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

The short time he remained at Oxford, he preached at St. Peter’s in the East, to a crowded congregation who regretted his being now excluded from St. Mary’s; and after leaving Oxford, he retired to Stadham, where he had purchased an estate. According to Baxter, he is supposed to have had a particular hand in restoring the members of the old parliament, who compelled Richard Cromwell to resign; but this seems a disputable point. We are more certain that at the meeting of his brethren at the Savoy in 1658, he took an active part, and had a principal hand in drawing up the confession of faith of what were called the congregational churches. On the restoration of Charles II. he was not in possession of any church preferment, but had formed a congregation at Stadham, where he continued to preach for some time until he settled in London. Here he contracted an acquaintance with some of the most eminent persons in church and state, and might have risen to considerable preferment had he chosen to conform. In 1661 he published a learned and elaborate work, “De natura, ortu, progressu, et studio veras Theoiogiae,” 4to. The following year, one John Vincent Lane, a Franciscan friar, published a work called “Fiat Lux,” in which, under the pretence of recommending moderation and charity, he endeavoured to draw over his readers to the church of Rome, as the only infallible cure of all religious animosities. Two editions of this work were printed before it fell under Dr. Owen’s notice; but it was, at length, sent to him by a person of distinction, with a request that he would write a reply to it. This he readily undertook, and, in the same year, published his “Animadversions on Fiat Lux. By a Protestant.” This produced an answer from Lane, and another tract from Owen, entitled “A Vindication of Animadversions on Fiat Lux;” but there was some difficulty in obtaining a licence for this last book, when the bishops who were appointed by act of parliament the principal licensers of divinity-books had examined it: they made two objections against it. 1. That upon all occasions when he mentions the evangelists and apostles, even St. Peter himself, he left out the title of saint. 2. That he endeavours to prove that it could not be determined that St. Peter was ever at Rome. To the first the doctor replied, that the title of evangelist, or apostle, by which the scripture names them, was much more glorious than that of saint; for in that name all the people of God were alike honoured; yet to please them he yielded to that addition; but as to the other objections, he would by no means consent to any alteration, unless they could prove him to be mistaken in his assertion, and rather chose his book should never see the light than to expunge what he had written upon that subject; and in all probability it would not have been printed, had not sir Edward Nicholas, one of his majesty’s principal secretaries of state, who was informed of the matter, written to the bishop of London to license it notwithstanding this objection. This book recommended him to the esteem of the lord chancellor Hyde, who, by sirBulstrode Whitlocke, sent for him, and acknowledged the service of his late books against Fiat Lux; assuring him that he had deserved the best of any English protestant of late years; and that for these performances the church was bound to own and advance him; and at the same time he offered him preferment if he would accept it: the chancellor moreover told him there was one thing he much wondered at, that he being so learned a man, and so well acquainted with church history, should embrace that novel opinion of independency, for which, in his judgment, so little could be said. The doctor replied, that indeed he had spent some part of his time in reading over the history of the church, and made this offer to his lordship, if he pleased, to prove that this. was that way of government which was practised in the church for several hundred years after Christ, against any bishop he should think fit to bring to a disputation with him upon this subject. “Say you so” said the chancellor, “then I am much mistaken.” Other conversation passed between them, particularly about liberty of conscience The lord chancellor asked him what he would desire With respect *tb liberty and forbearance in the matters of religion. To which the doctor replied, “That the liberty he desired was for protestants, who assented to the doctrine of the church of England.” This was afterwards misrepresented, as if he meant to exclude all others from the exercise of their religion, which he often declared was not his meaning.

Notwithstanding the abilities he had displayed in this controversy, as he would not conform, he became liable to the same interruptions as his brethren in the exercise of his preaching, and on this account began to entertain serious thoughts of leaving his native country, and had actually made preparations to go to New England, where he had the offer of the place of president of Harvard college, but he was prevented by express orders from the king. During the plague, however, in 1665, and the great fire of London in 1666, when the laws against nonconformists were somewhat relaxed, he enjoyed frequent opportunities of preaching in London and elsewhere but when the laws began again to be put in force, he had recourse to his pen, and in 1668 published his “Exposition of the CXXX Psalm,” and in the same year, his “Exposition upon the Epistle to the Hebrews,” an elaborate work, which he completed in 1684, in 4 vols, folio. This is usually reckoned his capital work, and although not uncommon at the present time, sells at a very high price. It alone affords a sufficient proof of the extent of his theological learning. At the end of 1669, when Mr. Samuel (afterwards bishop) Parker, published his “Discourse of Ecclesiastical Polity, and the power of the civil Magistrate in matters of Religion,” Dr. Owen answered it in a work called “Truth and Innocence vindicated.” In 1670, while the act against conventicles was revived in parliament, he was advised to draw up some reasons against it, which were laid before the Lords, but without effect.

, a learned English divine, was born in Derbyshire in 1625, and in 1641 was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1645, and according to his epitaph, seems to have been fellow of that college, as he was afterwards of Christ’s. In this last he took the degree of M. A. in 1649, and that of D. D. in 1660. His first preferment was in Lincolnshire, and he appears to have succeeded Dr. Josias Shute in the rectory of St. Mary Woolnoth, which he resigned in 1666. On July 30, 1669, he was installed archdeacon of Leicester, to which he was collated by Dr. William Fuller, bishop of Lincoln. In July 1670 he was also installed prebendary of Westminster, and was some time rector or minister of St. Margaret’s, Westminster. He died August 23, 1679, aged fifty-four, and was interred in Westminster abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory, with a Latin inscription. In this he is recorded as “a complete divine in all respects, a nervous and accurate writer, and an excellent and constant preacher.” It is also noticed that intense application to study brought on the stone, which at last proved fatal to him. He was an accomplished scholar in the Oriental languages, as appears by his excellent work “De Sacrifices,” Loud. 1677. This is divided into two books: in the first he treats of the origin of sacrifices; the places for sacrificing, and the tabernacle and temple of the Jews. His object is to defend the doctrine of vicarious punishment, and of piacular or expiatory sacrifices, in opposition to the Socinian notions. In the second book he treats of the priesthood of Christ; proves that Christ is a priest properly so called; that his sacrifice is an expiatory sacrifice, which takes away the sins of mankind; that his death is a vicarious punishment, or, that he suffered for, and in the stead of, sinful men, &c. &c. Some of his sermons having been surreptitiously printed, his relations selected twenty from his Mss. which were published by Dr. James Gardiner, afterwards bishop of Lincoln. Of these a second edition appeared in 1697, 8vo, with a preface by the editor, in which he gives a high character of Dr. Ovvtram. Baxter also speaks highly of him, Peck has published, in his “Desiderata,” a fragment of one of Dr. Owtram’s sermons.

Mr. Ozell, however, had a more exalted idea of his own abilities than the world was willing to allow them, for, on his being introduced by Mr. Pope into the “Dunciad” (for what cause, however, does not appear), he published a very extraordinary advertisement, signed with his name, in a paper called “The Weekly Medley,” Sept. 1729, in which he expresses his resentment, and at the same time draws a comparison, in his own favour, between Mr. Pope and himself, both with respect to learning and poetical genius. The advertisement at length may be seen in the notes to the “Dunciad.” But, says the author of his life, “though we cannot readily subscribe to this self-assumed preference, yet, as Mr. Coxeter informs us that his conversation was agreeable, and his knowledge of men and things considerable, and as it is probable that, with an understanding somewhat above the common rank, he possessed a considerable share of good-nature, we readily allow, that a person of this character might be much more amiable than one of a greater brilliancy of parts, if deficient in these good qualities.”

, a learned Englishman, was born about 1432, at or near Winchester, as is generally supposed, and was educated at the charge of Thomas Langton, bishop of that diocese, who employed him, while a youth, as his amanuensis. The bishop, pleased with his proficiency, and particularly delighted with his early turn for music, which he thought an earnest of greater attainments, bestowed a pension on him sufficient to defray the expences of his education at Padua, at that time one of the most flourishing universities in Europe. Accordingly he studied there for some time, and met with Cuthbert Tonstall, afterwards bishop of Durham, and William Latimer, whom he called his preceptors. On his return, he studied for some time at Queen’s-college, Oxford, of which his patron Langton had been provost; and was soon after taken into the service of Dr. Christopher Bambridge, who succeeded Langton in the office of provost, and became afterwards a cardinal. He attended him to Rome, about the beginning of the sixteenth' century, and continued there until the cardinal’s death in 1514. He appears, before this, to have entered into holy orders, for in the beginning of this year, and while abroad, he was made prebendary of Bugthorp, in the church of York, in the room of Wolsey, afterwards the celebrated cardinal; and in May of the same year, was promoted to the archdeaconry of Dorset, on the resignation of his friend Langton, at which time, as Willis supposes, he resigned the prebend of Bugthorp.

In 1519, Maximilian died, and the kings of France and Spain immediately declared themselves candidates for the Imperial throne. Henry, encouraged by the pope, was also induced to offer himself as a candidate, and Pace was ordered to attend the diet of the empire, sound the opinions of the electors, and endeavour to form a judgment of the likelihood of his success. Pace, however, soon discovered that his royal master had started too late, and that tven the electors of Mentz, Cologn, and Triers, who were disposed to favour his pretensions, pleaded, with a shew of regret, that they were pre-engaged. The election fell on Charles V. In 1516, Pace was instituted treasurer of Lichfield, which he resigned in 1522, on being made dean of Exeter. In 1511), he succeeded Colet as dean of St. Paul’s; and some say, held also the deanery of Sarum, but this is not quite clear, although he is called dean of Salisbury by Herbert, in his “Life and Reign of Henry VIII.” In 1521, he was made prebendary of Combe and Harnham, in the church of Sarum, and we find mention of some other church preferments he held from 1516 to 1522, but they are so dubiously related that it is difficult to give them in due order.

, an eminent lawyer and philosopher, called Pacius de Beriga, from the name of a country seat belonging to his father’s family, near Vicenza, was born at the latter city in 1550. His parents bestowed every pains on his education, and he is said to have made such progress in his first studies as to have composed a treatise on arithmetic at the age of thirteen. For farther proficiency he was sent to Padua, with his brother Fabius, who afterwards became a physician of eminence, and is mentioned with great honour by the medical biographers. Julius, after taking his degree of doctor in law, returned to his own country, where, in the course of his extensive reading, he became acquainted with the sentiments of the reformers, and concealed his attachment to them with so little care, that he was menaced by the horrors of the inquisition, from which he escaped to Geneva. This step being attended with the Joss of his property, he gained a livelihood for some lime by teaching youth, until his character becoming known, he was encouraged to give lectures on civil Jaw, which he did for ten years with great success and reputation. At Geneva also he married a lady whose family had fled from Lncca for the cause of religion, and had a family of ten children by her.

, a French Protestant divine, was born in 1626, and studied, with great success and approbation, at Saumur; after which he became minister of a place called Marchenoir in the province of Dunois. He was an able advocate against the popish party, as appears by his best work, against father Nicole, entitled “Examen du Livre qui porte pour titre, Prejugez legitimes centre les Calvinistes,” 2 vols. 1673, 12mo. Mosheim therefore very improperly places him in the class of those who explained the doctrines of Christianity in such a manner as to diminish the difference between the doctrines of the reformed and papal churches; since this work shews that few men. wrote at that time with more learning, zeal, and judgment against popery. Pajon, however, created some disturbance in the church, and became very unpopular, by explaining certain doctrines, concerning the influence of the Holy Spirit, in the Arminian way, and had a controversy with Jurieu on this subject. The consequence was, that Pajon, who had been elected professor of divinity at Saumur, found it necessary to resign that office after which he resided at Orleans, as pastor, and died there Sept. 27, 1685, in the sixtieth year of his age. He left a great many works in manuscript; none of which have been printed, owing partly to his unpopularity, but, perhaps, principally to his two sons becoming Roman Catholics. A full account of his opinions may be seen in Mosheim, or in the first of our authorities.

His first engagement in Philadelphia was with a bookseller, who employed him as editor of the Philadelphia Magazine, for which he had an annual salary of fifty pounds currency. When Dr. Rush of that city suggested to Paine the propriety of preparing the Americans lor a separation from Great Britain, he seized with avidity the idea, and immediately beg^n the above mentioned pamphlet, which, when finished, was shewn in manuscript to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Samuel Adams, and entitled, after some discussion, “Common Sense,” at the suggestion of Dr. Rush. For this he received from the legislature of Pennsylvania, the sum of 500l.; and soon after this, although devoid of every thing that could be called literature, he was honoured with a degree of M. A. from the university of Pennsylvania, and vvas chosen a member of the American Philosophical Society. In the title-page of his “Rights of Man,” he styled himself “Secretary for foreign affairs to the Congress of the United States, in the late war.” To this title*, however, he had no pretensions, and so thorough a republican ought at least to have avoided assuming what he condemned so vehemently in others. He was merely a clerk, at a very low salary, to a committee of the congress; and his business was to copy papers, and number and file them. From this office, however, insignificant as it was, he was dismissed for a scandalous breach of trust, and then hired himself as a clerk to Mr. Owen Biddle of Philadelphia; and early in \1&0, the assembly of Pennsylvania chose hiii) as cierk. fn 1782 he printed at Philadelphia, a letter to the abbé Raynal on the affairs of North Amer ca, in which he undertook to clear up the mistakes in Raynal’s account of the revolution; and in the same yer he also printed a letter to the earl of Shelburne, on his speech in parliament, July 10, 1782, in which that nobleman had prophesied that, “When Great Britain shall acknowledge American independence, the sun of Britain’s glory is set for ever.” It could not be difficult to answer such a prediction as this, which affords indeed a humiliating instance of want of political foresight. Great Britain did acknowledge American independence, and what is Great Britain now? In 1785, as a compensation for his revolutionary writings, congress granted him three thousand dollars, after having rejected with great indignation a motion for appointing him historiographer to the United States, with a salary. Two only of the states noticed by gratuities his revolutionary writings. Pennsylvania gave him, as we have mentioned, 500l. currency; and NewYork gave him an estate of more than three hundred acres, in high cultivation, which was perhaps the more agreeable to him, as it was the confiscated property of a royalist. lu 1787 he came to London, and before the end of that year published a pamphlet on the recent transactions’ between Great Britain and Holland, entitled “Prospects on the Rubicon.” In this, as may be expected, he censured the Cneasures of the English administration.

During his confinement, which lasted eleven months, he certainly merited the praise of his friends, for his calm unconcern, and his philosophy; and they no doubt would rejoice to hear that he passed those hours of danger in. “defying the armies of the living God,” by his blasphemous composition called “The Age of Reason,” the first part of which was published at London in 1794, and the second the yenr following. If any thing can exceed the mischievous intention of this attack on revealed religion, and which certainly produced very alarming effects on the minds of many of the lower classes, among whom it was liberally circulated, it was the ignorance of which his answerers have convicted him in every species of knowledge necessary for a discussion of the kind .

, an excellent writer in the sixteenth century, was born at Veroli, in the Campagna di Roma, and descended of noble and ancient families by both his parents. He was baptised by the name of Anthony, which according to the custom of the times, he altered to the classical form of Aonius. He applied himself early to the Greek and Latin languages, in which he made great progress, and then proceeded to philosophy and divinity. The desire he had of knowledge, prompted him to travel through the greatest part of Italy; and to listen to the instructions of the most famous professors in every place he visited. His longest residence was at Rome, where he continued for six years, till that city was taken by Charles V. when the disorders committed by the troops of that prince leaving no hopes of enjoying tranquillity, he resolved to depart, and retire to Tuscany. He had at this time a great inclination to travel into France, Germany, and even as far as Greece; but the narrowness of his fortune would not admit of this. On his arrival in Tuscany, he chose Sienna for his abode, to which he was induced by the pleasantness of the situation, and the sprightliness and sagacity of the inhabitants: and accordingly he sold his estate at Veroli, with the determination never to see a place any more, where, though he was born, yet he was not beloved. He purchased a country-house in the neighbourhood of Sienna, called Ceciniano, and pleased himself with the fancy of its having formerly belonged to Cecina, one of Cicero’s clients. Here he proposed to retire on his leisure- days, and accordingly embellished it as much as. possible. At Sienna he married ajoung woman, of whom he was passionately fond, and who brought him four children, two boys and two girls. He was also professor of polite letters, and had a great number of pupils.

, called by Dr. Burney the Homer of the most ancient music that has been preserved, was, as his name imports, a native of the ancient Proeneste, now corruptly called Palestrina, and is supposed to have been born some time in 1529. All the Italian writers who have mentioned him, say he was the scholar of Gaudio Mell. Fiamingo, by which name they have been, generally understood to mean Claude Goudimel, of whom we have given some account in vol. XVI.; but this seems doubtful, nor is there any account of his life on which reliance can be placed. All that we know with certainty is, that about 1555, when he had distinguished himself as a composer, he was admitted into the Pope’s chapel, at Rome; in 1562, at the age of thirty three, he was elected maestro di capella of Santa Maria Maggiore, in the same city; in 1571 was honoured with a similar appointment at St. Peter’s; and lastly, having brought choral harmony to a degree of perfection that has never since been exceeded, he died in 1594, at the age of sixty-five. Upon his coffin was this inscription, “Johannes Petrus Aloysius Praenestinus Musicae Princeps.”

To the above ample list of the works of this great and fertile composer, are to be added “La Cantica di Salomone,” a 5; two other books of “Magnificats,” a 4, 5, and 6 voc. One of “Lamentationi,” a 5; and another of secular Madrigals. These have been printed in miscellaneous publications after the author’s death and there still remain in the papal chapel, inedited, another mass, with his “Missa Defunctorum,” and upwards of twenty motets, chiefly for eight voices, a due cori. Nothing more interesting remains to be related of Palestrina, than that most of his admirable productions still subsist. Few of his admirers are indeed possessed of the first editions, or of all his works complete, in printer manuscript; yet curious and diligent collectors in Italy can still, with little difficulty, furnish themselves with a considerable number of these models of counterpoint and ecclesiastical gravity. The best church compositions since his time have been proverbially called alia Palestrina.

, an ingenious artist, was born at Agen in France, about 1524. He was brought up as a common labourer, and was also employed in surveying. Though destitute of education, he was a very accurate observer of nature; and in the course of his surveys, he conceived the notion that France had been formerly covered by the sea, and propagated his opinion at Paris, against a host of opponents, with the greatest boldness. It was considered as a species of heresy. For several years after, he employed himself in trying different experiments, in order to discover the method of painting in enamel. But some person presenting him with a beautiful cup of that kind of stone-ware called by the French faience, because it was first manufactured in a city of Italy called Faenza, the sight of this cup inflamed him with an insurmountable desire to discover the method of applying enamel to stoneware. At this time he was ignorant of even the first rudiments of the art of pottery, nor was there any person within, his reach from whom he could procure information. His experiments were, therefore, unsuccessful, and he wasted his whole fortune, and even injured his health, without gaining his object. Still he gave it up only for a time, and when a few years of industry and frugality had put it in his power, he returned to his project with more ardour than ever. The same fatigues, the same sacrifices, the same expences Were incurred a second time, but the result was different. He discovered, one after another, the whole series of operations, and ascertained the method of applying enamel to stone-ware, and of making earthenware superior to the best of the Italian manufacture. He was now treated with respect, and considered as a man of genius. The court of France took him under its protection, and enabled him to establish a manufactory, where the manufacture of the species of stone-ware which he had invented was brought to a state of perfection. The only improvement which was made upon it afterwards in France, was the application of different colours upon the enamel, and imitating the paintings which had been executed long before on porcelain vessels. This improvement scarcely dates farther back than thirty or forty years. It was first put in practice by Joseph Hanon, a native of Strasbourg, and was suggested by a German, who sold to Hanon the method of composing the colours applied upon the porcelain of Saxony. These vessels were soon after superseded by the Queen’s ware of the celebrated Wedgewood, which both in cheapness, beauty, and elegance of form, far surpassed any thing of the kind that had appeared in Europe.

, one of the wits of Italy, the son of Jerome Pallavicino, was born at Placentia about 1615, or from that to 1620. Less from inclination, than from some family reasons, he entered the congregation of the regular canons of Latran, and took the habit, with the name of Mark Anthony, in their house at Milan. After commencing his studies here with much success, he went to Padua for further proficiency. He then settled at Venice, where he was chosen a member of the academy of the Incogniti. Here he became captivated by a courtezan, whoso charms proved irresistible; and, in order to have the lull enjoyment of them without restraint, he obtained leave from his general to make the tour of France, but in fact continued privately at Venice, while he had the art to impose upon his friends, by sending them frequently, in letters, feigned accounts of his travels through France. He afterwards went to Germany, about 1639, with duke Amalfi in the character of his chaplain. During this residence in Germany, which lasted about sixteen months, he addicted himself to every species of debauchery; and having a turn for satire, employed his pen in repeated attacks on the court of Rome in general, and on the Barbarini family in particular. The chief vehicle of his satire was a publication called “The Courier robbed of his mail,” and this as well as his other works contained so many just censures of the abuses of the court of Rome, that he might have been ranked among those honourable men who had contributed to enlighten his countrymen, had he not been as remarkable for his indecencies, which were so gross that many of his works were obliged to be published under concealed names. His personal attacks on the pope, and the Barbarini family, naturally roused their indignation; and after much search for him, one Charles Morfu, a Frenchman of a vile character, engaged to ensnare him, and having insinuated himself into his friendship, at length exhorted him to go with him to France. He flattered him with the extraordinary encouragement which was given to men of letters by cardinal Richelieu; and, to deceive him the more, even produced feigned letters from the cardinal, inviting our author to France, and expressing a desire he had to establish in Paris an academy for the Italian tongue, under the direction of Pallavicino. Pallavicino, young, thoughtless, and desperate, and now fascinated by the prospect of gain, left Venice much against the advice of his friends, and went first to Bergamo, where he spent a few days with some of his relations, who entertained his betrayer. They then set out for Geneva, to the great satisfaction of our author, who proposed to get some of his works printed there, which he had not been able to do in Italy. But Morfu, instead of conducting him to Paris, took the road to Avignon; where, crossing the bridge of Soraces, in the county of Venaissin (in the pope’s territories), they were seized by officers on pretence of carrying contraband goods, and confined. Morfu was soon discharged, and liberally rewarded; but Pallavicini, being carried to Avignon, was thrown into prison; and, after being kept there for some months, was brought to trial, and was beheaded in 1643 or 1644. Those who are desirous of farther information respecting this young man’s unfortunate history, may be amply gratified in the prolix: articles drawn up by Bayle, and particularly Marclmnd. His works were first published collectively at Venice, in 1655, 4 vols. 12mo. This edition, according to Marchand, contains only such of his works as had been permitted to beprinted in his life-time. Those which had been prohibited were afterwards printed in 2 vols. 12 mo, at Villafranca, a fictitious name for Geneva, 1660. Among these is a piece called “II divortio Celeste,” which some deny to be his. It is a very coarse satire on the abuses of the Romish church, and was translated and published in English in 1679, under the title of “Ciirist divorced from the church of Rome because of their lewdness,” Lond. 8vo.

, an eminent cardinal, was the son of the marquis Alexander Pallavicini and Frances Sforza, and born at Rome in 1607. Although the eldest son of his family, yet he chose the ecclesiastical life, and was very early made a bishop by pope Urban VIII. to whom his conduct was so acceptable, that he was appointed one of those prelates who assist in the assemblies called congregations at Rome. He was also received into the famous academy of the Humoristi, among whom he often sat in quality of president. He was likewise governor of Jesi, and afterwards of Orvietto and Camerino, under the above pontiff. But all these honours and preferments were insufficient to divert him from a design he had for some time formed of renouncing the world, and entering into the society of the Jesuits, where he was admitted in 1638. As soon as he had completed his noviciate he taught philosophy, and then theology. At length Innocent X. nominated him to examine into divers matters relating to the pontificate; and Alexander VII. created him a cardinal in 1657. This pope was an old friend of Pallavicino, who had been serviceable to him when he came to Rome with the name of Fabio Chigi. Pallavicino had even contributed to advance his temporal fortune, and had received him into the academy of the Humoristi; in gratitude for which, Chigi addressed to him some verses, printed in his book entitled “Philomathi Museb juveniles.” When Pallavicino obtained a place in the sacred college, he was also appointed at the same time examiner of the bishops; and he was afterwards a member of the congregation of the holy office, i. e. the inquisition, and of that of the council, &c. His promotion to the cardinalate wrought no change in his manner of life, which was devoted to study or to the duties of his office. He died in 1667, in his sixtieth year.

, the Young, so called in contradistinction of the preceding Jacob, his great-uncle,^ may be considered as the last master of the good, and the first of the bad period of art at Venice. Born in 1544, he left the scanty rudiments of his father Antonio, a weak painter, to study the works of Titian, and particularly those of Tintoretto, whose spirit and slender disengaged forms were congenial to his own taste. At the age of fifteen he was taken under the protection of the duke of Urbino, carried to that capital, and for eight years maintained at Rome, where, by copying the antique, Michael Angelo, Raphael, and more than all, Polidoro, he acquired ideas of correctness, style, and effect: these he endeavoured to embody in the first works which he produced after his return to Venice, and there are who have discovered in them an union of the best maxims of the Roman and Venetian schools: they are all executed with a certain facility which is the great talent of this master, but a talent as dangerous in painting as in poetry. He was not, however, successful in his endeavours to procure adequate employment: the posts of honour and emolument were occupied by Tintoretto and Paul Veronese, and he owed his consideration as the third in rank to the patronage of Vittoria, a fashionable architect, sculptor, and at that time supreme umpire of commissions: he, piqued at the slights of Paul and Robusti, took it into his head to favour Palma, to assist him with his advice, and to establish his name. Bernini is said to have done the same at Rome, in favour of Pietro da Cortona and others, against Sacchi, to the destruction of the art; and, adds Mr. Fuseli, as men and passions resemble each other in all ages, the same will probably be related of some fashionable architect of our times. Palma, overwhelmed by commissions, soon relaxed frdnl his womed diligence; and his carelessness increased when, at the death of his former competitors, and of Leonardo Corona, his new rival, he found himself alone and in possession of the field. His pictures, as Cesare d'Arpino told him, were seldom more than sketches; sometimes, indeed, when time and price were left to his own discretion, in which he did not abound, he produced some work worthy of his former fame; such as the altar-piece at S. Cosmo and Datniano; the celebrated Naval Battle of Francesco Bembo in the public palace; the S. Apolloniaat Cremona; St. Ubaldo and the Nunziata at Pesaro; the Finding of the Cross at Urbino: works partly unknown to Ridolfi, but of rich composition, full of beauties, variety, and expression. His tints fresh, sweet, and transparent, less gay than those of Paul, but livelier than those of Tintoretto, though slightly laid on, still preserve their bloom. In vivacity of expression he is not much inferior to either of those masters; and his Plague of the Serpents at St. Bartolomeo may vie for features, gestures, and hues of horror, with the same subject by Tintoretto in the school of St. Rocco: but none of his pictures are without some commendable part; and it surprises that a man, from whom the depravation of style may be dated in Venice, as from Vasari at Florence, and Zuccari at Rome, should still preserve so many charms of nature and art to attract the eye and interest the heart. He died in 1628, in the eighty-fourth year of his age.

, a polite scholar, who flourished in the reigns of Henry VII. and VIII. was a native of London, and educated there in grammar. He afterwards studied logic and philosophy at Cambridge, at which university he resided till he had attained the degree of bachelor of arts; after which he went to Paris, where he spent several years in the study of philosophical and other learning, took the degree of master of arts, and acquired such excellence in the French tongue, that, in 1514, when a treaty of marriage was negotiated between Louis XII. kinpr of France, and the princess Mary, sister of king Henry VIII. of England, Mr. Palsgrave was chosen to be her tutor in that language. But Louis XII. dying almost immediately after his marriage, Palsgrave attended his fair pupil back to England, where he taught the French language to many of the young nobility, and was appointed by the king one of his chaplains in ordinary. He is said also to have obtained some church preferments, but we know only of the prebend of Portpoole, in the church of St. Paul’s, which was bestowed upon him in April 1514, and the living of St. Dunstan’s in the East, given to him by archbishop Cranmer in 1553. In 1531, he settled at Oxford for some time, and the next year was incorporated master of arts in that university, as he had before been in that of Paris; and a few days after was admitted to the degree of bachelor of divinity. At this time he was highly esteemed for his learning; and was the first author who reduced the French tongue under grammatical rules, or that had attempted to fix it to any kind of standard. This he executed with great ingenuity and success, in a large work which he published in that language at London, entitled “L'Eclaircissement de la Language Fran9ois,” containing three books, in a thick folio, 1530, to which he has prefixed a large introduction in English. This work is now extremely scarce. In the dedication he says that he had written two books on the subject before; one dedicated to his pupil Mary, the other to Charles Brandon duke of Suffolk. He made a literal translation into English of a Latin comedy called “Acolastus,” written by Fullonius, and published it in 1540. He is said also to have written some “Epistles.”

, a French poet, was born at Couville near Chartres in 1691, where he remained a Jong time in obscurity, upon some small employment. At length, the comedian Le Grand, having seen some of his pieces, went to find him out, and encouraged him; and Marmontel called him the Fontaine of the place. Panard had many qualities of Fontaine; the same disinterestedness, probity, sweetness, and simplicity of manners. He knew, as well as any man, how to sharpen the point of an epigram; yet always levelled it at the vice, not the person. He had a philosophic temper, and lived contented with a little. He died at Paris June 13, 1764. His works, under the title of “Theatre & Oeuvres diverse*,” have been printed, 1763, in 4 vols. 12mo. They consist of comedies, comic operas, songs, and all the various kinds of smaller poetry.

, some time a minister of the church of England, and afterwards reconciled to that of Rome, was the author of some pieces which made a great noise in the seventeenth century. From an account of his life, published by himself, it appears that he was born at Blois in 1657, and descended from a family of the reformed religion. He passed through his studies in divinity at Geneva. That university was then divided into two parties upon the subject of grace, called “particularists” and “universalists,” of which the former were the most numerous and the most powerful. The universalists desired nothing more than a toleration; an J M. Claude wrote a letter to M. Turretin, the chief of the predominant party, exhorting him earnestly to grant that favour. But Turretin gave little heed to it; and M. de Maratiz, professor at Groningen, who had disputed the point warmly against Mr. Daille, opposed it zealously; and supported his opinion by the authority of those synods who had determined against such toleration. There happened also another dispute upon the same subject, which occasioned Papin to make several reflections. M. Pajon, who was his uncle, admitted the doctrine of efficacious grace, but explained it in a different manner from the reformed in general, and Juneu in particular; and though the synod of Anjou in 1667, after many long debates upon the matter, dismissed Pajon, with leave to continue his lectures at Saumur, yet as his inU rest there was not great, his nephew, who was a student in that university in 1633, was pressed to con iemn the doctrine, which was branded with the appellation of Pajonism. Papin declared, that his conscience would not allow him to subscribe to the condemnation of either party; on which the university refused to give him a testimonial in the usual form. All these disagreeable incidents put him out of humour with the authors of them, and brought him to view the Roman catholic religion w;th less dislike than before. In this disposition he wrote a treatise, entitled “The Faith reduced to its just hounds;” in which he maintained, that, as the papists professed that they embraced the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, they ought to be tolerate' I by the most zealous protestants. He also wrote several letters to the reformed of Bourdeaux, to persuade them that they might be saved in the Romish church, if they would be reconciled to it,

, a celebrated Roman lawyer, born in the year 175, was advocate of the treasury or exchequer, and afterwards pretorian prefect under the emperor Severus, about the year 194. This emperor had so high an opinion of his worth, that at his death he recommended his sons Caracalla and Geta to his care: but the first, having murdered his brother, enjoined Papinian to compose a discourse, to excuse that barbarity to the senate and people. Papinian could not be prevailed on to comply with this: but on the contrary answered boldly, that it was easier to commit a parricide than to excuse it; and to accuse an innocent person, after taking away his life, was a second parricide. Caracalla was so much enraged at this answer, that he ordered Papinian to be beheaded, which sentence was executed in the year 212, when he was in his thirtyseventh year, and his body was dragged through the streets of Rome. He had a great number of disciples, and composed several works among those, twenty-seven books of “Questions in the Law” nineteen books of “Responses or Opinions” two of “Definitions” two others upon “Adultery” and a single book upon the “Laws of Ediles.” His reputation was so great, that he is called “the honour of jurisprudence, and the treasure of the laws.”

, a man of a strange and paradoxical genius, and classed by Brucker among the Theosophists, was born, as is generally supposed (for his birth-place is a disputed matter), at Einfidlen near Zurick, in 1493. His family name, which was Bombastus, he afterwards changed, according to the custom of the age, into Paracelsus. His father, who was a physician, instructed him in that science, but, as it would appear, in nothing else, for he was almost totally ignorant of the learned languages. So earnest was he, however, to penetrate into the mysteries of nature, that, neglecting books, he undertook long and hazardous journeys through Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Hungary, Moscovy, and probably several parts of Asia and Africa. He not only visited literary and learned men, but frequented the workshops of mechanics, descended into mines, and thought no place mean or hazardous, if it afforded him an opportunity of increasing his knowledge of nature. He also consulted barber-surgeons, monks, conjurors, old women, quacks of every description, and every person who pretended to be possessed of any secret art, particularly such as were skilled in metallurgy. Being in this manner a self-taught philosopher and physician, he despised the medical writings of the ancients, and boasted that the whole contents of his library would not amount to six folios. He appears indeed to have written more than he ever read. His quackery consisted in certain new and secret medicines procured from metallic substances by the chemical art, which he administered with such wonderful success, that he rose to the summit of popular fame, and even obtained the professorship of medicine at Bail. One of his nostrums he called Azoth, which he said was the philosopher’s stone, the medical panacea, and his disciples extolled it as the tincture of life, given through the divine favour to man in these last days. But while his irregular practice, and arrogant invectives against other physicians, created him many enemies, his rewards were by no means adequate to his vanity and ambition; and he met frequently with mortifications, one of which determined him to leave Basil. A wealthy canon who happened to fall sick at that place, offered him a hundred florins to cure his disease, which Paracelsus easily effected with three pills of opium, one of his most powerful medicines. The canon, restored to health so soon, and apparently by such slight means, refused to stand to his engagement. Paracelsus brought the matter before the magistrate, who decreed him only the usual fee. Inflamed with violent indignation at the contempt which was thus thrown upon his art, he railed at the canon, the magistrate, and the whole city, and leaving Basil, withdrew into Alsace, whither his medical fame and success followed him. After two years, during which time he practised medicine in the principal families of the country, about the year 1530 he removed into Switzerland, where he conversed with Bullinger and other divines. From this time, he seems for many years to have roved through various parts of Germany and Bohemia. At last, in the year 1541, he died in the hospital of St. Sebastian, in Saltsburg.

Different and even contradictory judgments have been formed by the learned concerning Paracelsus. His admirers and followers have celebrated him as a perfect master of all philosophical and medical mysteries, have called him the medical Luther, and have even been weak enough to believe that he was possessed of the grand secret of converting inferior metals into gold. But others, and particularly some of his contemporaries, have charged his whole medical practice with ignorance, imposture, and impudence. J. Crato, in an epistle to Zwinger, attests, that in Bohemia his medicines, even when they performed an apparent cure, left his patients in such a state, that they soon after died of palsies or epilepsies. Erastus, who was for two years one of his pupils, wrote an entire book to detect his impostures. We have mentioned his want of education, and it is even asserted, that he was so imperfect a master of his vernacular tongue, that he was obliged to have his German writings corrected by another hand. His adversaries also charge him with the most contemptible arrogance, the most vulgar scurrility, the grossest intemperance, and the most detestable impiety. Still it appears, that with all these defects, by the mere help of physical knowledge and the chemical arts, he obtained an uncommon share of medical fame; while to support his credit with the ignorant, he pretended to an intercourse with invisible spirits, and to divine illuminations.

