to heighten the effect of it, while it exposes its own deficiency in strength and beauty. 12.” An Epitome“of the same history. 13.” A View of all Religions,“the work for which he is best known, and which has passed through variotfs editions, the sixth in 1683. It had the merit of being the first compilation of the kind in our language, and attained a great degree of popularity. 14.” Abridgment and translation of John Wollebius’s Christian divinity,“ibid. 1657, 8vo. 15*” Three Decades of Divine Meditations,“no date. This is one of his poetical works, and valued in the” Bibliotheca Anglo-Poetica“at Si. tis. 16.” Mel Helreonium, or, Poetical Honey gathered out of the weeds of Parnassus, &c.“ibid. 1642, 8vo. This, of which an account is given by Mr. Park in the” Censura Literaria,“is an attempt to spiritualize the Greek and Roman mythology. In moral and metre it resembles Quarles. Of the following works we have no dates:” De rebus Judaicis, libri quatuor,“in hexameter verse;” Rasura tonsoris,“prose;” Chymera Pythagoria;“”Meditations upon Predestination;“” Questions upon Genesis;“” Melissomachia;“”Four books of Epigrams,“in Latin elegiacs” Mystagogus poeticus“”ColloquiaPlantina;“” Chronology,“in English” Christiados poematis libri tredecim," with others, which seem of doubtful authority.

, a learned Italian, who assumed and is generally known by the name of Janus Njcius Erythræus, was born at Rome, of a noble, but not opulent family, about 1577. He studied in the college of the Jesuits, and before he was nineteen years of age had made such progress in the law, that he was permitted to give lessons on the subject. These were so much admired by a magistrate of eminence, that he appointed Rossi his auditor; but as this gentleman died the same year, all his hopes from his patronage were disappointed. The law, however, still holding out the prospect of those honours to which he aspired, he omitted no opportunity of increasing his knowledge under the direction of Lepidus Piccolomini, one of the most famous lawyers of his time, and who advised him to turn pleader; but Piccolomini dying soon after, Rossi was so discouraged by this second disappointment that, as he had devoted himself to the study of the law rather from ambition than liking, he now determined to employ his time in the study of the belles lettres. With this view he became a member of the academy of the Umoristi, where he read several of his compositions, the style of which was so much admired by Marcel Vestri, secretary of the briefs to pope Paul V., that he invited Rossi to his house, to assist in drawing up the briefs, and with a view that he should be his successor in case of himself rising to higher preferment. Rossi soon made himself useful in this office, but unfortunately Vestri died in about eight months, and Rossi was again left unemployed, Many expedients he tried, and made many applications, but without success, and his only consolation, we are told, he derived from his vanity, which suggested to him that persons in office would not employ him, from a consciousness of their inferiority to him, and a jealousy of his supplanting them. It appears, however, that a certain satirical and arrogant temper was more to blame; for this was what he could not easily repress.

At length, in 1608, when he was in his thirty-first year, the cardinal Andrew Peretti took him into his service, as secretary, and with him he lived near twenty years, that is, until the cardinal’s death, in 1628. Rossi tells us in one of his letters that he accepted this situation much against his will, and remained in it only because he could obtain no other; and complain* of the little care the cardinal took to promote his dependents, and his general want of liberality towards them. His residence here, however, appears to have cured him of all his ambition, and he resolved for the future to devote himself to study only. From this time accordingly, he was employed in perusing the scriptures and the fathers, and in the composition of his various works; and that he might be enabled to enjoy all this in quiet, he went to a retired part of Rome, where he afterwards built a small church dedicated to St. Mary. In some of his works he styles himself a Roman citizen, and a commissary of the water of Marana; but, according to one of his letters to Fabio Chjgi, afterwards pope Alexander VIL, he neither knew what the duty of that office was, what this water of Marana was, where it came from, whither it flowed, or what benefit the people of Rome derived from it, except that he had been told it turned some mills. There was, however, an annual salary annexed, which he found not inconvenient. He died Nov. 15, 1647, and was interred in the church which he built for the use of the hermits of the congregation of Peter of Pisa, whom also he made his heirs. His first publication is entitled< Eudemiae libri Decem/* Cologne (Leyden), 1645. To this, which is a bitter satire on the corrupt manners of the Romans, he prefixed his assumed name of Janus Nicius Erythraeus. His other works consist of “Dialogues,” religious tracts, orations, and letters; but that for which he is most known is his “Pinacotheca imaginum illustrjum doctrinse vcl ingenii laude virorum, qui uuctore superstite diem suum ohierunt,” in three parts, Cologn, 1643—1648, reprinted at Leipsic in 1692, and in 1729. As containing many particulars of contemporary history, this is a work necessary to be consulted, but it contains more opinions than facts, and his criticisms are often injudicious.