In the mean time, his master Schilling, not content with making him change his surname, made him also change his religious creed, that of the Lutheran church, with regard to the doctrine of the real presence, and effected the same change of sentiment throughout his school; but this was not at first attended with the happiest effects, as Schilling was expelled from the college, and Pareus’s father threatened to disinherit him; and it was not without the greatest difficulty, that he obtained his consent to go into the Palatinaie, notwithstanding he conciliated his father’s parsimony by assuring him that he would continue his studies there without any expence to his family. Having thus succeeded in his request, he followed his master Schilling, who had been invited by the elector Frederic III. to be principal of his new college at Amberg, and arrived there in 1566. Soon after he was sent, with ten of his school-fellows, to Heidelberg, where Zachary Ursinus was professor of divinity, and rector of the college of Wisdom. The university was at that time in a most flourishing condition, with regard to every one of the faculties; and Pareus had consequently every advantage that could be desired, and made very great proficiency, both in the learned languages and in philosophy and divinity. He was admitted into the ministry in 1571, and in May that year sent to exercise his function in a village called Schlettenbach, where very violent contests subsisted between the Protestants and Papists. The elector palatine, his patron, had asserted his claim by main force against the bishop of Spire, who maintained, that the right of nomination to the livings in the corporation of Alfestad was vested in his chapter. The elector allowed it, but with this reserve, that since he had the right of patronage, the nominators were obliged, by the peace of Passaw, to present pastors to him whose religion he approved. By virtue of this right, he established the reformed religion in that corporation, and sent Pareus to propagate it in the province of Schlettenbach, where, however, he met with many difficulties before he could exercise his ministry in peace. Before the end of the year he was called back to teach the third class at Heidelberg, and acquitted himself so well, that in two years’ time he was promoted to the second class; but he did not hold this above six months, being made principal pastor of Hemsbach, in the diocese of Worms. Here he met with a people more ready to receive the doctrines of the Reformation than those of Schlettenbach, and who cheerfully consented to destroy the images in the church, and other remains of former superstition. A few months after his arrival he married the sister of John Stibelius, minister of Hippenheim; and the nuptials being solemnized Jan. the 5th, 1574, publicly in the church of Hemsbach, excited no little curiosity and surprize among the people, to whom the marriage of a clergyman was a new thing. They were, however, easily reconciled to the practice, when they came to know what St. Paul teaches concerning the marriage of a bishop in his epistles to Timothy and Titus. Yet such was the unhappy state of this country, rent by continual contests about religion, that no sooner was Popery, the common enemy, rooted out, than new disturbances arose, between the Lutherans and Calvinists. After the death of the elector Frederic III. in 1577, his son Louis, a very zealous Lutheran, established every where in his dominions ministers of that persuas.nn, to the exclusion of the Sarramentariane, or Calvinists, by which measure Pareus lost his living at Hemsbach, and retired into the territories of prince John of Casimir, the elector’s brother. He was now chosen minister at Ogersheim, near Frankenthal, where he continued three years, and then removed to Winzingen, near Neustadt, at which last place prince Casimir, in 1578, had founded a school, and settled there all the professors that had been driven from Heidelberg. This rendered Winzingen much more agreeable, as well as advantageous; and, upon the death of the elector Louis, in 1583, the guardianship of his son, together with the administration of the palatinate, devolved upon prince Casimir, who restored the Calvinist ministers, and Pareus obtained the second chair in the college of Wisdom at Heideiberg, in Sept. 1584. He commenced author two years afterwards, by printing his “Method of the Ubiijuitarian controversy;” “Methodus Ubiquitariae coniroversise.” He also printed an edition of the “German Bible,” with notes, at Neustadt, in 1589, which occasioned a warm controversy between him and James Andreas, an eminent Lutheran divine of Tubingen.

In 1591, he was made first professor in his college; in 1592, counsellor to the ecclesiastical senate; and in 1593, was admitted doctor of divinity in the most solemn manner. He had already held several disputes against the writers of the Augsburg Confession, but that of 1596 was the most considerable, in which he had to defend Caivin against the imputation of favouring Judaism, in his Commentaries upon several parts of Scripture. In 1595, he was promoted to the chair of divinity professor lor the Old Testament in his university; by which he was eased of the great fatigue he had undergone for fourteen years, in governing the youth who were educated at the college of Wisdom. Tossanus, professor of divinity for the New Testament, dying in 1602, Pareus succeeded to that chair, and a few years after he bought a house in the suburbs of Hei(lelburg, and built in the garden an apartment for his library, which he called his “Pareanum.” In this ru- took great delight, and the whole house went uitfrw;irds by that name, the elector having, out of respect to him, honouivd it with several privileges and immunities. At the same time, his reputation spreading itself every where, brought young students to him from the remotest parts of Hungary and Poland. In 1617 an evangelical jubilee was instituted in memory of the church’s deliverance from popery an hundred years before, when Luther began to preach. The solemnity lasted three days, during which orations, disputations, poems, and sermons, were delivered on the occasion. Pareus also published some pieces on the subject, which drew upon him the resentment of the Jesuits of Mentz; and a controversy took place between them. The following year, 1618, at the instance of the States General, he was pressed to go to the synod of Dort, but excused himself on account of age and infirmities. After this time he enjoyed but little tranquillity. The apprehensions he had of the ruin which his patron the elector Palatine would bring upon himself by accepting the crown of Bohemia, obliged him to change his habitation. He appears to have terrified himself with a thousand petty alarms, real or imaginary, and therefore his friends, in order to relieve him from this timidity of disposition, advised him to take refuge in the town of Anweil, in the dutchy of DeuxPonts, near Landau, at which he arrived in Oct. 1621. He left that place, however, some months after, and went to Neustadt, where his courage reviving, he determined to return to Heidelberg, wishing to pass his last moments at his beloved Pareanum, and be buried near the professors of the university. His wish was accordingly fulfilled; for he died at Pareanum June 15, 1622, and was interred with all the funeral honours which the universities in Germany usually bestow on their members.

, usually called the Abbe Paris, would not have deserved notice here unless for certain impostures connected with his name, in which, however, he had no hand. He was born at Paris, and was the eldest son of a counsellor to the parliament, whom he was to have succeeded in that office; but he preferred the ecclesiastical profession; and, when his parents were dead, resigned the whole inheritance to his brother, only reserving to himself the right of applying for necessaries. He was a man, says the abb UAvocat, of the most devout temper, and who to great candour of mind joined great gentleness of manners. He catechized, during some time, in the parish of St. Come; undertook the direction of the clergy, and held conferences with them. Cardinal de Noailles, to whose cause he was attached, wanted to make him curate of that parish, but found many obstacles to his plan; and M. Paris, after different asylums, where he had lived extremely retired, confined himself in a house in the fauxbourg St. Marcoul, where, sequestered from the world, he devoted himself wholly to prayer, to the practice of the most rigorous penitence, and to labouring with his hands, having for that purpose learnt to weave stockings. He was one of those who opposed the bull Unigenitus, and was desirous also to be an author, and wrote “Explications of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” to the “Galatians,” and “An Analysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews;” but acquired no reputation by these. He died May I, 1727, at Paris, aged thirty-seven, and was interred in the little church-yard belonging to St. Medard’s parish. Though M. Paris had been useless to the Jansenists while alive, they thought proper to employ him in working miracles after his death; and stories were invented of miraculous cures performed at his tomb, which induced thousands to flock thither, where they practised grimaces and convulsions in so ridiculous and disorderly a manner, that the court was at last forced to put a stop to this delusion, by ordering the church-yard to be walled up, January 27, 1732. Some time before, several curates solicited M. de Vintimille, archbishop of Paris, by two requests, to make judicial inquiry into the principal miracles attributed to M. Paris; and that prelate appointed commissioners who easily detected the impostnre, which would not deserve a place here had it not served Hume and some other deists with an argument against the real miracles of the gospel, the fallacy of which argument has been demonstrated with great acuteness by the late bishop Douglas, in his “Criterion.”

, the second protestant archbishop of Canterbury, a very learned prelate, and a great benefactor to the literature of his country, was born in the parish of St. Saviour’s, Norwich, Aug. 6, 1504. He was of ancient and reputable families both by the father’s and mother’s side. His father dying when he was only twelve years of age, the care of his education devolved on his mother, who appears to have spared no pains in procuring him the best tutors in such learning as might qualify him for the university, to which he was removed in September 1521. He was entered of Corpus Christi or Bene't college, Cambridge, and was at first maintained at his mother’s expense, but in six months after admittance that expense was in some measure relieved, by his being chosen, a scholar of the house, called a bible clerk. In 1524 he took his degree of bachelor of arts, and in 1526 was made subdeacon, under the titles of Barnwell, and the chapel in Norwich fields. While at college, he had for his contemporaries Bacon and Cecil, Bradford and Ridley, afterwards men of great eminence in state and church, and the two latter distinguished sufferers for the sake of religion.

In 1538 he made a visit to the university, where, after having performed his exercises with general applause, he commenced D. D. In 1542 he was presented by the chapter of Stoke to the rectory of Ashen in Essex, which he resigned in 1544, and was presented to the rectory of Birmingham All Saints, in the county of Norfolk; but his most important promotion that year, was to the mastership of Bene't college, Cambridge, where he had been educated. On this occasion he was recommended to the society by the king, as the fittest person in every respect; and they knowing his character, did not hesitate to elect him, and he was admitted accordingly Dec. 4, 1544. He began his government of the college with making some useful orders concerning certain benefactions and foundations belonging to the college; and, to prevent the college goods from being embezzled, he caused exact inventories of them to be made, and deposited in the common chest, ordering at the same time that they should be triennially inspected and renewed by the master and fellows. Finding likewise their accounts in great confusion, occasioned principally by the neglect of registering them in books belonging to the society, he put them into such a method, that by comparing the rentals, receipts, expenses, &c. together, they might at any time appear as clear as possible, and these he caused to be annually engrossed on parchment for their better preservation. He also undertook the revisal of the statutes, and reduced them to nearly their present form, being assisted in this by his friend Dr. Mey, the civilian, and one of the visitors who confirmed them in the second year of Edward VI. All these regulations and transactions, with some other matters relating both to the college and university, he caused to be registered in a book, called the Black Book, which has ever since been in the custody of the master. The old statutes were indeed once more introduced in the time of queen Mary, but continued no longer in force than to the first year of Elizabeth’s reign, when the former were again revived, and in 1568 finally reviewed, corrected, and approved by her visitors. In 1545 he was elected vice-chancellor, in which office he had an opportunity of exerting himself still farther for the welfare of his college and the university at large; and he gave such satisfaction, that within the space of three years he was elected to the same office. On his election, Dr. Haddon, the public orator, gave him this character to his friend Cheke, “cujus tu gravitatem, consilium, literas, nosti, nos experimur;” adding, “Catonem aut Quintum Fabium renatum putes.”

It might have been expected that these ordinances would have pleased the queen, as being in conformity with her wishes, and, in fact, in answer to her orders; but the opponents of the habits, who began to be called Puritans, applied to their friends at court, and especially to her great favourite Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, who prevailed so far with her majesty, that all her former resolution disappeared, and she refused to sanction the ordinances with her authority, telling the archbishop, that the oath of canonical obedience was sufficient to bind the inferior clergy to their duty, without the interposition of the crown. The archbishop, hurt at such capricious conduct, and at being placed in such a situation between the court and the church, told Cecil, that if the ministry persisted in their indifference, he would “no more strive against the stream, fume or chide who would;” and it is most probable his remonstrances prevailed, for the above ordinances were a few days after published, under the name of Advertisements; and he then proceeded upon them with that zeal which procured him from one party the reproach of being a persecutor, and from the other the honour of being a firm friend and supporter of the church-establishment. The particular steps he took, the trials he instituted, and the punishments he inflicted, are detailed at length by Strype and other church-historians; but on the merit of his conduct there is great diversity of opinion. It has been said, both in excuse and in reproach of his measures, that he was too subservient to the queen. To us it appears, that he took as much liberty in advising the queen, and in contending with her humours, as any prelate or statesman of her reign, and that what he did to promote uniformity in the church arose from a sincere, however mistaken opinion, that uniformity was necessary to the advancement of the reformation, and in itself practicable. All that is wrong in this opinion must be referred to the times in which he lived, when no man conceived that an established church could flourish if surrounded by sectaries, and when toleration was not at all understood in its present sense.

Concerning his learning and zeal for the promotion of learning, there is no difference of opinion. His skill in ancient liturgies was such, that he was one of the first selected to draw up the Book of Common Prayer; and when he came to be placed at the head of the church, he laboured much to engage the bishops, and other learned men, in the revisal and correction of the former translations of the Bible. This was at length undertaken and carried on under his direction and inspection, who assigned particular portions to each of his assistants, which he afterwards perused and corrected, and spared no pains in getting it completed. It was first published in 1568, and has usually been called the “Bishop’s Bible,” and ran its course with the Geneva translation, until the present version was executed, in the reign of king James. He also published a "Saxon homily on the Sacrament,“translated out of Latin into that language, by Ælfric a learned abbot of St. Alban’s, about 900 years before; with two epistles of the same, in which is not the least mention of the doctrine of transubstantiation. He was the editor also of editions of the histories of Matthew of Westminster and Matthew of Paris, and of various other works, enumerated by Tanner; some of which were either composed by him, or printed at his expence. The work on which he is thought to have spent most time was that” De Antiquitate Britanniæ Ecclesiæ;“but his share in this is a disputed point among antiquaries. In his letter to the lord treasurer, to whom he presented a copy, he speaks of it as his own collection, which had been the employment of his leisure hours. Dr. Drake likewise, in the preface to his edition of it, quotes a letter of the archbishop’s in the college-library, in which he expressly styles it,” My book of Canterbury Predecessors;“and archbishop Bramhall was of opinion, that the conclusion of the preface proved Parker himself to have been the author. But notwithstanding these testimonies, the matter is doubtful. Selden was the first who called it in question, although without giving his reasons; and sir Henry Spelman considered Dr. Ackworth to have been either the author or collector of the work. Archbishop Usher thinks that Ackworth wrote only the first part, concerning the British antiquities; and he, Selden, and Wharton, ascribe the lives of the archbishops to Josselyn, and make Parker little more than the director or encourager of the whole. And this certainly seems to be confirmed by the copy now in the Lambethlibrary. This copy, which originally belonged to that library, but was missing from the year 1720, was replaced in 1757 by Dr. Trevor, bishop of Durham, who found it in the Sunderland-library. This, which Dr. Ducarel thought the only perfect one existing, contains many manuscript papers, letters, and notes, respecting archbishop Parker and the see of Canterbury; and, among these, some proofs that Ackworth and Josselyn had a considerable share in the composition of the work. At the beginning of St. Augustine’s life we find this note:” These 24 pages of St. Augustine’s life were thus begun by George Acworth Dr. of laws, at the appointment of Matthew Parker Abp.of Cant, and the lives of all the archbishops should have in this course been perfected—(some words not intelligible)—but deth prevented it.“This Dr. Ackworth, as we have mentioned in our account of him (vol. I.) was alive in 1576, but how long after is not known, but as this is a year after our prelate’s death, there seems some difficulty in understanding the latter part of this note, without adopting archbishop Usher’s opinion above mentioned. We also find in the Lambeth copy, on the title-page of the history, the following note:” This Historie was collected and penned by John Josselyn, one of the sons of sir Thomas Josselyn, knight, by the appointment and oversight of Matthew Parker archbishop of Cant. the said John being entertained in the said archb. house, as one of his antiquaries, to whom, besides the allowance afforded to him in his howse, he gave to hym the parsonage of Hollinborn in Kent," &c.

, was a puritan divine of considerable learning and reading, but his early history is very variously represented. Mr. Brook, in his late “Lives of the Puritans,” places him as rector of North- Benflete, in Essex, in 1571, on the authority of Newcourt, but Newcourt is evidently speaking of a Robert Parker, who held Bardfield-parva in 1559, and must have been a different person. On the other hand, Mr. Masters, in his History of C. C. C. C informs us that he was in 1581 a pensioner of Bene't college, Cambridge, and was made scholar of the house in 1583, at which time he published a copy of Latin verses on the death of sir William Buttes, and succeeded to a fellowship in the latter end of the year following. He was then A. B. but commenced A. M. in 1585, and left the university in 1589. Both his biographers agree that the person they speak of was beneficed afterwards at Wilton, in Wiltshire, and the author of “A scholastical Discourse against symbolizing with Anti-christ in ceremonies, especially in the sign of the Cross,” printed in 1607, without a printer’s name, consisting of near 400 pages closely printed in folio. In this he appears to have employed very extensive reading to very little purpose, according to Dr. Grey; and even Mr. Pierce, in his “Vindication of the Dissenters,” owns that “his fancy was somewhat odd as to his manner of handling his argument.” It contained at the same time matter so very offensive, that a proclamation was issued for apprehending the author, who, after many narrow escapes, was enabled to take refuge in Holland. Here some of his biographers inform us that he was chosen minister of the English church at Amsterdam; but the magistrates of the city, being unwilling to disoblige the king of England by continuing him their pastor, he removed to Doesburgh, where he became chaplain to the garrison. Others tell us that he would have been chosen pastor to the English church at Amsterdam, had not the magistrates been afraid of disobliging king James. According to Mr. Brook, it would appear that he had published his work “De Descensu” before he left England, but we can more safely rely on Mr. Masters, who had seen the book, and who informs us that it was while he was at Amsterdam that he published a treatise, “De Descensu domini nostri Jesu Christi ad Inferos,” 4to, which had been begun by his learned friend Hugh Sandforcl, who finding death approaching, committed the perfecting of it to him. This he was about to do when compelled to leave England. His preface is dated Amsterdam, Dec. 30, 1611. He was also the author of a treatise “De Politia Ecclesiastica Christi et Hierarchicaopposita,” published in 1616, at which time he had been dead two years. He is indeed here represented “as an Eminent servant of Christ, called home to rest from his labours in the midst of his course.” The Bodleian catalogue assigns to him two other posthumous works, “A Discourse concerning Puritans,” 1641, 4to, and “The Mystery of the Vials opened in the 16th chapter of the Revelations.” He left a son, Thomas, author of a work called “Methodus gratioe divinse in traductione hominis peccatoris ad vitam,” Lond. 1657, 8vo, which the editor considered as a work of importance by the care he took to collate four ms copies. Brook says he wrote also “Meditations on the Prophecy of Daniel,” and died in 1677, in New England, to which he went in 1634, to avoid the consequences of nonconformity at home.

His son, Samuel, the subject of the present article, was educated among the Puritans at Northampton; whence, when prepared for the university, he was sent to Wadhamcollege in Oxford, and admitted, in 1659, under a presbyterian tutor. While here he affected to lead a strict and religious life, entered into a weekly society, then called the gruellers, because their chief diet was water-gruel; and it was observed “that he put more graves into his porridge than all the rest.” This society met at a house in Holywell, where he was so zealous and constant an attendant upon prayers, sermons, and sacraments, that he was esteemed one of the most valuable young men in the university. He took the degree B. A. Feb. 28, 1660. At the time of the restoration he was a violent independent, and as for some time he continued to rail against episcopacy, he was much discountenanced by the new warden, Dr. Blandford. Upon this he removed to Trinity college, where, by the advice of Dr. Ralph Bathurst, then a senior fellow of that society, he was induced to change his opinions, and became as violent against the nonconformists as he had ever been for them. He afterwards thanked Dr. Bathurst for having restored him “from the chains and fetters of an unhappy education.” He now proceeded M. A. in 1663, and having taken orders, resorted frequently to London, and became chaplain to a nobleman, whom he amused by his humourous sallies at the expence of his old friends the presbyterians, independents, &c. Mason was never more mistaken than when in his “Ode to Independence” he mentions him by the epithet “mitred dullness.” Parker was undoubtedly a man of wit, and although Marvell was his match, yet the success of the latter was not a little owing to his having the best cause.

It must have been as the last effort of a desperate cause when he sent a “Discourse” to James, persuading him to embrace the protestant religion, with a “Letter” to the same purpose, which was printed at London in 1690, 4to. His works have but few readers at this day; and Swift observes, that “MarvelPs remarks on Parker continued to be read when the book which occasioned them was long ago sunk.” He left a son of his own name, who was an excellent scholar, and a man of singular modesty. He never took the oaths after the revolution. He married a bookseller’s daughter at Oxford, where he resided with a numerous family of children to support which he published some books, particularly, 1 “An English Translation of Tully de finibus, 1702,” 8vo, in the preface to which he has some animadversions upon Locke’s Essay concerning Human Understanding. 2. “An abridgment of the Ecclesiastic Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozornen, and Theotloret,” 1729. He also published a Latin manuscript of his father, containing the history of his own time, under this title, “Reverendi admodum in Christo patris Samuelis Parkeri episcopi de rebus sui temporis commentariorum libri quatuor,” 1726, 8vo, of which,' two English translations were afterwards published, one by the rev. Thomas Newlin, fellow of Magdalen college. But Mr. Parker’s last and greatest work was entitled “Bibliotheca Biblica,” printed at Oxford in 5 vols. 4to, the first of which appeared in two parts in 1720, and the fifth in 1735, with an account of the other writings of the author, and some particulars of his life, drawn up by Dr. Thomas Haywood, of St. John’s college, to whom were attributed most of the dissertations in the work. He describes it as “being a new Comment upon the five Books of Moses, extracted from the ancient fathers, and the most famous critics both ancient and modern, with occasional annotations or dissertations upon particular difficulties, as they were often called for.” Mr. Parker died July 14, 1730, in his fiftieth year, leaving a widow and children. The metrical paraphrase of Leviticus xi. 13, &c. in vol. Hi. was written by Mr. Warton, of Magdalen college, father to the late learned brothers, Joseph and Thomas Warton; and the “Fragment of Hyppolitus, taken out of two Arabic Mss. in the Bodleian,” in the fourth vol. was translated by the late Dr. Hunt. Mr. Parker never was in orders, as he could not reconcile his mind to the new government; but he associated much and was highly respected by many divines, particularly nonjurors, as Dr. Hickes, Mr. Collier, Mr. Dodwell, Mr. Leslie, Mr. Nelson, and Dr. Grabe, whose liberality lessened the difficulties which a very large family occasioned. He appears to have had a place in the Bodleian library, as Mr. Wheatly, in a letter to Dr. Rawlinson, dated Dec. 1739, says, “Sam. Parker’s son I had heard before was apprenticed to Mr. Clements: but the account you give me of his extraordinary proficiency is new. If it be true also, I hope some generous patron of learning will recall him from the bookseller’s shop, and place him in his father’s seat, the Bodleian library.” This son, Sackville Parker, was afterwards for many years an eminent bookseller at Oxford, and one of the four Octogenarian booksellers, who died in 1795 and 1796, namely, James Fletcher, at eighty-six; Sackville Parker, at eightynine; Stephen Fletcher, at eighty -two, and Daniel Prince, at eighty-five. They were all born at Oxford, except James Fletcher. The present worthy bookseller, Mr. Joseph Parker, is nephew and successor to Mr. Sackville Parker.

In 1753 he began his career of authorship, by publishing in 8vo, “A serious and friendly Address to the rev. John Wesley, in relation to a principal doctrine advanced and maintained by him and his assistants.” This doctrine is what is called the faith of assurance, which Mr. Parkhurst objects to, in the manner stated by Wesley, as leading to presumption and an uncharitable spirit. Mr. Parkhurst’s next publication was of more importance, “An Hebrew and English Lexicon, without points; to which is added, a methodical Hebrew grammar, without points, adapted to the use of learners,” 1762, 4to. To attempt a vindication of all the etymological and philosophical disquisitions scattered through this dictionary, would be very fruitless; but it is not perhaps too much to say, that we have nothing of the kind equal to it in the English language. The author continued to correct and improve it, through various editions, the last of wjiich was published in 1813. But his philological studies were not confined to the Hebrew language; for he published a “Greek and English Lexicon,” with a grammar, 1769, 4to, which has likewise gone through many editions, the first of which, in octavo, the form in which they are now printed, "was superintended by his. learned daughter, the wife of the rev. Joseph Thomas. The continued demand for both these lexicons seems to be a sufficient proof of their merit; and their usefulness to biblical students has indeed been generally acknowledged.

Mr. Parkhurst died at Epsom in Surrey, March 21, 1797. He was a man of very extraordinary independency of mind and firmness of principle. In early life, along with many other men of distinguished learning, it was objected to him that he was a Hutchinsonian; and this has been given as a reason for his want of preferment. A better reason, however, may be found in the circumstances of his acquisition of property, which rendered him independent, and his love of retirement, which was uniform. He always gave less of his time to the ordinary interruptions of life than is common. In an hospitable, friendly, and pleasant neighbourhood, he visited little, alleging that such a course of life neither suited his temper, his health, or his studies. Such a man was not likely to crowd the levee of a patron. Yet he was of sociable manners; and his conversation always instructive, often delightful; for his stores of knowledge were so large, that he has often been called a walking library. Like many other men of infirm and sickly frames, he was occasionally irritable and quick, warm and earnest in his resentments, though never unforgiving. Few men, upon the whole, have passed through a long life more at peace with their neighbours, more respected by men of learning, more beloved by their friends, or more honoured by their family.

, one of our early law-writers, was born of a genteel family, and educated at Oxford, but left it without a degree, and became a student of the Inner Temple, where, Wood says, he made wonderful proficiency in the common law. After being called to the bar, he became eminent in his profession, and had great practice as a chamber-counsel. Whether he was ever a reader of his inn, or a bencher, seems doubtful, tie died, according to Pits, in 1544, but according to Bale, in 1545, and is supposed to have been buried in the Temple church. He wrote, in Norman French (but Wood gives the title in Latin), “Perutilis Tractatus; sive explanatio quorundam capitulorum valde necessaria,” Lond. 1530, a work which must have answered its character of " valde necessaria,' 7 as it was reprinted in 1532, 1541, 1545, 1567, 1597, 1601, and 1639. There were also two English translations, of 1642 and 1657, all in 8vo.

, whose family name was Francis Mazzuoli, is more generally called Parmigiano, from Parma, where he was born in 1503. He studied under two uncles, Michele and Philip, but the chief modelof his imitation was Correggio, from whose works, compared with those of Michael Angelo, Raphael, and Julio, he formed that peculiar style for which he is celebrated. He displayed his natural genius for painting so very early, that at sixteen he is said to have produced designs which would have done honour to an experienced painter. His first public work, the St. Eustachius, in the church of St. Petronius, in Bologna, was done when he was a boy. In 1527, when Rome was sacked by the emperor Charles V. Parmigiano was found, like Protogenes at Rhodes, so intent upon his work as not to notice the confusion of the day. The event is variously related; some say that he escaped, like the ancient artist, from all violence, by the admiration of the soldiers; others, that he was plundered by them of his pictures, though his person was safe the first party who came taking only a few, while those who followed swept away the rest. His turn for music, and particularly his talent for playing on the lute, in some degree seduced him from his principal pursuit; and Vasari says he was much diverted from his art by the quackery of the alchymists; but this fact has by some writers been questioned. He died of a violent fever, in 1540, at the early age of 36.

On his arrival in London, by the recommendation of his Paris friends, he was introduced to the acquaintance of Dr. Mead, sir Hans Sloane, and Dr. James Douglas. This great anatomist made use of his assistance, not only in his anatomical preparations, but also in his representations of morbid and other appearances, a list of several of which was in the hands of his friend Dr. Maty; who had prepared an eloge on Dr. Parsons, which was never used, but which, by the favour of Mrs. Parsons, Mr. Nichols has preserved at large. Though Dr. Parsons cultivated the several branches of the profession of physic, he was principally employed in midwifery. In 1738, by the interest of his friend Dr. Douglas, he was appointed physician to the public infirmary in St. Giles’s. In 1739 he married miss Elizabeth Reynolds, by whom he had two sons and a daughter, who all died young. Dr. Parsons resided for many years in Red Lion-square, where he frequently enjoyed the company and conversation of Dr. Stukeley, bishop Lyttleton, Mr. Henry Baker, Dr. Knight, and many other of the most distinguished members of the royal and antiquarian societies, and that of arts, manufactures, and commerce; giving weekly an elegant dinner to a large but select party. He enjoyed also the literary correspondence of D'Argenville, Button, Le Cat, Beccaria, Amb. Bertrand, Valltravers, Ascanius, Turberville Needham, Dr. Garden, and others of the most distinguished rank in science. As a practitioner he was judicious, careful, honest, and remarkably humane to the poor; as a friend, obliging and communicative; cheerful and decent in conversation; severe and strict in his morals, and attentive to fill with propriety all the various duties of life. In 1769, finding his health impaired, he proposed to retire from business and from London, and with that view disposed of a considerable number of his books and fossils, and went to Bristol. But he returned soon after to his old house, and died in it after a week’s illness, on the 4th of April, 1770, much lamented by his family and friends. By his last will, dated in October 1766, he gave his whole property to Mrs. Parsons; and, in case of her death before him, to miss Mary Reynolds, her only sister, “in recompence for her affectionate attention to him and to his wife, for a long course of years, in sickness and in health.” It was his particular request that he should not be buried till some change should appear in his corpse; a request which occasioned him to be kept unburied 17 days, and even then scarce the slightest alterution was perceivable. He was buried at Hen don, in a vault which he had caused to be built on the ground purchased on the death of his son James, where his tomb had a very commendatory inscription. A portrait of Dr. Parsons, by Mr. Wilson, is now in the British Museum; another, by Wells, left in the hands of his widow, who died in 1786; with a third unfinished; and one of his son James; also a family piece, in which the same son is introduced, with the doctor and his lady, accompanied by her sister. Among many other portraits, Mrs. Parsons had some that were very fine of the illustrious Harvey, of bishop Burnet, and of Dr. John Freind; a beautiful miniature of Dr. Stukeley; some good paintings, by her husband’s own hand, particularly the rhinoceros which he described in the “Philosophical Transactions.” She possessed also his Mss. and some capital printed books; a large folio volume entitled “Figure quaedam Miscellaneae qu0e ad rem Anatomicam Historiamque Naturalem spectant quas propria adumbravit manu Jacobus Parsons, M. D. S S. R. Ant.” &c. another, called “Drawings of curious Fossils, Shells,” &c. in Dr. Parsons’s Collection, drawn by himself;" &c. &c. Mrs. Parsons professed herself ready to give, on proper application, either to the royal or antiquarian society, a portrait of her husband, and a sum of money to found a lecture to perpetuate his memory, similar to that established by his friend Mr. Henry Baker.

His works are, 1. “A brief Discourse, containing the Reasons why Catholics refuse to go to Church,” with a Dedication to Queen Elizabeth, under the fictitious name of John Howlet, dated Dec. 15, 1530. 2. “Reasons for his coming into the Mission of England, &c.” by some ascribed to Campian. 3. “A brief Censure upon two Books, written against the Reasons and Proofs.” 4.“A Discovery of John Nichols, misreported a Jesuit” all written and printed while the author was in England. 5. “A Defence of the Censure given upon his two Books, &c.” 1583. 6. “De persecutione Anglicana epistola,” Rome and Ingolstadt, 1582. 7. “A Christian Directory,” 1583. 8. “A Second Part of a Christian Directory, &c.” 1591. These two parts being printed erroneously at London, Parsons published an edition of them under this title: “A Christian Directory, guiding men to their Salvation, &c. with m.my corrections and additions by the Author himself.” This book is really an excellent one, and was afterwards put into modern English by Dr. Stanhope, dean of Canterbury; in which form it has gone through eight or ten editions. 9. “Responsio ad Eliz. Reginse edictum contra Catholicos,” Romae, 1593, under the name of And. Philopater. 10. “A Conference about the next Succession to the Crown of England, &c.” 1594, under the feigned name of Doleman. This piece was the production of cardinal Allen, Inglefield, and others, who furnished the materials, which Parsons, who had a happy talent this way, put into a proper method. Parsons’s style is among the best of the Elizabethan period. 11. “A temperate Wardword to the turbulent and seditious Watchword of sir Fr. Hastings, knight, 7 ' &c. 1599, under the same name. 12.” A Copy of a Letter written by a Master of Arts at Cambridge, &c.“published in 1583. This piece was commonly called” Father Parsons’s Green Coat,“being sent from abroad with the binding and leaves in that livery, but there seems reason to doubt whether this was his (see Ath. Ox. vol. II. new edit, note, p. 74). 13.” Apologetical Epistle to the Lords of her Majesty’s Privy Council, &c.“1601. 14.” Brief Apology, or Defence of the Catholic Ecclesiastical Hierarchy erected by pope Clement VIII. &c.“St. Omers, 1601. 15.” A Manifestation of the Folly and bad Spirit of secular Priests,“1602. 16.” A Decachordon often Quodlibetical Questions/' 1602. 17. “De Peregrinatione.” 18. “An Answer to O. E. whether Papists or Protestants be true Catholics,” 1603. 19. “A Treatise of the three Conversions of Paganism to the Christian Religion,” published (as are also the two following) under the name of N. D. (Nicholas Doleman), in 3 *6ls. 12mo, 1603, 1604. 20. “A Relation of a Trial made before the king of France in 1600, between the bishop of Evreux and the lord Plessis Mornay/' 1604. 21.” A Defence of the precedent Relation, &c.“22.” A Review of ten public Disputations^ &c. concerning the Sacrifices and Sacrament of the Altar,“1604. 23.” The Forerunner of Bell’s Downfall of Popery,“1605. 24.” An Answer to the fifth Part of the Reports of Sir Edward Coke, &c.“1606, 4to, published under the name of a Catholic Divine. 25.” De sacris alienis non adeundis, questiones duae,“1607. 26.” A Treatise tending to Mitigation towards Catholic subjects in England, against Thomas Morton (afterwards bishop of Durham),“1607. 27.” The Judgment of a Catholic Gentleman concerning king James’s Apology, &c.“1608. 28.” Sober Reckoning with Thomas Morton,“1609. 29.” A Discussion of Mr. Barlow’s Answer to the Judgment of a Catholic Englishman concerning the Oath of Allegiance,“1612. This book being left not quite finished at the author’s death, was afterwards completed and published by Thomas Fitzherbert. The following are also posthumous pieces: 30.” The Liturgy of the Sacrament of the Mass,“1620. 31.” A Memorial for Reformation, &c.“thought to be the same with” The High Court and Council of the Reformation,“finished after twenty years’ labour in 1596, but not published till after Parsons’s death; and republished from a copy presented to James II. with an introduction and some animadversions by Edward Gee, under the title of,” The Jesuits Memorial for the intended Reformation of the Church of England under their first Popish Prince,“1690, 8vo. 32. There is also ascribed to him,” A Declaration of the true Causes of the great Troubles pre-supposed to be intended against the Realm of England, &c. Seen and allowed, anno 1581.“33. Parsons also translated from the English into Spanish,” A Relation of certain Martyrs in England,“printed at Madrid 1590, 8vo.Several of his Mss. are preserved in Baliol college library, particularly a curious one entitled” Epitome controversiarum, hujus temporis."

, a noble Venetian, born in 1540, was made historiographer of the republic in 1579, and afterwards was employed in several embassies, was made governor of Brescia, and finally elected a procurator of St. Mark. Such was his character for wisdom, integrity, and zeal for the public welfare, that he was called the Cato of Venice. He died in 1598, at the age of 58. He cultivated the sciences and general literature, and was the author of several works of merit. Among these are: “Delia Perfezione della vita Politica;” “Discorsi Politici,” published by his sons in 1599 “A History of Venice, from 1513 to 1551, with the Addition of an Account of the War of Cyprus:” written also in Italian, but he had begun to write it in Latin, in imitation of the style of Sallust, and had finished four books in that language. A new edition of this history was given by Apostolo Zeno in 1703.