In the ensuing winter he received some music from Italy, and, being now of age, it was agreed that he should go in the spring to Geneva, to demand the remains of his mother’s fortune. He went accordingly, and his father came also to Geneva, undisturbed, his affair being now buried in oblivion. No difficulty was occasioned by our author’s change of religion; his brother’s death not being legally proved, he could not claim his share, and therefore readily left it to contribute towards the maintenance of his father, who enjoyed it as long as be lived. At length he received his money, turned part of it into livres, and flew with the rest to “Mama,*' who received it without affectation, and employed most of it for his use. His health, however, decayed visibly, and he was again horribly oppressed with the vapours. At length his researches into anatomy made him suspect that his disorder was a polypus in the heart. Salomon seemed struck with the same idea. And having heard that M Fizes, of Montpellier, had cured such a polypus, he went immediately to consult him, assisted by the supply from Geneva. But two ladies, whom he met at Moirans, especially the elder, Mad. N. at once banished his fever, his vapours, his polypus, and all his palpitations, except those which she herself had excited, and would not cure. Without knowing a word of English, he here thought proper to pass for an Englishman and a Jacobite, and called himself Mr Budding. Leaving the other lady at Romans, with madam N. and an old sick marquis, he travelled slowly and agreeably to Saint Marcellin, Valence, Montelimar (before which the marquis left them), and at length, after having agreed to pass the winter together, these lovers (for such they became) parted with mutual regret. Filled with the ideas of madam N. and her daughter, whom she idolised, he mused from Pont St. Esprit to Remoulin. He visited Pont-du Card, the first work of the Romans that he had seen, and the Arena of Nimes, a work still more magnificent; in all these journeys forgetting that he was ill till he arrived at Montpellier. From abundant precaution he boarded with an Irish physician, named Fitz- Moris, and consulted M. Fizes, as madam N, had advised him. Finding that the doctors Jcnew nothing of his disorder, and only endeavoured to amuse him and make him” swallow his own money,“he left Montpellier at the end of November, after six weeks or two months stay, leaving twelve louis there for no purpose, save for a course of anatomy, just begun under M. Fitz-Moris, but which the horrible stench of dissected bodies rendered insupportable. Whether he should return to” Mama,“or go (as he had promised) to madam N. was now the question. Reason, however, here turned the scale. At Pont St. Esprit he burnt his direction, and took the road to Chambery,” for the first time in his life indebted to his studies, preferring his duty to pleasure, and deserving his own esteem.“At his return to madam de Warens, he found his place supplied by a young man of the Pays de Vaud, named Vintzenried, a journeyman barber, whom he paints in the most disgusting colours. This name not being noble enough, he changed it for that of M. de Courtilles, by which he was afterwards known at Chambery, and in Maurienne, where he married. He being every thing in the house, and Rousseau nothing, all his pleasures vanished like a dream, and at length he determined to quit this abode, once so dear, to which his” Mama" readily consented. And being invited to educate the children of M. de Maiby, grand provost of Lyons, he set out for that city, without regretting a separation of which the sole idea would formerly have been painful as death to them both. Unqualified for a preceptor, both by temper and manners, and much disgusted with his treatment by the provost, he quitted his family in about a year; and sighing for madam de Warens, flew once more to throw himself at her feet. She received him with good nature, but he could not recover the past. His former happiness, he found, was dead for ever. He continued there, however, still foreseeing her approaching ruin, and the seizure of her person; and to retrieve her affairs, forming castles in the air, and having made an improvement (as he thought) in musical notes, from which he had great expectations, he sold nis books, and set out for Paris, to communicate his scheme to tht academy.

It becomes necessary now to recur to some particulars of Rousseau’s more public and literary life, which was in many respects as censurable as his private. The commencement of his literary career was in 1750. The academy of Dijon had proposed the question, “Whether the revival of the arts and sciences has contributed to the refinement of manners.” Rousseau, it is said, at first inclined to the affirmative side of the question; but Diderot told him it was a kind of pons asinorum, and advised him to support the negative, and he would answer for his success. Nor was he disappointed, for this paradoxical discourse was allowed to be admirably written, and replete with the deepest reasoning, and was publicly crowned with the approbation of the academicians. Several answers appeared Against it, one of which was written by Stanislaus, king of Poland, who was, however, so much an admirer of Rousseau, that when the latter was ridiculed on the stage of Nancy, by Palissot, in his “Comedie des Philosophes,” the king, then duke of Lorraine, deprived Palissot of his place at the academy of Nancy. On this occasion Rousseau, with far more sense, interceded for him, and obtained his restoration. In 1752 Rousseau wrote a comedy entitled “Narcisse, ou PAmant de lui-meme.” He also composed a musical entertainment of “Le Devin du Village,” which was represented with the greatest success at Paris. His next piece was “Lettre sur la Musique Franchise,” which was to prove that the French had no such thing as vocal music, and that, from the defects in their language, they could not have it. This able work so excited the resentment of the French, that he is said to have been burnt in effigy. In 1754- he returned to Geneva, where he abjured the catholic faith, and was restored to the rights of citizenship. He now wrote his e< Discours sur les Causes de l'inegalite parmi les Hommes, et sur TOrigine des Societes.“This endeavour to prove that all mankind are equal has (in the opinion of a modern critic, by no means partial to Rousseau’s character) been much misunderstood by critics, and misrepresented by wits. Even by the author’s confession, it is rather ajeu d'esprit than a philosophical inquiry; for he owns that the natural state, such as he represents it, did probably never take place, and probably never will; and if it had taken place, he seems to think it impossible that mankind should ever have emerged from it without some very extraordinary alteration in the course of nature. He also says that this natural state is not the most advantageous for man; for that the most delightful sentiments of the human mind could not exert themselves till man had relinquished his brutal and solitary nature, and become a domestic animal. At this period, and previous to the establishment of property, he places the age most favourable to human happiness; which is precisely what the poets have done before him, in their descriptions of the golden age. After publishing this rhapsody, Rousseau did not remain long at Geneva, but returned to France, and lived some time at Paris, after which he retired to Montuiorency, and published, in 1758, his” Lettre“to M. D‘Alembert on the design of establishing a theatre at Geneva, which he proved could not be necessary in a place circumstanced as Geneva was. D’Alembert and Marmontel, however, replied, and Voltaire appears from this time to have begun his hatred for Rousseau, with whom he and the rest of the philosophers had hitherto cordially co-operated against the Christian religion. Rousseau wanted that uniform hatred to revealed religion which the others called consistency, and his fancy was apt to ramble bevond the limits they had set. In 1760 he published his 'celebrated novel entitled” Lettres de clt ux A mans,“c. bui generally known by the title of” Julie, ou la Nnuvelie Heloise.“This epistolary romance, of which the plofc is ill-managed, and the arrangement bad, like all other works of genius, has its beauties as well as its defects. Some of the letters are, indeed, admirable, both for style and sentiment, but none of the personages are reaily interesting. The character of St. Preux is weak, and often forced. Julia is an assemblage of tenderness and pity, of elevation af soul, and of coquetry, of natural parts and pedancry. Wolmar is a violent man, and almost beyond the limits of nature. In fine, when he wishes to change his style, and adopt that of the speaker, he does not long support it, and every attempt embarrasses the author and cools the reader. In this novel, however, Rousseau’s talent of rendering every thing problematical, appears very conspicuous, as, in his arguments in favour of, and against, duelling, which afford an apology for suicide, and a just condemnation of it; of his facility in palliating the crime of adultery, aud his strong reasons to make it