All these experiments, however, only ascertained effects, without demonstrating the causes. Pascal knew that Torricelli conjectured that those phenomena- which he had observed were occasioned by the weight of the air, though they had formerly been attributed to Nature’s abhorrence of a vacuum: but if Torricelli’s theory were true, he reasoned that the liquor in the barometer tube ought to stand higher at the bottom of a hill, than at the top of it. In order therefore to discover the truth of this theory, he made an experiment at the top and bottom of a mountain in Auvergne, called le Puy de Dome, the result of which gave him reason to conclude that the air was indeed heavy. Of this experiment he published an account, and sent copies of it to most of the learned men in Europe. He also renewed it at the top and bottom of several high towers, as those of Notre Dame at Paris, St. Jaques de la Boucherie, &c. and always remarked the same difference in the weight of the air, at different elevations. This fully convinced him of the general pressure of the atmosphere; and from this discovery he drew many useful and important inferences. He composed also a large treatise, in which he fully explained this subject, and replied to all the objections that had been started against it. As he afterwards thought this work rather too prolix, and being fond of brevity and precision, he divided it into two small treatises, one of which he entitled “A Dissertation on the Equilibrium of Fluids;” and the other, “An Essay on the Weight of the Atmosphere.” These labours procured Pascal so much reputation, that the greatest mathematicians and philosophers of the age proposed various questions to him, and consulted him respecting such difficulties as they could not resolve. Upon one of these occasions he discovered the solution of a problem proposed by Mersenne, which had baffled the penetration of all that had attempted it. This problem was to determine the curve described in the air by the nail of a coach-wheel, while the machine is in motion; which curve was thence called a roullette, but now commonly known by the name of cycloid. Pascal offered a reward of 40 pistoles to any one who should give a satisfactory answer to it. No person having succeeded, he published his own at Paris; but, as ie began now to be disgusted with the sciences, he would not set his real name to it, but sent it abroad under that of A. d'Ettonville. This was the la’st work which he published in the mathematics; his infirmities, from a delicate constitution, though still young, now increasing so much, that he was under the necessity of renouncing severe study, and of living so recluse, that he scarcely admitted any person to see him. Another subject on which Pascal wrote very ingeniously, and in which he has been spoken of as an inventor, was what has been called his Arithmetical Triangle, being a set of figurate numbers disposed in that form. But such a table of numbers, and many properties of them, had been treated of more than a century before, by Cardan, Stifelius, and other arithmetical writers.

The celebrated Menage, in that collection called “Menagiana,” selects the two following passages in the writings of M. Pascal, for the acute observations they contain: “Those minds which are capable of invention are very scarce. Those to whom this power is denied, being much the greater number, are of course the prevailing party; insomuch, that when works of invention come forward, to claim the praise due to their authors, the public opinion treats them as visionaries.” And again, “It seems rather a fortunate circumstance, that some common error should fix the wanderings of the human mind. For instance, the moon is supposed to influence the disorders of the human body, and to cause a change in human affairs, &c. which notion, though it be false, is not without its advantage; as men are thereby restrained from an inquiry into things to which the human understanding is incompetent, and from a kind of curiosity which is a malady of the mind.”

, a celebrated painter, was a native of France; but neither his Christian name, his age, nor the master under whom he studied, are known to the writers on these subjects. He has sometimes been called the French Claude, from his successful imitation of that master. In his figures he is clearly superior to him. The forms of his trees are elegant and free, his scenery rich, and his buildings and other objects designed in a very pleasing manner. His touch is light, yet firm; his colouring generally clear and natural. Two of his works have been engraved by Strange, and all of them prove that he studied nature with nice observation, and his choice from her productions was always agreeable. In France he is sometimes called, Paid le tue, or le bon Patd; and there was also a Patet le Jeune, of whom still less is known.

Of Velleius Paterculus, as of Hesychius among the Greeks, one ms. only was discovered, called the codex Murbacensis, and even that is now lost. In it, says Bentley, “the faults of the scribes are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond all redress, that, notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, these books still are, and are like to continue, a mere heap of errors.” No ancient author but Prisciaa makes mention of Paterculus: the moderns have done him infinitely more justice, and have illustrated him with notes and commentaries. He was first published, from the manuscript of Morba^ by Rhenanus, at Basil, in 1520, but under such circumstances, that this edition was considered as a spurious work. It was reprinted by Paul Manutius at Venice in 1571 afterwards by Lipsius, at Leyden, in 1581 then by Gerard Vossius, in 1639: next by Boeclerus, at Strasburg, in 1642: by Peter Burman, at Leyden, in 1719, in 8vo by Ruhnkenius, at Leyden, 1779, 2 vols. 8vo and lastly, by Krausius, at Leipsic, 1800, 8vo. To the Oxford edition, in 1693, 8vo, were prefixed the “Annales Velleiani” of Dodwell, which shew deep learning, and a great knowledge of antiquity.

In 1650 he was chosen dean of the faculty of medicine, and afterwards succeeded Riolan, the younger, in the professorship of medicine in the Royal-college, where he taught with great reputation. The disputes which took place in his time respecting the use of antimony roused all his spleen, as he regarded this medicine as a poison, and had even made out a list of patients, which he called the martyrology of antimony. Great, however, was his mortification when, in 1666, a majority of the faculty decided to admit emetic wine into the list of prescriptions. He was quite inconsolable.

At the Revolution in 1688, great use was made of the dean, who was very active in settling the affairs of the church: he was called upon to preach before the prince and princess of Orange; and was soon after appointed one of the commissioners for the review of the liturgy. He was thought to have excellent talents for devotional composition, and his part now was to revise the collects of the whole year, in which he introduced some amendments and improvements of style. In October 1689, he was made bishop of Chichester; and employed, with others of the new bishops, to compose the disorders of the church of Ireland. In July 1691, he was translated to the see of Ely, in the room of Turner, who was deprived for refusing the oaths to government. Here he continued to perform all the offices of a good bishop, as well as a good man, which he had ever proved himself on all occasions. He died at Ely, May 31, 1707, aged eighty; and was interred in the cathedral, where a monument is erected to his memory, with an inscription said to have been written by Dr. Leng, afterwards bishop of Norwich.

, a French minor poet, was born at Caen in 1585, and being the son of a lawyer, was designed by his father for the same profession. This destination, which seldom suits a poetical imagination, was accordingly rejected by Patrix, who addicted himself entirely to poetry. About the age of forty, he attached himself to the court of Gaston, duke of Orleans, 'to whom, and to his widow, Margaret ofLorraine, he faithfully devoted his services. A Norman accent, and a certain affectation of rustic simplicity, did not prevent him from being in high favour at that little court: his wit, liveliness, and social talent, making amends for such imperfections. Towards the latter end of life, he became strongly touched with sentiments of religion, and suppressed, as far as he could, the licentious poems which he had written in his youth. He lived to the great age of eighty-eight, and died at Paris in 1672. At eighty, he had a violent illness, and when he recovered from it, his friends advised him to leave his bed; “Alas!” said he, “at my time of life, it is hardly worth while to take the trouble of dressing myself again.” He proved however mistaken, as to the shortness of his subsequent life. Of his works there are extant, 1. A collection of verses entitled “La miv-ricorde de Dieu sur un pecheur pénitent,” Blois, 1660, 4to. These were written in his age, yet possess some fire. 2. “Plaints des Consonnes qui n‘ont pas Thonneur d’entrer dans le noiu de Neufgermain,” preserved in the works of Voiture 3. Miscellaneous poems, in the collection of Barbin. The greater part of them are feeble, with the exception of a few original passages. The poem most known was made a few days before his death. It is called the Dream; and, though it is of a serious cast, a translation of it, oddly enough, possesses a place in all our English jest bokks, beginning, “I dreamt that buried in my fellow-clay,” &c. It asserts a moral and religious axiom, which is undeniable, that death levels all conditions. The original is little known; it is this:

, the Deacon, or Paulus Diaconus, so called because he had been a deacon of the church of Friuli, though some call him by his father’s name Warmafridcs, and others, from the profession he took up in his latter years Paulus Monachus, was originally a Lombard, born in the city of Friuli, in the eighth century, and educated in the court of the Lombard kings at Pavia. After Desiderius, the last king of the Lombards, was taken prisoner by Charlemagne, and carried to France, tired of the tumult of the public world, he retired from the busy scenes he had been engaged in, and became a monk in the famous monastery of Monte Casino, where he wrote his history of the Lombards, in six books, from their first origin down to the reign of Luitprandus, who was their eighteenth king that reigned in Italy, and died in the year 743. He was an eye-witness of many of the transactions he relates; and as he was a Lombard, we may suppose him well informed of the affairs of his own nation, and had read the history of the Lombards, written in the same century in which they began to reign in Italy, by Secundus Tridentinus, originally a Lombard, but a native of the city of Trent, who flourished, according to Baronius, in the year 615; but his history is now lost. He often quotes his authority, and though he sometimes falls into trivial mistakes, about foreign affairs, and such as happened long before his time, as Grotius learnedly evinces, yet, in the transactions of his own nation, he is, generally speaking, very exact. He died in the year 799.His history was printed at Hamburgh in 1611, and is besides to be found in the eighteenth volume of Muratori’s Rerum Italic. Scriptores.

, so named from the place of his birth, flourished in the third century, and was among the first who entertained the opinions since known by the name of Socinian, or Unitarian. In the year 260 he was chosen bishop of Antioch, and having begun to preach against the divinity of Jesus Christ, he was admonished, in a council assembled at Antioch, in the year 264: but, in another, held in phe year 269 or 270, sentence of deposition was passed. To this he refused to submit, and was supported in his disobedience by Zenobia the consort of Odenatus, At length, when this queen was driven from Antioch, the emperor Aurelian expelled Paul in the year 272 or 273. Jt is not known what became of him afterwards; nor are any of his writings extant. His morals appear to have been as obnoxious as his doctrines. Dr. Lardner has en4eavoured to defend both, yet it appears evident that he hail the whole Christian world against him, and queen Zenobia only for him. His wealth, says Gibbon, was a sufficient evidence of his guilt, since it was neither derived from the inheritance of his fathers, nor acquired by the arts of honest industry. His followers were for a considerable time called Paulianists, but have since been known by many other names, according to the shades of difference in their opinions.

, a worthy ecclesiastic of the Romish church, was born April 24, 1576, and studied at Toulouse, where he was ordained a priest in 1600. On his return to Narbonne from Marseilles, his ship was taken by the Turks, and he remained for a considerable time in slavery, under three masters, the last of whom he converted. Returning at length to France, Louis XIII. made him abbot of St. Leonard de Chaulme, and he had afterwards the care of the parish church of Clichy, which he completely repaired and furnished at his own expence. Towards the end of 1609, he went to reside in the house of Emmanuel de Goudy, as tutor to his children, but does not appear to have remained here long. He then obtained the curacy of Chatillon-les-Dombes, which he kept only five months. Compelled by the solicitations of numberless persons of the highest distinction, to return, to the Goudy family, he resigned himself wholly to his natural desire of relieving the poor and afflicted. Louis XIII. being made acquainted with his zeal, appointed him almonergeneral of the gall ies, 1619; and the following year, St. Francis de Sales, because, as he says, he “knew not a worthier priest in the church,”made him superintendant of the nuns of the visitation. On niadame de Goudy’s decease, M. Vincent retired to the college des Bon Knfans, cf which he, wasprincipal, and which he never quitted, but to perform the oftie of a missionary. Some years after, he accepted the house de St. Lazare, though with great reluctance. His life was a continued series of good works, and it is scarcely to be conceived how one man could plan so many, still less, how he could execute them. Among these were missions in all parts of France, as well as in Italy, Scotland, Barbary, Madagascar, &c. ecclesiastical conferences, at which the most eminent bishops of the kingdom were present spiritual retirements, as they were called, which were also gratuitous; an Hospital for Foundlings, for which his humane applications procured an income of 40,000 livres; the foundation of the Charitable Virgins, for the relief of sick poor; to which we may add, the hospitals de Bicetre, de la Salpetriere, de la Piti; those of Marseilles for galley-slaves; of St. Reine for pilgrims, and of le Saint Nom de Jesus, for old men, which are principally indebted to him for their establishment. In times of the greatest distress, he sent above two millions of livres into Lorraine in money and effects; nor did Picardy and Champagne experience much less of his bounty, when the scourges of heaven had reduced those provinces to the most deplorable indigence. During ten years that M. Vincent presided in the council of conscience, under Anne of Austria, he suffered none but the most worthy to be presented to benefices. Being a zealous patron of nunneries, he supported the establishment of the nuns de la Providence, de Sainte Genevieve, and de la Croix. He laboured with success for the reform of Grammorit, Premontre, and the abbey of St. Genevieve, as welt as for the establishment of the great Seminaries. Even those, who have doubted whether his talents were very extensive, have openly acknowledged that he was one of the most pious priests in the kingdom, and more useful to the poor and to the church, than most of those who are considered as great geniuses. This excellent man died loaded with years, labour, and mortifications, Sept.27,1660, aged near 85. He was canonized by Clement XII. on July 16, 1737. Those who wish to know more of St. Vincent de Paul, may consult his Life by M. Collet, 2 vols. 4to, and “PAvocat.du Diable,” 3 vols. 12mo.

, a Danish professor and physician, was born at Rostock, in the circle of Lower Saxony, April 6, 1603, and died at Copenhagen, April 25, 1680. He published some medical treatises, and in 1639 a Latin quarto, on medicinal plants, entitled Quadripartitum Botanicum; and in 1648 a thicker volume, in Danish, with wooden cuts, called “Flora Danica,” which, however, embraces the garden plants as well as the native ones, known in Denmark at the time of its publication. He wrote also against tobacco and tea, and his work was translated into English by the late Dr. James, in 1746. The most remarkable circumstance attending it is his contending, with the positiveness, usual to those who are in the wrong, that the Chinese Tea is no other than our European Myrica gale; an error which Bartholin very cautiously and repectfully corrects, in his Acta Medica, v. 4. 1, where the true tea is, not very accurately, figured. The Paullinia, in botany, is so named in honour of him, by Linnæus.

, bishop of St. Asaph, and Chichester, in the reign of Henry Vj. is supposed to have been born in Wales about 1390. He was educated in Oriel college, Oxford, of which he was chosen fellow in October 1417, in the room of Richard Garsdale, S. T. P. who was then elected provost of the college. Having studied with a view to the church, he was ordained deacon and priest in 1420 by Fleming, bishop of Lincoln. In 1425 he took his degree of bachelor of divinity, and about this time is supposed to have left the university. Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, was now protector of the kingdom, and being a great patron of learned men, invited Mr. Peacock to court, where he was enabled to make a very considerable figure by his talents. In 1431, he was elected master of the college of St. Spirit and St. Mary, founded by sir Richard Whittington; and with it was appointed to the rectory of St. Michael in Riola, now St. Michael Royal, situated in the street called Tower Royal in Viutry ward. This situation he resigned in 1444, on being promoted to the bishopric of St. Asaph. To whom he owed this preferment seems uncertain, as his patron the duke of Gloucester was now declining in court interest, but perhaps the estimation he was held in at court may account for it. He now was honoured with the degree of D. D. at Oxford, in his absence, and without performing any exercises, an omission for which he was reproached afterwards by his enemies, although it was not then uncommon. In 1447 he preached a sermon at Paul’s cross, in which he maintained that bishops were not under obligation to preach or to take the cure of souls, and that their duties consist entirely in the various acts of church government. This doctrine was not very palatable even then, and he was under the necessity of explaining himself to the archbishop of Canterbury; but it showed, what appeared more clearly afterwards, that he was accustomed to think for himself, and to pay little deference to authority or custom.

In 1449, he was translated to the see of Chichester, and now began to give opinions which were ill suited to the times in which he lived. Although he had taken great pains both in his preaching and writings to defend the established church against the disciples of Wickliffe, now called Lollards, he gave it as his opinion, that the most probable means of reclaiming them was by allowing them the use of their reason, and not insisting on the infallibility of the church. The clergy, we may suppose, were not satisfied with such doctrine; and many of the learned men of the universities were so highly offended with it, and with his writing in the English language on subjects which ought to be concealed from the laity, that they at last prevailed with the archbishop of Canterbury to cite him. The archbishop accordingly issued his mandate, in Oct. 1457, ordering all persons to appear who had any thing to allege against the bishop of Chichester; and his books being found to contain various heretical opinions, he read a recantation, first in the archbishop’s court at Lambeth, and afterwards at St. Paul’s cross, where his books were burnt, as they also were at Oxford. He was likewise deprived of his bishopric, and confined in Thorney abbey, in Cambridgeshire, where it is supposed he died about 1460. His biographer has given an ample account of his writings, all of which remain in ms. except his “Treatise of Faith,” published by Wharton in 1688, 4to. He appears to have been a man of learning, and an acute reasoner. The opinions for which he suffered were not perhaps so decided as to procure him admittance to the list of reformers; but it is evident that he was one of the first who contended against the infallibility of the Romish church, and in favour of the holy scriptures being the principal guide. In 1744 the rev. John Lewis, of Margate, published “The Li/e” of this prelate, which, as he justly styles it, forms a “sequel to the Life” of Wickliff, and is an useful introduction to the history of the English reformation.

, a French wit, the son of a surgeon of Toulouse, where he was born in 1638, wrote several Latin poems, which were reckoned good, but applied himself chiefly to the poetry of his native country. Having been three times honoured with the laurel at the academy of the Floral games, he wrote a tragedy called Gela, which was acted, in 1687, with applause, in consequence of which he published it, with a dedication to the first prince of the blood. He wrote also “Le sacrifice d' Abraham;” and ^ Joseph vendu par ses Freres,“two singular subjects for tragedies; but received with favour. He produced besides a tragedy called” La Mort de Neron,“concerning which an anecdote is related, which nearly coincides with one which is current here, as having happened to our dramatic poet Fletcher. He wrote usually at public-houses, and one day left behind him a paper, containing his plan for that tragedy; in which, after various marks and abbreviations, he had written at large,” Ici le roi sera tu6“Here the king is to be killed. The tavern-keeper, conceiving that he had found the seeds of a plot, gave information to the magistrate. The poet was accordingly taken up; but on seeing his paper, which he had missed, in the hands of the person who had seized him, exclaimed eagerly,” Ah! there it is; the very scene which I had planned for the death of Nero." With this clue, his innocence was easily made out, and he was discharged. Pechantre died at Paris in 1709, being then seventy-one; he had exercised the profession of physic for some time, till he quitted it for the more arduous task of cultivating the drama.

The first work discovered of his writing is “Το ὕϕος ἄγιον; or an Exercise on the Creation, and an Hymn to the Creator of the World; written in the express words of the Sacred Text; as an attempt to shew the Beauty and Sublimity of Holy Scripture,” 1716, 8vo. This was followed by a poem, entitled “Sighs on the Death of Queen Anne,” published in 1719; subjoined to which are three poems, viz, 1. “Paraphrase on part of the cxxxixth Psalm.” 2. “The Choice.” 3. “Verses to Lady Elizabeth Cecil, on her Birth-day, Nov. 23, 1717.” At the end of this work he mentions, as preparing for the press, “The History of the two last Months of King Charles I.” and solicits assistance; but this never was published. He also mentions a poem on Saul and Jonathan, not then published. During his residence at the university, and perhaps in the early part of it, he wrote a comedy called the “Humours of the University; or the Merry Wives of Cambridge.” The ms. of this comedy is now in the possession of Octavius Gilchrist, esq. of Stamford, who has obliged the editor with a transcript of the preface . In August 1719, he occurs curate of King’s Cliff, in Northamptonshire, and in 1721 he offered to the world proposals for printing the history and antiquities of his native town. In 1723, he obtained the rectory of Godeby Maureward, by purchase, from Samuel Lowe, esq. who at that time was lord of the manor, and patron of the advowson. In 1727, he drew up a poetical description of Belvoir and its neighbourhood, which is printed in Mr. Nichols’s History of Leicestershire; and in that year his first considerable work appeared, under the title of “Academia Tertia Anglicana; or, The Antiquarian Annals of Stanford, in Lincoln, Rutland, and Northampton Shires; containing the History of the University, Monasteries, Gilds, Churches, Chapels, Hospitals, and Schools there,” &c. ornamented with XLI plates; and inscribed to John duke of Rutland, in an elaborate dedication, which contains a tolerably complete history of the principal events of that illustrious family, from the founder of it at the Conquest. This publication was evidently hastened by “An Essay on the ancient and present State of Stamford, 1726,” 4to, by Francis Hargrave, who, in the preface to his pamphlet, mentions a difference which had arisen between him and Mr. Peck, because his publication forestalled that intended by the latter. Mr. Peck is also rather roughly treated, on account of a small work he had formerly printed, entitled “The History of the Stamford Bull-running.” In 1729, Jie printed a single sheet, containing, “Queries concerning the Natural History and Antiquities of Leicestershire and Rutland,” which were afterwards reprinted in 174O. He was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, March 9, 1732, and in that year he published the first volume of “Desiderata Curiosa; or, A Collection of divers scarce and curious Pieces, relating chiefly to matters of English History 5 consisting of choice Tracts, Memoirs, Letters, Wills, Epitaphs, &c. Transcribed, many of them, from the originals themselves, and the rest from divers ancient ms Copies, or the ms Collations of sundry famous Antiquaries, and other eminent Persons, both of the last and present age: the whole, as nearly as possible, digested into order of time, and illustrated with ample Notes, Contents, additional Discourses, and a complete Index.” This volume was dedicated to lord William Manners; and was followed, in 1735, by a second volume, dedicated to Dr. Reynolds, bishop of Lincoln. There being only 250 copies of these volumes printed, they soon became scarce and high-priced, and were reprinted in one volume, 4to, by subscription, by the late Mr. Thomas Evans, in 1779, without, however, any improvements, or any attempt, which might perhaps have been dangerous by an unskilful hand, at a better arrangement. In 1735, Mr. Peck printed, in a quarto pamphlet, “A complete Catalogue of all the Discourses written both for and against Popery, in the time of King James the Second; containing in the whole an account of four hundred and fifty-seven Books and Pamphlets, a great number of them not mentioned in the three former Catalogues; with references after each title, for the more speedy finding a further Account of the said Discourses and their Authors in sundry Writers, and an Alphabetical List of the Writers on each side.” In 1736, he obtained, by the favour of bishop Reynolds, the prebendal stall of Marston St. Lawrence, in the cathedral church of Lincoln. In 1739, he was the editor of “Nineteen Letters of the truly reverend and learned Henry Hammond, D. D. (author of the Annotations on the New Testament, &c.) written to Mi*. Peter Stainnough and Dr. Nathaniel Angelo, many of them on curious subjects,” &c. These were printed from the originals, communicated by Mr. Robert Marsden, archdeacon of Nottingham, and Mr. John Worthington. The next year, 1740, produced two volumes in quarto; one of them entitled “Memoirs of the life and actions of Oliver Cromwell, as delivered in three Panegyrics of him written in Latin; the first, as said, by Don Juan Roderiguez de Saa Meneses, Conde de Penguiao, the Portugal Ambassador; the second, as affirmed by a certain Jesuit, the lord ambassador’s Chaplain; yet both, it is thought, composed by Mr. John Milton (Latin Secretary to Oliver Cromwell), as was the third with an English version of each. The whole illustrated with a large Historical Preface many similar passages from the Paradise Lost, and other works of Mr. John Milton, and Notes from the best historians. To all which is added, a Collection of divers curious Historical Pieces relating to Cromwell, and a great number of other remarkable persons (after the manner of Desiderata Curiosa, vol. I. and II.)” The other, “New Memoirs of the Life and Poetical Works of Mr. John Milton; with, first, an Examination of Milton’s Style; and, secondly, Explanatory and Critical Notes on divers passages in Milton and Shakspeare, by the Editor. Thirdly, Baptistes; a sacred Dramatic Poem in Defence of Liberty, as written in Latin by Mr. George Buchanan, translated into English by Mr. John Milton, and first published in 1641, by order of the House of Commons. Fourthly, The Parallel) or archbishop Laud and cardinal Wolsey compared, a vision, by Milton. Fifthly, The Legend of sir Nicholas Throckmorton, knt. Chief Butler of England, who died of poison, anno 1570, an Historical Poem, by his nephew sir Thomas Throckmorton, knt. Sixth, Herod the Great, by the Editor. Seventh, The Resurrection, a Poem, in imitation of Milton, by a Friend. And eighth, a Discourse on the Harmony of the Spheres, by Milton; with Prefaces and Notes.” Of these his “Explanatory and Critical Notes on divers passages of Shakspeare” seem to prove that the mode of illustrating Shakspeare by extracts from contemporary writers, was not entirely reserved for the modern commentators on our illustrious bard, but had occurred to Mr. Peck. The worst circumstance respecting this volume is the portrait of Milton, engraved from a painting which Peck got from sir John Meres of KirkbyBeler in Leicestershire. He was not a little proud to possess this painting, which is certainly not genuine and what is worse, he appears to have known that it was not genuine. Having asked Vertue whether he thought it a picture of Milton, and Vertue peremptorily answering in the negative, Peck replied, “I'll have a scraping from it, however: and let posterity settle the difference.”

The greater part of Mr. Peck’s Mss. became the property of sir Thomas Cave, bart. Among others, he purchased 5 vols. in 4to, fairly transcribed for the press, in. Mr. Peck’s own neat hand, under the title of “Monasticon Anglicanum.” These volumes were, on the 14th of May, 1779, presented to the British Museum, by the last sir Thomas Cave, after the death of his father, who twenty years before had it in contemplation to bestow them on that excellent repository. They are a most valuable and almost inestimable collection, and we hope will not be neglected by the editors of the new edition of Dugdale. Mr. Peck’s other literary projects announced in the preface to his “Desiderata,” and at the end his “Memoirs of Cromwell,” are, 1. “Desiderata Curiosa,” vol. III. Of this Mr. Nichols has a few scattered fragments. 2. “The Annals of Stanford continued.” 3. “The History and Antiquities of the Town and Soke of Grantham, in Lincolnshire.” 4. “The Natural History and Antiquities of Rutland.” 5. “The Natural History and Antiquities of Leicestershire.” The whole of Mr. Peck’s Mss. relative to this work, were purchased by sir Thomas Cave, in 1754, whose grandson, with equal liberality and propriety, presented them to Mr. Nichols for the use of his elaborate history of that county. It appears from one of Mr. Peck’s Mss. on Leicestershire, that he meditated a chapter on apparitions, in which he cordially believed. 6. “r rhe Life of Mr. Nicholas Ferrar, of Little Gidding, in the county of Huntingdon, gent, commonly called the Protestant St. Nicholas, and the pious Mr. George Herbert’s Spiritual Brother, done from original Mss.” This ms. of Ferrar is now in the possession of Mr. Gilchrist of Stamford, before mentioned, who informs us that there is nothing in it beyond what may be found in Peckard’s Life of Ferrar. 7. “The Lives of William Burton, esq. author of the Antiquities of Leicestershire, and his brother Robert Burton, B. D. student of Christ-church, and rector of Seagrave, in Leicestershire, better known by the name of Democritus jun.” Mr. Nichols had also the whole of this ms. or plan, which was merely an outline. 8. “New Memoirs of the Restoration of King Charles the Second (which may be considered also as an Appendix to secretary Thurloe’s Papers), containing the copies of Two Hundred and Forty-six Original Letters and Papers, all written annis 1658, 1659, and 1660 (none of them ever yet printed). The whole communicated by William Cowper, esq, Clerk of the Parliament.” In 1731, Mr. Peck drew up a curious “Account of the Asshebys and De la Launds, owners of Bloxham, in the county of Lincoin,” a ms. in the British Museum. Mr. Gilchrist has a copy of Langbaine’s Lives, carefully interlined by him, whence it should seem that he meditated an enlargement of that very useful volume. Mr. Peck also left a great many ms sermons, some of which are in the possession of the same gentleman, who has obligingly favoured us with some particulars of the Stamford antiquary.

Wood and Winstanley, misguided by former catalogues, have also attributed to him another tragedy, called “Alphonsus, emperor of Germany.” But this, Langbaine assures us, was written by Chapman, he himself having the play in his possession, with that author’s name to it. About 1593 Peele seems to have been taken into the patronage of the earl of Northumberland, to whom he dedicated in that year, “The Honour of the Garter, a poem gratulatorie, the Firstling, consecrated to his noble name.” He was almost as famous for his tricks and merry pranks as Scoggan, Skelton, or Dick Tarleton; and as there are books of theirs in print, so there is one of his called “Merrie conceited Jests of George Peele, gent, sometime student in Oxford; wherein is shewed the course of his life, how he lived,” &c. 1627, 4to. These jests, as they are called, might with more propriety he termed the tricks pf a sharper. Peele died before 1598, of the consequences of his debaucheries. Oldys says he left behind him a wife and a daughter. He seems to have been a person of a very irregular life; and Mr. Steevens, with great probability, supposes, that the character of George Pieboard, in “The Puritan,” was designed as a representative of George Peele. See a note on that comedy, as published by Mr. Malone.

Being now possessed of a living, and of some independent personal property inherited from his mother, he married, in April 1732, miss Anne Clarke, the only daughter of Benjamin Clarke, esq. of Stanley, near Wakefield, in Yorkshire. While he resided in Kent, which was for the space of twenty years, he made himself universally acceptable by his general knowledge, his agreeable conversation, and his vivacity. Having an early propensity to the study of antiquities as well as of the classics, he here laid the foundation of what in time became a considerable collection of books, and his cabinet of coins grew in proportion; by which two assemblages, so scarce among country gentlemen in general, he was qualified to pursue those collateral studies, without neglecting his parochial duties, to which he was always assiduously attentive. Here, however, the placid course of his life was interrupted by the death of Mrs. Pegge, whom he lamented with unfeigned sorrow; and now meditated on some mode of removing himself, without disadvantage, to his native country, either by obtaining a preferment tenable with his present vicarage, or by exchanging this for an equivalent. Having been induced to reside for some time at Surrenden, to superintend the education of Sir Edward Dering’s son, that baronef obtained for him the perpetual curacy of Brampton, near Chesterfield, in the gift of the dean of Lincoln; but the parishioners insisting that they had a right to the presentation, law proceedings took place, before the termination of which in favour of the dean of Lincoln, Mr. Pegge was presented by the new dean of Lincoln, Dr. George, to the rectory of Whittington, near Chesterfield. He was accordingly inducted Nov. 11, 1751, and resided here upwards of forty-four years without interruption. About a fortnight after, by the interest of his friend sir Edward Dering with the duke of Devonshire, he was inducted into the rectory of Brinhill, or Brindle, in Lancashire, on which he resigned Godmersham. Sir Edward also obtained for him in the same year a scarf from the marquis of Hartington (afterwards the fourth duke of Devonshire) who was then called up to the house of peers by the title of baron Cavendish of Hard wick. In 1758 Mr. Pegge was enabled, by the acquiescence of the duke of Devonshire, to exchange Brinhill for Heath, alias Lown, which lies within seven miles of Whittington; a very commodious measure, as it brought his parochial preferments within a smaller distance of each other. The vicarage of Heath he held till his death. His other preferments were, in 1765, the perpetual curacy ofWingerworth; the prebend of Bobenhull, in the church of Lichfield, in 1757; the living of Whittington in Staffordshire, in 1763; and the prebend of Louth, in Lincoln church, in 1772. Towards the close of his life he declined accepting a residentiaryship in the church of Lichfield, being too old to endure, with tolerable convenience, a removal from time to time. His chief patron was archbishop Cornwallis, but he had an admirer, if not a patron, in every dignitary of the church who knew him; and his protracted life, and his frequent and almost uninterrupted literary labours, made him very generally known. In 1791, when on a visit to his grandson, sir Christopher Pegge, of Oxford, he was created LL. D. by that university. He died, after a fortnight’s illness, Feb. 14, 1796, in the ninety-second year of his age, and was buried, according to his own desire, in the chancel of the church of Whittington, near Chesterfield, where his son placed a mural tablet of black marble, over the east window, with a short inscription.

A very honourable funeral was provided for him by his nephew Claude, in the absence of his brother, who was then at Paris; but who, returning shortly to Provence, hastened to perform the funeral rites, and to be present at the obsequies. He also procured a block of marble from Genoa, from which a monument was made and erected to his memory, with an epitaph by Rigault. As he had been chosen in his life-time a member of the academy of the Humoristi at Rome, his eulogium was pronounced by John James Bouchier, of that learned society, in the presence of cardinal Barberini, his brother Antonio, cardinal Bentivoglio. and several other cardinals, and such a multitude of celebrated and learned men, that the hall was scarce able to contain them. Many copies of verses, in Italian, Latin, and Greek, were recited; which were afterwards printed together, with a collection of funeral elegies in forty languages, under the title of “Panglossia.” Peiresc was, in his person, of a middle size, and of a thin habit; his forehead large, and his eyes grey; a little hawk-nosed, his cheeks tempered with red the hair of his head yellow, as also his beard, which he used to wear long; his whole countenance bearing the marks of uncommon courtesy and affability. In his diet he affected cleanliness, and in all things about him; but nothing superfluous or costly. His clothes were suitable to his dignity; yet he never wore silk. In like manner, the rest of his house was adorned according to his condition, and very well furnished; but he neglected his own chamber. Instead of tapestry, there hung the pictures of his chief friends and of famous men, besides innumerable bundles of commentaries, transcripts, notes, collections from books, epistles, and such like papers. His bed was exceeding plain, and his table continually loaded and covered with papers, books, letters, and other things; as also all the seats round about, and the greatest part of the floor. These were so many evidences of the turn of his mind, which made the writer of his eulogium compare him to the Roman Atticus; and Bayle, considering his universal correspondence and general assistance to all the literati in Europe, called him “the attorney-general of the literary republic.” The multiplicity of his engagements prevented him from finishing any considerable work; but he left behind him a great number of Mss. on local history and antiquities, mathematics and astronomy, the medallic science, languages, &c. Of the writings of this scholar there have been published 48 Italian letters, addressed to Paul and John Baptist Gualdo, in the “Lettere d'uomini illustri;” a considerable number of letters among those of Camden, and a long and learned dissertation on an ancient tripod found at Frejus, in the “Mem. de Literature et de l'Histoire,” by Desmalets, in 1731. It is remarkable, that though Peiresc bought more books than any man of his time, yet the collection which he left was not large. The reason was, that as fast as he purchased, he kept continually making presents of them to learned men to whom he knew they would be useful. But the destruction of a multitude of his papers after his death, by some of his near relations, is mentioned by the learned with indignation and regret; they were applied to the vile uses of heating the oven and boiling the pot. Gassendi, another ornament of France, has given us his life iii detail, in elegant Latin, one of those delightful works, which exhibit a striking likeness of a great and good man at full length, and shew every feature and fold of the drapery in the strongest and clearest light.

Zosimus, either through a persuasion that these heretics had dealt insincerely with him, or finding it prudent to yield to the necessity of the occasion, upon the receipt of this letter, issued out a formal condemnation of the Pelagians, and applied also to Honorius, requesting him to cause all heretics to be driven out of Rome; in compliance with which, the emperor gave a rescript at Ravenna, April 418, directd to the pretorian prefect of Italy, who, in consequence, issued his ordinance jointly with the pretorian prefect of the east, and the prefect of Gaul, purporting, that all such as should be convicted of this error should suffer perpetual banishment, and that all their possessions should be confiscated. The pope also vigorously prosecuting hs design to extirpate the friends 01 Pelagius, caused all the bishops to be deposed who would not subscribe the condemnation of the new heresy, and drove them out of Italy by virtue of the laws of the empire. Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, likewise rejected their deputies. They were driven from Ephesus and Theodotus bishop of Antioch condemned them, and drove Pelagius thence, who was lately returned from Palestine, where he had taken refuge from the emperor’s rescript. We have no certain account of him after this; but there is reason to believe, that he returned to England, and spread his doctrine there; which induced the bishop of Gaul to send thither St. Germain of Auxerre, in order to refute it. However that be, it is certain that Pelagian heresy, as it is called, spread itself both in the east and west, and took so deep root, that it subsists to this day in different sects, who all go by the general name of Pelagians, except a more moderate part who are called Semi-Pelagians.

This Heresiareh wrote several things, among which are, <e A Treatise upon the Trinity;“” A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles,“which oddly enough has been annexed to those of St. Jerom, and was long thought to be written by him, although a decided Anti-Pelagian;” A Book of Eclogues, or Spiritual Maxims;“several letters, among which is one addressed to a virgin, named Demetrias, which is printed in the works of St. Jerom; several pieces in his own defence and a treatise on free-will. The History of Pelagianism by Jansenius, in his treatise called <fc Augustine,” is thought the best.

, an abbe, and an author by profession, of some celebrity at Paris, was born at Marseilles in 1663, and became a religious of the order of Servites. Being tired of this mode of life, he took some voyages as chaplain to a vessel. On his return, he wrote a poem called “An Epistle to the King on the glorious Success of his Arms,” which gained the prize irt th french academy in 1704. With this Epistle Pellegrin had sent an Ode on the same subject, which proved the only formidable rival to his Epistle, and for some time divided the opinions of the academy. This singular success made him known at court. Madame Maintenoti took notice of him, and gained him a brevet to be translated into the order pf Cluni. Pellegrin subsisted solely by the prizes he gained in several literary academies, and his other literary labours. He even kept a kind of shop, where those who wanted occasional verses, as epigrams, sonnets, madrigals, &c. were supplied at certain prices, according to the number and goodness of the lines. This trade growing slack, he began to write for the theatres, but here a new obstacle arose. The cardinal de Noailles insisted that he should either cease to write for the stage, or to officiate at the mass. He would fain have had a dispensation on this $ubject, but, the cardinal being inexorable, he gave up the mass, as least profitable. He would, however, have felt the loss of the latter, had not his friends procured him a salary for writing the account of the theatrical entertainments in the Mercure. Pellegrin deserved to be in better circumstances, for a great part of what he earned so laboriously was distributed among his relations: and his disposition was singularly candid and modest. He was, at the same time, negligent of his appearance, and had an impediment in his speech; circumstances which conspired to plunge him in that neglect he so severely experienced. He lived, however, to the age of 82; and closed this long life on the 5th of September, 1745. His works are very various; poems of all kinds, sacred and profane; versions of the Psalms and other parts of Scripture; comedies, operas, &c. the general character of all which is, that they are seldom excellent in their plans, and that the veriification is almost invariably flat and tedious.

, a learned judge, was born in Moorfields, May 16, 1675, and, as the anonymous author of his life says, was baptised by the name of Thomas son of Thomas Pengelly; but others have supposed that he was a natural son of Richard Cromwell the protector, For this supposition we find no other foundation than that Cromwell, who lived very privately in the neighbourhood, had known Mr. Pengelly from his youth, afterwards kept up a friendship with him, and died at his seat at Cheshunt, in August 1712. Mr. Pengelly was brought up to the bar, and becoming eminent in his profession, was made a serjeant May 6, 1710; knighted May 1, 1719, and in June following appointed his majesty’s prime Serjeant at law, on the decease of sir Thomas Powis. He sat as member for Cockermouth, in Cumberland, in the parliaments called in 1714 and 1722. He was made chief baron of the exchequer Oct. 16, 1726, on the death of sir Jeffery Gilbert; and his conduct on the bench corresponded with the high reputation he had acquired at the bar. He died of an infectious fever, caught at Taunton assizes, April 14, 1730. He excelled in profound learning, spirit, justice, and generosity, and dared to offend the most powerful, if he thought their conduct reprehensible. He was a florid, yet convincing orator, an excellent judge, a pious Christian, and an accomplished, sprightly companion. By a humane codicil in his will, dated in 1729, he left a considerable part of his fortune to procure the discharge of persons confined for debt, which was accordingly done by his executor Mr. Webb. There is a copy of this will published in his life, but the name of his residuary legatee is for some reason omitted. The anonymous history of Oliver Cromwell, first printed in 1724, has been supposed to have been written by him, but this is doubtful. It has been also attributed to Dr. Gibson, bishop of London.

, a writer of considerable estimation among the people called Quakers, was the son of an alderman of London during Cromwell’s time, who was lord mayor in 1642, and appointed one of the judges on the trial of the king. For this he was at the restoration prosecuted, and died in the Tower. Isaac the son, was born about 1617, and in his education is said to have had the advantages which the schools and universities of his country could give; but what school or university had the honour of his education, is not mentioned. From his father’s station, we are told, he had a reasonable prospect of rising in the world, but chose a life devoted to religion and retirement; and, as he has himself said, received impressions of piety from his childhood. He is represented by himself and his sect, as one who passed much of the early part of his life in a state of spiritual affliction, perceiving in himself, and in the world at large, a want of that vital religion and communion with the divine nature, which he believed the holy men of ancient time to have possessed. Whatever he read in the Scripture, as opened to his understanding, he determined fully to practise, and was contented to bear the reproach, opposition, and suffering which it occasioned. It appears also, that he met with opposition from his relations, and, among the rest, from his father; but he declares that his heart was preserved in love to them amidst all he suffered from them. On his first hearing of the Quakers, he thought them a poor, weak, and contemptible people, although, while his judgment seemed to reject them, the conferences which he occasionally had with them, seemed to increase his secret attachment. At length, in 1658, he became fully satisfied respecting them, partly through the preaching of George Fox; and became himself an unshaken and constant asserter of their peculiar tenets, as a minister and author.

He married about 1648 Mary Springett, a widow, whose daughter, by her former husband, became the wife of William Penn. He resided on his own estate, called the Grange, at Chalfont, in Buckinghamshire. It does not appear that he travelled much as a minister; for of six imprisonments which he suffered, during the reign of Charles II. five were in his own county. The first was in 1661, when the nation was alarmed on account of the fifth monarchy men, which occasioned much disturbance to the meetings of Dissenters. He was taken from a meeting in his own family, and committed to Aylesbury gaol, where, although a weakly man, he was kept for seventeen weeks (great part of which was in winter) in a cold room without a fire-place, by which means he became unable to turn himself in bed. In 1664, he was again taken out of a meeting, and remained a second time prisoner in the same gaol for nearly the same time. In 1665, he was taken up at Amersham as he was attending the corpse of a friend to the burial-ground of the Quakers. The concourse of that people who walked after it in the street, seems to have been construed into a conventicle, for he was committed to Aylesbury gaol for one month only, on the Conventicle Act, in order to banishment. It is remarkable that the justice, because it was not then convenient to end him from Amersham to Aylesbury, dismissed him on his word to come iigain the next day but one, when he accordingly casne, and was committed: as did on the samft occasion several other Quakers. The same year he was arrested in his house by a soldier without a warrant, and carried before a deputy-lieutenant, by whom he was again sent to his old quarters at Aylesbury; and, though the pestilence was suspected to be in the gaol, and no crime was laid to his charge, he was kept there till a person died of it. After about nine months’ confinement he was discharged; but when he had been at home about three weeks, a party of soldiers came and seized him in bed, carrying him again to prison at Aylesbury. The cold, damp, and unhealthiness of the room, again gave him a fit of illness, which lasted some months. At length he was brought by Habeas Corpus to the bar of the King’s-bench, and (with the wonder of the court that a man should be so long imprisoned for nothing) he was discharged in 1668. During one of these imprisonments his estate was seized, and his wife and family turned out of his house.

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 1668, he first appeared both as a minister and an author among the Quakers. We shall not pretend to give the titles of all his numerous tracts. His first piece has this title, which is very characteristic of the man “Truth exalted, in a short but sure testimony against all those religions, faiths, and worships, that have been formed and followed in the darkness of apostacy; and for that glorious light which is now risen and shines forth in the life and doctrine of the despised Quakers, as the alone good old way of life and salvation; presented to princes, priests, and people, that they may repent, believe, and obey. By William Penn whom Divine love constrains, in an holy contempt, to trample on Egypt’s glory, not fearing the king’s wrath, having beheld the majesty of him who is invisible.” The same year, on occasion of a dispute with Thomas Vincent, a Presbyterian, Penn wrote his “Sandy foundation shaken which occasioned him to be imprisoned a second time in the Tower of London, where he remained about seven months; and from which he obtained his release also, by another book entitled” Innocency with her open face,“in which he vindicated himself from the charges which had been cast on him for the former treatise. In the Tower also he wrote his famous” No Cross no Crown,“or rather, probably, the first edition of it, of which the title was different. It may be esteemed his master-piece, and contains a strong picture of Christian morality. The complete title is,” No Cross, no Crown; a Discourse, shewing the nature and discipline of the holy Cross of Christ; and that the denying of Self, and daily bearing of Christ’s Cross, is the alone way to the Rest and Kingdom of God. To which are added, the living and dying testimonies of many persons of fame and learning, both of ancient and modern times, in favour of this treatise.“It has gone through several editions, and has been lately translated into French. After his release, he again visited Ireland, where his time was employed, not only in his father’s business, but in his own function as a minister among the Quakers, and in applications to the government for their relief from suffering; in which application he succeeded so well, as to obtain, in 1670, an order of council for their general release from prison. The same year he returned to London, and experienced that suffering from which his influence had rescued his friends in Ireland. The Conventicle-act came out this year, by which the meetings of Dissenters were forbidden under severe penalties. The Quakers, however, believing it their religious duty, continued to meet as usual; and when sometimes forcibly kept out of their meeting-houses, they assembled as near to them as they could in the street. At one of these open and public meetings in Gracechurchstreet, Penn preached, for which he was committed to Newgate, his third imprisonment; and at the next session at the Old Bailey, together with William Mead, was indicted for- 4 * being present at, and preaching to an unlawful, sed-tious, and riotous assembly.” He pleaded his own cause, made a long and vigorous defence, though menaced and ill treated by the recorder, and was finally acquitted by the jury, who first brought in a verdict of “Guilty of speaking in Gracechurch-street;” and when that was not admitted, a verdict of “Not guilty.” He was, nevertheless, detained in Newgate, and the jury fined. The trial was soon after published, under the title of “The People’s ancient and just liberties asserted, in the Trial of William Penn and William Mead, at the Sessions held at the Old Bailey in London, the st, 3d, 4th, and 5th of September, 1670, against the most arbitrary procedure of that Court/' This trial is inserted in his works, and at once affords a proof of his legal knowledge and firmness, and of the oppression of the times. The pretence for the detention of Penn in Newgate was for his fines, which were imposed on him for what was called contempt of court: but he was liberated by his father’s privately paying these fines. His paternal kindness now seems to have returned, and flowed abundantly; for he died this year, fully reconciled to his son, and left him in possession of a plentiful estate: it is said, about 1,500l. per annum. Penn, in his” No Cross, no Crown,“p. 473, edit. xiii. 1789), has collected some of his father’s dying expressions; among which we find this remarkable one, in the mouth of a man who had so much opposed the religious conduct of his son” Son William 1 let nothing in this world tempt you to wrong your conscience: 1 charge you, do nothing against your conscience. So will you keep peace at home, which will be a feast to you in a day of trouble."

In 1672, he married Guliehna Maria Springett, whose father having been killed at the siege of Bamber, in the civil wars, and her mother having married Isaac Penington of Chaifont, Bucks, in his family (which was a place of general resort for Quakers in that county) Gulielma had her education, and probably became acquainted with Penn. After his marriage he resided at Rickmansworth, in Hertfordshire. The same year he wrote several controversial pieces; and, among the rest, one against Muggleton. In this employment, about this time, he seems to have spent much of his leisure. In 1674, he ventured to write to the king, complaining of the severity of some justices, and others, to the Quakers; and some time after he presented to the king, and to both houses of parliament, a book entitled “The continued Gry of the oppressed for Justice; giving an account of the cruel and unjust proceedings against the persons and estates of many of the people called Quakers.” In 1675 he held a public dispute near Rickmansworth, with the famous Richard Baxter.

It may not be amiss to mention, that the manner in which the ministers of the people called Quakers travel in the business of their ministry is simply this: Having a view of the country in which they believe themselves divinely required to minister, they proceed from place to place, according as their minds feel disposed, by the touches of the same influence which they conceived to have drawn them from their habitations. Their employment is visiting the meetings, and often the families of their friends and sometimes appointing move public meetings for the information of persons of other societies, whom also they visit, at their duty or inclination leads them. This seems to have been the case with Pcnn and his companions, whose principal business at HerwerJen was in visiting the princess and her family. She received them with great readiness, and they remained four days at her town, in which time they had many religious opportunities, both for worship and conference, with her and in her house, one of which was open to the inhabitants of the town. On leaving Herwerden, he took a circuit in Germany, by Cassel, Francfort, Chrisheim, Manheim, Mentz, Cologne (called by himself Cullen), Mulheim, Wesel, Cleve, and Nimeguen; and returned to Amsterdam in less than a month after he had loft it. After staying about three days, he again left it, and went by Horn, Worcum, Harlingen, Leenwarden, Lippenhus, Groningen, Embden, and Bremen, to his hospitable friend the princess Elizabeth at Herwerden; whence, after another stay of about four days, a second circuit brought him to Amsterdam; and from Holland he returned home, by Harwich and London, to his wife and family at Werminghurst, in Sussex. He concludes the narrative of his journey in thvse words: “I had that evening (viz. of his return) a sweet meeting among them, in which God’s blessed power made us truly glad together: and I can say, truly blessed are they who can cheerfully give up to serve the Lord. Great shall be the increase and growth of their treasure, which shall never end. To Him thai was, and is, and is to come; the eternal, holy, blessed, righteous, powerful, and faithful One; be glory, honour, and praise, dominion, and a kingdom, for ever and ever, Amen.” Marty remarkable circumstances occur in his account of the journey, particularly the religious sensibility and contrition of mind evinced by the princess, and by her friend and companion, Anna Maria, countess of Homes. But we must refer to Penn’s own account, which is in his works, and also separately extant. At the time of his return, and before his entering on this journey, his residence was at Werminghurst, in Sussex, an estate, probably, of his wife’s.

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.

A present of the ornithology of Francis Willoughby, made to him at the age of twelve, gave him a taste for that study, and a love for natural history in general, which he afterwards pursued with constitutional ardour, and great reputation; to such small matters do men of talents sometimes owe their prevailing bias. In 1746-7, he made a tour into Cornwall, where he contracted a strong passion for minerals and fossils. The first production of his which appeared in print, though unknown to himself, was an abstract of a letter which he wrote to his uncle, John Myuon, esq. on an earthquake which was felt at Downing, Apr 2, 1750. This appeared in the Philosophical Transacons. In 1754, he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, an honour which he resigned in 1760. Acordng to his own account, his foresight at this time was small. “I had,” says he, “married a most amiable woman my cicumstances were very narrow, my worthy father being alve, and I vainly thought my happiness would have beeo pemanent, and that I never should have been called again froi my retirement to amuse myself in town, or to be of useto the society.”

, a native of Florence, where he was born in 1488, was called II Fattore, or the Steward, from having been intrusted with the domestic concerns of Raphael, and soon became one of his principal assistants. He more than any other helped him. in the execution of the cartoons of the Arazzi; and in the Loggie of the Vatican painted the histories of Abraham and Isaac. After the death of his master he executed the fresco of the coronation in the stanza of Constantine. The upper part of the Assumption of the Virgin, a work of Raffaellesque grace, at Monte Lupi, in Perugia, is ascribed to him, though Vasari gives it to Perino del Vaga: the under part with the Apostles is painted by Julio. Of the works which he performed alone, no frescoes, and so few oil-pictures remain, that they may be considered as the principal rarities of galleries. Facility of conception, grace of execution, and a singular felicity in landscape, are mentioned as his characteristics. Penni wished much to unite himself with his coheir Julio, but being coldly received by him at Mantua, went to Naples, where his works and principles might have contributed much toward the melioration of style, had he not been intercepted by death in 1528, in his fortieth year. He left at Naples, with his copy of the Transfiguration, a scholar of considerable merit, Lionarde Afalatesta, or Grazia, of Pistoja. Uc had a brother Lucas, who having a close connection with Perino del Vul;;I, who had married his sister, worked with that master (see Perino) for some years at Genoa, Lucca, and other cities of Italy, with great credit. Afterwards he went to England, and was employed by king Henry VIII. for whom he painted several designs; and was also engaged by some of the merchants of London; but at last he almost entirely quitted the pencil, devoting all his time and application to engraving, as some say, but Mr. Fuseli maintains that he only furnished designs for engravers.

, one of the greatest theoretic musicians of modern times, was born at Berlin about 1667, and became so early a proficient on the harpsichord, that at the age of fourteen he was sent for to court, and appointed to teach the prince, father of the great Frederic king of Prussia, About 1700, he came over to England, and was retained as a performer at Drurylane, and it is supposed that he assisted in composing the operas which were performed there. In 1707 he had acquired English sufficient to adapt ]\iouea,ux’s translation of the Italian opera of “Thomyris” to airs of Scarlatti and Boiioncini, and to new-set the recitatives. In 1709 and 1710, several of his works were advertised in the first edition of the Tatlers, particularly a set of sonatas for a flute and bass, and his first book of cantatas. In 1713 he obtained, at the same time as Crofts, the degree of doctor of music at the university of Oxford. And soon after this, upon, the establishment of a choral chapel at Cannons, he was employed by the duke of Chandos as maestro di capella; in which capacity he composed anthems and morning and evening services, which are still preserved in the Academy of ancient music. In 1715 he composed the masque of “Venus and Adonis,” written by Cibber; and in 1716 “The Death of Dido,” by Booth, both for Drury-lane. These pieces, though not very successful, were more frequently performed that any of his original dramatic compositions. In 1723 he published an ode for St. Cecilia’s day, which he had set for the concert in York-buildings. In 1724 he accepted an offer from Dr. Berkeley to accompany him to the Bermudas, and to settle as professor of music in his intended college there; but, the ship in which they sailed being wrecked, he returned to London, and married Francesca Margarita de l'Epine. This person was a native of Tuscany, and a celebrated singer, who performed in some of the first of the Italian operas that were represented in England. She came hither with one reber, a German, and from this connection became distinguished by the invidious appellation of Greber’s Peg. She continued to sing on the stage till about 1718; when having, at a modest computation, acquired above ten thousand guineas, she retired from the theatre, and afterwards married Dr. Pepusch. She was remarkably tall, and remarkably swarthy; and, in general, so destitute of personal charms, that Pepusch seldom called her by any other name than Hecate, to which she is said to have answered very readily.

The sole ambition bf Pepus’ch, during the last years of his life, seems to have been the obtaining the reputation of a profound theorist, perfectly skilled in the music of the ancients; and attaching himself to the mathematician De Moivre and Geo. Lewis Scot, who helped him to calculate ratios, and to construe the Greek writers on music, he bewildered himself and some of his scholars with the Greek genera, scales, diagrams, geometrical, arithmetical, and harmonical proportions, surd quantities, apotomes, lemmas, and every thing concerning ancient harmonics, that was dark, unintelligible, and foreign to common and useful practice. But with all his pedantry and ideal admiration of the music of the ancients, he certainly had read more books on the theory of modern music, and examined more curious compositions, than any of the musicians of his time; and though totally devoid of fancy and invention, he was able to correct the productions of his contemporaries, and to assign reasons for whatever had been done by the greatest masters who preceded him. But when he is called the most learned musician of his time, it should be said, in the music of the sixteenth century. Indeed, he had at last such a partiality for musical mysteries, and a spirit so truly antiquarian, that he allowed no composition to be music but what was old and obscure. Yet, though he fettered the genius of his scholars by antiquated rules, he knew the mechanical laws of harmony so well, that in glancing his eye over a score, he could by a stroke of his pen smooth the wildest and most incoherent notes into melody, and make them submissive to harmony; instantly seeing the superfluous or deficient notes, and suggesting a bass from which there was no appeal. His “Treatise on Harmony” has lately been praised, as it deserves, in Mr. Shield’s valuable “Introduction to Harmony.”

, fifth baronet of the family, and first earl of Egmont, was born at Barton, in the county of York, July 12, 1683, and received his education at Magdalen college, Oxford. On quitting the university, in June 1701, he made the tour of England, and was admitted F. R. S. at the age of nineteen. Upon the death of king William, and the calling of a new parliament in Ireland, he went over with the duke of Ormorid, and though not of age, was elected for the county of Cork, and soon after appointed a privy-counsellor. In July 1705, he began the tour of Europe, which he finished in October 1707; and returning to Ireland in May 1708, was again, representative for the county of Cork. In 1713, he erected a lasting monument of his charity, in a free-school at Burton. On the accession of George I. he was advanced to the peerage of Ireland by the title of baron Perceval, in 1715, and viscount in 1722. In the parliament of 1722 and 1727, he was member for Harwich, in Essex, and in 1728 was chosen recorder of that borough. Observing, by the decay of a beneficial commerce, that multitudes incapable of finding employment at home, mightbe rendered serviceable to their country abroad, he and a few others applied to the crown for the grant of a district of land in America, since called Georgia, which they proposed to people with emigrants from England, or persecuted Protestants from other parts of Europe, by means of private contribution and parliamentary aid. The charter being granted, in June 1732, Lord Perceval was appointed first president; and the king having long experienced his fidelity to his person and government, created him earl of Egmont in. Nov. 1733. Worn out by a paralytic decay, he died May 1, 1748. His lordship married Catherine, daughter of sir Philip Parker a Morley, by whom he had seven children, who all died before him, except his eldest son and successor, of whom we shall take some notice.

The first earl of Egmont, according to Mr. Lodge, appears to have been a man of an exemplary character, both in public and private life, and a writer of considerable elegance and acuteness. He published, 1. “A Dialogue between a member of the church of England and a Protestant Dissenter, concerning a repeal of the Test Act,” 1732. 2. “The Question of the Precedency of the Peers of Ireland in England,” 1739. Part only of this book was written by the earl of Egmont; which was in consequence of a memorial presented by his lordship to his majesty Nov. 2, 1733, upon occasion of the solemnity of the marriage of the princess-royal with the prince of Orange. 3. “Remarks upon a scandalous piece, entitled A brief account of the causes that have retarded the progress of the colony of Georgia,” 1743. His lordship published several other tracts about that time, relating to the colony; and many letters and essays upon moral subjects, in a paper called “The Weekly Miscellany.” His Lordship also formed a collection of the “Lives and Characters of eminent men in England, from very ancient to very modern times.” Dr. Kippis appears to have had the use of this collection, when employed on the Biographia. It is in the possession of lord Arden. The earl of Egmont wrote a considerable part of a genealogical history of his own family, which was afterwards enlarged and methodized by Anderson, author of the Royal Genealogies; and by Mr. W r histon, of the Tally Court. This book, which was printed by the second carl of Egmont, is entitled “A genealogical History of the house of I very,” and is illustrated by a great number of portraits and plates. It was not intended for sale; but a few copies are got abroad, and sell at a very high price. Lord Orford, in the first edition of his “Royal and Noble Authors,” attributed “The great Importance of a religious Life,” to this nobleman, which, however, was soon discovered to be from the pen of Mr. Melmoth.

, second earl of Egmont, and son to the preceding, was born at Westminster, Feb. 24, 1711; and after a learned education at home, and the advantages of travelling, was chosen in 1731 (though then under age) a burgess for Harwich; and on Dec. 31, 174T, unanimously elected representative for the city of Westminster; as he was in 1747 for Weobly in Herefordshire. In March 1747, he was appointed one of the lords of the bedchamber to Frederick prince of Wales, in which station he continued till the death of that prince. In 1754, he was elected a member of parliament for the borough of Bridgwater, in the county of Somerset; and on January 9, 1755, was sworn one of the lords of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. He was likewise appointed one of the privy-council upon the accession of his present majesty to the throne; and was again elected in April 1761, for the borough of II­chester, in the county of Somerset, but was next day rechosen for the borough of Bridgwater, for which place he made his election. On May 7, 1762, his lordship was called up to the house of peers in Great Britain, by the title of lord Lovel and Holland, baron Lovel and Holland, of Enmore, in the county of Somerset, two of those baronies which were forfeited by attainder of Francis viscount Lovel, in the 1st of Henry VII. On Nov. 27, 1762, the king was pleased to appoint, him one of the postmastersgeneral, in the room of the earl of Besborough; but this he resigned on Sept. 10, 1763, in consequence of being appointed first lord of the admiralty, which office he resigned also in Sept. 1766. His Lordship died at his house in Pall Mall, Dec. 4, 1770, and was buried at Charlton, in Kent.

, 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.

Mr. Perceval, on receiving the appointment of solicitorgeneral, relinquished the Court of King’s Bench, and practised only in that of Chancery. In taking this step, he was influenced chiefly by the wish of having more time to dedicate to his political duties. But it is doubtful whether he succeeded in this view. In the King’s Bench, though he was occasionally engaged in conducting causes of great importance, his business had never been so great as wholly to occupy his time. Nor is this to be wondered at, when it is considered, that at that time he had to contend with, as competitors in that court, Mr. Erskine, Mr. Mingay, Mr. Law, Mr. Garrow, and Mr. Gihbs, all of them king’s counsel, much older than himself, and established in great practice before even Mr. Perceval was called to the bar. It is no disgrace to him, that he did not, before the age of forty, dispossess these gentlemen of their clients. But when he came into Chancery, he found competitors less powerful; and though his disadvantages, in entering a court in the practice of which he had never been regularly initiated, were great, he advanced rapidly in practice; and long before his abandonment of the bar, he had begun to be considered as the most powerful antagonist of sir Samuel Romilly, the Coryphirus of Equity Draftsmen.

Mr. Perceval retained his situation as attorney-general, when Mr. Pitt resumed the reins of government, and continued to distinguish himself as a ready and staunch supporter of the measures of that great man. He had the honour sometimes to call down upon himself all the eloquence of the opposition, and proved a most useful partisan of the administration. On Mr. Pitt’s death, a coalition took place between the Fox and Grenville parties, in which Mr. Perceval declined to share; and having resigned his’ office, appeared for the first time on the benches of the opposition, on which he continued until Lord Howick, in 1807, brought forward the Catholic petition, and a bill was proposed to remove the political disabilities of which the members of that sect complain. Mr. Perceval, then, alarmed for the safety of the Protestant Church, rose in its defence; and Catholic emancipation being a measure generally obnoxious, the dissolution of the administration followed. As Mr. Perceval, at this time, was considered the ablest man of his party, it might have been expected that he would have claimed one of the first places in the new ministry as his right. On the contrary, the chancellorship of the exchequer was several times rejected by him, whose only wish was to resume the situation of attorneygeneral. This, however, not being satisfactory to his majesty, Mr. Perceval was offered the chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster for life, as a compensation for his professional loss, and a provision for his family, provided he should agree to fill the office to which the esteem and confidence of the monarch called him. Notwithstanding that the value of the chancellorship proposed did not much exceed 2000l. a year, nearly one thousand less than Mr. Perceval’s profession produced per annum, his sense of public duty induced him to comply: and when, after his nomination, parliament expressed their dissatisfaction at the nature of the grant, he allowed it to be cancelled, and repeated in the house the assurance of his readiness to serve his majesty even without the chancellorship of the duchy of JLan caster, for life.

The “Manchester Memoirs” were also frequently honoured by Dr. Percival’s communications. The society, indeed, by which they were published, derived its origin from the stated weekly meetings for conversation, which Dr. Percival held at his own house; the resort of the literary characters, the principal inhabitants, and of occasional strangers. As these meetings became more numerous, it was in time found convenient to transfer them to a tavern, and to constitute a few rules for the better direction of their proceedings. The members thus insensibly formed themselves into a club, which was supported with so much success, as at length, in 1781, to assume the title of “The Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester.” Dr. Percival was appointed joint president with James Massey, esq. and his literary contributions were frequent and valuable. When acting as president, his powers both of comprehension and discourse were sometimes called forth to considerable exercise; and perhaps on no occasion were his talents more fully exerted, than when he at once guided and systematized the topics of animated discussion. Another scheme which he patronized was for the establishment of public lectures on mathematics, the fine arts, and commerce, somewhat in the manner of the institutions lately attempted in London; but that of Manchester, after two winters of unfavourable trial, was at length reluctantly abandoned, and those of the metropolis have not yet much to T)oast on the score of encouragement or utility. Dr. Percival experienced two other disappointments, in his endeavours to support the dissenting academy at Warrington, and to establish one at Manchester in its room, neither of which schemes was found practicable.

, a late learned prelate, a descendant of the ancient earls of Northumberland, was born at Bridgenorth in Shropshire, in 1728, and educated at Christ church, Oxford. In July 1753 he took the degree of M.A.; and in 1756 he was presented by that college to the vicarage of Easton Mauduit, in Northamptonshire, which he held with the rectory of Wilbye, in the same county, given him by the earl of Sussex. In 1761 he began his literary career, by publishing “Han Kiou Chouan,” a translation from the Chinese; which was followed, in 1762, by a collection of “Chinese Miscellanies,” and in 1763 by “Five Pieces of Runic Poetry,” translated from the Icelandic language. In 1764 he published a new version of the “Song of Solomon,” with a commentary and annotations. The year following he published the “Reliques of Antient English Poetry,” a work which constitutes an aera in the history of English literature in the eighteenth century. Perhaps the perusal of a folio volume of ancient manuscripts given to the bishop by a friend, in early life (from which he afterwards made large extracts in the “Reliques,”) led his mind to those studies in which he so eminently distinguished himself. It appears likewise that Shenstone encouraged him in publishing the “Reliques.” The same year he published “A Key to the New Testament,” a concise manual for Students of Sacred Literature, which has been adopted in the universities, and often reprinted. After the publication of the “Reliques,” he was invited by the late duke and duchess of Northumberland to reside with them as their domestic chaplain. In 1769 he published “A Sermon preached before the Sons of the Clergy at St. Paul’s.” In 1770 he conducted “The Northumberland Household Book” through the press; the same year he published “The Hermit of Wark worth,”' and a translation of Mallet’s “Northern Antiquities,” with notes. A second edition of the “Reliques of Ancient Poetry” was published in 1775, a third in 1794, and a fourth in 1814. In 1769 he was nominated chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; in 1778 he was promoted to the deanery of Carlisle; and in 1782 to the bishopric of Dromore in Ireland, where he constantly resided, promoting the instruction and comfort of the poor with unremitting attention, and superintending the sacred and civil interests of the diocese, with vigilance and assiduity; revered and beloved for his piety, liberality, benevolence, and hospitality, by persons of every rank and religious denomination. Under the loss of sight, of which he was gradually deprived some years before his death, he steadily maintained his habitual cheerfulness; and in his last painful illness he displayed such fortitude and strength of mind, such patience and resignation to the divine will, and expressed such heartfelt thankfulness for the goodness and mercy shewn to him in the course of a long and happy life, as were truly impressive and worthy of that pure Christian spirit, in him so eminently conspicuous. His only son died in 1783. Two daughters survive him; the eldest is married to Sarruiel Isted, esq. of Ecton, in Northamptonshire; and the youngest to the hon. and reV. Pierce Meade, archdeacon of Dromore. In 1777 the rev. John Bowie addressed a printed letter to Dr. Percy, announcing a new and classical edition of “Don Quixote.” In 1780 Mr. Nichols was indebted to him for many useful communications for the “Select Collection of Miscellany Poems.” When elevated to the mitre, Mr. Nichols was also under further obligations in the “History of Hinckley,” 1782. In 1786 the edition of the Tatler, in six volumes, small 8vo, was benefited by the hints suggested by bishop Percy to the rev. Dr. Calder, the learned and industrious annotator and editor of those volumes. The subsequent editions of the Spectator and Guardian were also improved by some of his lordship’s notes. Between 1760 and 1764, Dr. Percy had proceededvery far at the press with an admirable edition of “Surrey’s Poems,” and also with a good edition of the Works of Villiers duke of Buckingham; both which, from a variety of causes, remained many years unfinished in the warehouse of Mr. Tonson in the Savoy; but were resumed in 1795, and nearly brought to a conclusion, when the whole impression of both works was unfortunately consumed by the fire in Red Lion Passage in 1808. His lordship died at his episcopal palace, Dromore, on Sept. 30, 1811, in his eighty-third year. So much of his life had passed in the literary world, strictly so called, that authentic memoirs of his life would form an interesting addition to our literary history, but nothing has yet appeared from the parties most able to contribute such information. The preceding particulars we believe to be correct, as far as they go, but we cannot offer them as satisfactory.

, 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.

, a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, was born at Cormery, in Touraine, in 1500. He took the Benedictine habit in the abbey of this name, 1517, and died there about 1559, aged near sixty. Among his writings are four “Dialogues,” in Latin, on the origin of the French language, and its resemblance to the Greek, Paris, 1555, 8vo; some tracts in defence of Aristotle and Cicero, against Peter Ranius, 8vo Latin translations of some books of Plato, Aristotle, St. John Damascenus, &c. “Loci Theologici,” Paris, 1549, 8vo. He wrote in more elegant Latin than was common with the divines of that age; but his accuracy and critical skill have been in many respects justly called in question.

, a learned prelate of the fifteenth century, was born at Sasso Ferrato, of an illustrious but reduced family. Being obliged to maintain, himself by teaching Latin, he brought the rudiments of that language into better order, and a shorter compass for the use of his scholars; and going afterwards to Rome, was much esteemed by cardinal Bessarion, who chose him for his conclavist or attendant in the conclave, on the death of Paul II. It was at this juncture that he is said to have deprived Bessarion of the papacy by his imprudence; for the cardinals being agreed in their choice, three of them went to disclose it, and to salute him pope; but Perot would not suffer them to enter, alledging that they might interrupt him in his studies. When the cardinal was informed of this blunder, he gave himself no farther trouble, and only said to his conclavist in a mild, tranquil tone, “Your ill-timed care has deprived me of the tiara, and you. of the hat.” Perot was esteemed by several popes, appointed governor of Perugia, and afterwards of Ombria, and was made archbishop of Siponto, 1458. He died 1480, at Fugicura, a country house so called, which he had built near Sasso Ferrato. He translated the first five books of “Polybius,” from Greek into Latin, wrote a treatise “De generibus metrorum,” 1497, 4to also “Rudimenta Grammatices,” Rome, 1473, fol. a very rare and valuable edition, as indeed all the subsequent ones are; but his most celebrated work is a long commentary on Martial, entitled “Cornucopia, seu Latinae Linguae Commentarius,” the best edition of which is that of 1513, fol. This last is a very learned work, and has been of great use to Calepin in his Dictionary.

, younger brother to the preceding, was born at Paris, Jan. 12, 1628, and at the age of eight was placed in the college of Beauvais, where he distinguished himself in the belles-lettres, and had a considerable turn to that kind of philosophy which consisted mostly in the disputatious jargon of the schools. He also wrote verses, aud indulged himself in burlesque, which was then much in vogue; on one occasion he amused himself in turning the sixth book of the flLiieid into burlesque verse. He had, however, too much sense when his ideas became matured by reflection, to attach the least value to such effusions. When his studies were completed, he was admitted an advocate, and pleaded two causes with a success sufficient to induce the magistrates to wish to see him au tached to the bar. But Colbert, the French minister, wh was acquainted with his merit, soon deprived the law of his services. He chose him for secretary to a small academy of four or five men of letters, who assembled at his house twice a week. This was the cradle of that learned society afterwards called “Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres.” The little academy employed itself on the medals and devices required from it by Colbert, in the king’s name; and those proposed by Charles Perrault were almost always preferred. He had a singular talent for compositions of this kind, which require more intellectual qualities than is generally supposed. In the number of his happy devices may be ranked that of the medal struck on account of the apartments given by the king to the French academy in the Louvre itself. This was Apollo Palatinus; an ingenious allusion to the temple of Apollo, erected within the precincts of the palace of Augustus. Perrault not only was the author of this device, but likewise procured the academy the apartments it obtained from the monarch, who at the same time was pleased to declare himself its protector. Colbert, enlightened by the wise counsels of Perrault, inculcated upon the king, that the protection due to genius i s one of the noblest prerogatives of supreme authority. He also procured the establishment of the academy of sciences, which at first had the same form with the French academy, that of perfect equality among its members. His brother Claude had also a considerable share in this useful establishment.