abhorred; on the one hand, in declamations against social happiness, on the other in transports in favour of humanity; here in violent rhapsodies against philosophers; there by a rage for adopting their opinions; the existence of God is attacked by sophistry, and atheists confuted by the most irrefragable arguments; the Christian religion combated by the most specious objections, and celebrated by the most sublime eulogies. Yet in the preface to this work the author attempts to justify his consistency; he says public spectacles are necessary for great cities, and romances for a corrupted people.” I have,“he adds,” viewed the manners of my age, and have published these letters. Why did I not live at a time when I ought to have thrown them into the fire?“He affects also to say that they were not intended for an extensive circulation, and that they will suit but few readers. With regard to their effects on the female sex, he pretends to satisfy his conscience with saying” No chaste young woman ever reads romance^; and I have given this book a decisive title, that on opening it a reader may know what to expect. She who, notwithstanding, shall dare to read a single page, is undone; but let her not impute her ruin to me the mischief was done before.“Such is the impudence of this man, who had made his work as seductive as possible, and would have been greatly mortified if it had not produced its effect. Whoever, indeed, reads his” Confessions“will see that sensuality was, first and last, his predominant vice, and that moral corruption became early familiar to him. The only wonder is, that he should ever have been considered as a moral teacher, because, in order to introduce his depraved sophistry with more effect, he mixed with it some moral lessons. Yet there was a time when this was a favourite work even in our country, and it is to be feared, has been the pattern of many others, which, although written with less ability, have been encouraged in the same circles which once gave a fashion to Rousseau. His next attempt was to recommend republicanism in a work entitled” Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du Droit Politiqtie,“in which he bore his part, along with the Encyclopaedists, in exciting those awful delusions which produced the French revolution and all its disastrous consequences. It was, however, less cautious than some of his former productions, and was immediately prohibited in France and Switzerland; and hence his lasting enmity to all existing establishments, civil and religious, which brought on what he and his friends were pleased to consider as persecution. This appeared particularly in his” Emilie, ou de l'Education,“which was published in 1762. In this work, with many remarks that may be useful, there are others so mischievous and impious, that whenever it produces an effect, it must be of the worst kind. It was not, however, his dogmas on education only, which excited the public hostility to this work, so much as his insolent declamation against all which the world had agreed to hold sacred, mixed, as in his former novel, with an affected admiration of the morals of the gospel, and the character of its founder; and it is remarkable that, in this last condescension, he so much displeased his former colleagues, Voltaire, D'Alembert, &c. that they joined the public voice, although from different and concealed motives. In truth, they thought, like others, that there was too much of an insane inconsistency about Rousseau, and that no party could rank him among its supporters. In the mean time, as soon as published, the French parliament condemned this book, and entered into a criminal prosecution against the author, which forced him to a precipitate retreat. He directed his steps to his native country, but Geneva shut her gates against him, and both at Paris and Geneva, the” Emile“was burnt by the common hangman. At length he was for a time allowed to take shelter in Switzerland, where he published a letter to the archbishop of Paris, in answer to his tnandement for the burning of the” Emile;“and also his” JLettres de la Montagne,“in which occurs the following almost blasphemous paragraph:” How,“says he,” can I enter into a justification of this work? I, who think that I have effaced by it the faults of my whole life; I, who place the evils it has drawn upon me as a balance to those which I have committed; I who, filled with confidence, hope one day to say to the supreme Arbiter, ‘ Deign in thy clemency to judge a weak mortal:’ I have, it is true, done much ill upon earth, but I have published this writing.