After the murder of Henry IV. in 1610, Du Perron devoted himself entirely to the court and see of Rome, and prevented every measure in France which might displease that power, or hurt its interests. He rendered useless the arret of the parliament of Paris, against the book of cardinal Bellarmine and favoured the infallibility of the pope, and his superiority over a council, in a thesis maintained in 1611, before the nuncio. He afterwards held a provincial assembly, in which he condemned Richer' s book, “concerning ecclesiastical and civil authority” and, being at the assembly of Blois, he made an harangue to prove, that they ought not to decide some questions, ou account of their being points of faith. He was one of the presidents of the assembly of the clergy, which was held at Rouen in 1615; and made harangues to the king at the opening and shutting of that assembly, which were much applauded. This was the last of his public services; for after this he retired to his house at Bagnolet, and employed himself wholly in revising and completing his works. This was with him a matter of great importance, for he not only had a private press in his house, that he might have them published correctly, and revised every sheet himself, but is said also to have printed a few copies of every work that he wished to appear to advantage, for the revisal of his friends before publication. He died at Paris, Sept. 5, L618, aged sixty-three. He was a man of great abilities; had a lively and penetrating wit, and a particular talent at making his views appear reasonable. He delivered himself upon all occasions with great clearness, dignity, and eloquence. He had a prodigious memory, and had studied much. He was very well versed in antiquity, both ecclesiastical and profane; and had read much in the fathers, councils, and ecclesiastical historians, of which he knew how to make the best use to perplex, if not to convince his adversaries. He was warmly attached to the see of Rome, and strenuous in defending its rights and prerogatives; and therefore it cannot be wondered, that his name has never been held in high honour among those of his countrymen who have been accustomed to stand up for the Galilean liberties. They consider indeed that ambition was his ruling passion, and that it extended even to literature, in which he thought he ought to hold the first rank. In his youth he had translated into French verse a part of the Æneid and the praises which Desportes and Bertaut bestowed on this performance made him fancy that his style was superior to that of Virgil. He was in his own opinion, says the abb Longuerue, the commander-in-chief of literature; and authors found that his opinion was to be secured before that of the public. His favourite authors were Montaigne, whose essays he called the breviary of all good men, and Rabelais, whom, by way of distinction, he called “The author.”

, sieur d'Ablancourt, a scholar of considerable parts, and once admired for his translations from ancient authors, was born at Chalons, April 5, 1606. He sprung from a family which had been illustrious in the law, and the greatest care was bestowed on his education. His father, Paul Perrot de la Sailer, who was a protestant, and also a man learning, sent him to pursue his studies in the college of Sedan; where he made so rapid a progress, that, at thirteen, he had gone through the classics. He was then taken home, and placed for some time under a private tutor, after which he was sent to Paris, where he studied the law five or six months, and was, when only in his eighteenth year, admitted advocate of parliament but did not adhere longto the bar. Another change he made about this time of great importance, was that of his religion, for popery, of which he embraced the tenets at the persuasion of his uncle Cyprian Perrot, who, in hopes of procuring him some valuable benefices, took great pains to recommend the church as a profession, but in vain. Nor did he succeed better in retaining him as a convert, for fte had scarcely distinguished himself in the republic of letters, by writing a preface to the “HonneXe Femme,” for his friend, father Du Bosc, than he felt a desire to return to the religion he had quitted. He was now, however, in his twenty-seventh year, and had sense enough to guard against precipitation in a matter of so much consequence. He studied, therefore, the differences betwixt the Romish and reformed church, and after three years’ investigation, during which he did not disclose his intention to any one, he set out from Paris to Champagne, where he abjured popery; and very soon after went to Holland, till the clamour which followed this step was over. He was near a year in Leyden, where he learned Hebrew, and contracted a friendship with Salmasius. From Holland he went to England; then returned to Paris; and, after passing some weeks with M. Patru, took an apartment near the Luxembourg. He passed his days very agreeably; and though he devoted the greatest part of his leisure to books, mixed occasionally in society, and was the respected associate of all the learned in Paris. In 1637 he was admitted a member of the French academy, but was soon after forced to leave Paris, on account of the wars; and therefore retired to his estate, called Ablancourt, where he lived till his death. He died Nov. 17, 1664, of the gravel, with which he had been afflicted the greater part of his life.

As he perceived in his second son, Denis, a more than ordinary capacity, as well as eagerness for knowledge, he paid particular attention to the formation of his taste and the direction of his studies; and often told him, that he should lay up such a fund of knowledge, as to be able to cope with “the giant of the Allopbyloe,” as he called Sealiger, whose learning and works were of such importance to the Protestants. This advice was not thrown away on Denis, who studied, with the greatest diligence, both at Orleans and Paris; and when he came to take his degree of master of arts, supported a thesis in Greek; a language which he knew as intimately as Latin, and both more so than he knew French. For two years he heard the lectures of the most eminent doctors of the Sorbonne, in his time; and was so assiduous, that he never left his study, unless for the king’s library, where he was permitted to consult the valuable Greek and Latin manuscripts. About this time he became acquainted with the learned Isaac Casaubon, whom Henry IV. had invited to Paris in 1600, and their friendship continued until Casaubon’s departure for England, and, what hurt Petau most, his departure from Popery, after which he treated him with as much asperity, as any other of his opponents. In the mean time, it was in consequence of Casaubon’s advice, that, young as he was, he undertook to prepare for the press an edition of the whole works of Synesius; that is, to collate manuscript copies, to translate what was in Greek, and to add explanatory notes. He had no sooner undertaken this work, than he was promoted to the professorship of philosophy in the university of Bourges, when only in his nineteentn year. The course which this office enjoined him to teach lasted two years, during which he also read the ancient philosophers and mathematicians.

Notwithstanding these employments, and the production of some occasional pieces in prose and verse, which they required, he was enabled to publish his edition of Synesius in 1612; but, as he was absent from the press, it suffered much by the carelessness and ignorance of the printers; and even the second edition, of 1631, retains a great many of the errors of the first. It gave the learned, however, an opportunity of knowing what was to be expected from the talents, diligence, and learning, of father Petau; and they entertained hopes which were not disappointed. During the years 1613, 1614, and 1615, he taught rhetoric in the college of La Fleche, in Anjou; and, in the first of these years, he published some works of the emperor Julian, which had hitherto remained in ms. and announced his intention of publishing an edition of Themistius, the Greek orator and sophist. In 1614, when the college of La Flche was visited by Louis XIII. with the queen mother and the whole court, he contributed many of the complimentary verses on the occasion; which, as we shall notice, were afterwards published. In the mean time, he undertook an edition of Nicephorus’s historical abridgment, which had never been printed either in Greek or Latin. In this he was assisted with the copy of a valuable manuscript, which father Sjrmond sent to him from Rome. In 1617, the Biblical professor of La Flche being removed to another charge, Petau supplied his place, until called to Paris by order of his superiors, to be professor of rhetoric. It was about this time that he was attacked by that violent fever, which he has so well described in his poem entitled “Soteria;” a circumstance scarcely worth mentioning, if it had not been connected with an instance uf superstition, which shews that his father’s prejudices had acquired possession of his mind. During this fever, and when in apparent danger, his biographer tells us, he made a vow to St. Genevieve, and the fever left him. The object of his vow was a tribute of poetical thanks to his patroness and deliverer. In order to perform this as it ought to be performed, he waited until his mind had recovered its tone but he waited too long, and the fever seized him again, as a re- 1 membrance of his neglect. Again, however, St. Genevieve restored him; and, that he might not hazard her displeasure any more, he published his “Soteria,” in 1619, which the connoisseurs of that time thought his chef (Taeuvre in poetry; and his biographer adds, that “it is in Virgil only we can find lines so completely Virgilian.” The remainder of his life was spent in performing the several offices of his order, or in those publications, a list of which will prove the magnitude of his labours. He died at Paris, December 11, 1652, in the sixtyninth year of his age. He seems, by the general consent, not only of the learned men of his communion, but of many Protestants, to have been one of the greatest scholars the Jesuits can boast: and would have appeared in the eyes of posterity as deserving of the highest character, had not his turn for angry controversy disgraced his style, and shown, that with all his learning and acuteness, he did not rise superior to the bigotry of his time. We have a striking instance of this, in his connection with Grotius. He had, at first, such a good opinion of that illustrious writer, as to think him a Roman Catholic in heart; and on his death, said a mass for his soul; but some time after, writing to cardinal Barberini, he uses these remarkable words: “I had some connection with Hugo Grotius, and I wish I could say he is nmc happy /”

, an eminent prelate of the fifth century, and called Chrysologus from his eloquence, was descended of a noble family, and born at Imola, then called Forum Cornelii. After a suitable education, he was elected archbishop of Ravenna, about the year 433, and was much celebrated for his virtue and his eloquence. He died about the year 451. There are 126 sermons or homilies of his in the library of the fathers, in which he unites perspicuity with brevity; their style is concise and elegant, but not unmixed with quaintnesses. Father d'Acheri has published in his “Spicilegium,” five other sermons written by him; and in St. Peter’s works, is his answer to Eutyches, who had written to him in the year 449, complaining of St. Flavianus of Constantinople, in which he defends the orthodox faith, and refers Eutyches to the excellent letter sent by St. Leo to Flavianus, which teaches what is to be believed concerning the mystery of the incarnation. The best edition of St. Peter Chrysologus is that printed at Augsburg, 1758, folio.

Petitot may be called the inventor of painting in enamel; for though Bordier, his brother-in-law, made several attempts before him, and sir Theodore Mayerne had facilitated the means of employing the most beautiful colours, it was still Peiitot who completed the work; which under his hand acquired such a degree of perfection, as to surpass miniature, and even equal painting in oil. He made use of gold and silver plates, and rarely enamelled on copper. When he first came in vogue, his price was twenty louts a-head, which he soon raised to forty. His custom was, to carry a painter with him, who painted the picture in oil; after which Petitot sketched out his work, which he always finished after the life. When he painted the king of France, he took those pictures that most resembled him for his patterns; and the king afterwards gave him a sitting or two to finish his work. He laboured with great assiduity, and never laid down his pencil but with reluct, ance; saying, that he always found new beauties in his art to charm him.

, a Roman satirist, was a favourite of Nero, supposed to be the same whom Tacitus mentions in book xvi. of his Annals, and was proconsul of Bithynia, and afterwards consul. He is said to have discovered a capacity for the highest offices; but abandoning himself to voluptuousness, Nero made him one of his principal confidants, and the superintendant of his licentious pleasures, nothing being agreeable or delightful to that prince but what Petronius approved. This raised the envy of Tigellinus, another of Nero’s favourites, who accused him of being engaged in a conspiracy against the emperor. Upon this, Petronius was arrested; and, being condemned to death, he caused his veins to be opened and shut, from time to time, while he conversed with his friends on verses and poetry. He afterwards sent Nero a book, sealed up by his own hand, in which he described that emperor’s debaucheries under borrowed names, and died about the year 66. His “Satiricon,” and some other pieces, are written in elegant Latin, bat filled with such obscenities, that he has been called autor purissimte impuritatis. A fragment of his works was found in the seventeenth century at Traou, a city of Dalmatia, in the duchy of Spalatro, which contains “The Supper of Trimalcion,” one of his most indelicate pieces. Many disputes have arisen concerning its authenticity, which however now seems to be admitted; but some other fragments, taken from a manuscript found at Belgrade in 1688, and published at Paris by M. Nodot, in 1694, are yet under suspicion of being forgeries. There is a great deal of uncertainty, both about the works and personal history of Petronius; and in Maittaire’s “Corpus Poetarum” are verses by five different poets named Petronius. Although no English critic has disgraced himself by employing his time in illustrating this abominable author, Chalderius, Sambucus, Goldast, and other foreign scholars, have been less scrupulous. Burman’s edition of 1709 and 1743, 4to, is usually reckoned the best; but some prefer that of Antonius, printed at Leipsic in 1781, 8vo.

In 1666, sir William drew up his treatise, called “Verbum Sapienti,” containing an account of the wealth and expences of England, and the method of raising taxes in the most equal manner; shewing likewise, that England can bear the charge of four millions per annum, when the occasions of the government require it! The same year, 1666, he suffered a considerable loss by the fire of London; having purchased, several years before, the earl of Arunders house and gardens, and erected buildings in the garden, called Token-house, which were for the most part destroyed by that dreadful conflagration. In 1667, he married Elizabeth, daughter to sir Hardresse Waller, knight, and relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. and afterwards set up iron works, and a pilchard-fishery, opened lead- mines, and commenced a timber trade in Kerry, which turned to very good account; and with all these employments he found time to consider other subjects of general utility, which he communicated to the Royal Society, He composed a piece of Latin poetry, and published it at London in 1679, in two folio sheets, under the name of ' Cassid. Aureus Manutius,“with the title of” Colloquium Davidis cum anima sua.“His patriotism had before led him to use his endeavours to support the expence of the war against the Dutch, and he felt it necessary also to expose the sinister practices of the French, who were at this time endeavouring to raise disturbances in England, increase our divisions, and corrupt the parliament at this time. With this vievr he published, in 1680, a piece called” The Politician Discovered,“&c. and afterwards wrote several essays in political arithmetic; in which, from a view of the natural strength both of England and Ireland, he suggests a method of improving each by industry and frugality, so as to be a match for, or even superior to, either of her neighbours. Upon the first meeting of the Philosophical Society at Dublin, after the plan of that at London, every thing was submitted to his direction; and, when it was formed into a regular society, he was chosen president, Nov. 1684. UpoiKthis occasion he drew up a” Catalogue of mean, vulgar, cheap, and simple Experiments,“proper for the infant state of the society, and presented it to them; as he did also his” Supellex Philosophica," consisting of fortyfive instruments requisite to carry on the design of their institution. But, a few years after, all his pursuits were determined by the effects of a gangrene in his foot, occasioned by the swelling of the gout, which put a period to his life, at his house in Piccadilly, Westminster, Dec. 16, 1687, in his sixty-fifth year. His body was carried to Rumsey, and there interred, near those of his parents. There was laid over his grave only a flat stone on the pavement, with this short inscription, cut by an illiterate workman:

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:

The variety of pursuits in which sir William Petty was engaged, shews him to have had a genius capable of any thing to which he chose to apply it; and it is very extraordinary, that a man of so active and busy a spirit could find time to write so many things, as it appears he did by the following catalogue 1. “Advice to Mr. S. Hartlib,” &c. 1648, 4to. 2. “A brief of Proceedings between sir Hierom Sankey and the author,” &c. 1659, fol. 3. “Reflections upon some Persons and Things in Ireland,” &c. 1660, 8vo. 4.' “A Treatise of Taxes and Contribution,” &c. 1662, 1667, 1685, 4to, all without the author’s name. This last was republished in 1690, with two other anonymous pieces, “The Privileges and Practice of Parliaments,” and “The Politician discovered” with a new tide-page, where they are all said to be written by sir William, which, as to the first, is a mistake. 5. “Apparatus to the hjstory of the common practice of Dyeing,” printed in Sprat’s History of the R. S. 1667. 6. “A Discourse concerning the use of Duplicate Proportion, together with a new hypothesis of springing or elastic Motions,” 1674, i 2mo. See an account of it in “Phil. Trans.” No. cix. and a censure of it in Dr. Barlow’s “Genuine Remains,” p. 151. 1693, -8vo. 7.“Colloquium Davidis cum aniina sua,” &c. 1679, fol. 8. “.The Politician discovered,” &c. 1681, 4to. 9. “An Essay in Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1682, 8vo. 10. “Observations upon the Dublin Bills of Mortality in 1681,” &c. 1683, 8vo. II. “An account of some Experiments relating to Land-carriage,” Phil. Trans. No. clxi. 12. “Some Queries, whereby to examine Mineral Waters,” ibid. No. clxvi. 13. “A Catalogue of mean, vulgar, cheap, and simple Experiments,” &c. ibid. No. clxvii. 14. “Maps of Ireland, being an actual Survey of the whole kingdom,” &c. 1685, folio. This contained thirty-six accurate maps viz. a general map the province of Leinster, consisting of eleven counties, each in a distinct map that of Munster of six Ulster nine; and Connaught five. Another edition was afterwards made from the same plates. Sir William’s surveys, says Mr. Gough, as far as they go are tolerably exact as to distances and situations, but neither the latitudes nor roads are expressed, nor is the sea-coast exactly laid down; his design being only to take an account of the forfeited lands; many other tracts are left blank, and from such a survey his maps are formed. 15. “An Essay concerning the Multiplication of Mankind,” 1686, 8vo. N. B. The Essay is not printed here, but only the substance of it. 16. “A further assertion, concerning the Magnitude of London, vindicating it from the objections of the French,” Phil. Trans, clxxxv. 17, “Two Essays in Political Arithmetic,” c. 1687, 8vo. An extract of these is in Phil. Trans. No. clxxxiii. 18. “Five Essays in Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1687, 8vo, printed in French and English on opposite pages. 19. “Observations upon London and Rome,” 1687, 8vo, three leaves. His posthumous pieces are, 1. “Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1690, 8vo, and 1755, with his Life prefixed; and a Letter of his never before printed. 2. “The Political Anatomy of Ireland,” to which is added, “Verbum Sapienti,” 1691, 1719. In the title-page of the second edition this treatise is called “Sir William Petty’s Political Survey of Ireland.” This latter was criticized in “A Letter from a gentleman,” &cr. 1692, 4to. 3. “A treatise of Naval Philosophy, in three parts,” &c. printed at the end of “An account of several new Inventions, &c. in a discourse by way of letter to the earl of Marlborougb,” &c. 1691, 12mo. Wood suspects this may be the same with the discourse about the building of ships, mentioned above to be many years in the hands of lord Brounker. 4. “What a complete Treatise of Navigation should contain,” Phil. Trans. No. cxcviii. This was drawn up in 1685. Besides these, the following are printed in Birch’s History of the H. S. 1. “A discourse of making Cloth and Sheep’s Wool.” This contains the history of the clothing trade, as No. 5. above, does that of dyeing; and he purposed to have done the like in other trades; in which design some other members of the society engaged also at that time. 2. “Supellex Philosophica.”

, 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.

, student of the Middle Temple, bencher and treasurer of the Inner Temple, and keeper of the records in the Tower, was born in 1636, at a place called, in his Latin epitapir, Siorithes, near Skipton, in Craven, Yorkshire. Of his progress through life we have no information, except that he enjoyed much reputation as a law-writer, and particularly as the collector of a very curious library, and many valuable Mss. now in the Inner Temple library. He died at Chelsea, Oct. 3, 1707, aged seventy-one, but was buried in the Temple church, where is a long Latin epitaph, recording his many virtues and his collections, donations, &c. It is probable Chelsea was his favourite residence, as the year before his death he built a vestry and school-room adjoining the church-yard, with lodgings for the master, entirely at his own expenee.

In 1680 he asserted the “Ancient Rights of the Commons of England, in a discourse proving by records, &c. that they were ever an essential part of parliament,” 8vo. This gave rise to a controversy, in the course of which the following pieces were published, 1. “Jani Anglorum facies nova, or several monuments of antiquity touching the great councils of this kingdom and the courts of the king’s immediate tenants and otficers,” 1680, 8vo, said to be written by Mr. Atwood. 2. “A full Answer to a book written by William Pettyt, esq. with a true account of the famous Colloquium, or Parliament 40 Hen. Ill and a glossary expounding some few words in ancient records, together with some animadversions on a book called Jani Anglorum facies nova,” 1683, 8vo. 3. “Jus Anglorum ab antique, or a confutation of an impotent libel against the government by king, lords and commons, under the pretence of answering Mr. Pettyt, and the author of * Jam Anglorum facies nova,'” 1681, 8vo. 4. “Argumentum Anunormanicum; or an argument proving from ancient histories and records, that William duke of Normandy made no absolute conquest in England,” 1682, 8vo. This is thought by Dr. Brady to be also written by Mr. Atwood; but by others it is attributed to Mr. Cooke. To this an answer afterwards appeared by the principal champion in the dispute, Dr. Robert Brady, who collected all he had written on the occasion into “An Introduction to the Old English History, in three tracts,” and by the same author the same subject was connected with “An Historical Treatise of Cities and Burghs, or Boroughs,” (See Brady) 1704, 1711,fol. 1777, 8vo.

, 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 learned and ingenious Frenchman, was born at Hennebon in Bretagne, in 1639 and admitted of the order of Cistercians in 1660. He made the scriptures the principal object of his study: aware of the assistance to be derived from profane history, he read with attention the ancient Greek and Latin historians. His judgment, however, did not improve with his erudition, as appeared by a new system, which he communicated to the public, in a work printed at Paris in 1687, 4to, and called “L‘Antiquite’ des temps retablie,” &c. that is, “The Antiquity of Time restored, and defended, against the Jews and modem Chronologers.” His design here is to prove, upon the authorities of the septuagint and profane history, that the world is more ancient than modern chronologers have supposed; and that, instead of 4000 years between the creation of the world and the birth of Christ, there were almost 6000. The great principle on which this supposition is built is, that the Hebrew text has been corrupted, since the destruction of Jerusalem by the Jews, who otherwise must have been forced to acknowledge, upon their own principles, that the Messiah was actually come. Pezron’s book was extremely admired for the ingenuity and learning of it; yet created, as was natural, no small alarm among the religious. Martianay, a Benedictine, and Le Quien, a Dominican, wrote against tnis new system, and undertook the defence of the Hebrew text Martianay with great zeal and heat, Le Quien with more judgment and knowledge. Pezron published, “Defense de l'Antiquite des temps,” in 1691, 4to; which, like the work itself, abounded with curious and learned researches. Le Quien replied, but Martianay brought the affair into another court; and, in 1693, laid the books and principles of Pezron before M. de Harlai, archbishop of Paris. Harlai communicated the representation of this adversary to Pezron; who defended himself with so much ingenuity as to render the accusation of no effect.

, the son of a counsellor at Augsburg, born in 1641, was secretary of the archives to the duke of Saxe Gotha, and instructor of the princes Ernest, and John-Ernest, in history and politics. He so well fulfilled his duties in these situations, that he was promoted to a higher place, of secretary to the Ernestine branch of the family; and was so deeply learned in matters of record, that he was called the living archives of the house of Saxony. His manners were pure, but his temper inclined to melancholy, which was thought to be increased by too intense application to study. He died at Gotha in 1717. His principal works are; 1. “The History of the Peace of Westphalia,” 8vo, the best edition is 1697. 2. “The History of the Assemblies of 1652 4,” Weimar, 1694, 8vo. 3. “The Treaties of the German Princes.” 4. “The Theology of the Pagans.” 5. “A Treatise on the Principle of historic Faith.” All these are written in Latin, not so much with elegance, as with strict care and exactness.

, 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 philosopher of EHs, was originally a slave but, when Socrates had obtained his freedom, and he became that great man’s disciple, studied philosophy, and, retiring to Elis, established a distinct school called from the place of his birth the Eliac, or Eliatic school, which was continued by Plistanus and Menedemus. Plato, in honour of him, gave the name of Phcedo to one of his dialogues. Phaedo wrote several dialogues in defence of Socrates, and never left him till his death. He flourished 400 B. C.

, an ancient Latin author, who wrote five books of “Fables” in Iambic verse, was a Thracian and was born, as there is reason to suppose, some years before Julius Caesar made himself master of the Roman empire. His parentage is uncertain; though some have imagined his liberal education to be an argument that it was not mean. Perhaps he might have been made captive by Octavius, the father of the emperor Augustus; for we read, that while Octavius was prcetor in Macedonia, he gave the Thracians a very great overthrow. This fell out the same year that Q. Cicero was proconsul of Asia, and Csesar sole consul at Rome. As this opinion would carry his age pretty high, Phsedrus outliving the 18th year of Tiberius, pome have therefore rejected it, though with little reason; since many proofs may be collected, from his Fables, that he lived to be very old. How he came into the service of Augustus is unknown: but his being called “Augustus’s freedman,” in the title of his book, shews that he had been that emperor’s slave. It should seem as if he had arrived early in life at Rome for he quotes a line from “Ennius,” which, he says, he remembers to have read when he was a boy and it is not probable that he should have read it before he left Thrace. He received his freedom from Augustus, and no doubt such a competency, as enabled him to enjoy that valuable gift. He expresses a great regard for that prince’s memory, which he had indeed the more reason to do, since misfortunes overtook him after his decease. Under Tiberius, he was unjustly persecuted by Sejanus, to which he has frequently alluded in his “Fables;” and particularly in the preface to his third book. We know not the cause of this persecution, but it was not for his wealth: he represents himself, in the very same place, as a man who had never cared to hoard up riches; and mentions this as one of the reasons which should facilitate his promotion to the rank of a poet. He seems to have written all his Fables after the death of Augustus; the third book he certainly wrote after that of Sejanus, who perished in the eighteenth year of Tiberius; for, in the dedication of that book to his patron Eutychus, he has mentioned the favourite with a resentment which would never have been pardoned had he been living. How long Phsedrus survived him, is uncertain; but, supposing him to have lived a little longer, he must have been above seventy at his death; for so many years there are from Caesar’s first dictatorship to the eighteenth of Tiberius. Chronologers place him between 41 and 54 A. C.

, a Welsh physician and poet, a native of Pembrokeshire, and the first English translator of Virgil, was educated at Oxford, whence he removed to LincolnVinn, to undertake the study of the law. So far was he in earnest, for a time, in this pursuit, that he published two books on subjects of law; one on the nature of writs, and the other, what is now called a book of precedents. Why he quitted law for physic is unknown, but he became a bachelor and a doctor in the latter faculty, both in 1559, and his medical works were collected at London in 1560. They consist chiefly of compilations and translations from the French. Among his poetical works is “The Regimen of Life,” translated from the French, London, 1544, 8vo. The story of “Owen Glendower,” in the “Mirror for Magistrates;” and his translation of the first nine books, and part of the tenth, of Virgil’s uEneid. There is a commendatory poem by him prefixed to Philip Betham’s “Military Precepts.” Warton mentions also an entry in the stationers’ books for printing “serten verses of Cupydo by Mr. Fayre,” and that he had seen a ballad called “Gadshill” by Faire, both which names were probably intended for that of Phaer. His translation of the first seven books of Virgil was printed in 1558, by John Kyngston, and dedicated to queen Mary. The two next books, with part of the tenth, were translated afterwards by him, and published after his death by William Wightman, in 1562. He has curiously enough marked at the end of each book the time when it was finished, and the time which it cost him in translating; which amounts, at separate intervals between the year 1555 and 1560, to 202 days, without reckoning the fragment of the tenth book. It appears, that during the whole of this period he resided very much at his patrimonial territory in Kilgerran forest, in South Wales. The fifth book is said, at the end, to have been finished on the 4th of May, 1557, “post periculum ejns Karmerdini,” which, whether it relates to some particular event in his life, or means that he made a trial upon it at Caermarthen, is a little uncertain; probably the former. Wightman says that he published all he could find among his papers; but conjectures, nevertheless, that he had proceeded rather further, from the two lines which he translated the very day before his death, and sent to Wightman. They are these,

, 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.

, an Athenian comic poet, contemporary with Menander, whose rival he was, and though inferior, was frequently successful against him by means of intrigue or the partiality of friends, was, by the account of Suidas, a Syracusan by birth; but Strabo says that he was born at Solae, in Cilicia. He was some years older than Menander, and in the opinion of Quintilian fairly next to him in merit, though unfit to be preferred to him. Apuleius speaks still more favourably, saying only that he was fortasse impar; and adds, that there are to be found in his dramas “many witty strokes, plots ingeniously disposed, discoveries strikingly brought to light, characters well adapted to their parts, sentiments that accord with human life, jests that do not degrade the sock, and gravity that does not intrench upon the buskin.” Philemon, who flourished 274 B.C. lived to the extraordinary age of 101 years, and composed ninety comedies. Menander, indeed, composed more, and in less time, but even this was extraordinary. His longevity was the result of great temperance, and a placid frame of mind. Frugal, to a degree that subjected him to the charge of avarice, he never weakened his faculties or constitution by excess: and he summed up all his wishes in one rational and moderate petition to heaven, which throws a most favourable light upon his character: “I pray for health in the first place; in the next, for success in my undertakings; thirdly, for a cheerful heart; and lastly, to be out of debt to all mankind.” A petition which seems to have been granted in all its parts. As he lived in constant serenity oi mind, so he died without pain of body; for, having called together a number of his friends to the reading of a play which he had newly finished, and sitting, as was the custom in that serene climate, under the open canopy of heaven, an unforeseen fall of ruin broke up the company, just when the old man had g'>t into the third act, in the very wannest interests of his fahle. His hearers, disappointed by this unlucky check to their entertainment, interceded with him for the remainder on the day following, to which he readily assented; and a great company being then assembled, whom the fame of the rehearsal had brought together, they sat a considerable time in expectation of the poet, till wearied out with waiting, and unable to account for his want of punctuality, some of his intimates were dispatched in quest of him, who, having entered his house, and made their way to his chamber, found the old man dead on his couch, in his usual meditating posture, his features placid and composed, and with every symptom that indicated a death without pain or struggle. The fragments of Philemon are in general of a sentimental tender cast; and though they enforce sound and strict morality, yet no one instance occurs of that gloomy misanthropy, that harsh and dogmatizing spirit, which too often marks the maxims of his more illustrious rival. They were collected and published by Grotius, together with those of Menander; the greater part having been preserved by Stobtcns. Several of them, as well as the fragments of the other Greek comic poets, have been translated by Mr. Cumberland in his “Observer,” to which we refer our readers for further information.

, an English poet, was descended from an ancient family in Leicestershire, and educated at St. John’s-college, in Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A.B. in 1696, and A.M. in 1700, at which time he obtained a fellowship. ' While at college also he is supposed to have written his “Pastorals,” which involved him so seriously with the wits and critics of the age. When he quitted the university, and repaired to the metropolis, he became, as Jacob expresses himself, “one of the wits at Button’s; n and there contracted an acquaintance with the gentlemen of the belles lettres, who frequented it. Sir Richard Steele was his particular friend, and inserted in his Tatler, N. 12, a little poem of his, called” A Winter Piece,“dated from Copenhagen, the 9th of May, 1709, and addressed to the earl of Dorset. Sir Richard thus mentions it with honour:” This is as fine a piece as we ever had from any of the schools of the most learned painters. Such images as these give us a new pleasure in our sight, and fix upon our minds traces of reflection, which accompany us wherever the like objects occur.“Pope, too, who had a confirmed aversion to Philips, while he affected to despise his other works, always excepted this out of the number, and mentioned it as the production of a man” who could write very nobly."

Besides Pope, there were some other writers who have written in burlesque of Philips’s poetry, which was singular in its manner, and not difficult to imitate; particularly Mr. Henry Carey, who by some lines in Philips’s style, and which were once thought to be dean Swift’s, fixed on that author the name of Namby Pamby. Isaac Hawkins Browne also imitated him in his Pipe of Tobacco. This, however, is written with great good humour, and though intended to burlesque, is by no means designed to ridicule Philips, he having made the same trial of skill on Swift, Pope, Thomson, Young, and Gibber. As a dramatic writer, Philips has certainly considerable merit, and one of his plays long retained its popularity. This was “The Distressed Mother,” from the French of Racine, acted in 1711. The others were, “The Briton,” a tragedy, acted in 1721; and “Humfrey Duke of Gloucester,” acted also in 1721. The “Distrest Mother” was concluded with the most successful Epilogue, written by Budgell, that was spoken in tin: English theatre. It was also highly praised in the “Spectator.” Philips’s circumstances were in general, through his life, not only easy, but rather affluent, in consequence of his being connected, by his political principles, with persons of great rank and consequence. He was concerned with Dr. Hugh Boulter, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, the right honourable Richard West, lord chancellor of Ireland, the rev. Mr. Gilbert Burnet, and the rev. Mr. Henry Stevens, in writing a series of Papers, many of them very excellent, called “The Free Thinker,” which were all published together by Philips, in 3 vols. 8vo. In the latter part of queen Anne’s reign, he was secretary to the Hanover club, a set of noblemen and gentlemen who had formed an association in honour of that succession, and for the support of its interests; and who used particularly to distinguish in their toasts such of the fair sex as were most zealously attached to the illustrious house of Brunswick. Mr. Philips’s station in this club, together with the zeal shewn in his writings, recommending him to the notice and favour of the new government, he was, soon after the accession of king George I. put into the commission of the peace, and in 1717, appointed one of the commissioners of the lottery. On his friend Dr. Boulter’s being made primate of Ireland, he accompanied that prelate, and in Sept. 1734, was appointed registrar of the prerogative court at Dublin, had other considerable preferments bestowed on him, and was elected a member of the house of commons there, as representative for the county of Armagh. At length, having purchased an annuity for life, of 400l. per annum, became over to England sorne time in 1748, but did not long enjoy his fortune, being struck with a palsy, of which he died June 18, 1749, in his seventy -eighth year, at his house in Hanover-street; and was buried in Audley chapel. “Of his personal character,” says Dr. Johnson, “all I have heard is, that he was eminent for bravery and skill in the sword, and that in conversation he was somewhat solemn and pompous.” He is somewhere called Qunker Philips, for what does not appear. Paul Whitehead relates, that when Mr. Addison was secretary of state, Philips applied to him for some preferment, but was coolly answered, “that it was thought that he was already provided for, by being made a justice for Westminster.” To this observar tion our author with some indignation replied, “Though poetry was a trade he could not live by, yet he scorned to owe subsistence to another which he ought not to live by.” “Among his poems,” says Dr. Johnson, the * Letter from Denmark,‘ may be justly praised; the Pastorals,’ which by the writer of the Guardian were ranked as one of the four genuine productions of the rustic muse, cannot surely he despicable. That they exhibit a mode of life which did not exist, nor ever existed, is not to be objected; the supposition of such a state is allowed to Pastoral. In his other poems he cannot be denied the praise of lines sometimes elegant; but he has seldom much force, or much comprehension. The pieces that please best are those which, from Pope and Pope’s adherents, procured him the name of Namby Pamby, the poems of short lines, by which he paid his court to all ages and characters, from Walpole, the “steerer of the realm,” to Miss Pulteney in the nursery. The numbers are smooth and sprightly, and the diction is seldom faulty. They are not loaded with much thought, yet, if they had been written by Addison, they would have had admirers: little things are not valued but when they are done by those who can do greater. In his translations from Pindar he found the art of reaching all the obscurity of the Theban bard, however he may fall below his sublimity; he will be allowed, if he has less fire, to have more smoke. He has added nothing to English poetry, yet at least half his book deserves to be read: perhaps he valued most himself that part which the critick would reject."

, sometimes called Phillip Morgan, a native of Monmouthshire, entered a student at Oxford about 1533. Being admitted to the degree of B. A. in 1537, he distinguished himself so much by a talent for disputing, then in high vogue, that he was called Morgan the sophister. Afterwards proceeding M. A. he was chosen a fellow of Oriel college, and entered into orders. In 1546 he was chosen principal of St. Mary-hall, and was in such reputation with the popish party, that he was one of the three selected to dispute with Peter Martyr on the sacrament. His share was published in 1549, under the title “Disputatio de sacramento Eucharistiae in univ. Oxon. habita, contra D. Pet. Martyr. 13 Mali, 1549.” We hear nothing of him during the reign of Edward VI.; but in that of queen Mary, he was appointed chanter of St. David’s. Being deprived of this by queen Elizabeth, he went abroad, and after a journey to Rome with Allen (afterwards the cardinal), he joined with him in 1568 in establishing the English college at Doway, and was the first who contributed pecuniary aid to that institution. Wood places his death at 1577, but the records of Doway college inform us that he died there in 1570, and left his property for the purchase of a house and garden for the English missionaries. A very scarce work, entitled “A Defence of the Honour of queen Mary of Scotland, with a declaration of her right, title, and interest, in the crown of England,” (London, 1569, Liege, 1571, 8vo), was attributed to him; but Camden and others assure us that it was written, as we have noticed in his life, by John Leslie, bishop of Ross. The only other treatise, therefore, we can ascribe to him with certainty, is that written in answer to Knox’s “First Blast of the Trumpet” and entitled “A Treatise shewing, the Regiment (government) of Women is conformable to the law of God and Nature,” Liege, 1571, 8vo.

In 1541 his fellowship became void, /probably by his setting out on his travels through Italy. He returned in the beginning of king Edward’s reign, and was collated to the archdeaconry of Winchester by Dr. Ponet, or Poynet, the first protestant bishop of that see. He was not unknown to Gardiner, Ponet’s predecessor, who had often forbidden his preaching in king Henry’s reign, and on one occasion cited him to his house, before certain justices, and called him rogue. Catching hold of this abusive epithet, Philpot said, “Do you keep a privy sessions in your own house for me, and call me rogue, whose father is a knight, and may spend a thousand pounds within one mile of your nose? And he that can spend ten pounds by the year, as I can, I thank God, is no vagabond.”

, 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.

, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, was descended from an illustrious family, and born in that city. He had great natural talents, which he cultivated with the utmost application, and there was no branch of literature, sacred or profane, or scarcely any art or science, with which he was not intimately acquainted. He seems to have been by far the greatest man of the age in which he lived; and was so intimately concerned in the chief transactions of it, that ecclesiastical writers have thence called it “Seculum Photianum.” He was first raised to the chief dignities of the empire, being made principal secretary of state, captain of the guards, and a senator; in all which stations he acquitted himself with a distinction suitable to his great abilities for he was a refined statesman, as well as a profound scholar.

When Ignatius was expelled and deposed from the see of Constantinople, Photius was nominated by the court to succeed him; and although at this time only a layman, in the space of six days he accumulated the degrees of monk, reader, sub-deacon, deacon, and priest, and in this rapid manner rose to the patriarchate on Christmas- day 858. The metropolitans, subject to the see of Constantinople, acknowledged Photius; but great opposition was made to this uncanonical ordination from other quarters, and he was actually degraded at Rome. Photius, however, ordered a council to be called at Constantinople, and got himself confirmed in 'his patriarchal dignity; in which, by various arts not very worthy of his high and sacred office, he continued during the life of his friend the emperor Michael. But Michael being murdered by the order of Basilius, who succeeded him in the year 867, the affairs of Photius were ruined, and Basilius banished him to a monastery, and reinstated Ignatius in his see. In this degraded state Photius remained for more than ten years, until a division between the pope and Ignatius afforded him an opportunity to attempt his own restoration; and, having obtained the emperor’s favour, he returned to Constantinople while Ignatius was yet alive. It is said Ignatius would have proposed conditions, but Photius, determined upon full restoration to the patriarchate, would be satisfied with nothing less. Ignatius however died Oct. 23, 878; and Photius immediately went into St. Sophia’s church with armed men; forced a great many bishops, clerks, and monks, to communicate with him; deposed and persecuted all that refused; and to prevent all opposition from the papal side, prevailed by threats and presents on two of the pope’s legates who were there, to declare publicly to the clergy and people, that they had come to depose Ignatius, and to declare Photius their patriarch. He kept his seat, thus forcibly obtained, till the year 886, and then was turned out, and banished by the emperor Leo into a monastery in Armenia, where he is supposed to have died soon after. He was, as we have observed, a man of great talents, great learning, and every way accomplished; but his ardent love of glory, and unbounded ambition, prompted him to such excesses, as made 'him rather a scourge than a blessing to those about him. He was the author of many intestine tumults and civil commotions; and not only divided the Greek church, but laid the foundation of a division between the Greek and Latin churches.

, 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.

, a famous engraver, was son of Stephen Picart, a good engraver also, and born at Paris in 1673. * He learned the principles of design, and the elements of his art, from his father, and studied architecture and perspective under Sebastian le Clerc. His uncommon talents in this way soon began to shew themselves and, at ten years of age, he engraved the hermaphrodite of Poussin, which was soon followed by two pieces of cardinal de Richelieu’s tomb. These works laid the foundation of that great reputation which this celebrated artist afterwards acquired. When he was grown up, he went into Holland, where his parents had settled themselves; and, after two years’ stay, returned to Paris, and married a lady who died soon after. Having embraced the reformed religion, he returned to Holland in 1710, for the sake of that freedom in the exercise of it, which he could not have at Paris; but connoisseurs are of opinion, that in attempting to please the taste of the Dutch, he lost much of the spirited manner in which he executed his works while in France, and on which they tell us his reputation was more firmly founded. Others inform us, that he was not so fond of engraving as of drawing, that he took up the graver with reluctance, and consequently many of his prints are better drawn than engraved. The greater part of his life was certainly spent in making compositions and drawings, which are said to have been very highly finished; and they are sufficient testimonies of the fertility of his genius, and the excellency of his judgment. He understood the human figure extremely well, and drew it with a tolerable degree of correctness, especially in small subjects. He worked much for the booksellers, and book-plates are by far the best part of his works. The multitude of these which he engraved, chiefly from his own compositions, is astonishing. One estimate makes them amount to 1300 pieces. The most capital of his separate plates is the “Massacre of the Innocents,” a small plate lengthways. After his death, which happened April 27, 1733, his friends published a small folio volume, called the “Innocent Impostures;” a set of prints from the designs of the great masters, in which he has attempted to imitate the styles of the old engravers. Strutt, who has, with apparent justice, censured this production, in the essay prefixed to his second volume, laments that Picart’s friends shouldhave been so injudicious as to publish what must diminish our respect for this artist.

During this prelate’s time, not only the cause of religion, but also political matters, called the queen’s attention towards Scotland, and the borders were frequently the scene of military operations. During these commotions, the queen having seized the earl of Westmoreland’s estates within the bishopric of Durham, our prelate instituted his suit, in which it was determined, that “where he hath jura regalia (regal rights) he shall have forfeiture of high treason.” This being a case, says the historian of Durham, after the statute for restoring liberties to the crown, is materially worth the reader’s attention. By an act of Parliament, made in the 13th year of Elizabeth, 1570,c. 16. “The convictions, outlawries, and attainders of Charles Earl of. Westmoreland, and fifty -seven others, attainted of treason, for open rebellion in the north parts, were confirmed;” and it was enacted, “That the queen, her heirs, and successors, should have, Jor that time, all the lands and goods which any of the said persons attainted within the bishopric of Durham had, against the bishop and his successors, though be claimeth jura regalia, and challenged! all the said forfeitures in right of his church.” So that the see was deprived of the greatest acquisition it had been entitled to for many centuries. Fuller says, that the reason for parliament taking the forfeited estates from the bishopric of Durham, was the great expence sustained by the state in defending the bishop’s family, and his see, in that rebellion. It is certain that he being the first protestant bishop that held the see of Durham, was obliged to keep out of the way of the insurgents, to whom a man of his principles must have been particularly obnoxious. Another reason assigned, that the bishop gave ten thousand pounds with one of his daughters in marriage, appears to have less foundation. Ten thousand pounds was sufficient for the dowry of a princess, and queen Elizabeth is said to have been olfended that a subject should bestow such a sum. Fuller, who has been quoted on this subject, has not been quoted fairly: he gives the story, but in his index calls it false, and refers to another part of his history, where we are told that the bishop gave only four thousand pounds with his daughter. There is some probability, however, that the revenues of Durham, augmented as they must have been by these forfeited estates, became an object of jealousy with the crown.

is the name of an ancient fabulist, a Bramin; he was, as is supposed, governor of part of Indostan, and counsellor to a powerful Indian king, named Dabschclin, whose preceptor he had been. His work is said to have been written 2000 years B. C. but all internal evidence is against this. It is called in the Indian language, Kelile Wadimne, a name the Orientals give to an animal very much resembling a fox, and which is made to speak throughout the work. All the modern translations of this Orientalist, are made either from the Greek or the Persian, and are said to differ much from the original. His fables were translated into French, by Ant. Galland, 1714, 12mo. Another work is also attributed to him, entitled, in the translation, “Le Naufrage des isles flotantes,” or, “The Basiliade,” 1755.

Of all the works, which he is said to have composed, we have only his four books of hymns of triumph, on the conquerors in the four renowned games of Greece: the Olympian, the Pythian, the Nemaean, and the Isthmian; and such was his reputation for compositions of this kind, that no victory was thought complete, till it had the approbation of his muse. The spirit of Pindar’s poetry is so sublime, and the beauty so peculiar, that it is hardly possible to examine it by parts: and therefore the best judges have usually contented themselves with confirming his general title of “prince and father of lyric poetry,” without analyzing his particular excellences. “His Pegasus,” as Cowiey says, “flings writer and reader too, that sits not sure.” Horace called him inimitable, and, Quintiiian says, deservedly. Pindar and Sophocles,“says Longinus,” like a rapid fire, carry everything before them, though sometimes that fire is unexpectedly and unaccountably quenched.“The grandeur of his poetry, and his deep erudition, made the ancients give him the title of the Wisest, the Divine, the Great, and the most Sublime Plato calls him the Wisest and the Divine Æschylus the Great and Athenaeus, the most Sublime. Lord Bacon says, that” it is peculiar to Pindar, to strike the minds of men suddenly with some wonderful turn of thought, as it were, with a divine scepter."

, a celebrated lawyer, was born in 1573, of a good family at Angers. He attended the bar with a degree of reputation superior to his age; and going afterwards to Paris, distinguished himself both in the parliament and grand council, by his eloquent pleadings. In 1600 he married Frances Ladvocat, daughter of Amauri Ladvocat, seigneur de Fougeres, and counsellor to the presidial of Angers, and at his return to his native place, was appointed counsellor to the same presidial. Mary de Medicis becoming acquainted with him in 1619, conceived the highest esteem for his merit, created him master of the requests in her palace, and endeavoured to support herself in her disgrace by his credit and advice; but M. du Pineau’s whole aim was to inspire her with resignation, in which he at last succeeded. Louis XIII. in return appointed him mayor and captain-general of the city of AngerSj June 2, 1632, in which situation he gained the flattering title of “Father of the People.” His house became also a kind of academy, in which every one freely proposed his difficulties on the most intricate points of law or history, and when du Pineau had spoken, the point in dispute was considered as decided. He died Oct. 15, 1644, aged 71. His works are, Notes in Latin, against those of du Moulin on the canon law, printed under the inspection of Francis Pinsson, with du Moulin' s works; “Comm. des observations et consultations surlaContume d'Anjou,” reprinted, 1725, 2 vols. fol. by the care of M. de Livoniere, who has enriched them with very useful observations. Menage relates that when his father William Menage, and du Pineau, agreed in their opinions on the same question, the people of Angers used to say, “This must certainly be right, for Pineau has confirmed the opinion of Menage.” His house was so much frequented, that the street in which he lived was called “Rue Pineau.”

, was called also Venetiano, from Venice, the place of his birth, which occurred in 1485. He was renowned, in early life, as a musician, and particularly for his skill in playing upon the lute. While he was yet in his youth, he abandoned that science, and was taught the rudiments of the art of painting by Giovanni Bellini; but Giorgione da Castel Franco having just then exhibited his improved mode of colouring and effect, Sebastian became his disciple and most successful imitator. His portraits, in particular, were greatly admired for the strength of resemblance, and the sweetness and fulness of style, which made them be frequently mistaken for the work of Giorgione. His portrait of Julio Gonzaga, the favourite of cardinal Hippolito di Medici, is by many writers mentioned in the highest terms. Being induced to go to Rome, he soon attracted public notice; and in the contest respecting the comparative merits of Raphael and M. Angelo, Sebastian gave the preference to the latter, who in consequence favoured him on all occasions, and even stimulated him to the rash attempt of rivalling Raphael, by painting a picture in competition with that great man’s last great work, the Transfiguration; which had just been placed, with great form, in the church of St. Pietro a Montorio. The subject Sebastian chose was the resurrection of Lazarus; for which Michael Angelo is supposed to have furnished the design, or at least to have considered and retouched it. The picture is of the same size as Raphael’s; and, when completed, was placed in the same consistory, and was very highly applauded. The cardinal di Medici sent it to his bishopric of Narbonno, and it became the property of the Duke of Orleans. It is now in England, and in possession of J. Angerstein esq. who gave 2000 guineas for it to the proprietors of the Orleans collection. Although it is a work of profound skill, and highly preserves the reputation of its author, yet, in our opinion, it is not to be compared with the great work it was intended to rival, either in design, in expression, or effect, whatever may be said of its execution.

Having a good estate of his own, and being generous, as most men of genius are, he would never take any thing for his pieces. He drew them commonly over a bottle, which he loved so well, that he spent great part of his hours of pleasure in a tavern. This was the occasion that some of his best pieces, especially such as are as large as the life, are to be found in those houses; particularly at the Mitre Tavern, in Stocks-market, where there was a room called the Amsterdam, adorned with his pictures in black and white. The room took its name from his pieces; which, representing a Jesuit, a Quaker preaching, and other preachers of most sects, was called the Amsterdam; as containing an image of almost as many religions as are professed in that free city. He drew also other pieces of humour for a Mr. Shepheard, a vintner, at the Bell, in Westminster, which Mr. Holmes, of the Mitre, purchased, to make his collection of this master’s pieces the more complete; and the benefit of shewing them was not a little advantageous to his house. Piper drew also a piece, representing a constable with his myrmidons, in very natural and ludicrous postures. He seldom designed after the life, and neglected colouring: yet he sometimes, though very rarely, coloured some of his pieces, and is said not to have been very unsuccessful in it. He was a great admirer and imitator of Augustine Caracci, Rembrandt, and Heemskirk’s manner of design, and was always in raptures when he spoke of Titian’s colouring: for, notwithstanding he never had application enough to make himself a master of that part of his art, he admired it in those that were so, especially the Italians. He drew the pictures of several of his friends in black and white; and maintained a character of truth, which shewed, that if he had bestowed time to perfect himself in colouring, he would have rivalled the best of our portrait-painters. Towards the latter end of his life, having impaired his fortune, he sometimes took money. He drew some designs for Mr. Isaac Becket, who copied them in mezzothto. Those draughts were generally done at a tavern; and, whenever he pleased, he could draw enough in half an hour to furnish a week’s work for Becket .

, called more frequently Julio Romano, a very eminent painter, was born in 1492, and was the principal disciple of Raphael, his heir, the cominuator of his works, and himself at the head of a school. Whilst a pupil, he imbibed all his master’s energy of character, and chiefly signalized himself in subjects of war and battles, which he represented with equal spirit and erudition. As a designer, he commands the whole mechanism of the human body; and, without fear of error, turns and winds it about to serve his purposes; but sometimes oversteps the modesty of nature. Vasari prefers his drawings to his pictures, as the original fire which distinguishes his conception was apt to evaporate, in the longer process of finish: and some have, with more reason, objected to' the character of his physiognomies, as less simple than vulgar; and often dismal and horrid, without being terrible. In colour, whether fresco or oil, his hand was as expeditious, a.nd his touch, especially in the former, as decided, as his eye and choice were ungenial: bricky lights, violet demitints, black shades, compose, in general, the raw opaque tone of his oil-pictures. The style of his draperies is classic, but the management of the folds generally arbitrary and mannered; the hair and head-dresses of his women are always fanciful and luxurious, but not always arranged by taste, whilst those of the men frequently border on the grotesque.

He came to Mantua, and there found antique treasures, of which the statues, busts, and basso-relievos, at. present in the academy, are but insignificant remains. To the stores of the Gonzaghi he added his own, rich in designs of Raphael, and studies and plans from the antique; for no designer ever possessed such industry with so much fire, so much consideration with such fecundity, or combiued with equal rapidity such correctness, and with great recondite knowledge in mythology and history, that popularity and ease in treating it. The increased practice, and the authority derived from the superintendance of the works left unfinished by his master, established his reliance on himself, and the call of the Gonzaghi roused that loftiness of conception, and gave birth to those magnificent plans, from which Mantua and the wonders of the palace del T. as it was called, rose, as from enchantment. This palace furnishes specimens in every class of picturesque imagery. Whatever be the dimension, the subject, or the scenery, minute or colossal, simple or complex, terrible or pleasing, we trace a mind bent to surprise or to dazzle by poetic splendor: but, sure to strike by the originality of his conception, he often neglects propriety in the conduct of his subjects, considered as a series, and in the arrangement or choice of the connecting parts; hurried into extremes by the torrent of a fancy more lyric than epic, he disdains to fill the intermediate chasms, and too often leaves the task of connexion to the spectator.

In the palace del T. Julio adopted the method of his master. He prepared the cartoons; they were executed by his pupils; and he thoroughly retouched, corrected, and gave the last finish to the pictures: but unfortunately his master-strokes have been covered again by modern pencils; and the fable of Psyche, the Allegories of Human Life, the Gian.ts storming Heaven, exhibit now, indeed, his composition and design, but not his hand: this is better preserved in the paintings of the old palace, or, as it is now called, the Corte of Mantua: they are in fresco, and chiefly relate histories of the Trojan war. They have the same beauties and the same defects as those of the palace del T. Each, singly considered, is a proof of the poetic spirit and the practic powers of the master; as a cyclus, they want connection and evidence. Helen sleeping, Vulcan forging arms for Achilles, are beautiful; and Minerva in the act of slaying Ajax, the son of Oileus, sublime. Nor is his versatility less admirable in the Bacchic or amorous subjects, the capricci and grotesque conceits with which he decorated the small cabinets of the same palace.

, 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:

, an eminent Scotch physician of the mechanical sect, was descended from an ancient family in the county of Fife, and born at Edinburgh Dec. 25, 1652. After some classical education at the school of Dalkeith, he was removed in 1668 to the university of Edinburgh; where, having gone through a course of philosophy, he obtained in 1671 his degree of M. A. and studied first divinity, which does not appear to have been to his taste, and then the civil law, which was more seriously the object of his choice, and he pursued it with so much intenseness as to impair his health. He was then, advised to travel to Montpelier in France, but found himself recovered by the time he reached Paris. He determined to pursue the study of the law in the university there; but there being no able professor of it, and meeting with some of his countrymen, who were students in physic, he went with them to the lectures and hospitals. A few months after, he was called home by his father; and now, having laid in the first elements of all the three professions, he found himself absolutely undetermined which to follow. In the mean time he applied himself to the mathematics, in which he made a very great progress; and an acquaintance which he formed with Dr. David Gregory, the celebrated mathematical professor, probably conduced to cherish his natural aptitude for this study. At length, struck with the charms of mathematical truth which been lately introduced into the philosophy of medicine, and hoping to reduce the healing art to geometrical method, he unalterably determined in favour of medicine as a profession. As there was however at this time no medical school in Edinburgh, no hospital, nor opportunity of improvement but the chamber and the shop, he returned to Paris about 1675, and cultivated the object of his pursuit with diligence and steadiness. Among his various occupations, the study of the ancient physicians seems to have had a principal share. This appears from a treatise which he published some time after his return, “Solutio problematis de inventoribus,” which shews that he wisely determined to know the progress of medicine from its earliest periods, before he attempted to reform and improve that science. In August 1680 he received from the faculty of llheims the degree of Doctor, which in 1699 was likewise conferred on him by the university of Aberdeen, and he was likewise appointed a member of the college of surgeons of Edinburgh in 1701. He was before chosen a member of the royal college of physicians of Edinburgh from the time it was established by charter in 1681. On his return to Edinburgh, which was about the time of the revolution, he presently came into good business, and acquired an extensive reputation. Such, however, was his attachment to the exiled James II. that he became excluded from public honours and promotion at home, and therefore, Laving in 1692 received an invitation from the curators of the university of Leyden, to be professor of physic there, he accepted it, and went and made his inauguration speech the 26th of April that year, entitled “Oratio qua ostenditur meclicinam ab omni philosophorum secta esse Jiberam.” He continued there little more than a year; during which short space he published several dissertations, chiefly with a view of shewing the usefulness of mathematics to physic. Pitcairne was the first who introduced the mechanic principles into that art, now so generally exploded, but they do not appear to have influenced his practice, which did not differ essentially from the present. He returned to Scotland in 1693, to discharge an engagement to a young lady, who became his second wife, the daughter of sir Archibald Stephenson, an eminent physician in Edinburgh; and, being soon after married to her, was fully resolved to set out again for Holland; but, the lady’s parents being unwilling to part with her, he settled at Edinburgh, and wrote a valedictory letter to the university of Leyden. His lady did not survive her marriage many years; yet she brought him a daughter, who was in 1731 married to the earl of Kelly.

These poems, says the same critic, which have the merit of excellent Latinity, and easy and spirited numbers, must have had a poignant relish in his own age, from the very circumstances which render them little interesting in ours. Lord Hailes once intended to have redeemed them from oblivion by a commentary, a specimen of which he gave in the Edinburgh Magazine and Review for February 1774; but, as he had no congeniality of opinion with Pitcairne, either as to religion or politics, there would have been a perpetual war betwixt the author and his commentator. With respect to his religion, although Dr. Webster tells us he “died a worthy and religious man,” there is reason to think he had not always lived with much religious impression on his mind. He wrote a comedy, called “The Assembly,” printed at London in 1722, which Mr. George Chalmers says is “personal and political, sarcastic and prophane, and never could have been acted on any stage.” He was also the author of an attack on revealed religion, entitled “Epistola Archimedis ad regem Gelonem Albre Graccae reperta, anno aeree Christianas 1685.” This was made the subject of the inaugural oration of the Rev. Thomas Halyburton, professor of divinity in the uniTersity of St. Andrew’s in 1710, and published at Edinburgh in 1714, 4to. The kte Dr. William and Dr. David Pitcairne were related to our author, but not his immediate descendants.

, earl of Chatham, one of the most illustrious statesmen whom this country has produced, was the son of Robert Pitt, esq. of Boconnock in Cornwall, and grandson of Thomas Pitt, governor of Madras, who was purchaser of the celebrated diamond, afterwards called the Regent. The family was originally of Dorsetshire, where it had been long and respectably established. William Pitt was born Nov. 15, 1708, and educated at Eton; whence, in January 1726, he went as a gentleman-commoner to Trinity-college, Oxford. It has been said, that he was not devoid of poetical talents, of which a few specimens have been produced; but they do not amount to much, and of his Latin verses on the death of George the First, it is natural to suspect that the whole merit was not his own. When he quitted the university, Pitt was for a time in the army, and served as a cornet; but his talents leading him more decisively to another field of action, he quitted the life of a soldier for that of a statesman, and became a member of parliament for the borough of Old Sarum, in February 1735. In this situation his abilities were soon distinguished, and he spoke with great eloquence against the Spanish convention in 1738. It was on the occasion of the bill for registring seamen in 1740, which he opposed as arbitrary and unjustifiable, that he is said to have made his celebrated reply to Mr. Horatio Walpole, who had attacked him on account of his youth (though then thirty-two), adding, that the discovery of truth is little promoted by pompous diction and theatrical emotion. Mr. Pitt retorted, with great severity, “I will not undertake to determine whether youth can justly be imputed to any man as a reproach; but I will affirm, that the wretch who, after having seen the consequences of repeated errors, continues still to blunder, and whose age has only added obstinacy to stupidity, is surely the object of either abhorrence or contempt, and deserves not that his grey head should secure him from insults. Much more is he to be abhorred, who, as he has advanced in age, has receded from virtue, and becomes more wicked with less temptation; who prostitutes himself for money which he cannot enjoy; and spends the remains of his life in the ruin of his country.” Something like this Mr. Pitt might have said, but the language is that of Dr. Johnson, who then reported the debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine.

Though he held no place immediately from the crown, Mr. Pitt had for some time enjoyed that of groom of the bedchamber to Frederick prince of Wales, but resigned it in 1745; and continuing steady in his opposition to the measures of the ministry, experienced about the same time that fortune, which more than once attended him, of having his public services repaid by private zeal. The dowager duchess of Marlborough left him by will 10,000l. expressly for defending the laws of his country, and endeavouring to prevent its ruin. It was thought soon after an object of importance to obtain his co-operation with government, and in 1746 he was made joint vice-treasurer of Ireland; and in the same year treasurer, and pay-master-general of the army, and a privy-counsellor. In 1755, thinking it necessary to make a strong opposition to the continental connections then formed by the ministry, he resigned his places, and remained for some time out of office. But in December 1756, he was called to a higher situation, being appointed secretary of state for the southern department. In this high office he was more successful in obtaining the confidence of the public, than that of the king, some of whose wishes he thought himself bound to oppose. In consequence of this he was soon removed, with Mr. Legge, and some others of his friends. The nation, however, was not disposed to be deprived of the services of Mr. Pitt. The most exalted idea of him had been taken up throughout the kingdom: not only of his abilities, which were evinced by his consummate eloquence, but of his exalted, judicious, and disinterested patriotism. This general opinion of him, and in some degree of his colleagues, was so strongly expressed, not merely by personal honours conferred on them, but by addresses to the throne in their favour, that the king thought it prudent to restore them to their employments. On June 29, 1757, Mr. Pitt was again made secretary of state, and Mr. Legge chancellor of the exchequer, with other arrangements according to their wishes. Mr. Pitt was now considered as prime minister, and to the extraordinary ability of his measures, and the vigour of his whole administration, is attributed the great change which quickly appeared in the state of public affairs. It was completely shewn how much the spirit of one man may animate a whole nation. The activity of the minister pervaded every department. His plans, which were ably conceived, were executed with the utmost promptitude; and the depression which had arisen from torpor and ill success, was followed by exertion, triumph, and confidence. The whole fortune of the war was changed; in every quarter of the world we were triumphant; the boldest attempts were made by sea and land, and almost every attempt was fortunate. In America the French lost Quebec; in Africa their principal settlements fell; in the East-Indies their power was abridged, and in Europe their armies defeated; while their navy, their commerce, and their finances, were little less than ruined. Amidst this career of success king George the Second died, Oct. 25, 1760. His present majesty ascended the throne at a time when the policy of the French court had just succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of Spain. The family compact had been secretly concluded; and the English minister, indubitably informed of the hostile intentions of Spain, with his usual vigour of mind, had determined on striking the first blow, before the intended enemy should be fully prepared for action. He proposed in the privy council an immediate declaration of war against Spain, urging, with great energy, that this was the favourable moment, perhaps never to be regained, for humbling the whole house of Bourbon. In this measure he was not supported, and the nation attributed the opposition he encountered to the growing influence of the earl of Bute. Mr. Pitt, of much too high a spirit to remain as the nominal head of a cabinet which he was no longer able to direct, resigned his places on the 5th of October, 1761; when, as some reward for his eminent services, his wife was created baroness of Chatham in her own right, and a pension of three thousand pounds was settled on the lives of himself, his lady, and his eldest son.

, 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 first important measure introduced into this parliament was the India Bill rejected by the last, which was passed; and, with some few alterations, constitutes the system by which the affairs of the East India company have ever since been managed. Another important plan, executed by Mr. Pitt, was that for the prevention of smuggling. This, in all branches of the revenue, occupied his attention for some years afterwards, but his present object was the frauds on the revenue in the article of tea, which he obviated by what was called the Commutation Act, which took off the principal duties from tea, and supplied the deficiency by a large addition to the window-tax. This, if we remember right, was the first circumstance which occasioned some murmuring, and it was the first instance in which Mr. Pitt showed that he was not to be diverted from what he conceived would be generally a benefit, by any dread of the loss of popularity. If at this time he seems ambitious of any distinctive ministerial character, it was that of an able and successful minister of finance; and there cannot be a more decided proof of his having attained that honour, than that his plans are still operating, and have enabled the country to sustain for upwards of twenty years a war of unexampled expence, and at the same time to support feebler nations in recovering their independence from a tyranny to which they were thought to be irreversibly doomed.

Pius behaved in his high office with considerable spirit and activity; but more as a temporal prince, than the head of the church. During his pontificate he received ambassadors from the patriarchs of the east: the chief of the embassy was one Moses, archdeacon of Austria, a man well versed in the Greek and Syriac languages, and of a distinguished character. He appeared before his holiness in the name of the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; he told his holiness, that the enemy who sows tares having prevented them till then from receiving the decree of the council of Florence, concerning the union of the Greek and Latin churches, God had at last inspired them with a resolution of submitting to it; that it had been solemnly agreed to, in an assembly called together for that purpose; and that for the future they would unanimously submit to the pope as vicegerent of Jesus Christ. Pius commended the patriarchs for their obedience, and ordered Moses’s speech to be translated into Latin, and laid up amongst the archives of the Roman church. A few days after the arrival of these ambassadors from the east, there came others also from Peloponnesus, who offered obedience to the pope, and he received them in the name of the church of Rome, and sent them a governor.

, 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.

, in Latin Plateanus, a learned French writer, was born at Angoulême in 1526. He applied with success to the study of jurisprudence, and in 1548 published a Latin paraphrase on the titles of the Imperial institutes, “De Actionibus, Exceptionibus et Interdictis,” in 4to. After this he was called to the bar of the parliament of Paris, and acquired the character of a learned, eloquent, and virtuous counsellor. Francis I. appointed him advocate of his court of aids at Paris, and he discharged the duties of that office with so much talent and integrity, that Henry II. nominated him his first president in the same court. He became, in consequence of hearing Calvin, a convert to the protestant religion in 1554, and made an open profession of it on the death of Francis II. On the breaking out of the civil war he retired to one of his houses in Picardy; but at the peace in 1562 vindicated himself before the king from the several charges which had been preferred against him. He was now appointed by the prince of Condé superintendant of the household, and accompanied his highness to the castle of Vè in the Valois, where he continued till Charles IX. granted the protestants advantageous terms of peace in 1569, that he might the more easily extirpate them. La Place, deceived by this treachery, returned to Paris, and was executing the office of president to the court of aids, when he was put to death in the most treacherous as well as barbarous manner in the general massacre of the protestants on St. Bartholomew’s day, in 1572, at the age of forty-six. His clear judgment and discrimination admirably qualified him for the office of magistrate. His chief works are, “Commentaries on the state of Religion, and of the Commonwealth, from 1556 to 1561;” “A Treatise on the right use of Moral Philosophy in connection with the Christian Doctrine;” and “A Treatise on the excellence of the Christian Man.”

, 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:

Desirous of making himself master of all the wisdom and learning which the age could furnish, Plato commenced his travels with visiting that part of Italy, called Magna Græcia, where he was instructed in all the mysteries of the Pythagorean system, the subtleties of which he afterwards too freely blended with the more simple doctrine of Socrates. He next visited Theodorus of Gyrene, and when under this master he found himself sufficiently instructed in the elements of mathematics, he determined to study astronomy, and other sciences, in Egypt, and that he might travel with safety, he assumed the character of a merchant. Wherever he came, he obtained information from the Egyptian priests concerning their astronomical observations and calculations; and it has been asserted, that Plato acquired in Egypt his opinions concerning the origin of the world, and learned the doctrines of transmigration, and the immortality of the soul: but it is more probable that he learned the latter doctrine from Socrates, and the former from Pythagoras. Nor, according to Brucker, is there more reason for thinking that he learned in Egypt, the doctrine of the Hebrews, and enriched his system from the sacred Scriptures, although the contrary has been maintained by several eminent Jewish and Christian writers, and was commonly received by the Christian fathers. As to the supposed agreement between the Mosaic and Platonic doctrines, that historian thinks that either the agreement is imaginary, or it consists in such particulars as might be easily discovered by the light of reason. After learning what distant countries could teach, Plato returned to Italy, to the Pythagorean school at Tarentum, where he endeavoured to improve his own system, by a mixture of the Pythagorean, as then taught by Archytas, TimsEus, and others. And afterwards, when he visited Sicily, he retained such an attachment to the Italic school, that, through the bounty of Dionysius, he purchased, at a vast price, several books, which contained the doctrine of Pythagoras, from Philolaus, one of his followers. In this way Plato accumulated his knowledge. His dialectics he borrowed from Euclid of Megara; the principles of natural philosophy he learned in the Eleatic school from Hermogenes and Cratylus: and combining these with the Pythagorean doctrine of natural causes, he framed from both his system of metaphysics. Mathematics and astronomy he was taught in the Cyrenaic school, and by the Egyptian priests. From Socrates he imbibed the pure principles of moral and political wisdom; but he afterwards obscured their simplicity by Pythagorean speculations.

Returning home richly stored with knowledge of various kinds, he settled in Athens, and formed his celebrated school of philosophy. The place which he made choice of for this purpose was a public grove, called the Academy, from Hecademus, who left it to the citizens for the puiv pose of gymnastic exercises. Adorned with statues, temples, and sepulchres, planted with lofty plane-trees, and intersected by a gentle stream, it afforded a delightful retreat for philosophy and the muses. Within this inclosure he possessed, as a part of his humble patrimony, purchased at the price of three thousand drachmas, a small garden, in which he opened a school, and to shew the value he placed on mathematical studies, and how necessary a preparation be thought them for higher speculations, he placed an inscription over the door, the meaning of which is, “Let no one, who is unacquainted with geometry, enter here.” He soon became ranked among the most eminent philosophers, and his travels into distant countries, where learning and wisdom flourished, gave him celebrity among his brethren, none of whom had ventured to institute a school in Athens, except Aristippus, the freedom of whose manners had brought him into discredit. Plato alone inherited the popularity of Socrates, and besides a crowd of young scholars, persons of the first distinction frequented the academy, females not excepted, whose curiosity induced them to put on the male apparel for this purpose. Such reputation could not escape envy and jealousy. Diogenes the Cynic ridiculed Plato’s doctrine of ideas and other abstract speculations; nor was he himself without a tinge of jealousy, for he and Xenophon, who had been fellow pupils of Socrates, studiously avoided mentioning each other. Amidst all this, however, Plato’s fame increased; and such an opinion was formed of his political wisdom, that several states solicited his assistance in new modelling their respective forms of government. But while he gave his advice in the affairs of Elis, and other Grecian states, and furnished a code of laws for Syracuse, he rejected the applications of the Arcadians and Thebans, because they refused to adopt the plan of his republic, which prescribed an equal distribution of property. He was also in high esteem with several princes, particularly Archelaus, king of Maoedon, and Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily. At three different periods he visited the court of this latter prince, and made several bold, but unsuccessful attempts to subdue his haughty and tyrannical spirit. A brief relation of the particulars of these visits to Sicily, may serve to cast some light upon the character of our philosopher

His second son, Henry, succeeded his father as a musicseller, at first at his shop in the Temple, but afterwards in the Temple Exchange, Fleet-street; but the music-books advertised by him were few compared with those published by his father. Among them were the “Orpheus Britannicus,” and the ten sonatas and airs of Purcell. He published, in 1701, what he called the second book of the '< Pleasant Musical Companion, being a choice collection of catches for three or four voices" published chiefly for the encouragement of the musical societies, which, he said, would be speedily set upn the chief cities and towns of England. We know not that this v as the case, but certainly the publication of Purcell’s catches in two small volumes of the elder Walsh in queen Anne’s time, was th means of establishing catch-clubs in almost every town in the kingdom. It is conjectured that Henry Playford survived his father but a short time, for we meet with no publication by him after 17 10.

, called the elder, to distinguish him from his nephew, was one of the most learned of the ancient Roman writers, and was born in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, about the year of Christ 23. His birth-place was Verona, as appears from his calling Catullus his countryman, who was unquestionably of that city. Tho ancient writer of his life, ascribed to Suetonius, and, after him, St. Jerom, have made him a native of Rome: father Hardouin has also taken some pains to confirm this notion, which however has not prevailed. We can more readily believe Aulus Gellius, who represents him as one of the most ingenious men of his age; and what is related of his application by his nephew the younger Pliny, is almost incredible. Yet his excessive love of study did not spoil the man of business, nor prevent him from filling the most important offices with credit. He was a procurator, or manager of the emperor’s revenue, in the provinces of Spain and Africa; and was advanced to the high dignity of augur. He had also several considerable commands in the army, and was distinguished by his courage in the field, as well as by his eloquence at the bar. His manner of life, as it is described by his nephew, exhibits a degree of industry and perseverance scarcely to be paralleled. In summer he always began his studies as soon as it was night: in winter, generally at one in the morning, but never later than two, and often at midnight. No man ever spent less time in bed; and sometimes he would, without retiring from his books, indulge in a short sleep, and then pursue his studies. Before day-break, it was his custom to wait upon Vespasian, who likewise chose that season to transact business: and when he had finished the affairs which the emperor committed to his charge, he returned home again to his studies. After a slender repast at noon, he would frequently, in the summer, if he was disengaged from business, recline in the sun: during which time some author was read to him, from which he made extracts and observations. This was his constant method, whatever book he read; for it was a maxim of his, that “no book was so bad, but something might be learned from it.” When this was over, he generally went into the cold-bath, after which he took a slight refreshment of food and rest and then, as if it had been a new day, resumed his studies till supper-time, when a book was again read to him, upon which he would make some remarks as they went on. His nephew mentions a singular instance to shew how parsimonious he was of his time, and how covetous of knowledge. His reader having pronounced a word wrong, some person at the table made him repeat it: upon which, Pliny asked that person if he understood it? and when he acknowledged that he did, “Why then,” said he, “would you make him go back again we have lost, by this interruption, above ten lines.” In summer, he always rose from supper by clay-light and in winter, as soon as it was dark. Such was his way of life amidst the noise and hurry of the town but in the country his whole time was devoted to study without intermission, excepting only when he bathed, that is, was actually in the bath for during the operation of rubbing and wiping, he was employed either in hearing some book read' to him, or in dictating himself. In his journeys, he lost no time from his studies, his mind at those seasons being disengaged from all other thoughts, and a secretary or amanuensis constantly attended him in his chariot; and that he might suffer the less interruption to his studies, instead of walking, he always used a carriage in Rome. By this extraordinary application he found leisure to write a great many volumes.