“In these letters too, he continued his hostility to revealed religion, in a manner that excited against him great indignation among the clergy of Neufchatel; and in September 1765, the populace attacked his house and his person, and with much difficulty he reached Strasburg in a very destitute condition, where he waited till the weather permitted, and then set out for Paris, and appeared in the habit of an Armenian. The celebrated Hume at this time resided in Paris, and being applied to in favour of Rousseau, undertook to find him an asylum in England, to which he accordingly conducted him in the beginning of the year 1766, and provided him with an agreeable situation. But Rousseau, whose vanity and perverse temper were ungovernable, and who thought he was not received in this country with the respect due to the first personage in Europe, which he conceived himself to be, took it in his head that Hume was in league with the French philosophers to injure his lame, and after abusing his benefactor in a letter, in the most gross manner, and even refusing a pension from the crown, left England in 1767, and went to France. At this period he published his” Dictionnaire de Musique.“Of this work Dr. Burney, after pointing out some defects, says, that” more good taste, intelligence, and extensive views are to be found in his original articles, not only than in any former musical dictionary, but in all the books on the subject of music which the literature of France can boast. And his ` Lettre sur la Musique Frangois,' may be safely pronounced the best piece of musical criticism that has ever been produced in any modern language. It must, however, be confessed, that his treatment of French music is very sarcastic, not to say contemptuous; but the music, the national character avantageux, and exclusive admiration of their own music, required strong Ian* guage. It had been proved long since, that they were not to be laughed out of their bad taste in any one of the fine arts: the national architecture, painting, and sculpture, were, in general, bad, and not what a traveller returning from Italy could bear to look at: though there have been now and then individual French artists of every kind, who have travelled and studied antiquity as well as the great masters of the Italian school; and it is now said, that at the Institute they are trying seriously to correct their errors, and to establish a classical taste throughout the empire."

, a voluminous French writer, was born at Laon, in Picardy, Aug. 26, 1686. His father and mother were of good families, both protestants, and sutrerers for their religion. His mother’s body was ordered to be drawn upon a hurdle, because she died in the protestant faith, and his father was condemned to be hanged for endeavouring to escape into Holland, but was saved at the intercession of the chancellor Voisin, who prevailed on the Jesuit La Chaise to obtain his pardon. His son was educated first at the college of Laon, and afterwards in that of Du Plessis at Paris, Having finished his philosophical studies, some family discontents, owing to the introduction of a step- mother, determined him to go to Holland, where he entered into the company of the French cadets attached to the regiment of guards belonging to the States-general. He served with reputation until after the battle of Malplaquet, when he returned to his studies, and married. In order to maintain himself and family, he commenced the business of teaching for fourteen or fifteen years at the Hague, and educated in that time above fifty young men of family, who afterwards rose to offices of distinction in the republic. This employment, however, he relinquished in 1723, in order to devote his time to the study of politics and history, and became editor or contributor to various literary and political journals, in which he was assisted by some Frenchmen of talents, who, like himself, had taken refuge in Holland. Political writers are not always safe, even in republics; and Rousset, in 1747, having written some pamphlets against the magistrates, and in favour of the prince of Orange, was arrested at Amsterdam, and confined for some weeks there or at the Hague; but when the prince was made Stadtholder, by the name of William IV. he not only released Rousset, but soon after conferred on him the title of counsellor extraordinary, and appointed him his historiographer. Returning now to Amsterdam, he plunged farther into politics by becoming one of the chiefs of the party known in that country by the name of Doelisten, from Doele, the name of a hotel where they assembled. This party obtained what they demanded, but the stadtholder wishing to unite all parties in the common cause, and the Doelisten having become obnoxious to the public, he dismissed Rousset, in 1749, from the places he had conferred on him, and forbid the publication of a work he had written against the French court. Rousset being at the same time informed that he was in danger of being taken up, went to Brussels, where his pen was his chief resource, and there he died in 1762.