Natural history was his delight; and he gave very agreeable specimens of it, in his “Natural Histories of Oxfordshire and Staffordshire.” The former was published at Oxford, in 1677, folio, and reprinted 1705, with additions and corrections, by John Burman, M. A. fellow of University-college, his step-son, and afterwards vicar of Newington, in Kent; the latter was printed also at Oxford, 1686, in the same size . These were intended as essays towards “A Natural History of England” for, in order to discover antiquities and other curiosities, and to promote learning and trade, he formed a design of travelling through England and Wales. By such researches, he was persuaded that many additions might be made to Camden’s Britannia, and other works, concerning the history and antiquities of England. He drew up a plan of his scheme in a letter to bishop Fell, which may be seen at the end of the second volume of Leland’s Itinerary, of the edition of 1744. In these Histories, whatever is visible in the heavens, earth, and waters; whatever is dug out of the ground, whatever is natural or unnatural; and whatever is observable in art and science, were the objects of his speculation and inquiry; and various and dissimilar as his matter is, it is in general well connected; and his transitions are easy. His books indeed deserve to be called the “natural and artificial histories” of these counties. In the eagerness and rapidity of his various pursuits, he took upon trust, and committed to writing, some things which, upon mature consideration, he must have rejected. He did not, perhaps, know enough of experimental philosophy to exert a proper degree of scepticism in the information given to him. Besides these works, he was the author of several other productions. In 1685, he published “De Origine Fontium, Tentamen Philosophicum,” 8vo and the nine following papers of his are inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions:” 1. “An Account of Elden Hole, in Derbyshire,” No. 2. 2. “The Formation of Salt and Sand from Brine,” No. 145. 3. “Discourse concerning the Effects of the great Frost on Trees and other Plants, in 1683,” No. 165. 4. “A Discourse of perpetual Lamps,” No. 166. 5. “The History of the Weather at Oxford, in 1684 or the Observations of a full Year, made by Order of the Philosophical Society at Oxford,” No. 169. 6. “A large and curious Account of the Amianthos or Asbestine Linen,” No. 1708. 7. “Discourse concerning the most seasonable Time of felling Timber, written at the request of Samuel Pepys,esq. secretary of the admiralty,” No. 192. 8. “Of an Irishman of an extraordinary size, viz. Edward Mallone, nineteen years old, seven feet six inches high,” No. 240. 9. “A Catalogue of Electrical Bodies,” No. 245. In 1680, he published “The Clog, or Staffordshire Almanack,” engraven on a copper-plate, and inserted afterwards in his “History of Staffordshire.”

For some time Plotinus remained silent, in consequence of the oath of secrecy which he had taken in the school of Ammonius; but after his fellow disciples, Herennius and Origines, had disclosed the mysteries of their master, he thought himself no longer bound by his promise 3 and became a public preceptor in philosophy, upon eclectic principles. During a period of ten years, he delivered all in the way of conversation, but at last he found it necessary to commit the substance of his lectures to writing and this being suffered to pass into the hands of his pupils without being transcribed, we cannot be surprized at the great obscurity and confusion which are still found in his writings, after all the pains that Porphyry took to correct them.His works are distributed under six classes, called Enneads. Proclus wrote commentaries upon them, and Dexippus defended them against the Peripatetics.

, a celebrated lawyer, the son of Humphrey Plowden, of Plowden, in Shropshire, of an ancient and genteel family, was born in that county, in 1517, and fjrst studied philosophy and medicine for three years at Cambridge but removed after a time to Oxford, where he continued his former studies for four years more, and in 1552, according to Wood, was admitted to the practice of physic and surgery. Tanner says, that when he left Cambridge, he entered himself of the Middle Temple, and resuming the study of physic, went then to Oxford. It appears, however, that he finally determined on the law as a profession, and entered the Middle Temple, where he soon became reader. His first reading was in autumn, 4 and 5 of Philip and Mary; and his second was in Lent, 3 Eliz. In queen Mary’s time he was called to the degree of serjeant; but, being zealously attached to the Romish persuasion, lost all further hopes of preferment, on the accession of Elizabeth. He continued to be much consulted in private as a counsellor. He died Feb. 6, 1584-5, and was buried in the Middle Ternple church. By a ms note on a copy of his Reports once in the possession of Dr. Ducarel, it appears that he was treasurer of the Middle Temple in 1572, the year in which the hall was built. It is added that “he was a man of great gravity, knowledge, and integrity; in his youth excessively studious, so that (we have it by tradition) in three years space he went not once out of the Temple.”

, 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.

In 1663, Dr. Pocock published at Oxford, as we noticed in our account of that author, the whole of Gregory Abulfaragius’s “Historia Dynastiarum;” but this work was not much encouraged by the public, which his biographer accounts for in a manner not very creditable to the reign of Charles II. compared to the state of solid learning during tbat of the protectorate. The love of Arabic learning, he informs us, was now growing cold, and Pocock, in his correspondence with Mr. Thomas Greaves, seems very sensible of, and much hurt by this declension of literary taste. This also, his biographer thinks may in some measure account for our author’s rising no higher in church-preferment at the restoration, when such numbers of vacant dignities were filled. Perhaps, adds Mr. Twells, “he is almost the only instance of a clergyman, then at the highest pitch of eminence for learning, and every other merit proper to his profession, who lived throughout the reign of Charles II. without the least regard from the court, except the favour sometimes done him of being called upon to translate Arabic letters from the princes of the Levant, or the credential letters of ambassadors coming from those parts; for which yet we do not find he had any recompenc besides good words and compliments. But he was modest, as he was deserving, and probably, after his presenting Abulfaragius to the king, he never put himself in the way of royal regards any more.”

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.

, an English lawyer and judge, was descended from a good family in Devonshire, where he probably was educated, as Prince intimates that he was of no university. He studied the law, however, at one of the inns of court, and acquired very considerable practice in the reign of Charles II. He was counsel for the earl of Danby in 1679, whom he advised to plead his pardon and the corporation of London afterwards engaged him to plead, with Treby, in behalf of their charter. Iti 1688 he sat as one of the members for the city of Exeter, and he was retained as one of the counsel for the bishops. After the revolution he was knighted, called a serjeant April 11, 1689, and appointed chief justice of the common pleas on May 5 following but he held this office a very short time, dying in 1692. Burnet calls him “an honest and learned, but perplexed lawyer.” In 1702 was published his “Arguments; and Reports in some special cases in the King’s Bench from 22 to 36 Car. II. with some cases in the Common Pleas and Exchequer, together with divers decrees in the High Court of Chancery, upon Limitations of Trusts of Terms for years,” fol. with two tables. The copies of these reports, Mr. Bridgman informs us, are very incorrect, varying in the pages, and in the dates. In the pages there is a chasm from 173 to 176, and from 181 to 184, with other errors.

During Polycarp’s stay at Rome, he employed himself particularly in opposing the heresies of Marcion and Valentinus, which he did with more zeal and warmth than on former occasions. Irenaeus tells us, that upon Polycarp’s passing Marcion in the street without the common salutation, the latter called out, “Polycarp, own us” to which the former replied, with indignation, “I own thee to be the first-born of Satan.” To this the same author adds, that, when any heretical doctrines were spoken in his presence, he would presently stop his ears, crying out, “Good God to what times hast thou reserved me, that I should hear such things I” and immediately quitted the place. In the same zeal he was wont to tell, that St. John, going into a bath at Ephesus, and finding the heretic Cerinthus in it, started back instantly without bathing, crying out, “Let us run away, lest the bath should fall upon us while Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is in it.” Polycarp governed the church of Smyrna with apostolic purity, till he suffered martyrdom in the seventh year of Marcus Aureiius, A. C. 167; the manner of which is thus related:

A volume of his poems was published by himself in 1699, with a very modest and sensible preface. Two pieces of his were published after his death by a friend under the name of Philalethes one called “Reason,” and written in 1700, when the disputes about the Trinity ran high; the other, “Dies Novissima,” or, “The Last Epiphany,” a Pindaric ode. His versification is sometimes not unmusical; but there is not the force in his writings which is 'necessary to constitute a poet. A dissenting teacher of his name, and who published some rhimes upon spiritual subjects, occasioned fanaticism to be imputed to him; but from this his friend Philalethes has justly cleared him. Pomfret had a very strong mixture of devotion in him, but no fanaticism.

, marquis of, a French nobleman, still more distinguished by his talents in poetry than by his rank, was born at Montauban in 1709. He was educated for the magistracy, and became advocategeneral, and first president of the court of aids at Montauban. His inclination for poetry, however, could not be repressed, and at the age of twenty-five he produced his tragedy of “Dido,” in which he approved himself not only one of the most successful imitators of Racine, but an able and elegant poet. After this success at Paris, he returned to his duties at Montauban, which he fulfilled in the most upright manner; but having suffered a short exile, on account of some step which displeased the court, he became digusted with the office of a magistrate. As he had now also increased his fortune by an advantageous marriage, he determined to remove to Paris, where at first he was received as his virtues and his talents deserved. His sincere attachment to Christianity brought upon him a persecution from the philosophists, which, after a time, drove him back to the country. Voltaire and his associates had nowinundated France with their deistical tracts the materialism of Helvetius in his book de TEsprit, had just been brought forward in the most triumphant manner the enemies of Christianity had filled the Encyclopedic with the poison of their opinions, and had by their intrigues formed a powerful party in the French academy, when the marquis of Pompignan was admitted as an academician, in 1760. He had the courage, at his admission, to pronounce a discourse, the object of which was to prove that the man of virtue and religion is the only true philosopher. From this moment he was the object of perpetual persecution. Voltaire and his associates were indefatigable in pouring out satires against him: his religion was called hypocrisy, and his public declaration in its favour an attempt to gain the patronage of certain leading men. These accusations, as unjust as they were illiberal, mingled with every species of sarcastic wit, had the effect of digusting the worthy marquis with Paris. He retired to his estate of Pompignan, where he passed the remainder of his<laysin the practice of a true philosophy, accompanied by sincere piety and died of an apoplexy in 1784, at the age of seventy-five, most deeply regretted by his neighbours and dependents. The shameful treatment of this excellent man, by the sect which then reigned in the academy, is a strong illustration of that conspiracy against religion, so ably detailed by M. Barruel, in the first volume of his Memoirs of Jacobinism. When once he had declared himself a zealous Christian no merit was allowed him, nor any effort spared to overwhelm him with disgrace and mortification. His compositions nevertheless were, and are, esteemed by impartial judges. His “Sacred Odes,” notwithstanding the sarcasm of Voltaire, “sacred they are, for no one touches them,” abound in poetical spirit, and lyric beauties though it is confessed also that they have their inequalities. His “Discourses imitated from the books of Solomon,” contain important moral truths, delivered with elegance, and frequently with energy. His imitation of the Georgics of Virgil, though inferior to that of the abbe De Lille (whose versification is the richest and most energetic of modern French writers), has yet considerable merit and his “Voyage de Languedoc,” though not equal, in easy and lively negligence to that of Chapelle, is superior in elegance, correctness, and variety. He wrote also some operas which were not acted and a comedy in verse, in one act, called “Les Adieux de Mars,” which was represented with success at the Italian comic theatre in Paris. The marquis of Pompignan was distinguished also as a writer in prose. His “Eulogium on the Duke of Burgundy,” is written with an affecting simplicity. His “Dissertations,” his “Letter to the younger Racine,” and his “Academical Discourses,” all prove a sound judgment, a correct taste, and a genius improved by careful study of the classic models. He produced also a “Translation of some dialogues of Lucian,” and some “Tragedies of Æschylus,” which are very generally esteemed. He was allowed to be a man of vast literature, and almost universal knowledge in the fine arts. Yet such a man was to be ill-treated, and crushed if possible, because he had the virtue to declare himself a partizan of religion. Even his enemies, and the most inflexible of them, Voltaire, were unable to deny the merit of some of his poetical compositions. The following stanza in particular, in “An- Ode on the Death of Rousseau,” obtained a triumph for him in defiance of prejudice. The intention seems to be to illustrate the vanity of those who speak against religion:

, an eminent French engineer, is considered as the first military topographer, or rather as the inventor of that art, in the time of Louis XIV. It was his practice to follow the army, and construct upon the spot plans of the battles and sieges, with historical and perspective accompaniments. We find many of his plans in the “GEvre de Delle-Bella” but his most important work is entitled “Les glorieuses Conquetes de Louis-le-Grand ou Recueil de Plans et Vues des places assiegees, et de celles ou se sont donnee*s des batailles, avec des Discours,” 2 vols. folio. This work, one of the most magnificent of the kind, comprehends all the operations of war, from the battle of Rocroi, in 1643, to the taking of Namur, in 1692. De Pontault died in 1674; but the work was completed to the above date at the expence of his niece, the widow of the sieur Des Roches. This edition is usually called the Grand Beaulieu, to distinguish it' from one on a reduced scale, in oblong quarto, called the Petit fieaulieu, of which there are two series, one in three volumes, comprehending views of the actions in the Netherlands; the other in four, which includes those of France. From the death of this able draftsman, military topography is said to have been productive of very few good specimens in France, uptil within the last fifty years.

, one of a family of artists, was originally of Vicenza, but settled at Bassano, a small town on the Brenta, whence he was called Bassan, or Bassano. He may be considered as the head of the Bassanese school and his education is said to have been sufficiently learned. The different styles that discriminate his works clearly shew which were the first and which the last. He is diligent, but dry, in the St. Bartolomeo of the cathedral, more genial and mellow in another picture of the church of S. Giovanni at Bassano but in the Pentecost which he painted in the village of Olero, he shews himself almost a modern painter; the arrangement is masterly, the colour has suavity, Variety, harmony, the expression is warm, pleasing, and characteristic of the subject. He was the father and first instructor of Jacob da Pome. He died about 1530.

, called also IL Bassano, and IL Bassan Vecchio, was born at Bassano, 1510, and initiated in the first principles of the art by his father, of which the proofs are his earliest works in the church of S. Bernardino. He went to Venice, recommended to Bonifazio, a master not less jealous of his ‘ mystery’ than Titian or Tintoretto so that Jacob saw little more of his method than what he could discover through a key-hole or a crevice. The short time he staid at Venice was employed drawing from the designs of Parmegiano, and in making copies from the pictures of Bonifazio and Titian, whose scholar he is even called in some ms. and not without probability, if conformity of manner were sufficient to prove it, so much does his second style resemble that of Titian. The death of his father obliged him to return and to fix himself at Bassano, a small opulent town surrounded by a picturesque country, abounding in cattle and pastures, and conveniently situated for markets and fairs: from which objects arose his third style, natural, simple, and pleasing, the Italian prelude to that which afterwards distinguished the Flemish school. In the handling of the pencil he had two methods: one highly finished in blended tints, and only at last decided by bolder touches; the second, which must be the result of the first, was formed of simple pencilstrokes, and dashes of gay and lucid tints, laid on with conscious power, and a kind of contemptuous security, which, on close inspection, appear a confused mass, at a distance from a magic charm of colours. His composition in both is the same, and peculiar to himself, blending circular with triangular forms, and the most contrasted postures with parallel lines. He veils his light, and by its sober distribution, the frequent use of demi-tints, and little or no black, contrives to produce harmony from the most opposite colours. In the degradation of his lights, he often makes the shade of an interior figure serve for the ground of an exterior one, and strikes the strongest lights on the most angular parts, such as the top of the shoulders, the knee, the elbows. His drapery, simple in appearance, is disposed with great art for this purpose, and the folds are varied according to the difference of the stuffs with unusual refinement. His colours even now have the brilliancy of gems, especially the green, which has an emerald lustre peculiar to himself.

, 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.

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.

In the midst of this employment Mr. Pool found leisure to testify his zeal against popery, in a treatise concerning the infallibility of the church, printed in 1666, 8vo, which was followed by another the next year, 8vo, entitled, “Dialogues between a Popish priest and an English Protestant, wherein the principal points and arguments of both religions are truly proposed, and fully examined.” Besides these, he published a “Seasonable Apology for Religion,” on Matthew xi. 14, London, 1673, 4to. The first of these pieces was reprinted in 1679 his other works are some sermons, already mentioned, in the “Morning Exercise;” a poem and two epitaphs upon Mr. Jeremy Whitaker; two others upon the death of Mr. Richard Vines; and another on the death of Mr. Jacob Stock; a preface to twenty posthumous Sermons of Mr. Nalton’s, together with a character of him. He also wrote a volume of “'English Annotations on the Holy Scripture;” but was prevented by death from going farther than the 58th chapter of Isaiah. Others undertook to complete that work, whose names Ant. Wood has mistaken. From Calamy we learn that the 59th and 60th chapters of Isaiah were done by Mr. Jackson of Moulsey. The notes on the rest of Isaiah and on Jeremiah and Lamentations were drawn up by Dr. Collinges Ezekiel by Mr. Hurst Daniel by Mr. Cooper the Minor Prophets by Mr. Hurst the four Evangelists by Dr. Collinges the Acts by Mr. Vinke the Epistle to the Romans by Mr. Mayo the two Epistles to the Corinthians, and that to the Galatians, by Dr. Collinges; that to the Ephesians by Mr. Veale the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians by Mr. Adams the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, by Dr. Collinges; that to the Hebrews by Mr. Obadiah Hughes; the Epistle of St. James, two Epistles of St. Peter, and the Epistle of St. Jude, by Mr. Veale three Epistles of St. John by Mr. Howe and the Book of the Revelations by Dr. Collinges. These Annotations were printed at London 1685, in two volumes in folio, and reprinted in 1700, which is usually called the best edition, although it is far from correct. We have the original proposals for this work also before us; but there is nothing very interesting in them, unless that they inform us of the price, which was I/. 5s. per volume, or a penny per sheet, which appears to have been the average price of folio printing at that timeWhen Oates’s depositions concerning the popish plot were printed in 167,9, Pool found his name in the list of those that were to be cut off; and an incident befel him soon after, which gave him the greatest apprehension of his danger. Having passed an evening at alderman Ashurst’s, he took a Mr. Chorley to bear him company home. When they came to the narrow passage which leads from Clerkenwell to St. John’s-court, there were two men standing at the entrance one of whom, as Pool came along, cried out to the other, “Here he is” ijpon which

, the most elegant and popular of all English poets, was born in Lombard -street, London, May 22, 1688, where his father, a linen-draper, had acquired a property of 20,000l. His mother was daughter of William Turner, esq. of York, two of whose sons died in the service of Charles I. and a third became a general officer in Spain, and from this last Mrs. Pope is said to have inherited what sequestrations and forfeitures had left in the family. Both his parents were Roman catholics. He. was from his birth of a constitution tender and delicate but is said to have shewn remarkable gentleness and sweetness of disposition. The weakness of his body continued throughout life, and was so great that he constantly wore stays; but the mildness of his mind, says Johnson, perhaps ended with his childhood. His voice, when he was young, was so pleasing, that he was called in fondness “the little Nightingale.”

How early Pope began to write cannot be ascertained some think the “Ode to Solitude,” written at twelve years of age, was his earliest production but Dodsley, who lived in intimacy with him, had seen pieces of a still earlier date. I At fourteen, he employed himself in some of those transis lations and imitations which appear in the first volume of his works and still zealous in the prosecution of his poetical studies, he appears at this time ambitious to exhibit specimens of every kind of poetry. He wrote a comedy, a tragedy, and an epic poem, with panegyrics on all the princes of Europe; and, as he confesses, “thought himself the greatest genius that ever was.” Most, however, of these puerile productions he afterwards destroyed. At sixteen he wrote his “Pastorals,” which laid the foundation of lasting hostility between Philips and himself, but were the means of introducing him to the acquaintance and friendship of Sir William Trumbull, who had formerly been much, in public life, as a statesman, and was then retired within a short distance of Binfield. TrwnbuH, who was pleased to find in his neighbourhood a youth of such abilities and taste as young Pope, circulated his “Pastorals” among his friends, and introduced him to Wycherley and Walsh, and the wits of that time. They were not however published until 1709, and then only in Tonsori’s Miscellany. Of their poetical merit, it seems now agreed that their chief excellence lies in correctness and melody of versification, and that the discourse prefixed to them, although much of it is borrowed from Rapin and other authors, is elegantly and elaborately written. From this time the life of Pope, as an author, may be computed, and having now declared himself a candidate for fame, and entitled to mix with his brethren, he began at the age of seventeen to frequent the places where they used to assemble. This was done without much interruption to his studies, his own account of which was, that from fourteen to twenty he read only for amusement, from twenty to twenty-seven for improvement and instruction that in the first part of his time he desired only to know, and in the second he endeavoured to judge. His next performance greatly increased his reputation this was the “Essay on Criticism,” written in 1709, and published in 1711, which Dr. Johnson has characterized, as displaying “such extent of comprehension, such nicety of distinction, such acquaintance with mankind, and such knowledge both of ancient and modern learning, as are not often attained hy the maturest age and longest experience.” It found its way, however, rather slowly into the world but when the author had sent copies to Lord Lansdowne, the Duke of Buckingham, and other great men, it began to be called for. It was in this “Essay” he made his attack on Dennis, which provoked those hostilities between them that never were completely appeased. Dennis’s reply was sufficiently coarse, but he appears to have been the first who discovered that leading characteristic of Pope, his propensity to talk too frequently of his own virtues, and that sometimes when they were least visible' to others.

In 1727, Swift, who had long corresponded withhiai, coming to England, joined with Pope in publishing in 4 vols. 8vo, their miscellanies in prose and verse. To these Pope wrote a preface, complaining, among other instances, of the ill usage he had received front booksellers, and of the liberty one of them (Curll) had taken in this same year to publish his juvenile letters, purchased from a Mrs. Thomas, a mistress of his correspondent Mr. Cromwell. Pope had been intimate with this lady in his young days, but was now so seriously hurt at the publication of his letters, although he knew that she did it from distress, that he took a severe revenge in a poem called “Corinna,” and in the “Dunciad,” which appeared in the following year. The object of this celebrated satire was to crush all his adversaries in a mass, by one strong and decisive blow. His own account of this attempt is very minutely related by Pope himself, in a dedication which he wrote to Lord Middlesex, under the name of Savage the poet, who assisted Pope in finding out many particulars of these adversaries. If we may credit this narrative, Pope contemplated his victory over Dunces with great exultation and such, says Dr. Johnson, was his delight in the tumult he had raised, that for a while his natural sensibility was suspended, and he read reproaches and invectives without emotion, considering them only as the necessary effects of that pain which he rejoiced in having given. He would not however have long indulged this reflection, if all the persons he classed among the Dunces had possessed the spirit which animated some of them. Ducket demanded and obtained satisfaction for a scandalous imputation on his moral character and Aaron Hill expostulated with Pope in a manner so much superior to all mean solicitation, that Pope “was reduced to sneak and shuffle, sometimes to deny, and sometimes to apologize: he first endeavours to wound, and is then afraid to own that he meant a blow.” There are likewise some names introduced in this poem with disrespect which could receive no injury from such an attack. His placing the learned Bentley among dunces, could have occurred to Pope only in the moment of his maddest revenge Bentiey had spoken truth of the translation of the Iliad he said it was “a fine poem, but not Homer.” This, which has ever since been the opinion of the learned world, was not to be refuted by the contemptuous lines in which Bentley is mentioned in the “Dunciad.” On the other hand, the real Dunces, who are the majority in this poem, were beneath the notice of a man who now enjoyed higher fame than any poetical contemporary, and greater popularity, and greater favour with men of rank. But it appears’ to have been Pope’s opinion that insignificance should be no protection, that even neutrality should not be safe, and that whoever did not worship the deity he had set up, should be punished. Accordingly we find in this poem contemptuous allusions to persons who had given no open provocation, and were nowise concerned in the author’s literary contests. The “Dunciad” indeed seems intended as a general receptacle for all his resentments, just or unjust; and we find that in subsequent editions he altered, arranged, or added to his stock, as he found, or thought he found new occasion; and the hero of the “Dunciad,” who was at first Theobald, became at last Gibber.

In 1732, Pope published his epistle “On the use of Riches,” addressed to Lord Bathurst, which he has treated in so masterly a way, as to have almost exhausted the subject. His observation of human life and manners was indeed most extensive, and his delineations most exact and perfect. It is very hazardous to come after him in any subject of ethics which he has handled. Between this year and 1734, he published the four parts of his celebrated “Essay on Man,” the only work from his pen which equally engaged the attention of the moral, the theological, and the poetical world. He appears himself to have had some fears respecting it, for it appeared without his name, and yet it is wonderful that the style and manner did not betray him. When discovered it was still read ds an excellent poem, abounding in splendid and striking sentiments of religion and virtue, until Crousjaz endeavoured to prove, and not unsuccessfully, that it contained tenets more favourable to natural than to revealed religion. Crousaz was answered by a writer who a considerable time before had produced and read a dissertation against the doctrines of the “Essay on Man,” but now appeared as their vigorous defender. This was the learned and justly celebrated Warburton, who wrote a series of papers in the monthly journals called “The Republic of Letters” and “The Works of the Learned,” 'Which were afterwards collected into a volume. Pope was so delighted with this vindication, that he eagerly sought the acquaintance of Warburton, and told him he understood his opinions better than he did himself; which may be true, if, as commonly understood, Bolingbroke furnished those subtle principles by which Pope at first, and his readers afterwards, were deceived. The consequence* of this acquaintance tp Warburton were indeed momentous, for Pope introduced him to Murray, afterwards the celebrated Lord Mansfield, by whose interest he became preacher at Lincoln’s Inn and to Mr. Allen, “who gave him his niece and his estate, and by consequence a bishopric” and when he died he left him the property of his works.

Few pieces, in Warton’s opinion, can be found that, for depth of thought and penetration into the human mind and heart, excel the Epistle to lord Cobham, which Pope published in 1733, and which produced from his lordship two very sensible letters on the subjects and characters introduced in that epistle. In the same year appeared the first of our author’s Imitations of Horace, and in 1734, the Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot, which was considerably altered. It was first called “A Prologue to the Satires,” and then “A Dialogue.” Pope did not always write with a decided preference of form or manner, for his admirable poem pa “The Use of Riches” he called an epistle to lord Bathurst, although that nobleman is introduced as speaking, and speaking so insignificantly, that, as Warton informs us, he never mentioned the poem without disgust. Pope’s affectionate mention of his mother in this Epistle to Arbuthnot must always be quoted to his honour. Of all his moral qualities, filial affection was most predominant. He then, in 1735, produced the Epistle on the “Characters of Women,” in an advertisement to which he asserted that no one character was drawn from life. Pope had already lost some credit with the public for veracity, and this assertion certainly was not believed, nor perhaps did he wish it to be believed, for in a note he informed his readers that the work was imperfect, because part of his subject was tt Vice too high" to be yet exposed. This is supposed to allude to the character of the first duchess of Marlborough under the name of Atossa, which was inserted after her death, in a subsequent edition, although Pope received £1000 from her to suppress it. This is said to rest on the sole authority of the late Horace Walpole, lord Orford but if told by him as we find it in Warton’s and Bowles’s editions of Pope’s works, it confutes itself. The fact as they relate it is, that Pope received £lOOO. from the duchess, promising on these terms to suppress the character, and that he took the money and then published it. But Pope could not have published it, for it did not appear, according to Warton’s account, until 1746, two years after his death I It might then probably have been found among Mr. Pope’s Mss. and inserted without any great blame by those who knew nothing of the bargain with the duchess, if there was even such a bargain.

Returning to his more original publications, Pope nowissued those two dialogues which were named, from the year in which they appeared, “Seventeen hundred and thirty eight,” and are among the bitterest of satires. Ever/ species of sarcasm and mode of style are here alternately employed ridicule, reasoning, irony, mirth, seriousness, lamentation, laughter, familiar imagery, and high poetical painting. Although many persons in power were highly provoked, he does not appear to have been very directly menaced with a prosecution; but Paul Whitehead, who about this time wrote his “Manners,” and his publisher Dodsley, were called to an account, which was supposed to have been intended rather to intimidate Pope, than to punish Wintehead> and Pope appears to have taken the hint; for he discontinued a Third Dialogue, which he had begun, and never afterwards attempted to join the patriot with the poet. He had been led into this by his connection with the prince of Wales and the opposition, but he could not have long been of service to them. Had they come into office, he must have been either silent, or offensive, for he was both a Jacobite and a papist. Dr. Johnson says very justly that he was entangled in the opposition now, and had forgot the prudence with which he passed, in his earlier years, uninjured and unoffending, through much more violent conflicts of faction.

Ceasing therefore from politics, for which he was so unfit, he amused himself, in 1740, in republishing “Selecta Carmina Italorum,” taken, withgut acknowledgement, from the collection called “Anthologia,” 1684, 12mo, attributed to Atterbury, falsely, as Warton asserts, but justly accorcling to every other opinion. The work however is more imperfect than it would have been had he consulted other collections of the kind. His last performance shewed either that his own judgment was impaired, or that he yielded too easily to thatot Warburton, who now ad vised him to write the fourth book of the “Dunciad” and in 1743 he betrayed a yet greater want of judgment by printing a new edition of the Dunciad, in which he placed Cibber in the room of Theobald, forgetting how opposite their characters were. He had before this introduced Cibber with contemptuous mention in his satires, and Cibber resented both insults in two pamphlets which gave Pope more uneasiness than he was willing to allow.

* 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.

Some of these appointments, it is probable, he owed ta Sir Thomas More, with whom he was early acquainted, and some to lord Audley, both lord chancellors,; but in 1539 he received one of greater importance, being constituted by the king, treasurer of the court of augmentations. on its first establishment byact of parliament. The business of this court was, to estimate the lands of the dissolved monasteries, vested in the crown, receive their revenues, and sell the monastic possessions for the king’s service 5 and it was so called from the increase which the royal revenue thus received. The treasurer’s office was a post of considerable profit, and of considerable dignity, as the person holding it ranked with the principal officers of state, and was privileged to retain in his house a chaplain, having a benefice with cure of souls, who should not be compelled to residence. What the emoluments of this office were, is not s,o clear, but they were greater than the allowance of sir John Williams, treasurer in Edward Vlth’s reign, who had 320l. yearly: and it may be supposed the office gave those advantages in the purchase of the dissolved possessions which probably formed the foundation of sir Thomas’s vast fortune.

The site chosen for his new foundation was at this time occupied by Durham college, which Edward VI. granted to George Owen, of Godstowe, the king’s physician, a man of great learning and eminence, and William Martyn, gentleman, in 1552; and sir Thomas purchased the premises of these gentlemen by indenture dated Feb. 20, 1554. On March 8, and March 28, he obtained from Philip and Mary a royal licence and charter to create and erect a college within the university of Oxford, under the title of Collegium Sanctæ Et Individuæ Trinitatis In Universitate Oxon. Ex Fundatione Thomæ Pope Militis. The society was to consist of a president, a priest, twelve fellows, four of whom should be priests, and eight scholars (afterwards increased to twelve) and the whole to be liberally and amply endowed with certain manors, lands, and revenues. They were to be elected out of the diocese and places where the college has benefices, manors, or revenues, more particularly in Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Derbyshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and Kent. The same charter empowered him to found and endow a school at Hokenorton, in Oxfordshire, to be called Jesus Scholehouse; and to give statutes both to the college and to the first and second masters of the said school. And by deed, dated March 28, 1555, he declared his actual erection and establishment df the said college, and the same day delivered possession, before a large concourse of witnesses, to the president, fellows, and scholars. In May following he supplied his college with necessaries and implements of every kind, books, furniture for the chapel, of the most costly kind; and next year he transmitted a body of statutes to the society, dated May 1, 1556. These statutes he had submitted to the revision of cardinal Pole, from whom he received some valuable hints. On the 8th of the same month, May, he gave them one hundred pounds as a stock for immediate purposes; and the endowment, by thirty-five manors, thirteen advowsons, besides impropriations and pensions, was completed before, or upon the feast of Annunciation, in the same year; and the first president, fellows and scholars, nominated by himself, were formally admitted within the chapel, May 30, on the eve of Trinity Sunday. During his life-time, the founder nominated the fellows and scholars, and afterwards delegated the power to his widow, dame Elizabeth, of nominating the scholars, and presenting to the advowsons, and this she continued to exercise during her long life, but with some interruptions, and some opposition. On one occasion the college rejected her nomination to a scholarship, and chose another candidate; but on an appeal to the visitor, he decided in her favour. She sometimes also nominated the fellows, and once a president. But both she and her husband, sir Hugh Powlett, were so liberal and punctual in fulfilling the founder’s intentions, and in contributing to the prosperity of the college, that she was in general obeyed with respect and gratitude.

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 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 Neapolitan gentleman, who made himself famous by his application to letters and to science, particularly mathematics, medicine, and natural history, was born in 1445, and becoming eminent for his knowledge, held a kind of literary assembly at his house, in which, according to the notions of those times, they treated occasionally on the secrets of magic. The court of Rome on this account forbad these meetings; but his house was always the resort of literary men, foreign as well as Neapolitan. He not only established private schools for particular sciences, but to the utmost of his power promoted public academies. He had no small share in establishing the academy at Gli Ozioni, at Naples; and that in his own house, called de Secret!, was accessible only to such as had made some new discoveries in nature. He composed dramas, both tragic and comic, which had some success at the time, but are not now extant. He died in 1515. The chief of his works now extant are, 1. “De Magia naturali,” Amsterdam, 1664, 12mo; a work in which he teaches how to produce wonderful effects by natural causes but in which are some extravagances. 2. “De Physiognomia,” printed at Leyden in quarto, 1645. He judges of the physiognomy of men chiefly by comparing them to different animals and with his other fancies mixes those of judicial astrology. 3. “De occultis literarumnotis” in which he treats of the modes of writing in cypher which he does with great copiousness and diligence. 4. “Phytognomica,” a pretended method of knowing the inward virtues of things by inspection, Naples, 1583, folio. 5. “De Distillationibus,” Rome, quarto. To him is attributed the invention of the Camera Obscura, which was perfected by s’Gravesande. He is said to have formed the plan of an Encyclopaedia.

In 1787, on the death of bishop Lowth, Mr. Pitt recommended Dr. Porteus to his majesty as a fit person to Succeed to the diocese of London, and his majesty having given his entire approbation, he was accordingly installed. The first object which engaged his attention on his promotion to this important see, was the king’s proclamation against immorality and profaneness and the good effects of his exertions on this subject were immediate and important; but his pastoral zeal was displayed to most advantage a few years after, when all moral and religious principle became endangered by the pernicious influence of the French revolution. The object of the authors of that convulsion was to degrade and vilify the truths of revelation, and to propagate in its place a blasphemous and infidel philosophy. The attempt succeeded but too effectually in their own country, and the contagion soon spread to tbis. No efforts were spared, which could tend to contaminate the public mind, and obliterate from it all reverence for our civil and religious establishments; and had it not been for the vigorous measures of that great minister, who was then at the head of thq administration, and to whom, under providence, we owe our preservation, we might have witnessed here the same frightful scenes, which convulsed and desolated a neighbouring kingdom. At a crisis such as this, in which all that is (Tear to us hung suspended on the issue, it was plainly every man’s bounden duty to exert himself to the utmost for the public welfare and, in a situation so responsible as the see of London, comprehending a vast metropolis, where the emissaries of infidelity were most actively occupied in their work of mischief, the bishop felt himself called upon to counteract, as far as in him lay, the licentious principles which were then afloat, and to check, if possible, the progress they had too evidently made in the various ranks of society. The best mode, as he conceived, of doing this, was to rouse the attention of the clergy to what was passing around them; and nothing surely was ever better calculated to produce that effect, than the charge which he addressed to them in 1794. We know not where, in a short compass, the character of the French philosophy is more ably drawn, or its baneful influence more strikingly developed. He had marked its course with an observing eye. He had read all that its advocates could allege in its favour. He had traced the motives which gave it birth, the features by which it was marked, and the real objects which it was designed to accomplish. It was not therefore without much deliberation and a full knowledge of his subject, that he drew up for his second visitation that eloquent and most impressive address, in which he gave such a picture of the infidel school of that day, and of the industry which was then employed to disseminate its principles in this country, as at once carried conviction to the mind, and most powerfully awakened the attention of every serious and thinking man. But it was on the clergy, in an especial manner, that he was anxious to leave a strong and fixed persuasion of the necessity of increased assiduity and vigilance in the discharge of their religious functions. Christianity, attacked as it was on every side,required more than common efforts, and more than ordinary zeal on the part of its natural defenders and he therefore called upon them to repel with vigour and effect all those charges pf fraud, falsehood, and fanaticism, which had been so liberally thrown upon it; at such a perilous crisis to contend with peculiar earnestness for “the faith once delivered to the saints” and to shew that it is not, as our enemies affirm, “a cunningly devised fable,” but “a real revela-> tion from heaven.”

In 1805, he opposed the application for what was called Catholic Emancipation, as not being an application for liberty of conscience, but for political power. Among the last acts of his life were, his support of the English and Foreign Bible Society; his triumph on the successful termination of the question on the Slave trade; and his liberality in building and endowing a chapel at Sundridge, which was his favourite place of summer residence.

, 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.

, an English gentleman of talents, was the son of John Potenger, D. D. who was appointed master of Winchester School Aug. 1, 1642, which he was obliged to resign, in order to preserve his loyalty and principles, and died in Dec. 1659. He was born in St. Swithin’s parish, Winchester, July 21, 1647, admitted on the foundation of the college in 1658, and thence removed to a scholarship of Corpus Christi college, Oxon, where he took the degree of B. A. and afterwards entered of the Temple, and was regularly called v to the bar. The office of comptroller of the pipe, which he held to the day of his death, he purchased, in 1676, of sir John Ernie, then chancellor of the Exchequer, whose daughter he married. Speaking of his father, in one of his writings, he expresses himself thus- “About the thirteenth year of my age, the Christmas before the return of king Charles the Second, I lost a loving father; I was not so young but I was deeply sensible of the misfortune, knowing at what an unseasonable time I was deprived of him, when he should have received a reward for his loyal sufferings. He would often discourse with me, though, young, about the unhappy times, amid lament the church’s and the king’s misfortunes, which made a great impression on me; and laid the foundation, I hope, of my being a true son of the church of England, and an obedient subject to my lawful prince.” In 1692 his wife died, leaving him only one daughter, who, in 1695, was married to Richard Bingham, esq. of Mtlcombe Bingham, in the county of Dorset. Thither he retired many years before his death, which happened on Dec. 18, 1733, in the 87th year of his age. He was buried by his wife in Blunsden church, in the parish of Highworth, Wilts. Mr. Potenger also published “A Pastoral Reflection on Death,” a poem, in 1691 and “The Life of Agricoia,” from Tacitus, and perhaps other select pieces but the far greater part of his works, consisting, of “Poems, Epistles, Translations, and Discourses,” both in prose and verse, was reserved only for the entertainment of his private friends, who often importuned him to make them public. Two original letters to him from Dr. South, are printed in Nichols’s Select Collection of Poems.

The genius of Mr. Pott was certainly of the first order. As an author, his language is correct, strong, and animated. There are few instances, if any, of such classical elegance united with so much practical knowledge and acuteness. His reading was by no means confined to professional works, but was various and extensive and his memory suffered nothing to escape. As a teacher he acquired the faculty of speaking readily, with great point and energy, and with a most harmonious and expressive elocution. As a practitioner in surgery, he had all the essential qualifications; sound judgment, cool determination, and great manual dexterity. The following is a list of his works: 1. “An Account of Tumours which soften the Bones,” Philos. Trans. 1741, No. 459. 2. “A Treatise on Ruptures,” 1756, 8vo, second edition, 1763. 3. “An Account of a particular kind of Rupture, frequently attendant upon new-born Children, and sometimes met with in Adults,” 1756, 8vo. 4. “Observations on that Disorder of the corner of the Eye commonly called Fistula Lachrytnalis,” 1758, 8vo. 5. “Observations on the Nature and Consequences of Wounds and Contusions of the Head, Fractures of the Skull, Concussions of the Brain,” &c. 1760, 8vo. 6. “Practical Remarks on the Hydrocele, or Watery Rupture, and some other Diseases of the Testicle, its Coats and Vessels. Being a Supplement to the Treatise on Ruptures, 1762,” 8vo. 7. “An Account of an Hernia of the Urinary Bladder including a Stone,” Philos. Transact, vol. LIV., 1764. 8. “Remarks on the Disease commonly caled a Fistula in Ano,” 1765, 8vo. 9. “Observations on the Nature and Consequences of those Injuries to which the Head is liable from external Violence. To which are added, some few general Remarks on Fractures and Dislocations,” 8vo, 1768. This is properly a second edition of No. 5. 10. “An Account of the Method of obtaining a perfect or radical Cure of the Hydrocele, or Watry Rupture, by means of a seton,” 1772, 8vo. 11. “Chirurgical Observations relative to the Cataract, the Polypus of the Nose, the Cancer of the Scrotum, the different kinds of Ruptures, and the Mortification of the Toes and Feet,” 1775, 8vo. 12. “Remarks on that kind of Palsy of the lower Limbs, which is frequently found to accompany a Curvature of the Spine, and is supposed to be caused by it; together with its Method of Cure,” 1779, 8vo. 13. “Further Remarks on the useless State of the lower Limbs in consequence of a Curvature of the Spine” being a supplement to the former treatise, 1783, 8vo. These works were published collectively by himself, in quarto and since his death, in 3 vols. 8vo, by his son-in-law, Mr. (now sir) James, Earle, with occasional notes and observations, and the last corrections of the author. This edition was published in 1790; and Mr. Earle has prefixed a life of Mr. Pott, from which the present account is taken.

, a pious prelate of the church of England, was born within the barony of Kendall, in the county of Westmoreland, in 1578 or 1579. In his fifteenth year he entered Queen’s college, Oxford, as a poor student, or tabarder, but made such progress in his studies, that he took, his degrees with great reputation; and when master of arts, was chosen fellow of his college. During his fellowship he became tutor to the sons of several gentlemen of rank and worth, whom he assiduously trained in learning and religion. After taking orders, he was for some time lecturer at Abington, and at Totness in Devonshire, where he was highly respected as an affecting preacher, and was, according to Wood, much followed by the puritans. In 1610 he was chosen principal of Edmund Hall, but resigned, and was never admitted into that office. In 1615 he completed his degrees in divinity; and being presented the following year to a pastoral charge, by sir Edward Giles of Devonshire, hemarried the daughter of that gentleman, and intended to settle in that country. Such, however, was the character he had left behind him at Oxford, that on the death of Dr. Airay, the same year, he vvas unanimously elected provost of Queen’s college, entirely without his knowledge. This station he retained about ten years and being then one of the king’s chaplains, resigned the provostship in favour of his nephew, the subject of our next article. He was now again about to settle in Devonshire when king Charles, passing by, as we are told, many solicitations in favour of others, peremptorily nominated him bishop of Carlisle in 1628. Wood adds, that in this promotion he had the interest of bishop Laud, “although a thorough-paced Calvinist.” He continued, however, a frequent and favourite preacher; and, says Fuller, “was commonly called the puritanical bishop; and they would say of him, in the time of king James, that organs would blow him out of the church which I do not believe the rather, because he was loving of and skilful in vocal music, and could bear his own part therein.”

, nephew to the preceding, was born also within the barony of Kendal in Westmorland, about 1591, and became clerk of Queen’s college, Oxford, in the beginning of 1606. On April 30, 1610, he took the degree of B.A.and July 8, 1613, that of M.A.; and the same year was chosen chaplain of the college, and afterwards fellow of it. He was then a great admirer of Dr. Henry Airay, provost of that college, some of whose works he published, and who was a zealous puritan, and a lecturer at Abingdon in Berks, where he was much resorted to for his preaching. 'On March the 9th, 1620, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and February 17, 1626-7, that of doctor, having succeeded his uncle Dr. Barnabas Potter in the provostship of his college on the 17th of June, 1626. “Soon after,” says Mr. Wood, “when Dr. Laud became a rising favourite at court, he, after a great deal of seeking, was made his creature, and therefore by the precise party he was esteemed an Arminian.” On March the 15th, 1628, he preached a Sermon on John xxi. 17. at the consecration of his uncle to the bishopric of Carlisle at Ely House in Hoiborn which was printed at London, 1629, in 8vo, and involved him in a short controversy with Mr. Vicars, a friend of his, who blamed him for a leaning towards Arminianism. In 1633 he published his “Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet, entitled, Charity mistaken.” The cause was this A Jesuit who went by the name of Edward Knott, but whose true name was Matthias Wilson, had published in 1630, a little book in 8vo, called “Charity mistaken, with the want whereof Catholicks are unjustly charged, for affirming, as they do with grief, that Protestancy un repented destroies Salvation.” Dr. Potter published an answer to this at Oxford, 1633, in 8vo, with this title: “Want of Charitie justly charged on all such Romanists as dare (without truth or modesty) affirme, that Protestancie destroy eth Salvation; or, an Answer to a late Popish pamphlet, intituled, Charity mistaken, &c.” The second edition revised and enlarged, was printed at London, 1634, in 8vo. Prynne observes, that bishop Laud, having perused the first edition, caused some things to be omitted in the second. It is dedicated to King Charles I. and in the dedication Dr. Potter observes, that it was “undertaken in obedience to his majesty’s particular commandment.”

, an eminent lawyer, and an upright judge, was a native of Gloucester, which city he represented in parliament in 1685. He was called to the coif April 24, 1686, appointed a justice of the common pleas April 21, 1687, at which time he received the honour of knighthood, and was removed to the court of king’s bench April 26 in the following year. He sat hi that court at the memorable trial of the seven bishops, and having declared against the king’s dispensing power, James II. deprived him of his office in July 1688; but William III. placed him again in the common pleas, Oct. 28, 1695, and queen Anne advanced him to the queen’s bench June 18, 1702, where he sat until his death, at Gloucester, on his return from Bath, June 14, 1713, far advanced in life. He was reckoned a sound lawyer, and in private was to the last a man of a cheerful, facetious disposition. Swift, in one of his letters, mentions his meeting with him at Lord Oxford’s, and calls him “an old fellow with grey hairs, who was the merriest old gentleman I ever saw, spoke pleasing things, and chuckled till he cried again.” In his time the laws against witchcraft being unrepealed, one Jane Wenman was tried before him, and her adversaries swore that she could fly “Prisoner,” said our judge, “can you fly?” “Yes, my lord.” “Well then you may; there is no law against flying.”

His published works consist of the volume above mentioned, edited by Dr. Balguy, which contains three discourses preached before the university; thirteen preached in the college chapel one on public virtue three charges to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Colchester and his “Disputatio” on taking his doctor’s degree. One of his discourses, relative to subscription, was first preached on commencement Sunday in 1757; and being reprinted in 1772, when an application to parliament on the matter of subscription was in agitation, was attempted to be answered, probably by the author of the “Confessional,” in a pamphlet entitled “Remarks on the Rev. Dr. Powell’s Sermon, &c.” but of this we do not know that he took any notice, Contenting himself with this reprint of his sermon, which was the fourth edition. He had spoken his sentiments, and had no turn for controversy. He acted the same part in his college; during the controversy in 1772 he called all his scholars before him, and submitted to them the real state of the case relating to their subscription, and left it with them. In 1760, Dr. Powell published Observations on “Miscellanea Analytica,” which was the beginning of a controversy that produced many pamphlets relative to the Lucasian professorship of mathematics at Cambridge, when Mr. Waring was elected.

, 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.

At what time he imbibed the principles of the Reformation is uncertain; but it appears that he was accounted a champion for that great change in the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. when he was made bishop of Rochester, although only in his 33d year. He was then D.D. and chaplain to archbishop Cranmer. When Gardiner was deprived, he was the following year, 1551, translated to Winchester, and was one of the bishops appointed to make a new code of ecclesiastical laws. He had frequently preached be fore king Edward who, on account of his zealous efforts for the reformation, desired that he might have the above dignities. He had before this, however, some lesser preferment. By Newcourt we find, that Cranmer gave him the rectory of St. Michael Queenhithe, London, Nov. 15, 1543, which he held, in commendam, until May 15, 1551, when he was translated to Winchester. He was a frequent preacher, and wrote several treatises in defence of the Reformation but his most remarkable performance was what is commonly called “King Edward’s Catechism,” which appeared in 1553, in two editions, the one Latin, the other English, with the royal privilege. That it was not hastily adopted, however, appears by king Edward’s letter prefixed to it, in which he says “When there was presented unto us, to be perused, a short and playne order of Catechisme, written by a certayne godlye and learned man: we committed the debatinge and diligent examination thereof to certain byshoppes and other learned men, whose judgment we have in greate estimation.” This catechism has been attributed to Nowell; but the late excellent biographer of that eminent divine considers it as unquestionably Poynet’s, although Nowell took much from it into his own catechism.

, an eminent English lawyer, was the son of sir John Pratt. This sir John Pratt was a student at Oxford, and fellow of Wadham college, in the hall of which is his portrait, among other distinguished members and benefactors of the society. Applying himself to the study of the law, he was called to the bar about the end of king Charles II.‘s reign and. after various gradations in the dignities of his profession, was in 1718 constituted lord chief justice of the court of King’s Bench. He died in 1724, when the subject of the present article was ’a child, one of the sons of his second wife, Elizabeth Wilson. He was born in 1713 and, after being educated in school-learning at Eton, entered of King’s college, Cambridge, on the election in 1731, and became a fellow of that society. In 1735 he took the degree of B. A. and in 1739 that of M. A. after which he became a member of Lincoln’s Inn; and having regularly gone through his law studies, was called to the bar. For many years, however, he had so little practice, that at one time he had resolved to relinquish his attendance at Westminster Hall; but, by degrees he became noticed; and, in 1752, we find him supporting the rights of juries, in opposition to Mr. Murray, afterwards lord Mansfield, in a case of libel, the King y. Owen, when his client was acquitted.

In 1754 he was chosen representative for the borough of Downton, in Wiltshire and in 1759, recorder of Bath; and the same year was made his majesty’s attorney general. In Dec. 1761, he was constituted chief justice of the court of Common Pleas, and received the honour of knighthood; and in 1762, was called to the degree of serjeant-at-law.

In March 1782, on an entire change of men and measures, in consequence of the failure of the American war, he was appointed president of the council, which, with the exception of a short secession during the coalition-administration, he held through life, and gave his support to the measures by which Mr. Pitt provided for the safety of the country, when the French revolution had let loose the disorganizing principles of bad men of all nations. In May 1786, lord Camden was advanced to the farther dignities of viscount Bayham and earl Camden, and lived to enjoy his well-earned honours to his death, April 18, 1794. High as his lordship’s character stood with the public, it was not superior to the esteem which his private virtues universally procured. In his relative duties he was affectionate, benevolent, and cheerful. His mind and manners threw an amiable colouring over every action. A pamphlet has been attributed to him, entitled “An Inquiry into the nature and etfect of the writ of Habeas Corpus, the great bulwark of English liberty, both at common law, and under the act of parliament and also into the propriety of explaining and extending that act,” Lond. 1753, 8vo. Another is mentioned by Mr. Park, which can scarcely be called his, although relating to him “Lord Camden’s argument in Doe, on the demise of Hindson, &c. versus Kersey; wherein Lord Mansfield’s argument in Wyndham versus Chetwynd, is considered and answered.” This is said to have been first printed in 4to, at London, and suppressed by an order of the court of Common Pleas, over which lord Camden at that time presided. It was, however, published at Dublin in 1766, 8vo.

, an English dramatic writer, who flourished in the earlier part of queen Elizabeth’s reign, was first M. A. and fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, and afterwards created a doctor of civil law, and master of Trinity-hall in the same university, over which he presided about fourteen years, and died in 1598. In 1564, when queen Elizabeth was entertained at Cambridge, this gentleman acted so admirably well in the Latin tragedy of Dido, composed by John Ritvvise, one of the fellows of King’s college, and disputed so agreeably before her majesty, that as a testimonial of her approbation, she be* stowed a pension of twenty pounds per annum upon him; nor was she less pleased with him on hearing his disputations with Mr. Cartwright, and called him “her scholar,” and gave him her band to kiss. The circumstance of the pension Mr. Steevens supposes to have been ridiculed by Shakspeare in the “Midsummer Night’s Dream,” at the conclusion of act the fourth. On the 6th of Sept. 1566, when the Oxonian Muses, in their turn, were honoured with a visit from their royal mistress, Preston, with eight more Cantabrigians, were incorporated masters of arts in the university of Oxford. Mr. Preston wrote one dramatic piece, in the old metre, entitled “A Lamentable Tragedy full of pleasant Mirth, conteyning the Life of Cambises King of Percia, from the beginning of his Kingdome unto his Death, his one good Deed of Execution after the many wicked Deeds and tyrannous Murders committed by and through him, and last of all, his odious Death by God’s Justice appointed, doon on such Order as folio weth.” This performance Langbaine informs us, Shakspeare meant to ridicule, when, in his play of Henry IV. part i. act 2. he makes Falstaff talk of speaking “in king Cambyses’ vein.” In proof of which conjecture, he has given his readers as a quotation from the beginning of the play, a speech of king Cambyses himself.

, was born at Hesdin, a small town in the province of Artois, in 1697. He studied with the Jesuits, but soon relinquished that society for the army, into which he entered as a volunteer, but being disappointed in his views of promotion, he returned to the Jesuits. Still, however, his attachment to the military service seems to have been predominant for he soon left the college again, and a second time became a soldier. As an officer he acquired distinction, and some years passed away in the bustle and dissipation of a military life. At length, the unhappy consequence of an amour induced him to return to France, and seek retirement among the Benedictines of St. Maur, in the monastery of St. Germain des Pres, where he continued a few years. Study, and a monastic life, could not, however, entirely subdue his passions. Recollection of former pleasures probably inspired a desire again to enjoy them in the world. He took occasion, from a trifling disagreement, to leave the monastery, to break his vows, and renounce his habit. Having retired to Holland in 1729, he sought resources in his talents, with success. In the monastery at St. Germain, he had written the two first parts of his “Memoires d'un Homme de Qualite.” The work was soon finished, and, when it was published, contributed no less to his emolument than his reputation. A connexion which he had formed at the Hague with an agreeable woman, and which was thought to have exceeded the boundaries of friendship, furnished a subject of pleasantry to the abbe Lenglet, the Zoilus of his time. In his journal entitled “Pour & Centre,” Prevot thus obviates the censure “This Medoro,” says he, speaking of himself, “so favoured by the fair, is a man of thirty-seven or thirty-eight years, who bears in his countenance and in his humour the traces of his former chagrin who passes whole weeks without going out of his closet, and who every day employs seven or eight hours in study; who seldom seeks occasions for enjoyment, who even rejects those that are offered, and prefers an hour’s conversation with a sensible friend, to all those amusements which are called pleasures of the world, and agreeable recreation. He is, indeed, civil, in consequence of a good education, but little addicted to gallantry of a mild but melancholy temper; in fine, sober, and regular in his conduct.”

Whether the accusations of his enemies were true or not, there were reasons which obliged him to pass over into England at the end of 1733, and the lady followed him. There, according to Palissot, he wrote the first volumes of “Cleveland.” The first part of his “Pour & Contre,” was published this year, a journal which brought down upon him the resentment of many authors whose works he had censured. His faults were canvassed, and perhaps exaggerated; all his adventures were brought to the public view, and related, probably, not without much misrepresentation. His works, however, having established his reputation, procured him protectors in France. He solicited and obtained permission to return. Returning to Paris in the autumn of 1734, he assumed the habit of an abbé. Palissot dates this period as the epoch in which his literary fame commenced but it is certain, that three of his most popular romances had been published before that time. He now lived in tranquillity under the protection of the prince of Conti, who gave him the title of his almoner and secretary, with an establishment that enabled him to pursue his studies. By the desire of chancellor d'Aguesseau, he undertook a general history of voyages, of which the first volume appeared in 1745. The success of his works, the favour of the great, the subsiding of the passions, a calm retreat, and literary leisure, seemed to promise a serene and peaceful old age. But a dreadful accident put an end to this tranquillity, and the fair prospect which had opened before him was closed by the hand of death. To pass the evening of his days in peace, and to finish in retirement three great works which he had undertaken, he had chosen and prepared an agreeable recess at Firmin near Chantilly. On the 23d of Nov. 1763, he was discovered by some peasants in an apoplectic fit, in the forest of Chantilly. A magistrate was called in, who unfortunately ordered a surgeon immediately to open the body, which was apparently dead. A loud shriek from the victim of this culpable precipitation, convinced the spectators of their error. The instrument was withdrawn, but not before it had touched the vital parts. The unfortunate abbé opened his eyes, and expired.

, an eminent lawyer and judge, was the son of Thomas Price, esq of Geeler in Denbighshire, and born in the parish of Kerigy Druidion, Jan. 14, 1653. After an education at the grammar-school of Wrexham, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge; but, as usual with gentlemen destined for his profession, left the university without taking a degree, and entered himself a student of Lincoln’s Inn about 1673. In 1677 he made what was called the grand tour, in company with the earl of Lexington, and lady and sir John Meers. When at Florence, we are told that he was apprehended, and some law-books taken from him; and his copy of “Coke upon Littleton” being supposed, by some ignorant officer, to be an English heretical Bible, Mr. Price was carried before the pope where he not only satisfied his holiness as to this work, but made "him a present of it, and the pope ordered it to be deposited in the Vatican library. In 1679 he returned, and married a lady of fortune; from whom, after some years’ cohabitation, he found it necessary to be separated, on account of the violence of her temper. In 1682 he was chosen member of parliament for Weobly in Herefordshire, and gave nis hote against the bill of exclusion. The same year he was made attorney-general for South Wales, elected an alderman for the city of Hereford, and the year following was chosen recorder of Radnor. His high reputation for knowledge and integrity procured him the office of steward to the queen dowager (relict of Charles II.) in 1684; he was also chosen townclerk of the city of Gloucester; and, in 1686, king’s counsel at Ludlow. Being supposed to have a leaning towards the exiled family, he was, after the revolution, removed from tn*e offices of attorney-general for South Wales and town-clerk of Gloucester. In resentment for this affront, as his biographer insinuates, or from a more patriotic motive, he opposed king William’s grant of certain lands in Wales to his favourite, earl of Portland, and made a memorable speech on this occasion in the House of Commons; the consequence of which was, that the grant was rejected.

Although it might have been expected that king William would have, in his turn, resented this conduct of Mr. Price, yet he appears not only to have acquiesced in the decision of parliament, but knowing Mr. Price’s abilities as a lawyer, made him, in 1700, a judge of Brecknock circuit. After sitting in parliament for Weobly from 1682 to 1702, he resigned his seat in favour of his son Thomas, and was made serjeant-at-law, and one of the barons of the exchequer. In this character he distinguished himself in the memorable case of the Coventry election, in 1706, defending the conduct of the magistrates who had called in the aid of the military, not to influence the election, but to suppress a riot which tended to destroy its freedom. In 1710, as his fortune was considerably increased by his preferment, he built an alms-house at the place of his birth for six poor people, and amply endowed it.

In December of this year (1688) Dr. Prideaux was collated to the archdeaconry of Suffolk by Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Norwich. In May 1689 he made his first visitation of his archdeaconry; and the new oaths to government being then the general subject of debate among the clergy, his chief business was to give the best satisfaction he could to those who had any doubts about them which he performed with such success, that out of three hundred parishes, there were only three clergymen in all that jurisdiction who refused to take them, In the winter following he attended the convocation, which was called to consider of alterations and amendments of the liturgy, the canons, ordinances, and constitutions, the reformation of the ecclesiastical courts, &c. &c. but, after sitting ten days, no progress was made in any of these measures, and the convocation was. adjourned. Dr. Prideaux, who was of opinion that many alterations in the liturgy were necessary, wrote a pamphlet on the subject, entitled “ALetter to a Friend, relating to the present Convocation at Westminster,” of which several thousands were sold within a fortnight.

In 1697 he published his “Life of Mahomet ,” 8vo, of which three editions were printed the first year. He intended to have written a history of the Saracen empire, and with it the decay and fall of the Christian religion but he gave up this design for reasons stated in the preface to the Life of Mahomet. This valuable work was followed by his useful little treatise called “Directions to Churchwardens,” whose negligence he had very much experienced in his archdeaconry this has gone through many editions. In 1702, on the death of the dean of Norwich, Dr. Henry Fairfax, Dr. Prideaux was installed as his successor on June 8th of that year, and a more proper person could not be found. He now continued, with better effect, if possible, that attention to regularity and discipline which he had before paid and although this made him obnoxious to the persons whom he censured or dismissed, the benefit to the general body was too obvious not to be approved. In December 1702, on a public thanksgivingday for the success of the expedition to Vigo, he preached a sermon on the subject, which we notice as the only one he ever printed and, had it been left to his own inclination, would never have been thought of by himself for that purpose. In 1703 he published a tract in vindication of the ecclesiastical law, which gives the successor in any ecclesiastical benefice or promotion, all the profits, from the day of the avoidance. This was occasioned by an alteration in the law which bishop Burnet was about to have introduced; but our author’s arguments carried such weight, that the design was given up.

Dr. Prideaux was naturally of a very strong, robust constitution; which enabled him to pursue his studies with great assiduity; and notwithstanding his close application, and sedentary manner of life, enjoyed great vigour both of body and mind for many years together, till afflicted by the stone. Although we have few particulars of his course of study at Oxford, it is evident that he must have been an early and hard student, and had accumulated a great fund of Oriental learning, and an intimate acquaintance with ecclesiastical history. His parts were very good, rather solid than lively: his judgment excellent: as a writer he is clear, strong, intelligent, and learned, without any pomp of language, or ostentation of eloquence. His conversation resembled his style, being learned and instructive, but with a conciseness of expression on many occasions, which, to those who were not well acquainted with him, had sometimes the appearance of rusticity. In his manner of life, he was regular and temperate, being seldom out of his bed after ten at night, and he generally rose to his studies before five in the morning. His disposition was sincere and candid. He generally spoke his mind with freedom and boldness, and was not easily diverted from pursuing what he thought right. To those who differed from him in opinion, he always behaved with great candour. In party principles he was rather inclined to what was called Low-church; but in his adherence to the establishment, in performing all the duties annexed to liis preferments, in enjoining a like attention upon all vvith whom he had influence, and in his dislike of schism and schismatics, no man was more inflexible. He had at one time flattered himself that a few alterations in the liturgy might tend to bring back the dissenters to the church; but he lived to see, what we have lived to see more clearly, that a few alterations would not answer the purpose. For most of these particulars we are indebted to an excellent Life of Dr. Prideaux, which appeared in October 1748, “with several tracts and letters of his upon various subjects, never before published.”

, 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 last fortnight of January, his fits of indigestion became more alarming, his legs swelled, and his weakness increased. Within two days of his death, he became so weak, that he could walk but a little way, and that with great difficulty. For some time he found himself unable to speak; but, on recovering a little, he told his friends, that he had never felt more pleasantly during his whole lifetime, than during the time he was unable to speak. He was fully sensible that he had not long to live, yet talked with cheerfulness to all who called on him. In the course of the day he expressed his thankfulness at being permitted to die quietly in his family, without pain, and with every convenience and comfort that he could wish for. He dwelt upon the peculiarly happy situation in which it had pleased the Divine Being to place him in life, and the great advantage he had enjoyed in the acquaintance and friendship of some of the best and wisest men of the age in which he lived, and the satisfaction he derived from having led an useful as well as happy life. He this day gave directions about printing the remainder of his Notes on Scripture (a work, in the completion of which he was much interested), and looked over the first sheet of the third volume, after it was corrected by those who were to attend to its completion, and expressed his satisfaction at the manner of its being executed.

April 14, 1752, Dr. Pringle married Charlotte, the second daughter of Dr. Oliver, an eminent physician at Bath, and who had long been at the head of his profession in that city. This connection did not last long, the lady dying in the space of a few years. Nearly about the time of his marriage, Dr. Pringle gave to the public the first edition of his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army.” It was reprinted in the year following, with some additions. To the third edition, which was greatly improved from the further experience the author had gained by attending the camps, for three seasons, in England, an Appendix was annexed, in answer to some remarks that professor De Haen, of Vienna, and M. Gaber, of Turin, had made on the work. A similar attention was paid to the improvement of the treatise, in every subsequent edition. The work is divided into three parts; the first of which, being principally historical, may be read with pleasure by every gentleman. The latter parts lie more within the province of physicians, who are the best judges of the merit of the performance and to its merit the most decisive and ample testimonies have been given. It hath gone through seven editions at home and abroad it has been translated into the Fretich, German, and Italian languages. Scarcely any medical writer hath mentioned it without some tribute of applause. Ludwig, in the second volume of his “Commentarii de Rebus in Scientia Naturali et Medicina gestis,” speaks of it highly; and gives an account of it, which comprehends sixteen pages. The celebrated and eminent baron Haller, in his “Bibliotheca Anatomica,” with a particular reference to the treatise we are speaking of, styles the author “Vir illustris de omnibus bonis artibus bene meritus.” It is allowed to be a classical book in the physical line; and has placed the writer of it in a rank with the famous Sydenham. Like Sydenham, too, he has become eminent, not by the quantity, but the value of his productions and has afforded a happy instance of the great and deserved fame which may sometimes arise from a single performance. The reputation that Dr. Pringle gained by his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army,” was not of a kind which is ever likely to diminish. The utility of it, however, was of still greater importance than its reputation. From the time that he was appointed a physician to the army, it seems to have been his grand object to lessen, as far as lay in his power, the calamities of war; nor was he without considerable success in his noble and benevolent design. By the instructions received from this book, the late general Melville, who united with his military abilities the spirit of philosophy, and the spirit of humanity, was enabled, when governor of the Neutral Islands, to be singularly useful. By taking care to have his men always lodged in large, open, and airy apartments, and by never letting his forces remain long enough in swampy places, to be injured by the noxious air of such places, the general was the happy instrument of saving the lives of seven hundred soldiers. In 1753, Dr. Pringle was chosen one of the council of the Royal Society. Though he had not for some years been called abroad, he still held his place of physician to the army and, in the war that began in 1755, attended the camps in England during three seasons. This enabled him, from further experience, to correct some of his former observations, and to give adc,Htional perfection to the third edition of his great work. In 1758, he entirely quitted the service of the army; and being now determined to fix wholly in London, he was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians, July 5, in the same year. The reason why this matter was so long delayed might probably be, his not having hrtherto come to a final resolution with regard to his settlement in the metropolis. After the accession of king George III. to the throne of Great Britain, Dr. Pringle was appointed, in 1761, physician to the queen’s household and this honour was succeeded, by his being constituted, in 1763, physician extraordinary to her majesty. In April in the same year, he had been chosen a member of the Academy of Sciences at Haarlem and, June following, he was elected a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, London. In the succeeding November, he was returned on the ballot, a second time, one of the council of the Royal Society; and, in 1764, on the decease of Dr. Wollaston, he was made physician in ordinary to the queen. In Feb. 1766, he was elected a foreign member, in the physical line, of the Royal Society of Sciences at Gottingen; and, on the 5th of June in that year, his majesty was graciously pleased to testify his sense of Dr. Pringle' s abilities and merit, by raising him to the dignity of a baronet of Great Britain. In July 1768, sir John Pringie was appointed physician in ordinary to her late royal highness the princess dowager of Wales to which office a salary was annexed of lOOl. a-year. In 1770, he was chosen, a third time, into the council of the Royal Society as he was, likewise, a fourth time, for 1772.

On Nov. 30, in that year, in consequence of the death of James West, esq. he was elected president of that illustrious and learned body. His election to this high station, though he had so respectable an opponent as the late sir James Porter, was carried by a very considerable majority. This was undoubtedly the highest honour that sir John Pringle ever received; an honour with which his other literary distinctions could not be compared. It was at a very auspicious time that sir John Pringle was called upon to preside over the Royal Society. A wonderful ardour for philosophical science, and for the advancement of natural knowledge, had of late years displayed itself through Europe, and had appeared with particular advantage in our own country. He endeavoured to cherish it by all the methods that were in his power; and he happily struck upon a new way to distinction and usefulness, by the discourses which were delivered by him on the annual assignment of sir Godfrey Copley’s medal. This gentleman had originally bequeathed five guineas, to be given at each anniversary meeting of the Royal Society, by the determination of the president and council, to the person who had been the author of the best paper of experimental observations for the year past. In process of time, this pecuniary reward, which could never be an important consideration to a man of an enlarged and philosophical mind, however narrow his circumstances might be, was changed into the more liberal form of a gold medal; in which form it is become a truly honourable mark of distinction, and a just and laudable object of ambition. It was, no doubt, always usual with the president, on the delivery of the medal to pay some compliment to the gentleman on whom it was bestowed but the custom of making a set speech on the occasion, and of entering into the history of that part of philosophy to which the experiments related, was first introduced by Mr. Martin B'olkes. The discourses, however, which he and his successors delivered were very >hort, and were only inserted in the minute-books of the society. None of them had ever been printed before sir John Pringle was raised to the chair. The first speech that was made by him being much more elaborate and extended than usual, the publication of it was desired and with this request, it is said, he was the more ready to comply, as an absurd account of what he had delivered had appeared in a newspaper. Sir John Pringle was very happy in the subject of his primary discourse. The discoveries in magnetism and electricity had been succeeded by the inquiries into the various species of air. In these enquiries Dr. Priestley, who had already greatly distinguished himself by his electrical experiments, and his other philosophical pursuits and labours, took the principal lead. A paper of his, entitled “Observations on different kinds of Air,” having been read before the society in March 1772, was adjudged to be deserving of the gold medal; and sir John Pringle embraced with pleasure the occasion of celebrating the important communications of his friend, and of relating with accuracy and fidelity what had previously been discovered upon the subject. At the close of the speech, he earnestly requested Dr. Priestley to continue his liberal and valuable inquiries; and we have recently said how well he fulfilled this request. It was not, we believe, intended, when sir John Pringle’s first speech was printed, that the example should be followed but the second discourse was so well received by the Royal Society, that the publication of it was unanimously requested. Both the discourse itself, and the subject on which it was delivered, merited such a distinction. The composition of the second speech is evidently superior to that of the former; sir John having probably being animated by the favourable reception of his first effort. His account of the torpedo, and of Mr. Walsh’s ingenious and admirable experiments relative to the electrical properties of that extraordinary fish, is singularly curious. The whole discourse abounds with ancient and modern learning, and exhibits sir John Pringle’s knowledge in natural history, as well as in medicine, to great advantage. The third time that he was called upon to display his abilities at the delivery of sir Godfrey’s medal, was on an eminently important occasion. This was no less than Mr. (the late Dr.) Maskelyne’s successful attempt completely to establish sir Isaac Newton’s system of the universe, by his “Observations made on the mountain Schehallien, for finding its at-; traction.” Sir John Pringle took advantage of this opportunity, to give a perspicuous and accurate relation of the several hypotheses of the ancients, with regard to the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, and of the noble discoveries with which Copernicus enriched the astronomical worldHe then traced the progress of the grand principle of gravitation down to sir Isaac’s illustrious confirmation of it to which he added a concise narrative of Messrs. Bouguer’s and Condamine’s experiment at Chimboraco, and of Mr. Maskelyne’s at Schehallien. If any doubts yet remained with respect to the truth of the Newtonian system, they were now totally removed. Sir John Pringle had reason to be peculiarly satisfied with the subject of his fourth discourse; that subject being perfectly congenial to his disposition and studies. His own life had been much employed in pointing out the means which tended not only to cure, but to prevent, the diseases of mankind and it is probable, from his intimate friendship with capt. Cook, that he might suggest to that sagacious commander some of the rules which he followed, in order to preserve the health of the crew of his majesty’s ship the Resolution, during her voyage round the world. Whether this was the case, or whether the method pursued by the captain to attain so salutary an end, was the result alone of his own. reflections, the success of it was astonishing and this famous voyager seemed well entitled to every honour which could be bestowed. To him the society assigned their gold medal, but he was not present to receive the honour. He was gone out upon that voyage from which he never returned. In this last voyage he continued equally successful in maintaining the health of his men.